&>

ilAY g 6 2015

May 23,2015

Clerk of the U. S' District Court

for the Northem District of Illinois

219 South Dearbom Street

Chicago,IL 60604

Re: Adkins et al. v. Nestle Purina PetCare Company, et al.

Case No. l:12-cv-02871 (N.D. Ill.)

Objection to the Settlement

Dear Clerk of the Court:

This letter is an objection to the proposed Class Action Settlement and request for

attomey's fees. I am a class member who is not being represented by counsel, and I do

not intend to appear at the Final Approval Hearing.

I adopt and incorporate the objections of other class members, and, in addition,

the basis of my objection are four fold: l) There is no adequate showing that the proposed

Settlement bears any relationship to the alleged damages inflicted by Defendant on

Plaintiffs; 2) The actions of Class Counsel, including improper request for a protective

order and/or confidentiality agreement, may be indicia of a consciousness of unfairness

and collusion; 3) The amount of the proposed attorney fees of up to 33 Yo of the total

award constitute over reaching and represents unjust enrichment; and 4) the cy pres

provision in the settlement is inappropriate.

In its Settlement Statement published on the case web site, Class Counsel failed to recite

what particular discovery.results, what particular proceedings, and what particular

procedures led up to the proposed Settlement. Members of the class, including myself,

need to be able to look through the file, including discovery, and satisfy themselves that

the proposed Settlement is adequate, fair, and an arms length transaction, but this is not

possible because there is a protective order and/or confidentiality agreement in place.

Instead, we are offered only empty recitations naming types of discovery that could have

been copied from a law school hombook. If the role of an objector is to have any

meaning, it must be coupled with the right to scrutinize the case file and verify the

details.

Since I am a member of the class, and therefore a client of Class Counsel, there is legal

authority to support my right to access and scrutinize Class Counsel's file. Beside the

Rules of Professional Conduct, there is In the Matter of Kaleidoscope,Inc. 15 B.R. 232

(Bkrutcy. D.Ga. 1981) where the court held that the attorney is an agent of the client and

FILED

Case: 1:12-cv-02871 Document #: 223 Filed: 05/26/15 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:4096
may not refuse to turn over any portion of client's file, and may not assert work-product

privilege against client. And in Resolution Trust Corp. v. H-, P.C.l28 F.R.D. 647

(N.D. Tex. 1989), the court concluded that the entire contents of a client's file belong to

the client, and that neither the attorney-client privilege nor work-product doctrines were

applicable.

The protective order in place in this case was the result of a joint collaboration between

Class Counsel and the Defense, and it raises the specter of collusion. Under Rule 26 (c, a

district court may issue a protective order ovemrling the public's right to access the fruits

of pretrial discovery for good cause. For good cause to exist under Rule 26 (c, "the party

seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if

no protective order is granted." Phillips v. G.M. Corp.,307 F.3d 1206,l2l}-l l 19th Cir.

2002). Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated

reasoning, do not satisff the Rule 26(c test." Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co.,966

F.2d 470,476 Oth Cfu. 1992). Rather, the party seeking protection must make a

"particularized showing of good cause with respect to [each] individual document.",Saz

Jose Mercury News,Inc. v. U.S. District Court-N.Dist. (San Jose) 187 F.3d 1096,

I 103 (9th Cir. 1999). Class Counsel and the Defense obtained a protective order, but they

avoided the Court's scrutiny that may have benefited members of the class.

Here, no particulaized showing of good cause with respect to each individual document

was presented, and as a class member with the right to object to any settlement, my right

to access to discovery is far greater than merely a right afforded to a member of the

general public.

Additionally, under the cloak of a protective order and/or confidentiality agreement,

Class Counsel may have seen no need to engage in real discovery to determine what the

case was worth. Instead, they were free to discuss attorney fees without the bother of

having to be adversaries on behalf of the Class. Once they discovered what attorney fees

were acceptable to the defense, they may have seen no need to discover more.

The cy pres provision in the Settlement Agreement is inappropriate. The charity that

would receive the money has not been injured, and this provision may violate the Rule

Against Perpetuities. Therefore, any excess monies should be distributed to class

members.

Therefore,I oppose the proposed settlement and demand greater information on how it

represents an adequate result for the Class. I request that the protective orders and/or

confidentiality agreements be either vacated or modified so that class members may

determine whether discovery was adequate. I also oppose the amount of attorney fees

requested as being way above what might be considered reasonable, and Class Counsel

must present its lodestar as a cross check. And I contend that the possible award to a

charity must be removed from the settlement.

I declare, under penalty of perjury, that our pets consumed products from the Dog Treat

Products list attached to the class action web site.

Case: 1:12-cv-02871 Document #: 223 Filed: 05/26/15 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:4097
Sebrina Narkin

85391 Chezem Road

Eugene, OR 97405

408-499-9886

Very truly yours,

cc: Hogan Lovells US LLP

cc: Robbins Gell'er Rudman & Dowd LLP

Case: 1:12-cv-02871 Document #: 223 Filed: 05/26/15 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:4098
$'

9Xq8

8;=* (oo"o

o c za - +o +

r_*(I)

e h/ d'c (-ratt.

6)i f rrr o ct 

-:" SO\=a-

=(/,!l - qa

483 oor+ O +'r)

" 

=o-.LO.+

6'

tl

i...1

{!r

rll

.t-*.

l-,.

11!

{}

1...t

*!

rll

(

; 

: 

' l' .=

-mc .rl 

;

P tq'ra I

EPElseEa;

tE=',s H 

;

,'l 

' i

il ,t rf

i.t111E"

Case: 1:12-cv-02871 Document #: 223 Filed: 05/26/15 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:4099