Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4214 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 1 of 76 PageID #:281704
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`End-User Consumer Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`Honorable Thomas M. Durkin
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO END-USER CONSUMER
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`
`
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4214 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 2 of 76 PageID #:281705
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 5
`I.
`THE EUCP CLASS DEFINITION .................................................................................... 5
`II.
`THE REALITIES OF CHICKEN PRODUCTION ............................................................ 6
`A.
`The Different Market Segments, Cuts, and Chicken Products ................................6
`B.
`EUCPs Fail to Demonstrate that the Alleged Production Cuts Resulted in Less
`Chicken for Consumers............................................................................................9
`1.
`Overall Production Increased, not Decreased, during the Class Period ..... 9
`2.
`There were no uniform “Production Cuts” ............................................... 10
`3.
`EUCPs Offer No Causal Connection Between Alleged “Cuts” and Alleged
`Overcharges .............................................................................................. 12
`EUCPS’ OVERCHARGE CLAIMS IGNORE THE REALITY OF THE COMPLEX
`PROCESS OF SELLING AND DISTRIBUTING CHICKEN PRODUCTS .................. 13
`A.
`EUCPs Ignore the Complexities in Chicken Purchasing .......................................13
`1.
`The Chicken Purchasing Chain is Complex and Varied ........................... 13
`2.
`Chicken Pricing Mechanisms Vary Widely and Did Not Apply Uniformly
`Across the Sales Channels that Sold Chicken Products to EUCPs ........... 15
`Individual direct purchasers negotiated with individual Defendants for
`different volumes of different products .................................................... 17
`EUCPs’ Own Experts’ Modeling Shows No Overcharges to Large Portions of the
`EUCP Class ............................................................................................................21
`1.
`Many Direct Purchasers who sold to EUCPs incurred no overcharges .... 21
`2.
`Direct Purchasers did not uniformly pass-through any alleged overcharges
`to End-User Consumers ............................................................................ 23
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 25
`I.
`LEGAL STANDARD ....................................................................................................... 25
`II.
`EUCPS FAIL TO ESTABLISH PREDOMINANCE ...................................................... 27
`A.
`Dr. Sunding’s Flawed Model Cannot Show Common Proof of Antitrust Impact .28
`1.
`Dr. Sunding’s Impact Analysis Violates Comcast .................................... 29
`2.
`Dr. Sunding’s Impact Analysis Does Not Isolate Unlawful Conduct ...... 31
`3.
`Dr. Sunding’s Overcharge Model is Fundamentally Unreliable .............. 32
`4.
`Dr. Sunding’s Pass-Through Model is Fundamentally Unreliable ........... 34
`Dr. Sunding’s Damages Model Cannot Show Damages on a Class-Wide Basis ..38
`
`III.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4214 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 3 of 76 PageID #:281706
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EUCPs Cannot Show Predominance Or Superiority Because Of Substantive
`Variations In The Many State Laws Governing Their Claims ..............................41
`1.
`There Are Material Variations Among The Twenty-One Jurisdictions’
`Antitrust Laws ........................................................................................... 44
`There Are Substantive Differences Between The Jurisdictions’ Consumer
`Protection Laws ........................................................................................ 45
`Plaintiffs Compound The Problem By Bringing Unjust Enrichment Claims
`Under The Laws of Twenty-Four Jurisdictions ........................................ 47
`Plaintiffs Have Failed To Demonstrate Manageability ............................ 49
`4.
