A Minnesota federal judge has again rejected efforts to remove him from major antitrust litigation involving Agri Stats and several of the nation’s largest protein companies, signaling the cases are moving toward trial after years of complex pre-trial activity.
U.S. District Judge John Tunheim ruled that there is no basis for recusal, dismissing renewed arguments that a former law clerk’s past work created a conflict of interest. The recusal challenge originally surfaced in the long-running In re Pork Antitrust Litigation and was brought by Clemens Food Group, Smithfield Foods, Tyson Foods, Seaboard Foods, Triumph Foods, and Agri Stats.
Why Defendants Wanted Recusal
The companies argued that a former clerk who worked on the pork antitrust matter had previously been employed by groups involved in lawsuits targeting major protein producers and had later received an offer from a plaintiffs’ firm. They also pointed to a social-media post referencing litigation against Agri Stats and suggested the clerk may have interacted with plaintiffs’ counsel following court arguments.
Judge Tunheim rejected the claims, emphasizing that:
- The clerk was one of more than half a dozen clerks who assisted the court over seven years.
- The court had already examined and dismissed conflict concerns during the In re Pork proceedings.
Click here to see more...