A motion for the recusal and vacatur of U.S. District Judge John Tunheim's recent Daubert and summary judgment opinions in a multidistrict pork price-fixing litigation has been denied. The motion, brought forth by defendants Clemens Food Group, Smithfield Foods, Tyson Foods, Seaboard Foods, Triumph Foods and Agri Stats in April, was based on the argument that one of the court’s law clerks exhibited bias.
In his ruling Tuesday, Judge Tunheim noted that since the law clerk’s work on the matter was within ethical guidelines, no law clerk bias can be imputed to the judge. “Even if the law clerk was found to have sufficient bias to give rise to a conflict of interest, the court finds that disqualification and recusal is not necessary because a reasonable observer who was fully informed of the facts based on the record would not question the judge's impartiality.”
The pork processors and Agri Stats had argued recusal and vacatur were necessary due to the law clerk’s bias since he had worked for three different entities suing protein producers for antitrust violations based on Agri Stats, and the clerk also had a pending offer of employment from one of the leading plaintiffs’ firms in the protein/Agri Stats antitrust cases.
The defendants also claimed the clerk shared a social media post that both announced that one of his former employers was suing Agri Stats and explicitly identified this case. They also contended that immediately following oral argument on the Daubert motions, the clerk “publicly embraced plaintiffs’ attorneys in this case in the courtroom.”