`
`The Honorable Richard A. Jones
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`26(F) CONFERENCE UNDER FEDERAL
`RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 37
`
`NOTED FOR MOTION CALENDAR:
`April 15, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, CHRISTIAN
`SABOL, SAMANTHIA RUSSELL, ARTHUR
`SCHAREIN, LIONEL KEROS, NATHAN
`CHANEY, CHRIS GULLEY, SHERYL
`TAYLOR-HOLLY, ANTHONY COURTNEY,
`DAVE WESTROPE, STACY DUTILL,
`SARAH ARRINGTON, MARY ELLIOT,
`HEATHER GEESEY, STEVE MORTILLARO,
`CHAUNDA LEWIS, ADRIEN HENNEN,
`GLENDA R. HILL, GAIL MURPHY,
`PHYLLIS HUSTER, and GERRY
`KOCHENDORFER, on behalf of themselves
`and all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 26(F) CONFERENCE
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00424-RAJ
`
`
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000 • SEATTLE, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 52 Filed 03/31/22 Page 2 of 8
`
`TABLE CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................1
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................2
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 26(F) CONFERENCE
`CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00424-RAJ
`
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000 • SEATTLE, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 52 Filed 03/31/22 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, Plaintiffs1 respectfully move to compel
`Defendant Amazon’s participation in a conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`26(f), to allow this case, which has now been pending for over two years—and has survived
`Amazon’s motion to dismiss—to proceed into discovery.
`This Action was originally filed on March 19, 2020, alleging that Amazon uses its market
`power to suppress competition from its own third-party sellers, who also sell on other platforms
`including Wal-Mart or eBay, by enforcing price restraints whereby Amazon’s third-party sellers
`agree not to sell their products on other websites for less than they do on Amazon’s own
`platform. This practice has already come under threat from antitrust regulators in Britain and
`Germany, as well as the United States Federal Trade Commission, and is a violation of the
`Sherman Act.
`At the time the Complaint was filed, the parties agreed to defer setting the usual initial
`case deadlines, including the 26(f) conference, until after disposition of Amazon’s anticipated
`motion to dismiss, Dkt. 5 at 2, and this Court thereafter suspended those deadlines pending its
`decision, Dkt. Entry, July 14, 2020 (suspending initial case deadlines “pending the Court’s ruling
`on Defendant’s 11 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim”). But after careful
`consideration of Amazon’s motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, on March 11, 2022, this
`Court issued a decision largely denying Amazon’s motion, and holding that Plaintiffs adequately
`pleaded the relevant market, anticompetitive conduct, and antitrust injury. Dkt. 48 at 18, 20-22.
`In light of the Court’s decision that Plaintiffs’ case may proceed, Plaintiffs’ counsel met
`and conferred on March 24 on a Microsoft Teams video call with counsel for Amazon to discuss
`scheduling a 26(f) conference, and beginning discovery in this long-pending case. Declaration
`of Steve W. Berman In Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel 26(f) Conference Under
`Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 37, ¶ 1 (filed herewith).
`
`
`1 “Plaintiffs” are Deborah Frame-Wilson, Christian Sabol, Samanthia Russell, Arthur Scharein, Lionel Keros,
`Nathan Chaney, Chris Gulley, Sheryl Taylor-Holly, Anthony Courtney, Dave Westrope, Stacy Dutill, Sarah
`Arrington, Mary Elliot, Heather Geesey, Steve Mortillaro, Chaunda Lewis, Adrien Hennen, Glenda R. Hill, Gail
`Murphy, Phyllis Huster, and Gerry Kochendorfer.
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 26(F) CONFERENCE - 1
`CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`
`
`
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000 • SEATTLE, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 52 Filed 03/31/22 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`On the call, Amazon responded that Plaintiffs’ request to schedule a 26(f) conference was
`“premature” because Amazon planned to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order.
`But, as Plaintiffs’ counsel pointed out on the call, the local rules expressly provide that motions
`for reconsideration do not stay discovery. Id.; see Local Civil Rule 7(h)(2) (“The pendency of a
`motion for reconsideration shall not stay discovery.” (emphasis added)). Amazon’s refusal to
`engage in a 26(f) conference amounts to nothing more than a self-imposed stay of discovery
`contrary to the Rules—and Amazon might be one of the largest corporations in the world, but the
`rules apply to it as they would to anyone else.
`Permitting Amazon to further delay discovery, even after this Court has denied Amazon’s
`motion to dismiss, deprives Plaintiffs of the ability to prosecute their case, and unnecessarily
`extends the schedule for this Action. Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court to order that
`discovery may commence, and to compel Defendant Amazon to participate in a Rule 26(f)
`conference within one week of the Court’s issuing an order compelling such participation.
`II. ARGUMENT
`More than two years after the initial filing of this Action on March 11, 2022, this Court
`ruled that Plaintiffs’ allegations of anticompetitive actions by Amazon survived Amazon’s
`motion to dismiss. This Court issued a decision holding that Plaintiffs plausibly pleaded the
`relevant market (having pleaded both a U.S. retail ecommerce market, and a series of alternative
`U.S. ecommerce retail submarkets); that Plaintiffs plausibly pleaded Amazon’s anticompetitive
`conduct (and that Amazon’s arguments about purported procompetitive justifications for its
`pricing policies are not appropriate for the motion to dismiss stage); and that Plaintiffs plausibly
`pleaded antitrust injury (in the form of increased retail prices to consumers). Dkt. 48 at 18, 20-
`22.
`
`Plaintiffs are prepared to prosecute this action, and discovery should proceed promptly.
`Amazon’s refusal to schedule and participate in a Rule 26(f) conference is inconsistent with the
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the practice in this district, and the expectations of the Court
`and the Parties. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 26; Local Rule 7(h)(2); Dkts. 5, 9 & Dkt. Entry,
`July 20, 2020.
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 26(F) CONFERENCE - 2
`CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`
`
`
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000 • SEATTLE, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 52 Filed 03/31/22 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`There can be no dispute about the basic obligations that Rule 26(f) imposes upon both
`parties in a litigation. Rule 26(f) provides that the parties must conduct a 26(f) conference “as
`soon as practical,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(1), and that the attorneys on both sides are “jointly
`responsible for arranging the conference,” and negotiating a discovery plan, Fed. R. Civ. P.
`26(f)(2). Indeed, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, a party’s failure to participate in
`good faith in developing the discovery plan for submission to the court is grounds for an order to
`pay expenses, including attorneys’ fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(f).
`Now that the Court has ruled that Plaintiffs’ allegations should not be dismissed, it is time
`to proceed with discovery. Amazon cannot be permitted to unilaterally stay discovery by
`refusing to participate in the 26(f) conference required by the Federal Rules. Indeed, courts in
`this district have granted motions to compel participation in such conferences where one party
`refuses to participate, noting that “gamesmanship surrounding discovery conferences and other
`actions that prevent [a] matter from moving forward will not be tolerated.” See Secure
`Channels, Inc. v. Coleridge, 2017 WL 3026059, at *1 (W.D. Wash. May 1, 2017) (setting Rule
`26(f) conference deadline); see also Panyanouvong v. Aphay, 2014 WL 2986507, at *7-8 (W.D.
`Wash. July 1, 2014) (compelling attendance at Rule 26(f) conference and awarding attorneys’
`fees); ING Bank, fsb v. Fazah, 2009 WL 3824751, at *3, 5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2009), report and
`recommendation adopted, 2009 WL 4507722 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2009) (compelling participation
`in Rule 26(f) conference).
`It is no excuse that Amazon has elected to file a motion asking this Court to reconsider its
`decision. Dkt. No. 51. Setting to the side the fact that Amazon’s motion for reconsideration
`does not meet any of the standards for such a motion as set forth in this district’s Local Civil
`Rules, even for a meritorious motion, Local Rule 7(h)(2) expressly provides that “[t]he pendency
`of a motion for reconsideration shall not stay discovery or any other procedure.” (emphasis
`added). Amazon’s refusal to participate in a 26(f) conference therefore violates the rules of this
`Court, and impedes Plaintiffs’ proper prosecution of their claims.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 26(F) CONFERENCE - 3
`CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000 • SEATTLE, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 52 Filed 03/31/22 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`This Court has already denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss. Permitting Amazon to
`nevertheless unilaterally delay discovery deprives Plaintiffs of their right under the rules to
`prosecute their case, and unnecessarily extends this already long-pending action. Plaintiffs
`therefore respectfully move the Court to order that discovery may commence, and to compel
`Defendant Amazon to participate in a Rule 26(f) conference within one week of the Court’s
`issuing an order compelling such participation..
`DATED: March 31, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
`
`
`
`/s/ Steve W. Berman
`By
` Steve W. Berman (WSBA No. 12536)
` /s/ Barbara A. Mahoney
`
`
` Barbara A. Mahoney (WSBA No. 31845)
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: (206) 623-7292
`Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
`steve@hbsslaw.com
`barbaram@hbsslaw.com
`KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
`
`
`By:
`/s/ Derek W. Loeser
`
`Derek W. Loeser (WSBA No. 24274)
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
`Seattle, WA 98101-3052
`Telephone: (206) 623-1900
`Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
`Dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
`
`KELLER LENKNER LLC
`
`Zina G. Bash (pro hac vice)
`111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
`Austin, TX, 78701
`Telephone: (512) 690-0990
`E-mail: zina.bash@kellerlenkner.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 26(F) CONFERENCE - 4
`CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000 • SEATTLE, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 52 Filed 03/31/22 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Warren D. Postman (pro hac vice)
`Albert Y. Pak (pro hac vice)
`1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W., 12th Floor
`Washington DC, 20005
`Telephone: (202) 918-1123
`E-mail: wdp@kellerlenkner.com
`E-mail: albert.pak@kellerlenkner.com
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`/s/ Alicia Cobb
`By:
`Alicia Cobb, WSBA # 48685
`1109 First Avenue, Suite 210
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: (206) 905-7000
`Email: aliciacobb@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Steig D. Olson (pro hac vice)
`David D. LeRay (pro hac vice)
`Nic V. Siebert (pro hac vice)
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`Telephone: (212) 849-7000
`Email: steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Adam B. Wolfson (pro hac vice)
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
`Telephone: (213) 443-3000
`Email: adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 26(F) CONFERENCE - 5
`CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000 • SEATTLE, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 52 Filed 03/31/22 Page 8 of 8
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on March 31, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed
`electronically by CM/ECF, which caused notice to be sent to all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Steve W. Berman
`
`
`
` Steve W. Berman
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 26(F) CONFERENCE - 6
`CASE NO. 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ
`
`
`1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2000 • SEATTLE, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292 • FAX (206) 623-0594
`
`
`
`