Toyota Motor Sales v. Allen Interchange LLC

Background

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. sued Allen Interchange LLC in the District of Minnesota. Allen Interchange filed counterclaims. The case involves, among other things, Lanham Act claims (a federal law prohibiting false advertising and trademark infringement) and allegations of anticompetitive conduct related to Toyota-branded auto parts. This order concerns a discovery motion — a request by Toyota asking the court to force Allen to produce documents and answer interrogatories (written discovery questions) that Toyota contends Allen has improperly withheld or inadequately answered.

The motion was filed October 1, 2025. At oral argument on October 23, 2025, Toyota voluntarily narrowed its motion, withdrawing requests as to Requests for Production (RFPs) 80, 85, 90, and 95, and reserving its request for inspection of Allen's e-commerce accounts. The court treated those portions as withdrawn and addressed only RFPs 91 and 92, Interrogatories 38–40, and a privilege dispute over certain metadata.

Legal Standards

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), parties may obtain discovery on any nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Proportionality factors include the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, relative access to information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery, and the burden versus benefit of production. Under Rule 37, a party may move to compel responses if the opposing party fails to answer interrogatories or produce documents. An evasive or incomplete answer is treated as a failure to respond. Objections to discovery requests must be stated with specificity; unpreserved objections are generally waived.

RFP 91: The 'Jim Folder'

An Allen employee testified in deposition that a former Allen employee named Jim had kept relevant documents, and that after Jim's departure, Allen retained those documents in what became known as 'the Jim Folder.' Toyota then served RFP No. 91 requesting 'The Jim Folder.' Allen objected that the request was 'so vague that it [is] impossible to determine what is sought' because the request identified 'a location and not a document.'

The court described this objection as 'ridiculous' and 'absurd,' observing that any reader would understand Toyota was requesting the folder's contents, not the physical or electronic folder itself. The court noted that Allen's original objection 'caused both parties to expend resources in addressing the dispute and wasted the Court's time.' In later briefing, Allen offered a more defensible rationale — that it had already produced Jim Folder documents responsive to other requests, and that remaining documents (such as forklift photographs) were not relevant — but the court found this was 'too little, too late' given the damage done by the original objection.

Notwithstanding its criticism, the court declined to penalize Allen in a way that would be disproportionate to the legitimate arguments Allen eventually raised. The court ordered Allen to produce any documents in the Jim Folder that are responsive to any Toyota discovery request that has been uncontested or validated by prior court order, subject to appropriate privilege assertions.

RFP 92: Warranty Letters to Dealer Customers

RFP 92 sought all letter notices that Allen claimed to have sent 'with the first shipment' to each Toyota dealer customer in a given year — letters that, per Allen's own interrogatory response, described Allen's Replacement Parts Warranty and asked dealers to inform their customers of it. Allen stated it had produced a form letter and represented that it did not retain individual copies of each letter sent.

The court applied the same principle it had used in a November 24, 2025 order: when a party states it has produced all existing responsive documents, the court and the opposing party must accept that representation. The court denied Toyota's motion to compel a further response to RFP 92.

Interrogatory 38: Spreadsheet Creation Documents

Interrogatory 38 sought all documents Allen used, referenced, reviewed, or consulted in creating a spreadsheet purportedly reflecting its parts sales. Allen stated that no such documents exist because the spreadsheet was generated by an employee, Mike Wilber, directly querying Allen's internal database.

The court again declined to order production of documents that do not exist. However, the court noted that the process by which Mr. Wilber created the spreadsheet is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, and that Toyota may explore this topic at Mr. Wilber's upcoming deposition. The motion to compel a response to Interrogatory 38 was denied.

Interrogatories 39 and 40: Non-Toyota Parts Sales and Warranty Communications

Interrogatory 39 sought sales information for non-Toyota parts Allen sold to OEM dealers and e-commerce customers. Interrogatory 40 sought information about how Allen communicates its warranty to e-commerce customers, including for non-Toyota parts.

Toyota argued non-Toyota parts data is relevant because Allen alleges it lost Toyota parts sales due to Toyota's anticompetitive conduct (comparison data would be needed), and because Toyota's Lanham Act claims include allegations of misrepresentations about Allen's warranty across all products. Allen pointed to the court's August 1, 2024 ruling, which held that Allen's communications with other OEMs and part-level costs and sales of non-Toyota parts are not relevant.

The court declined to revisit its prior ruling on non-Toyota parts sales at this late stage in discovery. However, the court drew a distinction for Interrogatory 40: it had previously held that Allen's warranty terms are relevant because a material difference between the parties' warranties supports Toyota's Lanham Act claims, and had already allowed discovery into how Allen communicates its warranty to dealer customers. The court extended this logic to e-commerce sales — but only for Toyota parts. The motion to compel was granted as to how Allen communicates its warranty to e-commerce customers who purchase Toyota parts, and denied as to other OEMs' parts.

Privilege Over File Metadata

Allen withheld certain metadata — specifically, file folder names — associated with produced documents, asserting that the folder names themselves reveal attorney-client privileged communications. Toyota argued that metadata (technical information about files, such as file paths and folder names) cannot be privileged because it does not constitute a communication between Allen and its lawyers or attorney work product.

At the hearing, Toyota's counsel argued he could not understand how a file path could be privileged unless someone had literally labeled a folder with something like 'My lawyer told me XYZ.' Allen's counsel responded that, while not literally phrased that way, that was effectively what had happened.

The court ordered Allen to submit the metadata for in camera review (private inspection by the judge, not shared with the opposing party). After reviewing the materials, the court agreed with Allen's characterization: the folder names, created by Allen employees rather than counsel, were in substance of the form 'here are the documents the lawyers told me to collect about XYZ.' The court held that this specific metadata is protected by attorney-client privilege and need not be disclosed. However, the court ordered that if the metadata had not already been logged on Allen's privilege log (a list of withheld materials and the basis for withholding them), it must be added.

Disposition

The court granted Toyota's Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 661) in part and denied it in part as set forth above.