throbber
Case: 1:16-cv-08637 Document #: 4216 Filed: 01/22/21 Page 1 of 77 PageID #:281942
`
`
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket