IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant,
v. SABRE CORP., et al.,
Appellees.
No. 20-1767
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware No. 1:19-cv-01548-LPS
THE UNITED STATES’ SUGGESTION OF MOOTNESS AND
MOTION TO VACATE THE DISTRICT COURT’S DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS
This case is a federal antitrust enforcement action challenging
Sabre Corp.’s proposed acquisition of Farelogix Inc. because “the effect
of [the] acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition” in
violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. Although the
district court ruled for defendants following a trial on the merits, and
the United States filed a timely notice of appeal, the case is now moot
because defendants have chosen to terminate their merger agreement,
thus abandoning the challenged acquisition. Consequently, this Court
should vacate the district court’s decision and order granting judgment
Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
2
to defendants under United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36 (1950),
as it did in FTC v. Equitable Resources, Inc., No. 07-2499 (3d Cir. Feb.
22, 2008), which vacated the district court’s decision when the merging
parties abandoned the challenged acquisition before the appeal was
decided.
BACKGROUND
On April 7, 2020, the district court issued an opinion and order
granting final judgment to defendants holding that Sabre’s proposed
acquisition of Farelogix did not violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15
U.S.C. § 18. See Doc. 272, Order Entering Final Judgment; Doc. 277,
Redacted Public Version of Opinion (Op.).1 On April 8, 2020, the United
States filed a notice of appeal in this case to protect its appellate rights.
Doc. 278. On April 9, 2020, the United Kingdom’s Competition and
Markets Authority issued a decision holding the acquisition unlawful
1 The district court’s order entering final judgment and the redacted public version of the opinion are attached to this motion. The district court also issued a sealed version of the opinion, Doc. 274, which also should be vacated. None of the redacted language is relevant to the substance of this vacatur motion, however. Thus, all the citations in this motion are to the unredacted language in the public version of the opinion. (The United States plans to file the unredacted sealed version of the opinion under a separate docket entry.)
Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
3
under UK competition statutes. See United Kingdom Competition &
Markets Authority, Final Report, Anticipated acquisition by Sabre
Corporation of Farelogix Inc. (Apr. 9, 2020), available at
https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/media/
5e8f17e4d3bf7f4120cb1881/Final Report - Sabre Farelogix.pdf. On
May 1, 2020, defendants announced that they had agreed to terminate
the acquisition agreement, thus abandoning the deal. See Press
Release, Sabre Corporation Issues Statement on its Merger Agreement
with Farelogix (May 1, 2020), available at https://www.sabre.com/
insights/releases/sabre-corporation-issues-statement-on-its-merger-
agreement-with-farelogix/. Accordingly, the United States moves under
28 U.S.C. § 2106 for this Court to vacate the district court’s decision and
order granting judgment to defendants under Munsingwear.
ARGUMENT
Now that defendants have abandoned their proposed acquisition,
this case—including the government’s appeal of the district court’s final
judgment in favor of defendants—is moot. See United States v. Mercy
Health Servs., 107 F.3d 632, 636-37 (8th Cir. 1997) (agreement to
terminate merger mooted appeal of decision upholding the merger).
Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
4
Thus, the court should vacate the judgment below under the
Munsingwear doctrine. As the Supreme Court has explained, “vacatur
must be granted [under Munsingwear] where mootness results from the
unilateral action of the party who prevailed in the lower court.” U.S.
Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18,23 (1994); see
Old Bridge Owners Co-op. Corp. v. Twp. of Old Bridge, 246 F.3d 310,
314 (3d Cir. 2001) (party that, through no fault of its own, has “been
deprived of a review on the merits of the district court’s adverse rulings
. . . ought not to be forced to acquiesce in them”); see also Camreta v.
Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 698 (2011) (vacating mooted part of opinion below
“[i]n line with our normal practice when mootness frustrates a party’s
right to appeal”); Duffey v. Lehman, 84 F.3d 668, 669-70 (3d Cir. 1996)
(en banc) (vacating district court judgment under Munsingwear because
the appeal was “factually moot”); Bagby v. Beal, 606 F.2d 411, 414 (3d
Cir. 1979) (“follow[ing] the settled practice of vacating the district court
judgment” when the appeal has become moot). That is exactly what
happened here—the defendants’ unilateral decision to abandon the
acquisition, after they prevailed in the district court, has rendered the
case and appeal moot.
Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
5
This Court has previously granted a Munsingwear vacatur in this
situation. FTC v. Equitable Res., Inc., No. 07-2499 (3d Cir. Feb. 22,
2008) (vacating district court decision when parties abandoned
challenged acquisition before appeal was decided); see also Mercy
Health Servs., 107 F.3d at 637 (vacating district court judgment under
Munsingwear after defendants who prevailed below abandoned the
acquisition). Having filed its notice of appeal, but now “deprived of a
review on the merits” of the adverse judgment below, the United States
“ought not to be forced to acquiesce” in that judgment. Old Bridge, 246
F.3d at 314.
A Munsingwear vacatur is particularly appropriate in this case
because the district court’s decision could affect antitrust enforcement
beyond the instant case due to one of its holdings regarding the
Supreme Court’s opinion in Ohio v. American Express Co., 138 S. Ct.
2274 (2018) (Amex). While finding that Sabre and Farelogix compete
“as a matter of real-world economic reality,” Op. 74 n.16, the district
court held that it was bound as a matter of law under Amex to hold that
“Sabre and Farelogix do not compete in a relevant market” because
Sabre operates a “two-sided transaction platform” whereas Farelogix is
Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
6
a one-sided competitor. Op. 69-70. Under its reading of Amex, the court
explained, only two-sided transaction platforms can compete with two-
sided transaction platforms “[a]s a matter of antitrust law.” Op. 68.
The district court acknowledged, however, that it reached this reading
of Amex without the benefit of “guidance from the Third Circuit on
applying Amex” and was anticipating “the possibility of appellate review
in this case.” Op. 74 n.16. There have been few decisions interpreting
Amex, and so this ruling—if not vacated—could have an outsized effect
on cases involving competition in the digital economy, where it is not
uncommon for multi-sided platforms to face competition from one-sided
rivals. See Philadelphia Taxi Ass’n, Inc. v. Uber Techs., 886 F.3d 332,
340 (3d Cir. 2018) (discussing how Uber’s entry into the Philadelphia
taxicab market “bolstered competition” between Uber and taxi services).
Because the United States no longer will have an opportunity to argue
that the district court’s reading of Amex was mistaken, the district
court’s decision and order granting judgment to defendants should be
vacated.
Counsel for Sabre and Farelogix have informed counsel for the
United States that they have not yet taken a position on this motion.
Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
7
Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests that this
Court vacate the district court’s decision and order granting judgment
to defendants, and remand this case to the district court with directions
to dismiss the complaint.
May 12, 2020 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Nickolai G. Levin MAKAN DELRAHIM Assistant Attorney General
BERNARD A. NIGRO, JR. Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
MICHAEL F. MURRAY Deputy Assistant Attorney General DANIEL E. HAAR JULIE S. ELMER NICKOLAI G. LEVIN Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW #3224 Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2886
Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
1. This motion complies with the type-volume limitations of Rule
27(d)(2)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure because it
contains 1,133 words, excluding the parts of the motion exempted by
Rule 27(a)(2)(B).
2. This motion complies with the typeface requirements of Rule
32(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the type style
requirements of Rule 32(a)(6) because this motion has been prepared
in a proportionally spaced typeface using New Century Schoolbook.
May 12, 2020 /s/ Nickolai G. Levin Attorney
Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 12, 2020, I electronically filed the
foregoing motion with the Clerk of Court for the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. I
further certify that all counsel of record are users of the appellate
CM/ECF system, and will be served by that system.
/s/ Nickolai G. Levin
Nickolai G. Levin
Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
______________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ::
Plaintiff, ::
v. : C.A. No. 19-1548:
SABRE CORP., :SABRE GLBL INC., : FARELOGIX INC., and :SANDLER CAPITAL PARTNERS V, L.P., :
:Defendants. :
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
At Wilmington this 7th day of April, 2020:
For the reasons stated in the Opinion issued this same date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that judgment is entered FOR Defendants and AGAINST Plaintiff.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because the Opinion was issued under seal, the
parties shall meet and confer and provide the Court a proposed redacted version, consistent with
their submission earlier today (see D.I. 271), no later than April 8, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.
Thereafter, the Court will release a public version of its Opinion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer and, no later than
April 14, 2020, submit a joint status report, advising the Court as to what, if anything, remains to
be done in this case before it is closed.
________________________________HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARKUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 272 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 6550Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 2 of 97 PageID #: 6850Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 3 of 97 PageID #: 6851Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 4 of 97 PageID #: 6852Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 5 of 97 PageID #: 6853Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 6 of 97 PageID #: 6854Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 7 of 97 PageID #: 6855Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 17 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 8 of 97 PageID #: 6856Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 18 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 9 of 97 PageID #: 6857Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 19 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 10 of 97 PageID #: 6858Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 20 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 11 of 97 PageID #: 6859Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 21 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 12 of 97 PageID #: 6860Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 22 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 13 of 97 PageID #: 6861Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 23 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 14 of 97 PageID #: 6862Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 24 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 15 of 97 PageID #: 6863Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 25 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 16 of 97 PageID #: 6864Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 26 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 17 of 97 PageID #: 6865Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 27 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 18 of 97 PageID #: 6866Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 28 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 19 of 97 PageID #: 6867Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 29 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 20 of 97 PageID #: 6868Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 30 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 21 of 97 PageID #: 6869Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 31 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 22 of 97 PageID #: 6870Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 32 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 23 of 97 PageID #: 6871Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 33 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 24 of 97 PageID #: 6872Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 34 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 25 of 97 PageID #: 6873Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 35 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 26 of 97 PageID #: 6874Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 36 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 27 of 97 PageID #: 6875Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 37 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 28 of 97 PageID #: 6876Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 38 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 29 of 97 PageID #: 6877Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 39 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 30 of 97 PageID #: 6878Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 40 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 31 of 97 PageID #: 6879Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 41 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 32 of 97 PageID #: 6880Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 42 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 33 of 97 PageID #: 6881Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 43 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 34 of 97 PageID #: 6882Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 44 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 35 of 97 PageID #: 6883Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 45 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 36 of 97 PageID #: 6884Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 46 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 37 of 97 PageID #: 6885Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 47 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 38 of 97 PageID #: 6886Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 48 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 39 of 97 PageID #: 6887Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 49 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 40 of 97 PageID #: 6888Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 50 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 41 of 97 PageID #: 6889Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 51 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 42 of 97 PageID #: 6890Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 52 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 43 of 97 PageID #: 6891Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 53 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 44 of 97 PageID #: 6892Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 54 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 45 of 97 PageID #: 6893Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 55 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 46 of 97 PageID #: 6894Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 56 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 47 of 97 PageID #: 6895Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 57 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 48 of 97 PageID #: 6896Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 58 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 49 of 97 PageID #: 6897Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 59 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 50 of 97 PageID #: 6898Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 60 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 51 of 97 PageID #: 6899Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 61 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 52 of 97 PageID #: 6900Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 62 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 53 of 97 PageID #: 6901Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 63 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 54 of 97 PageID #: 6902Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 64 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 55 of 97 PageID #: 6903Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 65 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 56 of 97 PageID #: 6904Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 66 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 57 of 97 PageID #: 6905Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 67 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 58 of 97 PageID #: 6906Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 68 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 59 of 97 PageID #: 6907Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 69 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 60 of 97 PageID #: 6908Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 70 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 61 of 97 PageID #: 6909Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 71 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 62 of 97 PageID #: 6910Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 72 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 63 of 97 PageID #: 6911Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 73 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 64 of 97 PageID #: 6912Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 74 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 65 of 97 PageID #: 6913Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 75 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 66 of 97 PageID #: 6914Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 76 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 67 of 97 PageID #: 6915Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 77 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 68 of 97 PageID #: 6916Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 78 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 69 of 97 PageID #: 6917Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 79 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 70 of 97 PageID #: 6918Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 80 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 71 of 97 PageID #: 6919Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 81 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 72 of 97 PageID #: 6920Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 82 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 73 of 97 PageID #: 6921Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 83 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 74 of 97 PageID #: 6922Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 84 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 75 of 97 PageID #: 6923Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 85 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 76 of 97 PageID #: 6924Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 86 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 77 of 97 PageID #: 6925Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 87 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 78 of 97 PageID #: 6926Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 88 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 79 of 97 PageID #: 6927Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 89 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 80 of 97 PageID #: 6928Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 90 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 81 of 97 PageID #: 6929Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 91 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 82 of 97 PageID #: 6930Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 92 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 83 of 97 PageID #: 6931Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 93 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 84 of 97 PageID #: 6932Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 94 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 85 of 97 PageID #: 6933Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 95 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 86 of 97 PageID #: 6934Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 96 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 87 of 97 PageID #: 6935Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 97 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 88 of 97 PageID #: 6936Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 98 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 89 of 97 PageID #: 6937Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 99 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 90 of 97 PageID #: 6938Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 100 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 91 of 97 PageID #: 6939Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 101 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 92 of 97 PageID #: 6940Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 102 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 93 of 97 PageID #: 6941Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 103 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 94 of 97 PageID #: 6942Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 104 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 95 of 97 PageID #: 6943Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 105 Date Filed: 05/12/2020
Case 1:19-cv-01548-LPS Document 277 Filed 04/08/20 Page 96 of 97 PageID #: 6944Case: 20-1767 Document: 16 Page: 106 Date Filed: 05/12/2020