Judge Allows Alleged Co-Conspirator Statements in Egg Antitrust Litigation
U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter said that the direct action plaintiffs in the antitrust case sought to admit hundreds of alleged co-conspirator statements against the defendants, in an effort to show the defendants were involved in a price-fixing conspiracy.
October 31, 2019 at 05:06 PM
3 minute read
Hundreds of statements made by alleged co-conspirators to the defendants in the national egg antitrust litigation over price-fixing will be admitted into evidence, a federal judge has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said that the direct action plaintiffs (DAPs) in the antitrust case sought to admit hundreds of alleged co-conspirator statements against defendants United Egg Producers (UEP), United States Egg Marketers (USEM) and Rose Acre Farms, in an effort to show the defendants were involved in a price-fixing conspiracy.
"To do so, the DAPs must prove the existence of the conspiracy they allege—a multi-pronged scheme to reduce the domestic supply of eggs as a means of increasing egg prices—by a preponderance of the evidence," Pratter wrote in her Oct. 31 opinion. "To use the statements against each defendant, the DAPs must prove that each individual defendant knowingly agreed to join this overarching conspiratorial scheme. Finally, the DAPs must show that the statements were made by a co-conspirator in the course of and in furtherance of the overarching conspiracy."
She added, "Because the DAPs have proven the existence of the conspiracy and each defendant's participation as required for this evidentiary ruling, many of these co-conspirator statements will be admissible at trial."
Jan Levine of Pepper Hamilton, an attorney for the defendants, did not respond to a request for comment.
The DAPs are represented by Richard Arnold of Kenny Nachwalter in Miami. He could not be reached for comment on Thursday's ruling.
Recently in the litigation, Pratter denied Heinz's request to transfer its case against egg suppliers. Heinz had pushed to have its claims moved to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois because that's where Kraft's claims are pending and the two are owned by the same parent company, thanks to a 2015 merger.
"Heinz brought this action over eight years ago and the Philadelphia trial will start in less than two weeks. Kraft and Heinz merged in 2015," Pratter said. "The Kraft and Heinz claims have independently coexisted for over four years since the merger. Whatever benefits Heinz may seek in trying the Kraft Heinz claims together was just as prevalent back then as it is now."
In 2017, Pratter approved a $75 million settlement from Michael Foods, a subsidiary of packaged food producing conglomerate Post, to settle claims against it.
The settlement, reached nearly a dozen years ago, was given final approval Nov. 17, 2017. The class action, brought by direct purchasers and suppliers of eggs, continues against other defendants.
The plaintiffs claim the nation's major egg producers were involved in a conspiracy to control and limit the supply of eggs in an effort to increase prices, allegedly through short-term production restrictions, such as slaughtering hens early, a pretextual animal welfare program and a "calculated" series of exports of eggs at below-market prices.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPhila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
3 minute readPhiladelphia Bar Association Executive Director Announces Retirement
3 minute readPhila. Jury Hits Sig Sauer With $11M Verdict Over Alleged Gun Defect
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250