Googly Eye Cru, LLC v. Fast Retailing et al.
- Victor Marrero
- 1:24-cv-03709
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Googly Eye Cru v. Fast Retailing, Judge Figueredo postponed a discovery conference and ordered a joint update on remaining disputes.
Googly Eye Cru, LLC, A.S.H.S. Limited, and the other parties to the case, who were directed to provide a joint status update about any remaining discovery disputes.
What happened
Googly Eye Cru, LLC v. Fast Retailing et al. concerns the plaintiff’s request for a conference before seeking an order requiring Defendant A.S.H.S. Limited to provide discovery.
The plaintiff said A.S.H.S. had not produced information about compensation, sales, products, and manufacturers or distributors, despite discussions between the parties. It asked the court to schedule a conference about these issues.
The court said a conference appeared premature based on the defendants’ representations and directed the parties to submit a joint status update by January 9 stating whether discovery disputes remained. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo.
The detailed version
- Googly Eye Cru, LLC v. Fast Retailing et al. · No. 1:24-cv-03709
- Victor Marrero
- Dec. 2, 2025
Background
Googly Eye Cru, LLC asked for a pre-motion conference concerning an anticipated motion to compel discovery from Defendant A.S.H.S. Limited, doing business as Anya Hindmarch. The request concerned discovery about products bearing the allegedly infringing “googly eye mark.”
Discovery Dispute
The plaintiff said A.S.H.S. had not produced documents or supplemental answers concerning revenues or compensation from sales or distribution of the allegedly infringing products. It also challenged A.S.H.S.’s responses to requests seeking product examples, sales information, and documents identifying manufacturers, distributors, retailers, or vendors. The plaintiff stated that the parties had met and conferred but had not resolved the disputes.
Court’s Action
Based on representations by the defendants in ECF Nos. 42 and 43, the court stated that scheduling a conference to address the issues raised in the plaintiff’s letter appeared premature. The court directed the parties to provide a joint status update by January 9 stating whether any discovery disputes remained outstanding. The order does not state that the court granted or denied the anticipated motion to compel.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.