Toyota Discovery Appeals Overruled, Minnesota Court Affirms Magistrate Orders

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Allen Interchange, LLC, Applegate Supply, Patriot Parts of Texas, Bluestone Auto Products, OEM Parts Company, Factory Parts Direct, Autoworks Distributing, and Defendants DOES 1–10

District Court, D. Minnesota

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 0:22-cv-01681

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (26.8K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

dUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 22-cv-1681 (KMM/JFD)

Plaintiff,

v.

Allen Interchange, LLC, Applegate Supply,
Patriot Parts of Texas, Bluestone Auto
Products, OEM Parts Company, Factory Parts
Direct, Autoworks Distributing, and
Defendants DOES 1–10,

Defendants. ORDER

Allen Interchange, LLC,

Counterclaimant,

v.

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., and Toyota
Motor North America, Inc.,

Counterclaim Defendants

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., and Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (collectively,
“Toyota”) has filed two appeals of nondispositive Orders issued by United States Magistrate
Judge John F. Docherty. (Dkt. 785 (Objection to Order on Discovery Motions (Dkt. 759));
Dkt. 786 (Objection to Order (Dkt. 769)).) In the first, Toyota asks this Court to partially
overturn Judge Docherty’s November 26, 2025 discovery order and allow Toyota to serve
subpoenas on third-party Toyota dealers. Toyota claims that the November 26 discovery order is
the product of two errors: (1) an erroneous conclusion that Toyota could obtain the requested
documents from Defendant Allen Interchange, LLC, despite evidence that Allen did not have, or
had destroyed, the responsive information; and (2) an erroneous determination that the dealer
subpoenas would have an in terrorem effect based only on Allen’s speculation, and contrary to
record evidence. (Dkt. 785.) In the second appeal, Toyota asks the Court to reverse Judge
Docherty’s December 4, 2025 discovery order denying Toyota’s motion to compel discovery

related to Toyota’s Interrogatory No. 39. Toyota argues that the December 4 Order is also the
product of two errors: (1) the Court erred by relying upon a prior ruling addressing requests for
different information than the information sought by Interrogatory No. 39; and (2) the Court
erred by failing appropriately to determine the relevance of the information sought. (Dkt. 786.)
The Court has carefully reviewed the underlying discovery orders (Dkts. 759, 769), the
motion practice and other relevant docket entries bearing upon those orders,1 the transcript of the
hearing on these matters, Toyota’s objections (Dkts. 785–86), and Allen’s responses (Dkts. 788,
797). Based on the Court’s review and applying the “extremely deferential” standard of review,
Subramanian v Tata Constituency Servs., Ltd., 352 F. Supp. 3d 908, 919 (D. Minn. 2018), the
Court finds that neither discovery order Toyota appeals is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law,”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); D. Minn. LR 72.2(a)(3). Toyota’s objections are, therefore, overruled, and
the discovery orders are affirmed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
1. Toyota’s Objections (Dkts. 785, 786) are OVERRULED.
2. The discovery orders (Dkts. 759, 769) are AFFIRMED.

1 With respect to the first appeal (Dkt. 785) see the documents at the following
docket entries: 343, 618, 622, 637, 639, 640, 714, 793. For the second appeal (Dkt. 786),
see the documents at the following docket entries: 125, 130, 224, 663, 665, 666, 673,
675, 676, 714.
Date: February 26, 2026 s/Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge