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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 232 Filed 02/14/22 Page 1 of 38
`
`DiCELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
`David A. Straite (admitted pro hac vice)
`60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2400
`New York, New York 10165
`Tel.: (646) 933-1000
`dstraite@dicellolevitt.com
`
`Amy E. Keller (admitted pro hac vice)
`Ten North Dearborn Street, 6th Fl.
`Chicago, Illinois 60602
`Tel.: (312) 214-7900
`akeller@dicellolevitt.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`GRYGIEL LAW LLC
`Stephen G. Grygiel (admitted pro hac vice)
`301 Warren Avenue, Suite 405
`Baltimore, MD 21230
`Tel.: (407) 505-9463
`sgrygiel@silvermanthompson.com
`
`SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
`Jason ‘Jay’ Barnes (admitted pro hac vice)
`112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
`New York, NY 10016
`Tel.: (212) 784-6400
`Fax: (212) 213-5949
`jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`IN RE FACEBOOK INTERNET
`TRACKING LITIGATION
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO
`ALL ACTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 5:20-MD-2314-EJD
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`
`Case No. 5:12-MD-2314-EJD
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR
`CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT
`CLASS AND PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL
`PROCEDURE 23(e)(1); AND APPROVING
`FORM AND CONTENT OF CLASS NOTICE,
`WITH SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`Judge: Hon. Edward J. Davila
`Courtroom 4, 5th Floor
`Hearing Date: March 31, 2022
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 232 Filed 02/14/22 Page 2 of 38
`
`
`
`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
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 31, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4 of the
`United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Robert F. Peckham Federal
`Building & United States Courthouse, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California 95113, the
`Honorable Edward J. Davila presiding, the Lead Plaintiffs1 will, and hereby do, move for an Order
`pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 23”): (i) preliminarily approving
`the proposed Settlement and Settlement Agreement (“Agreement” or “Agr’t”); (ii) certifying a class
`for settlement purposes; (iii) approving the form and manner of notice to the Settlement Class; (iv)
`approving the selection of the Settlement Administrator; and (iv) scheduling a Final Fairness
`Hearing before the Court.
` The proposed Settlement provides two forms of relief for the proposed Settlement Class:
`injunctive relief and monetary relief. For the injunctive relief, Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.,
`formerly Facebook, Inc. (“Meta” or “Defendant”) has agreed to sequester and delete all data that
`Plaintiffs alleged was wrongfully collected during the Settlement Class Period. For the monetary
`relief, the proposed Settlement also establishes a fully non-reversionary Settlement Fund of $90
`million. The Settlement, if approved, will also resolve a parallel class action in California State
`Court.
`
`This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points
`and Authorities set forth below, the accompanying Joint Declaration of David A. Straite and
`Stephen G. Grygiel in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed
`Settlement dated February 14, 2022 (“Joint Declaration”), and its attached exhibits (including the
`Settlement Agreement dated February 14, 2022 and its attached exhibits and appendices), the
`pleadings and records on file in this Action, and other such matters and argument as the Court may
`consider at the hearing of this motion.
`
`
`
`
`1 All capitalized words are defined in Settlement Agreement, unless otherwise defined herein.
`CASE NO. 5:20-MD-2314-EJD
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 232 Filed 02/14/22 Page 3 of 38
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Whether the proposed Settlement is within the range of fairness, reasonableness and
`adequacy as to warrant: (a) the Court’s preliminary approval; (b) certification of a
`Settlement Class for settlement purposes; (c) the dissemination of Notice of the
`Settlement’s terms to Settlement Class Members; and (d) setting a hearing date for
`final approval of the Settlement as well as motions or other applications for Fees
`and Expense Award and for Service Awards;
`Whether the proposed forms of Notice and Notice Plan adequately inform
`Settlement Class Members of the terms of the Settlement and their rights with
`respect to the Settlement;
`Whether the selection of Angeion Group as Settlement Administrator should be
`approved;
`Whether the proposed distribution of the Settlement Fund should be preliminarily
`approved; and
`Whether the Claim Form and Opt-Out Forms are sufficient.
