Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 21-2989-MDL-ALTONAGA/Torres
In re:
JANUARY 2021 SHORT SQUEEZE
TRADING LITIGATION
____________________________________/
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS
PLAINTIFFS SHANE CHENG AND TERELL STERLING’S
MOTION TO APPOINT JOSEPH R. SAVERI AS INTERIM LEAD COUNSEL
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 243-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 1 of 13
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 3
II.
JSLF IS WELL SUITED TO SERVE AS INTERIM LEAD COUNSEL ........................ 3
A.
JSLF Satisfies All the Criteria of Rule 23(g) .......................................................... 4
i.
JSLF’s Investigation Produced Previously Unknown Elements of
Defendants’ Scheme .................................................................................. 4
ii.
JSLF Has Unparalleled Experience and Credentials Handling Complex
Antitrust and Consumer Protection Class Actions .................................... 6
iii.
JSLF Has Unrivaled Knowledge of the Applicable Law ............................. 9
iv.
JSLF Has the Resources to Adequately Represent the Proposed Class ...... 9
v.
Additional Factors Support JSLF’s Appointment ..................................... 9
III.
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 10
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 243-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 2 of 13
1
This complex litigation will require deft, flexible and collaborative leadership to best
insure the most positive result for the proposed classes. Appointment of a single firm, with deep
expertise in the substantive law and proven case management skills, will most likely ensure the
efficient prosecution of this case and will promote the interests of justice. The Joseph Saveri Law
Firm (“JSLF”) best combines the requisite credentials and expertise with the interests of
diversity to effectively advance this litigation. It is a leader in the field, with a track record of
success unequalled by any firm applying for leadership in this case.1
Therefore, Plaintiffs Shane Cheng and Terell Sterling, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated (the “Cheng Plaintiffs”), respectfully request that the Court appoint Joseph R.
Saveri and the Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP as Interim Lead Counsel2 pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(g).
1 For example, in reviewing JSLF’s leadership in the Capacitors matter, Judge James Donato remarked that
the “docket and procedural the history in this case demonstrate Counsel’s expertise and the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs’ successes to date.” In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig., No. 3:14-cv-03264, ECF No. 1714,
at 7. JSLF has deftly navigated and progressed the Capacitors case to trial, and indeed has tried the case
once before trial was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Judge Donato recently noted that “The
MDL litigation . . . 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.” In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig., No. 3:14-cv-03264, ECF No. 2735 at 2-3. While JSLF could
handle this case on its own, other firms can be called on as needed. Defendants have hired many of the
largest and most prestigious law firms in the United States. While the Cheng Plaintiffs predict that the
Short Squeeze Actions will require far fewer lawyers to represent the plaintiffs’ side, surely they are entitled
to representation comparable to their adversaries.
2 This MDL includes over 50 class action lawsuits with claims that can broadly be categorized as falling
within three separate tracks—antitrust claims, claims against Robinhood, and claims against other broker-
dealers and hedge funds. The consensus among most if not all Plaintiffs is that the most efficient way to
balance the different interests at stake is to allow the three tracks to prosecute their claims separately, but
closely, with coordination with respect to discovery and other issues which will benefit from common
management and execution. While the three tracks share some common interests, the cases also raise
issues that are unique to each group. Separate but synchronized leadership will ensure a clear division in
authority for each group, while balancing the needs for efficient and cost-effective litigation. As part of this
broad structure, JSLF submits its application to serve as Interim Lead Counsel bringing to bear its
significant experience in managing complex litigation and its substantive antitrust expertise with regards to
the antitrust track. Plaintiffs are confident that JSLF will work collaboratively and effectively with any
other counsel the Court may appoint as Co-Lead counsel.
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 243-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 3 of 13
2
JSLF possesses a depth of experience in antitrust law that is unrivaled by any other firm.3
Mr. Saveri, together with the members of the law firm—many of whom are young and diverse—
have expertise in antitrust litigation honed through years of leading and trying high-profile
complex antitrust cases. Both Mr. Saveri and JSLF partner Steven N. Williams have been
appointed to lead complex antitrust and other multidistrict class cases on numerous occasions by
federal courts across the country.4 Each of JSLF’s attorneys5 are primarily dedicated to its
antitrust practice and bring to bear all of the expertise associated with prosecuting the most
complex, innovative, and challenging antitrust cases. This specialized expertise will provide a
substantial benefit to the Class and the Court.
JSLF works collaboratively and inclusively as a matter of principle in order to serve the
best interest of its clients. Through decades of experience, Mr. Saveri and JSLF attorneys have
developed collaborative skills and efficient approaches to litigation decision making and problem
solving. JSLF is committed to the mentorship and development of the next generation of
practitioners. Towards that goal, JSLF provides meaningful opportunities for courtroom
experience to early career lawyers—not only its own but also those of co-counsel.6 In matters
where JSLF has been appointed as sole lead counsel,7 JSLF offers intra-firm mentorship and
courtroom opportunities to junior attorneys at other firms that it partners with. JSLF is
committed to those as core values and, if chosen, would ensure they are advanced here.
3 JSLF has offices in San Francisco, California and New York, New York, reflecting its nationwide
practice, with other offices soon to be opened.
4 See, e.g., In re In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig., Case No. 3:17-md-02801 (N.D. Cal. ) (Donato, J.), In re
Titanium Dioxide Antirust Litig., Case No. 1:10-cv-00318 (Bennett, J.) (D. Md.); In re Restasis (Cyclosporine
Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litig., Case No. 1:18-md-02819 (Gershon, J.) (E.D.N.Y.); In re EpiPen
(Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litig., Case No. 2:17-md-02785 (D.
Kan.) (Crabtree, J.); In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litig., Case No. 2:12-md-02311 (E.D. Mich.) (Battani,
J.).
5 Biographies of attorneys who will work on the case are annexed as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Joseph
R. Saveri dated April 26, 2021.
6 JSLF’s commitment to this is apparent in numerous recent cases where young and diverse lawyers had
meaningful courtroom roles, including the recent jury trial presided over by Judge Donato in In re
Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, In re Juul Labs, Inc. Antitrust Litigation before Judge Orrick, and numerous
pro bono and other cases pending in federal court.
7 Courts have appointed JSLF as sole lead class counsel in antitrust cases against some of the largest
companies in the world. Just a few recent examples are In re Juul Labs, Inc. Antitrust Litig., Case No. 3:20-
cv-02345 (N.D. Cal.) (Orrick, J.); In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig., Case No. 3:17-md-02801 (N.D. Cal.)
(Donato, J.) (involving 22 groups of defendant corporate families located throughout the globe).
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 243-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 4 of 13
3
I.
BACKGROUND
On January 28, 2021, almost twenty broker-dealers restricted trading on securities. On
February 1, 2021, the Cheng Plaintiffs filed their complaint alleging federal and state antitrust law
claims, false advertising claims and common law claims. The Cheng complaint was one of the first
complaints alleging antitrust claims—and remains the most detailed complaint filed to date,
reflecting the care and consideration JSLF devoted to their pleading.
The Cheng Plaintiffs were responsible for the centralization of this case. On February 5,
2021, the Cheng Plaintiffs filed the motion for centralization with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”). In re January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litig., MDL No.
2989 (J.P.M.L. Feb. 5, 2021) ECF No. 1. On April 1, 2021, the JPML centralized and transferred
the Short Squeeze Actions to this Court for pretrial purposes. MDL ECF No. 1.
On April 19, 2021, the Court held an initial status conference wherein the Court set forth
procedures for the appointment of lead counsel and organization and structure of counsel. MDL
ECF No. 209. With regard to the non-federal securities actions, the Court directed that should
the parties reach agreement regarding lead counsel, a joint application be filed on April 23, 2021;
should the parties fail to reach agreement, then parties seeking appointment as lead counsel shall
submit applications on April 26, 2021. Id.
Consistent with the Court’s order, the Cheng Plaintiffs conferred extensively with other
Short Squeeze plaintiffs in an effort to reach consensus on the appointment of lead counsel, as well
as a leadership structure to facilitate the orderly and efficient management of this complex
litigation. The parties were unable to reach consensus.
Plaintiffs propose the appointment of the Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP as Interim Lead
Counsel.
II.
JSLF IS WELL SUITED TO SERVE AS INTERIM LEAD COUNSEL
The primary consideration in choosing class leadership in a complex action “is achieving
efficiency and economy without jeopardizing fairness to the parties.” Manual for Complex Litig.
§ 10.221 (4th ed. 2004) (hereinafter “Manual”). Rule 23(g)(1) sets out factors that govern the
appointment of class counsel at certification; these factors equally apply to the designation of
interim class counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A) (considering (1) work counsel has done in
identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; (2) counsel’s experience in handling
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 243-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 5 of 13
4
class actions, other complex litigation, and claims of the type asserted; (3) counsel’s knowledge
of the applicable law; and (4) resources counsel will commit to representing the class). Under
Rule 23(g)(1), appointed counsel “must fairly and adequately represent the interests of the
class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(4). Where multiple firms seek to serve as lead counsel, the court
“must appoint the applicant best able to represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(g)(2) (emphasis added).
In ensuring that appointed counsel satisfies the key requirement under Rule 23(g)—
counsel’s ability to best represent the interests of the class—courts may also “consider any other
matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B)-(C). The most important factor when appointing lead counsel “is
achieving efficiency and economy without jeopardizing fairness to the parties.” Manual,
§ 10.221.
As described below, the appointment of JSLF—and particularly the service of Mr. Saveri,
Mr. Williams, Mr. Davis, Ms. Reddy, Mr. Young and their young and diverse antitrust team—
would best serve those interests.
A.
JSLF Satisfies All the Criteria of Rule 23(g)
i.
JSLF’s Investigation Discovered Critical Elements of Defendants’
Scheme
In evaluating appropriate leadership, courts look to “the work counsel has put into
identifying and investigating potential claims in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(i). Such
efforts are more significant than simply being the first case on file. See Newberg & Conte,
Newberg on Class Actions § 9.35.
While JSLF was not the first to the courthouse, it nonetheless proceeded with remarkable
resolve and alacrity. JSLF filed its complaint three days after the events at issue occurred, on
February 1, 2021, and was among the first firms to file a class action complaint asserting
violations of the antitrust laws. The Cheng Plaintiffs’ complaint reveals the fruits of JSLF’s
careful research and investigation. See Declaration of Joseph R. Saveri (“Saveri Decl.”), ¶¶ 13-
14; Cheng, et al. v. Ally Financial Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-00781, ECF No. 1. The Cheng complaint is
the broadest complaint and supersedes and encompasses the complaints brought by others before
and after. Drawing upon its broad and deep experience prosecuting antitrust cases, class actions
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 243-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 6 of 13
5
and other complex business disputes, JSLF conducted an extensive and thorough investigation of
the events surrounding the restrictions in trading on January 28, 2021. Those efforts produced
the most detailed complaint, including meticulous analysis of price movements, analysis of short
sale positions in the hours immediately before January 28, 2021, analysis of market conditions in
the weeks prior, and detection of simultaneous coordinated conduct among competitors. This
careful and focused analysis indicates that the restrictions in trading were not limited to one or a
few broker-dealers but across nearly twenty. JSLF also investigated the relevant market and the
facts underlying the challenged conduct. The highly particularized complaint demonstrates
substantial analysis and investigation, including consideration of market structure, market
participants, anticompetitive effects, market power, market definition, causation and damages
together with applicable federal law, state law, and common law. The Cheng complaint has
become the model for other subsequent complaints and has been widely copied.
JSLF’s investigation revealed that many of the communications leading up to the
restrictions imposed on January 28, 2021, occurred via telephone calls or through social media.
Recognizing the urgent need to preserve evidence given the many nonparties who possess or
control relevant evidence and the fact that potentially relevant evidence could have been lost as a
function of ordinary data retention policies (e.g., call records are typically destroyed within a
year), JSLF sent document preservation letters to nonparties including phone carriers and social
media web companies to ensure relevant evidence is preserved. Saveri Decl., ¶ 16. These efforts
will substantially benefit all plaintiffs. Id.
This shows that JSLF has taken a leadership role in this case. Recognizing the need for
centralization in order to promote judicial economy and efficiency and to minimize the risk of
conflicting results, JSLF took the initiative to file the motion to centralize the Short Squeeze
actions before the JPML.8 JSLF organized the 50 plus actions with numerous state and federal
claims, into three groups organized by claims and common issues—a proposal that was adopted
by all plaintiffs and defendants and presented to the Court at the April 19, 2021 initial status
conference. JSLF worked with experts, co-organized various small and larger group calls with
8 In accordance with JPML procedures, the Cheng Plaintiffs effected service to over 100 entities—mailing
physical copies of thousands of pages—upon each Defendant, each Short Squeeze plaintiff, and each
District Court in which a Short Squeeze Action was proceeding. Saveri Decl. ¶ 15.
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 243-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 7 of 13
6
plaintiffs and Defendants and was selected by counsel for all plaintiffs to speak on behalf of the
Class at the Court’s April 19, 2021 initial conference. Saveri Decl., ¶ 19.
JSLF’s knowledge of the relevant industry, the Defendants, and other market participants
will add specialized knowledge and substantive depth to the prosecution of the claims. JSLF’s
expertise in antitrust law, class action practice and efficient management of complex multiparty
litigation will ensure that any class action practice will assist “the court and the parties to secure
the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this proceeding. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
ii.
JSLF Has Unparalleled Credentials and Experience in Handling
Complex Antitrust and Consumer Protection Class Actions
No firm applying for leadership positions in this case has the experience and credentials
of JSLF in handling antitrust and consumer protection class actions of this type. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(g)(1)(A)(ii). JSLF attorneys have recovered over $4 billion in settlements and resolutions
for the firm’s clients. Partners Joseph R. Saveri and Steven N. Williams have over 55 years of
experience between them handling high-profile antitrust cases on an international and national
scale. See, e.g., In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig., No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD (N.D. Cal.); In re Titanium
Dioxide Antitrust Litig., No. 1:10-cv-00318-RDB (D. Md.); In re High-Tech Employees Antitrust
Litig., No. 5:11-cv-02509-LHK (N.D. Cal.); In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, No. 12-
md-02311-SFC-RSW(E.D. Mich.); In re Static Random Access Memory Litigation, No. 07-md-
01819-CW (N.D. Cal), In re Transpacific Air Transportation Litigation, No. 07-cv-05634-CRB
(N.D. Cal); In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litig., No. 3:14-md-02521-WHO (N.D. Cal.); and In re Cipro
Cases I And II, J.C.C.P. Nos. 4154, 4220 (San Diego County Sup. Ct.). The firm has ongoing lead
counsel responsibilities handling other class actions including antitrust cases involving
international cartel cases (In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig., No. 3:17-md-02801-JD (N.D. Cal.));
illegal merger agreements (In re Juul Labs, Inc. Antitrust Litig., No. 3:20-02345-WHO (N.D.
Cal.)), illegal restrictions in sports and labor markets (e.g., Jones v. Varsity Brands, LLC, No. 20-
cv-02892 (W.D. Tenn.); Le v. Zuffa, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-01045 (D. Nev.)); pharmaceutical pricing
(In re Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litig., No. 1:18-md-02819-NG-LB
(E.D.N.Y.)); and labor market no poach cases (Robinson v. Jackson Hewitt Inc., No. 2:19-cv-
09066-SDW-LDW (D.N.J.); Giordano v. Saks, No. 20-cv-00833-MKB-CLP (E.D.N.Y.)). See
Saveri Decl., Ex. A (JSLF Firm Resume).
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 243-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 8 of 13
7
As lead or co-lead counsel in these and other cases, JSLF has taken a leadership role in
organizing litigation, setting strategy, establishing and directing teams of lawyers, and assigning
specific tasks to teams of attorneys to ensure the efficient use of resources and the best utilization
of the talents of the litigation team. JSLF has particular expertise in electronic discovery issues
and has made important contributions to the development of efficient and proportional practices
and procedures. Saveri Decl., ¶ 3 ( Joseph Saveri participated in meetings of the Federal Rules
Advisory Committee which produced the 2005 amendments to the Federal Rules and was a
member of the committee of judges and lawyers that drafted the Northern District of California’s
E-Discovery (ESI) Guidelines, and Steven Williams served on the committee that created
California’s Electronic Discovery Act). JSLF attorneys have taken the primary role in class
certification issues, summary judgment, expert “hot tub” proceedings, trial and appeals.
Throughout these cases, JSLF 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.
JSLF’s experience is exemplified in the cases it has prosecuted as lead counsel. For
example, as sole lead counsel for the direct purchaser plaintiffs in In re Capacitors Antitrust
Litigation, No. 3:17-md-02801-JD (N.D. Cal.), JSLF recently successfully managed over 40
million pages of discovery (nearly all in Japanese) from 22 corporate defendant families, and
coordinated with separate counsel for the indirect purchaser-class, opt-outs, and the DOJ.9
JSLF is led by some of the most experienced antitrust lawyers in the nation. Joseph Saveri
is one of the most accomplished and respected antitrust attorneys in the country.10 He has
practiced in this area for over 30 years. Steven Williams has played a lead role in many of the
most prominent antitrust class actions. For example, Mr. Williams served as co-lead counsel in In
re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:12-md-02311 (E.D. Mich.). Under Mr. Williams’s
9 As noted above, Judge Donato has commented favorably as to JSLF’s deft leadership and prosecution of
the Capacitors case. See note 1, supra. To date, under JSLF’s leadership, settlements in Capacitors have
exceeded single damages as calculated by the class’s expert with some of the most culpable defendants
having yet to settle.
10 For example, David Balto, former policy director at the FTC described Mr. Saveri as the “Michael
Jordan of plaintiffs’ antitrust.” See Melissa Lipman, Lieff Cabraser Antitrust Chief to Launch Own Firm,
LAW360 (May 1, 2012), available at https://www.law360.com/articles/335937/lieff-cabraser-antitrust-
chief-to-launch-own-firm.
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 243-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 9 of 13
8
leadership, the end payor class reached settlements to date exceeding $1.25 billion. The case was
widely considered the largest antitrust conspiracy in history in terms of impact on U.S.
consumers until the In re Generic Drugs Antitrust Litig., a case in which Judge Rufe appointed
both Mr. Saveri and Mr. Williams to the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee.
Mr. Saveri and Mr. Williams are recognized as two of the top lawyers in the United
States. Both Mr. Saveri and Mr. Williams are rated AV Preeminent by LexisNexis Martindale-
Hubbell and were ranked “Band 1” attorneys by Chambers USA in its “Antitrust: Mostly
Plaintiff” category for 2018 and 2019. JSLF has received numerous accolades: the American
Antitrust Institute awarded JSLF the award for Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in
Private Law Practice in 2017; Best Lawyers/U.S. News & World Report named JSLF among the
Best Law Firms from 2013-2019; the California Daily Journal selected JSLF as one of the “Top
Boutiques in California”; and the Daily Journal honored Mr. Saveri and other JSLF attorneys
with the California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) Award in 2016.
Other key members of the JSLF team include Anupama K. Reddy and Christopher K.L.
Young (both of whom have worked on this case since its inception), Joshua P. Davis, and a team
of paralegals, investigators and other professional staff. See generally Declaration of Christopher
K.L. Young, ¶¶ 2-10; Declaration of Anupama K. Reddy, ¶¶ 2-10. The firm is committed to
gender equality and has a diverse management team. Ms. Reddy and Mr. Young each have
substantial experience in complex antitrust cases, including in the recent Capacitors jury trial and
arguing dispositive motions in the In re Juul Labs, Inc. Antitrust Litigation. JSLF’s diverse team of
lawyers and professional staff are prepared, professional, zealous and up to the task.
JSLF has an established track record of working cooperatively and collegially with co-
counsel, including with many of the counsel of record appearing in the Short Squeeze case,
distributing work assignments equitably and offering support where needed, resulting in the
smooth and efficient administration of case responsibilities. JSLF anticipates that the present
case, much like other similar complex cases, will necessitate the coordination and cooperation of
counsel in order to effectuate the most effective prosecution of the case—a task made easier by
JSLF’s long history of collaboration with other counsel, not least of all with many of the firms
representing the Short Squeeze plaintiffs. See generally, e.g., Declaration of Catherine Smith;
Declaration of Austin B. Cohen. JSLF’s commitment to collaboration will continue here.
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 243-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 10 of
13
9
iii.
JSLF Has Unrivaled Knowledge of the Applicable Law
JSLF has extensive knowledge of the applicable law in this case, both with regard to
federal class actions under Rule 23(b)(3) and with regard to the applicable federal and state
antitrust statutes and the common law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(iii). Unlike other firms, all
JSLF attorneys are primarily dedicated to the firm’s recognized antitrust practice. While other
firms may boast of a higher head count, few if any can say they have as many attorneys devoted to
the practice of antitrust law. This team of dedicated antitrust practitioners translates to a wealth
of knowledge gleaned from decades of successful practice in prosecuting antitrust class actions in
federal and state courts throughout the United States.
