monopolization; illegal reverse payments; “pay-for-delay” agreements

Full text

Exhibit A
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 1 of 42

Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP
Firm Resume
SAN FRANCISCO, CA      NEW YORK, NY
2021
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 2 of 42

The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP is
one of the country’s most acclaimed
and successful boutique firms. It
achieves ground-breaking results for
plaintiffs in antitrust law, class
actions, complex business disputes,
securities litigation, consumer
protection, intellectual property, and
qui tam/whistleblower cases, in
federal and state courts throughout
the United States and across the
globe.
FIRM HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
saverilawfirm.com
2
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 3 of 42

The Firm was founded in 2012 by Joseph Saveri. Since then, it has led several
groundbreaking and precedent-setting cases. It has served as lead and co-
counsel on a variety of cases involving: challenges to price-fixing;
monopolization; illegal reverse payments; “pay-for-delay” agreements
involving the drugs Cipro, Lidoderm, Restasis, and Opana ER; and “no-poach”
agreements restricting hiring and recruiting at major corporations. These cases
cover diverse industries including pharmaceuticals, high-technology,
electronics, banking and financial services, transportation, and sports leagues.
The Firm is widely regarded as one of the nation’s leading law firms; it has
established a track record leading and prosecuting some of the most significant
cases across the United Sates. Its attorneys have recovered over $4 billion in
settlements and successful resolutions for their clients, and the Firm has
received many honors, including:
saverilawfirm.com
3
FIRM HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
AMERICAN ANTITRUST INSTITUTE
In 2020, Anupama Reddy was recognized by the American Antitrust
Institute for “Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement by a Young
Lawyer” (for work performed in In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation). In
2017, the Firm was an Honoree for “Outstanding Antitrust Litigation
Achievement in Private Law Practice” for its success in In re Cipro
Cases I and II. In 2015, the Firm was a Finalist for this award for its
success in In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation. The awards
are part of the American Antitrust Institute’s Antitrust Enforcement
Awards, which recognize achievements in antitrust litigation by legal
practitioners and economists.
BENCHMARK LITIGATION
In the practice area of “competition/antitrust,” the Firm was recognized
as one of the top five in California. Partners Joseph Saveri and Steven
Williams were honored in the same field as “National Practice Area
Stars” and “Local Litigation Stars.” (2020)
Benchmark Litigation, based in the United Kingdom, New York City, and
Hong Kong, researches and ranks law firms and lawyers based on
transactional advice. Research is conducted through extensive
interviews with litigators, dispute resolution specialists, and their clients
to identify the leading litigators and firms. During these interviews, it
examines recent casework handled by law firms and ask individual
litigators to provide their professional opinions on peers and
practitioners within their jurisdiction or practice area. Each annual
research process culminates in the publication of law firm rankings,
individual lawyer ratings, and firm editorial content.
Firm Awards
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 4 of 42

saverilawfirm.com
4
FIRM HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
BEST LAWYERS/U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT
Since 2013, the Firm has been annually selected for inclusion in Best Law
Firms, an annual publication by U.S. News & World Report and Best
Lawyers. It is ranked among the top tiers in “Litigation—Antitrust” nationally,
and “Litigation—Antitrust” and “Mass Tort Litigation/Class Actions” in San
Francisco. Firms included in the Best Law Firms list are recognized for
professional excellence with persistently impressive ratings from clients and
peers. Achieving a tiered ranking signals a unique combination of quality law
practice and breadth of legal expertise. To be eligible for a ranking, a firm
must have a lawyer selected by Best Lawyers to The Best Lawyers in
America, a publication which recognizes the top five percent of practicing
attorneys in the United States. Joseph Saveri and Steven Williams have
been meritoriously selected.
CHAMBERS AND PARTNERS
Chambers and Partners has ranked The Firm “Band 1” (highest ranking) in
its “Antitrust: Mainly Plaintiff—California” category: currently the only firm in
California to receive this honor. Chambers recognized the Firm as
“esteemed for securing significant victories in monopolization, price-fixing
and pay-for-delay cases.” It found it to be “among the top plaintiffs’ firms in
the country; a very well-known firm that shows up in important cases.”
Firm partners Joseph Saveri and Steven Williams are currently ranked
“Band 1” attorneys by Chambers in its “Antitrust: Plaintiff—USA—
Nationwide” and “Antitrust: Mainly Plaintiff—California” categories. Their
dual “Band 1” rankings make the Firm the only one nationwide to contribute
multiple “Band 1” designees to these categories. Joseph Saveri has been
ranked a “Band 1” attorney in these categories since 2014. Chambers
commended him for “leading class action litigation against industry giants in
the tech, pharmaceutical and manufacturing sectors” and his “market-
leading expertise in price-fixing, monopolization and conspiracy claims.” His
legal peers described him as “a tenacious attorney who turns difficult cases
into good cases.” Steven Williams has been ranked “Band 1” or “Band 2” in
one or both categories since 2015. He has been praised for his “deft
representation of plaintiffs across an array of anticompetitive issues in
federal and state court” and his “strong track record leading large plaintiff
classes in industry-significant price-fixing litigation.”
London-based Chambers ranks law firms and individual lawyers in bands
from 1-6, with 1 being the best. The qualities on which rankings are
assessed include technical legal ability, client service, commercial vision and
business understanding, diligence, value for money (cost-effective staffing
and organization), depth of team, professional conduct, and other factors
important to clients.
DAILY JOURNAL (CALIFORNIA)
The Firm was recognized as one of the “Top Boutiques in California 2018,” a
contest that selected and reported on the top 20 boutique law firms in
California. The profile highlighted the Firm’s recent growth, the addition of
partner Steven Williams, and its advancement of antitrust law on prominent
cases such as In re Cipro Cases I and II. The Firm also received this award
in 2016. Joseph Saveri and Steven Williams have received several Daily
Journal “Top in California” individual awards in various categories.
The Daily Journal Corporation, a Los Angeles-based publishing and
technology company, features Interview-based profiles covering judicial
philosophy, representative decisions, and recent cases.
Firm Awards Con’t
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 5 of 42

saverilawfirm.com
5
FIRM HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
LAWDRAGON
Joseph Saveri and Steven Williams have been selected 2019-present for
Lawdragon legal media company’s “500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers”
online guide. The guide, first published in 2007, presents Lawdragon’s
recognition of the best of the U.S. plaintiff bar. The 500 lawyers selected
bring their cases as individual matters as well as in class actions that are
increasingly going global. Lawdragon, based in New York City, provides free
online news and editorial features—including its well-known guides to the
nation’s leading lawyers—as well as content, marketing, and branding
services for lawyers and firms.
THE LEGAL 500
In 2019-present, the Firm was one of a select few nationwide recognized for
excellence in the United Kingdom-based research and ranking service’s “United
States Antitrust Civil Litigation/Class Actions: Plaintiff” category. The Legal 500
assesses the strengths of law firms in over 150 jurisdictions. Its rankings are based
on feedback from 300,000 clients worldwide, detailed submissions from law firms,
interviews with leading private practice lawyers, and a team of researchers with
unrivaled experience in the legal market.
MARTINDALE HUBBELL
Two Firm partners have achieved Martindale Hubbell’s highest rating—“AV
Preeminent.” Joseph Saveri has achieved this ranking since 2008; Steven
Williams has done likewise since 2002. Martindale-Hubbell’s Peer Review
Ratings are an objective indicator of a lawyer’s high ethical standards and
professional ability. Attorneys receive Peer Review Ratings based on
evaluations by other members of the bar and the judiciary in the United
States and Canada.
SUPER LAWYERS
Several of the Firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Super Lawyers,
part of Thomson Reuters, which rates outstanding lawyers from more than
70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition,
professional achievement, and excellence. The Super Lawyers list
recognizes no more than five percent of attorneys in each state. Partner
Joseph Saveri has been rated a “Super Lawyer” annually since 2006 and
was named to the “Top 100 Northern California Super Lawyers” in 2015-
2016 and 2019-present. Partner Steven Williams has been annually rated a
“Super Lawyer” since 2005 and was named to the “Top 100 Northern
California Super Lawyers” in 2016-present. Associate Kyle Quackenbush
was rated a “Rising Star” in 2020.
WHO’S WHO LEGAL/GLOBAL COMPETITION REVIEW
Firm partners Joseph Saveri and Steven Williams were selected as two of
the top plaintiffs’ attorneys worldwide in Who’s Who Legal: Competition
2020, a publication of Who’s Who Legal and Global Competition Review. Mr.
Saveri was praised as “a distinguished antitrust practitioner on the plaintiff
side.” Mr. Williams was commended as a “top-notch competition lawyer” and
a "highly intelligent strategic thinker.“ Mr. Saveri was previously selected for
this honor in 2015-2019, as was Mr. Williams in 2014-2019. In 2019-present,
Joseph Saveri and Steven Williams were also profiled in Thought Leaders:
Competition, a publication of Who’s Who Legal.
Who’s Who Legal, a prestigious United Kingdom-based legal ranking
service, has identified the foremost legal practitioners and consulting experts
in business law based upon comprehensive, independent research. It is
dedicated to identifying the world’s leading lawyers across multiple practice
areas and publishes a series of guides throughout the year. Global
Competition Review provides a subscription-based news and resource
service (both online and print) and yearly hosts several live events.
Firm Awards Con’t
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 6 of 42

saverilawfirm.com
6
FIRM HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
With 30 years of civil litigation experience, Mr.
Saveri has handled cases involving numerous
industries, including: banking and financial services,
insurance, energy, pharmaceuticals, agricultural
products, computer hardware, computer software,
manufacturing inputs, travel and transportation,
paper products, cosmetics, and consumer
electronics. He has established himself as one of the
country’s top litigators in the antitrust field.
Mr. Saveri has investigated, prosecuted, and successfully resolved
numerous antitrust class actions and other complex cases. He has
served both as a court-appointed leader of such efforts and as a valued
member of the teams operating under the leadership of others. As lead
or co-lead counsel in many of these cases, he has taken a personal
leadership role in organizing litigation, setting strategy, establishing and
directing teams of lawyers, and assigning specific tasks to teams of
attorneys in a way that ensures the efficient use of resources and
maximizes the talents of the litigation team. Throughout these cases, he
has displayed the energy, vision, and commitment that leadership
requires, combined with the ability to listen, share, and work
cooperatively so that the litigation team operates equitably, efficiently,
and without friction.
Mr. Saveri and the Firm serve or have served as lead counsel in many
high-profile cases, including most recently Capacitors, Titanium
Dioxide, High-Tech Employees, and California’s Cipro litigation. Over
the past decade, his fellow partner Steven Williams has played a lead
role in many of the most prominent antitrust class cases and been
named lead or co-lead counsel more often than perhaps any other
attorney in the United States. Overall, the Firm’s attorneys are
accomplished and successful in all phases of litigation and have been
awarded by the American Antitrust Institute, Chambers and Partners,
Martindale Hubbell, The Legal 500, Who’s Who Legal, and Super
Lawyers for their distinguished leadership. They lecture and write on
many topics, are actively involved in numerous legal organizations, and
are multi-lingual and from diverse backgrounds.
The Firm has a strong commitment to pro bono representation. It
frequently works with the Northern District of California’s Federal Pro
Bono Project, which operates in conjunction with the Bar Association of
San Francisco’s Justice and Diversity Center. The JDC provides pro
bono services to underserved San Francisco residents and
communities, and the organizations that serve them. Many Firm
attorneys participate in this project and have received Court praise for
their successful results achieved for their clients.
$4B+
In settlements and
resolutions for our
clients
100+
Combined Years of
Civil Litigation
Experience
17
Leadership
Positions in Cases
Nationwide
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 7 of 42

The Firm has been a successful
leader in cases covering antitrust,
class actions, complex business
disputes, consumer protection, and
other practice areas, on behalf of
national and international
consumers, purchasers, and
employees across diverse
industries.
saverilawfirm.com
7
CASE PROFILES
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 8 of 42

The Firm handles antitrust cases, class actions, and complex litigation in
federal and state courts throughout the United States. Prominent past and
current cases in which the Firm or Mr. Saveri serves or has served include:
CASE PROFILES
IN RE CAPACITORS ANTITRUST LITIGATION
No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD, 3:17-md-02801-JD (N.D. Cal.)
The Firm is sole Lead Counsel for a class of direct purchasers of
capacitors used in electronic devices. Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants—over twenty corporations and corporate families—formed
a cartel and conspired to fix, raise, and stabilize prices in the multi-
billion-dollar market for aluminum, tantalum, and film capacitors. The
Firm represents the class as Plaintiffs in a civil class action.
Settlements totaling $439.55 million have been reached with most
Defendants. Trial against Defendants who have not settled will occur
in 2021. In the criminal case, eight capacitors manufacturers and
two individual executives have pleaded guilty and been
sentenced for violating federal antitrust laws.
IN RE CIPRO CASES I AND II
J.C.C.P. Nos. 4154, 4220 (San Diego County Sup. Ct.)
The Firm is Co-Lead Counsel for consumers who purchased Cipro, a
blockbuster antibiotic drug. Plaintiffs alleged that Bayer Corporation,
Barr Laboratories, two other generic drug companies, and other
Defendants entered into an unlawful agreement to keep a generic
version of the drug off the market, which allowed Bayer to sell Cipro at
inflated prices. In 2013, the California Superior Court for the County of
San Diego approved a $74 million class action settlement between
Bayer and the Class. In 2015, the California Supreme Court reversed
the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for further
proceedings. In that decision, the California Supreme Court ruled in
Plaintiffs’ favor and adopted a “structured” rule of reason as the
standard for adjudicating reverse payment antitrust cases. Following
remand to the Superior Court, Plaintiffs reached a $100 million
settlement agreement with Defendants Hoechst Marion Roussel, The
Rugby Group, Inc., and Watson Pharmaceuticals, which the Court
approved in 2016. In 2017, on the eve of trial, Plaintiffs settled with
Barr, the sole remaining Defendant, for $225 million, bringing the
total Class recovery to $399 million: a record for this type of
case.
saverilawfirm.com
8
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 9 of 42

CASE PROFILES
SCOLA V. FACEBOOK, INC.
No. 18CIV05135 (San Mateo County Sup. Ct.)
The Firm is co-counsel in an action against Facebook alleging that a
Plaintiff Class of content moderators responsible for viewing and
removing offensive and disturbing content from Facebook users are
suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other trauma-related
injuries because they were not being properly protected by the social
media company. In 2020, the Class reached a ground-breaking
preliminary settlement for $52 million and workplace
improvements. The settlement provides significant relief to over
10,000 content moderators who worked for Facebook’s vendors in
California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida.
IN RE HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEES ANTITRUST LITIGATION
No. 5:11-cv-02509-LHK (N.D. Cal.)
The Firm served as Co-Lead Class Counsel for a class of over
60,000 employees of leading technology companies against their
employers for their alleged agreements to restrict recruiting to
suppress wages. Three Defendants agreed to settlements totaling
$20 million. Following the Court’s denial of their motions for summary
judgment, the remaining Defendants agreed to a settlement totaling
$415 million.
IN RE TITANIUM DIOXIDE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
No. 1:10-cv-00318-RDB (D. Md.)
The Firm served as Co-Lead Counsel to a class of direct purchasers
of titanium dioxide who alleged that several primary suppliers engaged
in an unlawful conspiracy to raise, maintain, or stabilize prices for
titanium dioxide in the United States. The case produced a $163.5
million settlement.
saverilawfirm.com
9
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 10 of
42

CASE PROFILES
IN RE RESTASIS (CYCLOSPORINE OPHTHALMIC EMULSION)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
MDL No. 2819-NG-LB (E.D.N.Y.)
The Firm is Co-Lead Counsel for End-Payer Plaintiffs in an antitrust
class action filed against Allergan, Inc. for an alleged scheme to delay
generic competition to Allergan’s blockbuster Restasis drug (used
primarily for the treatment of chronic dry eyes). The Firm brought suit
on behalf of its client and named class representative, the Self-Insured
Schools of California, a Joint Powers Authority providing health
benefits to over 300,000 public school district employees and their
family members. Plaintiffs allege that Allergan unlawfully extended its
monopoly in the market for Restasis through a series of fraudulent and
anticompetitive acts. The suit is currently part of a multidistrict litigation
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York. Class certification has been granted. A late 2021 trial date
is likely.
IN RE: XYREM (SODIUM OXYBATE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
No. 20-MD-02966-LHK (S.D.N.Y.)
The Firm represents Plaintiff, purchaser Self-Insured Schools of
California, in a multi-district litigation antitrust suit in which it serves on
the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee. Plaintiff and a potential class of
other purchasers are insurers, health and welfare plans, and
consumers seeking relief from indirectly paying for and/or providing
reimbursement for purchases of Xyrem (an oral narcolepsy drug) at
supra-competitive prices. Facing the impact of competitive market
forces, Defendant Jazz (Xyrem manufacturer) allegedly turned to an
anticompetitive scheme to delay generic entry and maintain its
monopoly. Plaintiffs seek class certification, damages, and other
injunctive and equitable relief.
IN RE LIDODERM ANTITRUST LITIGATION
No. 3:14-md-02521-WHO (N.D. Cal.)
The Firm served as End-Payors’ Liaison Counsel in a class action
lawsuit brought by indirect purchasers of Lidoderm against Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Teikoku, and Actavis Inc. Plaintiffs claimed that
Defendants entered into an illegal reverse payment agreement in
which Endo provided nearly $100 million worth of branded Lidoderm
and additional consideration to Actavis to keep generic lidocaine
patches off the market. Plaintiffs alleged that the agreement delayed
generic competition and caused Plaintiffs to pay higher prices. In 2017,
the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class of Lidoderm End-
Payors. The case settled in early 2018, shortly before trial, for $105
million.
saverilawfirm.com
10
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 11 of
42

CASE PROFILES
IN RE OPANA ER ANTITRUST LITIGATION
No. 1:14-cv-10150 (N.D. Ill.)
The Firm represents Plaintiffs in a proposed class action brought by
indirect purchasers against brand and generic manufacturers of Opana
ER. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. and
Impax Laboratories entered an illegal “pay-for-delay” or reverse
payment agreement whereby Endo provided Impax over $100 million
in cash, as well as other valuable consideration, in exchange for
Impax’s promise to keep generic versions of Opana ER off the market.
Plaintiffs allege that this prevented generic competition and resulted in
higher prices.
MEIJER V. ABBOTT LABORATORIES
Nos. 4:07-cv-5470, 4:07-cv-5702, 4:07-cv-5985 (N.D. Cal.)
Mr. Saveri served as Liaison Counsel on behalf of the class of Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs in the Norvir Antitrust Litigation. The case involved
claims under Section One and Section Two of the Sherman Act in
connection with the sale, marketing, and pricing of the bundled drugs
Norvir and Kaletra by Abbott Laboratories. Mr. Saveri participated in all
phases of the litigation, including trial. Among other highlights, his work
during jury selection of the case resulted in the landmark decision by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v.
Abbott Laboratories, 740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2014), confirming that
equal protection prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in
jury selection and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Batson v.
Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), applies in civil cases. Following jury
selection, the Direct Purchasers settled their claims in full for $52
million.
CUNG LE V. ZUFFA, LLC
No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL (D. Nev.)
The Firm is Co-Lead Counsel for Professional Mixed Martial Arts
(MMA) Fighters in a class action against MMA promoter Ultimate
Fighting Championship (“UFC”) and its parent company Zuffa LLC.
Plaintiffs allege that the UFC illegally acquired and maintained
monopoly power in the market for promoting Professional MMA Bouts
and monopsony power in the market for Professional MMA Fighters’
Services and used that monopoly and monopsony power to suppress
compensation for MMA fighters who fought for the UFC. The Court
denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss. In December 2020, the Court
certified the class.
saverilawfirm.com
11
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 12 of
42

CASE PROFILES
JONES V. VARSITY BRANDS
No. 2:20-cv-02892 (W.D. Tenn.)
The Firm represents a class of competitive cheer families against
Varsity Brands, LLC; Varsity Spirit, LLC; Varsity Spirit Fashion &
Supplies, LLC; U.S. All Star Federation, Inc.; and other co-
conspirators. Plaintiffs allege Defendants have abused Varsity’s
market power to raise, fix, and stabilize the prices charged and
associated with competitive cheer. As a result, cheer athletes,
together with their parents, friends, and families, have been
overcharged by the Defendants, who have obtained millions of dollars
in supracompetitive illegal profits.
GIORDANO V. SAKS INCORPORATED
No. 1:20-cv-00833-MKB-CLP (E.D.N.Y.)
The Firm is Co-Lead Class Counsel in a “no-poach” class action,
alleging that Defendants Saks Incorporated; Saks & Company LLC;
Saks Fifth Avenue LLC; Louis Vuitton USA Inc.; Fendi North America,
Inc.; Loro Piana & C. Inc.; Gucci America, Inc.; Prada USA Corp.; and
Brunello Cucinelli, USA, Inc. agreed not to hire one another’s luxury
retail employees. Plaintiffs are former sales professionals who sought
employment opportunities with other Defendants. Plaintiffs allege the
illegal agreements restrain competition for luxury retail employees
working for Defendants. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief.
JESSICA ROBINSON V. JACKSON HEWITT, INC. AND TAX
SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC.
No. 2:19-cv-9066 (D. N.J.)
The Firm is Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs in an antitrust
class action against Defendants Jackson Hewitt, Inc. and Tax
Services of America, Inc. Plaintiffs are individuals who work or have
worked for Jackson Hewitt, a tax preparation services provider and
franchisor, and for franchise locations of Jackson Hewitt. From
approximately January 2000 through December 2018, Defendants and
other co-conspirators agreed not to compete for employees and
potential employees, including agreements not to solicit, recruit, or hire
without prior approval each other’s personnel. Plaintiffs seek injunctive
relief and recovery of damages arising from Defendants’ violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
saverilawfirm.com
12
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 13 of
42

CASE PROFILES
JANE DOE V. YOUTUBE, INC.
No. 20-CIV-04023 (San Mateo County Sup. Ct.)
The Firm represents Plaintiff and a nation-wide class of content
moderators. The suit alleges that content moderators responsible for
viewing and removing offensive and disturbing videos and images
posted by YouTube users are suffering from psychological trauma and
post-traumatic stress disorder, and are not being protected properly by
the social media company. Plaintiffs seek workplace improvements
and compensation for exposure to objectionable content on YouTube’s
platform.
IN RE 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE TRADING LITIGATION
No. 3:21-cv-00781 (N.D. Cal.), No. 1:21-md—02989 (S.D. Fla.)
The Firm has filed suit on behalf of a proposed class of retail investors
against Robinhood Markets, Inc. and various brokerages, investment
funds, and other co-conspirators who allegedly entered into an illegal
scheme designed to shield themselves from massive industry losses
they had incurred due to their highly speculative short selling
strategies. Plaintiffs allege that they and other retail investors continue
to be injured due to a large, overarching conspiracy among
Defendants to stop them from buying stocks in open and fair public
securities markets. Plaintiffs seek damages recovery and injunctive
relief. In April 2021, this suit and several similar ones were centralized
and moved to the Southern District of Florida.
IN RE DENTAL SUPPLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION
No. 1:16-cv-00696-BMC-GRB (E.D.N.Y.)
The Firm serves as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive
Committee in a class action of direct purchasers against the primary
dental product distributors in the United States. Plaintiffs allege that
Patterson Companies, Inc., Henry Schein, Inc., and Benco Dental
Supply Company illegally boycotted competitor dental product
distributors to maintain and extend their dominant position in the
market for dental supplies and equipment. As a result, Plaintiffs (and
similarly situated dental practices) paid inflated prices for important
dental products, including imaging devices, dental chairs, high-tech
equipment, sterilization products, and other related materials. Final
judgment and a Court order granting an $80 million settlement
was reached in 2019.
saverilawfirm.com
13
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 14 of
42

CASE PROFILES
IN RE EPIPEN MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
MDL No. 2785, No. 17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan)
The Firm is on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in this multidistrict
litigation case alleging that Mylan, Pfizer, and their related companies
engaged in federal and state antitrust violations, RICO violations, and
violations of state consumer protection laws with regard to the EpiPen
autoinjector drug device. Defendants raised their prices by hundreds
of percent and forced consumers to buy two EpiPens at a time instead
of one in order to maximize their profits. In August 2018, the Court
denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss as to the vast majority of
Plaintiffs’ claims. Discovery is proceeding. Trial is anticipated late
2021-early 2022.
PASKENTA BAND OF NOMLAKI INDIANS V. CROSBY
No. 2:15-cv-00538-MCE-CMK (E.D. Cal.)
The Firm is Co-Lead Counsel in a suit in which it represents the
Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians pursuing the recovery of tens of
millions of dollars converted by former tribal officials. The Tribe brings
civil RICO and various state law claims alleging that these formal tribal
officials—with a number of associated individuals, banks, and benefit
providers—operated a RICO Enterprise that facilitated the looting of
tribal moneys. These former tribal officials spent the Tribe’s funds on
luxury homes, expensive cars, private jet travel, exclusive
entertainment and vacations, and their personal expenses.
IN RE GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST
LITIGATION
No. 2:16-md-02724-CMR (E.D. Pa.)
The Firm is on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for End-Payor
Plaintiffs and its client, the Self-Insured Schools of California, and
similarly situated U.S. consumers and insurers, against dozens of
generic drug manufacturers in this broad multidistrict litigation. The
antitrust suit charges the Defendants with conspiring to fix and raise
prices for over 30 different generic pharmaceutical drugs, forcing
consumers to pay inflated prices for medication to treat a wide variety
of illnesses and diseases.
saverilawfirm.com
14
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 15 of
42

CASE PROFILES
SPRADLING V. SURGICAL CARE AFFILIATES, LLC
No. 21-cv-01324 (N.D. Ill.)
The Firm represents Plaintiff Allen Spradling and a potential Class of
senior-level employees in an antitrust suit filed against Defendants
Surgical Care Affiliates, United Surgical Partners International, and at
least one other unnamed healthcare service provider. Plaintiffs allege
Defendants entered into “no-poach” agreements not to compete for
senior-level employees in the United States. These agreements
allegedly accomplished their purpose by reducing competition for
Defendants’ senior-level employees and suppressing Defendants’
senior-level employees’ compensation below competitive levels. They
also denied their senior-level employees access to job opportunities,
restricted their mobility, and deprived them of significant information that
they could have used to negotiate for better compensation and
employment terms. Plaintiffs seek to damages recovery and injunctive
relief to prevent Defendants from retaining the benefits of their alleged
antitrust violations.
IN RE JUUL LABS, INC. ANTITRUST LITIGATION
3:20-cv-02345-WHO (N.D. Cal.)
The Firm is Interim Lead Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs in e-
cigarette antitrust lawsuits against Altria Group, Inc. (Altria) and Juul
Labs, Inc. (JLI) on behalf of individuals and businesses who purchased
JUUL e-cigarette devices directly from JLI. Plaintiffs and the Class seek
damages recovery for violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The
e-cigarette antitrust claims stem from an allegedly anticompetitive
agreement between Altria and JLI, whereby Altria agreed to acquire an
ownership interest in JLI in exchange for over $12 billion. Altria also
allegedly agreed not to compete with JLI and to provide JLI valuable
retail shelf space in the e-cigarette market. Through this agreement, JLI
was able to maintain its dominance in the e-cigarette market and earn
monopoly profits. Altria then shared these profits through its ownership
stake in JLI.
FOND DU LAC BUMPER EXCHANGE INC. V. JUI LI ENTERPRISE
COMPANY LTD.
No. 2:09-cv-00852-LA (E.D. Wisc.)
The Firm represents a class of auto parts distributors who allege that
Taiwanese manufacturers of aftermarket sheet metal auto parts
colluded to artificially raise prices and eliminate competition. The Court
has granted final approval to settlements by two Defendants totaling
$25 million and has granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
saverilawfirm.com
15
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 16 of
42

CASE PROFILES
CHIP TECH, LTD. V. AVX CORP.
No. 3:15-cv-03820-JD (N.D. Cal.)
The Firm is counsel for a putative class of direct purchasers of
resistors used in electronic devices. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
formed a cartel and conspired to fix, raise, and stabilize prices in the
multi-billion-dollar market for resistors.
MICROSOFT PRIVATE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Representing businesses and consumers, Mr. Saveri 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 engaged in
anticompetitive conduct and/or violated state deceptive and unfair
business practices statutes to harm competition and monopolize the
markets for Intel-compatible, personal computer operating system
software, as well as word processing and spreadsheet software. In
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 2004, the Court in the North
Carolina action granted final approval to a settlement valued at over
$89 million, and the Court in the Tennessee action granted final
approval to a $64 million settlement. In 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.
Mr. Saveri served as Co-Lead Counsel in the New York, North
Carolina, and Tennessee cases, and held leadership roles in the
Florida case.
IN RE LUPRON MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION
MDL No. 1430 (D. Mass.)
In 2005, the Court approved a settlement of a class action brought 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 to persons or
entities that 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, which resulted in Plaintiffs paying
more for Lupron than they should have paid. Mr. Saveri served as Co-
Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel.
saverilawfirm.com
16
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 17 of
42

CASE PROFILES
IN RE BUSPIRONE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
MDL No. 1413 (S.D.N.Y.)
In 2003, Mr. Saveri obtained a $90 million cash settlement for
individual consumers, consumer organizations, and third-party payors
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’s patent and refrain from entering the market.
CALIFORNIA VITAMIN CASES
J.C.C.P. No. 4076 (San Francisco County Sup. Ct.)
Mr. Saveri 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)
against vitamin manufacturers alleged to have engaged in price fixing of
particular vitamins. In 2002, the Court granted final approval of a $96
million settlement with certain vitamin manufacturers. In 2006, the
Court granted final approval to over $8.8 million in additional
settlements.
PHARMACEUTICAL CASES I, II, AND III
J.C.C.P. Nos. 2969, 2971, and 2972 (San Francisco County Sup. Ct.)
Mr. Saveri 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 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 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.
saverilawfirm.com
17
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 18 of
42

CASE PROFILES
IN RE BRAND NAME PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
MDL No. 997 (N.D. Ill.)
Mr. Saveri 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. Class
Plaintiffs charged that Defendants engaged in price discrimination
against retail pharmacies by denying those 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 ELECTRICAL CARBON PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION
MDL No. 1514 (D.N.J.)
Mr. Saveri 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.
IN RE TRAVEL AGENCY COMMISSION ANTITRUST LITIGATION
MDL No. 1058 (D. Minn.)
Mr. Saveri 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.
saverilawfirm.com
18
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 19 of
42

Judicial Praise for the
Joseph Saveri Law Firm
saverilawfirm.com
19
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 20 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
20
JUDICIAL PRAISE
Through my extensive observations of counsel, I am assured that they are well qualified to
litigate this class action…. I have no hesitation that these lawyers will ‘fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the class.’”
JUDGE NINA GERSHON,
In Re Restasis (Cyclosporine Opthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litigation,
Master File No. 1:17-cv-06684 (E.D.N.Y. 2020)
The MDL litigation has been hard-fought by both sides and required an enormous amount
of work to collect evidence in the United States and several overseas countries, bring and
defend complex motions, and prepare a sprawling case for a jury trial. Class Counsel
prosecuted the case with skill and vigor, and achieved strongly positive results. The Court
also appreciated the professionalism and spirit of cooperation that Class Counsel brought to
the proceedings.”
JUDGE JAMES DONATO,
In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD (N.D. Cal. 2020)
The docket and the procedural history in this case demonstrate Counsel’s expertise and the
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ success to date. Counsel have done much to effectively
prosecute the Class’s claims, and to do so efficiently. Counsel have not come by their
success in this litigation easily. Defendants—including the Settling Defendants—have
hired the best antitrust counsel money can buy to defend them against the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claims.”
JUDGE JAMES DONATO,
In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD (N.D. Cal. 2017)
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Counsel vigorously and effectively pursued the Direct
Purchasers’ claims. These efforts included factual investigation, drafting complaints,
briefing and arguing motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, reviewing and
analyzing documents, interviewing witnesses and taking dozens of depositions in the
United States and abroad, negotiating the terms of the settlements, and preparing the
settlement documents.”
JUDGE MARIANNE O. BATTANI,
In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation/In re Wire Harness Cases, Master File No. 12-md-02311
(E.D. Mich. 2017)
“
“
“
“
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 21 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
21
JUDICIAL PRAISE
The Joseph Saveri Law Firm invested a great deal of time and effort to investigate and
develop the potential claims in this action, and it filed the first complaint in this case as a
result. . . . The Joseph Saveri Law Firm also has the support of many of the plaintiffs’
counsel, which the Court does find to be a significant factor in the Saveri Firm’s favor [for
appointment to Interim Lead Class Counsel].”
JUDGE JAMES DONATO,
In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD (N.D. Cal. 2014)
As noted by the Plaintiffs: ‘Since their initial appointment, [the Joseph Saveri Law Firm
and other interim co-lead and liaison counsel, and the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee] . . .
have devoted substantial time and resources to this case, including complex legal matters
on a variety of motions, case management, discovery planning, and extensive meetings and
conferrals with Defendants regarding ongoing discovery. Moreover, proposed Class
Counsel have demonstrated their extensive experience and expertise prosecuting antitrust,
class action, and complex civil litigation cases and have successfully litigated antitrust
class actions and other similar cases in courts throughout the United States.’ Defendants do
not object or disagree with the Plaintiffs' characterization of their representation. This
Court has reviewed the [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] Rule 23(g)(1) requirements, and
concludes that Plaintiffs' proposed co-lead counsel are well qualified to represent the Class
in this case.”
JUDGE RICHARD D. BENNETT,
In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation, 284 F.R.D. 328 (D. Md. 2012), amended, 962 F. Supp. 2d 840 (D. Md.
2013)
“
“
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 22 of
42

The Firm’s attorneys are
well-regarded for their integrity,
experience, and success in all phases
of litigation. They have received
multiple awards from the American
Antitrust Institute, Chambers and
Partners, Martindale Hubbell, The
Legal 500, Who’s Who Legal, and
Super Lawyers. Partners Joseph
Saveri and Steven Williams are
recognized as two of the country’s top
lawyers and leaders in federal
antitrust and class action litigation.
saverilawfirm.com
22
OUR TEAM
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 23 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
23
OUR TEAM - ATTORNEYS
Mr. Saveri began his career performing general litigation work at the San
Francisco law firm of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen. In 1992, he joined
the plaintiffs’ firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein (“LCHB”), where he was
the firm’s Managing Partner and established its antitrust and intellectual
property practice, which was recognized in 2012 as one of the top five practice
groups in California. He left LCHB in May 2012 to start his own firm.
Mr. Saveri has performed virtually every aspect of complex and class action
litigation, including factual and economic analysis of market conditions and
pricing practices, drafting of pleadings, law and motion matters, organizing e-
discovery, creating a discovery plan, administering and directing on-line review
of documents requiring coordination of dozens of lawyers fluent in English and
foreign languages, propounding written discovery, taking and defending
percipient and expert witness depositions, organizing the factual record,
briefing and arguing summary judgment, and leading trial and appellate work.
From 2010 through 2013, Mr. Saveri was chosen to serve as a Lawyer
Representative for the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has served and serves on
several court committees charged with developing rules and programs
regarding complex litigation, e-discovery, and a variety of other matters. He
was chosen to serve as a member of the Northern District’s Civil Rules
Advisory Committee from 2009-2012, the committee to establish rules and
procedures for expedited trials (which the Court adopted as General Order No.
64, “Expedited Trial Procedures”), and the committee which crafted new e-
discovery rules and procedures later adopted by the Court. He is a member of
the American Bar Association and the Bar Association of San Francisco.
Mr. Saveri is also a frequent author of articles on antitrust and complex
litigation issues, and a frequent lecturer on a variety of matters, including
antitrust, complex litigation, class action practice, and discovery. He serves as
an author of California Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law, the legal treatise
published by the State Bar of California’s Antitrust and Unfair Competition
Section. He is also a member of the Advisory Board of the American Antitrust
Institute and a Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America. In 2019, he was a
speaker at the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s public roundtable
to discuss the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement & Reform Act.
Mr. Saveri has received numerous ACCOLADES from an array of legal
entities, including:
Benchmark Litigation: Honored as National Practice Area Star” and “Local
Litigation Star” in competition/antitrust (2020)
Best Lawyers: Best Lawyers in America (2012-present)
Chambers and Partners: Band 1 (top-ranked) plaintiffs’ antitrust attorney for
California and nationwide (2014-present)
Joseph R. Saveri
PRACTICE AREAS
Antitrust
Class Actions
Complex Business Disputes
Commercial Litigation
Intellectual Property
Qui Tam and Whistleblower
ADMISSIONS
State of California
US Supreme Court
US Court of Appeals – Federal Circuit
US Court of Appeals – First Circuit
US Court of Appeals – Second Circuit
US Court of Appeals – Fourth Circuit
US Court of Appeals – Fifth Circuit
US Court of Appeals – Seventh Circuit
US Court of Appeals – Eighth Circuit
US Court of Appeals – Ninth Circuit
US District Court – Central District of California
US District Court – Eastern District of California
US District Court – Northern District of California
US District Court – Southern District of California
US District Court – Northern District of Illinois
US District Court – Eastern District of Michigan
US District Court – Eastern District of Wisconsin
EDUCATION
University of Virginia Law School, J.D.
University of California, Berkeley, B.A. History
and Economics (double major), with Honors
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 24 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
24
OUR TEAM - ATTORNEYS
Daily Journal (California): Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California (2018-present);
Top 100 Lawyers in California (2016, 2018-2019); Top Antitrust Lawyers in
California (2020); CLAY Award—California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (2016);
One of California’s Leading Labor & Employment Lawyers (2014)
Law 360: Titan of the Plaintiffs’ Bar for his leadership and vision in extending
the reach of antitrust cases into new areas such as pharmaceutical reverse
payments and “no-poach” agreements by high-tech employers (2014)
Lawdragon: 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers (2019-present)
Martindale-Hubbell: AV Preeminent rating—Top Rated Lawyers (2008-
present)
National Law Journal: Trailblazers—Mergers & Acquisitions and Antitrust
(2015)
Super Lawyers: Super Lawyers Northern California—Antitrust Litigation (2006-
present); Super Lawyers Top 100 Northern California (2015-2016, 2019-
present)
Who’s Who Legal: One of the top plaintiffs’ attorneys worldwide via Who’s
Who Legal: Competition (publication of Who’s Who Legal and Global
Competition Review (2015-present)); profiled in Thought Leaders: Competition,
a publication of Who’s Who Legal (2019-present)
con’t Joseph R. Saveri
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 25 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
25
OUR TEAM - ATTORNEYS
In over twenty-five years of practice, Mr. Williams has handled successfully and
with distinction all aspects of litigation and trial in state and federal courts and in
private arbitration.
Mr. Williams has played a lead role in many of the most prominent antitrust
class cases litigated in the United States over the last decade, including In re
Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, In re Static Random Access Memory
Litigation, Precision Associates v. Panalpina World Transport, and In re
Transpacific Air Transportation Litigation. Over the last decade he has been
named lead or co-lead counsel in more antitrust cases than perhaps any other
attorney in the United States. He has helped recover more than $2 billion and
has been responsible for new law including ground-breaking decisions
narrowing the scope of the Filed Rate Doctrine and permitting civil damage
claims in E. & J. Gallo Winery v. EnCana Corp., 503 F.3d 1027 (2007) and
Wortman v. All Nippon Airways, 854 F.3d 606 (2017), and a ruling that
“umbrella damages” are available under California state law. County of San
Mateo v. CSL, Ltd., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116342 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2014).
Mr. Williams—previously a long-time partner at Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy,
LLP—practices in the fields of litigation, trial, and client counseling, with an
emphasis on representation of civil plaintiffs in antitrust matters. He has served
in leadership positions in more than a dozen antitrust class cases throughout
the United States. During his career, he has represented claimants in cases
involving memory chips, pharmaceuticals, air passenger transportation, air
cargo transportation, cathode ray tubes, capacitors, resistors, flash memory,
lithium-ion batteries, financial products and services, poultry, and water. He has
been appointed to represent both classes and individuals. In non-class cases
he has represented the Chief Justice of California, the Judicial Council of
California, Consumers Union of United States, Inc., the United Farm Workers,
Dolores Huerta, public pension funds, private investment funds, many cities
and counties of California, public utilities including water districts, and individual
consumers.
Among other cases, Mr. Williams currently represents a Plaintiff Class of
content moderators, responsible for viewing and removing offensive and
disturbing content from Facebook users, who are allegedly suffering from
PTSD and other trauma-related injuries because they were not being properly
protected by the social media company. In 2020, the Class reached a ground-
breaking preliminary settlement for $52 million and workplace improvements.
Mr. Williams has written and lectured on various topics including antitrust,
multidistrict litigation, complex litigation, e-discovery, MTBE litigation, regulatory
developments in environmental law, contractual issues in environmental
cleanups, and habeas corpus. He has spoken at many venues, including the
American Bar Association Antitrust Section Spring Meeting, the California State
Bar Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section, the New York State Bar Association
Antitrust Section, and yearly presentations on civil discovery topics to the
Consumer Attorneys of California.
Mr. Williams is the author or co-author of several publications, including: “A
Practitioner’s Perspective: Why The Supreme Court Should Not Overturn
Illinois Brick in Apple v. Pepper,” Competition, The Journal of the Antitrust and
Unfair Competition Law Section of the California Lawyers Association; “Should
United States Courts Defer to Foreign Governments?,” Chambers and
Steven N. Williams
PRACTICE AREAS
Antitrust
Class Actions
Commercial Litigation
Consumer Protection
Qui Tam
ADMISSIONS
State of California
State of New Jersey
State of New York
US Supreme Court
US Court of Appeals – Second Circuit
US Court of Appeals – Third Circuit
US Court of Appeals – Fifth Circuit
US Court of Appeals – Sixth Circuit
US Court of Appeals – Ninth Circuit
US Court of Appeals – District of Columbia Circuit
US District Court – Eastern District of California
US District Court – Central District of California
US District Court – Northern District of California
US District Court – Southern District of California
US District Court – Eastern District of Michigan
US District Court – District of New Jersey
US District Court – Eastern District of New York
US District Court – Southern District of New York
EDUCATION
Fordham University School of Law, J.D.
New York University, B.A., Russian & Slavic
Studies
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 26 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
26
OUR TEAM - ATTORNEYS
Partners’s Cartels 2019 global practice guide; “‘Apple v. Pepper’ Will Enhance
Private Antitrust Enforcement by Confirming Bright-Line Rule of ‘Illinois Brick,’”
May 2019 The Recorder; “‘Pepper’ as a Back Door to ‘Illinois Brick’ (and ‘ARC
America’)?” and “Should ‘Hanover Shoe’ and ‘Illinois Brick’ Be Discarded?,”
August 2018 The Recorder; Antitrust Law Developments (Eighth), American
Bar Association; “Federal and State Class Antitrust Actions Should Not Be
Tried in a Single Trial,” The Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law
Section of the State Bar of California, Fall 2014; “Recoveries for Violations of
Federal and California Antitrust Statutes Should Not Be Apportioned,"
Competition, Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section, California State
Bar, Fall 2014; “Antitrust Whistleblowers Get Clarity,” Los Angeles and San
Francisco Daily Journal, 2013; “Courts Rein in the Cost of E-Discovery When
Lawyers and Their Clients Won’t,” California Lawyer, April 2012; and
California’s 2009 E-Discovery Laws, Text and Analysis, LexisNexis 2009.
Mr. Williams was appointed by the Consumer Attorneys of California as a
member of the California Discovery Subcommittee for revision of California
discovery rules and statutes relating to e-discovery and electronically stored
information, 2007-2008. He is currently in leadership for the American Bar
Association Antitrust Section and is a member of the International Cartel Task
Force and the Executive Committee of the Committee to Support the Antitrust
Laws. He is an advisor to the Executive Committee of the California Lawyers
Association Section on Antitrust, Unfair Competition Law, and Privacy Law, and
was chair of the 2017 Golden State Antitrust Institute. He is a Board Member of
Public Justice and past Chairman of the Board of Community Gatepath, an
organization dedicated to serving the needs of developmentally disabled
children and adults. He received the Justice & Diversity Center (JDC) of the Bar
Association of San Francisco’s Federal Pro Bono Project 2020 Crystal Award
for “Outstanding Volunteer of the Year,” and in 2018, the JDC recognized him
as an “Outstanding Volunteer.”
Mr. Williams has received numerous professional ACCOLADES, including:
American Antitrust Institute: Honoree for Antitrust Enforcement Awards for
“Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice” for his
key role in In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation (2019)
Benchmark Litigation: Honored as National Practice Area Star” and “Local
Litigation Star” in competition/antitrust (2020)
Best Lawyers: Best Lawyers in America (2020)
Chambers and Partners: Band 1 or Band 2 plaintiffs’ antitrust attorney for
California (2015-present) and nationwide (2017-present)
Daily Journal (California): Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California (2018-present);
Top Antitrust Lawyers in California (2020)
Lawdragon: 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers (2019-present)
Martindale-Hubbell: AV Preeminent rating—Top Rated Lawyers (2002-
present)
con’t Steven N. Williams
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 27 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
27
OUR TEAM - ATTORNEYS
Super Lawyers: Super Lawyers Northern California—Antitrust Litigation Super
Lawyer (2005-present); Super Lawyers Top 100 Northern California (2016-
present)
Who’s Who Legal: One of the top plaintiffs’ attorneys worldwide via Who’s
Who Legal: Competition (publication of Who’s Who Legal and Global
Competition Review (2014-present)); profiled in Thought Leaders: Competition,
a publication of Who’s Who Legal (2019-present)
con’t Steven N. Williams
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 28 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
28
OUR TEAM - ATTORNEYS
Ms. Malone joined the Firm in 2020. Her career practice has focused on
commercial and class action litigation, representing both plaintiffs and
defendants in matters related to information privacy, contract, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duties, and employee mobility issues. She has experience litigating in
state and federal trial and appellate courts and state supreme courts.
Ms. Malone has a well-established, successful track record as an associate at
two San Francisco law firms. She has litigated and advised clients in complex
commercial matters—including business disputes, consumer litigation, and
employment matters—for public and private companies, from pre-litigation
counseling through trial and appeals. She has extensive experience in all
phases of motion practice, discovery, and trial procedure, up to and including
preparing testifying witnesses for direct and cross-examination at trial. Among
her many highlights, she briefed and argued Lil’ Man in the Boat v. Auk Ta
Shaa before the United States Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) to uphold a
district court dismissal of a contract dispute, prevailing on both procedural and
substantive grounds for a corporate client.
Ms. Malone regularly writes and comments on various legal affairs. Her
publications include: “Welcome to New York It’s Been Waiting for You . . . But
Is Your Business Ready for the New York SHIELD Act?,” CPO Magazine (April
1, 2020); “Data Privacy: The Current Legal Landscape 2018 Reviewed,”
Troutman Sanders Insights (January 15, 2019); “Did the General Contractor on
the Death Star Have to Build the Second Death Star for Free?,” The Legal
Geeks (February 2, 2018); and “Think Twice Before Denying Requests for
Admissions,” California Daily Journal (September 24, 2015).
Prior to her career as an associate, Ms. Malone was an associate legal editor
for the California Daily Journal. During law school at Hastings College of the
Law, she was editor-in-chief of the Hastings Communications & Entertainment
Law Journal, where she authored “Parody or Identity Theft: The High-Wire Act
of Digital Doppelgangers in California,” 34 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 275.
Ms. Malone is a member of the Bar Association of San Francisco.
Katharine Malone
PRACTICE AREAS
Class Action
Complex Business Disputes
ADMISSIONS
State of California
US Court of Appeals – Ninth Circuit
US District Court – Northern District of California
EDUCATION
University of California, Hastings College of the
Law, J.D.; CALI Award, Cyberlaw; Albert G.
Evans Scholarship in Enterprise Award
George Washington University, B.A., Political
Science, Journalism; National Merit Scholar;
Atlantic-10 Conference Student-Athlete Honor
Roll (varsity crew team)
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 29 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
29
OUR TEAM - ATTORNEYS
Mr. Manuel specializes in antitrust and class action litigation, and approaches
his practice with compassion, perseverance and hard work. He has
experience in all stages of litigation, including propounding and responding to
discovery requests, coordinating and conducting document discovery, taking
depositions, and successfully completing trial-related tasks.
Mr. Manuel’s professional qualifications are exemplified by his invaluable
work on the Firm’s Capacitors trial. He is heavily involved in providing
essential support and preparation for trial, including drafting the exhibit list,
assisting in preparing trial witnesses, and daily management of trial logistics.
Prior to joining the Firm, Mr. Manuel was a post-bar law clerk for a boutique
San Mateo, California litigation firm. He researched legal matters relating to
construction defects, contract formation, and defenses to the enforceability of
a contract. He assisted counsel by preparing law and motion legal
memoranda used by counsel in drafting an opposition to demurrer, settlement
demand letters, and motions for summary judgment. He also assisted
counsel with case management and strategy, and meeting day-to-day case
deadlines.
As a former intern for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), Mr.
Manuel researched legal and legislative law as part of the CPUC’s Public
Advocates Office branch, and addressed the CPUC’s responsibilities in
implementing Time of Use rate changes and applicability and enforcement of
bill protection. He also prepared memoranda on the enforcement of a
California judgment upon an out-of-state defendant located in New York and
Florida, and researched and prepared internal memos pertaining to the
CPUC’s investigatory authority over non-parties and/or non-utility actors who
transact business with a public utility affecting rate-payer’s interests.
Mr. Manuel is a former judicial extern for the San Francisco County Superior
Court probate department, where he drafted bench memos addressing
diverse procedural and substantive matters, reviewed and summarized
documentary evidence, and observed court proceedings.
While at the University of San Francisco School of Law, Mr. Manuel
participated in the Intense Advocacy Program and was a legal clinician-
student attorney at its Internet and Intellectual Property Clinic. He was the
symposium editor of the University of San Francisco Law Review and was
president of the Asian Pacific American Law Student Association, Co-Chair
President of the Pilipino American Law Society, and Media Chair for the
Environmental Law Student and Alumni Society.
Prior to law school, Mr. Manuel was a case administrator for a prestigious
Bay Area law firm, at which he monitored, supported and managed case
docket and staffing for various cases.
Mr. Manuel is a member of the Filipino Bar Association of Northern California,
Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, Asian American Bar Association,
Gay Asian Pacific Alliance (GAPA), and National Filipino American Lawyers
Association (NFALA).
Ryan Louie Manuel
PRACTICE AREAS
Antitrust
Class Action
ADMISSIONS
State of California
EDUCATION
University of San Francisco School of Law, J.D.,
Student Bar Association Award
University of California Santa Barbara, B.S.,
Political Science and Global Studiesand Minor in
Asian American Studies
LANGUAGES
Tagalog (native)
French (conversational)
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 30 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
30
OUR TEAM - ATTORNEYS
Mr. Quackenbush specializes in class actions and other complex civil litigation,
with a focus on antitrust. He has participated in all stages of litigation, including
drafting pleadings, coordinating document discovery, taking depositions, filing
dispositive motions, and attending trials. He is particularly interested in the
interplay between antitrust and intellectual property law in the pharmaceutical
industry as well as market concentration within the payor and provider networks
in the United States’ healthcare industry.
Mr. Quackenbush currently volunteers with the Federal Pro Bono Project of the
Bar Association of San Francisco. He represents a Plaintiff who alleges
employees at Salinas Valley State Prison were deliberately indifferent to the
Plaintiff’s serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
During law school, Mr. Quackenbush was a Summer Honors Legal Intern at the
Federal Trade Commission’s San Francisco office, and a Legal Extern at the
Washington State Attorney General’s Office. While at the Federal Trade
Commission, he co-authored “The Efficiencies Defenestration, Are Regulators
Throwing Valid Healthcare Efficiencies Out The Window?” Competition, The
Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the California
Lawyers Association, Winter 2017-18.
Mr. Quackenbush also volunteered with the Immigrant Families Advocacy
Project and the Street Youth Legal Advocates of Washington, and helped
immigrants apply for citizenship at Citizenship Workshops.
Mr. Quackenbush was named a Northern California “Rising Star” in 2020 by
Thomson Reuters’s Super Lawyers publication. He is a member of the
American Bar Association and the Bar Association of San Francisco. He also
actively participates in the Barristers Association of San Francisco, working
with the pro bono committee to provide information and resources to lawyers
who are in their first 10 years of practice.
Kyle Quackenbush
PRACTICE AREAS
Antitrust
Consumer Protection
ADMISSIONS
State of California
US Court of Appeals – Second Circuit
US Court of Appeals – Ninth Circuit
US District Court – Northern District of California
US District Court – Southern District of California
US District Court – Northern District of California
EDUCATION
University of Washington School of Law, J.D.
Santa Clara University, B.S., Political Science;
B.A., Spanish Studies
LANGUAGES
Spanish (conversational)
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 31 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
31
OUR TEAM - ATTORNEYS
Mr. Rayhill specializes in antitrust class actions and other complex litigation. He
advocates for the rights of workers, taking on some of the biggest employers in
professional sports, social media, defense contracting, and luxury retail to fight
for competitive wages and safe working conditions. He also fights on behalf of
consumers, bringing antitrust claims against manufacturers of pharmaceuticals,
laptop computers, car parts, and titanium dioxide, among others. To date, these
cases have resulted in settlements exceeding $300 million.
Prior to joining the Firm, Mr. Rayhill worked as a Legal Research Attorney at
the Superior Court of San Francisco (Criminal Division). While in law school, he
held internships at the California Attorney General’s Office (Environment, Land
Use, and Natural Resources Division) and the San Francisco City Attorney’s
Office (Energy and Telecommunications Team), and an externship with Justice
Stuart R. Pollak of the California Court of Appeal (First District).
Mr. Rayhill  is a member of the American Bar Association and the Bar
Association of San Francisco.
Kevin Rayhill
PRACTICE AREAS
Antitrust
Class Actions
ADMISSIONS
State of California
US Court of Appeals – Ninth District
US District Court – Central District of California
US District Court – Eastern District of California
US District Court – Northern District of California
EDUCATION
University of California Hastings College of the
Law, J.D.
Oberlin College, B.A., Religion
Berklee College of Music, Professional Diploma
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 32 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
32
OUR TEAM - ATTORNEYS
Ms. Reddy’s practice focuses primarily on antitrust class actions alleging
anticompetitive conduct such as price-fixing and monopolization. She
represents businesses and individuals in complex civil litigation throughout the
country. In addition to her antitrust practice, she has represented
whistleblowers in qui tam matters and False Claims Act litigation against
companies that have committed fraud against the government. She
approaches her practice with diversity of thought, enthusiasm, and diligence.
Ms. Reddy’s professional qualifications are exemplified by her invaluable work
on the Capacitors case and trial. She was heavily involved in pre-trial matters,
including drafting pre-trial filings and arguing pre-trial motions. She had an
active role in trial strategy, trial stagecraft, preparing and examining witnesses,
and presenting evidence to the jury. Prior to trial, she drafted and argued
dispositive motions in relation to summary judgment, attorney costs and fees,
and opt-out matters.
In addition to her duties for the Firm, Ms. Reddy volunteers for the Federal Pro
Bono Project of the Bar Association of San Francisco. She currently represents
a Plaintiff in a wrongful termination matter against a multinational corporation,
in the Northern District of California.
Ms. Reddy graduated from Berkeley Law with a specialization in intellectual
property law. She was an associate editor of the Berkeley Technology Law
Journal, and the promoter and social co-chair of the student-led organization,
Women in Tech Law. At Symbiosis Law School in India, she was awarded the
American jurisprudence equivalent award for the Law of Evidence.
Prior to joining the Firm, Ms. Reddy was a Law Clerk in the Antitrust Section of
the California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General (San
Francisco), where she reviewed documents, conducted legal research, and
drafted memoranda for investigations and litigation involving pharmaceutical
and oil and gas companies. In Mumbai, India, she was Legal Counsel for Cipla
Limited, where she specialized in contracts and mergers and acquisitions.
Ms. Reddy is a member of the American Bar Association and the Bar
Association of San Francisco. She serves by appointment on the Executive
Committee, and as Vice Chair of the Diversity Committee, of the California
Lawyers Association, Antitrust and Privacy Section. She is a co-author of "AI
and Interdependent Pricing: Combination Without Conspiracy?" Competition:
The Journal of the Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section (August 2020).
In 2020, Ms. Reddy was recognized by the American Antitrust Institute for
“Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement by a Young Lawyer” (for work
performed in In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation).
Anupama Reddy
PRACTICE AREAS
Antitrust
Qui Tam
ADMISSIONS
State of California
US District Court – Northern District of California
US District Court – Northern District of Illinois
Bar Council of India, Maharashtra & Goa
EDUCATION
University of California, Berkeley, School of Law,
LL.M.
Symbiosis Law School, Pune, Maharashtra, India
(B.B.A. LL.B), J.D. Equivalent
Institute of Company Secretaries of India, New
Delhi, India, Qualified Company Secretary
LANGUAGES
Hindi (reading and writing)
Marathi (speaking)
Telugu (speaking)
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 33 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
33
OUR TEAM - ATTORNEYS
Mr. Young specializes in antitrust and class action litigation. He approaches his
practice with a diligent and creative attitude while providing clients with high-
quality legal representation.
Mr. Young’s professional qualifications are exemplified by his invaluable work
on the 2020 In Re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation trial. He was heavily involved
in pre-trial matters, including drafting pre-trial filings and conducting pre-trial
depositions. He has also been actively involved in the trial, including providing
essential support and preparation for the examination of key witnesses and
presenting evidence to the jury.
In addition to his duties for the Firm, Mr. Young volunteers for the Federal Pro
Bono Project of the Bar Association of San Francisco. He currently represents
a Plaintiff in a lawsuit asserting both federal and state causes of actions against
park rangers seeking civil recovery for alleged violations of several of the
Plaintiff’s constitutional rights by the Defendant park rangers. The Plaintiff
asserts, among other claims, violations of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment
rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and the use of excessive
force.
Before joining the Firm, Mr. Young was a law clerk for Associate Justice Lamar
W. Baker of the California Second District Court of Appeal, Division Five, where
he drafted opinions on various issues. In addition, he cite-checked and record-
checked drafts and separate opinions for circulation to other chambers,
proofread opinions prior to filing, and observed oral arguments to assist Justice
Baker in making decisions. Prior to this, he was a post-bar fellow at the Los
Angeles County Public Defender’s Office, where he drafted motions, conducted
legal research, interviewed clients, and assisted with trial efforts.
While attending law school at UCLA, Mr. Young was an Associate Editor of the
UCLA Law Review and participated in the 2016 American Red Cross Clara
Barton International Humanitarian Law Competition, where his team was
awarded “Best Overall Team Research and Writing.” In addition, he worked as
a certified legal intern for the San Diego County Public Defender’s Office and
focused on complex securities fraud cases, represented clients at arraignment,
and participated heavily in a trial, including examination of witnesses.
Mr. Young is a member of the American Bar Association, the Bar Association of
San Francisco, and the Los Angeles County Bar Association. He also
volunteers his time for the local San Francisco community. He has given talks
with local organizations to youth interested in a future legal career and has
volunteered as an essay reviewer for students currently applying to colleges.
Christopher Young
PRACTICE AREAS
Antitrust
