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. Nos. 630, 631
Concerning Plaintiffs’ subpoenas to AT&T and Verizon Wireless, Plaintiffs and non-
parties Jerod Goodin and Jonathan Mark have reached an impasse again, on two points. They
have presented their positions in two separate (non-joint) letter briefs, which aren’t espe-
cially helpful because the briefs refer to meet-and-confer agreements that aren’t reflected in
the competing proposed orders. Compare Pls.’ Letter Brief, Dkt. 631 at 3 (stating that
Goodin and Mark “insist that ‘putative class members’ be used” in the proposed order), with
Goodin and Mark’s Proposed Order, Dkt. 630 at 5–6 (not using “putative class members”).
To aid the Court’s review, Plaintiffs, Goodin, and Mark shall file a joint letter brief
on the disputed points, by March 11, 2026. The joint letter brief should also address the
following two questions, which relate to the disputed points:
(1) Why do Plaintiffs need a log that identifies Goodin’s and Mark’s phone calls and
text messages with crabbers? Previously, Plaintiffs only explained why they needed a log
that identified Goodin’s and Mark’s calls and texts with other crab buyers. Dkt. 498 at 6.
Case 3:23-cv-01098-AGT Document 632 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 2

2
(2) Given that the proposed class period now runs from January 1, 2016, to the pre-
sent, dkt. 596, 5th Amend. Compl. ¶ 12, why do Plaintiffs need a log that includes calls and
texts dating back to August 2015?
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 4, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01098-AGT Document 632 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 2