Amazon.com Inc. et al v. Kitsenka et al

Filing 26

ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 23 Ex Parte Motion to Expedite Discovery. Plaintiffs are granted leave, prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on Payoneer Inc. and Google LLC for the purpose of obtaining information that may reveal Defendants' identities and locations. Plaintiffs shall provide a copy of this Order with each subpoena issued pursuant thereto. Signed by Hon. Michelle L. Peterson. (SB)

Case 2:22-cv-01574-RSL-MLP Document 26 Filed 05/22/23 Page 1 of 6

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

6
7
8

AMAZON.COM INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9

11

ORDER

v.

10

Case No. C22-1574-RSL-MLP

DZMITRY KITSENKA, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14

I.

15

INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services

16

LLC, and The Gillette Company LLC (“Gillette”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Ex Parte Motion for

17

Expedited Discovery (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”). 1 (Pls.’ Mot. (dkt. # 23).) Having considered

18

Plaintiffs’ submissions, the governing law, and the balance of the record, the Court GRANTS

19

Plaintiffs’ Motion.

20

II.

21
22

BACKGROUND

On November 4, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this action against Dzmitry Kitsenka, Maryia
Kitsenka, “individual[s] or entit[ies] doing business as” eight different Amazon Selling

23
1

Plaintiffs have also filed a motion for overlength brief (dkt. # 21), which is hereby GRANTED.

ORDER - 1

Case 2:22-cv-01574-RSL-MLP Document 26 Filed 05/22/23 Page 2 of 6

1

Accounts, and “Does 1-10,” alleging they sold counterfeit Gillette products through the Amazon

2

Selling Accounts. (Compl. (dkt. # 1).) On February 24, 2023, the Clerk entered default against

3

Dzmitry Kitsenka and Maryia Kitsenka. (Dkt. # 19.)

4

Plaintiffs have made extensive efforts to uncover the identities and locations of the

5

remaining defendants (“Defendants”), including working with private investigators, investigating

6

the information Defendants provided when opening their Amazon Selling Accounts, and

7

searching public records. (Rainwater Decl. (dkt. # 25) at ¶ 4.) These efforts led to the

8

identification of Dzmitry Kitsenka and Maryia Kitsenka and evidence that they operated with

9

“persons overseas who used falsified documents and information in connection with their Selling

10

Accounts[,]” but did not uncover the identities of the remaining Defendants. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.)

11

Plaintiffs discovered that “individuals or entities responsible for all eight Selling

12

Accounts” used virtual bank accounts provided by Payoneer Inc. (“Payoneer”) to transfer funds

13

to and from their Amazon Selling Accounts. (Haskel Decl. (dkt. # 24) at ¶ 15.) Seven of the eight

14

used email addresses provided by Google LLC (“Google”). (Id. at ¶ 16.)

15

Based on these findings, Plaintiffs move for leave to serve third-party subpoenas under

16

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, on Payoneer and Google.

17

(Pls.’ Mot. at 7.) They expect that Payoneer’s records will reveal names and locations of the

18

bank account holders, and Google’s records may reveal names and contact information as well as

19

IP addresses to determine Defendants’ locations. (Rainwater Decl. at ¶¶ 10-11.)

20

III.

DISCUSSION

21

A.

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) bars parties from seeking “discovery from any

23

Legal Standard

source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding

ORDER - 2

Case 2:22-cv-01574-RSL-MLP Document 26 Filed 05/22/23 Page 3 of 6

1

exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by

2

stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). In determining whether to permit

3

expedited discovery, courts in this jurisdiction require that the moving party demonstrate that

4

“good cause” exists to deviate from the standard pretrial schedule. See Amazon.com, Inc. v.

5

Yong, 2021 WL 1237863, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 2, 2021) (adopting the “good cause” standard

6

for motions for expedited discovery and finding that plaintiffs demonstrated good cause for

7

expedited discovery); see also Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276

8

(N.D. Cal. 2002) (applying “the conventional standard of good cause in evaluating Plaintiff’s

9

request for expedited discovery”). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited

10

discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the

11

responding party.” Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276. The Ninth Circuit has emphasized that diligence

12

and the intent of the moving party are the focus of the inquiry into good cause. Johnson v.

13

Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992).

14

B.

Good Cause for Expedited Discovery

15

The Court notes that Defendants appear to have actively misled the Plaintiff Amazon

16

entities as to their identities. The Court finds that Defendants should not be afforded the benefit

17

of anonymity in furtherance of their alleged counterfeiting scheme. Plaintiffs have shown

18

diligence in utilizing available means to investigate Defendants’ identities and locations.

