declaration of scott a. bursor in support of plaintiff's motion for an

DECLARATION OF SCOTT A. BURSOR CASE NO. 13-CV-00729-HSG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. 191626) Julia A. Luster (State Bar No. 295031) 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected] BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. Scott A. Bursor (State Bar No. 276006) Neal J. Deckant (admitted pro hac vice) 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 989-9113 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected] Class Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK HENDRICKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STARKIST CO., Defendant.

Case No. 13-CV-00729-HSG DECLARATION OF SCOTT A. BURSOR IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS FOR THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AND INTERESTED PARTIES Date: December 17, 2015 Time: 2:00 p.m. Courtroom 15, 18th Floor Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

Case 3:13-cv-00729-HSG Document 262-1 Filed 10/30/15 of 194

DECLARATION OF SCOTT A. BURSOR CASE NO. 13-CV-00729-HSG

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF SCOTT A. BURSOR

I, Scott A. Bursor, declare as follows:

1. I am a partner at Bursor & Fisher, P.A. I was appointed Class Counsel in this action

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in

the State of California, and I am a member of the bar of this Court. I have personal knowledge of

the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I could and would testify

competently thereto.

2. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorneys’

fees, costs and expenses, and incentive awards for the Class Representative, Patrick Hendricks, as

well as the Interested Parties (i.e., Laury Smith, Ben Hall, Brian Andacky, Joseph Vallillo, Joseph

Ebin, Kelly Maucieri, Monica Rodriguez, and Jayme Kaczmarek).1

I. OVERVIEW OF THE LITIGATION

A. Pre-Suit Investigation And Product Testing With The U.S. National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration

3. On August 6, 2012, my firm learned of a complaint that was filed four days earlier

in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, by the district attorneys of

Riverside, Marin, and San Diego Counties (collectively, the “District Attorneys”) against Bumble

Bee Foods, LLC, Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC d/b/a Chicken of the Sea International, and StarKist

Co. (“StarKist”). See People v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, et al., No. RIC 1211729 (Cal. Sup. Ct.

Aug. 2, 2012). The District Attorneys’ complaint alleged that these parties “made or caused to be

made representations to the public which were untrue and/or misleading,” in that certain canned

tuna products they manufactured contained “misrepresentations of quantity by failing to meet the

standard of identity for canned tuna products seasoned or flavored with broth, as defined in Code

of Federal Regulations, Title 21, section 161.190(a)(6).” The complaint contained two causes of

action: violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Business and Professions Code

§ 17500, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code

§ 17200. 1 All capitalized terms herein that are not otherwise defined have the definitions set forth in the Settlement Agreement. See Dkt. No. 183-1.


DECLARATION OF SCOTT A. BURSOR 2 CASE NO. 13-CV-00729-HSG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. Filed concurrently with the District Attorneys’ complaint was a Final Judgment

Pursuant to Stipulation, which provided for a total payment of $3,000,000 to the offices of the

District Attorneys, along with a $300,000 cy pres payment “in the form of canned tuna distributed

to food banks throughout the State of California.” On October 21, 2013, the court entered an

Acknowledgment of Full Satisfaction of Judgment. However, the District Attorneys’ settlement

did not provide any monetary relief to the purchasers of these products, nor did it provide a

mechanism through which aggrieved purchasers could submit claims.

5. Between September 24, 2012 and November 29, 2012, an associate and a paralegal

at my firm2 researched food testing laboratories that could conduct testing of canned tuna products

for compliance with the federally mandated standard of fill, pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 161.190(c).

This investigation required numerous phone calls and inquiries, since there are only a handful of

laboratories that have the necessary knowledge and equipment to conduct these tests. Many

laboratories responded that their equipment was insufficient, and they were unaware of any

laboratory that could perform the test. Thus, several weeks of research was undertaken until the

appropriate laboratory was identified. The laboratory that agreed to conduct the test was the

Southwest Inspection Branch of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(“NOAA”), which is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

6. During this period, an associate at my firm also researched the brands and varieties

of canned tuna at issue in the District Attorneys’ action. He also conducted online research

regarding consumer complaints of inadequate quantities of tuna in these manufacturers’ products.

This research revealed that numerous consumers had complained about the quantity of tuna in

certain nationally-distributed products through online postings at Chowhound.com, among other

websites and forums.

7. Between October 2 and October 12, 2012, an associate at my firm also sent requests

for public records pursuant to the California Public Records Act to the District Attorneys of

Riverside and San Diego Counties, as well as to the California Department of Food and

2 Wherever possible, it is my practice to assign appropriate work to less senior lawyers who bill at lower hourly rates in order to minimize fees for the Class.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Agriculture. The first request was made on October 2, 2012 to the Riverside County District

Attorney’s Office seeking all documents and/or communications concerning their recent settlement

regarding the sale of underfilled cans of tuna. On October 3, 2012, we received a response from

Ivy B. Fitzpatrick, Senior Deputy District Attorney. The second request was made on October 12,

2012 to the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office. On October 18, 2012, we received a

response from Peter J. Cross, Deputy District Attorney. The third request was made on October

12, 2012 to the California Department of Food and Agriculture. On November 6, 2012, we

received a response from Crystal D’Souza, Staff Counsel.

8. On December 12, 2012, an associate at my firm made arrangements with NOAA to

test an initial batch of StarKist Tuna, among other brands. This initial test was comprised of a

4-can batch of StarKist Chunk Light Tuna in Water. We mailed samples to NOAA the next day.

9. On January 2, 2013, we received results from NOAA indicating that the initial batch

of StarKist Tuna had failed to meet the federal standard of fill. These tests revealed an average of

only 2.35 ounces of pressed cake tuna when measured precisely according to the methods specified

by 21 C.F.R. § 161.190(c), which is 18.7% below the federally mandated minimum standard of fill

of 2.89 ounces for these cans. We made arrangements for NOAA to test additional 4-batch

samples of StarKist Chunk Light Tuna in Oil, StarKist Solid White Tuna in Water, and StarKist

Solid White Tuna in Oil on or about January 10, 2013. These tests revealed (i) an average of only

2.81 ounces of pressed cake tuna for StarKist Chunk Light Tuna in Oil, which is 2.8% below the

federally mandated minimum standard of fill of 2.89 ounces for these cans, (ii) an average of only

3.01 ounces of pressed cake tuna for StarKist Solid White Tuna in Water, which is 8.5% below the

federally mandated minimum standard of fill of 3.29 ounces for these cans, and (iii) an average of

only 3.11 ounces of pressed cake tuna for StarKist Solid White Tuna in Oil, which is 5.5% below

the federally mandated minimum standard of fill of 3.29 ounces for these cans.

10. Between February 19, 2013 and April 10, 2013, we confirmed these results with an

additional round of testing on each of these 4 varieties of StarKist Tuna, this time using batches of

24 cans. These confirmatory tests revealed (i) an average of only 2.41 ounces of pressed cake tuna



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for StarKist Chunk Light Tuna in Water, which is 16.7% below the federally mandated minimum

standard of fill of 2.89 ounces for these cans, (ii) an average of only 2.76 ounces of pressed cake

tuna for StarKist Chunk Light Tuna in Oil, which is 4.5% below the federally mandated minimum

standard of fill of 2.89 ounces for these cans, (iii) an average of only 3.03 ounces of pressed cake

tuna for StarKist Solid White Tuna in Water, which is 7.9% below the federally mandated

minimum standard of fill of 3.29 ounces for these cans, and (iv) an average of only 3.13 ounces of

pressed cake tuna for StarKist Solid White Tuna in Oil, which is 4.9% below the federally

mandated minimum standard of fill of 3.29 ounces for these cans.

11. During this period, we also corresponded with and interviewed class members

aggrieved by StarKist’s under-filling of these products.

B. Pleadings And Initial Motions

12. On February 19, 2013, Class Representative Patrick Hendricks filed his Class

Action Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which alleged

that StarKist cheated customers by shorting its 5 oz. cans of tuna, under-filling them in violation of

federal law. The complaint asserted claims on behalf of Mr. Hendricks and a nationwide class of

purchasers of StarKist Tuna, for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of

merchantability, breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, unjust

enrichment, violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), violation of the

UCL, violation of the FAL, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. The case was initially assigned

to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The case was later reassigned to Judge Haywood S. Gilliam,

Jr. on February 13, 2015.

13. Between February 17 and February 18, 2013, an associate at my firm also prepared

similar complaints for filing in the U.S. District Courts for the District of New Jersey (on behalf of

Jayme Kaczmarek), the Southern District of Florida (on behalf of Joseph Vallillo), and the

Southern District of New York (on behalf of Joseph Ebin). After consulting with each of these

class members, however, we ultimately decided to maintain only one action in the Northern

District of California for the sake of judicial efficiency and to reduce costs and fees for the class.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14. On March 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Interim Class Counsel

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). StarKist filed a statement of non-opposition on

March 27, 2013, and Plaintiff filed his reply on April 3, 2013. In his motion, Plaintiff argued that

appointment of interim class counsel was appropriate given Bursor & Fisher’s identification and

investigation of the claims, experience in handling class actions and other complex litigation

(particularly those involving mislabeled food products), knowledge of the applicable law, and the

resources that the firm would commit to representing the class. An associate at my firm wrote the

first draft of this motion. On April 12, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice.

In its Order, the Court reasoned that the motion could be renewed in the event that multiple cases

are consolidated in a single venue.

15. On April 18, 2013, StarKist filed a motion to dismiss. Among other theories,

StarKist argued that Plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the federal Food, Drug And Cosmetic

Act (“FDCA”), that his claims were subject to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, that he lacked

standing to assert claims concerning varieties of StarKist Tuna that he did not purchase, and that he

pleaded no allegations that would give rise to an actionable warranty. StarKist also argued that

Plaintiff failed to state a claim for violations of California’s consumer protection statutes because

he failed to satisfy the reasonable consumer standard, and that he had failed to adequately plead

reliance and deception. Plaintiff filed his opposition on June 4, 2013, which was initially drafted

by two associates and a partner at my firm. Plaintiff’s opposition argued that the doctrines of

preemption and primary jurisdiction are inapplicable, that he had standing to assert claims on

behalf of purchasers of each of the four varieties of StarKist Tuna at issue since they are similar

products bearing similar misrepresentations, that StarKist Tuna is plainly mislabeled as having an

adequate amount of tuna for a 5-ounce can, and that Plaintiff had adequately alleged reliance,

deception, and had satisfied the reasonable consumer standard. StarKist filed its reply on June 18,

2013. Additionally, on July 1, 2013, the National Fisheries Institute (“NFI”), a trade organization,

filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Declaration in Support of Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss. We opposed NFI’s request on July 5, 2013, arguing that NFI’s motion was untimely,



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

contained arguments already briefed by the parties, and also contained factual arguments that were

beyond the scope of a motion to dismiss. NFI filed its reply on July 8, 2013. The Court heard oral

arguments on July 9, 2013. On March 25, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part

StarKist’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for unjust

enrichment and breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. All other claims

remained. The Court also denied NFI’s motion to file an amicus curiae declaration.

16. On April 18, 2013, StarKist filed a motion to transfer this action to the Western

District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, where StarKist’s corporate headquarters are

located. We opposed that motion on June 4, 2013. Our opposition brief, which was initially

drafted by an associate at my firm, argued that both parties have substantial contacts in California,

Plaintiff Hendrick’s choice of his home forum weighs against transfer, this District is more familiar

with the governing law, and that the litigation costs and access to sources of proof do not weigh in

favor of transfer. StarKist filed its reply on June 18, 2013. The Court held an oral argument on

July 9, 2013. On March 24, 2014, the Court denied StarKist’s motion to transfer.

17. StarKist filed its Answer To Class Action Complaint on April 18, 2014.

18. On September 9, 2014, StarKist filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s

March 25, 2014 Order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. StarKist’s motion was based on a

request for a Temporary Marketing Permit (“TMP”) that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

(“FDA”) had recently granted to StarKist to “test market[] canned tuna that varies from the

applicable standard of identity” by using a drained weight methodology (instead of pressed weight)

for a period of 15 months. Thus, StarKist contended that the FDA could be on the verge of

changing its pressed weight standard in 21 C.F.R. § 161.190, given that it had granted StarKist a

TMP to use an alternative standard – thus purportedly preempting Plaintiff’s claims brought

pursuant to the pressed weight standard. On September 23, 2014, we filed an opposition to

StarKist’s motion for reconsideration. Our brief was initially drafted by an associate at my firm.

We argued that the TMP is irrelevant since it was not in effect during the class period, that any

such change would go into effect in February 2016 at the very earliest, and that the FDA was



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

unlikely to change the standard of fill given that StarKist has unsuccessfully lobbied for a change

for over 20 years. On October 13, 2014, the Court denied StarKist’s motion for reconsideration.

C. Discovery

19. On May 2, 2014, the parties held a 26(f) conference. The parties submitted their

Joint Case Management Statement on May 12, 2014. On May 14, 2014, the Court entered a Case

Management Order.

20. On May 20, 2014, the parties served their Rule 26(a) initial disclosures. The first

draft of Plaintiff’s initial disclosures were written by an associate at my firm.

21. Plaintiff served his first round of interrogatories and requests for production of

documents on May 14, 2014, a second round of interrogatories and requests for production on

January 20, 2015, and a third round of interrogatories and requests for production on February 26,

2015. These requests were initially drafted by an associate at my firm. StarKist served its

interrogatories and requests for production on May 23, 2014. The responses to these requests were

initially drafted by two associates at my firm.

22. On July 9, 2014, the parties filed a Stipulated Protective Order, which was “So

Ordered” by the Court on August 7, 2014.

23. On August 8, 2014, StarKist served a letter on my firm identifying several purported

deficiencies in Plaintiff’s discovery responses. Similarly, on August 11, 2014, we drafted and

served a letter identifying several deficiencies in StarKist’s discovery responses. Pursuant to these

dispute letters, the parties held an in-person meet-and-confer on September 7, 2014. In attendance

was my partner, L. Timothy Fisher, and an associate at my firm. During this meeting, the parties

were able to resolve their disputes without involving the Court.

24. On or about August 20, 2014, the parties negotiated a protocol for the production of

electronically stored information (“ESI”).

25. In connection with Plaintiff’s requests for production, StarKist produced documents

on a rolling basis, which was substantially completed as of October 31, 2014. In total, StarKist

produced 17,013 pages of documents, and thousands of additional pages of spreadsheet data.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Document review was conducted by an associate at my firm. In turn, Plaintiff produced 1,950

pages of documents, which were assembled and produced by two associates at my firm.

26. On December 5, 2014, StarKist raised another discovery dispute concerning

Plaintiff’s refusal to produce certain documents in connection with a prior, unrelated arbitration to

which Mr. Hendricks was a party. We ultimately agreed to produce those documents.

27. On December 12, 2014, Plaintiff raised an additional discovery dispute with

StarKist, concerning its failure to provide a timely privilege log and for overbroad redactions on

certain documents. The parties were able to resolve these disputes without court involvement.

28. On December 18, 2014, Plaintiff raised a further discovery dispute with StarKist

concerning its refusal to produce two fact witnesses, Harvey Pearson and Glenn Mast, for a

deposition at least 10 days prior to the deadline for Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

Between December 18, 2014 and January 16, 2015, the parties exchanged a series of emails

concerning deposition scheduling, and attended an in-person meet and confer on January 5, 2015.

The parties were able to reach a compromise following the in-person meet and confer.

29. Between December 17, 2014 and April 8, 2015, we deposed 5 current or former

StarKist employees – four of whom were paid by StarKist’s counsel to influence their testimony on

highly technical subjects related to the operation of StarKist’s packing facilities, machinery, and

testing for compliance with the standard of fill: Aaron Maxfield on December 17, 2014, Glenn

Mast on February 26, 2015, Harvey Pearson on March 10, 2015, Brett Butler on March 12, 2015,

and Kelly Roberts on March 18, 2015. We also deposed three of StarKist’s experts: Christina

DeWitt on April 2, 2015, Bruce Strombom on April 3, 2015, and Dominique Hanssens on April 8,

2015. I took the depositions of each of these witnesses, except for Christina DeWitt, who was

deposed by an associate at my firm. Additionally, an associate assisted me with selecting exhibits

and preparing for each of the depositions.

30. StarKist deposed Plaintiff Hendricks on November 14, 2014. StarKist also deposed

two of Plaintiff’s experts: Colin B. Weir on February 10, 2015, and Steven Weisbrot on February

13, 2015. Mr. Weir and Mr. Weisbrot’s depositions were defended by an associate and a partner at



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

my firm, respectively. StarKist also served the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration with a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum on March 18, 2015, and also

served my firm, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., with a similar subpoena on March 19, 2015. The subpoena

sought documents and deposition testimony concerning my firm’s selection of canned tuna to test

with NOAA, our communications with NOAA, and any instructions we provided to NOAA,

among other topics.

31. On March 2, 2015, Plaintiff served a Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of

Defendant StarKist Co. and his First Set of Requests for Admission, which concerned the

authentication of certain documents. Rather than proceeding with this discovery, the parties

entered into a stipulation regarding authentication on March 25, 2015.

32. On March 24, 2015, the parties attended a Case Management Conference, where

they discussed deposition scheduling and a modest extension to the briefing schedule for Plaintiff’s

reply in support of class certification.

33. On March 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions, concerning StarKist’s

payments to three fact witnesses (i.e., Aaron Maxfield, Harvey Pearson, and Kelly Roberts) to

influence their testimony. StarKist submitted its opposition on April 10, 2015, and Plaintiff

submitted his reply on April 14, 2015. This matter was pending before the Court on April 16,

2015, when the case was stayed due to the settlement, as will be discussed below.

34. On April 1, 2015, pursuant to ¶ 12 of the Court’s Standing Order, the parties

submitted a joint discovery dispute letter concerning an issue that arose during the deposition of

Brett Butler, a nonparty witness who is a former StarKist employee. Specifically, Plaintiff asserted

that Mr. Butler’s counsel gave him several improper instructions not to answer certain deposition

questions. This matter was pending before the Court on April 16, 2015, when the case was stayed

due to the settlement, as will be discussed below.

35. On April 13, 2015, Plaintiff prepared a letter motion to quash the subpoena served

on my firm, Bursor & Fisher. However, this letter motion was never filed due to the settlement, as

will be discussed below.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

D. Class Certification, Expert Reports, And Motion To Intervene

36. Plaintiff moved for class certification on January 20, 2015. Specifically, Plaintiff

moved to certify a nationwide class on his claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied

warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. Plaintiff also moved to certify a California

subclass on his claims for violation of the CLRA, UCL, and FAL. Accompanying this motion was

a 121-page expert report from Colin Weir, an expert economist, inclusive of exhibits, which set

forth a framework for and an initial assessment of damages and harm suffered by class members

resulting from the alleged underfilling of StarKist Tuna. When writing his report, Mr. Weir

acquired “through-the-register” sales data for StarKist Tuna to consumers from Information

Resources, Inc. (“IRI”), a leading market research company and provider of analytics data. The

motion was also accompanied by a declaration from Steve Weisbrot, an expert on claims

administration, pertaining to the details of a notice program that could be developed to effectively

reach class members, as well as a claims process that would reduce the potential for fraudulent

claims. The motion was also accompanied by a declaration from Plaintiff Hendricks regarding his

purchase and use of StarKist Tuna.

37. StarKist filed its opposition on March 3, 2015. StarKist’s opposition was

accompanied by the expert reports of Dr. DeWitt, Dr. Strombom, and Dr. Hanssens. Plaintiff filed

his reply on April 7, 2015. Plaintiff’s reply brief was accompanied by an additional expert report

by Mr. Weir, which totaled 24 pages, inclusive of exhibits, where Mr. Weir considered additional

sources of evidence in his initial assessment of damages and harm suffered by class members. On

April 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion for leave to file a supplemental reply brief,

which was granted, along with his contemporaneous supplemental reply brief concerning

deposition testimony from StarKist’s purported consumer survey expert, Dr. Hanssens. The

hearing for Plaintiff’s motion for class certification was set for April 16, 2015.

38. Separately, on January 20, 2015, Interested Parties Laury Smith, Brian Andacky,

Joseph Vallillo, and Ben Hall, represented by Class Counsel, moved to intervene as named

plaintiffs. Plaintiff argued that his motion should be granted because the intervenors independently

satisfied diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, intervention would be timely



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and would not impact the Court’s case management order, and the intervenors share common

questions of law and fact with Plaintiff Hendricks. Accompanying this motion was a fully-drafted

Complaint-In-Intervention. Each of the Interested Parties further moved to certify a subclass for

each of their respective states. The motion was fully briefed on February 10, 2015, with a hearing

set for April 16, 2015, the same date as the noticed hearing for Plaintiff’s Motion for Class

Certification.

E. Arm’s-Length Settlement Negotiations

39. On May 14, 2014, the parties attended an initial ADR phone conference, which was

primarily focused on scheduling. No substantive settlement negotiations occurred during this call.

40. On September 30, 2014, the parties attended an in-person Settlement Conference

before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Prior to this conference, Plaintiff prepared a

Settlement Conference Statement on September 23, 2014. However, the parties were unable to

reach an agreement.

41. On March 20, 2015, near the end of discovery, the parties attended a second

in-person Settlement Conference before Judge Corley. Prior to this conference, Plaintiff prepared a

second Settlement Conference Statement on January 27, 2015. However, the parties were unable

to reach an agreement.

42. Between March 26, 2015 and April 16, 2015, the parties regularly engaged in

telephonic settlement negotiations. These discussions were fruitful. Without going into specifics,

the parties exchanged roughly half a dozen offers and discussed various methods to structure a

possible settlement.

43. In the morning of April 16, 2015, the parties executed a binding Settlement Term

Sheet. The Settlement Term Sheet contains the material terms of the settlement, but it is not a

formal Settlement Agreement. Rather, the parties anticipated that they would continue their

negotiations on the remaining terms in order to formulate a formal Settlement Agreement.

44. In the afternoon of April 16, 2015, the Court had scheduled a hearing on Plaintiff’s

motions (i) for class certification, (ii) for sanctions, and (iii) for leave to intervene. Shortly prior to



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

this hearing, the parties entered into a stipulation staying all motions. Rather than hold the hearing

on Plaintiff’s motions, the Court held a case management conference, where it discussed certain

issues that it wanted to be addressed in Plaintiff’s forthcoming motion for preliminary approval.

45. On April 22, 2015, the parties entered into an additional stipulation staying all other

case deadlines.

46. From April 16, 2015 and May 13, 2015 – the period between the execution of the

Settlement Term Sheet and the formal Settlement Agreement – the parties remained in intense

negotiations concerning the precise terms of the Settlement Agreement. One particularly

challenging issue was deciding the plan of allocation for payments to class members. Plaintiff

proposed for class members to be paid, at their election, either $25 in cash or $50 in product

vouchers, subject to a possible pro rata dilution. StarKist, however, proposed a sliding scale based

on the estimated number of cans of StarKist Tuna purchased by each class member during the class

period, with claims starting as low as $1. Another challenging issue was the disposition of any

unclaimed funds, namely whether they should revert to StarKist or be distributed according to

some form of cy pres award. Ultimately, the parties agreed to submit their competing plans of

allocation to the Court in connection with preliminary approval, so as to avoid jeopardizing the

remainder of their agreement.

47. Nonetheless, until the Settlement Agreement was fully executed on May 13, 2015,

these issues put the formation of the formal Settlement Agreement at risk. Because of that risk, I

personally drafted a motion to enforce the settlement term sheet, under the assumption that the deal

could fall through before the parties’ deadline to submit a motion for preliminary approval on May

14, 2015. Drafting this motion required research into a novel area of law, namely the

circumstances under which a party can enforce a binding term sheet in lieu of a formal class action

settlement agreement. Fortunately, the parties were able to reach a compromise, so this motion

was never filed.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

F. The Settlement Terms

48. The key provisions of the Settlement Agreement, executed on May 13, 2015, are as

follows.

49. Payment Terms: In full settlement of the claims asserted in this lawsuit, StarKist

agreed to pay $8,000,000 in cash and $4,000,000 in vouchers into a common fund. This amount

includes payments to claimants for release of their claims, any award of attorneys’ fees and costs,

claims administrator costs, and any incentive awards to Mr. Hendricks and the Interested Parties.

Claimants shall be permitted to elect either a $25 payment from the cash settlement fund or a $50

payment in StarKist vouchers from the voucher settlement fund, subject to a possible pro rata

dilution.

50. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs: The Settlement Agreement authorizes Class Counsel to

petition the Court for an award of attorneys’ fees in an amount no greater than one third of the total

$12,000,000 settlement amount, plus reimbursement of costs and expenses. There is no “clear

sailing” agreement. StarKist is free to oppose the fee application, should it wish to do so.

51. Incentive Payment: The Settlement Agreement provides that Plaintiff’s counsel will

petition the Court for approval of payments of no more than $5,000 apiece to Mr. Hendricks and

the Interested Parties, Laury Smith, Ben Hall, Brian Andacky, Joseph Vallillo, Joeseph Ebin, Kelly

Maucieri, Monica Rodriguez, and Jayme Kaczmarek.

52. Releases: The Settlement Agreement provides that all class members other than

those who opted-out:

shall release and forever discharge, and shall be forever barred from asserting, instituting, or maintaining against any or all of the Released Persons, any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, lawsuits, arbitrations, damages, or liabilities whether legal, equitable, or otherwise, relating in any way to the claims asserted or the factual allegations made in the Action, including without limitation the alleged under-filling of the StarKist Products and/or the purchase of any of the StarKist Products at any time on or after February 19, 2009 and prior to November 1, 2014 (collectively, the “Claims”).

Further, the Settlement Agreement provides that settling class members be “deemed to have

waived and relinquished … [the] rights and benefits of California Civil Code section 1542.”



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

53. Procedure for Claims and Settlement: Class Counsel is required to move for

preliminary and final Court approval of the Settlement Agreement. Class notice will inform

potential settlement class members of the settlement agreement, the background of the action and

settlement, the settlement relief available, that they have a right to object to or exclude themselves

from the settlement, the process for submitting a claim, and that the settlement is conditioned on

the Court’s final approval. The settlement administrator’s actual costs and expenses in carrying out

its duties are capped at $675,000.

54. Unclaimed Settlement Funds: The Settlement Agreement provides that Class

Counsel may petition the Court to seek approval for the proposed disposition of any remaining

cash and/or vouchers remaining after distribution of claims.

55. Objections: Any Class Member who has not opted out may file an objection to the

Settlement Agreement (or any of its terms).

G. Preliminary Approval And Dissemination Of Notice

56. On May 14, 2015, we filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action

Settlement. We argued that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, that the Court should

provisionally certify the Settlement Class for the purposes of preliminary approval, and that the

proposed notice program provides adequate notice and should be approved. Our briefing addressed

each of the issues discussed at the April 16, 2015 case management conference: that at least four

categories of evidence support Plaintiff’s allegations of systematic underfilling throughout the

entire class period, that it is feasible to identify class members without requiring receipts since the

four types of StarKist Tuna at issue represent approximately 90% of StarKist’s sales of 5-ounce

cans, and that the lag time between the packing date and sale does not affect the ascertainability of

the settlement class. Preparing this motion required a significant review of the evidence and

deposition testimony.

57. Also on May 14, 2015, we filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Plan of

Allocation. In this motion, we proposed for class members to be paid $25 in cash or $50 in product



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

vouchers, at the election of each claimant, subject to pro rata dilution if either of the funds

becomes over-subscribed.

58. On May 14, 2015, StarKist filed its Joinder in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for

Preliminary Approval of Plan of Allocation. In this motion, StarKist joined in Plaintiff’s motion

for preliminary approval of the class action settlement, and submitted a competing proposal for a

plan of allocation. Specifically, StarKist proposed that class members should be required to

estimate the number of cans of StarKist Tuna they purchased during the class period. Based on

class members’ responses, they could be paid anywhere from $1 in cash (for 1-10 cans) up to $25

in cash (for 241 or more cans), or between $1.50 to $37.50 in vouchers over the same range.

59. On July 23, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of

Class Action Settlement. In its Order, the Court certified a conditional Settlement Class, found that

the proposed settlement was within the range of possible approval, appointed me as lead class

counsel, appointed Plaintiff Hendricks as the Class Representative, and approved KCC Class

Action Services, LLC (“KCC”) as the claims administrator. The Court also granted Plaintiff’s

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Plan of Allocation, agreeing with Plaintiff’s proposal that the

amount distributed to class members should be either $25 in cash or $50 in product vouchers, at

their election, subject to a possible pro rata dilution.

60. Pursuant to the Court’s schedule, promulgation of notice concluded on September

25, 2015. The notice program provided for publication in People, publication in the San Francisco

Examiner, an Internet banner campaign, a press release, a toll-free number, a settlement website, a

Facebook page, and direct notice to roughly 40,600 class members identifiable from StarKist’s

records. Of the class members who received direct notice, approximately 6,090 were sent an

email, and an additional 34,510 were sent a postcard by U.S. Mail.

61. Between July 23 and July 30, 2015, an associate at my firm worked with defense

counsel and KCC, the Court-appointed claims administrator, to finalize the forms of notice for

dissemination. This process entailed reviewing and revising drafts of the Long-Form Notice, the



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Short-Form Notice, and the Postcard Notice. It also entailed reviewing the script and procedures

for the interactive voice response (“IVR”) system used in the toll-free telephone number. It also

entailed reviewing the settlement website, updating the domain for KCC’s servers, and verifying

the procedures for submitting claims, objections, and opt-out requests.

62. To date, the response to the settlement has been overwhelmingly positive. News of

the settlement has been reported by affiliates of NBC and ABC, along with Time.com,

Consumerist.com, and the New York Times, among many other publications and local news

affiliates. These publications have generally explained the basic terms of the deal, and referred

consumers to the settlement website at www.tunalawsuit.com to learn more.

63. Throughout this process, associates and paralegals from my office have been

available to respond to inquiries by class members, both by phone and by email. In most cases, my

firm responds to phone inquiries immediately, and email inquiries in less than 24 hours.

64. I have also assigned my firm’s IT manager to routinely visit the settlement website

to ensure that it is functional and responsive. I also request information from KCC every 2-3

weeks on the rates of submitted claims, objections, and opt-outs.

65. As of October 26, 2015, there have been 2,359,877 claims submitted and only 60

opt-outs. Id. This is a world record. More Class members have submitted claims in this case than

in any other case in the history of class actions. Id. The prior record was 2,252,624 claims, which

were submitted in connection with the class action settlement concerning Red Bull soft drinks in

Careathers v. Red Bull N. Am., Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00369 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2013) and Wolf v. Red

Bull GmbH, No. 1:13-cv-08008 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2013). This settlement has surpassed that mark

already, with three weeks still remaining before the November 20, 2015 claim filing deadline.

66. At these rates, Class Members who chose to receive vouchers will be paid $4.68 per

claim. Id. And assuming that Class Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of costs

and expenses, and payment of incentive awards is granted in full, Class Members who chose to

receive cash will be paid $2.11 per claim. Id.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Voucher Fund

$4,000,000.00 Total Voucher Fund / 854,914 Voucher Claims Total $4.68 Payout Per Voucher

Cash Fund

$8,000,000.00 Total Cash Fund -$675,000.00 KCC Administrative Expenses -$4,000,000.00 Attorneys’ Fees at 33.3% -$150,949.22 Expense Reimbursement -$5,000.00 Class Rep Incentive Award -$8,000.00 Interested Parties (8) Awards @ $1,000 $3,161,050.78 Subtotal / 1,498,172 Cash Claims Total $2.11 Payout Per Cash Claim

67. This is an excellent recovery that will fully compensate most Class members for

100% of their alleged losses, and possibly more. Through-the-register sales data show that the

average retail price for a 5-ounce can of StarKist Chunk Light In Water was 86 cents during the

Class Period. 10/30/15 Weir Decl. ¶ 4.3 Class Counsel’s testing with NOAA showed an average

underfill between 4.5% to 16.7%, resulting in damages of 3.87 cents to 14.3 cents per can. A $2.11

cash payment would provide full recovery for 14 to 54 cans. A $4.68 voucher would provide full

recovery for 32 to 120 cans.

II. THE BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE OF CLASS COUNSEL

68. I graduated from the University of Texas Law School in 1996, where I was Articles

Editor of the Texas Law Review, and a member of the Board of Advocates and Order of the Coif.

I began my practice as a litigation associate in New York City with Cravath, Swaine & Moore

(1996-2000) and Chadbourne & Parke LLP (2001), where I represented large telecommunications,

3 More than half of the unit sales to Class Members were StarKist Chunk Light In Water. See 10/27/15 Weir Decl. ¶ 4. The average retail price for Chunk Light in Oil was 87 cents. Id. The average retail price for Solid White in Oil was $1.35. The average retail price for Solid White in Water was also $1.35. Id.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

pharmaceutical, and technology companies in commercial litigation and class actions. In 2002, I

established my firm, now known as Bursor & Fisher, P.A., and continued to focus on large-scale

class action litigation.

69. Class actions are rarely brought to trial. However, I have served as lead trial

counsel for class action plaintiffs in five jury trials and have won all five, with recoveries ranging

from $21 million to $299 million.

i. In 2007, I served as lead trial counsel in Thomas v. Global Vision Products (Alameda County Superior Court), representing a class of approximately 150,000 California consumers who had purchased the Avacor hair regrowth system, asserting claims for violations of California’s consumer protection statutes. After a four-week trial the jury returned a $37 million verdict for the class. The trial judge increased the award to $40 million.

ii. In 2008, I served as lead trial counsel in Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (Alameda County Superior Court), representing a class of 2 million California consumers who were charged an early termination fee under a Sprint cellphone contract, asserting claims that such fees were unlawful liquidated damages under Civil Code § 1671(d), as well as other statutory and common law claims. After a five-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in June 2008, and the Court issued a Statement of Decision in December 2008 awarding the class more than $299 million in cash and debt cancellation. The class prevailed on six of six counts asserted in the complaint and was awarded 100% of the relief sought.

iii. In 2008, I served as lead trial counsel in White v. Verizon Wireless (Alameda County Superior Court), representing a class of 1.4 million California consumers who were charged an early termination fee under a Verizon cellphone contract, asserting claims that such fees were unlawful liquidated damages under Civil Code § 1671(d), as well as other statutory and common law claims. After I presented the class’s case-in-chief, rested, then cross-examined Verizon’s principal trial witness, Verizon agreed to settle the case for a $21 million cash payment and an injunction restricting Verizon’s ability to impose early termination fees in future subscriber agreements.

iv. In 2009, I served as lead trial counsel in a second trial in Thomas v. Global Vision Products, in which the class asserted claims against a minority shareholder in the company. After another four-week trial the jury returned a verdict awarding more than $50 million to the class. The legal trade publication VerdictSearch reported this was the second largest jury verdict in California in 2009.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

v. In 2013, I served as lead trial counsel in a second trial in Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum L.P. (Alameda County Superior Court). After we had prevailed on the class claims challenging Sprint’s termination fees in 2008, Sprint asserted a $1.06 billion cross-claim against the class for breach of contract. See Garrett v. Coast & Southern Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 9 Cal. 3d 731, 740-41 (1973) (holding that invalidation of a liquidated damages provision does not permit the breaching party to “escape[] unscathed,” because he “remains liable for the actual damages resulting from his default”). After a four-week trial, the jury returned a verdict awarding only 2% of Sprint’s claimed damages. This verdict secured the Class’s net cash recovery of at least $55 million after a setoff for Sprint’s actual damages.

70. In addition to these five trial victories, I have been counsel to class action plaintiffs

in dozens of cases in jurisdictions throughout the United States. Since December 2010, my firm

has won appointment as Class Counsel or Interim Class Counsel in:

i. O’Brien v. LG Electronics USA, Inc. (D.N.J. Dec. 16, 2010), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of LG French-door refrigerators,

ii. Ramundo v. Michaels Stores, Inc. (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2011), to represent a certified nationwide class of consumers who made in-store purchases at Michaels Stores using a debit or credit card and had their private financial information stolen as a result,

iii. In re Haier Freezer Consumer Litig. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2011), to represent a certified class of purchasers of mislabeled freezers from Haier America Trading, LLC,

iv. Loreto v. Coast Cutlery Co. (D.N.J. Sep. 8, 2011), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of knives or tools made by Coast Cutlery,

v. Rodriguez v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2011), to represent a certified nationwide class of military personnel against CitiMortgage for illegal foreclosures,

vi. Avram v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. (D.N.J. Jan. 3, 2012), to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of mislabeled refrigerators from Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Lowe’s Companies, Inc.,

vii. Rossi v. The Procter & Gamble Co. (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2012), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Crest Sensitivity Treatment & Protection toothpaste,

viii. Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corp. et al. (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2012), to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of mislabeled Maytag Centennial washing machines from Whirlpool Corp., Sears, and other retailers,



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ix. In re Sensa Weight Loss Litig. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2012), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Sensa weight loss products,

x. In re Sinus Buster Products Consumer Litig. (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2012), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Sinus Buster products,

xi. Scott v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2013), to represent a proposed nationwide class of Chase customers who were allegedly unilaterally enrolled into Chase’s Overdraft Protection service and charged unauthorized fees,

xii. Podobedov v. Living Essentials, LLC (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013), to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of 5-Hour Energy products,

xiii. Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2014), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Capatriti 100% Pure Olive Oil,

xiv. Forcellati v. Hyland’s, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2014), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of children’s homeopathic cold and flu remedies,

xv. Ebin v. Kangadis Family Management LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2014) to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Capatriti 100% Pure Olive Oil,

xvi. Melgar v. Zicam LLC, et al. (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2014), to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of homeopathic cold remedy,

xvii. In re Scotts EZ Seed Litig. (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2015), to represent a certified class of purchasers of Scotts Turf Builder EZ Seed in New York and California,

xviii. Dei Rossi v. Whirlpool Corp. et al. (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2015), to represent a certified class of California purchasers of mislabeled KitchenAid refrigerators from Whirlpool Corp., Best Buy, and other retailers, and

xix. In re NVIDIA GTX 970 Graphics Card Litig. (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2015), to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of NVIDIA GTX 970 graphics cards.

71. A copy of my firm’s resume, which includes more detailed information about our

practice and the qualifications of the other Bursor & Fisher lawyers who worked on this case, is

attached as Exhibit A.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III. CLASS COUNSEL’S LODESTAR AND EXPENSES

72. Attached as Exhibit B are my firm’s detailed billing diaries for this case. I have

personally reviewed all of my firm’s time entries, and have used billing judgment to ensure that

duplicative or unnecessary time has been excluded and that only time reasonably devoted to the

litigation has been included. The time and descriptions displayed in these records were regularly

and contemporaneously recorded by me and the other timekeepers of the firm pursuant to firm

policy and have been maintained in the computerized records of my firm.

73. As of October 27, 2015, Bursor & Fisher expended 2,900.5 hours in this case.

Bursor & Fisher’s lodestar fee in Hendricks v. StarKist Co., based on current billing rates, is

$1,344,720.

74. A fee award of 33.3%, or $4,000,000, would represent a multiplier of 2.97 over the

base lodestar fee.

75. In addition to the time enumerated above, I estimate that Class Counsel will incur an

additional 100 hours of future work in connection with the fairness hearing, coordinating with the

settlement administrator, monitoring settlement administration, and responding to Class member

inquiries.

76. Attached as Exhibit C is an itemized listing of each out-of-pocket expense my firm

incurred in Hendricks v. StarKist Co. These expenses are reflected in the records of Bursor &

Fisher, and were necessary to prosecute this litigation. All expenses were carefully and reasonably

expended, and they reflect market rates for various categories of expenses incurred. Expense items

are billed separately and such charges are not duplicated in my firm’s billing rates.

77. To date, Bursor & Fisher has expended $150,949.22 in out-of-pocket expenses in

connection with the prosecution of this action.

78. Included within Exhibit B is a chart setting forth the hourly rates charged for each

lawyer and paralegal at my firm. Based on my knowledge and experience, the hourly rates charged

by my firm are within the range of market rates charged by attorneys of equivalent experience,

skill, and expertise. These are the same hourly rates that we actually charge to our regular hourly



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

clients who have retained us for non-contingent matters, and which are actually paid by those

clients. As a matter of firm policy, we do not discount our regular hourly rates for non-contingent

hourly work, which comprises approximately 20% of our revenue. I have personal knowledge of

the range of hourly rates typically charged by counsel in our field in New York, California, and

throughout the United States, both on a current basis and in the past. In determining my firm’s

hourly rates from year to year, my partners and I have consciously taken market rates into account

and have aligned our rates with the market.

79. Through my practice, I have become familiar with the non-contingent market rates

charged by attorneys in New York, California and elsewhere (my firm’s offices are in New York

City and Walnut Creek, California). This familiarity has been obtained in several ways: (1) by

litigating attorneys’ fee applications; (2) by discussing fees with other attorneys; (3) by obtaining

declarations regarding prevailing market rates filed by other attorneys seeking fees; and (4) by

reviewing attorneys’ fee applications and awards in other cases, as well as surveys and articles on

attorney’s fees in the legal newspapers and treatises. The information I have gathered shows that

my firm’s rates are in line with the non-contingent market rates charged by attorneys of reasonably

comparable experience, skill, and reputation for reasonably comparable class action work. In fact,

comparable hourly rates have been found reasonable by various courts for reasonably comparable

services, including:

i. In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, No. M 07 1827 SI, MDL, No. 1827 (N.D.Cal. 2013), an antitrust class action, in which the court found blended hourly rates of $1000, $950, $861, $825, $820, and $750 per hour reasonable for the lead class counsel.

ii. Williams v. H&R Block Enterprises, Inc., Alameda County Superior Ct. No. RG08366506, Order of Final Approval and Judgment filed November 8, 2012, a wage and hour class action, in which the court found the hourly rates of $785, $775, and $750 reasonable for the more senior class counsel.

iii. Luquetta v. The Regents of the Univ. of California, San Francisco Superior Ct. No.CGC-05-443007, Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Common Fund Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, filed October 31, 2012, a class action to recover tuition overcharges, in which the court found the hourly rates of $850, $785, $750, and $700 reasonable for plaintiffs’ more experienced counsel.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

iv. Pierce v. County of Orange, 905 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (C.D. Cal. 2012), a civil rights class action brought by pre-trial detainees, in which the court approved a lodestar-based, inter alia, on 2011 rates of $850 and $825 per hour.

v. Holloway et. al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. 05-5056 PJH (N.D. Cal. 2011) (Order dated November 9, 2011), a class action alleging that Best Buy discriminated against female, African American and Latino employees by denying them promotions and lucrative sales positions, in which the court approved lodestar-based rates of up to $825 per hour.

vi. Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., et al. v. California Department of Transportation, et al., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141030 (N.D. Cal. 2010), adopted by Order Accepting Report and Recommendation filed February 2, 2011, a class action in which the court found reasonable 2010 hourly rates of up to $835 per hour.

vii. Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases, San Francisco County Superior Court, JCCP No. 4335, Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Awards, filed August 23, 2010, an antitrust class action, in which the court, before applying a 2.0 lodestar multiplier, found reasonable 2010 hourly rates of $975 for a 43-year attorney, $950 for a 46-year attorney, $850 for 32 and 38 year attorneys, $825 for a 35-year attorney, $740 for a 26-year attorney, $610 for a 13-year attorney, and $600 for a 9-year attorney, and $485 for a 5-year attorney.

viii. Savaglio, et al. v. WalMart, Alameda County Superior Court No. C-835687-7, Order Granting Class Counsel’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, filed September 10, 2010, a wage and hour class action, in which the court found reasonable, before applying a 2.36 multiplier, rates of up to $875 per hour for a 51-year attorney, $750 for a 39-year attorney, and $775 for a 33-year attorney.

ix. Qualcomm, Inc. v. Broadcom, Inc., Case No. 05-CV-1958-B, 2008 WL 2705161 (S.D. Cal. 2008), in which the court found the 2007 hourly rates requested by Wilmer Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr LLP reasonable; those rates ranged from $45 to $300 for staff and paralegals, from $275 to $505 for associates and counsel, and from $435 to $850 for partners.

80. The reasonableness of my firm’s hourly rates are also supported by several surveys

of legal rates, including the following:

i. In an article entitled “On Sale: The $1,150-Per Hour Lawyer,” written by Jennifer Smith and published in the Wall Street Journal on April 9, 2013, the author describes the rapidly growing number of lawyers billing at $1,150 or more revealed in public filings and major surveys. The article also notes that in the first quarter of 2013, the 50 top-grossing law firms billed their partners at an average rate between $879 and $882 per hour. A true and correct copy of this article is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

ii. In an article published April 16, 2012, the Am Law Daily described the 2012 Real Rate Report, an analysis of $7.6 billion in legal bills paid by corporations over a five-year period ending in December 2011. A true and correct copy of that article is



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

attached hereto as Exhibit E. That article confirms that the rates charged by experienced and well-qualified attorneys have continued to rise over this five-year period, particularly in large urban areas like the San Francisco Bay Area. It also shows, for example, that the top quartile of lawyers bill at an average of “just under $900 per hour.”

iii. Similarly, on February 25, 2011, the Wall Street Journal published an on-line article entitled “Top Billers.” A true and correct copy of that article is attached hereto as Exhibit F. That article listed the 2010 and/or 2009 hourly rates for more than 125 attorneys, in a variety of practice areas and cases, who charged $1,000 per hour or more. Indeed, the article specifically lists eleven (11) Gibson Dunn & Crutcher attorneys billing at $1,000 per hour or more.

iv. On February 22, 2011, the ALM’s Daily Report listed the 2006-2009 hourly rates of numerous San Francisco attorneys. A true and correct copy of that article is attached hereto as Exhibit G. Even though rates have increased significantly since that time, my firm’s rates are well within the range of rates shown in this survey.

v. The Westlaw CourtExpress Legal Billing Reports for May, August, and December 2009 (attached hereto as Exhibit H) show that as far back as 2009, attorneys with as little as 19 years of experience were charging $800 per hour or more, and that the rates requested here are well within the range of those reported. Again, current rates are significantly higher.

vi. The National Law Journal’s December 2010, nationwide sampling of law firm billing rates (attached hereto as Exhibit I) lists 32 firms whose highest rate was $800 per hour or more, eleven firms whose highest rate was $900 per hour or more, and three firms whose highest rate was $1,000 per hour or more.

vii. On December 16, 2009, The American Lawyer published an online article entitled “Bankruptcy Rates Top $1,000 in 2008-2009.” That article is attached hereto as Exhibit J. In addition to reporting that several attorneys had charged rates of $1,000 or more in bankruptcy filings in Delaware and the Southern District of New York, the article also listed 18 firms that charged median partner rates of from $625 to $980 per hour.

viii. According to the National Law Journal’s 2014 Law Firm Billing Survey, law firms with their largest office in New York have average partner and associate billing rates of $882 and $520, respectively. Karen Sloan, $1,000 Per Hour Isn’t Rare Anymore; Nominal Billing Levels Rise, But Discounts Ease Blow, National Law Journal, Jan. 13, 2014. The survey also shows that it is common for legal fees for partners in New York firms to exceed $1,000 an hour. Id. A true and correct copy of this survey is attached hereto as Exhibit K.

81. Given my unique experience and track record of success winning 5 of 5 class action

trials, since 2012 my hourly rate has been set at $850, which is the same rate that my firm charges

to clients who retain us on an hourly basis, and which we never discount. This rate has been



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

deemed reasonable in connection with the approval of my firm’s fee applications in at least five

recent matters:

i. Correa v. Sensa Products LLC, Case No. BC476808, California Superior Court, Los Angeles County (Nov. 9, 2012 Judgment, Final Order, And Decree Granting Final Approval To Class Action Settlement);

ii. Rossi v. The Procter & Gamble Co., Case No. 11-7238, D.N.J. (Oct. 3, 2013 Final Approval Order And Judgment);

iii. In re Pacific Bell Late Fee Litigation, Case No. MSC10-00840, California Superior Court, Los Angeles County (Oct. 22, 2013 Order Awarding Attorneys’ Fees, Costs And Expenses And Authorizing Payment Of Incentive Award To The Class Representative); and

iv. In re Haier Freezer Consumer Litig., Case No. C11-02911 EJD, N.D. Cal. (Oct. 25, 2013 Final Judgment And Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion For Final Approval Of Class Action Settlement And For Award Of Attorneys’ Fees, Costs And Incentive Awards).

v. In Rodriguez v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-4718, S.D.N.Y. (Oct. 6, 2015), the court concluded during the fairness hearing that Bursor & Fisher’s rates for two of its partners, Joseph Marchese and Scott Bursor, were “reasonable”:

The hourly rates among plaintiffs’ counsel and their staff range between $950 per hour to $165 per hour with the average partner billing rate at $748. The hourly rates that the partners who performed most of the partner-level work on the matter, those being Joseph Marchese, Scott Bursor, Gary Lynch, and Antonio Vozzolo are $680, $850, $650, and $775 an hour respectively. The total blended rate for all legal work performed was $609 per hour. … I conclude that the hourly rates are reasonable.

10/6/15 Tr. at 14:24-15:14 (emphasis added).

82. No court has ever cut my firm’s fee application by a single dollar on the ground that

our hourly rates were not reasonable. Nor on any other ground.

83. My firm undertook this representation on a wholly contingent basis recognizing that

the risk of non-payment has been high throughout this litigation. There were substantial

uncertainties in the viability of this case as a class action, as well as substantial uncertainties in the

merits of the underlying claims, and the ability to collect on any judgment that might be obtained.

