Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 1 of 98 PageID: 47362
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`
`
`KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al.
`
` Plaintiffs,
` vs.
`BASF CATALYSTS LLC, et al.
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 2:11-cv-01754 (ES) (JAD)
`CIVIL ACTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
`Christopher M. Placitella, Esq.
`Michael Coren, Esq.
`Jared M. Placitella, Esq.
`Eric S. Pasternack, Esq.
`127 Maple Ave
`Red Bank, New Jersey 07701
`(Tel): (732) 747-9003
`(Fax): (732) 747-9004
`
` Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 2 of 98 PageID: 47363
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Factual Background ............................................................................................ 3
`A. Emtal Talc and the Johnson Mine ................................................................. 3
`B. Historical asbestos litigation. ........................................................................ 3
`C. Plaintiffs’ class action claims. ....................................................................... 4
`D. The initial proceedings in this Court. ............................................................ 5
`E. The Third Circuit decision. ........................................................................... 6
`F. The proceedings in this Court following remand. ......................................... 7
`G. Mediation efforts. ........................................................................................ 10
`III. Material Terms of the Settlement .................................................................. 15
`A. The Settlement Class definition. ................................................................. 15
`B. Benefits to the Settlement Class Members. ................................................. 16
`C. Class Counsel Fees and Litigation Cost Reimbursement. .......................... 16
`D. Non-monetary benefits to the settlement Class. .......................................... 17
`E. The Plan of Distribution. ............................................................................. 18
`1. Establishment of a settlement claims facility and appointment of a
`Settlement Trustee, Claims Administrator and Lien Administrator. ................ 19
`2.
`Proposed distribution of the Settlement Fund among Class Members. ... 22
`a.
`Payments under the Plan’s Part A program. ......................................... 23
`b.
`Payments under the Plan’s Part B program. ......................................... 25
`Table 1 ............................................................................................................ 29
`Hypothetical Part B Payment Share Estimates* ............................................ 29
`c.
`Payments under the Plan’s Part C discretionary EIF program. ............ 29
`F. The Plan of Notice. ...................................................................................... 33
`IV. Argument ....................................................................................................... 38
`A. The Parties are entitled to a presumption that the settlement is fair. .......... 41
`1.
`The proposed settlement is the product of good faith, extensive arm’s
`length negotiations. ........................................................................................... 41
`2.
`Extensive discovery and proceedings before the Third Circuit, District
`Court, and Special Discovery Master preceded the settlement. ....................... 43
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 3 of 98 PageID: 47364
`
`3.
`The proponents of the settlement are experienced in similar litigation. .. 44
`B. The complexity of these proceedings and advanced stage of litigation
`support approving the Settlement. ....................................................................... 44
`1. Complexity, Expense, and Likely Duration of the Litigation. ................. 46
`2. Reaction of the Class to the Settlement. .................................................. 48
`3.
`Stage of the Proceedings and Amount of Discovery Completed. ............ 49
`C. Risks to continued litigation also support approving the Settlement. ......... 50
`1.
`The availability of witnesses at trial. ....................................................... 51
`2. Defenses relating to Underlying Lawsuits. .............................................. 53
`3.
`Establishing Damages. ............................................................................. 55
`4. Ascertaining the Proposed Class. ............................................................. 58
`5.
`“Science Day” And The Emtal Talc Testing Record. .............................. 59
`D. Other factors also support approving the Settlement. ................................. 61
`1. Ability of Defendants to Withstand a Greater Judgment. ........................ 61
`2. Range of Reasonableness of the Settlement in Light of the Best Possible
`Recovery and All Attendant Risks of Litigation. ............................................. 62
`3.
`Prudential Factors. ................................................................................... 64
`C. The Court should conditionally certify the Settlement Class. .................... 67
`1. Numerosity. .............................................................................................. 69
`2. Commonality. ........................................................................................... 70
`3.
`Typicality. ................................................................................................ 71
`4.
`The Representative Plaintiffs’ interests fully align with those of the
`putative Settlement Class as they made the same fraud, fraudulent concealment
`and conspiracy claims under New Jersey law. .................................................. 73
`a. Representative Plaintiffs. ...................................................................... 73
`b. Class Counsel. ....................................................................................... 77
`5.
`The Court should conditionally certify a settlement class under Rule
`23(b)(3) for monetary relief. ............................................................................. 78
`a. Common questions of law and fact predominate. ................................. 78
`b.
`Superiority. ............................................................................................ 82
`D. The proposed form and method of class notice satisfy due process. .......... 83
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 4 of 98 PageID: 47365
`
`E. The plan of distribution treats class members equitably relative to each
`other. ..................................................................................................................... 86
`V.
`Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 89
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 5 of 98 PageID: 47366
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Cases
`
`
`Amchem Prods v. Windsor,
` 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ................................................................................ 75, 79, 81
`
`Baby Neal v. Casey,
` 43 F.3d 48 (3d Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 72, 73
`
`Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle,
` 955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................. 87
`
`County of Essex v. First Union Nat’l Bank,
` 89 A.2d 600 (N.J. 2006) ....................................................................................... 56
`
`Dewey v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft,
` 681 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2012) ................................................................................. 74
`
`Ehrheart v. Verizon Wireless,
` 609 F.3d 590 (3d Cir. 2010) ................................................................................. 39
`
`Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co.,
` 248 F.R.D. 434, 439 (E.D. Pa. 2008) ................................................................... 42
`
`Girsh v. Jepson,
` 541 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975) ......................................................................... passim
`
`Grunewald v. Kasperbauer,
` 235 F.R.D. 599 (E.D.Pa. 2006) ............................................................................ 85
`
`In re Baby Prods. Antitrust Litig.,
` 708 F.3d 163 (3d Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 46
`
`In re Cendant Corp. Litig.,
` 264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2001) .............................................................. 41, 46, 66, 76
`
`In re CIGNA Corp. Sec. Litig.,
` No. 02-8088,
` 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51089 (E.D. Pa. July 13, 2007) ...................................... 42
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 6 of 98 PageID: 47367
`
`
`In re Community Bank of Northern Virginia,
` 418 F.3d 277 (3d Cir. 2005) ................................................................................. 73
`
`In re Computron Software,
` 6 F. Supp. 2d 313 (D.N.J. 1998) .......................................................................... 87
`
`In re Federal Skywalk Cases,
` 97 F.R.D. 380 (W.D. Mo. 1983) .......................................................................... 87
`
`In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig.,
` 55 F3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995) .................................................................................... 74
`
`In re GMC Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Litig.,
` 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995) ................................................................................... 63
`
`In re IGI Secs. Litig.,
` 122 F.R.D. 451 (D.N.J. 1988) .............................................................................. 72
`
`In re Modafinil Antitrust Litig.,
` 837 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2016) ................................................................................. 69
`
`In re NFL Players Concussion Injury Litig.,
` 821 F.3d 410 (3d Cir. 2016) .................................................................... 41, 66, 71
`
`In re Omnivision Techs.,
` 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ............................................................... 87
`
`In re Oracle Sec. Litig.,
` No. 90-931,
` 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21593 (N.D. Cal. 1994) ................................................. 87
`
`In re Pet Foods Products Liability Litigation,
` 629 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 75, 76
`
`In re Prudential Ins. Co. Am. Sales Practice Litig. Agent Actions,
` 148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998) ......................................................................... passim
`
`In re Royal Dutch/Shell Transp. Sec. Litig.,
` No. 04-374, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124269 (D.N.J. 2008) ................................ 88
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 7 of 98 PageID: 47368
`
`
`In re Schering Plough Corp.,
` 589 F.3d 585 (3d Cir. 2009) ................................................................................. 72
`
`In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig.,
` 391 F.3d 516 (3d Cir. 2004) ......................................................................... passim
`
`Krell v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
` 148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998) ................................................................................. 39
`
`Lipuma v. Am. Express Co.,
` 406 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (S.D. Fla. 2005) ................................................................ 48
`
`Maley v. Del Global Techs. Corp.,
` 186 F. Supp. 2d 358 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ................................................................. 87
`
`Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,
` 339 U.S. 306 (1950) ............................................................................................. 84
`
`NFL Players Concussion Injury Litig.,
` 821 F.3d 410 (3d Cir. 2016) ......................................................................... passim
`
`Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Corp.,
` 200 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1999) ............................................................................. 76
`
`Platinum Mgmt., Inc. v. Dahms,
` 666 A.2d 1028 (N.J. Law Div. 1995) .................................................................. 56
`
`Rodriguez v. Nat’l City Bank,
` 726 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 70
`
`Saini v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,
` No. 12-6105,
` 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66242 (D.N.J. May 21, 2015) ........................................ 62
`
`Stewart v. Abraham,
` 275 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2001) ................................................................................. 69
`
`Tartaglia v. UBS PaineWebber, Inc.,
` 961 A.2d 1167 (N.J. 2008) ................................................................................... 53
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 8 of 98 PageID: 47369
`
`
`Turner v. NFL (In re NFL Players’ Concussion Injury Litig.),
` 301 F.R.D. 191 (E.D. Pa. 2014) .................................................................... 41, 66
`
`Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo,
` __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) ...................................................................... 79
`
`Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC,
` 765 F.3d 306 (3d Cir. 2014) ................................................................................... 7
`
`Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC,
` No. 11-1754,
` 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175918 (D.N.J. Dec. 12, 2012) ........................................ 6
`
`Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC,
` No. 11-1754,
` 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46273 (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2016) ............................................ 7
`
`Williams v. BASF Catalysts, LLC,
` No. 11-1754,
` 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122053 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2017) .............................. 8, 9, 53
`
`Winoff Industries v. Stone Container Corp. (In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig.),
` 305 F.3d 145 (3d Cir. 2002) ................................................................................. 81
`
`Zippertubing Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
` 757 F.2d 1401 (3d Cir. 1985) ............................................................................... 56
`
`Statutes
`
`
`N.J.S.A. § 2C:41-1 ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`N.Y.J.L. § 487 ............................................................................................................ 5
`Rules
`
`
`Fed. Civ. P. 23(e) ........................................................................................ 41, 42, 43
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) .......................................................................................... 71, 72
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 9 of 98 PageID: 47370
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) ..................................................................................... 71, 72
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 72
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) ............................................................................................ 74
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) ...................................................................................... 86
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) ............................................................................................ 86
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) ............................................................................................ 42
`
`Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 53 .................................................................................................. 19
`Treatises
`
`
`Restatement (Third) Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 51 (2011) ..................... 58
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 10 of 98 PageID: 47371
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`After more than nine years of contentious litigation and extensive discovery,
`
`the parties, with the assistance of mediators, have reached a proposed class action
`
`settlement that is fair, reasonable and adequate for Class Members. The settlement
`
`recognizes that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants each face substantial risks and
`
`costs in proceeding further with this litigation, and that resolving the case now
`
`provides benefits to both sides.
`
`Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants BASF Catalysts
`
`LLC (“BASF”) and Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (“Cahill”) (collectively
`
`“Defendants”) will establish a non-reversionary $72.5 million settlement fund
`
`(“Settlement Fund”) to compensate members of a proposed Settlement Class.
`
`Exhibit A.1 In addition, BASF and Cahill will pay up to $3.5 million for the costs
`
`of providing a notice program to the proposed Settlement Class and for the
`
`administration of the claims submitted to the Settlement Fund. Defendants have
`
`further agreed that, subject to Court approval, the six Representative Plaintiffs
`
`(“Representative Plaintiffs” or “Plaintiffs”) will be paid representation service
`
`awards from the Settlement Fund in an amount not to exceed $50,000 each
`
`($300,000 in the aggregate). Defendants BASF and Cahill have also agreed to not
`
`
`1 Capitalized terms have the same meaning as in the parties’ Class Action
`Settlement Agreement.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 11 of 98 PageID: 47372
`
`oppose the petition for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses by Class Counsel to
`
`be awarded by the Court up to a maximum of $22.5 million and $1.2 million,
`
`respectively. All told, the proposed class settlement provides a substantial benefit
`
`package of nearly $100 Million to the Settlement Class Members in exchange for
`
`releasing Defendants along with the individual co-defendants named in the
`
`Williams Action, thereby ending the present litigation for all time.
`
`
`
`The proposed class settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and it readily
`
`satisfies the elements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
`
`proposed settlement includes a notice program that satisfies Rule 23 as well as
`
`constitutional and judicial guidelines. The proposed settlement’s terms and
`
`structure, moreover, provide the proposed Settlement Class with a substantial cash
`
`payment.
`
`Plaintiffs, without opposition from Defendants, now seek preliminary
`
`approval of the Class Action Settlement, a stay of this litigation and all Related
`
`Actions as defined in the Settlement Agreement, conditional certification of the
`
`putative Settlement Class, approval and authorization of the Notice Program,
`
`authorization to commence Interim Claims Processing under the proposed Plan of
`
`Distribution, and the setting of a schedule for final approval.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 12 of 98 PageID: 47373
`
` Factual Background
`II.
`Emtal Talc and the Johnson Mine
`From 1967 to 1983, a subsidiary of Engelhard Corporation mined talc from a
`
`A.
`
`
`single mine in Johnson, Vermont. This mine was known as the Johnson Mine, and
`
`the talc produced from it was sold under the brand name Emtal Talc. Emtal Talc
`
`was sold and used for certain industrial and commercial purposes. This lawsuit
`
`does not involve exposure to any personal cosmetic products such as baby or body
`
`powder. In 1983, Engelhard closed the Johnson Mine. In 2006, BASF acquired
`
`Engelhard and renamed it BASF Catalysts LLC.
`
`B. Historical asbestos litigation.
`In the late 1980s and continuing for many years, numerous plaintiffs began
`
`filing bodily injury actions against dozens of corporate defendants, alleging that
`
`asbestos in the defendants’ products or facilities caused the plaintiffs to develop
`
`asbestos-related injuries. Many of the plaintiffs worked in tire plants or other
`
`manufacturing facilities where they worked around raw asbestos and multiple
`
`asbestos-containing products.
`
`Although talc is not asbestos, plaintiffs in various jurisdictions named
`
`Engelhard and other talc companies among dozens of other defendants, alleging
`
`that the talc companies’ talc contained asbestos. Engelhard retained Cahill, a
`
`premier New York law firm and Engelhard’s longtime outside counsel, to defend
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 13 of 98 PageID: 47374
`
`Engelhard in these lawsuits. Cahill served as Engelhard’s national counsel in
`
`asbestos litigation from the late 1980s until 2009.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs’ class action claims.
`In 2009, Plaintiffs’ Counsel obtained evidence, which they believe
`
`contradicted the claims made by Defendants in the Underlying Lawsuits about
`
`Emtal Talc. On March 28, 2011, five of the current six Representative Plaintiffs
`
`filed this Class Action Lawsuit. The sixth Representative Plaintiff, Mrs. Rosanne
`
`Chernick, joined in the matter when the First Amended Class Action Complaint
`
`(“FAC”) was filed on August 3, 2011, after Defendants filed several Motions to
`
`Dismiss the initial complaint. Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was
`
`filed on July 16, 2015.
`
`The SAC alleges that from 1984 to 2009, Engelhard and Cahill defended
`
`asbestos bodily injury cases in state and federal courts in part by (1) denying that
`
`Emtal Talc contained asbestos, (2) by denying the existence of any evidence that it
`
`did and/or (3) by stating that no Engelhard employee had ever testified about the
`
`presence of asbestos in its talc. Plaintiffs allege that Engelhard and Cahill
`
`employed this defense for 25 years, allegedly resulting in thousands of dismissals,
`
`either voluntarily, by court order, or through Engelhard’s participation in nuisance-
`
`value group settlements with other talc defendants (including talc defendants
`
`whose products were known at the time to contain asbestos).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 14 of 98 PageID: 47375
`
`Defendants have vigorously denied these allegations. In addition to denying
`
`that they committed the alleged fraud or that Emtal Talc contained injurious
`
`amounts of asbestos, Defendants argue that the Underlying Lawsuits were settled
`
`or dismissed for a variety of legitimate reasons. For example, Defendants point to
`
`evidence that many plaintiffs could not prove they were exposed to Emtal Talc,
`
`that some plaintiffs could not prove they suffered an asbestos-related injury, that
`
`some plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred, and so on. Defendants have also argued
`
`that Plaintiffs in this action did not suffer monetary damages given evidence that
`
`many plaintiffs accepted similar settlement values from other talc defendants for
`
`whom plaintiffs had evidence of asbestos contamination and exposure.
`
`D.
`
`The initial proceedings in this Court.
`The FAC, as did the original complaint, alleged claims under New Jersey
`
`law for common-law fraud in various forms, fraudulent concealment (which
`
`encompasses New Jersey’s stand-alone “spoliation” tort), violation of New
`
`Jersey’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (NJ-RICO), N.J.S.A.
`
`§ 2C:41-1, et seq., conspiracy to violate New Jersey’s RICO statute, unjust
`
`enrichment, and common law conspiracy. In addition, with respect to Cahill and
`
`the co-defendant individual attorneys, the FAC pleaded a statutory claim for
`
`violation of New York Judiciary Law §487 (Misconduct by attorney) (“N.Y.J.L. §
`
`487 Claim”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 15 of 98 PageID: 47376
`
`Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC claiming: (1) the District Court
`
`lacked jurisdiction over the case because of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; (2)
`
`Plaintiffs had not adequately pleaded their claims; and (3) the District Court lacked
`
`the authority to provide Plaintiffs their requested relief because of the Anti-
`
`Injunction Act and the principles of justiciability. The District Court rejected the
`
`challenge to its jurisdiction, but otherwise fully granted the Motions to Dismiss.
`
`The Court ruled that Plaintiffs’ fraud and fraudulent concealment claims were not
`
`actionable mainly because New Jersey’s litigation privilege immunized Defendants
`
`from tort liability for alleged misstatements made in the Underlying Lawsuits. The
`
`District Court further found that Plaintiffs failed to plead an actionable RICO
`
`claim, reasoning that the Underlying Lawsuits were personal injury claims, and
`
`that Plaintiffs’ requested relief would impermissibly undermine prior state court
`
`judgments in the Underlying Lawsuits. Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, No. 11-
`
`1754, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175918 (D.N.J. Dec. 12, 2012). The Court also held
`
`that an actionable N.Y.J.L. § 487 Claim was not alleged.
`
`E.
`
`The Third Circuit decision.
`Plaintiffs appealed the decision dismissing the FAC to the Third Circuit,
`
`which reversed in part. It held that: (1) New Jersey’s litigation privilege does not
`
`bar Plaintiffs’ fraud and fraudulent concealment claims in view of what was
`
`alleged to have occurred; and (2) the FAC adequately alleged the elements of fraud
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 16 of 98 PageID: 47377
`
`and fraudulent concealment under New Jersey law. The Third Circuit also affirmed
`
`in part, upholding the District Court’s decision to dismiss Plaintiffs’ RICO claim.2
`
`Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, 765 F.3d 306 (3d Cir. 2014).
`
`F.
`
`The proceedings in this Court following remand.
`Following the Third Circuit’s remand, Plaintiffs filed a 155-page SAC, with
`
`43 appended exhibits, again alleging claims against BASF and Cahill for
`
`fraudulent concealment, fraud, and civil conspiracy under New Jersey law. The
`
`District Court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss the SAC and ordered the
`
`case to continue to discovery. Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, No. 11-1754, 2016
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46273, *23-27 (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2016). To facilitate and expedite
`
`the discovery process and related disputes, the Court appointed retired New Jersey
`
`Supreme Court Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto as a Special Discovery Master
`
`(“SDM”). The SDM presided over and decided more than 50 discovery motions, as
`
`the parties engaged in what would become two years of extensive and hard-fought
`
`discovery. During this discovery phase, the parties also exchanged over 300 pieces
`
`of meet-and-confer correspondence, produced and reviewed hundreds of thousands
`
`of pages of documents and ESI equivalents, and completed 28 depositions.
`
`
`The Third Circuit also affirmed in part and reversed in part the District
`2
`Court’s opinion regarding justiciability of certain of the FAC’s claims for relief,
`which are not germane to the Class Action Settlement.
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 17 of 98 PageID: 47378
`
`One of the first significant disputes between the parties centered on the
`
`scope of discovery. Specifically, the parties vigorously disagreed about the extent,
`
`if any, to which Defendants were entitled to delve into the merits of the Underlying
`
`Lawsuits and discover plaintiffs’ and their original attorneys’ files and confidential
`
`attorney-client communications from those suits. Plaintiffs argued that the
`
`Defendants had forfeited the right to discovery regarding the Underlying Lawsuits
`
`and sought a protective order precluding that review.
`
`After several rounds of briefing and argument, the District Court rejected
`
`Plaintiffs’ arguments, in part, regarding the scope of discovery and ruled that
`
`“exposition” of the Underlying Lawsuits was necessary. Williams v. BASF
`
`Catalysts, LLC, No. 11-1754, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122053, *30, 33 (D.N.J.
`
`Aug. 3, 2017). To that end, the District Court ruled that the “scope of discovery
`
`will focus on the alleged wrongful conduct and any alleged harm following from
`
`that conduct” including “why Plaintiffs settled or dismissed their underlying
`
`claims.” Id. at *31. Chief Judge Linares ruled that “[t]o fully explore this issue,
`
`Defendants will be entitled to discover what Plaintiffs and their counsel knew, and
`
`were told, and whether any knowledge, or lack thereof, contributed to Plaintiffs’
`
`decisions on resolving the underlying case.” Id. That inquiry, the Court explained,
`
`permitted a waiver of Plaintiffs’ attorney-client privilege and therefore warranted
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 18 of 98 PageID: 47379
`
`review of the files and correspondence related to the Underlying Lawsuits. Id. at
`
`*32-33.
`
`The second key issue addressed during discovery was Plaintiffs’ motion to
`
`compel the production of BASF’s privileged documents under the crime-fraud
`
`exception. Plaintiffs filed their initial crime-fraud brief on November 2, 2017.
`
`After considering that brief and Defendants’ opposition, the SDM held multiple
`
`days of oral argument regarding the threshold inquiry of whether Plaintiffs’ had
`
`made a prima facie showing that Defendants engaged in a crime or fraud. He
`
`eventually stated that he would like additional information concerning the
`
`scientific testing in order to help him decide the crime-fraud motion. Accordingly,
`
`and although Defendants’ first request for such a “Science Day” had been denied
`
`by the Court without prejudice, the SDM ordered that the parties provide expert
`
`testimony concerning the testing record. Plaintiffs objected to the SDM’s order
`
`providing for a Science Day, sought an emergency stay of and appealed the SDM’s
`
`order to the District Court. The appeal remained pending when, on June 26, 2018,
`
`Chief Judge Linares stayed the Action and ordered that the parties continue
`
`settlement discussions before Magistrate Judge Dickson. CM/ECF # 602.
`
`The parties also addressed a third key issue during discovery: Plaintiffs’
`
`communications with Ohio attorney Thomas Bevan. Mr. Bevan represented five of
`
`the six class representatives in their underlying lawsuits. At deposition, most of the
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 19 of 98 PageID: 47380
`
`Plaintiffs themselves indicated that they had no personal knowledge of their
`
`underlying cases and would rely on Mr. Bevan to provide testimony in support of
`
`their claims.
`
`Defendants moved for discovery of Mr. Bevan’s communications with
`
`Plaintiffs and Class Counsel, in light of Mr. Bevan’s status as a key fact witness.
`
`Plaintiffs opposed Defendants’ motion, claiming that those communications were
`
`privileged. The SDM ultimately ordered in camera review of the requested
`
`materials, including any communications between Mr. Bevan and Class Counsel.
`
`Plaintiffs appealed the SDM’s order and sought a stay from the District Court.
`
`Plaintiffs’ request for a stay was denied.
`
`The SDM ruled that certain internal testing documents BASF claimed as
`
`privileged were discoverable. The Defendants appealed these rulings to the District
`
`Court. With appeals of all of the parties pending, the District Court stayed the
`
`Williams Action in its entirety and ordered that the parties participate in mediation.
`
`G. Mediation efforts.
`The parties engaged in four rounds of mediation prior to reaching the present
`
`proposed settlement. Following remand from the Third Circuit, the parties agreed
`
`to pause and explore settlement through mediation. In February 2015, the parties
`
`participated in a mediation session before retired United States District Court
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:11-cv-01754-JAD Document 621-1 Filed 07/23/20 Page 20 of 98 PageID: 47381
`
`Judge Layn R. Phillips. The mediation did not result in a settlement and the parties
`
`thereafter resumed active litigation.
`
`
`
`In 2016, the parties agreed to again pause and return to mediation before
`
`Judge Phillips. Despite several mediation sessions with Judge Phillips throughout
`
`the summer of 2016, the parties again could not reach agreement on material terms
`
`and mediation ended.