throbber
Case 2:13-cv-20000-RDP Document 2610-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 1 of 73
`
`FILED
`
` 2020 Oct-30 PM 09:55
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`N.D. OF ALABAMA
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`IN RE BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`MDL 2406
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`: Master File 2:13-cv-20000-RDP
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`: This document relates to
`: Subscriber Track cases
`
`
`SUBSCRIBER PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7498466.2
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-20000-RDP Document 2610-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 2 of 73
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................2
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE LITIGATION AND SETTLEMENT .....................................5
`
`Factual and Procedural Background ...........................................................................5
`
`The Settlement ...........................................................................................................9
`
`1.
`
`The Settlement Class Members .......................................................................... 11
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The Damages Class ...................................................................................... 11
`
`The Injunctive Relief Class .......................................................................... 12
`
`2.
`
`Relief for the Benefit of the Settlement Class Members ...................................... 13
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`The Settlement Fund .................................................................................... 13
`
`Injunctive Relief ........................................................................................... 14
`
`The Elimination of the National Revenue Cap on Non-Blue Competition 15
`
`Opening the Door to Expanded Blue Bids and Competition ..................... 15
`
`iii.
`
`Local “Best Efforts” ................................................................................. 16
`
`iv. Acquisitions ............................................................................................. 16
`
`v.
`
`Non-Provider Contracting for Self-Funded Accounts ............................... 16
`
`vi. Most Favored Nation Clauses .................................................................. 16
`
`vii. Monitoring Committee ............................................................................. 17
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Settlement Class Release .............................................................................. 18
`
`Notice Plan................................................................................................... 19
`
`Settlement Rescission ................................................................................... 19
`
`Attorneys’ Fees and Costs ............................................................................ 21
`
`C.
`
`Plan of Distribution .................................................................................................. 21
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................................. 26
`
`THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT SATISFIES RULE 23 AND WILL LIKELY
`EARN FINAL APPROVAL ........................................................................................ 29
`
`Class Representatives and Lead Counsel Have More than Adequately Represented the
`Settlement Class. ..................................................................................................... 29
`
`The Proposed Settlement Is the Result of Arm’s-Length Negotiations...................... 30
`
`The Relief Provided to the Settlement Classes Is Far More than Adequate, Taking
`into Account the Considerations Set Forth in Rule 23(e)(2)(C). ............................... 32
`
`1.
`
`The Costs, Risks, and Delay of Trial and Appeal ................................................ 32
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-20000-RDP Document 2610-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 3 of 73
`
`2.
`
`The Effectiveness of Any Proposed Method of Distributing Relief to the Class,
`Including the Method of Processing Class Member Claims ................................ 36
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Terms of Any Proposed Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, Including
`Timing of Payment .................................................................................................. 37
`
`The Proposed Settlement Treats Class Members Equitably Relative to One Another 38
`
`The Remaining Non-Duplicative Bennett Factors Are Satisfied. .............................. 40
`
`The Settlement Is Well Within the Range of Reasonableness Considering the
`Range of Possible Alternatives. .......................................................................... 40
`
`The Stage of Proceedings at which Settlement Was Achieved Strongly Supports
`Preliminary Approval. ........................................................................................ 42
`
`V.
`
`CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASSES IS LIKELY. .................... 42
`
`A.
`
`The Proposed Classes Will Satisfy Rule 23(a). ......................................................... 43
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Numerosity—Rule 23(a)(1)................................................................................ 44
`
`Commonality—Rule 23(a)(2)............................................................................. 44
`
`Typicality—Rule 23(a)(3) .................................................................................. 45
`
`Adequacy—Rule 23(a)(4) .................................................................................. 47
`
`B.
`
`The Proposed Classes Will Also Satisfy Rules 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). .......................... 48
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Because the Blues Have Acted on Grounds Generally Applicable to the Injunctive
`Relief Class, Certification Will Likely Be Appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2). ...... 48
`
`Certification of a Settlement Damages Class and a Self-Funded Sub-Class Is
`Likely Appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3). ............................................................ 50
`
`Common Issues Predominate. ....................................................................... 50
`
`A Class Action Is Superior to Other Methods of Adjudication. ..................... 51
`
`VI.
`
`THE PROPOSED PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION WARRANTS PRELIMINARY
`APPROVAL................................................................................................................. 53
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-20000-RDP Document 2610-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 4 of 73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`AA Suncoast Chiropractic Clinic, P.A. v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co.,
`938 F.3d 1170 (11th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................. 48
`
`Amchem Prods. Inc. v. Windsor,
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) ........................................................................................................ 43, 47
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds,
`568 U.S. 455 (2013) .............................................................................................................. 50
`
`Babineau v. Fed. Express Corp.,
`576 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................. 50
`
`Bellocco v. Curd,
`2006 WL 4693490 (M.D.Fla. Apr. 6, 2006)........................................................................... 53
`
`Bennett v. Behring Corp.,
`737 F.2d 982 (11th Cir. 1984) ............................................................................. 28, 40, 41, 42
`
`Bennett v. Boyd Biloxi, LLC,
`2016 WL 6668926 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 8, 2016) .......................................................................... 43
`
`Borcea v. Carnival Corp.,
`238 F.R.D. 664 (S.D. Fla. 2006) ............................................................................................ 43
`
`Burrows v. Purchasing Power, LLC,
`2013 WL 10167232 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2013) ......................................................................... 32
`
`Busby v. JRHBW Realty, Inc.,
`513 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................. 47
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-20000-RDP Document 2610-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 5 of 73
`
`Camp v. City of Pelham,
`2014 WL 1764919 (N.D. Ala., May 1, 2014)......................................................................... 40
`
`Carnegie v. Mut. Sav. Life Ins. Co.,
`2004 WL 3715446 (N.D. Ala. Nov. 23, 2004) ....................................................................... 41
`
`Carriuolo v. Gen. Motors Co.,
`823 F.3d 977 (11th Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................... 44
`
`Carroll v. Macy’s, Inc.,
`2020 WL 3037067 (N.D. Ala. June 5, 2020).......................................................................... 28
`
`Cifuentes v. Regions Bank,
`2014 WL 1153772 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2014)......................................................................... 40
`
`City of Livonia Emp. Ret. Sys. v. Wyeth, No. 07 Civ. 10329(RJS),
`2013 WL 4399015 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2013) .......................................................................... 58
`
`Cotton v. Hinton,
`559 F.2d 1326 (5th Cir. 1977) ............................................................................................... 26
`
`Danieli v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp.,
`2009 WL 6583144 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2009) ........................................................................ 54
`
`Deas v. Russell Stover Candies, Inc.,
`2005 WL 8158201 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 22, 2005) ....................................................................... 40
`
`DeBoer v. Mellon Mortg. Co.,
`64 F.3d 1171 (8th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................................. 46
`
`Dubin v. Miller,
`132 F.R.D. 269 (D. Colo. 1990) ............................................................................................ 46
`
`Dujanovic v. MortgageAmerica, Inc.,
`185 F.R.D. 660 (N.D. Ala. 1999) ........................................................................................... 44
`
`Fabricant v. Sears Roebuck,
`202 F.R.D. 310 (S.D. Fla. 2001) ............................................................................................ 48
`
`Faught v. Am. Home Shield Corp.,
`668 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................. 37
`
`Fitzgerald v. P.L. Mktg., Inc.,
`2020 WL 3621250 (W.D. Tenn. July 2, 2020) ................................................................. 36, 39
`
`Georgine v. Amchem Products, Inc.,
`83 F.3d 610 (3rd Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................... 44
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-20000-RDP Document 2610-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 6 of 73
`
`Granger v. Sears Roebuck & Co.,
`2008 WL 11424140 (N.D. Ala., Aug. 4, 2008) ...................................................................... 48
`
`Hill v. State Street Corp.,
`2015 WL 127728 (D. Mass. 2015) ........................................................................................ 57
`
`Holmes v. Cont’l Can Co.,
`706 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1983) ............................................................................................. 53
`
`In re Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc., Sec. Litig.,
`298 F.R.D. 171 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ........................................................................................... 57
`
`In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig.,
`26 F. Supp. 3d 1172 (N.D. Ala. 2014) .....................................................................................6
`
`In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig.,
`2018 WL 7152887 (11th Cir. Dec. 12, 2018) ...........................................................................3
`
`In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig.,
`238 F. Supp. 3d 1313 (N.D. Ala. 2017) ............................................................................. 8, 35
`
`In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig.,
`308 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (N.D. Ala. 2018) ........................................................................... 3, 6, 9
`
`In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig.,
`908 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (J.P.M.L. 2012) ................................................................................... 53
`
`In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig.,
`830 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (S.D. Fla. 2011)....................................................................... 41, 50, 51
`
`In re Checking Account Overdraft Litig.,
`275 F.R.D. 654 (S.D. Fla. 2011) ............................................................................................ 30
