Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1378 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`Joseph R. Saveri (State Bar No. 130064)
`Joshua Paul Davis (State Bar No. 193254)
`Andrew M. Purdy (State Bar No. 261912)
`Matthew S. Weiler (State Bar No. 236052)
`James G. Dallal (State Bar No. 277826)
`JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
`555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: (415) 500-6800
`Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
`Email:
`jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
`
`apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
`
`mweiler@saverilawfirm.com
`
`jdallal@saverilawfirm.com
`
`rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com
`
`
`Interim Class Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`
`DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’
`SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION IN
`FURTHER SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
`PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS
`WITH DEFENDANTS FUJITSU
`LIMITED, NITSUKO, THE OKAYA
`DEFENDANTS, NEC TOKIN, AND
`ROHM
`
`
`
`IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL DIRECT
`PURCHASER ACTIONS
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1378 Filed 11/04/16 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`At the October 14, 2016 hearing on DPPs1 and IPPs’ respective motions for preliminary
`approval of certain settlements, the Court asked Plaintiffs to revisit their proposed preliminary approval
`
`motions and notice plans and thereafter present to the Court a “practical, easy-to-administer plan that is
`
`totally transparent and totally fair to potential class members.” Tr. 16:19-20.
`
`The Court identified three issues at the hearing that Plaintiffs should address in their respective
`
`supplemental plans: (1) concern that the releases in the parties’ settlement agreements should extend
`
`only to those class members who affirmatively accept settlement funds—in other words, “there are no
`free releases” (Tr. 4:1-7:13);2 (2) provision of additional transparency regarding the timing and amount
`of counsels’ fee requests (id. at 7:15-14:3); and (3) payment of settlement funds to class members (id. at
`
`12:3-14:3, 17:8-25). After the hearing, the Court added a fourth, related issue: its preference that class
`
`members who do not receive notice will not release their claims. See Dkt. 1348.
`
`As to the Court’s first and fourth points, DPPs set forth below a plan to ensure that the Direct
`
`Purchasers’ notice plan exceeds the requirements of the Constitution and Rule 23. DPPs’ proposed
`
`order sets out this plan in detail. See generally Declaration of Kendall S. Zylstra of claims administrator
`
`Rust Consulting (“Zylstra Decl.”). DPPs intend to use the comprehensive data and information they
`
`have obtained regarding the Class’ absent members, widespread publication through various media, and
`
`direct communications—all to achieve a very high rate of actual notice to and recovery by Class
`
`members. DPPs will pursue many different strategies to get “money in [the] pockets” (Tr. 6:8) of as
`
`many Class members as possible and to ensure Class members know their rights and can exercise them
`
`in an informed manner. That said, DPPs respectfully submit that conditioning the Settling Defendants’
`
`release upon an affirmative act by a Class member (i.e., cashing a check or confirmation of receipt of
`
`actual notice) would be inconsistent with Rule 23 and the releases for which each of the Settling
`
`Defendants bargained.
`
`
`1 Unless stated otherwise, the terms defined in DPPs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval (Dkt. 1298) are
`the same herein.
`2 A true and correct copy of the transcript of the Court’s October 14, 2016 preliminary approval hearing
`is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Joseph R. Saveri (“Saveri Decl.”). The transcript is cited
`hereafter as “Tr.”
`
`1
`
`Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Submission IFSO Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1378 Filed 11/04/16 Page 3 of 12
`
`
`
`As to the Court’s second and third points, DPPs will comply with the Court’s direction and will
`
`revise the Class notices to indicate that counsel will request attorneys’ fees and expenses from this first
`
`tranche of settlements. Further, DPPs will distribute settlement funds from these five settlements to
`
`Class members as soon as possible on a pro rata basis.
`
`Based on DPPs’ modifications regarding their notice plan, their proposed changes to DPPs’
`
`form notices, and the other bases set forth in DPPs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval (Dkt. 1298), as
`
`amended herein, DPPs request that the Court (1) preliminarily approve the Settlement Agreements
`
`(Dkts. 1298-2, 3, 8, 9, 10), as written; (2) certify the Settlement Class; (3) approve the proposed plan of
`
`notice; (4) set DPPs’ requested schedule for dissemination of notice and related deadlines for opting
`
`out, commenting on or objecting to the Settlement; and (5) set a final approval hearing pursuant to Rule
`
`23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`II.
`
`DPPs’ Comprehensive Notice and Claims Administration Plan Will Ensure Actual Notice
`to the Vast Majority of Class Members and a Very High Rate of Participation in the
`Settlements by the Direct Purchaser Class Members.
`
`To protect absent Class members’ due process rights and ensure a high rate of participation in
`
`the settlements for those Class members that do not opt out, DPPs will implement a comprehensive
`
`individual and publication notice plan and a claims administration plan that will ensure Direct Purchaser
`
`Class members share in the settlement funds. These plans, set forth in detail in DPPs’ concurrently
`
`filed proposed order and the Zylstra Declaration, are summarized below:
` Because DPPs possess data regarding the names and addresses of Class members—as well as
`
`significant data reflecting their respective purchases during the Class Period—individual notices
`
`with pre-populated purchase data can be sent directly to all, or nearly all, Class members.
` A concise, one-page summary will be mailed along with the full notice, allowing Class members
`
`to quickly ascertain the key components of the settlements and required action on their part. In
`
`addition to this direct mailed notice, a publication and Internet notice campaign will be targeted
`
`to Class members.
` The individualized notice will emphasize that Class members do not need to submit
`
`documentation in order to receive payment, but rather they can rely on the pre-populated value
`
`of purchases that will be used to determine each Class member’s share of the settlement fund
`
`2
`
`Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Submission IFSO Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1378 Filed 11/04/16 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`without further action by the Class member, unless the Class member chooses to submit an
`
`adjustment claim with documentation supporting greater purchase amounts. By doing so, DPPs
`
`will substantially lessen the burden on Class members, thus encouraging maximum Class
`
`member participation in the settlement,
` For Class members for whom DPPs do not have purchase data, Class members can make such
`
`submissions through documents mailed to the claims administrator or submitted through a
`
`secure website.
`A.
`
`DPPs’ Notice Plan is Designed to Reach Identified Class Members and is
`consistent with Due Process and Rule 23.
`
`DPPs’ notice to the Class must be “the best . . . practicable under the circumstances, including
`
`individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`23(c)(2)(B); see also Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 812 (1985) (same) (citing Mullane v.
`
`Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314-15 (1950)). These requirements ensure that class notice
`
`procedures comply with the demands of due process. Rannis v. Recchia, 380 F. App’x 646, 650 (9th Cir.
`
`2010) (citing Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 173 (1974)). While individual notice is required
`
`for all identifiable class members (see Eisen, 417 U.S. at 176), even identifiable class members need not
`
`actually receive such notice to be bound. See Silber v. Mabon, 18 F.3d 1449, 1453-54 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We
`do not believe that Shutts changes the traditional standard for class notice from “‘best practicable’” to
`
`“‘actually received’” notice.”). See also Rannis, 380 F. App’x at 650 (“[D]ue process requires
`
`reasonable effort to inform affected class members through individual notice, not receipt of individual
`
`notice.”); In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., No. 3:07-cv-5944 JST, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`24951, at *262 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016) (following Silber).
`
`Because DPPs have obtained Defendants’ transactional data obtained in discovery, as well as the
`
`contacts that DPPs’ counsel have made with many Class members, counsel believe they have up to date
`
`3
`
`Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Submission IFSO Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1378 Filed 11/04/16 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`and accurate contact information for all or nearly all of the Class members.3 Saveri Decl. ¶ 2. Applying
`the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ FTAIA motions for summary judgment to the direct purchasers that
`
`DPPs have identified through Defendants’ records, it appears there are approximately 1,900 Class
`
`members who directly purchased Capacitors between January 2002 and December 2013. Id. at ¶ 3. Out
`
`of the nearly 1,900 identified Class members, over 470 of them had purchases in 2014, and over 380 of
`
`them had purchase in 2015. Id.. While this is a modest percentage of the overall Class (somewhere
`
`between 20-25%), many of these Class members are Defendants’ largest customers by volume. See id.
