Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 190 Filed 07/31/21 Page 1 of 37
`
`
`TINA WOLFSON (SBN 174806)
`twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
`THEODORE MAYA (SBN 223242)
`tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
`CHRISTOPHER STINER (SBN 276033)
`cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
`RACHEL JOHNSON (SBN 331351)
`rjohnson@ahdootwolfson.com
`AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
`2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
`Burbank, California 91505
`Tel: (310) 474-9111
`
`MARK C. MOLUMPHY (SBN 168009)
`mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
`TYSON C. REDENBARGER (SBN 294424)
`tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com
`NOORJAHAN RAHMAN (SBN 330572)
`nrahman@cpmlegal.com
`JULIA Q. PENG (SBN 318396)
`jpeng@cpmlegal.com
`COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
`840 Malcolm Road
`Burlingame, California 94010
`Tel: (650) 697-6000
`
`Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN RE: ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS,
`INC. PRIVACY LITIGATION
`
`This Document Relates To:
`
`
`ALL ACTIONS
`
`CASE NO: 5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`PROPOSED CLASS ACTION
`SETTLEMENT; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`Lucy H. Koh
`Hon.
`Crtrm: 8
`Date: October 21, 2021
`Time:
`1:30 P.M.
`
`[Declarations of Cameron R. Azari, Alan
`Butler, and Cindy Cohn, and Joint
`Declaration of Tina Wolfson and Mark
`Molumphy, filed concurrently herewith]
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 190 Filed 07/31/21 Page 2 of 37
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 21, 2021 at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 8 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 Lucy
`H. Koh, presiding, Plaintiffs1 will and hereby do move for an Order pursuant to Rule 23 of the
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”): (i) preliminarily approving the proposed Class Action
`Settlement Agreement and Release dated July 30, 2021 (attached as Exhibit 1 to the Joint
`Declaration of Tina Wolfson and Mark Molumphy, filed concurrently herewith); (ii) finding that,
`for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement, the prerequisites for class certification under
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) are likely to be found satisfied; (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 Approval Hearing before the Court.
`Plaintiffs’ motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of
`Points and Authorities set forth below, the Joint Declaration of Tina Wolfson and Mark Molumphy
`in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement
`(“Joint Declaration”), the Settlement Agreement, the Declarations of Cameron R. Azari of Epiq
`Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc., Alan Butler of Electronic Privacy Information Center, and
`Cindy Cohn of Electronic Frontier Foundation, all exhibits attached thereto, 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.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`1.
`Whether the proposed Settlement warrants: (a) the Court’s preliminary approval; (b)
`a finding that, for purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement, the prerequisites for class
`certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) are likely to be found satisfied; (c)
`
`
`1 All capitalized words and terms are defined in the Settlement Agreement (Section 1) unless
`otherwise defined herein.
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 190 Filed 07/31/21 Page 3 of 37
`
`
`
`dissemination of Notice of the Settlement’s terms to Settlement Class Members; and (d) a hearing
`on Motions for final approval of the Settlement, and an award of Service Payments to Class
`Representatives, attorneys’ fees, and reimbursement of expenses;
`2.
`Whether the proposed Notice satisfies due process and adequately apprises the
`Settlement Class Members of the terms of the Settlement and their rights with respect to it;
`3.
`Whether Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc. should be appointed as
`Settlement Administrator;
`4.
`Whether the proposed plan of allocation of the Settlement Fund should be
`preliminarily approved; and
`5.
`Whether the Claim Form is sufficient.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 31, 2021 /s/ Mark C. Molumphy
`
`
`MARK C. MOLUMPHY (SBN 168009)
`mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
`TYSON C. REDENBARGER (SBN 294424)
`tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com
`NOORJAHAN RAHMAN (SBN 330572)
`nrahman@cpmlegal.com
`JULIA Q. PENG (SBN 318396)
`jpeng@cpmlegal.com
`COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
`840 Malcolm Road
`Burlingame, California 94010
`Tel: (650) 697-6000
`
`
`Dated: July 31, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Tina Wolfson
`TINA WOLFSON (SBN 174806)
`twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
`THEODORE MAYA (SBN 223242)
`tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
`CHRISTOPHER STINER (SBN 276033)
`cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
`RACHEL JOHNSON (SBN 331351)
`rjohnson@ahdootwolfson.com
`AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
`2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
`Burbank, California 91505
`Tel: (310) 474-9111
`
`Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`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.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 190 Filed 07/31/21 Page 4 of 37
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 1
`A.
`The Litigation and Class Counsel’s Efforts on Behalf of the Class ......................... 2
`B.
`Settlement Negotiations and Mediation ................................................................... 4
`
`THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ...................................................................................... 5
`A.
`The Settlement Class and Release ............................................................................ 5
`B.
`The Settlement’s Monetary Benefits ........................................................................ 6
`C.
`Injunctive Relief ....................................................................................................... 6
`D.
`The Settlement’s Notice Plan ................................................................................... 7
`E.
`Proposed Class Representative Service Payments ................................................... 8
`F.
`Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses .................................................................................. 8
`G.
`The Settlement Administrator .................................................................................. 8
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 9
`A.
`The Legal Standards for Preliminary Approval of Settlement ................................. 9
`B.
`The Settlement Satisfies the Northern District’s Guidance for Class Action
`Settlements ............................................................................................................. 10
`
`i.
`ii.
`iii.
`
`iv.
`v.
`vi.
`vii.
`
`Guidance 1a and 1c: Differences Between Class Definitions, Claims ....... 10
`Guidance 1e: Settlement Recovery Compared to Trial .............................. 11
`Guidance 1f and 1g: The Settlement’s Plan of Allocation Merits
`Approval ..................................................................................................... 14
`Guidance 1h: Non-Reversionary Fund ....................................................... 16
`Guidance 2: The Proposed Settlement Administrator ................................ 16
`Guidance 3: The Proposed Notices to the Settlement Class are Adequate 16
`Guidance 4 and 5: Opt-Outs and Objections .............................................. 17
`- iv -
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 190 Filed 07/31/21 Page 5 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii. Guidance 6: The Intended Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses Request ........... 17
`ix.
`Guidance 7: The Proposed Settlement and Proposed Service Payments Do
`Not Unjustly Favor Any Class Members, Including Class
`Representatives ........................................................................................... 18
`
`Guidance 8: Cy Pres Awardees .................................................................. 20
`x.
`Guidance 9: Proposed Timeline ................................................................. 20
`xi.
`Guidance 10: Class Action Fairness Act .................................................... 21
`xii.
`xiii. Guidance 11: Past Distributions ................................................................. 21
`
`C.
`
`The Settlement Is the Product of Arms-Length Negotiations ................................ 21
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`The Proposed Settlement Is the Product of a Mediator’s Proposal and Is
`Supported by Experienced Counsel ............................................................ 21
`The Stage of the Proceedings and the Discovery Conducted Support the
`Settlement ................................................................................................... 22
`
`D.
`
`Rule 23’s Requirements for Class Certification are Met ........................................ 23
`
`i.
`ii.
`
`Class Representatives Satisfy Rule 23(a) Prerequisites ............................. 23
`Plaintiffs Satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)’s Requirements ........................................ 24
`
`E.
`F.
`
`The Court Should Appoint the Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives ........... 25
`The Court Should Appoint Class Counsel as Settlement Class Counsel ............... 25
`
`V.
`
`
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`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 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 190 Filed 07/31/21 Page 6 of 37
`
`
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`
`Abante Rooter & Plumbing, Inc. v. Pivotal Payments Inc.,
` 2018 WL 8949777 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2018) ............................................................................ 24
`
`Accord Noll et al. v. eBay, Inc.,
` 309 F.R.D. 593 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................................... 17
`
`Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,
` 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ............................................................................................................. 23, 25
`
`Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co.,
` 306 F.R.D. 245 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................................... 18
`
`Briseno v. Henderson,
` 998 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2021) .................................................................................................... 10
`
`Campbell v. Facebook Inc.,
` 2017 WL 3581179 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017) ........................................................................... 13
`
`Churchill Vill., LLC v. Gen. Elec.,
` 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`Cox v. Clarus Mktg. Group, LLC,
` 291 F.R.D. 473 (S.D. Cal. 2013) ................................................................................................ 19
`
`Custom LED, LLC v. eBay, Inc.,
` 2014 WL 2916871 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2014) ............................................................................ 11
`
`Ebarle v. Lifelock, Inc.,
` 2016 WL 234364 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2016) ............................................................................... 24
`
`Eddings v. Health Net, Inc.,
` 2013 WL 3013867 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2013) ............................................................................ 19
`
`Ellis v. Naval Air Rework Facility,
` 87 F.R.D. 15 (N.D. Cal. 1980), aff’d, 661 F.2d 939 (9th Cir. 1981) .......................................... 21
`
`Fulford v. Logitech, Inc.,
` 2010 WL 807448 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2010) ............................................................................... 19
`
`Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp.,
` 976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992) ...................................................................................................... 24
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 190 Filed 07/31/21 Page 7 of 37
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,
` 327 F.R.D. 299 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ............................................................................................... 24
`
`In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig.,
` 2021 WL 1022866 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2021) ..................................................................... 18, 21
`
`In re Banner Health Data Breach Litigation,
` No. 2:16-cv-02696-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz. Dec. 5, 2019) ............................................................... 4
`
`In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig.,
` 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................ 10, 21
`
`In re Consumer Privacy Cases,
` 175 Cal. App. 4th 545 (2009) ..................................................................................................... 17
`
`In Re Experian Data Breach Litig.,
` No. 8:15-cv-01592 (C.D. Cal.) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`In re Google LLC St. View Elec. Commc'ns Litig.,
` 2020 WL 1288377 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020) ........................................................................... 13
`
`In re Google Plus Profile Litig.,
` 2021 WL 242887 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) ............................................................................... 14
`
`In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litig.,
` 926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019) ....................................................................................................... 9
`
`In re LDK Solar Sees. Litig. ,
` 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7168 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2010) ............................................................ 11
`
`In re Linkedin User Priv. Litig.,
` 309 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................................... 14, 18, 19
`
`In re Magsafe Zoom Power Litig.,
` 2015 WL 428105 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2015) ............................................................................... 18
`
`In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig.,
` 213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................... 24
`
`In re Netflix Privacy Litig.,
` 2012 WL 2598819 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2012) .............................................................................. 10
`
`In re OmniVision Techs, Inc.,
` 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ...................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 190 Filed 07/31/21 Page 8 of 37
`
`
`
`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
`
`In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig.,
` 779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................... 9, 18, 19, 25
`
`In re Portal Software Sec. Litig.,
` 2007 WL 4171201 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2007) ........................................................................... 23
`
`In re Portal Software, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
` 2007 WL 1991529 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2007) ............................................................................ 19
`
`In re Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
` 2019 WL 3410382 (D. Or. July 29, 2019) ................................................................................... 4
`
`In re Tobacco II Cases,
` 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009) ................................................................................................................ 13
`
`In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig.,
` 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30880 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2005) ................................................... 11, 12
`
`In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.,
` 2016 WL 6248426 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2016) ............................................................................ 22
`
`In re: Vizio, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation,
` No. 8:16-ml-02693-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2017) ..................................................... 14, 21
`
`Just Film, Inc. v. Buono,
` 847 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 25
`
`Lane v. Facebook, Inc.,
` 696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................... 16
`
`Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
` 666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................... 24
`
`McDonald, et al. v. Kiloo A/S, et al.,
` No. 3:17-cv-04344-JD (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2021) ...................................................................... 13
`
`McDonald, et al., v Kiloo ApS et al.,
` No. 3:17-cv-04344-JD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2020) ......................................................................... 4
`
`Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n,
` 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`Phillips Co. v. Shutts,
` 472 U.S. 797 (1985) ................................................................................................................... 25
`
`Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc.,
` 715 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2013) .............................................................................................. 18, 20
`
`
`
`- viii -
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 190 Filed 07/31/21 Page 9 of 37
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Rosado v. Ebay Inc.,
` 2016 WL 3401987 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2016) ...................................................................... 18, 24
`
`Russell v. Kohl’s Dept. Stores, Inc.,
` 2016 WL 6694958 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2016) ............................................................................ 17
`
`Sandoval v. Roadlink USA Pac., Inc.,
` 2011 WL 5443777 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2011) .............................................................................. 23
`
`Schneider v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`2020 WL 511953 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020) ............................................................................... 10
`
`
`Smith v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc.,
` 2013 WL 163293 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013) ............................................................................... 17
`
`Staton v. Boeing Co.,
` 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................ 18, 19
`
`Van Bronkhorst v. Safeco Corp.,
` 529 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1976) ........................................................................................................ 9
`
`Villegas v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,
` 2012 WL 5878390 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012) ........................................................................... 22
`
`Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,
` 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................... 17
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
` 564 U.S. 338 (2011) ............................................................................................................. 23, 24
`
`Williamson v. McAfee, Inc.,
` 2016 WL 4524307 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2016) ........................................................................... 17
`
`
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1715 ............................................................................................................................ 21
`
`
`Rules
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ........................................................................................................................... 23
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) .................................................................................................................. 23
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) .................................................................................................................. 23
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) .................................................................................................................. 24
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) .................................................................................................................. 24
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) ............................................................................................................ 24, 25
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c) ....................................................................................................................... 16
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) ............................................................................................................. 16
`- ix -
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 190 Filed 07/31/21 Page 10 of 37
`
`
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B) ............................................................................................................. 16
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) .................................................................................................................... 9
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(5) .................................................................................................................. 17
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1) .................................................................................................................. 25
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3) .................................................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- x -
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`
`
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 190 Filed 07/31/21 Page 11 of 37
`
`
`
`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.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`After a year and a half of hard-fought and contentious litigation, and months of concurrent
`settlement negotiations, the Parties present the Court with an agreement to settle Plaintiffs’ claims
`against Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (“Zoom”) on a nationwide, class basis. If approved, the
`Settlement will establish a non-reversionary cash fund of $85 million to pay valid claims, notice
`and administration costs, Service Payments to Class Representatives, and any attorneys’ fees and
`costs awarded by the Court. The Settlement also provides comprehensive injunctive relief designed
`to address the issues on which Plaintiffs’ claims are based. In sum, the Settlement provides an
`outstanding set of benefits to Class Members and merits preliminary approval.
`The Settlement is the product of well-informed, arm’s-length settlement negotiations—
`including four mediation sessions and extensive further negotiations between experienced counsel
`facilitated by the Honorable Jay C. Gandhi (Ret.) of JAMS—that spanned over nine months. It
`arrives at a critical juncture in the litigation, after extensive motion practice and discovery, but
`before the Plaintiffs and Class Members must face the risks of class certification and summary
`judgment proceedings. The Settlement presents an excellent recovery and delivers tangible and
`immediate benefits to the Settlement Class, particularly considering the substantial risks protracted
`litigation would present. The Court should grant preliminary approval.
`II. BACKGROUND
`Plaintiffs litigated this case diligently, through co-lead counsel Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy,
`LLP and Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC (together, “Class Counsel”), by: (i) conducting a wide-ranging
`investigation into the Settlement Class’s claims; (ii) filing three comprehensive consolidated
`complaints in this action (not including the earlier complaints filed in certain Plaintiffs’ initial
`actions preceding consolidation); (iii) successfully opposing Defendant’s motion to dismiss as to
`key theories of liability; (iv) engaging in comprehensive discovery, including motion practice
`before Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen; (v) consulting with experts; (vi) preparing for class
`certification briefing; (vii) engaging in mediation with Defendant, including the exchange of
`significant information in connection with such mediation, and many other tasks. As a result,
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 190 Filed 07/31/21 Page 12 of 37
`
`
`
`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
`
`Plaintiffs and Class Counsel had a thorough understanding of the relative strengths and weaknesses
`of the claims asserted at the time the Settlement was reached.
`A.
`The Litigation and Class Counsel’s Efforts on Behalf of the Class
`
`In early 2020, usage of Zoom’s video conferencing services increased dramatically in
`response to the COVID-19 pandemic. See Dkt. No. 179, Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) ¶
`75. Shortly thereafter, reports announced that Zoom claimed to have end-to-end encryption, when
`in fact Zoom did not offer true end-to-end encryption. Id. ¶¶ 160-73. Plaintiffs alleged that Zoom
`improperly shared its users’ data without notice or consent through the use of third party software
`integrations from companies such as Facebook (id. ¶¶ 76-89) and Google (id. ¶¶ 109-14).
`Additionally, Zoom meetings became the target of “Zoombombings”—i.e., unwanted and
`unauthorized interruptions of Zoom meetings which caused numerous problems and disruptions for
`Zoom and its users. Id. ¶¶ 174-80.
`Between March and May 2020, 14 class action complaints were filed against Zoom alleging
`various state and federal claims for misrepresentations and violations of Zoom customers’ security
`and privacy. On May 28, 2020, this Court issued an order consolidating the actions, and on June
`30, 2020, appointed Tina Wolfson of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC and Mark C. Molumphy of Cotchett,
`Pitre & McCarthy LLP as Interim Co-Lead Counsel. Dkt. No. 62 at 7; Dkt. No. 92 at 2. Rachele R.
`Byrd of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Albert Y. Chang of Bottini & Bottini, Inc.,
`and Eric H. Gibbs of the Gibbs Law Group LLP were appointed to the Plaintiffs’ Steering
`Committee. Id.
`On July 30, 2020, Class Counsel filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint (“CAC”). Dkt.
`No. 114. On September 14, 2020, Zoom filed a motion to dismiss the CAC. Dkt. No. 120. On
`October 14, 2020, the parties filed a joint stipulation whereby Zoom agreed to withdraw its motion
`to dismiss, Plaintiffs agreed to file an amended complaint, and the parties set the briefing schedule
`for Zoom’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. Dkt. No. 123. The Court granted the
`joint stipulation on October 24, 2020. Dkt No. 125.
`On October 28, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Consolidated Class Action
`Complaint (“FAC”), Dkt No. 126, which (1) added three California plaintiffs—Ms. Angela Doyle,
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 190 Filed 07/31/21 Page 13 of 37
`
`
`
`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
`
`Ms. Sharon Garcia, and Mr. Peter Hirshberg; (2) alleged in greater detail the harms Plaintiffs
`experienced as a result of Zoom’s various violations; (3) alleged additional facts regarding Zoom’s
`failure to warn; and (4) clarified Plaintiffs’ position that Zoom’s disclosures to third parties are not
`limited to just the Facebook software development kit (“SDK”), LinkedIn Navigator, or Google
`Firebase Analytics. Zoom filed its Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action
`Complaint (“MTD”) on December 2, 2020. Dkt. No. 134.
`On March 11, 2021, this Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying Part Zoom’s
`Motion to Dismiss (“MTD Order”). Dkt. No. 168. The Court dismissed the following claims with
`leave to amend:
`• All “Zoombombing” claims to the extent they (1) challenge the harmfulness of
`content provided by another; and (2) derive from Zoom’s status or conduct as a
`publisher or speaker of that content.
`• Count 1: Invasion of privacy under California Law.
`• Count 2: Negligence.
`• Count 8: California’s Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act (“CDAFA”).
`• Counts 6, 7, and 9: Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) claim under the
`“fraudulent” prong; Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”); and California
`Civil Code § 1710(3) fraudulent concealment.
`The Court DENIE[D] the motion to dismiss the following:
`• All “Zoombombing” claims to the extent they do not either (1) challenge the
`harmfulness of content provided by another; or (2) derive from Zoom’s status
`or conduct as a publisher or speaker of that content.
`• Count 3: Implied contract.
`• Count 4: Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
`• Count 6: UCL claims under the “unlawful” and “unfair” prongs.
`• Count 5: Unjust enrichment/quasi contract.
`
`Id. at 40.
`On May 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the SAC, which responded to the MTD Order by
`bolstering the allegations supporting claims that the Court dismissed. The SAC omits the previously
`asserted negligence and CDAFA claims, as well as two Plaintiffs who had been named in the FAC.
`The Parties engaged in extensive discovery. See concurrently filed Joint Declaration of Tina
`Wolfson and Mark C. Molumphy in Support of Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR PRELIM. APPROVAL; MPA ISO THEREOF
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-02155-LHK
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02155-LHK Document 190 Filed 07/31/21 Page 14 of 37
`
`
`
`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
`
`Settlement (“Joint Decl.”) ¶ 6. Class Counsel served interrogatories and document requests, and
`obtained written responses and document production from Zoom. Id. Zoom also served written
`discovery and 60 document requests on each of the Class Representatives, who provided complete
`written responses and documents. Id. The Parties litigated two discovery motions before Magistrate
`Judge Susan van Keulen, and an appeal to this Court. Dkt