Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05122/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05122-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The factual background of this action has been described in prior orders and will not be

repeated here.

1

*E-FILED 12/13/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BERCUT-VANDERVOORT & CO., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

MAISON TARRIDE LEDROIT & CIE,

Defendant. /

NO. C 05-5122 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

MOTION TO COMPEL

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Maison Tarride Ledroit & Cie (“MTL”) moves to compel plaintiff BercutVandervoort & Co. (“BVC”) to provide further responses to six interrogatories. The motion was

heard on December 13, 2006. Based on the parties’ briefing, the arguments of counsel, and the

record herein, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

 II. DISCUSSION1

A. Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 4

Interrogatory No. 2 requests BVC to identify each contract with which it contends MTL

interfered. Interrogatory No. 4 seeks the same information with respect to “business relationships.” 

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 72 Filed 12/13/06 Page 1 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In response, BVC states that MTL had interfered with “oral distribution agreements and written

contracts (as evidenced by the purchase orders)” and with “business relationships” between BVC

and its distributors. BVC lists a handful of its distributors by name, and directs MTL to documents

previously produced or to be produced, asserting that the names of “all of the distributors” in the

purchase orders could be found therein. 

MTL contends that BVC has misused Rule 33 (d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

because even after the meet and confer process and the briefing on this motion, MTL is uncertain as

to what contracts or business relationships BVC believes are in dispute. MTL points out that BVC’s

opposition states it is making no claim of interference prior to June of 2005, but that nearly all of the

purchase orders and invoices produced by BVC are dated prior to that time.

Although BVC’s original responses do not identify documents with adequate specificity to

satisfy the requirements of Rule 33 (d), the real crux of the present dispute appears to relate more to

the parties’ respective views of the merits than to compliance with Rule 33 (d) per se. BVC’s

opposition, taken together with its responses, reveals that BVC’s basic theory is that: (1) prior to

June of 2005, it had long-established relationships with various distributors to which it sold wines

bearing the trademarks in dispute, and (2) since June of 2005, BVC has been unable to sell those

brands of wines to those distributors as a result of MTL’s conduct. MTL may believe that this

theory is untenable, or does not satisfy the elements of interference with contract or business

relationship, but such arguments go to the merits, rather than to the adequacy of BVC’s discovery

responses.

That being said, however, MTL is entitled to interrogatory responses that are complete and

unambiguous, and it should not have to piece together the theories and facts on which BVC is

relying from responses, meet and confer correspondence, and briefing. It appears that BVC does not

contend it had any ongoing, written contracts with any distributors with which MTL interfered. If

that is true, BVC should so state. If it is not true, BVC should identify the contracts. If BVC is

contending that it had any ongoing oral contracts with which MTL interfered, it should identify

those. 

The essence of BVC’s claim, however, appears to lie in its assertion that it had ongoing

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 72 Filed 12/13/06 Page 2 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 By way of example, during meet and confer efforts, BVC’s counsel provided significant

information that is not part of the responses. (See Opposition at 8:8-15.)

3

business relationships with its distributors with which MTL interfered. The specific invoices and

purchase orders to which BVC points were not offered as examples of specific contracts with which

MTL had interfered, but to show the existence of those long-time business relationships, and as a

means of identifying all of the different distributors. BVC should amend its responses to make its

precise contentions on these points clear.2

Finally, BVC may be correct that it would serve no purpose to require it to list specifically

each purchase order or invoice. The issue, however, is not whether BVC should be required to

identify purchase orders and invoices, but whether it should be required to list the distributors

relevant to this action. BVC insists that the distributors can be ascertained from the purchase orders

and invoices it has produced, and from the meet and confer process wherein it identified by

production number the main group of such documents. BVC, however, has also stated that other

purchase orders and invoices may be included elsewhere in the production, and that while it believes

those documents to be “largely” duplicative of the documents specifically identified, it does not

foreclose reference to any additional distributors that might be identified in those other produced

documents. 

BVC’s contention that MTL could easily locate any such additional purchase orders and

invoices among the documents produced is insufficient. Rule 33 (d) requires a party relying on its

provisions “to specify the records” in which the information can be found. While that may not

require a party to provide specific production numbers in all instances, it is not sufficient for BVC to

say only, in effect, “just look through the entire production for anything that appears to be a

purchase order or invoice.” BVC will therefore be required either, (1) to serve an amended response

that includes a list of all of the distributors with which it contends it had relationships, where it

alleges those relationships have been harmed by the conduct of MTL; or (2) to serve an amended

response that includes a list by production number of all the purchase orders or invoices from which

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 72 Filed 12/13/06 Page 3 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The Court understands that BVC may not have yet completed its discovery into MTL’s

sales activities after June of 2005. It is unclear whether BVC believes it has a viable interference

claim with respect to any distributors to which MTL has made no sales. If BVC believes it has

interference claims even in such circumstances, then its responses to these interrogatories will not

depend on what it learns about MTL’s activities. If, however, BVC intends to pursue interference

claims only with respect to distributors to which MTL has made sales, then it should respond to

these interrogatories now based on its best information as to which distributors are involved, and

supplement the responses upon learning anything new.

4

 BVC also states that it cannot yet calculate the amount of “ill-gotten proceeds” MTL has

received from its sales of these brands. MTL disputes that is an appropriate or recoverable measure

of damages, but expressly disclaims seeking a further or amended response on this point.

4

BVC contends a complete list of the relevant distributors could be compiled. 3

 Accordingly, to the

extent explained above, the motion will be granted as to Interrogatories Nos. 2 and 4.

B. Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 5

These interrogatories seek, among other things, information as to the “nature and quantity”

of BVC’s damages sustained as a result of the alleged interference. BVC amended its original

responses to state that, based on the information it presently possesses and subject to expert analysis,

it expects at least $1.32 million in lost profits over the next three and a half years, as the result of not

being able to sell four specific brands of wine.4

 On reply, MTL complains that BVC’s amendments

to its responses are inadequate because they remain “completely silent on critical aspects of the

[alleged] interference,” omitting information as to when or how the interference occurred. (Reply at

5:26-6:2.) MTL’s motion, however, expressly states, “[i]t is only with respect to th[e] damages

portion of BVC’s responses to Interrogatory Numbers 3 and 5 that MTL is moving to compel here.”

(Motion at 6:19-21.) Accordingly, the adequacy of BVC responses with respect to these other

“critical aspects” of the claims is not before the Court. 

With respect to the issue presented by the motion, MTL asserts that it is entitled to know

specifically what documents BVC relied on in making its $1.32 million calculation. These

interrogatories, though, do not seek identification of documents, and as BVC points out, damages

calculations ultimately will be a matter of expert testimony. It is true, however, that BVC’s

amended responses invoke Rule 33 (d) and point MTL to the “purchase orders, invoices, and sales

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 72 Filed 12/13/06 Page 4 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

histories” as the basis for calculating lost profits. The reference to Rule 33 (d) in this instance is

misplaced. Either BVC has additional material on damages beyond its narrative answer, or it does

not. Thus, BVC must serve an amended response that either specifically identifies by production

number the documents on which it relies, or that strikes the open-ended reference to Rule 33 (d).

That said, BVC has adequately disclosed the “nature and quantity” of its claimed damages at this

juncture; the details of how those damages are calculated and the specific documents on which BVC

relies to support those calculations will all be appropriate subjects of expert reports and expert

discovery in due course. Accordingly, to the limited extent set forth above, the motion will be

granted as to Interrogatories Nos. 3 and 5.

C. Interrogatory No. 6

This interrogatory requests BVC to “describe in detail and by product BVC’s role in the

production” of the wines in dispute. BVC responds that, (1) it “has played a significant role in

selecting each of the wines;” (2) Henry van der Voort “often went to France to personally taste and

select the wines;” and (3) BVC “often communicated with MTL regarding the quality of the wines.” 

BVC then invokes Rule 33 (d) and refers generally to all documents that had been or will be

produced.

BVC argues that reference to “virtually” all of the documents produced in this action is

appropriate because MTL has broadly defined this interrogatory as calling for information regarding

BVC’s role in “any step of production” and all of the documents have at least some tangential

relationship that general concept. BVC, however, is conflating a relevance inquiry with the purpose

of Rule 33 (d). This interrogatory called for BVC to describe its role in production of the wines. 

Although “virtually all” of the mass of documents to which it has pointed very well may reflect

some aspect of the parties’ relationship, the invocation of Rule 33 (d) is insufficient to make this a

meaningful or complete interrogatory response.

As BVC’s present response stands, its only claimed role in the production of the wines was

Mr. van der Vort’s personal involvement in selecting the wines and “communications” between

BVC and MTL regarding quality. To the extent that BVC wishes to rely on Rule 33(d) rather than

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 72 Filed 12/13/06 Page 5 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 MTL requests in a footnote that the Court extend its rulings in this motion to apply to

Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 9, in the event that BVC’s amended responses thereto may “suffer the same

ills” when provided. The Court cannot rule on the adequacy of responses not before it. On any

occasion, however, that a discovery request or response presents an issue identical to or substantially

similar to an issue on which the Court has previously ruled, parties are expected to take the prior

ruling into account.

ORDER 

C 05-5122 JF (RS) 

6

by describing those “communications” in any further detail, it shall serve an amended response

identifying any such documents reflecting those communications by production numbers. To the

extent BVC intends to rely on any other facts to show its involvement in the production of the

wines, it shall serve an amended response stating those facts in reasonable detail. As discussed at

the hearing, however, as a condition to BVC’s obligation to serve such an amended response, the

parties shall first engage in further meet and confer discussions in an attempt to reach a mutuallyagreed definition of “production.” If, and only if, the parties cannot reach such an agreement, BVC

may state its understanding of the term in its amended response and then respond accordingly.

D. Interrogatory No. 11

MTL has effectively conceded that BVC’s amendment to its response to this interrogatory is

sufficient.5

III. CONCLUSION

The motion to compel is granted to the extent set forth above, and is otherwise denied. BVC

shall serve amended responses as required by this order within 30 days of this date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 72 Filed 12/13/06 Page 6 of 7
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER 

C 05-5122 JF (RS) 

7

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Lila Inayat Bailey lbailey@perkinscoie.com

Anne Elizabeth Kearns akearns@kksrr.com, alau@kksrr.com

Kenneth E. Keller kkeller@kksrr.com, alau@kksrr.com

Michael H. Rubin mrubin@perkinscoie.com, sandrews@perkinscoie.com

Kenneth B. Wilson kwilson@perkinscoie.com, eeberline@perkinscoie.com;

sshanberg@perkinscoie.com; wriggs@perkinscoie.com; lbailey@perkinscoie.com;

dhellmoldt@perkinscoie.com; mrubin@perkinscoie.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 12/13/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:05-cv-05122-JF Document 72 Filed 12/13/06 Page 7 of 7