Van Wagner et al v. Court of Master Sommeliers, Americas et al

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
GREGORY VAN WAGNER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COURT OF MASTER SOMMELIERS,
AMERICAS,
Defendant.
Case No. 22-cv-05001-EMC (TSH)
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 161
The Court held a hearing on May 29, 2026 concerning the joint discovery letter brief at
ECF No. 161, and now issues the following order.
A. Plaintiffs’ Second Set of Written Discovery
A motion to compel has to identify the discovery requests it seeks to enforce and explain
why the requested documents or information are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.
Then the motion should address why the responding party’s objections lack merit. But the moving
party is not allowed to skip the first part. You can’t just say that the responding party’s objections
lack merit because then you haven’t explained why the discovery request should be enforced.
In moving to compel on their second set of written discovery, Plaintiffs for the most part
skip any explanation of the relevance and proportionality of their discovery requests. The only
discovery requests they actually discuss are interrogatories 19, 24, 28 and 29. These rogs seek
relevant and proportional information. CMS’s written objections to them lack merit, and at the
hearing CMS indicated it did not oppose the motion as to those rogs. Accordingly, the Court
GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to compel as to rogs 19, 24, 28 and 29. For remainder of Plaintiffs’
second set of written discovery, the Court does not think Plaintiffs have made a motion to compel.
Plaintiffs also ask the Court to order CMS to serve a verified response about document
Case 3:22-cv-05001-EMC Document 163 Filed 05/29/26 Page 1 of 2

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
retention. This doesn’t seem to be a motion to compel concerning any particular discovery
request. It looks like the demand for information about document retention is part of a negotiation
the parties are having that they haven’t quite finalized. If the parties want to negotiate something,
that’s up to them. But in the absence of a deal, there is no deal, and a motion to compel needs to
have a legal basis, which the Court doesn’t see for this category of information.
Plaintiffs offer no explanation for why CMS’s failure to immediately serve a privilege log
amounts to a waiver of privilege. The Court ORDERS CMS to produce a privilege log within 30
days. There is no need for the Court to set a deadline for CMS to produce documents in response
to the requests for production in the second set of written discovery, as the Court has concluded
Plaintiffs did not properly move to compel on any of those RFPs.
B. Plaintiffs’ Subpoenas to Board Members
Plaintiffs say nothing about what these subpoenas requested, what they are moving to
compel, and why it is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Therefore, they have not
moved to compel on their subpoenas.
Plaintiffs argue that CMS lacks standing to object to a subpoena directed to a nonparty on
grounds of relevance, burden, overbreadth or proportionality. But that argument is of no moment
because the nonparties themselves objected on those grounds.
The Court ORDERS CMS and the nonparties to serve a privilege log within 30 days.
C. Plaintiffs’ Privilege Designations, Deposition Scheduling
The Court discussed these issues with the parties. There is nothing for the Court to address
at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 29, 2026
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:22-cv-05001-EMC Document 163 Filed 05/29/26 Page 2 of 2