Beautyko LLC et al v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc

Filing 72

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 71 Second Motion for In Camera Review 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.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

15

AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES,
INC.,

16

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
SECOND MOTION FOR IN CAMERA
REVIEW

v.

14

Case No. 16-355RSM

Defendant.

17
18
19
20

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ purported “Ex Parte Motion to Submit
Documents for In Camera Review.” Dkt. #71. This Motion has been noted for same-day
consideration.

21

On August 3, 2017, the Court granted a Motion filed by Plaintiffs’ former attorneys to

22

withdraw as counsel, based in part on documents submitted for in camera review. Dkt. #59.

23
24
25

There was no evidence or argument before the Court that Plaintiffs in any way objected.
Plaintiffs now contend that the in camera materials contained privileged attorney-client

26

communications, that these materials were not provided to Plaintiffs before they were filed, that

27

Plaintiffs “did not know the in camera materials had been filed,” and “did not have an

28

opportunity to respond to the in camera materials,” or “to provide the Court with the complete

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW - 1

1

context of the issues raised by the in camera materials.” Id. at 1–2. Although Plaintiffs now

2

state that they do “not seek to litigate or review the order grating [sic] Yarmuth Wilsdon’s

3

motion to withdraw as counsel,” Plaintiffs are “concerned that the one-sided nature of the

4

materials presented to the Court in the context of the motion by Beautyko’s former counsel to

5
6
7

withdraw as counsel, if not rebutted or corrected, risk impacting the Court’s decisions with
respect to Amazon’s current pending motions, including the motion for leave to file another

8

motion for summary judgment” and now seek leave to submit further materials to the court for

9

in camera review. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs cite to the Court’s statement during a brief telephone

10
11
12

hearing on August 30, 2017, that “your client may not be the easiest client to work with at this
point” as a basis for this Motion. Id. However, Plaintiffs also state that “the Court’s statement

13

may not have been prompted by the in camera submission by Beautyko’s former counsel but

14

rather by the circumstance of counsel seeking to withdraw as counsel so late in a case…” Id.

15

Plaintiffs request the court “evaluate this issue on an expedited ex parte basis…” Id. at 3.

16

Plaintiffs do not cite the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or this Court’s Local Rules; there are

17
18

no citations to legal authority of any kind.

19

It was procedurally improper for Plaintiffs to seek this relief on an ex parte basis and to

20

note this Motion for consideration on the day it was filed. However, the Court need not grant

21

Defendants an opportunity to respond because the Court can easily deny the requested relief

22
23
24

without further briefing.
The prior in camera documents were reviewed for one purpose only: to rule on the

25

Motion to Withdraw before the Court at the time. See Dkt. #59 at 3. They will not be re-

26

examined in the context of any other issue in this case. Plaintiffs have no legal basis to submit

27

additional materials to the Court for in camera review to purportedly aid the Court in

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW - 2

1

determining substantive, potentially dispositive issues in pending or forthcoming motions. Any

2

potential benefit to the Plaintiffs for submitting these materials in camera is easily outweighed

3

by the prejudice to Defendant of allowing a clandestine tête-à-tête between Plaintiffs and the

4

Court on issues that veer into the substantive.

5
6
7
8

Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby
finds and ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Second Motion for In Camera Review, Dkt. #71, is
DENIED.

9
10

DATED this 19 day of September, 2017.

11
12
13
14
15

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND MOTION FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW - 3