Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Shreveport, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co.
4 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1291, 227 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 18, 107 F.R.D. 288 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In discovery disputes involving trade secrets, a court will compel disclosure if the party seeking the information demonstrates that it is relevant and necessary to the action, and the court determines that the need for disclosure outweighs the potential harm from disclosure, especially when protective orders can mitigate such harm.
Facts:
- The Coca-Cola Company (the 'Company') has maintained the complete formula for Coca-Cola, including a secret combination of flavoring oils and ingredients known as 'Merchandise 7X,' as one of the world's most closely guarded trade secrets.
- Since the early 20th century, Coca-Cola has been produced in a two-stage process where the Company manufactures 'Coca-Cola Bottler's Syrup' and sells it to bottlers, who then add carbonated water.
- Following litigation in 1921, the Company and its bottlers entered into Consent Decrees which established contractual terms, including price formulas and sugar content, for 'Coca-Cola Bottler's Syrup.'
- In 1978, most bottlers ('amended bottlers') signed an amendment to their contracts, establishing a new pricing formula and a clause requiring the Company to pass on cost savings if it substituted lower-cost sweeteners for sugar.
- On July 8, 1982, the Company introduced 'diet Coke,' leading to a dispute with both amended and unamended bottlers over whether the Company was obligated to supply diet Coke syrup under the terms of their existing 'Coca-Cola Bottler's Syrup' contracts.
- In April 1985, the Company introduced 'new' Coke with a modified secret ingredient ('7X-100') derived in part from diet Coke research, and in July 1985, reintroduced the original formula as 'Coca-Cola Classic' due to consumer demand.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff bottlers initiated two connected lawsuits against The Coca-Cola Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging breach of contract, violation of Consent Decrees, trademark infringement, dilution, and federal antitrust violations.
- The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of the complete formulae for various Coca-Cola products under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a).
- The District Court held extensive oral argument on the discovery issues on May 8, 1985, and received evidence, exploring potential stipulations between the parties.
- After the hearing, the parties conducted extensive negotiations regarding the formula issue but were unable to resolve it by stipulation, leaving the discoverability of the formulae ripe for decision by the District Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the plaintiffs' need for the complete secret formulae of various Coca-Cola products, including the secret ingredients, outweigh The Coca-Cola Company's need to protect its trade secrets, thereby compelling their disclosure in pretrial discovery?
Opinions:
Majority - Murray M. Schwartz, Chief Judge
Yes, the plaintiffs' need for the complete secret formulae of various Coca-Cola products outweighs The Coca-Cola Company's need to protect its trade secrets, thereby compelling their disclosure in pretrial discovery, subject to stringent protective orders. Chief Judge Schwartz applied a three-part test for trade secret discovery, finding that first, the Company successfully demonstrated its formulae are highly guarded and valuable trade secrets whose disclosure could cause harm. Second, the plaintiffs established that the complete formulae for old Coke, new Coke, diet Coke, caffeine-free Coke, and certain experimental low-calorie colas are relevant and necessary to their case. The primary issue is 'product identity' – whether diet Coke and Coca-Cola are the 'same product' under the contracts. The court reasoned that the secret ingredients are crucial to taste and product identity, and knowledge of the complete formulae is essential for plaintiffs to prove their theories (e.g., diet Coke was designed to taste like Coke, new Coke's similarity to diet Coke and old Coke) and to rebut the Company's defense that the products are distinct. Publicly disclosed ingredients are insufficient, and no adequate substitute information exists. Third, balancing the need for disclosure against the potential harm, the court concluded that while public disclosure would be highly damaging, this harm could be mitigated by stringent protective orders limiting access to plaintiffs' trial counsel and independent experts. The balance for disclosure is favored once relevance and necessity are shown, as courts rarely prohibit discovery of trade secrets when necessary for the just adjudication of a lawsuit. However, the formulae for TAB and caffeine-free diet Coke were deemed not relevant or not sufficiently shown to be relevant at this stage, thus disclosure was not compelled for those specific products.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the discoverability of trade secrets in civil litigation, even those as closely guarded as the Coca-Cola formula. It reinforces that trade secrets are not absolutely privileged and must yield to the truth-seeking function of the courts when central to the resolution of a legal dispute. The decision emphasizes the critical role of protective orders in balancing a party's need for vital information against the trade secret holder's legitimate interest in confidentiality. Future litigants seeking trade secret discovery will likely rely on this case for its clear articulation of the three-part balancing test and its strong affirmation that the balance 'tilts in favor of disclosure' once relevance and necessity are demonstrated.
