Declaration of Rachel Geman — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 51.1)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR · Doc. 51-1 · 2020-07-17 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
 
 
DECL OF RACHEL GEMAN ISO CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS 
AND APPOINTING INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 
JAMES COTTLE and FREDERICK 
SCHOENEMAN, on behalf of themselves  
and all others similarly situated, 
Plaintiffs, 
 
v. 
PLAID INC., a Delaware corporation, 
Defendant. 
 
Case No.: 4:20-cv-03056-DMR
 
 
DECLARATION OF RACHEL 
GEMAN IN SUPPORT OF 
STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE 
ACTIONS AND APPOINT INTERIM 
CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL 
LOGAN MITCHELL, on behalf of himself 
and all others similarly situated, 
Plaintiffs, 
 
v. 
PLAID INC., a Delaware corporation, 
Defendant. 
 
Case No. 3:20-cv-04230-SK
RACHEL CURTIS, ALEXA GROSSMAN, 
MALLORY GROSSMAN, STEVEN 
HANNIGAN, ALEXIS MULLEN, JORDAN 
SACKS, and NICHOLAS YEOMELAKIS, on 
behalf of themselves and all others similarly 
situated, 
Plaintiffs, 
 
v. 
PLAID INC., a Delaware corporation, 
Defendant.
Case No. 4:20-cv-04344-DMR
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 51-1     Filed 07/17/20     Page 1 of 13

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
DECL OF RACHEL GEMAN ISO CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS 
AND APPOINTING INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR
 
CARRIE ANDERSON, BRIAN MCCRUDDEN, 
and JEFFREY SCHWEDOCK, on behalf of 
themselves and all others similarly situated, 
Plaintiffs, 
 
v. 
PLAID INC., a Delaware corporation, 
Defendant. 
 
Case No: 3:20-cv-04480-JSC  
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 51-1     Filed 07/17/20     Page 2 of 13

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
 
DECL OF RACHEL GEMAN ISO CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS 
AND APPOINTING INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
I, RACHEL GEMAN, hereby declare as follows: 
1. 
I am a partner of the law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 
(“LCHB”), co-counsel in Cottle v. Plaid, No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR (N.D. Cal.) (“Cottle Action”), 
and Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel in the above-captioned actions.  I am a member in good 
standing of the State Bar of New York, and am admitted pro hac vice before this Court.  I have 
personal knowledge of the statements contained in this Declaration and, if called to testify, I 
could and would testify competently to them. 
2. 
I submit this declaration in support of the Parties’ Stipulation to Consolidate 
Actions and Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel.  LCHB is well-suited to serve as Co-Lead 
Counsel in this litigation, and has contributed significantly to the development and prosecution of 
this case.  
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) 
3. 
This litigation involves four separately-filed putative class actions, filed by 
multiple law firms, against the same defendant alleging the same conduct.  Each action raises 
substantively similar claims.  Judicial efficiency, as well as the interests of the proposed class, 
counsel in favor of establishing leadership for the class before the litigation proceeds any further.  
When multiple related cases are pending, as they are here, “the selection and activity of class 
counsel are often critically important to the successful handling of the class action.”  Fed. R. Civ. 
P. 23(g) Advisory Committee Notes.   
4. 
Appointing LCHB as Interim Co-Lead Counsel comports with the Rule 23(g) 
factors that guide courts’ decision-making in appointing class counsel.  These factors are:  
i. 
the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the 
action; 
ii. 
counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the 
types of claims asserted in the action; 
iii. 
counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and 
iv. 
the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class. 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 51-1     Filed 07/17/20     Page 3 of 13

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
- 2 - 
DECL OF RACHEL GEMAN ISO CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS 
AND APPOINTING INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR
 
Fed. R. Civ. P 23(g)(1)(A). 
LCHB’s Contributions to the Development of This Litigation 
5. 
In addition to significant experience litigating consumer privacy class actions in 
this District, and elsewhere, discussed below, LCHB brings a wealth of background experience 
specific to this litigation that has guided the development of the factual allegations and claims in 
this case.  In collaboration with co-counsel in the Cottle Action (Burns Charest, LLP and Herrera 
Purdy, LLP), LCHB has conducted a thorough pre-filing investigation, which afforded counsel in 
the Cottle Action an understanding of Plaid’s business practices and the issues before the Court.  
6. 
Along with co-counsel, LCHB researched the history and evolution of Plaid’s 
business, including its founding and growth within the financial technology (“fintech”) industry.  
LCHB and co-counsel developed an understanding of Plaid’s business model, the distinctions 
between its consumer-facing and industry-facing messaging, and some of the methods Plaid uses 
and previously used to collect data from consumers and deliver that data to its fintech customers.   
7. 
That research also included an in-depth and detailed review of Plaid’s messaging 
to consumers as it developed over time, as well as any relevant disclosures by consumer-facing 
third party apps—such as Venmo, Square, and CashApp—in order to understand the scope of 
Plaid’s deceptive messages conveyed to consumers, and to identify the limited information 
provided to consumers who use the relevant third party apps.   
8. 
Further, LCHB and co-counsel engaged in a technical review into Plaid’s conduct 
in the context of the features of the above-referenced relevant third-party apps and the impact of 
such conduct on consumer consent issues, consumer privacy, and financial privacy issues. 
9. 
With the benefit of this factual backdrop, LCHB and co-counsel conducted legal 
research and analysis to determine and assert the appropriate claims on behalf of Plaintiffs and the 
putative Class. 
10. 
LCHB is committed to providing the best possible representation for consumers in 
this action, and continues to work collaboratively with co-counsel in researching and reviewing 
Plaid’s evolving disclosures to users of the relevant apps—which, while still inadequate, have 
been amended by Plaid even since, and possibly due to, the commencement of the Cottle 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 51-1     Filed 07/17/20     Page 4 of 13

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
- 3 - 
DECL OF RACHEL GEMAN ISO CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS 
AND APPOINTING INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR
 
Action—and public-facing statements regarding Plaid’s business practices and use of private 
consumer data. 
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, & Bernstein, LLP 
11. 
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, & Bernstein, LLP is an established, well-respected law 
firm with offices in San Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich, Germany.  It is one of the 
oldest and most successful law firms in the United States devoted exclusively to representing 
plaintiffs, with a particular focus on class actions and multi-district litigation.  In September 2019, 
Law360 named Lieff Cabraser a “California Powerhouse” for litigation after naming LCHB its 
“Class Action Firm of the Year” in January 2019.  In July of 2019, Public Justice awarded Lieff 
Cabraser its “Trial Lawyer of the Year” award.  In March 2019, Benchmark Litigation selected 
Lieff Cabraser as its “California Plaintiff Firm of the Year.” 
12. 
LCHB has 21 lawyers named to the “Best Lawyers in America” 2020 listing, and 
The National Law Journal awarded LCHB its 2019 “Elite Trial Lawyer” awards in the fields of 
Consumer Protection and Cybersecurity/Data Breach.  In 2017, LCHB’s Cybersecurity & Data 
Privacy and Consumer Protection Practice groups were awarded Practice Group of the Year by 
Law360.  In this District alone, LCHB has served as co-lead counsel in the following privacy 
cases that touch, often significantly, on similar issues of widespread consumer privacy violations 
by firms in developing technology industries, as in the Plaid litigation:    
a. 
Rushing v. The Walt Disney Company, et al., No. 3:17-cv-4419 (N.D. 
Cal.); Rushing v. Viacom, Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-4492 (N.D. Cal.); and 
McDonald, et al. v. Kiloo Aps, et al., No. 3:17-cv-4344 (N.D. Cal.)  (representing 
parents, on behalf of their children, in federal class action litigation against 
numerous online game and app producers that unlawfully collected, used, and 
disseminated children’s personal information); 
b. 
Matera v. Google Inc., No. 5:15-cv-04062 (N.D. Cal.) (secured a $2.2 
million settlement in class action claiming that Google Inc. violated consumer 
privacy by routinely scanning email messages sent by non-Gmail users to Gmail 
subscribers, analyzing the content of those messages, and sharing data with third 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 51-1     Filed 07/17/20     Page 5 of 13

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
- 4 - 
DECL OF RACHEL GEMAN ISO CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS 
AND APPOINTING INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR
 
parties to target ads to Gmail users, in violation of the California Invasion of 
Privacy Act and the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act); 
c. 
Campbell v. Facebook, No. 4:13-cv-5996 (N.D. Cal.) (co-lead class 
counsel in nationwide class action alleging that Facebook unlawfully intercepted 
data in users’ personal and private messages on the social network and profited by 
sharing the information with third parties; achieved settlement for injunctive 
relief); 
d. 
Perkins v. LinkedIn Corporation, No. 13-cv-04303 (N.D. Cal.) (co-lead 
class counsel in a nationwide class action alleging that LinkedIn used its members’ 
names and likenesses without their consent to advertise and endorse the social 
network; achieved $13 million settlement and injunctive relief); 
e. 
Shurtleff v. Health Net of Cal., Inc., No. 34-2012-00121600-CU-CL 
(Sacramento Cnty. Superior Court) (class action alleging that defendant lost 
service drives containing its patients’ and employees’ highly sensitive personal 
information, resulting in a class settlement providing significant monetary relief 
and important data security improvements );   
f. 
In re Intuit Data Litigation, No. 5:15-cv-1778 (N.D. Cal.) (Co-lead counsel 
representing identity theft victims in a nationwide class action lawsuit against 
Intuit for facilitating the filing of fraudulent tax returns through its TurboTax 
software program.  Case achieved credit monitoring benefits and business practice 
changes by Intuit in 2019); 
g. 
Ebarle et al. v. LifeLock Inc., No. 3:15-cv-00258 (N.D. Cal.), (Achieved 
$68 million settlement as class Counsel in case alleging that, contrary to its 
representations, LifeLock did not have comprehensive monitoring network, did not 
provide up-to-the-minute alerts of suspicious activity, and failed to protect the 
personal information of its subscribers from hackers and criminals). 
h. 
In re Google Inc. Street View Electronic Communications Litigation, No. 
3:10-md-021784 (N.D. Cal.) ($13 million settlement as Liaison Counsel in class 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 51-1     Filed 07/17/20     Page 6 of 13

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
- 5 - 
DECL OF RACHEL GEMAN ISO CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS 
AND APPOINTING INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR
 
action alleging that Google intentionally equipped its Google Maps “Street View” 
vehicles with Wi-Fi antennas and software that collected personal, private data 
being transmitted over private Wi-Fi networks located in homes within range of 
the vehicles’ receptors.  LCHB took the lead on briefing and arguing Google’s 
appeal of the court’s denial of its motion to dismiss and, on September 10, 2013, 
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with plaintiffs that Google’s actions are 
not exempt from the Wiretap Act.) 
i. 
Henson v. Turn, No. 3:15-CV-01497 (N.D. Cal.) (class action alleging that 
internet marketing company Turn, Inc. violates users’ digital privacy by, without 
users’ consent, installing software tracking beacons on mobile computing devices, 
deploying so-called “zombie cookies” that track smartphone activity across 
various browsers and applications, and using data harvested by these cookies to 
build and sell robust user profiles and sell targeted and profitable advertising). 
13. 
In addition to the above-mentioned cases involving privacy rights, LCHB has 
extensive relevant experience successfully representing consumers in class actions that require 
expertise concerning financial institutions and banking regulations. Among LCHB’s recent 
settlements in this District is In re Wells Fargo & Company Shareholder Derivative Litigation, 
No. 3:16-cv-05541 (N.D. Cal.) (Co-Lead Counsel in $240 million derivative settlement).   
14. 
A small selection of other consumer protection cases involving financial services 
in this District or in other courts in California where LCHB served in leadership roles include:1 In 
re Chase Bank USA, N.A. “Check Loan” Contract Litigation, MDL No. 2032 (N.D. Cal.) (served 
as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel and on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in Multi-District 
Litigation representing more than one million Chase Bank cardholders nationwide and obtaining 
$100 million settlement in case charging that Chase Bank violated the implied covenant of good 
faith and fair dealing by unilaterally modifying the terms of fixed rate loans); Gutierrez v. Wells 
Fargo, No. C 07-05923-WHA (N.D. Cal.) ($203 million judgment after bench trial for claims the 
                                                 
1 A more comprehensive review of LCHB’s consumer protection practice is included in the firm’s 
resume.   
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 51-1     Filed 07/17/20     Page 7 of 13

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
- 6 - 
DECL OF RACHEL GEMAN ISO CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS 
AND APPOINTING INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR
 
bank manipulated overdraft fees; LCHB was lead counsel and trial counsel)2; In re Bank of 
America Credit Protection Marketing & Sales Practices Litig., 11-MD-02269 (N.D. Cal.) (served 
as co-lead counsel and secured $20 million in settlements in multidistrict litigation alleging that 
Bank of America used deceptive practices and misleading disclosures to enroll consumers in a 
“credit protection plan” that required them to pay monthly fees without any benefits); and 
Citigroup Loan Cases, JCCP No. 4197 (San Francisco Supr. Ct., Cal.) (served as Plaintiffs’ Co-
Liaison Counsel and secured $240 million in relief in case representing former customers of 
subprime lending company alleging that company added unwanted and unnecessary insurance 
products onto mortgage loans and engaged in improper loan refinancing practices). 
15. 
More information about the wide array of cases and LCHB’s long history of 
successful litigation on behalf of consumers can be found in the Firm Resume, available at 
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/pdf/Lieff_Cabraser_Firm_Resume.pdf.  
The LCHB Team in the Instant Litigation 
16. 
The cases above and LCHB’s history successfully protecting consumer rights 
through class litigation all demonstrate that LCHB is well-qualified for the role of Interim Co-
Lead Class Counsel in this action.  
17. 
I, Rachel Geman, will serve as the primary representative for LCHB in meetings of 
Co-Lead Counsel and the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee.   
18. 
I am a 1997 graduate of Columbia Law School and, as a partner at LCHB, my 
practice focuses on consumer, employment, and false claims litigation.  I am an AV Preeminent 
Peer Review Rated lawyer and have been recognized by “Super Lawyers” and “The Best 
Lawyers of America.” 
19. 
I played an active managerial role in consumer litigation against General Motors 
involving defective ignition switches, where the court awarded preliminary approval to a $120 
                                                 
2 Other similar overdraft litigation includes In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL 
No. 2036 (S.D. Fl.), where LCHB served on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee  in Multi-
District Litigation against 35 banks, including Bank of America, Chase, Citizens, PNC, Union 
Bank, and U.S. Bank, alleging that the banks entered debit card deliberately drew down available 
balances more rapidly to maximize overdraft fees. Plaintiffs secured a $410 million settlement 
against Bank of America, among others. 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 51-1     Filed 07/17/20     Page 8 of 13

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
- 7 - 
DECL OF RACHEL GEMAN ISO CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS 
AND APPOINTING INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR
 
million settlement in May 2020.  In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., 14-MD-2543 
(S.D.N.Y) (LCHB is co-lead economic loss counsel).  I represented the City of Philadelphia in 
Fair Housing Act litigation against Wells Fargo that resolved in 2019 with the bank’s paying $10 
million to fund city programs for communities affected by lending discrimination and agreeing to 
other relief.  I also served as co-lead class counsel or counsel for the class in consumer financial 
litigation over “payment protection” products, resulting in more than $50 million in settlements, 
such as In re Bank of America Credit Protection Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation 
referenced above.  Starting early in my legal career, I have litigated matters against banks on 
behalf of consumer homeowners, including the Citigroup case referenced above.  I participated, 
albeit in a minor and early role, in the firm’s Campbell v. Facebook litigation.   
20. 
Currently, and attesting to my role in a breadth of complex and novel litigation, I 
serve as co-lead counsel in litigation alleging kickbacks in the sale of HUMIRA; am on the 
consumer/class action side of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in In re VALSARTAN 
LOSARTAN AND IRBESARTAN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, 19-md-02875 (D.N.J.); 
and am part of a team representing a certified class of women in employment discrimination 
litigation against Goldman Sachs. 
21. 
I am committed to working collaboratively and creatively.  I have served as the 
Employee-Side Chair of the ABA Labor and Employment Law Sections’ EEO committee, with 
employer and in-house chairs as well.  In 2001, I received a Distinguished Honor Award by the 
Department of State for my efforts on a special project resulting in a matrix to determine member 
nations’ contributions to fund the United Nations.   
22. 
I am a frequent writer and speaker on class action topics, and have spoken at 
conferences hosted by the National Consumer Law Center and the ABA, among others.  Relevant 
topics have included consumer damage modeling, preemption, statistics for lawyers, and class 
structure/use of issues classes.  I chair the Amicus Committee of the New York Chapter of the 
National Employment Lawyers Association.  In addition to my personal experience and expertise, 
I will work with my partners Michael W. Sobol and Melissa Gardner, and Madeline M. Gomez, 
an LCHB associate, each of whom brings their own wealth of experience.  
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 51-1     Filed 07/17/20     Page 9 of 13

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
- 8 - 
DECL OF RACHEL GEMAN ISO CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS 
AND APPOINTING INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR
 
23. 
Michael W. Sobol is a 1989 graduate of Boston University School of Law.  As the 
head of LCHB’s Consumer Protection Practice Group and its Cybersecurity & Data Privacy 
Group, he will provide strategic guidance in this matter.  Throughout the course of his career, Mr. 
Sobol has litigated novel and challenging consumer class actions, and has significant experience 
leading complex litigation in the fields of online privacy, data security, and consumer protection.   
A selection of his experience in this District includes the CPC, Facebook, and LinkedIn matters 
noted above, where he served as co-lead counsel, as well as In re Anthem Data Breach Litig., No. 
15-2617, (N.D. Cal.), where he served as a member of the plaintiffs’ steering committee and 
achieved a $115 million settlement and injunctive relief in a multidistrict litigation alleging that 
deficient cyber-security measures compromised the sensitive personal identifying information of 
more than 80 million persons.  Mr. Sobol was also lead or co-lead counsel in many of the cases 
referenced in paragraph 14.    
24. 
Ms. Gardner is a 2011 graduate of Harvard Law School.  She is a partner at 
LCHB, and is a member of the firm’s Cybersecurity and Data Privacy and Consumer Protection 
practice groups.  Ms. Gardner has extensive experience defending consumers’ privacy rights 
against incursions by the technology industry, including in In re Google Inc. Street View 
Electronic Communications Litigation, No. 3:10-md-21784-CRB (N.D. Cal.); Matera v. Google 
Inc., No. 5:15-cv-4062 (N.D. Cal.); Campbell v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-5996 (N.D. Cal.); 
and Perkins v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 5:13-cv-4303 (N.D. Cal.), and with data security class actions 
in this District, including In re Anthem Inc. Data Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2617 (N.D. Cal.) 
and In re Intuit Data Litigation, No. 5:15-cv-01778 (N.D. Cal.).  Ms. Gardner was named a 
“Rising Star for Northern California” each year in 2017-2020. 
25. 
Ms. Gomez joined LCHB in 2019 as an associate and is a 2015 graduate of 
Columbia Law School.  Prior to joining LCHB, she spent two years representing plaintiffs in 
complex civil litigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee 
26. 
As Plaintiffs’ Complaint demonstrates, this litigation will be a large undertaking 
and has thus far required ample investigation and attorney efforts.  Plaid’s unlawful collection and 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 51-1     Filed 07/17/20     Page 10 of 13

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
- 9 - 
DECL OF RACHEL GEMAN ISO CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS 
AND APPOINTING INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR
 
sale of consumer data dates back to 2013 and continues today, and involves potentially millions 
of users and a trove of data.  See, e.g., Cottle Complaint at ¶¶ 41-45.  As a result, this case will 
likely involve voluminous discovery, which—in order to ensure the security and privacy of the 
plaintiffs and the putative Class members—will require careful review and analysis.  
Furthermore, the complex technological aspects of this case will potentially involve multiple 
experts, including on topics such as mobile app coding, development, and design; cyber- and 
data-security; consumer understanding and associations with bank logos and their facsimiles; 
banking practices; and damage modeling.  Proposed Co-Lead Counsel recognizes that tasks 
associated with these case needs may have to be performed simultaneously, and will require 
substantial input from attorneys with in-depth understanding of the facts and legal issues in this 
case.  Additionally, Proposed Co-Lead Counsel believes that cooperation and collaboration 
between Plaintiffs’ attorneys can afford Plaintiffs and the Class with the best opportunity to 
achieve a meaningful result in this litigation. 
27. 
Thus, in addition to Interim Co-Lead Counsel of Burns Charest, LLP, Herrerra 
Purdy, LLP, and LCHB, Plaintiffs and the class in this litigation will benefit from the assistance, 
experience, and expertise of counsel serving on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (“PSC”), 
which consists of Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.; Reinhardt, Wendorf, & Blanchfield; Robins 
Kaplan, LLP; and Spector Roseman & Kodroff, PC. 
28. 
Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. (“NLG”) is a boutique litigation firm specializing in 
the prosecution of complex class litigation.  Linda Nussbaum, the firm’s founder, has been at the 
forefront of landmark fair competition cases for over 35 years.  The firm maintains a particular 
focus on cases, like this one, involving retail banking and data privacy issues.  NLG is co-lead 
counsel for a proposed class of millions of merchants pressing antitrust claims against major 
payment card networks and banks in In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant 
Discount Antitrust Litigation¸ MDL 1720 (E.D.N.Y.).  NLG is also serving as co-lead counsel for 
consumer plaintiffs in In re Wawa Inc. Data Security Litigation, No. 19-cv-6019 (E.D. Pa.), and 
as co-lead counsel for one of three plaintiff tracks in In re American Medical Collection Agency, 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 51-1     Filed 07/17/20     Page 11 of 13

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
- 10 - 
DECL OF RACHEL GEMAN ISO CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS 
AND APPOINTING INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR
 
Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL 2904 (D.N.J.).  NLG attorneys have 
previously maintained leadership positions in several additional cases involving retail banking. 
29. 
Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield is a nationally-known class action firm with 
an emphasis on representing plaintiffs in complex litigation.  The philosophy of the firm 
encompasses the values of hard work, ingenuity, integrity and a successful result.  RWB’s 
excellence has been recognized by courts as well as peers, and their efforts have helped pave the 
way to significant and ground-breaking recoveries for their clients and classes.   
30. 
Robins Kaplan LLP is among the nation’s premier trial law firms, with more than 
220 attorneys in eight major cities, and a track record of obtaining history-making successes for 
plaintiffs in consumer protection cases and other complex matters.  Robins Kaplan has obtained 
over $9 billion in settlements on behalf of plaintiffs in large-scale litigation and has repeatedly 
received recognition for its accomplishments from leading legal-ranking organizations.  The 
Robins Kaplan attorneys who will be litigating this action have been selected to serve in court-
appointed lead counsel positions in numerous vigorously contested class actions and currently 
spearhead some of the most expansive class cases in U.S. history.  Robins Kaplan is familiar with 
the demands of large, complex class actions and has already begun investing the resources 
necessary to properly prosecute this action.   
31. 
Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. is a highly regarded and successful law firm 
with a nationwide practice that focuses on class actions and complex litigation, including 
antitrust, consumer protection, securities, and commercial claims.  The firm is active in major 
litigation in state and federal courts throughout the country.  The firm’s reputation for excellence 
has been recognized by numerous courts, which have appointed the firm as sole lead counsel and 
co-lead counsel in many prominent class actions.  As a result of the firm’s efforts, defrauded 
consumers and shareholders have recovered billions of dollars in damages and implemented 
important corporate governance reforms.  The firm is rated “AV” by Martindale-Hubbell, its 
highest rating for competence and integrity.  Please review our website for more information at 
www.srkattorneys.com.    
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 51-1     Filed 07/17/20     Page 12 of 13

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 
- 11 - 
DECL OF RACHEL GEMAN ISO CONSOLIDATING ACTIONS 
AND APPOINTING INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR
 
32. 
Based on their vast experience and as evidenced by their past successes, it is my 
opinion that Proposed Co-Lead Counsel and the proposed PSC members understand the 
magnitude of personnel and financial resources this case will require and will continue to commit 
their resources to this case.  
33. 
Finally, Proposed Co-Lead Counsel will draw upon more junior attorneys and 
support staff for appropriate tasks so as to prosecute the case as efficiently as possible for the 
benefit of the Class.  Similarly, when Proposed PSC members are called upon to assist in the 
litigation, Proposed Co-Lead Counsel will make sure that tasks are assigned to individuals based 
on their appropriate expertise and skill level, so as to minimize cost to the Class. 
 
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is 
true and correct.  Executed this 17th day of July, 2020, at New York, New York. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rachel Geman
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 51-1     Filed 07/17/20     Page 13 of 13

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.51.1.pdf

Size

63,635 bytes

SHA-256

1a2aa5d0ccfe0e0fdf0beed505b01c9c5d96e74c8ad7a083aa5dc76e10bef3f9

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.51.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)