Opinion ID: 1042514
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Need for Further Discovery

Text: Appellants argue that concluding the settlement before merits discovery “infected the analysis of virtually every other Grinnell factor” to their detriment. We conclude, however, that the discovery conducted was sufficient to permit the district court to evaluate the claims and settlement. Objectors to a settlement have no automatic right to discovery or an evidentiary hearing in order to substantiate their objections. See, e.g., Malchman v. Davis, 761 F.2d 893, 897-98 (2d Cir. 1985), abrogated on other grounds by Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997). Instead, where objectors raise “cogent factual objections to 5 To the extent that appellants argue that notice was inadequate and that the district court therefore improperly weighed the reaction of the class to the settlement, the district court’s opinion adequately explained why the notice provided to the class was sufficient. Charron, 874 F. Supp. 2d at 192-94. 14 the settlement,” id. at 897 (internal quotation marks omitted), and prior discovery was insufficient or nonadversarial, we instruct district courts “to exercise particular care to see to it that the non-assenting plaintiff [or, by logical extension, objecting class member] has had a full opportunity to develop the basis for his objection.” Saylor v. Lindsley, 456 F.2d 896, 901 (2d Cir. 1972); cf. Maywalt v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 67 F.3d 1072, 1078 (2d Cir. 1995) (“The ultimate responsibility to ensure that the interests of class members are not subordinated to the interests of either the class representatives or class counsel rests with the district court.”). Here, the district court treated the objections seriously, delaying the fairness hearing many months, requiring revised notice and a 20-building sampling, and ordering the parties to answer detailed questions about the effects of the settlement on various hypothetical class members – actions that imposed significant cost and burden on Pinnacle and on Class Counsel. While the district court denied the objectors’ request for lease and rent registration histories for each of the buildings in the sampling, it did so because the objectors could not articulate why they needed the information to substantiate their objections. Ultimately, the preliminary discovery did not bear out the opponents’ objections. 15 On this record, we cannot find that the district court exceeded its discretion by declining to order further discovery and approving the settlement based on the information before it.