2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
6-17-2008 

# T oledo M a ck S ales v

. M a ck T r uck s Inc P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-1811

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" T o le do M a ck S ale s v

. M a ck T r uck s Inc " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 937. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/937P RE CE DE NT I AL I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_______________ N o: 07- 1811

_______________ T O L E D O M A C K S A L E S & S E R V IC E , IN C .,

A p p e llan t,

v. M ACK TRUCKS , I NC.

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

. N o. 02- cv- 4373) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R onal d L

. B uckw al t er

_______________ A r gued M ar ch 5, 2008 B e f o re : B A R R Y , J O R D A N , a n d H A R D IM A N , C irc u it

Jud ges. Fi l ed: J une 17, 2008

_______________2 Ro b e r t L
. By e r [ AR GUE D] W ay n e A

. M ac k , Jr. J
. M anl yPar ks Ja m e s H . S teig e rw a ld D avi d A

. D egnan Dua n e M o r r i s , LLP 30 S. 17 St r eet

th Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103- 4194 C ouns el f orAppel l ant Ba rb a r a M
. M a t h e r [ AR GUE D] J er emy H eep C hr i s t opherJ
. H uber B ar ak A

. B as s m an Pe p p e r Hami l t o n LLP 3 0 0 0 T w o L o g an S q u are E ig h tee n th & A rc h S tre e ts Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103- 2799 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge

. T ol edo M ack Sal es and Ser vi ce, I nc. ( “Tol edo”) a ppe a l s fr om

an or de r of the Uni t e d St at e s Di s tr i c t Court for th e E asternD istrict o f

P enn sylv an ia g ran tin g j u d g m en t as a m att e r of l aw i n favor

of Ma c k Tr

uc ks , I nc . ( “ Ma c k” ) on To le do ’s cl ai m

un der § 1 o f the Sh er

m an An ti tr

ust Act3 (“ Sh er m an Act” ). To le do al so appeal s the Distri ct Co urt’ s g ran t o f summ ary j u d g m en t f

o r M acko nT o led o ’s claim unde r the Robi ns on- Patm an Ac t ( “ RPA” ) , and i t s gr ant

of ju dg m ent a s a

m atte r of law fo r Mac k o n M ac k’s co un terclaim

f o r m isap p ro p riatio no f

trad e secrets. B ecause w e c o n c lu d e th a t T o led o p re se n ted a t trial e n o u g h e v id e n c e to p e rm it t h e S h e rm a n A c t cla im to g o to th e ju ry , w e w ill v a c a te t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s pos i t i on of t hatcl ai m and r emand for f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s. W e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt in a ll o th e r r e s p e c ts
. I. Jur is di ct i on and St andar d of R evi ew Th e Dis tric t Cou rt

exer ci se d j uris dict ion o ver Toledo’s cl ai m s pursuant t o 2 8 U .S.C. § 13 31 , andov er Mack’s co un terclaim

p ursu an t to 2 8 U .S .C . § § 1 3 3 2 an d1 3 6 7 (a). We h av e j urisd ictio nun d er 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . We ex ercise pl e nary r e vi e w ove r

adi s tr i c t c ourt ’ s de c i s i on t o gr ant j u d g m en t as a m atter o f

law

. No rt

hvie w M otors, Inc. v. Chr y s le r Motor s Cor p. , 2 2 7 F .3 d7 8 , 8 8 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 0 ). Judgm e nt a s am att e r

of l aw i s a

ppr opr i at e “ onl y

i f, vi e wi ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ght

m os t favor abl e t o the nonm ovant and g iv in g it th e adv an tag e o f ev ery f air an dreaso n ab le i nfe r e nc e , ” ave r di c t

i n favor of the nonm ovant

c annot be sup p o rtedb y

leg ally su f f icien t ev id en ce. F

a ir H o u s. Co u n cil v. Ma in Line Times , 141 F. 3d 439, 442 ( 3d Ci r . 1998) (c it at ions om itte d). Our r e vi e w of adi s tr i c t

c ourt ’ s or de r

gr ant i ng summ ary j u d g m en t is also p len ary . Ass af v . Fi e l ds , 178 F. 3d 1 7 0 , 1 7 1 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 9 ). S umm ary j u d g m en t is ap p ro p riate ifFor e xam pl e , Tol e do’ s e xpe rt

e c onom i s t , Fr ank Gol l op, 1 t e s t i fi e d that

“ Ma c k [ha s ] m arke t

powe r i n both the he avy duty v o catio n al [ lo wcab o v er en g in e tru ckm ark et,] as w ell as conv enti on alstra ight tr uck m ar kets , whether

youlookat the U.S. a s a

wh ole or the U.S., e xcluding the wes t. ” ( Ap p. at A 1 6 7 6 ; see in

fra n o te 1 6 ). 4 “the plea ding s, the dis covery and d is cl osure m at eria ls onfile , an dany af f id av its sh o wth at th ere is n o g enu in e issu e as to any m at e r i a l fa c t

and that the m ovant

i s e nt i t l e d t o judgm e nt as a m atter o f

law .” F ed . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c). As in ou r r evie w o f ano rd er g ran tin g j u d g m en t as a m atter o f law , w e m

u st, whe n r e vi e wi ng as umm ary judgm e nt

or de r , vi e w a l l of the ev id en ce inth e lig h t m o st f av o rab le to th e n o n -m o v in g p arty an ddrawall reaso n ab le in f eren ces inth at p arty ’s f

av o r. Ea st ma n K od ak Co . v . I

mage Technical Servs ., Inc. , 504 U. S. 4 5 1 , 4 5 6 (1 9 9 2 ). I I

. B ackgr ound A

. Mack and Tol edo M ack manufac t ur es a var i et yof hea vy - dut yt r ucks and i s s ai d t o enj oys i gni fi cantpow erw i t hi n t he mar ketfors uch v e h icle s. It d istrib u tes a n d se rv ice s its p ro d u c ts p rim a rily

1 t hr ough a nat i onw i de netw or k of author i zed de al er s , eac h of w hi ch i s as s i gned a ge ogr aphi c r egi on cal l ed an “ A r ea of R es pons i bi l i t y ” ( “A O R ”)

. A deal er ’ s A O R i s not excl us i ve, a n d M a c k ’s s tate d p o licy is th a t d e a ler s a re f re e to se ll a n y w h e re in th e c o u n tr y .5 M os t of M ack’ s t r ucks ar e made t o or derfr om var i ous chas s i s , engi ne, and t r ans m i s s i on opt i ons . W hen a pot ent i al cus t om ercont act s a M ack de al er , t he dea l erobt ai ns a l i s t of speci fi cat i on s fr om t he p otent i al cust om er and sub m i t s t he li st t o M ack. M ack then i nfor m s t he dea l erof t he pr i ce a t w hi ch i t i s wi l l i n g t o s e l l t h e r e q u e s t e d t r u c k t o t h e d e a l e r . An im p o rta n t as p e c t o f

th a t p ric e is a tra n sa c tio n -sp e c if ic di s countknow n as “s al es as s i s t ance . ” The am ount of s al es as s i s t ance t hatM ack of fer s a dea l eron a par t i cul art r ans act i on var i es acc or di ng t o t he natur e of the r el at i ons hi p bet w een the deal erand t he cus t om er , t he number of t r ucks or der ed, pot ent i al compet i t i on, and ot herfac t or s . D eal er s ’ r eques t s for sales a ssist an ce are su b m it ted to a M ac k D istri ct M an ag er, w h o h a s th e a u th o rityto g ra n t sa les a ss ista n c e u p to a c e rta in dol l aramount
. R eques t s foraddi t i onal s al es as s i s t ance bey ond t hatamount t ypi cal l ym us t be s ubm i t t ed forappr oval bya R egi onal V i ce Pr es i dent

. R eques t s fors al es as s i s t ance bey ond t he amount t hata R egi onal V i ce Pr es i dentm ay a u th o ri z e m u s t b e a p p ro v e d b yM a c k ’s C o n tr o lle r. Of course , the gr e at e r

the di s c ount

that Ma c k pr ovi de s t o the de a l e r , the l owe r the pr i c e that

the de a l e r

c an pr ofi t abl y

c har ge the cust om er . Once Mack te ll s the deal er ho w much the deal er w ill h av e to p ay

f o r a tru ck , th e d ealer th enp rep ares a qu o te for the pot e nt i a l c us t om e r , us i ng, am ong othe r thi ngs , the pr i c e i t m us t pay Ma c k t o ful fi l lthe c us t om e r ’ s or de r . I f the c us t om e r a c c e pt s the de a l e r ’ s quot e , the de a l e r or de r s the tr uc k fr om Ma c k and Ma c k c us t om - bui l ds i t a c c or di ng t o the cust om er ’s spec ific at ions. The deal er then bu y s the tr

uck fr om Ma c k and s e l l s i t

t o the c us t om e r . Howe ve r , i f the cust om er do es no t a cc ept the deal er ’s qu ote, the dea le r6 usuall y do es no t buy

the truck fromMack and n o sal e t akes p lace. Oft e n, pot e nt i a l c us t om e r s wi l l s ol i c i t bi ds fr om m u ltip le M ackd ealers as w ell as f ro m M ack ’s co m

p etito rs. Accordingly , Mac k d ea le rs com pete agai nst both n on -Mac k d ealers an d , at least inth eo ry , am o n g th em selv es. B ecau se the am ount

of s a l e s a s s i s t anc e Ma c k offe r s t o ade a l e r on a po te ntia l s al e i s a

si gn ific ant fac tor i n d et er m ining the pric e at wh ic h the deal er

willin turn of

fer t o sel l a

tr uck to a po te ntia l cust om er , i t i s a ls o a si gn ific ant fac tor i n d et er m ining w hether a p o ten tial cu sto m er d ecid es to accep t a d ealer’s qu o te. Tol e do wa s an author i z e d Ma c k de a l e r l oc at e d, a s one m ight gu es s, in To le do , Ohio. Dave Yeager has ow ned To le do si nce 198 2. Af

te r a cquiri ng To le do , Yea ger i m pl e m e nt e d abus i ne s s s tr at e gy that foc us e d on offe r i ng the lowest po ss ible pric e t o h is cust om er s. Un ti l Mac k t e rm i nat e d Tol e do’ s s t at

us a s an author i z e d de a l e r , Tol e do a ggr e s s i ve l y

pur s ue d i t s l ow- pr i c e s a l e s s tr at e gy thr oughout the c ou ntry , c om

peti ng onpric e a gainst

other Mac k d ea le rs f o r sales ino th er d ealers’ A O R s. B

. T o led o ’s S h erm a n A ct Cla im T o led o alleg es th at, b y

co m p etin g o np rice ag ain st othe r Ma c k de a l e r s , i t

be gan t o unde rm i ne an unl awful conspira cy

that Mack and the deale rs had d evel op ed to keepTh e pre se nt ca se is no t t he firs t t im e Toledo andMack 2 have sparr ed ov er

the antit rust im plic at ions of

Mack’s a ppr oa c h t o pr ovi di ng s a l e s a s s i s t anc e . Be twe e n Mar c h 1988 an dO cto b er 1 9 9 0 , T o led o ’s atto rn ey sen t sev eral letters to Ma c k c l a i m i ng that

Ma c k’ s c onduc t

vi ol at e d § 1 of the S h erm anA ct. In1 9 9 1 , T o led o an dM acksig n eda release wh ic h rea d: “Eac h o f M ac k andTo le do here by fu ll y re le as es ... th e o th er ... f

ro m any an dall claim s, d em an d s, lo sses, expenses , a ct ion, ca

use of act ion, or li abil it ie s whats oever arisin g o ut o f

o r inco nn ectio nw ithsales assistan ce ... cl ai m ed, r equest ed, a

pp roved, paid, c re dite d, or re sc inded as o f th e d ate o f

th is release ... .” (Ap p . at A 4 4 6 0 -6 1 .)

7 p rices o nM ackp ro du cts artif icially h ig h

. A cco rd in g to

2 T o l e d o , th i s c o n s p i r a c y

h a s tw o p art s . F i r s t , T o l e d o c l a i ms that , beginning in the mid-198 0s, i nd ividual Mac k d ea le rs en teredin to “g en tlem en ’s ag reem en ts” n o t to co m p ete w ith e a c h othe r

on pr i c e . Se c ond, Tol e do a l l e ge s that , be gi nni ng in 19 89 , Mac k enter ed into an agree m ent with its deal er s that i t woul d de l ay

or de ny s a l e s a s s i s t anc e t o any

de a l e r who s ought t o m ake an out
- of- AOR s a l e , the r e by pr ot e c t i ng deal er s t hat s el l wit

hin their ow n A OR s. To le do argu es that the c om binati onof

the horiz on ta l c ollusi onam on g d ea le rs and the vert ic alcollusion b etween Mack and the deale rs violat es § 1 of

the Sherm an Act beca

use i t pre vents Mac k de a l e r s fr om

c om pe t i ng wi th one anothe r , the r e by a l l owi ng Ma c k and i t s de a l e r s t o m a i nt a i n art i fi c i a l l y hi gh pr i c e s on the s a l e of Ma c k tr

uc ks

. Tol e do a l s o a s s e r

t s that Ma c k’ s de c i s i on t o de ny i t s a l e s a s s i s t anc e on out
- of- AOR s a l e s vi ol at e s the p ro h ib itio no nd iscrim in ato ry p ricin g em

b o d iedinth e RP A

.8 At tr i a l , Tol e do pr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e t o s how the e xi s t e nc e of th e alleg edh o rizo n tal an dv ertical ag reem en ts.

1. Tole do’

s Ev i de nc eof

Agre e me nt

s Among M a ck D ea lers Tol e do offe r e d t e s t i m ony that Ma c k de a l e r s a gr e e d not to com pete with on e ano ther . Yea ger, To le do ’s ow ner, t e s t i fi e d that , whi l e he wa s att e ndi ng ade a l e r m e e t i ng i n the late 19 80 s, two M ac k d ea le rs from New Jer se y

approached h im an dto ldh im

th at “th e w ay

it w o rk s” inN ewJersey

is th at “d ealers d o n ’t co m

p ete o np rice.” (Ap p . at A 5 1 3 .) T o led o also in tro du cedd ep o sitio ntestim o ny b y JackL u sty , a f o rm er D istrict M an ag er f o r M ackw h o h adb eenresp o n sib le f o r sup erv isin g T o led o f

ro m 1 9 9 8 to 2 0 0 2 . L u sty

saidth at, d esp ite M ack ’s o f

f icial p o licy

o f allo w in g d ealers to sell any w h ere, M ackd ealers h adunw rittenag reem en ts n o t to com pete with ea ch other. Finall y , Toledo introdu ce d cop ie s of handwr i tt e n not e s t ake n at aMa c k s a l e s m e e t i ng i n 1999 by ac ons ul t ant

nam e d Ha l l i e Gi ul i ano . At that ti m e, Gi ul i ano wa s worki ng on apr oje c t for Ma c k and, a c c or di ng t o he r not e s and an a ffi davi t

s he s i gne d l at e r , s he he ar d Ron Gerhard, a

Mack em

ployee , s ay

at the s al es m ee ti ng that “there was a

‘gentl em en’s agre em ent’ am on g M ac k truck de a l e r s that

the y woul d s e l l onl y

i n the i r own ar e a s of re spon sibili ty . [Gerhard] als o state d that s om e Mac k truck de a l e r s di d not

honor the ‘ ge nt l e m e n’ s a gr e e m e nt s ’ and engaged in sal es effo rt s i n o ther Mack deal er s’ te rrit orie s. ” (Ap p . at A 3 5 3 7 .)9 2. Tole do’

s Ev i de nc eof

an Agre e me nt B etw een M

a ck a n d M a ck D ea lers T o led o also p resen tedth ree categ o ries o f ev id en ce to s how that Ma c k a gr e e d wi th i t s de a l e r s that i t woul d de ny sa le s a ss is tance on sal es a dea le r tri ed to m ake outsi de of that deal er ’s AO R. Firs t, To le do intr oduced rec ording s andno te s of conv er sati on s between Yeager andvari ou s Mac k e xe c ut i ve s r e fe rr i ng t o an i nf or m a l po l i c y

a ga i ns t out
- of

A O R sales. S eco n d , T o led o in tro du cedev id en ce th at, in 19 89 , Mac k ado pted an of fici alpo li cy

of denying sal es as si st ance onou t- of

-AORsa le s. To le do al so pres ente d evidence t

hat this polic y

was the re sult

of a m ee ti ng betwee n Ma c k e xe c ut i ve s and de a l e r r e pr e s e nt at i ve s . Fi na l l y , Tol e do pr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e that , de s pi t e Ma c k’ s c l a i m s t o have abando ned its prior polic y , Mac k in f ac t c on ti nu ed to enfo rc e th at p o licy

un til at least th e tim e T o led o f iledsu it in2 0 0 2
. W i th r e s pe c t

t o e vi de nc e of an i nform a l pol i c y , Tol e do in tro du cedat trial n o tes tak eninJu ly 1 9 8 8 b y R ich ardT rach t, the Ma c k Di s tr i c t

Mana ge r r e s pons i bl e for

ove r s e e i ng Tol e do at th at tim e. A cco rd in g to T rach t’s n o tes, Y eag er ask edh im whe the r Ma c k a ppr ove d of Tol e do’ s pr a c t i c e of s e l l i ng tr uc ks ou ts ide i ts AO R. Trac ht re corded that he told Yeager t

hat
“ Ma c k di d not

l i ke [Ye a ge r ’ s ] pol i c y

a s he wa s s e l l i ng the m ajority of his t rucks t o alr ea dy

es ta blis hed M ac k custom er s an dind o in g so w as b reak in g estab lish edp ro f it stru ctures ... [m aking] the Mac k d ea le rs lookbad in custom er s [si c] eyes ca using a lot of con ce rn between cust om er s anddeal er s. ” (Ap p . at A 3 9 6 3 .)O v e r th e c o u rse o f se v e ra l y e a rs, Y e a g e r h a d se c re tly 3 r ecor ded a number of t el ephone c onver s at i ons bet w een hi m s el f and va r i ous M ack e xecut i ves , and t hos e r ecor di ngs f e a tu re d p ro m in e n tly in T o le d o ’s e v id e n c e a t tr ia l. 10 T o led o also in tro du ceda carto o nT rach t sen t to Ye a ge r fe at ur i ng two s habbi l y

dr e s s e d m e n s i tt i ng i n fr ont of a “ po or ho use, ” with o ne m an saying to the other, “[m ]y Mack Distribu tors hip d id m ore busines s t han any others in the s tate
. Th e tri ck was t o u nd er cut m y com peti tor’ s r at es .” (App . at A 3 2 8 6 .) A t th e to p o f

th e carto o n , T rach t h adty p ed : “T h is c oul d be what

we ar e he a de d for

i f we do not

s t op s e l l i ng agai nst other

Mack deal er s andconcentr at e on the re al com peti ti on . Thinkabou t i t! !” I d. I n a dd i t i on , To l e do i ntr od uc e d a r e c or di ng of

a De c e m be r 1988 t e l e phone c onve r s at i on be twe e n Ye a ge r and 3 De nni s Wurz e lba c he r , Ma c k’ s the n- Part s Pr om ot i on Mana ge r . Dur i ng that

c onve r s at i on, Ye a ge r

and Wurz elbacher di sc usse d the sa le s of M ac k p arts ca ll ed “gli der ki t s , ” whi c h ar e bar e tr

uc k bodi e s wi thout

e ngi ne s or tran sm issio n s. Wurzelb ach er to ldY eag er th at “[ t] h e ... pr obl e m we have i s the r e ar e c e rt a i n de a l e r s that ar e s e ndi ng [sic ] g li der kit s i n o ther

peop le ’s backyar ds and w e are gett ing cal ls onit .” (App . at A39 94 .3) Yea ger then asked Wurz elbacher what Mac k’s wri tt en po li cy was on d ea le rs com peti ng with on e ano ther . Wurze lbac her r es po nd ed that h e w as n o t aw are o f

ano f f icial co m p any p o licy b ut th at it w a s h i s o p i n i o nth at

“ th e r e w a s ap o l i c y th at

w o u l ds ay, h e y,T he N D A C cons i s t s of t w o M ack e xecut i ves and s even 4 d e a ler s. T h e N D A C ’s d e a ler m e m b e rs a re e lec ted b yth e ir peer s atan annua l deal er s m eet i ng. T w o of t he s even de al er r epr es ent at i ves s er ve as N D A C ’ s C hai r m an and V i ce C hai r m an, and t he r emai ni ng fi ve s er ve as r epr es ent at i ves for f iv e g e o g ra p h ic re g io n s . 11 you’ r e onl y

s uppos e d t o s e l l i n your

t e rr i t ory , okay ?” ( App. at A 3 9 9 4 .4 .) T ol edo al s o i nt r oduced e vi dence t hatM ack a dopt ed an o f f i c i a l p o l i c yo f

d e n y i n g s a l e s a s s i s t a n c e o n o u t
- o f

- AOR sa les . In 1 9 8 9 , M a c k iss u e d M a rk e tin g D istrib u tio n B u lletin 3 8 -8 9 (“ B u lletin 3 8 -8 9 ” ). U n d e r th is “ m a jo r ... c h a n g e in offi ci al t r uck pr i ci ng pol i cy ” ( A pp. atA 3147) , M ack s ought to “e n h an ce the c o m p eti ti v e stren g th o f M ac k d istri b u tors w i t hi n t hei r r es pect i ve geogr aphi c ar eas of s al es and s er vi ce r es pons i bi l i t y . ” I

d. T o t hatend, M ack e l i m i nat ed s al es a s s is ta n c e o n s a le s b ya d e a le r o u ts id e th e d e a le r’ s A O R
. The exp ress p urp o se o f

th e p o licy

w as to create “in creasedp ro f it m argins fo r Mac k d is tributors a s wel l a s the Co m pany .” (App . at A31 47 .) To le do intr oduced evidence at t ri alto show that Bu ll et in 38 -89 w as the r es ult of an agreem ent between Mack an dits N atio n al D istrib uto r A dv iso ry C o un cil (“N D A C ”) to p rev en t d ealers f

ro m en g ag in g insales o utsid e th eir A O R s. 4 Spe c i fi c a l l y , Tol e do i ntr oduc e d ar e c or di ng of aJul y 1989 ph on e c al l between Yeager andDick Mu rphy , a Mack Vice Pr e s i de nt , dur i ng whi c h Ye a ge r a s ke d Mur

phy whe the r the12 N D A C h adun an im o u sly reco mm en d edB u lletin3 8 -8 9
. Mu rphy re spon ded, “Oh y es . Oh v er y m uch so. Very

m uch s o . I me an , s o me th i n g a s s i g n i f i c an t a s th i s , i t h a dt o c o me f ro m all w alk s.” (Ap p . at A 4 0 2 5 .) Mu rphy indicate d that som e dea le rs had com

plai ned abo ut the new po li cy . He then s a i d “ i f the r e ’ s s om e thi ng that woul d jus t i fy

[c hangi ng the p o licy] w e’ll g et th e [ N D A C ] to g eth er an dp erh ap s w e’ll co n sid er it.” (Ap p . at A 4 0 2 4 .) T o led o also in tro du ceda reco rd in g o f an o th er Ju ly 1989 c onve r s at i on be twe e n Ye a ge r and Gary J ohns on, Mack’s Vice Pres ident of D is tributor Sale s. Du ri ng that e xc hange , J ohns on e xpl a i ne d that he wa s “ ki nd of ne w on the jo b” and then w ent on to say that th e o n e th in g I cantell yo uth at w o u ldb e f air and legit im at e a dv ic e i s that Ithink this polic y [i

. e . , Bul l e t i n 38- 89] c am e about t o al ar ge e xt e nt be c aus e of the voi c e of the di s tr i but or or gani z at i on. . . . And i f i t ’ s pr obabl y e ve r gonna b e ch an g edo r m o d if

ied , it w ill co m e ab o ut as a r e s ul t of the voi c e of the de a l e r or gani z at i on. (Ap p . at A 4 0 5 8 .) Jo h n so nth enstated , “I cantell yo u , an dth is p ro b ab ly i s not as ur pr i s e , that whe n we t a l ke d about

s om e of the p ro b lem s th at co m e f

ro m sellin g o utsid e o f

th e territo ry , I gu es s Toledo g oes pre tt

y cl ose t o the top o f the li st .” (App . at A4 05 9.) After

som e a dd it ional dis cuss ion, Yeager s tate d that , “ [a]s I und er st and w hat [the deal er network d id,] theyO f cour s e, on t hi s and ot herpoi nt s , M ack i nt r oduced 5 evi dence t o cont r adi ctT ol edo’ s evi dence

. For exampl e, M ack pr ovi ded e vi de nc e t o s upport i t s ar gum e nt

that Bul l e t i n 38- 89 wa s s ol e l y

the pr oduc t

of Ma c k m ana ge m e nt ’ s de c i s i onm aki ng , no t

the ND AC ’ s . Bo b Nus s , wh o w a s the ND AC Ch ai rm an du ri ng 19 89 , t es ti fied that , on M ay 8, 19 89 , Mac k pr e s e nt e d a

dr a ft of Bu l l e t i n 3 8- 89 t o the de a l e r s at an N DA C m e e t i ng. Ac c or di ng t o Nus s , the dr a ft i nc l ude d pr ovi s i ons e l i m i nat i ng s a l e s a s s i s t anc e for out
- of- AOR s a l e s and prov is ions prov iding that Mac k w ou ld give deal er s s al es as si st ance onon e- and two - truck deal s. Nu ss al so te st ifie d that “[t]he new truck ret ai l pri ci ng po li cy was dis cuss ed thorou gh ly”( Ap p. at

A2 19 7), andthat

wh il e the deal er s had insi st ed that

Bu ll et in 38 -89 include sa le s a ss is tance on o neand two -truck deal s, the dec is ion to eli m inat e s al es as si st ance o no ut-o f -A O R sales w as m ad e b y

M ackalo n e. F in ally , N u ss testif iedth at, alth o u g hM ackso licitedco mm en ts o nB u lletin 3 8 -8 9 f ro m N D A C m em

b ers, th e f

in al lan g u ag e inB u lletin 38 -89 w hich el iminat ed sa le s a ss is tance on o ut-of-AO R sal es was i dentic alto the l angu age i n the draft propo sa l c ir culate d at the May 8, 19 89 m ee ti ng . Mac k’s e vidence, ho wever, do es not ove rr i de our

obl i gat i on t o vi e w the e vi de nc e i n the l i ght m o st f av o rab le to T o led o . See N o rth viewM

o to rs , 227 F. 3d at 8 8 (exp lain in g th at j u d g m en t as a m atter o f lawis 13 d idn o t reco mm en d[ a] restrictio n al territo rial sy stem
. ... [A]nd i f the y

di d, i t ’ s s tr i c t l y

as e l f- s e rvi ng ty

pe of thi ng for the dea le rs that

have a l ot of

geog ra ph ic alar ea .” (App . at A 4 0 6 2

- 6 3
. ) J o h n s o nr e s p o n d e db y s i mp l y s ayi n g “ U mh mm .” (Ap p . at A 4 0 6 3 .)

5ap p ro p riate “o n ly if , v iew in g th e ev id en ce inth e lig h t m o st favor abl e t o the nonm ovant and gi vi ng i t

the a dvant a ge of e ve ry fa i r and r e a s onabl e i nfe r e nc e , the r e i s i ns uffi c i e nt evidence from

wh ic h a ju ry

re as on ably

could f ind lia bili ty”) (citatio n s an din tern al qu o tatio nm ark s o m itted ). A M a c k d e a ler w o u ld o rd in a rilyh a v e lit tle d if f icu lty 6 s el l i ng a t r uck i t had boughtfr om M ack be caus e, as w e have expl ai ned, M ack tr ucks ar e s peci al i zed, cus t om - m ade goods and a de al eror di nar i l ydoes not pur chas e a tr uck fr om M ack 14 InO cto b er 1 9 8 9 , sh o rtly

af ter it h adad o p tedB u lletin 38- 89, Ma c k i s s ue d ar e vi s e d pol i c y , Marke t i ng Di s tr i but i on B u lletinA d d en dum

3 8 -8 9 A (“B u lletin3 8 -8 9 A ”). B u lletin 3 8 -8 9 A p ro v id edth at “[ s] ales [ a] ssistan ce sh all b e un if o rm ly m ad e av ailab le to A L L M ackd istrib uto rs o nanequ al b asis, a c t i ve l y and di r e c t l y

i nvol ve d i n pr i or

ne got i at i ons wi th the re ta ilcust om er

fo r the pu rc hase of

new M ac k v ehic le s. ” (App . at A39 82 originalem ph as is ). To le do pres ente d evidence at t

ri al , how ever , i nd ic at ing that, despit e the new p o licy , M ackan dso m e o f its d ealers co n tinu edto w o rkin c onc e rt t o pr e ve nt

othe r Ma c k de a l e r s fr om

s e l l i ng out s i de th eir in d iv idu ally

assig n edA O R s. Re gar di ng the pe r i od fr om 1989 t o 1998, Tol e do i ntr oduc e d ar e c or di ng of aJ anuary 1991 t e l e phone conv er sati onbetwee n Y ea ger andKevin F laherty , Mac k’s Vice -Pre si dent fo r Sal es . During the conv er sati on , Yea ger and Fl ahe rty

di s c us s e d s om e di ffi c ul t i e s Ye a ge r wa s havi ng se ll ing three tr

ucks To le do had b ou gh t from Mack. Yeager

6u n til a c u s to m e r a c tu a lly p la c e s a n o rd e r w ith th e d e a le r. H o w e v e r, Y e a g e r e x p lain e d to F lah e rtyd u rin g th e ir conver s at i on t hatT ol edo had or der ed t he t hr ee tr ucks di s cus s ed above beca us e M ack “ w as i n bad nee d of or der s at th a t tim e ” a n d h a d “ e n c o u ra g e d [ T o le d o ] t o p la c e a n o rd e r.” (A p p . at A 4 0 8 7
. ) 15 requ estedsales assistan ce to sell th o se tru ck s o utsid e o f h is AOR. Fl ahe rty

t ol d hi m , howe ve r , that

“ our pol i c y ha s not ch an g ed ” an dth at M ackw o u ldp ro v id e sales assistan ce if Yeager s old the tr

ucks insi de his AORbu t wou ld no t “ give a wh ole l ot of

ho pe” i f the sa le s wer e outsi de of it . ( Ap p. at 40 85 -86.) Fl ahe rty

e m pha s i z e d, “ [O]bvi ous l y , we ’ r e l ooki ng t o pr ot e c t our di s tr i but or s . That ’ s a l way s be e n the ba c kbone o f M ackis to p ro tect o ur d istrib uto rs.” (Ap p . at 4 0 8 6 .) D urin g a seco n dco n v ersatio nb etw eenY eag er an dF lah erty in June 19 91 , Flaherty

st at ed that

“[if] there’ s e ver a m anu f acturer th at p ro tectedth eir d istrib uto r o rg an izatio n... It’s th e M acktru ckco m

p any , to a f

au lt.” (Ap p . at 4 1 2 8 .) Tol e do a l s o i ntr oduc e d ar e c or di ng of ac onve r s at i on that t ook pl a c e i n 1996 be twe e n Ye a ge r and Bob Gr

us s i ng, Mack’s Part s Manager . Gruss ing told Y ea ger that dea le rs “c on st antl y

want Mack to get i nv olved in these te rrit oria l di s put e s . . . and t o pr ot e c t the m fr om one anothe r . And r i ght or wron g, we do that , youkn ow .” (App . at A41 47 .)16 Gr us s i ng a l s o s t at e d that

s uc h pr ot e c t i on wa s a“ l ong s t andi ng tr adit ion” and that “ I don ’t kn ow if I c an break that. ” I d. To es ta blis h that Mac k con ti nu ed to part ic ipat e i n an i l l e ga l c ons pi r a c y

wi th i t s de a l e r s fr om

1998 t o 2002, Tol e do po ints to vari ou s c on vers at ions betwee n Jac k L usty , the Mack Di s tr i c t Mana ge r r e s pons i bl e for

s upe rvi s i ng Tol e do dur i ng that ti m e period, and Jeff Y el le s, a Mac k R egional Vic e P resid en t w h o w as L u sty ’s imm ed iate sup erio r. L u sty te st ifie d that Yel le s t old h im in 20 02 that

he “kn[ ew] w hat [ T o led o ] [ w as] tryin g to d o . [ T o led o ] w an ts to estab lish di s c ount s and s e l l tr

uc ks a l l ove r

the pl a c e . W e ar e not

goi ng to le t t his happen.” ( Ap p. at

A2 82 4.) Lusty

al so te st ifie d that Ye l l e s t ol d hi m

that Ye a ge r wa s “ jus t s ol i c i t i ng c us t om e r s on p rice; ... w e h av e to b eat th e liv in g sh it o ut o f h im . ... [ H ] e is a so no f a b itch .” (Ap p . at A 2 8 1 8 .) Y elles also alleg ed ly to ld Lus ty , i n apr ofani ty- l a c e d bur s t of ange r , that

Tol e do wa s not
“ pl ay [i ng] by

the r ul e s ” and that

s om e one “ s houl d t ake [ Y eag er] o ut.” (Ap p . at A 2 8 2 5 .) T ol edo pr es ent ed evi dence t hatY el l es t ook aff i r m at i ve ste p s to p re v e n t T o led o f ro m se lli n g o u tsid e its A O R . L u sty tes tifie d th a t, i n 2 0 0 0 , Y e lles in stru c ted h im to tell T o led o to s t op compet i ng agai ns t anot herM ack de al erfora par t i cul ar sa le to a c u sto m e r lo c a ted o u tsid e T o led o ’s A O R . Y e lles to ld L us t yt o t el l T ol edo t hatM ack w oul d not r el eas e s al es a s s is ta n c e o n a n ys a le b yT o le d o to th a t c u s to m e r. A c c o rd in g ly , L u styse n t Y e a g e r a f a x in stru c tin g h im to “ce as e hi s pr edat or yappr oach t o cus t om erpr os pect i ng. ” ( A pp. at2812. ) Y el l es hi m s el f admi t t ed att r i al t hat , on at l eas t one occ as i on i n 2003, he as ked M ack’ s C ont r ol l er , St eve17 Pol zer , t o del ayappr ovi ng T ol edo’ s r eques t fors al es as s i s t ance s o t hatanot herM ack de al ercoul d gett he c u s to m e r’ s b u s in e s s in s te a d

. Fi nal l y , L us t yt es t i fi ed t hat , aft er1998, M ack us ed t he s al es as s i s t ance pr oces s t o “contr ol deal er s . ” A ft err es ci ndi ng t he 1 98 9 p oli cy , M ack im plem ented a sy st em of “c ross chec ks ” w hi ch w er e os t ens i bl ydes i gned t o ens ur e t hat , i n a s i t uat i on w her e an out
- of- A O R deal ercompet ed w i t h an i nA O R deal er , bot h deal er s r ece i ved t he s ame am ount of s al es as s i s t ance fr om M ack. T he s y s t em w as pr es ent ed byM ack a s r equi r i ng equal t r eat m ent
. Suppose dl y , a dea l erw ho w i s hed t o m ake a n out
- of- A O R s al e had t o i ndi cat e t o i t s D i s t r i ct M anage r t he ar ea i nt o w hi ch t he dea l erw i s hed t o m ake the sale b ef o re itco u ld rec eive sales a ssist an ce . T h e d ea ler’s D i s t r i ctM anage r w oul d t hen conduc t a cr os s - chec k by cont act i ng t he D i s t r i ctM anage r r es pons i bl e fort hatA O R and i nfor m i ng hi m or herof t he pot ent i al s al e. I f i t t ur ned outt hat t he dea l eri nt o w hos e A O R t he s al e w oul d be made w as compet i ng fort he s ame deal , t hen t he i n- A O R D i s t r i ct M a n a g e r a n d th e o u t-o f -A O R D istric t M a n a g e r w e re to ens ur e t hatbot h deal er s r ece i ved equa l amount s of s al es as s i s t ance . D espi t e t he st at ed p urpose o f t he cross- check s, ho w ever, L ust yt est i fi ed thatfrom 19 99 t o 2 00 3, t he crosschec ks w er e oft en us ed as an “e ar l yw ar ni ng s y s t em” t o l etan i n- A O R deal erknow w hen an out

- of- A O R deal erw as a t t e m p t i n g t o m a k e a s a l e i n s i d e t h e i n - A O R d e a l e r ’ s t e r r i t o r y. (A p p . a t A 2 8 7 7 .) L u styex p lai n ed that D istri ct M an ag ers w oul d oft en gr antr eques t s fors al es as s i s t ance verbal l yr at her18 than u sing M ac k ’s co m p u ter sy stem , so that in-A O R d ea lers c o u l d g i v e a p o t e n t i a l c u s t o me r a q u o t e b e f o r e a n o u t
- o f

- AOR d e a ler c o u ld o b tain a q u o te o n th e sa m e d e a l. L u stya lso sa id t hat , beca us e t her e w as no r ecor d of verbal gr ant s of s al es a ss ista n c e , D istric t M a n a g e rs w o u ld so m e tim e s u se th is ta c tic t o ex t end a dis cou nt t o a d eal er w i t ho ut condu ct i ng a cross chec k. C

. T

o led o ’s R P

A C la im T o led o a lso in tro d u c e d e x p e rt tes tim o n ya t trial to su p p o rt its c o n ten tio n th a t M a c k h a d o f f e re d it l e ss f

a v o ra b le s al es as s i s t ance t han i t pr ovi ded t o ot herdeal er s . T hat t es t i m onyw as bas ed on a c om par i s on of t he ave r age a m ount o f sa les a ss ista n c e M a c k o f f e re d to T o led o a s c o m p a re d w ith th e a v e ra g e a m o u n t o f

sa les a ss ista n c e M a c k h a d o f f e re d to o th e r d e a le rs lo c a te d in th e s a m e g e n e ra l g e o g ra p h ic a re a . T ol edo’ s exper t t es t i fi ed t hatt hi s compar i s on demonst r at ed t hatT ol edo r ece i ved fa r l es s s al es as s i s t ance t han ot her s i m i l ar l ys i t uat ed M ack de al er s . H ow ever , t he expe r t di d not c o m p a re th e a m o u n t o f

sa les a ss ista n c e M a c k o f f e re d to T ol edo and t o ot herdeal er s w hen Tol edo and a not herdeal er c o mp e t e d d i r e c t l ya g a i n s t o n e a n o t h e r f o r a s a l e t o t h e s a me cus t om er . T her efor e, t he expe r t w as unabl e t o offe r an op i nion abo ut w hetherM ack h ad d i scr i m i nated against T o led o in sa les in v o lv in g h e a d -to -h e a d c o m p e tit io n w ith a n o th e r M a c k d e a le r.19 D

. Mack’s C ount er cl ai m f orMis appr opr i at i on of T ra d e S e c re ts O n ce su ed , M ackf

iredb ackw itha co un terclaim al le ging that

To le do had m is approp ri at ed a propriet ar y software prog ram

ca ll ed MA CS PE C 2 00 1, wh ic h con ta ined deta il ed part s s peci ficati on s for every tr uck p art t hat Mac k m anu f actures. M ackh adp ro v id eda co p y o f th at p ro g ram

to Tol e do s o that

i t c oul d a de quat e l y

a s s i s t c us t om e r s who needed repla ce m ent parts or re pair wo rk. How ever , a c c or di ng t o Ma c k, Tol e do gave ac opy of MACSPEC 2001 to P A I In du stries, In c., o n e o f M ack ’s co m

p etito rs. Cont e ndi ng that

Tol e do ha d vi ol at e d both i t s obl i gat i on not t o m i s a ppr opr i at e tr a de s e c r e t s and the t e rm s of the MA CS PE C 2 00 1 lic ense agre em ent, Mack te rminat ed Tol e do’ s di s tr i but or s hi p a gr e e m e nt
. Tol e do r e s ponde d wi th a p ro test to th e O h io V eh icle D ealer’s B o ard , w h ichru ledin favor of Tol e do. Ma c k uns uc c e s s ful l y a ppe a l e d t o the Franklin Co un ty

Co urt of C omm onPlea s. Mack then fu rther a ppe a l e d t o the Te nth Appe l l at e Di s tr i c t of the Ohi o Court

of Ap peal s. Th at

court r ever se d andheld that Mack was jus t i fi e d i n t e rm i nat i ng Tol e do’ s di s tr i but or s hi p a gr e e m e nt beca use the MA CS PE C 2 00 1 sof twar e was a proprie tary tr a de s e c r e t

whi c h Tol e do ha d m i s a

ppr opr i at e d by tr ansfer ri ng it to a Mac k com

peti tor witho ut Mack’s p erm issio n . Mac k

Truc k s, I nc . v . Motor

Ve hi c leDe ale r

s Bd. , No. 05AP- 768, 2006 W L 1495122, at *6- 10 ( Ohi o Ct

. App. June 1, 20 06 ).B e c a u s e o f th e 1 9 9 1 re le a s e b e tw e e n it a n d M a c k , ( s ee 7 supra not e 2) T ol edo l i m i t ed i t s 2002 cl ai m s t o “conduc t by M ack subsequ ent t o the date of t he rel ease . ” (A p p ell an t B r. at 16 -17 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). 20 E

. P ro ced

u ra l H isto ry Tol e do fi l e d thi s c a s e a ga i ns t Ma c k on Jul y

7, 2002. 7 As a l r e a dy

not e d, Tol e do’ s c om

pl a i nt a l l e ge d that

Ma c k and its d istrib uto rs h aden teredin to anilleg al co n sp iracy in r e s tr a i nt of tr a de i n vi ol at i on of § 1 of the She rm an Ac t , and th at M ackh adv io latedth e RP A b y en g ag in g in disc ri m inat ory

pric ing. Ag ai n, as no te d, Mack co un terclaim edf

o r m isap p ro p riatio no f

trad e secrets. Prior t o the tria l, the Dis tric t Court grante d summ ar

y j u d g me n t i nf av o r o f M a c ko nT o l e d o ’ s RP A c l a i m, concluding that

it was bar re d as a m atte r of law un der Vo lv o Trucks No rt

h A meri ca, I

nc. v . Ree der- Simco G

MC , I nc. , 546 U.S. 16 4 (20 06 ). At the c lose of evidence at

tria l, the Dis tric t Co urt granted Mack’s m otion f or ju dg m ent a s a

m atte r of law onTo le do ’s Sh er

m an Act c la im . The Co urt a ls o g ranted Ma c k’ s m ot i on for

judgm e nt

a s am att e r

of l aw on the m i s a ppr opr i at i on of tr a de s e c r e t s c ount e r c l a i m . As t o the l att e r r ul i ng, the Court

c onc l ude d that

the favor abl e judgm e nt f o r M ackinth e O h io C o urt o f Ap p eals w as p reclu siv e as to the i s s ue of Tol e do’ s l i abi l i ty be c aus e the Ohi o judgm e nt e nc om pa s s e d e ve ry

e l e m e nt ne c e s s ary

t o s ho w a m is approp ri at ion o f tra de se cr et s. Th e Dis tric t Court then subm itte d M ac k’s mis approp ri at ion cou nter cl ai m to the jury21 on the i s s ue of dam a ge s . The jury r e t urne d ave r di c t

of $11. 34 m i l l i on. In an op inion andorder denying T oledo’s post- tria l m otion f or re consider at ion, the Dis tric t Court explai ned that To le do ’s § 1 cl ai m

was bar re d b y the a pp li ca ble fou r- year statute o f lim itatio n s b ecau se “Y eag er kn ewo r h adreaso nto kn ow of the a ll eged conspirac y

as earl y as 19 89 .” (App . at A5. ) The Di s tr i c t

Court the n pr e s e nt e d as umm ary of Tol e do’ s e vi de nc e wi thi n the l i mi t at i ons pe r i od and, r e l yi ng on Supr e m e Court

c a s e s di s c us s i ng the s pe c i a l r e s tr i c t i ons on the i nfe r e nc e s that

m ay pe rm i s s i bl y

be dr awn fr om

the evidence i n antitrust

ca se s, concluded that non e of that ev id en ce sh o w edth at anilleg al co n sp iracy ex istedb ecau se “ [t ]he i nfe r e nc e s [Tol e do] want s t o dr aw fa l l s hort of reaso n ab le o n es inth e an titru st co n tex t.” (Ap p . at A 8 .) F inally , the D istri ct C o u rtred u ce d the ju ry ’s da m ag es a w ard to $ 1 .6 m ill io n , w h ich M a c k a c c e p ted . T o led o th e n f iled th is tim e ly ap p e a l. I I I

