Court filing
Supplemental Brief PARTIES JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 250)
No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC · Doc. 250 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 1 of 20
1 Andre M. Mura (SBN 298541) Geoffrey A. Graber (SBN 211547)
Ezekiel S. Wald (SBN 341490) Karina G. Puttieva (SBN 317702)
2
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
3 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 PLLC
Oakland, CA 94607 1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
4
Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Washington, DC 20005
5 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 Telephone: (202) 408-4600
amm@classlawgroup.com Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
6 ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
zsw@classlawgroup.com
7 kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com
8
9
10
11
12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
13
14
15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
17
CAT BROOKS and RASHEED Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
18 SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf
19 of all others similarly situated, PARTIES’ JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY
20 Plaintiffs, APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT
21
v.
22 Date: October 9, 2024
THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION, Time: 9:30 a.m.
23 Place: Courtroom 5, 17th Floor
24 Defendant. Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
25
26
27
28
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 2 of 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Page
2
Size of the Class. .......................................................................................................................... 1
3
Net Settlement Fund and Average Award.............................................................................. 1
4 Injunctive Relief........................................................................................................................... 2
5 Monetary Relief. .......................................................................................................................... 3
6 Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses. (Plaintiffs’ Statement) .......................................................... 3
7 Settlement Administration Costs. ............................................................................................. 7
8 Means of Notice........................................................................................................................... 7
9 Filing of Claim. ............................................................................................................................ 9
Language of Class Notice. ......................................................................................................... 9
10
Proposed Order. ........................................................................................................................ 13
11
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................... 14
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
i
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 3 of 20
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
Cases Page(s)
2
3 Andrews v. Plains All Am. Pipeline L.P.,
No. CV154113PSGJEMX, 2022 WL 4453864 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2022) ......................................... 5
4
Bozarth v. Envision Healthcare Corporation,
5
Case No. 5:17-cv-1935-FMO, 2019 WL 11790426 (C.D. Cal. 2019) ................................................ 9
6
Campbell v. Facebook, Inc.,
7 951 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................................... 3
8
In re Google Referrer Header Priv. Litig.,
9 No. 5:10-CV-04809-EJD, 2023 WL 6812545 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2023) ............................................ 4
10 In re Uber FCRA Litig.,
11 No. 14-cv-05200-EMC, 2017 WL 2806698 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2017) ............................................. 3
12 In re Zoom Video Comms., Inc. Privacy Litig.,
No. 20-cv-02155-LB, 2022 WL 1593389 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2022) ................................................. 3
13
14 In re: Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig.,
No. 16-MD-02752-LHK, 2020 WL 4212811 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2020) ............................................ 3
15
Perkins v. Linkedin Corp.,
16
No. 13-CV-04303-LHK, 2016 WL 613255 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2016) ............................................... 4
17
Reyes v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,
18 856 F. App’x 108 (9th Cir. 2021) ......................................................................................................... 3
19
Senne v. Concepcion,
20 No. 23-15632, 2023 WL 4824938 (9th Cir. June 28, 2023) ................................................................ 5
21 Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp.,
22 No. 14-CV-00608 JCS, 2023 WL 2699972 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2023) .............................................. 5
23 Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,
290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................................... 4, 5
24
25 Other Authorities
26 U.S. Census Bureau, S0701, Geographic Mobility by Selected Characteristics in the United States,
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2022.S0701?g=040XX00US06..................................... 1
27
28
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
ii
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 4 of 20
1 Pursuant to this Court’s order requesting supplemental briefing, ECF No. 246, Plaintiffs
2 Brooks and Shabazz and Defendant Thomson Reuters respectfully submit answers to the
3 Court’s questions, as supported by a declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion Group, which
4 is being filed concurrently (“Weisbrot Decl.”).
5 Size of the Class.
6 Question: “Do the parties have any more concrete information as to how much smaller
7 [than 40 million] the actual class size may be—e.g., it is likely closer to 20 million? 30 million?”
