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’ SUGGESTIONS IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
`
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 211 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 78
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 3
`
`III.
`
`TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT ................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Settlement Class............................................................................................. 7
`
`Benefits of the Settlement ..................................................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Cash Payments .......................................................................................... 8
`
`Identity Defense Services and Restoration Services ................................. 9
`
`Information Security Spending ............................................................... 10
`
`IV.
`
`NOTICE HAS BEEN DISSEMINATED TO THE SETTLEMENT CLASS................ 10
`
`V.
`
`THE REACTION OF THE CLASS TO THE SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN
`OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE ............................................................................... 14
`
`VI.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................................. 14
`
`VII. THE SETTLEMENT APPROVAL PROCESS ............................................................. 15
`
`VIII. FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROPRIATE............................. 16
`
`IX.
`
`THE SETTLEMENT SATISFIES THE RULE 23(E) FACTORS ................................ 16
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Class Representatives and Class Counsel Have Adequately Represented
`the Class .............................................................................................................. 17
`
`The Parties Negotiated the Settlement Agreement at Arm’s Length .................. 18
`
`The Relief Provided for the Settlement Class is Fair, Reasonable, and
`Adequate ............................................................................................................. 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The Value of Settlement Benefits ........................................................... 19
`
`The Costs, Risks, and Delay of Trial and Appeal ................................... 20
`
`The Effectiveness of Administration ...................................................... 23
`
`The Experience and Views of Class Counsel ......................................... 24
`
`The Proposed Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards ............................... 25
`
`The Proposal Treats Settlement Class Members Equitably ................................ 28
`
`The Reaction of Class Members Supports Final Approval ................................ 29
`
`
`
`
`i
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 211 Filed 01/10/23 Page 2 of 78
`
`

`

`X.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER AND OVERRULE ALL OBJECTIONS .......... 30
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Objections to the Benefits Conferred on the Settlement Class ........................... 31
`
`Objections Relating to Notice ............................................................................. 33
`
`Objection Relating to Article III Standing .......................................................... 34
`
`Objections Relating to the Requested Attorneys’ Fees....................................... 41
`
`1.
`
`There Is No Basis to Adopt Either the “Megafund” or “Sliding
`Scale” Approach Here............................................................................. 42
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`There Is No “Absence of Eighth Circuit Authority” on
`How to Evaluate the Reasonableness of a Requested
`Attorneys’ Fee ............................................................................. 42
`
`The Approaches Hampe Proposes Are Arbitrary,
`Inefficient, and Create Perverse Incentives for Plaintiffs’
`Attorneys ..................................................................................... 44
`
`2.
`
`There Is No Other Basis to Reduce the Requested Fee Award
`Here ......................................................................................................... 47
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`The Fee Here Is Consonant with What Other Courts Have
`Approved and Applying the Seventh or Ninth Circuits’
`Approaches Could Actually Result in a Similar (or Even
`Larger) Award Here .................................................................... 47
`
`The Multiplier Is Not Excessive ................................................. 54
`
`The Johnson Factors Support Plaintiffs’ Requested Fee ............ 58
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`A “More Detailed” Lodestar Submission Is Unwarranted ..................... 61
`
`The Court Should Not Exclude Professor Brian Fitzpatrick’s
`Declaration .............................................................................................. 63
`
`XI.
`
`CLASS CERTIFICATION REMAINS APPROPRIATE .............................................. 66
`
`XII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 66
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 211 Filed 01/10/23 Page 3 of 78
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc.,
`No. 05-CV-00038-EMC, 2016 WL 3351017 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2016) ........................... 45, 61
`
`Alig v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC,
`52 F.4th 167 (4th Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................... 36
`
`Allapattah Servs. Inc. v. Exxon Corp.,
`454 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (S.D. Fla. 2006) ..................................................................................... 53
`
`Americas Mining Corp. v. Theriault,
`51 A.3d 1213 (Del. 2012) ......................................................................................................... 55
`
`Anderson v. Hannaford Bros. Co.,
`659 F.3d 151 (1st Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................................... 39
`
`Ark. Teacher Ret. Sys. v. State St. Corp.,
`25 F.4th 55 (1st Cir. 2022) .................................................................................................. 49, 54
`
`Armstrong v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Milwaukee,
`616 F.2d 305 (7th Cir. 1980) .................................................................................................... 25
`
`Ashley v. Reg’l Transp. Dist. & Amalgamated Transit Union Div. 1001 Pension Fund Tr.,
`No. 05-cv-01567, 2008 WL 384579 (D. Colo. Feb. 11, 2008) ................................................. 18
`
`Baldwin v. Nat’l W. Life Ins. Co.,
`2021 WL 4206736 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 15, 2021) ........................................................................ 40
`
`Baldwin v. Nat’l W. Life Ins. Co.,
`2022 WL 16709706 (W.D. Mo. June 16, 2022) ....................................................................... 40
`
`Beckman v. KeyBank, N.A.,
`293 F.R.D. 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) .............................................................................................. 55
`
`Bellows v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc.,
`3:07-CV-01413-W-AJB, 2008 WL 5458986 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2008) .................................. 15
`
`Burkhart v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.,
`112 F.3d 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................ 65
`
`Burroughs v. Mackie Moving Systems Corp.,
`No. 4:07CV1944MLM, 2010 WL 1254630 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 24, 2010) ................................... 64
`
`Caligiuri v. Symantec Corp.,
`855 F.3d 860 (8th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 27
`
`Carlsen v. GameStop, Inc.,
`833 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................... 38
`
`Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc.,
`450 U.S. 79 (1981) .................................................................................................................... 23
`
`Clemens v. ExecuPharm Inc.,
`48 F.4th 146 (3d Cir. 2022) ...................................................................................................... 40
`
`iii
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 211 Filed 01/10/23 Page 4 of 78
`
`

`

`Cohn v. Nelson,
`375 F. Supp. 2d 844 (E.D. Mo. 2005)....................................................................................... 15
`
`Custom Hair Designs by Sandy, LLC v. Central Payment Co.,
`No. 8:17CV310, 2022 WL 3445763 (D. Neb. Aug. 17, 2022) ........................................... 54, 57
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) .................................................................................................................. 63
`
`Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG,
`443 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2006)...................................................................................................... 35
`
`Drazen v. Pinto,
`41 F.4th 1354 (11th Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................. 36
`
`E. Associated Coal Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.,
`475 F. Supp. 586 (W.D. Pa. 1979) ............................................................................................ 64
`
`Farrell v. Bank of Am. Corp., N.A.,
`827 F. App’x 628 (9th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................. 56
`
`Fish v. St. Cloud State Univ.,
`295 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................... 61
`
`Frank v. Gaos,
`139 S. Ct. 1041 (2019) ........................................................................................................ 35, 36
`
`Fulton-Green v. Accolade, Inc.,
`No. 18-274, 2019 WL 4677954 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 2019) ....................................................... 59
`
`Gardiner v. Walmart, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-04618-JSW, 2021 WL 4992539 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2021) .................................... 22
`
`Gordon v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-01415-CMA-SKC, 2019 WL 6972701 (D. Colo. Dec. 16, 2019) ..................... 20, 21
`
`Greenstein v. Noblr Reciprocal Exch.,
`2022 WL 17418972 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2022) .......................................................................... 36
`
`Grunin v. Int’l House of Pancakes,
`513 F.2d 114 (8th Cir. 1975) .................................................................................................... 33
`
`Halvorson v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.,
`718 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................... 35
`
`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) .......................... 22
`
`Hardman v. Bd. of Educ. of Dollarway,
`714 F.2d 823 (8th Cir. 1983) .................................................................................................... 43
`
`Harvey v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC,
`2022 WL 3359174 (9th Cir. 2022) ........................................................................................... 36
`
`Health Republic Ins. Co. v. United States,
`156 Fed. Cl. 67 (2021) ........................................................................................................ 55, 57
`
`iv
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 211 Filed 01/10/23 Page 5 of 78
`
`

