Tiffany and Company v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

Filing 56

AMENDED MEMORANDUM ORDER: Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco) objects, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), to an August 23, 2013, oral ruling by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman denying Costcos motion for a protective order. This case arises out of claims brought by Plaintiffs Tiffany and Company (Tiffany and Co.) and Tiffany (NJ) LLC (collectively, Tiffany) against Costco under both federal and New York state law for trademark infringement, dilution, counterfeiting, unf air competition, injury to business reputation, false and deceptive business practices and false advertising. The Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1121 and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338 and 1367(a). The Court has considered carefu lly the parties submissions and arguments. For the following reasons, the Court overrules Costcos objection in its entirety. Judge Freemans Order will stand. For these reasons, Costcos objection is overruled in its entirety. The parties are directed to comply with the guidelines in the Pretrial Scheduling Order issued on October 4, 2013. (This Order amends the previous Memorandum Order, which incorrectly stated in one sentence that Plaintiffs objected to Magistrate Judge Freemans August 23, 2013, Order.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 10/18/2013) (rsh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x
TIFFANY AND COMPANY and
TIFFANY (NJ) LLC,
Plaintiffs,
-v-

No. 13 Civ. 1041 (LTS)(DCF)

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP.,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------x
AMENDED MEMORANDUM ORDER1
Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) objects, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), to an August 23, 2013, oral ruling by Magistrate Judge Debra
Freeman denying Costco’s motion for a protective order. This case arises out of claims brought
by Plaintiffs Tiffany and Company (“Tiffany and Co.”) and Tiffany (NJ) LLC (collectively,
“Tiffany”) against Costco under both federal and New York state law for trademark
infringement, dilution, counterfeiting, unfair competition, injury to business reputation, false and
deceptive business practices and false advertising. The Court has jurisdiction of this action
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338 and 1367(a). The Court has
considered carefully the parties’ submissions and arguments. For the following reasons, the
Court overrules Costco’s objection in its entirety. Judge Freeman’s Order will stand.

1

C OSTCO O BJ. WPD

This Order amends the previous Memorandum Order, which incorrectly stated in one
sentence that Plaintiffs objected to Magistrate Judge Freeman’s August 23, 2013,
Order.
V ERSION 10/18/13

1

BACKGROUND
Tiffany brought this suit, alleging that Costco misled Costco members, thus
giving rise to the claims asserted here, by selling engagement rings in its retail stores between
2007 and 2012, with in-store signs describing the rings using the word,“Tiffany.” Costco
disputes Tiffany’s claims, alleging that the word “Tiffany” referred to the style of the ring
setting, and counterclaims, arguing that Costco was legally entitled to use the word “Tiffany” to
describe the setting due to the term’s genericization.
As part of its pretrial discovery requests, Tiffany made a document request to
Costco, seeking the disclosure of the personal identities of all of the Costco members who
purchased the subject rings so that Tiffany could conduct private telephonic interviews with
them regarding their purchase decisions. Costco had previously compiled this information when
the lawsuit was filed and, on April 5, 2013, had sent a letter to the approximately 2,500 Costco
members who had purchased the subject rings explaining the case to them. (Costco Objection,
Ex. 3.) Costco moved for a protective order quashing the request, arguing that granting
Tiffany’s request would cause Costco extreme prejudice and that the proposed telephone
interviews would not yield evidence from which any scientific conclusion about the subject
population could be drawn. Costco proposed, instead, that a questionnaire be administered to the
relevant purchasers by a neutral and independent third party.
After the parties submitted letters and Magistrate Judge Freeman heard oral
argument on these issues, on August 23, 2013, Judge Freeman denied Costco’s motion for a
protective order in its entirety, finding that providing the customer list to Tiffany would not
cause Costco to suffer a competitive disadvantage. Costco now seeks review and reversal of
Judge Freeman’s ruling.

C OSTCO O BJ. WPD

V ERSION 10/18/13

2

DISCUSSION

Judge Freeman’s August 23, 2013, Order is a non-dispositive pretrial order
reviewable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Under Rule 72(a), “[t]he district judge
. . . must consider timely objections [to the magistrate judge’s decision] and modify or set aside
any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” A ruling is “clearly erroneous
where on the entire evidence, the [district court] is left with the definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been committed.” Equal Emp’t Opportunity Commission v. Teamsters Local 804,
No. 04 civ. 2409(LTS), 2006 WL 44023, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2006) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted). An order is considered to be “‘contrary to law’ when it ‘fails to apply or
misapplies relevant statutes, case law or rules of procedure.’” Collens v. City of New York, 222
F.R.D. 249, 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (citation omitted). However, the fact that “reasonable minds
may differ on the wisdom of granting [a party’s] motion is not sufficient to overturn a magistrate
judge’s decision.” Edmonds v. Seavey, No. 08 Civ. 5646(HB), 2009 WL 2150971, at * 2
(S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[M]agistrate judges
are afforded broad discretion in resolving nondispositive disputes and reversal is appropriate
only if their discretion is abused.” Thai Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. v. Gov. Lao People’s
Democratic Republic, 924 F. Supp. 2d 508, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
Costco argues that Judge Freeman’s ruling should be reversed and that Costco
should be granted a protective order, preventing it from having to disclose the purchaser’s
identity information to Tiffany and prohibiting Tiffany from conducting direct interviews of the
relevant Costco ring purchasers in the first instance. Costco contends that it faces an extreme

C OSTCO O BJ. WPD

V ERSION 10/18/13

3

risk of commercial prejudice in that, if Tiffany interviews these purchasers telephonically,
Tiffany will attempt to convince them that they were sold “counterfeit diamond rings.” Costco
also argues that the evidence that Tiffany seeks to generate is non-probative, as Tiffany must
show that “numerous” Costco members, who are ordinarily prudent, were confused by Costco’s
in-store signs. Costco asserts that conducting this telephonic poll would cause Costco
irreparable loss of the opportunity to conduct a scientific study of Costco members.
The Court finds that, despite multiple attempts to prevent Tiffany from obtaining
this information, Costco still has not met its burden of showing why the protective order is
necessary. Costco has not provided evidence of a substantial risk of commercial interference
and has itself already contacted the relevant Costco members who purchased the rings. As Judge
Freeman pointed out, Costco has failed to acknowledge the effect of its own letter that was sent
to these purchasers in April of 2013. (Aug. 23 Tr. 19:4-14.) Costco’s fear that Tiffany will try
to convince Costco members that they were sold counterfeit rings is not supported by the record
and Judge Freeman’s finding that there was no “huge competitive disadvantage here to
producing the list” was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. (Aug. 23 Tr. 21:14-21.)
Neither was Judge Freeman’s decision that Tiffany is entitled to this information, because the
purchasers are material fact witnesses, clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. (Tr. 12:7-15:11,
17:22-18:11, 21:22-22:7.) Moreover, Costco could perform a scientific study. Costco has had
this information for months, and it has not established that disclosure to Tiffany will thwart a
scientific study. Accordingly, Judge Freeman’s Order will stand.2
2

C OSTCO O BJ. WPD

On October 4, 2013, the Court struck Costco’s reply brief, which had been filed,
without Court permission, in support of its objection. Costco then filed a request for
reconsideration of the Court’s decision to strike the reply brief. “A motion for
reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly in the interests
of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources,” Drapkin v. Mafco Consol.
Group, Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 678, 695 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal quotation marks and
V ERSION 10/18/13

4

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Costco’s objection is overruled in its entirety. The parties are
directed to comply with the guidelines in the Pretrial Scheduling Order issued on October 4,
2013.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
October 18, 2013
/S
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
United States District Judge

citation omitted) and “[t]he threshold for prevailing on a motion for reconsideration is
high.” Nakshin v. Holder, 360 F. App’x 192, 193 (2d Cir. 2010). Costco’s objection
was filed pursuant to Rule 72(a), which does not require the Court to permit a party to
file a reply in support of an objection. Accordingly, Costco’s motion for
reconsideration is denied and the Court will not consider Costco’s reply.
C OSTCO O BJ. WPD

V ERSION 10/18/13

5