Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

Fast Food Gourmet, Inc. v. Little Lady Foods, Inc., No. 05 C 6022, 2007 WL 2156665 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 26, 2007) (Cole, M.J.)

Judge Cole granted in part defendant Little Lady Foods’ (“LLF”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 motion to bar evidence of allegedly late–identified trade secrets. Plaintiff Fast Food Gourmet (“FFG”) originally identified four trade secret elements of its process for making thin crust frozen pizza (you can read more about this case in the Blog's archives). FFG’s Vice President of Operations Crause identified four additional elements during his deposition. And FFG later identified two additional elements. LLF argued that FFG should be limited to the first four elements because FFG never updated its interrogatory responses to include the six additional elements. The Court held that the four additional elements disclosed during the deposition had “otherwise been made known” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) and, therefore, were not required to be added to FFG’s interrogatory responses. The Court excluded the other two elements. FFG argued that it had identified the elements by identifying documents containing the elements in its interrogatory responses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). But the Court held that the documents FFG identified only identified the two elements sporadically, and in connection with elements that were not trade secrets. This, combined with Crause’s testimony that he had identified all of the trade secret elements, made FFG’s Rule 33(d) statements insufficient.

Practice Tip: Rule 33(d) is often seen as a simple escape from answering cumbersome or difficult interrogatories. Of course, it is also often warranted. But when you use Rule 33(d), make sure to identify the correct documents, and make sure the identified documents fully support your position.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

According to Interbrand Ronald is worth more than Mickey.  Interbrand has just published its 2007 Best Global Brands, ranking the top 100 brands that:  1) derive at least a third of earnings outside of the brand’s home country; 2) are recognized beyond the brand's customer base; and 3) have public marketing and financial data.  Interbrand also excludes brands that are hard to identify as having brand value separate from their products or services. For example, pharma brands are excluded because Interbrand has determined that consumers focus on products rather than the overarching company branding. That leaves Northern District companies like Abbott Labs out of the running.  But the Northern District is still very well represented.  For example, McDonald's jumped one spot this year, surpassing Disney in brand value.  Here are the Northern District companies (or at least those very near the Northern District) on the list:

Thanks to the Seattle Trademark Lawyer for identifying the ranking.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Fast Food Gourmet, Inc. v. Little Lady Foods, Inc., No. 05 C 6022, 2007 WL 1673563 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 8, 2007) (Cole, J.).

Judge Cole denied plaintiff Fast Food Gourmet, Inc.'s ("FFGI") motion to compel responses to interrogatories, in this trade secret case involving frozen pizzas (you can read more about this case in the Blog's archives).  FFGI served defendants with an interrogatory seeking information regarding which brands of frozen pizza (aside from the accused DiGiorno Thin Crispy Crust Pizza) defendants baked in the ovens which were allegedly part of FFGI's trade secret crust-making process for stone hearth oven, thin crust, frozen pizzas.  Defendants objected to the interrogatory, which led to a meet and confer between the parties on February 15, 2007, two weeks before the close of fact discovery on March 1.  The meet and confer did not resolve the dispute.  On April 1, FFGI submitted its expert reports and then, six weeks after the close of discovery, FFGI moved to compel responses to the interrogatories.  But FFGI failed to notice the motion until more than one month later on May 18.  The Court noted that, while it had discretion to grant the motion, motions to compel filed after the close of fact discovery are generally held to be untimely unless accompanied by a "reasonable and persuasive justification" for the delay.  FFGI, however, provided no justification for its delay. 

But the Court ultimately denied FFGI's motion not because it was untimely, but because the evidence lacked evidentiary value.  FFGI assured the Court that it would not seek any other discovery after receiving the interrogatory responses.  FFGI had also repeatedly taken the position that its trade secrets crust-making process involved the combination of various elements and processes including the ovens that were the focus of FFGI's interrogatories, but that the ovens alone were not a trade secret.  The interrogatory responses alone , therefore, were of no value.  They would necessarily require additional discovery to be relevant to the case.  For example, it was not enough to know which other pizzas were baked in the ovens.  FFGI would need to know how each pizza baked in the oven was prepared in order to determine whether the pizzas were made using the FFGI trade secrets.  That would require additional fact discovery, but fact discovery was already closed.  The Court, therefore, denied FFGI's motion to compel. 

Practice tip:  File your discovery motions on or before the close of discovery.  And always explain to the Court why you need documents or interrogatory responses, particularly if you are seeking them after the close of discovery.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Fast Food Gourmet, Inc. v. Little Lady Foods, Inc., No. 05 C 6022, 2007 WL 1175577 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 20, 2007) (Aspen, J.).

Judge Aspen denied defendant Little Lady Foods, Inc.'s ("LLF") Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff Fast Food Gourmet, Inc.'s ("FFGI") breach of contract claim.  FFGI alleged that FFGI entered a "co-packing" relationship with LLF, essentially that LLF was to manufacture FFGI's product.  Based upon that relationship, FFGI provided LLF with its various trade secrets relating to producing "a unique stone hearth oven thin crust frozen pizza."  In addition to its formulas, recipes, methods and techniques, FFGI also provided LLF its equipment.  FFGI alleged that, in addition to making pizzas for FFGI, LLG worked with defendant Kraft Foods Global, Inc. ("Kraft") to develop a line of pizzas using FFGI's trade secrets, with substantially the same crusts as the FFGI pizzas.  FFGI brought claims for misappropriation of trade secrets against both defendants, breach of contract against LLF and unjust enrichment against Kraft.  LLF sought to dismiss FFGI's breach of contract claim to the extent it was based upon allegations that the agreement was breached by production of pizzas for Kraft with crusts nearly identical to FFGI's crusts.  LLF first argued that the agreement could not be breached because the agreement prohibits LLF from producing "pizzas with specification which are identical or . . . substantially identical to" the FFGI pizzas.  Because FFGI only pled that the crusts were identical or substantially identical, LLF argued the claim should be dismissed.  But the Court held that FFGI was only required to provide notice pleading of claims, not facts.  Because FFGI identified the parties, stated the nature of its dispute and provided "a few tidbits" LLF was sufficiently on notice.

LLF also argued that the claim should be dismissed because the FFGI and Kraft pizzas are substantially different because Kraft's sauce and/or toppings are very different than FFGI's.  But the Court refused to make factual determinations in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and denied LLF's motion.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks