Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. Qi Andrew

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

July 25, 2011, Decided; July 25, 2011, Filed

10 Civ. 9471 (WHP)(HBP)

Opinion

 [*144]  OPINION AND ORDER

PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs move for an Order compelling non-parties Bank of China ("BOC"), Industrial and Commercial Bank of China ("ICBC") and China Merchants Bank ("CMB") (collectively the "Banks") to produce documents  [*145]  pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum that was served upon them in January 2011. The Banks oppose plaintiffs' motion.

For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs' motion to compel is denied without prejudice to renewal.

II. Facts

Plaintiffs Tiffany (NJ) LLC and Tiffany and Company are the well-known, high-end manufacturers of jewelry and other products which hold "various federally registered and common law trademarks used to identify the high quality goods merchandised or manufactured by Tiffany" (Complaint, dated Dec. 20, 2010 (Docket Item 1), ¶ 1). Plaintiffs allege that defendants sold counterfeit Tiffany products through  [**2] several websites hosted in the United States. Plaintiffs claim that defendants accepted payment in U.S. dollars and used PayPal, Inc. ("PayPal") to process customers' credit card transactions, then transferred the profits to accounts held by the Banks (Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, dated May 3, 2011 (Docket Item 21), ("Pl.'s Mem. in Supp.") at 1). PayPal was the sole method of payment for these goods (Pl's Mem. in Supp. at 4; Declaration of Robert Weigel, dated May 3, 2011 (Docket Item 22), ("Weigel Decl.") ¶¶ 4, 8, 11-13). Defendants have not responded to the complaint, nor have they responded to the Court's order requiring them to produce documents related to their counterfeiting operation (Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. at 3).

The Honorable William H. Pauley, III, United States District Judge, entered a Preliminary Injunction on January 3, 2011 (Preliminary Injunction, dated January 3, 2011 (Docket Item 7), (the "PI Order")). The PI Order directed that

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

276 F.R.D. 143 *; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80677 **

TIFFANY (NJ) LLC and TIFFANY AND COMPANY, Plaintiffs, -against- QI ANDREW, GU GONG, SLIVER DENG and KENT DENG, all d/b/a TIFFANYSTORES.ORG, FASHION STYLE and STORESORG; ABC COMPANIES; and JOHN DOES, Defendants.

Subsequent History: Affirmed by Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. Qi Andrew, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158033 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2011)

Motion denied by Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. Andrew, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160522 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2012)

Application granted by Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. Qi Andrew, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77391 (S.D.N.Y., June 15, 2015)

CORE TERMS

Banks, documents, Chinese, Convention, subpoenas, plaintiffs', discovery, requests, entity, commercial bank, funds, Declaration, regulations, website, cases, customer, records, non-party, custody and control, deposit, counterfeiting, weighs, reservation, disclosure, personnel, courts, freeze, execute, comity, account holder

Civil Procedure, Discovery & Disclosure, Discovery, Subpoenas, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Methods of Discovery, Inspection & Production Requests, General Overview, Business & Corporate Law, Corporate Governance, Record Inspection & Maintenance, Inferences & Presumptions, Presumptions, Rebuttal of Presumptions, Banking Law, International Banking, Bank Activities, Customer-Bank Relations, Foreign Discovery, Governments, Courts, Judicial Comity, International Law, Comity Doctrine, Comity Doctrine Procedures, Dispute Resolution, Judicial Precedent, Evidence, Hague Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad