A Minnesota federal judge on Tuesday refused to recuse himself from consolidated private price-fixing litigation against a raft of pork producers, saying the defense's claims of bias due to one of his clerks' internships for plaintiff firms are a "fabricated" claim of impropriety.

U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim's order lambasted the dual motion for recusal and vacatur of key rulings against Agri Stats, Clemens, Seaboard, Smithfield, Triumph and Tyson, finding no appearance of bias from himself or his unnamed clerk to warrant the motion.

While the clerk worked summer internships for the plaintiff firms pursuing this and similar "protein" price-fixing litigation, Judge Tunheim said the clerk did not work on the current case and had been screened from further work on the pork case during his clerkship.

Judge Tunheim also noted the clerk was "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."

"This complex multi-district litigation is now ready for its first trial. At no other point have defendants questioned the court's ability to properly perform its duties in an impartial manner," the judge said. "Thus, while defendants' motion may have been timely to the extent it is based on defendants' knowledge of a specific law clerk's conduct, the court notes that defendants' waiting until after both the Daubert and summary judgement orders had been issued weighs in favor of finding the timing of defendants' motion to be more tactical than sincere."

The case involves three separate classes of plaintiffs — consumer indirect buyers, institutional indirect buyers and direct buyers — alleging the defendants conspired to restrict supply and stabilize pork prices by sharing information through the Fort Wayne, Indiana-based data analytics and consulting firm Agri Stats, which is itself the subject of a separate U.S. Department of Justice case.

Counsel for direct purchaser plaintiffs declined to comment. Counsel for the remaining parties did not immediately respond Tuesday to requests for comment.

Judge Tunheim in late March mostly denied a slew of summary judgment motions from Agri Stats and the pork producers seeking wins against claims they conspired with the data firm to fix pork prices and reduce supply, in a case that's seen hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of settlements. He also rejected bids to exclude expert witnesses.

The pork producers sought recusal a month later, citing the clerk's work as a summer associate at Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP and Robins Kaplan LLP. Lockridge Grindal represents purchasers in the pork case, and Robins Kaplan represents plaintiffs in some of the other cases targeting different protein producers in the array of cases that have swept in the chicken, turkey and beef industries.

The producers also cited the clerk's work for the Minnesota Attorney General's Office, a pending job offer from Robins Kaplan and what they said were LinkedIn posts indicating his bias for the plaintiff firms.

Judge Tunheim said Tuesday that the work for Robins Kaplan, a firm with no role in the current case, likely speaks only to the complexity of such a large litigation.

He said the clerk "did not serve as a lawyer in — or do any work for — the specific matter in controversy," noting that the internship took place in the summer after the clerk's first year of law school and saw him performing research and analysis on subjects like corporate sales agreements, the introduction of summary exhibits and cellphone records discovery.

"Such work would not have provided the law clerk with any personal knowledge of facts concerning this proceeding," the judge said.

Judge Tunheim had particularly strong words for attacks on the clerk's LinkedIn posts, which the judge said amounted to using emojis and other acknowledgments of "his classmates' and colleagues' successes." That included celebrating an appointment to the American Antitrust Institute Advisory Board, in a post the defendants complained "announced that one of his former employers was suing Agri Stats and explicitly identified this case."

Judge Tunheim didn't see it that way.

"Arguably, it is defendants' collation of specific posts and defendants' characterization of those posts that fabricated an appearance of impropriety in this instance, not any actions of the law clerk," Judge Tunheim said.

Nor did the fact the judge screened the clerk from further work on the pork case show that the court recognized an appearance of impropriety as the producers claim, according to the ruling.

"The court screened the law clerk from future work on this matter to specifically shield the law clerk from further intrusive investigations and allegations of impropriety, which can be terrifying to a law clerk who is a new lawyer," Judge Tunheim said. "The court is, in fact, troubled by defendants' intrusive and unprofessional attacks on an outstanding law clerk who was highly professional throughout his one-year clerkship."

Judge Tunheim additionally said there was no indication of bias for himself, asserting that when the clerk did work on the case, it was "in a very limited aspect of this case only because the judge's other law clerks were unavailable." That work, according to the ruling, was limited to work on the Daubert motions, and Judge Tunheim said his decisions there "were consistent with the court's holdings at the earlier class certification stage, when the law clerk in question did not yet work for the court."

Nor is there any reason to vacate the contested rulings, Judge Tunheim said, noting the Daubert order's consistency with his prior decisions, "and, indeed, the court considered the experts presented by both parties to be of the highest quality."

He also said vacatur would make it look like his clerk and not the judge "was making the decisions." He rejected the defense's assertions that preserving the decisions "will lead to future violations."

"Rather, it seems much more likely that vacatur in this instance would incentivize counsel to dig through more law clerks' personal lives to attempt to find evidence that would create the insinuation of a conflict when a judge issues a ruling that counsel does not like," Judge Tunheim said.

The direct purchaser plaintiffs are represented by Brian D. Clark, W. Joseph Bruckner and Arielle S. Wagner of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, and Bobby Pouya and Michael H. Pearson of Pearson Warshaw LLP.

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

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

Direct action plaintiffs 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.

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

Direct action plaintiffs 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.

Direct action plaintiffs 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., The Distribution Group d/b/a Van Eerden Foodservice Co., URM Stores Inc., Giant Eagle Inc. and UniPro Foodservice Inc. are represented by Brian C. Hill of Marcus & Shapira LLP.

The commonwealth of Puerto Rico is represented by Jason H. Kim of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP.

Hormel Foods Corp. and Hormel Foods LLC are represented by Aaron D. Van Oort, Craig S. Coleman, Emily E. Chow, Jacob D. Bylund, Robert C. Gallup, John S. Yi and Jonathan H. Todt of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.

Tyson Foods Inc., Tyson Fresh Meats Inc. and Tyson Prepared Foods Inc. are represented by Tiffany Rider, Lindsey Strang Aberg and Jarod Taylor of Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, and Scott M. Rusert and A. Christopher Brown of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.

Clemens Food Group LLC and The Clemens Family Corp. are represented by Daniel E. Laytin, Christa C. Cottrell, Jenna M. Stupar, Amarto Bhattacharyya and Nicholas M. Ruge of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Seaboard Foods LLC is represented by Peter J. Schwingler, Tess L. Erickson and Kelly C. Holt Rodriguez of Jones Day, and William L. Greene, William D. Thomson and J. Nicci Warr of Stinson LLP.

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

JBS USA Food Co. is represented by Sami H. Rashid, Michael B. Carlinsky, David B. Adler and Heather Christenson of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, and Donald G. Heeman and Randi J. Winter of Spencer Fane LLP.

Smithfield Foods Inc. is represented by John A. Cotter and John A. Kvinge of Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd., Richard G. Parker of Milbank LLP, Joshua Lipton of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and Brian E. Robison of Brown Fox PLLC.

Agri Stats Inc. is represented by Peter H. Walsh, William L. Monts III and Justin W. Bernick of Hogan Lovells.

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.