DOJ Opposes Motion to Disqualify Judge in Pork Price-Fixing Case

In a memorandum submitted last week, the DOJ and the states argued against the motion to vacate Judge Tunheim’s earlier rulings, asserting that the underlying claims do not warrant judicial recusal. According to a statement from the DOJ, the court’s law clerk at the center of the controversy “has not worked for the court on this case and never will.”

The dispute centers on concerns raised last month by defendants Clemens Food Group, Smithfield Foods, Tyson Foods, Seaboard Foods, Triumph Foods, and Agri Stats. The companies alleged that a law clerk in Judge Tunheim’s chambers previously worked for entities actively suing protein producers, including in matters tied to Agri Stats. They also pointed to a pending employment offer the clerk has with a leading plaintiffs’ law firm involved in similar litigation.

Per the defendants’ filing, the clerk’s conduct—including sharing a social media post identifying the case and reportedly interacting with plaintiffs’ attorneys after court proceedings—raises serious concerns about potential bias. They argue these factors meet the legal standard requiring recusal and justify vacating recent summary judgment and Daubert decisions that were unfavorable to them.

Related: Clemens Food Group Reaches $13.5 Million Settlement in Pork Price-Fixing Suit

However, in their opposition filing, the DOJ and state attorneys general pushed back on these assertions. According to a statement included in the filing, Agri Stats delayed bringing the recusal motion “until an adverse decision,” despite allegedly knowing about the relevant facts months earlier. They contend such timing undermines the legitimacy of the motion.

The Justice Department also emphasized that the judge had already ruled on comparable Daubert motions before the contested clerk joined his staff, challenging the claim that the clerk played a decisive role in substantive rulings. Moreover, the filing noted that not all defendants agreed on the necessity of recusal—Hormel, for instance, did not support the motion after winning summary judgment, and JBS chose not to join it.

Agri Stats maintains that recusal and vacatur are necessary to preserve judicial impartiality, particularly when “an average person on the streets” might reasonably question a judge’s neutrality. They assert that the involvement of a clerk with ties to opposing parties creates a constitutionally unacceptable risk of bias.

The Justice Department’s original lawsuit, filed in September 2023, alleges Agri Stats orchestrated an unlawful information-sharing network among meat producers, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Participating companies represent the vast majority of broiler chicken, pork, and turkey sales in the U.S. A revised complaint submitted two months later expanded the allegations, with additional states joining and claiming that Agri Stats’ reports suppressed competition by excluding stakeholders such as farmers and consumers from access.

Agri Stats has defended its business practices, claiming that its benchmarking reports help producers identify efficiencies and lower costs for consumers. The company also pointed out that a previous DOJ investigation a decade ago ended without any charges.

Source: National Hog Farmer