## Facts

- American Key Corporation operated a small key shop in the Cumberland Mall, an enclosed regional shopping mall in Atlanta, Georgia.
- Sears, Roebuck & Co. operated a department store in the same mall; Cole National Corporation ran a key shop inside Sears.
- American Key experienced financial problems, including multiple checks returned for insufficient funds, after which the mall’s leasing agent decided not to renew its lease.
- The mall permitted American Key to remain briefly after expiration and sent a written short-term extension; American Key altered the document to convert it into a long-term extension.
- The mall pursued eviction in state court; American Key filed federal antitrust claims and later amended to add Sears and Cole, alleging they conspired to exclude American Key from malls.
- American Key relied in part on expert testimony asserting market power and competitive effects, but the expert’s analysis was based largely on American Key’s allegations rather than verified market data.
- The district court defined the relevant product market as “replacement keys and related items” and rejected a mall-only geographic market, noting competition from hardware stores, drug stores, locksmiths, and other outlets.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Sears and Cole and restricted further discovery under a local rule setting discovery deadlines that had already been extended multiple times.

## Issues

1. Whether American Key produced sufficient evidence of an agreement to restrain trade to survive summary judgment under Sherman Act § 1.
2. Whether American Key established a legally cognizable relevant product and geographic market and, within that market, monopoly power or a dangerous probability of monopolization under Sherman Act § 2.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by limiting additional discovery after applying and extending local discovery deadlines.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Sears and Cole.
- The court held American Key failed to present significant probative evidence of a § 1 conspiracy.
- The court held American Key failed to define a sustainable relevant market and failed to show monopoly power or an attempt/conspiracy to monopolize under § 2.
- The court affirmed the district court’s discovery rulings, finding no abuse of discretion given the applicable local rule and prior extensions.

## Legal Principles

- A Sherman Act plaintiff must define a relevant product and geographic market reflecting reasonable interchangeability and competitive constraints; a market cannot be artificially narrowed to inflate apparent market power.
- To withstand summary judgment on a § 1 claim, the nonmovant must present significant probative evidence of an agreement; conclusory allegations and speculation are insufficient.
- § 2 liability requires proof of monopoly power (or a dangerous probability of acquiring it) in a properly defined market plus exclusionary conduct; absence of market power defeats attempt or conspiracy to monopolize claims.
- Expert testimony does not create a triable issue when it rests primarily on a party’s unverified assumptions rather than supported market facts.
- Trial courts have discretion to manage discovery and enforce local discovery deadlines; denial of further extensions is not error where adequate time and multiple extensions were provided.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed judgment for Sears and Cole because American Key’s mall-only market theory was legally defective and its proof of conspiracy and monopolization consisted largely of unsupported assertions and assumption-driven expert opinions; the court also upheld the district court’s enforcement of discovery limits after repeated extensions.


American Key Corp. v. Cole Nat'l Corp., 762 F.2d 1569 (11th Cir. 1985)