National Products Inc v. Does 1-4, No. 2:2016cv00702 - Document 10 (W.D. Wash. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER granting plaintiff's 2 Ex Parte Motion for Expedited Discovery by Judge James L. Robart. (AD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
National Products Inc v. Does 1-4 Doc. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 NATIONAL PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, 11 13 DOES 1-4, Defendants. 14 15 16 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY v. 12 CASE NO. C16-0702JLR I. INTRODUCTION Before the court is Plaintiff National Products, Inc.’s (“NPI”) ex parte motion for 17 expedited discovery. (Mot. (Dkt. # 2).) The court has reviewed the motion, NPI’s 18 submissions in support of its motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the 19 applicable law. Being fully advised, the court GRANTS NPI’s motion. 20 21 II. BACKGROUND NPI is a Washington corporation based in Seattle that manufactures and sells 22 mounting systems and docking systems for cameras, tablet computers, mobile phones, ORDER- 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 and other mobile devices. (Compl. (Dkt. # 1) ¶¶ 2, 10.) One of NPI’s popular products is 2 a mobile phone docking system that mounts a mobile phone to the dashboard of an 3 automobile. (Id. ¶ 10.) NPI sells its mounting systems and docking systems under the 4 federally registered trademark Ram Mounts®. (Goggin Decl. (Dkt. # 3) ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) The 5 U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) registered the Ram Mounts® trademark on 6 November 7, 2006, listing NPI as the owner. (Id.) 7 NPI alleges that Defendants John Does 1-4 are Amazon sellers that have sold Ram 8 Mounts® products on Amazon.com. (Compl. ¶¶ 22-31; see also Goggin Decl. ¶¶ 5-8, 9 Exs. 4-7.) NPI further alleges that Defendants have each made false statements on 10 Amazon.com in association with their sales of these products, including: (a) falsely 11 claiming that Defendants are authorized resellers of Ram Mounts® products when they 12 have no relationship with NPI, and (b) falsely claiming that Ram Mounts® products are 13 imported from China when they are made in the United States. (Compl. ¶¶ 22-31.) NPI 14 also alleges that Defendants have removed the serial numbers from the Ram Mounts® 15 products they sell to thwart efforts to identify the products. (See Goggin Decl. ¶¶ 9, 17, 16 Exs. 8, 14.) 17 NPI alleges that John Does 1-4 have adopted fictitious names for their Amazon 18 Seller accounts that disguise their true identities. (Compl. ¶¶ 3-6.) John Doe 1 goes by 19 the name “Decan Tech.” (Goggin Ex. 4.) John Doe 2 sells on Amazon as “Mounts 20 Unlimited.” (Goggin Ex. 5.) John Doe 3 uses the name “Shoppers Haven.” (Goggin Ex. 21 6.) And John Doe 4 identifies itself on Amazon as “Daily Affordable.” (Goggin Ex. 7.) 22 ORDER- 2 1 NPI alleges that John Does 1-4 are not authorized resellers or authorized 2 distributors of Ram Mounts® products. (See Compl. ¶ 28.) On February 9, 2016, in an 3 effort to stop the infringing sales of John Does 1-4 and learn their true identities, NPI 4 filed an infringement complaint on Amazon.com. (Goggin Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 9.) NPI 5 asked that Amazon.com delist the Ram Mounts® product associated with John Does 1-4 6 and provide NPI with the true identities of John Does 1-4. (Id.) On February 10, 2016, 7 Amazon.com replied by email that it would not take any action against John Does 1-4. 8 (Goggin Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. 10.) 9 In addition to filing the complaint on Amazon.com’s website, on February 9, 10 2016, NPI’s counsel sent a letter to Amazon.com’s in-house counsel, Dana Brown 11 Northcott, explaining the factual and legal basis of NPI’s trademark infringement 12 complaints against John Does 1-4, and again asking that Amazon.com remove the 13 infringing listings and provide the true identities of John Does 1-4. (Goggin Decl. ¶ 12, 14 Ex. 11.) In the weeks and months that followed these initial complaints, NPI’s counsel 15 attempted without success, through phone calls and emails, to obtain the true identities of 16 John Does 1-4 from Amazon.com’s counsel. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 16 -17, 19; Exs. 12-21.) NPI has 17 still not obtained the information and Amazon.com’s counsel has not responded to NPI’s 18 most recent communications. (See id. ¶ 19, Exs. 18-21.) 