8 ECF No. 246 at 1.
9 Answer: The class size is approximately 40 million individuals, based on discovery and
10 judicially noticed census data. ECF No. 213 (“Cert. Order”) at 15-16. 1
11 The discussion in Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel Declaration about “orders of magnitude,”
12 which the Court highlighted, was attempting to explain that this estimate of the class size
13 cannot be derived from CLEAR itself. That is because it is not possible to export from CLEAR
14 a list of individuals who resided in California since 2016. The CLEAR database includes non-
15 class members such as deceased persons, duplicates, and businesses. Any list that is exported
16 would not be representative of the class—it would be orders-of-magnitude larger.
17 Net Settlement Fund and Average Award.
18 Questions: The Court asked three questions related to the net settlement fund and
19 average award.
20 1. “[I]t appears that the net settlement fund will be approximately $17,246,000. Is
21 this correct?” ECF No. 246 at 3.
22 Answer: The net settlement fund has been revised to be approximately $19,430,881. See
23 Weisbrot Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9. As discussed more fully below, this difference reflects that Plaintiffs
24 have clarified that they will seek 25% of the gross settlement fund in attorneys’ fees—the
25 previous calculation was based on language in the notice indicating that Plaintiffs would not
26 seek more than 33% and thus was calculated based on the maximum percentage allowable
27
1 U.S. Census Bureau, S0701, Geographic Mobility by Selected Characteristics in the United
28 States, https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2022.S0701?g=040XX00US06.
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
1
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 5 of 20
1 under the circumstances. Plaintiffs have also provided additional detail regarding expenses.
2 There is also a marginal increase in the estimated cost of notice and administration
3 (approximately $15,000) to incorporate publication notice and additional translations. Id. ¶ 9.
4 2. “What is the number of expected claimants on the net settlement fund? The Court
5 understands that the claims rate is estimated to be 1-2.5%, see Mot. at 26, but as
6 noted above, the class size seems to be somewhat vague.” ECF No. 246 at 3.
7 Answer: Having clarified that the class size is indeed approximately 40 million
8 individuals, the number of estimated claimants is between 400,000 (1% claims rate) and
9 1,000,000 (2.5% claims rate). Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 6.
10 3. “Do the parties have any views on the anticipated average award per claimant?
11 (The Court understands that this will turn on the number of claimants.)”
12 Answer: Assuming a claims rate of 1% to 2.5%, after fees, costs, and expenses, the
13 estimated average award per claimant is between $19.43 (2.5% claims rate) and $48.78 (1%
14 claims rate). Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 7.
15 Injunctive Relief.
16 Question: “The settlement agreement provides that the injunctive relief is limited to four
17 years. Is there a reason for this time limitation? If so, what is it?” ECF No. 246 at 2.
18 Answer: The four-year period was the product of informed and reasoned negotiations
19 between the parties, as mediated by the Honorable Layn Phillips (ret.). Both parties
20 acknowledge that Thomson Reuters designs and operates CLEAR while closely tracking how
21 it may be impacted by a confluence of state and federal laws that are changing annually,
22 including the California Consumer Privacy Act, the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, the
23 Gramm-Leach Bliley Act, and various state data brokering laws. CLEAR, as a complex
24 technology product, is under constant evolution to account for these laws and to stay relevant
25 in a competitive business environment. The four-year limitation is intended to provide
26 meaningful benefits to the class while acknowledging that CLEAR may need to change to
27 account for a currently unknown legal landscape in the 2030s.
28 The four-year period of relief is meaningful as comparable approved settlements
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
2
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 6 of 20
1 provide for even shorter periods of injunctive relief. See, e.g., Campbell v. Facebook, Inc., 951 F.3d
2 1106, 1123 (9th Cir. 2020) (affirming approval of class settlement whereby Facebook would
3 display a disclosure on its Help Center page for one year); In re Uber FCRA Litig., No. 14-cv-
4 05200-EMC, 2017 WL 2806698, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2017) (approving of injunctive relief
5 expiring one year after final approval); In re Zoom Video Comms., Inc. Privacy Litig., No. 20-cv-
6 02155-LB, 2022 WL 1593389 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2022) (approving three year injunctive relief
7 period); In re: Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., No. 16-MD-02752-LHK, 2020 WL
8 4212811, at *10 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2020) (granting final approval to settlement whereby Yahoo
9 would increase its information security budgets and staffing for a 2-3 year period); see also ECF
10 No. 239-02, at 12 (compiling additional cases with injunctive periods below four years).
11 Monetary Relief.
12 Question: “Is there any indication that a notable number of class members may have
13 unique or atypical damages?” ECF No. 246 at 2.
