Weng v. Does 1-35

Background

On October 7, 2022, the Court denied Weijie Weng’s request for volunteer counsel but allowed him to renew the request later. Weng renewed it on January 19, 2023. His renewed filing referred to a submission by counsel for Zoetop Business Co., Ltd., Shein Distribution Corporation, and Roadget Business Pte. Ltd., which the opinion calls the “Shein Defendants.” Those defendants had asserted that Weng fraudulently registered designs that were co-authored by Lifei Zhou. Weng believed those statements were defamatory.

Weng submitted positive customer reviews in support of counsel. He also submitted documents that he said showed connections between the Shein Defendants’ business and the Chinese Communist Party, as well as a close relationship between Zhou and the Chinese Communist Party. The Court held that those alleged connections were not relevant to whether volunteer counsel should be appointed. The Court also ordered Weng to file the submissions on the public docket rather than under seal because they appeared to be publicly available materials and did not contain sensitive or private information particular to the case.

Reasoning

The Court explained that volunteer counsel should be appointed sparingly and with attention to the public benefit of preserving limited volunteer-lawyer time. Under the governing standard, the Court considered whether Weng’s claims appeared likely to have substance or had some chance of success.

The Court found that the Shein Defendants had presented evidence calling Weng’s copyright claims seriously into question. The defendants asserted that Zhou’s company had been contracted to provide ready-made finished goods containing the disputed designs and that the first-sale doctrine therefore provided a defense to Weng’s infringement claims. The opinion also stated that Zhou had testified that she created the designs and hired Weng to illustrate them. Weng’s best response was that his wife, who was his business partner, mistakenly listed Zhou as a joint author when registering the copyrights, even though Weng was the sole author. The Court found that Weng had not provided evidence establishing that he was the true sole author, so his copyright claims did not show the likelihood of success needed to appoint counsel.

The Court separately addressed Weng’s asserted defamation position. It stated that Weng had not formally asserted a defamation claim in this action. It further stated that, even if such a claim were properly before the Court, Weng’s likelihood of success appeared low because, under New York law, truth is a complete defense to a civil defamation action.

Rulings and effect

The Court denied Weng’s motion for appointment of volunteer counsel. It denied as moot Weng’s motion to proceed without prepaying fees, construing that motion as filed to show his financial status in support of the counsel request. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at ECF Nos. 59 and 60 and to unseal the submission at ECF No. 62. The opinion notes that Weng had paid the filing fees associated with the action on August 24, 2022.