Beautyko LLC et al v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc

Filing 157

ORDER granting in part Defendant Amazon's 139 Motion for Supplemental Proceedings; Judgment Debtor Exam set for 5/22/2018 at 10:00 AM before Judge Ricardo S Martinez; granting in part Plaintiff Beautyko's 142 Motion for Protective Order; denying Defendant Amazon's 147 Motion to Seal. The Clerk shall UNSEAL Dkt. # 152 . Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11

BEAUTYKO LLC; LINOI LLC; SHOP
FLASH USA INC.; BEAUTYKO USA INC.;
AND BENNOTI USA INC.,

Case No. C16-355 RSM
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION
FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS,
GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND DENYING
MOTION TO SEAL

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14
15

AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES,
INC.,

16

Defendant.

17
18
19
20

This matter comes before the Court on Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.
(“Amazon”)’s Motion for Supplemental Proceedings (Dkt. #139), Plaintiffs Beautyko LLC,
Linoi LLC, Shop Flash USA Inc., Beautyko USA Inc., and Bennoti USA Inc. (collectively

21

referred to as “Beautyko”)’s Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #142), and Amazon’s related

22

Motion to Seal (Dkt #147).

23
24
25

Amazon seeks an order requiring Beautyko to appear for

supplemental proceedings and to testify under oath concerning assets and property that may be
used to satisfy the outstanding judgment in this case. Beautyko opposes this request on various

26

grounds. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Amazon’s Motion for

27

Supplemental Proceedings, GRANTS IN PART Beautyko’s Motion for Protective Order, and

28

DENIES Amazon’s Motion to Seal.

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - 1

I.

1

BACKGROUND

2

On November 22, 2017, judgment in the amount of $3,611,999.80 was rendered in

3

favor of Defendant Amazon and against Plaintiffs. Dkt. #136. On December 22, 2017, costs in

4

the amount of $4,950.14 were taxed against Beautyko (Dkt. #138). The judgment against

5
6
7

Beautyko thus totals $3,616,949.94, not including interest. Beautyko has not appealed this
judgment and the judgment remains unsatisfied.

See Dkt. #140 (Declaration of Vanessa

8

Power) at ¶¶ 3–4. Amazon believes, based on discovery in this case and discussions with

9

Beautyko’s counsel, that Beautyko owns property or has assets that may be used to satisfy the

10
11
12
13

judgment. Id. at ¶ 5.
II.

DISCUSSION

A. Motion for Supplemental Proceedings

14

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) provides: “[i]n the aid of the judgment . . . the

15

judgment creditor . . . may obtain discovery from any person—including the judgment

16

debtor…” The procedure “in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of judgment . . . must

17
18

accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1).

19

Under Washington State’s supplemental proceedings statute, a judgment creditor may apply for

20

an order requiring the judgment debtor “to appear at a specified time and place” to answer

21

concerning a judgment “[a]t any time within ten years after entry of a judgment.” RCW

22
23
24

6.32.010. Where the judgment is a corporation, the “corporation must attend by and answer
under the oath of an officer thereof.” RCW 6.32.050.

25

Under RCW 6.32.010, a court may order a judgment debtor not only “to appear in court

26

for examination” but also “to produce certain described documents.” Arnold v. Nat’l Union of

27

Marine Cooks & Stewards Ass’n, 42 Wn.2d 648, 649, 257 P.2d 629 (1953); Britannia Holdings

28

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - 2

1

Ltd. v. Greer, 127 Wn. App. 926, 929, 113 P.3d 1041 (2005) (referring to court orders in

2

supplemental proceedings requiring judgment creditor to provide “information and documents”

3

as well as a “full accounting”). The purpose of this procedure is to “make the judgment debtor

4

answer concerning the extent and whereabouts of his or her property and, if possible, to enable

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

the judgment creditor to locate nonexempt property belonging to the judgment debtor which
may be applied on the debt.” Rainier Nat’l Bank v. McCracken, 26 Wn. App. 498, 511, 615
P.2d 469 (1980).
Pursuant to the above laws, Amazon now requests that an examination be ordered of
Avi Sivan as corporate representative of all of the Beautyko entities. Amazon lists 14 topics of
investigation in its Motion. See Dkt. #139 at 3–4.
In Response, Beautyko first argues that “the requested discovery is far overreaching and

14

should be limited.”

15

investigation:

16
17
18
19

Dkt. #145 at 1.

Specifically, Beautyko objects to two of topics of

4. Corporate income tax returns for the past five years for each
Judgment Debtor and all income tax returns for any business in
which Avi Sivan has had an interest in at any point in the past
five years. If the filing of the most recent return is pending but the
return has been prepared or the information is available, this
information is requested as well.

20
21
22
23
24

5. Personal income tax returns for the past five years for Avi
Sivan and Prem Ramchandani. If the filing of the most recent
return is pending but the return has been prepared or the
information is available, this information is requested as well.
Id. at 2 (citing Dkt. #139-1) (emphasis added by Beautyko). Beautyko objects to the Motion

25

“to the extent that additional requests can be interpreted as requiring the Judgment Debtors to

26

produce personal financial information of nondebtor people or entities.” Id. Beautyko points

27

out that judgment was entered against the Beautyko entities, not against Avi Sivan or Prem

28

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - 3

1

Ramchandani. Beautyko requests that any examination take place in the Eastern District of

2

New York. Beautyko equates Amazon’s Motion to requesting the Court enter an order for a

3

subpoena that an examination be conducted under Rule 30(b)(6). Id. at 5.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

On Reply, Amazon argues that certain facts make discovery into the personal financial
information of Mr. Sivan and Mr. Ramchandani appropriate. These facts are:
(1) Mr. Sivan and Mr. Ramchandani are the only owners of the
Beautyko Plaintiffs; (2) the Beautyko Plaintiffs shared the same
addresses, warehouses, emails, tax identification numbers, and
even bank accounts, thus commingling funds and other assets, not
only between and among the Beautyko Plaintiffs, but between and
among at least seven known non-judgment debtor businesses; (3)
Mr. Sivan conducted business on behalf of Beautyko Plaintiffs as
well as non-judgment debtor businesses - with Amazon if not
others - using his personal email account; and (4) at least two of
the Beautyko Plaintiffs loaned substantial funds to Mr. Sivan
and/or Mr. Ramchandani, and at least one of the Beautyko
Plaintiffs received substantial loans from Mr. Sivan.

14
15

Dkt. #153 at 2. Amazon cites several cases in support of this contention. Id. (citing Falicia v.

16

Advanced Tenant Services, Inc., 235 F.R.D. 5, 9 (D.C. 2006) (allowing discovery of non-party

17

companies that were owned by members of the same family that owned the judgment debtor

18

corporation); E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 286 F.R.D. 288 (E.D. Va.

19

2012) (under Rule 69, presumption is in favor of full discovery of any matters related to a

20
21

judgment creditor’s efforts to trace debtors’ assets and otherwise to enforce a judgment); Credit

22

Lyonnais, S.A. v. SGC Intern., Inc., 160 F.3d 428 (8th Cir. 1998) (reversing and remanding

23

order denying motion to compel deposition of individual officer of judgment debtor

24

corporation, including inquiry into individual’s personal finances and assets and transfers of

25
26
27
28

assets between individual officer and judgment debtor corporation)). Amazon also argues that
venue for the examination is proper here in the Western District of Washington because
Beautyko filed this litigation in the first instance here, and because Beautyko’s arguments

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - 4

1
2

related to the subpoena rule are irrelevant because there is no subpoena at issue with this
Motion. Id. at 6.

3

The scope of discovery allowed under Rule 69 is broad. See Republic of Argentina v.

4

NML Capital, Ltd., 134 S.Ct. 2250, 2254 (2014) (“The rules governing discovery in post

5
6
7

judgment execution proceedings are quite permissive.”). The Court finds that Amazon has
presented credible evidence that Mr. Sivan commingled his assets and the assets of other non-

8

debtor entities with the Beautyko entities and otherwise blurred the lines between his

9

businesses and himself, and that this is consistent with evidence already presented at trial.

10
11
12
13

Given this information, almost all of the requested discovery is warranted. However, the Court
finds that Amazon has not presented sufficient evidence to justify discovery into Mr.
Ramchandani’s personal tax returns. That portion of Amazon’s Motion will be denied.

14

The Court further finds that the proper venue for the examination is in the Western

15

District of Washington. Beautyko has failed to present any valid basis to challenge Amazon’s

16

request to hold the examination here, where Beautyko itself filed suit. The Court notes that

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Beautyko has failed to present any evidence that it would be a significant hardship for Mr.
Sivan to travel here for examination.
B. Motion for Protective Order
In addition to opposing the above Motion, Beautyko has also filed a Motion of a
Protective Order seeking to restrict Amazon from “pursuing financial information from any
person or entity other than the Beautyko entities.” Dkt. #142 at 1. Specifically, Beautyko

25

moves to prevent a portion of six third-party subpoenas. Each of these subpoenas seek the

26

following:

27
28

All documents, including communications, related to any contracts
or business relationship with any of the following companies or

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

individuals, including but not limited to invoices, purchase orders,
loans, accounts receivable, and accounts payable: Beautyko USA
Inc.; Bennoti USA Inc.; Beautyko LLC; Linoi LLC; Shop Flash
USA Inc.; Avi Sivan; and Prem Ramchandani, between January 1,
2013 to Present.
Dkt. #144-1. Beautyko argues that the scope of discovery allowed under Rule 69 for nonparties is limited to a search for the judgment debtor’s hidden assets, not the assets of Mr. Sivan
or Mr. Ramchandani. Dkt. #142 at 3 (citing La Suisse, Societe d’Assurances Sur La Vie v.
Kraus, 62 F.Supp. 3d 358, 361 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)).
In Response, Amazon relies on the same or similar law and arguments as its prior
Motion. See, e.g., Dkt. #149 at 6 (citing Falicia, supra; Caisson Corp. v. County West Building
Corp., 62 F.R.D. 331, 335 (E.D. Pa. 1974)). Amazon points out that “the information sought

13

under the Subpoena calls for production of information related to the business dealings of Mr.

14

Sivan and Mr. Ramchandani - both on behalf of or in addition to the named Plaintiffs/judgment

15

debtors.” Id. (citing Dkt. #144-1).

16

For the same reasons as stated above, the Court finds that Amazon may pursue the

17
18

above subpoenas as stated, including seeking information about the third parties’ dealings with

19

Mr. Sivan, but not as to third parties’ dealings with Mr. Ramchandani. Amazon has presented

20

sufficient evidence that the lines between Mr. Sivan’s businesses were sufficiently blurred to

21

make them a mere extension of his personal business empire, but insufficient evidence as to

22
23
24

Mr. Ramchandani to warrant seeking such information.
C. Motion to Seal

25

Finally, the Court will address Amazon’s Motion to Seal. (Dkt. #147).

26

“There is a strong presumption of public access to the court’s files.” Local Rule 5(g).

27

The Court’s Local Rules explicitly instruct the parties to present legal and evidentiary support

28

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - 6

1

in a motion to seal. Normally that motion must include “a specific statement of the applicable

2

legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, with evidentiary support

3

from declarations where necessary.” Local Rule 5(g)(3)(B). However:

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Where parties have entered a litigation agreement or stipulated
protective order (see LCR 26(c)(2)) governing the exchange in
discovery of documents that a party deems confidential, a party
wishing to file a confidential document it obtained from another
party in discovery may file a motion to seal but need not satisfy
subpart (3)(B) above. Instead, the party who designated the
document confidential must satisfy subpart (3)(B) in its response to
the motion to seal or in a stipulated motion.
Local Rule 5(g)(3).

11

Amazon’s Response to Beautyko’s Motion for Protective Order relies on tax returns and

12

balance sheets filed as exhibits. See Dkt. #149 at 4 (citing Power Decl., Exs. D-H). Amazon

13

filed these under seal because they were marked as confidential by Beautyko in discovery.

14
15
16

Beautyko argues that there is no reason to make these documents public, and that they should
remain sealed for privacy reasons. Dkt. #155 at 1 – 2 (citing A. Farber and Partners, Inc. v.

