Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 22

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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
JOSHUA A. JESSEN, SBN 222831
[e-mail]
JEANA BISNAR MAUTE, SBN 290573
[e-mail]
JESSICA S. OU, SBN 280534
[e-mail]
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
GAIL E. LEES, SBN 90363
[e-mail]
CHRISTOPHER CHORBA, SBN 216692
[e-mail]
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
FACEBOOK, INC.

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

OAKLAND DIVISON

17
18

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

19
20
21

Plaintiffs,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,

22
23
24

27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

CLASS ACTION
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
AND APPOINT INTERIM COUNSEL

Defendant.
DAVID SHADPOUR, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

25
26

Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
Case No. C 14-00307 PJH

Plaintiffs,

HEARING:
Date:
May 7, 2014
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Place: Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor
Judge: The Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton

v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
RELATED ACTIONS AND APPOINT INTERIM COUNSEL, Case Nos. C 13-05996 PJH and 14-00307 PJH

1

Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) supports Plaintiffs’ request to consolidate the cases

2

for pretrial purposes pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Facebook

3

specifically reserves its right to oppose class certification on all available grounds, including but not

4

limited to the absence of common questions susceptible to common answers, see Wal-Mart Stores,

5

Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551, 180 L. Ed. 2d 374 (2011), and that common questions do not

6

predominate over individualized questions, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend,

7

133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013).

8
9

Facebook generally expresses no view as to which lawyer and firm should serve as interim
class counsel, because this is a matter for the Plaintiffs/clients and the Court to decide. However,

10

Facebook respectfully requests that this Court approve a structure that ensures coordinated and

11

efficient prosecution of these overlapping putative class actions through consolidated discovery and

12

motions practice.1

13
14

Subject to the Court’s preference, Facebook submits a hearing is unnecessary on Plaintiffs’
Motion.

15
16
17

Respectfully submitted,
DATED: April 4, 2014

18

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

By:

/s/
JOSHUA A. JESSEN

19
20

Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

1

Facebook also reserves its right to object to any future request for attorneys’ fees. Where, as
here, numerous attorneys and law firms seek a lead role in the litigation, the Court is tasked with
developing an efficient structure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). A primary purpose of appointing interim
class counsel is to maximize efficiencies and to eliminate duplication of efforts and “unproductive
posturing” by the various plaintiffs’ lawyers and firms. See 5 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 23.121
(3d ed. 2010). Any proposed structure should reduce the risk “of overstaffing or an ungainly
counsel structure.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) advisory committee’s note. See also, e.g., Bernard v.
Cont’l Ill. Corp., 572 F. Supp. 931, 933 (N.D. Ill. 1983) (“Generally, attorneys should work
independently, without the incessant ‘conferring’ that so often forms a major part of the fee
petition in all but the tiniest cases.”); In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 98 F.R.D. 48, 75 (E.D. Pa.
1983) (It is “inevitable that this type of [multi-firm committee] structure [will] generate wasted
hours on useless tasks, propagate duplication and mask outright padding.”).
1

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
RELATED ACTIONS AND APPOINT INTERIM COUNSEL, Case Nos. C 13-05996 PJH and 14-00307 PJH