IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: CHOCOLATE : CONFECTIONARY ANTITRUST : LITIGATION : _______________________________:

MDL DOCKET NO. 1935 (Civil Action No. 1:08-MDL-1935) (Judge Conner)

: THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO: : : ALL CASES :

PLAINTIFFS’ PRE-CONFERENCE BRIEF

1330543.6

Table of Contents I.

Factual and Legal Background ........................................................................................... 1 A.

Defendants Dominate the United States Market for Chocolate.............................. 2

B.

Chocolate Confectionary Market Conditions and Price Increases ......................... 3

C.

Investigations by Antitrust Authorities in the United States and Canada and Details of Defendants’ Communications ............................................................... 4

D.

Summary of Defendants’ Coordinated Conduct..................................................... 7

E.

Sherman and Clayton Act Violations ..................................................................... 8

II

MDL Proceedings; Procedural Posture of Transferred and Potential Tag-Along Cases.... 9

III.

Critical Issues ……………………………………………………………………………11 A.

Consolidation and Coordination among Plaintiffs................................................ 11

B.

Service of Process on Defendants......................................................................... 12 1.

Current Status of Service .......................................................................... 12

2.

Service of Consolidated Complaints......................................................... 13

C.

Discovery Regarding the Canadian Markets ........................................................ 14

D.

Initial Disclosure of Documents Produced to Government Agencies .................. 15

E.

Discovery Schedule .............................................................................................. 16

1330543.6

1.

Discovery Should Not Be Stayed Pending Motions to Dismiss ............... 16

2.

Discovery Should Not Be Bifurcated ....................................................... 17

i

Table of Authorities Cases Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 2006 WL 1722207 (E.D. Mich., June 20, 2006) .............................. 19 Bodner v. Paribas, 202 F.R.D. 370 (E.D.N.Y. 2000)................................................................... 18 City of Aurora, Colorado v. PS Systems, Inc., No. 07-cv-02371-WYD-BNB, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5944 (D. Colo. Jan. 14, 2008) ...................................................................................... 16 Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of the Lehigh Valley v. Grol, 1993 WL 13139559 (E.D.Pa. 1993)........ 16 Cohn v. Columbia Pictures Corp., 9 F.R.D. 204 (S.D.N.Y. 1949) .............................................. 13 Dawson v. Dodd, 1999 WL 410366 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 1999) ..................................................... 19 Gerber v. Citigroup, Inc., 2008 WL 596108 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2008)....................................... 13 Gold Quality Ice Cream Co. v. Deerfield Specialty, 87 F.R.D. 53 (E.D. Pa. 1980)..................... 15 Gray v. First Winthrop Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39 (N.D.Cal. 1990).............................................. 16, 17 Illinois Brick v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977)................................................................................. 9 In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29160 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 29, 2004) ................................................................................................................................... 14 In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig., No. 1426, 2002 WL 31261330 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 31, 2002) ................................................................................................................................... 12 In re Hamilton Banccorp, Inc. Sec. Lit., 2002 WL 463314 (S.D. Fla. 2002) ............................... 18 In re Plastic Additives Antitrust Litig., 2004 WL 2743591 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2004) ..... 15, 17, 18 In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8904 (D.D.C. June 20, 2001)................. 14 Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) ................................... 13 Pierce v. Hayward Industries, Inc., No. Civ. A. 05-5322, 2006 WL 891149 (E.D. Pa. April 4, 2006) ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Renner v. Lanard Toys Ltd., 33 F.3d 277 (3d Cir. 1994) ....................................................... 12, 13 Schnall v. Annuity and Life Re Holdings, Ltd., 2003 WL 23100326 (D. Conn. Dec., 13, 2000) . 13

1330543.6

ii

SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4276 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2006) ......................................................................................................................................... 15 Toys R Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446 (3d Cir. 2003) ................................................... 12 Williams v. Clinch County, Ga., 231 F.R.D. 700.......................................................................... 13 Statutes 15 U.S.C. § 1............................................................................................................................... 1, 8 15 U.S.C. § 15................................................................................................................................. 8 28 U.S.C. § 1332............................................................................................................................. 9 28 U.S.C. § 1367............................................................................................................................. 9 28 U.S.C. § 1407........................................................................................................................... 10 Other Sources Manual on Complex Litigation (Third) § 11.213.......................................................................... 17

1330543.6

iii

PLAINTIFFS’ PRE-CONFERENCE BRIEF Pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Court’s Case Management Order No. 3, dated April 23, 2008, the undersigned Plaintiffs1 hereby submit the following preconference brief relating to claims arising from a horizontal conspiracy among the dominant manufacturers of chocolate to fix, maintain, or stabilize prices in the United States from approximately 2002 through the present (“the Class Period”), a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. I.

Factual and Legal Background Sales in the United States market for chocolate products are in the billions of

dollars. By 2002, however, demand was decreasing. Confronted with the prospect of lower prices, Defendants entered into an unlawful conspiracy to increase the prices they received for their chocolate products in the United States and elsewhere. Beginning in December 2002, Defendants collectively embarked on a series of unprecedented price increases. These price increases, which occurred at or about the same time and were in similar amounts, were not attributable to normal

1

Four different categories of plaintiffs have filed complaints asserting antitrust violations against the Defendants related to price-fixing in the U.S. chocolate market: (1) direct purchaser class action plaintiffs; (2) indirect purchaser for resale class action plaintiffs; (3) indirect purchaser consumer class action plaintiffs; and (4) individual non-class direct purchaser plaintiffs. Unless otherwise indicated in context, all categories of plaintiffs are collectively referred to herein as “Plaintiffs.” 1330543.6

1

market forces – not only was demand decreasing, but the cost of Defendants’ raw materials was stable or declining during the Class Period as well. Moreover, Defendants were protected from price increases in their principal raw materials by contracts and other forward purchasing arrangements. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conspiracy, Plaintiffs paid artificially inflated prices for Defendants’ chocolate products during the Class Period. Defendants also fraudulently concealed their unlawful conduct, thus tolling any applicable statute of limitation. A.

Defendants Dominate the United States Market for Chocolate

In 2007, the United States market for chocolate was valued at approximately $16.5 billion. The United States market for chocolate is highly concentrated. Defendants control approximately 80% of this market, enabling them to successfully implement their price-fixing scheme. In 2007, The Hershey Company (“Hershey”) possessed an estimated 45% of the market, followed by Mars, Inc. (“Mars”) with a reported 26%, followed by Nestlé, S.A. (“Nestlé”), with the third largest market share. Defendant Cadbury Schweppes, plc (“Cadbury”) participates in the United States market for chocolate largely through a licensing agreement with Hershey, whereby Hershey manufactures, distributes, and sells several popular Cadbury products in the United States, including York Peppermint Patties, Almond Joy, Mounds, and Cadbury Caramello. The licensing agreement

1330543.6

2

requires senior management representatives of Hershey and Cadbury to meet each quarter to discuss the marketing and sale of the licensed products. In addition to the Hershey/Cadbury licensing agreement, Hershey also has a licensing agreement with Nestlé to manufacture, distribute, and sell Nestlé’s Kit Kat and Rolo products in the United States. These licensing agreements have provided opportunities for executives of these competing manufacturers to meet and communicate with one another on a frequent basis and thereby facilitate their unlawful price-fixing conspiracy. Similarly, Defendants’ participation in the activities of the same trade associations, such as the National Confectioners Association and the Pennsylvania Manufacturing Confectioners Association, has further facilitated the Defendants’ communications with one another. B.

Chocolate Market Conditions and Price Increases

Beginning in 2001, growth in the United States chocolate market slowed dramatically. This significant decline was partially attributable to an increased focus by American consumers on health concerns, as well as consumer preferences shifting towards more expensive brands of chocolate manufactured by companies other than Defendants. A Villanova University marketing professor, William Madway, recently described the Defendants’ chocolate market as “‘a mature, bordering on declining, industry.’” (“Chocolatetown Meltdown,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, Dec. 16, 2007.)

1330543.6

3

Because of these bleak economic conditions, Defendants agreed to implement a series of price increases. Pursuant to their unlawful conspiracy, Defendants announced price increases for chocolate concurrently and in similar amounts in December 2002 (an approximate collective 10% increase), in December 2004 (an approximate 6% increase), and in April 2007 (an approximate 5% increase). These price increases were a marked contrast to historical experience. From the mid-1990s until December 2002, for example, prices for chocolate in the United States were stable. C.

Investigations by Antitrust Authorities in the United States and Canada and Details of Defendants’ Communications

On December 20, 2007, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) had initiated an inquiry into possible anticompetitive practices in the United States chocolate market. Both Nestlé and Mars confirmed that they had been contacted as part of the DOJ investigation and Hershey disclosed the existence of the DOJ inquiry in its public filings. On April 1, 2008, the DOJ likewise confirmed that it is “investigating the possibility of anticompetitive practices in the chocolate manufacturing industry.”

1330543.6

4

The DOJ inquiry followed closely on the heels of a similar investigation by Canadian antitrust authorities. On November 28, 2007, the Canadian press reported that Canada’s Competition Bureau had served search warrants on Hershey, Nestlé, and Mars that required them to produce documents relating to pricing. The Competition Bureau’s investigation had begun in July 2007 based on the assistance of a cooperating company involved in the conspiracy that is widely presumed to be Cadbury. In conducting its investigation, the Canadian Competition Bureau mobilized some 30 investigators in the probe, issued warrants, and seized thousands of corporate e-mails, correspondence, computer files and other documents from Hershey Canada, Inc, Mars Canada, Inc., and Nestlé Canada, Inc. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the applications for search warrants “based on evidence that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a number of suppliers in the chocolate confectionary industry have engaged in activities contrary to the conspiracy provisions of the Competition Act.” On December 24, 2007, the Superior Court of Ontario unsealed two affidavits submitted by the Canadian Competition Bureau in support of its request for search warrants that revealed that senior Canadian executives at Mars, Hershey, Nestlé, and the cooperating company had met secretly at coffee shops, restaurants, and trade conventions and communicated via telephone and e-mail to fix prices.

1330543.6

5

These affidavits detailed a litany of facts reflecting myriad improper communications among Defendants. It is evident from the unsealed affidavits that Defendants’ conspiracy involved senior employees in both the United States and Canada. For instance, on January 3, 2007, Humberto Alfonso, then Hershey Vice President, Finance and Planning for the North American Commercial Group, who had responsibility for overseeing finance and planning for Hershey’s Canadian and United States operations, wrote an e-mail to Eric Lent, who was the new General Manager of Hershey Canada, and to an employee of the cooperating company. (Hershey’s Humberto Alfonso, the author of this e-mail, left a senior position at Cadbury to take this position in July 2006.) In arranging for an introduction of Hershey’s new Canadian General Manager, Eric Lent, to his competitor, Humberto Alfonso wrote: As we discussed, Hershey has recently appointed Eric Lent as VP/GM for the Canada business. In keeping with the good advice from “The Godfather”, keep close to your competition, I am including contact info below in an effort to introduce you both. All kidding aside, I know Eric is looking forward to meeting you. (emphasis added). The unsealed affidavits reveal that subsequent e-mail communications between Hershey General Manager Lent and the executive from the “cooperating” entity resulted in a phone call between these two senior officials of competitor companies. There are likewise further connections between the United States and Canadian chocolate markets.

1330543.6

6

D.

Summary of Defendants’ Coordinated Conduct

Faced with a marked decrease in demand, Defendants entered into the alleged conspiracy to raise, fix, and maintain their prices. Their dominant market share enabled them to implement a series of price increases in approximately the same amount and at approximately the same times. Those price increases were imposed despite declining demand and despite stable or declining raw material costs during the Class Period. For instance, in 2002, the average price of cocoa beans was approximately $0.77/lb.; by 2004, it had dropped to $0.69/lb. The Canadian Competition Bureau also uncovered evidence that during the occurrence of the unprecedented, simultaneous price increases in the United States, these same Defendants were actively colluding in Canada, and raising prices for chocolate in a similar fashion. Moreover, Defendants operate their Canadian and United States operations on an integrated basis. Hershey and Mars control and manage their Canadian and United States operations through centralized top management located in the United States. Hershey’s “North American” Commercial Group is responsible for sales and marketing operations in both the United States and Canada. Mars, according to its web-site, represents that its Canadian operations are “a division” or “unit” of the Virginia-based parent. For both Cadbury and Nestlé, the Canadian and United States markets are grouped together in the “Americas” region. Lastly, during this time period, Defendants

1330543.6

7

were active at meetings of United States trade associations that gave them opportunities to collude in person. E.

Sherman and Clayton Act Violations

Each of the transferred actions alleges a conspiracy to fix prices and restrain trade in the United States chocolate market in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15. The Defendants’ anticompetitive activities include: (a)

communicating with each other and others to discuss and fix the price of chocolate sold in the United States;

(b)

issuing price announcements and price quotations for chocolate products in accordance with the agreements reached; and

(c)

selling chocolate to customers throughout the United States at mutually agreed upon, artificial, or supra-competitive prices.

Thus, the primary legal issue is whether the Defendants’ entered into a combination or conspiracy which artificially raised, fixed, maintained, or stabilized the price of chocolate in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims for violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts differ slightly from both the direct purchaser class plaintiffs and the Individual Plaintiffs in that their federal antitrust claims seek injunctive relief only. This is because indirect purchasers may not sue for damages under the federal

1330543.6

8

antitrust laws under the Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois Brick v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977). Therefore, in addition to violations of the Sherman and Clayton Act, those transferred actions which are brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of chocolate also allege that Defendants’ combination and conspiracy is in violation of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and original jurisdiction over these claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as amended by the Class Action Fairness Act. All Plaintiffs have further alleged that the Defendants and their coconspirators affirmatively and fraudulently concealed their unlawful conduct from the Plaintiffs. As a result of the fraudulent concealment of their conspiracy by Defendants and their co-conspirators, the Plaintiffs assert that the running of any applicable statutes of limitation affecting the rights of action of the Plaintiffs has been tolled. II.

MDL Proceedings; Procedural Posture of Transferred and Potential Tag-Along Cases The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an Order on April 7,

2008, transferring certain of the related cases to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The April 7, 2008 Order identified 20 related actions. On April 21, 2008, the Panel issued a Conditional Transfer Order identifying an additional 48 1330543.6

9

actions that were to be transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Of those 68 actions, Plaintiffs believe seven are brought on behalf of indirect purchasers. Plaintiffs are also aware of seven additional class actions brought by direct purchasers of chocolate that were filed outside of this District and were not listed on either the April 7 Order or the April 21 Order.2 Plaintiffs are not aware of any related cases pending in state courts. As of the date of filing of this pre-conference brief, the transferred and potential tag-along actions are all in the early stages of litigation. In some of the actions, the complaints have not yet been served on the Defendants. Defendants have likewise not yet filed answers or other responses to any of the individual complaints in the related actions. In many of the transferred and potential tag-along cases, class action Plaintiffs and Defendants have entered into stipulations regarding the Defendants’ responses to the class action complaints. Pursuant to stipulations in these cases, the parties have agreed that the deadline for the Defendants to respond to the 2

Solomon v. The Hershey Company, et al., No. 08-0931 (S.D.N.Y.), filed January 28, 2008; Pellitteri v. The Hershey Company, et al., No. 08-1308 (D.N.J.), filed March 13, 2008; T. Levy Associates t/a Beautyland v. The Hershey Company, et al., No. 08-1324 (D.N.J.), filed March 14, 2008; Lower v. The Hershey Company, et al., No. 08-1327 (D.N.J.), filed March 14, 2008; Currie, et al. v. The Hershey Company, et al., No. 08-1689 (N.D. Ill.), filed March 21, 2008; Patterson v. The Hershey Company, et al., No. 08-1408 (E.D. Pa.), filed March 24, 2008; and Food Lion, LLC, et al. v. Cadbury Adams Canada, Inc., et al., No. 08-3045 (S.D.N.Y.), filed March 25, 2008.

1330543.6

10

Plaintiffs’ complaints shall be forty-five days after the filing of a Consolidated Complaint in the transferee court. The parties have likewise stipulated that Plaintiffs will not seek discovery until the transferee district enters a case management order. Pursuant to some of the stipulations, defense counsel has also agreed to accept service of process, including service of any consolidated complaints, on behalf of the domestic entities that they represent. III.

Critical Issues A.

Consolidation and Coordination among Plaintiffs

There are four different categories of Plaintiffs who have filed complaints asserting violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts against the Defendants related to price-fixing in the United States chocolate market: (1) direct purchaser class action Plaintiffs; (2) indirect purchaser for resale class action Plaintiffs; (3) indirect purchaser consumer class action Plaintiffs; and (4) individual non-class direct purchaser Plaintiffs (“Individual Plaintiffs”). The direct purchaser class action Plaintiffs and each group of indirect purchaser class action Plaintiffs intend to consolidate their respective actions. Individual Plaintiffs may designate a typical complaint for purposes of any motions to dismiss. Discovery will be similar for all of these cases. Thus, once the direct purchaser class actions and each group of indirect purchaser class actions have been consolidated into three

1330543.6

11

separate class actions, judicial economy may further be served by coordinating the discovery and pre-trial proceedings for each of the four actions. B.

Service of Process on Defendants 1.

Current Status of Service

Defendants in these actions include several foreign entities.3 As of the date of this submission, the foreign Defendants have each been served in at least one of the underlying actions. It is possible that one or more foreign Defendants may move for dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Thus, discovery concerning personal jurisdiction issues may be necessary prior to resolution of these motions to dismiss.4

3

There is not, at this time, a uniformity of foreign Defendants among all the cases that have been filed. 4

See Toys R Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446, 456-57 (3d Cir. 2003) (“Although the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating facts that support personal jurisdiction, … courts are to assist the plaintiff by allowing jurisdictional discovery unless the plaintiff’s claim is ‘clearly frivolous’”; vacating district court’s dismissal and permitting jurisdictional discovery of Spanish corporation); Renner v. Lanard Toys Ltd., 33 F.3d 277 (3d Cir. 1994) (recognizing that “numerous cases have sustained the right of plaintiffs to conduct discovery before the district court dismisses for lack of personal jurisdiction”; permitting jurisdictional discovery of Hong Kong manufacturer); In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig., No. 1426, 2002 WL 31261330, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 31, 2002) (“Before dismissing a case for lack of personal jurisdiction, courts should generally permit discovery into jurisdictional facts.”; permitting jurisdictional discovery of German defendants); see also Pierce v. Hayward Industries, Inc., No. Civ.A. 055322, 2006 WL 891149, at *4 (E.D. Pa. April 4, 2006) (“A plaintiff is ‘entitled to conduct discovery into jurisdictional facts,’ rather than accept a defendant’s 1330543.6

12

2.

Service of Consolidated Complaints

An order for consolidation and transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is premised upon the essential ground that plaintiffs' claims are substantially the same. In such circumstances, completion of service of any one complaint serves the purpose of service of process, “to give a defendant legal notice of the claims asserted against him so that he may prepare his defense.” Schnall v. Annuity and Life Re Holdings, Ltd., 2003 WL 23100326, *2 (D. Conn. Dec., 13, 2000) (citing Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350 (1999)). Therefore, Plaintiffs in the direct purchaser class actions and the indirect purchaser class actions propose that service of process of any individual class action complaint be deemed sufficient to satisfy the service requirements in the consolidated class actions. Stated in another way, it is Plaintiffs’ position that as long as an original individual class complaint was served in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the subsequent pleading, i.e., the consolidated complaint, may be served by mail on counsel for that properly served Defendant. See Gerber v. Citigroup, Inc., 2008 WL 596108, *2 n.2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2008); Williams v. Clinch County, Ga., 231 F.R.D. 700, 701 (M.D. Ga. 2005) (citing Cohn v. Columbia Pictures Corp., 9 F.R.D. 204, 205

‘analysis of the facts without a chance to probe further.’”) (citing Renner, 33 F.3d at 283). 1330543.6

13

(S.D.N.Y. 1949) and holding that subsequent pleadings may be served on an attorney who represents a party to a lawsuit). C.

Discovery Regarding the Canadian Markets

Defendants take the position that all discovery, including discovery of foreign defendants, should be limited in geographic scope to the United States. Defendants’ proposed restriction on foreign discovery ignores the strong nexus between and integrated nature of the United States and Canadian markets. Defendants’ conspiratorial conduct in Canada involved some executives who were responsible for both the United States and Canada, and the Defendants’ United States and Canadian operations are run on an integrated basis. Furthermore, where there is related anticompetitive conduct in a foreign country, it is relevant to, and probative of, anticompetitive conduct in the United States. See In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29160, at *12-*16 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 29, 2004) (finding that plaintiffs’ discovery requests relating to activities outside the United States were “relevant to their domestic antitrust claims”); In re Plastic Additives Antitrust Litig., 2004 WL 2743591, at *41-*47 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2004) (“[T]his Court agrees that documents produced to foreign investigative bodies are relevant to determine whether defendants have engaged in price-fixing that affects American commerce.”); In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS8904, at *60-*65 (D.D.C. June 20, 2001) (finding “good cause” for

1330543.6

14

allowing discovery of foreign activities where such discovery “would be relevant to show the breadth of the conspiracy, the role that each defendants’ executives played in implementing, expanding, enforcing, and concealing the conspiracy, and how the conspiracy was maintained for the length of time alleged”). See also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4276, at *10 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2006) (“The fact that the United States is the relevant market in a case does not necessarily limit discovery to the United States.”) (citation omitted). D.

Initial Disclosure of Documents Produced to Government Agencies

As proposed by Plaintiffs’ counsel in the Joint Report Regarding Proposed Case Management Plans (“Joint Report”), at the outset of discovery, Defendants should be required to provide documents/data and other records already supplied to or seized by government investigative agencies in the United States and Canada. Doing so is not burdensome inasmuch as the documents have been or are already being collected. Likewise, producing this information early on in cases such as this one are routinely provided for in pretrial orders. See Plastics Additives 2004 WL 2743591, at *12-15 (“It appears, however, that defendants in antitrust litigation regularly agree through joint discovery schedules to produce documents submitted to the DOJ, grand juries, and other investigative authorities concerning the basis for the antitrust civil suit.”); Gold Quality Ice Cream Co. v. Deerfield Specialty, 87 F.R.D. 53, 59 (E.D. Pa. 1980). 1330543.6

15

E.

Discovery Schedule 1.

Discovery Should Not Be Stayed Pending Motions to Dismiss

In their proposed schedule, Defendants seek to delay the opening of discovery until after the resolution of their anticipated motions to dismiss. In effect, Defendants are seeking a stay of discovery at the very outset of this litigation although such a request is directly contrary to this Court’s sample Case Management Order which states, “[c]ounsel shall not cease active discovery pending disposition of a motion to dismiss.” See Sample Case Management Order, ¶5(a). Moreover, the law is clear that a stay of discovery is not granted simply because Defendants have expressed an intention to file motions to dismiss. “Had the Federal Rules contemplated that a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) would stay discovery, the Rules would contain a provision to that effect. In fact, such a notion is directly at odds with the need for expeditious resolution of litigation.” Gray v. First Winthrop Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D.Cal. 1990). See also City of Aurora, Colorado v. PS Systems, Inc., No. 07-cv-02371-WYD-BNB, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5944, at *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 14, 2008) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a stay of proceedings while a motion to dismiss is pending.”); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of the Lehigh Valley v. Grol, 1993 WL

1330543.6

16

13139559, *2 (E.D.Pa. March 3, 1993) (“[a] court should not automatically stay discovery pending a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b).”). Efforts to stay discovery “are not favored because when discovery is delayed or prolonged it can create case management problems which impede the court’s responsibility to expedite discovery and cause unnecessary litigation expenses and problems.” Id.; see also Gray, 133 F.R.D. at 40. Thus, it would be inappropriate to enter a scheduling order which indefinitely stays discovery. 2.