17

Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 190-91 (C.D. Cal. 2006); Ross v. B. None Enterprises, Inc., 2:13-CV-

18

00234 KJM, 2014 WL 2700901 at 2 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2014)).

19
20
21

Amazon argues that

Beautyko’s cited cases are inapposite because A. Farber did not involve the issue of sealing on
the record, and because Beautyko has failed to present here specific evidence of good cause to

22

seal as was presented in Ross. Dkt. #156. The Court agrees with Amazon and finds that

23

Beautyko has failed to meet its burden to show why these documents should be sealed.

24

Accordingly, Amazon’s Motion to Seal will be denied.

25

III.

CONCLUSION

26
27
28

Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby
finds and ORDERS that:

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - 7

1

1) Amazon’s Motion for Supplemental Proceedings (Dkt. #139) is GRANTED PART.

2

2) The Judgment Debtors Beautyko LLC; Linoi LLC; Shop Flash USA Inc.; Beautyko

3

USA Inc.; and Bennoti USA Inc. shall appear in the courtroom of Judge Ricardo

4

Martinez on May 22, 2018, at 10 a.m. to be examined under oath concerning any

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

assets or property the Judgment Debtors may have.
3) The Judgment Debtors shall bring to the examination the following documents:
a. Financial statements prepared and/or given at the request of any bank or
financial institution, or any other lender, within the past five (5) years.
b. Corporate records reflecting the membership and ownership of each
Judgment Debtor between January 2013 to present.

13

c. Identification of all savings accounts, checking accounts, other bank

14

accounts, and/or safety deposit boxes that have been maintained on behalf of

15

each Judgment Debtor since January 1, 2013, and copies of account

16

statements since January 1, 2016. This includes accounts in the names of

17
18

Judgment Debtors as well as the names of the owners of Judgment Debtors

19

or the name of any other member of their families who have held or are

20

holding any moneys on behalf of or for Judgment Debtors.

21
22
23
24

d. Corporate income tax returns for the past five years for each Judgment
Debtor and all income tax returns for any business in which Avi Sivan has
had an interest in at any point in the past five years. If the filing of the most

25

recent return is pending but the return has been prepared or the information

26

is available, this information is requested as well.

27
28

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - 8

1

e. Personal income tax returns for the past five years for Avi Sivan. If the filing

2

of the most recent return is pending but the return has been prepared or the

3

information is available, this information is requested as well.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

f. Liability insurance policies held by Judgment Debtors between January 2013
to present, and documents reflecting any claims filed and the status of such
claims.
g. Documents reflecting the current assets and liabilities of each Judgment
Debtor, and all asset transfers since January 1, 2013.
h. Documents reflecting all personal property owned, in whole or in part, by
Judgment Debtors between January 2013 to present, including but not

13

limited to cash, stocks, notes, judgments, bonds, U.S. treasury bills, mutual

14

funds, money market investments, equipment, machinery, tools, computers,

15

artwork, and multi-media equipment.

16

i. Documents and records reflecting all real property owned, in whole or in

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

part, by any Judgment Debtor since January 1, 2013.
j. Documents and records reflecting or referring to all mortgages or liens
existing against the real property identified in response to letter i.
k. Certificates of title reflecting all vehicles owned, in whole or in part, by any
Judgment Debtor since January 1, 2013, including but not limited to cars,
trucks, motorcycles, boats, or recreational vehicles or vessels.
l. Documents reflecting proceeds from sales by Judgment Debtors between
January 2013 to present.

27
28

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - 9

1

m. Documents reflecting the existence of any security interest, sales contracts,

2

or conditional sales contracts on the items of property owned by Judgment

3

Debtors.

4

n. Records of all accounts receivable, notes receivable, or indebtedness due

5

with respect to each Judgment Debtor.

6
7

4) Failure of the Judgment Debtors to appear at the time, date, and place set forth

8

above may cause the Court to issue a bench warrant for the apprehension of the

9

officer(s) of Judgment Debtors. Additionally, pursuant to RCW 6.32.010,

10
11
12

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs may be assessed at a later date by motion.
5) Beautyko’s Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #142) is GRANTED IN PART as

13

stated above. To the extent subpoenas already issued seek information protected by

14

this Order, Amazon is ordered to instruct subpoena recipients to limit the documents

15

they produce accordingly.

16

6) Amazon’s Motion to Seal (Dkt #147) is DENIED. The Clerk shall UNSEAL Dkt.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

#152.
DATED this 16 day of April 2018.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGS - 10