Last week, Judge Rakoff held that courts should generally be wary of admitting handwriting expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.  His opinion notes that handwriting analysis, unlike DNA or other forms of scientific evidence, did not arise from scientific inquiry and instead was created solely for use in the courtroom.  Judge Rakoff found the expert’s opinion evidence “far too problematic” to be admissible towards determining whether a party’s signature at issue in the case was authentic.

After applying the Daubert factors, Judge Rakoff concluded that: Continue Reading Judge Rakoff Rejects Handwriting Expert Under FRE 702

Today, Salvatore Ferragamo S.p.A. filed a complaint against former NFL quarterback Vincent Ferragamo (who led the LA Rams to Super Bowl XIV as a rookie in 1980) and his Ferragamo Winery near Los Angeles.  While Salvatore Ferragamo does not currently license its name for wines, it had previously done so in the U.S. in the 1980s.  Ferragamo (the Italian fashion brand) claims that Ferragamo (the winery) creates consumer confusion and violates Salvatore Ferragamo’s U.S. trademarks:

Continue Reading Salvatore Ferragamo Brings Trademark Claims Against Former NFL Quarterback’s Ferragamo Winery

The New York Court of Appeals has accepted a certified question from the Second Circuit regarding whether New York copyright holders for pre-1972 recordings (governed by state copyright law, and not the federal Copyright Act) have a right to exclusive public performance of those recordings.  The case, initially before Judge McMahon, arose after Sirius XM played songs by The Turtles (including the famous “Happy Together”) without a license from the members of the band.  Judge McMahon had certified this same issue for interlocutory review before the Second Circuit — which has now turned it over to the New York Court of Appeals.

Our prior coverage of the case is here.

The articles are here (NYT), here (NYLJ), and here (AP).

In the articles, Judge Scheindlin defends her work on the stop-and-frisk cases (which we covered extensively, see here).  She called the Second Circuit’s decision to remove her from the cases an “intrafamily attack on judicial independence.”

As of today, Judge Scheindlin will be working at JAMS and at Stroock Stroock & Lavan.

In an oral ruling today, reported by Reuters, Judge Gardephe denied as “border[ing] on the frivolous” Bill Cosby’s motion to compel New York Magazine to produce unpublished material relating to a story it published about 35 women who accused him of sexual assault.  Cosby had argued in his motion papers that the material fell outside New York’s reporters’ shield law because it would be critical to his defense of a defamation action brought by various of his accusers in Massachusetts.  Specifically, according to Cosby, “Plaintiffs’ statements to NYM may reveal descriptions of the alleged assaults by Mr. Cosby that differ from prior or future versions of these accounts.”

But New York Magazine argued, and Judge Gardephe appears to have agreed, that these claims of relevance were too “generic” to overcome the reporters’ shield:

Defendant here has not even made a credible argument that New York Media has any particular information that would have any bearing on his case, let alone that it has any unique or special information that would affect the outcome. Cosby’s argument is so generic that were it to prevail, the resulting standard could lead to a requirement that any or all of the countless media outlets that have covered the Cosby controversy or interviewed any of his accusers would be forced to throw open their files so Cosby could sift through in hopes of finding some unspecified document that could possibly aid his case. That is specifically what the Shield Law prevents.

In a decision today, the Second Circuit, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Judge Berman’s ruling in the DeflateGate case, effectively reinstating Tom Brady’s four-game suspension for his role in deflating footballs used during the 2015 AFC Championship Game.

Tom Brady and the NFL Player’s Association focused their appeal on the fact that, based on the NFL’s written policies, Brady had no prior notice that a first-time violation could result in anything more than a fine, but the Second found that the NFL’s reading of those policies was justifiable, and met the minimal standards for confirming an arbitration award: Continue Reading Second Circuit Sides With NFL in DeflateGate Appeal

Yesterday, the Second Circuit reversed a decision by Judge Scheindlin granting summary judgment in favor of two plaintiffs seeking to confirm ownership of a 7.4-carat diamond under the UCC’s “merchant entrustment” rule (see our original coverage of the case here).  The defendant below, the original owner of the diamond, had lent the diamond to a celebrity stylist who apparently stole the diamond at some point in the past.  When asked to determine if the stylist was a “merchant” who could transfer the rights to a later owner (the plaintiffs below and appellants in the Second Circuit action), Judge Scheindlin found that the stylist was a “merchant” because he had “knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction.”  The Second Circuit construed the relevant UCC language to also require that the merchant “deal in goods of that kind” — which the stylist did not do — and thus allowed the original owner (the defendant) to pursue recovery of the stolen diamond from the innocent buyers (the plaintiffs).

The Supreme Court today affirmed, by a 7-2 vote, a judgment originally from Judge Forrest (see our coverage here) concluding that a law pertaining to the seizure of Iranian assets was not, as the defendants contended, effectively a direction to decide a single pending case in one side’s favor, in violation of the separation of powers doctrine.  In short, the law stated that, if Iran owned certain assets, the victims of Iran-sponsored terrorism could execute on those assets.

Judge Forrest found that the law did not “usurp the adjudicative function” because it still left “plenty for this Court to adjudicate,” such as whether Iran owned the assets or whether any third parties had an interest in the assets.  The Supreme Court agreed that, while the law may have “changed the law by establishing new substantive standards,” it “entrust[ed] to the District Court application of those standards to the facts (contested or uncontested) found by the court,” and was thereby consistent with the separation of powers.

Prior posts on the case are here.

Last week, the We Shall Overcome Foundation filed a complaint on behalf of a purported class challenging the copyright of “We Shall Overcome,” the unofficial anthem of the U.S. civil rights movement.  The We Shall Overcome Foundation attempted to use the song in a documentary film, and the defendant copyright holders denied the request.  The complaint argues that the song has the same lyrics and melody as a 19th century African-American spiritual, meaning that any copyright is limited to the specific arrangement or additional verses covered by the disputed 1960 and 1963 copyrights.  The complaint contains claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as state law claims.

A similar case in 2013 (see our coverage here) challenged the copyright for “Happy Birthday to You.”  That case was voluntarily dismissed, and a parallel case in California resulted in a settlement that made the song public.

The case is currently pending before Judge Cote.

Yesterday, Judge Oetken entered a default judgment against one Tyrannousaurus bataar skull, marking a successful end to the U.S. Attorney’s forfeiture action against the skull.  The original complaint alleged that the skull was cultural property stolen from Mongolia and sought to return it.

Our previous coverage of the case is here.