TABLE OF CONTENTS

[with page reference(s) at end of line]

First Published 2/24/02; Last Revision 2/24/02 10:01

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT, 1
Main, Recurrent Issue, 1
Failure to Acknowledge or Review Evidence, 2
Brief Summary of Facts, 2
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS, 3
Defendants Knew or Should Have Known, 3

The 14 Publishers Have Been Giving Defendants Discounts, Payments, Rebates, Fees,Allowances, Terms and Other Benefits Not Provided, Offered or Made Available to Intimate, 7

Advertising and Promotion, 8
Credit - Delayed Payment of Invoices, 9
Deductions (Agreed upon Reductions of Invoice Amounts), 10
Discounts, 11
Freight, 12
Regional Distribution Center ("DC" or "RDC"), 13
Return Center ("RC"), 14
Returns, 15
Special Deals, Stock Offers, Markdowns, 16
In Summary, 16
Other Components Making up Defendant's Effective Discount, 17
Taking Business Away from Existing Bookstores with Super Bookstore Openings, 18
Defendants' Superstore Inducements to Capture Intimate's Customers, 18
Defendants' Superstores Adversely Affected Defendants' Mall-Size Chain Bookstores, 19
Defendants and Intimate Were Buying Many of the Same Titles, 19
Effect of Same Decline in Sales on Average Independent, 19
Defendants' "Meeting Competition" Inducements for Discriminatory Prices, 20

Intimate Remains in the Bookselling Business But Is Unable to Compete as Long as Defendants Are Obtaining Their Discrimatory Prices (i.e., Effective Discounts) from the 14 Publishers, 20

Defendants' RDC's Did Not Produce Equivalent Cost Savings for the Publishers, and the RDC Fees Were Not Available to Intimate for All or Part of the Same Services Intimate Was Performing, 21

Intimate's Damages, 23

ARGUMENT, 23

I. JOINT MOTION DOES NOT RAISE ISSUE AS TO INTIMATE'S ALLEGATIONS, 23
II. INTIMATE HAS A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF "INJURY TO COMPETITION", 23
III. INTIMATE HAS SHOWN REQUISITE FACTS TO ENABLE JURY TO DETERMINE WHETHER HARM TO COMPETITION IS LIKELY, 24
IV. DEFENDANTS' HIGHER DISCOUNTS ADVERSELY AFFECTED COMPETITION BY LOWER PRICES, BETTER LOCATIONS, MORE TITLES, TOO COSTLY FOR INTIMATE, 25
V. INTIMATE WAS NOT OFFERED THE DISCRIMINATORY DISCOUNTS OR BENEFITS, 27
VI. THERE ARE NO NO FUNCTIONAL DISCOUNT OR COST JUSTIFICATION DEFENSES, 27
VII. DEFENDANTS HAVE NO MEETING-COMPETITION DEFENSE, 28
VIII. PLAINTIFF SHOWS PRIMA FACIE CASE OF NO MEETING-COMPETITION DEFENSE, 29
IX. INTIMATE BOUGHT LIKE GRADE AND QUALITY; SAME MFRS; SAME PERIOD, 29
X. MINIMUM ACTUAL PRICE DIFFERENCE SHOWN WITH DEFENDANTS' HARD DATA, 29

XI. INTIMATE'S GROSS PROFIT ANALYSIS IS ON A SPECIFIC PUBLISHER'S PRODUCT LINE BASIS (COMPARING DEFENDANTS' EFFECTIVE DISCOUNTSWITH INTIMATE'S DISCOUNT), AND NOT A COMPARISON OF PROFIT MARGINS, 30
XII. INTIMATE HAS PROVIDED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANTS INDUCED AND/OR KNOWINGLY RECEIVED THE UNLAWFUL DISCOUNTS, 30
XIII. INTIMATE HAS SHOWN THAT DEFENDANTS KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THE PRICES THEY RECEIVED WERE DISCRIMINATORY AND UNLAWFUL, 31
XIV. EXPERT TESTIMONY IS NOT REQUIRED; AND INTIMATE HAS VARIOUS EXPERTS TO PROVE LIABILITY AND DAMAGES, 34
XV. INTIMATE SUFFERED ACTUAL INJURY CAUSED BY THE DISCRIMINATION; AND THERE IS NO FLAWED DAMAGE MODEL, 35
XVI. INTIMATE HAS PROVIDED PROOF OF ACTUAL DAMAGES, 37
XVII. INTIMATE'S LOSSES WERE CAUSED BY DEFENDANTS, 38
XVIII. INTIMATE HAS PROVED IT IS ENTITLED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, 38
XIX. INTIMATE IS NOT OUT OF THE BOOKSELLING BUSINESS; IT IS UNABLE TO COMPETE WITHOUT OBTAINING DEFENDANTS' DISCRIMINATORY PRICES, 40
XX. INTIMATE HAS CURRENT EVIDENCE ABOUT DEFENDANTS' ACTIVITIES, 40

CONCLUSION, 40

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:

Abbey Steam Specialty Co. v. Armstrong International, Inc., 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13782, *8 (N.D. GA, Atl. Div. 1987), page 33
Adickes v. Kress, 398 U.S. 144 (1970), page 2
American Booksellers Ass'n v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 135 F. Supp. 2d 1031, 1043, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3219 (N.D. CA 2001), pages 3, 19, 23, 23, 29, 30, 32, 33
American Booksellers Ass'n v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21035, *16-17 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), pages 29, 34
American Motor Specialties Co. v. FTC, 278 F.2d 225, 228-229; 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4640, *6 (2d Cir. 1960), page 32
American News Co. v. FTC, 300 F.2d 104, 110; 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5969, *14 (2d Cir. 1962), page 31
Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc., 958 F. Supp. 895, 904-905; 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3775 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), page 34
A&P v. FTC, 557 F.2d 971, 986; 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12814, *44 (2d Cir. 1977), page 31
Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985), page 37
Automatic Canteen v. F.T.C., 1953, 346 U.S. 61, page 32
Ayres v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 789 F.2d 1173, 1175; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25178, 5-6 (5th Cir. 1986), page 37
Barr Laboratories, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 978 F.2d 98, 106 (3d Cir. 1992), page 23
Big Value Stamp Co. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11129, **12 (S.D. OH, W. Div. 1967), page 34
Black Gold, Ltd. v. Rockwool Industries, Inc., 729 F.2d 676 (10th Cir. 1984), page 26
Callahan v. A.E.V., Inc., 182 F.3d 237, 241; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 14649, 7-8 (3d Cir. 1999), page 37
Chroma Lighting v. GTE Prods. Corp., 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 6725, **10 (9th Cir. 1997), page 34
Chrysler Credit Corp. v. J. Truett Payne Co., Inc., 670 F.2d 575, 581 (5th Cir. 1982), reh. den. en banc, 677 F.2d 117 (1982), cert. den., 459 U.S. 908 (1982), pages 25, 25, 26
Coastal Fuels, Inc. v. Caribbean Petroleum Corp., 79 F.3d 182, 195 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 4365 (1st Cir. 1996), page 27
Coastal Fuels, Inc. v. Carribbean Petroleum Corp., 175 F.3d 18, 33 (1st Cir. 1999), page 38
Conry v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 3 Cir. 1953, 209 F.2d 422, page 35
Eagle Windows of Northern Illinois, Inc. v. Eagle Window & Door, Inc., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1254, *6 (N.D. Ill., E. Div. 1992), page 33
Embrey v. United States, 17 Cl. Ct. 617; 1989 U.S. Cl. Ct. LEXIS 135 (U.S. Ct. Claims 1989), page 2
Falls City Indus., Inc. v. Vanco Beverage, Inc., 460 U.S. 428, 434-45 (1983), page 23, 23, 24
Ford Motor Company v. United States, 405 U.S. 562, 573, 92 S. Ct. 1142 (1972), page 39
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 359 F.2d 351, 366-367, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6380, *40-41 (9th Cir. 1966), rev'd on other grounds, 390 U.S. 341, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1222 (1968), pages 32, 33
FTC v. Henry Broch & Co., 363 U.S. 166, 187 (1960), page 26
FTC v. Morton Salt Co., 334 U.S. 37, 46-47 (1948), page 24
George Haug v. Rolls Royce Motor Cars, Inc., 148 F.3d 136, 142 (2d Cir. 1998), page 24
Godfrey v. Pulitzer Publ'g Co., 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 272, *11 (D.C. App. 2002), page 23
Grand Union Co. v. FTC, 300 F.2d 92, 100; 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5968, *25 (2d Cir. 1962), page 31
Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation, 245 F. Supp. 258, 293; 1965 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9551, **97 (M.D. PA 1965), page 35
Huntsman Chem. Corp. v. Holland Plastics Co., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 3083, *16 (10th Cir. 2000), page 27
Hygrade Milk & Cream Co. v. Tropicana Prods., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6598, * 10-11 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), pages 24, 31, 33
Indian Coffee Corp. v. P&G, 482 F. Supp. 1104, 1108-9; 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9864, **14 (W.D. PA 1980), page 33
Indian Coffee Corp. v. P&G, 752 F.2d 891, 902; 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 27867, **34 (3rd Cir. 1985), page xx
J. F. Feeser, Inc. v. Serv-a-Portion, Inc., 909 F.2d 1524, 1526 (3d Cir. 1990), page 24
J. Truett Payne Co. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 451 U.S. 557, 565-567; 101 S. Ct. 1923, 1928-1930 (1981), page 38
Kapiolani Motors, Ltd. v. GMC, 337 F. Supp. 102, 104; 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15273, **5-6 (D. Hawaii 1972), page 34
Kohner v. Wechsler, 477 F.2d 666, 672-73; 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 10654, *21-23 (2d Cir. 1973), pages 31-32
Kroger Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 438 F.2d 1372 (6th Cir. 1971), cert. den., 404 U.S. 871, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 3815 (1971), page 34
Lightning Lube v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153, 1175; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 23286, *53-54 (3d Cir. 1993), page 35
Maier-Schule GMC, Inc. v. General Motors Corporation, 154 F.R.D. 47, 52; 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3227, **15 (W.D.N.Y. 1994), page 35
Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution, 367 F. Supp. 1298, 1302, 1973 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10950, *4-6 (C.D.CA. 1973), aff'd 538 F.2d 231, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 8530 (9th Cir. 1976), page 39
Perkins v. Standard Oil Co., 395 U.S. 642, 648, 89 S. Ct. 1871, 1874, 23 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1969), page 26
Rebel Oil Co. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421, 1435-36 (9th Cir. 1995), page 34
Teen-Ed, Inc. v. Kimball Int'l, Inc., 620 F.2d 399, 403 (3d Cir. 1990), page 35
Texaco, Inc. v. Hasbrouck, 496 U.S. 543, 561 (1990), pages 26, 38
Tube-Alloy Corp. v. Homco Intl., Inc., 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15850, **14-16 (E.D. LA 1986), page 33
Twin City Sportservice, Inc. v. Charles O. Finley & Co., 676 F.2d 1291, 1298; 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 19414, **10 (9th Cir. 1982), page 34
United Magazine Co. v. Murdoch Magazines Distrib., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20878, *16 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), page 31
United Biscuit Co. v. FTC, 350 F.2d 615, 622 (7th Cir. 1965), page 35
United States v. Borden Co., 370 U.S. 460, 470 (1962), page 34xx
United States v. Pabst Brewing Co., 384 U.S. 546, 549 (1966), page 34
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 451-2; 1978 U.S. LEXIS 131 (1978), page 31
Zoslaw v. MCA Distributing Corp., 594 F. Supp. 1022, *; 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23888, **21-27 (N.D. CA 1984), pages 33-34

STATUTES:

Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 26, page 39
Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 13(a), et seq., pages 1, 2, 23, 23, 26, 35
Section 2(a), 15 U. S. C. Section 13(a), page 26
Section 2(f), 15 U. S. C. Section 13(f), pages 26, 31

OTHER AUTHORITIES:

Shils, Edward B., 2/7/97 Report Measuring the Economic and Sociological Impact of the Mega-Retail Discount Chains on Small Enterprise in Urban, Suburban and Rural Communities, , page 18
[end of table of contents and table of authorities for 2/11/02 redacted plaintiff's memorandum of law]