Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 22

RESPONSE (re 18 MOTION to Consolidate Cases 13-CV-05996 and 14-CV-00307 ) Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Interim Counsel filed byFacebook Inc.. (Jessen, Joshua) (Filed on 4/4/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP JOSHUA A. JESSEN, SBN 222831 JJessen@gibsondunn.com JEANA BISNAR MAUTE, SBN 290573 JBisnarMaute@gibsondunn.com JESSICA S. OU, SBN 280534 JOu@gibsondunn.com 1881 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 849-5300 Facsimile: (650) 849-5333 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP GAIL E. LEES, SBN 90363 GLees@gibsondunn.com CHRISTOPHER CHORBA, SBN 216692 CChorba@gibsondunn.com 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 OAKLAND DIVISON 17 18 MATTHEW CAMPBELL and MICHAEL HURLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 19 20 21 Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK, INC., 22 23 24 27 28 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP CLASS ACTION DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS AND APPOINT INTERIM COUNSEL Defendant. DAVID SHADPOUR, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 25 26 Case No. C 13-05996 PJH Case No. C 14-00307 PJH Plaintiffs, HEARING: Date: May 7, 2014 Time: 9:00 a.m. Place: Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor Judge: The Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS AND APPOINT INTERIM COUNSEL, Case Nos. C 13-05996 PJH and 14-00307 PJH 1 Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) supports Plaintiffs’ request to consolidate the cases 2 for pretrial purposes pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Facebook 3 specifically reserves its right to oppose class certification on all available grounds, including but not 4 limited to the absence of common questions susceptible to common answers, see Wal-Mart Stores, 5 Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551, 180 L. Ed. 2d 374 (2011), and that common questions do not 6 predominate over individualized questions, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 7 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). 8 9 Facebook generally expresses no view as to which lawyer and firm should serve as interim class counsel, because this is a matter for the Plaintiffs/clients and the Court to decide. However, 10 Facebook respectfully requests that this Court approve a structure that ensures coordinated and 11 efficient prosecution of these overlapping putative class actions through consolidated discovery and 12 motions practice.1 13 14 Subject to the Court’s preference, Facebook submits a hearing is unnecessary on Plaintiffs’ Motion. 15 16 17 Respectfully submitted, DATED: April 4, 2014 18 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP By: /s/ JOSHUA A. JESSEN 19 20 Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1 Facebook also reserves its right to object to any future request for attorneys’ fees. Where, as here, numerous attorneys and law firms seek a lead role in the litigation, the Court is tasked with developing an efficient structure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). A primary purpose of appointing interim class counsel is to maximize efficiencies and to eliminate duplication of efforts and “unproductive posturing” by the various plaintiffs’ lawyers and firms. See 5 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 23.121 (3d ed. 2010). Any proposed structure should reduce the risk “of overstaffing or an ungainly counsel structure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) advisory committee’s note. See also, e.g., Bernard v. Cont’l Ill. Corp., 572 F. Supp. 931, 933 (N.D. Ill. 1983) (“Generally, attorneys should work independently, without the incessant ‘conferring’ that so often forms a major part of the fee petition in all but the tiniest cases.”); In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 98 F.R.D. 48, 75 (E.D. Pa. 1983) (It is “inevitable that this type of [multi-firm committee] structure [will] generate wasted hours on useless tasks, propagate duplication and mask outright padding.”). 1 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS AND APPOINT INTERIM COUNSEL, Case Nos. C 13-05996 PJH and 14-00307 PJH