Moonbug Entertainment Limited v. Babybus (Fujian) Network Technology Co., Ltd ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MOONBUG ENTERTAINMENT Case No. 21-cv-06536-EMC LIMITED, et al., 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE WITNESS DISCLOSURES 9 AND CROSS DISCLOSURES AND v. DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS AND 10 COUNTERDESIGNATIONS FOR JULY BABYBUS (FUJIAN) NETWORK 19, 2023 11 TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, et al., Docket Nos. 542, 543 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 The Court has reviewed Defendants’ disclosures, the Plaintiffs’ cross disclosures, as well 16 as the parties’ objections. The Court makes the following rulings. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: July 18, 2023 21 22 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ DISCLOSURES 1 2 The Court reviewed Plaintiffs’ objections and addresses them below. 3 Witnesses Trial Exhibit No. P’s Objections Court’s Rulings Christian Demonstratives Slides 51, 65-72: FRE 802, OVERRULED. 4 Tregillis provided FRCP 26(a)(2)(ii). These slides separately via cite data from RedToolBox.io, a For Slide 51, 65-72, the 5 sendfile link third-party platform aggregating Court has already YouTube view data. The indicated that it would 6 specific data from and queries permit underlying made to RedToolBox were not RedToolBox data in its 7 provided and Moonbug was not bellwether ruling. able to test or review this data. Docket No. at 14 (“The 8 Defendants cite only to the Court overrules this RedToolBox website as a whole objection. While D can 9 and not an particular webpage introduce this exhibit as within it. a basis for Seiter’s expert 10 opinion and not Slides 8: FRE 403. The pie substantive evidence in 11 charts purportedly reflecting itself, Paddack v. Dave Defendants’ revenue and profits Christensen, Inc., 745 12 for the conceded videos are F.2d 1254, 1261–62 (9th misleading and lacks citation. Cir. 1984), the summary 13 is admissible. . . . To the extent that D has not 14 Babybus’ response: provided P with RedToolBox data, it 15 Slides 51, 65-72 – The Court appears that the overruled Plaintiffs’ objection RedToolBox would be 16 to Mr. Tregillis’ use of data publicly available to P. from RedToolBox, a publicly RedToolBox is a 17 available source. Dkt. No. 431 publicly available at 14 (“To the extent that D has YouTube analytics tool. 18 not provided P with See Liberty Ins. RedToolBox data, it appears Underwriters, Inc. v. 19 that the RedToolBox would be Davies Lemmis publicly available to P. Raphaely L. Corp., 162 20 RedToolBox is a publicly F. Supp. 3d 1068, 1073 available YouTube analytics (C.D. Cal. 2016), aff’d, 21 tool.”). 708 F. App’x 374 (9th Cir. 2017) (rejecting 22 Slides 8, 65-68 – The data argument regarding regarding the percentage of admissibility of exhibit 23 views for the 6 conceded videos where the exhibit is derived from Schedule 5.1 of summarized publicly 24 the Rebuttal Report of Mr. available documents).”). Tregillis. The pie charts are a 25 proper visual representation of For Slide 8, Babybus that data. should add citations to 26 the charts. 27 Christian https://www.yout These are URLs, not exhibits, JUDGMENT Tregillis and should not be admitted into RESERVED. The waFq8 Song and If You're 1 https://www.yout The following URLs are no Happy and You Know It longer available on YouTube, Song is unclear. 2 ube.com/ and thus Plaintiffs are not able channel/UC8AJg to inspect their contents: 3 Z1VbK4 • https://www.youtube.co TAt1ToKj9Ddg/a m/ 4 bout watch?v=m09tKI4DKP https://www.yout k 5 ube.com/watch?v • https://www.youtube.co m 6 =a-FfgWKfPiw /watch?v=VZOgl0WqM https://www.yout MU 7 ube.com/ watch?v=m09tKI FRE 402/403 – The following 8 4DKPk URLs are CoComelon videos, https://www.yout but not asserted CoComelon 9 ube.com/ works, and are therefore watch?v=VZOgl0 irrelevant and confusing: 10 WqMMU • https://www.youtube.co m/ 11 watch?v=lmH5uqwaFq8 • https://www.youtube.co 12 m/ watch?v=a- FfgWKfPiw 13 802 - Additionally, the URL at 14 https://www.youtube.com/ channel/UC8AJgZ1VbK4 15 TAt1ToKj9Ddg/about contain statements made by Defendants 16 and third-party YouTube. 17 Christian 2153 to 2358 Not disclosed as materials OVERRULED. See Tregillis BabyBus considered as part Mr. Tregillis’ report at paragraph 173. 18 Invoice/Expense reports documents 19 802 – Statements by third parties and or unspecified 20 persons used for the truth of the matter asserted 21 Dkt. No. 452 – Defendants are 22 precluded from introducing evidence of purported 23 allocations of Defendants’ personnel costs and “Mr. 24 Tregillis is precluded from testifying at trial about 25 allocation of purported costs and expenses for the infringing 26 Super JoJo works in the United States.” 27 Slide 55 – The slide regarding 1 expenses does not address allocation of expenses as these 2 expenses are not allocated. These are invoiced costs, not 3 allocated overhead or personnel costs. The Court’s order did not 4 preclude testimony regarding all costs, merely allocated costs 5 (Dkt. No. 452), Likewise, the invoices (Ex. 2153 to 2358) are 6 invoiced and not allocated expenses. 7 Christian 473 Move and Not disclosed as materials SUSTAINED as to 8 Tregillis Exercise Song + considered. Exercise Song. More Nursery OVERRULED as to 9 Rhymes & Kids More Nursery Rhymes Songs - Super and Kids Songs. 10 JoJo Christian Expert Report of Dkt. 431 (Order re Bellwether SUSTAINED. 11 Tregillis Denise Denson Objections to Exhibits) (“Expert reports are inadmissible hearsay 12 and thus not independently admissible. See Hunt v. City of 13 Portland, 599 F. App’x 620, 621 (9th Cir. 2013)). 14 Christian 3287 Saperstein FRE 401/403; Mr. Saperstein is SUSTAINED. 15 Tregillis Report Ex. F not offering an opinion at trial. 16 Christian Rebuttal Report of As applied to all disclosures OVERRULED. Tregillis Christian Tregillis relating to the expert reports of 17 Christian Tregillis, including Exs. 3322-3372, 3514-3515: 18 Moonbug objects generally to 19 the admission of schedules that Mr. Tregillis or his team 20 prepared. The schedules/exhibits are 21 inadmissible hearsay. Mr. Tregillis is free to proffer an 22 opinion without the admission of his report schedules/exhibits. 23 See Dkt. 432 at 4-5. Moonbug generally objects to every 24 schedule which lacks citation to documents, including because 25 such schedules reflect information not relied upon by 26 Mr. Tregillis and/or not produced in discovery. 27 reports are inadmissible hearsay 1 and thus not independently admissible. See Hunt v. City of 2 Portland, 599 F. App’x 620, 621 (9th Cir. 2013)). 3 Christian 3346, 3347 – No citation, appears to cite JUDGMENT 4 Tregillis Schedule 7.6, evidence not produced in RESERVED, pending 7.6.1 to Rebuttal discovery. citation of evidence. 5 Report of Christian Tregillis 6 Christian 3348-3353 These schedules (Exs. 3348- SUSTAINED. 7 Tregillis Schedule 8.1- 3352), and any other document 8.3.1 to Rebuttal including purportedly allocated 8 Report of costs are in violation of Dkt. Christian Tregillis 452 (“The parties are precluded 9 from introducing any evidence of purported allocations of 10 Defendants’ personnel costs relating to Super JoJo” and 11 “Mr. Tregillis is precluded from testifying at trial about 12 allocation of purported costs and expenses for the infringing 13 Super JoJo works in the United States”). 14 Christian 3354 -- Schedule This schedule, and any other SUSTAINED. 15 Tregillis 8.4.1 to Rebuttal document including purportedly Report of allocated costs are in violation 16 Christian Tregillis of Dkt. 452 (“The parties are precluded from introducing any 17 evidence of purported allocations of Defendants’ 18 personnel costs relating to Super JoJo” and “Mr. Tregillis 19 is precluded from testifying at trial about allocation of 20 purported costs and expenses for the infringing Super JoJo 21 works in the United States”). 