Discovery Should Not Be Bifurcated

In the Joint Report, Plaintiffs have requested that discovery for all issues open on August 29, 2008. In contrast, Defendants seek bifurcation of class and merits discovery. However, courts should only bifurcate class certification discovery from merits discovery “when bifurcation serves the interests of ‘fairness and efficiency.’” Plastics Additives, 2004 WL 2743591, at *2 (citing Manual on Complex Litigation (Third) § 11.213 (hereinafter the “Manual”)). According to the Manual, “the prime considerations in whether bifurcation is efficient and fair include whether merits-based discovery is sufficiently intermingled with classbased discovery and whether the litigation is likely to continue absent class certification.” Id. at *3 (citing Manual). In considering bifurcation of discovery, “discretion is left with the district judge, particularly when discovery relating to class certification is closely

1330543.6

17

intertwined and enmeshed with merits discovery.” In re Hamilton Banccorp, Inc. Sec. Lit., 2002 WL 463314, *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2002). A significant problem with bifurcation is that “the distinction between merits-based discovery and classrelated discovery is often blurry, if not spurious.” In re Plastics Additives, 2004 WL 2743591, at *3 (citing Manual § 21.14, at 255). Consequently, bifurcation “belie[s] principles of judicial economy as the Court may be forced to spend time and resources resolving discovery disputes over what is ‘merit’ discovery as compared to ‘class’ discovery.” Id. (citing Hamilton Banccorp, 2002 WL 463314, at *1); see also Gray 133 F.R.D. at 41 (granting pre-certification merits discovery because “discovery relating to class certification is closely enmeshed with merits discovery, and in fact cannot be meaningfully developed without inquiry into basic issues of the litigation”); Bodner v. Paribas, 202 F.R.D. 370, 373 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (denying bifurcation request, reasoning that “discovery on the merits, reasonably structured, is essential to determining whether class certification is appropriate”). Here, class and merits discovery are intertwined to a great degree. See Plastics Additives, 2004 WL 2743591, at *4 (stating that “[t]here will be a substantial overlap between what is needed to prove plaintiff’s price-fixing claims, as well as the information needed to establish class-wide defenses, and what is needed to determine whether the elements of class certification are met”). In addition, permitting class and merits discovery to commence at the same time is in

1330543.6

18

keeping with this Court’s practice of promoting judicial economy and the efficient handling of cases. Beginning merits discovery gets the ball rolling in this case and will promote a more expeditious resolution of the matter in the long run. Id. at *5 (denying motion to bifurcate class-based and merits-based discovery because bifurcation “would be inefficient, unfair, and duplicative”). Finally, given that the Individual Plaintiffs’ cases will proceed regardless of the outcome of the class certification process, phasing discovery is not justified. Denial of class certification would not terminate these actions, which will continue regardless of the outcome of the direct and indirect purchaser motions for class certification. The continuation of the individual claims “belies whatever time and expense may be saved in the future through the narrowing of discovery pursuant to the resolution of class certification motions.” Id. at 4. See also Dawson v. Dodd, 1999 WL 410366, at *3 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 1999); see also Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 2006 WL 1722207, at *2 (E.D. Mich., June 20, 2006) (court refused to stay action pending Rule 23(f) appeal since individual opt-out plaintiffs’ case would proceed regardless of out come of class certification appeal).

1330543.6

19

Defendants are hard-pressed to justify why Individual Plaintiffs must be deprived of the right to timely advance discovery in their cases, particularly when merits discovery will have to take place regardless of the outcome of class certification issues. Dated: May 22, 2008

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Walter W.Cohen Walter W. Cohen, Esq. (PA12907) Kevin J. Kehner, Esq. OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP 200 Locust Street, Suite 400 Harrisburg, PA 17101 [email protected] P:(717) 234-9730 F:(717) 234-9734 One of the Counsel for the Proposed Class of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Filing on Behalf of All Plaintiffs

1330543.6

20

(716) 664-2967

Counsel for Proposed Class of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs:

Michael McShane AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 221 Main Street, Suite 1460 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 568-2555

Jeffrey S. Abraham Arthur J. Chen ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP One Penn Plaza Suite 2805 New York, NY 10119 (212) 279-5050

Jeffrey B. Gittleman BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 963-0600

Torsten Michael Kracht Richard L. Wyatt, Jr. Todd M. Stenerson AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP (DC) Robert S. Strauss Bldg, 1333 New Hampshire Ave. NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 887-4000

H. Laddie Montague, Jr. Ruthanne Gordon Eric L. Cramer Candice J. Eders BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 875-3010

Richard Laurence Macon AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP (TX) 300 Convent Suite 1600 San Antonio, TX 78205 (210) 281 7222

Abigail R. Romeo Peter A. Pease BERMAN DEVALERIO PEASE TABACCO BURT & PUCILLO One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 (617) 542-8300

Andrew H. Selesnick ALLEGUEZ & SELESNICK, LLP 15821 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 615 Encino, CA 91436 (818) 455-0550

Christopher T. Heffelfinger Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. BERMAN DEVALERIO PEASE TABACCO BURT & PUCILLO 425 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 433-3200

James P. Allen, Sr. Craig J. Yaldoo ALLEN BROTHERS, PLLC 400 Monroe Street Suite 220 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 496-1414

Manuel J. Dominguez BERMAN DEVALERIO PEASE TABACCO BURT & PUCILLO 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 835-9400

Arthur N. Bailey ARTHUR N. BAILEY & ASSOCIATES 111 West Second Street Jamestown, NY 14701 1343631.1

21

Suite 3610 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 864-2810

Ronald J. Aranoff BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD & LIFSHITZ, LLP 10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 (212) 779-1414

John Dillan CARUSO & DILLON, P.C. 100 Mamaroneck Avenue Mamaroneck, NY 10543 (914) 698-6392

William Isaacson Tanya Chutkan Ian Crichton BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20015 (202) 237-2727

Rees Griffiths CGA LAW FIRM 135 N. George Street York, PA 17401 (717) 848-4900

Courtney R. Rockett Matthew S. Tripolitsiotis BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 (914) 749-8242

Kathleen Currie Chavez CHAVEZ LAW FIRM P.C. 28 North First Street Suite 2 Geneva, IL 60134 (630) 232-4480

Anthony J. Bolognese Joshua H. Grabar BOLOGNESE & ASSOCIATES, LLC Two Penn Center 1500 JFK Boulevard Suite 320 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 (215) 814-6750

Joseph G. Saunder Benjamin F. Johns CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 (610) 642-8500 Robert G. Eisler Hilary Ratway Seth R. Gassman COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C. 150 East 52nd Street Thirtieth Floor New York, NY 10022 (212) 838-7797

Michael J. Boni BONI & ZACK, LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 (610) 822-0201 Jennifer W. Sprengel Anthony Fata CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP 30 North LaSalle Street Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 782-4485

Michael Hausfeld Christopher Cormier COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500, West Tower Washington, DC 20005 (202) 408-4600

Bryan Clobes CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP 1717 Arch Street 1343631.1

