`
`
`
`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