Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272

Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MDL NO. 2179 SECTION: J HONORABLE CARL J. BARBIER MAGISTRATE JUDGE SHUSHAN NO. 12-cv-968 SECTION: J

Kip Plaisance et al., individually and on behalf of the putative Medical Benefits Settlement Class, Plaintiffs, v. BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Company, and BP p.l.c., Defendants.

HONORABLE CARL J. BARBIER MAGISTRATE JUDGE SHUSHAN

PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF A RULE 23(B)(3) CLASS FOR PURPOSES OF SETTLEMENT Plaintiffs Kip Plaisance, Jason Perkins, Camille Warren, Christian Pizani, Max Plaisance, Benjamin Judah Barbee, Cornelius Divinity, Janice Brown, Carlton Caster, George Baker, and Duffy Hall (collectively Plaintiffs) respectfully move this Court for an order (1) granting conditional and preliminary certification of a proposed Medical Benefits Settlement Class (Medical Class) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) for settlement purposes only; (2) appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives of the Medical Class; and (3) appointing Interim Class Counsel and the Plaintiffs Steering Committee of MDL 2179 (PSC) as Class Counsel for the Medical Class for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs accompanying memorandum of law.

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272

Filed 04/18/12 Page 2 of 4

The Proposed Order [Doc 6267-6] is being submitted with a separate Joint Motion and Memorandum for Preliminary Approval. This 18th day of April, 2012.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Stephen J. Herman Stephen J. Herman, La. Bar No. 23129 HERMAN HERMAN KATZ & COTLAR LLP 820 OKeefe Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-4892 Fax No. (504) 569-6024 E-Mail: sherman@hhkc.com Interim Class Counsel Plaintiffs Liaison Counsel Proposed Lead Class Counsel

/s/ James Parkerson Roy James Parkerson Roy, La. Bar No. 11511 DOMENGEAUX WRIGHT ROY & EDWARDS LLC 556 Jefferson Street, Suite 500 Lafayette, Louisiana 70501 Telephone: (337) 233-3033 Fax No. (337) 233-2796 E-Mail: jimr@wrightroy.com Interim Class Counsel Plaintiffs Liaison Counsel Proposed Lead Class Counsel

PLAINTIFFS STEERING COMMITTEE AND PROPOSED MEDICAL BENEFITS CLASS COUNSEL Joseph F. Rice MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Office: (843) 216-9159 Telefax: (843) 216-9290 E-Mail: jrice@motleyrice.com Conrad S.P. Duke Williams WILLIAMS LAW GROUP 435 Corporate Drive, Suite 101 Maison Grand Caillou Houma, LA 70360 Office: (985) 876-7595 Telefax: (985) 876-7594 E-Mail: duke@williamslawgroup.org

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272

Filed 04/18/12 Page 3 of 4

Brian H. Barr LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, ECHSNER & PROCTOR, PA 316 South Baylen St., Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502-5996 Office: (850) 435-7045 Telefax: (850) 436-6187 E-Mail: bbarr@levinlaw.com Jeffrey A. Breit BREIT DRESCHER IMPREVENTO & WALKER, P.C. 999 Waterside Drive, Suite 1000 Norfolk, VA 23510 Office: (757) 670-3888 Telefax: (757) 670-3895 E-Mail: jbreit@bdbmail.com Elizabeth J. Cabraser LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Office: (415) 956-1000 Telefax: (415) 956-1008 E-Mail: ecabraser@lchb.com Philip F. Cossich, Jr. COSSICH, SUMICH, PARSIOLA & TAYLOR 8397 Highway 23, Suite 100 Belle Chasse, LA 70037 Office: (504) 394-9000 Telefax: (504) 394-9110 E-Mail: pcossich@cossichlaw.com Robert T. Cunningham CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC 1601 Dauphin Street, P. O. Box 66705 Mobile, AL 36660 Office: (251) 471-6191 Telefax: (251) 479-1031 E-Mail: rtc@cunninghambounds.com

Robin L. Greenwald WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Office: (212) 558-5802 Telefax: (212) 344-5461 E-Mail: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com Rhon E. Jones BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P. C. 218 Commerce St., P.O. Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36104 Office: (334) 269-2343 Telefax: (334) 954-7555 E-Mail: rhon.jones@beasleyallen.com Matthew E. Lundy LUNDY, LUNDY, SOILEAU & SOUTH, LLP 501 Broad Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 Office: (337) 439-0707 Telefax: (337) 439-1029 E-Mail: mlundy@lundylawllp.com Michael C. Palmintier deGRAVELLES, PALMINTIER, HOLTHAUS & FRUGE 618 Main Street Baton Rouge, LA 70801-1910 Office: (225) 344-3735 Telefax: (225) 344-0522 E-Mail: mpalmintier@dphf-law.com Paul M. Sterbcow LEWIS, KULLMAN, STERBCOW & ABRAMSON 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2615 New Orleans, LA 70130 Office: (504) 588-1500 Telefax: (504) 588-1514 E-Mail: sterbcow@lksalaw.com

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272

Filed 04/18/12 Page 4 of 4

Alphonso Michael Mike Espy MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 777 Jackson, MS 39201 Office: (601) 949-3388 Telefax: (601) 949-3399 E-Mail: mike@mikespy.com Calvin C. Fayard, Jr. FAYARD & HONEYCUTT 519 Florida Avenue, SW Denham Springs, LA 70726 Office: (225) 664-4193 Telefax: (225) 664-6925 E-Mail: calvinfayard@fayardlaw.com Ervin A. Gonzalez COLSON HICKS EIDSON 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Office: (305) 476-7400 Telefax: (305) 476-7444 E-Mail: ervin@colson.com

Scott Summy BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Office: (214) 521-3605 Telefax: (214) 599-1172 E-Mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com Mikal C. Watts WATTS GUERRA CRAFT, LLP Four Dominion Drive, Building 3, Suite 100 San Antonio, TX 78257 Office: (210) 447-0500 Telefax: (210) 447-0501 E-Mail: mcwatts@wgclawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE We hereby certify that the above and foregoing pleading will be served on All Counsel by electronically uploading the same to Lexis Nexis File & Serve in accordance with Pretrial Order No. 12, and that the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana by using the CM/ECF System, which will send a notice of electronic filing in accordance with the procedures established in MDL 2179, on this 18th day of April, 2012. /s/ Stephen J. Herman and James Parkerson Roy

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 1 of 32

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010

Kip Plaisance et al., individually and on behalf of the putative Medical Benefits Settlement Class,

Plaintiffs,

v. BP Exploration & Production Inc., BP America Production Company, and BP p.l.c., Defendants.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MDL NO. 2179 SECTION: J HONORABLE CARL J. BARBIER MAGISTRATE JUDGE SHUSHAN

No. 12-cv-968 SECTION: J HONORABLE CARL J. BARBIER MAGISTRATE JUDGE SHUSHAN

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION OF A RULE 23(b)(3) CLASS FOR PURPOSES OF SETTLEMENT

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 2 of 32

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii I. II. III. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................1 THE MEDICAL CLASS MERITS PRELIMINARY CERTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES UNDER RULES 23(a)(1)-(4) AND 23(b)(3) ......................3 A. The Proposed Class Definition ......................................................................................4 B. The Proposed Class Representatives .............................................................................6 C. The Proposed Class Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(a) ....................................10 1. Numerosity.......................................................................................................10 2. Commonality....................................................................................................12 3. Typicality .........................................................................................................13 4. Adequacy of Representation ............................................................................15 D. The Proposed Class Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) ...............................19 1. Predominance ...................................................................................................19 2. Superiority........................................................................................................23 IV. IV. THE PLAINTIFFS STEERING COMMITTEE MERITS APPOINTMENT AS CLASS COUNSEL UNDER RULE 23(g) ....................................23 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................24

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 3 of 32

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ..................................................................................................4, 10, 16, 19 Bentley v. Honeywell Intl, Inc., 223 F.R.D. 471 (S.D. Ohio 2004) .............................................................................................21 Boggs v. Divested Atomic Corp., 141 F.R.D. 58 (S.D. Ohio 1991) ...............................................................................................22 Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996).......................................................................................................22 Cook v. Rockwell Intl Corp., 151 F.R.D. 378 (D. Colo. 1993)................................................................................................22 Denny v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2006) ......................................................................................................18 In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, 2012 WL 92498 (E.D. La. Jan. 10, 2012) ...............................................................10, 11, 12, 21 In re Diet Drugs Products Liability Litigation, 2000 WL 1222042 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2000)................................................................18, 20, 22 In re Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2012, WL 948365 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2012) ............................................22 In re Oil Spill of the Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon In the Gulf of Mexico, On April 20, 2010, 731 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (J.P.M.L. 2010) ........................................................................................2 James v. City of Dallas, 254 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. 2001)...............................................................................................13, 14 Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 782 F.2d 468 (5th Cir. 1986)...............................................................................................19, 20 Lightbourn v. County of El Paso, Texas, 118 F.3d 421 (5th Cir. 1997).........................................................................................12, 14, 15
ii

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 4 of 32

M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Perry, --- F.3d ---, 2012 WL 974878 (5th Cir. Mar. 23, 2012) ......................................................12, 13 Mehl v. Canadian Pac. Rwy., Ltd., 227 F.R.D. 505 (D.N.D. 2005)..................................................................................................20 Mejdreck v. Lockformer Co., 2002 WL 1838141 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 12, 2002) ............................................................................21 Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, 186 F.3d 620 (5th Cir. 1999)............................................................................................. passim OConnor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 184 F.R.D. 311 (C.D. Cal. 1998) ..............................................................................................22 Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corporation, 527 U.S. 815 (1999) ..................................................................................................................16 Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co., 200 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1999)...............................................................................................4, 18 Ross v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 667 F.3d 900 (7th Cir. 2012).....................................................................................................13 Senter v. General Motors Corporation, 532 F.2d 511 (6th Cir. 1976).....................................................................................................13 Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975) ..................................................................................................................16 Stirman v. Exxon Corp., 280 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 2002).....................................................................................................15 Sullivan v. D.B. Investments, Inc., 667 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................................3, 20 Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 597 (E.D. La. 2006) ..........................................................................................13, 21 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) ........................................................................................................12, 13 Watson v. Shell Oil Co., 979 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1992), on rehg, 53 F.3d 666 (5th Cir. 1994) ...............................20, 21

iii

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 5 of 32

Wehner v. Syntex Corp., 117 F.R.D. 641 (N.D. Cal. 1987) ..............................................................................................22 Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 651 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1981)...................................................................................................12 Rules Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ....................................................................................... passim Other Authorities MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION (4th ed.) 21.132; 21.632-21.634 ...................................3, 4 1 H. NEWBERG, NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS (5th ed.) 3:21; 3:29 ...................................13, 16 7A CHARLES A. WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (2d ed. 1986) 1778 .....................................................19

iv

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 6 of 32

I.

INTRODUCTION

The Plaintiffs, through the undersigned Interim Class Counsel and Proposed Medical Benefits Class Counsel, hereby respectfully move for an order of this Court granting conditional and preliminary certification to the proposed Medical Benefits Settlement Class (Medical Class), for settlement purposes only. 1 Plaintiffs further respectfully request that this Court appoint the named and representative Plaintiffs listed on, and described in, the Medical Class Action Complaint (Medical Complaint), filed on April 16, 2012, in connection herewith to serve as Class Representatives for the Medical Class, and that the Court also appoint, under Rule 23(g), the undersigned Interim Class Counsel and the Plaintiffs Steering Committee to serve as Class Counsel for the Medical Class. II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, Approval of Class Notice, and Related Matters, filed concurrently with the instant motion. As further background to this motion, this case arises out of the explosion and fire on board the Deepwater Horizon mobile offshore drilling unit on April 20, 2010; the subsequent release of oil, other hydrocarbons, and other substances from the Macondo well prospect site located at Mississippi Canyon Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico (MC252) and/or the Deepwater Horizon and its appurtenances; and efforts by Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP America Production Company

Terms with initial capital letters used in this memorandum shall have the meanings ascribed to the fully capitalized rendering of such terms in the Medical Benefits Settlement Agreement (Medical Settlement), unless otherwise defined herein.
1

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 7 of 32

(collectively, BP) to clean up the oil spill through, inter alia, the extensive use of dispersant chemicals. The Medical Class consists of individuals who allege injury as a result of their exposure to oil and oil-dispersing chemicals either by virtue of their employment as Clean-Up Workers or because of their residence in certain coastal areas near the waters affected by the oil spill and/or the spill remediation efforts. Because all the requirements for class certification have been satisfied, certification is proper under Rule 23(a), (b)(3), & (c). On behalf of the Medical Class, the Medical Complaint asserts claims under general maritime law, which sound primarily in negligence and gross negligence. See September 30, 2011 Order and Reasons as to Motions to Dismiss B3 Master Complaint (Rec. Doc. 4159) (ruling that uniform maritime law preempts state law personal injury claims raised in MDL 2179). The Medical Complaint is one of many lawsuits filed across the Gulf Coast seeking relief for personal injury as a result of the oil spill. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized those suits in this district on August 10, 2010, and assigned them to Judge Barbier as MDL transferee judge under 28 U.S.C. 1407. In re Oil Spill of the Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon In the Gulf of Mexico, On April 20, 2010 (MDL No. 2179), 731 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (J.P.M.L. 2010). In its assignment order, the Panel observed that the common factual issues among the suits supported their joinder, stating that [each proceeding] indisputably share[s] factual issues concerning the cause (or causes) of the Deepwater Horizon explosion/fire and the role, if any, that each defendant played in it. 731 F. Supp. 2d at 1354. The Panel further explained that, [c]entralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Id.

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 8 of 32

Although a number of the complaints filed in and transferred to this Court were styled as class actions, and the B3 Bundle Master Complaint filed pursuant to this Courts Case Management Orders include class action allegations, the Court has not yet certified any class or ruled on any class-certification issues in the MDL. With Magistrate Judge Shushans assistance, the parties have reached a settlement, which is memorialized in the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement (Medical Settlement), dated April 17, 2012. Implementation of the Medical Settlement is to be achieved by way of a Rule 23(b)(3) settlement class. Accordingly, to effectuate the Medical Settlement, Plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class solely for settlement purposes. See Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., 667 F.3d 273, 296 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc) (explaining that before approving a class settlement agreement, a district court first must determine that the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) and (b) are met); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, 21.132 (Federal Judicial Center 2004) (MCL 4th) (Parties frequently settle before the judge has decided whether or not to certify a class. Some settle before a motion to certify or even a class action complaint has been filed. . . . When a class settles as a class action before certification, the parties must present the court a plan for notifying the class, and, if Rule 23(b) applies, providing an opportunity to opt out, along with the motions for certification and preliminary approval of the settlement.). III. THE MEDICAL CLASS MERITS PRELIMINARY CERTIFICATION FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES UNDER RULES 23(a)(1)-(4) AND 23(b)(3)

In certifying a settlement class, the standards of Rule 23 apply equally as though the court were certifying a litigation class, with one exception: because the settlement will necessarily obviate the trial, the court need not evaluate the manageability of the proposed class for trial.

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 9 of 32

See MCL 4th 21.132; Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997) (Confronted with a request for settlement-only class certification, a district court need not inquire whether the case, if tried, would present intractable management problems, for the proposal is that there would be no trial.). The appropriateness of the class device, given the particularities of the case at hand, is a matter within the sound discretion of the district court. Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co., 200 F.3d 1140, 1145 (8th Cir. 1999). For purposes of the preliminary fairness review, the Court need only make a preliminary determination that the standards of Rule 23 are met. A final determination on class certification is reserved for the fairness hearing, which occurs following notice to class members. See MCL 4th 21.632-21.634. Where the case, as here, is submitted for settlement approval and class certification at the same time, the court may combine the class certification and preliminary fairness evaluations. MCL 4th 21.632. A. The Proposed Class Definition

Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to certify the following class under Rule 23(b)(3): All natural persons who resided in the United States as of April 16, 2012, and who: a. b. Worked as Clean-Up Workers at any time between April 20, 2010, and April 16, 2012; Resided in Zone A for some time on each of at least sixty days between April 20, 2010, and September 30, 2010 (Zone A resident), and who developed one or more Specified Physical Conditions, which are set forth in the Specified Physical Condition Matrix attached to the Medical Settlement, between April 20, 2010, and September 30, 2010; or Resided in Zone B for some time on each of at least sixty days between April 20, 2010, and December 31, 2010 (Zone B resident).

c.

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 10 of 32

Clean-Up Workers means all natural persons who performed Response Activities, which refers to the clean-up, remediation efforts, and all other responsive actions (including the use and handling of dispersants) relating to the release of oil, other hydrocarbons, and other substances from the MC252 well and/or the Deepwater Horizon and its appurtenances that were done under the auspices of the Unified Command, BP, or a federal, state, or local authority. Clean-Up Workers includes, inter alia, captains, crews, and other workers employed under the Vessels of Opportunity (VoO) program who performed Response Activities; workers employed to perform the decontamination of vessels involved in Response Activities; captains, crew, and other workers on vessels other than VoO who performed Response Activities; onshore personnel employed to perform Response Activities; and persons involved in the recovery, transport, and decontamination of wildlife affected by the Deepwater Horizon incident. Zone A and Zone B have the meaning ascribed to each term in the Medical Settlement and the relevant attachments thereto. 2 The term Specified Physical Condition refers to the conditions or symptoms that are associated with exposure to oil and/or dispersants and that are listed and defined in more detail in the Medical Settlement and the Specified Physical Condition Matrix attached as Exhibit 8 to the Medical Settlement. Excluded from the Class are: a. any Class member who timely and properly elects to be excluded from the Class under the procedures set forth by court order; any person employed by BP Entities at any time between April 20, 2010, and April 16, 2012; the Court, including any sitting judges on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and their

b. c.

Zone A includes specified beachfront areas and Zone B includes specified wetlands areas. Both Zones are clearly and objectively described in the Medical Settlement Agreement.
5

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 11 of 32

law clerks serving on or after April 20, 2010, through April 16, 2012; d. e. any person who was on the Deepwater Horizon on April 20, 2010; any person who has previously asserted and released his or her claims against BP relating to any illnesses or injuries allegedly suffered as a result of exposure to oil, other hydrocarbons, or other substances released from the MC252 well and/or the Deepwater Horizon and its appurtenances, and/or dispersants and/or decontaminants used in connection with the Response Activities, including those persons who have provided final releases to the Gulf Coast Claims Facility in exchange for payment from the Gulf Coast Claims Facility for such illnesses or injuries; any person who is a Zone A resident or Zone B resident, but not a Clean-Up Worker, and who worked in one or more of the following capacities for a cumulative duration of at least five years prior to April 20, 2010: i. cleaning or reconditioning of the tanks or holds of barges, tankers or lighters, tanker trucks, tanker rail cars, or any other tank (stationary or mobile) used to hold hydrocarbons or petrochemicals; storage, handling, or cleaning of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORMs), including radionuclides; storage, transportation, distribution, or dispensing of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, kerosene, motor fuels, or other hydrocarbon-based fuels at any bulk storage facility (not including gas stations or any gas station convenience stores), bulk plant, or bulk terminal facility that stores hydrocarbons or petrochemicals; loading or unloading bulk crude oil or petroleum hydrocarbons onto or from trucks, ships, barges, or other vessels; or tar distillation.

f.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v. B.

The Proposed Class Representatives

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 12 of 32

The class representatives are as follows: (1) Kip Plaisance lives in Golden Meadow, Louisiana, and is the owner of a fishing

charter boat company called Tidewater Charters. In May 2010, he started working on oil spill clean-up in the VoO program. Mr. Plaisance worked from June 1, 2010 through August 6, 2010. His job was to, inter alia, lay and unload boom and spot for oil and oiled wildlife. During the course of his work, Mr. Plaisance experienced headaches, nausea, vomiting, and respiratory problems. On or about July 29, 2010, Mr. Plaisance experienced severe vomiting and shortness of breath, and he sought treatment at an onsite BP medical facility. He was treated and sent home the same day. (2) Jason Perkins is a resident of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He was working for

Copeland Electrical as a safety supervisor at the time of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Mr. Perkins was called up by the Louisiana National Guard to participate in Response Activities as a Clean-Up Worker. He was stationed in Venice, Louisiana and, along with other Guard members, assigned to construct oil barriers along the coastline to prevent oil from washing ashore. These duties often required Mr. Perkins to stand waist-deep in oily water. Mr. Perkins worked in Venice for approximately ten days, at which time he began to develop rashes on his skin. He sought medical treatment, and the rashes no longer persist. (3) Camille Warren is a resident of Gulf Shores, Alabama, and a resident of Zone A.

Ms. Warren developed respiratory problems in May 2010 while walking along the beach. Also around this time, a truck and equipment used for beach clean-up was parked nearby her home. She went to, and was treated by, a physician on several occasions for her condition. Ms. Warrens physician noted in his records that she complained of respiratory problems, a sore throat, drainage, congestion, coughs, and headaches. These conditions have resolved.

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 13 of 32

(4)

Christian Pizani is a resident of Grand Isle, Louisiana, and lives on the barrier

island of Cheniere Caminada, which falls within Zone B. Ms. Pizani has lived in that location from April 20, 2010 to the present. During the summer of 2010, she was exposed to, inter alia, oil fume odors. She periodically experienced headaches, itchy eyes, and post-nasal drip. (5) Max Plaisance is a resident of Golden Meadow, Louisiana. He was a deckhand

on a VoO boat from June 22, 2010 to August 5, 2010. The vessel was assigned to lay boom, collect oily boom, and spot for oil. Mr. Plaisance began to feel sick from the outset of his work, and experienced nausea, bouts of vomiting, and severe respiratory difficulties. In late July of 2010, Mr. Plaisance was seen by a medic at an onsite BP medical station because he was vomiting. Mr. Plaisance also developed asthma, a condition he did not have prior to his work on the oil spill. Since August 2010, Mr. Plaisance has been under the care of a doctor for his respiratory condition, and he is dependent on an inhaler from time to time. He still suffers from asthma to this day. (6) Benjamin Judah Barbee is a resident of Valparaiso, Florida. Prior to the oil spill,

he was a charter boat captain in and around Destin, Florida. When the Response Activities began, Mr. Barbee commenced working as a Clean-Up Worker for Windes Brothers & Associates on a spotter boat, and he also collected tar balls on the beach. Mr. Barbee developed headaches and breathing difficulties while performing his responsibilities during the Response Activities, but he did not seek medical care for his condition. (7) Cornelius Divinity lives in Marrero, Louisiana. In late April 2010, Mr. Divinity

was hired as a Clean-Up Worker by Down South, Inc., and stationed in Venice, Louisiana. His job was to, inter alia, unload oily boom from, and load clean boom onto, vessels responding to the spill. As a result of his exposure to oil and/or dispersants, Mr. Divinity experienced blurred

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 14 of 32

vision, shortness of breath, and migraine headaches. On May 29, 2010, he reported his illness to his supervisor, who sent him to the BP onsite medical station. From there, Mr. Divinity was transported to Terrytown, Louisiana, where he was met by his wife. She then took Mr. Divinity to West Jefferson Medical Center, where he was treated and sent home. (8) Janice Brown is a resident of Fort Walton Beach, Florida and a resident of Zone

A. She lived along the beach from early April 2010 to December 2010. Following the oil spill, Ms. Brown observed that there was a distinct odor in the air that did not exist prior to the spill. In July 2010, she began to experience, inter alia, nosebleeds and headaches. Her symptoms persisted for months before she finally sought treatment from a medical professional. (9) Carlton Caster is a resident of Mobile, Alabama. He took work as a Clean-Up

Worker collecting tar balls along the beach in Gulf Shores, Alabama on June 19, 2010. Five days later, Mr. Caster became ill with symptoms of heat stroke/heat exhaustion and was taken to the BP medical station, which in turn sent Mr. Caster by ambulance to South Baldwin Medical Center. He was released from the medical center the same day. (10) George Baker is a resident of Harvey, Louisiana. He was employed as a Clean-

Up Worker by Southern Environmental from late April 2010 through August 2010. Mr. Baker was tasked with laying boom in the marsh areas, and he would frequently stand waist deep in oily water to lay and retrieve boom around the barrier islands. Mr. Baker began to develop severe bumps and boils on his skin, and he experienced conditions of dizziness and nausea. On August 5, 2010, his skin condition had become increasingly severe; on that day, Mr. Baker nearly fainted at work and was taken to a physician provided by the Army Corps of Engineers. He was then treated at Ocshner Medical Center WestBank, where he was diagnosed with, inter alia, folliculitis. He remains under the care of a physician for his dermal condition today.

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 15 of 32

(11)

Duffy Hall is a resident of Wilmer, Alabama. Mr. Hall worked for Knights

Marine & Industrial Services, Inc. installing barriers to protect the wetlands near Gauthier, Mississippi. Mr. Hall was exposed to oil in the water while erecting oil barriers. He experienced burning and swelling in his eyes and was later diagnosed with chemical keratitis. He remains under the care of a physician for his condition to this day. C. The Proposed Class Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(a)

For a court to preliminarily certify a settlement class, all four requirements of Rule 23(a) must be met. Amchem, 521 U.S. at 614; see also, e.g., In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liability Litig., 2012 WL 92498, at *8 (E.D. La. Jan. 10, 2012) (Fallon, J.). Rule 23(a) requires a demonstration that: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative(s) are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative(s) will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. As this Court has explained, [t]he first two requirements focus on the characteristics of the class; the second two focus on the desired characteristics of the class representatives. In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall, 2012 WL 92498, at *8 (citing In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Prods. Liability Litig., 2008 WL 5423488, at *3 (E.D. La. Dec. 29, 2008) (Engelhardt, J.)). 1. Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) states that the numerosity requirement is met if joinder of all members is impracticable. Although there is no fixed, mechanical threshold, the Fifth Circuit has

recognized that a class size in excess of 100 members generally satisfies the numerosity requirement. Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, 186 F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing
10

