UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

---------------------------------------------------------------X

IN RE JOHNSON & JOHNSON DERIVATIVE : Civil Action No. 10-2033 (FLW) 

LITIGATION : 

 : 

---------------------------------------------------------------X 

IN RE JOHNSON & JOHNSON FCPA : Civil Action No. 11-2511 (FLW) 

SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION : 

 : 

---------------------------------------------------------------X 

COPELAND V. PRINCE, et al. : Civil Action No. 11-4992 (FLW) 

 : 

---------------------------------------------------------------X

PLAINTIFF KATZ’S OBJECTION OR MOTION TO MODIFY

THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER 

AND RESPONSE TO PETRI OBJECTION

Gary S. Graifman 

KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER 

& GRAIFMAN, P.C.

210 Summit Avenue 

Montvale, NJ 07645 

Phone: (201) 391-7000 

Jeffrey S. Abraham 

Philip T. Taylor 

ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER 

& TWERSKY, LLP

One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 

New York, NY 10119 

Phone: (212) 279-5050 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Leslie Katz

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 89 Filed 07/08/13 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 1651
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY ...................................................................................... ii 

STANDARD OF REVIEW .............................................................................................................2 

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................2 

A. The Work Performed by AF&T Was Appropriate and Justified 

Metal Hip Replacement and Other Factual Updates ................................................3 

1. Obtaining, Reviewing and Analyzing Documents Relating to DePuy’s 

Metal Hip Replacement and Other Factual Updates ....................................3 

2. Reviewing Transcripts and Exhibits From Civil Trials Relating to the 

Alleged Improper Sale of Risperdal .............................................................5 

3. The Books and Records Request .................................................................5 

4. Work on Complaints ....................................................................................6 

5. Analyzing the Special Committee Report ....................................................8 

 

 B. AF&T’s Billing Practices Do Not Justify the Cuts Made By the Report ................8 

C. Petri’s Objection to the Report Seeking Further Reductions in Demand Refused 

 Counsel’s Lodestar Should be Overruled ..............................................................10 

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................13 

 

 

 

 

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 89 Filed 07/08/13 Page 2 of 16 PageID: 1652
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases Page 

Drazin v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, 

 832 F. Supp. 2d 432 (D.N.J. 2011) ....................................................................................12 

Garr v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 

 22 F.3d 1274 (3d Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................7 

Gulfstream III Assocs., Inc. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 

 995 F.2d 414 (3d Cir. 1993) ...............................................................................................6 

In re Heritage Bond Litig., 

 No. 02 ML 1475 (DT), 

 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13555 (C.D.Cal. June 10, 2005) ..................................................12 

In re Johnson & Johnson Deriv. Litig., 

 856 F. Supp. 2d 545 (D.N.J. 2011) ......................................................................................6 

In re Johnson & Johnson Derivative Litig., 

 900 F. Supp. 2d 467 (D.N.J. 2012) ......................................................................................1 

Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. Of Phila. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanatory Corp., 

 487 F.2d 161 (3d Cir. 1973) ...............................................................................................8 

Pawlak v. Greenawalt, 

 713 F.2d 972 (3d Cir. 1983) .................................................................................................8 

Rode v. Dellarciprete, 

 892 F.2d 1177 (3d Cir. 1990) ...............................................................................................8 

Wade v. Colaner, 

 No. 06 Civ. 3715 (FLW), 

 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138518 (D.N.J. Dec. 28, 2010) ......................................................8 

Statues and Rules 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3) (2013) .........................................................................................................2 

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 89 Filed 07/08/13 Page 3 of 16 PageID: 1653
 Plaintiff Leslie Katz (“Plaintiff”), through his undersigned counsel, respectfully submits 

this motion to object to, or seek modification of the findings made by Special Master Harriet 

Derman in a Report and Recommendation of Special Master dated June 13, 2013 (the “Report”) 

and response to the Objection of Mark G. Petri to Special Master Report filed on July 3, 2013. 

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 On October 26, 2012, this Court held a fairness hearing with respect to the proposed 

settlement of this action at which time the settlement was approved. In re Johnson & Johnson 

Derivative Litig., 900 F. Supp. 2d 467 (D.N.J. 2012). However, the Court did not make an 

award of attorneys’ fees finding that “the Court requires detailed submissions that provide 

sufficient information from which the Court can determine whether there has been any 

duplication in attorney effort or whether the amounts expended were reasonable.” Id. at 499. 

