Letter from California Judicial Investigations. (far, Court Staff) (Filed on 3/22/2022) — In re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation (Dkt. 167)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR · Doc. 167 · 2022-03-22 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL INVESTIGATIONS 
BSIS LIC No. 24115 
 
 
 
 
“Balancing the Scales of Justice.” 
 
1968 S. Coast Hwy, No. 755 
Laguna Beach, CA  92651 
Phone:  (415) 829-9060 
Fax:      (415) 500-4060 
    
Website: www.calji.com 
 Email: admin@calji.com 
 
  
 
March 22, 2022 
 
Via U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail dmrcrd@cand.uscourts.gov 
 
Honorable Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu 
United States District Court  
Northern District of California 
Oakland Courthouse, Courtroom 4 – 3rd Floor 
1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612 
 
 
RE:  
Cottle v Plaid, Inc.  
 
 
Case No. 20-cv-03056-DMR 
 
Dear Honorable Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu, 
 
On January 25, 2022, I filed an objection in the above-referenced matter.  On March 21, 2022, I 
was served with a number of documents including a declaration of Attorney Rachel Geman. 
 
First I would like to point out that I appreciate the work of class-counsel.  Without plaintiff’s 
counsel, none of these companies would be held accountable.   I also realize that Plaintiff’s 
counsel is eager to get paid.  But nothing should proceed until counsel can demonstrate to the 
court that their client’s interests have been protected.   Here rights of their own clients have 
taken a back seat and should not be overlooked. It is interesting that not representative from 
Plaintiff’s counsel made any attempt to contact me prior to issuing its response dated 
03/21/2022.  
 
Ms. Geman mischaracterizes my objection in many ways.   The electronic notice transmitted to 
it’s clients lacked any direct link to submit a claim.  Clearly, this could have been done if the 
intent was to encourage people to submit a claim.  Making people click on various links, search 
websites, and jump through hoops is one of the oldest tricks in the book often used by rebate 
companies and in some cases class action settlement administrators.  It is no secret that the 
less responses they receive reduces their workload and outgoing payments. Nevertheless, the 
link they provided was broken.  Counsel  skimmed right over my concerns, and provides 
absolutely no evidence that she took any steps [emphasis added]  to verify, correct and/or re-
notify class members.  Instead, she has taken a defensive position and simply blows off the 
many objections raised. Her position is based purely on speculation, assumption and 
hypothetical views, all of which was not backed by any actual supporting evidence.   
 
For example, on page 7, Line 4, Ms. Geman attempts to skirt around my objection and fails to 
address my concern about the tiny font instructing people how to file by U.S. Mail. It was faint 
and difficult to read – in fact, I missed it.  She also doesn’t provide any evidence demonstrating 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 167     Filed 03/22/22     Page 1 of 2

March 22, 2022                                 California Judicial Investigations                                  Page 2 of 2 
that the purported links she refers to even worked at the time of my objection – or even works 
now.  
On Page 7, Line 10-22, Ms. Geman claims that the broken link “does not appear to be a 
common problem.”  How does she arrive at this conclusion? She fails to provide any supporting 
evidence whatsoever to the court to support that her theory is true and accurate.  It is well 
known that people responding to class-action cases often either ignore notices, or give up soon 
after encountering a problem often because it simply is not worth their time (i.e. payouts are 
often very small). I have also been project manager for a number of web development projects 
over the last 20+ years.  In class-action matters as well as rebate matters, there is no 
correlation between the number of complaints vs the number of people experiencing problems.  
Typically, this is because the stakes are too low in value and once people encounter a problem 
submitting a claim, they are often not motivated to continue or even complain.  They are busy 
and simply give up and move on.   
 
In this case, I have demonstrated that the link was not working. Therefore, absent evidence to 
the contrary, the court must assume that if the link was broken, then anyone attempting to click 
on it could not submit a claim. Links are not typically computer specific, rather they are almost 
always the fault of the code or host.  Ms. Geman admits this in her declaration (see Page 7, line 
13).  The burden is on Ms. Geman to establish that the clients were provided with a fair and 
reasonable opportunity to submit their claims.   
 
Ms. Geman rambles on about all other available avenue that a person could take to file a claim, 
short of sending a smoke signal.    For the reasons stated above, the average person gives up 
when they encounter a problem.  
 
Ms. Geman also suggests that just because the impacted parties may have once had an active 
financial account, that the must, by default still maintain one ( see FN 11, page 7).  Ms. Geman 
fails to realize that we are living in a different world today.  Many people have lost their jobs, 
homes and have encountered massive financial problems since Covid.  Many have lost their 
income and even closed their bank accounts. Some are fearful of collections and also stopped 
using their bank accounts.  To assume that each of the class members still have an open 
account is reckless and fails to protect all class members equally.  
 
As I read the rest of the objections, what becomes clear is that Ms. Geman is unwilling to 
reasonably review any objection placed before her.  She systemically fails to take responsibility 
for any failures that may have occurred and is unwilling to take reasonable steps to protect her 
own clients- perhaps fueled to get this matter closed and get paid.     
 
For these reasons, I respectfully request this court intervene and suspend final settlement of this 
case until the Plaintiff can provide proof to the court that these concerns have been addressed.   
This includes, but is not limited to, assuring that a reasonable effort has been made to notify 
class members; that any notice includes clear instructions and direct links how to mail in a claim 
or to the online claim form or a direct “opt-out” link.  If the settlement administrator receives a 
“bounced” email, a reasonable effort must be made to mail a copy of the notice to the impacted 
party   
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
Joseph P. Soldis 
Investigator PI24115 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 167     Filed 03/22/22     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.167.0.pdf

Size

172,742 bytes

SHA-256

127964772d340fb6473b507a4eab59abd821dff3f98e9945e5bce4512546496d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.167.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)