1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

)

IN RE FICO ANTITRUST LITIGATION ) Judge Edmond E. Chang

)

) Magistrate Judge David E. Weisman

This Document Relates to the )

Following Cases: ) No. 1:20-CV-02114

)

ALL ACTIONS )

)

JOINT STATUS REPORT 

Pursuant to the Court’s September 28, 2023 Order (ECF 173), Plaintiffs Sky Federal Credit 

Union, Alcoa Community Federal Credit Union, Amalgamated Bank, City of Boston Credit 

Union, First Choice Federal Credit Union, Getten Credit Company, Holmes County Bank & Trust 

Company, Garner Properties & Management LLC and Lake City Exports, Inc. (collectively 

“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Fair Isaac Corporation (“FICO”) (together, the “Parties”) respectfully 

submit the following Joint Status Report. 

1. Meet-and-Confer 

On October 12, 2023, the Parties met-and-conferred in good faith to attempt to devise an 

agreed proposed case schedule. While the Parties were able to reach agreement on most aspects of 

the schedule, they disagree as to the appropriate sequencing of events following the close of fact 

discovery. The Parties’ respective positions on these issues are set forth below. 

2. The Parties’ Proposed Case Schedules 

Where dates are agreed by the Parties, they are noted once in the table below. Where dates 

are not agreed, Plaintiffs’ and FICO’s proposals are noted side-by-side. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 179 Filed: 10/16/23 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:3447
2 

Event Proposed Deadline 

FICO’s Answers to the 

Complaints Due October 23, 2023 

Plaintiffs to File 

Amended Complaints, if 

Any, as to Dismissed 

Claims

October 30, 2023 

Last Day to Serve Initial 

Requests for Production 

and Interrogatories

November 6, 2023 

Submit proposed ESI 

Order and Confidentiality 

Order1

November 6, 2023 

Exchange of Rule 26(a)(1) 

Disclosures November 13, 2023 

Submit proposed Orders 

regarding Expert 

Discovery, Deposition 

Protocol, and 

Modifications to 

Discovery Limits2

December 15, 2023 

Substantial Completion of 

All Document Discovery June 14, 2024 

Last Day to Serve Any 

Additional Written 

Discovery Requests3

September 17, 2024 

1

 If the proposed orders are not agreed, the parties may submit a joint status report identifying the 

areas of disagreement and briefly outlining their positions, with each side’s proposal attached as an exhibit. 

2

 See note 1, supra. 

3

 Additional requests for production and interrogatories served on or before the deadline for any 

additional discovery requests must be based on relevant matters that were not reasonably anticipated by the 

requesting party at the time that written discovery commenced. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 179 Filed: 10/16/23 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:3448
3 

Event Proposed Deadline 

Completion of All Fact 

Discovery December 20, 2024 

Expert Reports 

Plaintiffs’ Proposal 

(consolidated merits and class 

certification reports) 

Opening Reports: 

January 30, 2025 

Response Reports: 

March 13, 2025 

Rebuttal Reports: 

April 15, 2025 

FICO’s Proposal 

(class certification reports only) 

Opening Reports: 

January 30, 2025 

Response Reports: 

March 13, 2025 

Rebuttal Reports: 

April 15, 2025 

Expert Depositions 

Plaintiffs’ Proposal 

(consolidated merits and class 

certification expert discovery) 

May 30, 2025

FICO’s Proposal 

(class certification expert 

discovery only) 

May 30, 2025

Class Certification and 

Daubert Motions

Motions: 

July 10, 2025 

Opposition Briefs: 

August 21, 2025 

Reply Briefs: 

September 23, 2025 

Dispositive Motions4

Plaintiffs’ Proposal 

Motions: 

November 6, 2025 

Opposition Briefs: 

December 18, 2025 

Reply Briefs: 

January 27, 2026 

FICO’s Proposal 

Within 21 days after the Court’s 

ruling on motions for class 

certification, the parties will 

meet and confer and submit a 

proposed schedule for merits 

expert discovery, dispositive 

motions, and Daubert motions 

for merits experts

4

 The Parties will meet and confer regarding a schedule for an early motion for summary judgment 

should FICO intend to bring such a motion. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 179 Filed: 10/16/23 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:3449
4 

