Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:262286
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`
`IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`This Document Relates To:
`Sysco Corp. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., No.
`1:18-cv-00700
`US Foods, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et al., No.
`1:18-cv-00702
`
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-08637
`
`The Honorable Thomas M. Durkin
`The Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert
`
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL SYSCO
`AND US FOODS TO PROVIDE WITNESSES ON CERTAIN RULE 30(b)(6) TOPICS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 2 of 24 PageID #:262287
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................2
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................4
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Category 1: Plaintiffs’ Knowledge and Analysis of Different Types of Chicken
`Products (Topic 23)..............................................................................................................5
`
`Category 2: Plaintiffs’ Monitoring of Their Competitors and Use of Such
`Competitive Information (Topic 15) ....................................................................................7
`
`Category 3: Plaintiffs’ Monitoring and Projections of Broiler Market Factors and
`Pricing (Topics 8, 9, 13, and 18-20). ...................................................................................9
`
`IV.
`
`Category 4: Plaintiffs’ Pre-Complaint Investigation (Topic 26) ......................................12
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 3 of 24 PageID #:262288
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`No. 17-C-7576, 2019 WL 3408813 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2019) ...........................................12, 13
`
`Bryant v. Mattel, Inc.,
`No. CV 04-09049 SGL(RNBx), 2007 WL 5430885 (C.D. Cal. July 2, 2007) ........................13
`
`Chicago Reg’l Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Woodlawn Cmty. Dev. Corp.,
`No. 09-cv-3983, 2011 WL 6318605 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 15, 2011) ..................................................5
`
`United States ex rel. Derrick v. Roche Diagnostics Corp.,
`No. 14-C-4601, 2019 WL 10367990 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2019) .................................................4
`
`Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Giancola,
`No. 13-C-3230, 2015 WL 5559804 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 2015) ..................................................4
`
`In re Peregrine Fin. Grp. Customer Litig.,
`No. 12-C-5546, 2015 WL 1344466 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2015) ..................................................5
`
`Seaga Mfg., Inc. v. Intermatic Mfg. Ltd.,
`No. 13-C-50041, 2013 WL 3672964 (N.D. Ill. July 12, 2013) .................................................4
`
`Securities and Exchange Commission v. Merkin,
`283 F.R.D. 689 (S.D. Fla. 2012) ..............................................................................................13
`
`SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.,
`No. 98-C-3952, 2000 WL 116082 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2000) ......................................................5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Local Rule 37.2 ................................................................................................................................2
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) .............................................................................. passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 4 of 24 PageID #:262289
`
`
`
`It has been nearly nine months since Defendants1 served their Rule 30(b)(6) Topics on
`
`Sysco and US Foods (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). Despite good-faith attempts by Defendants to
`
`obtain responses from Plaintiffs and to reach an appropriate compromise, Defendants remain at an
`
`impasse with Plaintiffs regarding several Topics, namely:
`
` Category 1: Plaintiffs’ knowledge and analysis of various Broiler products;2
`
` Category 2: Plaintiffs’ monitoring of competitors’ purchases and use of that
`competitive intelligence;3
`
` Category 3: Plaintiffs’ monitoring and projections of market factors and prices for
`Broiler products;4 and
`
` Category 4: Plaintiffs’ pre-complaint investigation.5
`
`These Topics are central to the claims that Plaintiffs brought against the Defendants here.
`
`Sysco and US Foods are the two largest broadline distributors in the United States. The documents
`
`they produced in this case demonstrate that they monitored various market factors impacting the
`
`price of Broilers – the cost of feed, production levels, and consumer demand – and then used that
`
`information to make their Broiler procurement decisions and negotiate Broiler prices. Evidence
`
`that Plaintiffs themselves successfully forecasted Broiler prices based on market factors will prove
`
`that those factors – not any alleged collusion – actually determined prices. Plaintiffs’ collection
`
`
`1 For purposes of this Motion, “Defendants” includes all undersigned Defendants. Amick Farms and Case
`Foods were not named in Plaintiffs’ complaints. Sysco Corporation has resolved its claims against Fieldale
`Farms; accordingly, Fieldale is not a party to this Motion. See Dkt. 3552.
`
`2 See Exhibit A (e-mail attaching Rule 30(b)(6) Notice to Sysco and US Foods), Topic 23. The Rule
`30(b)(6) Topics for Sysco Corporation are the same as those for US Foods.
`
`3 Id., Topic 15.
`
`4 Id., Topics 8, 9, 13, and 18-20.
`
`5 Id., Topic 26.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 5 of 24 PageID #:262290
`
`
`and use of competitive intelligence similarly impacted their negotiations of Broiler pricing and
`
`will show both the procompetitive motives and effect of such intelligence, and thus is central to
`
`this case. Finally, Plaintiffs’ pre-complaint investigation, and the extent to which they were aware
`
`of any of the alleged conduct, impacts issues such as whether an unlawful understanding can be
`
`inferred from Defendants’ conduct and whether Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of
`
`limitations.
`
`
`
`Without providing any real basis, Plaintiffs have refused to testify concerning Categories
`
`1 and 2, despite several attempts by Defendants to compromise and at least five telephonic meet
`
`and confers. With respect to Categories 3 and 4, Plaintiffs have agreed to provide testimony only
`
`on documents that Defendants have pre-identified: a “compromise” that is unjustified, too narrow,
`
`and seeks to flip their burden of adequately preparing a witness (in lawsuits Plaintiffs have chosen
`
`to bring) to Defendants. They have dragged their feet in providing Defendants with highly relevant
`
`information (and which other DAPs have agreed to provide). With the 30(b)(6) depositions of
`
`these Plaintiffs scheduled for December 3 and December 10, Defendants respectfully ask this
`
`Court to compel Plaintiffs to produce witnesses on these Topics.6
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Defendants have been trying to complete negotiations regarding their 30(b)(6) Topics to
`
`Plaintiffs for over eight months. After months of delay by Plaintiffs, and with the depositions fast
`
`
`6 Pursuant to N.D. Ill. Local Rule 37.2, Defendants certify that the parties have engaged in several meet and
`confers, including at least five telephone conferences between counsel for Defendants and Plaintiffs’
`counsel, as evidenced by the exhibits attached to this motion. Although these meet and confers resulted in
`the agreement on many Topics, the Topics that are subject to this motion remain disputed. The last
`telephonic meet and confer regarding the Topics subject to this motion occurred on September 21, 2020.
`See Ex. H. Defendants sent a follow up e-mail on September 22 and received a response from Plaintiffs on
`October 13. See id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 6 of 24 PageID #:262291
`
`
`approaching, Defendants can wait no longer to seek the Court’s assistance in obtaining basic
`
`information about this case from Plaintiffs’ corporate witnesses.
`
`In December 2019, Defendants provided initial draft 30(b)(6) Topics to Plaintiffs. In
`
`January, Defendants held the first of several meet and confer calls regarding the Topics with
`
`counsel for Plaintiffs. Defendants revised the initial Topics to address issues that Plaintiffs raised
`
`in that initial meet and confer, and immediately served formal 30(b)(6) Topics on Sysco and US
`
`Foods on January 29, 2020. See Ex. A. Plaintiffs delayed responding for months, despite multiple
`
`inquiries by Defendants (which went unanswered). See Ex. B (April 13, 2020 e-mail noting that
`
`Plaintiffs’ “continued silence is puzzling and troubling”).
`
`Finally, on April 20, US Foods provided draft objections, which merely asserted general
`
`objections and reserved the right to amend the responses after further meet and confers. See Ex.
`
`C at p.1 (April 20, 2020 e-mail from S. Gant).
`
`The parties held another telephonic meet and confer on April 30, during which Defendants
`
`agreed, as a courtesy, to provide a document outlining in greater detail the testimony they sought,
`
`while Sysco and US Foods committed to provide further detail on what information they were
`
`agreeing to prepare a corporate representative to provide. As agreed, Defendants provided their
`
`document with further detail on May 8. See Ex. D at p.6 (May 8, 2020 e-mail from B. Liegel).
`
`However, Plaintiffs did not keep their end of the bargain. Instead, they only offered to discuss
`
`with their client and then respond to Defendants, without providing the promised further detail on
`
`their position. See id. (May 8, 2020 e-mail from S. Gant).
