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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ABDUL NEVAREZ,

PLAINTIFF,

VS.

FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL COMPANY,

LLC,

DEFENDANT.

_______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-16-7013-LHK

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 30, 2020

PAGES 1-46

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

A P P E A R A N C E S

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: BY: GUY BURTON WALLACE

SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL

KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP

2000 POWELL STREET, SUITE 1400

EMERYVILLE, CA 94608

FOR THE DEFENDANT: BY: MARIA M. LAMPASONA

RANKIN, SHUEY, RANUCCI, MINTZ,

LAMPASONA & REYNOLDS

2030 FRANKLIN STREET, 6TH FLOOR

OAKLAND, CA 94612

APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER: SUMMER FISHER, CSR, CRR

CERTIFICATE NUMBER 13185

PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY MECHANICAL STENOGRAPHY

TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED WITH COMPUTER

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 1 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

2

APPEARANCES CONTINUED:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: BY: ANDREW PAUL LEE

GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO

300 LAKESIDE DR., STE. 1000

OAKLAND, CA 94612

FOR THE DEFENDANT: BY: RANDALL C. CREECH

TURNER/DEVCON O'HARA CREECH LLP

255 WEST JULIAN STREET, SUITE 402

SAN JOSE, CA 95110

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 2 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

3

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 30, 2020

P R O C E E D I N G S

(COURT CONVENED AT 1:36 P.M.)

THE CLERK: CALLING CASE 16-7013. ABDUL NEVAREZ

VERSUS FORTY NINERS FOOTBALL COMPANY, LLC.

MR. WALLACE: GUY WALLACE FOR PLAINTIFFS, YOUR HONOR.

AND WITH ME IS ANDREW LEE.

MR. LEE: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

MS. LAMPASONA: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

MARIA LAMPASONA ON BEHALF OF THE FORTY NINERS AND THE

SANTA CLARA DEFENDANTS.

MR. CREECH: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

RANDY CREECH ON BEHALF OF THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT

TURNER/DEVCON JV.

THE COURT: OKAY. GIVE ME ONE SECOND.

I'M SORRY, WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR APPEARANCE ONE MORE

TIME.

MR. CREECH: CERTAINLY.

RANDY CREECH ON BEHALF OF THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT

TURNER/DEVCON JV.

THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU.

MR. CREECH: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DO WE KNOW HOW MANY CLASS MEMBERS THERE

ARE IN EACH OF THE THREE CLASSES? IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE TO TELL?

MR. WALLACE: WITH RESPECT TO THE DAMAGES CLASS,

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 3 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

4

YOUR HONOR, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT WE HAD ABOUT 4,000 CLASS

MEMBERS. WITH RESPECT TO THE (B)(2) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASS,

THAT WOULD BE A FAR LARGER NUMBER, THAT WOULD ENTAIL ANYONE WHO

HAD, PERHAPS, VISITED THE STADIUM. BEYOND THOSE, WHERE THERE

WERE TICKETING RECORDS FOR THE ACCESSIBLE SEATING. AND THE

COMPANIONS, I THINK, WOULD BE NON-DISABLED PERSONS. THERE IS

THE RECORD OF THE COMPANION SEATING TICKETS, THAT'S TRUE, BUT

THAT PROBABLY IS LOWER THAN THE TOTAL MEMBERSHIP OF THAT CLASS.

THE COURT: YOU ARE SAYING THE COMPANIONS ARE

PROBABLY LOWER THAN THE BROADER INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASS.

MR. WALLACE: YES.

THE COURT: OKAY. BUT WE DON'T HAVE A NUMBER ON THE

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, DO WE?

MR. WALLACE: NO, IT'S HARD TO ESTIMATE WITH THE

(B)(2), BUT WE KNOW IT WOULD BE MANY.

THE COURT: OKAY.

AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO KNOW, YOU KNOW, TO WHOM TO SEND

THE NOTICE AND HOW TO SEND IT? OR WILL IT BE THROUGH THE SAME

NOTIFICATION PROCESS THAT WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY, LIKE ALL

THOSE PUBLICATIONS AND POSTED NOTICES, IS THAT --

MR. WALLACE: YES, THAT'S THE NOTICE PROCESS WE ARE

ESSENTIALLY GOING TO USE. AND THEN IN ADDITION, I BELIEVE WE

HAVE PUBLICATION IN SOME MAJOR NEWSPAPERS.

THE COURT: YOU SAID PUBLICATION IN? I'M SORRY, I

COULDN'T HEAR THE LAST THING.

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 4 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

5

MR. WALLACE: MAJOR NEWSPAPERS. AND THOSE SHOULD BE

IDENTIFIED IN OUR BRIEF.

THE COURT: OKAY. I WOULD PREFER THAT EVERYTHING BE

MAILED TO THE SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR VERSUS HAVING, YOU KNOW,

OPT-OUTS AND CLAIM FORMS GOING TO THE SETTLE THE ADMINISTRATOR

BUT THEN OBJECTIONS GOING TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE.

I THINK IT'S JUST MORE SIMPLE FOR THE CLASS TO HAVE

EVERYTHING GOING TO THE SAME ADDRESS. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? IS

THAT OKAY?

MR. WALLACE: THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO PLAINTIFFS,

YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO THE

DEFENDANTS?

MS. LAMPASONA: THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. SAME FOR DEVCON/TURNER?

MR. CREECH: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

NOW WILL EVERYTHING JUST BE DONE BY THE CLASS MEMBERS'

DECLARATION OR ARE THE DEFENDANTS GOING TO TRY TO VERIFY

WHETHER TICKETS WERE SOLD TO THE CLAIMANTS WHO ACTUALLY

PURCHASED TICKETS?

MS. LAMPASONA: WE WILL WANT TO DO A CERTIFICATION

PROCESS, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A HUNDRED PERCENT ACCURATE

BECAUSE THE CLASS MEMBERS INCLUDE PEOPLE WHO GOT TICKETS THAT

WE WOULDN'T HAVE RECORD OF.

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 5 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

6

THE COURT: SURE.

MS. LAMPASONA: SO WE ARE GOING TO WANT TO CHECK.

THE COURT: TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN.

MS. LAMPASONA: EXACTLY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. RIGHT.

BECAUSE I WAS NEXT GOING TO ASK YOU, THERE WILL BE CLASS

MEMBERS WHO FACED AN ACCESS BARRIER WHO DIDN'T PURCHASE A

TICKET, FOR EXAMPLE, A GUEST OF SOMEONE ELSE. AND I GUESS IN

THIS SITUATION, YOU ARE GOING TO JUST RELY ON THE DECLARATION

OF THE PERSON WHO FACED THE ACCESS BARRIER; IS THAT RIGHT?

MS. LAMPASONA: IT IS.

WE WOULD CHECK BOTH THE TICKETING LOGS AS WELL AS

COMMUNICATIONS. AND SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO

VERIFY THE IDENTITY OF SOME OF THESE PEOPLE IN WAYS OTHER THAN

JUST TICKETING, BUT THERE IS GOING TO BE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE

THAT WE WILL HAVE TO RELY ON THE DECLARATION ALONE BECAUSE WE

WILL NOT HAVE RECORD OF THAT PERSON EITHER CONTACTING THE TEAM

OR PURCHASING THE TICKET.

THE COURT: RIGHT. BECAUSE ON THE CLAIM FORM, IT

DOESN'T SAY IF SOMEONE ELSE PURCHASED YOUR TICKET, IDENTIFY

THAT PERSON.

MS. LAMPASONA: IT DOES NOT.

THE COURT: RIGHT. SO YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO

VERIFY THAT. OKAY.

NOW WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE PRO RATA REDISTRIBUTION, IF

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 6 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

7

THERE'S MONEY LEFT, I ASSUME THAT WILL ONLY GO TO CLASS MEMBERS

WHO SUBMITTED CLAIM FORMS; IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. WALLACE: THAT WOULD BE CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO I HAD SOME COMMENTS OR SOME QUESTIONS, AND WANTED TO

TALK WITH YOU -- WELL LET ME ASK A QUESTION, DOES THE

ATTORNEY'S FEES THAT YOU'VE REQUESTED, DOES THAT INCLUDE FEES

FOR MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF GOING

FORWARD?

MR. WALLACE: NO, IT DOES NOT. THAT IS SEPARATE,

YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU ARE GOING TO BE MAKING A SEPARATE

REQUEST?

MR. WALLACE: WELL, THERE IS -- DURING THE TIME

PERIOD OF THE SETTLEMENT, WHICH IS THREE YEARS OR SO, I BELIEVE

THERE IS A SIX-MONTH ANNUAL PROCESS FOR COMPENSATING CLASS

COUNSEL FOR MONITORING EFFORTS. AND THEN THERE'S --

THE COURT: AND WILL THAT BE A SEPARATE REQUEST THAT

YOU WILL MAKE TO THE COURT, OR THAT'S A SEPARATE REQUEST YOU

WILL JUST MAKE TO DEFENDANTS?

MR. WALLACE: MY THOUGHT WAS THAT WE WOULD MAKE THAT

TO DEFENDANTS. I KNOW THAT THERE IS A DISPUTE RESOLUTION

PROCESS THAT WOULD BRING THAT BACK TO THE COURT IF THE PARTIES

ARE UNABLE TO AGREE ON THOSE. CERTAINLY WE ARE AMENABLE TO

HAVING THE COURT REVIEW THOSE AS WELL IF THE COURT BELIEVES

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 7 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

8

THOSE ARE NECESSARY.

THE COURT: NO, I DON'T THINK IT IS, I JUST WANTED TO

KNOW.

OKAY. IS THAT THE DEFENDANT'S UNDERSTANDING AS WELL, THAT

IN ADDITION TO WHATEVER THE COURT ORDERS, THE PLAINTIFFS WILL

BE COMING TO YOU PERIODICALLY FOR MORE FEES?

MS. LAMPASONA: YES.

THE COURT: THAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS WELL? OKAY.

MS. LAMPASONA: AND YOUR HONOR, THE SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT DOES CAP THAT AMOUNT AS WELL.

THE COURT: AND REMIND ME WHAT THE CAP IS, PLEASE.

MS. LAMPASONA: 85,000 ANNUALLY.

THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO LET ME ASK FOR THE DAMAGES RELIEF CLASS WHY WE NEED TO

CHANGE THE END DATE IN THE CERTIFICATION MOTION THAT THE

PLAINTIFFS FILED? THE REQUEST WAS TO HAVE IT THROUGH THE

COMPLETION OF THE ACTION, BUT NOW WE ARE ADVANCING THAT DATE.

CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN WHY THERE IS THAT DIFFERENCE?

MR. WALLACE: IN THE MEDIATION PROCESS, YOUR HONOR,

MARTIN RUDY IS THE MEDIATOR ON THIS, AND HE WENT WITH JUST THE

STANDARD APPROACH THAT HE USES IN WAGE-AN-HOUR CASES AND OTHER

CONSUMER ACTIONS WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE'S A BEGINNING

PERIOD FOR THE CLASS, WHICH I GUESS IS THE STATUTE OF

LIMITATIONS POINT, AND THEN UP THROUGH PRELIMINARY APPROVAL.

AND WE THOUGHT THAT WAS APPROPRIATE. BUT THAT DIDN'T

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 8 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

9

MATCH WHAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO THE COURT AND WHAT THE

COURT CERTIFIED AT THE CLASS CERTIFICATION STAGE, SO WE WERE

PROPOSING THAT SLIGHT MODIFICATION.

THE COURT: JUST BECAUSE THAT'S HOW HE DOES IT IN

OTHER CASES?

MR. WALLACE: WELL, THAT'S ONE REASON. AND THEN I

SEEM TO RECALL AS WELL, THAT OUR EXPERT DAMAGES REPORT WAS

BASED ON INFORMATION THROUGH 2019.

AND SO THAT WAS DERIVED FROM INFORMATION ABOUT WHO

PURCHASED THE ACCESSIBLE SEATING AND THE COMPANION SEATING.

AND THAT INFORMATION THAT WE HAD WAS FROM DURING THE STATUTE OF

LIMITATIONS PERIOD UP THROUGH A DATE IN 2019.

AND THAT'S HOW WE DEVELOPED OUR MAXIMUM DAMAGES ESTIMATE

WHICH WAS $70 MILLION. AND SO WE WANTED THE SCOPE OF THE

DAMAGES RELEASE TO TRACK WITH WHAT WE HAD DONE IN TERMS OF

ESTIMATING THE TOTAL DAMAGES AND WHO WOULD BE GETTING THE

SETTLEMENT SHARE OF DAMAGES BASED ON THE ANALYSIS THAT WE DID.

THE COURT: OKAY. DO DEFENDANTS WANT TO COMMENT ON

THAT THE DIFFERENT END DATE OF THE CLASS?

MS. LAMPASONA: WE AGREE THAT THE MODIFICATION MAKES

SENSE TO EXTEND IT JUST THROUGH THE DATE OF THE PRELIMINARY

APPROVAL.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THE SORT OF STANDARD HIGHEST CLASS REP AWARD IN SIMILAR

CIRCUMSTANCES, USUALLY IN EMPLOYMENT, IS 5,000. I WAS JUST

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 9 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

10

WONDERING WHY HERE, I CAN UNDERSTAND IN EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE

THERE'S A RISK THAT NAMED PLAINTIFFS WON'T BE REHIRED, BUT THIS

IS REALLY WHETHER A RETAILER WOULD SELL YOU A TICKET. SO IT

SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT SOME RETAILER WOULD REFUSE TO SELL A TICKET

TO AN EVENT TO A PLAINTIFF BECAUSE THEY WERE REPRESENTATIVES IN

THIS CASE.

SO WHY WOULD A HIGHER AWARD -- IN EMPLOYMENT CASES, I

DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN, BUT HERE, WHEN YOU ARE

BUYING A TICKET, ESPECIALLY ONLINE, FOR EXAMPLE, NO ONE KNOWS

WHETHER YOU ARE DISABLED OR NOT, AND THEY ARE NOT LIKELY TO

TURN AWAY A CUSTOMER IN A SALE.

MR. WALLACE: I DON'T THINK WE DISAGREE WITH THAT

ANALYSIS, YOUR HONOR.

I THINK REALLY WE ARRIVED AT THAT NUMBER BECAUSE WE FELT

THAT OUR PEOPLE HAD PUT IN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME

INVESTIGATING THE FACTS, OBVIOUSLY GOING TO EVENTS, I THINK

EVERYONE SAT FOR DEPOSITION.

THE COURT: YOU ARE SAYING THEY WENT TO THE STADIUM

EVENTS JUST FOR THE LAWSUIT?

MR. WALLACE: NO. THAT'S TRUE, YOUR HONOR, THEY WENT

TO MANY EVENTS AND CONVEYED ALL THAT INFORMATION TO US. THEY

ALSO SAT FOR DEPOSITION.

THE COURT: BUT THEY ARE GOING TO GET PAID BY THE

EVENT, $4,000, SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY -- I MEAN, UNLESS THEY

WENT TO EVENTS JUST TO LITIGATE, WHY THEY SHOULD GET PAID MORE

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 10 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

11

IN ADDITION TO $4,000 PER EVENT? THEY ARE GOING TO GET -- THEY

PRESUMABLY GOT SOME ENJOYMENT FOR THESE ENTERTAINMENT EVENTS, I

ASSUME.

MR. WALLACE: WE DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT AT ALL,

YOUR HONOR.

IT REALLY -- THE SERVICE AWARD REQUEST HERE REALLY IS

BASED UPON THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THEY PUT IN, WHICH DID

INCLUDE SITTING FOR DEPOSITION, PREPARATION OF DECLARATIONS,

THEY DID COME TO ONE OR MORE MEDIATIONS.

SO THAT WAS REALLY THE BASIS, RESPONDING TO WRITTEN

DISCOVERY, MR. LEE REMINDS ME. SO THEY WERE QUITE ACTIVE

PARTICIPANTS. THEY ALSO GAVE US THEIR FEEDBACK ON THE

SETTLEMENT AT VARIOUS POINTS.

SO WE THOUGHT $7,500 WAS NOT UNREASONABLE FOR THE AMOUNT

OF TIME THAT THEY PUT IN. AND, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD LIKE THE

OPPORTUNITY TO TRY AND, YOU KNOW, MAKE THAT PRESENTATION TO

YOUR HONOR IN THE MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS.

THE COURT: AND I WILL WANT IT TO BE SPECIFIC.

BECAUSE NOTHING I'M HEARING IS ANY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT

EMPLOYMENT PLAINTIFFS DO.

EMPLOYMENT PLAINTIFFS ARE DEPOSED, THEY RESPOND TO

DISCOVERY REQUESTS, THEY ATTEND THE MEDIATION. LIKE, THE LEVEL

OF INVOLVEMENT DOES NOT SOUND ANY DIFFERENT, AND THE RISK OF

PEOPLE NOT BEING REHIRED IN AN EMPLOYMENT CASE IS FAR GREATER,

SO I JUST WOULD LIKE THAT LAID OUT WITH SPECIFICITY, PLEASE.

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 11 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

12

OKAY. NO KIND OF GENERAL, GENERIC, COMPENSATE FOR THE

TIME DECLARATION, PLEASE.

MR. WALLACE: WE WILL DO OUR VERY BEST.

THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. OKAY. SO LET ME ASK, IF YOU ADD THE 24

MILLION, THE SETTLEMENT FUND WITH THE 13.46 MILLION THAT YOU

ARE GOING TO REQUEST IN ATTORNEY'S FEES, IF YOU ADD THAT UP,

THAT'S 37.46 MILLION. I DON'T SEE HOW THE 13.46 MILLION IS

32.5 PERCENT OF 37.46 MILLION.

MR. WALLACE: HOW WE GOT TO THAT, YOUR HONOR, IS WE

DID NOT INCLUDE COSTS, WHICH ARE APPROXIMATELY 1.3 MILLION. I

THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THAT. SO THE FEE COMPONENT

WOULD BE 12.0, 12.1, AND WE DIVIDED THAT INTO THE 37.46. AND

THAT IS HOW WE ARRIVED AT THE --

THE COURT: I'M SORRY, SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME.

MR. WALLACE: IT'S ABOUT 12.1 OR 12.05, WOULD BE THE

LODESTAR COMPONENT FOR FEES. AND THEN WE DIVIDED THAT INTO THE

37.46, AND I RECALL THAT THAT RESULTED IN 32 PERCENT.

THE COURT: NO, IF YOU TAKE 13.46 AND YOU DIVIDE THAT

BY 37.46, IT'S 36 PERCENT, IT'S NOT 32.5 PERCENT.

MR. WALLACE: BUT WITHOUT THE COSTS, IF YOU ARE JUST

LOOKING AT THE PERCENTAGE OF THE FEES COMPARED TO THE --

THE COURT: OKAY. BUT YOU ARE REQUESTING FEES OF

13.46 MILLION.

MR. WALLACE: ACTUALLY THAT'S -- WE WEREN'T CLEAR

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 12 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

13

ABOUT THAT. THAT'S FEES AND COSTS OF 13.46, YOUR HONOR. AND

THE COSTS AND EXPENSES ARE ABOUT 1.3, SO THE FEE COMPONENT IS

ABOUT 12.1.

THE COURT: 12.16, YOU ARE SAYING.

MR. WALLACE: SOMEWHERE RIGHT IN THERE.

IT WILL BE, PERHAPS, A LITTLE BIT HIGHER OR LOWER. I

THINK LOWER BECAUSE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE COSTS THAT WE

HAVEN'T QUITE FINISHED FULLY ADDING UP AND PAYING.

SO THE COSTS ARE A LITTLE OVER 1.3 MILLION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

YOU HAD MOVED FOR A TRO TO ENJOIN THE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE

RESOLUTION IN THE FIRST FILED CASE TO PREVENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

FROM BEING AWARDED OUTSIDE OF YOUR SETTLEMENT.

I WOULD NOT REIMBURSE ANY ATTORNEY'S FEES OR COSTS FOR

THAT MOTION OF THE TRO. I THINK THAT WAS NOT IN THE INTEREST

OF THE CLASS. I WAS VERY DISAPPOINTED TO SEE THAT MOTION, SO

I'M NOT GOING TO REIMBURSE THAT. I WANT YOU TO TAKE THAT OUT.

MR. WALLACE: WE WILL DO THAT, YOUR HONOR. WE ARE

SORRY.

THE COURT: FEES AND COSTS.

ANY OTHER EFFORTS YOU HAVE DONE TO TRY TO BLOCK AN EARLIER

SETTLEMENT IN ANY OF THE OTHER CASES, I WANT ALL OF THAT

REMOVED FROM YOUR ATTORNEY'S FEES REQUESTS. I DON'T THINK

THAT'S IN THE INTEREST OF YOUR CLASS.

IF YOUR CLASS'S INTEREST IS TO GET INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AS

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 13 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

14

QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE SO THAT YOUR CLASS MEMBERS CAN ENJOY THE

ENTERTAINMENT EVENTS AT THIS FACILITY, THEN YOU SHOULD BE HAPPY

THAT THIS DEFENDANT MAY MAKE THOSE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CHANGES

SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, WHETHER THEY ARE IN THE CONTEXT OF

YOUR SETTLEMENT OR IN THE CONTEXT OF ANOTHER SETTLEMENT. I

DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE CLASS.

MR. WALLACE: WE UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR.

I THINK OUR CONCERN WAS THAT THEIR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF WOULD

BE INFERIOR TO WHAT WE WOULD SEEK AND THAT THEN WE WOULD FACE

SOME SORT OF RISK OF PRECLUSION. THAT'S WHY WE DID WHAT WE

DID.

THE COURT: NO. YOU COULD HAVE GOTTEN ANY

SUPPLEMENTAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF THAT WAS NECESSARY, AND YOU DID

NOT PRESENT IT IN YOUR TRO IN THAT WAY. AND I'M NOT GOING TO

REIMBURSE ANY FEES AND COSTS.

I THINK YOU WERE TRYING TO PROTECT THE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND

YOUR OWN SETTLEMENT IN THIS CASE. THAT WAS A FIRST FILED CASE,

THAT CASE WAS FILED FIRST. THERE'S NO REASON IT SHOULDN'T HAVE

BEEN SETTLED FIRST.

SO ANY FEES AND COSTS TO PREVENT EARLY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

FOR THIS CLASS, I DON'T THINK IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE CLASS

AND YOU SHOULD NOT BE REIMBURSED FOR IT. FEES OR COSTS. I

FEEL ADAMANT ABOUT THAT.

MR. WALLACE: WE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR HONOR IS

SAYING. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE ANY OTHER ACTIONS THAT

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 14 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

15

WE TOOK TO ENJOIN ANY OTHER CASE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S GO THROUGH THE

FORMS. AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO FILE NEW ONES. I CAN GIVE YOU

REDLINES IF YOU NEED IT, BUT I'M HOPING WE CAN DISCUSS THEM

HERE TODAY.

SO WITH REGARD TO YOUR CLAIM FORM, I JUST DON'T THINK

THERE'S ENOUGH SPACE FOR ANY ANSWERS TO BE WRITTEN IN.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT NUMBER 4, "WHAT TYPE OF AN ABILITY/AID

DID YOU USE WHILE VISITING LEVI STADIUM?" YOU LEAVE A TINY

LINE AND TINY SPACE TO WRITE THAT ANSWER. AND I JUST THINK

THAT IT'S TOO TIGHT.

SIMILARLY, FOR QUESTIONS 9 AND 10, THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH

SPACE TO WRITE, HANDWRITE, ANSWERS IN THOSE LINES. SO IF YOU

COULD PROVIDE MORE SPACE, PLEASE.

I ALSO THINK THAT THE QUESTIONS SHOULD SORT OF FLOW

BETTER. SO IF YOU WANT AN IDENTIFICATION OF THE BARRIERS, THAT

SHOULD FOLLOW THE QUESTION ABOUT DENIAL OF ACCESS.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, QUESTION 9 SHOULD BE BETWEEN QUESTIONS 5

AND 6. SO WHEN YOU ASK, "WHAT ARE THE PHYSICAL BARRIERS THAT

YOU EXPERIENCED," IT SHOULD FOLLOW THE QUESTION OF, "WELL, DID

YOU EXPERIENCE ANY PHYSICAL ACCESS BARRIERS."

AND THEN YOU ASK THE QUESTION, "DID THOSE PARTICULAR

BARRIERS CAUSE YOU TO EXPERIENCE ANY DISCOMFORT OR

EMBARRASSMENT?" AND THEN WHEN YOU START WITH THE WHOLE SECOND

SET OF QUESTIONS REGARDING DIFFICULTIES IN GETTING A TICKET,

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 15 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

16

SIMILARLY, I THINK QUESTION 10 SHOULD BE BETWEEN QUESTION 7 AND

8.

SO THE FIRST QUESTION 7 WILL BE, "WAS IT DIFFICULT FOR YOU

TO CHECK A TICKET FOR WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE SEATING?" THEN

QUESTION 10, WHAT IS CURRENTLY QUESTION 10, SHOULD BE, "FOR

WHAT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED WAS DIFFICULT, PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR

EXPERIENCE."

AND THEN THE NEXT QUESTION SHOULD BE, "WELL, WAS THAT

EXPERIENCE ONE THAT CAUSED YOU DISCOMFORT, DIFFICULTY OR

EMBARRASSMENT."

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? I FEEL LIKE THE WAY THAT IT IS NOW,

THE FLOW DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE -- LIKE WHY

SHOULD I SAY FROM QUESTION 5, GO ANSWER QUESTION 7. WELL, IF

YOUR ANSWER IS YES, I JUST FEEL LIKE ALL OF THE PHYSICAL ACCESS

BARRIER QUESTIONS SHOULD BE TOGETHER, AND THEN YOU SHOULD GO TO

ALL THE TICKETING BARRIERS IN THOSE QUESTIONS.

IS THAT ACCEPTABLE?

MS. LAMPASONA: THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEFENSE.

MR. WALLACE: YES.

MS. LAMPASONA: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. SO JUST MOVE, PLEASE, QUESTION 9,

BETWEEN 5 AND 6, AND PLEASE MOVE QUESTION 10 BETWEEN QUESTIONS

7 AND 8. AND JUST PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM FOR PEOPLE TO

PROVIDE AN ANSWER.

OKAY. SO IF THOSE CHANGES ARE ACCEPTABLE, I WOULD LIKE

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 16 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

17

YOU TO RE-FILE THE CLAIM FORM. WE WILL GO THROUGH THE REST OF

THE DOCUMENTS, AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK,

YOU CAN FILE A NEW ONE, OKAY.

AND THEN WHAT I WILL DO IN THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER,

JUST IDENTIFY THE REVISED ONES AND APPROVE THOSE.

ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S GO THEN, PLEASE, TO THE SHORT FORM.

NOT MANY -- SO ARE YOU TRYING TO KEEP THIS ONE PAGE? BECAUSE

RIGHT NOW IT'S ONE PAGE AND CHANGE. BUT I THINK IT'S

WORTHWHILE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION, BECAUSE

PEOPLE MAY ONLY LOOK AT THE SHORT FORM AND MAY NOT EVEN GO BACK

TO LOOK AT THE LONG FORM, SO IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THIS WERE A

SELF-CONTAINED DOCUMENT THAT GAVE EVERYONE ENOUGH INFORMATION.

SO WITH REGARD TO THE SHORT FORM, I HAVE A COUPLE OF

SUGGESTIONS.

FOR QUESTION 1, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR YOU TO

NAME THE LAWYERS, SO THAT IF A CLASS MEMBER CALLS, THEY KNOW

WHO TO ASK FOR. IT'S A LITTLE BIT DAUNTING TO MAKE JUST A

GENERAL REQUEST AND NOT KNOW WHO TO DIRECT YOUR QUESTION TO.

SO IF YOU WOULD PLEASE ADD NAMES IN NUMBER 1.

AND AS FAR AS NUMBER 3, THE MONETARY AWARD, AND THIS IS A

CONCERN I HAVE ABOUT BOTH THE LONG FORM AND THE SHORT FORM, THE

DOCUMENTS GIVE THE IMPRESSION, I SHOULD SAY "NOTICE" INSTEAD OF

"FORM," THAT AS LONG AS YOU JUST SIGN AND MAIL IN THE CLAIM

FORM, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY GOING TO GET THE MONETARY AWARD.

I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING HERE THAT SAYS WHAT YOU

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 17 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

18

HAVE TO DO IN THE CLAIM FORM. IN THE CLAIM FORM, YOU NEED TO

IDENTIFY THE BARRIER. I GUESS YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE ANY

TICKETING; IS THAT RIGHT? OH, YOU DO, YOU HAVE TO APPROXIMATE

THE DATE AND THE DIFFICULTY AND YOU HAVE TO SAY THAT IT CAUSED

YOU DIFFICULTY, DISCOMFORT OR EMBARRASSMENT.

I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO JUST LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT

YOU WILL HAVE TO MAKE THIS KIND OF DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF

PERJURY AS TO THESE PIECES OF INFORMATION, JUST SO PEOPLE THINK

OH, IF I JUST SIGN AND MAIL THIS IN ON TIME, I'M AUTOMATICALLY

GOING TO GET THE MONETARY AWARD.

ANY OBJECTION TO IDENTIFYING WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE TO

GET THE MONETARY AWARD?

MR. WALLACE: NO, YOUR HONOR. IT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD

IDEA.

MS. LAMPASONA: NO OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OKAY. JUST SO PEOPLE KNOW. I DON'T WANT

TO CREATE UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS EITHER, THAT PEOPLE THINK

OH, I CAN JUST SIGN AND DATE IT AND I'M AUTOMATICALLY GOING TO

GET MONEY. NO, YOU HAVE TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THAT.

OKAY. THEN SIMILARLY, SINCE YOU ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE

OPTING OUT AND OBJECTIONS FOR EVERYTHING TO BE MAILED TO THE --

THIS IS ALL YOU SAY ABOUT OBJECTIONS, "IF YOU DO NOT LIKE ANY

PART OF THE SETTLEMENT, THE DEADLINE TO FILE A WRITTEN

OBJECTION IS BLANK. THE DETAIL OF NOTICE AVAILABLE ON THE

SETTLEMENT WEBSITE EXPLAINS HOW TO OPT OUT OR OBJECT."

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 18 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

19

I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY EARLIER IN THE FIRST

SENTENCE OF THAT SECTION YOU SAY, "IF YOU ARE A DAMAGES CLASS

MEMBER, YOU MAY EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE DAMAGES CLASS BY

MAILING A LETTER TO THE SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR" BY SUCH AND

SUCH DATE, "THE LETTER MUST CLEARLY STATE THAT YOU WANT TO OPT

OUT OF THE DAMAGES CLASS IN THIS CASE," ET CETERA.