22 Christian 3357 -- Schedule FRE 403 (data produced by OVERRULED, provided Tregillis S.1 to Rebuttal Google incomplete). that Babybus is clear 23 Report of about the scope of the Christian Tregillis data Tregillis does rely 24 upon. 25 Christian Revised Dkt. 431 (Order re Bellwether SUSTAINED. Tregillis Supplement Objections to Exhibits) (“Expert 26 Report of reports are inadmissible hearsay Christian Tregillis and thus not independently 27 admissible. See Hunt v. City of 1 Christian 3358-3372, 3514- FRE 403 (data produced by OVERRULED, provided Tregillis 3515 -- Schedules Google incomplete). that Babybus is clear 2 to Rebuttal Report about the scope of the of Christian data Tregillis does rely 3 Tregillis upon. 4 Christian 3436-3455 For Exs. 3436-3455, Various JUDGMENT Tregillis Summaries of “Summaries”: FRE 1006, RESERVED, pending 5 CCM views and 40/403, 802. citation of underlying damages evidence. 6 These documents were not produced in discovery. These 7 summaries lack citation and there is no reference as to where 8 the underlying data originates from. It is also unclear if these 9 summaries are in Mr. Tregillis’ report but it appears there is no 10 reference to these in his report by any identifiable. 11 Babybus’ response: 12 Exhibits 3437-3451 – These are 13 proper 1006 summaries of voluminous YouTube data. 14 Defendants will provide the sources underlying the data 15 reflected in these exhibits. 16 Ellen Slides 14–16, 34– Outside scope of report. Slides OVERRULED-IN- 17 Seiter 36, 40, 43, 46, are inconsistent with and PART and SUSTAINED-IN-PART. 18 57–61 mischaracterize Dr. Seiter’s Seiter appears to actual chart from her report, consider the content of 19 provided at Ex. 3389. Plaintiffs these slides in her expert are amenable to Defendants’ report (p. 251). Seiter’s 20 using Ex. 3389 for slides must be consistent 21 d the em seo n sls it dra et si .v e purposes for w 25it 6h o t fh e h ec rh ra er pt oa rt tp , . a2 s5 3- Moonbug has listed. Her 22 report discusses Little Examples of Defendants Baby Bum, LooLoo 23 altering Dr. Seiter’s opinion in Kids, ChuChu TV, Little the slides include: Angel, Videogyan and 24 • Dr. Seiter’s chart in her BillionSurprise Toys at 25 expert report expressly p pa .2g 5e 3 2 h5 a1 s. a T qh ue e c sth ia or nt at cited videos that post- mark for the “eyebrows” 26 dated CoComelon with row for Little Angel, at dates, and the slides do p.254 that Jack Jack only 27 not include this walks in a 2018 movie, makes the chart all the boxes, and at 1 misleading and p.256 Dave and Ava do not have chunky 2 prejudicial. hairstyles. Other • Dr. Seiter’s chart did not animated shows may be 3 include the images that relevant to show genre. are in the slides, which 4 are cropped and do not reflect that character for 5 which her checkmarks 6 apply. For example,, she used multiple 7 different iterations from different time periods 8 for Jack-Jack, Little Angel, LooLoo Kids, 9 and others to establish 10 the checked elements. It is misleading and 11 prejudicial to allow Dr. Seiter to suggest that the 12 character images in her 13 slide meet all the elements. 14 • Slide 14 – Displays checkmark for “thin 15 rounded opaque eyebrows” for Little 16 Angel, while report has 17 a question mark and explanation that the 18 eyebrows in Little Angel changed to be more 19 similar to CoComelon’s JJ. 20 • Slide 15 – Dr. Seiter’s 21 chart in her report makes clear that Pixar’s 22 Jack-Jack only walks in a video in 2018, which 23 post-dates JJ, but this information is omitted 24 from the slide. 25 • Slides 34–35, 40, 43, 46, 57–61 – Misleadingly 26 omits Dr. Seiter’s analysis regarding 27 Pixar’s the Incredibles. makes it appear that Dr. 1 Seiter checked all the 2 boxes, when in fact she did not find these 3 elements in Pixar’s the Incredibles. 4 • Slide 34 – Dr. Seiter’s opinion (seen in Ex. 5 3389) was that Dave and 6 Ava does not have chunky hairstyles, but 7 this slide changes her opinion to include a 8 checkmark for Dave and Ava in this category. 