Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.
Filing
238
Motion and [Proposed] Order for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Service Awards filed by Matthew Campbell, Michael Hurley. SEE DOCKET ENTRY 239 FOR A CORRECTED VERSION OF DECLARATION ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT 1 TO THIS DOCUMENT. Motion Hearing set for 8/9/2017 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton. Responses due by 6/26/2017. Replies due by 7/10/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Hank Bates and Michael Sobol, and Exhibits 1-4, # 2 Proposed Order)(Sobol, Michael) (Filed on 5/26/2017) Modified on 5/30/2017 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 5/30/2017 (cjlS, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
msobol@lchb.com
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
drudolph@lchb.com
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
mgardner@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415.956.1000
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
Rachel Geman
rgeman@lchb.com
Nicholas Diamand
ndiamand@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: 212.355.9500
Facsimile: 212.355.9592
17
Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
hbates@cbplaw.com
Allen Carney
acarney@cbplaw.com
David Slade
dslade@cbplaw.com
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 West 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 501.312.8500
Facsimile: 501.312.8505
18
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
13
14
15
16
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
20
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
21
22
MATTHEW CAMPBELL, MICHAEL
HURLEY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
23
24
25
26
27
Plaintiffs,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 4:13-cv-05996-PJH
JOINT DECLARATION OF MICHAEL
SOBOL AND HANK BATES IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN
AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
COSTS AND SERVICE AWARDS
Date: August 9, 2017
Time: 9:00 a.m
Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
Place: Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor
28
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
We, Michael Sobol and Hank Bates, declare as follows:
2
1.
Michael Sobol is a member in good standing of the California State Bar and a
3
partner in the law firm Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP (“LCHB”), counsel for
4
Plaintiffs and the Class in this proceeding. He is the LCHB attorney principally responsible for
5
overseeing LCHB’s work in this proceeding.
6
2.
Hank Bates is a member in good standing of the California and Arkansas State
7
Bars and a partner in the law firm Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC (“CBP”), counsel for Plaintiffs
8
and the Class in this proceeding. He is the CBP attorney principally responsible for overseeing
9
CBP’s work in this proceeding.
10
11
3.
We submit this declaration jointly in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’
Fees and Expenses and for Service Awards for Plaintiffs.
12
4.
Except as otherwise noted, we have personal knowledge of the facts set forth
13
herein, and if called to testify thereto, could and would do so competently, including with respect
14
to the information provided regarding our respective law firms.
15
SUMMARY OF CLASS COUNSEL’S WORK IN THIS CASE
16
5.
As summarized below, investigating, litigating, and negotiating a resolution of this
17
matter required substantial commitments of time and resources from our firms. Throughout the
18
litigation, all reasonable efforts were made to avoid duplication of efforts and to ensure the most
19
efficient management and prosecution of this matter reasonably possible.
20
21
22
23
6.
I.
A chronological summary of Class Counsel’s work is provided below.
Case Investigation and Factual Research Prior to Filing (September 2013 to
December 2013)
7.
Class Counsel began work on this action at the beginning of September, 2013, four
24
months prior to filing. That pre-filing investigation included extensive review of Facebook’s
25
messaging function, consultation with multiple experts, review of Facebook’s terms of service
26
and privacy policies during the relevant time period and investigation of publicly available
27
information related to the alleged conduct.
28
-1-
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
II.
2
3
Consolidation of Actions and Successful Opposition to Facebook’s Motion to Dismiss
(January 2014 to December 2014)
8.
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, commenced this
4
action (the “Action”) on December 30, 2013. In their initial complaint, Plaintiffs asserted claims
5
for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq.
6
(“ECPA”); the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 630 et seq. (“CIPA”); and
7
California’s Unfair Competition Law California Business and Profession Code §§ 17200 et seq.
8
(“UCL”). Therein, Plaintiffs alleged that Facebook, as a routine policy and business practice,
9
captured and reads its users’ personal, private Facebook messages without their consent for
10
purposes including, but not limited to, data mining and user profiling, generating ‘Likes’ for web
11
pages, and targeted advertising.
12
9.
On January 21, 2014, David Shadpour filed a related action, which alleged similar
13
facts and averred identical causes of action against Facebook (see Shadpour v. Facebook, Inc.,
14
Case No. 5:14-cv-00307-PSG (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 1).
15
10.
Class Counsel conferred with counsel for Shadpour and successfully negotiated an
16
agreement to seek consolidation of the actions. On April 15, 2014, the Court entered an order
17
granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate the Related Actions (the “Consolidation Order”) and
18
consolidating the related actions for all purposes. (See Dkt. 24.) Following entry of the Court’s
19
Consolidation Order, the Class Representatives filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on
20
April 25, 2014, asserting ECPA, CIPA, and UCL claims on behalf of themselves and a proposed
21
class of “[a]ll natural-person Facebook users located within the United States who have sent or
22
received private messages that included URLs in their content, from within two years before the
23
filing of this action up through and including the date when Facebook ceased its practice.” (See
24
Dkt. 25.).1
25
11.
26
27
28
On June 17, 2014, Facebook filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated
Amended Complaint. (See Dkt. 29.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition (see Dkt. 31), and Facebook, in
1
On October 2, 2015, David Shadpour voluntarily dismissed his claims, with prejudice, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). (See Dkt. 123.)
-2-
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
turn, filed a reply brief (see Dkt. 35). On December 23, 2014, the Court issued an order granting
2
in part and denying in part Facebook’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended
3
Complaint, dismissing the claims under CIPA § 632 and the UCL, but denying dismissal of the
4
claims under ECPA and CIPA § 631. (See Dkt. 43.)
5
III.
6
Discovery and Discovery-Related Motions Practice (January 2015 to October 2015)
12.
Following entry of the Court’s order granting in part and denying in part
7
Facebook’s motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, the parties engaged in
8
almost two years of extensive discovery, including the production of tens of thousands of pages
9
of documents, fact and expert depositions of 18 witnesses (spanning 19 days of testimony),
10
informal conferences and discussions, hundreds of hours reviewing and analyzing Facebook’s
11
source code and detailed technical documentation, substantial discovery motion practice and the
12
exchange of hundreds of pages of written discovery requests and responses.
13
13.
More specifically, during the ten-month period between the Court’s order on
14
Facebook’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ filing of their motion for class certification,
15
Plaintiffs propounded three sets of requests for Production (totaling 60 Requests), two sets of
16
Interrogatories (totaling eight Interrogatories), and a Request for Admission. Plaintiffs also
17
served a third-party subpoena—consisting of three document requests—on one of Facebook’s
18
outside PR agencies. Similarly, during this time period Plaintiffs took five depositions of
19
Facebook witnesses, including multiple 30(b) depositions covering numerous highly technical
20
topics, including the operation of Facebook’s source code.2
21
14.
Plaintiffs’ review and analysis of Facebook source code was particularly time
22
consuming, given the complexity of Facebook’s systems, which included over 10 million lines of
23
code (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 122 at 3; Dkt. No. 130 at 8), and which Facebook characterized as
24
“complicated and vast” (Dkt. No. 113 at 5), further taking the position that source code review
25
was extraordinary and “unprecedented…in a consumer class action.” (Dkt. No. 214 at 2; see also
26
Dkt. No. 114 at 1). Indeed, this extensive source code review and analysis was at the core of
27
2
28
Broadly, the depositions covered the operation of Facebook architecture related to Private
Message functionality, site security, and Facebook’s creation and use of data and metadata from
the processing of URLs contained within Private Messages.
-3-
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
discovery in this case. It ultimately led to the articulation of the additional practices described in
2
Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification as well as in the Second Amended Complaint, as the
3
Court recognized. See, e.g., Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Class
4
Certification (Dkt. No. 192 at 4, 6).
5
15.
Facebook propounded commensurate discovery, in the form of two sets of
6
Requests for Production, each, for Plaintiffs Campbell and Hurley (totaling 30 Requests per
7
Plaintiff), one set of Requests for Production for Plaintiff Shadpour (totaling 22 Requests), two
8
sets of Interrogatories, each, to Plaintiffs Campbell and Hurley (totaling 15 Interrogatories for
9
Plaintiff Campbell and 14 for Plaintiff Hurley), one set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff Shadpour
10
(totaling 11 Interrogatories), and one set of Requests for Admission, each, for Plaintiffs Campbell
11
and Hurley (totaling four Requests per Plaintiff). Additionally, Plaintiffs defended numerous
12
depositions: all three Plaintiffs were deposed, while four third-party acquaintances of Plaintiffs
13
(with whom Plaintiffs corresponded via Facebook’s private message function) were noticed for
14
deposition by Facebook, and of these four individuals, three were ultimately deposed.
15
16.
In addition, during this same period the parties engaged in substantial letter
16
briefing before Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James, on a host of discovery issues ranging, inter
17
alia, from incomplete interrogatory responses and document production to 30(b)(6) deposition
18
topics to regulatory filings with EU agencies. See, Dkt. Nos. 77, 95, 112, 113, 122. Moreover,
19
during this same period, the parties engaged in protracted negotiation over the production of
20
Facebook’s source code, involving an extensive meet and confer process, contested briefing (see,
21
e.g., Dkt. Nos. 84-85), and ultimately a joint stipulation in which Facebook agreed to produce
22
source code for the time period of September 1, 2009 through December 31, 2012 (Dkt. 90).
23
17.
During this time period, the parties also engaged in their first mediation session on
24
August 19, 2015, before Cathy Yanni of JAMS.
25
IV.
26
Class Certification Briefing and Expert Discovery (November 2015 to March 2016)
18.
During the next portion of the discovery phase, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
27
Certification. (See Dkt. 138.) Defendants filed an opposition (see Dkt. 147-4), and Plaintiffs, in
28
turn, filed a reply brief (see Dkt. 167). Over the course of this time period, the parties continued
-4-
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
with discovery, with both Plaintiffs and Facebook deposing each others’ experts in the class
2
certification briefing, and Plaintiffs taking additional fact witness depositions. The parties also
3
continued to encounter, negotiate and brief discovery disputes. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 186,3 189
4
190.
5
19.
On May 18, 2016, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part
6
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, denying certification as to a damages class under
7
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), but granting certification of an injunctive-relief class
8
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). (See Dkt. 192.) Specifically, the Court certified
9
for class treatment three specific alleged uses by Facebook of URLs included in private messages:
10
(1) Facebook’s cataloging URLs share in private messages and counting them as a “like” on the
11
relevant third-party website, (2) Facebook’s use of data regarding URLs shared in private
12
messages to generate recommendations for Facebook users, and (3) Facebook’s sharing of data
13
regarding URLs in messages (and attendant demographic data about the messages’ participants)
14
with third parties. (Dkt. 192, at pp. 3-5). In addition, the Court directed the Plaintiffs to file a
15
Second Amended Complaint “(1) revising the class definition to reflect the definition set forth in
16
the class certification motion, and (2) adding allegations regarding the sharing of data with third
17
parties.” (Id. at p.6). In accord therewith, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on
18
June 7, 2016. (Dkt. 196).
