Herman Miller, Inc. v. Zuo Modern Contemporary, Inc. et al

Filing 71

ORDER re 70 Status Report filed by Danrick Commerce Group, LLC. Signed by Judge James Larson on 11/4/10. (jlsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2010)

Download PDF
Herman Miller, Inc. v. Zuo Modern Contemporary, Inc. et al Doc. 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California Herman Miller, Inc, Plaintiff, v. Zuo Modern Contemporary, Inc, et al., Defendants. ________________________________/ No. C 10-1608 CRB (JL) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Charles R. Breyer) under 28 U.S.C. 636(b). This Court received Defendant Danrick Commerce Group's motion e-filed at Docket # 62 to compel answers by Plaintiff Herman Miller to Danrick's Interrogatories 4, 6, and 8. Plaintiff in its opposition brief, e-filed at Docket # 65, argued inter alia, that the additional responses that Danrick moved to compel were actually responsive to Danrick's Interrogatories 11 and 12, to which Plaintiff's responses were not due until November 2. Mediation in this case is scheduled for November 4. Nevertheless, Plaintiff in its opposition brief also promised to respond to Interrogatories 11 and 12 on or before October 25. This Court denied the motion to compel without prejudice and ordered the parties to meet and confer. The Court received the parties' update, as provided in the Court's order, and hereby denies the motion to compel further answers to interrogatories. C-10-1608 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 1 of 2 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The Court accepts Plaintiff's representation that it has answered interrogatories 4, 6, and 8 to the best of its ability regarding when in time it obtained secondary meaning in its asserted trade dress in the Eames Lounge and Ottoman; Eames Aluminum Group; and the Eames Soft Pad chairs. Plaintiff responded that these trade dresses acquired their secondary meaning "a long time before Danrick began selling the accused products. The date Danrick began such sales lies within the possession of Danrick." The Court finds that this answers the Interrogatory, albeit curtly. However, the Court also finds that a reasonable follow-up to this Interrogatory, in the form of an Interrogatory or Request for Production of Documents, would be "What is the basis for or evidence in Plaintiff's possession custody or control that supports its contention that the trade dress acquired its secondary meaning `a long time before Danrick began selling the accused products.'" Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses to Interrogatories 4, 6, and 8 is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED DATED: November 4, 2010 __________________________________ JAMES LARSON United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G:\JLALL\CASES\CIV-REF\10-1608\further order.wpd C-10-1608 DISCOVERY ORDER Page 2 of 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?