Hit Notion LLC v. Sanders Collection Incorporated

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied Defendant Sanders Collection Incorporated’s motion to quash a subpoena directed to Amazon.com, Inc. and its request for a protective order. The Court held that Defendant had standing to challenge the subpoena but concluded that the requested sales and advertising records were relevant to Hit Notion LLC’s patent infringement, willfulness, damages, and related contract claims. The Court also found that obtaining the records from Amazon was warranted despite potential duplication of Defendant’s prior production.

Holdings

1. Defendant had standing because it asserted a personal interest in its own commercial sales and advertising information, even though the records were held by Amazon.
2. The subpoenaed records were relevant and discoverable because Plaintiff articulated a viable, though ultimately unproven, theory that Defendant's use of advertising keywords associated with Plaintiff's patented product could constitute an unauthorized use or offer to sell the patented designs and could bear on damages and willfulness.
3. The subpoena should not be quashed as unreasonably cumulative or duplicative because obtaining the records directly from Amazon provided better assurance of a complete production, particularly in light of Plaintiff's supported concerns that Defendant's production was incomplete or understated.
4. Defendant was not entitled to a protective order because the requested third-party discovery was warranted and Defendant did not establish good cause for protection from a specific harm identified in Rule 26(c)(1).

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendant had standing to challenge a subpoena directed to Amazon.
2. Whether the subpoena sought information relevant to Plaintiff's currently pleaded copyright and patent claims, including its theory that Defendant's advertising constituted an unauthorized use or offer to sell Plaintiff's patented designs.
3. Whether the subpoena should be quashed because the requested sales information was duplicative of information Defendant had already produced.
4. Whether Defendant demonstrated good cause for a protective order barring similar discovery requests.

Disposition

other