Kalmbach Feeds, Inc. v. Purina Animal Nutrition LLC
2:25-cv-00617
| S.D. Ohio | Jul 3, 2025Background
- Kalmbach Feeds, Inc. (Kalmbach) and Purina Animal Nutrition, LLC (Purina) are competitors in the poultry feed market, with Kalmbach alleging false advertising by Purina.
- Kalmbach alleges Purina falsely advertised that its chicken feed "defends against" bird flu, despite a lack of scientific consensus or regulatory approval for such claims.
- Plaintiff asserts federal and state law claims for false advertising, including under the Lanham Act and Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
- Multiple discovery disputes arose during expedited pre-hearing discovery for plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction.
- The primary disputes concern the scope of discovery (e.g., draft advertisements, composition details, perceived regulatory approval), and the structure of a protective order, especially regarding expert disclosures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protective Order – expert disclosures | Standard protective order is sufficient; defendant's concerns are speculative | Expanded expert disclosures needed to prevent misuse of proprietary info | Adopted standard form from similar prior case; no expanded disclosures at this stage |
| Production of draft advertisements | Drafts may show intent/bad faith, potentially relevant | Drafts are irrelevant since only published ads matter; production is burdensome | Drafts not ordered; Plaintiff hasn’t shown sufficient relevance |
| Scope of responses to certain document requests | All responsive documents, not just "representative" samples, should be produced | Only exemplar/representative docs provided due to expedited timeline; no responsive docs withheld | Defendant satisfied for now but must supplement if additional responsive docs become known |
| Composition and regulatory approval info re: FeedLock™ ingredient | Details are relevant to the truth/falsity of Purina’s claims and scientific substantiation | Ratios and composition not relevant; regulatory approval claims are not explicitly made | Ordered to produce documents re: composition/specs and regulatory approval of FeedLock™ |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litig., 845 F.3d 231 (6th Cir. 2016) (discussing good cause for protective orders and harm requirements)
- Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 1998) (breadth of relevance standard for discovery)
- FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc. v. Route Consultant, Inc., 97 F.4th 444 (6th Cir. 2024) (elements for Lanham Act false advertising claims)
- Herman Miller, Inc. v. Palazzetti Imports & Exports, Inc., 270 F.3d 298 (6th Cir. 2001) (proof requirements for Lanham Act damages claims)
- Balance Dynamics Corp. v. Schmitt Indus., Inc., 204 F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2000) (relevance of evidence of intent or bad faith)
- Vector Products, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 397 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2005) (no proof of intent required to establish violation of Lanham Act § 43(a) for false advertising)