Schwartz v. Yahoo! Inc.

Filing 44

Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh in Case 5:16-cv-05456-LHK Granting (19) Joint Application for Appointment of Plaintiffs' Executive Committee; Denying (21) Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel ; Denying (23) Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel; Denying (24) Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel in case 5:16-md-02752-LHK; denying (12) Motion to Appoint Counsel in case 5:16-cv-07264-LHK. (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

10
Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ORDER SELECTING LEAD
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL AND
PLAINTIFFS’ EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE

IN RE YAHOO! INC. CUSTOMER DATA
SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

13
14
15

In an order issued on December 13, 2016, the Court invited counsel for the various

16

plaintiffs in this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) to file motions to serve as lead plaintiffs’ counsel.

17

ECF No. 2 at 3. The Court explained that the “chief criteria” the Court would consider in

18

appointing lead plaintiffs’ counsel would be: (1) “Knowledge and experience in prosecuting

19

complex litigation, including class actions, data breach, and/or privacy cases”; (2) “Willingness

20

and ability to commit to a time-consuming process”; (3) “Ability to work cooperatively and

21

efficiently with others”; (4) “Access to sufficient resources to prosecute the litigation in a timely

22

manner”; and (5) “Commitment to prioritizing the interests of the putative class.” Id. These criteria

23

largely track the four factors a district court must consider in appointing class counsel under Rule

24

23(g)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A).

25

On January 5, 2017, the Court received four separate motions to serve as lead plaintiffs’

26

counsel in this action. ECF Nos. 19, 21, 23, 24. On January 12, 2017, the Court received five

27

response briefs. ECF Nos. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38. On January 19, 2017, the Court received two replies.

28

1
Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK
ORDER SELECTING LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL AND PLAINTIFFS’ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

1

ECF Nos. 43, 44.
Having reviewed all of these submissions, having heard the arguments at the February 9,

2
3

2017 hearing, and considering the criteria set forth in the Court’s December 13, 2016 order as well

4

as the factors enumerated in Rule 23(g)(1)(A), the Court hereby GRANTS the Joint Application

5

for Appointment of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee filed by John Yanchunis of Morgan &

6

Morgan, Ariana Tadler of Milberg LLP (“Milberg”), Stuart Davidson of Robbins Geller Rudman

7

& Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”), Gayle Blatt of Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield

8

LLP (“Casey Gerry”), and Karen Riebel of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP (“Lockridge”). ECF

9

No. 19.

10

The Court hereby APPOINTS John Yanchunis as Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel and APPOINTS

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

a Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee consisting of Ariana Tadler of Milberg, Stuart Davidson of

12

Robbins Geller, Gayle Blatt of Casey Gerry, and Karen Riebel of Lockridge. John Yanchunis shall

13

serve as Chair of the Executive Committee.

14

Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel and the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee shall take the following

15

steps to ensure efficiency in representing the putative class in this MDL. First, as Lead Plaintiffs’

16

Counsel, John Yanchunis shall review all billing records for all billers every month and strike

17

duplicative or inefficient billing. Second, all billing shall be contemporaneous, meaning that

18

billing for each task shall be recorded within seven days of the task. Third, all billing shall be

19

recorded by task, rather than by block billing. Fourth, only work that has been assigned shall be

20

eligible for compensation. Finally, Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel and the Plaintiffs’ Executive

21

Committee shall impose and enforce limits on the number of lawyers assigned to each task.

22

Having granted the joint motion for appointment, ECF No. 19, the Court therefore

23

DENIES the three other pending motions to serve as lead plaintiffs’ counsel. ECF Nos. 21, 23, 24.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: February 9, 2017

26
27
28

______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
2
Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK
ORDER SELECTING LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL AND PLAINTIFFS’ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE