Full opinion text
ORDER KYLE, District Judge. Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Objections to the September 13, 1996 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Raymond L. Erickson recommending that: (1) the Motion of PCA and Rio Algom for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 512) be granted; (2) Kalium’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 516) be granted; (3) Noranda’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 519) be granted; (4) Comineo’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 522) be granted; (5) the Joint Motion of the Defendants for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 525) be granted; (6) IMC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 527) be granted; (7) PPG’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 530) be granted; and (8) the Motion of New Mexico Potash and Eddy Potash for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 534) be granted. The Court has made a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Objections have been made. In doing so, the Court has reviewed the entire file, the Motions for Summary Judgment and supporting and opposing briefs, the proceedings before Judge Erickson, the Report and Recommendation of Judge Erickson, the Objections with respect thereto, the briefs in support of and in opposition to said Objections, and the oral argument of counsel in the hearing held before the undersigned on December 20, 1996. The Report and Recommendation is thorough and well reasoned. In the Court’s view, it correctly analyzes and resolves the issues presented by the Motions for Summary Judgment and the Objections now before the Court. No useful purpose would be served by this Court repeating the analysis here. The Court concurs with the determinations of Magistrate Judge Erickson and will adopt the Report and Recommendation ' in its entirety. Accordingly, based upon a de novo review of the Objections and upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Erickson dated September 13, 1996 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the Motion of PCA and Rio Algom for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 512) is GRANTED; (2) Kalium’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 516) is GRANTED; (3) Noranda’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 519) is GRANTED; (4) Cominco’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 522) is GRANTED; (5) the Joint Motion of the Defendants for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 525) is GRANTED; (6) IMC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 527) is GRANTED; (7) PPG’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 530) is GRANTED; and (8) the Motion of New Mexico Potash and Eddy Potash for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 534) is GRANTED. Pursuant to the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ Third Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Docket- No. 249) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ERICKSON, United States Magistrate Judge. At Duluth, in the District of Minnesota, this 13th day of September, 1996. I. Introduction This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a special assignment, made in accordance with the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), upon the Motions of the Defendants for Summary Judgment. A Hearing on the Motions was conducted on April 18, 1996, at which time the parties appeared by lead and liaison counsel. For reasons which follow, we recommend that the Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment be granted. II. Factual and Procedural Background This action was commenced on April 1, 1998, when the first of twelve Complaints was filed in this Court, alleging that the Defendants had violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Title 15 U.S.C. § 1, by engaging in a conspiracy to fix the sales price of potash, a mineral that is widely used in the manufacture of fertilizers. On May 19, 1998, the District Court, the Honorable Richard H. Kyle presiding, directed the parties to file an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint which would combine the twelve separate proceedings. The Plaintiffs’ First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed on June 4, 1993. Thereafter, the Defendants informed the Court that Keith Barton (“Barton”), who had previously served as the General Counsel to PCS, had furnished counsel for the Plaintiffs with confidential information about PCS, which Barton had acquired as legal counsel to that company. By Order dated December 8, 1993, the District Court concluded that Barton had breached his ethical obligations, by impermissibly disclosing certain of PCS’s confidences. As a necessary, remedial sanction, the District Court disqualified the bulk of the counsel, who had then been retained by the Plaintiffs, and whose capacity, to ethically serve in this litigation, had been irreconcilably compromised by their involvement with Barton, and directed the Plaintiffs to file Amended Complaints which would be free from the taint of Barton’s disclosures. See, In re Potash Antitrust Litigation, Civ. No. 3-93-197, M.D.L. Docket No. 981, 1993 WL 543013 (D.Minn., December 8, 1993). In a Third Amended Complaint, which was served and filed on July 8,1994, the Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendants conspired, from April of 1987, to and including July 8, 1994, to fix, stabilize, and maintain potash prices, and that, as a result of that conspiracy, price competition in the sale of potash, among the Defendants and their co-conspirators, had been restrained. Specifically, the Plaintiffs have asserted that the Defendants, and their co-conspirators, raised, fixed, maintained and stabilized the price of potash throughout the United States, at artificially high and noncompetitive levels, thereby depriving their customers of the benefit of free and open competition. Third Amended Complaint at ¶55. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and the recovery of treble damages, together with their costs and attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, Title 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26. Included within the Plaintiff Class are all of those persons, who directly purchased potash from one of the Defendants, during the period of the alleged conspiracy. Accordingly! by Order dated January 12, 1995, the District Court certified the following class of Plaintiffs: All purchasers (excluding governmental entities, defendants, subsidiaries and affiliates of defendants, eo-eonspirators of defendants, and other producers of potash and their subsidiaries and affiliates) in the United States of potash directly from defendants or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof at any time during the period April 1987 to and including July 8,1994. In re Potash Antitrust Litigation, 159 F.R.D. 682, 700 (D.Minn.1995). By Order dated May 2, 1995, the Court .drafted, for distribution, a Notice which was “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise- interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” In re Potash Antitrust Litigation, 161 F.R.D. 411, 412 (D.Minn.1995). Insofar as we are aware, the Court-sanctioned Notice was published, and was mailed, in accordance with our directions, on or about June 30, 1995. With the exception of PPG and Rio Algom, the Defendants are either Canadian or American producers of potash, or are the marketing subsidiaries of those producers. Although the attributes, which are said to distinguish the Defendants, will be addressed when relevant to our subsequent analysis, a brief discussion of the potash market will provide a helpful backdrop. PCS, which is the largest producer of potash in North America, was created, in 1975, by the Saskatchewan Government,- and was vested with the authority to acquire up to 50 percent of the productive capacity for potash in that Province. In 1989, PCS was privatized — a process that the Defendants assert was initiated in the latter part of 1986 — with the result that a change in its merchandising was introduced, from one of production to one of profit. Kalium, which is another Canadian producer of potash, contends that, during the period of the alleged conspiracy, it was able to increase its market share by-exploiting the superiority of its product— white potash — through a patented method of solution mining. Noranda’s marketing plan, on the other hand, is somewhat distinguishable, since 80 percent of its sales are com summated with only two customers, whose purchase agreements have required that Noranda sell its potash at the market price. In contrast, PCA’s marketing in the United States has been less successful than that of the other Defendants, as .is reflected in its dwindling market share, from approximately 8 percent, in 1986, to 1.3 percent, in 1993, see, PCA/Rio Algom Jt. Memo, at p. 6, as well as by its resort to purchasing potash from a co-Defendant, as a result of the loss of its mine, in February of 1987, to flooding. The remaining Canadian producers include Comineo and IMC, while New Mexico Potash (“NMP”), and Eddy Potash, are the only Defendants who are located in the United States. The Plaintiffs contend that, after PCS increased its potash prices, in April of 1987, the other producers — acting in concert — followed suit by increasing their prices. Third Amended Complaint at ¶ 50. According to the Plaintiffs, this same pattern of pricing continued throughout the remainder of 1987; so that, by the beginning of 1988, price increases for potash had exceeded 74 percent. Id. at ¶ 51. Since the Third Amended Complaint has principally focused upon this particular period of time, a brief overview of the potash industry, together with a recitation of what appear to have been the key operative events which led up to January of 1988, will provide some additional context for the discussion that follows. The North American potash industry is, and has been, highly concentrated. For example, in the 1985/1986 fertilizer year, the Defendants comprised over 80 percent of the productive capacity for potash in North America. Expert Report of Gordon C. Rausser (“Rausser Rept”) at ¶12, attached as Tab 59, Plaintiffs’ Joint Brief in Opposition to Summary Judgment, Affidavit of Harvey H. Eckhart (“Pltfs.’ Jt.Opp.Aff”). By the 1993/1994 fertilizer year, the Defendants’ productive capacity had increased to over 90 percent. Id. In addition to the limited number of producers who serve the potash market, it is significant that potash is an essentially homogeneous product, with the result that its purchasers largely consider the output, from different producers, to be interchangeable. Id. at ¶ 7. Moreover, the demand for potash is inelastic — that is, a decrease in the price of potash will not necessarily lead to a comparable increase in consumption — principally because potash is primarily employed in agricultural uses, where it has no effective substitute, and where it is inexpensive in relation to the total cost of crop production. Id. at ¶ 10. As a result of the fungibility of potash, the inelasticity of the demand for the product, and the relatively small number of potash producers, the industry operates in an oligopolistic market, which causes the market participants to be “interdependent.” Put simply, “[o]ne firm’s actions are interdependent with those of another when their utility depends on the other firm’s response.” VI P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶ 1411, at 70 (1986) (hereafter “VI Areeda”). As a consequence, in an oligopoly, each producer is generally required to account for the conduct of its competitors, when pricing its product, as the oligopolist cannot, unilaterally, maintain a higher price without losing its market share. As alleged in the Third Amended Complaint, “[b]y the 1980’s, the potash industry was faced with a major oversupply situation, coupled with high fixed costs, leading to major losses for the producers.” Third Amended Complaint at ¶45. This circumstance of oversupply has been attributed,, in part, to a miscalculation of the demand for potash, which declined, in the early 1980’s, as the acreage under cultivation decreased in the United States, and as a result of a strategy on PCS’s part, as a state-owned employer, to increase employment opportunities in Saskatchewan. See, e.g., Haglund & von Bredow, The Politics of Antidumping: The Potash “War” of 1986-1988, in U.S. Trade Barriers and Canadian Minerals: Copper, Potash and Uranium (1990), p. 66, attached as Exhibit 5, Defs. ’ Jt.Memo.Aff.; PCS 1981 Annual Report (PC 420978), attached as Exhibit 14, Defs. ’ Jt.Memo.Aff. The decline in the demand for potash, combined with the increase in production to stimulate a “price war.” By October of 1986, the real price of potash had fallen to historically low levels. Indeed, the Defendants’ expert, Andrew M. Rosenfield (“Rosenfield”), has calculated that, in real price terms, the price of potash, in October of 1986, was 21 percent lower than the previous historical low. Rosenfield Rept. at ¶76, attached as Exhibit 17, Defs.’ Jt.Memo.Aff. Notably, on three separate occasions in 1986, Nor anda, Kalium, PC A, and PCS attempted to unilaterally increase prices, but they were forced to rescind the increases when the prices went unmatched. Defs.’JhMemo. at 5; Pltfs.’ Jt.Opp.Memo. at 3 and 45. The effect of these low price levels, in an oversupplied market, caused record losses at PCS. In March of 1987, the Provincial Government replaced the upper level of management at PCS with a team led by Charles Childers (“Childers”) and William Doyle (“Doyle”), both of whom had previously been employed at IMC. Childers served as PCS’s president and CEO, while Doyle became the president of PCS’s sales subsidiary. In assuming leadership at PCS, Childers sought to make the operations profitable, in part, in order to prepare the company for privatization, which ultimately occurred in November of 1989. To accomplish the goal of profitability, Childers aspired to position PCS as a leader in the industry. See, e.g., “Tough Decisions Return Balance to the Bottom Line,” Custom Applicator, Feb. 1989, attached as Exhibit 24, Defs.’ Jt.Memo.Aff. Against this background of falling prices and, contemporaneous with the change in PCS’s management, on February 10, 1987, two American potash producers, Lundberg Industries (“Lundberg”) and NMP, petitioned the United States Department of Commerce (“DOC”) to initiaté an antidumping proceeding against the Canadian producers. In order for an antidumping action to proceed, the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) has to preliminarily establish that there was a “reasonable indication” that an industry in the United States was being materially injured by reason of imports which are, assertedly, being sold in the United States at less than their fair market value. See, Title 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a). On March 27, 1987, the ITC determined that a “reasonable indication” had been shown that the United States potash industry had suffered a material injury because of imports. Potassium Chloride From Canada, 52 Fed.Reg. 10641 (April 2, 1987), attached as Exhibit 31, Defs.’ Jt. Memo.Aff. Thereafter, the investigation returned to the DOC, which preliminarily determined, on August 21,1987, that imports of potash were being sold in the United States at “less than fair valúe.” Potassium Chloride From Canada: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 52 Fed.Reg. 32151 (August 26, 1987), attached as Exhibit 32, Defs. ’ Jt.Memo.Aff. Based upon this preliminary finding, the DOC ordered the Canadian producers to pay cash deposits, on all future exports to the United States, or to post bonds, that would be equal to the amount by which the Canadian producers were determined to be selling below fair market value — otherwise known as the “dumping margin.” Id. at 32154 (“The Customs Service shall require a cash deposit or the posting of a bond equal to the estimated amounts by which the foreign market values of potassium chloride exeeed the United States price.”). A separate dumping margin was calculated for each producer, based upon fair value comparisons of that producer’s sales to the United States, during the period from September 1,1986, through February 28, 1987. Id. The dumping margins were established, as follows: IMC 9.14% Kalium 6.67% PCS 51.9% PCA 77.4% Noranda 85.2% All Others 36.6% Id. In general terms, IMC and Kalium were determined to produce potash at lower costs than Noranda and PCA. During the course of the antidumping investigation, the Saskatchewan Government was considering the enactment of legislation that would control the production of potash in that Province. Throughout July and August of 1987, Pat Smith (“Smith”), who was the Minister of Energy and Mines in Saskatchewan, met with representatives of the Canadian producers in order to discuss the implications of any such legislation. Declaration of Pat Smith at ¶ 6, attached as Exhibit 5, Defendants’ Joint Reply Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment, Supplemental Affidavit of John D. French (“Defs.’ Jt.Rep.Affi”). On September 1,1987, less than two weeks after the announcement of the dumping margins, the Saskatchewan Government introduced the Potash Resources Act. The Act, which was approved by the Saskatchewan Parliament on September 18, 1987, allowed for the creation of a Potash Management Board, which would be empowered to set quotas for each Saskatchewan mine, so as to control the quantity of potash that could be produced in the Province. Potash Resources Act, attached as Exhibit 37, Defs.’ Jt.Memo.Affi. Notations of a meeting, that was attended by representatives of the Provincial Government, and by Noranda, reveal that, while the Government viewed itself as a victim of the antidumping action, it was keenly aware that the price of potash was too low and that the supply was too high. Noranda Memorandum dated July 31, 1987 (NOR 406039), attached as Exhibit 42, Defs. ’ Jt.Memo.Aff. In response to the preliminary dumping margins, on September 4, 1987, PCS announced a $35 price increase, effective immediately, which resulted in a total price of $93 for a short ton of granular grade potash. Assertedly, PCS arrived at the $35 figure because it reflected the industry’s average antidumping margin. Childers Deposition at 80, attached as Exhibit 45, Defs.’ Jt. Memo.Affi. According to PCS’s Annual Report in 1987, the $35 increase “served the additional purpose of making the U.S. farm sector aware of potential price increases if the preliminary duties were upheld in a final Department of Commerce decision.” PCS 1987 Annual Report, attached as Exhibit 43, Defs.’ Jt.Memo.Aff. Thereafter, the remaining Defendant producers, as well as several offshore producers, who were not included in the antidumping proceeding, matched the $35 increase. Following the announcement of the preliminary dumping margins, IMC, Kalium, and Noranda sought downward revisions in their dumping margins, while the United States petitioners, including NMP, requested an upward revision in some of the companies’ margins. In addition, PCS commenced a lobbying effort, in order to enlist the support of American farmers, in its effort to persuade the DOC to rescind the margins. On January 8, 1988, just short of the deadline for its announcement of a final determination, the DOC negotiated a Suspension Agreement with each of the Canadian producers. Under the terms of this Agreement, a Canadian producer could sell at less than fair value by no more than 15 percent of its previously determined dumping margin. Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Potassium Chloride From Canada, 58 Fed.Reg. 1393, 1394 (January 19, 1988), attached as Exhibit 35, Defs.’ JtMemoAff. As an additional term of the settlement, each producer had the right to withdraw from the Agreement, and the entire Agreement was to be terminated, and the investigation resumed, if producers, who accounted for 15 percent or more of Canadian potash exports to the United States, elected to opt out. Title 19 C.F.R. § 353.18. Although the DOC expected that, absent some “likelihood of injurious effect on exports of potassium chloride from Canada,” the Agreement would expire in January of 1993, we are advised that the Agreement remains in effect today. Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Potassium Chloride From Canada, 53 Fed.Reg. 1393, 1395 (January 19, 1988), attached as Exhibit 35, Defs.’ Jt.Memo.Aff.; Defs’ Jt.Memo. at 8. On the same date that the producers entered into the Suspension Agreement, PCS announced that, on January 11, 1988, it would distribute new price lists, which would reflect an $86 price for granular grade potash, which constituted an $18 increase. Telexes dated January 8, 1988 (NOR 116856, MI 59809), attached as Exhibit 11, Defs.’ Jt.Rep.Ajf. Within the following eleven days, the remaining Canadian producers matched the $86 price, with the exception of Kalium, which announced a price of $87. See, Pltfs. ’ Jt.Memo. at 10 n. 15. In conjunction with its announcement of a price increase, PCS followed through on its prior promise that it would refund the $35 surcharge if the duties were not, ultimately, imposed. PCS 1987 Annual Report, attached as Exhibit 52, Defs. ’ Jt.Memo.Ajf. The remaining Canadian producers again followed PCS’s lead, and refunded, at least in part, the $35 surcharge. In their Third Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the sharp increase in the price of potash, from April of 1987, through January of 1988, was the result of a price fixing conspiracy. The Defendants, in turn, maintain that the price increases were the inevitable product of the antidumping proceeding, the prorationing legislation, and the management change at PCS. In the Defendants’ view, the interdependent nature of pricing, within the potash industry, induced the individual firms to price their product at approximately the same levels. Id. at 5. In opposition to the Motions for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiffs identify a series of actions, by each of the various Defendants, that they claim were contrary to that particular Defendant’s economic self-interest — unless an agreement to fix prices was at play. In support of the asserted price fixing conspiracy, the Plaintiffs have identified various communications, between certain of the Defendants, which the Plaintiffs characterize as both frequent and integral to the conspiracy, and they have highlighted certain purportedly retaliatory actions, that were taken by the Defendants, against ostensible price “cheaters.” In addition, the Plaintiffs have offered the report of their expert witness, Gordon Rausser (“Rausser”), which examines the potash industry, and concludes that the structure of that industry is conducive to the formation of a price fixing conspiracy. Rausser also conducted a review of the Record, that was amassed in the discovery effort, and observed that certain of the Defendants’ actions were inconsistent with individually rational, and economically maximizing, behavior. Lastly, Rausser has designed a statistical model, with which he has analyzed the price of potash in the United States and, according to the results of that analysis, he has concluded that the prices that were existent, during the conspiracy, exceeded the prices that had been forecasted in the model, by an average of 35 percent. Not surprisingly, the Defendants challenge the validity of Rausser’s Report. They claim that not only are the conclusions reached by Rausser in error, but that the methods, which he employed to reach those conclusions, have failed to account for other relevant evidence. Further, the Defendants offer the reports of their own economic experts, each of whom supports their contention that the challenged price increases were the natural product, not of a conspiracy, but of a combination of events that were occurring in the potash marketplace. The Plaintiffs have also alleged that, throughout the period of their assertedly unlawful conduct, the Defendants have attempted to cloak their conspiracy by engaging in acts of fraudulent concealment, including: (1) “secretly and eonspiratorially” discussing and agreeing upon the prices to be charged to their customers; and (2) announcing price increases in a “staggered fashion.” Third Amended Complaint at ¶57. In addition, the Plaintiffs contend that neither they, nor the members of the Class, had any knowledge that the Defendants were conspiring “[u]ntil shortly before the filing of the Complaint in this action,” nor could they have “discovered any of the violations at any time prior to this date by the exercise of due diligence.” Id. at ¶ 56. Based upon these asserted acts of fraudulent concealment, the Plaintiffs contend that the statute of limitations, which governs this action, should be equitably tolled. Id. at ¶ 59. III. Discussion The core issue before us is whether the Plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence, in support of the alleged conspiracy, to survive the Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. We conclude that they have not. A. The Defendants’ Common Motions for Summary Judgment. 1. Standard of Review. In antitrust cases, as in other civil actions, a Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Bathke v. Casey’s General Stores, 64 F.3d 340, 342 (8th Cir.1995) (“In complex antitrust cases, no different or heightened standard for the grant of summary judgment applies.”); In re Travel Agency Com’n Antitrust Litigation, 898 F.Supp. 685, 690 (D.Minn.1995) (The principle underlying summary judgment “holds for antitrust claims, as it does for other civil theories.”). For these purposes, a disputed fact is “material,” if it must inevitably be resolved and the resolution will determine the outcome of the ease, while a dispute is “genuine,” if the evidence is such that -a reasonable Jury could return a Verdict for the non-moving party. See, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (‘Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’ ”). As Rule 56(e) makes clear, once the moving party presents a properly supported Motion, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate the existence of a genuine dispute. In rebutting the showings of the movant, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but * * * must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Rule 56(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [emphasis supplied]; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., supra at 586,106 S.Ct. at 1355-56 (“[0]pponent must do more than simply show there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”). Moreover, a party is entitled to Summary Judgment where its opponent has failed “to establish the existence of an element essential to [its] case, and on which [it] will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In such a case, no genuine issue of material fact will be found to exist because “a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of [that party’s] case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Id. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2552. Of course, “[i]n determining whether a material factual dispute exists, the court views the evidence through the prism of the controlling legal standard.” Nebraska v. Wyoming, 507 U.S. 584, 590, 113 S.Ct. 1689, 1694, 123 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). Accordingly, the prism, through which we here appraise the propriety of Summary Judgment, is the law of antitrust, as that law has evolved in the unique environs of an oligopolistic market. In this respect, Section 1 of the Sherman Act provides that “[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.” Title 15 U.S.C. § 1. The essence of a Section 1 claim is concerted action and, because the law requires an agreement between two or more persons, “Unilateral actions of a single entity do not give rise to antitrust liability under section one of the Sherman Act.” Willman v. Heartland Hosp. East, 34 F.3d 605, 610 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. ---, 115 S.Ct. 1361, 131 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995); Fisher v. City of Berkeley, Cal., 475 U.S. 260, 266, 106 S.Ct. 1045, 1049, 89 L.Ed.2d 206 (1986) (“Even when a single firm’s restraints directly affect prices and have the same economic effect as concerted action might have, there can be no liability under § 1 in the absence of an agreement.”). Thus, “[o]n a claim of concerted price fixing, the antitrust plaintiff must present evidence sufficient to carry its burden of proving that there was such an agreement.” Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 763, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 1470, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984). “The standard is whether the evidence, direct or circumstantial, ‘reasonably tends to prove that the [alleged violator] and others had a conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective.’” Pumps & Power Co. v. Southern States Industries, 787 F.2d 1252, 1256 (8th Cir.1986), quoting Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., supra at 764, 104 S.Ct. at 1470-71. More recently, the Supreme Court has elaborated upon this standard, and has determined that, in order to successfully oppose a Motion for Summary Judgment, the nonmoving party “must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., supra at 588, 106 S.Ct. at 1356-57. As the Plaintiffs have correctly observed, the precepts of antitrust law do not alter the principle that, “[o]n summary judgment^] the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts * * * must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., supra at 587-88, 106 S.Ct. at 1356-57, quoting United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 994, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962). Nevertheless, where, as here, there is no. direct evidence of collusion, “antitrust law limits the range of permissible inferences from ambiguous evidence in a § 1 case.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., supra at 588, 106 S.Ct. at 1356-57. Specifically, “conduct as consistent with permissible conduct as with [an] illegal conspiracy does not, standing alone, support an inference of antitrust conspiracy.” Id. In such cases, the plaintiff must “present evidence that ‘tends to exclude the possibility that the alleged conspirators acted independently.” Id., quoting Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., supra at 764, 104 S.Ct. at 1470-71. As a consequence, the plausibility of the underlying economic motive limits the range of permissible conclusions that may be drawn from ambiguous evidence. Indeed, “the absence of any plausible motive to engage in the conduct charged is highly relevant to whether a ‘genuine issue for trial exists within the meaning of Rule 56(e).” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., supra at 596, 106 S.Ct. at 1361. In such an instance, the Record on Summary Judgment must contain further persuasive evidence if it is to support the claim for recovery. While the conspiracy, that was alleged in Matsushita, may have been an implausible one, the Supreme Court rejected the view that ambiguous evidence creates a Jury issue merely because the alleged conspiracy is objectively reasonable. As the Court explained: “We do not imply that, if petitioners had had a plausible reason to conspire, ambiguous conduct could suffice to create a triable issue, of conspiracy.” Id. at 597 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. at 1361 n. 21. As the Supreme Court has more recently observed, in Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 468, 112 S.Ct. 2072, 2083, 119 L.Ed.2d 265 (1992), by requiring that the plaintiffs claims make economic sense, Matsushita did not invent a new requirement in an antitrust context, but merely articulated an established standard— namely, “that the nonmoving party’s inferences be reasonable in order to reach the jury.” As a consequence, “[i]f the plaintiffs theory is economically senseless, no reasonable jury could find in its favor, and summary judgment should be granted.” Id. In applying these principles, our Court of Appeals, in Lovett v. General Motors Corp., 998 F,2d 575 (8th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1113, 114 S.Ct. 1058, 127 L.Ed.2d 378 (1994), reversed a Jury’s Verdict against a defendant car manufacturer, on the plaintiffs claim that the manufacturer had conspired with some of its auto dealers to injure the plaintiffs dealership. The plaintiff had been selling cars at a price which undercut other, neighboring dealerships. After several dealers complained, the defendant limited its sales allotments to the plaintiff. In granting the defendant Judgment as a matter of law, the Court explained that “the district court failed to recognize that [plaintiffs] evidence [was] as consistent with permissible unilateral conduct on [defendant’s] part as it [was] with illegal conspiracy, and that Monsanto does not permit a jury to infer the existence of a conspiracy from ambiguous evidence.” Id. at 579; see also, Willman v. Heartland Hosp. East, supra at 612 (affirming grant of Summary Judgment to a hospital, and to members of its medical staff, on a physician’s claim that he was denied staff privileges, because the defendants’ actions were “as consistent with the lawful purpose of promoting quality patient care as with the unlawful purpose of eliminating potential competitors.”). Of course, participation in a price fixing conspiracy need not be, nor rarely is, shown by direct evidence, for most conspiracies are proved through inferences that are drawn from the behavior of the alleged conspirators. ES Development, Inc. v. RWM Enterprises, Inc., 939 F.2d 547, 553 (8th Cir.1991) (citations omitted) (“[I]t is axiomatic that the typical conspiracy is rarely evidenced by explicit agreements, but must almost always be proved by inferences that may be drawn from the behavior of the alleged conspirators.”), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1097, 112 S.Ct. 1176, 117 L.Ed.2d 421 (1992). As a consequence, the Court should not compartmentalize the evidence that is proffered by an antitrust plaintiff but, rather, should analyze the plaintiffs showings as a whole so as to determine if, in its integrated entirety, the evidence supports an inference of concerted action. See, e.g., In re Workers’ Compensation Ins. Antitrust Lit., 867 F.2d 1552, 1563 (8th Cir.1989) (“piece-meal analysis must be avoided and the overall conduct of the defendants must be weighed.”), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 920, 109 S.Ct. 3247, 106 L.Ed.2d 593 (1989). Nevertheless, as our Court of Appeals has observed, “a fine line separates unlawful concerted action from legitimate business practices.” Lovett v. General Motors Carp., supra at 578. Accordingly, “care must be taken to ensure that inferences of unlawful activity drawn from ambiguous evidence do not infringe upon the defendants’ freedom.” Petruzzi’s IGA v. Darling-Delaware, 998 F.2d 1224, 1230 (3rd Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 994, 114 S.Ct. 554, 126 L.Ed.2d 455 (1993), quoting Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc., 974 F.2d 1358 (3rd Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 912, 113 S.Ct. 1262, 122 L.Ed.2d 659 (1993). Indeed, in Monsanto, the Supreme Court expressed concern that independent action may, quite improperly, be viewed as evidence of a conspiracy. Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Carp., supra. There, the plaintiff alleged that Monsanto had illegally conspired, with its other distributors, to termínate the plaintiffs distributorships. The Court observed that “[t]o permit the inference of concerted action on the basis of receiving complaints alone and thus to expose the defendant to treble damage liability would * * * inhibit management’s exercise of its independent business judgment.” Id. at 764, 104 S.Ct. at 1470-71. Given the clear import of the foregoing authorities, even in the milieu of antitrust law, Summary Judgment is neither an acceptable means of resolving triable issues, nor is it a disfavored procedural shortcut when there are no issues which require the unique proficiencies of a Jury to weigh the evidence and to render credibility determinations. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, supra at 327, 106 S.Ct. at 2554-58; Health Care Equalization Com. v. Iowa Medical Soc., 851 F.2d 1020, 1031 (8th Cir.1988) (citing Celotex in antitrust case). We are mindful, however, that only concerted action is within the proscriptions of the Sherman Act and, therefore, we have the added responsibility of assuring that any underlying, lawful conduct is not, inadvertently, condemned and penalized. See also, Thompson Everett, Inc. v. National Cable Advertising, L.P., 57 F.3d 1317, 1322 (4th Cir.1995) (“[Bjecause of the unusual entanglement of legal and factual issues frequently presented in antitrust eases, the task of sorting them out may be particularly well-suited for Rule 56 utilization.”); Valley Liquors, Inc. v. Renfield Importers, Ltd., 822 F.2d 656, 660 n. 4 (7th Cir.1987) (citation omitted) (“The ultimate determination, after trial, that an antitrust claim is unfounded may come too late to guard against the evils that occur along the way.”), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 977, 108 S.Ct. 488, 98 L.Ed.2d 486 (1987); Lovett v. General Motors Corp., supra at 581 (“[T]he jury’s finding of a conspiracy in this case shows why cases based on ambiguous evidence should not be submitted to a jury.”). As Matsushita confirms, whether the underlying, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a reasonable inference of collusion remains a legal question for the Court’s resolution. Thus, evidence which permits equally competing inferences, without “tending” to point in one direction, should not be sent to the Jury, for the Court may not invite the factfinder to speculate on the consummation of an agreement to restrain trade. Of course, if the underlying conduct is sufficient to support such an inference, then “the question of what weight should be assigned to competing permissible inferences is within the province of the fact-finder at trial.” Apex Oil Co. v. DiMauro, 822 F.2d 246, 253 (2nd Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 977, 108 S.Ct. 489, 98 L.Ed.2d 487 (1987). One means by which the Courts may ensure- that unilateral, nonconspiratorial conduct is not unintentionally punished is to require the plaintiffs to demonstrate something more than mere paralleling or mimicking conduct. See, e.g., Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., 346 U.S. 537, 541, 74 S.Ct. 257, 259-60, 98 L.Ed. 273 (1954). Of course, if persons acted in near unison, but independently of one another and without any agreement or mutual understanding amongst them, then there is no conspiratorial showing. In effect, “individual pricing decisions (even when each firm rests its own decision upon its belief that competitors will do the same) do not constitute an unlawful agreement under section 1 of the Sherman Act.” Clamp-All Corp. v. Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute, 851 F.2d 478, 484 (1st Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1007 (1989), see also, Petruzzi’s IGA v. Darling-Delaware, supra at 1232; Reserve Supply v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, 971 F.2d 37, 51 (7th Cir.1992); Apex Oil Co. v. DiMauro, supra at 253; Richards v. Neilsen Freight Lines, 810 F.2d 898, 904 (9th Cir.1987). History teaches, however, that in an oligopolistic market, interdependent decision making may produce cartel-like results, In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings, 906 F.2d 432, 444 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 959, 111 S.Ct. 2274, 114 L.Ed.2d 725 (1991), for, in an oligopoly, each firm understands that its own pricing decisions will affect the others in that market, who are likely to respond, and whose response will affect the profitability of the pricing decision. As Professor Areeda explains: When one oligopolist raises its price, each of his rivals must decide whether to follow or not. Continuing the previous price would allow each of the others to increase his sales if the leader persists in charging a higher price. But each knows that the leader is likely to retract an increase that is not followed. Accordingly, each rival asks himself whether he is better off at the lower price when charged by all or at the higher price when charged by all. If the latter, as will often be the case, the leader’s price increase is likely to be followed. VI Areeda, § 1410b at 65. Notwithstanding this potential consequence, the existence of mere parallel pricing, in an oligopoly, is not, standing alone, actionable. See, e.g., Reserve Supply v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, supra at 50 (quoting E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. FTC, 729 F.2d 128, 139 (2d Cir.1984) (“It is well-established, however, that ‘[t]he mere existence of an oligopolistic market structure in which a small group of manufacturers engage in consciously parallel pricing of an identical product does not violate .the antitrust laws.”) As the First Circuit has observed, in Clamp-All Corp. v. Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute, supra at 484, allowing oligopolists to mimic each others prices “is not because such pricing is desirable (it is not), but because it is close to impossible to devise a judicially enforceable remedy for interdependent pricing[;] [h]ow does one order a firm to set its prices without regard to the likely reactions of its competitors?” [Emphasis in original]. See also, United States v. International Harvester Co., 274 U.S. 693, 708-09, 47 S.Ct. 748, 753-54, 71 L.Ed. 1302 (1927) (“[T]he fact that competitors may see it proper, in the exercise of their own judgment, to follow the prices of another manufacturer, does not establish any suppression of competition or show any sinister domination.”). Therefore, in order to present a Jury question as to the existence of a conspiracy, there must be a parallelism in pricing that is accompanied by competent, additional evidence. But see, Coleman v. Cannon Oil Co., 849 F.Supp. 1458, 1466 (M.D.Ala.1993) (There must therefore be parallelism accompanied by substantial additional evidence to support a finding of an agreement necessary to establish a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act.) [emphasis in original], citing Theatre Enterprises, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., supra at 541, 74 S.Ct. at 259-60. Accordingly, it is now settled antitrust law that only when the plaintiff shows the existence of this additional evidence — often referred to as the “plus factors” — does the evidence tend to exclude the possibility that the defendants were actually acting independently. Todorov v. DCH Healthcare Authority, 921 F.2d 1438, 1456 n. 30 (11th Cir.1991) (“[A]n agreement is properly inferred from conscious parallelism only when ‘plus factors’ exist.”); Apex Oil Co. v. DiMauro, supra at 253; Petruzzi’s IGA v. Darling-Delaware, supra at 1244 (“courts require plus factors because otherwise the evidence is equally consistent with legal behavior”); In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings, supra at 445. By way of example, consciously paralleling conduct may allow for an inference of an agreement if it is also shown that each conspirator acted against its own self-interest, by engaging in the paralleling behavior. See, e.g., Petruzzi’s IGA v. Darling-Delaware, supra at 1242; Reserve Supply v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, supra at 51; Apex Oil Co. v. DiMauro, supra at 253. Likewise, a high-level of interfirm communications, when viewed in conjunction with paralleling acts, can serve to allow a Jury to reasonably infer a conspiracy. See, e.g., Market Force Inc. v. Wauwatosa Realty Co., 906 F.2d 1167, 1172 (7th Cir.1990); Nichols Motorcycle Supply Inc. v. Dunlop Tire Corp., 913 F.Supp. 1088, 1117 (N.D.Ill.1995), vacated on other grounds, pursuant to settlement (September 18,1995). Nevertheless, where an examination of the proffered “plus factors” leads to an equally plausible inference that merely interdependent behavior is at hand, then there is no triable issue that would preclude a grant of Summary Judgment, so long as there is no evidence which tends to exclude the possibility that the alleged conspirators acted independently. See, Market Force Inc. v. Wauwatosa Realty Co., supra at 1171; Apex Oil Co. v. DiMauro, supra at 254. This is so, because “[a]mbiguous evidence cannot be sent a jury [as] a court may not invite the factfinder to speculate that an agreement existed.” Nichols Motorcycle Supply Inc. v. Dunlop Tire Corp., supra at 1104. In the final analysis, a “[f]ailure on the part of the plaintiff to produce evidence from which a jury could infer reasonably that conduct was conspiratorial, not unilateral, will lead to summary judgment for the defendant.” Richards v. Neilsen Freight Lines, supra at 902. 2. Legal Analysis. a. Overview. We begin with an explanation of the analytical approach that we have employed; not because it is novel — for it is not — but because of the potential for misapprehension. What follows is an exhaustive and, perhaps, an uncompromisingly tedious, appraisal of the evidentiary showings that the Plaintiffs regard as demonstrating the existence of triable issues of price fixing. In conducting this review, we recognize that, by superficial appearance, concern could be expressed that we have invaded the proper role of the Jurors in, at least ostensibly, assessing the believability of the Plaintiffs’ evidence. We have not. Rather, we have assumed our customary role as a gatekeeper of the evidence; assuring that only competent evidence is submitted for the Jury’s consideration. In this sense, the function we fulfill is indistinguishable from our conventional assessment of the qualitative worth of proffered evidence. We accept, without reservation, our incapacity to adjudge, under the rubric of Rule 56, the credibility of the evidence, but we no more render believability judgments in weighing the reliability of an evidentiary submission, than we do, say, in rejecting expert opinion evidence as being unworthy of a Jury’s reliance, in excluding testimony as impermissible hearsay, or in barring the admission of matter that was not subject to the witness’s personal knowledge. While a Court’s ruling on such matters could be framed as a believability assessment, at its core, the ruling is, quintessential^, one of “screening,” so as to “ensure” that the “evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589, 118 S.Ct. 2786, 2794-95, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); and see, Rule 802, Federal Rules of Evidence; Rule 602, Federal Rules of Evidence, and related Advisory Committee Notes, Rules 602 and 802, Federal Rules of Evidence. Here, the parties agree — as, indeed, they were obliged to do by the weight of the governing law — that the examination of a price fixing claim, in the unique environs of an oligopolistic market, requires more of a showing than the mere existence of the spontaneous forces which cause oligopolists to parrot the pricing decisions óf a market leader. In the parlance, the price fixing claimant must present “plus factors” — that is, reliable indicators of unlawful price fixing — if a genuine issue of material fact is to be presented for a Jury’s resolution. After a most painstaking review, we find that the Plaintiffs have failed to offer such a positive showing, since what they have submitted for our review is, quite literally, “nonplus” — that is, evidence which places us, because of its substantive ambivalence, in a quandary as to what the evidence should, with any reliability, mean. In expressing these views, we intend no discredit to the Plaintiffs’ effort to raise a genuine issue of material fact. We are advised, and we have no reason to believe otherwise, that hundreds of thousands of discovery documents have been culled by the Plaintiffs, with the result that a grouping of perhaps a hundred, or more, have been isolated, at least in the Plaintiffs’ view, as favoring an inference of collusion. Given the sheer volume of this submission, as expanded by the Plaintiffs’ recitation of pertinent depositional testimony, there is an instinctive, natural inclination to presume that such a daunting collection of documents must, a fortiori, generate triable issues of fact. Our review, however, has convincingly persuaded us otherwise. By way of a brief analogy, quite recently, in Wright v. Willamette Industries, Inc., 91 F.3d 1105 (8th Cir.1996), our Court of Appeals was obliged to determine whether the plaintiffs had presented a submissible ease to a Jury concerning the ill-health effects that they attributed to living next to an operation that exposed them to formaldehyde. Although a Jury awarded damages to the plaintiffs, and notwithstanding the Trial Court’s denial of the defendants’ post-Trial Motions, the Court of Appeals reversed, because the claimants had failed to establish the level of exposure to formaldehyde that was reasonably known to cause adverse health consequences. In the absence of such a causative showing, the Court concluded that the Jury could do no more than speculate on the issue of causation. Id. at 1108. While we grant that the issues we confront here do not have the objectivity of medical science, we are aware of no reason why they should escape the “reasonable inference” standard that the Court employed in Wright Where the empirically established principles, which govern the operation of an oligopolistic market, and which reliably confirm that, left to spontaneity, the market will be driven by a price leader, who the other participants in the market will follow, we believe that something more than a suspicion of culpability should properly stave an award of Summary Judgment. While, obviously, we view the evidence presented in a light most favorable to the nonmovant — here the Plaintiffs — the governing law makes clear, “[s]ueh inferences * * * must be ‘justifiable.’ ” Valley Liquors, Inc. v. Renfield Importers, Ltd., supra at 659. Accordingly, we need not view each of the evidentiary submissions as inferring complicitous wrongdoing, merely because a cramped, or inventive interpretation of that evidence, as driven by some assumption of unlawfulness, would arguably allow that result. To do so, would improperly subject the oligopolist to the artificiality of a jejune existence, merely because conduct, which is a normal and innocent expression of natural, economic forces, can be “spun” into a suggestion of complicity. Our review of the caselaw, which we have heretofore detailed, makes clear that the Courts have remained vigilant to assure that a blameless emulation of pricing policies, by participants in an oligopoly, does not incur unwarranted reprobation. This would seem all the more obvious where, as here, the oligopoly has been impacted by both pure economic forces, and by the unavoidable skew that is bred through the well-intentioned, but invidiously intrusive, protectionist interests of one or more governments. Given this entanglement of fact, law and economics, the governing standard of review, and the dearth of evidence which tends to exclude the possibility that the complained of conduct was not the outcome of independent corporate will, we do not say that no price fixing conspiracy could possibly have existed, we merely conclude that the Plaintiffs have presented an insufficient showing to allow the issue to be submitted to a Jury. With this perspective as our backdrop, we examine the Plaintiffs’ evidentiary showings, as they have grouped them, in three categories of generalized proof, in order to examine whether a genuine issue of material fact has been demonstrated for a Jury’s disposition. These categories — namely, opportunity and motive; behavior that is contrary to economic self-interest; and interfirm communications — represent the “plus factors,” that the Plaintiffs have relied upon, in conjunction with the evidence of price parallelism, in their effort to elude an award of Summary Judgment. Pltfs.’ Jt.Opp.Memo. at 35-39. While we will follow the Plaintiffs’ lead in compartmentalizing our discussion of this evidence, we have carefully reviewed this evidence as an blended whole, together with the Defendants’ explanations for their conduct, so as to ascertain whether an “inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inference of independent action.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., supra at 588, 106 S.Ct. at 1356-57. Since we conclude, following a considered review of the Record before us, that an inference of a conspiracy, which could justifiably arise from this Record, would consist of unreasoned speculation, we recommend that the Defendants’ Motions be granted. b. Opportunity and Motive. As to their first “plus factor,” the Plaintiffs have asserted that, “from meetings of Canpotex to the plethora of trade association meetings and telephone calls, the executives of defendants were in constant communication” — ergo, the Defendants had an opportunity to conspire. Pltfs.’ Jt.Opp.Memo. at 36. Nevertheless, while proof of an occasion to conspire may, as a practical matter, satisfy a necessary precondition of a conspiracy, “[a] jury cannot reasonably infer the existence of a conspiracy merely from the opportunity to form one.” Utesch v. Dittmer, 947 F.2d 321, 331 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1006, 112 S.Ct. 1764, 118 L.Ed.2d 425 (1992), quoting II. J., Inc. v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 867 F.2d 1531, 1545 (8th Cir.1989); see also, Coleman v. Cannon Oil Co., 849 F.Supp. 1458, 1469 (M.D.Ala.1993) (quoting VI Areeda, § 1417b at 97) (Evidence that the defendants “met together or telephoned each other * * * ‘satisfies the necessary precondition of any traditional conspiracy that the parties have the opportunity to conspire’, but ‘it remains the plaintiffs burden to prove that the defendant succumbed to the temptation and conspired.’ ”). As a result, the Plaintiffs’ evidence of informal communications among the alleged conspirators, standing alone, merely provides an opening for collusion, rather than unambiguous evidence from which a reasonable inference of concerted action can properly be drawn. See, Market Force Inc. v. Wauwatosa Realty, supra at 1172; Petruzzi’s IGA v. Darling-Delaware, supra at 1242 n. 15. To infer a conspiracy premised upon the Defendants’ association in Canpotex, upon their attendance at trade association meetings, or upon their telephone communications, without any showing that the those associations or communications were dedicated to concerted action, would be tantamount to condemning wholly lawful conduct, merely because the conduct could be abused by a malefactor. Since “opportunity” evidence can vary in its degree of persuasiveness, at this point, we defer our examination of the substance of these communications, and of the reasonable inferences that may be legitimately drawn therefrom. Instead, at this juncture, we merely acknowledge the obvious, that routine and justifiable contacts amongst competitors, such as the conduct of meetings and the participation in the affairs of business associations is, at best, evidence of a most ambiguous sort. With respect to motive, there can be little dispute over the Defendants’ recognition that each would benefit from a uniform increase in the price of potash. Indeed, as Professor Areeda has explained, “because competitors can profit from conspiring to fix prices, they are deemed to have the motive to do so.” II P. Areeda & H. Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law § 322g at 80 (1995) (hereafter “II Areeda”). Here, as a showing of motive, the Plaintiffs note that, on September 25, 1986, the then-president of PCS Sales, Rolf Holzkaemper (“Holzkaemper”), stated: “It is not possible for a single producer to affect a turn-around; however, joint action by a group of producers or governments could achieve this.” Holzkaemper Memorandum (PC 361765), attached as Tab 2, Pltfs.’ Jt.Opp.Aff. In addition, the Plaintiffs have identified an undated document from PCS stating: Cannot wait for supply/demand to pull us up. Cannot do it alone. Industry must cooperate. Key is discipline. Undated PCS Document (PC 297675), attached as Tab 2, Pltfs.’ Jt.Opp.Aff. Further, the Plaintiffs have pointed to some isolated notations, from a meeting, on May 12,. 1986, between certain representatives of PCS and Peat Marwick & Mitchell (“Peat Marwick”), which is an international consulting firm that had been retained by PCS. On the basis of these notations, the Plaintiffs suggest that, during the conference of May 12, 1986, Peat Marwick proposed collusion as a strategy for returning PCS to profitability, by explaining that, “in order to increase prices there must be a reduction in supply,” and by proposing “three possible solutions”: a) Keep prices low in the short-term to force out marginal producers. b) That the industry arrange voluntary cutbacks or coordinated price increases. c) That the Government of Saskatchewan impose some form of rationing such as a special tax on producers in excess of, say 75% of their capacity. Peat Marwick Meeting Notes (PC 337391-91), attached as Tab 2, Pltfs.’ Jt.Opp.Aff. At best, this-evidence suggests that PCS, as well as its retained consultant, recognized the need to raise prices, and to cut the supply of available product, in the interdependent potash market. Moreover, as the Defendants point out, on June 10, 1996, Peat Marwick clarified that it presented its scenarios “as the outcomes of potential policies that [might] be adopted by individual producers and/or government,” and that, “[u]nder no circumstances did [it] suggest that PCS should try to ‘arrange’ an industry-wide capacity reduction or price increase in collusion with competitors.” Peat Marwick Letter (PC 33H76), attached as Exhibit 16, Defs.’ Jt.Rep.Aff. Each of the notations, that the Plaintiffs have highlighted can just as readily be construed as a recognition of the need for discipline, in an interdependent market, and we see no tendency for these notations to exclude the possibility of independent business action, here on PCS’s part. As was true with the evidence of “opportunity,” while the absence of “motive” may negate an inference of conspiracy, its presence is not sufficient to infer that a conspiracy has occurred. See, Reserve Supply v. Owens-Coming Fiberglas, supra at 51. “If [motive] were sufficient to show conspiracy, then parallel pricing, especially in oligopoly, would be automatically conspiratorial, but it is not.” Id. As well, the Plaintiffs have also focused upon discussions, between the Saskatchewan Government and two of the Defendants, which related to the antidumping investigation. Purportedly, by alluding to certain proposed agreements, this evidence is supposed to support a reasonable inference that the Defendants ultimately reached an agreement to fix prices. We disagree. On September 29, 1986, Andrew Elliott (“Elliott”), of PCS, met with officials from the Saskatchewan Government to discuss the antidumping investigation. An interoffice Memorandum of October 7, 1986, which memorializes the discussion, states as follows: Elliott Memorandum (PC 388233-36), attached as Tab 2, Pltfs.’ Jt.Opp.Aff.