USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: eR LASHIFY, INC., : Plaintiff, : : 25-cv-04183 (LJL) -v- : : ORDER QINGDAO NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. : a/k/a QINGDAO FOLLOW THE TREND : NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. a/k/a : QINGDAO MARS CULTURE MEDIA Co., LTD : d/b/a UCOOLME and VIVICUTE LIMITED, : Defendants. : wee KX LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Lashify Inc. (“Plaintiff”) has filed a motion for an order holding Defendants Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., a/k/a Qingdao Follow The Trend Network Technology Co., Ltd. a/k/a Qingdao Mars Culture Media Co., Ltd. d/b/a UCoolMe and Vivicute Limited (“Defendants”) in contempt and to require Defendants to post a bond for failure to comply with the preliminary injunction entered by this Court. Dkt. No. 59. Defendants have filed a motion to vacate the preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 64. Plaintiff has stated that it is prepared to present evidence supporting its motion for contempt at an evidentiary hearing and have requested the opportunity to present evidence of one witness by telephone. Dkt. No. 82. Defendants request oral argument on the motion to vacate and indicate a willingness to make their expert witness available for in-person testimony; they also ask that argument on the motion to vacate be held in advance of the hearing on the motion for contempt. Dkt. No. 83. /d. The motion for an evidentiary hearing on the motion for contempt is GRANTED as 1s the request for oral argument on the motion to vacate the preliminary injunction. The Federal Rules of Evidence apply in “contempt proceedings, except those in which the court may act summarily.” Fed. R. Evid. 1101(b); see Joint Stock Co. Channel One Russia Worldwide v. Infomir LLC,

, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2017) (“Evidence that would not be admissible under established federal rules regarding the competency of evidence at trial may not be considered on a motion for contempt.) (quoting Ces/ik v. Miller Ford, Inc.,

, at *1 (D. Conn. June 5, 2006)). By contrast, the Federal “[R]ules of [E]vidence do not apply to a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction.” Zeneca, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 1999). Thus, “affidavits can be considered in

connection with a motion for a preliminary injunction.” Williams v. Rosenblatt Sec. Inc.,

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2016). Accordingly, the parties shall present for live testimony the witnesses with respect to the motion for contempt. Witnesses need not testify with respect to the motion to vacate but the Court will be prepared to hear cross-examination of the expert for Defendants should Plaintiff wish to conduct cross-examination. The request to defer the contempt hearing pending a ruling on the motion to vacate is DENIED. The hearing will be held on October 23, 2025 at 10am in Courtroom 15C of Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse. The parties shall meet and confer regarding whether the testimony of Plaintiff's expert witness 1s requested and each side shall file a letter by October 17, 2025 indicating the witnesses it will present at the hearing. Plaintiffs request that it present testimony telephonically is denied without prejudice. In any future application by either party to present evidence remotely, the parties shall either show good cause in compelling circumstances for such procedure, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a), or make a motion on consent. AB Dated: October 6, 2025 ie i New York, New York LEW Ge LILA United States District Judge