Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 738 Filed 04/12/22 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN RE PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC ET AL.,
`PATENT LITIGATION.
`
`Case No. 18-md-02834-BLF
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`ORDER GRANTING AMAZON'S
`MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
`FROM THIRD PARTIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 733
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON
`WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`The Court has reviewed the Parties’ submissions and relevant case law and determines that
`
`this matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
`Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Twitch Interactive, Inc. (collectively, “Amazon”) is pursuing
`
`post-judgment discovery from third-party investors (“Third Parties”) in PersonalWeb
`
`Technologies, LLC (“PersonalWeb”), seeking information about their relationship and financial
`
`dealings with PersonalWeb. Dkt. 733-1; 733-2; 733-3. The Third Parties’ primary response to
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 738 Filed 04/12/22 Page 2 of 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
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`subpoenas for production of documents is that the court in a state court receivership action,
`
`Brilliant Digital Entertainment, Inc., et al., v. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC, et al., Los
`
`Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 21VECV00575, is the first and only court to have
`
`jurisdiction over “the secured creditors of PersonalWeb, PersonalWeb itself and all of the assets of
`
`PersonalWeb, and the subject of the interrelationships between and among those parties and those
`
`assets.” Dkt. 733, 4.
`
`In support of this bold assertion, Third Parties cite Princess Lida of Thurn and Taxis v.
`
`Thompson, 305 U.S. 456, 466 (1939) (“[T]he principle applicable to both federal and state courts
`
`[is] that the court first assuming jurisdiction over property may maintain and exercise that
`
`jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other …”). Dkt. 733, 5 (emphasis added). However, Princess
`
`Lida addresses the situation where both the federal and state actions are proceeding in rem. Id. at
`
`466. By contrast, the action in this Court pursuant to which Amazon serves the disputed
`
`subpoenas is not an action in rem but an action in personam. This pertinent fact the Third Parties
`
`do not, because they cannot, dispute. See generally Dkt. 733. Well-established precedent speaks
`
`directly to the situation in this case. “It is settled law that state courts have no authority to bar – by
`
`injunction or otherwise – the prosecution of in personam actions in federal courts.” Meridian
`
`Investing & Development Corp. v. Suncoast Highland Corp., 628 F.2d 370, 372 n.3 (5th Cir.
`
`1980). As such, authority governing conflicting in rem actions, such as that relied upon by Third
`
`Parties here, is inapposite. See id.; see also Wright & Miller, 17A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 4212
`
`(3d ed.), State Injunctions against Federal Proceedings, at n.24. Third Parties’ additional
`
`arguments based on comity, along with a speculative suggestion that Amazon pursuing its entitled
`
`rights in this Court constitutes interference with the receivership action are, for the same reasons,
`
`unavailing. Amazon is properly pursuing discovery against the Third Parties in this Court.
`
`As Amazon asserts in the Joint Submission, the scope of post-judgment discovery is broad,
`
`with a “presumption [] in favor of full discovery of any matters arguably related to the creditor’s
`
`efforts to trace the debtor’s assets and otherwise to enforce its judgment.” Dkt. 733 at 3 (citing
`
`A&F Bahamas, LLC v. World Venture Grp., Inc., No. CV 17-8523 VAP (SS), 2018 WL 5961297,
`
`at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2018)). Thus Amazon may explore corporate relationships and transfers
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 738 Filed 04/12/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`in pursuit of alter ego theories. Code Civ. Proc. § 187; see also, Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2) (“In aid
`
`of the judgment or execution, the judgment creditor…may obtain discovery from any person…as
`
`provided in these rules or by the procedure of the state where the court is located.”)
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Amazon’s motion to compel the production of documents pursuant to the
`
`subpoenas served on the Third Parties identified in Dkt. 733 is GRANTED. The Third Parties, as
`
`defined in the subpoenas, shall each provide Amazon responses to the requests for production and
`
`produce any non-privileged, nonprotected, responsive documents within any of their possession,
`
`custody, or control within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: April 12, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`SUSAN VAN KEULEN
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`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
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`