Frame-Wilson et al v. Amazon.com Inc
Filing
63
ORDER: Defendant's Motion to Clarify or Reconsider Portions of the Court's 3/11/2022 Order (Dkt. #51 ) is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 26(f) Conference Under FRCP 37 (Dkt. #52 ) is GRANTED. The Court will order Amazon to participate in a Rule 26(f) conference within ten days of this Order. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (SR)
Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 63 Filed 08/02/22 Page 1 of 7
1
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, CHRISTIAN
SABOL, SAMANTHIA RUSSELL, ARTHUR
SCHAREIN, LIONEL KEROS, NATHAN
CHANEY, CHRIS GULLEY, SHERYL
TAYLOR-HOLLY, ANTHONY COURTNEY,
DAVE WESTROPE, STACY DUTILL,
SARAH ARRINGTON, MARY ELLIOT,
HEATHER GEESEY, STEVE MORTILLARO,
CHAUNDA LEWIS, ADRIAN HENNEN,
GLENDA R. HILL, GAIL MURPHY,
PHYLLIS HUSTER, and GERRY
KOCHENDORFER, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated,
21
22
23
24
Plaintiffs,
v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
25
26
27
28
ORDER – 1
Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO
CLARIFY OR RECONSIDER
(Dkt. # 51) AND TO COMPEL
26(f) CONFERENCE (Dkt. #
52)
Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 63 Filed 08/02/22 Page 2 of 7
I.
1
2
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court are two motions. Having considered the submissions of the
3
parties, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law, the court finds that
4
oral argument is unnecessary. For the reasons below, Defendant’s Motion to Clarify or
5
Reconsider Portions of the Court’s March 11, 2022 Order (Dkt. # 51) is DENIED as
6
moot. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 26(f) Conference Under FRCP 37 (Dkt. # 52) is
7
GRANTED.
8
II. BACKGROUND
9
On March 19, 2020, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Amazon.com, Inc.
10
(“Amazon” or “Defendant”). Dkt. # 1. On July 13, 2020, Amazon filed a motion to
11
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Dkt. # 11. On August 3, 2020,
12
Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 15) and, soon thereafter, Amazon’s
13
pending motion to dismiss was terminated. On September 2, 2020, Amazon filed a
14
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Dkt. # 18. On March 11, 2022, this
15
Court granted in part and denied in part Amazon’s motion to dismiss, allowing Plaintiffs
16
to file another amended complaint within thirty (30) days of entry of the Order. Dkt. # 48
17
at 25-26. Amazon then filed a motion to clarify or reconsider the Court’s Order on
18
March 25, 2022. Dkt. # 51. On March 31, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel a
19
Rule 26(f) conference, and on April 11, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint.
20
Amazon then filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on May 16,
21
2022. The Court now addresses Amazon’s pending motion for reconsideration and
22
Plaintiff’s pending motion to compel.
III. DISCUSSION
23
24
A.
Motion to Clarify or Reconsider (Dkt. # 51)
25
Amazon asserts that this Court’s March 11, 2022 Order (Dkt. # 48), which granted
26
in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss, “addressed the issue of antitrust
27
standing for only a subset of Plaintiff’s and claims.” Dkt. # 51 at 1. Amazon requests that
28
ORDER – 2
Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 63 Filed 08/02/22 Page 3 of 7
1
this Court amend its Order to hold that: “(1) Plaintiffs have antitrust standing for their
2
Sherman Act, Section 1 claim only for claims based on direct purchases from alleged ‘co-
3
conspirators’ and only to the extent that they join them as defendants; and (2) Plaintiffs,
4
as indirect purchasers, lack antitrust standing to sue Amazon under Sherman Act, Section
5
2.” Id. at 6.
6
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a
7
“showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which
8
could not have been brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”
9
Local R. W.D. Wash. (“LCR”) 7(h)(1). However, the Court need not address the merits
10
of Amazon’s arguments at this time because Plaintiff’s filing of their Second Amended
11
Complaint on April 11, 2022 rendered Amazon’s motion for reconsideration moot. It is
12
“well-established in our circuit that an ‘amended complaint supersedes the original, the
13
latter being treated as non-existent.’” Ramirez v. County of San Bernadino, 806 F.3d
14
1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th
15
Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928
16
(9th Cir. 2012)). When a party files a subsequent complaint, “‘the original pleading no
17
longer performs any function.’” Id. (quoting Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th
18
Cir. 1992)). Because Amazon’s motion for reconsideration targets the Court’s Order
19
concerning Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (and because Plaintiffs have
20
subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint and Amazon has in turn filed a motion
21
to dismiss 1 this Second Amended Complaint), Amazon’s request for reconsideration must
22
be deemed moot. See Sanders v. Matthew, No. 1:15-cv-395-LJO-EPG, 2016 WL
23
11486352, at *2 (E.D. Cal. March 9, 2016) (“As a result [of the filing of an amended
24
complaint], any pleading directed at Plaintiff’s original complaint—including Plaintiff’s
25
motion for reconsideration—is moot.”
26
27
28
1
Further, Amazon’s most recent motion to dismiss raises the same arguments as those
raised in its motion for reconsideration. Dkt. ## 51, 59.
ORDER – 3
Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 63 Filed 08/02/22 Page 4 of 7
1
B.
Motion to Compel (Dkt. # 52)
2
The Court now turns to Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Plaintiffs seek an order
3
compelling Amazon’s participation in a discovery conference pursuant to Federal Rule of
4
Civil Procedure 26(f). Dkt. # 52 at 1. On April 20, 2020, this Court issued an Order
5
Regarding FRCP 26(f) Conference, Initial Disclosures, and Joint Status Report, which
6
required the parties to conduct a Rule 26(f) conference by July 20, 2020. Dkt. # 9.
7
Plaintiffs state that, at the time the Complaint was filed, the parties agreed to defer
8
several case deadlines, including the deadline for holding a Rule 26(f) discovery
9
conference until the disposition of Amazon’s anticipated motion to dismiss. Id. Indeed,
10
on July 14, 2020, the Court suspended the various deadlines contained in its April 20
11
Order pending the disposition of Amazon’s motion to dismiss, which Amazon had filed
12
the day prior. Dkt. ## 14, 11. On March 11, 2022, this Court granted in part and denied
13
in part Amazon’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. # 48. On March 31, Plaintiffs filed their
14
motion to compel, claiming that Amazon refused to schedule a Rule 26(f) conference,
15
and that due to Amazon’s inaction, discovery has been stayed in violation of Local Rule
16
7(h). Dkt. ## 52 at 1-2, 53 at 1.
17
Amazon requests that this Court deny Plaintiff’s request to compel a conference,
18
arguing that Amazon’s motion for reconsideration must be resolved before the parties
19
move forward with discovery. Dkt. # 54. Amazon argues that Plaintiff’s standing to
20
bring several claims has “not yet been determined[,]” and that this “threshold
21
requirement” must be addressed before the parties engage in discovery. Id. at 2-3.
22
Amazon further suggests that Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced from a delayed conference
23
because it is “inefficient” to move forward with discovery while Amazon’s motion
24
remains outstanding. Id. at 4. Plaintiffs counter that Amazon fails to point to a case
25
where the court has stayed discovery pending a motion for reconsideration, and notes
26
that the case has been pending for over two years and further delay risks the loss of
27
evidence and witnesses. Dkt. # 56 at 1-2.
28
ORDER – 4
Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 63 Filed 08/02/22 Page 5 of 7
1
District courts have “broad discretion to manage discovery and to control the
2
course of litigation.” Avila v. Willits Env’t Remediation Tr., 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir.
3
2011). Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the scope of
4
discovery:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering
the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the
parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Information that falls within this scope of discovery is discoverable even if it may
not be admissible in evidence. Id. “The party who resists discovery has the burden to
show discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and
supporting its objections.” Cunningham v. Bank One, No. C05-2104RSM, 2006 WL
3361773, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 20, 2006). Rule 26(d) requires that the parties confer
before discovery begins, stating: “a party may not seek discovery from any source before
the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1).
Rule 26(f), which governs the timing of the discovery conference, provides that
the parties must confer “as soon as practicable” so that they may “consider the nature and
basis of their claims and defenses and possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the
case,” make required disclosures, discuss the preservation of discoverable information,
and “develop a proposed discovery plan.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(1)-(2). Further, Local
Rule 7(h), concerning motions for reconsideration, states that “[t]he pendency of a
motion for reconsideration shall not stay discovery or any other procedure.” LCR 7(h)(2).
Here, Amazon plainly argues that its motion for reconsideration should stay
discovery. Dkt. # 54 at 1. The Court disagrees. Amazon correctly notes that the Court
must consider the costs of pretrial discovery in antitrust cases where the sufficiency of the
ORDER – 5
Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 63 Filed 08/02/22 Page 6 of 7
1
complaint has been challenged. See Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d
2
729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987). However, that concern is lessened where, as here, the Court has
3
already allowed much of Plaintiff’s case to move forward, has granted leave to amend the
4
complaint, see Dkt. # 48 at 25-16, and where Plaintiff has in fact filed a Second Amended
5
Complaint. Dkt. # 55.
6
Further, the authorities cited by Amazon for the proposition that Amazon’s
7
standing challenge supports a continuing pause on discovery are distinguishable. In each
8
of the cases cited by Amazon, Plaintiffs sought to compel participation in a Rule 26(f)
9
conference: (1) prior to the filing of a motion to dismiss or any responsive pleading (In re
10
Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, 2013 WL 12143947 (S.D. Cal. January 25, 2013));
11
and 2) prior to the rendering of any decision on a pending motion to dismiss (Zavala v.
12
Kruse-Western, Inc., 2019 WL 3219254, (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2019); Contentguard
13
Holdings, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., 2013 WL 12072533 (S.D. Cal. January 16, 2013)). Unlike
14
the plaintiffs in Zalava, Contentguard, and Morning Song, who sought to compel a
15
conference prior to a ruling on a pending motion to dismiss, here the Court has addressed
16
Amazon’s previous motion to dismiss on the merits and has already made a finding that
17
Plaintiffs have established standing for at least some claims. Dkt. # 48 at 8, 22; see
18
Rutman, 829 F.2d at 738 (“It is sounder practice to determine whether there is any
19
reasonable likelihood that plaintiffs can construct a claim before forcing the parties to
20
undergo the expense of discovery”). Given the Court’s decision on Amazon’s motion to
21
dismiss and LCR 7(h)’s prohibition on staying discovery due to a pending motion for
22
reconsideration, the Court sees no reason to further delay discovery in this long-pending
23
case.
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
28
ORDER – 6
Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 63 Filed 08/02/22 Page 7 of 7
IV. CONCLUSION
1
2
Based on the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Clarify or Reconsider
3
Portions of the Court’s March 11, 2022 Order is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff’s Motion to
4
Compel 26(f) Conference Under FRCP 37 is GRANTED. The Court will order Amazon
5
to participate in a Rule 26(f) conference within ten days of this Order.
6
7
DATED this 2nd day of August, 2022.
A
8
9
HON. RICHARD A. JONES
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER – 7
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?