Lashify v. Qingdao Network Technology Co.
Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd. a/k/a Qingdao Follow The Trend Network Technology Co., Ltd. a/k/a Qingdao Mars Culture Media Co., Ltd. d/b/a UCoolMe and Vivicute Limited
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-04183
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lashify v. Qingdao, Judge Liman granted an evidentiary hearing and oral argument, but denied postponement and denied without prejudice telephone testimony.
Lashify and the named defendants, because the order sets procedures and timing for the pending contempt and preliminary-injunction motions.
What happened
Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd. concerns Plaintiff Lashify’s request to hold Defendants in contempt for allegedly violating a preliminary injunction and Defendants’ request to cancel that injunction.
Lashify asked for an evidentiary hearing and permission for one witness to testify by telephone. Defendants requested oral argument on their request to cancel the injunction and asked that the court decide that request before holding the contempt hearing.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the evidentiary hearing and the request for oral argument. He denied the request to postpone the contempt hearing, denied without prejudice Lashify’s request for telephone testimony, and scheduled the hearing for October 23, 2025.
The detailed version
- Lashify v. Qingdao Network Technology Co. · No. 1:25-cv-04183
- Lewis Liman
- Oct. 6, 2025
Background
Lashify moved for an order holding the defendants in contempt, meaning requiring the defendants to answer for an alleged violation of a court order. Lashify also asked the court to require the defendants to post a bond because of their alleged failure to comply with a preliminary injunction. The defendants moved to vacate, or cancel, the preliminary injunction.
Lashify said it was prepared to present evidence at a contempt hearing and asked to present one witness by telephone. The defendants requested oral argument on their motion to vacate and said their expert witness could testify in person. They also asked the court to hold argument on the motion to vacate before the contempt hearing.
Court’s Rulings
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion for an evidentiary hearing on contempt and granted the request for oral argument on the motion to vacate the preliminary injunction. The court explained that the Federal Rules of Evidence apply to contempt proceedings unless the court may act summarily, while those rules do not apply to a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction. The parties therefore must present live testimony from witnesses concerning contempt. Witnesses do not need to testify concerning the motion to vacate, although the court would allow cross-examination of the defendants’ expert if Lashify wanted to conduct it.
The court denied the defendants’ request to postpone the contempt hearing until after a ruling on the motion to vacate. It denied without prejudice Lashify’s request to present testimony by telephone. The court said that any future request for remote evidence must either show good cause in compelling circumstances or be made by a motion on consent.
The court scheduled the hearing for October 23, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 15C of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse. The parties were directed to meet and confer about whether Lashify’s expert testimony was needed and to file letters by October 17 identifying the witnesses they would present. This order addressed hearing procedures and scheduling; it did not decide whether the defendants were in contempt or whether the preliminary injunction should be vacated.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.