Nike, Inc. v. Stockx LLC
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-00983
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Nike v. StockX, Judge Caproni referred Nike’s discovery dispute to a magistrate judge.
Nike, Inc. and StockX LLC, because the court referred their dispute over Nike’s document requests and StockX’s redactions to a magistrate judge.
What happened
Nike, Inc. v. StockX LLC concerns Nike’s request for documents about StockX’s planned initial public offering, investor communications, and Form S-1 filing.
Nike argued that these materials could relate to its claims about Nike-branded non-fungible tokens, alleged counterfeit goods, authentication practices, advertising, and damages. StockX objected and produced two heavily redacted shareholder letters but did not produce the Form S-1 or other requested materials.
Judge Valerie Caproni did not decide whether StockX had to produce the documents in this opinion. Instead, the court stated that it would refer the discovery dispute to a magistrate judge by a separate order.
The detailed version
- Nike, Inc. v. Stockx LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00983
- Valerie Caproni
- Sept. 12, 2022
Background
Nike filed a letter motion seeking to compel StockX to produce documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 146 through 149. The requests sought documents and communications about StockX’s planned initial public offering, its Form S-1 registration statement, references to StockX’s Vault non-fungible tokens, and references to this action in the Form S-1.
Nike’s action is described in the letter as involving allegations that StockX infringed and diluted Nike’s trademarks through Nike-branded non-fungible tokens, sold counterfeit goods represented as authentic, and made deceptive advertising claims about its verification process. Nike argued that StockX’s statements to investors could be relevant to liability, intent, defenses, authentication practices, alleged counterfeit sales, and damages.
Discovery Dispute
StockX objected that the requested initial-public-offering and Form S-1 materials were irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and disproportionate. During the parties’ discussions, StockX agreed only to produce responsive materials with information it considered unrelated to the infringing non-fungible tokens redacted. Nike disputed the propriety of those responsiveness redactions and proposed that any confidentiality concerns be addressed through the parties’ protective order.
StockX produced two heavily redacted shareholder letters but did not produce the Form S-1 or other documents and communications responsive to the requests. Nike argued that the letters contained information relevant not only to the non-fungible-token claims but also to StockX’s authentication processes, advertising claims, revenues, and profits.
Court Action
The opinion does not rule on whether StockX must produce the requested documents or remove the redactions. It states that, by a separate order entered the same day, the court will refer the discovery dispute to the magistrate judge. Judge Valerie Caproni therefore referred the discovery dispute rather than deciding the motion to compel in this opinion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.