Page 20 - RICHERT V. WGA - JUDGE WEST JAN 10 2010

't7

AGREEIENTi IT'S
1 PR0VIDED FIVE YEARS OF TRANSpAREtiCy
ABOUT
2 THE PROGRAI'I,
AND NOEODY HAS RAISED A PEEK, AND I{OT EVEN

3 CLASS-COUNSEL RAI$ED A PEEK YEARS.
FOR THREE SO THE

4
NOIION TIAT l{E ARE NOW BEINO OBSTREPEROUS
OR

OBSTRUCTIONTST BECAUSE I{E DON'T WANT TO DO THII{GS TIIAT

6 WEREN'T CALLED II{ IS
FOR THE AGREEIIENT, JUST THE PRINCTPLE

7
THAT I{E REJECT.

I,JE DON'I DISPUTE THE COURT HAS
JURISDICTION
o
BUI
CONTINUING, THE COURT'S JURISDICTIOT{ IS DEFINED BY
THE
10
PERIIIETERS OF IHE
AGREEI'IENT, A}IO WHAT,S HAS HAPPEiIED
.IS HERE
--
11
THE COURT'S CORRECTLY CALLED IT ".
OUT COU}ISEL HAS

12
DECIDED AFTER 6OING THROUGH TWO IIORE SETTLEI,IEIITS,
THAT
13
COUI{SEL WOULD LIKE To REWRITE TIIE AGREEI.IENT; ItoT BEcAusE

14 COUNSEL GOT SNooKERED; IIoT
BEcAusE coUNsEL GoT A BAD DEAL;

'15
BUT AS I,JE NOTED AITID THE COURT'S NOTED,
COUI{SEL GOT

16 SOIIETHING FROI,I D.O.A. THAT IT DIDN,T GET FROII
ANYONE ELSE.
17 D.G.A.
WENT OUT AND PAID FOR A

18 PRE.SETTLEIIENT REVIE}I, A
NOT OUA}ITITATIVE ANALYSIS SUT A

19
QUALITATIVE AI{ALYSIS OF THE
PROGRAIiI, WHICH hJAS OTVEN TO

2A COUNSEL AND HIS THEN PARTNER, AND THEY HAD A
CHANCE TO
21 PULL
OUT OF THE SETTLEI.IENT. IIO OTHER GUILD HAS G]VEN

22 TIIAT.

23 }IHEN WE GET TO S.A,G,,
THERE ARE PROVISIOI,IS

24 0F TriE S.A.G. SETTLE E T rltAT AS PROVTST0NS OF
THE D.G.A.
25
SETILEI.IET{T THAT AREN'T IN THE S.A.G, SETTLEI.IENI.
THEY'RE
26 ALL A BIT DIFFERENT. tS
SO THIS IIOT A SITUATTO },HERE THE

27 UOOL I{AS PULLEO OVER COUiISEL'S EYES.
THIS WAS A GOOD

28
SETTLEI.IENT FOR COUI{SEL.

KENIYI\IA D. DARDEN, CsR
r,.^6,n' 6^^'
',.;:^ -'