18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 695 Editor ’ s Note: This ruling was one in a series of decisions that dealt with the unraveling of the largest class action award ever secured by fraudulent means. Doe, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90416 (D.D.C. May 12, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that they suffered human-rights abuses because of the efforts of Defendants to secure a natural gas facility in Aceh, Indonesia. During discovery, Plaintiffs took the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendants’ corporate representative, Mark Snell, in which he "refused to answer most of the substantive questions posed to him. Instead, he repeatedly read non-responsive statements verbatim from pre-prepared notes." Id . at *2. Plaintiffs thereafter moved for sanctions and the Court granted the motion. The Court also raised concerns about allegations that defense counsel made in their filings about opposing counsel Kit Pierson regarding his treatment of deponents. The Court found that there was no evidence that supported Defendants’ claims and thus it concluded that defense counsel violated Rule 11(b)(3). The law firm of Paul Weiss submitted a brief explaining and defending the statements, in which it asserted that it "acted in good faith to describe the actions of Plaintiffs’ counsel at Mr. Snell’s deposition as defense counsel honestly perceived them." Id . at *8. Paul Weiss contended that it made its statements in the pleadings from the "perspective of attorneys who believed in good faith that both Ms. Oh and Mr. Snell had acted properly and that Plaintiffs’ counsel had acted improperly," and that defense counsel “did not attempt to mislead the Court or to conceal relevant facts." Id. at *9. Defendants’ counsel, Ms. Oh, also submitted a brief apologizing to the Court. Plaintiffs argued that Rule 11 sanctions were appropriate, characterized defense counsel’s statements as "half-apologies," and objected to defense counsel’s "doubling-down on their aspersions." Id . at *10. The Court explained that to be sanctioned under Rule 11, it must be patently clear that defense counsel filed the briefs without first determining that "to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances . . . the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery." Id . at *17. The Court opined that a reasonable attorney would have reviewed the deposition video before making serious allegations about another attorneys’ professional conduct. Further, the Court opined that by citing the transcript, instead of the video, defense counsel provided a misleading account of the deposition. The Court concluded that defense counsel committed a Rule 11 violation. The Court determined that admonishment was warranted. Thus, the Court admonished defense counsel as a sanction for violating Rule 11(b)(3). Doe MC-1, et al. v. The University Of Michigan, Case No. 20-CV-10568 (E.D. Mich. June 29, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that University of Michigan subjected them to sexual assault by Dr. Robert E. Anderson, the head of the school’s health service. The Court issued an order threatening sanctions on any party after it learned of several articles in the media that referenced ongoing settlement negotiations by “confidential sources.” Id . at 1. The Court noted that disclosures regarding a potential settlement would jeopardize the process, and prevent parties and attorneys who have faith in our mediation structure from “developing the trust that is absolutely essential to foster robust discussion and confidential negotiations.” Id . The Court reminded all parties that the Court’s Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and ethical obligations were applicable on all attorneys in the case. The Court warned all parties that it would not hesitate to impose sanctions if “confidential sources” were revealed or if anyone involved in this matter expressed an intention to breach the clear obligations imposed by the applicable rules and ethical prohibitions. The Court explained that Local Rule 16.3 provided that communications in ADR proceedings were confidential, and it prohibited disclosure of such communications to anyone other than the ADR participants unless the Court expressly permitted disclosure. Further, the Court invited anyone who could meet the requirements of Rule 11 to move for sanctions, and warned that it would also seek sanctions on its own initiative should the need arise. Finally, the Court ordered that all counsel send to clients the order to put them on appropriate notice. Editor ’ s Notice: The order in the University of Michigan case is rather extraordinary and unique insofar as the Court invited the filing of a Rule 11 sanctions motion and placed all counsel and parties on notice that the Court would seek sanctions on its own accord if justified. Hall, et al. v. Marriott International, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90870 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2021). Plaintiff brought a nationwide putative consumer class action alleging unjust enrichment and violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), False Advertising Law (“FAL”), and Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”).