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)

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