Hoist Fitness Systems, Inc. v. TuffStuff Fitness International, Inc., No. 5:2017cv01388 - Document 212 (C.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Andre Birotte Jr.: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion seeking to strike portions of the rebuttal expert reports served by Defendant 195 , therelevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United StatesMagistrate Judge 200 . The Court overrules Plaintiff's objections and accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's M otion is (1) GRANTED IN PART and Defendant (a) shall produce Mr. Smith's computer models in native file format, and (b) permit Plaintiff to depose Mr. Smith for up to one hour regarding the computer models; and (2) DENIED IN PART to the extent Plaintiff's Motion seeks to strike portions of the expert rebuttal reports of Mr. Smith and Dr. Sternlicht. (gk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hoist Fitness Systems, Inc. v. TuffStuff Fitness International, Inc. Doc. 212 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 HOIST FITNESS SYSTEMS, INC., 11 Plaintiff(s), 12 13 14 15 v. TUFFSTUFF FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. EDCV 17-1388-AB (KKx) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendant(s). 16 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion 19 seeking to strike portions of the rebuttal expert reports served by Defendant, the 20 relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States 21 Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of 22 the Report to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court overrules the objections and 23 accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is (1) GRANTED 25 IN PART and Defendant (a) shall produce Mr. Smith’s computer models in native 26 file format,1 and (b) permit Plaintiff to depose Mr. Smith for up to one hour 27 28 1 The Court understands based on Plaintiff’s objections that Mr. Smith’s computer models have already been produced in native file format. Dockets.Justia.com 1 regarding the computer models2; and (2) DENIED IN PART to the extent 2 Plaintiff’s Motion seeks to strike portions of the expert rebuttal reports of Mr. 3 Smith and Dr. Sternlicht. 4 5 6 Dated: July 15, 2019 HONORABLE ANDRÉ BIROTTE, JR. United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 After conferring with Defendant, Plaintiff may request recovery of its costs associated with this deposition, with any determination regarding whether Defendant should be required to cover all costs of the deposition deferred. Plaintiff may similarly request the opportunity to serve a narrowly-tailored supplemental expert report from Mr. Lenz regarding Mr. Smith’s computer models, with any determination regarding whether Plaintiff should be permitted to serve a supplemental expert report for Mr. Lenz deferred. Any opposed requests for this additional relief shall not exceed five pages total and shall not include or be met with arguments rearguing the merits of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
