Government Asks to use Discovery in Chicken Antitrust Civil Suit for Criminal Investigation


The United States filed an unopposed motion on Friday asking the Northern District of Illinois to amend the confidentiality order which was previously agreed to in the consolidated chicken antitrust lawsuit alleging that major chicken companies conspired to raise the price of broiler chickens. The proposed amendment would allow the United States to use materials from the case in the criminal investigation regarding the same alleged activities. 

Before materials would be disclosed in the criminal investigation, located in the District of Colorado, a “meet-and-confer process” would happen to determine which documents received by the United States could be used in the criminal litigation. This step will, according to the motion, give the United States flexibility while protecting confidentiality expectations. 

The United States reportedly intervened in the antitrust lawsuit in June 2019 with a request to stay the discovery in order to protect its investigation into the industry.  The court granted a stay, as requested by the United States, which lasted through March 2020. Ten executives of chicken companies have so far been indicted by the grand jury in the criminal case, based on violations of the Sherman Act. Each has pled not guilty.  A trial in the case is reportedly scheduled for August 2021. 

The process that the amendment to the Agreed Confidentiality Order in the civil lawsuit would create includes notification to the producing party of which material the United States wishes to disclose in the criminal suit, and allowing five business days for the producing party time to provide an objection.  If an objection occurs, the government would meet with the producing party to address it.  If an agreement is not reached, the government would file a motion to use the documents in the criminal case under seal. 

“The Government’s proposed amendment avoids prejudice altogether, by establishing a notice-and opportunity-to-be-heard process,” the motion stated. “This process preserves the parties’ reliance interests in their confidentiality designations and the resulting confidentiality protections that the Agreed Confidentiality Order affords.”