Case 5:20-cv-03584-NC Document 53 Filed 06/11/21 Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`Yitzchak Kopel (Pro Hac Vice)
`888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (646) 837-7150
`Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
`Email: ykopel@bursor.com
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`L. Timothy Fisher (SBN 191626)
`1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Telephone: (925) 300-4455
`Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
`E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HATTIS & LUKACS
`Daniel M. Hattis (SBN 232141)
`Paul Karl Lukacs (SBN 197007)
`400 108th Ave NE, Ste 500
`Bellevue, WA 98004
`Telephone: (425) 233-8650
`Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
`Email: dan@hattislaw.com
` pkl@hattislaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`NICHOLAS MALONE, CHRIS AYERS,
`JAMES BACKUS, BRIAN CONWAY,
`DAVID EATON, STEVEN GRAVEL,
`JAMES RAAYMAKERS, and TOD WEITZEL,
`on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
`situated,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION,
`
` Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-03584-NC
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
`APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
`SETTLEMENT, PROVISIONAL
`CERTIFICATION OF NATIONWIDE
`SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND
`APPROVAL OF PROCEDURE FOR
`AND FORM OF NOTICE
`
`Date July 21, 2021
`Time: 1:00 p.m.
`Courtroom: 5, 4th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Nathaniel Cousins
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-03584-NC
`
`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-03584-NC Document 53 Filed 06/11/21 Page 2 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on July 21, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as
`
`counsel may be heard by the above-captioned Court, located at 280 South 1st Street, Courtroom 5,
`4th Floor, San Jose, California 95113 in the courtroom of Hon. Nathaniel Cousins, Plaintiffs
`Nicholas Malone, Chris Ayers, James Backus, Brian Conway, David Eaton, Steven Gravel, James
`Raaymakers, and Tod Weitzel (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel of record,
`will move, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), for the Court to: (i) grant preliminary approval of the
`proposed Stipulation of Class Action Settlement (“Settlement Agreement”), (ii) provisionally
`certify the Class for the purposes of preliminary approval, designate Plaintiffs as the Class
`Representatives, and appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and Hattis & Lukacs as Class Counsel,
`(iii) establish procedures for giving notice to members of the Class, (iv) approve forms of notice to
`Class Members, (v) mandate procedures and deadlines for exclusion requests and objections, and
`(vi) set a date, time and place for a final approval hearing.
`
`This motion is made on the grounds that preliminary approval of the proposed class action
`settlement is proper, given that each requirement of Rule 23(e) has been met.
`
`This motion is based on Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of
`Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Provisional Certification of
`Nationwide Settlement Class, and Approval of Procedure for and Form of Notice, the
`accompanying Declarations of Yitzchak Kopel and Daniel M. Hattis and attachments thereto, the
`Declarations of Nicholas Malone, Chris Ayers, James Backus, Brian Conway, David Eaton, Steven
`Gravel, James Raaymakers, and Tod Weitzel, the Settlement Agreement, the Declaration of JND
`Legal Administration, the pleadings and papers on file herein, and any other written and oral
`arguments that may be presented to the Court.
`
`Dated: June 11, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-03584-NC
`
`/s/ Yitzchak Kopel
` Yitzchak Kopel
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03584-NC Document 53 Filed 06/11/21 Page 3 of 36
`
`Yitzchak Kopel (Pro Hac Vice)
`888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (646) 837-7150
`Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
`Email: ykopel@bursor.com
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`L. Timothy Fisher (SBN 191626)
`1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Telephone: (925) 300-4455
`Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
`E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
`
`
`HATTIS & LUKACS
`Daniel M. Hattis (SBN 232141)
`Paul Karl Lukacs (SBN 197007)
`400 108th Ave NE, Ste 500
`Bellevue, WA 98004
`Telephone: (425) 233-8650
`Facsimile: (425) 412-7171
`Email: dan@hattislaw.com
`pkl@hattislaw.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-03584-NC
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03584-NC Document 53 Filed 06/11/21 Page 4 of 36
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................ 2
`TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT .................................................................... 3
`A.
`Class Definition .......................................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Monetary Relief .......................................................................................................... 4
`C.
