Little v. Pacific Seafood Procurement, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRAND LITTLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PACIFIC SEAFOOD PROCUREMENT,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-01098-AGT
SECOND ORDER RE: PACIFIC
SEAFOOD’S MOTION FOR
APPROVAL TO SERVE SUBPOENAS
ON PERCIPIENT WITNESSES
IDENTIFIED BY PLAINTIFFS
Re: Dkt. No. 646
Pacific Seafood seeks permission to serve subpoenas on six potential class members
whom Plaintiffs identified as the sources of certain factual allegations made about Pacific
Seafood in the complaint. Dkt. 646. Plaintiffs notified the Court that they “oppose the motion
as drafted.” Dkt. 649 at 2 (emphasis omitted). Although “Plaintiffs do not oppose [Pacific
Seafood] conducting discovery of these witnesses concerning the events of which they have
been identified as percipient witnesses,” Plaintiffs contend that “the proposed discovery for
which Pacific Seafood seeks permission is not so limited.” Id.
Because the motion is opposed, the current briefing schedule will remain in effect.
However, before Plaintiffs file an opposition, the parties must meet and confer again in an
effort to resolve this dispute informally. Plaintiffs’ opposition is due on April 3, 2026. Pacific
Case 3:23-cv-01098-AGT Document 650 Filed 03/26/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Seafood’s reply is due on April 10, 2026. A hearing on the motion remains scheduled for
May 1, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., in San Francisco, Courtroom A, 15th Floor.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 26, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01098-AGT Document 650 Filed 03/26/26 Page 2 of 2