`
`Despite following up several times during June and receiving minimal or no response,
`
`Defendants finally received “a document with US Foods’ current positions on the 30(b)(6) topics”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 7 of 24 PageID #:262292
`
`
`on July 9, 2020 (two months after it had been promised), and an e-mail relating that “Sysco’s
`
`positions are the same,” with one exception on July 14. See Ex. E.
`
`After a series of discussions, the parties reached agreement on most of the Topics, but other
`
`Topics remained disputed. On August 3, Defendants reiterated their request that Plaintiffs provide
`
`“complete responses and objections,” with Plaintiffs’ final positions on the Topics in dispute by
`
`August 10. See Ex. F at p.1. That did not happen. After another series of communications and a
`
`meet and confer call, Defendants provided further proposed compromises on September 22. See
`
`Ex. G at pp.4-9; Ex. H. at p.2-3 (September 22, 2020 e-mail from B. Liegel). Finally, after three
`
`more weeks, Plaintiffs have wholly refused to provide relevant testimony on Categories 1 and 2,
`
`and have refused to provide even general, management-level testimony on Categories 3 and 4. See
`
`Ex. H at p.1 (October 13, 2020 e-mail from S. Gant). Accordingly, Defendants file this Motion to
`
`Compel.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`This Court has previously recognized that a motion to compel is appropriate when a party
`
`desires “to firmly nail down the topics for the deposition.” United States ex rel. Derrick v. Roche
`
`Diagnostics Corp., No. 14-C-4601, 2019 WL 10367990, at *1 (N.D. Ill. July 29, 2019) (Gilbert,
`
`M.J.). “Rule 30(b)(6) is intended to streamline the discovery process” and is “designed to prevent
`
`business entities from ‘bandying,’ which is the practice of presenting employees for their
`
`deposition who disclaim knowledge of facts known by other individuals within the entity.” Fed.
`
`Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Giancola, No. 13-C-3230, 2015 WL 5559804, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 2015)
`
`(alterations adopted and citations omitted). “Although Rule 30(b)(6) is not designed to be a
`
`memory contest, the corporation has a duty to make a good faith, conscientious effort to designate
`
`appropriate persons and to prepare them to testify fully and non-evasively about the subjects.
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 8 of 24 PageID #:262293
`
`
`Preparing a Rule 30(b)(6) designee may be an onerous and burdensome task, but this consequence
`
`is merely an obligation that flows from the privilege of using the corporate form to do business.”
`
`Seaga Mfg., Inc. v. Intermatic Mfg. Ltd., No. 13-C-50041, 2013 WL 3672964, at *2 (N.D. Ill. July
`
`12, 2013) (citations omitted).
`
`A Rule 30(b)(6) notice need only “describe with reasonable particularity the matters for
`
`examination.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) (emphasis added); see also In re Peregrine Fin. Grp.
`
`Customer Litig., No. 12-C-5546, 2015 WL 1344466, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2015) (rejecting
`
`argument that notice must “designate the scope of inquiry with ‘painstaking specificity,’” because
`
`“the plain language of the Rule contradicts such a claim”). This Court has recognized that a party’s
`
`“obligation in noticing a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition” is to provide the other party “with information
`
`sufficient for it to prepare its corporate designee so he or she can give the corporation’s testimony
`
`about specific topics.” Dkt. 3730 at 3 (citing, inter alia, SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex
`
`Corp., No. 98-C-3952, 2000 WL 116082, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2000)). Such preparation extends
`
`to “information known or reasonably available to the organization.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6); see
`
`also Chicago Reg’l Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Woodlawn Cmty. Dev. Corp., No. 09-
`
`cv-3983, 2011 WL 6318605, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 15, 2011) (explaining scope of duty to prepare
`
`under Rule 30(b)(6)). For the following reasons, Defendants have met their obligation to describe
`
`the scope of inquiry for the disputed Topics with “reasonable particularity,” providing Plaintiffs
`
`with more than sufficient information to prepare their designees.
`
`I.