9 10 FRE 402 Not relevant to include characters and works 11 that post-date JJ character, which includes all the 12 characters, many of which the 13 elements come from after JJ. 14 FRE 403 misleading suggestion that this information is about 15 prior art, when Ms. Seiter’s chart in her expert report 16 expressly cited videos that post- 17 dated CoComelon, see also Ex. 3389, and Dr. Seiter admitted in 18 deposition she did not know the timelines. See, e.g, Seiter 19 Depo. 200: 21-24, 201:3-21. See Ex. 3389); 20 21 FRE 1006 – not evidence, images and analysis cited to 22 only to summary not underlying evidence (See Bellwether ruling 23 sustaining objection to Ex. 3390 for failure to provide specific 24 cites and timestamps, Dkt. 431 25 at 12); 26 FRE 106/403 Unfair representation of cropped, 27 incomplete third party works (see Dkt. 472 at 4 (sustaining 1 objection to cropped images)). 2 Babybus’ response: 3 None of Plaintiffs’ objections to 4 Dr. Seiter’s slides have merit. All of this information was 5 disclosed in Dr. Seiter’s report. 6 Slides 14-16, 34-36, 40, 43, 46, 57-61 are all disclosed (see 7 11/22/22 Seiter Report at p. 251) . . . Plaintiffs’ objections to 8 materials post-dating March 2017 lacks merit; such works 9 are still relevant to Dr. Seiter’s 10 opinions that certain elements are generic and commonplace. 11 Ellen Slides 19, 20, 23 Outside scope of report. The OVERRULED. 12 Seiter slides reflect opinions and charts not disclosed in Dr. 13 Seiter’s report. Compare, e.g., 14 Seiter Report at pg. 243 with Slide 19 (Dr. Seiter’s report 15 never claims “similar head shape” of the emoji, and opines 16 that the emoji has “thin lips,” 17 which is not reflected in the slide) and Ex. 3389. 18 402/403 – Not proper rebuttal 19 opinion because it does not use all of Mr. Krause’s elements 20 and gives the misleading 21 impression that all elements are met when they are not. The 22 elements stated by Dr. Sieter also mischaracterize the 23 elements described by Mr. Krause. 24 25 Ellen Slide 25 Outside scope of report. These OVERRULED. Seiter Seiter are not the elements or the appears to consider the 26 images referred to in Dr. content of these slides in her expert report. 27 S onie et se r u’ ss e r de p bo yr Mt, n r.o Kr a rare u st eh e ay n dth se o Report at 199 (comparing 1 completely different images). 2 The Court already ruled that Seiter cannot compare 3 CoComelon works to Super JoJo works. Dkt. 413 at 13-14 4 (“The Court GRANTS the motion in limine to exclude 5 expert testimony on liability 6 and comparisons between the works, which are not included 7 in the expert report. Moonbug presents evidence that the three 8 experts have expressly cabined their expert opinion. See Docket 9 No. 291-1 (Seiter Report) at 1 10 (not comparing the CoComelon works to the Super JoJo 11 works).” 12 402/403 – Comparing these differences misleading and not 13 the proper extrinsic analysis, 14 which is an analysis of similarities and not differences. 15 Ellen Slides 26–27 FRE 106/403 Unfair 16 Seiter representation of cropped 17 images. (see Dkt. 472 at 4 (sustaining objection to cropped 18 images)). 19 These are not images from Dr. Seiter’s report, and she 20 provided no analysis or opinion 21 of these images. 22 Ellen Slide 28 Dr. Seiter did not disclose any SUSTAINED. Seiter Seiter opinion regarding JJ’s age, or discusses generally the 23 any opinion contradicting Mr. age of its intended viewers, but never the 24 Krause’s testimony. Testimony age of JJ. in question related to a 25 document outside the asserted works. 26 Ellen Slide 29 This slide refers to a document 27 Seiter that Dr. Seiter did not disclose for which she offered no 1 opinion. This slide is also 2 objectionable for the same reasons as Slide 28. 3 Ellen Slide 38 This slide was not timely SUSTAINED. 4 Seiter disclosed—Defendants presented this slide to Moonbug 5 for the first time on July 18 at 6 12:43 pm. 7 Expresses opinions not disclosed in Dr. Seiter’s report 8 (e.g., Dr. Seiter does not mention “Rain Rain Go Away” 9 in her report). 