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`CASE NO. 5:20-MD-2314-EJD
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 232 Filed 02/14/22 Page 4 of 38
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................... 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF THE LITIGATION ................................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. MEDIATION ........................................................................................................................ 4
`IV.
`THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ....................................................................................... 4
`V.
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................ 5
`A. Legal Requirements for Preliminary Settlement Approval ............................................ 5
`B. Conditional Certification of the Settlement Class and Re-Appointment of Class
`Counsel is Warranted ..................................................................................................... 7
`1. Rule 23(a)’s Requirements Are Met ......................................................................... 8
`2. Rule 23(b)’s Test is Met .......................................................................................... 10
`C. Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Settlement Should be Granted........................ 11
`1. Proposed Settlement Results from Arms-Length, Non-Collusive
`Negotiated Resolution ............................................................................................. 12
`a. Proposed Settlement is Product of Mediator’s Proposal and is
` Supported by Experienced Counsel ................................................................... 12
`b.The Stage of the Proceedings, and the Discovery Completed
` Support Preliminary Settlement Approval ........................................................ 14
`2. Procedural Guidance Factors for Class Action Settlements are Satisfied ............... 14
`a. Guidance 1: Differences, Range and Plan of Allocation .................................... 15
`i. Guidance 1a.-d.: Differences in the Proposed Settlement Class
` and the Class Proposed in the SAC ................................................................. 15
`ii. Guidance 1e: The Proposed Settlement Provides a Favorable
` Recovery and Falls Within the Range of Approvability ................................ 16
`iii. Guidance 1f.-g.: Allocation Plan Merits Preliminary Approval .................... 17
`b. Guidance 2: The Proposed Settlement Administrator .......................................... 18
`c. Guidance 3: Proposed Notices to Settlement Class are Approvable .................... 19
`d. Guidance 4 and 5: Opt-Outs and Objections....................................................... 21
`e. Guidance 6: The Anticipated Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses Request ............... 21
`f. Guidance 7: The Proposed Settlement and Proposed Service
`Awards Do Not Unjustly Favor any Class Members, including
`Named Plaintiffs ................................................................................................. 22
`
`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
`
`CASE NO. 5:20-MD-2314-EJD
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 232 Filed 02/14/22 Page 5 of 38
`
`
`
`g. Guidance 8: Cy Pres Recipients .......................................................................... 24
`h. Guidance 9: Proposed Timeline .......................................................................... 24
`i. Guidance 10: Class Action Fairness Act ............................................................. 25
`j. Guidance 11: Past Distributions .......................................................................... 25
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`CASE NO. 5:20-MD-2314-EJD
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 232 Filed 02/14/22 Page 6 of 38
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS TO THE JOINT DECLARATION
`OF DAVID STRAITE AND STEPHEN GRYGIEL
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`EXHIBIT
`1
`
`Settlement Agreement
`1A List of Related and Consolidated Actions
`1B Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion Group, LLC re: Proposed
`Notice Plan
`1C Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action
`1D Claim Form
`1E Opt-Out Form
`1F Proposed Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Authorizing
`Notice to the Class, and Setting Fairness Hearing
`1G Proposed Order of Final Approval
`1H Proposed Judgment
`Biography of David A. Straite of DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC
`Biography of Stephen G. Grygiel of Grygiel Law LLC
`Biography of Jason “Jay” Barnes of Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC
`Biographies of Margery Bronster and Robert Hatch of Bronster
`Fujichaku Robbins
`Biography of William H. “Billy” Murphy, Jr. of Murphy Falcon
`Murphy
`Biography of Barry Eichen of Eichen Crutchlow Zaslow LLP
`Biography of Paul Kiesel of Kiesel Law LLP
`Biography of Stephen Gorny of the Gorny Law Firm, LC
`Biography of James Frickleton of Bartimus Frickleton Robertson Rader
`Biography of William M. Cunningham, Jr. of Burns, Cunningham &
`Mackey, P.C.
`Biography of Andrew J. Lyskowski of Bergmanis Law Firm LLC
`Chart of Selected Data Privacy Class Action Settlements
`
`
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`
`12
`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
`
`CASE NO. 5:20-MD-2314-EJD
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 232 Filed 02/14/22 Page 7 of 38
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ahmed v. Beverly Health and Rehab. Servs., Inc.,
`2018 WL 746393 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2018) ......................................................................... 6, 12
`
`Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor,
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) .......................................................................................................... 10, 11
`
`Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-02129-MMA-AGS, 2020 WL 4260712 (S.D. Cal. July 24, 2020) ....................... 13
`
`Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co.,
`306 F.R.D. 245 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................................ 22
`
`Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
`844 F. 3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Briseno v. Henderson,
`998 F. 3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2021) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Bryan v. Amrep Corp.,
`429 F. Supp. 313 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) .......................................................................................... 11
`
`Camilo v. Ozuna,
`No. 18-cv-02842-VKD, 2020 WL 1557428 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2020) .................................. 13
`
`Campbell v. Facebook, Inc.,
`951 F. 3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................ 13
`
`In re: Cathode Ray Tube (Crt) Antitrust Litig.,
`MDL No. 1917, 2016 WL 6778406 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2016) ............................................. 17
`
`In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Mkting, Sales Practices,
`and Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`No. 17-md-02777-EMC, 2019 WL 536661 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2019) .................................. 15
`
`Cohorst v. BRE Properties, Inc.,
`No. 3:10-cv-2666-JM-BGS, 2011 WL 7061923 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2011) .......................... 21
`
`Cottle v. Plaid, Inc.,
`20-cv-3056-DMR, 2021 WL 5415252 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 19, 2021). ....................................... 20
`
`Ebarle v. Lifelock, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-258-HSG, 2016 WL 234364 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2016) .......................................... 9
`
`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
`
`CASE NO. 5:20-MD-2314-EJD
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 232 Filed 02/14/22 Page 8 of 38
`
`
`
`Eddings v. Health Net, Inc.,
`No. CV-10-1744-JST (RZX), 2013 WL 3013867 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2013) ........................ 23
`
`In re Equifax Inc. Consumer Data Security Breach Litigation,
`1:17-MD-2800-TWT (N.D. Ga.) ............................................................................................ 25
`
`In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig.,
`956 F. 3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`Fleisher v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co.,
`2013 WL 12224042 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2013) ....................................................................... 11
`
`In re Haier Freezer Consumer Litig.,
`No. 5:11-CV-02911-EJD, 2013 WL 2237890 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2013
`(citation omitted)) ..................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.
`150 F. 3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................ 6, 13
`
`Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.,
`976 F. 2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................................... 9
`
`Harrison v. Bank of America Corp.,
`Nos. 19-cv-00316-LB, 19-cv-02491-LB, 20-cv-02119, 2021 WL 5507175
`(N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2021) ....................................................................................................... 21
`
`Hawkins v. The Kroger Company,
`337 F.R.D. 518 (S.D. Cal. 2020) ............................................................................................. 10
`
`Kang and Moses v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
`Nos. 17-cv-06220-BLF, 21-cv-00071-BLF, 2021 WL 5826230
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2021) ......................................................................................................... 21
`
`Kendall v. Odonate Therapeutics, Inc.,
`2022 WL 118416 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2022) ............................................................................. 6
`
`Lane v. Facebook, Inc.,
`696 F. 3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 19
`
`In re Linkedin User Privacy Litig.,
`309 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ...................................................................................... 22, 23
`
`Magadia v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.,
`324 F.R.D. 213 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ............................................................................................ 11
`
`In re Magsafe Apple Power Litig.,
`No. 5:09-CV-01911-EJD, 2015 WL 428105 (N. D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2015) ................................ 22
`
`Marshall v. Northrop Grumman Corp.,
`No. 2:16-cv-06794-AB-JC, 2017 WL 6888281 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2017) .............................. 8
`
`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
`
`CASE NO. 5:20-MD-2314-EJD
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 232 Filed 02/14/22 Page 9 of 38
`
`
`
`In re Netflix Privacy Litig.,
`No. 5:11-CV-00379 EJD, 2012 WL 2598819 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2012) ................................. 15
`
`Noll v. eBay, Inc.,
`309 F.R.D. 593 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ........................................................................................ 8, 10
`
`Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC,
`Case No. 14-cv-00582-JD, 2021 WL 3053018 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2021) ............................. 20
`
`Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n,
`688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig.,
`779 F. 3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................ 9, 22, 23
`
`Ortega v. Aho Enterprises, Inc.,
`No. 19-cv-00404-DMR, 2021 WL 5584761 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2021) ...................... 6, 12, 16
`
`In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig.,
`47 F. 3d 373 (9th Cir. 1995) ..................................................................................................... 16
`
`Parker v. Cherne Contracting Corp.,
`No. 18-cv-01912-HSG, 2021 WL 5834227 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2021) ................................... 12
`
`Parkinson v Hyundai Motor Am.,
`258 F.R.D. 580 (C.D. Cal. 2008) .............................................................................................. 8
`
`In re Portal Software Sec. Litig.,
`No. C-03-5138 VRW, 2007 WL 4171201 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2007) ................................... 14
`
`Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc.,
`715 F. 3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2013) .......................................................................................... 22, 24
`
`In re Regulus Therapeutics, Inc.,
`No. 3:17-cv-182-BTM-RBB, No. 3:17-cv-267-BTM-RBB, 2020 WL 6381898
`(S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2020) ......................................................................................................... 18
`
`Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp.,
`563 F. 3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................................. 6, 16
`
`Rosado v. eBay Inc.,
`No. 5:12-cv-04005-EJD, 2016 WL 3401987 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2016)................................ 22
`
`Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-02200-HSG, 2020 WL 511953 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020)..................................... 15
`
`Schueneman v. Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`No. 3:10-CV-01959-CAB-(BLM), 2020 WL 3129566 (S.D. Cal. June 12,
`2020) ....................................................................................................................................... 18
`
`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
`
`CASE NO. 5:20-MD-2314-EJD
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 232 Filed 02/14/22 Page 10 of 38
`
`
`
`Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp.,
`2021WL 3129460 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2021) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Spann v. JC Penney Corp.,
`314 F.R. D. 312 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ..................................................................................... 11, 15
`
`Staton v. Boeing Co.,
`327 F. 3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003)). ......................................................................................... 22, 23
`
`In re Tableware Antitrust Litig.,
`484 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .................................................................................... 6
`
`Tait v. BSH Home Appliances Corp.,
`2015 WL 4537463 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2015) ................................................................... 11, 12
`
`Taylor v. Shutterfly, Inc.,
`No. 5:18-cv-00266-BLF, 2021 WL 5810294 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2021) ................................. 20
`
`In re Tea Station Investment, Inc.,
`2021 WL 4988436 .................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Thomas & Thomas Rodmakers, Inc. v. Newport Adhesives & Composites, Inc.,
`209 F.R.D. 159 (C.D. Cal. 2002) .............................................................................................. 9
`
`In re Tik Tok, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litig.,
`MDL No. 2498, Master Docket No. 20 C 4699, 2021 WL 4478403 (N.D. Ill.
`Sept. 30, 2021) ........................................................................................................................ 17
`
`Ung, et al. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`112-cv-217244 (Cal. Super. Ct.) ............................................................................................... 2
`
`Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp.,
`529 F. 2d 943 (9th Cir. 1976) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`Victorino v. FCA US LLC,
`322 F.R.D. 403 (S.D. Cal. 2017) ............................................................................................. 10
`
`Villegas v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,
`No. CV-09-00261 SBA (EMC), 2012 WL 5878390 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012) ................... 13
`
`In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`No. 2672, CRB, 2016 WL 6248426 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2016) .............................................. 14
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (2011) .................................................................................................................. 8
`
`Wang v. Chinese Daily News,
`737 F. 3d 538 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................... 7
`
`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
`
`CASE NO. 5:20-MD-2314-EJD
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 232 Filed 02/14/22 Page 11 of 38
`
`
`
`In re: Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig.,
`No. 16-MD-02572-LHK, 2020 WL 4212811 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2020) ............................... 20
`
`Zinser v. Accufix Research Instit., Inc.,
`253 F. 3d 1180, amended by 273 F. 3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................. 11
`
`Statutes
`
`Cal. Civil Code § 1572 .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Cal. Civil Code § 1573 .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Cal. Civil Code § 1750 .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Cal. Penal Code § 484 .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Cal. Penal Code § 496 ..................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Cal. Penal Code § 502 ..................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Cal. Penal Code § 630 ..................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Violation of Cal. Bus, and Prof. Code § 17200 (UCL) ................................................................... 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) ........................................................................................................................ 7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) ................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)(C)-(D)..................................................................................................... 11
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) ................................................................................................................. 19
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(i) ....................................................................................................... 10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(iii) ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(iv) ..................................................................................................... 10
`
`Federal Trade Commission, Consumers and Class Actions: A Retrospective and
`Analysis of Settlement Campaigns (Sept. 2019)..................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`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
`
`CASE NO. 5:20-MD-2314-EJD
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 232 Filed 02/14/22 Page 12 of 38
`
`
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`Named Plaintiffs Perrin Davis, Dr. Brian Lentz, Michael Vickery and Cynthia Quinn
`(collectively “Named Plaintiffs”) respectfully request entry of the proposed Preliminary Approval
`Order, attached as Exhibit F to the Settlement Agreement. The Preliminary Approval Order will:
`(i) grant preliminary approval of the Settlement on the terms and conditions stated in the Settlement
`Agreement; (ii) provisionally certify a Settlement Class and appoint Lead Counsel; (iii) approve
`the form and manner for providing notice to the Settlement Class of the proposed Settlement; (iv)
`approve the parties’ joint selection of the Settlement Administrator; and (v) schedule the date for
`the Final Fairness Hearing and set the schedule for various deadlines in connection with the
`Settlement.
`The proposed Settlement provides two forms of relief for the class. Standing alone, each
`would be sufficient to support settlement approval. Combined, they are unprecedented:
`
` Injunctive Relief: Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly Facebook, Inc. (“Meta” or
`“Defendant”) has agreed to sequester and delete the data that Plaintiffs alleged was
`wrongfully collected during the Settlement Class Period. Such relief represents the “gold
`standard” of relief in data privacy class actions alleging improper data collection.
`
` Monetary Relief: The proposed settlement also establishes a fully non-reversionary
`Settlement Fund of $90 Million, which if approved, will be one of the ten largest data
`privacy class action settlements ever. See Joint Declaration, Exhibit 13 (chart of data
`privacy class action settlements). Plaintiffs calculate that the Settlement Fund represents
`disgorgement of at least 100% of the additional net profits during the Settlement Class
`Period related to the data the Lead Plaintiffs alleged was wrongfully obtained.
`Even before the Settlement was reached, this litigation had already profoundly improved
`privacy rights. The Ninth Circuit clarified that when personal data is unlawfully copied and
`monetized, the result is economic harm (not just privacy harm) even if the value of the data in
`plaintiffs’ hands does not diminish. Before the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, courts were split regarding
`the question of whether economic harm required consequential diminution of the value of the data.
`The Ninth Circuit also ruled that Facebook is not a party to the communications that it allegedly
`intercepted within the meaning the Wiretap Act, firmly establishing that such data collection
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`CASE NO. 5:20-MD-2314-EJD
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 232 Filed 02/14/22 Page 13 of 38
`
`
`
`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
`
`requires actual consent. Defendant sought Supreme Court review, which was denied last year.
`The proposed Settlement was also fully informed by discovery over several years and was
`made possible with the assistance of a leading mediator, Randall Wulff, over three sessions. Id. ¶¶
`19-23. Following mediation, the parties continued to negotiate the injunctive relief (among other
`provisions) over six months. Id. ¶ 24. The proposed Settlement is not the product of collusion: as
`noted below and in the Joint Declaration, no clear sailing (Defendant has the right to be heard on
`any fee application, including the right to oppose) clause exists and the Named Plaintiffs were not
`even informed of the proposed Service Awards until after they considered the deal terms and
`approved.2 Id. ¶ 25. The selection of the proposed Claims Administrator followed competitive
`bidding and was jointly agreed by both Class Counsel and Defendant. Id. ¶¶ 26-27. Accordingly,
`the proposed Settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable, such that notice of the Settlement’s terms
`should be disseminated to Settlement Class Members and a Final Fairness Hearing scheduled
`finally to approve the proposed Settlement.
`II.
`SUMMARY OF THE LITIGATION
`Illustrating the perseverance of Named Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel brought to this case,
`litigation began ten (10) years ago with the MDL Transfer Order of February 8, 2012. (Dkt. # 1).
`Having consensually ordered the leadership structure for the consolidated cases, Class Counsel and
`their colleagues consulted with three technology and privacy experts, Joint Decl. ¶ 28, carefully
`researched and drafted in succession three extensive Complaints describing in detail the nature of
`the alleged privacy violations, and briefed and argued Motions to Dismiss on all three Complaints.
`See Dkt. Nos. 18, 35, 44, 52-55, 59, 87 (First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
`(“FAC”)); Dkt. Nos. 90-93, 101, 104-105, 109, 119, 148 (Second Amended Consolidated Class
`Action Complaint (“SAC”)); Dkt. Nos. 157, 162-163, 168, 171, 174 (Third Amended Consolidated
`Class Action Complaint (“TAC”)).
`The result of deep legal research and factual analysis, the FAC was some 43 pages long,
`
`
`2 Named Plaintiffs in the parallel State Court Action, Ung, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., 112-cv-217244
`(Cal. Super. Ct.), agree with the relief sought in this motion and also signed the Settlement
`Agreement.
`CASE NO. 5:20-MD-2314-EJD
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 232 Filed 02/14/22 Page 14 of 38
`
`
`
`contained 120 paragraphs of factual allegations, and alleged eleven substantive Counts.3 The SAC
`was some 57 pages long, set forth 154 paragraphs of factual allegations, and alleged eleven Counts.4
`In light of the Court’s Orders dismissing the FAC (Dkt. # 87) and SAC (Dkt. # 148), the TAC set
`forth 110 paragraphs of factual allegations, and only two counts: Breach of Contract (Count I), and
`Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Count II), as allowed by the Court.
`Plaintiffs undertook and responded to written discovery, Joint Decl. ¶ 29, briefed a Motion
`to Compel (Dkt. Nos. 110, 114-115, 141-142), briefed Defendant’s Motion to Stay Discovery
`(Docket Nos. 108, 111, 112), established a document database, reviewed Defendant’s productions
`of documents, and, before settlement was reached, had been negotiating with Defendant about the
`custodians and search terms for additional document production from Defendant.
`Plaintiffs filed, briefed and argued an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. That appeal resulted in a
`ruling of first impression in the Ninth Circuit that “Facebook is not exempt from liability as a matter
`of law under the Wiretap Act or CIPA as a party to the communication.” In re Facebook, Inc.
`Internet Tracking Litig., 956 F. 3d 589, 608 (9th Cir. 2020). Further, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling found
`that Named Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged economic harm and reversed the dismissal as to a
`number of Named Plaintiffs’ other claims, listed below. Underscoring its importance in privacy
`rights litigation, by Plaintiffs’ count the Ninth Circuit’s ruling has already been cited more than 50
`times in reported cases just in the past 18 months.
`Defendant then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.
`Plaintiffs retained and worked with noted Supreme Court counsel (Gupta Wessler PLLC), jointly
`developin