DOJ's Last-Minute Deposition Bid on Agri Stats MDL Settlements Denied Days Before Antitrust Trial

The underlying case is a DOJ antitrust enforcement action against Agri Stats, Inc., filed in the District of Minnesota under case number 23-CV-3009. Trial is set to begin May 4, 2026. The factual allegations in the government's case are similar to those in three private multidistrict litigations involving the pork, broiler chicken, and turkey industries — In re Pork Antitrust Litig. (18-CV-1776, District of Minnesota), In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litig. (16-CV-8637, N.D. Ill.), and In re Turkey Antitrust Litig. (19-CV-8318, N.D. Ill.).

Agri Stats entered settlements in all three MDLs; motions for approval of each were filed on March 31, 2026. None has received final court approval, though the Broilers and Turkey settlements have received preliminary approval. Agri Stats apparently intends to introduce the settlements as evidence at trial, a move the court noted would waive any otherwise applicable privilege. The government sought a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative deposition of Agri Stats on those settlements before trial.

Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty denied the motion on two independent grounds. First, timeliness: the government knew about the settlements when the approval motions were filed on March 31, raised the possibility of this motion at an April 10 status conference, but did not actually file until April 16 — leaving only six business days before trial for the court to rule, Agri Stats to prepare a witness, and the deposition to be taken. The court noted the motion could have been filed as early as April 8, assuming the parties had adequately met and conferred on the issue.

Second, the meet-and-confer was inadequate. The government's certification stated that the parties conferred by phone on April 10 and that a follow-up email was sent April 15. But the proposed deposition topics — the core subject matter of any Rule 30(b)(6) motion — were not provided to Agri Stats until 10:49 p.m. on April 15. The motion was filed roughly 24 hours later. Without the proposed topics in hand, the court concluded, the parties could not have engaged in the good-faith effort to resolve the dispute that Local Rule 7.1 requires.

The court cited its own practice pointers in rejecting the government's approach, noting that neither a desultory, pro forma conversation nor letterwriting or email campaigns satisfy the letter or the spirit of the meet-and-confer requirement of the Local Rules. The motion was denied on both grounds independently.