- Procter & Gamble (but not the plaintiffs) filed an en banc petition seeking further review of the 2-1 decision striking down the ludicrous attorney-benefit-only settlement in Dry Max Pampers. CCAF filed its opposition yesterday.
- Similarly problematic to the Dry Max Pampers settlement is the case of Richardson v. L’Oreal, a pathetic lawsuit and settlement that seems to have forum-shopping shenanigans. CCAF attorney Adam Schulman filed an objection on behalf of a class member.
- One tactic class counsel engages in is to attempt to scare off objections with abusive discovery requests. This happened in L’Oreal, where class counsel purported to try to subpoena every attorney working for CCAF. Less than one business day after the subpoena was served and we sent this letter, class counsel withdrew all of the subpoenas. We’re not scared of discovery: we follow the rules, and as Citigroup showed, class counsel almost always has something to hide. In this case, for example, it’s doubtful the class representatives ever had any real input in the settlement process, and some might not even have standing; and I’d wager there’s more than a colorable chance that there are documents existing where the parties agree that they don’t want to be in the Ninth Circuit because of Bluetooth. But we’re leanly staffed, and offensive and defensive discovery can be time-consuming and take away from the fun appellate stuff we like to do. If you’re a litigator who’d like to be on our pro bono SWAT team call list the next time someone tries to play discovery games with us (subject of course to conflict checks and the like when the occasions arise), please drop me a line. We’re engaging in fundraising so that we can be more aggressive with offensive discovery in future cases.
- We won $26.7 million for shareholders in the Citigroup case, but we think we can win even more on appeal. Another objector appealed anyway, so we’re not adding any delay. We filed a notice of appeal yesterday. [Litigation Daily]
