1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCHRADER CELLARS, LLC, Case No. 21-cv-01431-SK

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER ON REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL

9 v. NOTICE FOR BENCH TRIAL

10 ROBERT M. ROACH, Regarding Docket Nos. 428, 432, 435 11 Defendant.

12 Now before the Court is the requests for judicial notice filed by the parties. Defendant 13 Robert M. Roach requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents: 14 1. The opening statement made by Plaintiff Schrader Cellars, LLC made in the first 15 trial in this case. (Dkt. No. 290 (March 7, 2023 trial transcript) at pp. 115-123.) 16 2. Fred Schrader’s testimony at the first trial. (Dkt. No. 291 (March 8, 2023 trial 17 transcript) at 200:3.) 18 3. In the first jury trial of this case, the Court’s taking judicial notice of the Texas 19 Court’s Order on Constellation’s motion to abate and of Robert K. Sall’s testimony. 20 (Dkt. No. 292 (March 9, 2023 trial transcript) at 338-40, 395-96, 399-400, 404-6, 21 415, 418-20.) 22 4. The Court’s instructions to the jury and Schrader Cellar’s closing argument in the 23 first trial. (Dkt. No. 293 (March 10, 2023 trial transcript) at 503, 508, 512-13.) 24 5. The Texas Court’s Order on Constellation’s motion to abate. (Trial Exhibit 648 25 from the First Trial). 26 6. Paragraph 15 from the Complaint and paragraphs 12, 13, 14 from the First 27 Amended Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 32.) 1 137.) 2 8. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in this case. Schrader Cellars, LLC v. Roach, 129 3 F.4th 1115 (2025). 4 Schrader Cellars requests that the Court take judicial notice the following documents: 5 1. Two orders issued in the Texas litigation after the order on the motion to abate. 6 Schrader v. Roach, 2022 WL 2203210, at *1 (Tex. App. June 21, 2022) (Order on 7 Roach’s motion for rehearing and for en banc reconsideration and Fred Schrader’s 8 motion for rehearing); Constellation Brands, Inc. v. Roach, 2022 WL 17981666, at 9 *1 (Tex. App. Dec. 29, 2022) (Order on Constellation Brands and Fred Schrader’s 10 appeal from the denial of their motion to dismiss). 11 2. The jury verdict from the Texas litigation of Roach v. Schrader, et al. 12 3. Roach’s Revised Fifth Amended Petition in the Texas Litigation. 13 ANALYSIS The Court notes that it previously Ordered that the parties were required to clearly indicate 14 if they were addressing an issue the Court previously addressed, including specifying where in the 15 record it was addressed. (Dkt. No. 396 at p. 4.) Roach failed to comply with this Order. At the 16 final day of the bench trial on October 24, 2025, Roach requested that the Court take judicial 17 notice of many of these above documents, including Schrader Cellar’s opening statements from 18 the first trial, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, the prior pleadings in this case, Schrader Cellars’ opposition to the motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No 424 (Trial Transcript of October 24, 19 2025).) The Court held that it would take the request to take judicial notice of counsel’s opening 20 statement under submission and allow further briefing on that. (Id.) The Court denied the request 21 to take judicial notice of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, the prior complaints filed in this case, and 22 Schrader Cellars’ opposition brief as unnecessary. (Id.) The Court already granted Roach’s 23 request to take judicial notice of the Order on the motion to abate in the Texas litigation, which is 24 Trial Exhibit 113.1 There is no need to make this request again or to address it. Nor is there a 25 1 At the last day of the bench trial, Roach referred to this document as the motion to abate 26 and in their request for judicial notice Roach refers to it as the Order on the motion to abate. While Roach purports to attach the document as Exhibit 5 to his request for judicial notice, Exhibit 27 5 appears to be an email and not a motion or an order. Both times Roach referred to this document need for the Court to take judicial of the fact that it previously took judicial notice of this 1 document. Therefore, the Court DENIES Roach’s request to take judicial notice again of the order 2 on the motion to abate in the Texas litigation as well as this Court’s previous ruling to take judicial 3 notice of the order on the motion to abate. 4 The Court will now address the documents on which the Court did not already rule. The 5 Court will not take judicial notice of the opening statements, closing arguments, jury instructions, 6 or prior testimony from the first trial. The transcripts from the first trial in this matter are already in the docket and are part of the record of this case. Therefore, the Court need not take judicial 7 notice of these documents. Roach may simply cite directly to the docket in this case. 360 Acct. 8 Sols., LLC v. Tax Assocs., Inc., 2023 WL 4680355, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2023) (denying request 9 for judicial notice as unnecessary for the court to consider its own docket); Ranero v. Cnty. of San 10 Bernardino, 2018 WL 8058373, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2018) (“[T]he Court takes judicial 11 notice of its own docket as a matter of course.”); Chaffey Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. FieldTurf 12 USA, Inc., 2017 WL 3048658, at *2 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2017) (declining to take judicial notice of filings and pleadings on the docket as unnecessary and directing defendants to cite directly to 13 the docket). However, the Court will take judicial notice of the orders and filings from the Texas 14 litigation – the two orders issued after the order on the motion to abate, Roach’s Revised Fifth 15 Amended Petition, and the jury verdict. Benton v. Cory, 474 F. App’x 622, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2012) 16 (taking judicial notice of court filings in other proceedings) (citing Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F.3d 17 983, 987 (9th Cir.2011)). To clarify, the Court is taking judicial notice of the statements made in 18 the pleading and jury verdict but is not taking judicial notice of the truth of these statements.

