Other third parties also provided documents voluntarily. The United States issued Civil Investigative Demands ("CIDs") for documents or deposition testimony to Dean and 20 third parties. The United States investigated the competitive effects of the acquisition over several months. That investigation culminated in this lawsuit, in which Plaintiffs assert that the acquisition violates Section 7 of the Clayton Act. The United States opened an antitrust investigation into this transaction on April 20, 2009. The acquisition was not required to be reported to federal antitrust authorities. On April 1, 2009, Dean acquired the two fluid-milk processing plants owned by Foremost Farms USA ("Foremost"). This Court's Scheduling Order provides Dean with more than enough time (a nine-month fact discovery period) and deposition hours (225) for its own discovery.
Motion to compel discovery example free#
A movant cannot demonstrate a substantial need for work product materials if, like Dean, it is free to depose or otherwise interview the individuals and entities in question. Dean has not attempted to make such a showing. And even if what Dean seeks is considered "fact" work product, Dean is entitled to such information only by showing both a substantial need and an inability to obtain equivalent materials without undue hardship. Ignoring this Supreme Court precedent, Dean does no more than cite two opinions that are non-binding on this Court and are inconsistent with Hickman and Upjohn. Under this controlling precedent, factual information obtained from an attorney's interviews of third-party witnesses - whether recorded in an attorney's notes, memoranda, or recollections - is opinion work product entitled to special protection. This principle was affirmed and strengthened in Upjohn v. 495 (1947), the Supreme Court held that an interrogatory like Dean's, requesting all facts an attorney had obtained from third-party interviews, improperly sought production of work product. PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL A DISCOVERY RESPONSE TO THE FIRST INTERROGATORY OF DEAN FOODS COMPANYĭean Foods Company's Motion to Compel a response to its First Interrogatory should be denied because it seeks protected attorney work product.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE DIVISION For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.
Motion to compel discovery example pdf#
To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting).
0 kommentar(er)
