Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01282/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-01282-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Property

---

1

Case No.: 5:16-cv-01282-EJD

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM 

CO-LEAD COUNSEL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

WINSTON SMITH, et al., on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:16-cv-01282-EJD 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE MOTION FOR 

APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM COLEAD COUNSEL

Re: Dkt. No. 80

Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), Plaintiffs Winston Smith, Jane Doe I and 

Jane Doe II (“Plaintiffs”) move for an order appointing their counsel as interim co-lead class 

counsel and approving a structure for representation designating certain counsel as part of an 

Executive Committee and certain other counsel as part of a Steering Committee. Dkt. No. 80. In 

support of this request, Plaintiff’s note their suspicion “that the privacy violations alleged in the 

Complaint are widespread and will result in the filing of numerous related actions nationwide.” 

For its part, Defendant Facebook, Inc. does not oppose the motion, but “defers to the Court to 

determine whether interim co-lead counsel is necessary before any related actions are filed.” Dkt. 

No. 90. 

This matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-

3. Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for August 18, 2016, is VACATED, and the court finds, 

concludes and orders as follows: 

1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3), the court “may designate 

interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the action 

Case 5:16-cv-01282-EJD Document 108 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:16-cv-01282-EJD

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM 

CO-LEAD COUNSEL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

as a class action.” “Instances in which interim class counsel is appointed are those in which 

overlapping, duplicative, or competing class suits are pending before a court, so that appointment 

of interim counsel is necessary to protect the interests of class members.” White v. TransUnion, 

LLC, 239 F.R.D. 681, 683 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 

21.11 (2004)). “The decision regarding appointment of Lead Counsel is within the discretion of 

the Court.” Horn v. Raines, 227 F.R.D. 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2005). 

2. Here, despite the representation made in the motion, Plaintiffs have yet to identify 

another competing, potentially related action asserting the same privacy violations alleged in the 

Complaint such that more than one proposed representation structure is possible. Consequently, 

the court finds that appointment of interim class counsel, at least at this time, is neither necessary 

to protect the interests of class members nor useful in promoting the efficient administration of 

Plaintiffs’ claims. See Gallardo v. Bennett, No. C-06-3864 JF (PVT), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

76216, at *8, 2006 WL 2884497 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2006) (“The Court will not grant a motion for 

appointment of lead counsel when no other plaintiffs have brought a [] suit and no other counsel 

claims the position of lead counsel.”). 

On that basis, the Motion for Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel (Dkt. No. 80) is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to being renewed, consistent with preceding discussion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-01282-EJD Document 108 Filed 08/08/16 Page 2 of 2