Class Action
ADMISSIONS
State of California
US District Court – Central District of California
US District Court – Eastern District of California
US District Court – Northern District of California
US District Court – Southern District of California
US District Court – Northern District of Illinois
EDUCATION
UCLA School of Law, J.D. (specialization in
International and Comparative Law)
University of Minnesota Law School (first-year
coursework), Dean’s List, Dean Distinguished
Scholarship, Richardson Scholarship
UCLA, B.A., Economics and Sociology
LANGUAGES
Cantonese (conversational)
French (basic)
German (basic)
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 34 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
34
OUR TEAM – STAFF ATTORNEYS
Ms. Buchanan’s legal expertise focuses on antitrust, construction defect, and
corporate securities and shareholder litigation. She plays an active role in
deposition and trial preparation and manages a team of document reviewers
tasked with analyzing and organizing extensive e-discovery. She works
primarily on antitrust drug cases involving pay-for-delay, PBM (pharmacy
benefit management or manager) kickbacks, and generic drug company
collusion. She takes pride in providing positive outcomes for consumers and
overall fairness in the healthcare system.
Ms. Buchanan also has taken the lead role in forming the Firm’s “Green Team,”
a group of employees who have organized personnel and implemented policy
changes to ensure that the Firm is environmentally responsible. They have
successfully achieved the Firm’s designation as a Certified Green Business by
the San Francisco Green Business Program.
Prior to joining the Firm, Ms. Buchanan worked as a contract attorney on
construction defect litigation and antitrust and personal injury class actions.
During law school, she interned at California Lawyers for the Arts, where she
worked with clients to find solutions to copyright and trademark issues. She
also was a technical editor for the Journal of Law and Social Justice and
volunteered for Law in Motion, a program that provides opportunities for the law
school community to reflect on issues of social justice and access to equal
justice through various activities and events.
Ms. Buchanan is a member of the American Bar Association.
Elissa A. Buchanan
PRACTICE AREAS
Antitrust
Intellectual Property
ADMISSIONS
State of California
EDUCATION
University of San Francisco School of Law, J.D.
Mills College, B.A., French Studies
LANGUAGES
French (conversational reading and speaking)
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 35 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
35
OUR TEAM – STAFF ATTORNEYS
Ms. Han focuses on antitrust and consumer class actions, while representing
plaintiffs through each phase of antitrust litigation from pre-trial investigation,
discovery, dispositive motions, witness selection and interviews, to trial
preparation. She understands the goals that need to be reached beyond the
complex disputes over antitrust matters. Focused on serving her clients in the
best way possible, she aggressively approaches every issue developed during
litigation and effectively tackles it to grant her clients a successful resolution.
Prior to joining the Firm, Ms. Han was a project managing attorney for a major
international law firm in the San Francisco Bay Area, where she supervised
discovery review teams and assisted the firm’s intellectual property litigation.
During law school, as a legal intern at the Office of Legislation and Policy of the
California Department of Corporations, Ms. Han reviewed legislation proposals
on California finance and mortgage lending law and drafted analysis of the
state lending issues.
Ms. Han is a member of the American Bar Association and the Bar Association
of San Francisco.
Julie Han
PRACTICE AREAS
Antitrust
Class Actions
ADMISSIONS
State of California
EDUCATION
University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of
Law, J.D.
San Francisco State University, B.S., Business
Administration (concentration in International
Business)
Chung-Ang University (Seoul), B.A., Architectural
Engineering
LANGUAGES
Japanese (professional level)
Korean (native level)
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 36 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
36
OUR TEAM - DOCUMENT REVIEW ATTORNEYS
Mr. Bockover specializes in antitrust, class action, and intellectual property. He
uses his excellent English and German communication abilities and attention to
detail to efficiently process evidence in complex litigation. Then, using
analytical skill earned in the sciences, plus tenacity and a thirst for justice
honed in public defender work, he turns those insights into action.
For his junior year of college, Mr. Bockover studied at the University of
Constance in southwestern Germany, where he became fluent in German.
After receiving a B.A. from Cornell University, he returned to Germany for a
non-degree year at the University of Heidelberg. After attending the Indiana
University Mauerer School of Law (where he was active in the Indiana Law
Journal) he spent two years as an associate at a boutique Indiana-based firm,
practicing mostly criminal law in indigent defense cases. Mr. Bockover then left
Indiana for a career in e-discovery (in English and German) in the Bay Area.
For more than a dozen years, he has been reviewing documents for top-tier
firms, preparing depositions, reviewing contracts, and other tasks in German for
intellectual property and commercial law cases and investigations covering
pharmaceuticals, semiconductor, co-location, software, and automotive
disputes.
Mr. Bockover is a member of the American Bar Association.
Sean Bockover
PRACTICE AREAS
Antitrust
Class Action
Intellectual Property
ADMISSIONS
State of California
EDUCATION
Indiana University Maurer School of Law, J.D.,
cum laude
Cornell-Heidelberg Exchange, Universität
Heidelberg, Germany
Cornell University, B.A., Biology and German
Literature, Dean’s List
LANGUAGES
German (fluent)
Japanese (basic)
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 37 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
37
OUR TEAM - DOCUMENT REVIEW ATTORNEYS
Ms. Du specializes in antitrust and class action litigation. She has more than 10
years of e-discovery experience that focuses on complex discovery and
document review projects using a variety of e-discovery technologies. She also
assists in other aspects litigation, including legal research, interview/deposition
preparation, and other analytical assignments to support the Firm in providing
the best representation to the clients.
Before joining the Firm, Ms. Du was a contract attorney/document reviewer at
several San Francisco top tier law firms, where she reviewed documents in
securities, patent litigation, class action, civil investigation, and other related
practice areas.
Previously, Ms. Du served as a volunteer attorney for the Volunteer Homeless
Advocacy Project (“HAP”), where she provided limited scope representation at
court-mandated settlement conferences and assisted with trial preparation. She
assisted individuals and families at the Volunteer Legal Service Program of the
Bar Association of San Francisco. She was a law clerk for the Asian Pacific
Islander Legal Outreach and performed a clinical internship for the San
Francisco-based Eviction Defense Collaborative. She also interned at the San
Francisco based Court House Project and HAP.
Ms. Du is a member of the American Bar Association and the Bar Association
of San Francisco.
Heather Du
PRACTICE AREAS
Antitrust
Class Action
ADMISSIONS
State of California
US District Court – Northern District of California
EDUCATION
University of San Francisco School of Law, J.D.
University of San Francisco, B.A., Politics, cum
laude
LANGUAGES
Vietnamese (reading and writing)
Cantonese (basic)
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 38 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
38
OUR TEAM - DOCUMENT REVIEW ATTORNEYS
Ms. Murdock specializes in class action, antitrust, and business litigation. She
brings her extensive litigation experience to her current position with the Firm
where she performs an integral role in analyzing probative documents of clients
and participants to identify merits of claims, potential witnesses, and key
evidence in complex class actions.
Prior to joining the Firm, Ms. Murdock was a litigator at two major law firms and
of counsel at a Los Angeles boutique litigation firm. She has a successful
appellate and business litigation background and has crafted winning motions
and appeals throughout her career. Her respondents’ brief for United States
Supreme Court case Musick, Peeler & Garrett v. Employers Insurance of
Wausau, 508 U.S. 286 (1993), was affirmed in favor of her clients. Another
appeal was also affirmed with the California Court of Appeal, which adopted, in
entirety, the arguments proffered in her respondent’s brief. She won an appeal
in a case that had been ongoing for nine years and had been before the
California Supreme Court three times. And she had a new trial motion and a
judgment notwithstanding the verdict motion granted, overturning a $3.7 million
verdict in a case of first impression interpreting a California statute.
Ms. Murdock also has a substantial intellectual property background. As an IP
associate, she worked on various copyright matters and won a partial summary
judgment in the Ninth Circuit in a “work for hire” case involving a major rock
star. She had a temporary restraining order granted in a trademark dispute
involving a well-known leisure-wear manufacturer, and successfully opposed a
preliminary injunction in a trade secrets/submission of ideas case before the
Second Circuit.
While attending law school, Ms. Murdock was named to the Moot Court Team
and won both the Moot Court Best Brief Award and the West Publishing
Company Award for Outstanding Brief Writing. She thereafter honed her writing
skills clerking for Presiding Justice Joan Dempsey Klein of the California Court
of Appeal. Although she originally had a one-year clerkship, after seven months
she was asked to stay on as senior attorney and became one of the most junior
attorneys ever selected for that position.
Prior to attending law school, Ms. Murdock worked in the Mayor’s Office of Los
Angeles and the City Community Development Department. In those positions
she researched and analyzed city ordinances and federal HUD proposals;
authored reports for proposed city legislation; and made legislation
recommendations to the city council.
Ms. Murdock is a member of the American Bar Association.
Nanci Murdock
PRACTICE AREAS
Antitrust
Class Action
Complex Business Disputes
ADMISSIONS
State of California
State of New York
State of Massachusetts
US Supreme Court
US Court of Appeals – Ninth Circuit
US District Court – Central District of California
EDUCATION
Loyola University Law School, J.D., Dean’s List
University of Southern California, B.A.,
English/Humanities
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 39 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
39
OUR TEAM - DOCUMENT REVIEW ATTORNEYS
Ms. Oh specializes in class actions and other complex civil litigation, with a
focus on antitrust. She enjoys working on complex litigation through the
process of uncovering facts underneath the evidence presented, and then
advocating those facts on behalf of disadvantaged purchasers and consumers.
Ms. Oh uses her knowledge of both information technology and legal
processes to analyze clients’ electronically stored data to identify merits of
claims, potential witnesses, and relevant facts and issues relative to litigation.
She also conducts legal research and performs other duties to ensure that
clients receive the best and most cost-effective legal solutions.
Prior to joining the Firm, Ms. Oh clerked for the Honorable Gerald Lebovits of
the New York State Supreme Court and was a trial attorney at a boutique New
York City law firm. Throughout law school, she was a judicial intern to the
Honorable Richard Ringell, Karen Howze, Andrea Harnett, and Marisa Demeo
of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. She was also a student
attorney at the Took Crowell Institute for At-Risk Youth Clinic in Washington,
D.C.
Ms. Oh is a member of the American Bar Association and the Bar Association
of San Francisco.
Esther Oh
PRACTICE AREAS
Antitrust
Class Action
ADMISSIONS
State of New York
EDUCATION
University of the District of Columbia, David A.
Clark School of Law, J.D., Dean’s Fellow
New York University, B.S., Social Work
LANGUAGES
Korean (native level)
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 40 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
40
OUR TEAM - DOCUMENT REVIEW ATTORNEYS
Mr. Salenfriend specializes in antitrust, class action, business litigation, and
research. His passion for assisting those in need of outstanding legal
representation is what drove him to pursue a law career. As a result, he is
guided by the principles of ethics, confidentiality, compassion, and loyalty in the
practice of law.
In his current role with the Firm, Mr. Salenfriend has played an integral role in
analyzing critically important documents, including the communications of
participants and others in complex class action cases against dozens of
generic drug manufacturers who are accused of fixing the prices of numerous
generic drugs.
Mr. Salenfriend has practiced law for several years in the San Francisco Bay
Area before countless Federal and State Courts, in both the Northern District
and Southern District. He specializes in antitrust, class action, and complex
business disputes.
Before joining the Firm, Mr. Salenfriend served as counsel for Attorneys in
Motion, working on various legal matters ranging from law and motion hearings,
workers’ compensation, and status and settlement conferences to taking and
defending depositions. He accumulated extensive document review experience
as a contract attorney for Fronteo, a publicly traded global technology and
services company, and assorted legal staffing agencies.
For many years, Mr. Salenfriend was General Counsel and Vice-President &
Manager of Legal Affairs for CrossCheck, Inc. (Petaluma, California), a check
approval and financial services corporation, and its subsidiary, Optio Solutions.
Prior to that, he worked in civil practice for various Bay Area firms and made
regular appearances before numerous California courts.
While in law school, Mr. Salenfriend was a Graduate Legal Intern in the
Correctional Law Section of the California Attorney General’s Office, where he
conducted extensive research and drafted memoranda and appellate briefs on
behalf of the People of California. In his first year of law school, he also earned
the prestigious American Jurisprudence Award for Contracts.
Mr. Salenfriend is a member of the Bar Association of San Francisco. While a
resident of San Francisco, he was appointed President of the San Francisco
Drug Abuse Advisory Board by unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors.
Prior to working in law, Mr. Salenfriend was a sportswriter for the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution and other publications.
Randy S. Salenfriend
PRACTICE AREAS
Antitrust
Class Action
Complex Business Disputes
ADMISSIONS
State of California
US Court of Appeals – Ninth Circuit
US District Court – Central District of California
US District Court – Eastern District of California
US District Court – Northern District of California
US District Court – Southern District of California
EDUCATION
Thomas Jefferson School of Law, J.D./B.S.L.
LANGUAGES
Spanish (conversing, reading and writing)
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 41 of
42

saverilawfirm.com
41
OUR TEAM – OF COUNSEL
Professor Davis has been involved in class actions in general and in antitrust
class actions for over twenty years. He was a partner at Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP until he joined the law faculty of the University of San
Francisco School of Law, where he is currently the Director of its Center for
Law and Ethics after serving 2013-2017 as Associate Dean for Academic
Affairs.
Professor Davis is one of the foremost scholars in the country on private
antitrust enforcement and class certification in antitrust cases. He has done
award-winning original empirical and theoretical analysis of private antitrust
cases, and his scholarship has been cited by federal appellate and trial courts.
He has published dozens of law review articles on such topics as private
antitrust enforcement, class certification, legal ethics, jury instructions, and
injunctive relief, as well as on free speech doctrine, jurisprudence, and artificial
intelligence and the law.
Professor Davis has been retained by plaintiffs’ counsel to brief and argue
before federal appellate courts in antitrust cases. He has also briefed and
argued motions to dismiss, for class certification, to exclude expert testimony,
and for summary judgment in Magnetic Iron Oxide Antitrust Litigation, Truck
Card Antitrust Litigation, In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, In re Capacitors
Antitrust Litigation, In re Restasis Antitrust Litigation, and Le v. Zuffa, among
other cases.
Professor Davis regularly presents at academic conferences on civil procedure,
class certification, legal ethics, class action ethics, antitrust litigation, and
artificial intelligence and the law. He has made presentations, among other
places, at the Northern District of California Judicial Conference, the U.S.
Department of Justice Antitrust Division, the California Department of Justice,
the American Bar Association, the American Antitrust Institute, the Bar
Association of San Francisco, the Federal Bar Association, the Practicing Law
Institute, the Pound Institute, the International Legal Ethics Conference, and
various law schools.
Professor Davis regularly provides legal commentary in print, radio and
television media. He helped organize the 2019 and 2020 releases of the
Antitrust Report: Class Action Filings in Federal Court, issued by The
Huntington National Bank and the University of San Francisco School of Law,
which surveyed the antitrust field of recent years. In 2019, he also spoke at the
University of Haifa’s (Israel) 3rd International Conference: Dispute Resolution
of Consumer Mass Disputes, Collective Redress, Class Action, and ADR. He
has testified before Congress on civil procedure and was the reporter for the
task force and committee that drafted the California Supreme Court rules
governing multijurisdictional practice. He also serves on the Board of the
American Antitrust Institute.
Professor Davis serviced as a law clerk to Patrick Higginbotham of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. During law school at New York University,
he received the Frank H. Sommer Award for top general scholarship and
achievement in class and was Senior Articles Editor of the New York University
Law Review.
Joshua P. Davis, Of Counsel
PRACTICE AREAS
Antitrust
Class Action
Consumer Protection
Legal Ethics
ADMISSIONS
State of California
US District Court – Northern District of California
Numerous other federal and state jurisdictions
EDUCATION
Georgetown University, LLM
New York University School of Law, J.D., Order
of the Coif
Brown University, B.A.
LANGUAGES
French (conversational)
Spanish (conversational)
Hebrew (basic)
Japanese (basic)
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA   Document 252-2   Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021   Page 42 of
42

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.252.2.pdf

Size

4,619,195 bytes

SHA-256

c0396486ca7e6fa5b29a0ee198fe8affc7ad8c7f78c9115ed89d1aa643e92e06

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.590042.252.2.pdf

Original

archive.org