18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 627 (liii) Media Issues In Class Action Litigation Goyette, et al. v. City Of Minneapolis, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146447 (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of journalists, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction barring the Minneapolis Police Department and state patrollers from interfering with the press. Plaintiffs specifically alleged that Defendants infringed on the constitutional rights of members of the press who were documenting a series of nightly protests and violence that erupted following the murder of George Floyd. The Court granted the motion. Plaintiffs’ declarations and the testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing detailed the treatment that members of the press experienced while photographing, filming, or otherwise documenting government activity at protest scenes. The Court ruled that the undisputed facts demonstrated that Plaintiffs were engaged in constitutionally protected news-gathering activities. The Court opined that Plaintiffs were likely to success on the merits of the case, as the evidence showed that the Police Department targeted journalists, forbade them from entering public protest areas, and subjected them to harm such as pepper spray and being fired at with non-lethal projectiles. Further, the evidence showed that law enforcement had threated a journalist as he filmed the protests from a private home. Plaintiffs also alleged that law enforcement threw concussion grenades and directed pepper spray at press members after they were stuck in a dead-end street. One journalist also testified that she was handcuffed and stopped from filming. The Court indicated that the likelihood of future demonstrations in light of the events that have taken place in recent times led to a finding that there was imminent threat absent an injunction. Finally, as to the balance of equities, the Court explained that, as here, when Plaintiffs raise a legitimate constitutional question, the balance of hardships tipped sharply in Plaintiffs’ favor. Id . at *26. Further, the Court held that a well-tailored injunction that balanced the freedom of the press with the government’s ability to exercise its police power would not irreparably harm the government. Id . at *27. Accordingly, since Plaintiffs demonstrated both irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment and Fourth Amendment claims, the Court held that the balance of equities was in Plaintiffs’ favor. For these reasons, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. In Re NFL Players ’ Concussion Injury Litigation, Case No. 12-MD-232 (E.D. Penn. July 16, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of former professional football players, brought a multi-district class action against the NFL for head injuries sustained while playing professional football. The parties ultimately settled the action and the Court granted final settlement approval. Thereafter, members of the settlement class argued that the implementation of new settlement standards for assessing payoff claims from the settlement fund were discriminatory because it use race-based norms in the cognitive testing assessments. The parties disputed the use of the race-norm assessments, and subjected their dispute to mediation. The Court issued a gag order relative to the NFL, concussion class counsel, and former players’ attorneys, ordering that they not discuss the status of the mediation. The Court determined that the parties were "not to discuss with persons not authorized to participate in the mediation either proposed settlement terms or the status of negotiations while the mediation discussions are ongoing." Id . at 1. Marquinez, et al. v. Dole Food Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6286 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 13, 2021) . Plaintiffs, a group of foreign nationals, brought suit alleging that multiple U.S. corporations exposed them to a toxic pesticide while they were working on banana plantations in Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Panama in the 1960s through the 1980s. Plaintiffs originally alleged that the Chiquita Defendants (“Chiquita”) were liable based upon Plaintiffs’ exposure to the pesticide in Costa Rica or Panama. Plaintiffs’ complaint generally alleged exposure to the pesticide in Ecuador on farms owned or controlled by other corporate Defendants. Chiquita denied under oath that it owned, operated, or otherwise controlled banana plantations in Ecuador during the relevant years at issue. Notwithstanding the lack of any direct allegation concerning Chiquita’s control or ownership of farms in Ecuador in the original complaint, Plaintiffs attempted to characterize its claims against Chiquita as involving injuries from exposure to pesticide sustained on banana plantations in Ecuador because of Chiquita’s participation and assistance in licensing of the pesticide and keeping it on the market. As such, Plaintiffs sought to subpoena documents underlying the publication of an article published in the Cincinnati Enquirer ("The Enquirer") as well as documents relating to lawsuits filed after the publication of the article that they maintained would help them prove claims relating to their Ecuadoran exposure attributable to Chiquita. In response, The Enquirer filed a motion to quash the subpoena which directed The Enquirer to appear and give testimony, and to produce 15 categories of documents that generally related to the investigative journalism article that was initially published, but was subsequently retracted by the newspaper. The Enquirer maintained that that the information sought by