In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

Filing 1054

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting #1032 Motion for Preliminary Approval (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

IN RE: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS
ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,
APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC., AND
INTEL CORPORATION, APPROVING
FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE,
AND SCHEDULING FINAL
APPROVAL HEARING

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
ALL ACTIONS

16
17
18
19
20

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the

21

proposed class action settlement (the “Settlement”) between individual and representative

22

Plaintiffs Mark Fichtner, Siddharth Hariharan, Daniel Stover, and Michael Devine and the Class

23

of individuals they represent (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Adobe Systems Incorporated, Apple

24

Inc., Google Inc., and Intel Corporation (collectively, the “Settling Defendants”), as set forth in the

25

Settlement Agreement. Having considered the Motion, the Settling Parties’ Settlement

26

1

27

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC.,
AND INTEL CORPORATION, APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FINAL
APPROVAL HEARING

28

1

Agreement, the proposed form of notice to the Class, the pleadings and other papers filed in this

2

Action, and the statements of counsel and the parties, and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY

3

ORDERED as follows:

4
5

1. Unless otherwise defined herein, all terms that are capitalized herein shall have
meanings ascribed to those terms in the Settlement Agreement.

6

2. The Court has jurisdiction over this Action (and all actions and proceedings

7

consolidated in the Action), Plaintiffs, Class Members, Adobe, Apple, Google, and Intel, the

8

Released Parties, and any party to any agreement that is part of or related to the Settlement

9

Agreement.

10

3. To grant preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement, the Court need only find that

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

it falls within “the range of reasonableness.” Alba Conte et al., Newberg on Class Actions

12

§ 11.25, at 11-91 (4th ed. 2002). The Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) (2004) (“Manual”)

13

characterizes the preliminary approval stage as an “initial evaluation” of the fairness of the

14

proposed settlement made by the court on the basis of written submissions and informal

15

presentation from the settling parties. Manual § 21.632. A proposed settlement may be finally

16

approved by the trial court if it is determined to be “fundamentally fair, adequate and reasonable.”

17

Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1992). While consideration of the

18

requirements for final approval is unnecessary at this stage, all of the relevant factors weigh in

19

favor of approving the Settlement proposed here.

20

4. First, the Settlement appears to be the result of arm’s-length negotiations among

21

experienced counsel. On May 22, 2014, Plaintiffs Mark Fichtner, Siddharth Hariharan, and

22

Daniel Stover moved the Court to preliminarily approve a settlement agreement with Defendants

23

providing for a settlement fund of $324,500,000. The Court denied preliminary approval on

24

August 8, 2014 (Dkt. 974). Thereafter, the parties resumed arm’s-length negotiations through

25

Hon. Layn Phillips (Ret.), an experienced mediator, while continuing to litigate outstanding pre-

26

2

27

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC.,
AND INTEL CORPORATION, APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FINAL
APPROVAL HEARING

28

1

trial matters. Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for application of the per se

2

standard (Dkt. 988), and Defendants requested leave to file a supplemental opposition (Dkt. 990 &

3

990-1), which was granted (Dkt. 1023). Plaintiffs also filed a motion to unseal all papers

4

associated with their motion to compel (Dkt. 991), which Defendants opposed (Dkt. 994; see also

5

Dkt. 1029).

6

5. Meanwhile, on September 4, 2014, Defendants filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, seeking an order vacating the

8

Court’s denial of preliminary approval and directing the Court to preliminarily approve the

9

$324,500,000 settlement. (9th Cir. Case No. 14-72545, Dkt. 1.) On September 22, 2014, the

10

Ninth Circuit issued an order stating that Defendants’ “petition for a writ of mandamus raises

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

issues that warrant a response,” ordered Plaintiffs to file a response, set a date for Defendants’

12

reply, and ordered that upon completion of briefing the matter shall be placed on the next available

13

merits panel for oral argument. (9th Cir. Dkt. 2; Dkt. 993.) Plaintiffs (and Michael Devine

14

separately) opposed Defendants’ petition (9th Cir. Dkt. Nos. 4 & 6), and Defendants replied (9th

15

Cir. Dkt. 10). Putative amici curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America,

16

California Chamber of Commerce, and economic scholars filed motions for leave to file amici

17

curiae briefs in support of the petition (9th Cir. Dkts. 8 & 9), which the Ninth Circuit referred to

18

the panel to be assigned to hear the merits of the petition (9th Cir. Dkt. 15). Plaintiffs (and

19

Michael Devine separately) opposed the motions for leave to file amici curiae briefs. (9th Cir.

20

Dkts. 13 & 16.) The Ninth Circuit scheduled oral argument on the petition for March 13, 2015.

21

(9th Cir. Dkt. 19.) On January 30, 2015, the Settling Defendants filed an unopposed motion to

22

dismiss the mandamus petition (9th Cir. Dkt. 23), which the Ninth Circuit granted on February 2,

23

2015 (9th Cir. Dkt. 24).

24
25

6. At the time of settlement, the following motions remained pending: Defendants’ motion
to exclude Dr. Matthew Marx’s testimony; Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Defendants’ experts’

26

3

27

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC.,
AND INTEL CORPORATION, APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FINAL
APPROVAL HEARING

28

1

testimony; Plaintiffs’ motion for application of the per se standard; Defendants’ motions in limine;

2

and Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. In addition, Plaintiffs and Defendants have continued to engage

3

in the exchange of extensive pretrial disclosures and conferences regarding trial exhibits,

4

witnesses, the joint pretrial statement, the authentication of business records and potential

5

depositions related thereto, and many other issues.

6

7. Second, the consideration—a total of $415 million—is substantial, particularly in light

7

of the risk that the jury could find no liability or award no damages. When combined with the $20

8

million received from Plaintiffs’ previous settlements with Defendants Pixar, Lucasfilm, and

9

Intuit, the result for the Class in this litigation will total $435 million.

10

8. Third, the Settlement’s Plan of Allocation provides a neutral and fair way to

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

compensate Class members based on their salary and alleged injury. In re NASDAQ Mkt.-Makers

12

Antitrust Litig., 176 F.R.D. 99, 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).

13

9. Fourth, litigation through trial would be complex and costly, which settlement avoids.

14

In re Austrian & German Bank Holocaust Litig., 80 F. Supp. 2d 164, 174 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff’d

15

sub. nom. D’Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2001). While settlement provides the

16

Class with a timely, certain, and meaningful cash recovery, a trial—and any subsequent appeals—

17

is highly uncertain, and in any event would substantially delay any recovery achieved.

18
19
20

10. Fifth, the Settling Parties agreed to settle at a particularly advanced stage of the
proceedings—after class certification and the completion of discovery and dispositive motions.
11. Accordingly, the Court finds that notice to the Class is appropriate and that the Plan of

21

Allocation is sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate such that it is hereby preliminarily

22

approved, subject to further consideration at the hearing to be held as set forth below.

23

THE CLASS

24

12. On October 24, 2013, this Court entered an Order certifying a class pursuant to

25

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defined as all natural persons who work in the

26

4

27

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC.,
AND INTEL CORPORATION, APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FINAL
APPROVAL HEARING

28

1

technical, creative, and/or research and development fields that were employed on a salaried basis

2

in the United States by one or more of the following: (a) Apple from March 2005 through

3

December 2009; (b) Adobe from May 2005 through December 2009; (c) Google from March 2005

4

through December 2009; (d) Intel from March 2005 through December 2009; (e) Intuit from June

5

2007 through December 2009; (f) Lucasfilm from January 2005 through December 2009; or

6

(g) Pixar from January 2005 through December 2009 (the “Class Period”). Excluded from the

7

Class are: retail employees, corporate officers, members of the boards of directors, and senior

8

executives of all Defendants. In its Order, this Court found that the requirements of Rule 23(a)

9

and (b)(3) were met. On January 15, 2014, the Ninth Circuit denied Defendants’ Petition for
review pursuant to Rule 23(f) of this Court’s class certification Order. The proposed Settlement

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

here includes a class definition identical to the Class defined above and certified by this Court.

12

NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS

13

13. The Court approves the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Fairness

14

Hearing, and Right to Appear (the “Settlement Notice”), and finds that the dissemination of the

15

Notice substantially in the manner and form set forth in the Settlement Agreement complies fully

16

with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process of law, and is the

17

best notice practicable under the circumstances.

18

14. The notice procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement are hereby found to be

19

the best practicable means of providing notice of the Settlement Agreement under the

20

circumstances and, when completed, shall constitute due and sufficient notice of the proposed

21

Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval Hearing to all persons affected by and/or entitled to

22

participate in the Settlement Agreement, in full compliance with the applicable requirements of

23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process.

24
25
26

5

27

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC.,
AND INTEL CORPORATION, APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FINAL
APPROVAL HEARING

28

1

ADMINISTRATION OF THE SETTLEMENT FUND
15. The Court hereby appoints Gilardi & Co., LLC, as administrator (the “Notice

2
Administrator”). Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, the responsibilities of the Notice
3
Administrator shall include: (a) maintaining a post office box for purposes of communicating with
4
Class Members, including receiving any objections; (b) disseminating the Notice to the Class;
5
(c) maintaining a website to enable Class Members to access relevant documents; (d) receiving
6
and maintaining documents sent from Class Members relating to Settlement administration and
7
requests for exclusion; (e) handling withholding, reporting, payment, dissemination of forms, and
8
other aspects of Settlement administration relating to all applicable taxes as set forth in the
9
Settlement Agreement; and (f) distributing Settlement checks to Class Members. Pursuant to the
10
Settlement Agreement, the costs of the Notice Administrator’s services and all other reasonable
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

costs of Settlement administration shall be paid out of the Settlement Fund, subject to Court
12
review and approval, with certain notice and administration costs incurred prior to the Effective
13
Date advanced by Adobe, Apple, Google, and Intel as provided in the Settlement Agreement.
14
16. All funds held by the Escrow Agent (Citibank, N.A.) after the Effective Date of the
15
Settlement as defined in the Settlement Agreement shall be deemed and considered to be in
16
custodia legis, and shall remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, until such time as such
17
funds shall be distributed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and further order(s) of the Court.
18
17. The Settlement Fund, to be held at Citibank, N.A., shall be established as a fiduciary
19
account and administered in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The
20
Court approves the establishment of the escrow account under the Settlement Agreement as a
21
qualified settlement fund (“QSF”) pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 1.468B-1 and the
22
Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder, and retains continuing jurisdiction as to any issue
23
that may arise in connection with the formation and/or administration of this QSF.
24
18. By no later than March 23, 2015:
25
26

6

27

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC.,
AND INTEL CORPORATION, APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FINAL
APPROVAL HEARING

28

1

(a) Co-Lead Class Counsel shall direct Heffler Claims Group, subject to and consistent

2

with the extant Protective Order and all existing confidentiality and non-disclosure

3

agreements, to transmit to Class Counsel, the Defendants, and the Notice Administrator

4

the employee ID numbers and/or hashed social security numbers for all employees to

5

whom Heffler Claims Group sent notices in connection with the certification of the

6

litigation class in the Action (the “Prior Notice Recipients”). For the avoidance of

7

doubt, “Prior Notice Recipients” shall include any employee that a Defendant has

8

identified as a Class Member and shall not include persons who have been determined

9

not to be Class Members. Specifically with respect to Google, “Prior Notice
Recipients” shall mean those current and former Google employees to whom reminder

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

notices were sent on or about March 13, 2014, as well as the other current and former

12

Google employees who were subsequently informed by Heffler Claims Group that they

13

were Class Members. Heffler Claims Group shall transmit such information in a

14

secure manner that has received the prior approval of Co-Lead Class Counsel and the

15

Settling Defendants.

16

(b) Heffler Claims Group shall transmit to the Notice Administrator, subject to and

17

consistent with the extant Protective Order and all existing confidentiality and non-

18

disclosure agreements the full legal name, and last known physical address (including

19

the best information concerning each address, as determined using the national change

20

of address database, information provided by Class Members, and other sources) for

21

the Prior Notice Recipients. Heffler Claims Group shall transmit such information in a

22

secure manner that has received the prior approval of Co-Lead Class Counsel and the

23

Settling Defendants.

24
25

(c) Each Defendant shall, at its option, either transmit the social security numbers for the
Prior Notice Recipients employed by that Defendant to the Notice Administrator or

26

7

27

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC.,
AND INTEL CORPORATION, APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FINAL
APPROVAL HEARING

28

1

request that Heffler Claims Group do so. In either case, the information shall be

2

transmitted pursuant to and in a manner consistent with the extant Protective Order and

3

all existing confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements.

4

19. The Notice attached to this Order satisfies the requirements of the Federal Rules of

5

Civil Procedure and of due process and, accordingly, is approved for dissemination to the Class.

6

By no later than April 6, 2015, after receiving the information in paragraph 18, the Notice

7

Administrator shall cause the Settlement Notice to be mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid,

8

to Class Members pursuant to the procedures described in the Settlement, and to any Class

9

Member who requests one; and, in conjunction with Class Counsel, shall maintain the casespecific website providing case information, court documents relating to the Settlement and the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Notice. By no later than June 5, 2015, the Claims Administrator shall file with the Court an

12

Affidavit of Compliance with Notice Requirements.