`
`In re Chicken Antitrust Litig. Am. Poultry,
`669 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1982) ........................................................................................... 53, 55
`
`In re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litig.,
`2016 WL 2731524 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2016) ........................................................................ 54
`
`In re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litig.,
`317 F.R.D. 675 (N.D. Ga. 2016) ............................................................................................ 44
`
`In re Domestic Air Transp. Antitrust Litig.,
`137 F.R.D. 677 (N.D. Ga. 1991) ............................................................................................ 51
`
`In re Equifax Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`2020 WL 256132 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 17, 2020) .................................................................... 29, 36
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-20000-RDP Document 2610-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 7 of 73
`
`In re Ford Motor Co. Spark Plug & Three Valve Engine Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`2016 WL 6909078 (N.D.Ohio Jan. 26, 2016) ........................................................................ 57
`
`In re Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd.,
`2007 WL 1191048 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2007) ........................................................................ 57
`
`In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litig.,
`414 F. Supp. 3d 686 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) .............................................................................. 39, 55
`
`In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig.,
`297 F.R.D.136 (D.N.J. 2013)................................................................................................. 52
`
`In re Liberty Nat’l Ins. Cases, No.
`2006 WL 8436814 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2006) ....................................................................... 26
`
`In re LIBOR-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig.,
`327 F.R.D. 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ........................................................................................... 57
`
`In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports Sec. Litig.,
`2007 WL 4526593 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2007) ........................................................................ 57
`
`In re Motorsports Merch. Antitrust Litig.,
`112 F. Supp. 2d 1329 (N.D. Ga. 2000) .................................................................................. 26
`
`In re Mut. Funds Inv. Litig.,
`2011 WL 1102999 (D.Md. 2011) .......................................................................................... 57
`
`In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig.,
`322 F.R.D. 276 (E.D. Mich. 2017) ........................................................................................ 50
`
`In re PaineWebber Ltd. P'ships Litig.,
`171 F.R.D. 104 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ........................................................................................... 54
`
`In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merch. Disc. Antitrust Litig.,
`330 F.R.D. 11 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) ................................................................................. 27, 38, 39
`
`In re Pool Prod. Distrib. Mkt. Antitrust Litig.,
`2015 WL 4528880 (E.D. La. July 27, 2015) .......................................................................... 41
`
`In re Spring Corp. ERISA Litig.,
`443 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (D. Kan. 2006) .................................................................................... 58
`
`In re Sunbeam Sec. Litig.,
`176 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (S.D. Fla. 2001)................................................................................... 53
`
`In re Tremont Sec. Law, State Law and Ins. Litig.,
`2015 WL 5333494 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2015) ....................................................................... 55
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-20000-RDP Document 2610-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 8 of 73
`
`In re U.S. Oil & Gas Litig.,
`967 F.2d 489 (11th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................................... 26
`
`J. Truett Payne Co., Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp.,
`451 U.S. 557 (1981) .............................................................................................................. 54
`
`Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC,
`975 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................. 21
`
`Johnson v. Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik, LLP
` 333 F.R.D. 314 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) .......................................................................................... 28
`
`Kennedy v. Tallant,
`710 F.2d 711 (11th Cir. 1983) ............................................................................................... 47
`
`Kerr v. City of W. Palm Beach,
`875 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1989) ............................................................................................. 50
`
`Kornberg v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.,
`741 F.2d 1332 (11th Cir. 1984) ............................................................................................. 46
`
`Kreuzfeld A.G. v. Carnehammar,
`138 F.R.D. 594 (S.D. Fla. 1991) ............................................................................................ 44
`
`Laydon v. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd.,
`2016 WL 4401148 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2016) ........................................................................ 54
`
`Lazy Oil Co. v. Wotco Corp.,
`95 F. Supp. 2d 290 (W.D. Pa. 1997) ...................................................................................... 41
`
`Leverso v. SouthTrust Bank of AL., Nat. Assoc.,
`18 F.3d 1527 (11th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................................... 53
`
`McAnaney v. Astoria Fin. Corp.,
`2006 WL 2689621 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2006) ....................................................................... 46
`
`McWhorter v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
`2019 WL 9171207 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 1, 2019) ......................................................................... 26
`
`Miller v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins. Co.,
`559 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1977) ................................................................................................. 26
`
`Nichols v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,
`2005 WL 950616 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2005) ............................................................................ 41
`
`O’Toole v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.,
`2009 WL 10672311 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 3, 2009) ........................................................................ 43
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-20000-RDP Document 2610-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 9 of 73
`
`Parsons v. Brighthouse Networks, LLC,
`2015 WL 13629647 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 5, 2015) .................................................................. 33, 34
`
`Rodriguez v. W. Publ'g Corp.,
`563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 41
`
`Saccoccio v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`297 F.R.D. 683 (S.D. Fla. 2014) ............................................................................................ 31
`
`Schorr v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
`2015 WL 13402606 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 1, 2015) ........................................................................ 43
`
`Schwartz v. TXU Corp.,
`2005 WL 3148350 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2005)......................................................................... 53
`
`Singer v. AT&T Corp.,
`185 F.R.D. 681 (S.D. Fla. 1998) ............................................................................................ 44
`
`Smith v. Floor and Decor Outlets of Am., Inc.,
`2017 WL 11495273 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 10, 2017) ........................................................................ 53
`
`Strube v. Am. Equity Inv. Life Ins. Co.,
`226 F.R.D. 688 (M.D. Fla. 2005) ........................................................................................... 32
`
`Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc.,
`667 F.3d 273 (3d Cir.2011) ................................................................................................... 57
`
`Swaney v. Regions Bank,
`2020 WL 3064945 (N.D. Ala. June 9, 2020).............................................................. 33, 37, 42
`
`Swinton v. SquareTrade, Inc.,
`2019 WL 617791 (S.D. Iowa, Feb. 14, 2019) ........................................................................ 28
`
`Trauth v. Spearmint Rhino Cos. Worldwide, Inc.,
`2011 WL 13134046 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2011) ........................................................................ 55
`
`Wade v. Kroger Co.,
`2008 WL 4999171 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 20, 2008) ....................................................................... 57
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (2011) .............................................................................................................. 44
`
`Williams v. Mohawk Indus., Inc.,
`568 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................... 45, 46
`
`Winston v. Jefferson Cty.,
`2006 WL 6916381 (N.D. Ala., June 26, 2006) ....................................................................... 49
`
`viii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-20000-RDP Document 2610-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 10 of 73
`
`Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC,
`617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................... 52
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 .......................................................................................................... 27, 31, 38
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) ............................................................................................................. 44
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) ............................................................................................................. 44
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) ............................................................................................................. 48
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) ............................................................................................................. 52
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) .............................................................................................................. 4, 27
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) ............................................................................................................. 28
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C) ........................................................................................................ 34
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C)(i) .................................................................................................... 32
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) ...............................................................................................................1
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`15 U.S.C. §§ 1-3 .........................................................................................................................2
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`MCLAUGHLIN ON CLASS ACTIONS,
`§ 6.23 (17th ed. 2020) ........................................................................................................... 53
`
`NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS
`§ 12:15 (5th ed.) .................................................................................................................... 54
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-20000-RDP Document 2610-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 11 of 73
`
`Subscriber Class Representatives1 (“Subscriber Plaintiffs”) submit this memorandum
`
`in support of Subscriber Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class
`
`Settlement. The Settlement Agreement is attached as Exhibit A.2 Consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`23(e)(2), the Settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and likely to warrant final approval.3 In
`
`addition, the proposed Settlement Classes are certifiable under Rule 23. Thus, Subscriber
`
`Plaintiffs request that the Court: (1) grant preliminary approval of the settlement; (2) find that the
`
`Settlement Classes are likely to be certified at final approval; (3) preliminarily approve the Plan
`
`of Distribution; and (4) set a Final Approval Hearing.
`
`Proposed orders granting preliminary and final approval are attached to this memorandum
`
`as Exhibits B and C, respectively. The proposed Plan of Distribution is attached as Exhibit D. This
`
`memorandum is also supported by the Joint Declaration of Settlement Class Counsel as Exhibit E;
`
`the Declaration of Self-Funded Sub-Class Settlement Class Counsel, Exhibit F; the Declaration of
`
`Kenneth Feinberg, Exhibit G; the Declaration of Darrell Chodorow, Exhibit H; the Declaration of
`
`1 Galactic Funk Touring, Inc.; American Electric Motor Services, Inc.; CB Roofing, LLC; Pearce, Bevill, Leesburg,
`Moore, P.C.; Pettus Plumbing & Piping, Inc.; Consumer Financial Education Foundation of America, Inc.; Fort
`McClellan Credit Union; Rolison Trucking Co., LLC; Conrad Watson Air Conditioning, Inc.; Linda Mills; Frank
`Curtis; Jennifer Ray Davidson; Pete Moore Chevrolet, Inc.; Jewelers Trade Shop; Saccoccio & Lopez; Angel Foster
`(fka Angel Vardas); Monika Bhuta; Michael E. Stark; G&S Trailer Repair Incorporated; Chelsea L. Horner; Montis,
`Inc.; Renee E. Allie; John G. Thompson; Avantgarde Aviation, Inc.; Hess, Hess & Daniel, P.C.; Betsy Jane Belzer;
`Bartlett, Inc., d/b/a Energy Savers; Matthew Allan Boyd; Gaston CPA Firm; Rochelle and Brian McGill; Sadler
`Electric; Jeffrey S. Garner; Amy MacRae; Vaughan Pools, Inc.; Casa Blanca, LLC; Jennifer D. Childress; Clint
`Johnston; Janeen Goodin and Marla S. Sharp; Erik Barstow; GC/AAA Fences, Inc.; Keith O. Cerven; Teresa M.
`Cerven; Sirocco, Inc.; Kathryn Scheller; Iron Gate Technology, Inc.; Nancy Thomas; Pioneer Farm Equipment, Inc.;
`Scott A. Morris; Tony Forsythe; Joel Jameson; Ross Hill; Angie Hill; Kevin Bradberry; Christy Bradberry; Tom
`Aschenbrenner; Juanita Aschenbrenner; Free State Growers, Inc.; Tom A. Goodman; Jason Goodman; Comet Capital,
`LLC; Barr, Sternberg, Moss, Lawrence, Silver & Munson, P.C.; Mark Krieger; Deborah Piercy; and Lisa Tomazzoli.
`This memorandum is also supported by the Self-Funded Sub-Class Representative Hibbett Sports, Inc.
`
`2 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning given them in the attached Settlement
`Agreement.
`
`3 Along with this Motion for Preliminary Approval, Settlement Class Counsel and Self-Funded Sub-Class Settlement
`Counsel are submitting to the Court a separate Notice Motion, including a proposed form of, method for, and date of
`dissemination of Class Notice.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-20000-RDP Document 2610-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 12 of 73
`
`Daniel Rubinfeld, Exhibit I; the Declaration of Ariel Pakes, Exhibit J; and the Declaration of
`
`Special Master Edgar C. Gentle, Exhibit K.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
` This litigation began more than eight years ago and involves the consolidation of more
`
`than 40 actions by Subscriber Plaintiffs against the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association
`
`(“BCBSA”) and its member plans (the “Member Plans” or the “Blues”) (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”). Subscriber Plaintiffs have achieved a historic settlement with far-reaching
`
`competitive benefits. The proposed settlement secures substantial injunctive relief that will reshape
`
`competition in the health insurance industry and offer increased choice to millions of Americans,
`
`coupled with one of the largest monetary recoveries ever achieved in an antitrust class action
`
`settlement.
