1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4

THE VINEYARD HOUSE, LLC,

Case No. 4:19-cv-01424-YGR Plaintiff, CONSOLIDATED CASE 5 v. PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 3 6

CONSTELLATION BRANDS U.S.

7 OPERATIONS, INC., Re: Dkt. Nos. 184, 192 8 Defendant.

9 CONSTELLATION BRANDS U.S.

OPERATIONS, INC.,

10 Consolidated Plaintiff, 11 v. 12

THE VINEYARD HOUSE, LLC,

13 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 1 b. With respect to John Seethoff, the objection to the designation at 14:1-3 is 2 OVERRULED. 3 c. With respect to Craig Norris, and having reviewed the Rule 30(b)(6) notice, the rulings 4 are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 5 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 5. Witnesses at Trial: Given the holidays, for the first day of trial, counsel shall file a notice by 9 noon on Friday, November 27, 2020 with the list of witnesses to be called. 10 6. Pending motions to seal: 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 highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted 15 from the redacted version. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). 16 b. With respect to the administrative motion to seal by The Vineyard House at docket 17 184, refiled at 192, the motion is TENTATIVELY DENIED. Most of the proposed 18 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 the documents sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable under the 21 standard appropriate to the underlying motion. Reference to a stipulation or protective 22 order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient 23 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 1 8. Rules, Instructions, and Admonishments: The Court will read Exhibit A submitted attached 2 in Docket No. 196. 3 This Order terminates Docket Numbers 184 and 192. 4 IT Is SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: November 17, 2020 6

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 a 12

13 14

15 16

17

O Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

EXHIBIT 1

No. Designation in Dispute Legal Objection (Party ID) Court’s Ruling 77. Norris – P: 19 Ln: 9 – Lacks foundation (insufficient Overruled P: 20 Ln: 1 recollection) (TVH) 78. Norris – P: 20 Ln: 24 – Lacks foundation (insufficient Overruled; Attorney P: 21 Ln: 11 recollection) (TVH) Commentary at 21:1-2 is stricken 79. Norris – P: 70 Ln: 2-10 Lacks foundation (no personal Overruled knowledge) (FRE 602) (TVH) 80. Norris – P: 72 Ln: 11- Lacks foundation (no personal Overruled 15 knowledge); lay opinion (FRE 701)/speculation/legal conclusion (TVH) 81. Norris – P: 73 Ln: 4-13 Lacks foundation (no personal Overruled knowledge); lay opinion (FRE 701) (TVH) 82. Norris – P: 76 Ln: 2-15 Lacks foundation (insufficient Overruled recollection) (TVH) 83. Norris – P: 91 Ln: 22 – Legal conclusion (TVH) Sustained P: 92 Ln: 2 84. Norris – P: 111 Ln: 25 – Lacks foundation (no personal Overruled P: 112 Ln: 17 knowledge); not relevant (FRE 401) (TVH) 85. Norris – P: 124 Ln: 9- Lacks foundation (insufficient Overruled 16 recollection) (TVH) 86. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 21 Incomplete (FRE 106) Overruled Ln: 18 – P: 22 Ln: 7 (TVH) 87. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 39 Beyond scope of 30(b)(6) matters Overruled Ln: 21 – P: 40 Ln: 4 (TVH) No. Designation in Dispute Legal Objection (Party ID) Court’s Ruling 88. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 66 Beyond scope of 30(b)(6) matters; Overruled Ln: 10-12 incomplete (FRE 106); lacks foundation (insufficient recollection); irrelevant (TVH) 89. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 70 Beyond scope of 30(b)(6) matters Overruled Ln: 7-12 (TVH) 90. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 89 Beyond scope of 30(b)(6) matters; Overruled Ln: 2-9 lacks foundation (no personal knowledge); speculation (TVH) 91. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 89 Beyond scope of 30(b)(6) matters; Overruled Ln: 17 – P: 90 Ln: 2 lacks foundation (no personal knowledge); speculation (TVH) 92. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 90 Lacks foundation (no personal Overruled Ln: 15-22 knowledge); speculation (TVH) 93. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 128 Vague; compound (TVH) Overruled Ln: 3-8 94. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 139 Beyond scope of 30(b)(6) matters; Overruled Ln: 7-16 lacks foundation (no personal knowledge); not relevant (FRE 401) (TVH) 95. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 140 Beyond scope of 30(b)(6) matters; Overruled Ln: 10-17 lacks foundation (no personal knowledge) (TVH) 96. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 145 Lacks foundation (no personal Overruled as to lines Ln: 10-19 knowledge); speculation; not relevant 16-17, otherwise (FRE 401) (TVH) sustained 97. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 146 Lacks foundation (no personal Overruled Ln: 20-22 knowledge); speculation (TVH) 98. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 157 Lacks foundation (no personal Overruled Ln: 16 – P: 158 Ln: 1 knowledge); speculation (TVH) 99. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 168 Incomplete (FRE 106) (FRE 106) Overruled Ln: 8-11 (TVH) 100. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 170 Lacks foundation (insufficient Overruled Ln: 12-20 recollection) (TVH) 101. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 171 Lacks foundation (no personal Sustained Ln: 8-15 knowledge) (TVH) 102. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 186 Lacks foundation (no personal Sustained Ln: 16-22 knowledge) (TVH) 103. Norris 30(b)(6) – P: 191 Beyond scope of 30(b)(6) matters; Overruled; all attorney Ln: 2 – P: 194 Ln: 5 incomplete (FRE 106) (TVH) commentary and objections is stricken