![]() On September 16, 1993, defendant Marsh filed a reply to the government's opposition to his motion.ĭefendant Hayter Oil Company's memorandum in support of its motion is, essentially, an edited version of defendant Marsh's memorandum in support of his motion, down to the assertion of a nonexistent "defendant's right to particularization." Hayter Oil Company Memorandum In Support at 3 Marsh Memorandum In Support at 4. The five demands in the oil company's motion are virtually identical to the first five demands in Marsh's motion, with the exception that the oil company did not include Marsh's Demand 1(c) for co-conspirators' statements. On September 14, 1993, defendant Hayter Oil Company moved for a bill of particulars. On September 2, 1993, the government filed its response opposing Marsh's motion. On August 24, 1993, defendant Marsh moved for a bill of particulars. Gasoline prices in the Greeneville, Tennessee area, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The indictment charged them with conspiring to fix retail ![]() On July 21, 1993, a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Tennessee returned an indictment against defendant Hayter Oil Company and its president and owner, Sonny Wayne Marsh. For these reasons, defendant's motion is without merit and should be denied. While the defendant's demands exceed the proper scope of a legitimate bill of particulars, most of the information it seeks has already been provided in discovery, is available from other sources, or is contained in the indictment. HAYTER OIL COMPANY'S MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARSĭefendant Hayter Oil Company moves for a bill of particulars that demands the details of both the evidence against it and the government's theory of prosecution. RESPONSE OF THE UNITED STATES OPPOSING DEFENDANT For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group. To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. ![]() This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |