Case: 1:21-cv-00305 Document #: 39 Filed: 03/24/21 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:598
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`RHONDA ROE (a pseudonym), individually
`and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SURGICAL CARE AFFILIATES, LLC;
`SCAI HOLDINGS, LLC; UNITEDHEALTH
`GROUP, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00305
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED UNOPPOSED
`JOINT MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`RELATED CASES AND APPOINT
`INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2141230.3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00305 Document #: 39 Filed: 03/24/21 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:599
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... ii
`MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT ....................................................................... 1
`I.
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND....................................................... 2
`II.
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 4
`A.
`Motion for Consolidation ....................................................................................... 4
`B.
`Motion for Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel .......................................... 5
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 5
`A.
`The Related Cases Should Be Consolidated .......................................................... 5
`The Actions Involve Common Factual and Legal Questions as well
`1.
`as Overlapping Classes .............................................................................. 5
`Consolidation Will Promote Efficiency and Judicial Economy ................ 6
`2.
`Consolidation Will Not Unduly Prejudice Defendants .............................. 7
`3.
`The Court Should Appoint Interim Co-Lead Counsel ........................................... 8
`The Selection of Interim Co-Lead Counsel Will Ensure Efficient
`1.
`Prosecution and Protect the Class’s Interests ............................................. 8
`Counsel Are Well Suited to Represent the Proposed Class ....................... 8
`a.
`Counsel Identified and Investigated These Claims ........................ 9
`b.
`Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel Are Experienced Class
`Action and Antitrust Litigators with Sophisticated
`Knowledge of the Applicable Law ................................................ 9
`Counsel Have Ample Resources .................................................. 15
`c.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 15
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`2141230.3
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00305 Document #: 39 Filed: 03/24/21 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:600
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page
`
`
`Cases
`Bartling v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 5:18-cv-00147-EJD, 2018 WL 4804735 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2018) ................................... 5
`Brunner v. Jimmy John’s LLC,
`No. 14-c-550915, 2016 WL 7232560 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 14, 2016) .................................................. 6
`Ikerd v. Lapworth,
`435 F.2d 197 (7th Cir. 1970) ...................................................................................................... 7
`In re Navistar Maxxforce Engines Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`No. 14-cv-10318, 2015 WL 1216318 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2015) .................................................. 5
`Moehrl v. Nat'l Ass'n of Realtors,
`No. 19-CV-01610, 2020 WL 5260511 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2020) ............................................... 5
`Robbins v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co.,
`No. 84 C 170, 1985 WL 5130 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 26, 1985) ............................................................ 4
`Sylverne v. Data Search N.Y., Inc.,
`No. 08-cv-0031, 2008 WL 4686163 (N.D. Ill. May 28, 2008) ........................................... 4, 6, 7
`Unified Messaging Sols., LLC v. United Online, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-00343, 2013 WL 1874211 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2013) ................................................... 4
`Walker v. Discover Fin. Servs.,
`No. 10-CV-6994, 2011 WL 2160889 (N.D. Ill. May 26, 2011) ................................................ 8
`Rules
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) ................................................................................................................... 5, 8
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A) ............................................................................................................. 5
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(i) ......................................................................................................... 9
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B) ............................................................................................................. 5
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) ................................................................................................................... 4, 5
`Treatises
`Manual for Complex Litigation § 21.11 (4th ed. 2004) .................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`
`2141230.3
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00305 Document #: 39 Filed: 03/24/21 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:601
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, Plaintiffs Rhonda Roe, Steven Smith, and
`
`Scott Keech move to consolidate three pending cases. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 23(g), Plaintiffs also move for appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
`
`Each of their three cases are class actions, brought under the federal antitrust law, 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1. See Roe v. Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC, et al., No. 21-cv-305 (N.D. Ill.) (“Roe
`
`Action”); Smith v. Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-00620 (N.D. Ill.) (“Smith Action”);
`
`Keech v. Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC, et al., No. 21-cv-741 (N.D. Ill.) (“Keech Action”). After
`
`Plaintiffs filed their initial unopposed motion to consolidate, Plaintiff Alan Spradling filed a new
`
`action naming additional Defendants. Spradling v. Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC, et al., No. 21-
`
`cv-01324 (N.D. Ill.) (“Spradling Action”) (collectively, “the Actions”). Because counsel for the
`
`new Defendants in Spradling have not yet made appearances, this motion does not seek
`
`consolidation of Spradling. Instead, if this motion is granted, Section III of the proposed pre-trial
`
`order will require Plaintiffs to serve the pre-trial order on the new Defendants (once they make
`
`appearances). Consolidation will occur automatically absent objections.
`
`Each Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking to represent similar classes of senior-level
`
`employees harmed by unlawful “no-poach” agreements between and among the Defendants.
`
`The Roe Action and Keech Action have been assigned to this Court. Plaintiffs have filed
`
`unopposed motions to re-assign the Smith Action and Spradling Action to this Court. Because
`
`the Actions involve several common questions of law and fact, consolidation for all purposes is
`
`appropriate under Rule 42(a) and will promote judicial economy without prejudicing Defendants.
`
`Furthermore, appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel is appropriate because, in these four
`
`lawsuits, Plaintiffs are represented by a total of thirteen law firms. A leadership structure will
`
`clarify lines of responsibility, protect the interests of the proposed Class, promote the goals of
`
`
`2141230.3
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00305 Document #: 39 Filed: 03/24/21 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:602
`
`
`
`
`judicial economy and efficiency, and facilitate the sound management of the Actions. Defendant
`
`SCA does not oppose the request for consolidation and takes no position on the request for
`
`appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
`
`This motion replaces the one filed on March 4, 2021, Dkt. 23, with an updated leadership
`
`structure. It reflects the considered judgement and consensus of all Plaintiffs’ counsel.
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`On January 7, 2021, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a
`
`criminal indictment against Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC and its successor SCAI Holdings, LLC
`
`(together, “SCA”), alleging that SCA and two co-conspirators, identified as “Company A” and
`
`“Company B,” entered unlawful agreements to refrain from soliciting or hiring each other’s
`
`senior-level employees nationwide. See Indictment, United States v. Surgical Care Affiliates,
`
`LLC, No. 3:21-cr-00011 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2021).
`
`On January 19, 2021, Ms. Roe filed a civil complaint against SCA, its corporate
`
`affiliates, and its unidentified co-conspirators on behalf of a proposed class of “natural persons
`
`who were employed by SCA in the United States at the level of Director or above from January
`
`1, 2010 through December 31, 2017.” Roe Dkt. 1 ¶ 41. Ms. Roe summarized the DOJ’s factual
`
`allegations of an unlawful agreement between SCA, Company A, and Company B. Id. ¶¶ 8-28.
`
`Ms. Roe sought damages on behalf of herself and the proposed class under Section 1 of the
`
`Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Id. ¶¶ 51-55. The Court has scheduled an initial status conference
`
`for March 25, 2021. Roe Dkt. 4.
`
`On February 3, 2021, Mr. Smith filed a civil complaint against the same defendants as
`
`Ms. Roe, and on behalf of the same proposed Class. Smith Dkt. 1 ¶ 48. Like Ms. Roe, Mr. Smith
`
`summarized the DOJ’s factual allegations of an unlawful agreement between SCA, Company A,
`
`and Company B, and is seeking damages on behalf of himself and the proposed class under the
`
`
`2141230.3
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00305 Document #: 39 Filed: 03/24/21 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:603
`
`
`
`
`Sherman Act. Id. ¶¶ 18-28, 58-62. Mr. Smith’s case is pending before the Honorable Martha M.
`
`Pacold. However, Ms. Roe has filed a motion to re-assign that case to this Court, and this motion
`
`is still pending. See Roe Dkt. 21. Defendant SCA has confirmed it does not oppose re-
`
`assignment. Roe Dkt. 22.
`
`On February 9, 2021, Mr. Keech filed a related civil complaint against SCA, its corporate
`
`affiliates, and its unidentified co-conspirators on behalf of a proposed class of all “natural
`
`persons who worked in senior-level positions in the United States for one or more of the
`
`following: (a) from May 1, 2010 to October 31, 2017 for Surgical Care Affiliates, LLC or one of
`
`its subsidiary outpatient medical care centers; (b) from May 1, 2010 to October 31, 2017, for
`
`Company A or one of its subsidiary outpatient medical care centers; or (c) from February 1, 2012
`
`through July 31, 2017, for Company B or one of its subsidiary outpatient medical care centers.”
`
`Keech Dkt. 1 ¶ 68. Mr. Keech defines the term “senior-level employees” to include “at a
`
`minimum, those with the title of Director or higher, as well as the top administrators at each
`
`outpatient medical care center, such as Chief Nursing Officers.” Id. ¶ 69. Thus, Mr. Keech’s
`
`proposed class definition differs from Ms. Roe’s and Mr. Smith’s in just two respects: the class
`
`period is slightly narrower, hewing to the dates of the alleged agreement as revealed in the DOJ
`
`Action, but class membership is broader, including employees of Company A and Company B,
`
`in addition to SCA. Mr. Keech, however, explicitly “reserves the right to expand or narrow the
`
`alleged class period based on information obtained in discovery concerning the temporal scope
`
`of the no-poach agreements in question.” Id. ¶ 68 n.3.
`
`On March 9, 2021, Mr. Spradling filed a related civil complaint. It also asserts claims
`
`against SCA and its corporate affiliates. Spradling Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 84-96. In addition, it asserts claims
`
`against United Surgical Partners International, Inc. (“USPI”) and its corporate affiliates; Andrew
`
`
`2141230.3
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00305 Document #: 39 Filed: 03/24/21 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:604
`
`
`
`
`Hayek, the CEO of SCA during the conspiracy; and unidentified co-conspirators. Id. Similar to
`
`the Roe, Smith, and Keech Actions, it asserts claims on behalf of the following class: (1) those
`
`who from May 1, 2010 through October 31, 2017 worked at Defendants SCA or USPI; or (2)
`
`worked at “Company B” from February 1, 2012 through July 31, 2017. Id. ¶ 47. Mr.
`
`Spradling’s case is pending before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso. As noted above, the
`
`unopposed motion to re-assign to this Court is pending. Roe Dkt. 25.
`
`Plaintiffs intend to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint if this motion is granted.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`A. Motion for Consolidation
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) provides:
`
`If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the
`court may (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the
`action; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid
`unnecessary cost or delay.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “Rule 42(a) allows consolidation of trial or pretrial proceedings, or both.”
`
`Robbins v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., No. 84 C 170, 1985 WL 5130, at *3 n.4 (N.D. Ill.
`
`Dec. 26, 1985). “Consolidation is proper where no undue prejudice exists as to any party and it
`
`will promote judicial efficiency and prevent inconsistent rulings.” Unified Messaging, 2013 WL
`
`1874211, at *4. See also Sylverne v. Data Search N.Y., Inc., No. 08-cv-0031, 2008 WL 4686163,
`
`at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 28, 2008) (court “should consider whether the proposed consolidation would
`
`promote convenience and judicial economy”). “Courts enjoy broad discretion in determining
`
`whether to consolidate cases.” Unified Messaging Sols., LLC v. United Online, Inc., No. 13-cv-
`
`00343, 2013 WL 1874211, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2013).
`
`
`2141230.3
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00305 Document #: 39 Filed: 03/24/21 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:605
`
`
`
`
`
`B. Motion for Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), a court “may designate interim counsel to
`
`act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the class as a class action.”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Interim class counsel is appointed when “overlapping, duplicative, or
`
`competing class suits are pending before a court, so that appointment of interim counsel is
`
`necessary to protect the interests of class members.” Moehrl v. Nat'l Ass'n of Realtors, No. 19-
`
`CV-01610, 2020 WL 5260511, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2020) (quoting Bartling v. Apple Inc.,
`
`No. 5:18-cv-00147-EJD, 2018 WL 4804735, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2018)). When designating
`
`interim class counsel before certification, courts consider the same factors that govern the
`
`appointment of class counsel once a class is certified. In re Navistar Maxxforce Engines Mktg.,
`
`Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 14-cv-10318, 2015 WL 1216318, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Mar.
`
`5, 2015). These factors include:
`
`(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential
`claims in the action; (ii) counsel’s experience in handling class actions,
`other complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action;
`(iii) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and (iv) the resources that
`counsel will commit to representing the class.
