throbber
Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`Nos. 20-1045 & 20-1127
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
`
`IN RE: PROCESSED EGG PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`THE KROGER CO., SAFEWAY, INC., ROUNDY’S SUPERMARKETS,
`INC., WALGREEN CO., HY-VEE, INC., ALBERTSONS LLC, THE
`GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, H.E. BUTT
`GROCERY COMPANY, SUPERVALU INC., PUBLIX SUPER
`MARKETS, INC., GIANT EAGLE, INC., AND
`WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC.
`v.
`ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC., UNITED EGG PRODUCERS, INC. AND
`UNITED STATES EGG MARKETERS, INC.
`
`Appeal from the judgment entered on December 16, 2019, as
`amended on January 6, 2020, in the United States District
`Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
`(No. 08-md-2002)
`
`
`
`OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
`ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC.
`
`James A. King
`Eric B. Gallon
`PORTER, WRIGHT,
`MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
`41 S. High Street
`Suite 3100
`Columbus OH 43215
`(614) 227-2000
`
`
`Donald M. Barnes
`Jay L. Levine
`PORTER, WRIGHT,
`MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP
`2020 K Street, NW
`Suite 600
`Washington DC 20006
`(202) 778-3021
`
`
`Counsel for Rose Acre Farms, Inc.
`(Additional counsel listed on next page)
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`Robert M. Palumbos
`Leah A. Mintz
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`30 South 17th Street
`Philadelphia PA 19103
`(215) 979-1111
`
`Counsel for Rose Acre Farms, Inc.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND
`STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTEREST
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 26.1 and Third Circuit LAR 26.1,
`Appellee/Cross-Appellant Rose Acre Farms, Inc. makes the
`following disclosure:
`
`
`For non-governmental corporate parties please list all
`1)
`parent corporations:
`None.
`For non-governmental corporate parties please list all
`2)
`publicly held companies that hold 10% or more of the party’s
`stock:
`
`None.
`If there is a publicly held corporation which is not a
`3)
`party to the proceeding before this Court but which has a financial
`interest in the outcome of the proceeding, please identify all such
`parties and specify the nature of the financial interest or interests:
`None.
`In all bankruptcy appeals counsel for the debtor or
`4)
`trustee of the bankruptcy estate must list: 1) the debtor, if not
`identified in the case caption; 2) the members of the creditors’
`committee or the top 20 unsecured creditors; and, 3) any entity not
`named in the caption which is an active participant in the
`bankruptcy proceeding. If the debtor or trustee is not participating
`in the appeal, this information must be provided by appellant.
`Not applicable.
`
`July 1, 2020
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jay L. Levine
`Counsel for Rose Acre Farms, Inc.
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`Introduction ..................................................................................... 1
`Jurisdictional Statement ................................................................. 4
`Counter-Statement of Issues Presented for Review by
`Appellants ............................................................................... 4
`Statement of Issues Presented for Review by Cross-
`Appellant Rose Acre ............................................................... 5
`Statement of Related Case .............................................................. 7
`Statement of the Case...................................................................... 8
`I.
`The Alleged Conspiracy .......................................................... 8
`A.
`The Certified Program ................................................... 9
`1.
`Development of the Certified Program in
`response to customer requests ............................. 9
`The implementation and evolution of the
`Certified Program ............................................... 13
`The Certified Program never restricted
`production ........................................................... 15
`DAPs’ continued demand for Certified eggs ...... 16
`4.
`B. UEP’s Supply Management Recommendations .......... 17
`C. USEM’s Egg Exports ................................................... 18
`II. DAPs Repeatedly Described the Alleged Conspiracy as
`Containing Three Components ............................................ 19
`A. DAPs defeated Rose Acre’s counterclaims based
`on their allegation of a three-part conspiracy ............. 19
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`D.
`
`B. DAPs relied on their allegation of a single
`conspiracy with multiple components at summary
`judgment ...................................................................... 21
`C. Before trial, DAPs specifically represented to the
`District Court that they were prosecuting a three-
`component conspiracy .................................................. 22
`D. DAPs succeeded in admitting evidence at trial
`based on their allegation of a single conspiracy
`with three components ................................................ 25
`III. The Jury Instructions ........................................................... 27
`Scope and Standard of Review ...................................................... 28
`Summary of Argument .................................................................. 29
`Argument ....................................................................................... 34
`I.
`The Verdict Form and Jury Instructions Properly
`Instructed the Jury to Determine Whether DAPs Had
`Proved The Conspiracy They Alleged. ................................. 34
`A.
`The District Court described the conspiracy in the
`same way DAPs consistently described it before
`trial. ............................................................................. 35
`B. DAPs presented a single conspiracy with three
`components to the jury. ............................................... 39
`C. DAPs’ theory of liability necessitated that the
`conspiracy included all three components. ................. 41
`It was appropriate to reference the conspiracy’s
`components in Question 1. .......................................... 44
`The description of the conspiracy in DAPs’
`contention instruction did not confuse the jury. ......... 47
`The District Court did not require the jury to find
`that the Defendants carried out all three
`components of the conspiracy. ..................................... 50
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`II. The District Court Properly Applied the Rule of Reason
`to DAPs’ Claims. ................................................................... 53
`A.
`The District Court properly analyzed the
`conspiracy’s substance, rather than the label
`DAPs gave it. ............................................................... 56
`The evidence established that the conduct at
`issue is not within the limited category of
`restraints that are subject to the per se rule............... 58
`The District Court correctly ruled that the mode
`of analysis is a question of law and properly
`rejected DAPs’ attempt to apply the wrong test
`for application of the per se rule. ................................. 64
`III. The Court Can Affirm for the Additional Reason that
`Rose Acre Was Entitled to Judgment as a Matter of
`Law. ....................................................................................... 69
`A. DAPs presented no direct evidence concerning the
`existence of an overarching conspiracy, as
`required by Monsanto and Matsushita. ...................... 70
`B. At best, DAPs’ evidence that Rose Acre conspired
`with others is circumstantial and ambiguous............. 73
`The plausibility of the underlying economic
`theory does not preclude application of
`Matsushita. .................................................................. 76
`IV. The District Court Should Have Allowed a Good-Faith
`Defense Under the Capper-Volstead Act. ............................ 79
`Conclusion ...................................................................................... 84
`Combined Certifications ................................................................ 86
`Certificate of Service ...................................................................... 88
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Adaptive Power Sols., LLC v. Hughes Missile Sys. Co.
`141 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 1998) ..................................................... 62
`Arizona v. Maricopa Cty. Med. Soc’y
`457 U.S. 332 (1982) ..............................................................29, 64
`Armstrong v. Dwyer
`155 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 1998) ............................................ 28, 40, 46
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................................................................... 35
`Black & Yates v. Mahogany Ass’n, Inc.
`129 F.2d 227 (3d Cir. 1941) ....................................................... 35
`Broad. Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc.
`441 U.S. 1 (1979) ....................................................................... 57
`Chicago Bd. of Trade v. United States
`246 U.S. 231 (1918) ................................................................... 68
`City of Long Beach v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal.
`46 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1995) ............................................ 35, 38, 41
`Combs v. Associated Elec. Coop., Inc.
`752 F. Supp. 1131 (D.D.C. 1990) ............................................... 82
`Consol. Express, Inc. v. N.Y. Shipping Ass’n
`602 F.2d 494 (3d Cir. 1979), vacated on other
`grounds, 448 U.S. 902 (1980) .................................................... 81
`Cooper Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc.
`63 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 1995) ......................................................... 47
`Craftsmen Limousine, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.
`363 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 2004) ..................................................... 65
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`Deutscher Tennis Bund v. ATP Tour, Inc.
`610 F.3d 820 (3d Cir. 2010) ............................................ 29, 64-65
`DiFiore v. CSL Behring, LLC
`879 F.3d 71 (3d Cir. 2018) ......................................................... 47
`Donlin v. Philips Lighting N. Am. Corp.
`581 F.3d 73 (3d Cir. 2009) ......................................................... 40
`Ely v. Reading Co.
`424 F.2d 758 (3d Cir. 1970) ....................................................... 38
`Fadiga v. Att’y Gen.
`488 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2007) ....................................................... 29
`Fairdale Farms, Inc. v. Yankee Milk, Inc.
`635 F.2d 1037 (2d Cir. 1980) ..................................................... 82
`Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
`197 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999) ................................................. 46
`Feather v. United Mine Workers of America
`711 F.2d 530 (3d Cir. 1983) .................................................. 81-82
`FTC v. Ind. Fed’n of Dentists
`476 U.S. 447 (1986) ................................................................... 65
`Fuentes v. South Hills Cardiology
`946 F.2d 196 (3d Cir. 1991) ....................................................... 35
`GVF Cannery, Inc. v. Cal. Tomato Growers Ass’n
`511 F. Supp. 711 (N.D. Cal. 1981) ............................................ 82
`Hammes v. AAMCO Transmissions, Inc.
`33 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 1994) ....................................................... 67
`Hyland v. HomeServices of Am., Inc.
`771 F.3d 310 (6th Cir. 2014) ..................................................... 73
`IDT Corp. v. Bldg. Owners & Managers Ass’n Int’l
`No. 03-4113, 2005 WL 3447615
`(D.N.J. Dec. 15, 2005) ................................................................ 57
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`In re Baby Food Antitrust Litig.
`166 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 1999) ....................................................... 73
`In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig.
`801 F.3d 383 (3d Cir. 2015) ....................................................... 77
`In re Processed Egg Prod. Antitrust Litig.
`Nos. 19-1088 & 19-1188, __ F.3d __, 2020 WL
`3407761 (3d Cir. June 22, 2020) ..... 7, 32, 53-54, 56-61, 64-65, 74
`In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig.
`703 F.3d 1004 (7th Cir. 2012) ........................................ 57, 64-65
`In re Wholesale Grocery Products Antitrust Litigation
`752 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2014) ................................................ 66-67
`James v. Continental Ins. Co.
`424 F.2d 1064 (3d Cir. 1970) (per curiam) ................................ 45
`Kearney v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
`422 F. App’x 812 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) ............. 34, 38, 41
`Krystal Cadillac-Oldsmobile GMC Truck, Inc. v.
`Gen. Motors Corp.
`337 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2003) ....................................................... 39
`L&L Howell, Inc. v. Cincinnati Coop. Milk Sales Ass’n
`No. 81-3491, 1983 WL 162169
`(6th Cir. July 20, 1983) ............................................................. 82
`Larry V. Muko, Inc. v. Sw. Pa. Bldg. & Constr.
`Trades Council
`670 F.2d 421 (3d Cir. 1982) ....................................................... 69
`Leegin Creative Leather Prods., v. PSKS, Inc.
`551 U.S. 877 (2007) ........................................................ 54, 57-59
`Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith
`Radio Corp.
`475 U.S. 574 (1986) ............................................... 5, 70-72, 76-77
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 10 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`Md. & Va. Milk Producers Ass’n v. United States
`362 U.S. 458 (1960) ................................................................... 80
`Med. Ctr. at Elizabeth Place, LLC v. Atrium
`Health Sys.
`922 F.3d 713 (6th Cir. 2019) ..................................................... 65
`Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp.
`465 U.S. 752 (1984) .............................................................. 70-71
`N. Am. Soccer League, LLC v. U.S. Soccer Fed’n
`883 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2018) ......................................................... 74
`N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States
`356 U.S. 1 (1958) ....................................................................... 69
`Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Bd. of Regents of
`Univ. of Okla.
`468 U.S. 85 (1984) ..................................................................... 57
`Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc.
`141 F. Supp. 3d 1246 (S.D. Fla. 2015), aff’d, 845
`F.3d 1072 (11th Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 62
`Ryan Operations G.P. v. Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co.
`81 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 1996) ......................................................... 39
`Savarese v. Agriss
`883 F.2d 1194 (3d Cir. 1989) ..................................................... 29
`Scarano v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey
`203 F.2d 510 (3d Cir. 1953) ....................................................... 38
`Sprinkle v. AMZ Mfg. Corp.
`567 F. App’x 163 (3d Cir. 2014) ................................................. 46
`Tigg Corp. v. Dow Corning Corp.
`962 F.2d 1119 (3d Cir. 1992) ..................................................... 47
`United States v. Am. Radiator & Standard
`Sanitary Corp.
`433 F.2d 174 (3d Cir. 1970) ....................................................... 53
`viii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 11 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`United States v. Brown Univ.
`5 F.3d 658 (3d Cir. 1993) ........................................................... 57
`United States v. Nat’l Ass’n of Broads.
`536 F. Supp. 149 (D.D.C. 1982) ................................................. 57
`United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.
`310 U.S. 150 (1940) ................................................................... 64
`Valspar Corp. v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
`873 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 2017) ....................................................... 77
`Waldorf v. Shuta
`896 F.2d 723 (3d Cir. 1990) ....................................................... 28
`Weit v. Cont’l Ill. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co.
`641 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1981) ..................................................... 71
`Woodson v. Scott Paper Co.
`109 F.3d 913 (3d Cir. 1997) .................................................. 28-29
`STATUTES
`28 U.S.C. § 1291 ............................................................................... 4
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ............................................................................... 4
`Agricultural Fair Practices Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq. .............. 84
`Capper-Volstead Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 291-92 ...................................... 80
`Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 17 ........................................................... 80
`Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926,
`7 U.S.C. § 451, et seq. ................................................................ 80
`Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 .................................................... passim
`RULES
`Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) .....................................25, 27
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 ...................................... 6, 69, 79
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 12 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`3A Kevin F. O’Malley et al., Federal Jury Practice and
`Instructions §§ 150.20-150.22 (6th ed. 2012) ............................ 58
`Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust
`Law (2d ed. 2005) .................................................................65, 68
`H.R. Rep. No. 67-24 (1921) ............................................................ 83
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 13 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`For the better part of a decade, the Direct Action Plaintiffs
`
`(“DAPs”) have alleged that Rose Acre Farms, Inc. (“Rose Acre”)
`
`engaged in a conspiracy with other egg producers and two egg
`
`farmer cooperatives, United Egg Producers (“UEP) and United
`
`States Egg Marketers (“USEM”), to reduce the American egg
`
`supply. DAPs alleged a single conspiracy comprised of short-term
`
`supply measures recommended by UEP, an animal welfare
`
`program called the “Certified Program,” and USEM-organized egg
`
`exports.
`
`DAPs repeatedly assured Defendants and the District Court
`
`that the conspiracy they sought to prove comprised all three
`
`components. Among the times DAPs made this position clear was
`
`shortly before trial began, in response to a motion to clarify
`
`precisely that issue. DAPs also relied on the alleged three-part
`
`conspiracy in numerous filings, including their successful motions
`
`to dismiss Defendants’ state-law counterclaims and for the
`
`admission of evidence.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 14 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`At trial, DAPs spent six weeks trying to convince a jury that
`
`the conspiracy they alleged actually existed. After only a day of
`
`deliberation, the jury found that it did not.
`
`DAPs now argue that the verdict form asked the wrong
`
`question. According to DAPs, the District Court should have never
`
`required them to prove a conspiracy that involved all three
`
`components. Instead, they argue that the District Court should
`
`have permitted the jury to find a narrower conspiracy that
`
`included only one or two components, even though the conspiracy
`
`DAPs were prosecuting involved all three. But DAPs themselves
`
`argue that jury instructions should reflect the plaintiffs’ theory of
`
`the case. (DAP Br. at 31-32.) It was no error for the District Court
`
`to prepare jury instructions and a verdict form that fairly
`
`characterized the theory of the case that DAPs repeatedly
`
`represented they were pursuing and actually did pursue.
`
`DAPs further assert that the verdict form required DAPs to
`
`prove that all three components were actually carried out, and not
`
`just part of the conspiracy. DAPs misread the jury instructions
`
`and verdict form. Question 1 of the verdict form (the only question
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 15 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`the jury answered) did not ask whether DAPs had proven that the
`
`alleged conspirators carried out each component of the conspiracy.
`
`It asked whether “there was a conspiracy to reduce the supply of
`
`eggs comprised of” the three components DAPs alleged. (Appx2.)
`
`The District Court explicitly instructed the jury that DAPs did not
`
`need to prove that “all the means or methods that were agreed
`
`upon were actually used or put into operation” (Appx48), exactly
`
`as DAPs argue it should have (see DAP Br. at 28).
`
`DAPs also attack the District Court’s application of the
`
`default “Rule of Reason” standard to their Sherman Act claims.
`
`That issue is moot as the jury ruled that a conspiracy never
`
`existed. Moreover, the direct purchaser class from which DAPs
`
`opted out asserted this same argument in a companion appeal,
`
`and the Court rejected it in a precedential opinion. In that
`
`opinion, this Court upheld application of the Rule of Reason to the
`
`identical conduct involved in this appeal. The Court’s decision in
`
`the companion case is controlling and establishes that the District
`
`Court properly held that the conduct challenged by the DAPs
`
`must be judged under the Rule of Reason, given its clear
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 16 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`procompetitive benefits and the lack of manifestly anticompetitive
`
`effects.
`
`The Court should affirm the judgment on the jury’s
`
`unanimous verdict.
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`
`The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`DAPs appealed the judgment on January 3, 2020, and filed an
`
`amended notice of appeal on January 9, 2020. Rose Acre filed a
`
`timely cross-appeal on January 17, 2020, and an amended notice
`
`of cross-appeal on January 21, 2020. This Court has jurisdiction
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
`
`COUNTER-STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR
`REVIEW BY APPELLANTS
`In pleadings, discovery responses, motions, briefs, oral
`
`1.
`
`arguments, and at trial, DAPs described the Defendants’ alleged
`
`conspiracy as comprising short-term supply recommendations,
`
`certain aspects of UEP’s Certified Program, and egg exports
`
`through USEM. Did the District Court err in instructing the jury
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 17 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`that the conspiracy DAPs alleged comprised those three
`
`components?
`
`2. Conduct alleged to be unlawful under Sherman Act
`
`Section 1 is judged under the Rule of Reason unless it has obvious
`
`anticompetitive effects and lacks any redeeming virtue. In the
`
`companion class case, this Court affirmed the District Court’s
`
`ruling that the Certified Program is correctly judged under the
`
`Rule of Reason. DAPs did not argue or produce evidence that the
`
`other restraints at issue satisfied the requirements for application
`
`of the per se rule. Did the District Court err in instructing the jury
`
`to apply the Rule of Reason at trial?
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR
`REVIEW BY CROSS-APPELLANT ROSE ACRE
`If this Court overturns the District Court’s judgment in any
`
`part, the Court should also address the following issues:
`
`1. Under Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v.
`
`Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986), when an antitrust
`
`plaintiff attempts to prove the existence of a conspiracy using
`
`circumstantial evidence, that evidence must “tend[] to exclude the
`
`possibility” that the defendant acted independently. Should the
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 18 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`District Court have granted Rose Acre’s motion for summary
`
`judgment or, at trial, its motion for judgment as a matter of law
`
`because DAPs could not adduce evidence that tended to exclude
`
`the possibility that Rose Acre acted independently?
`
`Rose Acre raised this issue in its motion for summary
`
`judgment (Rose Acre’s Mot. Summ. J. (ECF No. 1238); Mem. Law
`
`Supp. Rose Acre’s Mot. Summ. J. at 3-4, 9-10 (ECF No. 1242)) and
`
`its motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a)
`
`(Appx1633-1647). The District Court denied Rose Acre’s motion for
`
`summary judgment in an opinion (Appx1108-1123) and order
`
`(ECF No. 1445) dated September 28, 2016, and issued an order
`
`dated February 5, 2020, deeming Rose Acre’s motion for judgment
`
`as a matter of law moot in light of the jury verdict (ECF No. 2130).
`
`2. Congress has exempted both
`
`labor unions and
`
`agricultural cooperatives from antitrust liability for certain
`
`conduct. Based on that congressional exemption, this Court has
`
`recognized a “good-faith exception” to antitrust liability for labor
`
`unions, where the union honestly believes its conduct is protected
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 19 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`by the exemption. Should the District Court have recognized the
`
`same good-faith defense in this case?
`
`Rose Acre argued this point in its motion for summary
`
`judgment. (Rose Acre’s Mot. Summ. J. (ECF No. 1238); Mem. Law
`
`Supp. Rose Acre’s Mot. Summ. J. at 23-29 (ECF No. 1242).) The
`
`District Court held there is no good-faith defense under the
`
`Capper-Volstead Act. (Appx1123-1125.)
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASE
`
`This action arises from an MDL that consolidated numerous
`
`complaints against Rose Acre, other egg producers, UEP, and
`
`USEM. DAPs “opted-out” of the direct purchaser certified class.
`
`Rose Acre went to trial against the class in May 2018, and the jury
`
`rendered a defense verdict in June 2018. The class took an appeal
`
`to this Court (19-1088) and Rose Acre conditionally cross-appealed
`
`(19-1188). The Court recently affirmed the jury verdict in favor of
`
`Rose Acre in a precedential opinion. See In re Processed Egg Prod.
`
`Antitrust Litig., Nos. 19-1088 & 19-1188, __ F.3d __, 2020 WL
`
`3407761 (3d Cir. June 22, 2020).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 20 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`I.
`
`The Alleged Conspiracy
`DAPs are some of the largest supermarket chains in the
`
`United States. They include Kroger, Albertsons, Safeway, Publix,
`
`Supervalu, Hy-Vee, Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company
`
`(“A&P”), H.E. Butt, and Walgreen.
`
`(Appx1928, Appx2099,
`
`Appx2191-2192.)
`
`DAPs’ amended
`
`complaints uniformly alleged
`
`that,
`
`beginning in 2000, Rose Acre, nineteen other egg producers, and
`
`UEP and USEM, two egg farmer cooperatives, “engaged in an
`
`overarching conspiracy . . . to reduce egg supply and artificially
`
`raise the prices of eggs.” (Appx726, Appx734; see also Appx636,
`
`Appx555, Appx739, Appx741, Appx907-908.) DAPs claimed that
`
`this overarching, multi-faceted conspiracy included: (i) an animal
`
`welfare program established by UEP, called the “Certified
`
`Program,” that contained several allegedly supply-reducing
`
`provisions; (ii) recommendations by UEP to undertake short-term
`
`supply measures; and (iii) egg exports coordinated through USEM.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 21 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`(Appx727-728, Appx556, Appx637.) We describe each of the
`
`components of the alleged conspiracy below.
`
`A. The Certified Program
`1. Development of the Certified Program in
`response to customer requests
`UEP’s animal welfare program, known as the “Certified
`
`Program,” was based on animal welfare guidelines developed by a
`
`team of animal welfare scientists at the urging of, and with the
`
`help and support of, several DAPs and their trade association. The
`
`momentum to create the Certified Program began in the late
`
`1990s, when animal rights groups, such as People for the Ethical
`
`Treatment of Animals
`
`(“PETA”), started demanding that
`
`McDonald’s and Burger King ensure greater cage space for the
`
`hens that produced the food products they sold. (Appx1949-1950.)
`
`McDonald’s responded in 2000 by requiring its egg suppliers to
`
`give each hen at least 72 square inches of space. (Appx1762.)
`
`Burger King followed suit, requiring even more space per hen.
`
`(Appx1104, Appx2066, Appx3455.)
`
`PETA also demanded that the largest supermarket chains,
`
`including DAPs Albertsons, Kroger, Publix, Safeway, Supervalu
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 22 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`and Winn-Dixie, commit to requiring their egg suppliers to
`
`provide extra space to their egg-laying hens.
`
`(Appx3413,
`
`Appx3491, Appx3499, Appx3524.) PETA threatened boycotts and
`
`litigation. (Id.) It also launched a well-publicized boycott and
`
`public demonstrations against Safeway, called “Shameway.”
`
`(Appx3524.)
`
`Egg producers were also targeted. In 2000, for example, a
`
`Rose Acre feed truck was fire-bombed and a pump house was
`
`burned down. (Appx1873, Appx1845-1846, Appx4750.) Animal
`
`rights activists also “shot out” Rose Acre’s electric transformer.
`
`(Appx1846.) The FBI warned Rose Acre of other planned attacks
`
`against it. (Appx1844.)
`
`In response to public pressure, UEP approached Dr. Jeffrey
`
`Armstrong, then head of animal science at Purdue University, to
`
`“constitute and chair” the Scientific Committee on Animal
`
`Welfare. (Appx2311.) The purpose of the Committee was “to look
`
`at science-based animal welfare for the [egg] laying hen industry.”
`
`(Id.) Dr. Armstrong selected the Committee’s other professional
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 23 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`members.
`
`(Appx2316-2320.) UEP placed no
`
`limitations or
`
`restrictions on the Committee’s work. (See Appx2320-2321.)
`
`The Committee presented its recommendations to UEP’s
`
`Producer Committee for Animal Welfare (“Producer Committee”)
`
`in May and September 2000. (Appx3351-3375, Appx3384-3403.)
`
`Those recommendations covered topics such as beak trimming,
`
`which helps stop hens from pecking each other to death; greater
`
`cage space, which reduces hen deaths and maximizes per-hen egg
`
`production;
`
`increased
`
`feeding
`
`space;
`
`lower
`
`ammonia
`
`concentrations in hen houses; prohibiting the use of feed
`
`withdrawal to force molting, which can suppress the hens’
`
`immune systems; and humane transportation and slaughter of
`
`spent hens. (Id.) The Producer Committee immediately adopted
`
`almost
`
`all
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Scientific Advisory Committee’s
`
`recommendations. (Appx1071, Appx1759-1760.)
`
`Meanwhile, the supermarkets, which were concerned about
`
`PETA’s public relations campaign, asked their trade organization,
`
`the Food Marketing Institute (“FMI”), to “get ahead of the issue.”
`
`(Appx4704, Appx5491.) FMI formed its own Animal Welfare
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 24 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`Group to achieve “consistency across the [US] retail sector” and
`
`science.”
`on
`based
`guidelines
`“implement[] . . . attainable
`(Appx2092.) FMI members sought to confront the animal welfare
`issue in a “single industry approach” that would free retailers
`
`from “having any company singled out specifically by activist
`
`groups,” save “individual companies [from] duplicat[ing] efforts,
`
`and . . . apply to the producer community.” (Appx2272.)
`
`FMI approached UEP in 2001 to understand UEP’s plans for
`
`developing animal welfare guidelines for egg-laying hens. (See
`
`Appx2271.) FMI pushed UEP to implement the Certified Program
`
`even faster than UEP had originally planned. To minimize
`
`industry disruption, UEP had intended to phase-in its guidelines
`
`over ten to twelve years. FMI rejected that period as too lengthy,
`
`and the parties compromised at six years. (Appx1528, Appx1803.)
`
`FMI also made clear that it expected UEP to have an
`
`independent third-party audit as part of the Certified Program,
`
`because FMI’s expert panel believed
`
`“the only effective
`
`welfare . . . standards are those that have a quantitative scoring
`
`system and monitoring.” (Appx3448.) The audits were also
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 20-1045 Document: 67 Page: 25 Date Filed: 07/01/2020
`
`important to PETA. (Appx3501.) As a result, UEP required each
`
`company participating in the Certified Program to “be examined
`
`annually by independent auditors.” (Appx3599.)
`
`2. The implementation and evolution of the
`Certified Program
`In 2002, UEP’s Producer Committee published the first
`
`official Animal Welfare Guidelines, a set of rules to which a
`
`producer must agree in return for the right to license the UEP
`
`Certified trademark and place it on its egg

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