AirWair International Ltd. v. Zoetop Business Co., Limited d/b/a SHEIN and ROMWE, a Hong Kong corporation

Filing 99

ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LIMITED STAY; AND (2) REQUIRING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RELIEF (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/7/2022)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 AIRWAIR INTERNATIONAL LTD., 6 Plaintiff, 7 8 9 v. ZOETOP BUSINESS CO., LIMITED, Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 12 ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LIMITED STAY AND (2) REQUIRING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RELEIF Re: Dkt. Nos. 97, 98 10 11 Case No. 20-cv-07696-SI On January 6, 2022, defendant Zoetop filed a motion for relief from the magistrate judge’s nondispositive order requiring the production of documents pursuant to AirWair’s RFP Nos. 10 and 13 19. Dkt. No. 97 (Motion for Relief); Dkt. No. 89 at 4-5 (Contested Nondispositive Order). That 14 same day, defendant also filed a motion to stay the production of the documents identified in the 15 16 magistrate’s nondispositive order pending the resolution of the motion for relief. Dkt. No. 98 (Motion to Stay). The Court hereby ORDERS plaintiff AirWair to file a response to defendant’s 17 motion for relief no later than January 14, 2022. Local Rule 72-2. The response should address any 18 perceived deficiencies in defendant’s proposal that the Court “limit any additional production to 19 cease and desist letters and filed Complaints alleging trademark infringement of footwear products 20 against Zoetop only (the only defendant in this case) since January 1, 2016.” Dkt. No. 97 at 6. The 21 Court GRANTS the motion to stay pending the resolution of the motion for relief. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: January 7, 2022 25 26 27 28 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?