Amazon.com Inc et al v. Weiyuan et al
Filing
12
ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 8 Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery. Plaintiffs are granted leave, prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on the companies PingPong Global Solutions, Inc. and LL Pay U.S., LLC. for the purpose of obtaining information that may identify Defendants. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
10
11
12
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware
corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
and THERABODY, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiffs,
13
Case No. 2:23-cv-00931-RSM
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX
PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDITED
DISCOVERY
v.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
WANG WEIYUAN, an individual;
SHENZHEN YOUYUAN HUIPIN
ECOMMERCE CO., LTD., a Chinese
corporation; YANG TINGTING, an
individual; TAIZHOU QISHENG ECOMMERCE CO., LTD., a Chinese
corporation; HUANGSHAN, an individual;
TONGSHAN COUNTY SHANRUN
DEPARTMENT STORE, an unknown entity;
YAN WEN JIAN, an individual; GUIZHOU
YANMU TRADING CO., LTD., a Chinese
corporation; Individuals and/or Entities
Doing Business as Certain Amazon Selling
Accounts Identified in SCHEDULE 1; and
DOES 1-10,
24
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
I.
INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com
Services LLC (collectively, “Amazon”), and Therabody, Inc. (“Therabody”) (collectively,
ORDER - 1
1
“Plaintiffs”)’s Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery related to Defendants’ identities. Dkt.
2
#8. Defendants have not yet appeared in this matter. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
3
GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion.
4
5
6
7
II.
BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging trademark infringement, false
designation of origin, false advertising under the Lanham Act, violations of the Washington
8
Consumer Protection Act, and breach of contract. See, e.g., Dkt. #1. Plaintiffs’ claims all arise
9
from Defendants’ alleged operation of various seller accounts on Amazon’s online store to
10
11
12
unlawfully selling massage guns using the Therabody trademark. See Dkt. #1 at ¶¶ 2-6.
Although Plaintiffs have undergone an “extensive investigation” to determine the
13
identities of the Defendants, the Amazon seller accounts used by Defendants to sell the
14
counterfeit products either used addresses that do not exist, or the individuals associated with
15
those addresses do not match the name or descriptors provided by Defendants. Dkt. #8 at 2.
16
Despite reasonable efforts, Plaintiffs have been unable to locate certain Defendants. Id. at 4.
17
18
Through additional investigations, Plaintiffs determined that Defendants have used virtual bank
19
accounts associated with the payment service providers PingPong Global Solutions, Inc. and LL
20
Pay U.S., LLC. Id. at 5.
21
22
23
24
25
Based on these findings, Plaintiffs move for leave to serve Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 subpoenas
on PingPong Global Solutions, Inc. and LL Pay U.S., LLC. for purposes of obtaining information
to locate the names and whereabouts of Defendants and information about the location of
counterfeit goods and proceeds from their sale. Id.
26
27
28
ORDER - 2
III.
1
2
DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard
3
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) bars parties from seeking “discovery from any
4
source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding
5
6
7
exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by
stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). In determining whether to permit
8
expedited discovery, courts in this jurisdiction require that the moving party demonstrate that
9
“good cause” exists to deviate from the standard pretrial schedule. See Sovereign Bank v.
10
11
12
Terrence Scott Twyford, Jr., No. C11-1256RSM (W.D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2012) (adopting the
“good cause” standard for motions for expedited discovery); Renaud v. Gillick, 2007 WL 98465
13
(W.D. Wash. 2007) (finding that plaintiffs demonstrated good cause for expedited discovery);
14
see also Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002)
15
(applying “the conventional standard of good cause in evaluating Plaintiff’s request for expedited
16
discovery”). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration
17
18
of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, 208
19
F.R.D. at 276. The Ninth Circuit has emphasized that diligence and the intent of the moving
20
party are the sine qua non of good cause. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,
21
609 (9th Cir. 1992); Renaud, 2007 WL 984645, at *2.
22
23
24
B. Analysis
The Court begins by noting that the circumstances of this case are different from the
25
ordinary circumstances giving rise to motions for expedited discovery, such as a motion seeking
26
to identify an unknown Internet user that unlawfully accessed a plaintiff’s intellectual
27
property. Here, Plaintiff Amazon entered into a business relationship with the Defendants
28
ORDER - 3
1
despite not knowing their identities. Now, having found that choice imprudent, Amazon seeks
2
to better identify its contractual partners. As such, the Court struggles to conclude that Amazon
3
has been fully diligent in seeking to learn the identity of the Defendants. Amazon—perhaps by
4
design—elected not to seek additional verification of the Defendants’ identities at the time it
5
6
7
agreed to allow Defendants to market goods on its website. However, despite this glaring
omission, at least some of the Defendants actively misled Plaintiffs as to their identities. The
8
Court finds that Defendants should not be afforded the benefit of anonymity in furtherance of
9
their bad actions.