`
`Accordingly, the dollar amount of purchases associated with these current customers is likely to be quite
`
`large and can reasonably be estimated to represent a large share of sales eligible for reimbursement in
`
`settlement.
`
`Targeted emailing and mailing of notices will reach most, if not all, of the Class. To the extent
`
`that any Class members may not receive direct notice, DPPs’ plan to provide notice through publication
`
`in traditional publications and on the Internet is likely to reach them. The electronic components
`
`industry is a niche business. Thus, targeting industry Internet media (e.g., CapacitorIndustry.com),
`
`publishing notice in the Wall Street Journal, and creating a settlement website run by the claims
`
`administrator likely will be very effective. DPPs believe this will, as a result, increase the Class’ rate of
`
`participation in the settlement.
`
`In addition, many Class members already have expressed significant interest in this action, so
`
`DPPs expect a large percentage of Class members to make claims. Many large Class members have been
`
`monitoring this litigation and have asked DPPs’ counsel to keep them informed about case
`
`developments. Saveri Decl. ¶ 4.
`
`This proposed plan exceeds DPPs’ notice obligations under the Constitution and Rule 23. DPPs
`
`concurrently file with this submission the declaration of Kendall S. Zylstra of claims administrator Rust
`
`
`3 It is unlikely that there will be any sizeable percentage of Class members who are not identified in
`Defendants’ transactional data. DPPs’ counsel pursued discovery about the completeness of
`transactional data with many Defendants in connection with the FTAIA briefing (including Settling
`Defendants NEC TOKIN, Okaya, and Rohm), and Defendants testified that all transactions in the types
`of commerce the Court has deemed within the Sherman Act’s ambit are recorded in transactional data.
`See Saveri Decl. at ¶ 2.
`
`4
`
`Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Submission IFSO Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1378 Filed 11/04/16 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`Consulting (“Rust”), which sets forth the plan of notice and administration, provisions for distribution
`
`of settlement funds, and Rust’s qualifications and credentials in administering settlements of this type.
`
`To confirm the plan’s effectiveness, DPPs are prepared to provide the Court with information regarding
`
`notice returns based on incorrect addresses and response rates following the notice period’s close.
`B.
`
`Under DPPs Plan, DPPs Will Pay Claims to Class Members Without Delay.
`
`As previously indicated, DPPs propose to distribute settlement funds to Class members, after
`
`payment of attorneys’ fees and costs on a pro rata basis based on Class members purchases from all
`
`Defendants. See Zylstra Decl. ¶ 15. DPPs will base this calculation on transactional sales information
`
`obtained from Defendants subject to review and adjustment based on information from Class members.
`
`DPPs propose to make payment by check, consistent with the ordinary and regular methods of Class
`
`members make and receive payments in the regular course of their business. See id. at ¶ 16. Class
`
`members will also be able to receive payments electronically by wire or other electronic payment
`
`methods upon provision of suitable account and other information to ensure payment and prevent fraud.
`
`See id.
`
`DPPs will act to ensure that Class members can convert their settlement payments with ease and
`
`as quickly as possible. Relying on Defendants’ transactional data, DPPs will send to each identified Class
`
`member a claim form containing pre-populated information about the member’s Capacitors purchases
`
`to be used to calculate their pro rata distribution from the settlements. Class members can either accept
`
`DPPs’ accounting of their Capacitors purchases, or they can seek an adjustment of DPPs’ accounting by
`
`submitting information to the claims administrator to substantiate their purchases. Class members will
`
`be able to submit their claims either by mail or electronically through a secure claims administration
`
`website. These steps will help ensure the accuracy and reasonableness of the pro rata distribution of
`
`settlement funds.
`
`Importantly, once Class members’ Capacitors purchases during the Class Period are determined,
`
`they will not have to go through the claims process again in order to benefit from any future settlements.
`
`This should also encourage participation and the settlement as well as to ensure efficient and timely
`
`distribution of proceeds from any future settlements in this case.
`
`For Class members who submit claims, DPPs intend to send checks to them as soon as
`
`5
`
`Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Submission IFSO Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1378 Filed 11/04/16 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`practicable and will send reminder mailings or will contact them by other means (including email) to
`
`ensure those checks are cashed. As counsel noted at the October 14 conference, settlement funds will
`
`not revert to Defendants. Tr. 17:8-11. DPPs will continue to administer additional rounds of notice and
`
`make payments until all settlement funds are paid out or were the Court authorizes cy pres relief, upon
`
`duly noticed motion.
`III. The Scope of DPPs’ Releases of the Settling Defendants Is Consistent with the Parties’
`Agreements and the Application of Rule 23 in Other Similar Cases.
`
`DPPs share the Court’s interest in protecting the rights of absent Class members with regard to
`
`the scope of the release in the Settlement Agreements. DPPs believe they can do so without altering the
`
`parties’ negotiated release language.
`
`We understand the Court’s concern to be centered on the release’s impact on the claims of Class
`
`members who do not receive notice or cash a settlement check, Tr. 5:3-7:14, rather than the breadth of
`the release.4 Requiring Class members to act affirmatively—e.g., confirm receipt of notice or cash a
`settlement check—for an individualized release to be effective would effectively convert the Class from
`
`opt out to opt in. That would be inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`Rule 23 does not contemplate opt-in classes. Kern v. Siemens Corp., 393 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2004),,
`
`is the leading case on point. In Kern, the district court certified a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) that
`
`included only those members who affirmatively consented to inclusion in the class. See id. at 122-23.
`
`The Second Circuit reversed, reasoning that neither “the language of Rule 23” nor “due process
`
`
`4 The parties’ bargained for release language is permitted and appropriate in Rule 23(b)(3) class actions.
`See Hesse v. Sprint Corp., 598 F.3d 581, 590 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A settlement agreement may preclude a
`party from bringing a related claim in the future even though the claim was not presented and might not
`have been presentable in the class action” where the released claim is “based on the identical factual
`predicate as that underlying the claims in the settled class action.”) (internal quotations omitted). The
`scope of the parties’ release is consistent with other factually similar federal antitrust settlements in this
`District. Compare Dkts. 1298-2 at 11-14, 3 at 14-17, 8 at 13-16, 9 at 13-17, and 10 at 13-17 with In re
`Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST, Dkt. 1572-1, Ex. 1 at 6-8; In re:
`TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. M07-1827 SI, Dkt. 1441 at 6-8; In re
`Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. M-02-1586-PJH, Dkt.
`773-2 at 5-7; In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:10-MD-2143-RS, Dkt.
`1010-1 at 6-9; In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13-MD-2420-YGR, Dkt. 1090-1 at
`13-16.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Submission IFSO Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1378 Filed 11/04/16 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`considerations” “require members of any class affirmatively to opt into membership.” See id. at 124
`
`(citing Shutts, 472 U.S. at 812). Further, the Second Circuit reasoned that the Rule 23(c) express opt-out
`
`provision and the Federal Rules Advisory Committee’s 1966 decision to reject defining Rule 23(b)(3)
`
`classes by those affirmatively including themselves in an action implicitly prohibit opt-in classes. See id.
`at 124-25. 5 Other courts have followed Kern. See, e.g., Ackal v. Centennial Beauregard Cellular LLC, 700
`F.3d 212, 215-17 (5th Cir. 2012) (following Kern and reversing certification of opt-in class); Andrews
`
`Farms v. Calcot, Ltd., 258 F.R.D. 640, 656 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (rejecting Defendants’ proposal to certify an
`
`opt-in class under Rule 23(b)(3) based on Kern’s reasoning); Hypertouch, Inc. v. Superior Court, 128 Cal.
`
`App. 4th 1527, 1543-53 (2005) (following Kern and holding that trial court’s imposition of opt-in
`
`requirement conflicts with California Rules of Court on managing class actions).
`
`DPPs have not found any examples of a Court certifying an opt-in class under Rule 23(b)(3)—
`
`other than the ones above that were reversed on appeal—much less one in which plaintiffs asserted a
`
`Sherman Act Section 1 claim. Cases similar to this one only provide absent class members the
`
`opportunity to opt out. See generally In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Case 3:07-cv-
`
`05944-JST, Dkt. 1603; In re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. M07-1827 SI,
`
`Dkt. 1686; In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. M-02-
`
`1586-PJH, Dkt. 982; In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:10-MD-2143-RS,
`
`Dkt. 1052; In re Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 13-MD-2420-YGR, Dkt. 1182.
`
`Although collective actions brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)
`
`(“FLSA”), require plaintiffs to opt in, those cases are based on specific statutory language, not an
`
`interpretation of Rule 23. To be a party to an FLSA action, a plaintiff must “consent in writing to
`
`become such a party,” and that consent is filed with the court. See id. Rule 23 contains no such language.
`
`As the Second Circuit reasoned, “if anything, the language of the FLSA suggests that, should Congress
`
`seek to authorize certification of ‘opt in’ classes, it can do so with unambiguous language.” See Kern, 393
`
`F.3d at 128.
`
`
`5 The Northern District’s class action settlement guidelines are consistent with this approach. See
`Procedural Guidelines for Class Action Settlements, United States District Court Northern District of
`California (October 30, 2016), http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ClassActionSettlementGuidance.
`
`7
`
`Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Submission IFSO Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1378 Filed 11/04/16 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`Moreover, if Class members were to release their claims only on taking an affirmative step—
`
`such as cashing a check—that would create two thresholds for inclusion in the Settlement Class, i.e.,
`
`first choosing not to opt out, then affirmatively acting to opt in and thereby making the release effective.
`To DPPs’ knowledge, no class certified under Rule 23(b)(3) has ever been defined in this way.6 Doing so
`would create less certainty for the Settling Defendants as to the scope of the release they obtained
`
`through settlement and would require Class members to do more to perfect their claims than has been
`
`required in other similar Rule 23(b)(3) cases.
`
`Even if the Settling Defendants were willing to alter the bargained for releases (Saveri Decl. ¶ 6),
`
`making Class member releases conditional on receipt of actual notice or acceptance of settlement funds
`
`could frustrate future settlement discussions. Defendants generally seek a release of all class members’
`
`claims in exchange for the payment of settlement funds. A release of anything less than all Class
`
`members’ claims is less attractive to Defendants and could cause them to reduce the amount of money
`
`they are willing to pay to settle DPPs’ claims, if they are willing to settle at all. The Non-Settling
`
`Defendants are much larger companies and are responsible for much larger sales than the Settling
`
`Defendants. See id. ¶ 7. Indeed, according to DPPs’ analysis to date, the Non-Settling Defendants
`
`account for 98% of the commerce at issue in this case. See id. If the Non-Settling Defendants demand a
`
`discount to account for the risk that some Class members will not be bound because they fail to cash a
`
`check or claim they did not receive notice could reduce the overall recovery to all members of the DPP
`
`Class. Meanwhile, Class members who do not affirmatively opt out are extraordinarily unlikely to bring
`
`individual claims. So requiring class members to opt in for their claims to be released is likely to harm
`
`the class—by reducing its total recovery—without providing any benefits that the Class members
`
`actually value.
`
`
`
`DPPs share the Court’s concern that settlements provide benefits to as many members of the
`
`Direct Purchaser Class as possible. Through implementation of the notice and claims administration
`
`process outlined above, DPPs can ensure that as high a percentage of the Class as possible receives
`
`
`6 While opt-in obligations and opt-out rights for the same class in the same case may be allowed, the
`situation occurs when class members are statutorily required to opt in. See, e.g., Wang v. Chinese Daily
`News, Inc., 623 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2010) (claims asserted under California state law and FLSA).
`
`8
`
`Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Submission IFSO Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1378 Filed 11/04/16 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`notice of the settlements and recovers from the settlement funds. That the scope of the Settling
`
`Defendants’ respective releases is not limited to Class members who cash their checks and do not
`
`challenge notice has been routinely accepted in antitrust and securities cases which are settled on all-
`
`cash non-reversionary terms. But DPPs will take every reasonable action to ensure that Class members
`
`receive actual notice and participate in the settlements.
`IV. DPPs Amend Their Proposed Class Notices to Reflect Counsel’s Fee Request and the
`Payment of Settlement Funds.
`
`At the preliminary approval hearing, the Court expressed its preference that Plaintiffs (1) pay
`
`out interim settlements to class members as soon as practicable; (2) request fees from partial
`
`settlements rather than wait until the conclusion of the case; and (3) provide class members notice
`
`regarding fee requests from these current settlements. See Tr. 7:15-14:3.
`
`Consistent with the Court’s direction, DPPs will now apply for attorneys’ fees from these
`
`settlements and distribute settlement funds from them on an interim basis. Accordingly, DPPs will
`
`revise their proposed long and short form notices (Dkts. 1298-14, 1298-15) to indicate the following:
` Payments to Settlement Class Members will be distributed after the Settlement Agreements are
`
`finally approved by the Court and after any appeals of the final approval order as to these
`
`Settlement Agreements are resolved, and those payments will be made on a pro rata basis as
`
`explained at Section 13 of the long form notice; and
` At this time, DPPs’ counsel will seek 25% of the settlement funds—$8,162,500—to cover
`
`counsel’s fees, as is consistent with the benchmark award under the “percentage of the fund”
`
`approach accepted by the Ninth Circuit. Powers v. Eichen, 229 F.3d 1249, 1256 (9th Cir. 2000)
`
`(citing Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1376 (9th Cir. 1993); Paul, Johnson, Alston
`&Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir. 1989)).7 Lodestar for DPPs’ counsel’s fees to date
`substantially exceeds that amount and can be expected to increase in connection with class
`
`certification motion practice, the completion of discovery, preparation for trial and trial.]. DPPs
`
`will also seek 10% of the settlement funds--$3,000,000—to reimburse the costs counsel have
`
`
`7 Counsel will also request $200,000 to pay expenses related to the provision of notice to the Settlement
`Class Members. DPPs’ previously proposed long and short form notices disclose these requests.
`
`9
`
`Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Submission IFSO Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1378 Filed 11/04/16 Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`advanced to date. Counsel’s total costs at this time substantially exceed that amount and can be
`
`expected to increase as well. Counsel reserve the right to apply for reimbursement of additional
`
`lodestar and costs incurred. DPPs’ fee and expense application, to be submitted prior to the
`
`Final Approval Hearing, will provide more detail as to counsel’s fees billed and costs advanced
`
`to date. Any such application will be made pursuant to notice and other requirements under
`
`Ninth Circuit Law. See In re Mercury Interactive Secs. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 993-95 (9th Cir. 2009).
`
`These revisions will in no way impact the adequacy of the proposed notice. See Dkt. 1298 at 24
`
`(addressing standards for adequacy of form of notice).
`
`Redlined versions of DPPs’ proposed long and short form notices indicating the above changes
`
`are Exhibits B and C to the Saveri Declaration. Exhibits D and E are copies of the revised notices in
`
`their final form with above changes incorporated.
`V.
`
`DPPs’ Will Request Costs and Fees As and When Additional Settlements Are Reached.
`
`If DPPs achieve settlements with any other Defendants prior to trial, DPPs will promptly file for
`
`preliminary approval of those settlements, and if practicable will group settlements together for each
`
`filing as was done here. Consistent with applicable class action fee jurisprudence. Prior to trial, DPPs
`
`will make applications seeking up to 25% of any settlement fund for attorneys’ fees, and an amount not
`
`to exceed 10% of the settlement fund for reimbursement of costs as set forth above.
`VI. Conclusion
`
`DPPs respectfully request that the Court preliminarily approve the Settlement Agreements with
`
`the Settling Defendants pursuant to the procedures and schedule set forth in DPPs’ Preliminary
`
`Approval Motion, as the Motion and proposed notices are amended herein.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Submission IFSO Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-03264-JD Document 1378 Filed 11/04/16 Page 12 of 12
`
`/s/ Joseph R. Saveri
`Joseph R. Saveri
`
`
`
`JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`Joseph R. Saveri (State Bar No. 130064)
`Joshua Paul Davis (State Bar No. 193254)
`Andrew M. Purdy (State Bar No. 261912)
`Matthew S. Weiler (State Bar No. 236052)
`James G. Dallal (State Bar No. 277826)
`JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
`555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: (415) 500-6800
`Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
`
`Interim Class Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`November 4, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`11
`
`Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD
`Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Submission IFSO Motion for Preliminary Approval
`
`