November 10, 2017

VIA EMAIL

Eugene F. Assaf, P.C.

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

eugene.assaf@kirkland.com

Re: Williams, et al. v. BASF Catalysts LLC, et al. – No. 11-1754

Dear Gene:

I write in response to the letters you sent over the last couple of days and our recent 

phone calls.

We did not discuss, but your November 8, 2017 letter is mistaken concerning the 

Chernick file production and what we produced. You were informed that the production of the 

Chernick file will take longer because it is complicated by the fact that it involves an open case,

not the size of the file. Further, our records reflect that we produced 446 documents and not 260 

as your letter states.

It is our understanding that we have produced to you everything turned over to us by 

original counsel related to the files of the Named Plaintiffs. As I told you, we are expecting a 

print out of Bevan’s client table concerning the Named Plaintiffs that we will review and 

produce or log for Justice Rivera Soto by Monday. 

We disagree as to whether Defendants are entitled to the information on the table for any 

Bevan client other than the Named Plaintiffs. In that regard, we disagree that the information 

contained in Bevan’s data on putative class members is the same as that maintained by Cahill. 

For instance, we understand that aside from listing every case throughout the country filed 

against BASF, obviously including those filed by lawyers other than Bevan, Cahill’s database 

contained the outcome of those cases and the reasons why. The two are not at all the same. 

Moreover, Bevan is not a party while Cahill is. This is an issue we will address with the SDM.

Regarding the Early files, our impression is the reference to a November 2, 2017 due date 

in the Court’s Order is in error. See 10/26/17 Hr’g. Tr. 148–153. The Order is at odds with the 

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 372-14 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 15528
Eugene F. Assaf, P.C.

November 10, 2017

Page 2

transcript and the due date precedes the time for appeal of the Order itself. Notwithstanding this 

inconsistency and the right to appeal, it is my understanding we will have the Early files shortly. 

The attorney in charge was apparently out of the office until recently as stated in Mr. Little’s 

email to you yesterday.

You have requested documents, including procedure and policies of the Bevan Firm. We 

will consider these in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

You have asked for information concerning any agreement we have with the Bevan Firm. 

We do not believe that you are entitled to that information and have no record of receiving a 

formal discovery request that we need to respond to at this point. This will be an issue for the 

SDM to resolve.

Your letters continue to raise questions about what we knew about the Bevan’s file 

storage. We have discussed this, but still have some fundamental differences remaining, 

particularly about what was conveyed to the SDM and the significance, if any.

Lastly, as we agreed, we will use Excel’s random number assignment function to achieve 

the random selection of putative class files from the Bevan office ordered for production by the 

SDM. 

Sincerely,

/s/ Harry M. Roth

Harry M. Roth

Case 2:11-cv-01754-BRM-AME Document 372-14 Filed 11/13/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 15529