## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly31,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT C H A R L E S B E E N , ind iv id u a llya n d d /b /a Cr e e k s i d e Fa r m, I n c . ; DO NA LD FRO ST; ED W I N J O H N STO N ; BO B FI ELD S, i n d i v i d u a l l ya n d d b a Ok i e Bl u e S k yF a r m, Inc. ; G E N E B L A C K W E L L , C l ass R epresent at i ves,

P l ai nti ffs - A pp el l ants , v. O . K . I N D U STR I ES, I N C. ; O . K . FO O D S, I N C . ; O . K . FA R M S, I N C . , al l A r kans as corpor at i ons , i ndi vi dual l yand as adm i nis t rat ors of health an d b enefi tplans; O. K. BRO I LER FARM S LI M I TED PA R T N E R SH I P, an A r kans as l i m i t ed par t ner s hi p, i ndi vi dual l yand as adm i nis t rat or of h eal t h an d b enefi tplans; C O L L IE R W E N D E R O T H , J R .; RANDA LL GOI NS; TOM W EBB , i ndi vi dual l yand as t rus t ees of hea l t h and b e n e fi tp l a n s ; OK I NDU S TRI ES , I NC. E M P L OYE E BE NE F I T P L AN; OK I ND USTRI ES, I NC . EM PLOY EE F UND ED GROUP HE ALT H CARE PLAN ; OK I ND USTRI ES, I NC . AN D I TS SUBSI DI AR I ES EM PLOY EE FUND ED HE AL T H C AR E P L AN; OK I ND USTRI ES, I NC . AN D A FF I LI ATES F LE XI BLE BENE F I TS / HEALT H CARE P L AN; OK I NDUS T RI E S , I NC . AND AFFI LI ATES FLEXI BLE BEN EFI TS P L AN; RE T I RE M E NT S AVI NGS P L AN OF OK I NDUS T RI E S , I NC . AND N o. 05- 7079-2-

S UB S I DI AR I E S ; RE T I RE M E NT SA V I N G S PLA N O F O K I N D U STR I ES, I NC. ; GROUP L ONG TE RM D I SA BI LI TY PLA N ; G RO U P LI FE HE AL T H I NS UR ANC E P L AN; GR OUP VOLUNTARY TER M LI F E I NSURANCE P L A N ; K E N P R I MM,

D e fe n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s . AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA

(D . C t. N o . 0 2 -C V -28 5 -W ) C har l es B . G oodw i n and H arr yA . W oods , J r . ( M ack J . M or gan, I I I , C hr i s t opher B . W o o d s , a n d A m a n d a L . M a x fi e l d , w i t h t h e m o n t h e b r i e fs ) , C r o w e & D u n l e v y, P . C . , O klahom a C i t y , O klahom a, app eari ng for t he A pp el l ants . M at t hew H or an, Sm i t h, M aurr as , C ohen, R edd & H or an, PL C , For tSm i t h, A rk a n s a s (J a m e s M . S tu rd iv a n a n d R o n a ld N . R ic k e tts , G a b le & G o tw a ls , P .C ., T ul s a, O kl ahoma, and D on A . Sm i t h, Sm i t h, M aurr as , C ohen, R edd & H or an, P L C , F ortS m i t h, A rkansas, w i t h h i m on t he b ri efs) , app eari ng for t he A pp el l ees. B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , B RI S CO E , and HA RTZ , C i rcui tJudg es. T AC HA , C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge. T h is a p p e a l p re se n ts a m a tter o f first im p re ss io n fo r th is C irc u it, n a m e ly w hether§ 202( a) of the Packe r s and St ocky ar ds A ct( “PSA ”) , 7 U . S. C . § 181 et se q ., re q u ire s a p lain tiff to p ro v e th a t an a lleg e d ly“ u n fa ir p ra c tice ” inju re s o r is l i kel yt o i nj ur e compet i t i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hats uch pr oof i s r equi r ed-3-

and, fi ndi ng t hatt he Pl ai nt i ffs had fa i l ed t o pr es entanyevi dence of a c om pet i t i ve i njury , grant ed sum m aryj ud gm ent i n fav or of t he D efen dan t s. T he co urtal so gr ant ed the D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton t he Pl ai nt i ffs ’ s t at e l aw cl ai m of uncons ci onabi l i t y . W e t ake j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291, and for t he r eas ons t hatfol l ow , w e affi r m i n par tand r ever s e i n par t , r emandi ng t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tforfur t herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on. I. BA CKGROUND D efe ndant s - A ppel l ant s O K I ndus t r i es , O K Far m s , I nc. , and O K Foods, I nc. ( col l ect i vel y“O K ”) cons t i tut e a ve r t i cal l yi nt egr at ed poul t r ypr oduceroper at i ng i n A r kans as and O kl ahoma. O K i s i nvol ved i n al m os teverys t age of t he produ ct i on and w ho l esal e of p ou l t ryand po ultryprodu ct s: i tbreeds, hatches, pr ovi des fee d for , t r ans por t s , s l aught er s , and pr oces s es poul t r y . O ne as pectof p o u ltryp ro d u c tio n O K d o e s n o t h a n d le is th e ra isin g o f b ro iler c h ick e n s to sla u g h ter in g a g e . O K e n ter s in to c o n tra c ts w ith v a rio u s “ g ro w e rs” w h o h a n d le t hat par tof the produ ct i on process. T h e P lain tiffs-A p p e llan ts (“ G ro w e rs” ) a re a c las s o f g ro w e rs o p e ra tin g in O kl ahoma undercontr actw i t h O K . I n addi t i on t o al l egi ng t hatt he pr oces s by w hi ch O K and i t s gr ow er s ent eri nt o contr act s i s uncons ci onabl e underA r kans as law , the G row ers a rgu e tha t th e term s o f th e c o n tr ac ts, as w ell as O K ’s p e r fo r ma n c e u n d e rt h e c o n t r a c t s , v i o l a t e t h e P a c k e r s a n d S t o c k y a r d s Ac t , 7 U. S . C. § 1 8 1 e t s e q . T h e irc la im s h in g e o n th e fo llo w in g u n d is p u te d fa c ts .-4-

O K i s the lar gestpo ultryi ntegr at or i n O klahom a. W i t h li m i t ed ex cepti on s, n o o t h e ri n t e g r a t o r s o p e r a t e i n t h e g e o g r a p h i c ma r k e t s i n wh i c h OK o p e r a t e s . At th e tim e o f

th is la w su it, O K h a d a w a iti n g list o f o v e r 1 3 0 p e rso n s d e sirin g to become gr ow er s forO K ort o expand thei rexi s t i ng oper at i ons . W hen O K needs t o expand i t s pr oduct i on, i tcont act s per s ons on t he w ai t i ng l i s tt o det er m i ne w h e th e r t h e ya re s till i n te re s te d , a n d if s o , w h e th e r t h e yw ill b e s u ita b le g ro w e rs . P ri or t o en t eri ng i nto a con t ractw i t h a g row er, O K requi res t he g row er t o fir st o b tai n fin an cing an d b u il d ch icke n h o u ses to sp ec ifi ca ti o n s set b yO K . In excha nge fora gr ow er ’ s expendi tur e of moneyt o bui l d t he r equi s i t e chi cken h o u se s, O K sig n s a lette r o f in ten t, ag re e in g to e n ter in to a b ro iler c o n tra c t w ith t he gr ow erupon s at i s fac t or ycompl et i on of the chi cken hous es . O ne chi cken hous e ca n cos ta gr ow ernear l y$160, 000, noti ncl udi ng t he cos tof l and and e q u ip m e n t. A ll th e b ro iler c o n tra c ts a re m a ter iallyid e n tica l; th e ya re sta n d a rd c o n tra c ts d ra f te d b yO K a n d a re n o t s u bje c t to n e g o tia tio n . U n d e r t h e s ta n d a rd c o n tr a c t, a gr ow eragr ees t o us e onl ychi cks , fee d, and medi ci ne s uppl i ed byO K . O K i s not l i abl e, how ever , foranyl os s a gr ow eri ncur s as a r es ul tof O K ’ s fai l ur e t o pr ovi de fe e d a n d s u p p lie s ; n o r i s O K lia b le fo r b ir d s c o n d e m n e d d u e to c e rt a in d is e a s e s . T h e c o n tr ac t al so p rov ides that a g row er m ayn o t sel l i ts ch icke n s to p o u ltry i nt egr at or s ot hert han O K and maynott r ans feri t s br oi l ercontr actt o ot her p o ten tial g ro w e rs w ith o u t O K ’s p rio r a p p ro v a l. U n d e r th e ter m s o f th e c o n tra c t,B eca us e of the l ar ge ca pi t al comm i t m ent s neede d t o become a gr ow erfor 1 O K , g ro w e rs m u st typ ica llyra ise c h ick e n s fo r fif tee n to tw e n ty -fiv e y e a rs to re c o v e r th e ir in iti a l in v e stm e n t. T he pr oduct i on cos tperpound t akes i nt o acc ountt he w ei ghtof the 2 c h ic k e n s ra is e d b yg ro w e rs , a s w e ll a s th e c o s t fo r c h ic k s , m e d ic in e , a n d fe e d . -5- O K a g re e s to p ro v id e th e g ro w e r w ith o n lyo n e flo c k o f c h ick s, w h ich typ ica lly t akes a gr ow er s even w eeks t o r ai s e. T her eaf t er , O K m aypr ovi de the gr ow er 1 w ith re p lac e m e n t flo c k s “ f ro m tim e to tim e .” In a d d iti o n to d e c id in g w h e n to del i verr epl ace m entfl ocks , O K det er m i nes t he br eed of chi cken, t he numberof chi cks perfl ock, and the numberof fl ocks . Fur t herm or e, att he end of eac h g row ing cy cle, O K m ayreq u ir e tha t a gro w er u p d ate it s h o u ses to m ee t O K ’s m os tr ece nts peci fi cat i ons befor e i tw i l l pl ace anotherfl ock of c hi cks w i t h t he g ro w e r. T h e s e re q u ir e d c h a n g e s re s u lt in s ig n ific a n t c o s ts to g ro w e rs . T h e c o n tr a c t a ls o d e ta ils th e m e th o d O K u s e s to c a lc u la te a g ro w e r’ s p a y . O K us es a “c om pet i t i ve r anki ng” s y s t em t o r ew ar d gr ow er s w ho pr oduce c hi ckens att he l eas tcos tt o O K . U nderO K ’ s s y s t em of pay m ent , O K fi r s tcal cul at es t he produ ct i on costper pou nd of ea ch g row er’ s fl ock and l abels t his produ ct i on cost 2 t he gr ow er ’ s “fl ock pr i m e cos t . ” I tt hen l i s t s t he fl ock pr i m e cos tof ea ch gr ow er in o rd e r f

ro m lo w e st to h ig h e st. T h e flo c k p rim e c o st o f th e g ro w e r th a t is n u m ericall yin the m idd le of the listis de sign ated as th e “ av era g e p ri m e c o st. ” If anyi ndi vi dual gr ow er ’ s fl ock pr i m e cos ti s l es s t han the ave r age pr i m e cos t , t hen O K p a y s th a t g ro w e r a h ig h e r ra te p e r p o u n d th a n th o se w h o se flo c k p rim e c o st is-6-

hi ghert han the ave r age pr i m e cos t . I n ot herw or ds , a gr ow er ’ s payi s bas ed on h o w g row ers in a g rou p ran k ag ains t eac h o ther, no t on the in d ividu al gro w er’s pr oduct i on. T he G r ow er s i n t hi s cas e fi l ed s ui ti n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor t he East ern D i s t r i ctof O kl ahoma. T heyobt ai ned cl as s cert i fi cat i on t o chal l enge t he fol l ow i ng conduct : ( 1) O K deduct s fr om t he G r ow er s ’ paycert ai n char ges for m edi ci ne and s uppl i es ; ( 2) O K s om et i m es del i ver s dead c hi cks t o t he G r ow er s and caus es t he G r ow er s t o payfort hem becaus e O K count s chi cks t o be del i ver ed at t he hat chery , r athert han att he G r ow er s ’ pr emi s es ; and ( 3) O K has r educe d t he nu m ber of b i rds pl aced p er y ear w i t h the G row ers , causi ng a subst anti al decrease i n t he G r ow er s ’ i ncome. T he G r ow er s al s o chal l enged O K ’ s compet i t i ve r anki ng s y s t em, ar gui ng i ti s unfai rand uncons ci onabl e bec aus e ( 1) O K us es t he medi an fl ock pr i m e cos tas t he ave r age pr i m e cos t , w hi ch al t er s t he r anki ngs i n a w ayt hat benef i t s O K t o t he detr i m entof the G r ow er s ; ( 2) O K exer ci s es contr ol over fac t or s affect i ng t he G r ow er s ’ per for m ance ; and ( 3) O K cal cul at es t he w ei ghtof condemned bi r ds , forw hi ch O K w i l l notpayG r ow er s , bas ed on the w ei ghtof heal t hybi r ds , even though condemned bi r ds can w ei gh up t o 50% l es s t han heal t hybi r ds . T he G r ow er s al l eged thatO K ’ s conductcons t i tut es a br eac h of c o n t r a c ta n d v i o l a t e s § 2 0 2 ( a ) o f t h e P S A, 7 U . S. C . § 192( a) . T heyal s o al l eged th a t th e b ro iler c o n tra c t is u n c o n sc io n a b le a n d th e re fo re u n e n fo rc e a b le u n d e r sta te l a w.-7-

O K m o v e d fo r j u d g m e n t o n th e p le a d in g s , a rg u in g , in tera lia , t hatpr oof of an i nj ur yt o compet i t i on i s a r equi r ed el ementof a c l ai m br oughtunder§ 202( a) of the PSA . T he di s t r i ctcour tj udge deni ed O K ’ s m ot i on, hol di ng t hat§ 202( a) does notr equi r e pr oof of a n i nj ur yt o compet i t i on. A ppr oxi m at el yei ght een m o n ths later, in a m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t befo re a d iffe ren t distri ct co u rt j udge, O K r e- r ai s ed the i s s ue. T he G r ow er s ar gued thatt he doctr i ne of the l aw of t he ca s e bound the D i s t r i ctC our tt o i t s pr i orrul i ng and that§ 202( a) di d not r equi r e pr oof of a n i nj ur yt o compet i t i on. I n t he al t ernat i ve, t heyar gued thatt hey had pr es ent ed s uffi ci entevi dence of an i nj ur yt o compet i t i on t o w i t hs t and s um m aryj udgm ent . T he courtdi s agr eed w i t h al l t hr ee a r gum ent s . A ft er concl udi ng t hatt he l aw of the ca s e di d notbi nd t he courtt o t he pr i orrul i ng, t he D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t § 2 0 2 (a ) re q u ire s p ro o f th a t a p ra c tice inju re s o r is lik e ly t o i nj ur e compet i t i on and thatt he G r ow er s had fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h a genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac tconce r ni ng compet i t i ve i nj ur y . C ons equent l y , t he courtent er ed su m m aryjud g m en t i n fa v o r of O K o n the G row ers’ P S A claim . T h e G row ers then m o v ed to reo p en d isco v eryfo r th e p u rpo se o f d eterm ining w h ethe r O K ’s conducti nj ur ed orw as l i kel yt o i nj ur e compet i t i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the m o tio n . Subse quent l y , i n r es pons e t o a mot i on fi l ed byt he G r ow er s foran i nt er l ocut or yappea l , t he D i s t r i ctC our ts uppl ement ed i t s s um m aryj udgm ent ruli n g d ispo sing o f th e P S A claim . Ith eld th at, ev en if § 2 0 2 (a) d o es n o t r eq u ir eB egi nni ng i n 1997, O K ’ s br oi l ercontr act s i ncl uded a c hoi ce- of- l aw 3 pr ovi s i on des i gnat i ng t he l aw of A r kans as as t he governi ng l aw . T he D i s t r i ct C our tt her efor e appl i ed A r kans as l aw t o t hos e contr act s and O kl ahoma l aw t o t he contr act s pr e- dat i ng 1997. -8- a compet i t i ve i nj ur y , w hetherpar t i cul arconducti s “unfa i r ” w i t hi n t he meani ng of § 2 02 (a) i s a quest i on of law , and O K ’s con du cti n thi s case w as not “unfair ” as a m a tte r o f

la w . I n y etanotheror der , t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favor of O K on t he G r ow er s ’ uncons ci onabi l i t ycl ai m . W i t h r es pectt o t he br oi l er c o n tra c ts g o v e rn e d b y O k lah o m a law , th e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t O k lah o m a w o u ld 3 n o t re c o g n ize a n a ffirm a tiv e c laim fo r d a m a g e s b a se d o n u n c o n sc io n a b ili ty . W ith r es pectt o t he br oi l ercontr act s governed byA r kans as l aw , t he courtconcl uded t hat , al t hough A r kans as r ecogni zes an affi rm at i ve ca us e of a ct i on for uncons ci onabi l i t y , t he A r kans as cour t s have nots peci fi cal l yaddr es s ed an aff i r m at i ve cl ai m fordamages , and i n anyevent , t hes e contr act s w er e not u n c o n s c i o n a b l e u n d e rAr k a n s a s l a w. Fol l ow i ng t hes e rul i ngs , t he part i es s et t l ed the pendi ng cl as s cl ai m s for b re a c h o f

c o n tra c t. T h e G ro w e rs n o w a p p e a l th e D istric t C o u rt’s r u lin g s o n th e ir P S A a n d u n c o n s c io n a b ility c la im s . I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . T h e P ac k ers a n d S tock y ard s A ct § 2 0 2 (a) 1. L aw of the C aseT hi s C our thad r ecogni zed thr ee “ exce pt i onal l ynarr ow ” gr ounds 4 s uppor t i ng a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s departur e fr om an appe l l at e court ’ s ear l i errul i ng: “( 1) w hen the evi dence i n a s ubs equentt r i al i s s ubs t ant i al l ydi ffe r ent ; ( 2) w hen contr ol l i ng author i t yhas s ubs equent l ym ade a contr arydeci s i on of the l aw appl i cabl e t o s uch i s s ues ; or( 3) w hen the dec i s i on w as cl ear l yerr oneous and w oul d w or k a mani fes ti nj us t i ce. ” McIlr avy , 204 F. 3d at1035 ( quot at i on (c o n tin u e d ...) -9- T he G r ow er s fi r s tcont end thatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i ni t i al rul i ng t hat § 202( a) does notr equi r e pr oof of a n i nj ur yt o compet i t i on r epr es ent s t he l aw of t he ca s e, w hi ch s houl d notbe di s turbed exc epti n verynarr ow ci r cumst ance s not pr es enther e. W e di s agr ee. G ener al l y , t he “l aw of the ca s e” doc t r i ne di ct at es t hat pr i orj udi ci al deci s i ons on rul es of l aw govern t he s ame i s s ues i n s ubs equent p h a s e s o f

th e s a m e c a s e . See Hom ans v. C i t y of A l buquer que , 366 F. 3d 900, 904 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). W e h a v e a c k n o w led g e d , h o w e v e r, th a t “th e ru le is a flex ib le one thatal l ow s cour t s t o departfr om err oneous pr i orrul i ngs , as t he under l y i ng pol i cyof the rul e i s one of e ffi ci ency , notr es t r ai ntof j udi ci al pow er . ” P ra irie B and P ot aw at om i Nat i on v. Wagnon , 476 F. 3d 818, 823 ( 10t h C i r . 2007) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed). T hat i s, t he d octr i ne is m erel ya “presum pti on , on e w ho se s t r ength var i es w i t h t he ci r cumst ance s . ” A vi t i a v. Metr o. C l ub of C hi cago, Inc. , 4 9 F .3 d 1 2 1 9 , 1 2 2 7 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ); s ee als o Hom ans , 366 F. 3d at904 ( “[T] he doctr i ne i s di s cr et i onaryr athert han mandat or y . ”) . I f the or i gi nal rul i ng w as iss u e d b ya h ig h e r c o u rt, a d istric t co u rt sh o u ld d e p a rt f ro m th e ru lin g o n lyin e x c e p tio n a lly n a rr o w c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See McIlr avy v . Ker r - McG ee CoalC or p. , 2 0 4 F .3 d 1 0 3 1 , 1 0 3 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). O n th e o th e r h a n d , d istric t co u rts 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 o m itte d ). I ti s undi s put ed thatO K i s a “l i ve poul t r ydeal er , ” def i ned as “anyper s on 5 en g ag ed in the b u sine ss o f o b tai n ing li v e p o u ltryb yp u rch ase o r un d er a p o u ltry gr ow i ng arr angementfort he purpos e of e i t hers l aught er i ng i tors el l i ng i tfor slau g h ter byan o ther.” 7 U . S . C . § 1 8 2 (10 ). -10- g e n e ra lly re m a in f

re e to re c o n s id e r t h e ire a rl ie r i n te rl o c u to ry o rd e rs . Har l ow v. C hi ldr en’s Hos

p. , 4 3 2 F .3 d 5 0 , 5 5 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); se e a lso Un itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 3 8 9 F .3 d 9 4 4 , 9 4 9 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (e x p lain in g th a t a d istric t co u rt m a yre v iew its p ri o r r u lin g s s o lo n g a s it r e ta in s ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e c a s e ). Fi ndi ng no Supr eme C our torT enth C i r cui tauthor i t yi nt erpr et i ng § 202( a) to req u ir e p roo f o f a co m p eti ti v e inju ry , the fir st distri ct co u rtjud g e d en ied O K ’s m o ti o n fo r j u d g m en t on the p lead ing s. In re v iew ing O K ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm entei ght een mont hs l at er , how ever , t he s econd j udge found pe r s uas i ve authori t yfrom otherci rcui t s holdi ng t hat s uch proof i s r equ i red. In l i gh tof these circu m stan ce s an d the in terl o cu toryn ature o f th e initi al ruli n g , the D istri ct C o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in re c o n s id e ri n g th e p ri o r r u lin g . See Har l ow , 432 F . 3 d at 55

– 5 6 (rev iew ing a d istri ct co u rt ’s reco n side rati o n o f a p ri o r i n terl o cu tory o rd e r fo r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n ). 2. I nt erpr et at i on of “U nfai rPr act i ces ” under§ 202( a) Sect i on 202 of t he PSA m akes i t unl aw ful for a “l i ve poul t r y deal er ” t o 5 ( a) E ngage i n orus e anyunfai r , unj us t l ydi s cr i m i nat or y , ordece pt i ve pr act i ce ordevi ce; or-11-

( b) M ake orgi ve anyundue orunr eas onabl e pr efe r ence oradvant age t o anypar t i cul arper s on orl ocal i t yi n anyr es pectw hat s oever , or s ubj ectanypar t i cul arper s on orl ocal i t yt o anyundue or unr eas onabl e pr ej udi ce ordi s advant age i n anyr es pectw hat s oever ; or ( c) Sel l orot herw i s e tr ans fert o orforanyot herpacke r , s w i ne contr act or , oranyl i ve poul t r ydeal er , orbuyorot herw i s e r ece i ve fro m o r fo r an yo ther p ac k er, sw ine c o n tr ac tor, o r an yli v e p o u ltry deal er , anyar t i cl e fort he purpos e orw i t h t he effec tof apport i oni ng t he s uppl ybetw een a nys uch per s ons , i f s uch apport i onm enthas t he t endenc yoreffectof r es t r ai ni ng comm er ce orof cr eat i ng a m onopol y ; or ( d) Sel l orot herw i s e tr ans fert o orforanyot herper s on, orbuyor ot herw i s e r ece i ve fr om orforanyot herper s on, anyar t i cl e fort he purpos e orw i th t he effec tof m ani pul at i ng orcontr ol l i ng pr i ces , orof cr eat i ng a monopol yi n t he ac qui s i t i on of, buy i ng, s el l i ng, ordeal i ng i n, anyar t i cl e, orof r es t r ai ni ng comm er ce; or ( e) E ngage i n anycour s e of bus i nes s ordo anyactfort he purpos e or w i t h t he effec tof m ani pul at i ng orcontr ol l i ng pr i ces , orof cr eat i ng a m onopol yi n t he ac qui s i t i on of, buy i ng, s el l i ng, ordeal i ng i n, any ar t i cl e, orof r es t r ai ni ng comm er ce; or (f) C o n sp ire , co m b in e , ag re e , o r a rra n g e w ith a n yo th e r p e rso n (1 ) to appor t i on t err i t or yforcarr y i ng on bus i nes s , or( 2) t o appor t i on pur chas es ors al es of anyar t i cl e, or( 3) t o m ani pul at e orcontr ol pr i ces ; or ( g) C ons pi r e, combi ne, agr ee, orarr ange w i t h anyot herper s on t o do, orai d orabett he doi ng of, anyactm ade unl aw ful bys ubdi vi s i ons ( a) , ( b) , ( c) , ( d) , or( e) of thi s s ect i on. 7 U . S. C . § 192. A ti s s ue i n t hi s cas e i s onl yw hatcons t i tut es an “unfai r ” pr act i ce w i t hi n t he m eani ng of § 202( a) . T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatan “unfai r ” pr act i ce i s one that

“ inju re s o r is lik e lyto inju re c o m p e tit io n .” T h e G ro w e rs c o n ten d th a t th is-12-

i nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut e i s bel i ed byt he U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof A gr i cul tur e’ s ( “U SD A ”) i nt erpr et at i on, as w el l as t he s t atut e’ s pl ai n l anguage and p u rp o s e . W e fir st ad d ress the G row ers’ su g g esti o n that w e m u st de fe r t o the U S D A ’s r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut e bec aus e the age ncyi s author i zed t o m ake ru le s a n d re g u la tio n s n e c e s s a ry to c a rr yo u t th e P S A . See Chevr on U. S. A . , Inc. v. Nat ur alR es . D ef

. C ounci l, Inc. , 467 U . S. 837, 843 ( 1984) ( hol di ng t hatw hen C ongr es s has i m pl i ci t l ydel egat ed l egi s l at i ve author i t yt o an age ncy , “a c our tm ay n o t su b stitu te its o w n c o n stru c tio n o f a sta tu to ryp ro v isio n fo r a re a so n a b le i nt erpr et at i on m ade byt he admi ni s t r at orof an a gency ”) . T o t hatend, t he G ro w e rs c laim th a t th e U S D A “ h a s c o n sis ten tlytak e n th e p o sitio n th a t in o rd e r to pr ove thatanypr act i ce i s ‘ unfai r ’ under[§] 202( a) . . . of the A ct , i ti s not n e c e s s a r y t o p r o v e p r e d a t o r y i n t e n t , c o m p e t i t i v e i nj u r y, o rl i k e l i h o o d o f i nj u r y; and thati ti s t he D epart m ent ’ s dut yt o s t op unl aw ful pr act i ces i n t hei ri nci pi ency pr i ort o actual i nj ur y . ” In r e O z ark C ount y C at t l e C o. , Inc. , 49 A gr i c. D ec. 336, 365 ( 1990) , 1990 W L 320312. T heyal s o not e thatt he U SD A fi l ed an a m i cus br i ef be for e the El eventh C i r cui ti n L o n d o n v . F ie lda le Fa r m s C o r p ., 410 F. 3d 1 2 9 5 (1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), cer t . deni ed , 126 S. C t . 752 ( 2005) , s t at i ng t hatt he S ecret aryof A gri culture’ s posi t i on i s that the P S A prohibi t s al l un fai r pr act i ces, r e g a r d l e s s o f

w h e t h e ra p r a c t i c e c a u s e s a c o m p e t i t i v e i nj u r y. A l t hough w e gene r al l ydefe rt o an age ncy ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of an a m bi guous-13-

statu te th at i t i m p lem en ts, “[ d ]i ffere n t typ es o f a g en cyp ron o u n ce m en ts are e n title d to d iffe re n t d e g re e s o f d e fe re n c e .” Ne wt o n v . FAA , 457 F. 3d 1133, 1136 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). A s th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s e x p lain e d : [A ] dm i ni s t r at i ve i m pl ement at i on of a pa r t i cul ars t atut or ypr ovi s i on q u ali fies fo r C hevr on defe r ence w hen i tappea r s t hatC ongr es s del egat ed a u t h o r i t yt o t h e a g e n c yg e n e r a l l yt o ma k e ru l e s c a r r y i n g t h e fo r c e o f l a w, a n d th a t th e a g e n c yin ter p re tatio n c laim in g d e fe re n c e w a s p ro m u lg a ted in t h e e x e r c i s e o f

t h a ta u t h o r i t y . De l e g a t i o n o f s u c h a u t h o r i t yma yb e s h o wn i n a var i etyof w ay s , as byan age ncy ’ s pow ert o engage i n adj udi cat i on or not i ce- and- comm entrul emaki ng, orbys om e otheri ndi cat i on of a c o m p a ra b le c o n g re ss io n a l in ten t. Uni t ed Stat es v. Mead C or p. , 5 3 3 U .S . 2 1 8 , 2 2 6

– 2 7 (2 0 0 1 ). R e g u latio n s p ro m u lg a ted b ya n a g e n c ye x e rc isin g its c o n g re ss io n a lly gr ant ed rul e- m aki ng author i t yar e cl ear l yent i t l ed t o C hevr on d e fe re n c e . New t on , 457 F. 3d at1137. So t oo i s an age ncy ’ s adj udi cat i on of m at t er s overw hi ch i thas th e a u th o ri ty to a dju d ic a te , a s s u c h d e c is io n s c a rr yth e fo rc e o f la w . See i d. ; Souther n Ut e Indi an Tri be v. A m oco Prod. C o. , 1 1 9 F . 3 d 8 1 6 , 8 3 2 (10 th C ir . 1997) ( r ecogni zi ng t he rul e thatan age ncy“mayes t abl i s h bi ndi ng pol i cyei t her t hr ough rul e- m aki ng pr ocedur es ort hr ough adj udi cat i ons t hatcr eat e bi ndi ng p re c e d e n ts ” (q u o ta tio n o m itte d )) , r ev’ d on othergr ounds , A m oco Prod. C o. v. Souther n Ut e Indi an Tri be , 5 2 6 U . S . 8 6 5 (19 9 9 ). H ere , h o w ev er, th e S ec retary has notpr om ul gat ed a r egul at i on appl i cabl e t o t he pr act i ces t he G r ow er s al l ege vi ol at e § 202( a) , and the U SD A has no author i t yt o adj udi cat e al l eged vi ol at i ons o f § 2 0 2 b yliv e p o u ltr yd e a le rs . See London , 410 F. 3d at1304 ( ci t i ngU nder 7 U .S .C . § 2 0 9 , an yp e rso n su bjec t to th e P S A m a yb e h e ld liab le 6 fordamages . L i abi l i t ym aybe enfor ced e i t herbycompl ai ntt o t he Secr et aryof A gr i cul tur e “a s pr ovi ded i n s ect i on 210 of thi s t i t l e, ” ort hr ough pr ocee di ngs i ns t i tut ed i n fede r al di s t r i ctcour t . 7 U . S. C . § 209( b) . U nder7 U . S. C . § 210, how ever , onl ys t ocky ar d ow ner s , m ar ketagenc i es , and dea l er s ( noti ncl udi ng l i ve poul t r ydeal er s ) m aybe found l i abl e i n pr ocee di ngs befor e the Secr et aryof A gr i cul tur e. I n addi t i on, t he Secr et arym ayi s s ue ce as e and de s i s tor der s and asse ss civ il p en alt ies ag ains t pac k ers a n d sw ine c o n tr ac tors, b u t no t po u ltry deal er s , under7 U . S. C . § 193. I n ot herw or ds , t he Secr et aryhas no adj udi cat i ve author i t yoverl i ve poul t r ydeal er s . H ence , the onl yw ayt o enfor ce § 202 of t he P S A ag ains t a l ive p o u ltryd ea ler i s to fil e su itin fed era l distri ct co u rtu n d er 7 U . S. C . § 209. I n addi t i on, w e emphas i ze thatw e ar e i nt erpr et i ng t he meani ng of 7 (c o n tin u e d ...) -14- ad m inistrati v e c o m p lai n t pro ce d u res u n d er 7 U . S . C . § 1 9 3 (a)); J a c kso n v . Sw ift E ckr i ch, Inc. , 53 F. 3d 1452, 1456–57 ( 8t h C i r . 1995) ( hol di ng thatt he onl ym eans of enfor ci ng § 202 agai ns tl i ve poul t r ydeal er s i s t o fi l e s ui ti n fede r al di s t r i ct cour t under § 308, 7 U . S. C . § 209( a) ) . M or eover , w e affor d t he U SD A ’ s pos i t i on 6 a s s ta te d in its a m ic u s b ri e f b e fo re th e E le v e n th C ir c u it lit tle to n o d e fe re n c e . See Shi kl es v. Spr i nt/ Uni t ed M gm t . C o. , 426 F. 3d 1304, 1315 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( “[A ] m i cus br i efs . . . do notr efl ectt he del i ber at e exe r ci s e of i nt erpr et i ve author i t yt hatr egul at i ons and gui del i nes demonst r at e. ” ( quot at i on om i t t ed) ) . T he a g e n c y ’s v iew s s o sta ted “ m a yb e a c c e p ted b ya c o u rt o n lya s th e yh a v e p o w e r to per s uade. ” F i rs tA m . K i ckapoo O per at i ons , L. L. C . v. Mul t i m edi a G am es , Inc. , 412 F. 3d 1166, 1174 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( ci t i ng Sk idm o re v . Sw ift , 323 U . S. 134, 140 (19 4 4 )). A s w e e x p lai n b elow , w e a re n o t persu ad ed b ythe U S D A ’s i nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut e. 7( . . . cont i nued) 7 u n fa irn ess s o lel yin the co n text o f th e P S A . C o n seq u en tl y , the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s deci s i on i n F TCv. Sper r y and Hut chi ns on C o. , 405 U . S. 233 ( 1972) , w hi ch addr es s es s i m i l arl anguage i n § 5 of the Feder al T r ade Com m i s s i on A ct , 15 U . S. C . § 45( a) ( 1) , does notdi ct at e a pa r t i cul ari nt erpr et at i on i n t hi s cas e. U nl i ke t he ca s e befor e us , t he ques t i on i n Sper r y and Hut chi ns on w as one of a gency j uri sdi ct i on , nam el yw hether§ 5 em po w ered t he F T C t o d efi ne “u nfairpract i ces” t o i ncl ude pr act i ces w i t houtant i compet i t i ve effec t s and of a noncompet i t i ve n a tu re . Id. at239. C onver s el y , as w e not e above , t he pr es entcas e does not in v o lv e th e U S D A ’s in te rp re tiv e o r e n fo rc e m e n t a u th o ri ty u n d e r t h e s ta tu te . I ns t ead, w e ar e fa ced w i t h t he t as k of cons t rui ng a s t atut e thatonl yt he fe der al c o u rt s m a ye n fo rc e a g a in s t liv e p o u ltr yd e a le rs . -15- H avi ng concl uded thatw e nee d notdefe rt o t he age ncy ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of t he s t atut e, w e tur n t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s cons t ruct i on of § 202( a) . W e r evi ew iss u e s o f

sta tu to ryc o n stru c tio n d e n o v o , “in ter p re t[ in g ] th e w o rd s o f th e sta tu te in l i ghtof the purpos es C ongr es s s oughtt o s er ve. ” Wr ightv. Fed. B ur eau of P r is ons , 45 1 F . 3d 12 31 , 12 33 –3 4 (10th C i r. 20 06 ) ( qu otat i on om i t t ed). In so doi ng, w e begi n w i t h “the l anguage empl oy ed byC ongr es s , ” and w e “r ead the w o rd s o f

th e sta tu te in th e ir c o n tex t an d w ith a v iew to th e ir p lac e in th e o v e ra ll s t atut or ys cheme. ” Id. a t 1 2 3 4 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). A s t he G r ow er s not e, not hi ng i n t he pl ai n l anguage of § 202( a) i ndi cat es t hata pr act i ce i s unfai ronl yi f i tadver s el yaffect s compet i t i on ori s l i kel yt o do so . B u t n e ith e r d o e s th e sta tu te o th e rw ise d e fin e a n u n fa ir p ra c tice . E n a c ted in 1 9 2 1 , the “ p rim a ryp u rp o se o f [ th e P S A ] is to a ss u re fa ir c o m p e tit io n a n d fa ir tra d e p ra c tice s in liv e sto c k m a rk e tin g a n d in th e m e a tp a c k in g in d u stry ” a n d “ to sa fe g u a rd fa rm e rs . . . ag a in st re c e iv in g les s th a n th e tru e m a rk e t v a lu e o f th e ir-16-

liv e s to c k .” H .R . R e p . N o . 8 5 -1 0 4 8 , a t 1 (1 9 5 7 ), re p rin tedin 1 9 5 8 U. S . C. C. A. N. 5213, 5213. T he “c hi ef e vi l ” C ongr es s fea r ed w as t he monopol i s t i c pr act i ces of the p ac k ers, “en ab li n g them u n d u lyan d arb itraril yto low er p ri ce s to the sh ipp er, w ho s el l s , and undul yand arbi t r ar i l yt o i ncr eas e the pr i ce t o t he cons um er , w ho buy s . ” St af

f or d v. Wal l ace , 2 5 8 U .S . 4 9 5 , 5 1 4

– 1 5 (1 9 2 2 ). A lth o u g h in ten d e d to be br oadert han ant ece dentant i t rus tl egi s l at i on, § 202 “nonethel es s i ncorpor at es t he b asi c anti t rustbluepri nt of t he S herm an A ctand otherpre- exis t i ng anti t rust l egi s l at i on. ” De Jo n gP a c k i n gCo . v . USDA , 6 1 8 F . 2 d 1 3 2 9 , 1 3 3 5 n . 7 (9th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ). A g ains t th is ba ck d rop , o ther c ir cu it s h av e c o n clud ed that “u n fa ir [n ess]” under§ 202( a) r equi r es evi dence t hatt he cha l l enged pr act i ce w i l l l i kel yl ead t o a compet i t i ve i nj ur y . T he i s s ue i s m os tt hor oughl yt r eat ed i n A r m our& Co. v. Uni t ed Stat es , 4 0 2 F .2 d 7 1 2 (7 th C ir . 1 9 6 8 ). A r m ourinv o lved a m ea t pac k er’s coupon pr om ot i on, w hi ch al l egedl yhad the effec tof di ver t i ng s al es fr om com peti t ors t o the defen dan t . A ft er r ecog nizi ng t he P S A ’s ancest ryi n an t i t rust l aw , w her e C ongr es s has expr es s ed a “ bas i c publ i c pol i cydi s t i ngui s hi ng betw een fai rand vi gor ous compet i t i on on t he one ha nd and pr edat or yorcontr ol l ed compet i t i on on t he other , ” i d. at717, t he courtr eas oned thatt he “factt hata gi ven pr ovi s i on does notexpr es s l ys peci fyt he degr ee of i nj ur yort he type of i nt ent r equi r ed, does noti m pl yt hatt hes e bas i c i ndi cat or s of the l i ne betw een f r ee compet i t i on and pr edat i on ar e t o be i gnor ed, ” id . E ven though t he t es tofW e ar e notconce r ned her e w i t h pr edat or yi nt enton t he partof O K . T hat 8 i s s ue w as notr ai s ed byt he part i es , and w e ther efor e expr es s no opi ni on on w hetherevi dence of pr edat or yi nt entcan make an a ct“unfa i r ” w hen ther e i s no c o n c o m i t a n ts h o w i n g o f a l i k e l i h o o d o f

c o m p e t i t i v e i nj u r y. -17- un fai rness un der § 20 2(a) i s “l ess s t ri ng ent than un der som e of the anti -trust law s,” th e c o u rt still co n c lu d e d th a t th e c o u p o n p ro g ra m a t issu e c o u ld n o t v io late § 202( a) “abs ents om e pr edat or yi nt entors om e l i kel i hood of compet i t i ve i nj ur y . ” A r m our , 402 F. 2d at717; s ee als o I B P , Inc. v. G l i ckm an , 1 8 7 F .3 d 9 7 4 , 9 7 7 (8 th 8 C i r. 19 99 )) (concl ud i ng t hat the ch al l eng ed co nd uct di d n ot “pot enti al l ysupp res s o r re d u c e c o m p e tit io n su fficie n t to b e p ro sc rib e d b yth e [ P S A ]” ); P ar chm an v. USDA , 852 F. 2d 858, 864 ( 6t h C i r . 1988) ( “[The PSA ] does notr equi r e thatt he Secr et arypr ove ac tual i nj ur ybefor e a pr act i ce maybe found unfai r . T he S e c re tar yn e e d o n lye sta b lish th e lik e lih o o d th a t an a rra n g e m e n t w ill re su lt i n com peti t i ve inj uryt o est abli sh a viol at i on . ” (al t erat i on s, i nternal quotat i on m arks, a n d c itatio n o m itt e d )); D eJong , 618 F. 2d at1337 ( hol di ng t hat“unfa i rpr act i ces under§ 202 ar e notconfi ned t o t hos e w her e compet i t i ve i nj ur yhas al r eady r es ul t ed, buti ncl udes t hos e w her e ther e i s a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood t hatt he purpos e w i l l be ac hi eved a nd t hatt he r es ul tw i l l be an undue r es t r ai ntof co m p eti ti o n ”). I n a more r ece ntcas e, bas ed on fa ct s s i m i l art o t hos e ati s s ue her e, t he E l eventh C i r cui ts i m i l ar l yhel d t hata cl ai m br oughtunder§ 202( a) r equi r ed s o m e s h o w i n g o f

a c o m p e t i t i v e i nj u r y o rt h e l i k e l i h o o d o f c o m p e t i t i v e i nj u r y.-18-

London , 4 1 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 3 . L ik e th e c a s e b e fo re u s , London in v o lv e d a v e rtica lly i ntegr at ed p ou l t rycom pan yt hat ent ered i nto contr act s w i t h g row ers t o rai se b ro ile r c h ic k e n s . Id. a t1 2 9 8

– 9 9 . O n e g r o w e rfi l e d s u i ta g a i n s tt h e c o m p a n y, ar gui ng t hatt he companyvi ol at ed the PSA w hen i tt er m i nat ed hi s br oi l er c o n tr a c t. Id. at1299. A ft era j ur yr etur ned a ve r di cti n favorof the gr ow er , t he di s t r i ctcour ts etas i de the ver di ctand gr ant ed the defendant ’ s m ot i on for ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . Id. at1300. R el y i ng i n par ton A r m our , t he E l eventh C i r cui thel d t hatt o pr evai l under§ 202( a) , a pl ai nt i ff musts how t hatt he defe ndant ’ s pr act i ce “ adver s el yaffect s compet i t i on ori s l i kel yt o adver s el yaffect compet i t i on. ” Id. at1304. I n r eac hi ng t hi s deci s i on, t he courti dent i fi ed the pol i cyi m pl i cat i ons of a c ont r aryhol di ng: “El i m i nat i ng t he compet i t i ve i m pact r equi r ement w oul d i gnor e the l ong- t i m e ant i t rus tpol i ci es w hi ch form ed the backbone of the PSA ’ s cr eat i on. Fai l ur e t o r equi r e a c om pet i t i ve i m pacts how i ng w o u ld s u bje c t d e a le rs to lia b ility u n d e r t h e P S A fo r s im p le b re a c h o f c o n tr a c t . . .

. ” Id. T he G r ow er s ar gue, how ever , t hatbeca us e § 202’ s ot hers ubs ect i ons c o n tain lan g u a g e p ro h ib iti n g a c ts th a t ten d to re stra in c o m m e rc e o r c re a te m o n o p o lie s , s ee, e. g. , 7 U . S. C . § 192( c) , ( d) , ( e) , t he abs ence of s i m i l arl anguage in § 2 0 2 (a ) c o n c lu s iv e ly m e a n s th a t p ro o f o f a c o m p e titiv e inju ry is n o t r e q u ir e d . W e d isag ree . U n li k e su b sec ti o n s (c), (d), an d (e), w h ich listsp ec ifi c a cts t h at are unl aw ful onl yw hen theyhave the t endenc yoreffectof r es t r ai ni ng comm er ce or-19-

c re a tin g a m o n o p o ly , su b se c tio n (a ) is a g e n e ra l p ro h ib iti o n o n “ u n fa ir, u nju stly di s cr i m i nat or y , ordece pt i ve pr act i ce[ s ] ” and pr ovi des no fur t hergui dance on w hatt ype of a ctfal l s w i t hi n i t s par amet er s . N ott o r equi r e a s how i ng of compet i t i ve i nj ur yort he l i kel i hood t her eof w oul d m ake a fede r al cas e outof everybr eac h of contr act . N ot hi ng i n t he PSA s ugges t s t hatC ongr es s i nt ended th is re s u lt. T he G r ow er s al s o ar gue thatbeca us e others ubs ect i ons r equi r e pr oof of a c o m p e tit iv e inju ry , li m iti n g su b se c tio n (a ) to a n tico m p e tit iv e a c ts w o u ld re n d e r it s uper fl uous and w oul d t her efor e vi ol at e one of t he “c ar di nal pr i nci pl e[s ] of s t atut or ycons t ruct i on” t o “gi ve effec t , i f pos s i bl e, t o everycl aus e and w or d of a s t atut e. ” Wi l l i am s v. Tayl or , 5 2 9 U. S. 3 6 2 , 4 0 4 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) . To t he contr ary , s uch an i nt erpr et at i on i s farfr om r ender i ng s ubs ect i on ( a) s uper fl uous beca us e i ts erves as a ca t chal l foract s t hatC ongr es s coul d not , att he tim e o f e n a c tm e n t, h a v e fo re s e e n a n d s p e c ifie d . Cf . Ex c e lCo r

