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
ORDER RE: PACIFIC SEAFOOD’S
MOTION FOR APPROVAL TO
SERVE SUBPOENAS ON
PERCIPIENT WITNESSES
IDENTIFIED BY PLAINTIFFS
Re: Dkt. No. 646
Pacific Seafood seeks to subpoena six persons whom Plaintiffs identified as the
sources of certain factual allegations made about Pacific Seafood in the complaint. The sub-
poenas would “seek only information related to the factual basis for those allegations.” Dkt.
646 at 2. Because these six persons may be putative class members, Pacific Seafood requests
leave to serve the subpoenas, pursuant to the Court’s January 22, 2026, order on discovery
from putative class members. Dkt. 583.
The motion appears to be unopposed. See Mot., Dkt. 646 at 2 n.1 (representing that
“Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendants conducting discovery of these witnesses concerning
the events of which they have been identified as percipient witness.”). Before the Court rules
Case 3:23-cv-01098-AGT Document 647 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 2

2
on the motion, it requests that Plaintiffs, by March 25, 2026, file a statement in which they
confirm or dispute whether the motion is unopposed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 23, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01098-AGT Document 647 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 2