`

`Heighley v. J.C. Penney Life Ins. Co.,
`257 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (C.D. Cal. 2003) .................................................................................... 64
`
`Hensley v. Eckerhart,
`461 U.S. 424 (1983) .................................................................................................................. 62
`
`Hogan v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.,
`812 F.2d 409 (8th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................... 65
`
`Huang v. Spector,
`142 S. Ct. 431 (2021) ................................................................................................................ 36
`
`Hutton v. Nat’l Bd. of Exam’rs in Optometry, Inc.,
`892 F.3d 613 (4th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 38
`
`Huyer v. Buckley,
`849 F.3d 395 (8th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 25
`
`In re American Medical Collection Agency, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig.,
`2021 WL 5937742 (D. N.J. Dec. 16, 2021) .............................................................................. 40
`
`In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,
`327 F.R.D. 299 (N.D. Cal. 2018) ........................................................................................ 21, 29
`
`In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,
`No. 15-MD-02617-LHK, 2018 WL 3960068 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018) .......................... 47, 52
`
`In re BankAmerica Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`210 F.R.D. 694 (E.D. Mo. 2002) ........................................................................................ 24, 33
`
`In re Brinker Data Incident Litig.,
`No. 3:18-cv-686-TJC-MCR, 2021 WL 1405508 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 14, 2021) ........................... 21
`
`In re Capital One Consumer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`488 F. Supp. 3d 374 (E.D. Va. 2020) ....................................................................................... 22
`
`In re Capital One Consumer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No. 119MD2915AJTJFA, 2022 WL 17176495 (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 2022) .............................. 59
`
`In re: Capital One Consumer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No. 1:19-md-2915, 2022 WL 18107626 (E.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2022) ............................. 31, 32, 40
`
`In re Cendant Corp. Litig.,
`264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2001)...................................................................................................... 45
`
`In re Charter Commc’ns, Inc., Sec. Litig.,
`No. 4:02-cv-1186-CAS, 2005 WL 4045741 (E.D. Mo. Jun. 30, 2005) .................................... 56
`
`In re Checking Acct. Overdraft Litig.,
`830 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (S.D. Fla. 2011) ............................................................................... 53, 59
`
`In re Citigroup Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`965 F. Supp. 2d 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)....................................................................................... 61
`
`In re Citrix Data Breach Litig.,
`No. 19-61350-CIV, 2021 WL 2410651 (S.D. Fla. June 11, 2021) ........................................... 59
`
`v
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 211 Filed 01/10/23 Page 6 of 78
`
`

`

`In re Deepwater Horizon,
`739 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 35, 36
`
`In re Equifax Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`999 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2021) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`In re Equifax Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No. 1:17-MD-2800-TWT, 2020 WL 256132 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 17, 2020) .......................... passim
`
`In re Equifax Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`362 F. Supp. 3d 1295 (N.D. Ga. 2019) ..................................................................................... 22
`
`In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995)........................................................................................................ 15
`
`In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Priv. Litig.,
`806 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2015)...................................................................................................... 22
`
`In re Hannaford Bros. Co. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`293 F.R.D. 21 (D. Me. 2013) .................................................................................................... 21
`
`In re Initial Pub. Offering Sec. Litig.,
`671 F. Supp. 2d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)....................................................................................... 53
`
`In re Life Time Fitness, Inc. Tel. Consumer Prot. Act (TCPA) Litig.,
`847 F.3d 619 (8th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................... 26
`
`In re Marriott Int’l, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`341 F.R.D. 128 (D. Md. 2022) .................................................................................................. 21
`
`In re Marriott Int’l, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`440 F. Supp. 3d 447 (D. Md. 2020) .................................................................................... 22, 39
`
`In re Mednax Servs., Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`2022 WL 1468057 (S.D. Fla. May 10, 2022) ........................................................................... 39
`
`In re Merry-Go-Round Enters. Inc.,
`244 B.R. 327 (Bankr. D. Md. 2000) ......................................................................................... 55
`
`In re Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig.,
`768 F. App’x 651, 654 (9th Cir. 2019) ..................................................................................... 52
`
`In re Optical Disk Drive Prods. Antitrust Litig.,
`959 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................. 44, 52
`
`In re Prudential Ins. Co. America Sales Prac. Litig. Agent Actions,
`148 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 1998)...................................................................................................... 62
`
`In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`396 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2005).................................................................................... 44, 45, 56, 62
`
`In re Sonic Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No. 1:17-md-2807, 2019 WL 3773737 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 12, 2019) .................................. 20, 21
`
`In re Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litig.,
`357 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (D. Kan. 2018) ........................................................................... 26, 46, 53
`
`vi
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 211 Filed 01/10/23 Page 7 of 78
`
`

`

`In re Synthroid Marketing Litig.,
`325 F.3d 974 (7th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................... 53
`
`In re Synthroid Marketing Litig.,
`264 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2001) .............................................................................................. 51, 53
`
`In re Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`892 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................. 26, 42, 44, 51
`
`In re Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No. 14-2522 (PAM), 2017 WL 2178306 (D. Minn. May 17, 2017) ........................................ 29
`
`In re Target Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litig.,
`No. 14-2522, 2015 WL 7253765 (D. Minn. Nov. 17, 2015) .................................................... 65
`
`In re TJX Cos. Retail Sec. Breach Litig.,
`246 F.R.D. 389 (D. Mass. 2007) ............................................................................................... 21
`
`In re U.S. Bancorp. Litig.,
`291 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 26
`
`In re Uponor, Inc., F1807 Plumbing Fittings Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`716 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................ 15, 34
`
`In re Vitamins Antitrust Litig.,
`No. Misc. 99–197(TFH), MDL 1285, 2001 WL 34312839 (D.D.C. July 16, 2001)................ 53
`
`In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`MDL No. 2672 CRB, 2017 WL 1047834 (N.D. Cal. Mar 17, 2017) ....................................... 55
`
`In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. Sec. Litig.,
`19 F.3d 1291 (9th Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................... 52
`
`In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig.,
`396 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................... 34
`
`In re Wireless Tel. Fed. Cost Recovery Fees Litig.,
`No. MDL 1559 4:03-MD-015, 2004 WL 3671053 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 20, 2004) ....................... 30
`
`In re Xcel Energy, Inc., Sec., Derivative & ''ERISA'' Litig.,
`364 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Minn. 2005) ........................................................................... 26, 43, 56
`
`In re Zappos.com, Inc.,
`888 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................. 39
`
`In re: Blackbaud, Inc., Customer Data Breach Litig.,
`2021 WL 2718439 n.15 (D.S.C. July 1, 2021) ......................................................................... 39
`
`In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, 2015 WL 5158730 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015)............................. 48, 49
`
`Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc.,
`488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) ........................................................................................ 26, 42, 58
`
`Johnston v. Comerica Mortg. Corp.,
`83 F.3d 241 (8th Cir. 1996) ...................................................................................................... 54
`
`vii
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 211 Filed 01/10/23 Page 8 of 78
`
`

`

`Jones v. Dominion Res. Servs.,
`601 F. Supp. 2d 756 (S.D. W. Va. 2009) ............................................................................ 46, 56
`
`Katzin v. United States,
`120 Fed. Cl. 199 (2015) ............................................................................................................ 64
`
`Keil v. Lopez,
`862 F.3d 685 (8th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................. passim
`
`Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship,
`151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 32
`
`Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. N. Little Rock Sch. Dist.,
`451 F.3d 528 (8th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................... 24
`
`Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1,
`921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................. 14
`
`Lukov v. Schindler Elevator Corp.,
`No. 5:11–cv–00201 EJD, 2012 WL 2428251 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2012) ................................ 65
`
`Marcus v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue,
`209 F. Supp. 2d 1179 (D. Kan. 2002) ....................................................................................... 18
`
`Mars Steel Corp. v. Cont'l Bank N.A.,
`880 F.2d 928 (7th Cir. 1989) .................................................................................................... 65
`
`Marshall v. Nat’l Football League,
`787 F.3d 502 (8th Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................ 15, 29, 32
`
`McGlenn v. Driveline Retail Merch., Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-2097, 2021 WL 165121 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2021) .................................................... 21
`
`Miller v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins. Co.,
`559 F.2d 426 (5th Cir. 1977) .................................................................................................... 33
`
`Nguyen v. Raymond James & Assocs., Inc.,
`No. 8:20-CV-195-CEH-AAS, 2022 WL 4553068 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2022) ........................ 36
`
`Perez v. McCreary,
`45 F4th 816 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2022) ....................................................................................... 36
`
`Peterson v. City of Plymouth,
`60 F.3d 469 (8th Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................................... 65
`
`Petrovic v. Amoco Oil Co.,
`200 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................ 14, 34, 56, 62
`
`Pinal Creek Grp. v. Newmont Mining Corp.,
`352 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (D. Ariz. 2005) ...................................................................................... 65
`
`Pollard v. Remington Arms Co., LLC,
`896 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 29
`
`Pruchnicki v. Envision Healthcare Corp.,
`845 F. App’x 613 (9th Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................. 22
`
`viii
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 211 Filed 01/10/23 Page 9 of 78
`
`

`

`Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Jewell,
`167 F. Supp. 3d 1217 (D.N.M. 2016) ................................................................................. 45, 56
`
`Rawa v. Monsanto Co.,
`934 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2019) .............................................................................................. 29, 56
`
`Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Grp., LLC,
`794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................... 39
`
`Reyes v. Bakery & Confectionery Union & Indus. Int’l Pension Fund,
`281 F. Supp. 3d 833 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ...................................................................................... 55
`
`S. Pine Helicopters, Inc. v. Phoenix Aviation Mgrs., Inc.,
`320 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................... 64
`
`Sackin v. TransPerfect Glob., Inc.,
`278 F. Supp. 3d 739 (S.D.N.Y. 2017)....................................................................................... 39
`
`Sanderson v. Unilever Supply Chain, Inc.,
`No. 10-cv-00775-FJG, 2011 WL 5822413 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 16, 2011) ................................... 24
`
`Shane Grp., Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan,
`825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................... 62
`
`Silverman v. Motorola Sols., Inc.,
`739 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2013) .............................................................................................. 48, 51
`
`Smith v. Triad of Alabama, LLC,
`No. 1:14-CV-324-WKW, 2017 WL 1044692 (M.D. Ala. Mar. 17, 2017) ............................... 21
`
`Specht v. Jensen,
`853 F.2d 805 (10th Cir. 1988) .................................................................................................. 64
`
`Stathakos v. Columbia Sportswear Co.,
`No. 15-CV-04543-YGR, 2018 WL 1710075 n.6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2018) ............................. 64
`
`Stephens v. U.S. Airways Grp., Inc.,
`102 F. Supp. 3d 222 (D.D.C. 2015) .......................................................................................... 15
`
`Stobie Creek Investors, LLC v. United States,
`81 Fed. Cl. 358 (Ct. Fed. Cl. 2008)..................................................................................... 64, 65
`
`Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.,
`No. Civ. A. 03–4578, 2005 WL 1213926 (E.D. Pa. May 19, 2005) ........................................ 55
`
`TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,
`141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) ............................................................................................ 35, 38, 39, 40
`
`Van Horn v. Trickey,
`840 F.2d 604 (8th Cir. 1988) ........................................................................................ 20, 23, 30
`
`Van v. LLR, Inc.,
`No. 3:18-CV-0197-HRH, 2021 WL 2942755 (D. Alaska July 13, 2021) ................................ 63
`
`Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,
`290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................ 45, 46, 52, 56
`
`ix
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 211 Filed 01/10/23 Page 10 of 78
`
`

`

`Watkins v. Spector,
`142 S. Ct. 765 (2022) ................................................................................................................ 36
`
`Wilding v. DNC Servs. Corp.,
`941 F.3d 1116 (11th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................ 36
`
`Williams v. Rohm & Haas Pension Plan,
`658 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 57
`
`Zurn Pex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`644 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2011) .............................................................................................. 64, 65
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1715 ........................................................................................................................... 13
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1988 ........................................................................................................................... 62
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150(a)(1)(A) ............................................................................................. 28
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ....................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 211 Filed 01/10/23 Page 11 of 78
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This extraordinary settlement resolves one of the largest data breaches on record and sets
`
`a new high-water mark for relief offered to victims in large data breach cases. The Settlement1
`
`creates a non-reversionary settlement fund of $350 million to provide unprecedented relief to
`
`Settlement Class Members, including: (i) monetary reimbursement of up to $25,000 for Out-of-
`
`Pocket Losses resulting from the Data Breach, including up to five hours of time spent responding
`
`to the Data Breach or up to fifteen hours of time spent addressing related Out-of-Pocket Losses,
`
`compensated at the higher of $25 per hour or a claimant’s documented hourly wage, if the claimant
`
`missed work; (ii) an alternative cash payment (in lieu of Out-of-Pocket Losses and Lost Time) of
`
`$25, or $100 for Settlement Class Members who resided in California at the time of the Data
`
`Breach (to account for the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018); (iii) a two-year subscription
`
`to comprehensive Identity Defense Services providing monitoring and identity theft protection
`
`through Pango’s Identity Defense Complete Plan; (iv) Restoration Services for all Settlement Class
`
`Members, regardless of whether they make any other claim for relief; as well as the costs of notice
`
`and administration, Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, and Service Awards for the Settlement Class
`
`Representatives. In addition to this historic direct relief to the Settlement Class, T-Mobile has also
`
`agreed to maintain an incremental spend commitment of at least $150 million for data security and
`
`related technology for 2022 and 2023 to improve its network and data security and address
`
`vulnerabilities that resulted in the Data Breach, bringing the total cash value of the Settlement to
`
`$500 million.
`
`On July 26, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval and to
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, capitalized terms have the meaning ascribed to them in the Settlement
`Agreement. Doc. 158-1.
`
`1
`Case 4:21-md-03019-BCW Document 211 Filed 01/10/23 Page 12 of 78
`
`

`

`Direct Notice of the Settlement. Doc. 162. In its Order, the Court found that the Settlement terms
`
`negotiated by the Parties are fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e), and that the Class
`
`Representatives and Class Counsel have adequately represented the Class. Id. at 2. Accordingly,
`
`the Court held that it would likely be able to certify the proposed Settlement Class under Rule
`
`23(b)(3) and directed the Parties to issue notice to putative class members. Id. Pursuant to the
`
`Court’s direction, the Claims Administrator appointed by the Court implemented a robust notice
`
`program, and the claims process is ongoing. After completion of the ordered class notice, the
`
`Settlement has received an overwhelmingly positive response from the Settlement Class. With two
`
`weeks left in the claims period, over 1.5 million Settlement Class Members have filed claims, and
`
`Class Counsel expects that every Class Member submitting a valid, Out-Of-Pocket Loss claim will
`
`be completely (or nearly completely) reimbursed for losses fairly traceable to the Data Breach.
`
`Conversel