The Vineyard House, LLC v. Constellation Brands U.S. Operations, Inc.

Filing 198

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 3. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 11/17/2020. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2020)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

THE VINEYARD HOUSE, LLC,
Plaintiff,

5
v.

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 3

6
7

CONSTELLATION BRANDS U.S.
OPERATIONS, INC.,

CONSTELLATION BRANDS U.S.
OPERATIONS, INC.,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Re: Dkt. Nos. 184, 192

Defendant.

8
9

Case No. 4:19-cv-01424-YGR
CONSOLIDATED CASE

Consolidated Plaintiff,
v.
THE VINEYARD HOUSE, LLC,
Consolidated Defendant.

14
15

On November 12, 2020, the Court held a Pretrial Conference, and, for good cause shown,

16

the Court enters the following orders:

17

1. Trial Date and Schedule: The bench trial of this matter is confirmed to proceed via the

18

Zoom platform beginning Monday, November 30, 2020 with audio access only for the public.

19

As previously noted, we will not be in session on Thursday, December 3, 2020 but we will be

20

in session on Friday, December 4, 2020.

21

2. Standard Motions in Limine Modified: Despite the Court’s prior order that all witnesses

22

shall be excluded until testimony is completed, pursuant to the parties’ request, the Court shall

23

allow each side’s expert witnesses, both retained and percipient, to listen to the trial testimony.

24

3. Witnesses: The Court understands that the disputes regarding deposition designations remain

25

with respect to the following witnesses only: Amy Ash, Craig Norris, and John Seethoff.

26

a. With respect to Amy Ash, the objections to the following designations are SUSTAINED:

27

16:11-23; 30:9-14; and 32:2-4. The objections to the designations at 39:19-23 and

28

42:4-23 are OVERRULED.

1
2
3
4
5

b. With respect to John Seethoff, the objection to the designation at 14:1-3 is
OVERRULED.
c. With respect to Craig Norris, and having reviewed the Rule 30(b)(6) notice, the rulings
are attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
4. Exhibits and Exhibit Lists: The parties are limited to using the Exhibits submitted on the

6

Exhibit List on September 11, 2020. For purposes of trial, the Court will use the updated list

7

with stipulations from Docket Number 183 submitted on September 21, 2020.

8
9
10

5. Witnesses at Trial: Given the holidays, for the first day of trial, counsel shall file a notice by
noon on Friday, November 27, 2020 with the list of witnesses to be called.
6. Pending motions to seal:

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

a. Within three business days of this order, with respect to the administrative motion to

12

seal by Constellation Brands U.S. at docket no. 181, the motion shall be refiled in

13

compliance with the local rules. More specifically, the motion does not include an

14

unredacted version of the document sought to be filed under seal which indicates, by

15
16
17
18

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted
from the redacted version. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(D).
b. With respect to the administrative motion to seal by The Vineyard House at docket
184, refiled at 192, the motion is TENTATIVELY DENIED. Most of the proposed
redactions appear to be based on the designation under the protective order by

19
Constellation Brands U.S. The docket does not include a declaration establishing that
20
21
22
23

the documents sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable under the
standard appropriate to the underlying motion. Reference to a stipulation or protective
order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient
to establish that documents, or portions thereof, are sealable. See Civ. L. R. 79-

24

5(d)(1)(A); Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 565 F.3d 1106, 1115–16 (9th Cir. 2009);

25

Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

26

7. Deposition of Robert Mondavi: The Court will admit the entire transcript marked at Exhibit

27

TX1062 rather than have it read into testimony. The Court will read the transcript outside of

28

trial hours.
2

1
2

8. Rules, Instructions, and Admonishments: The Court will read Exhibit A submitted attached
in Docket No. 196.

3

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 184 and 192.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: November 17, 2020

6
7

______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

EXHIBIT 1

No. Designation in Dispute
77. Norris – P: 19 Ln: 9 –
P: 20 Ln: 1
78. Norris – P: 20 Ln: 24 –
P: 21 Ln: 11

Legal Objection (Party ID)
Lacks foundation (insufficient
recollection) (TVH)
Lacks foundation (insufficient
recollection) (TVH)

79.

Norris – P: 70 Ln: 2-10

80.

Norris – P: 72 Ln: 1115

81.

Norris – P: 73 Ln: 4-13

82.

Norris – P: 76 Ln: 2-15

83.

Lacks foundation (no personal
knowledge) (FRE 602) (TVH)
Lacks foundation (no personal
knowledge); lay opinion (FRE
701)/speculation/legal conclusion
(TVH)
Lacks foundation (no personal
knowledge); lay opinion (FRE 701)
(TVH)
Lacks foundation (insufficient
recollection) (TVH)
Legal conclusion (TVH)

Norris – P: 91 Ln: 22 –
P: 92 Ln: 2
Norris – P: 111 Ln: 25 – Lacks foundation (no personal
knowledge); not relevant (FRE 401)
P: 112 Ln: 17
(TVH)
Norris – P: 124 Ln: 9Lacks foundation (insufficient
16
recollection) (TVH)
Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 21
Incomplete (FRE 106)
Ln: 18 – P: 22 Ln: 7
(TVH)
Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 39
Beyond scope of 30(b)(6) matters
Ln: 21 – P: 40 Ln: 4
(TVH)

84.

85.
86.
87.

1

Court’s Ruling
Overruled
Overruled; Attorney
Commentary at 21:1-2
is stricken
Overruled
Overruled

Overruled

Overruled
Sustained
Overruled

Overruled
Overruled
Overruled

No. Designation in Dispute
Legal Objection (Party ID)
88. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 66
Beyond scope of 30(b)(6) matters;
incomplete (FRE 106); lacks
Ln: 10-12
foundation (insufficient
recollection); irrelevant (TVH)
89. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 70
Beyond scope of 30(b)(6) matters
Ln: 7-12
(TVH)
90. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 89
Beyond scope of 30(b)(6) matters;
lacks foundation (no personal
Ln: 2-9
knowledge); speculation (TVH)
91. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 89
Beyond scope of 30(b)(6) matters;
Ln: 17 – P: 90 Ln: 2
lacks foundation (no personal
knowledge); speculation (TVH)
92. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 90
Lacks foundation (no personal
Ln: 15-22
knowledge); speculation (TVH)
93. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 128 Vague; compound (TVH)
Ln: 3-8
94. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 139 Beyond scope of 30(b)(6) matters;
lacks foundation (no personal
Ln: 7-16
knowledge); not relevant (FRE 401)
(TVH)
95. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 140 Beyond scope of 30(b)(6) matters;
lacks foundation (no personal
Ln: 10-17
knowledge) (TVH)
96. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 145 Lacks foundation (no personal
Ln: 10-19
knowledge); speculation; not relevant
(FRE 401) (TVH)
97. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 146 Lacks foundation (no personal
Ln: 20-22
knowledge); speculation (TVH)
98. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 157 Lacks foundation (no personal
Ln: 16 – P: 158 Ln: 1
knowledge); speculation (TVH)
99. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 168 Incomplete (FRE 106) (FRE 106)
Ln: 8-11
(TVH)
100. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 170 Lacks foundation (insufficient
Ln: 12-20
recollection) (TVH)
101. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 171 Lacks foundation (no personal
Ln: 8-15
knowledge) (TVH)
102. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 186 Lacks foundation (no personal
Ln: 16-22
knowledge) (TVH)
103. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 191 Beyond scope of 30(b)(6) matters;
Ln: 2 – P: 194 Ln: 5
incomplete (FRE 106) (TVH)

2

Court’s Ruling
Overruled

Overruled
Overruled

Overruled

Overruled
Overruled
Overruled

Overruled

Overruled as to lines
16-17, otherwise
sustained
Overruled
Overruled
Overruled
Overruled
Sustained
Sustained
Overruled; all attorney
commentary and
objections is stricken