PORTLAND — An Eastern Oregon logging outfit and a lumber mill are requesting the dismissal of an antitrust lawsuit against them, arguing that allegations they’ve suppressed competition are implausible.

A federal complaint filed last year accused the Iron Triangle logging company of John Day, Ore., of unlawfully exerting “an iron grip on all the forestry sector economic opportunities” in the Malheur National Forest.

The lawsuit was later amended to include the Malheur Lumber Co., also of John Day, as a defendant for allegedly helping with Iron Triangle’s “monopolization scheme” to lock its competitors out of the market.

The two companies have now asked a federal judge to throw out the case, which was filed by a coalition of loggers, forestland owners and another sawmill, because the claims don’t pass muster under antitrust law.

“Even what they’ve alleged is not as a matter of law an illegal restraint of trade,” said Timothy Snider, attorney for the defendants, during Sept. 11 oral arguments in Portland.

The plaintiffs claim Iron Triangle has dominated the Malheur National Forest, which is an artificially small “gerrymandered” market, he said. They’ve excluded the nearby Ochoco, Umatilla and Wallowa-Whitman national forests from the market “with no explanation why.”

As the complaint itself admits, logs are routinely delivered to mills outside the alleged market area, which undermines the boundaries set by the plaintiffs, Snider said.

The lawsuit alleges that Iron Triangle controls 95% of the market share but doesn’t buttress this claim with evidence, he said.

“They don’t back that up with any fact allegations supporting why it’s 95%,” Snider said. “You can’t just say it, you have to support it, and they provide nothing.”

Likewise, the plaintiffs haven’t offered proof that Iron Triangle has engaged in “predatory bidding” for federal timber contracts at prices that shut competitors out of the market, he said.

“They are just saying, ‘I wanted that contract and they got it,’” Snider said. “That’s an injury to you as a competitor. That’s not an injury to competition.”

The complaint has accused Iron Triangle of a “truly diabolical tying agreement” with Malheur Lumber Co., under which the logging outfit supplies the entire log demand of the lumber mill, which in turn boycotts logging services from its competitors.

Iron Triangle argues this allegation “just doesn’t make sense” because logs and logging services are not separate products, just as milk isn’t a separate product from dairy services and grain isn’t a separate product from farming services.

“When you are buying sawlogs, you are also buying logging services,” Snider said.

More Coverage

Antitrust lawsuit alleges monopolistic practices by logging company

Iron Triangle’s arguments were bolstered by its co-defendant, the Malheur Lumber Co., which claimed “there is nothing presumptively unlawful” about the “requirements contract” between the two companies.

“What they’ve alleged is lawful, rational business behavior,” said Shayna Rogers, the lumber company’s attorney.

The Malheur Forest Fairness Coalition, which represents the plaintiffs, urged U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez against dismissing the case because the claims would be fortified with evidence as the litigation proceeds.

Allegations related to predatory bidding, the unlawful tying agreement, the relevant market boundaries and other matters will be supported by expert testimony during the “discovery” process, to be weighed by the judge and jury, said Mike Haglund, attorney for the plaintiffs.

“It’s not appropriate in a complaint to lard it up with witnesses or what they might say,” he said.

For example, the plaintiffs intend to show that Iron Triangle submitted bids for some federal contracts under which the company would lose money, Haglund said. “Iron Triangle knew at that level, no possible competitor could bid or succeed.”

The plaintiffs also plan to provide testimony that Iron Triangle and Malheur Lumber Co. have an unlawful deal that goes beyond their written contract and that competing loggers have been offered terms they couldn’t afford to accept, he said.

“It’s a sophisticated way to carry out a tying arrangement,” Haglund said.