Opinion ID: 799033
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Robbins's proposed testimony

Text: The written report submitted by Robbins lists his extensive experience litigating complex business matters, including class actions. Drawing on that experience, he sought to provide opinions regarding the responsibility to provide notice to the putative class members; whether the class action was properly decertified; whether Mr. Gallion could properly hold back settlement funds for future contingencies pursuant to a settlement agreement; the propriety of attorney fees in awards in class actions or mass plaintiff actions; and whether a  cy pres  distribution of settlement funds is an appropriate practice in class action [sic]. (Emphasis in original.) In particular, Robbins sought to testify that, based on his review of the case, the state-court action was extremely complicated and that, although the defendants' actions were clearly innovative, they do not show a violation of law, and certainly [are] not indicative of any intent to defraud or other wrongful motive. He also opined that the defendants were justified in relying on the advice and guidance of Chesley and the orders issued by Judge Bamberger; that the state-court action was settled as a quasi-class action; that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to establish that there was any intent to violate class action law; that there was nothing improper about the cy pres distribution; and that any dispute between the clients and the defendants over attorney fees is a civil matter that should be ... handled in a civil setting. Robbins added in his report that he thought the defendants had an arguable basis for retaining certain payments above and beyond the percentages set forth in the settlement agreements. He gave two reasons for this conclusion. The first was the side letter, which Robbins read as placing no limitation on the amount of the indemnification. And the second was the state court's approval of the defendants' request for attorney fees, which Robbins thought made it appropriate for ... counsel to rely on such approval. After reviewing Robbins's report, the district court conducted a Daubert hearing andin a memorandum opinion prepared prior to the hearing and released a few minutes thereafterconcluded that Robbins is not qualified to testify to the opinions sought to be introduced by the Defendants and, further, that even if he were qualified, the opinions Robbins seeks to express are inadmissible for a variety of reasons. United States v. Gallion, 257 F.R.D. 141, 144 (E.D.Ky.2009). The court therefore excluded the testimony in its entirety.