19
V.
20
Post-Certification Discovery and Settlement Negotiations (April 2016 to November
2016)
20.
Subsequent to the filing of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, discovery in
21
this Action continued. Facebook propounded a third set of Interrogatories, each, to Plaintiffs
22
Campbell and Hurley, and Plaintiffs propounded a fourth and fifth set of Requests for Production
23
and third and fourth set of Interrogatories. Plaintiffs continued with the deposition of additional
24
fact witnesses, as well. During this time, Plaintiffs filed three motions to compel discovery (Dkt.
25
26
27
28
3
Requesting a telephonic conference to compel Facebook to provide portions of four separate
letter briefs related to (1) Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production concerning damages; (2) topics to
which produced documents alluded in Facebook’s current production; (3) configuration tables;
and (4) Facebook’s “predictive coding” used in the course of document production.
-5-
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
Nos. 206, 207, 208),4 which were opposed by Facebook (Dkt. Nos. 214, 215, 216) and which
2
were ultimately denied on October 4, 2016 by the Court, who instead ordered Facebook to
3
provide the alternative discovery described in Facebook’s motion papers (Dkt. No. 218).
4
21.
Parallel to the above-described discovery, the parties also worked diligently on
5
exploring the possibility of settlement, beginning with a second mediation session before Cathy
6
Yanni on July 21, 2016. While not yielding a resolution to the Action, the parties agreed to come
7
back for a third mediation session, which occurred on July 28, 2016. This third mediation was
8
also unsuccessful. For months following the parties’ third mediation session, the parties continued
9
to negotiate informally. Eventually, the parties agreed to attend a fourth mediation, which took
10
place on December 7, 2016 before Randall Wulff.
11
VI.
12
Mediation and Settlement Agreement (December 2016 to January 2017)
22.
As a result of these cumulative efforts, the parties were able to reach an
13
agreement-in-principle to resolve this Action at the December 7, 2016 mediation, and on
14
December 23, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Status Report, advising the Court that they had
15
reached a settlement-in-principle. (See Dkt. 222). Thereafter, the parties worked diligently to
16
memorialize the terms of the settlement, first in a Memorandum of Understanding executed on
17
February 9, 2017. Prior to that execution, on February 3, 2017, to facilitate agreement on issues
18
related to the petition for the award of attorney’s fees and costs, Class Counsel provided
19
Facebook with the monthly time summaries.
20
VII.
21
22
Work after Execution of Memorandum of Understanding (February 2017 to
Present)
23.
Subsequent to execution of the Memorandum of Understanding, Class Counsel
23
negotiated and drafted the Settlement Agreement, executed and filed with this Court on March 1,
24
2017, drafted the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and related filings,
25
attending the hearing on this motion, implemented the notice requirements ordered by this Court
26
and conferred with Facebook on issues related to the settlement.
27
28
4
Respectively, these motions sought to compel production of source code, configuration tables,
and further document searches.
-6-
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
2
3
SUMMARY OF TIME AND COSTS INCURRED
I. Time Incurred By Plaintiffs’ Counsel
24.
We have spent considerable time working on this case that could have been spent
4
on other fee-generating matters. The time that we have spent on this case has been completely
5
contingent on the outcome. We have not been paid for any of our time spent on this case, nor
6
have we been reimbursed for any of the expenses we incurred in this case.
7
25.
In total, from the inception of this litigation in September 2013 through April 30,
8
2017, the attorneys and staff at our firms have billed approximately 11,173.50 hours on this
9
matter, for a total combined lodestar (for the two Class Counsel firms combined) of
10
$6,310,216.30. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 are summaries listing, for each of our firms, each
11
lawyer, paralegal and other professional for which compensation is sought, the hours each
12
individual has expended to date, their hourly billing rates, and their total lodestar.
13
26.
The amounts included in Exhibit 1 are derived from our respective time records,
14
which are prepared contemporaneously, describe tasks performed in 0.1 hour increments, and
15
maintained in the ordinary course of business. Such amounts do not include many hours of time
16
that we have written off in the exercise of billing discretion upon review of these time records.
17
27.
Our respective firms’ billing rates, which were used for purposes of calculating the
18
lodestar here, have been approved by courts in California and throughout the country, are the
19
usual and customary rates that our respective firms charge for services in other actions, and are
20
set in accordance with prevailing market rates. The lodestar calculation provided here is based on
21
our respective firms’ 2017 billing rates. For any personnel who are no longer employed by the
22
firm in question, their billing rate at the time they left the respective firm is used.
23
24
25
26
27
28
28.
A sample of California federal courts that have approved LCHB’s standard billing
rates and reimbursement of costs as reasonable are:
a.
In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., No. 11-cv-02509-LHK, Dkt.
No. 1112 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015) (approving billing rates);
b.
In re: Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales
Practices, and Products Liability Litig., No. 10-ml-02151 JVS (FMOx), Dkt. No. 3933 (C.D. Cal.
-7-
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
June 24, 2013) (awarding requested fees and finding that “[c]lass counsel’s experience,
2
reputation, and skill, as well as the complexity of the case” justified their rates that ranged up to
3
$950);
4
5
c.
In re TracFone Unlimited Serv. Plan Litig., 112 F. Supp. 3d 993, 1009
(N.D. Cal. 2015) (awarding requested attorneys’ fees);
6
d.
Steinfeld v. Discover Financial Services, Case No. 3:12-cv-01118-JSW
7
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2014) (“Class counsel have submitted declarations that show the hourly rates
8
that they have requested are reasonable and have provided the Court with information about other
9
cases that approved their rates.”);
10
e.
Nwabueze v. AT&T Inc., No. C 09-01529 SI, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
11
11766, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2014) (“[T]he Court also finds that the rates requested are within
12
the range of reasonable hourly rates for contingency litigation approved in this District.”);
13
14
f.
Ross v. Trex Co., Inc., No. 09-cv-00670-JSW (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013)
(awarding requested attorneys’ fees);
15
g.
In re AXA Rosenberg Investor Litigation, No. 11-00536-JSW (N.D. Cal.
16
April 2, 2012) (“The Court has also reviewed Lead Counsel’s hourly rates and concludes that
17
these rates are appropriate for attorneys in this locality of Lead Counsel’s skills and experience.”);
18
h.
Vedachalam v. Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., No. C-06-0963-CW (N.D.
19
Cal. July 18, 2013) (“Class Counsel’s hourly rates are reasonable in light of their experience (as
20
reflected in their declarations and the declarations of their peers in the field of class action
21
litigation), and the rates charged are comparable to other attorneys in this field.”);
22
i.
Wehlage, et al. v. Evergreen at Arvin, LLP, et al., No. 4:10-cv-058390-CW
23
(N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2012) (“[T]he billing rates used by Class Counsel to calculate their lodestar are
24
reasonable and in line with prevailing rates in this District for personnel of comparable
25
experience.”);
26
27
j.
Holloway v. Best Buy Co., Inc., No. C-05-5056 PJH (MEJ) (N.D. Cal. Nov.
9, 2011) (“The rates used by Class Counsel are reasonable.”);
28
-8-
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
k.
Fulford v. Logitech, Inc., No. 08-cv-02041 MMC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
2
144437, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2010) (“The Court further finds that Plaintiff’s Counsels’
3
hourly rates are reasonable for their skill and the work they performed.”).
4
5
29.
reimbursement of costs as reasonable include the following:
6
7
a.
10
b.
fees);
c.
15
In re National Golf Properties, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 2:02-cv-
1383-GHK-RZX (C.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2004) (Docket No. 106), (granting requested attorneys’ fees);
13
14
In re Bank of America Credit Protection Marketing & Sales Practices
Litig., No. 11-md-2269 (N.D. Cal Jan. 16, 2013) (Docket No. 96) (granting requested attorneys’
11
12
Smith v. Intuit, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-00222 (N.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013) (Docket
No. 105) (granting requested attorneys’ fees);
8
9
A sample of California federal courts that have approved CBP’s requested fees and
d.
Valuepoint Partners, Inc. v. ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Et al., No. 8:03-cv-
0989 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2005) (Docket No. 109) (granting requested attorneys’ fees).
30.
Federal and state courts throughout the country have likewise approved CBP’s
16
requested fees and reimbursement of costs as reasonable. See, e.g., In re Liberty Refund
17
Anticipation Loan Litig., Case No. 1:12-cv-02949 (N.D. Ill.); Middlesex County Retirement
18
System v. Semtech Corp. et al, Case No. 07-Civ-7183 (S.D.N.Y.); In re Sterling Financial
19
Corporation Securities Class Action, Case No. CV 07-2171 (S.D.N.Y.); Nelson, et al. v. Wal-
20
Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 04-CV-00171 (E.D. Ark.); Montalvo v. Tripos, Inc. et al., Case No.
21
4:03CV995SNL (E.D. Mo.); In re Fleming Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 5-02-CV-178
22
(E.D. Tx.).
23
31.
In addition to the chronological summary of work provided above, the following
24
chart shows the number of hours that each of our firms spent, as of April 30, 2017, on each of
25
fourteen categories of activities related to the action.
26
27
28
Billing Category
Pre-Filing Investigation and
Drafting Original Complaint
Lieff Cabraser Hours
Lodestar
207.70
$118,818.00
-9-
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
2
Consolidation of Actions &
Consolidated Complaint
146.30
$98,414.50
Case Management
180.70
$108,702.50
Case Management Statements &
Conferences
94.80
$66,834.00
Dispositive Motions (Motion to
Dismiss and Summary Judgment)
417.30
$241,181.00
Written Discovery
721.20
$421,219.00
Document Review
645.40
$311,176.50
Experts and Source Code Review
and Analysis
605.20
$351,914.00
Depositions
907.60
$543,920.00
Discovery Motions and Meet and
Confers
1,086.40
$672,208.00
Class Certification Motion
1,045.70
$666,078.00
Second Amended Complaint
42.20
$29,879.50
Mediation & Settlement
342.40
$232,211.50
Post-Settlement Motions and
Related Actions
25.30
$15,372.00
6,468.20
$3,877,928.50
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
TOTAL
27
28
- 10 -
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
Billing Category
Carney Bates & Pulliam
Hours
Lodestar
Pre-Filing Investigation and
Drafting Original Complaint
206.90
$112,965.50
Consolidation of Actions &
Consolidated Complaint
203.40
$108,068.50
120
$78,946.00
Case Management Statements &
Conferences
53.50
$38,598.50
Dispositive Motions (Motion to
Dismiss and Summary Judgment)
382.80
$196,701.00
Written Discovery
491.50
$265,065.50
Document Review
255.20
$117,345.00
Experts and Source Code Review
and Analysis
209.30
$114,090.00
Depositions
840.60
$502,462.00
Discovery Motions and Meet and
Confers
674.00
$348,702.50
Class Certification Motion
687.20
$369,274.00
Second Amended Complaint
13.30
$6,673.50
Mediation & Settlement
485.80
$321,720.00
Post-Settlement Motions and
Related Actions
81.80
$51,232.50
2
3
4
5
6
7
Case Management
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 11 -
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
2
TOTAL
4,705.30
$2,631,844.50
Class Counsel Combined
Hours
Class Counsel Combined
Lodestar
Pre-Filing Investigation and
Drafting Original Complaint
414.60
$231,783.50
Consolidation of Actions &
Consolidated Complaint
349.70
$206,483.00
Case Management
300.70
$187,648.50
Case Management Statements &
Conferences
148.30
$105,432.50
Dispositive Motions (Motion to
Dismiss and Summary Judgment)
800.10
$437,882.00
Written Discovery
1,212.70
$686,284.50
Document Review
900.60
$428,521.50
Experts and Source Code Review
and Analysis
814.50
$466,004.00
Depositions
1,748.20
$1,046,382.00
Discovery Motions and Meet and
Confers
1,760.40
$1,020,910.50
Class Certification Motion
1,732.90
$1,035,352.00
55.50
$36,553.00
3
4
5
6
Billing Category
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Second Amended Complaint
27
28
- 12 -
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
2
3
4
5
Mediation & Settlement
828.20
$553,931.50
Post-Settlement Motions and
Related Actions
107.10
$66,604.50
11,173.50
$6,509,773.00
TOTAL
6
7
8
32.
Based on our experience with other class actions and complex cases, we believe
9
that the time expended in connection with this matter was necessary to ensure the success of the
10
action and reasonable in amount, particularly given the result achieved for the Settlement Class
11
members and the complexity and challenges of the litigation.
12
33.
The hourly rates utilized in the lodestar calculation include no risk multiplier. This
13
Action involves novel issues predicated on claims involving the ECPA’s and CIPA’s application
14
to electronic messages. The caselaw in this context is not fully developed, which resulted in the
15
parties advancing conflicting interpretations of certain elements of Plaintiffs’ ECPA and CIPA
16
claims during the litigation, including the definition of message “content,” the extent to which an
17
interception of an electronic message occurs “in transit,” the contours of the affirmative defense
18
of implied consent, and the extent to which an “ordinary course of business” defense applies to an
19
electronic communications service provider’s acquisition and/or use of message content.
20
Moreover, these novel legal issues were disputed in a highly technical context that required our
21
firms and our retained experts to review extensive source code and technical documents. These
22
issues, and other difficult issues implicated by these claims, required our firms to research and
23
devise litigation strategies to move the case through class certification towards trial, without the
24
certainty of ever receiving compensation.
25
26
27
II. Costs Incurred By Plaintiffs’ Counsel
34.
At the inception of the litigation, we agreed to establish a common cost fund to be
used to pay necessary common expenses, primarily expert and consultant expenses, incurred on
28
- 13 -
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
behalf of Plaintiffs in this litigation. The common cost fund is, and at all times has been,
2
maintained by LCHB, and has been funded by our respective firms through periodic assessments.
3
35.
LCHB has contributed $196,276.00 to the common cost fund since its inception,
4
and CBP has contributed $210,207.00 to the common cost fund since its inception, for a total
5
contribution of $406,483.00. In all, a total of $396,619.19 in necessary common costs have been
6
paid from the common cost fund.5 The costs paid from the cost fund are categorized as follows:
7
Expense Description
Expense Amount
8
9
Experts and Code Review
$338,055.09
Court Reporters and Related Deposition Costs
$52,322.43
E-Discovery Consultants
$6,241.67
10
11
12
13
14
TOTAL
$396,619.19
15
36.
16
In addition to our respective cost fund contributions, our respective firms have
17
incurred other necessary expenses in prosecuting this matter. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a
18
summary of expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, including travel for depositions
19
and hearings, legal research, postage, and other customary litigation expenses. As detailed in this
20
exhibit, LCHB’s expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter total $374,757.71, inclusive
21
of cost fund contributions; and CBP’s expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter total
22
$288,801.41, inclusive of cost fund contributions. After deduction of the $9,863.81 not expended
23
from the cost fund on this action, total unreimbursed expenses are $653,695.31.
37.
24
25
The foregoing expenses were incurred solely in connection with this litigation and
are reflected in our respective books and records as maintained in the ordinary course of business.
26
27
28
5
Of the total $406,483.00 contributed to the common cost fund, $9,863.81 has not been spent in
this case.
- 14 -
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
2
III.
Time and Effort by Plaintiffs
38.
In addition to the time and costs we incurred in this action, the two Class
3
Representatives have spent considerable time and effort in their pursuit of this litigation and in
4
seeking to advance the legal rights and interests of the Settlement Class, including time spent
5
discussing this litigation with Plaintiffs’ counsel, time spent reviewing and responding to
6
discovery requests, time spent preparing for their depositions and being deposed, and time spent
7
communicating with Class Counsel counsel in the context of settlement negotiations.
8
9
10
39.
he has spent in pursuit of this litigation. The declaration of Matthew Campbell is attached hereto
as Exhibit 3 and the declaration of Michael Hurley is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
11
12
13
Each Class Representative has prepared a declaration detailing the time and efforts
QUALIFICATIONS
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
40.
LCHB’s qualifications were previously detailed at ECF No. 138-1 (filed in support
14
of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and appointment of LCHB as Class Counsel), which
15
filing is incorporated by reference herein. As set forth therein, LCHB is one of the most respected
16
and most successful class action firms in the country, and has recovered billions of dollars for
17
class members. A copy of LCHB’s current resume, which describes the firm’s experience in class
18
action and other complex litigation, can be found at http://www.lchbdocs.com/pdf/firm-
19
resume.pdf.
20
21
22
41.
The primary LCHB attorneys working on this case were partners Michael W.
Sobol, David Rudolph, Nicholas Diamand, and Rachel Geman, and associate Melissa Gardner.
42.
Michael W. Sobol is a 1989 graduate of Boston University School of Law. Mr.
23
Sobol practiced law in Massachusetts from 1989 to 1997. From 1995 through 1997, he was a
24
Lecturer in Law at Boston University School of Law. In 1997, Mr. Sobol left his position as
25
partner in the Boston firm of Shafner, Gilleran & Mortensen, P.C. to move to San Francisco,
26
where he joined LCHB. Since joining LCHB in 1997, Mr. Sobol has represented plaintiffs in
27
consumer protection class actions and other class actions and complex matters. He has been a
28
partner with LCHB since 1999, and is currently in his fifteenth year as head of LCHB’s consumer
- 15 -
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
practice group. Mr. Sobol has served as plaintiffs’ class counsel in numerous nationwide class
2
action cases. Mr. Sobol’s qualifications are detailed at pages 6-9 of the Joint Declaration of Class
3
Counsel in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
4
(Dkt. 227-2).
5
43.
Nicholas Diamand graduated from Columbia University of Law in 2002, with an
6
LLM degree as a Stone Scholar. He thereafter clerked for then-Chief Judge Edward R. Korman,
7
of the U.S District Court, Eastern District of New York. He joined LCHB in 2003 where he was
8
an associate until 2006. He was a partner from 2007 until July 2008 and has been a partner since
9
2013. In the intervening period, he was Of Counsel at LCHB. During his time at LCHB, Mr.
10
11
Diamand’s practice has been focused on consumer, securities fraud, and privacy litigation.
44.
David Rudolph graduated from University of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall
12
School of Law in 2004. From 2007 to 2008 he was a law clerk for the Honorable Saundra Brown
13
Armstrong, United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Prior to joining
14
LCHB, Mr. Rudolph worked as an associate at Quinn Emmanuel. Since joining LCHB, Mr.
15
Rudolph has become a partner in the San Francisco office. He has litigated numerous intellectual
16
property cases in diverse technology areas, including internet services, storage visualization,
17
semiconductor design, and handheld mobile devices. Mr. Rudolph has additionally represented
18
several plaintiffs and defendants in copyright infringement and trade secret matters.
19
45.
Rachel Geman graduated from Colombia University of Law in 1997. She then
20
clerked for Judge Constance Baker Motley, United States District Court for the Southern District
21
of New York from 1997 to 1998. Ms. German is now a partner in the LCHB New York office and
22
focuses her work on employment law, consumer protection, and False Claims Act litigation. Her
23
recent clients consist of whistleblowers in the banking, pharma, and healthcare industries;
24
consumers in mortgage and short-term health insurance class action matters; and municipalities in
25
civil rights litigation. She has also previously worked as an adjunct professor at New York Law
26
School.
27
28
46.
Melissa Gardner graduated in 2011 from Harvard Law School. After graduating,
she worked as a law clerk for South Brooklyn Legal Services and at the law firm Emery Celli
- 16 -
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
Brinckerhoff & Abady in New York. Since joining LCHB as an associate in 2012, Ms. Gardner
2
has represented plaintiffs in consumer protection, digital privacy, and mass tort litigation.
3
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
4
47.
CBP’s qualifications were previously detailed at ECF No. 138-1 (filed in support
5
of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and appointment of CBP as Class Counsel), which
6
filing is incorporated by reference herein. As set forth therein, CBP is a national law firm based in
7
Little Rock, Arkansas, and is recognized as one of the country’s premiere firms in the areas of
8
consumer protection class actions, data privacy/security, securities fraud, environmental law and
9
employment discrimination. A copy of CBP’s current resume, which describes the firm’s
10
experience in class action and other complex litigation, can be found at
11
http://www.cbplaw.com/firm-resume/.
12
48.
The primary CBP attorneys working on this case were partners Hank Bates and
13
Allen Carney and associate David Slade. In addition, partner Tiffany Wyatt Oldham, associate
14
Justin Craig and former associate Mitch Rouse performed discrete tasks.
15
49.
Hank Bates is a partner at CBP with 25 years of litigation experience. He joined
16
CBP in 2004, and since that time has focused his practice on representing consumers, farmers,
17
shareholders, small businesses and governmental entities in class actions and complex litigation
18
involving primarily consumer fraud, computer privacy, environmental law and employment
19
rights. He received his B.A. from Harvard College in 1987 and his J.D. from Vanderbilt
20
University School of Law in 1992. Following law school, he was a law clerk for the Honorable
21
Danny J. Boggs, United State Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He practiced public-interest
22
environmental law in San Francisco, California from 1993 to 1997, first with the law firm of
23
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger and then with Earthjustice, before returning to his home state of
24
Arkansas. Mr. Bates’s qualifications are detailed at pages 10-13 of Joint Declaration of Class
25
Counsel in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
26
(Dkt. 227-2).
27
28
50.
Allen Carney is a partner at CBP with over 20 years of litigation experience. He
concentrates his practice on prosecuting complex litigation on behalf of investors, consumers and
- 17 -
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
employees. Mr. Carney played a key role in litigating the various Payment Protection actions
2
against the largest credit card issuers, which actions resulted in significant recoveries for injured
3
consumers. Prior to joining CBP, Mr. Carney was a partner with Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. in the
4
Little Rock, Arkansas office, where he practiced extensively in the areas of complex commercial
5
litigation, labor and employment litigation, and business transactions. Mr. Carney received his
6
B.S.B.A. undergraduate degree from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville in 1991 and his
7
J.D. from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1994.
8
51.
Tiffany Wyatt Oldham is a partner at CBP with 16 years of litigation experience.
9
She received her B.A. from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville in 1998 and her J.D. from
10
the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville in 2001. Prior to joining CBP, Ms Oldham worked as
11
an intern for the United States Bankruptcy Court, Western Division of Arkansas where she
12
researched bankruptcy issues and assisted in administrating bankruptcy proceedings. Since
13
joining CBP in 2002, Ms. Oldham has focused her practice on securities and consumer fraud class
14
action, and she has gained experience with the full range of litigation issues confronting investors
15
and consumers in complex litigation.
16
52.
David Slade is an associate at CBP with 4 years of litigation experience. He
17
received his B.A. from Yale University in 2001 and his J.D. from the University of Arkansas at
18
Little Rock in 2013. At CBP, Mr. Slade’s focus is on consumer protection, specifically in the
19
areas of data privacy and data security. He has also organized cyber safety training for Arkansas
20
law enforcement and victim assistance professionals in conjunction with the National
21
Organization of Victim Assistance. Additionally, Mr. Slade is a member of the Volunteers
22
Organization, Center for Arkansas Legal Services, an organization committed to pro bono
23
advocacy.
24
53.
Justin Craig is an associate with 3 years of litigation experience. He received his
25
B.A. from the University of Central Florida in 2010 and his J.D. from the University of Arkansas
26
at Little Rock in 2014. Mr. Craig founded his own law firm, and as a solo practitioner, focused on
27
serving populations that are historically underserved through providing family law, estate
28
- 18 -
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
planning, and expungement services. Since joining CBP in 2015, Mr. Craig has focused his work
2
on consumer protection.
3
54.
Mitch Rouse is a former associate of CBP. Mr. Rouse earned his J.D. from the
4
University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law in 2014. While in law
5
school, he was selected by the Law Review Editorial Board to serve as the Editor-in-Chief of
6
the UALR Law Review. Following law school, Mr. Rouse clerked for the Honorable D.P.
7
Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
8
55.
Rebecca Kaufman is a former associate of CBP. Ms. Kaufman graduated from the
9
University of Arkansas-Little Rock Bowen School of Law in 2011. While in law school, Ms.
10
Kaufman simultaneously pursued a Masters of Public Service Degree at the Clinton School of
11
Public Service. Ms. Kaufman also holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of
12
Mississippi.
13
14
15
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this
26th day of May, 2017 in San Francisco, California.
16
17
/s/ Michael W. Sobol
Michael W. Sobol
18
19
20
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this
26th day of May, 2017 in Little Rock, Arkansas.
21
22
/s/ Hank Bates
Hank Bates
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 19 -
DECLARATION OF M. SOBOL & H. BATES ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
EXHIBIT 1
Lodestar Summary for Class Counsel for the Settlement Class
Matthew Campbell and Michael Hurley, et al., v. Facebook, Inc.
Case No. 4:13-cv-05996-PJH
Timekeeper Status
(P) = Partner
(OC) = Of Counsel
(A) = Associate
(C) = Contract Attorney
(PL) = Paralegal
(R) = Research/Litigation Support
Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP
Timekeeper
Sobol, Michael (P)
Geman, Rachel (P)
Diamand, Nicholas (P)
Diamand, Nicholas (OC)
Rudolph, David (P)
Rudolph, David (OC)
Gardner, Melissa (A)
Cronin-Wilson, Seth (C)
Anthony, Richard (R)
Ashlynn, Willow (R)
Belushko-Barrows, Nikki (R)
Grant, Anthony (R)
Mukherji, Renee (R)
Calangian, Margie (R)
Ocampo, Erwin (PL)
Chan, Christian (PL)
Carnam, Todd (PL)
Rudnick, Jennifer (PL)
LCHB TOTAL
Hours
1092.7
40.4
451
47.4
1155.4
1334.4
1605.3
405
4.1
3.9
12.8
33.0
7.6
31.5
14.2
9.1
191.9
28.5
6,468.2
Rate
$900
$700
$650
$550
$625
$575
$455
$515
$345
$360
$345
$375
$375
$375
$360
$350
$345
$345
Hours
1,296.80
852.00
34.70
92.60
18.20
6.40
2,404.60
4,705.30
Rate
$750
$750
$575
$375
$375
$375
$395
Lodestar
$983,430.00
$28,280.00
$293,150.00
$26,070.00
$722,125.00
$767,280.00
$730,411.50
$208,575.00
$1,414.50
$1,404.00
$4,416.00
$12,375.00
$2,850.00
$11,812.50
$5,112.00
$3,185.00
$66,205.50
$9,832.50
$3,877,928.50
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
Timekeeper
Bates, Hank (P)
Carney, Allen (P)
Oldham, Tiffany (P)
Craig, Justin (A)
Kaufman, Rebecca (A)
Rouse, Mitch (A)
Slade, David (A)
CBP TOTAL
1
Lodestar
$979,125.00
$639,000.00
$19,952.50
$34,725.00
$6,825.00
$2,400.00
$949,817.00
$2,631,844.50
Grand Total for Class Counsel for
the Settlement Class
Attorney Grand Total
Non-Attorney Grand Total
GRAND TOTAL
Hours
10,836.9
336.6
11,173.5
2
Lodestar
$6,391,166.00
$118,607.00
$6,509,773.00
EXHIBIT 2
Expense Summary for Class Counsel for the Settlement Class
Matthew Campbell and Michael Hurley, et al., v. Facebook, Inc.
Case No. 4:13-cv-05996-PJH
EXPENSE CATEGORY
Travel (airfare, transportation, lodging & meals)
Long distance/
Facsimile/Teleconference
Postage/Express Delivery/Messenger
CBP, PLLC
LCHB, LLP
$67,906.71
$17,373.71
$85,280.42
$1,075.80
$4,441.48
$5,517.28
$560.49
$3,675.65
$4,236.14
Commercial Copies
Internal Reproduction Copies
$89.00
$762.44
$75.00
Electronic Database
Computer Research/PACER
$20,081.04
$90,398.11
$825.39
$1,306.39
$11,223.60
$279.00
$4,350.00
$9,414.67
$17,147.64
$16,787.50
$7,732.97
Other Charges
$16,787.50
$305.00
$210,207.00
$196,276.00
$305.00
$406,483.00
($9,863.81)
Funds Not Expended from Common Cost Fund
TOTAL EXPENSES
$354.00
$4,350.00
Mediation Expenses
Common Cost Fund Contributions
$19,318.60
$11,223.60
$481.00
Court Reporters/Transcripts
Witness/Service Fees
$89.00
$90,398.11
Experts/Consultants
Court Fees
Total
$288,801.41
1
$374,757.71
$653,695.31
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
msobol@lchb.com
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
drudolph@lchb.com
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
mgardner@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415.956.1000
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
Rachel Geman
rgeman@lchb.com
Nicholas Diamand
ndiamand@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: 212.355.9500
Facsimile: 212.355.9592
17
Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
hbates@cbplaw.com
Allen Carney
acarney@cbplaw.com
David Slade
dslade@cbplaw.com
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
519 West 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: 501.312.8500
Facsimile: 501.312.8505
18
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
13
14
15
16
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
20
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
21
22
MATTHEW CAMPBELL, MICHAEL
HURLEY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
23
24
25
26
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 4:13-cv-05996-PJH
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL HURLEY
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AND COSTS AND SERVICE AWARDS
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendant.
Date: August 9, 2017
Time: 9:00 a.m
Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
Place: Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor
27
28
-1-
DECLARATION OF M. HURLEY ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
1
I, Michael Hurley, declare as follows:
2
1.
I am one of the Named Plaintiffs in this case.
3
2.
I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award of
4
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs and Service Awards. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated
5
herein. If called to testify to the contents of this declaration, I could and would competently do
6
so.
7
3.
After initiating this lawsuit, I actively participated in this litigation, including
8
through discussions with my attorneys about the litigation about the litigation’s progress and
9
significant milestones, the multiple mediations, and the ultimate settlement of the lawsuit.
10
4.
I provided information for and reviewed the Complaint in which I am a named
11
Plaintiff filed on December 30, 2013, the Consolidated Amended Complaint filed on April 25,
12
2014, and the Second Amended Complaint filed on June 7, 2016.
13
5.
I also provided information and documents to my attorneys for purposes of
14
responding to Defendant’s discovery requests—totaling 15 Interrogatories, four Requests for
15
Admission, and 30 Requests for Production. The documents I searched for, gathered, reviewed
16
and produced in the course of responding to Defendant’s Requests for Production were culled
17
from, inter alia, all of the Private Messages in my personal Facebook account, from which 17
18
responsive Private Messages were produced.
19
6.
On July 9, 2015, I was deposed by Counsel for Defendant from 9:01 am until 3:42
20
pm, inclusive of breaks. I travelled from North Plains, Oregon to San Francisco, California to
21
attend this deposition. In preparation for this deposition I met with Class Counsel both
22
telephonically and in-person.
23
7.
Throughout the litigation, I had numerous telephonic, email, and in-person
24
meetings with Class Counsel. They routinely kept me advised as to the status of the case and
25
responded to any questions I had.
26
27
8.
I also stayed up to date on and informed of case developments by reviewing and
discussing with Class Counsel the major filings and events in the case.
28
-1-
DECLARATION OF M. HURLEY ISO
MOT. FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH
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?