Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:274443
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`
`IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`This Document Relates To:
`
`The Kroger Co., et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
`et al., No. 1:18-cv-04534
`
`Save Mart Supermarkets v. Tyson Foods,
`Inc., et al., No: 1:19-cv-02805
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-08637
`
`The Honorable Thomas M. Durkin
`The Honorable Jeffery T. Gilbert
`
`
`
`[PUBLIC, REDACTED]
`
`REPLY TO THE KROGER PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF
`BENCHMARKING SERVICES AND
`PROTEIN-RELATED TRADE ASSOCIATIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:274444
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Kroger Plaintiffs write separately from the other DAPs to argue that they are
`
`differently situated, and to make the extreme request for a protective order.1 But the Kroger
`
`Plaintiffs cannot be protected from complying with their own agreement, or from the basic
`
`discovery process of a lawsuit that they chose to bring. For all of the Kroger Plaintiffs’ hyperbole,
`
`the facts do not support their request for a protective order (or their opposition to Defendants’
`
`Motion). Seeking proportional discovery consistent with the parties’ agreement while discovery
`
`is open is not abusive, and seeking correction of discovery errors is not harassment. There is no
`
`good cause here. Just the opposite, the Kroger Plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order shows the
`
`lengths to which they will go to shirk their discovery obligations. The Kroger Plaintiffs’ request
`
`is extreme, but the solution is simple: their motion for a protective order should be denied.2
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The Kroger Plaintiffs suggest that the Defendants “do not want this Court to consider the
`
`actual written record” between the parties (Dkt. 4018, Opp. at 4), but it is they who omit key
`
`correspondence and the specifics of the parties’ agreement. Negotiations with the Kroger Plaintiffs
`
`on protein-related trade associations and benchmarking services began as part of Defendants’
`
`global negotiations with all DAPs who were subject to Defendants’ first motion to compel in
`
`January 2019. (See Ex. 1, 1/4/19 Email from S. Pepper to B. Floch.) While the Kroger Plaintiffs
`
`ultimately negotiated individually, the agreement on these issues with the Kroger Plaintiffs
`
`
`1 As the Kroger Plaintiffs incorporated by reference DAPs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Compel (“the
`All-DAP Opposition”) and the arguments therein, Defendants similarly incorporate by reference to this Reply
`their Reply to the All-DAP Opposition and the arguments therein, filed contemporaneously herewith. Defendants
`write separately to address the Kroger Plaintiffs’ additional request for a protective order.
`
`2 Each Defendant joins to the extent the Kroger Plaintiffs have named it as a defendant and have unreleased
`claims against the Defendant as of the date of this reply.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 3 of 21 PageID #:274445
`
`
`
`contains the same key terms of Defendants’ agreement with all DAPs. (See Ex. 2, 1/18/19 Ltr.
`
`from S. Pepper to B. Floch at 13-14; Dkt. 3954, Mot. at 6-8.) Notably, as part of the parties’
`
`agreement on the document requests and interrogatories regarding protein-related trade association
`
`and benchmarking participation, Defendants “reserve[d] the right to designate additional
`
`custodians if further discovery in this matter provides good cause to do so.” (Opp., Ex. A, 1/18/19
`
`Email from S. Pepper to B. Floch.) Defendants also “reserve[d] all rights, including to challenge
`
`the sufficiency of Kroger Plaintiffs’ forthcoming production” with respect to the document
`
`requests pertaining to trade association and benchmarking participation. (Ex. 2 at 13-14.) It was
`
`thus clear, to everyone, that (a) Defendants reserved the right to future discovery with respect to
`
`protein-related trade association and benchmarking participation, and (b) the agreement pertained
`
`only to outstanding issues related to the Defendants’ pending motion to compel.3
`
`The Kroger Plaintiffs make much of their documents produced and other discovery
`
`responses on trade associations and benchmarking services to argue compliance with the parties’
`
`agreement, but they notably do not share with the Court the issues Defendants have raised with
`
`respect to them. For example, on August 24, 2020, Kroger responded to Defendants’ Second Set
`
`of Interrogatories and identified
`
`
`
`
`
`. (Ex. 5, 9/29/20 Email from B. Floch to
`
`J. Giulitto at 1.) Defendants accordingly requested that Kroger make a supplemental production
`
`
`3 With respect to the Kroger Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants “improperly accused Hy-Vee of not abiding by
`the agreement” (Opp. at 9), the Kroger Plaintiffs initially disclosed “Kroger et al.” as utilizing
`.
`Defendants wrote to clarify which Kroger Plaintiffs they meant, but the Kroger Plaintiffs did not clarify. (Ex. 3,
`8/26/19 Ltr. from T. Hunter to B. Floch.) When the Kroger Plaintiffs ultimately responded to Defendants on June
`11, 2020 (10 months later), they finally clarified they meant all the Kroger Plaintiffs. While this particular issue
`with the Kroger Plaintiffs has been resolved (Ex. 4, 7/24/20 Ltr. from J. Stupar to B. Floch), Defendants are
`disappointed that the Kroger Plaintiffs wish to mislead this Court with this example and blame Defendants for
`the Kroger Plaintiffs’ own failure to clarify.
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 4 of 21 PageID #:274446
`
`because they were nowhere in Kroger's production, and should have been per the
`
`te1ms of the parties' agreement. (See id.) Kroger refused, improperly pointing to the search tenns
`
`it ran rather than confnming that it included the custodians or other sources likely to have
`
`responsive info1mation for -
`
`when it searched. (Id.) And it continues to do so,
`
`suggesting that rnnning agreed search tenns absolves it from having collected from the wrong
`
`places. (See Kroger Opp. at 8 ("We have used the broad search te1ms to search for documents ..
`
`. . ").) The bottom line is that Defendants still do not know where Kroger's responsive(cid:173)
`
`-
`
`are located and why they are not included in Kroger's production to date. Krnger has
`
`refused to confinn it identified and included the conect sources consistent with the paities'
`
`agreement, or, if not, to conect that enor.4 (See Ex. 5.)
`
`Further, on October 28, 2020, Kroger's 30(b)(6) designee on the topics of trade association
`
`and benchmarking paiticipation testified that
`
`4
`
`In response to their motion for a protective order, Defendants have conducted further investigation into the Kro er
`Plaintiffs' roductions and identified additional deficiencies, includino, but not limited to:
`
`(Ex. 7
`
`Defendants are evaluating what, if any, recourse they wish to pursue with Kroger in response this this lack of
`preparedness. They reserve all rights.
`
`4
`
`

`

`ase: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 5 of 21 PageID #:274447
`
`
`
`-C
`
`) Simply put, the Kroger Plaintiffs cannot credibly argue that they have fully complied
`
`with the parties’ agreement (or their obligations in discovery) on these topics, or that they should
`
`be immunized from any further discovery requests based on their past performance.
`
`Finally the Kroger Plaintiffs, like all other DAPs, have unjustifiably refused to provide the
`
`limited discovery Defendants have requested on the eight highly-relevant additional trade
`
`associations, or to consent to the third parties NPD Group, Nielsen, iRi and IHS Markit negotiating
`
`with Defendants. They should be ordered to comply with both of these requests, as well.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A court may, “for good cause, issue an order to protect a party . . . from annoyance,
`
`embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1). The Kroger
`
`Plaintiffs must thus show good cause by alleging particular and specific facts to support a
`
`protective order. Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, n.16 (1981); § 2035 Procedure for
`
`Obtaining Protective Orders, 8A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2035 (3d ed.) (“The courts have insisted
`
`on a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and
`
`conclusory statements, in order to establish good cause.”). Further, the Kroger Plaintiffs, as the
`
`party seeking a protective order, “bear[] the burden of showing good cause for the order by
`
`‘demonstrating harm or prejudice that will result from the discovery.’” Gookins v. Cnty. Materials
`
`Corp., 2020 WL 3397730, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 7, 2020) (citations omitted); Global Material
`
`Techs., Inc. v. Dazheng Metal Fibre Co., Ltd., 133 F. Supp. 3d 1079, 1083 (N.D. Ill. 2015). The
`
`Kroger Plaintiffs cannot meet this standard. They fail to adduce particular facts that demonstrate
`
`the harm or prejudice that will result from Defendants’ requested discovery.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 6 of 21 PageID #:274448
`
`
`
`I.
`
`THE KROGER PLAINTIFFS DO NOT COME CLOSE TO MEETING THE
`STANDARD FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER.
