Glass Manufacturers Motion for Court to Compel
Plaintiffs to Produce Sales Data in Antitrust Suit
December 8, 2009
Several glass manufacturers who are the defendants in an on-going
antitrust suit filed by several glass shops across the United States
filed a motion yesterday seeking that the court compel some of the
glass shops involved to provide their own sales data for the period
of time in question. AGC Flat Glass North America, Guardian Industries,
Pilkington North America and PPG Industries are the defendants in
the suit, in which a range of glass businesses across the United
States have alleged that they engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices.
HERE for related story.)
Among the items plaintiffs claim was the result of price-fixing
were fuel surcharges they faced "from at least July 1, 2002,
and continuing through at least December 31, 2006." However,
in their brief in support of the latest motion, the defendants argue
that "plaintiffs' sales prices may, in some or all instances,
be based on a 'cost-plus' model, such that the plaintiff may actually
profit from the prices or surcharges about which they complain in
The data they're requesting the plaintiffs supply includes documents
that show the date of each sale, the type of product sold, the quantity
purchased, the gross and net price, the type and amount of any surcharges,
the identity of the manufacturer and distributor, and the corporate
entity that made the purchase, according to court documents.
In addition, the defendants are requesting "all documents
relating to any energy or natural gas surcharges" charged to
Though they'd previously requested this information through discovery,
it has not yet been provided, according to court documents, and
several plaintiffs (Gilkey Window Co., Girard Glass Corp., Jackson
Glass Co. and Thermo-Twin Industries Inc.) have objected to the
request, "to the extent that it seeks downstream information
regarding Plaintiffs' sales ... "
"Such information is neither relevant to claims or defenses
of either party nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of
admissible evidence with respect to such claims or defenses,"
continues the objection to the original request, filed this July.
In addition, the manufacturers claim that by requesting the "named
plaintiffs'" data, "it will shed light both on whether
the Named Plaintiffs can adequately represent the class and on whether
the Named Plaintiffs can show impact common to the class."
"Here, any of the Named Plaintiffs who were able to successfully
mark up, or at least pass on, Defendants' price increases or energy
surcharges to their customers may actually have benefits from Defendants'
allegedly wrongful conducts-or at least have been unharmed,"
reads this week's motion. "While this may not be a defense
to liability in an individual suit under the Sherman Act, it raises
the key question of whether a Named Plaintiff who benefited from
the Defendants' price increase can represent the interests of an
absent class member who did not."
The motion to compel was filed by the defendants' attorneys in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Need more info and analysis about the issues?
HERE to subscribe to AGRR magazine.