IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
`
`
`
`FOOD LION, LLC, and MARYLAND
`AND VIRGINIA MILK PRODUCERS
`COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
` v.
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC., )
`
`
`
`
`)
`Defendant.
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`1:20-CV-442
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.’s
`
`(“DFA”) Motion for Protective Order as to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production of
`
`Documents. (Docket Entry 52.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants in part and
`
`denies in part Defendant’s motion for a protective order and orders Defendant to respond to
`
`Plaintiffs’ requests for production as set forth below.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Food Lion and MDVA filed this action against DFA seeking injunctive relief pursuant
`
`to Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 2. (See generally Compl., Docket Entry 1.) Plaintiff Food Lion is a North Carolina limited
`
`liability company that operates approximately 600 supermarkets in the Carolinas, making it
`
`one of the largest retail purchasers of fluid milk in the region. (Compl. ¶ 1.) Plaintiff MDVA
`
`is a dairy cooperative with approximately 950 member farms throughout the Mid-Atlantic and
`
`Southeast. (Id. ¶ 2.) Defendant DFA is the largest dairy cooperative in the United States, and
`
`
`
`1
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 66 Filed 10/06/20 Page 1 of 16
`
`

`

`as of May 2020, the largest milk producer and largest milk processor in the United States. (Id.
`
`¶¶ 3, 95.) Food Lion and MDVA allege that DFA has engaged in anti-competitive conduct
`
`that will enable the monopolization of the dairy supply chain. (See id. ¶¶ 135-37.) More
`
`specifically, Plaintiffs contend that DFA consolidated the dairy industry through the
`
`enforcement of a twenty-year non-compete deal (the “Side Note”) made in 2001 with the
`
`newly merged Dean Foods Company and subsequent supply agreements. (Id. ¶¶ 39-49.)
`
`Plaintiffs allege that the most recent manifestation of DFA’s market consolidation is its May
`
`1, 2020 acquisition of forty-four milk processing plants from Dean’s bankruptcy estate (“Asset
`
`Sale”), including three plants in the Carolinas. (Id. ¶¶ 86-96.) Food Lion and MDVA seek an
`
`injunction requiring DFA to divest at least one of these plants. (Id. ¶ 173.)
`
`Food Lion and MDVA filed their Complaint on May 19, 2020. (Docket Entry 1.)
`
`They then filed a motion to expedite discovery, which the Court granted. (Docket Entries 20,
`
`28.) Food Lion and MDVA served Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production on June
`
`17, 2020. (Ex. 1, Docket Entry 56-1.) Food Lion and MDVA served their Combined Second
`
`Set of Requests for Production on July 27, 2020. (Ex. 1, Docket Entry 53-1.) Defendant filed
`
`its Motion for Protective Order as to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production of
`
`Documents on September 1, 2020. (Docket Entry 52.)
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`Federal Rule 26 provides general rules regarding the scope of discovery:
`
`Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
`to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
`considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
`controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
`resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether
`the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 66 Filed 10/06/20 Page 2 of 16
`
`

`

`Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence
`to be discoverable.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery rules are to be accorded broad and liberal construction.
`
`See Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947).
`
`Nevertheless, upon a showing of good cause, a court may “issue an order to protect a party
`
`or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “Normally, in determining good cause, a court will balance the interest of
`
`a party in obtaining the information versus the interest of his opponent in keeping the
`
`information confidential or in not requiring its production.” UAI Tech., Inc. v. Valutech, Inc.,
`
`122 F.R.D. 188, 191 (M.D.N.C. 1988) (citation omitted).
`
`Defendant seeks a protective order from this Court providing that DFA need not
`
`respond to Plaintiffs Requests for Production Nos. 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45,
`
`46, 47, 48, 49, and 50. (Docket Entry 52 at 1.)1 Defendant asserts that these sixteen requests
`
`are overbroad, unduly burdensome, lacking in relevance, and/or disproportionate to the needs
`
`of this case. The Court notes at the outset that Plaintiffs have acknowledged that they “bear
`
`a significant responsibility for preparing narrow, targeted discovery” considering the expedited
`
`discovery schedule that they have requested. (Docket Entry 29 at 29:12-22.) Federal Rule 34
`
`further requires that requests for production “describe with reasonable particularity each item
`
`or category of items to be inspected” so that the party to whom the request is directed has
`
`“sufficient information . . . to identify responsive documents.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A);
`
`Hager v. Graham, 267 F.R.D. 486, 493 (N.D.W. Va. 2010). Having set forth fundamental
`
`
`1 All citations in this Order to documents filed with the Court refer to the page numbers located at
`the bottom right-hand corner of the documents as they appear on CM/ECF.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 66 Filed 10/06/20 Page 3 of 16
`
`

`

`principles of discovery and the discovery timeline in this case, the court finds the following as
`
`to each request:
`
`Request No. 25
`
`Request No. 25 seeks:
`
`All documents created since January 1, 2014, concerning or relating to any analyses,
`studies, strategies, plans, assessments, or reports relating to the supply, sale, or purchase
`of raw or processed milk in, into, or from the Relevant Area.
`
`
`(Ex. 1, Docket Entry 53-1 at 13.) DFA contends that this request is overbroad,
`
`disproportionate, and improper because it asks for “all documents . . . concerning or relating
`
`to” the subject matter. (Docket Entry 54 at 18, citing Donnelly v. Arringdon Dev., Inc, No.
`
`1:04CV889, 2005 WL 8167556, at *1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 8, 2005) (unpublished).) Defendants
`
`also challenge the relevance of documents prior to 2017, alleging that Plaintiffs have failed to
`
`explain “why or how analyses of market conditions or market shares from 2014 are probative
`
`of the markets for raw and processed milk as they exist today.” (Id. (emphasis in original).)
`
`The documents are certainly relevant because Plaintiffs allege that the Asset Sale “was
`
`simply the latest action in DFA’s multi-year anticompetitive campaign to monopolize the milk
`
`supply chain in the relevant market.” (Docket Entry 60 at 5-6; see also Compl. ¶¶ 165-66.) The
`
`year 2014 is relevant as the year in which Dean allegedly notified MDVA that it would be
`
`replacing its milk volume with DFA’s pursuant to the Side Note. (Compl. ¶¶ 59-62.)
`
`With regard to the breadth of the request, however, in Donnelly, this Court held that
`
`requests seeking “all documents identified or relied upon in response to [the d]efendant’s
`
`interrogatories” and any photo “concerning the events and happening alleged in the
`
`complaint” were overbroad. 2005 WL 8167556, at *2. The applicable principle from Donnelly
`
`
`
`4
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 66 Filed 10/06/20 Page 4 of 16
`
`

`

`is that “broad and undirected requests for all documents which relate in any way to the
`
`complaint [should be] stricken as too ambiguous.” Id. at *2 n.1 (citing Parsons v. Jefferson-Pilot
`
`Corp., 141 F.R.D. 408, 412 (M.D.N.C. 1992)). In other words, for a request to meet Rule 34’s
`
`mandate, it must not be “so open-ended as to call simply for documents related to a claim or
`
`defense in this action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A); Parsons, 141 F.R.D. at 412. “This test,
`
`however, is a matter of degree depending on the circumstances of the case. Hager, 267 F.R.D.
`
`at 493.
`
`Here, and as compared to Donnelly, Plaintiffs request a specific genre of document:
`
`those concerning analyses, studies, strategies, plans, assessments, or reports. Accordingly, and
`
`contrary to Defendant’s arguments, the request is not overly broad merely by requesting “[a]ll
`
`documents.” It is, however, overbroad as it seeks any such documents “relating to the supply,
`
`sale, or purchase of raw or processed milk in, into, or from the Relevant Area.” Given that
`
`this entire case, and certainly all of DFA’s business, involves the supply, sale or purchase of
`
`raw or processed milk, this request is effectively a request for all materials “in any way
`
`concerning the events and happenings alleged in the complaint.” Donnelly, 2005 WL 8167556,
`
`at *2. Accordingly, Defendant’s protective order is granted as to Request No. 25.
`
`Request No. 26
`
`Request No. 26 seeks:
`
`All documents created since January 1, 2014, concerning or relating to any analyses,
`studies, strategies, plans, assessments, or reports concerning market conditions, market
`participants, market shares, or competitors in the production, processing, or sale of raw
`milk or processed milk in, into, or from the Relevant Area.
`
`
`(Ex. 1, Docket Entry 53-1 at 13.) Defendant argues that this request, like No. 25, is overbroad,
`
`disproportionate, and improperly requests “all documents . . . concerning or relating to” the
`
`
`
`5
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 66 Filed 10/06/20 Page 5 of 16
`
`

`

`subject matter. (Docket Entry 54 at 17-18.) This request, however, is not “too ambiguous”
`
`under Donnelly. 2005 WL 8167556, at *2. As already noted, Plaintiffs have articulated why
`
`documents relating to DFA’s conduct predating 2017 are needed for their Section 2 claims,
`
`and DFA agrees that these documents may be relevant. (Docket Entry 60 at 8-12; Docket
`
`Entry 54 at 18.) Contrary to DFA’s argument that this request would require the production
`
`of all documents that “so much as mention another raw or fluid milk producer in the Relevant
`
`Area,” the Court finds that this request is sufficiently narrowed by the types of documents it
`
`seeks. (Docket Entry 62 at 10-11.) Further the request is only for documents “concerning
`
`market conditions, market participants, market shares, or competitors” rather than more
`
`generally for “reports relating to the supply, sale, or purchase of raw or processed milk” as in
`
`Request No. 25. (Ex. 1, Docket Entry 53-1 at 12.) Therefore, Defendant’s protective order
`
`is denied as to Request No. 26.
`
`Request No. 27
`
`Request No. 27 seeks:
`
`All documents created since January 1, 2014, concerning or relating to MDVA, its
`farmer members, or any other non-DFA producer of raw milk in the Relevant Area.
`
`
`(Ex. 1, Docket Entry 53-1 at 14.) DFA asserts that this request is overbroad and
`
`disproportionate because it seeks documents covering a six-and-a-half-year period and a five-
`
`state area. (Docket Entry 54 at 12.) Plaintiffs agreed in writing to revise this request on
`
`September 9, 2020, so that it now seeks:
`
`All documents created since January 1, 2014, concerning or relating to DFA’s or Dean’s
`strategy in the Relevant Area that mention or relate to MDVA or DFA’s efforts to
`compete with MDVA in the Relevant Area or MDVA’s availability as a supplier to
`Dean.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 66 Filed 10/06/20 Page 6 of 16
`
`

`

`(Ex. A, Docket Entry 60-1 at 3.) DFA contends that the revised request “remains overbroad”
`
`and was untimely made pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order requiring that all requests for
`
`production be served on or before August 31, 2020. (Docket Entry 62 at 4; Stipulated
`
`Discovery and Briefing Schedule/Order ¶ 6, Docket Entry 40.) The Court agrees that that
`
`the original request was facially overbroad. The revised request, however, is sufficiently
`
`narrow. Because the revision was promptly communicated in writing after the Parties met to
`
`discuss the requests, the request will not be disallowed for untimeliness. It appears that there
`
`may be significant overlap between this request and Requests Nos. 4, 22, and 26, in that they
`
`all seek strategy documents. As such, the Court does not find the request unduly burdensome.
`
`DFA’s protective order is denied as to the revised Request No. 27.
`
`Request No. 29
`
`Request No. 29 seeks:
`
`To the extent not produced in response to Plaintiffs’ First Requests, all documents
`concerning or relating to the supply of processed milk in, into, or from the Relevant
`Area by DFA, Dean, or a competitor, to Food Lion and other major customers in
`connection with the purchase of raw or processed milk.
`
`
`(Ex. 1, Docket Entry 53-1 at 14.) The revised request modifies the last clause of the request
`
`to “Food Lion or other major customers in the Relevant Area.” (Docket Entry 62 at 13.)
`
`Plaintiffs argue that any overbreadth can be cured by crafting search terms, for example, to
`
`define what is meant by “major customers.” (Docket Entry 60 at 21-22.) Considering
`
`Plaintiffs’ responsibility to conduct narrow, targeted discovery on this expedited timeline, the
`
`Court finds this request is facially overbroad and fails to “describe with reasonable
`
`particularity” the items sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1). However, the Court recognizes the
`
`importance of this information to proving rising milk prices, the alleged antitrust injury
`
`
`
`7
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 66 Filed 10/06/20 Page 7 of 16
`
`

`

`suffered by Plaintiff Food Lion. (See Compl. ¶¶ 144-46.) As such, the court strikes the phrase
`
`“and other major customers” from the revised Request No. 29, but DFA’s motion for a
`
`protective order as to this request is otherwise denied.
`
`Request No. 31
`
`Request No. 31 seeks:
`
`All documents concerning or relating to DFA’s, Dean’s, or any other company’s
`transaction prices, price lists, pricing plans, price announcements, pricing policies,
`pricing forecasts, pricing strategies, pricing analyses, pricing decisions, or any other
`incentives offered in connection to raw or processed milk sales in, into, or from the
`Relevant Area.
`
`
`(Ex. 1, Docket Entry 53-1 at 14.) Defendant contends that this request is overbroad and
`
`disproportionate. (Docket Entry 54 at 20-21.) Plaintiffs have agreed to the following revision:
`
`Documents sufficient to show DFA’s and Dean’s pricing strategies and methodologies
`for setting prices for sales of raw or processed milk into or from the Relevant Area.
`
`
`(Ex. A, Docket Entry 60-1 at 6.) The Parties do not appear to have addressed this request any
`
`further in their briefs. (See generally Docket Entries 60, 62.) Defendant “does not dispute that
`
`pricing data is relevant to Plaintiffs’ allegations,” and the revised version appears to address
`
`Defendant’s concerns with overbreadth and disproportionality. (Docket Entry 54 at 21.)
`
`Therefore, the Court denies DFA’s motion for a protective order as to the revised Request
`
`No. 31.
`
`Request No. 40
`
`Request No. 40 seeks:
`
`All documents created since January 1, 2016, concerning or relating to the decisions
`and/or actions of Cumberland Dairy in New Jersey and/or DFA to reduce or eliminate
`the volume of raw milk that the Cumberland Dairy processing facility purchased from
`MDVA.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 66 Filed 10/06/20 Page 8 of 16
`
`

`

`(Ex. 1, Docket Entry 53-1 at 16.) Defendant challenges the relevance and proportionality of
`
`this request because it seeks documents relating to a different product market (shelf-stable
`
`milk, not fluid milk) and pre-2017 conduct outside the Relevant Area. (Docket Entry 54 at
`
`15; Docket Entry 62 at 6.) Plaintiffs respond that the evidence sought by this request is
`
`“valuable because DFA’s past conduct in other markets reveals its likely intent and probable
`
`future conduct in the market alleged here.” (Docket Entry 60 at 18.) Defendant responds
`
`that these markets are too distinct to be probative of what actions DFA might take in the
`
`Carolinas. (Docket Entry 62 at 7.)
`
`The documents sought by Request No. 40 relate to Plaintiffs’ allegations. (See Compl.
`
`¶ 112 (“[I]n 2017, DFA purchased Cumberland Dairy . . . Almost immediately following
`
`DFA’s takeover of the facility, MDVA lost all of its raw milk business as Cumberland quickly
`
`switched to DFA for its milk supply.”).) The Court agrees that DFA’s past actions outside of
`
`the Relevant Area may be instructive for understanding DFA’s incentives and future conduct.
`
`The Court does not find this request disproportionate or unduly burdensome because
`
`Cumberland Dairy was specifically mentioned in the Plaintiffs’ complaint, and the time period
`
`of this request predates the Parties’ negotiated default time period for document requests
`
`(January 1, 2017) by only one year. (Docket Entry 60 at 8.) Therefore, DFA’s motion for a
`
`protective order is denied as to Request No. 40.
`
`Request No. 41
`
`Request No. 41 seeks:
`
`All documents created since January 1, 2013, concerning or relating to actions and/or
`decisions by processing facilities owned by or affiliated with Dean and located in
`Kentucky or Tennessee to reduce or eliminate the volume of raw milk purchased from
`MDVA.
`
`
`
`9
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 66 Filed 10/06/20 Page 9 of 16
`
`

