2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

7-23-2010 

# R a ce T ires Ame r Inc v

. H o o sie r R a c ing T

ire C orp

P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3989

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin

. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" R a c e Tir e s Ame r Inc v

. H oosie r R a c in g Tir e C orp " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 825. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/825

### PREC ED EN TIAL UN I TE D S TA TE S C OU RT OF AP PE AL S FO R T HE TH IRD C IRCU IT

No. 09- 3989

R A C E T IR E S A M E R IC A , IN C ., a D iv isio n o f

S p e c ialtyT ire s o f

A m e ric a , In c .; S P E C IA L T Y T IR E S O F A M E R IC A , IN C .; S P E C IA L T Y T IR E S O F A M E R IC A (P E N N S Y L V A N IA ), IN C .; S P ECI ALT Y TI RES OF AM ERI CA ( TE NNES S EE ) , LL C,
A p p e llan ts

v. H O O S IE R R A C IN G T IR E C O R P ; D IR T M O T O R S P O R T S IN C , d/b/ a W or l d R aci ng G r oup

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. C i vi l N o. 2- 07- cv- 01294) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n . T erren ce F

. M cV erry2 A r gued A pr i l 14, 2010
B E FO R E : FI SH E R , and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges

and D I T T E R *, D i s t r i ctJ udge ( Fi l ed: J ul y23, 2010)
M ark K

. D aus ch, E s q. J os eph D ecke r , E s q. ( A r gued) A l an B

. R os enthal , E s q. M ark D

. Shepar d, E s q. B a b st, C a llan d , C lem e n ts & Z o m n ir T w o G at ew ayC ent er , 6 Fl oor th Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222
T hom as M

. Schul t z, E s q. Pol ym erE nt erpr i s es Sui t e 401 4731 R out e 30 G r eens bur g, PA 15601
C o u n se l f

o r A p p e llan ts

*H onor abl e J

. W i l l i am D i t t er , Seni orU ni t e d St a t e s Di s t r i ctJ udge forthe East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. D onna M

. D obl i ck, E s q.3 R e e d S m ith 225 Fi fth A venue Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222
D onal d E

. K nebel , E s q. ( A r gued) K endal l M i l l ar d, E s q. D ebor ah E. Pol l ack- M i l gat e, E s q. A ar on M

. St as er , E s q. B arn es a n d T h o rnb u rg 11 Sout h M er i di an St r eet Sui t e 1313 I ndi anapol i s , I N 46204
C ouns el forA ppel l ee H oos i erR aci ng T i r e C orp. J ohn R

. G ot as ki e, J r . , E s q. F o x R o th sc h ild 625 L i ber t yA venue, 29 Fl oor th Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222'
T heodor e H

. J obes , E s q. ( A r gued) C hr i s t i ne Soar es , E s q. F o x R o th sc h ild 2000 M arketSt r eet , 20 Fl oor th Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103
C o u n s e l f

o r A p p e lle e D ir t M o to r S p o rt s , In c ., d/b/ a W or l d R aci ng G r oup

H el en M

. M aher , E s q.4 B oi es , Schi l l er& Fl exner 333 M ai n St r eet 80 B us i nes s Par k D r i ve A r m onk, N Y 10504
Co u n s e l f

o rAm i c u s - Cu r i a e Gr a n d

- Am R oad R aci ng and N at i onal A s s oci at i on forSt ock C arA ut o R aci ng, I nc.
R ober tW

. Pow el l , E s q. D i cki ns on, W r i ght , M oon, V an D us en & Fr eeman 500 W oodw ar d A venue, Sui t e 4000 D etr oi t , M I 48226
C ouns el forA m i cus - C ur i ae U ni t ed St at es A ut o C l ub, I nc.

OP I NI ON

C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udge T h e P lai n ti ff

in this a n ti tru st m att er, a t ir e su p p li er, appea l s fr om t he or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a gr ant i ng t he r es pect i ve mot i ons fors um m aryj udgm entfi l ed byt he D efe n d an t s , a t i r e s uppl i er co m p e ti tor an d a m o torsp o rt s san cti o n ing b o d y . P lai n ti ff ’s cl ai m s ar i s e out of t he adopt i on of t he s o- cal l ed “s i ngl e t i r e rul e” by var i o u s s a n c t i o n i n g b o d i e s i n t h e s p o r to f d i r to v a l t r ackT he fourPl ai nt i ff c om pani es ar e: ( 1) R ace T i r es A m er i ca, 1 I nc. , a D i vi s i on of Speci al i t yT i r es o f A m er i ca I nc. ; ( 2) S peci al i t yT i r es of A m er i ca, I nc. ; ( 3) Speci al i t yT i r es of A m er i ca (Penns y l vani a) , I nc. ; and ( 4) Speci al i t yT i r es of A m e ri c a (T e n n e s s e e ), L L C

. 5 r aci ng as w el l as t he r el at ed exc l us i ve s uppl ycontr act s betw een thes e sa n cti o n ing b o d ies an d the D ef en d an t t ir e su p p li er. P lain tiff f u rth e r c h a llen g e s th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f its mo t i o n f o rl e a v e t o a me n d i t s c o mp l a i n t

. W e wi l l a f f i rm. I. A . T he P art i es

W e re fer t o the four com pan i es l i st ed as t he Plai nti ffs in the c u rren t m att er b ythe n am e o f th e p are n t com p an y , “S T A .” 1 ST A m anuf

actur es and s el l s s peci al i t yt i r es fora var i etyof v eh icl es, suc h as a ir cra ft, fa rm ing eq u ipm en t, an d rac ing ca rs. It s peci fi cal l ym anufa ctur es an d s el l s a “hous e br and” know n as “A m er i can Racer

. ” Thi s A m er i can Racerl i ne i ncl udes di r tt r ack r aci ng t i r es , as phal t t r ack r aci ng t i r es , A T V ( “al l t err ai n vehi cl e”) r aci ng t i r es , pas s engerper form ance t i r es , and rac e tr ack e q u i p m e n t t i r e s . D efe ndant H oos i er R acing T i r e C or p. (“H o o sier”) i s a fam i l y -ow ned bu si ness, w hich focu ses al m ost excl us i vel yon t he r aci ng t i r e bus i nes s ( i n contr as tt o ST A , w hi ch se lls a lar g e v a rie tyo f

d if f e re n t k in d s o f

sp e c ialitytires a n d is o w n ed b ya h o lding co m p an yn am ed P o lym er E n terprises, I n c.). H oos i eri s t he l ar ges trac e t i r e manufactur eri n t he w or l d t hat s p e c ia liz e s in m a n u f

a c tu ri n g ra c in g tir e s .6 ST A , H o o si er , and the G oody earT i r e and RubberC o. ( “G oody ear ”) r epr es entt he thr e e ma j o rc o mpe t i t or s i n t he al l eged m arketof t i r es fordi r toval t r ack r aci ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es and C a n a d a . T h e re w e re a t lea st f iv e c o m p e tit o rs in th is m a r k e t in the 19 80 s and the 19 90 s, nam el y , S T A , w hich w as previ ou sly k n o wn a s M c Cr e a r y , Ho o s i e r , Go o d y e a r , F i r e s t o n e , a n d M & H.

T he evi dence i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hatH oos i er ’ s m arket sh are i n the di rt ov al t rack m arket grew from 59

. 6% i n 199 8 to 6 5 % in 2 0 0 0

. In term s o f sa les rev en u e, H o o sier’s m ark et sh are f o r d irt trac k ra c in g tires in c re a se d f ro m 6 9 % in 2 0 0 3 to 7 9 % in 2007. For di r t s pr i nt car t i r es , H oos i er ’ s m arkets har e i ncr eas ed fro m 87% i n 2003 t o 94% i n 2007. O n t he ot her han d , S T A ’s s har e of t he di r t t i r e mar ketdr opped fr om 29% t o 19% betw een 2003 and 2007, w h il e G oody ear ’ s s har e r emai ned the s ame at appr oxi m at el y 2%

. ST A ’ s di rt s pr i nt t i r e s har e l i kew i s e fel l fr om 10% i n 2003 t o 5% i n 2007, and G oody ear ’ s s har e s i m i l ar l yw ent fr om 3% i n 2003 t o 1% i n 2007.

D efe ndant D i r t M ot or Spor t s , I nc. d/b/ a W orl d R aci ng G r oup ( “D M S”) i s a mot or s por t s s anct i oni ng body

. A s expl ai ned in m o re d e ta il in S e c tio n I.B , i nfr a , D M S and t he other s anct i oni ng bodi es or gani ze and pr om ot e r ace s and, i n tur n, p ro m u lg ate ru les g o v ern ing thes e ra ce s. D M S , in p arti cu lar, ow ns s uch w el l

- know n t our i ng s er i es as t he “W or l d o f O ut l aw Spr i ntC arSer i es ” and the “Lat e M odel Ser i es . ” I ts anct i ons over 5, 000 r ace s pery earatover200 di r to v al tr acks i n t w enty - one s t a t e s . I n 2 0 0 5 , DM S a c q u i r e d a n o t h e rs a n c t i o n i n g b o d yk n o wn as U ni t ed M i dw est Pr om ot er s ( “U M P”)

. T her e ar e tw o ot her7 m aj ors anct i oni ng compani es i n t he fi el d of di r toval t r ack r aci ng: ( 1) A m i cus I nt ernat i onal M ot or C ont es tA s s oci at i on ( “I M C A ”) ( s anct i oni ng r ace s atappr oxi m at el y112 di r toval t r acks ) ; and ( 2) W I SSO T A Pr om ot i ons , I nc. ( “W I SSO T A ”) ( s anct i o n i n g r a c es at a pp r ox i mat e l yfi ft y - s e ve n d i r tov a l t r a c ks )

. Com bi ne d, D M S, I M C A , and W I SSO T A s anct i on m odi fi ed, l at e m odel , s pr i nt , or s t ock ca rr ace s atover70 % of the 636 w eekl yt r acks i n t he U n ite d S ta te s .

B . T he R ol e of Sanct i oni ng Bod i es and t he “Si ngl e T i re R ul e”

A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tr ecogni zed, t he r ol e pl ay ed by sa n c tio n in g b o d ie s in d irt o v a l trac k ra c in g (a n d , in f a c t, i n m ot or s por t s r aci ng i n gener al ) i s of s peci al i m por t ance her e. T r ack ow ner s o r p rom ot er s t ypi cal l ybel ong t o a s anct i oni ng b o d y , w h ich c h a r g e s s a n c tio n in g f e e s in e x c h a n g e f

o r th is pr i vi l ege of

m ember s hi p. T hes e bodi es s anct i on r ace s , and they form ul at e rul es fors uch ra ces . T hes e sanc t i oni ng bodi es ( l i ke the tr ac k o w n ers a n d p rom o ters) co m p ete to a ttrac t car o w n ers (g e n e ra llyk n o w n a s “ ra c e rs” ), d riv e rs, a n d f a n s to th e ir re sp e c tiv e ra c e s. A c c o rd in g ly , the sa n c tio n in g b o d ies c re a te vari o u s i ncent i ves i n or dert o gett he mostr ace r s , dr i ver s , and f a n s .

T he r ecor d r evea l s t hatt hes e s anct ion ing bodi es oft en c h o o se to a d o p t a “ sin g le tire r u le.” S u c h a ru le g e n e ra lly r equi r es t hata speci fi c t i r e type and br and be us ed on one or8 m or e w heel pos i t i ons forone orm or e cl as s es of ca r s fora s er i es o f ra c e s o r r a c in g s e a s o n s .

Si gni fi cant l y , t he s anct i oni ng bodi es gener al l y do notbuy t he t i res themsel ves , and the t i r es ar e pur chas ed byt he par t i ci pat i ng r ace r s and dr i vers. T he or gani zat i ons i ns t ead e s t a b l i s h t h e t i r e p a r a me t e r s a n d r e q u i r e me n t s f o rt h e r a c e . S o me rul es m aydefi ne the perm i s s i bl e t i r e bym er el ya bea d size or s om e otherphy s i cal di m ens i on. O t her rul es m ayr equi r e thatt he t i r es atone or m or e w heel l ocat i ons be a pa r t i cul art ype orbr and. T ire ru les th a t d o n o t r e q u ire a sp e c if ic b ra n d o f tire a re g e n e ra lly cal l ed “ope n t i r e rul es . ”

T ire s ar e n o t th e o n lyc o m p o n e n ts o f a ra c e c a r su b

jec t to a s i ngl e s our ce orm anufacturerrul e. Sanct i oni ng bodi es m ake rul es that m ayspeci fyt he ap propri at e carb u re to rs , m uff l ers , chas s i s , orot herki nds of equi pm en t to be us ed. Forexampl e, A m i cus U ni t ed St at es A ut o C l ub, Inc. ( “U SA C ”) has a “s pec engi ne rul e” f

or i t s For d Focus M i dget Ser i es , w hi ch r equi r es t he u se o f F ord eng i nes. U nit ed R aci ng C l ub (“U R C ”) has a rule r equi r i ng a s i ngl e br and of c y l i nderheads , m anufa ctur ed byt he s anct i oni ng body ’ s s pons or . T he I nt ernat i onal R ac e of C hampi ons Ser i es m andat es t hatt he dr i ver s actual l yus e i dent i cal ca rs. R eg ard less o f th e k ind o f e q u ipm en t atissue , the re co rd i ndi cat es t hata sa nct i oni ng bodym akes t hes e funda m ent al d e te rm in a tio n s b a s e d o n a n a s s e s s m e n t o f its o w n s e lf

-i n te re s t.

C . S ing le T ire R u les a n d E x clu sive A g re em en ts9 E vidence i n t he recor d further d em on strat es thatS T A has, a tl e a s ti n t h e p a s t , s u p p o r t e d t h e s i n g l e t i r e ru l e . I n f a c t , i t s o wn w e b site tak e s c re d it fo r th e c o n c e p t it se lf , sta tin g th a t:

I n t he 1970' s [s i c] , J oe J acobs , t he deve lop er of t he r ace t i r e bus i nes s t hateventu all ybeca m e R ace T i r es A m er i ca, p rop os ed and e ncour aged r ace t r acks and pr om ot er s t o adopts pec t i r e or t r ack t i r e rul es . U nder t hi s co n cept , t r ack ow ner s and pr om ot er s adopt ed a ma n u f a c tu r e r ’ s t i r e f

o ra p a r t i c u l a rc l a s s o f

r a c e s for t h e d u r a t i o n o f a r a c i n g s e a s o n . Th e p u rp o s e of t he rule w as to av o id the alm o st co n stan t p ac e o f ti re c h a n g e s th a t w e re p a rticu lar lyc o stlyto ra c e rs, a n d to en c o u ra g e ra ce r pa ri tyb yrem o v ing the “ ‘ho t’ ” ti re setu p s. W ith all rac ers c o m p eti n g o n a sin g le t ir e des i gn and compound, t he t i r e w ar s w oul d be quel l ed an d rac e re su lt s w o u ld b e m o re re la te d to a d ri v er’s s ki l l and abi l i t yand nota more expens i ve “‘ s t at e- oft he- ar t ’ ” t i r e. T he ac cept ance of sp ec ti r e rul es contr i but ed t o t he s ucce s s and popul ar i t y of di r tt r ack ra c in g in A m e ri c a .
( A 484. ) ST A ’ s w ebs i t e goes o n t o at t ack the abus e of s uch “s pec t i r e rul es , ” cl ai m i ng t hats uch abus e has r es ul t ed, i nt eral i a, in th e c o n c e n tra tio n o f m a rk e t p o w e r in th e h a n d s o f a sin g le m onopol i s t i c t i r e s uppl i er , t he l os s of t rue compet i t i on betw een t he fe w r emai ni ng t i r e s uppl i er s , and ha rm to ST A , ot her supp l i ers , t rack ow ners, prom oter s, and th e dri vers them sel ves. I n t hi s l i t i gat i on, ST A at t empt s t o di s t i ngui s h i t s pr i ors uppor tfor10 t he s i ngl e t i r e rul e bycl ai m i ng t hati tm er el ypr om ot ed the a d o p tio n o f

a tra c k ru le th a t w o u ld re m a in in e f f e c t f o r a sin g le ra c in g se a so n , in c o n tra st to H o o s ier ’s p ra c tice o f e n ter in g in to a s er i es of exc l us i ve s uppl ycontr act s w i t h m aj ors anct i oni ng bodi es t hat , i n tur n, encompas s t hous ands of r ace s and l as tfor p e ri o d s o f

u p to s e v e n y e a rs .

In f a c t, th e a b o v e s ta te m e n t f ro m th e w e b site a c tu a lly comes f r o m a p r o p o s a l b y STA f o r a “ Dec l a r a t i o n i n Fa v o r of C om pet i t i on. ” The acc o m pany i ng pet i t i on or“D ecl ar at i on” expr es s l ycal l s for : ( 1) t he es t abl i s hm entof tr ack t i r e rul es bas ed on var iou s obj ect i ve cr i t er i a; ( 2) t he pr ohi bi t i on of “a nyrul e, p o licy , o r p ra c tice m a n d a tin g o r p ro v id in g f o r th e u se o f

a sin g le m an u fa cture r’s t ir e;” (3 ) th e c rea ti o n o f “ n o n -discrim inato ry compensa t i on r at es ” t o offs et“the cos tof dr i verpoi ntfunds and d ri v er a m en itie s ;” (4 ) t h e re la te d p ro h ib itio n a g a in s t tir e s u p p liers m aki n g “l um p s um orfl atfee ” paym ent s t o t he s anct i oni ng bodi es , pr om ot er s , and t r acks , and (5) change s on t he par t of the t i r e suppl i er s i n or dert o ens ur e ade quat e i nvent or i es and companyr epr es ent at i ves atal l r aci ng event s . ( I d. ) T he pet i t i on a lso g o e s o n to c o n d e m n th e f a c t th a t th e sin g le tire f o rm u la pr evi ous l y us ed t o achi eve com pet i t i ve par i t y has s i nce e vol ved i nt o “a s cheme al l ow i ng a s i ngl e manufactur erto ca p tur e and m onopol i ze the mar ketfordi r t rac e t i r es . ” ( I d. ) I tappea r s t hat ap p rox im ately1 3 0 0 rac ers, driv e rs, an d o ther rac ing ind u stry par t i ci pant s have a ctual l ys i gned S T A ’ s “D ecl ar at i on i n Favorof C o m p e titio n .” Iri sh S au n d ers, th e co n tr ac t se rvice s m an ag er f o r H o o sier, i nt ernal l yci r cul at ed a sa r cas t i c e- m ai l dat ed S ept ember14, 2007,11 in re sp o n se to th is “ D e c lar a tio n in F a v o r o f C o m p e tit io n .” T h is e- m ai l purpor t edl ydes cr i bed H oos i er ’ s “D ecl ar at i on i n Favorof T ak ing O v er th e In d u stry , ” a s p rop o sed b ythe tir e su p p li er’s gener al m anage r , “Sm as h. ” T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o r evi ew ed the pr oces s t hat s anct i oni ng bodi es m ay us e t o s el ecta part i cul ars uppl i erunder t he appl i cabl e t i r e rul e. I n s hor t , a s anct i oni ng body m aydeci de to sen d a fo rm al R eq u est fo r P rop o sal (“R F P ”) to the v ariou s ti re su p p liers

. T h e o rg a n iza tio n u su a lly re q u ire s the su p p li e r to provide sp on sors hip contr i bu t i on s. In gene ral , t hese co n tr ibu ti o n s m ayb e u sed as p art of the s an cti o n ing b o d y ’s “poi ntfunds

. ” These poi nt funds ar e gener al l y pai d t o w i nni ng dr i ver s att he end of

t he ra ci ng s eas on, and t hey r epr es entone of the m ajor i n ce n ti v es use d b ysan cti o n ing b o d ies t o attrac t r ac ers and dri ver s . N evert hel es s , t he moneyr ece i ved byt he s anct i oni ng bodym ayactual l ybe us ed i n w hat everm annert he s anct i oni ng b o d yits e lf

w a n ts , s u c h a s to f

u n d its g e n e r a l o p e ra tio n s . A sanct i on i ng bo dy , i n turn, i s ce rt ai nlyfree t o reque sta l ess exp e ns i ve t i r e i ns t e a d o f g r e a t e rfi na nc i a l c on t r i bu t i on s. F u rth erm o re, if a san cti o n ing b o d y is sa ti sfied w ith it s cu rren t t ir e s uppl i er , i tm ayel ectto r emai n w i t h t hats uppl i err athert han s o lic it b id s f

ro m th e s u p p lie r’ s c o m p e tito rs . A ccor di ng t o ST A , “[f

] ort he y ear s 2003- 2007, H oos i er k n e w of onl ys e v e n i n s t a n c e s ( f o u ro f whi c h wer e a f

t e rRTA fi l ed thi s s ui t ) w h ere sanct i oni ng compani es ort r acks had r eques t ed compet i t i ve bi ds

. ” ( A ppel l ant s ’ B r i ef a t20 ( ci t i ng A 5 4 3 -A 5 4 4 ).) H o w ev er, i t st il l app ea rs th at th e ti re su p p li ers w e re g e n e ra llya w a re w h e n a c o n tra c t ex ists a n d c o u ld se e k to compet e fo r the bus i nes s i f theyw ant ed i t

. T i r e s uppl i er s have12 acc or di ngl y been s ucce s s ful i n t hei reff or t s t o t ake bus i nes s aw ay f ro m th e irc o m p e tito rs o v e r t h e y e a rs . T he r ecor d i n this cas e i ndi cat es t hatST A i t s el f has compet ed, oft en s ucce s s ful l y , t o becom e the excl us i ve s uppl i er of t i r es t o s ever al s anct i oning b o di es . I n fac t , ST A , ei t her di r ect l yort hr ough i t s di s t r i but or s , has s ucce s s ful l yprocur ed sing le t ir e c o n tr ac ts t o the ex clus ion o f H o o sier. It s d istri b u tors ar e r equi r ed by cont r act t o “i nt er act [] w i t h t r ack ow ner s /pr om ot er s and A s s oci at i ons and t o act i vel y pur s ue tr ack rul e and otherr ace t i r e bus i nes s . ” ( A 1439. ) E ven aft erthe fi l i ng of thi s la w s ui t , ST A ’ s di s t r i but or s have c ont i nued t o bi d on e xclusi ve ti re s up pli er cont ract s, w i t h som e success. Fur t herm or e, ST A has r epea t edl y o ff er ed t o paym oneyt o t he sa n c tio n in g b o d ie s in e x c h a n g e f o r a n A m e ric a n R a c e r-o n ly arran g em en t. F o r i n stan ce , L ias T ir e, an S T A d istri b u tor, r ece nt l yw on an exc l us i ve agr eementw i t h U R C , agr eei ng, i nt er a lia , to p a y$ 1 4 ,5 0 0 .0 0 to th is s a n c tio n in g b o d yf o r th e rig h t to pr ovi de the exc l us i ve t i r e atappr oxi m at el yt hi r t y event s i n 2008. ST A l i kew i s e has not i ns t ruct ed i t s di s t r i but or s t o cea s e maki ng s uch e x c l u s i v e d e a l s o rt o r e f r a i n f r o m of f e r i n g o rp r o v i di ng f in a n c ia l s u p p o rt to th e s a n c tio n in g b o d ie s . N e v e rth e les s, S T A c laim s tha t H o o sie r’s e x c lu siv e sin g le t i re cont ract s forecl ose com peti t i on . S T A cl aim s thatt hese excl us ive cont r act s dat e as farback a s 1997, w hen H oos i er a lle g e d ly b e g a n to im p le m e n t its “ f o rm c o n tr a c t” s tr a te g y . H oos i er ’ s form contr acts peci fi cal l yobl i gat es the s anct i oni ng bodi es and t r acks “t o i ns ur e thatH oos i erR aci ng T i r es ar e the onl yt i r es s ol d or run” i n al l event s . ( A 1578- A 1579 ( emphasi s om i t t ed)

. ) T he form fur t her p rovi des t hatH oos i er13 w oul d pay pr om ot i onal m oney t o the s anct i oni ng bodyort r ack. T hes e pr om ot i onal fee s ar e unre s t r i ct ed and acc or di ngl ym aybe us ed ei t herforgener al oper at i ons orfor poi nt funds

. I n tur n, t he form cont ai ns a cont i nuous r enew al r equi r ement , pr ovi di ng t hat the arr angem en t w o u ld b e a u tom ati ca ll yren ew ed fo r an othery ear unl es s w r i t t en not i ce of int ent i on t o t erm i nat e w as gi ven by A u g u st 1 . S u c h “ n u lli f

ica tio n ” o f th e a g re e m e n t w o u ld a lleg e d ly r el eas e H oos i erfr om i t s obl i gat i on t o pr ovi de at l eas t s om e of t he pr om i s ed fi nanci al s uppor t

. A ccor di ng t o ST A , “ther e i s a s t r ong i ncent i ve t o r enew , beca us e non- r enew al w oul d j eopar di ze t he p r o s p e c to f

a N o v e m b e rp a ym e n t ” o f t h e p r o m i s e d m o n e y. (A pp el l ants ’ B ri ef at12

. ) H oo si er’ s “N ego t i at i ng G uidel i nes” d o c u m e n t als o in d ica tes th a t H o o sie r se e k s lo n g e r c o n tra c ts bas ed on t he r es pect i ve pr ofi tm ar gi ns . Fi nal l y , Saunder s s ent outa J anuary24, 2007 e- m ai l , w hi ch w as ent i t led “A m er i can R ace r Pr i c i n g ” a n d a d d r e s s e d a ts o me l e n g t h t h e i s s u e of c o m p e titio n b e tw e e n S T A a n d H o o s ie r. H o o sie r id e n tifie s o v e r se v e n ty e x c lu siv e c o n tra c ts th a t it ori t s di s t r i but or s have e nt er ed i nt o w i t h s anct i oni ng bodi es s i nce 2003. A l t hough r efe r r i ng i n i t s appel l ate b ri ef t o ot her s anc ti oni ng bodi es , ST A gener al l yfocus es on fi ve s anct i oni ng bodi es t hathave s el ect ed H oos i er as t hei rexcl us i ve s uppl i er : ( 1) I M C A ; ( 2) W I SSO T A ; ( 3) A m er i can Spr i ng C ar Se ri es (“A S C S ”); (4) U S A C ; and (5) D M S

. In turn , the D istri ct C o u rt i t s e l f c o n s i d e r e d a ts o me l e n g t h t h e p r a c t i c e s o f t h e s e f i ve sa n c tio n in g b o d ies , an d w e w ill d o so a s w e ll.

1

. I M CA14 I M C A s an cti o n s r ace s i n t he M i dw es ton bot h di r tand a sp h a lt su rf

a c e s. It a p p e a rs th a t, f r o m th e 1 9 8 0 s to appr oxi m at el y 2005, I M C A r equi r ed i t s dr i ver s t o us e the G

- 60 A m er i can Racert i r e manufactur ed b yST A

. B utthi s l ongs t a n d i n g y e ti n f

o r ma l a r r a n g e me n tb e t we e n S TA a n d I M CA i nvol ved no s etdur at i on, no up-fro ntm oney , no penal t i es , no aut om at i c r enew al , no enfor cementm ech a n i s m, a n d was n o teven in w riting . O n th e o th e r h a n d , S T A a lso e v id e n tlyre f u se d to d iscl o se p ri cing inf

o rm ati o n to IM C A o r t o ex p lain a sh arp in c re a s e in its tir e p ri c e s . In D ec em b er 2 0 0 3 , IM C A sen t an R F P to G o o d y ea r, H oos i er, and ST A fora thr ee- y earexcl us i ve contr act

. H oos i er offe r ed a f

i ve- y earcontr act , i nform i ng t he s anct i oni ng bodyt hat t his propo sal w as “veryi m po rt ant t o o ur overal l bu si ness s t r at eg y . ” ( A 1418. ) I n addi t i on, i tevi dent l ypr opos ed s ubs t ant i al up- fr ontm oneyt o I M C A , i n c l u d i ng a s i gni ng bonus , even though t he sanc t i on i ng bo dydid not r equ est anysuch u p-fr on tpay m ents

. I tfur t heroffe r ed t o p ay IM C A m oneybas ed on the numberof t i r es u lt im atel ys ol d. I M C A eventual l yent er ed i nt o a fi ve- y ear aut om at i cal l y r enew abl e excl us i ve contr act w i t h H oos i er , w hi ch w oul d, i nt eral i a, purpor t edl yl i m i tpr i ce i ncr eas es i n t he futur e. ST A m eanw hi l e has cont i nued t o s el l i t s G

- 60 A m er i can Racer t i re t o n on -I M C A t racks, i ncludi ng atl easton e t rack that chose to d ro p its IM C A s a n c tio n .

2

. W I SS OTA W IS S O T A h a s its p rin c ip a l p lac e o f b u sin e ss in M in n e s o ta a n d sa n c tio n s ra c e s in M in n e so ta, N o rth a n d S o u th D akot a, W i s cons i n, W y om i ng, and C anada

. I tappe ars t hat W I SSO T A h as h ad a H oos i er - onl yrul e s i nce 1984. H oos i er15 ext ended the contr act t o 2007 i n excha nge forH oos i erm aki ng a sign ifi ca n t pay m en t o f m o n eyto b e u sed to p ayo ff a c o u rt j udgm entobt ai ned byan exc l uded tr ans m i s s i on m anufa ctur er a g a in s t th e s a n c tio n in g b o d y . In O ct ober20 0 6 , W IS S O T A sen t ou t an R F P to G o o d y ea r, H o o sier, an d S T A

. T h e sa n cti o n ing b o d y ’s pre side n t, T erry V o elt z, ad v ised S T A that it s rac ers an d d ri v ers w an ted a l o w ti re p ri ce w ith o u t po int fu n d s. S T A o ff ere d (th rou g h a d istri b u tor) a low er ti r e pr i ce than H oos i er( atl eas tatt he begi nni ng of the contr a c tt e r m)

. I ta l s o o f f e r e d l e s s f

i n a n c i a l s u p p o r tt o t he s anct i oni ng bodyt h an H oos i er . O n t he otherhand, H oos i er p ro p o se d a h ig h e r (in iti a l) tire p ric e , a h ig h e r a n n u a l p a ym e n t to t he s anct i oni ng body , as w el l as addi t i onal paym ent s t o t he i n d i v i d u a l W I SS OTA t r a c k p r o mot e r s t h e ms e l v e s a s p a r t of a b o n u s p rog ram . In fa ct, thes e p rom o ters (an d W IS S O T A b o ard m em b ers) w ere alread yrec eivin g b o n u s p ay m en ts from H o o sier.

W IS S O T A ’s b o a rd o f

d ire c to rs th e n m e t in Ju ly2 0 0 7 to rev iew the b ids a n d s e le ct an ex clus ive tir e su p p li er. W IS S O T A ’s b o a rd d e c id e d to a c c e p t th e H o o sie r p ro p o sa l. V oel t z t es t i fi ed athi s depos i t i on t hat ST A es s ent i al l yoffe r ed the s ame pr i ce a s H oos i eraft ert aki ng i nt o ac countST A ’ s hi gher pr i ce es cal at i on overt he cour s e of the contr act

. T he pr es i dent i ndi cat ed thathe had e xpect ed t o s el ect A m er i can R ace rt i r es but w as surpr i s ed byST A ’ s actual bi d. I n tur n, ST A i nform ed W IS S O T A in its o w n b id th a t “ [ t]h e p ro c e ss th a t h a s led to th is p rop o sal h as b ee n o p en , h o n est an d fa ir

. ” (A 1 5 2 4

. ) S T A ’s gener al m anage r , D avi d M at eer , s ubs equent l yd iscu s s ed the pr oces s w i t h V oel t z, w ho i ndi cat ed t hatST A coul d have gott en t he contr ac t i f i thad mat ched H oos i er ’ s fi nanci al contr i but i on.16 H o w e v e r, su c h a m a tc h in g p ro p o sa l w o u ld h a v e e v id e n tly re d u c e d o r e lim in a te d S T A ’s o w n p ro f it m a rg in

. 3

. ASC S A SC S, headqua r t er ed i n O kl ahoma, runs s pr i ntcarr ace s i n s ever al r egi onal s er i es as w el l as a nat i onal s er i es . Si nce 1999, H o o sie r h a s h a d a u to m a tica llyre n e w in g a n d e x c lu siv e c o n tra c ts w i t h t hi s s anct i oni ng body

. I n 2007, ST A r ec o g n ized a n oppor tu n i t yt o become t he exc l us i ve r i ght

- r eart i r e s uppl i erfor A SC S’ s “360 s pr i nt car s er i es . ” A SC S di d notci r cul at e a f or m al R FP, butST A s t i l l m et w i t h t he s anct i oni ng bodyand s ubm i t t ed a bi d. I t s bi d at t empt ed t o m at ch H o o sier’ s pr opos al and i n c l u d e d a f

i n a n c i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n i n e x c h a n g e f o re x c l u s i v i t y. N e v e rth e les s, A S C S u lti m a telyc h o se to re tain its H o o sie r-o n ly ru le f o r t h e ri g h t- re a r w h e e l p o s itio n . 4

. US AC USA C, h e a d q u a r t e r e d i n I n d i a n a , s a n c t i o n s s p r i n tc ar races on bo t h d i rt a n d a sp h a l traces , pri m ari l yi n the M i dw est a n d W e st. It ap p e a rs th a t H o o sie r h a s h a d lo n g -te rm c o n tra c ts wi t h t h i s s a n c t i on i n g b o d ys i n c e b e f o r e 1 9 9 8 , d e s p i t e s o me ten sion betw een the sanct i on i ng bo dyl eadershi p an d cert ain me m b e r s r e g a r d i n g t h e s e a r r a n g e m e n t s . I n 1 9 9 8 , t h e U S AC pr es i dentactual l yi nform ed thes e mem ber s t hatt he s an ct i oni ng b o d ywo u l d r e ma i n u n d e rc o n t r a c twi t h Ho o s i e rf o ro n l yt wo m o re y e a rs , w h ic h e v id e n tly w a s a n in a c c u ra te a s s e rt io n . In 2 0 0 3 , U S A C d e c id e d to im p lem e n t a rig h t-re a r sin g le t i r e rul e forcert ai n cl as s es , and i t acc or di ngl y s ent out an R FP for a thr ee- y earcontr act

. G oody ear, H oos i er , and ST A s ubm i t t ed co m p eti n g b ids. ST A p rop o sed that, fo r tw o classe s o f c ars17 (U S A C m id g e ts a n d sp rin t c a rs) , th e tire b u sin e ss w o u ld b e sp lit betwee n v a r i ou s s up pl i e r s . STA l i ke w i s e di d n otpr op os e e x c lu siv ityf

o r th e “ S ilv e r C ro w n ” s e rie s. H o o sie r u lti m a tely w o n th e c o n tra c t. W ith o u t se n d in g o u t a n R F P , U S A C e v id e n tly r enew ed i t s excl us i ve contr actw i t h H oos i erforanothert hr ee y ear s i n 2006. A U SA C exec ut i ve, R ol l and H el m l i ng, t es t i fi ed athi s d ep o sit i on t hathe w as notaw ar e of a nypar t i cul arr eas on fo r th e len g th o f th e sa n cti o n ing b o d y ’s co n tr ac ts w ith H o o sier.

5

. D MS I n 1994, ST A , t hr ough i t s di s t r i but or , L i as T i r e, w on t he bi d t o be the exc l us i ve t i r e s uppl i erforD M S’ s “B i g- B l ock” a nd

“ 3 5 8 ” m o d if

ied ra c e s . H o o sie r, h o w e v e r, su c c e ss f u llyo u tb id S T A i n 1 9 9 5

. S i n c e t h e n , L i a s T i r e h a s n o tb i d o n a n o t h e rDM S c o n tra c t. H oos i erand D M S have evi dent l yent er ed a seri es of ex clus ive c o n tr ac ts ov er a n ex tend ed p eriod o f ti m e. H o o sier’s exclusi ve dea l i ngs w i t h U M P actual l ypr edat e the s anct i oni ng b o d y ’s 20 0 5 ac q u isi ti o n b yD M S

. F u rth erm o re, D M S ’s pr es i dent , T hom as D eery , w ents o faras t o char act er i ze t ir es s al es as t he “f

uel ” of U M P. ( A 1716. ) A ccor di ngl y , t he r el evant contr act s have r equi r ed H oos i ert o m ake f i nanci al contr i but i ons to th e sa n c tio n in g b o d yb a se d o n th e n u m b e r o f tires u lti m a tely s ol d t o t he r ace r s and dr i ver s par t i ci pat i ng i n t he r ace s s pons or ed b yU M P

. T he D i str ic tC our ts peci fi cal l ypoi nt ed t o t he fol l ow i ng four t i r e cont r act s betw een H oos i er and D M S: ( 1) a 2007- 2008 ex clus ive c o n tr ac t fo r “U M P M o d ifi ed s” a n d o ther c lasses; (2) a 2007- 2008 excl us i ve contr actfor“D I R T N or t heas tB i g B l ock M odi fi ed”; ( 3) a 2007-2009 excl us i ve cont r act fort he “W or l d of18 O u tl aw N at i onal Spr i ntSer i es ”; and ( 4) a 2008- 2010 excl us i ve contr actfor“U M P L at e M odel s . ” It a p p e a rs th a t, at lea st p rio r to th e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f th is l i t i gat i on, D M S di d not s el ecti t s t i r e s uppl i er s t hr ough a form al b id d in g p ro c e ss . In f

a c t, it e v id e n tly d id n o t p o ss e ss a n ysp e c if ic pr ocedur es orpr ot ocols fors el ect i ng a t i r e s uppl i er . T he s a n c t i o n i n g b o d ya c c o r d i n g l y d i d n o ts e n d a n yRFP s t o STA pr i or t o O ct ober 2007, and i t ot herw i s e r ej ect ed ST A ’s var i ous i nqui r es , s t at i ng at one poi nt t hat H oos i er had more t han doubl ed its f in a n c ia l s u p p o rt to D M S

. I n O ct ober 2007, aft er t he fi l i ng of thi s l aw s ui t , D M S se nt o u t an R F P to se v e n d if f e re n t ti re m a n u f

a c tu re rs. It sp e c if

ica lly r eques t ed p rop os al s fora one- y earcontr actt o be the exc l us i ve tire s u p p lier f

o r “ U M P D IR T c a r L a te M o d e l S e rie s.” O n ly Goo d y e a r , Hoo s i e r , a n d STA r e s p o n d e d

. Th e Hoo s i er and G oody earbi ds bot h cont empl at ed an e xcl us i ve arr angement , but ST A ’ s ow n pr opos al cont empl at ed “non- excl us i vi t y . ” O n t he o t h e rh a n d , S T A p r o p o s e d a l o we rt i r e p r i c e t h a n Ho o s i e r . DM S ul t i m at el ydeemed t he S T A bi d t o be non- r es pons i ve and a w a rd e d a th re e -ye a r e x c lu s iv e c o n tr a c t to H o o s ie r. I n a ver y sim i l arpr oces s , D M S se ntan R FP i n O ct ober 2008 t o s even t i r e manufactur er s s eeki ng pr opos al s fora contr act t o be t he excl us i ve t i r e s uppl i er for t he “U M P D I R T carM odi fi ed ( N E ) ” r ace s . Y etagai n, t he s ame t hr ee c om pani es r es ponded w i t h bi ds , and, once a gai n, D M S deemed STA ’ s pr opos al as nonr es pons i ve bec aus e, u n l i k e i t s c o mpe t i t or s , i tcont empl at ed a nonexcl us i ve r el at i ons hi p. D M S t her efor e ende d up aw ar di ng H o o s ie r a n o th e r e x c lu s iv e c o n tr a c t f o r t h re e y e a rs .19 D . T he S p ri nt C ar Sum m i t and H oos i er’ s N at i onal Spri nt Spec T i re In Jul y 20 06 , D M S , com peti ng sanct i on i ng b od i es, p ro m o ter s, a n d tra c k o p e ra to rs h e ld a “ S p rin t C a r S u m m it” to ad d ress the d ec li n e in c ar c o u n ts an d fa n s a t “41 0 sp ri n t car” r ace s . Such “s pr i nt ” r aces ar e more l i kel yt o occuras par tof a

“ to u rin g ” se rie s o f ra c e s. T o u rin g se rie s, in tu rn , t yp ica lly show case w el l -know n dri vers an d prom ote ri valry betw een these p r o mi n e n t d r i v e r s a n d t h e i r l o c a l c h a l l e n g e r s . W h i l e ST A w as n o t in v ited , H o o s ie r w a s in iti a llya sk e d to a tten d . H o w e v e r, it s in v ita tio n w a s e v e n tu a lly w ith d ra w n . A t t h e S u m m i t , t h e a tten d e e s d is c u ss e d se v e ra l o p tio n s f o r re g e n e ra tin g in ter e st in s pr i nt carr aci ng, i ncl udi ng pos s i bl e t i r e i m pr ovement s . A ft ert he Sum m i t , t he pr es i dentof D M S, D eery , and i t s ex ec u ti ve vi ce pr es i dent , Be n

j a mi n Gei s l e r , appr oache d H oos i er , r eques t i ng t hat t he t i r e manufacturers uppl ya l es s aggr es s i ve s pr i ntt i r e that w oul d pr om ot e m ovement and pas s i ng. T heyfur t herdi s cus s ed t he pos s i bi l i t yof en teri n g i nt o a contr actt o m ake H oos i ert he excl us i ve t i r e s uppl i erfors pr i ntcar r ace s . O n D ece m ber15, 2006, H oos i eracc or di ngl yent er ed i nt o an ex cl us i ve thr ee- y ear deal t o p rovi de ri gh t -r ear t i res for D M S ’s “W orl d o f O utl aw s” spri nt t ou ri ng ser i es. O n th e sa m e day , H oo si er i ssued a p res s r el eas e announc i ng t hat i t had devel oped a “nat i onal s pr i nts pec tir e ,” w h ic h w o u ld b e a v a ila b le in th re e d if f e re n t c o m p o u n d s . A s par t of t hi s D ece m b e r1 5 , 2 0 0 6 c o n t r a c t , H oos i er pr om i s ed t o payD M S t o s ol i ci tcompet i ng s anct i oni n g bodi es an d o thers to e n ter si m il ar e x clus ive c o n tr a c ts w ith the tir e s uppl i er . G ei s l ercont act ed var i ous s pr i nt car t r acks , as ki ng t hem to a d o p t th e “ n a tio n a l s p rin t tire ru le,” a n d u p d a ted H o o sie r itse lf a s t o whi c h t r a c k s a n d s e r i e s we r e s i g n i n g o n t o t h e ru l e . He20 s peci fi cal l yi nform ed H oos i ert hat t hes e “tr ack/ s er i es deal s ” had t o be compl et ed qui ckl y i n or der t o “fe nd off any p lans from A m er i can Racer

. ” ( A 1603. ) I n par t i cul ar , ST A ’ s per - t i r e pr i ce fo r i ts sprint p rod u ct w as ap p rox im ately $ 2 0 less than the p er-ti re pr i ce of fer ed byH oos i erfori t s new “nat i onal s pr i ntt i r e. ” L ik e D M S , o th e r sa n c tio n in g b o d ies h a v e e n ter e d in to au tom ati ca ll yren ew ab le co n tr ac ts w ith H o o sier, w h ich re q u ir e t hem t o pr om ul gat e and e nfor ce a H oos i er - onl yti r e rul e. For i ns t ance , U SA C announce d an open t i r e rul e for cert ai n s pr i nt e v e n t s i n J a n u a r y2 0 0 7

. W h e n To n yRos e , a n STA r epr es ent at i v e, h ear d abouta meet i ng betw een U SA C and H oos i er , he as ked U SA C i f he c oul d at t end, butw as tur ned d o w n . H o w e v e r, U S A C u lti m a telya d o p ted a H o o sie r-o n lyru le fo r th e sp rin t eve n ts. In a d d it ion , a su b seq u en t call b yS T A ’s g e n e ra l m a n a g e r, M a te e r, t o U S A C w a s n o t r e tu rn e d

. A ccor di ngl y , ST A ’ s s pr i ntt i r e s al es have dr as t i cal l yfal l en, even t hough a spr i nt r ace r w on i n 2006 us i ng i t s A m er i can Racert i r e. I t appea r s t hatt he s pr i ntt i r e contr actbetw een H oos i erand D M S exp i red aft er t he curr ent app eal w as fi l ed. A ccord in g to bot h H oos i erand D M S, D M S chos e nott o r enew t he contr act w ith H o o sie r a n d in ste a d e n ter e d in to a n e x c lu siv e c o n tra c t w ith H o o s ie r’ s c o m p e tito r, G o o d y e a r. ST A addi t i o n all yclaim s tha t H o o sier an d W IS S O T A u sed t hei rcol l ect i ve mar ketpow ert o defe ata new s anct i oni ng b ody cal l ed D T R A ( “D i r t T r ack R aci ng A s s oci at i on”) , w h ic h a t t e m p t e d t o s a n c t i o n t r a c k s i n W I S S O T A ’ s t e r r i t o r y. S pecifi cal l y , D T R A racer s and d ri vers w ou l d h ave u sed l ess e x p e n siv e G o o d y e a r tire s. B u t P a u l M e n tin g f ro m H o o sie r w ro te t o W I SSO T A , s t at i ng, i nt eral i a, t hat “thi s i s a s anct i oni ng body21 w ar t hati nvol ves H oos i erbeca us e w e ar e part ner s w i t h W i s s ot a” and thatH oos i er“w oul d des i r e t o at t ack c om m on t hr eat s as p a rtn e rs.” (A 1 5 9 9 .) H o o sie r d e c lin e d to su b m it a p ro p o sa l in r es pons e t o D T R A ’ s R F P , s t at i ng t hat , “[i ] n or dert o cont i nue properl y servici ng and supp l y i ng ou r exi st i ng con t ractbu si ness, w e c an n o t atthis t im e c o m m ito u rselve s to f u lfi ll ing a S p ec T ir e con t ract

. ” (A 16 00

. ) H oo si er, act i ng t hroug h a d i stri bu t or, al so purpor t edl yr efus ed t o s el l t o anothert our i ng s er i es know n as C aro li n a C lash b ec au se the series all o w ed it s rac ers a n d d ri v ers to us e w hatt he s er i es bel i eved w as t he more popul ar , chea p er, a n d s u p e ri o r A m e ri c a n R a c e r p ro d u c t. E . The Al l e g e d Cos t s a nd Be ne f i t s o f t he Si ng l e Ti re R u le an d H o o sier’s E x clu sive C o n tra cts T he part i es and t he ami ci devot e a gr eat deal of att ent i on to th e a lleg e d b e n e f

its a n d c o sts o f

, in ter a lia, th e sin g le tire ru le and H oos i er ’ s s peci fi c cont r actual arr angement s w i t h t he var i ous s a n c tio n in g b o d ie s . M a tee r c laim e d th a t H o o sie r’s f o re c lo su re ra te in d irt late mo d e l r a c i n g i s a p p r o x i ma t e l y5 0 %. Ac c o r d i n g t o S T A, “H oos i er - onl yrul es di ct ate t i r es i n 76% of [the] l at e model t our i ng s er i es i n t he M i dw es t , 5 7 % of the modi fi ed t our i ng s er i es , 60% of the l at e model ‘ cr at e’ s er i es , and 2 5 o f 28 spr i nt cars er i es . ” ( A ppel lant s ’ B r i ef a t18 ( ci t i ng A 1714- A 1715, A 1 7 1 0 -A 1 7 1 3 ). ) ST A fur t hercl ai m s t hatt he al l eged pr act i ces have c aus ed harm t o t he r eal cons um er s , namel yt he race carow ner s and d ri v ers w h o ac tuallyp u rch ase the tir e s th e m selv es, i n the f o rm of, among ot herthings, hi gherpr i ces and l es s choi ce. T he e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd d o e s in d ica te th a t H o o sie r g e n e ra lly22 char ges m or e per t i r e t han ST A

. Pr ovi di ng y etanotherexampl e, S T A p o in ts o u t th a t th e sa n c tio n in g b o d yf o r th e “ C ra te R a c in U SA ” s e r i e s a d o p t e d a Hoo s i e r - o n l yru l e , e v e n t h o u g h Hoo s i er o f f e r e d a p e r - t i r e p r i c e $ 5 0

. 0 0 h i gh e r t h a n S TA. I n t h e t i me per i od aft ert he form al announce m entof the rul e cha nge but b e f o r e i t s i mpl e me n t a t i o n , 4 0

- 4 5 % o f t h e d r i v e r s i n t h i s s er i es cont i nued t o us e A m er i can Racert i r es . M or e br oadl y , m any dr i ver s have e vi dent l ychos en S T A ’ s A m er i can R ace rt i r es w hen gi ven the choi ce t o do s o, bas ed on s uch gr ound s as bett er dur abi l i t y and t her efor e l ow ert i r e cos t s overt he l ong t erm . For i nst ance , V i ct orL ee, t he 2008 w i nni ng dr i verof the “Bat t l e of th e B lu e g ra ss ” ra c in g se rie s, a c tu a llysw itch e d f ro m H o o sie r to A m eri can R acer, and cl ai m ed he cuthis t i re bi l l i n h al f bec ause of t he purpor t ed s uper i or dur abi l i t y of t he A m er ican R acer p ro d u c t. S im ilarly , ra c e tea m o w n e rs c o m p lain e d to U S A C th a t: “W h en U S A C m ad e H o o sier th e sp ec ti re, co sts tri p le d .” (A 1 4 8 1

. ) O n t he ot her hand, ST A ’ s ow n expert , D r . D avi d R ei t m an, acknow l edged the fol l ow i ng: T he san cti o n ing or gani zat i on orpr om ot er ul ti m atelydeci des w hetherornott o ent eri nt o a c o n tra c t w ith H o o sie r re q u irin g a H o o sie r-o n ly ru l e ; h o we v e rt h e y ma k e t h i s d e c i s i o n i n t h e i ro wn b est i n terest, n o t nec essa ri lyin the interests of ti re cus t om er s , t aki ng i nt o acc ount t he c om pens at i on o f f e re d b yo r n e g o tia te d w ith H o o s ie r. . . . (A 1 9 2 1 .) Un s u rp r i s i n g l y , t h e a mi c i , Ho o s i e r , a n d ( e s p e c i a l l y ) DM S tur n t o the rat herext ens i ve evi dent i aryr ecor d i n t hi s cas e i n an23 at t empt t o es t abl i s h t hatt he s i ngl e t i r e rule and t he r el at ed exclusi ve co ntr act s r e su lt i n sig n if ica n t p ro -c o m p e tit iv e or sport sr el at ed bene fi t s . Si m pl yput , t he fol l ow i ng j us t i fica ti ons or benef i t s have been offe r ed for t he rul e i t s el f and t he rel ated contr act s : ( 1) s uppl i erconce r ns ; ( 2) s afe t y ; ( 3) par i t y ; ( 4) contr ol l i ng pr i ces and cos t s ; and ( 5) i ncr eas i ng carcount s and the num ber o f fa ns . I n tur n, t he r ecor d cont ai ns , i nt eral i a, t he d e p o sitio n tes tim o n yo r sta tem e n ts o f th e f o llo w in g in d iv id u a ls conce r ni ng t hes e purport ed benefi t s : ( 1) D oug B l and, t he ow ner of Spr i ngfi el d ( M i s s our i ) R ace w ay ; ( 2) K evi n C offe y , t he ow ner of M ount ai n R ace w ay ; ( 3) D eery , pr es i dent and chi ef ope r at i ng offi cerof D M S; (4) L eonar d ( “Sam”) D r i gger s , r aci ng di r ect or of D M S; ( 5) J us t i n Fant ozzi , G oody ear ’ s m arket i ng m anage r ; ( 6) H el m l i ng, a mem berof the boar d of di r ect or s of U SA C ; ( 7) J acobs , t he M cC r earyexec ut i ve cr edi ted w i t h devel opi ng t he s i ngl e t i r e rul e; ( 8) M at eer , t he gene r al m an agerof ST A ; ( 9) St eve O ’ D onnel l , vi ce pr es i dent o f ra ci ng oper at i ons for N A S C A R ; (1 0 ) M o o n e yS tar r, th e g e n e ra l m a n a g e r of B a tes v ill e (A rka n sas) M o tor S p e e d w ay ; and (11 ) V o elt z, W IS S O T A ’s pr es i dent

. W hi l e ac know l edging the ext ens i ve natur e of the evi den c e p r e s e n t e d , we f o c u s o n t h e s t a t e me n t s ma d e b yt he P l ai nti ff S T A ’s ow n p ers on nel as w el l as byD M S ’s em ploy ees, a s th e o n lysa n c tio n in g b o d ya c tu a llyn a m e d a s a D e f e n d a n t in th is la w s u it. ST A ’s g ener al m anage ragr eed thatl i m i t i ng t he number of t i r es boughtbyr ace r s and dri ver s coul d be good forr aci ng and th a t a s in g le tire ru le c o u ld re d u c e c o sts

. M a tee r ex p lain e d th a t: I f y ou sh o w ed up att he r ace t r ack f ort he eve nt w i t h fourt i r es t haty ou had j us tpur chas ed aty our t i r e deal er s hop, and ther e’ s anothert i r e s uppl i erat t he tr ack show i ng off thei rbr and s panki ng new pr oduct , and i t s cons i der ab lyfas t ert han the t i r es y ou j us t b o u ght , t hos e fourt i r es y ou j us tbought a re n o lo n g e r c o m p e titiv e o n th a t r a c e tr a c k

.24 (A 8 4 2 .) A c k n o w le d g in g , li k e S T A ’s o w n w e b site , h is company ’ s r ol e i n pi oneer i ng t he s i ngl e t i r e ru le, M at eers t at ed t hat ST A pr om ot ed t he rul e i n or der “[t ] o el i m i nat e the cons t ant in -se a so n p ro d u c t d e v e lo p m e n t th a t w a s re q u irin g th e ra c e rs to b u yev erytr ick n ew ti re tha t cam e a lon g . ” (A 8 3 3

. ) I n addi t i on, J acobs actual l yt es t i fi ed ats om e l ength about t he var i ous advant ages of the s i ngl e t i r e rul e i n a 1982 depos i t i on conduct ed as par tof an a nt i t rus tl aw s ui tfi l ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i stri ctC ou rtfor the D i stri ctof M assachuset t s by M & H against bot h H oos i erand s ever al t r acks and dr i ving cl ubs w ho had a d o p ted th e ru le a n d e n ter e d in to a n e x c lu siv e a rra n g e m e n t w ith H o o sie r. M & H ’s c h a ll e n g e to th e ru le itse lf w a s u lti m a tely r ej ect ed byt he Fi r s tC i r cu it

. S ee M & H T i r e C o. v. H oos i er R a c in g T ire C o rp ., 7 3 3 F .2 d 9 7 3 (1 s t C ir

. 1 9 8 4 ). A c c o rd in g to Jacobs, M cC rearysupp ort ed the si ng l e t i re rule because i tw as a

“ v iab le m a rk e tin g p ro c e d u re a n d m e th o d ” a n d “ a h e a lth yw a yto se ll rac e tires .” (A 4 1 1 .) H e f u rth e r e m p h a si z e d th a t th e ru le red u ce d ti re c o sts be ca u se itco u n tered the in c e n tiv e f o r race rs an d d ri v ers to g et th e n ew est an d b est t ir es f o r e a c h an d ev ery ra c e . D rig g e rs f

ro m D M S sim ilarlytes tifie d th a t th e c a r c o u n ts in c re a se d w h e re a sin g le tire ru le is in e f f e c t: W hen y o u ru n a n o p e n t i r e ru l e i n my r a c e t r ack area, w hi c h i s pr i mar i l yt he mi dwes tfo rt he mo st par t , y ou can ru n a W or l d of O ut l aw s how orany of the hi gh dol l ars anct i on – ors er i es r ace s ar ound th e c o u n try a n d y o u r c a r c o u n t w ith o p e n tire r u le w i l l be hal f of w hat i t w i l l be on m y t i r e rul e. B e c a u se o f

m ytire r u le, lo c a l g u y s c a n g o ru n th is r ace , payt he $100 entr yfee , t h e p itpas s or w ha t e v e r e l s e t h e y h a v e t o p a y a n d ru n t h i s r ace and pos s i bl ygo h o m e w i t h s om e money . I f they have t o go buy a fourt o s i x di ffe r entt i r es t o run th is ra c e to b e c o m p e tit iv e w ith a n o p e n tire r u le25 a n d th e b e s t th e ya re g o in g to ru n is 1 8 th o r 1 9 th and theyar e goi ng t o get70 0 b ucks , i tcos tt hem 1, 200 bucks t o m ake the 700 bucks s o t her efor e, t heygo el s ew her e. T hey go t o a U M P sa nct i oned r ace w her e theydon’ thave t o buyanyt hi ng. (A 1 5 9 -6 0 .) A ccor di ng t o D eery , “[r ] ace car s peci fi cat i ons have be en t he corner s t one of mot or s por t s ’ devel opm entand h ave al l ow ed th e sp o rt to m a tu re in to a f u lly o rg a n ize d a n d r e c o g n iza b le eve n t

. ” ( A19 3 1

. ) Th e p r e s i d e n t o f DM S f u r t h e r n o t ed t hat “[m]os tof the nat i onal l yr ecogni zed d ivisi ons of r aci ng have a c o m m o n se t o f

ru les a n d a re u su a llyg o v e rn e d b ya sin g le sa n c tio n in g b o d y .” (I d .) S u c h ru les sp e c if ica llyp ro m o te cont i nui t yand cons i s t ency , t her ebybenefi tt i ng bot h t he r aci ng co m p eti tors an d the f

an s. D ef

en d ing sing le tire ru les, D ee ry cl ai m ed that , among ot hert hi ngs , “s pec t i r es s ave mo n e y , p r ovi de a le v e l f ie ld , a re s a f

e a n d m a k e f

o r a m o re s u c c e s s f

u l s h o w .” (A 1 9 3 4

. ) F o r its p a rt, S T A v ig o ro u slyc laim s th a t, a t th e v e rylea st, th e re a re f

a c tu a l d isp u tes w ith re sp e c t to th e v a rio u s b e n e f its offe r ed byi t s adver s ar i es t o j us t ify the s i ngl e t i r e rul e and the re la te d e x c lu s iv e H o o s ie r c o n tr a c ts

. W ith re sp e c t to “ su p p lier c o n c e rn s,” H o o sie r itse lf evident l yhas on l yon e t i re pl ant. H oo si er’ s o w n co ntr act s al so cont ai n a “For ce M aj eur e” cl aus e, excus i ng i tfr om per form ance w here, fori ns t ance , t her e i s a w or k s t oppage oran ac tof G od. T he r ecor d demonstr at es t hat thes e ki nds of pr obl ems ar e not unpr ece dent ed. Speci fi cal l y , t he ow ner of t he F as t r ak di r tr aci ng series a l l ow ed mul t i pl e t i r e s uppl i er s t o s el l t i r es fori t s r ace s af ter G o o d y ea r w as u n ab le t o fu lfi ll it s ex clus ive tir e c o m m itm e n ts d u e to la b o r i s s u e s . D M S a d m itt e d th a t th e re h a s n e v e r b e e n a n ysp e c if ic c o n c e r n s a b o u tt i r e s a f

e t y i n i t s o p e n t i r e ru l e r a c e s . S i m i l a r l y,26 H el m l i ng fr om U SA C w as unaw ar e of a nys afe t yi s s ues w hen tir e b ra n d s c o m p e te d f

o r b u s in e s s . T ur ni ng t o t he conc ept o f “par i t y , ” i tappea r s t hatt he H oos i er - onl y rul e i t s el f m ay perm i t t he us e of di f f er ent ki nds of H oos i ert i r es i n t he s ame r ace . Fori ns t anc e, U M P’ s rul es ev iden tl y h av e all o w ed fo u r d iffe ren t H o o sier ti res to b e u sed

. In turn , so m e rac ers an d d ri v ers h av e re q u ested , n o t l ess, bu t m o re t i r e choi ces , i n or der t o have mor e opt i ons i n t he futur e. H e lm lin g a c k n o w led g e d a t h is d e p o sitio n th a t th e p a rticip a n ts in U SA C ’ s open s pr i ntr ace s w er e i n par i t y . O the rw i t nes s es t es t i fi ed thatt he w hol e concept of par i t ym eans havi ng a di ffe r ent dr i verw i n everyni ght

. N evert hel ess, there i s evi dence i n t he recor d indi cat i ng l ess var i et yof w i nn ers i n H o o sie r- on l yraces .
A cc o rdin g to S T A , there is n o e v id en ce in the rec o rd sh o w in g th a t th e f

a ilu re to e n ter a n e x c lu siv e c o n tr a c t w ith H o o sier w o u ld resu ltin h igh er c o sts. Itli k ew ise claim s tha t th ere is n o e v id e n c e w h a tso e v e r e sta b lish in g th a t th e H o o sie r c o n tra c ts have any eff

ect on car count s or fan at t endanc e. In f ac t, t hey p o in t to e v id e n c e p u rp o rt e d ly sh o w in g th e o p p o s ite

. S T A further ass ert s that, e v e n if the rul e otherw i se pos s es s ed the cl ai m ed bene fi t s , t he s ingl e t i r e rul e as pr act i ced here do es no trepr esentt he leas tres t ri ct i ve m eans t o serve t hese purpor t ed goal s . I toffe r s t he fol l ow i ng al t ernat i ve: t he adopt i on of a “ l i m i t ed compound com pet i t i on ” rul e, w hi ch w oul d al l ow r ace r s t o s el ectfr om a s peci fi ed l i s tof t i r es fr om t he var i ous m anufa ctur er s . A l t ernat i vel y , ST A pr opos es t hatt he s anct i oni ng bodi es coul d choos e t o l i m i tt he n u m b erof t i r es us ed overt he cou rs e of a season. A ccordi ng t o S T A , t he si ng le tir e rul e al so g iv e s ra c e rs a n d d riv e rs a n in c e n tiv e to c h e a t b ytre a tin g th e ir ti res w ith ch e m ica ls, there b yreq u ir ing ti re insp ec ti o n s b ef o re e a c h ra c e . F . P roce dural H i s t ory27 ST A f i l e d i t s i n i t i a l c o mpl a i n ti n t h e Di s t r i c tCou r ton S e p tem b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 7

. N a m in g H o o sie r a s th e so le D e f e n d a n t, i t al l eged: ( 1) m onopol i zati on i n vi ol at i on of Sect i on 2 of the Sher m an A ct ; ( 2) cons pi r acyt o restra i n t r ade i n vi ol at i on of S e c tio n 1 o f

th e S h e rm a n A c t; (3 ) a tt e m p ted m o n o p o liza tio n in v io latio n o f

S e c tio n 2 o f th e S h e rm a n A c t; (4 ) c o n sp ira c yto m onopol i ze; and ( 5) a dec l ar at or yj udgm entcl ai m . L es s t han a m ont h l at er , ST A fi l ed an amended compl ai nt addi ng D M S as t he se c o n d D e f

e n d a n t. O n J anuary10, 2008, t he D i s t r i ct C o u r tent er ed a sch edul i ng or der , w hi ch, among other t hi ngs , es t abl i s hed a d e a d l i n e o f

M a y3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , f

o rt h e a me n d me n t o f

p l e a d i n g s . STA s u b s e q u e n t l yf

i l e d a s e c o n d a me n d e d c o mp l a i n tt o a d d t wo addi t i onal co- pl ai nt i ffs

. O n M ay 30, 2008, ST A m oved t o amend t he compl ai nta thi r d t i m e i n or dert o add a new countal l egi ng il lega l ty ing u n d er S ec ti o n 1 o f th e S h erm an A c t. T h e C o u rt gr ant ed thi s unoppos ed r eques t , and t he t hi r d amended compl ai nt w as fi l ed on J une 23, 2008. O n N o v e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 , S T A o n c e a g a in so u g h t lea v e to amend th e c o mpl a i n t , t h i s t i me wi s h i n g t o a d d a c o u n ta l l e g i ng a c o n c e rte d re f

u sa l to d e a l o r, in o th e r w o rd s, a g r o u p b o y c o tt. T hi s cont es t ed mot i on w as deni ed byt he D i s tri ctC our ton D ece m ber 16, 2008. A ccor di ng t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t , ST A fai l ed t o demonstr at e t he r equi s i t e good caus e, and the addi t i on of y et anothercl ai m bas ed on a ne w l egal t heoryw o u l d al s o be p re ju d ic ia l to th e o th e r p a rt ie s . H o o sie r a n d D M S f

il e d m o tio n s f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, and ST A l i kew i s e m oved for par t i al s um m ary j udgm ent as t o t he defe ns es of uncl ean ha nds and i n par i del i ct o. O n Sept ember15, 2 0 0 9 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e m o ti o n s fo r sum m ary j udgm entfi l ed by H oos i erand D M S ( and deni ed ST A ’ s m ot i on as m oot )

. I t pr ovi ded an e xt ens i ve expl anat i on fori t s rul i ng i n an acc om pany i ng m emora ndum opi ni on. Si m pl ypu t, t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt f o u n d th a t: (1 ) “w h e re , a s h e re , a sa n c tio n in g b o d yf re e ly28 decides t o adop t a si ng l e t i re rul e, and t h e n f re e ly sel ect s a s u p p l i e r , n o a n t i t ru s tv i o l a t i o n i s p r e s e n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w – e i t h e ru n d e rSe c t i o n 1 or2 o f th e Sh e r ma n Act ” ; a n d ( 2 ) “ STA h a s n o t s u f

f e r e d a n ‘ Ant i t ru s t I n

j u r y ’ a n d t h u s , d o e s not have s ta n d in g to b ri n g th is a c tio n .” (A 4 1 (e m p h a s is o m itte d ).) ST A fi led a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l

. U SA C , N at i onal A sso ciati o n fo r S tock C ar A u to R ac ing , In c. (“N A S C A R ”), I M C A , and G r and- A m R oad R aci ng have f i l ed an a m i cus cur i ae b ri e f

. II. T h e D istr ict C o u rt p o ss e ss e d ju risd ictio n o v e r th is ant i t rus tm at t erpur s uantt o 28 U

. S. C

. § 1331, 28 U

. S. C

. § 1337, and 15 U

. S. C

. § 15. W e have app ell ate j ur i s di ct i on under28 U

. S

. C

. § 1291. W e fur t her exer ci s e pl enary r evi ew over a D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m ary j udgm ent

. See, e. g. , H arr i s on A ir e, Inc

. v . A ero star Int’l , Inc

. , 4 2 3 F

. 3 d 3 7 4 , 3 8 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tr ecogni zed, t he r es o lut i on of a su m m a ryju d g m e n t m o tio n is o f ten a n e sp e c ially d if

f icu lt t a sk in t he ant i t rus tcont ext , par t i cul ar l y in l i ghtof the i nher entfac tual compl exi t i es t ypi cal l yi nvol ved as w el l as t he par amount i m po rt ance o f m oti ve an d int ent i n the l egal analy si s. T his case c e rt a in ly is n o e x c e p tio n . N e v e rth e les s, th e D istric t C o u rt a lso p ro p e rly acknow l edged thats um m aryj udgm enti s notdi s favor ed i n t he ant i t rus tcont ext

. T he ent r y of sum m ary j udgm ent i n favor of an ant i t rus tdefe ndantm ayactual l ybe r equi r ed i n or dert o pr event l engthyand dr aw n - outl i t i gat i on, w hi ch mayhave a chi l l i ng eff ecton compet i t i ve mar ketfor ces . See, e. g. , C api t al I m agi ng A s s oc. , P. C

. v. M oh aw k V al l eyM ed. A s s ocs . , I nc. , 996 F. 2d 537, 541 ( 2d C i r . 1993)

. Fur t herm or e, “‘ ant i t rus tl aw l i m i t s t he r ange of perm i s s i bl e i nfer ence s’ thatcan be dr aw n ‘ fr om ambi guous evi dence

. ’ ” H arr i s on A i r e, 423 F. 3d at380 ( quot i ng29 M at s us hi t a El ec. I ndus

. C o. v. Z eni t h R adi o C orp. , 475 U

. S. 574, 588 ( 1986) )

. T o avoi d s um m aryj udgm ent , an ant i t rus tpl ai nt i ff m us tcome for w ar d w i t h economi cal l ypl aus i bl e evi dence s uppor t i ng t he el ement s of i t s cl ai m . See, e. g. , E as t m an K odak C o . v . Im ag e T ec h

. S erv s. , Inc

. , 5 0 4 U .S

. 4 5 1 , 4 6 8 -69 (19 9 2 ); M at s us hi t a, 475 U

. S. at 587; H arr i s on A i r e, 423 F. 3d at380. W h e n th e e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd is a s c o n sis ten t w ith p e rm iss ib le compet i t i on as i ti s w i t h an i l l egal cons pi r acy , s uch evi dence , s t andi ng al one, fai l s t o s uppor tan inf ere nce of

an i l l egal co n s pi r acy . See, e. g. , M at s us hi t a, 475 U

. S. at588. I n t he end, t he pl ai nt i ff i n an ant i t rus t cas e r es pondi ng t o a sum m ary ju d g m e n t m o tio n m u st o v e rc o m e a “ h ig h e r th re sh o ld ,” w h ich is i m pos ed i n or der “to avoi d det err i ng i nnocentconductt hat r efl ect s enhanc ed, r ather t han r es t r ai ned, compet i t i on. ” I n r e Fl at G la s s A n titr u s t L itig ., 3 8 5 F .3 d 3 5 0 , 3 5 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T he part i es fur t heragr ee that t hi s C our t r evi ew s t he deni al of a mot i on t o amend underan abus e of di s cr et i on st andar d of r evi ew . See, e. g. , E

. M i ner al s & C hems. C o. v. M ahan, 225 F. 3d 3 3 0 , 3 3 9 -41 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ). III

. A s h ig h lig h ted b yth e e x ten siv e f a c tu a l d isc u ss io n in S e c tio n I, supra , t hi s appea l pr es ent s t he C our t w i t h an unus ual and chall eng i ng set of ci rcum st ances. S i m ply pu t , th is c a se i nvol ves a r el at i vel yl ar ge numberof ent i t i es , speci fi cal l yt he var i ous s anct i oni ng bodi es governi ng t he s por t of di r toval t r ack r aci ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es and C anada , w hi ch, overan ext ens i ve p eriod o f ti m e da ti n g b ac k d ec ad es, h av e a d o p ted th e sin g le t ir e rul e forvar i ous r ace s and, i n tur n, have e nt er ed exc l us i ve con tr act s w i t h t he maj ort i r e s uppl i er s . Fur t herm or e, even though t he part i es a n d the ami ci ci t e t o a l ar ge numberof pr i orcas es fr om t hi s C our t , our s i s t er ci r cui t s , and othercour t s , veryfew of t hes e dec i s i ons appea rto b e di r ect l yon poi nt

. I n tur n, t he d e c isio n s tha t a re , m o re o r l e ss , o n p o in t ar e o f ten d istin g u ish a b le o n a v a rie tyo f

g ro u n d s (o r o th e rw is e a r e n o t b in d in g o n th is30 C our t )

. Fi nal l y , t he i m por t ance of t hi s cas e goes far bey ond t he t i r e s uppl i er s and s anct i oni ng bodyactual l ynamed as t he P lain tiff s a n d D e f e n d a n ts. In f

a c t, o u r re su lt a n d re a so n in g c o u ld have a n eff

ectbey ond t he w or l d of di r toval t r ack r aci ng ( oreven m o to rs p o rt s ra c in g in g e n e ra l)

. H avi ng ful lycons i der ed the numer ous ar gum ent s of the p arti es a n d the a m ici , the re co rd o n ap p ea l, the D istri ct C o u rt ’s t hor ough and ca r eful l y r eas oned rul i ng, and t he governi ng l egal p ri n ciples, w e u lt im atelyd eterm ine th at t h e D istri ct C o u rt p ro p e rly ru led in f

a v o r of H o o sie r an d D M S

. W e r e a c h th is re su lt b a se d o n th e f

o llo w in g c o n sid e ra tio n s: (1 ) H o o sie r c lea rly has notcoer ced, or o therw i s e i m pr oper l yi nt er fer ed w i t h, t he det erm i nat i ons of D M S a nd t he ot her s anct i oni ng bodi es t o adopt t he s i ngl e t i r e rul e and t o ent eri nt o the re s pect i ve exc l us i ve s uppl ycontr act s ; ( 2) t he s anct i oni ng bodies p r es ent ed, i n good fai th, m ore than suffici ent pr o-com pe tit i ve o r busi ness j us t i fi cat i ons fort hei ract i ons ; and ( 3) ST A h as ot herw i s e not s uffe r ed anycogni zabl e ant i t rus ti nj ur ybeca us e i thas had the oppor tuni t yt o bi d on excl us i ve s uppl y deal s and has i n fac tdone s o w ith s o m e s u c c e s s . A . B as i c Pri nci pl es of

A nt i t rus t L aw T hi s C our t has never di r ect l y cons i der ed t he l egal i t yof a pr act i ce l i ke the s i ngl e t i r e rul e or t he s peci fi c ki nd of exc l us i ve cont r act s ent er ed byt he s anct i oni ng bodi es and H oos ier. N evert hel es s , t her e ar e cer t ai n fundament al and w el l

- es t abl i s hed lega l pri n ciples th at m u st g u ide ou r an aly sis. T h e D istri ct C o u rt itse lf a c c u ra tely su m m a riz e d a t lea st s o m e o f th e se p rin c ip les in its s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t ru lin g . S ec ti o n 1 o f th e S h erm an A ct p ro v ides that “[ e]v ery contr act , combi nat i on i n t he for m of trus torot herw i s e, or cons pi r acy , i n r es t r ai ntof t r ade or comm er ce . . . i s decl ar ed t o be i l l egal

. ” 15 U

. S. C

. § 1. I t i s w el l es t abl i s hed t hatt hi s pr ovi s i on p ro h ib its o n ly “u n re a s o n a b le ” re s tr a in ts o f tr a d e . S e e , e .g .,31 N C A A v . B d

. o f R eg en ts, 4 6 8 U

. S

. 8 5 , 9 8 (19 8 4 ). S T A ap p ea rs to a g re e th a t th e “ ru le o f re a so n ” sta n d a rd a p p lies in th is c o n tex t. Se e , e . g . , Or s o n , I n c . v . M i r a ma x Fi l m Corp . , 7 9 F. 3 d 1 3 5 8, 1 3 6 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). “In o rde r t o su rviv e su m m aryjud g m e n t i n ca ses w h ere [the rul e of r eas on] appli es, t he pl ai nt i ff musts how conce r t ed act i on, ant i trus ti nj ur y , ev idence t hatt he cons pi r acypr oduced

‘ adver s e, ant i

- compet i t i v e e f f e c t s w i t hi n t he r el evantpr oductand geogr aphi c mar k et s , ’ and evi dence ‘ t hatt he obj ect s of and the conduct pur s uant t o t he conspi r acyw er e i l l egal

. ’ ” I nt erV es t , I nc. v. B l oom ber g, L

. P. , 340 F. 3d 144, 159 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng R o ssi v. Sta n d ard R o o fin g , Inc

. , 1 5 6 F

. 3 d 4 5 2 , 4 6 5 (3d C ir

. 1998) )

. T he pl ai nt i ff mays at i s fyi t s b ur den bys how i ng ei t her actual ant i

- compet i t i ve ef fec t s orpr oof of t he def

endant ’ s m arket pow er . See, e. g. , O r s on, 79 F. 3d at 1367. T he not i on of “mar ket pow er ” i n t hi s cont exti s defi ned as t he abi l i ty to r ai s e pr i ces a b o v e th o s e th a t w o u ld e x is t in a c o m p e titiv e m a rk e t. S e e , e .g ., id

. T h e b u r d e n t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e d e f

e n d a n tt o s h o w a s uffi ci ent p ro- compet i t i ve j us t i fi cat i on orobj ect i ve fort he chal l enged c onduct

. See, e. g. , i d. at 1367- 68. A r es t r ai ntcannot be j ust i fi ed sol el yon t he b asi s of social w el fare consi derat i on s. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. B r ow n U ni v. , 5 F. 3d 658, 678- 79 ( 3d C i r . 1993)

. T he pl ai nt i ff t hen m us t demonstr at e t hat t he r es t r ai nt i t s el f i s notr eas onabl ynece s s aryt o achi eve the s t at ed obj ect i ve. See, e. g. , O r s on, 79 F. 3d at 1368. I n ot her w or ds , “[e ] ven i f an a n tico m p e tit iv e re stra in t is in ten d e d to a c h iev e a le g itim a te o b jec tiv e , the re stra in t o n lysu rv iv e s a ru le o f re a so n a n a ly sis if i ti s r ea so nabl ynece s s aryt o achi eve the l egi t i m at e obj ect i ves pr offe r ed byt he defen d an t. ” B r ow n U ni v. , 5 F. 3d at678- 79 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. “‘ T he true t es tof l egal it y is w h ethert he r es t r ai nti m pos ed i s s uch as m er el y r egul at es and perhaps t her eby pr om ot es compet i t i on orw hethe r it i s s uch as m ays uppr es s or32 even de s t r oycompet i t i on. ’ ” O r s on, 79 F. 3d at1367 ( quot i ng B d. o f T ra d e v . U n ite d S ta te s , 2 4 6 U .S . 2 3 1 , 2 3 8 (1 9 1 8 ))

. S e c tio n 2 o f th e S h e rm a n A c t ta rg e ts p e rso n s “ w h o sh a ll m o n o p o li ze , o r att em p t t o m o n o p o li ze , o r co m b ine o r co n sp ir e w ith a n yo th e r p e rs o n o r p e rs o n s , to m o n o p o liz e a n y p a rt o f

. . . t r ade orcomm er ce. ” 15 U

. S. C

. § 2. T hi s offe ns e of m onopo l i z a t i o n h a s t wo e l e me n t s : “ ‘ ( 1 ) t h e p o s s e s s i o n of m onopol ypow er in the r el evantm arketand ( 2) t he w i l l ful acqui s i t i on or m aint enanc e of thatpow eras di s t i ngui s hed fr om g ro w th o r d e v e lo p m e n t as a c o n se q u e n c e o f a su p e rio r p ro d u c t, bus i ness a cumen, orhi s t or i c ac ci dent

. ’ ” Eastm an K odak, 504 U

. S. a t48 1( qu ot i ng U nit ed St a t e s v. G r i nn e l l Corp. , 38 4 U. S. 56 3, 57 0-71 (19 66 ))

. A s t o the second el em ent, “[a] m on op oli st w ill f u llya c q u ir e s o r m a in tain s m o n o p o lyp o w e r w h e n it compet es on s om e basi s ot her t han t he m er i t s . ” LePage’ s I nc. v. 3M , 324 F. 3d 141, 147 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( en banc ) (ci t i ng A s pen Ski i ng C o. v. A s pen H i ghl ands Ski i ng C orp. , 472 U

. S. 585, 605 n. 32 ( 1985) )

. I n tur n, t he off ens e of a t t empt ed monopol i zat i on has t he fol l ow i ng t hr ee e l ement s : “( 1) t hatt he def enda nthas en g ag ed in p red atoryo r an ti co m p eti ti v e c o n d u ct w ith (2) a s peci fi c i nt entt o m onopol i ze a nd ( 3) a dange r ous pr obabi l i t yof achi evi ng m onopol ypow er . ” Spectrum Spor t s , I nc. v. M cQ ui l l an, 506 U

. S. 447, 456 ( 1993) ( ci t at ion o m i t t ed)

. T he fi nal e l e me n t r e q u i r e s a n i n q u i r y i n t o t h e r e l e v a n t p r o d u c tand g e o g ra p h ic m a rk e t as w e ll as th e d e f e n d a n t’s e c o n o m ic p o w e r in th a t m a rk e t. S e e , e .g ., id . at 4 5 9 . In tu rn , m a rk e t sh a re , w h ile cruci al , m ayno t al w ay s be det erm i nat i ve. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. M i cr os oftC orp. , 253 F. 3d 34, 54 ( D

. C

. C i r . 2001) ( en b a n c ) (p e r c u ria m ). O n c e th e p la in ti f f d e m o n stra tes h a rm to c o m p e tit io n , the d e f

e n d a n t th e n h a s to sh o w th a t itis a c tu a lly pr om ot i ng a pro- compet i t i ve orl egi t i m at e bus i nes s obj ect i ve. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. D ent s pl yI nt ’ l , I nc. , 399 F. 3d 181, 187, 19 6-97 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). U l t i m at el y , S ect i on 2 i s di rect ed ag ai nst conductt hat“unfai r l yt ends t o des t r oycompet i t i on i t s el f, ” as33 oppos ed t o even “s ever e” c om pet i t i on. Spectrum Spor t s , 506 U

. S

. at 45 8 (cit ati o n s o m itted). ST A al s o cl ai m s t hati t h as been the vi ct i m of unl aw ful “ty i ng. ” “‘ T y i ng i s defi ned as s el l i ng one good (t he ty i ng pr oduct ) o n t h e c o n d i t i o n t h a tt h e b u y e ra l s o p u r c h a s e a n o t h er s epar at e good ( t he t i ed p rod u ct)

. ’ ” H arr i s on A i r e, 423 F. 3d at 385 ( quot i ng T ow n Sound & C us t om T ops , Inc

. v . C hyr s l er M o to rs C o rp ., 9 5 9 F .2 d 4 6 8 , 4 7 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( e n b a n c ))

. A p riv a te a n titru st p lain tiff m u st f u rth e r e sta b lish th a t it s uffe r ed an “ ant i t rus ti nj ur y ” as a r es ul tof the mi s conductand t her efor e pos s es s es t he s t andi ng nec es s aryt o s eek r el i ef. T he ant i t rus tl aw s w er e ena ct ed “‘ fort he pr ot ect i on of compet i t i on n o t c o m p e tito rs .’” B ru n s w ic k C o rp . v . P u eb lo B o w l- O -M at, In c ., 429 U

. S. 477, 488 ( 1977) ( quot i ng B r ow n Shoe C o. v. U ni t ed St at es , 370 U

. S. 294, 320 ( 1962) )

. T her efore, t he i nj ur ypr ong r equi r es : “( 1) harm of t he t ype the ant i t rus tl aw s w er e i nt ended t o pr event ; and ( 2) an i nj ur yt o t he pl ai nt i ff w hi ch fl ow s fr om t hat w hich m akes de fend ant’ s act s unlaw ful. ” G ulfs t ream II I A ssocs. Inc

. v . G u lfstr ea m A ero sp ac e C o rp., 9 9 5 F

. 2 d 4 2 5 , 4 2 9 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ) (c it ing Int’l R aw M aterial s, L td. v. Stau ff er C h em . C o ., 9 7 8 F .2 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 7 -2 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ))

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l yr ec o g ni zed thatexcl us i ve s uppl ycontr act s orexcl us i ve dea l i ng ag reem ent s have be en fr equent l yuphel d w hen cha l l enged on an ti trus tgr ounds

. See, e. g. , E

. F oo d S ervs. , In c . v. P on t i fi cal C at ho l i c U niv. S ervs. A s s ’ n, I nc. , 357 F. 3d 1, 8 ( 1s t C i r . 2004) ( s t at i ng t hatexcl us i ve deal i ng contr act s ar e notdi sfavor ed byant i t rus tl aw s and o rd in a rilyp o se th re a t to c o m p e tit io n o n lyin v e ryd isc re te ci r cumst ance s ) ; B arrL abs , I nc. v. A bbot t L abs , 978 F. 2d 98, 111 (3d C i r. 19 92 ) ( recogn i zi ng t hat “ex i st ence of legi t i m at e bu si ness ju stif ica tio n s f

o r th e [ e x c lu siv e d e a lin g ] c o n tra c ts a lso su p p o rts th e leg a lityo f

th e g lo b a l co n tra c ts” ). “R a th e r, it is w id e ly r ecogni zed thati n m anyci r cums tanc es [exc l us i ve dea l i ng arr angement s ] m ayb e h i ghl yeff i ci ent– t o as s ur e s uppl y , pr i ce34 s t abi l i t y , out l et s , i nves t m ent , bes teff or t s or t he l i ke – and pose no compet i t i ve thr eatat al l

. ” E. Food Ser vs . , 357 F. 3d at8 ( ci t at i on o m itt e d ). E x p re ss lyre

jec tin g a n ya ss e rtio n th a t e x c lu siv e d e a ls a re su b jec t to a p e r se ru le o f

ill e g a lity , the S e v e n th C irc u it i n M enas ha C orp. v. N ew s A m er i ca M arket i ng I n- St or e, I nc. , 354 F. 3d 661 ( 7t h C i r . 2004) , appr opr i at el yexpl ai ned tha tt he compet i t i on t o be an e xcl us i ve s uppl i erm aycons t i tut e “a vi t al form of r i val r y , and oft en the m os tpow er ful one, w hi ch the ant i t rus tl aw s encour age r athert han s uppr es s . ” I d. at 663 ( ci t i ng P a d d o c k P u b l’n g , In c . v . C h ica g o T rib u n e C o ., 1 0 3 F .3 d 4 2 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ))

. O n t he otherhand, w e agr ee w i t h ST A t hats uch exc l us i ve agr eement s ar e notexemptfr om ant i t rus ts crut iny

. I n fac t , t he T hi r d C i r cui taddr es s ed exc l us i ve dea l i ng arr angement s i n i t s en banc rul i ng i n L ePage’ s I nc. v. 3M , 324 F. 3d 141 ( 3d C i r . 2003) (e n b a n c ), an d , m o re re c e n tly , in U n ited S tate s v . D e n tsp ly I nt ernat i onal , I nc. , 399 F. 3d 181 ( 3d C i r . 2005)

. I n t he en ba nc cas e, t he C our t uphel d a j ur y ver di ctunderSect i on 2 agai ns t3M , a cl ear l ydom i nants uppl i eri n t he tr ans par entt ape mar kett hat p a id m a jo r re taile rs th ro u g h a re b a te p ro g ra m “ d e s ig n e d to achi eve s ol e- s our ce s uppl i ers t atus ” ( and al s o ent er ed exc l us i ve deal i ng agr eement s w i t h atl eas tt w o r et ai l er s ) , L ePage’ s , 324 F. 3d at157, and ther ebycutoff i t s pl ai nt i ff compet i t orfr om “key r et ai l pi pel i nes , ” i d. at 160. I n D ent s pl y , t hi s C our tr ever s ed the t r i al cour t ’ s j udgm enti n favorof the def endant, rul i ng t hatan e x c lu siv ity p o licyim p o se d b ya n a rtific ial te e th m o n o p o lyo n its deal er s vi ol at ed Sect i on 2. D ent s pl y , 399 F. 3d at184; s ee a l s o, e. g. , E

. Food Ser vs . , 357 F. 3d at8 ( pr ovi di ng as “bes texampl e” o f p o ss ib le th re a t to c o m p e tit io n situ a tio n in w h ich m a rk e t it se lf is a lre a d yh e a v ilyc o n c entr at ed a n d lo n g -te rm e x c lu siv e c o n tra c ts t hen “f or ecl os e s o l ar ge a pe r cent age of t he ava i l abl e s uppl yor o u tlets th a t en tryin to th e c o n c e n tra ted m a rk e t is u n re a so n a b ly co n str ict ed ”). B . A ppl i cat i on of

L egal P ri nci pl es35 W e no w c ome t o t he c ha l l e ng i ng t a s k of a pp l y i ng t hese fundam ent al l egal pr i nci pl es t o t he s peci fi c ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed byt hi s appea l

. L i ke t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w e ac cept , for purpos es of thi s O pi ni on, S T A ’ s defi ni t i on of the r el evant m arket , i n s hor t : t he m arket for t he sal e of r aci ng t i r es t hatr ace on di r toval t r acks i n t he U ni t ed St at es an d C anada

. Fur t her fol l ow i ng t he exa m pl e s et b y the D i s t r i ctC our t( as w el l as t he par t i es and the ami ci ) , ouranal y s i s focus es on t he foll o w ing component s : ( 1) t he funda m ent al i f cont es t ed not i on of

“ c o e rc io n ” ; (2 ) th e v a rio u s b e n e f its a n d ju stif

ica tio n s o f

f e re d in su p p o rt o f

th e sin g le tire ru le a n d th e re late d e x c lu siv e c o n tra c ts betw een H oos i er and t he var i ous s anct i oni ng bodi es ; and ( 3) t he ant i t rus ts t andi ng r equi r ement

. A tt he out s et , w e ac know l edge t hatt hes e component s over lap i n pr act i ce, al t hough t heydo r epr es ent r ather di s t i nct as pect s of the ant i t rus ti nqui r y . Fort he s a k e o f c l a r i t ya n d t o a v o i d u n n e c e s s a r yr e p e t i t i o n , we acc or di ngl y : ( 1) i n t he coer ci on di s cus s i on, focus on t he i s s ue of w h e th e r th e sa n c tio n in g b o d ies h a v e b e e n f re e to a d o p t th e sin g le t i r e rul e and t o ent eri nt o an exc l us i ve s uppl yagr eementw i t h t he s u p p l i e ro f

t h e i r c ho i c e a n d a l s o a d d r e s s t h e s p e c i f i c t e r ms cont ai ned i n H oos i er ’ s contr act s ; ( 2) i n the j us t i fi cat ion di s cus s i on, obvi ous l ytur n t o the var i ous j us t i fi cat i ons and benef i t s offe r ed i n s uppor t of t he s i ngl e t i r e rul e i t s el f as w el l as t he appr opr i at e degr ee of defe r ence t o be ac corde d t he d e t e r mi n a t i o n s o f

s a n c t i o n i n g b o d i e s a n d s i mi l a rs p o r t s - r e l a t ed or gani zat i ons ; and ( 3) i n t he ant i t rus ti nj ur yanal y s i s , cons i der w hether ST A has had a r eal oppor tuni t y t o compet e w i t h H oos i er f o r s in g le tir e b u s in e s s in th is m a rk e t.

1. “C oer ci on” T h e n o tio n o f

“ c o e rc io n ” o c c u p ie d a n e sp e c ially i mpor t a nt r ol e i n the D i s t r i c tCour t ’ s r e a s on i ng . H oo s i e r , D M S, a n d th e a m ici lik e w ise e m p h a siz e th is c o n c e p t o n a p p e a l. F o r its par t , ST A vi gor ous l y cont es t s t he rol e of t he conc epti t s el f, and, i n t he al t ernat i ve, i tcont ends t hatt her e ar e g enui ne i s s ues of36 m at er i al fac tas t o w hetherH oos i erhas actual l y“coe r ced, ” or o th e rw is e c o llu d e d w ith , th e v a ri o u s s a n c tio n in g b o d ie s . W e d o a c k n o w led g e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t cite to anys peci fi c ca s e or any ot her author i t y i n s uppor tof i t s as s er t i on t hat c o e r c i o n c o n s t i tu t e s a n e s s e n t i a l e l e me n to f a s u c c e s s f

ul ant i t rus tcl ai m i n t he pr es entci r cumst ance s . ST A , among ot her t hi ngs , quot es a l eadi ng ant i t rus tcomm ent at or , w ho s t at ed that

“‘ i tm at t er s l i t t l e w h etherone vi ew s excl us i ve dea l i ng as “i m pos ed” byt he domin an t fi r m or“agr eed upon” byt he dom i nantfi r m and i t s deal er s . ’ ” ( A ppel l ant s’ B ri ef at35 ( emphasis i n quot at i on om i t t ed) ( quot i ng H

. H ovenkamp, A n ti tru st L aw ¶ 1 8 0 0 c5 , at 20 (A sp en 2 0 0 5 )). ) W e n o te, h o w e v e r, th a t th is c o n c e p t h a s p la ye d a k e y , if so m e tim e s u n e x p lo re d , ro le in th e re lev a n t c a se law , es p e c ially in th e S e c tio n 2 c o n tex t. F o r in sta n c e , the C o u rt in D e n tsp ly expr es s l ynot ed that , among ot hert hi ngs , t he ex cl us i vi t ypol i cy a t iss u e w a s “ im p o s e d b y a m a n u f a c tu re r o n its d e a le rs ,” D ents ply , 33 9 F

. 3d at18 4, and t hat, “[w ]hi l e t he [c ust om ers ] m ig h t p re f

e r to se ll th e [ p ro d u c ts] o f m u lti p le m a n u f

a c tu re rs, if fac ed w i t h an ‘ al l ornot hi ng’ choi ce theym ayacc ede t o t he dom i nant fi r m ’ s w i s h for excl us i ve deal i ng, ” i d. at 195 ( quot i ng A r eeda & H ovenca m p, A nt i t rus tL aw ¶ 1802e3, at78- 79 ( 2d ed. 2002) )

. L i kew i s e, t he en banc C our ti n L ePage’ s confr ont ed a s i tuat i on i n w hi ch the s el l er , w hich had c l earm onopol ypow er overt he mar ket , i nduced r et ai l er s t o pu rch ase a ful l l i ne of pr oduct s from i t , i ncl udi ng pr oduct s i t s compet i t i on di d not m ake, w i t h t he i nt entof forcin g anys uch compet i t i on fr om t he m a rk e t a n d th e n ra is in g p ri c e s . L e P a g e ’s , 3 2 4 F .3 d a t 1 5 7 -6 3

. I n S ant ana Pr oduct s I nc. v. B obr i ck W as hr oom E qui pm ent , I nc. , 401 F. 3d 123 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , t he pl ai nt i ff t oi l et par t i t i on m anufa ctur erbr oughtcl ai m s under Sect i ons 1 and 2 of the S h erm an A ct af

ter th e g o v ern m en t sel ec ted its c o m p eti tor’s p rod u cts b ase d o n the s p ec ifi ca ti o n s ch o sen b ythe g o v ern m en t’ s a rc hit ect s, al l eging, i nter al i a, t hat t he com peti t or an d its37 re p re se n tativ e s f

a lse lyc laim e d th a t th e p lain tiff ’s o w n p ro d u c ts w er e a f i r e haz ar d. I d. at125- 28. T hi s C our tul t i m at el yaff i r m ed the s u m m aryjud g m en t gran ted in f a v o r o f th e c o m p eti tor, r ej ect i ng t he gr oup boy cot tcl aim an d i ns t ead c oncl udi ng t hat t her e w as no r es t r ai ntw her e the deci s i on t o choos e a pr oductw as i n t he ha n d s of the dec i s i on- m aker( i

. e. , t he ar chi t ect s ) fort he co n su m er ( i. e., the go v ern m en t)

. Id. at 13 3 (“U n li k e c ase s w h ere t he al l eged e xcl us i onaryconductl eave s t he cons um erw i t h no in p u t w h a tev e r, th e d e c isio n to sp e c if y‘w a s a lw a y s u lti m a telyin t he hands of the cons um er . ’ ” ( quot i ng St earns A i rpor tE qui p. C o ., In c . v . F M C C o rp., 1 7 0 F

. 3 d 5 1 8 , 5 2 5 (5th C ir

. 1 9 9 9 )))

. B e c a u s e th e p lain tiff

f a iled to a lleg e th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts “enga ged i n coer ci ve meas ur es t hatpr event ed [the pl ai nt i ff ] f r om s el l i ng i t s pr oduct s t o anyw i l l i ng buy er orpr event ed other s fr om d e a lin g w ith [ th e p lain tiff ],” id . at 1 3 2 , it w a s n e v e r re a lly “exc l uded fr om compet i t i on, ” i d. at133. “‘ W i t houta s how i ng of so m e o th e r fa c to r, w e c a n a ss u m e th a t a c u sto m e r w ill m a k e h is d e c isio n o n lyo n th e m e rits,’” a n d th e a p p ro p ria te re sp o n se in s uch ci r cumst ance s “‘ w oul d s eem t o be an i ncr eas e i n t he l os i ng party ’s sal es effort s on fu ture potent i al bids, n o tan an t i t rust s u it.’ ” Id . (q u o tin g S te a rn s , 1 7 0 F .3 d a t 5 2 5 ). I n t he end, al t hough w e do nothol d that coer ci on i s an es s ent i al el ementof eve r ys ucc e s s f u l a n t i trus tcl ai m , w e conc l ude t hatcoer ci on is a fundament al cons i der at i on i n t he pr es ent ci r cumst ance s , namel y , w her e var i ous s por t s s anct i oni ng bodi es h a v e f re e lya d o p ted th e ir o w n e q u ip m e n t ru le s a n d th e n f re e ly entered i nto excl usi ve co ntr act s w i t h the r espect i ve sup pli ers . H ow ever , w e add thatH oos i erand D M S ar e n o t e n tit led to s um m aryj udgm entm er el ybeca us e ther e i s an abs ence of c o e r c i o n o ri n t e r f

e r e n c e o n t h e p a r to f

H o o s i e r . O n t h e c o n t r a r y, t he s anct i o n i ng bodi es m us ts t i l l offe rgood fai t h j us t i fi cat i ons for th e a lle g e d c o n d u c t. A s d is c u s s e d in S e c tio n II I.B .2 , i nfr a , D MS a n d th e o th e r sa n c tio n in g b o d ies d o p re se n t m o re th a n a d e q u a te ju s tif ic a tio n s f

o r t h e ira c tio n s .38 ST A , i n tur n, r ai s es a var i etyof cont ent i ons i n s uppor tof its th e o ryth a t th e re a re g e n u in e iss u e s o f m a te r ial f

a c t w ith r es pectt o t he exi s t ence of ei t hercoer ci on on t he partof H oos i er or , att he veryl eas t , col l us i on betw een H oos i er and the var i ous sanct i on i ng bo dies , especi al l y D M S

. T he D i stri ct C ou rtd id acknow l edge t hatH oos i er ’ s s t andar d form contr actpr ovi des for paym ent s t o t he s anct i oning b o d y , l as t s fora l engthyper i od of tim e , co n tain s a n a u to m a tic re n e w a l p ro v is io n , an d a lleg e d ly p ro v id e s th a t, i f

th e sa n c tio n in g b o d ye x e rc ise d its rig h t n o t to r enew , t he r emai n ing fi nanci al contr i but i on t o t he s anct i oni ng bodyw oul d be for fei t ed. W e l i kew is e ar e part i cul ar l yt r oubl ed b yth e so -c a lled S p rin t S u m m it an d th e re su lti n g re latio n sh ip betw een H oos i erand D M S

. T hi s C our tnevert hel es s fi nds t hat t he var i ous cont ent i ons r ai s ed byST A fai l t o demonstr at e the e x iste n c e o f

a g e n u in e iss u e o f

m a ter ial f

a c t as to w h e th e r its compet i t orhas coer ced orot herw i s e undul y inte r fer ed w i t h t he d e c is io n -m a k in g p ro c e s s o f th e v a ri o u s s a n c tio n in g b o d ie s . I ni t i al l y , w e m us t not over l ook t he cruci al and undi s put ed fac t t hat , i n t he w or ds of ST A ’ s ow n expert , “[t ] h e sa n cti oni ng o rg a n iz a ti o n o r p ro m o ter u lti m a telyd e c id e s w h e th e r o r n o t to e n ter in to a c o n tra c t w ith H o o sie r req u irin g a H o o sie r-o n lyru le

. . . i n t hei row n bes ti nt er es t

. ” ( A 1921. ) I n fac t , i tappea r s cl ear t hatt he maj ors anct i oni ng bodi es t hemsel ves gener al l y pr efe rt he s i ngl e t i r e and, atl eas ts om et i m es , des i r e a H o o sier

- onl yrul e. T he pr es entci r cumst ance s actual l yr es embl e the s i tuat i on des cr i bed byt he Seventh C i r cui ti n M enas ha: T hat ret ai l ers and m a nu facturer s l i ke excl us i ve deal s i m pl i es t hatt heys erve the i nt er es t s of thes e, t he cons um er s of couponi ng s ervi ces [pr ovi ded by t he pl ai nt i ff a nd i t s compet i t ordefe ndant ]

. W hen th e c o n su m e rs f

a v o r a pr o d u c t o r p ra c tice , an d o n ly r i val s s quaw k, t he mostnat u ral i nfer ence i s t hat t he compl ai ned- of pr act i ce pr om ot es ra t hert hanW e al s o do not over l ook t he fact t hati ti s t he r ace r s and the 2 d riv e rs th a t u lti m a telyp u rc h a se th e ra c in g tir e s . U n lik e in D ent s pl yand LePage’ s , w e accor di ngl y ar e not deal i ng w i t h t he case of a sup pl i e re nt e r i ng exclusi ve arr ang em ents w i t h ret ai l ers , w h ich p u rc h a se th e p ro d u c ts a t issu e f o r re sa le to th e u lti m a te 39 u n d erm ines c o m p e titio n , f o r w h a t h e lp s c o n su m ers o ften h arm s o ther p rod u ce rs su ch as [ the p lai n ti ff ]. M e n a s h a , 3 5 4 F .3 d a t 6 6 3

. F u rth e rm o re , it a p p e a rs th a t itis a c o m m o n a n d g e n e ra lly acc ept ed pr act i ce f

ora s uppl i ert o pr ovi de a spo rt s sa nct i oni ng b o d yo r sim ilar s p o rts-r e late d o rg a n iza tio n f in a n c ial s u p p o rt in excha nge fora s uppl ycont rac t ( al t hough s uch pr act i ces , no m a tter h o w w id e ly fo llo w e d , ca n n o t b e c h a ra c ter ize d a s to tally i nnocuous )

. I n fac t , ST A has actual l yengage d i n s uch beha vi or a n d h a s s p e c if

ica llyin c lu d e d o f

f e rs o f f in a n c ia l su p p o rt in its var i ous s ucce s s ful and uns ucce s s ful pr opos al s t o t he r es pect i ve s anct i oni ng bodi es o v ert he y ear s . I n tur n, t hes e fi nanci al contr i but i ons m aybe us ed as par t of the s anct i oni ng body ’ s poi nt funds , and s uch poi ntfunds cons t i tut e a c ruci al i ncent i ve off er ed b ythe s an cti o n ing b o d yto attr ac t pro sp ec ti v e race rs an d d ri v ers t o i t s ow n r ace s . A s t o t he amountand s peci fi c term s of the contr i but i ons , i ti s no m or e an a ctof coe r ci on, co ll u sion, or i m pr operi nt er fer ence for H oos i er , ST A , or anyone el s e t o offe r m o re m o n ey to th e san cti o n ing b o d y than it is fo r suc h su p p li ers t o offe rt he l ow es tt i r e pr i ces . I n anycas e, t he s anct i oni ng body its e lf r e m a in s f

re e to p ick th e su p p lier th a t itb e liev e s w ill pr ovi de the bes tdeal

. Si m i l ar l y , nei t her t he l engthydur at i on of t he H oos i ercontr act s nort hei rr enew al t erm s r epr es entr eal evi dence of coe r ci on ori nt er fer ence . T he r es pect i ve s anct i oni ng b o d ysim p lym a ye n te r a c o n tra c t w ith th e tire s u p p lier o f its ch o ice. I f a n ything , the a ctua l t erm s co n tai n ed in H o o sier’s fo rm c o n tra c t ap p e a r to b e c o m p lete lyc o n sis ten t w ith w h a t o n e w o u ld a c tu a llye x p e c t to f

in d in a n e x c lu siv e su p p lya rra n g e m e n t. 2cus t om er s . I ti s undeni abl yt r oubl i ng t hatt he evi dence i n t he recor d indi cat es that the int eres t s of atl eastsom e of the racer s, d riv e rs, a n d o th e rs h a v e e v id e n tlyd iv e rg e d f ro m th e in ter e sts ( and ac t i ons of) t he gover ni ng s anct i oni ng bodi es . Fori ns t ance , m o re tha n o n e tho u san d rac ers, drive rs, a n d o ther ind u stry par t i ci pant s have actual l y s i gned ST A ’ s “D ecl ar at i on in F avor of C om peti t i on , ” at t acking t h e si ng l e t i re form ula as a m onop o li s t i c pr act i ce a nd cal l i ng fori t s r epl ace m ent

. O n an ev en m o re b a s ic le v el, itap p ea rs clear tha t, the m o re a ti re su p p lier o f

f e rs a sa n c tio n in g b o d yin ter m s o f f in a n c ial s u p p o rt, t he more the rac ers and dr i ver s have t o payfort he t i r es t hemsel v es. A tt he veryl eas t , s uch ci r cumst ance s fur t her co m p li ca te th is case , p rov iding at lea st so m e su p p o rtfo r S T A ’s a n titr u s t c la im s a g a in s t H o o s ie r a n d D M S

. W e , n e v e rth e les s f

in d th a t s u c h c o n sid e ra tio n s u lti m a tely do notas s i s t ST A

. A s al r eady not ed, t he fi nanci al contr i but i ons d o u lti m a telyb e n e f

it th e a c tu a l tire p u rc h a se rs, e ith e r d ire c tlyin t he form of poi ntfunds or i ndi r ect l y bypr ovi di ng t he fi nanci al re so u rc e s a llo w in g th e sa n c tio n in g b o d ies to f u n c tio n a n d h o ld th e ra c e s in th e f

irst p lac e . F u rth e rm o re (a n d a s e x p lain e d in m o re d e ta il i n S e c tio n II I.B .3 , i nfr a ), t he p urchasers otherw i se r emai n fr ee t o “vot e w i t h t hei rt r ai l er s ” by notpar t i ci pat i ng i n a san cti o n ing b o d y ’s race s b ec au se o f i ts ad o p ti o n o f a si n g le t ir e rul e ori t s entr yi nt o an excl us i ve deal w i t h H oos i er . W e furt her add thatno r ace rordr i verhas actual l y j oi ned ST A as a Pl ai nt i ff in th is liti g a tio n o r o th e rw ise f iled a n a m icu s c u ria e b rie f in its f a v o r. 40 2 .B e n e f its a n d Ju stif

ica tio n s o f

th e S in g le T ire R u le I ni t i al ly , t he C our tagr ees w i t h t he pos i t i on of the ami ci t hatm ot or s por t s s anct i oni ng bodi es , as w el l as s i m i l ar or gani zat i ons i n ot her s por t s , des erve a br i ght

- l i ne rul e t o fol l ow s o t heycan a voi d pot ent i al ant i t rus tl i abi l i t yas w el l as t i m e-41 cons um i ng and expe ns i ve ant i t rus tl i t i gat i on. I n fac t , t hi s curr ent l aw s ui ti s t he s econd fede ral anti t rust case broug h t ag a i nst H oos i erar i s i ng outof the s i ngl e t i r e rul e. I n M & H T i r e C o. v. H oos i er R aci ng T i r e C orp. , 733 F. 2d 973 ( 1s tC i r . 1984) , t he F ir s t C ir c u it r e

je c te d a n a n titr u s t ch a lle n g e b ya tir e s u p p lie r, M & H , t o t he adopt i on of s uch a rul e bys ever al r ace tr acks and d riv in g c lu b s a s w e ll as th e ir e n tryin to a n e x c lu siv e c o n tra c t w ith H oo si er. Id. at97 4-89. L i kew i se, t here hav e been otheranti t rust l aw s ui t s chal lengi ng t he adopt i on of r aci ng equi pm entrul es of var i ous ki nds

. S ee B roo ki ns v. I nt ’ l M ot orC ont es tA s s ’ n, 219 F .3 d 8 4 9 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) ( tr a n sm iss io n ru le) ; S T P v . U .S . A u to C l ub, I nc. , 286 F. Supp. 1 4 6 (S

. D

. I nd. 1968) ( engi ne sp e c if ica tio n ru le) . W h ile th e sa n c tio n in g b o d yd e f e n d a n ts ul t i m at el ypr evai l ed i n al l t hr ee cas es , s ee Brooki ns , 219 F. 3d at 852- 55; ST P, 286 F. Supp. at171, it h as u ndoubt edl ycome at cons i der abl e expens e. C ont r aryt o t he pr o- compet i t i ve purpos es o f a n titru st la w , t h is e x p e n se m a yh a v e a v e ryre a l an ticom peti t i ve ef

fect , especi al l yon t he sm al l er s ancti on i ng bo dies

. F u rth e rm o re , if th e C o u rt f a ils to a d o p t a r e la ti v e lyc lea r ru le her e, m o tor s por t s s anct i oni ng bodi es , i n t he aptw or ds of the ami ci , “w i l l have t o charta narr ow , and perhaps uns u st ai nabl e, cour s e, betw een ( 1) t he Scy l l a of a nt i

- compet i t i ve, expens i ve, and unsaf

e rul es and (2) t he C harybdi s of t he opt i m um rul es for t he s por t accom pani ed bypot ent i al ant i t rus tl i t i gat i on and exp osure, i ncludi ng t he cr i pp l i ng exp ense i n defen ding th e ir legi t i m at e r i ghtt o pr om ul gat e thei row n rul es . ” ( A m i cus B r i ef at 9 -10

. ) N evert hel es s , w e mustbe ca r eful nott o es t abl i s h an ov erl ybroad rule de t ached from the speci fi c fact s n ow befo re us, es pe c i a l l y i n l i g h t o f t h e h i g h l y f a c t

- s p e c i f

i c n a tu r e o f

t he a n titr u s t s ta n d a rd s th e m s e lv e s . A ccor di ngl y , s port s - r elated b o d ies sh o u ld b e g iven l eew ay w ith re sp e c t to th e ir a d o p tio n o f e q u ip m e n t re q u ire m e n ts a s w e ll as t hei rr el at ed d eci s i on t o ent erexcl us i ve contr act s w i th t he r es pect i ve s uppl i er s . A s hi ghl i ght ed by t he r aci ng cas e l aw ci t ed a b o v e , ita p p e a rs th a t th e c o u rts h a v e g e n e ra llya c c o rd e d sp o rts42 o rg a n iza tio n s a c e rta in d e g re e o f d e f e re n c e a n d f

re e d o m to a c t in s i mi l a rc i r c ums t a nc e s . Se e , e . g. , A m. N e e dl e , I nc . v. N FL, — S. C t

. — , 20 10 W L 20 25 20 7 (M ay24 , 20 10 ) ( exclusi ve f o o tb a ll h e a d w e a r lice n se ); M c C o rm a c k v . N C A A , 8 4 5 F .2 d 1 3 3 8 (5 th C i r. 19 88 ) ( N C A A foo tball el i gibi l i t yrul es) ; G un t er H arz Spo rt s, I nc. v. U

. S. T enni s A s s ’ n, I nc. , 665 F. 2d 222 ( 8t h C i r . 1981) ( per cur i am) ( pr ohi bi t i on of doubl e- s t rung t enni s r ac k et s ) ; H at l eyv. A m . Q uar t erH or s e A s s ’ n, 552 F. 2d 646 ( 5t h C ir

. 1977) ( defi ni t i on of “quart er hor s e”) ; D ees en v. Pr of’ l G ol fer s A s s ’ n, 358 F. 2d 165 ( 9t h C i r . 1966) ( PG A el i gi bi l i t y rul es ) ; T os cano v. P G A T o u r, Inc

. , 2 0 1 F

. S u p p . 2 d 1 1 0 6 (E

. D

. C al. 2 0 0 2 ) (sam e). E v en S T A a p p ea rs t o ac k n o w ledg e tha t suc h o rga n izati o n s are ent i t l ed t o s om e d e

f e r ence . H ow ever, t he st and ard i toff ers , r equi r i ng, i nt eral i a, t hatt he rul es be adopt ed bya neutr al and unbi as ed bodyand thatt heydo not resu lt in a nys i gni fi cant m arketfor ecl os ur e, does nots eem ver ydefe r ent i al

. A m ong ot her t hi ngs , s uch an a ppr oach w oul d pr ecl ude s anct i o n i n g b o d i es fr om ent er i ng i nt o an exc l us i ve equi pm entcontr actw i t h a s uppl i ert hat a l r e a d y h a s a h i g h s h a r e o f t h e r e l e v a n t g e o g r a p h i c or pr oduct m a rk e ts

. W e furt herbel i eve that a defe r ent i al and br i ght

- l i ne appr oach i s es peci al l yappr opr i at e in li g htof the pr act i cal r es t r ai nt s fac ed byt he s anct i oni ng bodi es i n t hi s cas e. E ven t hough t heym ay , among ot hert hi ngs , r ecei ve s i gni fi cant fi nanci al s uppor tfr om t he s uppl i ers, D M S and t he other s anct i oni ng bodi es do not have unfett er ed di s cr et i on i n adopt i ng rul es , ent er i ng ex cl us i ve arr angement s , ori m pos i ng hi gher equi pm entcos t s on t he r ace r s and dri ver s . I t i s w el l es t abl i s hed t hatt h e sanct i oni ng bodi es compet e forr ace r s and dr i ver s , and t hes e r ace r s and dr i ver s i n tur n ar e m o re t han abl e t o, i n t he w o rd s o f a m ic i, “ v o te w ith th e irtr a ile rs .” (A m ic u s B ri e f a t 1 4 .) F e w e r ra c e rs a n d d riv e rs m e a n les s f o r th e sa n c tio n in g b o d yin t erm s of the entr yfee s char ged t o t he part i ci pat i ng r ace r s and dr i ver s t hemsel ves as w el l as a pos s i bl e dec r eas e i n t he number of t i cket s and r evenue s earned fr om conce s s i ons and other43 s our ces of m oney (at the ve r yl eas tbeca us e the fr i ends and fami l i es of non- par t i ci pat i ng r ace r s and dr i vers w o ul d be much les s lik e lyto a tten d ). In tu rn , this c a n lea d to a “ d e a th sp ira l” beca us e l ow ergat e r ece i pt s and otherform s o f reve nue mean l ow erpr i ze pur s es , w hi ch m eans l es s i nt er es tamong ra cer s and d ri v ers, w hi ch r es ul t s i n even l es s r evenue t o t he s anct i oni ng body , and s o on. U lt im at el y , t he s anct i oni ng bodi es w hi ch cons i s t ent l ym ake the w r ong bus i nes s deci s i ons fac e the pr os pect of going out of busi ness. T hey , l i ke ot her kind s o f b u siness es, a lso h a v e n o lo n g -te rm in ter e st in th e c re a tio n o f a m o n o p o list in th e ir o w n su p p lyc h a in s. If H o o sie r a c tu a llyw e re a m o n o p o list, notonl ycoul d i tchar ge r ace r s and dri ver s w hat ever i t w ant ed for t i r es , i tcoul d al s o r educe i t s m onet arypaym ent s t o t he s a n c tio n in g b o d yo r e lim in a te s u c h s u p p o rt a lto g e th e r. S e e , e .g ., M enas ha, 354 F. 3d at 663 ( “W hy w oul d t hes e ent it ies sh oot t hem sel ves i n t he fe etbys i gni ng ( r et ai l er s ) orfavor i ng ( m a n u f a c tu r e r s ) e x c lu s iv e c o n tr a c ts th a t e n tr e n c h [ th e d e f e n d a n t] as a monopol i s tt hatt hen ca n appl y t he s queez e. ”)

. Fi nal l y , t he fac tt hatnotal l r ace s ar e governed by s i ngl e t i r e rul es s how s t hat t he s anct i oni ng bodi es can a nd do r ecogni ze thatnotal l form s of r aci ng i n al l par t s of the countr yar e i dent i cal and thats uch bodi es ar e more t han abl e t o adopt t he rul e t hat bes tadvanc es t he p a rt ic u la r k in d o f

ra c in g a t is s u e . T hi s C our tt her efor e appr oache s t he act i ons of D M S and t h e o t h e rs a n c t i o n i n g b o d i e s wi th a d e g r e e o f d e f e r e n c e a n d we ado pt the fo l l ow i ng gen eral rul e: t he S herm an A ctdo es not forbi d s anct i oni ng bodi es and others por t s - r el at ed or gani zat i ons fr om fr eel y ( i

. e. , w i t hout any coer ci on ori m pr operi nt er fer ence ) adopt i ng excl us i ve equi pm entr equi r ement s, s o l ong as s uch or gani zat ions ot herw i s e pos s es s , i n good fai t h, s uffi ci entpr ocompet i t i ve orbus i nes s j us t i fi cat i ons fort hei ract i ons . A tt he s ame t i m e, w e w i s h t o m ake i t cl ear t hatw e ar e notgr ant i ng any k in d o f a n titr u s t im m u n ity. C f., e .g ., A m . N e e d le , — S . C t. — , 2 0 1 0 W L 2 0 2 5 2 0 7 , at * 1 1 n .7 (a ttac k in g S e v e n th C irc u it conce r t ed ac t ion rul i ng for , i nt eral i a, “ca r v[i ng] outa zone of44 ant i t rus ti m m uni t yforconduct ar guabl y r el at ed t o [N FL ] l eague oper at i ons byr eason i ng t hatcoor di nat ed t eam t r ademar k s al es are n ec essa ryto p rod u ce ‘N F L fo o tball’ ”). F o r in stan ce , w e a re notconfr ont ed w i t h a s i tuat i o n i n w hi ch the s anct i oni ng body o f f e rs a b so lu telyn o ju stif

ica tio n w h a tso e v e r f

o r its a c tio n s o r its j ust i fi cat i on s ar e off

e re d in bad f

ai t h o r ar e otherw i se nons ensica l

. I ns t ead, w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng beca us e ther e ar e s ever al g o o d fai t h j us t i fi cat i ons fort he s a n c tio n in g b o d ie s ’ s in g le tir e ru le

. W e a c k n o w led g e th a t S T A v ig o ro u slya ttac k s th e sin g le t i re rule i t sel f, argui ng t hat there w ere l ess r estri ct i ve alt ernat i ves. A ccor di ng t o ST A , t her e ar e, atl eas t , genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac tw i t h r es pectt o eac h an d everybenef i tand j us t i fi cat i on o f f e re d b yH o o sie r, D M S , an d th e a m ic i in su p p o rt o f th e ru le itse lf. T o a c e rta in d e g re e , su c h a v ig o r o u s if u n d e rsta n d a b le at t ack ac tuall yserves t o highl i gh t ou r rel uctance t o secon d g uess t he deci si on s m ade by a sanct i on i ng bo dy regar ding the b a sic rule s and gui del i nes of i t s s por t

. I n fac t , ST A ’ s ext ens i ve ch all en g e to th e sin g le t ir e ru le co n sti tutes an att ac k o n the v ery r ai s on d’ etr e of t he sanc t i oni ng bodi es , w hi ch exi s t i n or dert o s et cert ai n gr ound rul es and then run r ace s i n conform i t yw i t h s uch rul es . I n anycas e, w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatt he sa n c tio n in g b o d ies h a v e p r o p e rlya d o p ted th e sin g le tire ru le becau se theybeli eve suc h a rule c re a tes m ore excit i ng races , ens ur es equal acc es s t o a uni form pr o duct , l eads t o i ncr eas ed s afe t y , and l ow er s t he cos t s of t i r es by el i m i nat i ng t he s o- cal l ed “t i r e w ar s . ” I n fac t , ST A ’ s w hol e cha l l enge t o t he s i ngl e t i r e rul e has a si m ple y etser i ou s fl aw . Itw as STA t hat actual l ypi oneer ed and p ro m o ted th e w h o le id e a in th e f irst p lac e . S T A ’s o w n w e b site cl ai m ed cr edi t for pr om ot i ng “s pec t i r e or t r ack rul es , ” i n w hi ch “track o w n ers a n d p rom o ters ad o p ted a m an u fa cture r’s t ir e f o r a p a rt ic u la r c la s s o f r a c e s f o r t h e d u ra tio n o f

a ra c in g s e a s o n .” (A 48 4. ) I n turn, i tcl ai m ed thatsuch a rule had several ben efi t s,45 i ncl udi ng t he avoi dance of cons t antand cos t l yt i r e cha nges and t he enc our agementof par i t ybetw een r ace r s and dr i ver s , and that i t s adopt i on even co n tr i but ed “t o t he s ucce s s and popul ar i t yof di r tt r ack r aci ng i n A m er i ca. ” ( I d. ) J acobs actual l ydefe nded the rule as par tof the M & H l i t i gat i on. M or e r ece nt l y , S T A ’s g e n e ra l m a n a g e r, M a tee r , te stif ied a t h is d e p o sitio n in th is lit ig a tio n th a t lim iti n g th e n u m b e r of tires b o u g h t b yra c e rs c o u ld b e g o o d f

o r th e sp o rt itse lf

a n d th a t a s in g le tire ru le a lso c o u ld re d u c e c o st s . F u rth e r a c k n o w led g in g S T A ’s o w n ro le in devel opi ng t he ru le , M at eeradded thati tw as cr eat ed i n or der “[t ] o el i m i nat e the cons t anti n- s eas on pr oductdevel opm entt hat wa s r e q u i r i n g t h e r a c e r s t o buye v e r yt r i c k n e w t i r e t h a tc a me alon g . ” (A 8 3 3

