United States District Court, D. Minnesota
IN RE PORK ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Document Relates To All Actions
BOWBEER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Stay
Discovery [Doc. No. 193]. The motion is granted in part and
denied in part as set forth below and as further detailed on
the record at the November 21, 2018, motion hearing and
status conference and at the status conference on January 28,
2019, and in the Order Regarding Disclosure of Information
filed contemporaneously herewith.
September 21, 2018, thirteen putative antitrust class actions
were consolidated for pretrial purposes. (Order at 4-5 [Doc.
No. 85].) Generally, the Plaintiffs in these matters allege
that Defendants conspired or colluded to artificially raise,
fix, or maintain prices in the pork market in violation of
federal antitrust laws.
October 23, 2018, pursuant to a schedule established by the
Court with the agreement of the parties, Defendants filed
eleven motions to dismiss and a motion to stay discovery. The
motions to dismiss were heard by the Honorable John R.
Tunheim, Chief Judge, United States District Court, on
January 28, 2019. The motion to stay was heard by the
undersigned on November 21, 2018.
The Parties' Positions on Conducting Discovery While the
Motions to Dismiss Are Pending
Significantly, neither side urged the Court to adopt an
“all or nothing” approach to moving forward with
discovery while the motions to dismiss are pending, although
their respective positions about what precisely should occur
during the interim are materially different. Plaintiffs
initially proposed that the parties undertake the following
tasks while the motions to dismiss are pending:
1. Make disclosures regarding ESI systems, employees with
certain job duties, and other relevant information, as more
specifically described in a Proposed Order Regarding
Disclosure of Information (see Clark Decl. Ex. E
[Doc. No. 205-2 at 25]);
2. Exchange Rule 26(a) initial disclosures;
3. Submit a Rule 26(f) report and conduct a Rule 16 pretrial
conference to, inter alia, negotiate time periods
and the number of interrogatories;
4. Produce all documents produced to the Department of
Justice (DOJ) during a prior investigation of Agri Stats;
5. Negotiate the production of documents responsive to the
Rule 34 requests Plaintiffs served on November 1, 2018;
6. Meet and confer on document sources, such as document
custodians and ...