# Atari Interactive, Inc. v. Redbubble, Inc. > District Court, N.D. California · October 24, 2021 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10069350 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** October 24, 2021 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10069350 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ATARI INTERACTIVE, INC., Case No. 18-cv-03451-JST 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXCLUDE LIVE GAMEPLAY 9 v. DEMONSTRATIONS AND NON- PRODUCED GAMEPLAY VIDEOS 10 REDBUBBLE, INC., Re: ECF No. 209 Defendant. 11 12 13 This is a trademark and copyright infringement case. Plaintiff Atari Interactive, Inc. 14 (“Atari”) alleges, among other things, that Defendant Redbubble, Inc. (“Redbubble”) infringed the 15 copyright in the graphics and artwork of certain Atari video games. Atari recently announced its 16 intention to use an Atari 2600 console at trial to perform a live gameplay demonstration of 17 unspecified video games or, alternatively, to create recorded videos of gameplay which Atari 18 would play during trial. Redbubble now moves to exclude such live demonstration or videos 19 because none of the games or videos were produced in discovery or at any other time. ECF No. 20 209. Because Atari’s failure to produce the videos and games violated Atari’s discovery 21 obligations, its failure was not substantially justified, and use of these materials would unfairly 22 prejudice Redbubble, the Court will grant the motion.1 23 Atari included on its trial exhibit list an “Atari 2600 Console, Joystick, and Games,” ECF 24 No. 163-6 at 14, which Redbubble originally moved to exclude. Atari responded in opposition 25 that it had only recently come into possession of the console. ECF No. 186 at 3. It also argued 26 that “other photos and depictions of Atari 2600s were produced, with the console being Atari’s 27 1 most iconic product . . . . There is nothing prejudicial about introducing the actual console as an 2 exhibit at trial.” Id. (citation and parenthetical omitted). After reviewing this opposition, 3 Redbubble withdrew its motion as to the console exhibit. ECF No. 209 at 7. It now contends that 4 “Atari’s statements conveyed that Atari intended to use the console to show the appearance of the 5 console, as would ‘photos and depictions of Atari 2600s,’ rather than powering it on to perform a 6 live gameplay demonstration” and that “Atari’s [prior] opposition made no reference to games at 7 all.” Id. Redbubble does not object to the display of the game console to the jury as a physical 8 object. It does object, however, to the live demonstration of the video games the console is 9 capable of playing. 10 Redbubble does not dispute that it produced neither the physical Atari 2600 Console nor 11 any gameplay videos during fact discovery, even though they were responsive to Redbubble’s 12 requests for production. It also does not dispute that it failed to disclose gameplay videos or a 13 planned live gameplay demonstration on its trial exhibit list. It argues, nonetheless, that it 14 disclosed its intent to use the Atari 2600 by disclosing photographs of the Atari 2600 in discovery. 15 ECF No. 211 at 3. It further contends that “the console was mentioned throughout the depositions 16 of both Casandra Brown (Atari’s Director of Licensing) and Fred Chesnais (Atari’s ex-CEO), 17 including by Redbubble’s counsel. All involved knew that the Atari 2600 console was an iconic 18 product sold by Atari, and the game system on which many of the iconic games could be played.” 19 ECF No. 211 at 3 (citations and parentheticals omitted). 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) requires parties to disclose the witnesses “that the 21 disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). Rule 22 26(e) requires parties to supplement their disclosures “in a timely manner if the party learns that in 23 some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or 24 corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties during the 25 discovery process or in writing.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A). “If a party fails to provide 26 information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use 27 that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the 1 In addition to, or instead of, that sanction, the court may also impose any of the other 2 appropriate sanctions provided for in Rule 37. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(C). “The party facing 3 sanctions bears the burden of proving that its failure to disclose the required information was 4 substantially justified or is harmless.” R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 673 F.3d 1240, 1246 5 (9th Cir. 2012). 6 The Court finds that neither the disclosure of photographs of the Atari 2600 nor the late 7 disclosure of the physical console satisfied Atari’s obligation to disclose gameplay videos or 8 Atari’s intent to use the console for purposes of live demonstration at trial. Nor did the reference 9 by certain witnesses to the physical console constitute sufficient “additional or corrective 10 information . . . made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.” Fed. 11 R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A). 12 Atari argues that Redbubble should have propounded a request for inspection of the Atari 13 2600 console when Atari produced photographs of it. ECF No. 211 at 3. This argument is 14 unpersuasive. Atari has represented that it only came into possession of the physical console 15 recently. If this representation was accurate, then at the time it produced Atari 2600 photographs 16 to Redbubble it had no physical console to inspect. It also is unclear how physical inspection of 17 the console pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would have put 18 Redbubble on sufficient notice of the videos or gameplay Atari intends to show the jury. 19 The Court further finds that Atari’s failure to produce these materials previously was 20 neither substantially justified nor harmless. The parties are literally on the eve of trial – jury 21 selection will occur tomorrow – and there is no reason this evidence could not have been produced 22 earlier. As the Court observed in connection with an earlier motion to exclude, “[b]ecause Atari 23 created the evidence, the timing of its creation was solely within Atari’s control. It could have 24 created and produced it within the discovery cut-off period. Because it did not do so, the evidence 25 must be excluded.” ECF No. 197 at 13-14. 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 So it is here. Redbubble’s motion to exclude any live demonstrations of video games or 2 || recorded videos of gameplay is granted. 3 IT ISSO ORDERED. ® 4 Dated: October 24, 2021 5 JON S. TIGAR 6 nited States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 © 15 16 it Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10069350. Public record. Not legal advice.