10 Ellen Slide 39 402/403 - Any testimony or OVERRULED. Seiter 11 Seiter suggestion that these works can opine on the precede CoComelon is protectability of the 12 misleading (403) and outside Mom, Dad, Sister, 13 the scope of report, Dr. Seiter Brother with images of admitted in deposition she did prior family characters to 14 not know the timelines and no establish genre. timeline is claimed here. See, Babybus has cited the 15 e.g, Seiter Depo. 200: 21-24, work that each image is 201:3-21. Further, picking and from. 16 choosing a smattering of 17 individual family members from different families is 18 misleading because Plaintiffs are asserting a combination, and 19 nowhere in this slide is an entire family depicted. 20 21 FRE 1006 – not evidence, analysis not cited to exhibits 22 (See Bellwether ruling sustaining objection to Ex. 3390 23 for failure to provide specific cites and timestamps, Dkt. 431 24 at 12); FRE 106/403 Unfair 25 representation of cropped, incomplete third party works 26 (see Dkt. 472 at 4 (sustaining objection to cropped images)). 27 Defendants stated while they would add citations to this 1 slide, but they did not do so. 2 Ellen Slide 42 Dr. Seiter does not express an OVERRULED. 3 Seiter opinion regarding the cinematography of this video, 4 much less “Short to medium length shots,” “Frequent camera 5 movements,” and “Indirect 6 lighting”. 7 Ellen Slide 63 Analysis of color, speaking OVERRULED. Seiter quality, character acting and 8 movement, and subtitles beyond scope report; 9 10 802/403 (suggestion that this is prior art based on hearsay, and 11 asserted date contradicts report, see Report at 128). 12 13 Ellen Trial transcripts are not SUSTAINED. Seiter evidence. 14 Defendants failed to include the 15 transcript text as required by the Court: 16 17 Q. Do you have an understanding that head shape 18 and eye size both come from a 7/6/23 Lee Trial universal understanding of 19 Tr. at 391:5-11 cuteness? A. Yes, those are elements of it. 20 Q. And that having a bigger 21 head and a disproportionate body where the head is bigger 22 than the body, that those are images that help portray 23 cuteness in this genre? A. Yes, the combination of such 24 elements. 25 Ellen Trial transcripts are not SUSTAINED. 26 Seiter 7/12/23 Krause evidence. Trial Tr. at 27 848:17-21 Defendants failed to include the Court. 1 2 One of the things you mentioned was that JJ does 3 things like sing and dance and walk beyond his age; yes? 4 A. Yes. Q. JJ is three and a half years 5 old; right? 6 A. Not that I know of. 7 Ellen Defendants have not identified JUDGEMENT Seiter whether this refers to Plaintiffs’ RESERVED. 8 or Defendants’ demonstrative. Demonstratives not Fran Krause Trial Moonbug objects to the extent evidence but can be 9 Demonstratives, that these slides were not used commented upon. pp. 1, 2 10 in the examination or precluded by the Court. 11 Ellen 802 - this is an expert report SUSTAINED. 12 Seiter and inadmissible hearsay. The 13 Court ruled re Ex. 1035 that “Expert reports are inadmissible 14 hearsay and thus not independently admissible.” Dkt. 15 Fran Krause 431 at 4. P also objects on FRE Opening Report 106 incompleteness grounds to 16 the extent D seeks to admit 17 incomplete portions of the report, and P reserves right to 18 introduce relevant remainder. 19 Ellen 2860, 2862, 2864, OVERRULED. Seiter 2869, 2871, 2875, 20 2877, 2879, 2885, 21 2887, 2889, 2891, 403/802 (publication dates) 2897, 2899, 2901, 22 2903, 2905, 2930, Also, beyond the scope of Dr. 2937, 2951, 2952, Seiter’s opinion because the 23 2954–2964, 2966, timing of when a particular 2993, 2995–3005, video was uploaded did not 24 3007–3012, 3489- factor into Dr. Seiter’s analysis, 25 3491 -- as she admitted in deposition. Screenshots of See, e.g, Seiter Depo. 200: 21- 26 third party / 24, 201:3-21. YouTube video 27 webpages that date. Additional 1 objections re these 2 individual exhibits are 3 below. Ellen 802; Exhibit fails to list SUSTAINED. Can be 4 Seiter underlying documents; used as demonstratives. improper hearsay derived from 5 expert report; additional hearsay 3402, 3407, 3408, 6 3412-3415, 3418, information on dates of the videos; underlying videos not in 3420, 3422 -- Dr. 7 evidence. Court ruled re Ex. Seiter Video 3408 (Bellwether) that D could 8 Comparison only “introduce this exhibit as a Summaries basis for Seiter’s expert opinion 9 and not substantive evidence in 10 itself.” Dkt. 431 at 13. 11 Ellen 802/1006 - This is not merely a SUSTAINED. Can be Seiter summary of documents, but used as a demonstrative. 12 represents Dr. Seiter’s 13 characterization and opinion regarding that evidence from 14 her report. It should not be admissible and substantive 15 evidence. 16 402/403 – Document expressly 17 cites videos and characters that post-date CoComelon’s JJ 18 character, and so are not 3389 -- Summary relevant and would tend to 19 Re Elements confuse and mislead the jury regarding the genre at the time 20 JJ was developed. Dr. Seiter 21 admitted in deposition she did not know the timelines. See, 22 e.g, Seiter Depo. 200: 21-24, 201:3-21. 23 Babybus’ response: 24 25 The Court has already found the summary chart (see TE 3389) is 26 admissible (see Dkt 403 at 14). 27 Ellen 1250 -- SUSTAINED. 1 Seiter CoCoverse Mini Outside scope of Dr. Seiter’s 2 Bible_June 16th report (not in materials Deck.pdf considered). 3 Ellen 2948 -- This Is SUSTAINED. 4 Seiter The Way | Nursery Rhymes | 5 Not disclosed in materials Baby Songs | considered by Dr. Seiter. 6 Children Rhyme video 7 Ellen 3487 -- OVERRULED. 8 Seiter https://support.go ogle.com/youtube 9 /answer/10774223 10 802 [“Best practices 11 for kids and family content” 12 Youtube page] 13 Ellen 3492 -- Google SUSTAINED. 14 Seiter Best Practices for Children's 15 Content (PDF), collected from: 16 https://storage.goo 802; Not in materials 17 gleapis.com/supp considered. ort-kms- 18 prod/wv7iBuPJJzj AgmFA4pzwPVK 19 EIRkGFelonG3L. 20 Ellen 3502 -- 6/30/2023 SUSTAINED. 21 Seiter Business Records Outside scope of Dr. Seiter’s Certification of report (not in materials 22 Google LLC considered). 23 24 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ CROSS-DISCLOSURES 25 The Court reviewed Defendants’ objections and addresses them below. 26 Witnesses Deposition D’s Objections Court’s Rulings 27 Designation Ellen Seiter The November Dkt. 431 (Order re Bellwether JUDGMENT 1 22, 2022 report Objections to Exhibits) (“Expert RESERVED, possibly 2 of Dr. Seiter and reports are inadmissible hearsay used for impeachment. all appendices and thus not independently 3 admissible. See Hunt v. City of Portland, 599 F. App’x 620, 621 4 (9th Cir. 2013)). 5 Ellen Seiter All Insufficient disclosure of OVERRULED. Both 6 demonstratives unidentified demonstrative parties are permitted to previously used materials. BabyBus reserves all use them. 7 by either party. prior objections. 8 If Plaintiffs are permitted to use these, Defendants also reserve 9 the right to use these 10 demonstratives, including in their direct examination. 11 Ellen Seiter Ex. 207 - Depo 802, 402, 403, Dkt. 431 (Order SUSTAINED. 12 Ex. 207 - re Bellwether Objections to 13 Opening Expert Exhibits) (“Expert reports are Report of Fran inadmissible hearsay and thus 14 Krause with all not independently admissible. exhibits/appendi See Hunt v. City of Portland, 599 15 ces F. App’x 620, 621 (9th Cir. 2013)). 16 17 Ellen Seiter Ex. 210 - Depo 802, 402, 403, Dkt. 431 (Order SUSTAINED. Ex. 210 - re Bellwether Objections to 18 Rebuttal Report Exhibits) (“Expert reports are of Fran Krause inadmissible hearsay and thus 19 with all not independently admissible. exhibits/appendi See Hunt v. City of Portland, 599 20 ces F. App’x 620, 621 (9th Cir. 21 2013)). 22 Christian Babybus: “Given the current pace of the proceedings, it is unlikely the parties Tregillis will reach Mr. Tregillis’ testimony by July 19, 2023. If helpful to the Court, 23 and with leave, BabyBus is prepared to continue conferring with Moonbug on the following objections, and disclose a revised list the day before Mr. 24 Tregillis is expected to testify. 25 26 27