p . v . USDA , 397 F .3 d 1 2 8 5 , 1 2 9 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (re c o g n izin g th a t n e w tec h n iq u e s a n d to o ls ut i l i zed bycover ed ent i t i es can vi ol at e the PSA even i f the U SD A has not p re v io u slyd e c lar e d th e m u n law f u l). W h ile th e o th e r su b se c tio n s m a k e c e rta in a c ts e x p licitlyu n law f u l, C o n g re ss a c k n o w led g e d w ith su b se c tio n (a ) th a t itc o u ld notl i s tt he ful l panopl yof unfa i r , unj us t l ydi s cr i m i nat or y , ordece pt i ve pr act i ces o r d e v ic e s th a t a c o v e re d e n tity m ig h t u tiliz e . A l t hough w e have neverexpr es s l yhel d t hatunfai r nes s under§ 202( a)-20-

r equi r es a l i kel i hood of i nj ur yt o compet i t i on, ourci r cui tpr ece denti s nott o t he contr ary . I n r es ol vi ng unfai r nes s cas es , w e have oft en s ugges t ed thata s how i ng of compet i t i ve i nj ur ycan be det er m i nat i ve. I n C api t olP acki ng C o. v. Uni t ed St at es , 350 F. 2d 67 ( 10t h C i r . 1965) , forexampl e, w e r evi ew ed a de ci s i on i s s ued byt he U SD A ’ s J udi ci al O ffi cert hatvar i ous pr act i ces engage d i n byt he d e fe n d a n ts v io late d § 3 1 2 (a ) o f th e P S A , 7 U .S .C . § 2 1 3 (a ), “w h ich m a k e s it u n law f u l fo r a n ym a rk e t ag e n c yto e n g a g e in o r u se a n yu n fa ir, u nju stly di s cr i m i nat or y , ordece pt i ve pr act i ce ordevi ce i n connec t i on w i t h t he mar ket i ng ors el l i ng of l i ves t ock. ” C api t olP acki ng C o. , 3 5 0 F .2 d a t 7 3 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). T he J udi ci al O ffi cerfound thata pr act i ce c al l ed “or derbuy i ng” ( i . e. , t he s al e of l i ves t ock befor e i tarr i ves att he s t ocky ar ds ) vi ol at ed the PSA beca us e the l i ves t ock had the mi s l eadi ng appea r ance of bei ng fors al e t o t he hi ghes tbi dderby v ir tu e o f

its p re s e n c e in th e m a rk e t. Id. at74 . B ut this C ou rtcon cl ud ed, as a m at t er of l aw , t hat “or der buy i ng ” w as not a vi olat i on of § 31 2(a) i n p artbecau se the re co rd lac k ed “e v iden ce . . . tend ing to sh o w [o rde r bu y ing ] l es s ens compet i t i on . ” Id. (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). I n Ex c e lCo r

p . v . USDA , 397 F. 3d 1285 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) , w e r evi ew ed the U S D A ’s de term ination that E x ce l violated § 2 0 2 (a) an d o n e o f th e P S A ’s i m pl ement i ng r egul at i ons , 9 C . F. R . § 201. 99( a) , byfai l i ng t o di s cl os e t o hog p ro d u c e rs a c h a n g e in its fo rm u la fo r c o m p u tin g th e w e ig h t o f c a rc a s s e s . A l t hough i tadmi t t ed thati thad cha nged the form ul a, t he meatpacke rar gued that-21-

it h a d n o t v io la te d th e a c t b e c a u s e , in tera lia , “p rac ti ce s are n o t violati v e w h ere t heyar e r equi r ed byt he exi genci es of the bus i nes s . ” Exce lC or p. , 397 F. 3d at 1293. W e r ej ect ed thi s cl ai m , s t at i ng t hat“C ongr es s and the U SD A ar e the a rb iters o f

w h a t p ra c tice s w ill i mpede c ompet i t i on . ” Id. (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). H ence , “the fa ctt hata part i cul aracti s ‘ r equi r ed byt he exi genci es of the bus i nes s ’ . . . has no i m pacton w hethert hatacti s vi ol at i ve of the [PSA ] and the i m pl ement i ng r egul at i ons . ” Id . B yfai l i ng t o not i fyhog pr oducer s of the c h a n g e d fo rm u la, E x c e l p re v e n ted th e p ro d u c e rs f ro m sh o p p in g th e ir h o g s to otherpack ers t o d et erm i ne if theycou l d o btai n a b et t er pr i ce. In l i gh tof these fac t s , w e uphel d t he J udi ci al O ffi cer ’ s concl us i on t hatE xcel ’ s pr act i ce “ i m peded compet i t i on. ” Id. a t 1 2 9 4 . I n Hays Li ves t ock Com m is s i on C o. v. Mal y Li ves t ock Com m is s i on C o. , 498 F . 2 d 9 2 5 , 9 2 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 7 4 ), w e re v iew ed the S ec retaryo f A g ri cu ltu re’s det erm i nat i on t hata dea l er ’ s r efus al t o honora dr aftt o payforl i ves t ock w as “u njust an d u n rea so n ab le” u n d er 7 U . S . C . § 2 0 8 . In u p h o lding the S ec retary ’s deci s i on, w e di d notdi s cus s w hata pl ai nt i ff musts how t o es t abl i s h t hata pr act i ce is u nju st o r u n re a so n a b le, b u t w e d id n o te th a t “d ish o n o rin g o f d ra f ts in th is cont ext. . . pl ace d an i nor di nat e bur den on the barns , contr aryt o t he purpos e of t he Packe r s and St ocky ar ds A ctt o s ecur e the f r ee and unbur dened f

l ow of l i ves t ock .” Hays L ivestoc k C o m m ’n , 498 F. 2d at932 ( emphasi s added) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . L i ke ourdeci s i ons i n C api t olP acki ng C o. and Exce lC or p. , ouropi ni on-22-

i n Hays Li ves t ock Com m is s i on i ndi cat es thatan i m pedi m entt o compet i t i on, th o u g h n e v e r e x p re s s ly re q u ir e d , w a s im p lic it in o u r p ri o r d e c is io n s . T he G r ow er s not e, how ever , t hatw e have al s o r es ol ved ca s es under § 202( a) w i t houtanym ent i on t hatt he r el evantpr act i ce i nj ur es compet i t i on. T hey di r ectourat t ent i on t o P e t e r ma n v . USDA , 7 7 0 F .2 d 8 8 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 5 ), in w hi ch w e uphel d t he Secr et ary ’ s det er m i nat i on t hata meatpacke rw as gui l t yof dece pt i ve tr ade pr act i ces , i ncl udi ng i t s “bai tand s w i t ch” t act i c, w her ebyt he packe rw oul d advert i s e one pr oductand then convi nce c us t om er s s eeki ng t he p ro d u c t to b u ya m o re e x p e n s iv e o n e in s te a d . Id. at890. T o t he ext entour sile n c e o n th e c o m p e tit iv e inju ryre q u ire m e n t is re lev a n t, th is c a se is d istin g u ish a b le b e c a u se it i n v o lv e d a n a c t alle g e d to b e d e c e p tiv e , as o p p o se d to unfai r . W e ar e conc erned her e onl yw i t h w hetherunfai r nes s r equi r es a s how i ng of a l i kel yi nj ur yt o compet i t i on, notw hetherdece pt i ve pr act i ces r equi r e s uch a s how i ng. W e ther efor e j oi n t he thos e ci r cui t s r equi r i ng a pl ai nt i ff w ho chal l enges a p rac ti ce u n d er § 2 0 2 (a) to sh o w that the p rac ti ce injures o r i s li k elyto injure c o m p e titio n . 3. O K ’ s A l l eged V i ol at i ons of § 202( a) A fter d eterm ining that § 2 0 2 (a) req u ir es p roo f o f a n injuryo r l ikelyinjury t o compet i t i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatt he G r ow er s had fa i l ed t o r ai s e a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tr egar di ng compet i t i ve i nj ur y . W e r evi ew t he D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t d e n o v o , B ryant v. Farm ers Ins.-23-

Exch. , 4 3 2 F .3 d 1 1 1 4 , 1 1 2 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), an d w ill a ffirm its d e c isio n o n lyif t he r ecor d “s how [s ] t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand that t he movi ng pa r t yi s e nt i t l e d t o a j ud gmen ta s a mat t e rof l a w . ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 5 6 (c ). In re v iew in g th e re c o rd , “w e m u st v iew th e e v id e n c e a n d d ra w re a so n a b le i nfer ence s t her efr om i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he nonmovi ng par t y . ” B r yant , 432 F. 3d at1124. In g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t in O K ’s fa v o r, th e D istric t C o u rt h e ld : T o pr ove monopol ypow ert ypi cal l yr equi r es t he w i l ful acqui s i t i on or m ai nt enanc e of s uch pow eras di s t i ngui s hed fr om gr ow t h or dev el op m ent as a con sequen ce of a superi or produ ct , bu si ness a c u m e n , o r h isto ric a c c id e n t. M o n o p o lyp o w e r in c lu d e s p o w e r to excl ude compet i t i on. Pl ai nt i ffs have notpr es ent ed evi dence demonst r at i ng entr ybarr i er s orot herci r cumst ance s w hi ch i m pr oper l ypr ecl ude otheri nt egr at or s fr om compet i ng i n t hi s m ar ket w ith d e fe n d a n ts. T h e m e re fa c t th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts a re th e so le i nt egr at ordoes notdemonst r at e an i l l egal m onops ony . M or eover , t he pl ai nt i ffs ar e notcompet i t or s of defendant s . T hus , i nj ur yt o t hem by th e a lleg e d ly“ u n fa ir” c o n tra c t d o e s n o t d e m o n stra te inju ryto c o m p e titio n . ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . T he G r ow er s ar gue thatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed beca us e i ti m pl i ed that( 1) an i nj ur yt o compet i t i on onl yar i s es i n t he cont extof unl aw ful m onopol i zat i on; and ( 2) an i nj ur yt o compet i t i on onl yar i s es w hen a c o m p e tito r i s inju re d . W e agr ee thatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n i t s l egal anal y s i s of w hat con st i tutes a com peti t i ve inj uryun der § 20 2(a) . A s w e no t ed ab ov e, C on gress i ntended t he P S A t o h ave a b roader scope t han t he an t i t rustl aw s. T he an t i t rustI ndeed, w e have r ecogni zed that§ 202( a) focus es on conductand does not 9 re q u ir e p ro o f

o f w ro n g f u l in te n t: “ N o th in g in th e la n g u a g e o f [ § 2 0 2 (a )] . . . r equi r es a s how i ng of w r ongful i nt ent . T o t he contr ary , t he foc us i s s ol el yon t he act s comm i t t ed orom i t t ed. ” Exce lC or p. , 397 F. 3d at1294. -24- re q u ire m e n t th a t m o n o p o lyp o w e r b e a c q u ire d w ill f u llya n d in c lu d e th e p o w e r to excl ude compet i t or s does notappl yi n t he cont extof the PSA . B yhol di ng t hat § 2 0 2 (a) req u ir es p roo f th at a p rac ti ce h as injured o r i s li k elyto injury compet i t i on, w e have notr equi r ed a s how i ng t hatt he defendantengage d i n t he u n fa ir p ra c tice w ith th e in ten t to c a u se th e inju ryo r o th e r u n law f u l effe c t. 9 I ns t ead, t he G r ow er s need onl ypr ove thats peci fi c pr act i ces have the e ffec t of i nj ur i ng compet i t i on orar e l i kel yt o do s o. M or eover , as w e expl ai n bel ow , w hen a n a ly z in g w h e th e r a b u y e r’s “ m o n o p so n y ” p o w e r inju re s c o m p e tit io n , as in th is ca se, th e inq u iryis som ew h at differe n t from the in q u iryinto w h ethe r a se ll er’s m onopol ypow eri nj ur es compet i t i on. T he r ecor d cont ai ns evi dence t hats uppor t s t he G r ow er s ’ cont ent i on t hat O K i s a monopsonyi n t he r el evantr egi onal m ar ket . A m onops onyi s “a c ondi t i on o f th e m a rk e t in w h ic h th e re is b u t o n e b u y e r fo r a p a rt ic u la r c o m m o d ity.” Tel ecorC om m c’ ns , Inc. v. Sw . B el lTel . C o. , 3 0 5 F . 3 d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 3 3 n . 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). B e c a u se th e p o u ltrym a rk e t is v e rtica llyin teg ra ted , if O K i s t he onl yi nt egr at ori n t he ar ea, as t he G r ow er s s ugges t , i tm aycons t i tut e a m onops ony . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s char act er i zat i on of thi s l ogi c as a “non se q u itu r” is th e re fo re in c o rre c t. W e h a v e p re v io u slya c k n o w led g e d th a t aT he dange rof i ncr eas ed cons um erpr i ces i s es peci al l yacut e w hen the 10 m o n o p s o n is t r e s e lls in a m o n o p o liz e d m a rk e t. See P HI L L I P E. A R EED A & H ER B ER T H OV ENKAMP , 3 A NTI TRUS T L AW : A N A N A LYS IS O F A NTI TRUST P R INC I PL ES AN D T HEI R A PP L I C ATI ON § 7 2 0 a n . 1 (20 0 5 ). -25- m on op sonym ayexis tw hen sel l ers are unab l e t o find alt ernat i ve b uy ers and m ust s e ll to a s in g le p u rc h a s e r. Id . at1135–36. Fur t herm or e, w e have acknow l edged that , l i ke a monopol y , a monopsony c a n th re a te n c o m p e titio n . Id. at1135 ( “Econom i s t s . . . have l ong r ecogni zed that m arketi neff

i ci enci es cr eat ed byant i compet i t i ve r es t r ai nt s on i nputm ar ket s can b e a s d e stru c tiv e o f

a f re e m a rk e t ec o n o m y(a n d th e re fo re u lti m a telyd a m a g in g to cons um er s ) as r es t r ai nt s on outputm ar ket s . ”) . A ccor di ng t o economi s t s , w i t hout com peti t i on from otherbu y ers , a m on op sonis tw i l l l ow er pr i ces pai d to sel l ers , w h ich o v er ti m e resu lt s in h igh er co n su m er p ri ce s. In o ther w o rds, a p o u ltry 10 p roc esso r w ith m o n o p so n yp o w er c an fix an d m an ipu lat e p ri ce s resu lt ing in injury t o b o t h p o u l t r yp r o d u c e r s ( i . e . , g r o w e r s ) a n d e n d - u s e r s ( i . e . , c o n s u m e r s ) . We expl ai ned w hydepr es s i on of pr i ces pot ent i al l yi nj ur es bot h pr oducer s and cons um er s i n Tel ecor : “S om e produ cers w i l l ei t her produ ce l ess orcease pr oduct i on al t ogether , r es ul t i ng i n l es s - t han- opt i m al outputof the pr oductor s ervi ce, and overt he l ong run hi ghercons um erpr i ces , r educe d pr oductqual i t y , or s ubs t i tut i on of l es s eff i ci ental t ernat i ve pr oduct s . ” Id. a t 1 1 3 6 . I n addi t i on, i n t he vert i cal l yi nt egr at ed poul t r ym ar ket , a pr oces s orw i t h a m onops onyneed notw ai tforpoul t r ygr ow er s t o pr oduce l es s t o i ncr eas e pr i ces-26-

o n th e w h o le s a le m a rk e t b e c a u s e th e p ro c e s s o r a ls o c o n tr o ls th e g ro w e rs ’ s u p p ly. Itm aysi m plydeli ver few er chi cks t o the grow ers , payt hem t he sam e l ow pri ces, and r es el l att he s ame ora hi gherpr i ce. W hen thi s happens , bot h t he gr ow er s and t he en d-user s ar e adv ers el yaffected. T hat i s, bym anipul at i ng pri ces t o sup pli ers , a m o n o p s o n is t th re a te n s to inju re th e e n d -u s e rs . Id . a t 1 1 3 6 (“ [ M ]o n o p so n ies fa ll u n d e r a n titru st p u rv iew b e c a u se m o n o p so n istic p ra c tice s w ill e v e n tu a llya d v e rse ly a ffe c t co n su m e rs.” ); i d. at1134 ( “Tent h C i r cui tcas e l aw . . . r ej ect [s ] t he not i on th a t a m o n o p so n yp lain tiff m u st p ro v e e n d -u se r im p a c t.”); se e a lso Ma n d e v ill e I s l and Far m s v. A m . C r ys t alSugarC o. , 334 U . S. 219, 235 ( 1948) ( hol di ng t hat s ugarbeetgr ow er s had s t at ed a va l i d m onops onycl ai m undert he Sherm an A ct even though t heydi d notal l ege e nd- us eri m pact ) . H ence , t o es t abl i s h t hatt he p ra c tic e s o f

a m o n o p s o n is t h a v e inju re d o r a re lik e ly to inju re c o m p e titio n , a pl ai nt i ff doe s nothave t o be a c om pet i t orof the buy erordemonst r at e thatt he bu y er has i m properl yexcluded othercom peti t ors. Inst ead, the p l ai nti ff m ust s how t hatt he monopsoni s t ’ s pr act i ces have c aus ed orar e l i kel yt o caus e the an ti co m p eti ti v e e ffec t asso ciated w ith m o n o p so n ies, n am elythe a rbit rary m ani pul at i on of m arketpr i ces byuni l at er al l ydepr es s i ng s el l erpr i ces on t he i nput m a rk e t w ith th e e ffe c t (o r lik e lye ffe c t) o f in c re a sin g p ric e s o n th e o u tp u t m a rk e t. A s w e n o ted a b o v e, sho rt lyaf ter th e P S A ’s pa ssag e, th e S u p rem e C o u rt i dent i fi ed thes e veryharm s as t he r eas on C ongr es s pas s ed the A ct : t he “‘ chi ef evi l ’ ” C ongr es s s oughtt o pr eventw as “‘ t he monopol yof the pac ker s , enabl i ng-27-

th e m u n d u lya n d a rb itrar ilyto lo w e r p ric e s to th e sh ip p e r w h o se lls, an d u n d u ly and arbi t r ar i l yt o i ncr eas e the pr i ce t o t he cons um erw ho buy s . ’ ” Mahon v. Stow ers , 416 U . S. 100, 106 ( 1974) ( quot i ng St af f or d v. Wal l ace , 258 U . S. 495, 5 1 4

– 1 5 (19 2 2 )); s ee als o Sw i f t& Co. v. Uni t ed Stat es , 3 9 3 F . 2 d 2 4 7 , 2 5 4 (7th C ir . 1 9 6 8 ) (“ T h e lac k o f

c o m p e tit io n b e tw e e n b u y e rs, w ith th e a tten d a n t p o ss ib le depr es s i on of pr oducer s ’ pr i ces , w as one of the evi l s atw hi ch the Packe r s and S to c k y a rd s A c t w a s d ire c ted .”); B r u h n ’s Fr e ez e rMe a ts o f Ch i c a g o , In c . v . USDA , 438 F. 2d 1332, 1337 ( 8t h C i r . 1971) ( not i ng one of the purpos es of the PSA w as “t o as s ur e fa i rt r ade pr act i ces i n t he l i ves t ock mar ket i ng and meat - packi ng i ndus t r yi n or dert o s afe guar d farm er s and r anche r s agai ns tr ece i vi ng l es s t han the tru e m a rk e t v a lu e o f

th e ir live sto c k ” ). A lth o u g h C o n g re ss d id n o t in ten d to

“‘ ups ett he tr adi t i onal pr i nci pl es of fr eedom of contr act , ’ ” s ee Pi cke t tv. Tys on Fr es h Meats , Inc . , 420 F. 3d 1272, 1280 ( 11t h C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng Jacks on , 53 F . 3d at14 58 ), i tdid i ntend t o p reventt ho se pract i ces that faci l i t at e t he p ackers’ arbi t r arym ani pul at i on of pr i ces and compl et e s ubver s i on of nor m al m ar ket forces. A lth o u g h o ther c ir cu it s h av e n o ted th at su p p lyco n tr ac ts be tw ee n p rod u ce rs and pr oces s or s of l i ves t ock ca n i ncr eas e effi ci ency , t heyt end t o focus on t he b e n e fits to th e p ro c e s s o r, r a th e r t h a n th e m a rk e t a s a w h o le . See P ick e tt , 420 F. 3d at1283 ( “[B]e i ng abl e t o keep i t s pr oces s i ng pl ant s oper at i ng atcapa ci t yhas in c re a se d [ th e p ro c e ss o r’s ] e fficie n c y .”); I B P , Inc. , 187 F. 3d at978 ( concl udi ngA l t hough t hi s cas e does noti nvol ve hor i zont al pr i ce- fi xi ng bya gr oup of 11 buy er s , O K ’ s al l eged pr act i ces m ani pul at e the mar keti n a s i m i l arfas hi on: “[M ] arketm ani pul at i on i n i t s var i ous m ani fes t at i ons i s i m pl i ci t l yan art i fi ci al stim u lu s a p p lied to (o r a t ti m e s a b ra k e o n ) m a rk e t p ric e s, a fo rc e w h ich d isto rts t hos e pr i ces , a fa ct orw hi ch pr event s t he det er m i nat i on of thos e pr i ces byfr ee compet i t i on al one. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Socony- Vacuum O i lC o. , 310 U . S. 150, 223 ( 1940) ( expl ai ni ng pr i ce- fi xi ng as a form of m ar ketm ani pul at i on) . L i ke i l l egal p ric e -fix in g a g re e m e n ts, a m o n o p so n ist’s u se o f su p p lyc o n tra c ts to m a n ip u late t he mar ketpos es t he r i s k t hatpr i ces w i l l be det er m i ned byar t i fi ci al , r athert han m arket , forces. -28- t hatt he t erm s of the contr act s al l ow ed the pr oces s or“t o have a m or e r el i abl e and e fficie n t m e th o d o f

o b tain in g a su p p lyo f c a ttl e ” ). B u t ev e n if

su p p lyc o n tra c ts i ncr eas e a pr oces s or ’ s eff i ci ency , t heym ayt hr eat en the effi ci encyof the r el evant m arketw hen a monopsonyi s abl e t o m ani pul at e the mar ketbydepr es s i ng p ro d u c e rs’ p ric e s a n d in c re a sin g re sa le p ric e s. H e n c e , to d e m o n stra te th a t a 11 m onops oni s thas engage d i n “unfa i rpr act i ces ” under§ 202( a) , a s el l erm us ts how t hatt he buy er ’ s pr act i ces t hr eat en t o i nj ur e compet i t i on byarbi t r ar i l ydecr eas i ng p ri c e s p a id to s e lle rs w ith th e lik e ly effe c t o f in c re a s in g re s a le p ri c e s . A ft err evi ew i ng t he r ecor d i n t he ca s e befor e us , w e fi nd t hata genui ne iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t ex ists a s to w h e th e r O K e n g a g e d in u n fa ir p ra c tice s in vi ol at i on of § 202( a) . I n par t i cul ar , w e not e thatt he r ecor d cont ai ns evi dence of t he cl as s i c monopsonyi nj ur y , namel yt hatO K i s depr es s i ng t he pr i ces i tpay s t he G r ow er s and r es el l i ng ati nfl at ed pr i ces . I f O K does notcompet e w i t h ot her b u y e rs a n d c o m p lete lyc o n tro ls th e su p p lyto its g ro w e rs, it m a yb e a b le to m an ipu lat e p ri ce s b yco n tr o ll ing su p p lyan d d em an d . T h e re co rd c o n tai n s ex p ertI n acknow l edgi ng t hatan i ns ur ercoul d us e i t s m ar ketpow ert o “kee p 12 pr i ces dow n, ” the courti n Ka rte lln o ted th a t th e lo w e r p ric e s th e in su re r p a id doct or s fort hei rs ervi ces di d notr es ul ti n hi ghercons um erpr i ces , 749 F. 2d at 930–31, and thatbot h par t i es “s i ton oppos i t e s i des of the bar gai ni ng t abl e, ” i d. at 929 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . W e ar e conf r ont ed w i t h a pot ent i al l ydi ffe r ent arran g em en t i n the c ase b efo re u s. T h e re co rd c o n tai n s ev iden ce that O K ’s (c o n tin u e d ...) -29- tes tim o n yid e n tify in g sp e c ific p ra c tice s th a t ar e lik e lyto inju re c o m p e tit io n in t hi s w ay . Forexampl e, w hen w hol es al e pr i ces ar e w eak, O K del ay s del i veryof chi cks t o gr ow er s , t her ebydecr eas i ng t he pr oduct i on of br oi l er s bygr ow er s and c a u sin g p ric e s to rise o n th e w h o les a le m a rk e t (w h ich e v e n tu a llya d v e rse lya ffe c ts cons um er s ) . G r ow er s ar e al s o adver s el yaffect ed bec aus e theypr oduce ( and t her efor e s el l ) few erchi ckens . Fur t herm or e, t he r ecor d cont ai ns evi dence t hatt he G r ow er s ar e pai d t he s ame underO K ’ s pr i ci ng s y s t em duri ng per i ods of r educe d p ro d u c tio n a s th e ya re d u ri n g p e ri o d s o f a v e ra g e a n d a b o v e a v e ra g e p ro d u c tio n . I n ot herw or ds , O K can de ci de t o r educe pr oduct i on ( t o r eap the bene fi t s of hi gher pr i ces on t he w hol es al e mar ket ) , buti tdoes nothave t o payi t s gr ow er s t he hi gher p ri c e s th a t a re d u c tio n in s u p p ly w o u ld d e m a n d in a c o m p e titiv e m a rk e t. W e a re n o t su g g e stin g th a t u n c o m p e tit iv e p ric e s a lo n e a re u n law f u l. C o u rts h av e ro u ti n elyn o ted th at, sh o rto f p red atoryp ri cing , a m o n o p o li st’ s u n c o m p e titiv e p ri c e s d o n o t v io la te a n titr u s t la w s . See, e. g. , Kar t el lv. B l ue Shi eld of

Mas s . , Inc. , 749 F. 2d 922, 927 ( 1s tC i r . 1984) ( “O r di nar i l y. . . even a m onopol i s ti s fr ee t o expl oi tw hat everm ar ketpow eri tm aypos s es s w hen that expl oi t at i on t akes t he for m of char gi ng uncompet i t i ve pr i ces . ”) . B uti f a 12( . . . cont i nued) 12 p ra c tice s a re lik e lyto in c re a se e n d -u se r p ric e s. M o re o v e r, th e su p p lyc o n tra c ts w i t h t he G r ow er s gi ve O K compl et e contr ol overt he i nputm ar ket( i . e. , t he c h i c k e n s a v a i l a b l e t o O K fo rp u r c h a s e ) , l e a v i n g t h e g r o w e r s w i t h l i t t l e , i f a n y, abi l i t yt o bar gai n. -30- m o n o p so n ist ’s un co m p eti ti v e p ri ce s are a re su ltn o t solelyo f it s m ark et po w er, b u t als o o f

p ra c tice s th a t re su lt i n c o m p lete c o n tro l o f th e in p u t (su p p ly ) m a rk e t, th e e ffe c t o f

th e m o n o p s o n is t’ s p ra c tic e s m a yb e a n inju ry to c o m p e titio n . M o re o v e r, alth o u g h P S A c laim s a g a in st p ro c e ss o rs fo r p ra c tice s a ss o c iate d w ith su p p lyc o n tra c ts h a v e n o t enjo y e d m u c h su c c e ss , the se c a se s a re fa c tu a lly d iffe re n t f

ro m th e o n e b e fo re u s . See P ick e tt , 4 2 0 F .3 d 1 2 7 2 ; I B P , Inc. , 187 F. 3d 974. Forexampl e, t he pr oducer s i n t hes e ca s es di d notal l ege the exi s t ence of a m o n o p so n y . In a d d iti o n , the su p p lyc o n tra c ts g u a ra n tee d p ro d u c e rs a p ric e tied to m arketpr i ces , and over al l , t he arr angement s cr eat ed i ncent i ves and effi ci enci es th a t b e n e fitte d c o n s u m e rs . P ick e tt , 4 2 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 4 (“ [ I] t w a s u n d is p u te d . . . t hatm arket i ng agr eement s ar e a mor e effi ci entm eans forbot h m eatpacke r s and c a ttl e p ro d u c e rs to o p e ra te in th e m a rk e t.”); I B P, Inc. , 187 F. 3d at978 ( expl ai ni ng t hatt he mar ket i ng agr eement s “es s ent i al l yens ur e[] t hatt he pot ent i al forundue or a rb itrar ylo w e rin g o f

p ric e s is e lim in a ted ” ); see also G ri f f i n v. Sm i thfi eld Foo ds, Inc. , 1 8 3 F . S u p p . 2 d 8 2 4 , 8 2 7 (E .D . V a . 2 0 0 2 ) (g ra n tin g su m m a ryju d g m e n t in favorof a de fenda ntpacke rbeca us e the pl ai nt i ff pr oducer s had noti dent i fi ed any sp ec ifi c p rac ti ce s tha t violated the P S A ). W e ther efor e conc l ude that , i f the G r ow er s pr ove thatO K engage d i n t he-31-

arbi t r arypr i ce mani pul at i on des cr i bed above w i t h t he effec torl i kel yeffectof depr es s i ng pr i ces t o t he gr ow er s and r es el l i ng ati ncr eas ed pr i ces , t heym ay es t abl i s h t hatO K engage d i n unfai rpr act i ces i n vi ol at i on of § 202( a) . W e ar e by no m eans s ugges t i ng t hatver t i cal l yi nt egr at ed mar ket s w i l l al w ay s vi ol at e the P S A . R a th e r, w e h o ld th a t § 2 0 2 (a ) is v io late d w h e n a m o n o p so n ist e n g a g e s in sp e c ific p ra c tice s th a t re su lt i n o r a re lik e lyto re su lt i n th e a n tico m p e tit iv e e ffe c ts th e P S A w a s d e sig n e d to p re v e n t. T o p ro v e a v io latio n , the G ro w e rs m a yn o t re ly o n the s u m total of

v ariou s p rac ti ce s tha t i n d ividu all yare n o t l ikelyto injure co m p eti ti o n , b u t m u st i n stead p rov e tha t spe cific p rac ti ce s h av e c au sed o r are l i k e l y t o c a u s e i nj u r y. C api t olP acki ng C o. , 350 F. 2d at76–77 ( “[S] peci fi ed m e th o d s o f

d e a lin g w h ich a re n o t th e m se lv e s v io latio n s o f th e [ P S A ] c a n n o t, w hen adde d t ogether , become a vi ol at i on. ”) . B eca us e the r ecor d cont ai ns ev iden ce that O K m ayen g ag e in s p ec ifi c p rac ti ce s tha t are li k elyto injure compet i t i on, w e r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favor of O K and r emand forfur t hercons i der at i on i n l i ghtof thi s opi ni on. 4. D i s coveryR ul i ng Fol l ow i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s adver s e rul i ng on t hei rPSA cl ai m , t he G r ow er s m oved the courtt o r eopen di s coveryfort he l i m i t ed purpos e of di s cover i ng i nfor m at i on r egar di ng t he l i kel i hood of an i nj uryt o compet i t i on. T he D i stri ctC ou rtden i ed the m oti on . T he G row ers argue t hat, becau se of t he fir st ju d g e ’s r u lin g th a t su c h p ro o f is n o t re q u ire d a n d b e c a u se d isc o v e ryh a d c lo se d inA t th is ju n c tu re , w e w o u ld lik e to n o te th a t b o th p a rties flo u ted th e ir d u ty 13 u n d er this C ir cu it ’s rules to inc lud e in th e re co rd th e re leva n t m o ti o n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t, s u p p o rt in g b ri e f, a n d re s p o n s e . See 10t h C i r . R . 10. 3( D ) ( 2) . T hough we a r e n o tr e q u i r e d t o d o s o , we h a v e o b t a i n e d c o p i e s o f t h e d o c u me n t s . Bu twe a d v ise th a t in th e f

u tu re th e p a rties d ili g e n tlya d h e re to th e ru les o f th e C irc u it i f th e yw is h to a v o id u n w ittin g ly w a iv in g a rg u m e n ts . -32- th e in te ri m , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt e rr e d in re f u s in g to re o p e n d is c o v e ry. W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o r eopen di s coveryforan a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . SI

L- FLO , Inc. v. SFH C, Inc. , 9 1 7 F . 2 d 1 5 0 7 , 1 5 1 4 (10 th C ir . 19 90 ). “U nd er this st and ard, a t ri al cou rt ’s decis i on w i l l no tbe d i sturbed u nles s t he appe l l at e courthas a def i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on t hatt he l ow ercour tm ade a cl earerr orof j udgm entorexce eded the bounds of perm i s s i bl e choi ce i n t he ci r cumst ance s . ” Id. (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). W h e n O K m o v e d fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th e G ro w e rs’ P S A c laim , it expl i ci t l y r e- r ai s ed t he i s s ue i n di s put e. T he G r ow er s t her efor e had fai rw arni ng 13 t hatt he i s s ue w as back on the t abl e forr es ol ut i on. I n fac t , t heyaddr es s ed the argum ent i n thei r r espon se t o O K ’s m oti on . T heyargued t hat the law of the case bound t he courtt o t he pr i orrul i ng, butthati n anyeventt heyhad pr es ent ed su fficie n t ev id e n c e o f a n inju ryto c o m p e tit io n to w ith sta n d su m m a ryju d g m e n t. O n lyw h en the D istri ct C o u rtd isag ree d w ith b o th p rop o sit ion s d id the G row ers se e k to re o p e n d isc o v e ry , arg u in g th a t th e yd id n o t h a v e a n o p p o rtu n ityto d is c o v e r t h e re le v a n t in fo rm a tio n . “[ T ]he S u p rem e C o u rth as h eld th at, u n d er F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (f), ‘sum m ary-33-

j udgm ent[s houl d] be r efus ed w her e the nonmovi ng par t yhas nothad the oppor tuni t yt o di s coveri nfor m at i on t hati s es s ent i al t o hi s oppos i t i on. ’ ” D r ei l i ng v. P eugeotMot ors of

A m . , Inc. , 850 F. 2d 1373, 1376 ( 10t h C i r . 1988) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng A nders on v. Li ber t y Lobby, Inc. , 4 7 7 U .S . 2 4 2 , 2 5 0 n .5 ( 1986) ) . R ul e 56( f) ’ s pr ot ect i on i s notabs ol ut e, how ever , as i t s pr ot ect i on “ar i s es onl yi f the nonmovi ng par t yfi l es an affi davi texpl ai ni ng w hyhe ors he ca nnot pr es entfac t s t o oppos e the mot i on. ” Id. T o b e n e fit fro m th e ru le, a p a rty“ a t a m i ni m um m us tas k t he courtt o r efr ai n fr om act i ng on t he s um m aryj udgm ent r eques tunt i l addi t i onal di s coverycan be conduct ed. ” C . B . Truc ki ng, Inc. v. Was t e M gm t . , Inc. , 1 3 7 F .3 d 4 1 , 4 4 (1 st C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); s ee als o A l l en v. Sybas e, Inc. , 4 6 8 F .3 d 6 4 2 , 6 6 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (c o n c lu d in g th a t a p a rty ’s “ fo o tn o te r e q u e st in its [ re sp o n se ] b rie f

fo r a d d iti o n a l d isc o v e rytim e d o e s n o t p a ss m u ste r u n d e r ru le 56( f) ”) . “[A ] par t yor di nar i l ym aynotat t empt t o m eeta s um m aryj udgm ent chal l enge he ad- on butfal l back on Rul e 56( f) i f i t s fi r s teffor ti s uns ucce s s ful . ” C . B . Truc ki ng , Inc. , 137 F. 3d at44. T he G r ow er s , w i t h ful l know l edge thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tw oul d be r e- eval uat i ng t he compet i t i ve i nj ur yr equi r ementunder § 202( a) , t ook no s t eps t o r eques tt i m e foraddi t i onal di s covery ; nordi d t heyt ake ste p s to f

u lfill th e re q u ire m e n ts o f R u le 5 6 (f). In su c h a c a se , w e a re n o t lef t w ith a “de fi ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on t hatt he l ow ercour tm ade a cl earerr orof j udgm entorexce eded the bounds of perm i s s i bl e choi ce i n t he ci r cumst ance s . ” SI L- FLO , Inc. , 917 F. 2d at1514 ( 10t h C i r . 1990) . W e not e, how ever , t haton-34-

re m a n d th e p a rties m a yse e k to re o p e n d isc o v e ry , an d th e D istric t C o u rt m a y , in i t s di scr et i on , grantsuch requ est s. B . T h e G ro w e rs’ U n c o n sc io n a b ili tyC laim T he G r ow er s cl ai m t hatt he br oi l ercontr acti s uncons ci onabl e bec aus e of th e g ro ss im b a lan c e o f o b lig a tio n b o rn e b yg ro w e rs. F o r e x a m p le, th e yp o in t to t he fa ctt hatt he contr actguar ant ees onl ya s i ngl e fl ock of c hi cks al t hough a gr ow erm us tr ai s e br oi l er s foratl eas tfi ft een y ear s t o r ecoup i t s i nves t m ent . T hey al s o not e thatO K i s notobl i gat ed t o pl ace a mi ni m um num berof chi cks orfl ocks w i t h eac h gr ow er , and gr ow er s ar e obl i gat ed t o m ake i m pr ovement s t o chi cken h o u s e s b e fo re O K w ill p la c e a d d itio n a l flo c k s w ith th e m . W e m u st first a d d re ss a th re sh o ld c h o ice -o f-la w q u e stio n . B e g in n in g in 1997, O K ’ s br oi l ercontr act s i ncl uded a c hoi ce- of- l aw pr ovi s i on, des i gnat i ng t he l aw of A r kans as as t he governi ng l aw . C ons equent l y , i n i t s or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm ent , t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatO kl ahoma l aw governed the pr e1 9 9 7 c o n tr a c ts a n d A rk a n s a s la w g o v e rn e d th e c o n tr a c ts e n te re d in to th e re a f te r. T o deci de the effec tof the contr actual choi ce- of- l aw cl aus e, w e l ook t o t he fo ru m s ta te ’s c h o ic e -o f-l a w ru le s . S e e Da n gv . UN UM L i f e In s . Co . o

f A m. , 175 F . 3 d 1 1 8 6 , 1 1 9 0 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( “ A fe d e r a l c o u r ta dj u d i c a t i n g s t a t e l a w c l a i ms mu s ta p p l yt h e fo ru m s t a t e ’ s c h o i c e o f l a w p r i n c i p l e s . ” ) . Un d e rOk l a h o ma l a w, “a c ont r actw i l l be governed byt he l aw s of the s t at e w her e the contr actw as e n ter e d in to u n les s o th e rw ise a g re e d a n d u n les s c o n tra ryto th e law o r p u b lic-35-

pol i cyof the s t at e w her e enfor cementof the contr acti s s ought . ” Wi l l i am s v. Shears on Lehm an B r os . , Inc. , 9 1 7 P .2 d 9 9 8 , 1 0 0 2 (O k la . C iv . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ). B e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e G ro w e rs’ u n c o n sc io n a b ili tyc laim fa ils u n d e r b o th O kl ahoma and A r kans as l aw , w e nee d notdeci de w hethert he appl i cat i on of A r kans as l aw w oul d be contr aryt o O kl ahoma’ s l aw orpubl i c pol i cy . I n r eac hi ng th is d e c is io n , w e re v ie w th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s in te rp re ta tio n o f s ta te la w d e n o v o . S tein e r C o rp . v. Jo h n so n & Higg in s o f C a l. , 135 F. 3d 684, 690 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) ( ci t i ng Sa lve R eg in a C o lleg e v . R u ss e ll , 4 9 9 U . S . 2 2 5 (19 9 1 )). A s an i ni t i al m at t er , t he O kl ahoma Supre m e C our thas neveraddr es s ed w hetherO kl ahoma com m on l aw w oul d r ecogni ze a n aff i r m at i ve ca us e of a ct i on see k ing d am ag es fo r un co n scio n ab il ityin co n tr ac t. N ev erthe less, O k laho m a’s uncons ci onabi l i t ys t andar d i s s o oner ous t hatt he G r ow er s cannotm eett hat s t andar d her e. A n uncons ci onabl e contr acti s one i n w hi ch, “att he t i m e of m aki ng of the contr act , and i n l i ghtof the gene r al comm er ci al backgr ound and comm er ci al needs of a pa r t i cul arcas e, cl aus es ar e s o one- s i ded as t o oppr es s or unfai r l ys urpr i s e one of t he part i es . ” B a rn e s v . He lfen b e in , 548 P. 2d 1014, 1020 ( O kl a. 1976) . “U ncons ci onabi l i t yhas gener al l ybeen r ecogni zed t o i ncl ude an a b se n c e o f

m e a n in g f

u l ch o ice o n th e p a rt o f o n e o f th e p a rties , tog e th e r w ith contr actual t erm s w hi ch ar e unr eas onabl yfavor abl e t o t he otherpar t y . ” Id. W h e th e r th e G ro w e rs la c k e d a n ym e a n in g f u l ch o ice is d e ter m in e d b y“ ‘a ll t he ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t he tr ans act i on. ’ ” Id. at1020 n. 12 ( quot i ng-36-

Wi l l i am s v. Walker

- Thom as Fur ni t ur e C o. , 3 5 0 F . 2 d 4 4 5 , 4 4 9

– 5 0 (D . C . C ir . 1 9 6 5 )). R e lev a n t fa c to rs in c lu d e w h e th e r th e a g g rie v e d p a rtyh a d a re a so n a b le oppor tuni t yt o under s t and the t erm s of the contr actand w hethert he i m por t ant t erm s w er e hi dden “i n a maze of f i ne pr i nt ” orw er e “mi ni m i zed bydece pt i ve s al es pr act i ces . ” Id. ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . G ener al l y , “one w ho s i gns an agreem ent w i t ho ut ful l kn ow l edg e of it s t erm s m i gh tbe h el d to ass um e t he ri sk t hathe has ent er ed a one - s i ded bar gai n. ” Id. ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . O n t he other h a n d , if th e re is a g ro ss in e q u a lityo f b a rg a in in g p o w e r a n d th e a g g rie v e d p a rty sig n s a “ c o m m e rc iallyu n re a so n a b le c o n tra c t w ith little o r n o k n o w led g e o f its ter m s, it is h a rd lylik e lyth a t h is c o n se n t, or e v e n a n o bjec tiv e m a n ife sta tio n o f h is cons ent , w as evergi ven t o al l t he t er m s . ” Id . (qu o tat ion o m itted). S im il ar p ri n ciples a p p lyin A rka n sas. In a sses sing w h ethe r a c o n tr ac t or a par t i cul arpr ovi s i on i s uncons ci onabl e, t he courtm us t“r evi ew t he t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t he negot i at i on and exe cut i on of the contr act , ” t aki ng i nt o cons i der at i on “w hethert her e i s a gr os s i nequal i t yof bar gai ni ng pow er betw een the part i es and w hethert he aggr i eved pa r t yw as m ade a w ar e of a nd compre hended the pr ovi s i on i n ques t i on. ” Jor dan , 2 0 7 S .W .3 d a t 5 3 5 . Im p o rta n tly , h o w e v e r, “it is [ g e n e ra lly ] n o t th e p ro v in c e o f th e c o u rts to s crut i ni ze a l l contr act s w i t h a pat ernal i s t i c att i tude and s um m ar i l yconcl ude that th e ya re p a rtiallyo r to tallyu n e n fo rc e a b le m e re lyb e c a u se a n a g g rie v e d p a rty bel i eves t hatt he contr acthas s ubs equent l ypr oved t o be unfa i rorl es s benef i ci al-37-

t han ant i ci pat ed. ” A s s oc. P r es s v. S. A rk. R adi o C o. , 809 S. W . 2d 695, 697 ( A r k. C t . A pp. 1991) ( quot at i on and al t er at i on om i t t ed) . I ndeed, i n A r kans as , “part i es ar e fr ee t o m ake c ont r act s bas ed on w hat evert er m s and condi t i ons t heyagr ee upon, pr ovi ded i ti s noti l l egal ort ai nt ed w i t h s om e i nfi r m i t ys uch as fr aud, overr eac hi ng, ort he l i ke. ” Hancockv. Tri - St at e Ins . C o. , 858 S. W . 2d 152, 154 (A rk. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) (en b an c). N o n e o f th ese circu m stan ce s are p rese n t here . A lth o u g h the D istri ct C o u rt re c o g n ize d th e p o ten tial fo r so m e in e q u a lityo f b a rg a in in g p o w e r, itw a s n o t a “gr os s i nequal i t yof bar gai ni ng pow er . ” The cour tnot ed thatthe ava i l abi l i t yof t he b roi l er cont ract s i s w el l -know n in the regi on and has prod uced a w ai t i ng l i st o f p e o p le w h o w ish to b e c o m e g ro w e rs u n d e r th e c o n tra c t— a c o n tra c t w h ich is a v a i l a b l e fo rr e v i e w p r i o rt o e n g a g i n g i n t h e c a p i t a l i n v e s t me n tn e e d e d t o b e c o me a g ro w e r. T he G r ow er s ar gue thatt he i nequal i t yof bar gai ni ng pow ers houl d notbe det erm i ned byr efe r ence t o t he ava i l abi l i t yof contr act s and the fa ctt hatm any p eo p le w an t t o b ec o m e a g row er fo r O K . R athe r, theysu g g est t h at th e c o u rt cons i derw hethert heyl acke d anym eani ngful choi ce a s t o t he t erm s of the contr actand w hethert heyhad an a l t ernat i ve s our ce forobt ai ni ng t he des i r ed serv ice o r pro d u ct. A lth o u g h A rka n sas c ase law d o es su g g est t h at th ese are re le v a n t c o n s id e ra tio n s , s ee Nat ’ lUni on F i r e Ins . C o. of P i t ts burgh v. G uar dtr oni c, Inc. , 6 4 S . W . 3 d 7 7 9 , 7 8 3

– 8 4 (A rk. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ), the G row ers a re-38-

i n c o r r e c ti n d i s mi s s i n g t h e fa c tt h a tt h e yi n i t i a t e d t h e c o n t r a c t i n g p r o c e s s wi t h OK (i .e ., O K d id n o t s o lic it th e irb u s in e s s ) a s ir re le v a n t to th e a n a lysis . I n Jor dan , t he pl ai nt i ff w as a l ands cape rw ho r ent ed l ar ge equi pm entfr om th e d e fe n d a n t. 20 7 S .W .3 d a t 5 2 8 . T h e re n tal a g re e m e n t co n tain e d a b o ilerp late p r o v i s i o n e x c u s i n g t h e d e fe n d a n tf r o m l i a b i l i t yfo rt h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f i t s o wn n e g lig e n c e in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e re n ta l o f th e e q u ip m e n t. Id. at531–32. A ft er the p lai n ti ff

w as injured b ythe e q u ipm en t, h e su ed , arg u ing that the e x cu lpato ry c l a u s e wa s u n c o n s c i o n a b l e a n d t h e r e fo r e u n e n fo r c e a b l e . Th e Ar k a n s a s S u p r e me C our tdi s agr eed. T he courtfound no evi dence of a “ gr os s i nequal i t yof bar gai ni ng pow er ” w hen the pl ai nt i ff “ s oughtoutt he s er vi ces ” of the defendant and “pa i d fort he r ent al equi pm entaft erbei ng s how n how t o oper at e i t . ” Id. at 5 3 6 ; s ee als o B ar nes , 548 P. 2d at1021 ( appl y i ng O kl ahoma l aw , cour thel d t hat defe ndantdi d notbehave uncons ci onabl yw hen the pl ai nt i ff’ s r epr es ent at i ve s o u g h t o u t th e d e fe n d a n t to e n te r i n to a c o n tr a c t) . Fur t herm or e, t he G r ow er s do nots ugges tt hatt heyar e uns ophi s t i cat ed par t i es unabl e t o eval uat e the r i s ks of the contr actpr i ort o ent er i ng i nt o i t . A nd t heydo nots ugges tt hatt heyfai l ed t o r ead a nd under s t and the t er m s of the c o n tr a c t p ri o r t o e n te ri n g in to it o r e v e n p ri o r t o b u ild in g th e c h ic k e n h o u s e s . A l s o w or t hyof not e i s t hats om e of the named pl ai nt i ffs have be en oper at i ng u n d e r t h is a lle g e d ly “u n c o n s c io n a b le ” c o n tr a c t fo r n e a rl ytw e n ty y e a rs . G ener al l y , “[t ] he fa i r nes s orunfai r nes s , fol l yorw i s dom , ori nequal i t yof-39-

contr act s ar e ques t i ons excl us i vel yw i t hi n t he r i ght s of the part i es t o adj us tatt he t i m e the contr acti s m ade. ” Id . W e ther efor e affi r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f O K o n th e G ro w e rs ’ u n c o n s c io n a b ility c la im . I I I . CO NC L US I ON Sect i on 202( a) of the Packe r s and St ocky ar ds A ctr equi r es a pl ai nt i ff w ho c laim s th a t a d e fe n d a n t’s c o n d u c t w a s “ u n fa ir” to sh o w th a t su c h c o n d u c t re su lts i n ori s l i kel yt o r es ul ti n an i nj ur yt o compet i t i on. B eca us e the r ecor d cont ai ns evidence thatrai ses a genu i ne is sue of m at eri al factcon cerni ng t he G row ers ’ § 2 0 2 (a) claim , w e R E V E R S E the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er g ran ti n g O K su m m ary ju d g m e n t o n th is c laim a n d R E M A N D fo r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is opi ni on. T he G r ow er s have, how ever , fai l ed t o s how t hatt he contr act s ati s s ue ar e uncons ci onabl e unders t at e l aw . A ccor di ngl y , w e A FFIRM t he dec i s i on of the D i stri ctC ou rtgrant i ng sum m aryj ud gm ent i n O K ’s favo r on t he G row ers ’ uncons ci onabi l i t ycl ai m . I n addi t i on, w e A FFIRM t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of th e G ro w e rs’ m o tio n to re o p e n d isc o v e ry , b u t d o so w ith o u t p reju d ice to subsequ ent r equ est s t o reope n d i scoveryon rem and . W e al so den yt he G row ers ’ m o tio n to file a se c o n d su p p lem e n tal a p p e n d ix b e c a u se th e d o c u m e n t th e yse e k to a d d w a s n o t p a rt o f

th e re c o rd b e fo re th e D istric t C o u rt.0 5 -7 0 7 9 , B een v . O . K. Indus tr i es , Inc.

HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udge, concurr i ng/ di s s ent i ng

I j oi n C hi ef J udge Tacha’ s t hor ough and s chol ar l yopi ni on fort he pane l exce ptforPar tI I . A . 2, ent i t l ed “I nt erpr et at i on of ‘ U nfai rPr act i ces ’ under § 202( a) ” and PartI I . A . 3, ent i t l ed, “O K ’ s A l l eged V i ol at i ons of § 202( a) . ” I arr i ve atal m os tt he s ame des t i nat i on r egar di ng s t atut or yi nt erpr et at i on, but t hr ough a r atherdi ffe r entr out e. I n m yvi ew a pr act i ce maybe “unfai r ” under § 202( a) of the Packe r s and St ocky ar ds A ct( PSA ) even though i tcaus es no compet i t i ve i nj ur y . I n i nt erpr et i ng t hatpr ovi s i on w e ow e r es pectt o t he lon g stan d ing v iew o f th e U n it ed S tat es D ep artm en t of A g ri cu ltu re (U S D A ), al t hough I w oul d r eac h t he s ame i nt erpr et at i on even w i t houtr efe r ence t o t hat vi ew . O n t he otherhand, t he maj or i t yopi ni on’ s conce pt i on of competi t i ve i njury , w hi ch I do nots har e, appea r s t o be br oad enough thatm any , perhaps al l , of the pr act i ces t hatcoul d pr oper l ybe l abel ed u n fa irw oul d s at i s fyi t s compet i t i vei nj ur yr equi r ement . Fi nal l y , I w oul d aff i r m the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t hatt he G r ow er s fai l ed t o pr ovi de evi dence s how i ng t hatt he pr act i ces chal l enged on ap p ea l w ere u n fa ir . I . DE F ER EN CE TO T HE US DA T h e d e fe re n c e iss u e in th is c a se is a v e ryin ter e stin g o n e . T h e m ajo rity o p in io n a p p e a rs to a c k n o w led g e th a t w e w o u ld n e e d to g ra n t C hevr on defe r ence t o t h e US DA’ s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f P S A § 2 0 2 ( a ) , 7 U. S . C. § 1 9 2 ( a ) , i f t h e US DA-2-

had “a ut hor i t yt o adj udi cat e al l eged vi ol at i ons of § 202 byl i ve poul t r ydeal er s . ” O p . a t 1 3 . See Chevr on USA , Inc. v. Nat ur alR es . D ef . C ounci l, Inc. , 46 7 U. S. 8 3 7 (1 9 8 4 ) (c o u rt sh o u ld d e fe r in c e rta in c irc u m sta n c e s to a g e n c y ’s r e a so n a b le in ter p re tatio n o f

a m b ig u o u s s tatu to rylan g u a g e ). C e rta in lysu c h d e fe re n c e w o u ld appea rt o be r equi r ed byt he Supr eme C our t ’ s gl os s on C hevr on i n Uni t ed Stat es v. MeadC orp . , 5 3 3 U . S . 2 1 8 , 2 2 6

– 2 7 (20 0 1 ): [A ] dm i ni s t r at i ve i m pl ement at i on of a pa r t i cul ars t atut or ypr ovi s i on q u ali fies fo r C hevr on defe rence w hen i tapp ears t hat C on gress del egat ed author i t yt o t he age ncygener al l yt o m ake rul es carr y i ng t he for ce of

l aw , and thatt he age ncyi nt erpr et at i on cl ai m i ng d e fe re n c e w a s p ro m u lg a te d in th e e x e rc is e o f th a t a u th o ri ty. D el egat i on of s uch author i t ym aybe s how n i n a var i etyof w ay s , as byan age ncy ’ s pow ert o engage i n adj udi cat i on ornot i ce- andc o m m e n t ru lem a k in g , o r b yso m e o th e r in d ica tio n o f a c o m p a ra b le c o n g re s s io n a l in te n t. A s t he maj or i t yopi ni on corr ect l ynot es , t he U SD A does nothave adj udi cat or yauthor i t yover§ 202( a) vi ol at i ons byl i ve- poul t r ydeal er s . T he U S D A d o e s , h o w e v e r, h a v e a u th o ri ty to a dju d ic a te § 2 0 2 (a ) v io la tio n s b yp a c k e rs . See 7 U . S. C . § 193. M os tof the j udi ci al deci s i ons ci t ed byt he maj or i t yopi ni on in v o lv e d p a c k e rs , s ee, e. g. , A r m our& Co. v. Uni t ed Stat es , 4 0 2 F . 2 d 7 1 2 (7th C ir . 1 9 6 8 ); I B P , Inc. v. G l i ckm an , 187 F. 3d 974, 977 ( 8t h C i r . 1999) , s o w e have t he pecul i ars i tuat i on of notgr ant i ng C hevr on defe r ence t o t he U SD A i n t hi s cas e but r el y i ng on cas es i n w hi ch C hevr on d e fe re n c e w o u ld h a v e b e e n p ro p e r. I c o n fe ss to h a v in g n o id e a h o w th e S u p re m e C o u rt w o u ld re so lv e th is conundrum . Per haps i tw oul d avoi d t he i s s ue as I do, byagr eei ng w i t h t he-3-

U SD A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on. B utatt he l eas tI w oul d t hi nk t hatw e ow e r es pectt o t he e x p e ri e n c e a n d e x p e rt is e o f th e U S D A re g a rd in g th e P S A . S e e Sk idm o re v . Sw ift & Co. , 323 U . S. 134, 139–40 ( 1944) . I n t hatr egar d i ti s w or t h not i ng t hat26 y ear s ago a tr eat i s e coul d r epor tt hatt he U SD A “has cons i s t ent l yt aken the p o sitio n th a t in o rd e r to p ro v e th a t a p ra c tice v io late s th e b ro a d p ro h ib iti o n s in § § 2 0 2 (a ) a n d (b ) . . . o f th e [ P S A ], itis n o t n e c e ss a ryto p ro v e p re d a to ryin ten t, c o m p e titiv e inju ry, o r l ik e lih o o d o f inju ry.” 1 J o h n H . D a v id s o n e t a l., A g ric u ltu ra l L a w § 3 .4 7 , at 2 4 4 (1 9 8 1 ). S u c h a lo n g sta n d in g v iew o f a n a g e n c yis e n title d to m o re re s p e c t th a n a n a d h o c litig a tin g p o s itio n . Cf . I NS v. C ar doz aFons eca , 480 U . S. 421, 446 n. 30 ( 1987) ( “A n agenc yi nt erpr et at i on of a r el evant p ro v isio n w h ich c o n flicts w ith th e a g e n c y ’s e a rlier in ter p re tatio n is e n tit led to cons i der abl yl es s defe r ence t han a c ons i s t ent l yhel d agenc yvi ew . ” ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d )) . In a n ye v e n t, ev e n if

th e U S D A h a d n e v e r a d d re ss e d th e m a tter, I w o u ld i n t e rp r e tt h e t e r m unf

ai rpr act i ces as notr equi r i ng compet i t i ve i nj ur y . I am p e r s u a d e d b yt h e S u p r e me Co u r t ’ s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f t h e t e r m unf

ai rpr act i ces in t he Feder al T r ade Com m i s s i on A ct( FT C A ) , t he r el at i ons hi p betw een the PSA and t h a tAc t , a n d a n e a r l yS u p r e me Co u r td e c i s i o n e x p l a i n i n g t h e p u rp o s e o f t h e P S A. I n Feder alTrade C om m is s i on v. Sper r y & Hut chi ns on C o. , 405 U . S. 233 (19 7 2 ), the S u p rem e C o u rtco n stru ed § 5 (a)(6) o f th e F T C A , 1 5 U . S . C . § 4 5 (a)(6), w h ich sta ted in p e rtin e n t p a rt:-4-

T he C om m i ssi on i s em po w ered and dir ect ed to prevent pers on s, par t ner s hi ps , orcorpor at i ons . . . fr om us i ng unfai rm ethods of c o m p e tit io n in c o m m e rc e a n d u n fa ir o r d e c e p tiv e a c ts o r p ra c tice s in comm er ce. ( amended and now r ecodi fi ed as 15 U . S. C . § 45( a) ( 2) ) . T he Feder al T r ade C om m i s s i on ( FT C ) had hel d t hatSper r y& H ut chi ns on ( S& H ) had vi ol at ed the FT C A byat t empt i ng “t o s uppr es s t he oper at i on of tr adi ng s t amp exchanges and ot her‘ fr ee a nd open’ r edempt i on of s t amps. ” Sper r y & Hut chi ns on , 405 U . S. at 2 3 4 . S & H c h a llen g e d th e re su lti n g c e a se -a n d -d e sis t o rd e r, an d th e F if th C irc u it agr eed, hol di ng t hatt he FT C coul d hal tonl yconductt hat“vi ol at ed ei t hert he l et t erort he s pi r i tof the ant i t rus tl aw s . ” Id . at 23 5 . B efo re the S u p rem e C o u rt th e F T C d id n o t d isp u te th a t S & H ’s c o n d u c t v io late d n e ith e r th e lette r n o r sp irit of the ant i t rus tl aw s ; r ather , i tcont ended thati t s author i t yw as notl i m i t ed t o s uch c o n d u c t. Id . at 2 3 9 . T h e C o u rt h e ld th a t th e F T C A “ e m p o w e r[ s] th e [ F T C ] to p rosc ri b e p rac ti ce s as u n fa iro r de ce p ti v e in th eir effec t up o n co n su m ers r egar dl es s of thei rnatur e orqual i t yas compet i t i ve pr act i ces ort hei reffecton compet i t i on. ” Id . T he pr i orhi s t or yof the C our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i ons of § 5( a) ( 6) and Sper r y & Hut chi ns on ’ s comm ent s on t hathi s t or yhave, as w e s hal l s ee, par t i cul ar i m pl i cat i ons fori nt erpr et i ng t he PSA . T he or i gi nal ver s i on of the FT C A , enac t ed i n 1914, di d noti ncl ude the l anguage empow er i ng t he FT C t o pr event“unfa i ror dece pt i ve ac t s orpr act i ces i n comm er ce” ; t he A ctpr ovi ded pow eronl yt o pr event-5-

“un fai r m et ho ds of

compet i t i on in c o m m e rc e .” F e d e ra l T ra d e C o m m iss io n A c t, Pub. L . N o. 63- 203, § 5, 38 St at . 717, 719 ( 1914) ( emphasi s added) . I n 1920 ( t he y earbefor e ena ctm entof the PSA ) t he Supr eme C our t , overt he di s s entof J us t i ce B ra n d e is, o n e o f

th e F T C A ’s d ra f

ter s, a d o p ted a lim iti n g in ter p re tatio n o f “ u n fa ir m etho d s o f c o m p eti ti o n , ” re str ict ing the c o v ere d p rac ti ce s to tho se “ h ere tofo re r egar ded as oppos ed t o good m or al s beca us e cha r act er i zed bydece pt i on, bad fai t h, fr aud oroppr es s i on, oras agai ns tpubl i c pol i cybeca us e of thei rdanger ous t endenc yundul yt o hi ndercompet i t i on orcr eat e monopol y . ” F TCv . G ra ta , 253 U .S . 4 2 1 , 4 2 7 (1 9 2 0 ); s ee Spe r r y & Hut chi ns on , 4 0 5 U .S . at 2 4 1 . L a ter , in Feder alTrade C om m is s i on v. R al adam C o. , 2 8 3 U . S . 6 4 3 , 6 4 9 (19 3 1 ), the C o u rt m ade c l eart hatan unfa i rm ethod m us tbe unfa i rt o compet i t or s . I ts ai d: [T]he w or d ‘ compet i t i on’ i m por t s t he exi s t ence of pr es entor pot ent i al compet i t or s , and the unfa i rm ethods m us tbe s uch as i njur i ou sl yaffect ort end t hu s t o affectt he b usi ness of these compet i t or s — t hati s t o s ay , t he tr aderw hos e met hods ar e as s ai l ed as un fai r m usthav e presentor potent i al ri vals i n tr ade w ho se busi ness w i l l be, ori s l i kel yt o be, l es s ened orot herw i s e i nj ur ed. T hr ee y ear s l at er , how ever , t he Supr eme C our tchange d cour s e i n Feder al Trade C om m is s i on v. R . F. Keppel& Bro. , Inc. , 2 9 1 U. S . 3 0 4 ( 1 9 3 4 ) . As expl ai ned i n Sper r

y & Hut chi ns on , 405 U . S. at242–43, t he C our ti n Keppel uphel d an FT C cea s e- and- des i s tor deragai ns ta ca ndym arket i ng s cheme on t he g ro u n d th a t it“ c o n tra v e n e d p u b lic p o licyin so fa r a s it tem p ted c h ild re n to g a m b le and compel l ed thos e w ho w oul d s ucce s s ful l ycompet e w i t h K eppel t o abandon-6-

t hei rs crupl es bys i m i l ar l yt empt i ng chi l dr en. ” The m ar ket i ng s cheme “w as

‘ unfai r , ’ t hough anycompet i t orcoul d m ai nt ai n hi s pos i t i on s i m pl ybyadopt i ng t he cha l l enged pr act i ce. ” Id . a t 2 4 3 . Sper r y & Hut chi ns on c o n c lu d e d its s um m aryof Keppelas fo ll o w s: “T h en ce fo rth , u n fa irco m p eti ti v e p rac ti ce s w ere notl i m i t ed t o t hos e l i kel yt o have a nt i compet i t i ve cons equenc es aft ert he manner o f th e a n titru st la w ; n o r w e re u n fa ir p ra c tice s in c o m m e rc e c o n fin e d to p u re ly compet i t i ve beha vi or . ” Id . at244. T he C our tt hen not ed thatt he Keppel deci s i on’ s “per s pect i ve” of t he FT C A “w as l egi s l at i vel yconfi r m ed” i n 1938 w hen C ongr es s amended t he A ctbyaddi ng t he phr as e “unfai rordece pt i ve ac t s or pr act i ces ” t o t he or i gi nal ban on “unfai rm ethods of compet i t i on. ” Id . at244 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T he C our tt houghtt hatt he l anguage unf ai ror dece pt i ve ac ts orpr act i ces c le a rl yd id n o t r e q u ir e a n tic o m p e titiv e c o n d u c t. See id . T o re tu rn to th e P S A , the o rig in a l 1 9 2 1 lan g u a g e o f § 2 0 2 (a ) m a d e it unl aw ful t o “Engage i n orus e anyunfai r , unj us t l ydi s cr i m i nat or y , ordece pt i ve pr act i ce ordevi ce i n comm er ce. ” Pub. L . N o. 67- 51, § 202, 42 St at . 161. T he l anguage “unfa i r. . . pr act i ce . . . i n comm er ce” i s t he veryl anguage cons t rued by Sper r y & Hut chi ns on as notr equi r i ng an “e ffe cton compet i t i on. ” 405 U . S. at 239. M or eover , t he l anguage i s par tof the s ame l anguage i n t he 1938 a m e n d m e n ts to th e F T C A th a t Sper r y & Hut chi ns on d esc ri b ed as “ co n firm [in g ]”-7-

t he Keppelv iew th a t u n fa ir p ra c tice s u n d e r th e F T C A w e re n o t “c o n fin e d to pur el ycompet i t i ve beha vi or . ” Id . a t 2 4 4 . P a rticu lar lyn o tew o rth yis th a t th e lan g u a g e o f P S A § 2 0 2 (a ) m o re c lea rly o m its a c o m p e tit iv e -e ffe c t re q u ire m e n t th a n d o e s th e F T C A lan g u a g e c o n stru e d in Keppel . Sect i on 202( a) does noti ncl ude the phr as e “r es t r ai ni ng comm er ce” t hat a p p e a rs in o th e r s u b s e c tio n s o f § 2 0 2 . See § 202( c) ( “i f s uch apport i onm enthas t he t endenc yoreffectof r es t r ai ni ng comm er ce” ) ; § 202( d) ( t r ans ferr i ng or r evi ew i ng an art i cl e “fort he purpos e orw i t h t he effec tof . . . r es t r ai ni ng comm er ce” ) ; § 202( e) ( doi ng “anyactfort he purpos e orw i t h t he effec tof

. . . res t rai ning com m erce”) . A nd perhap s m ore stri king, § 2 02 (a) do es not use t he FT C A ’ s l anguage “unfa i rm ethods of compet i t i on” cons t rued i n Keppel . P erh ap s this fa il u re to a d o p t th e lan g u ag e o f th e F T C A , en ac ted s ev en y ea rs ea rl ier, w as to av o id the n arro w co n stru cti o n o f th e F T C A b ythe S u p rem e C o u rt i n G ra ta , d e c id e d s h o rt ly b e fo re e n a c tm e n t o f th e P S A . C om par i s on of the PSA t o t he FT C A i s s ens i bl e bec aus e the PSA i s an offs pr i ng of the FT C A . I n 1917 Pr es i dentW i l s on or der ed an FTC i nves t i gat i on o f th e fo o d in d u s tr y . See D a v id s o n e t a l., supra , § 3 . 0 2 , at 18 7 . T h e F T C ’s rep o rt c o n d e m n e d th e p ra c tic e s o f th e m e a t- p a c k in g in d u s tr y . S e e id . T he five l argest packe r s ent er ed i nt o a cons entdecr ee unde rt he Sherm an A cti n 1920, butt he P S A wa s e n a c t e d i n 1 9 2 1 , p r e s u ma b l yb e c a u s e t h e a n t i t ru s tl a ws a n d t h e F TCA w e re d e e m e d in a d e q u a te to th e ta s k o f d e a lin g w ith th e p ro b le m . S e e id . at-8-

187–88. I n t hatl i ghti tw oul d be s om ew hats urpr i s i ng i f “unfai rpr act i ces ” under t he PSA had a na r r ow erm eani ng t han “unfai rm ethods of compet i t i on” i n t he F T CA . S u p p o rtin g th is v iew is th e d isc u ss io n o f th e re c e n tlye n a c ted P S A in St af f or d v. Wal l ace , 2 5 8 U . S . 4 9 5 (19 2 2 ), w h ich u p h eld th e P S A ’s c o n stitu tio n a lity . S o m e c o u rts h a v e re lied o n th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s s tate m e n t in t hatopi ni on t hat“[t ] he chi ef e vi l fea r ed i s t he monopol yof the pac ker s . ” Id . at 514. B utt he purpos e of the PSA w as notj us tt o end the pac ker s ’ m onopol y . T he 1920 cons entdecr ee s houl d have a ccompl i s hed thatt as k. T he PSA ’ s purpos e w as to e n d th e so rt o f

p ra c tice s e n g a g e d in b yth e m o n o p o ly , p ra c tice s th a t co u ld cert ai nl ybe cha r act er i zed a s unfai rbutcoul d noteas i l ybe cha r act er i zed a s r es t r i ct i ng compet i t i on. T hi s poi nti s m ade c l earbyquot i ng atl ength fr om C hi ef Ju stic e T a f

t’s o p in io n fo r th e C o u rt: T he obj ectt o be s ecur ed byt he ac ti s t he fr ee a nd unbur dened fl ow of l i ve s t ock fr om t he r anges and fa r m s of the W es tand the Sout hw es tt hr ough t he gr eats t ocky ar ds and s l aught er i ng cent er s on th e b o rd e rs o f

th a t re g io n , an d th e n c e in th e fo rm o f m e a t p ro d u c ts to the c o n su m ing cit ies o f th e c o u n tryin the M idd le W est an d E ast, o r, s t i l l , as l i ve s t ock, t o t he fe edi ng pl ace s and fa t t eni ng farm s i n t he M id d le W e st o r E a st fo r f u rth e r p re p a ra tio n fo r th e m a rk e t. T he chi ef e vi l fea r ed i s t he monopol yof the pac ker s , enabl i ng t hem un du l yand arbi t rar i l yt o low er pr i ces t o the shi pp er w ho sel l s, and undul yand arbi t r ar i l yt o i ncr eas e the pr i ce t o t he cons um er , w ho b u y s. C o n g re ss th o u g h t th a t th e p o w e r to m a in tain th is m o n o p o ly w as ai ded bycontr ol of the s t ocky ar ds . A not herevi l w hi ch i ts ought t o pr ovi de aga i ns tbyt he ac t , w as exorbi t antchar ges , dupl i cat i on of comm i s s i ons , dece pt i ve pr act i ces i n r es pectof pr i ces , i n t he pas s age-9-

of the l i ve s t ock thr ough t he s t ocky ar ds , al l m ade pos s i bl e by col l us i on betw een the s t ocky ar ds m anage m entand the comm i s s i on m en , o n the o n e h an d , an d the p ac k ers a n d d ea lers on the o ther. E x p e n se s in c u rre d in th e p a ss a g e th ro u g h th e sto c k y a rd s n e c e ss a rily r educe t he pr i ce r ece i ved byt he s hi pper , and i ncr eas e the pr i ce t o be p aid b ythe c o n su m er. I f th eyb e e x o rbit an t or u n rea so n ab le, theyare an undue bur den on the comm er ce w hi ch the s t ocky ar ds ar e i nt ended t o fac i l i t at e. A nyunj us tordece pt i ve pr act i ce orcombi nat i on t hat undul yand di r ect l yenhanc es t hem i s an unj us tobs t ruct i on t o t hat comm er ce. T he s hi pper , w hos e l i ve s t ock ar e bei ng car ed forand s ol d i n t he s t ocky ar ds m arketi s or di nar i l ynotpr es entatt he s al e, but i s faraw ayi n t he W es t . H e i s w hol l ydepende nton t he comm i s s i on m en. T he pac ker s and thei ragent s and the dea l er s w ho ar e the buy er s , ar e att he el bow of the comm i s s i on m en, and thei rr el at i ons ar e cons t antand cl os e. T he contr ol t hatt he pac ker s have ha d i n t he s t ocky ar ds byr eas on of ow ner s hi p and cons t antus e, t he r el at i on of l andl or d and t enantbetw een the s t ocky ar ds ow ner , on t he one ha nd, and the comm i s s i on m en and the dea l er s on t he other , t he pow erof as s i gnm entof pens and otherfac i l i t i es byt hatow nert o comm i s s i on m en and de al er s , al l cr eat e a s i tuat i on ful l of opportuni t yand t empt at i on t o t he pr ej udi ce of t he abs ents hi pperand ow neri n t he negl ectof the l i ve s t ock, i n t he m ala f i des of the s al e, i n t he exorbi t antpr i ces obt ai ned, i n t he unr eas onabl enes s of the cha r ges for s ervi ces r ender ed. T h e sc o p e o f

th e P S A is f

u rth e r re flec ted in th e a c c o m p a n y in g H o u se R e p o rt, w h ich sta tes : A car eful s tudyof the bi l l , w i l l , I am sur e, convi nce one t hati t , and e x istin g law s, g iv e th e S e c re tar yo f A g ric u ltu re c o m p lete i nqui s i t or i al , vi s i t or i al , s upervi s or y , and r egul at or ypow erovert he pack ers , st ock y ards and all act i vit i es conn ect ed ther ew i t h; that i ti s a m os tcompre hens i ve meas ur e and e xt ends fart hert han anypr evi ous l aw i n t he r egul at i on of pr i vat e bus i nes s , i n t i m e of pe ace , exce pt p o ss ib lyth e in ter sta te c o m m e rc e a c t. H .R . R e p . N o . 6 7 -7 7 , a t 2 (1 9 2 4 ).-10-

I tappea r s t o m e thatt he conde m ned pr act i ces des cr i bed byC hi ef J us t i ce T aftar e of the s ame i l k as t hos e thatt he maj or i t yopi ni on hol ds ar e cove r ed by th e P S A . W h e re I d iffe r f ro m th e m ajo rityo p in io n in th is re g a rd is th a t I w o u ld notdes cr i be the i nj ur i es caus ed byt hos e pr act i ces as compet i t i ve i nj ur i es . T he m ajorityo p inion d o es n o t exp lai n h o w the a ll eg ed p rac ti ce s h u rtO K ’s compet i t or s oreven how t heyi nj ur e compet i t i on among t he G r ow er s . T he al l eged i nj ur i es m aybe ca us ed byt he exi s t ence of a monopol y . B uti ti s uncl ear t o m e how t he pr act i ces ( s uch as uni l at er al l ydecr eas i ng pr oduct i on bydel i ver i ng fe w er c h icks to g row ers) red u ce co m p eti ti o n am o n g eith er g row ers o r de alers. I f co m p eti ti v e inju ryw ere req u ir ed b y§ 2 0 2 (a), I w o u ld ag ree w ith the d istri ct co u rt t h a tt h e G r o w e r s h a d n o tp r e s e n t e d s u ffi c i e n te v i d e n c e o f s u c h i nj u r y. T u rn in g to th e sp e c ific a lleg a tio n s o f th is c a se , I d e p a rt f

ro m th e m ajo rity opi ni on i n t hatI w oul d aff i r m t he dec i s i on bel ow beca us e the G r ow er s have not pr es ent ed s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tt hei rcl ai m s t hatt he pr act i ces ati s s ue on ap p ea l are u n fa ir . M yrea so n s are esse n ti all ythe s am e a s the m ajorityo p inion ’s r eas ons forr ej ect i ng t he G r ow er s ’ uncons ci onabi l i t ycl ai m s . T he G r ow er s ar e not exi s t i ng pr oducer s w ho s oughta mar ketfort hei rpr oductand w er e conf r ont ed w i t h O K ’ s t ake- i t - or - l eave - i tcontr act s . R ather , t heyent er ed i nt o t hei rbus i nes s es onl yaft erappr oachi ng O K and s eeki ng appr oval t o become i t s s uppl i er s . T he ter m s o f th e c o n tra c t w e re k n o w n . T h e G ro w e rs m a d e a n in fo rm e d d e c isio n to ent ert he i ndus t r y . T o t he ext entt hatt he G r ow er s cl ai m t hatt he contr act-11-

m isre p re se n ts O K ’s a c tu a l p ra c tice , tho se a re d e c e p tiv e -p ra c tice c laim s; a n d it i s m yunder s t andi ng t hats uch cl ai m s ar e notbefor e us . Per haps O K ’ s exer ci s e of i t s author i t yundert he contr actt o r educe t he number of bi r ds pl ace d w i t h t he G ro w e rs c o u ld b e a n u n fa ir p ra c tice if it w e re th e re su lt o f

a n e ffo rt b yO K to dr i ve up pr i ces fori t s pr oduct s . B utt he G r ow er s ’ br i efs on appea l do notal l ege t hatanyr educt i on i n pl ace m enthas occurr ed.