Kid Car NY, LLC v. Kidmoto Technologies LLC
- P. Castel
- 1:19-cv-07929
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 19
In Kid Car NY v. Kidmoto Technologies, Judge Castel denied without prejudice a discovery application and stayed all discovery pending further court order.
Kid Car NY, LLC, Kidmoto Technologies LLC, and Nelson Nigel; the order pauses discovery in their case.
What happened
Kid Car NY, LLC sued Kidmoto Technologies LLC and Nelson Nigel, alleging trademark and copyright infringement and other claims. Kid Car said the defendants used “KID CAR” in advertisements and copied text from its app.
Kid Car asked the court to address the defendants’ objections to requests for documents about advertisements, advertising performance, app downloads, and financial information. The defendants objected that the requests were improper, overly broad, burdensome, confidential, or premature because they expected to seek judgment on the pleadings.
The court denied the application without prejudice and stayed all discovery until a further court order. The order was entered by Judge P. Kevin Castel on March 31, 2020.
The detailed version
- Kid Car NY, LLC v. Kidmoto Technologies LLC · No. 1:19-cv-07929
- P. Castel
- Mar. 31, 2020
Background
Kid Car NY, LLC brought claims against Kidmoto Technologies LLC and Nelson Nigel. According to Kid Car’s submission, the claims included unfair competition based primarily on alleged trademark infringement under state and federal law, copyright infringement, and several other claims. Kid Car alleged that the defendants used the “KID CAR” trademark in web-based advertisements and postings and copied nearly all of the text of Kid Car’s app for a reservation and dispatch system.
Discovery dispute
Kid Car served its first requests for production of documents on December 30, 2019. The requests sought, among other things, copies of advertisements and web postings, Google advertising reports showing impressions and clicks, app-download records, financial statements, and information about revenues and compensation related to Kidmoto rides involving Nelson Nigel. Kid Car said these materials were relevant to issues including alleged infringement, profits, and damages.
The defendants served responses on February 3, 2020. They asserted broad objections, including that discovery should wait for a planned motion for judgment on the pleadings, that some requests were irrelevant or overly broad, and that other requests sought confidential competitive information. The defendants agreed to provide documents concerning communications between the parties and stated that they would produce nonprivileged documents concerning revenues or compensation related to Kidmoto rides using Kid Car car seats. Kid Car withdrew Request No. 11.
Kid Car asked for a discovery conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and the court’s individual practices. Kid Car argued that a pending motion does not automatically stay discovery and that confidentiality concerns could be addressed through a protective order. The supplied text does not include a ruling resolving the individual document requests.
Ruling
On March 31, 2020, Judge P. Kevin Castel denied the application without prejudice. The court also ordered that all discovery be stayed pending a further order of the court. The order did not decide the parties’ trademark, copyright, or other underlying claims.
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.