Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Ida.: Motion to compel discovery granted in potato price fixing litigation, (Feb 6, 2014)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

In a price fixing class action brought on behalf of purchasers of potatoes against producers and a distributor, the federal district court in Boise has granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion to compel interrogatory answers. The defendants were directed to specifically identify how to find the requested information within their previously produced business records (In re Fresh and Process Potatoes Antitrust Litigation, January 31, 2014, Dale, C.).

Direct and indirect purchasers of potatoes filed suit against several potato producers and a distributor, alleging a conspiracy by the defendants to reduce the supply of potatoes in order to raise prices. The plaintiffs alleged that the producers formed cooperatives for the purpose of increasing the price of potatoes through supply management. The cooperatives agreed to limit potato planting acreages and paid farmers to either destroy existing stocks or refrain from growing potatoes in order to reduce the supply of potatoes available for sale. The direct purchaser plaintiffs served interrogatories in October 2013, and the defendants filed their responses and objections. The plaintiffs then moved to compel answers by the defendants to certain interrogatory requests.

The court first directed the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs’ request for the membership lists for the cooperatives. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 permits a responding party to specifically direct the requesting party to its business records if the information sought by an interrogatory can be gleaned from reference to those records. However, the reference to the business records must be specific, by category and location, the records from which the answers to interrogatories can be derived, according to the court. The defendants’ response in which it directed the plaintiffs to search its membership database without more identification was deficient. In response to this request, the defendants were required to identify, by Bates numbering system and search terms, the requested documents within the searchable database, the court noted.

Similarly, the defendants were directed to supplement their responses to the plaintiffs’ request for the identity of all existing and previous cooperative board and committee members. Their response directing the plaintiffs to search their business records without identifying how to find the requested information was deficient.

The court also directed the defendants to provide the plaintiffs with appropriate search terms and an explanation of how the documents are organized in response to the plaintiffs request for information on meetings regarding supply controls and the acreage reduction program. The defendants’ mere reference to the use of search terms and the absence of a document index to facilitate review of the defendants’ documents was insufficient.

However, the court denied the motion to compel with respect to the plaintiffs’ request for information on meetings, communications, and agreements on the supply control mechanisms over a period of nine years as overbroad. The plaintiffs must further refine the scope of their request such that the defendants can identify the business records that are responsive to the request, the court concluded.

The case is No. 4:10-md-02186-BLW-CWD.

Attorneys: Aaron M. Sheanin (Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny, LLP) for Brigiotta’s Farmland Produce and Garden Center, Inc. Gregory P. Hansel (Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP) for J.R. Mazzola, Inc. Sylvia M. Sokol (Constantine Canon, LLP) for Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. Amanda K. Brailsford (Andersen Banducci PLLC) for United Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., United Potato Growers of America, Inc., Wada Farms Potatoes, Inc. and Wada-Van Orden Potatoes, Inc. Daniel G. Swanson (Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP) for Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc. and Dole Food Co. Richard C. Boardman (Perkins Coie) for General Mills, Inc.

Companies: Brigiotta’s Farmland Produce and Garden Center, Inc.; J.R. Mazzola, Inc.; Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc.; United Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc.; United Potato Growers of America, Inc.; Wada Farms Potatoes, Inc.; Wada-Van Orden Potatoes, Inc.; Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc.; Dole Food Co.; General Mills, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust IdahoNews