Schrader Cellars, LLC v. Roach

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SCHRADER CELLARS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT M. ROACH,
Defendant.
Case No. 21-cv-01431-SK
ORDER ON REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE FOR BENCH TRIAL
Regarding Docket Nos. 428, 432, 435
Now before the Court is the requests for judicial notice filed by the parties. Defendant
Robert M. Roach requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents:
1. The opening statement made by Plaintiff Schrader Cellars, LLC made in the first
trial in this case. (Dkt. No. 290 (March 7, 2023 trial transcript) at pp. 115-123.)
2. Fred Schrader’s testimony at the first trial. (Dkt. No. 291 (March 8, 2023 trial
transcript) at 200:3.)
3. In the first jury trial of this case, the Court’s taking judicial notice of the Texas
Court’s Order on Constellation’s motion to abate and of Robert K. Sall’s testimony.
(Dkt. No. 292 (March 9, 2023 trial transcript) at 338-40, 395-96, 399-400, 404-6,
415, 418-20.)
4. The Court’s instructions to the jury and Schrader Cellar’s closing argument in the
first trial. (Dkt. No. 293 (March 10, 2023 trial transcript) at 503, 508, 512-13.)
5. The Texas Court’s Order on Constellation’s motion to abate. (Trial Exhibit 648
from the First Trial).
6. Paragraph 15 from the Complaint and paragraphs 12, 13, 14 from the First
Amended Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 32.)
7. Schrader Cellar’s opposition to Roach’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No.
Case 3:21-cv-01431-SK Document 442 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 5

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of
 California
137.)
8. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in this case. Schrader Cellars, LLC v. Roach, 129
F.4th 1115 (2025).
Schrader Cellars requests that the Court take judicial notice the following documents:
1. Two orders issued in the Texas litigation after the order on the motion to abate.
Schrader v. Roach, 2022 WL 2203210, at *1 (Tex. App. June 21, 2022) (Order on
Roach’s motion for rehearing and for en banc reconsideration and Fred Schrader’s
motion for rehearing); Constellation Brands, Inc. v. Roach, 2022 WL 17981666, at
*1 (Tex. App. Dec. 29, 2022) (Order on Constellation Brands and Fred Schrader’s
appeal from the denial of their motion to dismiss).
2. The jury verdict from the Texas litigation of Roach v. Schrader, et al.
3. Roach’s Revised Fifth Amended Petition in the Texas Litigation.
ANALYSIS
The Court notes that it previously Ordered that the parties were required to clearly indicate
if they were addressing an issue the Court previously addressed, including specifying where in the
record it was addressed. (Dkt. No. 396 at p. 4.) Roach failed to comply with this Order. At the
final day of the bench trial on October 24, 2025, Roach requested that the Court take judicial
notice of many of these above documents, including Schrader Cellar’s opening statements from
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,
2025).) The Court held that it would take the request to take judicial notice of counsel’s opening
statement under submission and allow further briefing on that. (Id.) The Court denied the request
to take judicial notice of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, the prior complaints filed in this case, and
Schrader Cellars’ opposition brief as unnecessary. (Id.) The Court already granted Roach’s
request to take judicial notice of the Order on the motion to abate in the Texas litigation, which is
Trial Exhibit 113.1 There is no need to make this request again or to address it. Nor is there a
1 At the last day of the bench trial, Roach referred to this document as the motion to abate
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
5 appears to be an email and not a motion or an order. Both times Roach referred to this document
as Trial Exhibit 648 from the first trial. Both Trial Exhibit 648 from the first trial and Trial
Exhibit 113 from the bench trial are copies of the order on the motion to abate, and not the actual
Case 3:21-cv-01431-SK Document 442 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 5

