Don’t piss off the wine critic

Who would think the wine critic in the Indy Star would change history! When the wine critic at the Indy Star could not get the wine he wanted to do his job, he reached out an attorney friend named Bob Epstein. Bob later coupled with Alex Tanford and took this crusade all the way to the Supreme Court and won. Moral of the story don’t piss off the wine critic!

ILL: Granholm is now 20 years old, how did this all begin, what made you take on this battle?

BE: It began because my friend Russ Bridenbaugh couldn’t get wine samples for his job as wine critic for the Indy Star.

We entered into a lawsuit in the district court with Judge Sharp. The court room was packed that day with young people.  We didn’t know but the Judge was teaching a law class at the community college. After the hearing he invited the lawyers to a pizza party for the students. We went the other side didn’t maybe that is why we won the case.

It got overtuned at the seventh circuit. But we had a great victory in the sixth circuit overturning a decision favoring Michigan. I was in Napa when the decision came down and a lot of my winery friends told me they were talking about this all the way up and down the valley.

ILL: Being from Indiana, you were not exactly wine industry insiders, what was the reaction from the wine industry when you began filing these cases?

BE: Some supported others did not, why, they were skeptical and thought it might hurt their business.

IL: The Supreme Court had not granted cert on a liquor case since the 80s, were you shocked when the Supreme Court took the case?

BE: No because there was a circuit split, and New York lost, and requested cert. When the losing party requests cert and it is the state, there is a better chance it will be granted.

ILL: How did the doubters in the industry react once you were successful at obtaining cert?

BE: Positive, they wanted us to win.

ILL: When the case came before the court, unlike the lower courts, you did not argue this case, but picked a different litigator, why and what was the process you went through for picking this person?

BE: I had a decision along with Eleanor Heald. We held a moot court in Tempe, 4 arguments were made, Kathleen Sullivan, Ken Starr, someone who is now on the Arizona Supreme Court and Alex Tanford. We had a 6-person jury judge the arguments to see who would argue the case, two jurors wanted Ken Starr, two jurors wanted Alex, and two jurors wanted Kathleen Sullivan.

There was a strategy in making the tough decision on who to pick. I was counting to five and I knew we had to hold the liberal justices, so I was arguing center to left. So, I told Ken Starr when he came to visit that we wouldn’t be going with him. Justice O’Connor was a swing vote and Kathleen Sullivan was good friends with her, so we went with her.

We held four other moot courts, including the day before at the Heritage Foundation, where everyone there was dressed in bowties.

ILL: It was a tight victory, 5-4, did you have a sense that you would win, or were you sitting on needles and pins?

BE: You are counting to five. We thought we could get O’Connor but didn’t account for her strong state’s rights stance based on her background as a state legislator. We thought we could get the liberal wing with Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter. We also thought with his connections to the wine industry that Kennedy would be on our side and write the opinion.

Scalia would become the pivotal vote. How did we think Scalia would vote? We didn’t know until Alex and I went to Washington D.C. for the first ever kosher meal served at the Supreme Court. On the flight back I open up the USA Today and Scalia is judging a wine contest. Then and there I was confident we had our fifth vote.

ILL: What are you most proud of in winning Granholm?

BE: We opened up dtc winery shipping all over county, giving consumers all over the country access to the markets

ILL: You left a great legacy in winning Granholm, how do you want to finish this journey?

BE: I would like to get the retail cases to the Supreme Court and decided favorably.