UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       Plaintiff,                   v. GLAZIER FOODS CO.,                   Defendant.

| | | | | | | | | | | |

Criminal No. H-94-58 [filed 4/26/94]

The United States of America, through its undersigned attorneys, submits its Response to Defendant Glazier Foods Company's Motion for Bill of Particulars. No Bill of Particulars is necessary for the following reasons.

The general purposes of a bill of particulars are to inform the defendant of the charges against him with sufficient precision to: (1) enable him to prepare his defense, (2) obviate surprise at trial, and (3) enable him to plead his acquittal or conviction in the case as a bar to subsequent prosecution for the same offense. United States v. Davis, 582 F.2d 947, 951 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 962 (1979).

The evidence in this case is virtually identical to that presented in United States v. John J. Johnson, No. CR-H-92-152 (S.D. Tex.), which Glazier Foods's counsel also tried. Through the Johnson trial and its own counsel, the defendant has had a thorough preview of the government's case against it. No bill of particulars could provide Glazier Foods with more information about the government's case than it has already received. This preview more than adequately serves the legitimate purposes of a bill of particulars.

Because the defendant has already previewed the government's case against it through the evidence presented in the Johnson trial, it has already obtained more information than is properly disclosed through a bill of particulars. Accordingly, the defendant's motion should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, _______________/s/________________ JANE E. PHILLIPS JOAN E. MARSHALL MARK R. ROSMAN Attorneys Department of Justice Antitrust Division 1100 Commerce Street, Room 8C6 Dallas, Texas 75242-0898 (214) 767-8051

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Government's Response to Defendant Glazier Foods Company's Motion for Bill of Particulars and proposed Order was sent via Certified Mail-Return Receipt Requested, this 25th day of April, 1994, to:

Joel M. Androphy, Esq.
Berg & Androphy
3704 Travis Street
Houston, TX 77002

_______________/s/________________ JANE E. PHILLIPS Attorney

HAVING DULY CONSIDERED the Defendant's Motion for Bill of Particulars and the government's response,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.

DONE AND ENTERED THIS day of , 1994.

_____________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE