Perkins v. The New York Times Company
- P. Castel
- 1:22-cv-05202
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Perkins v. The New York Times Company, Judge Castel granted with modification a motion for preliminary approval of class-action settlements, changing objection procedures.
The ruling affects absent class members and people who may wish to object to the proposed class-action settlements, as well as the parties responsible for sending class notices.
What happened
In Perkins v. The New York Times Company, the plaintiff sought preliminary approval of class-action settlements. The court emphasized its responsibility to protect absent class members and to make it easy for class members to participate, opt out, object, or submit claims.
The proposed order would have required people objecting to the settlements to provide address and billing documents, information about assisting lawyers, and their history of objecting to settlements. It also would have required some objections to be filed electronically and warned that lawyers could seek court-ordered discovery from objectors. The court found these requirements unnecessarily discouraging and lacking countervailing benefits.
Judge Castel granted the motion for preliminary approval with modification. He directed that notices to class members follow the objection procedures in the court’s Order of Preliminary Approval.
The detailed version
- Perkins v. The New York Times Company · No. 1:22-cv-05202
- P. Castel
- Oct. 1, 2024
Background
Megan Perkins brought this class action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against The New York Times Company, doing business as The New York Times. The opinion addresses a motion for preliminary approval of class-action settlements. At this stage, the court focused on whether the proposed procedures adequately protected absent class members, including their ability to make claims, opt out, object, or appear at a fairness hearing.
Proposed Objection Procedures
The proposed Order of Preliminary Approval would have imposed additional requirements on settlement objectors. An objector would have had to submit documentary proof of the objector’s address and billing statements, even though other class members would not have faced those requirements. The proposed order also would have required information about lawyers who assisted the objector “in any way,” a description of the objector’s history of challenging class-action settlements, and electronic filing through the court’s case-filing system for objectors assisted by counsel. It further advised objectors that class counsel or defense counsel might seek court-ordered discovery from them.
The court stated that these requirements would unnecessarily frustrate and discourage objections without providing countervailing benefits to the court or the class. It cited the principle that settlement participation should be made as easy as possible and that unnecessary obstacles to objections should be avoided.
Ruling
Judge P. Castel granted the motion for preliminary approval of the class-action settlements with modification. The modification concerned the procedures for objecting. The court ordered that all notices to class members conform to the objection procedures set forth in the Order of Preliminary Approval. The opinion does not state the terms of the settlements or decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.