19 III. ANALYSIS 20 A. Legal Standard 21 The court may authorize early discovery before the Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 26(f) conference for the parties’ and witnesses’ convenience and in the ORDER- 3 1 interests of justice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Courts within the Ninth Circuit generally 2 consider whether a plaintiff has shown “good cause” for such early discovery. See, e.g., 3 Yokohama Tire Corp. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 612, 613-14 (D. Ariz. 4 2001) (collecting cases and standards). When the identities of defendants are not known 5 before a complaint is filed, a plaintiff “should be given an opportunity through discovery 6 to identify the unknown defendants, unless it is clear that discovery would not uncover 7 the identities, or that the complaint would be dismissed on other grounds.” Gillespie v. 8 Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). In evaluating whether a plaintiff establishes 9 good cause to learn the identity of John Doe defendants through early discovery, courts 10 examine whether the plaintiff (1) identifies the John Doe defendant with sufficient 11 specificity that the Court can determine that the defendant is a real person who can be 12 sued in federal court, (2) recounts the steps taken to locate and identify the defendant, (3) 13 demonstrates that the action can withstand a motion to dismiss, and (4) proves that the 14 discovery is likely to lead to identifying information that will permit service of process. 15 Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573, 578-80 (N.D. Cal. 1999). 16 B. NPI Has Shown Good Cause to Engage in Early Discovery 17 Here, NPI established good cause to engage in early discovery to identify John 18 Does 1-4. First, NPI has identified John Does 1-4 with sufficient specificity to determine 19 that these defendants are real persons who can be sued in federal court. Specifically, NPI 20 has provided evidence to support its claims that John Does 1-4 are sellers on 21 Amazon.com using fictitious names to sell products that infringe upon NPI’s trademark. 22 (Goggin Decl. ¶¶ 5-10, 26, Exs. 4-9, 22.) Second, NPI has adequately described the steps ORDER- 4 1 it took in an effort to locate and identify John Does 1-4. Specifically, NPI repeatedly 2 contacted Amazon.com, explaining the legal basis for NPI’s claims and requesting that 3 Amazon.com identify John Does 1-4. (Id. ¶¶ 12-25, Exs. 11-21.) Third, NPI has pleaded 4 the essential elements to state a claim for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. 5 § 1114(1)(a) and false designation of origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). (See generally 6 Compl.) Fourth, the information proposed to be sought through a Federal Rule of Civil 7 Procedure 45 subpoena appears likely to lead to identifying information that will allow 8 NPI to accomplish service of process on John Does 1-4. Specifically, John Does 1-4 9 have contractual relationships with Amazon.com and are responsible for making 10 payments to Amazon.com associated with their sales on Amazon.com’s website. 11 (Goggin Decl. ¶¶ 5-8, 25, Ex. 4-7, 21.) In these circumstances, the court concludes that it 12 is likely that Amazon.com knows true names and addresses of John Does 1-4. 13 Taken together, the court finds that the foregoing factors demonstrate good cause 14 to grant NPI’s motion for leave to conduct limited expedited discovery. See Semitool, 15 Inc. v. Toyko Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273. 276 (N.D. Cal. 2002). Therefore, the 16 court will permit NPI to issue expedited discovery to Amazon.com limited to documents 17 and/or information that will allow NPI to determine the identities of John Does 1-4 in 18 order to accomplish service of process. 19 IV. 20 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis, the court GRANTS NPI’s ex parte motion for 21 expedited discovery (Dkt. # 2) and permits NPI to issue Rule 45 subpoenas to 22 // ORDER- 5 1 Amazon.com for the purpose of learning the true identities and locations of John Does 2 1-4 so that NPI may accomplish service of process upon these defendants. 3 Dated this 23rd day of May, 2016. 4 6 A 7 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER- 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
