Bishop v. Shein Distribution Corp.
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-01277
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Bishop v. Shein Distribution Corp., Judge Vyskocil ordered a discovery conference instead of ruling on Bishop’s proposed motion to compel.
The order affects plaintiff Shealeen Louise Bishop and defendant Shein Distribution Corp. by directing them to attend a conference about disputed discovery. It does not decide the copyright claim or the parties’ underlying defenses.
What happened
In Bishop v. Shein Distribution Corp., plaintiff Shealeen Louise Bishop sought discovery about her alleged copyright infringement claim against Shein Distribution Corp. The disputes concerned communications, document custodians and information systems, copyright-compliance materials, international sales, and responses to requests for admission.
Bishop asked the court to require Shein Distribution Corp. to provide additional information. Shein Distribution Corp. said it would supplement some responses and asked the court to deny the requests concerning international sales and treat the other disputes as not ready for resolution. The letter also described the parties’ differing positions about whether international-sales information was relevant.
The court did not decide the requested discovery disputes in this order. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil directed the parties to appear for a conference at 11:30 a.m. on a date in August 2023 that is unclear in the opinion text, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse.
The detailed version
- Bishop v. Shein Distribution Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-01277
- Vyskocil
- Aug. 1, 2023
Background
Plaintiff Shealeen Louise Bishop, represented by counsel, submitted a joint letter under the court’s discovery-conference rules concerning an anticipated motion to compel discovery. Bishop alleges that Shein Distribution Corp. mass-produced and sold unauthorized copies of her artwork. The scheduling order set September 7, 2023, as the fact-discovery deadline.
Bishop said Shein Distribution Corp. had produced 10 documents totaling 43 pages and had not searched for or produced communications responsive to several document requests. The parties had exchanged discovery responses, supplemental responses, and letters identifying alleged deficiencies. Shein Distribution Corp. agreed to supplement some responses in a letter dated August 1, 2023.
Discovery disputes
The proposed motion to compel involved five categories:
- Communications about the alleged infringement. Bishop sought communications concerning the original artwork, how it was found, copied, manufactured, displayed, or sold, and communications concerning Bishop and products bearing or resembling the artwork.
- Custodians and repositories. Bishop sought complete answers identifying people who possessed potentially responsive documents and the systems or repositories containing electronically stored information.
- Copyright-compliance documents. Bishop sought materials concerning policies and practices for avoiding counterfeit or infringing goods, compliance with intellectual-property laws, prior intellectual-property violations, and communications with journalists about intellectual property.
- International sales. Bishop sought sales information concerning allegedly infringing products sold in the United States and abroad. She argued that international-sales information was relevant to the means of infringement and her claim that the conduct was willful. Shein Distribution Corp. argued that it did not sell goods outside the United States, had certified that it made no sales of the accused product outside the United States, and that the requested information was not relevant to Bishop’s operative complaint.
- Requests for admission. Bishop challenged responses concerning whether she had authorized copying, reproduction, display, or sale of her work. She argued that the responses were evasive and that the related interrogatory response lacked diligence.
The opinion also records Shein Distribution Corp.’s position that “SHEIN” is a brand rather than a party or entity, and that Shein Distribution Corp. is the only named defendant to have appeared in the case at that point. The opinion text states that Bishop had added three new defendants in an amended complaint, but this order addresses discovery directed to Shein Distribution Corp.
Court’s action
The court directed the parties to appear for a conference at 11:30 a.m. on a date in August 2023 that is not legible in the provided opinion text, in Courtroom 18C of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse. The order did not grant or deny the anticipated motion to compel, decide the parties’ discovery disputes, or resolve the merits of Bishop’s copyright claim or Shein Distribution Corp.’s defenses.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.