A Deere & Co. competitor looking to shield confidential information it produced for a U.S. Federal Trade Commission right-to-repair investigation from related multidistrict litigation targeting Deere cannot tap the Seventh Circuit to resolve legal questions surrounding its failed protective order request, an Illinois federal judge said.

Deere competitor Agco Corp. cannot certify three questions to the Seventh Circuit U.S. over its bid for an order protecting its confidential information because to the extent the company seeks to ask the appellate court legal questions, "they are neither controlling nor would they speed up the litigation," U.S. District Judge Iaian Johnston ruled Monday.

"To the contrary, it would serve only to delay the proceedings, as the litigants waited longer for discovery to proceed," the judge said. "Although AGCO contends that an immediate appeal 'may materially advance the termination of this litigation,' it is not clear how this is true when AGCO is itself a non-party to the action."

Agco's appellate certification request marks the company's third attempt to keep its confidential information out of the MDL, and "it is painfully obvious by now" that the company does not wish to have the documents produced, Judge Johnston said.

"The court understands. But the information must be disclosed, for the reasons already thoroughly articulated," he said. "The Confidentiality Orders in place serve to adequately protect all interests."

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond Tuesday to a request for comment.

Farms and farmers that use John Deere equipment initially sued Deere in October 2022 for allegedly monopolizing repairs in the aftermarket, forcing customers to seek out repairs from expensive authorized dealerships by designing its products to require the company's software and equipment to assess and fix the problems. The FTC filed similar repair monopoly claims against Deere in January.

Agco and two other companies had produced information for the FTC's investigation and argued a protective order was necessary because they would be harmed if Deere and the MDL's farmer plaintiffs received their "most sensitive and confidential information" as part of the MDL proceedings.

The problem, the judge wrote in August, is that, "the cat's out of the bag," and the FTC not only already has the information, but has used it to craft its complaint and litigation strategy.

The companies argued that the FTC could be prohibited from using the contested information, but Judge Johnston said in August that this "novel and expansive request" would be impractical if not impossible to police, as the court would have to cross-examine the FTC's counsel on each document considered in the complaint to ensure compliance.

He said it would be "fundamentally unfair" to prevent the FTC giving the Agco documents at issue to Deere and the MDL plaintiffs because it would create an asymmetry of knowledge between the parties.

It would likewise be unfair to the MDL plaintiffs to deny them access to the documents after Deere gets them, as then Deere could use the information to its advantage in the litigation without letting the MDL plaintiffs prepare for it, Judge Johnston ruled.

In denying Agco's protective order request, however, Judge Johnston said he would instead amend existing confidentiality orders with additional safeguards to address the company's concerns.

Agco urged Judge Johnston to reconsider his stance on the issue, and the effort brought Judge Johnston to realize he had made a factual error in his ruling. But he said in September that the basis for his ruling was still sound, despite the error, and thus it should stand.

The farmer plaintiffs are represented by Adam J. Zapala and Elizabeth T. Castillo of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Kenneth A. Wexler, Justin N. Boley and Tyler J. Story of Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP, Daniel E. Gustafson, Daniel C. Hedlund, Michelle J. Looby, Kaitlyn L. Dennis and Dennis Stewart of Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Robert Foote and Kathleen C. Chavez of Foote Mielke Chavez & O'Neil LLC and Marc C. Gravino of Williams McCarthy LLP.

AGCO is represented by Steven Jacob Carroll of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.

Deere is represented by Corey A. Lee, John M. Majoras, Tiffany Lipscomb-Jackson, Ryan Thomas, Lauren Miller Forbes and Lin Kahn of Jones Day.

The cases are Federal Trade Commission et al. v. Deere & Co., case number 3:25-cv-50017, and Deere & Co. Repair Services Antitrust Litigation, case number 3:22-cv-50188, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.