22

PALLIOS PACHER AND SILVA 1601 I Street, 5th Floor Modesto, CA 95354 (209) 526-3500

Michael P. Lehmann COHEN, MILSTEIN, HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C. One Embarcadero Center Suite 2440 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 229-2080

Bernard J. DiMuro Michael S. Lieberman John M. Tran DIMURO GINSBERG PC 908 King Street, Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 (703) 684-4333

William D. Marvin COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C. Two Commerce Square Suite 2900 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 567-3500

Marc H. Edelson EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC 45 W. Court Street Doylestown, PA 18901 (215) 230-8043

Constantine D. Georges CONSTANTINE D. GEORGES, ATTORNEY AT LAW 527 St. Ann Street New Orleans, LA 70116 (504) 415-7210

Jacob Goldberg FARUQI & FARUQI 2600 Philmont Ave., Suite 324 Huntington Valley, PA 19006 (215) 914-2461

Bonny E. Sweeney Kristen Marie Anderson COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN AND ROBBINS 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 231-1058

Allen D. Black Gerard A. Dever Roberta D. Liebenberg FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, R.P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 567-6565

Samuel H. Rudman COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN AND ROBBINS 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 (631) 367-7100

Douglas G. Thompson Richard M. Volin Rosalee B. Connell Elizabeth K. Tripodi FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP The Duvall Foundry 1050 30th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007 (202) 337-8000

Kevin B. Love CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515 South Miami, FL 33143 (305) 357-9010

Robert M. Foote Stephen William Fung FOOTE, MEYERS, MIELKE & FLOWERS, LLC 28 North First Street Suite 2

Fred A. Silva Roger Martin Schrimp DAMRELL NELSON SCHRIMP 1343631.1

23

(415) 981-4800

Geneva, IL 60134 (630) 232-6333

Thomas V. Girardi J. Paul Sizemore Jennifer Lenze GIRARDI KEESE 1126 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 91101 (213) 977-0211

Michael G. Simon FRANKOVITCH ANETAKIS COLANTONIO & SIMON 337 Penco Road Weirton, WV 26062 (304) 723-4400

Lionel Z. Glancy Michael M. Goldberg GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 201-9150

Steven A. Kanner FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 (224) 632-4500 Paul Weiss FREED & WEISS, LLC 111 West Washington Street Suite 1331 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 220-0000

Joseph Goldberg Freedman B. Hollander GOLDBERG & IVES, P.A. 20 First Plaza, Suite 700 Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 842-9960

Gary B. Friedman Tracey Kitzman Aaron D. Patton Dean M. Solomon FRIEDMAN LAW GROUP LLP 270 Lafayette Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10012 (212) 680-5150

Mark Goldman GOLDMAN SCARLATO & KARON, PC 101 West Elm Street, Suite 360 Conshohocken, PA 19428 (484) 342-0700 Daniel E. Gustafson GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 650 Northstar East 608 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 333-8844

Robert J. Gralewski, Jr. Edward M. Gergosian GERGOSIAN & GRALEWSKI LLP 655 West Broadway Suite 1410 San Diego, CA 92101 (619)237-9500

Ryan Husaynu HUSAYNU & PLEZIA, P.C. 26211 Central Park Blvd, Suite 207 Southfield, MI 48076 (248) 356-7979

Daniel C. Girard Elizabeth C. Pritzker Aaron M. Sheanin Steven G. Tidrick GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 1343631.1

Samuel R. Simon JACOBS LAW GROUP, P.C. 1800 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 404 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 569-9701 24

LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH A. ELAN 217 Broadway Suite 606 New York, NY 10007 (212) 619-0261

Daniel Hume Peter S. Linden David Kovel KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP 830 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212) 371-6600

Krishna B. Narine LAW OFFICE OF KRISHNA B. NARINE 2600 Philmont Ave., Suite 324 Huntington Valley, PA 19006 (215) 914-2462

William E. Hoese Joseph C. Kohn Douglas A. Abrahams KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 238-1700

Larry S. Keiser LAW OFFICES OF LARRY S. KEISER 138 S. Main Street, P.O. Box 220 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18703 (570) 822-2929 Myron Harris LAW OFFICES OF MYRON HARRIS S 106 Park Towne Place Philadelphia, PA 19130 (215) 567-5333

Bernard Persky Hollis Salzman Eric Belfi Kellie Lerner Morissa Falk Gregory Asciolla LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 (212) 907-0717

Nathan N. Neuman LAW OFFICES OF NATHAN NEUMAN 700 Lake Drive Ambler, PA 19002-5084 (215) 646-9520

Warren Rubin Bernard M. Gross Tina Moukoulis LAW OFFICE OF BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C. John Wanamaker Bldg. Suite 450 Juniper & Market Sts. 100 Penn Square East Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 561-3600

M. Stephen Dampier LAW OFFICE OF M. STEPHEN DAMPIER, P.C. 14 S. Section Street P.O. Box 161 Fairhope, AL 36533 (251) 928-9160 Steven Dane Irwin David V. Weicht Roger P. Poorman LEECH TISHMAN FUSCALDO & LAMPL, LLC Citizens Bank Building, 30th Floor 525 William Penn Place Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 261-1600

Christopher G. Hayes LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G. HAYES 225 South Church Street West Chester, PA 19382 (610) 431-9505 Kenneth Elan 1343631.1

25

White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 287-7616

Howard J. Sedran LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 592-1500

Jayne A. Goldstein MAGER & GOLDSTEIN, LLP 1818 Market Street, Suite 3710 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 640-3280

David S. Stellings LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10017 (212) 355-9500

Bernard D. Marcus Scott D. Livingston Morira Cain-Mannix MARCUS SHAPIRA LLP One Oxford Centre, 35th Floor 301 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 471-3490

Joseph R. Saveri LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 (415) 956-1008

Gaines C. McCorquodale MCCORQUODALE & MCCORQUODALE 226 Commerce Street P.O. Drawer 1137 Jackson, AL 36545 (251) 246-9015

W. Joseph Bruckner Heidi M. Silton Nathan D. Prosser LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 339-6900

Steven A. Skalet Craig Briskin MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036

Gerald Lawrence, Jr. LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN PC 4 Tower Building Suite 400 200 Barr Harbor Dr. West Conshohocken, PA 19428 (610) 941-2760

