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

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota May 20, 2024

Trial Court Opinion

            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation,      Case No. 20-cv-409 (JRT/TNL)         
a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, and                                    
Elizabeth B. Ford Charitable Trust,                                       

     Plaintiffs,

ORDER

My Way Betty Ford Klinik GmbH,
a German entity,

Defendant.

Cara S. Donels, Fredrikson & Byron P.A., 111 East Grand Avenue, Suite 301, Des
Moines, IA 50309; and Laura L. Myers, Luke P. de Leon, and Timothy M. O’Shea,
Fredrikson & Byron P.A., 60 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402
(for Plaintiffs); and

Chad A. Snyder and Michael H. Frasier, Rubric Legal LLC, 111 Third Avenue South,
Suite 110, Minneapolis, MN 55401; and Jiwon Juliana Yhee, Michael S. Golenson, and
Riebana Elisabeth Sachs, Masuda, Funai, Eifert & Mitchell, Ltd., 203 North LaSalle
Street, Suite 2500, Chicago, IL 60601 (for Defendant).

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation
and Elizabeth B. Ford Charitable Trust’s (collectively, “Hazelden Betty Ford”) Motion to
Compel Defendant’s Testimony Under Rule 30(b)(6), ECF No. 226. A hearing was held.
ECF No. 237. Laura L. Myers and Timothy M. O’Shea appeared on behalf of Hazelden
Betty Ford. Michael S. Golenson and Chad A. Snyder appeared on behalf of Defendant
My Way Betty Ford Klinik GmbH (“the Klinik”).
II. BACKGROUND

Hazelden Betty Ford seeks to take the deposition of the Klinik under Rule 30(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Klinik “is a German entity that operates a
drug and alcohol treatment facility in Bad Brückenau, Germany.” Hazelden Betty Ford
Found. v. My Way Betty Ford Klinik, GmbH, No. 20-cv-409 (JRT/TNL),

2021 WL 3711055

, at *1 (D. Minn. Aug. 20, 2021); see also Hazelden Betty Ford Found. v. My 
Way Betty Ford Klinik, GmbH,

504 F. Supp. 3d 966

, 971 (D. Minn. 2020).  The Court 
previously ruled that the Klinik’s 30(b)(6) deposition will take place in Minneapolis, 

Minnesota.   Mar. 29, 2023 Ord. [hereinafter “March Order”], ECF No. 172 at 46-47 & 
n.11, 52-55,1 affirmed, Sept. 28, 2023 Ord. [hereinafter “September Order”], ECF No. 
215.    The  Klinik  has  designated  Daniel  Fuchs,  an  attorney  in  Germany  who  has 
represented the Klinik since 2012, to testify as its corporate representative.  See Decl. of 
Daniel Fuchs ¶ 6, ECF No. 137.                                            

Hazelden  Betty  Ford  moves  for  an  order  compelling  the  Klinik  to  prepare 
adequately its designee and to provide testimony on certain topics to which the Klinik has 
objected.2                                                                
                     III. ANALYSIS                                   

Hazelden Betty Ford’s motion implicates the Court’s broad discretion in handling 
pretrial procedure and discovery.  See, e.g., Rowles v. Curators of Univ. of Mo.,

983 F.3d 345, 353

 (8th Cir. 2020) (“A district court has very wide discretion in handling pretrial 


1 The Court uses the pagination generated by the Court’s electronic filing system. 
2 Topics 19, 20, 28, and 33 (related to oral communications) are no longer in dispute.  Tr. 34:2-22, ECF No. 240. 
discovery . . . .” (quotation omitted)); Solutran, Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp, No. 13-cv-2637 
(SRN/BRT),

2016 WL 7377099

, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 20, 2016) (“Further, magistrate 

judges ‘are afforded wide discretion in handling discovery matters and are free to use and 
control  pretrial  procedure  in  furtherance  of  the  orderly  administration  of  justice.’” 
(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Favors v. Hoover, No. 13-cv-428 (JRT/LIB),

2013 WL 6511851

, at *3 n.3 (D. Minn. Dec. 12, 2013)).                     
A. Preparation of the Klinik’s Designee                              
“The testimony elicited at the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition represents the knowledge 

of the corporation, not of the individual deponents.”  United States v. Taylor,

166 F.R.D. 356, 361

 (M.D. N.C. 1996); accord Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Vegas Constr. Co., Inc.,

251 F.R.D. 534, 538

 (D. Nev. 2008).  When a party notices the deposition of a corporate 
entity,  the  entity  must  then  “designate  one  or  more  officers,  directors,  or  managing 
agents, or . . . other persons who consent to testify on its behalf.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 

30(b)(6).  “The persons designated must testify about information known or reasonably 
available to the organization.”

Id.

                                      
“A Rule 30(b)(6) designee is not required to have personal knowledge on the 
designated subject matter.”  Great Am. Ins. Co.,

251 F.R.D. at 538

; see Taylor,

166 F.R.D. at 361

 (“Thus, the duty to present and prepare a Rule 30(b)(6) designee goes 

beyond matters personally known to that designee or to matters in which that designee 
was personally involved.”).  “If the persons designated by the corporation do not possess 
personal knowledge of the matters set out in the deposition notice, the corporation is 
obligated to prepare the designees so that they may give knowledgeable and binding 
answers for the corporation.”  Taylor,

166 F.R.D. at 361

.  “The obligation is to make a 
diligent effort to gather the information known to the organization as a whole, whether 

that information is in the form of documents or in the memories of the employees who 
were  actually  involved  in  the  matters  at  issue.”    Prairie  River  Home  Care,  Inc.  v. 
Procura, LLC, No. 17-cv-5121 (JRT/HB),

2019 WL 13248862

, at *19 (D. Minn. Aug. 5, 
2019).  Such preparation may include having the designee “review prior fact witness 
deposition  testimony  as  well  as  documents  and  deposition  exhibits.”    Prokosch  v. 
Catalina Lighting, Inc.,

193 F.R.D. 633, 639

 (D. Minn. 2000) (quotation omitted).  It may 

also include accessing “information held by third-party sources if that information is 
reasonably available to the organization.”  Klein v. Affiliated Grp., Inc., No. 18-cv-949 
(DWF/ECW),

2019 WL 246768

,  at  *9  (D.  Minn.  Jan.  17,  2019).    At  bottom, 
“[c]orporations, partnerships, and joint ventures have a duty to make a conscientious, 
good-faith effort to designate knowledgeable persons for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and to 

prepare them to fully and unevasively answer questions about the designated subject 
matter.”  Prokosch,

193 F.R.D. at 638

 (quotation omitted); see also, e.g., Commodity 
Futures Trading Comm’n v. Svejda, No. 8:21CV311,

2023 WL 7300620

, at *8 (D. Neb.
Nov. 6, 2023).
Hazelden Betty Ford moves for an order compelling Fuchs to speak with certain

individuals as part of his preparation. Consistent with the Court’s prior order, Hazelden
Betty Ford points out that it “is paying the reasonable expenses for [Fuchs] to travel to
Minneapolis to testify on [the Klinik’s] behalf” and it “should not have to waste money
on an unprepared witness.” Pls. Mem. in Supp., ECF No. 228 at 23. The Klinik contends
that Hazelden Betty Ford “want[s] to dictate and control how [it] prepares its corporate
designee.” Def. Mem. in Opp’n, ECF No. 234 at 12. The Klinik reiterates that its

designee “will be prepared to provide testimony about information known or reasonably
available to the organization responsive to [Hazelden Betty Ford’s] deposition topics,”
and Hazelden Betty Ford has not “provide[d] any authority to support the proposition that
the deposing party has the right to dictate specifically how a corporate designee is to be
educated in preparation for the deposition before any deposition has occurred.” Def.
Mem. in Opp’n, ECF No. 234 at 12-13.

Hazelden Betty Ford’s motion is denied as to its request that the Klinik’s 30(b)(6)
designee be ordered to prepare for the deposition by speaking with certain individuals.
The Klinik has committed to producing a 30(b)(6) designee “who has been suitably
prepared to respond to questioning” on the noticed topics. Prokosch,

193 F.R.D. at 638

.  
The Court will neither dictate how that preparation is to occur nor assume the Klinik 

intends to shirk its obligations.                                         
That being said, the parties are reminded that “[p]roper preparedness for a Rule 
30(b)(6)  deposition  requires  the  good  faith  of  both  parties.”    Dapron  v.  Spire,  Inc. 
Retirement  Plans  Comm.,

329 F.R.D. 223

,  227  (E.D.  Mo.  2019)  (emphasis  added).  
“[D]esignees  are  responsible  for  information  known  or  reasonably  available  to  the 

corporation.”  Klein,

2019 WL 246768

, at *9 (quotation omitted).  “[T]he burden upon 
the responding party[] to prepare a knowledgeable Rule 30(b)(6) witness[] may be an 
onerous one,” but there is no “less onerous means of assuring that the position of a 
corporation[] that is involved in litigation[] can be fully and fairly explored.”  Prokosch,

193 F.R.D. at 639

.  And, it is well established that the failure to provide a knowledgeable 
witness is sanctionable.  See, e.g., Commodity Futures Trading Commission,

2023 WL 7300620

, at *9; Prairie River Home Care,

2019 WL 13248862

, at *18; Aviva Sports, Inc. 
v. Fingerhut Direct Mktg., Inc., No. 09-cv-1091 (JNE/JSM),

2013 WL 12142579

, at *4 
(D. Minn. Mar. 20, 2013); Taylor,

166 F.R.D. at 363

.  At the same time, “Rule 30(b)(6) 
designees need not be perfect.”  Klein,

2019 WL 246768

, at *9 (quotation omitted); see, 
e.g., Whatley v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd., No. 1:16-cv-74,

2022 WL 14145351

, at *3 (D. 
N.D. June 28, 2022) (requiring more than a “mere[] lack[] . . . [of] desired specificity in 

discrete areas” (quotation omitted)).  “[T]he Rule 30(b)(6) deponent is not expected to be 
clairvoyant, so as to divine the specific questions that could be presented.”  Prairie River 
Home Care,

2019 WL 13248862

, at *17 (quotation omitted).                  
B. Topics                                                            
In general, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter 

that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the 
case . . . .”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).  “Some threshold showing of relevance must be 
made[, however,] before parties are required to open wide the doors of discovery and to 
produce a variety of information which does not reasonably bear upon the issues in the 
case.”  Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc.,

981 F.2d 377, 380

 (8th Cir. 1992).  Further, “[t]he 

parties and the court have a collective responsibility to consider the proportionality of all 
discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes.”  Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc.,

903 F.3d 733, 742

 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s note to 
2015 amendment); see Lynch v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,

569 F. Supp. 3d 959

, 963 (D. 
Minn.  2021)  (“Beyond  being  relevant,  Rule  26  requires  that  information  sought  in 
discovery also be ‘proportional to  the needs of the case.’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1))), aff’d,

581 F. Supp. 3d 1122

 (D. Minn. 2022).  “[A] court can—and must—
limit proposed discovery that it determines is not proportional to the needs of the case.”  
Vallejo,

903 F.3d at 742

  (quotation  omitted);  see  Fed.  R.  Civ.  P.  26(b)(2)(C)(iii).  
Considerations bearing on proportionality include “the importance of the issues at stake 
in  the  action,  the  amount  in  controversy,  the  parties’  relative  access  to  relevant 
information,  the  parties’  resources,  the  importance  of  the  discovery  in  resolving  the 

issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 
benefit.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also Vallejo,

903 F.3d at 742-43

.
1. Topics 18, 24, 25 & 333
These topics seek information regarding the Klinik’s “marketing and promotion of
its addiction treatment services” (Topic 18); “[t]he cost of treatment at or by [the Klinik]

for any and all types of addiction treatment services” (Topic 24); “[t]he addiction
treatment services offered by [the Klinik] from 2006 to the present” (Topic 25); and the
Klinik’s “communications regarding [the] Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, the Betty
Ford Center, Mrs. [Betty] Ford, or the addiction treatment model used by [the] Hazelden
Betty Ford Foundation or the Betty Ford Center” (Topic 33). Am. Notice, ECF No. 229-

7 at 7-9.
The dispute with respect to these topics concerns the applicable timeframe.
Hazelden Betty Ford seeks information from 2006 (when the Klinik opened) to the

3 The Court addresses Topic 34 below. See infra Section III.B.3.
present. See ECF No. 229-2 at 10. The Klinik has agreed to provide testimony dating
back to 2012.

