Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05153/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05153-7/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 PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT’S JUNE

13, 2006 ORDER, TO COMPEL

IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS

PRODUCED AND TO COMPEL FURTHER

RESPONSES TO SECOND SET OF 

INTERROGATORIES 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR SANCTIONS

(Document 92)

On July 21, 2006, Plaintiff E. & J. Gallo Winery (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant motion to

compel further compliance with the Court’s June 13, 2006 Order, to compel the identification of

documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s first set of document requests, to compel further

responses to Plaintiff’s second set of interrogatories and to request sanctions. On August 18,

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 filed a complaint on January 22, 2004, alleging federal trademark infringement,

state trademark infringement, state trademark dilution, state unfair competition and unjust

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 114 Filed 09/07/06 Page 1 of 7
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

enrichment. After the Court granted Defendant’s motion to vacate default judgment, Defendant

filed its answer on December 5, 2005. 

On June 13, 2006, this Court entered an order requiring Defendant to: (1) serve

supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production that clearly and

unambiguously state that it has no responsive documents in response to each request for which

that was the case; (2) identify documents it had withheld from production and produce a privilege

log which fully complied with the requirements of Rule 26(e)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure; and (3) produce any additional responsive documents by July 17, 2006. Plaintiff

argues Defendant has failed to comply with these portions of the Court’s Order.

Plaintiff also argues that Defendant has failed to identify which of the documents

produced respond to each document request, in violation of Rule 34. 

Further, on July 1, 2006, Defendants served responses to Plaintiff’s second set of

interrogatories. Plaintiff argues Defendant’s responses to Interrogatory Numbers 29, 32, 42, 43,

45 and 46 are deficient. 

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on July 21, 2006, and seeks to compel Defendant to

provide further supplemental responses to the discovery. Plaintiff also requests monetary and

preclusionary sanctions. The parties filed a joint statement pursuant to Local Rule 37-251 on

August 9, 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.”

Rule 34(a) allows parties to request documents and things within the scope of 26(b) and

within the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served. The

response shall,

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 114 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 7
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

state, with respect to each item or category, that inspection and related activities will be 

permitted as requested, unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for

the objection shall be stated. If objection is made to part of an item or category, the part

shall be specified and inspection permitted of the remaining parts. The party submitting

the request may move for an order under Rule 37(a) with respect to any objection to or

other failure to respond to the request or any part thereof, or any failure to permit

inspection as requested.

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 34(b). 

A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Compliance With the Court’s June 13, 2006 Order -

Requests.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant served supplemental responses to the document requests

on July 19, 2006 but the responses are still inadequate. Plaintiff notes that the Court has already

ordered Defendant to supplement its responses because the initial responses did not “allow for

meaningful evaluation.” The Court specifically told Defendant at the hearing that its responses

“should state with respect to those requests where you have found no documents that you’ve

found no documents.” Defendant was required to supplement its responses to state, with respect

to each request, whether: (1) it had produced all responsive documents; (2) it had withheld

documents and on what basis; or (3) it had no responsive documents. Plaintiff argues that

Defendant has violated the Order by again refusing to state whether or not it has produced

documents responsive to each particular request. 

Defendant’s supplemental responses once again do not allow for meaningful evaluation. 

Plaintiff still cannot determine, with certainty, the requests for which Defendant is producing

documents, the requests for which Defendant is withholding documents and on what basis, and

the requests for which it has no responsive documents. Defendant represents that on August 4,

the parties agreed that Defendant could simply supplement the answers in a letter; however this

does not provide plaintiff with verified responses upon which it can rely at trial. Accordingly

defendants are once again ordered to clarify with respect to Request Numbers 1-8, 10-18, 20,21,

23-25, 28-31, 33-34, 36-51, 53-62, 64, 67-70 and 77-80, specifically whether: (1) all responsive

documents have been produced; (2) documents have been withheld and on what basis; or (3) no

responsive documents exist.

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 114 Filed 09/07/06 Page 3 of 7
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

B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Identification of the Documents Produced in Response to

Plaintiff’s First Set of Document Requests

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has produced unidentified documents in no particular

order, leaving Plaintiff to guess the specific responses to which they respond. Plaintiff requests

that Defendant identify, by Bates number, which documents it has produced in response to each

request as required by Rule 34. Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s “labeling” merely identifies the

particular distributor to whom they relate.

Despite Defendant’s representation that it has produced 1026 pages of documents, each

grouping of which has been neatly labeled to designate the category of documents at issue, it is

reasonable for Plaintiff to request a supplemental response which enables them to determine

which documents are responsive to each request. See Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 37(a)(2). Accordingly,

Defendant will be ordered to supplement the response and to identify, by Bates number, which

documents are responsive to each specific request by Plaintiff.

C. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Second Set of Interrogatories.

1. Interrogatory No. 29

Interrogatory No. 29: For each supplier of any Rallo product which used the

RALLO trademark identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 8, identify all

persons associated with that supplier who have ever had any duties and/or

responsibilities with respect to that product in the United States, each such

person’s position and duties and responsibilities with respect to that product in the

Untied States and the inclusive time period when they performed such duties and

had such responsibilities. 

The term “Suppliers” is defined in Gallo’s First Set of Interrogatories as as “any Persons,

including, but not limited to, Cantine Rallo, who produced and supplied any Rallo

Product for the Untied States market.”

