Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of adidas’s motion for relief from a judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(3). The court held that the undisclosed emails probably would not have changed the jury’s verdict and that a merely negligent discovery violation does not constitute misconduct under Rule 60(b)(3).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Adidas was entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) based on newly discovered emails that allegedly would have changed the jury's verdict.
- Whether Thom Browne's negligent failure to produce the emails constituted misconduct under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), warranting relief from the final judgment.
Holdings
- Adidas was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(2) because it failed to show that the newly discovered emails probably would have changed the verdict.
- A merely negligent discovery violation is not misconduct under Rule 60(b)(3), and Thom Browne's failure to produce the emails was no more than negligent; therefore, Adidas was not entitled to relief.
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 markets its Three-Stripe Mark, while Thom Browne uses a Four-Bar Signature and a red, white, and blue Grosgrain pattern. A jury found Thom Browne not liable for trademark infringement, dilution, or unfair competition after a trial involving sixteen witnesses and more than four hundred exhibits. During separate United Kingdom litigation, Thom Browne produced four emails discussing whether Thom Browne designs might look like or be associated with Adidas. The emails had not been produced in the original discovery because of errors in the law firm's document-coding and quality-control process.
Procedural history
Adidas sued Thom Browne for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. After a jury found Thom Browne not liable on all counts, Adidas appealed unsuccessfully. While that appeal was pending, Thom Browne produced emails in separate United Kingdom litigation. Adidas moved for relief from the final judgment under Rules 60(b)(2) and 60(b)(3); the district court held an evidentiary hearing, denied the motion, and the Second Circuit affirmed.