Hazelden Betty Ford asserts that information dating back to 2006 is relevant
because the Klinik has “assert[ed] various delay-based affirmative defenses premised on
the idea that it has been openly using ‘Betty Ford’ since 2006 and Hazelden[ Betty
Ford]’s predecessor, the Betty Ford Center, should have taken action against [the Klinik]
before 2012.” Pls. Mem. in Supp., ECF No. 228 at 24; see, e.g., ECF No. 40 at 18-19
(asserting affirmative defenses of unclean hands, waiver, laches, and/or estoppel).

Hazelden Betty Ford points to the Klinik’s responses to interrogatories seeking the
factual bases for these affirmative defenses, noting, for example, that the Klinik contends
its use of the marks “was open and obvious”; it acted “[i]n reliance on [the] Betty Ford
Center’s silence”; the instant action was “contrary to the fifteen-plus-year record of
allowing [the Klinik] and others to use trademarks, trade names and domain names that

include the words ‘Betty’ and ‘Ford’”; and Hazelden Betty Ford “simply slept on any
claims it might possess—soundly—for fifteen years to [the Klinik’s] detriment.” ECF
No. 229-2 at 10, 11, 13, 18; see also ECF No. 229-2 at 12 (“neither [the] Betty Ford
Center nor Hazelden ever took any action against the licensed trademarks and domain
names over many years” despite being provided “with full information on those

trademarks and domain names”); see generally ECF No. 229-2 at 10-19. Hazelden Betty
Ford asserts that the Klinik “cannot have it both ways—it cannot assert that Hazelden[
Betty Ford]’s claims are barred because the Betty Ford Center did not act prior to 2012,
but refuse to testify regarding its service offerings and activities in connection with ‘Betty
Ford’ before 2012.” Pls. Mem. in Supp., ECF No. 228 at 25. According to Hazelden
Betty Ford, the Klinik should either provide complete testimony “dating back to 2006” or

be prevented “from asserting any affirmative defenses that rely on alleged pre-2012
activities or inaction.” Pls. Mem. in Supp., ECF No. 228 at 25.
The Klinik reiterates that it is willing to “provide testimony dating back to 2012.”
Def. Mem. in Opp’n, ECF No. 234 at 3; accord Def. Mem. in Opp’n, ECF No. 234 at 28.
The Klinik also states that it is willing “to withdraw its affirmative defenses to the extent
they allege that [Hazelden Betty Ford] should have known it had an actionable claim

against [the Klinik] prior to 2012.” Def. Mem. in Opp’n, ECF No. 234 at 3; accord Def.
Mem. in Opp’n, ECF No. 234 at 28. The Klinik is not, however, willing to “withdraw”
and in fact “expressly reserves” “the right to rely on all facts, evidence, information, and
discovery produced in the case regarding events that occurred prior to 2012 for any
purpose, including, but not limited to establishing [Hazelden Betty Ford’s] knowledge of

[the Klinik], [its] knowledge of others’ uses of ‘Betty Ford,’ and [its] enforcement (or
lack thereof) of its trademark rights against others.” Def. Mem. in Opp’n, ECF No. 234
at 4; accord Def. Mem. in Opp’n, ECF No. 234 at 28.
The Klinik’s proposal is unworkable. Essentially, the Klinik wants to reserve the
right to rely on information pre-dating 2012 for any purpose, but prevent Hazelden Betty

Ford from inquiring into that information. Hazelden Betty Ford’s motion is granted with
respect to Topics 18, 24, 25, and 33, and the Klinik shall provide testimony on these
topics dating back to 2006.4
2. Topics 7 & 23

Topic 7 seeks information regarding “[a]ny valuations of [the Klinik’s] current
trademark registrations” related to use of the “Betty Ford” mark “and the bases therefor.”
Am. Notice, ECF No. 229-7 at 6. Topic 23 seeks information regarding the Klinik’s
“business, sales, and marketing plans and forecasts.” Am. Notice, ECF No. 229-7 at 8.
In late June 2023, while this litigation was pending, the Supreme Court handed
down its decision in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc.,

600 U.S. 412

(2023). In Abitron, the Supreme Court held that, “when a Lanham Act claim ‘involves
both domestic and foreign activity, the question is whether the conduct relevant to the
statute’s focus occurred in the United States. If that conduct occurred in the United
States, then the case involves a permissible domestic application of the statute even if
other conduct occurred abroad.’” September Order, ECF No. 215 at 20 (quoting 600

U.S. at 424 (quotations and citations omitted)). “But if the conduct relevant to the focus
occurred in a foreign country, then the case involves an impermissible extraterritorial
application regardless of any other conduct that occurred in U.S. territory.” Abitron, 600
U.S. at 424 (quotation omitted); accord September Order, ECF No. 215 at 20. As the
district court previously observed, “Abitron is certainly relevant to this case” and “will be

highly pertinent” at summary judgment. September Order, ECF No. 215 at 19, 21.
Hazelden Betty Ford moves to compel testimony on Topics 7 and 23 without
limiting such testimony to the United States. The Klinik counters that, under Abitron,

4 Again, see infra Section III.B.3 & n.6 with respect to Topic 34.
“information regarding [the Klinik’s] foreign trademark registrations and plans/forecasts
for activities in foreign countries are beyond the reach of Lanham Act claims and

therefore are not relevant to the case.” Def. Mem. in Opp’n, ECF No. 234 at 19.
Accordingly, the Klinik seeks to limit Topic 7 “to trademark registrations in the United
States” and Topic 23 to “plans and forecasts for the United States.” Def. Mem. in Opp’n,
ECF No. 234 at 16-17.
As reflected in the Klinik’s interrogatory answers describing the factual bases for
its affirmative defenses, the Klinik contends that it “continued operations under its

licensed trademarks, trade name, and domain names [that incorporate the challenged
‘Betty Ford’ mark], building and developing substantial goodwill, equity, and
recognition,” “[i]n reliance on [the] Betty Ford Center’s silence.” ECF No. 229-2 at 11;
accord ECF No. 229-2 at 15. Additionally, “[b]ased on the long history of inaction and
acquiesce and even affirmative actions,” the Klinik contends that it paid €1.1 million “for

ownership of trademarks and domain names that included the words ‘Betty’ and ‘Ford’ in
2015.” ECF No. 229-2 at 11; accord ECF No. 229-2 at 17. The Klinik “then continued
its operations, including acquiring additional trademarks and domain names around the
world” without objection by Hazelden Betty Ford. ECF No. 229-2 at 13; accord ECF
No. 229-2 at 17. According to the Klinik, Hazelden Betty Ford’s “inaction will cause

[the Klinik] to suffer undue prejudice in that it continued its operations, building goodwill
and an excellent reputation associated with its registered trademarks, trade name and
domain names,” and “spent substantial sums acquiring full ownership of various marks
and domain names and in registering various trademarks and domain names in various
jurisdictions around the world.” ECF No. 229-2 at 18.
At the hearing, the Klinik argued that it did not object to providing testimony

regarding the valuation of the marks that were purchased in 2015, but did not see the
relevance of the value of its current marks outside of the United States. See Tr. 50:9-19.
As set forth above, however, the Klinik’s affirmative defenses are not just based on the
value of those marks purchased in 2015 that include the challenged “Betty Ford” mark,
but are also based on the existing, current value of its marks. Information regarding the
value of the Klinik’s marks that incorporate the challenged “Betty Ford” mark is

therefore relevant to the Klinik’s defenses and subject to discovery by Hazelden Betty
Ford. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Whether and to what extent such evidence may
ultimately be admissible in the future in light of Abitron does not limit the scope of
discovery. See id. (“Information within the scope of discovery need not be admissible in
evidence to be discoverable.”); see also Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. Parcop S.R.L., No.

CV 21-1238-GBW-JLH,

2023 WL 4585952

, at *2 (D. Del. July 18, 2023) (noting
Abitron “did not address the type of evidence a trademark owner may introduce to show
the alleged infringing ‘use in commerce’ occurred in the United States” and “the
Supreme Court d[id] not cite to the Federal Rules of Evidence in its opinion, nor was the
question of admissibility of evidence of foreign conduct in support of Lanham Act claims

before [it]”).
With respect to the Klinik’s business plans, Hazelden Betty Ford explained at the
hearing that it was not interested in “business plans to open a location in Berlin, or, you
know, attend conferences in . . . Sweden” and was “not going to ask about that.” Tr.
38:1-4. Rather, Hazelden Betty Ford was seeking information “about business sales and
marketing plans and forecasts relating to conduct that enters U.S. commerce or has the

capacity to enter U.S. commerce.” Tr. 38:4-7. The Klinik responded that, “to the extent
that [it has] plans of entering U.S. commerce, [it is] willing to provide that
[information],” but whether something has “the capacity to enter U.S. commerce” is
really no limitation at all. Tr. 51:2-13.
Fundamentally, the Klinik argues that “there is no conceivable theory under which
testimony . . . [related to its business plans] . . . for activities in foreign countries (i.e.,

outside the United States) could shed light on domestic activity.” Def. Mem. in Opp’n,
ECF No. 234 at 19. But, as Hazelden Betty Ford points out, “the relevant analysis is not
that simple or conclusive.” Pls. Mem. in Supp., ECF No. 228 at 28. As the district court
previously noted, there is evidence that the Klinik has treated U.S. patients, evidence
which “may serve as circumstantial evidence that the Klinik has used advertising and

promotional materials to reach American patients.” September Order, ECF No. 215 at
21. And, in Rockwell Automation, the plaintiff was permitted to introduce evidence of a
defendant’s infringing foreign sales as circumstantial evidence that the defendant had
made infringing sales in the United States.

2023 WL 4585952

, at *3.      
Ultimately, the Klinik’s “arguments presume that [it] possess[es] the unilateral 

ability to dictate the scope of discovery based on [its] own view of the parties’ respective 
theories of the case.”  Sentis Grp., Inc. v. Shell Oil Co.,

763 F.3d 919, 925

 (8th Cir. 
2014).    The  Klinik  does  not  dispute  that  evidence  regarding  its business,  sales,  and 
marketing plans and forecasts related to activity that enters United States commerce is 
discoverable.    While  the  focus  of  Hazelden  Betty  Ford’s  Lanham  Act  claims  must 
ultimately be based on domestic conduct under Abitron, see 600 U.S. at 424-25, the 

Klinik’s foreign business activities may serve as circumstantial evidence of how those 
activities enter United States commerce.  “[F]oreign evidence may still shed light on 
domestic activity.”  September Order, ECF No. 215 at 20.  Again, whether and to what 
extent this evidence may be admissible in the future does not limit the scope of discovery.  
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Rockwell Automation,

2023 WL 4585952

, at *2. The
precise contours of how any responsive information may ultimately be used and the

weight of such evidence are better answered with a more fully developed factual record
and on the merits.
Therefore, Hazelden Betty Ford’s motion is granted with respect to Topics 7 and
23.
3. Topics 28, 29, 31 & 34

Generally speaking, these topics relate to the Klinik’s online and media activities.
Topic 28 seeks information regarding “references to the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation,
the Betty Ford Center, or Mrs. Ford in [the Klinik’s] documents, communications,
website, promotional materials, social media, and media coverage.” Am. Notice, ECF
No. 229-7 at 8. Topic 29 seeks information regarding “[t]he content and use of [the

Klinik’s] website from 2006 to the present.” Am. Notice, ECF No. 229-7 at 8. Topic 31
seeks information regarding “[t]he content and use of [the Klinik’s] social media
accounts from inception to the present.” Am. Notice, ECF No. 229-7 at 9. Topic 34
seeks information regarding “[t]he content of [the Klinik’s] media interviews.” Am.
Notice, ECF No. 229-7 at 9.
Relying again on Abitron, the Klinik seeks to limit these topics to content in the

English language. The Klinik argues that because “German is not an official language in
the United States[,] . . . [Hazelden Betty Ford] cannot legitimately argue that German
language content is intended for a U.S. audience” or “plausibly claim that [its] German-
language content evidences, in any way, [the Klinik’s] use of the trademark in U.S.
commerce.” Def. Mem. in Opp’n, ECF No. 234 at 20.
The Court will not impose the English-language restriction proposed by the

Klinik. The Court is sympathetic to the Klinik’s argument that, standing alone, the mere
fact that a website can be translated into English by third party could well “eviscerate the
extraterritorial limitations on the Lanham Act set forth by the Supreme Court in Abitron.”
Def. Mem. in Opp’n, ECF No. 234 at 21. But, at the same time, the Klinik’s argument
that anything in German is no longer relevant in light of Abitron is akin to the argument

previously rejected by the district court in connection with its patient files. “[I]t matters
not for the purpose of discovery which side’s theory of the case might ultimately be
proven correct. What matters is that each side is entitled to pursue intelligible theories of
the case and [Defendant] cannot, by [its] sole insistence, declare evidence undiscoverable
and irrelevant merely because it does not fit into [its] own theory of the case.” Sentis

Grp.,

763 F.3d at 926

.  Again, Abitron “did not address the type of evidence a trademark 
owner may introduce to show the alleged infringing ‘use in commerce’ occurred in the 
United States.”  Rockwell Automation,

2023 WL 4585952

, at *2. Hazelden Betty Ford is
entitled to discovery regarding the Klinik’s references to the Hazelden Betty Ford
Foundation, the Betty Ford Center, and Mrs. Ford in its documents, communications,
website, promotional materials, social media, and media interviews as such information

goes to the heart of Hazelden Betty Ford’s claims and issues related to the likelihood of
confusion and perceived affiliation. The Klinik is certainly free, as Hazelden Betty Ford
points out, “to make arguments regarding the weight of evidence in other languages” at a
later stage in this litigation. Pls. Mem. in Supp., ECF No. 228 at 29-30.
As for the subject matter of Topics 28, 29, 31, and 34, Hazelden Betty Ford’s
motion is granted in part with respect to these topics to responsive content that references

the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, the Betty Ford Center, or Mrs. Ford. Beginning
with Topic 28, this topic seeks testimony regarding “[r]eferences to [the] Hazelden Betty
Ford Foundation, the Betty Ford Center, or Mrs. Ford.” Am. Notice, ECF No. 229-7 at 8.
The Klinik states that it is willing to provide testimony “regarding materials that directly
mention [the] Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, the Betty Ford Center, or Mrs. Betty

Ford.” Def. Mem. in Opp’n, ECF No. 234 at 21 (quotation omitted) (emphasis added).
Hazelden Betty Ford asserts that the Klinik has engaged in “slyer transgressions [that] are
equally actionable and discoverable” and requiring a “specific[] reference [to the]
Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, [the] Betty Ford Center, or Mrs. Ford by name is
unfairly restrictive and designed to shield relevant information from discovery.” Pls.

Mem. in Supp., ECF No. 228 at 30.
Hazelden Betty Ford cannot now be heard to complain that compelling the Klinik
to provide testimony on Topic 28 as written is somehow “unfairly restrictive.” Pls. Mem.
in Supp., ECF No. 228 at 30. Hazelden Betty Ford would have the Court compel the
Klinik to provide testimony regarding references to the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation,
the Betty Ford Center, and Mrs. Ford in its documents, communications, website,

promotional materials, social media, and media coverage without requiring that there be a
“precise reference[]” to these entities or Mrs. Ford. Pls. Mem. in Supp., ECF No. 228 at
33. Rule 30(b)(6), however, requires that the topics for examination be “describe[d] with
reasonable particularity.” How is the Klinik to prepare its designee to testify about
references to the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, the Betty Ford Center, or Mrs. Ford if
such entities or Mrs. Ford are not in fact referred to?5 Even the purported “slyer

transgression[]” given as an example by Hazelden Betty Ford specifically references
“Betty Ford” thereby referring to Mrs. Ford by name. See Pls. Mem. in Supp., ECF No.
228 at 30.
Hazelden Betty Ford’s motion is therefore granted in part to the extent that the
Klinik shall provide testimony on Topic 28 as written and with respect to references to

the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, the Betty Ford Center, or Mrs. Ford in the Klinik’s
documents, communications, website, promotional materials, social media, and media
coverage. The Court is loathed to engage in semantical line-drawing between a
“reference” and a “direct mention” of these entities or Mrs. Ford. As discussed below,
the Klinik itself has proposed a “reference” limitation on Topics 29, 31, and 34. The

Court sees no reason why Topic 28 should be drawn more narrowly to require “direct
mention” of the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, the Betty Ford Center, or Mrs. Ford

5 In this vein, Topic 28 as well as Topics 29, 31, and 34 as limited herein are different in kind than Topic 35, see
infra Section III.B.4, which seeks testimony regarding a different type of mention.
when the Klinik itself advocates for a “reference” limitation in a similar context and with
respect to related subject matter.

In their current form, Topics 29, 31, and 34 seek testimony on all content from the
Klinik’s inception to the present regarding its website, social media, and media
interviews without limitation. The Klinik contends that content that “does not refer to
[Hazelden Betty Ford] is in no way relevant to the claims in this case.” Def. Mem. in
Opp’n, ECF No. 234 at 22. The Klinik proposes “limiting [its] testimony on Topics 29,
31, and 34 to that which refers to [the] Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, the Betty Ford

Center, or Mrs. Betty Ford . . . to exclude irrelevant content.” Def. Mem. in Opp’n, ECF
No. 234 at 22. The Court agrees with the Klinik that Topics 29, 31, and 34 are overly
broad as written and not sufficiently tailored to the issues at stake in this litigation.
Accordingly, the Court will narrow these topics to testimony regarding responsive
content that, like Topic 28, refers to the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, the Betty Ford

Center, or Mrs. Ford.6
Having limited Topics 28, 29, 31, and 34 to references to the Hazelden Betty Ford
Foundation, the Betty Ford Center, or Mrs. Ford, the Court will not further limit the
scope of the testimony on these topics to the documents that have been produced in this
litigation. As stated above, Rule 30(b)(6) testimony represents information known to the

organization as a whole. The Klinik is obligated to prepare its designee to fully and
unevasively answer questions about and testify regarding organizational knowledge of

6 For the reasons stated above, the Klinik shall provide testimony on Topic 34 dating back to 2006. See supra
Section III.B.1. (The temporal scope of Topics 28, 29, and 31 is not at issue.)
references to the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, the Betty Ford Center, or Mrs. Ford
regardless of the production in this case.

In sum, Hazelden Betty Ford’s motion is granted in part with respect to Topics 28,
29, 31, and 34 to responsive content that references the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation,
the Betty Ford Center, or Mrs. Ford without regard to language or prior production, and is
otherwise denied.
4. Topic 35
Topic 35 seeks information regarding “any instances in which any third-party has

stated, implied, or indicated to [the Klinik] that the third-party believed there was some
kind of relationship, connection, affiliation or sponsorship between [the Klinik],
Hazelden Betty Ford, and/or the Betty Ford Center.” Am. Notice, ECF No. 229-7 at 9.
The Amended Notice uses “Hazelden Betty Ford” to collectively refer to the “Hazelden
Betty Ford Foundation and [the] Elizabeth B. Ford Charitable Trust.” Am. Notice, ECF

No. 229-7 at 5.
The Klinik has “agreed to provide testimony about any instances in which a third-
party has ‘mentioned Hazelden Betty Ford or the Betty Ford Center.’” Def. Mem. in
Opp’n, ECF No. 234 at 24. The Klinik objects to Topic 35 to the extent Hazelden Betty
Ford is seeking testimony regarding “other, unspecified entities” and on vagueness

grounds to the extent it seeks “testimony about implications and indications.” Def. Mem.
in Opp’n, ECF No. 234 at 25. Hazelden Betty Ford counters that actual confusion
regarding a perceived connection can exist in forms other than specifically referencing
the Hazelden Betty Ford entities by name, citing a patient review in which Mrs. Ford was
referenced.7
Hazelden Betty Ford’s motion is granted with respect to Topic 35 as it seeks with

reasonable particularity evidence of perceived connections between the Klinik and the
Hazelden Betty Ford entities. The Klinik’s proposal that there be an express reference to
the Hazelden Betty Ford entities—i.e., that the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, the
Elizabeth B. Ford Charitable Trust, or the Betty Ford Center be named directly—takes an
overly restrictive view of how third parties might communicate a belief that there exists
some sort of connection between the Klinik and these entities. Further, the use of

“implied” and “indicated” reasonably covers those instances in which a third party has
articulated in some manner other than by directly naming one of the Hazelden Betty Ford
entities a perceived connection between the Klinik and these entities
C. Timing

Initially, Hazelden Betty Ford sought to have the 30(b)(6) deposition take place
within ten days of the ruling on the instant motion. At the hearing, Hazelden Betty Ford
was agreeable to the Klinik’s proposal that the 30(b)(6) deposition take place within 30
days of the ruling on the instant motion. Tr. 47:9-11. Consistent with the parties’
agreement, the Klinik’s 30(b)(6) deposition shall take place within 30 days from the date
of this Order.8

D. Meet & Confer Regarding Schedule

This Court previously stayed certain deadlines in the Fourth Amended Pretrial

7 The exhibit cited in Hazelden Betty Ford’s memorandum is incorrect. At the hearing, Hazelden Betty Ford
clarified that the correct exhibit is ECF No. 64-1. Tr. 43:19-45:15.
8 In the event an objection is made to this Order, the deposition shall take place within 30 days from the date of the
ruling thereon unless otherwise directed by the district judge.
Scheduling Order pending resolution of this motion. See generally ECF No. 245. The
Court will extend the prior February 29, 2024 fact discovery deadline solely with respect

to the taking of the Klinik’s 30(b)(6) deposition as outlined herein. The Court will also
extend the February 29, 2024 non-dispositive motion deadline solely with respect to any
motions related to the Klinik’s 30(b)(6) deposition to 30 days after the completion of that
deposition.
With these parameters and consistent with the Court’s prior Order, on or before
May 31, 2024,9 the parties shall meet and confer and file a proposed stipulated amended

pretrial scheduling order with revised dates for the Court’s review to include deadlines
for Hazelden Betty Ford’s expert report; the Klinik’s rebuttal expert report; the
completion of expert discovery, including non-dispositive motions related to expert
discovery; dispositive motions; and this case being trial-ready. See ECF No. 245 at 1-2.
E. Fees

Rule 37 provides for expenses in connection with a motion to compel under
certain circumstances. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5). Hazelden Betty Ford’s
motion has been granted in part and denied in part. As such, the Court may—but is not
required to—“apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
37(a)(5)(C). It is this Court’s view that any award of attorney fees and costs in

connection with this motion would have little if any positive effect, and would serve only
to embolden further the recipient party, entrench the parties in their respective positions,

9 The Court has provided additional time beyond the seven days stated in the prior Order due to the upcoming
Memorial Day holiday. See ECF No. 245 at 2.
and increase the costs of this litigation, making an award of fees unjust under the
circumstances. Accordingly, each party shall bear its own costs and attorney fees in

connection with this motion.
IV. ORDER

Based on the foregoing, and all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Hazelden Betty Ford’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Testimony Under Rule
30(b)(6), ECF No. 226, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as
set forth herein.

2. On or before May 31, 2024, the parties shall have met and conferred and filed
a proposed stipulated amended pretrial scheduling order with revised dates for
the Court’s review to include deadlines for Hazelden Betty Ford’s expert
report; the Klinik’s rebuttal expert report; the completion of expert discovery,
including non-dispositive motions related to expert discovery; dispositive
motions; and this case being trial-ready

3. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney fees in connection with this
motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C).

