Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—M.D. Pa.: Chocolate manufacturers granted additional discovery time, (Jul 29, 2013)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

Chocolate manufacturers were granted permission by the federal district court in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to conduct discovery, including issuing subpoenas, concerning third-party regional chocolate distributors that sell to convenience stores, vending machine companies, and independent grocers in a multidistrict litigation filed by indirect purchasers of chocolate (In re: Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation, July 25, 2013, Conner, C.). The court directed the parties to meet and confer regarding appropriate alterations to the pretrial schedule in light of the court’s order.

The distributors are customers of the chocolate manufacturers, and were subpoenaed by the indirect purchasers as part of the antitrust litigation. The purchasers did not comply with the court order requiring them to distribute the productions to the chocolate manufacturers. The manufacturers sought consent for a 60 day window to issue and enforce subpoenas, and depose the distributors, but the indirect purchasers objected.

A district court may modify a scheduling order upon a showing of “good cause,” including reopening discovery.

Because the chocolate manufacturers demonstrated good cause to reopen discovery, the court granted the motion to permit additional discovery. The requested discovery was limited to documents and testimony regarding the identity of the customers reflected in the newly produced data, their location, and their class of trade, and would take an additional two months to complete.

The indirect purchasers argued that the information sought was not necessary to their defense and that reopening discovery would be costly and time consuming. The discovery sought, however, was necessary to determine whether the claims were typical of putative class members across three separate industries, “vend,” “grocery,” and “convenience store.” The chocolate manufacturers were entitled to information about the customers contained in the distributors’ transaction data.

The case is No. 1:08-MDL-1935.

Attorneys: Christopher Lovell (Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP) for Michael McNamara. Brian M. English (Tompkins, McGuire, Wachenfeld & Barry, LLP) for The Hersey Company.

Cases: Antitrust PennsylvaniaNews