`
`
`
`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:
`
`Honorable Thomas M. Durkin
`[PUBLIC, REDACTED]
`
`All Commercial and Institutional Indirect
`Purchaser Plaintiff Actions
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL
`INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 2 of 77 PageID #:281943
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 2 of 77 PageID #:281943
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 5
`
`I.
`
`CIIPPS IGNORE COMPLEXITY AND VARIATION IN CHICKEN
`
`DISTRIBUTION AND PURCHASING. ........................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`CIIPPs Are Links In Complex Chicken Distribution Chains. ................................ 5
`
`There Is Widespread Price Variation Within These Distribution Chains............... 7
`
`These Disuibution-Side Dynamics Mean That There Could Be No
`Common Pass-Through Of Alleged Overcharges. ............................................... 13
`
`II.
`
`CIIPPS’ ALLEGATIONS OF COORDINATED “PRODUCTION CUTS”
`
`IGNORE THE REALITIES OF CHICKEN PRODUCTION.......................................... 15
`
`A.
`
`The So-Called Production Cuts Involved Defendants Selling More
`Chicken, Not Less ................................................................................................. 15
`
`B.
`
`Some Defendants Reduced Production In Some Areas To Weather
`
`Historic Economic Turmoil, But Reductions Were Neither Uniform Nor
`Coordinated........................................................................................................... 17
`
`C.
`
`CIIPPs’ Use Of The Term “Broilers” Misleadingly Collapses And
`Simplifies Different Industry Segments, Cuts, and Products. .............................. 20
`
`D.
`
`CIIPPs Also Ignore The Real-World Chicken Production Process. ..................... 23
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................................... 24
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 25
`
`I.
`
`CIIPPS CANNOT ESTABLISH PREDOMINANCE...................................................... 26
`
`A.
`
`Dr. Mangum’s Flawed Models Cannot Conceal The Fact That
`Individualized Inquiries Will Overwhehn Any Common Proof Of
`Antitrust Injury...................................................................................................... 28
`
`I.
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Mangum ’s Model Makes Improper Assumptions, Masks The
`Variation In The Chicken Industry, And Shows No Impact to Many
`Indirect Purchasers................................................................................... 30
`
`CIIPPS ’ Unfounded Georgia Dock Claims Further Exenmlifi/ The
`Individualized Inquiries That Preclude Class Certification Here. ........... 40
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`CIIPPS Cannot Show Class-Wide Damages Using Common Proof..................... 42
`
`In Addition, CIIPPS Cannot Show Predominance Or Superiority Because
`Of Substantive Variations In The Many State Laws Governing Their
`Claims. .................................................................................................................. 45
`
`I.
`
`Material Variations Exist Between The Antitrust Laws Of The
`Twenty-Four Jurisdictions Relied Upon By CIIPPs. ................................ 46
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 3 of 77 PageID #:281944
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 3 of 77 PageID #:281944
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Ilrere Are Substantive Diflerences Between Me Relevant States ’
`Consumer Protection Laws....................................................................... 48
`
`CIIPPs Compound Ille Variability Problem By Bringing Unjust
`Enrichment Claims Under The Laws ofFour Jurisdictions. .................... 50
`
`CIIPPs ’ Proposals To Address Dtflerences In State Laws Are
`Unmanageable And Inadequate................................................................ 51
`
`II.
`
`CIIPPS’ CLASS DEFINITIONS ARE FATALLY OVERBROAD................................ 52
`
`III.
`
`CHPPS FAIL TO ESTABLISH TYPICALITY. .............................................................. 56
`
`IV.
`
`FIGARETTI’S AND SARGENT’S ARE NOT ADEQUATE CLASS
`REPRESENTATIVES ...................................................................................................... 57
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 59
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 4 of 77 PageID #:281945
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`In re Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig.,
`336 F.R.D. 5 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`Am. Exp. Co. v. Italian Colors Rest.,
`570 U.S. 228 (2013) .................................................................................................................24
`
`Anziulewicz v. Bluefield Cmty. Hosp., Inc.,
`531 F.Supp. 49 (S.D.W. Va. 1981) ..........................................................................................58
`
`In re Aqua Dots Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`270 F.R.D. 377 (N.D. Ill. 2010) ...............................................................................................50
`
`Arthur v. Microsoft Corp.,
`267 Neb. 586 (2004) ................................................................................................................46
`
`In re Asacol Antitrust Litig.,
`907 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................53, 55
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. AT&T Corp.,
`339 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................47
`
`Bergstrom v. Noah,
`266 Kan. 829 (1999) ................................................................................................................51
`
`In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,
`288 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 2002) .....................................................................................38, 45, 48
`
`Bunker’s Glass Co. v. Pilkington PLC,
`75 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2003)............................................................................................................51
`
`Cal v. Infineon Techs. AG,
`No. C 06-4333 PJH, 2008 WL 4155665 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2008) .........................................25
`
`CE Design Ltd. v. King Architectural Metals, Inc.,
`637 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................................53, 55
`
`Clark v. Bumbo Int’l Trust,
`No. 15 C 2725, 2017 WL 3704825 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 28, 2017) ...........................................53, 55
`
`Clay v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
`188 F.R.D. 483 (S.D. Ill. 1999) ...............................................................................................50
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 5 of 77 PageID #:281946
`
`
`
`
`
`Clayworth v. Pfizer,
`233 P.3d 1066 (Cal. 2010) .......................................................................................................47
`
`In re Cmty. Bank of N. Va.,
`622 F.3d 275 (3d Cir. 2010).....................................................................................................47
`
`Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,
`569 U.S. 27 (2013) ........................................................................................................... passim
`
`Comes v. Microsoft Corp.,
`646 N.W.2d 440 (Iowa 2002) ..................................................................................................51
`
`Dailey v. Groupon, Inc.,
`No. 11 C 05685, 2014 WL 4379232 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2014) ...............................................43
`
`In re Dairy Farmers of Am., Inc. Cheese Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 09-cv-3690, 2013 WL 4506000 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2013) ..............................................59
`
`Dancel v. Groupon, Inc.,
`949 F.3d 999 (7th Cir. 2019) ..................................................................................................24
`
`Dimidowich v. Bell & Howell,
`803 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................................51
`
`Doster Lighting, Inc. v. E-Conolight, LLC,
`No. 12–C–0023, 2015 WL 3776491 (E.D. Wis. June 17, 2015) .............................................45
`
`In re Epipen Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ, 2020 WL 1180550 (D. Kan. Mar. 10, 2020) ........................48, 49
`
`Espenscheid v. DirectSat USA, LLC,
`No. 12–1943, 2013 WL 407446 (7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2013)..........................................................44
`
`Exhaust Unlimited, Inc. v. Cintas Corp.,
`223 F.R.D. 506 (S.D. Ill. 2004) ...................................................................................31, 32, 36
`
`In re Fla. Cement & Concrete Antitrust Litig.,
`278 F.R.D. 674 (S.D. Fla. 2012) ..................................................................................25, 36, 37
`
`In re Fla. Cement & Concrete Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 09-CV-23187, 2012 WL 27668 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2012) ..................................................34
`
`In re Fluidmaster Inc., Prods. Liab. Litig,
`No. 14-cv-5696, 2017 WL 1196990 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2017) ....................................... passim
`
`In re Ford Motor Co. Ignition Switch Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`174 F.R.D. 332 (D. N.J. 1997) .................................................................................................51
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 6 of 77 PageID #:281947
`
`
`
`
`
`Freeman Industries, LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co.,
`172 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005) ..................................................................................................51
`
`General Telephone Co. v. Falcon,
`457 U.S. 147 (1982) .................................................................................................................24
`
`Gordon v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc.,
`No. 14 C 5848, 2019 WL 498937 (N.D. Ill. 2019) ..................................................................24
`
`In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litig.,
`251 F.R.D. 139 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) .............................................................................................48
`
`Grandalski v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc.,
`767 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2014)...............................................................................................45, 52
`
`In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litig.,
`253 F.R.D. 478 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ..................................................................................... passim
`
`Hettinger v. Glass Specialty Co.,
`59 F.R.D. 286 (N.D. Ill. 1973) .................................................................................................38
`
`In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig.,
`552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008)...............................................................................................25, 38
`
`In re IMAX Sec. Litig.,
`272 F.R.D. 138 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) .............................................................................................58
`
`In re Intuniv Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 1:16-cv-12396-ADB, 2019 WL 3947262 (D. Mass. Nov. 6, 2019) .................................53
`
`Kartman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`634 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................57
`
`In re Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litig.,
`383 F. Supp. 3d 187 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) ......................................................................................54
`
`Kleen Products LLC v. Int’l Paper Co.,
`831 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig.,
`957 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2020)............................................................................................. passim
`
`Lee v. Chicago Youth Centers,
`69 F. Supp. 3d 885 (N.D. Ill. 2014) .........................................................................................54
`
`In re LIBOR-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig.,
`299 F. Supp. 3d 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ......................................................................................59
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 7 of 77 PageID #:281948
`
`
`
`
`
`Lipton v. Chattem, Inc.,
`289 F.R.D. 456 (N.D. Ill. 2013) ...............................................................................................61
`
`MacNamara v. City of New York,
`275 F.R.D. 125, 143-44 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ...............................................................................59
`
`Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
`666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................48
`
`Messner v. Northshore Univ. Health Sys.,
`669 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`In re Methionine Antitrust Litig.,
`204 F.R.D. 161 (N.D. Cal. 2001) .............................................................................................36
`
`Miller v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`Nos. 98 C 7386, 98 C 2851, 2003 WL 168626 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2003) ................................49
`
`Muehlbauer v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`No. 05 C 2676, 2009 WL 874511 (N.D. Ill. March 31, 2009) ................................................50
`
`Muro v. Target Corp.,
`580 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................56
`
`In re Optical Disk Drive Antitrust Litig.,
`303 F.R.D. 311 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .............................................................................................57
`
`Oshana v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.,
`225 F.R.D. 575 (N.D. Ill. 2005) ...............................................................................................53
`
`Orlowski v. Dominick’s Finer Foods, Inc., ,
`172 F.R.D. 370 (N.D. Ill. 1997) ..............................................................................................59
`
`In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp.,
`448 B.R. 896 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2011) ......................................................................................2
`
`In re Pilgrims Pride Corp.,
`728 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................43
`
`In re Plastic Additives Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 03–CV–2038, 2010 WL 3431837 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 2010) ......................................28, 40
`
`In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig.,
`312 F.R.D. 124 (E.D. Pa. 2015) ...................................................................................25, 39, 49
`
`In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig.,
`292 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.D.C. 2017) ...........................................................................................42
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 8 of 77 PageID #:281949
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig.,
`934 F.3d 619 (D.C. Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................53
`
`In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig.,
`725 F.3d 244 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ...........................................................................................24, 28
`
`Randall v. Rolls-Royce Corp.,
`637 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................58
`
`Reed v. Advocate Health Care,
`268 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Ill. 2009) ....................................................................................... passim
`
`Reed v. Advocate Health Care,
`No. 06 C 3337, 2009 WL 3146999 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2009) .................................................32
`
`In re Relafen Antitrust Litig.,
`221 F.R.D. 260 (D. Mass. 2004) ..............................................................................................46
`
`Retired Chicago Police Ass’n v. City of Chicago,
`7 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 1993) ...........................................................................................24, 57, 59
`
`In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc.,
`51 F.3d 1293 (7th Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................................45
`
`Riffey v. Rauner,
`910 F.3d 314 (7th Cir. 2018) .............................................................................................27, 43
`
`Riffey v. Rauner,
`No. 10 CV 02477, 2016 WL 3165725 (N.D. Ill. June 7, 2016) ...............................................53
`
`Shady Grove Orthopedic Assoc., P.A. v. All State Ins. Co.,
`559 U.S. 393 (2010) .................................................................................................................24
`
`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) .......................................39
`
`Siegel v. Shell Oil Co.,
`256 F.R.D. 580 (N.D. Ill. 2008) ...............................................................................................45
`
`In re Skelaxin (Metaxalone) Antitrust Litig.,
`299 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Tenn. 2014) ...............................................................................25, 46, 50
`
`Spano v. The Boeing Co.,
`633 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................53
`
`Sperry v. Crompton Corp.,
`8 N.Y.3d 204 (2007) ................................................................................................................51
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 9 of 77 PageID #:281950
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Steel Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 08 C 5214, 2015 WL 5304629 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 9, 2015) ........................................... passim
`
`Suchanek v. Sturm Foods, Inc.,
`764 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................26
`
`In re Thalomid & Revlimid Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 14-6997, 2018 WL 6573118 (D.N.J. Oct. 30, 2018) ........................................................53
`
`Thompson v. Jiffy Lube Int., Inc.,
`250 F.R.D. 607 (D. Kan. 2008) ...............................................................................................48
`
`Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.,
`547 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................49
`
`Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`564 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) ...............................................................................................51
`
`Vista Health Plan, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc.,
`No. 2:06–cv–1833, 2015 WL 3623005 (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2015) ................................... passim
`
`In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation,
`259 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2003) .............................................................................................47
`
`Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`254 F.R.D. 521 (N.D. Ill. 2008) ...............................................................................................50
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (2011) .................................................................................................................24
`
`Windham v. Am. Brands, Inc.,
`565 F.2d 59 (4th Cir. 1977) .....................................................................................................38
`
`Statutes
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 16750.1 .................................................................................................47
`
`DC ST § 28-4509(b) ......................................................................................................................47
`
`Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-512 ...............................................................................................................47
`
`MCLA § 445.781 ...........................................................................................................................47
`
`Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 752 ..............................................................................................................47
`
`N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16.2 ...............................................................................................................47
`
`N.H. Rev. Stat. § 356.12 ................................................................................................................47
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 10 of 77 PageID #:281951
`
`
`
`
`N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 340(5) ........................................................................................................47
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) ...................................................................................................................56
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)..................................................................................................................54
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)......................................................................................................26, 47, 54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 11 of 77 PageID #:281952
`
`
`The undersigned Defendants respectfully submit their Opposition to the Commercial and
`
`Institutional Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ (“CIIPPs”) Motion for Class Certification (Dkt. 3968).1
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Faced with a complex industry involving countless individualized factors relating to
`
`production and sales, CIIPPs do the only thing they can to seek certification of their untenable
`
`classes: oversimplify and aggregate. After reading their Motion, one would think that Defendants
`
`produce identical widgets that CIIPPs purchased through a “straightforward distribution chain”
`
`(MOL at 41)—all of which purportedly renders class certification little more than a speed bump.
`
`But that could not be further from the truth.
`
`CIIPPs’ Motion is crafted to mask the individualized issues that ultimately doom it.
`
`CIIPPs’ expert, Dr. Mangum, attempts to build a supply model to support CIIPPs’ allegations of
`
`“coordinated production cuts” in the supply of chicken. But this supply model ignores reality.
`
`
`1 Together with the accompanying Memorandum of Law (Dkt. 3968-1, or “MOL”), the “Motion”.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 12 of 77 PageID #:281953
`
`
`
`
`The same can be said for CIIPPs’ treatment of the actual products Defendants produce in
`
`Dr. Mangum’s overcharge model. Dr. Mangum and CIIPPs treat all “CIIPP Class Products”2 as
`
`undifferentiated items made by undifferentiated producers. Even a basic understanding of the
`
`industry reveals that CIIPPs’ assumptions lack any basis in reality. The so-called CIIPP Class
`
`Products consist of over 21,000 different chicken products produced for customers serving
`
`different customer segments, with different supply and demand characteristics, and produced from
`
`different sized birds, which require different processing facilities and methods. Dr. Mangum’s
`
`overcharge model also fails to account for the complexities of the distribution chains (in which
`
`CIIPPs—a mix of large and small entities—are but one link); the individual negotiations that occur
`
`at each link of those chains and resulting multitude of pricing mechanisms; and the impossibility
`
`of common pass-through given these dynamics. In light of these errors, the Motion fails under
`
`Rule 23 for several independent reasons.
`
`First, CIIPPs’ reliance on Dr. Mangum’s models cannot satisfy the critical requirement of
`
`predominance. Perhaps the most fundamental flaw is Dr. Mangum’s inability to separate lawful
`
`production decisions—such as reductions in production overseen by a federal bankruptcy court
`
`during Pilgrim’s Pride’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy—from allegedly unlawful ones.3 The models also
`
`rely on unreasonable assumptions, including that Defendants could have increased production to
`
`levels beyond their physical or financial capacity. Dr. Mangum’s overcharge model yields
`
`
`2 CIIPP Class Products, which the Motion terms “Broilers,” includes “chickens raised for meat
`consumption to be slaughtered before the age of 13 weeks, and which may be sold in a variety of
`forms, including fresh or frozen, and whole or in parts, but excluding [1] chicken that is grown,
`processed, and sold according to halal, kosher, free range, or organic standards[;] [2] dark meat
`chicken products[;]” and [3] “‘further processed’ products,” which CIIPPs define as “any chicken
`meat that has been breaded, cooked, or ‘formed’[.]” MOL at 2, n.1.
`3 In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 448 B.R. 896, 905-07 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2011) (Pilgrim’s had
`“incurr[ed] huge losses that could best be stemmed by reducing their production . . . [and] clearly
`had a valid business purpose for their actions.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 13 of 77 PageID #:281954
`
`
`
`
`nonsensical results,
`
`
`
` Through rote reliance on averaging, Dr. Mangum ignores
`
`varied pricing mechanisms and fails to reliably show common pass-through. Indeed, Dr. Mangum
`
`includes a material percentage of false positives, claiming injury to indirect purchasers that were
`
`unharmed by any alleged conspiracy. Any one of these flaws shows Dr. Mangum’s overcharge
`
`model cannot survive a “rigorous analysis” and cannot support class certification. And even if the
`
`models were sound (they are not), CIIPPs cannot meet the predominance standard because they
`
`fail to establish a manageable way to address the substantive conflicts of law that exist between
`
`the 31 jurisdictions whose laws they invoke.4
`
`Second, CIIPPs seek to certify an impermissibly broad class of nearly one million entities
`
`that purchased chicken for over a decade. Yet, CIIPPs have not met their burden of reliably
`
`showing class-wide impact. To do so, CIIPPs must show that (i) direct purchasers in CIIPPs’
`
`supply chain paid an overcharge; and (ii) the overcharge was passed on to CIIPPs in a common
`
`way. Dr. Mangum’s models cannot meet this task. First, the so-called overcharge models do not
`
`show overcharges for various Defendants at various points in time:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`impacted on such sales when there was no overcharge in the first place? Similarly, a closer look at
`
`Dr. Mangum’s proposed economic models reveals periods of time where there are no overcharges
`
` How could any CIIPP have been
`
`
`4 Collectively, the proposed state law damages classes and the national class for injunctive relief
`are referred to as the “Proposed Classes”.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 14 of 77 PageID #:281955
`
`
`
`
`for entire segments of the industry. Even after assuming a conspiracy, Dr. Mangum’s models are
`
`riddled with errors that still show no overcharge or pass-through.
`
`Third, CIIPPs’ named class representatives fail to fulfill Rule 23’s requirement of
`
`typicality.
`
`
`
`
`
` The differences in the
`
`claims of purported antitrust injuries between CIIPPs means that the class representatives do not
`
`bring claims that are typical of absent class members.
`
`Finally,
`
`two class representatives—Figaretti’s and Sargent’s—are not adequate
`
`representatives.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Without class representatives, these state classes fail.
`
`At bottom, Dr. Mangum’s models cannot withstand the rigorous analysis required for class
`
`certification. The flaws in his models and arguments are glaringly apparent, and Rule 23 requires
`
`far more. Chicken sold to restaurants are not undifferentiated widgets. Poultry producers are not
`
`undifferentiated manufacturers. And, critically, the distribution chain and negotiations at each step
`
`between producers and CIIPPs do not amount to a “straightforward” path to easy class
`
`certification. CIIPPs’ Motion should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 15 of 77 PageID #:281956
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS5
`
`I.
`
`CIIPPS
`
`IGNORE COMPLEXITY AND VARLATION IN CHICKEN
`
`DISTRIBUTION AND PURCHASING.
`
`C IIPPs ignore the c0111 lexi
`
`and variabili
`
`in the distribution chain.
`
`
`
`
`CIIPPS Are Links In Complex Chicken Distribution Chains.
`
`A.
`
`5 The Motion includes several assertions that are unsupported by the cited exhibits. While those
`bearing 011 class certification are discussed in this 0
`osition. several others sirn l misrepresent
`(MOL at 14).
`
`Appendix A includes several of the most egregious examples. including some that actually are
`contradicted by the documents to which CIIPPs point for support.
`
`6 Defendants’ Opposition to Direct Pru‘chaser Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. filed
`January 22. 2021.
`
`7 Expert Report of Dr. Joln1 G. Johnson. IV (“Jolnrson Rep”) dated Jan. 22. 2021 and Appendices.
`filed concurrently herewith.
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 16 of 77 PageID #:281957
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 16 of 77 PageID #:281957
`
`6
`
`See, e.g.‘ Ex. 1 (Telavi Hospitality 30(b)(6) Dep. 54:6-54z25):
`EX. 2 (Sullot C011). 30(b)(6) Dep. 37124-3818); Ex. 3 (Wildwood Tavern 30(b)(6) Dep. 23 :7-24: 12).
`
`8 See Dkt. N0. 4118 at 8, 12.
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 17 of 77 PageID #:281958
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 17 of 77 PageID #:281958
`
`B.
`
`There Is \Videspread Price Variation Within These Distribution Chains.
`
`11 Johnson Rep. at 11 141: see also Id. at
`Foods 30(b)(6) Dep. 118: 15—23)
`
`— 7
`
`10 Ex. 4 (Cheney Brothers 30(b)(6) Dep. 29:22-30:11); EX. 5 (Alabama Joe’s 30(b)(6) Dep. 96:15-
`97:20); Ex. 6 (T. Sargent Dep. 79:7-12).
`
`;
`
`A
`
`.
`
`.
`
`'
`
`. 50:14-5127 ; Ex. 8 (US
`
`12 EX. 9 (Pilgrim’s Pride 30(b)(6) Dep. 27318-2814. 2922-315); EX. 10 (Krispy Kmnchy Foods
`30(b)(6) Dep. 135:4—7).
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 18 of 77 PageID #:281959
`Case: 1:16-cv-O8637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 18 of 77 PageID #:281959
`
`14 See Johnson Rep. at W 141, n.299. 159. Ex. 26
`
`14 CASEFOODSOOOO613856)—).
`
`15 Johnson Re .
`
`160: see also EX. 13 Sanderson Farms 30 b 6 De . 8425-8618
`
`Little) Dep. 8414-853).
`
`See Ex. 11 PILGRIMS-OOOOO48617).
`See, e.g., Ex. 12 (Koch 30(b)(6)
`(J. Marler) Dep. 17:4-13): Ex. 13 (Sanderson Farms 30(b)(6) Dep. 52:24-53:16).
`
`151. n.339: see also Ex. 13 Sanderson Farms 30(b 6 De . 95:5-97:7)
`
`Ex. 10 Kr15py Kmnc 1y Foo s 30(
`
`(6) Dep. 13524-8
`
`17 Johnson Re .
`
`160: see also EX. 15 (C. Thom son De . 57:16-58:17
`
`):
`
`.
`
`Ex. 9 Pilgrim’s Pride 30 b 6 De . 39:15-40:31 4928-5016 ; Ex. 16 PILGRIMS-0010293430
`
`EX. 17 (hillountaire 30(b)(6) (M.
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 19 of 77 PageID #:281960
`
`
`
`CIIPPs ignore these variations. some of which their expert acknowledged. and en‘oneously
`
`asselt that “widespread use of fonnulaic pricing and plicing indices contributes to common
`
`iin act.” MOL at 23-24.
`
`
`
`18 Ex. 9 Pilgrim’s Pride 30 b 6 De .31:6-22 :Ex. 18 PILGRIMS-0002592528) (-
`
`
`19 Ex. 19 (Pacific Food Distributors 30(b)(6) Dep. 71 : 15-21, 72: 1 1-17
`
`41:13—42:2.
`
`20
`
`See Ex. 9 (Pilgrim’s Pride 30(b)(6) Dep. 24214-2513“ 27118-2824. 2922-3014. 5518-15).
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 20 of 77 PageID #:281961
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 20 of 77 PageID #:281961
`
`10
`
`21 See, gag” Ex. 9 Pilgrim’s Pride 30(b)(6) Dep. 39215-4013)
`: Ex. 13 (Sanderson Farms 30(b)(6) Dep. 86:7-18
`); Ex. 23 (B. Reese Dep. 200:23-202223
`. Morgan Dep. 125:16-126219)
`
`32 See, 6.2., Ex. 25 SYS-BR-0000054031)
`; Ex. 26 (Sanderson—0004518261)
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 21 of 77 PageI