Pork buyers told a Minnesota federal judge not to hit pause on their price-fixing case while Agri Stats Inc. and major producers push the Eighth Circuit to force the judge's recusal over a law clerk's previous work on a related case.

The buyers responded Friday to a motion from Agri Stats and the pork producers that asked for a stay pending the outcome of their Eighth Circuit mandamus petition seeking the recusal of U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim and reversal of a March summary judgment ruling.

The response called the recusal bid a "meritless attack on this court's integrity and propriety" and said the move is just another effort to continue avoiding trial after seven years of litigation.

"In the latest salvo of their foot-dragging campaign, defendants now ask the court to administratively stay this case until the Eighth Circuit disposes of the mandamus petition," the response said. "Defendants cannot meet the burden of demonstrating a stay is appropriate, largely because they cannot make a strong showing they will be successful on the merits. Indeed, defendants make no showing."

The pork producers, including Clemens Food Group, Seaboard Foods, Smithfield Foods, Triumph Foods and Tyson Foods Inc., are facing claims from separate groups of buyers accusing them of illegally sharing production and pricing information through the data analytics firm Agri Stats in order to suppress production and artificially inflate prices.

A number of settlements have been struck, most recently, an $85 million deal between Tyson and consumers.

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 after a hearing.

In addition to seeking the judge's recusal, the motion also sought to reverse the court's 232-page summary judgment ruling that largely denied the companies' bid to end the claims ahead of trial.

Judge Tunheim rejected the recusal motion in October, 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 the matter. The judge said the clerk never actually worked on the case during his summer internships with the plaintiffs' firms, while questioning the timing of the motion, which he said had the appearance of being more "tactical than sincere."

Agri Stats and several producers then lodged a mandamus petition asking the Eighth Circuit to reverse the recusal and summary judgment decisions. The buyers said in Friday's response that there's no need for a stay pending the petition because the appeals court is likely to reject the arguments for the same reason the trial court did, since the clerk never worked on the specific case at hand.

"The defendants' attacks on the court's candor, which they raise for the first time in their mandamus petition, must also be rejected," the response said. "The court was candid and forthcoming regarding questions defendants had about the law clerk's previous employment and promptly responded to defendants' related concerns."

The response also argued that a stay would not hurt Agri Stats and the other companies, but would cause irreparable harm to the buyers, who have spent seven years litigating a case that is now deep in trial preparations.

"Defendants' meritless recusal motion already de facto resulted in an October 2025 trial date being pushed to May 2026," the response said. "A stay could further delay trial until 2027, as the five-month trial process could only begin once the Eighth Circuit has ruled."

A representative for the direct purchasers declined to comment beyond the response brief Wednesday. Representatives for the other parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

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.

The direct purchaser plaintiffs are represented by Brian D. Clark, W. Joseph Bruckner and Joseph C. Bourne of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP and Bobby Pouya, Michael H. Pearson, Clifford H. Pearson, Daniel L. Warshaw and Melissa S. Weiner of Pearson Warshaw LLP.

Agri Stats is represented by Justin W. Bernick and William L. Monts 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, 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. The mandamus petition is In re: Agri Stats Inc. et al., case number 25-3091, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.