Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:O4—cv-01488-JJF Document 19 Filed O3/24/2005 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ROBERT V. TOWNES, IV, individually and )
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, )
Plaintiffs, g
V· i C.A. No. 04-1488 (HF)
) Putative Class Action
TRANSUNION, LLC and TRUELTNK, INC., )
Defendants. i

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM COUNSEL
Defendants Trans Union, LLC and TrueLink, Inc. ("Defendants"), hereby submit
their Response to Plaintiff s Motion for Appointment of Interim Counsel.
The primary basis for Plaintiffs motion for appointment of his counsel as interim
counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the existence of
an action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Rosser v.
T rueLz'nk, [nc. and T mns Union, LLC Case No. 2:05-cv-00245-LSC. That action sues on behalf
of a putative class similar to the proposed class, and naming the same defendants, as in this
action under the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act (“CROA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1679 et seq.
Neither of the two law firms representing plaintiff here are counsel for plaintiffs in the Rosser v.
T rueLin/q Inc. action. Plaintiff’ s supporting memorandum contends that designation of his
counsel as interim counsel will eliminate "uncertainties" in the leadership of attomeys seeking to
represent the putative class created by tiling of Rosser v. T rueLink, Inc.. However, since the
time plaintiff has filed his Motion to Appoint Interim Counsel, plaintiff in the Rosser v.
T meLink, Inc. on March 16, 2005, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action pursuant to

Case 1:04-cv-01488-JJF Document 19 Filed O3/24/2005 Page 2 of 3
Rule 4l(a)(l) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Notice of Dismissal attached as
Exhibit A). Therefore, the stated basis for appointment of any counsel as interim counsel no
longer exists.
A court may properly decide not to appoint interim class counsel. See Rule
23(g)(2)(A) ("The court g designate interim counsel to act on behalf of the putative class
before determining whether the certified action is a class action") (emphasis added). Due to
voluntary dismissal of Rosser v. TrueLinlq Inc., the specter of competing class counsel in
different actions is, at least for now, abated.
Defendants, however, recognize the potential efficiency and other benefits to
having one law firm represent the interests of the putative class. Given that there apparently
exists no other law firms which seek to represent the putative class, in the event the Court
determines that the appointment of interim counsel is justified, the appointment of one of
plaintiffs law firms here as interim counsel would seem appropriated Defendants, however,
reserve their right to oppose any later motion for class certification or for appointment of
plaintiffs counsel as permanent class counsel.
I Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint both law firms representing plaintiffs. However,
as evidenced by the signature page of the motion itself no less than eight lawyers in four
cities purport to represent plaintiff and apparently seek appointment pursuant to Rule
23(g)(2)(A). In order to achieve the efficiency and cost reduction by the appointment of
interim counsel, Defendants suggest that no more than two attorneys with one firm be
appointed.
2

Case 1:04-cv-01488-JJF Document 19 Filed O3/24/2005 Page 3 of 3
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
William M. Lafferty (#2 (_
Erika Y. Tross (#4506)
1201 N. Market Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
(302) 658-9200
Attorneys for Defendants
OF COUNSEL:
Michael O’Neil
Roger L. Longtin
Jacob W. Harrell
DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP
203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1800
Chicago, IL 60601-1293
(312) 368-4000
March 24, 2005
457108
3