principal sources of
supply. At the same time, Cinemavision tried to separate itself from SAFFCO and NITE in
order to save its business. These efforts came too late ... Cinemavision went
out of business.
NITE, Patterson, and SAFFCO, invoking section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15
(1982), brought this private anti-trust action against the eight defendant ... film distributors we
have referred to supra, alleging that they had conspired to destroy SAFFCO, in violation of
sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01363302.pdf
Patterson ["6O9] plainly lacked standing to sue the defendants in this case.
IV.
SAFFCO and Patterson contend that the district court erred in ruling on a variety of
motions ... United Technologies Corp., 568 F.2d 1186, 1189 (5th Cir.1978).
A.
On September 10, 1982 SAFFCO's counsel, in Atlanta, received the defendants' notice to
take the deposition ... district court. Late
in the afternoon of the day before the deposition, SAFFCO's attorneys moved the district
court for a protective order requiring the defense to reschedule the deposition
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01363304.pdf
October 1, 1981.
In the instant case, the distributors moved for summary judgment against SAFFCO on the
ground that SAFFCO failed to establish the third element of its antitrust claims ... causal
relationship between the distributors' alleged anticompetitive behavior and SAFFCO's
injury. The distributors presented a two-part argument. First, the distributors ("13] noted
that SAFFCO failed to obtain contributions ... sources of income, the
distributors concluded, they could not be held responsible for SAFFCO's injury. The
district court accepted their argument and gave them summary judgment.
We begin
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01363303.pdf