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

• Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
• Decided: February 26, 2026
• Docket: 0:22-cv-01681
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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,

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