FurnitureDealer.net, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Background

FurnitureDealer.net, Inc. brought a copyright-infringement case against Amazon.com, Inc. and COA, Inc., doing business as Coaster Company of America. FurnitureDealer.net alleged that the defendants copied its product descriptions and distributed them on Amazon detail pages for Coaster products.

During discovery, FurnitureDealer.net served Amazon with an interrogatory asking it to identify descriptive text used for Coaster products, the source of the text, how it was added, when it was used, and documents or communications concerning that information. Amazon provided appendices containing product descriptions that could have appeared, upload dates, information about the sources of the text to the extent known, and information about how descriptions could be selected for display.

FurnitureDealer.net later sought to compel Amazon to supplement its response by affirming that the produced descriptions actually appeared on customer-facing product pages. On November 13, 2020, the magistrate judge denied the motion to compel. The magistrate judge found that Amazon did not have the requested answer, did not maintain it in the ordinary course of business, had provided the responsive information it possessed, and had met its obligations under Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

District Court Review

The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s order under a highly deferential standard. It could reverse only if the order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court noted that FurnitureDealer.net largely repeated the facts and arguments presented to the magistrate judge without identifying a specific mistake.

Rule 33(d) allows a party to answer an interrogatory by identifying business records when the answer can be determined from those records and the burden of finding the answer is substantially the same for both parties. The rule requires the responding party to identify the records well enough for the requesting party to locate and identify them, but it does not require a sworn affirmation or a direct written answer. A request that another party admit a factual matter, such as whether particular descriptions were actually used, may instead be made under Rule 36.

The court concluded that Amazon had provided the descriptions that could have appeared, as well as the algorithm that would have determined which description was shown. Based on the information described in the opinion, Amazon could not provide a precise account of whether a particular description was actually used. The court found that both parties were similarly positioned to determine the answer from the available information and that Amazon had satisfied Rule 33(d).

Ruling and Disposition

Chief Judge John R. Tunheim held that the magistrate judge did not clearly err in denying FurnitureDealer.net’s motion to compel. The court therefore denied FurnitureDealer.net’s appeal and affirmed the magistrate judge’s November 13, 2020 order denying the motion to compel Amazon to supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 2.

The court separately ordered the parties to show cause within seven days why the order should not be unsealed and to identify any portion that warranted redaction. The opinion contains redacted material, so some details about the information Amazon could or could not provide are not available in the text.