throbber
Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 168 Filed 06/12/20 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 2013
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Norfolk Division
`
`IN RE PEANUT FARMERS ANTITRUST
`LITIGATION
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-463-RAJ-LRL
`
` DEFENDANT BIRDSONG CORPORATION’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF STRUCTURED DATA
`
`Defendant Birdsong Corporation (“Birdsong”), by counsel, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7,
`
`states as follows in opposition to the Motion to Compel (ECF No. 158) filed by Plaintiffs:
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint has a well-defined scope for their theoretical
`
`conspiracy. They allege that Defendants Birdsong, Golden Peanut Company, LLC (“Golden”),
`
`and Olam Peanut Shelling Company, Inc., f/k/a McCleskey Mills, Inc. (“Olam”) (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”) conspired to fix prices for Runner peanuts purchased from farmers in the United
`
`States market from 2014 to present. See Second Am. Compl. ¶ 92. Despite limiting the scope of
`
`their claim to Runner peanuts, Plaintiffs now seek detailed purchasing data from Birdsong for
`
`peanuts other than Runner peanuts. Birdsong’s data on other peanuts is not relevant to Plaintiffs’
`
`claim of price fixing for Runner peanuts. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek data from years outside their
`
`alleged conspiracy not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim. The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ motion, as
`
`Birdsong has already agreed to produce, and has produced, its relevant structured data for Runner
`
`peanuts for years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. Anything more is beyond the
`
`scope of discovery.
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 168 Filed 06/12/20 Page 2 of 11 PageID# 2014
`
`II.
`
`Background
`
`A.
`
`Birdsong’s Structured Data
`
`Although Plaintiffs paint with a broad brush in their Memorandum, Birdsong maintains
`
`several distinct sets of structured data, and it has agreed to produce three sets of structured data in
`
`response to discovery. First, Birdsong maintains a data set of all contracts it enters into with peanut
`
`farmers to purchase Runner peanuts (the “Contracts Data”). Second, Birdsong maintains a data set
`
`of information related to all of its purchases made from farmers for Runner peanuts, as those
`
`purchases are recorded on form FSA-1007 (the Inspection Certificate and Calculation Worksheet
`
`for peanuts used by USDA) (the “1007 Data”). Third, Birdsong maintains a data set of information
`
`related to all of its sales of shelled Runner peanuts to Birdsong’s customers (the “Customer Data”).
`
`B.
`
`Structured Data Birdsong Has Already Agreed to Produce
`
`Although Plaintiffs confusingly state that “Birdsong has agreed to produce 1 year of
`
`structured data, i.e., data going back to January 1, 2013,” (ECF No. 158, at 10), Birdsong
`
`previously agreed to produce, and has produced, seven (7) years of structured data. Birdsong has
`
`produced Contracts Data, 1007 Data, and Customer Data for years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017,
`
`2018, and 2019.
`
`In addition to agreeing to produce seven years of structured data, Birdsong has answered a
`
`multitude of serial questions posed by Plaintiffs via email about the samples of Birdsong’s
`
`structured data provided by Birdsong in advance of today’s production. See, e.g., (ECF No. 158-
`
`4). Plaintiffs requested certain changes and additions to the sample spreadsheets of exported
`
`Birdsong data that Birdsong has previously provided to Plaintiffs, and Birdsong has made those
`
`requested changes and additions where possible and practicable. Notwithstanding these
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 168 Filed 06/12/20 Page 3 of 11 PageID# 2015
`
`accommodations already made and additional information provided, Plaintiffs seek more.
`
`However, what they seek is not relevant.
`
`C.
`
`USDA Data Previously Produced
`
`Birdsong keeps the data that it submits to the United States Department of Agriculture
`
`(“USDA”) and National Agriculture Statistic Services (“NASS”) on a weekly basis and the reports
`
`it submits on a monthly basis (collectively the “USDA Data”). On March 28, 2020, Birdsong
`
`produced to Plaintiffs the USDA Data that it has for years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018,
`
`and 2019.1
`
`III. Argument
`
`Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[p]arties 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The structured data Plaintiffs seek
`
`is not relevant or probative of relevant issues based on the data Birdsong has already produced.
`
`A.
`
`Birdsong’s Non-Runner Peanut Data Is Not Relevant.
`
`In their Memorandum, Plaintiffs state that “non-Runner peanut data . . . is relevant to
`
`Plaintiffs, in part, to establish a ‘benchmark’ to help determine and estimate overcharges for
`
`Runner peanuts.” (ECF No. 158, at 2). They repeat this same sentence twice more, on pages 6 and
`
`13. That is the extent of Plaintiffs’ argument as to why non-Runner peanut data is relevant.
`
`Plaintiffs do not explain how Birdsong’s purchases of non-Runner peanuts will serve as a
`
`benchmark for prices for Birdsong’s purchases of Runner peanuts. Indeed, their Second Amended
`
`1 Birdsong maintains the weekly data submitted to USDA and NASS for 2013 through 2019 and
`has produced that data in the form of Excel spreadsheets by year in native format. For the monthly
`reports submitted to USDA and NASS, Birdsong only has those reports back to 2014 and has
`produced them in native format for 2014 through 2019. Birdsong’s monthly reports for 2013 and
`earlier years no longer are available based on Birdsong’s five (5) year document retention policy.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 168 Filed 06/12/20 Page 4 of 11 PageID# 2016
`
`Complaint acknowledges that it “focuses on Runner Peanuts, although Defendants’ conspiracy
`
`may also involve the other Peanut types.” Second Am. Compl. ¶ 38. Plaintiffs are not entitled to
`
`unfettered access to Birdsong’s data.2
`
`“Courts have limited the subject matter scope of discovery to evidence concerning only
`
`specific products and entities that a plaintiff identifies in its complaint.” Inline Packaging, LLC v.
`
`Graphic Packaging Int’l, Inc., No. 15-cv-3183(ADM/LIB), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192196, at *15-
`
`16 (D. Minn. July 25, 2016) (citing In re Skelaxin (Metaxalone) Antitrust Litig., 292 F.R.D. 544,
`
`551, 555 (E.D. Tenn. 2013) (denying motion to compel discovery to the extent the motion sought
`
`evidence concerning products other than those specifically identified in the complaint and to the
`
`extent that the motion sought evidence of other antitrust suits involving the defendants that were
`
`not mentioned in the complaint); Eisai Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, No. CIV.A. 08-4168
`
`MLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128447, 2011 WL 5416334, at *8 (D. N.J. Nov. 7,
`
`2011) (same); MacDermid Printing Sols., L.L.C. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., No. CIVA07-
`
`4325(MLC), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8285, 2008 WL 323764, at *1 (D. N.J. Feb. 5, 2008) (“[T]he
`
`discovery rules are designed to assist a party to prove a claim that it reasonably believes to be
`
`viable without discovery, not to find out if it has any basis for a claim.”) (citations omitted); United
`
`States Willis v. SouthernCare, Inc., No. CV410-124, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127746, 2015 WL
`
`2 It is too late for Plaintiffs to argue that they should be allowed to amend the complaint for a third
`time, to add earlier years and/or non-Runner peanuts to the conspiracy allegations. They have
`known of these potential claims since they filed the initial complaint, and they have previously
`amended the complaint twice, the most recent occasion to add a new alleged co-conspirator, Olam.
`The parties have moved to extend the trial date and to adjust the factual and expert discovery
`deadlines accordingly. Any efforts to justify this discovery to add new claims to the complaint
`should be rejected, as it would require an entirely new discovery and trial schedule, over and above
`the one the parties are presently seeking to address the late addition of Olam as an alleged co-
`conspirator.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 168 Filed 06/12/20 Page 5 of 11 PageID# 2017
`
`5604367, at *9 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 23, 2015) (granting motion to quash subpoena seeking discovery
`
`unrelated to claims or defenses already specifically alleged in the case)).
`
`For example, in Inline Packaging, LLC v. Graphic Packaging Int’l, Inc. (an antitrust suit
`
`concerning microwave susceptor food packaging), the Court held that “the subject matter scope of
`
`relevance in the present case includes only the products, patents, entities, and instances of conduct
`
`that Inline specifically identified in the Complaint.” Id. at *28 (emphasis added). Therefore, it
`
`denied the motion to compel at issue to the extent it dealt with products other than those
`
`specifically identified in the plaintiff’s complaint. See id.
`
`Here, Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint intentionally only alleges a conspiracy to fix
`
`prices of Runner peanuts, not other peanuts. Other than passing references and definitions, the
`
`Second Amended Complaint contains no actual allegations concerning Virginia, Spanish, or
`
`Valencia peanuts. They are not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim. Although Plaintiffs speculate about
`
`other peanuts in the Second Amended Complaint and note that their “investigation continues,”
`
`Second Am. Compl. ¶ 38, “the discovery rules are designed to assist a party to prove a claim that
`
`it reasonably believes to be viable without discovery, not to find out if it has any basis for a claim.”
`
`MacDermid Printing Sols., L.L.C., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8285, 2008 WL 323764, at *1 (citations
`
`omitted). Moreover, Plaintiffs leave wholly unexplained how non-Runner peanut prices will
`
`establish a benchmark for Runner peanut prices. Plaintiffs only point out that the USDA collects
`
`all peanut data (Runner, Virginia, Spanish, and Valencia) and that Plaintiffs cannot obtain from
`
`the USDA and NASS “the information Birdsong provides.” (ECF No. 158, at 13-14).
`
`Plaintiffs state that NASS published weekly and monthly reports but that the surveys could
`
`be unreliable so “Birdsong is the only source” for this data. (ECF No. 158 at 3, 12). If the USDA
`
`and NASS data on all peanut types is what Plaintiffs are seeking to review, Birdsong already has
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 168 Filed 06/12/20 Page 6 of 11 PageID# 2018
`
`produced that information to Plaintiffs in response to discovery on March 28, 2020. Specifically,
`
`Birdsong already produced to Plaintiffs the USDA Data: the weekly data for 2013 through 2019
`
`and the monthly data for 2014 through 2019 that Birdsong submits to USDA and NASS.
`
`On a weekly basis, Birdsong transmits electronically weekly reports to NASS containing
`
`the purchase price of peanuts per pound purchased (redeemed or direct purchased and option
`
`amounts) of all types of peanuts for that week including quantity information, filed by state.
`
`Birdsong already produced the Excel spreadsheets that contain the weekly information that it
`
`reported to USDA and NASS for all weeks between 2013 and 2019. A true and accurate sample
`
`of one of these reports is attached as Exhibit A. When produced to Plaintiffs, all of the columns
`
`of Exhibit A were completed; Birdsong has removed the data in these columns solely for Exhibit
`
`A based on the Highly Confidential nature of the information redacted.
`
`On a monthly basis, Birdsong submits Peanut Stocks and Processing Reports, and the
`
`report contains information broken out by peanut type so there is a column for Valencia, Virginia,
`
`Runner, and Spanish. These reports address inventory, receipts, and disposition of peanuts for each
`
`of the four peanut types. A true and accurate sample of one of these reports is attached as Exhibit
`
`B so that the Court can see the type of information already provided by Birdsong to Plaintiffs.
`
`For the reasons stated above, non-Runner peanut data is not relevant to a suit about Runner
`
`peanuts. Even if such information were relevant, Birdsong already has produced to Plaintiffs the
`
`exact information that Plaintiffs claim in their Motion to Compel that they want – specifically the
`
`weekly and monthly submissions made by Birdsong to USDA and NASS for all types of peanuts.3
`
`3 Birdsong does not transmit data to USDA or NASS about each individual contract with a farmer
`or about its sales of shelled peanuts to customers. If Plaintiffs need non-Runner information from
`Birdsong because they cannot get that information from USDA or NASS, that argument rings
`hollow when discussing the Contracts Data (information on all contracts signed with farmers) and
`Customer Data (information on all sales made of non-Runner peanuts to Birdsong’s customers).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 168 Filed 06/12/20 Page 7 of 11 PageID# 2019
`
`Accordingly, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel regarding non-Runner peanut
`
`data as Plaintiffs already have the information that they claim they need from Birdsong.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Requested Time Period Is Not Reasonable.
`
`While Birdsong acknowledges that Plaintiffs are entitled to a reasonable temporal scope
`
`for their discovery, that entitlement is not unlimited.
`
`As outlined in more detail above, Birdsong previously agreed to produce, and is producing,
`
`seven (7) years of structured data. Earlier today, Birdsong produced Contracts Data, 1007 Data,
`
`and Customer Data for years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019. That means that
`
`Plaintiffs already are receiving structured data for one year before the alleged conspiracy.
`
`Through the Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs are asking for three additional years of structured
`
`data for 2010, 2011, and 2012. Multiple times in their Memorandum, Plaintiffs reference the fact
`
`that Golden is producing structured data that predates 2013, stating that Birdsong “stands alone
`
`in its refusal as Golden Peanuts is producing data that goes back to 2011 (pre-2011 data no longer
`
`exists).” (ECF No. 158 at 2). Despite the number of times that Plaintiffs reference Golden’s
`
`production in their Memorandum, the data Golden is producing is not relevant to what Birdsong
`
`should have to produce to Plaintiffs.4 Indeed, Plaintiffs make no claim that they need to compare
`
`or contrast Birdsong’s yearly data with Golden’s yearly data. Just because Golden chose not to
`
`object to producing older data does not make that older data relevant.
`
`provided by Birdsong for non-Runner peanuts because Birdsong does not report that data to USDA
`or NASS. This is another reason that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel on structured data should be
`denied.
`
`4 If that is the case, then under Plaintiffs’ own theory, Birdsong should not have to produce any
`structured data for 2010 as Golden does not have that data available and thus is not producing it.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 168 Filed 06/12/20 Page 8 of 11 PageID# 2020
`
`Turning to structured data for 2010, 2011, and 2012, Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in support
`
`of the Motion to Compel does not have a section devoted to the reasons they claim structured data
`
`for years prior to 2013 is relevant. Instead, the only argument section addressing data prior to 2013
`
`argues that the data should be produced because it is reasonably accessible or because Plaintiffs
`
`have established good cause. (ECF No. 158 at 9-13). Looking at Plaintiffs’ good cause argument,
`
`Plaintiffs allege that they need the structured data because the industry/market is “opaque” and “to
`
`establish an overcharge analysis that [Plaintiffs] will use to determine damages.” (ECF No. 158 at
`
`12-13). Nothing about these arguments made by Plaintiffs explains why Contracts Data, 1007
`
`Data, and Customer Data for years prior to 2013 are relevant.
`
`The Contracts Data shows every contract that Birdsong signed with a farmer in a given
`
`year for Runner peanuts. The 1007 Data shows every individual purchase that Birdsong made from
`
`a farmer of Runner peanuts in a given year. The Customer Data shows every sale that Birdsong
`
`made to every customer of shelled Runner peanuts in a given year. In the Motion to Compel,
`
`Plaintiff have failed to address any of the three specific types of structured data that they are
`
`seeking from Birdsong so it still is unclear how Contract Data, 1007 Data, and Customer Data for
`
`2010, 2011, and 2012 are relevant.
`
`Birdsong disputes any claims by Plaintiffs that producing Contract Data, 1007 Data, and
`
`Customer Data for 2010, 2011, and 2012 will help make the market or industry be less “opaque.”
`
`If understanding the industry is Plaintiffs’ goal, they already have seven years of structured data
`
`to use to do that. Birdsong also disputes any claims by Plaintiffs that producing additional
`
`structured data will help “to establish an overcharge analysis that [Plaintiffs] will use to determine
`
`damages.” The Contract Data only shows the contracts that Birdsong entered into with farmers
`
`(some of which are option contracts); it does not show whether Birdsong actually bought any
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 168 Filed 06/12/20 Page 9 of 11 PageID# 2021
`
`peanuts from any farmers in a given year. The 1007 Data shows what peanuts Birdsong actually
`
`bought from farmers, but Plaintiffs already has produced the 1007 Data and the USDA Data for
`
`seven (7) years. The Customer Data shows what quantity of peanuts Birdsong sold to customers
`
`and at what prices; it does not show anything related to what farmers were receiving in terms of
`
`payments from Birdsong.
`
`In addition, although Plaintiffs argue that it is “customary” in antitrust cases “to produce
`
`pre-class period data,” the primary cases they cite are inapposite. (ECF No. 158, at 9). In re
`
`Pressure Sensitive Labelstock Antitrust Litig. addressed a Motion for Class Certification and
`
`Appointment of Class Counsel, not discovery or other relevance issues. No. 3:03-MDL-1556,
`
`2007 WL 4150666, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2007). See (ECF No. 158, at 9). Similarly, Wilder
`
`Enterprises, Inc. v. Allied Artists Pictures Corp. vacated a directed verdict and addressed various
`
`expert issues for remand, with no mention of discovery or relevance. 632 F.2d 1135, 1143 (4th
`
`Cir. 1980).
`
`For the reasons stated above, the data Plaintiffs seek from Birdsong dating back before
`
`2013 is unnecessarily cumulative and not relevant. Birdsong is already producing seven years of
`
`structured data, including a year before the time at which Plaintiffs allege the conspiracy
`
`commenced. Plaintiffs should not be entitled to additional structured data from Birdsong for
`
`Runner peanuts.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, such
`
`that Birdsong is not required to produce any additional structured data to Plaintiffs.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 168 Filed 06/12/20 Page 10 of 11 PageID# 2022
`
`BIRDSONG CORPORATION
`
`/s/ Kristan B. Burch
`Stephen E. Noona (VSB No. 25367)
`Patrick H. O’Donnell (VSB No. 29637)
`Kristan B. Burch (VSB No. 42640)
`Clark J. Belote (VSB No. 87310)
`KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
`150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
`Norfolk, VA 23510-1665
`Telephone: (757) 624-3000
`Facsimile: (888) 360-9092
`senoona@kaufcan.com
`phodonnell@kaufcan.com
`kbburch@kaufcan.com
`cjbelote@kaufcan.com
`Counsel for Birdsong Corporation
`
`Thomas W. Craddock, Esq.
`MCGUIRE, CRADDOCK & STROTHER, P.C.
`2501 N. Harwood, Suite 1800
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 954-6834
`Fax: (214) 954-6868
`tcraddock@mcslaw.com
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`
`Counsel for Birdsong Corporation
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 168 Filed 06/12/20 Page 11 of 11 PageID# 2023
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on June 12, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
`
`the Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically email notification of such filing to
`
`all counsel of record who have made a formal appearance.
`
`/s/ Kristan B. Burch
`Stephen E. Noona (VSB No. 25367)
`Patrick H. O’Donnell (VSB No. 29637)
`Kristan B. Burch (VSB No. 42640)
`Clark J. Belote (VSB No. 87310)
`KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
`150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100
`Norfolk, VA 23510-1665
`Telephone: (757) 624-3000
`Facsimile: (888) 360-9092
`senoona@kaufcan.com
`phodonnell@kaufcan.com
`kbburch@kaufcan.com
`cjbelote@kaufcan.com
`Counsel for Birdsong Corporation
`
`18499601v4
`
`11
`
`

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