Plaintiffs’ Statement

Plaintiffs propose one round of expert reports and Daubert motions to address both classcertification and merits issues. Plaintiffs’ approach will reduce briefing, expense, and delay. It is 

also consistent with the recent practice of many courts, including courts in this district, which have 

found that “bifurcating class certification and merits expert discovery is a fool’s errand, only 

leading to inefficiencies and delay, which then snowballs into increased costs.”5 

First, Plaintiffs’ proposal would speed resolution of this case – which has been pending 

since April 2020. Plaintiffs propose that, after fact discovery is complete, the parties conduct all 

expert discovery and file a single set of Daubert motions (if any). FICO, by contrast, proposes 

that the case grind to a halt until class certification is decided. That could prolong resolution of 

the case for months, if not years. There is no justification for that delay. For one thing, individual 

plaintiffs intend to continue prosecuting this case regardless of whether class certification is 

granted. For another, both parties agree that no expert discovery should occur before fact 

discovery is complete. This is not a circumstance – as was common historically – where class 

certification will be decided before significant discovery into merits issues. Determining whether 

a putative class satisfies Rule 23(a)’s requirements “will frequently entail ‘overlap with the merits 

of the plaintiff ’s underlying claim.’ ”6 That is true here too: Plaintiffs expect that the expert reports 

regarding class certification will address merits issues, as is common practice. For example, expert 

5

 In re Deere & Co. Repair Servs. Antitrust Litig., No. 22-cv-50188 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2022), Dkt. 

107 at 1 (emphasis added) & Dkt. 109 (scheduling order); see, e.g., See, e.g., In re Automatic Card Shufflers 

Litig., No. 21-cv-1798 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2023), Dkt. 97, at 1; In re Surescripts Antitrust Litig., No. 19-cv6627 (N.D. Ill. July 12, 2022), Dkt. 221, at 2; In re Google Digital Advert. Antitrust Litig., No. 21-md-3010 

(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2022), Dkt. 394, at 3; In re Broiler Chicken Grower Antitrust Litig. (No. II), No. 21-

cv-33 (E.D. Okla. Feb. 12, 2021), Dkt. 29, at 3; In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litig., No. 16-cv-696 

(E.D.N.Y. July 14, 2016), Dkt. 94, at 1. FICO claims “most courts in this District have rejected [Plaintiffs’] 

approach in antitrust cases,” but, in all the cases it cites, the parties agreed to bifurcate class and merits 

expert discovery. 

6

 Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 33-34 (2013). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 179 Filed: 10/16/23 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:3450
5 

analysis of FICO’s market power and anticompetitive conduct is relevant to proving both FICO’s 

antitrust violation (a merits issue) and commonality (a class-certification issue). Plaintiffs do not 

intend to “assume liability” in their expert reports as FICO suggests infra. Moreover, FICO’s 

claim infra that “class members must receive notice . . . and an opportunity to opt out before the 

Court can address summary judgment” does not mean summary judgment cannot be briefed before 

class notice is issued.7 To the extent the Court is troubled by the “one way intervention” concern 

FICO raises, the issue could be resolved by deferring decision on summary judgment until class 

certification is decided and the class is provided an opportunity to opt out. FICO’s concern 

provides no reason to bifurcate class and merits expert discovery. 

Second, a single set of expert disclosures will reduce cost. Under Plaintiffs’ proposal, the 

parties would serve only one round of expert reports and only one round of Daubert motions. 

Under FICO’s proposal, there would be two rounds of each. More reports means more expense. 

While FICO suggests infra that its merits expert reports may be materially different from its classcertification reports, that claim is purely hypothetical. And its suggestion that it may need 

additional industry experts for the merits is beside the point: FICO will need to hire those experts 

anyway because individual plaintiffs intend to prosecute this case regardless of whether class 

certification is granted. Moreover, Plaintiffs, who bear the burden of proof, anticipate using the 

same experts for class-certification and merits issues. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court order a single round of 

expert disclosures and adopt Plaintiffs’ proposed schedule for dispositive motions. 

7

 Courts often allow summary judgment briefing to proceed prior to class notice being issued. See, 

e.g., Automatic Card Shufflers, No. 21-cv-1798 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2023), Dkt. 97, at 1; Surescripts, No. 19-

cv-6627 (N.D. Ill. July 12, 2022), Dkt. 221, at 3; In re Google Digital Advert. Antitrust Litig., No. 21-md3010 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2022), Dkt. 394, at 4; In re Packaged Seafood Prod. Antitrust Litig., No. 15-md2670, 2020 WL 2745231, at *4 n.6 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2020). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 179 Filed: 10/16/23 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:3451
6 

FICO’s Statement 

Plaintiffs’ proposals to (1) combine class and merits expert discovery and (2) brief 

dispositive motions while class certification remains pending would impose tremendous costs on 

the Parties before they are actually necessary. For good reasons, most courts in this District 

presiding over antitrust cases have adopted FICO’s proposal to defer merits expert discovery and 

dispositive motions until after class certification, including this Court in Ploss v. Kraft Foods Grp., 

Inc. et al., 15-CV-2937 (Dkt. 137, 364, attached as Ex. A).8 The Court should do so here. 

Merits Expert Discovery Should Proceed After Class Certification 

Plaintiffs first argue that class and expert discovery must be combined to reach a “quicker 

resolution of the case,” noting that initial complaints were filed in April 2020. But Plaintiffs fail 

to acknowledge that the case sat in limbo for roughly a year due to their counsel’s inability to agree 

on a leadership structure or whether most putative class members are direct or indirect purchasers. 

See Dkt. 55, 83. Plaintiffs were the source of that delay and cannot now use it to circumvent the 

more sensible approach of deferring expert discovery on merits issues until the Court has resolved 

class certification and it is clear whether those costs must be borne by the Parties at all. 

Plaintiffs’ second argument—that it is more efficient to combine expert work on class and 

merits issues because they are basically the same inquiry—is also incorrect. At class certification, 

liability is often assumed by the experts, who focus on the Rule 23(a) and 23(b) factors. At the 

merits stage, however, experts address liability issues head-on, requiring different economic 

analyses. Moreover, at the merits stage parties frequently need to retain additional experts in other 

8

 See also In re Turkey Antitrust Litig., 19-CV-8318 (Judge Kendall) (Dkt. 210) (Ex. B); In re Local 

TV Advertising Antitrust Litig., 18-CV-06785 (Judge Kendall) (Dkt. 218) (Ex. C); In re Delta Dental 

Antitrust Litig., MDL 2931, 1:19-CV-06734 (Judge Bucklo) (Dkt. 463) (Ex. D); Moehrl, et al. v. The 

National Assoc’n of Realtors, 1:19-CV-01610 (Judge Wood) (Dkt. 278) (Ex. E); Dennis, et al. v. The 

Andersons, Inc., 1:20-CV-04090 (Judge Norgle) (Dkt. 124, 126) (Ex. F). As with the cases Plaintiffs cite, 

some of these schedules were agreed and some were adopted by the court over one party’s objection. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 179 Filed: 10/16/23 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:3452
7 

fields, including industry practices or technical issues. It will likely cost each side millions to retain 

these experts, work with them to develop their opinions, take and defend their depositions, and 

brief related Daubert issues. Separating class and expert discovery saves the Parties from incurring 

much of these costs until, and only if, they are actually necessary, while still facilitating the prompt 

resolution of class certification “at an early practicable time,” consistent with Rule 23(c)(1)(A). 

Dispositive Motions Should Be Filed After Class Certification

Equally important, dispositive motions should not be due until after class certification has 

been decided. If the Court is inclined to adopt Plaintiffs’ proposal for expert discovery, FICO still 

urges the Court to defer dispositive motions until after a decision on class certification. 

First, as with merits expert discovery, there is no reason for the parties to incur the expense 

of briefing summary judgment issues until classes (if any) have been certified.9 

Second, if any classes are certified, the Court may use its discretion to narrow or otherwise 

amend Plaintiffs’ class definitions in ways that could materially affect the parties’ summary 

judgment arguments. Deferring summary judgment briefing is therefore more efficient. 

Third, there are no efficiencies to be gained by briefing class certification and summary 

judgment back-to-back, as Plaintiffs propose, because the motions cannot be decided together. If 

any classes are certified, class members must receive notice in accordance with a Court-approved 

notice plan and an opportunity to opt out before the Court addresses summary judgment. That is 

necessary to avoid the “problem of ‘one way intervention,’ whereby a potential class member 

could await resolution of the merits of the claim before deciding whether or not to join the lawsuit.” 

9

 Plaintiffs’ assurances that the cases will still proceed individually if class certification is denied 

should be given skepticism. The denial of class certification would materially increase the likelihood that 

these cases are abandoned or settled to avoid the significant costs of dispositive motions practice. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 179 Filed: 10/16/23 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:3453
8 

Peritz v. Liberty Loan Corp., 523 F.2d 349, 353 (7th Cir. 1975) (citation omitted).10

 

10

 Thus, to the extent that FICO files an “early summary judgment motion” on discrete issues as noted 

in the Court’s memorandum and opinion order, Dkt. 173 at 15, the outcome of the motion would have res 

judicata effect only on the named Plaintiffs if decided by the Court prior to class certification. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 179 Filed: 10/16/23 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:3454
9 

Dated: October 16, 2023 

/s/ Steven F. Molo 

Lauren M. Weinstein 

MOLOLAMKEN LLP 

600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., 

Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20037 

Telephone: 202-556-2000 

lweinstein@mololamken.com

Steven F. Molo 

Lauren F. Dayton 

MOLOLAMKEN LLP 

300 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 5350 

Chicago, IL 60654 

Telephone: 312-450-6700 

smolo@mololamken.com

ldayton@mololamken.com 

Liaison Counsel for Direct Purchaser 

Plaintiffs and the Proposed Direct 

Purchaser Class 

Gary F. Lynch 

CARLSON LYNCH LLP 

1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor 

Pittsburgh, PA 15222 

Telephone: 412-322-9243 

Facsimile: 412-231-0246 

glynch@carlsonlynch.com

Katrina Carroll 

CARLSON LYNCH LLP 

111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240 

Chicago, IL 60602 

Telephone: 312-750-1265 

kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com

Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Carmen Medici 

Carmen Medici (admitted pro hac vice) 

SCOTT+SCOTT 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 

600 West Broadway, Suite 3300 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Telephone: 619-798-5319 

cmedici@scott-scott.com 

Joseph P. Guglielmo (N.D. Ill. 2759819) 

Michelle E. Conston (admitted pro hac vice) 

SCOTT+SCOTT 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 

The Helmsley Building 

230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 

10169 Telephone: 212-223-6444 

Facsimile: 212-223-6334 

jguglielmo@scott-scott.com 

mconston@scott-scott.com 

Patrick McGahan (admitted pro hac vice)

SCOTT+SCOTT 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 

156 S. Main St. 

Colchester, CT 06415 

Telephone: 860-531-2606 

pmcgahan@scott-scott.com 

 

Interim Lead Class Counsel for Direct 

Purchaser Plaintiffs and the Proposed Direct 

Purchaser Class 

Christopher M. Burke 

Walter Noss 

Yifan (Kate) Lv 

KOREIN TILLERY PC 

707 Broadway, Suite 1410 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Telephone: (619) 6225-5620 

Facsimile: (314) 241-3525 

cburke@koreintillery.com 

wnoss@koreintillery.com 

klv@koreintillery.com 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 179 Filed: 10/16/23 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:3455
10 

George A. Zelcs Randall P. Ewing, Jr. 

Ryan Z. Cortazar 

KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 

205 North Michigan Avenue, 

Suite 1950 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Telephone: 312-641-9750 

Facsimile: 312-641-9751 

gzelcs@koreintillery.com 

rewing@koreintillery.com 

rcortazar@koreintillery.com 

Jennifer W. Sprengel 

CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & 

SPRENGEL LLP 

150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Telephone: 312-782-4880 

jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com

Barbara J. Hart (admitted pro hac vice) 

GRANT & EISENHOFER 

485 Lexington Ave., 29th Floor New 

York, NY 10017 

Telephone: 646-722-8526 

bhart@gelaw.com 

Paul E. Slater 

Joseph M. Vanek 

Michael G. Dickler 

Matthew T. Slater 

SPERLING & SLATER, P.C. 

55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3200 

Chicago, IL 60603 

Telephone: 312-641-3200 

pes@sperling-law.com

jvanek@sperling-law.com

mdickler@sperling-law.com

mslater@sperling-law.com

Linda P. Nussbaum 

Susan Schwaiger 

NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 

1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor 

New York, NY 10036 

Telephone: 917-438-9102 

lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

sschwaiger@nussbaumpc.com

Michael L. Roberts 

Karen Sharp Halbert 

ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A. 

20 Rahling Circle Little Rock, 

AR 72223 

Telephone: 501-821-5575 

mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us

karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us

Gregory S. Asciolla (admitted pro hac vice) 

Karin E. Garvey (admitted pro hac vice) 

Robin A. van der Meulen (admitted pro hac 

vice) 

Matthew J. Perez (admitted pro hac vice) 

Jonathan S. Crevier (admitted pro hac vice) 

DICELLO LEVITT LLP 

485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 

New York, New York 10017 

(646) 933-1000 

gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com 

kgarvey@dicellolevitt.com 

rvandermeulen@dicellolevitt.com 

mperez@dicellolevitt.com 

jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com 

Marvin A. Miller 

Lori A. Fanning 

MILLER LAW LLC 

115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 

Chicago, IL 60603 

Telephone: 312-332-3400 

mmiller@millerlawllc.com

lfanning@millerlawllc.com

Guillaume Buell (admitted pro hac vice) 

THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP 

1 Lincoln Street, 13th Floor 

Boston, MA 02111 

Telephone: 617-720-1333 gbuell@tenlaw.com 

Daniel E. Gustafson (admitted pro hac vice) 

Daniel C. Hedlund (admitted pro hac vice) 

Michelle J. Looby (admitted pro hac vice) 

Joshua J. Rissman 

Ling S. Wang 

GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 179 Filed: 10/16/23 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:3456
11 

Canadian Pacific Plaza 

120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 

Minneapolis, MN 55402 

Telephone: 612-333-8844 

dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com

dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com

mlooby@gustafsongluek.com

jrissman@gustafsongluek.com

lwang@gustafsongluek.com

Dennis Stewart (admitted pro hac vice) 

GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 

600 B Street, 17th Floor San 

Diego, CA 92101 

Telephone: 619-595-3200 

dstewart@gustafsongluek.com

Kenneth A. Wexler Melinda J. 

Morales Michelle Perkovic 

WEXLER WALLACE LLP 

55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300 

Chicago, IL 60603 

Telephone: 312-346-2222 

kaw@wexlerwallace.com

mjm@wexlerwallace.com

mp@wexlerwallace.com

Charles F. Barrett (admitted pro hac vice) 

NEAL & HARWELL, PLC 

1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000 

Nashville, TN 37203 

Telephone: 615-244-1713 

cbarrett@nealharwell.com

Don Barrett (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 

404 Court Square 

P.O. Box 927 

Lexington, MS 39095 

Telephone: 662-834-2488 

dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

donbarrettpa@gmail.com

Richard R. Barrett (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 

2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011 

Oxford, MS 38655 

Telephone: 662-380-5018 

rrb@rrblawfirm.net

Michael P. Lehmann (SBN 77152) 

Christopher Lebsock (SBN 184546) 

HAUSFELD LLP 

600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: 415-633-1908 

mlehmann@hausfeld.com

clebsock@hausfeld.com

Hilary K. Scherrer 

Paul Gallagher 

HAUSFELD LLP 

1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650 

Washington, DC 20006 

Telephone: 202-540-7200 

hscherrer@hausfeld.com

pgallagher@hausfeld.com

Scott A. Martin 

Irving Scher 

Jeanette Bayoumi 

HAUSFELD LLP 

33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor 

New York, NY 10004 

Telephone: 646-357-1100 

smartin@hausfeld.com

ischer@hausfeld.com

jbayoumi@hausfeld.com

Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and 

the Proposed Direct Purchaser Class 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 179 Filed: 10/16/23 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:3457
12 

REINHARDT WENDORF & 

BLANCHFIELD 

Garrett D. Blanchfield (pro hac vice) 

Brant D. Penney (pro hac vice) 

Roberta A. Yard (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

332 Minnesota Street, Suite W-1050 

St. Paul, MN 55101 

Telephone: 651-287-2100 

Facsimile: 651-287-2103 

g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

b.penney@rwblawfirm.com

r.yard@rwblawfirm.com

SPECTOR ROSEMAN & 

KODROFF, P.C. 

Jeffrey J. Corrigan (pro hac vice) 

William G. Caldes (pro hac vice) 

Jeffrey L. Spector (pro hac vice) 

Icee N. Etheridge (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Telephone: 215-496-0300 

Facsimile: 215-496-6611 

JCorriganf@srkattorneys.com

BCaldes@srkattorneys.com 

JSpector@srkattorneys.com 

IEtheridge@srkattorneys.com 

Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Indirect 

Purchaser Plaintiffs and the Proposed 

Indirect Purchaser Class 

GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC 

Charles R. Watkins (3122790) 

321 South Plymouth Court 

Suite 1250 

Chicago, IL 60604 

Telephone: 312-878-8391 

Facsimile: 205-226-2357 

charlesw@gseattorneys.com

Liaison Counsel for Indirect Purchaser 

Plaintiffs and the Proposed Indirect 

Purchaser Class 

PRETI FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & 

PACHIOS LLP 

Michael S. Smith (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

Gregory P. Hansel (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

Randall B. Weill (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

Elizabeth F. Quinby (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

One City Center, P.O. Box 9546 

Portland, ME 04101 

Telephone: 207-791-3000 

msmith@preti.com

ghansel@preti.com

rweill@preti.com

equinby@preti.com

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 

Brian P. Murray (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

Lee Albert (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

230 Park Avenue, 

Suite 358 

New York, NY 10169 

Telephone: 212-682-5340 

Facsimile: 212-884-0988 

bmurray@glancylaw.com

lalbert@glancylaw.com

FREED KANNER LONDON & 

MILLEN LLC 

Douglas A. Millen 

2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 

Bannockburn, IL 60015 

Telephone: 224-632-4500 

dmillen@fklmlaw.com 

FREED KANNER LONDON & 

MILLEN LLC 

Jonathan M. Jagher (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

923 Fayette Street 

Conshohocken, PA 19428 

Telephone: 610-234-6487 

jjagher@fklmlaw.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 179 Filed: 10/16/23 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:3458
13 

BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC 

Michael J. Boni (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

Joshua D. Snyder (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

John E. Sindoni (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

15 St. Asaphs Road 

Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 

Telephone: 610-822-0200 

Facsimile: 610-822-0206 

mboni@bonizack.com

jsnyder@bonizack.com

jsindoni@bonizack.com

MCLAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C. 

David McLafferty (pro hac vice 

forthcoming) Attorneys at Law 

923 Fayette Street 

Conshohocken, PA 19428 

Telephone: 610-940-4000, ext. 12 

www.McLaffertyLaw.com

/s/ Britt M. Miller

Britt M. Miller 

Matthew D. Provance 

J. Gregory Deis 

MAYER BROWN LLP 

71 South Wacker Drive 

Chicago, IL 60606-4637 

(312) 782-0600 

(312) 701-7711—Facsimile 

bmiller@mayerbrown.com

mprovance@mayerbrown.com

gdeis@mayerbrown.com 

Counsel for Defendant Fair Isaac Corporation

SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C. 

Simon B. Paris, Esq. (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

Patrick Howard, Esq. (pro hac vice forthcoming) 

1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Telephone: 215-575-3985 

Facsimile: 215-496-0999 

sparis@smbb.com

phoward@smbb.com

Counsel for Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs 

and the Proposed Indirect Purchaser Class 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-02114 Document #: 179 Filed: 10/16/23 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:3459