`

`
`(Ex. 1, Docket Entry 53-1 at 16.) The revised Request No. 41 now seeks:
`
`Documents created since January 1, 2013, concerning or relating to DFA’s relationship
`with MDVA with respect to the former Dean processing facility in Murray, Kentucky.
`
`(Ex. A, Docket Entry 60-1 at 4.) Defendant makes the same challenges to the relevance and
`
`proportionality of this requests as made in response to Request No. 40 because it seeks pre-
`
`2017 conduct that occurred outside the Relevant area and in a different product market.
`
`(Docket Entry 54 at 16.) The Court agrees. Plaintiffs have made no allegations about a former
`
`Dean processing facility in Murray, Kentucky, and this request spans a significant time period.
`
`(See generally Compl.) Furthermore, Defendant notes that this plant was acquired by Saputo,
`
`Inc. in 2012, prior to the start of the time period indicated in this request. (Docket Entry 62
`
`at 6.) Plaintiffs have not offered any clarification as to why MDVA farmers’ relationship with
`
`a processing facility controlled by neither Dean nor DFA would be probative of what is likely
`
`to happen in the Carolinas due to DFA’s acquisition of processing plants. Therefore,
`
`Defendant’s protective order is granted as to Request No. 41.
`
`Request No. 42
`
`Request No. 42 seeks:
`
`All documents created since January 1, 2013, concerning or relating to
`MDVA farmer members located in Tennessee or Kentucky becoming
`DFA members, including documents relating to DFA’s efforts to recruit
`such farmers, the circumstances that led such farmers to become DFA
`members, and all communications between DFA and such MDVA
`farmers that became DFA members.
`
`(Ex. 1, Docket Entry 53-1 at 16.) Plaintiffs have since withdrawn Request No. 42. (Ex. A,
`
`Docket Entry 60-1 at 4.) Therefore, DFA is not required to produce any documents
`
`responsive to this withdrawn request.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 66 Filed 10/06/20 Page 10 of 16
`
`

`

`Request No. 43
`
`Plaintiff’ original Request No. 43 sought:
`
`All documents created since January 1, 2014, concerning or relating to communications
`between DFA and any MDVA farmer members.
`
`(Ex. 1, Docket Entry 53-1 at 17.) The revised request now seeks:
`
`Documents created since January 1, 2014, reflecting DFA’s efforts to attract or recruit
`MDVA farmers who produce raw milk in or ship raw milk to the Relevant Area,
`including all communications between DFA and MDVA farmers.
`
`(Ex. A, Docket Entry 60-1 at 4.) Defendant argues that this request is disproportionate and
`
`overbroad considering the six-year time period at issue and the fact that MDVA has
`
`“approximately 950 member farms in eleven states throughout the Mid-Atlantic and
`
`Southeast.” (Docket Entry 54 at 12, citing Compl. ¶ 2, Docket Entry 1.) DFA further argues
`
`that “Plaintiffs’ allegations do not provide a basis for this [revised] request.” (Docket Entry
`
`62 at 6.)
`
`The Court agrees that Plaintiffs made no allegations concerning “DFA’s long-term
`
`efforts to recruit MDVA’s member-farmers,” which they now point to as the reason for this
`
`request. (Docket Entry 60 at 17.) Plaintiffs’ complaint does predict a loss of MDVA
`
`membership due to DFA’s acquisition of the three Dean processing facilities in the Carolinas.
`
`(See Compl. ¶¶ 139-41.) But the allegations that MDVA members “will face a choice” between
`
`DFA and other less profitable processors and may choose DFA for economic reasons does
`
`not allege recruitment efforts by DFA. (Id.) Therefore, DFA’s protective order is granted as
`
`to Request No. 43 because the Court does not find this request relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims
`
`as alleged.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 66 Filed 10/06/20 Page 11 of 16
`
`

