StarKist Co. and its parent company, Dongwon Industries, are making a bold move in a California federal court to prevent the inclusion of their previous guilty plea from a U.S. Department of Justice investigation in the ongoing civil trial over alleged price-fixing. This plea is central to a contentious legal battle involving major tuna brands accused of conspiring to inflate prices.
The Battle Over Evidence
StarKist, along with Bumble Bee Foods LLC and some former executives, faced a Department of Justice (DOJ) probe, resulting in guilty pleas that plaintiffs now wish to introduce as evidence. These plaintiffs, including end payers and direct purchasers, argue that the evidence is crucial to demonstrating the extent of the alleged conspiracy. However, StarKist contends that such evidence would be both irrelevant and potentially harmful, aimed merely at swaying the jury by highlighting flaws in the plaintiffs’ case rather than contributing to a fair trial.
StarKist Looks To Block Guilty Plea From Price-Fixing Trial: Court’s Prior Findings and Defendants’ Concerns
The filing highlights that the court has already acknowledged StarKist’s involvement in a price-fixing conspiracy between June 2011 and December 2013. StarKist argues that further discussion of the criminal case could unnecessarily complicate the trial and mislead the jury. Similarly, Lion Capital LLP and its subsidiary have expressed concerns about the prejudicial impact of admitting selected evidence from the criminal investigation, fearing guilt by association.
BStarKist Looks To Block Guilty Plea From Price-Fixing Trial: roader Implications and Cooperation
The case is part of a larger multidistrict litigation centralized in California since 2015, where various settlements have been reached. Notably, Chicken of the Sea avoided penalties by cooperating with authorities and has since settled with several plaintiff groups. In contrast, other companies involved have faced heavier scrutiny and legal repercussions, including former Bumble Bee CEO Christopher Lischewski’s conviction in 2019.
Conclusion
The decision to admit or exclude StarKist’s guilty plea from the civil trial is pivotal, with potential ramifications for how corporate guilt is considered in connected civil litigation. This ongoing legal saga not only highlights the complexities of antitrust law but also underscores the strategic legal maneuvers companies employ to protect their interests in high-stakes litigation.
