PENDLETON — An Eastern Oregon logging outfit and sawmill won’t have to disclose additional business records in an antitrust lawsuit as they again seek the case’s dismissal.

Plaintiffs in the litigation had asked a federal judge to require the Iron Triangle logging company and the Malheur Lumber Co. to turn over financial statements, contracts and written communications.

U.S. District Judge Marco Hernandez in Pendleton has rejected that motion because the “posture of this case” remains the same, with the defendants again asking him to throw out the claims of anticompetitive conduct.

According to the plaintiffs, a coalition of loggers, landowners and a rival mill, the documents were needed to support their allegations that Iron Triangle and Malheur Lumber engaged in a conspiracy to monopolize timber transactions in and around Malheur National Forest.

The judge dismissed some of their antitrust claims without prejudice last year, but the plaintiffs have refiled an amended version of the complaint that intends to rectify legal shortcomings he identified in their arguments.

In the revived lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim that Iron Triangle’s collusion with Malheur Lumber has reduced the number of competitors providing logging services in the region by 75%.

According to the complaint, Malheur has refused to buy pine logs from sources other than Iron Triangle while the logging outfit won’t sell fir logs to Prairie Wood Products, one of the plaintiffs, among other arguments.

Claiming they’ve corrected the lawsuit’s deficiencies, the plaintiffs urged the judge to lift a previous order that stayed the discovery process, during which the parties divulge documents and submit depositions.

The defendants urged the judge against allowing discovery to proceed and renewed their motions to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the plaintiffs have only repeated “conclusory allegations” based on lawful contracts between the U.S. Forest Service, Iron Triangle and Malheur Lumber.

“Strip this complaint of bluster and the allegations that this court has already held do not give rise to antitrust liability, and all that remains is a banal description of Malheur Lumber and Iron Triangle entering a private contract over a decade ago,” the document said.

The judge has decided not to lift the stay on discovery, instead leaving it in place until the most recent motions to dismiss are resolved.

The plaintiffs expect to submit their arguments against dismissal by Jan. 22, to which the defendants would reply by Feb. 6, with an oral argument requested but not yet scheduled by the judge.