This knowledge has resulted in exceptional results for the firm’s clients, in cases where
defendants are represented by the largest law firms in the United States, and in antitrust, an area
of law already recognized as being uniquely challenging. JSLF’s knowledge of the antitrust law
and of complex litigation render them effective private attorneys general that successfully
challenge illegal efforts to suppress and eliminate competition in all areas of the economy. JSLF is
prepared to bring that knowledge to bear on behalf of the proposed Class.
iv.
JSLF Has the Resources to Adequately Represent the Proposed Class
As demonstrated by its proven track record of prosecuting large and complex antitrust
class actions, JSLF has shown that it has the resources and resolve to ensure the interests of the
Class are zealously prosecuted to a full and fair resolution—without support from or involvement
with third-party litigation funders—and JSLF is prepared to do so again here. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(g)(1)(A)(iv); Saveri Decl., ¶ 6. JSLF has consulted with a number of experts, including some
of the nation’s leading experts in the field of antitrust and competition, securities law, securities
regulations and consumer class action litigation. See Saveri Decl., ¶ 13. JSLF’s resources are not
only financial—it also includes the resources of some of the most accomplished antitrust lawyers,
investigators, and professional staff in the United States—and it has brought those resources to
bear in the past and will do so again here.
v.
Additional Factors Support JSLF’s Appointment
In addition to the enumerated factors set forth in Rule 23(g), in determining the best
counsel for the class, the Court may also “consider any other matter pertinent to counsel’s ability
to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B)-(C).
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 243-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 11 of
13
10
Several factors support JSLF’s appointment as interim lead counsel. JSLF has a history of
working collaboratively and inclusively in leadership positions, providing strong direction but also
listening to co-counsel, resolving differences equitably, providing opportunities to diverse and
young attorneys, and distributing work fairly and in a way that promotes the most efficient use of
the collective resources of co-counsel. JSLF will adhere to those values here. Likewise, JSLF has
a long history of collaborative professional relationships with its adversaries. JSLF recognizes it
owes a duty of professionalism to its clients, opposing parties and their counsel, the courts, and
the public as a whole. E.g., Saveri Decl., ¶ 17.
In appointing lead counsel, the Court may inquire into any quid pro quo arrangements or
promises for future work. See Manual, § 21.272 (“To guard against overstaffing and unnecessary
fees, the court should order the attorneys to produce for court examination any agreements they
have made relating to fees or costs.”). JSLF has made no such promises or bargains.
Additionally, JSLF has established efficient case management and billing protocols in other cases
where it serves in leadership roles and will do so here if appointed as lead counsel. A small, well-
qualified select team of attorneys will oversee case strategy, document review, take related
depositions, and draft well-supported briefs. There will be no block billing, and time will be
entered contemporaneously, to be submitted to the Court at regular intervals. JSLF has also
retained a Certified Public Accountant, at no cost to the Class, who will routinely audit time and
expense reports which can be submitted on a quarterly basis to the Court for review.11 JSLF has
proposed time and expense guidelines to be approved by the Court. See Saveri Decl., Ex. C.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court appoint the Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, LLP as Interim Lead Class Counsel.
11 In the Capacitors matter, Judge Donato appointed a Special Master to review time and expenses prior to
submission of the fee and cost applications. See In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 17-md-02801,
MDL ECF No. 1366. That review resulted in adjustments of less than 0.01% of the submitted lodestar and
less than 0.04% of the submitted costs. Id., MDL ECF No. 1397.
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 243-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 12 of
13
11
Dated: April 26, 2021
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
By: /s/ Joseph R. Saveri
Joseph R. Saveri
Joseph R. Saveri (CA Bar No. 130064)
Steven N. Williams (CA Bar No. 175489)
Christopher K.L. Young (CA Bar No. 318371)
Anupama K. Reddy (CA Bar No. 324873)
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
swillliams@saverilawfirm.com
cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
areddy@saverilawfirm.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs Shane Cheng and Terell Sterling
Case 1:21-md-02989-CMA Document 243-8 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/26/2021 Page 13 of
13