IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE: T-MOBILE CUSTOMER DATA
`SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`MDL No. 3019
`
`Master Case No. 4:21-md-03019-BCW
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION AND SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, EXPENSES AND SERVICE AWARDS
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 179 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 30
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 4
`
`I.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE THE REQUESTED ATTORNEYS’ FEE. ............. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Percentage-of-the-Fund Approach. .................................................................. 4
`
`The Percentage of the Class Benefit Requested by Class Counsel. ........................ 6
`
`The Fee Is Reasonable and Supported by the Johnson Factors. ............................. 7
`
`The Requested Fee Is Reasonable Under a Lodestar Crosscheck. ....................... 20
`
`II.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE CLASS COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR
`REIMBURSEMENT OF REASONABLY INCURRED EXPENSES. ........................... 22
`
`III.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE THE REQUESTED SERVICE AWARDS. .......... 22
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 179 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 30
`
`i
`
`

`

`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp.,
`454 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (S.D. Fla. 2006) ..................................................................................... 20
`
`Americas Mining Corp. v. Theriault,
`51 A.3d 1213 (Del. 2012) ......................................................................................................... 21
`
`Barfield v. Sho-Me Power Elec. Co-op.,
`No. 2:11-CV-4321-NKL, 2015 WL 3460346 (W.D. Mo. June 1, 2015) ................................... 5
`
`Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert,
`444 U.S. 472, 100 S.Ct. 745, 62 L.Ed.2d 676 (1980) ................................................................. 4
`
`Caligiuri v. Symantec Corp.,
`855 F.3d 860 (8th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................. 12, 18, 22, 23
`
`Carnegie v. Household, Int’l,
`376 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................... 11
`
`Custom Hair Designs by Sandy, LLC v. Central Payment Co.,
`Case No. 8:17CV310, 2022 WL 3445763 (D. Neb. Aug. 17, 2022) ........................................ 18
`
`Equifax Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.
`2020 WL 256132 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 17, 2020)...................................................................... passim
`
`Farrell v. Bank of Am. Corp., N.A.,
`827 F. App’x 628 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................. 21
`
`Gardiner v. Walmart, Inc.,
`Case No. 20-cv-04618-JSW, 2021 WL 4992539 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2021) ...................... 11, 13
`
`George v. Academy Mortgage Corporation (UT),
`369 F. Supp. 3d 1356 (N.D. Ga. 2019) ..................................................................................... 13
`
`Gordon v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-01415-CMA-SKC, 2019 WL 6972701 (D. Colo. Dec. 16, 2019) ........................... 12
`
`Hammond v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corp.,
`No. 08 Civ. 6060 (RMB) (RLE), 2010 WL 2643307 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2010) ............... 11, 13
`
`Hardman v. Bd. of Educ. of Dollarway, Arkansas Sch. Dist.,
`714 F.2d 823 (8th Cir. 1983) ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`Health Republic Ins. Co. v. United States,
`156 Fed. Cl. 67 (2021) .......................................................................................................... 5, 21
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 179 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 30
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Hensley v. Eckerhart,
`461 U.S. 424 (1983) .................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Huang v. Spector,
`142 S. Ct. 431, 211 L. Ed. 2d 254 (2021) ................................................................................. 19
`
`Huyer v. Buckley,
`849 F.3d 395 (8th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 18
`
`Huyer v. Njema,
`847 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 23
`
`In re Airline Ticket Commission Antitrust Litig.,
`953 F. Supp. 280 (D. Minn. 1997) ............................................................................................ 18
`
`In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,
`Case No. 15-MD-02617-LHK, 2018 WL 3960068 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018) ............... 6, 8, 18
`
`In re Capital One Consumer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`488 F. Supp. 3d 374 (E.D. Va. 2020) ....................................................................................... 13
`
`In re Charter Commc’ns, Inc., Sec. Litig.,
`No. 4:02-cv-1186-CAS, 2005 WL 4045741 (E.D. Mo. Jun. 30, 2005) .................................... 21
`
`In re Checking Acct. Overdraft Litig.,
`830 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (S.D. Fla. 2011) ..................................................................................... 20
`
`In re Equifax Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`999 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................ 19
`
`In re Equifax, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`362 F. Supp. 3d 1295 (N.D. Ga. 2019) ..................................................................................... 13
`
`In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Priv. Litig.,
`806 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2015)................................................................................................ 11, 13
`
`In re Marriott Int’l, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`440 F. Supp. 3d 447 (D. Md. 2020) .......................................................................................... 13
`
`In re Media Vision Tech. Sec. Litig.,
`913 F. Supp. 1362 (N.D. Cal. 1996) ......................................................................................... 22
`
`In re Merry-Go-Round Enters. Inc.,
`244 B.R. 327 (Bankr. D. Md. 2000) ......................................................................................... 21
`
`In re Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Litig.,
`No. Civ. 00MDL1328PAM, 2003 WL 297276 (D. Minn. Feb. 6, 2003) ................................. 18
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 179 Filed 11/17/22 Page 4 of 30
`
`iii
`
`

`

`In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`396 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2005)...................................................................................................... 21
`
`In re Sonic Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No. 1:17-md-2807, MDL No. 2807, 2019 WL 3773737 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 12, 2019) ............. 12
`
`In re Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litig.
`892 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................. passim
`
`In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litig.,
`643 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (D. Minn. 2009) ....................................................................................... 7
`
`In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`2017 WL 1047834 (N.D. Cal. Mar 17, 2017) ........................................................................... 20
`
`In re Xcel Energy, Inc., Securities, Derivative & “ERISA” Litig.,
`364 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Minn. 2005) ................................................................................ passim
`
`In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig.,
`Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK, 2020 WL 4212811 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2020) .......................... 8
`
`Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc.,
`488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) ................................................................................................ 5, 14
`
`Johnston v. Comerica Mortg. Corp.,
`83 F.3d 241 (8th Cir. 1996) ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`Keil v. Lopez,
`862 F.3d 685 (8th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 20
`
`Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co.,
`200 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir.1999) ............................................................................................... 5, 21
`
`Pruchnicki v. Envision Healthcare Corp.,
`845 F. App’x 613 (9th Cir. 2021) ....................................................................................... 11, 13
`
`Rawa v. Monsanto Co.,
`934 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................ 4, 21
`
`Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,
`No. Civ. A. 03–4578, 2005 WL 1213926 (E.D. Pa. May 19, 2005) ........................................ 21
`
`Swinton v. SquareTrade, Inc.,
`454 F. Supp. 3d 848 (S.D. Iowa 2020) ................................................................................. 5, 14
`
`Tussey v. ABB, Inc.,
`No. 06-CV-04305-NKL, 2019 WL 3859763 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 16, 2019) ......................... passim
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 179 Filed 11/17/22 Page 5 of 30
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.,
`396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005).......................................................................................................... 5
`
`Watkins v. Spector,
`142 S. Ct. 765, 211 L. Ed. 2d 479 (2022) ................................................................................. 19
`
`West v. PSS World Med., Inc.,
`2014 WL 1648741 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 24, 2014)............................................................................. 5
`
`Yarrington v. Solvay Pharms., Inc.,
`697 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (D. Minn. 2010) ..................................................................... 6, 10, 14, 22
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and 54 ................................................................................... 4
`
`Other Authorities
`
`1 Attorney Fee Awards § 2:19 (3d ed.)......................................................................................... 22
`
`Attorney Fees in Class Action: 2009–2013,
`92 N.YU. L. Rev. 937 (2017) ................................................................................................... 19
`
`Court Awarded Attorneys Fees, Report of the Third Circuit Task Force,
`108 F.R.D. 237 (3rd Cir. 1985) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`Manual for Complex Litigation § 14.121 (4th ed. 2004) ................................................................ 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 179 Filed 11/17/22 Page 6 of 30
`
`v
`
`

`

`INTRODUCTION
`
`Class Counsel have dedicated substantial time and expense on a purely contingent basis to
`
`deliver one of the largest data breach settlements of all time—one that creates a $350,000,000 non-
`
`reversionary fund and requires T-Mobile to spend an additional $150,000,000 over the next two
`
`years to improve data security. Counting those two figures alone, the settlement is worth
`
`$500,000,000. The extensive Identity Defense Services and Restoration Services, also made
`
`available to every Class Member, push the value of the benefits conferred on the Class even higher.
`
`Class Counsel obtained this historic result in the face of numerous risks, including
`
`navigating a novel and rapidly developing legal landscape under multiple states’ varying laws and
`
`T-Mobile’s potential arbitration defenses, among other obstacles, all of which likely would have
`
`presented considerable litigation challenges and uncertainty. Had the case not settled when it did,
`
`there assuredly would have been protracted, tooth-and-nail litigation with sophisticated defense
`
`counsel that could have extended this case another half decade or more, with no guarantee of
`
`achieving a better (or even comparable) result. The failure to reach a settlement at this stage of the
`
`litigation would have meant fierce and extended motion practice, including many months of fact
`
`discovery and expensive expert discovery, the potential for interlocutory appeals, and lengthy stays
`
`of the litigation. At every turn, the threat of non-recovery for the Class would have been significant.
`
`Obtaining this recovery required committed and engaged counsel who could both recognize these
`
`challenges and communicate the common interest with T-Mobile in overcoming them to
`
`successfully resolve this case at this early juncture.
`
`To compensate Class Counsel for achieving the extraordinary result that might normally
`
`only be obtained following a full and successful litigation on the merits and appeal, Class Counsel
`
`respectfully request, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the negotiated Settlement
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 179 Filed 11/17/22 Page 7 of 30
`
`1
`
`

`

`Agreement, a fee of 22.5%1 of the $350 million cash Settlement Fund (or 15.75% of T-Mobile’s
`
`total cash commitment of $500 million) and expenses in the amount of $147,982.55. Given the
`
`extraordinary results in this case, the fee request is reasonable and should be approved under well-
`
`established Eighth Circuit’s precedent. A lodestar crosscheck, although not required (and
`
`disfavored by several courts), also supports the requested fee award. Furthermore, Class Counsel’s
`
`expenses were reasonable and necessarily incurred on behalf of the Class. Thus, Class Counsel
`
`respectfully request that their Motion for fees and expenses be approved in full.
`
`Class Counsel also request that the Court approve modest service awards of $2,500 to each
`
`Class Representative, as provided by the Settlement, to compensate them for their efforts on behalf
`
`of the Class. The Class Representatives were not only victims of the data breach, but also provided
`
`key support to the litigation, including helping to develop and review the factual allegations in the
`
`complaint, and providing key guidance with respect to the Settlement. The awards are both legally
`
`and factually warranted.2
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`On August 16, 2021, T-Mobile announced a data breach initially thought to affect the
`
`personal identifying information (“PII”) of 50 million of its past, current, and prospective
`
`customers (“T-Mobile Data Breach”).3 (Doc. 128, Compl. ¶¶ 6, 98.) A November 2021 T-Mobile
`
`
`1 The Settlement Agreement allows Class Counsel to request up to 30% of the Settlement Fund.
`Following consultation with experts and review of the case law set forth in this Memorandum,
`however, Class Counsel conservatively request a reduced fee of 22.5%. (See Ex. 1, Class Counsel
`Declaration, ¶¶ 17, 29).
`2 In support of this motion, Plaintiffs rely upon a Declaration of Class Counsel (Ex. 1), as well as
`the Declaration of Brian Fitzpatrick (Ex. 2). Additionally, Class Counsel rely upon prior
`declarations, including from Class Counsel (Doc. 158-3), and from Gerald Thompson on behalf of
`Pango, the provider of the Identity Defense Services and Restoration Services (Doc. 158-7).
`3 Consistent with the 2018 amendments to Rule 23 calling for “frontloading” of information related
`to a class settlement, Plaintiffs’ suggestions in support of preliminary approval and its supporting
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 179 Filed 11/17/22 Page 8 of 30
`
`2
`
`

`

`filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission admitted that an additional 26 million
`
`individuals’ PII had been compromised. (Id. ¶ 104.) T-Mobile’s customers’ PII appeared on the
`
`dark web for sale, and many customers suffered actual and attempted identity theft and fraud. (Id.
`
`¶¶ 8–71, 135–48.)
`
`Class Counsel and other attorneys filed dozens of lawsuits across the country.4 Following
`
`motions practice before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”), the litigation was
`
`centralized before this Court on December 3, 2021. (JPML Doc. 98.) After an application process,
`
`this Court appointed three Co-Lead Class Counsel and a Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (Doc.
`
`102.) Class Counsel and the Executive Committee thoroughly vetted hundreds of potential class
`
`representatives, investigated the factual circumstances of the data breach, researched the
`
`substantive laws of every state, coordinated with other counsel representing individuals who had
`
`filed actions against T-Mobile, and subsequently filed a consolidated 336-page amended complaint
`
`on May 11, 2022. (Doc. 128.) Class Counsel then negotiated various discovery orders and
`
`exchanged numerous documents in extensive informal discovery with T-Mobile to ensure
`
`meaningful settlement discussions were possible. (Doc. 158-3, ¶ 23.) Following two full days of
`
`hard-fought negotiation overseen by a highly respected retired federal magistrate judge, Class
`
`Counsel and T-Mobile reached an agreement in principle to the terms that eventually became the
`
`final Settlement Agreement. (Id. ¶ 24.)
`
`In the months since the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and approved
`
`notice, Class Counsel have remained hard at work. Class Counsel have spent considerable time
`
`
`documentation describe the background of this litigation and Class Counsel’s work to that point
`in greater detail.
`4 Class Counsel’s work in delivering this settlement is well documented in their declarations. (Doc.
`158-3, ¶¶ 12–26; see also Ex. 1, ¶¶ 3–16.)
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 179 Filed 11/17/22 Page 9 of 30
`
`3
`
`

`

`overseeing the claims and notice programs, including negotiating the terms and specifics of the
`
`notice; answering questions from Settlement Class Members; and working on necessary papers to
`
`be filed before the final approval hearing. (Ex. 1, ¶¶ 26-28.)
`
`Importantly, Class Counsel’s work will not end once the settlement is finally approved or
`
`even after any potential appeals are resolved. (Id. ¶¶ 41, 53-54.) Class Counsel’s oversight
`
`obligations and other responsibilities will continue until the settlement is fully implemented, which
`
`will not occur until many years in the future. (Id.) Identity Defense Services and Restoration
`
`Services will be available to Class Members for two more years following the effective date of the
`
`Settlement. (Id. ¶ 22.) And the claims administration program will continue throughout this entire
`
`period. (See id. ¶ 28.) Once the settlement administrator begins verifying the claims that have been
`
`and will be made, Class Counsel will need to monitor the process, communicate with impacted
`
`Settlement Class Members, and participate in the dispute resolution process established by the
`
`Settlement. (Id. ¶ 28.) Class Counsel anticipate incurring lodestar of at least $2,200,000 in ongoing
`
`time expended to monitor and implement the Settlement after this petition is filed. (Id. ¶ 54.)
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD APPROVE THE REQUESTED ATTORNEYS’ FEE.
`
`A.
`
`The Percentage-of-the-Fund Approach.
`
`When Class Counsel have negotiated a class action settlement, they are entitled to petition
`
`the Court to award attorneys’ fees and costs for their success. “Under the ‘common fund’ doctrine,
`
`Class Counsel is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees from the settlement proceeds.”
`
`Tussey v. ABB, Inc., No. 06-CV-04305-NKL, 2019 WL 3859763, at *2 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 16, 2019)
`
`(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h); Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478 (1980)).
`
`District courts in this Circuit typically use the “percentage-of-the-fund method” in
`
`awarding attorneys’ fees in a common-fund case such as this. See, e.g., Rawa v. Monsanto Co.,
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 179 Filed 11/17/22 Page 10 of 30
`
`4
`
`

`

`934 F.3d 862, 870 (8th Cir. 2019). “In the Eighth Circuit, use of a percentage method of awarding
`
`attorney fees in a common-fund case is not only approved, but also ‘well established.’” In re Xcel
`
`Energy, Inc., Securities, Derivative & “ERISA” Litig. (“Xcel Energy”), 364 F. Supp. 2d 980, 991
`
`(D. Minn. 2005) (quoting Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co., 200 F.3d 1140, 1157 (8th Cir. 1999)). Indeed,
`
`some courts have suggested that using the “‘percentage of the fund method may be preferable.’”
`
`Barfield v. Sho-Me Power Elec. Co-op., No. 2:11-CV-4321-NKL, 2015 WL 3460346, at *3 (W.D.
`
`Mo. June 1, 2015) (quoting West v. PSS World Med., Inc., No. 4:13 CV 574 CDP, 2014 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 57150, at *3, 2014 WL 1648741 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 24, 2014)); see also Johnston v. Comerica
`
`Mortg. Corp., 83 F.3d 241, 245 (8th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he Task Force recommended that the
`
`percentage of the benefit method be employed in common fund situations.” (citing Court Awarded
`
`Attorneys Fees, Report of the Third Circuit Task Force, 108 F.R.D. 237, 255 (3rd Cir. 1985)).5
`
`“[T]he ultimate reasonableness of the award is evaluated by considering relevant factors
`
`from the twelve factors listed in Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 719–20 (5th
`
`Cir. 1974).” In re Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litig. (“Target”), 892 F.3d 968,
`
`977 (8th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up). To be sure, “[m]any of the Johnson factors are related to one
`
`another and lend themselves to being analyzed in tandem.” Swinton v. SquareTrade, Inc., 454 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 848, 886 (S.D. Iowa 2020). Therefore, courts in the Eighth Circuit often focus on the
`
`
`5 In this regard, the percentage-of-the-fund method “directly aligns the interests of the class and
`its counsel and provides a powerful incentive for the efficient prosecution and early resolution of
`litigation,” while “[i]n contrast, the lodestar create[s] an unanticipated disincentive to early
`settlements, tempt[s] lawyers to run up their hours, and compel[s] district courts to engage in a
`gimlet-eyed review of line-item fee audits.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d
`96, 121 (2d Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted); see also Health Republic Ins. Co. v. United States,
`156 Fed. Cl. 67, 76 (2021) (noting the lodestar method “‘is difficult to apply, time-consuming to
`administer, inconsistent in result, and capable of manipulation,’ and it creates incentives for
`inefficiency” (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation § 14.121 (4th ed. 2004))).
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 179 Filed 11/17/22 Page 11 of 30
`
`5
`
`

`

`most relevant Johnson factors in evaluating fee requests. See Xcel Energy, 364 F. Supp. 2d at 993;
`
`Tussey, 2019 WL 3859763, at *2; Yarrington v. Solvay Pharms., Inc., 697 F. Supp. 2d 1057, 1062
`
`(D. Minn. 2010); see also Hardman v. Bd. of Educ. of Dollarway, Arkansas Sch. Dist., 714 F.2d
`
`823, 825 (8th Cir. 1983).6 These are discussed in more detail below.
`
`B.
`
`The Percentage of the Class Benefit Requested by Class Counsel.
`
`The requested fee of $78.75 million represents 22.5% of the $350 million common fund.
`
`(Ex. 1, ¶ 17.) However, that percentage is not a true measure of the fee as a percentage of the
`
`benefits conferred on the Class as it fails to account for other significant settlement benefits. When
`
`considering the entirety of the settlement’s benefits, the fee percentage is much lower.
`
`For example, in addition to the $350 million fund, T-Mobile has committed to investing
`
`another $150 million in data security for 2022 and 2023 above baseline levels. (Id. ¶ 24.) This
`
`benefits all members of the Class by reducing the risk of another data breach and thus should be
`
`considered as a meaningful benefit to the Class. See Equifax Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.
`
`(“Equifax”), No. 1:17-MD-2800-TWT, 2020 WL 256132, at *38 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 17, 2020)
`
`(explaining that courts “routinely consider” the value of “business practice changes” including the
`
`“minimum” increased expenditure on “data security and related technology”), aff’d in part, rev’d
`
`in part and remanded, 999 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2021), cert. denied sub nom. Huang v. Spector,
`
`142 S. Ct. 431, 211 L. Ed. 2d 254 (2021), and cert. denied sub nom. Watkins v. Spector, 142 S. Ct.
`
`765, 211 L. Ed. 2d 479 (2022); In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., Case No. 15-MD-02617-
`
`LHK, 2018 WL 3960068, at *28 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018) (finding that “minimum cybersecurity
`
`expenditures” were “properly considered in determining an appropriate attorneys’ fees award”).
`
`
`6 The nature of the attorney-client relationship does not apply and thus can be disregarded or treated
`as neutral in considering the fee.
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 179 Filed 11/17/22 Page 12 of 30
`
`6
`
`

`

`When the larger cash expenditure by T-Mobile is considered, the requested fee falls to just 15.75%
`
`of the cash considerations in the Settlement. (Ex. 1, ¶ 44.)
`
`Moreover, it is also appropriate to consider the retail value of the Identity Defense Services
`
`and Restoration Services the Settlement provides, which push the value of the settlement much
`
`higher. See Equifax, 2020 WL 256132, at *38 (“[C]ourts have often recognized the benefit of credit
`
`monitoring, use its retail cost as evidence of value, and consider that value in awarding fees.”).
`
`The Identity Defense Services and Restoration Services the Settlement provides are sold at retail
`
`for $96 per year. (Ex. 1, ¶ 25; Doc. 158-7, ¶ 5.) Thus, the value of this benefit is approximately
`
`$146 million for every 1% of Settlement Class Members who elect to receive those services. (Ex.
`
`1, ¶ 25; Doc. 158-3, ¶ 37.) In other words, if just 1% of Settlement Class Members take advantage
`
`of Identity Defense Services and Restoration Services, the requested fee would be around 12% of
`
`the Settlement’s total value. (Ex. 1, ¶ 25.)
`
`C.
`
`The Fee Is Reasonable and Supported by the Johnson Factors.
`
`Whether contemplated as 22.5% of the $350 million cash fund, 15.75% of T-Mobile’s $500
`
`million cash outlay, or some lower percentage of the larger sum of the benefits conferred on the
`
`Class, the requested fee is more than reasonable under the Johnson factors.
`
`(1) The benefits conferred on the Settlement Class are extraordinary.
`
`First and foremost, the settlement represents a significant recovery for the Class. “In
`
`considering a fee award, the ‘most critical factor’ is ‘the degree of success obtained.’” In re
`
`UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litig., 643 F. Supp. 2d 1094, 1104 (D. Minn. 2009) (quoting
`
`Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983)).
`
`The $350 million settlement fund is one of the largest data breach settlements in history,
`
`second only to the $380 million fund in Equifax. Importantly, however, the per capita recovery is
`
`much higher here than in Equifax—nearly double—as there are approximately 76.6 million Class
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 179 Filed 11/17/22 Page 13 of 30
`
`7
`
`

`

`Members here, and there were more than 147 million class members in Equifax. See Equifax, 2020
`
`WL 256132, at *1, *34 n.50 (weighing the high per capita recovery for the class in favor of
`
`approving the fee application and comparing the Equifax settlement to the settlement in In re
`
`Anthem which “resulted in a $115 million fund for a class of 80 million individuals”); see also In
`
`re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK, 2020 WL
`
`4212811, at *33–34 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2020) (considering the Yahoo! settlement fund an
`
`“unremarkable” recovery in part based upon a comparison of the $117.5 million settlement for 194
`
`million class members there with the much larger “per-capita recovery” of the $115 million
`
`settlement for 79 million class members in Anthem). The settlement here is three times larger than
`
`the Anthem settlement, which involved a similar number of class members. See Anthem, 2018 WL
`
`3960068, at *10 (“Whether one looks at absolute or per-capita numbers, a settlement fund of $115
`
`million for approximately 79.15 million class members is significant.”).
`
`The larger per capita recovery here yields tangible benefits. For instance, the fund here
`
`provides cash reimbursement up to $25,000 for unreimbursed out-of-pocket payments spent to
`
`avoid or recover from fraud or identity theft that is fairly traceable to the T-Mobile Data Breach.7
`
`That is 25% more than the $20,000 compensation for out-of-pocket of losses in Equifax. See
`
`Equifax, 2020 WL 256132, at *34. The Settlement also allows for Class Members to obtain
`
`
`7 As set forth in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval, the fund covers a broad array of
`costs, including but not limited to: money spent to place or remove a security freeze on credit
`reports; money spent on credit monitoring or identity theft protection; unreimbursed costs,
`expenses, losses or charges paid because of identity theft or identity fraud, falsified tax returns, or
`other alleged misuse of personal information; professional fees incurred to address identity theft,
`fraud, or falsified tax returns that are fairly traceable to the data breach; and other miscellaneous
`expenses fairly traceable to the data breach. (Doc. 158, at 6–7; Doc 158-3, ¶ 30.)
`
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 179 Filed 11/17/22 Page 14 of 30
`
`8
`
`

`

`expensive Identity Defense Services and Restoration Services.8 As with compensation for out-of-
`
`pocket losses and lost time, these services help prevent more serious losses from occurring and
`
`will make Class Members whole if losses occur. The $350 million settlement fund also reimburses
`
`Class Members for time (up to 15 hours, depending on the circumstances) spent to avoid or recover
`
`from fraud or identity theft, or other misuse of Class Member personal information, that is fairly
`
`traceable to the T-Mobile Data Breach. It does so at the greater of $25 per hour or the Class
`
`Member’s hourly wage if the Class Member took time off work.
`
`These benefits are valuable. The Settlement is designed to make Class Members whole for
`
`time spent and expenses incurred to avoid fraud or to recover from identity theft and other harm.
`
`As described below, it is difficult to litigate that aspect of a claim on a disputed class-wide basis.
`
`Moreover, the Settlement here also provides for an alternative cash payment of $25 for Class
`
`Members—and $100 for Settlement Class Members who resided in California at the time of the
`
`data breach. Not only may Settlement Class Members elect to obtain the alternative cash payment
`
`and forgo submitting documentation to obtain out-of-pocket losses and/or lost time, those who do
`
`make claims for out-of-pocket losses and/or lost time will be entitled to the greater of the approved
`
`claim for out-of-pocket losses and/or lost time or the amount available under the alternative cash
`
`payment provision. And no money will revert to T-Mobile. If the value of the approved claims is
`
`
`8 The suite of Identity Defense Services includes two years of credit monitoring through
`TransUnion, monthly credit score, real time inquiry/authentication alerts, high risk transaction
`monitoring, dark web monitoring, USPS address change monitoring and alerts, lost wallet
`protection, security freeze capability, $1,000,000 in comprehensive identity theft insurance,
`customer support and victim assistance. Restoration Services includes two years of access to U.S.-
`based fraud resolution specialists who can assist with important tasks such as placing fraud alerts
`with the credit bureaus, disputing inaccurate information on credit reports, scheduling calls with
`creditors and other service providers, and working with law enforcement and government agencies
`to dispute fraudulent information. (Doc. 158, at 7–8; Doc 158-3, ¶¶ 31–32.)
`
`
`
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 179 Filed 11/17/22 Page 15 of 30
`
`9
`
`

`

`less than the total value of the net Settlement Fund, qualified claimants will receive additional
`
`compensation on a pro rata basis.
`
`Independent of the $350 million settlement fund, T-Mobile has agreed to an incremental
`
`spending commitment of at least $150 million for data security and related technology, in the
`
`aggregate, for years 2022 and 2023 above its previously budget