Court Opinion

ID: 9450640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:53:42.663692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:23.950128
License: Public Domain

WRIGHT, Circuit Judge
(concurring) :
For a large, supposedly responsible, drug manufacturing concern, Parke, Davis’ punishing of appellant apparently because its president testified as a Government witness in the criminal antitrust case against Parke, Davis is a most reprehensible act.1 In the context *187of this particular case, however, I agree with the court that relief must be denied. This is not to say that Government witnesses cannot be protected against this sort of reprisal. Antitrust drug violators are no more immune than other defendants from the criminal statutes concerning obstruction of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 1503.

. Parke, Davis does not admit that it refused to deal with Dart because of its president’s participation in the criminal antitrust case. However, the District Court in the civil antitrust ease against Parke, Davis found that:
“On December 12, 1957, subsequent to the trial of the companion criminal action [dismissed by court November 5, 1957], Parke, Davis informed Dart Drug Company that it was permanent*187ly closing the Dart account and did not intend to have any further dealings with that company. * * * Parke, Davis’ action in ceasing relations with Dart was a purely unilateral one, and there is no evidence that it had any relation to Dart’s prices or advertising policies.” United States v. Parke, Davis & Company, D.D.C., 164 F.Supp. 827, 834 (1958).
And the Supreme Court’s opinion in the same case shows that apparently Dart alone among the retail price cutters was cut off by Parke, Davis. In United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29, 36, 80 S.Ct. 503, 507, 4 L.Ed.2d 505 (1960), the Court states:
“ * * * Parke Davis then stopped trying to promote the retailers’ adher-
ence to its suggested resale prices, and neither it nor the wholesalers have since declined further dealings with [retailer] .5 A reason for this was that the Department of Justice, on complaint of Dart Drug Company, had begun an investigation of possible violation of the antitrust laws.
“5. Except that in December 1957, Parke Davis informed Dart Drug Company that it did not intend to have any further dealings with Dart. The latter has, however, continued to purchase Parke Davis products from wholesalers. Thus, Dart Drug cannot receive the volume discount on large quantity purchases.”