Philip Morris' 'Militant Resistance' Revealed in Fee Fight Documents
A plaintiff's motion to compel in a row over attorney fees provides a rare behind-the-scenes glimpse at a tobacco defense in a case described as "extraordinary" by Broward Chief Judge Jack Tuter.
October 04, 2018 at 02:57 PM
5 minute read
The latest filing in a long-running case brought by a now deceased smoker provides a rare glimpse at the defense of tobacco manufacturer Philip Morris USA and hints at the “astonishing” nature of what's under seal in the case.
Philip Morris, owner of deceased plaintiff Cindy Naugle's preferred brand Benson & Hedges, has “engaged in what can only be described as 'militant resistance' and 'going to the mat' rather than 'yielding an inch' or 'paying a dime' to the Naugle family,” said the motion filed Oct. 2 by plaintiffs attorney Robert W. Kelley of Kelley Uustal in Fort Lauderdale.
According to Kelley's motion to compel, Philip Morris has tried to make smokers' lawsuits “as time-consuming, costly and burdensome as possible.” The case, described as a “saga” by the plaintiff and “extraordinary” by Broward Chief Circuit Judge Jack Tuter, was initially filed 11 years ago by Naugle, sister of former Fort Lauderdale mayor Jim Naugle.
Read the full motion:
|Cindy Naugle died in Nov 2013 at age 65, two weeks after winning an $11.65 million jury verdict against the tobacco manufacturer in what had already been a long-winded and contentious court battle.
Naugle's case was one of the first to stem from a 2006 Florida Supreme Court decision to throw out Engle v. R.J. Reynolds, a giant class action against tobacco companies, which allowed plaintiffs to bring individual cases linking cigarettes to illnesses.
The win came despite the defense's “repeated attempts to secure a mistrial while Cindy Naugle lay on her hospital death bed,” according to the most recent motion.
In 2009, Naugle had been awarded a landmark $300 million verdict at trial, which was later reduced to $36.7 million, then reversed on appeal.
Related story: Plaintiffs Lawyer in Philip Morris Suit Explains $300 Million Verdict
Litigation ultimately went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resolved the case with a ruling ordering Philip Morris to pay $13.5 million.
One remaining issue is yet to be decided — attorney fees.
Kelley's motion to compel urged the defendant to comply with Judge Tuter's May 16 order that it share billing records with the plaintiff, allowing Tuter to compare the two and make a judgment on how much to award.
The document is one of two versions. An unsealed version was publicly filed, while another was filed “under seal” and includes additional information Philip Morris has asked remain confidential.
The plaintiff provided its billing records in August, but Philip Morris contested the “reasonableness” of the hours and rates suggested, despite the fact it hadn't yet shared its own billing records.
Mark J. Heise of Boies Schiller Flexner in Miami, who currently represents the defense, declined to comment on pending litigation.
Related story: Jury Foreman In Jim Naugle's Sister's Smoking Case Questioned
|
'This Honorable Court's jaw will drop'
“Literally, this Honorable Court's jaw will drop when it learns the actual number of lawyers PM used in this case,” the motion said.
On May 9, 2018, the parties discussed discovery matters at court over attorney fees after the defense had rejected a confidential offer by the plaintiff.
“I don't know what's going on with this one that's different to the others,” Tuter said at the May 9 evidentiary hearing, where he described the case as “extraordinary.”
Defense attorney Heise responded, explaining that “an eight figure demand was made” and claiming that the plaintiff was late submitting its billing records “because their contention is they want to have simultaneous disclosure of the fees.”
“Until and unless we contest their hours,” Heise argued, “Our fees are absolutely irrelevant.”
On Sept. 21, Kelley received what he called a ”jaw-dropping” and “astonishing” submission from Philip Morris, which according to the motion included no bills, invoices or billing records, but was rather a “summary of timekeeper's hours,” missing specifics.
Philip Morris has publicly claimed to have put a total of 22 lawyers on the case since its inception in Dec. 2007. But according to Kelley, the number of lawyers listed in the summary was “shocking.”
Naugle had offered to settle the case nine years ago for $150,000, but Philip Morris declined.
A hearing over the fee dispute is set to appear before Tuter at 10 a.m. on Oct. 11 at the Broward County Courthouse in Fort Lauderdale.
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAfter Miami Arrest, Top Real Estate Broker Brothers Facing Sex Crimes Charges
US Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
4 minute read3 Incidents Lead to Charges Against the Alexander Brothers; Cousin Remains at Large
3 minute readAmid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Like a Life Raft: Ben Brafman Reflects on Nearly 50 Years as a Defense Attorney
- 2HSF Partner Removed Over ‘Deeply Offensive’ Tweets
- 3Another Latham Partner Heads to Sidley in London
- 4In 'Kousisis,' the DOJ Once Again Pushes the Limits of Federal Fraud Prosecutions
- 5How Kirkland Has 'Reinvented a Meaningful Aspect' of Funds Work
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250