Declaration of Andre Mura and Geoff Graber in Support of… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 273.1)

Summary

The redacted, publicly filed Declaration of Andre Mura and Geoffrey Graber in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval, Document 273-1, stamped Filed 01/09/25, in Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC-KAW, Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, Northern District of California, 13 pages, with a hearing date of February 13, 2025. The declarants state that the proposed Settlement Agreement with Thomson Reuters and its affiliated entity Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH is attached as Exhibit 1 to the declaration at ECF No. 241-1. They then summarize the complaint filed December 3, 2020, the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 54), the certification rulings (ECF No. 213) and the Ninth Circuit's denial of Thomson Reuters' petition (ECF No. 228).

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

         Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC           Document 273-1   Filed 01/09/25   Page 1 of 13




 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, Suite 800
 4                                                    Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (510) 350-9700
 5    Facsimile: (510) 350-9701                       Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      amm@classlawgroup.com                           Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
 6    zsw@classlawgroup.com                           ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
 7                                                    kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com

 8
 9
10
11
12   Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
13
14
                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
15
                              NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16                                SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
17   CAT BROOKS and RASHEED SHABAZZ,                 Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC-KAW
18   individually and on behalf of all others
     similarly situated,                             DECLARATION OF ANDRE MURA AND
19                                                   GEOFFREY GRABER IN SUPPORT OF
20                  Plaintiffs,                      PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL
            v.                                       APPROVAL
21
22   THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,                    Redacted – Publicly Filed Version
23                  Defendant.
24                                                   Date: February 13, 2025
                                                     Time: 1:30 p.m.
25                                                   Place: Courtroom 5, 17th Floor
                                                     Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
26
27
28


     DECLARATION OF ANDRE MURA & GEOFFREY GRABER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
                          MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
                          Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC-KAW
         Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC         Document 273-1          Filed 01/09/25   Page 2 of 13




 1          Plaintiffs’ counsel Andre Mura of Gibbs Law Group LLP and Geoffrey Graber of
 2   Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, declare under penalty of perjury:
 3          1.     Andre Mura and Geoffrey Graber represent Plaintiffs in this certified class
 4   action and respectfully submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final
 5   Approval of the Class Action Settlement. We have personal knowledge of the facts set forth
 6   below and if called as witnesses, could and would testify competently to them.
 7          2.     The proposed Settlement Agreement, entered into between Plaintiffs and
 8   Defendant Thomson Reuters, along with its affiliated entity Thomson Reuters Enterprise
 9   Centre GmbH (collectively “Thomson Reuters”), is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Co-Lead
10   Counsel Declaration filed at ECF No. 241-1.
11                                      Complaint Allegations
12          3.     This case arises from allegations concerning Thomson Reuters’ operation of its
13   online platform CLEAR. Plaintiffs allege that, through its “public records platform” CLEAR,
14   Thomson Reuters offers customers access to information about individuals across the United
15   States, including Californians. ECF No. 148-2 at 2.
16          4.     Plaintiffs’ allegations detail that Thomson Reuters licenses access to large
17   volumes of information to power CLEAR from third party data providers. Id.at 2-6. It takes
18   this information, processes it, and creates “reports” on individuals, reports that can contain
19   a huge array of personal details about any particular Californian. Id. Some of the data is
20   otherwise public, and some of the data is not. Id. at 2.
21                   Class Counsel’s Work in Securing the Proposed Settlement
22          5.     During this litigation, our firms extensively investigated the facts, aggressively
23   litigated the case, and developed a strong understanding of the strengths and weaknesses
24   and value of the claims. This research included review of publicly available information
25   regarding the industry and consultation with investigators.
26          6.     On December 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against
27   Thomson Reuters on behalf of Californians whose personal information was made available
28   through CLEAR. The complaint asserted that Thomson Reuters’ compilation and sale of
                                             1
          DECLARATION OF ANDRE MURA & GEOFFREY GRABER IN SUPPORT OF
                       PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
                            Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC-KAW
         Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC         Document 273-1       Filed 01/09/25    Page 3 of 13




 1   access to Californians’ personal information without their consent violated state privacy and
 2   consumer protection law and unjustly enriched Thomson Reuters. ECF No. 1-1.
 3          7.     Thomson Reuters responded to the complaint by moving to dismiss. After full
 4   briefing and oral argument, the Court granted and denied the motion in part. ECF No. 54.
 5   The Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims under California’s right of publicity (statutory and
 6   common law), and Plaintiffs’ claim for violations of the “unlawful” prong of California’s
 7   Unfair Competition Law. Id. The Court permitted Plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief for
 8   violations of the “unfair” prong of the UCL to proceed, along with a claim for unjust
 9   enrichment. Id.
10          8.     Thomson Reuters then answered Plaintiffs’ complaint in September 2021. ECF
11   No. 60.
12          9.     Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint conforming to the Court’s motion to
13   dismiss, and moved for certification of their remaining claims. ECF Nos. 123, 130. Both
14   parties prepared extensive expert testimony regarding class certification, and challenged the
15   admissibility of the opposing party’s experts. ECF No. 201.
16          10.    In May and July 2023, the Court denied both parties’ motions to exclude the
17   other’s experts, and granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. ECF Nos. 206, 213. The
18   Court found that Plaintiffs had shown that their “right to control” theory showed a traceable
19   and redressable injury in fact, and that Plaintiffs’ remaining claims satisfied the requirements
20   of Rule 23(a) and 23(b), certifying both of Plaintiffs’ claims under Rule 23(b)(3), and
21   additionally certifying Plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief under California’s UCL under
22   Rule 23(b)(2). ECF No. 213.
23          11.    Thomson Reuters petitioned the Ninth Circuit for interlocutory review of the
24   Court’s class certification order, ECF No. 223, which Plaintiffs opposed. The Ninth Circuit
25   denied Thomson Reuters’ motion. ECF No. 228.
26          12.    Thus, at the time the parties subsequently reached a settlement, many of the
27   issues of law had been thoroughly briefed, vetted, and aired. The parties, therefore, had a
28
                                           2
           DECLARATION OF ANDRE MURA & GEOFFREY GRABER IN SUPPORT OF
                     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
                           Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC-KAW
         Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC         Document 273-1       Filed 01/09/25     Page 4 of 13




 1   strong understanding of the legal issues and causes of action—framed by this Court’s
 2   decisions and the Ninth Circuit’s—involved in this case.
 3          13.    At the time the parties reached a settlement, Plaintiffs had served nine
 4   comprehensive sets of Request for Production of Documents on Thomson Reuters (“RFPs”).
 5   Thomson Reuters provided responses to these ninety-seven RFPs, and indeed, as a result of
 6   extensive meeting and conferring between the parties, served many amended, supplemental
 7   responses to take into account any agreements reached during the meet and confer process
 8   and to conform the responses to the agreements reached regarding Thomson Reuters’
 9   objections.
10          14.    As a result of these considerable efforts, by the time of settlement, Thomson
11   Reuters had produced nearly 80,000 documents, totaling nearly 500,000 pages.
12          15.    Plaintiffs also served, and received responses to, several comprehensive sets of
13   Interrogatories (totaling twenty-three in number). After extensive meeting and conferring,
14   Thomson Reuters agreed to amend its responses multiple times to provide supplemental
15   information important to Plaintiffs’ case.
16          16.    Plaintiffs also served, and received responses to, sixty-five requests for
17   admission. In addition, Plaintiffs took seven fact depositions, three expert depositions, and
18   deposed Thomson Reuters pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6).
19          17.    Plaintiffs also engaged in discovery motion practice before this Court, and
20   later, the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. ECF Nos. 82, 96. For example,
21   this Court heard and ruled upon a dispute regarding Thomson Reuters’ production of its
22   data licensing agreements. ECF No. 82. This was critical, because the licensing agreements
23   would set out the universe of information available through CLEAR, and the entities that
24   supplied the data Thomson Reuters made available through its platform.
25          18.    The parties also briefed issues relating to Plaintiffs’ ability to access and review
26   the CLEAR platform, and to Thomson Reuters’ obligations to produce supplemental
27   information as the case proceeded. ECF Nos. 120, 212.
28
                                           3
           DECLARATION OF ANDRE MURA & GEOFFREY GRABER IN SUPPORT OF
                     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
                           Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC-KAW
         Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC         Document 273-1      Filed 01/09/25    Page 5 of 13




 1          19.     Plaintiffs also responded to extensive discovery requests from Thomson
 2   Reuters. Thomson Reuters served twenty-three interrogatories and fifty-eight RFPs. Named
 3   Plaintiffs Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz collected nearly 700,000 documents for Plaintiffs’
 4   counsel to review in response to these discovery requests, and ultimately produced more
 5   than 40,000 pages of responsive information. Plaintiffs’ counsel worked closely with both
 6   Named Plaintiffs to prepare responses to this written discovery, and to review and produce
 7   the responsive information Thomson Reuters sought.
 8          20.     Thomson Reuters also deposed both Plaintiffs, each of whom spent time with
 9   counsel preparing to testify.
10          21.     Beyond fact discovery, the parties completed expert discovery related to class
11   certification (with Plaintiffs propounding two expert reports, and Thomson Reuters three).
12   Plaintiffs’ testifying experts at class certification were: Joseph Turow, Ph.D., a renowned
13   privacy scholar and the Robert Lewis Shayon Professor of Communication at the Annenberg
14   School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and Terry Lloyd, CPA, CFA,
15   the Managing Director of Finance Scholars Group, Inc. ECF Nos. 206, 213.
16          22.     Plaintiffs deposed Thomson Reuters’ three class certification rebuttal experts.
17          23.     Thomson Reuters also deposed both of Plaintiffs’ class certification experts.
18          24.     Further, Plaintiffs briefed and argued class certification and Daubert as it
19   related to the parties’ class certification experts and rebuttal experts. After obtaining class
20   certification, Plaintiffs opposed Thomson Reuters’ appeal to the Ninth Circuit pursuant to
21   Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f).
22          25.     The parties also prepared and exchanged merits expert reports, with Plaintiffs
23   preparing five primary expert reports for trial, and Thomson Reuters preparing three more.
24   Rebuttal and reply merits expert reports were scheduled to be prepared, but the settlement
25   obviated the need for further expert discovery.
26          26.     Plaintiffs’ testifying experts on the merits were: Professor Turow; Mr. Lloyd;
27   Sarah Lamdan, J.D., the Deputy Director of the American Library Association (and a former
28   professor at CUNY School of Law); Becky Yoose, CIPP/US, CIPT, a library scientist and data
                                                4
           DECLARATION OF ANDRE MURA & GEOFFREY GRABER IN SUPPORT OF
                         PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
                                Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC-KAW
         Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC          Document 273-1      Filed 01/09/25    Page 6 of 13




 1   privacy consultant and the founder of LDH Consulting Services; and Sarah Butler, MA, the
 2   Senior Managing Director of National Economic Research Associates, Inc.
 3          27.    Class Counsel also engaged in extensive, arms’ length settlement discussions
 4   with Thomson Reuters before class certification and after. In particular, after class
 5   certification, the parties held in-person meetings, video meetings, exchanged mediation
 6   statements, and exchanged settlement proposals. The proposed settlement was arrived at
 7   only after both sides had the opportunity to be fully informed of the relative strengths and
 8   weaknesses of their positions, litigation risks, and issues involving ability to pay. Settlement
 9   was only reached after discovery was essentially complete in this action.
10          28.    We and members of our respective law firms have been intimately involved in
11   this case. Gibbs Law Group LLP and its attorneys and staff have worked on this case since
12   before it was filed on December 3, 2020. Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC and its attorneys
13   and staff have worked on this case since October 2022. In addition, attorneys at Gupta
14   Wessler LLP, Justice Catalyst, and the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.),
15   who also represent the named plaintiffs, worked to develop the case and assisted at various
16   points with the litigation, though neither Justice Catalyst nor S.T.O.P. is applying for fees
17   from the common fund.
18          29.    Through this litigation, Class Counsel have faced substantial risks, including:
19                    a. The risk of litigating against one of the largest and most sophisticated
20                        law firms in the world with access to seemingly limitless resources.
21                    b. The risk that the novel complaint would not withstand the motion to
22                        dismiss.
23                    c. The risk that Defendant would, and in fact has, vehemently contested
24                        Plaintiffs’ claims.
25                    d. The risk that Defendant would prevail on its arguments at any phase of
26                        this litigation.
27                    e. The risk of not achieving class certification.
28
                                           5
           DECLARATION OF ANDRE MURA & GEOFFREY GRABER IN SUPPORT OF
                     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
                           Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC-KAW
         Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC         Document 273-1       Filed 01/09/25    Page 7 of 13




 1                    f. The changing landscape of the law with respect to proving damages and
 2                        class actions generally.
 3                    g. The risk of an unfavorable ruling at summary judgment eliminating one
 4                        or both of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims.
 5                    h. The risk that Plaintiffs’ novel legal claims, even if successful at trial,
 6                        would be overturned on appeal.
 7                                      The Settlement Process
 8          30.    Plaintiffs engaged in extensive, arms’ length settlement discussions with
 9   Thomson Reuters at all times.
10          31.    The parties held in-person meetings, video meetings, exchanged mediation
11   statements, and exchanged settlement proposals. The proposed settlement was arrived at
12   only after both sides had the opportunity to be fully informed of the relative strengths and
13   weaknesses of their positions, litigation risks, and issues involving ability to pay. Settlement
14   was only reached after discovery was essentially complete in this action.
15          32.    A further description of the parties’ settlement efforts and the work of counsel
16   was provided in a declaration from the Honorable Layn Phillips, retired judge of the United
17   States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, who successfully mediated this
18   complex case. ECF No. 241-5.
19          33.    There was no collusion or preference among counsel for the parties at any time
20   during these negotiations. To the contrary, these were hard-fought, fully informed, and
21   contentious negotiations, during which on behalf of the Class we sought to obtain the
22   strongest injunctive relief and most monetary benefit from Thomson Reuters that we
23   possibly could. Throughout our negotiations, there was no discussion or agreement
24   regarding the amount of attorneys’ fees Plaintiffs’ counsel could seek in this case. Similarly,
25   there are no undisclosed agreements that exist with respect to the Settlement Agreement.
26          34.    To our knowledge, there are no other cases that will be impacted by the
27   settlement.
28
                                           6
           DECLARATION OF ANDRE MURA & GEOFFREY GRABER IN SUPPORT OF
                     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
                           Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC-KAW
         Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC          Document 273-1    Filed 01/09/25    Page 8 of 13




 1          35.    Plaintiffs’ counsel have been in contact with both of the named Plaintiffs, and
 2   both of them support the settlement agreement, as memorialized in their declarations. ECF
 3   Nos. 241-3, 241-4, 264-2, 264-3.
 4          36.    Andre Mura and Geoffrey Graber are experienced complex litigation lawyers.
 5   This includes experience in class actions concerning privacy and unfair competition claims.
 6          37.    In our opinion, the proposed settlement with Thomson Reuters is fair,
 7   reasonable, and adequate, provides substantial benefits to the Class, and avoids the delay
 8   and uncertainty of continued, protracted litigation with Thomson Reuters. The Court has
 9   previously reviewed our resumes in support of our application for class counsel. ECF Nos.
10   130-3 at 14-66; 130-2 at 8-27.
11                                Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses
12          38.    Information about the hourly rates, hours spent, and costs incurred in this
13   litigation are documented in our Declaration Supporting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’
14   Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. ECF No. 264-1. Our firms have spent additional time on
15   this case in the time since Plaintiffs filed their Motion working with the settlement
16   administrator, but because, in our opinion, the lodestar reported previously reasonably and
17   adequately supports Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees of $6,875,000 at the 25% benchmark,
18   we do not separately break down those hours here.
19                                      Settlement Administration
20          39.    As set out more fully in the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot submitted in
21   concurrence with Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval, the Settlement Administrator has
22   already incurred $472,565.70 in notice and administration expenses, and estimates that it will
23   incur $545,000 total in expenses connected to class notice and settlement administration here.
24   Weisbrot Decl. at ¶¶ 46-47. Class Counsel has reviewed the Settlement Administrator’s
25   invoices for costs incurred to date, and believes that the invoices are reasonable and
26   consistent with the Settlement Administrator’s estimates previously provided to the Court
27   under seal. See ECF No. 250-1.
28
                                           7
           DECLARATION OF ANDRE MURA & GEOFFREY GRABER IN SUPPORT OF
                     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
                           Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC-KAW
         Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC        Document 273-1      Filed 01/09/25    Page 9 of 13




 1         40.    Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of an email Class Counsel
 2   received on December 26, 2024 along with Class Counsel’s response. On December 26, 2024,
 3   Class Counsel provided this email to the settlement administrator, who followed up with
 4   the individual and was able to successfully process the claim. See Weisbrot Decl. at ¶ 40.
 5
 6         We declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best
 7   of our knowledge. Executed on January 9, 2025.
 8
 9                                                  /s/ Andre M. Mura
                                                    Andre M. Mura
10
                                                    Gibbs Law Group LLP
11
                                                    /s/ Geoffrey Graber
12                                                  Geoffrey Graber
13                                                  Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
                                           8
           DECLARATION OF ANDRE MURA & GEOFFREY GRABER IN SUPPORT OF
                     PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
                           Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC-KAW
        Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC       Document 273-1       Filed 01/09/25    Page 10 of 13




 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
                                          9
          DECLARATION OF ANDRE MURA & GEOFFREY GRABER IN SUPPORT OF
                    PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
                          Case No. 3:21-cv-1418-EMC-KAW
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC   Document 273-1   Filed 01/09/25   Page 11 of 13




              EXHIBIT 1
   Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                    Document 273-1                  Filed 01/09/25              Page 12 of 13
                               REDACTED - PUBLICLY FILED

From:             Andre Mura
To:                  ; Geoffrey Graber; Zeke Wald
Subject:          Re: I wish to file A complaint with The Claims Website Not allowing Class members to file thier claims
Date:             Thursday, December 26, 2024 2:53:29 PM
Importance:       High


Hi Ms.

I’m sorry to hear that you had difficulty submitting a claim. I have asked the settlement
administrator to reach out to you directly to assist you, and I shared the screenshots so that they
can investigate any issue associated with your submission. Thanks for sharing your experience
and for allowing us to help you with your submission.

Best regards,
Andre



Andre M. Mura (he/him) | Partner
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland CA 94607
510.350.9717 | amm@classlawgroup.com
www.classlawgroup.com


This message is intended only for the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged or
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited; and you are asked to notify us immediately by return email or telephone at (510) 350-9700.
Thank you.



From:                                      >
Date: Thursday, December 26, 2024 at 1:25 PM
To: Geoffrey Graber <ggraber@cohenmilstein.com>, Andre Mura
<amm@classlawgroup.com>, Zeke Wald <zsw@classlawgroup.com>
Subject: I wish to file A complaint with The Claims Website Not allowing Class members
to file thier claims

Dear Class Counsel,

My name is                   and wish to file a complaint with the court about the claims website not
allowing class claims to be submitted. I have been trying to file my claim in the case Brooks V.
Thomson Reuters Corp. Case No 3:21-cv-01418 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California for the last two weeks. I continue to receive a pop up screen after verifying my
telephone number saying that there are inconsistencies with my claim submission.(Reference
Screenshot Attached) Today I tried again to submit my claim and tried two separate devices but this
time while trying to submit my claim on the second device for the second time it did not allow me to
verify my phone number. (Please see the 2nd attachment screenshot below). This is very frustrating
   Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC              Document 273-1          Filed 01/09/25        Page 13 of 13
                            REDACTED - PUBLICLY FILED

for me to file my claim and I am not the only one having this problem with the website. I have seen
on social media that other classI members are also experiencing the same problems with submitting
their claims. I can understand if this was an isolated issue but this is happening to hundreds if not
thousands of class members .

The claims administrator is well aware the deadline to submit claims is 27th of December and they
essentially closed the claims website and have prevented class members from submitting their
claims before the deadline.

It appears no I am blocked from even trying to submit my claim. It does not allow the submission of
your claim unless you verify your phone number. But the it won't even allow me to do that

So I as class counsel not only for help with this but also to address the court regarding this issue

Thank you,


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.273.1.pdf

Size

473,790 bytes

SHA-256

6ea39af97cb649212780deba8587ba6a84aefd7ba5d5309fccbc8175ff6fcc74

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.273.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)