From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jan 31, 2012
NO. 06-0638 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2012)

Summary

holding that the non-party recipient of the contested subpoena had an interest in the antitrust litigation, in part, by virtue of its exclusive distributorship agreement with one of the defendants

Summary of this case from W. Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.

Opinion

Master File NO. 06-0620 NO. 06-0638 NO. 06-0657 NO. 06-0677 NO. 06-0861 NO. 06-0932 NO. 06-1464 NO. 06-1854

01-31-2012

IN RE MUSHROOM DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Actions


AND NOW this 31st day of January, 2012, upon consideration of plaintiffs motion to compel certain discovery from non-party Basciani Foods, Inc., BFFs motion to quash and the parties' various filings related thereto, and consistent with the accompanying memorandum of law, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to compel is GRANTED and BFFs motion to quash is DENIED as follows:

(1) BFI shall produce all responsive documents to plaintiffs and shall confer with plaintiffs and agree to a date for the production of responsive documents.

(2) The information sought by the subpoena shall be obtained and maintained in conformity with the Stipulation and Order Governing the Production and Exchange of Confidential Material dated May 29, 2007 (Dkt. No. 122).

(3) To the extent that BFI believes in good faith that certain documents are not adequately protected by the Confidentiality Order, a corresponding log of such documents shall be produced to plaintiffs and to the Court. Plaintiff's may lodge any objections to the designation of any documents as requiring additional production using the procedures set forth in Paragraph 11 of the

Confidentiality Order. If BFI decides to file a motion with the Court to confirm the confidentiality of the documents not produced, it shall produce any such documents to the Court for in camera review so that the Court may make a determination as to whether BFI must produce the documents in question.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that BFI's request for the costs associated with copying the requested documents is GRANTED. BFI's request for any other costs that may be incurred in the gathering and assembly of the documents, including attorney's fees is DENIED without prejudice to renewal after BFI has produced discovery as required by this Order.

_____________

THOMAS N. O'NEILL, JR., J.


Summaries of

In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jan 31, 2012
NO. 06-0638 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2012)

holding that the non-party recipient of the contested subpoena had an interest in the antitrust litigation, in part, by virtue of its exclusive distributorship agreement with one of the defendants

Summary of this case from W. Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.

finding third party transactional data of the type requested here relevant to a monopoly antitrust claim

Summary of this case from Fusion Elite All Stars v. Nfinity Athletics LLC

finding that the Court issuing a Discovery Confidentiality Order has enforcement power over the Order should there be a breach of its terms

Summary of this case from Sandoz, Inc. v. United Therapeutics, Corp.

finding that the Court issuing a Discovery Confidentiality Order has enforcement power over the Order should there be a breach of its terms

Summary of this case from Shevlin v. Phx. Life Ins. Co.
Case details for

In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig.

Case Details

Full title:IN RE MUSHROOM DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Jan 31, 2012

Citations

NO. 06-0638 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2012)

Citing Cases

W. Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.

To the extent that Western's price discrimination claim hinges, in large part, on allegedly anti-competitive…

U.S. & Ga. ex rel. Willis v. SouthernCare, Inc.

If the subpoenaed nonparty claims the protections under Rule 45(d)(3)(B) or asserts that disclosure would…