`EUCPS’ CLASS DEFINITION CONTAINS A GREAT MANY UNINJURED
`CONSUMERS AND IS FATALLY OVERBROAD ....................................................... 50
`EUCPS FAIL TO ESTABLISH TYPICALITY AND ADEQUACY .............................. 55
`IV.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 59
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`III.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4214 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 4 of 76 PageID #:281707
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Al Haj v. Pfizer Inc.,
`2020 WL 13330367 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2020) .........................................................................55
`
`Alioto v. Town of Lisbon,
`651 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................47
`
`In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig.,
`__ F.R.D. __, 2020 WL 4218329 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2020) .................................27, 29, 33, 38
`
`Am. Exp. Co. v. Italian Colors Rest.,
`570 U.S. 228 (2013) .................................................................................................................26
`
`Am. Seed Co. v. Monsanto Co.,
`238 F.R.D. 394 (D. Del. 2006) ................................................................................................27
`
`In re Aqua Dots Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`270 F.R.D. 377 (N.D. Ill. 2010) ...............................................................................................48
`
`Arthur v. Microsoft Corp.,
`267 Neb. 586 (Neb. 2004)........................................................................................................44
`
`In re Asacol Antitrust Litig.,
`907 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................................27, 52, 53
`
`Blades v. Monsanto Co.,
`400 F.3d 562(8th Circ. 2005) ...................................................................................................34
`
`In re Bridgestone/Firestone Tires Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`288 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 2002) .....................................................................................35, 43, 45
`
`California v. Infineon Techs. AG,
`No. C 06-4333 PJH, 2008 WL 4155665 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2008) .........................................27
`
`CE Design Ltd. v. King Architectural Metals, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................57
`
`Ex parte Citicorp Acceptance Co.,
`715 So. 2d 199 (Ala.1997) .......................................................................................................25
`
`Clark v. Bumbo Int’l Tr.,
`2017 WL 3704825 (E.D. Ill. August 28, 2017) .................................................................51, 53
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4214 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 5 of 76 PageID #:281708
`
`
`
`
`
`Clay v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
`188 F.R.D. 483 (S.D. Ill. 1999) ...............................................................................................48
`
`
`
`
`
`Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc.,
`233 P.3d 1066 (Cal. 2010) .......................................................................................................44
`
`In re Cmty. Bank of N. Va. & Guaranty Nat’l Bank of Tallahassee Second Mortg.
`Loan Litig.,
`622 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2010).....................................................................................................45
`
`Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,
`569 U.S. 27 (2013) ........................................................................................................... passim
`
`Commander Props. Corp. v. Beech Aircraft Corp.,
`164 F.R.D. 529 (D. Kan. 1995)................................................................................................48
`
`Conergy AG v. MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc.,
`651 F. Supp. 2d 51 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)........................................................................................44
`
`Dailey v. Groupon, Inc.,
`2014 WL 4379232 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2014) ..........................................................................39
`
`In re Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc. Cheese Antitrust Litig.,
`2013 WL 4506000 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2013) ..........................................................................57
`
`Dancel v. Groupon, Inc.,
`949 F.3d 999 (7th Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................................26
`
`In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig.,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135758 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2017).......................................................42
`
`Doster Lighting, Inc. v. E-Conolight, LLC,
`No. 12-C-0023, 2015 WL 3776491 (E.D. Wis. June 17, 2015) ..............................................41
`
`Dvorak v. St. Clair Cty.,
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10585 .................................................................................................55
`
`In re Epipen Epinephrine Injection.,
`No. 17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ, 2020 WL 1180550 (D. Kan. Mar. 10, 2020) ...................... passim
`
`Espenscheid v. DirectSat USA, LLC,
`705 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................40
`
`Exhaust Unlimited, Inc. v. Cintas Corp.,
`223 F.R.D. 506 (S.D. Ill. 2004) ...............................................................................................34
`
`In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litig.,
`No. C 07-0086 SBA, 2010 WL 2332081 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2010) ........................................27
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4214 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 6 of 76 PageID #:281709
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Florida Cement & Concrete Antitrust Litig.,
`278 F.R.D. 674 (S.D. Fla. 2012) ........................................................................................27, 35
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Fluidmaster, Inc., Water Connector Components Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`2017 WL 1196900 (E.D. Ill. March 31, 2017) ..................................................................39, 52
`
`Foday v. Air Check, Inc.,
`2017 WL 2672294 (N.D. Ill. June 21, 2017) ...........................................................................25
`
`In re Ford Motor Co. Ignition Switch Prods. Liab. Litig. v. Ford Motor Co.,
`174 F.R.D. 332 (D.N.J. 1997) ............................................................................................41, 49
`
`Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co.,
`172 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005) ..................................................................................................44
`
`In re Fresh Del Monte Pineapples Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 1:04-MD-1628RMB, 2008 WL 5661873 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2008) ................................27
`
`Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon,
`457 U.S. 147 (1982) .................................................................................................................26
`
`Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc.,
`83 F.3d 610 (3d Cir. 1996), aff’d sub nom Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) .................................................................................................................43
`
`In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litig.,
`251 F.R.D. 139 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) .............................................................................................45
`
`Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc.,
`767 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2014).....................................................................................................42
`
`In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litig.,
`253 F.R.D. 478 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .................................................................................27, 35, 37
`
`Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.,
`573 U.S. 258 (2014) .................................................................................................................26
`
`In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig.,
`552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008).....................................................................................................37
`
`In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litig.,
`No. CA 05-485-JJF, 2010 WL 8591815 (D. Del. July 28, 2010) ............................................27
`
`In re Intuniv Antitrust Litig. (Indirect Purchasers),
`No. 1:16-CV-12396-ADB, 2019 WL 3947262 (D. Mass. Aug. 21, 2019) .......................27, 52
`
`Issacs v. Sprint Corp.,
`261 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................27
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4214 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 7 of 76 PageID #:281710
`
`
`
`
`
`In re K-Dur Antitrust Litig.,
`No. CIV.A. 01-1652 (JAG), 2008 WL 2660723 (D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2008) ................................27
`
`
`
`
`
`Kleen Prods. LLC v. Int’l Paper Co.,
`831 F.3d 919 (7th Circ. 2016) ......................................................................................26, 38, 39
`
`In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation,
`957 F.3d 184,193-94 (3rd Circ. 2020) .....................................................................................28
`
`In re Lamictal,
`957 F.3d at 194 ........................................................................................................................33
`
`In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litig.,
`410 F.Supp.3d 352 (D.R.I. 2019) ............................................................................................50
`
`Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp.,
`109 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................................59
`
`Martz v. PNC Bank, N.A.,
`2007 WL 2343800 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 15, 2007) .........................................................................56
`
`Messner v. Northshore Univ. HealthSystem,
`669 F.3d 802 (7th Circ. 2012) ............................................................................................28, 38
`
`In re Methionine Antitrust Litig.,
`204 F.R.D. 161 (N.D. Cal. 2001) .............................................................................................27
`
`Mowry v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`2007 WL 1772142 (N.D. Ill. June 19, 2007) ...........................................................................56
`
`Muehlbauer v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`2009 WL 874511 (N.D. Ill. 2009) ...........................................................................................48
`
`Oshana v. Coca-Cola Co.,
`225 F.R.D. 575 (N.D. Ill. 2005) ...............................................................................................50
`
`In re Plastic Additives,
`2010 WL 3431837 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2010) ..........................................................................28
`
`In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig.,
`312 F.R.D. 124(E.D. Pa. 2015) ................................................................................................47
`
`In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig.,
`292 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.D.C. 2017) ...........................................................................................38
`
`In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig.,
`725 F.3d 244 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ...........................................................................................26, 29
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4214 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 8 of 76 PageID #:281711
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig.,
`934 F.3d 619 (D.C. Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................52
`
`
`
`
`
`Randall v. Rolls-Royce Corp.,
`637 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................57
`
`Reed v. Advocate Health Care,
`268 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Ill. 2009) ....................................................................................... passim
`
`In re Relafen Antitrust Litig.,
`225 F.R.D. 14 (D. Mass. 2004) ................................................................................................27
`
`Retired Chicago Police Ass’n v. City of Chicago,
`7 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................26, 57
`
`In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc.,
`51 F.3d 1293 (7th Cir. 1995) .............................................................................................43, 50
`
`Riffey v. Rauner,
`910 F.3d 314 (7th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................26, 28, 39, 51
`
`Riffey v. Rauner,
`No. 10 CV 02477, 2016 WL 3165725 (N.D. Ill. June 7, 2016), aff’d, 873 F.3d
`558 (7th Cir. 2017), cert. granted, judgment vacated, 138 S. Ct. 2708, 201 L.
`Ed. 2d 1094 (2018) ............................................................................................................50, 52
`
`Sheet Metal Workers Local 441 Health & Welfare Plan v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC,
`No. CIV.A. 04-5898, 2010 WL 3855552 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2010) .......................................27
`
`In re Skelaxin (Metaxalone) Antitrust Litig.,
`299 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Tenn. 2014)...........................................................................................27
`
`Somers v. Apple, Inc.,
`258 F.R.D. 354 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .............................................................................................27
`
`Spano v. The Boeing Co.,
`633 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................51
`
`In re Steel Antitrust Litig.,
`2015 WL 5304629 (N.D. Ill. 2015) ...................................................................................27, 28
`
`Suchanek v. Sturm Foods, Inc.,
`764 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................28
`
`Susman v. Lincoln Am. Corp.,
`561 F.2d 86 (7th Cir. 1977) .....................................................................................................56
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4214 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 9 of 76 PageID #:281712
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Swan v. Bd. of Educ. of Chicago,
`2013 WL 4047734 ...................................................................................................................26
`
`In re Thalomid & Revlimid Antitrust Litig.,
`No. CV 14-6997, 2018 WL 6573118 (D.N.J. Oct. 30, 2018) ............................................27, 52
`
`Thompson v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc.,
`250 F.R.D. 607 (D. Kan. 2008)................................................................................................46
`
`Turner v. Micro Switch,
`No. 98-cv-50276, 2001 WL 13255 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2001), aff’d sub nom.
`Turner v. Honeywell, Micro Switch Div., 54 F. App’x 236 (7th Cir. 2002) ............................47
`
`Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`564 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) ...............................................................................................48
`
`Vista Healthplan, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc.,
`No. 2:06-CV-1833, 2015 WL 3623005 (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2015) ................................... passim
`
`Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`254 F.R.D. 521 (N.D. Ill. 2008) ...............................................................................................49
`
`Williamson v. S.A. Gear Co.,
`No. 15-CV-365-SMY-DGW, 2018 WL 2735593 (S.D. Ill. June 7, 2018) ..............................51
`
`In re Yasmin & Yaz,
`2012 WL 865041 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2012) .............................................................................52
`
`Statutes
`
`6 R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. § 6-36-7(c) ................................................................................................44
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16750.1 .................................................................................................45
`
`Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-512 ...............................................................................................................45
`
`MCLA § 445.781 ...........................................................................................................................45
`
`Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 752 ..............................................................................................................45
`
`Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10 § 1101 ..........................................................................................................44
`
`N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 75-1 ...........................................................................................................44
`
`N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16.2 ...............................................................................................................45
`
`N.H. Rev. Stat. § 356.12 ................................................................................................................45
`
`N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 340(5) ........................................................................................................45
`viii
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4214 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 10 of 76 PageID #:281713
`
`
`
`N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 340(6) ........................................................................................................44
`
`
`
`Nebraska Consumer Protection Act ...............................................................................................47
`
`New Mexico’s Unfair Trade Practices Act ....................................................................................47
`
`New York’s Donnelly Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 340(1) ...............................................................44
`
`Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 646.715 ........................................................................................................44
`
`S.D. Codified L. § 37-1-3.1 to -3.2 ................................................................................................44
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3)-(4) .............................................................................................................55
`
`Rule 23 ................................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Rule 23(b)(3) ................................................................................................................26, 27, 42, 45
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4214 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 11 of 76 PageID #:281714
`
`
`
`The undersigned Defendants respectfully submit their Opposition to the End-User
`
`
`
`Consumer Plaintiffs’ (the “EUCPs” or “Plaintiffs”) Motion for Class Certification, Dkt. No. 3971
`
`(the “Motion”).
