American Home Assurance Company et al v. Greater Omaha Packing Company Inc.

Filing 203

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that plaintiff Cargill's 168 Motion show cause is denied as moot. No later than February 11, 2014, GOPAC shall answer Cargill's Interrogatory No. 22 and supplement all other disputed interrogatories as appropriate. The request for status conference (Filing No. 168) is denied as moot. Defendant's 184 Motion for Leave to file supplemental brief in opposition to Cargill's motion for order to show cause is denied as moot. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE
COMPANY and CARGILL MEAT
SOLUTIONS CORPORATION,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
GREATER OMAHA PACKING COMPANY,)
INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

8:11CV270

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motion of
Cargill for an order to show cause why GOPAC has failed to answer
interrogatories as ordered by the Court (Filing No. 168).
The Court agrees with GOPAC that “what Cargill’s Motion
is really requesting is a supplemental answer from Greater Omaha
that states that Greater Omaha either does or does not know the
names of the customers that it lost due to Cargill’s tortious
interference.”

GOPAC’s Brief in Opposition, Filing No. 179 at 2.

This understanding tracks the order compelling supplemental
answers:

“GOPAC must file a response or state that it does not

have knowledge sufficient to answer these interrogatories.”

Am.

Home Assur. Co. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc., 8:11CV270,
2013 WL 4875997 (D. Neb. Sept. 11, 2013).

Despite this apparent understanding of what is being
requested, GOPAC contends that it is not required to give such an
answer because “it is proving its Counterclaim through a forensic
economic analysis known as an ‘event study,’ which does not rely
on identifying the names of specific customers.”
in Opposition, Filing No. 179 at 2.
law or logic for this assertion.

GOPAC’s Brief

The Court finds no basis in

As an alternative basis for

denial, GOPAC contends that it “has also told Cargill . . . that
it does not know the names of the customers who stopped doing
business with Greater Omaha.”

Id.

The Court was unable to find

such a statement in GOPAC’s answer’s to the interrogatories.1
In a third alternative argument, GOPAC argues that
business records provided pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 33(d) satisfy Cargill’s request for the identity of
customers lost due to the alleged tortious interference.
at 3.

Id.

The business records GOPAC provided consist of sales

records for all GOPAC customers from January 1, 2007 through

1

The statement bearing the closest resemblance is in
GOPAC’s First Supplemental Answer to Interrogatory 36 which
states that the identity of the customers that stopped doing
business because of the alleged contamination were “[u]nknown at
this time.” This phrase anticipates identifying the customers at
some future time, which would require further supplementation to
GOPAC’s answer. It does not inform the counterclaim-defendant of
the actual identities or make a conclusive declaration that GOPAC
is without the knowledge to provide the requested information.
-2-

December 31, 2011.

GOPAC contends that the customers lost due to

the alleged tortious interference “may be determined by examining
[these] records.”

The Court disagrees.

While the sales records

may indicate the identity of customers who ceased or slowed
business over the course of the five years starting in 2007, they
do not provide any indication as to the customer’s motivation -a key component of the requested information.
In a fourth alternative argument, GOPAC argues that
recent deposition testimony touching on the same issues obviates
the need for further supplemental answers.
Brief in Opposition, Filing No. 184 at 2.
for the same reasons.

GOPAC’s Supplemental
This argument fails

GOPAC asserts that the deposition included

questions about the business lost due to tortious interference.
However, the answers which GOPAC contends are sufficient suffer
the same defect as GOPAC’s supplemental answers to the
interrogatories:

they do not identify the customers which GOPAC

alleges were affected by Cargill’s tortious interference.
Though the present motion is for an order to show
cause, the Court finds that the extensive argument in the briefs
renders a show cause order moot.

Rather the Court will order

GOPAC to answer the interrogatories.

-3-

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:
1)

Plaintiff Cargill’s motion for order to show cause

is denied as moot (Filing No. 168).
2) No later than February 11, 2014, GOPAC shall answer
Cargill’s Interrogatory No. 22 and supplement all other disputed
interrogatories as appropriate.
3)

The request for status conference (Filing No. 168)

is denied as moot.
4)

Defendant’s motion for leave to file supplemental

brief in opposition to Cargill’s motion for order to show cause
(Filing No. 184) is denied as moot.
DATED this 31st day of January, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

-4-