Corporate criminal plea agreements submitted by Bumble Bee and Starkist
The two companies' plea agreements with the [DOJ] that would "substantially prejudice" Lischewski because of "spillover risk of inferring [the defendant's guilt] simply from the pleas," Lischewski's lawyers wrote. The attorneys contend having the companies' guilty pleas included in Lischewski's trial would violate his Sixth Amendment rights as he would not be able to confront them as witnesses at the trial. In 2017 Bumble Bee agreed to a reduced $25 million (€22.4 million) plea deal. In 2018 Dongwon-owned Starkist agreed to plead guilty for its role and currently faces a fine up to $100 million (€89.8 million) that it is still contesting.
Lischewski's previous requests to be protected under the Fifth Amendment
"The government’s only purpose in referring to Mr. Lischewski’s deposition testimony would be to invite the jury to infer from Mr. Lischewski’s silence either culpability or a lack of honesty," his lawyers state. "But this is the very inference forbidden by the Fifth Amendment." The Fifth Amendment asserts a defendant's right be protected against self-incrimination. Earlier this year, the US district judge in northern California overseeing Lischewski's trial dismissed his claim that discussions over fish aggregate device (FAD)-free branded products should not be subject to prosecution because they are protected under the First Amendment.
The US government's arguments suggesting marketing campaign, co-pack agreements were illegal
The tuna companies involved in the price-fixing conspiracy joined forces in 2011 to launch the three-year, $60 million (€44 million) generic marketing campaign that included glitzy national television advertising called "Tuna the Wonderfish," which the DOJ claims was used to further the conspiracy. The DOJ has also called into question the legality of a 2012 co-packing arrangement between Bumble Bee and COSI, which it claims were used by defendants to conspire to raise and fix packaged seafood prices. "Both business arrangements are completely legal, were vetted by lawyers, and are standard in many industries," Lischewski's lawyers contend.
Evidence regarding pre-conspiracy information on downsizing and pricing
Lischewski's lawyers state "communications regarding decisions by Bumble Bee, Starkist, and Chicken of the Sea (COSI) in late 2007 through 2008 to decrease their packaged tuna can sizes from six ounces to five ounces, and competitor communications about pricing from 2008 until the start of the charged conspiracy in November 2010" pre-date the conspiracy and have no connection to the charges.
Evidence regarding regarding the pricing of other packaged seafood products
Lischewski's lawyers contend the conspiracy only concerns shelf-stable tuna sold in cans, but that US prosecutors intend to introduce "evidence of competitor communications regarding the pricing of sardines, salmon, and pouched tuna" that has no bearing on the case.
False fish-fill case evidence
StarKist, Chicken of the Sea and Bumble Bee agreed in 2012 to pay $3.3 million (€3 million) collectively to settle civil claims brought by three California counties over complaints the companies put less fish in their cans than represented on their labels. "The government intends to offer evidence of unrelated civil lawsuits, which predate the charged conspiracy, regarding the amount of tuna Bumble Bee and its competitors were placing in their cans," the lawyers state.

Wealth, witnesses and Wonderfish: Lischewski attorneys want to limit evidence ahead of high-stakes trial