The Honor able John. R. Adams, Unit ed States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of * Ohio, sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0567n.06 F iled: Septem ber 18, 2008 No. 07-1953 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
JUL I E O L DEN; RI CH AR D HU NT ER; WI L BU R BL EAU; et a l., Pla int if fs -O bje c tor s- Ap pe lla

nts , v. C A R L G A R D N E R; CL A R A L EWANDOWSKI ; RONAL D MCL ENAN, SR., Pla int if

fs -A pp e lle e s, L AFA RGE CORPOR ATI ON, Def endant- Appellee
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT C OUR T FO R THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

Before: ROG ERS an d MCK EAGU E, Circuit Judges; and ADAMS, DistrictJudge. * Roger s, Circuit Judge. The appellants in this case ar e some membe rs of a class of pla intiffs who sued the de fenda

nt, L afa rg e Corporation, because of pol lution emitted by its portland ce ment plant in Alpena, Michig an. Af ter the de fenda

nts had uns ucce ssfully

appea led the district cour t’s
c la ss c e rt if

ic a tio n d e c isi on , the c la ss co un se l and the de fe nd ant en te re d into se ttl e me nt n e g oti a tio ns . Th e c la ss c ouns e l and

de fe nd ants c ame to an a g re e me nt whe re by the de fe nd ant w ou ld p ay

the c la ssNo. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

- 2 - members $1,900,000, while also spending $700,000 on capital improve ments to reduce pollution. The a ppellants (her einaf

ter, the “ Objector s ”) o bjected to this proposed se ttlement and aske d the district court to reje ct it. I n turn, the cla ss counsel aske d the cour t to r emove the class r epre sentatives — who all objecte d to the settlement — an d repla ce the m with new class r epre sentatives. The district court g rante d the motion to subst itute new cla ss repre sentatives, althoug h the cour t refuse d to approve the s ettlement because it impermissibly require d those who had previously opted out of the litigation to do so ag ain. Soon a fter the reje ction of the first proposed se ttlement ag ree ment, the pa rt ie s su bmi tte d a re vis e d s e ttl e me nt a g re e me nt that r e so lve d th e op t- out is su e , b ut w a s o the rw ise substantially

identical to the first settlement a g ree ment. The Obje ctors filed obje ct i o n s y et ag ain, but the district court over ruled those objec tions and approve d the settlement. On a ppeal, the Ob je c tor s con te nd that the re vis e d settle me nt ag re e me nt sho uld no t hav e be e n ap pr ov e d be c a us e it is n ot f a ir , r e a so na

ble , a nd a de qu a te . T he y

a lso argue that th e or ig ina l c la ss r e pr e se ntativ e s sh ou ld not have be en re moved as c lass repr esentatives, and that the district c ourt should have a war ded fe es and cost s to Objectors’ c ounsel. Althoug h the fa irness, re asonable ness, and a dequac y of the settlement is a close c all, and this court mig ht not approve the settlement if it were ev al u ating the issue de novo, the hig hly

defe rential standa

rd of r eview r equire s aff

ir m an ce o f t h e dis trict court’ s decision to approve the settlement. L ikewise, the dist ri ct co u rt ’s dec isions to replace the orig inal class re prese ntatives and de ny fee s and costs to the Objec tors’ counse l must also be affir med.
I.No. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

- 3 - Th e c e me nt p lant i n que sti on manu fa c tur e s ce me nt fr om lime sto ne , san d, fl y a sh , g y ps um, and iron. The se ra

w mater ials are blended tog ether afte r having been dried a

nd g round into powder. After war d, the mix ture is heated to a high te mperature in kilns fueled by coal a nd petroleum c oke. This transforms the mix ture into ha rd nodules called clinker. After the clinker is cooled and g round into powder, it is combined with g y psum to produc e ceme nt. This pr ocess r esults in the relea se of
su bs tanti a l amou

nts of par

tic ulate int o th e a ir . So me of thi s p oll uti on

is c omp os e d o f t oxic
s u b s t an c e s , s u c h a s m e r c u r

y.
I n 1994, L afa

rg e ente red into a c onsent judg ment with the S tate of Michig an conc erningthe plant’s pollution. Neverthe less, the plant conti n u ed em i tting pollution. Betwe en 1996 and 1999, the Michig an De partment of E nvironmental Qua lity (“MDE Q”) de te r

mi n e d th at the plant committed
numero u s v io lati o n s o f

th e c o n s e n t j u d g me n t t

h a t r e s u lt e d

in s ti p u late d

p e n a lt ie s o f

$ 5
. 4 milli on. Th e se pe na lti e s d o not ap pe ar to have sto pp e d th e po llutio n th ou g h. I n 2 00 5 — six y e ars a ft e r t

his laws uit wa s f ile d — the pla nt e mitte d 8 02 ,1 19 po un ds of EP A Toxic Re le a se I nv e nto ry a ir pollutants. The p l an t also emitted hig h levels of mer cury during that y ear . Acc ording to MDEQ, the plant emitted 520 pounds of mer cury into the air during2005, and L afa rg e’s own monitoring shows that the plant emitted betwe en 422 and 555 pounds of merc ury du ri n g t h at y ear . MDEQ
rec ords indicate that this was the se cond lar g est source of merc ury emissions in Mi chig an in 2005. Of the me rc ur

y e mitte d f ro m th e pla

nt, a pp ro xima te ly

85 %- 90 % w a s in

the oxidi zed

g a se ou s f or m, which, ac cordingto the aff idavit of the Objec tors’ ex pert, was espec ially harmful be cause it is water soluble and there fore “muc h m o re biologica lly available for toxic action.” The Objector s’ expertNo. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

