Legal Opinion

In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation

District Court, C.D. Illinois

Decided April 27, 1999No. MDL 1087PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

AMENDED ORDER

MIHM, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Archer Daniels Midland Company’s (“ADM”) Motion to Quash or, in the Alternative, to Modify Plaintiffs’ Subpoena and James R. Randall’s (“Randall”) Motion to Intervene and to Quash Class Plaintiffs’ Subpoena Duces Tecum. For the reasons stated herein, ADM’s Motion to Quash is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and Randall’s Motion to Intervene and to Quash is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Factual Background

For a period of approximately two and one half years, Mark Whitacre (“Whit-acre”), former corporate vice…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Alderman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Hoffa v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. United States v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  5. United States v. Jo Ann Harrelson, Charles Voyed Harrelson and Elizabeth Nichols ChagraCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1985

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. SalemmeDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1999
  2. Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. WhitacreDistrict Court, C.D. Illinois · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API