Deere & Company Repair Services Antitrust Litigation
3:22-cv-50188
N.D. Ill.May 19, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs in a multidistrict litigation sought discovery regarding whether, and to what extent, Deere considers "right to repair" legislation in its financial evaluations and reports.
- Deere moved for a protective order to prevent Plaintiffs from deposing its Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Joshua Jepsen, arguing no such analyses exist and further discovery would be redundant.
- Deere invoked the apex witness doctrine, which is meant to protect high-level executives from unnecessary depositions absent unique, relevant knowledge.
- Plaintiffs argued earlier depositions and interrogatories failed to uncover informal or qualitative financial assessments and that Mr. Jepsen holds unique, relevant information.
- The Court addressed whether Mr. Jepsen’s deposition should be entirely barred, balancing any potential burden against the relevance and necessity of his testimony.
- The Court denied Deere's request for a protective order and allowed the deposition to proceed with logistical accommodations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Apex Witness Doctrine | Jepsen has unique, non-duplicative info relevant to case | Jepsen lacks unique info; discovery would be duplicative | Doctrine does not apply; deposition allowed |
| Sufficiency of Alternative Discovery | Prior witnesses/interrogatories failed to yield info | Sufficient discovery done--CFO's knowledge already provided | Alternative methods insufficient |
| Relevance of Proposed Testimony | CFO's insights on internal finances and qualitative issues | CFO cannot provide relevant new facts | Testimony is relevant and not duplicative |
| Burden on Executive Time | Reasonable accommodations can minimize inconvenience | Would unduly interfere with CFO's duties | No undue burden; deposition to be scheduled |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89 (1981) (discussing burden on party seeking protective order)
- In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Tires Prods. Liab. Litig., 205 F.R.D. 535 (S.D. Ind. 2002) (apex doctrine rationale)