Court filing
ORDER re 241 Supplemental Briefing and/or Evidence — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 246)
No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC · Doc. 246 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 246 Filed 09/16/24 Page 1 of 6
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 CAT BROOKS, et al., Case No. 21-cv-01418-EMC
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL
9 v. BRIEFING AND/OR EVIDENCE
10 THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,
et al., Docket No. 241
11
Defendant.
12
United States District Court
13
14 The Court has reviewed the motion for preliminary approval and hereby orders the parties
15 to file a joint supplemental brief (including any supporting evidence) addressing the issues
Northern District of California
16 identified below. If a party does not have a comment to make on a given issue, it may so state.
17 The supplemental brief shall be filed by September 23, 2024.
18 A. Size of the Class
19 The parties indicate that the size of the class is estimated to be about 40 million people.
20 However, in a declaration submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel, counsel states that the “closest
21 approximation is likely to be orders of magnitude larger than the actual class size.” Co-Lead
22 Counsel Decl. ¶ 5. Do the parties have any more concrete information as to how much smaller the
23 actual class size may be – e.g., it is likely closer to 20 million? 30 million?
24 B. Net Settlement Fund and Average Award
25 The gross settlement fund is $27.5 million. See Sett. Agmt. § IX.1. To get to the amount
26 of the net settlement fund, deductions must be made for attorneys’ fees, expenses, service awards,
27 and settlement administration costs. See Sett. Agmt. § I.27. Based on the papers, the deductions
28 are as follows:
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 246 Filed 09/16/24 Page 2 of 6
1 • $9,075,000 for attorneys’ fees.
2 • $700,000 for expenses.
3 • $469,000 (estimated) for settlement administration costs.
4 • $10,000 for service awards ($5,000 for each Plaintiff).
5 Thus, it appears that the net settlement fund will be approximately $17,246,000. Is this correct?
6 What is the number of expected claimants on the net settlement fund? The Court
7 understands that the claims rate is estimated to be 1-2.5%, see Mot. at 26, but as noted above, the
8 class size seems to be somewhat vague.
9 Do the parties have any views on the anticipated average award per claimant? (The Court
10 understands that this will turn on the number of claimants.)
11 C. Injunctive Relief
12 The settlement agreement provides that the injunctive relief is limited to four years. Is
United States District Court
13 there a reason for this time limitation? If so, what is it?
14 D. Monetary Relief
15 The settlement agreement provides that each claiming class member will “receive a pro-
Northern District of California
16 rata share of the net settlement fund.” Mot. at 13; see also Sett. Agmt. § X.1. Is there any
17 indication that a notable number of class members may have unique or atypical damages? If so, is
18 the expectation that such a class member(s) would exercise their right to opt out?
19 E. Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses
20 The settlement agreement provides that attorney fees of $9.075 million (33% of the gross
21 settlement fund) and expenses up to $700,000 may be requested. The Court recognizes that
22 Plaintiffs intend to file a motion for fees and expenses should preliminary approval be granted.
23 However, as part of the Court’s assessment at preliminary approval, it needs more information
24 about fees and expenses.
25 • What is Plaintiffs’ counsel’s estimated lodestar and how much of a multiplier will
26 be sought? Counsel should also provide information about hourly rates and hours
27 incurred – the total number of hours and a breakdown of how much time was spent
28 on each major litigation task.
2
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 246 Filed 09/16/24 Page 3 of 6
1 • Under the percentage method approach to fees, is it common for a percentage of
2 33% to be awarded where the gross settlement fund is tens of millions of dollars as
3 here (even if not a megafund per se)? Cf. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d
4 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (in appendix, suggesting that a megafund could be in the
5 range of $50 million). In this regard, the Court notes that attorneys’ fees were
6 limited to 25% in the analogous cases cited by Plaintiffs in Exhibit 2 to the Co-
7 Lead Counsel Declaration. See Co-Lead Counsel Decl., Ex. 2 (citing cases where
8 gross settlement funds were $23 million and $13 million respectively).
9 • As for costs, what is a rough breakdown of the costs incurred? Does the primary
10 source of costs come from experts?
11 • The motion for preliminary approval indicates that the attorneys’ fees (and
12 expenses) will be paid shortly after approval (i.e., there will be a “quick pay”). See
United States District Court
13 Sett. Agmt. § XIII.2 (providing that fees and expenses will be paid within 7 days).
14 Should the Court hold back at least a portion of the fees so that it can assess what
15 the actual claims rate is?
Northern District of California
16 F. Settlement Administration Costs
17 Settlement administration costs are estimated to be $469,000. See Mot. at 36; Weisbrot
18 Decl. ¶ 56. Can the parties explain the reason for this high amount of costs? Such information
19 may be submitted under seal. See Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 56 (stating that “[t]he pricing details
20 comprising the administration cost estimate are competitively sensitive” but that “Angeion will
21 provide its itemized estimate to the Court” if requested).
22 G. Means of Notice
23 The Court has several follow-up questions regarding the means of notice.
24 • The means of notice is largely digital in nature. Should there be some kind of
25 publication notice as well in recognition that all class members may not use
26 computers or use them in such a way that they would be exposed to the proposed
27 media campaign? Cf. Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 29 (testifying that “members of the Target
28 Audience” for programmatic display advertising “are heavy internet users,
3
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 246 Filed 09/16/24 Page 4 of 6
1 spending an average of 30.1 hours per week on the internet”).
2 • The class is defined as those who lived in California during a set period of time.
3 Can the parties provide more information as to how people who moved away from
4 California will get notice if the target audience is primarily California residents?
5 • A settlement website will be maintained, with copies of the long-form notice
6 available in English and Spanish. See Mot. at 4. Should the notice be available in
7 other languages given the diverse population in California?
8 H. Filing of Claim
9 The settlement agreement provides that, if a class member submits both a claim form and
10 opt out, the opt out will be deemed invalid and the class member will be considered a claimant.
11 See Sett. Agmt. § VII.3. Why should the presumption not run the other way? Compare Sett.
12 Agmt. § VIII.8 (providing that, if a class member both objects and opts out, the class member will
United States District Court
13 be deemed to have opted out). Could the settlement administrator contact class members to clear
14 up any conflicts?
15 I. Language of Class Notice
Northern District of California
16 1. Weisbrot Decl., Ex. B – Long-Form Class Notice
17 • Page 1. In the second box, can a statement be made about an average award (i.e.,
18 more than just “You may be entitled to money”)?
19 • Page 3. The first section “Why did I get this notice” should reiterate that monetary
20 relief is available. As above, can a statement be made about an average award?
21 • Page 3. For the section “What do I do next,” the “Object” option should make
22 clear that: (1) a person who objects still remains in the class and (2) a person who
23 objects must still submit a claim form if they want to partake in the monetary relief.
24 • Page 5. In the section “What happens next in this lawsuit,” the following sentence
25 should be bolded: “The date of the hearing may change without further notice to
26 members of the class.”
27 • Page 5. In the section “What does the settlement provide,” there should be an
28 introductory sentencing making clear that both injunctive relief and monetary relief
4
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 246 Filed 09/16/24 Page 5 of 6
1 are available. In addition, the maximum dollar amount for attorneys’ fees should
2 be expressly stated. Finally, as above, can a statement be made about an average
3 award?
4 • Page 6. In the section “How much will my payment be,” can a statement be made
5 about an average award?
6 • Page 6. In the section “How do I weigh my options,” there should be a statement
7 making clear that (1) a person who objects still remains in the class and (2) a
8 person who objects must still submit a claim form if they want to partake in the
9 monetary relief. The flow chart should also be corrected to reflect such.
10 • Page 8. In the section “Do I have to pay the lawyers in this lawsuit,” the dollar
11 amount of expenses should be expressly stated.
12 • Page 9. In the section “What if I don’t want to be part of this settlement,” there
United States District Court
13 should be a clarification that opt outs can also be made online.
14 • Page 9. In the section “What if I disagree with the settlement,” there should be a
15 statement making clear that (1) a person who objects still remains in the class and
Northern District of California
16 (2) a person who objects must still submit a claim form if they want to partake in
17 the monetary relief.
18 • Pages 7, 9. In the sections “How do I get a payment if I am a class member,”
19 “What if I don’t want to be part of this settlement,” and “What if I disagree with the
20 settlement,” there should be clear statements as to when claims must be submitted,
21 requests for exclusion made, and objections filed. Also, how many days are class
22 members given to respond to the notice? See Prop. Order ¶ 6 (stating that the
23 Response Deadline shall be 56 days from issuance of the order); Prop. Order ¶ 15
24 (stating that dissemination of notice shall begin within 7 days of the issuance of the
25 order).
26 2. Weisbrot Decl., Ex. C – Claim Form
27 • Is there a reason why the claim form requires a claimant to provide their exact
28 address in California where they lived? Can there simply be the attestation (at the
5
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 246 Filed 09/16/24 Page 6 of 6
1 bottom of the form) that they lived in California during the relevant period?
2 3. Weisbrot Decl., Ex. D – Exclusion Form
3 • Should there be a note reminding class members who opt out that they can also
4 submit the request for exclusion online?
5 4. Weisbrot Decl., Ex. E – Sample Digital Ads
6 • Sample digital ads have been provided. Can the ads be modified so that they say
7 more than just “a class action settlement may affect your rights”? In particular, the
8 ads should reflect that monetary relief is available – and ideally, an estimate of an
9 average award.
10 J. Proposed Order
11 • ¶ 7. Does the reference to a class of “approximately 40 million individuals” need
12 to be modified or tempered?
United States District Court
13 • ¶ 27. Can specific dates be provided to the Court for deadlines?
14 • Do any provisions in the Proposed Order need to be modified given the Court’s
15 statements above?
Northern District of California
16
17 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19 Dated: September 16, 2024
20
21 ______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
22 United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.374304.246.0.pdf
- Size
- 127,646 bytes
- SHA-256
- 908034d97afc254007fc0a7378275fdb296007ec527cab16210f72e3b2bc917a
- Original
- PACER (login required)