Although we believed the case to be meritorious, a realistic assessment shows that the risks



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

inherent in the resolution of the liability issues, protracted litigation in this action as well as the

probable appeals process, are great.

84. Had we not resolved this matter through settlement, we would have vigorously

prosecuted the case through class certification, summary judgment, trial, and appealed any

determinations that may have been adverse to the Class’s interests. We were therefore at great risk

for non-payment. In addition, as described above, we have advanced significant expenses that

would not have been reimbursed absent a successful result.

85. Based on our lodestar, the blended hourly rate that my firm billed to this matter is

less than $463.62 per hour for 2,900.5 hours of work. This relatively modest blended rate resulted

from my practice of assigning appropriate work to less senior lawyers who bill at lower hourly

rates in order to minimize fees for the Class, wherever possible. More than 58% of the hours

(1,699.1 hours) were billed by associates. However, this was a novel case that involved a lot of

original work, which required significant involvement by more experienced lawyers. My firm’s

partners billed 30% of the hours (872.2 hours), primarily on developing the litigation strategy,

taking key depositions, editing briefs on dispositive motions, making court appearances, and

negotiating the settlement. Most depositions were handled by a single lawyer, though some of the

more complex depositions were staffed by a partner and associate.

86. We have also achieved significant savings for the Class through the terms of our

agreement with KCC, the Court-appointed claims administrator. As discussed in the Court’s Order

Granting Preliminary Approval:

StarKist agrees to pay $8,000,000 in cash and $4,000,000 in vouchers for StarKist products. This amount includes payments to claimants for release of their claims, any award of attorneys’ fees and costs, claims administrator costs, and any incentive awards to Hendricks and other “interested parties.”

…

The settlement administrator’s actual costs and expenses in carrying out its duties are capped at $675,000.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7/23/2015 Order Granting Preliminary Approval at 2-3 (emphasis added, internal citations

omitted). KCC’s rates are a great deal for Class members, and the source of possibly millions of

dollars in savings. There are 2,359,877 Claims submitted to date in this action. Each claim will

require verification, as well as the printing and mailing of a check or voucher. In total, the costs for

KCC will likely exceed far exceed its cap of $675,000.

87. I did not negotiate attorneys’ fees with StarKist. Nor does the formal Settlement

Agreement have a “clear sailing” provision. The Settlement Agreement does permit my firm to

request up to one-third of the settlement fund for our attorneys’ fees, but StarKist is free to oppose

this request.

88. Given the novelty, complexity, and difficulty of litigating this first-ever

private-plaintiff case concerning the under-filling of canned tuna, no lawyer competent to litigate

this action would agree to do so for a 25% contingency fee. Indeed, given the need to advance

expenses exceeding $150,000 out-of-pocket, and possibly more if the case proceeded beyond class

certification, it would be difficult to find any lawyer willing to take this case for such a modest fee.

Bursor & Fisher was the only law firm in the United States willing to step forward and commit the

resources to bring this case. And for cases where class members are plentiful and easily identified

(i.e., anyone in the U.S. that purchased StarKist tuna), it is not unusual for numerous firms to file

copycat cases and compete for appointment as lead class counsel. But here, with essentially no

barrier to entry, no other law firm stepped forward. The absence of any competition for

appointment to represent this Class was a function of the perceived difficulty of this case. These

facts reflect that even the 33.3% contingent fee requested is probably below market rates for a case

of such novelty, complexity, and difficulty.

89. Due to the commitment of time and capital required to litigate this action, my firm

had to forego significant other work in late 2014 and early 2015, including work for paying clients

billed by the hour on a non-contingent basis, as well as other class action cases.

90. Attached as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Jennifer M.

Keough Regarding Settlement Administration in Careathers v. Red Bull N. Am., Inc., No. 1:13-cv-



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

00369 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2013), which states that the Red Bull settlement received “a total of

2,252,624 Claim Forms.”

91. Attached as Exhibit M is a true and correct transcript of the final fairness hearing in

In re Alexia Foods, Inc. Litig., No. 12-cv-01546 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2013) (Hamilton, J.).

IV. THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AND INTERESTED PARTIES’ ROLE IN THIS LITIGATION

92. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Class Representative and the Interested

Parties are permitted to request approval of an incentive award up to $5,000 each for their service.

93. Incentive awards for class representatives are common in class actions. See, e.g., In

re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152275, at *35 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2012)

(“Courts often grant incentive awards to representative plaintiffs.”); see also Dupler v. Costco

Wholesale Corp., 705 F. Supp. 2d 231, 245 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (approving $25,000 and $5,000

awards to two plaintiffs in a settlement involving allegations that the defendant’s backdating of

membership renewals was a deceptive practice under New York’s consumer fraud statute); In re

Domestic Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., 148 F.R.D. 297, 348 (N.D. Ga. 1993) ($142,500 awarded

from settlement fund of $50 million); In re Dun & Bradstreet Credit Services Customer Litig., 130

F.R.D. 366, 373-74 (S.D. Ohio 1990) ($215,000 awarded from settlement fund of $18 million);

Spicer v. Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 1226, 1267-68 (N.D. Ill. 1993)

($30,000 awarded from settlement fund of $10 million); Enterprise Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas

Transmission Corp., 137 F.R.D. 240, 250-51 (S.D. Ohio 1991) (approving $50,000 incentive

awards). Such awards compensate class representatives and others for actual costs in time, money,

and the disruption of life incurred in the prosecution of the litigation. They also serve to encourage

future plaintiffs to come forward and vindicate the rights of other injured parties.

94. Here, the involvement of the Class Representative, Mr. Hendricks, was critical to

the prosecution of the case. Throughout the litigation, Mr. Hendricks held regular meetings with

Class Counsel to receive updates on the progress of the case and to discuss strategy. He assisted in

Class Counsel’s pre-suit investigation by discussing his experiences and providing information on

his purchase and use of StarKist Tuna. Mr. Hendricks assisted in drafting the Complaint, and he



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reviewed the Complaint for accuracy before it was filed. Mr. Hendricks coordinated with my firm

to form responses to discovery requests, including written interrogatories and documents requests,

and he gathered documents for production. Mr. Hendricks also sat for a day-long deposition. Mr.

Hendricks also prepared and submitted a declaration in support of class certification. Finally, he

was intimately involved in the settlement process, and has continued to keep abreast of settlement

progress to date.

95. Mr. Hendricks also took significant time away from work and personal activities to

initiate and litigate this action. He was prepared to litigate this case to a verdict if necessary. His

dedication and efforts have conferred a significant benefit on millions of purchasers of StarKist

tuna across the United States. In light of his contributions and efforts, an incentive award of

$5,000 to Mr. Hendricks for acting as the Class Representative is appropriate and should be

approved.

96. Similarly, an incentive award of $1,000 apiece is appropriate for each of the

Interested Parties for their involvement with this litigation. First, Jayme Kaczmarek, Joseph

Vallilo, and Joseph Ebin were prepared to file their own actions in the U.S. District Courts for the

districts of New Jersey, the Southern District of Florida, and the Southern District of New York,

respectively. Between February 17 and February 18, 2013, my firm prepared complaints for each

of these districts, but after consulting with each of these class members, we ultimately decided to

maintain only one action in the Northern District of California for the sake of judicial efficiency

and to reduce costs and fees for the class. See supra.

97. Second, Joseph Ebin, Kelly Maucieri, Monica Rodriguez, Joseph Vallillo, and

Jayme Kaczmarek prepared and mailed pre-suit notice letters pursuant to U.C.C. § 2-607. These

notice letters were mailed in anticipation of their involvement with future filings concerning

StarKist tuna.

98. Third, Laury Smith, Brian Andacky, Joseph Vallillo, and Ben Hall moved to

intervene as named plaintiffs on January 20, 2015. Accompanying this motion was a fully-drafted

Complaint-In-Intervention, which each of these parties helped draft and reviewed for accuracy



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

before it was filed. However, due to the settlement, their motion was never adjudicated. Yet, as

discussed in their motion, each was prepared to fulfill the duties of a Class Representative. See

supra.

99. Fourth, the Interested Parties assisted in Class Counsel’s pre-suit investigation by

discussing their relevant experiences and providing information on their purchases and use of

StarKist tuna, among other matters. Each was also intimately involved in the settlement process,

and has continued to keep abreast of settlement progress to date. In light of their contributions and

efforts, an incentive award of $1,000 apiece to the Interested Parties is appropriate and should be

approved.

100. In my judgment, the participation of the Interested Parties greatly enhanced the

settlement value of the case because there was a substantial risk that choice-of-law issues might

have precluded nationwide certification, and required a state-by-state approach. Having the

Interested Parties standing by to represent statewide classes of four of the most populous States

strengthened Class Counsel’s hand in settlement negotiations, and enabled Class Counsel to

persuade StarKist to put more money into the Settlement Fund. With this in mind, each of the

Interested Parties participated in the settlement negotiations, and reviewed and executed the

settlement agreement.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States, the State of

California, and the State of New York that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October

30, 2015 at New York, New York.

/s/ Scott A. Bursor Scott A. Bursor


EXHIBIT A


www.bursor.com

FIRM RESUME

8 8 8 S E V E N T H A V E N U E

NEW YORK, NY 10019

1 9 9 0 N O R T H C A L I F O R N I A B L V D .

W A L N U T C R E E K , C A 9 4 5 9 6

With offices in New York and California, BURSOR & FISHER lawyers have

represented both plaintiffs and defendants in state and federal courts throughout the country.

The lawyers at our firm have an active civil trial practice, having won multi-million

dollar verdicts or recoveries in five of five civil jury trials since 2008. Our most recent trial

victory came in August 2013 in Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., in which Mr. Bursor served as

lead trial counsel and won a jury verdict defeating Sprint’s $1.06 billion counterclaim and

securing the class’s recovery of more than $275 million in cash and debt relief.

In Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Inc. (II), we obtained a $50 million jury verdict in

favor of a certified class of 150,000 purchasers of the Avacor Hair Regrowth System. The legal

trade publication VerdictSearch reported that this was the second largest jury verdict in

California in 2009, and the largest in any class action.

The lawyers at our firm have an active class action practice and have won numerous

appointments as class counsel to represent millions of class members, including customers of

Verizon Wireless, AT&T Wireless, Cingular Wireless, Sprint, T-Mobile, General Electric, Haier

America, and Michaels Stores as well as purchasers of Avacor™, Xenadrine™, and Sensa™

products. Since 2014, our lawyers have certified four consumer classes pursuant to contested

class certification motions (see Ebin, Forcellati, In re EZ Seed Litig., and Dei Rossi infra). Since

December 2010, Bursor & Fisher lawyers have been court-appointed Class Counsel or Interim

Class Counsel in:

i. O’Brien v. LG Electronics USA, Inc. (D.N.J. Dec. 16, 2010) to represent a

certified nationwide class of purchasers of LG French-door refrigerators,

ii. Ramundo v. Michaels Stores, Inc. (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2011) to represent a certified nationwide class of consumers who made in-store purchases at Michaels Stores using a debit or credit card and had their private financial information stolen as a result,

iii. In re Haier Freezer Consumer Litig. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2011) to represent a certified class of purchasers of mislabeled freezers from Haier America Trading, LLC,

iv. Loreto v. Coast Cutlery Co. (D.N.J. Sep. 8, 2011) to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of knives or tools made by Coast Cutlery,

v. Rodriguez v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2011) to represent a certified nationwide class of military personnel against CitiMortgage for illegal foreclosures,


http://www.bursor.com/

vi. Avram v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al. (D.N.J. Jan. 3, 2012),

to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of mislabeled refrigerators from Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Lowe’s Companies, Inc.,

vii. Rossi v. The Procter & Gamble Co. (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2012), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Crest Sensitivity Treatment & Protection toothpaste,

viii. Dzielak v. Whirlpool Corp. et al. (D.N.J. Feb. 21, 2012), to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of mislabeled Maytag Centennial washing machines from Whirlpool Corp., Sears, and other retailers,

ix. In re Sensa Weight Loss Litig. (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2012), to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Sensa weight loss products,

x. In re Sinus Buster Products Consumer Litig. (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2012) to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Sinus Buster products,

xi. Scott v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al. (S.D.N.Y. May 30, 2013) to represent a proposed nationwide class of Chase customers who were allegedly unilaterally enrolled into Chase’s Overdraft Protection service and charged unauthorized fees,

xii. Podobedov v. Living Essentials, LLC (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013) to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of 5-hour Energy products,

xiii. Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc. (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2014) to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Capatriti 100% Pure Olive Oil,

xiv. Forcellati v. Hyland’s, Inc. (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2014) to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of children’s homeopathic cold and flu remedies,

xv. Ebin v. Kangadis Family Management LLC, et al. (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2014) to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of Capatriti 100% Pure Olive Oil,

xvi. Melgar v. Zicam LLC, et al. (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2014) to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of homeopathic cold remedy,

xvii. In re Scotts EZ Seed Litig. (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2015), to represent a certified class of purchasers of Scotts Turf Builder EZ Seed,

xviii. Dei Rossi v. Whirlpool Corp., et al. (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2015), to represent a certified class of purchasers of mislabeled KitchenAid refrigerators from Whirlpool Corp., Best Buy, and other retailers,

xix. Hendricks v. StarKist Co. (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2015) to represent a certified nationwide class of purchasers of StarKist tuna products, and

xx. In re NVIDIA GTX 970 Graphics Card Litig. (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2015), to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers of NVIDIA GTX 970 graphics cards.


SCOTT A. BURSOR

Mr. Bursor has an active civil trial practice, having won multi-million verdicts or

recoveries in five of five civil jury trials since 2008. Mr. Bursor’s most recent victory came in

August 2013 in Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., in which he served as lead trial counsel and won

a jury verdict defeating Sprint’s $1.06 billion counterclaim and securing the class’s recovery of

more than $275 million in cash and debt relief.

In Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Inc. (2009), the jury returned a $50 million verdict

in favor of the plaintiff and class represented by Mr. Bursor. The legal trade publication

VerdictSearch reported that this was the second largest jury verdict in California in 2009.

Class actions are rarely tried to verdict. Other than Mr. Bursor and his partner Mr.

Fisher, we know of no lawyer that has tried more than one class action to a jury. Mr. Bursor’s

perfect record of five wins in five class action jury trials, with recoveries ranging from $21

million to $299 million, is unmatched by any other lawyer. Each of these victories was

hard-fought against top trial lawyers from the biggest law firms in the United States.

Mr. Bursor graduated from the University of Texas Law School in 1996. He served as

Articles Editor of the Texas Law Review, and was a member of the Board of Advocates and

Order of the Coif. Prior to starting his own practice, Mr. Bursor was a litigation associate with

Cravath, Swaine & Moore (1996-2000) and Chadbourne & Parke LLP (2001), where he

represented large telecommunications, pharmaceutical, and technology companies in commercial

litigation.

Mr. Bursor is a member of the state bars of New York, Florida, and California, as well as

the bars of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Court of

Appeals for the Third Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, United

States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, United States District Courts for

the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, United States District Courts for the Northern,

Central, Southern and Eastern Districts of California, and the United States District Courts for

the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida.

Representative Cases

Mr. Bursor was appointed lead or co-lead class counsel to the largest, 2nd largest, and 3rd

largest classes ever certified. Mr. Bursor has represented classes including more than 160

million class members, roughly 1 of every 2 Americans. Listed below are recent cases that are

representative of Mr. Bursor’s practice:

Mr. Bursor negotiated and obtained court-approval for two landmark settlements in

Nguyen v. Verizon Wireless and Zill v. Sprint Spectrum (the largest and 2nd largest classes ever

certified). These settlements required Verizon and Sprint to open their wireless networks to

third-party devices and applications. These settlements are believed to be the most significant

legal development affecting the telecommunications industry since 1968, when the FCC’s

Carterfone decision similarly opened up AT&T’s wireline telephone network.


Mr. Bursor was the lead trial lawyer in Ayyad v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P. representing a

class of approximately 2 million California consumers who were charged an early termination

fee under a Sprint cellphone contract, asserting claims that such fees were unlawful liquidated

damages under the California Civil Code, as well as other statutory and common law claims.

After a five-week combined bench-and-jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in June 2008 and the

Court issued a Statement of Decision in December 2008 awarding the plaintiffs $299 million in

cash and debt cancellation. Mr. Bursor served as lead trial counsel for this class again in 2013

during a month-long jury trial in which Sprint asserted a $1.06 billion counterclaim against the

class. Mr. Bursor secured a verdict awarding Sprint only $18.4 million, the exact amount

calculated by the class’s damages expert. This award was less than 2% of the damages Sprint

sought, less than 6% of the amount of the illegal termination fees Sprint charged to class

members, and ensured that the class would recover in excess of $275 million.

Mr. Bursor was the lead trial lawyer in White v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon

Wireless representing a class of approximately 1.4 million California consumers who were

charged an early termination fee under a Verizon cellphone contract, asserting claims that such

fees were unlawful liquidated damages under the California Civil Code, as well as other statutory

and common law claims. In July 2008, after Mr. Bursor presented plaintiffs’ case-in-chief,

rested, then cross-examined Verizon’s principal trial witness, Verizon agreed to settle the case

for a $21 million cash payment and an injunction restricting Verizon’s ability to impose early

termination fees in future subscriber agreements.

Mr. Bursor was the lead trial lawyer in Thomas v. Global Visions Products Inc. Mr.

Bursor represented a class of approximately 150,000 California consumers who had purchased

the Avacor® hair regrowth system. In January 2008, after a four-week combined bench-and-jury

trial. Mr. Bursor obtained a $37 million verdict for the class, which the Court later increased to

$40 million.

Mr. Bursor was appointed class counsel and was elected chair of the Official Creditors’

Committee in In re Nutraquest Inc., a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case before Chief Judge Garrett E.

Brown, Jr. (D.N.J.) involving 390 ephedra-related personal injury and/or wrongful death claims,

two consumer class actions, four enforcement actions by governmental agencies, and multiple

adversary proceedings related to the Chapter 11 case. Working closely with counsel for all

parties and with two mediators, Judge Nicholas Politan (Ret.) and Judge Marina Corodemus

(Ret.), the committee chaired by Mr. Bursor was able to settle or otherwise resolve every claim

and reach a fully consensual Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, which Chief Judge Brown

approved in late 2006. This settlement included a $12.8 million recovery to a nationwide class

of consumers who alleged they were defrauded in connection with the purchase of Xenadrine®

dietary supplement products.

Mr. Bursor was the lead trial lawyer in In re: Pacific Bell Late Fee Litigation. After

filing the first class action challenging Pac Bell's late fees in April 2010, winning a contested

motion to certify a statewide California class in January 2012, and defeating Pac Bell's motion

for summary judgment in February 2013, Mr. Bursor obtained final approval of the $38 million

class settlement. The settlement, which Mr. Bursor negotiated the night before opening

statements were scheduled to commence, provides for a $20 million cash payment to provide


refunds to California customers who paid late fees on their Pac Bell wireline telephone accounts,

and includes an injunction that will reduce late fee charges by $18.6 million over 28 months.

L. TIMOTHY FISHER

Mr. Fisher has an active practice in consumer class actions and complex business

litigation and has also successfully handled a large number of civil appeals. Prior to founding

Bursor & Fisher, P.A. in 2011, Mr. Fisher was an associate with Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler &

Birkhaeuser, LLP in Walnut Creek, California for 13 years. During his career, he has been

actively involved in numerous cases that resulted in multi-million dollar recoveries for

consumers and investors. Mr. Fisher has handled cases involving a wide range of issues

including nutritional labeling, health care, telecommunications, corporate governance, unfair

business practices and consumer fraud. With his partner Scott A. Bursor, Mr. Fisher has tried

four class action jury trials, all of which produced successful results. In the initial phase of

Thomas v. Global Vision Products, the jury awarded the plaintiff class more than $36 million

plus punitive damages, while the Court awarded a $40 million recovery on separate legal claims.

In a subsequent phase of the trial against individual defendants, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Bursor

obtained a jury award of $50,024,611 – the largest class action award in California in 2009 and

the second-largest jury award of any kind.

Mr. Fisher was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1997. He is also a member of

the bars of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States District

Courts for the Northern, Central, Southern and Eastern Districts of California. Mr. Fisher taught

appellate advocacy at John F. Kennedy University School of Law in 2003 and 2004. Recently,

Mr. Fisher contributed jury instructions, a verdict form, and comments to the consumer

protection chapter of Justice Elizabeth A. Baron’s California Civil Jury Instruction Companion

Handbook (West 2010). In 2014, Mr. Fisher was appointed to a four-year term as a member of

the Standing Committee on Professional Conduct for the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California.

Mr. Fisher received his Juris Doctor from Boalt Hall at the University of California at

Berkeley in 1997. While in law school, he was an active member of the Moot Court Board and

participated in moot court competitions throughout the United States. In 1994, Mr. Fisher

received an award for Best Oral Argument in the first year moot court competition. In 1992, Mr.

Fisher graduated with highest honors from the University of California at Berkeley and received

a degree in political science. Prior to graduation, he authored an honors thesis for Professor

Bruce Cain entitled “The Role of Minorities on the Los Angeles City Council.” He is also a

member of Phi Beta Kappa.


Thomas v. Global Vision Products, Inc. (Alameda County Superior Court) - Mr. Fisher

litigated claims against Global Vision Products, Inc. and other individuals in connection with the

sale and marketing of a purported hair loss remedy known as Avacor. The case lasted more than

seven years and involved two trials. The first trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff and the class

in the amount of $40,000,000. The second trial resulted in a jury verdict of $50,024,611, which

led to a $30 million settlement for the class.


In re Cellphone Termination Fee Cases - Handset Locking Actions (Alameda County

Superior Court). Mr. Fisher actively worked on five coordinated cases challenging the secret

locking of cell phone handsets by major wireless carriers to prevent consumers from activating

them on competitive carriers’ systems. Settlements have been approved in all five cases on

terms that require the cell phone carriers to disclose their handset locks to consumers and to

provide unlocking codes nationwide on reasonable terms and conditions. The settlements

fundamentally changed the landscape for cell phone consumers regarding the locking and

unlocking of cell phone handsets.

In re Cellphone Termination Fee Cases - Early Termination Fee Cases (Alameda County

Superior Court and Federal Communications Commission). In separate cases that are a part of

the same coordinated litigation as the Handset Locking Cases, Mr. Fisher actively worked on

claims challenging the validity under California law of early termination fees imposed by

national cell phone carriers. In one of those cases, against Verizon Wireless, a nationwide

settlement was reached after three weeks of trial in the amount of $21 million. In a second case,

which was tried to verdict, the Court held after trial that the $73 million of flat early termination

fees that Sprint had collected from California consumers over an eight-year period were void and

unenforceable.

Guyette v. Viacom, Inc. (Alameda County Superior Court) - Mr. Fisher was co-counsel

for a class of cable television subscribers who alleged that the defendant had improperly failed to

share certain tax refunds with its subscribers. A settlement was negotiated shortly before trial

under which defendants paid the class $13 million in cash.

In re Haier Freezer Consumer Litigation (Northern District of California) - Mr. Fisher

filed the case in June 2011 and alleged that Haier had misrepresented the energy consumption of

its HNCM070E freezer on the ENERGYGUIDE labels attached to the freezers. After two years

of litigation, District Judge Edward J. Davila approved a nationwide settlement valued at $4

million, which provides for cash payments of between $50 and $325.80 to class members who

purchased the Haier HNCM070E chest freezer.

Selected Published Decisions

In re Cellphone Termination Fee Cases, 186 Cal.App.4th 1380 (2010)

In re Cellphone Termination Fee Cases, 180 Cal.App.4th 1110 (2009)

Gatton v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 152 Cal.App.4th 571 (2007)

JOSEPH I. MARCHESE

Mr. Marchese is a Partner with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Mr. Marchese focuses his practice

on complex business litigation, consumer class actions, and employment law disputes. Prior to

joining Bursor & Fisher, Mr. Marchese was an associate with DLA Piper and Shearman &

Sterling where he litigated complex commercial matters on behalf of investment banks,

pharmaceutical companies, insurance carriers, food manufacturers, and tobacco companies.


Mr. Marchese is admitted to the State Bar of New York and is a member of the bars of

the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District

of New York, as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Mr. Marchese graduated from Boston University School of Law in 2002 where he was a

Member of The Public Interest Law Journal. In 1998, Mr. Marchese graduated with honors from

Bucknell University where he earned a B.S.B.A.


Rossi v. The Procter & Gamble Co. (District of New Jersey) – Mr. Marchese filed the

first nationwide consumer class action lawsuit alleging Crest Sensitivity Treatment & Protection

toothpaste (“CSTP”) was not effective as advertised, and was essentially identical to an existing

brand called Crest Pro-Health toothpaste, with only three differentiating features: (1) claims of

rapid relief for tooth sensitivity on the product packaging; (2) a different coloring additive; and

(3) a 75% price premium over Crest Pro-Health. The plaintiff defeated defendant’s motion to

dismiss before negotiating a settlement with P&G. District Judge Jose L. Linares granted final

approval of the nationwide class settlement which provides class members with a monetary

refund of at least $4.00 per tube of CSTP.

In Re Michaels Stores Pin Pad Litigation (Northern District of Illinois) – Mr. Marchese

filed the first nationwide consumer class action against Michaels Stores concerning a data breach

that resulted in the unauthorized release of customers’ financial data. He actively litigated

claims that Michaels failed to secure customer personal financial data appropriately, and failed to

provide adequate notice to its customers whose information and funds were stolen as a result of

the breach at 86 Michaels stores across the country. After two years of litigation, District Judge

Thomas M. Durkin approved a nationwide settlement that requires Michaels to create a monetary

fund from which class members could receive full reimbursement for monetary losses arising

from the data breach. Also, every settlement class member was entitled to credit monitoring

services for early detection of identity theft and credit fraud. As part of the settlement Michaels

also verified that it had implemented strict new security measures to protect its customers from

similar data breaches in the future.

Cox et al. v. Clarus Marketing Group, LLC et al. (Southern District of California) – Mr.

Marchese actively litigated claims for a nationwide class of online shoppers who made purchases

on Provide-Commerce websites and who were deceptively enrolled in an online service,

Freeshipping.com, for which they were charged unauthorized membership fees. The plaintiffs

alleged that they were secretly enrolled in a “Freeshipping” rewards program using the

aggressive Internet marketing practice known as “data pass,” where Provide-Commerce engaged

in the unauthorized sharing and charging of customers’ billing information with a third-party

vendor. After more than two years of litigation, District Judge Marilyn L. Huff approved a

nationwide settlement valued at over $2.65 million, which included monetary reimbursement to

settlement class members for their unauthorized membership charges.


Selected Published Decisions

In re Michaels Stores Pin Pad Litig., 830 F. Supp. 2d 518 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (denying

motion to dismiss in data breach consumer class action)

Rossi v. The Procter & Gamble Co., No. 11-cv-7238, 2013 WL 5523098 (D.N.J. Oct. 3,

2013) (denying motion to dismiss in false advertising consumer class action against maker

of Crest toothpaste)

Ebin v. Kangadis Food Inc., 297 F.R.D. 561 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (certifying nationwide class

of purchasers of purported “100% Pure Olive Oil” in false advertising consumer class

action against edible oil distributor)

In re Scotts EZ Seed Litig., 304 F.R.D. 397 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (certifying New York and

California classes in false advertising case against grass seed manufacturer)

Weisblum, et al. v. ProPhase Labs, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-3587. --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2015

WL 738112 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2015) (denying motion to dismiss in false advertising

consumer class action against manufacturer of homeopathic cold medicine)

JOSHUA D. ARISOHN

Joshua D. Arisohn is a partner with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Mr. Arisohn focuses his

practice on complex business litigation, consumer class actions, and terrorism-related matters.

Prior to joining Bursor & Fisher, Mr. Arisohn was an associate at Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP and

DLA Piper LLP where he litigated precedent-setting cases in the areas of mass torts, terrorism

and commercial disputes. He participated in the first ever trial to take place under the Anti-

Terrorism Act, a statute that affords U.S. citizens the right to assert federal claims for injuries

arising out of acts of international terrorism.

Mr. Arisohn is admitted to the State Bar of New York and is a member of the bars of the

United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of

New York.

Mr. Arisohn received his Juris Doctor from Columbia University School of Law in 2006,

where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar. In 2002, Mr. Arisohn received his B.A. from

Cornell University.

NEAL J. DECKANT

Neal J. Deckant is an Associate with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Mr. Deckant focuses his

practice on complex business litigation and consumer class actions. Prior to joining Bursor &

Fisher, Mr. Deckant counseled low-income homeowners facing foreclosure in East Boston.

Mr. Deckant is admitted to the State Bar of New York and is a member of the bars of the

United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of

New York.


Mr. Deckant received his Juris Doctor from Boston University School of Law in 2011,

graduating cum laude with two Dean’s Awards. During law school, Mr. Deckant served as a

Senior Articles Editor for the Review of Banking and Financial Law, where he authored two

published articles about securitization reforms. In 2007, Mr. Deckant graduated with Honors

from Brown University with a B.A. in East Asian Studies and Philosophy.

YITZCHAK KOPEL

Yitzchak Kopel is an Associate with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Mr. Kopel focuses his

practice on complex business litigation and consumer class actions.

Mr. Kopel is admitted to the State Bars of New York and New Jersey and is a member of

the bars of the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, Eastern

District of New York, and District of New Jersey.

Mr. Kopel received his Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in 2012, graduating cum

laude with two Dean’s Awards. During law school, Mr. Kopel served as an Articles Editor for

the Brooklyn Law Review and worked as a Law Clerk at Shearman & Sterling. In 2009, Mr.

Kopel graduated cum laude from Queens College with a B.A. in Accounting.

ANNICK M. PERSINGER

Annick M. Persinger is an Associate with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Ms. Persinger focuses

her practice on complex business litigation and consumer class actions. Prior to joining Bursor &

Fisher, Ms. Persinger worked as a legal research attorney for Judge John E. Munter in Complex

Litigation at the San Francisco Superior Court.

Ms. Persinger is admitted to the State Bar of California and the bars of the United States

District Courts for the Northern District of California, Central District of California, Southern

District of California, and Eastern District of California.

Ms. Persinger received her Juris Doctor from University of California, Hastings College

of the Law in 2010, graduating magna cum laude. During law school, Ms. Persinger served as a

member of Hastings Women’s Law Journal, and authored two published articles. In 2008, Ms.

Persinger received an award for Best Oral Argument in the first year moot court competition. In

2007, Ms. Persinger graduated cum laude from University of California, San Diego with a B.A.

in Sociology, and minors in Law & Society and Psychology.

FREDERICK J. KLORCZYK III

Frederick J. Klorczyk III is an Associate with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Mr. Klorczyk

focuses his practice on complex business litigation and consumer class actions.

Mr. Klorczyk is admitted to the State Bars of New York and New Jersey and is a member

of the bars of the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, Eastern


District of New York, and District of New Jersey, and the United States Court of Appeals for the

Second Circuit.

Mr. Klorczyk received his Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in 2013, graduating

magna cum laude with two CALI Awards for the highest grade in his classes on criminal law

and conflict of laws. During law school, Mr. Klorczyk served as an Associate Managing Editor

for the Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial and Commercial Law and as an intern to the

Honorable Alison J. Nathan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New

York and the Honorable Janet Bond Arterton of the United States District Court for the District

of Connecticut. In 2010, Mr. Klorczyk graduated from the University of Connecticut with a B.S.

in Finance.

YEREMEY O. KRIVOSHEY

Yeremey O. Krivoshey is an Associate with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Mr. Krivoshey

focuses his practice on complex business litigation and consumer class actions.

Mr. Krivoshey is admitted to the State Bar of California and is a member of the bars of

the United States District Courts for the Northern, Central, Southern and Eastern Districts of

California.

Mr. Krivoshey received his Juris Doctor from New York University School of Law in

2013, where he was a Samuel A. Herzog Scholar. During law school, Mr. Krivoshey worked as

a Law Clerk at Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, P.C. Mr. Krivoshey also interned at the

United States Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union. In 2010, Mr.

Krivoshey graduated cum laude from Vanderbilt University.

JULIA A. LUSTER

Julia A. Luster is an Associate with Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Ms. Luster is admitted to the State Bar of California and is a member of the bars of the

United States District Courts for the Northern, Central, Southern, and Eastern Districts of

California. She is also admitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In 2013, Ms. Luster received her Juris Doctor from UC Davis School of Law. While

attending UC Davis, Ms. Luster externed with the Honorable Judge Arthur L. Alarcón of the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She was a Senior Articles Editor for the

UC Davis Law Review and a top 10 oral advocate in appellate advocacy. She also participated

in the Moot Court interschool competition team. Ms. Luster worked at both the UC Davis Prison

Law Clinic and UC Davis Civil Rights Clinic. While at the Civil Rights Clinic, she co-authored

a Ninth Circuit brief for an appeal she subsequently argued and won. Prior to law school, Ms.

Luster received her B.A. in English from UCLA and her M.A. in English and Comparative

Literature from Columbia University.


PHILIP L. FRAIETTA

Philip L. Fraietta is an Associate with Bursor & Fisher, P.A. Mr. Fraietta focuses his

practice on complex business litigation, consumer class actions, and employment law disputes.

Mr. Fraietta is admitted to the State Bars of New York and New Jersey, the bars of the

United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, Eastern District of New

York, the District of New Jersey, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Mr. Fraietta was a Summer Associate with Bursor & Fisher prior to joining the firm.

Mr. Fraietta received his Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law in 2014,

graduating cum laude. During law school, Mr. Fraietta served as an Articles & Notes Editor for

the Fordham Law Review, and published two articles. In addition, Mr. Fraietta received the

Addison M. Metcalf Labor Law Prize for the highest grade in his graduating class in the Labor

Law course, and received the highest grade in his Anti-Discrimination Law & Policy course. In

2011, Mr. Fraietta graduated cum laude from Fordham University with a B.A. in Economics.


EXHIBIT B


B & F HOURLY RATES

(As of 10/29/2015)

2015

Timekeeper (Year of Bar Admission) Hourly Rate

Scott A. Bursor (1997) (Partner) $850.00

L. Timothy Fisher (1997) (Partner) $680.00

Joseph I. Marchese (2002) (Partner) $680.00

Josh D. Arisohn (2007) (Partner) $550.00

Annick M. Persinger (2010) (Associate) $390.00

Neal J. Deckant (2011) (Associate) $375.00

Yitz Kopel (2012) (Associate) $350.00

Yeremey O. Krivoshey (2013) (Associate) $300.00

Julia A. Luster (2013) (Associate) $300.00

Frederick J. Klorczyk (2014) (Associate) $300.00

Philip Fraietta (2015) (Associate) $300.00

Thomas Reyda (Law Clerk) $225.00

Debbie Schroeder (Litigation Support Specialist) $180.00

Amanda Gonzales (Litigation Support Specialist) $180.00

Christine Patruno (Litigation Support Specialist) $180.00


DATE MATTER TKPR DESCRIPTION HOURS RATE AMOUNT

2012.08.06 StarKist NJD Reviewed CA district attorney tuna cases 0.3 $375 $94

2012.08.06 StarKist NJD Monitored CA district attorney cases, forwarded summary to SAB 0.5 $375 $188

2012.08.06 StarKist RIA Tuna PSI (1.5) 1.5 $180 $270

2012.08.07 StarKist JIM Conduct presuit investigation of StarKist underweight tuna mislabeling and sales 0.6 $680 $408

2012.08.07 StarKist NJD Discussed CA district attorney cases 0.5 $375 $188

2012.08.08 StarKist NJD Discussed CA district attorney cases 0.3 $375 $94

2012.08.08 StarKist RIA Tuna PSI (1.1) 1.1 $180 $198

2012.08.09 StarKist NJD Research into tuna brands at issue in district attorney cases 0.3 $375 $94

2012.09.20 StarKist JIM Conduct presuit investigation of StarKist underweight tuna mislabeling and sales 2.8 $680 $1,904

2012.09.20 StarKist NJD Further research into cases filed concerning underweight tuna 0.8 $375 $281

2012.09.20 StarKist NJD Discussed tuna research with SAB 1.3 $375 $469

2012.09.20 StarKist SAB Tuna: Conf. w/ N. Deckant et al re underweight tuna. 0.8 $850 $680

2012.09.24 StarKist RIA Researched how to test cans of tuna 0.3 $180 $54

2012.09.27 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant about status and next steps of investigation into StarKist underweight tuna 0.3 $680 $204

2012.11.06 StarKist NJD Made a number of calls to laboratories that conduct food testing 0.8 $375 $281

2012.11.14 StarKist RIA Called tuna people (.2) 0.2 $180 $36

2012.11.15 StarKist RIA Researched tuna testing (.8) 0.8 $180 $144

2012.11.27 StarKist NJD Assigned RIA to research which labs can conduct tuna testing 0.3 $375 $94

2012.11.29 StarKist RIA Called around re tuna testing (.4) 0.4 $180 $72

2012.12.12 StarKist NJD Purchased tuna samples 0.8 $375 $281

2012.12.12 StarKist NJD Filled out tuna paperwork, sent to the lab 1.3 $375 $469

2012.12.12 StarKist NJD More arrangements w/ lab re tuna testing 0.5 $375 $188

2012.12.13 StarKist NJD Prepared and mailed tuna 2.0 $375 $750

2013.01.02 StarKist JIM Continue presuit investigation of underweight sales of StarKist tuna 2.7 $680 $1,836

2013.01.02 StarKist LTF Starkist Tuna - reviewed email regarding tuna testing; video conference with Joe Marchese re: same; conference with Sarah Westcot 0.3 $680 $204

2013.01.02 StarKist NJD Received results from tuna fish testing. Discussed extensively w/ JIM, SAB, YK. Bought more tuna for testing. Contacted NOAA labs. 2.3 $375 $844

2013.01.02 StarKist NJD Tuna PSI 0.8 $375 $281

2013.01.02 StarKist SAB Starkist Tuna: Conf. w/ N. Deckant and J. Marchese re lab results showing Starkist Tuna is underweight 0.7 $850 $595

2013.01.02 StarKist SNW Video conf with JIM re: underweight tuna investigation; discussion with LTF re: same 0.3 $400 $120

2013.01.03 StarKist JIM Confer with interested class members and review Florida express warranty notice letter draft 1.0 $680 $680

2013.01.03 StarKist NJD Prepared to mail StarKist samples 3.5 $375 $1,313

2013.01.03 StarKist NJD Research into various StarKist product and brand offerings 1.8 $375 $656

2013.01.03 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ N. Deckant and J. Marchese re presuit investigation 0.8 $850 $680

2013.01.03 StarKist SNW Reviewed email from SAB re: new matter originated; updated box sync 0.2 $400 $80

2013.01.04 StarKist JIM Review and further revise Florida express warranty notice letter draft and continue presuit investigation 0.7 $680 $476

2013.01.04 StarKist NJD Revisions to StarKist notice letter 0.8 $375 $281

2013.01.04 StarKist SAB Presuit investigation (.8); revised draft demand letter (.2) 1.0 $850 $850

2013.01.05 StarKist LTF Contacted various people about our investigation. 1.2 $680 $816

2013.01.05 StarKist NJD Organized case folder 0.3 $375 $94

2013.01.06 StarKist JIM

Continue presuit investigation of underweight StarKist tuna cans and confer with client, K. Maucieri (.4); organize case folder and draft

e-mail to N. Deckant about further organization of same (.2) 0.6 $680 $408

2013.01.06 StarKist LTF PSI; email to Scott Bursor; drafted California retainer agreement. 1.2 $680 $816

2013.01.07 StarKist LTF PSI 0.3 $680 $204

2013.01.08 StarKist LTF PSI 0.3 $680 $204

2013.01.08 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ N. Deckant re draft presuit demand letter 0.4 $850 $340

2013.01.09 StarKist DLS Made corrections to address and phone number; prepared CLRA letter for certified return receipt and mailed 1.0 $180 $180

2013.01.09 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Patrick Hendricks; reviewed demand letter. 0.3 $680 $204

2013.01.09 StarKist NJD Assisting SAB w/ revisions to StarKist notice letter 2.0 $375 $750

2013.01.09 StarKist NJD Finalizing and mailing notice letters 2.3 $375 $844

2013.01.09 StarKist SAB Research re presuit investigation and drafted CLRA demand letter (2.5); conf. w/ N. Deckant re same (.4) 2.9 $850 $2,465

2013.01.09 StarKist SNW Reviewed draft CLRA demand letter re: plaintiff P. Hendricks 0.3 $400 $120

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. -- HENDRICKS V. STARKIST CO. BILLING DIARIES THROUGH 10/27/2015

1 of 38




2013.01.10 StarKist LTF Email to Debbie Schroeder re: Hendricks meeting; email to Mark McKnight. 0.2 $680 $136

2013.01.11 StarKist JIM Follow up with J. Vallillo and interested class members 1.0 $680 $680

2013.01.11 StarKist LTF Telephone call with Mark McKnight. 0.2 $680 $136

2013.01.11 StarKist NJD Paid NOAA for the latest round of tuna testing 0.3 $375 $94

2013.01.14 StarKist JIM Confer with interested class members 1.2 $680 $816

2013.01.14 StarKist NJD Created StarKist calendar, marked date for CLRA damages 0.3 $375 $94

2013.01.15 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Marco Grasso 0.2 $680 $136

2013.01.16 StarKist JIM Telephone call with M. Rodriguez 0.2 $680 $136

2013.01.17 StarKist AMP Discussion with SW Re: case background (.1) 0.1 $390 $39

2013.01.17 StarKist AMP Reviewed case background 0.7 $390 $273

2013.01.17 StarKist AMP Discussion with LTR re client meeting (.3); conf. with Hendricks (1.8) 2.1 $390 $819

2013.01.17 StarKist LTF

Email exchange with Patrick Hendricks regarding meeting; conference with Annick Persinger regarding meeting with client; met with

Patrick Hendricks; reviewed CLRA venue affidavit. 2.2 $680 $1,496

2013.01.17 StarKist SNW Discussion with A. Persinger re: PSI with plaintiff Hendricks (.2); email to A. Persinger with testing docs, CLRA demand letter, etc (.2) 0.4 $400 $160

2013.01.23 StarKist NJD Purchased tuna 1.0 $375 $375

2013.01.23 StarKist NJD StarKist notice letter for Kaczmarek 0.5 $375 $188

2013.01.25 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Marco Grasso. 0.1 $680 $68

2013.01.28 StarKist NJD Organized tuna, mailed inspection from 0.8 $375 $281

2013.01.29 StarKist NJD Mailed tuna 2.0 $375 $750

2013.01.30 StarKist JIM Discuss next steps with N. Deckant 0.2 $680 $136

2013.02.05 StarKist NJD Checked status of tuna testing, confirmed my shipment arrived. Got date when they'll be done 0.5 $375 $188

2013.02.14 StarKist AMP Revised Venue declaration - Patrick Hendricks; referred to CLRA 0.4 $390 $156

2013.02.14 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ N. Deckant re presuit investigation (.2) 0.2 $850 $170

2013.02.15 StarKist AMP

Conf with NJD re: venue declaration (0.1); discussion with LTF re same; call from LTF re fax, changed name and saved to Box, emailed

NJD (0.2) 0.3 $390 $117

2013.02.15 StarKist DLD Review Complaint 0.7 $180 $126

2013.02.15 StarKist JIM Review draft complaint against StarKist 0.5 $680 $340

2013.02.15 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Patrick Hendricks; reviewed venue declaration; conference with Annick Persinger (x2) re: same. 0.2 $680 $136

2013.02.15 StarKist NJD Drafted N.D. Cal. Complaint. Sent to SAB for review. 5.5 $375 $2,063

2013.02.17 StarKist NJD Editing Scott's N.D. Cal. Complaint 3.0 $375 $1,125

2013.02.17 StarKist SAB Redlined draft complaint (2.3); draft email to team re presuit investigation and strategy (.3) 2.6 $850 $2,210

2013.02.18 StarKist JIM Review e-mails about litigation strategy 0.2 $680 $136

2013.02.18 StarKist LTF Reviewed emails regarding complaint; email exchange with Debbie Schroeder re: filing game plan; reviewed draft complaint. 0.5 $680 $340

2013.02.18 StarKist NJD Drafting complaints, summonses, and civil cover sheets for S.D.N.Y., D.N.J., and S.D. Fla. 8.0 $375 $3,000

2013.02.18 StarKist SAB Corresp. w/ N. Deckant et al re presuit investigation and litigation strategy 0.5 $850 $425

2013.02.18 StarKist SNW Reviewed emails from NJD & SAB re: filing ND Cal. Complaint; reviewed draft complaint 0.6 $400 $240

2013.02.19 StarKist DLS

Prepared civil cover sheet and summons; reviewed complaint; added venue declaration and exhibits and signature; finalized and

prepared for filing in N.D. Court; prepared check and coordinated filing 4.0 $180 $720


Reviewed and revised civil cover sheet; reviewed complaint; arranged for filng of complaint; email exchange regarding assignment to

Magistrate Cousins; video conference with Scott Bursor re: filing of complaint. 2.4 $680 $1,632

2013.02.19 StarKist NJD

Checked status of filings, researched magistrate judge, informed team on draw, helped prepare Declination to Proceed Before a

Magistrate Judge 1.0 $375 $375

2013.02.19 StarKist RIA Investigated tuna testing 0.3 $180 $54

2013.02.19 StarKist SNW Reviewed email excahnge between LTF, NJD & JIM re: judge details and declining to proceed before a magistrate 0.3 $400 $120

2013.02.19 StarKist YZK draft declination of magistrate judge; proofread SDNY complaint 1.3 $350 $455

2013.02.20 StarKist DLS Filed declination to proceed before magistrate judge; prepared chamber copy for overnight delivery 0.8 $180 $144

2013.02.21 StarKist NJD Checked status of StarKist assignment 0.3 $375 $94

2013.02.21 StarKist SNW

Reviewed ECF notices re: filing of complaint; reviewed notice of declination to proceed before a magistrate; reviewed notice of

pending reassignment 0.3 $400 $120

2 of 38




2013.02.22 StarKist JIM Circulate media coverage of N.D. Cal. case to internal team 0.1 $680 $68

2013.02.22 StarKist SNW Reviewed reassignment order & email exchange among counsel re: same 0.3 $400 $120

2013.02.25 StarKist NJD Arranged for payment of testing fees w/ RIA 0.3 $375 $94

2013.02.25 StarKist NJD Instructed DS to serve complaint 0.3 $375 $94

2013.02.25 StarKist RIA Paid for tuna testing (.2) 0.2 $180 $36

2013.02.26 StarKist DLS Scanned complaint and initiating documents for service; scheduled service of complaint through One Legal 1.5 $180 $270

2013.02.27 StarKist DLD Draft 23(g) Memorandum of Law (2); Motion (.8); Declaraion (0); Notice of Motion (.2); Proposed Order (0); 3.0 $180 $540

2013.02.27 StarKist DLS Emailed complaint to Judge Gonzalez Rogers per local rules 0.4 $180 $72

2013.02.27 StarKist NJD Explained 23(g) for StarKist to David, assigned him to assist with drafting 0.8 $375 $281

2013.02.27 StarKist NJD Saved CAC to Box, story re our tuna case 0.3 $375 $94

2013.02.27 StarKist NJD Summarized PSI to David for the StarKist 23(g) 1.0 $375 $375

2013.03.01 StarKist DLD Draft 23(g) Memorandum of Law; Motion; Declaration; Notice of Motion; Proposed Order 8.0 $180 $1,440

2013.03.01 StarKist DLS Conversation with David RE formatting of 23(g) motion 0.5 $180 $90

2013.03.04 StarKist NJD Assisting with StarKist 23(g) 3.0 $375 $1,125

2013.03.05 StarKist JIM Review e-mails about defense counsel, R. Hawk, and confer with N. Deckant and L. Fisher about telephone call with same 0.2 $680 $136


Telephone call with Robert Hawk, defendant's counsel re: extension of time; video conference with Neal Deckant re: same; reviewed

emails re: Hogan Lovalls. 0.3 $680 $204

2013.03.05 StarKist NJD StarKist calendaring, status check w/ DS re service 0.8 $375 $281

2013.03.05 StarKist SNW Reviewed order setting CMC & email from NJD re: calendar updates 0.2 $400 $80


Reviewed 23(g) motion; reviewed McClendon lead counsel order; reviewed stipulation regarding request for extension of time; email

exchange with opposing counsel re: same. 0.8 $680 $544

2013.03.06 StarKist NJD Updated calendar re deadline to respond 0.3 $375 $94

2013.03.06 StarKist SNW Reviewed stipulation extending time for defendant to respond to complaint 0.2 $400 $80

2013.03.07 StarKist LTF Video conference with Neal Deckant regarding 23(g) motion. 0.1 $680 $68

2013.03.08 StarKist DLS Reviewed Judge Gonzalez Rogers standing orders re motions 0.4 $180 $72

2013.03.11 StarKist LTF Reviewed revised 23(g) motion. 0.2 $680 $136

2013.03.11 StarKist NJD Revised 23(g) 1.0 $375 $375

2013.03.12 StarKist DLS Reviewed 23(g) motion documents 0.8 $180 $144

2013.03.13 StarKist DLS Fixed formatting and finalized 23(g) motion and LTF declaration and filed 2.0 $180 $360

2013.03.13 StarKist LTF Reviewed and revised 23(g) motion; assisted with filing; conference with Debbie Schroeder re: same. 0.4 $680 $272

2013.03.13 StarKist SNW Reviewed final 23(g) motion before filing; discussions with DS re: changes to formatting & filing process 0.5 $400 $200


Emailed proposed order to Judge Gonzalez Rogers; prepared chamber copy of 23(g) motion documents filed yesterday per Judge

Gonzalez Rogers Standing Orders for overnight delivery 1.8 $180 $324

2013.03.14 StarKist NJD Reading CAR re Chicken of the Sea recall. 1.0 $375 $375

2013.03.14 StarKist NJD Checking dates on 23(g). Called DS. 0.3 $375 $94

2013.03.14 StarKist SNW Reviewed calendar update re: 23(g) motion deadilnes 0.1 $400 $40

2013.03.20 StarKist NJD Checked for results of tuna testing 0.5 $375 $188

2013.03.20 StarKist NJD Reviewed new tuna results, discussed w/ YK & JIM, sent summary to SAB and LTF 1.0 $375 $375

2013.03.20 StarKist SNW Reviewed email from NJD re: new tuna testing results 0.2 $400 $80

2013.03.25 StarKist LTF Reviewed letter re: Walmart tuna; email exchange with Neal Deckant re: same. 0.1 $680 $68

2013.03.25 StarKist NJD Discussed StarKist testing w/ SAB. Arranged for more testing. 0.5 $375 $188

2013.03.25 StarKist SAB Reviewed 2d set of test results from NOAA (1.0); conf. w/ N. Deckant re re-testing 24 cans of Starkist Chunk Light in Water (.3) 1.3 $850 $1,105

2013.03.26 StarKist NJD Purchased new tuna for testing 0.3 $375 $94

2013.03.26 StarKist NJD Mailing new tuna samples 1.0 $375 $375

2013.03.26 StarKist NJD Created StarKist client checklist 0.8 $375 $281

2013.03.27 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant and S. Bursor about findings of ongoing investigation and confer with J. Vallillo 0.6 $680 $408

2013.03.27 StarKist NJD Discussed tuna sales and strategy with SAB 0.5 $375 $188

2013.03.27 StarKist SNW Reviewed defendant's statement of non-opposition to 23(g) motion 0.2 $400 $80

2013.03.28 StarKist JIM Confer with client, J. Kaczmarek 0.2 $680 $136

3 of 38




2013.03.28 StarKist LTF Video conference with Neal Deckant re: other products; email exchange with Patrick Hendricks; email to Neal Deckant re: same. 0.3 $680 $204

2013.03.28 StarKist NJD Preparing document with StarKist samples. 0.5 $375 $188

2013.03.28 StarKist NJD Checked status of tuna testing, confirmed my shipment arrived. Got date when they'll be done 0.3 $375 $94

2013.03.30 StarKist YZK Meet with Client 0.6 $350 $210

2013.04.02 StarKist NJD StarKist: Discussed strategy w/ SAB 0.5 $375 $188

2013.04.03 StarKist NJD Discussion w/ YK re status of StarKist verification of Joseph Ebin's purchases 0.3 $375 $94

2013.04.03 StarKist SNW Drafted reply ISO 23(g) motion; email to NJD re: same 0.5 $400 $200

2013.04.03 StarKist SNW Video conf with NJD re: reply ISO 23(g) motion; revised reply; filed; email to DS re: sending chambers copy 0.5 $400 $200

2013.04.10 StarKist NJD Finished first draft of amended complaint. 8.3 $375 $3,094

2013.04.11 StarKist NJD Revised first draft of amended complaint w/ RIA. 5.5 $375 $2,063

2013.04.11 StarKist RIA Proofread amended complaint 1.6 $180 $288

2013.04.12 StarKist LTF Reviewed order denying 23(g) motion. 0.2 $680 $136

2013.04.12 StarKist SNW Reviewed order denying 23(g) motion 0.2 $400 $80

2013.04.13 StarKist NJD Interim class counsel denied. 0.3 $375 $94

2013.04.15 StarKist JIM Telephone calls with K. Maucieri and M. Rodriguez and draft e-mails to internal team 0.4 $680 $272

2013.04.15 StarKist LTF Reviewed order re-scheduling CMC; reviewed emails from Joe Marchese re: other clients' tuna purchases. 0.2 $680 $136

2013.04.15 StarKist SNW Reviewed clerk's notice resetting 6/3 CMC for 6/5 0.1 $400 $40

2013.04.17 StarKist SAB Analyzed additional NOAA testing and revised draft amended complaint 1.5 $850 $1,275


Reviewed MTD and venue motion briefly; email to opposing counsel regarding briefing schedule; conference with Annick Persinger

regarding venue motion. 0.4 $680 $272

2013.04.18 StarKist SAB Analyzed four rounds of testing results and draft amendments to the complaint 1.0 $850 $850

2013.04.18 StarKist SNW Reviewed email from SAB re: amended complaint 0.1 $400 $40


Reviewed emails re: briefing schedule, discussed briefing schedule with LTF; reviewed Judge's standing orders and calendar; discussed

MTD/MT with LTF; JM; YK,JM,LTF & SAB; read complaint; reviewed ADT opp to transfer; reviewed notice and memo re: mtn to

transfer; researched standard on mtn to transfer' reviewed MTD 2.4 $390 $936

2013.04.19 StarKist JIM Review motion to transfer and motion to dismiss and confer with internal team about briefing schedule and strategy 1.5 $680 $1,020


Conference with Annick Persinger regarding briefing schedule; email exchange with opposing counsel re: same; video conference with

Joe Marchese, Scott Bursor and Yitz Kopel re: briefing schedule and MTD. 0.6 $680 $408

2013.04.19 StarKist SNW Reviewed motion to dismiss, request for judicial notice, motion to transfer 1.2 $400 $480


Discussed briefing schedule; stipulation; and motion to transfer with LTF; reviewed standing orders, reviewed case management

orders, reviewed calendar, reviewed local rules, reviewed Fed Rules Civ pro; looked up counsel for defendants; reviewed previous

stipulations ordered by Gonzalez-Rogerse; drafted stipulation and proposed orders; began set-up of TOC and doc for opposition to

motion to transfer 2.7 $390 $1,053


Email exchange and telephone call with defendant's counsel re: briefing stipulation; conference with Annick Persinger re; briefing stip;

video conference with Neal Deckant re: same. 0.4 $680 $272

2013.04.22 StarKist NJD Reviewing StarKist MTD and motion to transfer 0.8 $375 $281

2013.04.22 StarKist NJD Call w/ LTF re MTD opposition scheduling 0.3 $375 $94


Reviewed emails; discussed discovery stay with LTF; reviewed email re: stip to extend time; reviewed our final version of stip;

researched transfer multiple factors, drafted opposition 2.6 $390 $1,014

2013.04.23 StarKist LTF Reviewed and revised briefing stipulation; email exchange with defendant's counsel re: briefing schedule and discovery stay. 0.5 $680 $340

2013.04.24 StarKist AMP Researched Access to Sources of Proof; Costs of Litigation; Non-Party Witnesses re: transfer 2.5 $390 $975


Finalized and filed stip and proposed order re extension of time; emailed proposed order to Judge Gonzalez Rogers; prepared chamber

copy for overnight delivery 1.0 $180 $180


Email exchange with defendant's counsel re: briefing schedule stip and agreement regarding discovery; reviewed and revised

stipulation and arranged for stipulation to be filed. 0.4 $680 $272

2013.04.24 StarKist SNW Reviewed stipulation regarding schedule for MTD & Motion to Transfer 0.2 $400 $80

2013.04.25 StarKist AMP Discussed with SNW; drafted intro and legal standard sections 2.8 $390 $1,092

2013.04.25 StarKist SNW Discussion with A. Persinger re: MTD & motion to transfer 0.3 $400 $120

2013.04.26 StarKist AMP Drafted transfer motion; researched 1.0 $390 $390

4 of 38




2013.04.30 StarKist NJD Planning on how to divide MTD opposition. Checking AP's status. Checked status of stipulation for extension w/ LTF. 0.5 $375 $188

2013.04.30 StarKist RIA Researched standing issue on westlaw 0.5 $180 $90

2013.05.01 StarKist SNW

Reviewed order approving request for extenstion of time to file oppositions to MTD & motion to transfer; reviewed calendar update

email re: same 0.2 $400 $80

2013.05.03 StarKist AMP Drafted opposition to motion to transfer 0.3 $390 $117

2013.05.06 StarKist NJD Status update w/ AP re StarKist status 0.3 $375 $94

2013.05.10 StarKist DLS Prepared notice of appearance for AMP; emailed to AMP for approval 1.0 $180 $180

2013.05.13 StarKist DLS Filed notice of appearance for AMP; prepared chamber copy for overnight delivery 0.7 $180 $126

2013.05.13 StarKist SNW Reviewed AMP notice of appearance 0.1 $400 $40

2013.05.20 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant and P. Fraietta about drafting motion to dismiss opposition 0.4 $680 $272

2013.05.20 StarKist NJD Printing StarKist materials, assigning PF a section 0.5 $375 $188

2013.05.20 StarKist NJD Researched MTD, told PF what to write about primary jurisdiction and preemption. Assembled, planned sections. 4.8 $375 $1,781

2013.05.20 StarKist PLF

Briefed on Facts of Case by J. Marchese and N. Deckant, Reviewed the complaint, Reviewed the Motion to Dismiss by StarKist (2.0);

Downloaded Cited Authorities in Motion to Dismiss and uploaded to Box (1.8); Strategized opposition to MTD with N. Deckant (2.0);

Drafted part of opposition to MTD (0.5) 6.3 $300 $1,890

2013.05.21 StarKist PLF Drafted part of opposition to MTD (7.5) 7.5 $300 $2,250

2013.05.22 StarKist JIM Confer with P. Fraietta about draft sections of motion to dismiss opposition and review same 0.6 $680 $408

2013.05.22 StarKist NJD Assigned PF to research part of the MTD oppn 1.5 $375 $563


Strategized how to proceed with oppostion to MTD (1.0); Drafted opposition to MTD (7.0); Reviewed draft of opposition to MTD with

J. Marchese (0.8) 8.8 $300 $2,640

2013.05.23 StarKist PLF Drafted part of opposition to MTD (5.0) 5.0 $300 $1,500


Review article about California MTD decision regarding pre-emption and primary jurisdiction in the Windmill testosterone boosting

supplement case and e-mail same to N. Deckant and P. Fraietta for use in our upcoming opposition 0.2 $680 $136

2013.05.24 StarKist PLF Completed drafting sections of opposition to MTD (6.0) 6.0 $300 $1,800

2013.05.25 StarKist NJD MTD oppn drafting. Created document template, filled in sections from Phil. 2.0 $375 $750

2013.05.28 StarKist JIM Draft e-mail to internal team with legal authority supporting our standing argument 0.2 $680 $136

2013.05.28 StarKist NJD Formatting w/ DS 0.5 $375 $188

2013.05.28 StarKist PLF Reviewed Windmill Health Prods Ruling (0.5); Completed drafting of opposition to MTD (1.8) 2.3 $300 $690

2013.05.29 StarKist NJD Review of PF's sections w/ JIM before proceeding further. 0.8 $375 $281

2013.05.29 StarKist PLF Researched Recent Decision on Standing Issue (0.2) 0.2 $300 $60


Reviewed ADT order for transfer for opposition to transfer; reviewed outline and partial draft of opposition; researched and drafted

opposition 7.5 $390 $2,925

2013.05.31 StarKist AMP Drafted opposition to transfer 3.0 $390 $1,170

2013.05.31 StarKist NJD StarKist MTD opposition 1.8 $375 $656

2013.06.01 StarKist JIM E-mail exchange with N. Deckant about content to include in MTD opposition 0.2 $680 $136

2013.06.01 StarKist LTF Reviewed and revised opposition to motion to transfer. 1.2 $680 $816

2013.06.01 StarKist NJD Drafting MTD opposition. Cleaned up PF's portion, except for preemption and private right of action. 3.0 $375 $1,125

2013.06.02 StarKist NJD Still drafting MTD opposition. 2.0 $375 $750


Discussed opposition to transfer with LTF; reviewed LTF's redlines, incorporated revisions and addressed

comments/reviewed/revised/finalized; reviewed standing orders re: proposed orders, sent email to NJD and LTF; reviewed sample

proposed orders; reviewed D's proposed order; drafted proposed order; drafted declaration 3.0 $390 $1,170


Conference with Annick Persinger regarding opposition to transfer motion (.2); reviewed email from Neal Deckant regarding

opposition to MTD (.1). 0.3 $680 $204

2013.06.03 StarKist NJD MTD opposition drafting 4.5 $375 $1,688

2013.06.03 StarKist SAB Videoconf. w/ T. Fisher re class reps (.2); conf. w/ N. Deckant re class reps (.2) 0.4 $850 $340


Finalized and filed opposition to MTD (reviewed x2 polished, redlined, incorporated LTFs redlines); proposed order; opposition to

transfer (reviewed redlines, comments ; transfer proposed order; decl in opposition to transfer; discussed with NJD x4; discussed with

LTFx3; assisted DS with TOA 6.0 $390 $2,340

2013.06.04 StarKist DLS Prepared TOC and TOA for both oppositions to MTD and Transfer; fixed formatting; finalized and filed 4.7 $180 $846

5 of 38





Reviewed and revised opposition to MTD (1.1); conference with Annick Persinger re: revisions to opposition to MTD (.4); assisted with

filing of opposition to MTD and calls with Neal Deckant re: same (.8). 2.3 $680 $1,564

2013.06.04 StarKist NJD Finished first draft of MTD opposition. Circulated. 3.8 $375 $1,406


Revising AP's motion to transfer opposition, drafting Proposed Order, figuring out whether to attach the test results as an exhibit, and

helping LTF and AP revise the MTD opposition. 5.0 $375 $1,875

2013.06.04 StarKist NJD Reviewing final MTD and MTT oppositions. Filed. 2.5 $375 $938

2013.06.04 StarKist PLF Reviewed Draft of MTD Opposition (2.0) 2.0 $300 $600

2013.06.05 StarKist DLS Emailed proposed order for both oppositions filed last night to Judge Gonzalez Rogers 0.5 $180 $90

2013.06.05 StarKist NJD Reviewed StarKist. Discussed TOA errors w/ DS. 0.5 $375 $188

2013.06.07 StarKist KSS research unjust enrichment 0.2 $180 $36


Review Ellis v. Chase MTD decision by J. Rogers and e-mail same to internal team regarding preemption, primary jurisdiction, unjust

enrichment and fraud issues 0.3 $680 $204

2013.06.17 StarKist NJD Sent LTF new decisision by Judge Rogers. Discussed. 0.5 $375 $188

2013.06.18 StarKist LTF Reviewed reply briefs. 0.5 $680 $340

2013.06.18 StarKist SNW Reviewed reply ISO defendant's motion to transfer 0.4 $400 $160


Telephone call with defendant's counsel regarding amicus declaration (.1); reviewed amicus declaration and sent email to defendant's

counsel re: same (.1); video conference with Neal Deckant regarding amicus declaration (.1). 0.3 $680 $204

2013.07.01 StarKist NJD Reviewing and discussed NFI amicus declaraiton 0.5 $375 $188

2013.07.02 StarKist NJD Worked w/ PF on opposing motion to file amicus declaraiton 1.0 $375 $375

2013.07.02 StarKist PLF Amicus Declaration Opposition (3.8) 3.8 $300 $1,140

2013.07.03 StarKist AMP Reviewed reply ISO of transfer; reviewed cases cited in reply; prepared oral argument; reviewed amicus motion 5.2 $390 $2,028

2013.07.03 StarKist DLS Prepared opposition for filing 1.0 $180 $180


Conference with Debbie Schroeder re: preparations for hearing on MTD and transfer motion (.2); reviewed and revised opposition to

NFI amicus filing and email exchange with Neal Deckant re: same (.3). 0.5 $680 $340

2013.07.03 StarKist NJD Drafting amicus opposition. Sent to LTF. 4.0 $375 $1,500

2013.07.03 StarKist PLF Re-worked amicus opposition (0.2) 0.2 $300 $60

2013.07.05 StarKist DLS Finalized Opposition; filed 0.6 $180 $108

2013.07.05 StarKist LTF Reviewed and filed response to amicus filing. 0.2 $680 $136

2013.07.05 StarKist NJD Gave one last read of our opposition to the amicus declaration 0.3 $375 $94

2013.07.08 StarKist AMP Prep for StarKist transfer hearing 2.0 $390 $780

2013.07.08 StarKist LTF Prepared for hearing on MTD. 5.7 $680 $3,876

2013.07.08 StarKist PLF Reviewed amicus opposition and reply (0.4) 0.4 $300 $120


Prepped for argument; practiced oral argument; travel to N. District; hearings on MTD and motion to transfer; argued transfer motion;

traveled back to office; updated NJD 7.7 $390 $3,003

2013.07.09 StarKist KSS Attend hearing 3.0 $180 $540


Prepared for hearing on MTD (3.8); traveled to Oakland for hearing (.6); attended hearing (1.8); returned to Walnut Creek following

hearing (.7); video conference with Neal Deckant re: hearing (.2). 6.1 $680 $4,148

2013.07.12 StarKist DLS Prepared request for hearing transcript of 7/9 hearing; finalized and filed 1.0 $180 $180

2013.07.22 StarKist PLF Reviewed recent Judge Gonzalez Rogers order on preemption (0.2) 0.2 $300 $60


Researched procedure and requirements for filing supplemental authority; revised notice sent by Phil; disucssed with NJD; finalized

and filed with DS 1.3 $390 $507

2013.07.26 StarKist JIM Conduct legal research of preemption decisions from other courts in N.D. Cal. and e-mail internal team about same 0.4 $680 $272

2013.07.26 StarKist PLF Reviewed new cases and drafted Notice of Supplemental Authority (1.5) 1.5 $300 $450

2013.07.29 StarKist DLS Prepared chamber copy of notice of submission; sent by overnight 0.7 $180 $126

2013.07.29 StarKist LTF Reviewed stipulation regarding CMC and exchanged emails with opposing counsel re: same (.2). 0.2 $680 $136

2013.09.04 StarKist LTF Reviewed primary jurisdiction order issued by Judge Gonzalez Rogers and discussed it with Annick Persinger. 0.3 $680 $204

2013.09.10 StarKist DLS Finalized and filed supplemental authority 0.7 $180 $126

2013.09.10 StarKist JIM Save Allen case to file and confer with N. Deckant about using same as supplemental authority 0.2 $680 $136

2013.09.10 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Moshe Dann (.1); reviewed, revised and finalized notice of supplemental authority (.4). 0.5 $680 $340

2013.09.10 StarKist NJD Researched supplemental authority re preemption, circulated to LTF and AP 0.5 $375 $188

2013.09.10 StarKist SNW Reviewed plaintiff's notice of supplemental authority re: Allen action 0.4 $400 $160

6 of 38




2013.09.11 StarKist DLS Prepared chamber copy of supplemental authority for Judge Gonzalez-Rogers; mailed by overnight deliver 0.6 $180 $108

2013.09.30 StarKist AMP Discussed 26(f) conference with NJD; discussed with LTF 0.2 $390 $78

2013.09.30 StarKist LTF Telephone call with defendant's counsel re: 26(f) conference (.2); video conference with Neal Deckant re: same (.2). 0.4 $680 $272

2013.09.30 StarKist NJD Figured out the deadline for a 26(f) conference is today. Asked LTF and AP what to do. Came up with plan. 0.5 $375 $188

2013.10.02 StarKist LTF Reviewed and revised stipulation moving CMC and exchanged emails with defendant's counsel re: same. 0.4 $680 $272

2013.10.02 StarKist SNW Reviewed order approving stipulation to continue CMC 0.2 $400 $80

2013.10.15 StarKist AMP Discussed 26(f) stip with LTF; listened to message from Stacy Hogan, returned her call 0.1 $390 $39


Listened to voicemail message from defendant's counsel and reviewed court order continuing CMC and discussed message with

Annick Persinger. 0.2 $680 $136

2013.10.15 StarKist SNW Reviewed order approving stip to continue CMC 0.2 $400 $80

2013.11.25 StarKist LTF Video conference with Neal Deckant re: 26(f) report (.1); email to defendant's counsel re: same (.1). 0.2 $680 $136

2013.11.25 StarKist NJD Email to LTF to volunteer w/ Starkist 26(f) report, but he decided to stip it out 0.3 $375 $94

2013.12.03 StarKist DLS Finalized and filed Joint Stip to Continue CMC 0.9 $180 $162

2013.12.03 StarKist LTF Drafted and circulated stipulation continuing CMC and arranged for stipulation to be filed with the Court. 0.8 $680 $544

2013.12.04 StarKist NJD Calendaring dates after CMC was continued 0.3 $375 $94


Reviewed subpoena and emails from Neal Deckant and discussed same with Neal Deckant and Debbie Schroeder (.3); discussed class

cert motion with Neal Deckant (.2); discussed sealing motion with Julia Luster, Debbie Schroeder and Thomas Reyda (.1). 0.6 $680 $408

2014.02.03 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Neal Deckant and defendant's counsel re: CMC. 0.2 $680 $136

2014.02.03 StarKist NJD Confer w/ LTF re 26(f) conference, stipping out dates 0.3 $375 $94

2014.02.04 StarKist LTF Reviewed and approved stipulation moving CMC. 0.2 $680 $136

2014.02.12 StarKist JAL Discussed weisbrot depo w/NJD and LTF and Del Monte class cert hearing 0.4 $300 $120

2014.02.21 StarKist LTF Reviewed Lilly decision and exchanged emails with Neal Deckant re: same. 0.4 $680 $272

2014.02.22 StarKist NJD Review opinion from LTF. Prepared to discuss on Monday. 0.3 $375 $94


Prepared notice of supplemental authority; Finalized and filed notice of supplemental authority; Prepared chamber copy for

overnight delivery 1.4 $180 $252


Video conference with Neal Deckant re: notice of supplemental authority (.1); reviewed and revised notice of supplemental authority

(.5). 0.6 $680 $408

2014.03.20 StarKist LTF Telephone call and email exchange with class member. 0.3 $680 $204

2014.03.21 StarKist LTF Telephone call with class member. 0.5 $680 $340

2014.03.25 StarKist AMP Reviewed MTD and transfer orders 0.5 $390 $195

2014.03.25 StarKist FJK discussed MTD opinion w/ team (.5) 0.5 $300 $150

2014.03.25 StarKist JIM Review motion to dismiss order and confer with internal team about same and about next steps 1.1 $680 $748

2014.03.25 StarKist LTF Reviewed order on MTD and transfer motion and discussed it with Scott Bursor and Annick Persinger. 0.5 $680 $340

2014.03.25 StarKist NJD Reviewed MTD opinion, motion to stay opinion. Discussed internally. Calendared dates. Figured out startegy moving forward. 1.8 $375 $656

2014.03.25 StarKist SAB Analyzed orders denying motion to transfer and denying motion to dismiss 0.8 $850 $680

2014.03.26 StarKist LTF Left voicemail message for defendant's counsel. 0.1 $680 $68

2014.03.26 StarKist SAB Analyzed mtd order 1.0 $850 $850

2014.03.31 StarKist AMP Discussed next steps with LTF (ie coordinating with NJD) 0.1 $390 $39

2014.04.01 StarKist LTF Listened to voicemail message from Robert Hawk and exchanged emails with Neal Deckant and Scott Bursor re: same (.3). 0.3 $680 $204

2014.04.01 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ N. Deckant re developing litigation strategy 0.3 $850 $255

2014.04.03 StarKist NJD Updated clients on case developments 0.5 $375 $188

2014.04.03 StarKist YZK confer w/ J Ebin 0.3 $350 $105

2014.04.04 StarKist NJD Drafted memo re litigation strategy. Circulated, with brief summary 3.0 $375 $1,125

2014.04.07 StarKist NJD Responded to email from Joseph Ebin 0.3 $375 $94

2014.04.07 StarKist NJD Reviewing StarKist memo re litigation strategy, in advance of discussion w/ SAB 0.3 $375 $94

2014.04.07 StarKist SAB Analyzed N. Deckant memo re litigation strategy 0.5 $850 $425

2014.04.17 StarKist LTF Email exchange with client. 0.3 $680 $204

2014.04.24 StarKist YZK confer w/ consumers 1.4 $350 $490

7 of 38




2014.04.25 StarKist DLS Prepared Certification of Interested Parties 0.8 $180 $144

2014.04.25 StarKist DLS Prepared ADR Certification and emailed to Neal 0.5 $180 $90

2014.04.25 StarKist JIM Attention to litigation strategy and confer with N. Deckant about same and next steps 1.0 $680 $680

2014.04.25 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Neal Deckant re: 26(f) conference. 0.1 $680 $68

2014.04.25 StarKist NJD Researching whether we have ADR requirements in StarKist. 0.3 $375 $94

2014.04.25 StarKist NJD Planinng deadlines on 26(f) conferences. Confered w/ DS re filing,s and LTF re scheduling the actual conferences 1.5 $375 $563

2014.04.25 StarKist NJD Sent ADR forms to client 0.5 $375 $188

2014.04.28 StarKist DLS Prepared and filed notice of need for ADR conference 0.8 $180 $144

2014.04.28 StarKist DLS Filed ADR certification 0.6 $180 $108

2014.04.28 StarKist DLS Finalized and filed certification of interested parties 0.7 $180 $126

2014.04.28 StarKist DLS Prepared chamber copy for overnight delivery 0.6 $180 $108

2014.04.28 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant about litigation status and strategy 0.3 $680 $204


Exchanged emails with opposing counsel regarding 26(f) conference and ADR phone conference form (.6); reviewed draft ADR forms

and certificate of interested parties and arranged for their filing (.7); video conference with Scott Bursor re: 26(f) conference (.1); video

conference with Neal Deckant (x2) re: ADR forms and 26(f) conference (.2). 1.6 $680 $1,088

2014.04.28 StarKist NJD Verifying that we received Hendricks's ADR cert. 0.3 $375 $94

2014.04.28 StarKist NJD Status discussion w/ LTF, YK re Kovacs, NY clients 0.3 $375 $94

2014.04.28 StarKist NJD Confer w/ LTF re StarKist 26(f), ADR cert, notice of need forms 0.3 $375 $94

2014.04.28 StarKist NJD Drafted 26(f) report. Sent to LTF for review. 2.3 $375 $844

2014.04.28 StarKist NJD Investigation 1.5 $375 $563

2014.04.28 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ N. Deckant re 26f conference prep (.2); videoconf. w/ T. Fisher re same (.2) 0.4 $850 $340

2014.04.28 StarKist YZK send out retainer. Confer w/ NJD and JIM re same 0.7 $350 $245

2014.04.29 StarKist ALG Conf. re lit strategy 0.2 $180 $36

2014.04.29 StarKist AMP Conf. re litigation strategy 0.2 $390 $78

2014.04.29 StarKist DLS Made edits to CMC statement and emailed to LTF 0.8 $180 $144

2014.04.29 StarKist JAL Conf. regarding litigation strategy and PSI 0.2 $300 $60

2014.04.29 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant and internal team about litigation strategy 0.4 $680 $272


Conf. re litigation strategy (.2); reviewed and revised 26(f) report and discussed it with Neal Deckant (.7); circulated draft report to

defendant's counel (.2). 1.1 $680 $748

2014.04.29 StarKist NJD Conf. re litigation strategy 0.2 $375 $75

2014.04.29 StarKist NJD Calendared and filed ADR phone conference. Read standing order, checked procedures. 0.5 $375 $188

2014.04.29 StarKist SAB Conf. re litigation strategy 0.2 $850 $170

2014.04.29 StarKist SVG Conf. re litigation strategy 0.2 $180 $36

2014.04.29 StarKist YOK conf. re litig. strategy 0.2 $300 $60

2014.04.29 StarKist YZK confer re litigation strategy 0.2 $350 $70

2014.04.30 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant and N. Hall about ongoing lawsuit 0.3 $680 $204

2014.04.30 StarKist NJD Researched the availability of statutory damages under the MCPA 0.5 $375 $188

2014.04.30 StarKist NJD Reviewed and filed deposition transcripts on Box 0.3 $375 $94

2014.05.02 StarKist LTF 26(f) conference with defendant's counsel (.4); video conference (x2) with Neal Deckant regarding conference (.2). 0.6 $680 $408

2014.05.05 StarKist JAL Followed up w/LTF on statutory damages research 0.1 $300 $30

2014.05.05 StarKist JAL Statutory damages research 1.0 $300 $300

2014.05.06 StarKist JAL researched statutory damages 2.0 $300 $600

2014.05.06 StarKist JIM Telephone call with interested class member, Ben Hall, and N. Deckant 0.2 $680 $136

2014.05.06 StarKist NJD Call with Ben Hall. 0.5 $375 $188

2014.05.07 StarKist JAL Statutory damages research 2.0 $300 $600

2014.05.07 StarKist JIM Exchange e-mails with B. Hall and confer with N. Deckant about litigation strategy (.4); telephone call with N. Deckant and B. Hall (.4) 0.8 $680 $544

2014.05.07 StarKist LTF Reviewed redlined 26(f) report and discussed it with Neal Deckant (x3) via video conference. 1.2 $680 $816

2014.05.07 StarKist NJD Call with Ben Hall re StarKist 0.5 $375 $188

2014.05.07 StarKist NJD Revising StarKist 26(f) report 1.0 $375 $375

2014.05.07 StarKist NJD Further revisions to 26(f) report 0.8 $375 $281

8 of 38




2014.05.08 StarKist JIM E-mail exchange with client, B. Hall 0.1 $680 $68

2014.05.08 StarKist LTF Reviewed revised CMC statement. 0.2 $680 $136


Telephone call with Patrick Hendricks (.2); email exchange with Neal Deckant regarding CMC statement (.2); worked on CMC

statement and exchanged emails with defendant's counsel re: same (.4). 0.8 $680 $544

2014.05.09 StarKist NJD Finalizing 26(f) report. 2.3 $375 $844

2014.05.09 StarKist NJD Drafting RFPs 4.0 $375 $1,500

2014.05.12 StarKist DLS Fixed formatting, finalized and filed CMC Statement 0.5 $180 $90

2014.05.12 StarKist LTF Finalized CMC statement and exchanged emails with Debbie Schroeder re: same. 0.6 $680 $408

2014.05.12 StarKist NJD Reviewing final CMC statement, getting it on file 0.5 $375 $188

2014.05.12 StarKist NJD Initial RFPs and Rogs out to LTF for review 4.0 $375 $1,500

2014.05.12 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ N. Deckant re discovery requests 0.2 $850 $170

2014.05.13 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Neal Deckant regarding ADR conference call. 0.1 $680 $68

2014.05.14 StarKist DLS Prepared proof of service for discovery requests 0.4 $180 $72

2014.05.14 StarKist DLS Fixed formatting, finalized and served by mail 1.0 $180 $180

2014.05.14 StarKist JAL ADR conference 0.4 $300 $120


ADR conference call (.3); video conference with Neal Deckant regarding conference call and potential settlement (.2); reviewed

discovery requests and finalized them for service (.8); email exchange and telephone call with Neal Deckant regarding discovery

requests (.2); email exchange with Judge Corley's clerk and opposing counsel regarding settlement call scheduling (.3). 1.8 $680 $1,224

2014.05.14 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ N. Deckant and T. Fisher re discovery requests 0.3 $850 $255

2014.05.14 StarKist YOK attended ADR conference call 0.3 $300 $90

2014.05.16 StarKist DLS Fixed formatting of initial disclosures and emailed to LTF and ND 0.9 $180 $162

2014.05.16 StarKist LTF Video conference with Neal Deckant regarding initial disclosures (.1); reviewed and revised initial disclosures (.4). 0.5 $680 $340

2014.05.16 StarKist NJD Drafted initial disclosures 2.5 $375 $938

2014.05.18 StarKist LTF Reviewed revised initial disclosures and exchanged emails with Neal Deckant re: same. 0.3 $680 $204

2014.05.19 StarKist DLS Fixed address on POS and finalized initial disclosures for filing tomorrow 0.4 $180 $72


Video conference with Neal Deckant regarding initial disclosures (.2); email exchange with defendant's counsel regarding service of

discovery (.1). 0.3 $680 $204

2014.05.19 StarKist NJD Confered w/ LTF re initial disclosures, finalizing w/ DS 1.0 $375 $375

2014.05.20 StarKist DLS Served initial disclosures by email and mail 0.6 $180 $108


Reviewed final initial disclosures and discussed them with Neal Deckant and Debbie Schroeder (.7); email exchange with Laury Smith

(.1); reviewed Starkist's initial disclosures and discussed them with Neal Deckant (.3); email exchange with Patrick Hendricks (.2). 1.3 $680 $884

2014.05.20 StarKist NJD Confered w/ LTF re finalizing and serving 26(f) report 1.0 $375 $375

2014.05.20 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ N. Deckant re initial disclosures and litigation strategy (.2); read defendant's initial disclosures (.2) 0.4 $850 $340

2014.05.21 StarKist JAL Legal research re statutory damages in 50 states 4.0 $300 $1,200


Participated in phone conference with Judge Corley regarding settlement conference (.2); video conference with Neal Deckant

following call (.1); video conference with Scott Bursor following call (.1); email exchange with Laury Smith and Neal Deckant (.6);

reviewed email from Neal Deckant regarding Starkist's inadequate initial disclosures (.2); reviewed settlement conference order and

discussed it with Debbie Schroeder (.3); email exchange with Patrick Hendricks(.2). 1.7 $680 $1,156

2014.05.21 StarKist NJD Memo to firm re Rule 37(e) strategy. They agreed. 1.8 $375 $656

2014.05.21 StarKist NJD Reviewed Laury Smith's retainer. Drafted CLRA notice letter, venue declaration, sent to LTF. Had further discussion with LTF. 1.5 $375 $563

2014.05.21 StarKist SAB Videoconf. w/ T. Fisher re telephonic settlement conf. & litigation strategy 0.2 $850 $170

2014.05.22 StarKist JAL Summarized statutory damages law of the 50 states 1.0 $300 $300

2014.05.22 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Laury Smith. 0.1 $680 $68

2014.05.23 StarKist LTF Reviewed defendant's discovery requests and sent them to Debbie Schroeder to save to Box. 0.3 $680 $204


2014.05.29 StarKist DLS Prepared CLRA letter for certified return receipt and mailed 0.6 $180 $108

2014.05.29 StarKist LTF Reviewed demand letter and discussed it with Debbie Schroeder. 0.2 $680 $136

2014.05.30 StarKist JAL Dinner w/Plaintiffs 3.0 $300 $900

9 of 38




2014.05.30 StarKist LTF Dinner with Patrick Hendricks and Julia Luster (3.4); discussed discovery responses with Julia Luster (.2). 3.6 $680 $2,448

2014.06.02 StarKist LTF Telephone call with defendant's counsel regarding request for extension of time and reviewed email regarding same. 0.1 $680 $68

2014.06.03 StarKist LTF Telephone call with defendant's counsel regarding Smith demand letter (.1); video conference with Neal Deckant re: same (.1). 0.2 $680 $136

2014.06.03 StarKist NJD Calendaring RFP and Rog response deadlines 0.3 $375 $94

2014.06.11 StarKist LTF Discussed discovery responses with Neal Deckant and Julia Luster. 0.1 $680 $68

2014.06.13 StarKist JAL Start working on discovery responses 2.5 $300 $750

2014.06.13 StarKist LTF Discussed discovery responses with Julia Luster. 0.1 $680 $68

2014.06.16 StarKist JAL Discuss discovery responses w/NJD 0.4 $300 $120

2014.06.16 StarKist JAL Discussed discovery responses w/LTF re. privilege and waiver issue 0.6 $300 $180


Conference with Julia Luster regarding discovery responses and email exchange with defendants' counsel regarding deadline for same

(.4); video conference with Neal Deckant and Julia Luster regarding responses to discovery requests (.1); video conference with Neal

Deckant and Julia Luster regarding document production and protective order (.2). 0.7 $680 $476


Work with JL re discovery responses. Discussed exactly what we're going to produce. First ran it by JIM and SAB. Analyzed potential

work product, privilege issues, etc. 3.3 $375 $1,219

2014.06.16 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ N. Deckant and J. Marchese re responding to discovery requests 0.4 $850 $340

2014.06.17 StarKist JAL Call w/NJD re. documents 0.1 $300 $30

2014.06.17 StarKist JAL Worked on ROG responses 1.5 $300 $450

2014.06.17 StarKist JAL Drafted Protective Order 2.0 $300 $600

2014.06.17 StarKist JAL Discussed draft protective order w/LTF 0.1 $300 $30

2014.06.17 StarKist LTF Reviewed draft protective order and exchanged emails with Julia Luster and Neal Deckant re: same. 0.3 $680 $204

2014.06.17 StarKist NJD Reviewed and commented on protective order 1.3 $375 $469

2014.06.18 StarKist DLS Prepared template of discovery responses for JAL 2.0 $180 $360

2014.06.18 StarKist JAL Finalize protective order 0.2 $300 $60

2014.06.18 StarKist JAL Continued working on RFP responses (including formatting concerns) 3.5 $300 $1,050

2014.06.18 StarKist JAL Worked on ROG responses re. test results 3.0 $300 $900

2014.06.18 StarKist JAL Discuss ROG responses w/LTF 0.2 $300 $60


Reviewed protective order and discussed it with Julia Luster (.3); email exchange with defendant's counsel regarding protective order

(.2). 0.5 $680 $340

2014.06.19 StarKist JAL Continued drafting discovery responses 3.0 $300 $900

2014.06.19 StarKist LTF Video conference with Julia Luster and Neal Deckant regarding discovery responses (.4). 0.4 $680 $272

2014.06.19 StarKist NJD Answering questions from LTF re RFP and Rog responses 0.5 $375 $188

2014.06.23 StarKist JAL Finished first draft of ROGs 4.0 $300 $1,200

2014.06.23 StarKist JAL Finalized and formatted RFPs 3.0 $300 $900

2014.06.23 StarKist LTF Discussed discovery responses with Neal Deckant and Julia Luster. 0.3 $680 $204

2014.06.24 StarKist JAL Finalized and formatted ROGs 1.0 $300 $300

2014.06.25 StarKist LTF Discussed protective order with Julia Luster and exchanged emails with defendant's counsel re: same. 0.3 $680 $204

2014.06.27 StarKist JAL Reviewed ROG responses to ensure accuracy of test dates 1.5 $300 $450

2014.06.27 StarKist LTF Reviewed protective order with Julia Luster and sent revised draft of protective order to Neal Deckant for his review. 0.4 $680 $272

2014.06.30 StarKist JAL Discussed RFPs w/LTF 0.5 $300 $150


Reviewed and revised responses to document requests and discussed them with Julia Luster (.8); video conference with Neal Deckant

and Julia Luster regarding protective order (.2); reviewed defendant's discovery responses and asked Debbie Schroeder to save them

to Box (.2); email exchange with client regarding discovery responses (.2). 1.4 $680 $952

2014.07.01 StarKist JAL Discussed RFPs w/LTF 0.2 $300 $60

2014.07.01 StarKist JAL Discussed Protective order w/LTF 0.1 $300 $30


Discussed protective order with Julia Luster and exchanged emails with defendant's counsel re: same (.2); finalized changes to

protective order (.2); reviewed responses to document requests (1.1). 1.5 $680 $1,020

2014.07.02 StarKist JAL Reviewed ROG responses / edits w/LTF 0.5 $300 $150

2014.07.02 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant about discovery responses 0.2 $680 $136


Reviewed interrogatory responses and discussed them with Julia Luster (.8); reviewed Neal Deckant's revisions to responses to

document requests and discussed those changes with Julia Luster (.4). 1.2 $680 $816

10 of 38




2014.07.02 StarKist NJD Review and redline of draft RFP responses. 3.8 $375 $1,406

2014.07.02 StarKist NJD Review and redline of draft Rog responses. 1.5 $375 $563

2014.07.03 StarKist JAL Call w/Plaintiff re. discovery responses (w/LTF) 0.2 $300 $60

2014.07.03 StarKist JAL Videoconference w/NJD and LTF re. RFPs 0.4 $300 $120

2014.07.03 StarKist JAL Discussion w/LTF following videoconference re. RFPs 0.3 $300 $90

2014.07.03 StarKist JAL Further revised and polished RFP responses (formatting, mostly) 0.5 $300 $150


Video conference with Neal Deckant and Julia Luster regarding discovery responses (.4); reviewed Neal Deckant's revisions to RFP and

Interrogatory responses (.2); telephone call with Patrick Hendricks (.3). 0.8 $680 $544

2014.07.03 StarKist NJD Review and near-finalizing draft RFP and Rog responses. Discussed with LTF and JL. 2.0 $375 $750

2014.07.07 StarKist DLS Prepared verification for interrogatories 0.4 $180 $72

2014.07.07 StarKist JAL Sent discovery responses to client for review and signature 0.2 $300 $60


Discussed discovery responses with Julia Luster and Debbie Schroeder (.3); email exchange with Neal Deckant regarding document

production (.1); finalized protective order and exchanged emails with defendant's counsel re: same (.2); email exchange with client

regarding verification (.1). 0.7 $680 $476

2014.07.07 StarKist NJD Near-final review of discovery responses. 3.0 $375 $1,125

2014.07.09 StarKist DLS Prepared proof of service 0.4 $180 $72

2014.07.09 StarKist DLS Served RFP and Rog responses by email and mail 0.3 $180 $54

2014.07.09 StarKist DLS Filed stipulated protective order 0.6 $180 $108

2014.07.09 StarKist DLS Emailed stipulated protective order - proposed to Judge Gonzalez Rogers 0.3 $180 $54


2014.07.09 StarKist JAL One final discussion re. finalized docs w/NJD 0.1 $300 $30

2014.07.09 StarKist JAL Discussed proof of service and finalized w/DLS 0.1 $300 $30

2014.07.09 StarKist JAL Finalized docs and prepared for service 1.0 $300 $300


Reviewed and revised discovery responses and discussed them with Julia Luster and Neal Deckant (.7); finalized protective order and

arranged for it to be filed (.2); discussed protective order with Julia Luster (.1). 1.0 $680 $680

2014.07.10 StarKist JAL Review order denying stip/protective order 0.2 $300 $60

2014.07.10 StarKist LTF Reviewed order rejecting protective order and discussed it with Debbie Schroeder. 0.1 $680 $68

2014.07.15 StarKist DLS Started preparing the draft protective order using current example for LTF 1.2 $180 $216

2014.07.16 StarKist DLS Worked on preparing the draft protective order using current example for LTF 0.7 $180 $126

2014.07.17 StarKist LTF Discussed protective order with Debbie Schroeder and Neal Deckant (.2). 0.2 $680 $136

2014.07.18 StarKist DLS Worked on preparing the draft protective order using current example for LTF; Emailed to LTF, Neal and Julia for review 1.7 $180 $306

2014.07.20 StarKist LTF Email exchange with defendant's counsel regarding document production and protective order. 0.2 $680 $136

2014.07.22 StarKist DLS Fixed formatting of protective order 0.9 $180 $162

2014.07.22 StarKist JAL Worked with DLS to assemble stip and proposed order re. protective order 0.8 $300 $240

2014.07.22 StarKist LTF Reviewed amended protective order and discussed it with Julia Luster and Debbie Schroeder (.9). 0.9 $680 $612

2014.07.23 StarKist LTF Revised protective order and sent it to defendant's counsel. 0.3 $680 $204

2014.07.29 StarKist AMP Discussed at firm meeting 0.1 $390 $39

2014.08.04 StarKist NJD Reviewed RFP responses. Flagged deficiencies. 1.0 $375 $375

2014.08.04 StarKist NJD Reviewed Rog responses. Flagged deficiencies. 0.8 $375 $281

2014.08.05 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant about discovery issues and litigation strategy 1.3 $680 $884

2014.08.05 StarKist NJD Reviewed RFPs and Rogs w/ JIM. Identified most important issues to raise in our upcoming discovery dispute. 2.8 $375 $1,031

2014.08.05 StarKist NJD Review of Levi v. ConAgra briefing, in preparation for the amended complaint 1.8 $375 $656

2014.08.06 StarKist DLS Finalized and filed amended stipulated protective order; emailed proposed order to Judge Gonzalez Rogers 1.0 $180 $180

2014.08.06 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant about content of complaint for related action 0.5 $680 $340


Reviewed email from Neal Deckant and had video conference with Neal Deckant regarding discovery dispute (.4); finalized amended

protective order and exchanged emails with defendant's counsel re: same (.6). 1.0 $680 $680


Drafted internal memo re discovery deficiencies. Reviewed Judge Rogers's individual rules. Figured out procedure. Discussed strategy

at length with LTF. 3.8 $375 $1,406

2014.08.06 StarKist NJD Drafting related action. 3.0 $375 $1,125


11 of 38





Conference (x2) with Neal Deckant regarding various discovery issues (.3); reviewed letter from defendant's counsel regarding

discovery (.1). 0.4 $680 $272


Reviewed Defendant's deficiency letter. Sent memo to LTF analyzing it and comparing our responses. Also calendared noticed

deposition dates. 1.0 $375 $375

2014.08.08 StarKist NJD Put finishing touches on related action 1.3 $375 $469

2014.08.09 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Neal Deckant regarding production protocol. 0.3 $680 $204

2014.08.09 StarKist NJD Polished related action. Proofed. 0.8 $375 $281

2014.08.09 StarKist NJD Review and comment on draft ESI protocol. Sent memo discussing our suggested platform to LTF. 1.0 $375 $375

2014.08.11 StarKist JAL Started placing discoverable documents on box. 1.5 $300 $450

2014.08.11 StarKist LTF Discussed ESI protocol with Neal Deckant and sent email to defendant's counsel re: same. 0.3 $680 $204

2014.08.11 StarKist NJD Drafted, finalized, and served letter with our suggested ESI protocol 1.8 $375 $656

2014.08.11 StarKist NJD Drafted, finalized, and circulated our discovery dispute letter 2.8 $375 $1,031

2014.08.12 StarKist AMP Discussion at firm meeting 0.1 $390 $39

2014.08.12 StarKist DLS Fixed formatting of deficiency letter and emailed to StarKist counsel 0.5 $180 $90

2014.08.12 StarKist JAL Continued placing docs on box 1.0 $300 $300

2014.08.12 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant about litigation strategy 0.1 $680 $68


Reviewed meet and confer letter and discussed it with Neal Deckant and arranged for it to be finalized and sent to defendant's counsel

(.6); email exchange with defendant's counsel regarding ESI protocol (.2); reviewed defendant's letter regarding our discovery

responses (.2). 1.0 $680 $680

2014.08.12 StarKist NJD Confer w/ LTF re deficiency letter 0.3 $375 $94

2014.08.13 StarKist DLS Prepared PHV application for Neal and emailed to Neal and LTF for review 0.9 $180 $162

2014.08.14 StarKist DLS Filed PHV application for Neal 0.6 $180 $108

2014.08.14 StarKist JAL Ensured all documents on box are responsive to the requests 0.4 $300 $120

2014.08.14 StarKist NJD Reviewed StarKist PHV application. Read Local Rules. Confirmed we're ready to file. 0.5 $375 $188

2014.08.15 StarKist LTF Discussed discovery follow-up with Neal Deckant. 0.2 $680 $136

2014.08.15 StarKist NJD Reviewed and filed PHV order 0.3 $375 $94

2014.08.18 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Neal Deckant regarding meeting with defendant's counsel. 0.2 $680 $136


Call from Robert Hawk regarding dates for our discovery dispute, ESI protocol, and scheduling the deposition of Patrick Hendricks.

Created a rough timeline, sent an email to LTF discussing our conversation. Couple rounds of follow-up. 1.8 $375 $656

2014.08.18 StarKist NJD Contacting clients prior to filing related action. 1.8 $375 $656

2014.08.19 StarKist NJD Call with Joe Vallillo. 0.3 $375 $94

2014.08.20 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Neal Deckant regarding Hendricks deposition date. 0.1 $680 $68

2014.08.20 StarKist NJD Negotiated ESI protocol 0.5 $375 $188

2014.08.20 StarKist NJD Scheduling depos, meet and confer re discovery dispute 0.5 $375 $188

2014.08.20 StarKist NJD Giving Robert Hawk possible dates for discovery dispute meet and confer. Had to coordinate with LTF. 0.5 $375 $188

2014.08.21 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Neal Deckant regarding date for meeting with defendant's counsel. 0.1 $680 $68

2014.08.21 StarKist NJD Finalizing date for meet and confer 0.3 $375 $94


2014.08.26 StarKist LTF Reviewed email from defendant's counsel regarding NOAA discovery, discussed it with Neal Deckant and sent a response. 0.4 $680 $272

2014.08.26 StarKist NJD Read Bumble Bee case for anything of use. 0.5 $375 $188

2014.08.26 StarKist NJD Research Judge Rogers's prior record on class cert motions. Circulated to firm. 1.0 $375 $375

2014.08.27 StarKist LTF Reviewed motion for leave to seek reconsideration and discussed it (x2) with Neal Deckant. 0.5 $680 $340

2014.08.28 StarKist ALG Made travel arrangements for SAB (3.0) 3.0 $180 $540

2014.08.28 StarKist FJK Introductory meet and confer with Brian Andacky and J. Marchese about case (1) 1.0 $300 $300

2014.08.28 StarKist JIM Introductory meet and confer with Brian Andacky and F. Klorczyk about case 1.0 $680 $680

2014.08.28 StarKist NJD PSI for related case 1.0 $375 $375

2014.08.29 StarKist JIM Phone calls and e-mail exchanges with client B. Andacky 0.3 $680 $204

2014.08.29 StarKist NJD Discussed doc production. Discussed motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration w/ SAB. 1.0 $375 $375

2014.09.02 StarKist DLS Put StarKist production on box 0.4 $180 $72

12 of 38





Confer with S. Bursor and P. Fraietta about next steps in discovery (.3); get B. Andacky's Starkist tuna cans (.1); confer with N. Deckant

about B. Andacky's existing cans of StarKist tuna and about defendant's document production (.3) 0.7 $680 $476

2014.09.02 StarKist PLF Conf. w/ S. Bursor and J. Marchese re upcoming discovery work 0.3 $300 $90

2014.09.02 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ P. Fraietta and J. Marchese re upcoming discovery work (.3) 0.3 $850 $255

2014.09.03 StarKist FJK conf w/ N. Deckant & J. Marchese re response to Defs' motion to reconsider (.2) 0.2 $300 $60


Confer with N. Deckant about findings from document review (.2); confer with N. Deckant and F. Klorczyk about opposition to motion

to reconsider (.2) 0.4 $680 $272

2014.09.03 StarKist NJD Discussed MFR with JIM, LTF. Discussed deadlines and scheduling. Calendared. 0.8 $375 $281

2014.09.04 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant and S. Bursor about litigation strategy and document review findings 0.5 $680 $340

2014.09.04 StarKist NJD Doc review 6.5 $375 $2,438

2014.09.04 StarKist SAB Reviewed hot docs w/ Neal Deckant 0.6 $850 $510

2014.09.05 StarKist JAL Discussion re. discovery responses 0.8 $300 $240

2014.09.05 StarKist LTF Prepared for meet and confer meeting and discussed various discovery issues with Neal Deckant and Julia Luster. 1.2 $680 $816

2014.09.05 StarKist NJD Finished doc review, called LTF and briefed him in advance of the meet and confer 4.0 $375 $1,500

2014.09.07 StarKist LTF Prepared for meet and confer meeting. 1.3 $680 $884

2014.09.08 StarKist JAL Attended discovery meeting in Menlo Park 3.7 $300 $1,110


Traveled to Menlo Park for meeting with defendant's counsel, met with defendant's counsel and returned to Walnut Creek (3.4); video

conference with Neal Deckant regarding meet and confer and oppositon to MFR (.3). 3.7 $680 $2,516

2014.09.08 StarKist NJD Discovery meet and confer w/ JL and LTF. Participated by phone. Researched follow-up issues. 4.3 $375 $1,594

2014.09.09 StarKist LTF Scheduled call with Laury Smith and exchanged emails with Neal Deckant re: same. 0.3 $680 $204

2014.09.10 StarKist LTF Telephone call with Laury Smith regarding complaint and venue declaration (.3); video conference with Neal Deckant re: same (.2). 0.5 $680 $340

2014.09.10 StarKist NJD Call with Laury Smith. 0.5 $375 $188


Review class certification decision in Del Monte consumer class action case by J. Rogers and confer with S. Bursor, P. Fraietta, and N.

Deckant about litigation strategy and next steps in connection with same 0.9 $680 $612


2014.09.12 StarKist PLF Researched Judge Rodgers' recent Del Monte Foods decision 1.5 $300 $450

2014.09.15 StarKist JAL Discussed doc production with ltf (.1) and NJD (.2) 0.3 $300 $90

2014.09.15 StarKist LTF Discussed document production with Neal Deckant and Julia Luster (.3). 0.3 $680 $204

2014.09.15 StarKist NJD Confer with LTF re document production 0.8 $375 $281


2014.09.16 StarKist LTF Discussed meeting with Scott Bursor prior to settlement conference on 9/30 (.3); partial review of document production (.1). 0.4 $680 $272

2014.09.16 StarKist NJD Prepared documents for production 3.5 $375 $1,313

2014.09.17 StarKist JAL Continued updated discovery responses, and discussed with LTF and NJD 0.6 $300 $180

2014.09.17 StarKist LTF Reviewed document production and discussed it with Julia Luster and Neal Deckant. 0.4 $680 $272

2014.09.17 StarKist NJD Assembled doc production in a single PDF for LTF review 0.5 $375 $188

2014.09.18 StarKist DLS Prepared CD's for production 1.0 $180 $180

2014.09.18 StarKist JAL Amended discovery responses and redrafted affidavit (1.5); reviewed document production (.2); Discussed with LTF (.4) 2.1 $300 $630

2014.09.18 StarKist LTF Discussed document production with Julia Luster. 0.4 $680 $272

2014.09.18 StarKist NJD Drafting MFR opposition 3.0 $375 $1,125

2014.09.19 StarKist JAL finished amending discovery responses (2) and finalize first production of documents (2) 4.0 $300 $1,200


Telephone call with Patrick Hendricks (.4); discussed document production and amended responses with Julia Luster (.4); email

exchange with opposing counsel regarding various discovery issues (.2); video conference with Neal Deckant regarding opposition to

motion for reconsideration, deposition dates and amended discovery responses (.2). 1.2 $680 $816

2014.09.19 StarKist NJD Reviewed and commented on JL's revised RFP and Rog responses. 0.5 $375 $188

2014.09.21 StarKist NJD Drafting MFR opposition 9.0 $375 $3,375

2014.09.22 StarKist DLS Assisted with Opposition and Settlement Conference Statement 4.0 $180 $720

2014.09.22 StarKist JAL Reviewed Opp to MFR and discussed with LTF 1.5 $300 $450

2014.09.22 StarKist JAL Started compiling LTF decl., sealing docs, and proposed order 7.2 $300 $2,160

13 of 38





Reviewed opposition to motion for reconsideration and discussed it with Neal Deckant, Julia Luster and Debbie Schroeder (1.1);

drafted letter seeking to excuse Patrick Hendricks from settlement conference (.2); sent email to opposing counsel re: same (.1); email

exchange with Patrick Hendricks and sent new deposition dates to opposing counsel (.5); reviewed rules regarding settlement

conference staement and discussed them with Scott Bursor, Neal Deckant and Debbie Schroeder (.5). 2.4 $680 $1,632

2014.09.22 StarKist NJD Finished first draft of MFR opposition 9.0 $375 $3,375

2014.09.22 StarKist SAB

Conf. w/ T. Fisher re drafting of settlement conference statement and reviewed magistrate judge's order re same (.3); revised draft

oppn to D's motion for reconsideration (.8) 1.1 $850 $935

2014.09.23 StarKist AMP Discussions at firm meeting 0.2 $390 $78

2014.09.23 StarKist DLS Assisted with filing Opposition and Settlement Conference Statement 6.0 $180 $1,080

2014.09.23 StarKist JAL Finalized and filed MFR opp and all supporting documents 11.0 $300 $3,300


Reviewed settlement conference statement and discussed it with Neal Deckant (.6); discussed opposition to motion for

reconsideration and related documents with Neal Deckant, Julia Luster and Debbie Schroeder (1.2); reviewed email from opposing

counsel and finalized letter asking to excuse Patrick Hendricks from settlement conference (.2). 2.0 $680 $1,360

2014.09.23 StarKist NJD Drafted, finalized, and served settlement conference statement. Reviewed StarKist's. 3.5 $375 $1,313

2014.09.23 StarKist NJD Finalized and filed MFR opposition. 3.8 $375 $1,406

2014.09.23 StarKist NJD Reviewed MFR opposition papers prior to filing 0.3 $375 $94


Revised draft oppn to motion for reconsideration (1.4); conf. w/ N. Deckant and T. Fisher re revisions to draft settlement conference

statement (.2); revised draft settlement conference statement (.2); read Starkist's settlement conference statement (.2) 2.0 $850 $1,700

2014.09.24 StarKist JAL Placed docs in file; served discovery responses after updating (1.5) 2.0 $300 $600


Discussed amended discovery responses with Julia Luster (.2); reviewed same (.1); reviewed email from defendant's counsel regarding

deposition location (.1); call with client (.2). 0.6 $680 $408

2014.09.24 StarKist NJD Reviewing JL's amended RFP and Rog responses 0.5 $375 $188

2014.09.25 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Patrick Hendricks and telephone call 0.2 $680 $136

2014.09.29 StarKist AMP Prep for settlement conference 4.0 $390 $1,560

2014.09.29 StarKist LTF Prepared for settlement conference and met Scott Bursor to discuss settlement conference. 0.8 $680 $544

2014.09.29 StarKist SAB Travel NYC to SF, prep for settlement conference en route 9.0 $850 $7,650

2014.09.30 StarKist JAL Attended settlement meeting(8.5) (discussed w/NJD .2, discussed w/ JIM .2, discussed w/DLS .2) 9.1 $300 $2,730

2014.09.30 StarKist LTF Traveled to San Francisco for settlement conference, attended settlement conference, and returned to Walnut Creek afterwards. 8.9 $680 $6,052

2014.09.30 StarKist NJD Assisted SAB and LTF by pulling documents and giving analysis. Got synopsis afterward from JL. 2.0 $375 $750

2014.09.30 StarKist SAB Settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Corley 7.0 $850 $5,950


Video conference with Neal Deckant regarding settlement conference (.2); email exchange with opposing counsel and Patrick

Hendricks regarding deposition date (.3). 0.5 $680 $340

2014.10.01 StarKist NJD Debriefing on settlement conference with LTF. 0.3 $375 $94

2014.10.02 StarKist LTF Email exchange with opposing counsel and Patrick Hendricks regarding deposition date. 0.2 $680 $136

2014.10.03 StarKist LTF Telephone call with Patrick Hendricks (.2); reviewed emails from Marc Reich and Neal Deckant (.1). 0.3 $680 $204

2014.10.03 StarKist NJD Spoke with Marc Reich, researched possible issue concerning the failure to disclose broth in Chunk Light in Water 0.8 $375 $281

2014.10.06 StarKist LTF Sent email to opposing counsel proposing deposition dates. 0.1 $680 $68


Review hearing transcript from class certification hearing in Kosta v. Del Monte and confer with N. Deckant and internal team about

same 1.4 $680 $952

2014.10.07 StarKist PLF Read & Reviewed Del Monte Transcript 1.0 $300 $300

2014.10.08 StarKist LTF Email exchange with client and opposing counsel regarding deposition date. 0.1 $680 $68

2014.10.08 StarKist NJD Sent another email to Marc Reich explaining how each ingredient is preempted 0.8 $375 $281

2014.10.10 StarKist LTF Video conference with Neal Deckant (.1); email exchange with client (.2); discussed hearing books with Debbie Schroeder (.1). 0.4 $680 $272

2014.10.10 StarKist NJD Discussion with Marc Reich regarding case 0.8 $375 $281

2014.10.11 StarKist LTF Email exchange with client. 0.1 $680 $68


Began preparations for hearing on motion for reconsideration and stopped after receiving ruling denying the motion (.3); reviewed

ruling and discussed it with Neal Deckant and Scott Bursor (.4). 0.7 $680 $476

14 of 38





Read order denying motion for reconsideration based on FDA's issuance of a temporary marketing permit (.3); conf. w/ N. Deckant re

same (.2) 0.5 $850 $425


Video conference with Neal Deckant regarding defendant's document production to date and exchanged emails with defendant's

counsel regarding same. 0.4 $680 $272


Answered questions from LTF regarding the status of the doc productions. Researched prior productions, confirmed that we're up to

speed. Agreed on 10/31 as final date. 0.5 $375 $188

2014.10.15 StarKist LTF Reviewed letter from opposing counsel. 0.1 $680 $68

2014.10.17 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Neal Deckant regarding document production. 0.1 $680 $68

2014.10.17 StarKist NJD Correspondance with Amy Roy regarding doc productions. Reviewed prior productions, updated LTF and DS accordingly. 0.8 $375 $281

2014.10.21 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Patrick Hendricks 0.2 $680 $136

2014.10.23 StarKist LTF Video conference with Neal Deckant regarding CMC and document production (.2); telephone call with opposing counsel re: same (.2). 0.4 $680 $272

2014.10.24 StarKist LTF Reviewed and approved stipultion regarding CMC. 0.3 $680 $204

2014.10.24 StarKist NJD Sent SAB a proposal for deposition scheduling. 0.5 $375 $188

2014.10.27 StarKist NJD Catalogued and filed fourth round of production. Briefly reviewed. 1.3 $375 $469

2014.10.27 StarKist NJD Drafted joint CMC statement. Called LTF re same. 0.5 $375 $188

2014.10.28 StarKist DLS Re-formatted supplemental CMC Statement 1.0 $180 $180

2014.10.28 StarKist DLS Filed supplemental CMC statement and prepared chamber copy 0.8 $180 $144


Telephone call and email exchange with opposing counsel regarding order from Court on CMC (.4); reviewed and revised draft CMC

statement (.4); arranged for filing and service of same (.3). 1.1 $680 $748

2014.10.28 StarKist NJD Drafted Supplemental Joint CMC Statement. Circulated. 1.3 $375 $469

2014.10.29 StarKist AMP Discussions at firm meeting 0.2 $390 $78

2014.10.29 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant about discovery and deposition strategy 0.4 $680 $272


Reviewed denial of motion for reconsideration (.1); email exchange and video conference with Neal Deckant regarding depo prep

package for Patrick Hendricks (.2); email exchange with client regarding deposition (.2). 0.5 $680 $340

2014.10.30 StarKist LTF Email exchange with client (.4); video conference with Neal Deckant re: same (.1). 0.5 $680 $340


Prepared package to mail to Plaintiff Hendricks. Reviewed and compiled documents, highlighted and flagged important material,

arranged for mailing 2.3 $375 $844


Arranged for printing of Defendant's document production. Compiled everything on a flash drive and reviewed to make sure we're

not printing duplicates. 0.8 $375 $281

2014.10.31 StarKist ALG Arranged for production to be printed (2.5) 2.5 $180 $450

2014.10.31 StarKist CRP Prepared mailing and sent out via FedEx (1.2) 1.2 $180 $216

2014.10.31 StarKist LTF Reviewed order cancelling CMC and requiring another settlement conference with Judge Corley. 0.1 $680 $68

2014.11.03 StarKist ALG Followed up w/ QIS re doc production (.1); arranged for final production to be printed (.4); made depo arrangements (.6) 1.1 $180 $198

2014.11.03 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Judge Corley's clerk and opposing counsel regarding settlement conference scheduling call (.4). 0.4 $680 $272

2014.11.03 StarKist NJD Asked LTF question about notice of deposition. 0.3 $375 $94

2014.11.03 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ N. Deckant re Aaron Maxfield deposition (.2) 0.2 $850 $170

2014.11.04 StarKist DLS Made corrections to deposition notice; finalized and service by email 0.6 $180 $108

2014.11.04 StarKist LTF Email exchange with opposing counsel regarding settlement conference scheduling issues. 0.2 $680 $136

2014.11.04 StarKist NJD Finalizing and serving Aaron Maxfield notice of deposition 0.5 $375 $188


2014.11.05 StarKist CRP Assisting NJD with doc review (2) 2.0 $180 $360


Discussed document production, Hendricks deposition, Maxfield deposition and settlement conference schedule with Neal Deckant

(.3); call with defendant's counsel regarding scheduling issues (.1); discussed scheduling issues at firm meeting with Scott Bursor and

Neal Deckant (.2). 0.6 $680 $408

2014.11.05 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ N. Deckant & T. Fisher re Aaron Maxfield dep and scheduling CMC 0.3 $850 $255

2014.11.06 StarKist ALG Assisted w/ doc review (1.0) 1.0 $180 $180

2014.11.06 StarKist CRP Continued doc review for NJD (2) 2.0 $180 $360


Review article about additional underweight tuna cans being sold at Stater Bros. Markets and about a related DA suit regarding same,

and circulate to internal team 0.2 $680 $136

15 of 38





Call with Judge Corley regarding settlement conference dates (.4); video conference and email exchange with Neal Deckant afterwards

(.1); email exchange with defendant's counsel regarding stipulation (.1); telephone call with client (.2). 0.8 $680 $544


2014.11.06 StarKist SAB Corresp. w/ N. Deckant and T. Fisher re settlement negotiations and scheduling 0.2 $850 $170

2014.11.07 StarKist ALG Assisted w/ doc review (3.3) 3.3 $180 $594

2014.11.07 StarKist CRP Continued doc review (2) 2.0 $180 $360


Call with Patrick Hendricks and Neal Deckant (.4); reviewed article regarding underweight tuna at Stater Bros and possible connection

to StarKist (.2). 0.6 $680 $408

2014.11.07 StarKist NJD Doc review 1.5 $375 $563

2014.11.07 StarKist NJD Call with Patrick Hendricks 0.5 $375 $188

2014.11.10 StarKist CRP Doc review (3) 3.0 $180 $540

2014.11.10 StarKist JIM Confer with L. Fisher about underweight tuna at Stater Bros. Markets store and potential relatedness to this matter 0.3 $680 $204


Reviewed emails regaridng Maxfield deposition (.2); email exchange with opposing counsel regarding settlement conference

stipulation and reviewed draft stipulation (.2). 0.4 $680 $272

2014.11.10 StarKist NJD Reviewed filed stip continuing CMC 0.3 $375 $94

2014.11.10 StarKist NJD Re-noticed Aaron Maxfield's deposition for 12/9. Arranged court reporters, etc. 0.8 $375 $281

2014.11.10 StarKist SAB Videoconf. w/ T. Fisher re settlement discussions and deposition prep 0.5 $850 $425

2014.11.11 StarKist DLS Fixed formatting of amended notice of deposition, finalized and served by email 0.7 $180 $126

2014.11.11 StarKist JAL Discussed depo prep w/LTF 0.5 $300 $150

2014.11.11 StarKist JAL Reviewed materials for depo prep 0.8 $300 $240


Prepared outline for Hendricks depo prep (1.8); email exchange and video conference with Neal Deckant re: same (.2); revised outline

after discussion with Mr. Deckant (.3); discussed depo prep with Julia Luster (.2). 2.5 $680 $1,700

2014.11.11 StarKist NJD Prepared outline for depo prep with LTF 2.3 $375 $844

2014.11.11 StarKist NJD Re-noticed Aaron Maxfield's deposition for 12/17. Arranged court reporting. 0.5 $375 $188


2014.11.12 StarKist ALG Made new arrangements for Maxfield depo (.4) 0.4 $180 $72

2014.11.12 StarKist JAL Continued reviewing materials for depo prep 3.5 $300 $1,050

2014.11.12 StarKist JAL Depo prep w/Plaintiff Hendricks 5.5 $300 $1,650

2014.11.12 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant in preparation for deposition of plaintiff Hendricks 0.4 $680 $272


Video conference with Neal Deckant regarding depo prep (.2); traveled to Oakland and prepared Patrick Hendricks for his deposition

(5.0). 5.2 $680 $3,536


2014.11.12 StarKist NJD Plaintiff Hendricks prep 2.8 $375 $1,031

2014.11.13 StarKist JAL Hendricks deposition in Menlo Park 9.3 $300 $2,790

2014.11.13 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Patrick Hendricks and discussed deposition prep at firm meeting. 0.3 $680 $204


Traveled to Menlo Park for Hendricks deposition, defended Hendricks deposition and returned to Walnut Creek afterwards (9.9);

discussed deposition with Neal Deckant, Julia Luster and Annick Persinger (.3). 10.2 $680 $6,936


Email exchange with Neal Deckant, Joe Marchese and Julia Luster regarding Hendricks' deposition (.3); strategized regarding how to

add additional plaintiffs (1). 1.3 $680 $884

2014.11.16 StarKist LTF Developed strategy for intervention of new plaintiffs. 0.4 $680 $272

2014.11.16 StarKist NJD Doc review. Came into work on Sunday, created custodian log. 5.0 $375 $1,875

2014.11.16 StarKist NJD Call with LTF about depositon. Read transcript. 1.5 $375 $563

2014.11.17 StarKist JIM Confer with L. Fisher and S. Bursor about litigation strategy and next steps 0.5 $680 $340

2014.11.17 StarKist LTF Discussed Hendricks deposition and next steps with Neal Deckant, Scott Bursor, Joe Marchese, Julia Luster and Annick Persinger. 0.8 $680 $544


2014.11.17 StarKist NJD Debriefing of Hendricks deposition with LTF. Discussed next steps. Discussed with JIM, SAB. Compiled list of clients. 0.8 $375 $281

2014.11.17 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ J. Marchese & N. Deckant re Hendricks deposition (.4); videoconf. w/ T. Fisher re same, and re litigation strategy (.5) 0.9 $850 $765

2014.11.18 StarKist LTF Discussed documents describing StarKist's problems with its weighing machines with Neal Deckant. 0.3 $680 $204

16 of 38




2014.11.18 StarKist NJD Arranged dates for a new deposition. Drafted notice. 0.5 $375 $188

2014.11.18 StarKist NJD Doc review. 6.3 $375 $2,344




2014.11.22 StarKist NJD Weekend doc review. 5.0 $375 $1,875

2014.11.24 StarKist JIM Confer with client, B. Andacky 0.3 $680 $204


Discussed chronology and letter from defendant's counsel with Neal Deckant (.2); reviewed chronology and email from Neal Deckant

(.4); reviewed letter from defendant's counsel and saved it to Box (.1); reviewed email from defendant's counsel regarding Maxfield

deposition (.1). 0.9 $680 $612

2014.11.24 StarKist NJD Finished doc review. Circulated chronology. Discussed miscellaneous items with LTF. 6.0 $375 $2,250

2014.11.25 StarKist DLS Made correction to notice of depositions 0.4 $180 $72

2014.11.25 StarKist DLS Served notice of depositions by email 0.4 $180 $72

2014.11.25 StarKist NJD Drafted and served notices of deposition on Glenn Mast and Harvey Pearson 0.8 $375 $281

2014.12.01 StarKist NJD Review of native files 1.5 $375 $563

2014.12.02 StarKist ALG Conferred w/ Neal re Maxfield depo (.1) 0.1 $180 $18

2014.12.04 StarKist NJD Polished up chronology, began review of native documents. 4.3 $375 $1,613


Got discovery dispute email from defense conusel. Researched whether AAA proceedings are presumed to be confidential. Sent

memo. 0.8 $375 $300

2014.12.05 StarKist NJD Finished native doc review 6.1 $375 $2,288

2014.12.08 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant about motion to intervene 0.2 $680 $136

2014.12.08 StarKist NJD Native hot doc chronology 0.9 $375 $338

2014.12.08 StarKist NJD Finishing native chronology and review of native documents. 2.1 $375 $788

2014.12.12 StarKist ALG Looked up travel options (1.0) 1.0 $180 $180

2014.12.12 StarKist NJD Drafting discovery dispute email. Sent. Printed out documents for call. 1.4 $375 $525

2014.12.12 StarKist NJD Reviewed privilege log. Checked my documents. 0.3 $375 $113

2014.12.14 StarKist NJD Drafted outline for Aaron Maxfield deposition. 8.2 $375 $3,075

2014.12.15 StarKist ALG Made depo travel arrangements (1.2) 1.2 $180 $216

2014.12.15 StarKist CRP prepared deposition exhibits and sent to hotel via FedEx overnight (8) 8.0 $180 $1,440

2014.12.15 StarKist LTF Video conference with Neal Deckant regarding discovery dispute (.1); email exchange regarding deposition (.1). 0.2 $680 $136


Deposition prep. Printed documents, cleaned up outline, packaged everything, audited the production, shipped it out. Also discussed

strategy for SAB and pulled documents for him throughout the day. 8.8 $375 $3,300

2014.12.15 StarKist SAB Prep for Maxfield deposition 6.0 $850 $5,100

2014.12.16 StarKist ALG Booked car to airport (.2); checked SAB and NJD in for their flights (.1); reprinted depo exhs (1.3) 1.6 $180 $288

2014.12.16 StarKist CRP printed supplemental deposition exhibits per NJD request (2); arranged for printing of latest doc production (.2) 2.2 $180 $396

2014.12.16 StarKist NJD Prep for Maxfield deposition & travel NYC to Pittsburgh with continued prep en route 11.2 $375 $4,200

2014.12.16 StarKist SAB Prep for Maxfield deposition & travel NYC to Pittsburgh with continued prep en route 11.2 $850 $9,520

2014.12.17 StarKist ALG

Checked SAB and NJD in for their flights and booked the cars (.5); looked up alternative flight options (.8); ordered expedited transcript

(.2) 1.5 $180 $270

2014.12.17 StarKist NJD Prep for and took Maxfield deposition (11.5); travel Pittsburgh to NYC, debriefed with SAB en route (2.5) 14.0 $375 $5,250

2014.12.17 StarKist SAB Prep for and took Maxfield deposition (11.5); travel Pittsburgh to NYC, debriefed with N. Deckant en route (2.5) 14.0 $850 $11,900

2014.12.18 StarKist DLS Started arbitration production folder 1.7 $180 $306

2014.12.18 StarKist JIM Confer with S. Bursor about testimony from yesterday's deposition 0.1 $680 $68


Video conference with Neal Deckant regarding Maxfield deposition (.3); discussed Maxfield deposition and motion for sanctions at

firm meeting (.2); video conference with Neal Deckant regarding various discovery issues and reviewed Judge Rogers' standing order

regarding discovery disputes (.3); reviewed Mr. Deckant's email requesting an in-person meet and confer regarding discovery issues

(.2). 1.0 $680 $680

2014.12.18 StarKist NJD Cleaned up "hot docs" box, updated exhibit list, and updated chronology with new documents. 3.4 $375 $1,275


Noticed Kelly Roberts's deposition. Demanded to compel Glenn Mast and Harvey Pearson's deposition, and to continue Aaron

Maxfield's deposition. 1.8 $375 $675

17 of 38





Conf. w/ N. Deckant et al. re yesterday's deposition of A. Maxfield and next steps (.2); conf. w/ N. Deckant et al re motion to intervene

and motion for sanctions against Robert Hawk for disrupting the Maxfield deposition (.3) 0.5 $850 $425

2014.12.19 StarKist CRP redacted Hendrick's transcript (1) 1.0 $180 $180

2014.12.19 StarKist DLS Finalized arbitration documents, added bates numbers to produce 1.7 $180 $306

2014.12.19 StarKist DLS Emailed bates numbered documents to defendants 0.3 $180 $54

2014.12.19 StarKist FJK conf w/ N. Deckant re discovery disputes (.2) 0.2 $300 $60

2014.12.19 StarKist NJD Strategizing about starting a discovery dispute. Several rounds of emails with LTF and SAB. 0.7 $375 $263

2014.12.19 StarKist NJD Prepared and produced Plaintiff Hendrick's AAA documents. Reviewed them. Redacted with CP. Produced with DS. 2.2 $375 $825

2014.12.20 StarKist NJD Preliminary research and preparing documents for motion to intervene. 4.2 $375 $1,575

2014.12.21 StarKist NJD Drafted motion to intervene. Halfway done. 8.5 $375 $3,188

2014.12.22 StarKist ALG Saved transcript and exhibits to box (.5) 0.5 $180 $90

2014.12.22 StarKist LTF Discussed intervention motion with Scott Bursor. 0.1 $680 $68

2014.12.22 StarKist NJD Drafted motion to intervene. Circulated to SAB with memo. 7.9 $375 $2,963

2014.12.22 StarKist SAB Videoconf. w/ T. Fisher re motion to intervene (.2); email corresp. w/ N. Deckant re same (.2) 0.4 $850 $340

2014.12.23 StarKist LTF Discussed Hendricks deposition with Julia Luster. 0.1 $680 $68

2014.12.23 StarKist SAB Analyzed A. Maxfield deposition (2.5) 2.5 $850 $2,125

2014.12.26 StarKist LTF Reviewed emails from Scott Bursor and Neal Deckant regarding intervention motion. 0.3 $680 $204


Research into how we calculated the standard of fill. Reviewed documents to see if StarKist ever ran tests to calculate the water

capacity. They did. Sent synposis to SAB. 4.1 $375 $1,538

2014.12.26 StarKist NJD Categorized the types of documents StarKist has in its possession showing that it underfilled its tuna. 2.3 $375 $863

2014.12.26 StarKist SAB Revised draft motion to intervene (2.5); Analyzed press weight data (2.3) 4.8 $850 $4,080


Updated chronology with new documents from Harvey Pearson regarding his measurement of the water capacity of 5 oz. cans of

tuna. 1.4 $375 $525

2015.01.02 StarKist JIM Confer with S. Bursor about litigation strategy 0.2 $680 $136


Reviewed introduction to class cert motion (.3) and discussed it with Scott Bursor and Neal Deckant and also discussed other strategy

issues going forward related to discovery and class certification (.6); reviewed email to defendant's counsel (.2); downloaded

Hendricks transcript, discussed it with Debbie Schroeder and sent it to Neal Deckant (.2). 1.3 $680 $884

2015.01.02 StarKist NJD Research into whether we can move for a nationwide class, or whether we must move to intervene. 2.9 $375 $1,088


Drafting response email to Robert Hawk, discussing a wide variety of issues concerning deposition scheduling, moving to continue the

deposition of Aaron Maxfield, etc. This involved several rounds of preliminary strategy meetings with SAB and LTF. 3.3 $375 $1,238


Drafted intro to class cert brief (8.5); videoconf. w/ T. Fisher & N. Deckant re strategy for class cert motion, discovery motion, and

motion to intervene (.4); revised draft email to defense counsel re discovery issues (.2); multiple confs. w/ N. Deckant and T. Fisher re

class cert strategy (.4) 9.5 $850 $8,075

2015.01.03 StarKist LTF Reviewed lengthy emails from Scott Bursor and Neal Deckant regarding class definition and other class certification issues. 0.4 $680 $272


Research and memo writing regarding which claims we can use for nationwide class cert, whether we can pull together a Hendricks

Declaration, and what the class definition should be. 7.0 $375 $2,625

2015.01.03 StarKist SAB Revised draft intro to class cert brief (1.0); drafted email re analysis of class definition (.4) 1.4 $850 $1,190

2015.01.04 StarKist NJD Drafting a Hendricks Declaration. 5.0 $375 $1,875

2015.01.05 StarKist ALG Looked for addresses of employees (.5) 0.5 $180 $90

2015.01.05 StarKist JAL Attended in person meet and confer 5.8 $300 $1,740


Video conference and email exchange with Colin Weir regarding damages declaration (.3); video conference with Scott Bursor and

Neal Deckant regarding meet and confer (.1); conference with Julia Luster regarding meet and confer (.2); prepared for and attended

meet and confer conference call with defendant's counsel and discussed call with Neal Deckant both before and after the call (.9);

reviewed email from Neal Deckant regaridng meet and confer call (.2). 1.4 $680 $952

2015.01.05 StarKist NJD Prep and attending meet and confer with Robert Hawk. Debriefed LTF and SAB. Wrote follow-up email to Robert. 3.9 $375 $1,463

2015.01.05 StarKist NJD Discussion with Cweir. Research into relevant documents. 0.8 $375 $300

2015.01.05 StarKist NJD Got executed protective order from Cweir. 0.2 $375 $75

2015.01.05 StarKist NJD Research into page limit rules, came up with proposal. 0.6 $375 $225

2015.01.05 StarKist SAB Videoconf. w/ N. Deckant & T. Fisher re discovery issues (.3); videoconf. w/ C. Weir re damages analysis (.4) 0.7 $850 $595

18 of 38




2015.01.06 StarKist AMP Discussion at firm meeting (0.2); reviewed ascertainability issue and discussed same with NJD (0.1) 0.3 $390 $117

2015.01.06 StarKist JAL Meeting with LTF and review of emails re. Maxfield deposition 0.4 $300 $120


Video conference with Scott Bursor and Neal Deckant regarding class certification (.3); video conference and email exchange with Neal

Deckant regarding warranty and class cert issues (.2). 0.5 $680 $340


Working on class cert motion -- figuring out arguments to make, declarations to execute, definition of the class, claims to seek

nationwide class cert on, etc. 4.4 $375 $1,650

2015.01.06 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ N. Deckant et al re class cert motion (.3); second conf. w/ N. Deckant et al re class cert motion (.3) 0.6 $850 $510

2015.01.07 StarKist LTF Discussed class cert motion and expert declarations with Neal Deckant (.3); email exchange with Steve Weisbrot regarding call (.1). 0.4 $680 $272

2015.01.07 StarKist NJD Coordinating with Cweir. Doc review. 1.4 $375 $525

2015.01.07 StarKist NJD Doc review for Cweir materials. 2.1 $375 $788

2015.01.07 StarKist SAB Read draft Hendricks declaration (.3) 0.3 $850 $255


Call with Steve Weisbrot regarding class cert declaration (.2); video conference (x2) with Neal Deckant regarding class cert issues and

discovery issues (.4); reviewed email from defendant's counsel regarding discovery dispute (.1). 0.7 $680 $476

2015.01.08 StarKist NJD Discussions with Steve Weisbrot. Sent documents. 0.8 $375 $300

2015.01.08 StarKist NJD Prepared and sent docs to Cweir. Discussed. 3.4 $375 $1,275


Wrote memo re issue with class cert definition -- we don't understand the code on the bottom of each can. Tried pulling documents

to figure it out. Finally reviewed the Maxfield transcript and found my answer. 2.5 $375 $938

2015.01.08 StarKist SAB Multiple confs. w/ N. Deckant re discovery issues and drafting class cert motion 1.0 $850 $850


Video conference with Neal Deckant regarding discovery dispute, reviewed email to defendant's counsel and reviewed briefing

stipulation. 0.5 $680 $340


Drafted response to Robert Hawk's discovery dispute email. Scheduled 3 depositions. Drafted deposition notices and a lengthy email.

Ran it by LTF. Sent. 3.2 $375 $1,200

2015.01.09 StarKist NJD Drafted stipulation extending the page limits. Sent to LTF for review. 1.6 $375 $600

2015.01.09 StarKist NJD Calendaring deposition dates. 0.4 $375 $150

2015.01.10 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Neal Deckant and Julia Luster regarding class cert brief (.3); reviewed prior ascertainability briefs (.9). 1.2 $680 $816

2015.01.10 StarKist NJD Drafting class cert motion, responding to miscellaneous strategy emails. 9.3 $375 $3,488

2015.01.11 StarKist JAL Reviewed class cert motion draft 1.2 $300 $360

2015.01.11 StarKist JAL Reviewed previous briefing on ascertainability (4.2); reviewed chron (.6); emails exchanged between LTF, NJD and self (.3) 5.1 $300 $1,530

2015.01.11 StarKist LTF Reviewed emails from Neal Deckant and Julia Luster regarding class cert motion and reviewed initial draft of class cert motion. 0.7 $680 $476

2015.01.11 StarKist NJD Drafting class cert motion. Sent to JL and LTF, with synposis of status 2.7 $375 $1,013

2015.01.12 StarKist JAL

Finished reviewing previous briefing on ascertainability and started outlining our section (3.7); reviewed conagra decision re.

ascertainability (.4) 4.1 $300 $1,230

2015.01.12 StarKist JIM Conduct legal research for drafting class certification motion and e-mail new case to internal team 0.2 $680 $136


Email exchange with Steve Weisbrot regarding declaration (.1); video conference with Neal Deckant regarding class cert. motion (.2);

discussed ascertainability argument with Julia Luster (.2). 0.5 $680 $340

2015.01.13 StarKist DLS Called IRI and left message requesting sales information 0.6 $180 $108

2015.01.13 StarKist JAL Continued the ascertainability section of the class cert brief 1.9 $300 $570

2015.01.13 StarKist JAL Call with Steven Weisbrot 0.2 $300 $60

2015.01.13 StarKist JAL Call w/NJD re. ascertainability 0.2 $300 $60


Call with Steve Weisbrot regarding class cert declaration and video conference with Neal Deckant regarding status of class cert motion

(.4); call with Patrick Hendricks regarding class cert declaration (.1). 0.5 $680 $340

2015.01.13 StarKist NJD Drafting class cert motion. 8.1 $375 $3,038

2015.01.14 StarKist DLS Assisted with preparing subpoena to IRI; emailed to First Legal for service 0.9 $180 $162

2015.01.14 StarKist JAL Continued crafting ascertainability section 3.4 $300 $1,020

2015.01.14 StarKist JAL Started shepardizing case law 4.5 $300 $1,350

2015.01.14 StarKist JAL Sent sealing motion to TR and discussed requirements 0.5 $300 $150

19 of 38





Corresponding with IRI. Prepared a subpoena duces tecum, along with document requests, then arranged for DS to serve. Then

served a copy on all counsel of record. 4.2 $375 $1,575

2015.01.14 StarKist NJD Status conference with LTF about progress of brief. Gave Cweir a call and answered questions. 0.4 $375 $150

2015.01.15 StarKist DLS Followed-up with service of subpoena 0.4 $180 $72

2015.01.15 StarKist DLS Prepared draft template for Weisbrot declaration 0.5 $180 $90

2015.01.15 StarKist DLS Reviewed Judge Gonzalez Rogers standing orders for hearing date info 0.3 $180 $54

2015.01.15 StarKist JAL Continued crafting ascertainability section 1.1 $300 $330

2015.01.15 StarKist JAL Continued shepardizing case law 5.3 $300 $1,590

2015.01.15 StarKist JAL checked del monte case on pacer and downloaded papers 0.7 $300 $210

2015.01.15 StarKist JIM Status update telephone calls with N. Deckant to J. Vallillo, L. Smith and B. Hall 0.8 $680 $544


Assisted with Weisbrot declaration and discussed it with Neal Deckant, Julia Luster and Debbie Schroeder (2.2); reviewed

ascertainability section of class cert motion and discussed it with Julia Luster (.4); instant message exchange with Neal Deckant

regarding discovery dispute and class cert briefing stipulation (.2); emailed draft Weisbrot declaration to Mr. Weisbrot (.1); video

conference and email exchange with Neal Deckant regarding intervention motion and Joe Vallillo (.2); discussed Del Monte case,

Hendricks deposition and Weisbrot declaration with Julia Luster (.4). 3.5 $680 $2,380


Worked on class cert motion. Corresponded with Robert Hawk about stip to extend briefing schedule. Vetted all the new clients with

JIM, asked SAB about issue with Vallillo. Asked SAB about new dates for the Pearson deposition, since he'll be unavailable. Reviewed

the Angeion Declaration. Discussed the Hendricks Declaration with SAB. Spoke with IRI's outside counsel. Sent follow-up email, and a

courtesy copy of the protective order and subpoena. Spoke with DS about service of same. Spoke with CWeir several times about his

report. 11.0 $375 $4,125

2015.01.16 StarKist ALG Contacted Nielsen re sales data (.3) 0.5 $180 $90


2015.01.16 StarKist DLS Followed-up with service of subpoena 0.3 $180 $54

2015.01.16 StarKist FJK call w/ C. Weir (.2); analyzed & revised Weir declaration (3.5); 3.7 $300 $1,110

2015.01.16 StarKist JAL Finalized draft and circulated to LTF, NJD 2.7 $300 $810

2015.01.16 StarKist JAL Reviewed and revised Weisbrot declaration (1.1); discussed with LTF (.3) 1.4 $300 $420

2015.01.16 StarKist JAL Reviewed local rules, standing orders, and ecf filing requirements w/DLS (1.2); reviewed sealing motion from TR and revised (.4) 1.6 $300 $480


Worked on Weisbrot declaration and discussed class cert motion with Scott Bursor, Neal Deckant, Julia Luster and Mr. Weisbrot (2.2);

reviewed discovery requests regarding Nemo and Chairman Kim and discussed them with Neal Deckant, Scott Bursor and Julia Luster

(.4). 2.6 $680 $1,768


Working on ancillary documents. Dealing with Cweir report, Weisbrot Declaration, Hendricks Declaration, getting IRI data, getting

Nielsen data, etc. 9.3 $375 $3,488

2015.01.16 StarKist NJD Revised and redlined JL's draft RFPs and Rogs. 1.0 $375 $375

2015.01.16 StarKist SAB Class cert motion, revised draft Hendricks declaration 1.0 $850 $850

2015.01.17 StarKist FJK conf w/ N. Deckant re revisisons to Weir report (.4); revised Weir report (4); 4.4 $300 $1,320


Email exchange with Patrick Hendricks (.1); email exchange with Neal Deckant regarding class cert brief (.1); reviewed draft of class

cert brief (1). 1.2 $680 $816

2015.01.17 StarKist NJD Fixed-up Cweir's declaration with FK. 3.1 $375 $1,163

2015.01.17 StarKist NJD Finished first draft of class cert motion. Circulated. 8.3 $375 $3,113

2015.01.18 StarKist FJK conf w/ C. Weir re data question & conf w/ NJD (.8) 0.8 $300 $240


Email exchange with Neal Deckant regarding class cert brief, intervention motion and related documents (.4); reviewed intervention

motion (.3). 0.7 $680 $476


Finalized complaint in intervention, motion to intervene, and drafted an introduction to the motion to intervene. Drafted a notice of

motion and proposed order for the class cert motion. Reviewed Cweir report. 5.1 $375 $1,913

2015.01.19 StarKist DLS Fixed formatting of motion to intervene 0.7 $180 $126

2015.01.19 StarKist DLS Finalized motion to intervene docs for filing tomorrow 0.7 $180 $126

2015.01.19 StarKist DLS Reviewed local rules re motion to seal with JAL 0.4 $180 $72

2015.01.19 StarKist FJK reviewed Weir report (1.6) 1.6 $300 $480

20 of 38





Redlined class cert brief and intervention motion and discussed both motions with Neal Deckant and Jula Luster at length (3.9); email

exchange with Steve Weisbrot regarding declaration (.1); telephone call with Debbie Schroeder re: class cert motion (.1); reviewed

revised class cert brief and looked for places to cut (.9); discussed sealing motion with Julia Luster (.2); discussed filing game plan with

Neal Deckant, Julia Luster, Thomas Reyda and Debbie Schroeder (.3); finalized intervention motion (.3); reviewed finalized Weisbrot

declaration and emails from Mr. Weisbrot (.2); reviewed Ms. Luster's edits to class cert brief (.2); reviewed Weir declaration and

discussed it with Julia Luster (.4). 6.6 $680 $4,488

2015.01.19 StarKist NJD Finalizing and polishing class cert motion, motion to intervene, and working with our experts. 8.3 $375 $3,113


Fixed formatting on all documents; added TOA to briefs; fixed exhibits to declarations and finalized all documents for filing; Prepared

documents to file under seal, served sealed documents by email; filed all documents, sent proposed orders to Judge 9.5 $180 $1,710

2015.01.20 StarKist JAL Finalized and filed class cert brief, sealing motion, motion to intervene (10); finalized and served RFPs and ROGs (1.2) 11.2 $300 $3,360

2015.01.20 StarKist JIM Confer with L. Fisher and N. Deckant about personal details regarding client, B. Andacky 0.2 $680 $136


Reviewed and revised class cert motion and related documents and worked with Neal Deckant, Julia Luster and Debbie Schroeder to

finalize and file class cert motion, sealing motion and intervention motion. 9.4 $680 $6,392


Finalizing and filing motion to intervene, motion for class certification, Deckant Declaration, Weisbrot Declaration, Weir Declaration,

Hendricks Declaration, Complaint in Intervention, Proposed Orders, etc. This involved creating the Deckant Declaration, compiling

edits, and having several rounds of editing. 11.7 $375 $4,388

2015.01.20 StarKist NJD Final review of PDFs, filing. 0.7 $375 $263

2015.01.21 StarKist DLS Prepared chamber copy of class cert and intervene motions 3.0 $180 $540

2015.01.21 StarKist DLS Prepared chamber copies for overnight delivery 0.4 $180 $72

2015.01.21 StarKist JIM Review filed class certification briefing and ancillary documents 0.4 $680 $272


Reviewed email from opposing counsel regarding deposition dates, reviewed calendar and had a telephone call with Neal Deckant

regarding deposition schedule (.4); discussed chambers copies with Debbie Schroeder (.2); discussed class cert briefs with Julia Luster

(.1). 0.7 $680 $476

2015.01.21 StarKist NJD Reading filed PDFs. 0.8 $375 $300

2015.01.22 StarKist DLS Followed-up with chamber copy delivery 0.3 $180 $54

2015.01.22 StarKist JIM Confer with S. Bursor, N. Deckant and S. Weisbrot about deposition scheduling and preparation 0.3 $680 $204


Emal exchange and video conference with Neal Deckant regarding deposition schedule (.2); reviewed emails from Scott Bursor and

Neal Deckant re: same (.1). 0.3 $680 $204

2015.01.22 StarKist NJD Making sure IRI invoice gets paid. 0.2 $375 $75

2015.01.22 StarKist NJD Scheduling deposition times and dates for Colin Weir and Steve Weisbrot. 1.9 $375 $713


Analyzed R. Hawk's request to depose our class cert declarants and corresp. w/ colleagues re same (.5); conf. w/ N. Deckant et al re

scheduling depositions (.4); teleconf. w/ S. Weisbrot re deposition scheduling & prep (.3) 1.2 $850 $1,020

2015.01.25 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Scott Bursor and Neal Deckant regarding prior settlement demands. 0.5 $680 $340

2015.01.25 StarKist SAB Correspondence w/ T. Fisher and N. Deckant re settlement negotiations (.3); reviewed notes of prior settlement negotiations (.3) 0.6 $850 $510


Video conference with Scott Bursor re: settlement conference and reviewed email to opposing counsel re: same (.3); video conference

with Neal Deckant regarding settlement conference statement (.2); email exchange with Forrest Hainline regarding Butler deposition

and video conference with Neal Deckant re: same (.3). 0.8 $680 $544

2015.01.26 StarKist NJD Drafting settlement conference statement 2.4 $375 $900


Reviewed correspondence re settlement negotiations and sent email to Robert Hawk (.3); email to Robert Hawk re rescheduling

settlement conference (.2); videoconf. w/ T. Fisher re same (.2) 0.7 $850 $595

2015.01.27 StarKist DLS Reviewed 11/12 Order re lodging with Judge Corley 0.2 $180 $36

2015.01.27 StarKist DLS Emailed settlement conference statement to Judge Corley 0.2 $180 $36

2015.01.27 StarKist DLS Prepared proof of service 0.3 $180 $54

2015.01.27 StarKist DLS Coordinated delivery of settlement conference statement to Judge Corley 0.5 $180 $90

2015.01.27 StarKist DLS Service by email 0.3 $180 $54

2015.01.27 StarKist JAL Drafted Stip and proposed order moving mediation 0.8 $300 $240

21 of 38





Reviewed and revised settlement conference statement, assisted with finalizing and serving statement (2.6); discussed settlement

conference statement with Scott Bursor and Neal Deckant (.5); worked with defendant's counsel to re-schedule settlement

conference (.8); reviewed StarKist's settlement conference statement and reviewed email from Scott Bursor re: same (.2); asked Julia

Luster to draft stipulation regarding settlement conference date (.1). 4.2 $680 $2,856

2015.01.27 StarKist NJD Finished drafting settlement conference statement. Served with DS. 4.7 $375 $1,763

2015.01.27 StarKist SAB Corresp. Re upcoming settlement conference (.2); videoconf. w/ T. Fisher re same (.3); revised draft mediation statement (2.0) 2.5 $850 $2,125

2015.01.28 StarKist DLS Fixed formatting of stipulation and proposed order continuing settlement conference 0.4 $180 $72

2015.01.28 StarKist DLS Filed stip and proposed order 0.7 $180 $126

2015.01.28 StarKist DLS Emailed stip and proposed order to Judge Gonzalez Rogers per local rules 0.2 $180 $36



Revised stipulation continuing settlement conference, circulated it to defendant's counsel and arranged for it to be filed (1); email

exchange with Butler's counsel regarding deposition schedule and discussed it with Neal Deckant (.3). 1.3 $680 $884

2015.01.28 StarKist NJD Reviewed filings. Reviewed settlement conference statement. Discussed strategy. 2.1 $375 $788

2015.01.28 StarKist NJD Discussed filing a stipulation to continue the deadline for completion of the mediation conference with LTF 0.2 $375 $75



Email exchange with Butler's counsel regarding deposition schedule and video conference with Neal Deckant regarding deposition

schedule (.2). 0.2 $680 $136

2015.01.29 StarKist NJD Re-noticed Harvey Pearson deposition. Working out a date for Brett Butler, noticed his deposition. 1.2 $375 $450

2015.02.03 StarKist LTF Reviewed opposition to motion for leave to intervene. 0.2 $680 $136

2015.02.04 StarKist LTF Reviewed email from Neal Deckant regarding proposed experts. 0.1 $680 $68

2015.02.04 StarKist NJD Reviewed opposition to motion to intervene. Came up with arguments for the reply. 0.9 $375 $338

2015.02.04 StarKist NJD Researched possible experts to hire concerning press weight testing. Wrote memo, circulated. 1.8 $375 $675

2015.02.05 StarKist LTF Discussed opposition to motion for leave to intervene with Neal Deckant. 0.2 $680 $136

2015.02.06 StarKist CRP made Colin Weir depo prep books (1) 1.0 $180 $180

2015.02.06 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant and C. Weir about deposition preparation for C. Weir's deposition next week 0.5 $680 $340

2015.02.06 StarKist NJD Prepared prep books for Colin Weir's depo 1.2 $375 $450

2015.02.08 StarKist NJD Drafting motion to intervene reply. Completed first draft, aside from the section on timeliness. 3.8 $375 $1,425


Review and revise materials to prepare for C. Weir's deposition and confer with N. Deckant and S. Bursor about same (3.1); meet with

C. Weir in preparation for tomorrow's deposition (3.8) 6.9 $680 $4,692


Video conference with Scott Bursor re: settlement conference and depo schedule (.1); reviewed and revised intervention reply brief

(.5); email exchange with Neal Deckant re: same (.1). 0.7 $680 $476

2015.02.09 StarKist NJD Finalizing reply to motion to intervene. Reviewed LTF's redlines and finalized. 4.1 $375 $1,538

2015.02.09 StarKist NJD Cweir depo prep. 5.4 $375 $2,025


Conf. w/ J. Marchese & N. Deckant re Weir prep (.5); videoconf. w/ T. Fisher re prep for settlement conference (.2); conf. w/ C. Weir, J.

Marchese, N. Deckant re deposition prep (3.5) 4.2 $850 $3,570

2015.02.10 StarKist DLS Finalized and filed intervention reply brief 0.7 $180 $126


2015.02.10 StarKist JAL Attended del monte class cert hearing (5); discussed w/LTF (.3) 5.3 $300 $1,590

2015.02.10 StarKist JIM Email exchange with S. Weisbrot about logistics for deposition preparation 0.2 $680 $136


Reviewed and revised intervention reply brief and assisted with filing (.8); discussed reply brief with Scott Bursor and Neal Deckant

(.1); discussed Weir deposition with Neal Deckant and reviewed email from Mr. Deckant re: same (.4); discussed Del Monte hearing

with Julia Luster (.4); email exchange with Bill Wickersham regarding lunch meeting (.2); reviewed Nielsen production and saved it to

Box (.3). 2.2 $680 $1,496

2015.02.10 StarKist NJD Cweir depo defense. Includes pre-depo meeting and debriefing. 10.4 $375 $3,900

2015.02.10 StarKist SAB Multiple teleconfs. w/ N. Deckant re ongoing Weir deposition (.6); videoconf. w/ T. Fisher re intervention reply brief (.2) 0.8 $850 $680

2015.02.11 StarKist CRP made Steve Weisbrot deposition books (1) 1.0 $180 $180

2015.02.11 StarKist DLS Filled out request for transcript of class cert hearing in Kosta v. Del Monte 0.7 $180 $126

2015.02.11 StarKist JAL Reviewed decision from LTF and C. Weir re. Damages theories for cases like Starkist 1.1 $300 $330


Video conference with Colin Weir regarding deposition and research regarding damages theories (1.4); email to Neal Deckant and

California office attorneys re: same (.3). 1.7 $680 $1,156

22 of 38




2015.02.11 StarKist NJD Updating team on Colin Weir deposition. 1.2 $375 $450

2015.02.11 StarKist NJD Assembling prep book and outline for Steve Weisbrot. 3.2 $375 $1,200

2015.02.11 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ N. Deckant re yesterday's deposition and litigation strategy going forward (.5) 0.5 $850 $425

2015.02.12 StarKist DLS Followed-up with Kosta v. Del Monte transcript request 0.4 $180 $72

2015.02.12 StarKist JIM Meet with S. Weisbrot and prepare for tomorrow's deposition 5.3 $680 $3,604


Discussed Weisbrot deposition with Neal Deckant (.2); research regarding case cited in Weisbrot declaration and discussed those

cases with Neal Deckant and Julia Luster (.4); email exchange with Neal Deckant re: same (.2). 0.8 $680 $544

2015.02.12 StarKist NJD Reading new case about Comcast, Roach v. Cannon. 0.4 $375 $150

2015.02.12 StarKist NJD Contacted defense counsel about Kelly Roberts depo. Got dates from SAB. 0.3 $375 $113

2015.02.12 StarKist NJD Prepping Steve Weisbrot. 6.4 $375 $2,400

2015.02.12 StarKist SAB Weisbrot deposition prep (2.0); analyzed Weir dep transcript (3.0) 5.0 $850 $4,250

2015.02.13 StarKist JIM Prepare for and defend Weisbrot deposition and debrief internal team thereafter 7.0 $680 $4,760


Video conference with Neal Deckant regarding Weisbrot deposition (.1); video conference with Neal Deckant regarding re-assignment

of case and research regarding Judge Gilliam (.3). 0.4 $680 $272

2015.02.13 StarKist SAB Videoconf. w/ Weir to debrief re deposition (.5); conf. w/ J. Marchese re debrief re Weisbrot deposition (1.0) 1.5 $850 $1,275

2015.02.16 StarKist JAL Reviewed Weibrot depo 1.5 $300 $450

2015.02.16 StarKist JIM Receive, save, e-mail and review Weisbrot deposition transcript 1.5 $680 $1,020

2015.02.16 StarKist LTF Reviewed Weisbrot transcript. 0.8 $680 $544


Reviewed emails regarding Roberts deposition (.1); discussed latest document production and deposition schedule with Neal Deckant

(.2); email exchange with Neal Deckant re: calendar update (.1). 0.4 $680 $272

2015.02.17 StarKist NJD Filing doc production, discussion with LTF. 0.4 $375 $150

2015.02.18 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Bill Wickersham. 0.1 $680 $68

2015.02.19 StarKist ALG Made Glenn Mast depo arrangements (.3) 0.3 $180 $54

2015.02.19 StarKist LTF Video conference with Neal Deckant regarding deposition schedule and class cert schedule. 0.4 $680 $272

2015.02.23 StarKist ALG Book travel for Glenn Mast depo (1.5) 1.5 $180 $270

2015.02.23 StarKist CRP began printing and organizing docs re G. Mast deposition (5) 5.0 $180 $900


Reviewed notice of subpoena for NOAA and discussed it with Neal Deckant, Scott Bursor and Julia Luster (.5); reviewed responses to

Nemo discovery and discussed them with Scott Bursor, Neal Deckant and Julia Luster (.2); reviewed Judge Gilliam's standing order

regarding discovery disputes (.2). 0.9 $680 $612

2015.02.23 StarKist NJD Review and discuss NOAA subpoena. Discussed next steps (e.g., rescheduling the date and time, offering to defend the depo, etc.). 1.4 $375 $525


Analyzed Starkist's 2d RFP & Rog responses (.5); analyzed Starkist's subpoena to NOAA (.2); videoconf w/ T. Fisher and N. Deckant re

litigation strategy (.5); conf. w/ N. Deckant re prep for Mast deposition (.3) 1.5 $850 $1,275

2015.02.24 StarKist CRP finished printing and organzing docs re G. Mast deposition (2); sent docs to Eckert Seamans via Fedex (.2) 2.2 $180 $396


Call with Mike Stadler at NOAA regarding subpoena and sent him the subpoena (.2); left message for Amy Roy regarding NOAA

subpoena (.1); video conference with Neal Deckant regarding NOAA subpoena and CMC statement (.1). 0.4 $680 $272


Printing and preparing documents for deposition on Thursday. Helped CP print, reviewed her production, figured out logistics for

mailing, and went down to FedEx to put it in the mail. 2.3 $375 $863

2015.02.24 StarKist NJD Assisting with SAB deposition prep. 1.4 $375 $525

2015.02.24 StarKist NJD Drafting joint CMC statement. 2.3 $375 $863

2015.02.24 StarKist NJD Call with NOAA with LTF. 0.3 $375 $113

2015.02.24 StarKist SAB Prep for Glenn Mast deposition (4.2); analyzed N. Deckant memos re potential experts (.3) 4.5 $850 $3,825

2015.02.25 StarKist ALG Checked SAB and NJD in for their flights (.1); printed Maxfield transcript for SAB (.2) 0.3 $180 $54

2015.02.25 StarKist AMP Discussed at firm meeting (0.2) 0.2 $390 $78

2015.02.25 StarKist JAL Discussed developments at firm meeting 0.2 $300 $60


Reviewed email re: class cert hearing and discussed it with Neal Deckant and Scott Bursor (.6); reviewed CMC statement and discussed

it with Neal Deckant and Debbie Schroeder (.9); listened to voicemail from Amy Roy re: NOAA deposition and discussed deposition

with Mr. Deckant and Mr. Bursor (.2). 1.7 $680 $1,156

2015.02.25 StarKist NJD Deposition prep. Confirmed that my box of documents arrived. 1.2 $375 $450

2015.02.25 StarKist NJD Drafting CMC statement. Finished. Discussed with LTF, circulated. 1.4 $375 $525

2015.02.25 StarKist NJD Prepared exhibit list for tomorrow's deposition 0.2 $375 $75

23 of 38




2015.02.25 StarKist SAB Prep for Glenn Mast deposition (7.0) 7.0 $850 $5,950

2015.02.26 StarKist ALG Assisted SAB and NJD with deposition logistics (6.0) 6.0 $180 $1,080

2015.02.26 StarKist DLS Prepared third set of discovery requests 1.2 $180 $216

2015.02.26 StarKist DLS Finalized and served by email 0.6 $180 $108

2015.02.26 StarKist DLS Prepared new document of joint CMC statement 1.5 $180 $270


Email exchange with Neal Deckant regarding punitive damages discovery, hearing dates, sealing issues and Mast deposition (.7);

research re: punitive damages (.4); worked with Debbie Schroeder on third set of interrogatories and document requests and

arranged for service of same (.7); email exchange with defendant's counsel regarding class cert hearing (.1). 1.9 $680 $1,292

2015.02.26 StarKist NJD Travel to Pittsburgh for deposition of Glenn Mast. 4.8 $375 $1,800


Research into the type of evidence we need to introduce to establish punitive damages. Also researched issues concerning timing, and

whether to do it prior to a finding of liability. 3.4 $375 $1,275

2015.02.26 StarKist NJD Draft third round of RFPs and Rogs 1.4 $375 $525

2015.02.26 StarKist NJD Research into finding In-Soo Cho's address for a potential subpoena 0.4 $375 $150

2015.02.26 StarKist NJD Finalized our portion of the joint CMC statement, sent to StarKist's counsel 0.8 $375 $300

2015.02.26 StarKist NJD Glenn Mast deposition with SAB 7.3 $375 $2,738

2015.02.26 StarKist SAB Prep for and take Glenn Mast Deposition 17.0 $850 $14,450


Checked on status of transcript (.1); tried to look for In-Soo Cho's address (1.0); make arrangements for Pearson and Butler depos (.3);

looked up hotel options for LA depo (.4) 1.8 $180 $324

2015.02.27 StarKist CRP began scanning deposition exhibits to box (1) 1.0 $180 $180

2015.02.27 StarKist DLS Prepared notice re hearing date for class cert motion 0.9 $180 $162

2015.02.27 StarKist DLS Prepared notice re hearing date for motion for leave to intervene 0.9 $180 $162

2015.02.27 StarKist DLS Finalized and filed both notices re hearing 0.7 $180 $126

2015.02.27 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant and S. Bursor about results of the deposition of G. Mast 0.2 $680 $136

2015.02.27 StarKist LTF Worked with Debbie Schroeder on amended notices of motion (.5); discussed Mast deposition with Neal Deckant (.2). 0.7 $680 $476

2015.02.27 StarKist NJD Glenn Mast deposition. Debrief and follow-up. 5.1 $375 $1,913

2015.02.27 StarKist NJD Re-noticed hearing date for class cert 0.1 $375 $38

2015.02.27 StarKist NJD Got CP scanning exhibits 0.1 $375 $38

2015.02.27 StarKist NJD Confirmed that we have no address for In-Soo Cho. 0.1 $375 $38

2015.02.27 StarKist SAB Travel Pittsburgh to NYC, debrief on Mast deposition en route with N. Deckant 3.0 $850 $2,550

2015.02.28 StarKist JIM Confer with S. Bursor regarding litigation next steps and settlement strategy 0.3 $680 $204

2015.03.02 StarKist ALG Emailed depo exhibits to court reporter (.2); made Kelly Roberts deposition arrangements (.3) 0.5 $180 $90

2015.03.02 StarKist DLS Finalized and filed CMC Statement Under Seal; Assisted with formatting all documents; emailed proposed orders to Judge 7.3 $180 $1,314

2015.03.02 StarKist DLS Coordinated personal delivery of RFA's and notice of deposition 0.5 $180 $90


Drafted and finalized sealing motion (3); reviewed CMC statement and implimented very minor edits for proofing purposes (1);

assisted with filing (1.2); discussed w/NJD and w/ LTF (.3) 5.5 $300 $1,650


Reviewed and revised CMC statement, reviewed additional revisions from Neal Deckant and defendant's counsel, discussed it with

Neal Deckant, Julia Luster and Debbie Schroeder and arranged for it to be filed (2.2); reviewed and finalized RFAs and deposition

notice (.3) 2.5 $680 $1,700

2015.03.02 StarKist NJD Drafting and finalizing RFA's, and 30(b)(6) notice to StarKist. Served, both personally and e-mail copies. 3.7 $375 $1,388

2015.03.02 StarKist NJD Finalizing and filing our joint CMC statement 2.9 $375 $1,088

2015.03.02 StarKist NJD Corresponded with CA team to finalize and file joint CMC statement, after reviewing Robert Hawk's latest round of edits. 0.6 $375 $225

2015.03.02 StarKist SAB Prep for upcoming depositions 2.0 $850 $1,700

2015.03.03 StarKist JAL Prelim. Review of class cert opposition 0.2 $300 $60


Reviewed class cert opposition and supporting declarations and saved them to Box and sent an email to Scott Bursor and Neal Deckant

re: same. 1.1 $680 $748

2015.03.04 StarKist CRP finished scanning deposition exhibits to Box (.3) 0.3 $180 $54

2015.03.04 StarKist DLS Fixed formatting of proof of service for deposition notices 0.4 $180 $72

2015.03.04 StarKist JAL Reviewed calass cert opposition papers more closely 2.1 $300 $630

24 of 38





Reviewed class cert papers and discussed them with Neal Deckant (.5); call with Scott Bursor and Neal Deckant regarding expert

depositions (.3); discussed deposition notices with Neal Deckant, finalized and served deposition notices (1.2). 2.0 $680 $1,360

2015.03.04 StarKist NJD Discussed noticing additional depositions with SAB. Drafted depo notices. 0.6 $375 $225

2015.03.04 StarKist SAB Read class cert oppn (2.0); teleconf. w/ N. Deckant and T. Fisher re litigation strategy (.4) 2.4 $850 $2,040

2015.03.05 StarKist ALG Prepared Butler depo docs (3.6) 3.6 $180 $648

2015.03.05 StarKist CRP Began printing and organizing docs re Pearson deposition (3) 4.0 $180 $720

2015.03.05 StarKist JAL Reviewed email exchange re. discovery scheduling issues 0.5 $300 $150

2015.03.05 StarKist LTF Email exchange with defendant's counsel regarding discovery scheduling issues and telephone call with Neal Deckant re: same. 0.7 $680 $476

2015.03.05 StarKist NJD Discussed upcoming call with Robert Hawk. Jotted an outline. 0.3 $375 $113

2015.03.06 StarKist ALG Finished Pearson depo exhibits (4.6); finished Butler set of depo docs (1.6) 6.2 $180 $1,116

2015.03.06 StarKist JAL Discussed scheduling issue for settlement conference (Tim conflicted out) w/LTF 0.1 $300 $30


Call with Neal Deckant regarding scheduling and reviewed lengthy email from Mr. Deckant re: same (.5); email exchange with Scott

Bursor re: same and discussed scheduling issue with Julia Luster (.2). 0.7 $680 $476

2015.03.06 StarKist NJD Prepared for call with Robert Hawk. Attended call. Sent summary email to LTF and SAB. 2.1 $375 $788

2015.03.06 StarKist NJD Verified documents to mail to CA for SAB's depositions 0.8 $375 $300


Confirmed receipt of Pearson docs (.1); made class cert opp'n book for SAB (1.0); prepared Pearson exh list (.6); prepared Butler exh

list (.6); reviewed Butler docs and shipped to SF (.8) 3.1 $180 $558

2015.03.09 StarKist LTF Discussed scheduling issues with Neal Deckant. 0.2 $680 $136

2015.03.09 StarKist NJD Printing documents for SAB to travel. Assisted AG with exhibit list. 1.4 $375 $525

2015.03.09 StarKist NJD Checked box of Brett Butler documents for mailing. 0.8 $375 $300

2015.03.09 StarKist NJD Coordinating logistics with AG 0.3 $375 $113

2015.03.09 StarKist NJD Discussed Robert Hawk's email with LTF 0.1 $375 $38


Prep for Pearson & Butler depositions (2.0); travel NY to LA, analyzed class cert oppn and prep for depositions en route (8.5); prep for

Pearson dep. (1.3) 11.8 $850 $10,030

2015.03.10 StarKist ALG Checked SAB in for flight; sent boarding pass (.1) 0.1 $180 $18


Call with Scott Bursor re: Pearson deposition and potential discovery dispute regarding retention of Pearson as a consultant (.2);

research regarding Judge Gilliam's standing order and sent an email to Mr. Bursor re: same (.2). 0.4 $680 $272

2015.03.10 StarKist SAB Prep for Pearson dep (2.3); took Pearson dep (9.0) 11.3 $850 $9,605

2015.03.11 StarKist LTF Discussed administrative motion to extend time with Neal Deckant, Yeremey Krivoshey and Debbie Schroeder (.3). 0.3 $680 $204


Travel LA to SF, prep for Butler dep en route (3.0); prep for Butler dep (4.0); teleconf. w/ N. Deckant re drafting motion to extend

briefing schedule and re litigation strategy (.4) 7.4 $850 $6,290

2015.03.11 StarKist YOK

discussion with Debbie Schroeder and LTF re administrative motion to extend time. Call with Neal Deckant re same. Reviewed all class

certification briefing and associated documents. 3.3 $300 $990

2015.03.12 StarKist ALG Checked SAB in for his flight (.2) 0.2 $180 $36

2015.03.12 StarKist DLS Filed LR 6-3 extension motion 0.9 $180 $162

2015.03.12 StarKist DLS Emailed proposed order to Judge Gilliam 0.3 $180 $54


2015.03.12 StarKist LTF Conf. w/ Scott Bursor to discuss depositions and case strategy going forward. 3.9 $680 $2,652

2015.03.12 StarKist NJD Worked with Ykriv to move for an extension. Drafted brief with him calendared dates, figured out procedural rules, etc. 4.1 $375 $1,538

2015.03.12 StarKist SAB Prep for Butler dep (1.4); took Butler dep (6.0); conf. w/ T. Fisher re Pearson & Butler depositions and next steps (.8) 8.2 $850 $6,970


drafted and filed administrative motion to extend time, Deckant declaration, and proposed order, multiple discussions with Neal

Deckant and Debbie Schroeder re same 7.0 $300 $2,100

2015.03.13 StarKist ALG Emailed Mast deposition exhibits to Veritext (.2); printed Pearson transcript for SAB (.2) 0.4 $180 $72

2015.03.13 StarKist SAB Travel SF to NYC, analyzed class cert oppn and expert declarations en route 8.0 $850 $6,800

2015.03.14 StarKist SAB Analyzed Pearson transcript 1.0 $850 $850

25 of 38





Saved Butler transcript to box (.1); conferred w/ SAB re changing travel plans and looked for new options (.7); created index of

deposition exhibits (.4); prepared Roberts index (.7); updated chronology (.3); went through deposition transcripts and marked every

instance Roberts was mentioned (.7); scanned Pearson deposition exhibits to Box (1.1); printed authorities for SAB (.6); forwarded

names of court reporter and videographer to defense counsel (.1); emailed Pearson depostion exhibits to defense counsel (.3) 5.0 $180 $900

2015.03.16 StarKist CRP

printed and organized docs for Kelly Roberts deposition (6); manually scanned chronology re relevant docs for deposition based on

dates of employment (1) 7.0 $180 $1,260

2015.03.16 StarKist JAL Emailed SAB re. settlement conference (.2); reviewed motion for extension of time (1) 1.2 $300 $360

2015.03.16 StarKist NJD Preparing for Kelly Roberts deposition. Identified hot documents, assisted with printing, getting everything in order. 3.4 $375 $1,275


Prep for Kelly Roberts deposition (3.5); legal research re payment of fact witnesses for motion to strike Pearson testimony (3.5); read

opposition to administrative motion to extend class cert briefing schedule (.5); videoconf. w/ C. Weir re press weight data (.4) 7.9 $850 $6,715


Checked SAB in for his flight; forwarded boarding pass (.1); booked new travel for SAB (1.2); booked car (.1); saved Butler exhs to box

(.2) 1.5 $180 $270

2015.03.17 StarKist AMP Assisted JAL with prep for settlement conference 0.5 $390 $195

2015.03.17 StarKist CRP followed up with Eckert Seamans confirming receipt of documents (.5) 0.5 $180 $90

2015.03.17 StarKist LTF Reviewed order regarding request for extension of time and discussed order and case schedule with Scott Bursor and Neal Deckant. 0.7 $680 $476

2015.03.17 StarKist NJD Review extension opposition, started working on extension reply (as ordered by the court). 1.7 $375 $638

2015.03.17 StarKist NJD Saw that our motion was denied, without a reply. Discussed with LTF and SAB. Planned the rest of March. Figured out travel, etc. 1.5 $375 $563


Prep for Kelly Roberts deposition (6.0); videoconf. w/ C. Weir re class cert reply decl (.3); teleconf. w/ T. Fisher and N. Deckant re

court denying motion for extension and rescheduling CMC (.5); videoconf. w/ C. Weir re class cert reply decl (.4) 7.2 $850 $6,120

2015.03.18 StarKist ALG Assisted SAB w/ depo prep (2.5); checked SAB in for his flight (.2) 2.7 $180 $486

2015.03.18 StarKist JAL Reviewed all documents in preparation for settlement conference (5.6); worked with DLS to print documents for SAB (.5) 6.1 $300 $1,830

2015.03.18 StarKist SAB Travel to Pittsburgh, prep for Kelly Roberts dep en route (2.3); took Kelly Roberts dep (7.0); prep for settlement conference (.8) 10.1 $850 $8,585

2015.03.19 StarKist CRP conferred with NJD re docs to organize (.2) 0.2 $180 $36

2015.03.19 StarKist DLS Printed settlement conference documents for SAB and JAL 1.3 $180 $234

2015.03.19 StarKist DLS Coordinated delivery of documents to SAB 0.2 $180 $36

2015.03.19 StarKist DLS Printed NOAA production documents and put in folders for SAB 2.0 $180 $360


Reviewed subpoena and exchanged emails with Neal Deckant regarding B&F subpoena (.3); thought about StarKist's scheduling tactics

and potential response (.2); arranged for delivery of materials to Scott Bursor for settlement conference (.3). 0.8 $680 $544

2015.03.19 StarKist NJD Cleaning up case file for SAB, after receiving email regarding its status 1.7 $375 $638

2015.03.19 StarKist NJD Saved subpoena to Box. Researched legal standards for serving opposing counsel with a subpoena. Circlulated internal memo to SAB. 1.4 $375 $525

2015.03.19 StarKist NJD Calendared McNeill subpoena, and researched his identity and employment history for SAB. 0.4 $375 $150

2015.03.19 StarKist NJD Inspected numerous boxes of documents 0.3 $375 $113

2015.03.19 StarKist NJD Organizing case file 0.8 $375 $300

2015.03.19 StarKist NJD Answering questions by email to SAB in preparation for his settlement conference 0.3 $375 $113

2015.03.19 StarKist SAB Travel Pittsburgh to SFO, prep for settlement conference en route (9.0); drafted motion re payment of fact witnesses (3.0) 12.0 $850 $10,200

2015.03.20 StarKist ALG Circulated Roberts transcript (.2); assisted DLS w/ making book for SAB (.4) 0.6 $180 $108

2015.03.20 StarKist DLS Prepared book of the Strombom declaration for SAB 1.3 $180 $234

2015.03.20 StarKist DLS Prepared hard copy of Roberts transcript for SAB 0.3 $180 $54

2015.03.20 StarKist DLS Coordinate delivery to SAB hotel tonight 0.2 $180 $36

2015.03.20 StarKist DLS Downloaded production documents from FTP site 0.5 $180 $90

2015.03.20 StarKist JAL Attended settlement conference (4); started research assignments from SAB re. damages models (6.1) 10.1 $300 $3,030

26 of 38





Email exchange with Scott Bursor and Neal Deckant regarding professional conduct guidelines (.3); call with Julia Luster and Neal

Deckant regarding settlement conference and class cert reply brief (.6); research regarding damages and latent defect issue (.3). 1.2 $680 $816


Pulling docs for SAB in connection with settlement conference. Researched several areas of law, and the case file. Had several

telephonic conferences with Cweir. 4.6 $375 $1,725

2015.03.20 StarKist NJD Proposing exhibits for NOAA deposition 2.2 $375 $825

2015.03.20 StarKist NJD Drafting joint stipulation for authentication. Circulated to StarKist's counsel. Coordinated details about the 30(b)(6) depo. 2.7 $375 $1,013

2015.03.20 StarKist SAB Settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Corley (4.0); Drafted motion re payment of fact witnesses (10.0) 14.0 $850 $11,900

2015.03.20 StarKist AMP Coordinated with JAL, sent case law to SAB and JAL 0.3 $390 $117

2015.03.21 StarKist JAL Research on latent defect/ascertainability issues facing class cert brief (7); and damages calculation issue (5.2) 12.2 $300 $3,660

2015.03.21 StarKist LTF Research regarding aggregate damages and discussed same with Julia Luster. 2.7 $680 $1,836

2015.03.21 StarKist NJD Drafted Deckant Declaration ISO class cert reply. Reviewed Pearson and Strombom Declarations, along with the brief. 5.3 $375 $1,988


Thoroughly reviewed In re Conagra. Highlighted and annotated the opinion with cross-references to the class cert opposition.

Pointed out where each argument is repeated. 2.9 $375 $1,088

2015.03.21 StarKist SAB Drafted motion re payment of fact witnesses 7.8 $850 $6,630

2015.03.22 StarKist JAL Finished damages research (4.3); started on motion to seal, proposed orders, notices of motion, and SAB declaration (8) 12.3 $300 $3,690


Reviewed memo regarding damages and discussed it with Julia Luster (.3); reviewed motions regarding payment of witnesses and

discussed them with Scott Bursor and reviewed emails from Scott Bursor, Neal Deckant and Ms. Luster re: same (.4). 0.7 $680 $476


Took the draft of the Brett Butler motion, and researched relevant case authority. Drafted the "Argument" section, and argued that

Rule 37 provides for the resumption of a deposition and mandatary attorneys' fees when a witness incorrectly refuses to answer a

question based on privilege. 3.3 $375 $1,238


Conducted further research on the joint defense privilege, which Hainline and Hawk asserted in regards to the Brett Butler deposition.

Added a couple paragraphs to the Butler motion discussing the privilege, and why it is inapplicable. 2.4 $375 $900


Cite-checked and proofed the fact witness brief. Bluebooked and Shephardized the cases. Worked on the sealing motion with JL,

Bursor Declaration, and compiling exhibits. Fixed formatting and filled in blanks with appropriate citations, both to cases and

deposition testimony. Circulated back to SAB for final revisions. 3.9 $375 $1,463

2015.03.22 StarKist SAB Drafted motion re payment of fact witnesses 8.3 $850 $7,055

2015.03.23 StarKist ALG Scanned SAB depo notes to box (.2); updated chronology and index (.6) 0.8 $180 $144

2015.03.23 StarKist DLS Finalized and filed Butler Motion 4.0 $180 $720

2015.03.23 StarKist DLS Finalized and filed payment motion 4.3 $180 $774

2015.03.23 StarKist DLS Prepared CMC book for SAB 1.4 $180 $252

2015.03.23 StarKist JAL Finalized and filed discovery motions 11.1 $300 $3,330

2015.03.23 StarKist LTF Worked on motions to compel with Scott Bursor, Julia Luster, Neal Deckant and Debbie Schroeder. 3.4 $680 $2,312

2015.03.23 StarKist NJD Research assignment and wrote memo into the propriety of serving opposing counsel with a subpoena 1.2 $375 $450

2015.03.23 StarKist NJD Corresponded with NOAA regarding their proposed production of documents with my correspondances 0.7 $375 $263

2015.03.23 StarKist NJD Research into press weight calibration recards 0.6 $375 $225

2015.03.23 StarKist NJD Assisting SAB with pulling exhibits for the NOAA deposition 1.0 $375 $375

2015.03.23 StarKist NJD Asked about status of authentication stip 0.3 $375 $113

2015.03.23 StarKist NJD Asked about status of McNeill deposition 0.3 $375 $113


Finalizing and filing the Butler and fact witness discovery motions. Conducted further Rule 37 research to ensure we're fully

compliant. 2.2 $375 $825

2015.03.23 StarKist SAB Drafted motion re payment of fact witnesses (7.5); prep for tomorrow's CMC (1.1); prep for NOAA deposition (.7) 9.3 $850 $7,905

2015.03.23 StarKist NJD Reviewed proposed NOAA production. 0.2 $375 $75

2015.03.24 StarKist ALG Looked up travel options for SAB (1.8) 1.8 $180 $324

2015.03.24 StarKist AMP Discussed local rules with JAL following JAL issue with local rules 0.5 $390 $195

2015.03.24 StarKist DLS Prepared deposition documents for SAB 3.8 $180 $684

2015.03.24 StarKist DLS Prepared letters to Judge Gilliam for SAB 1.3 $180 $234

2015.03.24 StarKist DLS Prepared audio transcript request 0.4 $180 $72

2015.03.24 StarKist FJK conf w/ N. Deckant re R. Hawk's email regarding yesterday's motions (.3); 0.3 $300 $90

27 of 38





Attended CMC hearing in SF and met and conferred with opposing counsel afterward (4); research re. local rules and filing sanctions

motions and motions to strike (4.2) 8.2 $300 $2,460


Call and email exchange with Julia Luster regarding motions filed yesterday and local rules (.3); discussed hearing and next steps with

Scott Bursor (.4). 0.7 $680 $476


Got email from Robert Hawk re deficiencies in our filing. Got ECF entry terminating our motions. Removed calander entries.

Discussed with team. 1.6 $375 $600


Prep for and attended CMC (2.4); met & conferred with R. Hawk et al. re discovery & briefing schedules (.8); conf. w/ J. Luster re same

(.5); drafted email to T. Fisher et al re same (.4); prep for NOAA deposition (.5) 4.6 $850 $3,910

2015.03.25 StarKist ALG Extended SAB's hotel stay (.3) 0.3 $180 $54

2015.03.25 StarKist DLS Prepared and filed CMC transcript request 0.8 $180 $144

2015.03.25 StarKist DLS Exchanged email with Court Reporter to transcribe FTR 0.4 $180 $72

2015.03.25 StarKist DLS Emailed transcript to SAB 0.2 $180 $36

2015.03.25 StarKist DLS Prepared and mailed FedEx delivery of documents left here by SAB 0.5 $180 $90


Drafted Proposed orders for discovery letters (3); reviewed new class cert redactions and responded to Defendant's email re. new

redactions (2.4) 5.4 $300 $1,620


Discussed sanctions motion and discussed it with Scott Bursor and Julia Luster re: same (.7); call with Yeremey Krivoshey re: expert

depositions (.1); reviewed authenticity stipulation and exchanged emails with Neal Deckant re: same (.1). 0.9 $680 $612

2015.03.25 StarKist NJD Discussed details of minute order with JL. Updated calendar, made sure work on letters was proceeding as planned. 1.2 $375 $450

2015.03.25 StarKist NJD Reviewed redlines to joint stip authenticating documents. Ran it by LTF. Executed, got StarKist's signature. Calendared new dates. 1.3 $375 $488


Revised brief re payment of fact witnesses for re-filing as a sanctions motion (2.6); drafted joint letter re instruction not to answer at

Butler deposition (.7); drafted joint letter re discovery issues concerning payment of fact witnesses (1.1) 4.4 $850 $3,740

2015.03.25 StarKist YOK call with LTF re expert depositions, discussion with AMP re same 0.2 $300 $60


Emailed SAB to confirm DeWitt and Strombom's deposition (.2); booked SAB travel (1.3); conferred w/ LTF re NOAA depos (.1); booked

court reporter and videographer for upcoming depositions (.2); booked car for SAB (.1) 1.9 $180 $342

2015.03.26 StarKist DLS Prepared TOA for motion for sanctions 0.7 $180 $126

2015.03.26 StarKist DLS Fixed formatting of documents 1.4 $180 $252

2015.03.26 StarKist DLS Finalized and filed motion for sanctions 1.0 $180 $180

2015.03.26 StarKist DLS Emailed proposed orders to Judge Gilliam 0.3 $180 $54

2015.03.26 StarKist DLS Emailed under seal documents to defendants 0.2 $180 $36

2015.03.26 StarKist JAL Finalized and filed sanctions motion 9.2 $300 $2,760

2015.03.26 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant about discovery scheduling and settlement strategy 0.3 $680 $204


Worked with Scott Bursor, Julia Luster and Debbie Schroeder on sanctions motion (3.2); email exchange and telephone call with

defendant's counsel regarding stipulation and briefing schedule (.4); discussed settlement with defendant's counsel, Neal Deckant and

Julia Luster and sent an email to Scott Bursor re: same (.8). 4.4 $680 $2,992

2015.03.26 StarKist NJD Filing NOAA production. Reviewed. Sent to Cweir. Discussed. Discussed with SAB. 1.2 $375 $450

2015.03.26 StarKist NJD Discussed settlement prospects with LTF, JIM. 0.9 $375 $338

2015.03.26 StarKist NJD Revised and edited motion for sanctions, in light of the documents produced. 1.6 $375 $600

2015.03.26 StarKist NJD Drafted stipulation extending the briefing schedule on our discovery motions. 0.9 $375 $338

2015.03.26 StarKist NJD Calendaring new dates for depositions. Coordinating logistics with AG. 0.5 $375 $188


Revised brief re payment of fact witnesses for re-filing as a sanctions motion (3.5); prep for NOAA deposition, which was cancelled at

the last minute (1.5); travel LA to NY (8.0) 13.0 $850 $11,050

2015.03.27 StarKist ALG Ran lodestar (.5) 0.5 $180 $90

2015.03.27 StarKist DLS Prepared chamber copies for delivery by courier 1.5 $180 $270

2015.03.27 StarKist DLS Attended team meeting 1.0 $180 $180

2015.03.27 StarKist DLS Finalized and filed stip and proposed order 0.8 $180 $144

2015.03.27 StarKist DLS Emailed stip and proposed order to Judge Gilliam 0.2 $180 $36

2015.03.27 StarKist FJK

team meeting w/ S. Bursor, T. Fisher, N. Deckant, J. Luster & Y. Krivoshey re class cert reply (.4); meeting w/ N. Deckant & Y. Kopel re

common interest research (.4); reviewed Butler letter (.5) 1.3 $300 $390

2015.03.27 StarKist JAL Team meeting (.5); revised fact witnesses letter (6); assisted DLS in creating courtesy copies (2) 8.5 $300 $2,550

28 of 38





Discussed settlement with Scott Bursor, Julia Luster and Robert Hawk (.8); team meeting regarding class cert and sanctions motion

work assignments (.4); worked with Julia Luster on revising letter brief regarding witness payments and looked for cases on

resumption of deposition (.9); reviewed motion to quash stipulation and discussed it with Neal Deckant via email (.2); reviewed and

revised stipulation regarding sanctions motion schedule and exchanged emails with opposing counsel re: same (.6). 2.9 $680 $1,972

2015.03.27 StarKist NJD Calendaring dates for depos, serving new notices of deposition. 1.4 $375 $525

2015.03.27 StarKist NJD Coordinating with Stacy Hovan about dates and logistics. 0.4 $375 $150


Revisions and redlines to Brett Butler letter. Cleaned it up, and researched further into the common interest privilege with YK.

Circulated to SAB, with margin notes. 2.3 $375 $863

2015.03.27 StarKist NJD Drafting scheduling stips. Updating calendars. 2.9 $375 $1,088

2015.03.27 StarKist NJD Further revisions to Butler letter from home 1.2 $375 $450


Videconf. w/ T. Fisher re settlement negotiations (.4); reviewed Starkist's document production concerning payments to fact witnesses

(.8); prep for team meeting (.3); team meeting to discuss work assignments for class cert reply and upcoming depositions (.4); conf.

call w/ R. Hawk and T. Fisher re settlement negotiations (.6); reviewed NOAA's document production (1.0); videoconf. w/ C. Weir re

upcoming Strombom deposition and drafting of Weir reply declaration (.3) 3.8 $850 $3,230

2015.03.27 StarKist YZK research for and draft Butler letter 3.1 $350 $1,085

2015.03.28 StarKist LTF Email exchange with defendant's counsel, Neal Deckant and Debbie Schroeder regarding stipulation for briefing of motion to quash. 0.2 $680 $136

2015.03.30 StarKist ALG Booked NJD travel (.6); booked court reporter for Hanssens depo (.2); class cert motion book for SAB (.7) 1.5 $180 $270

2015.03.30 StarKist DLS Finalized and filed scheduling stip 0.9 $180 $162

2015.03.30 StarKist DLS Made travel arrangements for Yeremey for 4/3 deposition 0.9 $180 $162

2015.03.30 StarKist FJK conf w/ N. Deckant re outstanding issues (.3); analyzed class cert briefing (2); 2.3 $300 $690

2015.03.30 StarKist JAL Reviewed response to Butler discovery dispute letter 0.5 $300 $150

2015.03.30 StarKist LTF Reviewed emails regarding settlement discussions from Scott Bursor and defendant's counsel. 0.3 $680 $204


Further revisions to Butler letter. Researched issues concerning what happens when a deponent volunteers for a deposition, rather

than be served with a subpoena. Also researched further cases concerning the joint defense privilege. 1.8 $375 $675

2015.03.30 StarKist NJD Dealt with issues concerning the stipulation regarding the briefing schedule on the motion to quash. 1.0 $375 $375


Revised draft joint letter re Brett Butler dispute (.6); revised draft joint letter re payments to fact witnesses discovery dispute (.4);

drafted class cert reply brief (4.0); prep for settlement conference (1.1); teleconf. w/ R. Hawk re settlement negotiations (.8) 6.9 $850 $5,865

2015.03.30 StarKist YZK research and revise butler letter 3.3 $350 $1,155

2015.03.31 StarKist CRP pulled docs from Alexia Settlement for SAB (1) 1.0 $180 $180

2015.03.31 StarKist FJK conf w/ N. Deckant re status of outstanding issues (.3) 0.3 $300 $90


Reviewed updated Butler letter (.2); reviewed email exchanges between counsel (.2); discussed potential filing with DLS (.2); conferred

w/NJD re. status of Butler letter (.1); sent NJD draft of proposed order (.1) 0.8 $300 $240

2015.03.31 StarKist JIM Conduct legal research for potential settlement and confer with S. Bursor and N. Deckant about settlement strategy 2.2 $680 $1,496

2015.03.31 StarKist LTF Reviewed emails regarding Butler letter and discussed settlement negotiations with Julia Luster. 0.1 $680 $68

2015.03.31 StarKist NJD Drafted chronology of payments to fact witnesses 2.7 $375 $1,013


Audited Robert Hawk's survey of proposed redactions. Found a couple issues with the AAA award and the IRI data, drafted internal

memo for SAB and checked the rules. 2.0 $375 $750

2015.03.31 StarKist NJD Reviewed third RFP and Rog responses 0.3 $375 $113

2015.03.31 StarKist NJD Settlement negotiation 0.8 $375 $300


Conf. w/ J. Marchese & N. Deckant re settlement negotiations (.4); analyzed Robert Hawk's Alexia settlement (3.0); revised draft joint

letter re Butler (.7); conf. w/ N. Deckant re sealing and email to R. Hawk re same (.2); class cert reply brief (3.1); teleconf. w/ R. Hawk

re settlement negotiations (.5); conf. w/ N. Deckant re upcoming depositions (.2); corresp. w/ R. Hawk et al re sealing issues (.3) 8.4 $850 $7,140

2015.04.01 StarKist ALG Checked NJD in for flight and booked car service (.2) 0.2 $180 $36

2015.04.01 StarKist CRP printed and organized docs re DeWitt deposition (1.5) 1.5 $180 $270

2015.04.01 StarKist DLS Filed both joint discovery letters 0.9 $180 $162


29 of 38





2015.04.01 StarKist FJK

conf w/ S. Bursor re research assignment (.1); research re not preliminary determination of merits (.4); assist with class cert reply brief

drafting & research (6.1) 7.2 $300 $2,160

2015.04.01 StarKist JAL Discussed research assignment for reply brief w/YZK 0.2 $300 $60

2015.04.01 StarKist JAL Finalize, file, and serve discovery dispute letters 3.5 $300 $1,050


Confer with and assist N. Deckant with preparation for DeWitt deposition (1.0); review Kamakahi class certification opinion, discuss

with internal team, and assist with additional research for class certification reply brief (1.4); review draft joint discovery dispute

letters and confer with S. Bursor about comments (.8) 3.9 $680 $2,652


Discussed letter briefs and proposed orders with Julia Luster (.2); call with Scott Bursor regarding Hendricks damages calculation (.2);

call with Colin Weir regarding Hendricks damages and reviewed email regarding IRI data (.3); call with Patrick Hendricks regarding

StarKist tuna purchases (.3). 1.0 $680 $680

2015.04.01 StarKist NJD Reviewed and marked-up DeWitt declaration in preparation for deposition. 0.3 $375 $113

2015.04.01 StarKist NJD Drafting class cert reply. Wrote a rider on reliance. 4.0 $375 $1,500

2015.04.01 StarKist NJD Prepared for deposition 6.6 $375 $2,475


Researched certifying classes when uninjured class members may be present and drafted reply brief riders re same (5.8); Worked with

YZK to review Roberts and Pearson Depos for fish fill testimony (1.0) 6.8 $300 $2,040


Finalized joint letter re Brett Butler discovery dispute (.5); finalized joint letter re payments to fact witnesses (.8); drafted class cert

reply and related document (11.3) 12.6 $850 $10,710


Checked NJD in for flight (.2); emailed Veritext re names of court reporter and videographer for deposition (.2); printed exhs for

Strombom deposition (.3) 0.7 $180 $126

2015.04.02 StarKist DLS Assisted YOK with exhibits for deposition 1.8 $180 $324

2015.04.02 StarKist FJK assist w/ class cert reply briefing and research (9.6); 9.6 $300 $2,880

2015.04.02 StarKist JIM Confer with S. Bursor about settlement progress and conduct case research regarding potential settlement issues 1.5 $680 $1,020


Call with Scott Bursor re: settlement and discussed settlement research with Julia Luster (.3); reviewed email from Neal Deckant re:

DeWitt deposition (.1). 0.4 $680 $272

2015.04.02 StarKist NJD Travel to Pittsburgh for deposition. 4.8 $375 $1,781

2015.04.02 StarKist NJD Deposed Christina DeWitt. 6.8 $375 $2,550

2015.04.02 StarKist NJD Travel back to NYC. 5.1 $375 $1,913

2015.04.02 StarKist PLF Drafted choice of law rider for class cert reply brief (11.3) 11.3 $300 $3,390


Drafted class cert reply (9.4); conf. w/ C. Weir re same (1.5); prep for Strombom dep (1.7); teleconf. w/ R. Hawk re settlement (.4);

research re CAFA's restrictions on coupon settlements and valuation of tuna (1.6) 13.6 $850 $11,560


email exchanges with SAB re Strombom deposition, composed exhibit index and circulated same, pritned exhibits in the office to take

on flight, traveled to Century City, reviewed class certification briefing, made copies of additional exhibit 9.0 $300 $2,700

2015.04.02 StarKist YZK research and draft section riders for class cert reply brief 8.4 $350 $2,940

2015.04.02 StarKist YZK research and draft section riders for class cert reply brief 9.9 $350 $3,465

2015.04.03 StarKist CRP scanned deposition exhibits to box (1) 1.0 $180 $180

2015.04.03 StarKist FJK team meeting (.5); assist with research & briefing for class cert reply (5); 5.5 $300 $1,650

2015.04.03 StarKist LTF Discussed expert depositions with Neal Deckant. 0.1 $680 $68

2015.04.03 StarKist NJD Helped prep and assisted with Strombom deposition. 3.3 $375 $1,238

2015.04.03 StarKist NJD Work on class cert reply. 2.9 $375 $1,088

2015.04.03 StarKist NJD Research into materiality of an omission. 3.7 $375 $1,388

2015.04.03 StarKist PLF Attended team mtg (0.2); Drafted rider on 100% compliance (2.5); Finalized and circulated rider (0.5) 3.2 $300 $960

2015.04.03 StarKist SAB Prep for Strombom dep (4.0); drafted class cert reply (2.9); took Strombom dep (3.0); conf. w/ C. Weir re expert reply declaration (1.5) 11.4 $850 $9,690


prepared for Strombom deposition, set up equipment for video deposition, brief video conference with SAB re same, attended

Strombom deposition, traveled back to SF 10.5 $300 $3,150

2015.04.03 StarKist YZK team case management meeting 0.5 $350 $175

2015.04.04 StarKist FJK draft class cert reply brief riders 4.0 $300 $1,200

2015.04.04 StarKist NJD Cite-checked the brief. Made formatting corrections, and incorporated everyone's riders. Filled in blanks and added some cases. 4.6 $375 $1,725

2015.04.04 StarKist SAB Drafted class cert reply 6.0 $850 $5,100

30 of 38




2015.04.05 StarKist JAL Reviewed emails re. class cert reply. 0.6 $300 $180

2015.04.05 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Julia Luster regarding Hendricks declaration. 0.2 $680 $136

2015.04.05 StarKist NJD Cite-checked the brief and coordinated the ancillary documents. 3.9 $375 $1,463


2015.04.06 StarKist AMP Coordinated coverage of Hannsenns deposition 0.4 $390 $156

2015.04.06 StarKist DLS Made travel arrangements for Yeremey for 4/8 deposition 0.9 $180 $162

2015.04.06 StarKist FJK assist w/ reply brief (5.2); 5.2 $300 $1,560


Prepared ancillary documents to StarKist reply brief (6), including sealing motion, declaration ISO sealing motion, proposed order,

Hendricks declaration (.7); discussed progress w/NJD (x3) (.3) 7.0 $300 $2,100


Email exchange with Scott Bursor re: Hanssens deposition and class cert reply brief (.2); email exchange with Yeremey Krivoshey re:

Hanssens deposition (.1). 0.3 $680 $204


Final cite-check, prepared Deckant Declaration, prepared Weir Declaration, coordinated plans for filing. Answered questions about

sealing/redactions. 8.0 $375 $3,000

2015.04.06 StarKist PLF Searched for and sent SAB manageability language for class cert reply (0.2) 0.2 $300 $60

2015.04.06 StarKist SAB Drafted class cert reply & related papers (5.0); teleconf. w/ R. Hawk re settlement (.3) 5.3 $850 $4,505


email exchanges with LTF, Neal Deckant, SAB re Hanssens deposition, discussion with Debbie Schroeder re same, booked travel re

same. 0.7 $300 $210


Cancelled videographer for Hanssens depo (.2); saved DeWitt transcript to Box (.1); TOA for reply brief (.7); prepared checks (1.1);

updated expense log (.5); made Hanssens Declaration book for SAB (.4); ordered supplies (.5) 3.5 $180 $630

2015.04.07 StarKist AMP Reviewed and revised class cert. reply 2.0 $390 $780

2015.04.07 StarKist DLS Prepared deposition documents and sent to hotel for Yeremey by FedEx 1.0 $180 $180

2015.04.07 StarKist DLS Made edits to declaration to motion to seal 2.0 $180 $360

2015.04.07 StarKist DLS Filed reply in support of motion for class certification 3.8 $180 $684

2015.04.07 StarKist FJK redlined & commented on latest drafts (1.9); analyzed draft Weir Reply (.8); assisted with finalizing class cert reply brief (1.5) 4.2 $300 $1,260

2015.04.07 StarKist JAL Finalized and filed class cert reply brief, sealing motion, and supporting documents w/NJD and DLS 9.3 $300 $2,790

2015.04.07 StarKist JIM Review near-final draft of class certification reply brief 0.7 $680 $476

2015.04.07 StarKist NJD Finalizing and filing class cert reply. 8.7 $375 $3,263

2015.04.07 StarKist NJD Proposing and printing exhibits for Hanssens deposition 1.7 $375 $638

2015.04.07 StarKist NJD Reviewing final PDFs prior to filing. 0.4 $375 $150

2015.04.07 StarKist PLF Reviewed Deckant Decl (0.4); Prepared Deposition Exhibits and Excerpts (1.6) 2.0 $300 $600


2015.04.07 StarKist YOK traveled to Century City for Hanssens deposition, email exchanges with Debbie Schroeder re exhibits, prepared for deposition 5.5 $300 $1,650

2015.04.08 StarKist ALG Made hearing books (1.8); booked SAB travel for hearing (.4) 2.2 $180 $396

2015.04.08 StarKist DLS Confirmed that Yeremey had received deposition documents 0.3 $180 $54

2015.04.08 StarKist DLS Prepared courtesy copies for delivery to Judge Gilliam 3.3 $180 $594

2015.04.08 StarKist DLS Prepared and filed proof of service of unredacted documents 0.4 $180 $72

2015.04.08 StarKist JAL Assisted DLS w/courtesy copies 4.0 $300 $1,200


Confer with S. Bursor about settlement strategy (.7); confer with W. Shaw at Analytics LLC regarding post-class certification matters

(3.2) 3.9 $680 $2,652


Reviewed PDFs from yesterday's filings to ensure it was done properly. Cleaned up case file on Box. Made sure courtesy copies were

circulated. 2.5 $375 $938

2015.04.08 StarKist NJD Prep for and attended Dominique Hanssens deposition. Got transcript; read it. 1.6 $375 $600

2015.04.08 StarKist SAB Prep for Hanssens dep (2.0); took Hanssens dep (.5); prep for class cert hearing 4/16 (3.0) 5.5 $850 $4,675

2015.04.08 StarKist YOK prepared for Hanssens deposition, set up equipment for video deposition, attended deposition, traveled back to SF 10.0 $300 $3,000

2015.04.09 StarKist ALG Updated exhibit list (.4) 0.4 $180 $72

2015.04.09 StarKist CRP fixed SAB class cert book (.2) 0.2 $180 $36

2015.04.09 StarKist DLS Assisted Neal and Julia with supplemental brief 1.5 $180 $270


Drafted administrative motion to file supplemental reply brief (6); reviewed supplemental reply brief, checked local rules, made minor

edits, and compiled on box (1.1); learned how to file the admin. Motion from DLS (.6) 7.7 $300 $2,310

31 of 38





Review draft of supplement reply brief in further support of motion for class certification (.1); confer with S. Bursor and N. Deckant

about developments with settlement discussions and about preparation in connection with class certification hearing (1.6) 1.7 $680 $1,156

2015.04.09 StarKist NJD Drafting supplemental class cert brief and administrative motion for leave to file same 5.8 $375 $2,175


Draft supp brief re Hanssens (1.2); conf. w/ N. Deckant re administrative motion for leave to file (.2); prep for class cert hearing (2.5);

teleconf. w/ R. Hawk (.3); conf. w/ N. Deckant and J. Marchese re settlement strategy (.5); conf. w/ N. Deckant re additional

requirements for administrative motion under LR 7-11, and drafted email to R. Hawk re same (.4) 5.1 $850 $4,335

2015.04.10 StarKist DLS Filed administrative motion re supplemental brief 1.3 $180 $234

2015.04.10 StarKist DLS Filed stipulation re administrative motion 0.9 $180 $162



Finalized and filed administrative motion seeking permission to file supplemental brief ISO class cert re. Hanssens (w/NJD and DLS) (6);

started sealing motion for reply ISO sanctions (1.1) 7.1 $300 $2,130

2015.04.10 StarKist JAL Reviewed opp to motion for sanctions 0.9 $300 $270

2015.04.10 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant about settlement strategy 0.4 $680 $272

2015.04.10 StarKist NJD Finished first draft of motion to quash subpoena served on B&F 4.2 $375 $1,575


Finalized and filed administartive motion for a supplemental brief. This involved drafting a stip for Robert Hawk, several rounds of

emails with him, checking on relevant local rules, etc. 4.1 $375 $1,538

2015.04.10 StarKist SAB Revised draft supp brief re Hanssens (3.5); prep for 4/16 class cert hearing (2.5); read defendants' oppn to sanctions motion (1.2) 7.2 $850 $6,120

2015.04.11 StarKist LTF Text message exchange with Julia Luster regarding sanctions reply brief. 0.1 $680 $68

2015.04.11 StarKist NJD Answered questions from SAB about briefing limits 0.3 $375 $113

2015.04.12 StarKist NJD Monitored progress on sanctions reply, discussed with JL. 0.5 $375 $188

2015.04.13 StarKist FJK analyzed Def's sanctions opp'n brief (.8); 0.8 $300 $240

2015.04.13 StarKist JAL Stayed up to date on reply ISO Sanctions 0.2 $300 $60


Reviewed motion to quash. Enacted extensive redlines. Ran it by PF. Also fact-checked an issue with the attorney signature in the

issuance. 3.7 $375 $1,388

2015.04.13 StarKist NJD Sanctions reply. Coordinating with DS. 1.3 $375 $488

2015.04.13 StarKist PLF Reviewed draft letter to quash subpoena (0.5) 0.5 $300 $150

2015.04.13 StarKist SAB Drafted reply re sanctions motion (7.0); prep for 4/16 class cert hearing (1.0) 8.0 $850 $6,800


Sanctions motion book for SAB (1.5); booked car for SAB (.1); checked SAB in for his flight (.2); confirmed SAB's hotel reservations (.1);

gathered SAB's hearing prep books and shipped to hotel (1.4); TOA for sanctions reply brief (.4) 3.7 $180 $666

2015.04.14 StarKist AMP Discussion at firm meeting 0.2 $390 $78

2015.04.14 StarKist CRP edited SAB class cert book (.5) 1.0 $180 $180

2015.04.14 StarKist DLS Filed sanctions reply 0.4 $180 $72

2015.04.14 StarKist DLS Served unredacted version by email 0.2 $180 $36

2015.04.14 StarKist DLS Emailed proposed order to Judge Gilliam 0.2 $180 $36

2015.04.14 StarKist DLS Filed supplemental brief and SAB declaration 1.0 $180 $180


2015.04.14 StarKist FJK analyzed Def's evidentiary objection brief (.4); 0.4 $300 $120

2015.04.14 StarKist JAL Assisted with finalizing and filing sealing motion and reply ISO Sanctions 8.1 $300 $2,430

2015.04.14 StarKist JIM Review draft of sanctions reply motion and confer with S. Bursor about same 0.7 $680 $476

2015.04.14 StarKist LTF Reviewed sanctions reply, discussed it with Scott Bursor, Neal Deckant, Julia Luster and Debbie Schroeder and assisted with filing it. 1.2 $680 $816

2015.04.14 StarKist NJD Finalize and filing sanctions reply. 7.2 $375 $2,700

2015.04.14 StarKist PLF Reviewed and citechecked sanctions reply brief (2.5); Prepared Bursor Reply Declaration (0.5) 3.0 $300 $900

2015.04.14 StarKist SAB Drafted reply re sanctions motion (6.0); analyzed StarKist's objections to reply evidence (1.3); prep for class cert hearing (2.5) 9.8 $850 $8,330

2015.04.15 StarKist ALG Confirmed receipt of boxes at hotel (.2); calculated expenses (.3) 0.5 $180 $90

2015.04.15 StarKist DLS Prepared chamber copy of sanctions reply for hand delivery 1.0 $180 $180

2015.04.15 StarKist DLS Coordinated hand delivery to Judge Gilliam 0.3 $180 $54

2015.04.15 StarKist FJK Attention to new settlement offer and confer with internal team about settlement strategy 1.5 $300 $450

32 of 38




2015.04.15 StarKist JIM Attention to new settlement offer and confer with internal team about settlement strategy 1.5 $680 $1,020


Calls and emails with Scott Bursor, Joe Marchese and Neal Deckant regarding settlement (1.1); conference with Julia Luster and

Debbie Schroeder re: settlement (.4); call with client re: settlement (.2). 1.7 $680 $1,156

2015.04.15 StarKist NJD Researched and wrote internal memo re valuing tuna portion. 2.7 $375 $1,013

2015.04.15 StarKist NJD Working on getting term sheet finalized. 4.0 $375 $1,500

2015.04.15 StarKist PLF Discussed settlement strategy with team (1.0) 1.0 $300 $300

2015.04.15 StarKist SAB Travel NYC to SF, prep for class cert hearing en route (9.0); settlement negotiations (5.5) 14.5 $850 $12,325

2015.04.15 StarKist JAL Kept up with settlement negotations through discussions w/LTF, NJD, and DLS; sent research; reviewed emails 1.0 $300 $300


Looked up alternative flight options for SAB and got him on a new flight (.4); proofread stip (.2); cancelled SAB's new flight reservation

in lieu of CMC hearing (.3); booked car for SAB (.1) 1.0 $180 $180

2015.04.16 StarKist CRP proofread stip per NJD request (.3) 0.3 $180 $54

2015.04.16 StarKist DLS Filed joint stip and proposed order 0.7 $180 $126

2015.04.16 StarKist DLS Emailed stip and proposed order to Judge Gilliam 0.1 $180 $18

2015.04.16 StarKist DLS Emailed Court re transcript 0.2 $180 $36

2015.04.16 StarKist DLS Filed request for transcript 0.9 $180 $162

2015.04.16 StarKist FJK analyzed 3rd Cir's Byrd opinion (.8); 0.8 $300 $240

2015.04.16 StarKist JAL Travel to and attend hearing w/SAB 3.0 $300 $900

2015.04.16 StarKist LTF Conf. w/ Scott Bursor to discuss settlement. 1.3 $680 $884

2015.04.16 StarKist NJD Drafting and filing stipulation to stay future litigation deadlines. 2.2 $375 $825

2015.04.16 StarKist PLF Status meeting after class cert hearing (0.5) 0.5 $300 $150

2015.04.16 StarKist SAB Settlement negotations (1.0); prep for and and attended CMC (4.5); travel SF to NYC, drafted settlement documents en route (7.0) 12.5 $850 $10,625

2015.04.20 StarKist JIM Confer with S. Bursor about preliminary approval papers and attention to same 1.0 $680 $680

2015.04.20 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ J. Marchese re settlement negotiations 1.0 $850 $850

2015.04.21 StarKist ALG Checked SAB in for flight (.1); booked car (.1) 0.2 $180 $36

2015.04.22 StarKist NJD Reviewed and signed off on stipulation staying upcoming deadlines for expert disclosures, briefing on the motion to quash, etc. 2.3 $375 $863


Email exchange with Neal Deckant regarding deadline for motion to quash (.1); reviewed email from defendant's counsel regarding

settlement agreement (.1); email exchange with claims administrator (.1). 0.3 $680 $204

2015.04.23 StarKist NJD Circulated our portion of the motion to quash to SAB and LTF for review, just in case the court doesn't "So Order" the stip in time. 0.4 $375 $150

2015.04.24 StarKist SAB revised draft settlement agreement 4.5 $850 $3,825

2015.04.27 StarKist AMP Discussion motion for preliminary approval with NJD 0.1 $390 $39

2015.04.27 StarKist SAB redlined draft settlement agreement 4.7 $850 $3,995

2015.04.29 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Scott Bursor and Kyle Mason re: claims administrator for settlement. 0.2 $680 $136

2015.04.29 StarKist NJD Reviewed Robert Hawk's redlines and comments to the draft settlement agreement. 1.0 $375 $375

2015.04.29 StarKist NJD Reviewing and marking up CMC transcript one last time in advance of drafting my preliminary approval papers. 0.3 $375 $113

2015.04.29 StarKist SAB Settlement negotiations 4.0 $850 $3,400

2015.04.30 StarKist JIM Confer with S. Bursor about status of settlement agreement negotiations 0.4 $680 $272

2015.04.30 StarKist LTF Scheduled call with Epiq regarding claims administration. 0.1 $680 $68

2015.04.30 StarKist NJD Settlement call with Robert Hawk 1.2 $375 $450

2015.04.30 StarKist NJD Drafting preliminary approval motion 3.6 $375 $1,350

2015.04.30 StarKist SAB Settlement negotiations; analyzed settlement redlines and term sheet (3.5); teleconf. w/ R. Hawk and N. Deckant re same (1.0) 4.5 $850 $3,825

2015.05.01 StarKist LTF Reviewed draft settlement agreement and sent email to Epiq regarding notice provisions (.4); call with Epiq regarding notice plan (.4). 0.8 $680 $544

2015.05.01 StarKist NJD Drafting preliminary approval motion 4.9 $375 $1,838

2015.05.03 StarKist NJD Drafting motion for preliminary approval. 3.8 $375 $1,425


Drafting motion for preliminary approval. Finished everything other than the class cert section. Filled in a TOC and ideas for the class

cert section. 8.6 $375 $3,225

2015.05.04 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ J. Marchese re settlement negotiations (.2); teleconf. w/ R. Hawk re settlement negotiations (.2) 0.4 $850 $340

33 of 38





2015.05.05 StarKist JAL Drafted stipulation re. intevention and proposed order (1.8); discussed w/NJD and LTF (.4) 2.2 $300 $660

2015.05.05 StarKist LTF Discussed stipulation regarding intervention with Julia Luster and reviewed draft stipulation. 0.1 $680 $68

2015.05.05 StarKist NJD Finished first draft of motion for preliminary approval. 11.9 $375 $4,463


Conf. w/ N. Deckant re draft preliminary approval motion (.2); teleconf. w/ S. Weisbrot re settlement negotiations and claims

administration (.4); teleconf. w/ Patrick Ivie re same (.4); teleconf. w/ G. Haber same (.4); email to Patrick Ivie re same (.2); email to G.

Haber re same (.2); conf. w/ N. Deckant re drafting stip re intervention and drafting prelim approval motion (.2) 2.0 $850 $1,700


Discussed settlement negotiations with Scott Bursor, reviewed Judge Corley's calendar and spoke with her clerk about scheduling a

follow up settlement conference. 0.4 $680 $272


Crunching IRI data with Cweir. Wrote a rider analyzing the relative market share of StarKist. Had to create an Excel sheet, pivot table,

run data analysis, verify my results, and draft a rider. 3.7 $375 $1,388

2015.05.06 StarKist NJD Took call from Robert Hawk about stipping out preliminary approval date. Relayed to SAB. Had a strategy meeting, called back. 1.2 $375 $450


Conf. w/ N. Deckant & J. Marchese re settlement negotiations(.5); teleconf. w/ R. Hawk and S. Hovan re same (.5); developed alternate

settlement language to try to resolve impasse (1.0) 2.0 $850 $1,700

2015.05.07 StarKist DLS Filed stip to extend time to file and emailed proposed order to Judge Gilliam 0.5 $180 $90


2015.05.07 StarKist LTF Discussed settlement with Scott Bursor. 0.3 $680 $204

2015.05.07 StarKist NJD Researched L.R. 6-2. Drafted stipulation and accompanying Bursor Declaration to extend time to file motion for preliminary approval. 1.9 $375 $713

2015.05.07 StarKist NJD Researched case law and standards for seeking to enforce a settlement term sheet. Drafted email memo. 4.1 $375 $1,538

2015.05.07 StarKist SAB Settlement negotiations and drafted stip re extension 2.0 $850 $1,700

2015.05.08 StarKist JAL Call w/LTF to client re. settlement 0.1 $300 $30


Discussed settlement with Scott Bursor (.4); call with client and Julia Luster (.1); reviewed notice proposals and sent an email to Mr.

Bursor re: notice proposals (.9). 1.4 $680 $952

2015.05.08 StarKist NJD Wrote chronology in support of motion to enforce 4.5 $375 $1,688

2015.05.08 StarKist SAB Settlement negotiations (2.3); Drafted motion to enforce binding settlement term sheet (7.0) 9.3 $850 $7,905


Confer with S. Bursor about status of settlement agreement negotiations (.2); confer with L. Fisher and S. Bursor about competing

notice plan bids (.6); confer with G. Haber at Garden City Group regarding his notice plan proposal (.3) 1.4 $680 $952

2015.05.09 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Scott Bursor re: Angeion notice proposal and phone call and email exchange with Steve Weisbrot re: same. 0.5 $680 $340

2015.05.09 StarKist SAB Corresp. w/ R. Hawk re settlement negotiations 0.5 $850 $425

2015.05.10 StarKist JAL Email exchange w/NJD re. motion for prelim. Approval ancillary documents (.3); reviewed prelim. Approval brief (1.6) 1.9 $300 $570

2015.05.10 StarKist LTF Reviewed emails regarding motion to enforce settlement agreement. 0.2 $680 $136

2015.05.10 StarKist SAB Drafted motion to enforce binding settlement term sheet 5.0 $850 $4,250

2015.05.11 StarKist ALG Assisted CRP in making edits to Motion to Enforce (.3) 0.3 $180 $54

2015.05.11 StarKist CRP typed SAB changes into draft motion to enforce term sheet (1) 2.0 $180 $360


Drafted sealing motion for motion to enforce (1.2); drafted sealing motion for prelim. Approval brief (.9); drafted ancillary documents

to motion to enforce (proposed order, bursor decl., exhibits to motion to enforce)(2.5) 3.6 $300 $1,080

2015.05.11 StarKist JAL Started drafting long and short form notices (3.9); discussed w/LTF (.3) 4.2 $300 $1,260


Video conference with Scott Bursor re: settlement agreement and settlement documents (.2); email exchange and video conference

with Julia Luster regarding long and short form notice (.3); call with Steve Weisbrot re: notice (.1); email exchange with Epiq regarding

notice plan (.4); telephone call and email exchange with Joe Marchese re: notice proposals (.3). 1.3 $680 $884


Revised draft motion to enforce term sheet (2.5); revised draft motion for preliminary approval (6.5); settlement negotiations w/

Robert Hawk (1.1) 10.1 $850 $8,585

2015.05.11 StarKist YZK research for motion to enforce settlement 3.1 $350 $1,085

2015.05.11 StarKist YZK research for prelim approval motion 3.4 $350 $1,190


Finalized long and short form notice and sent to LTF for review and corrections, as needed (4.6); implimented corrections from LTF and

SAB (.2); drafted postcard notice (.6) 5.4 $300 $1,620

34 of 38




2015.05.12 StarKist JIM Confer with M. Rodriguez about settlement agreement 0.2 $680 $136


Telephone call and email exchange with Scott Bursor and Julia Luster regarding class notices (.4); reviewed draft notices and circulated

them to Mr. Bursor and Ms. Luster (1.2); reviewed emails re: settlement and reviewed draft of plan of allocation (.3). 1.9 $680 $1,292

2015.05.12 StarKist NJD Registered domains for the notice website. 0.2 $375 $75


Settlement negotiations (4.5); drafted proposed plan of allocation (2.3); drafted motion to approve proposed plan of allocation (1.0);

revised draft motion for preliminary approval (1.5); revised draft class notices (2.2) 11.5 $850 $9,775

2015.05.12 StarKist YZK draft motion for prelim approval of plan of allocation 1.6 $350 $560

2015.05.13 StarKist JAL Drafted sealing motion and implimented redactions for preliminary approval brief 4.2 $300 $1,260

2015.05.13 StarKist JIM Assist with finalizing settlement agreement and conferring with clients about same 1.7 $680 $1,156


Email exchange with Scott Bursor re: publication notice (.1); email exchange with Julia Luster re: client's signature on settlement

agreement (.2). 0.3 $680 $204

2015.05.13 StarKist NJD Contacting clients. Got every signature on the settlement agreement but Joseph Ebin. 4.2 $375 $1,575

2015.05.13 StarKist NJD Drafted filing checklist. Ran by JL. 0.6 $375 $225

2015.05.13 StarKist NJD Assisted YK with filling in missing information in brief 0.3 $375 $113

2015.05.13 StarKist NJD Revised long form, short form, and postcard notices to meet the requirements of Rule 23 1.9 $375 $713

2015.05.13 StarKist NJD Filled in table in preliminary approval motion with information on where the Rule 23 requirements are met in each notice 1.3 $375 $488

2015.05.13 StarKist SAB Settlement negotiations and revised draft settlement documents 9.0 $850 $7,650

2015.05.13 StarKist YZK conf. w/ J Ebin; forward settlement agreement to him for exection 0.5 $350 $175

2015.05.13 StarKist YZK research for prelim approval motion 3.8 $350 $1,330

2015.05.14 StarKist DLS Made formatting corrections to proposed orders and allocation motion 1.5 $180 $270

2015.05.14 StarKist DLS Prepared TOA to motion for preliminary approval 1.4 $180 $252

2015.05.14 StarKist DLS Reduced Rosenthal declaration for filing 0.5 $180 $90

2015.05.14 StarKist DLS Filed preliminary approval and plan allocation motions 0.5 $180 $90


2015.05.14 StarKist DLS Emailed unredacted motion for preliminary approval to counsel 0.2 $180 $36

2015.05.14 StarKist JAL Assisted with finalizing and filing prelim. Approval motion and allocation motion 5.2 $300 $1,560


Reviewed and revised preliminary approval papers, discussed them with Neal Deckant, Julia Luster and Debbie Schroeder and assisted

with filing (2.7); call with Kyle Mason regarding Epiq's bid (.2). 2.9 $680 $1,972

2015.05.14 StarKist NJD Finalizing and filing motions for preliminary approval 10.8 $375 $4,050

2015.05.14 StarKist PLF Team Meeting (0.4) 0.4 $300 $120

2015.05.14 StarKist SAB Preliminary approval motion and related filings 10.5 $850 $8,925

2015.05.14 StarKist YZK research and briefing for POA approval motion 3.2 $350 $1,120

2015.05.14 StarKist YZK attend team meeting 0.2 $350 $70

2015.05.15 StarKist CRP Made SAB book re yesterday's filings (1) 1.0 $180 $180

2015.05.15 StarKist DLS Prepared chamber copies of preliminary approval motions for hand delivery 1.4 $180 $252

2015.05.15 StarKist JAL Assisted DLS w/courtesy copies 1.8 $300 $540

2015.05.15 StarKist NJD Assisted with preparing prep books for preliminary approval hearing 1.4 $375 $525

2015.05.15 StarKist SAB Reviewed preliminary approval filings 0.8 $850 $680

2015.05.18 StarKist SAB Reviewed preliminary approval filings (1.5); corresp w/ S. Hovan re same (.2); videoconf. w/ T. Fisher re same (.2) 1.9 $850 $1,615

2015.05.19 StarKist ALG Called ECF clerk re filing unredacted prelim approval motion (.4); filed motion (.4) 0.8 $180 $144

2015.05.19 StarKist LTF Email exchange with class member. 0.1 $680 $68

2015.05.19 StarKist NJD Re-filed public version of motion for preliminary approval after the court denied our motion to seal 1.5 $375 $563

2015.05.21 StarKist SAB Read StarKist's joinder in preliminary approval motion and opposition to plan of allocation 0.5 $850 $425

2015.05.22 StarKist ALG Made prelim approval oppn book for SAB (1.0) 1.0 $180 $180

2015.05.22 StarKist SAB Prep for prelim approval hearing 2.0 $850 $1,700

2015.05.26 StarKist SAB Prep for prelim approval hearing 1.5 $850 $1,275

2015.05.27 StarKist SAB Fly EWR to SFO, prep for prelim approval hearing en route (6.0) 6.0 $850 $5,100

2015.05.28 StarKist DLS Prepared and filed hearing transcript request 0.8 $180 $144

2015.05.28 StarKist JAL Attended prelim. Approval hearing 4.9 $300 $1,470

35 of 38




2015.05.28 StarKist JIM Attend preliminary approval hearing with S. Bursor and J. Luster 2.0 $680 $1,360

2015.05.28 StarKist SAB Prep for and attended preliminary approval hearing (2.5); travel SF to NYC (7.5) 10.0 $850 $8,500

2015.05.29 StarKist DLS Prepared check for J. Bryce- Court Reporter and coordinated hand delivery 0.5 $180 $90

2015.05.29 StarKist DLS Downloaded hearing transcript to box 0.2 $180 $36

2015.06.01 StarKist JAL Reviewed emails re. proposed deadlines 0.1 $300 $30


Analyzed defendant's proposed timeline for settlement approval and responded (.5); read transcript of 5/28 prelim approval hearing

(.4) 0.9 $850 $765

2015.06.02 StarKist JIM Review and respond to e-mail from B. Hall about preliminary approval hearing 0.1 $680 $68

2015.06.02 StarKist NJD Drafted stipulation setting a schedule for dissemination of notice and final approval 1.0 $375 $375

2015.06.02 StarKist NJD Reviewed preliminary approval transcript 0.4 $375 $150

2015.06.02 StarKist SAB Email corresp w. S. Hovan re timeline for prelim approval order 0.5 $850 $425

2015.06.03 StarKist DLS Filed stipulation and proposed order; Emailed proposed order to Judge Gilliam; Prepared chamber copy for overnight delivery 2.0 $180 $360

2015.06.03 StarKist NJD Finalizing and filing stipulation scheduling dissemination of notice and final approval. 0.6 $375 $225

2015.06.03 StarKist SAB Revised draft stip re schedule for final approval (.2); read new 9th Circuit decision in Allen v. Bedolla (.7) 0.9 $850 $765


2015.07.23 StarKist JIM Review preliminary approval order 0.2 $680 $136

2015.07.23 StarKist SAB Read final approval order (.9); teleconf. w/ N. Deckant re next steps (.3) 1.2 $850 $1,020

2015.07.24 StarKist NJD Drafted proposed schedule, stipulation, and proposed order for dissemination of notice. Left with SAB. 1.6 $375 $600


Got SAB's edits to proposed schedule. Discussed with KCC, our claims administrator. Notified that they need a larger lead-time on the

magazine publication. Figured out a schedule that would work. 2.2 $375 $825

2015.07.24 StarKist NJD Sent a further round of revision to Robert. 0.3 $375 $113

2015.07.24 StarKist NJD Reviewed Robert's proposed form of notice. Sent summary to SAB, with a recommendation to accept. 0.7 $375 $263

2015.07.27 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Mike Lair re: settlement. 0.1 $680 $68

2015.07.27 StarKist NJD Revised and circulated new drafts of all notice materials to Stacy and Robert for final approval. 4.1 $375 $1,538

2015.07.28 StarKist NJD Confirming with Robert Hawk that we agree on the proposed stip. Also redlined and circulated fresh forms of notice. 1.3 $375 $488

2015.07.29 StarKist DLS Filed joint stipulation and proposed order re scheduling 0.3 $180 $54

2015.07.29 StarKist DLS Emailed joint stipulation and proposed order to Judge Gilliam 0.2 $180 $36


2015.07.29 StarKist NJD Finalized and filed stipulation for the schedule of dissemination of notice. 1.2 $375 $450


Took call from Robert Hawk about additional objections to our proposed forms of notice. Sent SAB a summary email. Got approval to

accept Robert's revisions. Created new forms and circulated. Also provided near-final drafts to our claims administrator. 2.9 $375 $1,088

2015.07.30 StarKist NJD Got "So Ordered" stipulation setting deadlines. Calendared. Sent to claims admin. 0.8 $375 $300

2015.07.30 StarKist NJD Completed forms of notice with dates, sent to claims admin with instructions for proceeding forward. 2.4 $375 $900

2015.07.30 StarKist NJD Transferred domain of website to KCC. 0.3 $375 $113

2015.07.31 StarKist NJD Cordinated with claims administrator regarding the claim form. Sent over template, and list of requirements it needs. 0.5 $375 $188

2015.08.01 StarKist NJD Review and comment on draft claim form. Sent it back to our administrator with redlines. 0.7 $375 $263

2015.08.03 StarKist NJD Coordinating with claims administrators 1.2 $375 $450

2015.08.05 StarKist NJD Review and comment on latest drafts of forms of notice. 2.0 $375 $750

2015.08.05 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ N. Deckant re publication of class notice 0.3 $850 $255

2015.08.07 StarKist NJD Discussed getting an SSL cert with SAB, KCC, and sent SAB instructions 0.8 $375 $300

2015.08.07 StarKist NJD Reviewed publication notice. Sent to Robert Hawk with request for comment. 0.8 $375 $300

2015.08.11 StarKist NJD Reviewing postcard and long-form notice. Sent to Robert Hawk. 0.5 $375 $188

2015.08.14 StarKist NJD Reviewed IVR script and tested phone system. Sent back edits. Reviewed website and tested claim form. Sent back edits. 2.0 $375 $750

2015.08.19 StarKist NJD Update to Joe Vallillo. 0.2 $375 $75

2015.08.20 StarKist NJD Reviewed and approved settlement social media page. 0.2 $375 $75

2015.08.24 StarKist NJD Responded to an inquiry by a class member 0.2 $375 $75

2015.08.25 StarKist NJD Rseponse to class member inquiry. Checked with KCC re notice website. 0.3 $375 $113


Discussed settlement with Debbie Schroeder and reviewed email from Neal Deckant regarding response to settlement (.2); email

exchange with Kevin Sciarani (.1). 0.3 $680 $204

36 of 38




2015.08.26 StarKist NJD Responding to inquiries from class members 1.3 $375 $488

2015.08.26 StarKist NJD Monitered settlement website with KCC 2.5 $375 $938

2015.08.26 StarKist NJD Monitored website, drafted email to SAB with figures on claims submitted to date 0.8 $375 $300

2015.08.27 StarKist DLS Assisted class members with filling out claim form online 0.6 $180 $108

2015.08.27 StarKist LTF Call with Patrick Ivie regarding dissemination of notice and call with Neal Deckant re: same. 0.3 $680 $204

2015.08.27 StarKist NJD Responding to class member inquiries. 2.3 $375 $863

2015.08.27 StarKist NJD Ensuring that the site is responsive, and that the notice is being disseminated without incident. 1.2 $375 $450

2015.08.28 StarKist CRP conferred w/NJD re canned responses (.5) 0.5 $180 $90


Check on status of claims administration. Saw we had 1.1 million claims to date. Drafted script for having RR and CP respond to

inquiries. 1.9 $375 $713

2015.08.28 StarKist RSR Answered consumer claims questions (.2) 0.2 $180 $36

2015.08.29 StarKist JAL Sent client inquiry to NJD and LTF and discussed response 0.5 $300 $150

2015.08.29 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Neal Deckant and Julia Luster regarding class member inquiry. 0.1 $680 $68


2015.08.30 StarKist NJD Responded to class member inquiry with LTF and JL 0.3 $375 $113

2015.08.31 StarKist CRP Sent responses regarding claim site, etc per NJD request (.5) 0.5 $180 $90

2015.08.31 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Kimberly Kralowec and sent email to Scott Bursor re: same. 0.2 $680 $136


2015.09.01 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Kimberly Kralowec. 0.1 $680 $68



Call with Kim Kralowec regarding antitrust case, discussed same with Scott Bursor and sent an email to Robert Hawk regarding

possible carve out for antitrust claims. 0.9 $680 $612

2015.09.02 StarKist SAB Videoconf. w/ T. Fisher re potential Kimberly Kralowec objection on scope of release in light of her price fixing case 0.4 $850 $340

2015.09.07 StarKist LTF Email exchange with client Patrick Hendricks. 0.1 $680 $68

2015.09.08 StarKist NJD Answered questions from class members. 0.8 $375 $300

2015.09.09 StarKist LTF Email exchange with class member (x2). 0.3 $680 $204


2015.09.10 StarKist LTF Discussed email from class member with Debbie Schroeder. 0.1 $680 $68

2015.09.10 StarKist NJD Coordinating with KCC and defense counsel to compile list of individually identifiable class members 1.4 $375 $525

2015.09.10 StarKist NJD Responded to class member inquiry 0.2 $375 $75

2015.09.11 StarKist NJD Communicating with claims administrator to make sure they can make the mailing on time 1.2 $375 $450

2015.09.16 StarKist LTF Email exchange with Kim Kralowec regarding release issue. 0.1 $680 $68

2015.09.21 StarKist NJD Preparation of attorney billing records 1.8 $375 $675

2015.09.21 StarKist RSR Responded to consumer emails from info@bursor 0.5 $180 $90

2015.09.22 StarKist NJD Finalized attorney time records. Sent to SAB for review and approval. 3.9 $375 $1,463

2015.09.22 StarKist NJD Sent SAB and LTF updated claims rates 0.2 $375 $75

2015.09.22 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ N. Deckant re settlement administration and next steps 0.3 $850 $255

2015.09.23 StarKist NJD Updated SAB on website stats. Researched claims rate of Red Bull settlement. 0.4 $375 $150

2015.09.28 StarKist NJD Confirmed with Phil Cooper that the notice was distributed by 9/25. 0.3 $375 $113


Dealt with phishing site masquerading as the settlement website. Did some investigation on who registered it, and told Phil Cooper

about it. 1.2 $375 $450

2015.09.28 StarKist LTF Reviewed phishing settlement website and discussed it with Neal Deckant and Debbie Schroeder. 0.2 $680 $136

2015.09.28 StarKist DLS Assisted class members with claim forms 1.3 $180 $234

2015.10.01 StarKist LTF Email exchange with counsel in indirect purchaser case. 0.1 $680 $68

2015.10.05 StarKist NJD Planning for fee motion with SAB. 2.4 $375 $900

2015.10.05 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ N. Deckant re drafting fee application and final approval papers 0.2 $850 $170

2015.10.06 StarKist NJD Pulling prior SAB declarations to use as exemplars for the fee brief. Reviewed. 1.6 $375 $600

2015.10.06 StarKist NJD Took call from Robert Hawk regarding the phishing site. Sent several rounds of correspondances to KCC. 2.3 $375 $863

2015.10.06 StarKist NJD Presenting claims rates to SAB. Requested updated numbers from Phil Cooper. 0.6 $375 $225

2015.10.07 StarKist NJD Confirmed that Robert Poole's phishing site was offline. Sent summary to LTF and SAB. 1.0 $375 $375

37 of 38





Reviewed hearing transcript from CitiMortgage. Discussed with JIM what to include in fee briefing. Reviewed all prior Bursor

Declarations submitted in support of fees. 0.9 $375 $338

2015.10.07 StarKist JIM Confer with N. Deckant about arguments for fee brief 0.3 $680 $204

2015.10.07 StarKist RSR Worked on expense report 0.6 $180 $108

2015.10.08 StarKist NJD Drafted the first half of the Bursor Declaration for fees. Went over the history of the case. 9.0 $375 $3,375

2015.10.09 StarKist NJD Finished drafting the Overview of the Case portion of the Bursor Declaration. 7.5 $375 $2,813

2015.10.11 StarKist NJD Finalizing first draft of Bursor Declaration in support of our fee motion 5.4 $375 $2,025

2015.10.12 StarKist NJD Reviewed first draft of Bursor Declaration. Sent to SAB. 3.5 $375 $1,313

2015.10.12 StarKist NJD Drafting fee motion. 4.0 $375 $1,500

2015.10.13 StarKist NJD Reviewed In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig. Sent SAB summary of valuing vouchers versus coupons 1.2 $375 $450

2015.10.13 StarKist NJD Working on fee application. 4.6 $375 $1,725

2015.10.13 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ N. Deckant re final approval papers 0.5 $850 $425

2015.10.14 StarKist NJD Fee brief. 6.6 $375 $2,475

2015.10.14 StarKist SAB Conf. w/ N. Deckant re final approval papers 0.3 $850 $255


Reviewed objection and letters from the Court to class members and discussed same with Julia Luster and reviewed email regarding

number of claims submitted to date. 0.2 $680 $136

2015.10.15 StarKist NJD Completed the first draft of the fee brief, aside from the section regarding vouchers 5.5 $375 $2,063

2015.10.16 StarKist NJD Finished and proofed fee brief, Bursor Declaration, Proposed Order, time records, expense log. Sent to SAB. 6.5 $375 $2,438

2015.10.16 StarKist SAB Revised draft final approval papers 0.8 $850 $680

2015.10.19 StarKist NJD Revised and redlined Bursor Declaration with SAB 0.7 $375 $263

2015.10.19 StarKist SAB Revised draft Bursor declaration in support of final approval 1.3 $850 $1,105

2015.10.20 StarKist NJD Edits to Bursor Declaration 0.7 $375 $263

2015.10.20 StarKist NJD Coordinating with Phil Cooper to receive updated stats on 10/27 0.5 $375 $188

2015.10.20 StarKist NJD Finalizing attorney time records with SAB 1.6 $375 $600

2015.10.20 StarKist NJD Working on expense reports with RR 0.8 $375 $300

2015.10.20 StarKist SAB Revised draft Bursor declaration in support of final approval 5.0 $850 $4,250


2015.10.21 StarKist NJD Drafting expense report 0.9 $375 $338

2015.10.21 StarKist SAB Teleconf. w/ R. Hawk re antitrust objectors 0.4 $850 $340

2015.10.21 StarKist JIM Review letter from Hausfeld and confer with N. Deckant and S. Bursor about same 0.2 $680 $136


2015.10.22 StarKist NJD Revising expense report. 0.4 $375 $150

2015.10.23 StarKist NJD Finalized itemized expense report. Sent to SAB. 3.0 $375 $1,125

2015.10.23 StarKist SAB Revised draft final approval papers 2.0 $850 $1,700

2015.10.26 StarKist NJD Revising fee motion 3.7 $375 $1,388

2015.10.26 StarKist NJD Call from Colin Weir regarding his declaration 0.2 $375 $75


2015.10.27 StarKist NJD Compiling exhibits for Bursor Declaration. Updated expense log before finalizing. 1.7 $375 $638

2015.10.27 StarKist NJD Obtaining and reviewing new claims rates from KCC. 0.7 $375 $263

2015.10.27 StarKist NJD Research re class action claims rates. Wrote an internal memo. 2.4 $375 $900

2015.10.27 StarKist NJD Reviewing Weir declaration. Gave recommendation on filing under seal. 0.7 $375 $263


2015.10.27 StarKist LTF Call with Neal Deckant regarding fee motion and discussed same with Debbie Schroeder and Julia Luster. 0.6 $680 $408

38 of 38


EXHIBIT C


$ 35,248.72 Filing, Court Reporter, & Witness Fees

$ 62,811.29 Experts & Third Party Litigation Support Services

$ 5,702.12 Product & Product Testing

$ 3,746.12 Catering & Meals

$ 3,519.49 Duplication, Postage, & Supplies

$ 39,921.48 Transportation & Lodging

$ 150,949.22 Total Expenses

DATE MATTER AMOUNT DESCRIPTION

2013.02.19 StarKist $ 350.00 Clerk of the Court - Complaint filing

2013.04.16 StarKist $ 111.65 Optional Delivery - Filing

2013.08.15 StarKist $ 17.10 Jo Ann Bryce - Court reporter

2014.08.14 StarKist $ 305.00 Clerk of the Court - NJD PHV application

2014.12.30 StarKist $ 2,756.57 Veritext - Maxfield depo

2014.12.30 StarKist $ 497.00 Veritext

2015.01.19 StarKist $ 807.65 Legalink, Inc. - Hendricks transcript

2015.01.23 StarKist $ 1,677.50 Veritext - Maxfield video

2015.03.17 StarKist $ 2,286.75 Legalink, Inc. - Transcript

2015.03.17 StarKist $ 1,673.60 Legalink, Inc. - Transcript

2015.03.27 StarKist $ 1,522.80 Veritext - Butler transcript

2015.03.27 StarKist $ 3,308.00 Veritext - Mast transcript

2015.03.30 StarKist $ 138.60 Echo Reporting - 3/24 CMC transcript

2015.04.08 StarKist $ 3,373.69 Veritext - Pearson transcript

2015.04.08 StarKist $ 889.45 Veritext - Strombom transcript

2015.04.08 StarKist $ 2,621.81 Veritext - Roberts transcript

2015.04.08 StarKist $ 1,162.75 Veritext - Butler video

2015.04.08 StarKist $ 2,136.50 Veritext - Pearson video

2015.04.08 StarKist $ 3,230.00 Veritext - Mast video

2015.04.14 StarKist $ 1,702.55 Veritext - DeWitt transcript

2015.04.14 StarKist $ 380.50 Veritext - Hanssens transcript

2015.04.14 StarKist $ 1,697.50 Veritext - Roberts video

2015.04.29 StarKist $ 1,487.50 Veritext - DeWitt video

2015.04.29 StarKist $ 790.25 Veritext - Strombom video

2015.05.15 StarKist $ 121.00 Echo Reporting- 4/16 CMC transcript

2015.05.29 StarKist $ 203.00 JoAnn Bryce - Preliminary approval hearing transcript

35,248.72$ Total Filing, Court Reporter, & Witness Fees


2013.05.06 StarKist $ 89.95 One Legal - Service of complaint

2014.12.17 StarKist $ 1,088.64 Quality Imaging Services - Printing doc production

2014.12.30 StarKist $ 591.58 Quality Imaging Services - Printing doc production

2015.01.21 StarKist $ 383.59 Quality Imaging Services - Printing doc production

2015.01.23 StarKist $ 6,415.73 Information Resources, Inc. - Sales data

2015.02.03 StarKist $ 14,625.00 Economics and Technology, Inc. - Expert economist


2015.03.12 StarKist $ 558.00 First Legal - IRI Subpoena

Filing, Court Reporter, & Witness Fees

Bursor & Fisher, P.A. StarKist Itemized Expenses

Experts & Third Party Litigation Support





$ 62,811.29 Total Expert & Third Party Litigation Support Services


2012.12.11 StarKist $ 23.32 D'Agostinos - Tuna for testing

2012.12.12 StarKist $ 18.72 Gristedes - Tuna for testing

2012.12.26 StarKist $ 611.25 NOAA - Inspection fees




2013.02.25 StarKist $ 2,890.00 NOAA - Inspection fees

2013.03.25 StarKist $ 40.56 D'Agostino - Tuna for testing


$ 5,702.12 Total Product & Product Testing


2013.01.17 StarKist $ 197.77 Massimo - Meeting with Patrick Hendricks

2013.06.04 StarKist $ 8.67 Chick-Fil-a - Late work on MTD opposition

2013.06.04 StarKist $ 67.77 Il Fornaio - Late work on MTD opposition

2014.05.30 StarKist $ 21.71 Lake Chalet - Meeting with Patrick Hendricks

2014.05.30 StarKist $ 225.39 Lake Chalet - Meeting with Patrick Hendricks

2014.07.02 StarKist $ 52.44 Benares (JIM, NJD) - Late work on discovery responses

2014.09.02 StarKist $ 147.38 Redeye Grill (SAB, JIM, PF) - Conf. re upcoming discovery staffing

2014.09.29 StarKist $ 68.00 Tropisueno (CA office & SAB) - Travel for settlement conference

2014.09.29 StarKist $ 233.01 Tropisueno (CA office & SAB) - Travel for settlement conference

2014.09.30 StarKist $ 45.23 Local Edition Bar - Travel for settlement conference

2014.09.30 StarKist $ 24.90 Café 450 - Travel for settlement conference

2014.11.12 StarKist $ 24.82 Baja Taqueria - Patrick Hendricks deposition prep

2014.11.16 StarKist $ 5.40 Peets - Weekend discovery work

2014.11.16 StarKist $ 11.30 Wendy's - Weekend discovery work

2014.12.16 StarKist $ 26.86 Fairway Market - Weekend discovery work

2014.12.17 StarKist $ 26.47 The Terrace Room - Late work on document review

2015.01.20 StarKist $ 8.77 Chipotle - Late work on class cert motion

2015.01.25 StarKist $ 137.59 Redeye Grill (SAB, JIM) - Settlement strategy discussion

2015.02.12 StarKist $ 176.78 Redeye Grill (SAB, JIM, NJD) - Steve Weisbrot depo prep

2015.02.23 StarKist $ 74.96 Brooklyn Diner - Late work on depo prep

2015.02.26 StarKist $ 54.58 The Terrace Room - Travel to Pittsburgh for Glenn Mast depo

2015.02.27 StarKist $ 54.08 The Terrace Room - Travel to Pittsburgh for Glenn Mast depo

2015.03.05 StarKist $ 238.15 Brooklyn Diner - Late work on Pearson depo prep

2015.03.10 StarKist $ 34.16 The Counter - Travel for Pearson and Butler depositions

2015.03.11 StarKist $ 13.03 Sorabol - Travel for Pearson and Butler depositions

2015.03.12 StarKist $ 14.13 Buckhorn Grill - Travel for Pearson and Butler depositions

2015.03.12 StarKist $ 145.54 Kuleto's Italian Restaurant (SAB & LTF) - Conf. to discuss strategy

2015.03.18 StarKist $ 8.99 Dunkin Donuts - Travel for Kelly Roberts deposition

2015.03.18 StarKist $ 11.33 Qdoba - Travel for Kelly Roberts deposition

Product & Product

Testing

Catering & Meals


2015.03.19 StarKist $ 40.80 MKT Restaurant - Travel for Kelly Roberts deposition

2015.03.19 StarKist $ 67.95 Ozumo Restaurant - Travel for Kelly Roberts deposition

2015.03.22 StarKist $ 19.74 Tropisueno - Travel for Kelly Roberts depo and settlement conf.

2015.03.23 StarKist $ 45.60 A Sweet Affair - Travel for Kelly Roberts depo and settlement conf.

2015.03.23 StarKist $ 11.92 Sorabol - Travel for Kelly Roberts depo and settlement conf.

2015.03.24 StarKist $ 19.95 Willow Creek Grill - Travel for Kelly Roberts depo and settlement conf.

2015.03.27 StarKist $ 96.55 Lazy Dog Restaurant - Conf. re settlement strategy

2015.03.31 StarKist $ 159.01 Red Eye Grill - Conf. re settlement strategy

2015.04.01 StarKist $ 191.13 Brooklyn Diner - Late work on class cert reply and DeWitt depo prep

2015.04.02 StarKist $ 189.52 Angelo's - Late work on class cert reply and DeWitt depo prep

2015.04.02 StarKist $ 31.99 TGI Fridays - Travel for DeWitt deposition

2015.04.02 StarKist $ 18.63 Andale Mexican - Travel for DeWitt deposition

2015.04.03 StarKist $ 171.06 Craft - Travel for DeWitt deposition

2015.04.10 StarKist $ 19.54 Café Metro - Late work on supplemental reply brief

2015.04.14 StarKist $ 30.77 Brooklyn Diner - Late work on sanctions reply

2015.04.14 StarKist $ 34.89 Brooklyn Diner - Late work on sanctions reply

2015.04.16 StarKist $ 86.49 Cupola Pizzeria - Travel to class cert hearing / CMC

2015.04.16 StarKist $ 44.29 Neiman Marcus - Travel to class cert hearing / CMC

2015.04.17 StarKist $ 37.81 Lettuce - Travel to class cert hearing / CMC

2015.04.20 StarKist $ 156.19 Serafina (JIM, NJD) - Conf. re strategy

2015.05.07 StarKist $ 36.82 Santa Fe Restaurant - Settlement discussions

2015.05.10 StarKist $ 46.53 Santa Fe Restaurant - Weekend work on motion to enforce term sheet

2015.05.27 StarKist $ 5.55 Qdoba - Travel for preliminary approval hearing

2015.05.27 StarKist $ 13.03 Sorabol - Travel for preliminary approval hearing

2015.05.28 StarKist $ 11.15 Super Duper Market - Travel for preliminary approval hearing

$ 3,746.12 Total Catering & Meals


2012.12.13 StarKist $ 21.75 USPS - Shipping tuna to NOAA


2013.03.08 StarKist $ 14.76 Norco - Overnight delivery of courtesy copy


2013.04.16 StarKist $ 37.89 Norco - Delivery of courtesy copy








2014.05.20 StarKist $ 7.44 FedEx - Mailing materials to Patrick Hendricks




2014.09.23 StarKist $ 30.40 FedEx - Mailing settlement conference statement



2014.11.04 StarKist $ 119.19 FedEx - Mailing Patrick Hendricks' production


2014.12.08 StarKist $ 67.67 Optional Delivery - Courier services

2014.12.18 StarKist $ 297.02 FedEx - Mailing for Maxfield deposition documents

2014.12.20 StarKist $ 193.14 FedEx - Return mailing for Maxfield deposition documents

Duplication, Postage, & Supplies


2015.02.06 StarKist $ 409.64 Quivx - Delivery of courtesy copies

2015.02.11 StarKist $ 16.22 Golden State Overnight - Delivery of courtesy copies


2015.02.27 StarKist $ 125.11 FedEx - Mailing documents back from Glenn Mast deposition

2015.03.10 StarKist $ 144.73 FedEx - Mailing documents for Brett Butler deposition

2015.03.11 StarKist $ 151.68 FedEx - Mailing documents back from Brett Butler deposition

2015.03.17 StarKist $ 88.28 FedEx - Mailing documents for Kelly Roberts deposition

2015.03.18 StarKist $ 93.87 FedEx - Mailing documents back from Kelly Roberts deposition



2015.03.28 StarKist $ 42.07 FedEx - Mailing documents for deposition

2015.03.30 StarKist $ 122.34 Optional Delivery - Courtesy copies

2015.04.09 StarKist $ 104.95 FedEx - Return mailing for deposition documents

2015.04.16 StarKist $ 63.60 FedEx - Mailing documents for hearing

2015.04.16 StarKist $ 124.19 FedEx - Return mailing for hearing documents

2015.04.21 StarKist $ 90.01 FedEx - Return mailing



2015.07.30 StarKist $ 626.03 Optional Delivery- Courtesy copies

$ 3,519.49 Total Duplication, Postage & Supplies


2013.04.02 StarKist $ 10.00 Taxi- Dropping off tuna for testing

2013.06.04 StarKist $ 10.10 Taxi - Late work on MTD opposition

2013.07.03 StarKist $ 10.10 Taxi- Late work on amicus opposition

2013.07.09 StarKist $ 19.20 BART - Fees for MTD hearing

2014.05.09 StarKist $ 11.25 Taxi - Late work on 26(f) report and discovery requests

2014.06.16 StarKist $ 10.25 Taxi - Late work on discovery responses

2014.08.28 StarKist $ 1,098.10 Virgin America - Flight to settlement conference

2014.08.28 StarKist $ 1,255.10 Virgin America - Return flight from settlement conference

2014.09.01 StarKist $ 78.50 Dial 7 - Return car from settlement conference

2014.09.08 StarKist $ 43.63 Taxi - Late work on discovery meet and confer

2014.09.11 StarKist $ 61.50 LTF Expenses - Bridge toll and mileage for meet and confer

2014.09.16 StarKist $ 43.63 Taxi - Late work preparing documents for production

2014.09.17 StarKist $ 20.00 BART - Fees for meeting

2014.09.18 StarKist $ 50.23 Taxi - Late work on MFR opposition

2014.09.23 StarKist $ 44.83 Taxi - Late work on settlement conference statement

2014.09.28 StarKist $ 80.95 Carmel - Travel for settlement conference

2014.09.29 StarKist $ 40.80 BART - Travel for settlement conference



2014.09.29 StarKist $ 57.40 Taxi - Travel for settlement conference

2014.09.30 StarKist $ 988.83 The Westin St. Francis - Travel for settlement conference


2014.11.18 StarKist $ 44.83 Taxi - Late work on doc review

2014.11.21 StarKist $ 53.83 Taxi - Late work on doc review

2014.12.08 StarKist $ 20.08 LTF Expenses- Parking and mileage

2014.12.15 StarKist $ 46.97 Curb - Travel for Maxfield deposition

2014.12.15 StarKist $ 1,086.20 Delta Airlines - Travel for Maxfield deposition

2014.12.15 StarKist $ 45.43 Taxi - Travel for Maxfield deposition

2014.12.15 StarKist $ 1,086.20 Delta Airlines - Travel for Maxfield deposition

2014.12.16 StarKist $ 77.04 Palm Court - Travel for Maxfield deposition

Transportation & Lodging


2014.12.16 StarKist $ 48.30 Carmel - Travel for Maxfield deposition

2014.12.16 StarKist $ 9.81 Uber - Travel for Maxfield deposition

2014.12.17 StarKist $ 60.77 Hotel Computing - Printing documents for Maxfield deposition



2014.12.17 StarKist $ 150.00 Car Service - Travel for Maxfield deposition

2014.12.17 StarKist $ 306.66 Omni William Penn - Travel for Maxfield deposition


2014.12.17 StarKist $ 306.66 Omni William Penn - Travel for Maxfield deposition

2014.12.18 StarKist $ 20.09 Laguardia - Travel for Maxfield deposition

2014.12.18 StarKist $ 45.00 Car Service - Travel for Maxfield deposition


2014.12.21 StarKist $ 49.05 Uber - Late work on motion to interevene

2015.01.02 StarKist $ 44.32 Taxi - Late work on class cert briefing

2015.01.05 StarKist $ 23.05 Shell - Travel for meet and confer

2015.01.05 StarKist $ 42.73 Taxi - Travel for meet and confer

2015.01.06 StarKist $ 44.08 Taxi - Travel for meet and confer

2015.01.09 StarKist $ 998.10 Virgin America - Travel for upcoming depositions





2015.01.17 StarKist $ 13.75 Le Parker Meridien - Booking travel for Colin Weir

2015.01.29 StarKist $ 46.49 Taxi - Late work on settlement strategy

2015.02.09 StarKist $ 78.50 Dial 7 - Travel for Colin Weir

2015.02.10 StarKist $ 11.00 BART - Fees for hearings

2015.02.23 StarKist $ 1,289.20 Delta Airlines - Travel for Glenn Mast deposition

2015.02.23 StarKist $ 44.04 Taxi - Late work on Glenn Mast prep

2015.02.25 StarKist $ 52.00 Uber - Late work prepping for Glenn Mast

2015.02.25 StarKist $ 52.38 Taxi - Late work prepping for Glenn Mast

2015.02.26 StarKist $ 15.00 US Airways - Travel for Glenn Mast deposition

2015.02.26 StarKist $ 684.60 American Airlines - Travel for Glenn Mast deposition

2015.02.26 StarKist $ 15.00 US Airways - Travel for Glenn Mast deposition

2015.02.26 StarKist $ (551.60) American Airlines - Credit for rescheduled ticket

2015.02.26 StarKist $ 42.72 Curb - Travel for Glenn Mast deposition

2015.02.26 StarKist $ 65.10 Carmel - Travel for Glenn Mast deposition

2015.02.27 StarKist $ 34.00 Uber - Travel for Glenn Mast deposition

2015.02.27 StarKist $ 272.46 Omni William Penn Hotel - Travel for Glenn Mast deposition

2015.02.27 StarKist $ 48.89 Taxi - Travel for Glenn Mast deposition

2015.02.27 StarKist $ 59.56 Taxi - Travel for Glenn Mast deposition

2015.02.27 StarKist $ 282.41 Omni William Penn Hotel - Travel for Glenn Mast deposition

2015.02.28 StarKist $ 17.30 Uber - Travel for Glenn Mast deposition

2015.03.01 StarKist $ (684.60) American Airlines - Refund for rescheduled ticket

2015.03.01 StarKist $ 551.60 American Airlines - Travel for Kelly Roberts deposition

2015.03.02 StarKist $ 1,086.20 Delta Airlines - Travel for upcoming depositions

2015.03.02 StarKist $ 1,458.10 Virgin America - Travel for upcoming depositions

2015.03.02 StarKist $ 278.10 Virgin America - Travel for upcoming depositions



2015.03.06 StarKist $ 29.16 Taxi - Late work preparing for Pearson deposition

2015.03.09 StarKist $ 51.78 LA Yellow Cab - Travel for Pearson and Butler depositions

2015.03.09 StarKist $ 80.20 Carmel - Travel for Pearson and Butler depositions

2015.03.11 StarKist $ 55.40 Royal Taxi - Travel for Pearson and Butler depositions

2015.03.11 StarKist $ 10.35 Desoto Cab - Travel for Pearson and Butler depositions

2015.03.11 StarKist $ 6.81 Uber - Travel for Pearson and Butler depositions

2015.03.11 StarKist $ 10.50 Uber - Travel for Pearson and Butler depositions


2015.03.11 StarKist $ 892.60 Hyatt Hotels - Travel for Pearson and Butler depositions

2015.03.12 StarKist $ 9.30 VTS Taxi - Travel for Pearson and Butler depositions

2015.03.13 StarKist $ 55.44 Square - Travel for Pearson and Butler depositions

2015.03.13 StarKist $ 60.30 Carmel - Travel for Pearson and Butler depositions

2015.03.14 StarKist $ 862.28 Hyatt Hotels - Travel for Pearson and Butler depositions

2015.03.17 StarKist $ 890.49 United Airlines - Travel for settlement conference

2015.03.17 StarKist $ 19.00 Uber - Travel for Kelly Roberts depo & settlement conference

2015.03.17 StarKist $ (699.10) Delta Airlines - Refund for rescheduled travel

2015.03.18 StarKist $ (85.80) Carmel - Refund for rescheduled travel

2015.03.18 StarKist $ 48.30 Carmel - Travel for Kelly Roberts depo

2015.03.18 StarKist $ 47.91 Curb - Travel for Kelly Roberts depo

2015.03.19 StarKist $ 56.10 Desoto Cab - Travel for Kelly Roberts depo

2015.03.19 StarKist $ 335.00 Omni William Penn Hotel - Travel for Kelly Roberts depo



2015.03.24 StarKist $ 52.00 Square - Travel for settlement conference

2015.03.24 StarKist $ 4,832.25 Four Seasons Hotel - Travel for settlement conference

2015.03.25 StarKist $ 149.07 Uber - Travel for settlement conference

2015.03.25 StarKist $ 292.93 Island Hotel - Travel for settlement conference

2015.03.26 StarKist $ 24.86 Uber - Travel for settlement conference


2015.03.26 StarKist $ 390.09 Intercontinental Hotel - Travel for settlement conference



2015.03.30 StarKist $ 533.10 American Airlines - Travel for upcoming depositions

2015.03.30 StarKist $ 565.10 American Airlines - Travel for upcoming depositions

2015.03.30 StarKist $ 502.00 Southwest Airlines - Travel for upcoming depositions

2015.03.31 StarKist $ 51.99 Taxi - Late work on DeWitt deposition prep

2015.04.01 StarKist $ 23.16 Taxi - Late work on DeWitt deposition prep

2015.04.01 StarKist $ 71.00 Dial 7 - Travel for deposition

2015.04.01 StarKist $ 62.19 Taxi - Travel for deposition


2015.04.02 StarKist $ 36.00 Uber - Travel for deposition

2015.04.02 StarKist $ 49.69 Curb - Travel for deposition

2015.04.02 StarKist $ 65.60 Carmel - Travel for deposition

2015.04.02 StarKist $ 57.90 Yellow Cab - Travel for deposition



2015.04.03 StarKist $ 17.44 Laguardia USA, LLC - Travel for deposition




2015.04.03 StarKist $ 34.00 Hotel Business Center - Printing for DeWitt deposition

2015.04.03 StarKist $ 23.62 Hyatt Hotels - Travel for deposition

2015.04.03 StarKist $ 401.04 Hyatt Hotels - Travel for deposition

2015.04.06 StarKist $ 251.00 Southwest Airlines - Return travel

2015.04.07 StarKist $ 46.61 Sufi Medallion Taxi - Travel for deposition

2015.04.07 StarKist $ (109.00) Southwest Airlines - Reimbursement for changed flights

2015.04.07 StarKist $ 56.82 Beverly Hills Cab - Travel for Hanssens deposition

2015.04.08 StarKist $ 811.90 Virgin America - Travel for Hanssens deposition

2015.04.08 StarKist $ 55.26 Independent Taxi - Travel for Hanssens deposition

2015.04.08 StarKist $ 523.26 Hyatt Hotels - Travel for Hanssens deposition

2015.04.09 StarKist $ 71.00 Dial 7 - Travel for Hanssens deposition

2015.04.14 StarKist $ 86.80 Carmel - Travel for class cert hearing / CMC

2015.04.14 StarKist $ 60.39 Taxi - Late work on sanctions reply

2015.04.14 StarKist $ 46.61 Taxi - Travel for class cert hearing / CMC


2015.04.15 StarKist $ 54.78 Taxi - Travel for class cert hearing / CMC


2015.04.16 StarKist $ 11.00 BART - Travel for class cert hearing / CMC

2015.04.16 StarKist $ 10.20 BART - Travel for class cert hearing / CMC

2015.04.16 StarKist $ 53.00 Town Taxi - Travel for class cert hearing / CMC

2015.04.16 StarKist $ 1,170.96 Four Seasons Hotel - Travel for class cert hearing / CMC

2015.04.16 StarKist $ 1,598.10 Virgin America - Travel for class cert hearing / CMC



2015.05.05 StarKist $ 44.21 NYC Taxi - Late work on preliminary approval motion

2015.05.07 StarKist $ 46.59 NYC Taxi - Late work on motion to enforce

2015.05.08 StarKist $ 46.01 NYC Taxi - Late work on motion to enforce

2015.05.13 StarKist $ 44.81 NYC Taxi - Late work on preliminary approval motion

2015.05.27 StarKist $ 59.40 Desoto Cab - Travel for preliminary approval hearing

2015.05.28 StarKist $ 14.10 Yellow Card Services - Travel for preliminary approval hearing

2015.05.29 StarKist $ 62.50 Car Ba De Sedan Service - Travel for preliminary approval hearing

2015.07.27 StarKist $ 42.99 NYC Taxi - Late work on forms of notice

2015.09.21 StarKist $ 46.61 NYC Taxi - Late work on notice and final approval papers

2015.10.28 StarKist $ 1,385.70 Four Seasons Hotel - Travel for final approval hearing

2015.10.28 StarKist $ 998.10 Virgin America - Travel for final approval hearing

2015.10.28 StarKist $ 1,948.10 Virgin America - Travel for final approval hearing

$ 39,921.48 Total Transportation


EXHIBIT D


EXHIBIT E


EXHIBIT F


EXHIBIT G


EXHIBIT H


EXHIBIT I


EXHIBIT J


EXHIBIT K


$1,000 Per Hour Isn't Rare Anymore; Nominal billing levels rise, but discounts ease blow. TheNational Law Journal January 13, 2014 Monday

Copyright 2014 ALM Media Properties, LLCAll Rights Reserved

Further duplication without permission is prohibited

The National Law Journal

January 13, 2014 Monday

SECTION: NLJ'S BILLING SURVEY; Pg. 1 Vol. 36 No. 20

LENGTH: 1860 words

HEADLINE: $1,000 Per Hour Isn't Rare Anymore; Nominal billing levels rise, but discounts ease blow.

BYLINE: KAREN SLOAN

BODY:

As recently as five years ago, law partners charging $1,000 an hour were outliers. Today, four-figure hourly rates for indemand partners at the most prestigious firms don't raise eyebrows-and afew top earners are closing in on $2,000 an hour.

These rate increases come despite hand-wringing over price pressures from clients amid a tougheconomy. But everrising standard billing rates also obscure the growing practice of discounts,falling collection rates, and slow march toward alternative fee arrangements.

Nearly 20 percent of the firms included in The National Law Journal's annual survey of large lawfirm billing rates this year had at least one partner charging more than $1,000 an hour. Gibson,Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore Olson had the highest rate recorded in our survey, billing$1,800 per hour while representing mobile satellite service provider LightSquared Inc. in Chapter11 proceedings.

Of course, few law firm partners claim Olson's star power. His rate in that case is nearly the twicethe $980 per hour average charged by Gibson Dunn partners and three times the average $604hourly rate among partners at NLJ 350 firms. Gibson Dunn chairman and managing partner KenDoran said Olson's rate is "substantially" above that of other partners at the firm, and that thefirm's standard rates are in line with its peers.

"While the majority of Ted Olson's work is done under alternative billing arrangements, his hourlyrate reflects his stature in the legal community, the high demand for his services and the uniquevalue that he offers to clients given his extraordinary experience as a former solicitor general ofthe United States who has argued more than 60 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and hascounseled several presidents," Doran said.

Case 1:13-cv-00711-ALC-GWG Document 117-1 Filed 08/16/14 Page 8 of 13Case 3:13-cv-00729-HSG Document 262-1 Filed 10/30/15 of 194

http://www.nlj.com/

In reviewing billing data this year, we took a new approach, asking each firm on the NLJ 350-oursurvey of the nation's 350 largest firms by attorney headcount-to provide their highest, lowestand average billing rates for associates and partners. We supplemented those data through publicrecords. All together, this year's survey includes information for 159 of the country's largest lawfirms and reflects billing rates as of October.

The figures show that, even in a down economy, hiring a large law firm remains a pricey prospect.The median among the highest partner billing rates reported at each firm is $775 an hour, whilethe median low partner rate is $405. For associates, the median high stands at $510 and the lowat $235. The average associate rate is $370.

Multiple industry studies show that law firm billing rates continued to climb during 2013 despiteefforts by corporate counsel to rein them in. TyMetrix's 2013 Real Rate Report Snapshot foundthat the average law firm billing rate increased by 4.8 percent compared with 2012. Similarly, theCenter for the Study of the Legal Profession at the Georgetown University Law Center andThomson Reuters Peer Monitor found that law firms increased their rates by an average 3.5percent during 2013.

Of course, rates charged by firms on paper don't necessarily reflect what clients actually pay.Billing realization rates-which reflect the percentage of work billed at firms' standard rates- havefallen from 89 percent in 2010 to nearly 87 percent in 2013 on average, according to theGeorgetown study. When accounting for billed hours actually collected by firms, the realizationrate falls to 83.5 percent.

"What this means, of course, is that- on average-law firms are collecting only 83.5 cents forevery $1.00 of standard time they record," the Georgetown report reads. "To understand the fullimpact, one need only consider that at the end of 2007, the collected realization rate was at the92 percent level."

In other words, law firms set rates with the understanding that they aren't likely to collect thefull amount, said Mark Medice, who oversees the Peer Monitor Index. That index gauges thestrength of the legal market according to economic indicators including demand for legal services,productivity, rates and expenses. "Firms start out with the idea of, 'I want to achieve a certainrate, but it's likely that my client will ask for discounts whether or not I increase my rate,'"Medice said.

Indeed, firms bill nearly all hourly work at discounts ranging from 5 percent to 20 percent offstandard rates, said Peter Zeughauser, a consultant with the Zeughauser Group. Discounts canrun as high as 50 percent for matters billed under a hybrid system, wherein a law firm can earn apremium for keeping costs under a set level or for obtaining a certain outcome, he added. "Mostfirms have gone to a two-tier system, with what is essentially an aspirational rate that theyoccasionally get and a lower rate that they actually budget for," he said.

Most of the discounting happens at the front end, when firms and clients negotiate rates, Medicesaid. But additional discounting happens at the billing and collections stages. Handling alternativefee arrangements and discounts has become so complex that more than half of the law firms onthe Am Law 100-NLJ affiliate The American Lawyer's ranking of firms by gross revenue-havecreated new positions for pricing directors, Zeughauser said.

THE ROLE OF GEOGRAPHY

Unsurprisingly, rates vary by location. Firms with their largest office in New York had the highestaverage partner and associate billing rates, at $882 and $520, respectively. Similarly, TyMetrixhas reported that more than 25 percent of partners at large New York firms charge $1,000 per


hour or more for contracts and commercial work.

Washington was the next priciest city on our survey, with partners charging an average $748 andassociates $429. Partners charge an average $691 in Chicago and associates $427. In LosAngeles, partners charge an average $665 while the average associate rate is $401.

Pricing also depends heavily on practice area, Zeughauser and Medice said. Bet-the-companypatent litigation and white-collar litigation largely remain at premium prices, while practicesincluding labor and employment have come under huge pressure to reduce prices.

"If there was a way for law firms to hold rates, they would do it. They recognize how sensitiveclients are to price increases," Zeughauser said. But declining profit margins-due in part to highertechnology costs and the expensive lateral hiring market-mean that firms simply lack the optionto keep rates flat, he said.

BILLING SURVEY METHODOLOGY

The National Law Journal's survey of billing rates of the largest U.S. law firms provides the high,low and average rates for partners and associates.

The NLJ asked respondents to its annual survey of the nation's largest law firms (the NLJ 350) toprovide a range of hourly billing rates for partners and associates as of October 2013.

For firms that did not supply data to us, in many cases we were able to supplement billing-ratedata derived from public records.

In total, we have rates for 159 of the nation's 350 largest firms.

Rates data include averages, highs and low rates for partners and associates. Information alsoincludes the average full-time equivalent (FTE) attorneys at the firm and the city of the firm'sprincipal or largest office.

We used these data to calculate averages for the nation as a whole and for selected cities.

Billing Rates at the Country's Priciest Law Firms

Here are the 50 firms that charge the highest average hourly rates for partners.

Billing Rates at the Country's Priciest Law Firms

FIRM NAME LARGESTU.S.OFFICE*

AVERAGEFULL-TIMEEQUIVALENTATTORNEYS*

PARTNERHOURLYRATES

ASSOCIATEHOURLYRATES

AVERAGE HIGH LOW AVERAGE HIGH LOW

* Full-time equivalent attorney numbers and the largest U.S. office are from the NLJ 350published in April 2013. For complete numbers, please see NLJ.com.

** Firm did not exist in this form for the entire year.

Debevoise &Plimpton

New York 615 $1,055 $1,075 $955 $490 $760 $120

Paul, Weiss, New York 803 $1,040 $1,120 $760 $600 $760 $250


http://nlj.com/

Rifkind,Wharton &Garrison

Skadden,Arps, Slate,Meagher &Flom

New York 1,735 $1,035 $1,150 $845 $620 $845 $340

Fried, Frank,Harris, Shriver& Jacobson

New York 476 $1,000 $1,100 $930 $595 $760 $375

Latham &Watkins

New York 2,033 $990 $1,110 $895 $605 $725 $465

Gibson, Dunn& Crutcher

New York 1,086 $980 $1,800 $765 $590 $930 $175

Davis Polk &Wardwell

New York 787 $975 $985 $850 $615 $975 $130

Willkie Farr &Gallagher

New York 540 $950 $1,090 $790 $580 $790 $350

Cadwalader,Wickersham &Taft

New York 435 $930 $1,050 $800 $605 $750 $395

Weil, Gotshal& Manges

New York 1,201 $930 $1,075 $625 $600 $790 $300

QuinnEmanuelUrquhart &Sullivan

New York 697 $915 $1,075 $810 $410 $675 $320

Wilmer CutlerPickering Haleand Dorr

Washington 961 $905 $1,250 $735 $290 $695 $75

Dechert New York 803 $900 $1,095 $670 $530 $735 $395

AndrewsKurth

Houston 348 $890 $1,090 $745 $528 $785 $265

HughesHubbard &Reed

New York 344 $890 $995 $725 $555 $675 $365

Irell & Manella LosAngeles

164 $890 $975 $800 $535 $750 $395

ProskauerRose

New York 746 $880 $950 $725 $465 $675 $295

White & Case New York 1,900 $875 $1,050 $700 $525 $1,050 $220

Morrison &Foerster

SanFrancisco

1,010 $865 $1,195 $595 $525 $725 $230

PillsburyWinthropShaw Pittman

Washington 609 $865 $1,070 $615 $520 $860 $375

Kaye Scholer New York 414 $860 $1,080 $715 $510 $680 $320

Kramer LevinNaftalis &Frankel

New York 320 $845 $1,025 $740 $590 $750 $400

Hogan Lovells Washington 2,280 $835 $1,000 $705 - - -


Kasowitz,Benson,Torres &Friedman

New York 365 $835 $1,195 $600 $340 $625 $200

Kirkland & Ellis Chicago 1,517 $825 $995 $590 $540 $715 $235

Cooley Palo Alto 632 $820 $990 $660 $525 $630 $160

Arnold &Porter

Washington 748 $815 $950 $670 $500 $610 $345

Paul Hastings New York 899 $815 $900 $750 $540 $755 $335

Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt& Mosle

New York 322 $800 $860 $730 $480 $785 $345

Winston &Strawn

Chicago 842 $800 $995 $650 $520 $590 $425

BinghamMcCutchen

Boston 900 $795 $1,080 $220 $450 $605 $185

Akin GumpStrauss Hauer& Feld

Washington 806 $785 $1,220 $615 $525 $660 $365

Covington &Burling

Washington 738 $780 $890 $605 $415 $565 $320

King &Spalding

Atlanta 838 $775 $995 $545 $460 $735 $125

Norton RoseFulbright

N/A** N/A** $775 $900 $525 $400 $515 $300

DLA Piper New York 4,036 $765 $1,025 $450 $510 $750 $250

Bracewell &Giuliani

Houston 432 $760 $1,125 $575 $440 $700 $275

Baker &McKenzie

Chicago 4,004 $755 $1,130 $260 $395 $925 $100

DicksteinShapiro

Washington 308 $750 $1,250 $590 $475 $585 $310

Jenner &Block

Chicago 432 $745 $925 $565 $465 $550 $380

Jones Day New York 2,363 $745 $975 $445 $435 $775 $205

Manatt,Phelps &Phillips

LosAngeles

325 $740 $795 $640 - - -

Seward &Kissel

New York 152 $735 $850 $625 $400 $600 $290

O'Melveny &Myers

LosAngeles

738 $715 $950 $615 - - -

McDermottWill & Emery

Chicago 1,024 $710 $835 $525 - - -

Reed Smith Pittsburgh 1,468 $710 $945 $545 $420 $530 $295

Dentons N/A** N/A** $700 $1,050 $345 $425 $685 $210

Jeffer MangelsButler &Mitchell

LosAngeles

126 $690 $875 $560 - - -

Sheppard, Los 521 $685 $875 $490 $415 $535 $275


Mullin, Richter& Hampton

Angeles

Alston & Bird Atlanta 805 $675 $875 $495 $425 $575 $280

THE FOUR-FIGURE CLUB

These 10 firms posted the highest partner billing rates.

THE FOUR-FIGURE CLUB

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher $1,800

Dickstein Shapiro $1,250

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr $1,250

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld $1,220

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman $1,195

Morrison & Foerster $1,195

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom $1,150

Baker & McKenzie $1,130

Bracewell & Giuliani $1,125

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison $1,120

Contact Karen Sloan at [email protected]

LOAD-DATE: January 13, 2014

Source: Legal > / . . . / > The National Law Journal

Terms: "isn't rare anymore" (Suggest Terms for My Search) View: Full

Date/Time: Friday, August 15, 2014 - 6:12 PM EDT

About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Contact Us Copyright © 2014 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.


https://www.lexis.com/research/lnhome/about

http://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/terms/privacy-policy.page

https://www.lexis.com/research/lnhome/terms/general

https://support.lexisnexis.com/contact_us.asp?vcProdName=lexiscom

https://www.lexis.com/research/lnhome/terms/copyright/

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.lexis.com/research/sel?_m=18102ee7eea97e0ef590bd5d662df5c2&_chgTab=4&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzB-zSkAW&_md5=dc3f461614ad28dfd57dbb583d155a27

https://w3.lexis.com/research2/source/srcinfo.do?_m=18102ee7eea97e0ef590bd5d662df5c2&src=8024&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzB-zSkAW&_md5=e1620380841574991d3a261ebfa63958

https://www.lexis.com/research/editsearch?_m=d9e52712acaebfcc516d9f4595971ec5&Show_My_Terms.x=browseST&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVzB-zSkAW&_md5=501530e69ddc7bca5208fe3db477a571

https://www.lexisnexis.com/

EXHIBIT L


DECLARATION OF JENNIFER M. KEOUGH – 1:13-CV-0369 (KPF) 1:13-CV-08008 (KPF) 1


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BENJAMIN CAREATHERS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RED BULL NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-CV-0369 (KPF)

DAVID WOLF and MIGUEL ALMARAZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, v.

RED BULL GMBH, a foreign company; RED BULL NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California corporation; and RED BULL DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-CV-08008 (KPF)

DECLARATION OF JENNIFER M. KEOUGH REGARDING

SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATION

Case 1:13-cv-08008-KPF Document 51-1 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 20Case 3:13-cv-00729-HSG Document 262-1 Filed 10/30/15 of 194


I, JENNIFER M. KEOUGH, hereby declare and state as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. I am the Chief Operating Officer of Garden City Group, LLC.1 (“GCG”). The

following statements are based on my personal knowledge and information provided by other

experienced GCG employees working under my supervision, and, if called on to do so, I could

and would testify competently thereto.2

2. GCG is a recognized leader in providing legal administrative services, including

the development of complex legal notice programs. GCG has operational offices in the following

locations: Lake Success, New York; New York, New York; Seattle, Washington; Chicago,

Illinois; Dublin, Ohio; Lake Oswego, Oregon; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Hammond,

Louisiana. GCG has a staff of more than 1,200 employees, including attorneys, software

engineers, call center professionals, in-house legal advertising specialists, and graphic artists

with extensive website experience.

3. GCG handles the administration of a wide variety of notice programs and class

action settlements, including but not limited to consumer, securities, labor and employment,

mass tort, antitrust, product liability, ERISA, civil and human rights, insurance, and healthcare

related matters. In its history of over 30 years, GCG has served as administrator for over 3,000

matters and GCG’s legal notices have appeared in more than 40 languages in approximately 170

countries. In the course of its history, GCG has mailed over 290 million notices, disseminated

over 800 million emails, handled over 31 million phone calls, and distributed over $37 billion in

1 Please note that The Garden City Group, Inc. is now Garden City Group, LLC. 2 Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement.



settlement benefits. Additional information about GCG can be found on our website at:

www.gardencitygroup.com.

OVERVIEW

4. GCG is serving as the Class Action Settlement Administrator in the above-

captioned lawsuits (“Actions”) for the purposes of administering the Stipulation of Settlement

preliminarily approved in the Court’s Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action

Settlement (“Order”) entered September 3, 2014. I submit this Declaration in order to provide

the Court and the Parties with information regarding the status of administrative duties handled

by GCG as Class Action Settlement Administrator which include among other items: (a) mailing

or arranging for the mailing or other distribution of the Class Notice and Claim Forms to

Settlement Class Members; (b) arranging for publication of the Publication Notice; (c) handling

returned mail not delivered to Settlement Class Members; (d) attempting to obtain updated

address information for Settlement Class Members and for any Class Notice packages or

disbursements from the Settlement Fund returned without a forwarding address or an expired

forwarding address; (e) making any additional mailings required under the terms of this

Stipulation; (f) answering inquiries from Settlement Class Members and/or forwarding such

inquiries to Class Counsel or their designee; (g) receiving and maintaining on behalf of the Court

and the Settling Parties any Settlement Class Member correspondence regarding requests for

exclusion to the settlement; (h) establishing the Settlement Website that posts notices, Claim

Forms and other related documents; (i) receiving and processing claims and distributing cash

payments to Settlement Class Members; and (j) otherwise assisting with administration of the

Settlement.



MAILED NOTICE AND CLAIM FORMS

5. GCG formatted the long-form version of the Court-approved Notice of Class

Action and Proposed Settlement (“Long-Form Notice”), as well as the Court-approved Claim

Form (together known as a “Notice Packet”), in English. GCG caused the Notice Packet to be

mailed via first-class mail to all Settlement Class Members who requested a physical copy.

Settlement Class Members could obtain a Notice Packet by email, calling the Settlement’s toll-

free number, or downloading a copy from the Settlement Website,

www.EnergyDrinkSettlement.com.

6. As of April 5, 2015, GCG has caused 19,682 copies of the Notice Packet to be

mailed via first-class U.S. Mail to potential Settlement Class Members. A true and correct copy

of the Notice Packet is attached hereto as Exhibit A. As of April 5, 2015, a total of 421 Notice

Packets were returned to GCG as undeliverable with forwarding address information and were

promptly re-mailed to the updated address provided. In addition, a total of 678 Notice Packets

were returned to GCG as undeliverable without forwarding address information. GCG performed

advanced address research and 378 updated addresses were identified. GCG re-mailed Notice

Packets to the new addresses provided.

NOTICE PROGRAM

7. Under the terms of the Settlement, GCG was responsible for the implementation

of the Court-approved Notice Program. This Notice Program included a combination of print

publications, internet banner advertising, a Press Release, and search advertising. The details

regarding the implementation and success of the Notice Program are discussed in the filed

Declarations of Lael Dowd, GCG’s Director of Communications. The Declarations entitled



Declaration of Lael Dowd Regarding Notice Program and Declaration of Lael Dowd Regarding

Final Implementation of Notice Program were executed on July 31, 2014 and April 8, 2015,

respectively.

SETTLEMENT WEBSITE

8. GCG established a Settlement Website, www.EnergyDrinkSettlement.com, to

provide additional information to Settlement Class Members. The Settlement Website contains

(1) information about the Actions and the Settlement; (2) relevant Court documents;

(3) electronic and printable versions of the Long-Form Notice and Publication Notice;

(4) downloadable and online versions of the Claim Form which, until the claim deadline of

March 2, 2015 could be submitted online or printed and mailed; (5) answers to frequently asked

questions; and (6) contact information for the Class Action Settlement Administrator. GCG

worked with the Parties on the design and content of the Settlement Website, and it became

active with the Parties’ approval on October 3, 2014, thirty days after Preliminary Approval.

9. The Notice Program generated an unprecedented response to the website from

Class Members and the media alike. In less than a 24 hour period, the Settlement Website

received approximately 67,000,000 hits. As such, on the morning of October 9, 2014, under the

onslaught of the extremely heavy traffic generated from public interest and mainstream media

notoriety, the Settlement Website became intermittently unavailable. In less than 30 hours,

GCG was able to accommodate this unparalleled website traffic. Since then, the Settlement

Website has been online and accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

10. The scale of Class Member and mainstream media interest in the Settlement

website, www.EnergyDrinkSettlement.com, was unprecedented in GCG’s history. As of April

5, 2015, the Settlement Website has received over 104,900,000 hits or nearly 40% of the total



traffic received to sites managed by GCG during that same time period. GCG has handled some

of the largest consumer class action settlements including but not limited to In Re:

Classmates.com Consolidated Litigation, Angel Fraley, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., In Re:

LivingSocial Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, and Curt Schlesinger, Peter Lo Re, Adam

Russell, James Roth, Mary Am Aghchay, v. Ticketmaster. These cases represent some of the

larger consumer class actions that received sizeable website traffic. Even so, by comparison the

highest volume received was only approximately 18,000,000 website hits. As noted, the

www.EnergyDrinkSettlement.com website’s traffic was extraordinary. GCG has updated the

Settlement Website throughout the Settlement to keep Class Members apprised of developments

and deadlines passing, and will continue to do so through conclusion of all administrative duties

as prescribed by the Court.

CLAIM FORMS RECEIVED

11. GCG is responsible for receipt and review of all Claims Forms. Under the terms

of the Settlement, Settlement Class Members were required to submit a Claim Form no later than

March 2, 2015. The Settlement Website allowed Class Members to submit an electronic Claim

Form directly to GCG through its portal. The information submitted via electronic Claim Form

was immediately captured into a Settlement specific database. As of April 5, 2015, GCG has

processed a total of 2,252,624 Claim Forms, of which 2,234,618 were received online through

the Settlement Website. The remaining 18,006 were received by GCG through the PO Box or

email address dedicated to the Settlement. Mailed or emailed Claim Forms were immediately

scanned into GCG’s system to easily allow for tracking of each claim. Furthermore, each Claim

Form was reviewed by experienced GCG processors for completeness and validity.



12. On March 17, 2015, pursuant to Section IV.13.d of the Stipulation of Settlement,

GCG provided Counsel an Accounting and Distribution Plan (the “Plan”). The Plan reported on

all claims received through March 17, 2015 for both cash and product requests. Specifically, the

Plan included (i) the total number of valid Claims; (ii) each Claimant whose Claim was

approved; (iii) whether said Claimant chose the Cash Option or Product Option; (iv) for each

Claimant selecting the Product Option, that Claimant’s selection of RedBull ® Energy Drink or

RedBull ® Sugarfree; (v) valid shipping addresses for the Claimants selecting the Product

Option; (vi) an estimated balance of the Cash Fund and any supplementation or withdrawals that

will be required pursuant to Section IV.A.7 or Section IV.A.8, as the case may be; (vii) each

Claimant whose claim was rejected; and (vii) an accounting of all administration fees and

expenses incurred by the Class Action Settlement Administrator to date. In the Plan, GCG

detailed that a pro rata payment prescribed in the Stipulation of Settlement will need to be used

to calculate award values due to the overwhelming response. The Stipulation of Settlement

prescribes for the application of a pro rata under Section IV.6.a, which instructs GCG to reduce

all cash reimbursements and products in the event the Distribution Fund is insufficient to cover

all claims in full.

13. In accordance with Section IV.6.a of the Stipulation of Settlement, GCG has

performed a pro rata analysis of all valid claims. The Settlement Account has already received

a total of $6,500,000 deposited into the Cash Fund. All administration fees are to be paid from

the Cash Fund prior to payment of Cash awards. The Settlement Administration to date is

$1,642,145.44 in fees and expenses. This includes the website setup, Claims review and

processing, Class Member communications, and the extensive media program. The distribution

of checks, along with further Class Member communications, is anticipated to be an additional



$1,338,572.98 through the completion of the Settlement of which nearly one-half is out-of-

pocket expenses. The remaining balance in the Cash Fund after the deduction of administration

fees will be $3,519,281.58.

14. When the remaining value of the Settlement Fund, $6,500,000, is added to the

present Cash Fund balance, it creates a Net Settlement Balance of $10,019,281.58. As of April

5, 2015, GCG has determined there is a total of 2,010,043 valid claims. Of these, 1,294,481 are

valid Cash Option Claims and 715,562 are valid Product Option Claims, comprised of 537,129

claims which chose the RedBull ® Energy Drink and 178,433 claims which chose the RedBull ®

Sugarfree Drink. GCG has calculated an approximate total award amount of $12,944,810 for

valid Cash Option Claims and $10,733,430 for valid Product Option Claims. Therefore, the

combined approximate total award amount would be $23,678,240, if all awards were to be paid

out in full value, and a pro rata reduction for both cash and product claims must be used to

calculate the final award values.

15. As the combined approximate total award amount is greater than the approximate

Net Settlement Balance, GCG has estimated a pro rata award value of approximately 42.31%

will need to be applied to the original award values for the Cash Option and Product Option of

$10.00 and $15.00 respectively. This pro rata will be applied equally to all claims, therefore,

each Class Member who elected the Cash Option can expect to receive approximately $4.23 and

each Class Member who elected to receive the Product Option can expect to receive the

equivalent of approximately $6.35 in the product type they selected. After this pro rata rate is

applied, the total award amount for valid Cash Option Claims is $5,477,492.26. The Settlement

Cash Fund requires the funding of an additional $1,958,210.68 in order to distribute the Cash



Option awards. The remainder of the Net Settlement Fund, $4,541,789.32, will be distributed in

Product Options to Class Members.

EXCLUSION REQUESTS

16. Any Settlement Class Member who wished to exclude themselves from the

Settlement Class needed to submit a written request postmarked no later than April 1, 2015. As

of April 8, 2015, GCG has received 29 timely exclusion requests.

17. GCG will provide a final report of all timely exclusions as requested by the Court,

no later than seven business days prior to the Final Approval Hearing.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is

true and correct.

Executed this 8th day of April, 2015 at Seattle, Washington.

_____________________________

JENNIFER M. KEOUGH


If You Have Any Questions, Call 877- 495-1568 or Visit www.energydrinksettlement.com.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

BENJAMIN CAREATHERS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

RED BULL NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California corporation,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:13-CV-00369 (KPF)

DAVID WOLF and MIGUEL ALMARAZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RED BULL GMBH, a foreign company; RED BULL NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California corporation; and RED BULL DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-CV-08008 (KPF)

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

If you made retail purchases of Red Bull products in the United States between January 1, 2002 andOctober 3, 2014 (the “NOTICE DATE”), you may be entitled to a payment from a class action settlement,

as described below. Please read this Notice carefully.

A federal court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

A settlement, memorialized in a Stipulation of Settlement (“Stipulation”) between the parties, has been reached in two class action lawsuits about Red Bull North America, Inc.’s (“Red Bull”) advertising, labeling, and product statements concerning the benefits and safety of its Red Bull products in the U.S., defined in the Stipulation to mean “energy beverages marketed and distributed by Defendants under the brand name Red Bull, including any variations, formats or line extensions thereof.” The settlement provides cash payments or free Red Bull products to anyone who made retail purchases of Red Bull products in the United States between January 1, 2002 and October 3, 2014 (the “Class Period”).The Court in charge of these cases still has to decide whether to finally approve the settlement as sufficiently fair and reasonable. Payments will be made if the Court approves the settlement and after appeals, if any, are resolved. If you are a Settlement Class Member (defined below), your legal rights are affected whether you act or don't act.



YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS AS A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER(EXPLAINED IN FURTHER DETAIL BELOW)

DO NOTHING You will receive no cash payment or free Red Bull products and give up your legal rights to sue Red Bull about the claims in this case.

SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM

BY MARCH 2, 2015This is the only way to receive either a cash payment or free Red Bull products. The deadlines and procedures for submission of these forms are described in this Notice.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF (OPT OUT)BY APRIL 1, 2015

You will receive no payment, but this is the only option that allows you to ever be a part of a future individual lawsuit against Red Bull with respect to the legal claims in this case. The deadlines and procedures for opting out are described in this Notice.

OBJECT IN WRITING BY

APRIL 1, 2015, AND/OR

GO TO THE HEARING ONMAY 1, 2015 AT 10:00 A.M.

Write to the Court if you don’t like the settlement and tell the Court why you think it shouldn’t be approved in whole or in part, and/or attend a hearing before the Court about the fairness of the settlement.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

WHY DID I RECEIVE THIS NOTICE?

The Court authorized this Notice to inform you about a proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit and what your options are before the Court decides whether to finally approve the settlement. This Notice summarizes and explains the lawsuit, the settlement, your legal rights, what benefits are available, who is eligible for them, and how to get them.

WHAT IS A CLASS ACTION?

A class action is a lawsuit in which one or more individuals sue another party on behalf of all other people who are in a similar position. The individuals who actually bring the lawsuit are referred to as the Class Representatives, while all of the other people who are in a similar position as the class representatives are referred to as the Class or Class Members.

In a class action, the Court resolves certain legal issues, legal claims and defenses for all class members in one lawsuit, except for those individuals who expressly ask to be excluded from the class. What that means in this case is that, if the Court approves the class action settlement, the settlement will bind all members of the class with respect to all of the settled legal claims unless individual class members properly and timely exclude themselves from the class pursuant to the procedures discussed below.

WHAT ARE THESE LAWSUITS ABOUT?

This settlement addresses two consumer class action lawsuits currently consolidated and pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York: (1) Benjamin Careathers v. Red Bull North America, Inc., Case No. 1:13-CV-00369 (KPF); and (2) Wolf, et al. v. Red Bull GmbH, et al., Case No. 1:13-CV-08008 (KPF). The consumerswho brought these lawsuits as Class Representatives, Benjamin Careathers, David Wolf, and Miguel Almaraz, are called the “Plaintiffs,” and the company they sued, Red Bull1, is called the “Defendant.”

Plaintiffs brought these lawsuits, alleging that Red Bull’s marketing and labeling misrepresents both the functionality and safety of Red Bull beverages. Plaintiffs made claims against Red Bull for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of various states’ consumer protection statutes. Red Bull denies any and all wrongdoing or liability and maintains that its marketing and labeling have always been entirely truthful and accurate.

______________________________1 Red Bull North America, Inc., Red Bull Distribution Company, Inc. and Red Bull GmbH are referred to collectively as “Red Bull.”



WHY IS THERE A SETTLEMENT?

The Court has not decided in favor of Plaintiffs or Red Bull. There have been no decisions by the Court concerning the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims or the propriety of the class action mechanism, nor has there been any trial. Instead, Plaintiffs and Defendant negotiated and ultimately agreed to this settlement after counsel for all parties extensively evaluated the facts and law relating to this case, and took into account a variety of factors such as the burdens and expense of the lawsuit, the risk and uncertainty of litigation, the difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation, and the benefits available to the Settlement Class under the Stipulation. Plaintiffs and their attorneys believe that the settlement is in thebest interest of the Settlement Class Members.

THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

AM I PART OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS?

To participate in the settlement, you first have to determine if you are a Settlement Class Member. As noted above, the Settlement Class includes all persons who made at least one purchase of Red Bull products in the United States between January 1, 2002 and October 3, 2014. Excluded from the Settlement Class are:

(a) employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives of (1) Defendants and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates, and (2) all distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and licensors of Red Bull products;

(b) those who purchased Red Bull products for the purpose of re-sale; (c) all federal judges who have presided over either of the Actions; and(d) all persons who have been properly excluded from the Settlement Class.

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS

WHAT BENEFITS CAN I RECEIVE FROM THE SETTLEMENT?

If you are a qualified Settlement Class Member and submit a Claim Form, you may choose to receive one of the following two benefit options:

1. A cash reimbursement (in the form of a check) of $10.00; or2. Free Red Bull products (either Red Bull ® Energy Drink or Red Bull ® Sugarfree, as selected on the Claim

Form) with a retail value of approximately $15.00 (the “Product Option”).

Under the terms of the settlement, certain conditions may lead to Settlement Class Members with valid claims receiving either less or more than the amounts specified. For example, the cash reimbursed and/or value of the products fulfilling the Product Option will be reduced proportionately among all Settlement Class Members with valid Claims if the total amount of eligible claims exceeds the thirteen million dollar ($13,000,000.00) fund (minus applicable notice and tax expenses) provided by Red Bull for the settlement – referred to as the “Settlement Fund.” If, on the other hand, there are excess funds in the Settlement Fund at the end of the claims period, such funds may be used to increase proportionally the amount of validly claimed cash reimbursements or products fulfilling the Product Option, depending on the rate of participation in the settlement by Class Members.

With respect to the Product Option, product packaging (e.g. a four-pack) and sizing (e.g. 8.4 ounce cans) shall be determined by Red Bull at its discretion after the final value of the Product Option has been determined. The free Red Bull products selected on the Claim Form will be shipped by Red Bull directly to class members at Red Bull’s cost. However, if shipment of Red Bull products to a particular Settlement Class Member is not feasible or commercially reasonable, then Red Bull may substitute cash reimbursement for that particular Settlement Class Member.

Please note that checks distributed to those Settlement Class Members that claim the cash reimbursement will only be cashable for a period of one hundred and twenty (120) days after the check’s issuance date. Depending on the amount of uncashed checks following that 120 day period, such amount may be either: (i) distributed proportionately to all Settlement Class Members that did cash their reimbursement check within the 120 day notice period; or (ii) donated to charity.



SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM TO OBTAIN PAYMENT

HOW DO I FILE A CLAIM AND RECEIVE PAYMENT OR PRODUCT FULFILLING THE PRODUCT OPTION(S)?

To receive a cash payment or Red Bull products fulfilling the Product Option you must submit a Claim Form. A copy of the Claim Form, together with instructions, is attached to this document as Exhibit A. You can also obtain the ClaimForm by printing it from the Settlement Website, www.energydrinksettlement.com, or by calling 877-495-1568 and requesting that it be sent to you by mail, or by writing to the Class Action Settlement Administrator at Energy DrinkSettlement, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 35123, Seattle, WA 98124-5123.

There are four ways to submit a filled-out Claim Form:

1. Online at www.energydrinksettlement.com (by no later than March 2, 2015); 2. By email to the Class Action Settlement Administrator at [email protected] (by no later than

March 2, 2015);3. By fax to the Class Action Settlement Administrator at 844-553-1373 (by no later than March 2, 2015); or4. By mail to the Class Action Settlement Administrator at Energy Drink Settlement, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 35123,

Seattle, WA 98124-5123 (postmarked no later than March 2, 2015).No proof of purchase is necessary to obtain settlement benefits. However, the Claim Form must be signed by you under penalty of perjury (either by hand or, if you submit it online, electronically), affirming that you are a qualified member of the Settlement Class and that the information provided therein is true and accurate to the best of your knowledge.

Please be careful to read and follow all of the instructions on the Claim Form so that your Claim will be approved. If you do not properly complete and submit the Claim Form in a timely fashion, you run the risk of not receiving payment under the settlement. Failure to provide all information requested in the Claim Form will not necessarily result in nonpayment of a Claim. Instead, the Class Action Settlement Administrator will take all adequate and customary steps to determine the Claimant's eligibility for payment based on the information contained in the Claim Form or otherwise submitted, the amount available to pay all valid Claims, and such other reasonably available information from which eligibility for payment can be determined.

WHEN WILL I GET MY PAYMENT?

The Court will hold a hearing on May 1, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. to decide whether to finally approve the settlement. If the Court approves the settlement, after that there may be appeals. Payments will be distributed within 150 days after the Court grants final approval of the settlement, pending any appeals. Cash reimbursement in the form of a check will be made directly to you by first class mail after entitlement to payment to all Claimants is determined. Red Bull products fulfilling the Product Option will be shipped directly to Claimants selecting the Product Option after entitlement to payment to all Claimants is determined, via a shipping method to be determined by Red Bull at its discretion. Please be patient. However, if shipment of Red Bull products to a particular Settlement Class Member is not feasible or commercially reasonable, then Red Bull may substitute cash reimbursement for that particular Settlement Class Member.

WHAT OTHER RELIEF IS PROVIDED UNDER THE SETTLEMENT?

As part of the settlement relief, Red Bull has voluntarily updated its marketing materials and product labeling directed at United States consumers to address the concerns raised as to the specific representations and omissions identified in the lawsuits and, while Red Bull believes that its marketing and labeling have always been entirely truthful and accurate, Red Bull confirms that all future claims about the functional benefits of its products will be medically and/or scientifically supported. Red Bull has also agreed to work with Plaintiffs’ counsel to work on a mechanism to prevent United States Red Bull purchasers from inadvertently accessing Red Bull’s foreign websites, which may contain different statements and representations than those found on Red Bull’s U.S. website and marketing materials.

The parties have agreed, however, that Red Bull may sell off its existing supply of products bearing the prior version of labels and use its older marketing materials until exhausted, but in no event later than September 1, 2014.



WHAT AM I GIVING UP TO STAY IN THE CLASS AND RECEIVE BENEFITS UNDER THE SETTLEMENT?

If you meet the definition of a Settlement Class Member you are part of the Settlement Class unless you file a request for exclusion. As part of the Settlement Class you will be bound by the settlement and Court order whether or not you file a Claim Form or receive an award.

If the settlement is approved, Settlement Class Members who do not validly exclude themselves from the Settlement Class will be deemed to release Red Bull and other “Released Persons” (defined in the Stipulation to include Red Bull’s “subsidiaries and affiliates, divisions, as well as their distributors, wholesalers, retailers, suppliers, customers and licensors, including the officers, directors, employees, shareholders, principals, agents, successors, insurers, attorneys, spokespersons, public relations firms, advertising and production agencies, and assigns of all such Persons or entities”).

The release extends to all “Released Claims,” defined in the Stipulation to include “any and all actions, claims, demands, rights, suits, and causes of action of whatever kind or nature against the Released Persons . . . arising out of or relating to the manufacturing, advertising, marketing, packaging, promotion, sale, and distribution of the Products from the beginning of time to the Effective Date of the Settlement, which have been asserted or which could reasonably have been asserted by the Class . . . including any claims arising after the date of final approval which could be asserted based on labels or advertising in existence as of the date of final approval of the Stipulation.” The release does not encompass any personal injury claims.

In connection with the Released Claims, each Settlement Class Member shall be deemed to have waived any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by § 1542 of the California Civil Code (and similar state laws) which provides:

A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.

EXCLUDING YOURSELF OR “OPTING OUT” OF THE SETTLEMENT

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO EXCLUDE MYSELF OR OPT OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT?

If you are a Settlement Class Member, you will automatically be bound by the terms of the settlement, including the releases, unless you take affirmative steps to exclude yourself or “opt out” of the Settlement Class. If you “opt out” of the Settlement Class, you will not: (1) be legally bound by anything that happens in this lawsuit; (2) get any payment pursuant to this settlement; (3) gain any rights under the settlement; or (4) be able to object to any aspect of the settlement.

HOW DO I EXCLUDE MYSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT?

To exclude yourself or “opt out” of the settlement, you must mail or deliver a written request for exclusion to the Class Action Settlement Administrator postmarked or delivered no later than April 1, 2015.

