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)
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?