Plaintiffs Seek Leave to Oppose Motion to Strike Amazon Counsel as Witness
Renee Gabet and her company Annie Oakley Enterprises, plaintiffs in the trademark infringement lawsuit against Amazon, seek leave to file a sur-reply opposing Amazon’s motion to strike its outside counsel, Robert Cruzen of Klarquist Sparkman, from the plaintiffs’ witness list…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
(see 2304120004), said their motion Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-02246) in U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana in Indianapolis. Amazon’s reply to the plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to strike “makes new arguments that it should have made” in its original motion, and it “misstates the law,” said the motion. Amazon’s claim that other Amazon employees have the same knowledge as Cruzen is contradicted by Amazon’s own interrogatory answers during discovery, it said. Cruzen remains the only person known to the plaintiffs with “knowledge on crucial issues,” it said. Amazon bears the burden of proving other Amazon employees had the same knowledge as Cruzen, “and it offers no such evidence,” it said. Putting Amazon’s lack of evidence aside, Cruzen “designated himself the point person for receiving details of accused infringement,” it said. “If Cruzen shared this with Amazon employees, Amazon should have identified those employees in its interrogatory answers,” it said. Gabet and her company allege that Amazon turns a blind eye to the trademark infringement taking place under its watch.