In Re FACEBOOK INTERNET TRACKING LITIGATION

Filing 79

MOTION TO AMEND CONSOLIDATION ORDER re # 19 Order on Motion to Consolidate Cases,,,, # 66 Order filed by Perrin Aikens Davis, Brian K. Lentz, Cynthia D. Quinn, Matthew J. Vickery. Responses due by 3/16/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of STEPHEN G. GRYGIEL, # 2 Declaration of DAVID STRAITE, # 3 Proposed Order)(Kiesel, Paul) (Filed on 3/10/2015)

I

2
3

4
5

Stephen G. Grygiel (admitted pro hac vice)
SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN &
WHITE,LLC
26'hFloor
20 I N. Charles Street
Baltimore, MD 21230
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

6
7
8

9

Plaintiffs' Executive Committee

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

10

Case No.: 5:12-MD-02314-EJD

11
12
13

IN RE: FACEBOOK INTERNET
TRACKING LITIGATION

DECLARATION OF STEPHEN G. GRYGIEL
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO AMEND
CONSOLIDATION ORDER

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5:12-MD-02314-EJD
DECLARATION OF STEPHEN G. GRYGIEL

1

I, Stephen G. Grygiel, declare as follows:

2

I.

3

4

I am a partner in the law firm of Silverman Thompson Slutkin & White, LLC, and

am admitted to practice pro hac vice before this Court.
2.

Movants and plaintiffs Matthew Vickery, Perrin Davis, Brian Lentz and Cynthia

5
6
7

8

Quinn move this Court for an Order modifying the previous order of consolidation and appointment
oflead counsel.

3.

I respectfully submit this Declaration in support ofMovants' motion. If called as a

9 witness, I could and would competently testifY thereto all facts within my personal knowledge.
10

11

4.

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the firm resume for

Silverman Thompson Slutkin & White LLC.

12
5.

Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of my personal CV (without

13

14
15

Exhibits).
6.

Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a Motherboard. vice. com

16 February 23, 2015 article, Lenovo is Getting a Crash Course in Calculating Damages for Privacy
17 Violations, that quotes me as "an attorney who has litigated complex privacy rights cases and is one
18 of the co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in a 2013 class action lawsuit against Google ... for slipping

19

cookies ... into web browsers."

20

7.

My co-counsel, David Straite, contacted counsel for Defendant Facebook, Inc. via

21
22
23
24

email on March 5, 2015 regarding the pendency of this motion, and I was copied. We have received
no response from Facebook to date.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is

25 true and correct.
26

Executed this JO'h day of March, 2015, in Baltimore,

27

28
. -MD-02314-EJD
DECLARATION OF STEPHEN G. GRYGIEL

Exhibit A

LEAD COUNSEL FIRM RESUME
General Firm Overview
The Maryland-based law firm of Silverman | Thompson | Slutkin | White (STSW) is
widely regarded as one of the premier law firms for litigation in the Baltimore-Washington
metropolitan area. The firm features a unique blend of the area's top lawyers with diverse
backgrounds, such as former state and federal prosecutors, a retired Federal District Court judge,
a retired state Supreme Court judge and a law school dean.
STSW takes on complex high-stakes civil and class action litigation, as well as high-profile
criminal cases, throughout the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area, and the United States.
Many of the firm’s diverse and high-stakes cases have been profiled in recent years by 60
Minutes, the Discovery Channel and other international media.
The firm’s seasoned attorneys spend hundreds, if not thousands, of hours in the
courtroom each year. Nearly all of the firm’s civil litigators were “big firm” trained and
recognized as rising stars prior to joining STSW. The firm’s clients benefit from representation by
lawyers who know the judiciary by practicing law on the front lines rather than watching from the
sidelines. STSW lawyers have authored leading treatises including Jones on Evidence, Civil &
Criminal (7th), Wiretapping and Eavesdropping, 3D: Surveillance in the Internet Age and The
Maryland Evidence Handbook (4th).
Although STSW handles cases all across the United States, the firm’s approximately 35
lawyers are based in a single office in downtown Baltimore. As a result, STSW has a genuinely
collaborative and collegial culture n o t c o m m o n l y f o u n d , and is the only law firm named
in Baltimore Magazine’s 2013 “Best Places to Work” issue. STSW views all clients as firm
clients and uses all of the firm’s collective resources to further our clients' best interests.
Class Action Experience
Active Cases:
1.

