Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 138

MOTION to Certify Class filed by Matthew Campbell, Michael Hurley. Motion Hearing set for 3/16/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton. Responses due by 1/15/2016. Replies due by 2/19/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael W. Sobol, # 2 Declaration of Hank Bates, # 3 Declaration of David T. Rudolph, # 4 Declaration of Melissa Gardner, # 5 Proposed Order)(Sobol, Michael) (Filed on 11/13/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
[e-mail]
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
[e-mail]
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.956.1008

12

Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
[e-mail]
Allen Carney
[e-mail]
David Slade
[e-mail]
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 501.312.8505

13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

8
9
10
11

14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
OAKLAND DIVISION
17
18
19

MATTHEW CAMPBELL and MICHAEL
HURLEY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,

20
Plaintiff,

Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W.
SOBOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

21
v.
22
FACEBOOK, INC.,
23

Date:
Time:
Judge:
Place:

March 16, 2016
9:00 a.m.
Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor

Defendant.
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. SOBOL IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)

1

I, Michael W. Sobol, declare:

2

1.

I am a member in good standing of the California State Bar and a partner in the

3

law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (“LCHB”), counsel for the plaintiffs in

4

this action, and, along with Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Co-Lead Interim Class Counsel and

5

proposed Class Counsel in the consolidated proceedings. I have personal knowledge of the

6

matters set forth herein, and could and would testify competently thereto if called upon to do so.

7

2.

I am a 1989 graduate of Boston University School of Law. I practiced law in

8

Massachusetts from 1989 to 1997. From 1995 through 1997, I was a Lecturer in Law at Boston

9

University School of Law. In 1997, I left my position as partner in the Boston firm of Shafner,

10

Gilleran & Mortensen, P.C. to move to San Francisco, where I joined LCHB. Since joining

11

LCHB in 1997, I have almost exclusively represented plaintiffs in consumer protection class

12

actions. I have been a partner with LCHB since 1999. I have served as plaintiffs’ class counsel

13

in numerous nationwide consumer class action cases.

14

3.

LCHB is one of the oldest, largest, most respected, and most successful law firms

15

in the country representing plaintiffs in class actions. LCHB has been repeatedly recognized over

16

the years as one of the top plaintiffs’ law firms by both The National Law Journal and The

17

American Lawyer, winning the Hot List award every year from 2003-2013, the Mid-Size Hot List

18

Award in 2014, and the Hot List Award again in 2015. Best Lawyers and U.S. News have named

19

LCHB as a "Law Firm of the Year" each year the publications have given this award. In 2015,

20

for the third year in a row, legal news service Law360 selected LCHB as a "Most Feared

21

Plaintiffs Firm." Law360 chooses a handful of plaintiffs firms that have won some of the largest

22

and most impactful judgments and settlements over the past year.

23

4.

LCHB has litigated hundreds of consumer class actions, and has significant

24

experience in litigating to vindicate the privacy rights of consumers. For example, LCHB has held

25

leadership positions in the following cases involving digital privacy rights:

26

i.

In re Google Inc. Street View Electronic Communications Litigation, No. 3:10-

27

md-021784-CRB (N.D. Cal.). LCHB, along with co-counsel, represents plaintiffs

28

in a class action alleging that Google intentionally equipped its Google Maps
1

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. SOBOL IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)

1

“Street View” vehicles with Wi-Fi antennas and software that collected data

2

transmitted by Wi-Fi networks located in homes within range of the vehicles’

3

receptors. Google collected not only basic identifying information about

4

individuals’ Wi-Fi networks, but also personal, private data being transmitted over

5

their Wi-Fi networks such as emails, usernames, passwords, videos, and

6

documents. Plaintiffs allege that Google’s actions violated the federal Wiretap

7

Act. On September 10, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with

8

Plaintiffs that Google’s actions are not exempt from the Wiretap Act.

9

ii.

In re Carrier IQ Privacy Litigation, MDL No. 2330 (N.D. Cal.). LCHB represents

10

plaintiffs in class action litigation alleging that Carrier IQ, Inc., and other

11

smartphone manufacturers have violated the Wiretap Act and other privacy laws

12

by installing Carrier IQ’s user tracking software, called IQ Agent, on millions of

13

cell phones and other mobile devices that use the Android operating system.

14

Without notifying users or obtaining consent, IQ Agent records and transmits user

15

data, including personally identifiable information, to cellular carriers. The data

16

are then analyzed and segmented, including by equipment and subscriber

17

identification numbers. IQ Agent cannot be removed and cannot be detected by

18

users lacking advanced computing skills.

19

iii.

Perkins v. LinkedIn Corporation, No. 13-04303 (N.D. Cal.), LCHB, along with

20

co-counsel, represents individuals who joined LinkedIn's network had their names

21

and likenesses used without consent by LinkedIn to endorse LinkedIn’s services

22

and send repeated emails to their contacts asking that they join LinkedIn. On

23

September 15, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval to $13 million

24

settlement, one of the largest per-class member settlements ever in a digital

25

privacy class action. In addition to the monetary relief, LinkedIn has agreed to

26

make significant changes to Add Connections disclosures and functionality.

27

Specifically, LinkedIn has revised disclosures to real-time permission screens

28

presented to members using Add Connections, and has agreed to implement new
2

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. SOBOL IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)

1

functionality allowing LinkedIn members to manage their contacts, including

2

viewing and deleting contacts and sending invitations, and to stop reminder emails

3

from being sent if users have sent connection invitations inadvertently.

4

iv.

Shurtleff v. Health Net of Cal., Inc., No. 34-2012-00121600-CU-CL (Sacramento

5

Cnty. Superior Court) LCHB, along with co-counsel, represented plaintiffs in a

6

patient privacy class action alleging violations of the CMIA. A class settlement in

7

the case resulted in significant monetary relief for a class of patients and important

8

data security improvements.

9

v.

In re Intuit Data Litigation, No. 15-1778 (N.D. Cal.), LCHB serves as Chair of

10

Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee and interim Class Counsel representing identity

11

theft victims in a nationwide class action lawsuit against Intuit for allegedly failing

12

to protect consumers’ data from foreseeable and preventable breaches, and by

13

facilitating the filing of fraudulent tax returns through its TurboTax software

14

program. The complaint alleges that Intuit failed to protect data provided by

15

consumers who purchased TurboTax, used to file an estimated 30 million tax

16

returns for American taxpayers every year, from easy access by hackers and other

17

cybercriminals. The complaint further alleges that Intuit was aware of the

18

widespread use of TurboTax exclusively for the filing of fraudulent tax returns.

19

Yet, Intuit failed to adopt basic cyber security policies to prevent this misuse of

20

TurboTax, resulting in the filing of fraudulent tax returns in the names of the

21

plaintiffs and thousands of other individuals across America, including persons

22

who never purchased TurboTax.

23

5.

A copy of LCHB’s firm resume, which describes the firm’s experience in class

24

action and other complex litigation, can be found at http://www.lchbdocs.com/pdf/firm-

25

resume.pdf, and is not attached hereto given its length. LCHB has litigated hundreds of class

26

actions and has recovered well over one billion dollars for class members. For example:

27
28

i.

LCHB serves as Co-Class Counsel in Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (No.
07-5923 WHA, N.D. Cal.), a class action alleging unfair practices and false
3

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. SOBOL IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)

1

representations by Wells Fargo in connection with its imposition of overdraft

2

charges. In 2013, the court reinstated a $203 million class judgment that had been

3

entered in 2010 following a bench trial. In 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of

4

Appeals affirmed the reinstated $203 million judgment.

5

ii.

LCHB serves on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in In re Checking Account

6

Overdraft Litigation (MDL 2036, S.D. Fla.), a Multi-District Litigation involving

7

more than two dozen banks and allegations of unfair practices and false

8

representations in connection with the banks’ imposition of overdraft charges.

9

Class settlements totaling hundreds of millions of dollars have been approved by

10
11

the court to date.
iii.

LCHB serves as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel and on the Plaintiffs’ Executive

12

Committee in In re Chase Bank USA, N.A. “Check Loan” Contract Litigation

13

(MDL No. 2032, N.D. Cal.), a nationwide Multi-District class action alleging that

14

Chase breached its good faith obligation to credit cardholders by modifying the

15

terms of their long-term fixed rate loans. In November 2012, the court granted

16

final approval to a $100 million nationwide settlement that provides direct

17

payments to approximately one million cardholders and important injunctive

18

relief.

19

iv.

LCHB served on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the Multi-District

20

Litigation, In re Neurontin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 04-CV-

21

10739-PBS (D. Mass.), arising out of the sale and marketing of the prescription

22

drug Neurontin. LCHB was also Of Counsel to Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,

23

Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“Kaiser”) in the litigation. On March 25,

24

2010, a jury determined that Pfizer Inc. violated federal antiracketeering law by

25

promoting Neurontin for unapproved uses and found Pfizer liable to Kaiser for

26

damages of up to $142 million. On November 3, 2010, the Court found Pfizer

27

liable under California’s Unfair Competition Law, ordering it to pay restitution to

28

Kaiser of approximately $95 million.
4

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. SOBOL IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)

1

v.

LCHB served as Settlement Class Counsel in a nationwide consumer class action

2

challenging Progressive Corporation’s private passenger automobile insurance

3

sales practices, Kline v. The Progressive Corporation, Circuit No. 02-L-6 (Circuit

4

Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Johnson County, Illinois). In 2002, the Court

5

approved a settlement valued at approximately $450 million, which included both

6

cash and equitable relief.

7

6.

Since LCHB began working on this matter, LCHB has spent considerable time and

8

resources thoroughly and efficiently investigating the factual issues, analyzing legal claims,

9

conducting discovery, working with expert witnesses, briefing relevant issues, and preparing for

10

(and participating in) hearings. LCHB’s track record demonstrates that it has the resources,

11

experience, and skills to successfully prosecute this case on behalf of the proposed class.

12

7.

LCHB is fully committed to prosecuting this case zealously and efficiently.

13

LCHB is ready, willing and able to commit the resources necessary to litigate this case

14

vigorously. Indeed, LCHB has already committed the time and efforts of multiple attorneys and

15

other staff members for the investigation, research, and litigation of this case, and will continue to

16

do so.

17

8.

18

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this

19
20

I am aware of no conflicts between LCHB and the class.

Declaration was signed in San Francisco, California, on November 13, 2016.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

21
22

By:

/s/Michael W. Sobol
Michael W. Sobol

23
24
25
26
27
28
5

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL W. SOBOL IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)