Hand & Nail Harmony, Inc. et al v. Guangzhou Cocome Cosmetics, Co. et al

Filing 58

ORDER that 13 Amended Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 8/18/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

HAND & NAIL HARMONY, INC. and NAIL
ALLIANCE, LLC,

11

ORDER

Plaintiff,

9
10

Case No. 2:15-cv-01191-GMN-PAL

v.

(Am. Mot. Expedited Discovery – Dkt. #13)

GUANGZHOU COCOME COSMETICS CO.
LTD., et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Hand & Nail Harmony, Inc. and Nail

14

Alliance, LLC’s Amended Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery (Dkt. #13) filed

15

July 6, 2015. This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)

16

and LR IB 1-3 and 1-9. The Court has considered the Motion.

17

This case arises from Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants violated the Lanham Act, 15

18

U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., by infringing on their trademarks. On June 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a

19

Complaint (Dkt. #1) and moved for injunctive relief to include a temporary restraining order

20

(“TRO”) as well as an order authorizing expedited discovery and seizure of infringing goods at a

21

trade show. See Mots. (Dkt. ##3–7). 1 On July 10th, Chief District Judge Gloria M. Navarro

22

held a hearing on the motions and issued a seizure order and TRO, which was set to expire 10

23

days after issuance. See Mins. of Proceedings (Dkt. #23); Order (Dkt. #29). A hearing was also

24

scheduled on July 20th for Defendants to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs’ request for expedited discovery was only briefed in the original Motion for Expedited
Discovery (Dkt. #6), not the Amended Motion for Expedited Discovery (Dkt. #13). It appears that the
memorandum of points and authorities filed in support of the Amended Motion was intended to
supplement the original Motion. Thus, the Court has considered the arguments in the original Motion.

1

1

issue. Id. However, the Court’s Minutes and the Order did not specifically address Plaintiffs’

2

request for expedited discovery. Id. See also July 10, 2015 Hr’g Tr. (Dkt. #47).

3

When a party obtains a seizure order pursuant to the Lanham Act, the statute requires

4

federal courts to hold a hearing within 10 to 15 days in which the moving party is required to

5

prove that a seizure order is still warranted. See 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(10)(A). The statute

6

authorizes a court to issue orders modifying the normal time limits for discovery under the Rules

7

of Civil Procedure “as may be necessary to prevent the frustration of the purposes of such

8

hearing.” 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(10)(B) (emphasis added).

9

In this case, the expedited hearing contemplated by 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(10)(B) took

10

place on July 20, 2015. A review of the docket reveals that expedited discovery was not

11

necessary for the Court to address the seizure authorized by the Order (Dkt. #29). During the

12

July 20th show cause hearing, the Court instructed Plaintiffs to “file photographs of the seized

13

items for the Court’s review” and denied Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction without

14

prejudice. See Mins. of Proceedings (Dkt. #48). Expedited discovery can no longer prevent the

15

frustration of a show cause hearing that has already taken place. As such, Plaintiffs’ Amended

16

Motion for Expedited Discovery (Dkt. #13) is now moot.

17

Accordingly,

18

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Hand & Nail Harmony, Inc. and Nail Alliance, LLC’s

19

Amended Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery (Dkt. #13) is DENIED without

20

prejudice.

21

Dated this 18th day of August, 2015.

22
23

PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2