Total90, LLC v. Nike, Inc.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TOTAL90, LLC
VERSUS
NIKE, INC.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 25-2325
SECTION: "D" (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Take Expedited Depositions (R. Doc.
27). Defendant opposes the motion. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff seeks to depose two Nike officers (Nuno Silva1 and Agra Diapari2)
relative to alleged trademark infringement in anticipation of a preliminary injunction
hearing set for January 8, 2026.3 The trademarks relate to Nike’s registration of
“TOTAL 90” and Plaintiff’s registration of “TOTAL90.” 	To make the single-space
difference clearer, the Court will use all-capitalization when referring to Nike’s
trademark.
Relevant to the instant motion,4 Nike launched the Air Zoom TOTAL 90 I
football (i.e., soccer) shoe in 2000. In doing so, it began using the TOTAL 90
1 Vice President and General Manager of Nike Soccer North America. R. Doc. 4-1, ¶
2.
2 Global Senior Director of Nike Sportswear Icons Footwear Product Management
Lead. R. Doc. 4-2, ¶ 2.
3 R. Doc. 27 at 1.
4 A full recitation of background information is available in the District Court’s
Order and Reasons denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. R.
Doc. 21.
Case 2:25-cv-02325-WBV-EJD Document 31 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 6

2
trademark. Several generations of TOTAL 90 footwear, equipment, and attire
followed.5 Although Nike permitted its U.S. registration for TOTAL 90 to lapse in
2019, Nike maintains that it retained common law rights in the mark by continuing
to use TOTAL 90 in commerce.6
Plaintiff registered a trademark for Total90 in February 2022.7 	Plaintiff
maintains that it has sold footwear, equipment, and attire under that trademark
since February 24, 2022.8
In December 2024, Plaintiff contacted Nike and asserted its trademark rights.9
Over the following months, Plaintiff continued seeking payment from Nike.10 When
those efforts were unsuccessful, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on November 14, 2025.11
That same day, Plaintiff filed a motion jointly requesting a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction.12 Nike filed an opposition to the request for a
temporary 	restraining 	order 	on 	November 	17, 	2025, 	to 	which 	Nike 	attached
declarations by Silva and Diapari.13
The District Court held a status conference on November 18, 2025. During the
conference, the Court set the submission date for the temporary restraining order for
5 See R. Doc. 4 at 5–7.
6 R. Doc. 4 at 7.
7 R. Doc. 21 at 1.
8 R. Doc. 1, ¶ 13.
9 R. Doc. 4-3, ¶ 12.
10 R. Docs. 4-7 at 3, 11, 4-4, 4-8, 4-9.
11 R. Doc. 1.
12 R. Doc. 2.
13 R. Doc. 4.
Case 2:25-cv-02325-WBV-EJD Document 31 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 6

3
November 19.14 	The District Court simultaneously set an evidentiary hearing and
oral argument on the request for a preliminary injunction for January 8, 2026.15 The
District Court’s order does not address discovery.
On November 26, 2026, the District Court issued an Order and Reasons
denying the request for a temporary restraining order.16 The District Court concluded
that Plaintiff did not establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its
claim nor a substantial threat of irreparable harm.17 On December 10, 2025,18
Plaintiff filed the instant motion, seeking to depose Silva and Diapari in anticipation
of the January 8, 2026 hearing.19 That same day, the undersigned granted Plaintiff’s
request for expedited consideration and set the submission date as December 18,
2025.20
II. 	Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) permits discovery before a Rule 26(f)
conference only when authorized by court order. “The burden of showing good cause
is on the party seeking expedited discovery.” St. Louis Grp., Inc. v. Metals & Additives
Corp., 275 F.R.D. 236, 240 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (Hacker, M.J.). Relevant factors include
the 	“breadth 	of 	the 	discovery 	requests, 	the 	purpose 	for 	requesting 	expedited
14 R. Doc. 9.
15 R. Doc. 9.
16 R. Doc. 21.
17 R. Doc. 21 at 11.
18 A deficient version of the motion was submitted on December 8, 2025, but that
version is not operative.
19 R. Doc. 27.
20 R. Docs. 25, 26.
Case 2:25-cv-02325-WBV-EJD Document 31 Filed 12/18/25 Page 3 of 6

4
discovery, the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests and how far in
advance of the typical discovery process the request was made.” 	Id. at 240 n.4.
Ultimately, courts must balance the need for expedited discovery against the
prejudice to the opposing party. See id. at 239–40 (quotation omitted).
The timing of Plaintiff’s motion and resulting burden on Nike weigh strongly
against permitting expedited discovery. When the District Court set the hearing date,
the parties had 50 full calendar days21 to prepare for the hearing. There is no
indication that Plaintiff raised before the District Court its intent to depose Nike’s
declarants. By the time Plaintiff filed its motion for expedited discovery, the available
time for discovery had dwindled to 28 full calendar days.22 Plaintiff has provided no
explanation for its delay in raising its request for depositions.
Expedited briefing became complete on December 18, 2025, and this ruling is
being issued on that same submission date. Even now, however, only 12 workdays23
(i.e., weekdays other than federal holidays) remain until the hearing. Importantly,
this 12-workday-period rests on the quixotic assumption that everyone, including the
two witnesses, can make themselves available immediately to work New Year’s Eve,
Christmas Eve, and for the remaining days of Hanukkah and that depositions could
begin tomorrow. Compelling these depositions to proceed on this schedule would
impose significant and undue prejudice on Nike.
21 November 19, 2025, through January 7, 2026.
22 December 11, 2025, through January 7, 2026.
23 December 19, 22–24, 26, and 29–31, 2025, and January 2 and 5–6, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02325-WBV-EJD Document 31 Filed 12/18/25 Page 4 of 6

5
Moreover, the breadth of the discovery requests is disproportionate to their
purpose and the nature of the preliminary injunction hearing. Plaintiff’s proposed
deposition topics resemble those included in a Rule 30(b)(6) notice (e.g., “Internal
Plans, Intent, and Corporate Classification of the Total 90 Brand”).24 As the litigation
advances, the parties may litigate whether these topics are appropriate in the context
of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Plaintiff has not shown that the deposition topics,
however, are tailored and proportionate to the upcoming hearing.
Finally, the majority of Plaintiff’s argument and evidence appears for the first
time in its reply memorandum. Plaintiff’s initial supporting memorandum25 contains
only 	four 	paragraphs 	of 	substantive 	argument—and 	no 	citations 	to 	caselaw.
Plaintiff’s reply consists of 18 pages of argument,26 much of which is directed to
substantive issues underlying the motion for preliminary injunction, and 35 pages of
exhibits. Analyzing the scope of discovery requires consideration of substantive
issues, but the Court will not consider new arguments and evidence omitted from
Plaintiff’s initial motion. Allowing these untimely submissions would be particularly
prejudicial given that the Court is considering the motion on an expedited basis (at
Plaintiff’s request).
24 R. Doc. 27-1 at 2.
25 R. Doc. 27-1.
26 The Court did not grant leave to exceed the page limit for reply memoranda, but
this issue is moot.
Case 2:25-cv-02325-WBV-EJD Document 31 Filed 12/18/25 Page 5 of 6

6
III. 	Conclusion
Plaintiff’s motion falls far short of establishing good cause for expedited
discovery. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (R. Doc. 27) is DENIED. New
Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of December, 2025.
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-02325-WBV-EJD Document 31 Filed 12/18/25 Page 6 of 6