【Keno game numbers】Amazon motion for protective order denied in social casino lawsuit

In the recent order,Keno game numbers US District Judge Robert S. Lasnik rejected Amazon’s motion for a protective order that sought to pause or narrow discovery while the court considers Amazon’s pending motion to dismiss.

The four-page ruling ensures that the lawsuit will proceed with full pre-trial discovery, despite Amazon’s assertion that it is shielded from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. 

The company had sought to pause most discovery activities until the court reached a decision on its motion to dismiss, which is based on the argument that Section 230 provides immunity from the lawsuit. 

However, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not automatically suspend discovery simply because a motion to dismiss has been filed. Such motions frequently do not succeed, and allowing a stay could lead to unnecessary delays at the beginning stages of the case.

Previously, at Amazon’s request, the court had already placed discovery on hold for a period of 10 months while awaiting a ruling from the Ninth Circuit on related Section 230 matters.

Now that the appellate court’s review has concluded, Judge Lasnik determined that there was no valid reason to extend the delay any further. 

According to Rule 26(c), a court may issue a protective order to stay discovery if there is “good cause” to shield a party from excessive burden or costs.

Amazon contended that allowing broad discovery at this stage would place an undue burden on the company, effectively depriving it of the protections that Section 230 is intended to provide, particularly the ability to avoid costly litigation.

Amazon’s appeal to Section 230 doesn’t sway judge

Amazon also insisted that the plaintiff would not be prejudiced by a brief delay and that a ruling on the Section 230 issue could clarify and potentially narrow the scope of discovery later.

Judge Lasnik rejected those arguments. “As an initial matter, plaintiff is not bound by discovery limitations negotiated by his counsel in another matter,” he wrote, distancing this case from the procedures in California.

The California proceedings involve multi-district litigation spanning 23 state laws and over a hundred causes of action — a far more complex situation in which a coordinated pause made sense.

By contrast, this case against Amazon in Seattle involves Washington law and a single plaintiff class, so “the decision to pause discovery in [California] neither compels nor counsels in favour of the same decision here.”

In short, the plaintiff in Horn v. Amazon (the Seattle case) now has the right to pursue discovery and cannot be forced to follow a strategic bargain struck in a different case.

The judge further concluded that Amazon hadn’t shown the specific “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” required for a protective order.

Judge Lasnik noted that even if the case is narrowed after a Section 230 ruling, the core claims are vigorously disputed and likely to survive in some form.

The plaintiff’s theory is that Amazon actively participated in unlawful gambling – not just as a publisher of an app, but by selling virtual casino chips to players and processing in-game transactions for a share of the revenue.

In the court’s view, if that claim is upheld (as a similar argument was in California), then the requested evidence “appears to be ‘due’ rather than ‘undue.'”

Case to proceed as planned

Amazon cited the Ninth Circuit’s landmark Roommates.comcase to argue that online services raising a Section 230 defence should be protected “not merely from ultimate liability, but from having to fight costly and protracted legal battles.”

In Amazon’s view, Section 230 immunity is effectively lost if a platform must endure burdensome discovery. But Judge Lasnik found that the Roommates.comdecision actually undercuts Amazon’s position in this context.

The Ninth Circuit in that case conducted a “careful analysis” of which content the website created versus what was provided by users, rather than granting an upfront pass on discovery.

Nothing in Roommates.comsuggests that merely invoking Section 230 “automatically stays discovery.”

On the contrary, the need to examine facts — to determine whether the platform might be an information content provider in part — means the litigation must develop the record.

Judge Lasnik pointed out that Amazon’s dispute with the plaintiff involves factual questions including, for example, how the virtual coins are used and whether Amazon’s sales can be considered “neutral”.

This addressed the “applicability of Section 230 immunity” and thus actually “favour[s] the initiation of discovery at this point.”

Simply put, Amazon cannot shut down discovery by asserting immunity, as that immunity claim itself may hinge on facts that discovery will illuminate.

After weighing the arguments, the court held that Amazon failed to show the “good cause” needed to justify a discovery stay.

The ordinary rules of procedure, therefore, prevail: having filed the lawsuit and survived initial hurdles, the plaintiff is entitled to proceed with gathering evidence.

For all these reasons, Judge Lasnik denied Amazon’s motion and opened the door for the plaintiff to obtain documents and information from the tech giant while the case moves toward a potential trial.