 On October 22, 2012, this Court appointed Judge Harriet Derman (Ret.) as the Special 

Master to recommend the appropriate lodestar. On November 28, 2012, an initial meeting was 

held in Judge Derman’s office with counsel for plaintiffs in the demand futility and demand 

refused actions. See Report at 15. After that meeting, Plaintiff’s Counsel provided Judge 

Derman with, inter alia, detailed time records, a narrative submission breaking down the line 

entries by tasks performed (the “Narrative”), and also attached as Appendix A thereto, a detailed 

task summary (the “Task Summary”) of the discrete tasks performed by attorneys from the firms 

of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP (“AF&T” or the “Firm”) and Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & 

Graifman, P.C. (“KG&G” and collectively with AF&T “Demand Refused Counsel”). See

Declaration of Jeffrey S. Abraham (“Abraham Decl.”) Exhibits A and B. Demand Refused 

Counsel also provided the Special Master with two separate packages of documents including, 

inter alia, the briefs for all the motion practice in which Demand Refused Counsel was involved 

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 89 Filed 07/08/13 Page 4 of 16 PageID: 1654
- 2 -

and also the demand correspondence. See Abraham Decl. Exhibits C and D (indexes of 

documents provided). 

 On June 13, 2013, Judge Derman issued her Report. Among other things, Judge Derman 

recommended that 1,076.78 (or almost 40%) of the original 2,755.25 hours billed by AF&T be 

disallowed. See Report Appendix IV at p.1. Plaintiff respectfully submits that the reductions, 

as well as certain of the comments accompanying those findings, are unreasonable and 

unwarranted and, therefore, should not be adopted by this Court. 

 Objections to the Report are due 21 days after the Report has been filed. See ECF No. 

241. However, because that date is July 4th, which was a Court holiday and July 5th was also 

declared a holiday in this District, this objection became due today on July 8, 2012. See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 6(a)(3). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

 This Court’s review of any objections to the factual findings of the Report is made under 

a de novo standard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3) (2013). 

ARGUMENT

 Although the cuts to AF&T’s reported time are divided among various categories in the 

appendices accompanying the Report, the core themes appear to be a finding that much of the 

billings were excessive, vague or related to work which was unnecessary. Plaintiff respectfully 

submits that the Report erred in both of these premises and the resulting reductions are 

unjustified. In addition, the Petri objection seeking further cuts to the lodestar of Demand 

Refused Counsel lacks merit and should be overruled. 

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 89 Filed 07/08/13 Page 5 of 16 PageID: 1655
- 3 -

A. The Work Performed by AF&T Was Appropriate and Justified 

 The Report criticized several tasks performed by AF&T lawyers as excessive, unjustified 

and not adding value. Plaintiff respectfully disagrees with the Report’s conclusions. The 

Narrative and Task Summary fully explains every activity which Demand Refused Counsel 

undertook in this action, including: (1) obtaining, reviewing and analyzing documents relating to 

DePuy’s metal hip replacement and other factual updates; (2) reviewing transcripts and exhibits 

from the civil trials relating to the alleged improper sale of Risperdal; (3) drafting a books and 

records action which was not filed; and (4) working on the complaint in intervention and the Katz

Complaint. Plaintiff believes these criticisms are not justified or, alternatively, do not mandate 

the level of cuts recommended by the Report. 

1. Obtaining, Reviewing and Analyzing Documents Relating to DePuy’s Metal 

Hip Replacement and Other Factual Updates (156.25 hours disallowed of the original 197.75 

hours, see Exhibit F).1

 On February 22, 2012, The New York Times, reported on the front page 

of the business section that DePuy Orthopaedics (“DePuy”), a J&J subsidiary, had knowingly 

sold a defective hip replacement product. The New York Times’ website contained a copy of an 

unredacted Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) non-approvable letter upon which much of 

the article was based.2 J&J did not wish to produce any documents and only grudgingly 

produced a redacted version of the same FDA letter and designated the document as confidential 

 

1

 Attached to the Abraham Decl. as Exhibit F is a computation of the hours deducted for 

each of the categories identified in this Objection. 

2

 The Report criticizes the practice of billing for review of SEC filings and public news 

reports. Report at 47. However, since J&J is a multi-national company the securities of which 

are registered with the SEC, a wealth of information concerning the Company can be found in 

public sources. It would have been folly for counsel engaged in litigation or settlement 

discussions not to remain informed of and kept abreast of relevant developments. 