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`EUCPs’ Motion attempts to gloss over the many individualized factors that are fatal to
`
`class certification. Through their Motion, EUCPs seek to certify a class of “millions” of consumers
`
`who purchased thousands of different raw chicken products at grocery and other retail stores in
`
`twenty-five states over a seven-year period.1 EUCPs’ Motion attempts to take the multi-step,
`
`complicated processes of producing, selling, and distributing thousands of chicken products to
`
`millions of consumers and describe it as an uncomplicated process of selling a “commodity.” The
`
`reality is that the thousands of chicken products at issue in this Motion are anything but a
`
`“commodity” product, and the fundamental complexities that pervade every step of the production,
`
`distribution, and sales processes present insurmountable individual issues for the proposed class.
`
`EUCPs’ conspiracy claims fail to get out of the starting gates because their alleged
`
`“production cuts,” which largely took place before EUCPs’ Class Period (January 2012 through
`
`July 2019), did not involve coordinated or even parallel conduct. An examination of actual
`
`production data shows that the Defendants responded differently to “the perfect storm” of
`
`challenging economic circumstances—including the Great Recession, historic droughts, and
`
`exorbitant feed prices. In the face of these challenges, there were no uninform movements in
`
`production. Some Defendants increased production, some decreased production, and others kept
`
`
`1 EUCP Mot. at 20. Although EUCPs assert in their Motion that the class contains “millions of
`consumers,” no EUCP expert actually offered an opinion on the number of proposed class
`members, and EUCPs offer no explanation as to how many “millions” of class members they seek
`to represent. Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Danielle R. Foley,
`
` All Exhibits cited hereto are exhibits to the Foley Declaration.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4214 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 12 of 76 PageID #:281715
`
`
`
`production the same. There simply were no coordinated production cuts that could have impacted
`
`
`
`the EUCP class. Then, during the EUCP Class Period, production actually increased each and
`
`every year.
`
`Against this background, EUCPs’ Motion fails to satisfy the elements of Rule 23 for three
`
`reasons. First, EUCPs cannot show predominance. EUCPs rely upon the expert report of Dr.
`
`Sunding to attempt to satisfy predominance.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` None of Dr. Sunding’s models come close to making these showings. For one,
`
`.2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`from Plaintiffs’ theory of harm.
`
`Even if Dr. Sunding’s models were tied to Plaintiffs’ theory of harm (which they are not),
`
`3 That is, his opinion is disconnected
`
`they are fundamentally flawed and unreliable and cannot show impact on a class-wide basis.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`2
`
`.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4214 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 13 of 76 PageID #:281716
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EUCPs also fail to show that common issues of damages predominate. Again, EUCPs rely
`
`upon Dr. Sunding, and again, Dr. Sunding’s model cannot show class-wide damages using
`
`
`
`common proof.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` On top of these
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4214 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 14 of 76 PageID #:281717
`
`
`
`predominance problems, EUCPs also fail to account for or manageably address the multiple
`
`
`
`substantive conflicts of law that exist between the 25 jurisdictions whose laws they invoke.
`
`Second, EUCPs’ definition of the proposed class is impermissibly broad. As shown by an
`
`examination of Dr. Sunding’s model,
`
`
`
`
`
` EUCPs do not even address
`
`this issue, but instead try to sweep it under the rug by claiming that class members can “self-
`
`identify.” That argument does not provide any method to weed out the uninjured class members,
`
`but rather only highlights the individual inquires that would still need to be done in order to
`
`determine class membership. Nor could EUCPs address this issue by attempting to amend the
`
`class definition. Any attempt to do so would only result in an unmanageable, individualized
`
`inquiry to separate out the uninjured.
`
`Third, EUCPs fail to establish typicality and adequacy. For example,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` For all these reasons, the Motion must be denied.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4214 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 15 of 76 PageID #:281718
`
`
`
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`THE EUCP CLASS DEFINITION
`
`EUCPs seek to certify a class of “end-user consumers who purchased raw breast meat or
`
`raw whole chicken at grocery stores for personal consumption between January 1, 2012 and July
`
`31, 2019.” (Mot. at 4).4 This definition does not include all chicken products purchased by
`
`consumers, but instead, as EUCPs describe it, their class products include “tray pack” chicken,
`
`which is “often packaged in Styrofoam trays.” (Id.). Specifically excluded from this description
`
`is (a) dark meat that is not sold as part of a “whole cut-up bird[] purchased within a package,” and
`
`(b) any chicken (including breast meat or whole birds) that is marketed as “halal, kosher, free
`
`range, organic, diced, minced, ground, seasoned, flavored, or breaded.” (Id. at 6). Despite the
`
`attempt to simplify the class description, this definition includes over 20,000 individual products
`
`purchased by potentially millions of consumers from thousands of different entities in 25 states
`
`over a seven-year period. Any attempt to assess potential impact and damages arising from
`
`EUCPs’ alleged supply restriction conspiracy must consider the complexities of the different types
`
`of chicken products that Defendants produced during the Class Period, the processes through
`
`which Defendants produced those products, and the complex web of distribution and sales that put
`
`those products in the hands of end-user consumers.
`
`
`4 EUCPs’ full definition is: “All persons and entities who indirectly purchased the following types
`raw chicken [sic], whether fresh or frozen: whole birds (with or without giblets), whole cut-up
`birds purchased within a package, breast cuts or tenderloin cuts, but excluding chicken that is
`marketed as halal, kosher, free range, organic, diced, minced, ground, seasoned, flavored or
`breaded – from defendants or co-conspirators for personal consumption in the Repealer
`Jurisdictions from January 1, 2012 to July 31, 2019.” (Mot. at 6). The “Repealer Jurisdictions”
`are California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
`Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
`Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
`Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin. (Id.).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4214 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 16 of 76 PageID #:281719
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`THE REALITIES OF CHICKEN PRODUCTION
`
`In contrast to the picture EUCPs attempt to present, the reality is that the production,
`
`distribution, and pricing of the thousands of different products are complex and multi-faceted
`
`processes. When these complex processes are considered, EUCPs’ allegations of an agreement to
`
`restrict supply fall apart, and the impact, if any, of those allegations on EUCPs cannot be
`
`established on a class-wide basis.
`
`A.
`
`The Different Market Segments, Cuts, and Chicken Products
`
`While EUCPs focus their class definition on fresh or frozen whole bird and breast meat
`
`bought by consumers at retail, those are only a small fraction of the universe of products that
`
`Defendants produce. Defendants produce, process, and package thousands of different types of
`
`“Broiler” chicken products. Broiler chickens are grown to different sizes (generally called “small
`
`bird,” “medium bird,” and “big bird”), with each size intended for sale to a different customer
`
`segment, with different product attributes.5 Defendants sell products derived from these different
`
`bird sizes to thousands of customers, including whole birds sold to club stores, tray packs with
`
`boneless skinless breasts to supermarkets for resale to consumers, breast meat to distributors for
`
`resale to restaurants, customized cut-up products to fast food restaurants, and chicken wings to
`
`wing specialty restaurants.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4214 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 17 of 76 PageID #:281720
`
`
`
`Not surprisingly, Defendants orient their businesses in different ways around these
`
`
`
`different segments. A processor’s ability to slaughter a bird of a certain size does not mean it has
`
`the ability (or strategic interest) to slaughter birds of all sizes. To the contrary, different production
`
`processes—involving different genetic stock and facilities—apply to each of these market
`
`segments, and producers cannot easily convert facilities from one size to another.6 During the
`
`Class Period, there was significant variation among the Defendants in their production for each
`
`segment. For example,
`
`7 Given all of these differences,
`
`
`
`.
`
`7
`
`6
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4214 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 18 of 76 PageID #:281721
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Further complicating the issue is that Defendants process numerous different preparations
`
`and cuts of meat from the birds they produced. C