Judge Frazier issues order in Bluegrass seed suit

A temporary protection order to halt disclosure of a settlement agreement involved in part of the massive Kentucky Bluegrass growers suit was granted Friday morning by Judge David Frazier in superior court. The order followed a hearing in which attorneys for Seeds, Inc., of Tekoa, Scotts Companies and Dye Seeds of Pomeroy presented arguments.

The three companies are defendants in civil suits filed by growers who allege damages due for failure of the defendants who adhere to contracts for the production of Kentucky Bluegrass seed.

At issue Friday morning were arguments on production of records and full responses among the defendants who have filed actions against each other. Attorneys are seeking the records and specifics in preparation for a month-long trial which has been scheduled in June.

Friday’s protection order involves a settlement agreement between Dye and Scotts. Pullman Attorney Tim Esser, representing Seeds, petitioned the court to review the Dye-Scotts settlement because he contends it could relate to the Seeds, Inc., defense when the suit goes to trial.

Dye Attorney Cheryl Adamson told the court Dye has been conducting negotiations to settle the suit with growers in its area. She said settlement has been reached with all but four of the growers and they hope to conclude the process. Adamson said the Dye-Scotts settlement contained proprietary information and included a confidentiality agreement.

Judge Frazier ruled the protection order would be in effect until April 6 to allow Dye to conclude negotiations with the remaining four growers. That would effectively take Dye out of the suit. The judge noted after April 6 Esser could re-submit the motion to review the agreement. If allowed, the judge said he would review the settlement agreement in chambers to determine if any of its contents related to points brought up by Esser.

Friday’s session also involved motions for invoices and sales records over the four-year span involved in the seed production suit. The judge took under advisement a request by Scotts for more records which it believes will support its argument that Seeds “stuffed” bluegrass seed sales to Scotts by selling it seed not produced under growers contracts at higher prices listed on contracts.

Esser argued the type of seed lot designations Scotts seeks to trace do not exist in subsequent sales records because of the way records are kept from farmers’ deliveries through the marketing process.