govinfo:USCOURTS-tnwd-2_24-cv-02749-1

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE 
WESTERN DIVISION 
 
 
KORINE BAILEY, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
 No. 2:24-cv-02749-TLP-tmp 
v. ) 
 ) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
JURY DEMAND 
SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT 
SERVICES, INC., 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
 
ORDER GRANTING CORRECTED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 
APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT 
 
 
Plaintiff Korine Bailey (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of herself and the proposed Settlement 
Class, asserts claims for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
1974 (“ERISA”) against Defendant Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. (ECF No. 
1.) The Parties have reached a Settlement, memorialized in an Agreement, which they signed. 
In her Corrected Motion1, Plaintiff moves, unopposed, for the Court to preliminarily approve the 
 
1AI is seemingly everywhere these days. As great as it is, it still makes significant mistakes. 
This is a cautionary tale about the use of artificial intelligence programs to draft legal documents. 
Plaintiff first filed a Motion that included citations to cases that did not exist or quotes that did 
not appear in real cases. (ECF No. 91.) The Court held a video status conference in which it 
voiced concerns that Plaintiff’s counsel used an AI tool to help draft its Motion. Plaintiff’s 
counsel agreed that these errors were most likely the result of the AI tool. Apparently that AI 
program hallucinated over some citations. As a result, the Court required Plaintiff’s counsel to 
correct the citations and submit a Corrected Motion. They did so. (ECF No. 94.) The Sixth 
Circuit has recently addressed the role of AI in the realm of litigation. That court imposed 
significant sanctions and pointed out that lawyers cannot outsource their ethical obligations to an 
AI program. In fact, the Sixth Circuit has sanctioned lawyers for doing just that. In United 
States v. Farris, the court noted the “baseline ethical obligations as they relate to the use of 
artificial intelligence.” 171 F.4
th 920, 922 (6th Cir. 2026). Even though this new technology 
holds great potential, the court explained that “all in the legal profession must be clear eyed 

PageID <pageID>
2 
 
Agreement so that they can send notice to the Settlement Class.2 (ECF No. 94.) 
Having considered Plaintiff’s Motion and the Agreement to determine whether the 
Settlement warrants notice to members of the proposed Settlement Class, the Court ORDERS, 
ADJUDGES, AND DECREES as follows: 
I. Jurisdiction 
The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action and over all Parties to 
this Action, including all Class Members. 
II. Class Findings 
The Court preliminarily finds, for purposes of the Settlement only, that the requirements 
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution, the Rules of the Court, 
and any other applicable law have been met as to the Settlement Class, in that: 
A. The Settlement Class is ascertainable from records kept with respect to 
the Sedgwick Welfare Benefits Plan (“Plan”) and from other objective 
criteria, and the Settlement Class is so many that their joinder before the 
Court would be impracticable. 
B. Based on allegations, the Court preliminarily finds that there are one or 
more questions of fact and/or law common to the Settlement Class. 
 
about technology’s potential pitfalls,” which “is especially critical in today’s rapidly evolving 
[AI] landscape.” Id. As the Farris court noted, Plaintiff’s counsel is reminded that a lawyer’s 
duty of competence requires one to keep up with “changes in the law and its practice” which 
includes “relevant technology.” Id. (quoting the Model Rules of Prof. Conduct. r.1.1 cmt. 8 
(A.B.A 2012.) So if counsel wants to use AI technology it “must do so in a manner consistent 
with their ethical obligations.” Id. at 922–23 (citing the compilation of state bar ethics rules and 
guidance on GAI found in A.B.A. Task Force on L. & A.I., Addressing the Legal Challenges of 
AI: Year 2 Report on the Impact of AI on the Practice of Law, 47–48 (2025)). In its discretion, 
the Court did not impose sanctions here. It likely could have. See Whiting v. City of Athens 
Tennessee, 170 F.4th 455, 461 (6th Cir. 2026) (“Citing even a single fake case can be 
sanctionable because ‘no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should 
contain any citations—whether provided by generative AI or any other source —that ’ a lawyer 
has not personally ‘read and verified.’”) (quoting Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., 114 
Cal.App.5th 426, 336 Cal. Rptr. 3d 897, 901 (2025)) (emphasis in original). The hope is that 
Plaintiff’s counsel has received the message. 
2 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Order will have the same meaning as in the 
Agreement. The “Settlement Class” is defined in this Order below. 

PageID <pageID>
3 
 
C. Based on allegations, the Court preliminarily finds that the claims of 
Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class. 
D. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the 
Settlement Class in that: (i) the interests of Plaintiff and the nature of 
her alleged claims track those of the Settlement Class; (ii) there are no 
significant conflicts between or among Plaintiff and the Settlement 
Class; and (iii) Plaintiff is represented by qualified, reputable counsel 
who are experienced in preparing and prosecuting ERISA class actions 
of this type. 
E. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the 
Settlement Class would create a risk of: (i) inconsistent or varying 
adjudications as to individual class members, that would establish 
incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the claims 
asserted in the Action; or (ii) adjudications as to individual class members 
that would, as a practical matter, resolve the interests of the other 
members not parties to the Action, or would substantially impair or 
impede those persons’ ability to protect their interests. 
III. Class Certification 
Based on the findings set out above, the Court PRELIMINARILY CERTIFIES the 
following Settlement Class for settlement purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 
23(b)(1), including all individuals satisfying the criteria below: 
A. The individual resides in the United States; and 
 
B. was a Plan participant or beneficiary at any point from October 8, 2018, 
through the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order; and 
 
C. paid a tobacco or nicotine surcharge in connection with their participation 
in the Plan from October 8, 2018, through the entry of the Preliminary 
Approval Order; and 
 
D. The individual was not fully reimbursed the tobacco or nicotine surcharge 
payments made from October 8, 2018, through the date of entry of the 
Preliminary Approval Order. 
The “Class Period” is October 8, 2018, through the date of this Order. 
The Court finds that the Settlement Class is sufficiently well-defined and cohesive to 
warrant certification as a non-opt-out class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(1). As required 

PageID <pageID>
4 
 
by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), the Court has considered: (i) the work Class Counsel has done in 
identifying or investigating potential claims; (ii) Class Counsel’s experience in handling class 
actions, other complex litigation, and claims of the type asserted here; (iii) Class Counsel’s 
knowledge of the applicable law and, in particular, its knowledge of ERISA as it applies to 
claims of the type asserted here; and (iv) the resources Class Counsel has committed to 
representing the Settlement Class. Based on these factors, the Court finds that Class Counsel has 
and will continue to represent fairly and adequately the interests of the Settlement Class. 
Accordingly, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(2) the Court preliminarily designates 
Siri & Glimstad LLP as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. 
As reflected above, the Court finds that Plaintiff is an adequate and typical class 
representative for the Settlement Class for settlement purposes and therefore appoints Plaintiff 
Korine Y. Bailey as the Representative of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes. 
The Court having determined preliminarily that this Action may proceed as a non-opt-out 
class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(1), the Settlement Class will be bound by any 
judgment concerning the Settlement, subject to the Court’s final determination about whether 
this case may proceed. 
IV. Preliminary Approval of Settlement 
The Court PRELIMINARILY APPROVES the Settlement as documented in the 
Agreement, as the Court preliminarily finds that: (a) the proposed Settlement resulted from 
arm’s-length negotiations; (b) the Agreement was executed only after Class Counsel had 
researched and investigated multiple legal and factual issues pertaining to Plaintiff’s claims; (c) 
there is a genuine controversy between the Parties involving Defendant’s compliance with the 
requirements of ERISA; (d) the Settlement appears on its face to be fair, reasonable, and 

PageID <pageID>
5 
 
adequate; and (e) the Settlement is sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to warrant sending 
notice to the Settlement Class. 
V. Plan of Allocation 
The Court preliminarily finds that the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and 
adequate. 
VI. Final Approval Hearing 
A hearing (“Final Approval Hearing”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) is scheduled to be 
held before the Court on October 9, 2026, at 9 a.m. in Courtroom 2, 11th Floor, at the Odell 
Horton Federal Building, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, TN 38103, to determine finally, 
among other things: 
A. Whether the Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and 
adequate; 
B. Whether the Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 
23, and should be finally certified as preliminarily found by the Court; 
C. Whether the litigation should be dismissed with prejudice under the 
Agreement; 
D. Whether the Final Approval Order attached to the Agreement should be 
entered and whether the Released Parties should be released of and from 
the Released Claims, as provided in the Agreement; 
E. Whether the notice and notice methodology implemented pursuant to the 
Agreement (i) were reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to 
apprise the Class of the pendency of the litigation, their right to object to 
the Settlement, and their right to appear at the Final Approval Hearing; (ii) 
were reasonable and constituted due, adequate, and sufficient notice to all 
persons entitled to notice; and (iii) met all applicable requirements of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any other applicable law; 
F. Whether Class Counsel adequately represents the Settlement Class for 
entering into and implementing the Agreement as required by Fed. R. Civ. 
P. 23(g) and as preliminarily found by the Court; 
G. Whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Amount is 

PageID <pageID>
6 
 
fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the Court; 
H. Whether the Settlement has been negotiated at arm’s length by Class 
Counsel on behalf of the Plan and the Settlement Class, whether Plaintiff 
has acted independently, whether Plaintiff’s interests are identical to the 
interests of the Plan and the Settlement Class, and whether the negotiations 
and consummation of the Settlement by Plaintiff on behalf of the Plan and 
the Settlement Class do not constitute “prohibited transactions” as defined 
by ERISA §§ 406(a) or (b), including whether Prohibited Transaction 
Exemption 2003-39 or another class exemption from the prohibited 
transaction rules applies; 
I. Whether the application for attorneys’ fees and costs to be filed by Class 
Counsel should be approved; 
J. Whether a case contribution award should be awarded to Plaintiff; and 
K. Any other issues necessary for approval of the Settlement. 
VII. Class Notice 
The Parties have presented to the Court a proposed Settlement Notice, which is attached 
to the Agreement as Exhibit A. The Court APPROVES the form and content of the Settlement 
Notice finding that it fairly and adequately : (1) describes the terms and effect of the Agreement 
and of the Settlement; (2) gives notice to the Settlement Class of the time and place of the 
Final Approval Hearing; and (3) describes how the recipients of the Settlement Notice may 
object to approval of the Settlement. The Parties have proposed sending the Settlement Notice 
to Class Members via U.S. Mail, and the Court finds that is adequate. By no later than sixty 
(60) calendar days before the Final Approval Hearing, Plaintiff will cause the Settlement Notice, 
with such non-substantive modifications as may be agreed upon by the Parties, to be 
disseminated via U.S. Mail to the last known address of each member of the Settlement Class 
who can be identified by reasonable effort. At or before the Final Approval Hearing, Class 
Counsel will file with the Court proof of timely compliance with this mailing requirement. 
 

PageID <pageID>
7 
 
VIII. Objections to Settlement 
“Objector” means any member of the Settlement Class who wishes to object to the 
fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement, to the Plan of Allocation, to any term of 
the Agreement, to the proposed case contribution awards, or to the proposed award of attorneys’ 
fees and costs. Any Objector must file with the Court a statement of his, her, or its objection(s), 
specifying the reason(s), if any, for each such objection made, including any legal support or 
evidence that such Objector wishes to bring to the Court’s attention or introduce in support of 
such objection. Any objection must be signed by the Settlement Class member. The Objector 
must also mail the objection and all supporting law and evidence to counsel for the Parties, as 
stated below. The addresses for filing objections with the Court and service on counsel are: 
COURT CLERK 
Clerk of the Court 
U.S. District Court, Western District of 
Tennessee 
Odell Horton Federal Building 
167 North Main Street 
Memphis, TN 38103 
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL 
Oren Faircloth 
Siri & Glimstad 
100 Pearl Street, 14th Floor 
#16946876 
Hartford, CT 06103 
DEFENDANT’S 
COUNSEL 
Blake Crohan 
Alston & Bird, LLP 
1201 W Peachtree Street 
Atlanta, GA 30309 
 
 
The Objector, or, if represented by counsel, his, her, or its counsel, must both effect 
service of the objection on counsel listed above and file the objection with the Court at least 
fourteen (14) calendar days before the Final Approval Hearing. Any Settlement Class member 
or other person who does not timely file and serve a written objection complying with the terms 
of this paragraph will be deemed to have waived, and will be foreclosed from raising, any 
objection to the Settlement and any untimely objection will be barred. 
IX. Appearance at Final Approval Hearing 
An Objector who files and serves a timely, written objection in accordance with the 
paragraph above may also appear at the Final Approval Hearing either in person or through 
counsel retained at the Objector’s expense. Objectors or their attorneys intending to appear at the 

