Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05153/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05153-16/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

RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL 

(Document 134)

On October 6, 2006, Defendant Cantine Rallo, S.p.A. (“Rallo”) renewed a prior motion

to compel production of documents and responses to interrogatories. The matter was originally

scheduled to be heard before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge on

October 27, 2006. The Court rescheduled the hearing to November 1, 2006 and then continued

the motion to November 9, 2006. D. Greg Durbin and Kathyleen A. O’Brien appeared on behalf

of Plaintiff E.&J. Gallo Winery (“Gallo”). Jonathan Moskin appeared on behalf of Defendant. 

A. PRIOR ORDER 

On July 28, 2006, Rallo filed a motion to compel production of documents and responses

to interrogatories. On September 7, 2006, the Court issued an Order granting the motion in part

stating: 

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 182 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 5
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

The joint statement submitted in support of Defendant’s

motion fails to follow the format specified in Rule 37-251 and

therefore leaves the Court uncertain as to the exact issues in

dispute. 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. 

The Court ordered Gallo to “search the regional offices of markets in the United States

where the products were distributed.” But held that “[p]laintiff’s knowledge of sales outside of

the United States is not relevant.” 

With regard to Request Nos. 7-10, 43-46, Interrogatories 2, 3, 16-17, seeking information

relating to Gallo’s products that use the mark “Gallo” prominently, without the marks “E&J

Gallo” or “Ernest & Julio Gallo,” the court held: 

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.

The court ordered Gallo to produce supplemental responses consistent with the order

within 20 days of service.

B. RALLO’S RENEWED MOTION

On October 6, 2006, Rallo renewed its motion to compel. Rallo contends Gallo has

failed to comply with the Court’s September 7, 2006 Order in the following respects:

1. Rallo contends Gallo has refused to conduct searches of its regional offices of

markets in the United States where Rallo alleges its products were distributed for

retail sale in quantity.

At the October 12, 2006 telephonic conference, at the Court’s request, Gallo agreed to

identify for the Court from Rallo’s production of documents, those locations where substantial

Rallo product was distributed and the location of the corresponding Gallo regional offices which

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 182 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 5
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 proposed searching for responsive documents. Gallo is in the process of doing so and

intends to complete its review by November 30, 2006. Accordingly, Gallo is ordered to submit a

list of the offices to Rallo by November 30, 2006 and thereafter perform the searches and

produce responsive documents or before January 1, 2007.

2. Rallo contends Gallo has failed to adequately respond to document requests

relating to two of its registered marks, Registration No. 444,756 and Registration

No. 891339 (Document Requests 1-6 and Interrogatory No. 1).

Gallo contends it has produced all exemplars and related documents it has been able to

locate and has agreed to continue to search and produce any such additional responsive

exemplars. Defendant’s Motion to Compel a further response is DENIED. 

3. Rallo contends that Gallo’s supplemental responses describing the charts

produced by Gallo and the information produced does not adequately explain

those products that use the mark “Gallo” without also using the marks “E&J

Gallo” or “Earnest & Julio Gallo” or contain sufficient sales figures. 

(Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 16-17 and Document Requests 7-10, 43-47)

Gallo contends it has supplemented its responses to Interrogatory Nos 2, 3, 16 and 17 and

Document Request Nos. 7-10 and 43-46 and has produced detailed lists identifying all responsive

Gallo products sold for each year between 1998 and 2006. In addition, Gallo’s supplemental

response served September 27, 2006, included a lengthy explanation of all of the information

contained in the documents at issue (GW000027-28). Gallo therefore argues it has fully

complied with the Court’s September 7, 2006 Order. 

The dispute between the parties appears to involve the substance of the documents

produced and their meaning rather than whether or not Gallo has responded. This dispute cannot

be resolved in the discovery process. The parties will be free to make their respective arguments

regarding the meaning of the documents at trial and/or dispositive motions. Defendant’s Motion

to Compel further response is DENIED. 

4. Rallo contends that Gallo’s responses to Interrogatory Nos. 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11,

requesting an explanation of how Gallo became aware of Rallo products and its

actions after learning this information are inadequate and Gallo has failed to

produce documents (Requests Nos. 11-12, 18, 21-23, 24, 25, 28).

Gallo states that it has fully responded to the interrogatories by explaining how it became

aware of Rallo’s products and its actions after learning this information and has provided all the

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 182 Filed 11/20/06 Page 3 of 5
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

information it has identifying persons with knowledge regarding those facts. However, upon

further inquiry, it appears that Gallo may have additional information regarding “Mr. Reidel,”

who undertook the investigation. Accordingly, Gallo is ordered to provide a supplemental

response to Interrogatory No. 4 in which Gallo shall further detail Mr. Reidel’s investigation. 

Gallo shall also supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 9. Gallo shall also supplement its

responses to Request for Document Nos. 21-24 by identifying, by Bates numbers, which

documents are responsive to each request.

4. Rallo contends Gallo has failed to respond to its Second Request for Production of

Documents which was directed to the state of the market and Gallo’s reputation in

the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. Rallo argues this information bears on the

likelihood of consumer confusion when Rallo wines were first sold in this country

and on Gallo’s claim for dilution (Count Three) as well as its proposed new claim.

While Gallo still maintains that these requests are not relevant to a claim or defense in

this action, Gallo has agreed to determine whether it has any of the requested information and if

so, what would be involved in locating and producing it. The Court finds that the requests are

relevant to Gallo’s dilution claim and therefore Gallo shall be ordered to produce any responsive

documents on or before November 30, 2006, subject to Gallo’s demonstrating that production

would be unduly burdensome.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, Rallo’s renewed motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART

AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

1. As discussed during the October 12, 2006 telephone conference, Gallo is ordered

to submit a list of the offices it proposes to search to Rallo by November 30, 2006

and thereafter perform the searches and produce responsive documents or before

January 1, 2007;

2. On or before November 30, 2006, Gallo shall provide a supplemental response to

Interrogatory No. 4 in which Gallo shall further detail Mr. Reidel’s investigation;

3. On or before November 30, 2006, Gall shall provide a supplemental response to

Interrogatory No. 9;

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 182 Filed 11/20/06 Page 4 of 5
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

4. On or before November 30, 2006, Gallo shall provide supplemental response to

Request for Documents 21-24 by identifying, by Bates numbers, which documents

are responsive to each request; and

5. On or before November 30, 2006, Gallo shall produce documents responsive to

Rallo’s second document request, subject to Gallo’s demonstrating that

production would be unduly burdensome. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 20, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 182 Filed 11/20/06 Page 5 of 5