This post may contain affiliate links. Please read our disclosure policy.
After Nike alleged that the StockX 99.95% Authentication Accuracy Rate is a baseless claim, StockX responded saying that Nike’s claims “lack merit” and that the Swoosh doesn’t “understand the modern marketplace.”
As apart of the official response, StockX CEO Scott Cutler went on to say, “We look forward to defending our reputation and understanding why Nike, which once sought to collaborate in combatting counterfeits, now seeks to undermine StockX’s business model.“
Now, the StockX lawyers have sent a letter to the judge saying that Nike has failed to provide documents in discovery. Meanwhile, Nike has asked StockX for a number of discovery documents, including 427 requests for admission (“RFAs”).
StockX’s legal team claims that Nike is trying to “bury” StockX with an enormous number of discovery requests and that the RFAs are “duplicative, burdensome, and inappropriate.”
Plaintiff Nike Inc. (“Nike”) brought this case alleging that consumers sold counterfeit goods on StockX’s secondary marketplace, yet has repeatedly refused to engage in discovery about Nike’s failure to stop those very unauthorized products from reaching the market, and to protect its brand and consumers from counterfeiters. While stonewalling to distract from its own conduct at every turn, Nike has sought to bury StockX in discovery requests – including its latest tactic of sending 427 requests for admission (“RFAs”) that are duplicative, burdensome, and inappropriate. Nike must be compelled to engage equally in discovery, and barred from using RFAs as a discovery device.
– Megan K. Bannigan and Christopher S. Ford of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Furthermore, StockX lawyers alleged that Nike is withholding discovery documents in relation to its reputation and unjust enrichment — specifically in regards to backdooring and Nike’s own authenticating process.
Nike has refused to produce documents concerning Nike’s historical failure to control “backdooring” and/or counterfeiting of its own sneakers, as well as its public association with an extensive number of individuals (e.g., Lance Armstrong) or issues (e.g., conditions for Nike’s global employees) that have received public criticism.
– Megan K. Bannigan and Christopher S. Ford of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
You can read excerpts of the court filings below. Nice Kicks will continue to update this story as the case develops.
For more sneaker news and release dates, follow @NiceKicks on Twitter.
