NFL's Memorandum of Law in Support of Final Approval of the Class Action
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
MDL-2323 IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION, Docket No. 2:12-md-02323 Multiple Documents Part Description 1 189 pages 2 Declaration of Douglas M. Burns 3 Exhibit 1 4 Exhibit 2 5 Exhibit 3 6 Exhibit 4 7 Exhibit 5 8 Exhibit 6 9 Exhibit 7 © 2018 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 1 MDL-2323 IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION, Docket No. 2:12-md-02323 10 Exhibit 8 11 Exhibit 9 12 Exhibit 10 13 Exhibit 11 14 Exhibit 12 15 Exhibit 13 16 Exhibit 14 17 Exhibit 15 18 Exhibit 16 19 Exhibit 17 20 Exhibit 18 21 Exhibit 19 22 Exhibit 20 23 Exhibit 21 © 2018 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 2 MDL-2323 IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION, Docket No. 2:12-md-02323 24 Exhibit 22 25 Exhibit 23 26 Exhibit 24 27 Exhibit 25 28 Exhibit 26 29 Exhibit 27 30 Exhibit 28 31 Exhibit 29 32 Exhibit 30 33 Declaration of Dennis L. Curran 34 Declaration of T. David Gardi 35 Declaration of Scott Richard Millis, PhD 36 Declaration of Julie Ann Schneider, M.D. 37 Declaration of Kristine Yaffe, M.D. © 2018 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 3 MDL-2323 IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION, Docket No. 2:12-md-02323 © 2018 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 4 Case 2:12-md-02323-AB Document 6422 Filed 11/12/14 Page 1 of 189 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: No. 2:12-md-02323-AB PLAYERS’ CONCUSSION : INJURY LITIGATION : MDL No. 2323 : : Kevin Turner and Shawn Wooden, : on behalf of themselves and : others similarly situated, : Plaintiffs, : CIVIL ACTION NO: 14-cv-0029 : v. : : National Football League and : Hon. Anita B. Brody NFL Properties LLC, : successor-in-interest to : NFL Properties, Inc., : Defendants. : : : THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: : ALL ACTIONS : : NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE’S AND NFL PROPERTIES LLC’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND IN RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS Case 2:12-md-02323-AB Document 6422 Filed 11/12/14 Page 2 of 189 Table of Contents Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ......................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 7 A. The Parties and Initial Lawsuits .................................................................. 7 B. MDL 2323 and the MDL Plaintiffs’ Allegations ........................................ 9 C. Motion to Dismiss Based on Section 301 LMRA Preemption .................. 12 D. The Settlement Agreement ........................................................................ 14 1. Benefits of the Settlement .............................................................. 15 (a) The Monetary Award Fund ............................................... 16 (b) Baseline Assessment Program ........................................... 19 (c) Education Fund .................................................................. 21 2. Claims and Appeals Process .......................................................... 21 3. Security .......................................................................................... 23 4. Release of Claims, Covenant Not to Sue and Bar Order ............... 24 5. Attorneys’ Fees .............................................................................. 26 E. The Settlement Agreement Was the Product of Extensive, Arm’s- Length Negotiations ................................................................................... 26 F. Settlement Class Notice ............................................................................. 30 G. Opt Outs and Objections ............................................................................ 32 ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 36 I. THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE ................. 36 A. The Settlement Is Presumptively Fair........................................................ 38 B. An Evaluation of the Girsh Factors Confirms that the Settlement Is Fair, Reasonable and Adequate ................................................................. 41 1. The Complex Legal, Factual and Scientific Issues in This Case Would Make Continued Litigation Significantly Prolonged and Expensive .............................................................. 42 2. 99% of Settlement Class Members Have Remained in the Class Without Objection ................................................................ 45 3. Class Counsel Adequately Appreciated the Merits of the Case Prior to Settlement Negotiations ........................................... 47 4. Absent Settlement, Plaintiffs Face Significant Hurdles to Establishing Liability and Damages .............................................. 55 i Doc#: US1:9664581v24 Case 2:12-md-02323-AB Document 6422 Filed 11/12/14 Page 3 of 189 5. Absent Settlement, Plaintiffs Face the Risk of Maintaining a Class Action Through Trial ........................................................ 68 6. The Ability of the NFL Parties to Withstand a Greater Judgment Is Irrelevant Because the Settlement Fund Is Uncapped ....................................................................................... 69 7. The Settlement Is Well Within the Range of Reasonableness in Light of the Best Possible Recovery and the Attendant Risks of Litigation ................................................... 70 C. The Prudential Factors Also Support Approval of the Settlement ............ 74 II. THE OBJECTIONS ARE MERITLESS AND FAIL TO REBUT THAT THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, REASONABLE AND ADEQUATE ................. 76 A. The CTE-Related Objections Should Be Overruled .................................. 77 1. The Settlement Compensates Individuals with CTE Who Manifest Impairment While Living ............................................... 80 2. The NFL Parties Reasonably Determined Not to Compensate Mood and Behavioral Symptoms .............................. 83 3. The Science Regarding CTE Is New ............................................. 85 4. Scientific Developments Will Have No Impact on the Settlement ...................................................................................... 87 5. “Death by CTE” Was Included in the Settlement Because Decedents with CTE are Unable to Obtain Compensable Diagnoses ....................................................................................... 88 6. Shawn Wooden Is an Adequate Subclass Representative Regarding CTE Issues and No CTE Subclass Is Necessary .......... 89 B. The Standard for a Qualifying Diagnosis of Dementia Is Scientifically Valid and Reasonable .......................................................... 91 C. There Is No Requirement that the Settlement Compensate Multiple Sclerosis or Epilepsy .................................................................................. 93 D. Objections Concerning the Amount of, and Offsets to, Monetary Awards Have No Merit .............................................................................. 95 1. Maximum Awards Are Sufficient ................................................. 95 2. Reduction by Age at Time of Qualifying Diagnosis Is Fair .......... 98 (a) Age Reduction Is Reasonable ............................................ 98 (b) Measuring Age Reduction from Date of Qualifying Diagnosis Promotes Efficiency and Reduces Fraud ........ 100 3. The Stroke Offset Is Scientifically Justified and Reasonable ...... 102 4. The Traumatic Brain Injury Offset Is Scientifically Justified and Reasonable .............................................................. 105 ii Case 2:12-md-02323-AB Document 6422 Filed 11/12/14 Page 4 of 189 5. The Eligible Seasons Offset Is Fair and Reasonable ................... 106 (a) Reasonableness of Offset for Exposure ........................... 107 (b) Reasonableness of Covered Activities ............................. 108 (i) Training Camp/Preseason .................................... 108 (ii) NFL Europe ......................................................... 109 (c) Use of “Eligible Season” as Opposed to “Credited Season” ............................................................................ 111 6. The Offset for Non-Participation in BAP Encourages Use of a Substantial Settlement Benefit .............................................. 113 E. Limiting Representative Claimants’ Eligibility for Monetary Awards Is Fair .......................................................................................... 114 1. Use of 2006 Date as Cut-Off ....................................................... 114 2. Use of Settlement Date for Measuring Timeliness ...................... 116 F. The Scope of the BAP Is Sufficient and Appropriate .............................. 117 1. Sufficiency of Funding ................................................................ 117 2. Appropriateness of Testing Protocols .......................................... 118 (a) The Test Battery and Specific Impairment Criteria Are Based on Well-Accepted and Scientifically Validated Tests ................................................................ 119 (b) The Pre-Selection of Qualified Neuropsychologists Is Appropriate and Necessary to Ensure