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 183 Filed 05/20/22 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 183 Filed 05/20/22 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 183 Filed 05/20/22 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 183 Filed 05/20/22 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 III 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 183 Filed 05/20/22 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 183 Filed 05/20/22 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 183 Filed 05/20/22 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 I.C 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 183 Filed 05/20/22 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 183 Filed 05/20/22 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 183 Filed 05/20/22 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 183 Filed 05/20/22 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 183 Filed 05/20/22 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 183 Filed 05/20/22 Page 13 of 13