Source: https://www.robinskaplan.com/Lawyers/Stephen-Safranski
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 19:18:42+00:00

Document:
Steve Safranski’s complex commercial litigation and appellate practice focuses on antitrust, unfair competition and trade regulation, and consumer-protection matters, including defending high-stakes class actions and handling significant appeals in these areas. Mr. Safranski represents major national clients in the food and grocery, hospitality, retail, and cable and telecommunications industries, including Best Buy, Cargill, Carlson Hotels, Comcast, SuperValu, and Time Warner Cable.
Beyond his proven trial advocacy and appellate skills, Mr. Safranski is known for his innovative litigation strategies and exceptional case management skills. For example, in major pending MDL antitrust class action litigation, In re Wholesale Grocery Products Antitrust Litigation, Mr. Safranski has served as lead counsel supervising an ultra-lean litigation team handling all aspects of the case, including all the major district court hearings and arguments, two Eighth Circuit appeals, and managed a related investigation by the Federal Trade Commission. Their efforts defeated class certification and terminated the FTC investigation. Building on this success, Mr. Safranski is now defending manufacturer Graco, Inc., in a nationwide antitrust class action, and using an innovative strategy, obtained the early dismissal of the litigation.
Mr. Safranski’s litigation skills are aided by his in-depth understanding of the 21st century issues confronting the food and beverage, grocery, and cable and telecommunications industries. For instance, Mr. Safranski has published extensively and counseled several clients in the food and beverage industry on food labeling and antitrust issues and managing litigation risk in those areas.
Mr. Safranski’s pro bono work includes representation of the Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, including serving as co-lead counsel in a Minnesota Environmental Rights Act trial to prevent the construction of a 450-foot cellular tower adjacent to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness—a case that Twin Cities Business Magazine hailed as one of the “Top 10 Business Lawsuits of the Year.” Mr. Safranski also serves on the Friends Board of Directors, and he is a member of the University of Minnesota Law School Board of Advisors and a board member of the Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services Campaign for Legal Aid.
Before joining Robins Kaplan LLP, Mr. Safranski practiced at a national law firm based in Chicago, Illinois, and previously served as a law clerk for Magistrate Judge Raymond L. Erickson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Mr. Safranski is an outdoor enthusiast and avid fisherman. He has been recognized by the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame as the holder of the Catch-and-Release World Record Tiger Muskellunge for 10-pound test line.
In re Wholesale Grocery Products Antitrust Litig., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103215 (D. Minn. Jan. 13, 2013), aff’d in part, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9412 (8th Cir. May 21, 2014): Lead counsel representing grocery wholesaler SuperValu Inc. in consolidated federal antitrust actions on behalf of putative multi-state class of grocery retailers challenging 2003 asset exchange transaction, and in a related Federal Trade Commission investigation regarding the asset exchange transaction. Obtained denial of class certification in 2012, which was affirmed on appeal. Persuaded the FTC to close the investigation without further action in March 2011.
Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 594 F. Supp. 2d 945 (N.D. Ill. 2009), aff’d, 629 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2011): Represented defendants UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and PacifiCare, Inc. in an antitrust lawsuit involving alleged price-fixing and fraud related to prescription drug reimbursement under the federal Medicare Part D program. Plaintiff Omnicare sought damages exceeding $1 billion and permanent injunctive relief. Obtained summary judgment, dismissing all claims, which was affirmed on appeal.
SuperValu Inc. v. Bergmann (D. Minn.); Unified Grocers, Inc. v. SuperValu Inc. (C.D. Cal.): Represented grocery wholesaler SuperValu Inc. in dispute with competitor regarding former executive’s noncompete and confidentiality agreements. Case settled in 2012.
Maritz Inc. v. Carlson Marketing Group, Inc. (N.D. Cal.): Defended Carlson Marketing Worldwide against a competitor’s tortious interference with contract action. Obtained judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice. 2009 WL 3561521 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2009).
Howerton v. Cargill, Inc. (D. Haw.): Representing Cargill, Incorporated in putative nationwide false-advertising class action concerning allegedly deceptive “natural” food labeling.
Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Ultimate Acquisition Partners, L.P. (D. Minn.): Represented Best Buy in false advertising lawsuit against Ultimate Electronics, based on Ultimate’s “lowest prices” advertising campaign. The case resolved when Ultimate agreed to withdraw the challenged advertisements.
Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 2006 WL 1579941 (D. Minn. June 2, 2006): On behalf of franchised cable television provider, obtained permanent injunction against municipal administrative proceedings seeking $100 million in penalties.
Dr. R.C. Samanta Roy Inst. of Sci. & Tech. v. Star Tribune Co., No. 05-cv-735 PAM/RLE, 2005 WL 1661514 (D. Minn. July 15, 2005): Defended television news station against defamation and civil rights conspiracy claims. Obtained dismissal of all claims.
Qwest Corp. v. Scott, 380 F.3d 367 (8th Cir. 2004): On behalf of competitive local exchange carrier, obtained reversal of permanent injunction against enforcement of Minnesota Public Utilities Commission order regulating special access services.
In re SuperValu, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation: Along with co-counsel, Robins Kaplan LLP represented SuperValu Inc. in a consolidated putative class action relating to data hacking incidents in June and July 2014, and September 2014, that potentially compromised customer data collected in credit card transactions at many of SuperValu’s retail locations operating under the brand names Cub Foods, Farm Fresh, Hornbacher’s, Shop ‘n Save, and Shoppers Food & Pharmacy. The complaint alleged claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer protection and data breach notification laws. In January 2016, on SuperValu’s motion to dismiss, the district court concluded that the Plaintiffs could not show that harm had resulted or would likely result from the data breach. It found that allegations of increased risk of future harm, risk mitigation costs, alleged diminished value of personal information, among others, were all insufficiently concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent to establish standing under Article III. The court dismissed the action without leave to amend.
Katun Corp. v. Clarke, 484 F.3d 972 (8th Cir. 2007): Represented company in action to enforce settlement agreement and indemnification provisions under stock purchase agreement.
Innovative Medical Systems, Inc. v. Augustine Medical, 195 Fed. Appx. 532 (8th Cir. 2006): On behalf of medical device manufacturer, defended appeal from the dismissal of treble damages claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Mirant Corp. v. NRG Energy Inc. (Del. Ch.): Defended NRG Energy Inc. in a high-profile lawsuit by Mirant Corp. involving NRG’s rejection of Mirant’s $8 billion unsolicited takeover bid. The case was dismissed upon NRG’s motion.
Israel Bio-Engineering Project v. Amgen, Inc., 401 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2005): Represented plaintiff in appeal from summary judgment in patent infringement law suit.
Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corporation (D. Minn. 2007): Represented Ecolab, Inc. in a patent and trade secret lawsuit before Chief Judge James M. Rosenbaum. We obtained a jury verdict of patent infringement, as well as a damages verdict that FMC misappropriated Ecolab’s trade secret protocol for online processing and sanitization of poultry carcasses.
Rotary Systems, Inc. v. TomoTherapy Inc., 2014 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1301 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2014), rev. denied (2015). Acting as appellate counsel, we obtained the reversal of summary judgment of a claim under the Minnesota Uniform Trade Secrets Act involving a rotary union that was used in radiation-therapy systems. The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment that the Rotary Systems design was not a trade secret, finding that genuine issues of fact required a trial on whether Rotary Systems made reasonable efforts to preserve the secrecy of its designs.
Representation of the Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, pro bono, in its efforts to enforce the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act and prevent the construction of a 450-foot cellular phone tower near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
Is it better to ask forgiveness than permission?
The Supreme Court Rules that Patents Do Not Create a Presumption of Market Power: Illinois Tool Works, Inc v. Independent Ink, Inc.
Join Steve Safranski and Katherine Barrett Wiik, attorneys in Robins Kaplan LLP’s Appellate Advocacy and Guidance Group, as they review top tips for preserving issues and making a strong record before the trial court, in order to maximize chances of success on appeal.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.