Pork Giants Push to Overturn Price-Fixing Suit Citing Clerk’s Alleged Conflicts

In a high-stakes antitrust price-fixing case involving major pork producers and data firm Agri Stats, the defendants are seeking the recusal of a federal judge and the vacatur of key rulings, citing concerns over potential bias stemming from a judicial clerk’s alleged conflicts of interest, according to Bloomberg.

The lawsuit, initially filed in 2018, accuses several leading pork processors—including Tyson Foods, JBS USA, Smithfield Foods, and Triumph Foods—of conspiring to inflate pork prices through coordinated production limits and shared benchmarking data from Agri Stats. The case has garnered national attention due to its implications for millions of pork purchasers and the broader meat industry.

Recently, scrutiny has intensified over a judicial law clerk who the defendants claim has professional ties to multiple entities involved in similar litigation. Per Bloomberg, the clerk previously worked for three organizations that are actively suing protein companies over alleged antitrust violations linked to Agri Stats—cases the court had classified as related to the ongoing pork litigation.

Adding to the controversy, the defendants argue the clerk currently holds a job offer from one of the top plaintiffs’ firms involved in the same Agri Stats cases. They also assert that the clerk made a social media post identifying the case and highlighting a former employer’s participation in litigation against Agri Stats. Moreover, following oral arguments on expert testimony challenges—known as Daubert motions—the clerk allegedly embraced plaintiffs’ attorneys in the courtroom, further raising questions about impartiality.

Related: Tyson Foods, Others Settle Pork Price-Fixing Suit for $64 Million

The defense team contends that these circumstances meet the legal standard for recusal, which applies when “a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned by the average person on the street who knows the relevant facts,” Bloomberg reported. They also argue that because the clerk contributed to substantive decisions, including Daubert and summary judgment rulings, vacating those decisions is necessary to uphold due process.

“The bell cannot be unrung,” the defendants warned in court filings. “That is especially so in this high-profile litigation involving tens of millions of purchasers that threatens devastating consequences for the pork industry.” They emphasized the need to preserve public confidence in the judicial process and called for the removal of any decisions potentially influenced by the clerk’s involvement.

The antitrust class-action lawsuit alleges that pork processors colluded from at least 2009 onward to stabilize and raise pork prices by using Agri Stats data to coordinate production. Judge John Tunheim recently allowed the case to move forward against several defendants, including Tyson, JBS, Clemens, and Agri Stats. Hormel Foods, however, was granted summary judgment after the court found it did not formally subscribe to the Agri Stats sales program, aside from receiving complimentary sample data in 2017.

Just last week, three defendants—Tyson Foods, Clemens Food Group, and Triumph Foods—agreed to a combined $64 million settlement. According to Bloomberg, the proposed agreement would require Tyson to pay $50 million, Clemens $10 million, and Triumph $4 million, pending court approval.

Trial for the remaining defendants is scheduled to begin on June 2.

Source: Bloomberg