Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05153/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05153-8/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 IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL 

(Document 94)

On July 28, 2006, Defendant Cantine Rallo, S.p.A. (“Defendant”) filed the instant motion

to compel production of documents and responses to interrogatories. On August 18, 2006, the

matter was heard before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. D. Greg

Durbin, Kathyleen A. O’Brien and Andrea Hasegawa appeared on behalf of Plaintiff E.&J. Gallo

Winery (“Plaintiff”). Jonathan Moskin appeared on behalf of Defendant. 

Defendant brings this motion to compel responses to its First, Second and Third set of

Requests for Production of Documents and its First and Second Set of Interrogatories.

DISCUSSION

A. Local Rule 37-251

The parties are well aware of the existence of Local Rule 37-251(c), which requires the

submission of a joint statement regarding the discovery disagreement and in fact the parties have

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 115 Filed 09/07/06 Page 1 of 4
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 The attorneys seem to spend the more lines of the statement disparaging each other and each other’s 1

client’s products rather than dealing with the merits of their discovery dispute.

2

submitted several other joint statements which generally comply with the Rule. Among other

things, Rule 37-251(c) requires the parties to set forth their contentions as to each issue,

including a memorandum of each party’s respective arguments concerning the issues in

dispute and the legal authorities in support thereof. Each specific interrogatory,

deposition question or other item objected to, or concerning which a protective order is

sought, and the objection thereto, shall be reproduced in full. The respective arguments

and supporting authorities of the parties shall be set forth immediately following each

such objection. When an objection is raised to a number of items or a general protective

order is sough that is related to a number of specific items, the arguments and briefing

need not be repeated.

The joint statement submitted in support of Defendant’s motion fails to follow the format

specified in Rule 37-251. Rather it is an unfocused discussion of the parties general contentions1

which leaves the court to comb through the discovery requests and responses in an attempt to

discern which arguments apply to which requests and responses, which disputes have been the

subject of a meet and confer between the parties, and which responses Plaintiff has agreed to

supplement. The joint statement is difficult to follow and imposes a great burden on the Court to

extract the remaining issues once Plaintiff’s agreements to supplement have been considered. 

Therefore, other than the discovery requests specifically discussed below, the Court will defer

ruling on Defendant’s motion until (1) Plaintiff has supplemented its responses; and (2) the

parties submit a joint statement that complies with the formal requirements of Rule 37-251. The

Court is willing to extend the discovery deadlines if necessary, but the parties must do the work

required of them and provide the Court with a product that is capable of proper and efficient

analysis. 

In the future motions with deficient joint statements the Court will be removed form the

calendar until such time as a compliant joint statement is submitted.

B. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that a party “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,

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 115 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 4
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

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

any discoverable matter.” 

Searching Offices Other than the Modesto Headquarters

Paragraph E of Plaintiff’s general objections stated in response to each set of discovery

requests states that Plaintiff refuses to undertake a search of records at any of its offices other

than its Modesto headquarters. The objection further states that documents responsive to the

requests would likely be located at the Modesto headquarters and a search of non-headquarter

offices would be oppressive. 

Plaintiff argues that it is extremely unlikely that any office other than its Modesto

headquarters would have additional, non-duplicative documents. Regarding discovery requests

relating to Plaintiff’s knowledge of sales of Defendant’s products bearing the RALLO mark, the

Court finds it reasonable to require Plaintiff to search the regional offices of markets in the

United States where the Defendant alleges its products were distributed for retail sale in quantity. 

Plaintiff’s knowledge of sales or consumer confusion outside of the United States is neither

relevant nor discoverable. 

Request for Production Nos. 7-10, 43-46, Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 16-17

In part, these discovery requests seek information relating to Plaintiff’s products that use

the mark “Gallo” prominently, without the marks “E&J Gallo” or “Ernest & Julio Gallo.” The

Court acknowledges that the wording of the requests is somewhat confusing, but Plaintiff’s main

objections are directed at the form of the requests, rather than the substance. Accordingly, the

Court finds that Defendant is entitled to exemplars of labels used during the relevant time period

that both (1) use the mark “Gallo” prominently; and (2) do not also use the marks “E&J Gallo” or

“Ernest & Julio Gallo.” 

Similarly, Defendant is also entitled to an explanation of the sales (Bates GW0027) and

advertising data (Bates GW 0028) produced so as to allow for meaningful evaluation.

Finally, as an aside, the parties should refrain from disparaging each other and the quality

of each other’s products, i.e., describing wines as “cheap jug wines” or “cooking wines.” The

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 115 Filed 09/07/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Court understands the parties’ theories in this action, and such remarks serve only to detract the

Court from the legal and factual disputes at issue. 

ORDER

For the above reasons, Defendant’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART AND

DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff shall produce supplemental responses consistent with this order

within twenty (20) days of service of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 7, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 115 Filed 09/07/06 Page 4 of 4