I THINK IT WOULD BE A LOT CLEANER THAT YOU PROVIDE THE

SAME LEVEL OF INFORMATION ABOUT HOW YOU EITHER OPT OUT OR

OBJECT AND WHO THE MAILING GOES TO, VERSUS JUST SAYING, WELL,

IF YOU WANT TO FILE AN OBJECTION, YOU GOT TO GO TO ANOTHER

DOCUMENT TO GET THE INFORMATION.

I FEEL LIKE THIS SHOULD BE A SELF-CONTAINED DOCUMENT,

BECAUSE MOST OF THE PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO GO BACK AND READ

THE LONG FORM. SO IT SHOULD SAY, THIS IS HOW YOU OBJECT, THIS

IS HOW YOU OPT OUT, OKAY.

YOU KNOW, YOU WANT $7,500 FOR THE NAMED CLASS

REPRESENTATIVES, BUT YOU NEVER IDENTIFY THEM BY NAME IN ANY OF

THESE DOCUMENTS. I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT BEFORE. THEIR NAMES ARE

NOT ON THE LONG FORM, THEIR NAMES ARE NOT ON THE SHORT FORM.

MR. WALLACE: WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO ADDING THEIR

NAMES TO THE NOTICE, YOUR HONOR. THEY ARE ON THE COMPLAINT, SO

I THINK IT MAKES SENSE.

THE COURT: WELL, I'VE NEVER SEEN A NOTICE THAT

DIDN'T HAVE THE NAMED CLASS REPRESENTATIVES, RIGHT. PEOPLE

LIKE TO KNOW WHO IS REPRESENTING THEM. THEY LIKE TO KNOW WHO

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 19 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

20

IS GOING TO GET THE ENHANCEMENT AWARD. AND NO ONE IS EVER

NAMED IN EITHER OF THESE DOCUMENTS, AND I THINK THAT SHOULD BE

ADDED.

NOW I WOULD TAKE OUT -- I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TAKE OUT ALL

THIS STUFF ABOUT THE ATTORNEYS FEES WILL NOT IN ANY WAY

DIMINISH THE DAMAGES FUND, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S ALREADY BEEN

DONE.

WHEN THE DEFENDANTS SETTLED, THEY SETTLED TO AN OVERALL

AMOUNT. THEY SETTLED FOR 36.46 MILLION. YOU ALL DECIDED HOW

TO SPLIT THAT UP. BASICALLY, THE FEES ARE ABOUT HALF, MORE

THAN HALF, 60 PERCENT OF WHAT'S GOING TO THE CLASS. THE CLASS

IS GOING TO GET 24 MILLION, THE PLAINTIFFS WANT 14 MILLION, SO

MORE THAN 60 PERCENT.

SO I FEEL LIKE IT'S A LITTLE BIT NOT COMPLETELY ACCURATE

TO SAY OH, WELL, DON'T WORRY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT ANY IMPACT

ON THE DAMAGES FUND BASED ON THE ATTORNEYS FEES.

JUST BECAUSE YOU ALL HAVEN'T NEGOTIATED THAT, DOESN'T MEAN

THERE WASN'T AN IMPACT ON HOW MUCH WILL GO TO THE CLASS. SO I

WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ALL OF THAT OUT, I DON'T THINK IT'S FULLY

ACCURATE.

THE DEFENDANTS SETTLED FOR 37.46 MILLION AND YOU ALL

NEGOTIATED TO CARVE OUT THE 13.5 MILLION. SO CLASS MEMBERS

COULDN'T EVEN GET THAT, COULDN'T EVEN TOUCH THAT, COULDN'T EVEN

ASK FOR THAT. I OBJECT TO THAT BEING DONE, BUT I KNOW

PLAINTIFFS LIKE TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 20 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

21

MORE OF THE MONEY GOES TO THE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND LESS TO THE

CLASS, AND THEY KNOW IF THEY LEAVE IT OPEN, I WILL TRY TO GIVE

MORE TO THE CLASS.

SO I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THAT'S DONE, BUT THAT'S NOT A

BASIS FOR ME NOT TO APPROVE THIS SETTLEMENT. BUT I'M NOT GOING

TO TELL THESE CLASS MEMBERS OH, DON'T WORRY, THE FACT THAT THE

CLASS IS GETTING 24 MILLION AND THE LAWYERS WANT 13.5 MILLION,

WHICH IS MORE THAN 56 PERCENT OF THE -- WHAT THE CLASS IS

GETTING, I JUST -- I DON'T THINK IT'S ACCURATE.

I THINK IT'S JUST THAT YOU ALL HAVE NEGOTIATED THAT SO

THAT I CAN'T GIVE ANY MORE OF THE MONEY TO THE CLASS. SO I

WOULD LIKE THAT DELETED IN NUMBER 7, AND ALSO IN THE LONG FORM.

I KNOW PLAINTIFF'S LAWYERS LIKE TO DO THAT TO RESERVE MORE

MONEY, SUCH THAT IT CAN'T BE GIVEN TO THE CLASS, SO IT HAS TO

BE PAID TO THEM IF I DECIDE TO AWARD IT. AND I DON'T LIKE

THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE CLASS'S

INTEREST TO CARVE OUT MONEY AND SAY IT'S UNTOUCHABLE BY THE

CLASS, IT ALL HAS TO GO TO THE DEFENDANT OR TO THE LAWYERS FOR

THE PLAINTIFFS. BUT I KNOW CERTAIN PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL LIKE TO

DO THAT.

OKAY. LET'S GO, PLEASE, TO THE LONG FORM. I THINK SOME

OF THE CHANGES I'VE REQUESTED, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BE MADE

HERE. AND THAT IS, THE CLASS MEMBERS ARE NEVER MENTIONED BY

NAME, THEY ARE NEVER TOLD WHAT THEY WILL HAVE TO DECLARE IN

ORDER TO GET THE MONETARY SETTLEMENT.

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 21 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

22

I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO GIVE THEM SOME SENSE OF

WHAT INFORMATION THEY WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE IN THE CLAIM FORM,

THAT'S NOT ANYWHERE HERE, IT MAKES IT SEEM LIKE YOU SIGN IT,

YOU MAIL IT IN TIMELY, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY GOING TO GET THE

FUNDS. SO I WOULD LIKE THAT CORRECTED, PLEASE.

I HAVE SOME NITS IN THIS DOCUMENT, BUT WHAT I WANTED TO --

I MEAN, I CAN TELL YOU WHAT SOME OF THESE NITS ARE, BECAUSE I

WOULD LIKE YOU TO FILE REVISED ONES.

I WILL JUST SAY IN THE FOURTH BULLET, YOU ARE MISSING A

WORD. IN THE THIRD LINE OF THE FOURTH BULLET ON THE FIRST

PAGE, IT SAYS, "WITH IMPROVED TO THE STADIUM," I THINK "ACCESS"

SHOULD BE INCLUDED OR INSERTED BETWEEN "IMPROVED" AND "TO."

DO YOU SEE THAT? "SCOOTERS, CANES, WALKERS AND OTHER

MOBILITY AIDS WITH IMPROVED TO THE STADIUM." JUST INSERT

"ACCESS," PLEASE.

AND IN THIS LANGUAGE OF THIS FORM, YOU NORMALLY JUST REFER

TO IT AS SETTLEMENT, AND SO I THINK WHERE YOU SAY "MAKE US PART

OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT," YOU SHOULD JUST SAY "AS PART OF

THE SETTLEMENT." SO IN THE FIFTH BULLET, I WOULD DELETE

"AGREEMENT."

SO LET ME JUST GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. THAT PARAGRAPH READS,

"MEMBERS OF ALL OF THE CLASS, AS CERTIFIED BY THE COURT, WILL

BENEFIT FROM THE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS DEFENDANTS AGREE TO MAKE

AS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. THEY CANNOT OPT OUT OF

THAT PART OF THE SETTLEMENT, BUT CAN OBJECT TO IT IF THEY SO

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 22 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

23

DESIRE. MEMBERS OF THE DAMAGES CLASS, HOWEVER, CAN EXCLUDE

THEMSELVES FROM THAT PART OF THE SETTLEMENT AND RETAIN ANY

RIGHTS THEY MAY HAVE TO SUE ON THEIR OWN. IN THAT CASE,

THOUGH, THEY WILL RECEIVE NO MONETARY COMPENSATION IN THIS CASE

AND CANNOT OBJECT TO THE DAMAGES PART OF THE SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT."

I JUST FEEL LIKE THE USE OF "SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT" VERSUS

"SETTLEMENT" IS INCONSISTENT AND IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO JUST

SAY "SETTLEMENT" INSTEAD OF "SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT."

I WOULD ADD A COMMA AFTER "THE SETTLEMENT," "THEY CANNOT

OPT OUT OF THAT PART OF THE SETTLEMENT," COMMA, "BUT CAN OBJECT

TO IT IF THEY SO DESIRE."

AND I THINK THAT LAST SENTENCE IS A LITTLE BIT INCOMPLETE.

I THINK IN THAT LAST SENTENCE IF WE SAY, "IN THAT CASE, THOUGH,

THEY WILL RECEIVE NO MONETARY COMPENSATION IN THIS CASE AND

CANNOT OBJECT TO THE DAMAGES PART," I WOULD SAY "OF THE

SETTLEMENT IN THIS CASE."

OKAY. AND THEN IN YOUR BOX ON PAGE 2, I THINK INSTEAD OF

AN INDIVIDUAL SETTLEMENT AWARD AND SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM, JUST TO

SAY, "WILL RECEIVE A MONETARY SETTLEMENT AWARD AS PART OF THE

SETTLEMENT?"

IN EVERYWHERE ELSE, YOU HAVE BEEN CAPITALIZING

"SETTLEMENT," LET'S JUST KEEP THAT CONSISTENT. SO IN THIS

DOCUMENT AS WELL, ON PAGE 2, IN SOME INSTANCES YOU CAPITALIZE

"SETTLEMENT" AND IN SOME CASES YOU DON'T. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 23 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

24

JUST DO A GLOBAL SEARCH, AND WE SHOULD CAPITALIZE IT EVERYWHERE

IT'S REFERRING TO THE INSTANT SETTLEMENT THAT'S THE SUBJECT OF

THIS MOTION, OKAY.

WE ARE MISSING A WORD IN THE OPT OUT BOX. "BY OPTING OUT,

YOU WILL MAINTAIN ANY RIGHT YOU MAY HAVE SUE THE DEFENDANTS."

I THINK WE NEED A "TO" BETWEEN "HAVE" AND "SUE."

I WOULD ADD A COMMA AFTER LEVI STADIUM. AND ADD, "BUT YOU

WILL RECEIVE NO PAYMENT FROM THE SETTLEMENT IN THIS CASE." OR

I GUESS YOU COULD JUST LEAVE IT "FROM THE SETTLEMENT IN THIS

CASE" BECAUSE THEY COULD STILL, I GUESS, BRING THEIR OWN SUIT.

"IF YOU TAKE NO ACTION IN THE DO NOTHING ROW," I WOULD ADD

A COMMA AFTER THAT, PLEASE. CAPITALIZE "SETTLEMENT" IN THE

"OBJECT" COLUMN.

AND THIS IS A QUESTION, IT'S NOT A BIG POINT, SOMETIMES WE

SAY PART, SOMETIMES WE SAY PORTION. I THINK IN MOST INSTANCES

YOU SAY, PART OF THE SETTLEMENT. SO I WOULD JUST RECOMMEND

THAT WE KEEP THAT CONSISTENT, PLEASE.

NOW, ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS ABOUT THE CLASS DEFINITION.

IT'S KIND OF COMPLICATED. SO I'M WONDERING IF WE SHOULD WAIT

AND DO THAT IN SECTION 6, BECAUSE IN SECTION 3, IT'S JUST NOT

THAT HELPFUL, BECAUSE IT SAYS "THE PEOPLE TOGETHER ARE A CLASS

OR CLASS MEMBERS."

PEOPLE TOGETHER. THAT'S TOTALLY NOT DEFINED, IT'S NOT

GOING TO BE THAT HELPFUL. IF IT'S TOO COMPLICATED TO FRONT

THIS DEFINITION OF CLASSES, MAYBE WE JUST KEEP NUMBER 6 AND

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 24 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

25

FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DEFINE THE NAMED CLASS REPRESENTATIVES IN

PARAGRAPH 6, AND YOU COULD ALSO NAME THE DEFENDANTS IN

PARAGRAPH 6.

BUT IT'S JUST -- I HAVEN'T SEEN A NOTICE THAT JUST DEFINES

THE CLASS AS THE PEOPLE TOGETHER, IT'S JUST TOO VAGUE.

SO ARE YOU OKAY WITH MAYBE COMBINING 3 AND 6? DOES

EVERYONE SEE MY POINT ON THAT ONE?

MR. WALLACE: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THERE ARE ALSO THREE CLASSES, SO MAYBE

SAYING PEOPLE ALL TOGETHER AS A CLASS WILL ALSO BE CONFUSING,

SO I WOULD SAY LET'S MOVE 3 INTO 6, PLEASE.

MS. LAMPASONA: YOUR HONOR, WHEN YOU SUGGESTED THAT

THE DEFENDANTS BE IDENTIFIED, THE DEFENDANTS AREN'T -- FOR

EXAMPLE, THE DAMAGES CLASS DOESN'T INCLUDE THE CITY OF SANTA

CLARA, THE SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITIES, SO HOW DO YOU

SUGGEST THAT WE IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANTS, BUT KEEPING IN MIND

THAT NOT ALL THE DEFENDANTS ARE -- APPLY TO EACH CLASS?

THE COURT: WELL, IN SECTION 3, YOU JUST SAY THERE

ARE THREE DEFENDANTS WHO ARE REFERRED TO AS 49ER DEFENDANTS IN

THIS NOTICE AND THEN YOU LIST THE THREE 49ER DEFENDANTS.

AND THEN YOU SAY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AND THE SANTA

CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY ARE ALSO DEFENDANTS IN THIS LAWSUIT.

SO YOU DON'T PROVIDE THAT CLARIFICATION IN WHAT YOU

CURRENTLY HAVE EITHER.

MS. LAMPASONA: I UNDERSTAND.

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 25 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

26

WHAT I'M ASKING IS, DID YOU WANT US TO DO THAT, OR IS IT

MERELY JUST MOVING THE TEXT FROM NUMBER 3 OVER TO NUMBER 6?

THE COURT: WELL, NO, WHY DON'T YOU SPECIFY, I THINK

IT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

WHO ARE THE DEFENDANTS FOR THE DAMAGES CLASS, JUST THE

49ER DEFENDANTS?

MS. LAMPASONA: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. AND THEN WHO ARE THE DEFENDANTS

FOR THE TWO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASSES?

MS. LAMPASONA: ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS, BOTH THE

FORTY NINERS AND THE SANTA CLARA DEFENDANTS.

THE COURT: I THINK YOU CAN JUST SAY EXACTLY THAT.

MS. LAMPASONA: OKAY.

THE COURT: YOU KNOW, YOU COULD SAY, THERE ARE THREE

DEFENDANTS WHO ARE REFERRED TO AS THE 49ER DEFENDANTS AND LIST

ALL THREE OF THEM. AND SAY, THE 49ER DEFENDANTS ARE THE

DEFENDANTS IN THE CLAIMS -- IN THE DAMAGES CLASS CLAIMS, OR

HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT. AND THEN SAY, AS FAR AS THE TWO

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASSES, THE 49ER DEFENDANTS AND THE CITY OF

SANTA CLARA AND THE SANTA CLARA STADIUM AUTHORITY ARE THE

DEFENDANTS, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I THINK YOU COULD JUST SPELL THAT OUT. I THINK THAT

ACTUALLY WOULD BE HELPFUL.

MS. LAMPASONA: OKAY. GREAT.

THE COURT: OKAY. SO YOU WILL PUT THAT IN 6, PLEASE.

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 26 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

27

YOU WILL NAME THE PLAINTIFFS.

NOW I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD, I THOUGHT IT WAS A

LITTLE BIT CONFUSING IN THAT, SO WE HAVE THE CLASS MEMBERS'

RIGHTS AND OPTIONS, AND THE ONLY OPTIONS THAT ARE CALLED OUT

FOR THEM ARE, YOU CAN SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM, YOU CAN OPT OUT, OR

YOU CAN DO NOTHING.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING UNDER THE DAMAGES CLASS

MEMBERS' RIGHTS AND OPTIONS, THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT HOW YOU

OBJECT. DO YOU SEE THAT?

SO UNDER DAMAGES OF CLASS MEMBERS' RIGHTS AND OBJECTIONS,

YOU HAVE NUMBER 10, WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS, YOU HAVE NUMBER 11,

FILE A CLAIM FORM, YOU HAVE NUMBER 12, HOW DO I OPT OUT, YOU

HAVE NUMBER 13, WHAT IF I DO NOTHING.

SO IT'S NOT EVEN CLEAR YOU CAN OBJECT. THEN YOU GO TO

RIGHTS AND OPTIONS OF OTHER CLASS MEMBERS WHICH JUST SAYS, 14,

WHAT IF I'M NOT PART OF THE DAMAGES CLASS.

AND THEN YOU HAVE THIS WHOLE OTHER SECTION SAYING, THE

LAWYERS REPRESENTING THE SETTLEMENT CLASS. DO I HAVE A LAWYER,

HOW WILL THE LAWYERS BE PAID.

AND THEN YOU HAVE THIS WHOLE OTHER SECTION WHICH SAYS,

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT, AND IT JUST SAYS, NUMBER 17, WHAT

IF I DON'T LIKE THE SETTLEMENT.

SO IT'S JUST THE WAY THAT THIS IS ORGANIZED, IT DOESN'T

EVEN MAKE IT SEEM LIKE OBJECTING IS AN OPTION FOR A DAMAGES

CLASS MEMBER OR AN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASS MEMBER. I DON'T

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 27 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

28

KNOW WHY THERE'S THIS INTERVENING SECTION ABOUT THE LAWYERS

WHEN YOU'VE ALREADY PREVIOUSLY GONE THROUGH THE OPTIONS OF ALL

THREE CLASSES.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

MS. LAMPASONA: YES.

THE COURT: I FEEL LIKE IT WOULD BE CLEARER AND

CLEANER TO PERHAPS LAY OUT, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE DAMAGES CLASS,

HERE ARE YOUR FOUR DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

NOW IF YOU FILE A CLAIM FORM, YOU CAN STILL OBJECT,

CORRECT? IF YOU OPT OUT, YOU CAN'T OBJECT BECAUSE YOU ARE OUT

OF THE CLASS. I ASSUME IF YOU DO NOTHING, YOU CAN ALSO OBJECT,

IS THAT RIGHT, "IF YOU CHOOSE TO FOREGO YOUR PAYMENT UNDER THE

MONETARY SETTLEMENT AWARD."

SO I THINK IT SHOULD BE CLEAR HERE, IF YOU ARE IN THE

DAMAGES CLASS, YOU HAVE THESE FOUR DIFFERENT OPTIONS, AND THE

RIGHT TO OBJECT APPLIES EVEN IF YOU FILE A CLAIM FORM OR YOU DO

NOTHING. BUT IF YOU EXCLUDE YOURSELF, YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T

OBJECT, YOU ARE OUT.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO LAY THAT OUT MORE CLEARLY

AND THEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT, HOW DO I OBJECT, AS A

SECTION UNDER THE DAMAGES CLASS MEMBERS' OPTIONS.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? IT JUST FEELS WEIRD TO

HAVE THAT WHOLE SECTION AFTER THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING THE

CLASS, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO, REALLY, WITH THE OPTIONS OF

EITHER SET OF EITHER THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASS OR THE DAMAGES

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 28 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

29

CLASS.

MS. LAMPASONA: NO OBJECTION.

THE COURT: YEAH.

ANY OBJECTION FROM THE PLAINTIFFS ON THAT?

MR. WALLACE: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY.

SO -- AND THEN SIMILARLY, I WOULD LIKE FOR THE INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF CLASS, LET'S JUST CALL IT OUT, INSTEAD OF "RIGHTS OF

OTHER CLASS MEMBERS," I THINK THAT'S TOO VAGUE. I PREFER THAT

IT SAY, "RIGHTS AND OPTIONS OF," OR YOU COULD SAY "THE

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASS MEMBERS AND COMPANION INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

CLASS MEMBERS' RIGHTS AND OPTIONS."

AND THEN SECTION 14, WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE RENUMBERED,

WILL SAY, "IF I'M A MEMBER OF THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEVE CLASS OR

THE COMPANION INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CLASS, BUT NOT THE DAMAGES

CLASS, WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS," AND THEN LAY THEM OUT.

AND RATHER THAN -- YOU KNOW, IN THE PAST, IN THE EARLIER

SECTIONS OF THIS SAME DOCUMENT, WE HAVE BEEN JUST SAYING, A

MONETARY AWARD FROM THE SETTLEMENT IN THIS CASE. I WOULD JUST

KEEP THAT LANGUAGE CONSISTENT, RATHER THAN SWITCHING SOMETIMES

USING THAT LANGUAGE AND OTHER TIMES USING "DAMAGES FUND." JUST

SAY "FROM THE SETTLEMENT IN THIS CASE."

OKAY. AND HERE TOO, I THINK IT SHOULD BE CLEARER THAT YOU

CAN OBJECT.

ALL RIGHT. CAN -- AND THEN IF WE MOVE ON INTO THE LAWYERS

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 29 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

30

REPRESENTING THE CLASS, I DON'T LIKE IT TO SAY "YOU WILL NOT BE

CHARGED FOR THESE LAWYER SERVICES." I THINK THE CLASS ALREADY

HAS BEEN CHARGED, BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THEY CAN'T EVEN TOUCH

AND TRY TO GET ANY OF THE 13.46 MILLION. THEY HAVE ALREADY

PAID. THEY ARE ONLY GETTING 24 MILLION. THE LAWYERS WANT

56 PERCENT OF THAT. THEY HAVE ALREADY PAID.

SO I THINK IT'S A MIRAGE TO SAY, LOOK, YOU ARE NOT BEING

CHARGED, IT'S NOT AFFECTING YOUR PAYMENTS, IT'S NOT AFFECTING

YOUR PAYOUT AT ALL.

WELL, THEY HAVE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO EVEN HAVE THAT

HAPPEN SINCE YOU ALL HAVE SEPARATED THE FUNDS INTO ATTORNEY'S

FEES AND CLASS MEMBERS DAMAGES. SO I WANT THAT OUT. I THINK

IT'S NOT ACCURATE.

MR. WALLACE: YOUR HONOR, ON THAT POINT, IF I MAY BE

HEARD.

THE COURT: YEAH.

MR. WALLACE: JUST AS A FACTUAL MATTER, WE NEGOTIATED

THE DAMAGES FUND FOR THE CLASS MEMBERS WITH MR. RUBY, THE

MEDIATOR'S PROPOSAL TO RESOLVE THAT. IN THE SPRING OF 2019, I

THINK IT WAS MARCH OR APRIL, FEES WERE NOT DISCUSSED OR

RESOLVED UNTIL SIX MONTHS LATER IN THE FALL.

AND SO JUST SOME OF THE COMMENTARY FROM THE COURT --

THE COURT: RIGHT. AND YOU ARE SAYING YOU NEVER

DISCUSSED ATTORNEYS FEES AT ALL IN THE SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS

WITH THE MEDIATOR. I FIND THAT REALLY HARD TO BELIEVE. FROM

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 30 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

31

THE DEFENDANTS, THEY NEED TO KNOW WHAT THEIR MAXIMUM EXPOSURE

IS.

MR. WALLACE: WE DID NOT, YOUR HONOR. WE LEFT THAT

UNTIL LAST, AND IT WAS DISCUSSED QUITE SEPARATELY FROM THE

MAJOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ISSUES AND FROM THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES

FROM THE CLASS.

MS. LAMPASONA: WITHOUT DISCLOSING MEDIATION

PRIVILEGED INFORMATION, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD SAY THAT WE AGREE

WITH THE COURT THAT THE DEFENDANTS' PERSPECTIVE ON THIS WAS A

GLOBAL SETTLEMENT, EVEN THOUGH I AGREE WITH MR. WALLACE THAT

THE PLAINTIFFS WERE ADAMANT ABOUT NOT DISCUSSING SPECIFIC

NUMBERS RELATED TO THE ATTORNEY'S FEES UNTIL AFTER THE DAMAGES

HAD BEEN SETTLED.

BUT FROM THE DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE, WE WERE ALWAYS LOOKING

AT THIS AS, WHAT'S THE GLOBAL NUMBER, IT'S JUST PART OF THE

REASON WHY WE'VE AGREED TO THE DAMAGES THAT WE HAVE AS WELL AS

THE ATTORNEY'S FEES THAT WE HAVE. BUT THEY WERE VERY CAREFUL

ABOUT NOT NEGOTIATING THE FEES BEFORE THE DAMAGES WAS RESOLVED.

THE COURT: UH-HUH. AND I ASSUME FROM THE

DEFENDANT'S PERSPECTIVE, YOU ARE NOT UNAWARE THAT MOST

PLAINTIFFS ALWAYS ASK FOR 33 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL FUND,

CORRECT?

MS. LAMPASONA: CORRECT.

THE COURT: YEAH. SO EVEN IF THEY NEVER SAID A

NUMBER, IF THEY ASK FOR THE DAMAGES, YOU CAN DO THE CALCULATION

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 31 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

32

TO FIGURE OUT WHAT 33 PERCENT WOULD BE, ROUGHLY, FOR ATTORNEY'S

FEES, CORRECT?

MS. LAMPASONA: WE THOUGHT WE KNEW WHAT THE NUMBER

WOULD BE, CLOSE TO IT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YEAH. AND WERE YOU PRETTY RIGHT?

MS. LAMPASONA: IN THE RANGE, YES.

THE COURT: YEAH. OKAY. SO, I MEAN, WE ALL KNOW HOW

THIS WORKS.

SO ANYWAY, I JUST THINK, OBVIOUSLY I WOULD NOT WITHHOLD

APPROVAL BASED ON THIS, BUT I FEEL LIKE IF IT'S NOT NEGOTIATED

THIS WAY, WHERE THE MONEY IS COMING FROM A SEPARATE POOL, SO

ANY MONEY THAT GOES TO THE LAWYERS, WILL NOT GO TO THE CLASS,

IS DONE SPECIFICALLY TO MAXIMIZE MONEY GOING TO THE CLASS

COUNSEL.

AND I CAN UNDERSTAND, FROM COUNSEL'S PERSPECTIVE, WHY YOU

WANT TO DO THAT. I THINK AS FAR AS WHAT WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO

THE CLASS, I THINK IT'S BENEFICIAL TO THE CLASS THAT THEY HAVE

THE OPTION TO HAVE, AT THE COURT'S DISCRETION, MORE OF THE

MONEY BE GIVEN TO THEM VERSUS HAVING A SEPARATE POT OF MONEY

THAT ONLY GOES TO THE LAWYERS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS OR GOES BACK

TO THE DEFENDANTS.

AND I WOULD SAY THAT IS AN OUTLIER IN TERMS OF THE

SETTLEMENT. MOST OF THE SETTLEMENTS TO NOT HAVE THIS SEPARATE

POT OF MONEY THAT CAN'T BE TOUCHED AND CANNOT GO TO THE CLASS.

SO MOST OF THE SETTLEMENTS I SEE DO NOT DO IT THIS WAY.

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 32 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

33

ANYWAY. ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S KEEP GOING.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE OUT ALL OF THIS, "THEY WILL NOT

COME OUT OR OTHERWISE REDUCE THE DAMAGES FUND AND WILL NOT

AFFECT MONETARY PAYMENTS TO ANY OF THE DAMAGES CLASS MEMBERS"

BECAUSE I THINK I'VE SAID ENOUGH ON THIS POINT. I DON'T THINK

IT'S -- I DON'T THINK IT'S ACCURATE. THE EFFECT HAS ALREADY

BEEN DONE. YOU ARE NOT GIVING THE COURT'S DISCRETION TO DO

ANYTHING DIFFERENT AND YOU ARE NOT GIVING THE CLASS ANY OPTION

TO BE ABLE TO FILE AN OBJECTION THAT WOULD MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE

BECAUSE YOU'VE SEPARATED THE POTS OF MONEY THIS WAY.

SO I THINK IT'S NOT ACCURATE AND I'M NOT GOING TO APPROVE

ANY LANGUAGE LIKE THAT, SO THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT OF WHAT'S

NOW PARAGRAPH 16.

ALL RIGHT. THEN IN PARAGRAPH -- WHAT'S NOW PARAGRAPH 17,

WHICH IT'S NOT EVEN LABELED "HOW DO I OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT"

BUT IT SHOULD BE, IT JUST SAYS "WHAT IF I DON'T LIKE THE

SETTLEMENT." IF YOU WOULD PLEASE HAVE THOSE OBJECTIONS MAILED

TO THE SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR. AND JUST KEEP IN SECTION 18,

"PART OF THE SETTLEMENT," INSTEAD OF A "PORTION OF THE

SETTLEMENT."

AND THEN IN PARAGRAPH 19, SOMETIMES YOU REFER TO THESE AS

INCENTIVE AWARDS, SOMETIMES YOU REFER TO THEM AS SERVICE

AWARDS. I WOULD JUST SAY LET'S KEEP IT CONSISTENT, TITLE FOR

THESE PAYMENTS. HOW ARE THEY DEFINED IN THE SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENT, YOU MIGHT AS WELL JUST USE THE SAME LANGUAGE.

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 33 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

34

WHETHER THAT'S SERVICE AWARD OR INCENTIVE AWARDS, LET'S JUST

MAKE IT CONSISTENT. EARLIER IN THIS DOCUMENT THEY ARE CALLED

SERVICE AWARDS, BUT IN PARAGRAPH 19 THEY ARE CALLED INCENTIVE

AWARDS, SO IF YOU COULD JUST MAKE THAT GLOBALLY CONSISTENT,

THAT'S FINE.

IN PARAGRAPH 20, I WOULD JUST SAY WHERE IT SAYS "YOU ARE

WELCOME TO ATTEND THE HEARING AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE," WHY DON'T

WE JUST SAY "YOU OR YOUR OWN LAWYER ARE WELCOME TO ATTEND THE

HEARING AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE," SO THEY KNOW THEY WILL HAVE TO

PAY FOR IT.

YOU COULD EVEN ADD -- ACTUALLY, THAT LAST SENTENCE SAYS

"YOU MAY ALSO PAY YOUR OWN LAWYER TO ATTEND THE HEARING BUT

IT'S NOT NECESSARY." MAYBE YOU CAN SAY "YOU OR YOUR OWN LAWYER

ARE WELCOME TO ATTEND THE HEARING AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE, BUT YOUR

ATTENDANCE IS NOT NECESSARY" OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, JUST SO

IT'S CLEAR THEY KNOW THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME, BUT THEY ARE

WELCOME TO.

AND THEN ON PARAGRAPH 21, "HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION"

I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL IN THIS SECTION TO IDENTIFY

PLAINTIFF COUNSEL BY NAME, ADDRESS, E-MAIL, TELEPHONE NUMBER,

AS WELL AS THE SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR. BECAUSE I SAW IN THE

SHORT FORM NOTICE, YOU DO WANT TO MAKE THE SETTLE ADMINISTRATOR

AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, SO I THINK IT WOULD BE

HELPFUL IN THE "HOW I DO GET MORE INFORMATION" PART, TO VERY

EASILY FIND WHO TO CONTACT IN CASE THE PERSON HAS A QUESTION.

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 34 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

35

SO IF YOU WOULD ADD THAT, PLEASE, HERE. BECAUSE RIGHT

NOW, THE ONLY INFORMATION HERE IS THE COURT, BUT THEN IT SAYS

DON'T CONTACT THE COURT. SO IF SOMEONE GOES TO 21, IT WOULD BE

GREAT IF THEY COULD EASILY FIND THE CONTACT INFORMATION NAME

FOR SOMEONE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH FOR MORE INFORMATION.

SO DO THOSE CHANGES SOUND ACCEPTABLE?

MS. LAMPASONA: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DOES THAT SOUND ACCEPTABLE.

MR. WALLACE: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. SO IF YOU MAKE THOSE CHANGES, I

WILL APPROVE THIS SETTLEMENT. HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WOULD

TAKE TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES TO ALL THREE FORMS? I WOULD LIKE A

NEW CLAIM FORM, PLEASE, A NEW SHORT FORM NOTICE AND A NEW LONG

FORM NOTICE, PLEASE.

MR. WALLACE: I THINK WE CAN DO ALL OF THAT IN TEN

DAYS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. WELL, LET'S SEE, WHAT IS TODAY,

TODAY IS THE 30TH, IS THAT RIGHT? SO YOU WANT UNTIL

FEBRUARY 10TH?

MR. WALLACE: THAT SOUNDS GOOD.

MS. LAMPASONA: YOUR HONOR, IF WE COULD JUST PUSH IT

OUT ONE MORE WEEK. I NEED TO RUN BY THE CHANGES BY MY CLIENT,

AND IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO GET ANYBODY'S ATTENTION

AT THE FORTY NINERS IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO.

THE COURT: OH, GOOD POINT, GOOD POINT.

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 35 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

36

MS. LAMPASONA: AND HOPEFULLY EVERYONE WILL BE

ATTENDING A PARADE NEXT WEEK TOO.

THE COURT: THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

SO DO YOU WANT TO SAY THE 14TH OR THE 17TH?

MS. LAMPASONA: THE 17TH WOULD BE GREAT, YOUR HONOR.

THANK YOU.

THE COURT: OKAY. LET'S DO -- AND I'M SORRY THAT

THIS HEARING IS SO FAR OUT, I'M SORRY THAT YOU ARE HAVING TO

WAIT FOR THIS APPROVAL.

SO FEBRUARY 17TH OF 2020. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE FILE NEW

DOCUMENTS. AND I WILL TRY TO REVIEW IT REALLY -- WELL, I WILL

TRY BY MAYBE WEDNESDAY THE 19TH, TRY TO REVIEW THIS, OR THE

20TH, OKAY.

SO IF YOU GET PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, LET'S JUST SAY BY

FEBRUARY 20TH, THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE

DEADLINES ARE. YOU WILL DO THE CAFA NOTICE TEN DAYS AFTER

THAT, THEN 14 DAYS, FOUR DAYS LATER YOU WILL PROVIDE UPDATED

CONTACT INFORMATION, THEN YOU WILL DISTRIBUTE, SEVEN DAYS AFTER

THAT, THE NOTICES.

MS. LAMPASONA: THE DEFENDANTS REQUEST A LITTLE MORE

TIME, YOUR HONOR, FOR PROVIDING THE UPDATED CONTACT INFORMATION

AND FOR THE NOTICE PERIOD OF TIME AS WELL.

THE COURT: OKAY. LET'S FIGURE OUT, LET'S JUST GO

THROUGH THE DATES NOW, AND I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU A FINAL

APPROVAL HEARING TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE AVAILABLE ON THAT

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 36 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

37

DATE. SO WHAT DO YOU NEED FOR WHICH DAYS?

MS. LAMPASONA: WE WOULD REQUEST, PLEASE, 30 DAYS FOR

THE CONTACT INFORMATION AND 60 DAYS FOR THE NOTICE PROVISION.

THE COURT: WHY IS THAT?

MS. LAMPASONA: THE EXTRA TIME NECESSARY FOR THE

CONTACT INFORMATION IS JUST THE EFFORT THAT IT TAKES TO GET THE

CONTACT INFORMATION ORGANIZED.

WE ARE NOT JUST PULLING INFORMATION FROM THE TICKETING,

BUT WE ARE ALSO SEARCHING E-MAILS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE E-MAILED

THE ACCESS HELP AT LEVI STADIUM, THAT'S THE ARRANGEMENT THAT WE

HAVE MADE WITH PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL IN TERMS OF TRYING TO

IDENTIFY THE MAXIMUM CLASS MEMBERS. AND JUST THE E-MAIL SEARCH

DOES TAKE A LITTLE WHILE.

THE COURT: BUT DIDN'T YOU ALL -- THESE DATES ARE

WHAT THE PARTIES PROPOSED. DIDN'T YOU ALREADY APPROVE THESE

INTERVALS? AND IN FACT, THIS MOTION WAS FILED IN OCTOBER. I

REALLY APOLOGIZE THAT IT'S TAKEN UNTIL THE END OF JANUARY TO

GIVE YOU A HEARING, BUT YOU'VE ALREADY HAD ALMOST FOUR MONTHS

TO DO THIS.

AND AS IT IS, YOU WILL HAVE, TODAY IS JANUARY 30TH, AS IT

IS, YOU WILL HAVE -- IF I APPROVE THIS ON FEBRUARY 20TH, YOU

WILL HAVE UNTIL MARCH 5TH. YOU DON'T THINK YOU COULD GET THAT

DONE IN TIME?

MS. LAMPASONA: I WAS JUST ASKING FOR MORE TIME. WE

WILL GET IT DONE IN WHATEVER THE COURT REQUIRES US TO,

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 37 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

38

YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WELL, I'M SORRY, BUT I PREFER TO KEEP THE

DEADLINES THAT YOU AGREED TO. AND YOU HAD AGREED TO GIVE THE

UPDATED CONTACT INFORMATION 14 DAYS AFTER PRELIMINARY APPROVAL.

SO IF I GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ON FEBRUARY 20TH, THEN YOU

WILL BE FILING ON MARCH 5TH.

MS. LAMPASONA: UNDERSTOOD, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IS THAT -- OKAY.

AND THEN THAT MEANS YOU WOULD BE GIVING THE NOTICE THROUGH

POSTING AND DISTRIBUTION AND PUBLICATION BY MARCH 12TH. AND

THEN THE PLAINTIFFS WOULD FILE THEIR MOTION MARCH 19TH.

SO ASSUMING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL IS FEBRUARY 20TH, THEN --

OKAY. SO OBJECTING OR OPTING OUT WOULD BE -- IF THE NOTICE IS

MARCH 12TH, SO THAT WOULD BE 45 DAYS AFTER THAT.

CAN I ASK, HOW COME THE CLAIM FORM DEADLINE IS 90 DAYS

AFTER NOTICE BUT THE OBJECTION OR OPTING OUT DEADLINE IS

45 DAYS AFTER NOTICE? WHY IS IT DONE THAT WAY?

DON'T WE WANT PEOPLE TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER THEY

ARE GOING TO OPT OUT OR FILE A CLAIM FORM AT ABOUT THE SAME

TIME, VERSUS SOMEONE FILING THEIR OPT OUT AND THEN 45 DAYS

LATER FILING A CLAIM?

MR. WALLACE: YEAH, WE CAN TIGHTEN THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WHY ARE PEOPLE GIVEN MUCH LESS TIME TO

OBJECT OR OPT OUT? THEY ARE GIVEN HALF THE TIME, 45 DAYS

VERSUS 90 DAYS TO FILE A CLAIM.

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 38 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

39

MR. WALLACE: WE COULD MAKE THAT THE SAME DATE IF

YOUR HONOR WISHES.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T WE MAKE THAT THE SAME DATE JUST

SO PEOPLE DON'T GIVE US CONFLICTING INFORMATION, GIVE US AN OPT

OUT AND THEN GIVE US A CLAIM.

SO THAT WOULD BE, IF THE NOTICE GOES OUT ROUGHLY ON THE

12TH OF MARCH -- OH, THAT WOULD NOT BE UNTIL JUNE, THAT'S

PRETTY LATE. LET'S SAY ROUGHLY, LIKE, JUNE 11TH.

WHY WERE 90 DAYS GIVEN? I MEAN, IT'S FINE, BUT LET ME

JUST UNDERSTAND.

MR. WALLACE: I THINK IT WAS MOSTLY TO GIVE PEOPLE A

LONGER OPPORTUNITY TO FILE A CLAIM.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. WALLACE: I WOULD THINK THAT -- WE DON'T THINK

THE CLAIM FORM IS TOO DIFFICULT, YOUR HONOR. SO PEOPLE WHO

WANTED TO MAKE A CLAIM, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET THAT IN.

THE COURT: WELL, I'M OKAY -- ARE THESE DATES IN THE

SETTLEMENT, BECAUSE THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO AMEND YOUR

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. I THINK YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO AMEND

YOUR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT JUST TO HAVE YOUR OBJECTIONS MAILED

TO THE SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR.

SO I HOPE YOUR PROCESS TO AMEND IS EASY AND DOESN'T

REQUIRE CLIENT SIGNATURES, BUT I WILL LET YOU LOOK AT THAT, OR

SHOULD WE LOOK AT IT RIGHT NOW?

MR. WALLACE: WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT SCHEDULE IS

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 39 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

40

INCORPORATED IN THE SETTLEMENT, YOUR HONOR.

MS. LAMPASONA: NO, YOUR HONOR, IT'S SPECIFICALLY NOT

INCLUDED.

THE COURT: WHAT ABOUT MAILING THE OBJECTIONS? THAT

MIGHT REQUIRE -- YEAH. UNFORTUNATELY, THE OBJECTIONS HAVE TO

BE EITHER E-FILED OR MAILED TO THE -- FILED IN PERSON OR ON ECF

OR MAILED. SO THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, IS IN THE AGREEMENT.

I'M WONDERING IF THE OTHERS -- I DON'T SEE ANY PROVISION

ABOUT AMENDING THE AGREEMENT. I'M WONDERING IF YOU COULD DO AN

ADDENDUM WITH THESE CHANGES, THEN FILE IT AS AN AMENDMENT TO

THE AGREEMENT.

MR. WALLACE: I DON'T SEE WHY WE COULDN'T DO THAT,

YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE.

OKAY. SO I'M OKAY, WE CAN KEEP THESE DATES.

SO IF THAT'S JUNE 11TH, THEN HOW MUCH TIME AFTER YOU GET

THE OBJECTIONS AND OPT-OUTS AND THE CLAIM FORMS WOULD YOU LIKE

TO FILE THE FINAL APPROVAL MOTION AND RESPOND TO THOSE? HOW

MUCH TIME DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD LIKE?

MR. WALLACE: YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, USUALLY I THINK

WE DO SOMETHING LIKE TWO OR THREE WEEKS.

THE COURT: OKAY. SO IF THAT'S JUNE 11TH, THEN YOU

WANT TO FILE LIKE ON EITHER JUNE 25TH OR JULY 2ND?

MR. WALLACE: JULY 2ND SOUNDS GOOD, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. SO IF YOU FILE THAT THEN JULY 2ND,

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 40 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

41

THEN I WOULD LIKE -- LET ME ASK WHETHER MAYBE JULY 16TH OR 23RD

OF 2020 IS AVAILABLE FOR A FINAL APPROVAL HEARING, PLEASE.

THE CLERK: JULY 16TH IS AVAILABLE.

THE COURT: ARE YOU AVAILABLE ON THE 16TH OF JULY?

MR. WALLACE: YES, I AM, YOUR HONOR. YES, WE ARE.

MS. LAMPASONA: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DOES THAT WORK FOR EVERYBODY?

MR. CREECH: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. SO THEN LET'S HAVE THAT BE FINAL

APPROVAL, PLEASE, AND THAT WILL BE AT 1:30.

AND THEN THE DEADLINE FOR THE SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR, I

GUESS THAT WILL FALL OFF AFTER THE JUNE 11TH DEADLINE, SO

THAT'S FINE.

IS THAT OKAY TO HAVE THE 90 DAYS FOR THE SETTLEMENT

ADMINISTRATOR TO REVIEW AND DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF CLAIMS

WOULD BE 90 DAYS FROM JUNE 11TH, EVEN THOUGH YOU WON'T GET

FINAL APPROVAL UNTIL, LIKE, MID TO LATE JULY. IS THAT ALL

RIGHT? IS THAT OKAY?

MR. WALLACE: I THINK SO.

MS. LAMPASONA: THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO KEEP YOUR DEADLINES WITH THE

EXCEPTION THAT THE OPT OUT OR OBJECT WOULD BE AT THE SAME TIME

AS CLAIMING FORMS DEADLINE -- THE DEADLINE TO FILE CLAIM FORMS,

SO THAT WE DON'T GET INCONSISTENT DOCUMENTS FROM A CLASS

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 41 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

42

MEMBER. AND THEN I WILL SET THE HEARING FOR JULY 16TH.

OKAY. SO WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED TO DO TODAY? DID YOU GET

ALL THE CHANGES THAT I WANTED ON THE DIFFERENT FORMS?

MS. LAMPASONA: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I MEAN, I WAS GOING TO

FILE A RED LINE VERSION, BUT SOME OF THESE ARE STRUCTURAL, AND

SO I THOUGHT I SHOULD DEFER TO THE PARTIES TO FIGURE OUT HOW

YOU WANT TO DO IT, IF THAT'S OKAY. BUT OTHERWISE, I PLAN TO

APPROVE THIS SETTLEMENT AS SOON AS WE MAKE THESE NITS TO THE

DOCUMENTS; IS THAT ALL RIGHT?

MS. LAMPASONA: UNDERSTOOD, YOUR HONOR.

MR. WALLACE: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED ANY

FURTHER HEARING. AS SOON AS I SEE THOSE DOCUMENTS, I WILL GO

AHEAD AND GIVE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, AND WE WILL ASSUME THEN

THAT THE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING WILL BE JULY 16TH.

MR. LEE: MAY I ASK ONE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES, PLEASE, GO AHEAD.

MR. LEE: WITH RESPECT TO THE FEE MOTION.

THE COURT: YES.

MR. LEE: WHAT INFORMATION WOULD THE COURT LIKE

REGARDING OUR BILLING RECORDS AND HOW WOULD YOU LIKE THAT

INFORMATION PRESENTED?

THE COURT: OH, OKAY. SO I LIKED THE DETAILED

BILLING RECORDS.

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 42 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

43

MR. LEE: OKAY.

THE COURT: I HOPE YOU HAVE, LIKE, CONTEMPORANEOUSLY

RECORDED.

MR. LEE: YES.

THE COURT: SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, I MEAN, I GUESS

IT'S GOING TO BE PROBABLY QUITE VOLUMINOUS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO

SEE IT, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE REQUEST IS QUITE LARGE.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT ALL. DETAILED BILLING RECORDS,

BY TASK, BY TIME BILLED.

MR. LEE: WHEN YOU SAY BY TASK, DID YOU MEAN BY

CODING OR --

THE COURT: NO, I WANT WHATEVER -- WHATEVER YOUR

CONTEMPORANEOUS BILLING RECORDS ARE, WHATEVER EACH BILLER DID

FOR EVERY DAY, HOW DID THEY KEEP THEIR RECORDS.

I DON'T WANT YOU TO CREATE ANYTHING NEW FOR ME, I WANT TO

SEE WHATEVER THEY ACTUALLY BILLED. AND HOW THEY DESCRIBED

THEIR WORK AND HOW MUCH TIME THEY BILLED FOR EACH TASK.

IS THAT HOW THE RECORDS ARE KEPT?

MR. LEE: THAT'S HOW --

MR. WALLACE: YES, THAT IS HOW THEY ARE MAINTAINED,

YOUR HONOR.

AND THEN AS PART OF OUR BILLING JUDGMENT, WE WOULD

INDICATE WHERE BILLINGS ARE CHANGED OR REDUCED.

THE COURT: OKAY. IF YOU COULD LET ME KNOW IF THERE

ARE CERTAIN THINGS YOU WROTE OFF OR REDUCED OR WHAT WAS DELETED

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 43 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

44

AND WHY.

MR. WALLACE: WE WILL DO THAT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.

WHAT ELSE? ANY OTHER INFORMATION I CAN PROVIDE FOR HOW I

DO FINAL APPROVAL?

MS. LAMPASONA: I HAVE NO QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, SINCE

THIS WAS LITIGATED OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS, LIKE WHAT WERE YOUR

BILLING RATES, I ASSUME YOU CHANGED YOUR RATES, WHAT WAS THE

CHANGE, WHO HAS APPROVED THOSE RATES FOR EACH BILLER.

MR. WALLACE: WE CAN DO THAT, YOUR HONOR, ABSOLUTELY.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

I DO TAKE A REALLY CLOSE LOOK AT FEES, AND COSTS AS WELL.

I LIKE TO KNOW, I WOULD LIKE INVOICES. YOU KNOW, I HAD ALL

THESE WAGE-AN-HOUR CASES OF ALL THESE LAWYERS COMING FROM L.A.,

AND ALL THEIR FLIGHTS WERE OVER $500. AND I FLY TO L.A. FOR

LESS THAN $200. IT TURNS OUT THEY ARE ALL FLYING FIRST CLASS

FROM SAN JOSE TO LAX.

MR. WALLACE: WE TYPICALLY PROVIDE ALL THE BACKUP,

YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: PERFECT.

SO THAT'S WHY I'VE STARTED, IN THOSE CASES, TO ASK FOR THE

BACK UP, AND IT TURNS OUT SOMETIMES THEY DOUBLE BILLED HOTELS,

I THINK BY ACCIDENT, BUT WHEN I GET THE BACKUP IS WHEN I CAN

SEE SOME OF THOSE THINGS.

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 44 of 46
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

45

BUT I -- YOU KNOW, AND MANY OF THOSE CASES, THEY WERE

MINIMUM WAGE WORKERS GETTING PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR, AND I JUST

DIDN'T THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THEIR LAWYERS TO CONSTANTLY

BE FLYING FIRST CLASS FOR A 55-MINUTE FLIGHT, SO I DIDN'T

REIMBURSE THEM FOR THE FULL AMOUNTS.

SO ANYWAY, YES, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE PROVIDE THE BACKUP ON

THE COSTS.

WHAT ELSE? ANYTHING ELSE?

MR. WALLACE: I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING FURTHER

FOR PLAINTIFFS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU ALL

VERY MUCH. THANK YOU ALL.

AND THEN GO AHEAD, PLEASE SEND ME THE DOCUMENTS, I WILL

GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, AND THEN I WILL SEE YOU FOR THE

FINAL APPROVAL HEARING.

OKAY. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR. WALLACE: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MS. LAMPASONA: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: TAKE CARE. THANK YOU.

(THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED AT 2:45 P.M.)

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 45 of 46
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

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

I, THE UNDERSIGNED OFFICIAL COURT

REPORTER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 280 SOUTH

FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY

CERTIFY:

THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT,

CERTIFICATE INCLUSIVE, CONSTITUTES A TRUE, FULL AND

CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF MY SHORTHAND NOTES TAKEN AS

SUCH OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS

HEREINBEFORE ENTITLED AND REDUCED BY COMPUTER-AIDED

TRANSCRIPTION TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.

_________________________

SUMMER A. FISHER, CSR, CRR

CERTIFICATE NUMBER 13185 DATED: 1/31/20

Case 5:16-cv-07013-LHK Document 382 Filed 01/31/20 Page 46 of 46