1127, 1130 (9th Cir.1994). We must determine, viewing the evidence in the lightmost favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are anygenuine issues of material fact, and whether the district courtcorrectly applied the relevant substantive law. Id. We are notto weigh the evidence or determine the truth of the matter, butonly to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Id.The district court's rulings excluding damage evidence andexpert testimony are governed by an abuse of discretion stan- 12356dard, and should not be reversed absent some prejudice.Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 85 F.3d 1394, 1399(9th Cir. 1996). Our review is governed by the `law of thecase' doctrine, which prevents courts from "reconsidering anissue previously decided by the same court, or a higher courtin the identical case." Securities Investor Protection Corp. v.Vigman, 74 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 1996).A. The Statutory Right of PublicityCalifornia Civil Code S 3344 provides in relevant part: [a]ny person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, . . . for purposes of advertising or selling, . . . without such person's prior consent . . . shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.[1] In White, 971 F.2d at 1397, we ruled that a robot withmechanical features was not a "likeness" underS 3344. How-ever, we specifically held open the possibility that a manikinmolded to Vanna White's precise features, or one that was acaricature or bore an impressionistic resemblance to Whitemight become a likeness for statutory purposes. Id. Thedegree to which these robots resemble, caricature, or bear animpressionistic resemblance to appellants is therefore clearlymaterial to a claim of violation of Cal. Civ. CodeS 3344.Summary judgment would have been appropriate uponremand only if no genuine issues of...
