Case 5:21-cv-01155-EJD Document 102 Filed 07/05/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TINA WOLFSON (SBN 174806)
`twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
`ROBERT AHDOOT (SBN 172098)
`rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
`AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
`2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
`Burbank, CA 91505-4521
`Telephone: 310.474.9111
`Facsimile: 310.474.8585
`
`ANDREW W. FERICH (pro hac vice)
`aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
`AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
`201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
`Radnor, PA 19087
`Telephone: 310.474.9111
`Facsimile: 310.474.8585
`
`BEN BARNOW (pro hac vice)
`b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
`ANTHONY L. PARKHILL (pro hac vice)
`aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
`BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312.621.2000
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 ACCELLION, INC. DATA BREACH
`LITIGATION
`
`
`This Document Relates to:
`
`Fehlen, et al. v. Accellion, Inc.
`Case No. 5:21-cv-01353-EJD
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:21-cv-01155-EJD
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
`APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
`
`SETTLEMENT
`
`DATE: December 8, 2022
`TIME: 9:00 a.m.
`JUDGE: Hon. Edward J. Davila
`CTRM: 4, 5th Floor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
` NO. 5:21-CV-01155-EJD
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-01155-EJD Document 102 Filed 07/05/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`The response filed by counsel for Susan Zebelman, the plaintiff in Zebelman v. Accellion, Inc.,
`No. 5:21-cv-01203-EJD (and a non-party to the Settlement), does not challenge the merits of the
`Settlement reached between Settling Plaintiffs and Accellion (“Accellion Settlement”). Zebelman
`requests removal of Court-set hearing date for the Motion for Preliminary Approval. But Zebelman
`provides no justification for why this relief should be granted, or for why the Motion for Preliminary
`
`Approval and the Accellion Settlement should not be considered by the Court on the merits.
`As set forth in the Motion for Preliminary Approval (ECF No. 99), the Accellion Settlement is
`
`fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be preliminarily approved. The Motion for Preliminary
`Approval is proper, timely, and was filed pursuant to the Court’s June 8, 2022 instructions. Zebelman’s
`counsel’s objection to the scheduling of the Motion for Preliminary Approval hearing should be
`rejected.
`A.
`Relevant Procedural History
`The cases consolidated in this action all relate to the Accellion File Transfer Appliance
`(“FTA”) data breach (the “Accellion FTA Data Breach”) that occurred in late 2020 to early 2021. A
`Motion to Consolidate the separate Accellion FTA Data Breach actions was filed in this matter on
`
`April 7, 2021. ECF No. 37. The Court granted the Motion to Consolidate on March 14, 2022. ECF
`No. 83.
`
`1.
`
`Settlements of All Claims In This Consolidated Action Have Either Been
`Finally Approved or Await the Court’s Review
`While the Motion for Consolidation was pending, numerous Plaintiffs and their counsel
`dedicated significant time and resources towards resolution efforts. Prior to consolidation, four
`different settlements relating to Accellion FTA Data Breach litigation were reached with four separate
`defendants before this Court. This Court granted final approval to the first settlement on March 24,
`
`2022, which was a settlement with Kroger. Cochran, et al. v. The Kroger Co., et al., No. 5:21-cv-
`
`01887-EJD, ECF No. 115 ($5 million cash settlement). Some of the law firms appearing for Ms.
`Zebelman also attempted to intervene and interposed objections to the Kroger settlement. The Court
`denied the Motion to Interve (Cochran, ECF No. 99), overruled the objections (id., ECF Nos. 115,
`116), and no appeal was filed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 -
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
`NO. 5:21-CV-01155-EJD
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-01155-EJD Document 102 Filed 07/05/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`The three other settlements related to the Accellion FTA Data Breach await the Court’s
`consideration:
`(1) Beyer, et al. v. Flagstar Bank, et al., No. 5:21-cv-02239-EJD, ECF Nos. 54, 55 ($5.9
`million cash settlement filed Sep. 3, 2021; initial Preliminary Approval Hearing was scheduled for
`
`May 19, 2022);
`(2) Harbour, et al. v. California Health & Wellness Plan, et al., No. 5:21-cv-03322-EJD, ECF
`Nos. 48, 49 ($10 million cash settlement filed Dec. 3, 2021; initial Preliminary Approval Hearing
`
`was scheduled for Apr. 14, 2022); and
`
`(3) Fehlen v. Accellion, Inc., No. 5:21-cv-01353-EJD, ECF No. 44 ($8.1 million cash
`settlement filed Jan. 12, 2022; initial Preliminary Approval Hearing was scheduled fo June 9, 2022).
`
`The Court’s consolidation order took the three preliminary approval motions off calendar and
`ordered the parties to propose a briefing schedule for appointment of lead counsel. ECF No. 83. Two
`competing briefing schedules were filed. See ECF Nos. 92, 93. As of the date of this filing, the Court
`has not set a briefing schedule for appointment of lead counsel.
`B.
`The Court Scheduled The Preliminary Approval Motion for the Accellion
`Settlement After The Consolidation Order.
`Following consolidation of the Accellion FTA Data Breach-related lawsuits (ECF No. 83),
`the plaintiffs’ counsel in a Washington state court case against Accellion and another defendant (not
`named in this matter) filed a motion to intervene in this case. ECF No. 94. That motion included an
`opposition and objection to preliminary approval of the Accellion Settlement. Id. After scheduling a
`hearing for the proposed intervenors’ motion, in a June 8, 2022 communication with defense counsel,
`the Court’s clerk scheduled the hearing on the motion for preliminary approval and requested that
`Settling Plaintiffs re-file the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Accellion Settlement.
`Zebelman’s counsel’s accusation that Settling Plaintiffs’ counsel “have taken it upon
`
`
`themselves to, without explanation, refile their motion and schedule it for hearing” (Resp. at 2:19-
`
`20) is not correct. The Settling Plaintiffs to the Accellion Settlement simply followed the Court’s
`
`logical instruction to file the Motion seeking preliminary approval of the Accellion Settlement,
`consistent with their duty to the putative class.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
` NO. 5:21-CV-01155-EJD
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 5:21-cv-01155-EJD Document 102 Filed 07/05/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`CONCLUSION
`For all of the reasons set forth in the Motion for Preliminary Approval, Plaintiffs Douglas
`Fehlen, Tony Blake, David Artuso, Teresa Bazan, Lorriel Chhay, Samantha Griffith, Allen Chao, and
`Augusta McCain respectfully request that the Court grant the Motion and enter an order: (1)
`
`certifying the proposed class for settlement; (2) preliminarily approving the proposed class action
`Settlement; (3) appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and Tina Wolfson, Robert Ahdoot,
`and Andrew W. Ferich of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, and Ben Barnow and Anthony L. Parkhill of
`
`Barnow and Associates, P.C. as Class Counsel; (4) appointing Epiq as the Settlement Administrator;
`
`(5) approving the proposed Class Notice Plan and related Settlement administration documents;
`and (6) approving the proposed class settlement administrative deadlines and procedures, including
`
`setting a Final Approval Hearing date, and approving the proposed procedures regarding objections,
`exclusions and submitting Claim Forms.
`
`Dated: July 5, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Tina Wolfson
`TINA WOLFSON (SBN 174806)
`twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
`ROBERT AHDOOT (SBN 172098)
`rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
`AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
`2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
`Burbank, CA 91505-4521
`Tel: 310.474.9111; Fax: 310.474.8585
`ANDREW W. FERICH (pro hac vice)
`aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
`AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
`201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
`Radnor, PA 19087
`Tel: 310.474.9111; Fax: 310.474.8585
`
`BEN BARNOW (pro hac vice)
`b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
`
`ANTHONY L. PARKHILL (pro hac vice)
`aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
`BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
`205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tel: 312.621.2000
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
` NO. 5:21-CV-01155-EJD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`