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

Filing 52

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE (DKT. NO. 51). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2013)

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

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

13

v.

Case No. 11-5639 EMC (JSC)
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
DISPUTE (DKT. NO. 51.)

14
15
16

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

17
18

Now pending before the Court is a joint discovery letter brief concerning Plaintiffs’

19
20

motion to compel Defendants to answer certain Requests for Admission (“RFA”). After

21

carefully considering the parties’ disputes, the Court concludes that oral argument is

22

unnecessary, see L.R. Civ. 7-1(b), and rules as set forth below.

23

A.

Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission Nos. 1 and 4
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel answers to RFA Nos. 1 and 4 is DENIED. Defendants

24
25

have answered request No. 1: they deny that they compete with wines offered by Plaintiffs in

26

connection with the LA CREMA mark. If Plaintiffs intended a different definition of

27

“compete” from that used by Defendants, the definition should have been set forth in the

28

RFA.

1

As to Request No. 4, the Court agrees with Defendants that “high level of commercial

2

success” is vague and unambiguous. Plaintiffs’ RFA offers no definition of what is meant by

3

a “high level of commercial success.” A “high level of commercial success,” like “beauty,”

4

is in the eye of the beholder. Accordingly, the request is “so ambiguous that [Defendants]

5

cannot, in good faith, frame an intelligent reply.” Schwarzer, et al., Federal Civil Procedure

6

Before Trial ¶ 11:2059 (2011).

7

B.

8
9

Plaintiffs’ Request for Admission Nos. 18, 19, 23, 24, 42, 43, and 44
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to RFA Nos. 18, 23, and 24 is GRANTED. The

requests are relevant to Plaintiffs’ intent in selecting the CRÈME DE LYS mark. Plaintiffs’

Northern District of California

motion as to the remaining requests is DENIED. The requests are vague and ambiguous as to

11
United States District Court

10

what is meant by similar or derivative trademarks. For example, it is not clear to the Court

12

that “PARADUXX” and “GOLDENYE” are similar or derivative as Plaintiffs imply in

13

Request No. 42. Even if, however, Defendants could at least answer whether they were aware

14

of the brand names identified as examples in the challenged RFA, Plaintiffs do not explain

15

why Defendants’ knowledge of such brand names is relevant.

16

CONCLUSION

17

Defendants’ objections to RFA nos. 18, 23 and 24 are not justified; accordingly,

18

Defendants shall serve answers to these requests within 10 days of the date of this Order. See

19

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6) (“Unless the court finds an objection justified, it must order that an

20

answer be served.”) In all other respects Plaintiffs’ motion is denied.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: May 1, 2013
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28

2