Winning Trial Graphics: An Interview with Sati Harutyunyan

Sean Gates sits down for an interview with Sati Harutyunyan, who shares insights and key takeaways from her experience on the Kraft Global Foods Inc. v. United Egg Producers, Inc. trial team that won a jury verdict in late 2023. In addition to discussing details about the legal theories behind an alleged industry-wide conspiracy to fix the price of eggs, Sati also describes the challenges involved in explaining antitrust claims to a jury and tips for parties involved in complex antitrust trials—as well as how a picture can be worth not just a thousand words but also $17.7 million.

Background

Sati Harutyunyan is a partner at Jenner & Block, who was on the winning trial team in Kraft Global Foods Inc. v. United Egg Producers, Inc., No. 11-cv-8808 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 1, 2023). Sati and her colleagues represent a group of well-known global food companies who were the plaintiffs in this case—Kraft Foods Global, Inc., The Kellogg Co., General Mills, Inc., and Nestle USA, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that several major egg producers and two egg industry trade associations conspired to violate antitrust laws by restricting the number of eggs in the United States, thereby increasing prices through the coordinated slaughter and molting of hens and the coordinated exports of eggs. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants also used an animal welfare program known as the UEP Certified Program as a pretext for their anticompetitive conduct, with competitors coordinating efforts to achieve higher prices through longer-term restrictions on the egg-laying hen flock.

In November 2023, the jury found the defendants—United Egg Producers, Inc., United States Egg Marketers, Inc., Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., and Rose Acre Farms, Inc.—had conspired in violation of the antitrust laws. And in December, the jury awarded the plaintiffs $17.7 million.

Interview

Sean: Sati, congratulations on the win. Tell us a little more about the key issues at trial. What was the plaintiffs’ theory, and what were the key defense issues?

Sati: Thank you, Sean! And thanks for having me. The key issue in this case was whether the two largest egg producers in the country and two industry trade associations conspired to restrict the domestic supply of eggs in order to increase the price of eggs and egg products. There were a number of ways the defendants worked together to restrict the supply of eggs. They coordinated exports of large amounts of eggs to other countries. They coordinated molting and slaughter schedules among themselves. And they adopted certain practices and rules as part of an industry-wide animal welfare program that were actually designed and implemented as supply restrictions. Our main theory at trial, in its simplest form, was that competitors are required to act alone and unilaterally—not in cooperation with one another. Nothing prevented any of the defendants from acting unilaterally to increase cage space for hens, slaughter and molt hens on a particular schedule, or even export eggs at a loss. But the law does not allow competitors to come together and agree to implement these measures in a coordinated fashion with the goal of increasing prices. And of course, the laws do not allow trade associations to facilitate this kind of agreement by and between competitors.

The defendants’ theories were that the cage space restrictions were customer driven, the exports were too sporadic to amount to an antitrust violation, and the early slaughter and molting of hens did not affect the price of eggs.

Sean: Tell us about the trial. How many days did it take? How many witnesses were involved? How many, and what type, of experts testified?

Sati: The trial was bifurcated into two phases: liability and damages. We started with jury selection on October 17, 2023, and received the jury verdict on damages on December 1, 2023. Give or take a few days off between the two phases and Thanksgiving, trial went for about a month and a half. The same jury stayed with us through both phases and was attentive and engaged throughout the proceedings. The jurors’ interest was impressive given the length of the trial and complexity of the issues. Close to twenty witnesses testified. Because the defendants’ conspiracy dated back to the early 2000s, not all of the witnesses could appear live, meaning that some witnesses were presented via video deposition or live read-in of prior testimony. We tried to minimize the number of recorded witnesses, however, to keep the jurors’ interest in the case. Three economic experts testified—two for the defendants and one for the plaintiffs. The defendants also presented expert testimony from an animal scientist.  

Sean: What were the biggest challenges in telling your story to the jury?

Sati: First, the age of the case and the conspiracy presented unique challenges with witness availability and recollections of events. But this also allowed us to draw the jury’s focus to the documents defendants generated and statements they made at the time of the conspiracy, as opposed to retrospective arguments and narratives about how events transpired. This ended up being a powerful tool because we could point to the defendants’ many statements at the time of key events that demonstrated the defendants’ and their coconspirators’ agreement to work together to increase domestic egg prices.

Another challenge was the complex nature of the matter. This case dealt with antitrust law, which is not a walk in the park for most jurors. The jury heard testimony from multiple economic experts. From our expert, the jury heard about a statistical regression analysis and an econometric model designed to show that the market would have looked like but for the price impact of the UEP Certified Program. And while the case was about economic issues, animal husbandry practices did underlie the case in a way that required us to distill for the jury what was relevant and what was not. Attorneys on both sides had to funnel complex legal concepts into arguments the jury could understand.

Sean: Let’s turn to your trial graphics. What’s your philosophy regarding trial graphics in antitrust cases? How important do you think the graphics were in this particular case?

Sati: I’m a big fan of using graphics to help articulate and persuade across all kinds of cases. Graphics don’t always need to be fancy, and they certainly should not be verbose. But if you use the graphics to give your audience a visual depiction of points you are conveying orally, you add depth to your analysis and perhaps engage with someone in your audience you may have otherwise missed. That connection is critical in the jury setting.

In this case, graphics were particularly important—and this goes back to the challenges I outlined earlier. First, several hundred exhibits were admitted during trial. Documentary evidence and the defendants’ own statements during the time of the conspiracy were a big part of the case. It would have been extremely difficult to keep the jury focused on and organized around the critical documents without visuals. Second, a price-fixing scheme involving multiple defendants and co-conspirators is not something most people can hear about once and grasp right away. The graphics were key to our presentation of the case in digestible pieces for the jury. We used them to tie every element of the case to the next.

The defendants also saw the importance of graphics, explaining the intricacies of the egg production process in ways the jury could understand.

Sean: On the issue of prices, I understand that the defendants’ expert had data showing that inflation-adjusted wholesale prices had dropped over time. That kind of data seems powerfully contrary to the plaintiffs’ theory. How did you deal with that data?

Sati: The defendants’ expert relied on price data stretching as far back as 1972—decades before the defendants’ conspiracy began—to opine that a conspiracy to raise prices was inconsistent with trends showing significant price decreases over the years (graph 1). But the damages period in our case was far more limited. You’re right that scaled back this far, the data appears not to support the plaintiffs’ theory. There are many reasons for that, including improved production processes and the high inflation rate in the 1970s. But if you zoom in and focus on the actual damages period in our case (graph 2), the data was consistent with the plaintiffs’ theory. So we were not changing the numbers or presenting alternative numbers. Instead, through some very simple cutting-out of the extraneous data points from before the damages period, we could use the defendants’ expert’s numbers and data in support of our theories in the case. We cut the noise for the jury and focused them on the portions of the data that were relevant for their damages analysis. So not only were we able to provide helpful guidance to the jury, but we were able to show why the expert was expanding the years to mislead the jury.