United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief District Judge.
The Court has before it cross motions for summary judgment (Dkt. 45, 47) as well as Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. (Dkt. 51). The Court heard oral argument on July 9, 2014, and took the motions under advisement. After further review, the Court will deny both motions.
This is a breach of contract claim brought against H.J. Heinz Co. by Bright Harvest Sweet Potato Company, Inc. Bright Harvest alleges Heinz breached the Co-Pack Agreement when they stopped purchasing sweet potato fries after August 2011.
Bright Harvest and Heinz signed a Co-Pack Agreement on December 7, 2009. The Co-Pack Agreement set terms, conditions, and prices for Bright Harvest to produce sweet potato fries under Heinz's Ore-Ida label. (Dkt. 45-2, p. 1). The Agreement set forth that Heinz "shall place purchase orders with Co-Packer [Bright Harvest], and Co-Packer shall sell and deliver to Heinz, quantities of the products [sweet potato fries] under the terms of this Agreement." (Dkt. 10-1, p. 4). The term of the Agreement was from December 1, 2009 until November 30, 2015. (Dkt. 10-1, p. 4). The production schedule established a "non-binding planning target of 10 million pounds of sweet potato fries per year, and it is the intent of the Parties that Heinz will deliver to Co-Packer purchase orders for such Products as hereinafter provided, subject to the current capacity of Co-Packer to produce such Products." (Dkt. 10-1, p. 5).
In addition, Heinz was to provide electronic rolling weekly demand files with 5 weeks of firm production orders and 8 weeks of forecast. (Dkt. 10-1, p. 5). No purchase order could exceed 50% of Bright Harvest's current forecasted volume without mutual consent. (Dkt. 10-1, p. 5). Further, Heinz was to provide Bright Harvest 12 to 18 month rolling forecasts quarterly for operational management and capacity planning. (Dkt. 10-1, p. 6). Section 4 of the Agreement states "Heinz may source the sweet potato fry products from its own factories or from any other source during the term hereof." (Dkt. 10-1, p. 6).
Bright Harvest supplied Heinz with sweet potato fries from 2009 until mid-2011. In 2009, Bright Harvest produced approximately 200, 000 pounds of the requested 400, 000 pounds of sweet potato fries, and in 2010, they produced 6 million pounds for Heinz. (Dkt. 45-1, p. 5). During the term of the Agreement, Heinz began producing sweet potato fries in their Ontario, Oregon facility. (Dkt. 45-1, p. 5). And, in March 2011, Heinz submitted a 13-month rolling forecast to Bright Harvest requesting only 4.1 million pounds of sweet potato fries between April 2011 and 2012. (Dkt. 45-1, p. 6).
To settle the dispute over the drop in requested production, Heinz drafted a letter revising its forecast from 4.1 million pounds to over 7 million pounds, which Bright Harvest signed. (Dkt. 45-1, p. 6). From July 13, 2011, Heinz supplied Bright Harvest with 12-18 month forecasts showing zero volume for all products starting in September 2012 and moving forward. (Dkt. 45-1, p. 8). Bright Harvest then filed a breach of contract claim against Heinz in July 2011.
Summary judgment is appropriate where a party can show that, as to any claim or defense, "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). One of the principal purposes of the summary judgment "is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims...." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). "[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). There must be a genuine dispute as to any material fact - a fact "that may affect the outcome of the case." Id. at 248.
When cross-motions for summary judgment are filed, the Court must independently search the record for factual disputes. Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2001). The filing of cross-motions for summary judgment - where both parties essentially assert that there are no material factual disputes - does not vitiate the court's responsibility to determine whether disputes as to material fact are present. Id.
1. Motions for Summary ...