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
DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. No. 821
Pacific Seafood conducted an initial document collection through June 2025. Plain-
tiffs and Pacific Seafood now dispute whether Pacific Seafood must supplement its produc-
tion to include the 2025–26 Dungeness crab season, which will close by mid-September.
Plaintiffs’ claims include the 2025–26 Dungeness crab season. See Dkt. 808, Sixth
Am. Compl. ¶ 643 (“Beginning no later than [January 1, 2016,] and continuing through the
present, Defendants . . . entered into a continuing agreement . . . in restraint of trade . . . .”)
(emphasis added). Discovery related to the 2025–26 season is thus relevant and not duplica-
tive: it relates to Pacific Seafood’s liability for an additional time period.
Pacific Seafood insists that discovery to date hasn’t uncovered proof of an unlawful
agreement. Plaintiffs unsurprisingly contend otherwise, and the Court won’t wade into a
Case 3:23-cv-01098-AGT Document 838 Filed 09/01/26 Page 1 of 2

2
dispositive merits issue prematurely. Discovery related to the 2025–26 season is relevant,
and Pacific Seafood hasn’t demonstrated that it is disproportionate to the needs of the case.
Pacific Seafood worries about never-ending rolling discovery that will interfere with
and delay depositions, expert work, dispositive motions, and trial preparation. Dkt. 821 at 5.
Pacific Seafood’s concern is valid, but the case schedule does include a discovery end point.
The parties must substantially complete document discovery by September 1, 2026, and fact
discovery will close on June 9, 2027. Dkt. 710 at 3. Discovery will end, but it hasn’t ended
yet, and the 2025–26 season will be over before the discovery cutoff.
Pacific Seafood maintains that Plaintiffs didn’t adequately meet and confer about this
discovery dispute before bringing it to Court. Dkt. 821 at 4. The parties did meet and confer
by videoconference. Id. Conceivably they could have met and conferred further, but Plain-
tiffs didn’t act unreasonably by seeking judicial intervention instead.
Pacific Seafood must supplement its production to include the 2025–26 Dungeness
crab season. By tomorrow, Plaintiffs and Pacific Seafood shall meet and confer and agree
on a reasonable date by which Pacific Seafood will complete this supplemental production.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 1, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01098-AGT Document 838 Filed 09/01/26 Page 2 of 2