Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05153/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05153-17/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 RALLO

TO PRODUCE WITNESSES FOR

DEPOSITION

(Document 192)

On December 15, 2006, Plaintiff E. & J. Gallo Winery (“Gallo”) filed the instant motion

to compel defendant Cantine Rallo, S.p.A. (“Rallo”) to produce witnesses for deposition in this

district or a location agreed upon by the parties. On January 12, 2007, the matter was heard

before the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Kathyleen A. O’Brien

and Greg Durbin appeared on behalf of Gallo. Jonathan Moskin appeared on behalf of Rallo.

BACKGROUND

Gallo has served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice on Rallo, together with deposition

notices on four Rallo witnesses: Andrea Vesco and Irene Greco, both of whom Rallo identified in

its Initial Disclosures as having knowledge of Rallo’s marketing and sales, Ignazio Marino, who

Rallo identified as having knowledge of the history of Rallo wine and sales in the U.S., and

Francesco Vesco, Rallo’s owner and declarant. In the notices, Gallo identified Fresno, California

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 209 Filed 01/16/07 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

as the location for the depositions and set the depositions for the week of January 8, 2007 to

coincide with the previously scheduled settlement conference. Rallo has taken the position that it

will not produce its witnesses in Fresno and that Gallo must depose them in Italy. Gallo argues

that the Court should compel Rallo to bring its witnesses to Fresno for depositions to ensure

timely judicial intervention to resolve discovery disputes and to create a level playing field in

which both sides have access to the same discovery tools and evidence. See Vitamin Antitrust

Litig., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25070, at *29 and Dean Foods Co. v. Eastman Chem.Co., Coo4379 WHO, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25447, at * 21 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2001).

Rallo opposes Gallo’s motion and argues the four witnesses should be deposed in Italy,

where they live and work. Rallo argues there is no basis to overturn the general rule that the

deposing party is required to take depositions in the vicinity in which the deponent resides. Rallo

disagrees that discovery disputes are certain and notes that there were no disputes during the May

2006 deposition of Francoli, the only deposition taken so far in this case. Rallo also points out

that this is not a case where its witnesses are refusing to appear voluntarily. If the motion is

granted, Rallo argues that the depositions should take place in New York, which is a closer for

the witnesses than California and further that Gallo should bear the witnesses’ travel expenses. 

At the hearing, Mr. Moskin represented that defendant’s motion for summary judgment

would be filed within the week and the only Rallo employee whose declaration would support

the motion would be that of Francesco Vesco, who resides and works in Italy. Based upon this

representation, the parties agreed to reserve the deposition notice issues with regard to other

Rallo witnesses and counsel for Gallo agreed to limit the present motion to the deposition of

Francesco Vesco, both individually and as the corporate designee of Rallo pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).

DISCUSSION

The deposition of a party (or its officers, employees, etc.) may be noticed wherever the

deposing party designates, subject to the Court’s power to order an alternative location. See

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). Normally, the deposition of a corporation through its agents, and officers

should be taken at its principal place of business. However, modification may be made when

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 209 Filed 01/16/07 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

justice so requires. In making its order, the Court considers convenience of the parties and

relative hardships in attending at the location designated. Rule 26(c) specifically provides for

protection from “undue burden or expense.” 

Here, Rallo’s principal place of business is located in Italy, which is also where the

deponent resides and works. The burden and expense of requiring Mr. Vesco and counsel to

travel to California for this deposition is great as is the burden of requiring Gallo and counsel to

travel to Italy. In order to minimize this burden to both Gallo and Rallo, the Court finds that

holding the deposition in New York, the location of Rallo’s counsel, is an equitable alternative. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. The deposition of Francesco Vesco, individually and as the corporate designee for

Rallo shall take place at the New York offices of Morrison & Foerster on January

30, 2007 and continue through February 2, 2007. Should these dates be

unavailable, Mr. Moskin shall so inform Ms. O’Brien on or before January 16,

2007 and alternative dates during the same week shall be agreed upon. The

parties shall bear their own travel expenses for this deposition;

2. On or before January 23, 2007, Mr. Moskin shall inform Ms. O’Brien, in writing,

the specific categories of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice to which Mr. Vesco

will testify. The parties shall meet and confer regarding any confusion and/or

ambiguities with respect to these categories;

3. The deposition issues regarding other Rallo witnesses whose deposition notices

have been served and other Rallo Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designees are deferred

until after a ruling on Rallo’s motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 16, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 209 Filed 01/16/07 Page 3 of 3