`

`Request No. 44 through 47
`
`Requests Nos. 44 through 47 seek the following:
`
`Request No. 44: All documents concerning or relating to the formation of the
`Appalachian Dairy Farmers Cooperative.
`
`Request No. 45: All documents concerning or relating to Appalachian Dairy Farmers
`Cooperative, its farmer members, and/or farms that ultimately became members of
`Appalachian Dairy Farmers Cooperative, including any studies, business plans,
`planning documents, analyses, reports, or strategies.
`
`Request No. 46: All documents created since January 1, 2014, concerning or relating
`to Piedmont Milk Sales, LLC, including any studies, business plans, planning
`documents, analyses, reports, or strategies.
`
`Request No. 47: All documents created since January 1, 2014, concerning or relating
`to Cobblestone Milk Cooperative or its farmer members, including any studies,
`business plans, planning documents, analyses, reports, or strategies.
`
`(Ex. 1, Docket Entry 53-1 at 17.) DFA contends that these requests are overbroad and
`
`disproportionate because they are not limited to activities within the relevant area and they are
`
`best obtained from the named entities directly. (Docket Entry 54 at 19.) Plaintiffs agreed in
`
`writing to revise and consolidate these requests on September 9, 2020, so that they now seek:
`
`Request No. 44-45: All documents reflecting studies, business plans, planning
`documents, analyses, reports, or strategies concerning the Appalachian Dairy Farmers
`Cooperative.
`
`Request No. 46: All documents created since January 1, 2014, reflecting analyses,
`studies, strategies, plans, assessments, or reports concerning Piedmont Milk Sales, LLC.
`
`Request No. 47: All documents created since January 1, 2014, reflecting analyses,
`studies, strategies, plans, assessments, or reports concerning Cobblestone Milk
`Cooperative.
`
`
`(Ex. A, Docket Entry 60-1 at 6.) DFA asserts that limiting these requests to studies, business
`
`plans, and analysis does not render them relevant as Plaintiffs have not “alleged actions vis-à-
`
`vis other dairy cooperatives.” (Docket Entry 62 at 12.)
`
`
`
`12
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 66 Filed 10/06/20 Page 12 of 16
`
`

`

`That assertion, however, mischaracterizes Plaintiffs claims. MDVA and Food Lion
`
`contend that “DFA has a history of anti-competitively leveraging its supply agreement to
`
`restrict and eventually eliminate competitors’ access to legacy Dean plants.” (Compl. ¶ 118
`
`(emphasis added).) Even more generally, Plaintiffs assert that this behavior in the Carolinas,
`
`together with behavior in other areas, demonstrates “that DFA has found foreclosure to be a
`
`profitable practice because of its effect on competitors and because it provides leverage to
`
`compel farmers to switch to DFA.” (Id. (emphasis added).) The complaint therefore clearly
`
`expands beyond DFA’s behavior towards MDVA and incorporates its alleged actions towards
`
`other dairy cooperatives more generally.
`
`However, while Plaintiffs do mention competitors generally, they fail to mention
`
`Appalachian Dairy Farmers Cooperative or Piedmont Milk Sales, LLC, specifically in their
`
`complaint. It is therefore not clear on the face of the complaint why DFA’s actions against
`
`these particular dairy cooperatives are relevant to this dispute, and Plaintiffs have not offered
`
`much in the way of clarification. Whatever benefit Plaintiffs will derive from obtaining these
`
`documents is outweighed by the burden on DFA to produce them, given the lack of
`
`geographical limitation in the requests and the six-year time period at issue. Finally, to the
`
`extent that these requests seek information about market competitors in the Relevant Area,
`
`Request No. 26 is broad enough to capture such relevant information.
`
`Accordingly, the Court grants DFA’s motion for a protective order as to Requests Nos.
`
`44 through 47. To the extent Plaintiffs want more information than what DFA must produce
`
`pursuant to other requests for production, they can acquire it from those entities directly.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 66 Filed 10/06/20 Page 13 of 16
`
`

`

`Request No. 48
`
`Request No. 48 seeks:
`
`All documents created since January 1, 2014, concerning or relating to
`communications between DFA or Dean and Cobblestone Milk Cooperative or any of
`its farmer members.
`
`(Ex. 1, Docket Entry 53-1 at 17.) As with Requests Nos. 44 through 47, DFA contends that
`
`this request is overbroad and disproportionate because it is not limited to activities within the
`
`relevant area and covers an extensive time period. (Docket Entry 54 at 19). Plaintiffs agreed
`
`in writing to revise this request on September 9, 2020, so that it now seeks:
`
`All communications since January 1, 2014, between DFA or Dean and Cobblestone
`Milk Cooperative relating to MDVA or efforts to compete with MDVA in the Relevant
`Area.
`
`
`(Ex. A, Docket Entry 60-1 at 6.) Defendant asserts that the revised request still seeks irrelevant
`
`information insofar as it requests communications between DFA or Dean and Cobblestone
`
`dating back to 2014. (Docket Entry 62 at 13.)
`
`
`
`As follows under the analysis for Requests Nos. 44 through 47, Cobblestone Milk
`
`Cooperative is not mentioned in Plaintiffs’ complaint, which raises questions about the original
`
`Request No. 48’s relevance. However, unlike Requests Nos. 44 through 47, the revised
`
`Request No. 48 seeks communications “relating to MDVA or efforts to compete with MDVA in
`
`the Relevant Area,” thereby drawing a nexus with MDVA that Requests Nos. 44 through 47
`
`lack. The request is also geographically limited to the Relevant Area, rendering it proportional.
`
`Accordingly, the DFA’s motion for a protective order as to Request No. 48 is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 66 Filed 10/06/20 Page 14 of 16
`
`

`

`Request No. 49
`
`Plaintiffs’ original Request No. 49 sought:
`
`All documents related to or used in the preparation of any allegation, denial, or
`affirmative defense raised in Your pleadings in the Pending Action.
`
`(Ex. 1, Docket Entry 53-1 at 17.) As revised, the request now seeks:
`
`Documents and Data supporting, contradicting, referring to, or relating to DFA’s
`affirmative defenses or Plaintiffs’ allegations that the Asset Sale will have the effect of
`substantially lessening competition, or to Plaintiffs’ allegations that DFA has attempted
`to monopolize the market for raw fluid milk in the relevant geographic area.
`
`
`(Ex. A, Docket Entry 60-1 at 5.) The original request is plainly overbroad, and the revised
`
`version does not effectively narrow the breadth of documents sought. This request clearly
`
`runs afoul of the principle that requests for production cannot be “so open-ended as to call
`
`simply for documents related to a claim or defense in this action.” Parsons, 141 F.R.D. at 412.
`
`Therefore, DFA’s motion for a protective order as to Request No. 49 is granted.
`
`Request No. 50
`
`Request No. 50 seeks:
`
`All documents pertaining to, relied upon, identified, or referred to by You in
`responding to any Interrogatory propounded by Plaintiffs in the Pending Action.
`
`(Ex. 1, Docket Entry 53-1 at 17.) The Court finds this request overbroad for the same reasons
`
`articulated immediately above. Therefore, DFA’s motion for a protective order as to Request
`
`No. 50 is granted.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion
`
`for Protective Order as to Plaintiffs’ Second Requests for Production of Documents (Docket
`
`Entry 52) is GRANTED IN PART (as to Requests Nos. 25, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49 and
`
`
`
`15
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 66 Filed 10/06/20 Page 15 of 16
`
`

`

`50) AND DENIED IN PART (as to Request Nos. 26, 27, 29, 31, 40 and 48). DFA shall
`
`supplement its responses as stated herein no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this
`
`Order.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`October 6, 2020
`Durham, North Carolina
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`___________________________
` Joe L. Webster
` United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`16
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00442-CCE-JLW Document 66 Filed 10/06/20 Page 16 of 16
`
`