Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05938/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05938-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Non-Motor Vehicle

---

1

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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

MARY SANBROOK, on behalf of herself and all 

others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

OFFICE DEPOT, INC., a corporation, and DOES 

1-20, 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. C 07-05938 RMW (PVT) 

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte 

 

ORDER PRELIMINARILY APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

WHEREAS the parties to the above-captioned litigation (the “Litigation”), have moved pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) for an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement of 

the Litigation in accordance with the parties’ Class Action Settlement Agreement dated February 1, 

2010, as filed with the Court (the “Settlement Agreement”), which (a) sets forth the terms and conditions 

for the proposed settlement of the Litigation; (b) specifies a Settlement Class; and (c) provides for notice 

of the proposed Settlement to potential members of the Settlement Class. 

WHEREAS, the Court has considered the Settlement Agreement and accompanying documents; 

and 

WHEREAS, all parties have consented to the entry of this Order; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. The capitalized terms used in this Order have the same meaning as those defined in the 

Settlement Agreement. 

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 19
2

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

2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), the Litigation is hereby certified, for 

settlement purposes only, on behalf of the following Settlement Class as set forth in the Agreement: 

All persons who purchased a PPP from an Office Depot store in the State 

of California from October 13, 2004, through October 11, 2007, as to 

whom: 

i. The terms and conditions of the PPP were not made available before 

purchase and/or were not delivered at the time of purchase; and 

ii. The PPP was not returned for a refund, and no other reimbursement for 

the PPP was received from Office Depot or WaCA. 

 4. Named Plaintiff Mary Sanbrook is approved and appointed as the Class Representative 

for the Settlement Class. 

 5. The law firms of Maddox, Hargett & Caruso, David P. Meyer & Associates Co., LPA, 

and California Lemon Lawyers are appointed as counsel to the Settlement Class. 

6. Certification of the litigation class by this Court’s Order of March 30, 2009, shall not be 

affected by the Settlement unless and until the Settlement is finally approved, and the Litigation is 

dismissed thereafter. 

7. The Court has reviewed the Settlement Agreement, and the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement are preliminarily approved as falling within the range of reasonableness so as to warrant 

notice to potential members of the Settlement Class, subject to further consideration at a Final Fairness 

Hearing. The Court preliminarily finds that the proposed Settlement is the product of informed, arm’slength negotiation by counsel and is therefore presumptively fair, just, reasonable, valid, and adequate, 

subject to any objections that may be raised at the Final Fairness Hearing. 

8. The Final Fairness Hearing shall be held before the Court on July 9, 2010,, at 9:00 a.m., 

at the United States Courthouse located at 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California 95113. 

9. The class notice process and the claim administration set forth in the Settlement 

Agreement shall be administered by Epiq Systems. Office Depot shall pay the fees and expenses 

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 19
3

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

reasonably necessary to provide notice to the class and provide Class Benefits if and when the 

Settlement becomes final. 

10. Within thirty days of the entry of this Order, Office Depot shall provide notice to the 

class in the form attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2, and in accordance with the class notice procedures 

set forth in the Settlement Agreement. With respect to publication notice, notice shall be published in 

Parade Magazine or USA Weekend, as distributed in the newspapers attached to this Order as Exhibit 3. 

11. Each mailed notice shall apprise potential class members that any objection to the 

Settlement Agreement must be filed with the Clerk of the Court no later than fourteen days prior to the 

date of the Final Fairness Hearing as set forth in paragraph 8 above. Each mailed notice shall also 

apprise potential class members that to be excluded from the Settlement Class, they must send a written 

opt-out notice to the Administrator, postmarked by June 30, 2010. 

 12. Each mailed notice shall further inform potential class members that a Final Fairness 

Hearing will be held on the date and time set forth in paragraph 8 above to determine: (a) whether the 

proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Class, (b) the 

reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees sought by Class Counsel, and (c) whether a Final Judgment should 

be entered approving the Settlement; and to consider such other matters as may properly come before 

the Court in connection with the Settlement of the Litigation. The mailed notice shall further inform 

potential class members that, upon final approval, all claims of members of the Settlement Class against 

Office Depot, WaCA, and related entities arising from the Litigation shall be barred. 

 13. Prior to the Final Fairness Hearing, Office Depot shall file a declaration from the 

Administrator stating that the class notice procedures outlined in the Settlement Agreement have been 

followed and were reasonably sufficient to inform prospective class members of the settlement. 

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 3 of 19
4

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

14. The Court finds that dissemination of class notice in the manner set forth in the 

Settlement Agreement is the best notice practicable under the circumstances, is reasonably calculated to 

apprise interested parties of the pendency of the Litigation, affords such parties an opportunity to present 

their objections or exclude themselves from the Settlement Class, and complies in all respects with the 

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c) and all the requirements of due process. 

15. Any member of the Settlement Class who opts out of the Settlement in accordance with 

the procedure set forth in the Settlement Agreement shall be excluded from the Settlement Class and 

will not be entitled to any benefit under the Settlement Agreement. 

16. Any member of the Settlement Class who does not opt out of the Settlement in 

accordance with the procedure set forth in the Settlement Agreement will be bound by the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement if finally approved following the Final Fairness Hearing, including the terms of 

the Final Order and Judgment to be entered herein and the release provided for in the Settlement 

Agreement. 

17. Any member of the Settlement Class who has not opted out of the Settlement Class may 

file a written objection to the final approval of the Settlement Agreement. The objection must include 

the following: (1) the basis on which the objector or intervenor purports to be a member of the 

Settlement Class as defined above; (2) a statement of the objection(s) being asserted; (3) any 

documentation which the objector believes supports the objection. If the objector intends to appear at 

the hearing, the objection so shall state, and the objector shall provide additionally (1) a list of witnesses 

who may be called to testify at the Final Hearing, whether in person, by deposition, or affidavit; and (2) 

a list of exhibits, and copies of same, which the objector may offer at the Final Fairness Hearing. 

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 4 of 19
5

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

18. All objecting documents set forth above shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court and

served upon Class Counsel and Defendant’s Counsel at the addresses listed below, no later than fourteen 

days prior to the date of the Final Fairness Hearing set forth in paragraph 8 above. 

Class Counsel Defendant’s Counsel

Barbara Quinn Smith 

Maddox Hargett & Caruso 

9853 Johnnycake Ridge Road, Suite 302 

Mentor, Ohio 44060 

Beth A. Levene 

Williams & Connolly LLP 

725 12th Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

19. Members of the Settlement Class who object in the manner provided herein remain 

members of the Settlement Class and will be bound by the Settlement Agreement if it is finally approved 

following the Final Fairness Hearing. 

20. The Litigation is stayed pending the final determination of whether the Settlement 

Agreement should be approved, except those proceedings necessary to carry out or enforce the terms of 

the Settlement Agreement. 

 SO ORDERED this 15th day of March, 2010.

_________________________________________ 

 RONALD M. WHYTE 

 United States District JudgeCopies to: 

Copies to: 

Daniel F. Katz, Esq. 

Paul T. Hourihan, Esq. 

Beth A. Levene, Esq. 

Marnie Lambert, Esq. 

Thomas A. Hargett, Esq. 

Barbara Quinn Smith, Esq. 

Scott R. Kaufman, Esq. 

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 5 of 19
i 

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

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 6 of 19
EXHIBIT 1

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 7 of 19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARY SANBROOK, on behalf of herself

and all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

OFFICE DEPOT, INC., a corporation and DOES 

1-20, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. C 07-05938 RMW

Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT AND 

FAIRNESS HEARING 

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED A PERFORMANCE PROTECTION PLAN (PPP) 

FROM AN OFFICE DEPOT STORE LOCATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

BETWEEN OCTOBER 13, 2004, THROUGH OCTOBER 11, 2007. 

YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION UNDER THE TERMS OF A CLASS 

ACTION SETTLEMENT. IF YOU ARE ELIGIBLE AND WISH TO RECEIVE 

COMPENSATION, YOU MUST RETURN A CLAIM FORM (ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THIS 

NOTICE) NO LATER THAN AUGUST 9, 2010. 

YOU MUST READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU MAY BE 

ELIGIBLE FOR COMPENSATION. 

PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE

This notice explains the nature of the lawsuit 

and the terms of the settlement and informs 

you of your legal rights and obligations. IN 

ORDER TO OBTAIN THE BENEFITS OF 

THIS SETTLEMENT, YOU MUST FIRST 

DETERMINE WHETHER YOU ARE A 

CLASS MEMBER ENTITLED TO RELIEF, 

AND, IF SO, THEN FILL OUT AND 

TIMELY RETURN THE FORM 

ATTACHED TO THIS NOTICE TO THE 

SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR. 

NO ADMISSION OF LIABILITY

By settling this lawsuit, Office Depot, Inc. 

(“Office Depot”) is not admitting that it has 

done anything wrong. Office Depot expressly 

denies that it did anything wrong and denies 

liability to the Named Plaintiff or to class 

members for any claims. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE LITIGATION

Named Plaintiff Mary Sanbrook filed this 

action on October 12, 2007. Named Plaintiff 

contends that that during the class period, 

from October 13, 2004 through October 11, 

2007, Office Depot stores located in 

California did not make the terms and 

conditions of Performance Protection Plans 

(PPPs) available to customers prior to 

purchase, or deliver the terms and conditions 

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 8 of 19
2

at the time of purchase, in violation of the 

requirements of the Song-Beverly Consumer 

Warranty Act, Cal. Civil Code § 1794.41 

(“Song-Beverly Act”). On October 11, 2007, 

Office Depot began a series of material 

changes to its marketing of PPPs that were 

such that Plaintiff determined that that date is 

an appropriate cut-off date for the class period 

relating to liability under the Song-Beverly 

Act. Named Plaintiff’s lawsuit was a 

contributing cause of the material changes that 

occurred in the PPP brochure in October 2007 

and thereafter, including, but not limited to, 

the decision to include the actual terms and 

conditions in a fold-out section of the PPP 

brochure. 

On March 30, 2009, the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California 

ruled that Named Plaintiff’s Song-Beverly Act 

claim may be maintained as a class action by 

Plaintiff on behalf of the class. 

Pretrial discovery has been conducted by both 

parties in this case. Discovery was in the 

form of interrogatories, production of 

documents and deposition testimony. 

In November 2008, and again on October 21, 

2009, the parties engaged in mediation with a 

third-party mediator. In addition, Warranty 

Corporation of America, Inc. (“WaCA”), the 

company that Office Depot retained to 

administer the PPPs, also participated in the 

mediation. The proposed settlement is the 

result of arm’s-length negotiations as well as 

the substantial investigation and discovery 

conducted by Plaintiff's Counsel. Counsel for 

all parties to the proposed settlement have 

fully explored the facts of this case. Although 

Plaintiff and Office Depot disagree as to the 

legal effect of the facts that form the basis of 

this action, the parties have determined that it 

is desirable to settle this action to avoid the 

further expense, burden and uncertainty of 

litigation, and to put to rest all claims asserted 

or which could have been asserted in the case. 

 

The Court granted preliminary approval of the 

settlement, subject to a full Fairness Hearing, 

which is scheduled to take place on July 9, 

2010 at 9:00 a.m., in the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California, 

280 South 1st Street San Jose, CA 95113. 

Class members may refer to the Court file in 

the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California for a full 

description of the history of the litigation 

conducted in this class action. 

THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

Named Plaintiff and Office Depot have agreed 

to the settlement described below. IF YOU 

WISH TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION 

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE 

SETTLEMENT, YOU MUST SUBMIT THE 

ENCLOSED CLAIM FORM BY July 

11,2010. If you are a member of the 

Settlement Class but do not wish to be part of 

the Settlement, you must timely opt out. For 

additional information regarding opting out of 

the settlement, see the section below entitled 

“Your Options.” If you return your Claim 

Form and the settlement is finally approved, 

you will be sent a check for any relief for 

which you qualify. 

THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

The Settlement Class is defined as: 

All persons who purchased a PPP from an 

Office Depot store in the State of California 

from October 13, 2004, through October 11, 

2007, as to whom: (i) the terms and conditions 

of the PPP were not made available before 

purchase and/or were not delivered at the time 

of purchase; and (ii) the PPP was not returned 

for a refund, and no other reimbursement for 

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 9 of 19
3

the PPP was received from Office Depot. 

SETTLEMENT CLASS BENEFITS

Office Depot has agreed that it will instruct 

any third party with whom it contracts to 

administer the PPP program in compliance 

with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty 

Act, and has instructed its current third-party 

administrator to take any steps necessary to 

comply with the Act. 

In addition, Office Depot has agreed to 

reimburse eligible Class Members for a 

percentage of the PPP purchase price in an 

amount based on the type of PPP purchased: 

1. Repair PPPs purchased from October 13, 

2004, through August 14, 2006: 

a. One-year PPP: 60% of purchase 

price; 

b. Two-year PPP: 30% of purchase 

price; 

c. Three-year PPP: 20% of purchase 

price. 

2. Repair PPPs purchased from August 15, 

2006, through October 11, 2007: 

a. Two-year PPP: 21% of purchase 

price; 

b. Three-year PPP: 14% of purchase 

price. 

3. Replacement PPPs purchased from 

October 13, 2004, through October 11, 

2007: 15% of purchase price. 

These benefits will be distributed to those 

qualifying Class Members who: (i) do not 

timely opt out; and (ii) TIMELY RETURN A 

FULLY AND ACCURATELY 

COMPLETED CLAIM FORM (ENCLOSED 

WITH THIS NOTICE), INCLUDING ANY 

REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION,

INDICATING THEY WANT TO 

PARTICIPATE IN THE BENEFITS OF THE 

SETTLEMENT. 

GENERAL RULES FOR ELIGIBILITY

In order to participate in the Settlement, each 

Class Member must timely execute and return 

a fully completed and accurate Claim Form in 

accordance with the instructions on the Form. 

 The Claim Form will be effective as of the 

Settlement Effective Date (when the 

Settlement as a whole becomes final and 

effective) and is conditioned upon final 

approval of the Settlement by the Court. The 

Claim Form is invalid unless all applicable 

parts are completed. The Claim Form must be 

returned to the Settlement Administrator by 

August 9, 2010, the Claims Deadline. 

Persons who Office Depot’s or WaCA’s 

records indicate made qualifying PPP 

purchases will receive a Claims Form for 

Known Purchasers. All other potential class 

members will receive a Claims Form for 

Unknown Purchasers. Both versions of the 

Claim Form require claimants to provide 

contact information, to certify that they meet 

the conditions for membership in the 

Settlement Class, and to acknowledge a 

general release of claims against Office 

Depot, WaCA, and related entities. The 

Claims Form for Unknown Purchasers further 

requires that claimants provide information 

establishing proof of a qualifying PPP 

purchase. Claim Forms will be considered 

submitted when postmarked, if mailed postage 

prepaid and addressed in accordance with the 

instructions set forth in the form itself. 

In the event that a claimant submits a mailing 

to the Settlement Administrator indicating an 

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 10 of 19
4

intent to participate in the Settlement but 

which is deficient on its face in one or more 

respects, the Settlement Administrator will 

notify the claimant of the deficiency, unless 

that claimant received a previous deficiency 

notice from the Settlement Administrator. 

Regardless of the Claims Deadline provided 

above, any such claimant will have fourteen 

(14) days after mailing of the deficiency letter 

to resubmit (one time only) a proper Proof of 

Claim and Release. 

VERIFICATION OF CLAIMS

The Settlement Administrator shall make a 

determination as to the timeliness of 

submission of a claim, whether the claimant is 

a Class Member entitled to relief, and, if so, 

the amount of relief to which the Class 

Member is entitled. Any claim may be denied 

by the Settlement Administrator if it is 

inconsistent with the documentation that the 

claimant submitted or that is or maintained by 

Office Depot or WaCA. The Settlement 

Administrator will mail to each claimant who 

timely and in the proper manner submits a 

valid Claim Form the relief to which the 

claimant is entitled along with a notice stating 

that the claimant has thirty (30) days to file 

with the Settlement Administrator a written 

statement setting forth the grounds of any 

objection to the relief provided and that the 

claimant has the burden of proving 

entitlement to any further relief. The 

Settlement Administrator’s decision with 

respect to any such objection shall be final. 

Office Depot also has the right to audit any 

claims made for accuracy, completeness, or 

entitlement to relief. 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Counsel for the proposed class, including the 

firm of Maddox Hargett & Caruso and 

associated counsel, will petition the Court for, 

and Office Depot has agreed not to oppose, an 

award of $2,275,000 for attorneys’ fees and 

costs, to be paid by Office Depot. Plaintiff’s 

counsel will not request additional fees and 

costs from Office Depot or from members of 

the Class. 

NAMED PLAINTIFF’S RECOVERY

Named Plaintiff will further seek from Office 

Depot an incentive award for serving as the 

class representative in the amount of $10,000. 

Class counsel will ask that an additional 

$20,000 be paid to Named Plaintiff from any 

attorneys’ fees awarded by the Court. 

COSTS

Office Depot has agreed to pay reasonable 

costs for notice of the settlement and for 

administration of the settlement. 

RELEASE AND WAIVER

Named Plaintiff and all Settlement Class 

members (other than those who opt out of the 

Settlement) will grant Office Depot, WaCA, 

and related entities the following release: 

I understand and agree that if I am 

determined to be a member of the 

Settlement Class, I will fully and forever 

release, acquit, and discharge Office 

Depot, Inc., Warranty Corporation of 

America, Inc., and their affiliates, 

parents, and subsidiaries, and all their 

respective owners, shareholders, parents, 

affiliates, subsidiaries, divisions, 

predecessors, successors, assigns, 

attorneys, agents, officers, directors, 

principals, law firms, and legal 

representatives, as well as the heirs, 

personal representatives, executors, 

administrators, predecessors, successors, 

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 11 of 19
5

and assigns of each of the foregoing, in 

each case past and present (collectively, 

“Released Parties”), from any and all 

manner of claims relating to PPPs sold 

from Office Depot stores located in 

California from October 13, 2004, 

through October 11, 2007 (except for 

any claims I may have for product repair 

or replacement pursuant to the terms of 

PPPs that are still in force), and/or any 

claims raised in the this litigation, 

grievances, controversies, allegations, 

accusations, demands, judgments, causes 

of action, demands, actions, suits, 

whether class, representative, individual 

or otherwise in nature, damages 

whenever incurred, liabilities of any 

nature whatsoever as well as all forms of 

relief, including all remedies, costs, 

losses, liabilities, damages, debts, 

expenses, penalties, interest, and 

attorneys’ and other professionals’ fees 

and related disbursements, whether 

known or unknown, foreseen or 

unforeseen, suspected or unsuspected, 

asserted or unasserted, whether (a) 

claiming compensation, money 

damages, equitable or other type of 

relief; (b) based on any federal, state, 

municipal statute, law, ordinance, or 

regulation; (c) based on common law or 

public policy; or (d) sounding in tort or 

contract, whether oral or written, express 

or implied, law or equity, statutory or 

common law, or any other causes of 

action that I, whether directly, 

representatively, derivatively, or in any 

other capacity, ever had, now have, or 

hereafter can, shall, or may have against 

the Released Parties. 

I further understand that under certain 

principles of law applicable in some 

states, a general release does not extend to 

claims that a creditor does not know or 

suspect exist in his or her favor at the time 

of executing the release, which if known 

by him or her could have materially 

affected his or her settlement with the 

debtor, which statute or law is similar, 

comparable or equivalent to Section 1542 

of the Civil Code of the State of 

California, which provides: 

A general release does not 

extend to claims which the 

creditor does not know or 

suspect to exist in his favor at 

the time of executing the 

release, which if known by 

him must have materially 

affected his settlement with 

the debtor. 

TO THE EXTENT THAT CALIFORNIA 

OR OTHER LAW MAY BE 

APPLICABLE, I HEREBY AGREE 

THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 

1542 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND ALL 

SIMILAR, COMPARABLE OR 

EQUIVALENT FEDERAL OR STATE 

LAWS, RIGHTS, RULES, OR LEGAL 

PRINCIPLES OF ANY OTHER 

JURISDICTION THAT MAY BE 

APPLICABLE, ARE HEREBY 

KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY 

WAIVED AND RELINQUISHED. 

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 12 of 19
6

FAIRNESS HEARING

A hearing will be held on the fairness of the 

proposed settlement. At the hearing, the 

Court will be available to hear any objections 

and arguments concerning the fairness of the 

proposed settlement, including the amount of 

the award to Plaintiff’s counsel for costs and 

attorneys' fees. The hearing will take place on 

July 9, 2010 at 9:00 am at the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of 

California, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 

9511. YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO 

ATTEND THIS HEARING UNLESS YOU 

PLAN TO OBJECT TO THE 

SETTLEMENT. 

YOUR OPTIONS

1. If you wish to participate in the 

settlement, you must return the Claim 

Form at the end of this notice to the 

Settlement Administrator on or before 

August 9, 2010.

 

2. You have the right to exclude 

yourself from membership in the class and 

participation in the settlement by filing a 

written request for exclusion with the 

Settlement Administrator at the following 

address: Sanbrook v. Office Depot, PO Box: 

PO Box 2730, Portland, OR 97208. 

The request for exclusion must be sent via 

U.S. regular mail, must be postmarked no 

later than June 30, 2010, and must refer to 

your name and address and the name and 

number of the case, and include a statement 

that you want to be excluded from the 

Settlement Class. 

Please write or type the words “CLASS 

EXCLUSION NOTICE” on the lower left of 

the front of the envelope. ALL CLASS 

MEMBERS WHO DO NOT MAKE A 

WRITTEN REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION 

WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT 

WHETHER OR NOT THEY SUBMIT 

CLAIM FORMS AND PARTICIPATE IN 

THE SETTLEMENT, AND THEY WILL 

RELEASE ALL CLAIMS AS SET FORTH 

ABOVE. 

If you choose to request exclusion from the 

class, you will not release those claims, but 

you would have to pursue any such claims 

through a separate action on your own or 

through counsel you hire. 

3. If you object to the settlement, and 

wish to submit an objection rather than 

simply exclude yourself from the class, you 

must send a written objection to: Clerk’s 

Office, United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California, 280 South 1st 

Street, San Jose, CA 95113; with copies to 

Barbara Quinn Smith, Maddox Hargett & 

Caruso, 9853 Johnnycake Ridge Road, Suite 

302, Mentor, OH 44060; and Beth Levene, 

Williams & Connolly LLP, 725 12th St., 

N.W., Washington DC 20005. 

Your objection must be post-marked on or 

before June 25, 2010, and must include your 

name, your address, and the name and number 

of the case at the top of the notice. The 

written objection must The objection must 

include the following: (1) the basis on which 

you purport to be a member of the Settlement 

Class as defined above; (2) a statement of the 

objection(s) being asserted; (3) any 

documentation which you believe supports 

yourobjection. If you intend to appear at the 

hearing, you must state that in the objection, 

and provide (1) a list of witnesses, if any, 

who may be called to testify at the Final 

Hearing, whether in person, by deposition, or 

affidavit; and (2) a list of exhibits, and copies 

of same, which the you may offer at the Final 

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 13 of 19
7

Fairness Hearing.. Please note that it is not 

sufficient to simply state that you object. You 

must state reasons why the settlement should 

not be approved. 

4. You may hire your own lawyer and 

enter an appearance in the case. If you 

choose to do so, you will be solely responsible 

for the fees and costs of your lawyer. You 

should consult with your lawyer promptly 

regarding this potential course of action. 

OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION

If the Settlement is not approved by the Court, 

the case will proceed as if no settlement had 

been attempted. In that event, Office Depot 

retains the right to contest the merits of the 

claims being asserted against it in this action. 

There can be no assurance that if the 

Settlement is not approved, the class will 

recover more than is provided in the 

settlement, or indeed, anything. 

The descriptions of the case and the 

Settlement Agreement in this Notice are 

general and do not cover all of the issues and 

proceedings. For more detailed information, 

you or your attorney may examine the 

Settlement Agreement and the complete case 

file at the office of the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California, 

280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113. 

The Clerk will make the files relating to this 

lawsuit available to you for inspection and 

copying at your own expense. 

INQUIRIES

Any questions you or your attorney may have 

concerning the Settlement or this notice 

should be directed to Class Counsel at the 

address listed below. Please include the case 

name and number, your name, and your return 

address on any letters, not just the envelopes.

Barbara Quinn Smith 

Maddox Hargett & Caruso 

9853 Johnnycake Ridge Road 

Suite 302 

Mentor, OH 44060 

866-924-4010 

bqsmith@mhclaw.com

www.protectingtheconsumer.com

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 14 of 19
EXHIBIT 2

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 15 of 19
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 

Sanbrook v. Office Depot, Inc., No. C 07-05938 RMW (N.D. Cal.)

If you purchased a Performance Protection Plan (PPP) from an Office 

Depot store located in the State of California between October 13, 2004, 

through October 11, 2007, you may be eligible to participate in a class 

action settlement. 

This Notice is a brief summary. You can obtain a claim packet with additional 

information relating to the proposed class action settlement by using the contact 

information below. 

What Is this Notice About? This Notice is to inform you of a proposed Class 

Action Settlement of a lawsuit pending against Office Depot, Inc. (“Office 

Depot”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California. Plaintiff, Mary Sanbrook, claims that Office Depot failed to comply 

with a requirement of a California statute, the Song-Beverly Consumer 

Warranty Act, that requires terms and conditions of PPPs to be made available 

prior to purchase and delivered at the time of purchase. Office Depot denies any 

wrongdoing and will vigorously defend the lawsuit if the Settlement is not 

approved. Nevertheless, to avoid the costs, risks, and uncertainty inherent in 

litigation Office Depot has agreed to settle the lawsuit. 

Who Is Affected? Customers who purchased a PPP from an Office Depot store 

located in California between October 13, 2004 and October 11, 2007 are 

potential members of the class. Customers who purchased a PPP during that 

period and to whom the terms and conditions were not made available prior to 

purchase and/or were not delivered at the time of purchase are class members 

entitled to compensation under the terms of the Settlement. 

What Are the Terms of the Settlement? The proposed settlement is the result 

of arm’s-length negotiations as well as the substantial investigation and 

discovery conducted by Plaintiff’s Counsel. Counsel for all parties to the 

proposed settlement have fully explored the facts of this case. Office Depot has 

agreed that it will instruct any third party with whom it contracts to administer 

the PPP program in compliance with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, 

and has instructed its current third-party PPP administrator, Warranty 

Corporation of America, Inc. (“WaCA”), to take any steps necessary to comply 

with the Act. In addition, eligible Class Members are entitled to reimbursement 

of a percentage of the PPP purchase price in an amount based on the type of PPP 

purchased as follows: 

1. Repair PPPs purchased from October 13, 2004, through August 14, 2006: 

a. One-year PPP: 60%; 

b. Two-year PPP: 30%; 

c. Three-year PPP: 20%. 

