ERRONEOUSLY E-FILED, DISREGARD - SEE DOC 183 Declaration of Christopher J. Cormier, Shawn M.… — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 182)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR · Doc. 182 · 2022-05-19 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

2416404.4  
 
SUPPLEMENTAL DECL ISO MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ 
FEES, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
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 
HERRERA KENNEDY LLP 
Shawn M. Kennedy (SBN 218472) 
skennedy@herrerakennedy.com 
Bret D. Hembd (SBN 272826) 
bhembd@herrerakennedy.com 
4590 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 500 
Newport Beach, CA 92660 
Tel: (949) 936-0900 
Fax: (855) 969-2050 
 
HERRERA KENNEDY LLP 
Nicomedes Sy Herrera (SBN 275332) 
nherrera@herrerakennedy.com 
Laura E. Seidl (SBN 269891) 
lseidl@herrerakennedy.com 
1300 Clay Street, Suite 600 
Oakland, CA 94612 
Tel: (510) 422-4700 
Fax: (855) 969-2050 
 
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & 
BERNSTEIN, LLP 
Rachel Geman (Pro Hac Vice) 
rgeman@lchb.com 
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor 
New York, NY 10013-1413 
Tel: (212) 355-9500 
Fax: (212) 355-9592 
 
Co-Lead Class Counsel 
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &  
BERNSTEIN, LLP 
Michael W. Sobol (SBN 194857) 
msobol@lchb.com 
Melissa Gardner (SBN 289096) 
mgardner@lchb.com 
Michael K. Sheen (SBN 288284) 
msheen@lchb.com 
Nicholas R. Hartmann (SBN 301049) 
nhartmann@lchb.com 
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 
Tel: (415) 956-1000 
Fax: (415) 956-1008 
BURNS CHAREST LLP 
Christopher J. Cormier (Pro Hac Vice) 
ccormier@burnscharest.com 
4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200 
Washington, DC 20016 
Tel: (202) 577-3977 
Fax: (469) 444-5002 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
OAKLAND DIVISION 
IN RE PLAID INC. PRIVACY  
LITIGATION 
Master Docket No.: 4:20-cv-03056-DMR 
 
SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT DECLARATION 
OF CHRISTOPHER J. CORMIER, SHAWN 
M. KENNEDY, AND RACHEL GEMAN IN 
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 
FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, 
REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, AND 
PLAINTIFF SERVICE AWARDS, AND IN 
RESPONSE TO COURT’S ORDER (DKT. 
177) 
 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 182     Filed 05/19/22     Page 1 of 13

 
 
 
2416404.4  
 
SUPPLEMENTAL DECL ISO MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ 
FEES, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR  
 
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 
We, CHRISTOPHER J. CORMIER, RACHEL GEMAN, and SHAWN M. KENNEDY, 
hereby declare as follows: 
1. 
Christopher J. Cormier is a member in good standing of the District of Columbia 
and Colorado State Bars and a partner in the law firm of Burns Charest LLP (“Burns Charest”). 
Shawn Kennedy is a member in good standing of the California State Bar and a partner in the law 
firm of Herrera Kennedy LLP (“Herrera Kennedy”). Rachel Geman is a member in good standing 
of the New York State Bar and a partner in the law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, 
LLP (“Lieff Cabraser”). Together, Burns Charest, Herrera Kennedy, and Lieff Cabraser were 
appointed Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel on July 29, 2020 (Dkt. 57) and Co-Lead Class Counsel 
(“Class Counsel”) on November 19, 2021 (Dkt. 153).  
2. 
We submit this Supplemental Declaration jointly in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion 
for Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Plaintiff Service Awards (Dkt. 157) and in 
response to the Court’s request for supplemental information following the Final Approval 
Hearing on May 12, 2022 (see Dkts. 177, 180).  
3. 
In this Supplemental Declaration, Class Counsel provide “supplemental evidence 
supporting the request for an award of attorneys’ fees, including specifically addressing how the 
three firms appointed Class Counsel organized and carried out their division of labor to ensure 
that there was no duplication of work and/or to minimize such duplication.” Dkt. 180 at 1. Each 
firm provides its own declaration for the firm-specific questions posed by the Court, namely, 
“support for the hourly rates requested as follows: Herrera Kennedy, all timekeepers; Lieff 
Cabraser, Danna Elmasry; and Burns Charest, all timekeepers other than Chris Cormier and 
Warren Burns.”  These are attached hereto as exhibits.  See Section III below. 
4. 
Except as otherwise noted, we have personal knowledge of the statements 
contained in this declaration and, if called to testify, could and would testify competently to the 
truth of the matters stated herein. 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 182     Filed 05/19/22     Page 2 of 13

 
 
 
2416404.4  
- 2 - 
SUPPLEMENTAL DECL ISO MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ 
FEES, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
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 
I. 
CLASS COUNSEL HAVE IMPLEMENTED ESTABLISHED PROCEDURES TO 
LITIGATE THE CASE EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY ON THE CLASS’S 
BEHALF. 
5. 
In appointing Burns Charest, Herrera Kennedy, and Lieff Cabraser as Class 
Counsel, the Court granted the firms authority over various matters on behalf of all plaintiffs and 
the class, including “coordinating and managing all work to ensure the efficient and effective 
prosecution of the Consolidated Action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the proposed Classes.”  See 
Dkt. 57 (“Pretrial Order”) at ¶ 14. 
6. 
Class Counsel have managed and organized this litigation by implementing 
practices and procedures—informed in large part by our collective experience successfully 
serving as lead counsel in other complex class actions—that have enabled the effective and 
efficient prosecution of the case on the class’ behalf.  
7. 
First, Class Counsel utilized a lean core leadership structure, comprised of one 
senior lawyer from each firm, to organize and manage the duties the Court entrusted to Class 
Counsel. Second, Class Counsel regularly communicated with each other to promote the orderly 
and efficient management of the case and to prevent duplicative work. Third, Class Counsel 
assigned specific tasks to specific Class Counsel firms in a manner that ensured the tasks were 
performed properly and efficiently while reasonably utilizing Class Counsel’s collective 
experience, insight, and input. Fourth, Class Counsel involved other plaintiffs’ counsel for 
specific assignments as appropriate and in a manner that ensured those tasks were performed 
properly and efficiently. Fifth, Class Counsel implemented and adhered to reporting protocols 
that have helped ensure that all counsel’s time and expenses were appropriate and instituted and 
maintained a litigation fund that has helped ensure sufficient funding for the prosecution of the 
case on the class’s behalf. Each of these practices is discussed in greater detail below. 
A. 
The Core Team, Consisting of One Senior Lawyer From Each Class Counsel 
Firm, Managed All Aspects of the Case. 
8. 
Since the inception of this matter, and months before the first complaint was filed, 
one senior lawyer from each Class Counsel firm has served as that firm’s point person to manage 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 182     Filed 05/19/22     Page 3 of 13

 
 
 
2416404.4  
- 3 - 
SUPPLEMENTAL DECL ISO MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ 
FEES, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
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 
their own firm’s staffing and workload as well as to more broadly run the case in coordination 
with their counterparts on the class’ behalf.  
9. 
This core team was formed to prosecute the case in an efficient and orderly 
manner within and among the eventual Court-appointed Class Counsel firms and, if necessary, 
any additional class counsel firms that filed complaints and became involved in the litigation. 
10. 
The core leadership team in this case is comprised of Shawn M. Kennedy of 
Herrera Kennedy LLP; Rachel Geman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; and 
Christopher J. Cormier of Burns Charest LLP.  
B. 
Class Counsel Regularly Communicated to Ensure All Specific Tasks and 
Broader Strategic Goals Were Handled and Implemented Properly. 
11. 
A key part of Class Counsel’s approach to case management has been regular 
communication. Experience has taught us that frequent and purposeful communication is 
necessary to ensure that all deadlines and milestone are met, that all assignments are performed 
well and on time, and that all important strategic matters are thoroughly considered and ultimately 
decided. 
12. 
With this tenet in mind, the core Class Counsel team communicated regularly and 
frequently since day one through Zoom meetings, telephone calls, and email exchanges. These 
communications, through one form or another, typically have occurred once per week, although 
during particularly busy times, they occurred multiple times per week.  
13. 
As the needs of the litigation shifted and expanded in scope, the core team also 
often convened meetings or calls with a broader group of attorneys and staff from the Class 
Counsel firms as appropriate to discuss various strategy and case management issues, including 
the allocation of, and progress on, various litigation and settlement-related tasks. Class Counsel 
ensured that strategy discussions were limited to senior attorneys and personnel responsible for 
handling the tasks being discussed. Sometimes having additional attorneys on these calls ensured 
that the relevant strategies, issues, and assignments could be discussed clearly and efficiently, and 
it offered the opportunity for members of the broader leadership team to ask questions and 
provide insight on a given issue that may not otherwise have been raised or considered. 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 182     Filed 05/19/22     Page 4 of 13

 
 
 
2416404.4  
- 4 - 
SUPPLEMENTAL DECL ISO MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ 
FEES, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
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 
Participation by the broader group also greatly minimized if not eliminated the amount of time 
and energy that otherwise would have been spent summarizing call content and repeating 
instructions to individuals at each firm. 
14. 
Accordingly, such Class Counsel calls and other communications benefitted the 
class. See MacDonald v. Ford Motor Co., No. 13-cv-02988-JST, 2016 WL 3055643, at *4 (N.D. 
Cal. May 31, 2016) (recognizing that “some number of intra-office conferences are not only to be 
expected, but will often result in a savings of attorney time by ensuring that all attorneys on a 
team are kept apprised of important information about the case as it becomes available”); PSM 
Holding Corp. v. Nat’l Farm Fin. Corp., 743 F. Supp. 2d 1136, 1157 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (“Multiple 
attorneys may be essential for planning strategy, eliciting testimony or evaluating facts or law.”).  
C. 
Each Class Counsel Firm Spearheaded Specific Assignments While 
Contributing to the Overall Management and Direction of the Case.  
15. 
Class Counsel predominantly allocated among their firms the various tasks that 
arose during the case’s lifespan in a sensible and non-duplicative manner. Under this allocation 
method, one attorney at one Class Counsel firm was assigned to take the lead on a specific task, 
while in the case of larger projects warranting more time and attention, multiple attorneys would 
take lead roles, dividing the work among them in a reasonable way. Illustrative examples of Class 
Counsel’s approach are provided in Section Error! Reference source not found. below. 
16. 
No more than one attorney or firm assigned to complete the same task (though 
obviously counsel collaborated and assisted each other when needed in analyzing important legal 
issues where there the right answer or strategy presented no clear answer). Such duplicative work 
would not have benefitted either the class or its counsel. Such work would take money out of the 
pockets of the class, and force counsel to spend unnecessary time and effort performing redundant 
and needless work when their time could have been better spend handling other tasks that needed 
to get done.  
17. 
However, once a lead attorney completed and circulated their assigned work 
product—particularly when the work product involved significant or important litigation tasks, 
such as briefs to be filed with the Court, written discovery requests or responses, or a settlement 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 182     Filed 05/19/22     Page 5 of 13

 
 
 
2416404.4  
- 5 - 
SUPPLEMENTAL DECL ISO MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ 
FEES, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
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 
demand with detailed proposed terms—the broader Class Counsel team generally reviewed and 
provided input on the work product before it was finalized. The reason for this is explained by the 
desired result:  to present the best product possible on behalf of the class by utilizing the diverse 
talents and skill sets of the larger team.  
18. 
Broader team involvement of this nature has thus benefitted the class. As courts in 
the Ninth Circuit have recognized, “multiple attorneys may be essential for planning strategy, 
eliciting testimony or evaluating facts or law.” PSM Holding Corp., 743 F. Supp. 2d at 1157. And 
“participation of more than one attorney does not necessarily constitute an unnecessary 
duplication of effort.” Kim v. Fujikawa, 871 F.2d 1427, 1435 n.9 (9th Cir. 1989) (finding 
participation by more than one attorney a “reasonable necessity, given the complexity of legal 
issues and the breadth of factual evidence involved”). Accord Ridgeway v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 
269 F. Supp. 3d 975, 990-91 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (recognizing that some duplication of effort “is 
inherent in the process of litigating over time”) (quoting Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 
1106, 1112 (9th Cir. 2008)). This case was no exception given the novelty and complexity of the 
factual and legal issues at hand and given the sophisticated, highly regarded law firms that 
aggressively and vigorously have represented Defendant’s interests here. 
D. 
Class Counsel Delegated and Oversaw Assignments to Additional Class 
Counsel Firms as Appropriate.  
19. 
Mindful of their obligation to litigate the case in an efficient and cost-effective 
manner while appreciative of their unique knowledge of the relevant factual and legal issues, 
Class Counsel handled the substantial majority of the work themselves.  
20. 
At the same time, Class Counsel chose to involve other plaintiffs’ counsel in 
specific tasks when it made sense to do so (with sufficient oversight) to ensure the 
assignments were performed in a timely, professional, and efficient manner.   
21. 
For example, Class Counsel tasked other plaintiffs’ counsel firms with liaising 
with their respective clients, i.e., the named Plaintiffs, on defensive discovery, including working 
with the ESI vendor to identify and take mirror image copies of all relevant ESI in their 
possession, custody or control, and providing substantive responses when appropriate to 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 182     Filed 05/19/22     Page 6 of 13

 
 
 
2416404.4  
- 6 - 
SUPPLEMENTAL DECL ISO MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ 
FEES, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
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 
Defendants’ discovery requests. They also tasked these firms with reviewing and discussing the 
terms of the proposed settlement agreement with their respective named Plaintiff clients and, 
ultimately, receiving approval and securing corresponding declarations from those clients. 
22. 
Class Counsel also assigned certain Plaintiffs Steering Committee (“PSC”) firms 
specific tasks concerning researching and analyzing the relevant caselaw and providing 
recommendations on potential plans of allocation of the net settlement fund among class 
members. Class Counsel considered these firms’ non-duplicative work in making their ultimate 
decision on a proposed plan of allocation. 
E. 
Class Counsel Oversaw and Maintained Time and Expense Records and 
Provided Necessary Funding of Litigation Expenses for the Class’s Benefit. 
23. 
Finally, Class Counsel have implemented and followed systems to ensure that 
counsel appropriately billed the class for their time and expenses and that counsel appropriately 
funded the case by contributing to a joint litigation fund so that the class could avail itself of the 
third-party administrator and consultant services needed to properly represent the class’ interests. 
24. 
Soon after the Court appointed leadership, Burns Charest, on behalf of Class 
Counsel, sent a letter to all plaintiffs’ counsel setting forth a time and expense reporting protocol 
that everyone was required to follow. This letter detailed the reporting process and requirements 
and contained templates that detailed the categories of information the firms had to track and 
report on a monthly basis. Throughout the case, Class Counsel have overseen this reporting to 
ensure that counsels’ time was reported timely and appropriately and that their reported expenses 
reflected properly incurred costs. (Class Counsel are prepared to submit to the Court in camera 
their detailed time and expense reports if the Court so desires.) 
25. 
In addition, Lieff Cabraser, on behalf of Class Counsel, has maintained and 
periodically assessed and collected contributions (solely from Class Counsel) to the litigation 
fund. This fund was used to pay common case-related expenses like ESI vendors, expert 
consultants, and settlement administrators. Through the initiation and management of the 
litigation fund, Class Counsel have ensured that the class has had sufficient cash on hand to pay 
the expenses commonly needed in this type of case to properly represent their interests. 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 182     Filed 05/19/22     Page 7 of 13

 
 
 
2416404.4  
- 7 - 
SUPPLEMENTAL DECL ISO MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ 
FEES, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
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 
26. 
In sum, Class Counsel have managed this novel and important class action and 
organized the corresponding legal work with the goals of delivering significant benefits to the 
class while ensuring that no unnecessary duplication of work or wasted effort occurred. 
II. 
CLASS COUNSEL HAVE EFFICIENTLY COORDINATED AND HANDLED 
WORK ON THE CLASS’S BEHALF  
27. 
As explained in Section Error! Reference source not found. above, in managing 
this litigation, Class Counsel divided and assigned specific tasks to ensure that work was 
performed in an efficient and appropriate manner.  
28. 
Factual Investigation: This litigation was not precipitated by any governmental 
investigation or whistleblower lawsuit, in contrast to many other meritorious and high-profile 
class actions. Rather, this case and the ensuing settlement resulted from the hard and extensive 
work of Class Counsel. This case was developed and investigated in the first instance by Herrera 
Kennedy. Specifically, Shawn Kennedy identified and spearheaded the investigation into Plaid’s 
practices, drawing upon his particular knowledge and experience as a former executive in the 
financial technology industry. Herrera Kennedy attorneys broadly handled the initial factual 
investigative efforts, including the identification and review of numerous videos, message board 
posts, websites, submissions to government regulators, podcasts, marketing materials, “hacker 
threads,” articles, and other sources. Herrera Kennedy’s extensive efforts also involved delving 
into the history and evolution of Plaid’s business. Once Burns Charest and Lieff Cabraser became 
involved in the months before the filing of the initial complaint, the contours of the factual 
investigation broadened in scope to include, for example, analysis of relevant data and related 
forensics and research and analysis of additional potential legal claims focusing on certain 
privacy laws and the regulatory backdrop for them. The work performed in this extensive pre-
filing investigation phase was collaborative but not duplicative.  
29. 
Complaints: Herrera Kennedy drafted much of the factual portions of the initial 
complaint (which were also in the consolidated amended complaint). Burns Charest and Lieff 
Cabraser drafted much of those complaints’ sections focusing on the legal claims, causes of 
action, and class-related allegations. Lieff Cabraser largely oversaw the process for selecting class 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 182     Filed 05/19/22     Page 8 of 13

 
 
 
2416404.4  
- 8 - 
SUPPLEMENTAL DECL ISO MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ 
FEES, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
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 
representatives in the consolidated amended complaint and finalizing that pleading. As with Class 
Counsel’s pre-filing investigation efforts, their work in drafting the initial and consolidated 
amended complaints was collaborative but not duplicative.  
30. 
Motion Practice: As an example of the efficient work allocation approach 
discussed above, the firms often focused throughout different projects, including motions and 
briefs filed with and argued before the Court, on substantive topics. Lieff Cabraser was most 
focused at the complaint stage and motion to dismiss briefing stages on privacy and dignitary 
torts, other common-law claims, and on the California Anti-Phishing Act Claim. Thus, it was 
efficient for Lieff Cabraser to handle both drafting, briefing, and oral argument about those 
claims, and it did so.  Herrera Kennedy focused on the other statutory claims, and the firm 
therefore took the lead in both briefing and presenting oral argument on those claims. Burns 
Charest also participated in drafting and briefing of deceit-related claims, and given its familiarity 
with the issues addressed in the complaints and motion to dismiss briefing, Mr. Cormier prepared 
for and led Plaintiffs’ moot argument that helped prepare Ms. Geman and Mr. Kennedy for their 
subsequent argument before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss. And while assignments 
on the larger briefs were allocated among the different firms in a sensible and non-duplicative 
manner, smaller and more discrete research and writing assignments were handled by just one 
firm as a matter of course. These assignments were driven by a singular purpose of delivering 
superior work product that benefited from a diverse range of talents efficiently. There was no 
divvying of assignments among multiple firms for its own sake.  
31. 
Organizing Plaintiffs’ Counsel:  As other complaints were filed, the core lead 
counsel team spoke with and organized the other plaintiffs’ counsel into a leadership structure 
that Class Counsel proposed and that the Court ultimately endorsed. The work Class Counsel 
allocated to other plaintiffs’ counsel, including the PSC, was addressed above. 
32. 
Discovery:  In seeking discovery from Plaid and third parties, each of the three 
Class Counsel firms focused on discrete areas of discovery, while at the same time ensuring that 
important goals, topics and follow-up items did not fall through the cracks. For example, one firm 
drafted each set of discovery requests (Herrera Kennedy as to the document requests and 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 182     Filed 05/19/22     Page 9 of 13

 
 
 
2416404.4  
- 9 - 
SUPPLEMENTAL DECL ISO MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ 
FEES, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
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 
interrogatories, and Burns Charest on the requests for admission), one firm (Lieff Cabraser) 
drafted third party subpoenas, and one firm (Burns Charest) handled Plaintiffs’ responses to 
Plaid’s discovery requests. Relatedly, Burns Charest managed Plaintiffs’ defensive discovery 
program, including engaging and working with Plaintiffs’ third-party ESI vendor, scheduling and 
managing the ESI vendor’s retention of the named Plaintiffs’ relevant ESI, working with the 
named Plaintiffs and their respective counsel on drafting Plaintiffs’ objections and responses to 
Defendant’s document production requests and interrogatories, and leading related meet and 
confers with Defendant. For each set of written discovery requests or responses, a designated 
attorney from an assigned firm took the lead in drafting and circulating work product to others on 
the team for feedback. And that assigned attorney handled the subsequent meet-and-confers and 
negotiations for the respective set of discovery requests or responses (and reported back to the 
broader Class Counsel team and receiving direction and guidance as appropriate). In addition, a 
small group of attorneys from the Class Counsel firms conducted a high-level review of Plaid’s 
initial document production, which was used both to further guide Plaintiffs’ discovery strategy 
and to further inform their strategy on settlement.    
33. 
Mediation:  While all three Class Counsel firms (and particularly the core 
leadership team members) were involved throughout the mediation process and participated in the 
mediations before the Hon. Jay Gandhi (ret.), there was considerable yet non-duplicative 
preparatory work that occurred before, between, and after each mediation session. For example, 
Lieff Cabraser (Ms. Geman) was the point person for direct one-on-one communications with the 
mediator, and handled the first draft of the mediators’ eyes only brief. Herrera Kennedy (Mr. 
Kennedy) handled the first draft of the exchanged brief. Burns Charest (Mr. Cormier) handled the 
research, analysis and recommendations on (a) insurance coverage available from Plaid’s primary 
and excess insurers to help fund a settlement, and (b) Plaid’s ability to self-fund a settlement, in 
coordination with analysis provided by a retained financial consultant who reviewed Plaid’s 
financial statements and other available data. Burns Charest (Mr. Cormier) also worked with the 
named Plaintiffs and their counsel to provide certain informal discovery requested of them by 
Plaid as part of the mediation process.  
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 182     Filed 05/19/22     Page 10 of 13

 
 
 
2416404.4  
- 10 - 
SUPPLEMENTAL DECL ISO MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ 
FEES, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
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 
34. 
Settlement:  As a further example of the efficient work division, the Class 
Counsel firms divided work in a sensible, non-duplicative way on the various settlement-related 
tasks that arose once the parties had agreed in principle to settle the case following the final 
mediation. For example, Burns Charest handled selecting and retaining the escrow agent and 
negotiating the corresponding agreement, working with the named Plaintiffs and their individual 
counsel to answer questions that arose and to obtain client approval and corresponding 
declarations, and participating in the drafting of the settlement agreement, corresponding approval 
papers, and allocation discussions. Lieff Cabraser worked more closely with the claims 
administrator and handled first drafts of multiple settlement documents, such as the injunctive 
relief and notice documents. Lieff Cabraser also developed the framework for, and participated 
in, the allocation discussions. Herrera Kennedy was responsible for creating the draft of the 
motion for preliminary settlement approval, reviewing and revising discrete portions of the 
settlement documents, honing the settlement class definition in light of technical information 
obtained from Plaid, and handling myriad issues relating to the technical capacity for 
identification of class members. After preliminary approval (the argument of which, as in other 
oral arguments in the case, was handled by at most two firms), the firms all addressed class 
member inquiries in a non-duplicative and organized fashion. Since commencement of the notice 
program, the three Class Counsel firms have also worked to ensure class member inquiries that 
were made directly to counsel received timely and consistent responses. In particular, the firms 
kept a central database of inquiries to track and assign responsibility for individual inquiries and 
ensure no duplication. Lieff Cabraser handled first drafts of final approval briefing and addressing 
objectors; Herrera Kennedy handled the first draft of fee briefing. All three Class Counsel firms 
worked to design and oversee execution of the initial notice campaign, and Burns Charest 
prompted the second reminder notice campaign.  
35. 
Administration:  Throughout the course of the litigation, due primarily to the 
location of its primary office in San Francisco, Lieff Cabraser assumed a form of liaison counsel 
role among Class Counsel, providing procedural and administrative support on most major case 
filings—including, for example, the consolidated amended complaint and Plaintiffs’ settlement-
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 182     Filed 05/19/22     Page 11 of 13

 
 
 
2416404.4  
- 11 - 
SUPPLEMENTAL DECL ISO MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ 
FEES, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
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 
related motions. As noted above, Burns Charest oversaw the reporting and collection of all firms’ 
time and litigation expenses, and Lieff Cabraser maintained the cost fund. 
III. 
SUPPORT FOR CLASS COUNSEL’S HOURLY RATES 
36. 
In response to the Court’s request for additional evidentiary support for the hourly 
rates of several timekeepers from Class Counsel’s firms, Class Counsel firm submits the 
following declarations. 
37. 
Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of 
Christopher J. Cormier. 
38. 
Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of 
Shawn M. Kennedy. 
39. 
Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of 
Rachel Geman. 
IV. 
LODESTAR MULTIPLIER 
40. 
At the original hourly rates requested in Class Counsel’s moving papers, Class 
Counsel’s request for the benchmark 25% of the Settlement represented a 3.29 multiplier. (Dkt. 
157, at page 8 of 27.) After recalculating Herrera Kennedy’s lodestar contribution as discussed in 
the accompanying Declaration of Shawn M. Kennedy—solely for the purpose of demonstrating a 
lodestar crosscheck—to reduce Ms. Seidl’s time to $675 per hour and Mr. Hembd’s to $625 per 
hour, the lodestar decreases by a total of $66,355, resulting in a multiplier of 3.35. And, for 
illustration, subtracting both that total and the lodestar for Ms. Elmasry from Lieff Cabraser as 
discussed in the accompanying Declaration of Rachel Geman, the multiplier would increase 
only to 3.36. In either event, the multiplier would still be well within the acceptable range. See 
Dkt. 157 at 16 (citing cases with much higher lodestar multipliers). 
* 
* 
* 
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct as to all matters of 
which I have personal knowledge. Executed this 19th day of May, 2022, in New York, New 
York. 
 
/s/ Rachel Geman 
 
Rachel Geman 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 182     Filed 05/19/22     Page 12 of 13

 
 
 
2416404.4  
- 12 - 
SUPPLEMENTAL DECL ISO MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ 
FEES, EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
 
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 
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct as to all matters of 
which I have personal knowledge. Executed this 19th day of May, 2022, in Washington, D.C. 
 
 
/s/ Christopher J. Cormier 
 
Christopher J. Cormier 
 
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct as to all matters of 
which I have personal knowledge. Executed this 19th day of May, 2022, in Rancho Santa 
Margarita, California. 
 
 
/s/ Shawn M. Kennedy 
 
Shawn M. Kennedy 
 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 182     Filed 05/19/22     Page 13 of 13

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.182.0.pdf

Size

76,951 bytes

SHA-256

467a7a253862d0589f37ac7fa1d18c24516a05493519b5399b2ab677dd585ba5

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.182.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)