Armida Winery, Inc. v. Graveyard Vineyards

Filing 18

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu VACATING January 26, 2017 Hearing on 1 Motion to Quash. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ARMIDA WINERY, INC., Case No. 16-mc-80228-DMR Petitioner, 8 v. 9 10 GRAVEYARD VINEYARDS, Respondent. ORDER VACATING JANUARY 26, 2017 HEARING ON PETITIONER'S MOTION TO QUASH Re: Dkt. No. 1 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 The court has reviewed Petitioner Armida Winery, Inc.’s (“Armida”) motion to quash a 13 subpoena that Respondent Graveyard Vineyards (“Graveyard”) served on Armida’s attorney, 14 Herbert L. Terreri. The issues in the motion to quash are virtually identical to the issues raised by 15 Armida in a motion for protective order filed in cancellation proceedings pending before the 16 Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) involving the same two parties. Moreover, the 17 issues in the motion for protective order and the motion to quash appear to be intertwined with the 18 TTAB’s prior ruling on Graveyard’s motion to disqualify Mr. Terreri. 19 The court takes judicial notice of the fact that the TTAB has expressed its intent to 20 adjudicate the motion for a protective order. See Armida Winery, Inc. v. Graveyard Vineyards, 21 TTAB Cancellation No. 92059267 (Nov. 2, 2016 suspension of cancellation proceedings pending 22 TTAB’s disposition of the discovery disputes); see United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 909 23 (9th Cir. 2003) (courts may take judicial notice of records of administrative bodies). 24 It would be far more efficient to allow the TTAB to address the issues raised in the motion 25 to quash, since Armida has already presented the same issues to the TTAB in its motion for 26 protective order. It is particularly appropriate for the TTAB to adjudicate those issues, as it has 27 already ruled on the disqualification motion, and is in the best position to understand the discovery 28 ramifications of that ruling. There will be no apparent harm caused by delaying adjudication of 1 the motion to quash, since the TTAB has suspended the cancellation proceedings until it rules on 2 the motion for protective order and other discovery disputes. The court therefore exercises its 3 discretion to stay this action pending the outcome of the motion for a protective order before the 4 TTAB. See Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979) (“[a] 5 trial court may . . . find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to 6 enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon 7 the case.”); Shipley v. United States, 608 F.2d 770, 775 (1979) (“where a pending administrative 8 proceeding might render the relief sought in district court unnecessary, it is proper for the district 9 court to stay the case before it pending the outcome of the administrative proceeding.”). 10 The January 26, 2017 hearing on the motion to quash is vacated. The subpoena that is the subject of the motion to quash is suspended. The motion to quash is denied without prejudice. 12 Petitioner shall file the TTAB’s decision on the motion for a protective order within five court 13 days of its issuance. Upon review of the TTAB’s decision the court will issue an order directing 14 the parties to submit further briefing and/or restore this matter to the calendar. 15 S R NIA ERED O ORD ______________________________________ IT IS S u a M. Ry NO 19 RT 20 onn Judge D ER H 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 FO Donna M. Ryu United States Magistrate Judge LI 18 Dated: January 19, 2017 A 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. UNIT ED 16 S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O United States District Court Northern District of California 11 N F D IS T IC T O R C

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?