In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYT,  Azerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon
BBC - Guardian UK - Honduras - ESPN

SDNY COURTHOUSE, August 15 – Grant Gyesky and two others founded Rise Brewing in New York in 2014, first sold its caffeinated organic beverage in Brooklyn and are now suing PepsiCo for its Mountain Dew "Rise" product.      

  On October 8, 2021 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Lorna G. Schofield held a proceeding. Inner City Press covered it. 

 Gyesky testified that after he met with PepsiCo, the name was stolen and the Mountain Dew copycat was launched.

On cross examination, he could not name the address or attendees, other than one, at the meeting. And Pepsi's lawyer focused on other Rise-named products, and a different position in North Carolina litigation.  

 Midwest sales agents of Rise took the stand, describing being muscled or misled out of Kroger supermarkets in Illinois and Kentucky. It smacks of a David and Goliath story.

  In November, after Inner City Press reported the above on October 9, others reported the stay: "AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER: Having considered the parties' written submissions and the evidence and argument presented at the September 9, 2021, oral argument and October 8, 2021, evidentiary hearing, for the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.'

Jump cut to August 15, 2022: listed in the docket, on August 12, was "Set/Reset hearings: telephone conference set for 8/15/2022 at 10 am." But when Inner City Press called in to cover it, the Court said it was a settlement conference. The docket entry didn't say that, but Inner City Press signed off. Watch this site.

  Previously, Pepsi, in Goliath form, appealed - and got a stay of the stay, at least until a three judge panel can hear it: "The Court grants an administrative stay of the preliminary injunction until it can be considered by the next available three-judge motions panel. In granting this administrative stay, the Court intimates no view on the merits of the stay motion or the preliminary injunction order.. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit."

In December, Pepsico informed Judge Schofield they have renamed the product MTN DEW ENERGY, informing retailers of this on November 8.  They acknowledge that some MTN DEW RISE ENERGY products are still on sale; they say these are the property of the retailers.

  The parties on December 16 told Judge Schofield they have agreed to limit the total number of interrogatories to 25.

On May 6, 2022 Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave held another lengthy discovery conference and Inner City Press covered it. Judge Cave ruled, "ORDER: Having reviewed the parties' submissions, and having heard the parties' arguments during the lengthy discovery conference held today, May 6, 2022, the Court orders as follows: Pepsi's request for an order compelling RiseandShine "to produce documents responsive to these RFPs, or if it is unable to locate responsive documents, to file written responses stating that no documents exist and outlining steps taken to attempt to locate them" is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. RiseandShine shall promptly identify ten withheld third-party communications concerning the use of "Rise" as to which it believes Fed. R. Evid. 408 may apply (the "Rule 408 Exemplars"). As discussed at the conference, the Rule 408 Exemplars shall include communications with "Rise Up," if any exist. The Court will conduct an in camera review of the Rule 408 Exemplars to determine relevance and the applicability of Rule 408. RiseandShine's request for an order compelling Pepsi to produce documents and information responsive to its requests regarding Starbucks Nitro is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pending the resolution of Pepsi's objections to this Court's Order dated April 14, 2022 (ECF No. 221) and Starbucks' motion to intervene."

On May 31, on the eve of Second Circuit arguments, there was a discovery proceeding before Magistrate Judge Cave that Inner City Press covered and after which, this: "ORDER: Having reviewed the parties' additional submissions (ECF Nos. 282, 285), and having heard further arguments from the parties during a nearly two-hour discovery conference held today, May 31, 2022, the Court orders as follows: Pepsis request for an order compelling RiseandShine to produce third-party communications on the use of "Rise" that RiseandShine withheld as irrelevant under Fed. R. Evid. 408 (ECF No. 223 at 2) is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that RiseandShine shall promptly produce the July 11, 2019 and October 16, 2019 letters sent by counsel for RiseandShine to counsel for Rise Biscuits Donuts LLC, and otherwise DENIED."

On June 29, Judge Cave held another discovery hearing, and Inner City Press again covered it. Afterward, this order: "ORDER granting in part and denying in part [300] Letter Motion for Discovery; granting in part and denying in part [301] Letter Motion for Discovery.Having reviewed the parties' submissions, and having heard the parties' arguments during the discovery conference held today, June 29, 2022, the Court orders as follows: RiseandShine's Request is DENIED without prejudice to renewal following the close of discovery. See, e.g., On Track Innovations Ltd. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 3d 369, 414 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (deferring until trial request to preclude cumulative expert testimony); Ross Univ. Sch. of Med., Ltd. v. Brooklyn-Queens Health Care, Inc., No. 09-CV-1410 (KAM), 2012 WL 6091570, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2012) (noting that "where, as here, no trial date has been set, preclusion [of experts as cumulative] is premature"). Pepsi's Request is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: RiseandShine shall promptly: Search Grant Gyesky's emails for communications involving the seven investors or potential investors (the "Investors") that Mr. Gyesky referenced during his deposition, and produce all communications regarding the Investors' reasons for investing or not investing in RiseandShine; and further set forth in this Order. The parties shall promptly meet and confer regarding (i) a proposed extension of the expert discovery schedule, and (ii) whether they can agree to resolve, without the need for Court intervention, RiseandShine's motion to strike portions of the supplemental expert report of Thomas W. Britven (ECF No. 295)"

 Watch this site.

The case is Riseandshine Corporation v. Pepsico, Inc., 21-cv-6324 (Schofield / Cave) 

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com