Spearman v. Nelnet Servicing,LLC
4:22-cv-03191
| D. Neb. | Dec 12, 2024Background
- This case is a consolidated putative class action arising from an alleged data breach at Nelnet, a student loan servicer, with EdFinancial Services also named as a defendant.
- Plaintiffs reached a proposed nationwide class settlement covering all putative class members, including parties to similar litigation pending in the Western District of Oklahoma (the "Intervenors").
- The Intervenors previously moved to intervene to challenge the adequacy of the settlement and class representation, arguing potential collusion and insufficient notice to class members; the court permitted limited intervention previously only for jurisdictional objections.
- Intervenors renewed their motion, sought to file evidence under seal, and requested discovery concerning alleged collusion in the class settlement negotiation.
- The Court addressed multiple privilege and access issues concerning declarations referencing confidential mediation communications and resolved several procedural and discovery motions as part of its ruling on intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument (Nelnet) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of mediation evidence | Intervenors waived privilege by relying on mediation communications | Nelnet can invoke mediation privilege, refuses to waive | Privileged; Court will seal certain declarations |
| Right to intervene as of right | Intervenors not adequately represented due to collusion, poor strategy | No credible evidence of inadequate representation, just opinions | Intervention denied; no rebuttal of adequacy pres. |
| Request for permissive intervention | Need to intervene to challenge settlement and notice program | Intervenors' interests protected, delay prejudicial, no evidence | Denied; objections can be filed w/o intervention |
| Motion for limited discovery | Discovery needed to test for collusion in settlement process | No evidence of collusion to justify fishing expedition | Denied; no right to discovery absent evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- F.T.C. v. Johnson, 800 F.3d 448 (8th Cir. 2015) (adequacy of representation standard for intervention)
- Swinton v. SquareTrade, Inc., 960 F.3d 1001 (8th Cir. 2020) (representation adequate unless interests are adverse or collusion proven)
- Liddell v. Caldwell, 546 F.2d 768 (8th Cir. 1976) (absent class members must show more than dissatisfaction to intervene)
- Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1 (2002) (class members can object to settlements without intervention)