Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05153/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05153-6/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 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO

INTERROGATORIES

(Document 85)

On June 23, 2006, Plaintiff E. & J. Gallo Winery (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant motion to

compel further responses to its first set of interrogatories. On July 14, 2006, the matter was

heard before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Kathyleen A.

O’Brien appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Jonathan Moskin and D. Greg Durbin appeared on

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

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff served its First Set of Interrogatories on May 5, 2006. Defendant responded on

June 9, 2006. In its responses, Defendant sets forth 15 General Objections, including an

objection based on Rule 33(a) that the interrogatories are in excess of 25 separate requests. In

response to each interrogatory, Defendant refers to the applicable General Objections and in a

majority of responses, also indicates that it “has produced and/or will produce” responsive

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 91 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 2
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

documents. In response to three of the contested interrogatories, Defendant further states that it

will supplement its response at the close of discovery. 

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on June 23, 2006, seeking to compel responses to 22 of

the 25 interrogatories. The parties filed their joint statement on July 11, 2006. 

DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), “[p]arties may obtain discovery

regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party,

including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books,

documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of

any discoverable matter.”

Plaintiff raises numerous objections to Defendant’s responses. The Court need not

address each argument separately, however, as it is clear that Defendant’s responses are simply

inadequate. Defendant’s reference to general objections and unspecified documents falls short of

an adequate answer and, as with prior discovery responses, does not provide for meaningful

evaluation. 

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. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide supplemental

responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1-16, 18-20, 22, 24 and 25, within twenty (20) days of the date

of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 17, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 91 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 2