Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1494, PageID.58109 Filed 03/24/21 Page 1 of 18
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`In Re Flint Water Cases,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM
`(consolidated with 16-cv-11247)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Hon. Judith E. Levy
`____________________________________)
`Washington, et al.,
`
`
`
`)
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`City of Flint, et al.,
`
`
`
`)
`
`Defendants,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`WASHINGTON AND CHAPMAN PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE
`FOR OPT-OUTS, REGISTRATION AND OBJECTIONS BY SIXTY DAYS FROM
`MARCH 18, 2021
`
`NOW COME the Washington and Chapman Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys,
`
`
`
`MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP, and CUKER LAW FIRM, who seek to move this
`
`Honorable Court to extend the March 29, 2021, deadline to opt-out, register and object to the
`
`proposed Amended Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) (ECF 1394-2), as set by this Court’s order
`
`of January 21, 2021 (ECF 1399), and in support thereof, state as follows:
`
`
`
`For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum of support, the Washington and
`
`Chapman Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) move this Honorable Court to extend the March 29, 2021,
`
`deadline to opt-out, register and object to the MSA by sixty days from March 18, 2021, which is
`
`Monday, May 17, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs seek an expedited hearing on this matter.
`
`On March 23, 2021, Plaintiffs sought to address this matter through Co-Liaison counsel,
`
`who advised on March 24, 2021, that they would not seek concurrences regarding this motion or
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1494, PageID.58110 Filed 03/24/21 Page 2 of 18
`
`file it. This was done under the order appointing them as liaison counsel (ECF 234), as
`
`highlighted by the Court at the February 24, 2021, conference. ECF 1440, Page ID.55690–91.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs therefore have sought concurrence in this motion and report as follows from
`
`those who have responded:
`
`1. Co-Lead Class counsel supports the request for an extension of the Registration
`
`deadline. They will leave it up to the court to decide the merits of such an extension
`
`and if appropriate, how long.
`
`2. Co-Liaison counsel oppose the motion.
`
`3. Individual Plaintiffs Brown & Rodgers concur.
`
`4. Anderson Plaintiffs concur.
`
`5. Alexander Plaintiffs concur.
`
`6. The State of Michigan opposes.
`
`7. McLaren Hospital opposes.
`
`WHEREFORE, the Washington and Chapman Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, MARC
`
`J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP, and CUKER LAW FIRM, for the reasons stated in the attached
`
`memorandum, pray that this Honorable Court will GRANT their motion to extend the March 29,
`
`2021, deadline to opt-out, register and object to the proposed Amended Settlement Agreement
`
`(“MSA”) (ECF 1394-2), as set by this Court’s order of January 21, 2021 (ECF 1399), and any
`
`other relief that is deemed just and proper.
`
`Dated: March 24, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s Stephen F. Monroe
`Stephen F. Monroe (IL No. 6305823)
`Marc J. Bern & Partners, LLP
`225 West Washington Street, Suite 2200
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Phone: (312) 894-7941
`Fax: (312) 873-4537
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1494, PageID.58111 Filed 03/24/21 Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Email: smonroe@bernllp.com
`Attorneys for the Washington Plaintiffs
`
`/s Mark Cuker
`Mark Cuker
`Cuker Law Firm
`130 N. 18th St.
`One Logan Square
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Phone: (215) 531-8512
`Email: mark@cukerlaw.com
`Attorney for the Chapman Plaintiffs
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1494, PageID.58112 Filed 03/24/21 Page 4 of 18
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`In Re Flint Water Cases,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM
`(consolidated with 16-cv-11247)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Hon. Judith E. Levy
`____________________________________)
`Washington, et al.,
`
`
`
`)
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`City of Flint, et al.,
`
`
`
`)
`
`Defendants,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`WASHINGTON AND CHAPMAN PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
`THEIR MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR REGISTRATION, OPT-OUTS AND
`OBJECTIONS BY SIXTY DAYS FROM MARCH 18, 2021
`
`
`
`NOW COME the Washington and Anderson Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their
`
`attorneys, MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP, and CUKER LAW FIRM and for their
`
`memorandum to move this Honorable Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) to
`
`extend the March 29, 2021, deadlines to opt-out of, register under and object to the proposed
`
`Amended Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) (ECF 1394-2), as set by this Court’s order of January
`
`21, 2021 (ECF 1399), and in support thereof, state as follows:
`
`CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUES UNDER LOCAL RULE 7.1(d)(2)
`
`
`
`Whether this Honorable Court should find good cause exists under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 6 for an extension of sixty days from March 18, 2021, to accommodate a sustained
`
`increase of public interest in registering, where, on that March 18 date, the Plaintiffs learned that
`
`an alternative bone scan site would be impossible, and confirmed a lack of transparency
`
`regarding the existing scan site.
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1494, PageID.58113 Filed 03/24/21 Page 5 of 18
`
`CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER RULE 7.1(d)(2)
`
`Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court may, “for good
`
`cause shown,” extend a deadline if requested before the deadline expires. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 6(b)
`
`(Lexis 2021). Courts of appeals review rulings on motions under Rule 6(b) for abuse of
`
`discretion. Ott v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 535 Fed. Appx. 488, 489 (6th Cir. 2013). An
`
`abuse of discretion exists when “the reviewing court is convinced that a mistake has been made.”
`
`Stough v. Mayville Community Sch., 138 F.3d 612, 614 (6th Cir. 1998).
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Good cause exists for an additional sixty days from March 18, 2021, to register citizens
`
`harmed by the Flint water crisis under the terms of the MSA or to object thereto because large
`
`amounts of new claimants are seeking to register, leaving little or no time to advise whether to
`
`object. Additionally, only a few days ago, in the midst of registration fever, the undersigned
`
`learned on March 18, 2021, that alternative bone scans would not be feasible, even if those
`
`devices were finally shown by qualified professionals to be safe for humans, something which
`
`has yet to occur. Because of the sudden and increasing response from the Flint public, and
`
`because a major category of damages is not going to be available to a large percentage of it—
`
`even if shown to be safe, additional time is needed to advise and to determine whether to object.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`On January 21, 2021, this Court entered an order (ECF 1399) granting preliminary
`
`approval to a partial settlement reached between the plaintiffs and defendants of the Flint Water
`
`Crisis cases, as those parties are defined in the MSA, ECF 1394-2; Page ID 54129, 54133. In that
`
`order, the Court set the deadline for registering to make claims under the MSA for March 29,
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1494, PageID.58114 Filed 03/24/21 Page 6 of 18
`
`2021. ECF 1399 PageID. 54467–68. It also set the deadline for opting out, registering, and
`
`objecting to any part of the MSA for the same date. Id. The settlement totals $641.25 million.
`
`As part of the MSA, “Grids” were created to delineate tiers of compensation based on
`
`proofs. ECF 1319-2. Under this scheme, 79.5% of monetary awards are for minors at the time of
`
`first exposure, with 64.5% of that reserved for those ages 0-6; 10% for ages 7-11; and 5% for
`
`ages 12–17. Id., PageID.40789. The highest tiers—that is, those that would award the highest
`
`monetary awards—are met either exclusively by blood or bone proofs, or as independent proofs
`
`with others, such as cognitive deficit evaluations, or documented personal injury. ECF 1394-2,
`
`PageID.40790–99; 40802–09; 40811–17; 40819–24. Regarding blood lead proofs, the grid
`
`categories limit them to those done between May 16, 2014, and August 31, 2016. E.g.,
`
`PageID.40790.
`
`Regarding bone lead tests, the period is more expansive, ending April 21, 2021.
`
`Compare, e.g., ECF 1319-2, PageID.40791 (indicating that bone scan results qualify if tests
`
`conducted no later than 90 days from entry of order granting preliminary approval) with ECF
`
`1399 (the order granting preliminary approval, entered January 21, 2021); but see id.,
`
`PageID.54467–68 (indicating that said order is not effective until January 27, 2021, but for
`
`purposes of the schedule outlined therein).
`
`Critically, the amount any particular Claimant receives in the category they qualify for—
`
`which, if there are multiple, will be the one with the highest monetary award—depends upon the
`
`total number of qualifying claimants. ECF 1319-2, PageID.40789.
`
`At the most recent status conference, held on February 24, 2021, the Special Master,
`
`Deborah Greenspan, provided the Court an update on submissions to the census. She stated that
`
`“in the last couple of weeks,” there had been 430 new claims and 700 updates. ECF 1440,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1494, PageID.58115 Filed 03/24/21 Page 7 of 18
`
`PageID.55681. She stated that, in total, there were approximately 26,692 submissions. Id. Of
`
`those, 10,784 were children. Id. at PageID.55682. She stated that notice of the settlement began
`
`to be mailed on February 19, 2021, totaling 57,402 individual packages. Id. at PageID.55682. As
`
`of that date, 15,568 unique registrations had been made under the terms of the MSA and the
`
`Court’s January 21, 2021, order. Id. at 55683. According to the United States Census Bureau’s
`
`population estimate of Flint, Michigan as of July 1, 2019, the most recent data available on its
`
`website, the population was 95,538.1
`
`With the deadline fast approaching, the response from the public has grown
`
`exponentially. In the past two weeks alone, the undersigned Washington counsel’s law firm has
`
`scheduled over 100 appointments with citizens seeking to register, with dozens more seeking
`
`appointments for the remainder of this week and into the weekend. See Exhibits 1 and 2,
`
`Declarations of Sharon Ball Green and Tina Ball.
`
`Additionally, a major qualifying proof for higher monetary awards—bone scan testing—
`
`is all but removed from the grid categories for thousands of citizens. On March 18, 2021, the
`
`undersigned learned that after meeting with two of the three people in the country qualified to
`
`administer these scans that there will be no bone scan testing for people not in the good graces of
`
`Co-Liaison Counsel—particularly Napoli Shkolnik, the firm operating the only site where this
`
`proof of damages is being offered. And this is impossible for clients represented by Marc Bern &
`
`Partners because it received a “cease and desist” email from Paul Napoli when attempts were
`
`made to schedule scans, efforts made before significant developments occurred questioning the
`
`safety and reliability of these scans.
`
`
`1 Figure accessed at the website for the United States’ Census Bureau,
`https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/flintcitymichigan/PST045219, accessed on March
`24, 2021.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1494, PageID.58116 Filed 03/24/21 Page 8 of 18
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Under Rule 6(b), good cause exists to extend to May 17, 2021, the deadlines to register,
`
`opt-out and object under the terms of the MSA for three reasons: 1) the recent and substantial
`
`response from the Flint public indicates many citizens are only learning of the March 29, 2021,
`
`deadline now; 2) reviewing new claims at a late hour presents difficulties on how to proceed; and
`
`3) a major method of proving damages to qualify for higher monetary awards—bone scan
`
`testing—is not available to many members the public, unless, as discussed below, one is in the
`
`good graces of the Napoli Shkolnik law firm, which is controlling—and sequestering—one of
`
`the only three qualified professionals in the country who can administer a qualifying scan, Dr.
`
`Aaron Specht.
`
`Most troublingly, the device being used has been modified in such a way that has not
`
`been shown, by qualified professionals, to be safe. How the device was modified is not known,
`
`and cannot be replicated, partly—and significantly—because the manufacturer itself refuses to
`
`provide additional ones for this purpose. Without knowing this information, not only is the safety
`
`of the device impossible to assess, but consistency in results is also impossible to ensure from
`
`one device to the next, which is necessary for the creation of additional testing sites and for the
`
`comparisons of results. Together, these factors should provide cause for the requested extension.
`
`This memorandum discusses the first two reasons for this extension together; and the third
`
`reason in the second, and final, section.
`
`1. The influx of new claimants provides good cause for an extension.
`
`Based on contacts from the public, many potential registrants are only learning of the
`
`deadline now. In the past two weeks alone, over one hundred new residents had contacted the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1494, PageID.58117 Filed 03/24/21 Page 9 of 18
`
`Washington counsel to request an appointment to register for the March 29, 2021, deadline. Exs.
`
`1, 2.
`
`This sudden and voluminous response from the public is consistent with numbers
`
`presented by the Special Master at the last status conference and the population of Flint. Only
`
`one month ago, and nearly one month into the sixty-day registration period, only approximately
`
`15,000 potential claimants had registered. ECF 1440, PageID.55683. And according to the most
`
`recent Special Master census submissions, under 27,000 unique submissions had been made. Id.
`
`at PageID.55681. With an approximate population of 95,0002, an unmanageable influx of
`
`citizens seeking to register at the last minute is exceedingly possible—and seem to becoming
`
`true. With over 57,000 notice packages mailed starting on February 19, 2021, ECF 1440 at
`
`PageId. 55682, it’s entirely conceivable that many residents are reviewing that paperwork only
`
`now.
`
` This influx alone creates serious concerns regarding whether those members of the
`
`public who want to register can do so in time to comply with the registration deadline. This
`
`difficulty was exacerbated to an extent by winter storms in Houston, Texas, in February, which
`
`affected the serviceability of ARCHER Systems, LLC, as the Claims Administrator and QSF
`
`Administrator. See Exhibit 3, an email to Valdemar Washington from the project manager, Maria
`
`Riley, detailing those disruptions. Put together, there is an evident risk that many people who
`
`desire to register will miss the deadline.
`
`Secondly, attorneys contacted by the public seeking to newly register are forced to
`
`quickly assess whether to register, opt-out, or register and object. This might lead to citizens
`
`
`2 2 According to the United States’ Census Bureau website,
`https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/flintcitymichigan/PST045219, accessed on March
`23, 2021.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1494, PageID.58118 Filed 03/24/21 Page 10 of 18
`
`being turned away. Additional time is needed for them to properly assess newly found claimants,
`
`especially given the discovery that bone scans are all but eliminated from the settlement scheme
`
`for many Flint residents.
`
`2. Recent developments regarding bone scan testing provide good cause for an
`extension.
`
`Along with this sudden influx of Flint citizens seeking to register, new details learned last
`
`Thursday, March 18, 2021, regarding the possibility of safe bone scans present separate but
`
`significant difficulties. To date, the only option for registrants to obtain bone scanning is to go
`
`through a lawyer’s office—Napoli Shkolnik. Co-Lead Class Counsel had previously attempted to
`
`address this availability problem by consulting with Drs. Andrew C. Todd, Ph.D., of Icahn
`
`School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York, and Karl Jepsen, Ph.D., of the University
`
`of Michigan, the only other two professionals capable of similar methods.
`
`On January 13, 2021, at a status conference, they provided what was at the time
`
`considered a positive update:
`
`[W]e have made some, I think, strong headway in making the . . . possibility of
`bone scanning [available] for the community generally that would be participating
`in the settlement of this matter. We’re looking into that more and more and we
`believe that we have a good core group of doctors and local individuals associated
`with those doctors to do a widespread accessibility for the community.
`
`(ECF No. 1397, PageID.54373). Again, this was significant because only one person in
`
`the country had developed the means to conduct portable bone scan testing on humans—Dr.
`
`Aaron Specht, who was performing them under the control of Napoli Shkolnik.
`
`So significant was this possibility that this Court has addressed this on at least two other
`
`occasions—once in its January 21, 2021, order, as one reason to reject the Chapman plaintiffs’
`
`response to the motion for preliminary approval (ECF No. 1341), ECF No. 1399, Page ID.54457.
`
`In its order, the Court wrote that “[t]o the extent that the Chapman Plaintiffs’ objection relates to
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1494, PageID.58119 Filed 03/24/21 Page 11 of 18
`
`the availability of bone scans in the City of Flint, this objection may be rendered moot,” citing
`
`the very remarks made by Co-Lead Class Counsel on January 13, 2021. Id. at PageID.54457–58
`
`(emphasis added). Secondly, it discussed this possibility at the most recent status conference on
`
`February 24, 2021, when the Court stated that “[t]here is an effort underway to expand another
`
`bone scan—additional bone scanning. So let’s see how it goes. I think it’s too early to say that
`
`we need more time. If it comes to that, the demand is there.” ECF No. 1440, PageID.55691–92.
`
`Since that February 24, 2021, date, however, there have been developments questioning
`
`the safety and reliability of this method. On February 26, 2021, Dr. Lawrence Reynolds filed his
`
`objection, ECF No. 1436, outlining those concerns, and in the media, Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha’s
`
`recommended against having them3. See Exhibit 4, a copy of a news article titled, “Flint
`
`Pediatrician who blew the whistle on water crises won’t recommend bond scans for kids,”
`
`Fonger, Ron, MLive.com, published March 15, 2021. Additionally, Class Counsel filed a motion
`
`to suspend those scans, which was withdrawn without comment, ECF No. 1443. To date, the
`
`only comment on the safety of this potentially method has been from Co-Liaison counsel, the
`
`very lawyers administering these tests. ECF 1455. Up until March 18, 2021, the undersigned—
`
`and, imaginably, all others involved—were giving this method the benefit of the doubt and
`
`hoping that alternative scans would be made available and be transparent.
`
`The concern for safety is real. After all, the portable device emits radiation, and there has
`
`been no information produced regarding how the device was modified. Dr. Hanna-Attisha,
`
`quoted in the above-cited article, put it strikingly:
`
`
`3See MLive’s news article on the development at
`https://www.google.com/search?q=flint+doctor+aagainst+bone+scans&rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS84
`6US846&oq=flint+doctor+aagainst+bone+scans&aqs=chrome..69i57.3154j0j9&sourceid=chro
`me&ie=UTF-8 (accessed March 23, 2021)
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1494, PageID.58120 Filed 03/24/21 Page 12 of 18
`
`For so long, the people of Flint have felt, you know, experimented on, and rightly
`so, and this is another example of this injustice . . . where something is being applied
`on them that is not tested, that has not been approved, and also (produces a massive
`underestimation of exposure.
`
`Exhibit 4. While co-Liaison counsel have sought to dispel these concerns in their March
`
`4, 2021, letter to the Court, it’s difficult to imagine why a resident would take attorneys’ words
`
`over those of Dr. Hanna-Attisha. Additionally, even if that letter were from a qualified
`
`professional like Dr. Specht himself, the lack of transparency regarding the particular device or
`
`devices being used remains.
`
`This is especially true since it appears that any devices being used by Napoli Shkolnik
`
`were not registered until February 24, 2021. See Exhibit 5, a copy of the registration certificate
`
`for what appears to be the device being used. Radiation is a carcinogen, and for children, they are
`
`at heightened risk. Exhibit 6, Pediatric Exposures to Ionizing Radiation: Carcinogenic
`
`Considerations, Kutanzi, K, et al., Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016 Nov. 13(11): 1057.
`
`That a radiation-producing device seemingly was not registered until such a late date not only
`
`allows for the strong inference that it was being used on people before then, but also helps
`
`illustrate the lack of transparency regarding its use. And under the terms of the MSA, given how
`
`much money is available to minors who might obtain a high reading under this portable scan, it’s
`
`conceivable that parents are forced to make impossible decisions with little or no information
`
`about the device itself.
`
`On March 18, 2021, the lack of information necessary to assess the devices themselves
`
`and to replicate, if possible, the method, was underscored. On that date, the undersigned learned
`
`in a conference with Drs. Todd and Jepsen that any alternative testing is impossible; indeed, that
`
`it had never gotten off the ground. See Declaration of Stephen F. Monroe. Dr. Jepsen referred to
`
`an outline of steps detailing what would be needed to establish a separate, and safe, facility. See
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1494, PageID.58121 Filed 03/24/21 Page 13 of 18
`
`Exhibit 7 a copy of those steps. They said during this meeting that they did not get beyond the
`
`first step because they never obtained the written details of Dr. Specht’s protocol regarding how
`
`Dr. Specht customized the portable device being used on people. Ex. 7. According to Exhibit 7
`
`alone, this first step was needed to be met before moving on to assessing safety (step 5) and
`
`consistency of results (step 13).
`
`Regarding consistency, the doctors stated that consistency would be critical to any
`
`additional scanning method because results would have to be comparable to ensure fairness
`
`between claimants. See Monroe Declaration. Additionally, and strikingly, the doctors indicated
`
`that they were never able to obtain a device from the manufacturer that would be able to be
`
`modified because the manufacturer refused to provide one if it was going to be used on people.
`
`Id. In short, any benefit of the doubt regarding the safety of this method was extinguished, and
`
`the potential for any alternative site to be established, and shown to be safe, proven to be
`
`impossible.
`
`Therefore, even if a showing of safety from qualified professionals were made, the
`
`inability of Drs. Todd and Jepsen to establish an alternative site means that thousands of
`
`registrants now have no way to obtain these scans, potentially closing them off from the most
`
`valuable categories on the settlement grid. These problems present a significant disadvantage to
`
`those who cannot get scans, especially if blood lead tests were not obtained. Conversely, those
`
`who have gotten these scans stand to receive, in essence, a windfall, because so many of
`
`potential registrants are cutout from the categories providing for the highest monetary awards.
`
`This means that those who do qualify for the highest awards—that is, the clients of Co-Liaison
`
`counsel, or those in their good graces, will receive far more money. Without any ability to assess
`
`the device, along with its reliability and consistency from one scan to the next, it’s impossible to
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1494, PageID.58122 Filed 03/24/21 Page 14 of 18
`
`know how equitably such large amounts of money are being distributed. And because it’s
`
`become clear that such information will never be produced, and that no alternative scan site will
`
`be established and shown to be safe—critical facts learned March 18—good cause exists to
`
`extend these deadlines to determine whether to object.
`
`This is especially true because Napoli Shkolnik has not made its site available on a basis
`
`fair to the public. On February 25, 2021, Washington counsel received a “Cease and Desist”
`
`email from Patrick Lanciotti, in which Paul Napoli threatened to involve the “authorities” if the
`
`Washington counsel attempted to schedule bone scans at this facility, for something which this
`
`Court, on February 24, 2021, urged him to do. See Exhibit 8, an email from Patrick Lanciotti and
`
`ECF No. 1440, Page ID.55690. This effort though occurred before facts were developed
`
`regarding safety concerns, as put forth by Dr. Lawrence Reynolds, in his objection (ECF No.
`
`1436), Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha’s recommendation against having them, and the withdrawn
`
`motion by Class Counsel to suspend them (ECF 1443).
`
`Additionally, the Chapman plaintiffs had similar difficulties. For instance, for them—
`
`who at the time were allowed to schedule scans, unlike the Washington plaintiffs—a limited
`
`amount of bone scan slots became available at the Napoli Shkolnik test site. The only availability
`
`was on Sundays between 1 and 3:45 PM. The remaining 6 days of the week, between 11 AM and
`
`5 PM was devoted exclusively to testing the clients of liaison counsel. Available slots quickly
`
`filled up, and many people who wanted scans could not get them. See Mark Cuker Declaration.
`
`Things got worse. Napoli made conflicting and misleading statements to people who
`
`went for testing; the Napoli website promised “free’ bone testing, by people who went there were
`
`asked to sign a form which said it they might have to pay up to $500. Napoli had not registered a
`
`radiation-emitting machine, as required by Michigan law, until Feb 24, 2021; even after that, he
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1494, PageID.58123 Filed 03/24/21 Page 15 of 18
`
`had only one license for two devices, so one device was still unregistered. The class notice never
`
`disclosed how difficult it would be to get a bone lead test, and the fact that there was no legal
`
`facility for bone lead testing in the entire State of Michigan. Id.
`
`Clients of other attorneys who showed up at Napoli’s office to be tested were given a
`
`form to sign which was not shown to their attorneys in advance. This ex parte communication
`
`with clients of other lawyers violated Michigan Ethics Rule 4.2. It was one of many violations.
`
`Id.
`
`The disclosure which people were asked to sign was confusing and misleading. In one
`
`paragraph it said the method by which [the cost of the test] will be paid will be subject to a
`
`determination by the court.” In another it said: “If I am represented by a law firm then my
`
`attorney will pay the cost of the bone test and report before receiving a copy of the bone
`
`test.” See Group Exhibit 9, copies of consent forms, emails, and redacted consent forms. Id.
`
`There is no transparency as to how the tests are being done or where the money to pay for
`
`them will go. Napoli told Chapman counsel that he wanted $500. He told another lawyer he
`
`wanted $350. Either number seems excessive; Each test takes only 3 minutes to run; Dr. Specht
`
`charges $200 per hour and can review multiple tests in an hour. If Napoli is making a profit on
`
`what he is charging other lawyers for these tests, he is also violating Ethics Rule 1.8.
`
`Although Napoli sought a protective order against the disclosure of his own clients bone
`
`lead test information, he refused to assure the confidentiality of these bone lead results, and
`
`asked that persons undergoing the test waive allow him to see their results. At the same time, he
`
`allowed no direct access to Dr. Specht—everything must go through the Napoli firm. There is no
`
`way to audit the integrity or accuracy of the results being provided. Sine this dispute, all of the
`
`Chapman appointments have been cancelled.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1494, PageID.58124 Filed 03/24/21 Page 16 of 18
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`This Court therefore should find that good cause under Rule 6(b) exists to extend the
`
`March 29, 2021, deadline to May 17, 2021—sixty days from the March 18, 2021, conference
`
`with Drs. Todd and Jepsen—because the sudden and voluminous increase in public interest
`
`raises concerns that many people interested will not have time to register. While the undersigned
`
`cannot speak about the efforts of other lawyers in the face of the sudden increase, there’s every
`
`reason to think that this difficulty is a common one. Additionally, given this influx, it will be
`
`difficult to assess whether objections are needed for those new people who seek to register. All
`
`of this is apart from the dispiriting developments of March 18 that has effectively created a
`
`lopsided scheme in favor of a limited few, and additional time is needed to assess whether to file
`
`objections based on these newly-learned facts.
`
`Without this additional time, many of Flint residents could either be excluded from the
`
`partial settlement process all together, while others will not be able to properly assess how to
`
`proceed now that there will be no alternative scanning available, if shown to be safe.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, Individual Washington and Chapman
`
`Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant an extension of sixty days, from
`
`March 18, 2021, to register and object under the terms of the MSA, and for any other relief that it
`
`deems just and adequate.
`
`Dated: March 24, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s Stephen F. Monroe
`Stephen F. Monroe, IL#6305823
`Marc J. Bern & Partners, LLP
`225 West Washington Street, Suite 2200
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Phone: (312) 894-7941
`Fax: (312) 873-4537
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1494, PageID.58125 Filed 03/24/21 Page 17 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Email: smonroe@bernllp.com
`
`/s Mark Cuker
`Mark Cuker
`Cuker Law Firm
`130 N. 18th St.
`One Logan Square
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`Phone: (215) 531-8512
`Email: mark@cukerlaw.com
`Attorney for the Chapman Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-MKM ECF No. 1494, PageID.58126 Filed 03/24/21 Page 18 of 18
`
`
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned certifies that on March 24, 2021, the foregoing instrument was filed
`
`with the U.S. District Court through the ECF filing system and that all parties to the above case
`
`were served via the ECF filing system on that same date.
`
`/s Stephen F. Monroe
`
`Stephen F. Monroe
`
`
`
`15
`
`