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of
 California
need for the Court to take judicial of the fact that it previously took judicial notice of this
document. Therefore, the Court DENIES Roach’s request to take judicial notice again of the order
on the motion to abate in the Texas litigation as well as this Court’s previous ruling to take judicial
notice of the order on the motion to abate.
The Court will now address the documents on which the Court did not already rule. The
Court will not take judicial notice of the opening statements, closing arguments, jury instructions,
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
notice of these documents. Roach may simply cite directly to the docket in this case. 360 Acct.
Sols., LLC v. Tax Assocs., Inc., 2023 WL 4680355, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2023) (denying request
for judicial notice as unnecessary for the court to consider its own docket); Ranero v. Cnty. of San
Bernardino, 2018 WL 8058373, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2018) (“[T]he Court takes judicial
notice of its own docket as a matter of course.”); Chaffey Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. FieldTurf
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
the docket). However, the Court will take judicial notice of the orders and filings from the Texas
litigation – the two orders issued after the order on the motion to abate, Roach’s Revised Fifth
Amended Petition, and the jury verdict. Benton v. Cory, 474 F. App’x 622, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2012)
(taking judicial notice of court filings in other proceedings) (citing Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F.3d
983, 987 (9th Cir.2011)). To clarify, the Court is taking judicial notice of the statements made in
the pleading and jury verdict but is not taking judicial notice of the truth of these statements.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the
parties’ requests for judicial notice. The Court DENIES the request to take judicial notice of the
following documents as unnecessary because they are already part of the record:
(1) The opening statement made by Plaintiff Schrader Cellars, LLC made in the first
trial in this case. (Dkt. No. 290 (March 7, 2023 trial transcript) at pp. 115-123.)
(2) Fred Schrader’s testimony at the first trial. (Dkt. No. 291 (March 8, 2023 trial
transcript) at 200:3.)
motion to abate.
Case 3:21-cv-01431-SK Document 442 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 5

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of
 California
(3) In the first jury trial of this case, the Court’s taking judicial notice of the Texas
Court’s Order on Constellation’s motion to abate and of Robert K. Sall’s testimony.
(Dkt. No. 292 (March 9, 2023 trial transcript) at 338-40, 395-96, 399-400, 404-6,
415, 418-20.)
(4) The Court’s instructions to the jury and Schrader Cellar’s closing argument in the
first trial. (Dkt. No. 293 (March 10, 2023 trial transcript) at 503, 508, 512-13.)
The Court GRANTS the requests to take judicial notice of the following documents from
the Texas litigation:
1. Two orders issued in the Texas litigation after the order on the motion to abate.
Schrader v. Roach, 2022 WL 2203210, at *1 (Tex. App. June 21, 2022) (Order on
Roach’s motion for rehearing and for en banc reconsideration and Fred Schrader’s
motion for rehearing); Constellation Brands, Inc. v. Roach, 2022 WL 17981666, at
*1 (Tex. App. Dec. 29, 2022) (Order on Constellation Brands and Fred Schrader’s
appeal from the denial of their motion to dismiss).
2. The jury verdict from the Texas litigation of Roach v. Schrader, et al.
3. Roach’s Revised Fifth Amended Petition in the Texas Litigation.
The Court DENIES the requests as MOOT with respect to the following documents
because the Court already ruled on Roach’s request to take judicial notice of them:
1. Paragraph 15 from the Complaint and paragraphs 12, 13, 14 from the First
Amended Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 32.) The Court previously denied this request
as unnecessary.
2. Schrader Cellar’s opposition to Roach’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No.
137.) The Court previously denied this request as unnecessary.
3. The Texas Court’s Order on Constellation’s motion to abate. (Trial Exhibit 648
from the First Trial).2 The Court previously took judicial notice of this order.
4. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in this case. Schrader Cellars, LLC v. Roach, 129
2 The Court also took judicial notice of this order during the bench trial. (Dkt. No 424
(Trial Transcript of October 24, 2025) (taking judicial notice of Trial Exhibit 113).)
Case 3:21-cv-01431-SK Document 442 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 5

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of
 California
F.4th 1115 (2025). The Court previously denied this request as unnecessary. See
Benton v. Cory, 474 F. App’x 622, 623-24 (9th Cir. 2012) (“We grant [appellant]’s
request for judicial notice of court filings in other proceedings, but deny as
unnecessary his request for judicial notice of legal authorities.”)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2026
______________________________________
SALLIE KIM
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:21-cv-01431-SK Document 442 Filed 01/09/26 Page 5 of 5