In Re FACEBOOK INTERNET TRACKING LITIGATION
Filing
13
MOTION to Consolidate Cases PURSUANT TO RULE 42(a); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURUANT TO RULE 23(g) filed by Perrin Aikens Davis. Motion Hearing set for 3/30/2012 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Edward J. Davila. Responses due by 3/30/2012. Replies due by 3/30/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Kiesel, Paul) (Filed on 3/28/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (SBN 119854)
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
kiesel@kbla.com
Telephone: (310) 854-4444
Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
Proposed Interim Liaison Counsel
BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON & GORNY, P.C.
Edward D. Robertson, Jr.
Stephen M. Gorny
James P. Frickleton
Mary D. Winter
Edward D. Robertson III
11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200
Leawood, KS 66211
chiprob@earthlink.net
Telephone: (913) 266-2300
Facsimile: (913) 266-2366
Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel
SIANNI & STRAITE LLP
David A. Straite, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
Ralph N. Sianni, Esq.
1201 N. Orange St., Suite 740
Wilmington, DE 19801
dstraite@siannistraite.com
Telephone: (302) 573-3560
Facsimile: (302) 358-2975
Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
IN RE: FACEBOOK INTERNET TRACKING
LITIGATION
No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT
TO RULE 42(a); APPOINT
INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL
PURUANT TO RULE 23(g)
Date:
Time:
Judge:
March 30, 2012
1:30 p.m.
Hon. Edward J. Davila
28
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(G)
1
2
3
PERRIN AIKENS DAVIS, PETERSEN
GROSS, DR. BRIAN K. LENTZ,
TOMMASINA IANNUZZI, TRACY SAURO,
JENNIFER SAURO, and LISA SABATO,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
Case No. 5:11-cv-04834-EJD
Related Case Nos.: 5:11-cv-04935-EJD;
5:12-cv-00370-EJD; and 5:12-cv-00807EJD
4
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
Plaintiffs,
5
v.
6
7
Action Filed: September 30, 2011
FACEBOOK, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation
8
9
10
Defendant.
LANA BRKIC,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,
11
12
13
Case No. 5:11-04935-EJD
Related Case Nos.: 5:11-cv-04834-EJD;
5:12-cv-00370-EJD; and 5:12-cv-00807EJD
Plaintiff,
v.
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, Case No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
and DOES 1-10,
14
Action Filed: October 5, 2011
Defendants.
15
16
JULIAN CARROLL, On Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated,
17
18
19
Case No. 5:12-cv-00370-EJD
Related Case Nos.: 5:11-cv-04834EJD; 5:11-cv-04935-EJD; and 5:12-cv00807-EJD
Plaintiff,
v.
Action Filed: January 24, 2012
FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
20
Defendant.
21
22
23
LAURA MAGUIRE, ET AL., On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated,
24
25
26
27
Case No. 5:12-cv-00807-EJD
Related Case Nos.: 5:11-cv-04834EJD; 5:11-cv-04935-EJD; and
5:12-cv-00370-EJD
Plaintiff,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Action Filed: February 17, 2012
Defendant.
28
2
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
1
ALEXANDRIA PARRISH, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Case No. 5:12-cv-00667-EJD
2
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, Case No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
Plaintiff,
3
v.
4
FACEBOOK, INC., and DOES 1 Through 10,
Action Filed: October 7, 2011
Transferred February 8, 2012
Defendants.
SHARON BEATTY, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Case No. 5:12-cv-00668-EJD
5
6
7
8
9
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
Plaintiff,
v.
10
FACEBOOK, INC., and DOES 1 Through 10,
Action Filed: October 7, 2011
Transferred February 8, 2012
11
Case No. 5:12-cv-00669-EJD
12
Defendants.
BROOKE RUTLEDGE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
13
Plaintiff,
14
15
v.
Defendants.
MICHAEL SINGLEY, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
18
19
20
21
Action Filed: October 12, 2011
Transferred February 8, 2012
FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
16
17
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
Case No. 5:12-cv-00670-EJD
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
Plaintiffs,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
Action Filed: October 5, 2011
Transferred February 08, 2012
Defendants.
22
23
DANA HOWARD, individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,
24
Plaintiffs,
25
26
27
Case No. 5:12-cv-00671-EJD
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
v.
Action Filed: October 4, 2011 and
Transferred on February 8, 2012
FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants.
28
3
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
1
JOHN GRAHAM, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Case No. 5:12-cv-00673-EJD
2
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
Plaintiff,
3
v.
4
FACEBOOK, INC., and DOES 1 Through 10,
Action Filed: October 5, 2011
Transferred February 8, 2012
Defendants.
DAVID M. HOFFMAN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Case No. 5:12-cv-00674-EJD
5
6
7
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
Plaintiff,
8
v.
Action Filed: October 7, 2011
Transferred February 8, 2012
9
11
FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants.
JANET SEAMON, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated,
12
Plaintiff,
10
13
14
17
FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
20
CHANDRA L. THOMPSON, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
Action Filed: September 30, 2011
Transferred February 8, 2012
v.
Defendants.
STEPHANIE CAMPBELL, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
23
24
25
26
Case No. 5:12-cv-00676-EJD
Plaintiff,
21
22
Action Filed: October 10, 2011
Transferred February 8, 2012
Defendants.
18
19
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
v.
15
16
Case No. 5:12-cv-00675-EJD
Case No. 5:12-cv-00796-EJD
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
Plaintiff,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
Action Filed: November 21, 2011
Transferred February 17, 2012
Defendants.
27
28
4
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
1
CYNTHIA D. QUINN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Case No. 5:12-cv-00797-EJD
2
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
Plaintiff,
3
v.
4
FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
Action Filed: October 18, 2011
Transferred February 17, 2012
5
Defendants.
6
7
JEANNE M. WALKER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
8
Plaintiff,
9
10
Case No. 5:12-cv-00798-EJD
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
v.
Action Filed: October 20, 2011
Transferred February 17, 2012
FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants.
11
12
JACQUELINE BURDICK, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
13
Plaintiff,
14
15
18
19
Action Filed: October 25, 2011
Transferred February 17, 2012
FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants.
EDWARD STRAVATO,
Case No. 5:12-cv-00800-EJD
Plaintiff,
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
v.
Action Filed: December 14, 2011
Transferred February 17, 2012
FACEBOOK, INC.; JOHN DOE 1-10,
20
21
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
v.
16
17
Case No. 5:12-cv-00799-EJD
Defendants.
22
23
Case No. 5:12-cv-00801-EJD
MATTHEW J. VICKERY, and Other Persons
Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
24
25
26
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
v.
Action Filed: November 14, 2011
Transferred February 17, 2012
FACEBOOK, INC., DOES 1 thru 10,
Defendants.
27
28
5
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
1
2
5
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
Plaintiff,
3
4
Case No. 5:12-cv-00824-EJD
PATRICK K. MALONEY, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v.
Action Filed: January 25, 2012
Transferred February 21, 2012
FACEBOOK, INC., DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
Defendants.
6
7
8
JOON KHANG, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
11
12
In Re Facebook Internet Tracking
Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD
Plaintiff,
9
10
Case No. 5:12-cv-00825-EJD
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Action Filed: February 1, 2012
Transferred February 21, 2012
Defendant.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................. i
3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... ii
4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................. 1
5
I.
INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................... 1
6
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 2
7
a. Facebook ........................................................................................................................ 2
8
b. Facebook Tracks Users’ Internet Use ............................................................................ 4
9
c. Facebook Tracking Post-Logout.................................................................................... 5
10
III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 7
11
IV. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 7
12
13
a. The Related Actions and the MDL Should be Consolidated for All Purposes Pursuant
to Rule 42(a). ................................................................................................................. 7
14
b. The Proposed Leadership Structure Is In the Best Interests of the Putative Class ........ 9
15
i. The Proposed Leadership Structure...................................................................... 9
16
ii. The Benefits of the Proposed Structure .............................................................. 10
17
c. Appointing Interim Lead Class Counsel is Appropriate Under Rule 23(g) and Will
Protect the Interests of the Putative Plaintiff Class...................................................... 11
18
19
V.
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 13
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
3
CASES
4
Huene v. United States,
743 F.2d 703 (9th Cir. 1984)................................................................................................... 8
5
6
In re Cendant Corp. Litig.,
182 F.R.D. 476 (D.N.J. 1998) ................................................................................................. 7
7
In re DRAM Antitrust Litig.,
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39841, *53 (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2006) ............................................. 10
8
9
10
11
12
13
In re Equity Funding Corp. of Am. Sec. Litig.,
416 F. Supp. 161 (C.D. Cal. 1976).......................................................................................... 7
In Re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig.,
240 F.R.D. 163 (E.D. Pa. 2007) ............................................................................................ 10
In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litig.,
MDL No. 05-1717 (D. Del. Apr. 18, 2006) .......................................................................... 10
In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
182 F.R.D. 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ............................................................................................ 10
14
15
Investors Research Co. v. U.S. District Court for Cent. Dist.,
877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989)................................................................................................... 8
16
Johnson v. Celotex Corp.,
899 F.2d 1281 (2d Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................. 8
17
18
Malasky v. IAC/Interactive Corp.,
2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25832, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2004) ........................................... 10
19
Owen v. Labor Ready Inc.,
146 Fed. Appx. 139 (9th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................... 7, 8
20
21
Perez-Funez v. Dist. Director, Immigration & Naturalization Serv.,
611 F. Supp. 990 (C.D. Cal. 1984).......................................................................................... 8
22
Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits Trust v. LaBranche & Co.,Inc.,
229 F.R.D. 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) .......................................................................................... 10
23
24
Parkinson v. Hyundai Motor Am.,
2006 WL 2289801, No. C06-0345 AHS, slip op. *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 006) ..................... 12
25
U.S. v. Knauer,
149 F.2d 519 (7th Cir. 1945)............................................................................................... 7, 8
26
27
Vincent v. Hughes Air West, Inc.,
557 F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1977)................................................................................................... 8
28
ii
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
1
RULES
2
6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 ............................................................................................................................ 2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A) ......................................................................................................... 12
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3) ............................................................................................................... 11
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2) ................................................................................................................. 1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(4) ............................................................................................................... 12
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).............................................................................................................. 1, 7, 8
7
TREATISES AND LAW REVIEW ARTICLES
8
Paul M. Schwartz, Property, Privacy and Personal Data, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 2055,
2056-57 (2004) ........................................................................................................................ 3
3
4
5
9
Manual For Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 11.631, at pp.121-22 (2004) ............................... 7, 10
10
OTHER AUTHORITIES
11
Rainey Reitman ,Facebook’s Hotel California (Oct. 10, 2011) ................................................... 4
12
Tim Morey, What’s Your Personal Data Worth? (Jan. 18, 2011) ................................................ 3
13
14
Third Circuit Task Force Report on Selection of Class Counsel,
208 F.R.D. 340 (2002) .......................................................................................................... 10
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
iii
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1
2
I.
INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
3
Twenty-one similar purported class actions have been related and transferred to this Court
4
by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation or otherwise accepted as related by
5
order of this Court. These Related Actions are:
6
Case Name
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Parrish v. Facebook Inc
Campbell v. Facebook, Inc. et al
Beatty v. Facebook Incorporated
et al
Joon Khang v. Facebook Inc
Carroll v. Facebook, Inc
Davis et al v. Facebook, Inc.
Brkic v. Facebook, Inc
Quinn v. Facebook, Inc. et al
Howard v. Facebook, Inc. et al
Graham v. Facebook, Inc. et al
Hoffman v. Facebook, Inc. et al
Seamon v. Facebook, Inc.
Thompson v. Facebook, Inc.
Rutledge v. Facebook, Inc.
