Donna L. Boland, RPR, FCRR

Certified Court Reporter

1702 E Baars Street * Pensacola, Florida 32503

DLBolandUSCR@gmail.com

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG ) Case No. 3:19md2885

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, )

) Pensacola, Florida

) March 14, 2024

In re: RICKY DEAN KELLY ) 2:09 p.m.

7:20cv36595 )

)

)

MOTION TO WITHDRAW and STATUS

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

(Pages 1-23)

A P P E A R A N C E S

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC

By: BRYAN F. AYLSTOCK

baylstock@awkolaw.com

17 E Main Street, Suite 200

Pensacola, Florida 32502

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 1 of 23
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

2

P R O C E E D I N G S

THE COURT: Good afternoon. I apologize for the brief

delay. We are here in Mr. Ricky Dean Kelly's 3M case.

Mr. Kelly, I am Judge Casey Rodgers. I am the judge

who has had the privilege of presiding over the Combat Arms

Earplug MDL since assignment of that litigation to me in April

2019.

I have Mr. Aylstock, your present counsel, is here in

the courtroom with you. There are some other attorneys,

Mr. Monsour, Mr. Bradford, Mr. Burns also in the courtroom.

The first part of this hearing relates to the motion

to withdraw that is pending before the Court. So I need to

know from you before we proceed whether you are okay with these

other lawyers who are not members of Mr. Aylstock's firm being

present in the courtroom for this discussion. 3M, obviously,

is not present.

MR. KELLY: That's okay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, very good.

So the Motion to Withdraw is pending.

Mr. Aylstock, it's your motion. I certainly

understand the background and the context of it, but I'll let

you be heard. And you're fine to remain seated or you can

stand, whatever you're more comfortable with.

MR. AYLSTOCK: I think, out of force of habit, Your

Honor, I'll stand.

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 2 of 23
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

THE COURT: That's what most lawyers say.

MR. AYLSTOCK: Yes, Your Honor, we're at this point in

our relationship with Mr. Kelly, attorney/client relationship

with Mr. Kelly -- first of all, I very much like Mr. Kelly, and

he's been a very cooperative client all the way up and down.

However, as you know, my firm and others negotiated

this global class action settlement, and we believe very

strongly that it is a fair settlement, not just for the

whole -- and there are a lot, 250,000 participants in the

settlement -- but we believe that, particularly given the

ability of the settlement to take into account some

extraordinary things that might be present, and, in our view,

are present in Mr. Kelly's case, that his best interest, by

far, is to participate in this settlement.

We have made that clear, and Mr. Kelly has a different

view. He can speak for himself on that. But we've come to the

point where we believe that there is such a fundamental

disagreement as to the path forward for Mr. Kelly that, not

only do we think we should be able to withdraw, I think it's --

if we were to continue on toward litigation, that there would

be continued conflict about the path forward and the right path

forward for Mr. Kelly.

There is some law on this with regard to that, and

there's certainly -- we understand our ethical obligations, our

duty to the Court, but also our duty to everybody pursuant to

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 3 of 23
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

the Florida Bar rules. And we would submit that, under Florida

Bar rule 4.16 subsection B, and, in particular, subsection

(b)(2), that, in our view, Mr. Kelly is insisting on a course

of action that, while we don't consider it repugnant, we do

consider it imprudent. And it is certainly a course of action

which we believe, as his current lawyer, we have a fundamental

disagreement as to whether to proceed in litigation and not

participate in the settlement, and in particular, with the

ability to apply for the extraordinary injury fund. You'll

hear from Mr. Kelly, I'm sure, but we would certainly be

submitting an extraordinary injury fund for him.

We understand the Court's deadlines under CMO 57, and

we've been working diligently with Mr. Kelly for him to comply

with all of those deadlines, including the upcoming expert

report deadline. We've also made it clear to Mr. Kelly that,

regardless if Your Honor lets us withdraw or not, we're going

to proceed and represent him zealously until and unless that

happens, we will be continuing for him to prosecute his claim

with 3M.

And furthermore, we have also made clear that we're,

at this point, not seeking a fee for his case, regardless of

Your Honor's ruling in this matter. We really do want

Mr. Kelly to get everything that he deserves through the $6.01

billion that 3M has put in total in the 3M SAs. We think

that's clearly the best course of action for Mr. Kelly.

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 4 of 23
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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Aylstock.

Mr. Kelly, would you like to be heard?

MR. KELLY: Yes, Your Honor. I'm not very good at --

could I come up to the stand?

THE COURT: You can come up to the lectern, if you'd

like, sure.

MR. KELLY: I'm not an attorney. Didn't think I was

ever going to have to do this.

THE COURT: Well, just take your time.

MR. KELLY: We're here for the withdrawal of counsel

of record. And from what I can understand, there's -- he's

listed one reason for withdrawing, which is fundamental

disagreement.

I'd like to disagree on that point because, other than

a fundamental disagreement, there really haven't had a

disagreement, other than the fact that I will not take the

settlement.

And I brought some -- I actually brought some cases

that's been heard on -- one of them is McDaniel vs. Daiichi, a

2000 lawsuit filed in MDL. It was the olmesartan family of

medications.

Approximately two years into the MDL, parties

negotiated a detailed voluntary settlement program into which

each plaintiff was required to opt in in order to participate,

which is the same as this case.

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 5 of 23
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

When plaintiff, McDaniel, refused to opt in, one of

the five plaintiffs to do so, plaintiff's counsel filed a

motion to withdraw from representation. Counsel argued that

the settlement was in McDaniel's best interest. The withdrawal

would not have a materially adverse effect on McDaniel because

trial had not yet been set or discovery completed, and that, to

continue the representation would oppressively be expensive for

counsel.

The New Jersey district court -- federal court denied

the motion citing three reasons. First, the fact that

McDaniel's retainer agreement permitted counsel's withdrawal

was immaterial because the agreement did not supercede

counsel's obligation under the rules of professional conduct.

Second, the Court found withdrawal could materially

prejudice McDaniel because it was unlikely he could retain new

counsel even if the matter was not at the eve of trial.

McDaniel's status as one of only five plaintiffs to refuse the

settlement in tandem with the high expense associated with

trying the case rendered it almost certain in the court's eyes

that he would not be able to find substitute counsel.

And that's true, in my case, Your Honor. I've had

over 100 phone calls to different law firms across the country.

Nobody is interested. As a matter of fact, most of them has

already been involved in this litigation and the settlement

agreement forbids them to take on any new clients, which is

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 6 of 23
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

another problem.

And also, the Court noted it would take replacement

counsel a significant amount of time to become familiar with

the case in light of the complex product liability theory, that

that's the same reason that McDaniel could not reasonably be

expected to proceed pro se.

And same thing in my case. I'm not an attorney and,

you know, I've just done a little research is all I've done.

And I'd like to say that I'm very happy with my

representation with Mr. Aylstock, and I think he's a great

attorney, and that's the reason I picked him. I actually done

some research, and I was happy with him.

But what I can see is the only reason is because I

didn't settle. And I'm going to read something about that,

too, if you don't mind, ma'am.

THE COURT: Read something, I'm sorry, about?

MR. KELLY: About that -- on this particular case,

finally, the financial burden on counsel to try McDaniel's case

was not grounds for withdrawal. The court stressed that the

fact that it would be expensive to litigate this case is not a

surprise to counsel. If counsel is now scared off by the

prospect for paying for trial, counsel should have not

undertaken the representation of plaintiff in the first

instance.

Finally, the decision of New Jersey's court decision

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 7 of 23
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

established that plaintiff's counsel will not be able to escape

the representation simply because the plaintiff refuses to opt

into the negotiated settlement programs.

The high cost associated with taking a product

liability claim to trial are not only insufficient to warrant

withdrawal but actually weigh against permitting counsel to

escape representation.

And the actual settlement agreement that -- there's

two terms that I feel like it runs into ethic problems is the

mandatory recommendation provision is inconsistent with the

larger duty to give independent and loyal advice to clients.

The mandatory withdrawal provision violates the bar on practice

restrictions. The constraints on terminating the lawyer/client

privileges and the principle that the decision to accept or

reject a settlement belongs to the client.

And a particular case was the Vioxx settlement, which

is pretty much the same thing as the earplug case. The

mandatory recommendation and mandatory withdrawal provisions in

the Vioxx settlement ran afoul of several legal ethic rules, as

the number of commentators, including myself, pointed out.

THE COURT: Were you in that litigation?

MR. KELLY: No, ma'am.

THE COURT: How did you come to comment on that?

MR. KELLY: I found it researching information Fordham

Law Review.

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 8 of 23
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

THE COURT: So you commented to who about the Vioxx

settlement?

MR. KELLY: To you, ma'am. Like I had pointed out, I

think it's -- the mandatory withdrawal provision I think is not

legally ethical.

THE COURT: Okay. So you're making that argument to

me. You did not make that argument in Vioxx?

MR. KELLY: No, ma'am. I'm sorry, if I --

THE COURT: No, I may have just misunderstood you.

That's fine.

MR. KELLY: The most fundamental point is that the

decision to settle belongs to the client, not the client's

lawyer. That's from the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

The mandatory recommendation provision runs afoul of

the lawyer's obligation to give clients independent and loyal

advice. A lawyer must base her advice on what she thinks is

right for the client, not what she promised another party,

particularly the adversary, that she will tell her client.

Several ethics rules come into play. Rule 1.4 on

communication with clients requires lawyers to explain matters

as reasonably necessary so that the clients can make informed

decisions. Lawyers are required to exercise independent,

professional judgment and render candid advice. Finally, the

conflict of interest rules prohibit representation absent -- if

there is a significant risk that the lawyer's duty to a third

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 9 of 23
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

person will materially limit the advice that the lawyer gives

to her client. It is difficult to see how a lawyer could

comply with these obligations while agreeing to recommend the

settlement to every one of her clients.

THE COURT: Let me ask, in those two cases you cite,

the New Jersey MDL and the Louisiana MDL, do you know if the

attorneys who were seeking to withdraw in those two instances

were lead counsel in those MDLs?

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, I don't -- I -- I didn't -- I

didn't pick it up. I wasn't actually looking for that. It may

be --

THE COURT: I ask because you have had the benefit in

your case of having counsel who has really unsurpassed -- I

mean, no other counsel in this litigation has the experience

and knowledge, breadth of knowledge and experience that

Mr. Aylstock does as far as the claims and defenses and the

difficulties of litigating the MDL.

So, I don't know, again, where those lawyers are or

where they were in those MDLs, whether they were a part of

leadership, whether they were lead counsel or part of

leadership, or whether they were on the sidelines having ever

-- I don't know if they filed a case.

In many of those MDLs, some cases are never filed.

Or, if they had filed a case, if they were, again, on the

sidelines just sitting and waiting to see if a settlement

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 10 of 23
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

occurred, as opposed to a lawyer like a Mr. Aylstock who was

lead counsel over the entire MDL as well as a lawyer with

leadership responsibilities throughout numerous bellwether

trials. So he has a different vantage point, if you will, than

maybe those two lawyers.

I'm not saying this makes a difference. I'm not aware

of these two cases. I'll certainly consider them. I'll give

Mr. Aylstock an opportunity to respond, if he wishes to. But

that is an observation that I would make, and that's why I

asked the question.

MR. KELLY: I'm sorry, I don't have the answer, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Well, when I read the cases, I'll probably

be able to figure it out.

MR. KELLY: Finally, the conflict of interest rules

prohibit representation absent consent if there is a

significant risk that the lawyer's duty to a third person will

materially limit the advice that the lawyer gives to her

client. It's difficult to see how a lawyer could comply with

these obligations while agreeing to recommend a settlement to

every one of her clients.

THE COURT: Are you reading from the order? Is that

-- or is this your --

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

THE COURT: I couldn't if you were still reading the

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 11 of 23
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

orders.

MR. KELLY: Yeah, I'm still reading, but I have notes,

too, that I've got on the side.

THE COURT: That's all right.

MR. KELLY: The mandatory withdrawal provision

presents several ethical problems. In addition to undermining

the client's decision of whether to settle, mandatory

withdrawal violates the prohibition on settlement provisions

that restrict a lawyer's right to practice, as well as the

constraints on termination of the lawyer/client relationship.

Rule 5.6(b) prohibits settlement provisions that

restrict a lawyer's right to practice.

A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making

an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer's right to

practice is part of the settlement or a client controversy.

