Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04619/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-04619-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:552 Right to Privacy Act

---

1

Case No. 13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

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

IN RE YAHOO MAIL LITIGATION

Case No. 13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT AND ORDER 

DENYING AS MOOT ALL OTHER 

PENDING MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 131, 132, 134, 135, 142, 143, 

144, 145, 146, 151, 156, 159, 163, 166, 174

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of the 

proposed class action settlement between individual Plaintiffs Cody Baker, Halima Nobles, 

Rebecca Abrams, Brian Pincus and the Class they represent, and Defendant Yahoo! Inc. 

(“Yahoo”). ECF No. 174 (“Motion”); ECF No. 174-3 (“Settlement Agreement”). The Court held 

a Preliminary Approval Hearing on March 10, 2016. In response to matters raised at the 

Preliminary Approval Hearing, the Parties filed on March 15, 2016 an Addendum to the 

Settlement Agreement, which simplified the objection process. ECF No. 181 (“Settlement 

Addendum”). Having considered the Motion, the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement 

Addendum, the proposed Notice, the record in this case, and the statements made at the 

Case 5:13-cv-04619-LHK Document 26 Filed 03/15/16 Page 1 of 8
2

Case No. 13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

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

Preliminary Approval Hearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Unless otherwise defined herein, all terms that are capitalized herein shall have the 

meanings ascribed to those terms in the Settlement Agreement.

2. The Court has jurisdiction over this Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2) & 

(6).

3. “Preliminary approval of a settlement and notice to the proposed class is 

appropriate if ‘the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, noncollusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential 

treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, and falls within the range of possible 

approval.’” Willner v. Manpower Inc., 2015 WL 54349, *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2015) (quoting In re 

Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007)). 

4. The Court GRANTS preliminary approval of the Settlement and all of the terms 

and conditions contained therein. The Settlement Agreement appears to be the result of serious, 

informed, non-collusive negotiations conducted at arms length by the Parties. The terms do not 

improperly grant preferential treatment to any individual or segment of the Class, and fall within 

the range of possible approval. 

5. The Court bases these preliminary findings on the nature of the claims, which 

would have only allowed the Class to obtain injunctive relief and not monetary damages; the 

benefits to be conferred in the Settlement Agreement; the fact that a settlement represents a 

compromise of the Parties’ respective positions in lieu of trial; and the submissions made by the 

Parties. The Court notes that the Settlement Agreement does not release any claims for monetary 

damages against Yahoo. Class Members may therefore still seek monetary damages against 

Yahoo, even if this Settlement is approved. 

6. Yahoo has stipulated to making technical changes to its email architecture, which 

shall remain in place for three years following final approval of the instant Settlement. As stated 

Case 5:13-cv-04619-LHK Document 26 Filed 03/15/16 Page 2 of 8
3

Case No. 13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

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

in the Settlement Agreement, “Yahoo has no intention of eliminating the[se] architectural 

change[s] . . . after the expiration of th[is] [three year] term.” Settlement Agreement at 6. 

However, as the Parties acknowledged at the Preliminary Approval Hearing, if Yahoo does decide 

to change its email architecture at the end of this three year term, the Release does not bar Class 

Members from again bringing suit against Yahoo. 

7. The Court observes that the Settlement Agreement is the product of almost two and 

a half years of litigation. On October 2, 2013, Plaintiffs filed six separate putative class action 

complaints against Yahoo in the Northern District of California. On December 18, 2013, this 

Court related all six pending actions because they involved “substantially the same basic 

allegations”: that Yahoo’s “interception, storage, reading and scanning of email violates Plaintiffs’ 

and other consumers’ rights of privacy.” ECF No. 14 at 2. 

8. On March 5, 2014, Yahoo moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims. ECF No. 37. On 

August 12, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part Yahoo’s motion to dismiss. See In 

re Yahoo Mail Litig., 7 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Specifically, the Court “conclude[d] 

that [Yahoo’s terms of service] establish[] explicit consent by Yahoo Mail users to Yahoo’s 

conduct.” Id. at 1029. The Court also found that Yahoo’s terms of service “establish[] [that] 

Yahoo Mail users[] consent[ed] to Yahoo’s practice of scanning and analyzing emails for the 

purposes of creating user profiles for both parties to the email communication and sharing content 

from the emails with third parties.” Id. at 1030. 

Of Plaintiffs’ claims, only Plaintiffs’ claim under § 2702(a)(1) of the Stored 

Communications Act (“SCA”) and under § 631 of the California Information Privacy Act 

(“CIPA”) survived Yahoo’s motion to dismiss. Id. at 1043. The thrust of Plaintiffs’ SCA and 

CIPA claims is that “Yahoo intercepts and scans . . . incoming [and outgoing] emails for content 

during transit and before placing the emails into storage.” Id. at 1036 (emphasis added). 

The Settlement Agreement provides Plaintiffs the relief that Plaintiffs seek under both the 

SCA and CIPA: Yahoo will now only analyze emails for content when these emails are no longer 

Case 5:13-cv-04619-LHK Document 26 Filed 03/15/16 Page 3 of 8
4

Case No. 13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

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

in transit and after these emails reach a Yahoo Mail user’s inbox or outbox. 

9. On February 5, 2015, Plaintiffs moved for class certification on Plaintiffs’ SCA and 

CIPA claims. ECF No. 60. On May 26, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part 

Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. See In re Yahoo Mail Litig., 308 F.R.D. 577 (N.D. Cal. 

2015). Specifically, the Court certified the following subclasses:

As to Plaintiffs’ SCA claim: All persons in the United States who are not Yahoo Mail 

subscribers and who have sent emails to or received emails from a Yahoo Mail subscriber 

from October 2, 2011 to the present, or who will send emails to or receive emails from a 

Yahoo Mail subscriber in the future. 

As to Plaintiffs’ CIPA claim: All persons in California who are not Yahoo Mail 

subscribers and who have sent emails to or received emails from a Yahoo Mail subscriber 

from October 2, 2012 to the present, or who will send emails to or receive emails from a 

Yahoo Mail subscriber in the future.

Id. at 606. The Court certified these subclasses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

23(b)(2). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) provides that class certification is appropriate 

where “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to 

the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting 

the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Notably, under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, 

Rule 23(b)(2) “does not authorize class certification when each class member would be entitled to 

an individualized award of monetary damages.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 

2557 (2011). Thus, as a general matter, class members cannot recover monetary damages under a 

Rule 23(b)(2) class. Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 737 F.3d 538, 544 (9th Cir. 2013).

10. On June 9, 2015, Yahoo filed before the Ninth Circuit a petition for permission to 

appeal this Court’s class certification order. ECF No. 120. Plaintiffs filed a reply. On August 11, 

2015, the Ninth Circuit denied Yahoo’s petition. ECF No. 125.

11. Following the Court’s class certification decision, the Parties completed both fact 

and expert discovery. The Parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment, crossDaubert motions, and several requests for judicial notice in support of their respective motions for 

summary judgment. The Parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment were supported by 

Case 5:13-cv-04619-LHK Document 26 Filed 03/15/16 Page 4 of 8
5

Case No. 13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

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

extensive citation to the record, to documents produced during written discovery, and to 

deposition testimony. Although the Court did not rule on the Parties’ fully-briefed cross-motions 

for summary judgment because the Parties reached the instant Settlement on December 4, 2015—

six days prior to the summary judgment hearing—the Court’s initial analysis suggested some

vulnerability in Plaintiffs’ case. Had the Court granted Yahoo’s motion for summary judgment, 

the Class and Class Counsel would not have received any injunctive, declaratory, or monetary 

relief. 

12. The Court approves the proposed Notice and finds that the dissemination of the 

Notice in the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement complies with the requirements of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process of law. The notice procedures set forth in the 

Settlement Agreement are found to be the best practicable means of providing notice of the 

Settlement Agreement under the circumstances and, when completed, shall constitute due and 

sufficient notice of the proposed Settlement Agreement and the Final Approval Hearing to all 

persons affected by and/or entitled to participate in the Settlement Agreement, in full compliance 

with the applicable requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process.

13. Pursuant to the Media Plan attached as Exhibit C to the Settlement Agreement, 

Notice shall be published via Advertising.com, which will place banner ads on a collection of 

popular websites. Advertising.com represents that it will ensure these ads will make 75,000,000 

unique impressions upon Internet users, with no single user receiving more than three impressions. 

The banner ads will direct Internet users, via a link, to the Settlement website, which shall inform 

Class Members of the proposed Settlement and their right to object. 

14. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on August 25, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. At 

the Final Approval Hearing, the Court will consider: (1) whether the Settlement Agreement should 

be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate for the Class; (2) whether a judgment 

dismissing the Action with prejudice, based on final settlement approval, should be entered; (3) 

whether Class Counsel’s application for attorney’s fees and expenses and for service awards to the 

Case 5:13-cv-04619-LHK Document 26 Filed 03/15/16 Page 5 of 8
6

Case No. 13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

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

Class Representatives should be granted; (4) and to rule upon such other matters as the Court may 

deem appropriate. 

15. By March 31, 2016, Yahoo shall file a declaration attesting that the Notice was 

provided in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and this Order. 

16. By April 11, 2016, Yahoo shall file a Notice of Compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1715.

17. By May 31, 2016, Plaintiffs shall file their motion in support of final approval of 

the Settlement, and Class Counsel shall file their motion for attorney’s fees and expenses and for 

service awards to the Class Representatives.

18. The Court ORDERS that each Class Member be given an opportunity to comment 

on or object to the Settlement Agreement, and to participate in the Final Approval Hearing to be 

held on August 25, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. The Class Notice shall state the date, time, and location of 

the hearing. Any Class Member wishing to comment on or object to the Settlement Agreement 

shall mail such comment or objection in writing to:

LHK Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Robert F. Peckham Federal Bldg.

280 S 1st St

San Jose, CA 95113

Re: In re: Yahoo Mail Litigation, 5:13-CV-4980

by July 1, 2016. Should any Party wish to file a written response to any comment or objection 

filed by a Class Member, such response shall be filed with the Court no later than August 15, 

2016. No Class Member shall be entitled to be heard at the Final Approval Hearing unless written 

notice of the Class Member’s intention to appear at the Final Approval Hearing is timely mailed to 

the above address.

19. Any objection must contain: the objector’s name, address, and personal signature; a 

statement whether the objector intends to appear at the Final Approval Hearing, either in person or 

through counsel, and, if through counsel, identifying counsel by name, address, and phone 

number; and a statement of the grounds for the objection. 

Case 5:13-cv-04619-LHK Document 26 Filed 03/15/16 Page 6 of 8
7

Case No. 13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

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

20. The date of the postmark on the envelope containing the written statement 

objecting to the settlement shall be the exclusive means used to determine whether an objection 

and/or intention to appear has been timely submitted. Class Members who fail to mail and serve 

timely written objections in the manner specified in the Settlement Addendum shall be deemed to 

have waived any objections and shall be barred from objecting to the proposed Settlement. See 

Settlement Addendum at 1–2.

21. The schedule by which the events referenced above shall occur is as follows: 

Event Recommendation

Notice Disseminated to Class Members March 31, 2016

Deadline to File Notice of Compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 

1715

April 11, 2016

Motions for Attorney’s Fees and Costs; Motions for 

Service Awards; Motion for Final Approval

May 31, 2016

Deadline to Object July 1, 2016

Claims Administrator Affidavit of Compliance with 

Notice Requirements

August 4, 2016

Replies in Support of Motions for Final Approval, 

Attorney’s Fees and Costs, and Service Awards

August 11, 2016

Final Approval Hearing August 25, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

22. All proceedings in this matter except those contemplated herein and as part of the 

Settlement are stayed. All pending motions1are hereby DENIED AS MOOT. Pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 79-5(g), all documents that were filed under seal shall remain sealed. See Civil L.R. 

79-5(g) (“[A]ny document filed under seal shall be kept from public inspection, including 

inspection by attorneys and parties to the action . . . [for] 10 years from the date the case is 

closed.).2

 

1

See ECF Nos. 131, 132, 134, 135, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 151, 156, 159, 163 & 166.

2 Civil Local Rule 79-5(g) further provides that “a Designating Party may, upon showing good 

cause at the conclusion of a case, seek an order to extend the sealing to a specific date beyond the 

10 years provided by this rule.” Civil L.R. 79-5(g). 

Case 5:13-cv-04619-LHK Document 26 Filed 03/15/16 Page 7 of 8
8

Case No. 13-CV-04980-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT ALL OTHER PENDING MOTIONS

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

23. All Parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

24. Jurisdiction by this Court is retained over this litigation and the Parties to this 

litigation, and each of the Class Members for all matters relating to this litigation, the Settlement 

Agreement, including (without limitation) all matters relating to the administration, interpretation, 

effectuation, and/or enforcement of the Settlement Agreement and this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-04619-LHK Document 26 Filed 03/15/16 Page 8 of 8