The written request for exclusion must specifically and unambiguously request exclusion from the Settlement Class and must include: (1) your original signature; (2) your name, current address, and current telephone number; (3) a statement that you are a member of the Settlement Class; and (4) a specific statement indicating that you want to be excluded from the Settlement Class. If you fail to comply with these requirements, you will be bound by the terms of the settlement.

IF I EXCLUDE MYSELF, CAN I GET MONEY IN THE SETTLEMENT?

No. If you exclude yourself, do not send in a Claim Form to ask for money or free Red Bull products. Also, you cannot object to the settlement.

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT

HOW DO I TELL THE COURT THAT I DO NOT LIKE THE SETTLEMENT?

If you are a Settlement Class Member, you can object to the settlement if you don’t like any part of it and can give reasons why you think the Court should not approve it. The Court will consider your views if you follow the directions below.

To object, you must send a letter to the Court, Class Counsel, and Red Bull’s Counsel (addresses listed below) saying that you object to the lawsuit. The letter must:



1. Be mailed and postmarked to Class Counsel and Red Bull’s Counsel, and also filed with the Court, by no later than April 1, 2015;

2. Include the case names and numbers: Careathers v. Red Bull North America, Inc., Case No. 1:13-CV-00369(KPF) and Wolf, et al. v. Red Bull GmbH, et al., Case No. 1:13-CV-08008 (KPF);

3. Include your name, current postal address, and current telephone number; 4. Provide a statement, sworn to under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, attesting to the facts that:

(i) you made at least one retail purchase of Red Bull products in the United States between January 1, 2002 and October 3, 2014;

(ii) you did not make such purchase for resale; and (iii) you are not a Red Bull employee, officer, director, agent, or representative;

5. State the reasons for objecting to the settlement; and 6. State whether you intend to appear personally at the Final Approval Hearing, or whether you will have your

attorney make an appearance. If you seek permission to appear or have your attorney appear at this Hearing, include “Notice of Intention to Appear” in the title of your letter.

Note that as a Settlement Class Member, you will be bound to the settlement and Court orders regardless of your objection and regardless of whether you believe the terms of the settlement are favorable to the Settlement Class.You will be bound to the settlement even if you have another claim, lawsuit or proceeding pending against Defendant.

COURT

Clerk of the CourtUnited States District CourtSouthern District of New York500 Pearl StreetNew York, NY 10007-1312

CLASS COUNSEL

Morelli Alters Ratner, LLPBenedict P. MorelliDavid S. RatnerAdam Deutsch777 Third Avenue, 31st FloorNew York, NY 10017

Morelli Alters Ratner, LLPJeremy W. AltersMatthew T. MooreMiami Design District4141 Northeast 2nd Ave., Suite 201Miami, FL 33137

Kaplan Fox &Kilsheimer LLPLaurence D. KingLinda M. Fong350 Sansome Street, Suite 400San Francisco, CA 94104

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLPFrederic S. Fox850 Third Avenue, 14th FloorNew York, New York 10022

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLPJustin B. Farar11111 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 620Los Angeles, CA 90025

RED BULL'S COUNSEL

Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLPJason D. RussellHillary A. Hamilton300 S. Grand Ave. Suite 3400Los Angeles, CA 90071

Kenneth A. PlevanJordan A. FeirmanFour Times SquareNew York, NY 10036



WHAT IF I DO NOT FILE AN OBJECTION?

Any Settlement Class Member who does not make his or her objections according to these requirements waives their objections to the settlement, to payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses, and to payment of incentive awards to the Class Representatives.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXCLUDING MYSELF AND OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT?

Objecting is simply telling the Court that you don't like something about the settlement. You can object only if you stay in the Settlement Class. You are bound by the settlement even if you object, and may receive benefits pursuant to the settlement.

Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you don't want to be part of the Settlement Class. If you exclude yourself, youhave no basis to object because the case and the settlement no longer binds you. You will not receive any benefits pursuant to the settlement.

THE COURT'S FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

WHEN AND WHERE IS THE HEARING?

The Court has scheduled a Final Approval Hearing at 10:00 a.m. on May 1, 2015, in the United States District Court Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York, 10007 in Courtroom 618 of the Honorable Katherine Polk Failla. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and whether to enter final judgment in light of the settlement.

If there are objections, the Court will consider them. The Court may also decide how much to pay Class Counsel and whether to pay Class Representatives incentive awards. After the hearing, the Court will make the final decision on these issues. We do not know how long it will take the Court to make a final decision.

MAY I SPEAK AT THE HEARING?

You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Final Approval Hearing to object to: (i) the settlement; (ii) dismissal of the lawsuit in light of the settlement; (iii) the release of Settlement Class Members’ claims against Red Bull and other Released Parties (as defined in the Stipulation); (iv) Class Counsel's request and/or other requests for attorneys' fees and expenses; or (v) the Class Representatives’ request for incentive awards.

To speak at the hearing, you must send a letter to the Court, Class Counsel, and Red Bull’s counsel in accordance with the instructions provided above on page 6 in the section entitled “HOW DO I TELL THE COURT THAT I DO NOT LIKE THE SETTLEMENT?” As noted therein, include the phrase “Notice of Intention to Appear” in the title of the letter.

You cannot speak at the hearing if you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class.

THE PEOPLE WHO ARE REPRESENTING YOU

DO I HAVE A LAWYER IN THIS CASE?

The Court assigned the following attorneys to represent you and the other Settlement Class Members:

Benedict P. MorelliDavid S. RatnerAdam DeutchMorelli Alters Ratner, LLP777 Third Avenue, 31st FloorNew York, NY 10017Telephone: (212) 751-9800Facsimile: (212) 751-0046

Laurence D. KingLinda M. FongKaplan, Fox, &Kilsheimer LLP350 Sansome Street, Suite 400San Francisco, CA 94104Telephone: (415) 772-4700Facsimile: (415) 772-4707



Jeremy W. AltersMatthew T. MooreMorelli Alters Ratner, LLPMiami Design District4141 Northeast 2nd Ave., Suite 201Miami, FL 33137Telephone: (305) 571-8550Facsimile: (305) [email protected]@morellialters.com

Frederic S. FoxKaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, New York 10022Telephone: (212) [email protected]

Justin B. FararKaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP11111 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 620Los Angeles, CA 90025Telephone: (310) 575-8670Facsimile: (310) 575-8697 [email protected]

These lawyers are called “Class Counsel.” You will not be charged for these lawyers. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.

You are also represented by the Plaintiffs Benjamin Careathers, David Wolf, and Miguel Almaraz, who the Court assigned to serve as Class Representatives for you and the other Settlement Class Members.

HOW WILL MY REPRESENTATIVES BE PAID?

Class Counsel will apply to the Court for their fees and expenses not to exceed a total of $4,750,000.00, subject to the terms of the Stipulation. Class Counsel will also request that the Court approve Red Bull’s payment of “incentive awards” of $5,000 to each of the three Class Representatives for their representation of the Class. Red Bull will not oppose these requests.

All fees and expenses awarded to Class Counsel and incentive awards awarded to Class Representatives will be paid by Red Bull in addition to – that is, separate and apart from – the cash and free Red Bull product distributions to Class Members, subject to the terms set forth in the Stipulation, and will therefore have no effect on the relief available to you should you submit a valid and timely Claim Form.

GETTING MORE INFORMATION

ARE MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT AVAILABLE?

This notice is just a summary of the settlement and may not answer all of your questions. More details are in the Stipulation and the documents that are “Exhibits” to the Stipulation, and may help in determining whether you are a Settlement Class Member.

HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION?

For more information, visit www.energydrinksettlement.com or contact the Class Action Settlement Administrator directly by calling 877- 495-1568.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK’S OFFICE, OR RED BULL’S COUNSEL FOR INFORMATION. ALL INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR AT THE NUMBER ABOVE.


*P-RDB-POC/1*MUST BE

POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE

MARCH 2, 2015

Energy Drink Settlementc/o GCG

P.O. Box 35123Seattle, WA 98124-5123

Toll-Free: 1 (877) 495-1568

RDB

EXHIBIT A

CLAIM FORM

ENERGY DRINK SETTLEMENT

Please print (or type) clearly in blue or black ink. As noted below, this Claim Form must be submitted online atwww.energydrinksettlement.com or by email by no later than March 2, 2015 or mailed and postmarked by no later than March 2, 2015.

Claimant No:

Name:

Address:

City/State/ZIP:

REQUIRED ADDRESS INFORMATION OR CORRECTIONSIf the pre-printed address to the left is incorrect or out of date,OR if there is no pre-printed data to the left, YOU MUST provideyour current name and address here:

1. SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER INFORMATIONYour Name:bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbYour Mailing Address:bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbCity: State: ZIP:bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbDaytime Phone:

(www) www - wwwwEmail Address:bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

1

1 Your personal information is being collected for purposes of the proposed settlement and will not be used for any other purposewithout your permission.

1To view GCG's Privacy Notice, please visit http://www.gcginc.com/privacy

QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1 (877) 495-1568 OR VISIT WWW.ENERGYDRINKSETTLEMENT.COM


*P-RDB-POC/2*2. CHOOSE YOUR SETTLEMENT BENEFIT (CHECK ONLY ONE)

Cash reimbursement of $10.00.

OR

Free Red Bull products with a retail value of approximately $15.00. The Red Bull products selected on the Claim Form will be shipped by Red Bull directly to Class Members at Red Bull's cost.

If you select free products, you have a choice of the following Red Bull products(Check Only One):

Red Bull® Energy Drink, OR

Red Bull® Sugarfree

3. SIGN AND DATE YOUR CLAIM FORMI affirm, under penalty of perjury in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that:

(1) I bought one or more Red Bull beverages (Red Bull ® Energy Drink, Red Bull ® Sugarfree, Red Bull ® Total Zero, or Red Bull ® Editions) in the United States between January 1, 2002 and October 3, 2014;

(2) I did not purchase such Red Bull beverages for purposes of resale;

(3) I am not an employee, officer, director, agent, or representative of Red Bull North America, Inc. or any of its corporate affiliates, or a distributor, wholesaler, retailer, or licensor of Red Bull products; and

(4) All of the information on this Claim Form is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Signature: Date:

ww / ww / wwwwPrint Name:bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

2

3

4. LAST DAY TO SUBMIT YOUR CLAIM FORM

Claim Forms must be submitted online at www.energydrinksettlement.com or by email to [email protected] by March 2, 2015, or mailed and postmarked by March 2, 2015 to:

Energy Drink Settlementc/o GCGP.O. Box 35123Seattle, WA 98124-5123

2 Under the terms of the settlement, certain conditions may lead to Class Members with valid claims receiving either less or morethan the amounts specified herein. For example, the cash reimbursed and/or value of the products being distributed will be reduced proportionately among all Class Members with valid claims if the total amount of eligible claims exceeds the fund (minusapplicable notice and tax expenses) provided by Red Bull for the settlement–referred to as the “Settlement Fund.” If, on the otherhand, there are excess funds in the Settlement Fund at the end of the claims period, such funds may be used to increase proportionally the amount of validly claimed cash reimbursements or products, depending on the claims rate. With respect to thedistribution of product, to the extent commercially reasonable in its discretion, Red Bull shall attempt to "round up" the amount of free product to be shipped to the claimant, so that the amount of free product obtained by a claimant is maximized to the extentcommercially reasonable.

The product will be distributed in product packaging (e.g. a four-pack) and sizing (e.g. 8.4 ounce cans) to be determined by RedBull at its discretion after the final value of the Product Option has been determined. If shipment of product to a particular Class Member is not feasible or commercially reasonable, then Red Bull may substitute cash reimbursement for that particular Class Member.

3

QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1 (877) 495-1568 OR VISIT WWW.ENERGYDRINKSETTLEMENT.COM2


EXHIBIT M


DIANE E. SKILLMAN, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC (510) 451-2930

PAGES 1 - 23


NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE ALEXIA FOODS INC. ) C-11-6119 PJH LITIGATION, ) ____________________________) WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2013

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA

FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

BEFORE THE HONORABLE PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, JUDGE

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFFS: BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 VENTURA BLVD, STE. 1600 ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436 BY: ROLAND TELLIS, ESQUIRE MARK PIFKO, ESQUIRE FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90024 BY: DAVID E. BOWER, ESQUIRE

FOR DEFENDANT: HOGAN LOVELS US LLP 4085 CAMPBELL AVENUE, STE. 100 MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025 BY: ROBERT B. HAWK, ESQUIRE, ESQUIRE BENJAMIN T. DIGGS, ESQUIRE, ESQUIRE

REPORTED BY: DIANE E. SKILLMAN, CSR 4909, RPR, FCRR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED BY COMPUTER-AIDED TRANSCRIPTION


2


WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 11, 2013 9:06 A.M.

P R O C E E D I N G S

THE CLERK: CALLING CIVIL CASE NUMBER 11-6119 IN RE

ALEXIA FOODS LITIGATION.

APPEARANCES.

MR. TELLIS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. ROLAND TELLIS

WITH THE LAW FIRM OF BARON & BUDD ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING.

MR. PIFKO: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. MARK PIFKO

ALSO FROM THE LAW FIRM OF BARON & BUDD ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFFS.

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING.

MR. BOWER: DAVID BOWER OF FARUQI & FARUQI ALSO FOR

THE PLAINTIFF.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING.

MR. HAWK: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. ROBERT HAWK OF

HOGAN LOVELLS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT CONAGRA FOODS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING.

MR. DIGGS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. BENJAMIN DIGGS

ALSO FROM HOGAN LOVELLS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

NOW THIS MATTER IS ON FOR THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CLASS

ACTION SETTLEMENT. I HAVE REVIEWED THE PAPERS. I JUST HAVE A

FEW QUESTIONS.

DID YOU WISH TO MAKE A PRESENTATION THIS MORNING?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


3


MR. TELLIS: SURE, YOUR HONOR. UNLESS YOUR HONOR

WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC ISSUES, I WANTED TO JUST

TOUCH ON THE FAIRNESS OF THE SETTLEMENT AND MR. PADGETT'S

OBJECTIONS, IF THAT WOULD BE ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: WE DEFINITELY NEED TO DISCUSS THE

OBJECTIONS. MAYBE THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD PLACE TO START.

MR. TELLIS: OKAY.

THE COURT: I HAVE REVIEWED THE OBJECTIONS AND THE

RESPONSE THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO IT.

DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT THE --

MR. TELLIS: FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, MR. PADGETT

IS A PROFESSIONAL OBJECTOR, AND I BELIEVE HE LACKS ANY

CREDIBILITY WITH THE COURTS.

THE COURT: WHAT DOES THAT MEAN --

MR. TELLIS: THAT MEANS HE MAKES --

THE COURT: DOES HE GO TO SCHOOL TO GET CERTIFIED TO

BE AN OBJECTOR?

MR. TELLIS: I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: HE'S A SERIAL OBJECTOR.

MR. TELLIS: WELL, PROFESSIONAL OBJECTOR IS A TERM

USED BY THE COURTS IN DESCRIBING MR. PADGETT. I'M PARROTING

THAT TERM. YES, HE'S A SERIAL OBJECTOR. WE'VE PROVIDED YOUR

HONOR WITH OPINIONS BY DISTRICT COURTS THAT -- IN CASES THAT

HAVE OVERRULED HIS OBJECTIONS VERY RECENTLY.

WHAT IS PARTICULARLY FRUSTRATING IS THAT IT'S CLEAR FROM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


4


HIS OBJECTION IN THIS CASE THAT HE SIMPLY DUSTED OFF A CANNED

WROTE OBJECTION THAT HE USES IN EACH OF THESE CASES BECAUSE HE

DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ THE SETTLEMENT OR EVEN THE PLEADINGS

THAT WERE FILED IN SUPPORT.

I MEAN, HE MAKES ALLEGATIONS LIKE IT IS UNFAIR TO REQUIRE

CLAIMANTS TO SUBMIT PROOFS OF PURCHASE. THERE IS NO SUCH

REQUIREMENT, YOUR HONOR. MR. PADGETT MADE --

THE COURT: PERHAPS HE READ THE EARLIER PAPERS.

MR. TELLIS: WELL, HE MAY HAVE.

THE COURT: I BELIEVE THAT YOU INITIALLY DID REQUIRE

PROOF OF PURCHASE FOR AMOUNTS OVER, I BELIEVE THE FIRST FIVE

PRODUCTS.

MR. TELLIS: YES.

MY POINT, THOUGH, IS WHEN HE FILLED OUT A CLAIM FOR FIVE

PRODUCTS A DAY BEFORE HE SUBMITTED AN OBJECTION, HE SURELY

READ THE FORMS.

THE COURT: DID HE SUBMIT A PROOF OF PURCHASE?

MR. TELLIS: YES -- NO, HE DID NOT. I'M SORRY, I

THOUGHT YOU SAID DID HE SUBMIT A CLAIM. HE DID SUBMIT A

CLAIM. HE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY PROOF OF PURCHASE.

HE CONTENDS COUNSEL HASN'T PROVIDED EVIDENCE OF THEIR

QUALIFICATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR FEE MOTION. WE SUBMITTED A

FEE MOTION WITH OUR QUALIFICATIONS. APPARENTLY HE DIDN'T

CHOOSE TO READ IT. HE SAYS WE PROVIDED NO SUPPORT FOR THE

ATTORNEY'S FEES CLAIMED.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


5


HE SAYS THERE IS NO DIRECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WHAT IS

SOUGHT IN THE CASE AND THE RELIEF THAT'S -- THAT HAS BEEN

PROVIDED FOR IN THE SETTLEMENT. HE'S DEAD WRONG. THE ONLY

THING THE SETTLEMENT DIDN'T ACHIEVE WAS PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

WE GOT A FORMULA CHANGE. WE GOT COMPENSATION. AND,

FRANKLY, THE REACTION OF THE CLASS IS ALL THAT YOUR HONOR

NEEDS TO KNOW. 80,000 CLAIMS HAVE BEEN MADE AND A SINGLE

OBJECTION.

THE COURT: YOU'RE ROUNDING THEM UP OR WERE THERE --

MR. TELLIS: NO. THERE HAVE BEEN SINCE THE

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL PAPERS, THERE HAVE BEEN 80,542 CLAIMS

MADE. NOT SINCE, IN TOTAL, UPDATING FROM THE MOTION FOR FINAL

APPROVAL WHICH WE WERE AT ABOUT 62,000 CLAIMS, AND WE ARE NOW

AT 80,000.

THE COURT: AND THEN ON NOVEMBER 22ND, THERE WAS A

SUBSEQUENT FILING IN WHICH THE NUMBER WAS 77,634?

MR. TELLIS: RIGHT. THE CLAIMS DEADLINE WAS

NOVEMBER 27TH. SO THAT'S THE MOST RECENT NUMBER WE OBTAINED

FROM THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH IS 80,572.

THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO ABOUT 1100 POTENTIALLY

DUPLICATE CLAIMS, AND THEY ARE WORKING THROUGH THOSE RIGHT

NOW. THEY'VE ELIMINATED WHAT THEY DEEMED TO BE FRAUDULENT

CLAIMS, THAT IS, A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL WHO SUBMITTED 2,000

CLAIMS FROM THE SAME ADDRESS. THOSE HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED.

THOSE ARE NOT COUNTED IN THE 80,572 CLAIMS THAT WERE MADE.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


6


THREE REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND ONLY THE ONE OBJECTION --

MR. TELLIS: ONLY THE ONE OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. TELLIS: WE SUBMITTED OUR RESPONSE TO

MR. PADGETT. I ASKED EARLIER, I DON'T SEE HIM HERE.

THE COURT: YOU KNOW HIM?

MR. TELLIS: NO, MA'AM, I DO NOT.

THE COURT: HAVE YOU EVER MET HIM?

MR. TELLIS: NO.

THE COURT: IS MR. PADGETT PRESENT?

(NO RESPONSE)

IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHES TO OBJECT TO THE

SETTLEMENT?

(NO RESPONSE)

NO HANDS HAVE GONE UP.

ALL RIGHT. DID YOU WISH TO BE HEARD AT ALL, MR. HAWK?

MR. HAWK: I -- UNLESS THE COURT --

THE COURT: JUST ON THE QUESTION OF THE OBJECTION.

MR. HAWK: ON THE QUESTION OF THE OBJECTION, NO, YOUR

HONOR. I THINK PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL HAS ADDRESSED THAT

SUFFICIENTLY.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THEN WITH REGARD TO

THE -- I BELIEVE THERE WERE FIVE OR SIX OBJECTIONS THAT HE

RAISED. I LOOKED AT EACH ONE AND EVALUATED EACH ONE OF THEM.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


7


AND I AM GOING TO OVERRULE ALL OF THE OBJECTIONS.

I THOUGHT PARTICULARLY THE OBJECTION THAT THE AMOUNT OF

THE COMPENSATION WAS MINUSCULE WAS A LITTLE RIDICULOUS GIVEN

THAT THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION PER PACKAGE IS PRETTY MUCH

IDENTICAL TO THE AMOUNT THAT THE CONSUMER PAID FOR IT, SO IT'S

100 PERCENT RETURN FOR THE MOST PART.

AND THEN WITH REGARD TO THE EXTENT OF THE RELIEF, I THINK

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. YOU HAVE, INDEED, OBTAINED A

SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THE RELIEF THAT WAS BEING SOUGHT IN THE

LITIGATION.

WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT OF SUPPORT THAT YOU PROVIDED FOR

THE FEES, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT SEPARATELY, BUT I'M PRETTY

MUCH OKAY WITH IT EXCEPT WITH REGARD TO THE INCENTIVE FEE. I

BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE ONLY TWO DECLARATIONS, EVEN THOUGH

THERE ARE THREE PLAINTIFFS FOR WHOM YOU'RE SEEKING AN

INCENTIVE FEE AWARD.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS THAT YOU'VE ONLY SUBMITTED

TWO DECLARATIONS.

MR. TELLIS: IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT, YOUR HONOR. THIS

IS A FUNCTION OF HAVING TWO LAW FIRMS COORDINATING THEIR

EFFORTS. WE CAN SUBMIT THE DECLARATION OF MR. DAVID ECKSTEIN

TO YOUR HONOR AS SOON AS TOMORROW.

I APOLOGIZE. WE REALIZED THAT TODAY AS I WAS GOING

THROUGH; APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN A DECLARATION THAT WAS -- THAT

SLIPPED THROUGH THE CRACKS.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


8


THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. TELLIS: I CAN ASSURE, YOUR HONOR, THOUGH, AS AN

OFFICER OF THE COURT MR. ECKSTEIN PARTICIPATED.

THE COURT: TO THE SAME EXTENT THAT THE OTHER TWO

DID?

MR. TELLIS: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I WILL NEED THE DECLARATION,

THOUGH, FOR THE RECORD.

MR. TELLIS: OKAY.

THE COURT: AND THEN I WOULD APPROVE THAT.

ALL RIGHT. SO THE OBJECTIONS THEN WILL BE OVERRULED. AND

I ALSO AGREE WITH YOU THAT MR. PADGETT APPARENTLY DIDN'T READ

ALL THE PAPERS BECAUSE SOME OF HIS OBJECTIONS ARE ANSWERED IN

THE PAPERS.

ALL RIGHT. SO STARTING WITH THE SETTLEMENT ITSELF, THE --

AT THIS TIME PLAINTIFF SEEK FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT

AND CERTIFICATION OF A NATIONWIDE SETTLEMENT CLASS, FEES AND

COSTS, INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES, AND THE

INCENTIVE AWARDS.

THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT IS 3.2 MILLION WITH 2.5 MILLION

BEING FOR CASH PAYMENTS AND THE 700,000 IN VOUCHERS. AND IN

ADDITION, THERE IS AN INJUNCTIVE COMPONENT WITH REGARD TO THE

PRESERVATIVE THAT CONAGRA HAS AGREED TO USE IN THE FUTURE

UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE FDA MAKES SOME STATEMENT ABOUT WHETHER

OR NOT YOU'RE PREFERRED PRESERVATIVE IS OR IS NOT A NATURAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


9


PRODUCT.

I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THE PLAN, SO MAYBE YOU CAN

EXPLAIN THAT TO ME. THERE ARE THREE OPTIONS AVAILABLE --

MR. TELLIS: YES.

THE COURT: -- FOR THE CLAIMANTS?

MR. TELLIS: THERE ARE THREE OPTIONS AND THEY ARE AS

FOLLOWS:

OPTION ONE IS A CASH ONLY COMPONENT. AND A CLAIMANT CAN

CHOOSE TO MAKE UP TO TEN CLAIMS FOR TEN PRODUCTS AND OBTAIN

$3.50 PER CLAIM.

THE OPTION TWO IS A VOUCHER WHICH ENTITLES THEM TO RECEIVE

A PRODUCT. YOU GET TWO VOUCHERS FOR EVERY PURCHASE. AND THE

VOUCHERS ARE VALUED AT $3.75.

THE REASON FOR THAT IS THERE'S SOME DISCREPANCY IN THE

RETAIL PRICE OF THESE PRODUCTS. THEY RANGE FROM, LET'S SAY,

3.50 TO $4. YOU GET TWO VOUCHERS FOR EACH ONE, THEREFORE,

EACH PAIR OF VOUCHERS IS WORTH $7.50 UP TO TEN VOUCHERS FOR A

TOTAL OF $75.

THE COURT: THE VOUCHERS ARE LIKE COUPONS IN THE

SENSE THEY ARE TAKEN TO THE STORE --

MR. TELLIS: YES.

THE COURT: -- AND USED TO GET THE PRODUCT?

MR. TELLIS: YES. I TOUCH A NERVE WHEN I HEAR

"COUPONS". IT IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT BECAUSE HERE, CLAIMANTS

ARE ASKING FOR IT IN LIEU OF CASH SOMETIMES, YOUR HONOR. IN

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


10


FACT HERE --

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT.

MR. TELLIS: OKAY. IT'S NOT ONE OF THOSE--

THE COURT: I THINK IT IS PERFECTLY FINE.

MR. TELLIS: AND OPTION THREE IS A COMBINATION, PART

CASH, PART VOUCHER, BUT UP TO A TOTAL OF TEN PRODUCTS. SO IF

SOMEONE SELECTED FIVE PRODUCTS FOR WHICH THEY WANTED CASH --

THE COURT: RIGHT.

MR. TELLIS: -- AND FIVE PRODUCTS FOR WHICH THEY

WANTED VOUCHERS, THEY CAN MIX AND MATCH.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

MR. TELLIS: AND, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE TAPPED BOTH

COMPONENTS OF THE SETTLEMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, PEOPLE HAVE

SELECTED CASH IN AN AMOUNT TO DEPLETE THE CASH FUND AND

VOUCHERS IN AN AMOUNT TO DEPLETE THE VOUCHER FUND.

SO, BOTH OF THESE FUNDS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED, SO TO SPEAK,

ASSUMING, OF COURSE, PEOPLE WILL FOLLOW THROUGH AND ACTUALLY

CASH THEIR CHECKS AND SUBMIT AND SO FORTH, WHICH MEANS THAT

THAT RESIDUAL COMPONENT THAT WE HAD FOR CY-PRES IS MOOT,

ASSUMING, OF COURSE, PEOPLE DON'T -- PEOPLE FOLLOW THROUGH.

THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT MY MATH REFLECTED AS WELL.

EVEN IF EVERYBODY TOOK JUST 3.75 MINIMUM, GIVEN THE NUMBER.

I, FRANKLY, HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH A RESPONSE TO ONE OF THESE

CLASS ACTIONS. USUALLY THERE'S A MERE PITTANCE.

MR. HAWK: I --

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


11


THE COURT: TWO OR 3,000. I MEAN 80,000 CLAIMS?

THIS MUST BE A VERY POPULAR PRODUCT.

MR. TELLIS: I THINK IT'S PARTLY THAT AND I ALSO

THINK WE -- WE WORKED HARD ON THE NOTICE PROGRAM. AND I THINK

IT'S A LESSON LEARNED THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD THE CLAIMS

ADMINISTER (SIC), YOU KNOW, EXECUTE A COMPREHENSIVE NOTICE

PROGRAM, AND I THINK IT PAID OFF.

MR. HAWK: I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, YOUR HONOR, THIS

IS THE MOST CLAIMS I HAVE EVER SEEN IN ANY CLASS ACTIONS THAT

I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT SETTLED.

AND IT'S ALSO MUCH MORE THAN RUST, THE CLAIMS

ADMINISTRATOR, HAD PROJECTED ON THE FRONT END BECAUSE THEY

HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE, RUST DOES, IN SEEING WHAT THE CLAIMS

RATES ARE AND SO ON. SO IT'S MUCH MORE THAN WHAT THEY --

WHICH I THINK SAYS GOOD THINGS ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT. I THINK

IT SAYS GOOD THINGS ABOUT THE PRODUCT. I THINK IT SAYS GOOD

THINGS ABOUT THE NOTICE.

ONE RESULT OF IT IS THAT THE -- YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A

CY-PRES REALLY TO WORRY ABOUT. THERE'S ONE SCENARIO WHERE

UNCASHED VOUCHERS, UNCASHED VOUCHERS ARE THEN PUT BACK INTO

THIS RESIDUAL FUND, AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER SWEEP TO TRY AND

GIVE ADDITIONAL VOUCHERS AWAY. AND THEN AT THE END OF THE

TWO-YEAR PERIOD, IF THERE'S ANYTHING LEFT, WHICH THE GOAL IS

THERE TO BE NOTHING LEFT, IT WOULD ONLY BE THAT THAT WOULD GO

IN. SO I REALLY THINK THERE'S NOT A REAL CY-PRES ELEMENT AT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


12


ALL TO THIS SETTLEMENT.

THE SECOND THING THAT I WOULD SAY --

THE COURT: WHICH I GUESS COULD BE CONSIDERED A GOOD

THING GIVEN THAT I AM NOT ENTIRELY CONVINCED THAT YOUR CHOSEN

CY-PRES RECIPIENT PROVIDES THAT DRIVING NEXUS THAT THE KELLOGG

DECISION REQUIRES. IT'S MORE FOOD-ORIENTED RATHER THAN

CONSUMER CLAIMS-ORIENTED.

MR. TELLIS: WELL, WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION. EXCUSE

ME, COUNSEL. SORRY.

MR. HAWK: I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY WE WOULD BE GLAD

TO ADDRESS THAT A BIT MORE, YOUR HONOR. WE THINK THERE IS A

NEXUS BECAUSE WE HAVE ASKED AND THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM

FEEDING AMERICA HAS AN EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT TO IT AS WELL,

AND EDUCATION ABOUT HEALTHFUL FOODS --

THE COURT: EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROGRAM.

MR. HAWK: WELL --

THE COURT: AND THE ORGANIZATION.

MR. HAWK: THE ORGANIZATION IS ONE FOCUSED ON

FEEDING, WORKING AND GETTING FOOD AND NUTRITION TO PEOPLE IN

NEED GENERALLY, BUT ALSO TO EDUCATING PEOPLE, PEOPLE IN NEED

AND PEOPLE THAT ARE HUNGRY ABOUT HEALTHFUL FOOD. AND THAT IS

ABOUT DIFFERENT KINDS OF FOOD, ABOUT NATURAL FOOD.

SO THAT IS THE NEXUS HERE. I MEAN, IT IS -- I MEAN, THIS

IS A FOOD COMPANY, YOUR HONOR, AND IF YOU ARE GOING TO LOOK AT

WHAT WOULD BE -- YOU CAN'T JUST PICK YOUR FAVORITE CHARITY,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


13


AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THERE'S CERTAINLY A NEXUS. IF

YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A CY-PRES AWARD AND HAVE IT -- AND YOU

HAVE A CONNECTION BETWEEN HEALTH, HEALTH AND NATURAL, AND I

THINK IT'S JUST A POSITIVE THING THAT IT ACTUALLY BENEFITS

PEOPLE IN NEED RATHER THAN GOING TO A NUMBER OF OTHER

CHARITABLE PURPOSES THAT YOU COULD THINK OF.

WE THINK THERE IS A CONNECTION. AND I GUESS I EXPLAINED

IT ABOUT AS BEST AS I CAN. AND WE SPECIFICALLY ASK -- AND WE

WOULD SPECIFICALLY ASK THAT IT GO TO BENEFIT THAT PART OF THE

PROGRAM, THE EDUCATIONAL PART OF FEEDING AMERICA.

NOW -- BUT WHAT I WOULD REALLY SUBMIT TO YOUR HONOR, WHICH

IS I THINK YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GET THERE IN THIS CASE.

BECAUSE GENERALLY CY-PRES IS, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE SOME BENEFIT

AND YOU CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO REALLY GET IT TO THE CLASS

MEMBERS, RIGHT? SO YOU HAVE A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS WORTH

OF BENEFIT AND, YOU KNOW --

THE COURT: BUT THAT'S THE ISSUE, ISN'T IT, WOULD THE

PEOPLE WHO FEEDING AMERICA TARGETS NECESSARILY BE MEMBERS OF

THE CLASS?

MR. HAWK: THERE IS AN ISSUE ABOUT THAT, YOUR HONOR.

BUT I WAS MAKING A SLIGHTLY -- I SHIFTED TO A SLIGHTLY

DIFFERENT POINT, WHICH IS, I DON'T REALLY THINK WE HAVE A

CY-PRES ISSUE AS SUCH IN THIS CASE. BECAUSE THE ONLY THING

THAT COULD SORT OF GO INTO THIS RESIDUAL TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO

CY-PRES IS A RESIDUAL OF BENEFITS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


14


TO CLASS MEMBERS, I.E., COUPONS, WHICH EVEN THOUGH THEY SPOKE

UP AND CLAIMED THEM, YOU KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME PEOPLE

WHO SPEAK UP AND CLAIM THEM AND THEY JUST, FOR WHATEVER

REASON, DON'T GET AROUND TO USING THEM.

THAT'S REALLY ALL THAT'S LEFT. SO IN OTHER WORDS, THE

BENEFIT HAS REALLY ALREADY GONE TO THE CLASS MEMBER. AND I

THINK IT'S A MISNOMER TO THINK ABOUT THIS AS A CY-PRES IN THAT

SENSE.


MR. HAWK: SO I --

THE COURT: SO EXPLAIN THE TWO-TIER PROCESS THAT YOU

HAVE FOR THESE BENEFITS. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ALL OF THE

VOUCHERS, AS WELL AS THE CASH, ARE GOING TO BE DISTRIBUTED, AT

LEAST INITIALLY TO THE CLAIMANTS, CORRECT?

MR. HAWK: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: AND THEN EXPLAIN THE TWO TIERS -- HOW DO

YOU GET TO ANY SORT OF RESIDUAL?

MR. HAWK: RIGHT. THE ONLY THING -- AS DESIGNED, IF

THERE HAD BEEN SOME CASH THAT WASN'T CLAIMED, OR IF THERE HAD

BEEN SOME COUPONS THAT WEREN'T CLAIMED BY CLASS MEMBERS, THAT

WOULD HAVE GONE INTO THE RESIDUAL. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT

SITUATION. I WANT TO GET TO THAT IN -- A LITTLE BIT MORE

ABOUT THAT IN A MOMENT.

BUT THE SITUATION THAT WE DO HAVE IS THERE IS AN

EXPECTATION THAT CERTAIN CLASS MEMBERS WON'T ACTUALLY REDEEM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


15


THEIR VOUCHERS. AND SO THE VALUE --

THE COURT: OR THE CHECKS? ISN'T --

MR. HAWK: OR WHAT?

THE COURT: YOU ARE GOING TO SEND CHECKS FOR THE CASH

COMPONENT?

MR. HAWK: THE CASH COMPONENT, RIGHT.

THE COURT: DON'T WE SEE FROM TIME TO TIME UNCASHED

CHECKS AS WELL?

MR. HAWK: THERE ARE -- THERE COULD BE UNCASHED

CHECKS AS WELL. THE ARRANGEMENT, THE AGREEMENT IN THIS

PARTICULAR SETTLEMENT IS THAT, AND I FORGET WHAT THE TIME --

MR. TELLIS: SIX MONTHS.

MR. HAWK: SIX MONTHS. THAT ACTUALLY REVERTS TO

CONAGRA. IF THEY DON'T CASH THEIR CHECKS FOR SIX MONTHS, YOU

KNOW -- WE THINK THAT'S A FAIR RESULT. YOU'RE GIVING THEM THE

MONEY. THEY'RE MAKING A CLAIM. YOU ARE GIVING THEM THE

MONEY. YOU GIVE THEM SIX MONTHS TO CASH IT. YOU TELL THEM

ABOUT IT. IT'S GOOD FOR SIX MONTHS. IT GOES BACK TO CONAGRA.

THE COUPONS, THOUGH, ARE DIFFERENT. THE COUPONS, IF THEY

ARE NOT REDEEMED WITHIN, I THINK IT'S 90 DAYS, I DON'T -- IF

THEY ARE NOT REDEEMED, THE VALUE OF THE UNREDEEMED COUPONS,

VOUCHERS, IT GOES INTO THE RESIDUAL FUND. AND THAT WILL BE

THE ONLY THING THAT WILL BE IN THE RESIDUAL FUND.

WHAT HAPPENS THEN IS THAT CONAGRA HAS TWO YEARS AND AN

AGREED GOAL TO DISTRIBUTE ALL OF THAT COUPON VALUE OUT UNTIL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


16


ALL OF IT HAS BEEN REDEEMED. SO THE WAY IT WORKS IS CONAGRA

WILL ESTIMATE, ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE -- WE KNOW WHAT

THE REDEMPTION RATE ON COUPONS IS, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A WHOLE

BUNCH AVAILABLE WITH A THREE-MONTH REDEMPTION PERIOD, AND THEN

WE'LL SEE HOW MANY THAT TAKES DOWN, AND THEN THREE MONTHS

ON --

THE COURT: WHO ARE YOU GOING TO DISTRIBUTE THEM TO?

MR. HAWK: TO CONSUMER, TO ALEXIA CUSTOMERS

GENERALLY. WE JUST MAKE THEM AVAILABLE BECAUSE THAT'S THE

BEST PROXY, IF YOU WILL, FOR THE CLASS IS A -- WE DON'T KNOW

WHO THE CUSTOMERS ARE. WE'VE ALREADY GIVEN THEM A CHANCE

THROUGH NOTICE TO MAKE A CLAIM. SO THE NEXT BEST THING IS

JUST TO GIVE THESE COUPONS OUT.

THE COURT: SO IF SOMEONE GOES INTO A STORE AND

PURCHASES ONE OF THE PRODUCTS, THEY COULD, AT THE CHECK-OUT

STAND, GET AN ADDITIONAL VOUCHER FOR A SUBSEQUENT PURCHASE?

MR. TELLIS: THAT'S RIGHT.

MR. HAWK: YES. THAT'S SORT OF THE WAY THAT -- YEAH.

MR. TELLIS: YOUR HONOR, THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR

QUANTIFIED THE VOUCHERS AT APPROXIMATELY $868,000 RELATIVE TO

THE 700,000. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S A GREAT DEMAND FOR THE

VOUCHERS BECAUSE THE REFORMULATED PRODUCTS ARE VERY GOOD.

AND JUST TO TOUCH ON THE ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED IN THE

DISCUSSION OF CY-PRES, WHEN WE APPROACHED THIS CASE, YOUR

HONOR, IT WASN'T JUST TO MAKE COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR CLAIMS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


17


OF ALL NATURAL PRODUCTS. A RESOLUTION COULD HAVE BEEN TO STOP

MAKING THE CLAIM. BUT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO US THAT IN THIS

CATEGORY OF PRODUCTS, THE SO-CALLED FROZEN FOOD AISLE, THAT

THERE BE NUTRITIOUS OPTIONS.

MY KIDS LIKE TATER TOTS. NOT SO HEALTHY, BUT TO HAVE AN

ALL NATURAL ALTERNATIVE IN THE SAME FROZEN FOOD SECTION

WITHOUT HAVING TO GO TO WHOLE FOODS OR ONE OF THESE OTHER

PRICIER GROCERY STORES WAS IMPORTANT. SO I THINK THAT IS WHY

YOU MIGHT SEE THE TYPE OF DEMAND FOR THESE VOUCHERS AS WE DO

HERE.

MR. HAWK: THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOUR

HONOR UNDERSTOOD WAS THAT BECAUSE OF THE POPULARITY OF -- AND

THE NUMBER OF CLAIMS THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, THE PRO RATA

REDUCTION HAS KICKED IN. IN OTHER WORDS --

THE COURT: HAS THERE BEEN MORE CLAIMS THAN THERE IS

CASH OR VOUCHERS AVAILABLE?

MR. HAWK: EXACTLY.

THE COURT: WHICH IS VERY UNUSUAL.

MR. HAWK: EXACTLY.

AND WE -- RUST HAS NOT FINISHED FIGURING OUT ALL OF THE

DUPLICATES AND ALL OF THE INVALID, SORT OF FACIALLY INVALID

CLAIMS. THEY'VE TOLD US THAT, AND WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE

A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF ALLOWED CLAIMS.

BUT RIGHT NOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A MINIMUM OF -- BY MY

ARITHMETIC, AND PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL CAN CHECK ME ON THIS, THE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


18


CASH CLAIM PER PRODUCT IS GOING TO BE A MINIMUM, BASED ON THE

CLAIMS RECEIVED, OF ABOUT A DOLLAR 45.

MR. TELLIS: FOR EVERYBODY.

MR. HAWK: I'M SORRY?

MR. TELLIS: FOR EVERYBODY.

MR. HAWK: YES, FOR EVERYBODY.

MR. TELLIS: RIGHT.

MR. HAWK: AND THE VOUCHER VALUE, RATHER THAN THE

3.75, IS GOING TO BE A MINIMUM OF ABOUT $3.02. AND SO I

WANTED THE COURT TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, LIKE I SAID, I HAVEN'T SEEN

THIS KIND OF CLAIMS RATE BEFORE. I THINK IT'S A REFLECTION OF

THE NOTICE PROGRAM. I THINK IT'S A REFLECTION OF THE

POPULARITY OF THE PRODUCT AND THE GOODNESS OF THE PRODUCT.

AND JUST THE WAY -- AND THE GENEROSITY, IF YOU WILL, OF, YOU

KNOW, REFUNDING POTENTIALLY SO MUCH OF THE VALUE OF THE

PRODUCT.

THE COURT: RIGHT.

MR. HAWK: BASED ON AN ALLEGATION THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU

SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD ALL NATURAL ON THERE BECAUSE YOU SOAK THE

POTATOES IN BAKING POWDER SOLUTION RATHER THAN CITRIC ACID,

WHICH, YOU KNOW, TO A DEFENSE LAWYER, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A

LOT -- OF EVEN IF YOU ASSUME LIABILITY, DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A

LOT OF DAMAGE THERE. SO, ANYWAY, WE THINK IT'S A FAIR

SETTLEMENT, YOUR HONOR.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


19


THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. TELLIS: I THINK IT IS ALSO INDICATIVE OF PEOPLE

NOW PREPARED TO BUY AN ALL NATURAL PRODUCT WITH GREAT

REGULARITY, HAVING BEEN MISLED BEFORE.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

I'M PERSUADED LARGELY BY THE RESPONSE BY THE CLASS TO THE

SETTLEMENT THAT IT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE SETTLEMENT. SO I

AM PREPARED TO APPROVE IT AS WELL AS TO CERTIFY THE NATIONWIDE

SETTLEMENT CLASS.

MR. TELLIS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOUR PAPERS ADEQUATELY MEET THE 23(A) AND

(B)(3) REQUIREMENTS.

SO THAT JUST LEAVES US WITH THE FEES, ADMINISTRATIVE

EXPENSES, LITIGATION COSTS, AND THE INCENTIVE AWARDS. I WILL

APPROVE THE $5,000 PER PLAINTIFF AS LONG AS I GET --

MR. TELLIS: THE DECLARATION.

THE COURT: -- THE DECLARATION FROM EACH OF THEM, AND

THERE IS ONLY ONE MISSING.

AND WITH REGARD TO THE ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES, IT WAS

ESTIMATED ORIGINALLY TO BE 715,000, BUT IT WAS NOT TO EXCEED

800,000.

MR. TELLIS: RIGHT. AND BECAUSE OF THE ROBUST CLAIMS

PARTICIPATION RATE AND WHATNOT, I THINK COUNSEL WAS INFORMED

THAT IT WILL BE 800,000.

THE COURT: YEAH.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


20


MR. HAWK: YEAH. THE FOLKS AT RUST TOLD US THAT THEY

WERE GOING TO BE REALLY ON -- WITH NO MARGINS AT 800,000

BECAUSE THEY GOT SO MANY MORE CLAIMS AND THEY ARE GOING TO

HAVE TO RESPOND AND ADMINISTER SO MANY MORE CLAIMS.


SO, THOSE AMOUNTS, THE 800,000 AND THE 15,000 ARE TAKEN

FROM THE CASH COMPONENT --

MR. TELLIS: YES.

THE COURT: -- OF THE FUND, RIGHT, AS WILL THE FEES.

I BELIEVE THAT THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL WAS FOR FEES NOT

TO EXCEED 800,000, CORRECT?

MR. TELLIS: YES. AND JUST SO YOUR HONOR HAS A

FULL -- HAS FULL INFORMATION, SINCE THAT MOTION WE HAVE

INCURRED SOME EXPENSES IN DEALING WITH MR. PADGETT'S OBJECTION

AND PREPARING FOR THIS HEARING. SO, WHEREAS IN OUR

PRELIMINARY PAPERS OUR LODESTAR HAD NOT -- WAS A SHY UNDER THE

800,000, IT HAS NOW EXCEEDED IT BY -- IT'S $804,602.35.

THE COURT: DOES THAT INCLUDE THE 29,000 IN COSTS?

MR. TELLIS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, YOU ARE STILL

CAPPED AT 800,000.


THE COURT: AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT REPRESENTED

ROUGHLY 24 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL FUND, INCLUDING THE VALUE OF

THE VOUCHER COMPONENT, CORRECT?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


21


MR. TELLIS: RIGHT, BUT NOT INCLUDING ANY VALUATION

ON THE FORMULATION CHANGE, WHICH I THINK IS, YOU KNOW, THE

COURT SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING THE

REASONABLENESS OF THE FEE, BUT WE DIDN'T -- WE DIDN'T ATTEMPT

TO MONETIZE THAT NONMONETARY RECOVERY FOR PURPOSES OF

CALCULATING OUR FEE. SO IT'S A CONSERVATIVE 24 PERCENT.

THE COURT: THAT ALWAYS SEEMS LIKE A DIFFICULT

EXERCISE FOR ME. I NEVER FIND THAT PARTICULARLY PERSUASIVE.

I'M NOT SPECIFICALLY APPROVING -- I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU

PROVIDED SOME INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR LODESTAR WITHOUT GIVING

ME ALL THE DETAIL INFORMATION I WOULD NORMALLY REQUIRE IF I

WERE MAKING A LODESTAR DETERMINATION.

SO I'M NOT SPECIFICALLY APPROVING THE LODESTAR, WHICH

REFLECTS BILLING RATES THAT I'M NOT SURE I WOULD BE WILLING TO

APPROVE, BUT I AM WILLING TO APPROVE A FEE THAT'S ROUGHLY

EQUIVALENT TO THE 25 PERCENT BENCHMARK PERMISSIBLE IN THE

NINTH CIRCUIT LOOKING AT THE LODESTAR ONLY AS A CROSS-CHECK,

BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY APPROVING IT.

MR. TELLIS: IF YOUR HONOR HAD ANY CONCERN IN THAT

REGARD, WE DIDN'T SUBMIT IT BECAUSE OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT

PRIVILEGE ISSUES, BUT WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE YOUR HONOR

REVIEW THE BILLS IN CAMERA IF YOU FELT THE NEED.

THE COURT: NO. I'M PREPARED TO AWARD THE

PERCENTAGE --

MR. TELLIS: OKAY.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


22


THE COURT: -- AMOUNT. BUT NOT -- BUT I JUST WANT

YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT I'M NOT SPECIFICALLY APPROVING THE

LODESTAR.

MR. TELLIS: UNDERSTOOD.

THE COURT: OKAY.

AND THE LITIGATION EXPENSES IS INCLUDED IN YOUR --


THE COURT: -- 800.

MR. TELLIS: IN THE 800,000, YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M PREPARED TO APPROVE IT

THEN.

MR. TELLIS: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I WILL SIGN THE PROPOSED

ORDER AS SOON AS I GET THE DECLARATION FROM THE REMAINING

PLAINTIFF.

AND I THINK THAT TAKES CARE OF IT.

MR. TELLIS: YOUR HONOR, I HATE TO BRING THIS TOPIC

UP, BUT IF MR. PADGETT FILES AN APPEAL, IT IS MY INTENTION TO

MAKE A MOTION TO MAKE HIM FILE AN APPELLATE BOND.

I ASSUME I WOULD DO THAT IN THIS COURTROOM BEFORE YOUR

HONOR.

THE COURT: YES. SURE.

MR. TELLIS: THANK YOU VERY MUCH YOUR HONOR.

MR. HAWK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MR. PIFKO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


23


MR. BOWER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT 9:34 A.M.)

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

I, DIANE E. SKILLMAN, OFFICIAL REPORTER FOR THE

UNITED STATES COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, HEREBY

CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A CORRECT TRANSCRIPT FROM THE

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER.

_____________________________

DIANE E. SKILLMAN, CSR 4909, RPR, FCRR

MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 2014

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


declaration of scott a. bursor in support of plaintiff's motion for an

Documents