. ) W e r ecogni ze thatST A has tur ned aga i ns tt he rul e i t s el f, a t lea st a s in its m o re re c e n t f o rm . In tu rn , it atte m p ts to e x p lain i t s pr i ors uppor tfort he rul e and how H oosier h as us urped and d isto rte d th e ru le in to a n a n ti-co m p e tit iv e to o l. S T A c e rta in ly has a r i ghtt o change i t s pos i t i on, butt he pas t suppor tpr ovi ded forthe rul e now ch al l enged i n t hi s l i t i gat i on cannotbe o v e r l o o k e d s o e a s i l y. I n a n yc a s e , e v e n s e t t i n g a s i d e STA’ s p r i o rc o n d u c t , t he re c o rd h e re c lea rlye sta b lish e s th a t th e re a re m o re th a n a m p le j us t i fi cat i ons fort he s i ngl e t i r e rul e. D M S spe ci fi cal l ydi s cus s es i n s o m e d e t a i l t h e s t a t e m e n t s m a d e b y el eve n se p a ra te in d iv id u a ls r egar di ng t he var i ous benef i t s ari s i ng outof a s i ngl e t i r e rul e. Fori ns t ance , D r i gger s , w ho s erves as t he r aci n g di r ect orfor D M S, expl ai ned i n s om e det ai l how t he car count s i ncr eas e under a sin g le tire ru le. L ik e w ise , the sa n c tio n in g b o d y ’s p re sid e n t, D eery , i ndi cat ed thatt hes e equi pm entrul es have long be en re c o g n iz e d a s a “ c o rn e rs to n e ” o f m o t o r r a c in g . (A 1 9 3 1 .) Speci fi cal l ydefe ndi ng t he s i ngl e t i r e rul e, D ee r yas s er t ed that “s pec t i r es s ave m oney , pr ovi de a l evel fi el d, ar e s afe , and make f o r a m o re s u c c e s s f

u l s h o w .” (A 1 9 3 4 .)46 I n t he end, w e r ecogni ze thatST A and other s have s er i ous i s s ues w i t h t he s i ngl e t i r e rul e, atl eas ti n i t s curr entform . T hey ot herw i s e r emai n fre e t o ar gue thats uch a rul e and the r el at ed excl us i ve contr act s harm bot h t he compet i t i ve pr oces s and the sp o rto f d ir t o v a l trac k rac ing

. In f ac t, the ra ce rs an d d ri v ers t hemsel ves ar e fr ee t o “vot e w i t h t hei rt r ai l er s ” bynot p arti cipa ti n g in rac es c o n d u cted u n d er a sing le tir e o r H o o sieronl yrul e. Fol l ow i ng t he D i s t r i ct C our t , w e never t hel es s fi nd t hat D M S a n d th e o th e r sa n c tio n in g b o d ies p o ss e ss g o o d f a ith ju stif ica tio n s, a m p ly su p p o rte d in th e re c o rd , fo r a d o p tin g a w e lles t abl i s hed rul e ac tual l ydevel oped and de fende d byST A i t s el f. I n s uch ci rcum s t ance s ( and i n t he abs ence of anycoer ci on or im p rop er interfe ren ce o n the p art of th e re sp ec ti v e su p p li ers), su c h sp o rts-r e late d o rg a n iza ti o n s s h o u ld h a v e th e rig h t to determ i ne fo r them sel ves t he setof rul es that th e y beli eve b est adv ance t heir res pecti ve sport (and t herefore t heirow n b usi ness i nt er es t s ) , w i t houtundue and c os t l yi nt er fer enc e o n t he partof c o u rt s a n d ju ri e s . 3

. A n ti tru st I n

jury W e next come t o t he ques t i on of ant i t rus t injury and s t andi ng. T o es t abl i s h ant i t rus t i nj ur y , a pl ai nt i ff m u st show h arm to co m p eti ti o n , n o t j u st ha rm to the p lai n ti ff co m p eti tor. See B runs w i ck C orp. , 429 U

. S. at 4 8 8

. W e agr ee w i t h t he D i stri ctC ou rtt hat ST A do es n o t s a tis f yth is re q u ir e m e n t. I ti s w el l es t ab li s hed thatcompet i t i on among busi nes s es t o s erve as an excl us i ve s uppl i er s houl d actual l ybe encour aged

. See, e. g. , M enas h a, 354 F. 3d at663 ( r ecogni zi ng t hat compet i t i on t o become excl us i ve su p p li er“i s a vi t al form of r i v a l r y , a n d o f

t e n t h e mo s tp o we r f

u l o n e , wh i c h t h e a n t i t ru s tl a ws encour age r athert han s uppr es s ” ( ci t at i on om i t te d) )

. I n Sect i on I I I

. B

. 1, s upr a, t hi s C our texpl ai ned i n s om e det ai l how t he s anct i oni ng bodi es ar e fr ee t o adopta s i ngl e t ir e rule and t hen contr actw it h t he s uppl i erof thei rchoi ce w i t houtanyundueW e s p e c if ica llyn o te th a t: (1 ) f ro m th e 1 9 8 0 s to 3 appr oxi m at el y2005, I M C A r equi r ed i t s car s t o u se t he G

- 60 A m er i can Racert i r e manufactur ed byST A ; ( 2) i n 2006- 2007, S T A resp o n d ed , w ith o u t suc ce ss, to an R F P fo r a n ex clus ive tir e contr acts entoutbyW IS S O T A ; ( 3) al t hough t her e w as no 47 i nt er fer ence orcoer ci on on t he par t of H oos i er . O ur focus now shi ft s t o w hether S T A has been able t o co m pete for this bu si ness. W e ac know l edge thatt he pr ocess use d byt he var i ous s anc t i o n i n g b o d i e s h a s t o o o f t e n b e e n l e s s t h a n p e r f e c t

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tpar t l yr ecognized as m uch, not i ng t hatt he sa n c tio n in g b o d ies m a ye lec t to d isp e n se w ith se n d in g o u t a form al R FP t o t he var i ous t i r e s uppl i er s . I n fac t , D M S di d not se lec t it s tire su p p liers th ro u g h a f o rm a l b id d in g p ro c e ss p rio r to th e sta rt o f

th is liti g a tio n , a n d it e v id e n tly d id n o t p o ss e ss sp e c if ic p ro c e d u re s o r p ro to c o ls f o r se lec tin g a tire su p p lier. W e sim ilarly con t i nu e t o b e t roubled bycert ai n o th e r a spect s of t he p rocess u sed to s e le c t a s u p p li er, esp ec ial lythe f ac t th at t ir e su p p li ers pr ovi de fi nanci al s uppor tt o t he s anct i oni ng bodi es , even though s uch bodi es do notactual l ypur chas e the t i r es . See, s upr a, n. 2. N evert h el es s , t he r ecor d her e cl ear l yes t abl i s hes t he exi s t ence of com

pet i t i on o n the p art of

the r e m a in ing su p p li ers for the v al uab l e ri gh tt o serve as an ex cl usi ve p rovid e r o f t i res . A ccor ding ly , t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l yr ecogni zed thatt he s uppl i er s t hemsel ves ar e gene r al l yw el l aw ar e of w hat i s goi ng on i n t he mar ketpl ace , and they actual l yhave be en abl e t o t ake bus i nes s aw ayfr om t hei rcompeti tors o vert he y ear s . For i ns t ance , ST A has cont i nued t o r es pond t o R FPs fr om t he var i ous s anct i oni ng bodi es , and i t has al s o at t empt ed t o w i n an exc l us i ve contr acteven i n t he abs ence of a f or m al pr op o sal fr om t he s anc t i oni ng bodyi t s el f. W e not e thatST A evi dent l yhas had s om e succ es s i n t hi s m arket , es peci al l yi n t he pas t

. I n fac t , i thas s erved as t he exc l us i ve t i r e s uppl i erfora numberof s anct i oni ng bo dies

. 3f o rm a l R F P , S T A su b m itt e d a p r o p o s a l to A S C S in 2 0 0 7 , in w hi ch i toffe r ed a f

i nanci al contr i but i on i n excha nge for ex clus ivity ; ( 4 ) S T A s u b m itted a b id in resp o n se to U S A C ’s R F P , al t ho ug h it s bi d, am on g o th e r th i ng s, did not pr op ose ex clus ivity ; ( 5 ) an S T A d istri b u tor w o n the b id to b e U M P ’s excl us i ve t i r e s uppl i erforcert ai n rac es i n 1994 butw as t hen o u tb id b yH o o s ie r in 1 9 9 5 ; (6 ) a f ter th e f ili n g o f th is la w su it, S T A re sp o n d e d w ith se e m in g lyn o n -e x c lu siv e a n d u ltim a tely uns ucce ssf

u l bi ds t o 2007 and 2008 R FPs fr om D M S; and ( 7) L ias T ire , an S T A d istrib u to r, w o n a n e x c lu siv e a g re e m e n t w ith U R C and fur t her agr eed t o payt hi s s anct i oni ng body$14, 500. 00 to b e th e s in g le tir e a t a p p ro x im a te ly th ir ty (3 0 ) e v e n ts

. F u rth e r m o re , H o o sie r a n d D M S sh o u ld n o t b e h e ld l egal l yacc o u n t abl e forST A ’ s r ece ntpat t ern of s ubm i t t i ng “nonexcl us i ve” bi ds t o t he r es pect i ve s anct i oni ng bodi es , even a ft er t he s anct i oning bodi es expr es s ed a de s i r e foran exc l us i ve r el at i ons hi p. 48 I n t he end, ST A nevers uffe r ed the ki nd of i nj ur yt hat gi ves r i s e t o an ant i t rus tcl ai m . O n t he contr ary , ithas had the cl earoppor tun it yt o compet e and di d compet e, s om et i m es s ucce s s ful l y , for t he excl us i ve t i r e contr act s . See, e. g. , N i cSand, I n c . v . 3 M Co. , 5 0 7 F. 3 d 4 4 2 , 4 5 6 ( 6 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( e n banc) ( “W hen one e xcl us i ve dealer i s r epl ace d byanotherexcl us i ve dealer, t he v i ct i m of the com peti t i on do es not s t at e an an t i t rust i nj ur y . ” (c it at i on om i t t ed) ) ; U

. S. v. A l um i num C o. of A m . , 148 F. 2d 416, 430 ( 2d C i r . 1945) ( H and, J

. ) ( “The suc ces s ful compet i t or , havi ng been ur ged t o compet e, m us tnotbe t ur ned upon w hen he w i ns . ”)

. A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ctC o u rt w as c o r r e c t t o g r a n t s u mm a r y j u d g me n t i n f a v o r o f Ho o s i e r a n d DM SAl l s i x o f S TA’ s c l a i ms , i n c l u d i n g S TA’ s i l l e g a l t y i n g c l a i m, 4
w er e pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed on thi s gr ound. 49 b e c a u se o f th is fa ilu re to m e e t th e a n titru st in ju ryre q u ire m e n t. 4

C . The D e ni al of

t he M ot i on f

or Leav e t o Am e nd Fi nal l y , t hi s C our tm us tcons i derw hethe rt he D i s t r i ct C o u rt p ro p e rlyd e n ied S T A ’s r e q u e st f o r le a v e to a m e n d its compl ai nti n or dert o add an e xpr es s r efus al to d ea l o rgr oup boy cot tcl ai m t o t he fi ve s ubs t ant i ve ca us es of ac t ion i thad a lre a d ya lleg e d

. W e f

in d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on byr ej ect i ng a l as t

- m i nut e att empt t o amend a pl eadi ng forthe f our th t i m e. G i ven the fa ct t hatt hi s m ot i on w as fi l ed s om et i m e af t er t he expi r at i on of t he M ay30, 2008 deadl i ne s t at ed i n t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s o w n sc h e d u lin g o rd e r, th e D istric t C o u rt p u rp o rte d ly a p p lied th e “ g o o d c a u se ” sta n d a rd o f F e d e ra l R u le o f

C iv il Pr ocedur e 16( b) ( 4) ( pr ovi di ng t hat“[a ] s chedu le [s etfor t h i n a sc h e d u lin g o rd e r] m a yb e m o d if ied o n lyf

o r g o o d c a u se a n d w ith th e ju d g e ’s c o n se n t”) , a s o p p o se d to th e m o re lib e ra l ap p ro a c h to amendm ent s es t abl i s hed i n Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr o ce d u re 15( a) ( 2) ( pr ovi di ng t hat “[t ] he court s houl d fr eel y gi ve l eave w h e n ju stic e so re q u ire s” ). It fu rth e r sta ted th a t, un lik e R u le 15( a) ( 2) and i t s focus on t he ques t i on of pr ej udi ce t o the nonm ovi ng par t y , R ul e 16( b) ( 4) focus es on t he m ovi ng p arty ’s bur den t o s how due di l i gence . W hi l e t he D i s t r i ctC our ti ndi cat ed t hatw e have y et t o addr es s t hi s t ens i on betw een Rul e 15( a) ( 2) and R ul e 16( b) ( 4) , ST A acknow l edges on appea l t hat i thad the bur den t o demonstr at e good ca us e and due d il igence ( and the D i s t r i ct C our t i t s el f ul t i m at el y found t hat the p ropos ed a m e n d m e n t w o u ld in f

a c t p re ju d ic e th e o th e r p a rt ie s ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tpr oper l ydeni ed l eave to a m end. A c c o rd in g to S T A , itc o u ld n o t h a v e d isc o v e re d th e k e y fa c ts50 s uppor t i n g t h i s n e w cl a i m un t i l i tr e v i e wed “ h u n d r e d s of thous ands of l at e- prod u ce d d o cu m en ts, ” w h ich w er e notpr ovi ded unt i l aft ert he dea dl i ne t o amend had alreadypas s ed. ( A ppel l ant s ’ B ri ef at57. ) I n tur n, ST A s peci fi cal l yt akes i s s ue w i th: ( 1) t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s t at ementt hat“‘ i ti s noteas yfor t he C our tt o di s cern w h en Pl ai nt i ffs w er e, ors houl d have be en, aw ar e of the bas i s fort he gr oup boy cot tcl ai m ; ’ ” ( 2) t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s r el i ance on ST A ’ s fai l ur e t o amend t he sche dul i ng or der to seek m o re t im e fo r d isco v ery (arg u ing that s u c h a f ail u re actual l yhi ghl i ght ed ST A ’ s ow n d il igence ) ; and ( 3) t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s f

i n d i n g o f

p r e j u d i c e ( o n t h e g r o u n d s t h a tSTA n ever r eques t ed any addi t i onal di s covery i n i t s m ot i on t o amend)

. ( I d. (c itati o n o m itt e d ).) O n th e o th e r h a n d , as a p ra c tica l m a tter, it b e a rs r e p e a tin g th a t th is w a s the f o u rth tim e th a t S T A d e sire d to a m e n d its c o m p lain t in th is a lre a d yv e ryc o m p lica ted a n d h ig h ly c o n ten tio u s litig a tio n , in w h ich S T A h a d a lre a d ya lleg e d m u lti p le t heor i es of r el i ef. Fur t herm or e, ST A evi dent l y i nfo rm ed t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hat , “dur i ng an O ct ober29, 2008 depos i t i on of H o o sier’s sales m an ag er, Pa u l M en ti n k , P lai n ti ff s l earned thatthe ‘H o o s ie r- o n ly’ ru le s k n o w n a s th e ‘n a tio n a l s p r i n t tir e ’ r u le

. . . . o rig in a ted f

ro m a Ju ly2 0 0 6 S p rin t S u m m it m e e tin g in Pi t t s bur gh arr ang ed b y[D M S]

. ” ( A 7 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. ) T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hen, qui t e r eas onabl y , not ed that : ( 1) t he or i gi nal compl ai ntactual l yi ncl uded an a t t ache d copyof the D ece m ber 15, 2006 s t at ement by H oos i erannounci ng t he cr eat i on of a ne w s pr i ntcart i r e att he r eques tof s ever al s anct i oni ng bodi es and t r acks ; and ( 2) t he pr ev iou s compl ai nt s expr es s l yal l eged that H oos i eragr eed w i t h m u lt i pl e s anct i oni ng bodi es t o devel op a n e w sp rin t ti re th a t th e sa n c tio n in g b o d ies w o u ld u se in th e ir ra c e s. T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso u n d e rsta n d a b ly w a n ted th is co m p li ca ted c ase to m o v e f o rw ard to it s u lt im ate reso luti o n . In any cas e, any at t empt t o add a new cl ai m w oul d be m o o t give n o u r ru l i n g o n t h e me r i t s o f S T A’ s e x i s t i n g c l a i ms . T h e r e f o r e , we ar e unabl e t o fi nd t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tabused it s di s cr et i on h e re .51 I V. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons w e w il l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s ru lin g s in f

a v o r o f H o o s ie r a n d D M S

.