Jackson Family Wines, Inc et al v. Diageo North America, Inc. et al

Filing 116

ORDER by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying in part and granting in part 115 Discovery Letter Brief (Motion to Compel) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13

JACKSON FAMILY WINES, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

14
15
16
17

Case No. 11-5639 EMC (JSC)
ORDER DENYING IN PART AND
GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO
COMPEL (Dkt. No. 115)

DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.

18
19

This trademark infringement action between wine industry competitors has resulted in

20

numerous discovery disputes. Although fact discovery closed in July 2013, the parties have

21

submitted yet another discovery dispute to the Court. On August 2, 2013, the Court granted

22

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel a 30(b)(6) deposition on, among other topics, the distribution of

23

Defendants’ Crème de Lye chardonnay product. (Dkt. No. 77.) The deposition of

24

Defendants’ 30(b)(6) designee on this topic, Paul Kalagher, occurred on October 30, 2013.

25

Plaintiff now seeks another deposition on this same topic on the ground that Mr. Kalagher was

26

not appropriately prepared to answer relevant questions. (Dkt. No. 115.) After carefully

27

considering the parties’ joint discovery letter brief, and having reviewed the transcript of Mr.

28

Kalagher’s deposition in its entirety, the Court declines to order a further deposition; however,

1

within one week of the date of this Order Defendants shall produce to Plaintiffs the documents

2

which Mr. Kalagher reviewed to prepare for this deposition to the extent such documents have

3

not previously been produced.

4

Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) notice broadly sought testimony regarding “[d]istribution of

5

Your CRÈME DE LYS wine products, including but not limited to Your distribution through

6

Southern Wine & Spirits of America d/b/a Pacific Wine and Spirits.” (Dkt. No. 67-1.) While

7

Mr. Kalagher was unable to answer some questions which he should have been prepared to

8

answer, many of the deposition questions went to the topic’s scope or were not clearly called

9

for in light of its broad nature. For example, Mr. Kalagher cannot be faulted for not being

Northern District of California

able to answer questions regarding Defendants’ conduct with respect to Plaintiff’s La Crema

11
United States District Court

10

product or communications with distributors. Further, many of the questions were actually

12

about marketing, not distribution. If Plaintiffs wanted testimony on such discrete issues, the

13

deposition notice needed to be more specific. Further, Plaintiffs were on notice that

14

Defendants’ distributors would likely have the most specific knowledge of where Crème de

15

Lye is sold, yet Plaintiffs cancelled their deposition of Defendants’ largest distributor. At this

16

late date in the litigation when fact discovery has long closed a further 30(b)(6) deposition

17

would serve no purpose other than to increase the parties’ costs.

18

On the other hand, the answers to questions Mr. Kalagher should have been able to

19

answer—for example, factual questions regarding where Defendants’ product is sold—appear

20

for the most part to be included in the documents Mr. Kalagher reviewed to prepare for his

21

deposition. As Defendants do not dispute that the documents are relevant and responsive to

22

Plaintiffs’ previous discovery requests, Defendants shall produce the documents to Plaintiffs

23

within one week of the date of this Order to the extent the documents have not previously

24

been produced.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 2, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28

2