Read Microsoft Word - 901462_1 text version

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 1 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR 901462.1

THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON MARK A. ARTHUR, CIRILO MARTINEZ, and PARI NAJAFI on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SALLIE MAE, INC., Defendant. CLASS ACTION NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. SELBIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AND SERVICE AWARDS TO THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 TELEPHONE: (206) 816-6603

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 2 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

I, Jonathan D. Selbin, declare as follows: 1. I am a member of the law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

("LCHB"), counsel of record for Plaintiffs in this matter. I am admitted pro hac vice to this Court and am a member in good standing of the bars of the States of California and New York, and the bar of the District of Columbia. I respectfully submit this declaration in Support of Plaintiffs' motions for final settlement approval and attorneys' fees and costs. Except as otherwise noted, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, and could testify competently to them if called upon to do so. Background and Experience 2. LCHB is a national law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York, and

Nashville. LCHB's practice focuses on complex and class action litigation involving product liability, consumer, employment, financial, securities, environmental, and personal injury matters. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of LCHB's current firm resume, showing some of the firm's experience in complex and class action litigation. This resume is not a complete listing of all cases in which LCHB has been Class Counsel or otherwise counsel of record. 3. LCHB has extensive experience in the litigation, trial and settlement of

class actions in complex economic injury consumer fraud and product defect cases. Cases in which LCHB has served as Class Counsel in such actions and in which I have played an active role include: a. Ross v. Trex Company, Inc., No. 09-cv-00670 JF (N.D. Cal.)

(nationwide partial settlement class involving defective composite decking; final approval granted in 2010);

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR 901462.1

-1-

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 TELEPHONE: (206) 816-6603

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 3 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR 901462.1

b.

Fulford v. Logitech, Inc., No. 08-cv-02041 MMC (N.D. Cal.)

(nationwide settlement class involving false advertising claims related to remote controls; final approval granted in 2010); c. Create-a-Card v. Intuit, No. CV-07-6452 WHA (N.D. Cal.)

(nationwide settlement class involving faulty computer code approved in September 2009, in which Judge Alsup praised LCHB for the "excellent job in the case as class counsel," and stated that "the class has been well represented having you and your firm in the case."); d. Pelletz v. Weyerhaeuser Company and Advanced Environmental

Technologies, Inc., No. C08-0334 JCC (W.D. Wash.) (nationwide settlement class involving defective composite decking; final approval granted in 2009); e. Grays Harbor Adventist Christian School v. Carrier Corporation,

No. CV05-5437 (W.D. Wash.) (Washington litigation class involving defective furnaces certified; nationwide settlement class; final approval granted in 2008); f. Weekend Warrior Trailer Cases, Judicial Coordination Proceeding

No. 4455 (Orange County, CA) (nationwide settlement class involving defective recreational trailers; final approval granted in 2008); g. Richina v. Maytag Corp., Case No. CV025202 (San Joaquin

County, California) (California settlement class involving defective oven panels; final approval granted in 2007); h. Lundell v. Dell, Inc., No. C05-3970 JW/RS (N.D. Cal.) (nationwide

settlement class involving defective computers; final approval granted in 2006); i. Kan v. Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., No. BC327273

(Los Angeles County, California) (nationwide settlement class involving defective computers; final approval granted in 2006);

-2-

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 TELEPHONE: (206) 816-6603

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 4 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR 901462.1

j.

Behr Wood Sealant Cases, JCCP Nos. 4132 & 4138 (San Joaquin

County, California) (nationwide settlement class involving defective wood sealant; final approval granted in 2003); k. Richison v. American Cemwood Corp., Civil Action No. 005532

(San Joaquin County, California) (nationwide litigation class involving defective shingles certified and upheld on writ review; nationwide settlement classes final approval granted in 2000 and 2003); l. Williams v. Weyerhaeuser Co., Civil Action No. 995787 (San

Francisco County, California) (California litigation class involving defective siding certified in 1999; nationwide settlement class final approval granted in 2000); m. Delay v. Hurd Millwork Co., No. 972-073710 (Spokane County,

Washington) (multi-state settlement class involving defective windows; final approval granted in 1998); n. Naef v. Masonite, No. CV-94-4033 (Mobile County, Alabama)

(nationwide litigation class certified in 1995, nationwide settlement class involving defective siding final approval granted in 1998); o. Bettner v. Georgia-Pacific, No. CV-95-3330-RGK (Mobile County,

Alabama) (nationwide settlement class involving defective siding; final approval granted in 1998); p. ABS Pipe Cases II, JCCP No. 3126 (Contra Costa County,

California) (nationwide settlement classes involving defective pipes; final approval granted in 1998 through 2001); q. In re: Louisiana-Pacific Co. Inner-Seal Siding Litigation, No. CV-

95-879 JO-LEAD (D. Or.) (nationwide settlement class involving defective siding; final approval granted in 1996); and

-3-

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 TELEPHONE: (206) 816-6603

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 5 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR 901462.1

r.

Cox v. Shell, Civil No. 18,844 (Obion County, Tennessee)

(nationwide settlement class involving defective polybutylene pipes; final approval granted in 1995). 4. I was the lead partner at LCHB who litigated and settled Trex, Logitech,

Intuit, Pelletz v. Weyerhaeuser, Grays Harbor v. Carrier, Richina v. Maytag, Weekend Warrior Trailer Cases, Lundell v. Dell, and Kan v. Toshiba, and was one of the lead partners at LCHB who litigated and settled the Behr, Cemwood, Weyerhaeuser, and Hurd matters. As an associate, I was a primary participant in LCHB's litigation of the Masonite Hardboard Siding, LouisianaPacific Inner-Seal Siding, and Georgia-Pacific Hardboard Siding litigations. 5. capacities: a. I am one of three court-appointed co-lead class counsel in In re In addition to these cases, I am currently serving in the following

Mercedes-Benz Tele Aid Contract Litigation, MDL No. 1914 (D.N.J.), a case involving Mercedes' alleged deception relating to its Tele Aid service, in which the Court certified a nationwide litigation class on April 27, 2009. We have subsequently defeated Mercedes' FRCP 23(f) petition, its motion to decertify the class, and its petition for interlocutory review. b. I am sole court-appointed lead class counsel in In re Whirlpool

Corporation Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2001 (N.D. Ohio), a case involving Whirlpool's allegedly defective top-loading washers in which the court certified a litigation class in July 2010. c. I serve on the court-appointed executive committee in Directv

Early Cancellation Fee Litigation, No. CV08-741 AG (ANX) (S.D. Cal.), a case involving DirecTV's allegedly improper assessment of early termination fees. 6. I graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1993 and

clerked for The Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District

-4-

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 TELEPHONE: (206) 816-6603

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 6 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

of California between 1993 and 1995. I have worked at LCHB since 1995, starting as an associate and advancing through to partnership. As set forth above, I have extensive experience in litigating class actions, especially economic injury product defect class actions. 7. Together, the cases described in paragraph 4 above have resulted in court-

approved class action settlements, with a combined total recovery for class members exceeding $2 billion in cash, plus other relief. LCHB's experience in these cases, and my experience in particular, has provided LCHB and me with expertise in the legal, factual, management, notice, and administration issues that characterize these types of class actions. Investigation and Settlement Negotiations 8. I am the lead partner at LCHB on this case, and have been involved in

every aspect of it from inception through the present. 9. This matter was first brought to the attention of Arthur Counsel by a client

in August 2009. Arthur Counsel initiated a thorough investigation, conducting relevant factual and legal research. The information learned through this investigation was invaluable during settlement negotiations. 10. LCHB initiated pre-filing discussions with Sallie Mae's corporate

representatives by telephonic conference on October 27, 2009. During this initial call, the parties exchanged pertinent information and agreed to continue to work cooperatively towards resolution. This obviated the need for filing a complaint. 11. The parties engaged in extensive negotiations over the following several

months, including an exchange of at least nineteen letters, numerous emails, and many telephone conversations. The regular exchange of the parties' respective positions and supporting analysis, included letters on October 29, 2009; November 2, 2009; November 9, 2009; November 12, 2009; November 16, 2009; November 20, 2009; December 2, 2009; December 10, 2009; December 14, 2009; December 15, 2009; December 17, 2009; December 22, 2009; December 29,

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR 901462.1

-5-

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 TELEPHONE: (206) 816-6603

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 7 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

2009; January 8, 2010; January 13, 2010; January 15, 2010; January 26, 2010; January 28, 2010; and January 29, 2010. In this correspondence, the parties thoroughly analyzed the relevant issues, exploring their respective positions on the merits of the action and viability of class certification. The parties' correspondence included the exchange of relevant information and documents, including client loan records, form loan applications and promissory notes in use during the class period, and case law and relevant rulemaking by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"). Counsel also set out a rough timeframe for moving forward with additional investigation and settlement proposals. At all times the negotiations were adversarial, noncollusive, and at arm's length. 12. Unlike many cases involving consumer claims and products, this case turns

largely on a purely legal issue: whether the TCPA and/or the FCC's Declaratory Ruling permit "prior express consent" to be given after loan origination and/or verbally. Accordingly, Arthur Counsel's primary focus through months of settlement discussions was on that legal question. How a court would determine that purely legal issue would, to a large extent, determine whether or not Plaintiffs' TCPA claims would be successful. Plaintiffs' success would be all or nothing as Sallie Mae could effectively reduce the recoverable damages or eliminate them altogether if its interpretation prevailed. 13. Arthur Counsel endeavored to conduct sufficient discovery in light of the

nature of the case. Concurrent with settlement negotiations, Arthur Counsel continued to interview and collect relevant information and documents from affected class members. These interviews proved helpful in allowing counsel to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the class claims. 14. On December 17, 2009, the parties agreed to a Litigation Standstill and

Tolling Agreement, effective October 27, 2009, to preserve the Class's rights during the pendency of the settlement discussions.

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR 901462.1

-6-

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 TELEPHONE: (206) 816-6603

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 8 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 for mediation.

15.

Settlement negotiations stalled as the parties could not agree on any

framework for settlement. 16. On February 2, 2010, Plaintiff Mark Arthur filed a class action complaint

in this Court against Sallie Mae. See generally Class Action Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (Dkt. No. 1). 17. Following the filing of the complaint until the settlement agreement was

executed, approximately 103 Class Members contacted Arthur Counsel to provide information and/or documents supporting Plaintiffs' TCPA claim. 18. Shortly after the complaint was filed, the parties again began to explore the

possibility of resolution. 19. The parties extended Sallie Mae's time to answer the complaint to allow

20.

The parties stipulated to postpone their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference

scheduled for April 12 in light of contemplated mediation. 21. On April 5, 2010, Plaintiffs Mark Arthur and Cirilo Martinez filed an

amended class action complaint adding Plaintiff Martinez. See generally Class Action Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 27 et seq. (Dkt. No. 1). 22. After independently confirming information learned from Sallie Mae's

counsel, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to name Sallie Mae, Inc. as a Defendant rather than SLM Corporation, which is a holding company and the parent of Sallie Mae, Inc. 23. files and databases. 24. On April 6, 2010, Sallie Mae provided Arthur Counsel with some 584 Arthur Counsel requested relevant documents contained in Sallie Mae's

pages of confidential, proprietary information.

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR 901462.1

-7-

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 TELEPHONE: (206) 816-6603

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 9 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Counsel.

25.

Sallie Mae also provided answers to informal questions posed by Arthur

26.

The parties engaged in all-day mediated settlement negotiations before The

Honorable Edward A. Infante, a retired federal judge, on April 12, 2010. 27. Under the supervision of Judge Infante, the parties began to consider

potential remedies for the proposed Class. 28. The parties met for additional in-person, hotly contested mediation sessions

on April 20, May 12, and June 21. 29. Counsel exchanged a series of counterproposals on key aspects of the

settlement, including the parameters of the injunctive and monetary relief for the Class, and the meaning and interpretation of the eligibility requirements. 30. The negotiations were again adversarial, non-collusive, and at arm's

length. Throughout the negotiation process, Sallie Mae steadfastly maintained that some or all of the Class Members gave Sallie Mae prior express consent to contact them at their cellular phone numbers. Sallie Mae also strenuously denied that class certification is appropriate in this case. 31. Throughout this period, Arthur Counsel were in contact with scores of

absent Class members to gather information about their experiences and problems. This information was essential to Counsel's ability to understand the nature of the problem, the language of the loan agreements at issue, and potential remedies. 32. Through these mediated settlement negotiations, the parties reached an

agreement in principle pursuant to a mediator's proposal. 33. The Settlement Agreement provides Class Members with significant

prospective relief, allowing them to require that no further calls be made to their cellular telephones by Sallie Mae and/or any other affiliate or subsidiary of SLM Corporation through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice. The

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR 901462.1

-8-

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 TELEPHONE: (206) 816-6603

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 10 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Settlement Agreement also requires Sallie Mae to pay $19.5 million into a settlement fund ("Settlement Fund"), out of which eligible Class Members who file a qualified claim will receive a Monetary Award. 34. As Arthur Counsel was finalizing the terms of a Memorandum of

Understanding ("MOU") with Sallie Mae, Arthur Counsel reached out to counsel in Najafi v. SLM Corporation d/b/a Sallie Mae, Case No. 10 Civ. 530 MMA (CAB) (S.D. Cal. 2010). 35. Once the MOU was signed, Arthur Counsel sent it to Najafi counsel.

Najafi counsel evaluated the MOU and indicated their support of the Settlement. 36. The parties executed the MOU on June 23, 2010. The MOU outlined in

detail the proposed settlement. 37. Following execution of the MOU, the parties engaged in confirmatory

discovery, including discovery of facts necessary to reasonably confirm the terms of the MOU and administrative plans and procedures for compliance with the terms of the Settlement. Plaintiffs propounded written interrogatories and document requests. Sallie Mae responded. Plaintiffs' counsel reviewed Sallie Mae's written discovery responses. The confirmatory discovery did not change Plaintiffs' views of the agreed-upon Settlement. 38. The confirmatory discovery indicated that the Class includes almost five

million people, including 4,289,251 loan holders, 7,523 co-signors, 479,752 persons listed as references on loan documents, and 108,366 possible wrong numbers. 39. With the MOU in place, the parties turned to finalizing the Settlement

Agreement, claim forms, notice documents, and preliminary approval. Arthur Counsel worked in close consultation with the Settlement Administrator throughout this process. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the parties' September 2, 2010 Settlement Agreement. Class Notice 40. On information and belief, classwide notice was disseminated in

accordance with the Notice Plan developed by the parties and approved by this Court upon

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR 901462.1

-9-

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 TELEPHONE: (206) 816-6603

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 11 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

preliminary approval of the Settlement. See Declaration of Jennifer M. Keough Regarding Notice Dissemination and Settlement Administration at ¶¶ 3-16. The costs of Class Notice and claims administration have been paid from the Settlement Fund, per the Settlement Agreement, except that Sallie Mae has paid an additional $45,000 for publication notice that provided notice of the Settlement to Class Members who do not have and have not had any lending or servicing relationship with Sallie Mae and/or any other affiliate or subsidiary of SLM Corporation. 41. After Notice was disseminated, Arthur Counsel received and responded to

approximately 2,500 telephone calls and 30 letters from Class members as of November 15, 2010. Class members have generally expressed positive views about the terms of the Settlement and have been pleased that they have the ability to make the automated calls to their cellular phones stop. Arthur Counsel answered all questions regarding the Settlement and assisted many Class Members in completing the revocation and claim forms. Despite the large volume of calls, Arthur Counsel have endeavored to respond to each call within no more than a few days after it

13 was received. Class counsel anticipate spending an additional 750 hours seeing this case through 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR 901462.1

its final resolution. Given that Class counsel has responded to some 2,500 Class member calls in only the first month since Class notice was distributed, Class counsel estimate that they could receive an additional 7,500 calls before the claims period ends on February 26, 2011. If each call takes and average of only five minutes, Class counsel will expend at least another 625 hours on this litigation in responding to Class member concerns alone. Attorneys' Fees and Class Representative Stipends 42. All attorneys, paralegals and law clerks at LCHB are instructed to maintain

contemporaneous time records reflecting the time spent on this and other matters. According to the firm's time records, LCHB has spent a total of 1,039.6 hours on this matter from the inception of the case through November 15, 2010 for a lodestar of $430,560.50. The names, hourly rates, and hours incurred by each of the LCHB attorneys (including partners and associates) and paralegals are attached hereto as Exhibit C.

- 10 -

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 TELEPHONE: (206) 816-6603

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 12 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

43.

The following table lists the LCHB attorneys and professional personnel

and summarizes their work on the case that is included in the lodestar figure for LCHB, as well as the current hourly rates. I supervised each of the professionals listed on the table. The hourly rate shown for any attorney or paralegal who is no longer employed with LCHB reflects the last rate that applied at the time of their employment: NAME AND POSITION DESCRIPTION OF WORK PERFORMED PARTNERS

Jonathan D. Selbin Partner at LCHB J.D. from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude, 1993 Devised case strategy; drafted or edited all substantive pleadings, mediation statements, memoranda, settlement documents, and correspondence with Sallie Mae and Plaintiffs' counsel regarding case issues, mediation, settlement, mediation proposals, and strategy; researched and analyzed various legal and factual issues; prepared for mediation; attended mediation sessions; worked on settlement issues; supervised and reviewed class notice, response to Class Members, and claims administration. Devised case strategy; researched and analyzed various legal and factual issues; correspondence with Sallie Mae and Plaintiffs' counsel regarding case issues and strategy.

RATE

HOURS BILLED

TOTAL

$650

297.8

$193,570.00

Barry R. Himmelstein Partner at LCHB J.D. from Univ. of California, Hastings College of the Law, magna cum laude, 1991 Elizabeth J. Cabraser Partner at LCHB J.D. from Univ. of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1978 Kelly M. Dermody Partner at LCHB J.D. from Univ. of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1993

$675

18.6

$12,555.00

Correspondence with Sallie Mae and Plaintiffs' counsel regarding case issues, mediation, settlement, mediation proposals, and strategy.

$850

4.5

$3,825.00

Correspondence with Sallie Mae and Plaintiffs' counsel regarding case issues and strategy.

$650

4.1

$2,665.00

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR 901462.1

- 11 -

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 TELEPHONE: (206) 816-6603

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 13 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Kristen Law Sagafi Partner at LCHB J.D. from Univ. of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 2002

Reviewed settlement and provided feedback to J. Selbin

$450

1.0

$450.00

ASSOCIATE ATTORNEYS

Daniel M. Hutchinson Associate at LCHB J.D. from Univ. of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 2005 Researched and analyzed various legal and factual issues related to the TCPA; worked on pleadings, mediation statements, memoranda, settlement documents, and correspondence with Sallie Mae and Plaintiffs' counsel regarding case issues, mediation, settlement, mediation proposals, and strategy; prepared for mediation; attended mediation sessions; analyzed and worked on informal and confirmatory discovery issues; reviewed documents; worked on settlement issues; supervised and reviewed class notice, response to Class Members, and claims administration. Researched and analyzed various legal and factual issues related to the TCPA; correspondence with Class Members; worked on settlement issues, including revising and filing settlement documents.

$390

243.3

$94,887.00

Alison Stocking Associate at LCHB J.D. from Yale Law School, 2006

$370

93.8

$34,706.00

PARALEGALS

Jennifer Rudnick Paralegal at LCHB B.A. at Syracuse University, 2003. Interviewed potential class representatives and class members; returned calls to class members with questions about the settlement; assisted with exhibits for mediation brief and case filings. Returned calls to class members with questions about the settlement.

$235

129.4

$30,409.00

David Bernstein Paralegal at LCHB B.A. at American University, 1986. Dan Schuman Paralegal at LCHB B.A. at Indiana University, 1999.

$235

122.0

$28,670.00

Returned calls to class members with questions about the settlement.

$245

29.4

$7,203.00

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR 901462.1

- 12 -

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 TELEPHONE: (206) 816-6603

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 14 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Kingston Fardy Paralegal at LCHB B.A. at Mills College, 2005. Jack Sanford Paralegal at LCHB B.A. at University of Colorado, 2008. Hazel Mottershead Paralegal at LCHB B.A. at Mills College, 2004. Rachel Dempsey Paralegal at LCHB B.A. at Yale University, 2009. Adelina Acuna Paralegal at LCHB B.A. at Stanford University, 2006. Meredith Carpenter Paralegal at LCHB B.A. at Stanford University, 2008. Dawn Behrmann Paralegal at LCHB B.A. at Boston University, 1997. Florencia Cudos Paralegal at LCHB, Law Degree from University of Buenos Aires, 1998. Richard Anthony Paralegal at LCHB B.A. at University of California- Santa Cruz, 1990. Alexander Zane Paralegal at LCHB B.A. at Stanford University, 2002.

Returned calls to class members with questions about the settlement.

$225

22.6

$5,085.00

Factual research regarding Sallie Mae and its practices; interviewed potential class representatives and class members.

$225

20.5

$4,612.50

Returned calls to class members with questions about the settlement.

$235

16.1

$3,783.50

Returned calls to Spanish- and Englishspeaking class members with questions about the settlement.

$200

6.5

$1,300.00

Factual research regarding Sallie Mae and its practices; correspondence with potential class representatives and class members. Returned inquiries from class members about potential claims.

$215

5.8

$1,247.00

$225

5.5

$1,237.50

Returned calls to class members with questions about the settlement.

$245

5.0

$1,225.00

Returned calls to Spanish- and Englishspeaking class members with questions about the settlement.

$260

3.5

$910.00

Researched FCC orders; background checks on potential plaintiffs.

$245

3.1

$759.50

Call from potential class member.

$235

0.1

$23.50

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR 901462.1

- 13 -

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 TELEPHONE: (206) 816-6603

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 15 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 TOTAL: 44.

Renee Mukherji Research Librarian at LCHB

RESEARCH LIBRARIANS

Researched related case pleadings, Sallie Mae corporate structure, and TCPA settlements.

$210

3.7

$777.00

1,039.60

$430,560.50

LCHB sets its rates for attorneys and staff members based on a variety of

factors, including among others: the experience, skill and sophistication required for the types of legal services typically performed; the rates customarily charged in similar matters; and the experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys and staff members. 45. LCHB's rates reflect the market rates in the markets within which LCHB's

primary offices are located and from which this matter has been handled: San Francisco, New York, and Nashville. LCHB's hourly rates are negotiated with and are paid on an hourly basis by several sophisticated commercial entities, including BlackRock (f/k/a Merrill Lynch Mutual Funds). LCHB does not bill at different rates for different clients or different types of cases. 46. On January 9, 2009, Judge Coughenour of this Court approved LCHB's

rates (including my own), in Pelletz, et al. v. Weyerhaeuser et al., Case No. C08-0334 JCC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1803 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 9, 2009). In Pelletz, the parties engaged in a period of pre-filing investigation, informal discovery, and settlement discussions over the course of just over a year. During the investigation, we requested and received information from defendants that would ordinarily be obtained through discovery, including warranty claims data, proprietary product formulations, and sales data. 47. Similarly, in 2008 Judge Leighton of this Court approved LCHB's rates

(including my own), and those of our co-counsel Beth Terrell, then of Tousley Brain & Stephens, LLC, after specifically reviewing them for reasonableness, as reflected in the order approving the fees, Grays Harbor Adventist Christian School v. Carrier Corp., 2008 WL 1901988, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 24, 2008), collected in Exhibit E to this Declaration.

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR 901462.1 TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 TELEPHONE: (206) 816-6603

- 14 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 16 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

48.

I was the attorney primarily responsible for reviewing the work of all other

attorneys and paralegals listed in the schedules set forth in paragraph 43. There has been no unnecessary duplication of services for which LCHB now seeks compensation. I reviewed the billing records and reduced or eliminated time where necessary, In those instances in which two or more attorneys at LCHB participated in any matter, this joint participation was necessary because of the complexity of the problems involved and the time constraints which existed. 49. Tasks were delegated appropriately among partners, associate attorneys,

and paralegals according to their complexity. The work performed by associate attorneys and paralegals was work that required sufficient knowledge of legal concepts and that I or another partner would have had to perform absent such assistance. The paralegals identified were all qualified to perform substantive legal work based on their training and past experience working for attorneys, including attorneys outside of LCHB's offices. 50. As of November 15, 2010, LCHB's accounting department reports that the

13 firm had also expended a total of $36,965.72 in unreimbursed expenses in connection with the 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR 901462.1

investigation, prosecution, and settlement of this litigation, as set forth in the reports attached hereto as Exhibit D. The expenses listed in Exhibit D are reflected in the books and records LCHB maintains in the ordinary course of business, which books and records are prepared from expense vouchers and check records. 51. On information and belief, Class Counsel have expended a total of

1,877.35 hours on this case, for a combined lodestar of $760,678. Class Counsel's combined out of pocket expenses and costs are $76,245.70. 52. The Plaintiffs signed attorney representation agreements that provide for a

contingent fee recovery. Those agreements state that counsel "will be entitled to compensation for their services in the amount of one-third (33 1/3%) of [any] settlement proceeds." Class counsel have invested -- and continue to invest -- substantial time in prosecution of this case with no guarantee of recovery, and have received no compensation to date.

- 15 -

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 TELEPHONE: (206) 816-6603

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 17 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

53.

As evidenced by Exhibit A, LCHB maintains a very active contingent fee

practice. Every week, LCHB ordinarily receives multiple requests for representation, new case inquiries, and offers to associate with other lawyers and law firms to prosecute complex and class action cases. The fact that LCHB devoted the substantial time and resources reflected on Exhibits C and D to the present case undoubtedly required the firm to forego other, potentially lucrative, employment. 54. The claims period will last through February 26, 2011, and LCHB's

commitment of time and labor to this case will continue until (and likely beyond) that date. LCHB will continue to assist Class members with individual inquiries, will oversee the claims resolution process, and per the Agreement, Class Counsel will help resolve Class member challenges to the result of their claims submissions. Judging by previous experience, these responsibilities will require hundreds of hours of work by Class Counsel. 55. The named Plaintiffs should be recognized for their substantial service to

13 and efforts on behalf of the proposed settlement class. They greatly assisted Class Counsel in 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR 901462.1

investigating the claims, preparing the complaint, contacting additional witnesses, and understanding the factual background of the lawsuit. They responded to all questions from counsel. They were ready and willing to respond to formal discovery and testify at trial, and were consulted throughout the case and during mediation. 56. Based on my experience, and taking into consideration the risks of

continued litigation (and likely appeals) versus the certain and substantial relief afforded by the Settlement, it is my opinion that the Settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, in the best interests of the Class, and merits final approval. It is also my view that, in light of the time and costs expended by Class Counsel, the legal standards governing the award of fees and costs in class actions, and the results obtained, the fees and costs requested by Class Counsel are modest, and well-warranted.

- 16 -

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 TELEPHONE: (206) 816-6603

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 18 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Other Exhibits 57. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Theodore

Eisenberg & Geoffrey P. Millery, Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements: 1993-2008, 7 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 248 (2010). 58. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Brian T.

Fitzpatrick, An Empirical Study of Class Action Settlements and their Fee Awards, 7 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (forthcoming 2010). 59. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of an objection

from Class member Veronica Best. 60. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of an objection from

Class member Carlos Sherrod. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on November 15, 2010 in Seattle, Washington. ____/s/_ Jonathan D. Selbin_____ Jonathan D. Selbin

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT NO. 10-cv-00198-JLR 901462.1

- 17 -

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC 3600 FREMONT AVENUE NORTH SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 TELEPHONE: (206) 816-6603

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 19 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Beth E. Terrell, hereby certify that on November 16, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: Kenneth E. Payson, WSBA #26369 Email: [email protected] DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98101-3045 Telephone: 206.622.3150 Facsimile: 206.757.7700 Lisa M. Simonetti, Admitted Pro Hac Vice [email protected] Julia B. Strickland, Admitted Pro Hac Vice [email protected] STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: 310.556.5819 Facsimile: 310.556.5959 Attorneys for Defendant

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. SELBIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AND SERVICE AWARDS TO THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. C10-0198 JLR

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC

3600 Fremont Avenue N. Seattle, Washington 98103 TEL. 206.816.6603 x FAX 206.350.3528

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52

Filed 11/16/10 Page 20 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

DATED this 16th day of November, 2010. TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC

By: /s/ Beth E. Terrell, WSBA # 26759 Beth E. Terrell, WSBA # 26759 Email: [email protected] 3600 Fremont Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98103 Telephone: 206.816.6603 Facsimile: 206.350.3528 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DECLARATION OF JONATHAN D. SELBIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AND SERVICE AWARDS TO THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. C10-0198 JLR

TERRELL MARSHALL & DAUDT PLLC

3600 Fremont Avenue N. Seattle, Washington 98103 TEL. 206.816.6603 x FAX 206.350.3528

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 1 of 85

(;+,%,7 $

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 2 of 85

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592

One Nashville Place 150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 1650 Nashville, TN 37219-2415 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 Facsimile: (615) 313-9965 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.lieffcabraser.com

FIRM PROFILE: Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a sixty-plus attorney, AV-rated law firm founded in 1972 with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville. Lieff Cabraser has a diversified practice, successfully representing plaintiffs in the fields of personal injury and mass torts, securities and investment fraud, employment discrimination and unlawful employment practices, product defect, antitrust, consumer protection, aviation, environmental and toxic exposure, False Claims Act, and human rights. Our clients include individuals, classes or groups of persons, businesses, and public and private entities. Lieff Cabraser has served as court-appointed Plaintiffs' Lead or Class Counsel in state and federal coordinated, multi-district, and complex litigation throughout the United States. With co-counsel, we have represented clients across the globe in cases filed in American courts. Lieff Cabraser is among the largest firms in the United States that only represent plaintiffs. Described by The American Lawyer as "one of the nation's premier plaintiffs' firms," Lieff Cabraser enjoys a national reputation for professional integrity and the successful prosecution of our clients' claims. We possess sophisticated legal skills and the financial resources necessary for the handling of large, complex cases, and for litigating against some of the nation's largest corporations. We take great pride in the leadership roles our firm plays in many of this country's major cases, including those resulting in landmark decisions and precedent-setting rulings. Lieff Cabraser has litigated and resolved thousands of individual lawsuits and hundreds of class and group actions, including some of the most important civil cases in the United States over the past three decades. We have assisted our clients recover over $42 billion in verdicts and settlements for clients, plus an additional $206 billion in the multi-state tobacco litigation. Fifteen cases were resolved for over $1 billion; another 30 cases resulted in verdicts or settlements in excess of $100 million.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 3 of 85

In the 2010 edition of its annual list of the top plaintiffs' law firms, The National Law Journal again selected Lieff Cabraser. In compiling the list, The National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Lieff Cabraser is one of only two plaintiffs' law firms in the United States to receive this honor for the last eight years. In September 2010, U.S. News and Best Lawyers recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the best law firms in the nation. The publications undertook a comprehensive review of the U.S. legal profession, examining 8,782 law firms in 81 practice areas. Lieff Cabraser received a national Tier 1 ranking in the practice area of Mass Torts Litigation/Class Actions - Plaintiffs. Lieff Cabraser was one of only 22 plaintiffs' law firms nationwide to receive this ranking. CASE PROFILES: $ 3HUVRQDO ,QMXU\ DQG 3URGXFWV /LDELOLW\ /LWLJDWLRQ

Lieff Cabraser prosecutes cases involving injuries and deaths from all types of negligent conduct, manufacturing errors and design defects. Our cases range from vehicle and aviation accidents to faulty medical devices. We also represent patients prescribed drugs with dangerous, undisclosed side effects and consumers sickened by contaminated food products. Our successful personal injury and products liability cases, with the exception of aviation cases which are profiled separately, include: 1. Individual Vehicle Injury Lawsuits. Lieff Cabraser has an active practice prosecuting claims for clients injured, or the families of loved ones who have died, by the wrongful conduct of other drivers or due to unsafe and defective vehicles, tires and other automotive equipment. We represent clients in actions involving fatalities and serious injuries from rollover accidents involving fifteen passenger vans and sports utility vehicles. We have taken a leading role in representing families across the United States in the Toyota unintended, sudden acceleration litigation. We also represent clients in many other vehicle cases including ones where defective cruise control switches resulted in fires and transmission defects that caused the vehicle to shifted suddenly from park into reverse. In March 2007, in Mraz v. DaimlerChrysler, No. BC 332487 (Cal. Supr. Ct.), we obtained a $54.4 million verdict, including $50 million in punitive damages, against DaimlerChrysler for intentionally failing to cure a known defect in millions of its vehicles that led to the death of Richard Mraz, a young father. Mr. Mraz suffered fatal head injuries when the 1992 Dodge Dakota pickup truck he had been driving at his work site ran him over after he exited the vehicle believing it was in park. The jury found that a defect in the Dodge Dakota's automatic transmission, called a park-to-reverse defect, played a substantial factor in Mr. Mraz's death and that DaimlerChrysler was negligent in the design of the vehicle for failing

80577.1

-2-

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 4 of 85

to warn of the defect and then for failing to adequately recall or retrofit the vehicle. For their outstanding service to their clients and advancing the rights of all persons injured by defective products in Mraz v. DaimlerChrysler (described below), Lieff Cabraser partners Robert J. Nelson and Scott P. Nealey received the 2008 California Lawyer of the Year (CLAY) Award in the field of personal injury law, and were also selected as finalists for attorney of the year by the Consumer Attorneys of California and the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association. In March 2008, a Louisiana-state jury found DaimlerChrysler liable for the death of infant Collin Guillot and injuries to his parents Juli and August Guillot and their then 3 year old daughter Madison. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of $5,080,000 in compensatory damages. The jury found that a defect in the Jeep Grand Cherokee's transmission, called a park-to-reverse defect, played a substantial factor in Collin Guillot's death and the severe injuries suffered by Mr. and Mrs. Guillot and their daughter. Lieff Cabraser served as co-counsel in the trial. 2. In Re Yamaha Motor Corp. Rhino ATV Products Liability Litigation. MDL No. 2016 (W.D. Ky.) Lieff Cabraser serves as Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel in the litigation in federal court arising out of the hundreds of serious injuries and scores of deaths in rollover accidents involving the Yamaha Rhino. The complaints charge that the Yamaha Rhino contains multiple design and engineering flaws. The allegations include that the Rhino is equipped with defective doors, inadequate seat belts, and a dangerous roll cage. In many accidents, occupants have been ejected from their Rhino due to its deficient seat belt system and then suffered a fatal or catastrophic injury because they were struck by the vehicle's heavy, unpadded, steel roll cage. The complaints further alleges that the Yamaha Rhino is dangerously unstable due to a top-heavy design, dangerously narrow track width, high center of gravity, wheels that are too small to maintain stability, and steering geometry that facilitates rollovers and tip overs even at low speeds and on flat terrain. Multi-State Tobacco Litigation. Lieff Cabraser represented the Attorneys' General of Massachusetts, Louisiana and Illinois, several additional states, and 21 cities and counties in California, in litigation against Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and other cigarette manufacturers. The suits were part of the landmark $206 billion settlement announced in November 1998 between the tobacco industry and the states' attorneys general. The states, cities and counties sought both to recover the public costs of treating smoking-related diseases and require the tobacco industry to undertake extensive modifications of its marketing and promotion activities in order to reduce teenage smoking. In California alone, Lieff

3.

80577.1

-3-

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 5 of 85

Cabraser's clients were awarded an estimated $12.5 billion to be paid over the next 25 years. 4. Fen-Phen ("Diet Drugs") Litigation. Lieff Cabraser represents individuals pursuing personal injury claims due to injuries from the "FenPhen" diet drugs fenfluramine (sold as Pondimin) and/or dexfenfluramine (sold as Redux). We served as counsel for the plaintiff that filed the first nationwide class action lawsuit against the diet drug manufacturers alleging that they had failed to adequately warn physicians and consumers of risks associated with the drugs. Since the recall was announced in 1997, Lieff Cabraser has represented over 400 persons in individual actions who have suffered heart and/or lung damage, most often consisting of cardiac valve damage and/or Primary Pulmonary Hypertension, after ingesting Pondimin or Redux. In In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine / Fenfluramine / Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1203 (E.D. Pa.), the Court appointed Elizabeth J. Cabraser to the Plaintiffs' Management Committee which organized and directed the FenPhen diet drugs litigation filed across the nation in federal courts. In August 2000, the Court approved a $4.75 billion settlement offering both medical monitoring relief for persons exposed to the drug and compensation for persons with qualifying damage. Lieff Cabraser also served on the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee in the California Coordinated Proceedings in California state court, and as class counsel in the State of Washington certified medical monitoring action. In re ConAgra Peanut Butter Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1845 (N.D. Ga.). In September 2007, the federal court appointed Elizabeth Cabraser as Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel in the litigation arising out of the recall of Peter Pan and Great Value peanut butter. Tens of thousands of consumers nationwide contracted Salmonella poisoning from eating contaminated peanut butter produced at a single ConAgra plant in Sylvester, Georgia. In February 2007, the FDA confirmed the presence of Salmonella in opened jars of Peter Pan and Great Value peanut butter obtained from infected persons. The majority of claims have been resolved via a global settlement program. In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1657 (E.D. La.). Lieff Cabraser represents patients that suffered heart attacks or strokes, and the families of loved ones who died, after having being prescribed the arthritis and pain medication Vioxx. In individual personal injury lawsuits against Merck, the manufacturer of Vioxx, our clients allege that Merck falsely promoted the safety of Vioxx and failed to disclose the full range of the drug's dangerous side effects. In April 2005, in the federal multidistrict litigation, the Court appointed Elizabeth J. Cabraser to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, which has the responsibility of conducting all pretrial discovery of Vioxx cases in Federal court and pursuing all settlement options with Merck. In August 2006, Lieff Cabraser was co-4-

5.

6.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 6 of 85

counsel in Barnett v. Merck, tried in the federal Court in New Orleans. Lieff Cabraser attorneys Don Arbitblit and Jennifer Gross participated in the trial, working closely with attorneys Mark Robinson and Andy Birchfield. The jury reached a verdict in favor of Mr. Barnett, finding that Vioxx caused his heart attack, and that Merck's conduct justified an award of punitive damages. In November 2007, Merck announced it had entered into an agreement with the executive committee of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee as well as representatives of plaintiffs' counsel in state coordinated proceedings. Merck will pay a fixed amount of $4.85 billion into a settlement fund for qualifying claims already filed against Merck. Lieff Cabraser is part of the trial team for the Louisiana Attorney General's Vioxx trial against Merck. 7. In re Bextra/Celebrex Marketing Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1699 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel and Elizabeth J. Cabraser chaired the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) charged with overseeing all personal injury and consumer litigation in Federal courts nationwide arising out of the sale and marketing of the COX-2 inhibitors Bextra and Celebrex, manufactured by Pfizer, Inc and its predecessor companies Pharmacia Corporation and G.D. Searle, Inc. The litigation presented unique challenges, including two drugs with different regulatory histories and different liability issues, and the risk of dismissal on preemption grounds. Discovery was extensive, involving tens of millions of documents and over a hundred multi-day depositions. Under the global resolution of the multidistrict tort and consumer litigation announced in October 2008, Pfizer is paying at least $850 million, including over $750 million to resolve death and injury claims. In a report adopted by the Court on common benefit work performed by the PSC, the Special Master stated: [L]eading counsel form both sides, and the attorneys from the PSC who actively participated in this litigation, demonstrated the utmost skill and professionalism in dealing with numerous complex legal and factual issues. The briefing presented to the Special Master, and also to the Court, and the development of evidence by both sides was exemplary. The Special Master particularly wishes to recognize that leading counsel for both sides worked extremely hard to minimize disputes, and when they arose, to make sure that they were raised with a minimum of rancor and a maximum of candor before the Special Master and Court.

80577.1

-5-

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 7 of 85

8.

In re ReNu With MoistureLoc Contact Lens Solution Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1785 (D. S.C.). Lieff Cabraser served on the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee in federal court litigation arising out of Bausch & Lomb's 2006 recall of its ReNu with MoistureLoc contact lens solution. Consumers who developed Fusarium keratitis, a rare and dangerous fungal eye infection, as well as other serious eye infections, alleged the lens solution was defective. Some consumers were forced to undergo painful corneal transplant surgery to save their vision; others lost all or part of their vision permanently. The litigation was resolved under favorable, confidential settlements with Bausch & Lomb. In re Guidant Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1708. Lieff Cabraser serves on the Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel Committee in litigation in federal court arising out of the recall of Guidant cardiac defibrillators implanted in patients because of potential malfunctions in the devices. At the time of the recall, Guidant admitted it was aware of 43 reports of device failures, and two patient deaths. Guidant subsequently acknowledged that the actual rate of failure may be higher than the reported rate and that the number of associated deaths may be underreported, since implantable cardio-defibrillators are not routinely evaluated after death. In January 2008, the parties reached a global settlement of the action. Guidant's settlements of defibrillator-related claims will total $240 million. Fallquist, et al. v. Advanced Medical Optics and Allergan, No. SC 096041 (Los Angeles Super. Ct.); Martin, et al v. Advanced Medical Optics and Allergan, No. KC 051267H (Los Angeles Super. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser represents 31 consumers nationwide in several separate consolidated personal injury lawsuits filed against Advanced Medical Optics in August and November of 2007. AMO's Complete MoisturePlus Multi Purpose Contact Lens Solution was recalled in May 2007 due to reports of a link between a rare, but serious eye infection, Acanthamoeba keratitis, caused by a parasite and use of AMO's contact lens solution. Plaintiffs charge that though AMO aggressively promoted Complete MoisturePlus Multi Purpose as "effective against the introduction of common ocular microorganisms," the lens solution was ineffective and vastly inferior to other multipurpose solutions on the market. Plaintiffs were forced to undergo painful corneal transplant surgery to save their vision and some have lost all or part of their vision permanently. Luisi, et al. v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 07 CV 4250 (D. Minn.). Lieff Cabraser currently represents over seven hundred heart patients nationwide who were implanted with recalled Sprint Fidelis defibrillator leads manufactured by Medtronic Inc. Plaintiffs charge that Medtronic has misrepresented the safety of the Sprint Fidelis leads and a defect in the device triggered their receiving massive, unnecessary electrical shocks.

9.

10.

11.

80577.1

-6-

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 8 of 85

12.

Blood Factor VIII And Factor IX Litigation. Working with counsel in Asia, Europe, Central and South America and the Middle East, Lieff Cabraser represents hundreds of hemophiliacs worldwide, or their survivors and estates, who contracted HIV and/or Hepatitis C (HCV), and Americans with hemophilia who contracted HCV, from contaminated and defective blood factor products produced by American pharmaceutical companies. In 2004, Lieff Cabraser was appointed Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel of the "second generation" Blood Factor MDL litigation presided over by Judge Grady in the Northern District of Illinois. Sulzer Hip and Knee Implants Litigation. In December 2000, Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc., announced the recall of approximately 30,000 units of its Inter-Op Acetabular Shell Hip Implant, followed in May 2001 with a notification of failures of its Natural Knee II Tibial Baseplate Knee Implant. In coordinated litigation in California state court, In re Hip Replacement Cases, JCCP 4165, Lieff Cabraser served as Court-appointed Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel and Co-Lead Counsel. In the federal litigation, In re Sulzer Hip Prosthesis and Knee Prosthesis Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1410, Lieff Cabraser played a significant role in negotiating a revised settlement with Sulzer valued at more than $1 billion. In May 2002, the Court granted final approval to the revised settlement. In re Baycol Products Litigation, MDL No. 1431 (D. Minn.). Baycol was one of a group of drugs called statins, intended to reduce cholesterol. In August 2001, Bayer A.G. and Bayer Corporation, the manufacturers of Baycol, withdrew the drug from the worldwide market based upon reports that Baycol was associated with serious side effects and linked to the deaths of over 100 patients worldwide. In the federal multi-district litigation, Lieff Cabraser serves as a member of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) and the Executive Committee of the PSC. In addition, Lieff Cabraser represented approximately 200 Baycol patients who have suffered injuries or family members of patients who died allegedly as a result of ingesting Baycol. In these cases, our clients reached confidential favorable settlements with Bayer. In re Silicone Gel Breast Implants Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 926 (N.D. Ala.). Lieff Cabraser serves on the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee and was one of five members of the negotiating committee which achieved a $4.25 billion global settlement with certain defendants of the action. This was renegotiated in 1995, and is referred to as the Revised Settlement Program ("RSP"). Over 100,000 recipients have received initial payments, reimbursement for the explanation expenses and/or long term benefits. In re Telectronics Pacing Systems Inc., Accufix Atrial "J" Leads Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1057 (S.D. Ohio). Lieff Cabraser served on the court-appointed Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in a -7-

13.

14.

15.

16.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 9 of 85

nationwide products liability action alleging that defendants placed into the stream of commerce defective pacemaker leads. In April 1997, the district court re-certified a nationwide class of "J" Lead implantees with subclasses for the claims of medical monitoring, negligence and strict product liability. A summary jury trial utilizing jury instructions and interrogatories designed by Lieff Cabraser occurred in February 1998. A partial settlement was approved thereafter by the district court, but reversed by the Court of Appeals. In March 2001, the district court approved a renewed settlement that included a $58 million fund to satisfy all past, present and future claims by patients for their medical care, injuries, or damages arising from the lead. 17. In re Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc., "Albuterol" Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1013 (D. Wyo.). Lieff Cabraser served on the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in a class action lawsuit against Copley Pharmaceutical, which manufactured Albuterol, a bronchodilator prescription pharmaceutical. Albuterol was the subject of a nationwide recall in January 1994 after a microorganism was found to have contaminated the solution, allegedly causing numerous injuries including bronchial infections, pneumonia, respiratory distress and, in some cases, death. In October 1994, the district court certified a nationwide class on liability issues. In re Copley Pharmaceutical, 161 F.R.D. 456 (D. Wyo. 1995). In November 1995, the district court approved a $150 million settlement of the litigation.

%

6HFXULWLHV DQG ,QYHVWPHQW )UDXG 1. In re Scorpion Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation I, No. C-9320333-EAI (N.D. Cal.); Dietrich v. Bauer, No. C-95-7051-RWS (S.D.N.Y.); Claghorn v. Edsaco, No. 98-3039-SI (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Counsel in class action suits arising out of an alleged fraudulent scheme by Scorpion Technologies, Inc., certain of its officers, accountants, underwriters and business affiliates to inflate the company's earnings through reporting fictitious sales. In Scorpion I, the Court found plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence of liability under Federal securities acts against the accounting firm Grant Thornton for the case to proceed to trial. In re Scorpion Techs., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22294 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 1996). In 1988, the court approved a $5.5 million settlement with Grant Thornton. In 2000, the Court approved a $950,000 settlement with Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation. In April 2002, a federal jury in San Francisco, California returned a $170.7 million verdict against Edsaco Ltd. The jury found that Edsaco aided Scorpion in setting up phony European companies as part of a scheme in which Scorpion reported fictitious sales of its software to these companies, thereby inflating its earnings. Included in the jury verdict, one of the largest verdicts in the U.S. in 2002, was $165 million in punitive damages. Richard M. Heimann conducted the trial for plaintiffs. -8-

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 10 of 85

On June 14, 2002, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston commented on Lieff Cabraser's representation: "[C]ounsel for the plaintiffs did a very good job in a very tough situation of achieving an excellent recovery for the class here. You were opposed by extremely capable lawyers. It was an uphill battle. There were some complicated questions, and then there was the tricky issue of actually collecting anything in the end. I think based on the efforts that were made here that it was an excellent result for the class. . . [T]he recovery that was achieved for the class in this second trial is remarkable, almost a hundred percent." 2. Merrill Lynch Fundamental Growth Fund and Merrill Lynch Global Value Fund, Inc v. McKesson HBOC, Inc. et al., No. 02-405792 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as counsel for two Merrill Lynch sponsored mutual funds in a private lawsuit alleging that a massive accounting fraud occurred at HBOC & Company ("HBOC") before and following its 1999 acquisition by McKesson Corporation ("McKesson"). The funds charged that defendants, including the former CFO of McKesson HBOC, the name McKesson adopted after acquiring HBOC, artificially inflated the price of securities in McKesson HBOC, through misrepresentations and omissions concerning the financial condition of HBOC, resulting in approximately $135 million in losses for plaintiffs. In a significant discovery ruling in 2004, the California Court of Appeal held that defendants waived the attorney-client and work product privileges in regard to an audit committee report and interview memoranda prepared in anticipation of shareholder lawsuits by disclosing the information to the U.S. Attorney and SEC. McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Supr. Court, 115 Cal. App. 4th 1229 (2004). Lieff Cabraser's clients recovered approximately $145 million, representing nearly 104% of damages suffered by the funds. This amount was approximately $115-120 million more than the Merrill Lynch funds would have recovered had they participated in the federal class action settlement. In re Broadcom Corporation Derivative Litigation, No. CV 06-3252-R (C.D. Cal.). On December 14, 2009, U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real of the Central District of California granted final approval to a partial settlement in which Broadcom Corporation's insurance carriers will pay $118 million to Broadcom. The settlement releases certain individual director and officer defendants covered by Broadcom's directors' and officers' policy. The $118 million settlement constitutes the second largest in a derivative action involving stock options backdating. The settlement does not resolve the claims against William J. Ruehle, Broadcom's former Chief Financial Officer, Henry T. Nicholas, III, Broadcom's co-founder and former Chief Executive Officer, and Henry Samueli, Broadcom's co-founder and former Chief Technology Officer. The suit alleges defendants intentionally manipulated their stock option

80577.1

3.

-9-

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 11 of 85

grant dates between 1998 and 2003 at the expense of Broadcom and Broadcom shareholders. By making it seem as if stock option grants occurred on dates when Broadcom stock was trading at a comparatively low per share price, stock option grant recipients were able to exercise their stock option grants at exercise prices that were lower than the fair market value of Broadcom stock on the day the options were actually granted. Lieff Cabraser serves as court-appointed Lead Counsel in the action. 4. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, et al. v. Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC, et al., No. 09cv1054 (S.D. Ohio). Lieff Cabraser and cocounsel are assisting Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray in a lawsuit filed against Standard & Poor's, Moody's and Fitch alleging these agencies provided unjustified and inflated ratings of mortgage-backed securities in exchange for lucrative fees from securities issuers. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, the Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, the School Employees Retirement System of Ohio and the Ohio Public Employees Deferred Compensation Program, charges that many mortgage-backed securities were given the highest investment-grade credit rating, often referred to as "AAA." This rating assured institutional investors, including the plaintiff Ohio pension funds, that the investments were extremely safe with a very low risk of default. The Ohio funds lost in excess of $457 million in investments in mortgage-backed securities that were improperly rated by the rating agencies. DiNapoli v. Bank of America Corp., No. 10 CV 5563 (S.D. N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel for the New York State Comptroller in his capacity as trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund (Fund) in a direct lawsuit against Bank of America. The complaint seeks recovery of losses the Fund incurred based upon Bank of America's misrepresentation and concealment of material facts in connection with its purchase of Merrill Lynch as required under federal securities laws. The alleged critical facts Bank of America failed to disclose to shareholders prior to the December 5, 2008, vote on the merger include Merrill Lynch's exposure to securities backed by subprime mortgages and its tremendous fourth quarter 2008 losses. Alaska State Department of Revenue, et al. v. America Online, Inc., et al. No. 1JU-04-503 (Alaska Supr. Ct.). In December 2006, a $50 million settlement was reached in a securities fraud action brought by the Alaska State Department of Revenue, Alaska State Pension Investment Board and Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation against defendants America Online, Inc. ("AOL"), Time Warner Inc. (formerly known as AOL Time Warner ("AOLTW")), Historic TW Inc. When the action was filed, the Alaska Attorney General estimated total losses at $70 million. The recovery on behalf of Alaska was approximately 50 times what the state would have - 10 -

5.

6.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 12 of 85

received as a member of the class in the federal securities class action settlement. The lawsuit, filed in 2004 in Alaska State Court, alleged that defendants misrepresented advertising revenues and growth of AOL and AOLTW along with the number of AOL subscribers, which artificially inflated the stock price of AOL and AOLTW to the detriment of Alaska State funds. The Alaska Department of Law retained Lieff Cabraser to lead the litigation efforts under its direction. "We appreciate the diligence and expertise of our counsel in achieving an outstanding resolution of the case," said Mark Morones, spokesperson for the Department of Law, following announcement of the settlement. 7. In re Qwest Communications International, Inc. Securities and "ERISA" Litigation (No. II), No. 06-cv-17880-REB-PAC (MDL No. 1788) (D. Colo.). Lieff Cabraser represented the New York State Common Retirement Fund, Fire and Police Pension Association of Colorado, Denver Employees' Retirement Plan, San Francisco Employees' Retirement System, and over thirty BlackRock managed mutual funds in individual securities fraud actions ("opt out" cases) against Qwest Communications International, Inc., Philip F. Anschutz, former co-chairman of the Qwest board of directors, and other senior executives at Qwest. In each action, the plaintiffs charged defendants with massively overstating Qwest's publicly-reported growth, revenues, earnings, and earnings per share from 1999 through 2002. The cases were filed in the wake of a $400 million settlement of a securities fraud class action against Qwest that was announced in early 2006. The cases brought by Lieff Cabraser's clients settled in October 2007 for recoveries totaling more than $85 million, or more than 13 times what the clients would have received had they remained in the class. In re Cablevision Systems Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litig., No. 06cv-4130-DGT-AKT (E.D.N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel in a shareholders' derivative action against the board of directors and numerous officers of Cablevision. The suit alleges that defendants intentionally manipulated stock option grant dates to Cablevision employees between 1997 and 2002 in order to enrich certain officer and director defendants at the expense of Cablevision and Cablevision shareholders. According to the complaint, Defendants made it appear as if stock options were granted earlier than they actually were in order to maximize the value of the grants. In September 2008, the Court granted final approval to a $34.4 million settlement of the action. Over $24 million of the settlement was contributed directly by individual defendants who either received backdated options or participated in the backdating activity.

8.

80577.1

- 11 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 13 of 85

9.

BlackRock Global Allocation Fund, Inc., et al. v. Tyco International Ltd., et al., No. 2:08-cv-519 (D. N.J.); Nuveen Balanced Municipal and Stock Fund, et al. v. Tyco International Ltd., et al., No. 2:08-cv-518 (D. N.J.). Lieff Cabraser represents multiple funds of the investment firms BlackRock Inc. and Nuveen Asset Management in separate, direct securities fraud actions against Tyco International Ltd., Tyco Electronics Ltd., Covidien Ltd, Covidien (U.S.), L. Dennis Kozlowski, Mark H. Swartz, and Frank E. Walsh, Jr. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a massive criminal enterprise that combined the theft of corporate assets with fraudulent accounting entries that concealed Tyco's financial condition from investors. As a result, Plaintiffs purchased Tyco common stock and other Tyco securities at artificially inflated prices and suffered losses upon disclosures revealing Tyco's true financial condition and defendants' misconduct. In May 2009, the parties settled the claims against the corporate defendants (Tyco International Ltd., Tyco Electronics Ltd., Covidien Ltd., and Covidien (U.S.)). The combined settlement in both cases was $54 million. Litigation is ongoing as to the remaining defendants.

10.

In re National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc. Investment Litigation, MDL No. 1565 (S.D. Ohio). Lieff Cabraser serves as outside counsel for the New York City Employees' Retirement System, Teachers' Retirement System for the City of New York, New York City Police Pension Fund, and New York City Fire Department Pension Fund in this multidistrict litigation arising from fraud in connection with NCFE's issuance of notes backed by healthcare receivables. The New York City Pension Funds suffered approximately $89 million in losses resulting from the massive NCFE fraud. Having successfully resolved their claims against numerous parties, the Funds continue to pursue claims against several NCFE founders. To date, the Funds have recovered approximately 70% of their losses, primarily through settlements achieved on their behalf by Lieff Cabraser. Albert, et al. v. Alex. Brown Management Services, Inc., et al.; Baker , et al. v. Alex. Brown Management Services, Inc., et al. (Del. Ch. Ct.). In May 2004, on behalf of investors in two investment funds controlled, managed and operated by Deutsche Bank and advised by DC Investment Partners, Lieff Cabraser filed lawsuits for alleged fraudulent conduct that resulted in an aggregate loss of hundreds of millions of dollars. The suits named as defendants Deutsche Bank and its subsidiaries Alex Brown Management Services and Deutsche Bank Securities, members of the funds' management committee, as well as DC Investments Partners and two of its principals. Among the plaintiff-investors were 70 high net worth individuals. In the fall of 2006, the cases settled by confidential agreement.

11.

80577.1

- 12 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 14 of 85

12.

Kofuku Bank Ltd. and Namihaya Bank Ltd. v. Republic New York Securities Corp., et al., No. 00 CIV 3298 (S.D.N.Y.); and Kita Hyogo Shinyo-Kumiai v. Republic New York Securities Corp., et al., No. 00 CIV 4114 (S.D.N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser represented Kofuku Bank, Namihaya Bank and Kita Hyogo Shinyo-Kumiai (a credit union) in individual lawsuits against, among others, Martin A. Armstrong and HSBC, Inc., the successor-in-interest to Republic New York Corporation, Republic New York Bank and Republic New York Securities Corporation for alleged violations of federal securities and racketeering laws. Through a group of interconnected companies owned and controlled by Armstrong--the Princeton Companies--Armstrong and the Republic Companies promoted and sold promissory notes, known as the "Princeton Notes," to more than eighty of the largest companies and financial institutions in Japan. Lieff Cabraser's lawsuits, as well as the lawsuits of dozens of other Princeton Note investors, alleged that the Princeton and Republic Companies made fraudulent misrepresentations and nondisclosures in connection with the promotion and sale of Princeton Notes, and that investors' moneys were commingled and misused to the benefit of Armstrong, the Princeton Companies and the Republic Companies. In December 2001, the claims of our clients and those of the other Princeton Note investors were settled. As part of the settlement, our clients recovered more than $50 million, which represented 100% of the value of their principal investments less money they received in interest or other payments. Allocco, et al. v. Gardner, et al., No. GIC 806450 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser represents Lawrence L. Garlick, the co-founder and former Chief Executive Officer of Remedy Corporation and 24 other former senior executives and directors of Remedy Corporation in a private (non-class) securities fraud lawsuit against Stephen P. Gardner, the former Chief Executive Officer of Peregrine Systems, Inc., John J. Moores, Peregrine's former Chairman of the Board, Matthew C. Gless, Peregrine's former Chief Financial Officer, Peregrine's accounting firm Arthur Andersen and certain entities that entered into fraudulent transactions with Peregrine. The lawsuit, filed in California state court, arises out of Peregrine's August 2001 acquisition of Remedy. Plaintiffs charge that they were induced to exchange their Remedy stock for Peregrine stock on the basis of false and misleading representations made by defendants. Within months of the Remedy acquisition, Peregrine began to reveal to the public that it had grossly overstated its revenue during the years 2000-2002, and eventually restated more than $500 million in revenues. After successfully defeating demurrers brought by defendants, including third parties who were customers of Peregrine who aided and abetted Peregrine's accounting fraud under California common law, plaintiffs reached a series of settlements. The settling defendants included Arthur Andersen, all of the director defendants, three officer defendants and the

13.

80577.1

- 13 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 15 of 85

third party customer defendants KPMG, British Telecom, Fujitsu, Software Spectrum and Bindview. The total amount received in settlements is approximately $45 million. 14. Lehman Brothers/First Alliance Mortgage Litigation, No. SA CV 01971 (C.D. Cal.). On June 16, 2003, a federal jury in California held Lehman Brothers, Inc., liable for knowingly assisting First Alliance Mortgage Corporation in committing fraud. First Alliance was accused of misrepresenting the true cost of home loans and of charging borrowers as much as 24% in loan origination and other fees. The jury found that First Alliance systematically defrauded borrowers, and that Lehman Brothers aided and abetted the fraudulent scheme. The verdict showed that the community will hold Wall Street responsible for knowingly serving as a financial backer to abusive lenders. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed class wide liability against Lehman Brothers. In re Network Associates, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C-99-1729WHA (N.D. Cal.). Following a competitive bidding process, the Court appointed Lieff Cabraser as Lead Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff and the class of investors. The complaint alleged that Network Associates improperly accounted for acquisitions in order to inflate its stock price. In May 2001, the Court granted approval to a $30 million settlement. In reviewing the Network Associates settlement, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Alsup observed, "[T]he class was well served at a good price by excellent counsel . . . We have class counsel who's one of the foremost law firms in the country in both securities law and class actions. And they have a very excellent reputation for the conduct of these kinds of cases . . ." 16. In re California Micro Devices Securities Litigation, No. C-94-2817VRW (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Liaison Counsel for the Colorado Public Employees' Retirement Association and the California State Teachers' Retirement System, and the class they represented. Prior to 2001, the Court approved $19 million in settlements. In May 2001, the Court approved an additional settlement of $12 million, which, combined with the earlier settlements, provided class members an almost complete return on their losses. The settlement with the company included multimillion dollar contributions by the former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. Commenting in 2001 on Lieff Cabraser's work in Cal Micro Devices, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn R. Walker stated, "It is highly unusual for a class action in the securities area to recover anywhere close to the percentage of loss that has been recovered here, and counsel and the lead plaintiffs have done an admirable job in bringing about this most satisfactory conclusion of the litigation." One year later, in a related

80577.1

15.

- 14 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 16 of 85

proceeding and in response to the statement that the class had received nearly a 100% recovery, Judge Walker observed, "That's pretty remarkable. In these cases, 25 cents on the dollar is considered to be a magnificent recovery, and this is [almost] a hundred percent." 17. In re Brooks Automation, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 06 CA 11068 (D. Mass.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Court-Appointed Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association and co-plaintiff Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System in a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of Brooks Automation. Plaintiff charges that Brooks Automation, its senior corporate officers and directors violated federal securities laws by backdating company stock options over a six year period, and failed to disclose the scheme in publicly filed financial statements. Subsequent to Lieff Cabraser's filing of a consolidated amended complaint in this action, both the Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Department of Justice filed complaints against the Company's former C.E.O., Robert Therrien, related to the same alleged practices. In October 2008, the Court granted final approval to a $7.75 million settlement of the action. In re FPI/Agretech Securities Litigation, MDL No. 763 (D. Haw., Real, J.). Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Class Counsel on behalf of multiple classes of investors defrauded in a limited partnership investment scheme. The Court approved $15 million in partial pretrial settlements. At trial, the jury returned a $25 million verdict, which included $10 million in punitive damages plus costs, interest, and attorneys' fees, against non-settling defendant Arthur Young & Co. on securities and tort claims arising from its involvement in the fraud. Richard M. Heimann served as Lead Trial Counsel in the class action trial. On appeal, the compensatory damages judgment was affirmed and the case was remanded for retrial on punitive damages. In 1994, the Court approved a $17 million class settlement with Ernst & Young. Informix/Illustra Securities Litigation, No. C-97-1289-CRB (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represented Richard H. Williams, the former Chief Executive Officer and President of Illustra Information Technologies, Inc. ("Illustra"), and a class of Illustra shareholders in a class action suit on behalf of all former Illustra securities holders who tendered their Illustra preferred or common stock, stock warrants or stock options in exchange for securities of Informix Corporation ("Informix") in connection with Informix's 1996 purchase of Illustra. Pursuant to that acquisition, Illustra stockholders received Informix securities representing approximately 10% of the value of the combined company. The complaint alleged claims for common law fraud and violations of Federal securities law arising out of the acquisition. In October 1999, U.S. District Judge Charles E. Breyer approved a global settlement of the litigation for $136 million, constituting - 15 -

18.

19.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 17 of 85

one of the largest settlements ever involving a high technology company alleged to have committed securities fraud. Our clients, the Illustra shareholders, received approximately 30% of the net settlement fund. 20. In re Media Vision Technology Securities Litigation No. CV-94-1015 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel in a class action lawsuit which alleged that certain of Media Vision's officers, outside directors, accountants and underwriters engaged in a fraudulent scheme to inflate the company's earnings, and issued false and misleading public statements about the company's finances, earnings and profits. By 1998, the Court had approved several partial settlements with many of Media Vision's officers and directors, accountants and underwriters which totaled $31 million. The settlement proceeds have been distributed to eligible class members. The evidence that Lieff Cabraser developed in the civil case led prosecutors to commence an investigation and ultimately file criminal charges against Media Vision's former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. The civil action against Media Vision's CEO and CFO was stayed pending the criminal proceedings against them. In the criminal proceedings, the CEO pled guilty on several counts, and the CFO was convicted at trial. In October, 2003, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and entered a judgment in favor of the class against these two defendants in the amount of $188 million. Nguyen v. FundAmerica, No. C-90-2090 MHP (N.D. Cal., Patel, J.), 1990 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) ¶¶ 95,497, 95,498 (N.D. Cal. 1990). Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs' Class Counsel in this securities/RICO/tort action seeking an injunction against alleged unfair "pyramid" marketing practices and compensation to participants. The District Court certified a nationwide class for injunctive relief and damages on a mandatory basis and enjoined fraudulent overseas transfers of assets. The Bankruptcy Court permitted class proof of claims. Lieff Cabraser obtained dual District Court and Bankruptcy Court approval of settlements distributing over $13 million in FundAmerica assets to class members. In re First Capital Holdings Corp. Financial Products Securities Litigation, MDL No. 901 (C.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel in a class action brought to recover damages sustained by policyholders of First Capital Life Insurance Company and Fidelity Bankers Life Insurance Company policyholders resulting from the insurance companies' allegedly fraudulent or reckless investment and financial practices, and the manipulation of the companies' financial statements. This policyholder settlement generated over $1 billion in restored life insurance policies, and was approved by both federal and state courts in parallel proceedings and then affirmed by the Ninth Circuit on appeal.

21.

22.

80577.1

- 16 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 18 of 85

&

(PSOR\PHQW 'LVFULPLQDWLRQ DQG 8QIDLU (PSOR\PHQW 3UDFWLFHV 1. Butler v. Home Depot, No. C94-4335 SI (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel represented a class of approximately 25,000 female employees and applicants for employment with Home Depot's West Coast Division who alleged gender discrimination in connection with hiring, promotions, pay, job assignment, and other terms and conditions of employment. The class was certified in January 1995. In January 1998, the court approved a $87 5 million settlement of the action that included comprehensive injunctive relief over the term of a five-year Consent Decree. Under the terms of the settlement, Home Depot modified its hiring, promotion, and compensation practices to ensure that interested and qualified women were hired for, and promoted to, sales and management positions. On January 14, 1998, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston commented that the settlement provides "a very significant monetary payment to the class members for which I think they should be grateful to their counsel. . . . Even more significant is the injunctive relief that's provided for . . ." By 2003, the injunctive relief had created thousands of new job opportunities in sales and management positions at Home Depot, generating the equivalent of over approximately $100 million per year in wages for female employees. In 2002, Judge Illston stated that the injunctive relief has been a "win/win . . . for everyone, because . . . the way the Decree has been implemented has been very successful and it is good for the company as well as the company's employees." 2. Amochaev, et al. v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., d/b/a Smith Barney, No. C 05-1298 PJH (N.D. Cal.). On August 13, 2008, the Court granted final approval to a settlement of the gender discrimination case against Smith Barney. Lieff Cabraser represented Female Financial Advisors who charged that Smith Barney, the retail brokerage unit of Citigroup, discriminated against them in account distributions, business leads, referral business, partnership opportunities, and other terms of employment. The Court approved a four-year settlement agreement that provides for comprehensive injunctive relief and significant monetary relief of $33 million for the 2,411 members of the Settlement Class. The comprehensive injunctive relief provided under the settlement is designed to increase business opportunities and promote equality in compensation for female brokers. Wynne, et al. v. McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurants, Inc., No. C 06-3153 CW (N.D. Cal.). In August 2008, the Court granted final approval to a settlement valued at $2.1 million, including substantial injunctive relief, for a class of African American restaurant-level hourly employees. The consent decree created hiring benchmarks to increase the - 17 -

3.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 19 of 85

number of African Americans employed in front of the house jobs (e.g., server, bartender, host/hostess, waiter/waitress, and cocktail server), a registration of interest program to minimize discrimination in promotions, improved complaint procedures, and monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. 4. Tatum v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, No. 1:02-cv-00373-NCT (M.D. N.C.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Trial Counsel in this class action on behalf of over 3,500 employees of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR") brought under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Plaintiffs alleged that RJR breached its duty of prudence in administering the employee 401(k) retirement plan. The 5week bench trial concluded in February 2010, and post-trial briefing concluded in April 2010. The parties are awaiting the Court's verdict. Rosenburg, et al. v. IBM, No. C 06-0430 PJH (N.D. Cal.). In July 2007, the Court granted final approval to a $65 million settlement of a class action suit by current and former technical support workers for IBM seeking unpaid overtime. The settlement constitutes a record amount in litigation seeking overtime compensation for employees in the computer industry. Plaintiffs alleged that IBM illegally misclassified its employees who install or maintain computer hardware or software as "exempt" from the overtime pay requirements of federal and state labor laws. Satchell, et al. v. FedEx Express, No. C 03-2659 SI; C 03-2878 SI (N.D. Cal.). In 2007, the Court granted final approval to a $54.9 million settlement of the race discrimination class action lawsuit by African American and Latino employees of FedEx Express. The settlement requires FedEx to reform its promotion, discipline, and pay practices. Under the settlement, FedEx will implement multiple steps to promote equal employment opportunities, including making its performance evaluation process less discretionary, discarding use of the "Basic Skills Test" as a prerequisite to promotion into certain desirable positions, and changing employment policies to demonstrate that its revised practices do not continue to foster racial discrimination. The settlement, covering 20,000 hourly employees and operations managers who have worked in the western region of FedEx Express since October 1999, was approved by the Court in August 2007. Barnett v. Wal-Mart, No. 01-2-24553-SNKT (Wash.). On July 21, 2009, the Court gave final approval to a settlement valued at up to $35 million on behalf of workers in Washington State who alleged they were deprived of meal and rest breaks and forced to work off-the-clock at Wal-Mart stores and Sam's Clubs. In addition to monetary relief, the settlement provided injunctive relief benefiting all employees. Wal-Mart was required to undertake measures to prevent wage and hour violations at its

5.

6.

7.

80577.1

- 18 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 20 of 85

50 stores and clubs in Washington, measures that included the use of new technologies and compliance tools. Plaintiffs filed their complaint in 2001. Three years later, the Court certified a class of approximately 40,000 current and former Wal-Mart employees. The eight years of litigation were intense and adversarial. Wal-Mart, currently the world's third largest corporation, vigorously denied liability and spared no expense in defending itself. This lawsuit and similar actions filed against Wal-Mart across America served to reform the pay procedures and employment practices for WalMart's 1.4 million employees nationwide. In a press release announcing the Court's approval of the settlement, Wal-Mart spokesperson Daphne Moore stated, "This lawsuit was filed years ago and the allegations are not representative of the company we are today." Lieff Cabraser served as court-appointed Co-Lead Class Counsel. 8. Gerlach v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. C 05-0585 CW (N.D. Cal.). In January 2007, the Court granted final approval to a $12.8 million settlement of a class action suit by current and former business systems employees of Wells Fargo seeking unpaid overtime. Plaintiffs alleged that Wells Fargo illegally misclassified those employees, who maintained and updated Wells Fargo's business tools according to others' instructions, as "exempt" from the overtime pay requirements of federal and state labor laws. Higazi v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., No. C 07-2813 JW (N.D. Cal.). In July 2008, the Court granted final approval to a $7.664 million settlement of a class action suit by current and former technical support workers for Cadence seeking unpaid overtime. Plaintiffs alleged that Cadence illegally misclassified its employees who install, maintain, or support computer hardware or software as "exempt" from the overtime pay requirements of federal and state labor laws. Calibuso v. Bank of America Corporation, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., No. CV10-1413 (E.D. N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel for current and former female Financial Advisors who allege that Bank of America and Merrill Lynch engaged in a pattern and practice of gender discrimination with respect to business opportunities, compensation, professional support, and other terms and conditions of employment. The complaint charges that these violations are systemic, based upon company-wide policies and practices. Pickle v. J.P. Morgan Chase Co., No. 10-CV-2791 (S.D. N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser is Co-Lead Counsel in this case alleging that J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. had a common practice of misclassifying its loan underwriters as exempt and failing to pay them for all overtime hours - 19 -

9.

10.

11.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 21 of 85

worked in violation of federal overtime pay laws. Chase employs roughly 500-1,000 underwriters nationwide. 12. Gonzalez et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. et al., No. C03-2817 SI (N.D. Cal.). In April 2005, the Court approved a settlement, valued at approximately $50 million, which requires the retail clothing giant Abercrombie & Fitch to provide monetary benefits of $40 million to the class of Latino, African American, Asian American and female applicants and employees who charged the company with discrimination. The settlement also requires the company to institute a range of policies and programs to promote diversity among its workforce and to prevent discrimination based on race or gender. Lieff Cabraser serves as Lead Class Counsel and prosecuted the case with a number of co-counsel firms, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Implementation of the consent decree continues into 2011. Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., No. C-92-0692 MJJ (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel obtained a $36.5 million settlement in February 2004 for a class of female flight attendants who were required to weigh less than comparable male flight attendants. Former U.S. District Court Judge Charles B. Renfrew (ret.), who served as a mediator in the case, stated, "As a participant in the settlement negotiations, I am familiar with and know the reputation, experience and skills of lawyers involved. They are dedicated, hardworking and able counsel who have represented their clients very effectively." U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins, in granting final approval to the settlement, found "that the results achieved here could be nothing less than described as exceptional," and that the settlement "was obtained through the efforts of outstanding counsel." 14. Winnett, et al. v. Caterpillar, Inc. No. 3:06-cv-00235 (M.D. Tenn.). Lieff Cabraser serves as co-counsel representing retirees in a nationwide class action lawsuit against Caterpillar, Inc. In October 2004, Caterpillar began charging monthly premiums despite longstanding contracts that promise free healthcare to certain participants and their spouses. The lawsuit seeks to end these charges and restore the plaintiffs and similarly situated retirees to the position they would have been but for Caterpillar's contractual violations. In July 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs' class certification motion. In Re Farmers Insurance Exchange Claims Representatives' Overtime Pay Litigation, MDL No. 1439 (D. Ore.). Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel represent personal lines claims representatives of Farmers' Insurance Exchange seeking unpaid overtime. In November 2003, after a three- 20 -

13.

15.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 22 of 85

week liability phase trial, the court held that Farmers' claims adjusters who handle auto and low level property claims are entitled to overtime. 300 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (2003). The court further found that Farmers' actions were willful and were not taken in good faith, entitling the workers to liquidated damages. In January and May 2005, the court entered judgments totaling $52.5 million against Farmers, the largest judgments ever entered in as the result of the trial of a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") trial. In October 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for plaintiffs under the FLSA and certain state laws, and remanded the case for further proceedings under the laws of Minnesota, Oregon, and Colorado. 16. Holloway, et al. v. Best Buy, No. C05-5056 PJH (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, represents a proposed class of current and former employees of Best Buy in a federal class action civil rights lawsuit. Plaintiffs allege that Best Buy stores nationwide discriminate against women and minorities, specifically African Americans and Latinos. These employees charge that they are assigned to less desirable positions and denied promotions, and that those women and minorities who attain managerial positions are paid less than white males. The suit also alleges that Best Buy discriminates against African Americans in entry-level hiring decisions. Lewis v. Wells Fargo, No. 08-cv-2670 CW (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Lead Counsel in this case on behalf of approximately 2500 I/T workers who allege that Wells Fargo had a common practice of misclassifying them as exempt and failing to pay them for all overtime hours worked in violation of federal and state overtime pay laws. The Court granted collective action certification of the FLSA claims and the motion for certification of the state law claims is pending. Giannetto v. Computer Sciences Corporation, No. 03-CV-8201 (C.D. Cal.). In one of the largest overtime pay dispute settlements ever in the information technology industry, the Court in July 2005 granted final approval to a $24 million settlement with Computer Sciences Corporation. Plaintiffs charged that the global conglomerate had a common practice of refusing to pay overtime compensation to its technical support workers involved in the installation and maintenance of computer hardware and software in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and the wage and hour laws of 13 states. Foster v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. ("A&P"), No. 99 Civ. 3860 (CM) (S.D. N.Y.); LaMarca v. A&P, Index No.: 04601973 (NY. Supreme Court, First Department). Lieff Cabraser, along with co-counsel, represented approximately 870 current and former employees of New York area supermarkets suing under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Opt-In Plaintiffs in the certified collective action - 21 -

17.

18.

19.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 23 of 85

sought unpaid overtime compensation resulting from Defendants' alleged failure to compensate employees for work performed "off-the-clock." In May 2004, the Court approved a settlement providing $3.11 million to the Opt-In Plaintiffs. In June 2004, current and former full-time hourly employees of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company filed a new lawsuit against defendants in New York state court. The plaintiffs allege that defendants systematically failed to pay overtime wages and deleted hours worked from time records in violation of New York labor law. In July 2007, the Court certified the class of thousands of cashiers, clerks, bakers, deli and other hourly-paid workers. The order granting certification was affirmed on appeal. The case is expected to be set for trial this year. 20. Goddard, et al. v. Longs Drug Stores Corporation, et al., No. RG04141291 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Store managers and assistant store managers of Longs Drugs charged that the company misclassified them as exempt from overtime wages. Managers regularly worked in excess of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week without compensation for their overtime hours. Following mediation, in 2005, Longs Drugs agreed to settle the claims for a total of $11 million. Over 1,000 current and former Longs Drugs managers and assistant managers were eligible for compensation under the settlement, over 98% of the class submitted claims. Zuckman v. Allied Group, No. 02-5800 SI (N.D. Cal.). In September 2004, the Court approved a settlement with Allied Group and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company of $8 million plus Allied/Nationwide's share of payroll taxes on amounts treated as wages, providing plaintiffs a 100% recovery on their claims. Plaintiffs, claims representatives of Allied / Nationwide, alleged that the company misclassified them as exempt employees and failed to pay them and other claims representatives in California overtime wages for hours they worked in excess of eight hours or forty hours per week. In approving the settlement, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston commended counsel for their "really good lawyering" and stated that they did "a splendid job on this" case. Trotter v. Perdue Farms, Inc., No. C 99-893-RRM (JJF) (MPT) (D. Del.). Lieff Cabraser represented a class of chicken processing employees of Perdue Farms, Inc., one of the nation's largest poultry processors, for wage and hour violations. The suit challenged Perdue's failure to compensate its assembly line employees for putting on, taking off, and cleaning protective and sanitary equipment in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, various state wage and hour laws, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Under a settlement approved by the Court in 2002, Perdue paid $10 million for wages lost by its chicken processing employees and attorneys' fees and costs. The settlement was

21.

22.

80577.1

- 22 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 24 of 85

in addition to a $10 million settlement of a suit brought by the Department of Labor in the wake of Lieff Cabraser's lawsuit. 23. Sandoval v. Mountain Center, Inc., et al., No. 03CC00280 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Cable installers in California charged that defendants owed them overtime wages, as well as damages for missed meal and rest breaks and reimbursement for expenses incurred on the job. In 2005, the Court approved a $7.2 million settlement of the litigation, which was distributed to the cable installers who submitted claims. Gottlieb v. SBC Communications, No. CV-00-04139 AHM (MANx) (C.D. Cal.). With co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser represented current and former employees of SBC and Pacific Telesis Group ("PTG") who participated in AirTouch Stock Funds, which were at one time part of PTG's salaried and non-salaried savings plans. After acquiring PTG, SBC sold AirTouch, which PTG had owned, and caused the AirTouch Stock Funds that were included in the PTG employees' savings plans to be liquidated. Plaintiffs alleged that in eliminating the AirTouch Stock Funds, and in allegedly failing to adequately communicate with employees about the liquidation, SBC breached its duties to 401k plan participants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. In 2002, the Court granted final approval to a $10 million settlement. Thomas v. California State Automobile Association, No. CH217752 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). With co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser represented 1,200 current and former field claims adjusters who worked for the California State Automobile Association ("CSAA"). Plaintiffs alleged that CSAA improperly classified their employees as exempt, therefore denying them overtime pay for overtime worked. In May 2002, the Court approved an $8 million settlement of the case. Church v. Consolidated Freightways, No. C90-2290 DLJ (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser was the Lead Court-appointed Class Counsel in this class action on behalf of the exempt employees of Emery Air Freight, a freight forwarding company acquired by Consolidated Freightways in 1989. On behalf of the employee class, Lieff Cabraser prosecuted claims for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the securities laws, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The case settled in 1993 for $13.5 million. Buttram v. UPS, Inc., No. C-97-01590 MJJ (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser and several co-counsel represented a class of approximately 14,000 African-American part-time hourly employees of UPS's Pacific and Northwest Regions alleging race discrimination in promotions and job advancement. In 1999, the Court approved a $12.14 million settlement of the action. Under the injunctive relief portion of the settlement, among other things, Class Counsel continues to monitor the promotions of - 23 -

24.

25.

26.

27.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 25 of 85

African-American part-time hourly employees to part-time supervisor and full-time package car driver. 28. Lyon v. TMP Worldwide, Inc., No. 993096 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel for a class of certain non-supervisory employees in an advertising firm. The settlement, approved in 2000, provided almost a 100% recovery to class members. The suit alleged that TMP failed to pay overtime wages to these employees. Kahn v. Denny's, No. BC177254 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser brought a lawsuit alleging that Denny's failed to pay overtime wages to its General Managers and Managers who worked at company-owned restaurants in California. The Court approved a $4 million settlement of the case in 2000. Giles v. Allstate, JCCP Nos. 2984 and 2985. Lieff Cabraser represented a class of Allstate insurance agents seeking reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs. The action settled for approximately $40 million. Bogan v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., No. CIV 00-0440-S-BLW (D. Idaho). Lieff Cabraser, along with co-counsel, represents a nationwide class of women production associates who allegedly have been discriminated against on the basis of sex with respect to promotions and compensation, and who allegedly have been subjected to rampant sexual harassment. In 2002, the Court approved a settlement that included comprehensive injunctive relief. Vedachalam v. Tata America Int'l Corp., C 06-0963 VRW (N.D. Cal.) Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel represent a proposed class of non-U.S.citizen employees in a nationwide class action lawsuit against Tata. Plaintiffs allege that Tata unjustly enriched itself by requiring all of its non-U.S.-citizen employees to endorse and sign over their federal and state tax refund checks to Tata. The suit also alleges other violations of California and federal law, including that Tata did not pay its non-U.S.citizen employees the amount promised to those employees before they came to the United States. In 2007 and again in 2008, the Court denied Tata's motions to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs' claims in India. The Court held that no arbitration agreement existed because the documents purportedly requiring arbitration in India applied one set of rules to the Plaintiffs and another set to Tata. In 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

29.

30.

31.

32.

Lieff Cabraser attorneys have also had experience working on several other employment cases, including cases involving race, gender, and age discrimination, ERISA, breach of contract claims, and wage/hour claims. Lieff Cabraser attorneys frequently write amici briefs on cuttingedge legal issues involving employment law. Lieff Cabraser is currently investigating charges of race, gender and/or age discrimination, and wage/hour violations against several companies.

80577.1

- 24 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 26 of 85

In 2004, Kelly M. Dermody, who oversees the firm's employment law practice, was included by The Recorder in a list of the best employment lawyers in the San Francisco Bay Area, and has also been selected as a Northern California Super Lawyer. In 2007, the Daily Journal recognized Ms. Dermody as one of the "Top Women Litigators in California," and she also received a California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) Award from California Lawyer magazine. ' &RQVXPHU 3URWHFWLRQ 1. Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. C 07-05923 WHA (N.D. Cal.). Following a bench class action trial, on August 10, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup held in a 90-page opinion that Wells Fargo violated California law by improperly and illegally assessing overdraft fees on its California customers and ordered $203 million in restitution. Instead of posting each transaction chronologically, the evidence presented at trial showed that Wells Fargo deducted the largest charges first, drawing down available balances more rapidly and triggering a higher volume of overdraft fees. Richard M. Heimann served as Lead Trial Counsel in the litigation, which is ongoing. Lieff Cabraser also serves on the plaintiffs' executive committee in a MDL action before U.S. District Court Judge James Lawrence King in Miami, Florida, against the nation's major banks for the same abusive practice. In March 2010, Judge King denied defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints. White v. Experian Information Solutions, No. 05-CV-1070 DOC (C.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel in a nationwide class action lawsuit against the nation's three major repositories of consumer credit information, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Trans Union, LLC, and Equifax Information Services, LLC. Plaintiffs charge that defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FRCA") by recklessly failing to follow reasonable procedures in the reporting, and reinvestigation of reporting, of debts discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. Plaintiffs allege that millions of Americans were denied loans or were forced to pay higher interest rates because defendants continued to report discharged debts as due and owing. In August 2008, the Court granted final approval to a historic settlement for injunctive relief requiring detailed procedures for the retroactive correction and updating of consumers' credit file information concerning discharged debt as well as new procedures to ensure that debts subject to future discharge orders will be similarly treated. 3. Berger v. Property I.D. Corporation, No. CV 05-5373-GHK (C.D. Cal.). In January 2009, the Court granted final approval to a $39.4 million settlement with several of the nation's largest real estate brokerages, including companies doing business as Coldwell Banker, Century 21, and ERA Real Estate, and California franchisors for RE/MAX and Prudential - 25 -

2.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 27 of 85

California Realty, in an action under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act on behalf of California home sellers. Plaintiffs charged that the brokers and Property I.D. Corporation set up straw companies as a way to disguise kickbacks for referring their California clients' natural hazard disclosure report business to Property I.D. (the report is required to sell a home in California). Under the settlement, hundreds of thousands of California home sellers were eligible to receive a full refund of the cost of their report, typically about $100. 4. Catholic Healthcare West Cases, JCCP No. 4453 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Plaintiff alleged that Catholic Healthcare West ("CHW") charged uninsured patients excessive fees for treatment and services, at rates far higher than the rates charged to patients with private insurance or on Medicare. In January 2007, the Court approved a settlement that provides discounts, refunds and other benefits for CHW patients valued at $423 million. The settlement requires that CHW lower its charges and end price discrimination against all uninsured patients, maintain generous charity case policies allowing low-income uninsureds to receive free or heavily discounted care, and protect uninsured patients from unfair collections practices. Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Counsel in the coordinated action. In re Neurontin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 04-CV10739-PBS (D. Mass.). Lieff Cabraser serves on the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in multidistrict litigation arising out of the sale and marketing of the prescription drug Neurontin, manufactured by Parke-Davis, a division of Warner-Lambert Company, which was later acquired by Pfizer, Inc. Lieff Cabraser is also of counsel to Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals ("Kaiser") in the litigation. On March 25, 2010, a federal court jury determined that Pfizer Inc. violated a federal antiracketeering law by promoting its drug Neurontin for unapproved uses and found Pfizer must pay Kaiser damages up to $142 million. At trial, Kaiser presented evidence that Pfizer knowingly marketed Neurontin for unapproved uses without proof that it was effective. Kaiser said it was misled into believing neuropathic pain migraines and bipolar disorder were among the conditions that could be treated effectively with Neurontin, which was approved by the FDA as an adjunctive therapy to treat epilepsy and later for post-herpetic neuralgia, a specific type of neuropathic pain. Estate of Holman, et al. v. Noble Energy, Inc., No. 03 CV 9 (Dist. Ct., Weld County, Co.); Droegemueller v. Petroleum Development Corporation, No. 07 CV 2508 JLK (D. Co.); Anderson v. Merit Energy Co., No. 07 CV 00916 LTB (D. Co.); Holman v. Petro-Canada Resources (USA), Inc., No. 07 CV 416 (Dist. Ct., Weld County, Co.). Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel represent owners of natural gas royalties in a number of lawsuits filed against gas producers and operators. Plaintiffs - 26 -

5.

6.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 28 of 85

allege that defendants improperly deducted from royalty payments certain costs associated with defendants' extraction and processing of natural gas from wells owned by plaintiffs. Since 2007, our clients have recovered more than $150 million. 7. Sutter Health Uninsured Pricing Cases, JCCP No. 4388 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Plaintiffs alleged that they and a Class of uninsured patients treated at Sutter hospitals were charged substantially more than patients with private or public insurance, and many times above the cost of providing their treatment. In December 2006, the Court granted final approval to a comprehensive and groundbreaking settlement of the action. As part of the settlement, Class members will be entitled to make a claim for refunds or deductions of between 25% to 45% from their prior hospital bills, at an estimated total value of $276 million. For the next three years, Sutter will maintain discounted pricing policies for uninsureds that will make Sutter's pricing for uninsureds comparable to or better than the pricing for patients with private insurance. In addition, Sutter agreed to maintain more compassionate collections policies that will protect uninsureds who fall behind in their payments. Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Counsel in the coordinated action. In re John Muir Uninsured Healthcare Cases, JCCP No. 4494 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser represented nearly 53,000 uninsured patients who received care at John Muir hospitals and outpatient centers and were charged inflated prices and then subject to overly aggressive collection practices when they failed to pay. On November 19, 2008, the Court approved a final settlement of the John Muir litigation. John Muir agreed to provide refunds or bill adjustments of 40-50% to uninsured patients that received medical care at John Muir over a six year period, bringing their charges to the level of patients with private insurance, at a value of $115 million. No claims were required, so every class member received a refund or bill adjustment. Furthermore, John Muir was required to (1) maintain charity care policies to give substantial discounts--up to 100%--to low income, uninsured patients who meet certain income requirements; (2) maintain an Uninsured Patient Discount Policy to give discounts to all uninsured patients, regardless of income, so that they pay rates no greater than those paid by patients with private insurance; (3) enhance communications to uninsured patients so they are better advised about John Muir's pricing discounts, financial assistance, and financial counseling services; and (4) limit the practices for collecting payments from uninsured patients. Yarrington v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 09-CV-2261 (D. Minn.). In March 2010, the Court granted final approval to a $16.5 million settlement with Solvay Pharmaceuticals, one of the country's leading pharmaceutical companies. Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel, representing a class of persons who purchased Estratest--a hormone - 27 -

8.

9.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 29 of 85

replacement drug. The class action lawsuit alleged that Solvay deceptively marketed and advertised Estratest as an FDA-approved drug when in fact Estratest was not FDA-approved for any use. Under the settlement, consumers obtained partial refunds for up to 30% of the purchase price paid of Estratest. 10. Cincotta v. California Emergency Physicians Medical Group, No. 07359096 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as class counsel for nearly 100,000 uninsured patients that alleged they were charged excessive and unfair rates for emergency room service across 55 hospitals throughout California. The settlement, approved on October 31, 2008, provided complete debt elimination, 100% cancellation of the bill, to uninsured patients treated by California Emergency Physicians Medical Group during the 4-year class period. These benefits were valued at $27 million. No claims were required, so all of these bills were cancelled. In addition, the settlement required California Emergency Physicians Medical Group prospectively to (1) maintain certain discount policies for all charity care patients; (2) inform patients of the available discounts by enhanced communications; and (3) limit significantly the type of collections practices available for collecting from charity care patients. In re Ameriquest Mortgage Co. Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1715. Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel for borrowers who allege that Ameriquest engaged in a predatory lending scheme based on the sale of loans with illegal and undisclosed fees and terms. A $22 million settlement of the action is pending final approval by the Court. R.M. Galicia v. Franklin; Franklin v. Scripps Health, No. IC 859468 (San Diego Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Lead Class Counsel in a certified class action lawsuit on behalf of 60,750 uninsured patients who alleged that the Scripps Health hospital system imposed excessive fees and charges for medical treatment. The class action originated in July 2006, when uninsured patient Phillip Franklin filed a class action crosscomplaint against Scripps Health after Scripps sued Mr. Franklin through a collection agency. Mr. Franklin alleged that he, like all other uninsured patientsof Scripps Health, was charged unreasonable and unconscionable rates for his medical treatment. In June 2008, the Court granted final approval to a settlement of the action which includes refunds or discounts of 35% off of medical bills, collectively worth $73 million. The settlement also requires Scripps Health to modify its pricing and collections practices by (1) following an Uninsured Patient Discount Policy, which includes automatic discounts from billed charges for Hospital Services; (2) following a Charity Care Policy, which provides uninsured patients who meet certain income tests with discounts on Health Services up to 100% free care, and provides for charity discounts under other special circumstances; (3) informing uninsured patients about the availability and terms of the above financial assistance policies; and - 28 -

11.

12.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 30 of 85

(4) restricting certain collections practices and actively monitoring outside collection agents. The prospective future discounts are worth many millions more in savings to uninsureds over the next four years. 13. In re Chase Bank USA, N.A. "Check Loan" Contract Litigation, MDL No. 2032. Lieff Cabraser serves as Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel in a nationwide class action charging that Chase Bank breached its contract with cardholders and violated consumer protection statutes by unilaterally modifying the terms of long-term fixed rate loans. Brazil v. Dell, No. C-07-01700 RMW (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser serves as counsel for consumers that charge Dell has engaged in a scheme to deliberately cheat large numbers of consumers. The complaint charges that Dell advertises "limited time" specific-dollar discounts from expressly referenced former prices, but that the discounts are false because the reference prices are inflated beyond Dell's true regular prices. In 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald M. Whyte denied Dell's motions to enforce a class action waiver clause and to compel arbitration. The Court found that the provisions in Dell's purchase agreement requiring disputes to be resolved through individual arbitration proceedings and prohibiting class actions are unconscionable under California law. Schaffer v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CV 05-07673 (C.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs, all homeowners with a mortgage loan serviced by Litton Loan Servicing, charge that Litton has engaged in a scheme by which it fails to accurately service its borrowers' loans, including misapplying or failing to apply payments made. In July 2007, the Court certified a nationwide class of borrowers who have claims against Litton for violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2605(d), a provision of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. This provision creates a 60-day grace period following the transfer of servicing of a mortgage loan, and prohibits loan servicers from imposing late fees or otherwise treating as late any payment that was "received by the transferor servicer (rather than the transferee servicer who should properly receive payment) before the due date applicable to such payment." 12 U.S.C. § 2605(d). In re Tri-State Crematory Litigation, MDL No. 1467 (N.D. Ga.). In March 2004, Lieff Cabraser delivered opening statements and began testimony in a class action by families whose loved ones were improperly cremated and desecrated by Tri-State Crematory in Noble, Georgia. The families also asserted claims against the funeral homes that delivered the decedents to Tri-State Crematory for failing to ensure that the crematory performed cremations in the manner required under the law and by human decency. One week into trial, settlements with the remaining funeral home defendants were reached and brought the settlement total to approximately $37 million. Trial on the class members' claims against the operators of crematory began in August 2004. Soon thereafter, these - 29 -

14.

15.

16.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 31 of 85

defendants entered into a $80 million settlement with plaintiffs. As part of the settlement, all buildings on the Tri-State property were razed. The property will remain in a trust so that it will be preserved in peace and dignity as a secluded memorial to those whose remains were mistreated, and to prevent crematory operations or other inappropriate activities from ever taking place there. Earlier in the litigation, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a published order. 215 F.R.D. 660 (2003). 17. Morris v. AT&T Wireless Services, No. C-04-1997-MJP (W.D. Wash.). Lieff Cabraser served as class counsel for a nationwide settlement class of cell phone customers subjected to an end of billing cycle cancellation policy implemented by AT&T Wireless in 2003 and alleged to have breached customers' service agreements. In May 2006, the New Jersey Superior Court granted final approval to a class settlement that guarantees delivery to the class of $40 million in benefits. Class members received cash-equivalent calling cards automatically, and had the option of redeeming them for cash. Lieff Cabraser had been prosecuting the class claims in the Western District of Washington when a settlement in New Jersey state court was announced. Lieff Cabraser objected to that settlement as inadequate because it would have only provided $1.5 million in benefits without a cash option, and the court agreed, declining to approve it. Thereafter, Lieff Cabraser negotiated the new settlement providing $40 million to the class, and the settlement was approved. Strugano v. Nextel Communications, Inc., No. BC 288359 (Los Angeles Supr. Crt). In May 2006, the Los Angeles Superior Court granted final approval to a class action settlement on behalf of all California customers of Nextel from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2002, for compensation for the harm caused by Nextel's alleged unilateral (1) addition of a $1.15 monthly service fee and/or (2) change from secondby-second billing to minute-by-minute billing, which caused "overage" charges (i.e., for exceeding their allotted cellular plan minutes). The total benefit conferred by the Settlement directly to Class Members was between approximately $13.5 million and $55.5 million, depending on which benefit Class Members selected. Class Counsel secured these benefits for a Class of approximately 308,000 customers with 1.1 million cell phone plans. Thompson, et al. v. WFS Financial, Inc., No. 3-02-0570 (M.D. Tenn.); Pakeman, et al. v. American Honda Finance Corporation, No. 3-020490 (M.D. Tenn.); Herra v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, No. CGC 03-419 230 (San Francisco Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser with co-counsel litigated against several of the largest automobile finance companies in the country to compensate victims of--and stop future instances of--racial discrimination in the setting of interest rates in automobile finance contracts. The litigation led to substantial changes in the way Toyota - 30 -

18.

19.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 32 of 85

Motor Credit Corporation ("TMCC"), American Honda Finance Corporation ("American Honda") and WFS Financial, Inc., sell automobile finance contracts, limiting the discrimination that can occur. TMCC, American Honda and WFS Financial allow independent automobile dealers to add a discretionary markup (often several percentage points) to the objective, credit-based interest rates determined by the finance company. Plaintiffs charged that African-American and Latino customers paid more in finance charges than similarly situated nonminority customers due to the practice by TMCC, American Honda and WFS Financial of allowing dealers to increase, or "mark up," a customer's Annual Percentage Rate ("APR") on contracts. The discretionary markup amounts were not based on objective credit-worthiness information, but were wholly subjective. Statistical analyses showed that the discretionary markups had a disparate impact on African American and Latino customers. In the nationwide class action litigation against TMCC, American Honda and WFS Financial, the respective parties entered into landmark settlements for African American and Latino consumers which collectively provided:

· ·

Cash or credit payments of up to $400 per class member. Broad refinancing programs reducing rates charged to existing African-American and Latino customers whose markups were 1% or more. These benefits were valued at $1 billion in the WFS Financial case alone. New pre-approved offers of credit (that cannot be marked up) to 1.5 million African American and Latino consumers. Limits on discretionary markups on new loans of 1.75% to 2.50% (depending on the length of the loan). This compression of the discretionary range substantially reduced the likelihood that any markups in the future will occur as the result of racial discrimination. New disclosures on all contracts explaining that the interest rate may be negotiable. Donations of $1.9 million to non-profit organizations involved in consumer education and assistance.

· ·

· ·

In approving the settlement in Thompson v. WFS Financial, the Court recognized the "innovative" and "remarkable settlement" achieved on

80577.1

- 31 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 33 of 85

behalf of the nationwide class. In 2006 in Herra v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, the Court granted final approval to a nationwide class action settlement on behalf of all African-American and Hispanic customers of TMCC who entered into retail installment contracts that were assigned to TMCC from 1999 to 2006. The monetary benefit to the class was estimated to be between $159-$174 million. 20. Providian Credit Card Cases, JCCP No. 4085 (San Francisco Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for a certified national Settlement Class of Providian credit cardholders who alleged that Providian had engaged in widespread misconduct by charging cardholders unlawful, excessive interest and late charges, and by promoting and selling to cardholders "add-on products" promising illusory benefits and services. In November 2001, the Court granted final approval to a $105 million settlement of the case, which also required Providian to implement substantial changes in its business practices. The $105 million settlement, combined with an earlier settlement by Providian with Federal and state agencies, represents the largest settlement ever by a U.S. credit card company in a consumer protection case. California Title Insurance Industry Litigation. Lieff Cabraser, in coordination with parallel litigation brought by the Attorney General, reached settlements in 2003 and 2004 with the leading title insurance companies in California, resulting in historic industry-wide changes to the practice of providing escrow services in real estate closings. The settlements brought a total of $50 million in restitution to California consumers, including cash payments. In the lawsuits, plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the title companies received interest payments on customer escrow funds that were never reimbursed to their customers. The defendant companies include Lawyers' Title, Commonwealth Land Title, Stewart Title of California, First American Title, Fidelity National Title, and Chicago Title. Kline v. The Progressive Corporation, Circuit No. 02-L-6 (Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Johnson County, Illinois). Lieff Cabraser served as settlement class counsel in a nationwide consumer class action challenging Progressive Corporation's private passenger automobile insurance sales practices. Plaintiffs alleged that the Progressive Corporation wrongfully concealed from class members the availability of lower priced insurance for which they qualified. In 2002, the Court approved a settlement valued at approximately $450 million, which included both cash and equitable relief. The claims program, implemented upon a nationwide mail and publication notice program, was completed in 2003. Citigroup Loan Cases, JCCP No. 4197 (San Francisco Supr. Ct.). In 2003, the Court approved a settlement that provided approximately $240 - 32 -

21.

22.

23.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 34 of 85

million in relief to former Associates' customers across America. Prior to its acquisition in November 2000, Associates First Financial, referred to as The Associates, was one of the nation's largest "subprime" lenders. Lieff Cabraser represented former customers of The Associates charging that the company added on mortgage loans unwanted and unnecessary insurance products and engaged in improper loan refinancing practices. Lieff Cabraser served as nationwide Plaintiffs' Co-Liaison Counsel. 24. In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage Servicing Litigation, MDL No. 1604 (N.D. Ill.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel in a nationwide class action against Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, and their affiliates ("Ocwen"). This lawsuit arises out of charges against Ocwen of misconduct in servicing its customers' mortgage loans and in its provision of certain related services, including debt collection and foreclosure services. Curry v. Fairbanks Capital Corporation, No. 03-10895-DPW (D. Mass.). In 2004, the Court approved a $55 million settlement of a class action lawsuit against Fairbanks Capital Corporation arising out of charges against Fairbanks of misconduct in servicing its customers' mortgage loans. The settlement also required substantial changes in Fairbanks' business practices and established a default resolution program to limit the imposition of fees and foreclosure proceedings against Fairbanks' customers. Lieff Cabraser served as nationwide Co-Lead Counsel for the homeowners. In re Synthroid Marketing Litigation, MDL No. 1182 (N.D. Ill.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for the purchasers of the thyroid medication Synthroid in litigation against Knoll Pharmaceutical, the manufacturer of Synthroid. The lawsuits charged that Knoll misled physicians and patients into keeping patients on Synthroid despite knowing that less costly, but equally effective drugs, were available. In 2000, the District Court gave final approval to a $87.4 million settlement with Knoll and its parent company, BASF Corporation, on behalf of a class of all consumers who purchased Synthroid at any time from 1990 to 1999. In 2001, the Court of Appeals upheld the order approving the settlement and remanded the case for further proceedings. 264 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2001). The settlement proceeds were distributed in 2003. Reverse Mortgage Cases, JCCP No. 4061 (San Mateo County Supr Ct., Cal.). Transamerica Corporation, through its subsidiary Transamerica Homefirst, Inc., sold "reverse mortgages" marketed under the trade name "Lifetime." The Lifetime reverse mortgages were sold exclusively to seniors, i.e., persons 65 years or older. Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, filed suit on behalf of seniors alleging that the terms of the reverse mortgages were unfair, and that borrowers were misled as to the loan terms, including the existence and amount of certain charges and fees. In - 33 -

25.

26.

27.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 35 of 85

2003, the Court granted final approval to an $8 million settlement of the action. 28. In re American Family Enterprises, MDL No. 1235 (D. N.J.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for a nationwide class of persons who received any sweepstakes materials sent under the name "American Family Publishers." The class action lawsuit alleged that defendants deceived consumers into purchasing magazine subscriptions and merchandise in the belief that such purchases were necessary to win an American Family Publishers' sweepstakes prize or enhanced their chances of winning a sweepstakes prize. In September 2000, the Court granted final approval of a $33 million settlement of the class action. In April 2001, over 63,000 class members received refunds averaging over $500 each, representing 92% of their eligible purchases. In addition, American Family Publishers agreed to make significant changes to the way it conducts the sweepstakes.

(

$QWLWUXVW7UDGH 5HJXODWLRQ,QWHOOHFWXDO 3URSHUW\ 1. Microsoft Private Antitrust Litigation. Representing businesses and consumers, Lieff Cabraser prosecuted multiple private antitrust cases against Microsoft Corporation in state courts across the country, including Florida, New York, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft had engaged in anticompetitive conduct, violated state deceptive and unfair business practices statutes, and overcharged businesses and consumers for Windows operating system software and for certain software applications, including Microsoft Word and Microsoft Office. In August 2006, the New York Supreme Court granted final approval to a settlement that made available up to $350 million in benefits for New York businesses and consumers. In August 2004, the Court in the North Carolina action granted final approval to a settlement valued at over $89 million. In June 2004, the Court in the Tennessee action granted final approval to a $64 million settlement. In November 2003, in the Florida Microsoft litigation, the Court granted final approval to a $202 million settlement, one of the largest antitrust settlements in Florida history. Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel in the New York, North Carolina and Tennessee cases, and held leadership roles in the Florida case. Natural Gas Antitrust Cases, JCCP Nos. 4221, 4224, 4226 & 4228 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). In 2003, the Court approved a landmark of $1.1 billion settlement in class action litigation against El Paso Natural Gas Co. for manipulating the market for natural gas pipeline transmission capacity into California. Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel and CoLiaison Counsel in the Natural Gas Antitrust Cases I-IV.

2.

80577.1

- 34 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 36 of 85

In June 2007, the Court granted final approval to a $67.39 million settlement of a series of class action lawsuits brought by California business and residential consumers of natural gas against a group of natural gas suppliers, Reliant Energy Services, Inc., Duke Energy Trading and Marketing LLC, CMS Energy Resources Management Company, and Aquila Merchant Services, Inc. Plaintiffs charged defendants with manipulating the price of natural gas in California during the California energy crisis of 2000-2001 by a variety of means, including falsely reporting the prices and quantities of natural gas transactions to trade publications, which compiled daily and monthly natural gas price indices; prearranged wash trading; and, in the case of Reliant, "churning" on the Enron Online electronic trading platform, which was facilitated by a secret netting agreement between Reliant and Enron. The 2007 settlement followed a settlement reached in 2006 for $92 million partial settlement with Coral Energy Resources, L.P.; Dynegy Inc. and affiliates; EnCana Corporation; WD Energy Services, Inc.; and The Williams Companies, Inc. and affiliates. 3. Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Cases I & II, JCCP Nos. 4204 & 4205 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel in the private class action litigation against Duke Energy Trading & Marketing Reliant Energy, and The Williams Companies for claims that the companies manipulated California's wholesale electricity markets during the California energy crisis of 2000-2001. Extending the landmark victories for California residential and business consumers of electricity, in September 2004, plaintiffs reached a $206 million settlement with Duke Energy Trading & Marketing, and in August 2005, plaintiffs reached a $460 million settlement with Reliant Energy, settling claims that the companies manipulated California's wholesale electricity markets during the California energy crisis of 2000-01. Lieff Cabraser earlier entered into a settlement for over $400 million with The Williams Companies. In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1827 (N.D. Cal.). Representing direct purchasers of flat-panel TV screens and other products incorporating liquid crystal displays, Lieff Cabraser serves as court appointed Co-Lead Counsel in nationwide class action litigation against the world's leading manufacturers of Thin Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Displays. TFT-LCDs are used in flat-panel televisions as well as computer monitors, laptop computers, mobile phones, personal digital assistants and other devices. Plaintiffs charge that defendants defendants conspired to raise, fix and stabilize the prices of TFT-LCDs. On March 3, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston denied defendants' motions to dismiss direct purchaser plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Complaint. The Court found that the plaintiffs' amended consolidated - 35 -

4.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 37 of 85

complaints "more than adequately allege the involvement of each defendant and put defendants on notice of the claims against them." On March 28, 2010, the Court certified a class of all persons and entities that directly purchased TFT-LCDs from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2006. 5. Azizian v. Federated Department Stores, No. 3:03 CV 03359 SBA (N.D. Cal.). In March 2005, the Court granted final approval to a settlement that Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel reached with numerous department store cosmetics manufacturers and retailers. The settlement is valued at $175 million and includes significant injunctive relief, for the benefit of a nationwide class of consumers of department store cosmetics. The complaint alleged the manufacturers and retailers violated antitrust law by engaging in anticompetitive practices to prevent discounting of department store cosmetics. Sullivan v. DB Investments, No. 04-02819 (D. N.J.). Lieff Cabraser serves as class counsel for consumers who purchased diamonds from 1994 through March 31, 2006, in a class action lawsuit against the De Beers group of companies. Plaintiffs charge that De Beers conspired to monopolize the sale of rough diamonds. In May 2008, the Court granted final approval of a settlement that provides $295 million to purchasers of diamonds and diamond jewelry, including $130 million to consumers. The settlement also prevents De Beers from continuing its illegal business practices and requires De Beers to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court to enforce the settlement. The case is presently on appeal. In re ATM Antitrust Litigation, No. C-04-2676 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser represents a putative class of ATM users against a number of banks comprising the Star ATM Network, alleging that those banks conspired to fix the price of ATM interchange fees, thereby unlawfully inflating fees paid by ATM users in the network. In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1819 (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs allege that from November 1, 1996 through December 31, 2006, the defendant manufacturers conspired to fix and maintain artificially high prices for SRAM, a type of memory used in many products including smartphones and computers. In February 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken denied most aspects of defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints. In November 2009, the Court certified a nationwide class seeking injunctive relief and twentyseven state classes seeking damages. Lieff Cabraser serves as one of three members of the Steering Committee for consumers and other indirect purchasers of SRAM. In re Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1631 (D. Conn.). Lieff Cabraser serves as class counsel in this nationwide antitrust class - 36 -

6.

7.

8.

9.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 38 of 85

action on behalf of printing companies. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, who are among the world's largest paper manufacturers, conspired illegally to fix the price of publication paper that is used to print magazines. 10. Spectrum Stores, Inc., et al. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., No. H-06-3569 (S.D. Tex.). Lieff Cabraser serves as class counsel on behalf of direct purchasers of gasoline and other oil-based products from Citgo. The plaintiffs allege antitrust damages for Citgo's participation in OPEC's oil cartel. In re High Pressure Laminates Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1368 (S.D. N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser served as Trial Counsel on behalf of a class of direct purchasers of high pressure laminates. The case in 2006 was tried to a jury verdict. The case settled for over $40 million. In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1413 (S.D. N.Y.). In November 2003, Lieff Cabraser obtained a $90 million cash settlement for individual consumers, consumer organizations, and third party payers that purchased BuSpar, a drug prescribed to alleviate symptoms of anxiety. Plaintiffs alleged that Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMS), Danbury Pharmacal, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Watson Pharma, Inc. entered into an unlawful agreement in restraint of trade under which BMS paid a potential generic manufacturer of BuSpar to drop its challenge to BMS' patent and refrain from entering the market. Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel. In re Lupron Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1430 (D. Mass.). In May 2005, the Court granted final approval to a settlement of a class action lawsuit by patients, insurance companies and health and welfare benefit plans that paid for Lupron, a prescription drug used to treat prostate cancer, endometriosis and precocious puberty. The settlement requires the defendants, Abbott Laboratories, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, and TAP Pharmaceuticals, to pay $150 million, inclusive of costs and fees, to persons or entities who paid for Lupron from January 1, 1985 through March 31, 2005. Plaintiffs charged that the defendants conspired to overstate the drug's average wholesale price ("AWP"), which resulted in plaintiffs paying more for Lupron than they should have paid. Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. California Vitamins Cases, JCCP No. 4076 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Liaison Counsel and Co-Chairman of the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee on behalf of a class of California indirect vitamin purchasers in every level of the chain of distribution. In January 2002, the Court granted final approval of a $96 million settlement with certain vitamin manufacturers in a class action alleging that these and other manufacturers engaged in price fixing of particular vitamins. In - 37 -

11.

12.

13.

14.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 39 of 85

December 2006, the Court granted final approval to over $8.8 million in additional settlements. 15. Pharmaceutical Cases I, II, and III, JCCP Nos. 2969, 2971 & 2972 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead and Co-Liaison Counsel representing a certified class of indirect purchasers (consumers) on claims against the major pharmaceutical manufacturers for violations of the Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Act. The class alleged that defendants unlawfully fixed discriminatory prices on prescription drugs to retail pharmacists in comparison with the prices charged to certain favored purchasers, including HMOs and mail order houses. In April 1999, the Court approved a settlement providing $148 million in free, brand-name prescription drugs to health agencies that serve California's poor and uninsured. In October 2001, the Court approved a settlement with the remaining defendants in the case, which provided an additional $23 million in free, brand-name prescription drugs to these agencies. Quantegy Recording Solutions, LLC, et al. v. Toda Kogyo Corp., et al. No. C-02-1611 (PJH). In August 2006 and January 2009, the Court approved the final settlements in antitrust litigation against manufacturers, producers, and distributors of magnetic iron oxide ("MIO"). MIO is used in the manufacture of audiotape, videotape, and data storage tape. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to fix, maintain, and stabilize the prices and to allocate the worldwide markets for MIO from 1991 to October 12, 2005. The value of all settlements reached in the litigation was $6.35 million. Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel. Coalition for Elders' Independence, Inc. v. Biovail Corporation, No. CV023320 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser serves as Co-Lead Counsel for class of consumers who purchased the drug Adalat, also known as Nifedipine. Plaintiffs allege that two generic manufacturers of Adalat entered into an agreement to allocate the dosages markets for generic Adalat, thereby substantially reducing competition and unlawfully inflating prices on both generic and brand-name Adalat, in violation of state antitrust laws. In re Electrical Carbon Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1514 (D.N.J.). Lieff Cabraser represented the City and County of San Francisco and a class of direct purchasers of carbon brushes and carbon collectors on claims that producers fixed the price of carbon brushes and carbon collectors in violation of the Sherman Act. Electrical Carbon Products Cases, JCCP No. 4294 (San Francisco Supr. Court). Lieff Cabraser represents the City and County of San Francisco and a class of indirect purchasers of carbon brushes and carbon collectors on claims that producers fixed the price of carbon brushes and carbon - 38 -

16.

17.

18.

19.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 40 of 85

collectors in violation of the Cartwright Act and the Unfair Competition Law. Lieff Cabraser also represents the People of the State of California in claims arising from the Unfair Competition Law. 20. In re Compact Disc Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1216 (C.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for the direct purchasers of compact discs on claims that the producers fixed the price of CDs in violation of the federal antitrust laws. In re Carpet Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1075 (N.D. Ga.). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel and a member of the trial team for a class of direct purchasers of twenty-ounce level loop polypropylene carpet. Plaintiffs, distributors of polypropylene carpet, alleged that Defendants, seven manufacturers of polypropylene carpet, conspired to fix the prices of polypropylene carpet by agreeing to eliminate discounts and charge inflated prices on the carpet. In 2001, the Court approved a $50 million settlement of the case. In re Lasik/PRK Antitrust Litigation, No. CV 772894 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as a member of Plaintiffs' Executive Committee in class actions brought on behalf of persons who underwent Lasik/PRK eye surgery. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants, the manufacturers of the laser system used for the laser vision correction surgery, manipulated fees charged to ophthalmologists and others who performed the surgery, and that the overcharges were passed onto consumers who paid for laser vision correction surgery. In December 2001, the Court approved a $12.5 million settlement of the litigation. In re Toys `R' Us Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1211 (E.D. N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel representing a class of direct purchasers (consumers) who alleged that Toys `R' Us conspired with the major toy manufacturers to boycott certain discount retailers in order to restrict competition and inflate toy prices. In February 2000, the Court approved a settlement of cash and product of over $56 million. In re Travel Agency Commission Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1058 (D. Minn.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for a certified class of U.S. travel agents on claims against the major U.S. air carriers, who allegedly violated the federal antitrust laws by fixing the commissions paid to travel agents. In 1997, the Court approved an $82 million settlement. Sanitary Paper Cases I & II, JCCP Nos. 4019 & 4027 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Liaison Counsel on behalf of indirect purchasers of commercial paper products. Plaintiffs alleged that from 1993 to 2000 Defendants fixed the price of commercial tissue, toilet paper, toilet seat covers, and other commercial paper products in violation of the Cartwright - 39 -

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 41 of 85

Act and Unfair Competition Act. In February 2001, the Court approved a $3 million settlement of the case. 26. Schwartz v. National Football League, No. 97-CV-5184 (E.D. Pa.). Lieff Cabraser served as counsel for individuals who purchased the "NFL Sunday Ticket" package of private satellite transmissions in litigation against the National Football League for allegedly violating the Sherman Act by limiting the distribution of television broadcasts of NFL games by satellite transmission to one package. In August 2001, the Court approved of a class action settlement that included: (1) the requirement that defendants provide an additional weekly satellite television package known as Single Sunday Ticket for the 2001 NFL football season, under certain circumstances for one more season, and at the defendants' discretion thereafter; (2) a $7.5 million settlement fund to be distributed to class members; (3) merchandise coupons entitling class members to discounts at the NFL's Internet store which the parties value at approximately $3 million; and (4) $2.3 million to pay for administering the settlement fund and notifying class members. In re Commercial Explosives Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1093 (D. Utah). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf of direct purchasers of explosives used in mining operations. In 1998, the Court approved a $77 million settlement of the litigation. In re California Indirect-Purchaser X-Ray Antitrust Litigation, No. 960886 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf of indirect purchasers (consumers) of medical x-ray film who alleged violations of the Cartwright and Unfair Competition Acts. In 1998, the Court approved a $3.75 million settlement of the litigation. In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs, MDL No. 997 (N.D. Ill.). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel for a class of tens of thousands of retail pharmacies against the leading pharmaceutical manufacturers and wholesalers of brand name prescription drugs for alleged price-fixing from 1989 to 1995 in violation of the federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs charged that defendants engaged in price discrimination against retail pharmacies by denying them discounts provided to hospitals, health maintenance organizations, and nursing homes. In 1996 and 1998, the Court approved settlements with certain manufacturers totaling $723 million. In re K-Dur Prescription Drug Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1419. Lieff Cabraser serves as Class Counsel on behalf of indirect purchasers of K-Dur, a potassium supplement often prescribed in conjunction with high blood pressure medication. K-Dur is the fourth most frequently prescribed drug to seniors. The complaint alleges the defendants, The lawsuits allege that Schering-Plough, privately held Upsher-Smith Laboratories and American Home Products Corporation (now Wyeth) entered into illegal - 40 -

27.

28.

29.

30.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 42 of 85

agreements aimed at blocking the introduction of low-cost generic forms of K-Dur to the market. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is pending. 31. In re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1200 (W.D. Pa.). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf of a class of direct purchasers of flat glass. In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1261 (E.D. Pa.). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf of a class of direct purchasers of linerboard. The court recently approved a settlement totaling $202 million. Carbon Fiber Cases I, II, III, JCCP Nos. 4212, 4216 & 4222 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Liaison Counsel on behalf of indirect purchasers of carbon fiber. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants illegally conspired to raise prices of carbon fiber. Settlements have been reached with all of the defendants. Methionine Cases I and II, JCCP Nos. 4090 & 4096 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel on behalf of indirect purchasers of methionine, an amino acid used primarily as a poultry and swine feed additive to enhance growth and production. Plaintiffs alleged that the companies illegally conspired to raise methionine prices to supercompetitive levels. The case settled. McIntosh v. Monsanto, No. 4:01CV65RSW (E.D. Mo.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel in a class action lawsuit against Monsanto Company and others alleging that a conspiracy to fix prices on genetically modified Roundup Ready soybean seeds and Yieldgard corn seeds. The case settled. Tortola Restaurants, L.P. v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, No. 314281 (Cal. Supr. Ct). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel on behalf of indirect purchasers of Scotch-brand invisible and transparent tape. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant 3M conspired with certain retailers to monopolize the sale of Scotch-brand tape in California. The case was resolved as part of a nationwide settlement that Lieff Cabraser negotiated, along with co-counsel.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

)

1RQ3HUVRQDO ,QMXU\ 'HIHFWLYH 3URGXFWV 1. Richison v. American Cemwood Corp., No. 005532 (San Joaquin Supr. Ct., Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Class Counsel for an estimated nationwide class of 30,000 owners of homes and other structures on which defective Cemwood Shakes were installed. In November 2003, the Court granted final approval to a $75 million Phase 2 settlement in the American Cemwood roofing shakes national class action - 41 -

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 43 of 85

litigation. This amount was in addition to a $65 million partial settlement approved by the Court in May 2000, and brought the litigation to a conclusion. The claims period runs through 2015. 2. Grays Harbor Adventist Christian School v. Carrier Corporation, No. 05-05437 (W.D. Wash.). In April 2008, the Court granted final approval to a nationwide settlement in a class action lawsuit filed by current and past owners of high-efficiency furnaces manufactured and sold by Carrier Corporation and equipped with polypropylene-laminated condensing heat exchangers ("CHXs"). Carrier sold the furnaces under the Carrier, Bryant, Day & Night and Payne brand-names. Plaintiffs alleged that starting in 1989 Carrier began manufacturing and selling high efficiency condensing furnaces manufactured with a secondary CHX made of inferior materials. Plaintiffs alleged that as a result, the CHXs, which Carrier warranted and consumers expected to last for 20 years, failed prematurely. The settlement provides an enhanced 20-year warranty of free service and free parts for consumers whose furnaces have not yet failed. The settlement also offers a cash reimbursement for consumers who already paid to repair or replace the CHX in their high-efficiency Carrier furnaces. An estimated three million or more consumers in the U.S. and Canada purchased the furnaces covered under the settlement. Plaintiffs valued the settlement to consumers at over $300 million based upon the combined value of the cash reimbursement and the estimated cost of an enhanced warranty of this nature. 3. Williams v. Weyerhaeuser, No. 995787 (San Francisco Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf of a nationwide class of hundreds of thousands or millions of owners of homes and other structures with defective Weyerhaeuser hardboard siding. A California-wide class was certified for all purposes in February 1999, and withstood writ review by both the California Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of California. In 2000, the Court granted final approval to a nationwide settlement of the case which provides class members with compensation for their damaged siding, based on the cost of replacing or, in some instances, repairing, damaged siding. The settlement has no cap, and requires Weyerhaeuser to pay all timely, qualified claims over a nine year period. The claims program is underway and paying claims. In re Mercedes-Benz Tele-Aid Contract Litigation, MDL No. 1914 (D. N.J.). With co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser represents owners and lessees of Mercedes-Benz cars and SUVs equipped with the Tele-Aid system, an emergency response system which links subscribers to road-side assistance operators by using a combination of global positioning and cellular technology. In 2002, the Federal Communications Commission issued a rule, effective 2008, eliminating the requirement that wireless - 42 -

4.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 44 of 85

phone carriers provide analog-based networks. The Tele-Aid system offered by Mercedes-Benz relied on analog signals. Plaintiffs charge that Mercedes-Benz committed fraud in promoting and selling the Tele-Aid system without disclosing to buyers of certain model years that the TeleAid system as installed would become obsolete in 2008. Mercedes-Benz subsequently told customers that they could pay to upgrade their Tele-Aid system to operate over a digital network, at a cost of as much as $1,500 for some owners. Plaintiffs' complaint seeks damages for Mercedes-Benz fraudulent conduct, along with reimbursement for Mercedes-Benz customers with analog systems who paid to upgrade their Tele-Aid systems to operate on a digital network. In an April 2009 published order, the Court certified a nationwide class of all persons or entities in the U.S. who purchased or leased a Mercedes-Benz vehicle equipped with an analog-only Tele Aid system after August 8, 2002, and (1) subscribed to Tele Aid service until being informed that such service would be discontinued at the end of 2007, or (2) purchased an upgrade to digital equipment. 5. Foothill/DeAnza Community College District v. Northwest Pipe Company, No. C-00-20749 (N.D. Cal.). In June 2004, the court approved the creation of a settlement fund of up to $14.5 million for property owners nationwide with Poz-Lok fire sprinkler piping that fails. Since 1990, Poz-Lok pipes and pipe fittings were sold in the U.S. as part of fire suppression systems for use in residential and commercial buildings. After leaks in Poz-Lok pipes caused damage to its DeAnza Campus Center building, Foothill/DeAnza Community College District in California retained Lieff Cabraser to file a class action lawsuit against the manufacturers of Poz-Lok. The college district charged that Poz-Lok pipe had manufacturing and design defects that resulted in the premature corrosion and failure of the product. Under the settlement, owners whose Poz-Lok pipes are leaking today, or over the next 15 years, may file a claim for compensation. Pelletz, Jamruk, et al. v. Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. (W.D. Wash.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel in a case alleging that ChoiceDek decking materials, manufactured by AERT, developed persistent and untreatable mold spotting throughout their surface. In a published opinion in January 2009, the Court approved a settlement that provided affected consumers with free and discounted deck treatments, mold inhibitor applications, and product replacement and reimbursement. Toshiba Laptop Screen Flicker Settlement. Lieff Cabraser negotiated a settlement with Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. ("TAIS") to provide relief for owners of certain Toshiba Satellite 1800 Series, Satellite Pro 4600 and Tecra 8100 personal notebook computers whose screens flickered, dimmed or went blank due to an issue with the FL Inverter - 43 -

6.

7.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 45 of 85

Board component. Under the terms of the Settlement, owners of affected computers who paid to have the FL Inverter issue repaired by either TAIS or an authorized TAIS service provider recovered the cost of that repair, up to $300 for the Satellite 1800 Series and the Satellite Pro 4600 personal computers, or $400 for the Tecra 8100 personal computers. TAIS also agreed to extend the affected computers' warranties for the FL Inverter issue by 18 months. 8. Create-A-Card v. Intuit, No. C07-6452 WHA (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, represented business users of QuickBooks Pro for accounting that lost their QuickBooks data and other files due to faulty software code sent by Intuit, the producer of QuickBooks. In September 2009, the Court granted final approval to a settlement that provided all class members who filed a valid claim with a free software upgrade and compensation for certain data-recovery costs. Commenting on the settlement and the work of Lieff Cabraser on September 17, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Alsup stated, "I want to come back to something that I observed in this case firsthand for a long time now. I think you've done an excellent job in the case as class counsel and the class has been well represented having your and your firm in the case." ABS Pipe Litigation, JCCP No. 3126 (Contra Costa County Supr. Ct., Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Class Counsel on behalf of property owners whose ABS plumbing pipe was allegedly defective and caused property damage by leaking. Six separate class actions were filed in California against five different ABS pipe manufacturers, numerous developers of homes containing the ABS pipe, as well as the resin supplier and the entity charged with ensuring the integrity of the product. Between 1998 and 2001, we achieved 12 separate settlements in the class actions and related individual lawsuits for approximately $78 million. Commenting on the work of Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel in the case, California Superior Court (now appellate) Judge Mark B. Simons stated on May 14, 1998: "The attorneys who were involved in the resolution of the case certainly entered the case with impressive reputations and did nothing in the course of their work on this case to diminish these reputations, but underlined, in my opinion, how well deserved those reputations are." 10. McManus, et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., No. SA-99-CA-464-FB (W.D. Tex.). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf of original owners of 1994-2000 model year Fleetwood Class A and Class C motor homes. In 2003, the Court approved a settlement that resolved lawsuits pending in Texas and California about braking while towing with 1994 Fleetwood Class A and Class C motor homes. The lawsuits alleged that Fleetwood misrepresented the towing capabilities of new motor homes it sold, and claimed that Fleetwood should have told buyers that a - 44 -

9.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 46 of 85

supplemental braking system is needed to stop safely while towing heavy items, such as a vehicle or trailer. The settlement paid $250 to people who bought a supplemental braking system for Fleetwood motor homes that they bought new. 11. Cox v. Shell, No. 18,844 (Obion County Chancery Ct., Tenn.). Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf of a nationwide class of approximately 6 million owners of property equipped with defective polybutylene plumbing systems and yard service lines. In November 1995, the Court approved a settlement involving an initial commitment by Defendants of $950 million in compensation for past and future expenses incurred as a result of pipe leaks, and to provide replacement pipes to eligible claimants. The settlement claims program will continue past 2010, under the continuing supervision of the trial court. Naef v. Masonite, No. CV-94-4033 (Mobile County Circuit Ct., Ala.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Class Counsel on behalf of a nationwide Class of an estimated 4 million homeowners with allegedly defective hardboard siding manufactured and sold by Masonite Corporation, a subsidiary of International Paper, installed on their homes. The Court certified the class in November 1995, and the Alabama Supreme Court twice denied extraordinary writs seeking to decertify the Class, including in Ex Parte Masonite, 681 So. 2d 1068 (Ala. 1996). A month-long jury trial in 1996 established the factual predicate that Masonite hardboard siding was defective under the laws of most states. The case settled on the eve of a second class-wide trial, and in 1998, the Court approved a settlement. Under a claims program established by the settlement that ran through 2008, class members with failing Masonite hardboard siding installed and incorporated in their property between January 1, 1980, and January 15, 1998, were entitled to make claims, have their homes evaluated by independent inspectors, and receive cash payments for damaged siding. Combined with settlements involving other alleged defective home building products sold by Masonite, the total cash paid to homeowners exceeded $1 billion. Weekend Warrior Trailer Cases, JCCP No. 4455 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, represented owners of Weekend Warrior trailers manufactured between 1998 and 2006 that were equipped with frames manufactured, assembled, or supplied by Zieman Manufacturing Company. The trailers, commonly referred to as "toy haulers," were used to transport outdoor recreational equipment such as motorcycles and allterrain vehicles. Plaintiffs charged that Weekend Warrior and Zieman knew of design and performance problems, including bent frames, detached siding, and warped forward cargo areas, with the trailers, and concealed the defects from consumers. In February 2008, the Court approved a $5.5 million settlement of the action that provided for the repair and/or reimbursement of the trailers. In approving the settlement, - 45 -

12.

13.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 47 of 85

California Superior Court Judge Thierry P. Colaw stated that class counsel were "some of the best" and "there was an overwhelming positive reaction to the settlement" among class members. 14. Lundell v. Dell, No. C05-03970 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Class Counsel for consumers who experienced power problems with the Dell Inspiron 5150 notebook. In December 2006, the Court granted final approval to a settlement of the class action which extended the oneyear limited warranty on the notebook for a set of repairs related to the power system. In addition, class members that paid Dell or a third party for repair of the power system of their notebook were entitled to a 100% cash refund from Dell. Kan v. Toshiba American Information Systems, No. BC327273 (Los Angeles Super. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for a class of all end-user persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired in the United States, for their own use and not for resale, a new Toshiba Satellite Pro 6100 Series notebook. Consumers alleged a series of defects were present in the notebook. In 2006, the Court approved a settlement that extended the warranty for all Satellite Pro 6100 notebooks, provided cash compensation for certain repairs, and reimbursed class members for certain out-of-warranty repair expenses. In re Louisiana-Pacific Inner-Seal Siding Litigation, No. C-95-879-JO (D. Ore.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Class Counsel on behalf of a nationwide class of homeowners with defective exterior siding on their homes. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of warranty, fraud, negligence, and violation of consumer protection statutes. In 1996, U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones entered an Order, Final Judgment and Decree granting final approval to a nationwide settlement requiring Louisiana-Pacific to provide funding up to $475 million to pay for inspection of homes and repair and replacement of failing siding over the next seven years. In re Intel Pentium Processor Litigation, No. CV 745729 (Santa Clara Supr. Ct., Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as one of two court appointed CoLead Class Counsel, and negotiated a settlement, approved by the Court in June 1995, involving both injunctive relief and damages having an economic value of approximately $1 billion. The chip replacement program has been implemented, and is ongoing. Gross v. Mobil, No. C 95-1237-SI (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs' Class Counsel in this nationwide action involving an estimated 2,500 aircraft engine owners whose engines were affected by Mobil AV-1, an aircraft engine oil. Plaintiffs alleged claims for strict liability, negligence, misrepresentation, violation of consumer protection statutes, and for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs obtained a preliminary injunction - 46 -

15.

16.

17.

18.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 48 of 85

requiring Defendant Mobil Corporation to provide notice to all potential class members of the risks associated with past use of Defendants' aircraft engine oil. In addition, Plaintiffs negotiated a proposed Settlement, granted final approval by the Court in November 1995, valued at over $12.5 million, under which all Class Members were eligible to participate in an engine inspection and repair program, and receive compensation for past repairs and for the loss of use of their aircraft associated with damage caused by Mobil AV-1. 19. In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 961 (E.D. Pa.). Lieff Cabraser served as courtappointed Co-Lead Counsel representing a class of 4.7 million plaintiffs who owned 1973-1987 GM C/K pickup trucks with allegedly defective gas tanks. The Consolidated Complaint asserted claims under the Lanham Act, the Magnuson-Moss Act, state consumer protection statutes, and common law. In 1995, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court settlement approval order and remanded the matter to the District Court for further proceedings. In July 1996, a new nationwide class action was certified for purposes of an enhanced settlement program valued at a minimum of $600 million, plus funding for independent fuel system safety research projects. Final approval was granted in November 1996. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., No. C-95-2010-CAL (N.D. Cal.). In 1995, the district court approved a $200+ million settlement enforcing Chrysler's comprehensive minivan rear latch replacement program, and to correct alleged safety problems with Chrysler's pre-1995 designs. As part of the settlement, Chrysler agreed to replace the rear latches with redesigned latches. The settlement was affirmed on appeal by the Ninth Circuit in Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (1998).

20.

*

(QYLURQPHQWDO DQG 7R[LF ([SRVXUHV 1. In re Unocal Refinery Litigation, No. C 94-04141 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as one of two Co-Lead Class Counsel and on the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in this action against Union Oil Company of California ("Unocal") arising from a series of toxic releases from Unocal's San Francisco refinery in Rodeo, California. The action was settled in 1997 on behalf of approximately 10,000 individuals for $80 million. Kentucky Coal Sludge Litigation. On October 11, 2000, near Inez, Kentucky, a coal waste storage facility ruptured, spilling 300 million gallons of coal sludge (a wet mixture produced by the treatment and cleaning of coal) into waterways in the region and contaminating hundreds of properties. This was one of the worst environmental disasters in the Southeastern United States. With co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser represented over 400 clients in property damage claims, including claims for - 47 -

2.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 49 of 85

diminution in the value of their homes and properties. In April 2003, the parties reached a confidential settlement agreement on favorable terms to the plaintiffs. 3. Toms River Childhood Cancer Incidents. With co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser represented 69 families in Toms River, New Jersey, each with a child having cancer, that claimed the cancers were caused by environmental contamination in the Toms River area. Commencing in 1998, the parties--the 69 families, Ciba Specialty Chemicals, Union Carbide and United Water Resources, Inc., a water distributor in the area--participated in an unique alternative dispute resolution process, which lead to a fair and efficient consideration of the factual and scientific issues in the matter. In December 2001, under the supervision of a mediator, a confidential settlement favorable to the families was reached. In re Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation (District of Alaska/Alaska Supr. Ct.). The Exxon Valdez ran aground on March 24, 1989, spilling 11 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound. Lieff Cabraser served as one of the court-appointed Plaintiffs' Class Counsel. The class consisted of fisherman and others whose livelihoods were gravely affected by the disaster. In addition, Lieff Cabraser served on the Class Trial Team that tried the case before a jury in federal court in 1994. The plaintiff class were awarded $5 billion in punitive damages. In 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the original $5 billion punitive damages verdict was excessive. In 2002, U.S. District Court Judge H. Russell Holland reinstated the award at $4 billion. Judge Holland stated that, "Exxon officials knew that carrying huge volumes of crude oil through Prince William sound was a dangerous business, yet they knowingly permitted a relapsed alcoholic to direct the operation of the Exxon Valdez through Prince William Sound." In 2003, the Ninth Circuit again directed Judge Holland to reconsider the punitive damages award under United States Supreme Court punitive damages guidelines. In January 2004, Judge Holland issued his order finding that Supreme Court authority did not change the Court's earlier analysis. In December 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling, setting the punitive damages award at $2.5 billion. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court further reduced the punitive damages award to $507.5 million, an amount equal to the compensatory damages. With interest, the total award to the plaintiffs class was $1.515 billion. 5. West v. G&H Seed Co., Aventis CropSciences USA, LLP, et al., No. 99C-4984-A (La. State Ct.). With co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser represented a class of 1,500 Louisiana crawfish farmers. The farmers sued Bayer CropScience LP claiming the pesticide ICON killed their crawfish and caused economic ruin. In 2004, the Court granted approved a $45 million - 48 -

4.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 50 of 85

settlement. The settlement was reached after the parties had presented nearly a month's worth of evidence at trial, and were on the verge of making closing arguments to the jury. 6. Craft v. Vanderbilt University, Civ. No. 3-94-0090 (M.D. Tenn.). Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Counsel of a certified class of over 800 pregnant women and their children who were intentionally fed radioactive iron without their consent while receiving prenatal care at defendant Vanderbilt's hospital in the 1940's. The facts surrounding the administration of radioactive iron to the pregnant women and their children in utero came to light as a result of Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary's 1993 disclosures of government sponsored human radiation experimentation during the Cold War. Defendants' attempts to dismiss the claims and decertify the class were unsuccessful. The case was settled in July 1998 for a total of $10.3 million and a formal apology from Vanderbilt. In re GCC Richmond Works Cases, JCCP No. 2906 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Liaison Counsel and Lead Class Counsel in coordinated litigation arising out of the release of a massive toxic sulfuric acid cloud which injured an estimated 50,000 residents of Richmond, California on July 26, 1993. The Coordination Trial Court granted final approval to a $180 million class settlement for exposed residents. In re Sacramento River Spill Cases I and II, JCCP Nos. 2617 & 2620 (Cal. Supr. Ct.). On July 14, 1991, a Southern Pacific train tanker car derailed in northern California, spilling 19,000 gallons of a toxic pesticide, metam sodium, into the Sacramento River near the town of Dunsmir. The metam sodium mixed thoroughly with the river water, having a devastating effect on the river and surrounding ecosystem. In addition, many residents living along the river became ill with symptoms that included headaches, shortness of breath, and vomiting. Lieff Cabraser served as Court-appointed Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Lead Class Counsel, and chaired the Plaintiffs' Litigation Committee in coordinated proceedings that included all of the lawsuits arising out of this toxic spill. Settlement proceeds of approximately $16 million were distributed pursuant to Court approval of a plan of allocation to four certified plaintiff classes: personal injury, business loss, property damage/diminution, and evacuation.

7.

8.

+

)DOVH &ODLPV $FW 1. United States ex rel Dye v. ATK Launch Systems, Inc., No. 1:06CV39TS (D. Utah). Lieff Cabraser represents a whistleblower who alleges that Defendant ATK Launch Systems knowingly sold defective and potentially dangerous illumination flares to the United States military. Lieff Cabraser, along with its co-counsel and the Department of Justice, is - 49 -

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 51 of 85

seeking all available damages under the federal False Claims Act. The case is currently in discovery, with a trial date set for early 2011. 2. United States of America ex rel. Mary Hendow and Julie Albertson v. University of Phoenix, No. 2:03-cv-00457-GEB-DAD (E.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Lead Counsel representing the plaintiffs in a whistleblower lawsuit filed under the False Claim Act against the University of Phoenix. The complaint alleged that the University of Phoenix defrauded the U.S. Department of Education by obtaining federal student loan and Pell Grant monies from the federal government based on false statements of compliance with the Higher Education Act. That Act prohibits universities receiving federal student aid monies from making incentive payments to recruiters based "directly or indirectly" on the number of students they recruit or enroll. In December 2009, the parties announced a $78.5 million settlement. The settlement constitutes the second-largest settlement ever in a False Claims Act case in which the federal government declined to intervene in the action.

,

$YLDWLRQ /DZ 1. In re Air Crash near Athens, Greece on August 14, 2005, MDL No. 1773. On August 14, 2005, a Boeing 737 operating as Helios Airways flight 522 crashed north of Athens, Greece, resulting in the deaths of all passengers and crew. The aircraft was heading from Larnaca, Cyprus to Athens International Airport when ground controllers lost contact with the pilots, who had radioed in to report problems with the air conditioning system. Press reports about the official investigation indicate that a single switch for the pressurization system on the plane was not properly set by the pilots, and eventually both were rendered unconscious, along with most of the passengers and cabin crew. Lieff Cabraser represented the families of several victims, and filed complaints alleging that a series of design defects in the Boeing 737-300 contributed to the pilots' failure to understand the nature of the problems they were facing. Foremost among those defects was a confusing pressurization warning "horn" which uses the same sound that alerts pilots to improper takeoff and landing configurations. The families represented by Lieff Cabraser obtained substantial economic recoveries in a settlement of the case. Barbosa Garcia et al. v. Excelaire Service, Inc., and Honeywell International, Inc., No. CV 06-5964 (E.D. N.Y.). Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel and represents over twenty families whose loved ones died in the Gol Airlines Flight 1907 crash. On September 29, 2006, a brand-new Boeing 737-800 operated by Brazilian air carrier Gol plunged into the Amazon jungle after colliding with a smaller plane owned by the American company ExcelAire Service, Inc. None of the 149 passengers and six crew members on board the Gol flight survived the accident. The complaint charged that the pilots of the ExcelAire jet were - 50 -

2.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 52 of 85

flying at an incorrect altitude at the time of the collision, failed to operate the jet's transponder and radio equipment properly, and failed to maintain communication with Brazilian air traffic control in violation of international civil aviation standards. If the pilots of the ExcelAire aircraft had followed these standards, plaintiffs charge that the collision would not have occurred. At the time of the collision, the ExcelAire aircraft's transponder manufactured by Honeywell was not functioning. A transponder transmits a plane's altitude and operates its automatic anticollision system. The complaint charged that Honeywell shares responsibility for the tragedy because it defectively designed the transponder on the ExcelAire jet, and failed to warn of dangers resulting from foreseeable uses of the transponder. The cases settled after they were sent to Brazil for prosecution. 3. In re Air Crash at Lexington, Kentucky, August 27, 2006, No. 07 CV 006 (E.D. Ky.). A Bombardier CRJ-100 commuter plane operated by Comair, Inc., a subsidiary of Delta Air Lines, crashed on August 27, 2006 shortly after takeoff at Blue Grass Airport in Lexington, Kentucky, killing 47 passengers and two crew members. The aircraft attempted to take off from the wrong runway. The families represented by Lieff Cabraser obtained substantial economic recoveries in a settlement of the case. Crash of West Caribbean Airways Flight 708. On August 16, 2005, a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 operated by West Caribbean Airways lost engine power and crashed near La Cucharita, Venezuela, during a flight from Panama City to Fort de France, Martinique. Martinique is a province of France. A large number of the victims' families retained French attorneys to represent them. In light of Lieff Cabraser's work on the Flash Air case (see below), those French attorneys asked Lieff Cabraser to advise them on the substance of U.S. laws which may be applicable to a claim against The Boeing Company (successor to McDonnell Douglas) or Pratt & Whitney, the manufacturer of the aircraft's engines. Crash of Manhattan Tourist Helicopter. On June 14, 2005 a Bell 206 helicopter operated by Helicopter Flight Services, Inc. fell into the East River shortly after taking off for a tourist flight over New York City. The pilot and six passengers were immersed upside-down in the water as the helicopter overturned. Lieff Cabraser represented a passenger on the helicopter, and the case was settled on favorable, confidential terms. Crash of "Legend" Aircraft in Tucson, AZ. On November 19, 2005, a single engine "Turbine Legend" kit plane operated by its owner crashed shortly after takeoff from a private airstrip in Tucson, Arizona, killing both the owner/pilot and a passenger. Witnesses report that the aircraft left the narrow runway during the takeoff roll and although the pilot managed to get the plane airborne, it rolled to the left and crashed. Lieff Cabraser is investigating the liability of the pilot and others, including the - 51 -

4.

5.

6.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 53 of 85

manufacturer of the kit and the operator of the airport from which the plane took off. The runway was 16 feet narrower than the minimum width recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration. Lieff Cabraser represented the widow of the passenger, and the case was settled on favorable, confidential terms. 7. Crash of Air Algerie Boeing 737. Together with French co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser represented the families of several passengers who died in the March 6, 2003 crash of a Boeing 737 airplane operated by Air Algerie. The aircraft crashed soon after takeoff from the Algerian city of Tamanrasset, after one of the engines failed. All but one of the 97 passengers were killed, along with six crew members. The families represented by Lieff Cabraser obtained economic recoveries in a settlement of the case. Crash of Flash Air Boeing 737. On January 3, 2004, all 148 passengers and crew were killed when a Flash Airlines Boeing 737 plunged into the Red Sea off the coast of Egypt, after the pilots encountered a malfunction in the flight control system. Most of the passengers were from France and were vacationing at the seaside resort of Sharm el Sheikh. After the families retained French attorneys to represent them, those French attorneys conducted several rounds of interviews of U.S. law firms with the intention of engaging one of those firms to file an action in the United States against Boeing, which manufactured the aircraft in the United States. Lieff Cabraser was selected to be that firm, and filed complaints in federal court in Los Angeles on behalf of the families of more than 120 victims. These cases were subsequently transferred back to France, where the claims against the U.S. defendants continue to be litigated. Tower Collision of U.S. Army Blackhawk Helicopter. Lieff Cabraser represented the family of a pilot who died in the November 29, 2004 crash of a U.S. Army Black Hawk Helicopter. The Black Hawk was flying during the early morning hours at an altitude of approximately 500 feet when it hit cables supporting a 1,700 foot-tall television tower, and subsequently crashed 30 miles south of Waco, Texas, killing both pilots and five passengers, all in active Army service. The tower warning lights required by government regulations were inoperative. The case was resolved through a successful, confidential settlement. Crash of China Eastern Airlines Bombardier CRJ200. Lieff Cabraser represents families of over 30 passengers who died in the November 21, 2004, crash of China Yunnan Airlines Flight 5210. The plane, a Bombardier CRJ-200 built in Canada with engines from a General Electric plant in Massachusetts, was headed for Shanghai with 47 passengers and six crew members when it crashed into a lake, seconds after taking off from Baotou, Inner Mongolia. Plaintiffs charge that the crash was the

8.

9.

10.

80577.1

- 52 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 54 of 85

result of a combination of pilot error and defects in the aircraft and its engines. 11. Crash of Mandala Airlines Flight 91. On September 5, 2005, a Boeing 737 operating as Mandala Flight 091 crashed immediately after takeoff from the airport in Medan, Indonesia, killing 101 of the 117 people on board, as well as 44 people on the ground. Lieff Cabraser represents a number of injured persons and families of deceased victims. Aeroflot-Russian International Airlines Airbus Disaster. Lieff Cabraser represented the families of passengers who were on Aeroflot-Russian International Airlines Flight SU593 that crashed in Siberia on March 23, 1994. The plane was in route from Moscow to Hong Kong. All passengers on board died. According to a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder, the pilot's two children entered the cockpit during the flight and took turns flying the plane. The autopilot apparently was inadvertently turned off during this time, and the pilot was unable to remove his son from the captain's seat in time to avert the plane's fatal dive. Lieff Cabraser, alongside French co-counsel, filed suit in France, where Airbus, the plane's manufacturer, was headquartered. All the families Lieff Cabraser represented obtained substantial economic recoveries in settlement of the action. United Airlines Boeing 747 Disaster, MDL No. 807 (N.D. Cal.). Lieff Cabraser served as Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel on behalf of the passengers and families of passengers injured and killed in the United Airlines Boeing 747 cargo door catastrophe near Honolulu, Hawaii on February 24, 1989. Lieff Cabraser organized the litigation of the case, which included claims brought against United Airlines and The Boeing Company. Among our work, we developed a statistical system for settling the passengers' and families' damages claims with certain defendants, and coordinated the prosecution of successful individual damages trials for wrongful death against the non-settling defendants. German Air Force Lockheed F-104 Star Fighter Litigation: In the late 1960s and extending into the early 1970s, the United States sold F-104 Star Fighter jets to the German Air Force that were manufactured by Lockheed Aircraft Corporation in California. Although the F-104 Star Fighter was designed for high-altitude fighter combat, it was used in Germany and other European countries for low-level bombing and attack training missions. Consequently, the aircraft had an extremely high crash rate, with over 300 pilots killed. Commencing in 1971, the law firm of Belli Ashe Ellison Choulos & Lieff filed hundreds of lawsuits for wrongful death and other claims on behalf of the widows and surviving children of the pilots. Robert Lieff continued to prosecute the cases after the formation of our firm. In 1974, the lawsuits were settled with Lockheed on terms favorable to the plaintiffs. This litigation helped - 53 -

12.

13.

14.

80577.1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 55 of 85

establish the principle that citizens of foreign countries could assert claims in United States courts, and obtain substantial recoveries, against an American manufacturer based upon airplane accidents or crashes occurring outside of the United States. - ,QWHUQDWLRQDO DQG +XPDQ 5LJKWV /LWLJDWLRQ 1. Holocaust Cases. Lieff Cabraser is one of the leading firms that prosecuted claims by Holocaust survivors and the heirs of Holocaust survivors and victims against banks and private manufacturers and other corporations who enslaved and/or looted the assets of Jews and other minority groups persecuted by the Nazi Regime during the Second World War era. We serve as Settlement Class Counsel in the case against the Swiss banks that the Court approved a U.S. $1.25 billion settlement in July 2000. Lieff Cabraser donated its attorneys' fees in the Swiss Banks case, in the amount of $1.5 million, to endow a Human Rights clinical chair at Columbia University Law School. We were also active in slave labor and property litigation against German and Austrian defendants, and Nazi-era banking litigation against French banks. In connection therewith, Lieff Cabraser participated in multi-national negotiations that led to Executive Agreements establishing an additional approximately U.S. $5 billion in funds for survivors and victims of Nazi persecution. Our website provides links to the websites of settlement and claims administrators in these cases. Commenting on the work of Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel in the litigation against private German corporations, entitled In re Holocaust Era German Industry, Bank & Insurance Litigation (MDL No. 1337), U.S. District Court Judge William G. Bassler stated on November 13, 2002: Up until this litigation, as far as I can tell, perhaps with some minor exceptions, the claims of slave and forced labor fell on deaf ears. You can say what you want to say about class actions and about attorneys, but the fact of the matter is, there was no attention to this very, very large group of people by Germany, or by German industry until these cases were filed. . . . What has been accomplished here with the efforts of the plaintiffs' attorneys and defense counsel is quite incredible. . . . I want to thank counsel for the assistance in bringing us to where we are today. Cases don't get settled just by litigants. It can only be settled by competent, patient attorneys.

80577.1

- 54 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 56 of 85

2.

Cruz v. U.S., Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Wells Fargo Bank, et al., No. 01-0892-CRB (N.D. Cal.). Working with co-counsel, Lieff Cabraser succeeded in correcting an injustice that dated back 60 years. The case was brought on behalf of Mexican workers and laborers, known as Braceros ("strong arms"), who came from Mexico to the United States pursuant to bilateral agreements from 1942 through 1946 to aid American farms and industries hurt by employee shortages during World War II in the agricultural, railroad, and other industries. As part of the braceros program, employers held back 10% of the workers' wages, which were to be transferred via United States and Mexican banks to savings accounts for each Bracero. The Braceros were never reimbursed for the portion of their wages placed in the forced savings accounts. Despite significant obstacles including the aging and passing away of many Braceros, statutes of limitation hurdles, and strong defenses to claims under contract and international law, plaintiffs prevailed in a settlement in February 2009. Under the settlement, the Mexican government provided a payment to Braceros, or their surviving spouses or children, in the amount of approximately $3,500 (USD). In approving the settlement on February 23, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer stated: I've never seen such litigation in eleven years on the bench that was more difficult than this one. It was enormously challenging. . . . It had all sorts of issues . . . that complicated it: foreign law, constitutional law, contract law, [and] statute of limitations. . . . Notwithstanding all of these issues that kept surfacing . . . over the years, the plaintiffs persisted. I actually expected, to tell you the truth, at some point that the plaintiffs would just give up because it was so hard, but they never did. They never did. And, in fact, they achieved a settlement of the case, which I find remarkable under all of these circumstances.

),50 %,2*5$3+< 3$571(56 ELIZABETH J. CABRASER, born Oakland, California, June 23, 1952. Admitted to practice in California, 1978; U.S. Supreme Court, 1996; U.S. Tax Court, 1979; California Supreme Court, 1978; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1978; Eastern District of California, 1979; Central District of California and Southern District of California, 1992; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (2005); U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 2009; Third Circuit, 1994; Fifth Circuit, 1992; Sixth Circuit, 1992; Seventh Circuit, 2001; Ninth

80577.1

- 55 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 57 of 85

Circuit, 1979; Tenth Circuit, 1992; Eleventh Circuit, 1992; U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii, 1986. Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California (J.D., 1978); University of California at Berkeley (A.B., 1975). Awards and Honors: "Edward Pollock Award," Consumer Attorneys of California, 2008; "Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America," Lawdragon, December 2007-2008; "Award For Public Interest Excellence," University of San Francisco School of Law Public Interest Law Foundation, 2007; "Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiffs' Lawyers," Lawdragon, February 2007; "Top Women Litigators in California," The San Francisco and Los Angeles Daily Journal, 2007, 2010; Distinguished Leadership Award, Legal Community Against Violence, 2006; "One Hundred Most Influential Lawyers in America," The National Law Journal, 2006, 2000 and 1997; "Top 75 Women Litigators," California Daily Journal, 2005-2006; Women of Achievement, Legal Momentum (formerly the NOW Legal Defense & Education Fund), 2006; "Best Lawyer," Best Lawyers in America, 2006; "Top 100 Lawyers," California Daily Journal, 2002-2007; "Top 30 Securities Litigator," California Daily Journal, 2005; "Top 100 Northern California Super Lawyers," Super Lawyers, 2005-2009; "Top 50 Female Northern California Super Lawyer," Super Lawyers, 2005-2009; "Northern California Super Lawyer," Super Lawyers, 2004-2010; "Top 50 Women Litigators," California Daily Journal, 2004; Citation Award, University of California, Berkeley Boalt Hall, 2003; "Top 30 Women Litigators," California Daily Journal, 2002; Distinguished Jurisprudence Award, Anti-Defamation League, 2002; "Top Ten Women Litigators," The National Law Journal, 2001; "California Law Business Top 100 Lawyers," California Daily Journal, 2000-1998; Matthew O. Tobriner Public Service Award, Legal Aid Society, 2000; Presidential Award of Merit, Consumer Attorneys of California, 1998; "Fifty Most Influential Women Lawyers," The National Law Journal, 1998; "Lawyers of the Year," California Lawyer, 1998; Public Justice Achievement Award, Public Justice, 1997. Publications & Presentations: Author, "Due Process Pre-Empted: Stealth Preemption As a Consequence of Agency Capture," (2009); "Just Choose: The Jurisprudential Necessity to Select a Single Governing Law for Mass Claims Arising from Nationally Marketed Consumer Goods and Services," Roger Williams University Law Review (Winter 2009); Co-Author with Joy A. Kruse, Bruce Leppla, "Selective Waiver: Recent Developments in the Ninth Circuit and California," (pts. 1 & 2), Securities Litigation Report (West Legalworks May and June 2005); "The Manageable Nationwide Class: A Choice-of-Law Legacy of Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts," University of Missouri- Kansas City Law Review, Volume 74, Number 3, Spring 2006; Co-Author with Fabrice N. Vincent, "Class Actions Fairness Act of 2005," California Litigation, Vol. 18, No. 3 (2005); Editor in Chief, California Class Actions Practice and Procedures (2003); Co-Author, "Decisions Interpreting California's Rules of Class Action Procedure," Survey of State Class Action Law, updated and re-published in 5 Newberg on Class Actions (ABA 2001-2004); Co-Author, "Mass But Not (Necessarily) Class: Emerging Aggregation Alternatives Under the Federal Rules," ABA 8th Annual National Institute on Class Actions, New York (Oct. 15, 2004), New Orleans (Oct. 29, 2004); Co-Author, "2004 ABA Toxicology Monograph-California State Law," (January 2004); "Current Issues Involving Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b)," in Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State Courts (ALI-ABA Course of Study 2004); "New Developments in Mass Torts and Class Actions: `Issues' Certification The Mass Torts Top Ten of 2003; Rule 23's New Provision and Action Trial Plans; And the FJC `New Plain Language' Class Notice," in Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State Courts (ALIABA Course of Study, February 2004); "Human Rights Violations as Mass Torts: Compensation as a Proxy for Justice in the United States Civil Litigation System"; Coordinating Editor and Co-

80577.1

- 56 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 58 of 85

Author of California section of the ABA State Class Action Survey (2001-02); "Unfinished Business: Reaching the Due Process Limits of Punitive Damages in Tobacco Litigation Through Unitary Classwide Adjudication," 36 Wake Forest Law Review 979 (Winter 2001); "Symposium: Enforcing the Social Contract through Representative Litigation," 33 Connecticut Law Review 1239 (Summer 2001); "Equity for the Victims, Equity for the Transgressor: The Classwide Treatment of Punitive Damages Claims," 74 Tulane Law Review 2005 (June 2000); "Class Action Trends and Developments After Amchem and Ortiz," in Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State Courts (ALI-ABA Course of Study 1999); Contributor/Editor, Moore's Federal Practice (1999); "Life After Amchem: The Class Struggle Continues," 31 Loyola Law Review 373 (1998); "Recent Developments in Nationwide Products Liability Litigation: The Phenomenon of Non-Injury Products Cases, the Impact of Amchem and the Trend Toward State Court Adjudication," Products Liability (ABA February 1998); Contributor/Editor, California Causes of Action (1998); "Beyond Bifurcation: Multi-Phase Structure in Mass Tort Class Actions," Class Actions & Derivative Suits (Spring 1997); "The Road Not Taken: Thoughts on the Fifth Circuit's Decertification of the Castano Class," SB24 ALI-ABA 433 (1996); "Getting the Word Out: Pre-Certification Notice to Class Members Under Rule 23(d)(2)," Class Actions & Derivative Suits Newsletter (October 1995); "Mass Tort Class Action Settlements," 24 CTLA Forum 11 (Jan./Feb. 1994); "Do You Know the Way from San Jose? The Evolution of Environmental and Toxic Nuisance Class Actions," Class Actions & Derivative Suits (Spring 1994); "An Oracle of Change? Realizing the Potential of Emerging Fee Award Methodologies for Enhancing The Role and Control of Investors in Derivative and Class Action Suits," Principles of Corporate Governance (ALI October 1994); "How To Streamline Complex Litigation: Tailor a Case Management Order to Your Controversy," 21 The Brief 12 (ABA/TIPS Summer 1992); "The Applicability of the Fraud-On-The-Market Theory to `Undeveloped' Markets: When Fraud Creates the Market, 12 Class Action Reports 402 (1989); "The Applicability of the Fraud-On-The-Market Theory to `Undeveloped' Markets: When Fraud Creates the Market," 12 Class Action Reports 402 (1989); "Mandatory Certification of Settlement Classes," 10 Class Action Reports 151 (1987); Co-author with Alexandra L. Foote and Fabrice N. Vincent, "Ethics and Admissibility: Failure to Disclose Conflicts of Interest in and/or Funding of Scientific Studies and/or Data May Warrant Evidentiary Exclusions," Mealey's December Emerging Drugs Reporter (December 2002); Co-author with Fabrice N. Vincent, "The Shareholder Strikes Back: Varied Approaches to Civil Litigation Claims Are Available to Help Make Shareholders Whole," Mealey's Emerging Securities Litigation Reporter (September 2002). Member: State Bar of California; American Bar Association (Past Co-Chair, Committee on Mass Torts; Committee on Class Actions and Derivative Suits; Tort and Insurance Practice Section (TIPS); Past Vice-Chair, Rules & Procedures Committee, Contributor, Civil Procedure & Evidence News Letter; Business Law Section, Corporate & Litigation Group; Litigation Section and Committee on Class Actions and Derivative Suits; CoChair, Committee on Mass Torts); ABA National Institute on Class Actions (Organizer/ Participant, 1997-2000); American Law Institute, (Council; Advisor, American Law Institute International Jurisdiction and Judgments and Aggregate Litigation Projects); Public Justice; National Center for State Courts Mass Tort Conference Planning Committee; Federal Bar Association, Northern District of California Chapter; Fight for Justice Campaign; (California State Liaison, Women Trial Lawyers Caucus); California Constitution Revision Commission, 1993-1996; Northern District of California Civil Justice Reform Act (CJRA) Advisory Committee, and Advisory Committee on Professional Conduct; Consumer Attorneys of

80577.1

- 57 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 59 of 85

California (CAOC); California Women Lawyers; Association of Business Trial Lawyers; Lawyer-Delegate, Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, 1992-1995; Bar Association of the Fifth Federal Circuit; Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom; Bar Association of San Francisco (Past President, Securities Litigation Section; Board of Directors, 1997-1998; Past Member, Judiciary Committee); Lawyers Club of San Francisco; Queen's Bench. RICHARD M. HEIMANN, born Miami, Florida, August 23, 1948. Admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, 1972; District of Columbia, 1974; California, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California and U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1975; U.S. Supreme Court, 1980; U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1980; U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii, 1986; New York, 2000. Education: Georgetown University (J.D., 1972); Georgetown Law Journal, 197172; University of Florida (B.S.B.A., with honors, 1969). Employment: Mr. Heimann served as Deputy District Attorney and Acting Assistant District Attorney for Tulare County, California, and as an Assistant Public Defender in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1972-74. As a private civil law attorney, Mr. Heimann has tried over 30 civil jury cases, including complex cases such as the successful FPI/Agretech and Edsaco securities class action trials. In April 2002 in the Edsaco case, a federal jury in San Francisco, California returned a $170.7 million verdict against Edsaco Ltd., which included $165 million in punitive damages. Awards & Honors: AV Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell; "Top Attorneys In Securities Law," Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel Edition, 2010; "Northern California Super Lawyers," Super Lawyers, 20042010; The Best Lawyers in America, 2007-2010; "Lawdragon Finalist," Lawdragon, 20092010.Member: State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco. WILLIAM BERNSTEIN, born York, Pennsylvania, July 5, 1950. Admitted to practice in California, 1975; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1987; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1975; New York and U.S. Supreme Court, 1985; U.S. District Court, Central and Eastern Districts of California, 1991; U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 1992; U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2008. Education: University of San Francisco (J.D., 1975); San Francisco Law Review, 1974-75; University of Pennsylvania (B.A., general honors, 1972). Community Service: Adjunct Professor of Law, University of San Francisco, Settlement Law (2006-Present); Judge Pro Tem for San Francisco Superior Court, 2000-present; Marin Municipal Court, 1984; Discovery Referee for the Marin Superior Court, 1984-89; Arbitrator for the Superior Court of Marin, 1984-1990. Awards & Honors: AV Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell; "Top Attorneys In Antitrust Law," Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel Edition, 2010; "Lawdragon Finalist," Lawdragon, 2009-2010; Northern California Super Lawyers, Super Lawyers, 2004-2010; "Top 100 Trial Lawyers in California," American Trial Lawyers Association, 2008; Who's Who Legal, 2007; Princeton Premier Registry, Business Leaders and Professionals, 2008-09; Unsung Hero Award, Appleseed, 2006. Publications & Presentations: "The Rise and Fall of Enron's One-To-Many Trading Platform" (American Bar Association Antitrust Law Section, Annual Spring Meeting, 2005); Co-author with Donald C. Arbitblit, "Effective Use of Class Action Procedures in California Toxic Tort Litigation", 3 Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, No. 3 (Spring 1996). Member: State Bar of California; State Bar of New York; Marin County Bar Association (Admin. of Justice Committee, 1988); Bar Association of San Francisco. JOSEPH R. SAVERI, born San Francisco, California, August 18, 1962. Admitted to practice in California, 1987; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1987; Central

80577.1

- 58 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 60 of 85

District of California, 1995; Southern District of California, 1995; Eastern District of California, 2008; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 2009; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 2010; U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 2004; U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 2006; U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 2009; U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1996; U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 2003; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1987; U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 2007; U.S. Supreme Court, 2004. Education: University of Virginia (J.D., 1987); University of California at Berkeley (B.A., 1984). Awards and Honors: AV Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell; "Top Attorneys In Antitrust Law," Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel Edition, 2010; "Northern California Super Lawyers," Super Lawyers, 2006 - 2010; AV® Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell; "Lawdragon Finalist," Lawdragon, 2009. Publications & Presentations: "Dagher: An Admirable Exercise in Restraint," Competition: The Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Fall/Winter 2006); Panelist, Soaring Prices for Prescription Drugs: Just Rewards for Innovations or Antitrust Violations?, University of San Francisco Law Review (November 13, 2004); California Antitrust & Unfair Competition Law 3d (Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California 2003); Panelist, Fordham Conference on Electronic Discovery, Discovery Subcommittee of Advisory Committee on the Rules of Civil Procedure; Contributing Author, California Class Actions Practice and Procedure (Elizabeth J. Cabraser editor in chief, 2003); "RICO Update," 22 Review of Securities and Commodities Regulation, No. 18 (Oct. 25, 1989). Member: State Bar of California; American Bar Association; Faculty Member, Sedona Conference on Antitrust Law and Litigation, 2006; Northern District of California's Civil Rules and Practice Committee; Bar Association of San Francisco; Italian Lawyers Club of San Francisco. DONALD C. ARBITBLIT, born Jersey City, New Jersey, May 5, 1951. Admitted to practice in Vermont, 1979; California and U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1986. Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California (J.D., 1979); Order of the Coif; Tufts University (B.S., magna cum laude, 1974). Awards and Honors: AV Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell; "Northern California Super Lawyers," Super Lawyers, 2004, 20062008; "Lawdragon Finalist," Lawdragon, 2009-2010. Publications & Presentations: Co-Author with Wendy Fleishman, "The Risky Business of Off-Label Use," Trial (March 2005); "Comment on Joiner: Decision on the Daubert Test of Admissibility of Expert Testimony," 6 Mealey's Emerging Toxic Torts, No. 18 (December 1997); Co-author with William Bernstein, "Effective Use of Class Action Procedures in California Toxic Tort Litigation," 3 Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, No. 3 (Spring 1996); "The Plight of American Citizens Injured by Transboundary River Pollution," 8 Ecology Law Quarterly, No. 2 (1979). Appointments: Member of the Federal Court-appointed Science Executive Committee, and Chair of the Epidemiology/Clinical Trials Subcommittee, In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1657 (E.D. La.); Member of the Federal Court-appointed Science and Expert Witness Committees in In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1203 (E.D. Pa.), In re Baycol Products Litigation, MDL No. 1431 (D. Minn.) and Rezulin Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1348 (S.D.N.Y.). Member: State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco. STEVEN E. FINEMAN, born Los Angeles, California, February 13, 1963. Managing Partner. Admitted to practice in California, 1989; U.S. District Court, Northern, Eastern and

80577.1

- 59 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 61 of 85

Central Districts of California and U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1995; U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1996; New York, U.S. District Court, Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2006; U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court, 1997; U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1997. Education: University of California, Hastings College of the Law (J.D., 1988); University of California, San Diego (B.A., 1985); Stirling University, Scotland (English Literature and Political Science, 1983-84). Honors/Appointments: The Best Lawyers in American (published by American Lawyer Media), based on peer and blue ribbon panel review, selected for list of "The New York Area's Best Lawyers" (2005-2010); "New York Super Lawyers," Super Lawyers, 2006-2010; "New York Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, Securities Litigation," Super Lawyers, 2008-2009; "100 Managing Partners You Need to Know," Lawdragon, 2008; "40 Under 40", The National Law Journal, 2002, selected as one of the country's most successful litigators under the age of 40; Consultant to the Office of the Attorney General, State of New York, in connection with an industry-wide investigation and settlement concerning health insurers' use of the "Ingenix database" to determine usual and customary rates for out-of-network services (April 2008-February 2009); Public Justice Foundation, Vice-President (July 2009present), Executive Committee (July 2006-present), Board of Directors (July 2002-present), CoChair, Major Donors/Special Gifts Committee (July 2009-present), Class Action Preservation Project Committee (July 2005-present; Co-Chair, July 2005-July 2009); Civil Justice Foundation, Board of Trustees (January 2004-present); The National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys, Executive Committee (2009-present); New York State Trial Lawyers Institute, Quarterly (June 2005-present); Editorial Board Columnist on Federal Practice for the State Court Practitioner, New York State Trial Lawyers Association's "Bill of Particulars" (2005present); New York State Trial Lawyers Association, Board of Directors (July 2001-July 2004); Plaintiff Toxic Tort Advisory Council, Lexis/Nexis, Mealey's Publications and Conferences Group (January 2002-2005); "Lawdragon Finalist," Lawdragon, 2009-2010. Publications & Presentations: American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, Access to Justice in Federal Courts--Panel Member, The Iqbal and Twombly Cases (January 21, 2010, New York, New York); American Bar Association, Section of Litigation, The 13th Annual National Institute on Class Actions--Panel Member, Hydrogen Peroxide Will Clear It Up Right Away: Developments in the Law of Class Certification (November 20, 2009, Washington, D.C.); Global Justice Forum, Presented by Robert L. Lieff and Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP--Conference CoHost and Moderator of Mediation/Arbitration Panel (October 16, 2009, Columbia Law School, New York, New York). The Forum included practicing attorneys, retired judges and legal academics from countries throughout the world and focused on financial fraud, mass tort, and competition litigation in a "post-economic crisis world."; Stanford University Law School, Guest Lecturer for Professor Deborah Hensler's course on Complex Litigation, Foreign Claimants in U.S. Courts/U.S. Lawyers in Foreign Courts (April 6, 2009, Stanford, California); Stanford University Law School, Guest Lecturer for Professor Deborah Hensler's course on Complex Litigation, Foreign Claimants in U.S. Courts/U.S. Lawyers in Foreign Courts (April 16, 2008, Stanford, California); Benjamin N. Cardoza Law School, The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, and Public Justice, Co-Organizer and Master of Ceremonies for Justice and the Role of Class Actions (March 28, 2008, New York, New York); Stanford University Law School and The Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Oxford University, conference on The Globalization of Class Actions, Panel Member, Resolution of Class and Mass Actions (December 13 and 14, 2007, Oxford, England); "Bill of Particulars, A Review of Developments in New York State Trial

80577.1

- 60 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 62 of 85

Law," Column, Federal Multidistrict Litigation Practice (Fall 2007); "Bill of Particulars, A Review of Developments in New York State Trial Law," Column, Pleading a Federal Court Complaint (Summer 2007); Stanford University Law School, Guest Lecturer for Professor Deborah Hensler's course on Complex Litigation, Foreign Claimants in U.S. Courts (April 17, 2007, Stanford, California); "Bill of Particulars, A Review of Developments in New York State Trial Law," Initiating Litigation and Electronic Filing in Federal Court (Spring 2007); "Bill of Particulars, A Review of Developments in New York State Trial Law," Federal Court Jurisdiction: Getting to Federal Court By Choice or Removal (Winter 2007); American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, 2006 National Convention, Panel Member, Finding the Balance: Federal Preemption of State Law (June 16, 2006, Washington, D.C.); Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Global Justice Forum, Conference Moderator and Panel Member on securities litigation (May 19, 2006, Paris, France); Stanford University Law School, Guest Lecturer for Professor Deborah Hensler's course on Complex Litigation, Foreign Claimants in U.S. Court (April 25, 2006, Stanford, California); Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Global Justice Forum, Conference Moderator and Speaker and Papers, The Basics of Federal Multidistrict Litigation: How Disbursed Claims are Centralized in U.S. Practice and Basic Principles of Securities Actions for Institutional Investors (May 20, 2005, London, England); New York State Trial Lawyers Institute, Federal Practice for State Practitioners, Speaker and Paper, Federal Multidistrict Litigation Practice (March 30, 2005, New York, New York), published in "Bill of Particulars, A Review of Developments in New York State Trial Law" (Spring 2005); Stanford University Law School, The Stanford Center on Conflict and Negotiation, Interdisciplinary Seminar on Conflict and Dispute Resolution, Guest Lecturer, In Search of "Global Settlements": Resolving Class Actions and Mass Torts with Finality (March 16, 2004, Stanford, California); Lexis/Nexis, Mealey's Publications and Conferences Group, Wall Street Forum: Mass Tort Litigation, Co-Chair of Event (July 15, 2003, New York, New York); Northstar Conferences, The Class Action Litigation Summit, Panel Member on Class Actions in the Securities Industry, and Paper, Practical Considerations for Investors' Counsel-- Getting the Case (June 27, 2003, Washington, D.C.); The Manhattan Institute, Center for Legal Policy, Forum Commentator on Presentation by John H. Beisner, "Magnet Courts: If You Build Them, Claims Will Come" (April 22, 2003, New York, New York); Stanford University Law School, Guest Lecturer for Professor Deborah Hensler's Courses on Complex Litigation ("Selecting The Forum For a Complex Case--Strategic Choices Between Federal And State Jurisdictions") and Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR In Mass Tort Litigation") (March 4, 2003, Stanford, California); American Bar Association, Tort and Insurance Practice Section, Emerging Issues Committee, Member of Focus Group on Emerging Issues in Tort and Insurance Practice (coordinated event with New York University Law School and University of Connecticut Law School, August 27, 2002, New York, New York); Duke University and University of Geneva, Debates Over Group Litigation in Comparative Perspective, Panel Member on Mass Torts and Products Liability (July 21-22, 2000, Geneva, Switzerland); New York Law Journal, Article, Consumer Protection Class Actions Have Important Position, Applying New York's Statutory Scheme (November 23, 1998); Leader Publications, Litigation Strategist, "Fen-Phen" Articles, The Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in Fen-Phen Litigation and Daubert Developments: Something for Plaintiffs, Defense Counsel (June 1998, New York, New York); The Defense Research Institute and Trial Lawyer Association, Toxic Torts and Environmental Law Seminar, Article and Lecture, A Plaintiffs' Counsels' Perspective: What's the Next Horizon? (April 30, 1998, New York, New York); Lexis/Nexis, Mealey's Publications

80577.1

- 61 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 63 of 85

and Conference Group, Mealey's Tobacco Conference: Settlement and Beyond 1998, Article and Lecture, The Expanding Litigation (February 21, 1998, Washington, D.C.); New York State Bar Association, Expert Testimony in Federal Court After Daubert and New Federal Rule 26, Article and Lecture, Breast Implant Litigation: Plaintiffs' Perspective on the Daubert Principles (May 23, 1997, New York, New York). Member: American Bar Association; New York State Bar Association; State Bar of California; District of Columbia Bar Association; Association of the Bar of the City of New York; Public Justice Foundation; American Association for Justice; Civil Justice Foundation; American Constitution Society for Law and Policy; The National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys; New York State Trial Lawyers Association. ROBERT J. NELSON, born New York, New York, October 20, 1960; admitted practice in California, 1987; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 1987; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1988; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1988; U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1995; District of Columbia, 1998; New York, 1999; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, Southern District of New York, 2001; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2006. Education: New York University School of Law (J.D., 1987): Order of the Coif, Articles Editor, New York University Law Review; Root-Tilden-Kern Scholarship Program. Cornell University (A.B., cum laude 1982): Member, Phi Beta Kappa; College Scholar Honors Program. London School of Economics (General Course, 1980-81): Graded First. Employment: Judicial Clerk to Judge Stephen Reinhardt, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1987-88; Assistant Federal Public Defender, Northern District of California, 198893; Legal Research and Writing Instructor, University of California-Hastings College of the Law, 1989-91 (Part-time position). Awards & Honors: California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) Award (2008, 2010); Consumer Attorney of the Year Finalist, 2007; San Francisco Trial Lawyer of the Year Finalist, 2007; "Northern California Super Lawyers," Super Lawyers, 2004­ 2010; "Lawdragon Finalist," Lawdragon, 2009-2010. Publications: False Claims Roundtable, California Lawyer (June 2010); Product Liability Roundtable, California Lawyer (March 2010); Product Liability Roundtable, California Lawyer (July 2009); "Class Action Treatment of Punitive Damages Issues after Philip Morris v. Williams: We Can Get There from Here," 2 Charleston Law Review 2 (Spring 2008) (with Elizabeth J. Cabraser); Product Liability Roundtable, California Lawyer (December 2007); Contributing Author, California Class Actions Practice and Procedures (Elizabeth J. Cabraser editor in chief, 2003); "The Importance of Privilege Logs," The Practical Litigator, Vol. II, No. 2 (March 2000) (ALI-ABA Publication); "To Infer or Not to Infer a Discriminatory Purpose: Rethinking Equal Protection Doctrine," 61 New York University Law Review 334 (1986). Member: State Bar of California; District of Columbia Bar Association; New York Bar Association; American Bar Association; Fight for Justice Campaign; Bar Association of San Francisco; Consumer Attorneys of California; American Association for Justice; San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association. KELLY M. DERMODY, born Ithaca, New York, June 16, 1967. Admitted to practice in California, 1994; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1995; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (2001); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (2008); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (2008); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (2006); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2007); U.S. District Court of Colorado (2007). Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (J.D. 1993); Moot Court Executive Board (1992-1993); Articles Editor, Industrial Relations Law

80577.1

- 62 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 64 of 85

Journal/Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law (1991-1992); Harvard University (A.B. magna cum laude, 1990), Senior Class Ames Memorial Public Service Award. Employment: Law Clerk to Chief Judge John T. Nixon, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, 1993-1994; Adjunct Professor of Law, Golden Gate University School of Law, Employment Law (Spring 2001). Awards & Honors: The Best Lawyers in America, 2010-2011; "Florence K. Murray Award," National Association of Women Judges, 2010 (for influencing women to pursue legal careers, opening doors for women attorneys, and advancing opportunities for women within the legal profession); "Irish Legal 100" Finalist, The Irish Voice, 2010; Northern California Super Lawyer, Super Lawyers, 2004-2010; Top 50 Female Northern California Super Lawyers, Super Lawyers, 2007-2010; Top 100 Northern California Super Lawyers, Super Lawyers, 2007, 2009; 500 Leading Lawyers in America, Lawdragon, 2010; 500 Leading Plaintiffs' Lawyers, Lawdragon, 2007; Top Women Litigators in California, San Francisco and Los Angeles Daily Journal, 2007, 2010; Community Justice Award, Centro Legal de la Raza, 2008; Community Service Award, Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, 2008; California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY Award), California Lawyer, 2007; Trial Lawyer of the Year Finalist, Public Justice Foundation, 2007; Award of Merit, Bar Association of San Francisco, 2007; Consumer Attorney of the Year Finalist, Consumer Attorneys of California, 2006; California's Top 20 Lawyers Under 40, Daily Journal, 2006; Living the Dream Partner, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, 2005. Publications & Presentations: "Class Actions: Latest Developments in Litigating and Settling Employment Discrimination Class Actions" (American Bar Association Labor and Employment Section Equal Opportunity Committee, Mid-Year Meeting, 2001); Co-Author with James M. Finberg, "A Road Map to Discovery in Employment Discrimination and Wage/Hour Class Actions" (Glasser Legal Works Seminar, 2000); "Employment Discrimination Class Actions in the Wake of Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp." (American Bar Association Litigation Section Annual Meeting, 2000); "Employment Discrimination Class Actions in the Wake of Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f)" (Federal Bar Association Convention, 1999); Co-Author with James M. Finberg, "Discovery in Employment Discrimination Class Actions," in Litigation and Settlement of Complex Class Actions (Glasser Legal Works 1998). Member: Northern District of California Lawyer Representative to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference (2007-present); Bar Association of San Francisco (Board of Directors: 2005-present, Treasurer: 2009-present, Secretary: 20082009; Litigation Section, Executive Committee, (2002-2005); American Bar Association (Labor and Employment Law Section, Governing Council (2009-present), CLE Conference Task Force (Co-Chair, 2008-2009, Vice-Chair, 2007-2008), Committee on Equal Opportunity in the Legal Profession (Co-Chair, 2006-2007), Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (Co-Chair, 20032006; Midwinter Meeting Planning Committee, 2000-2006), Katrina Task Force (Member, 20052007); National Association of Women Judges (Resource Board, 2005-present); Carver Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in Schools (Carver HEARTS), Steering Committee (2007-present); American Bar Foundation (Fellow, 2006-present); Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (Board of Directors, 1998-2005; Secretary, 1999-2003; Co-Chair, 2003-2005); National Center for Lesbian Rights (Board of Directors, 2002-2008; CoChair, 2005-2006); Pride Law Fund (Board of Directors, 1995-2002; Secretary, 1995-1997; Chairperson, 1997-2002); Equal Rights Advocates (Litigation Committee, 2000-2002); State Bar of California; Consumer Attorneys of California; National Employment Lawyers' Association; Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom; Public Justice.

80577.1

- 63 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 65 of 85

JONATHAN D. SELBIN, born Baton Rouge, Louisiana, May 11, 1967. Admitted to practice in California; District of Columbia; New York; U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; U.S. District Court, Central District of California; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida. Education: Harvard Law School (J.D., magna cum laude, 1993); University of Michigan (B.A., summa cum laude, 1989). Employment: Law Clerk to Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1993-95. Awards & Honors: "New York Super Lawyers," Super Lawyers, 2006-2010; "Lawdragon Finalist," Lawdragon, 2009. Publications & Presentations: Contributing Author, California Class Actions Practice and Procedures (Elizabeth J. Cabraser editor-in-chief, 2003); "Bashers Beware: The Continuing Constitutionality of Hate Crimes Statutes After R.A.V.," 72 Oregon Law Review 157 (Spring, 1993). Member: State Bar of California; New York State Bar Association; District of Columbia Bar Association; American Bar Association; New York State Trial Lawyers Association. BARRY R. HIMMELSTEIN, born Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 14, 1958. Admitted to bar, 1992, California; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1992. Education: Hastings College of the Law (J.D., magna cum laude, 1991); Note and Articles Editor, Hastings Law Journal (1990-91); University of Michigan at Ann Arbor (B.G.S., with distinction, 1982). Employment: Law Clerk to Judge Charles A. Legge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1991-92. Honors & Awards: "Northern California Super Lawyer," Super Lawyers, 2009-2010, "Lawdragon Finalist," Lawdragon, 2009. Publications & Presentations: Contributing Author, California Class Actions Practice and Procedures (Elizabeth J. Cabraser editor in chief, 2003). Member: California State Bar State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco. MICHELE C. JACKSON, born Redwood City, California, January 17, 1954. Admitted to bar, 1979, California; United States Supreme Court, 1988; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1981; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 1985; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1979. Education: University of San Francisco School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 1979); Stanford University (B.A., with honors in Economics, 1976). Employment: Judicial Extern to Justice Wiley W. Manuel, California Supreme Court, Summer 1977. Awards & Honors: AV Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell; "Top Attorneys In Antitrust Law," Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel Edition, 2010; "Northern California Super Lawyer," Super Lawyers, 2007-2010; "State Bar Board of Governors Award," State Bar of California; "Lawdragon Finalist," Lawdragon, 2009. Publications & Presentations: Panelist, "Antitrust Dispute Resolution in Complex Business Torts and Antitrust Cases: Is There Really a Class Arbitration?" (April 2007), American Bar Association Antitrust Law Spring Meeting; Panelist, "Settlement and Mediation of Unfair Competition Disputes" (May, 2006) and other panels, State Bar of California Antitrust and Unfair Competition Section; Author, Recent Judicial Opinions On Class And Multi-Party Arbitration In Antitrust And Consumer Cases, And Principles Underlying Those Opinions (February 2007), American Bar Association; Chapter CoAuthor with Marc Seltzer, "State Antitrust Law and Intellectual Property" in California Antitrust & Unfair Competition Law (Third), Vol. 1: Antitrust; Author, Asserted Defenses to a § 17200 Class Action Based on Korea Supply--The Interplay With Indirect Purchaser Litigation

80577.1

- 64 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 66 of 85

(2005) American Bar Association; Contributing Author, California Class Actions Practice and Procedure (2003). Appointments: Officer, Advisor and Executive Committee Member, State Bar of California Antitrust and Unfair Competition Section (terms September, 2001-2007). Member: American Bar Association; State Bar of California (Executive Committee Officer, Member and Advisor, Antitrust and Unfair Competition Section, September 2001-2007); Bar Association of San Francisco; McAuliffe Law Honor Society (Queen's Bench). MICHAEL W. SOBOL, born Mt. Kisco, New York, October 5, 1961. Admitted to practice in Massachusetts, 1989; California, 1998; United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, 1990; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2001; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2005; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2009). Education: Boston University (J.D., 1989); Hobart College (B.A., cum laude, 1983). Prior Employment: Lecturer in Law, Boston University School of Law, 1995-1997. Awards & Honors: "Lawdragon Finalist," Lawdragon, 2009. Publications & Presentations: Panelist, National Consumer Law Center's 15th Annual Consumer Rights Litigation Conference, Class Action Symposium; Panelist, Continuing Education of the Bar (C.E.B.) Seminar on Unfair Business Practices--California's Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and Beyond; Columnist, On Class Actions, Association of Business Trial Lawyers, 2005 to present; The Fall of Class Action Waivers (2005); The Rise of Issue Class Certification (2006); Proposition 64's Unintended Consequences (2007); The Reach of Statutory Damages (2008). Member: State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco; Consumer Attorneys of California, Board of Governors, (2007-2008, 2009-2010); National Association of Consume Advocates. FABRICE N. VINCENT, born Paris, France, June 15, 1966. Admitted to practice in California, 1992; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Central District of California, Eastern District of California, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1992. Education: Cornell Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1992); University of California at Berkeley (B.A., 1989). Awards & Honors: "Northern California Super Lawyer," Super Lawyers, 2006­2010. Publications & Presentations: Co-Author with Elizabeth J. Cabraser, "Class Actions Fairness Act of 2005," California Litigation, Vol. 18, No. 3 (2005); Co-Editor, California Class Actions Practice and Procedures (2003-06); Co-Author, "Ethics and Admissibility: Failure to Disclose Conflicts of Interest in and/or Funding of Scientific Studies and/or Data May Warrant Evidentiary Exclusions," Mealey's December Emerging Drugs Reporter (December 2002); Coauthor, "The Shareholder Strikes Back: Varied Approaches to Civil Litigation Claims Are Available to Help Make Shareholders Whole," Mealey's Emerging Securities Litigation Reporter (September 2002); Co-Author, "Decisions Interpreting California's Rules of Class Action Procedure," Survey of State Class Action Law (ABA 2000-09), updated and re-published in 5 Newberg on Class Actions (2001-09); Coordinating Editor and Co-Author of California section of the ABA State Class Action Survey (2001-06); Co-Editor-In-Chief, Fen-Phen Litigation Strategist (Leader Publications 1998-2000) and author of "Off-Label Drug Promotion Permitted" (Oct. 1999); Co-Author, "The Future of Prescription Drug Products Liability Litigation in a Changing Marketplace," and "Six Courts Certify Medical Monitoring Claims for Class Treatment," 29 Forum 4 (Consumer Attorneys of California 1999); Co-Author, Class Certification of Medical Monitoring Claims in Mass Tort Product Liability Litigation (ALI-ABA Course of Study 1999); Co-Author, "How Class Proofs of Claim in Bankruptcy Can Help in Medical Monitoring Cases," (Leader Publications 1999); Co-Author, Introduction, "Sanctioning Discovery Abuses in the Federal Court," (LRP Publications 2000); "With Final Approval, Diet

80577.1

- 65 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 67 of 85

Drug Class Action Settlement Avoids Problems That Doomed Asbestos Pact," (Leader Publications 2000). Member: State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco; American Bar Association; Fight for Justice Campaign; Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Society of Automotive Engineers. DAVID S. STELLINGS, born New Jersey, April 23, 1968. Admitted to practice in New York, 1994; New Jersey; 1994; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1994. Education: New York University School of Law (J.D., 1993); Editor, Journal of International Law and Politics; Cornell University (B.A., cum laude, 1990). Awards & Honors: "Lawdragon Finalist, Lawdragon, 2009. Member: State Bar of New York; State Bar of New Jersey; Bar Association of the City of New York; New York State Bar Association; American Bar Association. ERIC B. FASTIFF, born San Francisco, California. Admitted to practice in California, 1996; District of Columbia, 1997; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third, Ninth and Federal Circuit; U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Central Districts of California, District of Columbia; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin. Education: Cornell Law School (J.D., 1995); Editor-in-Chief, Cornell International Law Journal; London School of Economics (M.Sc.(Econ.), 1991); Tufts University (B.A., cum laude, magno cum honore in thesi, 1990). Employment: Law Clerk to Hon. James T. Turner, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, 1995-1996. Awards & Honors: "Northern California Super Lawyer," Super Lawyers, 2010; "Lawdragon Finalist," Lawdragon, 2009. Publications & Presentations: General Editor, California Class Actions Practice and Procedures, (2003-2009); Coordinating Editor and CoAuthor of California section of the ABA State Class Action Survey (2003-2008); Author, "US Generic Drug Litigation Update," 1 Journal of Generic Medicines 212 (2004); Author, "The Proposed Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments: A Solution to Butch Reynolds's Jurisdiction and Enforcement Problems," 28 Cornell International Law Journal 469 (1995). Member: State Bar of California; District of Columbia Bar Association; Bar Association of San Francisco; Bar of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims; Children's Day School (Board of Trustees); Editorial Board Member, Journal of Generic Medicines, 2003-present; Jewish Home for the Aged (Board of Trustees); Menorah Park (Board of Trustees); SF Works (Board of Trustees); Children's Day School (Board of Trustees). WENDY R. FLEISHMAN, born Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1954. Admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, 1977; New York, 1992. Education: University of Pennsylvania (PostBaccalaureate Pre-Med, 1982); Temple University (J.D., 1977); Sarah Lawrence College (B.A., 1974). Employment: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP in New York (Counsel in the Mass Torts and Complex Litigation Department), 1993-2001; Fox, Rothschild O'Brien & Frankel (partner), 1988-93 (tried more than thirty civil, criminal, employment and jury trials, and AAA arbitrations, including toxic tort, medical malpractice and serious injury and wrongful death cases); Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll (associate), 1984-88 (tried more than thirty jury trials on behalf of the defense and the plaintiffs in civil personal injury and tort actions as well as employment--and construction--related matters); Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia, 1977-84 (in charge of and tried major homicide and sex crime cases). Awards and Honors: "New York Super Lawyers," Super Lawyers, 2006-2010; "Lawdragon Finalist," Lawdragon, 2009. Publications & Presentations: Editor, Brown & Fleishman, "Proving and Defending Damage Claims: A Fifty-State Guide," (2007); Co-Author with Donald C. Arbitblit, "The Risky

80577.1

- 66 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 68 of 85

Business of Off-Label Use," Trial (March 2005); Co-Author, "From the Defense Perspective," in Scientific Evidence, Chapter 6 (Aspen Law Pub, 1999); American Bar Association, Editor, Trial Techniques Newsletter, Tort and Insurance Practices Section, 1995-96; and 1993-94; "How to Find, Understand, and Litigate Mass Torts," NYSTLA Mass Torts Seminar (April 2009); "Ethics of Fee Agreements in Mass Torts," AAJ Education Programs (July 2009). Appointments: Mealey's Drug & Medical Device Litigation Conference, Co-Chair (2007); Executive Committee In re ReNu MoistureLoc Product Liability Litigation, MDL; In re Guidant Product Liability Litigation, Discovery; In re Baycol MDL Litigation--Co Chair Science Committee; In re Vioxx MDL Litigation--Pricing Committee. Member: New York State Trial Lawyers Association (Board of Directors, 2004-Present); Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Judiciary Committee, 2004-Present); American Bar Association (2000, Affair Chair, ABA Annual Meeting, Torts & Insurance Practices Section, NYC; 1997, Chair, Trial Techniques Committee, Tort & Insurance Practices; 1996, Chair Elect, Trial Techniques Committee, Tort & Insurance Practices); American Association for Justice (Section Officer); Pennsylvania Bar Association (Committee on Legal Ethics and Professionalism, 1993-Present; Committee on Attorney Advertising, 1993-Present; Vice-Chair, Task Force on Attorney Advertising, 1991-92); State Bar of New York, Federal Bar Association; Member, Gender and Race Bias Task Force of the Second Circuit, 1994-present; Deputy Counsel, Governor Cuomo's Screening Committee for New York State Judicial Candidates, 1993-94; New York State Trial Lawyers Association; New York Women's Bar Association; Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Product Liability Committee, 2007-present); New York County Lawyers; Fight for Justice Campaign; NYTLA; PATLA; Philadelphia Bar Association (Member of Committee on Professionalism 1991-92). PAULINA do AMARAL, born New York, New York, February 1966. Admitted to practice in New York, 1997; California, 1998; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1999; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2004; U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan, 2004; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 2007. Education: University of California Hastings College of Law (J.D., 1996); Executive Editor, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly; National Moot Court Competition Team, 1995; Moot Court Executive Board; University of Rochester (B.A., 1988). Employment: Law Clerk to Chief Judge Richard Alan Enslen, U.S. District Court, Western District of Michigan, 1996-98. Member: Association of the Bar of the City of New York, (2007-2010, Committee on the Judiciary); American Bar Association; State Bar of New York; State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco; American Trial Lawyers Association; New York State Trial Lawyers Association. KATHRYN E. BARNETT, born Chapel Hill, North Carolina, October 23, 1967. Admitted to practice in Tennessee, 1992; Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2000; Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, 2003; United States District Court, Eastern District Tennessee, 2005; United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, 1997; United States District Court, Western District of Tennessee, 2001. Education: Vanderbilt University School of Law (J.D., 1992); American Jurisprudence Awards: Torts I and Jurisprudence; Davidson College (B.A., with Honors in Philosophy, 1989), Dean Rusk Grant for International Studies. Litigation Experience: Ms. Barnett has tried over 15 civil and criminal trials, including complex and class action cases, as well as catastrophic personal injury cases. In 2000, Ms. Barnett obtained a verdict of nearly $6 million on behalf of parents whose unborn fetus died tragically due to medical malpractice. In March, 2004 and in August, 2004 Ms. Barnett served as Co-Lead trial counsel in the class

80577.1

- 67 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 69 of 85

action lawsuit of In re Tri-State Crematory Litigation, MDL No. 1467. The case was settled during the second week of trial. The settlements in the Tri-State litigation exceed $40 million. Employment: Judicial Intern to Judge John T. Nixon, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, Fall 1990; Assistant Public Defender, Davidson County, Tennessee, Sept. 1992-1995. Awards & Honors: The Best Lawyers in America, 2010-2011; "Nashville Lawyers In Charge," Nashville Post, 2010; "Best of the Bar," Nashville Business Journal, 2003, 2005-2010; MidSouth Super Lawyer, Super Lawyers, 2006-2009; "150 Best Lawyers in Tennessee," Business Tennessee, 2006-2009; "Lawdragon Finalist," Lawdragon, 2009-2010. Publications & Presentations: "The Basics of Class Action and MDL Litigation," Tennessee Bar Association (July 2009); "Advanced Federal Court Practice," Nashville Bar Association (March 2009); Guest speaker, "Medicine, Law and Society," Vanderbilt University (March 2009) "Annual Review: Medical Malpractice Update" Tennessee Association for Justice (Oct, Dec. 2008); "Civil Procedure and Evidence Update," Tennessee Trial Lawyers (Oct. and Nov. 2006); "Pre-Trial Skills: Thinking on Your Feet," National Business Institute (Nov. 2006), "Trial Practice Institute," Nashville Bar Association (Sept. 2005); "State Law Class Actions," American Bar Association, Business Law Section (April 2005); "Power Windows Can Kill," Trial (April 2005); "Auto Defect Cases," Tennessee Trial Lawyers (Feb. 2005); "Limiting the Harmful Testimony of Experts on the Law," Trial (Jan. 2001); "Letting Focus Groups Work for You," Trial (April 1999); "Knocking Out Opposing Experts," Tennessee Trial Lawyers (October and November, 2004), Nashville Bar Association (July, 2004); "Trial Practice Tips: Powerful Trial Strategies for the Absolute Litigator," Nashville Bar Association (April, 2004); "Damages," Tennessee Trial Lawyers (Oct. and Nov. 2003); "Trying the Wrongful Death Case in Tennessee," National Business Institute (Aug. 2003); "Advanced Personal Injury," National Business Institute (July 2003); "Mass Torts," Tennessee Bar Association (July 2002); "Superior Depositions Strategies in Civil Trial Practice," National Business Institute (Jan. 2002, Dec. 1999); "Lawsuits Against the Nursing Home Industry," Tennessee Trial Lawyers (Feb. 2000); "How to Prepare for Mediation and other Practice Tips," Nashville Bar Association (Oct. 2000); "Tennessee Expert Witness," Lorman Education Services (July 2000); "Using Focus Groups to Get the Settlement or Verdict Your Client Deserves," Tennessee Trial Lawyers (Feb. 1999). Member: Tennessee Judicial Conference, Bench/Bar Committee (Chair, 2009-2010); Tennessee Association for Justice (Treasurer, 2010; Executive Committee, 2008-2009, Secretary, 20072009, Chair, Continuing Education Committee, 2004-2006, Board of Governors, 2002-2009); Nashville Bar Association, First Vice President (2007) (Board, 2005-2008); Harry Phillips American Inn of Courts, (Executive Committee, 2004-09, Member, 2004-2009, 1997-99); Nashville Bar Foundation (Fellow); Tennessee Justice Center, Inc. (Board of Directors, 2002-05, Secretary-Treasurer, 2003-04); Nashville Lawyer's Association for Women (President, 20042005; President-elect, 2003-2004; Director, 2002-03; Treasurer, 2000-02; Nominating Committee, 2007; Board, 1998-2005); Davidson County, Tennessee Metropolitan Board of Equalization, 2000-04; Tennessee Bar Association; American Association of Trial Lawyers. JOY A. KRUSE, born Buffalo, New York, February 24, 1955. Admitted to practice in Washington, D.C., 1984; California; U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Ninth, and Federal Circuits; U.S. District Courts for the Northern, and Eastern Districts of California; U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, 2006; U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2006; U.S. District Court, District of Wisconsin, 2001. Education: Harvard Law School (J.D., 1984); Wellesley College (B.A., 1977). Employment: Assistant Federal Public Defender, Northern District of California, 1992-96; Public Defender

80577.1

- 68 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 70 of 85

Service, Washington D.C., 1984-89. Awards & Honors: "Lawdragon Finalist," Lawdragon, 2009. Presentations & Publications: Co-Author with Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Bruce Leppla, "Selective Waiver: Recent Developments in the Ninth Circuit and California," (pts. 1 & 2), Securities Litigation Report (West Legalworks May and June 2005). Member: Phi Beta Kappa; State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco. STEPHEN H. CASSIDY, born Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, May 14, 1964. Admitted to practice in California, 1989; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California and U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1997. Education: Hastings College of the Law (J.D., magna cum laude, 1989); Associate Managing Editor, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 1988-1989; Order of the Coif; Member, Thurston Society; Recipient, American Jurisprudence Awards for Real Property, Evidence and American Legal History; Georgetown University (B.S.F.S., 1986). Employment: Law Clerk to Magistrate-Judge Joan S. Brennan, U.S. District, Northern District of California, 1989-90; Motions Attorney, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1992-94, 1996-97. Awards & Honors: AV Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell. Publications & Presentations: "Magnetix Toy Injuries: A Failure to Inform Safety Regulators," OpEd News (2009); "Restoring Patient Rights and Promoting Safer Medical Device," OpEd News (2009); "Internet Marketing for Plaintiffs' Firms," CAOC Conference (May 2004); "Enhancing the Role of Law Firm Marketing Departments," LexisNexis Law Firm Marketers' Roundtable (November 2003); Contributing Author, California Class Actions Practice and Procedures (Elizabeth J. Cabraser editor in chief, 2003); Co-Author, "Decisions Interpreting California's Rules of Class Action Procedure," in Survey of State Class Action Law (ABA 2001); "The Newest Member of the Nuclear Club: Pakistan's Drive for a Nuclear Weapon's Capability," 12 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 679 (1989). Member: State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco; American Bar Association (Litigation Section); Public Justice; Fight for Justice Campaign; Consumer Attorneys of California. RACHEL GEMAN, born Northampton, Massachusetts, August 7, 1971. Admitted to practice in New York, 1998; Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, 1999; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, 2005; U.S. District Court of Colorado, 2007. Education: Columbia University School of Law (J.D. 1997); Stone Scholar; Equal Justice America Fellow; Human Rights Fellow; Editor, Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems; Harvard University (A.B. cum laude 1993). Employment: Adjunct Professor, New York Law School; Special Advisor, United States Mission to the United Nations, 2000; Law Clerk to Judge Constance Baker Motley, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1997-98. Awards & Honors: Distinguished Honor Award, United States Department of State, 2001. Publications & Presentations: The New York Employee Advocate, Co-Editor (2005-Present); Regular Contributor (2008-present); Moderator, "Hot Topics in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions," American Association for Justice Tele-Seminar (2010); Author & Panelist, "Class Action Considerations: Certification, Settlement, and More," American conference Institute Advanced Forum (2009); Panelist, "Rights Without Remedies," American Constitutional Society National Convention, Revitalizing Our Democracy: Progress and Possibilities (2008);Panelist, Fair Measure: Toward Effective Attorney Evaluations, American Bar Association Annual Meeting (2008); Panelist, "Getting to Know You: Use and Misuse of Selection Devices for Hiring and Promotion" ABA Labor & Employment Section Annual Meeting (2008); Author, "`Don't I Think I Know You Already?': Excessive Subjective Decision-Making as an Improper Tool for Hiring and Promotion," ABA Labor & Employment

80577.1

- 69 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 71 of 85

Section Annual Meeting (2008); Co-Author & Panelist, "Ethical Issues in Representing Workers in Wage & Hour Actions," Representing Workers in Individuals & Collective Actions under the FLSA (2007); Author & Panelist, "Evidence and Jury Instructions in FLSA Actions," Georgetown Law Center/ACL-ABA (2007); Author & Panelist, "Crucial Events in the `Life' of an FLSA Collective Action: Filing Considerations and the Two-step `Similarly-Situated' Analysis," National Employment Lawyers Association, Annual Convention (2006); Author & Panelist, "Time is Money, Except When It's Not: Compensable Time and the FLSA," National Employment Lawyers Association, Impact Litigation Conference (2005); Panelist, "Electronic Discovery," Federal Judicial Center & Institute of Judicial Administration, Workshop on Employment Law for Federal Judges (2005); "Image-Based Discrimination and the BFOQ Defense," EEO Today: The Newsletter of the EEO Committee of the ABA's Section of Labor and Employment Law, Vol. 9, Issue 1 (2004); "Fair Labor Standards Act Overtime Exemptions: Proposed Regulatory Changes," New York State Bar Association Labor and Employment Newsletter (2004); Chair & Panelist, "Current Topics in Fair Labor Standards Act Litigation," Conference, Association of the Bar of the City of New York (2003); Moderator, "Workforce Without Borders," ABA Section of Labor & Employment Law, EEOC Midwinter Meeting (2003). Member: American Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Section, Standing Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity (Co-Chair, 2009-present); Association of the Bar of the City of New York; National Employment Lawyers' Association/New York (Board Member); Public Justice Foundation. SCOTT P. NEALEY, born Champaign, Illinois, July 28, 1966. Admitted to practice in California, 1997; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1998; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 1998; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1999; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2000. Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California (J.D., 1996); University of California at Berkeley (B.A., 1988). Honors & Awards: California Lawyer Attorneys of the Year (CLAY) Award, 2008; Finalist, San Francisco Trial Lawyer of the Year, 2008. Employment: Law Clerk to Chief Justice Joseph R. Weisberger, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1996-97. Publications & Presentations: Contributing Author, California Class Actions Practice and Procedures (Elizabeth J. Cabraser editor in chief, 2003). Member: Bar Association of San Francisco; State Bar of California. ELIZABETH A. ALEXANDER, born Morristown, Tennessee, October 4, 1971. Admitted to practice in Tennessee, 1998; U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 2001; U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, 2000; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, 2002. Education: Vanderbilt University Law School (J.D., 1998); President, Criminal Law Association; Moot Court Board Member; Vanderbilt University Honor Committee; Hollins College (B.A., 1993). Honors & Awards: "Rising Stars," Super Lawyers, 2008-2010; "Lawdragon 500 New Stars" and "Lawdragon 3000 Leading Plaintiffs' Lawyers in America," Lawdragon, 2006-2007. Publications & Presentations: Editor, Tennessee Chapter of the ABA Survey of State Class Action Law (2003-2010); "Consumer Class Actions Against Financial Institutions," Lorman Education Services, July 2004; Panelist, National Consumer Law Center, Consumer Rights Litigation Conference, "Pleading Standards--the Impact of Twombly and Iqbal on Class Action Complaints." Prior Employment: Associate, Dodson, Parker, Dinkins & Behm (2002-03); Associate, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs (2000-2002); Law Clerk, Honorable Thomas A. Higgins, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (19982000). Member: American Bar Association (Labor and Employment Law Section Equal

80577.1

- 70 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 72 of 85

Employment Opportunity Committee, Co-Chair, Basics Committee 2005-2006; Chair of Internal Marketing and Mentoring Committee 2006-2007); Lawyers' Association for Women (Director, 2003-2005); Nashville Bar Association (Board of Directors, Young Lawyers Division); National Bar Association; National Employment Lawyers' Association; Tennessee Bar Association. DANIEL P. CHIPLOCK, born Albany, New York. Admitted to practice in New York, 2001; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2001; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, 2001; U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2006; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (2009). Education: Stanford Law School (J.D., 2000); Article Review Board, Stanford Environmental Law Journal; Recipient, Keck Award for Public Service; Columbia University (B.A., summa cum laude, 1994); Phi Beta Kappa. Member: State Bar of New York; American Association for Justice; Fight for Justice Campaign; Public Justice; National Association of Public Pension Attorneys (NAPPA); National Association of Public Pension Attorneys; National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys (Executive Committee); American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (Advocate's Circle). MARK P. CHALOS, born New York, New York, September 3, 1973. Admitted to practice in Tennessee, 1998; U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1998; U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, 2000; U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, 2002; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, 2006; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida, 2006; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2007. Education: Emory University School of Law (J.D., 1998); Dean's List; Award for Highest Grade, Admiralty Law; Research Editor, Emory International Law Review; Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity; Vanderbilt University (B.A., 1995). Honors & Awards: AV Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell, 2003; "Best of the Bar," Nashville Business Journal, 2008-2009; "Top 40 Under 40," The Tennessean, 2004; "Rising Stars," Super Lawyers, 2008-2009. Publications & Presentations: "Successfully Suing Foreign Manufacturers," TRIAL Magazine, November 2008; "Washington Regulators Versus American Juries: The United States Supreme Court Shifts the Balance in Riegel v. Medtronic," Nashville Bar Journal, 2008; "Washington Bureaucrats Taking Over American Justice System," Tennessean.com (December 2007); "The End of Meaningful Punitive Damages," Nashville Bar Journal, November 2001; "Is Civility Dead?" Nashville Bar Journal, October 2003; "The FCC: The Constitution, Censorship, and a Celebrity Breast," Nashville Bar Journal, April 2005. Member: American Association for Justice; American Bar Association (Past-Chair, YLD Criminal & Juvenile Justice Committee; Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section Professionalism Committee YLD liaison); Fight for Justice Campaign; Tennessee Bar Association; Tennessee Trial Lawyers Association (Board of Directors).; Nashville Bar Association (Board of Directors, Nashville Bar Association YLD; Nashville Bar Association YLD Continuing Legal Education and Professional Development Director); Nashville Bar Journal (Editorial Board); Tennessee Association for Justice (Board of Governors, 2008-2009; Legislative Committee); Harry Phillips American Inn of Court (2002-2004); Metropolitan Nashville Arts Commission (Grant Review Panelist); First Center for the Visual Arts (Founding Member, Young Professionals Program); Kappa Sigma Fraternity Alumni Association (President). KRISTEN LAW SAGAFI, born Parkersburg, West Virginia, April 3, 1974. Admitted to practice in California (2002); U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (2002); U.S. District Court, Central District of California (2005); US District Court; Northern District of

80577.1

- 71 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 73 of 85

Florida (2009); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2010). Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (J.D. 2002); Executive Editor, Ecology Law Quarterly; Moot Court Advocacy Award; Moot Court Board; Hopi Appellate Clinic; Ohio Wesleyan University (B.A., summa cum laude, 1995); Presidential Scholar. Honors & Awards: "Northern California Rising Stars," Super Lawyers, 2009. Member: Phi Beta Kappa; State Bar of California. JAHAN C. SAGAFI, born Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, December 26, 1971. Admitted to practice in California, 2003; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2006; U.S. District Court, Central District of California; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. Education: Harvard Law School (J.D., 2001); Senior Editor, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review (1999-2001); President, Board of Student Advisers; Harvard College (B.A., magna cum laude, 1994). Employment: Law Clerk to Judge William W Schwarzer, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2001-02. Honors & Awards: "Northern California Rising Stars," Super Lawyers, 2009; "Community Justice Award," Centro Legal de la Raza, 2008. Member: American Constitution Society (Chair of Bay Area Lawyer Chapter); ACLU of Northern California (Board Member; Chair of the Legal Committee, 2010; Vice Chair, 2010; Executive Committee, 2009-present); National Employment Lawyers' Association; Consumer Attorneys of California; American Bar Association; Bar Association of San Francisco. KENT L. KLAUDT, born Jamestown, North Dakota, September 6, 1968. Admitted to practice in California, 1996; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1997; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 1998; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2007; California Supreme Court. Education: University of Minnesota Law School (J.D., 1996); Outside Articles Editor, Journal of Law & Inequality: A Journal of Theory & Practice; National Association of Public Interest Law (Summer Fellowship, 1995); University of Minnesota (B.A., 1991). Employment: BlueDog, Olson & Small, PLLP, 1995-96; Cartwright & Alexander, LLP, 1996-2001; The Cartwright Law Firm, Inc., 2001-2004. Publications & Presentations: "Hungary After the Revolution: Privatization, Economic Ideology, and the False Promise of the Free Market," 13 Law & Inequality: A Journal of Theory & Practice 301. Member: American Trial Lawyers Association; Consumer Attorneys of California; Public Justice; San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association; National Lawyers Guild. JENNIFER GROSS, born Sleepy Hollow, New York, July 1, 1969. Admitted to practice in California, 1994; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 1994. Education: RAND Graduate School (M. Phil., 1997); University of Southern California (J.D., 1994); Emory University (B.A., 1991). Publications & Presentations: Co-Author, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Force Mix Study: Final Report (RAND 2003); Co-Author, Asbestos Litigation Costs and Compensation: An Interim Report (RAND 2002); Co-Author, Asbestos Litigation in the U.S.: A New Look at an Old Issue (RAND 2001); Co-Author, Class Action Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain (RAND, 2000); Co-Author, Potential Vulnerabilities of U.S. Air Force Information Systems (RAND, 1999); Co-Author, "Preliminary Results of the RAND Study of Class Action Litigation," (RAND, 1997). Member: State Bar of California. LEXI J. HAZAM, born Olney, Maryland, October 9, 1973. Admitted to practice in California, 2003; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2003; U.S. Court of

80577.1

- 72 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 74 of 85

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 2006. Education: Stanford University (B.A., 1995, M.A., 1996), Phi Beta Kappa; Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (J.D., 2001). Employment: Law Clerk, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, 1999; Law Clerk, Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 20012002; Associate, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 2002-2006; Partner, Lieff Global LLP, 2006-2008. Honors & Awards: "Northern California Rising Stars," Super Lawyers, 2009. Member: State Bar of California; American Association for Justice; Consumer Attorneys of California. HEATHER A. FOSTER, born Washington, D.C., October 2, 1970. Admitted to practice in California in 1996; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 1996. Education: University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law (J.D., 1996); Moot Court Honors Board, 1995-96; Trial Advocacy Honors 1996; Boston College (B.A., 1992). Employment: Adjunct Professor, San Francisco State University--College of Extended Learning, Paralegal and LNC program (Fall 2000­Spring 2001). Publications & Presentations: Co-Author, Class Certification of Medical Monitoring Claims in Mass Tort Product Liability Litigation (ALI-ABA Course of Study, 1999). Member: American Association for Justice; American Bar Association (Litigation Section); Association of Legal Administrators; Bar Association of San Francisco; Legal Assistant Management Association; Phi Alpha Delta; State Bar of California (Volunteer Legal Services Program: Liaison for the Summer Associate Public Service Program--Homeless Advocacy Program, 2002; Teachers in the Schools Program, 2002; Pro Bono Attorney--Family Law Clinic, 1999); Trial Lawyers for Public Justice. BRENDAN P. GLACKIN, born Sacramento, California, July 23, 1973. Admitted to practice in California, 1998; New York, 2000; U.S. District Court, Northern, Central, Eastern and Southern Districts of California, 2001; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2004; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2001; U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2001. Education: Harvard Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1998); University of Chicago (A.B., Phi Beta Kappa, 1995). Employment: Contra Costa Public Defender, 2005-2007; Boies, Schiller & Flexner, 2000-2005; Willkie Farr & Gallagher, 1999-2000; Law Clerk to Honorable William B. Shubb, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 1998-1999. Member: State Bar of California; BASF Antitrust Section, Executive Committee. DANIEL E. SELTZ, born Alexandria, Virginia, April 24, 1974. Admitted to practice in New York, 2004; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York; Eastern District of New York. Education: New York University School of Law (J.D., 2003); Review of Law and Social Change, Managing Editor; Hiroshima University (Fulbright Fellow, 1997-98); Brown University (B.A., magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, 1997). Employment: Law Clerk to Honorable John T. Nixon, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, 2003-04. Publications & Presentations: Panelist, "Taking and Defending Depositions," New York City Bar, May 20, 2009; Contributing Author, California Class Actions Practice & Procedures (Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Editor-in-Chief, 2008); "Remembering the War and the Atomic Bombs: New Museums, New Approaches," in Memory and the Impact of Political Transformation in Public Space (Duke University Press, 2004), originally published in Radical History Review, Vol. 75 (1998); "Issue Advocacy in the 1998 Congressional Elections," with Jonathan S. Krasno (Urban Institute, 2001); Buying Time: Television Advertising in the 1998 Congressional Elections, with Jonathan S. Krasno (Brennan Center for Justice, 2000); "Going Negative," in Playing Hardball,

80577.1

- 73 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 75 of 85

with Kenneth Goldstein, Jonathan S. Krasno and Lee Bradford (Prentice-Hall, 2000). Member: American Association for Justice; State Bar of New York. TODD A. WALBURG, born Berkeley, California, January 5, 1973. Admitted to practice in California, 2001; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2001; U.S. District Court, Eastern, Central and Southern Districts of California, 2006; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2001. Education: University of San Francisco School of Law (J.D. 1999); Founder and President, USF Student Chapter, Association of Trial Lawyers of America (19971999); Investigation Intern, San Francisco Public Defender's Office; Mediation Intern, San Francisco Small Claims Court; Mediation Intern, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; University of California at Los Angeles (B.A., 1995). Awards: Leesfield / Association of Trial Lawyers of America Scholarship, National Winner (1998). Prior Employment: Partner, Emison Hullverson Bonagofsky, LLP (2007-2008); Associate, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, 2005-2007); Associate, Bennett, Johnson & Galler (20012005). Publications and Presentations: "Powerful Mediation Briefs," in The Verdict (ACCTLA 2006); "Product Liability Strategies Before Trial," SFTLA Roundtable (October, 2008). Member: Public Justice; American Association for Justice; American Bar Association (Tort, Trial and Insurance Practice Section); Consumer Attorneys of California; State Bar of California; San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association (Education Committee and Carlene Caldwell Scholarship Committee, 2005-2007); Alameda-Contra Costa Trial Lawyers Association (Board of Governors, 2003-2005); Bar Association of San Francisco. 2) &2816(/ ROBERT L. LIEFF, born Bridgeport, Connecticut, September 29, 1936. Admitted to practice in California, 1966; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California and U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1969; U.S. Supreme Court, 1969; U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1972; U.S. Tax Court, 1974; U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii, 1986. Education: Columbia University (M.B.A., 1962; J.D., 1962); Cornell University; University of Bridgeport (B.A., 1958). Member, Columbia Law School Dean's Council; Member, Columbia Law School Board of Visitors (1992-present); Member, Columbia Law School Center on Corporate Governance Advisory Board (2004). Awards & Honors: AV Peer Review Rated, MartindaleHubbell; "Northern California Super Lawyers," Super Lawyers, 2005-09, "Lawdragon Finalist," Lawdragon, 2005. Member: Bar Association of San Francisco; State Bar of California (Member: Committee on Rules of Court, 1971-74; Special Committee on Multiple Litigation and Class Actions, 1972-73); American Bar Association (Section on Corporation, Banking and Business Law); Lawyers Club of San Francisco; San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association; California Trial Lawyers Association; Consumer Attorneys of California; Fight for Justice Campaign. BRUCE W. LEPPLA, born Oakland, California. Admitted to practice in California, New York, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, California District Courts (Northern, Central, Eastern), New York District Courts (Southern, Eastern), District of Colorado. Education: University of California (J.D., Boalt Hall School of Law, M.G. Reade Scholarship Award); University of California at Berkeley (M.S., Quantitative Economics, with honors); Yale University (B.A., magna cum laude, Highest Honors in Economics). Prior Employment: Partner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (2004-2008), Counsel (2002-2003); Chairman, Bulldog Advisors LLC (2008-present); Chairman, Susquehanna Realty Holdings LLC (2006-present); CEO and

80577.1

- 74 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 76 of 85

President, California Bankers Insurance Services Inc., 1999-2001; CEO and President, Redwood Bank (1985-1998), CFO and General Counsel (1981-1984); Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1980); Davis Polk & Wardwell (1976-80). Publications: Author or co-author of 11 different U.S. and International patents in electronic commerce and commercial product design, including "A Method for Storing and Retrieving Digital Data Transmissions," United States Patent No. 5,659,746, issued August 19, 1997; "Stay in the Class or Opt-Out? Institutional Investors Are Increasingly Opting-Out of Securities Class Litigation," Securities Litigation Report, Vol. 3, No. 8, September 2006, West LegalWorks; reprinted by permission of the author in Wall Street Lawyer, October 2006, Vol. 10, No. 10, West LegalWorks; "Selected Waiver: Recent Developments in the Ninth Circuit and California, Part 1;" Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Joy A. Kruse and Bruce W. Leppla; Securities Litigation Report, May 2005, Vol. I, No. 9, pp. 1, 3-7; "Selected Waiver: Recent Developments in the Ninth Circuit and California, Part 2;" Elizabeth J.Cabraser, Joy A. Kruse and Bruce W. Leppla; Securities Litigation Report, June 2005, Vol. I, No. 10, pp. 1, 3-9; Author, "Securities Powers for Community Banks," California Bankers Association Legislative Journal (Nov. 1987). Teaching Positions: Lecturer, University of California at Berkeley, Haas School of Business, Real Estate Law and Finance (1993-96); Lecturer, California Bankers Association General Counsel Seminars, Lending Documentation, Financial Institutions Litigation and similar topics (1993-96). Panel Presentations: Union Internationale des Avocats, Spring Meeting 2010, Frankfurt, Germany, "Recent Developments in Cross-Border Litigation;" Union Internationale des Avocats, Winter Meeting 2010, Park City, Utah, "Legal and Economic Aspects of Securities Class and Opt-out Litigation;" EPI European Pension Fund Summit, Montreux, Switzerland, "Legal and Global Economic Implications of the U.S. Subprime Lending Crisis," May 2, 2008; Bar Association of San Francisco, "Impact of Spitzer's Litigation and Attempted Reforms on the Investment Banking and Insurance Industries," May 19, 2005; Opal Financial Conference, National Public Fund System Legal Conference, Phoenix, AZ, "Basic Principles of Securities Litigation," January 14, 2005; American Enterprise Institute, "Betting on the Horse After the Race is Over--In Defense of Mutual Fund Litigation Related to Undisclosed After Hours Order Submission," September 30, 2004. Member: State Bar of California; State Bar of New York; Member, Editorial Board, Wall Street Lawyer; Yale University Alumni Board of Directors (Director, 2001-2005); California Bankers Association (Director, 1993-99); California State Small Business Development Board (1989-1997); University of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall Alumni Board of Directors (1993-96); Leadership Council, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce (1990-1992); Community Reinvestment Institute (Founding Director, 1989-1990); Member, Yale Whiffenpoofs. NICHOLAS R. DIAMAND, born London, England. Admitted to practice in New York, 2003; U.S. District Court, Southern, Eastern, Northern, and Western Districts of New York; US. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Education: Columbia University School of Law (LL.M., Stone Scholar, 2002); College of Law, London, England (C.P.E.; L.P.C.; Commendation, 1997); Columbia University (B.A., magna cum laude, 1992). Employment: Solicitor, Herbert Smith, London (1999-2001); Law Clerk to the Honorable Edward R. Korman, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (2002-03). Publications & Presentations: Contributing Author, California Class Actions Practice and Procedure (Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Editor-inChief), 2006; Panelist, "Obstacles to Access to Justice in Pharmaceutical Cases," Pharmaceutical Regulation and Product Liability, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, April 21, 2006; Panelist, "Pre-Trial Discovery in the United States," Union Internationale des Avocats, Winter Seminar, February 2006; Columnist, The New York Employee

80577.1

- 75 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 77 of 85

Advocate, NELA/NY, February 2006-present. Member: New York City Bar Association, Public Justice, American Society of International Law, Law Society of England and Wales. LYDIA LEE, born Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, June 20, 1957. Admitted to practice in Oklahoma 1983; U.S. District Court, Western and Eastern Districts of Oklahoma; U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit. Education: Oklahoma City University, School of Law (J.D., 1983); University of Central Oklahoma (B.A., 1980). Prior Employment: Partner, Law Office of Lydia Lee (2005-2008); Partner, Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System (1985-2005); Associate, law firm of Howell & Webber (1983-1985). Publications & Presentations: "QDROs for Oklahoma's Public Pension Plans," Oklahoma Family Law Journal, Vol. 13, September, 1998; Co-Author, "Special Problems in Dividing Retirement for Employees of the State of Oklahoma," OBA/FLS Practice Manual, Chapter 27.3, 2002; Featured Guest Speaker, Saturday Night Law, KTOK Radio; Contributor and Editor, INFRE Course Books for CRA program. Member: Oklahoma Bar Association (1983­present), Member OBA Women in Law Committee (2007-present); National Association of Public Pension Attorneys (1988-present), President (2002-2004), Vice-President (2001-2002), Executive Board member (1998-2004), Chair of Benefits Section, Emeritus Board member, (2004-present); Edmond Neighborhood Alliance Board of Directors (2005-present), President (2006-2007), Past President and Director (2007present); Central Edmond Urban Development Board (2006-present); Midwest City Regional Hospital, Board of Governors (1992-1996), Served on Physician/Hospital Organization Board, Pension and Insurance Trust Committees, and Chairman of Woman's Health Committee; City of Midwest City, Planning Commission (1984-1998), Chairman (1990-1995), Vice-Chairman (1987­ 990), Served on Capital Improvement Committee, Airport Zoning Commission (Tinker AFB), and Parkland Review Board, served on 1991 Midwest City Legislative Reapportionment Committee. MORRIS A. RATNER, born San Jose, California, November 13, 1966. Admitted to practice in California, 1991; District of Columbia, 1999; New York, 2000; U.S. District Court, Northern, Central and Southern Districts of California; and U.S. Court of Appeals, Second, Third, Sixth and Ninth Circuits. Education: Harvard University (J.D., 1991); Stanford University (B.A., with distinction, 1988); Phi Beta Kappa. Publications & Presentations: Contributing Author, California Class Actions Practice and Procedures (Elizabeth J. Cabraser editor in chief, 2003); "Factors Impacting the Selection and Positioning of Human Rights Class Actions in United States Courts: A Practical Overview," 58 New York University Annual Survey of American Law 623 (2003); "The Settlement of Nazi-Era Litigation Through the Executive and Judicial Branches," 20 Berkeley Journal of International Law 212 (No. 1, March 2002). Faculty Appointments: Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor (2010-2011): "Class Actions and Other Aggregate Litigation," "Remedies," "Legal Profession," and "Holocaust Litigation"; Harvard Law School, Visiting Lecturer on Law for Winter Term 2009, teaching "Holocaust Litigation." Lectures: Stanford University, History Department (guest lecturer, June 2008, re Holocaust-era litigation); UC Berkeley School of Law Boalt Hall (guest lecturer, 2007, re legal ethics); Columbia Law School (guest lecturer, 2004, re Holocaust litigation); New York University School of Law (guest panelist, 2003, re developments in international law). Member: State Bar of California; State Bar of New York; Bar of the District of Columbia. WILLIAM B. HIRSCH, born Los Angeles, California, May 19, 1951. Admitted to practice in California, 1983; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; U.S. District

80577.1

- 76 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 78 of 85

Court, District of Hawaii, 1991. Education: Harvard University ( J.D., 1983); Princeton University (M.A., 1975); University of California at Santa Cruz (B.A., with highest honors, 1973). Awards & Honors: Trial Lawyer of the Year, Public Justice, 1995. Publications & Presentations: "Justice Delayed: Seven Years Later & No End In Sight," in The Exxon Valdez Disaster: Readings on a Modern Social Problem (Kendall & Hunt Pub. Co. 1996). Member: Bar Association of San Francisco; State Bar of California; Public Justice; American Association for Justice; ACLU of Northern California (Steering Committee, 1993-94). $662&,$7(6 MIKAELA BERNSTEIN, born Greenbrae, California, May 7, 1981. Admitted to practice in California, 2008; U.S. District Court, Central District of California (2009); U.S. District Court, Southern District California (2009); U.S. District Court, Northern Distinct California (2009); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2009). Education: University of San Francisco School of Law, (J.D., 2008), Staff Editor, Journal of Law & Social Challenges, 2006; Mills College, (B.A., 2004). Prior Employment: Judicial Extern to the Honorable Stuart R. Pollak, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First District, 2008. Member: American Constitution Society (Board Member, Bay Area Lawyers Chapter); Bar Association of San Francisco; Consumer Attorneys of California. KENNETH S. BYRD, born Nashville, Tennessee, November 17, 1972. Admitted to practice in Tennessee, 2004; U.S. District Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, 2009; U.S. District Court, Western District of Tennessee, 2007; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, 2006;U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, 2005. Education: Boston College Law School (J.D., cum laude, 2004), Law Student Association (President, 2003-2004), National Moot Court Team (Regional Champion, 2003-2004), American Constitution Society (Secretary, 20022003), Judicial Process Clinic (2003), Criminal Justice Clinic (2003-2004); Samford University (B.S., cum laude, in Mathematics with Honors, minor in Journalism, 1995). Employment: Summer Associate, Harwell Howard Hyne Gabbert & Manner, P.C., 2003-2004; Summer Associate, Edwards, Angell, Palmer, Dodge, LLP, 2003. Member: American Bar Association; American Constitution Society, Nashville Chapter (Member & Chair of 2008 Supreme Court Preview Event); Camp Ridgecrest Alumni & Friends (Board Member); Harry Phillips American Inn of Court, Nashville Chapter (Associate Member, 2008-2010; Barrister, 2010-2014); Historic Edgefield, Inc. (President, 2009-present); Nashville Bar Association; Tennessee Bar Association. NANCY CHUNG, born Los Angeles, February 21, 1972. Admitted to practice in California, 2003; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2003; U.S. District Court, Northern and Central Districts of California (2007, 2008). Education: Hasting College of Law (J.D., 2002); University of California, Santa Cruz (B.A., Language Studies, 1995). Employment: International Labor Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (2000-2001); Peace Corps Volunteer, Romania (1995-1997). Member: Bar Association of San Francisco. Languages: French, Romanian and Korean. NIMISH R. DESAI, born Coventry, England, June 25, 1980. Admitted to practice in California, 2006; US District Court, Northern District of California, 2007; US District Court, Central District of California, 2008; US District Court; Northern District of Florida, 2009. Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (J.D., 2006), Finalist

80577.1

- 77 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 79 of 85

and Best Brief, McBaine Moot Court Competition (2006), Moot Court Best Brief Award (2004); University of Texas, Austin, (B.S. & B.A., High Honors, 2002). Employment: Extern, Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, 2004; Researcher, Public Citizen, 2003; Center for Energy and Environmental Resources, 2001-2002. Publications & Presentations: "American Chemistry Council v. Johnson: Community Right to Know, But About What? D.C. Circuit Takes Restrictive View of EPCRA," 33 Ecology L.Q. 583 (Winter 2006); "Lessons Learned and Unlearned: A Case Study of Medical Malpractice Award Caps in Texas," The Subcontinental, (Winter 2004, Vol. 1, Issue 4, pp. 81-87); "Separation of Fine Particulate Matter Emitted from Gasoline and Diesel Vehicles Using Chemical Mass Balancing Techniques", Environmental Science Technology, (2003; 37(17) pp. 3904-3909); "Analysis of Motor Vehicle Emissions in a Houston Tunnel during Texas Air Quality Study 2000," Atmospheric Environment, 38, 33633372 (2004). Member: State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco; Consumer Attorneys of California; American Bar Association; American Constitution Society; South Asian Bar Association. Languages: Gujarati (conversational). ALLISON S. ELGART, born Manhasset, New York, January 27, 1978. Admitted to practice in California, 2006; New York, 2007; U.S. District Court, Eastern, Northern, and Central Districts of California, 2007; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (2008); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2009). Education: Harvard Law School (J.D., 2005), Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. 40; Student Attorney, Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, (2003-2005); Brown University (B.A., magna cum laude 2000). Employment: Law Clerk to Judge Robert P. Patterson, Jr., U.S. District Court, Southern District of N.Y., 2005-2006; Health Advocacy Fellow, Medicare Rights Center, (2000-2002). Publications & Presentations: "Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: Due Process Requires That Detainees Receive Notice and Opportunity to Contest Basis for Detention," 40 Harv. C.R-C.L. L. Rev. 239 (2005). Member: American Bar Association; Bar Association of San Francisco (Marriage Equality Task Force); Consumer Attorneys of California (Young Lawyers' Division, Public Service Co-Chair); State Bar of California; National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA); Steering Committee, Carver Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in Schools (Carver HEARTS Project); Education Equity Project of Lawyers Committee. JORDAN ELIAS, born Los Angeles, California, December 17, 1975. Admitted to practice in California, 2003; U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2010; U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, 2009; U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2009; U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, 2009; U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, 2009; U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, 2009; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2008. Education: Stanford Law School (J.D., 2003); Member, Stanford Law Review; Yale University (B.A., Phi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude, 1998). Employment: Associate, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 2004-2008; Law Clerk to the Honorable Cynthia Holcomb Hall, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2003-2004; Law Clerk, City Attorney of San Francisco, Summer 2002; Judicial Extern to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Summer 2001; Website Editor, Public Agenda, 1999-2000. Member: State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco; Arbitrator, Bar Association of San Francisco, Attorney-Client Fee Disputes Program; Member, Committee on Iqbal v. Ashcroft, Public Justice.

80577.1

- 78 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 80 of 85

CECILIA HAN, born Silver Spring, Maryland, November 22, 1978. Admitted to practice in California, 2005; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2008; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2009; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2010). Education: University of California, Hastings College of the Law (J.D., 2004); Executive Editor, Hasting Constitutional Law Quarterly, (2003-2004); Judicial Extern to Judge Anthony Kline of California Appellate Court, 2002; Judicial Extern to Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen, 2003; University of California, Berkeley (BA., Phi Beta Kappa, 2000). Employment: Associate, Brayton Purcell, (2005-2007). Member: State Bar of California; Minority Bar Coalition; CAOC; Bar Association of San Francisco. DEAN M. HARVEY, born Edina, Minnesota, August 31, 1980. Admitted to practice in California, 2007; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California; U.S. District Court, Central District of California; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California; U.S. District Court, Southern District of California; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin (2010). Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (J.D. 2006); Articles Editor, California Law Review (2005-2006); Assistant Editor, Berkeley Journal of International Law (2004); University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (B.A. summa cum laude, 2002). Prior Employment: Associate, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (2007-2009); Law Clerk, The Honorable James V. Selna, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (2006-2007); Law Clerk, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, San Francisco Field Office (2006); Summer Law Intern, U.S. Department of Justice (2005); Summer Associate, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (2005). Publications: New Guidance for Standard Setting Organizations: Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc. and In the Matter of Rambus, Inc., 5 ABA Sherman Act Section 1 Newsl. 35 (2008); Anticompetitive Social Norms as Antitrust Violations, 94 Calif. L. Rev. 769 (2006). Member: American Bar Association (Antitrust Section). ROGER N. HELLER, born New York, New York, June 4, 1975. Admitted to practice in California, 2001; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2001). Education: Columbia University School of Law (J.D., 2001); Columbia Law Review, Senior Editor; Emory University (B.A., 1997). Employment: Extern, Honorable Michael Dolinger, U.S. District Court, Southern District of new York, 1999; Associate, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, 2001-2005; Senior Staff Attorney, Disability Rights Advocates, 2005-2008. Honors & Awards: Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar. Publications & Presentations: Co-author, Fighting For Troops on the Homefront, Trial Magazine (September 2006). Member: American Bar Association. DANIEL M. HUTCHINSON, born Oakland, California, May 25, 1977. Admitted to practice in California, 2005; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2005; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2005; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2008. Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (J.D., 2005), Senior Articles Editor, African-American Law & Policy Report, Prosser Prizes in Constitutional Law and Employment Law; University of California, Berkeley Extension (Multiple Subject Teaching Credential, 2002); Brown University (B.A., 1999), Mellon Minority Fellowship (1997-1999). Employment: Judicial Extern to the Hon. Martin J. Jenkins, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2004; Law Clerk, Lewis & Feinberg, P.C., 2003-2004; Teacher, Oakland Unified School District, 1999-2002. Honors & Awards: "Northern California Rising Stars," Super Lawyers, 2009. Member: American Bar Association (Section of Labor & Employment Law

80577.1

- 79 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 81 of 85

Leadership Development Program); National Bar Association; State Bar of California; Bar Association of San Francisco; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (Board of Directors, 2009-present); Association of Business Trial Lawyers (Leadership Development Committee); Consumer Attorneys of California. ANDREW S. KINGSDALE, born Boston, Massachusetts, November 4, 1974. Admitted to practice in Massachusetts, 2007; New York, 2007; California, 2008. Education: Temple University School of Law (J.D. 2006); Temple Journal of Science Technology and Environmental Law; Johns Hopkins-Nanjing University Center for U.S.-China Studies, 2000; Dartmouth College (B.A. 1996). Member: State Bar of California, 2008; State Bar of Massachusetts, 2007; New York State Bar Association, 2007; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2008; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2008; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, 2009; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2008; U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 2008; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2009. American Bar Association, Antitrust and Litigation Sections Member; Bar Association of San Francisco, International Law Section Member. DANIEL S. LEATHERS, born Pitssburgh, Pennsylvania, November 11, 1982. Admitted to practice in New York, 2010; New Jersey; Pennsylvania, 2009. Education: Case Western Reserve University School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 2009); Executive Articles Editor, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law; Pennslyvania State University (B.A. in History & Journalism, 2009). Awards & Honors: International Academy of Trial Lawyers Award for overall Trial Advocacy excellence (May 2009); Paul J. Hergenroeder Award for excellence in Trial Tactics (May 2009); Federal Bar Association Award for excellence in Constitutional Law (May 2009); CALI Excellence for the Future Awards: Trial Tactics (May 2009), Constitutional Law I (May 2007), Constitutional Law II (December 2007). Employment: Judicial Law Clerk to Honorable Carol Higbee, New Jersey Superior Court, Vicinage I Civil Division Presiding Judge, 2009-2010; Summer Associate--Consumer Law Unit, The Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, 2008; Law Clerk, Zipkin Whiting Co., LPA, 2007. Member: New Jersey State Bar Association; New York State Bar Association, 2010; Pennsylvania State Bar Association, 2009. Publications: "Giving Bite to the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Safe Harbor," 41 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 193, Vol. 41, No. 1 (2009). SHARON M. LEE, born Richmond, B.C., Canada, January 19, 1975. Admitted to practice in New York 2002; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2003; U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, 2003; Washington State, 2005. Education: St. John's University School of Law (J.D. 2001); New York International Law Review, Notes & Comments Editor, 2000-2001; St. John's University (M.A. 1998); St. John's University (B.A. 1997). Employment: Milberg Weiss & Bershad, LLP, 2003-2007. Member: American Bar Association; Washington State Bar Association; Asian Bar Association of Washington. Publications & Presentations: Author, "The Development of China's Securities Regulatory Framework and the Insider Trading Provisions of the New Securities Law," 14 N.Y. Int'l L.Rev. 1 (2001); Co-author, Post-Tellabs Treatment of Confidential Witnesses in Federal Securities Litigation, 2 J. Sec. Law, Reg. and Compliance 205 (3d ed. 2009). KATHERINE LEHE, born Lafayette, Indiana, October 25, 1980. Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (J.D., 2010), California Law Review; Berkeley

80577.1

- 80 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 82 of 85

Journal of Gender, Law & Justice (Articles Editor, 2007-2008); Prosser Prize in Pre-Trial Civil Litigation; Moot Court Award, Best Oral Argument; Berkeley Law Queer Caucus (Board Member, 2008-2009); Thelton E. Henderson Center for Social Justice (Student Leadership Council, 2008-2009); California Asylum Representation Clinic (2007-2008); Oberlin College (B.A. in Environmental Studies, 2003). Publications & Presentations: "Cracks in the Foundation of Federal Law: Ameliorating the Ongoing Mortgage Foreclosure Crisis Through Broader Predatory Lending Relief and Deterrence," 98 Cal. L. Rev.___ (2010); "Courts Consider Landlord Defenses to Source of Income Laws," 30 Housing Law Bulletin 239 (Nov./Dec. 2008); "Foreclosure Relief Legislation Includes GSE Regulation and National Housing Trust Fund," 38 Housing Law Bulletin 161 (August 2008); "Federal Court Invalidates Immigration-Based Local Rent Restrictions," 38 Housing Law Bulletin 150 (July 2008); "As Impacts Spread, Congress Considers Additional Foreclosure Policies," 38 Housing Law Bulletin 118 (June 2008); "Congress Tackles Foreclosure Relief and GSE Reform," 38 Housing Law Bulletin 109 (June 2008). JASON L. LICTHMAN, born Alma, Michigan, March 6, 1978. Admitted to practice in Illinois; District of Columbia; U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois. Education: University of Michigan Law School (J.D., cum laude, 2006), Campbell Moot Court Executive Board; Clarence T. Darrow Scholar; Northwestern University (B.A. in Economics, 2000). Employment: Judicial Law Clerk to Honorable Kathleen M. O'Malley, United States District Court, Northern Disctrict of Ohio, 2008-2010; Litigation Associate, Howrey LLP, 2006-2008; Summer Associate, Howrey LLP, 2005; Summer Associate, Reed Smith LLP, 2004. Member: Bar Association of the District of Columbia; Bar Association of Illinois. SARAH R. LONDON, born Woodridge, Illinois, May 26, 1980. Admitted to practice in California, 2009; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2009; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2009. Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California (J.D., 2009); Northwestern University (B.A., 2002). Member: New Lawyers' Division, Consumer Attorneys of California. ANNIKA K. MARTIN, born New York, New York, September 13, 1979. Admitted to practice in New York, 2005; U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 2005; U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York. Education: Law Center, University of Southern California (J.D., 2004); Review of Law & Women's Studies; Jessup Moot Court; Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern University (B.S.J., 2001); Stockholm University (Political Science, 1999). Publications & Presentations: "Stick a Toothbrush Down Your Throat: An Analysis of the Potential Liability of Pro-Eating Disorder Websites," Texas Journal of Women & the Law (Volume 14 Issue 2, Spring 2005); "Welcome to Law School," monthly column on www.vault.com (2001-2004). Awards and Honors: 2005 Wiley W. Manuel Award for Pro Bono Legal Services awarded by the State Bar of California for voluntary provision of legal services to the poor. Member: New York State Bar Association; Swedish American Bar Association; American Association for Justice; New York State Trial Lawyers Association; New York County Lawyer's Association; New York City Bar Association. Languages: Swedish (fluent); French (DFA1-certified in Business French); Spanish (conversational). MICHAEL J. MIARMI, born Summit, New Jersey, April 2, 1978. Admitted to practice in New York, 2006; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2007; U.S. Court of Appeals for

80577.1

- 81 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 83 of 85

the Eighth Circuit, 2007. Education: Fordham Law School (J.D., 2005); Yale University (B.A., cum laude, 2000). Employment: Milberg Weiss LLP, Associate, 2005-2007. ANNE SHAVER, born Denver, Colorado, June 30, 1982. Admitted to practice in California, 2008; Colorado, 2008; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2009. Education: Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California (J.D., 2007), Order of the Coif; University of California, Santa Cruz (B.A. cum laude, 2003), Phi Beta Kappa. Employment: Law Clerk to Honorable Betty Fletcher, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2008-2009; Davis, Graham & Stubbs, LLP, Litigation Associate, 2008; Public Defender's Office of Contra Costa County, 2007; Davis, Cowell & Bowe, LLP, Summer Law Clerk, 2006; Centro Legal de la Raza, Student Director, 2005-2006; Human Rights Watch, Legal Intern, 2005. Publications: "U.S. v. Fort and the Future of Work-Product in Criminal Discovery," 44 Cal. W. L. Rev. 127, 12293 (Fall 2007). Member: State Bar of California. JARON R. SHIPP, born Berkeley, California, October 6, 1980. Admitted to practice in New York, 2007; U.S. District Court, Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, 2007; New York, 2009; U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2009. Education: Howard University School of Law (J.D., 2005): President, Student Bar Association (2004-2005); Member, Howard Law School Admission Committee (2004-2005); Contributing Writer, The Barrister. University of Pennsylvania (B.A., 2002). Employment: Associate, Latham & Watkins, LLP (2006-2008); Law Clerk to the Honorable Deborah A. Robinson (2005-2006). Member: American Bar Association. ALISON STOCKING, born Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July 26, 1977. Admitted to practice in New York, 2008; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2010. Education: Yale Law School (J.D., 2006), Editor, Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal; University of Wisconsin (B.A., 1999), Hilldale Undergraduate/Faculty Research Award; American University in Cairo(1997-98). Prior Employment: Law Clerk to the Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 2008-09; Law Clerk to the Honorable John Gleeson, United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, 2006-07; Associate, Jenner & Block, New York, 2007-08. BARBRA L. WILLIAMS born Bellflower, California, July 10, 1974. Admitted to practice in California, 2007; U.S. District Court, Central, Eastern and Northern Districts of California, 2007; U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2007; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (2007); U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, (2009). Education: University of California, Hastings College of the Law (J.D., 2006, Concentration in Civil Litigation); Notes Editor, Hastings Race & Poverty Law Journal; UC Hastings Civil Justice Clinic, Individual Wage & Hour Representation; UC Hastings Admissions Policy Committee; Teaching Assistant, Legal Writing & Research; National Black Law Students Association (SubRegional Director); Hastings Black Law Students Association (Co-President); University of California, Irvine (B.A., 1997). Member: American Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Section, Law School Outreach Coordinator; Consumer Attorneys of California (Women's Caucus County Liaison for San Francisco County); National Employment Lawyers Association, Class Action Quarterly Reports; State Bar of California; National Bar Association; California Association of Black Lawyers; Bar Association of San Francisco; Charles Houston Bar

80577.1

- 82 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 84 of 85

Association; Aids Legal Referral Panel, San Francisco, CA (Board Member); Twenty Pearls Foundation, Oakland CA (Board Member). ALLEN WONG born Hong Kong, China, April 7, 1978. Admitted to practice in New York, 2005; New Jersey 2005. Education: Harvard Law School (J.D. 2004); Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University (M.P.A. 2004); Student Attorney, Harvard Legal Aid Bureau (2002-2004); Williams College (B.A. 2000). Prior Employment: Law Clerk to Senior Judge Morton I. Greenberg, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (2007-2008); Law Clerk to Chief Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr., U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (2005-2007). Publications: Product Liability: The Fate of the Learned Intermediary Doctrine, 30 J.L. Med. & Ethics 471 (2002). HEATHER H. WONG, born San Diego, California, July 5, 1978. Admitted to practice in California, 2005; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 2005; U.S. District Court, Central and Northern Districts of California, 2005, 2006; U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, 2006. Education: University of San Francisco (J.D. & M.B.A., 2005); Beta Gamma Sigma Honor Society (2005); Technical Editor, Maritime Law Journal; Staff Editor, Journal of Law and Social Challenges; University of California, Berkeley (B.A., 2000). Honors & Awards: "Northern California Rising Stars," Super Lawyers, 2009-2010. Publications & Presentations: Panelist, "It Don't Matter If You're Black or White"--or Female or Older--Primer on Title VII and ADEA," ABA Section of Labor & Employment Law's 4th Annual CLE Conference, Chicago, IL (November 2010); Panelist, "Labor and Employment Law Career Opportunities," ABA Section of Labor & Employment Law's Outreach to Law School Students Task Force Seminar, Santa Clara, CA (March 2010); Presenter, "Rule 23 Basics in Employment Cases," Impact Fund's 8th Annual Employment Discrimination Class Action Conference, Oakland, CA (February 2010); Presenter, "Updates on Employment Law," ALRP MCLE Program, San Francisco, CA (December 2009); Panelist, "EEO Law: Overview and Current Issues under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA," ABA Section of Labor & Employment Law's 3rd Annual CLE Conference, Washington, D.C. (November 2009); Panelist, "The Nuts & Bolts of Class and Collective Actions," National Employment Lawyers Association's 19th Annual Convention, Atlanta, GA (June 2008); (Young Lawyers Division; Labor & Employment Law Section; Section of Litigation; Employment Discrimination Law Treatise, Chapter Monitor (2007present); California Class Action Practice and Procedure Treatise, Chapter Editor (2007present)). Member: American Association for Justice; American Bar Association (Young Lawyers Division; Labor & Employment Law Section; Section of Litigation; Employment Discrimination Law Treatise, Chapter Monitor (2007-present); California Class Action Practice and Procedure Treatise, Chapter Editor (2007-present)); American Constitution Society (Mentor); Asian American Bar Association; Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; Association of Business Trial Lawyers; Bar Association of San Francisco (Barristers Club; Labor & Employment Law Section; Litigation Section); Carver Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in Schools (HEARTS) (Project Steering Committee, 2007-present); Consumer Attorneys of California; Legal Services for Children (2010 Pro Bono Awards, Luncheon Committee); Minority Bar Coalition (2008 Unity Conference Planning Committee); National Employment Lawyers Association; State Bar of California (Labor & Employment Law Section; Litigation Section).

80577.1

- 83 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-1

Filed 11/16/10 Page 85 of 85

Notice on the Firm's AV Rating: AV is a registered certification mark of Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell is the facilitator of a peer review process that rates lawyers. Ratings reflect the confidential opinions of members of the Bar and the Judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell Ratings fall into two categories--legal ability and general ethical standards.

80577.1

- 84 -

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2

Filed 11/16/10 Page 1 of 29

(;+,%,7 %

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 09/03/10 Page 362of 124 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 11/16/10 Page of 29

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 09/03/10 Page 373of 124 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 11/16/10 Page of 29

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 09/03/10 Page 384of 124 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 11/16/10 Page of 29

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 09/03/10 Page 395of 124 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 11/16/10 Page of 29

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 09/03/10 Page 406of 124 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 11/16/10 Page of 29

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 09/03/10 Page 417of 124 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 11/16/10 Page of 29

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 09/03/10 Page 428of 124 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 11/16/10 Page of 29

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 09/03/10 Page 439of 124 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 11/16/10 Page of 29

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 44 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 10 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 45 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 11 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 46 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 12 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 47 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 13 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 48 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 14 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 49 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 15 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 50 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 16 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 51 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 17 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 52 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 18 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 53 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 19 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 54 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 20 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 55 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 21 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 56 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 22 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 57 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 23 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 58 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 24 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 59 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 25 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 60 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 26 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 61 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 27 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 62 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 28 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-2 Filed 09/03/10 Page 63 ofof 29 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 32 Filed 11/16/10 Page 29 124

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 1 of 33

(;+,%,7 C

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30

3DJH Filed 11/16/10 Page 2 of 33 RI

%(5167(,1 //3

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

0DWWHU 1XPEHU

3$571(5 1$0( (/,=$%(7+ &$%5$6(5 .(//< '(502'< -21$7+$1 6(/%,1 %$55< +,00(/67(,1 .5,67(1 /$: 6$*$),

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

+2856

5$7(

727$/

$662&,$7( 1$0( '$1,(/ +87&+,1621 $/,621 672&.,1* +2856 3$5$/(*$/&/(5. 1$0( '$:1 %(+50$11 $'(/,1$ $&81$ 5,&+$5' $17+21< '$9,' %(5167(,1 0(5(',7+ &$53(17(5 )/25(1&,$ &8'26 5$&+(/ '(036(< .,1*6721 )$5'< &85/(< +2:$5' +$=(/ 0277(56+($' -(11,)(5 58'1,&. -$&. 6$1)25' '$1 6&+80$1 $/(;$1'(5 =$1( +2856 27+(5 1$0( 5(1(( 08.+(5-, +2856 5$7( 727$/ 5$7( 727$/ 5$7( 727$/

0$77(5 727$/6

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 1DUUDWLYH

&XW DQG SDVWH DGGUHVVHV IURP 6DOOLH 0DH FRPSODLQW HPDLOV LQWR VSUHDGVKHHW IRU QHZ LQYHVWLJDWLRQ HPDLO EODVW 6HDUFK 6DOOLH 0DH FRPSODLQW ZHEPDLOV IRU FRPSODLQWV UHODWHG WR FROOHFWLRQ FDOOV WR FHOO SKRQHV &RS\ DQG SDVWH DGGUHVVHV IURP 6DOOLH 0DH FRPSODLQW ZHEPDLOV LQWR VSUHDGVKHHW IRU QHZ LQYHVWLJDWLRQ HPDLO EODVW 3UHSDUH DQG VHQG HPDLO EODVW IRU 6DOOLH 0DH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ 6HDUFK IRU VSHFLILF ZHEPDLO LQTXLULHV IRU - 6DQIRUG 3XOO VSHFLILF ZHEPDLOV IRU - 6DQIRUG

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

$&81$ $'(/,1$

$&81$ $'(/,1$

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

6HDUFK IRU )&& RUGHUV 5HVHDUFK IRU $ 6WRFNLQJ %DFNJURXQG VHDUFK RQ (OL]DEHWK %DNHU $QJHOD 6WDQVEXU\ EDFNJURXQG FKHFN

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

$17+21< 5,&+$5'

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

$17+21< 5,&+$5'

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

5HWXUQ SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHU WHOHSKRQH FDOOV 5HWXUQ FDOOV

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

%(+50$11 '$:1

%(+50$11 '$:1

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

&RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH FXVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV &RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH FXVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV &RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH FXVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV &RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH &XVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV &RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH FXVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV &RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH FXVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV &RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH FXVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV &RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH FXVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV &RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH FXVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV &RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH FXVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV &RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH FXVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

%(5167(,1 '$9,'

Filed 11/16/10 Page 3 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

&RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH FXVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV &RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH FXVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV &RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH FXVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV &RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH FXVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV &RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH FXVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV &RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH FXVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV &RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH FXVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV &RQWDFW 6DOOLH 0DH FXVWRPHUV ZKR KDYH FDOOHG LQ ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV

%(5167(,1 '$9,'

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

&RUUHVSRQGHQFH ZLWK - 6HOELQ UH FDVH LVVXHV &RUUHVSRQGHQFH ZLWK - 6HOELQ DQG -XOLD 6WULFNODQG UH FDVH LVVXHV &RQIHUHQFH FDOO ZLWK - 6HOELQ DQG -XOLD 6WULFNODQG UH FDVH LVVXHV &RUUHVSRQGHQFH ZLWK -XOLD 6WULFNODQG - 6HOELQ UH PHGLDWLRQ &RUUHVSRQGHQFH - 6HOELQ SODLQWLIIV

FRXQVHO UH PHGLDWRU LVVXHV DQG VWUDWHJ\ &RUUHVSRQGHQFH ZLWK - 6HOELQ UH VHWWOHPHQW SURJUHVV &RUUHVSRQGHQFH ZLWK - 6HOELQ HW DO UH PHGLDWLRQ VHWWOHPHQW DQG PHGLDWLRQ SURSRVDO

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

&$%5$6(5 (/,=$%(7+ 7HOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFH &RUUHVSRQGHQFH ZLWK - 6HOELQ UH FDVH

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

&$%5$6(5 (/,=$%(7+

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

&DOO SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV UHJDUGLQJ EDQNUXSWF\ ILOLQJV &DOO SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV UHJDUGLQJ EDQNUXSWF\ &DOO 6DOOLH 0DH LQWDNH WR DVN IROORZ XS TXHVWLRQV )ROORZ XS ZLWK SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV UHJDUGLQJ EDQNUXSWF\ 8SGDWH FKDUW ZLWK FOLHQW FRQWDFW

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

&$53(17(5 0(5(',7+

Filed 11/16/10 Page 4 of 33

&$53(17(5 0(5(',7+

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

3URFHVV LQTXLU\ RI FODVV PHPEHU LQ 6SDQLVK

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

&8'26 )/25(1&,$

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

3URFHVV SKRQH FDOO RI FODVV PHPEHU LQ 6SDQLVK 5HDG DQG UHVSRQG FRUUHVSRQGHQFH DQG PDNH SKRQH FDOO LQ 6SDQLVK ZLWK FODVV PHPEHU UHJDUGLQJ VHWWOHPHQW 3URFHVV SKRQH FDOOV LQ 6SDQLVK ZLWK FODVV PHPEHUV UHJDUGLQJ VHWWOHPHQW 3URFHVV SKRQH FDOO LQ 6SDQLVK ZLWK FODVV PHPEHU UHJDUGLQJ VHWWOHPHQW 3URFHVV SKRQH FDOOV LQ 6SDQLVK ZLWK FODVV PHPEHUV DERXW VHWWOHPHQW 3URFHVV SKRQH FDOOV LQ 6SDQLVK ZLWK FODVV PHPEHUV DERXW VHWWOHPHQW 3URFHVV SKRQH FDOOV LQ 6SDQLVK ZLWK FODVV PHPEHUV DERXW VHWWOHPHQW 3URFHVV SKRQH FDOOV LQ 6SDQLVK ZLWK FODVV PHPEHUV DERXW VHWWOHPHQW 3URFHVV SKRQH FDOOV LQ 6SDQLVK ZLWK FODVV PHPEHUV DERXW VHWWOHPHQW 3URFHVV SKRQH FDOO LQ 6SDQLVK DERXW VHWWOHPHQW 3URFHVV SKRQH FDOO LQ 6SDQLVK DERXW VHWWOHPHQW 0DNH SKRQH FDOO LQ 6SDQLVK ZLWK FODVV PHPEHU DERXW VHWWOHPHQW 0DNH SKRQH FDOO LQ 6SDQLVK ZLWK FODVV PHPEHU DERXW VHWWOHPHQW 5HDG DQG UHVSRQG FRUUHVSRQGHQFH DQG OHDYH YRLFH PHVVDJH WR FODVV PHPEHU ZKR FDOOHG WR LQTXLU\ DERXW VHWWOHPHQW

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

&8'26 )/25(1&,$

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

&DOO FODVV PHPEHUV WR H[SODLQ VHWWOHPHQW DQG PDLOLQJ &DOO FODVV PHPEHUV ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW FODLP IRUPV 0DNH SKRQH FDOOV WR FODVV PHPEHUV ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW VHWWOHPHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ $QVZHU TXHVWLRQV IURP 6SDQLVKODQJXDJH FDOOHUV UHJDUGLQJ VHWWOHPHQW )ROORZ XS ZLWK 6SDQLVKODQJXDJH FDOOHUV LQTXLULQJ DERXW VHWWOHPHQW 5HWXUQ FDOOV WR 6SDQLVK VSHDNHUV $QVZHU TXHVWLRQV IURP 6SDQLVKVSHDNLQJ FODVV PHPEHUV IRU ZKRP PHVVDJHV ZHUH OHIW ODVW ZHHN UHJDUGLQJ TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH VHWWOHPHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

'(036(< 5$&+(/

Filed 11/16/10 Page 5 of 33

'(036(< 5$&+(/

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

(PDLOV ZLWK WHDP UH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ UHYLHZ HPDLOV UH VWDWXV (PDLOV ZLWK WHDP UH FODVV PHPEHU FRQWDFWV 5HVSRQGUHYLHZ HPDLOV UH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ (PDLO ZLWK (ULF 5HLFLQ UH SRWHQWLDO FDVH HPDLOV ZLWK - 6HOELQ % +LPPHOVWHLQ ' +XWFKLQVRQ UH VDPH

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

'(502'< .(//<

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

'(502'< .(//<

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

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

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

)$5'< .,1*6721

Filed 11/16/10 Page 6 of 33

)$5'< .,1*6721

6XP

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 1DUUDWLYH

9DULRXV HPDLOV UH FDVH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ 7HOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFH ZLWK - 6HOELQ UHIHUULQJ FRXQVHO (PDLOV UH FDVH (PDLOV (PDLOV (PDLOV UH FDVH WHOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFH ZLWK - 6DQIRUG UH UHVHDUFK (PDLOV UH FDVH (PDLOV 1XPHURXV HPDLOV UH 5RJHU -DUUHOO HPDLOV UH UHVHDUFK DQG IXUWKHU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ (PDLOV UH 6DOOLH 0DH VHUYLFLQJ FRQWUDFW YDULRXV HPDLOV UH DSSURYDO VRXJKW E\ 6DOOLH 0DH UHVHDUFK 9DULRXV HPDLOV UH UHVHDUFK DQG LQYHVWLJDWLRQ (PDLOV (PDLOV UH SRWHQWLDO FOLHQWV (PDLOV 9DULRXV HPDLOV UH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ DQG IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK (PDLOV (PDLOV (PDLOV UH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LQWR 6DOOLH 0DH VWXGHQW ORDQ FROOHFWLRQ SUDFWLFHV (PDLOV (PDLOV UH UHVHDUFK (PDLOV UH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ (PDLOV (PDLOV (PDLOV (PDLOV (PDLOV (PDLOV UH FDVH (PDLOV (PDLOV (PDLO UH XSGDWH (PDLOV UH -HVVLFD .UDQ] FRPSODLQW

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

+,00(/67(,1 %$55<

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 7 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 8 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

(PDLOV UH SRWHQWLDO FOLHQW FRUUHVSRQGHQFH 7&3$ FODLPV (PDLOV (PDLOV (PDLOV 9DULRXV HPDLOV UH FDVH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ 9DULRXV HPDLOV UH FDVH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ (PDLO UH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LQWR 6DOOLH 0DH VWXGHQW ORDQ FROOHFWLRQ SUDFWLFHV (PDLOV ZLWK (ULF 5HLFLQ 9DULRXV HPDLOV UH FDVH (PDLOV UH 0DUN $UWKXU 9DULRXV HPDLOV UH FDVH (PDLOV UH 0DUN $UWKXU (PDLOV UH 0DUN $UWKXU FDVH 9DULRXV HPDLOV UH 0DUN $UWKXU FDVH 9DULRXV HPDLOV UH 0DUN $UWKXU FDVH 9DULRXV HPDLOV UH 0DUN $UWKXU FDVH (PDLOV UH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ (PDLOV UH FDVH YDULRXV HPDLOV WR - 6HOELQ UH VHWWOHPHQW LVVXHV (PDLOV (PDLOV 9DULRXV HPDLOV UH 0DUN $UWKXU (PDLOV 9DULRXV HPDLOV UH 0DUN $UWKXU 9DULRXV HPDLOV UH 0DUN $UWKXU 9DULRXV HPDLOV UH $UWKXU Y 6DOOLH 0DH (PDLOV UH 0DUN $UWKXU OHWWHU (PDLOV (PDLOV (PDLOV 9DULRXV HPDLOV (PDLOV

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 9 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

(PDLOV (PDLOV (PDLOV (PDLOV (PDLOV (PDLOV UH 6DOOLH 0DH EHLQJ XQGHU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ IRU LOOHJDO SUDFWLFHV (PDLOV UH 6DOOLH 0DH EHLQJ XQGHU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ IRU LOOHJDO SUDFWLFHV (PDLOV (PDLOV

+,00(/67(,1 %$55<

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

&DOOV WR 6DOOLH 0DH FODVV PHPEHUV FRQILUPLQJ VHWWOHPHQW GHWDLOV DQVZHULQJ DQ\ TXHVWLRQV DQG DGYLVLQJ ZKHUH DGGLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ FDQ EH IRXQG &DOOV WR 6DOOLH 0DH FODVV PHPEHUV FRQILUPLQJ VHWWOHPHQW GHWDLOV DQG DGYLVLQJ ZKHUH DGGLWLRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ FDQ EH IRXQG )ROORZ XS FDOOV WR FODVV PHPEHUV H[SODLQLQJ WKH ODZVXLW DQG FODLPV SURFHVV

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

+2:$5' &85/(<

+2:$5' &85/(<

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

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

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

+87&+,1621 '$1,(/

Filed 11/16/10 Page 10 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

3XOO DQG UHYLHZ GUDIW FRPSODLQW 5HYLHZ DQG VHQG OHWWHU WR 6DOOLH 0DH 5HYLHZ 6DOOLH 0DH OHWWHU DQG GRFXPHQWV GUDIW PHPR DQG UHVSRQVH 5HYLHZ %HOORZV RUGHUV PHPR UH VDPH 0HHW ZLWK % +LPPHOVWHLQ UH UHVHDUFK RQ OLTXLGDWHG GDPDJHV 5HYLHZ ILOHG FRPSODLQWV GUDIW QRWLFH RI WDJDORQJ DFWLRQV 3XOO DQG IRUZDUG FRPSODLQW UHVHDUFK UH DWWRUQH\V

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 11 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 12 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

(PDLO UH QDPHG SODLQWLIIV FDOOV WR FODVV PHPEHUV HPDLO WR WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI -XVWLFH DWWRUQH\ (PDLO UH FODVV PHPEHUV 5HVHDUFK UH 7&3$ VHWWOHPHQWV VSHDN ZLWK - 5XGQLFN UH VDPH &DOO ZLWK -XGJH ,QIDQWH UH PHGLDWRU

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 13 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 14 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 15 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

'LVFXVV VWDWXV RI FODVV PHPEHU LQTXLULHV ZLWK SDUDOHJDOV XSGDWH WR - 6HOELQ (PDLOV ZLWK - 6HOELQ UH ILQDO DSSURYDO EULHI /HJDO UHVHDUFK UH VWDWXWRU\ GDPDJHV &DOO WR FODVV PHPEHUV ZLWK LQTXLULHV 5HYLHZ RI SDUDOHJDOV

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

+87&+,1621 '$1,(/

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

5HWXUQ FODVV PHPEHU FDOOV UHJDUGLQJ WKH VHWWOHPHQW FODLP IRUPV 5HWXUQ FODVV PHPEHU FDOOV UHJDUGLQJ WKH VHWWOHPHQW FODLP IRUPV

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

0277(56+($' +$=(/ 5HWXUQ FODVV PHPEHU FDOOV UHJDUGLQJ WKH VHWWOHPHQW FODLP IRUPV

Filed 11/16/10 Page 16 of 33

0277(56+($' +$=(/

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

5HVHDUFK FODLPV LQ :DVKLQJWRQ VWDWH DQG IHGHUDO FRXUWV LQYROYLQJ WKH 7HOHSKRQH &RQVXPHU 3URWHFWLRQ $FW IRU ' +XWFKLQVRQ 5HVHDUFK GHFLVLRQV E\ -XGJH /DQH 3RZHOO LQ :DVKLQJWRQ IRU $ 6WRFNLQJ 5HVHDUFK UHODWLRQVKLS RI 6DOOLH 0DH ,QF WR 6/0 &RUSRUDWLRQ IRU $ 6WRFNLQJ

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

08.+(5-, 5(1((

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

2EWDLQ )HGHUDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQV 5XOLQJ IRU $ 6WRFNLQJ /RFDWH YHUGLFWV DQG VHWWOHPHQWV XQGHU WKH 7HOHSKRQH &RQVXPHU 3URWHFWLRQ $FW IRU ' +XWFKLQVRQ 2EWDLQ MRXUQDO DUWLFOHV IRU ' +XWFKLQVRQ

08.+(5-, 5(1((

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

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

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

58'1,&. -(11,)(5

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 17 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

&DOO SRWHQWLDO FODVV UHSUHVHQWDWLYH 6SHDN WR SRWHQWLDO FODVV UHSUHVHQWDWLYH 5HWXUQ HPDLO WR SRWHQWLDO FODVV UHSUHVHQWDWLYH 8SGDWH SRWHQWLDO FODVV UHSUHVHQWDWLYH WUDFNLQJ FKDUW 8SGDWH SRWHQWLDO FODVV UHSUHVHQWDWLYH WUDFNLQJ FKDUW 8SGDWH SRWHQWLDO FODVV UHSUHVHQWDWLYH FKDUW 5HDG HPDLOV IURP FRFRXQVHO UH SRWHQWLDO UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV 8SGDWH SRWHQWLDO SODLQWLII FRQWDFW OLVW 8SGDWH WUDFNLQJ OLVW RI SRWHQWLDO FODVV UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV &DOO SRWHQWLDO FODVV UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV 8SGDWH SRWHQWLDO FODVV UHSUHVHQWDWLYH WUDFNLQJ OLVW &DOO SRWHQWLDO FODVV UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV 6SHDN WR SRWHQWLDO FODVV UHSUHVHQWDWLYH 8SGDWH SRWHQWLDO FODVV UHSUHVHQWDWLYH WUDFNLQJ FKDUW 8SGDWH WUDFNLQJ FKDUW ZLWK SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHU LQIRUPDWLRQ 8SGDWH SRWHQWLDO FODVV UHSUHVHQWDWLYH WUDFNLQJ FKDUW 5HYLHZ LQVWUXFWLRQV IRU SURMHFW WR EH FRPSOHWHG QH[W ZHHN UH PHGLDWLRQ EULHI 5HWULHYH FDVH ODZ IURP :HVWODZ 3UHSDUH H[KLELWV IRU PHGLDWLRQ EULHI (PDLO ' +XWFKLQVRQ UH FODVV UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV &DOO FODVV PHPEHU UH VWDWXV RI FDVH &KHFN GRFNHW IRU UHFHQW SOHDGLQJV )LQG ODQJXDJH UH DXWRPDWHG SKRQH FDOOV LQ SURPLVVRU\ QRWH DQG HPDLO WR ' +XWFKLQVRQ 8SGDWH FRQWDFW OLVW &RUUHVSRQG YLD HPDLO ZLWK ' +XWFKLQVRQ UH XSFRPLQJ SURMHFW (PDLO 6 +XJKHV UH VDPH &RUUHVSRQG YLD HPDLO ZLWK SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHU UH TXHVWLRQV DERXW EDQNUXSWF\ 'LVFXVV SURMHFW UH FDOOLQJ 6DOOLH 0DH FRQWDFWV ZLWK 0 &DUSHQWHU 'LVFXVV UHFHQW GHYHORSPHQWV LQ WKH FDVH ZLWK ' +XWFKLQVRQ 8SGDWH FOLHQW FRQWDFW OLVW 8SGDWH FRQWDFW FKDUW (PDLO DQG FDOO SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV 5HDG HPDLO DERXW FDVH VWDWXV 8SGDWH FRQWDFW FKDUW (PDLO 0 &DUSHQWHU UH FRQWDFW ZLWK SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV (PDLO 'HSDUWPHQW RI -XVWLFH DWWRUQH\ UH UHTXHVWHG LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHU LQWHUYLHZV 8SGDWH FRQWDFW FKDUW &DOO SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV UH VWDWXV RI WKH FDVH &DOO SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV &KHFN GRFNHW IRU VLPLODU FDVH IRU XSGDWHV 5HWXUQ FDOOV WR FODVV PHPEHUV 8SGDWH FRQWDFW OLVW

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 18 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

5HWXUQ FDOOV WR SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV &KHFN GRFNHW IRU VWDWXV RI FDVH $VVLVW ZLWK SUHSDULQJ FRQILGHQWLDOLW\ DJUHHPHQW &DOO DQG HPDLO SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV 8SGDWH FRQWDFW OLVW (PDLO SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV &DOO DQG HPDLO SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV UH FDVH VWDWXV 5HSO\ WR FODVV PHPEHU HPDLO 8SGDWH FODVV PHPEHU FRQWDFW VSUHDGVKHHW &KHFN GRFNHW IRU XSGDWHV LQ VLPLODU FDVH 8SGDWH SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHU FRQWDFW OLVW 8SGDWH SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHU FRQWDFW FKDUW &DOO DQG HPDLO SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV &KHFN GRFNHW IRU FDVH XSGDWHV &DOO DQG HPDLO SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV 5HSO\ WR FODVV PHPEHU HPDLO 8SGDWH SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHU FRQWDFW FKDUW &DOO DQG HPDLO SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV 8SGDWH SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHU FRQWDFW OLVW 5HWXUQ FDOOV WR SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV UH FDVH XSGDWHV (PDLO 0 6RERO UH LQTXLU\ UH 6DOOLH 0DH DQG FRPSXWHU WUDLQLQJ 5HWXUQ FDOOV WR FODVV PHPEHUV ZLWK TXHVWLRQV 8SGDWH LQTXLU\ FKDUW 5HWXUQ FDOO WR SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHU 5HWXUQ FDOO WR SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHU UH 6DOOLH 0DH DQG &RPSXWHU 7UDLQLQJFRP 8SGDWH SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHU FKDUW 8SGDWH SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHU FKDUW 5HWXUQ HPDLOV WR SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV 8SGDWH OLVW RI SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHU LQTXLULHV (PDLO SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV 8SGDWH SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHU WUDFNLQJ FKDUW 8SGDWH SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHU FKDUW DQG HPDLO SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV 5HDG ZHEPDLOV DQG XSGDWH SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHU FRQWDFW FKDUW (PDLO ' +XWFKLQVRQ UH VDPH 5HDG VHWWOHPHQW DJUHHPHQW DQG UHODWHG GRFXPHQWV &LWH FKHFN 0RWLRQ IRU 3UHOLPLQDU\ 6HWWOHPHQW $SSURYDO 3XOO H[KLELWV IRU 6HWWOHPHQW $JUHHPHQW &DOO DQG HPDLO FOLHQW UH VLJQDWXUH RQ 6HWWOHPHQW DJUHHPHQW &DOO QDPHG SODLQWLII &LULOR 0DUWLQH] (PDLO VHWWOHPHQW DJUHHPHQW WR KLP WKH DJUHHPHQW IRU VLJQDWXUH 'LVFXVV ILQDOL]LQJ SUHOLPLQDU\ DSSURYDO RI VHWWOHPHQW GRFXPHQWV ZLWK $ 6WRFNLQJ &UHDWH XSGDWH H[KLELW VHW IRU VHWWOHPHQW DJUHHPHQW

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 19 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 20 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

5HWXUQ FDOOV WR FODVV PHPEHUV ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH VHWWOHPHQW (PDLO + 0RWWHUVKHDG ' %HUQVWHLQ DQG ' %HKUPDQQ UH VWDWXV RI UHWXUQHG FDOOV 5HWXUQ FDOOV WR FODVV PHPEHUV UH VHWWOHPHQW TXHVWLRQV 5HWXUQ FDOOV WR FODVV PHPEHUV ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH VHWWOHPHQW 5HWXUQ FDOOV WR FODVV PHPEHUV ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH VHWWOHPHQW 5HWXUQ FDOOV WR FODVV PHPEHUV ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH VHWWOHPHQW 5HWXUQ FDOOV WR FODVV PHPEHUV ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH VHWWOHPHQW 5HWXUQ FDOOV WR FODVV PHPEHUV ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH VHWWOHPHQW 5HWXUQ FDOOV WR FODVV PHPEHUV ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH VHWWOHPHQW 5HWXUQ FDOOV WR FODVV PHPEHUV UH VHWWOHPHQW TXHVWLRQV 5HWXUQ FDOOV WR FODVV PHPEHUV ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH VHWWOHPHQW 5HWXUQ FDOOV WR FODVV PHPEHUV ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH VHWWOHPHQW 5HWXUQ FDOOV WR FODVV PHPEHUV ZLWK TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH VHWWOHPHQW /LVWHQ WR YRLFH PDLOV DQG DGG QDPHV DQG QXPEHUV WR FDOO ORJ $GG LQIRUPDWLRQ WR 'HFODUDWLRQ RI -RQDWKDQ 6HOELQ LQ 6XSSRUW RI 0RWLRQ IRU $WWRUQH\ )HHV /LVWHQ WR YRLFH PDLOV DQG DGG QDPHV DQG QXPEHUV WR FDOO ORJ

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

58'1,&. -(11,)(5

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

5HYLHZ VHWWOHPHQW DQG SURYLGH IHHGEDFN WR - 6HOELQ

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH 6XP

6$*$), .5,67(1 /$:

6$*$), .5,67(1 /$:

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

1DUUDWLYH

1HZ FDVH UHVHDUFK SHU % +LPPHOVWHLQ DVVLVW $ $FXQD ZLWK 6DOOLH 0DH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ 1HZ FDVH UHVHDUFK SHU % +LPPHOVWHLQ UHJDUGLQJ 6DOOLH 0DH 1HZ FDVH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ SHU % +LPPHOVWHLQ UHJDUGLQJ 6DOOLH 0DH 1HZ FDVH UHVHDUFK SHU % +LPPHOVWHLQ &RUUHVSRQGHQFH ZLWK SRWHQWLDO SODLQWLIIV &RUUHVSRQGHQFH ZLWK SRWHQWLDO FOLHQWV DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI LQWDNH LQIRUPDWLRQ &RUUHVSRQGHQFH ZLWK SRWHQWLDO FOLHQWV &RUUHVSRQGHQFH ZLWK SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHUV &RUUHVSRQGHQFH ZLWK SRWHQWLDO FOLHQWV

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

6$1)25' -$&.

Filed 11/16/10 Page 21 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

&RUUHVSRQGHQFH ZLWK SRWHQWLDO FOLHQWV &RUUHVSRQGHQFH ZLWK SRWHQWLDO FOLHQWV &RUUHVSRQGHQFH ZLWK SRWHQWLDO FOLHQWV &RUUHVSRQGHQFH ZLWK SRWHQWLDO FOLHQW &ROOHHQ &RQUR\ &DOO 6DOOLH 0DH FRQWDFWV

6$1)25' -$&.

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

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

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

6&+80$1 '$1

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

6&+80$1 '$1

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

0XOWLSOH HPDLOV ZRUNXS 7HOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFH ZLWK % +LPPHOVWHLQ UHIHUULQJ FRXQVHO 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV ZRUNXS 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV DQG ZRUNXS 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV UH ZRUNXS

Filed 11/16/10 Page 22 of 33

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

6(/%,1 -21$7+$1

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 23 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 24 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 25 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 26 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

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

V UHYLVHG PHPRUDQGXP RI XQGHUVWDQGLQJ 5HYLVHHGLW PHPRUDQGXP RI XQGHUVWDQGLQJ 5HYLHZ ' +XWFKLQVRQ

V PHPR UH FRPSHWLQJ FODLPV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ ELGV 5HYLVHHGLW PHPRUDQGXP RI XQGHUVWDQGLQJ PXOWLSOH HPDLOV UH VDPH 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV UH FODLPV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ LVVXHV ELGV 7HOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFH ZLWK 3DUL 1DMDIL FRXQVHO PXOWLSOH WHOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFHV ZLWK /LVD 6LPRQHWWL PXOWLSOH WHOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFHV ZLWK 'DYLG 0H\HU PXOWLSOH HPDLOV DOO UH 3DUL 1DMDIL 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV PXOWLSOH WHOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFHV UH 3DUL 1DMDIL FODLPV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ LVVXHV

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 27 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

0XOWLSOH HPDLOV UH FODLPV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ ELGV UHODWHG LVVXHV 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV UH 3DUL 1DMDIL 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV UH FODLPV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ ELGV FRQILGHQWLDOLW\ LVVXHV 7HOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFH ZLWK ( &DEUDVHU 7HOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFH ZLWK /LVD 6LPRQHWWL UH VHWWOHPHQW VWDWXV 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV UH VHWWOHPHQW VWDWXV 5HYLHZ ' +XWFKLQVRQ

V PHPR UH FODLPV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ ELGV HPDLOV UH VDPH 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV UH VHWWOHPHQW LVVXHV 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV UH VHWWOHPHQW LVVXHV 3DUL 1DMDIL (PDLOV ZLWK FRFRXQVHO UH 3DUL 1DMDIL FDVH 7HOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFH ZLWK ( &DEUDVHU UH 3DUL 1DMDIL FRXQVHO 7HOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFH ZLWK 3DUL 1DMDIL FRXQVHO 5HYLHZ 6DOOLH 0DH

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 28 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 29 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

:RUN RQ ILQDOL]LQJ VHWWOHPHQW GRFXPHQWV PXOWLSOH WHOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFHV DQG HPDLOV UH VDPH UHYLHZ VHWWOHPHQW SDSHUV HWF 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV ZLWK . 6DJDIL UH VHWWOHPHQW SKDVLQJ LVVXHV YLV D YLV 'HOO :RUN RQ ILQDOL]LQJ VHWWOHPHQW GRFXPHQWV PXOWLSOH WHOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFHV DQG HPDLOV UH VDPH UHYLHZ VHWWOHPHQW SDSHUV HWF :RUN RQ ILQDOL]LQJ VHWWOHPHQW GRFXPHQWV PXOWLSOH WHOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFHV DQG HPDLOV UH VDPH UHYLHZ VHWWOHPHQW SDSHUV HWF :RUN RQ ILQDOL]LQJ VHWWOHPHQW GRFXPHQWV PXOWLSOH WHOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFHV DQG HPDLOV UH VDPH UHYLHZ VHWWOHPHQW SDSHUV HWF :RUN RQ ILQDOL]LQJ VHWWOHPHQW GRFXPHQWV PXOWLSOH WHOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFHV DQG HPDLOV UH VDPH UHYLHZ VHWWOHPHQW SDSHUV HWF :RUN RQ ILQDOL]LQJ VHWWOHPHQW GRFXPHQWV PXOWLSOH WHOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFHV DQG HPDLOV UH VDPH UHYLHZ VHWWOHPHQW SDSHUV HWF :RUN RQ ILQDOL]LQJ VHWWOHPHQW GRFXPHQWV PXOWLSOH WHOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFHV DQG HPDLOV UH VDPH UHYLHZ VHWWOHPHQW SDSHUV HWF :RUN RQ ILQDOL]LQJ VHWWOHPHQW GRFXPHQWV PXOWLSOH WHOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFHV DQG HPDLOV UH VDPH UHYLHZ VHWWOHPHQW SDSHUV HWF :RUN RQ ILQDOL]LQJ VHWWOHPHQW GRFXPHQWV PXOWLSOH WHOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFHV DQG HPDLOV UH VDPH UHYLHZ VHWWOHPHQW SDSHUV HWF 7HOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFH ZLWK $ 6WRFNLQJ UH VHWWOHPHQW LVVXHV 5HDG FRXUW RUGHU PXOWLSOH HPDLOV DQG WHOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFH UH PRYLQJ GDWH UHYLHZHGLW VWLSXODWLRQ DQG RUGHU 5HYLHZ GUDIW ZHEVLWH 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV DQG WHOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFH UH VHWWOHPHQW KHDULQJ GDWH UHYLHZHGLW UHYLVHG RUGHU (PDLOV UH VHWWOHPHQW KHDULQJ (PDLOV UH VHWWOHPHQW KHDULQJ $UUDQJH WUDYHO SODQV WR 6HDWWOH 5HDG RUGHU PXOWLSOH HPDLOV UH VDPH 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV ZLWK FODLPV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ UH FODLPV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ LVVXHV :RUN RQ HVFURZ LVVXHV PXOWLSOH HPDLOV UH VDPH :RUN RQ HVFURZ DFFRXQW LVVXHV PXOWLSOH HPDLOV UH VHWWOHPHQW DQG FODLPV LVVXHV 5HDG QHZ 1LQWK &LUFXLW RSLQLRQ RQ VWDWXWRU\ GDPDJHV LQ FODVV FDVHV 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV UH ILQDOL]LQJ FODLPVQRWLFH ZHEVLWH 5HYLHZ HVFURZ DQG VLJQ GRFXPHQWV :RUN RQ QRWLFH LVVXHV &RPSOHWH DQG VHQG VHWWOHPHQW HVFURZ OHWWHU IRU *DUGHQ &LW\ *URXS SD\PHQW 5HYLHZ FODVV PHPEHU HPDLO :RUN RQ QRWLFHFODLPV LVVXHV

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 30 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

5HYLHZHGLW QHZ SURSRVHG ZHEVLWH ODQJXDJH PXOWLSOH HPDLOV UH VDPH 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV UH FODLPV QRWLFH LVVXHV 5HDG IHH FDVH ODZ DQG DUWLFOHV 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV UH FODLPV QRWLFH LVVXHV 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV DQG FDOOV UH QRWLFH DQG FODLPV LVVXHV 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV DQG FDOOV UH QRWLFH DQG FODLPV LVVXHV UHYLHZHGLW OHWWHU WR REMHFWRU :RUN RQ QRWLFH DQG FODLPV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ LVVXHV FODVV PHPEHU LQTXLULHV PXOWLSOH HPDLOV UH VDPH 5HYLHZHGLW OHWWHU WR FODVV PHPEHUREMHFWRU 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV RQ QRWLFH FODLPV DQG FDOOV LVVXHV (PDLOV UH QRWLFH FODLPV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ FDOOV LVVXHV &ODLPV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ ZRUN 5HYLHZ FODLPV VWDWLVWLFV HPDLOV UH VDPH 7HOHSKRQH FRQIHUHQFH ZLWK DWWRUQH\ 0D[ 0DUJXOLV UH VHWWOHPHQW PXOWLSOH HPDLOV UH VDPH 5HYLHZ FODLPV VWDWLVWLFV DQG PXOWLSOH HPDLOV UH VDPH &ODLPV DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ ZRUN /HJDO UHVHDUFK LQ SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU ILQDO DSSURYDO LVVXHV 0XOWLSOH HPDLOV UH ILQDO DSSURYDO DQG WLPLQJ ZRUN RQ ILQDO DSSURYDO SDSHUV 5HYLHZ HGLW DQG FRUUHFW GHWDLOHG WLPH UHFRUGV 5HYLHZHGLW P\ GHFODUDWLRQ

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

6(/%,1 -21$7+$1

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

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

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH

672&.,1* $/,621

Filed 11/16/10 Page 31 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

&RUUHVSRQG ZLWK - 6HOELQ UHJDUGLQJ VWUDWHJ\ DQG QH[W VWHSV 5HYLHZ DQG UHYLVH GUDIW FRPSODLQW UHVHDUFK LVVXHV UHJDUGLQJ ZDLYHU RI VHUYLFH DQG ZRUN ZLWK :RUG 3URFHVVLQJ WR SUHSDUH ZDLYHU IRUPV 5HYLHZ FRPSODLQW DQG LPSOHPHQW - 6HOELQ

V VXJJHVWHG UHYLVLRQV UHVHDUFK SRVVLEOH DWWRUQH\V

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

Filed 11/16/10 Page 32 of 33

3DJH RI

/,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

%(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ

30

7LPHNHHSHU DOO

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

&RQILUP VHWWOHPHQW DQG QRWLFH WLPHOLQHV DV WKH\ UHODWH WR SRWHQWLDO ILQDO DSSURYDO GDWHV 'UDIW VWLSXODWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ GDWH IRU RSWRXW GHFODUDWLRQ DQG FLUFXODWH 5HYLHZ RI ZHEVLWH DQG 1RWLFH IRUPV SURSRVHG E\ FODLPV DGPLQLVWUDWRU 5HYLHZ RI SURSRVHG FKDQJHV WR VHWWOHPHQW ZHEVLWH 5HYLHZ ODWHVW YHUVLRQV RI QRWLFH GRFXPHQWV RQ ZHEVLWH

672&.,1* $/,621

6XP 1DUUDWLYH

&DOO IURP SRWHQWLDO FODVV PHPEHU &DOO WR - 5XGQLFN UH FODVV PHPEHU

'DWH

7LPHNHHSHU

+RXUV

7DVN &RGH 6XP

7RWDO +RXUV

=$1( $/(;$1'(5

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-3

=$1( $/(;$1'(5

Filed 11/16/10 Page 33 of 33

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4

Filed 11/16/10 Page 1 of 63

(;+,%,7 D

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30

Filed 11/16/10 Page 2 of 63 %(5167(,1 //3

&XUUHQW 0DWWHUWR'DWH ,QFHSWLRQ 7R 7R

3DJH RI

3UHVHQW

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV

0DWWHU 1XPEHU

6RIW &RVWV ,QFXUUHG

&XUUHQW ,Q+RXVH &RSLHV 3RVWDJH 3ULQW 7HOHSKRQH 0DWWHUWR'DWH

7RWDO 6RIW &RVWV

+DUG &RVWV ,QFXUUHG

&XUUHQW %RRNV6XEVFULSWLRQV &RPSXWHU 5HVHDUFK )HGHUDO ([SUHVV0HVVHQJHU 0HGLDWLRQ ([SHQVHV 2WKHU &KDUJHV 7HOHSKRQH 7UDYHO 0DWWHUWR'DWH

7RWDO +DUG &RVWV 7RWDO 0DWWHU &RVWV 7RWDO &RVW 5HFHLSWV 1HW &RVWV

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30

Filed 11/16/10 Page 3 of 63 %(5167(,1 //3

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

$// &267 '(7$,/6

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV /,1( 7<3( %6 %6 /,1( 7<3( &3< &267 &267 '$7( '(6&5,37,21 &RPSXWHU 5HVHDUFK 9(1'25 :HVW *URXS 3D\PHQW &HQWHU ZHVWODZ LQYRLFH SDLG E\ -' $PH[ &RPSXWHU 5HVHDUFK 9(1'25 :HVW *URXS 3D\PHQW &HQWHU :HVW /DZ LQYRLFH SDLG E\ -' $PH[ &RPSXWHU 5HVHDUFK 9(1'25 :HVW *URXS 3D\PHQW &HQWHU :HVW /DZ LQYRLFH SDLG E\ -' $PH[ &RPSXWHU 5HVHDUFK 9(1'25 /H[LV 1H[LV /H[LV 1H[LV LQYRLFH SDLG E\ -' $PH[ &RPSXWHU 5HVHDUFK 9(1'25 :HVW *URXS 3D\PHQW &HQWHU :HVWODZ LQYRLFH SDLG E\ -' $PH[ &RPSXWHU 5HVHDUFK 9(1'25 :HVW *URXS 3D\PHQW &HQWHU :HVW /DZ ,QYRLFH SDLG E\ -' $0(; &RPSXWHU 5HVHDUFK 9(1'25 :HVW *URXS 3D\PHQW &HQWHU :HVW /DZ ,QYRLFH SDLG E\ -' $0(; &RPSXWHU 5HVHDUFK 9(1'25 /H[LV 1H[LV /H[L 1H[LV ,QYRLFH SDLG E\ -' $0(; &RPSXWHU 5HVHDUFK 9(1'25 /H[LV1H[LV &RXUW/LQN ,QF &RXUW 5HVHDUFK )HHV &RPSXWHU 5HVHDUFK 9(1'25 :HVW *URXS 3D\PHQW &HQWHU :HVW /DZ ,QYRLFH SDLG E\ -' $0(; &RPSXWHU 5HVHDUFK 9(1'25 :HVW *URXS 3D\PHQW &HQWHU :HVW /DZ ,QYRLFH SDLG E\ -' $0(; &RPSXWHU 5HVHDUFK 9(1'25 :HVW *URXS 3D\PHQW &HQWHU :HVW /DZ ,QYRLFH 3DLG E\ -' $0(; &267 '(6&5,37,21 %RRNV6XEVFULSWLRQV 9(1'25 $PHULFDQ ([SUHVV %5+ $0(; 2FWREHU 5HVHDUFK &RUS VXEVFULSWLRQ UHQHZDO '$7( '(6&5,37,21 ,Q+RXVH &RSLHV ,Q+RXVH &RSLHV ,Q+RXVH &RSLHV ,Q+RXVH &RSLHV ,Q+RXVH &RSLHV ,Q+RXVH &RSLHV ,Q+RXVH &RSLHV ,Q+RXVH &RSLHV ,Q+RXVH &RSLHV ,Q+RXVH &RSLHV ,Q+RXVH &RSLHV ,Q+RXVH &RSLHV ,Q+RXVH &RSLHV ,Q+RXVH &RSLHV ,Q+RXVH &RSLHV '$7(

&3< /,1( 7<3( &5

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30

Filed 11/16/10 Page 4 of 63 %(5167(,1 //3

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30

Filed 11/16/10 Page 5 of 63 %(5167(,1 //3

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV -$06 /,1( 2& /,1( 7<3( 3+1 &267 7<3( 2& &267 0HGLDWLRQ ([SHQVHV 9(1'25 -$06(QGLVSXWH //& PHGLDWLRQ IHHV KRQ LQIDQWH ([SHQVHV 9(1'25 0HGLDWLRQPDQDJHPHQW IHHV KRQ -$06(QGLVSXWH //& PHGLDWLRQ DQG FDVH HGZDUG LQIDQWH 'DYLG 3 0H\HU &R /3$ 'DYLG 3 0H\HU &R /3$ 0HGLDWLRQ ([SHQVHV 9(1'25 -$06(QGLVSXWH //& PHGLDWLRQ IHHV KRQ HGZDUG LQIDQWH 0HGLDWLRQ ([SHQVHV 9(1'25 -$06(QGLVSXWH //& PHGLDWLRQ IHHV KRQ HGZDUG LQIDQWH 'DYLG 3 0H\HU /3$ 0HGLDWLRQ ([SHQVHV 9(1'25 -$06(QGLVSXWH //& PHGLDWLRQ IHHV KRQ HGZDUG LQIDQWH '(6&5,37,21 'DXGW 3//& 2WKHU &KDUJHV 9(1'25 7HUUHOO 0DUVKDOO YLFH IHHV FRFRXQVHO UHLPEXUVHPHQW VDOOLH PDH SUR KDF 2WKHU &KDUJHV 9(1'25 -RQDWKDQ ' 6HOELQ UHLPEXUVHPHQW ZLUHOHVV VHUYLFH 2WKHU &KDUJHV 9(1'25 -RQDWKDQ ' 6HOELQ UHLPEXUVHPHQW ZLUHOHVV DFFHVV '$7( '(6&5,37,21 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(19(5 &286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1(: +$9(1 &786$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3$/2 $/72 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(19(5 &286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1(: +$9(1 &786$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0217*20(5< $/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0217*20(5< $/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(19(5 &286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(19(5 &286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W &2/80%86 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W &2/80%86 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6($77/( :$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6($77/( :$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH &RQI -'6 6DOOLH 0DH 7LPH $0 '$7(

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30

Filed 11/16/10 Page 6 of 63 %(5167(,1 //3

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1(: +$9(1 &786$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0,$0, 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3,776%85*+ 3$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1(: <25. 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W )/6 &+85&+ 9$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3257/$1' 0(86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %(9(5/<+/6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3,776%85*+ 3$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W .$/$0$=22 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W .$/$0$=22 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6101 0596 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6101 0596 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 61)& &175/ &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W $77/(%252 0$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %$<72:1 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 .<86$ 'XU 7HOHSKRQH ([W %221( VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6($77/( :$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6($77/( :$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W &+$77122*$ 7186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W $7/$17$ 1( *$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 1+86$ 'XU 7HOHSKRQH ([W '29(5 VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6+(5,'$1 :<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W $6+(%252 1&86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 1+86$ 'XU 7HOHSKRQH ([W '29(5 VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /$)$<(77( /$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /$)$<(77( /$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 61)& &175/ &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30

Filed 11/16/10 Page 7 of 63 %(5167(,1 //3

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30

Filed 11/16/10 Page 8 of 63 %(5167(,1 //3

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W %26721 0$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W .$/$0$=22 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W .$/$0$=22 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W .$/$0$=22 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W .$/$0$=22 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 2./' 013' &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6287+ %(1' ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '2:1(56*59 ,/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W .$/$0$=22 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 1+86$ 'XU 7HOHSKRQH ([W '29(5 VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /$6 9(*$6 1986$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 61)& &175/ &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 61)& &175/ &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 61)& &175/ &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6($77/( :$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W .$/$0$=22 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %(9(5/<+/6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W ,1',$1$3/6 ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3+2(1,; $=86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W $77/(%252 0$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 2./' 013' &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1(: <25. 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3$6&$*28/$ 0686$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6+(5,'$1 :<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 48((16 1<& 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W ,1*/(:22' &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6($77/( :$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30

Filed 11/16/10 Page 9 of 63 %(5167(,1 //3

)URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 10 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W %(9(5/<+/6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W ,59,1( &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W %(9(5/<+/6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W ($*/(5,9(5 $.86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W &/(9(/$1' 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &/$&.$0$6 2586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &/(9(/$1' 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W ,59,1( &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &/(9(/$1' 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W '$1%85< &786$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '$1%85< &786$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '$1%85< &786$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0$',621 1(86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1255,672:1 3$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %(9(5/<+/6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %(9(5/<+/6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W ,1',$1$3/6 ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W %(9(5/<+/6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W ,1',$1$3/6 ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %(9(5/<+/6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 61)& &175/ &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W .$/$0$=22 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W .$/$0$=22 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W .$/$0$=22 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W .$/$0$=22 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W .$/$0$=22 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 2./' 013' &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 11 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 12 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 13 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 14 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 15 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0,11($32/6 0186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &2/80%86 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1$6+9,//( 7186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1$6+9,//( 7186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 67$5.9,//( 0686$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W <$=22 &,7< 0686$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W $7/$17$ 62 *$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 673(7(56%* )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %52:169/ 7186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /,921,$ 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /,921,$ 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W -$&.621 0686$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W $7/$17$ 1( *$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0,$0, 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3257 +8521 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 7(55(+$87( ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W .$16$6&,7< 0286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 02152( 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 328*+.(36( 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3(16$&2/$ )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3(16$&2/$ )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3(55< 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &+,3/(< )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W :$8&+8/$ )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /,1'(1 1-86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &/,1721 1&86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W -$&.6219/ 1&86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 16 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W -$&.6219/ 1&86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '85+$0 1&86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '$<721 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '$<721 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 37&+$5/77( )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %/220),(/' 1-86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 025*$1&,7< /$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$1$1721,2 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$1$1721,2 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$1$1721,2 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$1$1721,2 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$1$1721,2 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W ,59,1* 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W %5$,1(5' 0186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W *8/)3257 0686$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3$6&$*28/$ 0686$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 9$/'267$ *$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W )257 0<(56 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3/<0287+ 1&86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 5$&,1( :,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 3$86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3+,/$ 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6287++$9(1 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W +286721 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W )5('(5,&$ '(86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W &+$5/(6721 :986$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W +817,1*721 :986$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0,$0, 7LPH $0

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 17 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(752,7 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(752,7 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W ,1',$1$3/6 ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W ,1',$1$3/6 ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 02152( /$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 02152( /$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 67 &/28' 0186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /26$1*(/(6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /26$1*(/(6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %./<1 1<& 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W :.,:&+63*6 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W & &+5,67, 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W $7/$17$ *$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 25/$1'2 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 25/$1'2 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W (9(5(77 :$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W ,59,1* 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 *$86$ 'XU 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0$&21 VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W )257 60,7+ $586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %(7+/(+(0 3$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3257/$1' 2586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W .(11(5 /$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1(:%(')25' 0$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 632.$1( :$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 632.$1( :$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W &21&25' 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3(1'/(721 2586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 18 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W : 3$/0 %&+ )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 681%85< 3$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6287+ %(1' ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W +,/721 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W +$77,(6%* 0686$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W -$&.621 0686$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /$ &5266( :,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /$ &5266( :,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W &+(67(5+76 3$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &+(67(5+76 3$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &2/80%86 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 085)5((6%2 7186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W *5$1' 53'6 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3+2(1,; $=86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W %5(17:22' 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W &2/80%86 0686$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W %26721 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W +$55,6%85* 3$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W %521; 1<& 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W $8525$ &286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(19(5 &286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 021(66(1 3$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 7$5321 63* )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W )7/$8'(5'/ )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W )7/$8'(5'/ )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W )5$1./,1 9$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0,$0, 7LPH 30

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 19 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W 5,&+021' 9$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W */28&(67(5 9$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W )/,17 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 7$03$ ($67 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W -2/,(7 ,/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W (,1'(31'1& 0286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 328*+.(36( 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W %26721 0$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %26721 0$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0(03+,6 7186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W -$&.6219/ )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6 %(51',12 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W (/ 3$62 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &/$5.69/ 7186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0$1&+(67(5 7186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '$<721 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 62&+$5/671 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '$<721 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '$<721 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0855,(7$ &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 5,9(56,'( &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 5,9(56,'( &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W )7/$8'(5'/ )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 7(//85,'( &286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W *5$1' 35$5 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0(5,'(1 &786$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6($77/( :$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 20 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 21 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W )/25$/3$5. 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W :$17$*+ 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W %(')25' 9$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W +$=/(721 3$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3+2(1,; $=86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /(%$121 7186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W *5$1' 53'6 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W (9(5(77 0$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 02152( 1&86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W &2/80%86 *$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W (/,=$%7+71 3$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W +$55,6%85* 3$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W %./<1 1<& 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W %28/'(5 &286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W )5((+2/' 1-86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0(78&+(1 1-86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 125)2/. 9$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0,11($32/6 0186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W $1'(5621 ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W *5((1&$67/ ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$1785&( 3586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W )/25,'$ 3586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W */28&(67(5 9$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W )/,17 7LPH 30 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 7$03$ 7LPH 30 )/86$ 'XU 7HOHSKRQH ([W 7$03$ VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W .$16$6&,7< 0286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 22 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 23 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W )5('(5,&. 0'86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3217,$& 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 85%$1$ ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 85%$1$ ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W (1*/(:22' &286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(752,7 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 0286$ 'XU 7HOHSKRQH ([W /$'8( VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W :,&+,7$ .686$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W ,1',$1$3/6 ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &('$5 53'6 ,$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W /26$1*(/(6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W %./<1 1<& 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 9$1&289(5 :$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 52&.3257 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1(:3257 5,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W $7/$17$ *$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 2./$ &,7< 2.86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %,//,1*6 0786$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 25/$1'2 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 25/$1'2 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 61)& 07(9 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %(17219/ $586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W :25&(67(5 0$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &+(1(< :$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 5,&+021' &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 2./' )579/ &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 7$</25 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 24 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W 67$))25' 9$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W &259$//,6 2586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0,11($32/6 0186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0,11($32/6 0186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %/$,1( 0186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1$6+9,//( 7186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3+2(1,; $=86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W (/ 0217( &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &29%$/'3. &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &29%$/'3. &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W $5/,1*721 9$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0(12021,( :,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W ($8 &/$,5( :,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /(%$121 3$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W :$6+,1*721 3$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W (1&,1,7$6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W (1&,1,7$6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &+,&$*2 ,/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &+,&$*2 ,/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1257+ '$'( )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0,$0, 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$1 -8$1 3586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$/7 /$.( 8786$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W $8525$ ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3/$17 &,7< )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W .$16$6&,7< 0286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W */(1:22' $586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 25 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W *5((19,//( 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W .$16$6&,7< .686$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W :+,7( 3/6 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 2.86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0,$0, 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &2152( 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 635,1*)/' 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 2:2662 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6($77/( 65 :$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3257/$1' 0(86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 672&.721 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$1$1721,2 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &/(9(/$1' 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 48,1&< ,/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3/$48(0,1( /$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 02%,/( $/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W ,1*/(:22' &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(752,7 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 0286$ 'XU 7HOHSKRQH ([W /$'8( VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1$7&+,72&+ /$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6+5(9(3257 /$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /26$1*(/(6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W $8525$ 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W *5((16%252 1&86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 68/3+85 /$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W : :$5:,&. 5,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 1(86$ 'XU 7HOHSKRQH ([W 20$+$ VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W $7/$17$ *$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 26 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 27 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W ($8 &/$,5( :,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W $7/$17$ 1( *$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &+,&$*2 ,/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$%(7+$ .686$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 67 )5$1&,6 .686$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 723(.$ .686$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 723(.$ .686$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$1785&( 3586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$1 -8$1 3586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$1 -8$1 3586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 7$03$ 7LPH $0 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 7$03$ 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 67 -26(3+ 0286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W $5/,1*721 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W (8/(66 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W $5/,1*721 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 125,&+/'+/ 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W )257 :257+ 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /$.(/$1' )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W )$,5 2$.6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W )$,5 2$.6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %52.(1$55: 2.86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 635,1*)/' 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(1721 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(1721 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W +2//<:22' )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W *5$1' 35$5 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 28 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W $/3(1$ 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 67$0)25' &786$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /(:,6721 ,'86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 672&.721 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$1$1721,2 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$1$1721,2 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$1$1721,2 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1(: <25. 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 086.(*21 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 52&.9,//( 0'86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W )257 :$<1( ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 3$86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3+,/$ 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W ,1*/(:22' &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W &+,&$*2 ,/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(752,7 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(752,7 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W ,1',$1$3/6 ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W *5$0%/,1* /$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /26$1*(/(6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 2./$ &,7< 2.86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 2./$ &,7< 2.86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W $323.$ )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 25/$1'2 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 635,1*)/' 0286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 635,1*)/' 0286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 635,1*)/' 0286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 72/('2 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 29 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 30 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 31 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 32 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W .2.202 ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$/,1$ .686$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0,$0, 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %(')25' ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 7$03$ 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W &$57+$*( 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W )$<(77(9/ 1&86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W .$16$6&,7< .686$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W )7/$8'(5'/ )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 ,'86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W %2,6( 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1(: <25. 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7;86$ 'XU 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3/$12 VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &/(9(/$1' 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W :,//,$0671 1&86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W .(126+$ :,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6101 6101 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W $8%851 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W ,1',$1$3/6 ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6+5(9(3257 /$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 25/$1'2 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W /25$,1 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W %$/7,025( 0'86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 *$86$ 'XU 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0$&21 VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W &21:$< $586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W &21:$< $586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &21:$< $586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W :(67%85< 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 33 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W *$5'(1&,7< 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W %2&$ 5$721 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %2&$ 5$721 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W -83,7(5 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W *5$1' 53'6 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W %(1721 ,/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 67 3$8/ 0186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W &/$5.6'$/( 0686$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1(:%5816:. 1-86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W $6%85<3$5. 1-86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &+,&$*2 ,/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0,$0, 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3$6252%/(6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3$6252%/(6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W +212/8/8 +,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W +286721 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /(;,1*721 .<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /(;,1*721 .<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '811&0%/' 1&86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 2.86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 78/6$ 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0&$/(67(5 2.86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6+2: /2: $=86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W )7/$8'(5'/ )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 &286$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 9$,/ 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W :$6+,1*721 '&86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W /26$1*(/(6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &/(9(/$1' 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 34 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 35 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 36 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 37 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W )/,17 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1(:%85*+ ,186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W )257 :257+ 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 9$1 18<6 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W ($*/( 3$66 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W +286721 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W +,*+/$1' &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1(: <25. 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 2.86$ 'XU 7HOHSKRQH ([W 35<25 VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W &2/80%,$ 7186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W */(1:'63*6 &286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 2586$ 'XU 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$/(0 VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0255,672:1 1-86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 7+,%2'$8; /$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$*,1$: 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /(:,6721 0(86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W *5$1' 35$5 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W :,/0,1*721 '(86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(752,7 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(752,7 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(752,7 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(752,7 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W :$7(5/22 ,$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 9$1&289(5 :$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 1(86$ 'XU 7HOHSKRQH ([W 20$+$ VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W $%(5'((1 0'86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /,77/(52&. $586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 38 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W /,77/(52&. $586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W -$&.621 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 67$81721 9$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH VHF 7LPH([W )5('(5,&. 2.86$ 'XU $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3+2(1,; $=86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 833(5'$5%< 3$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W *5$1' 53'6 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W +286721 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W +286721 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %521; 1<& 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1(:%5816:. 1-86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W +2//<:22' )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0,$0, 7LPH 30 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W )/,17 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &$0'(1 1-86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W )7/$8'(5'/ )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W /2:(// 0$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W *5$1' 35$5 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W /$85(/ 0'86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W :$7(572:1 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W $7/$17$ *$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3,776%85*+ 3$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0,/:$8.(( :,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0,//('*(9/ *$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 2586$ 'XU 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$/(0 VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W +(0367($' 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %52.(1 %2: 2.86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 39 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W &2/80%86 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1$6+9,//( 7186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W +286721 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &+,&$*2 ,/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7HOHSKRQH ([W 7$03$ 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W +286721 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0$5,$11$ )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %5816:,&. *$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1(: <25. 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 1(: <25. 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 025(12 &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 7:,1&,7,(6 0186$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %(7+(6'$ 0'86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 02%,/( $/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 7$&20$ :$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0$&20% ,/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &+,&$*2 ,/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0217*20(5< $/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0217*20(5< $/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W *25'2169/ 9$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3257(59/ &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &2/80%86 2+86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &2/2 63*6 &286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W /21*0217 &286$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W &+,&$*2 ,/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 7+2861'2$. &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W :$,/8.8 +,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 40 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 7HOHSKRQH ([W /$.(/$1' )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W :$/187 &5. &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$1785&( 3586$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W &$3675 9/< &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W )7/$8'(5'/ )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W /$5('2 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6($77/( :$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$1$1721,2 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$1$1721,2 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W '$//$6 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W *5$1' 35$5 7;86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W )257 0<(56 )/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W +81769,//( $/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0,/:$8.(( :,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 3$86$ 'XU 7HOHSKRQH ([W 3+,/$ VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W &+,&$*2 ,/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(752,7 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W '(752,7 0,86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0217*20(5< $/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0217*20(5< $/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W 0217*20(5< $/86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W %./<1 1<& 1<86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W $7/$17$ *$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W %(7+$1< 2.86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W 6$1 -26( : &$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH $0 7HOHSKRQH ([W .(11(5 /$86$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30 7HOHSKRQH ([W $/%848548( 1086$ 'XU VHF 7LPH 30

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 41 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 42 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 43 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

3+21( 3+21( /,1( 7<3( 357 &267

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 44 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH /RJRQPPDFDWHH 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ /RJRQPPDFDWHH

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 45 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQMPHVOHU 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQMPHVOHU 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) :3 WK )ORRU &RORU /RJRQWJRWR

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 46 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQWJRWR 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQWJRWR 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW +3 /DVHU-HW 3&/ /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< $$ ($67 %$< 7 /RJRQMVHOELQ 3ULQW 1< $$ ($67 %$< 7 /RJRQMVHOELQ 3ULQW 1< $$ ($67 %$< 7 /RJRQMVHOELQ 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 1< $$ ($67 %$< 7 /RJRQMVHOELQ 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 47 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW $GREH 3') /RJRQUDQWKRQ\ 3ULQW $GREH 3') /RJRQUDQWKRQ\ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQMVHOELQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQMVHOELQ 3ULQW +3 /DVHU-HW 3&/ /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW +3 /DVHU-HW 3&/ /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW +3 /DVHU-HW 3&/ /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW +3 /DVHU-HW 3&/ /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 48 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW $GREH 3') /RJRQUDQWKRQ\ 3ULQW $GREH 3') /RJRQUDQWKRQ\ 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW $GREH 3') /RJRQUDQWKRQ\ 3ULQW $GREH 3') /RJRQUDQWKRQ\ 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW $GREH 3') /RJRQUDQWKRQ\ 3ULQW $GREH 3') /RJRQUDQWKRQ\ 3ULQW $GREH 3') /RJRQUDQWKRQ\ 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 1< $$ ($67 %$< 7 /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< %26&$5 +3 /RJRQERVFDU 3ULQW 1< %26&$5 +3 /RJRQERVFDU 3ULQW 1< %26&$5 +3 /RJRQERVFDU 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 659 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW $GREH 3') /RJRQUDQWKRQ\ 3ULQW 6) %5($.5220 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQUDQWKRQ\

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 49 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 3ULQW 6) WK )ORRU /RJRQOSHUNLQV 3ULQW 1< $$ ($67 %$< 7 /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 1< $$ ($67 %$< 7 /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< $$ ($67 %$< 7 /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 1< $$ ($67 %$< 7 /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 50 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 51 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 1< 0$,/5220 &$121 /RJRQJUDPLUH] 3ULQW 1< 0$,/5220 &$121 /RJRQJUDPLUH] 3ULQW 1< 0$,/5220 &$121 /RJRQJUDPLUH] 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQPDLOURRP 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQPDLOURRP 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQPDLOURRP 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 1< *%$/.2 +3 /RJRQJEDONR 3ULQW 1< *%$/.2 +3 /RJRQJEDONR 3ULQW 1< *%$/.2 +3 /RJRQJEDONR 3ULQW 1< *%$/.2 +3 /RJRQJEDONR 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQWVLOYD 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW +3 /DVHU-HW 3&/ /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQIPRODU 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 52 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW +3 /DVHU-HW 3&/ /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) /RJRQVSRZOH\ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQVSRZOH\ 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQVSRZOH\ 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQVSRZOH\ 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< *%$/.2 +3 /RJRQJEDONR 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< $$ ($67 %$< 7 /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 53 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQPWUDKDQ 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQPWUDKDQ 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQPWUDKDQ 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQPWUDKDQ 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQPWUDKDQ 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< &%8/26$1 +3 /RJRQDZRQJ 3ULQW 1< &%8/26$1 +3 /RJRQDZRQJ 3ULQW 1< &%8/26$1 +3 /RJRQDZRQJ 3ULQW 1< &%8/26$1 +3 /RJRQDZRQJ 3ULQW 1< &%8/26$1 +3 /RJRQDZRQJ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW +3 /DVHU-HW 3&/ /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 5(&25'6 +3 /RJRQSPRUHQR 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 54 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 5(&25'6 +3 /RJRQSPRUHQR 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 55 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU 7 /RJRQUDOWDUHV 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQUDOWDUHV 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQUDOWDUHV 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQUDOWDUHV 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQUDOWDUHV 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQUDOWDUHV 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR 3ULQW 1< *%$/.2 +3 /RJRQJEDONR 3ULQW 1< *%$/.2 +3 /RJRQJEDONR 3ULQW 1< *%$/.2 +3 /RJRQJEDONR 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR 3ULQW 1< $$ ($67 %$< +3 /RJRQJEDONR 3ULQW 1< $$ ($67 %$< +3 /RJRQJEDONR 3ULQW 1< $$ ($67 %$< +3 /RJRQJEDONR 3ULQW 1< *%$/.2 +3 /RJRQJEDONR 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 56 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQKUHJDODGR 3ULQW 1< *%$/.2 +3 /RJRQJEDONR 3ULQW 1< *%$/.2 +3 /RJRQJEDONR 3ULQW 1< *%$/.2 +3 /RJRQJEDONR 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQM]LQVHU 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQM]LQVHU 3ULQW 1< $$ 6287+ %$< 7 /RJRQERVFDU 3ULQW 1< $$ 6287+ %$< 7 /RJRQERVFDU 3ULQW 1< *%$/.2 +3 /RJRQJEDONR 3ULQW 1< *%$/.2 +3 /RJRQJEDONR 3ULQW 1< *%$/.2 +3 /RJRQJEDONR 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 57 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) /RJRQVSRZOH\ 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQPWUDKDQ 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< $$ ($67 %$< +3 /RJRQFEXORVDQ 3ULQW 1< &%8/26$1 +3 /RJRQFEXORVDQ 3ULQW 1< &%8/26$1 +3 /RJRQFEXORVDQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) :3 WK )ORRU &RORU /RJRQMPHVOHU 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 58 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )/225 1( /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQSGRXJKHUW\ 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQSGRXJKHUW\ 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQSGRXJKHUW\ 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQOKDUULV 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQOKDUULV 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )/225 /RJRQWJRWR 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )/225 /RJRQWJRWR 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )/225 /RJRQWJRWR 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )/225 /RJRQWJRWR 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )/225 /RJRQWJRWR 3ULQW 6) :3 WK )ORRU &RORU /RJRQM]LQVHU 3ULQW 6) :3 WK )ORRU &RORU /RJRQM]LQVHU 3ULQW 6) :3 WK )ORRU &RORU /RJRQM]LQVHU 3ULQW 6) :3 WK )ORRU &RORU /RJRQM]LQVHU 3ULQW 6) /RJRQWJRWR 3ULQW 6) /RJRQWJRWR 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQOVFKXULQJ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 59 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQMPHVOHU 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQMPHVOHU 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU 6( /RJRQDVWRFNLQJ 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )ORRU /RJRQMPHVOHU 3ULQW 1< $$ ($67 %$< 7 /RJRQMVHOELQ 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) ),/( WK )ORRU /RJRQGGLPDODQWD

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 60 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 3ULQW 1< *%$/.2 +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& WK )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 1< $$ 1257+ %$< 7 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< $$ 6287+ %$< 7 /RJRQMUHPXV]ND 3ULQW 1< $$ 6287+ %$< 7 /RJRQMUHPXV]ND 3ULQW 1< $$ 6287+ %$< 7 /RJRQMUHPXV]ND 3ULQW 1< $$ 6287+ %$< 7 /RJRQMUHPXV]ND 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQNIDUG\ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQNIDUG\ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQNIDUG\ 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) 69& 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQGGLPDODQWD 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 61 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) :3 7+ )/225 /RJRQUGDRXG 3ULQW 1< $$ 1257+ %$< 7 /RJRQGVFKXPDQ 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) /,% 7+ )ORRU &DQRQ ,5 /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQNIDUG\ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQNIDUG\ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQNIDUG\ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQNIDUG\ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQNIDUG\ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQNIDUG\ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQNIDUG\ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQNIDUG\ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQNIDUG\ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQNIDUG\ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 1< $$ 1257+ %$< 7 /RJRQGVFKXPDQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 7 6: /RJRQMUXGQLFN 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< 00$&$7(( +3 /RJRQPPDFDWHH 3ULQW 1< $$ 1257+ %$< 7 /RJRQGVFKXPDQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ 3ULQW 6) $$ 7+ )ORRU 6: /RJRQGKXWFKLQVRQ

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 62 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

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

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-4 Filed 11/16/10 Page 63 of 63 /,()) &$%5$6(5 +(,0$11 %(5167(,1 //3

5HSRUW FUHDWHG RQ 30 )URP 7R LQFHSWLRQ

6$//,( 0$( &(// 3+21( &$//6 *HQHUDO 0DWWHUV 75$9(/ 6XP 7UDYHO 9(1'25 $PHULFDQ ([SUHVV -'6 $0(; WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-5

Filed 11/16/10 Page 1 of 14

(;+,%,7 (

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-5

Filed 11/16/10 Page 2 of 14

Page 1 Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 1901988 (W.D.Wash.) (Cite as: 2008 WL 1901988 (W.D.Wash.))

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma. GRAYS HARBOR ADVENTIST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, a Washington non-profit organization; Greg G. Bogdanovich, an individual; Mary Laforest, an individual, Bruce Kelly, an individual, Mark Neuser, an individual, Arlan Hinkelmann, an individual, Marcia Hinkelmann, an individual, Jeff Dougherty, an individual, Frank Zinn, an individual, Harvey Opaleski, an individual, and James Nogosek, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CARRIER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. No. 05-05437 RBL. April 24, 2008. Barbra L Williams, Kristen E Law, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, San Francisco, CA, Jonathan D Selbin, Paulina Do Amaral, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Berstein, New York, NY, Kim D Stephens, Nancy A Pacharzina, Michael John Estok, Tousley Brain Stephens, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs. Allison W Freedman, Andrew Polovin, Brian Swanson, Mark L Levine, Michael J Valaik, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Chicago, IL, Bart L Kessel, Tucker Ellis & West, Los Angeles, CA, Dennis Smith, John Michael Silk, Wilson, Smith, Cochran & Dickerson, Seattle, WA, for Defendant. ORDER GRANTING CLASS COUNSEL'S APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS AND SERVICE AWARDS TO THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS RONALD B. LEIGHTON, District Judge. *1 Plaintiffs' Application For An Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Service Awards for the Named Plaintiffs (the "Fee Application") came before the Court for hearing on April 22, 2008, pursuant to this Court's November 20, 2007 Order (1) Granting

Preliminary Approval to the Proposed Settlement; (2) Provisionally Certifying the Proposed Settlement Class; (3) Approving the Proposed Notice Plan and Forms of Notice; and (4) Scheduling the Final Fairness Hearing (the "Preliminary Approval Order"). The Court has read and considered the Fee Application, all supporting declarations and all other materials relating to the Fee Application, including all materials submitted in opposition to the Fee Application. As a general matter, the Ninth Circuit has held that in the context of class action settlements, courts have the discretion to choose either the "lodestar/multiplier" method or the "percentage" method to determine a reasonable attorneys' fee. Hanlon v. Chrysler Group, 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir.1998). However, numerous courts within the Ninth Circuit have held that when state substantive law applies, attorneys' fees are to be awarded in accordance with state law. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 142 F.Supp.2d 1299, 1302 (W.D.Wash.2001) (citing cases). Because Washington is the forum state, Washington law should be applied to the determination of an appropriate fee award. Id. Washington law recognizes both the lodestar method and the percentage of the fund method for determining appropriate attorneys' fees. Bowles v. Department of Retirement Systems, 121 Wash.2d 52, 72-73, 847 P.2d 440 (1993). "Under the lodestar/multiplier method, the district court first calculates the `lodestar' by multiplying the reasonable hours expended by a reasonable hourly rate. See generally Bowers v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co., 100 Wash.2d 581, 597-99, 675 P.2d 193 (1983). The court may then enhance the lodestar with a `multiplier,' if necessary, to arrive at a reasonable fee." Id.; see also In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig. ("WPPSS"), 19 F.3d 1291, 1295 fn. 2 (9th Cir.1994) (citations omitted). "Under the percentage method, the court simply awards the attorneys a percentage of the funds sufficient to provide plaintiffs' attorneys with a reasonable fee." WPPSS., 19 F.3d at 1295 fn. 2. (citations and quotation marks omitted). The Ninth Circuit has held that regardless of whether a court "applies the lodestar or the percentage method, `we require only that fee awards in common fund cases be reasonable under the circumstances.' " Id. (quoting Florida v. Dunne, 915 F.2d 542, 545 (9th Cir.1990)); see also Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-5

Filed 11/16/10 Page 3 of 14

Page 2

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 1901988 (W.D.Wash.) (Cite as: 2008 WL 1901988 (W.D.Wash.)) 938, 963 (9th Cir.2003). Where, as here, Settlement relief will be paid on a claims made basis with no cap to the relief available, consideration of attorneys' fees lends itself more readily to the lodestar method. Because the attorneys' fees will be paid separately by Carrier without reducing the relief available to the Class, the lodestar method is appropriate. Bowles, 121 Wash.2d at 72-73, 847 P.2d 440. I. THE REQUESTED AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES IS APPROPRIATE UNDER THE LODESTAR METHOD *2 The Ninth Circuit has enumerated factors to be considered in determining the appropriateness of a fee using the lodestar method. Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir.1975); see also Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1029. In approving a fee request under the lodestar method, trial courts should consider: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; (3) the requisite legal skill necessary; (4) the preclusion of other employment due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount at controversy and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the `undesirability' of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. (Id.) The Court has considered these factors in the present case to determine that the requested award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses is appropriate. The Court finds that the amount of fees and costs awarded herein is fair and reasonable to the Class in light of the result achieved, the effort that was spent, the complexity of the issues presented, and the numerous risks faced by Class Counsel in obtaining a successful result. Specifically, the Court finds, based on the record submitted, that the attorneys' fees awarded herein are justified in light of, inter alia, the following factors: Time and Labor Required: The 18,728 hours Plaintiffs' Counsel collectively expended on this case were reasonably spent. Plaintiffs' Counsel: (1) investigated and filed this action and the related actions in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin; (2) successfully moved for class certification in the Washington action and defeated Carrier's motion for decertification; (3) took and defended more than 50 depositions; (4) coordinated multiple furnace inspections; (5) engaged multiple experts to assess the nature and scope of the defect and prepared a model of classwide damages; (6) propounded and responded to voluminous discovery; (7) reviewed tens of thousands of documents; (8) prepared for and attended the mediation; (9) settled the case and documented the Settlement; (10) successfully moved for preliminary approval of the Settlement; and (11) worked with the notice provider and defense counsel to respond to Class Member questions concerning the Class Notice.FN1 FN1. (See Declarations of Selbin ¶ 7, Stephens ¶¶ 12-18, Pines ¶ 19, and Woodward ¶ 5.) Class Counsel provided summary reports of each firm's lodestar with their Fee Application on March 18, 2008 and later supplemented those records with detailed time reports, which Class Counsel submitted for in camera review. Based on a review of those lodestar reports, the Court is satisfied that the time and labor Class Counsel expended is reasonable and supports their request for an award of attorneys' fees. Significantly, no party or objector has challenged the reasonableness either of the hours committed to this case or the rates charged by the lawyers and their firms. *3 The Novelty and Difficulty of the Questions Involved: The Court recognizes that defective product class actions are complex and involve risk. This case is particularly complex because it involves multiple related cases proceeding in parallel actions in four U.S. jurisdictions. In addition, Plaintiffs' claims involve dozens of furnace models, some of which have been on the market for nearly 20 years. The difficulty of the questions involved is demonstrated by the posture of the Wisconsin action. At the time of Settlement, Plaintiffs' appeal of the Wisconsin court's denial of class certification was pending. Any appellate proceeding involves risk to both parties. The outcome of Plaintiffs' appeal in Wisconsin was by no means clear. The Court finds that the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved here favor final settlement approval.

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-5

Filed 11/16/10 Page 4 of 14

Page 3

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 1901988 (W.D.Wash.) (Cite as: 2008 WL 1901988 (W.D.Wash.)) The Preclusion of Other Employment: The Court is satisfied that the demanding and contentious nature of this action precluded Class Counsel from accepting other potentially profitable work.FN2 FN2. (See Declarations of Selbin ¶ 13, Stephens ¶ 22, and Woodward ¶ 9.) The Customary Fee: The modest multiplier requested by Class Counsel falls well within the range of multipliers approved by Ninth Circuit courts. See Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1052-54 (approving multiplier of 3.65 and citing a survey of class settlements from 19962001 indicating that most multipliers range from 1.0 to 4.0). In light of the range of multipliers commonly approved by courts within the Ninth Circuit, Plaintiffs' fee request is reasonable. Class Counsel provided summary reports of each firm's lodestar with their Fee Application on March 18, 2008 and later supplemented those records with detailed time reports, which Class Counsel submitted for in camera review. Based on a review of those records, the Court finds that Class Counsel's hourly rates are reasonable for their skill and the work they performed. The resulting lodestar multiplier of 1.24 is fair and reasonable in light of the relevant factors identified and addressed herein. Whether the Fee is Contingent: Class Counsel undertook this class action on a purely contingent basis, with no assurance of recovering expenses or attorneys' fees.FN3 Despite this lack of assurance, Class Counsel expended considerable time and resources to prosecute the case successfully on behalf of the Class. FN3. (See Declarations of Selbin ¶ 12, Stephens ¶ 19, Pines ¶ 20, and Woodward ¶ 9.) The Results Obtained: As discussed in detail in this Court's Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, entered concurrently, the Court is satisfied that the Settlement provides Class Members with substantial benefits by providing cash compensation for past CHX failures and a forward-looking enhanced warranty provision that will provide free parts and labor for replacement CHXs at any time within 20 years of installation of the furnace. In addition, Class Counsel will continue to invest time and resources in this matter throughout (and beyond) the claims period, which runs until August 2008. Class Counsel's ongoing responsibilities will include assisting Class members with claims administration issues and overseeing the enhanced warranty program, which will be in effect for nearly 20 years for some class members. *4 The Experience, Reputation and Ability of the Attorneys: The Court is satisfied that the reputation, experience, and ability of Class Counsel were essential to success in this litigation. Class Counsel have substantial experience in consumer class action litigation.FN4 FN4. (See Declarations of Selbin ¶ 2, Ex. A; Stephens ¶¶ 2-8, Pines ¶ ¶ 2-17, and Woodward ¶ 4, Ex. A.) II. CLASS COUNSEL'S REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS IS REASONABLE The Court further finds that Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of costs is also reasonable. Throughout the course of this litigation, Class Counsel incurred out-of-pocket costs totaling $1,590,583.75.FN5 The Ninth Circuit allows recovery of pre-settlement litigation costs in the context of class action settlement. Staton, 327 F.3d at 974. Where, as here, the requested attorneys' fees and costs will be paid in addition to (and not out of) the relief available to the Class, reimbursement of reasonable costs is fully in keeping with applicable law. Class Counsel provided summary cost reports to this Court on March 18, 2008. Class Counsel supplemented those reports on April 15, 2008 by providing the detailed the cost records underlying their cost summaries for the Court's in camera review. Based on a review of these records, the Court is satisfied that the requested costs are relevant to the litigation and reasonable in amount. FN5. (See Declarations of Selbin ¶ 11, Stephens ¶ 20, Pines ¶ 26, and Woodward ¶ 8.) III. THE TWO OBJECTIONS WITH REGARD TO CLASS COUNSEL'S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES LACK MERIT Of nearly half a million Class members to receive

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-5

Filed 11/16/10 Page 5 of 14

Page 4

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 1901988 (W.D.Wash.) (Cite as: 2008 WL 1901988 (W.D.Wash.)) direct mailed Notice of the Settlement, which included information regarding Class Counsel's fee application, only two Class Members objected to Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and costs in this matter. The Court has considered the two objections with regard to the requested attorneys' fees and finds that they are without merit. Moreover, neither objection, if accepted, would inure to the benefit of the Class, as fees are paid by Carrier separately from, not out of, the Class relief, such that any reduction in fees would revert back to Carrier, not the Class. The Rucker Objection Objector Marcus Rucker, represented by Edward F. Siegel, argues that (1) the payment of attorneys' fees should be delayed until the end of the enhanced warranty period so that the Court can evaluate the exact total value of the Settlement; and (2) Class Counsel's lodestar should be reduced by the amount attributable to non-attorneys. Neither argument is persuasive. First, as discussed in detail above, Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees is appropriate under the lodestar-multiplier method of determining attorneys' fees in class actions such as this one. Under the lodestar analysis, Class Counsel are not required to establish the exact total value of the Settlement relief to justify payment of the fee before the close of the claims period. All that is required is a showing that the requested fee is reasonable. WPPSS, 19 F.3d at 1295 fn. 2; Staton, 327 F.3d at 963. Class Counsel have made such a showing. *5 In cases where the total value of the settlement can be reasonably estimated, a court applying the lodestar method to determine attorney's fees may use the percentage-of-the-fund analysis as a cross-check. Wing v. Asarco Inc., 114 F.3d 986, 988-990 (9th Cir.1994). In instances where the court uses the percentage-of-the-fund approach as a cross-check on its lodestar analysis, the court need not be exact in its estimate of the total value of the fund. Id. at 990. While it is not necessary for the Court to cross-check the reasonableness of a lodestar-based award by conducting a percentage-of-the-fund analysis, the Court has done so here. The Court is satisfied that the enhanced warranty component of the proposed Settlement can be conservatively valued at $30 million. If the value of the enhanced warranty program is $30 million, Class Counsel's requested fee award of $8,359,416.25 represents 21.8% of the combined total of $38,359,416.25(value plus fees)-a percentage that is squarely in line with the Ninth Circuit's wellestablished 25% benchmark for attorneys' fees from a common fund case. See, e.g., Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1029; Six (6) Mexican Workers v. Arizona Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1311 (9th Cir.1990); Paul, Johnson, Alston & Hunt v. Graulty, 886 F.2d 268, 272 (9th Cir.1989); see also In re Coord. Pretrial Proceedings in Petrol. Prods. Antitrust Litig., 109 F.3d 602, 607 (9th Cir.1997) (recognizing that common fund awards typically range between 20-30%); Vizcaino, 290 F.3d at 1050, n. 4. In light of the Settlement value, Objector Rucker's suggestion that payment of attorneys' fees should be delayed is unavailing. Second, Rucker's argument that Class Counsel has embellished its lodestar by including work performed by case clerks, paralegals, law student interns, and other non-attorney staff ignores applicable law. The Ninth Circuit and Washington courts recognize that substantive case-related work performed by paralegals and other non-attorney staff may be included in the calculation of recoverable lodestar. Morgan v. Kingen, 141 Wash.App. 143, 164, 169 P.3d 487 (Wash.App.2007); see also Earthquake Sound Corp. v. Bumper Industries, 352 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir.2003) (upholding lodestar-based fee award that included work performed by attorneys, paralegals, and clerks). The policy reasons for this rule are clear: if recoverable lodestar were limited to attorney time, law firms would be inclined to assign low-level work to attorneys rather than legal support staff. The Ninth Circuit discourages such an inefficient result by recognizing the contributions of attorneys and non-attorneys. This Court will not sway from the established rule. As an added safeguard, Class Counsel has provided to this Court, for in camera review, detailed records underlying the summary lodestar and cost reports submitted with Plaintiffs' Fee Application. Based on its review of those records, the Court is satisfied that Class Counsel's lodestar is reasonable. *6 For these reasons, Mr. Rucker's objection is overruled. The Hallerberg Objection Objector William Hallerberg argues simply that

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-5

Filed 11/16/10 Page 6 of 14

Page 5

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 1901988 (W.D.Wash.) (Cite as: 2008 WL 1901988 (W.D.Wash.)) "[f]ees, costs and expenses up to $9,950,000 seem excessive when the damaged parties receive only $270." Mr. Hallerberg's CHX has never failed or required repair. Thus, he has not incurred any out of pocket expenses for a past repair that would entitle him to the $270 cash payment he argues is too small in comparison to the requested attorneys' fees. Mr. Hallerberg is, however, covered by the enhanced warranty protection the Settlement provides. As discussed above, Class Counsel's fee award is appropriate under the lodestar-multiplier analysis. In addition, recovery to Class members is not limited to the $270 cash payment for past CHX failures, but also includes automatic enhanced warranty protection for all Class members. In view of the Settlement value as a whole, the Court finds that Class Counsel's requested fee is reasonable and supported by Class Counsel's lodestar and application of a modest multiplier well within the range of multipliers the Ninth Circuit typically awards. For these reasons, the Hallerberg objection is overruled. IV. INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE NAMED PLAINTIFFS ARE APPROPRIATE Plaintiffs request service payments of $3,500 each for the Class Representatives: Grays Harbor Adventist Christian School, Greg G. Bogdanovich, Mary Laforest, Bruce Kelly, Mark Neuser, Arlan Hinkelmann, Marcia Hinkelmann, Jeff Dougherty, Frank Zinn, Harvey Opaleski, and James Nogosek. The trial court has discretion to award incentives to the class representatives. Mego Fin'l Corp. Sec. Litig. v. Nadler, 213 F.3d 454, 463 (9th Cir.2000). The criteria that courts have considered when determining whether to make an incentive award and the amount of the award include: (1) the risk to the class representative in commencing a class action, both financial and otherwise; (2) the notoriety and personal difficulties encountered by the class representative; (3) the amount of time and effort spent by the class representative; (4) the duration of the litigation; and (5) the personal benefit, or lack thereof, enjoyed by the class representative as a result of the litigation. Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 901 F.Supp. 294, 299 (N.D.Cal.1995); see also Manual for Compl. Litig. at § 21.62 fn. 971 (2004) (enhancement payments may be "warranted for time spent meeting with class members, monitoring cases, or responding to discovery"). Here, the record indicates that the Class Representatives contributed to the litigation by: (1) assisting counsel with the preparation of the complaint and amended complaints; (2) producing relevant documents and responding to other written discovery; (3) providing their furnaces for inspection; (4) staying abreast of the settlement negotiations; and (5) providing deposition, summary judgment, and class certification testimony.FN6 In light of these facts, the Court finds that each Class Representative's contribution to the litigation and Settlement process was sufficient to warrant an incentive payment award. FN6. (See Declarations of Bogdanovich, Brenton, Kelly, Laforest, Nogosek, Dougherty, Opaleski, Zinn, Neuser, and Hinkelmann.) *7 When compared to service awards in other cases, the $3,500 payments requested here are modest.FN7 In light of the Class Representatives' efforts and the risks undertaken to obtain the Settlement for the Class-and the fact that no Class Member has objected to the service payments-the Court hereby approves the payment of $3,500 each to Plaintiffs Grays Harbor Adventist Christian School, Bogdanovich, Brenton, Kelly, Laforest, Nogosek, Dougherty, Opaleski, Zinn, Neuser, and Hinkelmann. FN7. See, e.g., Carroll v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mass., 157 F.R.D. 142, 143 (D.Mass.1994), aff'd 34 F.3d 1065 (1st Cir.1994) ("the class representatives shall receive payments of $7,500 each as compensation for services rendered to the class in initiating and prosecuting this action"); Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 621 F.Supp. 27, 32 (E.D.Pa.1985) (stating "the propriety of allowing modest compensation to class representatives seems obvious," and awarding $20,000 to two named class representatives). See In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 457, 463 (9th Cir.2000) (approving service awards of $5,000 from a total settlement of $1,725,000); Razilov v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., No. 01-CV-1466BR., 2006 WL 3312024, *3-*4 (D.Or. Nov.13, 2006) (approving $10,000 award to

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-5

Filed 11/16/10 Page 7 of 14

Page 6

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 1901988 (W.D.Wash.) (Cite as: 2008 WL 1901988 (W.D.Wash.)) each class representative). *** Due and adequate notice having been given to the Class as required in this Court's November 20, 2007 Preliminary Approval Order, and the Court having considered all papers filed and proceedings had herein, and otherwise being fully informed, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: 1. This Court hereby finds and concludes that due and adequate notice was directed to all persons and entities who are Class Members, advising them of Class Counsel's intent to seek attorneys' fees and expenses, and of their right to object thereto.FN8 FN8. (See generally, Declaration of Shannon R. Wheatman.) 2. A full and fair opportunity was accorded to all such persons and entities to be heard with respect to the Fee Application. 3. The Court hereby grants Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of $1,590,583.75 in out-of-pocket costs, plus attorneys' fees in the amount of $8,359,416.25, for a combined total of $9.95 million. The fee award represents a modest 1.24 multiplier on Class Counsel's actual lodestar, which amounts to $6,752,008.25 for work performed in this case to date.FN9 A percentage-of-the-fund cross-check analysis confirms that the requested fee is reasonable. FN9. (See Declarations of Selbin ¶ 9, Stephens ¶ 21, Pines ¶ ¶ 25, and Woodward ¶ 6.) 4. In addition to any relief they may receive under the Settlement Agreement, the Court approves payment of a $3,500 stipend to each of the Class Representatives: Grays Harbor Adventist Christian School, Greg G. Bogdanovich, Mary Laforest, Bruce Kelly, Mark Neuser, Arlan and Marcia Hinkelmann, Jeff Dougherty, Frank Zinn, Harvey Opaleski, and James Nogosek. As provided in the Settlement Agreement, Carrier shall pay the Court-approved stipend to Class Counsel, in trust for the Class Representatives, within 15 business days after final disposition of any appeals arising from this Order or this Court's concurrent Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. 5. The awarded attorneys' fees and costs, plus interest earned per the Settlement Agreement, shall be transferred into an account designated by Class Counsel for the benefit of Class Counsel upon entry of this Order subject to the terms, conditions and obligations of the Settlement Agreement which terms, conditions and obligations are incorporated herein. The payment of the awarded fees and costs is conditioned on the Stipulated Undertaking for Repayment of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Order submitted with Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval. The Stipulated Undertaking for Repayment of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Order has been signed by the parties thereto and is hereby ordered contemporaneously with the award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. *8 6. The awarded fees and expenses shall be directed to Class Counsel for distribution in a manner that reflects each firm's contribution to the initiation, prosecution and resolution of this litigation. The Court authorizes the co-lead counsel firms of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP to allocate the fee award among the Class Counsel firms. 7. Without affecting the finality of this Order, the Court reserves continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over parties to the Settlement Agreement to settle any disputes related to the allocation of the costs and fees awarded by this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED. W.D.Wash.,2008. Grays Harbor Adventist Christian School v. Carrier Corp. Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 1901988 (W.D.Wash.) END OF DOCUMENT

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Case 2:08-cv-00334-JCC Document 122 Filed 12/04/08 Page 87 of 178 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-5 Filed 11/16/10 Page 8 14

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 APPEARANCES: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

GRAYS HARBOR ADVENTIST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, a Washington non-profit organization; GREG G. BOGDANOVICH, an individual; and MARY LAFOREST, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

CARRIER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Docket No. C05-5437RBL Tacoma, Washington April 22, 2008

TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

For the Plaintiffs:

KIM D. STEPHENS NANCY PACHARZINA Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98101-1332 JONATHAN D. SELBIN Lieff, Cabrasher, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, New York 10013-1413

For the Defendant:

BART L. KESSEL Tucker Ellis & West LLP 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, California 90017-2475

Case 2:08-cv-00334-JCC Document 122 Filed 12/04/08 Page 88 of 178 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-5 Filed 11/16/10 Page 9 14

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Court Reporter: For the Objector Marcus Rucker:

WHITNEY SMITH Wilson Smith Cockran Dickerson 1215 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, Washington 98161-1007

EDWARD F. SIEGEL 27600 Chagrin Boulevard, #340 Cleveland, Ohio 44122

Julaine V. Ryen Post Office Box 885 Tacoma, Washington 98401-0885 (253) 882-3832

Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript produced by Reporter on computer.

Case 2:08-cv-00334-JCC Document 122 Filed 12/04/08 Page 89 of 178 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR 52-5 Filed 11/16/10 Page 10 of 14

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE CLERK:

This is in Cause No. C05-5437RBL, Grays

Harbor Adventist Christian School, et al., versus Carrier Corporation. Counsel, please make their appearances. MR. STEPHENS: plaintiff. THE COURT: MR. SELBIN: Good morning, Mr. Stephens. Good morning, Your Honor. Jonathan Kim Stephens, lead counsel for the

Selbin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Berstein, on behalf of the class. THE COURT: Mr. Selbin, good morning. Nancy Pacharzina, Tousley Brain &

MS. PACHARZINA:

Stephens, on behalf of the plaintiff. THE COURT: MR. KESSEL: Ms. Pacharzina, good morning. Good morning, Your Honor. Bart Kessel,

Tucker Ellis & West, on behalf of the defendant. THE COURT: MR. SMITH: Mr. Kessel, nice to see you again. Good morning, Your Honor. My name is

Whitney Smith, on behalf of defendant Carrier. THE COURT: MR. SIEGEL: Good morning, Mr. Smith. Edward Siegel, Your Honor, on behalf of

the objector, Marcus Rucker. THE COURT: Great.

This matter comes before the Court on motion for approval of final class action settlement. Also there is a request

Case 2:08-cv-00334-JCC Document 122 Filed 12/04/08 Page 90 of 178 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR 52-5 Filed 11/16/10 Page 11 of 14

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

completed; and the stage of the proceedings; the experience and views of counsel; and the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement. It is those two final factors that probably are most important to me. The fact that very experienced and very

capable counsel on both sides crafted this settlement through hard fought negotiations, mentored by a very experienced mediator and the reaction of the class members suggests that this is an appropriate settlement. I am going to sign the order granting final approval of the class action settlement as soon as I go into chambers because I marked up the one that I came out here with. I was

making some notes, and I thought I was making notes on another document and I wasn't. So I will print up another copy, and

I'm satisfied that this is a settlement that meets the appropriate criteria for approval by the Court, and the objections will be overruled. With regard to the motion regarding -- the motion on class counsel's application for award of attorneys' fees and costs and services, there are a few things I want to look at yet. expect to get an order out within the next day or so. I

I will

say that there's no question that I will grant the service awards to the named plaintiffs. I do gulp a little at hourly rates. I wonder where the

vanishing trial has gone, and I expect that it has gone to

Case 2:08-cv-00334-JCC Document 122 Filed 12/04/08 Page 91 of 178 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR 52-5 Filed 11/16/10 Page 12 of 14

31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

debtors' prison; that nobody can afford to litigate anything anymore at the rates that we charge. In the five-and-a-half

years that I've been out of the practice, to see -- and I got the National Law Journal survey on hourly rates because I thought that the rates didn't pass the giggle test, and I was wrong. Rates really are that high according to the National They are a little

Law Journal in these metropolitan areas. lower in Seattle.

Again, anonymity both is a vice and a virtue, I guess, up here in the Northwest. But the rates, I flinched when I I know it's a

looked at the materials that were submitted.

slippery slope for defense counsel who have to object sometimes to fees because they realize that their own overhead in their firms, and so forth, have driven rates way up there. So I have not heard any objection to the individual rates. Just my own life experience, I guess, made me flinch, and not in any way challenging the expertise or qualifications of the lawyers who have worked so hard on this case. But there are a

couple of things I do want to look at, and I will get the order out certainly before the end of the week. Okay. of? Any other questions, anything we need to take care

Any magic words or incantations that I need to recite

under Rule 23? MR. SELBIN: I don't think so, Your Honor.

I just wanted to say personally that I have enjoyed

Case 2:08-cv-00334-JCC Document 122 Filed 12/04/08 Page 92 of 178 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR 52-5 Filed 11/16/10 Page 13 of 14

32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

appearing in your courtroom.

Your Honor has been incredibly I know these were

well prepared on all these issues.

difficult issues, and I want to thank Your Honor. THE COURT: I have enjoyed having you all. One of

the lessens I learned when I went on the bench -- and I was nominated the first time in '91 and did not get a hearing because of delays in the pipeline. who did not get a hearing. enjoy this job very much. But one of the things I noticed was that the criminal lawyers are extraordinary. The CJA panel lawyers are There were about 80 of us I

In retrospect, I'm thankful.

wonderful at $105 an hour, and I realized what rarified air I got to breathe as a trial lawyer in the cases that I had, cases like this. The disappointment that I experienced here,

if any, has been that in some cases -- not cases of this quality -- the bottom drops out. We have lawyers who have not

learned their craft yet, and more importantly, probably have not learned appropriate comportment yet. fun place. I try to make this a

I don't take myself too seriously, and I hope by

doing that that the lawyers in front of me don't take themselves too seriously. But it is a privilege and a pleasure to have lawyers of your caliber here. It was an interesting case. It is not a

case without regret on my part, and I think it really was a difficult decision, and if I had been in a different circuit,

Case 2:08-cv-00334-JCC Document 122 Filed 12/04/08 Page 93 of 178 Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR 52-5 Filed 11/16/10 Page 14 of 14

33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

I think it would have gone the other way. But having said that, I think the lawyers represented their clients very, very well, and it was a privilege to have you here. Court will be in recess. MR. SELBIN: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Above hearing concluded 9:50 a.m.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

/s/

Julaine V. Ryen JULAINE V. RYEN

December 2, 2008 Date

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 1 of 35

(;+,%,7 )

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 2 of 35

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Volume 7, Issue 2, 248­281, June 2010

Attorney Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements: 1993­2008

jels_1178 248..281

Theodore Eisenberg and Geoffrey P. Miller*

We report on a comprehensive database of 18 years of available opinions (1993­2008, inclusive) on settlements in class action and shareholder derivative cases in state and federal courts. An earlier study, covering 1993­2002, revealed a remarkable relationship between attorney fees and class recovery size: regardless of the methodology for calculating fees ostensibly employed by the courts, the class recovery size was the overwhelmingly important determinant of the fee. The present study, which nearly doubles the number of cases in the database, confirms that relationship. Fees display the same relationship to class recoveries in both data sets and neither fees nor recoveries materially increased over time. Although the size of the class recovery dwarfs other influences, significant associations exist between the fee amount and both the fee method used and the riskiness of the case. We found no robust evidence of significant differences between federal and state courts. The strong association between fee and class recovery persists in cases with recoveries of $100 million or more, as do the significant associations between fee level and fee method and risk. Fees were not significantly affected by the existence of a settlement class, the presence of objectors, or opt outs from the class. Courts granted the requested fee in over 70 percent of the cases, with the Second Circuit granting the requested amount least often. In cases denying the requested fee, the mean fee was 68 percent of the requested amount. Fees and costs exhibit scale effects with the percent of each decreasing as the class recovery amount increased. Costs are strongly associated with hours expended on the case.

I. Introduction and Background

Class actions and their close cousins, shareholder derivative lawsuits, are vital mechanisms by which the legal system copes with mass harms--similar injuries to a large number of people. Long a feature of the U.S. landscape, class actions have recently begun to spread across the world.1

*Address correspondence to Theodore Eisenberg, Cornell Law School, Myron Taylor Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853; email [email protected] Eisenberg is Henry Allen Mark Professor of Law & Adjunct Professor of Statistical Sciences, Cornell Law School; Miller is Stuyvesant P. Comfort Professor of Law, New York University Law School. We have from time to time acted as expert witnesses or consultants on the issue of attorney fees in class action cases. We thank participants at the International Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, Tel Aviv University and Kevin Clermont for comments, and Thomas P. Eisenberg, Nicholas Germain, and Erica Miller for excellent research assistance.

1

See, e.g., Samuel Issacharoff & Geoffrey Miller, Will Aggregate Litigation Come to Europe? 62 Vanderbilt L. Rev. 179 (2009).

248

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 3 of 35

Attorney Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements

249

A crucial issue for all class and derivative litigation is the matter of compensating counsel. Unless class counsel are adequately compensated, class and derivative litigation will be undersupplied in the legal market. On the other hand, if class action attorneys are overcompensated they may bring too many of these lawsuits and receive an excessive share of the settlement value in cases that are brought. In normal litigation the attorney compensation can be set by private agreement between lawyer and client, but private agreement does not work in the case of class action and derivative litigation: in these contexts there is no client capable of negotiating with the attorney. In class actions, the clients are disorganized and, prior to notice of certification, usually do not even know that a lawsuit has been filed on their behalf. Except perhaps in the case of private securities litigation, the representative plaintiff cannot effectively negotiate with the attorneys over fees and costs: he or she has only a minority stake in the matter (in consumer cases, often a miniscule one), is often unsophisticated, and may be strongly influenced by the attorney's advice. In derivative cases, the ostensible client--the corporation--is usually managed by defendants in the lawsuits and therefore is unwilling to pay any fee to incentivize an attorney to bring the lawsuit. In both settings, therefore, the court must independently determine the appropriate attorney fee award. Where can the court look for information on this question? No private stakeholder is a reliable source of information. The class attorneys' suggested fee is not impartial since, at the time of the settlement, their interest is to seek the largest possible award. Nor can the court rely on the defendant's recommendations. Settlement agreements often contain "clear-sailing" clauses under which defendants agree not to object to a fee request up to a certain amount. However, clear-sailing agreements are of little value when the defendant is not paying the fee--indeed, it is not clear that the defendant has any "skin in the game" when the fee will be paid out of the class recovery. Even when the defendant does pay the fee--as in the typical consumer class action--the clear-sailing agreement has limited probative value unless the parties have deferred fee negotiations until after achieving a definite agreement on the merits. Otherwise, there is reason for concern that the defendant may have agreed to pay class counsel a premium in exchange for reductions in the amount going to the class. The reaction of the class to the settlement and proposed fee is also not a reliable guide. Empirical research suggests that the vast majority of class members are rationally indifferent to class action settlements; their failure to opt out of a settlement does not indicate approval of the proposed fee.2 Nor can the court rely on objectors to the settlement. Few objectors appear at class action fairness hearings,3 and those who show up may not object to the fee. Even if objectors do complain about the fee, they have only a small amount at stake and thus lack the incentive to thoroughly research the fee question. Lacking reliable guidance from class counsel, the defendant, class members, or objectors, the judge has no alternative but to make an independent investigation. Where, however, should the judge look for information pertinent to the task of setting fees? Among

2

See Theodore Eisenberg & Geoffrey Miller, The Role of Opt-Outs and Objectors in Class Action Litigation: Theoretical and Empirical Issues, 57 Vanderbilt L. Rev. 1529 (2004). Id.

3

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 4 of 35

250

Eisenberg and Miller

the factors that judges typically examine in setting fees, the most important is probably that of "awards in similar cases."4 Precedents of fees awarded by other courts should, in theory, be relatively reliable guides because the prior courts were presumably exercising the requisite rigorous scrutiny and judicial independence when they set the fees, and because class counsel will have presumably considered the relevant case law in calculating whether to take on the litigation in the case at bar. But even this approach is not problem-free. In the typical class action settlement, the fee is taken from the common fund generated on behalf of the class. No party, in this case, has the right incentives to vigorously research the precedents running contrary to counsel's fee request. Unless the judge does his or her own research, he or she may not have access to unbiased information about fees in similar cases. The present empirical study is intended to assist courts in the task of fee setting--and counsel in the task of identifying appropriate fees to request--by supplying an account of compensation practices in courts across the country, studied over an extended period of time, and conducted in an academic setting outside the fires of litigation. The information provided in this article is the best data on "awards in similar cases" from cases with available opinions. If used effectively, our study may be of material assistance in further rationalizing the compensation of class counsel. We find, regardless of the methodology for calculating fees ostensibly employed by the courts, that the overwhelmingly important determinant of the fee is simply the size of the recovery obtained by the class. Fees display the same relationship to class recoveries in data sets spanning both 1993 to 2002 and 2003 to 2008. Neither fees nor recoveries materially increased over time. Although the size of the class recovery dwarfs other influences, significant associations exist between the fee amount and both the fee method used and the riskiness of the case. We found no robust evidence of significant differences between federal and state courts. The strong association between fee and class recovery persists in cases with recoveries of $100 million or more, as do the significant associations between fee level and fee method and risk. Courts granted the requested fee in over 70 percent of the cases, with courts in the Second Circuit granting the requested amount least often. In cases in which the requested fee was not awarded, the mean fee was 68 percent of the requested amount. Costs are modest, with both means and median costs comprising less than 3 percent of the class recovery. Fees and costs both exhibit scale effects, with the percent of each decreasing as the class recovery amount increased. Costs are strongly associated with hours expended on the case. Fees were not significantly affected by the existence of a settlement class, the presence of objectors, or opt outs from the class. Section II of this article describes the data gathering and coding. Section III presents the relation between fee amount and class recovery and fee percent and class recovery over time, and by locale (including state and federal courts), and by case category. It also explores the relation between the fee and risk, settlement class, and the presence of opt outs and objectors. Section IV assesses the relation between the fee and the method used to compute

4

See, e.g., Thompson v. Connick, 553 F.3d 836 (5th Cir. 2008); Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp., 223 F.3d 190, 195 n.1 (3d Cir. 2000); Spell v. McDaniel, 824 F.2d 1380, 1402 n.18 (4th Cir. 1987).

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 5 of 35

Attorney Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements

251

the fee, as well as the pattern of multipliers used in connection with lodestar fees. Section V reports on the pattern of costs and expenses. Section VI presents multivariate results that confirm our core findings. Section VII discusses the results and Section VIII concludes.

II. Methodology

The results reported here were gathered in two segments. The first segment covered cases reported from 1993 to 2002 and its results are reported in previous work.5 That study also described the motivation for the variables used in this study. The basis for believing that the variables studied might relate to fee awards is reasonably self-evident and need not be repeated here. As previously reported, we searched in the WESTLAWTM "AllCases" database using the search "settlement & `class action' & attorney! w/2 fee! & date(=[1993­2002])". This search's results were checked against a search of the LEXISTM "Mega" database using equivalent search terms. We also compiled lists of citations in the cases found by these search requests and included any additional cases meeting the basic search criteria. We further checked the list against the CCHTM Federal Securities and Trade Regulation Reporters. Once cases had been identified by this method, we sometimes gathered additional information about case characteristics from other sources--for example, information on the Internet or docket entries in the U.S. Courts PACER system. The second segment covered the period 2003 to 2008, inclusive. We replicated the WESTLAW search (expanded to include the term "derivative" to make doubly sure we picked up all derivative settlements) and checked the results, in many cases, against information available on the Internet or in PACER. The present study focuses solely on common fund cases and does not assess cases in which a court applied a statutory fee-shifting statute to assess fees. Our searches and exclusion criteria yielded recovery and fee information for a total sample of 689 common fund cases. Relatively more cases come from the later period (301 cases for six years from 2003 to 2008 compared with 388 cases for the preceding 10 years). This was principally due to the significantly expanded coverage of the PACER system in the later period, and also to our inclusion of cases in which fee-shifting statutes could have been applied but the fee was not determined by formally applying the fee-shifting statute. We used the following conventions for coding in both searches. If the court stated a range of value (e.g., for the amount of class recovery), we used the midpoint. If there was no better estimate available but a maximum recovery value could be ascertained, we used the maximum possible recovery. If the court estimated the relief at "over" or "more than" a sum, the sum that was the minimum was used. Where the settlement amount included post- or prejudgment interest, we included that in the amount of the settlement. We collected only the number of attorney hours, thus excluding, where possible, the (usually minor) hours reported for paralegals or law clerks.

5

For our prior empirical study of class action attorney fees, see Theodore Eisenberg & Geoffrey P. Miller, Attorney Fees in Class Action Settlements: An Empirical Study, 1 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 27 (2004).

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 6 of 35

252

Eisenberg and Miller

To code the court's fee calculation method, we tracked whether the court engaged in a lodestar calculation and, if so, the purity of the lodestar approach. This generated the following fee method categories: (1) percentage method cases in which no lodestar calculation exists, (2) cases in which both the lodestar calculation and the percentage approach were used (usually with the lodestar being employed as a "cross-check" on the percentage fee), and (3) pure lodestar cases in which the lodestar method was the exclusive method used. If the lodestar amount was not specified, but could be estimated with reasonable accuracy, we included it. We used plaintiffs' own estimates of their lodestar only when these estimates were not contested by the court. In some cases, the court simply reported a fee without explaining its methodology; these we recorded as missing or as "negotiated" if the approved fee was the one negotiated by the parties. The coding of variables related to fee shifting was somewhat subtle. Many class action cases are brought under numerous claims for relief, some of which authorize the court to award fees to the prevailing plaintiff or prevailing party. When these cases settle, the courts often set fees without reference to the fee-shifting statute. Even when fee-shifting statutes are potentially available, the fee is often awarded out of the class recovery. Our "fee-shifting" variable codes whether the fee could have been calculated under a fee-shifting statute had the case progressed to a litigated judgment, regardless of whether the court actually invoked the fee-shifting statute as a basis for awarding the fee. For the later cases (2003­2008), we kept track of whether the court had actually used the fee-shifting statute as a basis for awarding the fee. In that period, a fee-shifting statute was available in 177 cases but was used as the basis for awarding the fee in only 21 cases, 11.9 percent. We included as common fund cases the 156 cases in which fee-shifting statutes were available but were not used. Preliminary regression models indicated no significant difference in fee awards between these cases and "purer" common fund cases. For many other variables, coding was reasonably straightforward. In employment discrimination and civil rights cases, two prominent categories of fee-shifting statute cases, the amount of the relief to the class, as expected, often was difficult to quantify because an important element of relief in such cases was often injunctive. For civil rights cases involving only injunctive relief, the cost to the defendant was used as a measure of the value of the relief for the class when this was available. In some fee-shifting cases, the court awarded attorney fees but it was impossible to estimate the amount of class damages. These fee and recovery coding conventions led to usable values for the fee amount and the client recovery, two of our core variables, in the 689 cases studied here. We also coded cases for risk. Where the court addressed the question of risk, we coded according to our best estimate of the court's evaluation. In many cases, however, the court did not explicitly address the risk of the litigation. Coding therefore depended on assuming that risk was not prominent in cases in which courts did not mention it. We divided the cases into three risk categories. If nothing was said about risk or if the court's discussion suggested a normal degree of risk, the case was coded as being medium risk. If the court affirmatively indicated the existence of substantial risk, or if exceptional risk was evident from the facts or procedural history of the case, we coded the case as having high risk. If the court indicated or the facts otherwise suggested that the case was very likely to generate a substantial recovery for the class at the time it was brought (e.g., if the case grew

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 7 of 35

Attorney Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements

253

out of a prior government prosecution that had resulted in fines or convictions), we coded the case as low risk. As in our earlier work, two caveats about using published opinions are in order. First, our data include only opinions that were published in some readily available form. Obviously, therefore, we have not included the full universe of cases in our data set. Although published opinions are not necessarily representative of the universe of all cases, they can lead to important insights. For judges seeking to inform their fee decisions with knowledge of other cases, published opinions are the prime source of data. Further, the present study expands on the published opinion data by delving into unpublished materials available on PACER when these could supply information missing from the published case reports. A second caveat about the published opinion data is that this methodology overweights federal cases. Opinions of state trial court judges are published less frequently than opinions of federal district courts; and since fee awards are typically reported in the court of first instance, we found many more federal than state opinions responsive to our search request. Further, the PACER system allowed us to "dig" for more information in the case of federal opinions. There is no state analog to PACER, and therefore we could only rarely discover information about fees and related issues when a state opinion on a class action or derivative case failed to report the necessary data.

III. Bivariate Results: Fee Amount and Fee Percent

We first examine bivariate results--that is, the relation between either the fee amount or the fee percent and one of the other variables coded in our data. We outline the persistent regular relationship between fees and recovery in both data sets (1993­2002 and 2003­ 2008). We then examine the pattern of fees across other dimensions such as time, locale, case category, risk, settlement class status, and the presence of opt outs and objectors. All amounts are in 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars. A. The Persistent Relation Between Fee and Recovery The relation between fee amount and class recovery has remained consistent over time. Figure 1 shows scatterplots of the fee amount and class recovery for each of the two time periods (Figures 1a and 1b), for the time periods combined (Figure 1c), and for cases with recoveries greater than or equal to $100 million (Figure 1d). The scales have been transformed into log10 units to address the bunching of cases at the lower end of the recovery scale that would occur in a linear dollar scale. Units of log10 can easily be interpreted because the log10 scale is simply based on powers of 10 (e.g., a value of 9 on a log10 scale is equal to $1 billion, or one followed by nine zeros). Figures 1a and 1b show that the pattern is virtually unchanged over time. The associations between fee and recovery are striking and large. The linear correlation between fee and recovery exceeds 0.94 for each time period and the slope of the relationships appears constant for the two time periods. In a regression model with a dummy

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 8 of 35

254

Eisenberg and Miller

Figure 1: Fees as a function of recovery.

a. 1993-2002

9 9

b. 2003-2008

5

4

4

5

6 7 8 Recovery (log 10)

9

10

4 4

5

Fee (log 10) 6 7 8

Fee (log 10) 7 8 6

5

6 7 8 Recovery (log 10)

9

10

c. Time Periods Combined

9 Fee (log 10) 7.5 8 8.5 9

d. Recoveries of $100 Million or More

5

Fee (log 10) 6 7 8

4

5

6 7 8 Recovery (log 10)

9

10

6.5 8

4

7

8.5

9 9.5 Recovery (log 10)

10

variable for time period and an interaction term consisting of the product of the time period dummy variable and the class recovery size, one cannot reject the hypothesis that the dummy variable and the interaction term coefficients are jointly zero, thus confirming the consistency of the pattern. The relation between fees and class recoveries is also observed when the data are combined, as shown in Figure 1c. In both the separate and combined data sets, the size of the class recovery swamps all other influences on the size of the fee, as shown in regression models in Section VI of this article.6 Figure 1d, which is limited to large cases, also shows a strong linear relation between fee and recovery. For these 109 cases, the linear correlation coefficient is 0.77 (p < 0.0001). The decreased slope for the high end of case recoveries is consistent with the scaling effect discussed in Section III.B.4 of this article. Figure 2 further supports the primacy of the recovery as the explanation for the fee award. For ease of comparison, Figure 2a reproduces the combined time period data from Figure 1c. Figures 2b and 2c show that neither the hours claimed nor the age of a case are as strongly associated with the fee amount as is the class recovery amount. With six additional years of data, we can extend our prior analysis of the pattern of fees and class recoveries over time. One notable earlier finding was the absence of

6

Figure 1b shows the later time period with more low-recovery cases (less than $100,000). This is likely attributable to our inclusion in the non-fee-shifting sample cases in which a fee-shifting statute existed but was not used, as well as to the information about smaller cases now available on PACER See Section II.

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 9 of 35

Attorney Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements

255

Figure 2:

Fee as a function of recovery, hours, and age, 2003­2008.

a. Fee as a Function of Recovery b. Fee as a Function of Hours

9

9

4

5

4

5

6 7 8 Recovery (log 10)

9

10

4 1

5

Fee (log 10) 8 6 7

Fee (log 10) 6 7 8

2

3 4 Hours (log 10)

5

6

c. Fee as a Function of Age

9 4 0 5 Fee (log 10) 6 7 8

1

2

3

4 5 6 7 8 Age of case in years

9

10

increases in class recoveries or fees over time,7 a finding that heartened opponents of attempts to reform the class action system via the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA)8 and prompted a response from a noted Yale Law School professor.9 The newer data reveal that the level of both class recoveries and attorney fees has not varied substantially over time. As Figure 3 shows, these amounts have shown no distinct time trend for most of 16 years. Inflation-adjusted recoveries and fees through 2007 were at levels not significantly different from levels in 1993 and in fact are lower in inflation-adjusted dollars. In 2008, a noticeable drop in mean and median recoveries and fees occurred. The difference in class recovery medians between 2008 and all earlier years combined is statistically significant at p = 0.002, and the difference in fees between 2008 and earlier years is significant at p = 0.0003. The difference in the median ratio of fee to recovery (ratio of the logs) did not significantly differ between 2008 and earlier years

7

Eisenberg & Miller, supra note 5.

8

Class Action Fairness Act, Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005). See 149 Cong. Rec. S1299902 (Oct. 22, 2003) (remarks of Senator Feingold); 151 Cong. Rec. S1086-02 (Feb. 8, 2005) (remarks of Senator Feingold). George L. Priest, What We Know and What We Don't Know About Modern Class Actions: A Review of the Eisenberg-Miller Study (Feb. 2005, Manhattan Inst.).

9

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 10 of 35

256

Eisenberg and Miller

Figure 3: Class recovery and attorney fee over time, mean and median.

7.5 6 1993 Amount (log(10) 6.5 7

1995

1997

1999

2001 Year

2003

2005

2007

Mean recovery Mean fee

Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

Median recovery Median fee

(p = 0.517).10 We therefore do not view the changes in 2008 as necessarily indicating anything significant about longer-term fee patterns. B. Locales, Case Categories, and Other Factors Table 1 shows the distribution of cases by locale. It combines all 25 federal appellate opinions into one category, "Appeal," and all 75 state cases into one category, "State." Federal district court cases dominate the sample, accounting for approximately 85 percent of the cases. The federal class action cases cluster by districts. The Southern District of New York accounted for 103 of 589 federal district court cases, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania accounted for 70 such cases. They are the only two districts to account for 10 percent or more of the federal trial court portion of the sample and together accounted for 25 percent of all cases in the sample. Two other districts accounted for more than 5 percent of the federal court portion of the sample: the Northern District of California had 47 cases

10

This pattern of average and median fees in more recent years may be partly due to the increase in smaller cases that we were able to code by accessing the PACER database and to inclusion in the later period of cases in which fee-shifting statutes were theoretically available but not used to set the fee. We investigated whether a changing mix of cases explained the pattern by separately assessing, for the two time periods, cases with recoveries greater than or equal to $5 million and recoveries less than $5 million. For both recovery size groups, the difference in recovery across the two time periods was not statistically significantly different. The difference over time in medians for cases with recoveries greater than or equal to $5 million was significant at p = 0.590; for cases with recoveries less than $5 million, the difference in medians was significant at p = 0.749. But the smaller cases were more prevalent in the later period. Cases with recoveries of less than $5 million comprised 33 percent of the later period cases compared to 24 percent of the earlier period cases, a difference statistically significant at p = 0.022. Thus the decreasing recovery amount over time is attributable to a different mix of cases in our sample, and not to differences in treatment of similar cases over time. Thus, throughout more than a decade of civil litigation reform efforts based on claims of increasing awards and fees, the pattern in available opinions, which tend to include the largest cases, has not significantly changed.

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 11 of 35

Attorney Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements

257

Table 1: Frequency of Class Action Fee Opinions, by Court, 1993­2008

Locale Other SDNY State EDPA NDCA DNJ NDIL EDNY APPEAL DDC EDMI DMN EDLA MDFL EDCA CDCA DMA SDCA Total N 161 103 75 70 47 35 29 26 25 18 17 16 13 12 12 10 10 10 689 % of Cases 23.37 14.95 10.89 10.16 6.82 5.08 4.21 3.77 3.63 2.61 2.47 2.32 1.89 1.74 1.74 1.45 1.45 1.45 100.00

Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

and the District of New Jersey 35 cases. The Northern District of Illinois had just under 5 percent of the federal district cases. Together, these five districts accounted for over 50 percent of the federal district court opinions. These results suggest that class action litigation in the federal system is heavily concentrated in a few jurisdictions. Of the 94 federal district courts, nearly half of all class actions in our data set occurred in five courts. Even adjusting for population (the popular class action districts also tend to be ones with large populations), the concentration ratio remains striking. We take this as evidence that certain jurisdictions offer advantages for class action litigation, either in the form of experienced judges who can handle these cases in a fair and expeditious manner, faster dockets, a sense on the part of plaintiffs' attorneys that the courts in these districts are reasonably well-inclined toward class action litigation, or a concentration of class action attorneys specializing in the practice. We also investigated whether different federal courts appear to specialize in different types of cases. Table 2 shows the breakdown of the four largest case types, plus the residual case type, "Other," in the federal district courts with the largest number of class action settlements in our data (those listed in Table 1). For each case category, one column shows the percent of cases in each district and a second column shows the number of cases. For example, the Southern District of New York accounted for 70 of 253 securities cases, 28 percent of that category. Thus, the Southern District of New York tends to dominate securities class actions, whereas the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is the leader in antitrust

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 12 of 35

258 Table 2:

Eisenberg and Miller

Class Action Case Categories by Locale, 1993­2008

Antitrust Consumer % 35 1 14 7 7 7 7 1 0 3 3 2 2 2 5 2 100 N 34 1 13 7 7 7 7 1 0 3 3 2 2 2 5 2 96 Employment % 30 10 2 14 2 4 2 0 0 4 4 16 2 6 0 4 100 N 15 5 1 7 1 2 1 0 0 2 2 8 1 3 0 2 50 Securities % 21 28 14 8 6 5 6 1 2 2 2 0 3 1 1 2 100 N 52 70 36 19 15 12 14 2 6 6 4 0 7 3 2 5 253 % 38 18 6 8 5 2 1 4 7 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 100 Other N 49 23 8 10 7 2 1 5 9 2 4 2 1 2 2 1 128 % 27 18 12 8 6 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 100 Total N 160 103 70 47 35 29 26 18 17 16 13 12 12 10 10 10 588

District Other SDNY EDPA NDCA DNJ NDIL EDNY DDC EDMI DMN EDLA EDCA MDFL CDCA DMA SDCA Total

% 16 7 20 7 8 10 5 16 3 5 0 0 2 0 2 0 100

N 10 4 12 4 5 6 3 10 2 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 61

Note: Table includes only federal district court cases. Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

and consumer cases. The Northern and Eastern Districts of California are the leaders in employment cases. Table 2 shows that the SDNY's dominance is almost completely attributable to its large role in securities cases. 1. Fees Across Locales Table 3 shows summary statistics about fees and recoveries by locale. The mean fee to recovery ratio was 0.23, or 23 percent of the class award, but this percent varies by recovery size, as shown in Figure 5 and Table 7. The mean fee was $12.8 million and the median was $2.3 million. The mean class recovery was $116.0 million and the median was $12.5 million. Some bankruptcy case fee studies11 and other studies of case outcomes show notable interdistrict variation. Like these studies, we find significant variation across federal districts. For the 16 federal districts with at least 10 cases with necessary information in the

11

See Lynn M. LoPucki & Joseph W. Doherty, The Determinants of Professional Fees in Large Bankruptcy Reorganization Cases, 1 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 111, 114, 136 (2004) (showing significant fee request reduction variation across Delaware and the Southern District of New York); Stephen J. Lubben, Corporate Reorganization and Professional Fees, 82 Am. Bankr. L.J. 82 (2008) (showing some significant Delaware and Southern District of New York effects). But see Lynn M. LoPucki & Joseph W. Doherty, Professional Overcharging in Large Bankruptcy Reorganization Cases, 5 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 983, 1010 (2008) (tbl. 5, showing insignificant Delaware and Southern District of New York effects).

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 13 of 35

Attorney Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements

259

Table 3:

Fee and Class Recoveries, by Locale, 1993­2008

Mean Ratio Median Ratio 0.20 0.25 0.22 0.15 0.27 0.22 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.25 0.29 0.21 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.24 Mean Fee 5.89 3.93 16.69 11.50 8.77 32.26 0.40 7.79 6.56 11.33 12.66 3.64 4.44 12.14 20.47 4.66 11.54 5.94 12.84 Median Fee 2.15 2.75 2.14 7.00 4.75 7.80 0.12 1.77 1.34 2.38 1.51 2.66 2.00 2.75 3.25 1.14 2.13 2.00 2.33 Mean Gross Recovery 57.86 16.30 134.79 118.55 40.99 503.42 3.26 43.53 34.80 142.42 75.79 18.23 24.06 51.45 154.98 63.12 127.97 61.61 116.01 Median Gross Recovery 13.37 19.90 13.00 81.00 14.25 36.88 0.54 8.61 11.75 9.03 6.88 14.87 9.25 12.50 16.38 4.90 12.85 12.32 12.50 Number of Cases 25 10 18 10 16 35 12 13 17 26 70 12 47 29 161 10 103 75 689

APPEAL CDCA DDC DMA DMN DNJ EDCA EDLA EDMI EDNY EDPA MDFL NDCA NDIL Other SDCA SDNY State Total

0.19 0.25 0.22 0.16 0.25 0.21 0.26 0.26 0.22 0.32 0.28 0.21 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.26 0.22 0.20 0.23

Note: Dollar amounts are in millions of 2008 dollars. Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

sample (including "Other" as a district), a test of the hypothesis that the median ratio of fee to class recovery does not differ significantly can be rejected, with a Mann-Whitney test yielding a significance level of p = 0.014. Given the strong association between fee and class recovery, we explored these initial interdistrict differences by accounting for recovery level and case category in regression models. The district dummy variables were collectively statistically significant (p = 0.035), indicating that when the size of class recoveries and case categories are accounted for, one can reject the hypothesis of no statistically significant interdistrict differences. Table 3's first two numerical columns suggest that interdistrict differences can be nontrivial but are not dramatic. With one exception, the District of Massachusetts, the median ratio always ranges from 0.20 to 0.29. In federal courts, attorney fee doctrine is dictated at the circuit court level if the appeals court has issued an opinion on point (the Supreme Court has never offered definitive guidance on this issue). The Ninth Circuit has a 25 percent benchmark fee in common fund cases but allows departures based on individual case factors,12 and the Eleventh Circuit has indicated that its district courts view 25 percent as a benchmark.13

12

E.g., Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d 1370, 1376 (9th Cir. 1993). Camden I Condo. Ass'n v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768, 775 (11th Cir. 1991).

13

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 14 of 35

260 Table 4:

Eisenberg and Miller

Fee and Class Recoveries, by Federal Circuit, 1993­2008

Mean Ratio 0.20 0.23 0.26 0.20 0.24 0.23 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.24 Median Ratio 0.20 0.24 0.26 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.30 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.25 Mean Fee 31.83 10.58 17.38 29.27 42.39 10.42 8.79 11.21 4.53 12.46 17.35 15.17 13.74 Median Fee 3.50 2.13 3.00 1.89 2.63 3.33 2.15 4.18 1.80 7.42 4.22 1.94 2.40 Mean Gross Recovery 227.41 119.06 193.50 320.07 368.34 94.65 38.37 68.35 32.97 63.96 87.09 122.04 123.12 Median Gross Recovery 19.32 11.63 13.38 13.55 15.65 15.50 10.07 14.70 9.50 32.00 26.85 11.00 12.50 Number of Cases 21 145 120 8 26 42 42 29 101 22 34 20 610

Circuit 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th DC Total

Note: Three Federal Circuit cases and all state court cases are omitted. Dollar amounts are in millions of 2008 dollars. Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

The Eleventh and D.C. Circuits mandate the percentage methodexclusively, while other circuits allow percentage or lodestar methods.14 The Second Circuit's Goldberger decision rejected the use of benchmarks and mandated a fact-specific inquiry.15 Table 4 explores intercircuit variation, showing summary statistics about fees and recoveries by circuit, and excludes state court cases. The median and mean fee to recovery ratios were 0.24 and 0.25, respectively. In regression models of the ratio, circuit dummy variables were not collectively statistically significant (p = 0.124), indicating that when the size of class recoveries and case categories are accounted for, one cannot reject the hypothesis of no statistically significant intercircuit differences. We also explored differences between particular circuits and all other circuits based on announced benchmarks and methods. In regression models using dummy variables for individual circuits, and controlling for case category and recovery size, none of the individual circuit effects were statistically significant. Nor were differences within the Second Circuit significantly different pre- and post-Goldberger.16

14

Swedish Hosp. Corp. v. Shalala, 1 F.3d 1261, 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1993); Camden I Condo. Ass'n v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768, 774 (11th Cir. 1991). Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000).

15

16

Nor was the variance in fee percent significantly different between the Ninth or Eleventh Circuits and other circuits. For a more in-depth exploration of the effect (or lack of effect) of the Goldberger decision, see Theodore Eisenberg, Geoffrey Miller & Michael Perino, A New Look at Judicial Impact: Attorneys' Fees in Securities Class Actions After Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 29 Wash. U. J. Law & Policy 5 (2009).

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 15 of 35

Attorney Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements

261

2. State-Federal Differences We hypothesized that the fee percent would tend to be higher in class actions in state court than in federal court.17 Beliefs in differences in how federal and state courts process class actions were cited as reasons for enactment of CAFA.18 The Congress that enacted CAFA intended to route interstate class actions to federal court, "with the expressed intent of defeating the plaintiffs' bar's manipulation of state courts."19 President George W. Bush declared that it "marks a critical step toward ending the lawsuit culture in our country."20 Empirical support for CAFA was almost entirely lacking, however, with both Federal Judicial Center (FJC) research21 and our own prior work22 suggesting little in the way of significant state-federal defferences. Table 3 shows that the mean fee to class recovery ratio for state court cases was 0.20, lower than the overall mean ratio of 0.24. Regression models of the fee (log 10) or the ratio (of logs) as a function of the case category and the class recovery size indicate that the federal-state difference was sometimes statistically significant in the direction suggested by Table 3--namely, that state courts award lower percentage fees.23 The direction of the effect is surprising if one believes federal courts are less receptive to class actions than are state courts. A lower fee to recovery ratio suggests somewhat less encouragement of class action activity by state courts compared to federal courts. 3. Case Categories Table 5 summarizes fees, recoveries, and their ratios by case categories. Mean fees ranged from 11 percent of the class recovery in tax cases to 27 percent in employment cases. In the

17

Eisenberg & Miller, supra note 5.

18

Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005) (codified in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.). See generally Kevin M. Clermont & Theodore Eisenberg, CAFA Judicata: A Tale of Waste and Politics, 156 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1553 (2008); Georgene M. Vairo, Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (2005). Clermont & Eisenberg, supra note 18, at 1554­55.

19

20

Remarks on Signing the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 41 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 265, 265 (Feb. 18, 2005); see also Edward A. Purcell, Jr., The Class Action Fairness Act in Perspective: The Old and the New in Federal Jurisdictional Reform, 156 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1823 (2008) (stressing partisan support for CAFA). Thomas E. Willging & Shannon R. Wheatman, Attorney Choice of Forum in Class Action Litigation: What Difference Does it Make? 81 Notre Dame L. Rev. 591, 645, 652­54 (2006) (finding insignificant differences in state court and federal court treatment of class actions, and observing that "[a]ttorney perceptions of judicial predispositions toward their clients' interests show little or no relationship to the judicial rulings in the surveyed [state and federal class action] cases"). See also Section VII. Eisenberg & Miller, supra note 5.

21

22

23

The state court effect was significant in multilevel models with a random intercept for case category. The effect was insignificant in models with dummy variables for case category.

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 16 of 35

262 Table 5:

Eisenberg and Miller

Fee and Class Recoveries, by Case Category, 1993­2008

Mean Ratio Median Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.20 0.19 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.20 0.25 0.24 Mean Fee 21.02 4.10 10.04 3.35 2.43 6.61 14.78 12.96 30.15 13.59 12.84 Median Fee 9.15 1.52 1.70 1.12 0.75 3.46 2.52 5.50 6.33 2.00 2.33 Mean Gross Recovery 163.48 16.53 128.42 16.51 12.28 29.54 141.96 188.01 254.60 61.86 116.01 Median Gross Recovery 39.36 7.48 9.33 9.86 3.00 14.00 12.50 60.07 25.86 10.75 12.50 Number of Cases 71 18 125 30 55 43 268 8 29 42 689

Antitrust Civil rights Consumer Corporate Employment ERISA Securities Tax refund/tax Tort Other Total

0.22 0.24 0.25 0.21 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.11 0.21 0.23 0.23

Note: Dollar amounts are in millions of 2008 dollars. Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

Table 6:

Frequency of Case Categories, by Time Period

Non-Fee-Shifting Cases 1993­2002 N % of Cases in Period 11.9 0.7 17.2 5.0 2.3 2.3 46.9 2.0 5.6 6.3 100 N 35 16 73 15 48 36 126 2 12 23 386 2003­2008 % of Cases in Period 9.1 4.2 18.9 3.9 12.4 9.3 32.6 0.5 3.1 6.0 100

Antitrust Civil rights Consumer Corporate Employment ERISA Securities Tax refund/tax Tort Other Total

36 2 52 15 7 7 142 6 17 19 303

Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

larger case categories, fees ranged from 21 percent to 27 percent of recoveries. A test of the hypothesis that the median ratio of fees to recoveries is the same across case categories can be rejected at p < 0.022, if one includes the small civil rights and tax categories. But the effect becomes statistically insignificant if one excludes the two smallest categories (p = 0.222). The case category makeup of the samples varied over time. Table 6 shows the case category breakdown for the time period of our prior study and the years 2003 to 2008, added for purposes of this study. In each time period, securities cases were the dominant case category, but they declined as a proportion of the sample in the later time period. This

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 17 of 35

Attorney Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements

263

Figure 4:

10

Fee and recovery by case category, 1993­2008.

Antitrust Civil Rights Consumer Corporate

4

6

8

Employment

ERISA

Securities

Tax Refund/Tax

Fee (log 10)

4

6

8

10

Tort

10

Other

4

6

8

4

6

8

10 4

6

8

10

Gross recovery (log10)

Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

is due to the increase in the proportion of civil rights, employment, and ERISA cases, which likely increased because of the change in coding, discussed above, to allow inclusion with common fund cases, cases subject to a fee-shifting statute but in which the fee was not determined pursuant to the statute, as well as to increased availability of information through the PACER database. Figure 4 explores whether the core relation between fee amount and class recovery varies by case category. It shows that relation through separate scatterplots for 10 case categories. The consistency of the pattern across category is striking. Every category shows the same basic relation between fee and recovery. 4. Scaling Effect The existence of a scaling effect--the fee percent decreases as class recovery increases--is central to justifying aggregate litigation such as class actions. Plaintiffs' ability to aggregate into classes that reduce the percentage of recovery devoted to fees should be a hallmark of a well-functioning class action system.24 As Figure 5 shows, a substantial scaling effect existed

24

Eisenberg & Miller, supra note 5.

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 18 of 35

264

Eisenberg and Miller

Figure 5: Fee as a percent of recovery for two time periods.

100

1993-2002

2003-08

Fee percent

0 4

20

40

60

80

5

6

7

8

9

10 4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Recovery (log 10)

Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

in the 2003­2008 period, as well as in the earlier 1993­2002 period. The linear correlation coefficient for 2003­2008 was -0.57 and for 1993­2002 was -0.50, both statistically significant at p < 0.0001. The lines in the figure show the best-fitting regression line for each data subset. Table 7 presents additional information about the scale effect. For purposes of this table, we divided the range of class recoveries into deciles of about 69 cases each. Table 7's first column shows the bounds on the deciles, starting with the lowest decile of class recoveries. Thus the table's first numerical row includes cases with class recoveries in the first decile, those recoveries less than or equal to $1.1 million. The table's last row includes cases in the highest decile, those with recoveries greater than $175.5 million. The table's columns show, within each decile range, the mean, median, and standard deviation of the fee percent for the row decile. Thus, for the 69 cases with class recoveries of less than $1.1 million, the mean fee percent award was 37.9 percent in 69 cases, the median fee percent award was 32.3 percent, and the standard deviation was 19.6 percent. Although there is some fluctuation in the scale effect trend across the middle deciles, the overall trend is clear, with the highest decile having less than one-third of the median and mean percentage fee of the lowest decile.

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 19 of 35

Attorney Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements

265

Table 7: Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation of Fee Percent, Controlling for Class Recovery Amount, 1993­2008

Range of Class Recovery (Millions) Decile Recovery <= 1.1 Recovery > 1.1 <= 2.8 Recovery > 2.8 <= 5.3 Recovery > 5.3 <= 8.7 Recovery > 8.7 <= 14.3 Recovery > 14.3 <= 22.8 Recovery > 22.8 <= 38.3 Recovery > 38.3 <= 69.6 Recovery > 69.6 <= 175.5 Recovery > 175.5 Mean 37.9 27.1 26.4 22.8 23.8 22.7 22.1 20.5 19.4 12.0 Median 32.3 26.4 25.0 22.1 25.0 23.5 24.9 21.9 19.9 10.2 SD 19.6 9.1 9.8 8.4 8.1 7.5 8.7 10.0 8.4 7.9 N 69 69 69 69 69 69 68 70 69 68

Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

Table 8:

Fee Percent, by Risk Level

High Risk N Fee % 20.1 29.3 31.3 23.4 35.1 24.6 26.4 -- 25.1 22.1 26.1 Low/Medium Risk N 62 13 110 26 51 38 217 8 21 29 575 Fee % 22.2 23.2 24.7 20.8 26.2 23.2 22.7 10.8 19.0 23.9 23.1

Antitrust Civil rights Consumer Corporate Employment ERISA Securities Tax refund/tax Tort Other Total

9 4 14 4 4 5 45 -- 8 13 106

Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

5. Risk Standards applied to attorney fees uniformly indicate that greater risk warrants an increased fee.25 Table 8 reports, by case category, the mean fee percent separately for high risk and other cases. It confirms that courts systematically reward risk. For every case category except antitrust and "other," mean fee percents were higher in high-risk cases than in other cases. The difference within a case category between high-risk cases and other cases

25

E.g., Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir. 2000).

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 20 of 35

266

Eisenberg and Miller

Table 9: Fee Percent and Settlement Classes, Opt Outs, Objectors

Period 2003­2008 N A. Settlement Class Status Settlement class Not a settlement class B. Presence of Objectors Any objector No objector C. Number of Opt Outs No opt outs One opt out >One opt out

Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

Fee %

208 160 142 123 28 20 116

24.4% 25.4% 23.4% 28.6% 34.6% 37.2% 23.6%

was statistically significant only for the large securities category (t test significance level, p = 0.006). 6. Settlement Classes, Opt Outs, and Objectors Table 9 reports the relation between the fee percent and three class action case characteristics: settlement class status (Panel A),26 whether any objection was filed (Panel B), and the number of class members opting out of the class (Panel C). We collected useful data on these issues only for the later time period (2003­2008). No significant difference in fee percent for settlement class cases compared to nonsettlement class cases emerged. There were significant differences in the fee percent for cases with and without objectors. Cases with objectors tended to have lower fee percents than cases without objectors. Cases with more than one opting-out class member tended to have lower fee percents than cases with zero or one opting-out class member. But, in regression models that supplement those reported in Table 17, the objector and opt-out variables were found not to be significant once one controlled for recovery size.

IV. Bivariate Results: Fee Methods and Multipliers

The dominant method used to calculate fees in class actions has evolved from considering multiple factors27 to the dominance of two other methods, the lodestar and percentage

26

A settlement class is a case in which a class was certified for settlement purposes only.

27

The factors include the time and labor required, the customary fee, whether the fee is fixed or contingent, the amount involved and the results obtained, the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, awards in similar

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 21 of 35

Attorney Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements

267

Table 10:

Frequency of Method Used, by Time Period

1993­2002 N % of Cases in Period 13.6 56.4 24.3 5.7 100 N 37 146 165 38 386 2003­2008 % of Cases in Period 9.6 37.8 42.8 9.8 100

Lodestar Percent Both (usually % with LS check) Other Total

Note: LS = lodestar method. Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

38 158 68 16 280

methods. Under the lodestar method, courts multiply the reasonable number of hours expended by counsel by a reasonable hourly rate and then adjust the product for various factors.28 Under the percentage method, the court multiplies the amount recovered on behalf of the class by a percentage factor. Some courts adopt a blended approach that checks the percentage method for reasonableness against a lodestar calculation.29 We explore here the rates at which courts use the fee calculation methods, the relation between those methods and fees, the rates at which courts granted requested fees, and the use of multipliers in cases using the lodestar method. A. Lodestar 1. Frequency of Use of Lodestar Versus Percent Table 10 reports the rate of use of competing methods of computing a fee award. One result is the decline in the use of the lodestar method. From 1993 to 2002, 13.6 percent of cases used a pure lodestar method. From 2003 to 2008, only 9.6 percent of cases used the lodestar method, a notable but not statistically significant reduction (p = 0.136). This is likely due to the relatively few cases using the lodestar method exclusively. Table 10 also suggests a reduction in use of the pure percent method, from 56.4 percent to 37.8 percent, but this understates the dominance of the percent method. For the 1993 to 2002 period, we coded which method was primary and which was used as a check. In non-fee-shifting cases in this period, 61 cases used the percent method with a lodestar

cases, the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, the time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, the novelty and difficulty of the questions, the skill needed to perform the legal services, and the "undesirability" of the case. The leading precedent outlining this multifactor approach is Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714, 717­19 (5th Cir. 1974).

28

E.g., Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002). See Charles Silver, Unloading the Lodestar: Toward a New Fee Award Procedure, 70 Tex. L. Rev. 865 (1992); Charles Silver, Due Process and the Lodestar Method: You Can't Get There from Here, 74 Tulane L. Rev. 1809 (2000). See notes 12­15 supra for circuit level case law addressing the fee method to be used.

29

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 22 of 35

268

Eisenberg and Miller

Figure 6: Pure lodestar use over time.

0

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

.1

Proportion lodestar .2 .3 .4

.5

Year Securities cases Other cases

check compared with three cases that used the lodestar method with the percent method as a check. The 68 cases shown as using "both" methods in the earlier period included an additional four cases that used both methods without indicating which was dominant. So cases coded as using "both" methods were almost always percent method cases with a lodestar check. We used less detailed coding of the method in the second period. If a case used both methods, we simply coded it as "both." Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that the "both" cases in the second period are similar to those in the earlier period and are dominated by the percent method with the lodestar as a check. So our best estimate is that the percent method is the overwhelmingly dominant method of computing fees, either as the sole method or as the primary method with the lodestar as a check. Figure 6 shows the rate of pure lodestar use over time, with a separate line for the large subset of securities class actions. Figure 1's strong linear correlation between fee and recovery supports this assessment as a lodestar-dominated system would likely show a less strong association between fee and class recovery. Table 11 limits the sample to federal cases and shows the fee method used broken down by circuit. As suggested by Table 10, the use of the percent method, combined with the use of the percent method with a lodestar check, dominates. Table 11 shows that this is the pattern in every circuit, regardless of formal fee method doctrine. The lodestar method peaks at 21 percent of cases in the Sixth Circuit and only the Second Circuit combines nontrivial lodestar use with a substantial number of cases. The table slightly overstates the more recent federal rate of lodestar use, which totaled only 9 percent in cases from 2003 to 2008.

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 23 of 35

Attorney Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements

269

Table 11:

Fee Method by Circuit, Federal Cases, 1993­2008

Lodestar Percent % 60 37 37 50 40 62 61 59 48 41 52 50 100 46 N 12 51 43 4 10 24 25 17 48 9 17 10 3 273 % 35 40 56 38 36 13 17 34 30 45 36 35 0 37 Both N 7 55 65 3 9 5 7 10 30 10 12 7 0 220 % 0 5 3 0 4 5 12 7 13 5 9 15 0 7 Other N 0 7 3 0 1 2 5 2 13 1 3 3 0 40 % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Total N 20 139 117 8 25 39 41 29 100 22 33 20 3 596

Circuit 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th D.C. Federal Circuit Total

% 5 19 5 13 20 21 10 0 9 9 3 0 0 11

N 1 26 6 1 5 8 4 0 9 2 1 0 0 63

Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

Table 12:

Fee Percent by Method Used, by Time Period

1993­2002 N Mean Fee % of Recovery 17.2 23.4 22.9 11.4 21.7 N 37 146 165 38 386 2003­2008 Mean Fee % of Recovery 31.6 25.3 21.9 28.7 24.8

Lodestar Percent Both (usually % with LS check) Other Total

Note: LS = lodestar method. Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

38 158 68 16 280

2. Is Use of the Lodestar Method Associated with Lower Fee Awards? Table 12 explores the relation between fee method and fee percent. Although the table's first row suggests a substantial increase in fee percents in lodestar cases over time, the higher fee percents in recent lodestar cases are an artifact of case category. Consumer cases comprise 37 percent of the lodestar category and the difference between percent and lodestar methods vanishes if one excludes consumer cases. The consumer case category percent of cases changed for the two periods in our sample. Consumer cases were 59.5 percent of the lodestar cases in the later period compared to 15.8 percent of the lodestar cases in the earlier period. The lodestar method was used at a higher rate, 23.0 percent, in consumer cases than in any case category other than the small tax category. These highpercent consumer cases (see Table 8) are the source of the change in mean lodestar fee percents over time. The increased prominence of consumer cases in the later period

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 24 of 35

270

Eisenberg and Miller

sample is likely attributable to our including as common fund cases those in which a fee-shifting statute was theoretically available but was not in fact used. In regression models, reported below (see Table 18), the percent and "both" fee methods have positive and statistically significant coefficients compared to the lodestar method once case category is controlled for. For the period 2003 to 2008, we coded the hours worked by attorneys in cases with opinions reporting that information. The lower lodestar awards appear to be a consequence of fewer hours worked, or at least fewer hours claimed in court filings. Fewer hours were worked, on average, in lodestar method cases than in other cases and fewer hours were worked in consumer cases than in any other case category. As in regressions of the fee amount, regression of hours worked that controlled for fee method, case category, and circuit yielded coefficients for the percent and "both" method dummy variables that are statistically significant and positive compared to lodestar cases. B. Fee Grant Rates Fee requests were generally granted in the amount requested, with 72.5 percent of requests granted in full, as shown in Table 13's last row (Panel A). Our data for the rate of grants is limited to the 2003 to 2008 period because requested amounts were not recorded for the earlier time period. Table 13 shows that strong intercircuit differences (p = 0.012, excluding the two Federal Circuit cases) in the grant rate existed, with the Second Circuit granting the requested amount statistically significantly less often than the Third Circuit or the Ninth Circuit. These intercircuit differences remain significant in logistic regression models that control for case category and recovery amount, and in models that exclude securities cases. The table also shows that state courts tended to grant award requests at a lower rate than federal courts. The difference between federal and state grant rates was only statistically significant at p = 0.148. Fee requests were not granted in full in 100 of 363 cases. In those cases, the mean fee grant was 68 percent of the request and the median was 74 percent. The mean grant of 61 percent in state court cases was lower than the 69 percent in federal court cases and the median of 66 percent in state court cases was also lower than the median of 75 percent in federal court cases. However, only nine of the 100 cases with less than full grants were state court cases. Table 13, Panel B, shows the rate at which requested fees were granted in relation to the range of class of recovery, using the same decile ranges as Table 7. It shows a declining grant rate as the class recovery increases. The grant rate for the lowest recovery decile was 83 percent compared to 56 percent for the highest recovery decile. We interpret this as indicating that judges tend to scrutinize fee requests in large cases more closely than they do for smaller cases. Panel C shows the grant rate in relation to the percent of class recovery requested as fees. Instead of using class recovery deciles, it uses deciles of the percent of recovery requested, which range from the lowest decile of requests up to 11.8 percent of the recovery to the highest decile of requests over 35.7 percent. It shows a trend of decreasing grant rates as the percent of the recovery requested increased. Attorneys requesting the lowest percents received requested amounts

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 25 of 35

Attorney Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements

271

Table 13:

A. By Locale

Rates at Which Requested Fees Were Given, 2003­2008

Locale 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th D.C. Federal Circuit State court Total B. By Range of Class Recovery (Millions) Range of Class Recovery (Millions) Decile Recovery <= 1.1 Recovery > 1.1 <= 2.8 Recovery > 2.8 <= 5.3 Recovery > 5.3 <= 8.7 Recovery > 8.7 <= 14.3 Recovery > 14.3 <= 22.8 Recovery > 22.8 <= 38.3 Recovery > 38.3 <= 69.6 Recovery > 69.6 <= 175.5 Recovery > 175.5

Proportion of Fee Requests Granted in the Amount Requested 0.70 0.54 0.83 0.60 0.69 0.79 0.79 0.83 0.83 0.77 0.64 0.80 0.50 0.59 0.72

N 10 74 64 5 13 24 14 18 72 13 22 10 2 22 363

Rate Granted 0.83 0.75 0.82 0.67 0.77 0.68 0.76 0.68 0.67 0.56

N 52 36 38 33 35 34 33 34 36 32

C. By Range of Class Recovery Percent Requested Decile Rate Granted Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent of of of of of of of of recovery recovery recovery recovery recovery recovery recovery recovery requested <= 11.8% requested > 11.8% <= 17.8% requested > 17.8% <= 21.9% requested > 21.9% <= 25% requested > 25.0% <= 30.0% requested > 30.0% <= 33.3% requested > 33.3% <= 35.7% requested > 35.7% 0.81 0.86 0.62 0.76 0.72 0.71 0.67 0.61 N 36 36 37 75 72 35 36 36

Note: In Panel C, the number of observations in the fourth and fifth rows reflects the bunching of fee requests at 25 percent and 30 percent. They each occupy approximately two deciles of fee requests. Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 26 of 35

272

Eisenberg and Miller

Table 14: Mean Multiplier by Circuit and Case Category

Mean Multiplier A. Circuit 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th D.C. Federal Total B. Case Category Antitrust Civil rights Consumer Corporate Employment ERISA Securities Tort Other Total

Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

N

2.10 1.58 2.01 2.43 2.07 1.97 1.85 2.30 1.54 1.91 1.19 2.23 1.54 1.81 2.24 1.99 1.82 1.94 1.24 1.58 1.75 1.83 2.35 1.81

15 97 87 7 15 22 16 14 50 14 19 11 1 368 38 11 60 7 21 29 177 11 14 368

in 81 percent of cases compared to 61 percent for attorneys requesting the highest percents. This result suggests that attorneys who make more modest fee requests have a greater chance of having their requests granted. We explored the effects of the class recovery amount, percent of recovery requested, circuit, and type of case in logistic regression models in which whether the requested fee was granted was a dichotomous dependent variable. The class recovery amount and the percent of recovery requested were highly statistically significant (each p < 0.001), the circuit dummy variables were jointly significant at p = 0.005, and the case type dummy variables were not statistically significant (p = 0.262). C. Multipliers Courts often check the percentage-based attorney fee against the lodestar award. If the percentage fee grossly exceeds the lodestar amount, the fee may be deemed excessive, and the courts can adjust the fee downward to a more reasonable range. Table 14 reports, for

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 27 of 35

Attorney Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements

273

Figure 7:

Fee percent 40 60 80 100

Relation between multipliers and fee percent, recovery, and hours, 2003­2008.

b. Recovery vs. Multiplier, 2003-2008

10

o c o oo co o o oc o o o o oo ooc o c o oo o ooo oo o oc co c ooo c o o oo ooo c o o o oo occo ooo o o o oc o o o ooooo o o o co c o oooocoo oo o oo o ooooo oc o o cocoooc coccoc o c o oo o o ooooocoo o o oo c co c o o o oocoo oo cooooo o o c o oc c o cc o o ooo o ooo ooooo o oo o o oooooco oocoocooo o o o o c cooo o o o o o o o o oo oooooooc o o c o o o o ooo ocoooo oo o o o o oc oo c o o o oo c o o o o o co ooooo ooocoooo o o o o o c co o oo o o c ooooo oo o c o o o oo c co c o c cco c c c o c oc c c c c c c

a. Fee Percent vs. Multiplier, 2003-2008

Recovery (log 10) 6 8

c c c = Consumer case o = non-consumer case c c o c c c c occ o

o

o o

c oo o o o ocoocooo c oocooooccooooo oo o coooooooooooooo oo o oo o o cccco c oo o oc o co o oo ooooo o o o oo coooooo o o o o oo ooocoooooooooo o o c oc oo o o oo c ocoooo c oo o coooooooooooooooooo oo o ooc o o c o oo o oo oo o oooocoooco o o o o o o c o o o oc ooooc coo ooocoo o oooooo o o o cco o o o o o ooc o ooo oocoo c o o o oc oocc c o o c co c o ooc c o o o oo o c occocooooo o c c o cco c c c c

0

20

-4

-2

0 Multiplier (log)

2

4

4

-4

-2

0 Multiplier (log)

2

4

c. Multiplier vs. Hours, 2003-2008

4

o oo o oo co o o oo o o o o oo o oc o o o o oo o o ccoc c o c o o ooooo c o ooc oo o oo o oo o oo o o c ooo o o o oo oooo o o o o c o o o c o o o c c o c o o o o o cco o o o oo c o c oo o c o o c cc o co o o o o o o c o oo o o o o o o o o oo o o o o

Multiplier (log) -2 0 2

c

o ooo o c o o o

cc

-4

4

6

8 10 Hours (log)

12

14

Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

federal cases, the mean multiplier applied by circuit and by case category. The sample is limited to those cases that reported a multiplier that was not equal to 1. The mean multiplier ranged from 1.19 in the Eleventh Circuit to 2.43 in the Fourth Circuit. Across case categories, the mean multiplier ranged from 2.35 in "other" to 1.24 in employment cases. But, in regression models of the multiplier (log) as a function of circuits and case categories, neither the dummy variables for circuits nor for case categories were collectively significant. We therefore cannot reject the hypotheses that multipliers are similar across circuits and case categories. We do, however, find significantly different multipliers used in cases in which feeshifting statutes were available and cases in which they were not. With no statute in the background, multipliers averaged 1.96 in 161 cases with necessary data. If a fee-shifting statute was available, multipliers averaged 1.38 in 66 cases. The difference in medians was significant at p = 0.021. Figure 7 shows the relation between the fee outcomes, class recovery amount, and multipliers (Figures 7a and 7b), and between multiplier and hours reported (Figure 7c). Since a suspected fee windfall is most likely to occur when the percentage method would yield what is perceived to be too high a fee, we expect the multiplier to tend to bring high percentage fee cases into a more moderate range. We therefore predicted and found, in our prior study, a strong negative correlation between the lodestar multiplier (fee award

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 28 of 35

274

Eisenberg and Miller

Table 15: Mean, Median, and Standard Deviation of Multiplier, Controlling for Class Recovery Amount, 1993­2008

Range of Class Recovery (Millions) Decile Recovery <= 1.1 Recovery > 1.1 <= 2.8 Recovery > 2.8 <= 5.3 Recovery > 5.3 <= 8.7 Recovery > 8.7 <= 14.3 Recovery > 14.3 <= 22.8 Recovery > 22.8 <= 38.3 Recovery > 38.3 <= 69.6 Recovery > 69.6 <= 175.5 Recovery > 175.5 Mean 0.88 0.95 1.44 1.59 1.49 1.68 1.83 1.98 2.70 3.18 Median 0.74 0.77 1.25 1.25 1.45 1.51 1.44 1.75 2.09 2.60 SD 0.45 0.67 0.74 1.32 0.87 0.85 1.44 1.00 2.43 1.99 N 33 40 32 34 37 38 33 38 43 40

Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

divided by the lodestar) and the percentage fee awarded.30 A similar relation exists for 2003­2008, as shown in Figure 7a. Higher multipliers should, in general, lead to higher recoveries, a result shown in Figure 7b. Increased multipliers do not appear to be being used a reward for hours worked. Figure 7c shows no clear positive association between mutlipliers and hours. Table 15 presents more detailed information about the relation between class recovery and multipliers. It uses the recovery deciles reported in Table 7, but Table 15 includes fewer observations because the sample is limited to cases with multipliers not equal to 1. The table reports the mean, median, and standard deviation for each recovery decile. The pattern for the mean and median multiplier confirms that suggested by Figure 7b. As the recovery decile increases, the multiplier also tends to increase, with the multiplier in the highest recovery decile more than triple that of the multiplier in the lowest recovery decile.

V. Costs and Expenses

Costs and expenses (collectively "costs") tended to be a small percentage of the class recovery and have remained a fairly constant percentage over time. For the 232 cases from 1993 to 2002 for which cost data were available, mean costs were 2.8 percent of the recovery and median costs were 1.7 percent. For the 304 cases with necessary data from 2003 to 2008, mean costs were 2.7 percent of the recovery and median costs remained at 1.7 percent. As before, we found no evidence that the cost percent increased over time.31

30

Eisenberg & Miller, supra note 5. Id.

31

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 29 of 35

Attorney Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements

275

Figure 8: Costs as a function of recovery, fees, hours, and age, non-fee-shifting cases, 2003­2008.

a. Costs as a Function of Recovery

Costs (log 10) 4 5 6 7 8 Costs (log 10) 4 5 6 7 8

b. Costs as a Function of Fee

3

2

5

6 7 8 Recovery (log 10)

9

10

2 4

3

5

6 7 Fee (log 10)

8

9

c. Costs as a Function of Hours

Costs (log 10) 4 5 6 7 8 Costs (log 10) 4 5 6 7 8

d. Costs as a Function of Age

2

3

2

3

4 Hours (log 10)

5

6

2 0

3

1

2

3 4 5 6 7 Age of case in years

8

9

10

Note: Cases with age greater than 10 years old are coded as 10 years old. Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

We further explored costs as a function of four variables: (1) the class recovery, (2) the fee, (3) the hours reported in the court's opinion, and (4) the age of the case in years. We only coded hours billed and case age beginning with the 2003 to 2008 data. Figure 8 shows the relation between costs and the four factors and limits the sample to cases in which hours were reported in opinions and costs were at least $100. All four factors are positively associated with costs. The figure also suggests that the strongest association is between costs and hours. Table 16 shows the correlation coefficients between costs and the four factors in Figure 8. The first four numerical columns cover the period 2003­2008, for which hours data were recorded. The last two numerical columns show the correlation between costs and fee and recovery for the period 1993­2002. The correlations between costs and recovery and fee for either period do not reach the strength of association of hours and costs in the later period. The weaker correlation between costs and age may be in part a function of age being coded only in whole years and therefore providing a less continuous measure of that factor. A regression model, not reported here, of costs as a percent of recovery controls for case category and other factors. It shows that costs, like fees, have a scale effect: their percent of recovery significantly declines as the size of the recovery increases. The cost

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 30 of 35

276

Eisenberg and Miller

Table 16:

Correlations Between Costs and Four Factors

Fee (Log10) Recovery (Log10) Hours (Log) Age in Years Fee (Log10) Recovery (Log10)

Period = 2003­2008 Correlation Coeff. Significance N 0.86 <0.0001 167 0.85 <0.0001 167 0.91 <0.0001 167 0.34 <0.0001 167

Period = 1993­2002 0.77 <0.0001 232 0.71 <0.0001 232

Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

percent significantly increases with hours. In a model with both case age and hours as explanatory variables, only hours were statistically significant.

VI. Multivariate Results

Some of the above results are so strong and robust that no further analysis is needed to support their credibility. The strong correlation between fees and class recovery and the scale effect survive any reasonable analysis, are reasonably represented by Figures 1 and 5, and are confirmed in regression models reported below. Other key results consist of factors associated with the level of the fee award. These include: 1. The tendency of state courts to award a lower percent of recovery as a fee, 2. The relation between case category and fee percent, 3. The tendency of high-risk cases to receive a higher percent of the class recovery as a fee, and 4. The tendency of lodestar awards in non-fee-shifting cases to be lower than percent-method awards. This section first explores the robustness of these results to simultaneous control for recovery level and then reports regression models. A. The Relation Between the Fee Award and State Court Status, Risk, and the Lodestar Method As Figure 1 and our earlier work suggest, for most explanatory variables, the size of the class recovery is the most important potential confounding factor in assessing the relation between other covariates and the fee award. From Figures 1 and 5, we know that: (1) the fee award increased with class recovery, and (2) the fee award was a declining percent of the class recovery as the class recovery increased. Regression models assessing nonrecovery covariates thus require both a dummy variable for the covariate, and an interaction term between the covariate and the class recovery. That is, the covariate may influence both the intercept and the slope of the line representing the relation between the covariate and the fee award. The use of class recovery, a dummy covariate, and an interaction term raises problems of multicollinearity in the regression model, which preliminary analysis confirmed. The problems arose even when a single covariate and interaction term were

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 31 of 35

Attorney Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements

277

Table 17: Influence of Locale, Risk, and Lodestar Method on Percent Fee Award, Controlling for Class Recovery Amount, 1993­2008

Federal-State Range of Class Recovery (Millions) Decile Recovery <= 1.1 N Recovery > 1.1 <= 2.8 N Recovery > 2.8 <= 5.3 N Recovery > 5.3 <= 8.7 N Recovery > 8.7 <= 14.3 N Recovery > 14.3 <= 22.8 N Recovery > 22.8 <= 38.3 N Recovery > 38.3 <= 69.6 N Recovery > 69.6 <= 175.5 N Recovery > 175.5 N Federal Case 38.7 64 26.8 63 27.0 58 22.7 61 24.1 61 23.3 62 22.3 58 21.2 61 19.6 64 12.6 61 State Case 27.2 5 30.4 6 23.2 11 23.2 8 21.4 8 15.6 6 20.8 10 15.7 9 16.0 5 6.5 7 Low-/Medium-Risk Case 37.1 64 26.7 60 26.0 61 21.8 55 23.3 58 22.7 63 20.9 58 19.9 62 17.3 50 10.6 52 Risk High-Risk Case 48.4 5 29.5 9 29.3 8 26.8 14 26.8 11 23.0 6 29.2 10 24.6 8 24.7 19 16.5 16 Lodestar Other Methods 32.3 53 26.6 64 26.8 65 23.3 54 24.8 56 23.3 61 24.0 53 21.6 61 20.0 62 12.7 62 Pure Lodestar 58.0 15 33.4 5 17.9 2 20.5 9 19.0 11 16.3 6 11.7 11 9.8 7 10.0 4 4.3 5

Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

included in regression models, and were magnified when multiple covariates and interaction terms were used. Rather than simply report possibly questionable regression models, we first used a simpler technique to explore the possible influence of certain covariates on the fee award while simultaneously accounting for the class recovery. Table 17 expands on Section III's tables by reporting in more detail, for non-feeshifting cases, the relation between the fee awarded and three key covariates--state court status, risk, and use of the lodestar method--while controlling for the size of the class recovery. As was done for Tables 7, 13, and 15, we divided the range of class recoveries into deciles. Table 17's first column shows the bounds on the deciles, starting with the lowest decile of class recoveries. Each decile's statistics are reported in two rows; the first shows the fee percent and the second row shows the number of cases included in the fee percent calculation. Thus the table's first two numerical rows include cases with class recoveries in the first decile, those recoveries less than or equal to $1.1 million. The table's last two rows include cases in the highest decile, those with recoveries greater than $175.5 million. The table's second and third columns show, within each decile range, the mean fee percent award and the number of cases, divided by federal court versus state court status. Thus, for the 69 cases with class recoveries of less than $1.1 million, the mean federal case fee percent award was 38.7 percent in 64 cases and the mean state case fee percent award was 27.2

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 32 of 35

278

Eisenberg and Miller

percent in five cases. The table's fourth and fifth columns show the same information, but now divided by high-risk case status versus low-/medium-risk case status. The table's sixth and seventh columns show the same information divided by use of the pure lodestar method versus use of all other methods. With respect to federal versus state court status, the mean state case fee percent is lower than the mean federal percent for every recovery decile except the second and fourth. Thus, after controlling for class recovery size, state courts tend to award lower fees than federal courts but not overwhelmingly so. The pattern is even more consistent with respect to risk. For every recovery decile, the fee percent is higher in high-risk cases than in low-/medium-risk cases. The lodestar effect follows the same trend, with every class recovery decile except the lowest two showing a lower fee percent in pure lodestar cases than in other cases. In the low recovery deciles, of course, the lodestar method can compensate attorneys for substantial efforts that a percent fee award may not fully reflect. Section III's results for these three covariates therefore survive analysis that controls for the key potential confounder, the class recovery size. B. Regression Models Table 18 reports ordinary least squares regression models that confirm our core results. Model 1 shows that over 90 percent of the variance in the fee is explained by the size of the

Table 18:

Regression Models of Fees

1 2 3 4 5

Dependent Variable = Fee (Log10) Gross recovery (log10) State court case High-risk case Lodestar = reference category Percent method Both methods Other methods Constant Case category dummies Observations R2 0.374 (4.91)** No 689 0.92 0.382 (4.69)** No 688 0.92 0.395 (4.92)** No 681 0.92 0.850 (74.37)** 0.850 (73.79)** -0.088 (8.25)** 0.846 (73.32)** -0.083 (8.15)** 0.111 (7.16)** 0.833 (62.21)** -0.040 (3.13)** 0.102 (6.06)** 0.188 (4.76)** 0.181 (4.82)** 0.032 (0.62) 0.331 (3.28)** No 663 0.93 0.827 (61.35)** 0.003 (0.15) 0.098 (5.06)** 0.169 (4.22)** 0.158 (4.15)** 0.028 (0.51) 0.440 (3.64)** Yes 663 0.93

Notes: Robust t statistics in parentheses; *significant at 5 percent; **significant at 1 percent; standard errors are clustered by locale. Sources: Westlaw, LexisNexis, PACER.

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 33 of 35

Attorney Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements

279

recovery. None of the other models add materially to the explanatory power of this simple model. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the model with the largest set of explanatory variables, Model 5, shows no statistically significant difference between state and federal courts. The models also consistently confirm that fee methods other than the pure lodestar method tend to have higher fees. The models confirm the association between greater risk and increased fees.32 In Model 5, a test of the hypothesis that the case category dummy variables are jointly equal to zero can be rejected at p = 0.0003. Their significance persists if one omits the two small cases categories, civil rights and tax, but the significance level increases to p = 0.012. The significance of the results in Table 18 persists if one limits the sample to the 106 cases with recoveries of $100 million or more but the sizes of the coefficients do change. The percent of variance explained then ranges from 72 percent to 77 percent, depending on the model. We also tested whether the use of a lodestar "cross-check" generated a different pattern of fees than when fees were calculated according to the percentage method alone. A regression analysis not reported here does not find any statistically significant difference between fees calculated by the percentage method alone and those calculated by the percentage method with the lodestar cross-check. This result may raise questions about the utility of the lodestar cross-check, which can involve a time-consuming analysis of the reasonableness of the attorneys' hours and hourly rates.

VII. Discussion

The data support several major conclusions. Strength of Relation and Dominance of Method. The percentage fee method is overwhelmingly the method used by courts in awarding fees in class actions. It is so widely used and so consistently employed that other information about cases adds little explanatory power to study of the fee award. The amount of the class recovery dwarfs all other effects. Even in circuits that eschew the percentage method, it appears to be the dominant de facto method used and best explains the pattern of awards. The consistent pattern may help attorneys to calibrate their fee requests and lead to courts usually approving the requested fee amount. Scale Effect and Aggregate Litigation. The pattern of class action awards continues to exhibit a strong scale effect. Attorneys receive a smaller proportion of the recovery as the size of the recovery increases. Aggregation of claims thus appears to have produced the kind of efficiency hoped for. This characteristic of aggregate litigation should be considered when evaluating devices designed to preclude or discourage aggregate litigation or arbitration, such as prohibitions on class arbitration.33

32

Multilevel models, using random intercepts for locale and case category, do not yield materially different results.

33

For a study suggesting possible efforts to discourage aggregate litigation, see Theodore Eisenberg, Geoffrey P. Miller & Emily Sherwin, Mandatory Arbitration for Customers But Not for Peers: A Study of Arbitration Clauses in Consumer

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 34 of 35

280

Eisenberg and Miller

The Scope and Nature of Our Sample. Some perspective on the scope of our sample relative to the universe of class action cases comes from a study of class actions against insurers from 1993 through 2002. The RAND Institute for Civil Justice surveyed 269 property and casualty insurers and 207 life and health insurers, received responses from 205 companies, and obtained usable information from 199 insurers.34 Of 564 attempted class actions, 12 percent led to a class settlement.35 In 32 cases, the respondents provided information about the aggregate pool of funds offered to settle the case and its associated expenses. The amounts ranged from $360,000 to $150 million, with a mean fund size of $12.8 million and a median size of $2.6 million. Almost two-thirds of the cases, 62.5 percent, resulted in a common fund of less than $5 million.36 In 48 cases, the respondents supplied information about the award to class counsel for fees and expenses. Fees and expenses ranged from $50,000 to $50,000,000, with a mean of $3.4 million and a median of $554,000.37 The overall median fee and expense ratio from the pooled data was thus about 21 percent ($554,000 divided by $2.6 million). This compares to a pooled median fee of $2.33 million and median gross recovery of $12.5 million in our sample, as shown in Table 3, which yields a pooled ratio of 19 percent. The scaling effect, combined with our higher median gross recovery, probably helps explain the lower ratio in our sample of cases. Aside from the RAND study's similar findings about fee levels, the study shows the small fraction of class action filings that lead to information about fees, even in the absence of being limited to available opinions. In the RAND data, 564 purported class actions led to 78 certified classes and 32 cases with available fee information. Thus, less than 15 percent of purported class actions were certified and about 6 percent led to usable fee information. If the same proportions are assumed to apply more broadly, then our 689 fee cases can be thought of as representing over 12,000 purported class action filings. Federal-State Differences. Despite claims that CAFA was needed to redress differences in state and federal court processing of class actions, our data provide little evidence of federal-state differences. The fee per amount recovered did not systematically differ between federal and state courts, as shown in Table 17. Table 13 shows that state courts were, if anything, less likely than federal courts to grant the requested fee amount.

and Non-Consumer Contracts, 92 Judicature 118 (Nov.­Dec. 2008); Theodore Eisenberg, Geoffrey P. Miller & Emily Sherwin, Arbitration's Summer Soldiers: An Empirical Study of Arbitration Clauses in Consumer and Nonconsumer Contracts, U. Mich J.L. Reform 871 (2008), reprinted in 4 ICFAI U.J. of Alternative Disp. Resol. 51 (2008).

34

Nicholas M. Pace, Stephen J. Carroll, Ingo Vogelsang & Laura Zakaras, Insurance Class Actions in the United States 9­10 (2007). Id. at 47 (tbl. 3.16). Id. at 54. Id. at 55.

35

36

37

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-6

Filed 11/16/10 Page 35 of 35

Attorney Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements

281

The absence of pro-class bias in state courts is consistent with sources cited above38 and with additional research. In the RAND insurance study, of 564 attempted class actions, 12 percent led to a class settlement, with 12 percent of the 465 state court cases and 15 percent of the 98 federal court cases settling.39 The modal outcome of a pretrial ruling for the defense did not significantly differ between federal and state courts.40 The settlement rate for the cases with certified classes did not statistically significantly differ between federal and state courts.41 Thus, available evidence about comparative state-federal judicial performance in class actions consistently suggests no strong differences.

VIII. Conclusion

Over the course of 16 years, attorney fees in class action cases have displayed a strikingly strong linear relation to class recoveries. Significant associations also exist between the fee amount and both the fee method and the riskiness of the case. Despite CAFA's premise of differences between federal and state court treatment of class actions, our findings add to a growing body of evidence that little hard data support claims of significant state-federal differences. Core results persisted in mega-cases, those with recoveries of $100 million or more, in cases with settlement classes, and in cases with and without objectors and opt outs. Fees and costs decline as a percent of the recovery as the recovery amount increases, suggesting the efficiency of this form of aggregate litigation. In this data set that likely includes the most significant class action decisions, those that lead to an available opinion, neither fees nor recoveries materially increased over time. We hope that the information contained in this study can be of use to courts charged with the important and sometimes daunting task of setting counsel fees in class action and derivative cases.

38

Text accompanying notes 18­22 supra. Pace et al., supra note 34, at 47 (tbl. 3.16). Id.

39

40

41

Id. at 48 (tbl. 3.17). The study did not distinguish between orders certifying the case for a class trial, those certifying for settlement purposes only, and those certifying on a provisional basis only. Id. at 17. Neil Marchand reports that plaintiffs' preferences for state or federal court in Michigan class actions vary depending on the governing substantive law, with preference for state courts in cases governed by state substantive law and preference for federal courts in cases governed by federal substantive law. Neil J. Marchand, Class Action Activity in Michigan's State and Federal Courts, available at <http://ssrn.com/abstract=1334923>.

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 1 of 43

(;+,%,7 *

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 2 of 43

Vanderbilt U niversity L School aw Public Law & Legal Theory

Working Paper Number 1 0 -1 0

Law & Economics

Working Paper Number 1 0 -0 6

A Empirical Study of C n lass A ction Settlements and their Fee A wards

Brian T. Fitzpatrick Vanderbilt University Law School

This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http:/ / ssrn.com/ abstract_id= 1 4 4 2 1 0 8

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1442108

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 3 of 43

7 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (forthcoming 2010)

An Empirical Study of Class Action Settlements and Their Fee Awards

Brian T. Fitzpatrick*

This article is a comprehensive empirical study of class action settlements in federal court. Although there have been prior empirical studies of federal class action settlements, these studies have either been confined to securities cases or have been based on samples of cases that were not intended to be representative of the whole (such as those settlements approved in published opinions). By contrast, in this article, I attempt to study every federal class action settlement from the years 2006 and 2007. As far as I am aware, this study is the first attempt to collect a complete set of federal class action settlements for any given year. I find that district court judges approved 688 class action settlements over this two-year period, involving nearly $33 billion. Of this $33 billion, roughly $5 billion was awarded to class action lawyers, or about 15% of the total. Most judges chose to award fees by using the highly discretionary percentage-of-the-settlement method, and the fees awarded according to this method varied over a broad range, with a mean and median around 25%. Fee percentages were strongly and inversely associated with the size of the settlement. The age of the case at settlement was positively associated with fee percentages. There was some variation in fee percentages depending on the subject matter of the litigation and the geographic circuit in which the district court was located, with lower percentages in securities cases and in settlements from the Second and Ninth Circuits. There was no evidence that fee percentages were associated with whether the class action was certified as a settlement class or with the political affiliation of the judge who made the award.

I.

Introduction

Class actions have been the source of great controversy in the United States. Corporations fear them.1 Policymakers have tried to corral them.2

* Associate Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School. J.D., 2000, Harvard Law School. Address: Vanderbilt Law School, 131 21st Ave South, Nashville, TN 37203; email: [email protected] Research for this article was supported by Vanderbilt's Cecil D. Branstetter Litigation & Dispute Resolution Program and Law & Business Program. I am grateful for comments I received from Dale Collins, Robin Effron, Ted Eisenberg, Deborah Hensler, Richard Nagareda, Randall Thomas, an anonymous referee for this journal, and participants at workshops at Vanderbilt Law School, the University of Minnesota Law School, the 2009 Meeting of the Midwestern Law and Economics Association, and the 2009 Conference on Empirical Legal Studies. I am also grateful for the research assistance of Drew Dorner, David Dunn, James Gottry, Chris Lantz, Gary Peeples, Keith Randall, Andrew Yi, and, especially, Jessica Pan. 1 See, e.g., Robert W. Wood, Defining Employees and Independent Contractors, BUS. L. TODAY, May-June 2008, at 45, 48.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1442108

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 4 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

Commentators and scholars have suggested countless ways to reform them.3 Despite all of the attention showered on class actions, and despite the excellent empirical work on class actions to date, the data that currently exists on how the class action system operates in the United States is limited. We do not know, for example, how much money changes hands in class action litigation every year. We do not know how much of this money goes to class action lawyers rather than class members. Indeed, we do not even know how many class action cases are resolved on an annual basis. In order to intelligently assess our class action system as well as whether and how it should be reformed, answers to all of these questions are important. Answers to these questions are equally important to policymakers in other countries who are currently thinking about adopting American-style class action devices.4 This article tries to answer these and other questions by reporting the results of an empirical study that attempted to gather all class action settlements approved by federal judges over a recent two-year period, 2006 and 2007. I use class action settlements as the basis of the study because, even more so than individual litigation, virtually all cases certified as class actions and not dismissed before trial end in settlement.5 I use federal settlements as the basis of the study for practical reasons: it was easier to identify and collect settlements approved by federal judges than those approved by state judges. Systematic study of class action settlements in state courts must await further study;6 these future studies are important

See Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-67, 109 Stat. 737 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 U.S.C.); Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1453, 1711-1715 (2006).

3 See, e.g., Robert G. Bone, Agreeing to Fair Process: The Problem with Contractarian Theories of Procedural Fairness, 83 B.U. L. REV. 485, 490-94 (2003); Allan Erbsen, From "Predominance" to "Resolvability": A New Approach to Regulating Class Actions, 58 VAND. L. REV. 995, 1080-81 (2005).

2

See, e.g., Samuel Issacharoff & Geoffrey Miller, Will Aggregate Litigation Come to Europe?, 62 VAND. L. REV. 179 (2009). See, e.g., Emery Lee & Thomas E. Willing, Impact of the Class Action Fairness Act on the Federal Courts: Preliminary Findings from Phase Two's Pre-CAFA Sample of Diversity Class Actions 11 (Federal Judicial Center 2008); Tom Baker & Sean J. Griffith, How the Merits Matter: D&O Insurance and Securities Settlements, 157 U. PA. L. REV. 755 (2009). Empirical scholars have begun to study state court class actions in certain subject areas and in certain states. See, e.g., Robert B. Thompson & Randall S. Thomas, The Public and Private Faces of Derivative Suits, 57 VAND. L. REV. 1747 (2004); Robert B. Thompson & Randall S. Thomas, The New Look of Shareholder Litigation: Acquisition-Oriented Class Actions, 57 VAND. L. REV. 133 (2004); Findings of the Study of California Class Action Litigation (Administrative Office of the Courts) (First Interim Report, 2009).

6 5

4

2

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1442108

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 5 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

because there may be more class action settlements in state courts than there are in federal court.7 This article attempts to make three contributions to the existing empirical literature on class action settlements. First, virtually all of the prior empirical studies of federal class action settlements have either been confined to securities cases or have been based on samples of cases that were not intended to be representative of the whole (such as those settlements approved in published opinions). In this article, by contrast, I attempt to collect every federal class action settlement from the years 2006 and 2007. As far as I am aware, this study is the first to attempt to collect a complete set of federal class action settlements for any given year.8 As such, this article allows us to see for the first time a complete picture of the cases that are settled in federal court. This includes aggregate annual statistics, such as how many class actions are settled every year, how much money is approved every year in these settlements, and how much of that money class action lawyers reap every year. It also includes how these settlements are distributed geographically as well as by litigation area, what sort of relief was provided in the settlements, how long the class actions took to reach settlement, and an analysis of what factors were associated with the fees awarded to class counsel by district court judges. Second, because this article analyzes settlements that were approved in both published and unpublished opinions, it allows us to assess how well the few prior studies that looked beyond securities cases but relied only on published opinions capture the complete picture of class action settlements. To the extent these prior studies adequately capture the complete picture, it may be less imperative for courts, policymakers, and empirical scholars to spend the considerable resources needed to collect unpublished opinions in order to make sound decisions about how to design our class action system. Third, this article studies factors that may influence district court judges when they award fees to class counsel that have not been studied before. For example, in light of the discretion district court judges have been delegated over fees under Rule 23, as well as the salience the issue of class action litigation has assumed in national politics, Realist theories of judicial behavior would predict that Republican judges would award smaller fee percentages than Democratic judges. I study whether the political beliefs of district court judges are associated with the fees they award, and, in doing so, contribute to the literature that attempts to assess the extent to which these beliefs influence the decisions of not just appellate judges, but trial judges as

7 See DEBORAH R. HENSLER, ET AL., CLASS ACTION DILEMMAS: PURSUING PUBLIC GOALS FOR PRIVATE GAIN 56 (2000).

Of course, I cannot be certain that I found every one of the class actions that settled in federal court over this period. Nonetheless, I am confident that, if I did not find some, the number I did not find is small and would not contribute meaningfully to the data reported in this article.

8

3

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 6 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

well. Moreover, it contributes to the small but growing literature examining whether the ideological influences found in published judicial decisions persist when unpublished decisions are examined as well. In Part II of this article, I briefly survey the existing empirical studies of class action settlements. In Part III, I describe the methodology I used to collect the 2006-2007 federal class action settlements and I report my findings regarding these settlements. District court judges approved 688 class action settlements over this two-year period, involving over $33 billion. I report a number of descriptive statistics for these settlements, including the number of plaintiff versus defendant classes, the distribution of settlements by subject matter, the age of the case at settlement, the geographic distribution of settlements, the number of settlement classes, the distribution of relief across settlements, and various statistics on the amount of money involved in the settlements. It should be noted that, despite the fact that the few prior studies that looked beyond securities settlements appeared to oversample larger settlements, much of the analysis set forth in this article is consistent with these prior studies. This suggests that scholars may not need to sample unpublished as well as published opinions in order to paint an adequate picture of class action settlements. In Part IV, I perform an analysis of the fees judges awarded to class action lawyers in the 2006-2007 settlements. All told, judges awarded nearly $5 billion over this two-year period in fees and expenses to class action lawyers, or about 15% of the total amount of the settlements. Most federal judges chose to award fees by using the highly discretionary percentage-ofthe-settlement method, and, unsurprisingly, the fees awarded according to this method varied over a broad range, with a mean and median around 25%. Using regression analysis, I confirm prior studies and find that fee percentages are strongly and inversely associated with the size of the settlement. Further, I find that the age of the case is positively associated with fee percentages but that the percentages were not associated with whether the class action was certified as a settlement class. There also appeared to be some variation in fee percentages depending on the subject matter of the litigation and the geographic circuit in which the district court was located. Fee percentages in securities cases were lower than the percentages in some but not all other areas, and district courts in some circuits--the Ninth and the Second (in securities cases)--awarded lower fee percentages than courts in many other circuits. Finally, the regression analysis did not confirm the Realist hypothesis: there was no association between fee percentage and the political beliefs of the judge in any regression.

II.

Prior Empirical Studies of Class Action Settlements

4

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 7 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

There are many existing empirical studies of federal securities class action settlements.9 Studies of securities settlements have been plentiful because for-profit organizations maintain lists of all federal securities class action settlements for the benefit of institutional investors that are entitled to file claims in these settlements.10 Using this data, studies have shown that since 2005, for example, there have been roughly 100 securities class action settlements in federal court each year, and these settlements have involved between $7 billion and $17 billion per year.11 Scholars have used this data to analyze many different aspects of these settlements, including the factors that are associated with the percentage of the settlements that courts have awarded to class action lawyers.12 These studies have found that the mean and median fees awarded by district court judges are between 20% and 30% of the settlement amount.13 These studies have also found that a number of factors are associated with the percentage of the settlement awarded as fees, including (inversely) the size of the settlement, the age of the case, whether a public pension fund was the lead plaintiff, and whether certain law firms were class counsel.14 None of these studies has examined whether the political affiliation of the federal district court judge awarding the fees was associated with the size of awards.

9 See, e.g., James D. Cox & Randall S. Thomas, Does the Plaintiff Matter? An Empirical Analysis of Lead Plaintiffs in Securities Class Actions, 106 COLUM. L. REV. 1587 (2006); James D. Cox, Randall S. Thomas & Lynn Bai, There are Plaintiffs and . . . there are Plaintiffs: An Empirical Analysis of Securities Class Action Settlements, 61 VAND. L. REV. 355 (2008); Theodore Eisenberg, Geoffrey Miller & Michael A. Perino, A New Look at Judicial Impact: Attorneys' Fees in Securities Class Actions after Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 29 WASH. U. J.L. & POL'Y 5 (2009); Michael A. Perino, Markets and Monitors: The Impact of Competition and Experience on Attorneys' Fees in Securities Class Actions (St. John's Legal Studies, Research Paper No. 06-0034, 2006), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=870577 [hereinafter Perino, Markets and Monitors]; Michael A. Perino, The Milberg Weiss Prosecution: No Harm, No Foul? (St. John's Legal Studies, Research Paper No. 08-0135, 2008), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1133995 [hereinafter Perino, Milberg Weiss]. 10 11

See, e.g., RiskMetrics Group, available at http://www.riskmetrics.com/scas.

See CORNERSTONE RESEARCH, SECURITIES CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS: 2007 REVIEW ANALYSIS 1 (2008), available at http://securities.stanford.edu/Settlements/REVIEW_19952007/Settlements_Through_12_2007.pdf.

AND

See, e.g., Eisenberg, Miller & Perino, supra note 9, at 17-24, 28-36; Perino, Markets and Monitors, supra note 9, at 12-28, 39-44; Perino, Milberg Weiss, supra note 9, at 32-33, 39-60. See, e.g., Eisenberg, Miller & Perino, supra note 9, at 17-18, 22, 28, 33; Perino, Markets and Monitors, supra note 9, at 20-21, 40; Perino, Milberg Weiss, supra note 9, at 32-33, 51-53.

14 See, e.g., Eisenberg, Miller & Perino, supra note 9, at 14-24, 29-30, 33-34; Perino, Markets and Monitors, supra note 9, at 20-28, 41; Perino, Milberg Weiss, supra note 9, at 3958. 13

12

5

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 8 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

There are no comparable organizations that maintain lists of nonsecurities class action settlements. As such, studies of class action settlements beyond the securities area are much rarer, and, when they have been done, rely on samples of settlements that were not intended to be representative of the whole. The two largest studies of class action settlements not limited to securities class actions are a 2004 study by Ted Eisenberg and Geoff Miller,15 which was recently updated to include data through 2008,16 and a 2003 study by Class Action Reports.17 The EisenbergMiller studies collected data from class action settlements in both state and federal courts found from court opinions published in the Westlaw and Lexis databases and checked against lists maintained by the CCH Federal Securities and Trade Regulation Reporters. Through 2008, their studies have now identified 689 settlements over a sixteen-year period, or less than 45 settlements per year.18 Over this sixteen-year period, their studies found that the mean and median settlement amounts were, respectively, $116 million and $12.5 million (in 2008 dollars), and that the mean and median fees awarded by district courts were 23% and 24% of the settlement, respectively.19 Their studies also performed an analysis of fee percentages and fee awards. For the data through 2002, they found that the percentage of the settlement awarded as fees was associated with the size of the settlement (inversely), the age of the case, and whether the district court went out of its way to comment on the level of risk that class counsel had assumed in pursuing the case.20 For the data through 2008, they regressed only fee awards and found that the awards were inversely associated with the size of the settlement, that state courts gave lower awards than federal courts, and that the level of risk was still associated with larger awards.21 Their studies have not examined whether the political affiliations of the federal district court judges awarding fees were associated with the size of the awards. The Class Action Reports study collected data on 1120 state and federal settlements over a 30 year period, or less than 40 settlements per year.22

See Theodore Eisenberg & Geoffrey Miller, Attorney Fees in Class Action Settlements: An Empirical Study, 1 J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD. 27 (2004).

16 See Theodore Eisenberg & Geoffrey Miller, Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in Class Action Settlements: 1993-2008, 7 JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUDIES 248 (2010) [hereinafter Eisenberg & Miller II]. 15

See Stuart J. Logan, Jack Moshman & Beverly C. Moore, Jr., Attorney Fee Awards in Common Fund Class Actions, 24 Class Action Reports 169 (Mar.-Apr. 2003).

18 19 20 21 22

17

See Eisenberg & Miller II, supra note 16, at 251. See id. at 258-59. See Eisenberg & Miller, supra note 15, at 61-62. See Eisenberg & Miller II, supra note 16, at 278. See Eisenberg & Miller, supra note 15, at 34.

6

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 9 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

Over the same ten-year period analyzed by the Eisenberg-Miller study, the Class Action Reports data found mean and median settlements of $35.4 and $7.6 million (in 2002 dollars), as well as mean and median fee percentages between 25% and 30%.23 Professors Eisenberg and Miller performed an analysis of the fee awards in the Class Action Reports study and found the percentage of the settlement awarded as fees was likewise associated with the size of the settlement (inversely) and the age of the case.24

III.

Federal Class Action Settlements 2006 & 2007

As far as I am aware, there has never been an empirical study of all federal class action settlements in a particular year. In this Article, I attempt to make such a study for two recent years: 2006 and 2007. In order to compile a list of all federal class settlements in 2006 and 2007, I started with one of the aforementioned lists of securities settlements, the one maintained by RiskMetrics, and I supplemented this list with settlements that could be found through three other sources: 1) broad searches of district court opinions in the Westlaw and Lexis databases,25 2) four reporters of class action settlements--BNA Class Action Litigation Report, Mealey's Jury Verdicts and Settlements, Mealey's Litigation Report, and the Class Action World website26--and 3) a list from the Administrative Office of Courts of all district court cases coded as class actions that terminated by settlement between 2005 and 2008.27 I then removed any duplicate cases and examined the docket sheets and court orders of each of the remaining cases to determine whether the cases were in fact certified as class actions under either Rule 23, Rule 23.1, or Rule 23.2.28 For each of the cases verified as such, I gathered the district court's order approving the settlement, the district court's order awarding attorneys' fees, and, in many cases, the settlement agreements and class counsel's motions for fees, from electronic databases

23 24 25

See id. at 47, 51. See id. at 61-62.

The searches consisted of the following terms: ("class action" & (settle! /s approv! /s (2006 2007))); (((counsel attorney) /s fee /s award!) & (settle! /s (2006 2007)) & "class action"); ("class action" /s settle! & da(aft 12/31/2005 & bef 1/1/2008)); ("class action" /s (fair reasonable adequate) & da(aft 12/31/2005 & bef 1/1/2008)).

26 27

See http://classactionworld.com/

I examined the AO lists in the year before and after the two-year period under investigation because the termination date recorded by the AO was not necessarily the same date the district court approved the settlement. See FED. R. CIV. P. 23, 23.1 & 23.2. I excluded from this analysis opt-in collective actions, such as those brought pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, see 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), if such actions did not also include claims certified under the opt-out mechanism in Rule 23.

28

7

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 10 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

(such as Westlaw or PACER), and, when necessary, from the clerk's offices of the various federal district courts. In this Part, I report the characteristics of the settlements themselves, and, in the next Part, I report the characteristics of the attorneys' fees awarded to class counsel by the district courts that approved the settlements.

A. Number of settlements I found 688 settlements approved by federal district courts during 2006 and 2007 using the methodology described above. This is almost the exact same number the Eisenberg-Miller study found over a sixteen-year period in both federal and state court. Indeed, the number of annual settlements identified in this study is several times the number of annual settlements that have been identified in any prior empirical study of class action settlements. Of the 688 settlements I found, 304 of these settlements were approved in 2006 and 384 were approved in 2007.29

B. Defendant versus plaintiff classes Although Rule 23 permits federal judges to certify either a class of plaintiffs or a class of defendants, it is widely assumed that it is extremely rare for courts to certify defendant classes.30 My findings confirm this widely held assumption. Of the 688 class action settlements approved in 2006 and 2007, 685 involved plaintiff classes and only three involved defendant classes. All three of these defendant-class settlements were in employment benefits cases, where companies sued classes of current or former employees.31

C. Settlement subject areas

A settlement was assigned to a particular year if the district court judge's order approving the settlement was dated between January 1 and December 31 of that year. Cases involving multiple defendants sometimes settled over time because defendants would settle separately with the plaintiff class. All such partial settlements approved by the district court on the same date were treated as one settlement. Partial settlements approved by the district court on different dates were treated as different settlements. See, e.g., Robert H. Klonoff, Edward K.M. Bilich & Suzette M. Malveaux, Class Actions and Other Multi-Party Litigation: Cases and Materials 1061 (2d ed. 2006).

31 See Halliburton Company v. Graves, No. 04-00280 (S.D. Tex., Sep. 28, 2007); Rexam, Inc. v. United Steel Workers of America, No. 03-2998 (D. Minn. Aug. 29, 2007); Rexam, Inc. v. United Steel Workers of America, No. 03-2998 (D. Minn. Sept. 17, 2007). 30

29

8

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 11 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

Although courts are free to certify Rule 23 classes in almost any subject area, it is widely assumed that securities settlements dominate the federal class action docket.32 At least in terms of the number of settlements, my findings reject this conventional wisdom. As Table 1 shows, although securities settlements comprised a large percentage of the 2006 and 2007 settlements, they did not comprise a majority of those settlements. As one would have expected in light of Supreme Court precedent over the last two decades,33 there were almost no mass tort class actions (included in the "Other" category) settled over the two-year period. Although the Eisenberg-Miller study through 2008 is not directly comparable on the distribution of settlements across litigation subject areas-- because its state and federal court data cannot be separated (more than 10% of the settlements were from state court34) and because it excludes settlements in fee-shifting cases--their study through 2008 is the best existing point of comparison. Interestingly, despite the fact that state courts were included in their data, their study through 2008 found about the same percentage of securities cases (39%) as my 2006-2007 dataset shows.35 But their study found many more consumer (18%) and antitrust (10%) cases while finding many fewer labor and employment (8%), employee benefits (6%), and civil rights (3%) cases.36 This is not unexpected given their reliance on published opinions and their exclusion of fee-shifting cases.

See, e.g., John C. Coffee, Jr., Reforming the Security Class Action: An Essay on Deterrence and its Implementation, 106 COLUM. L. REV. 1534, 1539-40 (2006) (describing securities class actions as "the 800-pound gorilla that dominates and overshadows other forms of class actions").

33

32

See, e.g., Samuel Issacharoff, Private Claims, Aggregate Rights, 2008 SUP. CT. REV. 183, See Eisenberg & Miller II, supra note 16, at 257. See id. at 262. See id.

208.

34 35 36

9

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 12 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

Table 1: The number of class action settlements approved by federal judges in 2006 and 2007 in each subject area Subject matter Securities Labor and Employment Consumer Employee Benefits Civil Rights Debt Collection Antitrust Commercial Other Total Number of settlements 2006 2007 122 (40%) 135 (35%) 41 (14%) 53 (14%) 40 (13%) 47 (12%) 23 (8%) 38 (10%) 24 (8%) 37 (10%) 19 (6%) 23 (6%) 13 (4%) 17 (4%) 4 (1%) 9 (2%) 18 (6%) 25 (6%) 304 384

Note: Securities: cases brought under federal and state securities laws. Labor and Employment: workplace claims brought under either federal or state law, with the exception of ERISA cases. Consumer: cases brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act as well as cases for consumer fraud, etc. Employee Benefits: ERISA cases. Civil Rights: cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or cases brought under the Americans with Disability Act seeking non-workplace accommodations. Debt Collection: cases brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Antirust: cases brought under federal or state antitrust laws. Commercial: cases between businesses, excluding antitrust cases. Other: includes, among other things, derivative actions against corporate managers and directors, environmental suits, insurance suits, Medicare and Medicaid suits, product liability suits, and mass tort suits. Sources: Westlaw, PACER, district court clerks' offices.

D. Settlement classes The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit parties to seek certification of a suit as a class action for settlement purposes only.37 When the district court certifies a class in such circumstances, the court need not consider whether it would be manageable to try the litigation as a class.38 So-called "settlement classes" have always been more controversial than classes certified for litigation because they raise the prospect that, at least where there are competing class actions filed against the same defendant, the defendant could play class counsel off one another to find the one willing to settle the case for the least amount of money.39 Prior to the Supreme Court's 1997 opinion in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor,40 it was uncertain

See Martin H. Redish, Settlement Class Actions, The Case-or-Controversy Requirement, and the Nature of the Adjudicatory Process, 73 U. Chi. L. Rev. 545, 553 (2006).

38 39 40 37

See Amchem Products, Inc v Windsor, 521 US 591, 620 (1997). See Redish, supra note 37, at 557-59. 521 US 591 (1997).

10

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 13 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

whether the Federal Rules even permitted settlement classes. It may therefore be a bit surprising to learn that 68% of the federal settlements in 2006 and 2007 were settlement classes. This percentage is higher than the percentage found in the Eisenberg-Miller studies, which found that only 57% of class action settlements in state and federal court between 2003 and 2008 were settlement classes.41 It should be noted that the distribution of litigation subject areas among the settlement classes in my 2006-2007 federal data set did not differ much from the distribution among non-settlement classes, with two exceptions. One exception was consumer cases, which were nearly three times as prevalent among settlement classes (15.9%) as non-settlement classes (5.9%); the other was civil rights cases, which were four times as prevalent among non-settlement classes (18.0%) as settlements classes (4.5%). In light of the skepticism with which the courts had long treated settlement classes, one might have suspected that courts would award lower fee percentages in such settlements. Nonetheless, as I report in Part III, whether a case was certified as a settlement class was not associated with the fee percentages awarded by federal district court judges.

E. The age at settlement One interesting question is how long class actions were litigated before they reached settlement. Unsurprisingly, cases reached settlement over a wide range of ages.42 As shown in Table 2, the average time to settlement was a bit more than 3 years (1196 days) and the median time was a bit under 3 years (1068 days). The average and median ages here are similar to those found in Eisenberg-Miller study through 2002, which found averages of 3.35 years in fee-shifting cases and 2.86 years in non-fee-shifting cases, and medians of 4.01 years in fee-shifting cases and 3.0 years in non-fee-shifting cases.43 Their study through 2008 did not report case ages. The shortest time to settlement was 105 days in a labor and employment case.44 The longest time to settlement was nearly 15 years (5443 days) in a commercial case.45 The average and median time to settlement varied

41 42

See Eisenberg & Miller II, supra note 16, at 266.

The age of the case was calculated by subtracting the date the relevant complaint was filed from the date the settlement was approved by the district court judge. The dates were taken from PACER. For consolidated cases, I used the date of the earliest complaint. If the case had been transferred, consolidated, or removed, the date the complaint was filed was not always available from PACER. In such cases, I used the date the case was transferred, consolidated, or removed as the start date.

43 44 45

See Eisenberg & Miller, supra note 15, at 59-60. See Clemmons v. Rent-A-Center West, Inc., No. 05-6307 (D. Or. Jan. 20, 2006). See Allapattah Services Inc. v. Exxon Corp., No. 91-0986 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2006).

11

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 14 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

significantly by litigation subject matter, with securities cases generally taking the longest time and debt collection cases taking the shortest time. Labor and employment cases and consumer cases also settled relatively early. Table 2: The number of days 2006-2007 federal class action cases took to reach settlement in each subject area Subject matter Average Median Minimum Maximum Securities Labor and Employment Consumer Employee Benefits Civil Rights Debt Collection Antitrust Commercial Other All

Source: PACER.

1438 928 963 1162 1373 738 1140 1267 1065 1196

1327 786 720 1161 1360 673 1167 760 962 1068

392 105 127 164 181 223 237 163 185 105

3802 2497 4961 3157 3354 1973 2480 5443 3620 5443

F. The location of settlements The 2006-2007 federal class action settlements were not distributed across the country in the same way federal civil litigation is in general. As Figure 1 shows, some of the geographic circuits attracted much more class action attention than we would expect based on their docket size, and others attracted much less. In particular, district courts in the First, Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits approved a much larger share of class action settlements than the share of all civil litigation they resolved, with the First, Second, and Seventh Circuits approving nearly double the share and the Ninth Circuit approving one-and-one half times the share. By contrast, the shares of class action settlements approved by district courts in the Fifth and Eighth Circuits were less than one half of their share of all civil litigation, with the Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits also exhibiting significant underrepresentation. With respect to a comparison with the Eisenberg-Miller studies, their federal court data through 2008 can be separated from their state court data on the question of the geographic distribution of settlements, and there are some significant differences between their federal data and the numbers reflected in Figure 1. Their study reported considerably higher proportions of settlements than I found from the Second (23.8%), Third (19.7%), Eighth

12

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 15 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

(4.8%), and D.C. (3.3%) Circuits, and considerably lower proportions from the Fourth (1.3%), Seventh (6.8%), and Ninth (16.6%) Circuits.46 Figure 1: The percentage of 2006-2007 district court civil terminations and class action settlements in each federal circuit

Sources: PACER, Statistical Tables for the Federal Judiciary 2006 & 2007 (available at http://www.uscourts.gov/stats/index.html).

Figure 2 separates the class action settlement data in Figure 1 into securities and non-securities cases. Figure 2 suggests that the overrepresentation of settlements in the First and Second Circuits is largely attributable to securities cases, whereas the over-representation in the Seventh Circuit is attributable to non-securities cases, and the overrepresentation in the Ninth is attributable to both securities and non-securities cases.

46

See Eisenberg & Miller II, supra note 16, at 260.

13

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 16 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

Figure 2: The percentage of 2006-2007 district court civil terminations and class action settlements in each federal circuit

Sources: PACER, Statistical Tables for the Federal Judiciary 2006 & 2007 (available at http://www.uscourts.gov/stats/index.html).

It is interesting to ask why some circuits received more class action attention than others. One hypothesis is that class actions are filed in circuits where class action lawyers believe they can find favorable law or favorable judges. Federal class actions often involve class members spread across multiple states, and, as such, class action lawyers may have a great deal of discretion over which district they file suit in.47 One way in which law or judges may be favorable to class action attorneys is with regard to attorneys' fees. In Part III, I attempt to test whether district court judges in the circuits with the most over- and under-subscribed class action dockets award attorneys' fees that would attract or discourage filings there; I find no evidence that they do. Another hypothesis is that class action suits are settled in jurisdictions where defendants are located. This might be the case because, although class action lawyers may have discretion over where to file, venue restrictions might ultimately restrict cases to jurisdictions in which defendants have their corporate headquarters or other operations.48 This might explain why the

See Samuel Issacharoff & Richard Nagareda, Class Settlements Under Attack, 156 U. PA. L. REV. 1649, 1662 (2008).

48 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, 1404, 1406, 1407. See also Foster v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., No. 07-04928, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95240 at *2-17 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2007) (transferring 47

14

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 17 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

Second Circuit, with the financial industry in New York, sees so many securities suits, and why other circuits with cities with a large corporate presence, such as the First (Boston), Seventh (Chicago), and Ninth (Los Angeles and San Francisco), see more settlements than one would expect based on the size of their civil dockets. Another hypothesis might be that class action lawyers file cases wherever it is most convenient for them to litigate the cases--i.e., in the cities in which their offices are located. This, too, might explain the Second Circuit's overrepresentation in securities settlements, with prominent securities firms located in New York, as well as the over-representation of other settlements in some of the circuits in which major metropolitan areas with prominent plaintiffs' firms are found.

G. Type of relief Under Rule 23, district court judges can certify class actions for injunctive or declaratory relief, for money damages, or for a combination of the two.49 In addition, settlements can provide money damages both in the form of cash as well as in the form of in-kind relief, such as coupons to purchase the defendant's products.50 As shown in Table 3, the vast majority of class actions settled in 2006 and 2007 provided cash relief to the class (89%), but a substantial number also provided in-kind relief (6%) or injunctive or declaratory relief (23%). As would be expected in light of the focus on consumer cases in the debate over the anti-coupon provision in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005,51 consumer cases had the greatest percentage of settlements providing for inkind relief (30%). Civil rights cases had the greatest percentage of settlements providing for injunctive or declaratory relief (75%), though almost half of civil rights cases also provided some cash relief (49%). The securities settlements were quite distinctive from the settlements in other

venue to jurisdiction where the defendant's corporate headquarters were located). One prior empirical study of securities class action settlements found that 85% of such cases are filed in the home circuit of the defendant corporation. See James D. Cox, Randall S. Thomas & Lynn Bai, Do Differences in Pleading Standards Cause Forum Shopping in Securities Class Actions?: Doctrinal and Empirical Analyses, 2009 WIS. L. REV. 421, 429, 440, 450-51 (2009).

49 50

See FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b).

These coupon settlements have become very controversial in recent years, and Congress discouraged them in the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 by tying attorneys' fees to the value of coupons that were ultimately redeemed by class members as opposed to the value of coupons offered class members. See 28 U.S.C. § 1712.

51 See, e.g., 151 CONG. REC. H723 (2005) (statement of Rep. Sensenbrenner) (arguing that consumers are "seeing all of their gains go to attorneys and them just getting coupon settlements from the people who have allegedly done them wrong.").

15

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 18 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

areas in their singular focus on cash relief: every single securities settlement provided cash to the class and almost none of them provided in-kind, injunctive, or declaratory relief. This is but one example of how the focus on securities settlements in the prior empirical scholarship can lead to a distorted picture of class action litigation. Table 3: The percentage of 2006 and 2007 class action settlements providing each type of relief in each subject area Subject matter Cash In-kind relief Injunctive or declaratory relief Securities (n=257) Labor and Employment (n=94) Consumer (n=87) Employee Benefits (n=61) Civil Rights (n=61) Debt Collection (n=42) Antitrust (n=30) Commercial (n=13) Other (n=43) All (n=688) 100% 95% 74% 90% 49% 98% 97% 92% 77% 89% 0% 6% 30% 0% 2% 0% 13% 0% 7% 6% 2% 29% 37% 34% 75% 12% 7% 62% 33% 23%

Note: Cash: cash, securities, refunds, charitable contributions, contributions to employee benefit plans, forgiven debt, relinquishment of liens or claims, and liquidated repairs to property. In-kind relief: vouchers, coupons, gift cards, warranty extensions, merchandise, services, and extended insurance policies. Injunctive or declaratory relief: modification of terms of employee benefit plans, modification of compensation practices, changes in business practices, capital improvements, research, and unliquidated repairs to property. Sources: Westlaw, PACER, district court clerks' offices.

H. Settlement money Although securities settlements did not comprise the majority of federal class action settlements in 2006 and 2007, they did comprise the majority of the money--indeed, the vast majority of the money--involved in class action

16

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 19 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

settlements. In Table 4, I report the total amount of ascertainable value involved in the 2006 and 2007 settlements. This amount includes all determinate52 payments in cash or cash equivalents (such as marketable securities), including attorneys' fees and expenses, as well as any in-kind relief (such as coupons) or injunctive relief that was valued by the district court.53 I did not attempt to assign a value to any relief that was not valued by the district court (even if it may have been valued by class counsel). It should be noted that district courts did not often value in-kind or injunctive relief--they did so only 18% of the time--and very little of the amounts set forth in Table 4--only $1.3 billion, or 4%--are based on these valuations. It should also be noted that the amounts in Table 4 reflect only what defendants agreed to pay; they do not reflect the amounts that defendants actually paid out after the claims administration process concluded. Prior empirical research has found that, depending on how settlements are structured (e.g., whether they awarded a fixed amount of money to each class member who eventually files a valid claim or a pro rata amount of a fixed settlement to each class member), defendants can end up paying much less than they agreed.54

For example, I excluded awards of a fixed amount of money to each class member who eventually filed a valid claim (as opposed to settlements that awarded a pro rata amount of a fixed settlement to each class member) if the total amount of money set aside to pay the claims was not set forth in the settlement documents. In some cases, the district court valued the relief in the settlement over a range. In these cases, I used the middle point in the range.

54 53

52

See HENSLER, ET AL., supra note 7, at 427-430.

17

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 20 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

Table 4: The total amount of money involved in federal class action settlements in 2006 and 2007 Subject matter Total ascertainable monetary value in settlements (and percentage of overall annual total) 2006 2007 (n=304) (n=384) $16,728 76% $8,038 73% $266.5 1% $547.7 5% $517.3 $443.8 $265.4 $8.9 $1,079 $1,217 $1,568 $22,093 2% 2% 1% <1% 5% 6% 7% 100% $732.8 $280.8 $81.7 $5.7 $660.5 $124.0 $592.5 $11,063 7% 3% 1% <1% 6% 1% 5% 100%

Securities Labor and Employment Consumer Employee Benefits Civil Rights Debt Collection Antitrust Commercial Other Total

Note: Dollar amounts are in millions. Includes all determinate payments in cash or cash equivalents (such as marketable securities), including attorneys' fees and expenses, as well as any in-kind relief (such as coupons) or injunctive relief that was valued by the district court. Sources: Westlaw, PACER, district court clerks' offices.

Table 4 shows that, in both years, around three-quarters of all the money involved in federal class action settlements came from securities cases. Thus, in this sense, the conventional wisdom about the dominance of securities cases in class action litigation is correct. Figure 3 is a graphical representation of the contribution each litigation area makes to the total number and total amount of money involved in the 2006-2007 settlements.

18

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 21 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

Figure 3: The percentage of 2006-2007 federal class action settlements and settlement money from each subject area

Sources: Westlaw, PACER, district court clerks' offices.

Table 4 also shows that, in total, over $33 billion was approved in the 2006-2007 settlements. Over $22 billion was approved in 2006 and over $11 billion in 2007. It should be emphasized again that the totals in Table 4 understate the amount of money defendants agreed to pay in class action settlements in 2006 and 2007 because they exclude the unascertainable value of those settlements. This understatement disproportionately affects litigation areas, such as civil rights, where much of the relief is injunctive because, as I noted, very little of such relief was valued by district courts. Nonetheless, these numbers are, as far as I am aware, the first attempt to calculate how much money is involved in federal class action settlements in a given year. The significant discrepancy between the two years is largely attributable to the 2006 securities settlement related to the collapse of Enron, which totaled $6.6 billion, as well as to the fact that seven of the eight 2006-2007 settlements for more than $1 billion were approved in 2006.55 Indeed, it is

55 See In re Enron Corporation Securities Litigation, MDL 1446 (S.D. Tex. May 24, 2006) ($6,600,000,000); In re Tyco International Ltd. Multidistrict Litigation, MDL 02-1335 (D.N.H. Dec. 19, 2007) ($3,200,000,000); In re AOL Time Warner, Inc. Securities and "ERISA" Litigation, MDL 1500 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 6, 2006) ($2,500,000,000); In re: Diet Drugs

19

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 22 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

worth noting that the eight settlements for more than $1 billion accounted for almost $18 billion of the $33 billion that changed hands over the two year period. That is, a mere 1% of the settlements comprised over 50% of the wealth involved in federal class action settlements in 2006 and 2007. In order to give some sense of the distribution of settlement size in the 20062007 dataset, Table 5 sets forth the number of settlements with an ascertainable value beyond fee, expense, and class-representative incentive awards (605 out of the 688 settlements). Nearly two-thirds of all settlements fell below $10 million. Table 5: The distribution by size of 2006-2007 federal class action settlements with ascertainable value Settlement Size (in millions) Number of Settlements [$0 to $1] 131 (21.7%) ($1 to $10] 261 (43.1%) ($10 to $50] 139 (23.0%) ($50 to $100] 33 (5.45%) ($100 to $500] 31 (5.12%) ($500 to $6600] 10 (1.65%) 605 Total

Note: includes only settlements with ascertainable value beyond merely fee, expense, and class-representative incentive awards. Sources: Westlaw, PACER, district court clerks' offices.

Given the disproportionate influence exerted by securities settlements on the total amount of money involved in class actions, it is unsurprising that the average securities settlement involved more money than the average settlement in most of the other subject areas. These numbers are provided in Table 6, which includes, again, only the settlements with an ascertainable value beyond fee, expense, and class-representative incentive awards. The average settlement over the entire two-year period for all types of cases was almost $55 million, but the median was only $5.1 million. (With the $6.6 billion Enron settlement excluded, the average settlement for all ascertainable

Products Liability Litigation, MDL 1203 (E.D. Pa. May 24, 2006) ($1,275,000,000); In re Nortel Networks Corp. Securities Litigation (Nortel I), No.01-1855 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2006) ($1,142,780,000); In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities and ERISA Litigation, 03-1539 (D. Md. Jun. 16, 2006) ($1,100,000,000); Allapattah Services Inc. v. Exxon Corp., No. 91-0986 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2006) ($1,075,000,000); In re Nortel Networks Corp. Securities Litigation (Nortel II), No. 05-1659 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2006) ($1,074,270,000).

20

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 23 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

cases dropped to $43.8 million, and, for securities cases, dropped to $71.0 million.) The average settlements varied widely by litigation area, with securities and commercial settlements at the high end of around $100 million, but the median settlements for nearly every area were bunched around a few million dollars. It should be noted that the high average for commercial cases is largely due to one settlement above $1 billion;56 when that settlement is removed, the average for commercial cases was only $24.2 million. Table 6: The average and median settlement amounts in the 2006-2007 federal class action settlements with ascertainable value to the class Subject matter Average Median Securities (n=257) Labor and Employment (n=88) Consumer (n=65) Employee Benefits (n=52) Civil Rights (n=34) Debt Collection (n=40) Antitrust (n=29) Commercial (n=12) Other (n=28) All (n=605) $96.4 $9.2 $18.8 $13.9 $9.7 $0.37 $60.0 $111.7 $76.6 $54.7 $8.0 $1.8 $2.9 $5.3 $2.5 $0.088 $22.0 $7.1 $6.2 $5.1

Note: Dollar amounts are in millions. Includes only settlements with ascertainable value beyond merely fee, expense, and class-representative incentive awards. Sources: Westlaw, PACER, district court clerks' offices.

Table 6 permits comparison with the two prior empirical studies of class action settlements that sought to include non-securities as well as securities cases in their purview. The Eisenberg-Miller study through 2002, which included both common-fund and fee-shifting cases, found that the mean class action settlement was $112 million and the median was $12.9 million, both in 2006 dollars,57 more than double the average and median I found for all settlements in 2006 and 2007. The Eisenberg-Miller update through 2008 included only common-fund cases and found mean and median settlements in federal court of $115 million and $11.7 million (both again in 2006 dollars),58 respectively; this is still more than double the average and median I found. This suggests that the methodology used by the Eisenberg-Miller studies--

See Allapattah Services Inc. v. Exxon Corp., No. 91-0986 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2006) (approving $1,075,000,000 settlement).

57 58 56

See Eisenberg & Miller, supra note 15, at 47. See Eisenberg & Miller II, supra note 16, at 262.

21

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 24 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

looking at district court opinions that were published in Westlaw or Lexis-- oversampled larger class actions (because opinions approving larger class actions are, presumably, more likely to be published than opinions approving smaller ones). It is also possible that the exclusion of fee-shifting cases from their data through 2008 contributed to this skew, although, given that their data through 2002 included fee-shifting cases and found an almost identical mean and median as their data through 2008, the primary explanation for the much larger mean and median in their study through 2008 is probably their reliance on published opinions. Over the same years examined by Professors Eisenberg and Miller, the Class Action Reports study found a smaller average settlement than I did ($39.5 million in 2006 dollars), but a larger median ($8.48 million in 2006 dollars). It is possible that the Class Action Reports methodology also oversampled larger class actions, explaining its larger median, but that there are more "mega" class actions today than there were before 2003, explaining its smaller mean.59 It is interesting to ask how significant the $16 billion that was involved annually in these 350 or so federal class action settlements is in the grand scheme of American litigation. Unfortunately, we do not know how much money is transferred every year in American litigation. The only studies of which I am aware that attempt even a partial answer to this question are the estimates of how much money is transferred in the American "tort" system every year by a financial services consulting firm, Tillinghast-Towers Perrin.60 These studies are not directly comparable to the class action settlement numbers because, again, the number of tort class action settlements in 2006 and 2007 was very small. Nonetheless, as the tort system no doubt constitutes a large percentage of the money transferred in all litigation, these studies provide something of a point of reference to assess the significance of class action settlements. In 2006 and 2007, TillinghastTowers Perrin estimated that the American tort system transferred $160 billion and $164 billion, respectively, to claimants and their lawyers.61 The total amount of money involved in the 2006 and 2007 federal class action settlements reported in Table 4 was, therefore, roughly 10% of the

59 There were eight class action settlements during 2006 and 2007 of more than $1 billion. See note 55 supra. 60 Some commentators have been critical of Tillinghast's reports, typically on the ground that the reports overestimate the cost of the tort system. See M. Martin Boyer, Three Insights from the Canadian D&O Insurance Market: Inertia, Information and Insiders, 14 CONN. INS. L.J. 75, 84 (2007); John Fabian Witt, Form and Substance in the Law of Counterinsurgency Damages, 41 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1455, 1475 n.135 (2008). If these criticisms are valid, then class action settlements would appear even more significant as compared to the tort system. 61 See TILLINGHAST-TOWERS PERRIN, U.S. TORT COSTS: 2008 UPDATE 5 (2008). The report calculates $252 billion in total tort "costs" in 2007 and $246.9 billion in 2006, see id., but only 65% of those costs represent payments made to claimants and their lawyers (the remainder represents insurance administration costs and legal costs to defendants). See TILLINGHASTTOWERS PERRIN, U.S. TORT COSTS: 2003 UPDATE 17 (2003).

22

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 25 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

Tillinghast-Towers Perrin estimate. This suggests that, in merely 350 cases every year, federal class action settlements involve the same amount of wealth as 10% of the entire American tort system. It would seem that this is a significant amount of money for so few cases.

IV.

Attorneys' Fees in Federal Class Action Settlements 2006 & 2007

A. Total Amount of Fees and Expenses As I demonstrated in Part III, federal class action settlements involved a great deal of money in 2006 and 2007, some $16 billion a year. A perennial concern with class action litigation is whether class action lawyers are reaping an outsized portion of this money.62 The 2006-2007 federal class action data suggest that these concerns may be exaggerated. As shown in Table 7, only 13% of the settlement amount in 2006 and 20% of the amount in 2007 went to class action lawyers as fee and expense awards.63 The 2006 percentage is lower than the 2007 percentage in large part because the class action lawyers in the Enron securities settlement received less than 10% of the $6.6 billion corpus. In any event, the percentages in both 2006 and 2007 are far lower than the portions of settlements that contingency-fee lawyers receive in individual litigation, which are usually at least 33%.64 Lawyers received less than 33% of settlements in fees and expenses in virtually every subject area in both years.

62 See, e.g., John C. Coffee, Jr., Commentary, Conflicts, Consent, and Allocation After Amchem Products--Or, Why Attorneys Still Need Consent to Give Away Their Clients' Money, 84 VA. L. REV. 1541, 1544 (1998); Christopher R. Leslie, A Market-Based Approach to Coupon Settlements in Antitrust and Consumer Class Action Litigation, 49 UCLA L. REV. 991, 995 (2002).

In some of the partial settlements, see note 29 supra, the district court awarded expenses for all the settlements at once and it was unclear what portion of the expenses was attributable to which settlement. In these instances, I assigned each settlement a pro rata portion of expenses. To the extent possible, all of the fee and expense numbers in this article exclude any interest known to be awarded by the courts.

64 See, e.g., Herbert M. Kritzer, The Wages of Risk: The Returns of Contingency Fee Legal Practice, 47 DEPAUL L. REV. 267, 284-86 (1998) (reporting results of a survey of Wisconsin lawyers).

63

23

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 26 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

Table 7: The total amount of fees and expenses awarded to class action lawyers in federal class action settlements in 2006 and 2007 Subject matter Total fees and expenses awarded in settlements (and as percentage of total settlement amounts) in each subject area 2006 2007 (n=292) (n=363) $1,899 (11%) $1,467 (20%) $75.1 (28%) $144.5 (26%) $126.4 (24%) $65.3 (9%) $57.1 (13%) $71.9 (26%) $31.0 (12%) $32.2 (39%) $2.5 (28%) $1.1 (19%) $274.6 (26%) $157.3 (24%) $347.3 (29%) $18.2 (15%) $119.3 (8%) $103.3 (17%) $2,932 (13%) $2,063 (20%)

Securities Labor and Employment Consumer Employee Benefits Civil Rights Debt Collection Antitrust Commercial Other Total

Note: Dollar amounts are in millions. Excludes settlements in which fees were not (or at least not yet) sought (22 settlements), settlements in which fees have not yet been awarded (2 settlements), and settlements in which fees could not be ascertained due to indefinite award amounts, missing documents, or non-public side agreements (9 settlements). Sources: Westlaw, PACER, district court clerks' offices.

It should be noted that, in some respect, the percentages in Table 7 overstate the portion of settlements that were awarded to class action attorneys because, again, many of these settlements involved indefinite cash relief or non-cash relief that could not be valued.65 If the value of all of this relief could have been included, then the percentages in Table 7 would have been even lower. On the other hand, as noted above, not all of the money defendants agree to pay in class action settlements is ultimately collected by the class.66 To the extent leftover money is returned to the defendant, the percentages in Table 7 understate the portion class action lawyers received relative to their clients.

B. Method of Awarding Fees

Indeed, the large year-to-year variation in the percentages in labor, consumer, and employee benefits cases arose because district courts made particularly large valuations of the equitable relief in a few settlements and used the lodestar method to calculate the fees in these settlements (and thereby did not consider their large valuations in calculating the fees).

66

65

See HENSLER, ET AL., supra note 7, at 427-430.

24

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 27 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

District court judges have a great deal of discretion in how they set fee awards in class action cases. Under Rule 23, federal judges are told only that the fees they award to class counsel must be "reasonable."67 Courts often exercise this discretion by choosing between two approaches: the lodestar approach or the percentage-of-the-settlement approach.68 The lodestar approach works much the way it does in individual litigation: the court calculates the fee based on the number of hours class counsel actually worked on the case multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate and a discretionary multiplier.69 The percentage-of-the-settlement approach bases the fee on the size of the settlement rather than the hours class counsel actually worked: the district court picks a percentage of the settlement that it thinks is reasonable based on a number of factors, one of which is often the fee lodestar (sometimes referred to as a "lodestar cross check").70 My 2006-2007 dataset shows that the percentage-of-the-settlement approach has become much more common than the lodestar approach. In 69% of the settlements reported in Table 7, district court judges employed the percentage-of-the-settlement method with or without the lodestar cross check. They employed the lodestar method in only 12% of settlements. In the other 20% of settlements, the court did not state the method it used or it used another method altogether.71 The pure lodestar method was used most often in consumer (29%) and debt collection (45%) cases. These numbers are fairly consistent with the Eisenberg-Miller data from 2003 to 2008. They found that the lodestar method was used in only 9.6% of settlements.72 Their number is no doubt lower than the 12% number found in the 2006-2007 dataset because they excluded fee-shifting cases from their study.

67 68

FED. R. CIV. P. 23(h).

The discretion to pick between these methods is most pronounced in settlements where the underlying claim was not found in a statute that would shift attorney's fees to the defendant, see, e.g., In re Thirteen Appeals Arising out of the San Juan DuPont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 56 F.3d 295, 307 (1st. Cir. 1995) (permitting either percentage or lodestar method in common fund cases); Goldberger v. Integrated Res. Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir. 2000) (same); Rawlings v. Prudential-Bache Props., Inc., 9 F.3d 513, 516 (6th Cir. 1993) (same). By contrast, courts typically used the lodestar approach in settlements arising from fee-shifting cases.

69 70 71

See Eisenberg & Miller, supra note 15, at 31. See id. at 31-32.

These numbers are based on the fee method described in the district court's order awarding fees, unless the order was silent, in which case the method, if any, described in class counsel's motion for fees (if it could be obtained) was used. If the court explicitly justified the fee award by reference to its percentage of the settlement, I counted it as the percentage method. If the court explicitly justified the award by reference to a lodestar calculation, I counted it as the lodestar method. If the court explicitly justified the award by reference to both, I counted it as the percentage method with a lodestar cross check. If the court calculated neither a percentage nor the fee lodestar in its order, then I counted it as an "other" method.

72

See Eisenberg & Miller II, supra note 16, at 267.

25

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 28 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

C. Variation in Fees Awarded Not only do district courts often have discretion to choose between the lodestar method and the percentage-of-the-settlement method, but each of these methods leaves district courts with a great deal of discretion in how the method is ultimately applied. The courts that use the percentage-of-thesettlement method usually rely upon a multi-factor test,73 and, like most multifactor tests, it can plausibly yield almost any result. It is true that in many of these cases, judges examine the fee percentages that other courts have awarded to guide their discretion.74 In addition, the Ninth Circuit has adopted a presumption that 25% is the proper fee award percentage in class action cases.75 Moreover, in securities cases, some courts presume that the proper fee award percentage is the one class counsel agreed to when it was hired by the large shareholder that is now usually selected as the lead plaintiff in such cases.76 Nonetheless, presumptions, of course, can be overcome, and, as one court has put it, "[t]here is no hard and fast rule mandating a certain percentage . . . which may reasonably be awarded as a fee because the amount of any fee must be determined upon the facts of each case."77 The court added: "[i]ndividualization in the exercise of a discretionary power [for fee awards] will alone retain equity as a living system and save it from sterility."78 It is therefore not surprising that district courts awarded fees over a broad range when they used the percentage-of-the-settlement method. Figure 4 is a graph of the distribution of fee awards as a percentage of the settlement in the 444 cases where district courts used the percentage method with or without a lodestar cross check and the fee percentages were ascertainable. These fee awards are exclusive of awards for expenses whenever the awards could be separated by examining either the district

The Eleventh Circuit, for example, has identified a non-exclusive list of 15 factors that district courts might consider. See Camden I Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768, 772 n.3, 775 (11th Cir. 1991). See also In re Tyco Int'l, Ltd. Multidistrict Litig., 535 F. Supp. 2d 249, 265 (D.N.H. 2007) (five factors); Goldberger v. Integrated Res. Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir. 2000) (six factors); Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp., 223 F.3d 190, 195 n. 1 (3d Cir. 2000) (seven factors); In re Royal Ahold N.V. Sec. & ERISA Litig., 461 F. Supp. 2d 383, 385 (D. Md. 2006) (thirteen factors); Brown v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 838 F.2d 451, 454 (10th Cir. 1988) (twelve factors); In re Baan Co. Sec. Litig., 288 F. Supp. 2d 14, 17 (D.D.C. 2003) (seven factors).

74 75 76 77 78 73

See Eisenberg & Miller, supra note 15, at 32. See Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 968 (9th Cir. 2003). See, e.g., In re Cendant Corp. Litigation, 264 F.3d 201, 282 (3d Cir. 2001). Camden I Condominium Ass'n, 946 F.2d at 774.

Camden I Condominium Ass'n, 946 F.2d at 774 (alterations in original and internal quotation marks omitted).

26

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 29 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

court's order or counsel's motion for fees and expenses (which was 96% of the time). The awards ranged from 3% of the settlement to 47% of the settlement. The average award was 25.4% and the median was 25%. Most fee awards were between 25% and 35%, with almost no awards more than 35%. The Eisenberg-Miller study through 2008 found a slightly lower mean (24%) but the same median (25%) among its federal court settlements.79 Figure 4: The distribution of 2006-2007 federal class action fee awards using the percentage-of-the-settlement method with or without lodestar crosscheck

.4 0 .1 Fraction of settlements .2 .3

0

10 20 30 40 Percentage of settlement awarded in fees

50

Sources: Westlaw, PACER, district court clerks' offices.

It should be noted that in 218 of these 444 settlements (49%), district courts said they considered the lodestar calculation as a factor in assessing the reasonableness of the fee percentages awarded. In 204 of these settlements, the lodestar multiplier resulting from the fee award could be ascertained. The lodestar multiplier in these cases ranged from .07 to 10.3, with a mean of 1.65 and a median of 1.34. Although there is always the possibility that class counsel are optimistic with their time sheets when they submit them for lodestar consideration, these lodestar numbers--only one multiplier above 6.0, with the bulk of the range not much above 1.0--strike me as fairly parsimonious for the risk that goes into any piece of litigation

79

See Eisenberg & Miller II, supra note 16, at 259.

27

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 30 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

and cast doubt on the notion that the percentage-of-the-settlement method results in windfalls to class counsel.80 Table 8 shows the mean and median fee percentages awarded in each litigation subject area. The fee percentages did not appear to vary greatly across litigation subject areas, with most mean and median awards between 25% and 30%. As I report later in this Part, however, after controlling for other variables, there were statistically significant differences in the fee percentages awarded in some subject areas compared to others. The mean and median percentages for securities cases were 24.7% and 25.0%, respectively; for all non-securities cases, the mean and median were 26.1% and 26.0%, respectively. The Eisenberg-Miller study through 2008 found mean awards ranging from 21-27% and medians from 19-25%,81 a bit lower than the ranges in my 2006-2007 dataset, which again, may be because they oversampled larger settlements (as I show below, district courts awarded smaller fee percentages in larger cases).

80 It should be emphasized, of course, that these 204 settlements may not be representative of the settlements where the percentage-of-the-settlement method was used without the lodestar crosscheck. 81

See Eisenberg & Miller II, supra note 16, at 262.

28

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 31 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

Table 8: Fee awards in 2006-2007 federal class action settlements using the percentage-of-the settlement method with or without lodestar crosscheck Subject matter Percentage of settlement awarded as fees Mean Median 24.7% 25.0% 28.0% 23.5% 26.0% 29.0% 24.2% 25.4% 23.3% 24.9% 25.7% 29.0% 24.6% 28.0% 30.3% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 26.0% 25.0%

Securities (n=233) Labor and Employment (n=61) Consumer (n=39) Employee Benefits (n=37) Civil Rights (n=20) Debt Collection (n=5) Antitrust (n=23) Commercial (n=7) Other (n=19) All (n=444)

Sources: Westlaw, PACER, district court clerks' offices.

In light of the fact that, as I noted above, the distribution of class action settlements among the geographic circuits does not track their civil litigation dockets generally, it is interesting to ask whether one reason for the pattern in class action cases is that circuits oversubscribed with class actions award higher fee percentages. Although this question will be taken up with more sophistication in the regression analysis below, it is worth describing here the mean and median fee percentages in each of the circuits. Those data are presented in Table 9. Contrary to the hypothesis set forth in Part III, two of the circuits most oversubscribed with class actions, the Second and the Ninth, were the only circuits in which the mean fee awards were under 25%. As I explain below, these differences are statistically significant and remain so after controlling for other variables.

29

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 32 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

Table 9: Fee awards in 2006-2007 federal class action settlements using the percentage-of-the settlement method with or without lodestar crosscheck Circuit First (n=27) Second (n=72) Third (n=50) Fourth (n=19) Fifth (n=27) Sixth (n=25) Seventh (n=39) Eighth (n=15) Ninth (n=111) Tenth (n=18) Eleventh (n=35) DC (n=6) Percentage of settlement awarded as fees Mean Median 27.0% 25.0% 23.8% 25.4% 25.2% 26.4% 26.1% 27.4% 26.1% 23.9% 25.3% 28.1% 26.9% 24.5% 29.3% 28.0% 29.0% 28.0% 29.0% 30.0% 25.0% 25.5% 30.0% 26.0%

Sources: Westlaw, PACER, district court clerks' offices.

The lodestar method likewise permits district courts to exercise a great deal of leeway through the application of the discretionary multiplier. Figure 5 shows the distribution of lodestar multipliers in the 71 settlements in which district courts used the lodestar method and the multiplier could be ascertained. The average multiplier was .98 and the median was .92, which suggests that courts were not terribly prone to exercise their discretion to deviate from the amount of money encompassed in the lodestar calculation. These 71 settlements were heavily concentrated within the consumer (median multiplier 1.13) and debt collection (.66) subject areas. If cases in which district courts used the percentage-of-the-settlement method with a lodestar cross check are combined with the lodestar cases, the average and median multipliers (in the 263 cases where the multipliers were ascertainable) were 1.45 and 1.19, respectively. Again--putting to one side the possibility that

30

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 33 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

class counsel are optimistic with their time sheets--these multipliers appear fairly modest in light of the risk involved in any piece of litigation. Figure 5: The distribution of lodestar multipliers in 2006-2007 federal class action fee awards using the lodestar method

.3 0 Fraction of settlements .1 .2

0

.5

1 Multiplier

1.5

2

2.5

Sources: Westlaw, PACER, district court clerks' offices.

D. Factors Influencing Percentage Awards Whether district courts are exercising their discretion over fee awards wisely is an important public policy question given the amount of money at stake in class action settlements. As shown above, district court judges awarded class action lawyers nearly $5 billion in fees and expenses in 20062007. Based on the comparison to the tort system set forth in Part III, it is not difficult to surmise that, in the 350 or so settlements every year, district court judges are awarding a significant portion of all of the annual compensation received by contingency-fee lawyers in the United States. Contingency fees are arguably the engine that drives much of the noncriminal regulation in America; unlike many other nations, we regulate largely through the ex post, decentralized device of litigation.82 To the extent district courts could have exercised their discretion to award billions more or

See, e.g., Samuel Issacharoff, Regulating after the Fact, 56 DEPAUL L. REV. 375, 377 (2007).

82

31

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 34 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

billions less to class action lawyers, district courts have been delegated a great deal of leeway over a big chunk of our regulatory horsepower. It is therefore worth examining how district courts exercise their discretion over fees. This examination is particularly important in cases where district courts use the percentage-of-the-settlement method to award fees: not only do such cases comprise the vast majority of settlements, but they comprise the vast majority of the money awarded as fees. As such, the analysis that follows will be confined to the 444 settlements where the district courts used the percentage-of-the-settlement method. As I noted, prior empirical studies have shown that fee percentages are strongly and inversely related to the size of the settlement both in securities fraud and other cases. As shown in Figure 6, the 2006-2007 data are consistent with prior studies. Regression analysis, set forth in more detail below, confirms that, after controlling for other variables, fee percentage is strongly and inversely associated with settlement size among all cases, among securities cases, and among all non-securities cases. Figure 6: Fee awards as a function of settlement size in 2006-2007 class action cases using the percentage-of-the-settlement method with or without lodestar crosscheck

50 0 10 10 Fee Percentage 20 30 40

15 20 Settlement amount (natural log)

25

Sources: Westlaw, PACER, district court clerks' offices.

As noted above, courts often look to fee percentages in other cases as one factor they consider in deciding what percentage to award in a settlement at hand. In light of this practice, and, in light of the fact that the size of the

32

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 35 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

settlement has such a strong relationship to fee percentages, scholars have tried to help guide the practice by reporting the distribution of fee percentages across different settlement sizes.83 In Table 10, I follow the Eisenberg-Miller studies and attempt to contribute to this guidance by setting forth the mean and median fee percentages, as well as the standard deviation, for each decile of the 2006-2007 settlements in which courts used the percentage-of-the-settlement method to award fees. The mean percentages ranged from over 28% in the first decile to less than 19% in the last decile. Table 10: Mean, median, and standard deviation of fee awards by settlement size in 2006-2007 federal class action settlements using the percentage-of-the settlement method with or without lodestar crosscheck Settlement Size Mean Median Standard (in millions) Deviation [$0 to $0.75] 28.8% 29.6% 6.1% (n = 45) ($0.75 to $1.75] 28.7% 30.0% 6.2% (n=44) ($1.75 to $2.85] 26.5% 29.3% 7.9% (n = 45) ($2.85 to $4.45] 26.0% 27.5% 6.3% (n = 45) ($4.45 to $7.0] 27.4% 29.7% 5.1% (n = 44) ($7.0 to $10.0] 26.4% 28.0% 6.6% (n = 43) ($10.0 to $15.2] 24.8% 25.0% 6.4% (n = 45) ($15.2 to $30.0] 24.4% 25.0% 7.5% (n = 46) ($30.0 to $72.5] 22.3% 24.9% 8.4% (n = 42) ($72.5 to $6600] 18.4% 19.0% 7.9% (n = 45)

Sources: Westlaw, PACER, district court clerks' offices.

It should be noted that the last decile in Table 10 covers an especially wide range of settlements, those from $72.5 million to the Enron settlement of $6.6 billion. In order to give more meaningful data to courts that must award fees in the largest settlements, Table 11 shows the last decile broken into additional cut points. When both Tables 10 and 11 are examined together, it appears that fee percentages tended to drift lower at a fairly slow

83

See Eisenberg & Miller II, supra note 16, at 265.

33

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 36 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

pace until a settlement size of $100 million was reached, at which point the fee percentages plunged well below 20%, and by the time $500 million was reached, they plunged well below 15%, with most awards at that level under even 10%. Table 11: Mean, median, and standard deviation of fee awards of the largest 2006-2007 federal class action settlements using the percentageof-the settlement method with or without lodestar crosscheck Settlement Size Mean Median Standard (in millions) Deviation ($72.5 to $100] 23.7% 24.3% 5.3% (n = 12) ($100 to $250] 17.9% 16.9% 5.2% (n=14) ($250 to $500] 17.8% 19.5% 7.9% (n = 8) ($500 to $1000] 12.9% 12.9% 7.2% (n = 2) ($1000 to $6600] 13.7% 9.5% 11% (n = 9)

Sources: Westlaw, PACER, district court clerks' offices.

Prior empirical studies have not examined whether fee awards are associated with the political affiliation of the district court judges making the awards. This is surprising because Realist theories of judicial behavior would predict that political affiliation would influence fee decisions.84 It is true that, as a general matter, political affiliation may influence district court judges to a lesser degree than it does appellate judges (who have been the focus of most of the prior empirical studies of Realist theories): district court judges decide more routine cases and are subject to greater oversight on appeal than appellate judges. On the other hand, class action settlements are a bit different in these regards than many other decisions made by district court judges. To begin with, class action settlements are almost never appealed, and when they are, the appeals are usually settled before the appellate court hears the case.85 Thus, district courts have much less reason to worry about the constraint of appellate review in fashioning fee awards. Moreover, one would think the potential for political affiliation to influence

See generally C. K. ROWLAND & ROBERT A. CARP, POLITICS AND JUDGMENT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS (1996). See also Max M. Schanzenbach & Emerson H. Tiller, Reviewing the Sentencing Guidelines: Judicial Politics, Empirical Evidence, and Reform, 75 U. Chi. L. Rev. 715, 724-25 (2008).

85 See Brian T. Fitzpatrick, The End of Objector Blackmail?, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 1623, 1640, 1634-38 (2009) (finding that less than 10% of class action settlements approved by federal courts in 2006 were appealed by class members). 84

34

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 37 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

judicial decisionmaking is greatest when legal sources lead to indeterminate outcomes and when judicial decisions touch upon matters that are salient in national politics. (The more salient a matter is, the more likely Presidents will select judges with views on the matter and the more likely those views will diverge between Republicans and Democrats.) Fee award decisions would seem to satisfy both of these criteria. The law of fee awards, as explained above, is highly discretionary, and fee award decisions are wrapped up in highly salient political issues such as tort reform and the relative power of plaintiffs' lawyers and corporations. I would expect to find that judges appointed by Democratic presidents awarded higher fees in the 2006-2007 settlements than did judges appointed by Republican presidents. The data, however, do not appear to bear this out. Of the 444 fee awards using the percentage-of-the-settlement approach, 52% were approved by Republican appointees, 45% were approved by Democratic appointees, and 4% were approved by non-Article III judges (usually magistrate judges). The mean fee percentage approved by Republican appointees (25.6%) was slightly greater than the mean approved by Democratic appointees (24.9%). The medians (25%) were the same. In order to examine whether the Realist hypothesis fared better after controlling for other variables, I performed regression analysis of the fee percentage data for the 427 settlements approved by Article III judges. I used ordinary least squares regression with the dependent variable the percentage of the settlement that was awarded in fees.86 The independent variables were the natural log of the amount of the settlement, the natural log of the age of the case (in days), indicator variables for whether the class was certified as a settlement class, for litigation subject areas, and for circuits, as well as indicator variables for whether the judge was appointed by a Republican or Democratic President and for the judge's race and gender.87 The results for five regressions are in Table 12. In the first regression (column 1), only the settlement amount, case age, and judge's political affiliation, gender, and race were included as independent variables. In the second regression (column 2), all of the independent variables were included.

86 Professors Eisenberg and Miller used a square root transformation of the fee percentages in some of their regressions. I ran all of the regressions using this transformation as well and it did not appreciably change the results. I also ran the regressions using a natural log transformation of fee percentage and with the dependent variable natural log of the fee amount (as opposed to the fee percentage). None of these models changed the results appreciably. The regressions were also run with and without the 2006 Enron settlement because it was such an outlier ($6.6 billion); the case did not change the regression results appreciably. For every regression, the data and residuals were inspected to confirm the standard assumptions of linearity, homoscedasticity, and the normal distribution of errors. 87 Prior studies of judicial behavior have found that the race and sex of the judge can be associated with their decisions. See, e.g., Adam B. Cox & Thomas J. Miles, Judging the Voting Rights Act, 108 COLUM. L. REV. 1 (2008) Donald R. Songer et al., A Reappraisal of Diversification in the Federal Courts: Gender Effects in the Courts of Appeals, 56 J. POL. 425 (1994).

35

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 38 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

In the third regression (column 3), only securities cases were analyzed, and, in the fourth regression (column 4), only non-securities cases were analyzed. In none of these regressions was the political affiliation of the district court judge associated with fee percentage in a statistically significant manner.88 One possible explanation for the lack of evidence for the Realist hypothesis is that district court judges elevate other preferences above their political and ideological ones. For example, district courts of both political stripes may succumb to docket-clearing pressures and largely rubber stamp whatever fee is requested by class counsel; after all, these requests are rarely challenged by defendants. Moreover, if judges award class counsel whatever they request, class counsel will not appeal, and, given that, as noted above, class members rarely appeal settlements (and when they do, often settle them before the appeal is heard),89 judges can thereby virtually guarantee there will be no appellate review of their settlement decisions. Indeed, scholars have found that, in the vast majority of cases, the fees ultimately awarded by federal judges are little different than those sought by class counsel.90 Another explanation for the lack of evidence for the Realist hypothesis is that my dataset includes both unpublished as well as published decisions. It is thought that Realist theories of judicial behavior lose force in unpublished judicial decisions. This is the case because the kinds of questions for which Realist theories would predict that judges have the most room to let their ideologies run are questions for which the law is ambiguous; it is thought that these kinds of questions are more often answered in published opinions.91 Indeed, most of the studies finding an association between ideological beliefs and case outcomes were based on datasets that included only published opinions.92 On the other hand, there are a small but growing number of studies that have examined unpublished opinions as well, and some of these studies have shown that ideological effects persisted.93 Nonetheless, in light

88 Although these coefficients are not reported in Table 8, the gender of the district court judge was never statistically significant. The race of the judge was only occasionally significant. 89 90

See Fitzpatrick, supra note 85, at 1640.

See Eisenberg & Miller II, supra note 16, at 270 (finding that state and federal judges awarded the fees requested by class counsel in 72.5% of settlements); Eisenberg, Miller & Perino, supra note 9, at 22 ("[J]udges take a light touch when it comes to reviewing fee requests.").

91 See, e.g., Ahmed E. Taha, Data and Selection Bias: A Case Study, 75 UMKC L. REV. 171, 179 (2006). 92

See id. at 178-79.

93 See, e.g., David S. Law, Strategic Judicial Lawmaking: Ideology, Publication, and Asylum Law in the Ninth Circuit, 73 U. CIN. L. REV. 817, 843 (2005); Deborah Jones Merritt & James J. Brudney, Stalking Secret Law: What Predicts Publication in the United States Courts of Appeals, 54 VAND. L. REV. 71, 109 (2001); Donald R. Songer, Criteria for Publication of Opinions in the U.S. Courts of Appeals: Formal Rules Versus Empirical Reality, 73 JUDICATURE 307, 312 (1990). At the trial court level, however, the studies of civil cases have

36

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 39 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

of the discretion that judges exercise with respect to fee-award decisions, it hard to characterize any decision in this area as "unambiguous." Thus, even when unpublished, I would have expected the fee award decisions to exhibit an association with ideological beliefs. Thus, I am more persuaded by the explanation suggesting that judges are more concerned with clearing their dockets or insulating their decisions from appeal in these cases than with furthering their ideological beliefs. In all of the regressions, the size of the settlement was strongly and inversely associated with fee percentages. Whether the case was certified as a settlement class was not associated with fee percentages in any of the regressions. The age of the case at settlement was associated with fee percentages in the first two regressions, and when the settlement class variable was removed in regressions three and four, the age variable became positively associated with fee percentages in non-securities cases but remained insignificant in securities cases. Professors Eisenberg and Miller likewise found that the age of the case at settlement was positively associated with fee percentages in their 1993-2002 dataset,94 and that settlement classes were not associated with fee percentages in their 2003-2008 dataset.95 Although the structure of these regressions did not permit extensive comparisons of fee awards across different litigation subject areas, fee percentages appeared to vary somewhat depending on the type of case that settled. Securities cases were used as the baseline litigation subject area in the second and fifth regressions, permitting a comparison of fee awards in each non-securities area with the awards in securities cases. These regressions show that awards in a few areas, including labor/employment and antitrust, were more lucrative than those in securities cases. In the fourth regression, which included only non-securities cases, labor and employment cases were used as the baseline litigation subject area, permitting comparison between fee percentages in that area and the other non-securities areas. This regression shows that fee percentages in several areas, including consumer and employee benefits cases, were lower than the percentages in labor and employment cases. In the fifth regression (column 5), I attempted to discern whether the circuits identified in Part III as those with the most overrepresented (the First,

found no ideological effects. See Laura Beth Nielsen, Robert L. Nelson, & Ryon Lancaster, Individual Justice or Collective Legal Mobilization? Employment Discrimination Litigation in the Post Civil Rights United States, 7 J. EMPIRICAL L. STUD. 175, 192-93 (2010); Denise M. Keele et al., An Analysis of Ideological Effects in Published versus Unpublished Judicial Opinions, 6 J. EMPIRICAL L. STUDIES 213, 230 (2009); Orley Ashenfelter, Theodore Eisenberg, & Stewart J. Schwab, Politics and the Judiciary: The Influence of Judicial Background on Case Outcomes, 24 J. LEGAL STUD. 257, 276-77 (1995). With respect to criminal cases, there is at least one study at the trial court level that has found ideological effects. See Schanzenbach & Tiller, supra note 84, at 734.

94 95

See Eisenberg & Miller, supra note 15, at 61. See Eisenberg & Miller II, supra note 16, at 266.

37

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 40 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

Second, Seventh, and Ninth) and underrepresented (the Fifth and Eighth) class action dockets awarded attorneys' fees differently than the other circuits. That is, perhaps district court judges in the First, Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits award greater percentages of class action settlements as fees than do the other circuits, whereas district court judges in the Fifth and Eighth Circuits award smaller percentages. In order to test this hypothesis, in the fifth regression, I included indicator variables only for the six circuits with unusual dockets to measure their fee awards against the other six circuits combined. The regression showed statistically significant association with fee percentages for only two of the six unusual circuits: the Second and Ninth Circuits. In both cases, however, the direction of the association (i.e., the Second and Ninth Circuits awarded smaller fees than the baseline circuits) was opposite the hypothesized direction.96 The lack of the expected association with the unusual circuits might be explained by the fact that class action lawyers forum shop along dimensions other than their potential fee awards; they might, for example, put more emphasis on favorable class-certification law because there can be no fee award if the class is not certified. As noted above, it might also be the case that class action lawyers are unable to engage in forum shopping at all because defendants are able to transfer venue to the district in which they are headquartered or another district with a significant connection to the litigation. It is unclear why the Second and Ninth Circuits were associated with lower fee awards despite their heavy class action dockets. Indeed, it should be noted that the Ninth Circuit was the baseline circuit in the second, third, and fourth regressions, and, in all of these regressions, district courts in the Ninth Circuit awarded smaller fees than courts in many of the other circuits. The lower fees in the Ninth Circuit may be attributable to the fact that it has adopted a presumption that the proper fee to be awarded in a class action settlement is 25% of the settlement.97 This presumption may make it more difficult for district court judges to award larger fee percentages. The lower awards in the Second Circuit are more difficult to explain, but it should be noted that the difference between the Second Circuit and the baseline circuits went away when the fifth regression was re-run with only non-securities

96 This relationship persisted when the regressions were re-run among the securities and non-securities cases separately. I do not report these results, but, even though the First, Second, and Ninth Circuits were oversubscribed with securities class action settlements and the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth were undersubscribed, there was no association between fee percentages and any of these unusual circuits except, again, the inverse association with the Second and Ninth Circuits. In non-securities cases, even though the Seventh and Ninth Circuits were oversubscribed and the Fifth and the Eighth undersubscribed, there was no association between fee percentages and any of these unusual circuits except again for the inverse association with the Ninth Circuit.

See note 75 supra. It should be noted that none of the results from the previous regressions were affected when the Ninth Circuit settlements were excluded from the data.

97

38

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 41 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

cases.98 This suggests that the awards in the Second Circuit may be lower only in securities cases. In any event, it should be noted that the lower fee awards from the Second and Ninth Circuits contrast with the findings in the Eisenberg-Miller studies which found no inter-circuit differences in fee awards in common-fund cases in their data through 2008.99

98 99

The Ninth Circuit's differences persisted. See Eisenberg & Miller II, supra note 16, at 260.

39

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 42 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

Table 12: Regression of fee percentages in 2006-2007 settlements using percentage-of-the-settlement method with or without lodestar crosscheck

Independent variable Settlement amount (natural log) Age of case (natural log days) Judge's political affiliation (1 = Democrat) Settlement class 1st Circuit 2d Circuit 3d Circuit 4th Circuit 5th Circuit 6th Circuit 7th Circuit 8th Circuit 9th Circuit 10th Circuit

th

(1) -1.77 (-5.43)** 1.66 (2.31)** -0.630 (-0.83)

Regression coefficients (and robust t-statistics) (2) (3) (4) -1.76 -1.76 -1.41 (-8.52)** (-7.16)** (-4.00)** 1.99 1.13 1.72 (2.71)** (1.21) (1.47) -0.345 0.657 -1.43 (-0.49) (0.76) (-1.20) .150 .873 -1.62 (0.19) (0.84) (-1.00) 3.30 4.41 0.031 (2.74)** (3.32)** (0.01) 0.513 -0.813 2.93 (0.44) (-0.61) (1.14) 2.25 4.00 -1.11 (1.99)** (3.85)** (-0.50) 2.34 0.544 3.81 (1.22) (0.19) (1.35) 2.98 1.09 6.11 (1.90)* (0.65) (1.97)** 2.91 0.838 4.41 (2.28)** (0.57) (2.15)** 2.55 3.22 2.90 (2.23)** (2.36)** (1.46) 2.12 -0.759 3.73 (0.97) (-0.24) (1.19) ----

(5) -1.78 (-8.67)** 2.00 (2.69)** -0.232 (-0.34) .124 (0.15) 0.579 (0.51) -2.23 (-1.98)** --0.230 (0.15) --0.227 (-0.20) -0.586 (-0.28) -2.73 (-3.44)** --

1.45 -0.254 3.16 (0.94) (-0.13) (1.29) 4.05 3.85 4.14 -11 Circuit (3.44)** (3.07)** (1.88)* 2.76 2.60 2.41 -DC Circuit (1.10) (0.80) (0.64) --Securities case 2.93 -2.85 Labor and employment (3.00)** (2.94)** case -1.65 -4.39 -1.62 Consumer case (-0.88) (-2.20)** (-0.88) -0.306 -4.23 -0.325 Employee benefits case (-0.23) (-2.55)** (-0.26) 1.85 -2.05 1.76 Civil rights case (0.99) (-0.97) (0.95) -4.93 -7.93 -5.04 Debt collection case (-1.71)* (-2.49)** (-1.75)* 3.06 0.937 2.78 Antitrust case (2.11)** (0.47) (1.98)** -0.028 -2.65 0.178 Commercial case (-0.01) (-0.73) (0.05) -0.340 -3.73 -0.221 Other case (-0.17) (-1.65) (-0.11) 42.1 37.2 43.0 38.2 40.1 Constant (7.29)** (6.08)** (6.72)** (4.14)** (7.62)** 427 427 232 195 427 N .20 .26 .37 .26 .26 R2 6.59 6.50 5.63 7.24 6.48 Root MSE Note: ** significant at the 5% level; * significant at the 10% level. Standard errors in column 1 were clustered by circuit. Indicator variables for race and gender were included in each regression but not

40

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-7

Filed 11/16/10 Page 43 of 43

Draft of July 7, 2010

reported. Sources: Westlaw, PACER, district court clerks' offices, Federal Judicial Center.

V.

Conclusion

This article has attempted to fill some of the gaps in our knowledge about class action litigation by reporting the results of an empirical study that attempted to collect all class action settlements approved by federal judges in 2006 and 2007. District court judges approved 688 class action settlements over this two-year period, involving more than $33 billion. Of this $33 billion, nearly $5 billion was awarded to class action lawyers, or about 15% of the total. District courts typically awarded fees using the highly discretionary percentage-of-the-settlement method, and fee awards varied over a wide range under this method, with a mean and median around 25%. Fee awards using this method were strongly and inversely associated with the size of the settlement. Fee percentages were positively associated with the age of the case at settlement. Fee percentages were not associated with whether the class action was certified as a settlement class or with the political affiliation of the judge who made the award. Finally, there appeared to be some variation in fee percentages depending on subject matter of the litigation and the geographic circuit in which the district court was located. Fee percentages in securities cases were lower than the percentages in some but not all of the other litigation areas, and district courts in the Ninth Circuit and in the Second Circuit (in securities cases) awarded lower fee percentages than district courts in several other circuits. The lower awards in the Ninth Circuit may be attributable to the fact that it is the only circuit that has adopted a presumptive fee percentage of 25%.

41

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-8

Filed 11/16/10 Page 1 of 2

(;+,%,7 +

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-8

Filed 11/16/10 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-9

Filed 11/16/10 Page 1 of 6

(;+,%,7 ,

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-9

Filed 11/16/10 Page 2 of 6

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-9

Filed 11/16/10 Page 3 of 6

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-9

Filed 11/16/10 Page 4 of 6

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-9

Filed 11/16/10 Page 5 of 6

Case 2:10-cv-00198-JLR Document 52-9

Filed 11/16/10 Page 6 of 6

Information

Microsoft Word - 901462_1

330 pages

Report File (DMCA)

Our content is added by our users. We aim to remove reported files within 1 working day. Please use this link to notify us:

Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

1295237

You might also be interested in

BETA
Microsoft Word - 901462_1
Microsoft Word - 785180_1.DOC
Allstate Corporation