Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—W.D. Pa.: Motion to compel discovery granted in part in price discrimination suit, (Nov 23, 2015)

By Michael Menzhuber, J.D., LL.M.

A motion to compel Honeywell International, Inc.’s full and complete responses to discovery requests, in a price discrimination action brought by a wholesale distributor, was granted in part and denied in part by the federal district court in Pittsburgh (AlarMax Distributors, Inc. v. Honeywell International, Inc., November 20, 2015).

AlarMax Distributors, Inc. filed an action alleging that Honeywell breached the parties’ supply and settlement agreements and violated the Clayton Act by: (1) overcharging AlarMax for Honeywell electronic fire products; and (2) forcing other vendors to provide exclusive lower pricing and more favorable terms and conditions to Honeywell’s wholesale distribution faction, ADI Global Distribution (ADI).

After finding Honeywell’s responses to its discovery requests were deficient, AlarMax filed a motion to compel full and complete responses to its discovery requests. Specifically, AlarMax objected to Honeywell’s decision to: (1) limit production of documents relative to only ADI’s current existing contracts, regarding the purchase and sale of electronic fire and security products, with vendors specifically identified by AlarMax in it is complaint; (2) produce only those documents reflecting Honeywell’s sales of electronic products to ADI and no other distributors; (3) limit production of documents showing the current terms and conditions of purchases by ADI to only a sample set of vendors and electronic fire and security products; (4) limit the scope of its responses to three years; and (5) not produce documents or a list of vendors that had sold electronic fire and security products to ADI during those three years, despite Honeywell’s agreement that it would do so.

Honeywell filed an opposition to AlarMax’s motion and a declaration in which it argued that AlarMax had not shown good cause to justify the production of eleven years of materials and that such requests were overly burdensome. Honeywell also noted that it had produced all of the documents that it could pending the outcome of its appeal of the court’s order denying Honeywell’s request for a protective order.

The court found that the production of documents and/or information, going back eleven years was overly broad, based on the allegations in the complaint and the four-year statute of limitations applicable to AlarMax’s claim. It concluded that the relevant time period was properly limited to four years.

Next, the court determined that the following were relevant to AlarMax’s claims and were to be produced: (1) any and all ADI vendor agreements, in effect during the relevant time period, and all documents and information relating to those agreements; and (2) documents and information relating to Honeywell’s sales of electronic fire products to other distributors, include ADI, during the relevant time period.

Finally, AlarMax’s discovery request into all electronic fire products purchased by ADI and/or sold by Honeywell was, at this stage of the litigation, overly broad and was properly limited to the top 200 products that AlarMax purchased, the court concluded.

The case number is 14-1527.

Attorneys: Gretchen L. Jankowski (Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC) for AlarMax Distributors, Inc. William C. MacLeod (Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP) for Honeywell International, Inc.

Companies: AlarMax Distributors, Inc.; Honeywell International, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust PennsylvaniaNews