Amazon.com Inc v. Yong

Opinion

1 The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; Lead Consolidated Case No. 10 and SALVATORE FERRAGAMO S.P.A., an 2:21-cv-00170-RSM Italian corporation, 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v.

13 LI YONG, an individual d/b/a PHIL BALDINIE; YANTAITIANMINGWANGLUOKEJIYOUXI 14 ANGONGSI, a Chinese entity d/b/a PHIL BALDINIE; WU PIANPIAN, an individual d/b/a 15 HEFEI YANZI TRADING COMPANY; HEFEIZANZISHANGMAOYOUXIANGONGS 16 I, a Chinese entity d/b/a HEFEI YANZI TRADING COMPANY; and DOES 1-10, 17 Defendants. 18 AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; Member Consolidated Case: 19 and SALVATORE FERRAGAMO S.P.A., an 2:21-cv-00171-RSM Italian corporation, 20 Plaintiffs, 21 v.

22 ZHAO HAO JUN, an individual d/b/a ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ ZHAOHA032OJUN; ZHANG LIANFA, an SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR 23 individual d/b/a EXPEDITED DISCOVERY IN YONG CANGZHOUSHUOFENGDIANZIKEJIZZX; CASE 24 CANGZHOUSHUOFENGDIANZIKEJIYOUXI ANGONGSI, a Chinese entity; GUOXIN DAI, 25 an individual; and DOES 1-10,

26 Defendants.

27 I. INTRODUCTION 1 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) and Salvatore 2 Ferragamo S.p.A. (“Ferragamo”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)’s Supplemental Motion for 3 Expedited Discovery in Yong Case. Dkt. # 32. Defendants have not yet appeared in this matter. 4 For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. 5 On February 11, 2021, Plaintiffs filed two actions, which have been consolidated in this 6 case: Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. Yong, et al. (“Yong”), and Amazon.com, Inc., et al. v. Jun, et al. 7 (“Jun”). Plaintiffs initiated the Yong action against Defendants Li Yong and 8 Yantaitianmingwangluokejiyouxiangongsi, doing business as Phil Baldinie; Wu Pianpian, doing 9 business as Hefei Yanzi Trading Company; Hefeizanzishangmaoyouxiangongsi, doing business 10 as Hefei Yanzi Trading Company; and DOES 1-10 (collectively, “Yong Defendants”) alleging 11 trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and false advertising under the Lanham Act 12 and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Dkt. #1. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the Yong 13 Defendants’ alleged operation of various seller accounts on Amazon’s online store to unlawfully 14 advertise and sell counterfeit belts using the Ferragamo trademark. Id. at ¶¶ 49–76. 15 On March 31, 2021, Plaintiffs in both the Yong and Jun cases filed motions for expedited 16 discovery. Dkt. #12. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motions in both cases. Dkt. #15. In Yong, 17 the Court granted Plaintiffs leave, prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, to serve Rule 45 subpoenas 18 on five companies including Payoneer, a virtual payment processor that facilitates payments into 19 U.S. bank accounts for transfer to overseas accounts, for the purpose of obtaining information to 20 identify the Defendants. Id. At the time of their initial motion, Plaintiffs believed that the Yong 21 Defendants were clients of Payoneer. Dkt. #13 at ¶ 6. 22 Plaintiffs maintain that they are still unable to locate the current whereabouts of the Yong 23 Defendants or determine the full scope of their counterfeiting scheme. Dkt. 33 ¶ 2. Based on 24 the initial discovery Plaintiffs received and Amazon’s further investigation, Plaintiffs have now 25 determined that the Yong Defendants were not using Payoneer as their payment service provider 26 and that they actually registered virtual bank accounts administered by a different virtual payment 27 1 service provider, PingPong Global Solutions, Inc. (“PingPong”). See Dkt. #34 ¶ 5. For that 2 reason, Plaintiffs now move for leave to serve a subpoena on Ping Pong, for purposes of obtaining 3 information to identify the Yong Defendants, locating the current whereabouts of known and 4 unknown Defendants, and obtaining key information about the location of counterfeit goods and 5 proceeds from their sale. Dkt. #32; Dkt. #33 ¶ 3. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 A. Motion for Expedited Discovery 8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) bars parties from seeking “discovery from any 9 source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding 10 exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by 11 stipulation, or by court order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1). In determining whether to permit 12 expedited discovery, courts in this jurisdiction require that the moving party demonstrate that 13 “good cause” exists to deviate from the standard pretrial schedule. See Sovereign Bank v. 14 Terrence Scott Twyford, Jr., No. C11-1256RSM (W.D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2012) (adopting the 15 “good cause” standard for motions for expedited discovery); Renaud v. Gillick, 2007 WL 98465 16 (W.D. Wash. 2007) (finding that plaintiffs demonstrated good cause for expedited discovery); 17 see also Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002) 18 (applying “the conventional standard of good cause in evaluating plaintiff’s request for expedited 19 discovery”). “Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration 20 of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.” Semitool, 208 21 F.R.D. at 276. The Ninth Circuit has emphasized that diligence and the intent of the moving 22 party are the sine qua non of good cause. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 23 609 (9th Cir. 1992); Renaud, 2007 WL 984645, at *2. 24 The Court previously found good cause for expedited discovery in this matter where 25 Plaintiffs exercised diligence in attempting to identify the Yong Defendants through publicly 26 available information and sought the discovery to identify the Yong Defendants. Dkt. # 15 at 5. 27 For the same reasons, the Court finds good cause for expedited discovery on Ping Pong. Here, 1 Plaintiffs have exercised diligence in attempting to identify the Yong Defendants, and their intent 2 in seeking expedited discovery to identify these defendants justifies their request. The Court 3 likewise finds minimal prejudice to Defendants if Plaintiffs are granted leave to conduct 4 expedited discovery. Their discovery is narrowly tailored to seek information only from the 5 virtual payment service provider associated with the bank accounts linked to the Yong 6 Defendants’ alleged counterfeiting activities. Dkt. # 33 ¶ 3. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have 7 requested discovery directed at non-parties—not Defendants—which courts recognize as “not 8 impos[ing] a significant burden upon defendants.” Renaud, 2007 WL 98465, at *3. 9 Accordingly, the Court finds sufficient good cause to grant expedited discovery as to Ping 10 Pong. 11 III. CONCLUSION 12 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Motion for 13 Expedited Discovery in Yong Case, Dkt. #32. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS: 14 (1) Plaintiffs are granted leave, prior to the Rule 26(f) conference, to serve a Rule 45 15 subpoena on Ping Pong, solely for the purpose of obtaining information that help identify the 16 Yong Defendants. 17 (2) Plaintiffs shall provide a copy of this Order with each subpoena issued pursuant 18 thereto. 19 DATED this 2nd day of June, 2022. 20 21 A 22 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 23 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25

26 27