CONCLUSION

19 20 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the 21 parties’ requests for judicial notice. The Court DENIES the request to take judicial notice of the 22 following documents as unnecessary because they are already part of the record: 23 (1) The opening statement made by Plaintiff Schrader Cellars, LLC made in the first 24 trial in this case. (Dkt. No. 290 (March 7, 2023 trial transcript) at pp. 115-123.) 25 (2) Fred Schrader’s testimony at the first trial. (Dkt. No. 291 (March 8, 2023 trial 26 transcript) at 200:3.) 27 1 (3) In the first jury trial of this case, the Court’s taking judicial notice of the Texas 2 Court’s Order on Constellation’s motion to abate and of Robert K. Sall’s testimony. 3 (Dkt. No. 292 (March 9, 2023 trial transcript) at 338-40, 395-96, 399-400, 404-6, 4 415, 418-20.) 5 (4) The Court’s instructions to the jury and Schrader Cellar’s closing argument in the 6 first trial. (Dkt. No. 293 (March 10, 2023 trial transcript) at 503, 508, 512-13.) 7 The Court GRANTS the requests to take judicial notice of the following documents from 8 the Texas litigation: 9 1. Two orders issued in the Texas litigation after the order on the motion to abate. 10 Schrader v. Roach, 2022 WL 2203210, at *1 (Tex. App. June 21, 2022) (Order on 11 Roach’s motion for rehearing and for en banc reconsideration and Fred Schrader’s 12 motion for rehearing); Constellation Brands, Inc. v. Roach, 2022 WL 17981666, at 13 *1 (Tex. App. Dec. 29, 2022) (Order on Constellation Brands and Fred Schrader’s 14 appeal from the denial of their motion to dismiss). 15 2. The jury verdict from the Texas litigation of Roach v. Schrader, et al. 16 3. Roach’s Revised Fifth Amended Petition in the Texas Litigation. 17 The Court DENIES the requests as MOOT with respect to the following documents 18 because the Court already ruled on Roach’s request to take judicial notice of them: 19 1. Paragraph 15 from the Complaint and paragraphs 12, 13, 14 from the First 20 Amended Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 32.) The Court previously denied this request 21 as unnecessary. 22 2. Schrader Cellar’s opposition to Roach’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 23 137.) The Court previously denied this request as unnecessary. 24 3. The Texas Court’s Order on Constellation’s motion to abate. (Trial Exhibit 648 25 from the First Trial).2 The Court previously took judicial notice of this order. 26 4. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in this case. Schrader Cellars, LLC v. Roach, 129 27 1 F.4th 1115 (2025). The Court previously denied this request as unnecessary. See 2 Benton y. Cory, 474 F. App’x 622, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2012) (“We grant [appellant]’s 3 request for judicial notice of court filings in other proceedings, but deny as 4 unnecessary his request for judicial notice of legal authorities.”’) 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: January 9, 2026 + 7 Atlher [ww

SALLIE KIM

8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12

2B

15 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28