. D is cus s i on T ol edo r ai s es t hr ee i s s ues on appea l

. Fi r s t , i t cont ends t hati t adduce d s uffi ci entevi dence fori t s § 1 cl ai m t o go t he j ur yand t hat , t her efor e, t he D i s t r i ctC our t er r ed bygr ant i ng j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw on t hatcl ai m . Second, T ol edo arg u es th at t h e D istri ct C o u rterred in g ran ti n g su m m ary j udgm enti n favorof M ack on i t s R PA cl ai m beca us e t he d a tab a se d isc u ss e d a t trial sh o w e d th a t M a c k so ld tru c k s to o th e r d e a ler s a t f

a v o ra b le p ric e s th a t itre f u se d to e x ten d to T o led o . F in a lly , T o led o c o n ten d s th a t M a c k ’s c o u n ter c laimC ol l us i on bet w een a m anufa ctur erand i t s deal er s t o keep 8 a pr oduct ’ s pr i ce a r t i fi ci al l yhi gh i s l i kel yt o be an unus ual phenomenon becaus e ot herm anufa ctur er s and dea l er s of t he s ame or s ubs t i t ut e pr oduct s can, s i m pl ybys el l i ng ata l ow er p ric e , ren d e r th e c o llu d in g p a rties ’ a g re e m e n t ec o n o m ica lly u n w is e . See Phi l l i p E
. A r eeda , H erber t H ovenkamp, Fundam ent al s of A nt i t r us t L aw § 1603f ( 3d ed. 2007) ( expl ai ni ng t hat“[d] eal er s cannotw i n exce s s pr ofi t t hr ough a d istrib u tio n re stra in t u n les s a m a n u f a c tu re r w h o [ a g re e s to as s i s t ] t hem has s uffi ci entm ar ketpow ert o m ake a r es t r i ct i on on output fea s i bl e and pr ofi t abl e. ”)

. H ow ever , col l us i on bet w een manufac t ur er s and dea l er s i s fea s i bl e w hen one m a n u f a c tu re r d o m in a tes th e m a rk e t, or w h e n a ll m a n u f a c tu re rs in th e m a rk e t en ter in to a g re e m e n ts w ith th e ir d e a le rs to k e e p p ri c e s a rt if ic ia lly h ig h

. I

d. §§ 16. 03f3, 1 6 .0 3 f 4 . A s d is c u s s e d m o re f u lly h e re in , i nfr a at37- 41, s uch 22 form i s appr opr i at i on of t r ade s ecr et s i s bar r ed by Penns y l vani a’ s “gi s t of t he ac t i on” doctr i ne. W e di s cus s eac h of t hes e ar gum ent s i n t ur n. A

. T o led o ’s S h e rm a n A c t § 1 C la im Sect i on 1 of t he Sher m an A ctpr ohi bi t s “a c ons pi r acy

. . . i n r es t r ai nt of t r ade orcomm er ce a m ong t he s ever al St at es

. . . . ” 1 5 U
. S

. C

. § 1
. O n ap p ea l, the p arti es’ p ri m ary cont ent i ons conce r n w het herT ol edo’ s evi dence w as s uffi ci ent t o al l ow a j ur yt o cons i derw het heri l l egal agr eement s exi s t ed among M ack de al er s and betw een M ack de al er s and M ack itse lf

. B e f

o re tu rn in g to th e p a rties ’ a rg u m e n ts o n th is p o in t, 8col l us i ve agr eement s m aybe unl aw ful undert he rul e of re a s o n a n a lysis a p p lie d to v e rt ic a l p ri c e re s tr a in ts u n d e r § 1
. See, e. g. , Leegi n C r eat i ve LeatherP r ods

. , I nc. , v. P SK

S, I nc. , 127 S. C t
. 2705, 2717 ( 2007) ( expl ai ni ng t hat“[t ] o t he ext ent a ver t i cal agr eement s et t i ng m i ni m um r es al e pr i ces i s ent er ed u p o n to f a c ili tate [ a d e a ler ] c a rte l, i t .. . w o u ld n e e d to b e h e ld u n law fu l un d er the rule o f re aso n ”). 23 how ever , w e addr es s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on t hat T oledo’s sui t w as barr ed b yt he st at ute of l i m i t at i on s.

1. The St at ut e of

Li m i t at i ons Sect i on 1 cl ai m s ar e s ubj ectt o a four

- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons . 15 U
. S. C

. § 15b. I n gr ant i ng M ack’ s m ot i on for j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw on T ol edo’ s § 1 cl ai m , t he D i s t r i ctC our t decl i ned t o cons i derpr e- 1998 evi dence of t he exi s t ence of a c ons pi r acybeca us e i t concl uded t hat“Y eage r k n e w o r h a d re a so n to k n o w o f th e a lleg e d c o n sp ira c ya s e a rly as 1989 and t hus t he s ui t fi l ed 13 y ear s l at er[i n 2002] w as b arred b ythe f

o u r-y ea r st atute o f li m it ati o n s. ” (A p p . at A 5
. ) T he D i s t r i ctC our t t hen w enton t o exami ne w het herevi dence of eve nt s w i t hi n t he l i m i t at i ons per i od fr om 1998 t o 2002 w as s uffi ci entt o al l ow t he j ur yt o concl ude t hata cons pi r acy exi s t ed. T he D i s t r i ctC our t concl uded t hatt he 1998 t o 2002 evi dence w as not s uffi ci entbeca us e “the i nfer ence s [Tol edo] w ants t o d raw fal l shortof reasonab l e on es i n an anti t rust cont ext
. ” ( A pp. atA 7 ( ci t i ng I n r e Baby F ood A nt i t r us tLi t ig. , 1 6 6 F .3 d 1 1 2 , 1 2 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 )) .)24 T ol edo ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t er r ed byr equi r i ng it t o sh o w e x c lu siv e lyw ith p o st-1 9 9 8 e v id e n c e th a t a cons pi r acyexi s t ed. I ns t ead, T ol edo cont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ct C o u rt sh o u ld h a v e c o n sid e re d w h e th e r a ll o f th e e v id e n c e it pr es ent ed, i ncl udi ng evi dence of eve nt s pr i or t o 1998, w as s uffi ci entt o al l ow a j ur yt o concl ude t hat , fr om 1998 unt i l at lea st 2 0 0 2 , M a c k a n d its d e a ler s e n g a g e d in o v e rt a c ts in fu rt h era n ce o f a co n ti n u ing co n sp ir ac ythat b eg an b ef o re 1998. W e agr ee. A l t hough T ol edo cl ai m s t hatt he cons pi r acy began i n 1989, l ong befor e t he l i m i t at i ons per i od, i t pr es ent ed evi dence fr om w hi ch a r at i onal j ur ycoul d concl ude t hatt he unl aw ful agr eement s cont i nued i n eff ectt hr ough t he t i m e of t r i al i n 2002. T ol edo s eeks damages onl yforact s comm i t t ed i n fur t her ance of t he cons pi r acyfr om 1998 t o 2002, w i t hi n t he l i m i t at i ons per i od, but i t i s ent i t l ed t o pr es entevi dence fr om out s i de t hatper i od t o s us t ai n i t s bur den of pr oof. T he S up rem e C ou rthas held t hat “[g]eneral l y , a cause of ac t i on under§ 1 acc r ues and t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons begi ns t o r un w hen a de fenda nt comm i t s an ac t t hati nj ur es t he pl ai nt i ff’ s bus i nes s . ” Zeni t h R adi o C o. v. H az el t i ne R es ear ch, I

nc. , 4 0 1 U .S . 3 2 1 , 3 3 8 (1 9 7 1 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). H o w e v e r, “[ i]n th e c o n tex t o f a c o n tin u in g c o n sp ira c yto vi ol at e t he ant i t r us t l aw s , . . . eac h t i m e a pl ai nt i ff i s i nj ur ed by a n a c t o f th e d e f e n d a n t[ ] a c a u se o f

a c tio n a c c ru e s to [ it] to recover t he d am ages cau sed by t hat act

. . . and

. . . as t o those damages , t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons r uns fr om t he comm i s s i on of t he ac t
. ” I

d. (c itatio n s o m itt e d ); see al so H anoverShoe, I nc. v. U ni t ed Shoe M

ach. C or p. , 392 U
. S. 481, 502 n. 15 (1 9 6 8 ) (c o n c lu d in g th a t th e p lain tiff c o u ld b rin g a § 1 c laim in 1955 forconductw hi ch fi r s t began i n 1912 beca us e t heB ot h i n i t s br i ef a nd ator al ar gum ent , M ack a r gued t hat 9 the D istri ct C o u rt ’s de cisi o n w as c o rrect be ca u se T o ledo ’s evi dence and t he i nfer ence s t hatcoul d be dr aw n fr om t hat evi dence w oul d not al l ow a j ur yt o concl ude t hatanyi l l egal cons pi r acyeverexi s t ed or , al t er nat i vel y , t hatanycons pi r acy c o n t i n u e d i n e f

f e c t d u r i n g t h e l i mi t a t i o n s p e r i o d

. Byi t s o wn t er m s , how ever , t hatar gum enti s aboutt he s uffi ci encyof T ol edo’ s evi dence , not aboutt he l egal r ul es gover ni ng cont i nui ng cons pi r acycas es under§ 1

. In a re late d a rg u m e n t, M ack c ont ends t hatt he 1991 r el eas e betw een i t and Tol edo, see supra n o te 2 , b a rs T o le d o ’s § 1 c la im . W e d is a g re e . The re le as e does not apply

to cl ai m s for anti tr

ust dam ages base d 25 defe ndant ’ s act i ons w er e “c onductw hi ch cons t i t ut ed a cont i nui ng vi ol at i on of t he Sher m an A ct , and w hi ch i nfl i ct ed c o n tin u in g a n d a c c u m u la tin g h a rm o n [ th e p la in tif f ]” ). C ons i s t entw i t h t hatpr ece dent , w e have s t at ed t hat“a cons pi r acy ’ s r efus al t o deal , w hi ch bega n out s i de t he l i m i t at i ons per i od, m aybe vi ew ed as a cont i nui ng s er i es of act s upon w hi ch s ucce s s i ve ca us es of ac t i on m ayacc r ue. ” In r e Low erLake Eri e I

r on O r e Ant i t r us tLi t ig. , 998 F. 2d 1144, 1173 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on m arks o m itt e d ). T h e re f

o re , w e h o ld th a t T o led o w a s n o t re q u ire d to pr ove an i l l egal cons pi r acyw i t h evi dence r es t r i ct ed t o t he l i m i t at i ons per i od. I t s bur den w as , r at her , t o pr es entevi dence s uffi ci entt o al l ow a r at i onal j ur yt o concl ude t hatM ack a nd its d e a ler s c o m m itt e d d u rin g th e lim itatio n s p e rio d o v e rt a c ts in f u rth e ra n c e o f

a n ill e g a l co n sp ira c yo r c o n sp ira c ies , ev e n if the c o n sp ir ac ies b eg an b ef o re the li m it ati o n s p eriod

. W e turn 9o nev en ts w h icho ccur af ter th e ex ecu tio no f

th e release. Cf

. Thre eRi v e r

s Motor Co. v . Ford Motor

Co. , 522 F. 2d 885, 896 n. 27 ( 3d Ci r . 1975) ( hol di ng that part i e s m ay

not wa i ve liab ility f o r f uture an titru st v io latio n s). A lth o u g hth e release prevents To le do from

se eking d am ages fo r e vents that oc c ur r e d b e fo r e 19 91 , Ma c k c i t e s no autho r i ty , no r have we f o un dany , f

o r th e p ro p o sitio nth at a release p rev en ts a p arty fr om r e l yi ng on e ve nt s that

oc c urr e d pr i or

t o the s i gni ng of the r e l e a s e t o e s t abl i s h fa c t s ne c e s s ary t o s how ac ont i nui ng c o n s p i r a c y. 26 now t o w het hert he evi dence t hatT ol edo pr es ent ed att r i al m e e ts th a t s ta n d a rd

.

2. Th e Suffi ci encyof To le do ’s Evidence At the outse t, we ar e mindf ul that , und er

ou r s tand ar d o f rev iew , w e m

u st “exp o se th e ev id en ce to th e stro n g est l i ght favor abl e t o the party

a ga i ns t whom the m ot i on [for judgm e nt a s am att e r

of l aw] i s m a de and gi ve [that party] the advantage of every

fair and reas on able infere nce. ” Ra ic zyk v

. O cea n Co u n ty V

eterin a ry H

o sp ., 37 7 F .3d 2 66 , 269 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ) (citatio no m itted ). Inad d itio n , w e m u st n o t “tig h tly co m p artm en talize th e ev id en ce,” b ut rev iewit “as a w h o le to se e i f it t og ether s up po rt s an inf er ence of concert ed ac ti on .” P etruzzi’s IG

A S u p erm a rkets, In c. v. D a rlin g-D ela w a re , Co ., Inc. , 9 9 8 F .2 d1 2 2 4 , 1 2 3 0 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 3 ). Of c our s e , we m

us t c om pl y wi th thos e s t andar ds i n the context of the preci se lang uage of § 1 and the ca se s27 in terp retin g it. A s n o ted , § 1 p ro h ib its “[ e] v ery co n tract, c om bi nat i on . . . or

c ons pi r a c y , i n r e s tr a i nt

of tr a de

. ” W e have exp lain edth at “[ d ] esp ite its b ro adlan g u ag e, S ectio n1 o n ly proh ibit s c on tr ac ts , c om

binati on s, or conspira ci es that u n rea so n a b lyre stra in tr ade. ” In re F la t G la ss A n titru st Li t i g. , 3 8 5 F .3 d3 5 0 , 3 5 6 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (o rig in al em p h asis). Thus , t o s uc c e e d o n a

§ 1 c l a i m , apl a i nt i ff

m us t m e e t two r e qui r e m e nt s . Fi r s t , the pl a i nt i ff m us t s how that

the de fe ndant wa s aparty

t o a“ c ontr a c t , c om

bi nat i on . . . or c ons pi r a c y . ” Se c ond, the pl a i nt i ff m us t s how that

the conspira cy

to wh ic h the defend ant was a party im po se d an un re as on able re stra int on tra de. In the pre se nt ca se , Toledo all eges that Mack deal er s en teredin to anun law f

u l co n sp iracy

am o n g th em selv es to f

ix p rices, an dT o led o f

urth er alleg es th at M ackag reedto supp ort that c on spir ac y

by , am on g o ther

things, denying sal es assistan ce to a d ealer th at, lik e T o led o , attem p tedto co m

p ete a ga i ns t othe r Ma c k d e a l e r s onpri c e . I n what fo l l ow s , we anal y ze bo th of

those purpo rt ed agree m ents – the ho ri zontal a gr e e m e nt

am ong the de a l e r s , and the ve rt i c a l a gr e e m e nt be twe e n Ma c k and the de a l e r s – t o de t e rm i ne whe the r Tol e do pres ente d suf

fici ent e vidence for a jury to deci de that

ea ch agre em ent e xist ed and that e ac h agreem ent was a c on spir ac y th at unreaso n ab ly

restrain edtrad e inv io latio no f § 1
. As e x p lain e d m o re f

u llyb e lo w , sp e c ial ru les g o v e rn o u r a n a ly sis of Tol edo’ s evi dence fort he exi s t ence of the agr eement s and th e ir le g a lity.28 a. Tol edo’s E vi dence of an U nl aw f ul A greem ent Betw een Mack D ealers Beca use § 1 o f the Sh er

m an Act by

it s t er m s r equire s co n certedactio n , “un ilateral activ ity , n o m atter w h at its m otivat ion, cann ot give ri se to a § 1 v iolati on .” Ro ss i v

. Stan da rd Ro ofing, Inc. , 1 5 6 F .3 d4 5 6 , 4 6 5 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 8 ). To show concert ed ac ti on , a plai ntiff must produ ce evidence that wo uld all ow a jury

to infer that “ the a ll eged conspirat ors ha d auni ty

of pur pos e or ac omm on de s i gn and un ders tand ing, or a m ee ti ng of the minds.” Mo nsan to Co . v . Spray -Ri teSe rv . Cor

p. , 465 U. S. 752, 764 ( 1984)

. Re gar di ng the ty pe s of e vi de nc e whi c h m ay be us e d t o s how that

the co n certedactio nrequ irem en t is m et, w e h av e saidth at, [w ]h il e dir ec t e vidence, the proverbia l ‘sm o k in g -g un ,’ is g en erally th e m o st com pell ing m eans by

wh ic h a plai ntiff can m ak e o ut h is o r h er claim , it is also f requ en tly d if f icu lt f o r an titru st p lain tif

f s to co m e b y . T hu s, p lain tif

f s h av e b eenp erm ittedto rely s ol e l y on c i r c um s t ant i a l e vi de nc e ( and the r e a s on abl e i nf

e r e nc e s that

m ay be dr awn th e r e f r o m) t o p r o v e ac o n s p i r a c y. R o ssi , 1 5 6 F .3 dat 4 6 5
. Furthe r , t o avoi d puni s hi ng l awful c onduc t , the Suprem e Cou rt

has pla ce d certa in li m it s on the infere nces that m ay be dr awn fr om

the e vi de nc e i n ant i tr

us t c a s e s . The Co urt has explai ned that c erta in evidenti ar y re stri ct ions ar eW e have hel d t hatt he s t r i ctur es on ci r cumst ant i al 10 evi dence i n ant i t r us t cas es onl yappl [y ] w hen t he pl ai nt i ff ha s fai l ed t o put f o rth d ire c t ev id e n c e o f

c o n sp ira c y . T h u s, in 29 nece ss ar y in anti tr ust c as es si nce “ m is taken inf er ence s . .. ar e e s pe c i a l l y c os t l y be c aus e the y

c hi l l the ve r

y c onduc t the anti tr ust l aws are desi gn ed to protec t. ” Ma ts ushita Elec

. In d u s. Co . v. Z

en ith R a dio Co rp ., 4 7 5 U .S . 5 7 4 , 5 9 4 (1 9 8 6 ). T h eref o re, “an titru st lawlim its th e ran g e o f p erm issib le in f eren ces f ro m am b ig u o u s ev id en ce ina § 1 case. ... [ C ] o n du ct as co n sisten t w ithp erm issib le co m p etitio nas w ith il le gal c on spir ac y

do es no t, st anding al on e, supp ort an infere nce of antitrust

conspira cy .” I

d. at 588 ( c i t at i ons om i tt e d)

. I n a ddi t i on, “ i f the fa c t ua l c ont e xt

r e nde r s the p lain tif f’s claim im p lau sib le –if

th e claim is o n e th at sim

p ly m akes no ec on om ic se nse – a pla inti ff m ust c om e forward with m ore pers uasi ve evidence t o sup po rt it s c la im than wo uld o ther

wise be neces sary .” R o ssi , 156 F. 3d at 466 ( quot i ng M

o n sa n to , 475 U .S . at 5 8 7 ) (p un ctu atio no m itted ). F in ally , “inev alu atin g w h eth er a g enu in e issu e f o r trial ex ists, th e an titru st d ef

en d an ts’ eco n o m ic m o tiv e is h ig h ly relev an t. If th e d ef en d an ts h adn o ratio n al eco n o m ic m o tiv e to co n sp ire, an dif

th eir co n du ct is co n sisten t w itho th er, equ ally plausible e xp lanati on s, the c on du ct do es no t give ris e t o an infere nce of con spir ac y .” I d. ( quot i ng M

o n sa n to , 475 U.S. at 59 6) (pun ct

uati onom itte d). Nevert

hele ss , we have held that those l imit s on inf

er ence s do n ot apply

to a pla inti ff’s dire ct e vi de nc e of an unl awful a gr e e m e nt unde r § 1. Id

. 10di r ectevi dence cas es , t he pl ai nt i ff ne ed not a d d u c e c irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e th a t ten d s to excl ude t he pos s i bi l i t yt hatt he al l eged co n sp ir ators a cted ind ep en d en tl y , an d there need notbe an i nqui r yi nt o t he pl aus i bi l i t yof t he def endant s ’ cl ai m or t he r at i onal i t yof defe nd ants ’ econo m i c m oti ves. T his i s becau se w hen t he pl ai nt i ff ha s put for t h di r ectevi dence o f c o n sp ira c y , the f

a c t f in d e r is n o t re q u ire d to m ak e inf ere n ce s to e stab li sh fa cts, an d there fo re t he Supr eme C our t ’ s conce r ns overt he r eas onabl enes s of i nfer ence s i n ant i t r us t cas es e v a p o ra te
. R ossi , 1 5 6 F .3 d a t 4 6 6
. 30 I n t he pr es entcas e, T ol edo pr es ent ed s ever al pi ece s of d ire c t ev id e n c e f

o r th e e x iste n c e o f

o n e o r m o re a g re e m e n ts a m o n g M a c k d e a le rs n o t to c o m p e te w ith e a c h o th e r. B e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t T o led o ’s d ire c t ev id e n c e is su f f icie n t to a llo w a ju ryto c o n c lu d e th a t a c o n sp ira c yn o t to compet e exi s t ed among M ack de al er s , w e nee d not appl yt he r ul es r es t r i ct i ng i nfer ence s dr aw n fr om ci r cumst ant i al evi dence

. T o led o ’s f

irst p iec e o f

e v id e n c e o f

a n a g re e m e n t n o t to com pete w as Y eager’s t est i m on yt hat, i n the earl y19 80 s, ot herM ack de al er s t ol d hi m bl unt l yt hatdeal er s “di d not compet e on pr i ce. ” ( A pp. atA 513. ) Second, M ack c ons ul t ant Ha l l i e Gi ul i ano te st ifie d that i n 1 99 9, Ro n G er hard, a Mack31 em p lo yee, to ldh er th at “th ere w as a ‘g en tlem en ’s ag reem en t’ am o n g M acktru ckd ealers th at th ey w o u ldsell o n ly

inth eir own AORs

. . . [but ] that

s om e Ma c k tr

uc k de a l e r s di d not h o n o r th e ‘g en tlem en ’s ag reem en ts’ an den g ag edinef f o rts in o th er M ackd ealers’ territo ries.” (Ap p . at A 3 5 3 7 .) F i n a l l y, w h e n Ja c k L u sty , Y e a g e r’s d istric t m a n a g e r f ro m 1 9 9 8 to 2002, w as as ked w het her“s om e M ack de al er s [had] unw r i t t en u n d erstan d ing s w ith o ther M ac k d ea lers t h at t h ey w o u ldn ’t co m p ete in e ac h o ther’s A O R ’s, ” h e re sp o n d ed that “[ t] h ere w ere – there w ere so m e M ac k d ea lers t h at – a n d I’ve h ea rd them ca ll ed g en tl em en ’s ag ree m en ts, w h ere they w o u ldn ’t c o m p e te in o th e r d e a le rs ’ a re a s ... .” (A p p . a t A 2 8 7 7 .) W hi l e admi t t i ng t hatt he r ecor d befor e us cont ai ns s t at ement s aboutagr eement s bet w een de al er s , M ack a r gues t hat To l edo ’s evidence is i nsuff i ci ent t o g i ve to a j urybecau se t he r ecor d does not r evea l t he exa ctext entof anys uch a g re e m e n ts. V iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le t o T ol edo, M ack’ s ar gum enti s unper s uas i ve. I t m ayw el l be t hatT ol edo’ s i nabi l i t yt o pr es entt he det ai l s of anyagr eement among deal er s w oul d l eave a j ur yunper s uaded thats uch agr eement s di d i n fac t exi s t
. T hat , how ever , i s not our i nqui r y . I ns t ead, w e mustcons i derw het hert he evi dence e n title s T o le d o to p la c e th a t q u e s tio n b e f o re th e ju ry a t a ll. W e bel i eve i t does

. Si m pl yput , T ol edo’ s evi dence w as s uffi ci entbeca us e a j ur ycons i der i ng i t coul d bel i eve i t and reas on ablycon cl ud e t hat agr eem ents no t t o co m pete di d ex i stC ons i s t entw i t h our ear l i erdi s cus s i on of t he pr i nci pl es 11 g o v ern ing co n ti n u ing co n sp ir ac yca ses, w e n o te t h at T o ledo ’s e v id e n c e o f

a g re e m e n ts b e tw e e n d e a ler s in c lu d e s s tate m e n ts aboutevent s t hatt ook pl ace i n t he 1980s , out s i de t he l i m i t at i ons per i od, as w el l as l at ers t at ement s and evi dence abo ut the ex i st ence o f ho ri zon t al agreem ents
. 32 among M ack de al er s . T he pos s i bi l i t yt hata j ur ym i ght not 11 bel i eve the di r ectevi dence does not , i n i t s el f, m ean thatt he ju ry sh o u ld n o t c o n s id e r i t. H avi ng concl uded t hatT ol edo’ s evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o s how t he exi s t ence of a non- compet i t i on ag ree m en t am o n g M ac k d ea lers, w e turn to w h ethe r t h e jury c o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t th e a g re e m e n t w a s a n u n re a so n a b le r es t r ai nt of t r ade i n vi ol at i on of § 1. W hen cons i der i ng t he l egal i t yof an a gr eement under§ 1, t w o di ffe r entm et hods of anal y s i s m aybe us ed, dependi ng upon t he natur e of the agr eement ati s s ue. “C er t ai n r es t r ai nt s of t r ade a r e per se u n re a so n a b le, w h ile o th e rs r e q u ire m o re se a rc h in g a n a ly sis undert he ‘ r ul e of r eas on. ’ ” F l at G l ass , 3 8 5 F .3 d a t 3 5 6
. P er se re stra in ts a re “ c o n c lu siv e lyp re su m e d to u n re a so n a b ly r es t r ai n compet i t i on ‘ w i t hout el abor at e i nqui r yas t o t he pr eci s e har m [t heyhave] caus ed ort he bus i nes s excus e for [th eir] use

. ’” Id

. ( quot i ng R ossi , 156 F. 3d at461)

. T he l i m i t ed ca t egor i es of agr eement s s ubj ectt o per se t r eat m ent i ncl ude “hor i zont al pr i ce- fi xi ng - i

. e. , w her e compet i t or s at t he s ame m arketl evel agr ee t o fi x or contr ol t he pr i ces t hey w i l l char ge fort hei r r es pect i ve goods or s er vi ces . . . . ” I d. ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal punctuat i on and quot at i on m ar ks33 o m itt e d ); se e a lso L e e g in , 127 S. C t
. at2717 ( “A hor i zont al car t el among . . . compet i ng r et ai l er s t hat

. . . r educe s c o m p e titio n in o rd e r t o in c re a s e p ri c e is , a n d o u g h t to b e , per s e unl aw ful

. ”)

. I t i s r eadi l yappar entt hat , i f t her e w er e an agr eement among M ack de al er s as al l eged, i t i nvol ved hor i zont al compet i t or s col l udi ng t o cont r ol pr i ces and, t her efor e, w oul d be pers e unl aw ful

. T hus , vi ew ed i n t he l i gh t m ost favo rabl e t o T oledo, t he ev i den ce show s a h o ri z o n ta l a g re e m e n t th a t v io la te s § 1
.

b. Tol edo’s E vi dence of an U nl aw f ul A greem ent Betw een the D ealers and Mack O b v io u sly , ev id e n c e su f f icie n t to a llo w a ju ryto co n clud e tha t i ll eg al ag ree m en ts ex ist ed am o n g M ac k d ea lers does not es t abl i s h t hatM ack i t s el f w as a par t yt o an agr eement t hatvi ol at ed § 1 of the Sher m an A ct
. T ol edo c o n ten d s, h o w e v e r, th a t itp re se n ted su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to al l ow a j ur yt o concl ude t hatM ack di d ent eri nt o an i l l egal v e rtica l ag re e m e n t w ith its d e a ler s. A c c o rd in g to T o led o , it s how ed an a gr eement bet w een the dea l er s and M ack that M ack w oul d s uppor t t he dea l er s ’ i l l egal cons pi r acyt o cont r ol pr i ces , and t hatone t ool M ack e m pl oy ed t o t hatend w as a de fa c to ban on out

- of- A O R s al es bydeal er s l i ke Tol edo t hat s o u g h t to c o m p e te w ith o th e r d e a le rs o n p ri c e . O ur anal y s i s of t he al l eged ve r t i cal agr eement bet w een M ack a nd i t s deal er s fol l ow s t he s ame pat t er n w e us ed w hen cons i der i ng t he al l eged hor i zont al agr eement among t heW e re it era te t h at, u n d er R ossi , w e nee d not appl yt he 12 s t r i ctur es on i nfer ence s dr aw n fr om ambi guous ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t hatw oul d appl yi n t he abs ence of di r ectevi dence of a cons pi r acy . N ever t hel es s , i n addi t i on t o T ol edo’ s di r ect evi dence of an a gr eement bet w een the dea l er s and M ack, T o led o h a d in d ire c t ev id e n c e o f th a t co n sp ira c y , inc lu d in g its evi dence t hatM ack a ct ed contr ar yt o i t s ow n s t at ed pol i cyof all o w ing o u t- o f-A O R sales. E v en u n d er Mo n sa n to ’s l i m i t at i ons on i nfer ence s fr om ci r cumst ant i al evi dence , t hat ev iden ce ap p ea rs t o h av e b ee n su ff ici en t t o cre ate a jury ques t i on as t o w het hert her e w as an agr eement bet w een M ack an d it s d ea lers

. 34 deal er s . Fi r s t , w e cons i derT ol edo’ s evi dence of t he a g r e e m e n t , a n d s e c o n d , w e c o n s i d e r t h e a g r e e m e n t ’ s l e g a l i t y. T ol edo pr es ent ed di r ectevi dence t hatM ack a gr eed w ith its d e a ler s to su p p o rt th e ir a n ti-co m p e tit iv e a g re e m e n ts and t hati t di d s o by , among ot hert hi ngs , r efus i ng t o offe r sa les a ss ista n c e to d e a ler s w h o so u g h t to se ll o u tsid e th e ir A O R s . J ack Lustyt es t i fi ed t hatJef f Y elles to ldh im

in 12 2 0 0 2 , durin g th e tim e w h enM acko sten sib ly p erm ittedits de a l e r s t o s e l l e ve ry

whe r e , that

he “ kn[e w] what

[Tol e do] [wa s ] tryi ng t o do. [Tol e do] want s t o e s t abl i s h di s c ount s and sell tru ck s all o v er th e p lace. We are n o t g o in g to let th is happ en.” (App . at A28 24 .) Lu sty al so te st ifie d that Mac k exec utives used sa le s a ss is tance t o “control deal er s andthat th e real p urp o se o f

M ack ’s sy stem

o f cro ss-ch eck s w as to gi ve an i n- AO R d e a l e r

the a dv ant a ge ov e r

an o ut
- of

- AO R d ealer.”35 M o reo v er, M a c k d o e s n o t co n tes t th a t, i n 1 9 8 9 , it iss u e d B u lletin 3 8 -8 9 , w h ich e lim in a ted sa les a ss ista n c e to deal er s on s al es out s i de t hei r A O R s . I m por t ant l yforpurpos es of s how i ng a cons pi r acyunder§ 1, T ol edo pr es ent ed evi dence t hatB ul l et i n 38- 89 w as t he r es ul t of a c ol l abor at i on bet w een M ac k an d it s d ea lers. A cc o rdin g to tha t evid en ce , M ac k ’s N D A C , a gr oup cons i s t i ng of bot h M ack e xecut i ves and d e a le r r e p re s e n ta tiv e s , w o rk e d o n a d ra f t o f B u lle tin 3 8 -8 9
. I n addi t i on, w hen Y eage r as ked D i ck M urphyw het her N D A C ’ s appr oval of t he new pol i cyw as a “una ni m ous ki nd o f th in g ,” M u rp h yre s p o n d e d , “O hyes. O hv ery m u chso . Very m uch so. I m ean, som ething as si gn ific ant a s this, it had to co m e f ro m all w alk s.” (Ap p . at A 4 0 2 5 .) Mack’s Vice Pres ident of D is tributor Sale s, Gary John son, told Yeager

that th e o n e th in g I cantell yo uth at w o u ldb e f air and legit im at e a dv ic e i s that Ithink this polic y c am e about

t o al ar ge e xt e nt

be c aus e of the vo ic e of the distribu tor organiz at ion ... . I f it’ s p ro b ab ly ev er g o nn a b e ch an g edo r m o d if ied , it wi l l c om e about

a s ar e s ul t

of the voi c e of d ealer o rg an izatio n s. (A p p . a t A 4 0 5 8 .) M ack’ s at t empt s t o di s cr edi t J ohns on’ s s t at ement about t he dea l er s ’ r ol e i n cr eat i ng B ul l et i n 38- 89 onl ydemonst r at es w hyt he j ur ys houl d have be en gi ven a c hance t o cons i der T ol edo’ s § 1 cl ai m . Fi r s t , M ack a r gues t hatJ ohns on w as m i s t aken be caus e, i m m edi at el ybefor e expl ai ni ng t he or i gi ns of t he pol i cy , he s t at ed t hathe w as “new on t he j ob. ” W hi l e a36 j ur ypr es ent ed w i t h t hatar gum entm i ght concl ude t hat J ohns on’ s s t at ement s ar e i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h t hatM ack a n d its d e a ler s c o n sp ire d , tha t d o e s n o t m e a n th a t a ju ryc o u ld n o t b e lie v e J o h n s o n a n d re a c h th e o p p o s ite c o n c lu s io n . J ohns on s t at ed unequi vocal l yt hatB ul l et i n 38- 89 “ca m e about t o a l ar ge ext entbeca us e of the voi ce of t he di s t r i but or or gani zat i on. ” ( A pp. atA 4058. ) B eca us e B ul l et i n 38- 89 w as iss u e d a s o f

f icia l M a c k p o licy , a ju ryp re se n ted w ith Jo h n so n ’s s tate m e n t, alo n g w ith M u rp h y ’s s tate m e n t, co u ld r at i onal l yconcl ude t hatB ul l et i n 38- 89 w as t he r es ul t of an a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n M a c k a n d its d e a le rs . M ack a l s o at t acks J ohns on’ s s t at ement byci t i ng our deci s i on i n Ed

w a rd J. S w een ey &S

o n s, In c. v. T

exa co In c., 6 3 7 F .2 d1 0 5 (3 dC ir. 1 9 8 0 ). I n Sw eene y , w e hel d t hat t es t i m onyw oul d not s uppor tan i nfer ence of cons pi r acyw hen a w i t nes s s t at ed t hathe “be l i eved [ t he def endant ] change d [t he pl ai nt i ff’ s ] haul i ng al l ow ance beca us e of .

. . r et ai l er compl ai nt s , ” butt hen admi t t ed t hathi s opi ni on “w as j us t an uns uppor t ed s ur m i s e. ” 637 F. 2d at112. Se i z i ng on the wi tne s s ’ s s t at e m e nt

i n Sw ee neythat

his bel ie f w as an “ uns upport e d s urm i s e , ” Ma c k ar gue s that , be c aus e J ohns on on ly told Yeager

“what [he] th[ ou gh t] occurre d,” h is s ta te m e n t is in s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt a n in f

e re n c e o f c o n s p ir a c y . W e d is a g re e . In th e f

ir s t p la c e , Sw eene

y i s i nap po si t e beca use Jo h n so n ’s s tate m e n t is d ire c t ev id e n c e o f c o llu sio n , w h ich , if bel i eved, r equi r es no fur t heri nfer ence . Second, unl i ke t he w i t nes s i n Sw eene

y , J ohns on nevers t at ed t hathi s bel i ef a bout t he or i gi ns of B ul l et i n 38- 89 l acke d s uppor t , and hi s pos i t i on as V i ce Pr es i dentof D i s t r i but or Sal es but t r es s es t he37 concl us i on t hathi s s t at ement w as bas ed on fi r s t
- hand k n o w le d g e , n o t m e re s u rm is e . Ma c k’ s ar gum e nt

that Mur phy ’ s s t at e m e nt s c annot

be tak enas sh o w in g a co n sp iracy is equ ally

unp ersu asiv e. Re l yi ng on M

o n sa n to , Ma c k ar gue s that the t a pe r e c or di ng of Yeager’ s c on vers at ion w it h M urph y show s, at m ost, that Mack res po nd ed to deal er com plai nts a bo ut To le do . I n M o n sa n to , th e S up rem e C o urt h eldth at, to estab lish c on c e rt e d a c t i onun de r

§ 1 us i ng di r e c t

e vi de nc e , apl a i nt i ff cann o t sim

p ly sh o wth at th e d ef

en d an t receiv edco m

p lain ts ab o ut th e p lain tif

f’s p rice cu ttin g f

ro m o th er d ealers, n o r is it e nough t o s how that

the de fe ndant

r e c e i ve d c om

pl a i nt s and a c t e d i n r e s pons e . 465 U. S. at 764 ( c i t i ng Sw ee ney , 637 F. 2d at 11 1-12 ). Inst ea d, a pla inti ff m ust produ ce evidence that wo uld all ow a jury

to conclude that

“the al le ged con spir at ors ha d auni ty

of pur pos e or ac omm on de s i gn and un ders tand ing, or a m ee ti ng of the minds.” I

d. The ne c e s s ary “ m e e t i ng of the m i nds ” r e qui r e s “ m or e than a show ing that t

he distribu tor c on fo rm ed to the s ug gest ed p rice. It m ean s as w ell th at ev id en ce m u st b e p resen tedb o th that the di s tr i but or

c omm uni c at e d i t s a c qui e s c e nc e or agre em ent, and that this was soug ht by the m anuf

ac ture r. ” I

d. at 764 n. 9. Ma c k ar gue s that

Ye a ge r ’ s c onve r s at i on wi th Mur phy d o es n o t m eet M

o n sa n to ’s requ irem en ts b ecau se, ev enif b eliev ed , it sh o w s o n ly

th at M ackad o p tedB u lletin3 8 -8 9 in r e s pons e t o de a l e r

c om pl a i nt s . Howe ve r , i n Mons anto i t s e l f, the Cou rt held that a jury shou ld be permitte d to con si der whe the r ac ons pi r a c y

e xi s t e d ba s e d on e vi de nc e of am e e t i ng38 betwee n M on santo andit s dis tributors. Du ri ng the m ee ti ng at issu e inth at case, th e p arties d iscu ssed“M o n san to ’s ef f o rts to get the m ar

ket pla ce in order, ” i d. at

765 ( i nt e rna l punc t

uat i on om itte d), andal so disc usse d h ow to ensure a “ le vel p layg ro un d ” inw h ichth e d ecisio no f th e “um p ire” in en f o rcin g th e “ru les o f

th e g am e” w o u ldb e f

in al, i d. at 7 6 6
. The Supr e m e Court

a gr e e d that

the r e port

of the m e e t i ng could b e des cribing “the l ikel y re ac ti onto un il at er al Mo nsanto pron ou ncem ents .” I d. at 7 6 6 n .1 1 . N ev erth eless, the Cou rt explai ned that the re po rt could als o ind ic at e that Mo nsanto and its dist

ribu tors ente re d into an ill egal ag reem en t an dth at “th e in terp retatio no f [ th e] ... testim o ny

... prop erly was l eft t o the ju ry .” Id

. Inth is case, T ol edo pr es ent ed evi dence t hatM ack a nd its d e a ler s m e t, dis c u ss e d , an d u n a n im o u slya p p ro v e d B u lletin 3 8 -8 9 b e f

o re M a c k iss u e d it. On e vie w o f the evidence m ay be , a s Ma c k i ns i s t s , that

the de a l e r s at

the NDAC m e e t i ng we r e r e a c t i ng t o uni l at e r a l pr onounc e m e nt s by Ma c k, but another vie w is possible andenti re ly re as on able . Und er M o n sa n to , th en , h o wto v iewth at ev id en ce sh o u ldb e lef t to th e j ury. T ol edo al s o pr es ent ed evi dence t hatt he cons pi r acy b e tw e e n M a c k a n d its d e a ler s c o n tin u e d f ro m 1 9 8 9 u n til w e ll i nt o t he l i m i t at i ons per i od. A s w e have not ed, i n O ct ober 1 9 8 9 , M a c k a me n d e d Bu l l e t i n 3 8

- 8 9 wi t h Bu l l e t i n 3 8

- 8 9 A, w h ich sta ted a p o licy p u rp o rte d lyp e rm itt in g d e a ler s to se llM ack a r gues t hati t s deci s i on t o w i t hdr aw B ul l et i n 38- 89 13 a n d r e p l a c e i t wi t h a n o f f i c i a l p o l i c yp e r mi t t i n g o u t
- o f

- AOR s al es demonst r at es t hati t w i t hdr ew fr om anycons pi r acyt hat h a d e x i s t e d e a r l i e r i n 1 9 8 9
. W h e t h e r M a c k wi t h d r e w f r o m a c o n s p ir a c y , h o w e v e r, i s a ju ry q u e s tio n . Cf. Unite d States v . L o w ell , 649 F. 2d 950, 956 ( 3d Ci r . 1981) ( “ [T]he que s t i on of withdrawalis fo r the find er of fact .” ). 39 e v e ry w h e re . H o w e v e r, T o led o p re se n ted d ire c t ev id e n c e in

13 t he for m of s t at ement s byvar i ous M ack e xecut i ves t hat M ack’ s pol i cyagai ns t out
- of- A O R s al es cont i nued uncha nged des pi t e t he amendm entt o M ack’ s offi ci al pol i cy . For exampl e, w hen Tol edo at t empt ed t o s el l t hr ee tr ucks out s i de i t s A O R i n 1991, Kevin F laherty told Yeager

that “our po li cy ha s not c hange d, ” and he i ndi c at e d that Ma c k woul d pr ovi de s a l e s a s s i s t anc e i f Tol e do s ol d the tr uc ks i ns i de i t s AOR but n o t o utsid e o f

it. (Ap p . at A 4 0 8 6 .) Si m i l ar l y , Bob Gr us s i ng, Mack’s Part s Manager , t old Y ea ger i n 1 99 6 that dea le rs “c on st antl y

want Mack to get i nv olved in these te rrit oria l di s put e s . . . and t o pr ot e c t the m fr om one anothe r . And r i ght o r w ro n g , w e d o th at, yo ukn o w .” (Ap p . at A 4 1 4 7 .) Gr us s i ng a l s o s t at e d that

s uc h a s s i s t anc e wa s a“ l ong s t andi ng tr adit ion” and that “ I don ’t kn ow if I c an break that. ” I d. Ma c k att a c ks the s t at e m e nt s by Fl ahe rty and Gr us s i ng i n var i ous way s . Ma c k ar gue s that Fl ahe rty ’ s s t at e m e nt s do n o t sh o wth at M ack ’s p o licy rem ain edun ch an g edb ecau se Fl ahe rty wa s a c t ua l l y tryi ng t o c onvi nc e Ye a ge r t o pr ovi de him with the i nf

orm at ion n ec es sary

to conduct a

cr oss- chec k s o that Tol e do c oul d c om

pe t e on an e qua l foot i ng wi th any40 o th e r M a c kd e a l e r

th at mi g h t b e att e mp t i n g t o mak e th e s ame sale. O n ce ag ain , M ackw o u ldh av e u s v iewth e ev id en ce in the l i ght m os t favor abl e t o i t , e ve n though we ar e bound t o do ju st the opp osit e at t

his point in the c as e. Mo re ov er , J ac k L u sty t e s t i fi e d that , a l though Ma c k c l a i m e d that i t s s y s t e m

of c r os s - c he c ks wa s us e d t o e ns ur e that a l l de a l e r s c om

pe t i ng fo r the sam e s al e r ec ei ved equ alsa le s a ss is tance, the r ea l pur pos e of c r os s - c he c ks wa s t o pr e ve nt de a l e r s fr om co m p etin g ef f ectiv ely w itho n e an o th er. B ecau se w e m u st as sum e the tr

uth o f L usty ’s te st im on y

at this st age, Mack’s ch aracterizatio no f

F lah erty ’s statem en ts, ev enif co rrect, wo uld n ot prevent a

ju ry from concluding that

a c on spir ac y e xi s t e d. Furthe r , a s Tol e do poi nt s out , Fl ahe rty ’ s s t at e m e nt that “our po li cy

has not changed” was m ade a fter Mack had os t e ns i bl y

r e tr a c t e d i t s ban o n s a l e s a s s i s t anc e onout
- of

- AO R sales. S ee R o ssi , 156 F. 3d at

452, 478 ( not i ng that

a c t i ons by a party that ar e i ncon si st ent with its st at ed po li cy supp ort an in f eren ce o f co n certedactio n ). M ack ’s attacko nG ru ssin g ’s statem en t is also f law ed

. M ackarg u es th at b ecau se G ru ssin g ’s exp ertise w as p arts rather than tr ucks, his st at em ents do no t s ho w a conspira cy i nvol vi ng tr

uc k s a l e s . Aga i n, thi s i s an ar gum e nt s ui t e d for pres entati onto a jury , not this Co urt. In additi on , Yel le s m a de s e ve r a l c omm e nt s t o Lus ty that s upport the c onc l us i on that , during the li m it at ions peri od , Mac k con ti nu ed a polic y o f p rev en tin g d ealers f

ro m sellin g o utsid e th eir A O R s. Of part i c ul ar not e , Ye l l e s s t at e d that

Ye a ge r “ wa s not pl ayi ng by th e ru les.” (Ap p . at A 2 8 2 5 .) A j ury co u ldreaso n ab ly un ders tandthat

the “ rule s” Yell es was t al king abou t wer e anLus ty a l s o t e s t i fi e d that

i n 2001, Ye l l e s t ol d hi m that he 14 “kn [ ew ] w h at [ T o led o ] [ w as] tryin g to d o . [ T o led o ] w an ts to es ta blis h d is coun ts and sel l t

rucks a llov er

the pla ce . W e are n o t g o in g to let th is h ap p en .” (Ap p . at A 2 8 2 4 .) L u sty also testif iedth at in2 0 0 2 , Y elles to ldh im th at Y eag er w as “j u st so licitin g cu sto m ers o np rice ... w e h av e to b eat th e liv in g sh it o ut o f h im . ... [ H ] e is a so no f

a b itch .” (Ap p . at A 2 8 1 8 .) Fi nal l y , Y el l es hi m s el f t es t i fi ed t hat , on atl eas t one occ as i on i n 2003, he as ked M ack’ s C ont r ol l ert o del ayappr ovi ng T ol edo’ s r eques t fors al es as s i s t ance s o t hata di ffe r entM ack d e a le r c o u ld m a k e a s a le

. 41 agre em ent not to engage in pric e c om peti ti onou ts ide one’s own AOR. 14 V iew edinth e lig h t m o st f av o rab le to T o led o , th ese st at em ents by

Mack executi ves a

re suff ic ie nt to al low a ju ry to deci de wh ether an agreem ent between Mack and its dea le rs co n tinu edin to th e lim itatio n s p erio d . M ack ’s arg um en ts to the c ontr ary

fa l l s hort be c aus e the y

fa i l t o r e c ogni z e the nature of ou r i nquiry . Rather than d et er m ining w hether

Mack a c t ua l l y vi ol at e d § 1, our

func t i on now i s s i m

pl y t o de c i de w h eth er T o led o ’s ev id en ce is su f f icien t to allo wa j ury

to co n sid er T o led o ’s § 1 claim

. Be c a u s e T o l e d o ’ s e v i d e n c e wa s s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w a j ur yt o concl ude t hatM ack e nt er ed i nt o a compet i t i onr es t r i ct i ng agr eement w i t h i t s deal er s , t he onl yr emai ni ng ques t i on befor e us as t o t hatagr eement i s w het her , i f pr oven, i t vi ol at es § 1 of t he Sher m an A ct
. I n cont r as t t o hor i zont alW e not e t hati n R ossi w e cha r act er i zed the agr eement at 15 i s s ue as hor i zont al and s ubj ectt o pers e anal y s i s even though R o ssi, li k e T o ledo h ere , all eg ed that h is direct co m p eti tors cons pi r ed w i t h eac h ot herand w i t h a comm on m anufa ctur er to c u t o f f h is a c c e s s to c u s to m e rs . 1 5 6 F .3 d a t 4 5 8 , 4 6 1 -6 2
. A t th at t im e, ag ree m en ts t o set m inim u m resa le price s w ere per se u n la w f

u l u n d e r § 1
. S e e id

. (“ W e a g re e w ith d e f e n d a n t s t h a t i f

t h i s w e r e s i m p l y a v e r t i c a l c o n s p i r a c y, bet w een one hor i zont al compet i t or and one s uppl i eror m anufa ctur er , w e w oul d anal y ze i t undert he rul e of r eas on unl es s t her e w er e s om e ev i dence of pr i ce f i xi ng. ” ) (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). A fter L e e g in , ver t i cal agr eement s t o s etpr i ces ar e no lon g er per se unl aw ful but s ubj ectt o t he rul e of r eas on. 127 42 pr i ce- fi xi ng agr eement s bet w een e nt i t i es att he s ame l evel of a pr oduct ’ s di s t r i but i on chai n, t he l egal i t yof a ve r t i cal a g re e m e n t th a t im p o se s a re stric tio n o n th e d e a ler ’s a b ili tyto s el l t he manufactur er ’ s pr oducti s gover ned byt he rul e of re a s o n . L e e g in , 127 S. C t
. at2725. T he rul e of r eas on anal y s i s appl i es even w hen, as i n t hi s cas e, t he pl ai nt i ff al l eges t hatt he purpos e of the ver t i cal agr eement bet w een a m anufa ctur erand i t s deal er s i s t o s uppor t i l l egal hor i zont al a g re e m e n ts b e tw e e n m u ltip le d e a le rs . I d. at2717 ( “A hor i zont al car t el among com pet i ng m anufa ctur er s or compet i ng r et ai l er s t hatdecr eas es output or r educe s c o m p e titio n in o rd e r t o in c re a s e p ri c e is , a n d o u g h t to b e , per s e unl aw ful

. T o t he ext enta ver t i cal agr eement s et t i ng m i ni m um r es al e pr i ces i s ent er ed upon t o fac i l i t at e ei t hert ype o f c a rte l, i t, t o o , w o u ld n e e d to b e h e ld u n law f u l undert he r ul e of r eas on . ”) (cit ati o n o m it ted a n d em p h asis ad d ed ). 15S. C t
. at2725. I n l i ght of L e e g in , w e conc l ude t hatt he rul e of re a so n , n o t per se anal y s i s , appl i es t o t he ver t i cal agr eement T o le d o a lle g e s w a s in e x is te n c e h e re . C f. U ni t ed St at es v. F is her , 502 F. 3d 293, 296 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) (e x p lain in g th a t w h ile a p a n e l o f th is C o u rt is o rd in a rily bound byt he dec i s i on of a pr i or panel , a s ubs equentpanel m aydepar t fr om a pr evi ous panel ’ s deci s i on i f r equi r ed t o do so b yan interve n ing S u p rem e C o u rtd ec isi o n ). 43 “W hen conduc t i ng a rul e of r eas on i nqui r y , t he f a c tf in d e r w e ig h s a ll o f

th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f

a c a se in deci di ng w het hera r es t r i ct i ve pr act i ce s houl d be pr ohi bi t ed as i m pos i ng an unr eas onabl e r es t r ai nt on compet i t i on. ” A T & T C or p. v. JM CTel ecom , LLC , 4 7 0 F
. 3 d 5 2 5 , 5 3 1 n . 7 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ) (cit ati o n s o m it ted). In R ossi , w e i dent i fi ed fourfac t or s t hatar e r el evantt o an anal y s i s of a r es t r ai nt undert he rul e of r eas on: ( 1) t hatt he def

endant s cont r act ed, combi ned or cons pi r ed among each other ; ( 2) t hatt he combi nat i on or cons pi r acypr oduced a dver s e, ant i

- compet i t i ve ef

fec t s w i t hi n t he r el evant pr oductand geogr aphi c mar ket s ; ( 3) t hatt he obj ect s of and the conduc t pur s uantt o t hat cont r actor cons pi r acyw er e i l l egal ; and ( 4) t hat th e p lain tiff

s w e re in ju re d a s a p ro x im a te r e su lt o f t h a t c o n s p i r a c y. 1 5 6 F .3 d a t 4 6 4 -6 5 (c ita tio n o m itte d ).44 I n L eeg in , the Suprem e Cou rt al so identi fied a dd i t i on a l i s s ue s r e l e vant t o the r ul e of r e a s oni nqui ry . Tw o o f th o se are p articu larly

relev an t to T o led o ’s ap p eal. F irst,
“ [t ]he s our c e of the r e s tr a i nt m ay be an i m port ant c ons i de r at i on. I f the r e i s e vi de nc e r e t a i l e r s we r e the i m pe t us fo r a vert ic alpric e r es tr ai nt, t

here is a gre at er

li keli ho odthat th e restrain t f

acilitates a retailer cartel ... .” 1 2 7 S . C t. at 2 7 1 9
. S eco n d , “th at a d o m in an t m anu f acturer o r retailer canab u se re sa le pric e m ai ntenance for anti -c om peti ti ve pu rposes m ay no t be a se ri ou s c on ce rn un le ss the r el evant e ntit y has m ar ket po wer. ” I

d. at 2 7 2 0
. A s to th e f

irst ru le o f

reaso nf acto r w e id en tif

iedin R o ssi , we have a l r e a dy

e xpl a i ne d that , vi e we d i n the l i ght m ost favorable to To le do , the previously high li gh te d st at em ents by

Mack executi ves a

re suff ic ie nt to al low a ju ry to deci de wh ether an agreem ent between Mack and its dea le rs co n tinu edin to th e lim itatio n s p erio d . F urth er, w e n o te th at, c ons i s t e nt wi th L eeg in , Tol e do pr oduc e d e vi de nc e that the agre em ent was the r es ult of d ea le r pre ss ure. To l e do a l s o p r e s e nt e d s uf fi c i e nt e vi de nc e t o a l l owa j ury to co n clu d e th at th e ag reem en t b etw eenM ackan dits de a l e r s pr oduc e d ant i

- c om pe t i t i ve e ffe c t s i n the r e l e vant pr oduc t and ge ogr a

phi c m arke t s . Tol e do be ar s the bur de n of i de nt i fyi ng thos e m arke t s and s howi ng the ant i

- c om pe t i t i ve effect of the agre em ent between Mack and its dea le rs . G o rd o n v. L ew isto w n H

o sp ., 42 3 F .3d 1 84 , 210 (3d C ir

. 2005)

. W e have e xpl a i ne d that pr oof of ant i

- c om

pe t i t i ve ef f ects “canb e ach iev edb y

d em o n stratin g th at th e restrain t is faci al ly anti com peti ti ve or that

it s e nf orce m ent r educedT hatas s er t i on w as s uppor t ed byan ana l y s i s w e nee d not 16 r ecounther e. 45 o ut p ut , r a i s e dp r i c e s o r

r e du c e dqu a l i ty. A l t e rn at i v e l y, beca use proof that the c on ce rt ed ac ti onac tual ly ca used ant i c om pe t i t i ve e ffe c t s i s oft e n i m pos s i bl e t o s us t a i n, pr oof of the defendant’s m ar

ket pow er

willsuff ic e. ” I d. Market p o w er is “th e ab ility

to raise p rices ab o v e th o se th at w o u ld prevai l i n a com

peti ti ve m ar

ket. ” Uni te d States v . Brown Un iv

. , 5 F. 3d 658, 668 ( 3d Ci r . 1993)

. At tri a l , Tol e do pr e s e nt e d e xp e rt

t e s t i m ony

that Ma c k h a s po we r

i n two diff er ent produ ct

m ar kets . The firs t of tho se m ar kets is ca ll ed the c on ventional s tr ai gh t t ruck m ar ket andinclud es vehicl es th at h av e anen g in e p lacedo ut inf ro n t o f th e driv er’s cab

. The s e c ond m arke t

c ons i s t s of l ow c ab ove r e ngi ne tr uc ks , or LCOE tr uc ks , whi c h have an e ngi ne pl a c e d unde rne ath the driv er’s cab . T o led o ’s exp ert testif iedth at M ack“[ h as] m ar ket pow er

in bo th the heavy

du ty vo cati on alLC OE , a s we l l a s c onve nt i ona l s tr a i ght tr uc k m arke t s , whe the r

you l ook at th e U .S . as a w h o le o r th e U .S ., ex clu d in g th e w est.” 16 (App . at A16 76 .) T o led o also p resen tedsu f f icient ev id en ce th at “t he obj ect s of and the conduc t pur s uantt o t h[e] cont r actor cons pi r acyw er e i l l egal

. ” R ossi , 1 5 6 F
. 3 d a t 4 6 6
. As expl ai ned, T ol edo has al l eged thatM ack a gr eed t o s uppor t t he h o ri zo n tal ag ree m en t am o n g the d ea lers t o co n tr o l pri ce s. In L e e g in , t he Supr eme C our t expr es s l ycondemned s uch a gr e e m e nt s . 127 S. Ct

. at 2717.46 Finall y , Toledo adduced evidence t hat i t was inju re d as a resu lt o f

th e un law f

u l co n sp iracy

. For

e xam pl e , Tol e do pr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e that , dur i ng the l i m i t at i on s pe r i od , J e ff Ye l l e s a s ke d Ma c k’ s Contr ol l e r t o de l ay a ppr ovi ng one of T o led o ’s requ ests f

o r sales assistan ce o nano ut-o f -A O R sale so th at an o th er M ackd ealer co u ldm ak e a sale. T o led o also pres ente d evidence that, du ri ng the l imit at ions peri od , Yel le s r e fu s e d t o g i ve s a l e s a s s i s t anc e t o T ol e do onout
- of

- AO R sales. Appl yi ng the r

ul e of r e a s on ana l y s i s t o Tol e do’ s § 1 cl ai m , we c on clud e that Toledo p re se nted suff ic ie nt evidence of an il le gal a gree m ent between Mack and its dea le rs fo r a jury t o fi nd for

Tol e do. The r e for e , we va c at e and r e m and the D i s tr i c t C o urt ’ s d e c i s i o no nth at

c l a i m. B

. T o led o ’s RP A Cla im In additi onto it s § 1 cla im , Toledo als o argues that Ma c k’ s c onduc t

vi ol at e s the RPA’ s pr ohi bi t i on on di s c r i m i nat ory

pr i c i ng. The r e l e vant

pr ovi s i on of the RPA p ro v id es th at, [ i] t sh all b e un law f

u l f o r any p erso nen g ag edin comm er ce .. . t o d is criminat e i n p ri ce betwee n di ffe r e nt pur c ha s e r s of c omm odi t i e s of l i ke grade and qu al it

y .. . where the e ff

ec t of such disc ri m inat ion m ay

be substantia ll y

to le ss en c om pe t i t i on . . . or

t o i njur e , de s tr oy , or

pr e ve nt co m p etitio nw ithany

p erso nw h o eith er g ran ts or kn ow ingly

re ce ives the benefit

of such47 di s c r i m i nat i on, or

wi th c us t om e r s of e i the r of th e m. 1 5 U
. S

. C

. § 1 3 (a). T o ledo arg u es th at M ac k en g ag ed in d iscri m inato ry p ric in g b yg iv in g o th e r M a c k d e a ler s m o re f a v o ra b le di s count s t han w er e gi ven t o T ol edo. A t t r i al , T ol edo pr es ent ed expe r t t es t i m onycompar i ng t he ave r age a m ount of s al es as s i s t ance M ack of fer ed t o T ol edo w i t h t he ave r age amount of s al es as s i s t ance M ack of fer ed ot herdeal er s l ocat ed i n t he s ame gener al geogr aphi c ar ea. T ol edo’ s exper t t es t i fi ed t hatt he compar i s on demonst r at ed t hatT ol edo r ece i ved fa r le s s s a le s a s s is ta n c e th a n o th e r n e a rb yM a c k d e a le rs . H ow ever , T ol edo’ s exper t di d not compar e t he amount of sales a ssist an ce M ac k o ff ere d to T o ledo an d to o ther d ea lers w hen T oledo an d an otherdealeract uall ycom peted against eac h ot herfora s al e t o t he s ame cus t om er . T her efor e, T ol edo’ s exper t w as unabl e t o offe ran opi ni on aboutw het her M ack ha d di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns t T ol edo i n head- t o- head compet i t i on. T he R PA w as or i gi nal l yenac t ed t o “t ar gett he p erc eive d h arm to co m p eti ti o n o cc asio n ed b yp o w erf u l bu y ers r at hert han s el l er s ; s peci fi cal l y , C ongr es s r es ponded t o t he a d v e n t o f

lar g e c h a in sto re s, e n ter p rise s w ith th e c lo u t to o b tain lo w e r p ric e s f

o r g o o d s th a n sm a ller b u y e rs c o u ld demand. ” R eede r - Si m co GM C, I nc. , 5 4 6 U .S . a t 1 7 5
. I n the Supr e m e Court ’ s r e c e nt

de c i s i on i n Reeder-Simco , the p l a i n t i f f w a s aV o l v o d e a l e r

w h o , l i k e T o l e d o , s o l dc u s t o mm ad e, sp ecializedh eav y-duty tru ck s. I d. at 170- 71. Li ke48 Tol e do, Re e de r - Si m c o r e l i e d he avi l y on di s c ount s offe r e d by th e tru ckm anu f

acturer, inth at case V o lv o , to sell its tru ck s. I d. Fi na l l y , l i ke Tol e do, Re e de r - Si m c o a l l e ge d that the m anu f acturer h adv io latedth e RP A b y o f f erin g it less f av o rab le d isco un ts th anw ere o f f eredto o th er d ealers. I

d. at 17 1-73 . The Suprem e Cou rt no te d that the al le ged p ri ce di s c r i m i nat i on di d not

i m pl i c at e the or i gi na l pur

pos e of the RP A b ec ause “the al le gedly favo re d p urchas er s are deal er s with li tt le re se m

blance to large i nd ependent departm ent s tore s or chai n o perati on s, and the supp li er ’s se le ct ive pri ce di s c ount i ng fos t e r s c om

pe t i t i on am ong s uppl i e r s of di ffe r e nt brands.” I

d. at 18 1. Else wh er e i n its op inion, the Court r e i nfor c e d the ne e d t o i nt e r pr e t the RPA narr owl y , e xpl a i ni ng that “ [i ]nt e r br and c om

pe t i t i on . . . i s the ‘ pr i m ary c onc e rn of anti tr ust l aw.’ ” Id

. at

180 ( quot i ng Co ntinental T.V., Inc. v. GT E S yl vania, Inc. , 433 U.S. 36 , 51 n .19 (19 77 )) . The Co urt fu rther e xp la ined that

“[t]he [R PA ] signals no large depart ure fr om that m a i n c onc e rn. . . . [W ]e [wi l l ] r e s i s t i nt e r pr e t at i on ge ar e d m or e t o the pr ot e c t i on of e xi s t i ng co m p etito rs th anto the s t i m ul at i onof c ompe t i t i on .” Id

. (em p h asis ino rig in al). Insh o rt, th e C o urt in d icatedth at th e RP A sh o u ldb e n arro w ly c ons tr ue d. I n Crossroa ds Co generati on Co rp. v . Orang e & Ro ck land Utilities, Inc. , 15 9 F
. 3d12 9, 14 2 ( 3dCi r . 19 98 ) , we we r e c ar e ful t o ke e p the RPA c onfi ne d. The r e , the de fe ndant al le gedly of fered t o sel l e le ctri ci ty

to ce rt ai n custom er s at l owe r pr i c e s than i t

offe r e d t o i t s othe r

c us t om e r s , i nc l udi ng C ro ssro ad s. I

d. We h eldth at C ro ssro ad s’ RP A claim co u ld not wi ths t and am ot i on t o di s m i s s be c aus e m e r e l y offe r i ng lower pri ce s t o a cust om er do es no t give ris e t o a pric eO n e m igh t com p lai n that this reaso n ing elev ates f o rm 17 overs ubs t ance , but w e ar e bound bypr ece dentand t hi nk i t no 49 d iscrim in atio nclaim

. I

d. at 1 4 2 . In stead , “a p lain tif f m u st al le ge fact s t o d em on strate that (1) the defend ant m ade at le as t t wo contem

po rary sa le s of the sam e c omm od it y at diff er ent pri ce s t o two diff

er ent purchas er s; and (2) the effect of such disc ri m inat ion w as to injure com peti ti on .” I

d. (c it at ion o m itte d). The Supr e m e Court

i n Reeder-Simco exp ressly d eclin edto d ecid e w h eth er th e RP A ev enap p lies to m ark ets b asedo nco m

p etitiv e b id d in g an dsp ecial-o rd er sales. Reeder-Simco , 546 U. S. at 180. Our

de c i s i on i n Cross roads , ho wever, sugg es ts that

the RPA do es no t a

pp ly in a c as e s uch as th is, w h ichin v o lv es a sin g le sale o f a cu sto m izedg o o dv ia a c om peti ti ve bidd ing p roce ss . Altho ug h M ac k d ea le rs m ay c om pe t e wi th one anothe r

by bi ddi ng a ga i ns t

e a c h othe r

for the s am e dea l, and the am ou nt of sa le s a ss is tance Mack off er s to ea ch deal er

m ay welldete rmine whether

a c ustom er choo se s t o acc ept a

bid f rom on e Mac k d ea le r or ano ther , Mack do es no t s el l a

tr uck to the deal er

un ti l t he cust om er ac tual ly se le ct s a deal er ’s bid. Beca

use no sal e t akes plac e un ti l a cust om er ac ce pts a deal er ’s bid, the am ou nt of sa le s assistan ce M ackis w illin g to p ro v id e to a p articu lar d ealer is part of an offe r

by Ma c k t o s e l l , not

as a l e . Re gar dl e s s of any co m p etitio nb etw eenth e d ealers durin g th e b id d in g p ro cess, o n ly a d ealer w h o se b idis accep tedb y a cu sto m er w ill a c t ua l l y buy atr uc k fr om Ma c k. The r e for e , onl y

one s a l e , not tw o , actu ally

resu lts. C

f. M

. C

. M

f g. C o. , I nc. v. Texas 17in ju s tic e to n a rr o w ly in te rp re t th e o f t- q u e s tio n e d R P A

. C

f. A nt i t r us t M oder ni zat i on C om m i s s i on, R epor t and R ecomm endat i ons , A pr i l 2007, ati i i , 317- 26 (reco m m en d ati o n b ystat u toryco m m issi o n , w h o se m em b ers w e r e a pp oi nt e d b yt he Pr e s i de nta nd Congr e s s , t ha t t he RPA b e re p ea led in it s en ti rety ). 50 Foundr i es , I

nc. , 5 1 7 F
. 2 d 1 0 5 9 , 1 0 6 5 (5 C ir

. 1 9 7 5 ) (“[I]n th o rde r fo r t h ere to b e d iscri m ination b etw ee n p u rch ase rs v i o l a t i v e o f

[ t h e RP A] t h e r e mu s t b e a c t u a l s a l e s a t t wo di ffe r entpr i ces t o t w o di ffe r entactual buy er s . . . . ” ( i nt er nal q u o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m it ted)) . F in ally , w e rej ect T o led o ’s arg um en t th at Co rn Produc t s Re f i ni ng Co. v . FTC , 324 U.S. 72 6 (19 45 ), re qu ir es u s to ab an d o nth e tw o -sales requ irem en t w e articu latedin Cross roads

. Co rn P ro d

u cts i nvol ve d ac l a i m

unde r § 2( e ) of the Cl ay t on Ac t whi c h pr ohi bi t s di s c r i m i nat i on “ i n favor of on e pur c ha s e r

a ga i ns t ano the r pur c ha s e r

or pur c ha s e r s of

a c omm odi ty

bought for r e s a l e . . . by

. . . c ontr i but i ng t o . . . any s e rvi c e s i n c onne c t i on wi th .

. . the s a l e or offe r i ng for

s a l e of such comm od it

y .. . upo n ter

m s not ac corded to al l purchas er s on pr oport i ona l l y

e qua l t e rm s . ” 15 U. S. C. § 13( d)

. I n Co rn P ro d u cts , th e F ed eral T rad e C o mm issio nf iledsu it ag ain st a s ugar s uppl i e r that ha d a gr e e d t o pay

al ar ge port i on of the a dve rt i s i ng e xpe ns e s of the Curt i s s Candy Com pany (“ Cu rt is s” ), on e of its principal c ustom er s, bu t did no t a gree t o as i m i l ar

arr ange m e nt

wi th anothe r

c us t om e r who bought th e sam e p ro du cts. Id

. at 74 3. Th e s ug ar

supp li er argu ed that it h adn o t p ro v id edadv ertisin g serv ices to a “p urch aser” o f its51 pr oduc t be c aus e nothi ng i n the c ontr a c t be twe e n i t

and Curt i s s r e qui r e d Curt i s s t o buy s ugar i n e xc hange for

the adv ertisin g . I

d. The Court

r e je c t e d that

ar gum e nt , not i ng that Curt i s s ha d i n fa c t

pur c ha s e d a l l of i t s s ugar fr om the supp li er even thou ghthe c on tr ac t i n quest ion d id no t r equire i t t o do s o, and that

the s uppl i e r

ha d not pa i d the a dve rt i s i ng expenses of

any of the other com panies that

bo ug ht it s s ug ar p ro du cts. I

d. at 7 4 4
. Co rn P ro d

u cts , d ecid edlo n g b ef

o re o ur o p in io nin Cross roads , does not re qu ir e us t o aband onthe two -s al es r e qui r e m e nt

i n RPA c a s e s . As s um i ng ar gue ndo th at a claim of di s c r i m i nat ory

a dve rt i s i ng i s ana l ogous t o ac l a i m of d iscrim in ato ry

p ricin g , Co rn P ro d

u cts , unlike Reeder-Simco and the pr e s e nt

c a s e , i nvol ve d two a c t

ua l s a l e s t o di ffe r e nt cu sto m ers, as o p p o sedto m ere o f f ers to sell. Insh o rt, Tol e do’ s pol i c y

ar gum e nt s ba s e d on Co rn P ro d u cts do not ove rr i de the i m

port of Reeder-Simco or our ow n bi ndi ng pr ece dent

. W e w i l l t her efor e af fi r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr ant o f s u mma r yj u d g me n t f

o r M a c k o n To l e d o ’ s RP A c l a i m. C

. Ma c k ’s M isa

p p ro p ria tio n o

f T ra d e S e c re ts C o u n ter c la im T ol edo’ s fi nal ar gum enti s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t er r ed i n gr ant i ng j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw i n favorof M ack on M a c k ’s c o u n te rc la im f

o r m is a p p ro p ri a tio n o f

tr a d e s e c re ts
. O n a p p e a l, T o led o a rg u e s th a t M a c k ’s c o u n ter c laim is a c tu a llyf

o r b re a c h o f

th e M A C S P E C 2 0 0 1 lice n se a g re e m e n t, and t hat , underPenns y l vani a’ s “gi s t of t he ac t i on” doctr i ne, M ack ca nn ot r ecov er i n tor t for breach o f con t ract
. T he “g i st52 of t he ac t i on” doctr i ne i s “des i gned t o m ai nt ai n t he conc eptual d i s t i n c t i o n b e t we e n b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t c l a i ms a n d t o r t c l a i ms [by ] pr ecl udi ng pl ai nt i ffs fr om r eca s t i ng or di nar ybr eac h of cont r actcl ai m s i nt o t or t cl ai m s . ” eTol lI nc. v. E l i as /

Savi on A dver t is i ng I

nc. , 811 A

. 2d 10, 14 ( Pa. Super

. C t
. 2002)

. T he f o c u s o f a n a n a ly sis u n d e r th e “ g ist o f th e a c tio n ” d o c trin e is w hether“act i on s l i e from a breach o f t he d uti es i m po sed as a m at t erof s oci al pol i cy ” or“fr om t he br eac h of dut i es i m pos ed bym ut ual cons ens us . ” R e d e v e lo p m e n t A u th . o

f C a m b ria C ount y v. I nt ’ lI ns . C o. , 6 8 5 A .2 d 5 8 1 , 5 9 0 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 1 9 9 5 ). W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t M a c k ’s c laim f o r m isa p p ro p ria tio n o f

tra d e se c re ts s o u n d s p rim a rilyin to rt, r at hert han contr actl aw , and t her efor e t he “gi s t of t he ac t i on” d o c tr in e d o e s n o t b a r M a c k ’s c o u n te rc la im

. T he O hi o C our t of A ppeal s found t hatM ack t ook se v e ra l ste p s in d e p e n d e n t o f iss u in g a lice n se a g re e m e n t to i n s u r e t h a t i t s d e a l e r s d i d n o t g i v e c o p i e s o f t h e M AC SP EC 2001 s oft w ar e t o unaut hor i zed pe r s ons . T hos e s t eps i ncl uded t he us e of “ unl ock code s ” dur i ng t he i ns t al l at i on pr oces s and pr om i nentw ar ni ng s cr eens i nfor m i ng us er s t hatunaut hor i zed u s e w o u ld s u b

je c t th e m to c iv il a n d c ri m in a l p e n a ltie s . Ma ck Truc k s, I nc . v . Motor

Ve hi c leDe ale r

s Bd. , No. 05AP- 768, 2 0 0 6 WL 1 4 9 5 1 2 2 , at * 7 (O h io C t. Ap p . Jun e 1 , 2 0 0 6 ). T hus , T ol edo’ s dut yt o keep the s oft w ar e conf i dent i al di d not a rise sim p lyf

ro m its lice n se a g re e m e n t w ith M a c k b u t, instead , h ad roo ts i n it s ind ep en d en t du tyto k ee p M ac k ’s tra d e se c re ts c o n f

id e n tial, an d th e c o u n ter c laim c a n p ro p e rlyI n addi t i on, w e not e t hatT ol edo i ni t i al l ydeni ed t he 18 exi s t ence of t he contr acti t now us es t o i nvoke t he “gi s t of t he act i on” doctr i ne. T ol edo ca nnot pr oper l ychange i t s pos i t i on n o w . Tops Appare lM

f g. C o. v. R ot hm an , 244 A

. 2d 436, 439 n. 8 ( Pa. 1968) ( “W hen a [ par t y ] al l eges a fa cti n a cour t of ju stic e , fo r [ its] a d v a n tag e , [it] s h a ll n o t b e a llo w e d to cont r adi cti t aft er w ar ds

. ”) 53 b e se en as so u n d ing in tort. W e the ref o re rejec t T o ledo ’s 18 ar gum entand af

fi r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof j udgm entas a ma t t e r o f

l a w o n t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m. I V

. C oncl us i on M a c k p re se n ted su f

f icie n t ev id e n c e to a llo w a ju ryto c o n s id e r i ts c la im u n d e r § 1 o f th e S h e rm a n A c t. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l vaca t e t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw and r emand t hatcl ai m forfur t her pr ocee di ngs . W e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s pos i t i on of Tol edo’ s R PA cl ai m and M ack’ s count er cl ai m for m i sapprop ri at i on of tr ade secret s.