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. 645
Pacific Seafood may serve its proposed document and deposition subpoenas on the
20 Dungeness crab marketing associations it has identified. See Dkt. 645-1, Snider Decl. ¶ 3.
Pacific Seafood has articulated a clear need for the discovery it seeks.
Pacific Seafood suggests that the reason ex vessel Dungeness crab prices are similar
in the Pacific NW isn’t because purchasers like Pacific Seafood are fixing prices, but because
crabbers collectively negotiate prices through marketing associations. Pacific Seafood needs
discovery from the marketing associations to fully develop this theory.
The marketing associations are not putative class members. As a result, the Court’s
concern about burdening putative class members with discovery doesn’t directly apply. See
Order, Dkt. 583. Relatedly, Pacific Seafood has identified only 20 marketing associations,
whereas the proposed class is comprised of approximately 1,400 commercial fishermen. See
Case 3:23-cv-01098-AGT Document 692 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Dkt. 480-1, Gross Decl. ¶ 18. Given this numerical difference, the efficiencies of the class
action shouldn’t be materially diminished even if the marketing associations need to retain
counsel to respond to Pacific Seafood’s subpoenas.
After Pacific Seafood serves the subpoenas, any subpoenaed marketing association
may seek to quash or modify the subpoena if necessary, under Rule 45, if the marketing
association contends that the subpoena is unduly burdensome or otherwise objectionable.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 27, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01098-AGT Document 692 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 2