Document: 391 U.S. 253 88 S.Ct. 1575 20 L.Ed.2d 569 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA, etc., Petitioner,v.CITIES SERVICE CO. No. 23. Argued Nov. 9, 1967. Decided May 20, 1968. [Syllabus from pages 253-258 intentionally omitted] William E. Kelly, New York City, for petitioner. Simon H. Rifkind, respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of Court. 1 At issue in this case is propriety an award summary judgment favor respondent Cities Service a treble-damage antitrust action. The District Court held there was no genuine as to material facts between parties and that entitled matter law. 38 F.R.D. 170 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1965). Appeals Second Circuit affirmed. 361 F.2d 671 (1966). This granted certiorari, 385 1024, 87 743, 17 672 (1967), determine whether decisions below were conformity with Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 464, 82 486, 7 458 (1962). We conclude other correctly applied and, accordingly, we affirm. 2 Because question appropriate any one be decided upon particular case, shall set forth background litigation some detail (Part I) before turning specific issues petitioner raises (Parts II—V). I. 3 On June 11, 1956, Waldron1 filed private complaint Southern against seven large oil companies: British Petroleum Co., Ltd. (formerly Anglo-Iranian Oil Co.), Gulf Corp.,2 Socony Mobil Standard Co. California, Jersey, Texas contained essentially two series allegations. first copied thenpending civil action by United States those defendants than Service, alleging formation maintenance them worldwide cartel since 1928. second allegations dealt specifically conspiracy claimed have been entered into at time nationalization properties Government Iran 1951. it asserted, agreed boycott Iranian all world markets until should agree return Anglo-Iranian's property concession rights. While dispute under Premier Mossadegh still continuing, Waldron his associates allegedly succeeded obtaining contract purchase 15,000,000 metric tons crude or refined products National (NIOC), company formed take over nationalized properties, five-year period rate substantially less then current posted price Persian oil. NIOC not deal anybody market. 4 next stated conspired prevent selling which he NIOC. It further alleged after engaging extensive negotiations eye toward participating operation industry, broke off dealing joined him result having received what amounted bribe Anglo-Iranian, namely, supply Kuwait even lower could offer pursuant Finally, Consortium Agreement 1954, their attempt monopolize Middle East production, parceled out production them. permitted share Consortium. Petitioner asserted carried completely frustrated ability sell accordingly sought treble damages amount $109,000,000. 5 Within answer complaint, various moved petitioner's deposition, postpone filing answers completion deposition. motions accompanied affidavits counsel legal questions presented extraordinarily complex they had insufficient information about business dealings permit adequately prepare clients' within 20-day limit Rule 12(a) Federal Rules Civil Procedure. These Judge Weinfeld, who, addition, stayed discovery own defendants' discovery, apparently existing practice District.3 6 deposition commenced on September 10, continued July 3, 1957, announced intention examination. Nothing done party December 30, motion made terminate taking Waldron's By 62 days' testimony taken more 15 months. All adjournments up point either request consent. Meanwhile, noticed depositions associates, Richard S. Nelson, James A. Bentley, Zoes, Ray Carter, Addison Brown, October November 1956. Pursuant successive stipulations defendants, these postponed date In also vacate notices associates. response claims protracted examination constituted harassment undue burden him, pointed only number yet examined length proceeded complete acquiescence. As financial hardship contention, suggested that, view petitioner, inappropriate required spend considerable clarifying trial. Herlands denied February 1958, argument; ordered, however, limited 52 working days, 10 allotted Service. addition 174 1/2 days scheduled five 31 went examinations consecutive commence March unless otherwise. authorized 30 depositions, undertaking proceedings during period. 8 stipulation did resume 15, terminated 1959. Twenty-six spent deposing latter part 1958 six 1959, utilized Petitioner's deposed January 1960 April 1962 58 used additional day 1962. 9 Thus, 1956 1962, years, total 153 attributable resulted prolonging request, agreement, During course attributed Cities' failure sort its participation boycott. He explained substantial amounts Gulf, plus subsequent 1954 Consortium, prompted join member conspiracy. Accordingly, when 1960, so ground affidavit Senior Vice President Charge Foreign Operations, George Hill, accompanying documents files submitted support conclusively disproved theory because bought conspirators. 11 brief, demonstrated engaged Gulf4 1948, final although actual conclusion contract, reached proposed prior approached Cities.5 showed obtain therein years eventually offered, strenuous objections, small transferred Richfield minority stock interest. 12 reply motion, reiterated contention hand, executive personnel, especially president, W. Alton Jones, other, raised inference most probable drawn decision pass assertedly extremely beneficials notwithstanding need supplies imported oil, manner 'reached' means forcing way cartel. might well informal agreement concerning revealed expected, such made, profitable offered. 13 arguments, Herlands, who assigned purposes, handed down memorandum 1961, postponing determination judgment. 'doubtful' fact existed named defendant mere 'suspicion.' judged claim 'so insubstantial,' ruled would given 'carte blanche authority conduct untrammeled pre-trial proceedings,' but 'closely regulated.' Subsequently, order providing allowed charge negotiating attempts secure 14 hearing 1961 implement court's decision, asked depose president Jones first. Contrary appears position now, acknowledged accepted Herlands' 56(f), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., provides comparatively purpose showing sufficient withstand rather 26, broad pretrial discovery. sole objection Hill. observation Hill man best provide relied link conspiracy, argued crucial case. maintaining items significant, motive entering basically irrelevant. evidence embarked inexplicably broken off, sequence events itself entitle ascertain reason breakoff. 16 argument rejected trial judge clearly produce factual beyond carry through Hill's scheduled, without More year elapsed, time, again parties, 25 Immediately strike portions Cities, amend extending move service amended complaint. 1, approximately which, previous order, Some weeks later, counsel, new staying file pending 18 Between 27, 1963, days. Then, beginning May, renewed opposing oral thus far unable tending show participated Indeed, documentary supplied connection therewith, payoff theories. actively resisted extent making approaches hope securing intervention situation. 19 respective 28, differed original replaced general regard omit reference involving membership directed excluded general, language excluding referring simply unspecified co-conspirators. place substituted formulations: first, allegation known plaintiff; second, co-conspirators 'secretly threatened, induced, break plaintiff.' cross-motions advisement little while considered defendants. 23, 1964, long comprehensive both sets motions, disposition opportunity 56(f).6 Presumably, deferred because, granted, terminated. event, implementing members staff alive7 Burl Watson, chairman board, Alfred P. Frame, vice J. Edgar Heston, manager production. memoranda relating (a) issues, (b) conversations communications 1952, (c) 1953, pertaining Corp. (d) deponent employee subject described preceding categories. three executives completed months August 1964 therewith 140 produced. 21 following discovery: possession activities 1952 1955; same defendants; third, relevant from, of, former acted intermediary dealings. indicated desire officials detailed motion. thereafter, third judgment8 1965. Judges 8, 1965, holding failed fulfill requirement 56(e) properly supported must otherwise 'specific trial.'9 cross-motion court despite merely fishing expedition unduly harass affirmed particulars.10 22 states are case: improperly rendering II, V, infra); raise shown III, infra)f courts held, erroneously, 56(e), places IV, infra). II. 23 turn aspect restricted: certain orders imposed unfair limits access information. argument, addressed viewed necessity enable oppose discuss Part V opinion. 24 initial fully, supra, 259-261, adhered refusing being participate Similarly, belief links payoffs. doing, placed vastly different realizing this, felt if abandon immediately supporting described, 263—264. When declined grant examine theretofore ones make argue erroneous initially person whom primarily dealt. However, injected ranking official transactions, difficult abused discretion ordering begin examining Even assuming arguendo error moot purposes appellate review Jones' accidental death occurred able do so. There believe greater efforts see actually end Obviously death, prevented later date. 26 Although begun de-emphasize significance judgment, above obtained it, began stress undergone dramatic shift attitude towards returned trip arranged Waldron. probably overstate say, does respondent, abandoned fair say longer seriously contended fact. 27 After declining permitting Cities. provided, detail, 268—269, alive Iran. contemplated active contact i.e., 1952.11 28 effect every surviving degree arrange sale them, specified arguments Certainly scope seem open serious challenge restrictive, proposed. fall complain order. discussion infra. 29 then, contends prejudiced let executives, bases many men advanced deaths ensued12 reasonably foreseen. fallacy testified changed focus minimize suggest possible motivations conspire. anticipate change entire emphasis individuals appear particularly vital subsequently become Moreover, ask died, Therefore, prejudicial here fail also. III. attorney produced needed demonstrate granted. (in V) contentions opposition counsel's conspiracy13 resell contract. import domestic operations States, amounting 100,000 barrels per day. independent long-existing Through attractive possibilities fulfilling needs. consisted short-term purchases prices going rates Mideast via interested tentative reached, enter long-term arrangement industry (or portion thereof) compensate transfer 32 lengths explore Waldron, secured invitation together go look facilities appropriated Anglo-Iranian. Upon facilities, concluded departure personnel previously operations, Iranians managed keep relatively good operating condition. orally written report details promised transmitted later. stay Iran, side visit Company, owned jointly Gulf. Watson14 informed propose steps relative another entirely interest proposals. significant thereafter. Meanwhile 21, acting behalf, sent telegram Secretary Interior Chapman offering cargo Iranian-produced aviation gasoline Air Force. Carter said use offices get gasoline. Instead, cabled Watson instructions tell disassociating himself Carter's questioned wisdom proposal. did. 33 wrote incoming State Attorney General informing solution problem missive international law appeared right nationalize prepared step Three 15-year 21,000 option 30,000 day, signed 34 unsuccessful American companies. particular, one-third great Richfield, told all. back NIOC, 1/2% therein.15 35 argues participant follows foregoing facts. record, apparent main follow organized And undoubtedly, contrary evidence, jury motives cf. (1962), conceivably whole variety non-conspiratorial exercise attractiveness offered show, record contains overwhelming motives, much himself. B. 36 nationalization, publicly news media throughout abrogation rights illegal act 'take may necessary protect country,' including bringing lawsuits purchaser introduced tended major suit, fear countries concessions lead successful, communicated companies handled That threats effective numerous companies, action, refused precisely afraid retaliation. threatened leased tankers transporting 37 clear furnished compelling explanation conspiratorial behavior juxtaposition objected continually minimal prospective block suggestion becomes insupportable. escape force arguing obligated why conspired. though undoubtedly true abstract, has relevance how consistently interests situation directly opposed others foreign oil; not. control re-establishing status quo nationalization; doubtless due difficulty suggesting conspire coupled proposals several (to paid thousand dollars reimburse expenses incurred arranging Iran), prompts understandably enough, insist controlling suggest, does, rely motive. 39 excess others. makes suggestive improper motives. involved unpleasant consequences deter deal.16 product factors least equal negating probative failure, probable. 40 besides simple conspiracy.17 reliance transmission Watson's announcement stresses aspects evidencing boycott: statement come (Anglo-Iranian 51% Government) compensation expropriated property, possibility (presumably Cities) purchased interesting note ways. suggests, cooperation reactivated adherence scheme initiated supports ignores alternative characterized desirable insofar Iran's concerned, arrangement, '(d)evelopment method, possibly Governments, (would made) allow tie-ups, suits similar harassments purchasers crude.' 41 emphasizes lay accommodation British. Since taken, effect, conspirators, suggests too shows common purpose. once risk trying itself, state restore kind boycotters. phraseology 'honorable course' hardly changes letter. 42 intended relies notes involve (hopefully compensated property. insisting outright, rejecting substitute payment therefor, proposal susceptible interpretation 43 letter memorandum, stating ran counter consistent heart defense, See 231 F.Supp., 87. 44 major, controlling, stockholder Richfield. aside speculation connect value applicable transaction discussed probability avoid difficulties expired fell through, anything offer. adds nothing 45 interference military use. One incident when, conceded court, A basic cable Interior, concerned promote sale, Jones. Under circumstances, characterizes vindictive likely someone else's support, light base C. 46 improper, heavily 458. plaintiff CBS canceled affiliation UHF station drive give monopoly market Milwaukee area, ultimately eliminate competition entirely. affiliation, affiliated driven station, thereby leaving consisting largely asserting actions legitimate area. therefore, canceling Poller. where existence competitor motive, prematurely plaintiff, nonexistence behavior. 47 glance present seems similarities failing likewise here. differences cases. competitive relationship plausible plan business. admitted along, coincided, conflicted, And, fact, gives ample similarity candidly originally included co-conspirator conceived idea ultimate payoff. Yet 263—264, ever rebutted. forced produced, sufficiently resist 48 position, Interstate Circuit, Inc. 306 208, 59 467, 83 L.Ed. 610 (1939), Theatre Enterprises, Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 346 537, 74 257, 98 273 (1954). group picture distributors, first-run exhibitors, simultaneously identical restrictions showings films distributed. subsequent-run exhibitors admission direction charged competing whose behest imposed. restrain among depriving disadvantages tickets considerably exhibitors. Other prohibiting double-features theatres anti-competitive effects. direct distributors impose restrictions, each distributor knew imposition feasible distributors. creating likelihood increased profits distributor. tacit inferred. 49 differs hand inferences can absence fatal agreement. Adherence increase royalties rise danger competitors enlarging restrictions. aid proposing themselves significantly diminish benefits Here 'parallel refusal deal'18 logically follow. 50 'business admissible circumstantial finder infer agreement,' U.S., 540, S.Ct., 259, ruling parallel jury, permissibly resolved basis purport 'consciously parallel' divergent inapplicable Thus neither precedent nor logic points hold awarded IV. 51 Procedure '(w)hen * adverse rest denials pleading, trial.' misapplied erroneously trial, requiring movant, 'genuine fact' 56(c). noted proof Therefore regardless proof. 56(c) proceed existence; rather, require resolve parties' differing versions truth presents peculiar law, namely What cannot him.19 analysis undertaken demonstrates is, pleadings. repeatedly never 53 Essentially producing correct. To burden-of-proof interpreted should, read cases plaintiffs complaints, something developed allegations, decline accept it. recognize importance preserving litigants' claims, extend anyone setting valid cause full-dress V. 54 our evaluated accomplishing 55 formal complains inequity faced thousands will naturally hands fails grips problems complicated suit attempted disassociate alleged, totally 56 group, implies unfairly benefited conducted reveals, bolster Had weaker is. chosen submit containing incorporated associates' depositions. Hence vis-a -vis 57 circumstances justifiably advantage objections pending, exhibited expedite proceedings, postponements always willing acquiesce delay.20 responsibility hurry matters along vehement build indication future below, compel remain Assuming correctness conducting (a disputed altogether unpersuasively respondent), remains presently depend strength party. 60 now asserts vigorously demanding reveals occasions requested stated, 'I think obvious farther I don't know, very turned *.' finally anticipation renewal transaction. His was, proposition usually conspirators tend 61 ordinary instead seriatim. plaintiff's singled inducements. Being termed tangential defendant, legitimately extricate expensive lawsuit. mean imply barred changing obtains But linked factually incorrect, indeed far. reveal relations persuasive hypothesis collusion deny acknowledges prejudice died deposed, adequate Carter. 1955 inability 63 already observed21 happenstance, absolutely Heston available. authoritatively portray uninformed underlings overstated. Notwithstanding areas ignorance, privy dominant figure operation, unrealistic scale knowledge company. 64 late date, listed formally capacity. explain why, emphasized behalf except orders. 65 attached became adherent implied voluntarily testify. true, assumption effect,22 proffered try earlier thought aware contending put expense sign litigation. Given regarded weak, quite proper timing help contrary, strongly establishing grounds contend discovering furnish him. real indication, witness 1963. 66 requests, complaints limitation thereof, relate important respondent: interfered boycott, spring 1953. latest 67 course, demand outside covered lawsuit ramifications forming doubt extended 56(f) proper. Likewise, broader attempting, peripheral failed, injured obtainable 56(f)23 normally proceeding 68 limitations materials witnesses, evident substantiate raising thereon, investigation gather below. accomplished ends judge's futile operate solely conjecture. 69 For reasons 70 Affirmed. 71 DOUGLAS took 72 BLACK, THE CHIEF JUSTICE BRENNAN join, dissenting. 73 upholds Sherman Antitrust Act. brought. strange, indeed, entered, enjoyed luxury compelled admit charges destroy boycotting thing stranger fantastic case; interrogate whatever officers employees familiar transactions complained. face 473, 491 'summary procedures sparingly litigation' '(t)rial hallmark 'even justice." sufficient, think, gross Court's affirmance brought Company (New Jersey) 1928 1951, dire economic Despite threats, sources customers therefore buy expressed terms, evaluate prospects, provided Mossadegh. thereupon Premier, high experts, appraise old plants. along. trip, secret side-trip pursue buying Oil, accompany Kuwait, effort conceal lawsuit, gone trip; last trip. 75 reporting favorably prospects using abruptly favorable terms. intense pressure subjected month annual convention Institute. slated receive Institute's gold medal selected year, meetings representatives cut sorely medal. executed. 76 eagerly pursued prospect purchasing views forgone chance 'billions' foreseen, filed, length, getting answering completed. Then charging deals prove Cities; arrangement; inquiry sharply questioned. greatest know drastic ordered met questions. 77 eliminated stressed generally inducements principal limited. restricted transactions. Of 78 spite amassed liability, unrestricted freedom restricted, four eight intimately connected (1965). Appeals, short, uninformative opinion, (C.A.2d Cir., 1966). 79 affirming reconciled supra. warned judgments decide intent play leading roles. just Its complexity Literally hearings. farcical treat eats suitable certainly one-tenth sworn adjudicate accordance process An excuse save time. If speed time-savers snare delusion rendered field abolish procedures, root branch. plain illustrates technique tempts judges cases, constitutional jury. 80 me established ways manifested Suddenly, intend further, others.2 motivations, predominantly motivated considerations induced form deals. rejects theories, contrasting reasons, concludes illegitimate were, indicated, standard, Poller, determining 81 deprived highly technical wholly indefensible grounds. power violation acts. comprehensively affidavits, unavailable refuse application continuance obtained, just. rules contemplate shut court. No rule Such called 'just' meaning pleaded district obtain. suing dependent behind makers burdens authorizes fears expects cutting water. pleading joining perforce eternally uphold game gets wins game. games. ancient traditions justice, permits triumph. living Law justice Too wasted disposed way. reverse Plaintiff, Gerald 1964. executor refer 'petitioner' 'Waldron' interchangeably. settled co-conspirator. rule. Moore, Practice 26.13(3), 1154 (2d ed. 1967). co-owner holder concession, 'most-favorednations clause' inserted minute benefit so-called clause unilateral declaration board event policy better price. F.Supp. 72. airplane crash varying degrees exploration preceded respondent's full soon forthcoming. sense serve 170. Documents covering internal 1952. n. 7, evaluating herein legally sufficient. We, intimate merits senior president. board. percentage shares Sinclair (Sinclair Richfield.) consideration. brief drastically retaliation level Klors, Broadway-Hale Stores, 359 207, 705, 741 (1959), Parke, Davis & 362 29, 503, 505 (1960), acquiescence acquiescing combination, 12,000 plaintiff,' intimation coerced pursued. Klors cited proceedings. searches vain papers single intelligible theory. attribute discern theory, stage us combination liability '(a)t acts (referring Agreement) defendants.' denying words, based reading document requires denial (especially remedied defects time) consider extreme technicality objects urges, submission out, natural respond 271. characterization underling, o school practiced lack diligence. Turner, Definition Act: Conscious Parallelism Refusals Deal, Harv.L.Rev. 655 Indeed precise overturning line Third successfully relying well-pleaded 56.22(2), 2821 remembered elapsed judge. Both had, penalized supplying testimony. cannot, token, penalize delays acquiesced hint objection. represents example swift resolution 272. replete references ill-use suffered unpersuasive 26. like witnesses dead executor. sake clarity instructed associate advise 'primarily' designed ante, 284, narrow explicitly states, action.' understand justify judging primary piece this.

Category: 7