`
`The facts the Kroger Plaintiffs argue show “good cause” show nothing more than ordinary
`
`discovery obligations in complex lawsuits. Cf. Odongo v. City of Indianapolis, 2015 WL 1188769,
`
`at *5 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 13, 2015) (“Plaintiff does not meet the high burden of proving that Defendant
`
`intended to take Plaintiff’s deposition in bad faith or with the intention to annoy, embarrass, or
`
`oppress Plaintiff.”). They object to (i) complying with their agreement to produce highly relevant
`
`discovery in this case, including correcting errors that Defendants have raised, (ii) responding to
`
`reasonable, discrete requests for additional production based on new information Defendants have
`
`learned through discovery, and (iii) consenting to allow third parties to negotiate with Defendants.
`
`None of these asks amounts to harm or undue prejudice. To the contrary, these are the Kroger
`
`Plaintiffs’ obligations for good faith cooperation in discovery.6
`
`A.
`
`The Kroger Plaintiffs Mischaracterize the Parties’ Agreement to Manufacture
`Harm.
`
`The Kroger Plaintiffs believe that they deserve a protective order because their compromise
`
`with Defendants “fully resolve[d] the open issues” (Opp. at 3). Not so. Defendants’ agreement
`
`with the Kroger Plaintiffs contains the same key requirements as Defendants’ agreement with all
`
`DAPs. (Mot. at 6-8.) And it explicitly reserved Defendants’ right to (1) “designate additional
`
`custodians if further discovery in this matter provides good cause to do so,” and (2) “challenge the
`
`sufficiency of the Kroger Plaintiffs’ forthcoming production.” (Ex. 2 at 13-14.) That is all that
`
`Defendants are doing. They are seeking confirmation that the Kroger Plaintiffs included in their
`
`
`6 Like the rest of the DAPs, the Kroger Plaintiffs misconstrue the Court’s December 22, 2018 Order (Dkt. 580),
`and do so to mischaracterize the discovery at issue as relevant only to make a “rhetorical point.” (E.g., Opp. at
`2, 5, 6, 8, 10.) They notably quote most of this Court’s order, but then selectively (and misleadingly) omit the
`words “non-protein trade associations” from their quotation. (Opp. at 2.) The Kroger Plaintiffs’ relevance
`arguments thus fail for the reasons set forth in Defendants’ Reply to the All-DAP Opposition.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 7 of 21 PageID #:274449
`
`
`
`search the correct sources for the relevant protein-related trade associations and benchmarking
`
`services
`
` and they are challenging the sufficiency of the Kroger Plaintiffs’
`
`production (presently, with respect to
`
` documents). Their suggestion that
`
`Defendants promised never to again ask about protein-related trade associations or benchmarking
`
`services is nonsense, and it misrepresents the parties’ agreement. (Opp. at 3.) Defendants have
`
`the right to confirm that the Kroger Plaintiffs provided complete and accurate discovery, and the
`
`Kroger Plaintiffs’ refusal to do so is illuminating. Following up on the agreement does not harm
`
`the Kroger Plaintiffs or warrant a protective order. Rather, their outrage is pretext to stop
`
`Defendants from exercising their right to discovery while discovery is ongoing.
`
`B.
`
`Defendants’ Good Cause for Additional Discovery is Not Harm to the Kroger
`Plaintiffs.
`
`The Kroger Plaintiffs also argue that the parties’ agreement precludes Defendants (1) from
`
`seeking discovery on the eight new protein-related trade associations they identified, or (2) from
`
`obtaining the Kroger Plaintiffs’ consent to negotiate with third-party benchmarking entities. (Opp.
`
`at 5–6.) Again, the Kroger Plaintiffs are wrong.
`
`As is often the case during discovery, Defendants learned new information about a small
`
`number of highly-relevant protein-related trade associations not previously disclosed by DAPs or
`
`included in their search. As Defendants explained in their Motion, and their accompanying Reply
`
`to the All-DAP Opposition, these organizations discuss their participants’ knowledge of, among
`
`other things, the non-conspiratorial reasons for the supply cuts alleged in this case—including the
`
`Renewable Fuel Standard, rising feed costs, the impact of other proteins on broiler pricing and
`
`demand, increased or decreased exports, and demand shocks like the Great Recession. (Mot. at
`
`5.) Asking DAPs—including the Kroger Plaintiffs—to produce certain highly-relevant
`
`information related to these eight trade associations is not harassment or violative of the parties’
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 8 of 21 PageID #:274450
`
`
`
`agreement. It is a reasonable and proportionate request in light of new, important information
`
`learned in discovery.7 FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b).
`
`Similarly, the Kroger Plaintiffs cannot reasonably argue that the parties’ agreement
`
`prevents Defendants from obtaining their consent to receive discovery from third-party
`
`benchmarking services. The parties’ agreement has nothing to do with Defendants’ subpoena
`
`requests to NPD Group, Nielsen, iRi and IHS Markit. The discovery requests are made to these
`
`third parties—and any putative burden issues are theirs to negotiate. All that is required of the
`
`Kroger Plaintiffs—given that these entities purport to require their clients’ permission to negotiate
`
`with Defendants—is saying “yes.”8 Asking (and now moving to compel) the Kroger Plaintiffs to
`
`do so does not violate the parties’ agreement or constitute harassment in any way. It does,
`
`however, put a stop to the run-around that the DAPs (including the Kroger Plaintiffs) and these
`
`third parties have given Defendants for almost two years.
`
`C.
`
`Kroger Plaintiffs Have Not Shown Any Harm or Undue Prejudice.
`
`The Kroger Plaintiffs have not articulated any credible, non-conclusory harm as a result of
`
`Defendants’ discovery requests or conduct. Though the Kroger Plaintiffs make much of their
`
`discovery participation thus far—their productions, the number of their custodial sources, and their
`
`responses to requests for admission—that’s what discovery is, and these arguments are no
`
`substitute for a concrete explanation as to why complying with Defendants’ requests is unduly
`
`
`7 Defendants’ discovery requests of the Kroger Plaintiffs have always been proportional to the needs of this
`complex case and the importance of these particular DAPs. Kroger alone, a multibillion-dollar company “[w]ith
`nearly 2,800 stores in 35 states under two dozen banners and annual sales of more than $121.1 billion” (Our
`History, KROGER CO. (last visited Nov. 15, 2020), https://www.thekrogerco.com/about-kroger/history/) is the
`country’s largest supermarket by revenue and the second largest general retailer behind Walmart
`(https://www foodindustry.com/articles/the-largest-supermarket-company-in-the-u-s-is-krogers/).
`
`8 As noted in Defendants’ Reply to the All-DAP Opposition, any supposed confidentiality concerns are mooted by
`the sophisticated protective order in this case, which Defendants have trusted in turning over their own
`confidential information. (See All-DAP Reply at 10.)
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 9 of 21 PageID #:274451
`
`
`
`burdensome here.9 Indeed, Defendants confronting opposing counsel about incomplete and
`
`inaccurate discovery responses does not constitute harassment or undue prejudice. Nor does
`
`serving a targeted number of new discovery requests when good cause exists to do so. Neither
`
`does asking a party to a case to stop obstructing Defendants’ access to important third-party
`
`information. And neither does taking ripe discovery disputes to the Court to ultimately adjudicate.
`
`Cf. Gaddy v. Terex Corp., 2016 WL 1047011, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 10, 2016) (855 additional
`
`Requests for Admission and 93 additional Requests for production were “cumulative, harassing,
`
`oppressive, and unduly burdensome written discovery” (citations omitted)); United States v.
`
`Menominee Tribal Enterprises, 2008 WL 2273285, at *14 (E.D. Wis. June 2, 2008) (seeking
`
`deposition of high level government official brings a “potential for abuse”(citations omitted));
`
`Nocal, Inc. v. Sabercat Ventures, Inc., 2004 WL 3174427, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2004)
`
`(granting protective order to Defendant’s attorney called as a witness, noting the “growing
`
`antipathy” in opposing attorneys’ personal relationship). The Kroger Plaintiffs’ argument, at
`
`bottom, is that they just do not want to provide the responsive information, which is why they have
`
`failed to show any harm beyond the time required to engage in good-faith cooperation in discovery.
`
`* * * *
`
`The Kroger Plaintiffs have failed to put forth specific facts that show harm or undue
`
`prejudice that constitute good cause for a protective order. They are not victims here; they are
`
`large, sophisticated DAPs that chose to participate in a complex lawsuit. They cannot seek
`
`protection from this Court from complying with their own agreements and discovery obligations.
`
`
`9 The Kroger Plaintiffs also suggest that the fact they responded to Defendants’ requests for admission on protein-
`related trade associations and benchmarking services somehow means they should not have to participate in any
`more discovery on these topics. (Opp. at 6.) But responding requests for admission (or any other discovery) does
`not entitle a party to avoid other discovery obligations, and the Kroger Plaintiffs offer nothing to support such a
`proposition.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:274452
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny the Kroger Plaintiffs’ request for a
`
`protective order, and order them to comply with Defendants’ requests as set forth in their Motion
`
`to Compel Discovery of Benchmarking Services and Protein-Related Trade Associations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:274453
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 23, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Daniel E. Laytin, P.C.
`Daniel E. Laytin, P.C.
`Christa C. Cottrell, P.C.
`Stacy Pepper
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle Street
`Chicago, IL 60654
`(312) 862-2000
`dlaytin@kirkland.com
`ccottrell@kirkland.com
`stacy.pepper@kirkland.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Sanderson Farms,
`Inc., Sanderson Farms,
`Inc.
`(Processing
`Division), Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production
`Division), & Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Foods
`Division) and Liaison Counsel for Defendants
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:274454
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEYS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Jessica L. Falk (#4763686)
`767 Fifth Avenue
`New York, NY 10153
`Telephone: 212-310-8000
`Facsimile: 212-310-8007
`jessica.falk@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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:274455
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`
`By: /s/ Carmine R. Zarlenga
`Carmine R. Zarlenga (#90784529)
`William H. Stallings (admitted pro hac vice)
`Stephen M. Medlock (admitted pro hac vice)
`Oral D. Pottinger (admitted pro hac vice)
`1999 K Street N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 263-3000
`Facsimile: (202) 263-3300
`czarlenga@mayerbrown.com
`wstallings@mayerbrown.com
`smedlock@mayerbrown.com
`opottinger@mayerbrown.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Foster Farms, LLC
`and Foster Poultry Farms, a California
`Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:274456
`
`
`
`
`
`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@kirkland.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Sanderson Farms,
`Inc., Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Foods Division),
`Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division),
`and Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production
`Division) and Liaison Counsel for Defendants
`
`
`PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ Christopher E. Ondeck
`Christopher E. Ondeck (admitted pro hac
`vice)
`Stephen R. Chuk (admitted pro hac vice)
`1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Ste 600 South
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (202) 416-6800
`Facsimile: (202) 416-6899
`condeck@proskauer.com
`schuk@proskauer.com
`
`Attorneys for Wayne Farms LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOVACK AND MACEY LLP
`
`By: /s/ Stephen Novack
`Stephen Novack
`Stephen J. Siegel
`Christopher S. Moore
`100 North Riverside Plaza
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 419-6900
`Facsimile: (312) 419-6928
`snovack@novackmacey.com
`ssiegel@novackmacey.com
`cmoore@novackmacey.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Koch Foods
`Incorporated, JCG Foods of Alabama LLC,
`JCG Foods of Georgia LLC and Koch Meat
`Co., Inc.
`
`
`VEDDER PRICE P.C.
`
`
`By: /s/ Gregory G. Wrobel
`Gregory G. Wrobel (#3122900)
`222 N. LaSalle Street
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Telephone: (312) 609-7722
`Facsimile: (312) 609-5005
`gwrobel@vedderprice.com
`
`JORDAN PRICE WALL GRAY JONES &
`CARLTON, PLLC
`
`Henry W. Jones, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)
`1951 Clark Avenue
`Raleigh, NC 27605
`Telephone: (919) 828-2501
`Facsimile: (919) 834-8447
`hjones@jordanprice.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant House of Raeford
`Farms, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:274457
`
`
`
`KUTAK ROCK LLP
`
`
`
`By: /s/ John P. Passarelli
`John P. Passarelli (admitted pro hac vice)
`James M. Sulentic (admitted pro hac vice)
`1650 Farnam Street
`Omaha, NE 68102
`Telephone: (402) 346-6000
`Facsimile: (402) 346-1148
`john.passarelli@kutakrock.com
`james.sulentic@kutakrock.com
`
`
`J.R. Carroll (admitted pro hac vice)
`Jeffrey M. Fletcher (admitted pro hac vice)
`234 East Millsap Road, Ste 200
`Fayetteville, AR 72703-4099
`Telephone: (479) 973-4200
`Facsimile: (479) 973-0007
`jr.caroll@kutakrock.com
`Jeffrey.fletcher@kuakrock.com
`
`Kimberly M. Hare (#6323326)
`One South Wacker Drive, Ste 2050
`Chicago, IL 60606-4614
`Telephone: (312) 602-4100
`Facsimile: (312) 602-4101
`kimberly.hare@kutakrock.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants O.K. Foods, Inc.,
`O.K. Farms, Inc., and O.K. Industries, Inc.
`
`EDWARD C. KONIECZNY LLC
`
`By: /s/ Edward C. Konieczny
`Edward C. Konieczny (admitted pro hac vice)
`400 Colony Square, Ste 1501
`1201 Peachtree Street, NE
`Atlanta, GA 30361
`Telephone: (404) 380-1430
`Facsimile: (404) 382-6011
`ed@koniecznylaw.com
`
`SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
`
`David C. Newman (admitted pro hac vice)
`W. Parker Sanders (admitted pro hac vice)
`1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.
`Promenade, Ste 3100
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Telephone: (404) 815-3500
`Facsimile: (404) 815-3509
`dnewman@sgrlaw.com
`psanders@sgrlaw.com
`
`James L. Thompson
`Lynch Thompson LLP
`150 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
`Chicago, IL 60606
`T: (312) 445-4623
`F: (312) 896-5883
`jthompson@lynchthompson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Mar-Jac Poultry,
`Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:274458
`
`
`
`
`
`VAUGHAN & MURPHY
`
`
`By: /s/ Charles C. Murphy, Jr.
`Charles C. Murphy, Jr. (admitted pro hac
`vice)
`690 S Ponce Court NE
`Atlanta, GA 30307
`Telephone: (404) 667-0714
`Facsimile: (404) 529-4193
`cmurphy@vaughanandmurphy.com
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`
`James F. Herbison
`Michael P. Mayer
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`Telephone: (312) 558-5600
`Facsimile: (312) 558-5700
`jherbison@winston.com
`mmayer@winston.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Norman W. Fries,
`Inc. d/b/a Claxton Poultry Farms
`
`
`
`
`
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ William L. Monts III
`William L. Monts III (admitted pro hac vice)
`Justin W. Bernick (admitted pro hac vice)
`555 Thirteenth Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004-1109
`Telephone: (202) 637-5910
`Facsimile: (202) 637-5911
`william.monts@hoganlovells.com
`justin.bernick@hoganlovells.com
`
`MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK, AND
`STONE P.L.C.
`
`Jacob D. Koering
`225 West Washington Street, Ste 2600
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Telephone: (312) 460-4272
`Facsimile: (312) 460-4201
`koering@millercanfield.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Agri Stats, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 17 of 21 PageID #:274459
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
`
`By: /s/ Lynn H. Murray
`Lynn H. Murray
`111 S. Wacker Dr., Ste 4700
`Chicago IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 704-7700
`Facsimile: (312) 558-1195
`lhmurray@shb.com
`
`Laurie A. Novion
`2555 Grand Blvd.
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`Telephone: (816) 474-6550
`Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
`lnovion@shb.com
`
`CONNER & WINTERS
`
`John R. Elrod
`Vicki Bronson (admitted pro hac vice)
`4375 N. Vantage Drive, Ste. 405
`Fayetteville, AR 72703
`Telephone: (479) 582-5711
`jelrod@cwlaw.com
`vbronson@cwlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Simmons Foods, Inc.
`and Simmons Prepared Foods Inc.
`
`AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
`
`By: /s/ Rachel J. Adcox
`Rachel J. Adcox (#1001488)
`Daniel K. Oakes (admitted pro hac vice)
`Kenina J. Lee (admitted pro hac vice)
`950 F Street NW, Ste 700
`Telephone: (202) 912-4700
`Facsimile: (202) 912-4701
`radcox@axinn.com
`doakes@axinn.com
`klee@axinn.com
`
`
`John M. Tanski (admitted pro hac vice)
`Jarod G. Taylor (admitted pro hac vice)
`90 State House Square
`Hartford, CT 06103
`Telephone: (860) 275-8100
`Facsimile: (860) 275-8101
`jtanski@axinn.com
`jtaylor@axinn.com
`
`
`Nicholas E.O. Gaglio (admitted pro hac vice)
`114 West 47th Street
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 728-2200
`Facsimile: (212) 261-5654
`ngaglio@axinn.com
`
`LIPE LYONS MURPHY NAHRSTADT &
`PONTIKIS, LTD.
`
`
`Jordan M. Tank
`230 West Monroe, Street, Ste 2260
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 702-0586
`Facsimile: (312) 726-2273
`jmt@lipelyons.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Tyson Foods, Inc.,
`Tyson Chicken, Inc., Tyson Breeders, Inc.,
`Tyson Poultry, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 18 of 21 PageID #:274460
`
`
`
`EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ Patricia A. Gorham
`James R. McGibbon (admitted pro hac vice)
`Patricia A. Gorham (admitted pro hac vice)
`Peter M. Szeremeta (admitted pro hac vice)
`Kaitlin A. Carreno (admitted pro hac vice)
`Dylan de Fouw (admitted pro hac vice)
`999 Peachtree Street, N.E., Ste 2300
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3996
`Telephone: (404) 853-8000
`Facsimile: (404) 853-8806
`jimmcgibbon@eversheds-sutherland.com
`patriciagorham@eversheds-sutherland.com
`peterszeremeta@eversheds-sutherland.com
`katilincarreno@eversheds-sutherland.com
`dylandefouw@eversheds-sutherland.com
`
`SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC
`
`Clay H. Phillips
`150 N. Michigan Avenue, Ste 3300
`Chicago, Illinois 60601
`Telephone: (312) 894-3200
`Facsimile: (312) 997-1828
`cphillips@salawus.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Harrison Poultry,
`Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOSEPH D. CARNEY & ASSOCIATES LLC
`
`By: /s/ Joseph D. Carney
`Joseph D. Carney (admitted pro hac vice)
`Telephone: 440-249-0860
`Facsimile: 866-270-1221
`jdc@jdcarney.com
`case@jdcarney.com
`
`Office Address:
`139 Crocker Park Boulevard, Ste. 400
`Westlake, OH 44145
`
`Mailing Address:
`1540 Peach Drive
`Avon, OH 44011
`
`MILLER SHAKMAN LEVINE &
`FELDMAN LLP
`
`Thomas M. Staunton
`Daniel M. Feeney
`180 North LaSalle Suite 3600
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Telephone: 312-263-3700
`tstaunton@millershakman.com
`dfeeney@millershakman.com
`
`D.KLAR LAW
`
`
`Deborah A. Klar (admitted pro hac vice)
`Deborah A. Klar, Esq.
`2934 1/2 Beverly Glen Circle, Suite 761
`Bel Air, CA 90077
`Telephone: 310-858-9500
`dklar@dklarlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Case Foods, Inc.,
`Case Farms, LLC, and Case Farms
`Processing, Inc.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4059 Filed: 11/23/20 Page 19 of 21 PageID #:274461
`
`
`
`MANDELL MENKES LLC
`
`By: /s/ Brendan J. Healey
`Brendan J. Healey
`One North Franklin, Ste
`3600 Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 251-1006
`Facsimile: (312) 759-2189
`bhealey@mandellmenkes.com
`
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`
`B. Parker Miller (admitted pro hac vice)
`Valarie C. Williams (admitted pro hac vice)
`Max Marks (admitted pro hac vice)
`1201 West Peachtree Street
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Telephone: (404) 881-7000
`Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
`parker.miller@alston.com
`valarie.williams@alston.com
`nowell.berreth@alston.com
`max.marks@alston.com
`
`SMITH, GILLIAM, WILLIAMS & MILES
`PA
`
`R. Brent Hatcher, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)
`301 Green Street NW, Ste 200
`Gainesville, GA 30501
`Telephone: (770) 536-3381
`Facsimile: (770) 535-9902
`bhatcher@sgwmfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Fieldale Farms Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER &
`FLOM LLP
`
`
`
`By: /s/ L. Flath
`Patrick Fitzgerald (#6307561)
`Gail Lee
`Peter Cheun
`155 N. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 407-0700
`Facsimile: (312) 407-0411
`patrick.fitzgerald@skadden.com
`gail.lee@skadden.com
`peter.cheun@skadden.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Boris Bershteyn (admitted pro hac vice)
`Lara Flath (#6289481)
`One Manhattan West
`New York,