1 2 3 4
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 AMAZON.COM INC., et al., 9 Plaintiffs, Case No. C22-1019-RSL-MLP 10 v. ORDER 11 ABEYTUBE, et al., 12 Defendants. 13
14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Amazon.com Inc., Amazon.com 16 Services LLC, and 3M Company (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Ex Parte Motion for Expedited 17 Discovery (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”). (Pls.’ Mot. (dkt. # 15).) Defendants have not yet appeared in 18 this matter. Having now reviewed Plaintiffs’ briefing, the governing law, and the balance of the 19 record, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion. 20 II. BACKGROUND 21 On July 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the three actions later consolidated under this case 22 number. (Dkt. ## 1, 8.) In their consolidated complaint, Plaintiffs allege claims against entities 23 doing business as 61 different Amazon Seller Accounts (“Defendants”) arising from Defendants’ 1 alleged advertisement and sale of counterfeit stethoscopes using 3M Company’s trademark. 2 (Consol. Compl. (dkt. # 12) at 12, ¶ 33; id. at 20-42.) 3M Company alleges claims for trademark 3 infringement and false designation of origin and false advertising against all defendants. (Id. at 4 13-16, ¶¶ 39-54.) Amazon alleges claims for false designation of origin and false advertising
5 against all defendants. (Id. at 16-17, ¶¶ 55-61.) Plaintiffs together allege claims for violation of 6 the Washington Consumer Protection Act. (Id. at 17, ¶¶ 62-66.) 7 In unsuccessful efforts to determine Defendants’ identities, Plaintiffs have utilized 8 “private outside investigators and external sources of information”; “information Defendants 9 provided to Amazon when creating their Amazon selling accounts”; and public records. 10 (Commerson Decl. (dkt. # 16) at ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs have, however, determined that Defendants 11 responsible for 44 Amazon Seller Accounts “registered virtual bank accounts with the payment 12 service provider Payoneer Inc.,” Defendants responsible for four Amazon Seller Accounts 13 “registered bank accounts with Citibank,” and Defendants responsible for 13 Amazon Seller 14 Accounts “registered bank accounts with Wells Fargo, N.A.,” all of which accounts were “used
15 to transfer funds to and from” Defendants’ Amazon Seller Accounts. (Haskel Decl. (dkt. # 17) at 16 ¶¶ 12-14.) In addition, Defendants responsible for 20 Amazon Seller Accounts provided Amazon 17 with email addresses operated by Microsoft Corporation, Yahoo Inc., or Verizon Media – Oath. 18 (Id. at ¶¶ 15-18; Commerson Decl. at ¶¶ 9.) 19 Based on these findings, Plaintiffs move for leave to serve third-party subpoenas under 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, on Payoneer Inc., 21 Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Microsoft Corporation, Yahoo Inc., and Verizon Media 22 – Oath, in order to “uncover the true identities and locations of Defendants and other bad actors 23 involved in their counterfeiting scheme.” (Pls.’ Mot. at 6.) 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 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 exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by 6 stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). In determining whether to permit 7 expedited discovery, courts in this jurisdiction require that the moving party demonstrate that 8 “good cause” exists to deviate from the standard pretrial schedule. See Amazon.com, Inc. v. 9 Yong, 2021 WL 1237863, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 2, 2021) (adopting the “good cause” standard 10 for motions for expedited discovery and finding that plaintiffs demonstrated good cause for 11 expedited discovery); see also Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 12 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (applying “the conventional standard of good cause in evaluating Plaintiff’s 13 request for expedited discovery”). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited 14 discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the
15 responding party.” Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276. The Ninth Circuit has emphasized that diligence 16 and the intent of the moving party are the focus of the inquiry into good cause. Johnson v. 17 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 18 B. Good Cause for Expedited Discovery 19 The Court notes that Defendants appear to have actively misled the Amazon Plaintiffs as 20 to their identities. The Court finds that Defendants should not be afforded the benefit of 21 anonymity in furtherance of their alleged counterfeiting scheme. Plaintiffs have shown diligence 22 in utilizing available means to investigate Defendants’ identities and locations. 23 1 Having considered the balance of factors, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ intent in 2 seeking expedited discovery justifies their request. Courts routinely allow early discovery for the 3 limited purpose of identifying defendants on whom process could not otherwise be served. See, 4 e.g., Music Grp. Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd. v. John Does I-IX, 2014 WL 11010724, at