`
`Category 1: Plaintiffs’ Knowledge and Analysis of Different Types of Chicken
`Products (Topic 23)
`
`Topic 23 seeks general, management-level testimony concerning Plaintiffs’ knowledge,
`
`analysis, and purchasing of various chicken products in specifically enumerated categories:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 9 of 24 PageID #:262294
`
`
`
`Your knowledge of, analysis of, purchasing activity, and decision-making
`regarding chicken raised for meat consumption—regardless of whether it is
`included in or excluded from the definition of Broilers—with different attributes
`that potentially distinguish the product, including the following attributes: (1)
`antibiotic free or ABF, (2) no antibiotic ever or NAE, (3) no antibiotics intended
`for human medicine or NAIHM, (4) organic, (5) free-range, (6) Kosher, (7) halal,
`(8) all-vegetarian fed, (9) yellow birds, and (10) size, such as big birds, small birds,
`and other variations for use in specific applications, including deli WOGs, tray
`pack, or further processing. This request includes any specific attributes identified
`by You or Your customers in advertising or other sales or purchasing activity.
`
`Ex. A (Topic 23). It seeks testimony regarding the differences between various Broiler chicken
`
`products, such as differences in bird size, packaging, and further processing. This testimony will
`
`show that while certain product categories, such as organic and Kosher chicken, fall outside
`
`Plaintiffs’ litigation-driven definition of “Broilers,” see Sysco Complaint at ¶ 73,7 they still impact
`
`the demand for Broiler chicken. Defendants have requested general, management-level testimony
`
`concerning Plaintiffs’ knowledge of consumer demand for these products from their customers,
`
`including how that demand affects their purchasing decisions.
`
`Although Plaintiffs’ complaints broadly group all “Broiler” products into one category,
`
`anyone who has ever shopped for chicken is aware that there are myriad different chicken products.
`
`Testimony will show the differences between those products, the varying demand for the products,
`
`and the different Defendants that produce them, and thus will show the implausibility of a
`
`conspiracy to reduce supply for all Broilers. It will also inform the analysis of Defendants’
`
`legitimate business decisions in allocating production to meet that varied demand.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7 Sysco Complaint, Case No. 1:18-cv-00700 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2018), Dkt. 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 10 of 24 PageID #:262295
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Large distributors like
`
`Plaintiffs are likely to know which Broiler products are more popular for restaurants versus retail
`
`customers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Accordingly, the varying demand for the myriad
`
`chicken products, including increasing demand for “non-Broiler” chicken products, is directly
`
`relevant to Defendants’ production and pricing decisions during the relevant period.
`
`Plaintiffs have failed to articulate any reason why they are unable to offer management-
`
`level testimony on this Topic. Indeed, their most recent correspondence fails to respond to this
`
`Topic entirely, claiming it was not discussed at prior meet and confers. See Ex. H at p.1. This is
`
`not correct – Defendants discussed this Topic most recently during the September 21 meet and
`
`confer, and responded to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s questions about the Topic’s relevance. As shown in
`
`Defendants’ September 22 correspondence, Plaintiffs were to provide a response on the Topic after
`
`discussing with their clients. See Ex. H at pp.2-3. They never did, however, necessitating this
`
`Motion.
`
`II.
`
`Category 2: Plaintiffs’ Monitoring of Their Competitors and Use of Such
`Competitive Information (Topic 15)
`
`Topic 15 seeks a corporate representative to testify regarding:
`
`Your relationship or interactions with, monitoring of, and knowledge about Your
`competitors and/or other Broiler purchasers, including Communications with such
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 11 of 24 PageID #:262296
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 11 of 24 PageID #:2652296
`
`competitors and/or Broiler purchasers, knowledge of Your competitors’ pricing,
`attendance at events such as the EMI Poultly Outlook Conference also attended by
`Your competitors, and Your hiring of employees who formerly worked for Your
`competitors.
`
`The parties have agreed to the scope of certain portions of Topic 15, but a dispute remains
`
`concerning whether Plaintiffs must provide testimony on their “monitoring or knowledge of the
`
`competitors’ purchases and sales of Broilers, including pricing.” See Ex. H at p.3 (September 22,
`
`2020 e—mail from B. Liegel). Defendants believe a witness should be prepared to testify at a
`
`general level regarding the monitoring of competitors’ pricing, product development, and public
`
`statements. This information would include testimony regarding whether and how Plaintiffs gather
`
`information on competitors (i. e., other pm‘chasers and resellers of Broiler products) and how they
`
`use that information to negotiate and agree on prices for Broilers.
