Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc.; Holey Soles Holdings, Ltd.; Double Diamond Distribution, Ltd.; USA Dawgs, Inc.; Mojave Desert Holdings LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado denies Dawgs’ motion to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of producing additional advertising documents and supplementing expert reports. The court applies the Smith factors, concluding that the factors overall do not support reopening discovery, and reinstates the parties’ identified Rule 702 motions.

Holdings

1. The motion to reopen discovery was denied because, after weighing the Smith factors, the balance did not support reopening discovery.
2. Because the motion to reopen discovery was denied, there was no new information for the experts to consider, and Dawgs was not permitted to supplement its expert reports on that basis.
3. The court reinstated Crocs's four identified motions to exclude expert opinions and Counterclaim Plaintiffs' motion to exclude certain expert testimony.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Dawgs established sufficient grounds under the applicable discovery-reopening factors to reopen discovery for additional advertising documents.
2. Whether Dawgs should be permitted to supplement its marketing and damages expert reports based on the proposed new documents and the passage of time.
3. Whether the parties' previously filed motions to exclude expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 should be reinstated after the motion to reopen discovery was denied.

Disposition

other