Case 1:19-cv-02521-SAG Document 481-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 1 of 33
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`
`
`
`
`JUDY JIEN, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`PERDUE FARMS, INC., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`C.A. No. 1:19-CV-2521-SAG
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN
`SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
`PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`SETTLEMENT WITH PILGRIM’S
`PRIDE CORP., CERTIFICATION OF
`SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND
`APPOINTMENT OF SETTLEMENT
`CLASS COUNSEL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02521-SAG Document 481-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 2 of 33
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`
`II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`A. The Litigation...................................................................................................................... 1
`
`B. The Settlement Agreement ................................................................................................. 2
`
`1. The Settlement Class................................................................................................... 3
`
`2. The Settlement Amount .............................................................................................. 3
`
`3. Cooperation Requirements.......................................................................................... 3
`
`4. Release of All Claims against Pilgrim’s ..................................................................... 4
`
`III. THE COURT SHOULD PRELIMINARILY APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT
`AGREEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 5
`
`A. Standard for Granting Preliminary Approval ..................................................................... 5
`
`B. The Settlement Agreement Is Fair ...................................................................................... 7
`
`C. The Settlement Agreement Is Adequate ........................................................................... 10
`
`IV. THE COURT SHOULD CERTIFY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CLASS ............... 13
`
`A. The Settlement Class Satisfies Rule 23(a) ...................................................................................... 14
`
`1. Numerosity ................................................................................................................ 14
`
`2. Commonality............................................................................................................. 15
`
`3. Typicality .................................................................................................................. 15
`
`4. Adequacy .................................................................................................................. 16
`
`B. The Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) Are Satisified ....................................................................... 16
`
`1. Predominance of Common Issues ............................................................................. 17
`
`a. Violation of the Antitrust Laws ........................................................................... 18
`
`b.
`
`Impact of the Unlawful Activity ......................................................................... 19
`
`c. Measurable Damages .......................................................................................... 22
`
`2. Superiority of a Class Action .................................................................................... 22
`
`V. DEFERRING CLASS NOTICE IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE ............................ 23
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02521-SAG Document 481-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 3 of 33
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`In re A.H. Robins Co.,
`880 F.2d 709 (4th Cir. 1989) ...................................................................................................14
`
`Adesso Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Holder Props., Inc.,
`No. 3:16-cv-710-JFA, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224941 (D.S.C. May 23, 2017) .................9, 15
`
`Am. Sales Co. v. Pfizer, Inc.,
`No. 2:14cv361, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137222 (E.D. Va. July 28, 2017) .................15, 18, 19
`
`Amchem Prods., Inc., v. Windsor,
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) .....................................................................................................16, 17, 23
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds,
`568 U.S. 455 (2013) .................................................................................................................17
`
`In re Ampicillin Antitrust Litig.,
`82 F.R.D. 652 (D.D.C. 1979) ...................................................................................................13
`
`In re Auto. Wire Harnesses,
`No. 12-md-02311, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183483 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 30, 2020) ...................24
`
`Brown v. Transurban USA, Inc.,
`318 F.R.D. 560 (E.D. Va. 2016) ..............................................................................................14
`
`Cantu-Guerrero v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.,
`952 F.3d 471 (4th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................6, 7
`
`In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig.,
`200 F.R.D. 297 (E.D. Mich. 2001) ..........................................................................................17
`
`In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig.,
`218 F.R.D. 508 (E.D. Mich. 2003) ..........................................................................................12
`
`City of Ann Arbor Employees’ Ret. Sys. v. Sonoco Prods. Co.,
`270 F.R.D. 247 (D.S.C. 2010) .................................................................................................23
`
`City of Cape Coral Mun. Firefighters’ Ret. Plan v. Emergent Biosolutions, Inc.,
`322 F. Supp. 3d 676 (D. Md. 2018) .........................................................................................17
`
`In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig.,
`643 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1981) ...................................................................................................16
`
`Cypress v. Newport News Gen. & Non-Sectarian Hosp. Ass’n,
`375 F.2d 648 (4th Cir. 1967) ...................................................................................................14
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02521-SAG Document 481-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 4 of 33
`
`D&M Farms v. Birdsong Corp.,
`No. 2:19-cv-463, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226047 (E.D. Va. Dec. 1, 2020) ............................15
`
`Donovan v. Estate of Fitzsimmons,
`778 F.2d 298 (7th Cir. 1985) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Fire & Police Retiree Health Care Fund v. Smith,
`Civil Action No. CCB-18-3670, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217892 (D. Md. Nov.
`20, 2020) ....................................................................................................................................6
`
`Gaston v. Lexisnexis Risk Sols., Inc.,
`No. 5:16-cv-00009-KDB-DCK, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12872 (W.D.N.C. Jan.
`25, 2021) ..............................................................................................................................9, 10
`
`Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon,
`457 U.S. 147 (1982) .................................................................................................................16
`
`Grunin v. Int’l House of Pancakes,
`513 F.2d 114 (8th Cir. 1975) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Gunnells v. Healthplan Servs., Inc.,
`348 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................................14, 16
`
`Herrera v. Charlotte Sch. of Law, LLC,
`818 F. App’x 165 (4th Cir. 2020) ..............................................................................................7
`
`Hughes v. Baird & Warner, Inc.,
`No. 76 C 3929, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13885 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 1980) ...............................17
`
`In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig.,
`552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2008).....................................................................................................19
`
`In re India Globalization Cap., Inc.,
`No. DKC 18-3698, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77190 (D. Md. May 1, 2020) .....................7, 8, 10
`
`In re IPO Sec. Litig.,
`226 F.R.D. 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) .............................................................................................13
`
`In re Jiffy Lube Sec. Litig.,
`927 F.2d 155 (4th Cir. 1991) ...............................................................................................5, 10
`
`McKinney v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
`292 F.R.D. 62 (D.D.C. 2013) ...................................................................................................24
`
`In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`148 F. Supp. 2d 654 (E.D. Va. 2001) ......................................................................................10
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02521-SAG Document 481-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 5 of 33
`
`In re Mid-Atlantic Toyota Antitrust Litig.,
`564 F. Supp. 1379 (D. Md. 1983) ........................................................................................6, 11
`
`In re Nexium Antitrust Litig.,
`777 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................................21
`
`In re PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., Sec. Litig.,
`440 F. Supp. 2d 421 (W.D. Pa. 2006) ..............................................................................8, 9, 12
`
`S.C. Nat’l Bank v. Stone,
`139 F.R.D. 335 (D.S.C. 1991) .............................................................................................6, 12
`
`Seaman v. Duke Univ.,
`No. 1:15-CV-462, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16136 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 1, 2018) ..............20, 21, 22
`
`In re Serzone Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`231 F.R.D. 221 (S.D. W. Va. 2005).....................................................................................8, 22
`
`Sharp Farms v. Speaks,
`917 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2019) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Strang v. JHM Mortg. Sec. Ltd. P’ship,
`890 F. Supp. 499 (E.D. Va. 1995) .............................................................................................8
`
`Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc.,
`667 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc) ......................................................................................7
`
`Temp. Servs., Inc. v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc.,
`No. 3:08-cv-00271-JFA, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86474 (D.S.C. June 22, 2012) ........... passim
`
`In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litig.,
`284 F.R.D. 328 (D. Md. 2012) .................................................................................................14
`
`United States v. Manning Coal Corp.,
`977 F.2d 117 (4th Cir. 1992) .....................................................................................................6
`
`US Airline Pilots Ass’n v. Velez,
`No. 3:14-cv-00577-RJC-DCK, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54239 (W.D.N.C. Apr.
`22, 2016) ..................................................................................................................................11
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (2011) .................................................................................................................15
`
`In re Zetia Ezetimihe Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 2:18-md-2836, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112331 (E.D. Va. June 18, 2020) .....17, 18, 19, 21
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02521-SAG Document 481-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)..................................................................................................................16
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) ........................................................................................................................5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) ................................................................................................................5, 7
`
`STATUTES
`
`Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 .............................................................................................................2
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`7AA Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice &
`Procedure: Civil 3d § 1778 ......................................................................................................17
`
`Alba Conte & Herbert Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 18.26 (4th ed.
`2002) ........................................................................................................................................18
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02521-SAG Document 481-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 7 of 33
`
`Pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Judy Jien, Kieo
`
`Jibidi, Elaisa Clement, Glenda Robinson and Emily Earnest (collectively “Plaintiffs”) submit this
`
`Memorandum in Support of their Motion for Preliminary Approval of a proposed settlement
`
`between Plaintiffs and Defendant Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation (hereinafter “Pilgrim’s”). The
`
`Settlement Agreement achieves an excellent result for the Plaintiffs in this action and is attached
`
`as Exhibit A to the accompanying Declaration of George F. Farah, July 2, 2021 (“Farah Decl.”).
`
`All defined terms herein have the same meaning as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`After hard-fought, arm’s-length negotiations by highly experienced counsel, Plaintiffs and
`
`Pilgrim’s reached a Settlement Agreement resolving the claims of a proposed class of poultry
`
`processing workers employed at Defendants’ plants (the “Settlement Class” as defined in § II.B.1
`
`below). The Settlement Agreement, which was executed on June 14, 2021, secures a $29,000,000
`
`cash payment for the Settlement Class and requires Pilgrim’s to provide material cooperation to
`
`Plaintiffs in the litigation against the remaining Defendants.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an order: (1) preliminarily
`
`approving the Settlement Agreement; (2) certifying the Settlement Class defined below;
`
`(3) appointing Interim Co-Lead Counsel as Settlement Class Counsel; (4) appointing Plaintiffs as
`
`Settlement Class Representatives; (5) deferring notice of the Settlement Agreement to the
`
`Settlement Class until an appropriate future date; and (6) ordering a stay of all proceedings against
`
`Pilgrim’s except those proceedings provided for or required by the Settlement Agreement.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The Litigation
`
`Plaintiffs allege that the nation’s leading poultry processors and two consulting companies
`
`conspired to depress the compensation paid to workers at poultry processing plants. Specifically,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02521-SAG Document 481-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 8 of 33
`
`Plaintiffs allege that Defendants entered into two unlawful agreements in violation of the Sherman
`
`Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1: (1) a per se illegal agreement to fix compensation for poultry processing
`
`workers; and (2) an agreement to exchange competitively sensitive compensation information, in
`
`violation of the rule of reason. Defendants have denied Plaintiffs’ allegations.
`
`This action was initiated on August 30, 2019. ECF No. 1. Defendants moved to dismiss
`
`Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint on March 2, 2020. See, e.g., ECF No. 341. The Court granted
`
`those motions in part and denied them in part, without prejudice. ECF No. 379. On November 2,
`
`2020, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, which, as the Court later found, cured the
`
`pleading defects that the Court had identified in the First Amended Complaint. ECF Nos. 386, 414,
`
`415. Defendants have filed their Answers, and the parties have commenced discovery, serving and
`
`responding to document requests and interrogatories. See, e.g., ECF No. 431.
`
`B.
`
`The Settlement Agreement
`
`Plaintiffs’ counsel and counsel for Pilgrim’s engaged in comprehensive, hard-fought
`
`negotiations to achieve a settlement. Farah Decl. ¶¶ 7-8. The discussions were predicated on an
`
`understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the case, including factual information gleaned
`
`from an extensive pre-filing investigation. Id. ¶ 10.
`
`To assist with those negotiations, the parties enlisted Eric D. Green, an experienced class-
`
`action mediator with close to 40 years’ experience mediating and resolving complex disputes. Id.
`
`¶ 7. The parties participated in an extended full-day mediation session with Mr. Green on March
`
`19, 2021. At the end of the mediation, the parties were still at an impasse; Mr. Green subsequently
`
`submitted a Mediator’s Proposal to try to bridge the gap between the parties’ positions. Id. The
`
`parties accepted the Mediator’s Proposal on March 22, 2021. Id.
`
`For the subsequent 12 weeks, the parties negotiated the particular terms of the written
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02521-SAG Document 481-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 9 of 33
`
`settlement agreement. During that time period, the parties continued to negotiate over the details
`
`and scope of the cooperation required of Pilgrim’s in the litigation against the remaining
`
`Defendants. Id. ¶ 8. The agreement was executed on June 14, 2021. The basic terms of the
`
`Settlement Agreement include:
`
`1.
`
`The Settlement Class
`
`The Settlement Class consists of “[a]ll persons employed by Defendant Processors, their
`
`subsidiaries, and/or related entities at poultry processing plants in the continental United States
`
`from January 1, 2009 until the Date of Preliminary Approval.” Settlement Agreement § II(F)(3).
`
`The following persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class: “complex managers,
`
`plant managers, human resources managers, human resources staff, office clerical staff, guards,
`
`watchmen, and salesmen; Defendants, co-conspirators, and any of their subsidiaries, predecessors,
`
`officers, or directors; and federal, state or local governmental entities.” Id. The Settlement Class is
`
`the same as the class alleged in the operative complaint.