Walker v. Facebook
Maloney v. Facebook, Inc. et al
Burdick et al v. Facebook Inc et al
Stravato v. Facebook, Inc.
Maguire, et al. v. Facebook, Inc.
Vickery v. Facebook, Inc.
Singley v. Facebook, Inc.
19
20
Original Court and Case
Number
ALN/2:11-cv-03576
ARW/5:11-cv-05266
AZ/2:11-cv-01964
N.D. Cal. Case Number
5:12-cv-00667-EJD
5:12-cv-00796-EJD
5:12-cv-00668-EJD
CAC/8:12-cv-00161
CAN/3:12-cv-00370
CAN/5:11-cv-04834
CAN/5:11-cv-04935
HI/1:11-cv-00623
ILS/3:11-cv-00895
KS/2:11-cv-02556
KYW/5:11-cv-00166
LAM/3:11-cv-00689
MOW/2:11-cv-04256
MSN/3:11-cv-00133
MT/1:11-cv-00118
OHS/2:12-cv-00078
OKW/5:11-cv-01214
RI/1:11-cv-00624
CAN/5:12-cv-0807
WAW/2:11-cv-01901
TXW/1:11-cv-00874
5:12-cv-00825-EJD
5:12-cv-00370-EJD
5:11-cv-04834-EJD
5:11-cv-04935-EJD
5:12-cv-00797-EJD
5:12-cv-00671-EJD
5:12-cv-00673-EJD
5:12-cv-00674-EJD
5:12-cv-00675-EJD
5:12-cv-00676-EJD
5:12-cv-00669-EJD
5:12-cv-00798-EJD
5:12-cv-00824-EJD
5:12-cv-00799-EJD
5:12-cv-00800-EJD
5:12-cv-00807-EJD
5:12-cv-00801-EJD
5:12-cv-00670-EJD
All 21 Related Actions seek to represent substantially the same class of people for
essentially the same claims, are based on similar factual allegations and are against the same
21
defendant, Facebook, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Facebook”). The plaintiffs in 20 of these 21 Related
22
Actions (collectively, the “Moving Plaintiffs”)1 move this Court for an order:
23
24
(1)
Consolidating all 21 Related Actions, MDL 2314, and any future-filed “related
action” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a);
(2)
Appointing interim class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2);
and
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff in Khang v. Facebook, Inc., 5:12-cv-00825-EJD, does not join in this Motion.
1
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
(3)
1
2
Setting a deadline for the filing of Interim Lead Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class
Action Complaint and a briefing schedule on any motion to dismiss filed by
Defendant Facebook.
Moving Plaintiffs bring this motion on the following grounds: (1) the Actions are
3
4
substantially identical; consolidating them will promote efficiency for the court, litigants and
5
counsel; and (2) the leadership structure Moving Plaintiffs propose and the consolidation of
6
pleadings will also promote efficiency while advancing “the just, speedy and inexpensive
7
determination” of the Actions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. This motion is based upon the following legal
8
9
memorandum of points and authorities, the complete files and records in the 21 Related Actions,
10
and such other written or oral argument as the Court may consider.2
11
II.
12
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
a. Facebook
13
Defendant Facebook operates the world’s largest social networking web site, with more
14
15
16
than 800 million users globally. Facebook has 150 million users in the United States. Although
Facebook members are not required to pay a monetary subscription fee, membership is decidedly
17
not free. Facebook requires users to provide sensitive personal information to Facebook upon
18
registration, including name, birth date, gender and email address. More importantly, Facebook
19
users must accept numerous Facebook cookies on their computers. These cookies track the users’
20
21
browsing history. Facebook then harvests this information from the users’ computers, including
the members’ unique Facebook identifiers. Facebook uses this valuable information to generate
22
23
approximately $4 billion of revenue annually, starkly illustrating that the required personal
24
information, including users’ browsing history, has enormous cash value.
25
///
26
///
27
2
28
Counsel for Moving Plaintiffs contacted counsel for Facebook, and Facebook will support consolidation of the
current 21 cases in (or related to) the MDL proceeding, but takes no position on the Rule 23(g) motion. In taking no
position on the latter motion, Facebook reserves all rights with respect to the contents of that motion and expressly
reserves the right to challenge the adequacy of lead counsel and lead plaintiffs in the future.
2
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
1
2
3
4
5
6
The economic value of the information that users are required to provide to Facebook is
well understood in the e-commerce industry. Personal information is now a form of currency. As
Professor Paul M. Schwartz noted in the Harvard Law Review:
Personal information is an important currency in the new millennium. The
monetary value of personal data is large and still growing, and corporate
America is moving quickly to profit from the trend. Companies view this
information as a corporate asset and have invested heavily in software that
facilitates the collection of consumer information.
7
Paul M. Schwartz, Property, Privacy and Personal Data, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 2055, 20568
9
10
57 (2004). Professor Schwartz wrote those words in the same year Facebook was launched.
The cash value of users’ personal information provided to Facebook can be quantified.
11
For example, in a recent study authored by Tim Morey (“What’s Your Personal Data Worth?,”
12
Jan. 18, 2011), researchers studied the value that 180 internet users placed on keeping personal
13
data secure. The results were striking. Study participants valued contact information of the sort
14
Facebook requires at approximately $4.20 per year. Demographic information was valued at
15
approximately $3.00 per year. Web browsing histories were valued at a much higher rate: $52.00
16
17
per year. The following chart summarizes the findings:
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
1
Across Facebook’s membership of approximately 800 million users, these figures imply
2
aggregate annual membership fees of $3.36 billion, $2.4 billion, and $41.6 billion, respectively,
3
for each category of information. Facebook is not free.
b. Facebook Tracks Users’ Internet Use
4
5
According to “Facebook’s Hotel California” (Oct. 10, 2011), a recent report by Rainey
6
Reitman at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), in order to track its users’ internet use,
7
Facebook installs two types of cookies on members’ computers: session cookies, and tracking
8
cookies:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Session cookies are set when you log into Facebook and they include data like
your unique Facebook user ID. They are directly associated with your Facebook
account. When you log out of Facebook, the session cookies are supposed to be
deleted.
Tracking cookies - also known as persistent cookies - don’t expire when you
leave your Facebook account. Facebook sets one tracking cookie known as 'datr'
when you visit Facebook.com, regardless of whether or not you actually have an
account. This cookie sends data back to Facebook every time you make a request
of Facebook.com, such as when you load a page with an embedded Facebook
'like' button. This tracking takes place regardless of whether you ever interact
with a Facebook 'like' button. In effect, Facebook is getting details of where you
go on the Internet.
17
18
19
20
21
22
When you leave Facebook without logging out and then browse the web, you have
both tracking cookies and session cookies. Under those circumstances, Facebook
knows whenever you load a page with embedded content from Facebook (like a
Facebook 'like' button) and also can easily connect that data back to your
individual Facebook profile.
As the EFF noted, session cookies are supposed to be deleted upon logout. Not just a
vague industry expectation, this deletion is required under the governing contracts, and therefore
23
under federal law. Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, in addition to a number
24
of other documents and policies, including a Data Use Policy and a Privacy Policy, govern
25
Facebook use. Although the governing documents make clear that users consent to Facebook
26
installing cookies on the users’ computers, and although users consent to these cookies tracking
27
and transmitting to Facebook data regarding their web browsing, such consent was plainly limited
28
to internet usage while the user is logged on to Facebook.
4
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
1
2
Users nowhere consent to Facebook tracking and recording their web browsing after they
log out of Facebook. Facebook agreed to delete its session cookies after the user’s session ended,
3
precluding post log-out tracking. Facebook’s online help center clearly and unambiguously
4
emphasized, “When you log out of Facebook, we remove the cookies that identify your particular
5
account.”
6
7
8
c. Facebook Tracking Post-Logout
Sometime in 2010, an Australian technology writer, Nik Cubrilovic, discovered that the
session cookies Facebook placed on its users’ computers remained active even after users had
9
logged off of Facebook. Mr. Cubrilovic warned Facebook of this problem on at least two
10
11
12
13
occasions starting in November, 2010. Facebook failed to take corrective action, instead willfully
and illegally continuing to collect data from its millions of active users worldwide.
Because Facebook refused to take corrective action, Mr. Cubrilovic went public with his
research on September 25, 2011. The result was explosive. The next day, on September 26,
14
2011, Facebook publicly admitted that its session cookies remained active even after logoff.
15
Facebook agreed to fix the “bug” as the company called it, seeking to minimize the problem. The
16
next day, the Irish Government announced an audit of Facebook under EU privacy rules
17
(Facebook’s primary European data center is in Ireland). Two days later, U.S. Representatives
18
Edward Markey and Joe Barton, Co-Chairman of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus,
19
sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission demanding to know what action the FTC was
20
taking under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The letter stated:
21
22
23
24
As co-chairs of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus, we believe that
tracking user behavior without their consent or knowledge raises serious privacy
concerns . . . . When users log out of Facebook, they are under the expectation
that Facebook is no longer monitoring their activities. We believe this impression
should be the reality. Facebook users should not be tracked without their
permission (emphasis added).
25
26
On September 29, 2011, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, joined by the
27
American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, the Bill of Rights Defense
28
Committee, the Center for Digital Democracy, the Center for Media and Democracy, Consumer
5
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
1
Action, Consumer Watchdog, Privacy Activism, and Privacy Times also recommended that the
2
FTC investigate. In their letter to the FTC, the group added that Facebook might not have
3
actually fixed the problem as claimed:
4
5
6
7
[W]e would like to bring your attention to new privacy and security risks to
American consumers, the secret use of persistent identifiers (“cookies”) to track
the Internet activity of users even after they have logged off of Facebook, and the
company’s failure to uphold representations it has made regarding its
commitments to protect the privacy of its users.
11
Facebook’s tracking of post-log-out Internet activity violates both the
reasonable expectations of consumers and the company’s own privacy
statements. Although Facebook has partially fixed the problem caused by its
tracking cookies, the company still places persistent identifiers on users’
browsers that collect post-log-out data and could be used to identify users
(emphasis added).
12
As of the date of this motion, whether the FTC will or has already begun a formal
13
investigation is unknown. However, on October 11, 2011, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz gave a
14
speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. In that speech Chairman Leibowitz
15
sounded the alarm on privacy rights, coining the term “cyberazzi” for web sites that violate their
16
users’ digital privacy rights. Specifically, Chairman Leibowitz may have signaled coming action:
8
9
10
17
18
19
20
Once you enter cyberspace, software placed on your computer – usually without
your consent or even knowledge – turns your private information into a
commodity out of your control. And keep in mind: as my former colleague
Republican FTC Chairman Debbie Majoras used to say, your computer is your
property. . . . At the FTC, we want you to get that control back (emphasis added).
21
Finally, despite Facebook’s claim that it fixed the “bug,” researchers are uncovering yet
22
more methods Facebook can employ to track its users, even after logout. For example, a
23
researcher at Stanford University found that Facebook was setting tracking cookies on browsers
24
of people visiting sites other than Facebook.com. Facebook was setting these tracking cookies
25
when individuals visited certain Facebook Connect sites. The result: people who never
26
interacted with a Facebook.com widget, and who never visited Facebook.com, were still
27
vulnerable to Facebook tracking cookies. The EFF notes in the October 11, 2011 report that
28
Facebook now can track web browsing history without cookies:
6
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
Facebook is able to collect data about your browser – including your IP address
and a range of facts about your browser – without ever installing a cookie. They
can use this data to build a record of every time you load a page with embedded
Facebook content. They keep this data for 90 days and then presumably discard
or otherwise anonymize it. That's a far cry from being able to shield one’s
reading habits from Facebook.
1
2
3
4
5
III.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Following the September 25, 2011 revelations and the calls for government action, 21
6
7
separate class actions were filed throughout the country seeking compensation and other remedies
8
for Facebook users. These cases allege violations of various federal privacy laws, including the
9
Federal Wiretap Act and various Computer Fraud laws. Several allege violations of various
10
California state statutes and common law claims.
On October 17, 2011, the Plaintiffs in Davis, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., 5:11-cv-04834-EJD,
11
12
moved in the JPML for consolidation and transfer to the Northern District of California of all
13
related actions filed to date. None of the plaintiffs in any of the Related Actions opposed the
14
Motion. Defendant Facebook submitted a Brief in Support of the Motion. On February 8, 2012,
15
the JPML ordered that all “Related Actions” be centralized in the Northern District of California,
16
and created MDL 2314. Additional cases filed after the October 17, 2011 motion for
17
consolidation were also transferred to this Court pursuant to two Conditional Transfer Orders
18
dated February 17, 2012 and February 21, 2012. Finally, three additional actions filed in this
19
District have all been deemed “related” by the Court (Brkic, Carroll, and Maguire).
20
IV.
21
22
23
ARGUMENT
a. The Related Actions and the MDL Should be Consolidated for All
Purposes Pursuant to Rule 42(a).
Consolidation pursuant to Rule 42(a) is proper when actions involve common questions of
24
law and fact. See Manual For Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 11.631, at pp.121-22 (2004)
25
(“MCL”); Owen v. Labor Ready Inc., 146 Fed. Appx. 139, 141 (9th Cir. 2005); In re Cendant
26
Corp. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 476,478 (D.N.J. 1998); In re Equity Funding Corp. of Am. Sec. Litig.,
27
416 F. Supp. 161, 175 (C.D. Cal. 1976). Subdivision (a) of this rule relating to consolidations of
28
actions for trial was designed to encourage consolidations where possible. See U.S. v. Knauer,
7
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
1
149 F.2d 519, 520 (7th Cir. 1945), certiorari granted, 326 U.S. 714, aff’d, 328 U.S. 654, reh’g
2
denied, 329 U.S. 818, petition denied, 322 U.S. 834. This Court has broad discretion under this
3
rule to consolidate cases within this district. Investors Research Co. v. U.S. District Court for
4
Cent. Dist., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989); Perez-Funez v. Dist. Director, Immigration &
5
Naturalization Serv., 611 F. Supp. 990, 994 (C.D. Cal. 1984) [“A court has broad discretion in
6
deciding whether or not to grant a motion for consolidation, although, typically, consolidation is
7
favored.”] (citations omitted).
Courts have recognized that putative class actions are particularly well-suited for Rule
8
9
42(a) consolidation. Such consolidation expedites pretrial proceedings, reduces case duplication,
10
avoids the need to contact parties and witnesses for multiple proceedings, and minimizes the
11
expenditure of time and money for all parties involved. Vincent v. Hughes Air West, Inc., 557
12
F.2d759, 773 (9th Cir. 1977); Owen v. Labor Ready Inc., 146 Fed. Appx. at 141 (citing Huene v.
13
United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984)). Consolidating class action suits simplifies
14
pretrial and discovery motions, class action issues, and clerical and administrative management
15
duties. Consolidation also reduces the confusion and delay that may result from prosecuting
16
related putative class actions separately. Id.
The Related Actions all allege claims on behalf of Facebook Users. The Related Actions
17
18
name the same defendant, Facebook, Inc., and involve substantially similar factual and legal
19
issues. Consolidation is appropriate where – as here – there are actions involving common
20
questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). See also Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d
21
1281, 1284 (2d Cir. 1990). The substantial overlap of the factual and legal issues in the Related
22
Actions satisfies that “common questions” test. The Related Actions should be consolidated.
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
8
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
b. The Proposed Leadership Structure Is In the Best Interests of the Putative
1
2
Class
3
i. The Proposed Leadership Structure
4
The Executive Committee: The Moving Plaintiffs propose that the consolidated action
5
be co-led by two firms: BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON & GORNY, P.C.,
6
and SIANNI & STRAITE LLP.3
7
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee: The Moving Plaintiffs propose the formation of a
8
steering committee to assist co-lead counsel at the direction of co-lead counsel. The PSC
9
10
would consist of seven attorneys: STEPHEN M. GORNY; STEPHEN G. GRYGIEL;
11
ANDREW J. LYSKOWSKI; BARRY R. EICHEN; MARK S. MANDELL; WILLIAM
12
H. MURPHY, JR.; and WILLIAM M. CUNNINGHAM, JR.
13
Attorney General Special Advisory Committee: The Moving Plaintiffs propose the
14
formation of a Special Advisory Committee consisting of three former state attorneys
15
general to provide legal and strategic advice to co-lead counsel: GRANT WOODS
16
17
(Arizona Attorney General from 1991 to 1999); MIKE MOORE (Mississippi Attorney
18
General from 1988 to 2004); and RICHARD IEYOUB (Louisiana Attorney General from
19
1992 to 2004).
20
Liaison Counsel: The Moving Plaintiffs propose the appointment of a single liaison
21
counsel with a California office to assist with filings and court appearances at the
22
direction of co-lead counsel: KIESEL, BOUCHER & LARSON, LLP.
23
24
///
25
///
26
3
27
28
Candor to the tribunal requires disclosure that the lawyers at Sianni & Straite LLP plan to join another firm
commencing May 1, 2012, and at that time would seek to substitute the successor firm as co-lead counsel for the
putative class. Counsel is prepared to discuss the arrangement at the upcoming Case Management Conference on
March 30, 2012. Counsel would gladly provide a supplemental brief under seal describing the successor firm’s
qualifications if the Court so requests. Public announcement of the move is currently scheduled for April 16, 2012.
9
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
ii. The Benefits of the Proposed Structure
1
2
The broad scope and inherent complexity of this matter necessitate a sound case
3
management structure. Moving Plaintiffs assert that the Proposed Leadership Structure will best
4
serve the interests of Plaintiffs and the proposed plaintiff class. Leading commentators and the
5
Manual for Complex Litigation advise: “court[s] should be cognizant of the possibility that the
6
class could benefit from the combined resources and expertise of a number of class counsel,
7
especially in a complex case where the defendants are represented by a number of large and
8
9
10
11
highly qualified law firms.” Third Circuit Task Force Report on Selection of Class Counsel, 208
F.R.D. 340, 417 (2002) (footnote omitted); see also MCL, § 10.221 (noting benefit to having
multiple lead counsel in large class action cases). For these reasons, federal district courts
frequently approve multi-firm leadership structures in complex class actions. See, e.g., In Re
Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 240 F.R.D. 163, 177 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (appointing four-firm
12
structure as co-lead counsel); In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Sec. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 42, 46, 49
13
14
15
16
(S.D.N.Y. 1998) (approving multiple counsel arrangement, finding pooling of resources and
experience was advantageous given “magnitude” of the class action and to “ensure that the
litigation will proceed expeditiously against Oxford and the experienced counsel it has retained to
represent it”); see also In re DRAM Antitrust Litig., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39841, *53 (N.D.
17
Cal., June 5, 2006) (appointing three-firm structure as co-lead counsel); In re Intel Corp.
18
Microprocessor Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 05-1717 (D. Del. Apr. 18, 2006), Order Appointing
19
Co-Lead Counsel at 3 (appointing multi-firm structure that allows “drawing upon a greater pool
20
of resources” which “could prove to be especially beneficial in a large and complex case such as
21
this”).4
22
Not merely beneficial, the Proposed Leadership Structure here will prosper the success
23
and efficient management of a class action potentially involving 800 million class members.
24
Presenting many legal and factual issues, some quite new, involving application of established
25
statutes and causes of action to evolving cyberspace commercial practices, this case offers no
26
27
28
4
Courts have also noted the “benefit of joint decision-making” afforded by multiple representation in the class
action context. See, e.g., Malasky v. IAC/Interactive Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25832, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21,
2004); Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits Trust v. LaBranche & Co., Inc., 229 F.R.D. 395, 420
(S.D.N.Y. 2004).
10
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
1
room for management inefficiency. Facebook, the world’s largest social network, is represented
2
by one of the country’s largest and most experienced defense firms, abundantly prepared to
3
defend the case. This may also be the largest class action in history, and discovery could involve
4
millions of pages of documents. Such volume requires knowledgeable and experienced persons
5
to establish review protocols and to ensure proper document analysis in a relatively short time.
6
Undoubtedly this case will be expert-intensive. Extensive motion practice is virtually certain, on
7
the pleadings, procedural and merits issues, and discovery. The path to settlement or trial is
8
unlikely to be short or simple. Needless to say, these tasks will entail substantial financial
9
commitments that the proposed co-lead counsel will share.
10
The Proposed Leadership Structure draws on the experience and expertise of a large
11
number of law firms and former state attorneys general, yet still provides the Court and Facebook
12
with the convenience of only two points of contact – Sianni & Straite LLP and Bartimus
13
Frickleton, Robertson & Gorny, P.C. The Moving Plaintiffs also propose that a single firm be
14
appointed liaison counsel with a California office to assist with filings and court appearances as
15
needed. In this way, the Proposed Leadership Structure combines a large number of attorneys
16
(and former state attorneys general) with proven commitment to responsible advocacy, and the
17
convenience of a small, two-firm Executive Committee simplifying decision-making and
18
communications with the Court and Defendant.
c. Appointing Interim Lead Class Counsel is Appropriate Under Rule 23(g)
19
and Will Protect the Interests of the Putative Plaintiff Class
20
Rule 23(g)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court “may
21
22
designate interim counsel to act on behalf of the putative class before determining whether to
23
certify the action as a class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). Where, as here, multiple class
24
actions are pending, appointment of interim class counsel “is necessary to protect the interests of
25
class members” because it “clarifies responsibility for protecting the interests of the class during
26
precertification activities, such as making and responding to motions, conducting any necessary
27
discovery, moving for class certification, and negotiating settlement.” MCL, § 21.11.
28
///
11
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
Proposed Interim Class Counsel Will Fairly and Adequately Represent the Interests of
1
2
Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
3
Attorneys appointed to serve as interim class counsel “must fairly and adequately
4
represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(4). Although Rule 23 does not explicitly
5
state what standards apply when appointing interim class counsel, courts have applied the
6
following factors from Rule 23(g)(1)(A): (1) the work counsel has done in identifying or
7
investigating potential claims in the action; (2) counsel’s experience in handling class actions,
8
other complex litigation, and claims of the type asserted in the action; (3) counsel’s knowledge of
9
the applicable law; and (4) the resources counsel will commit to representing the class. See
10
Parkinson v. Hyundai Motor Am., 2006 WL 2289801, No. C06-0345 AHS, slip op. at *2 (C.D.
11
Cal. Aug. 7, 2006). No single factor is determinative; all factors must be considered. Advisory
12
Committee Notes (2003 Amendments).
13
The proposed leadership structure satisfies each of these criteria. Proposed class counsel
14
have already taken considerable steps to advance the litigation. For example, plaintiffs’ counsel
15
(not counsel for Facebook) filed with the JPML the motion for consolidation and transfer to this
16
Court. Counsel also aggressively moved to protect the class in the JPML when Facebook
17
requested a change to the case caption which would have been unfair to plaintiffs. Likewise,
18
counsel for plaintiffs have already sent a document preservation demand to Facebook, have
19
retained and engaged expert advisors and have already sought admission pro hac vice.
Likewise, proposed class counsel have extensive complex litigation experience and
20
21
knowledge of the applicable law. Counsel also have sufficient resources to litigate this case
22
properly and protect the class. Attached to this motion as Exhibit A are the biographies of the
23
firms and lawyers that Moving Plaintiffs seek to have appointed to lead the class action.
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
12
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
1
2
3
4
5
6
V.
CONCLUSION
In the interests of judicial economy and for the reasons set forth above, Moving Plaintiffs
respectfully request that the Court order consolidation of the Related Actions, the MDL and all
future-filed “related actions”; appoint interim class counsel; and enter the attached proposed order
setting forth a deadline for filing a consolidated class action complaint and a briefing schedule to
govern any motion to dismiss.
7
8
Dated: March 28, 2012
SIANNI & STRAITE LLP
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Barry R. Eichen
Daryl L. Zaslow
EICHEN CRUTCHLOW ZASLOW &
McELROY LLP
40 Ethel Road
Edison, NJ 08817
beichen@njadvocates.com
dzaslow@njadvocates.com
Telephone: (732) 777-0100
Facsimile: (732) 248-8273
/s/ David A. Straite
David A. Straite
David A. Straite
Ralph N. Sianni
1201 N. Orange St., Suite 740
Wilmington, DE 19801
dstraite@siannistraite.com
rsianni@siannistraite.com
Telephone:
(302) 573-3560
Facsimile:
(302) 358-2975
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Paul R. Kiesel
KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
kiesel@kbla.com
Telephone: (310) 854-4444
Facsimile: (310)854-0812
Stephen G. Grygiel
John E Keefe, Jr.
Stephen Sullivan, Jr.
KEEFE BARTELS LLP
170 Monmouth Street
Red Bank, NJ 07701
sgrygiel@keefebartels.com
jkeefe@keefebartels.com
ssullivan@keefebartels.com
Telephone:
(732) 224-9400
Facsimile:
(732) 224-9494
Attorneys for Plaintiffs PERRIN AIKENS
DAVIS, PETERSEN GROSS, DR. BRIAN K.
LENTZ, TOMMASINA IANNUZZI, TRACY
SAURO, JENNIFER SAURO, and LISA
SABATO
26
27
28
13
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
Dated: March 28, 2012
WILLOUGHBY DOYLE LLP
1
2
/s/ Conal Fergus Doyle
Conal Fergus Doyle
3
4
6
433 North Camden Drive, Suite 730
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
conal@willoughbydoyle.com
Telephone: (310) 385-0567
Facsimile: (310) 842-1496
7
Attorney for Plaintiff LANA BRKIC
5
8
9
Dated: March 28, 2012
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
10
11
/s/ Eric H. Gibbs
Eric H. Gibbs
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
DAVID STEIN
ds@girardgibbs.com
ERIC H. GIBBS
ehb@girardgibbs.com
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
MURPHY, P.A.
WILLIAM H. MURPHY JR.
billy.murphy@murphypa.com
WILLIAM H. MURPHY, III
hassan.murphy@murphypa.com
TONYA OSBORNE BAÑA
tonya.bana@murphypa.com
KAMBON WILLIAMS
kambon.williams@murphypa.com
One South Street, 23rd Floor
LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS Baltimore, MD 21202
PETER G. ANGELOS
Telephone: (410) 539-6500
100 North Charles Street
Facsimile: (410) 539-6599
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 649-2000
Facsimile: (410) 659-1782
Attorneys for Plaintiffs LAURA MAGUIRE and
CHRISTOPHER SIMON (Plaintiffs in the
Maguire v. Facebook, Inc. action)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
Dated: March 28, 2012
BURNS CUNNINGHAM & MACKEY PC
1
2
/s/ William M. Cunningham, Jr.
William M. Cunningham, Jr.
3
8
Peter S. Mackey
Peter F. Burns
P.O. Box 1583
Mobile, AL 36633
pfburns@bcmlawyers.com
psmackey@bcmlawyers.com
wmcunningham@bcmlawyers.com
Telephone: (251) 432-0612
Facsimile: (251) 432-0625
9
Attorney for Plaintiff ALEXANDRIA PARRISH
4
5
6
7
10
Dated: March 28, 2012
GRANT WOODS PC
11
/s/ Grant Woods
Grant Woods
12
13
16
Two Renaissance Square
40 N. Central Ave., Suite 2250
Phoenix, AZ 85004
gw@grantwoodspc.net
Telephone: (602) 258-2599
Facsimile: (602) 258-5070
17
Attorney for Plaintiff SHARON BEATTY
14
15
18
Dated: March 28, 2012
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID SHELTON PLLC
19
20
21
/s/ David Shelton
David Shelton
24
P.O. Box 2541
Oxford, MS 38655
david@davidsheltonpllc.com
Telephone: (662) 281-1212
Facsimile: (662) 281-1312
25
Attorney for Plaintiff BROOKE RUTLEDGE
22
23
26
27
28
15
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
Dated: March 28, 2012
BISHOP LONDON & DODDS, P.C.
1
2
/s/ Alice London
Alice London
3
4
6
3701 Bee Cave Road, Suite 200
Austin, TX 78746
alondon@bishoplondon.com
Telephone: (512) 479-5900
Facsimile: (512) 479-5934
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff MICHAEL SINGLEY
5
8
Dated: March 28, 2012
9
GOLDENBERG HELLER ANTOGNOLI &
ROWLAND, P.C.
10
/s/ Thomas P. Rosenfeld
Thomas P. Rosenfeld (IL 6301406)
11
12
Mark C. Goldenberg
2227 South State Route 157
P.O. Box 959
Edwardsville, IL 62025
tom@ghalaw.com
mark@ghalaw.com
Telephone: (618) 656-5150
Facsimile: (618) 656-6230
13
14
15
16
Attorneys for Plaintiff DANA HOWARD
17
18
Dated: March 28, 2012
BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON &
GORNY – LEAWOOD
19
20
/s/ Chip Robertson
Edward D. Robertson, Jr.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Andrew J. Lyskowski
Erik A. Bergmanis
BERGMANIS LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
380 W. Hwy. 54, Suite 201
P.O. Box 229
Camdenton, MO 65020
alyskowski@ozarklawcenter.com
erik@ozarklawcenter.com
Telephone: (573) 346-2111
Facsimile: (573) 346-5885
Stephen M. Gorny
James P. Frickleton
Mary D. Winter
Edward D. Robertson III
11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200
Leawood, KS 66211
steve@bflawfirm.com
mmarvel@bflawfirm.com
Telephone: (913) 266-2300
Facsimile: (913) 266-2366
Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN GRAHAM
28
16
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
Dated: March 28, 2012
BRYANT LAW CENTER, PSC
1
2
7
/s/ Mark P. Bryant
Mark P. Bryant
Emily Ward Roark
601 Washington Street
P.O. Box 1876
Paducah, KY 42002
emily.roark@bryantpsc.com
mark.bryant@bryantpsc.com
Telephone: (270) 442-1422
Facsimile: (270) 443-8788
8
Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID M. HOFFMAN
3
4
5
6
9
Dated: March 28, 2012
HYMEL, DAVIS & PETERSEN, LLC
10
11
/s/ Michael Reese Davis
Michael Reese Davis
12
18
L. J. Hymel
Richard P. Ieyoub
Tim P. Hartdegen
10602 Coursey Blvd.
Baton Rouge, LA 70816
rieyoub@hymeldavis.com
ljhymel@hymeldavis.com
mdavis@hymeldavis.com
thartdegen@hymeldavis.com
Telephone: (225) 298-8188
Facsimile: (225) 298-8119
19
Attorney for Plaintiff JANET SEAMON
13
14
15
16
17
20
Dated: March 28, 2012
BERGMANIS & MCDUFFEY
Edward D. Robertson, Jr.
Mary Doerhoff Winter
BARTIMUS FRIEKLETON
ROBERTSON & GORNY
715 Swifts Highway
Jefferson City, MO 65109
chiprob@eathlink.net
marywinter@earthlink.net
Telephone: (573) 659-4460
Facsimile: (573) 659-4460
/s/ Andrew S. Lyskowski
Andrew S. Lyskowski
21
22
23
24
25
26
380 W. Hwy 54, Suite 201
P.O. Box 229
Camdenton, MO 65020
alyskowski@ozarklawcenter.com
Telephone: (573) 346-2111
Facsimile: (573) 346-5885
27
28
Attorney for Plaintiff
CHANDRA L. THOMPSON
17
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
Dated: March 28, 2012
BRIAN L. CAMPBELL LAW FIRM, PLLC
/s/ Grant Rahmeyer
Grant Rahmeyer
/s/ Brian Lee Campbell
Brian Lee Campbell
STRONG-GARNER-BAUER, P.C.
415 East Chestnut Expressway
Springfield, MO 65802
Grahmeyer@stronglaw.com
Telephone: (417)-887-4300
Facsimile: (417)-88704385
P.O. Box 189
Pea Ridge, AR 72751
blcampb@hotmail.com
Telephone: (479) 387-1081
Facsimile: (888) 389-5809
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Attorney for Plaintiff STEPHANIE CAMPBELL
8
9
Dated: March 28, 2012
BRONSTER HOSHIBATA
10
11
/s/ Robert M. Hatch
Robert M. Hatch
12
15
Margery S. Bronster
1003 Bishop Street, Suite 2300
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
rhatch@bhhawaii.net
mbronster@bhhawaii.net
Telephone: (808) 524-5644
Facsimile: (808) 599-1881
16
Attorney for Plaintiff CYNTHIA D. QUINN
13
14
17
Dated: March 28, 2012
ELIZABETH CUNNINGHAM THOMAS PLLC
18
19
20
/s/ Elizabeth C. Thomas
Elizabeth C. Thomas
23
P.O. Box 8946
Missoula, MT 59802
elizthomas@bresnan.net
Telephone: (406)-728-5936
Facsimile: (406)-728-2828
24
Attorney for Plaintiff JEANNE M. WALKER
21
22
25
26
27
28
18
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
Dated: March 28, 2012
MEYER & LEONARD PLLC
1
2
/s/ Henry A. Meyer, III
Henry A. Meyer, III
3
4
6
116 E Sheridan, Suite 207
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
hameyer@mac.com
Telephone: (405)-702-9900
Facsimile: (405)-605-8381
7
Attorney for Plaintiff JACQUELINE BURDICK
5
8
Dated: March 28, 2012
MANDELL, SCHWARTZ & BOISCLAIR, LTD.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
/s/ Zachary Mandell ______
Zachary Mandell
Michael S. Schwartz
Mark S. Mandell
1 Park Row
Providence, RI 02903
msmandell@msn.com
mschwartz.ri@gmail.com
Telephone: (401) 273-8330
Facsimile: (401) 751-7830
16
Attorney for Plaintiff EDWARD STRAVATO
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
Dated: March 28, 2012
HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON
1
2
/s/ Michael Ramsey Scott
Michael Ramsey Scott
3
4
7
Louis David Peterson
1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98101-2925
ldp@hcmp.com
mrs@hcmp.com
Telephone: (206)-623-1745
Facsimile: (206) 623-7789
8
Attorney for Plaintiff MATTHEW J. VICKERY
5
6
9
Date: March 28, 2012
THE TERRELL LAW GROUP
10
11
/s/ Reginald Terrell
Reginald Terrell
12
15
Post Office Box 13315, PMB #148
Oakland, CA 94661
reggiet2@aol.com
Telephone: (510)-237-9700
Facsimile: (510)-237-4616
16
Attorney for Plaintiff JULIAN CARROLL
13
14
17
Dated: March 28, 2012
METZ, BAILEY & MCLOUGHLIN
18
19
/s/ Michael J. Ensminger
Michael J. Ensminger
20
Kyle I. Stroh
Michael K. Fultz
33 East Schrock Road
Westerville, OH 43081
mfultz@metzbailey.com
kstroh@metzbailey.com
Telephone: (614)-882-2327
Facsimile: (614)-882-5150
21
22
23
24
25
26
Attorney for Plaintiff PATRICK K. MALONEY
27
28
20
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM
CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?