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A). The court may also “consider any other matter pertinent to counsel’s
`
`ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`The Related Cases Should Be Consolidated
`1.
`
`The Actions Involve Common Factual and Legal Questions as well as
`Overlapping Classes
`
`Consolidation is permitted when multiple cases “involve a common question of law or
`
`fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Here, essentially all factual and legal issues overlap between the
`
`cases. Mr. Keech, Ms. Roe, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Spradling each allege identical claims under the
`
`
`2141230.3
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00305 Document #: 39 Filed: 03/24/21 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:606
`
`
`
`
`same statute, the federal Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, against overlapping Defendants.1 See Roe
`
`Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 51-55; Keech Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 80-84; Smith Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 58-62; Spradling Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 84-96. All
`
`four rely on the same factual allegations from the DOJ Indictment to allege a conspiracy between
`
`SCA, Company A (USPI in the Spradling Action), and Company B to restrain competition over
`
`the recruitment and hiring of senior-level employees. See Roe Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 18-28; Smith Dkt. 1, ¶¶
`
`18-28; Keech Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 15-31; Spradling Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 34-46. All four seek to represent virtually
`
`the same class of employees, see Roe Dkt. 1, ¶ 41; Smith Dkt. 1, ¶ 48; Keech Dkt. 1, ¶ 68;
`
`Spradling Dkt. 1, ¶ 47, and all allege that the proposed classes’ compensation was suppressed by
`
`the conspiracy, see Roe Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 29-34; Smith Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 29-41; Keech Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 32-62;
`
`Spradling Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 57-59. Furthermore, all four plaintiffs allege that Defendants fraudulently
`
`concealed their conspiracy from the proposed classes. See Roe Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 38-40; Smith Dkt. 1, ¶¶
`
`45-47; Keech Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 63-67; Spradling Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 76-78. The existence of multiple common
`
`factual and legal questions favors consolidation. See, e.g., Sylverne, 2008 WL 4686163, at *1
`
`(consolidating cases which “present[ed] common questions of fact” and “a common question of
`
`law”); Brunner v. Jimmy John’s LLC, No. 14-c-550915, 2016 WL 7232560, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Jan.
`
`14, 2016) (consolidating two cases with overlapping FLSA claims and collectives).
`
`2.
`
`Consolidation Will Promote Efficiency and Judicial Economy
`
`Consolidation for all purposes under Rule 42(a)(2) is the best way to preserve judicial
`
`economy and avoid waste and delay. The key issues the Court will address in ruling on motions
`
`to dismiss, motions for class certification, and motions for summary judgment are likely to be
`
`identical in the four cases. The elements of the single claim at issue in each of the four cases are
`
`identical: proof of agreement, causation, and damages. The trial will concern the same issues and
`
`1 Ms. Roe, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Spradling named SCA’s parent corporation, UnitedHealth Group, whereas
`Mr. Keech did not name that entity as a defendant. Nevertheless, these distinctions are immaterial. All
`three SCA Defendants are represented by the same counsel.
`
`
`2141230.3
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00305 Document #: 39 Filed: 03/24/21 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:607
`
`
`
`
`a single jury will be empaneled to consider them. Furthermore, because Plaintiffs’ allegations
`
`and legal claims are materially the same, discovery in the four cases will be duplicative nearly in
`
`its entirety if it is not consolidated. Duplicative discovery and briefing would only undermine
`
`efficiency and waste judicial resources.
`
`Other unnecessary and avoidable inefficiencies would include requiring counsel for
`
`Defendants to appear at and incur expenses associated with hearings in all four matters as well as
`
`duplicative legal arguments and discovery issues in the matters, and wasting the Court’s
`
`resources by requiring it to preside over and resolve essentially identical litigation matters at
`
`different times. There will also be a risk of inconsistent adjudications on similar issues if the
`
`cases are not consolidated. Defendant SCA does not contest this motion.
`
`The best option is thus to streamline proceedings by consolidating these related cases so
`
`that the Actions may proceed together. See Ikerd v. Lapworth, 435 F.2d 197, 204 (7th Cir. 1970)
`
`(observing that “cases [which] involve common questions of fact, and share some identical
`
`questions of law . . . were prime subjects for consolidation under the policy that considerations of
`
`judicial economy strongly favor simultaneous resolution of all claims growing out of one
`
`event”). See also Sylverne, 2008 WL 4686163, at *2 (noting that failure to consolidate “would
`
`lead to a substantial waste of judicial time and resources”).
`
`3.
`
`Consolidation Will Not Unduly Prejudice Defendants
`
`Defendant SCA does not oppose this motion. It will not be prejudiced by consolidation,
`
`nor will Defendants USPI and Hayek. To the contrary, they will benefit from consolidation
`
`because they will face a reduced burden at all stages of these cases. They will not have to file
`
`multiple responsive pleadings or Rule 12 motions, will not have to engage in duplicative fact or
`
`expert discovery, will not have to oppose separate class certification motions, will not have to
`
`file multiple dispositive motions, and will not have to try these similar claims in four different
`
`
`2141230.3
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00305 Document #: 39 Filed: 03/24/21 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:608
`
`
`
`
`trials. Consolidation, therefore, is the most practical way to streamline the litigation and ensure
`
`these matters move forward efficiently.
`
`B.
`
`The Court Should Appoint Interim Co-Lead Counsel
`
`Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court create a leadership structure that will clarify
`
`responsibility for protecting the proposed Class’s interests prior to a formal motion for class
`
`certification. Plaintiffs propose that the Court appoint Dean M. Harvey of Lieff, Cabraser,
`
`Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (“Lieff Cabraser”), Linda P. Nussbaum of Nussbaum Law Group,
`
`P.C. (“NLG”), Mike Roberts of Roberts Law Firm US, P.C. (“Roberts Law Firm”), and Joseph
`
`R. Saveri of the Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc. (“JSLF”) as Interim Co-Lead Counsel on behalf of
`
`all Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class. Counsel are highly qualified and experienced class action
`
`and antitrust litigators. Defendants take no position on this request.
`
`1.
`
`The Selection of Interim Co-Lead Counsel Will Ensure Efficient
`Prosecution and Protect the Class’s Interests
`
`The related cases will benefit from appointment of Interim Class Counsel, who will
`
`ensure efficient prosecution of the case and protect the proposed class’s interests. After the Roe
`
`Action was filed, the Smith, Keech, and Spradling Actions were filed on behalf of substantially
`
`identical classes. Moreover, each Plaintiff was represented by different groups of lawyers, with a
`
`total of thirteen law firms. The existence of multiple suits gives rise to “overlapping, duplicative,
`
`or competing [class] suits,” such that “designation of interim counsel [will] clarif[y]
`
`responsibility for protecting the interests of the class during precertification activities.” Walker v.
`
`Discover Fin. Servs., No. 10-CV-6994, 2011 WL 2160889, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 26, 2011)
`
`(quoting Manual for Complex Litigation, supra § 21.11).
`
`2.
`
`Counsel Are Well Suited to Represent the Proposed Class
`
`Every factor under Rule 23(g) supports appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel.
`
`
`2141230.3
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00305 Document #: 39 Filed: 03/24/21 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:609
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Counsel Identified and Investigated These Claims
`
`Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel have performed substantial work in “identifying or
`
`investigating potential claims in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(i). After DOJ filed its
`
`indictment, each of the four firms interviewed potential class members to gather information
`
`about the misconduct alleged, the relevant labor market, and the harm to the proposed class.
`
`Harvey Decl. ¶ 2; Nussbaum Decl. ¶ 2; Roberts Decl. ¶ 2; Saveri Decl. ¶ 3. In addition, counsel
`
`for the four actions have investigated the potential identities of the unnamed co-conspirators. Id.
`
`Since filing their complaints, counsel for the four firms have diligently pursued this case.
`
`All defendants have been served. Saveri Decl. ¶ 4. On March 4, 2021, several firms participated
`
`with Defendants in a conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Harvey Decl.
`
`¶ 3; see also Nussbaum Decl. ¶ 3; Roberts Decl. ¶ 3. For discussion at the Rule 26(f) conference,
`
`counsel drafted an electronically stored information protocol, a protective order, a proposed pre-
`
`trial consolidation order, and requests for production. Id. In addition, proposed Interim Co-Lead
`
`Counsel have retained experienced economists to consult on the litigation. Harvey Decl. ¶ 2;
`
`Nussbaum Decl. ¶ 2; Roberts Decl. ¶ 2; Saveri Decl. ¶ 3.
`
`The proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel also negotiated with the Department of Justice
`
`regarding its motion to intervene and stay the litigation. Saveri Decl. ¶ 5. When negotiation
`
`failed, the proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel worked together to file an opposition to the DOJ’s
`
`motion. Roe Dkt. 36.
`
`As a result of counsel’s coordinated efforts, the Actions are progressing efficiently.
`
`b.
`
`Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel Are Experienced Class
`Action and Antitrust Litigators with Sophisticated Knowledge
`of the Applicable Law
`
`Lieff Cabraser was founded in 1972 and has been described by the American Lawyer as
`
`“one of the nation’s premier plaintiffs’ firms.” It routinely litigates precedent-setting cases
`
`
`2141230.3
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00305 Document #: 39 Filed: 03/24/21 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:610
`
`
`
`
`against the world’s largest corporations. It has obtained over $118 billion in verdicts and
`
`settlements on behalf of its clients. For example, in 2016, Lieff Cabraser was appointed Lead
`
`Counsel in In re Volkswagen ‘Clean Diesel’ Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability
`
`Litigation, MDL No. 2672 (N.D. Cal.), and secured settlements totaling $14.7 billion—one of
`
`the largest in American history and the largest consumer settlement ever.
`
`Dean Harvey is the Chair of Lieff Cabraser’s Labor Antitrust Practice Group, the only
`
`such practice group in the nation. The group combines the talents of employment and antitrust
`
`attorneys to prosecute cases exactly like these: class actions in which employees assert antitrust
`
`claims against their actual and potential employers. Lieff Cabraser pioneered “no-poach” class
`
`actions, starting with the landmark case In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, No. 11-
`
`2509 (N.D. Cal.). That case resulted in a certified nationwide class of over 64,000 employees
`
`across seven companies, and resolved their claims shortly before trial for a total of $435
`
`million—the largest recovery ever by an employee class against private employers. The Daily
`
`Journal described the case as the “most significant antitrust employment case in recent history,”
`
`adding that it “has been widely recognized as a legal and public policy breakthrough.”
`
`Lieff Cabraser has since been Lead or Co-Lead Class Counsel in nearly all subsequent
`
`no-poach class actions, including in the medical industry of particular relevance here. Harvey
`
`Decl., Ex. A at 81, 85-86. For instance, in Seaman v. Duke Univ., No. 15-cv-462 (M.D.N.C.),
`
`Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Class Counsel for a certified class of over 5,400 academic
`
`physicians who worked for Duke or UNC, alleging a “no-poach” agreement between the schools
`
`and health systems, resulting in a settlement of $54.5 million.
`
`Lieff Cabraser also has significant antitrust trial experience. For instance, it served as Co-
`
`Lead Class Counsel in In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1827 (N.D.
`
`
`2141230.3
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00305 Document #: 39 Filed: 03/24/21 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:611
`
`
`
`
`Cal.). After the court certified two nationwide classes, plaintiffs reached settlements with all
`
`defendants except Toshiba. The case against Toshiba went to trial, and in July 2012, the jury
`
`found that Toshiba participated in a price-fixing conspiracy. Toshiba subsequently settled,
`
`bringing total settlements in the case to over $470 million.
`
`Nussbaum Law Group (“NLG”) is a boutique litigation firm specializing in the
`
`prosecution of complex class litigation with the singular focus of providing the highest level of
`
`service and best results. See Nussbaum Decl., Ex. A. NLG’s experienced litigators have played
`
`leading roles in recovering billions of dollars for their clients from the world’s largest
`
`corporations, and have successfully represented individuals, public companies and classes in
`
`significant, high-stakes, multi-faceted litigation in courts throughout the country.
`
`Linda Nussbaum is the founder and managing director of the Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.
`
`She has served as sole or co-lead counsel in several class actions that have resulted in substantial
`
`recoveries, many in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Ms. Nussbaum was selected “Litigator of
`
`the Week” by the AmLaw Litigation Daily for her lead counsel role in Kaiser Foundation Health
`
`Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Pfizer, Inc. (D. Mass) where, after a six-week trial,
`
`a jury returned a RICO verdict for her clients which was trebled to $147 million. She was also
`
`co-lead and trial counsel for a class of antitrust plaintiffs in Meijer, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories
`
`(N.D. Cal.).
`
`Ms. Nussbaum’s successful prosecution of complex litigation has been recognized and
`
`commended by judges in matters in which she has served as lead and trial counsel. Following the
`
`trial in In re Neurontin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 04cv10981 (D. Mass.), in
`
`which Ms. Nussbaum served as a lead trial counsel, Judge Patti Saris commented that “[this was]
`
`a fabulous trial[.] [I]t’s the kind of thing that you become a judge to sit on.”
`
`
`2141230.3
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00305 Document #: 39 Filed: 03/24/21 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:612
`
`
`
`
`
`From Judge Faith S. Hochberg of the District of New Jersey in the Remeron Antitrust
`
`Case in which Ms. Nussbaum served as lead counsel:
`
`[W]e sitting here don’t get to see such fine lawyering, and it’s
`really wonderful for me both to have tough issues and smart
`lawyers. On behalf of the entire federal judiciary I want to thank
`you for the kind of lawyering we wish everybody would do.
`
`Ms. Nussbaum and her colleagues were also among counsel for the class in In re Railway
`
`Industry Employees No-Poach Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2850 (W.D. Pa.), representing a
`
`class of employees who were victimized by a “no poach” conspiracy involving the major
`
`manufacturers of rail equipment. The Firm’s experience in the Northern District of Illinois
`
`includes: serving among counsel for the class in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, 1:16-
`
`cv-08637 (N.D. Ill.); and ongoing representation of plaintiffs in Derek Scott Williams PLLC v.
`
`Cincinnati Insurance Co., No. 1:20-cv-02806 (N.D. Ill.).
`
`Ms. Nussbaum is presently serving in several leadership positions. See In re Payment
`
`Card Interchange Fee & Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig. (E.D.N.Y.) (Lead); In re Sensipar
`
`(Cinacalcet Hydrochloride Tablets) Antitrust Litig. (D. Del.) (Lead); In re Generic Pharms.
`
`Pricing Antitrust Litig. (E.D. Pa.) (Plaintiff Steering Committee); In re Bank of Nova Scotia
`
`Spoofing Litig. (D.N.J.) (Lead); In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litig. (S.D.N.Y.) (Lead); In
`
`re Am. Med. Collection Agency, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig. (D.N.J.) (Lead); In re
`
`Wawa Inc. Data Sec. Litig. (E.D. Pa.) (Lead).
`
`Roberts Law Firm is a boutique law firm that focuses on a variety of legal issues,
`
`including antitrust litigation, data breach litigation, intellectual property law, business-based
`
`litigation, and general corporate law. See Roberts Decl., Ex. A. Roberts Law Firm prides itself on
`
`its highly credentialed attorneys dedicated to exceeding client expectations as well as its
`
`disciplined case management. Roberts Law Firm is a Certified Minority Business Enterprise.
`
`
`2141230.3
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00305 Document #: 39 Filed: 03/24/21 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:613
`
`
`
`
`
`Mr. Roberts has served as Co-Lead Counsel in the following illustrative, settled cases:
`
`First Impressions Salon, Inc., et al. v. National Milk Producers Federation, No. 3:13-cv-00454-
`
`NJR-SCW (S.D. Ill.) (Co-Lead Counsel for Antitrust Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs resulting in
`
`$220 million class settlement); In re Parking Heaters Antitrust Litigation, No. 15-mc-940-JG-JO
`
`(E.D.N.Y.) (Co-Lead Interim Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs); Fond Du Lac Bumper
`
`Exchange v. Jui Li Enterprise Co. Ltd., No. 2:11 CV 00162 - LA (E.D. Wisc.) (Co-Lead Counsel
`
`for Third Party Payor Plaintiffs); National Trucking Financial Reclamation Services, LLC vs.
`
`Pilot Corp., Pilot Travel Centers d/b/a Pilot Flying J, et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-00250-JMM (E.D.
`
`Ark.) (Co-Lead Counsel, obtaining $84 million settlement); In re Microsoft Antitrust Litigation:
`
`Pau Peek, D.D.S., et al. v.