Jane Doe No. 1, et al. v. Johns Hopkins Hospital, et al.
Class Action
Case No. 24-C-13-001041
In the Circuit Court for Baltimore City

Case Synopsis: In what is believed to be the largest recovery of its kind, a $190 million dollar
proposed Settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Court that offers payments to the

“LEVY Settlement Class,” consisting of all former patients of Dr. Nikita A. Levy (“Dr. Levy”)
or all such persons’ personal representatives, heirs or assigns, wherever located, who have or
may in the future have any claim against (1) Dr. Levy or the Estate of Nikita A. Levy, M.D. or (2)
Johns Hopkins arising out of, based upon, related to, or involving injuries and damages claimed
as a result of Dr. Levy's photographing or videotaping activities or boundary violations while he
was an actual or apparent agent, servant, or employee of Johns Hopkins. STSW represents a
number of the plaintiffs, is on the Plaintiff's Steering Committee, and heads the Minority
Claimants Committee.
2.

Richard Dent, et al. v. National Football League
Putative Class Action
Case No. C-14-2324 KAW
In the United States District Court: Northern District of California

Case Synopsis: The lawsuit alleges that, violating federal criminal laws, the NFL intentionally,
recklessly, and negligently created and maintained a culture of drug misuse, putting profit in
place of players’ health. Plaintiffs seek financial compensation for the long-term chronic injuries,
financial losses, expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish and other losses they have suffered
as a result of the NFL’s misconduct, and medical monitoring for the problems from which the
Plaintiffs currently or will in the future suffer. STSW investigated the facts and researched the
issues in this lawsuit for over two years, and filed this case in May, 2014. STSW actively
represents over 1000 retained former NFL players and is Co-Lead Counsel.
3.

In re National Hockey League Players Concussion Injury Litigation
Putative Class Action
United States District Court, District of Minnesota
MDL No. 14-2551 (SRN/JSM)

Case Synopsis: One of three Co-Lead Counsel in Multi-District Litigation case, consolidated and
transferred to District of Minnesota, alleging the National Hockey League’s responsibility for
increased risk, frequency and severity of brain diseases such as ALS, Alzheimer’s Disease, Chronic
Traumatic Encephalopathy and other neuro-cognitive impairments and deficits secondary to
concussive and sub-concussive impacts.
4.

In re: Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litigation
Putative Class Action
United States District Court, Northern District of California
Case No.: 5:12-md-02314-EJD

Case Synopsis: Co-Lead Counsel in Multi-District Litigation case, consolidated and transferred
to Northern District of California (San Jose Division), alleging that Facebook, contrary to its
promises to users and violating reasonable expectations of privacy, continued to track Facebook
users even after they had logged out of Facebook sessions, violating federal and state laws.
5.

In re: Google, Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation
Putative Class Action
United States District Court, District of Delaware

C.A. No. 12-MD-2358 (SLR)
Case Synopsis: Co-Lead Counsel in Multi-District Litigation case, consolidated and transferred
to District of Delaware, alleging that Google and other ad-serving companies secretly disabled
blocking settings on web users’ internet browsers and placed tracking “cookies” on those
devices, violating federal and state laws.
6.

South Florida Wellness, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Company
Putative Class Action
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
Case No. 13-cv-61759-CIV - Dimitrouleas

Case Synopsis: Co-counsel in putative federal court class action under Florida law for declaratory
judgment on behalf of insureds and their medical provider assignees, seeking ruling that
Allstate did not make required clear and unambiguous election of reimbursement formula in
policy under which Allstate can reduce insurance reimbursements; $65 Million amount in
controversy.
7.

Pierce v. Allstate Insurance Company
Putative Class Action
Cir. Ct. of 17th Judicial District, Broward Cty., Florida
Case No.: CACE-13-018792

Case Synopsis: Co-counsel in putative state court class action under Florida law for declaratory
judgment on behalf of insureds, seeking ruling that Allstate failed to apply stated deductibles
to 100% of covered expenses and losses, but instead first reduced the covered expenses and
losses by an arbitrary amount and only then applied the deductible to the impermissibly reduced
amount.
Prior Significant Matters Litigated by Members of STSW
1.

In Re New York Stock Exchange/ Archipelago Merger Litigation
(N.Y. Sup Ct., Index 601646/05) Class
and Trial Counsel
Role: Counsel (including trial counsel) for NYSE seatholders
Nature of case: NYSE seatholders claimed undervaluation of their interests in NYSE
merger with electronic trading platform, Archipelago
Result: successful litigation, producing settlement after 1.5 days of injunction
trial, producing re-done valuation for seatholders

2.

In re Sprint Corp. Shareholders Litigation
(Dist. Ct., Johnson Cty., Kansas, 04-CV-01714)
Class Action
Role: Class Counsel
Nature of case: shareholders claimed undervaluation of their shares in tracking stock
recombination
Result: $57.5 Million Settlement

3.

In re Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Sec. Litigation
(S.D.N.Y. 04-CV-08144)
Class Action
Role: Class Counsel
Nature of case: shareholders claimed stock drop resulting from disclosure of improper
insurance placement payments
Result: $400 Million Recovery

4.

In re Vytorin/Zetia Markting, Sales Practices & Prod. Liab. Litigation
(D.N.J., MDL 1938)
Role: Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee
Nature of case: misleadingly favorable claims for pharmaceuticals
Result: $41,500,000 settlement
STSW Class Action Litigation Team:

Phillip J. Closius (Of Counsel)
J.D., Columbia University, 1975
Stone Scholar, 3 years
B.A., University of Notre Dame, 1972
Magna Cum Laude; Notre Dame Scholar
Mr. Closius is a former Dean of two national law schools and currently is a tenured
professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law. He has represented professional
athletes for several decades, teaches sports law, and has been published on the topic in
several law reviews.
Stephen G. Grygiel (Partner)
J.D., Harvard Law School, 1986
A.B., Hamilton College, 1979
Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude
Bar Admissions: I n g o o d s t a n d i n g a n d a dmitted to practice before highest courts
of Maine, Massachusetts, Delaware, New York, Maryland; Federal District Courts for the
Districts of Maine and Delaware; United States Courts of Appeals for the Third Circuit
and Ninth Circuit.
Mr. Grygiel focuses on representing plaintiffs in high-profile, national class action cases.
Mr. Grygiel has been serving as one of two Co-Lead Class Counsel in the Multi-District
Litigation major internet privacy case In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation (one of
two counsel who conducted oral argument opposing Motion to Dismiss) and one of three
Co-Lead Class Counsel in another major internet privacy rights Multi-District Litigation
case, In re Google, Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation (Mr. Grygiel was

one of two plaintiffs’ counsel who handled oral argument opposing Motion to Dismiss). Mr.
Grygiel has served as one of his firm’s lead lawyers in Richard Dent, et al. v.
National Football League (conducted the oral argument against Motion to Dismiss) and is
one of three Co-Lead counsel in In re National Hockey League Players Concussion Injury
Litigation (conducted oral argument on preemption Motion to Dismiss). He was one of his
firm’s two trial counsel in In re New York Stock Exchange/Archipelago Merger Litigation,
in which NYSE seatholders successfully challenged the NYSE’s valuation of their
interests. Mr. Grygiel litigated In re Sprint Corp. Shareholders Litigation, resulting in a
$57.5 MM settlement, In re Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Sec. Litigation¸ which
produced a $400 MM settlement. M r . G r y g i e l a l s o s e r v e d o n the Plaintiffs’
Steering Committee in the MDL In re: Vytorin/Zetia Marketing Sales Practices and
Products Liability Litigation, which settled for a total of $41,500,000.
Hon. Joseph F. Murphy, Jr. (RET) (Partner)
J.D., University of Maryland School of Law, 1969
B.A., Boston College, 1965
The Honorable Joseph F. Murphy retired from Maryland’s highest court, the Court of
Appeals of Maryland, to join Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White in 2011. He served
previously as Chief Judge, Court of Special Appeals, a trial judge and as a Deputy States
Attorney in Baltimore City, Maryland. He has served on the Judicial Cabinet, the Ad Hoc
Committee on Sentencing Alternatives, Re-Entry, and Best Practices, and on numerous
other committees, commissions and task forces. He also previously served as Assistant
State's Attorney and Deputy State's Attorney in Baltimore City for six years. Judge
Murphy teaches evidence and trial practice at the University of Maryland School of Law
and the University of Baltimore School of Law, and is a prolific author. He focuses on
alternative dispute resolution and provides appellate and litigation consultation. He is
considered a foremost expert in civil procedure, appellate advocacy and has published
several treatises on evidence.
Hon. Alexander Williams, Jr. (RET) (Partner)
J.D., Howard University, Cum Laude
B.A., Howard University
Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. was President Bill Clinton’s first African American nominee
to the Federal Court and following his confirmation by the United States Senate served as a
Federal Judge on the United States District Court for the District of Maryland from
September 2, 1994 to January 3, 2014. Prior to his appointment to the federal bench, Judge
Williams served two terms from 1987 to 1994 as the elected State's Attorney for Prince
George's County, Maryland.

Judge Williams is a native of Washington, D.C. and has practiced law in both the State of
Maryland and the District of Columbia. Judge Williams presently teaches at both Howard
Law School and the Howard School of Divinity. He has served the public in various
capacities throughout Maryland and the Washington Metropolitan area. In addition to his
judicial and professorial service, Judge Williams has lectured and participated in
numerous conferences abroad including visits to Bulgaria; Vitoria, Brazil; and to the
region of Hong Kong as well as to the provinces of Guanghou and Beijing in China.
Judge Williams was part of a joint inspection team sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Justice and the U.S. Department of State to assess issues of justice in Liberia following
that country’s civil war. During that assignment in Liberia, he was invited and did lecture
at the Grimes School of Law located on the campus of the University of Liberia. Judge
Williams has also participated in several international seminars on judicial independence
and other rule of law issues, attending conferences in Accra, Ghana; Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania; and Bamako, Mali.
Judge Williams is a graduate of Howard University where he earned a B.A. (Bachelor of
Arts) in Government; a M.A (Master of Arts); and a J.D. (Juris Doctor, cum laude); and
also graduated from Temple University where he earned a Master of Arts Degree in
Religion/ Ethics.
Steven D. Silverman (Managing Partner)
J.D., University of Baltimore School of Law, 1991
B.A., University of Richmond, 1988
Mr. Silverman is the managing partner of Silverman Thompson Slutkin and White with
over twenty years of litigation experience. He has been lead counsel in thousands of
contested hearings and trials in state and federal court and has tried several hundred jury
trials to verdict. Mr. Silverman has been recognized as one of the Top 10 trial lawyers in the
Northeast United States. He has extensive media experience in managing high-profile
cases and public relations.
William Sinclair (Partner)
J.D., University of Virginia School of Law, 2002
B.A., University of California at San Diego, 1999
Magna Cum Laude
Bar Admissions: Admitted to practice before, and in good standing, highest courts of
California, Georgia, District of Columbia and Maryland; all Federal District Courts for
District of California; Federal District Courts for Federal Districts of Georgia, District
of Columbia, and Maryland; United States Courts of Appeal for Fourth and Eleventh
Circuits.

Mr. Sinclair has been counsel on several class actions, involving personal injury and
product liability. He is a former law clerk to a United states District Court Judge, and an
adjunct professor at the University of Maryland School of Law. Class actions have
constituted a significant part of Mr. Sinclair’s practice. He was co-lead counsel in a
Federal class action against a local municipality that resulted in significant monetary and
injunctive relief for his clients and was co-lead defense counsel in a State putative class
action product liability suit against a local utility. He currently serves as co-lead counsel in
the defense of three putative class actions involving RESPA and other real estate matters,
one of which is pending in Federal court and another of which is on appeal to the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals after the defense convinced a lower court Judge to
deny class certification and dismiss plaintiffs’ claims.
Andrew G. Slutkin (Partner)
J.D., Duke University School of Law, 1991
B.S., University of Baltimore, 1988
Mr. Slutkin is an experienced trial lawyer, concentrating his practice on complex civil
litigation involving catastrophic injury, medical malpractice, product liability and wrongful
death. He earned his Juris Doctorate from Duke University School of Law, and has
been named a “Top Rated Lawyer” in personal injury law and in medical malpractice by
US News and World Report and Martindale Hubbell and was named Baltimore Medical
Malpractice Lawyer of the Year by Best Lawyers. Mr. Slutkin regularly obtains milliondollar plus settlements and verdicts for his clients, including a $276 million fraud verdict
against First Union National Bank, and a $125 million recovery against Ernst & Young
accounting firm. Mr. Slutkin has been an adjunct professor at the University of Baltimore
School of Law since 2002, where he has taught Litigation Process and currently teaches
Medical Malpractice Litigation. He also is on the faculty of the Maryland Trial Advocacy
Institute, where he demonstrates and teaches trial advocacy to Maryland attorneys.
Andrew C. White (Partner)
LLM, Georgetown University Law Center, 1987
J.D., Syracuse University College of Law, 1985
Editor, Syracuse Law Review
B.A., University of Vermont, 1981
Andrew White is a former Assistant United States Attorney and decorated Federal
Prosecutor of the Year who also served as a Senior Litigation Advisor to the Clinton
Independent Counsel in the Monica Lewinsky investigation. During the investigation and
prosecution of President William J. Clinton, Mr. White helped to coordinate the grand
jury investigation of the President and worked with the Independent Counsel to prepare
the case for trial. He has over 25 years of experience trying civil and criminal cases of all
kinds. He has coordinated hundreds of complex federal criminal investigations and has

tried over 400 state and federal criminal trials, including over 30 federal jury trials. His
substantive expertise, trial skill and knowledge of the relationships between various law
enforcement agencies are invaluable in the prosecution of civil matters with overlapping
state and federal criminal issues.
STSW Class Action Litigation Support & Legal Research Team
Amy B. Chappell (Member)
J.D., Duke University School of Law, 1991
B.A., New York University, 1988
Sima G. Fried (Associate)
J.D., New York University School of Law, 2008
B.A., Duke University, 2004
Steven J. Kelly (Member)
J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 2003
Cum Laude, Journal of Law and Public Policy
B.A., American University, 1997
Magna Cum Laude and with University Honors
Chris Mincher (Associate)
J.D., University of Virginia School of Law, 2011
B.A., University of Maryland (College Park, Md.), 2002
Cum Laude, Journalism
Edward P. Parent (Associate)
J.D., University of Maryland School of Law, 2006
Magna Cum Laude
Order of the Coif
Order of the Barristers
Finalist, 2005 Morris B. Myerowitz Moot Court Competition
B.A., The Johns Hopkins University, 2000
Kathleen Hanlon Sinclair (Member)
J.D., University of Virginia School of Law, 2002
B.A., The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1999

Jamison G. White (Partner)
J.D., Case Western Reserve University School of Law, 2000
Cum Laude
Law Review: Managing Editor
B.A., Davidson College, 1997

Exhibit B

Stephen G. Grygiel
Silverman Thompson Slutkin White, LLC
26th Floor, 201 N. Charles St.
Baltimore, MD 21201
410-385-2225 (main)
443-909-7516 (direct)
407-505-9463 (cell)
[e-mail]

STEPHEN G. GRYGIEL: CURRICULUM VITAE
PRACTICE

Trials and litigation of high stakes corporate/commercial,
securities, board governance, consumer, pharmaceutical,
health and privacy rights cases and class actions.

SKILLS &
ABILITIES

AV-Preeminent rated trial lawyer, class action litigator and
oral advocate. See, e.g., Exhibits A (10/14/13 email from
Edward Kushell, franchising expert), D (3/28/12 memo
(redacted) from John E. Keefe, Jr. to co-counsel), F
(10/18/13 letter from Jan Douglas Atlas).
First chair in numerous jury and bench trials, arbitrations and
mediations. See, e.g., Exhibits L, M, P, Q, R, S, U(9),
U(10), U(11), U(13), U(14).
Argued over one hundred motions, including dispositive
motions, in pharmaceutical overpromotion (RICO),
securities and corporate governance (PSLRA, SLUSA,
CAFA), labor law (Sec. 301 LMRA preemption), privacy
rights (Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act), consumer fraud (state Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Acts), products liability (failure to
warn, design defect), insurance coverage and other contract,
commercial and tort law cases. See, e.g., Exhibits G, H, I, J,
K, N, O, V.

Taken hundreds of depositions, including of CEOs, CFOs,
COOs and board members of major companies, economic
and damages experts and investment bankers, liability
experts, in securities, corporate and commercial, products
liability, consumer fraud, and other litigation. See, e.g.,
Exhibit D.
Researched, analyzed and briefed hundreds of issues in many
different legal and factual contexts, including MDLs
(remands, forum selection); bases for liability under 1933
Securities Act and 1934 Securities and Exchange Act,
“bespeaks caution” doctrine and other corporate disclosure
safe harbors; nature and content of allegations sufficient
under Rules 8(a)(2), 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6); injunctive relief in
corporate mergers and acquisitions; CAFA removal
requirements, determining amount in controversy, bases for
and appealability of CAFA remand orders; presumption
against and limits of federal jurisdiction, plaintiff’s rights as
“master of complaint” measured against “artful pleading”
doctrine; Bankruptcy Court jurisdiction, bankruptcy trustee
asset sales as impermissible reorganization plans, due
process rights of unrepresented future claimants against
bankruptcy estate, requirements for establishment of Equity
Committee in reorganization; RICO causation requirements;
class action choice of law issues, extraterritorial application
of single state law in Rule 23 predominance and
manageability inquiries; expert witness qualifications under
Daubert and state law analogues; numerous trial and in
limine motions.
Well versed in key legal issues, including:
(i)

pleadings standards doctrine and cases (Iqbal’s
departure from Twombly, Twombly’s revision of
Conley v. Gibson’s dismissal test, and erroneous
“Twombal” and “Twiqbal” conflations;
implications of Supreme Court rulings in

2 

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, N.A., Erickson v. Pardus,
and Skinner v. Switzer for pleadings tests;
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) pleading test differences);
(ii)

narrowed aiding and abetting liability (e.g.,
Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of
Denver; Stoneridge Inv. Partners v. ScientificAtlanta, Inc., “speaker” test, “primary or
secondary actor” analysis, and “reliance” inquiry
for secondary actor liability under Section 10(b)
and Rule 10-b-5);

(iii)

scienter requirements (e.g., Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor
Issues & Rights, including proof required for
corporate scienter, individual scienter and socalled “strong,” “weak” and “intermediate” forms
of corporate scienter);

(iv)

standing (Art. III requirements, prudential and
statutory tests (Edwards (9th Cir.), Alston (3d
Cir.), including in privacy rights and other cases
involving little to no immediate financial
damages; parameters of “identifiable trifle”
constituting injury-in-fact);

(v)

evolving class action principles (e.g., Butler v.
Sears Roebuck, J. Posner finding “predominance
is a question of efficiency” and rejecting a
“common answers” requirement in favor of
“common questions” predicate for Rule 23(b)(3)
analysis; Amgen, Inc. v. Ct. Retirement Plans and
Trust Funds finding “Rule 23(b)(3) requires a
showing that questions common to the class
predominate, not that those questions will be
answered, on the merits, in favor of the class”
(emphasis in original) compared to Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Dukes’s finding class certification
turns on class action’s ability “to generate
common answers apt to drive the resolution of the
litigation” not on “raising of common ‘questions’
– even in droves;” McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch,

3 

disparate-impact employment case in which J.
Posner took more limited view of Wal-Mart,
saying even if “hundreds of separate trials may be
necessary to determine” who was adversely
affected and what their damages were, “at least it
wouldn’t be necessary in each of those trials to
determine whether the challenged practices were
unlawful” and noting Rule 23(c)(4)’s provision of
class treatment “‘with respect to particular
issues;’” Comcast v. Behrend’s teaching that
certification requires demonstration of class-wide
damages – methodology versus actual data; In re
Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig. analysis of
merits and class cert issues overlap, scope of
“rigorous” merits analysis at class certification
stage; ascertainability requirement; Rule 23(g)
counsel selection issues;
(vi)

PSLRA (direct and derivative actions, demand
futility doctrine, fiduciary duties, necessity and
duties of special committees, showings required
for disqualifying board member self-interest,
bondholder rights, lead plaintiff formation and
litigation conduct issues); and

(vii)

mandatory arbitration clauses/class action waivers
(significance of Sec. 2 of Fed. Arb. Act, judicial
rejection of “vindication of rights” argument
against class action waivers (e.g., AT&T v.
Concepcion; AMEX v. Italian Colors)).

Able teacher of less experienced lawyers; ran former firm’s
instructional program for new lawyers. See Exhibits B
(3/8/13 email from former partner John E. Keefe, Jr. re:
instructional memo), C (10/8/13 email from opposing
counsel in putative class case).
EXPERIENCE

SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN WHITE; BALTIMORE, MD
(PARTNER, 4/15/14 – PRESENT)

4 

Co-Lead counsel in Dent v. NFL (putative class action alleging NFL’s illegal
administration of painkillers) and In re National Hockey League Players
Concussion Injury Litigation (putative class action alleging NHL’s
responsibility for brain diseases and neurocognitive deficits secondary to
concussions and other head injuries); Co-Lead counsel in two major MDL
privacy rights cases, respectively, In re Google, Inc. Cookie Placement
Consumer Priv. Litig. and In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litig.; Cocounsel to plaintiffs in Florida state court and Florida federal court putative
class actions alleging insurers’ wrongful coverage determinations; Cocounsel in wrongful termination case in Connecticut federal court against
U.S. and foreign defendants; counsel to investment fund on securities laws
and regulations, corporate governance and board of directors issues. See,
e.g., Exhibit V (comments from co-counsel after recent oral arguments;
“amazing;” “personification of the term lawyer’s lawyer”).
KEEFE BARTELS; RED BANK, NJ (PARTNER, 5/2/11-9/30/13)
See Exhibits D (3/28/12 memo (redacted) from John E.
Keefe, Jr. to co-counsel stating that without Steve Grygiel’s
work a favorably settled class case would “likely have paid
nothing“ (emphasis in original), “Steve’s deposition work
largely drove this case to settlement,” and describing
successful mediation as entirely “Steve’s show”), E (3/23/12
unsolicited praise from expert in that case), F (7/28/13 email
from co-counsel referring to “Steve’s amazing effort” in
same case) (10/18/13 recommendation letter from same cocounsel: “In all my years of practice (fast approaching 45) I
have never, and I truly mean never, seen an attorney absorb
and digest such an overwhelming quantum of information,
synthesize it, separate the value from the worthless, and
distribute a well-reasoned and well-documented position.
We have worked on a number of matters together and my
admiration and respect for Steve has only increased.”). See
Exhibits G (7/26/13 email from observer of 7/25/13 oral
argument on Google dismissal motion: “…allow me to
express how impressed I was…your command of the facts
and the law, ability to distill their complexity to an
understandable essence, and your confident but relaxed
manner were all excellent.”), H (7/26/13 email from another

5 

Google argument observer: “I thought Steve Grygiel …[was]
superb.”), I (7/28/13 email from another Google oral
argument attendee: “you guys did an excellent job of taking a
complex technical subject and putting it into laymen’s terms
by using the slide presentations and commonplace
analogies….the facts and issues were presented so
clearly….It was a pleasure to observe such great
lawyering.”), J (7/29/13 email from same observer: “Again,
your preparation showed. You hardly looked at your notes!),
K (email from observer of Facebook dismissal oral
argument: “I was very impressed with your argument. You
have a great style.”). See also Exhibits L (5/3/13 email from
expert witness in 2 week jury trial: “Very much enjoyed
watching you in court yesterday…My untrained eye saw the
jury listen to you carefully.”), M (5/10/13 email from
opposing trial counsel after that trial: “…you did a terrific
job making the most of a difficult case. That’s to your
credit.”).
GRANT & EISENHOFER; WILMINGTON, DE (SR. COUNSEL,
PARTNER; 11/28/04-5/1/11)
See Exhibits N (8/25/10 on-record statement from then-Vice Chancellor Leo
V. Strine of Delaware Court of Chancery during oral argument seeking to
enjoin merger in In re Dollar Thrifty S’holder Litig., Consol. C.A. No.
5458-VCS, Tr. p 21: (…look, you’re a very, very good lawyer”); O (10/9/08
on-record statement by Fed. D. Judge Stanley Chesler during oral argument
opposing dismissal in pharmaceutical overpromotion case In re ScheringPlough Corp. Temodar/Intron Consumer Class Action, Case. Nos. 10-3046
& 10-3047, Tr. pp. 16-17 (“I will tell you, you’re very good.”). Primarily
responsible for depositions (CEO, COO, CFO and numerous board
members ), numerous oral arguments (e.g., application of SLUSA Delaware
Carve-Out, jury trial entitlement) and summary judgment briefing in
successful In re Sprint Corp. Shareholders Litig. (tracking stock
recombination; D. Ct. Johnson Cty., KS, 04-CV-01714, $57.5 MM
settlement); deposed majority of important witnesses, including two former
CEOs, former CFO, numerous board members in In re Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc. Sec. Litig. (securities fraud; S.D.N.Y. 04-CV-08144; $400

6 

MM settlement); took majority of key depositions in In re New York Stock
Exchange/Archipelago Merger Litig. (challenged valuation of NYSE
seatholders’ interests; N.Y. Sup. Ct. Index No. 601646/05; settled, obtaining
new fairness valuation, after 1.5 days of injunction trial); deposed deal
architect, bankers in La. Mun. Police and Employees Retirement System, et
al., on behalf of Shareholders of Caremark RX, Del. Ct. Chan., 2635-CC
(successful challenge, producing new deal terms).
MARCUS, GRYGIEL & CLEGG (now MARCUS, CLEGG &
MISTRETTA); PORTLAND, ME (PARTNER, OF COUNSEL, 1996 present)
Founding partner and lead trial lawyer, then of counsel upon becoming Sr.
V. P. and Gen. Counsel to one of firm’s major clients while continuing
active litigation for firm on select cases. See Exhibits P (11/22/97 letter
from client after Lanham Act arbitration: “you did a sensational job…I’ve
never been more impressed with anyone in business than I have with
you….you did a great job”), Q (9/19/97 on-record statement by Lanham Act
case’s AAA arbitrator: “I’m stating this to the client [sic]. I don’t usually
say it….You all have exceptionally good lawyers. I’ve done a lot of
arbitrations….These guys are both very smart and very good…you both did
exceptionally good jobs and I just saw that and the clients should know that
because it’s true.”), R (5/22/97 post-trial letter from acquitted criminal
defense client: “You did a great job….Even if we would have lost, I already
knew that you had given me the best representation possible, and if you
couldn’t win it for me, no one could….You have done me a great service
and I thank you from the bottom of my heart”), S (5/21/97 post-trial letter
from acquitted client’s mother: “Those three days in court, watching you
defend Jennifer, touched us more than you’ll ever know…Your efforts and
time in this case were extraordinary.”) (5/23/97 post-trial letter from trial
judge: “I wanted to tell you that you did a nice job for your client.”), T
(3/25/97 letter from client, former Squire Sanders & Dempsey partner, after
depositions of bank personnel produced strong settlement of his claim
against major bank for violation of Bankruptcy Code discharge: “You guys
are very professional and I have been confident in your care. If you knew
me better you would understand how great a compliment that is.”).
PIERCE ATWOOD; PORTLAND, ME (ASSOCIATE, PARTNER, 19871995)
1ST chair trial of numerous jury and bench trials, including shareholder
7 

dissolution, bankruptcy court recoupment, personal injury cases; substantial
federal criminal case experience (jury trial; defense of health care fraud case
resulting in no indictment of client; numerous evidentiary bail hearings,
sentencing briefs and evidentiary sentencing hearings). See Exhibit U
(collection of client recommendations, jury surveys, letters from colleagues,
court, etc., including, e.g.: U(9) (5/2/95 letter from insurance company
claims superintendent, describing my trial work as “poetry in motion”),
U(8) (1/25/95 email from partner describing how client “absolutely raved
about what a great lawyer you are and how you really saved Dunlap’s
[insurance brokerage client’s] cookies. In his eyes you are the best there
is.”), U(5) (8/19/94 letter from Dunlap Ins. & Bonding Chairman and CEO,
and President: “Your performance was brilliant…”) U(7) (12/1/94 (email
from partner to other partners, repeating letter from McDonald’s Corp.
Labor Relations Counsel: “‘Steve performed brilliantly…a wonderful
balance of intelligence, personality and practical business sense’”).

EDUCATION

Harvard Law School, J.D., 1986
Hamilton College, A.B., 1979 (Phi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude, Was Los (Jr.
Class Honorary Society), Kneeland Prize in Religion; Senior Travel Grant;
Judiciary Board; Vice-President of Delta Upsilon Fraternity).

BAR
ADMISSIONS &
RATING

ME (1986); MA (1986); DE (2007); NY (2011); MD (2015); 3d
Cir. (2010); 9th Cir. (2015); District of Maine (1987); District of
Delaware (2012)
AV-Preeminent (Martindale-Hubbell)

CLERKSHIP

Chief Justice Vincent L. McKusick, Maine Supreme Judicial Court
(8/86- 8/87)

REFERENCES

ROLIN P. BISSELL: Partner, Chm’n. of Corp. Counseling and Lit. Group Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor (Wilm., DE) ([e-mail])

8 

ALAN CHARLES RAUL: Partner, Global Coordinator, Privacy, Data Security,
Information Law Practice - Sidley & Austin (Wash., DC) ([e-mail])
LAWRENCE S. BADER: Partner, Morvillo, Abramowitz (NYC)
([e-mail])
MARK S. CHEFFO: Partner, Quinn Emanuel (NYC)
([e-mail])
JOSEPH N. SACCA: Partner, Skadden Arps (NYC) ([e-mail])
RONALD S. ROLFE: Partner (ret’d), Cravath, Swaine & Moore (NYC)
([e-mail])

LYNN K. NEUNER: Partner, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett (NYC)
([e-mail])

GAVIN J. ROONEY: Partner, Co-Chair of Class Action and Derivative Litigation
Practice - Lowenstein Sandler (Roseland, NJ) ([e-mail])
CLEM C. TRISCHLER: Partner, Chair of Prod. Liab. Prac. Group - Pietragallo,
Gordon (Pittsburgh, PA) ([e-mail])

RICHARD M. DONALDSON: Partner, Montgomery McCracken (Wilm, DE)
([e-mail])

EDWARD (“CHIP”) ROBERTSON: Partner - Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson &
Goza (KS and MO) ([e-mail])
JAN DOUGLAS ATLAS: Partner – Kopelowitz Ostrow (Fort Lauderdale, FL)
([e-mail])

EINER R. ELHAUGE: Petrie Professor of Law, Harvard Law School,
([e-mail])
9 

SUSAN FREIWALD: Professor (Cyberlaw, Information Privacy), Univ. of San
Francisco ([e-mail])

EDWARD KUSHELL: President - The Franchise Consulting Group (Los
Angeles, CA) ([e-mail])
GREGG ABELLA: Co-Principal - Investment Partners Asset Management
(Metuchen, NJ) ([e-mail])
RAYMOND R. LOVELL: Principal – SIG, Inc. d/b/a Visonic Systems (Oakland
Park, FL) ([e-mail])

PERSONAL

Married; five children and two stepchildren (all grown); 15th place in
1985 Boston Marathon; fitness enthusiast; ice hockey player and fan

10 

Exhibit C

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 10, 2015, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed

3 with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing
4 to the e-mail addresses denoted on the Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I
5 caused the foregoing document or paper to be mailed via the United States Postal Service to the
6 non-CM/ECF participants indicated on the Manual Notice List.
7

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

8 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 10, 2015.
9
10 DATED: March 10, 2015

Respectfully Submitted,

11

KIESEL LAW LLP

12
13
14
15
16

By:

/s/ Paul R. Kiesel
Paul R. Kiesel
[e-mail]
8648 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, California 90211
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
5:12-MD-02314-EJD