Case CAN/3:23-cv-00436 Document 13 Filed 06/02/23 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
`on
`MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`IN RE: T-MOBILE 2022 CUSTOMER DATA
`SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`MDL No. 3073
`
`TRANSFER ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Panel:* Plaintiff in the Western District of Washington Clark action moves
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Western District of Washington or,
`alternatively, the Western District of Missouri. This litigation consists of eleven actions pending
`in eight districts, as listed on Schedule A. Since the filing of the motion, the Panel has been notified
`of five related actions.1
`
`All responding plaintiffs support centralization, but there is some disagreement on the
`
`transferee district. Plaintiffs in five actions support centralization in the Western District of
`Washington. Plaintiff in one action supports centralization in the Western District of Missouri or,
`alternatively, the District of Kansas. Plaintiff in one action requests centralization in the District
`of Kansas or, alternatively, the Western District of Missouri, and represents that plaintiffs in four
`other actions also support centralization in the District of Kansas. Plaintiffs in two actions request
`centralization in the Southern District of California or another California district. Defendants T-
`Mobile US, Inc., and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile), oppose centralization or, alternatively,
`support the Western District of Missouri or the District of Kansas as the transferee district.
`
`On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions
`
`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 actions2 share complex factual questions arising from T-
`Mobile’s announcement on January 19, 2023, that a data security breach of its network occurred
`
`
`*
`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.
`
`These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h),
`
`7.1, and 7.2.
`
` 2
`
`The Northern District of California Hart action is an individual action brought by a plaintiff
`
`proceeding pro se, rather than a putative class action. He alleges his personally identifiable
`information was compromised in T-Mobile data security breaches from 2021 through 2022. The
`Hart plaintiff supports, and no party opposes, inclusion of his action in this MDL.
`
` 1
`
`

`

`Case CAN/3:23-cv-00436 Document 13 Filed 06/02/23 Page 2 of 4
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`in late 2022 in which an unauthorized actor accessed and acquired files on its network, including
`personally identifiable information of 37 million current and former customers. Common factual
`questions will include: T-Mobile’s data security practices and whether those practices met industry
`standards, how the unauthorized actor obtained access to T-Mobile’s system, the extent of the
`personal information affected by the breach, and when T-Mobile knew or should have known of
`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.
`
`T-Mobile principally objects to centralization on grounds that anticipated motions to
`
`compel arbitration in each action may make centralization unnecessary. But the outcome of these
`anticipated motions in eleven different courts is not certain, and indeed, an assessment of the
`litigation’s merits is beyond the Panel’s authority. See In re Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., Patent
`Litig., 867 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1335 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (“‘[t]he framers of Section 1407 did not
`contemplate that the Panel would decide the merits of the actions before it and neither the statute
`nor the implementing Rules of the Panel are drafted to allow for such determinations’”) (quoting
`In re Kauffman Mut. Fund Actions, 337 F. Supp. 1337, 1339-40 (J.P.M.L.1972)). T-Mobile argues
`that (1) these motions are not complex, (2) rulings on the motions will rest on unique plaintiff-
`specific considerations and are therefore not appropriate for centralized treatment, and (3) the
`Panel can reconsider centralization should the motions be denied. T-Mobile suggests that, should
`the motions be denied, the surviving litigation will be factually and legally complex and does not
`deny that centralization at that time would be warranted. We find that centralization at this time
`best serves the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Though the motions to compel
`arbitration may differ as to the way each customer agreed to arbitrate claims and whether they
`opted out, these inquiries and the accompanying discovery appear to involve some overlapping
`issues. Having a single judge oversee discovery regarding arbitration and decide the motions in a
`coordinated fashion, therefore, can provide efficiencies and allow any remaining actions to move
`forward together. See In re Uber Techs., Inc., Data Sec. Breach Litig., 304 F. Supp. 3d 1351, 1354
`(J.P.M.L. 2018) (declining defendants’ request to delay ruling on centralization until their motions
`to compel arbitration were decided).
`
`The Western District of Missouri is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. The
`district is supported by defendants and some plaintiffs, including movant. The Honorable Brian
`C. Wimes is presiding over MDL No. 3019 – In re T-Mobile Customer Data Security Breach
`Litigation, which involves allegations regarding a separate data breach of T-Mobile’s systems in
`2021. Judge Wimes, therefore, is familiar with many of the relevant issues in this similar litigation.
`He has ably steered that litigation, which is nearing a resolution. Furthermore, this district provides
`a central and easily accessible location for this nationwide litigation.
`
`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.
`
`
`

`

`Case CAN/3:23-cv-00436 Document 13 Filed 06/02/23 Page 3 of 4
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
` Karen K. Caldwell
`
`
` Chair
`
`Nathaniel M. Gorton
`David C. Norton
`
`Dale A. Kimball
`
`
` Matthew F. Kennelly
` Roger T. Benitez
` Madeline Cox Arleo
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case CAN/3:23-cv-00436 Document 13 Filed 06/02/23 Page 4 of 4
`
`IN RE: T-MOBILE 2022 CUSTOMER DATA
`SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION
`
`
`
`SCHEDULE A
`
`
`
`MDL No. 3073
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Central District of California
`
`BAUGHMAN v. T-MOBILE US, INC., C.A. No. 2:23-00477
`MUNOZ v. T-MOBILE US, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:23-00766
`
`
`
`Northern District of California
`
`HART v. T-MOBILE U.S. INC., C.A. No. 3:23-00436
`
`
`
`Northern District of Florida
`
`CORTAZAL v. T-MOBILE US, INC., C.A. No. 3:23-01220
`
`
`
`District of Kansas
`
`CORKINS, ET AL. v. T-MOBILE US, INC., C.A. No. 2:23-02031
`
`
`
`Western District of Missouri
`
`LYNCH v. T-MOBILE US, INC., C.A. No. 4:23-00052
`
`
`
`District of New Jersey
`
`GONZALEZ v. T-MOBILE US, INC., C.A. No. 2:23-00367
`
`
`
`District of South Carolina
`
`FRIERSON v. T-MOBILE US, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:23-00438
`
`Western District of Washington
`
`
`
`CLARK v. T-MOBILE US, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:23-00103
`FERGUSON, ET AL. v. T-MOBILE USA, INC., C.A. No. 2:23-00142
`DOLLSON, ET AL. v. T-MOBILE US, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:23-00172
`
`