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 16 of 32

1 Newberg on Class Actions 3.05, at 3-25 (3d ed. 1992) (any class consisting of more than forty members should raise a presumption that joinder is impracticable)). The instant action involves tens of thousands of individuals who allege they were exposed to oil and/or other chemicals released in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Putative class members were on the front lines of, and/or resided in the areas most impacted by, the oil spill and Response Activities. There are estimated to be as many as 90,000 Clean-Up Workers and nearly 5,000 Zone B residents. Further, according to the 2010 U.S. census, close to 100,000 people reside in Zone A. The class size thus numbers in the tens of thousandswell in excess of the 100-person general threshold identified by the Fifth Circuit in Mullen. In addition, BPs databases of Clean-Up Workers who sought medical care during the course of Response Activities contain thousands of relevant entries. Furthermore, the residents and Clean-Up Workers who comprise the proposed Class collectively represent a significant portion of the medical monitoring and personal injury claims filed in the Deepwater Horizon multi-district litigation and state courts. There are believed to be approximately 40 complaints on file alleging claims covered by the proposed class action settlement. In the MDL,

approximately 16,000 individuals have filed short form joinders alleging health impacts from the spill. For purposes of preliminary approval, the sheer number of Class members alone is sufficient to satisfy the numerosity requirement. See In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall, 2012 WL 92498, at *9 (finding numerosity easily satisfied, for purposes of preliminary approval, where a large number of potential claimants would benefit from the Settlement Agreement). Moreover, other factors, such as the geographic dispersion of the Class memberswho live, inter alia, across the Gulf states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Floridaweighs in

11

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 17 of 32

favor of class certification. See Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott & Co., Inc., 651 F.2d 1030, 1038 (5th Cir. 1981). 2. Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) requires a showing of questions of law or fact common to the class. This standard does not set a high bar. Only a single common question is necessary to satisfy

commonality. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Duke, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2557 (2011). The focus of the inquiry, therefore, is whether there is any common contention that is determinative of each of the class members claims. M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Perry, --- F.3d ---, 2012 WL 974878, at *6 (5th Cir. Mar. 23, 2012); see also Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2551. In other words, [t]he

commonality test is met when there is at least one issue the resolution of which will affect all or a significant number of the putative class members. Lightbourn v. Cnty. of El Paso, Tex., 118 F.3d 421, 426 (5th Cir. 1997). This action has at its core numerous questions of law and fact common to all Class members. Foremost among them is the question of BPs liability under general maritime law for the April 20, 2010, well blowout and explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon. Determining BPs liability for this single incident is common to all claimants, as all of plaintiffs alleged injuries flow from that single event. For this reason alone, the commonality inquiry is satisfied. Indeed, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has already recognized the primacy of common issues in this case, and particularly the common issues surrounding liability, by centralizing all federal actions (excepting securities suits) in this district. See infra at p.2. And, as this Court has recently held, commonality is easily satisfied, for preliminary certification purposes, where the MDL Panel orders cases consolidated because they share commonality of facts. See In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall, 2012 WL 92498, at *10.

12

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 18 of 32

Post-Wal-Mart, the commonality threshold remains low, and it is not necessary that all issues related to plaintiffs injuries be common or suffered to the same degree. See Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2557 (disclaiming any intent to blend the commonality and predominance inquiries or require more than the existence of any common question); Perry, --- F.3d ---, 2012 WL 974878, at *9 (remanding because the district courts [commonality] conclusion may ultimately be a sound application of Wal-Mart, but finding that it was not supported by reasoning based on elements for establishing the proposed classs various constitutional claims on a classwide basis); accord, e.g., Ross v. RBS Citizens, N.A., 667 F.3d 900, 910 (7th Cir. 2012) (reasoning that the common question of whether an unlawful overtime policy prevented employees from collecting lawfully earned overtime compensation satisfied Rule 23(a)(2)). 3. Typicality

Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims or defenses of the representative parties be typical of the claims or defenses of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). The threshold for typicality is low. Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 597, 605 (E.D. La. 2006); see also, e.g., Mullen, 186 F.3d at 625 (stating that the test for typicality is not demanding). Courts have given Rule 23(a)(3) a liberal construction, holding that a claim is typical if it arises from the same events, practices or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members, and if the claims are based on the same legal theories. See, e.g., James v. City of Dallas, 254 F.3d 551, 571 (5th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by, Perry, --- F.3d ---, No. 11-40789; Senter v. Gen. Motors Corp., 532 F.2d 511 (6th Cir. 1976); 1 H. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions 3:29 (5th ed.) (cases collected). The Fifth Circuit has explained that [t]ypicality does not require a complete identity of claims. Rather, the critical inquiry is whether the class representatives claims have the same

13

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 19 of 32

essential characteristics as those of the putative class. James, 254 F.3d at 571 (quoting 5 James Wm. Moore et. al., Moores Federal Practice 23.24[4] (3d ed. 2000)). Accordingly, [i]f the claims arise from a similar course of conduct and share the same legal theory, factual differences will not defeat typicality. Id. (quoting 5 James Wm. Moore et. al., Moores Federal Practice 23.24[4] (3d ed. 2000)). Or, as the Fifth Circuit has elsewhere explained, typicality focuses on the similarity between the named plaintiffs legal and remedial theories and the theories of those whom they purport to represent. Lightbourn, 118 F.3d at 426. It bears repeating that Plaintiffs claims, like those of the absent Class members, arise out of a single-event, single-location mass disaster. Release of the oil from the MC252 Well and/or the Deepwater Horizon and its appurtenances, and the chemicals used in Response Activities, are the source of all the injuries alleged by Class members. Additionally, the question of BPs negligence is central to each Class members claim. The allegations concern a discrete period of time and a single, contemporaneous course of conduct. Further, all Class members allege common harm from exposure to the oil and other chemicals spread across the Gulf of Mexico and coastal areas. They also necessarily allege that these harms were experienced in the same general manner through inhalation and/or dermal exposure. Thus, Plaintiffs legal and

remedial theories harmonize with those that other Class members raise against BP. In addition, all putative Class members assert claims under general maritime law for negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se, and medical monitoring relief against BP for personal injuries caused by the release of oil and other chemicals as a result of the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon. Plaintiffs and the Class allege that BP owed a duty to the Class, breached that duty, and that such breach caused harm to the Class. Plaintiffs and the Class also seek the same relief: compensatory damages, punitive damages, and medical monitoring.

14

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 20 of 32

Consequently, it is as true here as it was in Lightbourn that [i]n the event the class members in this case were to proceed in a parallel action, they would advance legal and remedial theories similar, if not identical, to those advanced by the named plaintiffs. 118 F.3d at 426 (holding that when plaintiffs and class members advance conceptually similar legal and remedial theories, plaintiffs satisfy typicality). Because the claims of Plaintiffs and other Clean-Up Workers and Zone A and B residents are based on the same legal theories and arise from the same course of events, the typicality requirement is satisfied. This showing is not undone by variations in the symptoms or conditions suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class. Under Fifth Circuit precedent, such variation has no bearing on the typicality of Plaintiffs and Class members legal and remedial theories. Mullen, 186 F.3d at 625 (holding that where class members proffer same theory of liability, variation in class members illness does not affect typicality inquiry). 4. Adequacy of Representation

The final requirement of Rule 23(a) is that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). To meet the requirement for adequacy of representation, plaintiffs must show: (1) the zeal and competence of the representatives counsel and (2) the willingness and ability of the representatives to take an active role in and control the litigation and to protect the interests of absentees. Stirman v. Exxon Corp., 280 F.3d 554, 563 (5th Cir. 2002) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). This requirement is satisfied in large part by the absence of any disabling antagonism or intra-class conflict, as demonstrated from the preceding discussion of the commonality and typicality requirements. Additional considerations more particularly associated with Rule 23(a)(4) include the vigor with which the representative party can be expected to assert and

15

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 21 of 32

defend the interests of the class and the qualifications of class counsel. 1 H. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions 3:21. See also Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 403 (1975). Plaintiffs interests here are not antagonistic to those of the Class. Plaintiffs have filed this action to seek compensation for the injury and damages suffered in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon Incident. These claims are co-extensive with those of the absent Class members. All members, like Plaintiffs, share an interest in the Periodic Medical Consultation Program. Moreover, Plaintiffs are committed to prosecuting this action vigorously on behalf of the Class. The Medical Settlement negotiated for the benefit of the Class further reflects the absence of antagonism in the instant case. BPs obligation to pay the costs of the Periodic Medical Consultation Program and to pay compensation for Specified Physical Conditions is uncapped. All Class members who timely and properly submit proof of claim forms are eligible for participation in the Periodic Medical Consultation Program and, if applicable, compensation for relevant, previously manifested conditions and symptoms. The amount paid to any one class member has no bearing on the amount available or payable to any other. As a result, the instant case avoids flaws presented by the classes in Amchem, 521 U.S. 591, and Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999) (finding fault with capped funds). Further, the Medical Settlement would not predetermine the resolution of, or compensatory damages available for, claims for Later-Manifested Physical Conditions. All Class members are similarly situated with respect to any later-manifesting illnesses or injuries arising out of the exposures at issue. All allege that the exposure at issue may manifest in new or different disease(s) at some point in the future, and the Medical Settlement specifically preserves the right of any class member to seek compensatory damages from BP for any such later-

16

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 22 of 32

manifested disease (Back End Litigation Option). Moreover, there is no limit on the number of Class members who may exercise a Back-End Litigation Option. Thus, there is no conflict between Class members with currently manifested and yet-to-be manifested injuries. The shared interest in maximizing benefits to the Class and absence of intra-class conflict render any differences in the type or severity of injury between Plaintiffs and/or Class members irrelevant to the adequacy analysis. Differences between named plaintiffs and class members render the named plaintiffs inadequate representatives only if those differences create conflicts between the named plaintiffs interests and the class members interests. Mullen, 186 F.3d at 625-26. Under Fifth Circuit precedent, variances in the ways that the Named Plaintiffs and class members will prove causation and damages . . . does not affect the alignment of their interests. Id. at 626. What is more, the proposed Medical Settlement makes both the Periodic Medical Consultation Program and the Back End Litigation Option equally available to all Class members without distinction. Moreover, because the Class is tightly confined and limited to allegations of past exposure during a finite time period, all Class members can be effectively notified and make an informed decision about whether to opt out of the Class. All alleged exposures at issue have occurred in the past and were the result of a widely publicized catastrophe. Plaintiffs thus should be on notice whether they have been exposed to oil and/or dispersants as part of the Deepwater Horizon Incident. Consequently, they stand in contrast to the plaintiffs in Amchem and Ortiz, who might well have been unaware that materials in their residence or place of employment contained the asbestos at issue in those actions. Furthermore, the proposed notice plan

contemplates individual mailed notice to all known Clean-Up Workers and Zone B residents, as well as a widespread publication, broadcast, and internet notice campaign intended to reach these

17

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 23 of 32

Class members as well as Zone A residents. Class members can therefore be effectively apprised of the proposed settlement and make an informed decision about whether the present benefit of the compensation for Specified Physical Conditions, the Periodic Medical Consultation Program and the future benefits of the Back-End Litigation Option are adequate tradeoffs for accepting the limitations of the Back-End Litigation Option Process namely the trade-off of any punitive damages that might otherwise be available on claims for Later-Manifested Physical Conditions. In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liability Litig., 2000 WL 1222042, at *41 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2000) (certifying personal injury class and finding no intra-class conflicts where members retained back-end option to sue for later-manifested conditions). Finally, because the Class does not include or release claims of derivative claimants, there are no notice issues associated with such claimants. Accord Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253, 262 (2d Cir. 2006); Petrovic, 200 F.3d at 1146-47 (upholding, post-Amchem, a class-action settlement resolving claims for alleged property contamination over objection that the settlement encompasses owners of property without presently-demonstrated damage). With respect to the qualifications of counsel, Plaintiffs submit that among their counsel are some of the most experienced class action litigators in the nation. The Court presiding over the Deepwater Horizon MDL necessarily recognized Plaintiffs Steering Committees experience when it appointed and reappointed its members to the Plaintiffs Steering Committee for MDL 2179. The Plaintiffs Steering Committee brings a wealth and diversity of experience to this case; not only have the Committees members previously obtained court appointments to represent plaintiff classes in complex multi-state and nationwide class proceedings, they have worked for the common benefit of plaintiffs injured by the Deepwater Horizon disaster for well over eighteen months.

18

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 24 of 32

Moreover, Interim Class Counsel drew on the expertise of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee and of outside experts during both the Deepwater Horizon multi-district litigation and the proposed settlement. Each time an issue requiring specialized knowledge arose in settlement negotiations, Interim Class Counsel and the Plaintiffs Steering Commitee sought input from medical and legal consultants, academics, and others, as appropriate. Quite simply, Plaintiffs, Interim Class Counsel and the Plaintiffs Steering Committee stand ready, willing, and able to undertake these ongoing duties for the benefit of the Class and respectfully request appointment as Class Counsel in order to do so. C. The Proposed Class Satisfies the Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)

To be certified, a class must satisfy Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3), as well as Rule 23(a). Amchem, 521 U.S. at 614. The Rule 23(b)(3) inquiry in this context turns on the elements of predominance and superiority. 1. Predominance

The predominance inquiry found in Rule 23(b)(3) tests whether the proposed classes are sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation. Amchem, 521 U.S. at 623. In assessing whether common questions predominate, most courts have adopted a pragmatic approach that emphasizes the efficiencies of class treatment. See, e.g., Jenkins v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 782 F.2d 468, 472-73 (5th Cir. 1986). At its core, the predominance inquiry focuses on the relationship between common and individual issues. When common issues present a significant aspect of the case and it can be resolved for all members of the Class in a single adjudication, there is clear justification for handling the dispute on a representative rather than on an individual basis. 7A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 1778 (2d ed. 1986); see also, e.g.,

19

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 25 of 32

Jenkins, 782 F.2d at 472. Accordingly, [i]n the context of mass tort litigation, [the Fifth Circuit] ha[s] held that a class issue predominates if it constitutes a significant part of the individual cases. Watson v. Shell Oil Co., 979 F.2d 1014, 1022-23 (5th Cir. 1992) on reh'g, 53 F.3d 663 (5th Cir. 1994). This is a matter of weighing, not counting, issues. Mullen, 186 F.3d at 626. BPs conduct presents predominant factual and legal questions. Fundamentally, all

Plaintiffs claims arise out of a single disastrous eventthe Macondo well blowout, the Deepwater Horizon explosions and the resulting oil spill. Although this is a single-event,

single-location mass disaster that has affected a large geographic area and many individuals, its wide-ranging effects can be traced back to a single root: a chain of decisions and actions made by BP. Furthermore, the decisions made during the Response Activities were centralized and made by BP. As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently explained, the focus of the predominance inquiry is on whether the defendants conduct was common as to all of the class members, and whether all of the class members were harmed by the defendants conduct. Sullivan, 667 F.3d at 298. Accordingly, courts have long recognized that in such single-event mass tort actions, predominance is more often satisfied because, quite obviously, the defendant allegedly caused all of the plaintiffs harms through a single course of conduct. See, e.g., Mehl v. Canadian Pac. Rwy. Ltd., 227 F.R.D. 505, 521-22 (D.N.D. 2005) (finding predominance satisfied where class of injured plaintiffs claimed defendant caused a train derailment and subsequent release of harmful chemicals, and explaining that in such a case, all class members share common issues of defendants negligence for the accident, the toxic nature of the released chemicals, and the injuries caused by exposure to those chemicals); In re Diet Drugs, 2000 WL

20

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 26 of 32

1222042, at *41 (finding predominance satisfied where all class members claims flowed from a common course of conduct followed by the defendant). The instant Class proposed here is noteworthy for the degree of commonality among the factual and legal allegations. The common nucleus of facts of this case the Deepwater Horizon incident, as well as the issue of general causation (i.e., whether oil and/or dispersants are capable of causing the injuries claimed) confirms the predominance of common issues in this proposed Class and the need for this Court to resolve the central issues in the class context. Accord, e.g., Mullen, 186 F.3d at 626 (holding that common issues, especially negligence, was significant and satisfied predominance even in face of individual questions of causation, damages, and contributory negligence). This is not a case in which claims arising from different decisions of different individuals in different places at different times have been lumped together. Where, as here, the issues common to the class stand to resolve integral elements of claims by tens of thousands of similarly injured individuals, the predominance requirement is satisfied. See

Watson v. Shell Oil Co., 979 F.2d at 1022-23 (concluding that [t]here can be no serious contention that the district court abused its discretion in determining that [common] issues predominate where such issues form[ed] integral elements of the claims asserted by each of the more than 18,000 plaintiffs in the class); see also In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall, 2012 WL 92498, at *11 (finding predominance inquiry satisfied, for preliminary approval purposes, where a single defendants liability was integral to all members claims). Indeed, environmental disaster cases are frequently certified by courts for many of the same reasons present in this matter. See, e.g., Watson, 979 F.2d 1014; Turner, 234 F.R.D. 597; Bentley v. Honeywell Intl, Inc., 223 F.R.D. 471, 487 (S.D. Ohio 2004); Mejdreck v. Lockformer Co., No. 01-6107, 2002 WL 1838141, at *6-7 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 12, 2002), affd, 319 F.3d 910 (7th

21

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 27 of 32

Cir. 2003); OConnor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 184 F.R.D. 311 (C.D. Cal. 1998); Boggs v. Divested Atomic Corp., 141 F.R.D. 58 (S.D. Ohio 1991); Cook v. Rockwell Intl Corp., 151 F.R.D. 378, 388-89 (D. Colo. 1993); Wehner v. Syntex Corp., 117 F.R.D. 641, 645 (N.D. Cal. 1987). The predominance inquiry is also satisfied for a variety of other reasons. Foremost, all Plaintiffs and Class members allege exposure to identifiable substancesoil and other chemicals used in the Response Activitiesand Plaintiffs allege that exposure to these substances has known, harmful effects. The alleged exposure occurred in a relatively confined time frame and geographic area, and each group of Class members alleges exposure through one of two pathways. Furthermore, all Class members who manifested conditions and symptoms at issue did so within 24 to 72 hours of exposure, thus dispensing with variations in manifestation that have plagued classes in which exposure occurs over a period of years. See In re Diet Drugs, 2000 WL 1222042, at *42 (explaining that predominance was satisfied in putative personal injury class when two diet products caused identifiable injury through single method of exposure over a finite and relatively short period of useapproximately sixty days). Finally, all Class members assert claims under uniform, general maritime law, as this Court has declared. Therefore, this case is not like the Fifth Circuit decision in Castano v. American Tobacco Co., where choice-of-law issues predominated over other common issues. See 84 F.3d 734, 741-44 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Mullen, 186 F.3d at 626 (noting that where each of the class members claims arose under a single body of law, and no complex choice-of-law issues were present, predominance was satisfied); In re Heartland Payment Sys., Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2012 WL 948365, at *11 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2012) (holding that despite some state-law variations among the class, certification was appropriate because

22

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 28 of 32

certification was for settlement purposes and state-law variation would only present management difficulties if case were proceeding to trial). In sum, common issues predominate individual issues. The Court should accordingly find that the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied. 2. Superiority

Rule 23(b)(3) directs the court to determine that a class action is superior to other available methods for fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Because the

certification of the proposed settlement Class would obviate manageability concerns, the use of the class device here would allow the Court to conserve valuable judicial resources that would otherwise be needed for individual litigation of the thousands of separate claims held by persons claiming personal injuries from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A class action is superior to the only other available method available for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversylitigation via multiple trials. Given the compensatory range of recovery available to each individual Class member, few could afford to shoulder the litigation costs of a complex matter such as this, which in turn means that few could likely seek their rightful legal recourse. A class action provides an efficient, transparent, and court-

supervised means of resolving these claims. IV. THE PLAINTIFFS STEERING COMMITTEE MERITS APPOINTMENT AS CLASS COUNSEL UNDER RULE 23(g)

Rule 23(g) provides that a court that certifies a class must appoint class counsel, and that in doing so, the court must consider: the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action; counsels experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the type of claims asserted in the action; counsels knowledge of applicable law; and the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class.
23

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 29 of 32

The undersigned have been working under court appointment for the common benefit in high-profile and intense litigation, under the supervision of the Court and the scrutiny of claimants and the public. The 23(g) factors listed above are functionally equivalent and

essentially identical to the factors considered by this Court in appointing Co-Liaison Counsel and the Plaintiffs Steering Committee under Pre-Trial Orders 1, 8, 9, and 46. The qualities the Court sought in forming the Plaintiffs Steering Committee, and that its members have demonstrated, on a daily basis, in prosecuting this case, are those the Court must consider under 23(g). The undersigned are cognizant of, and negotiated the proposed settlement, with the ongoing duties of class counsel in the context of this particular settlements structure firmly in mind. The Court now has before it a settlement structure that is fair and transparent. The undersigned Interim Class Counsel and Proposed Medical Benefits Class Counsel stand ready, willing, and able to undertake these ongoing duties for the benefit of the Economic Class and respectfully request appointment as Proposed Medical Benefits Class Counsel in order to do so V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, this Court should enter an order preliminarily certifying a class for purposes of settlement only pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(c), appointing Kip Plaisance, Jason Perkins, Camille Warren, Christian Pizani, Max Plaisance, Benjamin Judah Barbee, Cornelius Divinity, Janice Brown, Carlton Caster, George Baker, and Duffy Hall as Class representatives, and appointing the Plaintiffs Steering Committee as Class Counsel.

24

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 30 of 32

This 18th day of April, 2012. Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Stephen J. Herman Stephen J. Herman, La. Bar No. 23129 HERMAN HERMAN KATZ & COTLAR LLP 820 OKeefe Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-4892 Fax No. (504) 569-6024 E-Mail: sherman@hhkc.com Interim Class Counsel Plaintiffs Liaison Counsel Proposed Lead Class Counsel

/s/ James Parkerson Roy James Parkerson Roy, La. Bar No. 11511 DOMENGEAUX WRIGHT ROY & EDWARDS LLC 556 Jefferson Street, Suite 500 Lafayette, Louisiana 70501 Telephone: (337) 233-3033 Fax No. (337) 233-2796 E-Mail: jimr@wrightroy.com Interim Class Counsel Plaintiffs Liaison Counsel Proposed Lead Class Counsel

PLAINTIFFS STEERING COMMITTEE AND PROPOSED MEDICAL BENEFITS CLASS COUNSEL Joseph F. Rice MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Office: (843) 216-9159 Telefax: (843) 216-9290 E-Mail: jrice@motleyrice.com Conrad S.P. Duke Williams WILLIAMS LAW GROUP 435 Corporate Drive, Suite 101 Maison Grand Caillou Houma, LA 70360 Office: (985) 876-7595 Telefax: (985) 876-7594 E-Mail: duke@williamslawgroup.org

Brian H. Barr LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, ECHSNER & PROCTOR, PA 316 South Baylen St., Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502-5996 Office: (850) 435-7045 Telefax: (850) 436-6187 E-Mail: bbarr@levinlaw.com

Robin L. Greenwald WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Office: (212) 558-5802 Telefax: (212) 344-5461 E-Mail: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com

25

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 31 of 32

Jeffrey A. Breit BREIT DRESCHER IMPREVENTO & WALKER, P.C. 999 Waterside Drive, Suite 1000 Norfolk, VA 23510 Office: (757) 670-3888 Telefax: (757) 670-3895 E-Mail: jbreit@bdbmail.com Elizabeth J. Cabraser LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Office: (415) 956-1000 Telefax: (415) 956-1008 E-Mail: ecabraser@lchb.com Philip F. Cossich, Jr. COSSICH, SUMICH, PARSIOLA & TAYLOR 8397 Highway 23, Suite 100 Belle Chasse, LA 70037 Office: (504) 394-9000 Telefax: (504) 394-9110 E-Mail: pcossich@cossichlaw.com Robert T. Cunningham CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC 1601 Dauphin Street, P. O. Box 66705 Mobile, AL 36660 Office: (251) 471-6191 Telefax: (251) 479-1031 E-Mail: rtc@cunninghambounds.com Alphonso Michael Mike Espy MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 777 Jackson, MS 39201 Office: (601) 949-3388 Telefax: (601) 949-3399 E-Mail: mike@mikespy.com

Rhon E. Jones BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P. C. 218 Commerce St., P.O. Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36104 Office: (334) 269-2343 Telefax: (334) 954-7555 E-Mail: rhon.jones@beasleyallen.com Matthew E. Lundy LUNDY, LUNDY, SOILEAU & SOUTH, LLP 501 Broad Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 Office: (337) 439-0707 Telefax: (337) 439-1029 E-Mail: mlundy@lundylawllp.com Michael C. Palmintier deGRAVELLES, PALMINTIER, HOLTHAUS & FRUGE 618 Main Street Baton Rouge, LA 70801-1910 Office: (225) 344-3735 Telefax: (225) 344-0522 E-Mail: mpalmintier@dphf-law.com Paul M. Sterbcow LEWIS, KULLMAN, STERBCOW & ABRAMSON 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2615 New Orleans, LA 70130 Office: (504) 588-1500 Telefax: (504) 588-1514 E-Mail: sterbcow@lksalaw.com Scott Summy BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Office: (214) 521-3605 Telefax: (214) 599-1172 E-Mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com

26

Case 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS Document 6272-1

Filed 04/18/12 Page 32 of 32

Calvin C. Fayard, Jr. FAYARD & HONEYCUTT 519 Florida Avenue, SW Denham Springs, LA 70726 Office: (225) 664-4193 Telefax: (225) 664-6925 E-Mail: calvinfayard@fayardlaw.com Ervin A. Gonzalez COLSON HICKS EIDSON 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Office: (305) 476-7400 Telefax: (305) 476-7444 E-Mail: ervin@colson.com

Mikal C. Watts WATTS GUERRA CRAFT, LLP Four Dominion Drive, Building 3, Suite 100 San Antonio, TX 78257 Office: (210) 447-0500 Telefax: (210) 447-0501 E-Mail: mcwatts@wgclawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE We hereby certify that the above and foregoing Memorandum will be served on All Counsel by electronically uploading the same to Lexis Nexis File & Serve in accordance with Pretrial Order No. 12, and that the foregoing will be electronically filed with the Clerk of Court of the United States District for the Eastern District of Louisiana by using the CM/ECF System, which will send a notice of electronic filing in accordance with the procedures established in MDL 2179, this 18th day of April, 2012.

/s/ Stephen J. Herman and James Parkerson Roy

27