Litigation of counsel Martin Flumenbaum and partner Brad Karp’s latest Second Circuit Review column, “The Meaning of ‘Misconduct’ Under Rule 60: ‘Adidas America, Inc. v. Thom Browne,’” was published in the May 27 issue of the New York Law Journal. The authors discuss a recent decision in which the court affirmed the lower court’s denial of a motion for relief from judgment, holding that a negligent discovery violation does not constitute “misconduct” warranting relief from final judgment under Rule 60(b)(3).
In the underlying action, apparel company adidas sued Thom Browne for trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition over Thom Browne’s use of a four-bar motif, claiming similarity to adidas’ three-stripe mark. The jury found Thom Browne not liable on all counts, and adidas appealed. While that appeal was pending, Thom Browne produced several new emails in separate litigation between the parties in the United Kingdom. These had not been produced in the prior action because a paralegal’s mass edit on documents resulted in their exclusion. Adidas moved for relief, arguing that a court can relieve a party from a final judgment because of newly discovered evidence or “fraud..., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.” Upon review, the Second Circuit concluded that the conduct was “no worse than negligent,” a decision with significant practical consequences for parties seeking post-judgment relief based on an opponent's discovery failures.
Litigation associate Michael Pisem assisted in the preparation of this column.
» read the article
Related Insights
