1st BATCH OF FILES AVAILABLE NOW!

In broad strokes, the dispute between Southern Glazer's and 5 additional distributors mirrors the co's disputes with the 3 distribs it took to court elsewhere. RNDC, Reyes, Breakthru, Johnson Bros and Winebow "all raise some combination of the same arguments," claiming Southern's requests are "irrelevant, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seek confidential information," the co explains, just as it did in disputes with Hensley, Favorite Brands and Mexicor. But the co maintains that responsive data and documents will demonstrate its core defenses: 1) that the retailers cited by the FTC as either "favored" or "disfavored" don't actually compete; 2) that all of Southern's pricing decisions were justified; and 3) that three-tier compliant sales do not cross state lines and can not be considered "interstate commerce" for purposes of the Robinson-Patman Act. "Not so," repeats the joint response from these 5 distribs. Their data would be relevant if the FTC claimed that SGWS harmed its competitors with predatory pricing, the distribs argue. But "their most sensitive transactional and pricing information" doesn't speak to competition between retailers. Instead, "SGWS must show that when it charged a lower price to one of its customers it had some reason to believe that the lower price it gave was meeting a competitor's price," the distribs summarize. And whatever basis the co had "must have been in SGWS's possession when it offered a lower price," that is "at the time it set prices, not after the fact."FTC Argued Relevance of Competitor Prices in Request to Total Don't take Southern's word for why it's entitled to pricing and sales data from competitors. The FTC argued just that when it sought data from Total Wine & More during the investigation stage of this case back in 2024, SGWS pointed out. The agency claimed that data on Total's purchases from other distribs "is relevant to assessing the merits of potential defenses," just like those being raised by SGWS now, the distrib wrote. But the new emphasis this argument gets is "misplaced," the other distribs responded. "The standard for what the FTC may seek as 'relevant' to an investigation is unquestionably broader than parties may seek in discovery," in their view."Only SGWS's Pricing Practices Are at Issue" SGWS continues to argue that "competitor prices are discoverable" and fair game in its defense against the FTC. But to prove it, the distrib repeatedly points to old cases in which competitors were parties to suit. That's not the case here: the competing distribs are 3d parties. And their "profit margins," the prices they paid to suppliers and an analysis of their costs doesn't prove anything about Southern's costs, the distribs point out. "Only SGWS's pricing practices are at issue in this case," they remind, adding that "the extremely sensitive nature of the commercial and competitive information SGWS requests cannot be overstated."Complain to FTC, Not Us, Southern Responds to Favorite Brands Playing the same tune in multiple courts last wk, Southern cast aside arguments made by TX-based distrib Favorite Brands in their parallel discovery dispute. The smaller distrib appears to claim that the data SGWS seeks is both proprietary and available elsewhere, which can't be true, Southern argues. And FB's "confidentiality concerns are&hellip;overblown," SGWS sez. The way it reads prior cases, "the principle of broad discovery being necessary in antitrust matters holds true for parties and non-parties alike." And "to the extent Favorite Brands feels the requests are overbroad, its complaint is with the FTC, not SGWS," it repeats.

FTC v SGWS: Competitor Data Critical, Southern Sez; Only Southern's Is, Distribs Respond

Publishing Info