Nordic Naturals, Inc. v. John Does 1-50

Background

Nordic Naturals, Inc. sued John Does 1-50, individually or as corporate or business entities. The complaint asserted trademark infringement, unfair competition, unfair and deceptive business practices, and related claims based on allegations that the defendants sold non-genuine products bearing Nordic Naturals’ trademarks online. Nordic Naturals identified six eBay storefronts allegedly involved: 1nfinit3, World_Nutritions, DEAL HUNTER, urbabydol71, emerald.city.sales, and 777Vitamins.

Nordic Naturals filed an ex parte motion asking for permission to serve eBay, Inc. with a subpoena before the parties’ required Rule 26(f) conference. The requested information was intended to identify the anonymous defendants. This was Nordic Naturals’ second motion seeking permission to take early discovery; the court had denied the first motion without prejudice because Nordic Naturals had not submitted supporting evidence required by the court’s local rule and the applicable legal standard.

Legal Standard

A court may authorize discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference when doing so would serve the parties’ and witnesses’ convenience and the interests of justice. The party seeking early discovery must show good cause—that the need for expedited discovery outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.

The court applied a four-factor test requiring Nordic Naturals to show that it had identified the missing party with enough specificity to establish that the party was a suable person or entity, described prior efforts to locate the party, showed that the lawsuit could withstand a motion to dismiss, and demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the discovery would produce information allowing service.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Nordic Naturals had not shown good cause for early discovery. Most importantly, Nordic Naturals had not demonstrated that the court likely had personal jurisdiction over any of the Doe defendants. Personal jurisdiction is the court’s authority to exercise power over a particular defendant.

The complaint alleged that the defendants had targeted California, established sufficient connections with the state, and advertised and sold products to California consumers through an interactive commercial website. But the motion did not directly address personal jurisdiction or cite legal authority explaining why those allegations were sufficient. The motion stated that the eBay seller 1nfinit3 appeared to have shipped an unidentified product from a California address, but Nordic Naturals did not provide authority supporting jurisdiction over that seller on that basis. It also did not describe contacts between the other five sellers and California.

Because Nordic Naturals did not satisfy the first factor of the early-discovery test, the court also found that it had not satisfied the third factor to the extent it failed to show that the case could withstand dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Doe defendants.

Disposition

The court denied Nordic Naturals’ ex parte motion for leave to serve a subpoena without prejudice. The order also stated that a joint case-management statement was due by January 31, 2024.