14 Answer: The Court previously determined that class members are “harmed in the same
15 way.” ECF No. 222, at 22.
16 Question: “If so, is the expectation that such a class member(s) would exercise their right
17 to opt out?” ECF No. 246 at 2.
18 Answer: Not applicable, based on the answer above.
19 Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses. (Plaintiffs’ Statement)
20 Question: “What is Plaintiffs’ counsel’s estimated lodestar and how much of a multiplier
21 will be sought?” ECF No. 246 at 2.
22 Answer: Plaintiffs’ counsel’s estimated lodestar is approximately $5,486,683.00, and this
23 reflects the work of Gibbs Law Group LLP, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and Gupta
24 Wessler LLP. A fee request of 25% of the gross settlement fund ($6,875,000) reflects a multiplier
25 of 1.25. See, e.g., Reyes v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 856 F. App’x 108, 111 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining
26 that a settlement fund of approximately $24 million should not be considered a “megafund,” a
27 term that “usually” refers to “settlements exceeding $100 million,” and indicating that a fee
28 award of 25% at a 2.88 multiplier would be in line with those “routinely approved by this court”
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
3
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 7 of 20
1 (citing Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043, 1051 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming 25% fee recovery
2 at 3.65 multiplier, and explaining that that multiplier “was within the range of multipliers
3 applied in common fund cases”))); see also In re Google Referrer Header Priv. Litig., No. 5:10-CV-
4 04809-EJD, 2023 WL 6812545, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2023) (awarding 25% of $23,000,000 at
5 1.85 multiplier); Perkins v. Linkedin Corp., No. 13-CV-04303-LHK, 2016 WL 613255, at *15 (N.D.
6 Cal. Feb. 16, 2016) (awarding 25% of $13,000,000 at 1.45 multiplier).
7 Question: “Counsel should also provide information about hourly rates and hours
8 incurred – the total number of hours and a breakdown of how much time was spent on each
9 major litigation task.” ECF No. 246 at 2.
10 Answer: For Gibbs Law Group, partner hourly rates range from $730 to $915; counsel
11 hourly rates range from $795 to $850; associate hourly rates range from $445 to $665; and
12 litigation assistants’ rates range from $220 to $240. 2 For Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, partner
13 hourly rates range from $980 to $1050; associate hourly rates are $675; investigator hourly rates
14 are $645; and paralegal hourly rates are $380. For Gupta Wessler, hourly rates range from $800
15 (associate) to $1,100 (principal).
16 The total number of hours incurred across all three firms is 8,703.75.
17 A breakdown of hours on each major litigation task is:
18 Task Sum of Hours
19 Case Investigation and Pleadings 131.10
20 Motion to Dismiss 215.60
21 Fact Discovery 4,157.55
22 Expert Discovery 1,850.62
23 Class Certification 1,509.98
24 Settlement and Approval 838.90
25 Grand Total: 8,703.75
26
2 Contract attorneys assisted with document review, and their total time was 1,444.40
27
hours. Plaintiffs’ counsel excluded these hours from the lodestar reporting above because, in
28 their view, the benchmark fee request is reasonable regardless.
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
4
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 8 of 20
1 Plaintiffs’ counsel anticipates additional work in support of settlement approval and will
2 update this information accordingly in their motion for attorneys’ fees, along with
3 “declarations of class counsel as to the number of hours spent on various categories of activities
4 related to the action by each biller, together with hourly billing rate information.” N.D. Cal.
5 Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, Final Approval – Attorneys’ Fees.
6 Question: “Under the percentage method approach to fees, is it common for a
7 percentage of 33% to be awarded where the gross settlement fund is tens of millions of dollars
8 as here (even if not a megafund per se)? Cf. Vizcaino, 290 F.3d 1043 (in appendix, suggesting
9 that a megafund could be in the range of $50 million). In this regard, the Court notes that
10 attorneys’ fees were limited to 25% in the analogous cases cited by Plaintiffs in Exhibit 2 to the
11 Co-Lead Counsel Declaration. See Co-Lead Counsel Decl., Ex. 2 (citing cases where gross
12 settlement funds were $23 million and $13 million respectively).” ECF No. 246 at 3.
13 Answer: The proposed notice and Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval indicated
14 that Plaintiffs would not seek more than 33% of the gross settlement funds. Plaintiffs have
15 revised the notice to provide the specific percentage that they will seek—25% of the gross
16 settlement funds—rather than the maximum percentage that would be allowed under the
17 circumstances. E.g., Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., No. 14-CV-00608 JCS, 2023 WL
18 2699972, at *20 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2023) (33% and $55,500,000 award), aff’d sub nom. Senne v.
19 Concepcion, No. 23-15632, 2023 WL 4824938 (9th Cir. June 28, 2023); Andrews v. Plains All Am.
20 Pipeline L.P., No. CV154113PSGJEMX, 2022 WL 4453864, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2022) (32%
21 and $73.6 million award).
22 Question: “As for costs, what is a rough breakdown of the costs incurred? Does the
23 primary source of costs come from experts?” ECF No. 246 at 3.
24 Answer: Yes, the primary source of costs come from experts. The second comes from
25 DISCO, a discovery platform, and consists primarily of costs associated with storing the large
26 volumes of data at issue in this case. After the close of fact discovery, Plaintiffs archived large
27 portions of data to minimize these costs, but preserving data in “warm” storage for review
28 incurred substantial expense. The third largest expense is associated with mediation, which
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
5
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 9 of 20
1 was protracted.
2 Plaintiffs’ current breakdown of costs (which they will update in their motion if
3 necessary) is:
4
5 Total Accounting Expenses
Discovery Vendor $ 181,001.90
6
Experts $ 268,033.75
7 Mediation $ 106,853.00
8 Westlaw / Case Research $ 25,994.42
Depositions $ 57,334.97
9 Copying and service delivery charges $ 4,052.55
10 Travel & hotels $ 21,971.21
11 Filing, Pacer, and document download fees $ 456.08
Meals $ 2,140.67
12 Total $ 667,838.55
13 Anticipated Final Discovery Vendor Invoices $ 18,000.00
Anticipated Total $ 685,838.55
14
15 In the proposed notice, Plaintiffs estimated that they would not seek more than $700k.
16 That projection reflects that there may be additional costs as the parties proceed through
17 settlement. For example, the final two rows of the table above reflect Plaintiffs’ anticipated
18 remaining costs for their discovery vendor, which have not yet been billed.
19 Question: “The motion for preliminary approval indicates that the attorneys’ fees (and
20 expenses) will be paid shortly after approval (i.e., there will be a “quick pay”). See Sett. Agmt.
21 § XIII.2 (providing that fees and expenses will be paid within 7 days). Should the Court hold
22 back at least a portion of the fees so that it can assess what the actual claims rate is?” ECF No.
23 246 at 3.
24 Answer: There is no need to hold back fees because the Court will already know the
25 actual claims rate before it rules on Plaintiffs’ motion for fees and costs. Under the Settlement,
26 fees will be paid within 7 days of the Court’s order awarding fees and costs. Sett. Agmt. § XIII.2
27 (emphasis added). The Court will consider Plaintiffs’ final motion for fees and costs at the
28 Fairness Hearing, which under the parties’ proposed schedule, will take place at least 120 days
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
6
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 10 of 20
1 after the Order on Preliminary Approval issues—more than two months after the Response
2 Deadline for claims. ECF No. 241 at 14. The Court will have full information as to the final
3 claims rate before it issues any order on fees, and before the quick-pay provision takes effect.
4 Id.
5 Settlement Administration Costs.
6 Question: “Settlement administration costs are estimated to be $469,000. See Mot. at 36;
7 Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 56. Can the parties explain the reason for this high amount of costs? Such
8 information may be submitted under seal.” ECF No. 246 at 3.
9 Answer: The expense associated with settlement administration comes from two
10 primary drivers. First, delivering high-quality digital notice, focusing on the most valuable
11 impressions that are actually likely to be seen by class members, drives a substantial portion of
12 the expense. The second is claims administration and distribution. This portion of the
13 administration expenses comes from a combination of the class size—processing (an estimated)
14 one million claims, performing fraud checks, and sending monetary distributions (even
15 digitally) to that number of people involves meaningful expense. A detailed breakdown of the
16 cost estimate is included under seal as Exhibit A to the Weisbrot Declaration, for the Court’s
17 review. The updated cost estimate is $484,119, with the difference comprised of the costs
18 associated with publication notice and potential additional translations requested by the Court.
19 See Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 9; id. at Ex. A.
20 Plaintiffs also note that they considered bids from multiple reputable settlement
21 administrators. ECF No. 241-1 at ¶ 35. Angeion’s final bid was substantially identical in cost to
22 the lowest bid considered, and far lower than the highest bid, while incorporating substantial
23 judicially recognized fraud prevention measures that create additional value for class members
24 by preserving a greater portion of the net settlement fund for distribution to actual class
25 members. ECF No. 241 at 30-31.
26 Means of Notice.
27 The Court asked several questions regarding the means of notice.
28 Question: “The means of notice is largely digital in nature. Should there be some kind
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
7
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 11 of 20
1 of publication notice as well in recognition that all class members may not use computers or
2 use them in such a way that they would be exposed to the proposed media campaign?” ECF
3 No. 246 at 4.
4 Answer: Yes. The parties will include notice by publication in USA Today’s California
5 regional edition. Weisbrot Decl. at ¶ 11. Regarding national publication notice, Angeion
6 believes this is not cost effective compared to digital notice for purposes of reaching class
7 members who may have moved outside of California, but if the Court disagrees, estimated
8 costs for national notice are provided in the Weisbrot declaration. Weisbrot Decl. Ex. A, n. 1.
9 This dollar amount is not otherwise reflected in the overall expected settlement administration
10 costs. Id.
11 Question: “The class is defined as those who lived in California during a set period of
12 time. Can the parties provide more information as to how people who moved away from
13 California will get notice if the target audience is primarily California residents?” ECF No. 246
14 at 4.
15 Answer: The existing notice plan includes digital media across the United States,
16 prorated to focus first on California, next on the states where the most Californians have moved
17 during the class period, and finally including digital media across the entirety of the country.
18 ECF No. 241 at 38-39 (describing the national media campaign in more detail); Weisbrot Decl.
19 ¶ 12.
20 Question: “A settlement website will be maintained, with copies of the long-form notice
21 available in English and Spanish. See Mot. at 4. Should the notice be available in other languages
22 given the diverse population in California?” ECF No. 246 at 4.
23 Answer: Angeion has typically provided additional language translations when class
24 members request them, but will now maintain copies of the long-form notice on the settlement
25 website in Chinese (simplified), in addition to English and Spanish. Because there is an
26 additional expense associated with each translation, Angeion proposes utilizing Angeion’s live
27 translation services as needed for any additional translation. Weisbrot Decl. ¶¶ 13-15. For the
28 Court’s information, Vietnamese, Tagalog, and Korean collectively round out the top-five non-
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
8
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 12 of 20
1 English languages spoken in California based on data from the 2020 census. Weisbrot Decl. ¶
2 13.
3 Filing of Claim.
4 The Court asked two questions regarding class members who submit both a claim form
5 and an opt-out request.
6 Question: “The settlement agreement provides that, if a class member submits both a
7 claim form and opt out, the opt out will be deemed invalid and the class member will be
8 considered a claimant. See Sett. Agmt. § VII.3. Why should the presumption not run the other
9 way? Compare Sett. Agmt. § VIII.8 (providing that, if a class member both objects and opts out,
10 the class member will be deemed to have opted out).” ECF No. 246 at 4.
11 Answer: Consistent with Angeion’s experience, class members who take the time to
12 submit claim forms, and also opt out, tend to expect to receive the monetary distribution they
13 requested. E.g., Bozarth v. Envision Healthcare Corporation, Case No. 5:17-cv-1935-FMO, 2019 WL
14 11790426 at ¶ 7.3.3 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (similar presumption). Although these actions are
15 inconsistent, at least one such action—taking the time to file a claim form—is an indication that
16 the individual wants to participate in the settlement, hence the presumption that a class
17 member will be considered a claimant. By comparison, a class member who objects and opts
18 out has not taken any action to indicate that they want to participate in the settlement, hence
19 the presumption that the class member will be deemed to have opted out.
20 Question: “Could the settlement administrator contact class members to clear up any
21 conflicts?”
22 Answer: Yes. The settlement administrator will attempt to contact any class member
23 who timely submits both an opt-out request and a claim form to clarify the class member’s
24 intent. Class Counsel will also work with the settlement administrator to resolve any such
25 conflict. Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 16.
26 Language of Class Notice.
27 The Court had several questions regarding the language of class notice.
28 (1) Long-Form Class Notice
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
9
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 13 of 20
1 Question: “Page 1. In the second box, can a statement be made about an average award
2 (i.e., more than just “You may be entitled to money”)?” ECF No. 246 at 4.
3 Answer: Yes. See the revised draft attached as Exhibit B to the Weisbrot Declaration.
4 Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 17. For the Court’s information, and as explained more fully in the Weisbrot
5 Declaration, the settlement administrator advises against providing the estimated award on the
6 notice when, as here, that payment will depend on the number of claims submitted, because it
7 can lead to class member confusion. Id.
8 Question: “Page 3. The first section “Why did I get this notice” should reiterate that
9 monetary relief is available. As above, can a statement be made about an average award?” ECF
10 No. 246 at 4.
11 Answer: Yes. See the revised draft attached as Exhibit B to the Weisbrot Declaration.
12 Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 17.
13 Question: “Page 3. For the section “What do I do next,” the ‘Object’ option should make
14 clear that: (1) a person who objects still remains in the class and (2) a person who objects must
15 still submit a claim form if they want to partake in the monetary relief.” ECF No. 246 at 4.
16 Answer: These edits are incorporated. See the revised draft attached as Exhibit B to the
17 Weisbrot Declaration. Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 17.
18 Question: Page 5. In the section ‘What happens next in this lawsuit,’ the following
19 sentence should be bolded: ‘The date of the hearing may change without further notice to
20 members of the class.’” ECF No. 246 at 4.
21 Answer: This edit is incorporated. See the revised draft attached as Exhibit B to the
22 Weisbrot Declaration. Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 17.
23 Question: “Page 5. In the section ‘What does the settlement provide,’ there should be an
24 introductory sentencing making clear that both injunctive relief and monetary relief. In
25 addition, the maximum dollar amount for attorneys’ fees should be expressly stated. Finally,
26 as above, can a statement be made about an average award?” ECF No. 246 at 4-5.
27 Answer: These edits are incorporated. See the revised draft attached as Exhibit B to the
28 Weisbrot Declaration. Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 17.
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
10
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 14 of 20
1 Question: “Page 6. In the section ‘How much will my payment be,’ can a statement be
2 made about an average award?” ECF No. 246 at 5.
3 Answer: Yes. See the revised draft attached as Exhibit B to the Weisbrot Declaration.
4 Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 17.
5 Question: “Page 6. In the section ‘How do I weigh my options,’ there should be a
6 statement making clear that (1) a person who objects still remains in the class and (2) a person
7 who objects must still submit a claim form if they want to partake in the monetary relief. The
8 flow chart should also be corrected to reflect such.” ECF No. 246 at 5.
9 Answer: These edits are incorporated. See the revised draft attached as Exhibit B to the
10 Weisbrot Declaration. Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 17.
11 Question: “Page 8. In the section ‘Do I have to pay the lawyers in this lawsuit,’ the dollar
12 amount of expenses should be expressly stated.” ECF No. 246 at 5.
13 Answer: This edit is incorporated. See the revised draft attached as Exhibit B to the
14 Weisbrot Declaration. Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 17.
15 Question: “Page 9. In the section ‘What if I don’t want to be part of this settlement,’ there
16 should be a clarification that opt outs can also be made online.” ECF No. 246 at 5.
17 Answer: This edit is incorporated. See the revised draft attached as Exhibit B to the
18 Weisbrot Declaration. Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 17.
19 Question: “Page 9. In the section ‘What if I disagree with the settlement,’ there should
20 be a statement making clear that (1) a person who objects still remains in the class and (2) a
21 person who objects must still submit a claim form if they want to partake in the monetary
22 relief.” ECF No. 246 at 5.
23 Answer: These edits are incorporated. See the revised draft attached as Exhibit B to the
24 Weisbrot Declaration. Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 17.
25 Question: “Pages 7, 9. In the sections ‘How do I get a payment if I am a class member,’
26 ‘What if I don’t want to be part of this settlement,’ and ‘What if I disagree with the settlement,’
27 there should be clear statements as to when claims must be submitted, requests for exclusion
28 made, and objections filed. Also, how many days are class members given to respond to the
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
11
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 15 of 20
1 notice? See Prop. Order ¶ 6 (stating that the Response Deadline shall be 56 days from issuance
2 of the order); Prop. Order ¶ 15 (stating that dissemination of notice shall begin within 7 days of
3 the issuance of the order).” ECF No. 246 at 5.
4 Answer: These edits are incorporated. See the attached draft attached as Exhibit B to the
5 Weisbrot Declaration. Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 17. Under the notice plan, class members have 49 days
6 to respond to the notice, which period remains open for the duration of the media plan, and for
7 another two weeks after media is no longer running. See ECF No. 241 at 14.
8 (2) Claim Form
9 Question: “Is there a reason why the claim form requires a claimant to provide their
10 exact address in California where they lived? Can there simply be the attestation (at the bottom
11 of the form) that they lived in California during the relevant period?” ECF No. 246 at 5-6.
12 Answer: Yes. The claim form is updated to incorporate this edit. See the revised draft
13 attached as Exhibit C to the Weisbrot Declaration. Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 18. The reason that the claim
14 form required an exact address, as explained further in the Weisbrot Declaration, was to aid in
15 Angeion’s holistic fraud prevention efforts. Id.
16 (3) Exclusion Form
17 Question: “Should there be a note reminding class members who opt out that they can
18 also submit the request for exclusion online?” ECF No. 246 at 6.
19 Answer: Yes. The exclusion form is updated to incorporate this edit. See the revised draft
20 attached as Exhibit D to the Weisbrot Declaration. Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 19.
21 (4) Digital Ads
22 Question: “Sample digital ads have been provided. Can the ads be modified so that they
23 say more than just ‘a class action settlement may affect your rights’? In particular, the ads
24 should reflect that monetary relief is available – and ideally, an estimate of an average award.”
25 ECF No. 246 at 6.
26 Answer: Yes. The digital ads are updated to incorporate these edits. See the revised
27 drafts attached as Exhibit E to the Weisbrot Declaration. Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 20.
28
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
12
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 16 of 20
1 Proposed Order.
2 The Court asked three questions regarding the Proposed Order.
3 Question: “¶ 7. Does the reference to a class of ‘approximately 40 million individuals’
4 need to be modified or tempered?” ECF No. 246 at 6.
5 Answer: No. As described above, the class size here is approximately 40 million
6 individuals based on discovery and judicially noticed census data.
7 Question: “¶ 27. Can specific dates be provided to the Court for deadlines?” ECF No.
8 246 at 6.
9 Answer: Yes. The parties note, however, that under the settlement agreement, the dates
10 are premised off of the date that the Court enters an Order Granting Preliminary Approval.
11 Thus, the specific dates listed here are estimates that are tied to the estimated date that the
12 Court enters that Order, and may require marginal adjustment depending on the particular day
13 that the Order issues. The parties can provide the Court with a final schedule with fixed dates
14 within 24 hours of the entry of any Order Granting Preliminary Approval, and have provided
15 an estimated schedule here (and in the revised Proposed Order filed concurrently).
16 Schedule assuming order issues October 17, 2024:
17
Event Date
18
Notice Begins October 24, 2024
19
Deadline for Class Counsel to File Motion October 31, 2024, which is 42 days before
20
for Service Award, Attorneys’ Fees and deadline to claim, object, or opt out
21
Costs
22
Notice of Class Action Settlement November 28, 2024
23
Completed Per Notice Plan
24
Response Deadline for Class Members to December 12, 2024
25
Submit Claims for Monetary Relief, Opt-
26
Out of the Settlement, or Object
27
Responses to Objections Due December 26, 2024
28
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
13
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 17 of 20
1 Deadline for Class Counsel to File Motion January 16, 2024
2 for Final Approval
3 Fairness Hearing February 20, 2025
4 Question: “Do any provisions in the Proposed Order need to be modified given the
5 Court’s statements above?” ECF No. 246 at 6.
6 Answer: Yes. See the revised Proposed Order submitted concurrently, which reflects the
7 parties’ view as to necessary edits in line with the Court’s questions here. The blanks for dates
8 are updated pursuant to the Court’s request for an estimated schedule. As noted above, these
9 dates may need to be adjusted depending on the date that the Court enters the Order. The
10 parties have also updated paragraph 14 to reflect the additions of publication notice in USA
11 Today and the additional translated long-form notices available on the settlement website.
12 Updates to paragraph 18 make clear that class members can submit the exclusion form online,
13 and provide that the settlement administrator will reach out to any class members who submit
14 competing claim forms and exclusion forms to clarify their intent. In the parties’ view, there are
15 no other necessary edits.
16 CONCLUSION
17 With this additional information and these adjustments, the parties respectfully request
18 that the Court grant preliminary approval of their proposed settlement.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
14
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 18 of 20
1
DATED: September 25, 2024 GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
2
3 Respectfully submitted,
4
5 /s/ Andre M. Mura
6
Andre M. Mura (SBN 298541)
7
Ezekiel S. Wald (SBN 341490)
8 GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
9 Oakland, California 94607
10 (510) 350-9700
amm@classlawgroup.com
11 zsw@classlawgroup.com
12
Geoffrey A. Graber (SBN 211547)
13 Karina G. Puttieva (SBN 317702)
14 COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
15 Washington, DC 20005
16 Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
17 ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
18 kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com
19
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Certified Class
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
15
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 19 of 20
1 DATED: September 25, 2024 PERKINS COIE LLP
2
By: /s/ Hayden M. Schottlaender
3
4 Susan D. Fahringer (SBN 21567)
Nicola C. Menaldo (pro hac vice)
5
Anna M. Thompson (pro hac vice)
6 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
7
Telephone: (206) 359-8000
8 Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
SFahringer@perkinscoie.com
9
NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com
10 AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com
11 Hayden M. Schottlaender (pro hac vice)
12 PERKINS COIE LLP
500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3300
13 Dallas, Texas 75201-3347
14 Telephone: (214) 965-7700
Facsimile: (214) 965-7799
15 HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com
16
Gabriella Gallego (SBN 324226)
17 PERKINS COIE LLP
18 3150 Porter Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
19 Telephone: (650) 838-4300
Facsimile: (650) 838-4350
20
GGallego@perkinscoie.com
21
Attorneys for Defendant
22 Thomson Reuters Corporation
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
16
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 250 Filed 09/25/24 Page 20 of 20
1 ATTESTATION
2 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this
3 document has been obtained from the other signatory.
4
5 /s/ Andre M. Mura
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF RE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Case No.: 3:21-cv-01418-EMC-KAW
17
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cand.374304.250.0.pdf
- Size
- 362,477 bytes
- SHA-256
- 7face87b8ab50b9ec0f7a2fc3f605f2a88f4a3c3420d6217fb0cc124cfd0fb07
- Original
- PACER (login required)