`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Norfolk Division
`
`IN RE PEANUT FARMERS
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19cv00463
`
`ORDER
`
`This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant Birdsong to
`
`Produce Certain Structured Data, and accompanying memorandum in support ("Motion to
`
`Compel"), filed on May 29, 2020. ECF Nos. 157-58. Defendant Birdsong ("Birdsong") filed an
`
`opposition, ECF No. 168, and Plaintiffs filed a reply, ECF No. 172. Accordingly, the Motion is
`
`fully briefed and ready for disposition.
`
`By way of background. Plaintiffs filed the instant class action alleging that the Defendants
`
`engaged in a multi-year conspiracy to fix the price of Runner peanuts. See ECF Nos. 1, 120, 148.
`
`In the instant Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs move the Court to require Birdsong to produce certain
`
`structured data. See ECF No. 158 at 1. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek structured data for (1) the three
`
`types of non-Rumier peanuts, and (2) data that covers the time period between January 1, 2010
`
`through December 31, 2012. Id.
`
`Plaintiffs argue that this data is necessary to establish a
`
`benchmark period for a "before-and-during-regression analysis" to potentially determine their
`
`damages. ECF No. 158 at 5. In opposition, Defendant argues that non-Runner peanuts were not
`
`included in the price-fixing allegations within the Complaint and accordingly, are not relevant to
`
`Plaintiffs' claim. Id. Additionally, Defendant argues that data for the time period that pre-dates
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 182 Filed 07/24/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 2329
`
`the beginning of the alleged conspiracy is not relevant. Id. Defendant contends that because the
`
`request for non-Runner peanuts and the 2010-2012 data is irrelevant, it is beyond the scope of
`
`discovery and the Motion should be denied. Id.
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides:
`
`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. Information within
`this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). "Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery
`
`appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id. "[T]he
`
`threshold for relevance is not a high one. ..
`
`Contract Materials Processing, Inc. v. Kataleima
`
`Gmbh Catalysts, 462 Fed. Appx. 266, 273 (4th Cir. 2012). Additionally, "[t]he district court's
`
`discretion with respect to discovery matters is broad." Vodrey v. Golden, 864 F.2d 28,32 (4th Cir.
`
`1988) {cxXxng Ardrey v. United Parcel Service, 798 F.2d 679, 682 (4th Cir. 1986)). In the Fourth
`
`Circuit, courts "enjoy nearly unfettered discretion to control the timing and scope of discovery...
`
`." Ashland Facility Operations, LLC v. NLRB, 701 F.3d 983, 994 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting Hinkle
`
`V. City of Clarksburg, W. Ft?., 81 F.3d 416,426 (4th Cir. 1996)). The party resisting discovery has
`
`the burden of establishing that the production should not be required. Doe v. Old Dominion Univ.,
`
`289 F. Supp. 3d 744, 749 (E.D. Va. 2018) (citing Singletary v. Sterling Transp. Co., 289 F.R.D.
`
`237, 241 (E.D. Va. 2012)).
`
`With respect to the non-Runner peanut structured data, Plaintiffs argue that such data is
`
`relevant to establish a benchmark period in a before-and-during regression analysis, which
`
`Plaintiffs may use to estimate their damages. ECF No. 158 at 5. Birdsong argues that Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 182 Filed 07/24/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 2330
`
`do not explain how the non-Runner peanut data will serve as a benchmark for prices for Birdsong's
`
`purchases of Runner peanuts. ECF No. 168 at 3. Birdsong does not argue that it would be overly
`
`burdensome or expensive to produce the non-Runner peanut data. Under these circumstances,
`
`Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown that this data is relevant to potential damages
`
`calculations. Plaintiffs have explained that they can use the data related to the non-Runner peanuts
`
`to set a benchmark for which to compare the prices of the Runner Peanuts. This type of damages
`
`analysis has been utilized and is a generally accepted methodology for computing damages in an
`
`antitrust case. See In re Polyester Staple Antitrust Litig., No. 3:03CV 1516,2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`52525, at *108 (W.D.N.C. July 19, 2007) (citing cases). Birdsong has not met its burden to
`
`demonstrate that it should not be required to produce structured data related to the non-Runner
`
`peanuts. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs'
`
`request for Birdsong to produce data for the non-Runner peanuts.
`
`With respect to the structured data covering the period from January 1, 2010 through
`
`December 31, 2012, Plaintiffs again argue that such data is relevant to their damages calculation,
`
`by establishing a benchmark period to estimate overcharges and damages. Plaintiffs further
`
`contend that even though this data predates the class period, such data will demonstrate
`
`unprecedented pricing volatility, which Plaintiffs argue motivated the alleged conspiracy. ECF
`
`No. 128 at 10-11. Again, Birdsong argues that such data is not relevant, but does not argue that
`
`producing such data would be overly burdensome in any way. The Court again finds that Plaintiffs
`
`have sufficiently shown the pre-2013 structured data to be relevant, and Birdsong has not met its
`
`burden to demonstrate that it should not be required to produce the pre-2013 structured data.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs' request for
`
`Birdsong to produce structured data prior to 2013.
`
`
`
`Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 182 Filed 07/24/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 2331
`
`Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Structured
`
`Data, ECF No. 157. Defendant must produce the structured data for (1) non-Runner peanuts, and
`
`(2) structured data for Runner and non-Runner peanuts that covers the time period between January
`
`1,2010 and December 31,2012.
`
`The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.
`
`It is so ORDERED.
`
`Norfolk, Virginia
`July 24, 2020
`
`Lawrence R. Lfeonard
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`