Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc.
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-00771
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Nike v. lululemon, Judge Subramanian ordered a response and conference on Nike’s request to block Andy Caine’s deposition, without deciding the request.
Nike, Inc. and lululemon usa, inc.; the order specifically concerns lululemon’s proposed deposition of Andy Caine, a Nike executive.
What happened
In Nike, Inc. v. lululemon usa, inc., Nike asked the court to prevent lululemon from deposing Andy Caine, a senior Nike executive. Nike said Caine had no personal or unique knowledge relevant to the case.
Nike said lululemon refused to explain why it wanted Caine’s testimony and said the testimony was not related to Flyknit, the Nike technology involved in Nike’s asserted patents. Caine’s sworn declaration stated that he did not believe he participated in the events at issue or had unique knowledge of relevant facts.
Judge Arun Subramanian ordered lululemon to file a response explaining the reasons for the deposition by March 18, 2024, and scheduled a conference on Nike’s motion for March 19, 2024. The court did not decide the request for a protective order in this letter.
The detailed version
- Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00771
- Subramanian
- Mar. 15, 2024
Background
Nike filed a letter motion asking for a protective order preventing lululemon from deposing Andy Caine. The opinion identifies Caine as Nike’s Vice President of Central Footwear Design Excellence and a senior Nike executive. Lululemon had noticed Caine’s deposition on March 4, 2024.
Nike told lululemon during a March 11 meet-and-confer that, to the best of Nike’s knowledge, Caine did not have unique personal knowledge relevant to the action. Nike asked lululemon to explain the basis for seeking the deposition. According to Nike, lululemon’s counsel said the requested testimony was not related to Flyknit, the Nike technology to which Nike’s asserted patents relate. Lululemon later told Nike that it would not disclose its litigation strategy concerning the reasons for Caine’s deposition.
Legal standard
The court stated that it disfavors depositions of senior executives who lack personal knowledge of relevant facts or unique knowledge relevant to the action. It explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 permits the court to prevent discovery that is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative when its burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit. Under the decisions cited by the court, a party seeking to stop a deposition of a senior official must show that the proposed witness lacks personal knowledge and unique knowledge of relevant facts.
Nike’s evidence and requested relief
Nike submitted a declaration from Caine. Caine stated that, based on his understanding of the issues, he did not believe he participated in any events at issue and did not have unique knowledge of pertinent facts. Nike argued that lululemon had failed, and had refused, to provide a basis for believing that Caine’s general knowledge of Nike’s business was unique or directly relevant. Nike asked the court to enter a protective order preventing the deposition.
Court’s action
The court did not grant or deny Nike’s request for a protective order in the text provided. Instead, the court ordered lululemon to file a response no later than March 18, 2024, and required that response to disclose the reasons for seeking Caine’s deposition. Judge Arun Subramanian scheduled a conference on the motion for March 19, 2024, at 4:00 p.m., to be held through Microsoft Teams.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.