Law360 (October 30, 2025, 8:08 PM EDT) -- Agri Stats Inc. and pork producers facing an impending trial on allegations that they schemed to limit pork supply and drive up prices are asking a Minnesota federal judge to pause the case while they continue a push for his recusal in the Eighth Circuit.
In a motion for a stay Wednesday, the defendants in the sweeping antitrust class action argued that their case for recusal will likely find more success with a circuit court panel than the federal district judge himself, who earlier this month refused to step away from the litigation over his law clerk's previous work for the plaintiffs' lawyers in a related lawsuit. According to Eighth Circuit rules, the companies said, the court typically orders responses or denies mandamus petitions like the one they filed Oct. 17 within 14 days, meaning that any delay would be negligible if the petition is denied.
The defendants are looking to vacate U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim's March denial of their summary judgment motion in the case over the clerk's purported conflict of interest, which they say the court delayed disclosing, "further[ing] an appearance of bias."
"Plaintiffs' only harm [from a stay] is mere delay. No trial date exists, and plaintiffs disagree among themselves about trial and remand scheduling," Smithfield Foods, Seaboard Goods, Clemens Foods and Agri Stats said in their motion for a stay Wednesday. "Finally, the integrity of the judicial process, which certain defendants seek to safeguard and vindicate, is a public interest of the highest order."
A stay, they said, would give the appeals court time to assess the appearance of impartiality — key for what they called a "closely watched case worth billions of dollars."
"As for the public interest, of course, 'it should be of little dispute that having public confidence in the judiciary is an interest of the highest order,'" they said Wednesday, citing the Eighth Circuit's 2012 decision in Wersal v. Sexton .
The pork producers are facing claims from three separate classes of plaintiffs that they illegally shared production and pricing information through the data analytics firm Agri Stats, also a defendant in the case, in order to suppress production and artificially inflate prices. In his 232-page opinion, Judge Tunheim denied nearly all of the companies' summary judgment motions, setting the case up for trial. Earlier this month, Tyson Foods joined JBS USA, Smithfield and Hormel Foods in settling with indirect purchaser plaintiffs.
The companies brought their motion for recusal in April, claiming that Judge Tunheim's clerk previously worked for firms representing one of the plaintiff classes and has a standing offer to join another firm that has targeted "Big Agriculture." Their filing also claimed that the clerk "publicly embraced plaintiffs' attorneys in this case in the courtroom immediately following oral argument on … Daubert motions."
Judge Tunheim rejected the recusal motion earlier this month, saying the defendants had "fabricated an appearance of impropriety" where there was none, and calling the clerk "one of more than a half-dozen law clerks who have worked on this matter over the course of more than seven years and dozens of motions." According to the judge, the clerk never actually worked on the sprawling case during his summer internships with the plaintiffs' firms. And the timing of the motions — following the defendants' losses on Daubert and summary judgment motions — gave the appearance that the recusal bid may have been more "tactical than sincere," he said.
"This complex multi-district litigation is now ready for its first trial," he wrote. "At no other point have defendants questioned the court's ability to properly perform its duties in an impartial manner."
But the defendants declined to drop the issue. On Oct. 16, Agri Stats, Clemens, Seaboard, Smithfield, Triumph Foods and Tyson all asked the circuit court for a writ of mandamus, claiming that the clerk had "liked" and "celebrated" posts by plaintiffs' counsel about litigation victories.
According to the companies, Judge Tunheim applied the wrong standard in assessing the recusal motion, relying on a subjective assessment of the actual bias instead of an objective "reasonable observer" standard.
"That the court found the clerk to be 'highly professional' is beside the point," they said in their appeals court petition. "If the judge himself had engaged in this conduct, working for three separate sets of opposing counsel on related cases, appearing on a fee petition in a related case with many of the same parties, and repeatedly posting messages during the case showing support for respondents' side — the need for recusal would be beyond question. That the district court's law clerk engaged in this conduct does not meaningfully change the calculus when he has worked on the case."
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.
Agri Stats is represented by Justin W. Bernick and William L. Months III of Hogan Lovells.
Clemens Food Group is represented by Daniel Laytin, Christa Cottrell, Jenna Stupar, Nicholas M. Ruge and Amarto Bhattacharyya of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
Seaboard Foods is represented by Peter J. Schwingler, Kelly Holt Rodriguez and Tess L. Erickson of Jones Day, and William L. Greene, William D. Thomson and J. Nicci Warr of Stinson LLP.
Smithfield Foods is represented by Brian Robinson of Brown Fox PLLC, John A. Cotter and John A. Kvinge of Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd., Richard Parker of Milbank LLP, and Josh Lipton of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
Triumph Foods is represented by Michael T. Raupp, Christopher A. Smith, Jason Husgen, A. James Spung and Daniel G. Solomon of Husch Blackwell LLP.
Tyson Foods is represented by Mary Helen Wimberly, Tiffany Rider Rohrbaugh, Lindsey Strang Aberg, Denise L. Plunkett and Jarod Taylor of Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, and Scott M. Rusert and A. Christopher Brown of Taft Stettinius & Hollister 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.
–Additional reporting by Joyce Hanson, Bryan Koenig, Lauren Berg and Dorothy Atkins. Editing by Amy French.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
The Sponsor