Case: 1:21-cv-00135 Document #: 513 Filed: 12/15/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:10470
`
`
`
`In re: Clearview AI, Inc., Consumer Privacy
`Litigation
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`Civil Action File No.: 1:21-cv-00135
`
`Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
`
`Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIMITED OBJECTIONS OF SCOTT R. DRURY TO PROPOSED ORDER ON
`RESPONSIBILITIES OF DESIGNATED COUNSEL AND PROPOSAL REGARDING
`ALLOCATION OF FEES; AND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S
`NOVEMBER 23, 2022 ORDER
`
`Scott R. Drury (“Drury”), counsel for Plaintiffs Aaron Hurvitz, David Mutnick, Steven
`
`Vance and Andrea Vestrand (collectively, the “Drury Clients”), submits the below-stated limited
`
`objections and request for clarification to: (a) gain clarity on how the Court would like the parties
`
`to address representation issues in the Proposed Order on Responsibilities of Designated Counsel
`
`(the “Proposed Order”) and the Proposal Regarding Allocation of Fees (the “Fee Proposal”) and
`
`future documents; and, relatedly, (b) obtain clarification of the Court’s November 23, 2022 Order
`
`(the “Court’s Order”) with respect to appearances filed on behalf of the Drury Clients.1
`
`1.
`
`While Drury submits the foregoing limited objections, he believes it is important to
`
`advise the Court of the significant progress the parties made in narrowing the disputed issues. To
`
`achieve this result, lawyers from various different firms worked together to bridge as many
`
`disputes as possible. Indeed, most of the substantive disputes – i.e., those related to fee allocation
`
`and organizational structure – were resolved without having to present them to the Court. For
`
`
`1 Loevy & Loevy did not distribute the Proposed Order and Fee Proposal until the afternoon of December
`14, 2022, severely compressing the time to resolve disputed issues.
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00135 Document #: 513 Filed: 12/15/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:10471
`
`instance, in an effort to “get to ‘yes,’” Drury made substantial compromise. He agreed to an
`
`allocation of attorneys’ fees that does not reflect his contributions and value to the case, and agreed
`
`to an organizational structure that does not include an executive committee or subcommittees
`
`despite the benefits of such a structure.2
`
`2.
`
`The issue that remains relates to the Court’s Order clarifying that Loevy & Loevy
`
`can remain in its position as interim lead counsel despite not representing any named plaintiff. See
`
`Dkt. 504 at 4. During discussions between Drury and Jon Loevy (“Loevy”), Drury requested that
`
`the Proposed Order and Fee Proposal clearly reflect that Loevy & Loevy is acting on behalf the
`
`putative plaintiff classes and that the other attorneys/firms are acting on behalf of the named
`
`plaintiffs. Loevy originally agreed to the request and even submitted a draft proposal containing
`
`edits reflecting the agreement. After Drury submitted what he believed were final versions of the
`
`Proposed Order and Fee Proposal that properly defined who the various firms represent, Loevy
`
`informed Drury that he would no longer agree to the language.
`
`3.
`
`At present, this case is merely a putative class action brought by individually-named
`
`plaintiffs, none of whom are represented by Loevy & Loevy. Loevy & Loevy’s status as interim
`
`lead counsel does not create an attorney-client relationship between the Drury Clients (or any
`
`named plaintiffs) and Loevy & Loevy. See 6 Newberg and Rubenstein on Class Actions § 19:2
`
`(6th ed.) (discussing attorney-client relationships in class actions both pre- and post-certification).
`
`Indeed, if the case is never certified as a class action, the case would simply be one brought on
`
`behalf of the named plaintiffs by their retained counsel, not Loevy & Loevy. See id.
`
`
`2 Out of an abundance of caution, Drury discloses to the Court that there are ongoing substantial disputes
`between Drury and Loevy & Loevy (and others at Loevy & Loevy) related to unpaid compensation and
`other issues.
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00135 Document #: 513 Filed: 12/15/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:10472
`
`4.
`
`Given the rather unique situation of Loevy & Loevy acting as interim lead counsel
`
`without representing any named plaintiff, it is important that documents accurately reflect who
`
`represents whom, and on whose behalf counsel are acting. Moreover, in order to preserve any
`
`appellate issue that may exist, Drury could not agree to the submission of documents that indicate
`
`that Loevy & Loevy represents named plaintiffs, as opposed to merely representing putative
`
`plaintiff classes. See, e.g., Dkt. 512 at § 1 (discussing interim lead counsel’s duties on behalf of
`
`“plaintiffs”).
`
`5.
`
`To avoid this issue from repeating itself, Drury presents these limited objections
`
`and respectfully suggests that the Court address the issue in a single ruling that guides the parties
`
`on how to address the issue in future filings. Relatedly, because Loevy & Loevy attorneys currently
`
`have appearances on file for Plaintiffs Hurvitz, Mutnick and Vestrand,3 despite the fact that these
`
`plaintiffs terminated Loevy & Loevy, Drury seeks clarification of the Court’s Order allowing
`
`Loevy & Loevy attorneys to withdraw their motions to withdraw their appearances on behalf of
`
`“Plaintiffs,” generically. See Dkt. 504 at 1-2; Dkt. 463-67. Drury respectfully submits that the
`
`Loevy & Loevy attorneys should withdraw their specific appearances on behalf of Plaintiffs
`
`Hurvitz, Mutnick and Vestrand (see Dkt. 3-5, 55, 86), while being allowed to appear in the case
`
`on behalf of the putative plaintiff classes. See Dkt. 504 at 4.
`
`6.
`
`Given that Loevy & Loevy does not represent any named plaintiff, in order to avoid
`
`any confusion, documents filed by interim lead counsel should make clear that interim lead counsel
`
`is acting on behalf of the “putative plaintiff classes.” Notably, because Loevy & Loevy is required
`
`to act in the best interests of all putative class members (see Dkt. 504 at 3), including the named
`
`
`3 Loevy & Loevy has no appearance on file for Plaintiff Vance.
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00135 Document #: 513 Filed: 12/15/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:10473
`
`plaintiffs, requiring interim lead class to act on behalf the putative plaintiff classes will not
`
`prejudice any plaintiff.
`
`7.
`
`Shortly after the Court entered the November 23, 2022 Order, Drury informed
`
`Loevy & Loevy of his intent to seek clarification with respect to the appearances described herein.
`
`Drury sought Loevy & Loevy’s agreement to the requested clarification and proposed remedy.
`
`Loevy & Loevy declined and asserted that it might try to replace the Drury Clients as named
`
`plaintiffs if they would not agree to be represented by Loevy & Loevy. Loevy & Loevy seemingly
`
`has backed off of that position, recognizing that it would be improper to act adversely to the
`
`interests of its former clients.
`
`8.
`
`It is important to note that the Drury Clients have actively participated in this
`
`matter, including answering and responding to a total of almost 100 interrogatories and requests
`
`for production and making themselves available to be deposed. The Drury Clients intend to
`
`continue to participate and cooperate in the case. No valid reason exists to replace them.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Scott R. Drury
`
`SCOTT R. DRURY
`Counsel for Plaintiffs Hurvitz, Mutnick,
`Vance and Vestrand
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: December 15, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Scott R. Drury
`DRURY LEGAL, LLC
`6 Carriage Lane
`Highwood, Illinois 60040
`(312) 358-8225
`scott@drurylegal.com
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00135 Document #: 513 Filed: 12/15/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:10474
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Scott R. Drury, an attorney, hereby certify that, on December 15, 2022, I filed the
`
`foregoing document using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which effected service on all counsel of
`record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Scott R. Drury
`SCOTT R. DRURY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`