Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05153/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05153-4/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 FOR LEAVE 

TO SERVE ADDITIONAL

INTERROGATORIES

(Document 66)

On May 5, 2006, Plaintiff E. & J. Gallo Winery (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant motion for

leave to file additional interrogatories. On May 26, 2006, the matter was heard before the

Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. Kathyleen A. O’Brien and D. Greg

Durbin appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. Jonathan Moskin appeared on behalf of Defendant

Cantine Rallo, S.p.A. (“Defendant”).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed its complaint on January 22, 2004, alleging federal trademark infringement,

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

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

filed its answer on December 5, 2005.

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 75 Filed 05/30/06 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 Plaintiff has also served subpoenas on two US distributors, each seeking 40 categories of documents. 1

2

Plaintiff served its first set of interrogatories along with a request for production of

documents in March 2006. The first set contained 25 interrogatories, most containing numerous 1

subparts. On May 15, 2006, Defendant provided its responses to the document request and

produced almost 1,000 pages of documents. Defendant also explained that additional documents

were expected from Italy. Responses to the first set of interrogatories are due on June 6, 2006.

Plaintiff filed the instant motion on May 5, 2006, and seeks permission to serve an

additional set of interrogatories on Defendant. The proposed second set contains 23

interrogatories, most of which contain numerous subparts. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Cantine Rallo, S.p.A., is based in Marsala, Italy, and has been producing Marsala wine

bearing the name RALLO since 1860. The wine has been sold in the United States since at least

as early as 1955. Defendant first registered its trademark and trade name RALLO for Marsala

Wine in 1955. The registration was maintained until 2002, when it was allowed to lapse. 

Defendant filed a new intent to use application in 2001. The application was approved,

but then opposed by Plaintiff in 2003. During the proceeding before Trademark Trial and Appeal

Board (“TTAB”), Plaintiff filed the instant action in this Court. The TTAB action has been

stayed pending the outcome of this suit. 

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a) provides that a party must obtain leave of court to

serve interrogatories in excess of the 25 permitted. Leave shall be granted “to the extent

consistent with the principles of Rule 26(b)(2),” which states:

The frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods otherwise permitted under these

rules and by any local rule shall be limited by the court if it determines that: (I) the

discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some

other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party

seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the

information sought; or (iii) the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its

likely benefit, taking into account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the

parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation, and the

importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues. 

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 75 Filed 05/30/06 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

The party requesting leave to serve additional interrogatories must make a “particularized

showing” why the additional discovery is necessary. Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Aon Risk

Services, Inc. of Minn., 187 F.R.D. 578, 586 (D. Minn. 1999); see also ND CA Rule 33-3

(requiring a request to propound additional interrogatories to explain in detail why it is necessary

to propound each additional question); In re At Home Corp., 2005 WL 289976, *3 (N.D.Cal.

2005) (a party seeking over-limit depositions must make a “particularized showing of why the

discovery is necessary”).

During the hearing, it became clear that Defendant’s main objection to the proposed

second set of interrogatories, taking into consideration the outstanding first set of interrogatories

and the recently answered request for production of documents, was that the cumulative effect of

the discovery was overly burdensome. After reviewing both sets of interrogatories, it appears

that the first set asks broad, general questions while the second set poses more specific, detailoriented questions, and in fact, answers to the first set may provide answers to interrogatories in

the second set. Plaintiff, however, indicated that at the very least, it needed names of witnesses

so it could move forward with discovery. After further discussion, Defendant agreed to answer

certain questions in the second set of interrogatories dealing with the identification of witnesses,

and Plaintiff agreed to defer serving the remaining questions in the second set until receiving

Defendant’s responses to the first set and evaluating whether the remaining questions are

necessary. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve additional interrogatories is GRANTED

IN PART. Plaintiff is granted leave to serve the following interrogatories: 29, 32, 42, 43, 45 and

46. Defendant shall respond in a timely manner. Upon receipt of Defendant’s responses,

Plaintiff shall evaluate the need for the remaining interrogatories. If the parties cannot reach an

agreement, they may contact the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 30, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05153-LJO -DLB Document 75 Filed 05/30/06 Page 3 of 3