Khalaf et al v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Filing 43

TRANSFER ORDER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2583), ( 7 in MDL No. 2583), ( 2 in MDL No. 2583) Transferring 7 action(s) to Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. in the N.D. Georgia.Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 12/11/2014. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2583, CAS/3:14-cv-02175, FLS/9:14-cv-81175, GAN/1:14-cv-02856, GAN/1:14-cv-02887, GAN/1:14-cv-02909, GAN/1:14-cv-02975, ILN/1:14-cv-06975, ILN/1:14-cv-07220, ILS/3:14-cv-00981, MOE/4:14-cv-01545, NYE/2:14-cv-05301 (DP)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: THE HOME DEPOT, INC., CUSTOMER
DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

MDL No. 2583

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in an action pending in the Northern District of Georgia move
under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Northern District
of Georgia. This litigation currently consists of eleven actions—four actions in the Northern District
of Georgia, two actions in the Northern District of Illinois, and one action each in the Southern
District of California, the Southern District of Florida, the Southern District of Illinois, the Eastern
District of Missouri, and the Eastern District of New York—as listed on Schedule A.1
All parties agree that centralization is warranted, but they disagree about the most appropriate
transferee district. In addition to the movants, plaintiffs in fourteen actions and potential tag-along
actions support centralization in the Northern District of Georgia, as do common defendants Home
Depot U.S.A., Inc., and its corporate parent, The Home Depot, Inc. (collectively, Home Depot).
Plaintiffs in another five actions and tag-along actions suggest centralization in the Middle District
of Florida, while the plaintiff in a potential tag-along action pending in the Eastern District of
Louisiana suggests that district as the transferee forum. Finally, several plaintiffs alternatively
suggest either the Northern District of Georgia or the Middle District of Florida.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Georgia will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. These actions share factual questions arising from a data security breach at stores owned
and operated by Home Depot between April and September, 2014, that involved the payment card
information of, by one estimate, some 56 million credit and debit cards. All of the actions contain
allegations that customers’ personal financial information was compromised as a result of this data
*

Judge Charles R. Breyer took no part in the decision of this matter. Certain Panel members
who could be members of the putative classes in this litigation have renounced their participation
in these classes and have participated in this decision.
1

The motion originally listed only three actions, but it was amended to add another eight
actions. The Panel also has been notified of twenty related actions pending in the Northern District
of California, the Southern District of California, the Middle District of Florida, the Northern District
of Georgia, the Eastern District of Kentucky, and the Eastern District of Louisiana. These and any
other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1, and 7.2.

-2security breach. Centralization thus will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent
pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
An alternative suggestion by several financial institution plaintiffs to place the actions
brought by such plaintiffs in a separate MDL in the Northern District of Georgia merits comment.
All the actions, whether brought by consumers or by financial institutions, arise from a common
factual core—namely, the Home Depot data breach. Therefore, they will share common discovery
and pretrial practice, even if certain claims or defenses are not identical. As we have stated on
numerous occasions, a complete identity of common factual issues is not a prerequisite to transfer
under Section 1407, and the presence of additional facts or differing legal theories is not significant
when the actions arise from a common factual core. See, e.g., In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust
Litig., 908 F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2012). Accordingly, we will not separately centralize
the consumer and financial institution actions. The transferee court may employ any number of
pretrial techniques—such as establishing separate discovery and motion tracks—to manage this
litigation efficiently.
We are persuaded that the Northern District of Georgia is the most appropriate transferee
district for pretrial proceedings in this litigation. Home Depot is headquartered in the Northern
District of Georgia. Thus, relevant documents and witnesses are likely located within the district.
Nineteen of the thirty-one actions and potential tag-along actions are pending in Northern District
of Georgia, and a majority of the parties, including Home Depot and plaintiffs in fifteen actions and
potential tag-along actions, support centralization there. Additionally, the district is easily accessible
for the parties in this litigation, which is nationwide in scope. Finally, by appointing the Honorable
Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., to preside over this matter, we select a jurist with multidistrict litigation
experience and the ability to steer this litigation on an efficient and prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Northern District of Georgia are transferred to the Northern District of Georgia and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

__________________________________________
Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

IN RE: THE HOME DEPOT, INC., CUSTOMER
DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

MDL No. 2583

SCHEDULE A
Southern District of California
KHALAF, ET AL. v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., C.A. No. 3:14-02175
Southern District of Florida
RIVERON, ET AL. v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., C.A. No. 9:14-81175
Northern District of Georgia
SOLAK, ET AL. v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC., C.A. No. 1:14-02856
MAZEROLLE v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC., C.A. No. 1:14-02887
MURPHY v. HOME DEPOT, INC., C.A. No. 1:14-02909
FIRST CHOICE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC.,
C.A. No. 1:14-02975
Northern District of Illinois
O'BRIEN v. HOME DEPOT, INC., C.A. No. 1:14-06975
DOLEMBA v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., C.A. No. 1:14-07220
Southern District of Illinois
MARKO, ET AL. v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., C.A. No. 3:14-00981
Eastern District of Missouri
HARTMAN v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., C.A. No. 4:14-01545
Eastern District of New York
O'BRIEN, ET AL. v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-05301