Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02823/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02823-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

 The Court previously disclosed a connection to Girard Gibbs but now also discloses 1

Robbins Geller’s named partner Michael Dowd represented the Court’s position in In re

Vasquez-Ramirez, 443 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2006) and Judge Burns maintains a friendly

relationship with Mr. Dowd.

- 1 - 09CV2002

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: National Association of Music

Merchants, Musical Instruments and

Equipment Antitrust Litigation

MDL No. 2121

ORDER APPOINTING LEADLIAISON COUNSEL

At the status conference held May 28, 2010, the Court identified the need to appoint

interim lead counsel who would serve as liaison between the Court and Plaintiffs. The Court

indicated it would defer to Plaintiffs’ choice in the first instance, but if they were unable to

reach a consensus about the appointment of such counsel, the Court would entertain

applications for the position, to be submitted by June 23.

The Court received three applications: one from Girard Gibbs LLP (currently

representing Plaintiff Joshua Ramsey in case number 09cv2211, Ramsey, et al. v. National

Association of Music Merchants, Inc., et al.); a second from Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd

LLP (currently representing Plaintiff Colby Giles in case number 09cv2146, Giles v. Guitar 1

Center, Inc. et al.); and a third from Barnow & Associates, PC (currently representing

Case 3:09-cv-02823-LAB-DHB Document 49 Filed 06/28/10 Page 1 of 4
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

- 2 - 09CV2002

Plaintiff Walter Witherspoon in case number 09cv2178, Witherspoon v. National Association

of Music Merchants, Inc., et al.) The Robbins Geller application proposed a steering

committee consisting of itself, Squitieri & Fearon, LLP (currently representing Plaintiff David

Giambusso in case number 09cv2002, Giambusso v. National Association of Music

Merchants, Inc., et al.), Scott + Scott LLP (currently representing Plaintiffs Niranjan Parikh

and Kate Mac Williamson in case numbers 10cv19, Parikh v. Guitar Center, Inc., et al. and

10cv20, Williamson v. Guitar Center, Inc., et al., respectively), and Milberg LLP (currently

representing Plaintiff Jason Paradise in case number 09cv2285, Paradise v. National

Association of Music Merchants, Inc., et al.) Attorney Ben Barnow applied on behalf of his

firm, but also named five of his co-counsel in Witherspoon, and their firms, as applicants,

and also sought appointment of an executive committee. Girard Gibbs primarily sought

appointment as lead counsel, but it requested in the alternative appointment to the steering

committee. 

After reviewing the initial applications, the Court requested supplemental information

from the applicants in the form of good-faith estimates of the number of hours required to

have all cases trial-ready, and the billing rate of each firm. The applicants have provided this

information.

In appointing lead or liaison counsel, the Court considers a variety of factors,

including:

• qualifications, functions, organization, and compensation of designated

counsel;

• whether there has been full disclosure of all agreements and

understandings among counsel;

• would-be designated attorneys' competence for assignments;

• whether there are clear and satisfactory guidelines for compensation and

reimbursement, and whether the arrangements for coordination among

counsel are fair, reasonable, and efficient;

• whether designated counsel fairly represent the various interests in the

litigation—where diverse interests exist among the parties, the court may

designate a committee of counsel representing different interests;

• the attorneys' resources, commitment, and qualifications to accomplish the

assigned tasks; and

Case 3:09-cv-02823-LAB-DHB Document 49 Filed 06/28/10 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 - 09CV2002

• the attorneys' ability to command the respect of their colleagues and work

cooperatively with opposing counsel and the court—experience in similar

roles in other litigation may be useful, but an attorney may have generated

personal antagonisms during prior proceedings that will undermine his or her

effectiveness in the present case.

Manual on Complex Litigation (4th Ed.) § 10.224. See also id., § 22.62 (discussing

appointment of lead counsel in multidistrict litigation and factors to be considered), § 14.211

(discussing fees and other factors courts have considered).

The appointed counsel will be primarily responsible for communicating with the Court

and serving as liaison between the Court and other Plaintiffs’ counsel. The appointed

counsel will also function as interim lead counsel as provided under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

Because the appointed counsel will serve in both these capacities, this order refers to it as

lead-liaison counsel. Although the Court has not yet given directions concerning fees,

appointed counsel should be aware from the outset of the need for keeping thorough and

accurate billing records.

 Barnow & Associates identified its average firm billing rate as $450. It did not provide

a specific estimate of hours for these cases, but referenced a case it considered similar

where the number of hours exceeded 100,000. Robbins Geller estimated its average billing

rate at less than $400 per hour, and estimated that 50,000 attorney and paralegal hours

would be required to have the cases trial-ready. Girard Gibbs estimated a somewhat higher

average hourly rate of $447.50, but came in with the low estimate of 6,250 attorney and

paralegal hours to have the cases trial-ready.

While the Court finds Barnow & Associates competent, it believes this firm’s

resources, even when supported by co-counsel, would not be adequate to assure the

speedy and efficient preparation of these cases for trial if Barnow were appointed as leadliaison counsel. While Barnow certainly has the competency to serve as lead-liaison

counsel, the Court is also mindful of the possibility that heavier demands will be placed on

lead-liaison counsel than are now anticipated. Robbins Geller and Girard Gibbs by contrast

both have extensive resources at their disposal.

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-02823-LAB-DHB Document 49 Filed 06/28/10 Page 3 of 4
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 - 09CV2002

As between Robbins Geller and Girard Gibbs, the latter projects far leaner staffing of

the cases. While a number of antitrust class actions may merit billing tens of thousands of

hours, the Court does not believe the cases involved here require such extensive work. The

incidents and evidence are more limited than in many other antitrust cases, and the interests

of the various Plaintiffs are limited and rather closely aligned. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ task

has been simplified by a Federal Trade Commission investigation. Girard Gibbs has

accounted for its 6,250 hour estimate in a manner the Court finds reasonable. The Court

finds the large number of hours proposed by Robbins Geller and Barnow & Associates are

not warranted.

The estimated number of hours is relevant to the Court’s decision because it bears

on the cost to Plaintiffs. Should Plaintiffs prevail, they will benefit from the lower fees. The

lower estimate also corresponds to more streamlined and efficient litigation and a speedier

resolution of the disputes, which serve the interest of all parties and of the public. 

After considering all the relevant factors, the Court APPOINTS Girard Gibbs as leadliaison counsel. Girard Gibbs is directed to confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel to determine

whether sharing some of its responsibilities among an executive committee would be helpful,

bearing in mind work delegated to committee members will correspondingly reduce the

amount of work Girard Gibbs will do. Girard Gibbs may then move for appointment of an

executive committee if appropriate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 28, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN Burns

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02823-LAB-DHB Document 49 Filed 06/28/10 Page 4 of 4