1st BATCH OF FILES AVAILABLE NOW!

Yesterday, Southern Glazer's Wine & Spirits brought another competitor to fed ct. For 3rd time in 3 mos, the distrib asked for a judge's assistance to force another distrib to cooperate with its far reaching subpoenas linked to its dispute with FTC. This wk, it's Mexcor, an importer of mostly tequila and other spirits brands as well as a distrib with ops in CA, FL, LA, TX and SC (operating as Morales Bev Group). Recall, SGWS subpoenaed 11 distribs last summer for a wide range of data and pricing strategy info as it works to defend against charges of alleged price discrimination from the FTC. After refusals to cooperate, SGWS took AZ's Hensley and TX's Favorite Brands to ct in Dec and Jan. In Mexcor's case, SGWS sent an amended subpoena in early Oct expanding its request to additional states where Mexcor operates. But Mexcor refused to cooperate and turn over any info. Meanwhile, in Northern TX, Favorite Brands responded to a substantially similar filing, asking ct to deny Southern's request that it "essentially&hellip;turn over all of its confidential and proprietary pricing, costs and related strategy information" on wine & spirits for 6 yrs.Familiar Objections, Familiar Pleas; Mexcor a Top 5 Wine & Spirits Distrib in TX, CA After SGWS sent Mexcor the identical subpoena it sent 10 other distribs in mid Aug last yr, Mexcor first denied to cooperate on Oct 1, Southern told the ct yesterday. It responded the next day by expanding the number of operative states. Mexcor's the 3rd largest spirits and wine distrib in TX at over 2 mil cases, Southern spells out, and the 5th largest in CA. The cos conferred 3x about the request between early Oct and late Jan. But a long break in contact after a conference in mid Nov underscores the "pattern of delay" Southern claims Mexcor exhibited. Still, Southern "offered [in late Jan] to narrow its data requests as a compromise," asking for data on just Mexcor's "100 best-selling products (by volume) each for wine and spirits." No dice.Much like the motion filed seeking to force Favorite Brands' hand, the filing against Mexcor reads much the same as the original motion to compel against Hensley. Each of the opposing distribs object to the subpoena as "irrelevant, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seek[ing] confidential information," SGWS summarizes. Yet it again insists its requests are highly relevant and tailored to its defenses. Like other distribs, Mexcor didn't engage with Southern's attempts to limit its requests, yet now claims cooperation would be far more costly and time consuming than the results would be relevant.Favorite Brands Reiterates Hensley's Arguments: Deeply Confidential Info Far from Necessary SGWS isn't the only party borrowing language and repeating familiar arguments in these highly similar disputes. In responding to Southern last wk, Favorite Brands took some of the same language from Hensley's earlier response in its intro before diverging in style, but not substance. Southern's subpoena is "indisputably overbroad, burdensome, expensive" and "amorphous," Favorite Brands (FB) argues. And the protective order in place in the FTC dispute "does not alleviate [its] confidentiality concerns," especially going up against SGWS, a $26-bil co, compared to FB's $100-120 mil in annual sales. (Recall FB is separate wine, spirits & craft beer distrib of LaMantia family, owners of large AB house L&F.) Tho precise cost of complying is hard to guess, FB estimates it would take 2-3 employees over a wk, putting pressure on day-to-day ops and IT infrastructure, far too much in its view.Like Hensley, FB emphasizes that SGWS's defenses against FTC must be based on its "own pricing strategies, operations, and unique transactions with its customers and suppliers," not FB's. Indeed, SGWS even explains in its own filing that its defense only requires showing a "good faith belief, rather than absolute certainty, that a price concession is being offered to meet an equally low price offered by a competitor." So in FB's view, "it is only SGWS's belief about its competitors' pricing that is relevant," not those competitors' actual pricing. And the fact that Southern now asks for that info "demonstrates that it did not have access to that information at the time of setting its own pricing, and thus, did not and could not, have had such a belief."

Mexcor Makes Three: SGWS Asks 3d Fed Ct for Cooperation with Distrib Subpoenas; Favorite Responds

Publishing Info