Peter Safirstein Andrew J. Morganti MILBERG WEISS, LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119 (212) 594-5300

Richard W. Cohen Barbara Hart Geoffrey M. Horn Todd S. Garber LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN PC 1 North Broadway Suite 509 White Plains, NY 10601-2301 (914) 997-0500

Jonathan Hugg OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP 1617 J.F.K. Boulevard, 19th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 665-3000

Michael R. Lowitt LOWITT & ASSOCIATES, LLP One North Broadway Suite 401 1343631.1

Laurence D. Paskowitz PASKOWITZ & ASSOCIATES 26

W. Michael Hamilton PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM LLP One Burton Hills Blvd, Suite 380 Nashville, TN 37215 (615) 242-0199

60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 685-0969 Bruce L. Simon Esther L. Klisura Ashlei M. Vargas PEARSON SIMON SOTER WARSHAW & PENNY LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Ste. 1200 San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 433-9000

Steven M. Recht RECHT LAW OFFICES 3405 Main Street Weirton, WV 26062 (304) 748-5850 Mark Reinhardt Garret D. Blanchfield, Jr. REINHARDT WENDORF & BALNCHFIELD E-1250 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 (651) 287-2100

Clifford H. Pearson Gary S. Soter PEARSON SIMON SOTER WARSHAW & PENNY LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 (818) 788-8300 Michael M. Buchman J. Douglas Richards POMERANTZ HAUDEK BLOCK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 (212) 661-1100

Michael L. Roberts ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A. P.O. Box 241790 20 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AR 72223 (501) 821-5575 Dianne Nast Erin C. Burns RODA & NAST, PC 801 Estelle Drive Lancaster, PA 17601 (717) 892-3000

Cheryl Hammer Mackell POMERANTZ HAUDEK BLOCK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 327-5420

Howard M. Mevinson Richard A. Russo ROSENN, JENKINS & GREENWALD, LLP 15 South Franklin Street Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711-0075 (570) 826-5650

Gregory P. Hansel Randall B. Weill Joshua R. Carver PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, LLP One City Center P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112 (207) 791-3000

1343631.1

Jason S. Hartley ROSS, DIXON & BELL, LLP 550 West B. Street, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 235-4040 27

Edison, NJ 08817 (732) 819-9100

Roy L. Jacobs ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 867-1156

Isaac L. Diel SHARP MCQUEEN P.A. Financial Plaza 6900 College Blvd. Suite 285 Overland Park, KS 66211 (913) 661-9931

Camilo Kossy Salas, III SALAS LC 650 Poydras St. Suite 1650 New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 799-3080

Natalie F. Bennett SHEPERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLC 35 East State Street Media, PA 19063 (610) 891-9880

Simon B. Paris SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 496-8282

Eugene A. Spector Jay S. Cohen William G. Caldes SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF, PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 496-0300

Scott P. Schlesinger SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 Southeast Third Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 (954) 320-9507

Paul E. Slater SPERLING & SLATER, P.C. 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 641-3200

Scott A. George Christopher A. Seeger SEEGER WEISS, LLP 550 Broad Street Suite 920 Newark, NJ 07102 (973) 639-9100

Allan Steyer STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS AVAREZ & SMITH LLP One California Street, Third Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 421-3400

Leonard V. Fodera SILVERMAN & FODERA, PC Eleven Penn Center Suite 2600 1835 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2100

David Boies Timothy Battin STRAUS & BOIES, LLP 4041 University Drive, 5th Floor Fairfax, VA 22030 (703) 764-8700

Mark S. Shane SHANE & WHITE LLC 1676 Route 27 1343631.1

Barry C. Barnett SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 28

901 Main Street, Suite 5100 Dallas, TX 75202-3775 (214) 754-1900

Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 (248) 841-2200

Rachel S. Black SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Auite 3800 Seattle, WA 98105 (206) 516-3800

Thomas A. Muzilla THE MUZILLA LAW FIRM, LLP Tower at Erieview, Suite 1100 1301 East 9th Street Cleveland, OH 44114 (216) 458-5880

Marc M. Seltzer SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 (310) 789-3100 Frederick P. Furth Henry A. Cirillo THE FURTH FIRM LLP 225 Bush Street, 15th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 433-2070

Kent M. Williams THE WILLIAMS LAW FIRM 1632 Homestead Trail Long Lake, MN 55356 (763) 473-0314 Lee C. Swartz Stephen M. Greecher, Jr. TUCKER ARENSBERG, P.C. 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 234-4121

Donald E. Haviland, Jr. Adam S. Levy THE HAVILAND LAW FIRM 112 Haddontowne Court Suite 202 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 (856) 354-0034

Thomas P. Cartmell WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Avenue Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 (816) 701-1100

Peter Lawrence Currie THE LAW FIRM OF PETER L. CURRIE 536 Wing Lane St. Charles, IL 60174 (630) 862-1130

Steven A. Asher WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC 1845 Walnut Street Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 545 7200

Donna F. Solen THE MASON LAW FIRM, P.C. 1225 19th Street NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 429-2290

Mark J. Tamblyn WEXLER TRISEVA WALLACE, LLP 1610 Arden Way Suite 290 Sacramento, CA 95815 (916) 568-1100

David H. Fink E. Powell Miller Marc L. Newman Martha J. Olijnyk THE MILLER LAW FIRM 950 W. University Drive 1343631.1

Kenneth A. Wexler 29

(704) 331-0767

Edward A. Wallace Amber M. Nesbitt WEXLER TRISEVA WALLACE, LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 446-2222

Richard M. Hagstrom James S. Reece Michael E. Jacobs ZELLE, HOFMANN, VOELBEL, MASON & GETTE LLP 500 Washington Avenue South Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 339-2020

Kevin Peter Roddy Lynne M. Kizis WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER 90 Woodbridge Center Drive Suite 900, Box 10 Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0958 (732) 636-8000

Robert S. Schachter Stephanie Kirwan ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 41 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 (212) 223-3900

Esther Eva Berezofsky WILLIAMS, CUKER & BEREZOFSKY, ESQS. Woodland Falls Corporate Center 210 Lake Drive East Suite 101 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1163 (856) 667-0500 Marc A. Wites WITES & KAPETAN, P.A. 4400 North Federal Hwy Lighthouse Point, FL 33604 (954) 570-8989

Counsel for Proposed Class of Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs: David J. Syrios Guri Ademi Shpetim Ademi ADEMI & O’REILLY, LLP 3620 E. Layton Ave. Cudahy, WI 53110 (414) 482-8000

Mary Jane Fait Adam J. Levitt WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLC 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 984-0000

Donald C. Amamgbo AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES, P.L.C. 7901 Oakport Street, Suite 4900 Oakland, CA 94621 (510) 615-6000

Fred T. Isquith WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLC 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 (212) 545-4600

Gordon Ball BALL & SCOTT 550 Main Avenue, Suite 750 Knoxville, TN 37902 (865) 525-7028

James F. Wyatt, III WYATT & BLAKE, LLP 435 East Morehead Street Charlotte, NC 28202-2609 1343631.1

Robert J. Bonsignore 30

Thomas C. Jessee JESSEE & JESSEE P.O. Box 997 Johnson City, TN 37605 (423) 928-7175

Adrianna Contartese Richard Kirchner BONSIGNORE & BREWER 23 Forest Street Medford, MA 02155 (781) 391-9400 Phillip Duncan James Bartolomei DUNCAN FIRM, P.A. 900 S. Shackleford Road Suite 725 Little Rock, AR 72211 (501) 228-7600

Steven F. Benz Kevin J. Miller KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C. Sumner Square 1615 M Street N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036-3209 (202) 326-7929

Joanne D. Sommer EASTBURN AND GRAY, P.C. 60 East Court Street Doylestown, PA 18901 (215) 345-7000

Joseph M. Patane LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. PATANE 2280 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 (415) 563-7200

R. Christopher Gilreath GILREATH & ASSOCIATES The Mosby Bennett House 6256 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38119 (866) 853-5320

Lawrence G. Papale LAWRENCE G. PAPALE LAW OFFICES 1308 Main Street Suite 117 St Helena, CA 94574 (707) 963-1704

Terry Gross Adam Belsky GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP 180 Montgomery Street Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 544-0200

Christopher Lovell Gary Jacobson Craig Essenmacher Imtiaz Siddiqui LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP 500 5th Avenue Floor 58 New York, NY 10110 (212) 608-1900

Rudy Gurrola, Jr. P.A. 5707 South Dixie, Florida 33405 (561) 588-9992

James J. McCarthy, Jr. MCCARTHY WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C. 2041 Herr Street Harrisburg, PA 17103 (717) 233-5974

Randy Renick HADSELL STORMET KEENY RICHARDSON & RENICK, LLP The Marine Building 128 N. Fair Oaks Ave. Pasadena, CA 91103 (626) 585-9600 1343631.1

Guido Saveri R. Alexander Saveri Geoffrey C. Rushing 31

180 Montogomery Street, Suite 940 San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 986-1338

Cadio Zirpoli William Heye SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 111 Pine Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 217-6810

Christopher P. Welsh WELSH & WELSH, P.C., L.L.O. 2027 Dodge Street, Suite 400 Omaha, NE 68102 (866) 546-2853

Matthew T. Tobin SIEGEL BARNETT & SCHUTZ, L.L.P. P.O. Box 1286 Sioux Falls, SD 57101 (877) 335-6250 James M Morgan Steven R Maher THE MAHER LAW FIRM 6320 Canoga Avenue Suite 1600 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 (818) 592-2770 Michael C. Maher THE MAHER LAW FIRM 631 West Morse Boulevard Suite 200 Winter Park, FL 32789 (407) 839-0866 Reginald Von Terrell THE TERRELL LAW GROUP 223 25th Street Richmond, CA 94804 (510) 237-9700 Avi Wagner THE WAGNER FIRM 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 307 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 491-7949 Mario N. Alioto Lauren C. Russell TRUMP, ALIOTO, TRUMP & PRESCOTT, LLP 2280 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 (415) 563-7200 Kenneth L Valinoti VALINOTI & DITO LLP 1343631.1

32

14th Floor NY, NY 10022

Counsel for Individual Plaintiffs: Anthony J. Bolognese Joshua H. Grabar BOLOGNESE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 320 2 Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 814-6751

Counsel for: Meijer, Inc., Meijer Distribution, Inc., Publix Super Markets, Inc., Affiliated Foods, Inc.

William J. Blechman Douglas Patton KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A. 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, 6th Floor Washington, D.C. 20004 (305) 373-1000

Counsel for: Meijer, Inc., Meijer Distribution, Inc., Publix Super Markets, Inc., Affiliated Foods, Inc. Joseph T. Lukens HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN One Logan Square 18th & Cherry Streets 27th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-6933 (215) 568-6200

Counsel for: The Kroger Co., Safeway, Inc., Walgreen Co., Hy-Vee, Inc.

Bernard D. Marcus Moira Cain-Mannix Scott Livingston MARCUS SHAPIRA LLP One Oxford Center, 35th Floor Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 (412) 471-3490

Counsel for: CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Rite Aid Corporation, Rite Aid Headquarters, Corp. Steve D. Shadowen HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN 30 North Third Street-Suite 700 Harrisburg, PA 17101-1713 Telephone: (717) 231-4000

Counsel for: Giant Eagle, Inc.

Paul E. Slater SPERLING & SLATER, P.C. 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 641-3200

Counsel for: CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Rite Aid Corporation, Rite Aid Headquarters, Corp., The Kroger Co., Safeway, Inc., Walgreen Co., Hy-Vee, Inc.

Counsel for: Meijer, Inc., Meijer Distribution, Inc., Publix Super Markets, Inc. Richard L. Coffman THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM 505 Orleans Street, Suite 505 Beaumont, Texas 77701 (409) 833-7700

Linda P. Nussbaum Susan R. Schwaiger KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue 33 1343631.1

Counsel for: Affiliated Foods, Inc. Joseph M. Vanek David P. Germaine VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI P.C. 111 S. Wacker Suite 4050 Chicago, IL. 60606 (312) 224-1500 Counsel for: Meijer, Inc., Meijer Distribution, Inc., Publix Super Markets, Inc.

34 1343631.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Walter W. Cohen, certify that the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Pre-Conference Brief was served upon counsel of record via ECF on this 22nd day of May, 2008. /s/ Walter W. Cohen Walter W. Cohen, Esq. PA12097

35