The medic al monitoring a nd trespass c laims were eventua lly dismiss ed. 2 - 4 - has also attested to the fact that ox idiz ed mercury not only has m ore dang erous properties than othe r forms of mer cury , but is a particular conce rn for

the resident of Alpena beca use it is deposited closer t o i t s s o u r c e t h ano t h e r

f o r m s o f m e r c u r y. On April 19, 1999, a p u t ati ve cla ss action complaint was f iled ag ainst L afa

rg e. The
c omp la int name d Juli e Ol de n, Ric ha rd Hun ter , an d Wil bur B le a u a s th e putativ e c la ss repr esentatives, and it alleg ed four cause s of action: (1) a medical monitoring claim; (2) tre spass; (3)
nu isa nc e ; and (4 ) n e g lig e nc e . Th e c la ss a lle g e d th a t th e y ha d s uf fe re d p e rs on a l in

jur y and pr op e rt y 2 damag e as a result of the cement kiln dust that was produc ed and e mitted during the manufa cturing p r o c e s s . T h e c l a s s a l s o c l a i m e d t o h av e s u f

f e r e d s i m i l ar i n j u r i e s d u e t o t h e e m i s s i o no f

t o x i c b ypr od uc ts that r e su lte d f

ro m th e burn ingof

ha zar do us wa ste in t

he kil ns . On Octobe r 24, 2001, the c ase was certified as a class action. See O lden v. Lafarge Corp. , 203 F.R.D. 254 (E .D. Mich. 2001). The class was def ined as “ all owner s of sing le family residenc es in t he City of Al pe na wh os e pe rs on s o r p ro pe rt y wa s d a ma g e d b y

toxic po llutants and

c on tamin ants which orig inated fro m t h e LaFa rge [ s i c] ce m en t m an u fa ct u ri n g fa ci l i t y

l o ca t edi nAl pena, Mic higa n.” Id. at 271. The c lass cer

tification was a

ppeale d to the Six th Circuit. Bef ore the appea l was hea

rd, howeve r, t he two parties went to mediation. The mediator — who wa s a for mer c hief judg e of the Way ne County

(Michig an) Circ uit C ourt — conc luded that a se ttlement of $1.8 milli on would be fa ir and re a so na ble . Ne ve rt

he le ss, the pa

rt ie s we re no t abl e to co me to an a g re e me nt, and

the a pp e a ls proce ss continued. The c lass cer tificat i o n d ec i s i o n was a ffirme d by the Six th Circuit in Olden v.No. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

- 5 - Lafarge Corp. , 3 8 3 F. 3 d 4 95 (6th Cir. 2004), and the Supre me Court denied c ertiora ri in Lafarge Corp. v. Olden , 545 U.S. 1152 (2005).
Al mos t imm e diate ly a ft e r the Sup re me Court ’s de nia l of c e rt ior ari , th e pa

rt ie s e nte re d into settlement neg otiations. The class counsel had no expert opinions, nor had they eng ag ed in forma l dis c ov e ry . N e ve rt

he le ss, the c la ss c ouns e l — who ha d b e e n invo lve d in many e nv ir on me nta l c la ss actions, but ha d never taken one to tr ial — rea ched a proposed settlement wit h L af ar ge. T he proposed settlement ag ree ment called for a total settlement value of $2.6 milli on, and it rede fined the c la ss a s:
Al l of tho se natur a l pe rs on s re sid ing wi thi n the City of Al pe na , M ic hig an, a t any tim e be tw e e n Apr il 1 9, 19 96 , a nd the date of

thi s A g re e me nt, tog e the r w itha ll of thos e na tur a l p e r s o n s o r

e n t i t i e s ( i n c l u d i n g b u tn o tl i m i t e d t o p r o p r i e t o r s h i p s, unincorporated associations, partnerships, instituti ons, busine s s and professional corpor ations, not-for- profit cor porations, tru s t s , and their successor s in tit le or int e re st) ow nin g re sid e nti a l pr op e rt y wi thi n the City of Al pe na , Mic hig an, a t any tim e be tw e e n Apr il 1 9, 19 96 , a nd the date of

thi s A g re e me nt.

I n c on sid e ra

tio n f or thi s se ttl e me nt, the c lass me mbe rs we re re qu ir e d to re le a se a ll c la ims a g a ins t L afa rg e re lating to a

ny alleg ed emissions from L afa rg e’s Alpe na plant that we re, or could have been, pleade d in the instant case. T his relea se wa s to cover a ll damag es or injuries — whe ther known or unknown — except for “those claims of alleg ed per sonal injuries that wer e broug ht to the attention of a he alth car e provide r by way of a pe rsonal visit prior to the date of this Ag ree ment wher e either the class membe r or the he alth car e provide r asse rted, at the time of the v i s i t , a causal connec tion betwee n the injury

and an e mission from the Defe ndant’s plant.”No. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

“ Q u a li f yin g Re s id e n c e ” w a s d e f

in e d a s : “ ( i) th e p r im ar

y r e s id e n c e in th e Ci ty

of Alpena 3 oc c up ie d b y

a Cla ima nt a nd any me mbe rs of

his or her ho us e ho ld d

ur ingthe Cla ss P e ri od ; or (i i) residential pr operty

owned by

a Claimant.” I t se e ms a s th ou g h th e int e nt w a s to e sta bli sh a base lin e a ssume d v a lue of $1 ,0 00 fo r a ll 4 c la ims
. Othe rw ise , the re wo uld be no wa y to d e te rm ine the va lue of the re c og nize d c la im f

or tho se people who did not bo t h re s i d e in and own a Qua lifying Re sidence since the pr oposed settlement a g re e me nt d oe s n ot e sta

bli shan a ssume d v a lue fo r p e op le in t hat sit uatio n. Ne ve rt

he le ss, the pla in langua g e of

the a g re e me nt d oe s n ot r e fl e c t th e pr ob a ble int e nt. - 6 - Of the $2.6 million settlement amount, L afa rg e wa s to s pend $700,000 on two ca pital improvement projec ts: (1) upg radingthe plant’s dust collection sy stem, and (2) pavinga par king lot and roa d at the fa cility . The re maining $1.9 million of t h e s et tlement was to constitute the Settlement Fund.
F ro m the S ett lemen t F un d w ou ld b e pa id t he a tto rn e y s’ fe e s a

nd c os ts, the c la ss
re pr e se ntativ e s’ ban ner

awa rd s, and the c omp e ns a tio n to c la ss m e mbe rs wh o s ub mitte d c la ims
. Ha vin g top pr ior ity

we re the fe e s and c os ts sou g ht by the c la ss co un se l, whic h amou nte d to ne arl y $ 6 7 0 , 0 0 0
. N e x t , t h e c l a s s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s w o u l d b e p a i d b an n e r aw ar d s o f $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 e a c h
. F i n a l l y, the re maining mone y

would be paid to member s of the settlement c lass who submitted a claim. The pr op os e d se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt e sta bli sh e d a fo rm ula fo r d e te rm ini ngho w muc h th e se ind ivi du a ls would rec over. The ir claims would be ba sed on their “ rec og nized claim.” A claimant’s r ecog nized
c la im w a s to be de te rm ine d a c c or din g to the loc a tio n of the ir re sid e nc e , w he the r t

he y ow ne d th e ir residenc e, and the portion of the class per iod during which they owned or resided in their

residenc e. Th e r e c o g n iz e d

c la im f o r a c la im an t wh o b o th

r e s id e d in an d o w n e d a “ Q u a li f yin g Re s ide nce” 3 throug hout the class per iod w as assumed to ha ve a value of $1,000. I f, throug hout the class per iod, 4No. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

The “North S ide Geogr aphic Area ” was define d as “the g eog raphic are a def ined by draw ing 5 a line fr om L ake H uron along the northea st side of the Thunder Ba y River to the ea st of the ra ilroad tr ack th at cr os se s th e Thun de r B ay Riv e r n e ar 1 0th

Str e e t c on tin

uin g on the tr a c k n or

the a ste rl y to L ong L ake Roa d following the trac k there afte r south ea s t er ly to Wessel and then southerly along Wessel ext ending on a line throug h For d Avenue to L ake H uron.” This re prese n t s t h e portion of Al pe na in c los e st p ro ximity

to t he L a fa rg e c e me nt p lant. As me nti on e d a

bo ve in n ote 2, the pr op os e d s e ttl e me nt a g re e me nt p ro vid e d n o me c ha nis m 6 for de termining the assumed va lue of a claim made by a person who di d not both reside in and own a Q u a l i f yi n g R e s i d e n c e t h r o u g h o u t t h e c l a s s p e r i o d
. T h e r e f o r e , i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e a g r e e m e n tl i t e r a l l y, it i s n ot p os sib le to d e te rm ine the a ssume d v a lue of a c la im m a de by

a c la im ant who di d n ot b oth own and r eside in a Q ualifying Re sidence
. Se e su pra note 4. 7 - 7 - a c la ima nt r e sid e d in and ow ne d a Qua lif ying Re sid e nc e that wa s o uts ide the No rt h Si de Ge og ra

ph ic Are a (“NSGA”) , then the cla imant’s rec og nized claim w ould be 100% of the assumed va lue of the 5 claim. Se e id . I f, throug hout the class peri o d , a cla imant owned a Q ualifying Re sidence that was outside the NSGA, but the claimant did not reside in the residence, then the claimant’ s rec og nized claim would be 50% of the a ssumed value of the c laim. L ikewise, a claimant would re ceive 50% 6 of the a s s u me d v a lu e o f th e ir c la im if , thr o u g h o u t th e c la im p e r io d , th e c la im an t r e sided in a Qualifying Re sidence that was outside the NSGA but did not own the residenc e. I f a c laimant lived 7 in or owned a Qualifying Residence in the NSGA, then the claimant would r ece ive twice the amount that the claimant would r ece ive if the Qua lifying Re sidence were n ot in the NSGA. Finally , if a claimant lived in or owne d a Qua lifying Re sidence for less than the entire c l ass per iod, the
c la ima nt’ s re c og nize d c la im w ou ld b e re du c e d a c c or din g to t he pr op or tio n o f d ay s sp e nt r e sid ingin
or ow nin g a Qu a lif yingRe sid e nc e duri ngthe c la ss p e ri od to the tot a l numbe r o f d ay s in the c la ss period.No. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

- 8 - Acc ording to aff

idavits submitt ed to the district court, none of the c lass repr esentatives were invit ed t o p ar t i cipate in the se ttlement neg otiations or even notified that such neg otiations were taking place
. Two of the orig inal class repr esentatives — Ble au and Hunter — say that they wer e not shown a copy

of the propose d settlement ag ree ment until after it had be en submi t t ed to the dis tr ic t cou

rt
. Hunte r say s tha t he wa s f ir st i nf or me d o f t he pr op os e d s e ttl e me nt b y c la ss c ouns e l in May of 2006. He further say s that he was told that eac h of the class repr esentatives would rec eive $5,000, but that the merc ury emissions would not be remedied by the sett l em en t
. I n response , Hunter infor

med the cla ss counsel that the class repr esentative’s award was not enoug h, and that the settlement nee ded to re solv e t h e u n d er l ying pollution issues. Hunter sa y s that the class c ounsel informed Hunte r that the mer cury problem wa s not the class counse ls’ issue.
The third class repr esentative, Olden, say s that the class counse l initi ally informed he r that
eac h class re prese ntative would re ceive $5,000, but that the amount was e ventually raised to $20,000
eac h afte r she e x presse d d i s ap p roval of the settlement. She also say s that she was shown the proposed se ttlement a g ree ment prior to its submissi on to the district court and that the class counse l told her that the proposed settlement ag ree ment would not be sent to the other c lass repr esentatives beca use it did not have to be sent to them. In addition, she say s that the class counsel told her that she should ta k e th e le a d o n th e s e tt le me n t f o r th e g o o d o f th e c o mm

u n it y , an d th a t s h e s ign e d the p ro p o s eds et t l em en tagr ee m en twi t h o u tre al l y u n d er s t an d i n g wh at s h e w as d o i n g. When the proposed se ttlement ag ree ment was submitted to the district c ourt for pr eliminary approva l on J une 20, 2006, it bor e the signature of only one cla ss repre sentative, Juli e Olden. O nNo. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

- 9 - June 28 , 2 00 6, the dis tr ic t c ourt pr e lim ina

ri ly a pp ro ve d th e propo se d s e ttl e me nt. I n d oin g so , it order ed that the c lass be rede fined acc ording to the definition provided in the propose d settlement
a g re e me nt, and

it a lso c on c lud e d th a t the pr op os e d s e ttl e me nt a pp e are d “ to b e a

fa ir re su lt o f a

rm s le ng th ne g oti a tio n that is lik e ly to be in the be st inte re st of [the ] c la ss me mbe rs .” Sho rt ly a ft e r t his preliminary

approva l, class re prese nt at i v e Ol den re voked her signature a

nd her a pproval of the pr op os e d s e ttl e me nt. Ad dit ion a lly , c la ss re pr e se ntativ e s Hunte r and B le a u ma de a c omp la int

a g a ins t the class c ounsel to the Michig an Attorne y Grieva nce Commission.
On Au g us t 7, 20 06 , atto rn e y Chr ist op he r M . Bzd ok ma de an en tr y of a pp e ara nc e on be ha lf of the c la ss r e pr e se ntativ e s and 79 oth e r c la ss m e mbe rs . B zdo k sim ult ane ou sly fi le d ob

je c tio ns to the proposed se ttlement ag ree ment on behalf of those 82 individuals. These obje ctions argued that the pr op os e d settle me nt ag re e me nt wa s unf a ir fo r se ve n re a so ns : ( 1) the se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt d id not have the e ndorsement of any of the c lass repr esentatives; ( 2) class counsel had not obtained a ny expert opinions or enga g ed in formal discovery befor e neg otiating the se ttlement; (3) the settlement would, for minimal or no considera tion, r elea se all claims, even pe rsonal injury claims that had not y et ac crue d; (4) the se ttlement arbitrar ily expanded the cla ss from peop l e ac tually damag ed by L afa rg e’s e missions to ever

y one in the City

of Alpena ; (5) the proposed settlement ag ree ment forc ed ba c k in to th e c la s s a ll c la s s me mb e r s w h o h a d p r e v io u s ly

o p te d o u t o f th e li ti g a ti o nan d

r e quired the m to op t out a g a in i f t

he y did no t w ant t o b e pa

rt of the se ttl e me nt; (6 ) t

he de a dli ne to o bje c t to the settlement wa s the same a s the dea dline to opt out; and (7) there was no justification g iven for the re qu e ste d atto rn e y s’ fe e s.No. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

- 10 - At the same tim e that th e ob jec tio ns we re be inglod g e d, the c la ss c ouns e l w e re se e kin g to
re place the c la ss r e pr e se ntativ e s. On Au g us t 7, 20 06 , th e c la ss c ouns e l f ile d a mot ion se e kin g to withdraw a s counsel for the orig inal class repr esentatives, and to re move Olden, Hunte r, and B leau
a s c l a s s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s an d r e p l a c e t h e m w i t hC ar l G ar dn e r , C l ar a Le w an d o w s k i , an d

R o l an d L. McL ennan. T he cla ss counsel ar g ued th at i t was ne cessa ry to replac e the c lass repr esentatives beca use their objec tions to t he propose d settlement had “re ndere d them inadequate re prese ntatives of the Class . . . .” The class counse l also alleg ed that the attorney -client re lationship had deter iorated to a point whe re they could no longe r repr esent the class repr esentatives. I n support of thi s argume nt, the c la ss co un se l po int e d to the c la ss r e pr e se ntativ e s’ de mand s f or mor e mon e y , th e ir voicing of disapprova l of the settlement in the loca l media, and Hunte r’s a nd Ble au’s a ct of filing a complaint with the Michig an Attorne y Grieva nce Commission.
I n an opinion and orde r issued on January 29, 2007, the district court a ddresse d the objections
and the c la ss c ouns e ls’ mot ion to re pla c e the c la ss re pr e se ntativ e s. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt ov e rr ule d a ll but the fifth objection — i.e., that the settlement impermissibly forc ed back into the c lass those who had alr eady

opted out of the litigation. See O lden v. Lafarge Corp. , 472 F. Supp. 2d 922, 940 (E.D. Mic h. 20 07 )
. A s t o t h e o t h e r s i x o b j e c t i o n s , th e d i s t r i c tf

o u n d n o p r o b l e m s . Ino v e r

r u l i n g t he se objections, the district court r easone d that: (1) the disappr oval of the original class repre sentatives was not a sufficie nt r eason for reje cting the settlement bec ause the class counse ls’ obligations ran to t he c la ss a s a

wh ole ra the r t ha n the c la ss re pr e se nta

tiv e s; (2 ) thr ou g h in fo rm a l di sc ov e ry , th e c la ss
c ouns e l c on du c te d s uf

fi c ie nt inv e sti g a tio n of the c la ims to pr e pa re the c a se fo r t

ri a l or se ttl e me nt;No. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

- 11 - (3) c onsideringthe sig nificant possibility that the plaintiff cla ss wo u l d lose at trial, a $2.6 million settlement was not insuffic ient consideration for the re lease of the c lass members’ cl ai m s ; (4 ) the rede fi n i t i o n of the c lass to include all re sidents of Alpena resulted in a supe rior cla ss definition beca use it provi d e d more objec tive criter ia for ide ntifying c lass members; (5) the class membe rs’ due proce ss r ights we re not violated by the fa ct that the dea dlines to object to the settlement and to opt out of the litigation wer e the same; and (6) the objection to the cla ss counsels’ re quest for f ees a nd costs was pre mature be cause such a r eque s t h ad not y et bee n made. See id. a t 93 1- 36 . D e sp ite
overr uling six of the seven objec tions, the district court conclude d that the entire settlement must be
r e je c te d b e c a

u s e o f th e u n a c c e p ta

b le o p t- o u t p r o v is io n. See id. a t 93 6- 37 . A lth ou g h it re fu se d to approve the settlement, the district cour t did gr ant the cla ss counsels’ motion to substi tute Gar dner, L ewa ndowski, and McL ennan a s the class re prese ntatives. See id. at 939.
After the re jection of the f

irst proposed settlement a g ree ment, the class co u n s el and the defe ndant went ba ck to the dra wing board. O n Marc h 12, 2007, they jointly moved for pr eliminary ap p r o v a l o f an ame n d e d s e tt le me n t a g r e e me n t. T h e a me n d e d s e tt le me n t a g r e e me n t r e me d ied the op t- ou t pr ob le m th a t ha d s un k th e pr e vio us ly pr op os e d a g re e me nt, and it als o reduc e d th e c la ss repr esentatives’ banne r aw ard from $20,000 ea ch to $2,500 ea ch. Other than these c hang es, the
ame nd e d s e ttl e me nt a g re e me nt w a s v ir tua lly ide nti c a l to the or ig in a l
. T h e dis tr ic t c ourt pr e lim ina ri ly approve d the amende d settlem en t agr ee m en t on April 6, 2007. On May 29, 2007, Olden, B leau, Hunte r, and

67 oth e r ind ivi du a ls re ne we d the ir ob je c tio ns and

re qu e ste d atto rn e y ’s fe e s a nd c os ts. Along with their objections, they submitt ed an aff idavit f rom Alexander J. S ag ady , an expert whomNo. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

- 12 - the y ha d r e ta ine d f

or the purp os e of

de mon str a tin g that th e re we re se ri ou s e nv ir on me nta l and he a lth risks that wer e not addre ssed by the amended s ettlement agr eeme nt. On J une 12, 2007, the district court g rante d final approva l for the a mended se ttlement ag ree ment. See G ardner v. Lafarge Corp. , No . 99- 10 17 6, 20 07 WL 16 95 60 9 (E .D . Mic h. June 12 , 200 7) . In it s o pin ion , th e dis tr ic t c ourt a lso reje cted B zdok’s request for attorney ’s fees because the district court found that his “work did not produce a bene ficial re sult for the cla ss.” See id. at *7. I n upholding the settlement, the district court reje cted the obje ctions on the basis of the re asoning contained in its ea rlier opinion. See id. at *6-*7.
On July 6, 20 07 , a

no tic e of a pp e a l w a s f

ile d o n b e ha lf

of 64 ob jec to rs. At this po int , howeve r, onl y 5 7 objectors ( i.e., the “O bjectors” ) ar e still invol ved in the ca se. On a ppeal, the Ob je c tor s c on te st the fa ir

ne ss o f t he se ttl e me nt, and

the y a lso argue that th e or ig ina l c la ss
re pr e se ntativ e s shou ld not have be e n re pla c e d, and that the dis tr ic t court sh ou ld not have de nie d th e ir
cou n s el ’s re quest for attorney ’s fe es and c osts. W ith respec t to the fairne ss of the settlement, the Ob je c tor s argue that t he ame nd ed se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt s ho uld have be e n r e

je c te d b e c a

us e : ( 1) it provided insuffi ci en t co n s ideration for an ove rly broad r elea se of c laims ag ainst L afa rg e; (2) the class counse l neg o t i at ed the settlement without having the bene fit of expert opinions or formal dis c ov e ry ; ( 3) the ame nde d s e ttl e me nt a g re e me nt w a s d isa pp ro ve d b y

the or ig ina l c la ss repr esentatives and m any other class members; and (4) the risks of t rial di d not weig h in favor of the
se ttl e me nt.No. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

- 13 - II.
Be fore approvinga cla ss action settlement, a district c ourt must c onclude that the settlement is “fair , rea sonable, a

nd adequate.” F ed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)( 2). A district cour t’s decision in this reg ard is reviewe d for a

buse of discr etion. See U AW v. Ge n. Motors Corp. , 497 F.3d 615, 6 2 5 (6 t h C ir. 20 07 ). I n e va luatin g the fa ir ne ss o f a se ttl e me nt, thi s c ourt

c on sid e rs the se fa c tor s: (1) the r isk of fra

ud or collusion; (2) the complex ity , expense and likely duration of the litigation; (3) the amount of discover y eng ag ed in by

the par ties; (4) the lik e lih oo d o f s uc c e ss o n th e me ri ts; (5 ) t he op ini on s o f c la ss coun se l and c la ss re pr e se ntativ e s; ( 6) the re a c tio n o f a bs e nt c la ss m e mbe rs ; and (7 ) t he pu bli c int e re st.
Id. at 6 3 1 (c i t i n g Granada Invs., Inc. v. DW G Corp. , 962 F .2 d 120 3, 12 05 (6 th C ir . 1 99 2) ; W illiams v. Vuk ovich , 720 F.2d 909, 922- 23 (6th Cir. 1983)). Some of these considerations sup p ort the
s et t l em en tagr ee m en tat i s s u e, an d s o m e do n o t
. W h i l e so m e o f t h e r el ev an tfa ct o rs ce rt ai n l y we i gh ag ainst approvingthe settlement, it cannot be s aid that the settlement a g ree ment is unfair,
unre a so na

ble , o r i na de qu a te , g ive n th e de fe re nc e ow e d to the dis tr ic t c ourt
. Weighingin favor of

the settlement ar e the se cond, four th, and six th fa ct o rs
— i
. e., the complexit y , expense, and likely duration of the litig ation; the lack of g reat likelihood of success on the m e r i t s ; an d

t h e r e a c t i o no f

a b s e n tc l a s s m e mb e r s . F i r s t , t h e c o mp l e xi t y , e xp e n s e , an d l ike ly du ra ti o n o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n w e i g h i n f av o r o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t b e c a u s e , i f t h i s c a s e h a d g o n e t o t ri a l, i t
mos t li ke ly

wo uld have be e n a

le ng thy pr oc e e din g inv olv ingc omp le x sci e nti fi c pr oo f. Th e e xpe rt s
nece ssary to present — a

nd defe ndant ag ainst — such proof w ould undoubtedly have be en expensiveNo. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

- 14 - for both sides. F ollowing the tr ial, there would most li kely have be en an a

ppeal that would have
re qu ir e d a n a dd iti on a l inve stm e nt o f s ub sta nti a l r e so ur c e s and

tim e . T he se c on sid e ra

tio ns su g g e st that settling the c ase w as an e fficie nt and re asonable decision.
I n addition, the rea ction of absent class members — i.e., t hose class members other tha n the class re p re s en t at i v es — cuts in favor of the se ttlement ag ree ment as we ll. Out of near ly 11,000
a bs e nt cl a ss me mbe rs , only 79 ob je c te d to the se ttl e me nt, and on ly 54 are inv olv e d in thi s a pp e a l. Although th is is n o t c le ar e v id e n c e o f c la s s - w id e a p p r o v a l o f th e s e tt le me n t, it d o e s p e r mi t the infere nce that most of t he class members had no qualms with it. This tends to support a finding that the settlement is fair.
Fur ther, the plaintiff class’s likelihood of succ ess on the mer its does not appear to have be en
e sp e c ia lly g oo d. It w ou ld h ave be e n d if fi c ult to pro ve th at any

inj ur ie s su ff

e re d b y the c la ss members we re c aused by

the L afa rg e plant rather than one of seve ral other industrial fac iliti es in the
are a . I t is dif

fi c ult , th ou g h, to ev a luate the lik e lih oo d of suc c e ss on the me ri ts i n li g ht o f t he c la ss counsels’ f

ailure, a s discussed below, t o co n d u ct any discovery

or obtain expert opinions on the issues of ca

usation , n egli g ence , or dama g es. Thus, while this fac tor weig hs in favor of the
s e t t l e m e n t , i td o e s s o o n l y m ar g i n a l l y.
Couns e lin g a g a ins t th e se ttl eme nt, on the oth e r h and , a

re the fi rs t, t

hir d, fi ft h, and se ve nth fac tors — i.e., the risk of f raud or collusion; the lim ited amount of discover y en gage d i n by

the pa rt ie s; the op ini on s o f t

he or ig ina l c la ss r e pr e se ntativ e s; a nd the pu bli c int e re st.No. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

- 15 - The fa ctor that we ighs a g ainst the settlement most heavily is the limi ted amount of discove ry eng ag ed in by

the par ties. I n this case, the c lass counsel ne g otiated the settlement a g ree ment without first obtaining any expert opinions or eng ag ing in f ormal discover

y . Obtaining expert opinions and eng ag ing in f

ormal discover

y are usually

essential to establ i s h i n g a level play ing f ield in the settlement are na bec ause it ena bles the cla ss counsel to deve lop the merits of their c ase. Se e In re Gen. M otors Corp. Pi ck- Up Truck Fue l Tank Prods. Liabi lity Lit ig. , 55 F.3d 768, 813- 14 (3d Cir. 1995). I ndeed, without expert opinions or formal discovery , the class counsel c ould not have had much — if any

— evidenc e on the issues of cau s at i o n , neg lige nce, or damag es. Without such evidenc e, the c lass counsel c ould not have enter ed into the settlement neg otiations with m uch more tha n a n une du c a te d gue ss a s to the me ri ts o f t he c a se and the pr op ri e ty

and fa ir va lue of a se ttl e me nt. Th is und ou

bte dly we ake ne d the c la ss co un se ls’ a bil ity to ad

vo c a te e ff e c tiv e ly fo r the pla int if

f c la ss during settlement neg otiations and theref ore sug g ests that the settlem en t wa s not fair, r easona ble,
an d ad eq u ate. Cf. In re Corrugated Contai ner Antitrust L itig. , 643 F.2d 195, 211 ( 5th Cir. 1981) (“O f course , if the rec ord points unmistakably toward the conclusion that the settlement was the product of une ducate d g uesswork, a court m ay b e ac ting within its discretion in disapproving the ag ree ment without ever c onsidering whether the ag ree ment’s terms ar e ade quate.” ). Moreove r, the failure to obtain s u ch ev idence likely weakened the barg aining position of the class counse l since the ir la c k o f p re pa

ratio n f or tr ia l w ou ld h a ve pr e ve nte d th e m f ro m us ing “ the thr e a t of

lit ig a tio n to press for a better

offe r.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp. , 150 F.3d 1011, 1021 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Amche m Prods., Inc. v . W indsor , 521 U.S. 591, 621 (1997)) . Although f ormal discover

y and expert opi n i o n s are not nece ssary conditions for the a

pproval of a

settlement, see I

n re CorrugatedNo. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

- 16 - Container Antit rust Li tig. , 643 F.2d at 211, their absenc e in this case sug g ests that class counse l may
no t ha ve ob ta ine d th e be st a g re e me nt p os sib le fo r t he pla int if

f c la ss.
I t is true that the class c ounsel in this case a cquire d subst an t i al am o u n ts of information throug h informal discove ry methods, such as F OIA re quests, but this i nformation did n o t provide much information on w

h ic h to neg otiate a se ttlement. Although the inf ormation provided sig nificant documentation of L afa

rg e’s pollution of the environme nt around Alpe na, it provided virtually no
e viden c e on

the iss ue s o f c a

us a tio n, ne g lig e nc e , o r d a ma g e s. I t is tr ue tha t a Pub lic He a lth Assessment conduc ted by the Ag ency fo r T o x ic Substances a nd Disease Reg istry

touched on the iss ue of c a us a tio n. Ho we ve r, that re po rt did no t su pp or t the pla int if

fs ’ c la ims . T he re fo re , th e c la ss
c ouns e l w ou ld h ave be e n w e ll a dv ise d to se e k a no the r e xpe rt op ini on to c ounte r- ba lanc e the Pub lic Hea lth Assessment. I ronica lly , the only expert to offer

an opinion on behalf of any of the plaintiffs
wa s A le xan de r J. Sa g a dy , w ho wa s r e ta ine d b y the Ob je c tor s. Sa g a dy

re viewed th e pu

bli c ly available information and o p i n ed that, in the absenc e of a Multi-Pathway

Risk Assessment, one
wo uld have to a ssume that the L a fa rg e pla nt’ s me rc ur

y e mis sio ns pr e se nte d a

sig nif ic ant p ub lic health conc ern.
The c lass counsel sug g est that this court should defe r to the cla ss counsels’ be lief that they had suff iciently investigated their c laims to allow for fa ir set tlement neg otiations, but t he
c ir c ums tanc e s o f t

his c a se do no t pr ov ide muc h of a ba sis fo r d e fe re nc e . U nd e r o rd ina ry c on dit ion s, this court “should defe r t o the j udg ment of ex perie nced counsel who has competently evaluated the streng th of his proofs.” W illiams v. Vukovich , 7 2 0 F. 2 d 9 0 9 , 9 2 2 -2 3 (6 t hC i r. 1 9 8 3 ) ( ci t i n g Sto ttsNo. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

- 17 - v . M e mp his Fi re De

pt. , 67 9 F .2 d 5 41 , 5 54 (6 th C ir . 1 98 2) ; Cotton v. Hinton , 559 F.2d 1326, 1330 (5 th C ir . 1 97 7) ; Flinn v. FMC Corp. , 528 F.2d 1169, 1173 ( 4th Cir. 1975)). Howe ver, “ the defe renc e af

forde d counsel should cor respond to the amou n t o f d iscovery completed a

nd the char acte r of the evidenc e uncove red.” Id. at 9 2 3 (c i t i n g Flinn , 5 28 F .2 d at 11 73 ; W omen’ s Comm. v. Nat’l Broad. Co. , 76 F.R.D. 173, 17 6 (S
. D. N. Y. 1977)). B eca use the c lass counsel c onducted vi rtu a l l y n o d i s c o v e r

y r e l a t e d t o t h e c r u c i a l i s s u e s o f

c a u s a t i o n , n e g l i g e n c e , an d

d a m a g e s , t h e ir arguments are entitled to litt le def ere nce.
Fur ther militating a g ainst the settlement is the risk o f co l l u sion. The spec ter of c ollusion be tw e e n th e c la ss c ouns e l and L a fa rg e is pres ent her e , ju st a s it is “ in e ve ry

sit uatio n w he re c la ss counsel is allowed to pr osecute an ac tion and neg ot i at e s ett lement terms without meaning ful
o v er s i ght by

the class r epre sentative.” In re Cal. Micro De vice s Sec. Litig. , 1 6 8 F
. R. D
. 257, 262 (N.D. Cal. 1996). I n this case, the or igina l class re prese ntatives provided no mea ningf ul oversig ht of the c lass counsel duringthe settlement neg otiations. I n fac t, the evi d en ce indicates that the orig inal class repr esentatives wer e not e ven awa re of the ne g otiations unti l after they had conc luded. Al tho ug h th e re is n o d ir e c t e vid e nc e of any c oll us ion , th e iss ue is r a ise d b y the or ig ina l c la ss repr esentatives’ complete la ck of involveme nt in the settlement p ro ce ss and their c orre sponding ina bil ity to o ve rs e e the c la ss c ouns e l. O n th e oth e r h and , th e po ssi bil ity of c oll us ion is c a lle d into question by

the fa ct that an e x perie nced mediator conclude d prior to the settlement neg otiations that a fa ir settlement would involve a total value of $1.8 million, which is $80 0 , 0 0 0 l ess than the settlement value e ventua l l y agre ed upon. The mediator’s r ecommendation, however , does notNo. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

- 18 - completely

eliminate t he possi bility that there was collusion, beca use i t is not clear why

the mediator considere d that to be a f

air settlement va lue. Ther efor e, the r isk of collusion weigh s aga inst the
s e t t l e m e n t , a l b e i to n l y m ar g i n a l l y.
Al so we ig hin g a g a ins t th e set tle me nt i s th e op ini on of the or ig ina l c la ss r e pr e se ntativ e s, which is dec idedly

neg ative. One could argue that the opinion of the or igina l class re prese ntatives is c anc e lle d o ut b y th e po si tiv e op ini on of the c la ss c ouns e l, b ut, a s e xpla ine d a bo ve , th e c la ss
c ouns e ls’ fa ilure to c on du c t di sc ov e ry on c ri tic a l is su e s dimin ish e s the de fe re nc e that is ow e d to th e ir opinion. The public intere st also appea rs to counsel a g ainst the settlement. The settlement a g ree ment does not entire l y comport wit h the public intere st since it does not addre ss the most significa nt
e nv ir on me nta l ha zar ds c re a te d b y the L a fa rg e pla nt, su c h a s mer c ur

y e mis sio ns . Ho we ve r, thi s o nly slightly weig hs ag ainst the settlement. Settlements are compromises, and the ref ore, pla intiffs cannot g e t e ve ry thi ngthe y wa nt.
F ina lly , th e Ob

je c tor s a lso argue that th e se ttl e me nt i s unf a ir be c a us e it r e qu ir e s an o ve rl y broad r elea se of claims on the part of t he cla ss members. This objection is not well taken. L ike any other settlement, this one re quires the plaintiffs to re lease their cla ims ag ainst the defe ndant. The rele ase c overs a ll claims ag ainst L afa rg e — eve n those that wer e unknown or had not accrue d at the time of settlement — re lating to a ny alleg ed e m i s s i ons from L afa rg e’s Alpe na plant that we re, or could have been, ple aded in the instant c ase. Spec ifically , the re lease cover s claims based onNo. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

Fo l l o w i n g o ra l ar gu m en t , t h e O b j ec t o rs s o u gh tt o s t re n gt h en t h ei r a rgu m en t s b y fi l i n g a 8 citation of supplemental a uthority pursuant to Fe d. R. App. P
. 28(j), drawing the court’s attention to W oo dm an v . KER

A, LLC , ___ N. W.2 d _

__ , N os . 2 75 07 9/2 75 88 2, 20 08 WL33 55 62 4 ( Mic h. Ct. App. Aug . 12, 2008). Review of W oodman does not alter our conclusion t hat t his settlement has not been shown to be unfa ir. - 19 - “alleg ed air

borne pollution, emis s i o n s, relea ses, spills and discharg es, exposure to hazardous substances, a ir contaminants, toxi c pollutan t s , p articulate, or odors [emanating f rom the Alpena pla nt]. ” B e c a

us e su c h c la ims have an ide nti c a l fa c tua l pr e dic a te a s the c la ims ple d in the c omp la int , no problem is posed by

their re lease
. See W

illiams v. Gen. Elec . Capital Auto Lease, Inc

. , 159 F.3d 2 6 6 , 2 7 3 -7 4 (7 t h C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Cla ss P lai nti ffs v . City of S

e att le , 955 F.2d 1268, 1287 ( 9th Cir. 19 92 )) . T he re fo re , th e re le a se do e s n ot c a ll f or a fi nd ingof

un fa ir ne ss. 8
Ev a luatin g a ll o f the se fa c tor s to g e the r, it i s a c los e c a ll a s to wh e the r t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

sh ou ld have approve d the settlement ag ree ment. The district c ourt is much near er to this case than we a re, and whe re the balanc e is close, we cannot sa y that the district court a

bused its discretion in finding the settlement to be fa ir, rea sonable, a nd adequate.
III
. Al tho ug h w e ult imate ly

c on c lud e that th e dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a

bu se its dis c re tio n in repla cingthe orig inal class re prese ntatives, this is a close question in this case and we may well have made a differ ent dec ision if we wer e the tria l judge s. Replacingclass repr esenta tives for objec ting to a pr op os e d s e ttl e me nt app e ars inc on sis te nt w iththe the or y of c la ss r e pr e se ntativ e s. Cla ss repr esentatives are expected to pr otect the inter ests of the c lass. See F e d. R. Civ. P. 23( a )( 4) . T hisNo. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

- 20 - re qu ir e s th a t th e c la ss r e pr e se ntativ e s e xer c ise so me ov e rs ig ht o f t he c la ss c ouns e l so a s to a vo id simply turning the conduct of the case over to the class counse l. See B oveev. Coopers &Lybrand , 21 6 F .R. D. 59 6, 61 5 ( S.D . O hio 20 03 ). Ov e rs ig ht f ro m th e c la ss r e pr e se ntativ e s is pa rt ic ula rl y important in the context of settlements. See In re Cal. Mic ro Dev ices Sec. Litig. , 168 F.R.D. at 262 (risk of unfair settlement is g reater when neg otiations a re c arr ied out “without meaning ful oversig ht by class re prese ntative”)
. These principles sug g est that class repr esentatives should not be remove d fr om t he ir po sit ion s as cl a ss re pr e se ntativ e s simp ly be c a us e the y have a tte mpt e d to fu lf

ill the ir du ty to protect the interests of the class. Neve rtheless, the la w allows cla ss repre sentatives to be r eplac ed when e vents occ urringafte r cla ss cer tification have rende red the m inadequate , see 5 Jam e s Wm. Moore e t al., Moore’ s Fe dera l Pra ctice § 23.25[6] , and the law a lso recognizes that the development of a c onflict of intere st betwee n the class re p re s en t atives and the other c lass members may be sufficie nt to render

the orig inal class re prese ntatives inadequate. S ee He it v. Van Ochte n , 1 26 F. Sup p. 2d 48 7, 49 5 (W. D. Mic h. 20 01 ); cf. UAW , 497 F .3 d at 626 (a

bs e nc e of c on fl ic ts of

int e re st i s important consideration in determining a dequac y of class re prese ntatives). In this case, the district court found that the original class repr esentatives’ objections to the settlement cr eate d a conf lict of interest betwe en them and the rest of the class, and the Objector s — whose ar g ument focuse s on the inadequa cy

of the ne w class r epre sentat i ves — have not shown that finding to be an abuse of discretion. The ref

ore, w e uphold the district cour t’s decision in this reg ard.No. 07-1953

Gardner v. Lafarge Corp.

- 21 - I V.
Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

a lso a c te d wi tho ut a

bu sin g its dis c re tio n b y

re fu sin g to a

wa rd fe e s and c os ts to t he Ob je c tor s’ a tto rn e y . F e e s and c os ts m ay

be awa rd e d to the co un sel for obje c tor s to a c la ss action settlement if the w ork of the c ounsel produce d a beneficia l result for the class. See F e d. R. Civ . P. 23 , Commi tte e No te s to Subdi vis ion (h ); In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Se c. Litig. , 550 F. Supp. 2 d 7 5 1 , 7 5 3 (S
. D. Oh i o 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Vizcaino v. Mic rosoft Corp. , 290 F.3d 1043, 1 0 5 1 (9th Cir. 2002 ); In re Prude ntial Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practice

s Lit ig. , 2 7 3 F
. S u

p p . 2 d 5 6 3 , 5 6 5 ( D
. N
. J. 2003)). In this case, the district c ourt found that the wor k of t he Objectors’ counsel did not produce such a r esult for the c lass. Gardner , 2007 WL 1695609, at *7. This finding was not a n ab use of discretion b e c a

u s e , w it h th e s e tt le me n t a g r e e me n t s ti ll in p la c e , it is n o t a p p ar e n t t h a t t h e d is tr ict
c ourt ’s fi nd ingwa s wr on g . Th e Ob je c tor s ar g ue tha

t the ir c ouns e l con fe rr e d a b e ne fi t up on the c la ss by c a us ingthe re mov a l of

the un fa ir

op t- out pr ov isi on

fr om the se ttl e me nt a g re e me nt. Ho we ve r, it is not clea r that this c onfer

red any benef

it on the class. One may

argue that this reduc ed the size of the class a

nd ther eby

incre ased the amount of money rec overe d by

eac h plaintiff, but there is no indication that those who had previously opted out would not have done s o ag ain. As a r esult, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concludingthat the Objec tors’ counse l did not produce
a be ne fi c ia l r e su lt f

or the c la ss.
V.
For the fore g oing r easons, the district c ourt is AFF I RMED.