Munsey’s Technosnarl

They get to discovery, sorta.

Although these cases are hardly enthusiastic support for BookLocker, they do not mandate dismissal, nor foreclose the possibility that BookLocker has the makings of a cognizable claim. In the face of such uncertainty, the Court is hesitant to dismiss the lawsuit at this early stage.

It probably won’t be maximum fun discovery, with Jeff’s email seized by hoards of lawyers roaming through.

Nonetheless, in evaluating BookLocker’s claim the Court has remained sensitive to the fact that “proceeding to antitrust discovery can be expensive.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558; Am. Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Local Union No. 7, Int’l Ass’n of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Workers, 536 F.3d 68, 77 n.7 (1st Cir. 2008). In that regard, the concerns in this matter seem of a lesser magnitude than those faced in Twombly. For example, here, there is no need to scour Amazon’s records for evidence of the conspiratorial conduct; Amazon has publicly announced a policy and the question is whether that policy is unlawful.

But you knew Izard Nobel would last that long… whether it’s enough for Amazon to settle… seems unlikely.

Tags: Amazon, Booklocker, Books, lawsuits, Odd, POD, Short Discounting

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 27th, 2009 at 10:08 am and is filed under Odd. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.