Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the denial of adidas’s motion for relief from a jury verdict under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(3). The court holds that the undisclosed emails probably would not have changed the verdict and that a negligent discovery violation does not constitute misconduct under Rule 60(b)(3).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether adidas was entitled to relief from the final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) based on newly discovered emails that allegedly would have changed the jury's verdict.
- Whether a negligent failure to produce relevant discovery constitutes misconduct under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3).
- Whether Thom Browne's failure to produce the emails was more culpable than negligence and therefore constituted misconduct under Rule 60(b)(3).
Holdings
- Relief was not warranted because adidas failed to show that the newly discovered emails probably would have changed the verdict.
- A merely negligent discovery violation does not constitute misconduct under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3).
- Thom Browne's failure to produce the emails was negligent, but no more than negligent, and therefore was not misconduct under Rule 60(b)(3).
Key quotations
“We thus conclude that a merely negligent discovery violation does not constitute “misconduct” under Rule 60(b)(3).” (14)
“Because “misconduct” under Rule 60(b)(3) does not encompass merely negligent discovery violations, and Thom Browne’s failure to produce the emails at issue was no more than negligent, adidas is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(3).” (17)
Factual background
Adidas owns and uses its Three-Stripe Mark, while Thom Browne uses a Four-Bar Signature and a red, white, and blue Grosgrain pattern. After a jury found Thom Browne not liable for trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition, adidas discovered four previously undisclosed emails concerning Thom Browne designs and possible resemblance to adidas stripes. The district court found that the emails were omitted because of errors in the law firm's document-coding and quality-control process and concluded that the failure was negligent but did not warrant relief from the judgment.
Procedural history
Adidas sued Thom Browne in the Southern District of New York over Thom Browne's use of its Four-Bar and Grosgrain designs. Following a jury trial and a verdict for Thom Browne, adidas learned during separate United Kingdom litigation that several emails had not been produced in discovery. The district court held an evidentiary hearing, denied relief under Rules 60(b)(2) and (b)(3), and the Second Circuit affirmed.