5 *1-2 (W.D. Wash. July 18, 2014) (granting expedited discovery from Twitter, Inc. sufficient to 6 identify Doe defendants); Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1–5698, 2011 WL 5362068, at *1-2 (N.D. 7 Cal. 2011) (allowing early discovery from internet service providers to identify Doe defendants); 8 see also Cottrell v. Unknown Correctional Officers, 1-10, 230 F.3d 1366, *1 (9th Cir. 2000) 9 (explaining that “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require that a district court 10 dismiss unknown defendants simply because the plaintiff is unaware of the identity of those 11 defendants at the time of the filing of the complaint.”). “Where the identity of the alleged 12 defendant is not known prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff should be given an 13 opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that 14 discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other
15 grounds.” Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (cleaned up) (quoting 16 Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). 17 Here, Plaintiffs seek expedited discovery to ascertain sufficient identifying information 18 about Defendants to effect service. Good cause exists where a plaintiff has exhausted its means 19 to identify the defendant through publicly available information and has no other way to identify 20 the bad actors involved in the scheme. Facebook, Inc. v. Various, Inc., 2011 WL 2437433, at *3 21 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“Courts in [the Ninth] Circuit permit expedited discovery to identify unknown 22 defendants usually when the plaintiff simultaneously can identify no defendants and legitimately 23 fears that information leading to their whereabouts faces imminent destruction.”); see also 1 Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 277 (granting expedited discovery where narrowly tailored requests will 2 “substantially contribute to moving this case forward”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 AMAZON.COM INC., et al., 9 Plaintiffs, Case No. C22-1019-RSL-MLP 10 v. ORDER 11 ABEYTUBE, et al., 12 Defendants. 13
14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Amazon.com Inc., Amazon.com 16 Services LLC, and 3M Company (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Ex Parte Motion for Expedited 17 Discovery (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”). (Pls.’ Mot. (dkt. # 15).) Defendants have not yet appeared in 18 this matter. Having now reviewed Plaintiffs’ briefing, the governing law, and the balance of the 19 record, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion. 20 II. BACKGROUND 21 On July 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the three actions later consolidated under this case 22 number. (Dkt. ## 1, 8.) In their consolidated complaint, Plaintiffs allege claims against entities 23 doing business as 61 different Amazon Seller Accounts (“Defendants”) arising from Defendants’ 1 alleged advertisement and sale of counterfeit stethoscopes using 3M Company’s trademark. 2 (Consol. Compl. (dkt. # 12) at 12, ¶ 33; id. at 20-42.) 3M Company alleges claims for trademark 3 infringement and false designation of origin and false advertising against all defendants. (Id. at 4 13-16, ¶¶ 39-54.) Amazon alleges claims for false designation of origin and false advertising
5 against all defendants. (Id. at 16-17, ¶¶ 55-61.) Plaintiffs together allege claims for violation of 6 the Washington Consumer Protection Act. (Id. at 17, ¶¶ 62-66.) 7 In unsuccessful efforts to determine Defendants’ identities, Plaintiffs have utilized 8 “private outside investigators and external sources of information”; “information Defendants 9 provided to Amazon when creating their Amazon selling accounts”; and public records. 10 (Commerson Decl. (dkt. # 16) at ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs have, however, determined that Defendants 11 responsible for 44 Amazon Seller Accounts “registered virtual bank accounts with the payment 12 service provider Payoneer Inc.,” Defendants responsible for four Amazon Seller Accounts 13 “registered bank accounts with Citibank,” and Defendants responsible for 13 Amazon Seller 14 Accounts “registered bank accounts with Wells Fargo, N.A.,” all of which accounts were “used
15 to transfer funds to and from” Defendants’ Amazon Seller Accounts. (Haskel Decl. (dkt. # 17) at 16 ¶¶ 12-14.) In addition, Defendants responsible for 20 Amazon Seller Accounts provided Amazon 17 with email addresses operated by Microsoft Corporation, Yahoo Inc., or Verizon Media – Oath. 18 (Id. at ¶¶ 15-18; Commerson Decl. at ¶¶ 9.) 19 Based on these findings, Plaintiffs move for leave to serve third-party subpoenas under 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, on Payoneer Inc., 21 Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Microsoft Corporation, Yahoo Inc., and Verizon Media 22 – Oath, in order to “uncover the true identities and locations of Defendants and other bad actors 23 involved in their counterfeiting scheme.” (Pls.’ Mot. at 6.) 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 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 exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by 6 stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). In determining whether to permit 7 expedited discovery, courts in this jurisdiction require that the moving party demonstrate that 8 “good cause” exists to deviate from the standard pretrial schedule. See Amazon.com, Inc. v. 9 Yong, 2021 WL 1237863, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 2, 2021) (adopting the “good cause” standard 10 for motions for expedited discovery and finding that plaintiffs demonstrated good cause for 11 expedited discovery); see also Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 12 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (applying “the conventional standard of good cause in evaluating Plaintiff’s 13 request for expedited discovery”). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited 14 discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the
15 responding party.” Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276. The Ninth Circuit has emphasized that diligence 16 and the intent of the moving party are the focus of the inquiry into good cause. Johnson v. 17 Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 18 B. Good Cause for Expedited Discovery 19 The Court notes that Defendants appear to have actively misled the Amazon Plaintiffs as 20 to their identities. The Court finds that Defendants should not be afforded the benefit of 21 anonymity in furtherance of their alleged counterfeiting scheme. Plaintiffs have shown diligence 22 in utilizing available means to investigate Defendants’ identities and locations. 23 1 Having considered the balance of factors, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ intent in 2 seeking expedited discovery justifies their request. Courts routinely allow early discovery for the 3 limited purpose of identifying defendants on whom process could not otherwise be served. See, 4 e.g., Music Grp. Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd. v. John Does I-IX, 2014 WL 11010724, at
5 *1-2 (W.D. Wash. July 18, 2014) (granting expedited discovery from Twitter, Inc. sufficient to 6 identify Doe defendants); Digital Sin, Inc. v. Does 1–5698, 2011 WL 5362068, at *1-2 (N.D. 7 Cal. 2011) (allowing early discovery from internet service providers to identify Doe defendants); 8 see also Cottrell v. Unknown Correctional Officers, 1-10, 230 F.3d 1366, *1 (9th Cir. 2000) 9 (explaining that “[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require that a district court 10 dismiss unknown defendants simply because the plaintiff is unaware of the identity of those 11 defendants at the time of the filing of the complaint.”). “Where the identity of the alleged 12 defendant is not known prior to the filing of a complaint, the plaintiff should be given an 13 opportunity through discovery to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that 14 discovery would not uncover the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other
15 grounds.” Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999) (cleaned up) (quoting 16 Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). 17 Here, Plaintiffs seek expedited discovery to ascertain sufficient identifying information 18 about Defendants to effect service. Good cause exists where a plaintiff has exhausted its means 19 to identify the defendant through publicly available information and has no other way to identify 20 the bad actors involved in the scheme. Facebook, Inc. v. Various, Inc., 2011 WL 2437433, at *3 21 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“Courts in [the Ninth] Circuit permit expedited discovery to identify unknown 22 defendants usually when the plaintiff simultaneously can identify no defendants and legitimately 23 fears that information leading to their whereabouts faces imminent destruction.”); see also 1 Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 277 (granting expedited discovery where narrowly tailored requests will 2 “substantially contribute to moving this case forward”). Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ declarations, 3 it appears they have exhausted available means to trace specific names and addresses to the 4 various Amazon Selling Accounts. (See Commerson Decl. at ¶¶ 4-5; Haskel Decl. at ¶¶ 8-11.)
5 Consequently, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that without expedited discovery, they will not be 6 able to identify the individuals behind the accounts. 7 Furthermore, the Court finds good cause for expedited discovery given Plaintiffs’ claims 8 that irreparable harm will result through Defendants’ continued use of their trademarks, unfair 9 competition, and false advertising (Consol. Compl. at ¶¶ 45, 53, 60.) See Music Grp. Macao, 10 2014 WL 11010724 at *2 (finding good cause where plaintiffs alleged irreparable harm through 11 infringement and unfair competition); see also Qwest Comm. Int’l, Inc. v. WorldQuest Networks, 12 Inc., 213 F.R.D. 418, 419 (D. Co. 2003) (“The good cause standard may be satisfied . . . where 13 the moving party has asserted claims of infringement and unfair competition.”). For these 14 reasons, Plaintiffs’ intent in seeking expedited discovery supports a finding of good cause.
15 Finally, the Court finds minimal prejudice to Defendants if Plaintiffs are granted leave to 16 conduct expedited discovery. Plaintiffs’ discovery request is narrowly tailored to seek 17 information only from those bank and email accounts associated with the Amazon Selling 18 Accounts for the purpose of identifying the individuals connected to those accounts. (See Pls.’ 19 Mot. at 11.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs have requested discovery directed at non-parties—not the 20 Defendants—which courts recognize as “not imposing a significant burden upon defendants.” 21 Yong, 2021 WL 1237863 at *3. 22 IV. CONCLUSION 23 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS: 1 (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion (dkt. # 15) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are granted leave, prior to 2 the Rule 26(f) conference, to serve Rule 45 subpoenas on the following companies for the 3 purpose of obtaining information that may identify Defendants: 4 (a) Payoneer Inc.
5 (b) Citigroup Inc. 6 (c) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A 7 (d) Microsoft Corporation 8 (e) Yahoo Inc. 9 (f) Verizon Media – Oath 10 (2) Plaintiffs shall provide a copy of this Order with each subpoena issued pursuant 11 thereto. 12 Dated this 14th day of March, 2023. 13 A 14 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23