A Minnesota federal court refused Monday to allow immediate appeals for its summary judgment ruling in multidistrict litigation over alleged price-fixing in the pork industry, saying certain pork producers and a benchmarking company have not properly articulated a controlling question of law.

U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim denied two separate motions by Triumph Foods LLC and by pork producers and Agri Stats Inc. to certify an order for interlocutory appeal under the portion of the U.S. Code that governs interlocutory decisions.

The motions came following the judge's 232-page March 31 opinion that mostly denied multiple summary judgment motions from Tyson Foods Inc. and other pork producers seeking wins in the antitrust suit alleging they conspired with data firm Agri Stats to fix pork prices and reduce supply.

On Monday, the judge found that under Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 1292, the court has discretion to certify an order for interlocutory appeal. But, the judge said, the companies' question — of whether it is permissible to infer an unlawful conspiracy from evidence that competitors "participated in a third-party service that provided historical average pricing information" — incorrectly mixes law and fact.

"For two reasons, the court concludes that the query posed by the moving defendants is not a controlling question of law but rather is a mixed question of law and fact," Judge Tunheim wrote.

First, he said, in his April summary judgment order he concluded that a reasonable jury could find that the reports provided by the third-party service "could be used by subscribers to collectively target higher prices than they otherwise would have." Also, he said, his order found that the reports included not just historical average pricing information but instead "a recipient's sales information by product against averages for similar, bundled products sold by competitors."

Secondly, the judge said, he did not hold that an unlawful conspiracy can be inferred solely from evidence that competitors participated in a third-party service that provided historical average pricing information, as the proposed question implies.

"The moving defendants' proposed question would be controlling only if the court had found that participation in the third-party service was necessary to infer the defendants had participated in an unlawful ... conspiracy. The court made no such finding," Judge Tunheim wrote.

Agri Stats, Clemens Food Group LLC, The Clemens Family Corp., JBS USA Food Co., Seaboard Foods LLC, Seaboard Corp., Smithfield Foods LLC, Triumph and several Tyson entities moved the judge on April 29 to certify his order for interlocutory appeal.

Separately, Triumph asked that same day for an appearance before the judge to argue the motion, but the judge denied the company's request.

More recently, on Oct. 22, Triumph tried again to convince Judge Tunheim to reconsider throwing out claims against it concerning alleged price-fixing in the pork industry, saying it shouldn't be held responsible for the alleged actions of hog farmers and the company that sells the pork it processes.

Triumph said in its motion seeking reconsideration of the March 31 summary judgment ruling that it stemmed from the pork purchasers convincing the court to hold it responsible for alleged reductions in hog supplies because the farms that supply the hogs hold minority stakes in the company.

"But there is no evidence that those non-party hog farms ever reduced market hog production, or did so in furtherance of any conspiracy," Triumph's motion said. "And more to the point, there is no legal theory or evidence to support connecting Triumph to them, much less holding Triumph liable for under this fabricated narrative regarding non-parties."

Representatives for the parties could not immediately be reached for comment Monday.

The consumer indirect purchasers are represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Rio S. Pierce, Steve W. Berman, Breanna Van Engelen, Elaine T. Byszewski and Abigail D. Pershing of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Daniel E. Gustafson, Daniel C. Hedlund, Michelle J. Looby and Joshua J. Rissman of Gustafson Gluek PLLC.

The institutional indirect purchasers are represented by Shawn M. Raiter of Larson & King LLP and Michael J. Flannery of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP.

Sysco Corp. is represented by James J. McGuire of Greenspoon Marder LLP.

The Kroger Co., Albertsons Cos. Inc., Hy-Vee Inc., Save Mart Supermarkets and US Foods Inc. are represented by Samuel J. Randall and William J. Blechman of Sperling Kenny Nachwalter.

Amory Investments LLC is represented by Derek T. Ho and Collin R. White of Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick PLLC.

McDonald's Corp., PJ Food Service Inc., Aramark Food and Support Services Group Inc., Target Corp., Gordon Food Service Inc., Glazier Foods Co., Quality Supply Chain Co-Op Inc., Sherwood Food Distributors LLC, Harvest Meat Co. Inc., Western Boxed Meat Distributors Inc., Hamilton Meat LLC, Jetro Holdings LLC, Maximum Quality Foods Inc., BJ's Wholesale Club Inc., Kraft Heinz Foods Co., Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. and Bi-Lo Holdings LLC are represented by Mark A. Singer of Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP.

Meat Distributors Inc., Topco Associates LLC, Alex Lee Inc./Merchants Distributors LLC, Associated Food Stores Inc., Brookshire Grocery Co., Colorado Boxed Beef Co., Certco Inc., The Golub Corp., Nicholas & Co., PFD Enterprises Inc., SpartanNash Co., Springfield Grocer Co., Van Eerden Foodservice Co., URM Stores Inc., Giant Eagle Inc. and UniPro Foodservice Inc. are represented by Brian C. Hill of Marcus & Shapira LLP.

Triumph is represented by Aaron Chapin, Christopher A. Smith, Jason Husgen, Sarah L. Zimmerman, Kate Ledden, Tanner Cook and A. James Spung of Husch Blackwell LLP.

The case is In re: Pork Antitrust Litigation, case number 0:18-cv-01776, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.