It is obvious that if you are a plaintiff in an antitrust conspiracy case, you would put the conspiracy theory out front. That is an insight, but not much of one. The more important insight is that jurors who believe the conspiracy theory more readily infer conspiratorial behavior from concerted or parallel conduct. Your order of witnesses, presentation of documents, and points stressed with witnesses will emphasize that theme. Now turn to the other side of the case.
Unadorned denial is a possible stance, but it is almost always inadequate.
There is no story to a denial and therefore no coherent alternative to the plaintiff's story. The defense story may be that the plaintiff signed a fair contract at a fair price and is trying to weasel out by invoking the antitrust laws. The story may be that the plaintiff got knocked around in honest competition. Stories like these fulfill the three requirements of which we have been speaking. They appeal to jurors, they are consistent with the substantive legal rules about antitrust and the procedural rules about what may be proved in an antitrust trial, and they can be told by a lawyer in an opening statement and closing argument.