throbber
Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 216 Filed 01/28/22 Page 1 of 35
`
`
`
`MARK C. MOLUMPHY (SBN 168009)
`mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
`TYSON C. REDENBARGER (SBN 294424)
`tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com
`JULIA Q. PENG (SBN 318396)
`jpeng@cpmlegal.com
`ELLE LEWIS (SBN 238329)
`elewis@cpmlegal.com
`COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
`840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
`Burlingame, California 94010
`Tel: (650) 697-6000
`
`TINA WOLFSON (SBN 174806)
`twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
`ROBERT R. AHDOOT (SBN 172098)
`rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
`THEODORE MAYA (SBN 223242)
`tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
`BRADLEY K. KING (SBN 274399)
`bking@ahdootwolfson.com
`CHRISTOPHER STINER (SBN 276033)
`cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
`AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
`2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
`Burbank, California 91505
`Tel: (310) 474-9111
`
`Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Settlement Class
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`IN RE: ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS,
`INC. PRIVACY LITIGATION
`
`This Document Relates To:
`
`
`ALL ACTIONS
`
`CASE NO: 3:20-cv-02155-LB
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL
`OF SETTLEMENT; MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
`SUPPORT THEREOF
`
` Hon. Laurel Beeler
`Judge:
` B-15th floor
`Courtroom:
`Date: April 7, 2022
`Time: 9:30 a.m.
`
`
`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 MOT. AND MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL;
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-02155-LB
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 216 Filed 01/28/22 Page 2 of 35
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 7, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom B of the United States
`District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Courthouse, 15th Floor, 450
`Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102, the Honorable Laurel Beeler, presiding, Plaintiffs1
`will and hereby do move for an Order:
`(i)
`Granting final certification of the Settlement Class under Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure (“Rule”) 23(a) and 23(b)(3);
`(ii)
`Granting final approval of the proposed Settlement reached between Plaintiffs and
`Defendant Zoom Video Communications, Inc., under Rule 23(e);
`(iii)
`Finding that notice has been conducted in accordance with the Court-approved
`notice plan and comports with due process and Rule 23; and
`(iv) Dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs’ and Settlement Class Members’ claims against
`Defendant Zoom Video Communications, Inc.
`The hearing will be held via Zoom. The Settlement Class Members and the general public
`can access or attend the hearing using the following credentials:
`
`https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1614698626?pwd=eXlQRThFajBjT0tieVBaYWpjMjFodz09
`Webinar ID: 161 469 8626; Password: 546984
`Plaintiffs’ motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of
`Points and Authorities set forth below, the Joint Declaration of Mark C. Molumphy and Tina
`Wolfson in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion For (1) Final Approval of Settlement; and (2) Motion for
`Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Service Payments (“Joint Decl.”) and all exhibits attached
`thereto, the Declaration of Cameron R. Azari on Implementation and Adequacy of Settlement
`Notice Plan and Notices (“Azari Decl.”) all exhibits attached thereto, the Declaration of Jay C.
`Gandhi in Support of Settlement (“Gandhi Declaration”), the pleadings and records on file in this
`
`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
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized words and terms shall have the same meaning as
`ascribed to them in the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release (“Settlement Agreement”).
`Dkt. No. 191-1.
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL;
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-02155-LB
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 216 Filed 01/28/22 Page 3 of 35
`
`
`
`Action, and other such matters and argument as the Court may consider at the hearing of this
`motion.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`Whether the Court should grant final certification of the Settlement Class under
`1.
`Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3);
`Whether the Court should grant final approval of the Settlement;
`2.
`Whether the plan of allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate; and
`3.
`Whether the Court should enter judgment of dismissal of Plaintiffs’ and Settlement
`4.
`Class Members’ claims against Defendant Zoom Video Communications, Inc.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 28, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Mark C. Molumphy
`Mark C. Molumphy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MARK C. MOLUMPHY (SBN 168009)
`mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com
`TYSON C. REDENBARGER (SBN 294424)
`tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com
`JULIA Q. PENG (SBN 318396)
`jpeng@cpmlegal.com
`ELLE LEWIS (SBN 238329)
`elewis@cpmlegal.com
`COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
`840 Malcolm Road
`Burlingame, California 94010
`Tel: (650) 697-6000
`
`
`Dated: January 28, 2022 /s/ Tina Wolfson
`Tina Wolfson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TINA WOLFSON (SBN 174806)
`twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
`ROBERT R. AHDOOT (SBN 172098)
`rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
`THEODORE MAYA (SBN 223242)
`tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
`BRADLEY K. KING (SBN 274399)
`bking@ahdootwolfson.com
`CHRISTOPHER STINER (SBN 276033)
`cstiner@ahdootwolfson.com
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL;
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-02155-LB
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 216 Filed 01/28/22 Page 4 of 35
`
`AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
`2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
`Burbank, California 91505
`Tel: (310) 474-9111
`
`Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for
`the Settlement Class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL;
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-02155-LB
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 216 Filed 01/28/22 Page 5 of 35
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ...................................................................................... 1 
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED............................................................................ 2 
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .............................................................. 1 
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1 
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 1 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The Litigation and Class Counsel’s Efforts on Behalf of the Class ......................... 2 
`
`Settlement Negotiations and Mediation .................................................................... 4 
`
`
`III. 
`
`THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ................................................................................... 6 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`The Settlement Class and Release ............................................................................ 6 
`
`The Settlement’s Monetary Benefits ........................................................................ 6 
`
`Injunctive Relief ........................................................................................................ 7 
`
`Preliminary Approval ................................................................................................ 7 
`
`Notice to the Class .................................................................................................... 8 
`
`Class Response.......................................................................................................... 8 
`
`Epiq’s Data Security Efforts for the Settlement Class Member’s Information ........ 9 
`
`
`IV.  ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 10 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Legal Standards for Final Approval ........................................................................ 10 
`
`The Court Should Certify the Settlement Class ...................................................... 10 
`
`The Court Should Grant Final Approval of the Settlement .................................... 12 
`
`i. 
`
`The Proposed Settlement Provides a Substantial Recovery Given the Risks
`and Benefits of Continued Litigation .......................................................... 12 
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL;
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-02155-LB
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 216 Filed 01/28/22 Page 6 of 35
`
`
`
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`ii. 
`
`
`iii. 
`
`The Stage of the Proceedings and the Discovery Completed Support the
`Settlement ................................................................................................... 16 
`
`The Proposed Settlement is the Product of a Mediator’s Proposal and is
`Supported by Experienced Counsel ............................................................ 17 
`
`The Proposed Plan of Allocation is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate .................... 18 
`
`The Proposed Attorney Fee Award is Reasonable ................................................. 19 
`
`The Class Members’ Positive Reaction Favors Final Approval ............................. 19 
`
`The Court-Approved Notice Program Satisfies Due Process and Adequately
`Provided Notice to Class Members......................................................................... 20 
`
`i. 
`
`ii. 
`
`The Approved Notice Plan was Implemented ............................................ 20 
`
`The Notice Program Satisfies Due Process ................................................ 21 
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 23 
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL;
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-02155-LB
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`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
`
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 216 Filed 01/28/22 Page 7 of 35
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix Inc.,
`913 F. Supp. 2d 964 (E.D. Cal. 2012)....................................................................................... 10
`
`In re Banner Health Data Breach Litigation,
`No. 2:16-cv-02696-PHX (D. Ariz. Dec. 5, 2019), Dkt. No. 170 ................................................ 4
`
`Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
`844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................ 21, 23
`
`Campbell v. Facebook Inc.,
`No. 13-CV-05996-PJH, 2017 WL 3581179 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017), aff’d,
`951 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................. 15
`
`Churchill Vill., LLC v. Gen. Elec.,
`361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................... 19
`
`In re Citric Acid Antitrust Litig.,
`145 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (N.D.Cal. 2001) ..................................................................................... 18
`
`Custom LED, LLC v. eBay, Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-00350-JST, 2014 WL 2916871 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2014) ..................................... 13
`
`Ebarle v. Lifelock, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-00258-HSG, 2016 WL 234364 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2016) ...................................... 17
`
`Ellis v. Naval Air Rework Facility,
`87 F.R.D. 15 (N.D. Cal. 1980), aff’d, 661 F.2d 939 (9th Cir. 1981) ........................................ 17
`
`In Re Experian Data Breach Litig.,
`No. 8:15-cv-01592 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2018), Dkt. No. 286-1 ................................................. 4
`
`In re Fleet/Norstar Sec. Litig.,
`935 F. Supp. 99 (D.R.I. 1996)................................................................................................... 19
`
`Four in One Co. v. S.K. Foods, L.P.,
`No. 2:08-CV-3017-KJM, 2014 WL 4078232 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2014) ................................ 18
`
`In re Google LLC St. View Elec. Commc’ns Litig.,
`No. 10-MD-02184-CRB, 2020 WL 1288377 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2020) ................................ 15
`
`In re Google Plus Profile Litig.,
`No. 5:18-cv-06164-EJD, 2021 WL 242887 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) .................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL;
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-02155-LB
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`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 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 216 Filed 01/28/22 Page 8 of 35
`
`
`
`Lane v. Facebook, Inc.,
`696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................. 20, 21
`
`In re LDK Solar Sec. Litig.,
`No. C 07-5182 WHA, 2010 WL 3001384 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2010) ................................ 13, 14
`
`In re Linkedin User Priv. Litig.,
`309 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .............................................................................................. 15
`
`In re Magsafe Apple Power Adapter Litig.,
`No. 5:091- cv-01911-EJD, 2015 WL 428105 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2015) ................................. 23
`
`McCrary v. Elations Co.,
`No. EDCV 13-0242 JGB, 2016 WL 769703 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2016) .................................. 23
`
`McDonald, et al., v Kiloo ApS et al.,
`No. 3:17-cv-04344-JD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2020), Dkt. No. 363 ........................................... 4, 15
`
`Mullins v. Direct Digit., LLC,
`795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................... 21
`
`Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc.,
`221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) .............................................................................................. 19
`
`Noll v. eBay,
`309 F.R.D. 593 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .............................................................................................. 11
`
`Officers for Just. v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City & Cty. of San Francisco,
`688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) .................................................................................................... 20
`
`In re OmniVision Techs, Inc.,
`559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .............................................................................. 13, 18
`
`In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig.,
`779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................. 12, 22
`
`In re Portal Software, Inc. Securities Litigation,
`No. C-03-5138-VRW, 2007 WL 4171201 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 26, 2007) .................................... 16
`
`In re Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No. 3:15-MD-2633, 2019 WL 3410382 (D. Or. July 29, 2019) ................................................. 4
`
`Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp.,
`563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) .............................................................................................. 20, 21
`
`Russell v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc.,
`No. ED CV 15-1143 RGK, 2016 WL 6694958 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2016) .............................. 23
`
`Spann v. JC Penney Corp.,
`314 F.R.D. 312 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ........................................................................................ 12, 17
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL;
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-02155-LB
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 216 Filed 01/28/22 Page 9 of 35
`
`
`
`In re Tobacco II Cases,
`46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009) .............................................................................................................. 14
`
`In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`No. C-03-0283-MMC, 2005 WL 3096079 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2005) vacated
`in part, 496 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................ 13
`
`Villegas v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,
`No. CV 09-00261-SBA, 2012 WL 5878390 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012) ................................ 18
`
`In re Vizio, Inc., Consumer Priv. Litig.,
`No. 8:16-ML-02693-JLS, 2019 WL 12966638 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2019) ............................... 15
`
`Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc.,
`737 F.3d 538 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................... 10
`
`Williamson v. McAfee, Inc.,
`No. 5:14-cv-00158-EJD, 2016 WL 4524307 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2016) ................................. 23
`
`Statutes
`
`California Civil Code § 1710(3) ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`California’s Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act ............................................................. 3, 4
`
`Consumer Legal Remedies Act .................................................................................................. 3, 14
`
`Unfair Competition Law ............................................................................................................. 3, 14
`
`RULES
`
`L.R 5-1(i)(3) .................................................................................................................................... 25
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
`
`Rule 23 ..................................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Rule 23(a)........................................................................................................................................ 10
`
`Rule 23(a)(1) ................................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Rule 23(a)(2) ................................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Rule 23(a)(3) ................................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Rule 23(a)(4) ................................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Rule 23(b) ................................................................................................................................. 10, 11
`
`Rule 23(b)(3) ................................................................................................................. 10, 11, 12, 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL;
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-02155-LB
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`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 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 216 Filed 01/28/22 Page 10 of 35
`
`
`
`Rule 23(b)(3)(C)-(D) ...................................................................................................................... 12
`
`Rule 23(c)(2)(B) .................................................................................................................... 8, 21, 22
`
`Rule 23(c)(2)(B): (1) ....................................................................................................................... 21
`
`Rule 23(e)........................................................................................................................................ 12
`
`Rule 23(e)(1) ....................................................................................................................... 20, 21, 22
`
`Rule 23(e)(2) ............................................................................................................................. 10, 12
`
`Rule 23(e)(2)(C) .............................................................................................................................. 19
`
`Rule 23(e)(5) ................................................................................................................................... 22
`
`Rule 23(h)(1) ................................................................................................................................... 22
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Albert Conte & Herbert Newberg, Newberg On Class Actions §§ 11.22, et seq. 4th
`ed. 2002) .................................................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL;
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-02155-LB
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 216 Filed 01/28/22 Page 11 of 35
`
`
`
`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 have agreed to settle Plaintiffs’ claims against Zoom Video
`Communications, Inc. (“Zoom”) on a nationwide, class basis. The Settlement Agreement
`(“Settlement”) establishes a non-reversionary cash fund of $85 million to pay valid claims, notice
`and administration costs, Service Payments to Plaintiffs, 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 Settlement Class Members and merits final 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
`arrived at a critical juncture in the litigation, after extensive motion practice and discovery, but
`before the Plaintiffs and Settlement 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. For these reasons, Judge Koh granted preliminary
`approval after thoroughly vetting the Settlement.
`Notice was disseminated to over 150 million Settlement Class Members in accordance with
`the Preliminary Approval Order. The response of the Class is overwhelmingly positive so far, with
`only 148 requests for exclusions and 1 objection as of the filing of this Motion. The Court should
`grant final approval.
`II.
`BACKGROUND
`Plaintiffs litigated this case diligently, through co-lead counsel Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy,
`LLP and Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC (collectively, “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
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL;
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-02155-LB
`
`
`
`1
`
`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 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 216 Filed 01/28/22 Page 12 of 35
`
`
`
`actions preceding consolidation); (iii) successfully opposing Zoom’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 Zoom, including the exchange of significant
`information in connection with such mediation, and many other tasks. As a result, 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 Consolidated Class
`Action (“SAC”) ¶ 75. With this increased usage came increased media and press scrutiny of Zoom.
`Shortly thereafter, reports contended 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 by third-party actors, which Plaintiffs alleged 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, Judge Koh 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
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL;
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-02155-LB
`
`2
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 216 Filed 01/28/22 Page 13 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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,
`Ms. Sharon Garcia, and Mr. Peter Hirshberg; (2) alleged in greater detail the harms Plaintiffs
`experienced as a result of Zoom’s various alleged violations; (3) alleged additional facts regarding
`Zoom’s alleged 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, Judge Koh issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in 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 denied the motion to dismiss as to 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.
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL;
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-02155-LB
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 216 Filed 01/28/22 Page 14 of 35
`
`
`
`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 Joint Decl. ¶¶ 24-42. Class Counsel served
`interrogatories and document requests and obtained written responses and document production
`from Zoom. Id. ¶ 36. Zoom also served written discovery, including 60 document requests on each
`of the Plaintiffs, who provided complete written responses and documents. Id. ¶ 37. The Parties
`litigated three discovery motions before Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen, and an appeal to Judge
`Koh. Id. ¶¶ 26-35. The Parties exchanged numerous additional documents and information in
`connection with the ongoing mediation and settlement discussions. Id. ¶ 45. Class Counsel also
`issued over a dozen subpoenas to third parties. Id. ¶ 40. Plaintiffs had sufficient information to
`evaluate the claims and negotiate a fair settlement. Id. ¶ 42.
`B.
`Settlement Negotiations and Mediation
`
`The Parties engaged in extensive, arms-length negotiations over the course of many months,
`including four mediation sessions and numerous additional discussions facilitated by Judge Jay C.
`Gandhi, a former U.S. Magistrate Judge and respected mediator. Id. ¶ 43. Judge Gandhi has
`extensive experience in class action litigation, both from his time as a Magistrate Judge in the
`Central District of California and as a result of mediating many class actions, including multiple
`data privacy cases where a settlement was reached and subsequently approved.2 Judge Gandhi
`remained highly involved throughout the lengthy negotiation process. Id.
`Ahead of the Parties’ mediation sessions, the Parties exchanged and vetted information to
`prepare for and facilitate productive mediation sessions, in addition to extensive information
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`2 See, e.g., In Re Experian Data Breach Litig., No. 8:15-cv-01592 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2018), Dkt.
`No. 286-1 at 7; In re Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 3:15-MD-2633,
`2019 WL 3410382, at *1 (D. Or. July 29, 2019); In re Banner Health Data Breach Litigation, No.
`2:16-cv-02696-PHX (D. Ariz. Dec. 5, 2019), Dkt. No. 170, at 6; McDonald, et al., v Kiloo ApS et
`al., No. 3:17-cv-04344-JD (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2020), Dkt. No. 363, at 2-3, 13; see also
`https://www.jamsadr.com/gandhi/ (last visited July 30, 2021).
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOT. AND MOT. FOR FINAL APPROVAL;
`CASE NO. 3:20-cv-02155-LB
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02155-LB Document 216 Filed 01/28/22 Page 15 of 35
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`already gleaned through discovery. Id. ¶ 45. Before any terms were negotiated, the Plaintiffs had
`a thorough understanding of the composition of the Settlement Class, the nature of Zoom’s
`anticipated defenses on the merits, the likely nature of arguments that would be advanced at class
`certification, summary judgment, and trial, and the complex technical issues surrounding the claims
`and defenses, and potential injunctive relief, which Plaintiffs’ counsel reviewed and analyzed with
`their consulting experts. Id. ¶ 44.
`With Judge Gandhi’s guidance, the Parties commenced mediation in early November 2020,
`with both sides represented by experienced counsel who fought hard for their clients. Id. ¶ 46.
`Although progress was made, the case did not settle at that time, and the Parties continued extensive
`negotiations with Judge Gandhi’s assistance. Id. The Parties reached agreement on certain key

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket