#Motion to compel discovery georgia pdf
#Motion to compel discovery georgia free

One attorney typically led the questioning with others in attendance asking follow-up questions as necessary. Soven ('Soven Decl.) ¶ 5.' The participants in these interviews usually included attorneys and economists employed by the United States. (2) These interviews, typically conducted by telephone, are an important method by which the United States collects information to make a decision whether to challenge an acquisition under the Clayton Act. The United States also conducted approximately 170 interviews with third parties during its pre-Complaint investigation. (1) In its Initial Disclosures dated May 27, 2010, the United States produced to Dean all third-party documents, data, transcripts, and declarations gathered during its investigation that are relevant to the claims in this case, regardless of whether they supported the allegations of Plaintiffs' Complaint.

The United States deposed ten Dean employees, compared to four depositions of third-party employees. For example, Dean produced 79,021 documents (approximately 1.1 million pages), compared to the 9,985 documents (49,859 pages) produced by third parties. The vast majority of material obtained during the investigation came from Dean. 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 georgia 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 georgia 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).