The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRAND LITTLE, Case No. 23-cv-01098-AGT
Plaintiff,
DISCOVERY ORDER
v.
Re: Dkt. No. 60
PACIFIC SEAFOOD PROCUREMENT,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
1. Little may subpoena the California, Oregon, and Washington fish and wildlife
departments for ex vessel sales records dating back to the 1999/2000 season. The agencies
may move to quash the subpoenas if they have grounds for doing so. The agencies, not Pa-
cific Seafood, have standing to object based on burden. See Finley v. Pulcrano, No. C 08-
0248 PVT, 2008 WL 4500862, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2008) (“A party does not have stand-
ing to quash a subpoena on the basis that the non-party recipient of the subpoena would be
subjected to an undue burden . . . .”).
It remains to be seen how quickly the agencies will be able to gather and produce
twenty-four years of ex vessel sales records. The Court isn’t interested in delaying the case
for months and months (or years) waiting for these records. The records have some rele-
vance, but Little hasn’t established that they are critical to his ability to successfully amend
his complaint. If obtaining them will considerably delay the case, the Court may require
Little to move forward even without them.
2. Little hasn’t convinced the Court that he needs Pacific Seafood’s Dungeness crab
sales data to successfully amend his complaint. The Court dismissed Little’s § 1 claim be-
cause Little hadn’t plausibly alleged “that hundreds of direct purchasers [of Dungeness crab]
[had] been coerced into joining a price-fixing conspiracy.” Dkt. 59 at 4. The Court dismissed
Little’s § 2 claim because Little’s market definition was “facially unsustainable.” Jd. at 7
(quoting another source). Little hasn’t explained how the sales data he seeks would move
the needle toward curing these deficiencies. Pacific Seafood need not produce it.
3. The Court agrees with Little that Pacific Seafood’s “costs of shipping and pro-
cessing Dungeness crab for the last four seasons” are relevant. Dkt. 60 at 3. It appears, how-
ever, that some of the data Little seeks isn’t available. See id. at 4 (“Defendants do not main-
tain cost data in the form requested by Plaintiff... .”). The Court orders the parties to meet
and confer further about this discovery topic, by June 13, 2024, with the expectation that
Pacific Seafood will produce responsive cost data if the company has it.
4. Little may subpoena five ex vessel buyers for communications concerning “ex
vessel prices, season opening dates, and purchases from buyers that control certain ports,
during the last four seasons.” Dkt. 60 at 4. If the subpoenaed buyers object to producing the
requested communications, Little may seek to compel Pacific Seafood to produce responsive
communications it has had with the subpoenaed buyers. The Court won’t require Pacific
Seafood to preemptively agree to produce such communications at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 10, 2024
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge