Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05153/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05153-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E. & J. GALLO WINERY, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

CANTINE RALLO, S. p. A., )

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:04cv5153 OWW DLB

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH COURT’S

JULY 17, 2006 ORDER

(Document 111)

On September 1, 2006, Plaintiff E. & J. Gallo Winery (“Gallo”) filed the instant motion

to compel compliance with the Court’s July 17, 2006 Order and for sanctions. On September 22,

2006, the matter was heard before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate

Judge. D. Greg Durbin and Kathyleen A. O’Brien appeared on behalf of Gallo. Jonathan

Moskin appeared on behalf of Defendant Cantine Rallo, S.p.A. (“Rallo”).

BACKGROUND

Gallo served its First Set of Interrogatories on May 5, 2006. Rallo responded on June 9,

2006. On July 17, 2006, the Court ordered Rallo to serve supplemental responses to

Interrogatories Nos. 1-16, 18-20, 22, 24 and 25, within twenty (20) days. In doing so the Court

stated:

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 129 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiff’s interrogatories are directly related to the relevant issues

and are likely the best way to obtain the requested information. 

While the requested information may be difficult to obtain given

Defendant’s status as a foreign entity, the expansive time period

involved, and the detailed information requested, it does not relieve

Defendant of its duty to provide responses to otherwise proper

interrogatories. Defendant indicated at the hearing that it did not

have information responsive to a number of the requests. Again,

however, this does not absolve Defendant of its duty to provide a

response to that effect. 

Rallo provided supplemental responses on August 7, 2006. These supplemental

responses are the subject of the present motion which Gallo filed on September 1, 2006, seeking

to compel further responses the interrogatories and compliance with the Court’s July 17, 2006

order. The parties filed their joint statement on September 19, 2006.

Gallo contends that in providing further responses, Rallo has employed the following

evasive tactics:

1. Reference to Bates ranges of previously produced documents which do not answer

the questions posed (See Responses to Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 14, 24 and 25);

2. Reference to Bates ranges of previously produced documents which do not answer

essential parts of the questions posed (See Responses to Nos. 1, 6, 7, and 12);

3. Referring to Bates ranges of previously produced documents, including

documents in Italian, from which it would be far more difficult for Gallo to obtain

answers than it would be for Rallo (See Responses to Nos. 2-4, 8-10, 13, and 15-

16); and

4. Instead of admitting it has no information, Defendant asserts that “further

documents and/or details” are in the hands of unidentified third parties or have

been lost or destroyed. (See Responses to Nos. 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 14 and 25).

Gallo requests a Court order requiring Rallo to immediately serve a second supplemental

response which:

1. Provides a full and complete answer to each interrogatory for which it has or can

obtain the answer through a diligent search and reasonable inquiry including Nos.

2-4, 8-10 and 13;

2. Withdraws its reference to any documents that do not answer the questions posed;

and

3. States that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, Defendant has

determined that it has no information responsive to each interrogatory for which

that is the case.

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 129 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Gallo also requests sanctions in the form of an order precluding Rallo from introducing

any evidence that it failed to produce in response to the interrogatories and an award of monetary

sanctions in the amount of $12,000.00.

Rallo contends the matters raised in this motion were resolved by the parties until Gallo,

on September 19, 2006 withdrew its agreement resolving the issues. Rallo has served a further

supplemental response to the interrogatories in which it clarifies that it has not withheld

documents. Rallo has also agreed to compile and produce a list of RALLO products and

exemplars.

DISCUSSION

 As Rallo has been advised on prior occasions, Gallo is entitled, as is Rallo, to complete

and straightforward responses to discovery, from which Gallo can determine whether Rallo is

withholding any information and if so, on what basis. If the clear and unequivocal response to

the interrogatory is that Rallo has produced all of the information it has been able to locate, then

Rallo must so state. 

Accordingly, Rallo will be given one final opportunity to respond to the subject

interrogatories. Rallo must provide these responses to Gallo on or before September 29, 2006. 

On or before October 3, 2006, the parties shall file with the Court an update on the issues

covered by this motion, using the modified meet, confer and briefing schedule ordered by the

Court at the September 22, 2006 hearing and memorialized in its September 25, 2006 Order. If

necessary, the Court shall hold a further hearing on this motion on October 6, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.

in Courtroom 9.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 26, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 129 Filed 09/26/06 Page 3 of 3