`
`2.
`
`The Settlement Amount
`
`The proposed Settlement Agreement provides that Pilgrim’s will pay $29 million dollars
`
`($29,000,000) for the benefit of the Settlement Class. This amount will be deposited in an escrow
`
`account by Pilgrim’s within 14 calendar days after entry of the preliminary approval order.
`
`Settlement Agreement § II(A)(1). This is a non-reversionary fund; once the Settlement Agreement
`
`is finally approved by the Court and after administrative costs, litigation expenses, and attorneys’
`
`fees are deducted, the net funds will be distributed to Settlement Class members with no amount
`
`reverting back to Pilgrim’s.
`
`3.
`
`Cooperation Requirements
`
`In addition to providing a substantial monetary payment, the Settlement Agreement
`
`obligates Pilgrim’s to cooperate with Plaintiffs in the further prosecution of their claims against
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02521-SAG Document 481-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 10 of 33
`
`the remaining Defendants, which each remain jointly and severally liable for all damages caused
`
`by the members of the alleged conspiracy. This cooperation will include, inter alia:
`
`
`
`the deposition of five current employees identified by Plaintiffs1;
`
`
`
`the production of relevant structured compensation data;
`
`
`
`the production of responsive documents from five current employees identified by
`Plaintiffs;
`
`
`
`the production of the following specific categories of documents:
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`v.
`
`all documents sent to and received from WMS;
`
`all written agreements or contracts with Agri-Stats, Inc. and/or Express Markets,
`Inc.;
`
`all Pilgrim’s contracts with labor unions executed during the Settlement Class
`Period;
`
`all documents produced to, and received from, the Joint Poultry Industry Human
`Resources Council, National Chicken Council, and U.S. Poultry & Egg
`Association that reference compensation;
`
`any documents that have been or will be produced to the Department of Justice
`by Pilgrim’s regarding any investigation regarding compensation, so long as the
`agency consents or does not object to the production or the Court orders the
`production.
`
`
`
`the authentication of documents produced by Pilgrim’s; and
`
` assistance with Plaintiffs’ efforts to obtain phone records from third-party carriers.
`
`See Settlement Agreement § II(A)(2).
`
`4.
`
`Release of All Claims against Pilgrim’s
`
`In exchange for the monetary and cooperation consideration from Pilgrim’s, upon entry of
`
`a final judgment approving the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class will
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs may conduct depositions of former employees of Pilgrim’s without limitation, so long
`as those depositions are conducted in accordance with overall discovery limitations established by
`the Court.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02521-SAG Document 481-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 11 of 33
`
`release and discharge Pilgrim’s from any and all claims arising out of or relating to “an alleged or
`
`actual conspiracy or agreement between Defendants relating to reducing competition for the hiring
`
`and retaining of, or to fixing, depressing, restraining, exchanging information about, or otherwise
`
`reducing the Compensation paid or provided to, the” Settlement Class. Settlement Agreement §
`
`II(B)(2). This Release covers both claims that were asserted and claims that could have been
`
`asserted.
`
`The Settlement Agreement, however, does nothing to abrogate the rights of any member
`
`of the Settlement Class to recover from any other Defendant. The Settlement Agreement also
`
`expressly excludes from the Release “any claims wholly unrelated to the allegations or underlying
`
`conduct alleged in the Action that are based on breach of contract, negligence, personal injury,
`
`bailment, failure to deliver lost goods, damaged or delayed goods, product defect, discrimination,
`
`COVID-19 safety protocols, failure to comply with wage and hours laws unrelated to
`
`anticompetitive conduct, or securities claims.” Id.
`
`II.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD PRELIMINARILY APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT
`AGREEMENT
`
`A.
`
`Standard for Granting Preliminary Approval
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides that “[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a
`
`certified class—or a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement—may be settled,
`
`voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court’s approval.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).
`
`Before a court may approve a proposed settlement, it must conclude that the settlement is “fair,
`
`reasonable, and adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2). This boils down to “examining [a] proposed
`
`. . . settlement for fairness and adequacy.” In re Jiffy Lube Sec. Litig., 927 F.2d 155, 158 (4th Cir.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02521-SAG Document 481-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 12 of 33
`
`1991).2
`
`At the preliminary approval stage, however, the Court does not make a final determination
`
`of the merits of the proposed settlement. In re Mid-Atlantic Toyota Antitrust Litig., 564 F. Supp.
`
`1379, 1384 (D. Md. 1983) (internal citation omitted). Full evaluation is made at the final approval
`
`stage, after notice of the settlement has been provided to the members of the class and those class
`
`members have had an opportunity to voice their views of the settlement. Id.
`
`Rather, “at the preliminary approval stage, the court’s role is to determine whether there
`
`exists probable cause to submit the proposal to members of the class and to hold a full-scale hearing
`
`on its fairness.” Fire & Police Retiree Health Care Fund v. Smith, Civil Action No. CCB-18-3670,
`
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217892, at *6 (D. Md. Nov. 20, 2020). A court should grant preliminary
`
`approval “when the preliminary evaluation of the proposed settlement does not disclose grounds
`
`to doubt its fairness or other obvious deficiencies such as unduly preferential treatment of class
`
`representatives or of segments of the class or excessive compensation for attorneys and appears to
`
`fall within the range of possible approval.” Temp. Servs., Inc. v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., No. 3:08-cv-
`
`00271-JFA, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86474, at *16-17 (D.S.C. June 22, 2012) (internal citation
`
`omitted). “In assessing the fairness and adequacy of a proposed settlement, there is a strong initial
`
`presumption that the compromise is fair and reasonable.” S.C. Nat’l Bank v. Stone, 139 F.R.D.
`
`335, 339 (D.S.C. 1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
`
`When evaluating the fairness and adequacy of a proposed settlement, courts keep in mind
`
`the following policy consideration: “It has long been clear that the law favors settlement.” United
`
`States v. Manning Coal Corp., 977 F.2d 117, 120 (4th Cir. 1992). This “strong presumption” is
`
`
`2 The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has “not enumerated factors for
`assessing a settlement’s reasonableness.” Cantu-Guerrero v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., 952 F.3d
`471, 484 (4th Cir. 2020).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02521-SAG Document 481-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 13 of 33
`
`“especially strong in class actions and other complex cases because they promote the amicable
`
`resolution of disputes and lighten the increasing load of litigation faced by the federal courts.”
`
`Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc., 667 F.3d 273, 311 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc) (affirming certification of
`
`two nationwide antitrust settlement classes) (internal citation omitted).
`
`B.
`
`The Settlement Agreement Is Fair
`
`A court’s fairness analysis is intended primarily to ensure that a “settlement [is] reached as
`
`a result of good-faith bargaining at arm’s length, without collusion.” In re India Globalization
`
`Cap., Inc., No. DKC 18-3698, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77190, at *8 (D. Md. May 1, 2020). The
`
`fairness analysis involves examination of “(1) the posture of the case at the time settlement was
`
`proposed, (2) the extent of discovery that had been conducted, (3) the circumstances surrounding
`
`the negotiations, and (4) the experience of counsel in the area of [antitrust] class action litigation.”3
`
`Id.
`
`The Settlement Agreement with Pilgrim’s is fair. The first factor—i.e. the posture of the
`
`case—weighs in favor of preliminary approval. The Settlement Agreement was reached after 22
`
`months of adversarial and informative litigation. The prosecution and defense of the action
`
`included the briefing of two rounds of motions to dismiss, each of which yielded a lengthy and
`
`detailed ruling by the Court regarding the viability of the alleged claims. The Court’s resolution
`
`
`3 “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) has been amended and now sets forth factors for the
`district court to assess in evaluating fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy.” Herrera v. Charlotte
`Sch. of Law, LLC, 818 F. App’x 165, 176 n.4 (4th Cir. 2020). The United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fourth Circuit, however, has noted that “our factors for assessing class-action settlements
`almost completely overlap with the new Rule 23(e)(2) factors.” Cantu-Guerrero, 952 F.3d at 484
`n.8. As the overlap “render[s] the analysis the same,” the Fourth Circuit “continues to apply its
`own standards.” Herrera, 818 F. App’x at 176 n.4; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) advisory
`committee’s note to 2018 amendment (“The goal of this amendment is not to displace any factor,
`but rather to focus the court and the lawyers on the core concerns of procedure and substance that
`should guide the decision whether to approve the proposal.”).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02521-SAG Document 481-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 14 of 33
`
`of Defendants’ motions to dismiss materially narrowed the list of defendants, clarified the
`
`applicable law and legal hurdles, and set the stage for the parties’ positions in their settlement
`
`negotiations. See Farah Decl. ¶ 11.
`
`The second factor—i.e. the extent of discovery—also weighs in favor of preliminary
`
`approval. The parties have recently begun formal discovery. The parties have served extensive
`
`document requests; exchanged and responded to interrogatories; and are currently in the midst of
`
`meet-and-confers to identify document custodians and search terms for electronic records. Yet,
`
`while extensive formal discovery has not yet been completed, there has been “sufficient informal
`
`discovery and investigation to fairly evaluate the merits of Defendants’ positions during settlement
`
`negotiations.” Strang v. JHM Mortg. Sec. Ltd. P’ship, 890 F. Supp. 499, 501-02 (E.D. Va. 1995)
`
`(emphasis added). Indeed, “[d]istrict courts within the Fourth Circuit have found that even when
`
`cases settle early in the litigation after only informal discovery has been conducted, the settlement
`
`may nonetheless be deemed fair.” Temp. Servs., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86474, at *32. There is
`
`“no minimum or definitive amount of discovery that must be undertaken,” In re Serzone Prods.
`
`Liab. Litig., 231 F.R.D. 221, 244 (S.D. W. Va. 2005), and “[e]ngaging in formal discovery is not
`
`essential . . . or even the critical focal point of the analysis.” In re PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., Sec.
`
`Litig., 440 F. Supp. 2d 421, 433 (W.D. Pa. 2006). See, e.g., In re India, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`77190, at *11 (preliminarily approving class action settlement before the filing of motions to
`
`dismiss and or commencement of formal discovery).
`
`Here, as the Court is aware, Plaintiffs’ capable counsel have engaged in substantial
`
`informal discovery to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the Settlement Class’s claims. Both
`
`prior to and after filing the detailed complaint, Plaintiffs’ counsel expended considerable time and
`
`resources to conduct an extraordinary investigation of Defendants’ collaboration in setting
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02521-SAG Document 481-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 15 of 33
`
`compensation for their plant employees. See Farah Decl. ¶ 10. Plaintiffs’ counsel interviewed
`
`multiple confidential witnesses formerly employed by Defendants and other poultry processors.
`
`Id. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ counsel retained an expert economist to conduct a preliminary analysis
`
`of compensation in the poultry processing industry, as compared to other non-poultry food
`
`manufacturers. Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel also conducted extensive research of both the poultry labor
`
`market and the plant workers that comprise the Settlement Class. Id. These unusually extensive
`
`investigative and analytical efforts support a finding of fairness. See In re PNC, 440 F. Supp. 2d
`
`at 430-31; see also Adesso Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Holder Props., Inc., No. 3:16-cv-710-JFA, 2017
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224941, at *34 (D.S.C. May 23, 2017) (“[T]he parties have committed
`
`substantial resources to the investigation and legal analysis of the claims and defenses of the
`
`parties, to obtain sufficient information to weigh the benefits of the proposed settlement against
`
`the risks of continued litigation.”).
`
`The third factor—i.e. the circumstances surrounding the negotiations—heavily favors
`
`preliminary approval. Where, as here, “a settlement is the result of genuine arm’s-length
`
`negotiations, there is a presumption that it is fair.” Gaston v. Lexisnexis Risk Sols., Inc., No. 5:16-
`
`cv-00009-KDB-DCK, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12872, at *18 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 25, 2021); see also
`
`Adesso, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224941, at *33 (“[A] proposed class action settlement is
`
`considered presumptively fair where there is no evidence of collusion and the parties, through
`
`capable counsel, have engaged in arms’ length negotiations.”). Before executing the Settlement
`
`Agreement, the parties engaged in approximately four months of hard-fought, arm’s-length
`
`negotiations, which were adversarial throughout and showed no trace of collusion. See Farah Decl.
`
`¶¶ 4, 7. Indeed, to reach a settlement agreement, the parties enlisted the assistance of Eric D. Green,
`
`a highly experienced class-action mediator who has particular expertise mediating and resolving
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-02521-SAG Document 481-1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 16 of 33
`
`complex disputes such as the one at bar. Id. “[S]upervision by a mediator lends an air of fairness
`
`to agreements that are ultimately reached.” Temp. Servs., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86474, at *33.
`
`In keeping with their zealous advocacy throughout, the two sides were not able to reach agreement
`
`at the conclusion of the mediation. The se