Response to Interrogatory No. 29: See General Objections 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 13. Without

prejudice to or waiver of the foregoing objections, to the extent Cantine Rallo is aware,

there have been no such Suppliers to it.

Plaintiff argues that Interrogatory No. 29 simply asks Defendant to identify for each entity

that has produced and Supplied to the United States market any Rallo product using any RALLO

trademark identified in response to Interrogatory No. 8, all persons associated with that entity

who have had any duties and/or responsibilities with respect to that product in the United States,

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 114 Filed 09/07/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

each such person’s position and duties and responsibilities. Plaintiff argues that Rallo’s response

that there have been no suppliers to Rallo does not respond to the question posed.

Defendant has agreed to supplement this response but states that all businesses in Italy are

on “summer hours” which essentially means businesses are closed during the month of August.

Based on Defendant’s agreement to supplement this response, Defendant is ordered to provide

further response to Interrogatory No. 29 on or before September 22, 2006.

2. Interrogatory Nos. 32, 42, 43 and 45.

These interrogatories ask Defendant to identify the third parties and persons specified. 

Plaintiff contends Defendant’s response provided only the names of certain individuals and did

not include other identifying information as requested. Plaintiff states that the term “Identify” as

used in the interrogatories, when applied to a person, was defined to require Defendant to state

the full name of the person, his company affiliation, job title, address, telefax number and

telephone number and to fully describe his role in any matters which are the subject of the

response. As applied to an entity, the term required Defendant to state its full name, address,

telefax number, its relationship, if any, to Cantine Rallo (eg., manufacturer, customer, supplier,

consultant etc.) and the name and job title of Cantine Rallo’s contact person, if any, at that entity.

Defendant has agreed to supplement its response. Based on Defendant’s agreement to

supplement, Defendant is ordered to provide further response to Interrogatory Nos. 32, 42, 43

and 45 on or before September 22, 2006.

3. Interrogatory No. 46

Interrogatory No. 46: State whether you have licensed the use of any Rallo

trademark to any person in the United States and, if anything other than an

unqualified “no,” identify each such person and the licensed goods or services.

Response to Interrogatory No. 46: See General Objections 1, 3, 9, 10, 13, 14. 

Cantine Rallo further objects that this interrogatory calls for a legal conclusion. 

Without prejudice to or waiver of the foregoing objections, as Cantine Rallo

understands this request, it is not aware of any such licenses.

Plaintiff argues this interrogatory is straightforward and simply asks whether Rallo has

licensed any Rallo trademark. Plaintiff insists it is entitled to an unqualified and unequivocal

response to the question, without the qualification, “as Cantine Rallo understands this request,”

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 114 Filed 09/07/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

Defendant objects to this interrogatory as the term “license” is a legal term by which (in

the trademark context) most attorneys mean an authorization to a third party to produce a

product. Defendant contends Cantine Rallo produced all the Rallo wine sold in this country. 

Defendant’s do believe however, there is language in an agreement with Distillerie Stock (which

Plaintiff has) which speaks in terms of a license to sell in this country. However, Defendant does

not believe this is a license in the strict sense intended by the interrogatory. Consequently,

Defendant is unable to abandon its objection to this “inherently ambiguous Interrogatory 46.”

Defendant is ordered to provide further response to Interrogatory No. 46 on or before

September 22, 2006, in which Defendant clarifies the response.

D. Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s conduct throughout discovery in this case, including

with respect to the discovery at issue in this motion, has violated both the letter and spirit of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has successfully moved to compel twice with respect

to its first set of document requests and to its first set of interrogatories. Plaintiff requests

monetary sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4) and (b)(2) against both Rallo and its counsel and

that Defendant be precluded from introducing into evidence in this lawsuit any documents or

evidence responsive to any of Plaintiff’s discovery requests which it has not produced to date.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff continues to file unnecessary discovery motions to

maintain maximum financial pressure on its much smaller adversary. Defendant points out that

Plaintiff served the instant motion prior to a meet and confer. As discussed above, Defendant

contends the matters which are the subject of this motion were resolved by meet and confer

conferences which occurred after this motion was served.

Rule 37 provides for the award expenses, including attorney’s fees, to the prevailing party

in a motion to compel compliance with discovery unless the responding party provides

substantial justification for the non-compliance. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4)(A). Sanctions may

also be awarded against a person or party for failure to obey a prior court order compelling

discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2). In such cases the Court may make “such orders in regard to

the failure as are just.” Id.

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 114 Filed 09/07/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

While it is clear that the parties, on several occasions have been unable to resolve

discovery disputes and that Court involvement has been necessary, the present motion appears to

have been necessitated largely due to the practical difficulties of representing a client located in

another country. The meet and confer process appears to have been successful in resolving most

of the issues presented in this motion and therefore the Court does not believe sanctions are

warranted. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is therefore denied. Defendant is cautioned however,

that in no event will it be able to introduce at trial, without a showing of cause, evidence

responsive to any of Plaintiff’s discovery requests which is not produced in discovery.

CONCLUSION 

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

supplemental responses to the discovery in accordance with this Order, on or before September

22, 2006. 

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 114 Filed 09/07/06 Page 7 of 7