Transcript Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC v. Land O’Lakes, Inc.

Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC
v. Land O’Lakes, Inc.
224 F.R.D. 614 (D. Colo. 2007)
By: Sara Alsaleh
Case starts on page 136 of the book!
Parties



Cache La Poudre Feeds, LLC
Sells and manufactures animal
feed in Colorado
Since March of 1991 it used its
PROFILE trademark to sell
products in several different
states
In 2001 the defendants started
using Cache’s PROFILE
trademark to represent their
Land O’Lakes rebranded
products.



Land O’Lakes, Inc.
International company that
produces and manufactures
a wide variety of products
Land O’Lakes Farmland
Feeds is at particular issue
in this case
Rebranded 400 of their
products (36 different
brands of animal feed
products) into one brand,
under one trademark, in
2001.
Facts
Procedural History: This case was brought before the Court on Cache La Poudre Feeds,
LLC’s Motion for Relief from Discovery Violations that were committed by Land O’Lakes,
Inc. and Land O’Lakes Farmland Feed, LLC.


Cache La Poudre Feeds
Ms. Anderson-Siler is Cache’s outside
counsel
Counsel contacted the defendants on
April 4, 2002.




Claims April 4, 2002 as trigger date for
duty to preserve.
Sent follow-up letter on June 5, 2002
asking defendants to try to resolve
dispute without litigation and put Land
O’Lakes on notice of Cache’s
trademark.
Sent Response letter to June 3, 2003
phone call stating they “would be
willing to listen to what Land O’Lakes
might propose”
Filed initial complaint on February 24,
2004.

Sent preservation letter on March 5,
2004.



Land O’Lakes
Mr. Peter Janzen is Land O’Lakes’
General Counsel
Began shipping its rebranded products
in January of 2002.
Adopted an automatic email
destruction program in May of 2002.





Emails older than 90 days were
automatically deleted.
Call June 3, 2003 to discuss the
possibility of register the PROFILE
mark
Has 400 back-up tapes for the years
2001-2005.
Continued destruction policy after
filing of the initial claim
Counsel was not familiar with
document management procedures
Relevant Rules
Rule 26(b)(1) – Expansive Discovery
 Rule 26(b)(2)(B) – Undue Burden
 Rule 26(g)(2) – “Reasonable Inquiry”
Requirement

Analysis
1.
Are the missing documents or materials relevant
to an issue at trial?

2.
Was Land O’Lakes under a duty to preserve the
records at issue?


3.
Yes – relevance of ESI created after 2001 that address
development and implementation of Land O’Lakes’ PROFILE
brand is self-evident.
Yes – but on February 24, 2004 not April 4, 2002.
Any request for sanctions based on actions prior to February
24, 2004 is denied.
Are sanctions appropriate?

Yes - $5,000 + costs of court reporter and transcript fees
association with Mark Janzen’s June 15, 2006 deposition.
Conclusion

Counsel for Land O’Lakes was required to conduct a
reasonable investigation to identify and preserve
relevant materials to the case





No requirement to conduct systematic keyword searches (from
Zubulake V)
Does not automatically include information on inaccessible backup tapes
On-going obligation to ensure that the client has provided all
responsive information.
A litigation hold by itself is not enough to satisfy Rule 26(g)(2).
Sanctions


$5,000 to be paid to Cache La Poudre to reimburse some of the
legal fees and expenses that were paid in taking Land O’Lakes’
counsel’s deposition and also in preparing this Motion for Relief
Must reimburse Cache La Poudre for court reporter fees and
transcript costs associated with the June 15,2006 deposition of
Mark Janzen
eDiscovery Issues
1.
2.
3.
4.
When does the duty to preserve
documents arise?
What must be preserved?
How can counsel ensure preservation of
the relevant documents?
When is destruction considered
spoliation?
Discussion Questions
1.
2.
If Cache La Poudre had been more explicit about
their intent to commence litigation in their
telephone call to Land O’Lakes on April 4, 2002
would the Court have considered this the trigger
date?
What if the hard drives of the employees that left
shortly after the commencement of litigation were
put on backup tapes instead of being destroyed
after they left? Would the court still have imposed
sanctions on Land O’Lakes? If so, would the
sanctions have been different?