United States District Court, D. New Jersey
OPINION AND ORDER
B. CLARK, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
MATTER comes before the Court on a motion by
Plaintiff Nike, Inc. (“Nike” or
“Plaintiff”) for leave to amend its Complaint and
conduct limited expedited discovery [Dkt. No.
223]. Defendants City Ocean International, Inc.
(“International”) and City Ocean Logistics, Co.,
LTD (“Logistics”) (collectively “City
Ocean” or “Defendants”) oppose
Plaintiff's motion [Dkt. No. 225]. For the reasons set
forth below, Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct
limited expedited discovery and amend its Complaint [Dkt. No.
223] is DENIED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Court's July 18, 2018 Opinion granting Plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment with respect to certain counts on
the issue of liability and denying Defendants'
cross-motion for summary judgment [Dkt. No. 203] includes a
detailed recounting of the background of this matter.
Accordingly, this Opinion and Order discusses only the facts
and procedural history relevant to the present motion.
is an American corporation that advertises and sells footwear
and related footwear products throughout the United States.
Dkt. No. 68, ¶¶ 3, 8. Plaintiff possesses Federal
Trademark registrations for several widely recognized
trademarks including “Nike, ” “Swoosh
Design, ” “Swoosh, ” “Nike Air,
” and “Air Force 1.” Dkt. No. 68,
¶¶ 8, 10. Plaintiff's marks are recorded with
the United States Department of Treasury and the United
States Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”).
Dkt No. 68, ¶ 10; Dkt. No. 143-1, ¶ 4.
is an ocean transportation intermediary and non-vessel
operating common carrier (“NVOCC”) organized in
California and doing business in California and New Jersey
that arranges for various third-party transportation services
related to the shipment of cargo to and from the United
States. Dkt. No. 147-1, ¶¶ 12-15.
is an ocean transportation intermediary and NVOCC organized
under the laws of China that arranges for third-party
transportation services related to the export of goods from
China. Dkt. No. 147-1, ¶¶ 1, 4.
March 2009, Customs seized two shipments at the Port of
Newark containing 20, 320 pairs of counterfeit Nike footwear.
Dkt. No. 68, ¶¶ 16, 21. Customs provided Plaintiff
with a sample of the seized counterfeit footwear. Dkt. No.
143-1, ¶ 6. Plaintiff then determined that the sample of
the seized counterfeit footwear bore at least eight
registered Nike trademarks. Dkt. No. 143-1, ¶ 8.
about July 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed its Complaint against
defendant Eastern Ports Custom Brokers, Inc. (“Eastern
Ports”) alleging various infringement and counterfeit
claims. Dkt. No. 1. Eastern Ports then asserted third party
claims against City Ocean. Dkt. No. 10. The Pretrial
Scheduling Order was entered in this matter on May 14, 2012.
Dkt. No. 37. On August 13, 2013, Plaintiff subsequently
amended its complaint to include City Ocean as Defendants.
Dkt. No. 68.
discovery in this matter closed on October 15, 2013 [Dkt. No.
70], and expert discovery closed on May 31, 2014 [Dkt. No.
128]. On September 15, 2014, the parties jointly submitted a
request to file dispositive motions, which was granted [Dkt.
Nos. 136, 137].
December 19, 2014, the parties filed their respective motions
for summary judgment. See Dkt. Nos. 143, 147-48. The
motions were opposed. On July 18, 2018, the Court granted
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of
liability with respect to Counts I, II, III, V, and VI of its
Amended Complaint, and denied Defendants' cross-motion
for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 204. The Court reserved
jurisdiction “for purposes of determining damages with
respect to such Counts.” Dkt. No. 204 at p. 2.
now seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to
identify ten additional registered Nike trademarks that were
included in the same 2009 shipments. Plaintiff provides no
explanation for its failure to include the ten additional
registered trademarks in its previous pleadings. Plaintiff
also seeks leave to conduct additional “limited
expedited discovery” focusing in particular on expert
testimony pertaining to damages. Plaintiff, contending that
its prior discovery efforts were not “focused
solely” on damages, now seeks additional discovery to
strengthen its claims for damages. Dkt. No. 223 at p. 5.