IN RE PORK ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Background

Thirteen proposed antitrust class actions were consolidated for pretrial purposes. The plaintiffs generally alleged that the defendants conspired or colluded to artificially raise, fix, or maintain prices in the pork market in violation of federal antitrust laws. The defendants filed eleven motions to dismiss and a motion to stay discovery. Chief Judge John R. Tunheim heard the motions to dismiss; Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer heard the motion to stay discovery.

The plaintiffs did not seek full-scale discovery while the motions to dismiss were pending. They proposed proceeding with several preliminary tasks, including disclosures about electronically stored information systems and relevant employees, initial disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a), a case-management report and conference, discussions about document requests and search methods, and production of documents that Agri Stats had previously provided to the Department of Justice.

The defendants agreed to certain limited steps, including initial disclosures, negotiations concerning confidentiality and an electronic-data protocol, and production of readily available organizational charts. They opposed the plaintiffs’ other proposals, arguing that those tasks would require substantial effort and expense over lengthy periods and could become unnecessary or need to be repeated depending on the rulings on the motions to dismiss.

Court’s Analysis and Guidance

The court explained that it had discretion to stay discovery in whole or in part while a motion to dismiss was pending. It considered the scope and burden of discovery, possible harm from delay, potential hardship to the defendants, and the parties’ and court’s resources. It did not assess the merits of the pending motions to dismiss because those motions had been argued before the district judge. Instead, it considered the possibility that discovery might become unnecessary if the motions were granted, in whole or in part.

The court adopted a middle course rather than stopping all discovery. The parties were directed to continue working on specified disclosures, the electronic-data protocol, and certain discovery issues. The so-called holding-company defendants—Hormel Foods, LLC; JBS USA Food Company Holdings; Mitsubishi Corporation (Americas); and Seaboard Corporation—could defer discovery-related discussions while the motions to dismiss were pending, although they remained subject to preservation obligations.

For 32 agreed-upon document requests, the court directed the parties to meet and confer by March 8, 2019, and ordered the defendants to serve written responses and objections by March 29, 2019. Those responses were to be based on the assumption that the motions to dismiss would be denied and that the litigation’s scope would not be significantly limited. Each defendant also had to identify, request by request, any issue in the dismissal motions that could affect its objections or production.

The court ordered Agri Stats to review documents it had produced to the Department of Justice from four custodians whose responsibilities included the pork industry during the relevant period, and to produce relevant, nonprivileged documents from those custodians. Agri Stats and the plaintiffs were to meet and confer about the review method. If the motions to dismiss were denied, Agri Stats would also have to confer about a search method for the remaining custodians. The court reserved for a motion to compel the question whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the entire set of documents produced to the Department of Justice.

Disposition

The court ordered that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as described in the order, at the relevant hearings and conferences, and in a contemporaneously filed order concerning disclosure of information. The order addressed discovery management only and did not decide the pending motions to dismiss or the merits of the antitrust claims.