13

20. All costs incurred in disseminating Notice and administering the Settlement shall be

14

paid from the Settlement Fund pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, with certain notice and

15

administration costs incurred prior to the Effective Date advanced by Adobe, Apple, Google, and

16

Intel as provided in the Settlement Agreement.

17

RESPONSE BY CLASS MEMBERS
AND THE SCHEDULING OF A FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

18
19
20

21. Class Members will have until May 21, 2015, to opt out (the “Opt-Out Deadline”) of
the Class.

21

22. Any Class Member who wishes to be excluded (opt out) from the Class must send a

22

written Request for Exclusion to the Notice Administrator on or before the close of the Opt-Out

23

Deadline. Members of the Class may not exclude themselves by filing Requests for Exclusion as

24

a group or class, but must in each instance individually and personally execute a Request for

25

Exclusion. Class Members who exclude themselves from the Class will not be eligible to receive

26

8

27

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC.,
AND INTEL CORPORATION, APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FINAL
APPROVAL HEARING

28

1

any benefits under the Settlement, will not be bound by any further orders or judgments entered in

2

this matter, and will preserve their ability independently to pursue any claims they may have

3

against Adobe, Apple, Google, and Intel.

4

23. Class Counsel and counsel for Plaintiff Michael Devine shall file their respective

5

motions for payment of attorneys’ fees, costs, and for Plaintiff Service Awards, no later than May

6

7, 2015.

7

24. All Class Members who did not properly and timely request exclusion from the Class

8

shall, upon entry of the Final Approval Order and Judgment, be bound by all the terms and

9

provisions of the Settlement Agreement, including the Release provisions, whether or not such
Class Member objected to the Settlement and whether or not such Class Member received

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

consideration under the Settlement Agreement.

12

25. A final hearing on the Settlement Agreement (“Final Approval Hearing”) shall be held

13

before the Court at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, July 9, 2015, in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, of the

14

Northern District of California, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113. Such hearing is more

15

than 90 days from the completion of notice pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

16

26. At the Final Approval Hearing, the Court will consider (a) the fairness,

17

reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed Settlement Agreement and whether the Settlement

18

Agreement should be granted final approval by the Court; (b) approval of the proposed Plan of

19

Allocation; and (c) entry of a Final Approval Order and Judgment including the Settlement

20

Release. Class Counsel’s application for payment of costs and attorneys’ fees and counsel for

21

Plaintiff Michael Devine’s application for payment of costs and attorneys’ fees, and all requests

22

for the Court to approve service awards to the Named Plaintiffs, shall also be heard at the time of

23

the hearing.

24

27. The date and time of the Final Approval Hearing shall be subject to adjournment by

25

the Court without further notice to the Class Members, other than that which may be posted by the

26

9

27

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC.,
AND INTEL CORPORATION, APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FINAL
APPROVAL HEARING

28

1

Court. Should the Court adjourn the date for the Final Approval Hearing, such adjournment shall

2

not alter the deadlines for mailing of the Notice, nor the deadlines for submissions of settlement

3

objections, requests for exclusion, or notices of intention to appear at the Final Approval Hearing

4

unless those dates are explicitly changed by subsequent Order.

5

28. Any Class Member who did not elect to be excluded from the Class may, but need not,

6

enter an appearance through his or her own attorney. For Settlement purposes, Class Counsel will

7

continue to represent Class Members who do not timely object and do not have an attorney enter

8

an appearance on their behalf.

9

29. Any Class Member who did not elect to be excluded from the Class may, but need not,
submit comments or objections to (a) the Settlement Agreement, (b) entry of a Final Approval

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Order and Judgment approving the Settlement Agreement, (c) any application for payment of

12

attorneys’ fees and costs, and/or (d) service award requests, by mailing a written comment or

13

objection to the addresses provided by the Notice Administrator in the Notice.

14

30. Any Class Member making an objection (an “Objector”) must sign the objection

15

personally, even if represented by counsel, and provide the Class Member’s name and full

16

residence or business address and a statement signed under penalty of perjury that the Class

17

Member was an employee and member of the Class. An objection must state why the Objector

18

objects to the Settlement Agreement and provide a basis in support, together with any documents

19

such person wishes to be considered in support of the objection. If an Objector intends to appear

20

at the hearing, personally or through counsel, the Objector must include with the objection a

21

statement of the Objector’s intent to appear at the hearing. The objection must also contain a

22

detailed list of any other objections by the Objector, as well as by the Objector’s attorney, to any

23

class action settlements submitted to any court in the United States in the previous five years.

24
25

31. Objections, along with any statements of intent to appear, must be postmarked no later
than May 21, 2015, and mailed to the addresses provided by the Notice Administrator in the

26

10

27

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC.,
AND INTEL CORPORATION, APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FINAL
APPROVAL HEARING

28

1

Notice. If counsel is appearing on behalf of more than one Class Member, counsel must identify

2

each such Class Member and each such Class Member must have complied with this Order.

3

32. Only Class Members who have filed and served valid and timely objections

4

accompanied by notices of intent to appear shall be entitled to be heard at the Final Approval

5

Hearing. Any Class Member who does not timely file and serve an objection in writing in

6

accordance with the procedure set forth in the Notice and mandated in this Order shall be deemed

7

to have waived any objection to (a) the Settlement Agreement; (b) entry of a Final Approval Order

8

and Judgment; (c) Class Counsel’s and Devine’s Counsel’s application for payment of costs and

9

anticipated request for fees; and (d) service award requests for the Named Plaintiffs, whether by

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise.
33. Class Members need not appear at the hearing or take any other action to indicate their
approval.
34. Upon entry of the Final Approval Order and Judgment, all Class Members who have

14

not personally and timely requested to be excluded from the Class will be enjoined from

15

proceeding against Adobe, Apple, Google, and Intel and all other Released Parties with respect to

16

all of the Released Claims, consistent with the Settlement Agreement.

17

35. The schedule by which the events referenced above shall occur is as follows:

18
19
20

Event

Date
March 23, 2015

21

Prior Settlement Administrator Transfers
Materials to New Administrator

22

Notice of Class Action Settlement to Be
Mailed and Posted on Internet

April 6, 2015

Class Counsel and Devine Counsel Motions
for Payment of Costs and Award of
Attorneys’ Fees, and Motions for Plaintiffs’
Service Awards

May 7, 2015

23
24
25
26

11

27

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC.,
AND INTEL CORPORATION, APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FINAL
APPROVAL HEARING

28

Event

1

Date

Opt-Out Deadline; Objection Deadline;
Deadline for Class Members to Provide
Notice of Intent to Appear at Final Approval
Hearing

May 21, 2015

Notice Administrator Affidavit of
Compliance with Notice Requirements

June 5, 2015

Motion for Final Approval

June 15, 2015
June 29, 2015

8

Replies in Support of Motions for Final
Approval, Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, and
Service Awards to Be Filed by Moving
Parties

9

Final Approval Hearing

July 9, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.

2
3
4
5
6
7

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

36. All further proceedings as to Adobe, Apple, Google, and Intel are hereby stayed,

12

except for any actions required to effectuate or enforce the Settlement Agreement, or matters

13

related to the Settlement Fund, including applications for attorneys’ fees, payment of costs, and

14

service awards to Class Representatives.

15

37. In the event the Settlement Agreement and the proposed Settlement are terminated or

16

do not become effective pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Settlement Agreement, the

17

Settlement Agreement and all related proceedings shall, except as expressly provided in the

18

Settlement Agreement, become void and shall have no further force or effect, and Plaintiffs shall

19

retain all of their current rights against Adobe, Apple, Google, and Intel and any other Released

20

Party, and Adobe, Apple, Google, and Intel and any other Released Parties shall retain any and all

21

of their current defenses and arguments thereto so that the Settling Parties may take such litigation

22

steps that the Settling Parties otherwise would have been able to take absent the pendency of this

23

Settlement. These Actions shall thereupon revert forthwith to their respective procedural and

24

substantive status prior to January 7, 2015, and shall proceed as if the Settlement Agreement had

25

not been executed.

26

12

27

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC.,
AND INTEL CORPORATION, APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FINAL
APPROVAL HEARING

28

1

38. Neither this Order nor the Settlement Agreement, nor any other Settlement-related

2

document nor anything contained or contemplated therein, nor any proceedings undertaken in

3

accordance with the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement or herein or in any other

4

Settlement-related document, shall constitute, be construed as, or be deemed to be evidence of or

5

an admission or concession by Adobe, Apple, Google, and/or Intel as to the validity of any claim

6

that has been or could have been asserted against any of them or as to any liability by either as to

7

any matter encompassed by the Settlement Agreement.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Dated: March 3, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

13

27

Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANTS ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC.,
AND INTEL CORPORATION, APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE, AND SCHEDULING FINAL
APPROVAL HEARING

28