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 89 Filed 07/08/13 Page 6 of 16 PageID: 1656
- 4 -

under the terms of the parties’ confidentiality agreement. After much negotiations, which at 

times were contentious, J&J eventually produced the exhibits from depositions taken in the 

DePuy product liability litigation representing the “hottest” documents from a universe of over 

37 million pages produced in those actions. A review of those documents was necessary in 

order to determine whether there was evidence that J&J’s senior executives and directors acted 

with knowledge or reckless disregard of their fiduciary duties to J&J in allowing DePuy to sell a 

dangerous product. 

 In connection with this task, the Report criticizes AF&T for also assigning Mr. Rozzi to 

the review of DePuy documents as evidence of over staffing. Report at 98. However, the 

documents were reviewed under a highly compressed time table in order to avoid delaying the 

ongoing settlement negotiations. Philip Taylor, the associate working on the J&J matter at 

AF&T, even with the assistance of Michael Braunstein from KG&G, could not have completed 

the tasks on the timetable desired by all parties who were pressing for answers in connection with 

ongoing settlement discussions. The practice of adding additional attorneys to complete time 

sensitive matters is, Plaintiff respectfully submits, an ordinary practice of most law firms. 

 Also, many of the documents as well as the subject matter relating to the metal hip 

replacement itself were highly technical and counsel also needed to analyze a fairly long industry 

history with respect to the development and discussion of risk factors relating to metal hip 

replacements. Counsel hired an expert with relevant industry experience to assist them with the 

task of analyzing those issues. Therefore, Plaintiff believed that retaining an industry expert to 

assist counsel was also reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. 

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 89 Filed 07/08/13 Page 7 of 16 PageID: 1657
- 5 -

 2. Reviewing Transcripts and Exhibits From Civil Trials Relating to the 

Alleged Improper Sale of Risperdal (126.25 hours disallowed of the original 188.25 hours, see

Exhibit F). The Company’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals (“Janssen”) subsidiary had been sued by 

several states for knowingly engaging in off-label marketing of Risperdal, as was set forth in 

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Demand Letter to J&J dated July 7, 2010. An adverse judgment had 

been entered against Janssen in Louisiana for $257.7 million and for $327 million in South 

Carolina. In addition, Janssen had been fined $1.1 billion by Arkansas and settled an action in 

Texas trial for $158 million after seven days of testimony. See Katz Complaint ¶¶156-160. 

 Plaintiff reviewed certain transcripts of those proceedings and key exhibits referred to in 

those transcripts. The purpose of that review was to determine how far up the corporate ladder 

the alleged improprieties traveled and, relatedly, whether there was any evidence that J&J’s 

directors and senior executives had actual knowledge of the wrongful conduct. 

3. The Books and Records Request (63.75 hours disallowed of the original 117 

hours, see Exhibit F). Plaintiff prepared a 13 page complaint with 23 exhibits attached and 15 

page motion for judgment requiring J&J to produce certain books and records in State court 

which, in many ways, is akin to a motion to compel. See Narrative at 3-4. The complaint was 

finalized but, at the last minute, AF&T learned that the New Jersey court had just denied a 

similar request for failure to state a proper purpose and, in particular, a failure to demonstrate that 

there had been any mismanagement at J&J. 

 Demand Refused Counsel believed that the documents it would have presented to the 

New Jersey State court would have cured whatever defects existed in the previously denied 

books and records request. However, given the procedural posture and the difficulty inherent in 

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 89 Filed 07/08/13 Page 8 of 16 PageID: 1658
- 6 -

such a procedural setting, counsel decided at that time not to proceed with filing a books and 

records complaint, as the State court judge would have had to distinguish its prior opinion based 

on the new complaint. 

 This Court previously suggested that making a books and records request was an 

appropriate action in the context of this litigation. See Transcript of Nov. 21, 2011 hearing at 

33-34, Katz v. Weldon, et al., No. 11 Civ. 4993 (FLW) (D.N.J.).3 Therefore, it is appropriate to 

compensate counsel for that work even if the books and records action was never filed. Accord

Gulfstream III Assocs., Inc. v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., 995 F.2d 414, 420 and 424 (3d Cir. 

1993) (finding that counsel may be compensated for efforts “reasonably expended” to advance 

the litigation and that unused work may be included in fees where it was not “excessive, 

redundant or inefficient”) (citations omitted). This is particularly appropriate since, the option 

to file a books and records action always remained open depending on how the action progressed. 

Accord In re Johnson & Johnson Deriv. Litig., 856 F. Supp. 2d 545, 580-81 (D.N.J. 2011). 

 4. Work on Complaints (187.5 hours disallowed of the original 539.75 hours, see

Exhibit F). The Report struck 187.5 hours spent working on the Complaint because Plaintiff 

could have copied the allegations from the complaints already on file. Report at 45, n.28. 

However, the Katz Complaint, in contrast to the Demand Futility Plaintiffs’ complaint, focused 

on linking the alleged wrongdoing to specific members of J&J’s senior management having daily 

responsibilities for the conduct at issue. Accordingly, the majority of the defendants named in 

the Katz Complaint were senior executives officers of J&J and only three outside members of the 

Company’s board of directors (“Board”) were named as defendants. Katz Complaint ¶¶23-35 

 

3

 Counsel, at that time, informed the Court that the books and records action had never 

been filed. See Nov. 21, 2011 Tr. at 15-16. 

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 89 Filed 07/08/13 Page 9 of 16 PageID: 1659
- 7 -

and 38-40. In contrast, the Demand Futility Complaint named primarily J&J Board members as 

defendants. See Demand Futility Complaint ¶¶29-38 (In re Johnson & Johnson Derivative 

Litig., No. 10 Civ. 2033 (FLW) (D.N.J.), ECF No. 94). 

 Plaintiff also sent a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request to the FDA. The 

FDA’s response, which included the publication of documents on their website, uncovered 

documents demonstrating that notwithstanding the Company’s McNeil Pharmaceutical 

(“McNeil”) subsidiary’s promise to the FDA in July 2008 to form a Complaint Vigilance Review 

Board (Katz Complaint4

 ¶¶82-83) to monitor trends in consumer complaints, those very same 

complaints were ignored throughout 2009 (e.g., Katz Complaint ¶85). In addition to Plaintiff’s 

review of public reports, SEC filings and documents obtained through the FOIA request, Plaintiff 

also made use of securities analysts’ reports and documents obtained from court filings in other 

related actions. The Complaint also made use of facts contained in the Special Committee 

Report and addressed the issue of wrongful demand refusal. All these tasks as well as the 

framing of the Complaint’s allegations involve a “personal, nondelegable responsibility” on the 

part of counsel. Accord Garr v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 22 F.3d 1274, 1278 (3d Cir. 1994) 

(attorneys have a “personal, nondelegable responsibility” to comply with Rule 11 in drafting a 

complaint). 

 In connection with Plaintiff’s investigation, Mr. Taylor attended a Congressional hearing 

addressing J&J’s phantom recall of children’s Tylenol and other quality control issues at McNeil, 

issues which were directly alleged in the demand. Often it is not easy to obtain copies of 

transcripts of such proceedings on a timely basis. The process of obtaining transcripts and then 

 

4

 Katz v. Weldon, et al., No. 11 Civ. 4993 (FLW) (D.N.J.), ECF No. 1. 

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 89 Filed 07/08/13 Page 10 of 16 PageID: 1660
- 8 -

reading them takes time and money as well. The decision to attend in person at the early stage 

of the demand process was a judgment call of counsel at a time when AF&T had no idea whether 

it would even obtain a leadership position in this case or whether this action would ever settle. 

It was an efficient evidence gather method, given that counsel would have otherwise had to order 

and review the transcript and ceratin nuances are gained by observing the testimony in person. 

B. AF&T’s Billing Practices Do Not Justify the Cuts Made By the Report

 The Report justifies broad categories of cuts in time to what it concludes are improper 

billing practices of AF&T including block billing, vagueness and routine over billing. E.g., 

Report at 17-44. Plaintiff respectfully submits that these criticisms are not justified and 

incorporates by reference the combined submissions including the Narrative and Task Summary 

which were sufficient to guide the Special Master as to the amount of time spent of each discreet 

task. All that is required is “‘some fairly definite information as to the hours devoted to various 

general activities, e.g., pretrial discovery, settlement negotiations, and the hours spent by various 

classes of attorneys, e.g., senior partners, junior partners, associates.’” Rode v. Dellarciprete, 

892 F.2d 1177, 1190 (3d Cir. 1990) (quoting Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. Of Phila. v. American 

Radiator & Standard Sanatory Corp., 487 F.2d 161, 167 (3d Cir. 1973)). However, “[i]t is not 

necessary to know the exact number of minutes spent nor the precise activity to which each hour 

was devoted nor the specific attainments of each attorney.” Wade v. Colaner, No. 06 Civ. 3715 

(FLW), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138518, at *18 (D.N.J. Dec. 28, 2010) (quoting Rode, 892 F.2d 

at 1190). Thus, a fee petition need only be specific enough to allow the court to determine if the 

amount of hours spent was reasonable for the work performed. Pawlak v. Greenawalt, 713 F.2d 

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 89 Filed 07/08/13 Page 11 of 16 PageID: 1661
- 9 -

972, 978 (3d Cir. 1983). See also Demand Futility Plaintiffs’ Response to Report and 

Recommendation of Special Master. 

 The greatest cuts for vagueness appear in the Report striking time billed by Mr. Taylor 

reviewing transcripts with the Report stating that the entries are too vague to know what 

transcripts were being reviewed. Report at 49. However, to the extent there was any confusion, 

Plaintiff identified that time as relating to reviewing materials from the Risperdal trials. See

Narrative at 14; Task Summary at 16. Similarly, the Report struck time which Mr. Taylor billed 

for the DePuy document review (Report, Appendix III at 12) even though the time was identified 

as relating to that task. Id.

 The Report also concludes that vagueness in billing records leads to excessiveness when 

work is performed on the case on successive days. Report at 71-72. However, much of the 

work was performed under time pressure and Court deadlines. In addition, it is counsel’s 

experience that working on successive days is actually most efficient because it obviates the need 

to refresh one’s recollection. The ultimate test, Plaintiff respectfully submits, of whether 

excessive hours were devoted to a task is looking at the total number of hours billed compared to 

how many hours the Court believes should have been spent on a particular task or submission. 

 Finally, a particularly stinging aspect of the Report concerns criticism of Mr. Abraham for 

over-billing by at times contrasting the time he billed with that billed by Mr. Graifman. E.g.,

Report at 67. However, that difference is explained by Mr. Abraham taking the laboring oar as 

lead counsel in analyzing issues and prosecuting the claims. Similarly, it is axiomatic that 

different lawyers spend different amounts of time preparing for Court hearings perhaps justifying 

some minor cuts in such time. It is, however, not accurate to say that Mr. Abraham billed time 

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 89 Filed 07/08/13 Page 12 of 16 PageID: 1662
- 10 -

preparing for an argument that never took place. Report at 83. In fact, Mr. Abraham appeared 

before the Court, albeit briefly. See Transcript of July 28, 2011 hearing at 65. Although the 

argument turned out to be brief there were a variety of paths and questions that could have been 

asked by the Court. Indeed, it would be very easy to prepare for oral argument if one always 

knew the precise questions a court was planning on asking. 

C. Petri’s Objection to the Report Seeking Further Reductions in Demand Refused 

Counsel’s Lodestar Should be Overruled

 Petri also objects to the award of any fees relating to the time spent briefing the motion to 

intervene, drafting a complaint in intervention and the motion to appoint lead counsel. See Petri 

Obj. at 2. Petri attributes 1,091.65 hours having a total lodestar of $689,834.75 to these 

activities (Petri Obj. at 2) and then suggests that all those hours less a 17.56% allowance for time 

previously disallowed by the Special Master (Petri Obj. at 5) be stricken from Demand Refused 

Counsel’s fee request for a net lodestar amount of $586,699.77. Petri’s objection lacks merit 

and, accordingly, should be overruled.5

 

 As an initial matter, Petri’s calculations are incorrect. According to Plaintiff’s 

calculations, the Report recommended disallowing: (a) 161 hours from the time billed to the 

motion to intervene with a total lodestar of $102,333.75; (b) 64.65 hours with a total lodestar of 

$35,361.25 from the lead counsel motion practice; and (c) and 83.5 hours with a total lodestar of 

$37,762.50 from the complaint in intervention. Therefore, the total reduction which Petri 

 

5

 Petri also suggests that a lodestar multiple should not be awarded. That issue is 

addressed in detail in a submission being made to the Court by Demand Futility Counsel, in 

which Plaintiff joins. 

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 89 Filed 07/08/13 Page 13 of 16 PageID: 1663
- 11 -

should be seeking is 782.5 hours having a total lodestar of $428,816.75 rather than the 

$586,699.77 he seeks.6

 

 Petri also fails to support his assertion that the time he seeks to have stricken had no 

impact on the final resolution of this action. In the case of the complaint in intervention, the 

vast majority of the work done found its way into the final Katz complaint. As described above 

(see p. 7), the Katz Complaint largely differed in its focus and represented a legitimate 

expenditure of time in formulating the claims in this action. Therefore, even under Petri’s 

analysis, further reductions in lodestar for that task are not warranted. 

 Similarly, Petri’s characterization of the motion to intervene as nothing more than 

fighting among counsel is inaccurate. Although that dispute was present because the motion 

arose in the context of a lead counsel dispute, a substantial portion of the briefing is devoted to 

explaining the rationale for making a demand as opposed to proceeding to the immediately filing 

a demand refused complaint. See, e.g., Johnson & Johnson, ECF No. 43 at 5-10. Indeed, 

plaintiff notes that the Court administratively terminated the motion to intervene and directed 

Plaintiff to re-list the motion. ECF No. 98. 

 Plaintiff also respectfully submits that the vigor with which Demand Refused Counsel 

pursued this litigation at all stages can not be divorced from the result ultimately achieved in this 

action. Thus, the Court in appointing AF&T and KG&G as, respectively, lead and liaison 

counsel held that: 

 

6

 See Exhibit E for the underlying calculations of those amounts. The Special Master 

allowed 379.45 hours (lodestar $249,447.00) for work on the intervention motion, 251.4 hours 

(lodestar $151,546.00) for work on the complaint in intervention and 151.65 hours (lodestar 

$89,511.25) for work on the motion for appointment of lead and liaison counsel. 

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 89 Filed 07/08/13 Page 14 of 16 PageID: 1664
- 12 -

I do take notice that Katz’s counsel diligently participated in monitoring the 

progress of the Special Committee’s investigation of the demand made by 

shareholders, and, more importantly, counsel displayed a continued interest during 

the process when the report was drafted and, indeed, even after that report. 

See Nov. 21, 2011 Tr. at 31. 

 Finally, Petri fails to cite any cases supporting his assertion that all the time expended 

working on a lead counsel motion is not compensable. In re Heritage Bond Litig., No. 02 ML 

1475 (DT), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13555, at *85-86 (C.D.Cal. June 10, 2005), the sole case Petri 

cites on whether time spent on a lead plaintiff motion can form part of a fee petition, limited its 

holding to those counsel who were not appointed as lead counsel. Id. 

 Drazin v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, 832 F. Supp. 2d 432 (D.N.J. 

2011), the leading case from this District upon which Petri relies, is also not on point. In 

Drazin, one of the law firms petitioning for attorneys’ fees had initially opposed preliminary 

approval of the proposed settlement as “woefully inadequate.” Id. at 436. The Court itself, 

because of the unusually abrasive relationship among counsel in that action, as part of its 

reference to the special master directed that time spent battling among counsel should be 

excluded from the final lodestar calculation. Id. at 443. Here, in contrast although there were 

disagreements among counsel at various times as to an appropriate strategy to pursue, they never 

reached the level of that in the Drazin action which appears, for a lack of a better term, to have 

been sui generis. 

 

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 89 Filed 07/08/13 Page 15 of 16 PageID: 1665
- 13 -

CONCLUSION

 Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court not adopt the recommendations of the 

Special Master and overrule Petri’s objection. The Court should restore the hours of AF&T’s 

time recommended to be deducted by the Report as identified in this Objection and not accept 

any of Petri’s further proposed reductions. 

Dated: July 8, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 

 KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER 

 & GRAIFMAN, P.C.

 /s/ Gary S. Graifman Gary S. Graifman

 Gary S. Graifman 

210 Summit Avenue 

 Montvale, NJ 07645 

 Phone: (201) 391-7000 

 ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER 

 & TWERSKY, LLP

 Jeffrey S. Abraham 

 Philip T. Taylor 

 One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 

 New York, NY 10119 

 Phone: (212) 279-5050 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff Leslie Katz

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 89 Filed 07/08/13 Page 16 of 16 PageID: 1666