throbber
Case 2:19-cv-00463-RAJ-LRL Document 182 Filed 07/24/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 2328
`
`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
`
`

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