United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
BEAUTYKO LLC; LINOI LLC; SHOP FLASH USA INC.; BEAUTYKO USA INC.; AND BENNOTI USA INC., Plaintiffs,
AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL
PROCEEDINGS, GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER,
AND DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Amazon Fulfillment Services,
Inc. (“Amazon”)'s Motion for Supplemental
Proceedings (Dkt. #139), Plaintiffs Beautyko LLC, Linoi LLC,
Shop Flash USA Inc., Beautyko USA Inc., and Bennoti USA Inc.
(collectively referred to as “Beautyko”)'s
Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #142), and Amazon's
related Motion to Seal (Dkt #147). Amazon seeks an order
requiring Beautyko to appear for supplemental proceedings and
to testify under oath concerning assets and property that may
be used to satisfy the outstanding judgment in this case.
Beautyko opposes this request on various grounds. For the
following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Amazon's
Motion for Supplemental Proceedings, GRANTS IN PART
Beautyko's Motion for Protective Order, and DENIES
Amazon's Motion to Seal.
November 22, 2017, judgment in the amount of $3, 611, 999.80
was rendered in favor of Defendant Amazon and against
Plaintiffs. Dkt. #136. On December 22, 2017, costs in the
amount of $4, 950.14 were taxed against Beautyko (Dkt. #138).
The judgment against Beautyko thus totals $3, 616, 949.94,
not including interest. Beautyko has not appealed this
judgment and the judgment remains unsatisfied. See
Dkt. #140 (Declaration of Vanessa Power) at ¶¶ 3-4.
Amazon believes, based on discovery in this case and
discussions with Beautyko's counsel, that Beautyko owns
property or has assets that may be used to satisfy the
judgment. Id. at ¶ 5.
Motion for Supplemental Proceedings
Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) provides: “[i]n the
aid of the judgment . . . the judgment creditor . . . may
obtain discovery from any person-including the judgment
debtor…” The procedure “in proceedings
supplementary to and in aid of judgment . . . must accord
with the procedure of the state where the court is
located.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a)(1). Under Washington
State's supplemental proceedings statute, a judgment
creditor may apply for an order requiring the judgment debtor
“to appear at a specified time and place” to
answer concerning a judgment “[a]t any time within ten
years after entry of a judgment.” RCW 6.32.010. Where
the judgment is a corporation, the “corporation must
attend by and answer under the oath of an officer
thereof.” RCW 6.32.050.
RCW 6.32.010, a court may order a judgment debtor not only
“to appear in court for examination” but also
“to produce certain described documents.”
Arnold v. Nat'l Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards
Ass'n, 42 Wn.2d 648, 649, 257 P.2d 629 (1953);
Britannia Holdings Ltd. v. Greer, 127
Wn.App. 926, 929, 113 P.3d 1041 (2005) (referring to court
orders in supplemental proceedings requiring judgment
creditor to provide “information and documents”
as well as a “full accounting”). The purpose of
this procedure is to “make the judgment debtor answer
concerning the extent and whereabouts of his or her property
and, if possible, to enable the judgment creditor to locate
nonexempt property belonging to the judgment debtor which may
be applied on the debt.” Rainier Nat'l Bank v.
McCracken, 26 Wn.App. 498, 511, 615 P.2d 469 (1980).
to the above laws, Amazon now requests that an examination be
ordered of Avi Sivan as corporate representative of all of
the Beautyko entities. Amazon lists 14 topics of
investigation in its Motion. See Dkt. #139 at 3-4.
Response, Beautyko first argues that “the requested
discovery is far overreaching and should be limited.”
Dkt. #145 at 1. Specifically, Beautyko objects to two of
topics of investigation:
4. Corporate income tax returns for the past five years for
each Judgment Debtor and all income tax returns for
any business in which Avi Sivan has had an interest in at any
point in the past five years. If the filing of the
most recent return is pending but the return has been
prepared or the information is available, this information is
requested as well.
5. Personal income tax returns for the past five
years for Avi Sivan and Prem Ramchandani. If the
filing of the most recent return is pending but the return
has been prepared or the information is available, this
information is requested as well.
Id. at 2 (citing Dkt. #139-1) (emphasis added by
Beautyko). Beautyko objects to the Motion “to the
extent that additional requests can be interpreted as
requiring the Judgment Debtors to produce personal financial
information of nondebtor people or entities.”
Id. Beautyko points out that judgment was entered
against the Beautyko entities, not against Avi Sivan or Prem
Ramchandani. Beautyko requests that any examination take
place in the Eastern District of New York. Beautyko equates
Amazon's Motion to requesting the Court enter an order
for a subpoena that an examination be conducted under Rule
30(b)(6). Id. at 5.
Reply, Amazon argues that certain facts make discovery into
the personal financial information of Mr. Sivan and Mr.
Ramchandani appropriate. These facts are:
(1) Mr. Sivan and Mr. Ramchandani are the only owners of the
Beautyko Plaintiffs; (2) the Beautyko Plaintiffs shared the
same addresses, warehouses, emails, tax identification
numbers, and even bank accounts, thus commingling funds and
other assets, not only between and among the Beautyko
Plaintiffs, but between and among at least seven known
non-judgment debtor businesses; (3) Mr. Sivan conducted
business on behalf of Beautyko Plaintiffs as well as
non-judgment debtor businesses - with Amazon if not others -
using his personal email account; and (4) at least two of the