The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel production of confidential financial and Key Performance Indicator data relating to seven non-party Lexus dealerships, which were in the possession of the defendant.
The plaintiffs argued the information was necessary to test the reliability of averages used by the defendant’s expert in calculating the plaintiffs’ alleged loss of profits following termination of a dealership agreement.
The court held that the individual dealer data was not producible under Rule 31.06(3) because the defendant’s expert had not received or relied on that underlying information.
Although the documents were relevant under Rule 30.02 to the issue of loss of profits, the court declined to order production after balancing proportionality and prejudice.
The court found that disclosure would cause significant prejudice to the non-party dealers, whose confidential financial information would be revealed to a direct competitor.
The plaintiffs’ motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to both the defendant and the non-party dealers.