PageID <pageID>
8 
 
Final Approval Hearing must effect service of a “Notice of Intention to Appear” setting forth, 
among other things, the name, address, and telephone number of the Objector (and, if applicable, 
the name, address, and telephone number of the Objector’s attorney). The Notice of Intention to 
Appear must be filed with the Court and provided to Class Counsel and Defendant’s counsel at 
least fourteen (14) calendar days before the Final Approval Hearing. Any Objector who does not 
timely file and serve a “Notice of Intention to Appear” in accordance with this paragraph shall 
not be permitted to appear at the Final Approval Hearing, except for good cause shown. The 
Parties’ counsel shall promptly furnish each other with copies of all Objections and Notices of 
Intention to Appear that come into their possession. 
X. Response to Objectors 
The Parties will respond to any Objector at least seven (7) calendar days before the Final 
Approval Hearing. 
XI. Compliance with Class Action Fairness Act 
Defendant shall, on or before ten (10) calendar days before the Final Approval Hearing, 
file with the Court proof of compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, as specified 
in 28 U.S.C. § 1715. 
XII. Notice Expenses 
Reasonable expenses for carrying out Class Notice will be paid out of the Gross 
Settlement Amount from the Qualified Settlement Fund. 
XIII. Fees and Expenses Incurred by the Independent Fiduciary and Settlement 
Administrator 
 
The Court understands that Defendant has retained or will retain an Independent 
Fiduciary to evaluate the Settlement to determine whether to authorize the Settlement on behalf 
of the Plan. The fees and expenses incurred by the Independent Fiduciary (including fees and 

PageID <pageID>
9 
 
expenses incurred by consultants, attorneys, and other professionals retained or employed by the 
Independent Fiduciary) in evaluating and authorizing the Settlement on behalf of the Plan 
(defined as the “Independent Fiduciary Fees” in the Agreement), will be paid out of the Gross 
Settlement Amount from the Qualified Settlement Fund. The expenses incurred by the 
Settlement Administrator in administering the Settlement and allocating the Qualified Settlement 
Fund pursuant to the Plan of Allocation approved by the Court, including any payable expenses 
of the Settlement Administrator, shall also be paid out of the Gross Settlement Amount. 
XIV. Application for Attorneys’ Fees 
Any application by Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses, for 
case contribution awards to the Plaintiff, and all papers in support thereof, must be filed with the 
Court and served on all counsel of record at least forty-five (45) calendar days before the Final 
Approval Hearing. 
XV. Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Plan of Allocation 
Class Counsel must file with the Court a motion for entry of the Final Approval Order 
and approval of the Plan of Allocation at least thirty (30) calendar days before the Final 
Approval Hearing. 
XVI. Certification of Compliance 
At or before the Final Approval Hearing, the Parties must file a proof of mailing the Class 
Notice and a statement of the Administrator’s compliance with the terms of the Agreement, from 
the Administrator. 
XVII. Injunction 
Pending final determination of whether the Settlement should be approved, the Court 
ENJOINS Plaintiff, all Class Members, including their respective heirs, beneficiaries, executors, 

PageID <pageID>
10 
 
administrators, estates, past and present partners, officers, directors, agents, predecessors, 
successors, and assigns, and the Plan from instituting or prosecuting any action that asserts any 
Released Claim against any of the Released Parties. 
XVII. Termination of Settlement 
If the Settlement is terminated in accordance with the Settlement Agreement or does 
not become Final under the terms of the Settlement Agreement for any other reason, this Order 
and all class findings the Court has made will become null and void and shall be without 
prejudice to the rights of the Parties, all of whom will be restored to their respective positions 
existing just before this Court entered this Order. 
XVIII. Use of Order 
In the event this Order becomes of no force or effect, no part of it will be construed or 
used as an admission, concession, or declaration by or against Defendant of any fault, 
wrongdoing, breach, or liability, nor will the Order be construed or used as an admission, 
concession, or declaration by or against Plaintiff or the Settlement Class that their claims lack 
merit or that the relief requested in the Action is inappropriate, improper, or unavailable, or as a 
waiver by any party of any defenses or claims he, she, or it may have. 
XIX. Continuance of Final Approval Hearing 
The Court reserves the right to continue the Final Approval Hearing, or to hold the Final 
Approval Hearing by remote means, without further written notice. 
SO ORDERED, this 8th day of June, 2026. 
s/Thomas L. Parker 
THOMAS L. PARKER 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
 

PageID <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight