Little v. Pacific Seafood Procurement, LLC
- Alex Tse
- 3:23-cv-01098
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Little v. Pacific Seafood Procurement, Magistrate Judge Tse allowed some antitrust-related discovery, denied other requests, and ordered further discussion about cost data.
Brand Little, Pacific Seafood Procurement, LLC, the three identified state fish-and-wildlife departments, and the subpoenaed ex-vessel buyers.
What happened
In Little v. Pacific Seafood Procurement, LLC, Brand Little sought discovery to help amend antitrust claims that the court had previously dismissed.
The court allowed Little to subpoena fish-and-wildlife departments for older ex-vessel sales records and five buyers for certain communications. It said Pacific Seafood did not have to produce its Dungeness crab sales data, but found shipping and processing cost information relevant.
Judge Alex G. Tse ordered the parties to meet and confer about the cost information and cautioned that the case might proceed without older agency records if obtaining them caused substantial delay.
The detailed version
- Little v. Pacific Seafood Procurement, LLC · No. 3:23-cv-01098
- Alex Tse
- June 10, 2024
Background
This discovery order addresses information Brand Little sought while attempting to amend antitrust claims. The court had previously dismissed Little’s claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act because he had not plausibly alleged that hundreds of direct Dungeness crab purchasers were coerced into joining a price-fixing conspiracy. It dismissed his Section 2 claim because his definition of the relevant market was facially unsustainable.
Rulings on Discovery
The court ruled that Little may subpoena the California, Oregon, and Washington fish and wildlife departments for ex-vessel sales records dating back to the 1999/2000 season. The agencies may move to quash the subpoenas if they have grounds to do so. The court stated that the agencies, rather than Pacific Seafood, have standing to object based on the burden of responding. The court also warned that it may require Little to proceed without the records if obtaining twenty-four years of records considerably delays the case, because Little had not shown that the records were critical to successfully amending his complaint.
The court ruled that Pacific Seafood need not produce the Dungeness crab sales data Little requested. Little had not explained how that data would cure the deficiencies in his dismissed claims.
The court agreed that Pacific Seafood’s costs of shipping and processing Dungeness crab during the last four seasons were relevant. Because some requested data might not be available in the requested form, the court ordered the parties to meet and confer further about this discovery by June 13, 2024, expecting Pacific Seafood to produce responsive cost data if it has it.
The court also allowed Little to subpoena five ex-vessel buyers for communications about ex-vessel prices, season-opening dates, and purchases from buyers that control certain ports during the last four seasons. If those buyers object, Little may seek to compel Pacific Seafood to produce responsive communications it had with them. The court did not require Pacific Seafood to agree in advance to produce those communications.
Disposition
The order permitted some subpoenas, declined to require Pacific Seafood to produce its Dungeness crab sales data, and directed further discussion about potentially available cost information. Judge Alex G. Tse entered the order on June 10, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.