`
`At the heart of this litigation, Subscriber Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that BCBSA and the
`
`Member Plans violated Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-3, by
`
`entering into an unlawful agreement that restrained competition among and between them in the
`
`markets for health insurance and for the administration of Commercial Health Benefit Products in
`
`the United States and its territories by: (1) allocating geographic territories; (2) limiting the
`
`Member Plans from competing against each other, even when they are not using a Blue name, by
`
`mandating a minimum percentage of business that each Member Plan must do under that name,
`
`both inside and outside each Member Plan’s territory; (3) restricting the right of any Member Plan
`
`to be sold to a company that is not a member of BCBSA; and (4) agreeing to other ancillary
`
`restraints on competition. ECF No. 1082. Subscriber Plaintiffs sought actual damages, treble
`
`damages, and injunctive relief to prevent future loss or damage resulting from BCBSA and the
`
`Member Plans’ conduct.
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-20000-RDP Document 2610-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 13 of 73
`
`This litigation has been extraordinarily hard-fought over the past eight years, as reflected
`
`by the over 2,000 docket entries. Defendants filed, and Subscriber Plaintiffs overcame, over a
`
`dozen motions to dismiss. The parties spent months negotiating production of terabytes of
`
`structured health insurance data from 37 separate defendants, many with different data
`
`management systems. Ex. E, Settlement Class Counsel Decl. ¶ 14. With the assistance of
`
`Magistrate Judge Michael T. Putnam, the parties briefed over 150 discovery motions, leading to
`
`91 discovery orders. Subscriber Plaintiffs obtained and analyzed over 15 million pages of
`
`documents, conducted over 120 depositions of Defendants and third-party witnesses, and defended
`
`over 20 depositions of class representatives and experts. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. Subscriber Plaintiffs
`
`reviewed and challenged hundreds of thousands of privilege log entries, resulting in 45 Reports &
`
`Recommendations by Special Master R. Bernard Harwood, Jr. and the full or partial de-
`
`designation of over 450,000 documents. Id. ¶ 16.
`
`The parties briefed several rounds of summary judgment motions, including Defendants’
`
`motion seeking application of the filed rate doctrine to Alabama subscribers and Subscriber
`
`Plaintiffs’ successful motion seeking application of a per se standard to the alleged “aggregation
`
`of competitive restraints” including the restrictions on non-Blue business (subject to defeating
`
`Defendants’ argument that it operated as a single entity for purposes of trademarks), a landmark
`
`decision that the Eleventh Circuit declined to review on an interlocutory basis. In re Blue Cross
`
`Blue Shield Antitrust Litig., 308 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1267 (N.D. Ala. 2018); In re Blue Cross Blue
`
`Shield Antitrust Litig., No. 18-90020-E, 2018 WL 7152887 (11th Cir. Dec. 12, 2018) (“BCBS
`
`Litig.”). And most recently, the parties briefed potential certification of a nationwide injunctive
`
`relief class and an Alabama damages class, each side supporting its claims with expert reports
`
`totaling hundreds of pages.
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-20000-RDP Document 2610-1 Filed 10/30/20 Page 14 of 73
`
`Now, after nearly five years of good faith, arm’s-length negotiations conducted by
`
`experienced class counsel with the assistance of Special Master Edgar C. Gentle and other
`
`mediators, the parties have agreed to the proposed Settlement with a monetary value of $2.67
`
`billion and historic injunctive relief with significant, tangible value to the class. The features of
`
`the Settlement include:
`
`• Monetary Relief. Defendants will pay $2.67 billion to the Settlement Fund, which
`will include distributions to the Damages Class and the Self-Funded Sub-Class,
`Notice and Administration costs, and any Fee and Expense Award.
`
`• Injunctive Relief. The Settlement provides historic injunctive relief to enhance
`competition in the market for health insurance, to the benefit of all Settlement Class
`Members. This hard-won non-monetary relief includes:
`
`o elimination of the Blues’ national revenue cap on competition when they
`are not using the Blue names

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket