throbber
Case 2:20-cv-00424-RAJ Document 52 Filed 03/31/22 Page 1 of 8
`
`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
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket