![]() ![]() Rather than file an answer to the Complaint, Defendant moved to dismiss, pursuant to Fed. In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, on two occasions, Smithfield failed to file pre-acquisition notification and observe the mandatory waiting period in connection with its purchases of stock issued by its competitor, IBP, inc. On February 28, 2003, the United States filed its Complaint against Smithfield, seeking civil penalties for its failure to comply with the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, 15 U.S.C. Finally, Defendant has arbitrarily refused to allow Plaintiff to depose four key individuals who are likely to have information about how Defendant and its subsidiaries transact business in the District of Columbia. In addition, Defendant has, with two exceptions, refused to produce documents and information relating to Defendant's subsidiaries whose products are sold in this district and indeed, refuses to state which of its subsidiaries' products are sold here. This motion is necessary because Defendant, contrary to Plaintiff's requests for documents and information for the time period 1997 through the present, cut off its production of documents and answers to interrogatories at January 31, 2001. ![]() ("Smithfield" or "Defendant") to comply with Plaintiff's discovery requests, and for an attendant extension of time to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Pursuant to Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States ("Plaintiff") respectfully submits this Memorandum in support of its motion to compel Smithfield Foods, Inc. 2d, Monopolies and Restraints of Trade §375 (2003) 1987)Īnnotation, Construction and Effect of Venue Provisions of §12 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, §3811 (2d ed. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2007 (2d ed. Hickory Furniture Co., 704 F.2d 140 (4th Cir. In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 2001 U.S. Defendant's Failure to Comply with Plaintiff's Reasonable Discovery Warrants Additional Time to Complete DiscoveryĬhrysler Corp.Defendant's Unilateral Limitation on the Number of Depositions Plaintiff May Take Is Unjustified.Smithfield Companies' Failure to Comply with Plaintiff's Subpoena Is Not Justified.Defendant's View Is To Make Discovery Available Only For What Plaintiff Already Knows.Defendant, Gwaltney, Packing and Smithfield Companies Should Be Required to Comply with Plaintiff's Discovery Requests to the Extent They Relied on General Objection 1.All Evidence That Casts Light on the Nature and Scope of Defendant's Relationship with its Subsidiaries at the Time the Complaint Was Filed Is Relevant Regardless of its Date.The Relevant Time for Determining Whether the Court Has Personal Jurisdiction over Defendant Is the Date the Complaint Was Filed.Defendant's Objection as to a "Relevant Time Period" for Discovery is Unfounded. ![]() Responses to Requests for Documents and Answers to Interrogatories.Laise Department of Justice, Antitrust Division 325 7 th Street, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, D.C. Respectfully submitted, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES Nina B. PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING THE PERIOD FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group. ![]() To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. This document is available in three formats: this web page (for browsing content), PDF (comparable to original document formatting), and WordPerfect. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |