Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation v. My Way Betty Ford Klinik GmbH

Background

Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation and Elizabeth B. Ford Charitable Trust moved to compel My Way Betty Ford Klinik GmbH’s testimony under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). The rule allows a party to depose an organization through one or more designated representatives, who must testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization. The Klinik had designated Daniel Fuchs, an attorney in Germany who had represented it since 2012, as its corporate representative. The court had previously ruled that the deposition would occur in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The motion asked the court to require the Klinik to prepare Fuchs by speaking with certain people and to provide testimony on disputed deposition topics. The parties no longer disputed Topics 19, 20, 28, and 33 as they related to oral communications, although the court separately addressed Topics 28 and 33 in the portions of the order concerning other issues.

Preparation of the Corporate Representative

The court denied Hazelden’s request to order Fuchs to speak with specific individuals as part of his preparation. The court held that a Rule 30(b)(6) designee need not have personal knowledge of the topics, but the organization must make a diligent, good-faith effort to prepare the designee to provide knowledgeable and complete answers about information known or reasonably available to the organization. The court stated that it would not dictate how the Klinik carried out that preparation and would not assume that the Klinik intended to avoid its obligations. The court also noted that failing to provide a knowledgeable witness can result in sanctions.

Discovery Topics

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), discovery generally may cover nonprivileged information that is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Applying that standard, the court ruled as follows:

- Topics 18, 24, 25, and 33: The motion was granted. The Klinik must provide testimony dating back to 2006 about its marketing and promotion of addiction-treatment services, treatment costs, treatment services offered, and communications concerning Hazelden Betty Ford, the Betty Ford Center, Mrs. Ford, or Hazelden Betty Ford’s addiction-treatment model. The court rejected the Klinik’s position that it could rely on pre-2012 information for its defenses while preventing Hazelden from asking about that information. - Topics 7 and 23: The motion was granted. Topic 7 concerns valuations of the Klinik’s trademark registrations, and Topic 23 concerns its business, sales, and marketing plans and forecasts. The court held that information about the value of marks incorporating the challenged “Betty Ford” mark was relevant to the Klinik’s defenses. It also held that foreign business activities could provide circumstantial evidence about activity entering United States commerce. The court therefore did not limit these topics as the Klinik requested. - Topics 28, 29, 31, and 34: The motion was granted in part and otherwise denied. The Klinik must provide testimony, without regard to language or whether the material had previously been produced in the case, about responsive content that references the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, the Betty Ford Center, or Mrs. Ford. The court did not impose the Klinik’s proposed English-language restriction. It narrowed Topics 29, 31, and 34 because those topics were too broad as written, limiting them to content referring to those entities or Mrs. Ford. Topic 34 also reaches back to 2006. - Topic 35: The motion was granted. The topic concerns instances in which third parties stated, implied, or indicated that they believed there was a relationship, connection, affiliation, or sponsorship between the Klinik and the Hazelden Betty Ford entities. The court rejected the Klinik’s proposal to require a direct naming of those entities, concluding that an implied or indicated connection could be communicated without directly naming them.

Timing and Scheduling

The court ordered that the Klinik’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition take place within 30 days of the order. If a party objected to the order, the deposition would take place within 30 days of the ruling on that objection unless the district judge directed otherwise. The court extended the fact-discovery deadline only for this deposition and extended the deadline for nondispositive motions related to the deposition to 30 days after its completion. The parties were ordered to meet and confer and file a proposed stipulated amended scheduling order by May 31, 2024, addressing expert reports, expert discovery, dispositive motions, and the date the case would be ready for trial.

Fees and Disposition

Judge Tony N. Leung ruled that Hazelden’s motion to compel was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Each party must bear its own costs and attorney fees connected with the motion. The court left prior consistent orders in effect and stated that violations could lead to remedies or sanctions, including costs, fines, attorney fees, limits on evidence, striking pleadings, dismissal with prejudice, or default judgment.