CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 517 Filed 09/22/20 Page 1 of 2
`
`quinn emanuel trial lawyers | new york
`
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100
`
`September 22, 2020
`
`VIA ECF
`Honorable John R. Tunheim
`Chief U.S. District Judge, District of Minnesota
`U.S. Courthouse, Suite 15
`300 South Fourth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55415
`
`Re:
`
`In re Pork Antitrust Litig., Civ. No. 18-cv-1776 (JRT/HB)
`
`Dear Chief Judge Tunheim:
`
`We represent JBS USA Food Company. We write on behalf of all Defendants in response to
`Plaintiffs’ September 18, 2020 letter (the “Letter”), concerning Jien, et al. v. Perdue Farms, Inc.,
`et al., Civ. No. 1:19-CV-2521-SAG (D. Md. September 16, 2020).
`
`Defendants do not undertake here to address the merits of, or their disagreement with, the Jien
`opinion (which they would be prepared to do at an appropriate time if requested by the Court).
`But we write because Jien is not, as Plaintiffs assert, about “whether an Agri Stats-led information
`exchange agreement is sufficient to support a rule of reason claim.” Letter at 1. To begin with,
`Jien in fact dismissed per se antitrust claims against most defendants based on group pleading and
`failure to allege parallel conduct. Jien at 18.
`
`While Jien did not dismiss rule of reason claims as to some defendants, the court there focused on
`“alleged specific, secret meetings between poultry executives in which extensive poultry
`processing wage data was exchanged” and that “Defendants’ executives in attendance at the secret
`meetings discuss and agree on salary raises and bonus budgets for the coming year.” Jien at 26,
`4 (emphases added). The plaintiffs in turn alleged that the exchange of Agri Stats data was a means
`to enforce the agreements made at those secret meetings. Id. at 26 (“Moreover, Defendant
`Processors are alleged to have used Agri Stats to monitor competitors’ adherence to this plan, Id.
`at 46, and to have chastised processors who deviated from this set compensation level.”). Here,
`by contrast, there are no alleged secret meetings, and the exchange of Agri Stats data is not alleged
`to be an enforcement mechanism, but instead to be the agreement itself.
`
`Finally, Jien noted that the plaintiffs there alleged a “plethora of specific allegations regarding
`detailed and highly sensitive present and future wage data exchanged among ostensible
`competitor Defendant Processors.” Jien at 26 (emphases added); id. at 27 (Agri Stats’ “real-time,
`and current wage data”) (emphases added); id. at 5 (“The data distributed by Agri Stats includes
`current wage and salary data.”) (emphasis added). Here, by contrast – where pork prices fluctuate
`so frequently that the USDA requires pork processors to report detailed price information once or
`twice daily, including “[t]he price for each wholesale pork sale,” 7 C.F.R. § 59.205; see also Dkt.
`476 at 21-22 – Plaintiffs have conceded that the pricing information provided by Agri Stats was
`not current but instead “generally two to six weeks old.” Dkt. 476 at 52 (emphasis added); see
`also IPP 2nd Am. Compl. ¶¶ 43, 47.
`
`

`

`CASE 0:18-cv-01776-JRT-HB Doc. 517 Filed 09/22/20 Page 2 of 2
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Stephen R. Neuwirth
`
`cc: Counsel of Record via ECF
`
`2
`
`