MEMORANDUM AND ORDERPlaintiffs’ Letter-Motion Docket Entry No. 64 This case has been referred to the undersigned for an inquest on damages after default. Before the Court is the plaintiffs’ May 16, 2019 letter-motion, requesting “that the Court continue to authorize the alternative methods of service on Defendants previously authorized by the TRO and PI Order.” The plaintiffs contend that “[i]n their initial Application, Plaintiffs sought, among other relief, an order authorizing alternative service upon Defendants. (Dkts. 13-16.) As detailed in Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law filed in support of their Application,” the plaintiffs requested an order permitting service on the defendants via a “combination of electronic methods: 1) registered electronic mail and 2) website publications,” which was granted. The November 28, 2018 Preliminary Injunction Order deemed service of that order effective if completed by one of the following means:Delivery of (i) a PDF copy of this PI Order or (ii) a link to a secure website (including Dropbox.com, NutStore.com, a large mail link created through RPost.com or via website publication through a specific page dedicated to this Lawsuit accessible through ipcounselorslawsuit.com) where each Defendant will be able to download a PDF copy of this PI Order, to Defendants’ e-mail addresses, as identified in Schedule A or having otherwise been determined.The plaintiffs assert “that service through electronic methods remain appropriate and necessary in the instant matter” becauseChina-based counterfeiters, such as Defaulting Defendants, often use as aliases, false addresses and other incomplete identification information to shield their true identities. See Application Memo of Law, Section III(D); [Spencer] Wolgang ["Wolgang"] Dec.,
13-15. Although Plaintiffs received limited third-party discovery from ContextLogic and the Financial Institutions, such discovery is incomplete, especially regarding Defaulting Defendants’ identities. Moreover, by defaulting, Defaulting Defendants completely deprived Plaintiffs of the ability to gather additional information through discovery, including accurate or complete addresses.According to the plaintiffs, courts in this district “routinely authorize alternative methods of service upon the defendants of all documents filed and/or entered in the case, including those filed and/or entered subsequent to the entry of a preliminary injunction order,” such as “Wow Wee Group Limited v. Haoquin, et al., No. 17-cv-9893,” where the court “held, under circumstances identical to those at bar, that the plaintiffs were permitted to continue to effectuate service by alternative means at the inquest stage.”In Section III (D) of the plaintiffs’ memorandum of law, referenced in their May 16, 2019 letter, styled “PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO AN ORDER AUTHORIZING BIFURCATED AND ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF PROCESS,” the plaintiffs asserted:Fed. R. Civ. P. (4) governs service on Defendants in the instant matter since, upon information and belief, they are located in China. While Defendants operate sophisticated commercial businesses, they are limited to correspondence by email, messaging through their respective User Accounts and communications otherwise transmitted over the Internet. See [Jessica] Arnaiz ["Arnaiz"] Dec.,