`
`Because Plaintiffs have alleged that this vely conduct is anticompetitive when performed
`
`by Defendants (see, e.g., Sysco Compl. 1“] 106), testimony on Topic 15 is highly relevant; it will
`
`show the legitimate sources of such competitive intelligence, show the legitimate uses of the
`
`competitive intelligence, and illustrate the existence of dynamic competition within the Broiler
`
`market. For example, document discovery suggests that Plaintiffs and other customers of
`
`Defendants used competitor information in order to negotiate a better price for Broilers from
`
`Defendants.—
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 12 of 24 PageID #:262297
`
`
`Sysco and US Foods engaged in similar conduct, and the ways in which that conduct impacted
`
`negotiations, pricing decisions, and procurement strategy.
`
`Plaintiffs currently refuse to provide any testimony about these issues – and instead
`
`continue to offer to testify only concerning industry events and the hiring of employees from within
`
`the industry. See Ex. H at p.1. During the meet and confer process, Plaintiffs argued that they
`
`could not testify regarding whether any employee ever spoke with a competitor at any time, but
`
`Defendants have already allayed that concern by stating clearly: “Defendants do not expect that
`
`your clients interview everyone at the company to ask if they’ve ever had contact with a
`
`competitor.” Ex. H at p.3 (emphasis added). Rather, the focus is on general, management-level
`
`testimony about any practices of monitoring or obtaining information about competitors (which
`
`has been further limited to broadline distributors) and the use of that competitive intelligence.
`
`Defendants have provided Plaintiffs with “information sufficient for [them] to prepare” their
`
`witnesses about Topic 15. Dkt. 3730 at 3. Accordingly, beyond the information regarding events
`
`and hiring on which the parties have already agreed, Plaintiffs should be compelled to provide a
`
`witness to testify at a general level concerning their monitoring of competitors’ pricing, product
`
`development, and public statements, as it relates to Broiler products.
`
`III. Category 3: Plaintiffs’ Monitoring and Projections of Broiler Market Factors and
`Pricing (Topics 8, 9, 13, and 18-20)
`
`Topics 8, 9, 13 and 18-20 seek testimony concerning Plaintiffs’ gathering and use of
`
`information relating to Broiler pricing and production, and the various factors affecting the market
`
`for Broilers, such as production levels, industry demand, and the costs of inputs such as corn and
`
`grain. See Ex. A. Defendants have agreed to limit these Topics to “general, management-level”
`
`testimony. Topic 8 seeks testimony concerning “monitoring, analysis, forecasts or projections
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 13 of 24 PageID #:262298
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 13 of 24 PageID #:262298
`
`regarding chicken pricesz” Topic 9 seeks analyses, forecasts or projections “concerning market
`
`factors taken into account in piu'chasing or selling Broilers;” Topic 13 asks for knowledge of
`
`“historical demand, supply, and prices for Broilers and market factors affecting demand, supply,
`
`and prices for Broilersz”8 and Topics 18-20 seek general
`
`testimony concerning Plaintiffs’
`
`knowledge of Broiler production levels, feed costs, and average prices for Broilers during the
`
`Relevant Period.9
`
`Plaintiffs initially refused to provide any Rule 30(b)(6) testimony on these Topics, asserting
`
`that they had not identified routine or systematic monitoring or use of such information. See Ex.
`
`F at pp.2-3. Subsequently, Plaintiffs agreed to provide “general testimony reasonably available to
`
`it about information made available to it by third-parties.” Ex. G at p.4 (emphasis added).
`
`Defendants responded by explaining that the “focus of those topics is [Plaintiffs’] gathering and
`
`use of information on pricing, demand, and market factors for Broilers, regardless of the source
`
`of the information.” Ex. H at p.2 (September 22, 2020 e—mail from B. Liegel) (emphasis added).
`
`8 The parties have agreed to exclude “opinion“ from the scope of Topic 13. See Ex. F at p.3.
`
`9 Topic 18 also sought testimony concerning Plaintiffs’ knowledge of 110w Broilers are produced. The
`parties have agreed to accept 30(b)(1) testimony on that portion of Topic 18. See Ex. F at pp.3-4.
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 14 of 24 PageID #:262299
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Testimony regarding Plaintiffs’ monitoring, knowledge, and use of information relating to
`
`Broiler prices and market factors is highly relevant to this litigation. Plaintiffs allege that
`
`production cuts and price increases were the result of illegal conduct. See e.g., Sysco Complaint
`
`at ¶¶ 8-9. They also fault Defendants’ access to information about production figures and “corn
`
`and soybean meal costs.” See Sysco Complaint at ¶ 106.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendants are entitled to testimony on these points, which will
`
`illustrate that Defendants’ supply decisions were legitimate, independent decisions based on
`
`market factors like demand and cost. The testimony will also illustrate that these decisions were
`
`of no surprise to sophisticated and well-informed purchasers like Sysco and US Foods.
`
`In the eight months since service of Defendants’ 30(b)(6) Topics, Plaintiffs never justified
`
`why they cannot provide management-level testimony on these Topics. Plaintiffs initially denied
`
`monitoring these factors, then reversed position and agreed to provide “general testimony” only
`
`about a handful of documents identified by Plaintiffs. See Ex. H at p.1. This is plainly insufficient.
`
`Plaintiffs’ proposal fails to provide testimony regarding their collection and use of this market
`
`information in general. Most obviously, Plaintiffs’ proposal would leave Defendants unable to
`
`determine whether Plaintiffs’ gathering and use of this information extended beyond the
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 15 of 24 PageID #:262300
`
`
`documents that Plaintiffs have identified. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ identification of these documents
`
`illustrates that they understand the Topics and have “information sufficient” to prepare a witness
`
`to provide management-level testimony. Dkt. 3730 at 3.
`
`IV. Category 4: Plaintiffs’ Pre-Complaint Investigation (Topic 26)
`
`Topic 26 seeks testimony concerning: “knowledge and participation in the Broiler Chicken
`
`Litigation, including the allegations set forth in Your Complaint and Your pre-Complaint
`
`investigation of facts supporting Your allegations.” After negotiating, Defendants have explained
`
`that Plaintiffs’ representatives should be prepared to provide management-level knowledge of
`
`investigations regarding alleged manipulation of the Georgia Dock, inter-defendant sales,
`
`“atypical increases” in exports, and other allegations by Plaintiffs regarding Defendants’ conduct.
`
`This testimony naturally relates to Defendants’ statute of limitations defense, as well as whether
`
`antitrust violations can be inferred from conduct and communications by Defendants that Plaintiffs
`
`may have been aware of, but never challenged.
`
`After twice summarily responding that they “do not plan to provide a witness,” Plaintiffs
`
`then objected to this Topic on the basis that it “does not appear to seek any non-privileged
`
`information.” Ex. G at p.6. And, in their most recent correspondence, they rested on that objection
`
`–offering only to “consider” specific documents if shown in advance. Ex. H at p.2. Defendants’
`
`request for general testimony on Plaintiffs’ pre-complaint investigation is not contingent on
`
`identifying documents in advance. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ privilege objection “is speculation,”
`
`because the Topic is not “drafted in such a way that questions within [its] scope would inevitably
`
`seek privileged information.” Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., No. 17-C-7576, 2019
`
`WL 3408813, at *7 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2019) (emphasis in original). Indeed, consistent with Baxter,
`
`Defendants have represented that they are not seeking privileged information and have tailored
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 16 of 24 PageID #:262301
`
`
`Topic 26 to include only pre-Complaint knowledge and any pre-Complaint investigation not
`
`involving counsel. See Ex. H at p.3 (“As we have indicated, we are not seeking privileged
`
`information, but we are entitled to testimony on non-privileged facts responsive to this Topic to
`
`the extent there are any. To the extent a question may seek privileged information at a deposition,
`
`you are of course able to object at that time on a question-by-question basis.”). Plaintiffs’
`
`“wholesale refusal to produce a witness to testify about relevant Rule 30(b)(6) topics is not the
`
`appropriate way to protect its privileged information.” Id.; see also Securities and Exchange
`
`Commission v. Merkin, 283 F.R.D. 689, 698 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (explaining that “[l]itigants usually
`
`cannot prohibit a 30(b)(6) deposition by arguing in advance that each and every question would
`
`trigger the disclosure of attorney-client and work production information”); Bryant v. Mattel, Inc.,
`
`No. CV 04-09049 SGL(RNBx), 2007 WL 5430885, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 2, 2007) (holding that a
`
`party“may not make a blanket [privilege] objection and justify its refusal to produce a Rule
`
`30(b)(6) designee on [a Rule 30(b)(6)] topic based on that blanket objection”). “Rather, [Plaintiffs]
`
`must produce a knowledgeable witness to testify and then, if any question asked during the
`
`deposition ventures into what [Plaintiffs] claim[] is privileged territory, [Plaintiffs’] counsel is free
`
`to object to the particular question at issue, state the asserted privilege, and instruct the witness not
`
`to answer on the basis of that privilege.” Baxter, 2019 WL 3408813, at *8.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant the Motion
`
`and compel Sysco and US Foods to provide management-level testimony on Topics 8, 9, 13, 15,
`
`18-20, 23, and 26.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 17 of 24 PageID #:262302
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`VENABLE LLP
`
`By: /s/ J. Douglas Baldridge
`J. Douglas Baldridge (#437678)
`Lisa Jose Fales (admitted pro hac vice)
`Danielle Foley (admitted pro hac vice)
`Andrew Hernacki (admitted pro hac vice)
`600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Telephone: (202) 344-4000
`Facsimile: 202-344-8300
`jdbaldridge@venable.com
`ljfales@venable.com
`drfoley@venable.com
`athernacki@venable.com
`
`FALKENBERG IVES LLP
`Kirstin B. Ives
`30 N. LaSalle St., Ste 4020
`Chicago, IL 60602
`Telephone: (312) 566-4803
`Facsimile: (312) 566-4810
`kbi@ffilaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Perdue Farms, Inc.
`and Perdue Foods LLC
`
`
`
`Dated: October 16, 2020
`
`WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`
`By: /s/ Carrie C. Mahan
`
`
`Carrie C. Mahan (#459802)
`Christopher J. Abbott (#1014487)
`2001 M Street N.W., Ste. 600
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone: (202) 682-7000
`Facsimile: (202) 857-0940
`carrie.mahan@weil.com
`christopher.abbott@weil.com
`
`Adam C. Hemlock (#2829679)
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`Telephone: 212-310-8000
`Facsimile: 212-310-8007
`adam.hemlock@weil.com
`
`Brian G. Liegel (#119269)
`1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200
`Miami, FL 33131
`Telephone: (305) 577-3100
`Facsimile: (305) 347-7159
`Brian.liegel@weil.com
`
`BAILEY BRAUER PLLC
`Clayton E. Bailey (admitted pro hac vice)
`8350 N. Central Expressway, Ste. 206
`Dallas, TX 75206
`Telephone: (214) 360-7433
`Facsimile: (214) 360-7424
`cbailey@baileybrauer.com
`
`EIMER STAHL LLP
`Michael L. McCluggage (#01820966)
`224 South Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1100
`Chicago, IL 60604
`Telephone: (312) 660-7665
`Facsimile: (312) 692-1718
`mmccluggage@eimerstahl.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Pilgrim’s Pride
`Corporation and Liaison Counsel for
`Defendants
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 3875 Filed: 10/16/20 Page 18 of 24 PageID #:262303
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ John W. Treece
`John W. Treece (#3122889)
`1135 West Montana Street
`Chicago, IL 60614
`Telephone: (312) 961-7808
`jtreece@jwtreece.com
`
`ROSE LAW FIRM
`
`Amanda K. Wofford (admitted pro hac vice)
`Bourgon Reynolds (admitted pro hac vice)
`120 East Fourth Street
`Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
`Telephone: (501) 375-9131
`Facsimile: (501) 375-1309
`awofford@roselawfirm.com
`breynolds@roselawfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Mountaire Farms,
`Inc., Mountaire Farms, LLC and Mountaire
`Farms of Delaware, Inc.
`
`
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`
`By: /s/ Daniel E. Laytin, P.C.
`Daniel E. Laytin, P.C.
`Christa C. Cottrell, P.C.
`Stacy Pepper
`300 North LaSalle Street
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Telephone: (312) 862-2000
`Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
`dlaytin@kirkland.com
`ccottrell@kirkland.com
`stacy.pepper@k