Triple S Farms, LLC v. DeLaval Inc.
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:22-cv-01924
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 17
In Triple S Farms, LLC v. DeLaval Inc., Magistrate Judge Elkins granted in part and denied in part competing discovery motions filed by both sides in a class-action lawsuit brought by dairy farms against a maker of robotic cow-milking machines.
Dairy farms that purchased DeLaval's V300 robotic milking machine (plaintiffs and putative class members), and DeLaval Inc. and its related corporate entities (defendants), both of whom face new discovery obligations as a result of this order.
What happened
Triple S Farms, LLC v. DeLaval Inc. is a proposed class action filed by several dairy farms against DeLaval Inc. and related companies, alleging that DeLaval misrepresented the capabilities of its V300 robotic cow-milking machine, that the machine is defective, and that these problems caused the farms substantial financial harm. The case is in the discovery phase — the period when each side gathers evidence from the other before trial — and both sides filed motions asking the court to force the opposing party to hand over certain documents and information.
The plaintiffs (the farms) sought documents related to an internal DeLaval study called the 'Project Green Report,' which surveyed V300 users' overall experiences; underlying data behind a DeLaval spreadsheet (called the 'Persson Spreadsheet') that claimed the V300 met certain milk-production targets; DeLaval's financial information about revenue and profits from the V300 and its parts; and documents using the search term 'Project Thunderbird,' the code name for DeLaval's next-generation milking robot. DeLaval (the defendant) sought access credentials to the farms' dairy herd information databases, backup computer files from the farms' own systems, and permission to take three additional depositions (sworn question-and-answer sessions) beyond what the court's scheduling order allowed.
Magistrate Judge Elkins granted in part and denied in part both motions. For the plaintiffs, the court ordered DeLaval to produce Project Green-related documents from four identified employees, all underlying data behind the Persson Spreadsheet, certain financial documents about the V300's actual profits, and documents found by searching for 'Project Thunderbird' — but denied requests for documents about DeLaval's expected profits and profits from products other than the V300. For DeLaval, the court denied the request for the farms' remote database access credentials but ordered the farms to produce additional backup files, and allowed DeLaval to take two (not three) additional depositions. Each party was ordered to pay its own legal fees and costs.
The detailed version
- Triple S Farms, LLC v. DeLaval Inc., No. 22-cv-1924 (KMM/SGE) **Decision-maker:** Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins
- August 20, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs — Triple S Farms, LLC; Green Acres Dairy, LLC; Charles Fry and Emily Snyder; Rocky Point Farms, Inc.; and Northcrest Dairy, Inc. — are dairy farms that purchased DeLaval's V300 voluntary milking system (VMS), a robotic cow-milking machine. They allege DeLaval misrepresented the V300's capabilities, that the robot is defective, and that these issues caused substantial damages. The case is brought as a putative (proposed) class action on behalf of all similarly situated farms. Defendants include DeLaval Inc., West Agro, Inc., and several related DeLaval corporate entities.
Procedural posture
Both sides filed motions to compel discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. The court ruled on both simultaneously.
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL (Dkt. 373) — Granted in Part, Denied in Part
1. Project Green Report documents
DeLaval produced a 55-page 'Project Green Report' — an internal study based on interviews of V300 owners about their overall experience — just one day before a key deposition. Plaintiffs sought documents from six employees involved in the report. The court found the report highly relevant and ordered production of documents from four named custodians (Campbell, Zepp, Horton, and Cuccioli) up through the report's publication date of March 14, 2025. The court denied the request as to two other employees (Nilsson and Edouard), finding plaintiffs had not established those individuals were likely to have relevant information. The parties were ordered to meet and confer within five days on search terms, with a court conference available if they cannot agree.
2. FDA communications
DeLaval had already agreed to produce employee Chris Horton's emails with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 2023. The court confirmed these were relevant and discoverable and ordered their production.
3. Persson Spreadsheet underlying data
DeLaval created a spreadsheet after litigation began purporting to show 95 instances where the V300 met or exceeded a milk-production target. DeLaval offered to produce underlying data only for the 95 instances above 7,500 lbs. of milk production. The court found all underlying data relevant — noting DeLaval was likely to use this document at trial — and ordered production of all underlying 'MyFarm' data. The court noted the existing protective order could address confidentiality concerns about farm identity.
4. Financial documents (Fifth RFPs)
Plaintiffs requested documents showing revenue, costs, and profits related to the V300 and its parts and consumables. DeLaval failed to object to this request within the time allowed by the Federal Rules, which weakened its opposition. The court ordered DeLaval to produce documents sufficient to show the number of V300s operating each year, which after-market products were used only with V300s versus other products, and how much of those products were used by V300s. The court denied requests for documents about DeLaval's 'expected' (projected) profits, as opposed to actual profits, and for profit margins on devices other than the V300, finding those not relevant to the damages claims (which include unjust enrichment, disgorgement, and punitive damages).
5. Project Thunderbird search term
'Project Thunderbird' is the internal name for DeLaval's next-generation milking robot. Plaintiffs argued DeLaval failed to disclose this code name before the parties agreed on search terms. The court found the topic highly relevant to whether a feasible alternative design existed — a key element of plaintiffs' products-liability theory. The court rejected DeLaval's undue-burden argument, noting that any extra burden resulted from DeLaval's own failure to include the term in earlier searches and to update its discovery responses. DeLaval was ordered to run the 'Project Thunderbird' search term through its previously collected custodial documents.
DELAVAL'S MOTION TO COMPEL (Dkt. 382) — Granted in Part, Denied in Part
As a threshold matter, the court noted that DeLaval's motion failed to comply with Local Rule 37.1(e), which requires a motion to compel to include the text of each disputed discovery request and the opposing party's response. The court stated this defect alone would justify denying the motion, but it nonetheless addressed the substance.
1. Remote access codes (DHI data)
DeLaval sought the farms' remote access credentials to their Dairy Herd Information (DHI) databases, arguing this would give it complete access to milk production and quality data relevant to damages. The court denied this request. The court found DeLaval had not demonstrated that plaintiffs failed to produce responsive documents — only that plaintiffs had not given DeLaval unrestricted access. Drawing an analogy to courts that have denied parties full access to opponents' social media accounts, the court held that compelling disclosure of access credentials would allow DeLaval to conduct its own unsupervised search, subverting the traditional self-regulated discovery process.
2. DelPro BAK backup files
Plaintiffs had already produced backup files from their farm management software (DelPro BAK files) through November 2024 for Triple S, Rocky Point, and Green Acres, and through June 2025 for Northcrest. Plaintiffs argued that retrieving additional files would require traveling to each farm's computer and manually restoring the files. The court found the remaining gap — December 2024 through June 2025 for Triple S, Rocky Point, and Green Acres — was not unduly burdensome given the litigation's scope and ordered production of those files.
3. Additional depositions
The scheduling order limited each party to 10 fact depositions. DeLaval sought three additional depositions. The court found good cause to allow two additional depositions — not three — under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which requires 'good cause' and the judge's consent to modify a scheduling order. The court cited the addition of a new named plaintiff (Rocky Point Farms) over DeLaval's objection as justifying the modification. It authorized depositions of Triple S's current farm manager, Triple S's accountant, and Rocky Point's dealer representative.
Other rulings
The court ordered each party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. A Fourth Amended Pretrial Scheduling Order was to issue separately.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.