An American Bar Association formal ethics opinion

addressed the rules' applicability to mass torts in light of

the pressure to find creative solutions to mass tort

litigation. It concluded that a lawyer cannot agree to refrain

from representing present or future clients against a defendant

pursuant to a settlement agreement on behalf of current clients

even in the mass tort global settlement context.

In another case, a federal court held that the

plaintiff's lawyers violate Rule 5.6 because they negotiated a

settlement for 56 plaintiffs and coerced at least one

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 12 of 23
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

plaintiff, if not many more, to accept the settlement by

threatening to withdraw if the settlement was not accepted.

I'm sorry this is long but --

Material -- if my attorney withdrawals, the material

adverse effects on my case is several. And one of them is --

one of them is the distance to the Court. It's a long way from

Wilmington, North Carolina, to here. And the case is old

already, and it's already been in court four or five years, and

there's no attorney --

I'll just read it to you, it's better to put it this

way. No material adverse effects on the interest of the client

in the Vioxx case. A client's search for replacement counsel

would be complicated by the fact that nearly every Vioxx

plaintiff lawyer participated in the settlement, thus agreed to

get out of the business of Vioxx litigation.

It's hard to imagine under these circumstances a

straight-faced argument that withdrawal would not adversely

affect my claim. Even if termination would have a material

adverse effect, Rule 1.6(b) permits withdrawal for a number of

reasons. They include a client insists upon taking action with

which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement, the

representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden

on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by

the client, and other calls for withdrawal exist according to

1.16(b).

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 13 of 23
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

A lawyer withdrawing from a nonsettling client must

seek to justify the withdrawal under 1.16(b)(4) on the grounds

that the lawyer fundamentally disagrees with the client's

decision to reject the settlement.

In a similar vein, the lawyer might contend that the

lawyer, by refusing to cooperate with the settlement, has

rendered the representation unreasonably difficult within the

meaning of Rule 1.16(b)(6).

The problem with both of these arguments is that they

assume the settlement decision belongs to the lawyer despite

1.2(a)'s clear instruction that the lawyer shall abide by the

client's decision whether to accept or reject a settlement.

THE COURT: Mr. Kelly, let me ask you this. So, if I

deny Mr. Aylstock's Motion to Withdraw and I require him to

continue representing you, and let's just say the case proceeds

and we're, I don't know, two years from now, which it sounds to

me that would be probably reasonable in terms of looking at

when you might get a trial somewhere. So two years from now

Mr. Aylstock decides, based upon the evidence in your case that

he's aware of, that you don't have a good case, that you are

going to lose either before the judge or ultimately lose before

a jury.

Are you suggesting that Mr. Aylstock could not

withdraw at that point?

MR. KELLY: No. I'm suggesting that my lawyer should

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 14 of 23
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

have performed the due diligence of researching --

THE COURT: What due diligence?

MR. KELLY: To research my case before he accepts my

case.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. -- that would have been

impossible in this litigation. In fact, the statutes of

limitation would have run for most everyone because all of --

99 percent of the discovery or the relevant factual information

was with the Department of Defense and the Department of

Veterans Affairs.

And if you're a veteran, like I am, you know how

difficult it is for you individually to obtain that

information. And I'm not sure any lawyer could have gotten all

of your relevant audiograms and VA records in time to file a

lawsuit within the statute of limitation.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, I had everything in my

possession.

THE COURT: Well, I don't know if that's true or not

true. I'm not questioning you. But that certainly wasn't the

case for a lot of -- the thousands and thousands of plaintiffs

in this litigation. I don't know if you had everything or not.

But we're going to talk a little bit more later about the

records you do have or that I'm aware of.

Do you have anything else, Mr. Kelly, on this issue of

Motion to Withdraw?

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 15 of 23
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

MR. KELLY: No, ma'am. That's all.

THE COURT: Do you have -- or maybe you can ask

Mr. Aylstock for his help. I just would like the citations for

the two cases that Mr. Kelly cites, the New Jersey case and the

Vioxx order that he cites, if anybody has those.

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

Mr. Kelly, do you have copies? I don't want to take

your only copies.

MR. KELLY: I've got -- I only have this one copy, and

I've got all my notes. You can make copies of it.

THE COURT: Let me see if -- since Mr. Aylstock is

still representing you at this very moment, let me ask him to

see what you have there -- he won't take it from you

permanently, but maybe he can give me a citation where I can

just find this myself, these two orders.

MR. AYLSTOCK: Your Honor, the McDaniel case is

McDaniel vs. Daiichi Sankyo, et al. I don't see a case cite,

but I can certainly pull that and provide it to Your Honor.

The publication is -- looks like something off the internet.

THE COURT: This is the District of New Jersey?

MR. AYLSTOCK: The District of New Jersey case.

THE COURT: So it's not a case cite, it's a quote from

an order?

MR. AYLSTOCK: Correct. This is a November 20th,

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 16 of 23
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

2018, article written by Faegre Drinker on products.

THE COURT: Mr. Aylstock, I'm going to ask you, as an

officer of the Court and as a representative of Mr. Kelly at

this time, to see what you can do to find that order and

provide that to the Court. My law clerks will research it as

well, but if you can see if you can find it. I'd like the

actual order, not an article that talks about it.

MR. AYLSTOCK: We'll find it, Judge.

The other one, this should have a cite. It looks like

Cornell Law Review, volume 96:265.

THE COURT: The law review should cite the order, at

least the litigation.

MR. AYLSTOCK: Yeah, this is the law review article

that's citing the Vioxx.

THE COURT: Does it cite the actual order?

MR. AYLSTOCK: I don't see a case cite.

MR. KELLY: It cites some of the rulings, I think.

MR. AYLSTOCK: Well, there's Di Flumeri vs. Le Shack,

[phonetic], which is 2000 Westlaw 654608. That's a Northern

District of New York, May 19th, 2000, case, and it's also

talking about the Vioxx litigation.

MR. KELLY: There may be more listed.

MR. AYLSTOCK: And I'm happy to pull this whole --

THE COURT: I just want to make sure that I -- as

authoritative as the Cornell Law Review is, that would not be

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 17 of 23
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

persuasive authority for me if it's the commentary of a law

professor. I'm interested if it's Judge Fallon's language, or

some other MDL judge's language in an order, then I certainly

would be interested in that. I'm not interested in what law

professors think about motions to withdraw.

MR. AYLSTOCK: Understood, Judge. But we'll be happy

to pull them and provide them to the Court.

THE COURT: Do you have any response you'd like to

present, Mr. Aylstock?

MR. AYLSTOCK: Yes, Your Honor, briefly. I would cite

the Court to the Fisher vs. State case, Supreme Court of

Florida, 248 So.2d 479, and in particular at page 486, where

the Florida Supreme Court says: "We hold that, in a civil

case, any attorney of record has the right to terminate the

attorney/client relationship and to withdraw as an attorney of

record upon due notice to his client and approval by the Court.

Approval by the Court should be rarely withheld, and then only

upon a determination that to grant said request would interfere

with the efficient and proper functioning of the Court."

A couple of other points. I certainly am well aware

of the provisions of the Master Settlement Agreement, having

negotiated those provisions, and I'm well aware of the

provision with regard to recommending this to 100 percent of

our clients.

I negotiated this in conjunction with some others.

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 18 of 23
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

But upon signing this, knowing that what we had achieved in the

face of a bankruptcy attempt and many other things, was many,

many times more than what 3M would have achieved potentially if

the bankruptcy had -- or Aearo's bankruptcy had succeeded.

But also, one of the other provisions that I

personally fought hard for -- and 3M is aware of this -- is

Section 17.17 in the MSA, which says that, "Nothing in this MSA

shall be interpreted to require any party, any eligible

claimant, or CAE counsel or defendants to engage in any conduct

that is in violation of law and/or unethical under the

applicable ethical rules."

I am well aware of 4-1.16 and when withdrawal is

allowed. I am also acutely aware, because of my history in

doing mass torts, of the potential for conflict amongst our own

clients. And in fact, our contingency fee agreement with

Mr. Kelly actually has a waiver of that conflict, in that, "The

client understands that the firm represents more than one

client alleging injury related to the use of the 3M Combat Arms

Earplugs, and the client understands that the firm will make

decisions which, in its judgment, best serve the interests of

all of the firm's 3M Combat Arms clients. It is possible that

a conflict will arise between what's in the best interest of

the group or the firm's clients as a whole and the interest of

the individual client. Despite this possible conflict, client

desires to hire the firm and represent client's interest, and

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 19 of 23
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

client waives any conflict of interest resulting from the

firm's representations of multiple 3M Combat Arms clients."

It say this, but I do want to make this very important

point. In light of 17.7 in the MSA and in light of everything,

I want to assure Mr. Kelly and the Court that, despite all of

that, my firm have 100 percent gone through and individually

evaluated his case under the settlement. If, in fact, I did

not believe that the settlement was in Mr. Kelly's best

interest, I believed, because I negotiated that provision, that

I could absolutely give him advice to continue to litigate, and

I would actually do that.

This is not a case like some of the others and I think

probably that New Jersey case where it's a matter of I don't

want to spend the money or my firm doesn't want to spend the

money. I fundamentally believe that, through the EIF process

and with some of the unique factors that I believe Mr. Kelly

has, that we can achieve and would achieve a fair settlement

for him in the settlement program that was negotiated.

I believe that in the court system that that's not in

Mr. Kelly's best interest to continue forward. If it was, we

would do that. And we're -- if the Court decides that we

remain, we will do that to the best of our ability, and we'll

spend whatever resources and money is necessary. But it's not

a matter of the financial burden on us. It is a matter of what

we believe is improvident action to move forward as part of a

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 20 of 23
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

litigating plaintiff as opposed to participating in the

settlement and availing Mr. Kelly of every available

opportunity both under the various programs of deferred payment

program perhaps but especially the extraordinary injury as to

why we're providing that advice to him.

And that's the reason that we're withdrawing, not

because of any provision that somebody might say would require

us to simply withdraw.

THE COURT: All right. I appreciate that from both of

you.

I'd like to see your fee contract or your --

MR. KELLY: Can I say something, Your Honor?

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. KELLY: Can I say something?

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. KELLY: I already spoke on that, I won't be able

to get an attorney. So, if I continue my case, which I

probably will, I'm going to have to be pro se, and I'm going to

be at a very big disadvantage going forward.

And I don't know if we're allowed to talk about what

the settlement amounts have been offered to me --

THE COURT: Actually, once this hearing is over, we're

going to move into a different phase of this hearing, and it's

going to be more about the challenges of you going forward,

although I'm not going to spend a ton of time on that because I

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 21 of 23
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

think you have your eyes pretty wide open as far as that's

concerned. But also we'll talk a little bit more about the

settlement.

So it's not that you're prohibited from doing so right

now. I just -- we're going to get there in just a minute, if

you're okay to wait for a few minutes.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

THE COURT: We'll get there.

MR. AYLSTOCK: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

I'm going to take the Motion to Withdraw under

advisement. I'd like to look at the cases that Mr. Kelly

argued to the Court. I'm not familiar with them, and so I'm

going to search and try to find those orders.

Mr. Aylstock, if you do find them, please share them

with the Court and with Mr. Kelly, the full orders.

MR. AYLSTOCK: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And then I will issue a ruling, most

likely in writing, as soon as I can.

But in the meantime, Mr. Aylstock, your firm will be

required to continue to represent Mr. Kelly, in the meantime,

until I rule.

MR. AYLSTOCK: Understood, Your Honor.

THE COURT: One way or the other.

So, Mr. Kelly, I'll issue an order. It will either

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 22 of 23
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

grant the motion, which would then allow the firm to withdraw,

or it will deny it, which, of course, would require them to

continue to represent you.

And I have no doubt -- I know this law firm, know the

law firm well through lots of litigation in front of this

Court -- that if they are required to continue to represent

you, I know they will do that vigorously and --

MR. KELLY: I'm confident, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. But no guarantees. I need to look

into this and then issue a ruling that I feel is supported by

the ethical rules and my discretion as well as any law that's

out there that might be persuasive.

MR. KELLY: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Proceedings concluded at 2:44 p.m.)

--------------------

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the

record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter. Any

redaction of personal data identifiers pursuant to the Judicial

Conference Policy on Privacy are noted within the transcript.

s/Donna L. Boland 5-15-2024

Donna L. Boland, RPR, FCRR Date

Official Court Reporter

Case 7:20-cv-36595-MCR-GRJ Document 21 Filed 05/21/24 Page 23 of 23