Case GAN/1:21-cv-03384 Document 20 Filed 12/03/21 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
`on
`MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`MDL No. 3019
`
`
`
`IN RE: T-MOBILE CUSTOMER DATA
`SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TRANSFER ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in the Western District of Washington Daruwalla action
`
`move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Western District of Washington
`or, alternatively, in the Western District of Missouri. This litigation consists of five actions
`pending in four districts, as listed on Schedule A. The parties have informed the Panel of 39 related
`actions pending in nine districts.1
`
`
`Plaintiffs in twenty-two actions responded to the motion. All but one2 either support or do
`not oppose centralization, but they differ as to the proposed transferee district. The suggested
`transferee districts include: the Northern District of California, the Northern District of Georgia,
`the Western District of Missouri, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the
`Western District of Oklahoma, and the Western District of Washington. Defendants T-Mobile
`USA, Inc., and T-Mobile US, Inc., also support centralization. Defendants suggest centralization
`in the Western District of Missouri.
`
`
`On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held,3 we find that the actions listed
`
`
`* One or more Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this litigation have
`renounced their participation in these classes and have participated in this decision.
`
`1 These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1,
`and 7.2.
`
` Plaintiff in the Northern District of California Achermann potential tag-along action argues that
`Achermann should not be transferred to any MDL until the transferor court rules on his pending
`remand motion. This argument is premature. See In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip
`Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., 787 F. Supp. 2d 1358, 1360 (J.P.M.L. 2011). Should the Panel issue
`an order conditionally transferring Achermann to the MDL, plaintiff at that time may move to
`vacate the conditional transfer order. See Panel Rule 7.1.
`
`3 In light of the concerns about the spread of the COVID-19 virus (coronavirus), the Panel heard
`oral argument by videoconference at its hearing session of December 2, 2021. See Suppl. Notice
`of Hearing Session, MDL No. 3019 (J.P.M.L. Nov. 15, 2021), ECF No. 92.
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Case GAN/1:21-cv-03384 Document 20 Filed 12/03/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`- 2 -
`
`on Schedule A involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Western District
`of Missouri will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
`efficient conduct of this litigation. These putative class actions present common factual questions
`concerning an alleged data security breach of T-Mobile’s systems that was discovered in August
`2021 and allegedly compromised the personal information of approximately 54 million current,
`former, and prospective customers of T-Mobile. Common factual questions will include: T-
`Mobile’s data security practices and whether those practices met industry standards; how the
`malfeasants obtained access to T-Mobile’s system; the extent of the personal information affected
`by the breach; when T-Mobile knew or should have known of the breach; and T-Mobile’s
`investigation into the breach. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
`inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the
`resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
`
`The Western District of Missouri is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. The
`
`district is supported by defendants and, in the alternative, by several plaintiffs, including movants.
`The Western District of Missouri presents a geographically central and accessible venue for this
`nationwide litigation. The district also has the capacity to efficiently manage this litigation. We
`assign this litigation to the Honorable Brian C. Wimes, who we are confident will steer this
`litigation on a prudent and expeditious course.
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
`
`the Western District of Missouri are transferred to the Western District of Missouri and, with the
`consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Brian C. Wimes for coordinated or consolidated
`pretrial proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Karen K. Caldwell
`
`
` Chair
`
` PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`Nathaniel M. Gorton
`David C. Norton
`
`Dale A. Kimball
`
`
` Matthew F. Kennelly
` Roger T. Benitez
` Madeline C. Arleo
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case GAN/1:21-cv-03384 Document 20 Filed 12/03/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`IN RE: T-MOBILE CUSTOMER DATA
`SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION
`
`
`
`SCHEDULE A
`
`MDL No. 3019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Northern District of California
`
`THANG v. T−MOBILE US, INC., C.A. No. 5:21−06473
`
`
`
`
`
`Northern District of Georgia
`
`VASH v. T−MOBILE US, INC., C.A. No. 1:21−03384
`
`
`
`
`
`Eastern District of New York
`
`METZGER v. T−MOBILE USA, INC., C.A. No. 2:21−04721
`
`
`
`
`
`Western District of Washington
`
`DARUWALLA, ET AL. v. T−MOBILE USA, INC., C.A. No. 2:21−01118
`ESPANOZA, ET AL. v. T−MOBILE USA, INC., C.A. No. 2:21−01119
`
`
`
`
`