Schwartz v. Yahoo! Inc.

Filing 24

TRANSFER ORDER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2752) Transferring 2 action(s) to Judge Lucy H. Koh in the N.D. California.Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 12/7/2016. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2752, CAN/5:16-cv-05456, CAN/5:16-cv-05463, CAN/5:16-cv-05466, CAS/3:16-cv-02391, ILS/3:16-cv-01075 (DP)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: YAHOO! INC. CUSTOMER DATA
SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

MDL No. 2752

TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:* Plaintiff in one action in the Northern District of California moves under
28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in that district. This litigation currently consists of five
actions pending in three districts, as listed on Schedule A. Since the filing of the motion, the Panel
has been notified of fourteen related federal actions.1 All responding plaintiffs and defendant Yahoo!
Inc. (Yahoo) support centralization in the Northern District of California.
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 will serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These putative class
actions share complex factual questions arising from Yahoo’s announcement on September 22, 2016,
that a data security breach of its network occurred in late 2014 in which the personal account
information of at least 500 million Yahoo users was stolen. Common factual questions are presented
with respect to Yahoo’s practices in safeguarding its users’ personal information, the investigation
into the breach, the alleged delay in disclosing the breach, and the nature of the alleged damages.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including
with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the
judiciary.
We conclude that the Northern District of California is an appropriate transferee district for
this litigation. Defendant Yahoo’s corporate headquarters is located within the district, and therefore
relevant documents and witnesses are likely to be located there. The majority of actions are pending
there, and all responding parties agree that this district will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses. Judge Lucy H. Koh, to whom we assign this litigation, is an experienced transferee judge,
and we are confident she will steer this litigation on a prudent course.

*

One or more 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 related actions are pending in the Northern District of California, Southern District of
California, Northern District of Illinois, and the Southern District of New York. These and any other
related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1 and 7.2.

-2IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Northern District of California are transferred to the Northern District of California and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Lucy H. Koh for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

IN RE: YAHOO! INC. CUSTOMER DATA
SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of California
SCHWARTZ v. YAHOO! INC., C.A. No. 5:16-05456
SVENTEK v. YAHOO! INC., C.A. No. 5:16-05463
MCMAHON v. YAHOO! INC., C.A. No. 5:16-05466

Southern District of California
MYERS, ET AL. v. YAHOO! INC., C.A. No. 3:16-02391
Southern District of Illinois
HAVRON, ET AL. v. YAHOO, INC., C.A. No. 3:16-01075

MDL No. 2752