1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

NICK PEARSON, FRANCISCO 

PADILLA, CECILIA LINARES, 

AUGUSTINA BLANCO, ABEL 

GONZALEZ, and RICHARD JENNINGS, 

On Behalf of Themselves and All Others 

Similarly Situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

NBTY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and 

REXALL SUNDOWN, INC., a Florida 

corporation; TARGET CORPORATION, a 

Minnesota Corporation, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 11-CV-07972 

CLASS ACTION 

Hon. James B. Zagel 

DECLARATION OF ELAINE A. RYAN, STEWART M. WELTMAN, AND 

HOWARD J. SEDRAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND 

EXPENSES AND INCENTIVE AWARDS 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 249 Filed: 05/05/16 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:4895
2 

Elaine A. Ryan, Stewart M. Weltman, and Howard J. Sedran, individually and jointly 

(as to paragraphs 4-9) declare as follows: 

1. I, Elaine A. Ryan, am a shareholder of the law firm of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman 

& Balint, P.C. (“BFFB”). I am one of the attorneys representing Plaintiffs Pearson, Padilla, 

Linares, Blanco, and Gonzalez (hereafter the “Pearson Plaintiffs”) and the Class in the above 

entitled litigation. I am submitting this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award 

of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and Incentive Awards in the above-entitled action. BFFB has 

extensive experience prosecuting consumer class actions. The firm specializes in complex class 

action litigation, representing consumers, employees, and investors in class actions pending in 

state and federal courts throughout the United States. During its successful history, the firm has 

successfully litigated over 100 class action cases and has made available hundreds of millions of 

dollars for class members. Attached as Exhibit A is a firm biography for BFFB. 

2. I, Stewart M. Weltman, was the owner of Stewart M. Weltman LLC and am 

currently Of Counsel to Boodell & Domanskis LLC. (collectively referred to as “WELTMAN”) 

From February 1, 2012 to January 29, 2015 WELTMAN LLC was Of Counsel to Levin Fishbein 

Sedran & Berman and on February 1, 2015 I became Of Counsel to Boodell & Domanskis. In 

these various positions, I have been and still am an attorney representing the Pearson Plaintiffs and 

the Class in the above entitled litigation. I am submitting this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and Incentive Awards in the above-entitled 

action as to the fees and expenses of Weltman LLC up to and including January 29, 2015 and as 

to the fees and expenses of Boodell & Domanskis from February 1, 2015 to the present. Over 36 

years, I have specialized in complex litigation, prosecuting and defending a variety of individual 

and class actions under the consumer fraud, securities fraud and antitrust laws. I have been in 

involved as lead counsel in cases that have made available hundreds of millions of dollars to 

victims of consumer fraud, securities fraud and antitrust violations. Attached as Exhibit B is my 

professional biography. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 249 Filed: 05/05/16 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:4896
3 

3. I, Howard J. Sedran, am a member of the law firm of Levin Fishbein Sedran & 

Berman (“LFSB”). I am one of the attorneys representing the Pearson Plaintiffs and the Class in 

the above entitled litigation. I am submitting this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and Incentive Awards in the above-entitled action. 

LFSB has extensive experience prosecuting class actions. The firm specializes in complex class 

action litigation, representing plaintiffs in class actions in state and federal courts throughout the 

United States. The firm has successfully litigated numerous complex litigation matters and has 

made available hundreds of millions for its clients. Attached as Exhibit C is a firm biography for 

LFSB. 

4. Based upon pre-suit investigation, including extensive research, analysis of the 

science, and consultations with experts regarding glucosamine and chondroitin, BFFB and 

WELTMAN (hereafter “Pearson Plaintiffs’ Counsel” or “PPC”) concluded that several 

manufacturers of glucosamine and chondroitin products were making similar or identical false 

representations, including Defendants here. Thus, PPC initiated lawsuits against major 

manufacturers of these products across the nation. On June 14, 2011, PPC filed the first class 

action involving any of the Covered Products in this litigation, Cardenas and Padilla1 v. NBTY, 

Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-01615-LKK-CKD (E.D. Cal.), involving the Osteo 

Bi-Flex line of glucosamine/chondroitin products. Thereafter, PPC initiated litigation against two 

other large branded glucosamine/chondroitin product lines: Schiff Nutrition’s Move Free products 

(Lerma v. Schiff Nutrition Int’l, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-01056-JAH-MDD (S.D. Cal.) (filed May 13, 

2011) and Pearson v. Schiff Nutrition Int’l Inc., and Schiff Nutrition Group, Inc., No. 1:11-cv08914 (N.D. Ill.) (filed December 15, 2011)) (final approval to settlement granted on November 

3, 2015, see Order attached as Exhibit D); and Pharmavite’s TripleFlex products (Barrera v. 

Pharmavite, LLC, No. 2:11-cv-04153-CAS-AGR (filed May 13, 2011) (California class certified 

and matter set for trial September 6, 2016)). 

 

1

 Plaintiff Francisco Padilla was included as a named plaintiff in the Third Amended Complaint, 

filed on October 30, 2012. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 249 Filed: 05/05/16 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:4897
4 

5. PPC also initiated litigation against various large private label 

glucosamine/chondroitin manufacturers: Costco (Padilla v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 1:11-cv07686 (N.D. Ill.) (filed October 28, 2011) and Linares and Gonzalez2 v. Costco Wholesale, Inc.,

No. 3:11-cv-02547-MMA-RBB (S.D. Cal.) (filed November 2, 2011)); Target (Pearson v. Target 

Corp., No. 1:11-cv-07972 (N.D. Ill.) (filed November 9, 2011)); and CVS (Blanco v. CVS 

Pharmacy, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-00406-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.) (filed March 4, 2013). At the time that 

PPC filed suit against these private label glucosamine/chondroitin products, PPC was not aware 

that the Rexall defendants manufactured these private label products and first learned of this during 

settlement negotiations. 

6. PPC also has initiated litigation against other glucosamine/chondroitin sellers, 

including Walgreen Company (Ehrman and Guilin v. Walgreen Company, No. 1:11-cv-07763 

(N.D. Ill.) (filed November 1, 2011) (a case that was the subject of a finally approved settlement 

in Quinn v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 7:12-CV-8187-VB (S.D.N.Y.) on March 23, 2015, Order 

attached as Exhibit D)); Wal-Mart (Eckler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-00727-W-NLS 

(S.D. Cal.) (filed March 26, 2012)(case dismissed on March 21, 2015); Direct Digital (Mullins v. 

Direct Digital, LLC., No. 1:13-cv-01829 (N.D. Ill.) (filed March 8, 2013) (Judge Norgle certified 

a multi-stated class and the matter is stayed pending the completion of a settlement); GNC (Lerma 

v. GNC Corp., No. 3:13:cv-00933-CAB-KSC (filed April 18, 2013 and dismissed on February 12, 

2016) and Nutramax (Conrad v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., 1:13-cv-03780 (N.D. Ill.) (filed 

May 21, 2013 and dismissed February 8, 2016). 

7. PPC has aggressively prosecuted this case and vigorously represented the best 

interests of the Pearson Plaintiffs and the Class. PPC engaged in extensive pre-litigation research 

of the scientific evidence regarding glucosamine/chondroitin by, inter alia, reviewing numerous 

studies and reviews and consulting with experts; drafted the original and various amended 

complaints filed in each of these actions; successfully defeated several motions to dismiss; retained 

 

2

 Plaintiff Abel Gonzalez was included as a named plaintiff in the Second Amended Complaint, 

filed on April 25, 2012. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 249 Filed: 05/05/16 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:4898
5 

and worked with various experts; engaged in discovery and review of documents; commenced and 

engaged in class certification proceedings, including the preparation of expert disclosures and 

reports; and defended expert depositions. The expert retained and employed by Plaintiff’s counsel 

in this case, Dr. Thomas J. Schnitzer, MD, PhD from Northwestern University Feinberg School of 

Medicine is one of the foremost experts in this area in the United States, having been one of the 

authors of the single most definitive study on glucosamine/chondroitin, the GAIT 2006 trial, and 

was found qualified to render opinions on these issues in Barrera v. Pharmavite LLC (Dkt. No 

192.) 

8. PPC also played an instrumental role in both series of settlement negotiations, and 

took a leading role in ensuring that the current settlement would pass muster under the new 

precedent set forth in Pearson v. NBTY, Case No. 14-1198 (7th Cir. 2014). While the first 

settlement negotiations, agreement and approval efforts did not result in an approved settlement, 

as the final approval of that settlement was reversed and remanded, much of the time spent on 

these efforts contributed to the ultimate results achieved in the current settlement. For example, 

while the money to be paid to the class in the current settlement is greater than the initial settlement, 

those initial negotiations established the base amount from which the current settlement was 

derived. Further, PPC was also able to draw heavily from the prior briefing and research regarding 

preliminary approval, final approval and other basic settlement-related issues in seeking final 

approval of the current settlement. 

9. PPC’s fee request is based upon a requested percent of the amount paid to the class. 

However, PPC understand that the Court may employ a lodestar check to confirm the percentage 

to be awarded. The lodestar set forth below represents the entire lodestar that PPC has expended 

on this cases from beginning to end, including the time spent on negotiating and seeking final 

approval of the original settlement as those efforts, as set forth above, materially contributed to the 

current settlement. If the Court desires, PPC can and will provide a breakdown of the lodestar 

devoted to work on the initial settlement. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 249 Filed: 05/05/16 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:4899
6 

10. Further, our clients, Plaintiffs Pearson, Padilla, Linares, Blanco, and Gonzalez fully 

and actively participated in the prosecution of this action. They met with counsel, participated in 

the drafting of the complaints and amended complaints and reviewed each complaint prior to it 

being filed, supervised counsel’s efforts on behalf of the Class, participated in efforts leading to 

settlement, and approved the amount and type of settlement proposed for the Class. None of the 

Plaintiffs ever displayed any interests adverse to the Class and a service award for their efforts is 

appropriate. 

BFFB Lodestar and Expense Detail 

11. The total number of hours spent on this litigation by BFFB is 2,044.8. BFFB spent 

approximately 84.3 hours on pre-suit investigation, approximately 137.6 hours on litigation 

strategy and case coordination/management, approximately 229.1 hours drafting the Complaints 

and other submissions to the Court (including legal and other research and investigation), 

approximately 309.8 hours related to motions to dismiss and class certification (including legal 

research), approximately 233.0 hours on discovery and depositions, approximately 111.5 hours on 

court appearances and preparation, approximately 748.5 hours related to the 2013 settlement 

(including preparing court filings in support of preliminary and final approval) and subsequent 

appeal, and approximately 191.0 hours related to the 2015 settlement (including preparing court 

filings in support of preliminary and final approval). 

12. The total lodestar amount for attorney/professional time based on the BFFB’s rates 

is $918,292.00. The hourly rates shown below are the usual and customary rates charged for each 

individual in all of our class action cases. A breakdown of the lodestar is as follows: 

NAME HOURS RATE LODESTAR 

Elaine A. Ryan Shareholder 97.1 $650.00 $63,115.00 

Elaine A. Ryan Shareholder 631.7 $575.00 $363,227.50 

Patricia N. Syverson Shareholder 52.1 $600.00 $31,260.00 

Patricia N. Syverson Shareholder 501.7 $525.00 $263,392.50 

Todd D. Carpenter Shareholder 39.8 $525.00 $20,895.00 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 249 Filed: 05/05/16 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:4900
7 

T. Brent Jordan Associate 42.4 $500.00 $21,200.00 

Lindsey M. Gomez-Gray Associate 4.2 $350.00 $1,470.00 

Lindsey M. Gomez-Gray Associate 395.2 $250.00 $98,800.00 

Kevin R. Hanger Associate 99.6 $250.00 $24,900.00 

Rose K. Creech Paralegal 16.7 $175.00 $2,922.50 

Lydia L. Rueda Paralegal 164.3 $165.00 $27,109.50 

TOTALS: 2,044.8 $918,292.00 

13. The lodestar amount has been compiled based on BFFB’s records. Attorneys and 

professionals at BFFB record time on a daily basis and the time entries are entered into a 

computerized timekeeping system. In computing the total compensable time, attorneys at BFFB 

consistently exercised their billing judgment by reducing some time entries based upon the task 

and to avoid unnecessary duplication of billing entries with other attorneys at BFFB and other PPC 

firms representing the Pearson Plaintiffs in the case. 

14. The hourly rates reflected in the foregoing BFFB table are consistent with those 

charged by similarly situated practitioners in the legal community. In particular, BFFB’s rates 

have been accepted for purposes of lodestar determinations and cross-checks made in the following 

class action cases among many others: 

Lerma v. Schiff Nutrition Int’l, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-01056-JAH-MDD (S.D. Cal.) and Pearson 

v. Schiff Nutrition Int’l Inc., and Schiff Nutrition Group, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-08914 (N.D. Ill.) 

(11/2015); 

Quinn v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 7:12-CV-8187-VB (S.D.N.Y.); 

Hohman v. Matrixx Initatives Inc. et. al, No. 1:09-cv-03693 (N.D. Ill.); 

Payares v. J.P. Morgan Chase, No. CV 07-05540 (C.D. Cal.);

Negrete v. Fidelity and Guaranty Life Ins. Co., No. CV-05-6837 (C.D. Cal.); 

Allen v. Decision One Mortgage Co., No. 1:07-cv-11669 (D. Mass);

Rand v. American National Ins. Co., No. CV 09-0639 (N.D. Cal.);

Ramirez v. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., No. 3:08-cv-00369 (N.D. Cal.);

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 249 Filed: 05/05/16 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:4901
8 

In re Midland National Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., No. 2:07-ml-1825 

(C.D. Cal);

In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litig., No. CV 04-2147 (D. Ariz.); and

In re Conseco Ins. Co. Annuity Marketing & Sales Practices Litig., No. 5:05-cv04726 (N.D. Cal). 

15. BFFB incurred a total of $77,067.35 in un-reimbursed expenses in connection with 

the prosecution of this litigation. They are broken down as follows: 

EXPENSE CATEGORY AMOUNT 

Court/Filing Fees $3,135.00 

Service of Process $528.70 

Expert Fees $45,695.07 

Deposition/Transcript Fees $392.86 

Electronic Research (Westlaw/LexisNexis/Pacer/TLO) $6,436.85 

Outside Messenger $441.00 

Overnight Delivery $329.45 

Internal Reproduction $339.00 

Telephone/Facsimile $78.38 

Travel/Lodging/Transportation/Meals $15,939.67 

Mediation Fees $3,530.04 

Glucosamine Product Purchases $221.33 

TOTAL: $77,067.35 

16. The aforementioned expenses pertaining to this case are reflected in the books and 

records of BFFB. These books and records are prepared from expense vouchers, check records, 

and other documents and are an accurate record of the expenses. All of the expenses listed were 

reasonably incurred in the normal course of business, were reasonably necessary to the conduct of 

the litigation, and were otherwise not duplicative. 

17. BFFB’s compensation for the services rendered to the Class is wholly contingent. 

Any fees and reimbursement of expenses will be subject to the approval of the Court. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 249 Filed: 05/05/16 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:4902
9 

18. The lodestar summary reflects BFFB’s experience in the field, the complexity of 

the matters involved in this litigation, and the prevailing rate for providing such services. 

19. Based upon my experience with other class action matters, I, Elaine A. Ryan, 

declare and believe that the time expended by BFFB in connection with this action is reasonable 

in amount, was necessary to prosecute this litigation and represents BFFB’s efforts to diligently 

litigate this case while at the same time recognizing the need to avoid needless billing and 

duplication of efforts both between the attorneys in BFFB and the attorneys in the other PPC firms 

representing the Pearson Plaintiffs in this litigation. Throughout this litigation I, as well as all the 

other attorneys at my firm involved in this litigation, have kept in mind our professional and 

fiduciary obligations to our clients, the Court, and the Class both in our litigation efforts and 

strategy, as well as in our billing (including in the amount of time and exercise of judgment 

regarding specific tasks performed).

WELTMAN LLC Lodestar and Expense Detail And Boodell & Domanskis LLC Lodestar 

and Expense Detail 

20. WELTMAN, along with BFFB, spent substantial numbers of hours in initial 

research, both legal and scientific, before filing all of the actions set forth in paragraphs 4 and 6 

above. Many of those hours, while of benefit to the cases which are the subject of this litigation 

(because they provided initial background information both legally and scientifically) were not 

billed to this litigation and are not part of the lodestar analysis below. Mr. Weltman has been the 

lead attorney with regard to the development of the scientific analysis of the claims made in each 

of the lawsuits covered by this settlement – Cardenas v. NBTY, Pearson v. Target, Padilla v. 

Costco, Linares v. Costco and Blanco v. CVS.

3

 For each of these cases Mr. Weltman devoted his 

time on pre-suit investigation, litigation strategy/coordination, drafting pleadings/complaints, 

briefing and other submissions to the Court. The total number of hours spent on this litigation 

since February 1, 2015 when he joined Boodell & Domanskis is 32.25 and this time was spent 

exclusively on the current settlement - negotiations and settlement approval for all of the cases, for 

 

3

 Mr. Weltman, BFFB and LFSB are not counsel of record in Jennings v. Rexall. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 249 Filed: 05/05/16 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:4903
10 

a total lodestar during this period of $24,187.50 ($750 times 32.25 hours). Mr. Max Stein, a partner 

with Boodell & Domanskis, also spent 12.4 hours for a total lodestar of $7,130.00 ($575 times 

12.4 hours). 

21. Thus, the total lodestar amount for all of the cases covered by this settlement is 

$588,937.50 for attorney/professional time for Mr. Weltman based on Mr. Weltman’s current 

hourly rate of $750 and is $7,130.00 for Mr. Stein based on his current hourly rate of $575 for a 

combined lodestar of $596,067.50. Messrs. Weltman’s and Stein’s hourly rates are their usual and 

customary rates for class action cases. 

22. The lodestar amount has been compiled based on WELTMAN LLC’s and Boodell 

& Domanskis records. Mr. Weltman and Mr. Stein record their time on a daily basis and the time 

entries are compiled monthly on computerized data sheets. 

23. The hourly rates reflected above for Mr. Weltman are consistent if not lower than 

those charged by similarly situated practitioners in the legal community. In particular, Mr. 

Weltman’s rates have been accepted for purposes of lodestar determinations and cross-checks 

made in the following class action cases among many others: 

Lerma v. Schiff Nutrition Int’l, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-01056-JAH-MDD (S.D. Cal.) and Pearson 

v. Schiff Nutrition Int’l Inc., and Schiff Nutrition Group, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-08914 (N.D. Ill.) 

(11/2015); 4 

Quinn v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 7:12-CV-8187-VB (S.D.N.Y.); 

Hohman v. Matrixx Initatives Inc. et. al, No. 1:09-cv-03693 (N.D. Ill.); 

In Re Carbon Black Antitrust Litigation, No. 03-cv-10191, MDL NO. 1543 (D.C. Mass.); 

In Re EPDM Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:03-md-1542 (D.C. Conn.); and 

In Re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, Misc. No. 99-197, MDL 1285 (D.D.C.). 

24. In connection with its Of Counsel relationship with LFSB, WELTMAN LLC’s 

expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution of this litigation have been paid for and 

advanced by LFSB. 

 

4

 Mr. Stein’s rate was also accepted by the court in Lerma v. Schiff. Mr. Stein was not counsel 

on the other cases listed here. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 249 Filed: 05/05/16 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:4904
11 

25. Mr. Weltman and Mr. Stein’s compensation for the services rendered to the Class 

is wholly contingent. Any fees will be limited to those approved by the Court. 

26. The lodestar summary reflects Mr. Weltman’s experience in the field, the 

complexity of the matters involved in this litigation, and the prevailing rate for providing such 

services. 

27. Based upon my experience with other class action matters, I, Stewart M. Weltman, 

declare and believe that the time I and Mr. Stein expended in connection with this action is 

reasonable in amount, was necessary to prosecute this litigation, and represents our efforts to 

diligently litigate this case while at the same time recognizing the need to avoid needless billing 

and duplication of efforts between the attorneys in the other PPC firms representing the Pearson 

Plaintiffs in this litigation. Throughout this litigation I have kept in mind my professional and 

fiduciary obligations to our clients, the Court, and the Class both in my litigation efforts and 

strategy, as well as in my billing (including in the amount of time and exercise of judgment 

regarding specific tasks performed).

LFSB Lodestar and Expense Detail 

28. The total number of hours spent on this litigation by LFSB is 294.90. LFSB’s 

paralegal assisted in finalizing and proofing briefs and attended to other administrative filing 

matters. Additionally, LFSB participated in legal research, case oversight, and settlement. 

29. The total lodestar amount for attorney/professional time based on the LFSB’s rates 

is $150,774.75. The hourly rates shown below are the usual and customary rates charged for each 

individual in all of our class action cases. A breakdown of the lodestar is as follows: 

Name Hours Rate Lodestar 

Howard J. Sedran – Partner 33.20 $795.00 $26,394.00 

Keith Verrier – Associate 51.85 $495.00 $25,665.75 

Charles Sweedler – Associate 161.10 $525.00 $84,577.50 

James Rapone - Paralegal 48.75 $290.00 $14,137.50 

TOTALS 294.90 $150,774.75 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 249 Filed: 05/05/16 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:4905
12 

30. The lodestar amount has been compiled based on LFSB’s records. Attorneys and 

professionals at LFSB contemporaneously record their time and the time entries are compiled on 

a monthly basis. 

31. The hourly rates reflected in the foregoing LFSB table are consistent with those 

charged by similarly situated practitioners in the legal community. In particular, LFSB’s rates 

have been accepted for purposes of lodestar determinations and cross-checks made in the following 

class action cases among many others:

Lerma v. Schiff Nutrition Int’l, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-01056-JAH-MDD (S.D. Cal.) and

Pearson v. Schiff Nutrition Int’l Inc., and Schiff Nutrition Group, Inc., No. 1:11-cv08914 (N.D. Ill.) (11/2015); 

Quinn v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 7:12-CV-8187-VB (S.D.N.Y.); 

In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:06-md–01775 (E.D. 

N.Y.), MDL No. 1775; 

In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:08-md-01950 (S.D. N.Y.), 

MDL No. 1950; 

In re Potash Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:08-cv-06910 (N.D. IL) Eastern Division, 

MDL No. 1996; 

In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002 (E.D. Pa.), 

MDL No. 2002; and 

In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:04-md-01616 (D.C. KS), MDL 1616 

32. LFSB incurred a total of $32,937.89 in unreimbursed expenses in connection with 

the prosecution of this litigation. They are broken down as follows: 

EXPENSE CATEGORY AMOUNT 

Court/Filing Fees $1,584.00 

Expert Fees $24,401.36 

Deposition/Transcript Fees $2,434.25 

Electronic Research (Westlaw/Lexis Nexis/Pacer) $3,751.33 

Outside Messenger $0.00 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 249 Filed: 05/05/16 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:4906
13 

Overnight Delivery $0.00 

Postage $24.17 

Outside Photocopy Expense $0.00 

Internal Reproduction $304.50 

Telephone/Facsimile $36.13 

Travel/Lodging/Transportation/Meals $402.15 

Mediation Fees $0.00 

TOTAL: $32,937.89 

33. The aforementioned expenses pertaining to this case are reflected in the books and 

records of LFSB. These books and records are prepared from expense vouchers, check records 

and other documents and are an accurate record of the expenses. All of the expenses listed were 

reasonably incurred in the normal course of business, were reasonably necessary to the conduct of 

the litigation and were otherwise not duplicative. 

34. LFSB’s compensation for the services rendered to the Class is wholly contingent. 

Any fees and reimbursement of expenses will be subject to the approval of the Court. 

35. The lodestar summary reflects LFSB’s experience in the field, the complexity of 

the matters involved in this litigation, and the prevailing rate for providing such services. 

36. Based upon my experience with other class action matters, I, Howard Sedran, 

declare and believe that the time expended by LFSB in connection with this action is reasonable 

in amount, was necessary to prosecute this litigation, and represents LFSB’s efforts to diligently 

litigate this case while at the same time recognizing the need to avoid needless billing and 

duplication of efforts both between the attorneys in LFSB and the attorneys in the other PPC firms 

representing the Pearson Plaintiffs in this litigation. Throughout this litigation I, as well as all the 

other attorneys at my firm involved in this litigation, have kept in mind our professional and 

fiduciary obligations to our clients, the Court and the Class both in our litigation efforts and 

strategy, as well as in our billing (including in the amount of time and exercise of judgment 

regarding specific tasks performed).

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 249 Filed: 05/05/16 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:4907
14 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing 

is true and correct. Executed this 5th day of May, 2016 at Phoenix. Arizona. 

 

 Elaine A. Ryan 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing 

is true and correct. Executed this 5th day of May, 2016 at Chicago, Illinois. 

 

 Stewart M. Weltman 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing 

is true and correct. Executed this 5th day of May, 2016 at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

 

Howard J. Sedran 

 

 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 249 Filed: 05/05/16 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:4908
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Stewart M. Weltman, hereby certify that on May 5, 2016, I caused a true and correct copy 

of the foregoing document: Declaration of Elaine A. Ryan, Stewart M. Weltman, and Howard J. 

Sedran In Support of Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and Incentive Awards to be 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send 

notification of such filing to all counsel registered to receive such notice and I hereby certify that I 

have mailed the foregoing documents via the United States Postal Service to non-CM/ECF 

participants. 

 /s/Stewart M. Weltman 

 Stewart M. Weltman 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 249 Filed: 05/05/16 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:4909