HARRISBURG, PA. — The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the decision of a lower court, quashing a subpoena that requests internal information on Farmers Pride Inc.’s water usage and operations.

Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) filed for a subpoena in its ongoing litigation against poultry processor Foster Farms. In its case against Foster Farms, ALDF alleges the processor uses an excessive amount of water in violation of the California Constitution. Part of the animal rights group’s argument is that Foster Farms uses waterborne electric immobilization stunning in its slaughter system and chills its carcasses using water immersion chilling, which ALDF says requires more water than alternative methods.

Through the subpoena, ALDF sought to obtain information on Fredericksburg, Pa.-based Farmers Pride’s operations as a comparison. Farmers Pride’s website boasts a new, state-of-the-art facility that uses superior slaughtering and chilling processes that are more humane and require far less water than other methods. As such, ALDF believes the data can serve as an example for the water levels achievable by a poultry processor like Foster Farms.

Farmers Pride moved to quash the subpoena, as it would not only be “annoying, burdensome and expensive” but also would reveal trade secrets.

A lower level court agreed with the company. However, ALDF appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Superior Court, arguing an abuse of discretion.

After considering the dangers of disclosure versus the potential benefits to ALDF, the Pennsylvania Superior Court maintained that a subpoena would divulge Farmers Pride trade secrets that could affect its competitive edge.

The court also acknowledged that the relevance of the data to the Foster Farms case would not be pointed, considering the many differences between the poultry processors. For example, Foster Farms’ facility was built in 1959, while the Farmers Pride facility was completed in 2021. The companies also produce different marketed products, with Farmers Pride manufacturing organic products.

The court questioned the necessity of the requested information as there are other less intrusive means to prove Foster Farms could use less water, such as hiring industry experts or gathering information from the Department of Environmental Resources.

Additionally, a protective order, as suggested by ALDF, would not be sufficient to protect Farmer Pride’s interests, the court said. The information was considered liable to be leaked.

“The court’s decision to quash the subpoena was not an abuse of discretion,” the court documents said. “The court duly considered the requisite factors before determining the requested information was trade secrets. It then properly weighed ALDF’s need for the information against the potential harm disclosure would have on Farmer’s Pride. ALDF’s argument in California — that Foster should implement Farmers Pride’s unique water-saving processes — directly contradicts its current argument that disclosure of information regarding those processes would not result in their duplication.”