Opinion
1:21-cv-01833
02-09-2022
THE NOCO COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. RECLAIMED ASSETS GROUP, LLC D/B/A RA Group, Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
[RESOLVING DOC. 8]
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
In this default judgment case, the Court determines that Plaintiff The NOCO Company (“NOCO”) has shown good cause to take early discovery from non-party Amazon.com, Inc (“Amazon”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion.
I. Background
Plaintiff NOCO is an Ohio company that designs, manufactures and sells battery-related products. Defendant Reclaimed Assets Group, LLC (“RA Group”), is a Michigan limited liability company.
Doc. 1 at 2.
Id.
NOCO sued RA Group, alleging the unauthorized sale and willful infringement of NOCO's intellectual property. In particular, NOCO says that RA Group is selling NOCO products on Amazon without NOCO's authorization or consent.
Id. at 1. The complaint brings six counts, including federal trademark infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114) and trademark dilution (15 U.S.C. § 1125).
Id. at 4.
Defendant has not responded to Plaintiff's complaint. On November 15, 2021, the Clerk entered default against Defendant.
Doc. 7.
II. Discussion
In general, a party may not start discovery before the parties' Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f) meeting. However, courts have interpreted Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 to allow for early discovery when the moving party shows good cause.
Obeidallah v. Anglin, No. 2:17-cv-720, 2018 WL 8415412, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 20, 2018).
As other courts in this district have ruled, “Good cause is often found in cases alleging infringement and unfair competition.” “In addition, courts have allowed limited, expedited discovery when failing to do so would substantially impact the case from progressing on the court's docket.”
Noco Co., Inc. v. Zhejiang Quingyou Elec. Com. Co., No. 1:20-cv-1170, 2021 WL 4714657, at *2 (N.D. Ohio June 21, 2021) (citing N. Atl. Operating Co., Inc. v. JingJing Huang, 194 F.Supp.3d 634, 637 (E.D. Mich. 2016)).
Id. at *3.
The Court finds that NOCO meets the good cause standard. NOCO's damages claim depends, in part, on RA Group's Amazon sales. Because Defendant has failed to appear, NOCO is unable to take ordinary discovery directly from Defendant and must now seek the relevant information from third-party Amazon.
Doc. 8 at 6 (citing U.S.C. §1117(a) and 15 U.S.C. §1125(c)).
The Court emphasizes that the discovery NOCO seeks from Amazon is limited. As NOCO says in its motion: “The sole purpose of this discovery is to obtain evidence that will allow NOCO to substantiate the extent of its damages in a motion for default judgment that NOCO intends to file.” Specifically, NOCO seeks the relevant Amazon “Merchant ID” and “ASIN”-related figures.
Doc. 8 at 8.
Id. at 8-9.
Lastly, to the extent that Amazon believes that NOCO's subpoenas are objectionable, it may file a Fed.R.Civ.P. 45 motion. To ensure that Amazon is fully aware of the instant proceedings, NOCO is directed to serve a copy of this Order on
Amazon along with its subpoenas.
III. Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff NOCO's motion for leave to seek limited discovery upon non-party Amazon.
IT IS SO ORDERED.