4. All prior consistent orders remain in full force and effect.

[Continued on next page.]
5. Failure to comply with any provision of this Order or any other prior consistent
Order shall subject the non-complying party, non-complying counsel and/or
the party such counsel represents to any and all appropriate remedies, sanctions
and the like, including without limitation: assessment of costs, fines and
attorneys’ fees and disbursements; waiver of rights to object; exclusion or
limitation of witnesses, testimony, exhibits and other evidence; striking of
pleadings; complete or partial dismissal with prejudice; entry of whole or
partial default judgment; and/or any other relief that this Court may from time
to time deem appropriate.

Dated: May 20 , 2024 s/ Tony N. Leung
Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Minnesota

Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation et al. v.
My Way Betty Ford Klinik GmbH
Case No. 20-cv-409 (JRT/TNL)

Trial Court Opinion

            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation,      Case No. 20-cv-409 (JRT/TNL)         
a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, and                                    
Elizabeth B. Ford Charitable Trust,                                       

     Plaintiffs,

ORDER

My Way Betty Ford Klinik GmbH,
a German entity,

Defendant.

I. INTRODUCTION

2021 WL 3711055

, at *1 (D. Minn. Aug. 20, 2021); see also Hazelden Betty Ford Found. v. My 
Way Betty Ford Klinik, GmbH,

504 F. Supp. 3d 966

, 971 (D. Minn. 2020).  The Court 
previously ruled that the Klinik’s 30(b)(6) deposition will take place in Minneapolis, 

Minnesota.   Mar. 29, 2023 Ord. [hereinafter “March Order”], ECF No. 172 at 46-47 & 
n.11, 52-55,1 affirmed, Sept. 28, 2023 Ord. [hereinafter “September Order”], ECF No. 
215.    The  Klinik  has  designated  Daniel  Fuchs,  an  attorney  in  Germany  who  has 
represented the Klinik since 2012, to testify as its corporate representative.  See Decl. of 
Daniel Fuchs ¶ 6, ECF No. 137.                                            

Hazelden  Betty  Ford  moves  for  an  order  compelling  the  Klinik  to  prepare 
adequately its designee and to provide testimony on certain topics to which the Klinik has 
objected.2                                                                
                     III. ANALYSIS                                   

Hazelden Betty Ford’s motion implicates the Court’s broad discretion in handling 
pretrial procedure and discovery.  See, e.g., Rowles v. Curators of Univ. of Mo.,

983 F.3d 345, 353

 (8th Cir. 2020) (“A district court has very wide discretion in handling pretrial 


1 The Court uses the pagination generated by the Court’s electronic filing system. 
2 Topics 19, 20, 28, and 33 (related to oral communications) are no longer in dispute.  Tr. 34:2-22, ECF No. 240. 
discovery . . . .” (quotation omitted)); Solutran, Inc. v. U.S. Bancorp, No. 13-cv-2637 
(SRN/BRT),

2016 WL 7377099

, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 20, 2016) (“Further, magistrate 

judges ‘are afforded wide discretion in handling discovery matters and are free to use and 
control  pretrial  procedure  in  furtherance  of  the  orderly  administration  of  justice.’” 
(internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Favors v. Hoover, No. 13-cv-428 (JRT/LIB),

2013 WL 6511851

, at *3 n.3 (D. Minn. Dec. 12, 2013)).                     
A. Preparation of the Klinik’s Designee                              
“The testimony elicited at the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition represents the knowledge 

of the corporation, not of the individual deponents.”  United States v. Taylor,

166 F.R.D. 356, 361

 (M.D. N.C. 1996); accord Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Vegas Constr. Co., Inc.,

251 F.R.D. 534, 538

 (D. Nev. 2008).  When a party notices the deposition of a corporate 
entity,  the  entity  must  then  “designate  one  or  more  officers,  directors,  or  managing 
agents, or . . . other persons who consent to testify on its behalf.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 

30(b)(6).  “The persons designated must testify about information known or reasonably 
available to the organization.”

Id.

                                      
“A Rule 30(b)(6) designee is not required to have personal knowledge on the 
designated subject matter.”  Great Am. Ins. Co.,

251 F.R.D. at 538

; see Taylor,

166 F.R.D. at 361

 (“Thus, the duty to present and prepare a Rule 30(b)(6) designee goes 

beyond matters personally known to that designee or to matters in which that designee 
was personally involved.”).  “If the persons designated by the corporation do not possess 
personal knowledge of the matters set out in the deposition notice, the corporation is 
obligated to prepare the designees so that they may give knowledgeable and binding 
answers for the corporation.”  Taylor,

166 F.R.D. at 361

.  “The obligation is to make a 
diligent effort to gather the information known to the organization as a whole, whether 

that information is in the form of documents or in the memories of the employees who 
were  actually  involved  in  the  matters  at  issue.”    Prairie  River  Home  Care,  Inc.  v. 
Procura, LLC, No. 17-cv-5121 (JRT/HB),

2019 WL 13248862

, at *19 (D. Minn. Aug. 5, 
2019).  Such preparation may include having the designee “review prior fact witness 
deposition  testimony  as  well  as  documents  and  deposition  exhibits.”    Prokosch  v. 
Catalina Lighting, Inc.,

193 F.R.D. 633, 639

 (D. Minn. 2000) (quotation omitted).  It may 

also include accessing “information held by third-party sources if that information is 
reasonably available to the organization.”  Klein v. Affiliated Grp., Inc., No. 18-cv-949 
(DWF/ECW),

2019 WL 246768

,  at  *9  (D.  Minn.  Jan.  17,  2019).    At  bottom, 
“[c]orporations, partnerships, and joint ventures have a duty to make a conscientious, 
good-faith effort to designate knowledgeable persons for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and to 

prepare them to fully and unevasively answer questions about the designated subject 
matter.”  Prokosch,

193 F.R.D. at 638

 (quotation omitted); see also, e.g., Commodity 
Futures Trading Comm’n v. Svejda, No. 8:21CV311,

2023 WL 7300620

, at *8 (D. Neb.
Nov. 6, 2023).
Hazelden Betty Ford moves for an order compelling Fuchs to speak with certain

193 F.R.D. at 638

.  
The Court will neither dictate how that preparation is to occur nor assume the Klinik 

intends to shirk its obligations.                                         
That being said, the parties are reminded that “[p]roper preparedness for a Rule 
30(b)(6)  deposition  requires  the  good  faith  of  both  parties.”    Dapron  v.  Spire,  Inc. 
Retirement  Plans  Comm.,

329 F.R.D. 223

,  227  (E.D.  Mo.  2019)  (emphasis  added).  
“[D]esignees  are  responsible  for  information  known  or  reasonably  available  to  the 

corporation.”  Klein,

2019 WL 246768

, at *9 (quotation omitted).  “[T]he burden upon 
the responding party[] to prepare a knowledgeable Rule 30(b)(6) witness[] may be an 
onerous one,” but there is no “less onerous means of assuring that the position of a 
corporation[] that is involved in litigation[] can be fully and fairly explored.”  Prokosch,

193 F.R.D. at 639

.  And, it is well established that the failure to provide a knowledgeable 
witness is sanctionable.  See, e.g., Commodity Futures Trading Commission,

2023 WL 7300620

, at *9; Prairie River Home Care,

2019 WL 13248862

, at *18; Aviva Sports, Inc. 
v. Fingerhut Direct Mktg., Inc., No. 09-cv-1091 (JNE/JSM),

2013 WL 12142579

, at *4 
(D. Minn. Mar. 20, 2013); Taylor,

166 F.R.D. at 363

.  At the same time, “Rule 30(b)(6) 
designees need not be perfect.”  Klein,

2019 WL 246768

, at *9 (quotation omitted); see, 
e.g., Whatley v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Ltd., No. 1:16-cv-74,

2022 WL 14145351

, at *3 (D. 
N.D. June 28, 2022) (requiring more than a “mere[] lack[] . . . [of] desired specificity in 

discrete areas” (quotation omitted)).  “[T]he Rule 30(b)(6) deponent is not expected to be 
clairvoyant, so as to divine the specific questions that could be presented.”  Prairie River 
Home Care,

2019 WL 13248862

, at *17 (quotation omitted).                  
B. Topics                                                            
In general, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter 

that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the 
case . . . .”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).  “Some threshold showing of relevance must be 
made[, however,] before parties are required to open wide the doors of discovery and to 
produce a variety of information which does not reasonably bear upon the issues in the 
case.”  Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc.,

981 F.2d 377, 380

 (8th Cir. 1992).  Further, “[t]he 

parties and the court have a collective responsibility to consider the proportionality of all 
discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes.”  Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc.,

903 F.3d 733, 742

 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s note to 
2015 amendment); see Lynch v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,

569 F. Supp. 3d 959

, 963 (D. 
Minn.  2021)  (“Beyond  being  relevant,  Rule  26  requires  that  information  sought  in 
discovery also be ‘proportional to  the needs of the case.’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1))), aff’d,

581 F. Supp. 3d 1122

 (D. Minn. 2022).  “[A] court can—and must—
limit proposed discovery that it determines is not proportional to the needs of the case.”  
Vallejo,

903 F.3d at 742

  (quotation  omitted);  see  Fed.  R.  Civ.  P.  26(b)(2)(C)(iii).  
Considerations bearing on proportionality include “the importance of the issues at stake 
in  the  action,  the  amount  in  controversy,  the  parties’  relative  access  to  relevant 
information,  the  parties’  resources,  the  importance  of  the  discovery  in  resolving  the 

issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely 
benefit.”  Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also Vallejo,

903 F.3d at 742-43

7 at 7-9.
The dispute with respect to these topics concerns the applicable timeframe.
Hazelden Betty Ford seeks information from 2006 (when the Klinik opened) to the

3 The Court addresses Topic 34 below. See infra Section III.B.3.
present. See ECF No. 229-2 at 10. The Klinik has agreed to provide testimony dating
back to 2012.

600 U.S. 412

CV 21-1238-GBW-JLH,

2023 WL 4585952

, at *3.      
Ultimately, the Klinik’s “arguments presume that [it] possess[es] the unilateral 

ability to dictate the scope of discovery based on [its] own view of the parties’ respective 
theories of the case.”  Sentis Grp., Inc. v. Shell Oil Co.,

763 F.3d 919, 925

 (8th Cir. 
2014).    The  Klinik  does  not  dispute  that  evidence  regarding  its business,  sales,  and 
marketing plans and forecasts related to activity that enters United States commerce is 
discoverable.    While  the  focus  of  Hazelden  Betty  Ford’s  Lanham  Act  claims  must 
ultimately be based on domestic conduct under Abitron, see 600 U.S. at 424-25, the 

Klinik’s foreign business activities may serve as circumstantial evidence of how those 
activities enter United States commerce.  “[F]oreign evidence may still shed light on 
domestic activity.”  September Order, ECF No. 215 at 20.  Again, whether and to what 
extent this evidence may be admissible in the future does not limit the scope of discovery.  
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); Rockwell Automation,

2023 WL 4585952

, at *2. The
precise contours of how any responsive information may ultimately be used and the

Grp.,

763 F.3d at 926

.  Again, Abitron “did not address the type of evidence a trademark 
owner may introduce to show the alleged infringing ‘use in commerce’ occurred in the 
United States.”  Rockwell Automation,

2023 WL 4585952

Court sees no reason why Topic 28 should be drawn more narrowly to require “direct
mention” of the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation, the Betty Ford Center, or Mrs. Ford

organization as a whole. The Klinik is obligated to prepare its designee to fully and
unevasively answer questions about and testify regarding organizational knowledge of

D. Meet & Confer Regarding Schedule

This Court previously stayed certain deadlines in the Fourth Amended Pretrial

connection with this motion would have little if any positive effect, and would serve only
to embolden further the recipient party, entrench the parties in their respective positions,

connection with this motion.
IV. ORDER

3. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney fees in connection with this
motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C).

4. All prior consistent orders remain in full force and effect.

Dated: May 20 , 2024 s/ Tony N. Leung
Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Minnesota

Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation et al. v.
My Way Betty Ford Klinik GmbH
Case No. 20-cv-409 (JRT/TNL)

Reference

Status: Unknown