Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 193 Filed 02/13/25 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`Plaintiff(s),
`
`v.
`
`STEVEN FLOYD, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM INC., et al.,
`
`
`
`Defendant(s).
`
`CASE NO. C22-1599-KKE
`
`ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`The parties have filed a statement of discovery disputes between Plaintiffs and Defendant
`
`Amazon.com Inc. regarding two categories of documents Plaintiffs seek to compel Amazon to
`
`produce. Dkt. No. 182. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that, in general, parties
`
`may obtain “discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or
`
`defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” For the following reasons, the Court will
`
`deny Plaintiffs’ request as to the first category of documents, and will defer ruling on the second
`
`category until after in camera review.
`
`A.
`
`
`
`The Court Denies Plaintiffs’ Request to Compel Production of Documents Responsive
`to RFP 62.
`
`The parties’ first dispute pertains to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production (“RFP”) 62, which
`
`requests documents related to Amazon’s
`
`Amazon describes this
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Dkt. No. 182-1 at 8.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES - 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 193 Filed 02/13/25 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 182 at 3. RFP 62 seeks documents related not only to Amazon’s process
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Dkt. No. 182-1 at 8.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Amazon states that it has “already produced all non-privileged documents relevant to the
`
`Apple restrictions, which are the only restrictions being challenged in this litigation and were set
`
`by the express terms of the [Global Tenets Agreement (“GTA”).]” Dkt. No. 182 at 3. Amazon
`
`believes that discovery related to other
`
`
`
` is irrelevant and would constitute a
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`fishing expedition. Id. at 3–4. Amazon states that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` reviewing and producing materials related to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` would “exponentially expand the scope of the case” and would be disproportional to the
`
`needs of this case. Id. at 4.
`
`
`
`Amazon’s objections are well-founded. Plaintiffs’ explanation for relevance is conclusory
`
`(“These documents go to the heart of Plaintiffs’ claims” (Dkt. No. 182 at 2)); they have not
`
`persuasively explained why information regarding
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` would be relevant to Plaintiffs’ suit alleging that the GTA had an anticompetitive
`
`effect on the market for Apple products. Plaintiffs have not shown that the documents they seek
`
`under RFP 62 are minimally relevant as required by Rule 26 and the Court therefore DENIES
`
`Plaintiffs’ request to compel their production.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`The Court Defers Ruling on Plaintiffs’ Request to Compel Production of Documents
`Submitted to Italian Authorities.
`
`The parties’ second dispute relates to three documents provided to an Italian investigation
`
`of Amazon’s practices. Previously, the Court held that “foreign documents concerning the GTA’s
`
`effects exclusively in a given foreign country” are not relevant. Dkt. No. 138. Amazon contends
`
`ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES - 2
`
`

`

`United States District Judge
`
`Case 2:22-cv-01599-KKE Document 193 Filed 02/13/25 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`that the disputed documents Plaintiffs seek are entirely foreign in nature, rather than global, and
`
`thus requests that the Court enforce its prior order. Dkt. No. 182 at 4. Plaintiffs contend that the
`
`documents are global in nature, and that even if they were “created by employees abroad, the jury
`
`could find these documents highly relevant in assessing Defendants’ conduct in the U.S.” Id. at 3.
`
`
`
`Again, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ relevance explanation to be thin. The text of the Italian
`
`decision does not necessarily suggest that these documents would be relevant to assessing U.S.
`
`effects of the GTA: the decision seems to corroborate Amazon’s assertion that the disputed
`
`documents pertain specifically to Amazon’s decisions and intent with respect to the Italian market.
`
`See Dkt. No. 183-6 ¶¶ 91, 94, 104, 105, 339, 361. If this is true, then the Court’s prior order (Dkt.
`
`No. 138) would indicate that they need not be produced.
`
`
`
`It is, of course, impossible to be certain as to the scope of these documents without
`
`reviewing them. Amazon has offered to produce the documents at issue for in camera review
`
`(Dkt. No. 182 at 4), and the Court finds that such review would be useful here. The Court therefore
`
`ORDERS Amazon to, no later than February 21, 2025, email an electronic copy of the documents
`
`to Victoria_Ericksen@wawd.uscourts.gov and to provide a courtesy hard copy to chambers
`
`(clearly marked “in camera review” to avoid inadvertent filing on the docket by Clerk’s office
`
`staff). The Court DEFERS ruling on this issue until after concluding in camera review.
`
`
`
`Dated this 13th day of February, 2025.
`
`A
`
`Kymberly K. Evanson
`
`ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES - 3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`