`Injunctive Relief And Other Benefits ......................................................................... 5
`D.
`Release ........................................................................................................................ 5
`E.
`Incentive Awards ........................................................................................................ 6
`F.
`Attorneys’ Fees And Expenses ................................................................................... 6
`G.
`Payment of Notice and Administrative Fees .............................................................. 6
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................ 7
`ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................... 9
`A.
`The Settlement Class Meets All Requirements Of Fed. R. Civ. P.
`23(a), 23(b)(2), And 23(b)(3) ..................................................................................... 9
`1.
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) – Numerosity ........................................................... 9
`2.
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) – Commonality ........................................................ 9
`3.
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) – Typicality ............................................................ 10
`4.
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) – Adequacy ............................................................ 10
`5.
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) – Predominance And Superiority .......................... 12
`6.
`The Class Also Satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) ........................................ 13
`The Court Should Preliminarily Approve The Settlement Because It
`Is Fair, Adequate, And Reasonable .......................................................................... 14
`1.
`The Settlement Class Meets All Of The Hanlon Factors ............................. 15
`i.
`Hanlon Factor 1 – The Strength Of Plaintiff’s Case ........................ 15
`ii.
`Hanlon Factor 2 – The Risk, Expense, Complexity,
`And Likely Duration Of Further Litigation ...................................... 16
`Hanlon Factor 3 – The Risk Of Maintaining Class
`Action Status Throughout The Trial ................................................. 16
`Hanlon Factor 4 – The Amount Offered In Settlement .................... 17
`Hanlon Factor 5 – The Extent Of Discovery
`Completed And The Stage Of The Proceedings ............................... 17
`Hanlon Factor 6 – The Experience And Views Of
`Counsel ............................................................................................. 18
`The Settlement Class Meets All Of The New Rule 23(e)(2)
`Factors .......................................................................................................... 18
`
`B.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`v.
`
`vi.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`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
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-03584-NC
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03584-NC Document 53 Filed 06/11/21 Page 5 of 36
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Rule 23(e)(2)(A) – The Class Representatives And
`Class Counsel Have Adequately Represented The
`Class ................................................................................................. 18
`Rule 23(e)(2)(B) – The Proposal Was Negotiated At
`Arm’s Length .................................................................................... 19
`Rule 23(e)(2)(C) – The Relief Provided For The Class
`Is Adequate ....................................................................................... 19
`Rule 23(e)(2)(D) – The Proposal Treats Class
`Members Equitably Relative To Each Other .................................... 23
`The Proposed Notice Program Constitutes Adequate Notice And
`Should Be Approved ................................................................................................ 23
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 25
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`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
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-03584-NC
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03584-NC Document 53 Filed 06/11/21 Page 6 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,
`521 U.S. 591 (1997) ..................................................................................................................... 12
`
`Bos. & Maine Corp. v. Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green, P.A.,
`778 F.2d 890 (1st Cir. 1985) ........................................................................................................ 22
`
`Cosgrove v. Sullivan,
`759 F. Supp. 166 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) ............................................................................................... 23
`
`Curtis-Bauer v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.,
`2008 WL 4667090 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2008) ........................................................................ 15, 16
`
`Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................................ 13
`
`Farrell v. Bank of Am. Corp., N.A.,
`827 F. App’x 628 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................. 21
`
`Fischel v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc’y of U.S.,
`307 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2002) ........................................................................................................ 20
`
`Fitzhenry-Russell v. Coca-Cola Co.,
`2019 WL 11557486 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2019) .............................................................................. 16
`
`G. F. v. Contra Costa County,
`2015 WL 4606078 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2015) .............................................................................. 19
`
`Garner v. State Farm. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`2010 WL 1687832 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010) ........................................................................ 15, 19
`
`Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon,
`457 U.S. 147 (1982) ..................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Greer v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.,
`2020 WL 5535399 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2020) ............................................................................. 14
`
`Greko v. Diesel U.S.A., Inc.,
`2013 WL 1789602 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2013) ............................................................................ 6, 7
`
`Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
`150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................... passim
`
`Hartless v. Clorox Co.,
`273 F.R.D. 630 (S.D. Cal. 2011) .................................................................................................. 21
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-03584-NC
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03584-NC Document 53 Filed 06/11/21 Page 7 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`Hawkins v. Kroger Co.,
`337 F.R.D. 518 (S.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................................. 12
`
`Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
`2018 WL 6619983 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018) ................................................................. 18, 23, 24
`
`Hilsley v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.,
`2018 WL 6300479 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2018) .................................................................... 9, 10, 13
`
`Hilsley v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc.,
`2020 WL 520616 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020) ............................................................... 17, 19, 20, 25
`
`In re Apple Computer Sec. Litig.,
`1991 WL 238298 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 1991) ................................................................................. 16
`
`In re Beverly Hills Fire Litig.,
`639 F. Supp. 915 (E.D. Ky. 1986) ................................................................................................ 22
`
`In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................................ 22
`
`In re Cenco Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`519 F. Supp. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1981) ................................................................................................. 22
`
`In re ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
`302 F.R.D. 537 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................................................................... 9
`
`In re Facebook Biometric Info. Priv. Litig.,
`2021 WL 757025 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2021) .................................................................................. 5
`
`In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litig.,
`414 F. Supp. 3d 686 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) .................................................................................... 20, 23
`
`In re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig.,
`926 F.3d 539 (9th Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................................ 12
`
`In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................. 17, 19
`
`In re Netflix Privacy Litig.,
`2013 WL 1120801 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2013) ............................................................................. 17
`
`In re NJOY, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litig.,
`120 F. Supp. 3d 1050 (C.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................................. 10, 13
`
`In re Omnivision Techs., Inc.,
`559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ........................................................................................ 18
`
`In re Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig.,
`47 F.3d 373 (9th Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................................... 8, 20
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`vi
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-03584-NC
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03584-NC Document 53 Filed 06/11/21 Page 8 of 36
`
`
`
`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 Syncor ERISA Litig.,
`516 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................... 7, 8
`
`In re Tableware Antitrust Litig.,
`484 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ...................................................................................... 7, 8
`
`In re Transpacific Passenger Air Transportation Antitrust Litig.,
`2019 WL 6327363 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2019) ............................................................................. 20
`
`In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig.,
`2020 WL 4212811 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2020) .......................................................................... 9, 13
`
`Johnson v. Triple Leaf Tea Inc.,
`2015 WL 8943150 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2015) ............................................................................. 17
`
`Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc.,
`526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975) .......................................................................................................... 22
`
`Kramer v. XPO Logistics, Inc.,
`2020 WL 1643712 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020) ................................................................................ 19
`
`Kumar v. Salov N. Am. Corp.,
`2017 WL 2902898 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2017) ................................................................................ 21
`
`Lealao v. Beneficial California, Inc,
`82 Cal. App. 4th 19 (2000) ........................................................................................................... 21
`
`Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co.,
`2015 WL 1248027 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2015) ............................................................................. 13
`
`Martinelli v. Johnson & Johnson,
`2019 WL 1429653 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2019) .................................................................. 10, 12, 13
`
`Millan v. Cascade Water Servs., Inc.,
`310 F.R.D. 593 (E.D. Cal. 2015) ................................................................................................ 8, 9
`
`Morris v. Lifescan, Inc.,
`54 F. App’x 663 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................... 20
`
`Muchnick v. First Fed. Savs. & Loan Assoc. of Phil.,
`1986 WL 10791 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 1986) ................................................................................... 23
`
`Murillo v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.,
`266 F.R.D. 468 (E.D. Cal. 2010) .............................................................................................. 7, 12
`
`Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n,
`688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) ................................................................................................ 8, 9, 15
`
`Perks v. Activehours, Inc.,
`2021 WL 1146038 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2021) ............................................................................. 25
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`vii
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-03584-NC
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03584-NC Document 53 Filed 06/11/21 Page 9 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson,
`390 U.S. 414 (1968) ....................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Rabin v. Concord Assets Grp., Inc.,
`1991 WL 275757 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 1991) ................................................................................ 22
`
`Roberts v. Texaco, Inc.,
`979 F. Supp. 185 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ............................................................................................... 22
`
`Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp.,
`563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................... 15, 16, 18, 19
`
`Smith v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals,
`2020 WL 5064282 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2020) .............................................................................. 14
`
`State of Fla. v. Dunne,
`915 F.2d 542 (9th Cir. 1990) ........................................................................................................ 20
`
`Staton v. Boeing Co.,
`327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................. 11, 21
`
`Vega v. Weatherford U.S., Limited Partnership,
`2016 WL 7116731 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2016) ................................................................................ 18
`
`Villegas v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,
`2012 WL 5878390 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012) ............................................................................. 11
`
`Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,
`290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................... 22
`
`Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (2011) ....................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Williams v. MGM-Pathe Commc’ns Co.,
`129 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................................... 21
`
`Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC,
`617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................... 13
`
`Young v. Polo Retail, LLC,
`2007 WL 951821 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2007) ............................................................................... 21
`
`STATUTES
`
`California Business and Professions Code § 17200 ........................................................................... 2
`
`California Business and Professions Code § 17500 ........................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-03584-NC
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03584-NC Document 53 Filed 06/11/21 Page 10 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) .................................................................................................................... 9, 10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) ..................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) ...................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) .................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) ........................................................................................................ 10, 11, 19
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) .......................................................................................................... 9, 13, 14
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) ............................................................................................................. passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2) .................................................................................................................... 24
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) ............................................................................................................... 23
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) ..................................................................................................................... 9, 14
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) .................................................................................................................... 23
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) ............................................................................................................. passim
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(A) ......................................................................................................... 18, 19
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(B) .............................................................................................................. 19
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C) ......................................................................................................... 19, 23
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(D) ............................................................................................................... 23
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(3) ........................................................................................................ 14, 19, 23
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) ......................................................................................................................... 17
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Manual for Complex Litigation § 21.312 (4th ed. 2004) ................................................................... 7
`
`Manual for Complex Litigation § 21.633 (4th ed. 2004) ................................................................. 23
`
`Newberg on Class Actions § 11.28 (1992) ...................................................................................... 11
`
`Newberg on Class Actions § 11.25 (1992) ......................................................................................... 7
`
`Newberg on Class Actions § 14:03 (3d ed. 1992) ............................................................................ 22
`
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-03584-NC
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03584-NC Document 53 Filed 06/11/21 Page 11 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Plaintiffs Nicholas Malone, Chris Ayers, James Backus, Brian Conway, David Eaton,
`
`Steven Gravel, James Raaymakers, and Tod Weitzel (“Plaintiffs”), by and through Class Counsel,1
`respectfully submit this memorandum in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of
`Class Action Settlement. The Settlement Agreement (“Settlement”) and its exhibits are attached as
`Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Yitzchak Kopel (“Kopel Decl.”), filed herewith.
`Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Class Action Complaint, Dkt. No. 19 (the “SAC”), alleges that
`Defendant Western Digital Corporation (“Western Digital” or “Defendant”) falsely advertised
`certain of its WD Red NAS hard drives (hereinafter, the “Subject Products”)2 as designed for and
`suitable for use in NAS (Network Attached Storage) and Redundant Array of Independent Disks
`(“RAID”) devices, but which in fact are not suitable for that intended use and which put customer
`data at greater risk of data loss or destruction because the Products utilize inappropriate recording
`technology called “SMR” (Shingled Magnetic Recording) as opposed to industry-standard “CMR”
`(Conventional Magnetic Recording) technology. Defendant has vigorously denied these
`allegations and asserted numerous defenses.
`
`After a full-day mediation before Hon. Elizabeth Laporte (Ret.) of JAMS San Francisco,
`followed by two and a half months of additional arms-length negotiations, and undertaking a
`thorough investigation, the parties have reached a settlement that provides a real and substantial
`monetary and non-monetary benefit to the Class. Defendant has agreed to establish a common
`fund of $2,700,000 to pay claims for those who purchased the Products, inclusive of notice costs,
`class representative incentive awards, and reasonable attorney’s fees.
`
`Class Members can receive between $4.00 and $7.00 cash award for each Subject Product
`the Claimant purchased during the Class Period, subject to a maximum pro rata adjustment of 85%
`of the Subject Products’ retail purchase price (i.e., 85% of $69.99 for the 2TB Subject Product,
`
`
`1 All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the same definitions as set out in the
`settlement agreement. See Kopel Decl., Ex. 1.
`2 The affected WD Red NAS hard drives have the following SKUs: WD20EFAX (2TB
`capacity), WD30EFAX (3TB capacity), WD40EFAX (4TB capacity) and WD60EFAX (6TB
`capacity)
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-03584-NC
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03584-NC Document 53 Filed 06/11/21 Page 12 of 36
`
`
`
`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
`
`$84.99 for the 3TB Subject Product, $94.99 for the 4TB Subject Product, and $145.99 for the 6TB
`Subject Product).3 No proof of purchase is required to submit a claim, and Claimants may submit
`claims for each Subject Product purchased. This is an excellent result for Class Members. See
`Argument § V.B.1.iv, infra.
`The Settlement also provides significant injunctive relief. Within 60 days of the effective
`date of the settlement, Western Digital shall clearly and conspicuously disclose the use of SMR
`technology on the product packaging and website product page on westerndigital.com of all WD
`Red NAS Drives with SMR technology. The requirements of this injunctive relief must be
`complied with for no less than 4 years after the Effective Date of the Settlement.
`The Court should have no hesitation finding that the Settlement falls within the range of
`possible approval. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter an order in the
`form of the Proposed Preliminary Approval Order, which is attached to the Settlement as Exhibit
`C. That Order will: (1) grant preliminary approval of the Settlement; (2) conditionally certify the
`Class, designate Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and Hattis
`& Lukacs as Class Counsel; (3) appoint JND Legal Administration as the Settlement Administrator
`and establish procedures for giving notice to members of the Class; (4) approve forms of notice to
`Class Members; (5) mandate procedures and deadlines for exclusion requests and objections; and
`(5) set a date, time and place for a final approval hearing.
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`II.
`On May 29, 2020, Plaintiff Nicholas Malone commenced this putative class action
`captioned Malone v. Western Digital Corporation, United States District Court, Northern District of
`California, Case No. 5:20-cv-03584, asserting claims California Code § 1750 et seq., California
`Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., and California Business and Professions Code
`
`3 The maximum pro rata upward adjustment amount was the subject of dispute between Plaintiffs
`and Defendant. Plaintiffs advocated for a full refund, whereas Defendant insisted on a cap of $36
`per 2TB and 3TB Hard Drives, and a cap of $63 for 4TB and 6TB Hard Drives. Pursuant to the
`parties’ executed Class Action Settlement Term Sheet, this issue was decided by a third-party
`neutral, Hon. Elizabeth Laporte (Ret.). Judge Laporte received written submissions from both
`parties and issued a decision of 85% of the Subject Products’ retail purchase price as the maximum
`pro rata upward adjustment. Judge Laporte’s decision is attached to the Kopel Declaration as
`Exhibit 3.
`
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-03584-NC
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-03584-NC Document 53 Filed 06/11/21 Page 13 of 36
`
`
`
`§ 17500 et seq. Mr. Malone alleged, inter alia, that Defendant deceived customers by
`surreptitiously using Shingled Magnetic Recording (“SMR”) technology in certain of its Hard Drive
`products. On June 16, 2020, Plaintiffs Nicholas Malone, Chris Ayers, James Backus, Brian
`Conway, David Eaton, Steven Gravel, and Tod Weitzel, filed a First Amended Complaint asserting
`the same claims. Dkt. No. 7.
`On June 19, 2020, Plaintiff James Raaymakers commenced an action entitled Raaymakers v.
`Western Digital Corporation, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case
`No. 5:20-cv-04091, asserting substantially similar claims as the Malone action. On July 27, 2021,
`the Court granted a stipulation signed by all the Parties to consolidate the Raaymakers action with
`the Malone action. Dkt. No. 14. On August 10, 2020, all Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended
`Complaint (the “SAC”) under the caption of the Malone action. Dkt. No. 19. Defendant answered
`the SAC on September 16, 2020, denying liability. Dkt. No. 41.
`
`The Parties have engaged in significant discovery. See Kopel Decl. ¶ 2. The Parties
`exchanged and met and conferred