Minnetonka Moccasin Company, Inc. v. Does

Background

Minnetonka Moccasin Company, Inc. alleged that John Does 1–10 breached the company’s Authorized Reseller Program. According to the complaint, the program restricted authorized resellers from selling Minnetonka products to unauthorized resellers or on online marketplaces such as Amazon unless approved and subject to specified requirements.

Minnetonka alleged that it discovered unauthorized resellers selling its products on Amazon. DOEMA Inc., doing business as “The Lion Group,” allegedly told Minnetonka that it purchased the products from Minnetonka’s authorized resellers and had invoices supporting that claim. DOEMA allegedly refused to provide the invoices or identify the retail stores and suppliers involved.

Minnetonka sought permission to serve subpoenas on Amazon and DOEMA before the parties’ required conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). The proposed subpoenas sought records that Minnetonka said could identify the John Doe defendants and their sources of the products.

Legal Standard

The court explained that discovery generally cannot begin before the Rule 26(f) conference. Early discovery may be allowed when the requesting party shows “good cause”—meaning that the need for expedited discovery outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.

The court considered factors from two lines of decisions. These factors addressed, among other things, whether the discovery was limited and specific, whether it was needed to identify the defendants and advance the lawsuit, whether other ways existed to obtain the information, the burden on the parties, and any privacy interests.

Analysis

The court found that the factors supported early discovery. Minnetonka had alleged a prima facie breach-of-contract claim, meaning its allegations were sufficient at this stage to show a legally viable claim. The court summarized the required elements as contract formation, the plaintiff’s performance of any required conditions, a material breach, and damages.

The court found that Minnetonka’s proposed requests, with modifications, were sufficiently specific when they sought records identifying the sources of Minnetonka products, invoices submitted to Amazon, and the identities, addresses, and contact information of people or entities that sold Minnetonka products through DOEMA. Similar requests to DOEMA sought supplier information, related sales records and invoices, and invoices provided to Amazon showing product sources.

The court rejected Amazon’s proposed request for “all communications” between Amazon and DOEMA or anyone affiliated with DOEMA. That request was overly broad because it was not limited to communications about Minnetonka products or information that would identify the John Doe defendants.

The court also found that Minnetonka had no apparent alternative way to obtain the information, that the information was needed to move the case forward, and that the Doe defendants had little or no privacy interest under the circumstances. It concluded that the need for early discovery outweighed any prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted in part Minnetonka’s motion. It authorized Minnetonka to immediately serve Amazon with a subpoena seeking documents about DOEMA’s product sources and documents identifying individuals and entities that had sales of Minnetonka products through DOEMA from 2017 through the present.

The court also authorized Minnetonka to immediately serve DOEMA with a subpoena seeking documents about the people or entities from which DOEMA purchased or received Minnetonka products, related records identifying those entities and their contact information if available, and copies of invoices provided to Amazon showing the products’ sources.

The court denied in part the motion, barring Minnetonka from asking Amazon to produce all communications between Amazon and DOEMA or anyone affiliated with DOEMA. The order was signed by Tony N. Leung, United States Magistrate Judge.