10
11
12
Having considered the balance of factors, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ intent in
seeking expedited discovery justifies their request. Courts routinely allow early discovery for
13
the limited purpose of identifying defendants on whom process could not otherwise be served.
14
See, e.g., Music Grp. Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd. v. John Does I-IX, No. 14-CV-621 RSM,
15
2014 WL 11010724, at *1–2 (W.D. Wash. July 18, 2014) (granting expedited discovery from
16
Twitter, Inc. sufficient to identify Doe defendants); The Thompsons Film, LLC. v. Does 1–194,
17
18
Case No. 2:13-cv-00560RSL (W.D. Wash. Apr. 1, 2013) (allowing early discovery from internet
19
service providers to identify Doe defendants); Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1–5698, 2011 WL
20
5362068 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (same); Cottrell v. Unknown Correctional Officers, 1–10, 230 F.3d
21
1366, *1 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require
22
23
24
that a district court dismiss unknown defendants simply because the plaintiff is unaware of the
identity of those defendants at the time of the filing of the complaint.”). “[W]here the identity of
25
the alleged defendant[ ][is] not [ ] known prior to the filing of a complaint[,] the plaintiff should
26
be given an opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear
27
that discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on
28
ORDER - 4
1
other grounds.” Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Gillespie
2
v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). And as Plaintiffs point out, the Court has granted
3
requests to issue subpoenas to payment service providers for financial records associated with
4
defendants’ selling accounts in cases with similar facts also involving Plaintiff Amazon, which
5
6
7
led to the identification of previously unknown defendants involved in the alleged schemes. See,
e.g., Amazon.com v. Yong, 2:21-cv-00170-RSM, Dkt. #15 (order granting motion for expedited
8
discovery to Payoneer); Dkt. #28 (amended complaint adding defendant identified through data
9
received in response to Payoneer subpoena); see also Amazon.com v. Dafang Haojiafu Hotpot
10
Store, 2:21-cv-0066-RSM, Dkt. #25 (order granting motion for expedited discovery).
11
Here, Plaintiffs seek expedited discovery to ascertain sufficient identifying information
12
13
about Defendants in order to effect service. Good cause exists where, as here, a plaintiff has
14
exhausted its means to identify the defendant through publicly-available information and has no
15
other way to identify the bad actors involved in the scheme. Facebook, Inc. v. Various, Inc.,
16
2011 WL 2437433, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“Courts in [the Ninth] Circuit permit expedited
17
18
discovery to identify unknown defendants usually when the plaintiff simultaneously can identify
19
no defendants and legitimately fears that information leading to their whereabouts faces
20
imminent destruction.”); see also Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 277 (granting expedited discovery
21
where narrowly tailored requests will “substantially contribute to moving this case forward”).
22
23
24
25
26
27
Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ declarations, it appears they have exhausted publicly available
means to trace specific names and addresses to the various Amazon seller accounts. See Dkt. #8
at 4-6.
Furthermore, the Court finds good cause for expedited discovery given Plaintiffs’ claims
that irreparable harm will result through Defendants’ continued use of their trademarks, unfair
28
ORDER - 5
1
competition and false advertising. Dkt. #1 at ¶¶ 51-86; Dkt. #8; Music Grp. Macao Commercial
2
Offshore Ltd., 2014 WL 11010724, at *2 (finding good cause where plaintiffs alleged irreparable
3
harm through infringement and unfair competition); see also Qwest Comm. Intl, Inc. v.
4
WorldQuest Networks, Inc., 213 F.R.D. 418, 419 (D. Co. 2003) (“The good cause standard may
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
be satisfied . . . where the moving party has asserted claims of infringement and unfair
competition.”). For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ intent in seeking expedited discovery supports a
finding of good cause.
Finally, the Court finds minimal prejudice to Defendants if Plaintiffs are granted leave to
conduct expedited discovery.
Plaintiffs’ discovery request is narrowly tailored to seek
information only from those accounts on virtual payment platforms associated with the Amazon
13
seller accounts for the purpose of identifying the individuals connected to those accounts. See
14
Dkt. #8 at 4-7. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have requested discovery directed at non-parties—not the
15
Defendants—which courts recognize as “not impos[ing] a significant burden upon defendants.”
16
Renaud, 2007 WL 98465, at *3. To the extent Plaintiffs discover new information warranting
17
18
19
additional Rule 45 subpoenas, they may file a supplemental motion for expedited discovery with
information supporting their requests.
20
21
22
23
24
IV.
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ Motion and the declarations filed in support thereof the Court
ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery, Dkt. #8, is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs are granted leave, prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on the
25
companies PingPong Global Solutions, Inc. and LL Pay U.S., LLC. for the purpose of obtaining
26
information that may identify Defendants. Plaintiffs shall provide a copy of this Order with each
27
subpoena issued pursuant thereto.
28
ORDER - 6
1
2
DATED this 22nd day of February, 2024.
3
A
4
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
6
7
8
9
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?