Kate Spade LLC v. Vinci Brands LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-05409
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Kate Spade v. Vinci Brands, Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo granted Vinci’s motion to compel Himatsingka’s subpoena response and allow additional service.
Vinci Brands LLC received an order compelling non-party Himatsingka America, Inc. to respond to its document subpoena and permitting specified additional methods for serving the order. Himatsingka must produce responsive documents or show cause why it should not be held in contempt.
What happened
Kate Spade LLC v. Vinci Brands LLC concerns Vinci Brands LLC’s request involving a subpoena to non-party Himatsingka America, Inc. Vinci asked the court to require Himatsingka to produce documents and to permit service of the court’s order by certified mail and email.
The court found that Vinci properly served the subpoena on Himatsingka’s registered agent and that Himatsingka had not responded. The court ordered Himatsingka to produce all responsive documents within ten business days, no later than January 17, 2025, or explain why it should not be held in contempt. The court also allowed Vinci to use certified mail and email, but required Vinci to serve the order through Himatsingka’s registered agent as well.
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo granted Vinci’s letter motion. She concluded that Vinci had not shown traditional service was impracticable or that email alone would reasonably notify Himatsingka, while finding that service through the registered agent remained available.
The detailed version
- Kate Spade LLC v. Vinci Brands LLC · No. 1:23-cv-05409
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 2, 2025
Background
On December 23, 2024, Vinci Brands LLC filed a letter motion asking the court to: (1) require non-party Himatsingka America, Inc. to produce documents in response to a subpoena issued on November 8, 2024; and (2) allow Vinci to serve Himatsingka by alternative methods, including certified mail and email.
The court stated that Vinci served the subpoena on Himatsingka on November 11, 2024, by serving Himatsingka’s registered agent. Himatsingka is described in the opinion as a foreign business corporation in New York. Himatsingka had not responded to the subpoena, and fact discovery was nearing its deadline.
Ruling on the subpoena
The court granted Vinci’s request to compel a response. It directed Himatsingka to comply with the subpoena by producing all responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control no later than January 17, 2025. Alternatively, Himatsingka was directed to show cause why it should not be held in contempt for violating the court’s order.
The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, which permits service on a corporation under applicable state-law methods, and New York law, which permits service on an agent. The court found that Vinci had properly served Himatsingka’s registered agent.
Ruling on alternative service
The court did not find that Vinci had shown traditional service to be impracticable. It also found that Vinci had not established that email service would be reasonably calculated to notify Himatsingka. The opinion noted that Vinci had not explained where the proposed email address came from, whether it was Himatsingka’s only listed email address, or whether Vinci had successfully communicated with Himatsingka through that address. The opinion likewise stated that Vinci had provided only Himatsingka’s U.S. address for the proposed mailing.
Even so, the court permitted Vinci to serve Himatsingka by certified mail at the U.S. address and by email at the address provided in the motion. The court additionally required Vinci to serve a copy of the order on Himatsingka through its registered agent.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo granted Vinci’s letter motion. The order required Himatsingka to respond to the subpoena and authorized the specified additional service methods, while also requiring service through the registered agent.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.