19

Having considered the balance of factors, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ intent in

20

seeking expedited discovery justifies their request. Courts routinely allow early discovery for the

21

limited purpose of identifying defendants on whom process could not otherwise be served. See,

22

e.g., Music Grp. Macao Com. Offshore Ltd. v. John Does I-IX, 2014 WL 11010724, at *1-2

23

(W.D. Wash. July 18, 2014) (granting expedited discovery from Twitter, Inc. sufficient to

ORDER - 3

Case 2:22-cv-01574-RSL-MLP Document 26 Filed 05/22/23 Page 4 of 6

1

identify Doe defendants); Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1–5698, 2011 WL 5362068, at *1-2 (N.D.

2

Cal. 2011) (allowing early discovery from internet service providers to identify Doe defendants);

3

see also Cottrell v. Unknown Corr. Officers, 1-10, 230 F.3d 1366, *1 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining

4

that “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require that a district court dismiss unknown

5

defendants simply because the plaintiff is unaware of the identity of those defendants at the time

6

of the filing of the complaint.”). “Where the identity of the alleged defendant is not known prior

7

to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity through discovery to

8

identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover the

9

identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.” Wakefield v. Thompson,

10

177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (cleaned up) (quoting Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637,

11

642 (9th Cir. 1980)).

12

Here, Plaintiffs seek expedited discovery to ascertain sufficient identifying information

13

about Defendants to effect service. Good cause exists where a plaintiff has exhausted its means

14

to identify the defendant through publicly available information and has no other way to identify

15

the bad actors involved in the scheme. Facebook, Inc. v. Various, Inc., 2011 WL 2437433, at *3

16

(N.D. Cal. 2011) (“Courts in [the Ninth] Circuit permit expedited discovery to identify unknown

17

defendants usually when the plaintiff simultaneously can identify no defendants and legitimately

18

fears that information leading to their whereabouts faces imminent destruction.”); see also

19

Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 277 (granting expedited discovery where narrowly tailored requests will

20

“substantially contribute to moving this case forward”). Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ declarations,

21

it appears they have exhausted available means to trace specific names and addresses to the

22

various Amazon Selling Accounts. (See Rainwater Decl. at ¶¶ 4-5; Haskel Decl. at ¶¶ 8-12.)

23

ORDER - 4

Case 2:22-cv-01574-RSL-MLP Document 26 Filed 05/22/23 Page 5 of 6

1

Consequently, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that without expedited discovery, they will not be

2

able to identify the individuals behind the accounts.

3

Furthermore, the Court finds good cause for expedited discovery given Plaintiffs’ claims

4

that irreparable harm will result through Defendants’ continued use of their trademarks, unfair

5

competition, and false advertising (Compl. at ¶¶ 63, 71, 78). See Music Grp. Macao, 2014 WL

6

11010724 at *2 (finding good cause where plaintiffs alleged irreparable harm through

7

infringement and unfair competition); see also Qwest Commc’n Int’l, Inc. v. WorldQuest

8

Networks, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 418, 419 (D. Co. 2003) (“The good cause standard may be satisfied

9

. . . where the moving party has asserted claims of infringement and unfair competition.”). For

10

these reasons, Plaintiffs’ intent in seeking expedited discovery supports a finding of good cause.

11

Finally, the Court finds minimal prejudice to Defendants if Plaintiffs are granted leave to

12

conduct expedited discovery. Plaintiffs’ discovery request is narrowly tailored to seek

13

information only from those Payoneer bank accounts and Google email accounts associated with

14

the Amazon Selling Accounts for the purpose of identifying the individuals connected to those

15

accounts. (See Pls.’ Mot. at 11.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs have requested discovery directed at

16

non-parties—not the Defendants—which courts recognize as “not imposing a significant burden

17

upon defendants.” Yong, 2021 WL 1237863 at *3.
IV.

18
19

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion (dkt. # 23). Plaintiffs

20

are granted leave, prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on Payoneer

21

Inc. and Google LLC for the purpose of obtaining information that may reveal Defendants’

22

identities and locations. Plaintiffs shall provide a copy of this Order with each subpoena issued

23

pursuant thereto.

ORDER - 5

Case 2:22-cv-01574-RSL-MLP Document 26 Filed 05/22/23 Page 6 of 6

1

Dated this 22nd day of May, 2023.

2

A

3

MICHELLE L. PETERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER - 6