2. Repair PPPs purchased from August 15, 2006, through October 11, 2007: 

a. Two-year PPP: 21%; 

b. Three-year PPP: 14%. 

3. Replacement PPPs purchased from October 13, 2004, through October 11, 

2007: 15%. 

 

Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses: Counsel for the proposed class, including the 

firm of Maddox Hargett & Caruso and associated counsel, will seek, and Office 

Depot has agreed not to oppose, an award of $2,275,000 to cover the legal 

services and counsel’s unreimbursed expenses. Named Plaintiff will seek special 

compensation from Office Depot for herself as the class representative in the 

amount of $10,000.. Class counsel will ask that an additional $20,000 be paid to 

Named Plaintiff from any attorneys’ fees awarded by the Court. 

Release: If the Settlement receives final approval from the Court and you do not 

request exclusion (see below), you will release Office Depot, WaCA, and any 

related parties from any and all claims related to PPPs sold from Office Depot 

stores located in California from October 13, 2004, through October 11, 2007, 

except that the release will not include any claims for product repair or 

replacement pursuant to the terms of PPPs that are still in force. 

What Are My Options? 

Your options include the following: 

(A) File a Claim. Contact the settlement administrator to request a claim 

packet, which will provide you with the necessary materials and instructions to 

submit a claim to receive the appropriate compensation under the settlement. 

You may send requests in writing to Sanbrook v. Office Depot, P.O. Box 2730, 

Portland, OR 97208 P.O Box or call 877-841-8159. ALL CLAIMS MUST BE 

SUBMITTED BY AUGUST 9, 2010.

(B) Request Exclusion from the Settlement Class. If you do not wish to be 

included in the Settlement Class, you must timely and properly submit a written 

request, which must include your name and address, and a statement that you 

want to be excluded from the Settlement Class. The request should be mailed to 

the Settlement Administrator (see address in previous paragraph). Please write 

or type the words “CLASS EXCLUSION NOTICE” on the lower left of the 

front of the envelope. The exclusion request must be postmarked no later than 

June 30, 2010. The Settlement, if approved, will bind all class members who 

do not request exclusion by this date. 

(C) Object to the Settlement. Any Settlement Class member who does not 

request exclusion may object and show cause, if any, why any aspect of the 

proposed Settlement Agreement should not be approved as fair, reasonable, and 

adequate. The objection must be in writing and must include the following: (1) 

the basis on which you purport to be a member of the Settlement Class as 

defined above; (2) a statement of the objection(s) being asserted; (3) any 

documentation which you believe supports your objection. If you intend to 

appear at the hearing, you must state that in the objection, and provide 

additionally (1) a list of witnesses, if any, who may be called to testify at the 

Final Hearing, whether in person, by deposition, or affidavit; and (2) a list of 

exhibits, and copies of same, which the you may offer at the Final Fairness 

Hearing.. Please note that it is not sufficient to simply state that you object. 

You must state reasons why the settlement should not be approved. Include 

“OBJECTION TO OFFICE DEPOT SETTLEMENT” at the top of your 

objection notice and send it no later than June 25, 2010 to: Clerk’s Office, 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 280 South 

1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113; ; with copies to Barbara Quinn Smith, 9853 

Johnnycake Ridge Rd. #302, Mentor, OH 44060; and Beth Levene, 725 12th St., 

N.W., Washington DC 20005. FAILURE TO FOLLOW THIS PROCESS 

WILL RESULT IN A WAIVER OF ANY OBJECTION. 

(D) Hire Your Own Lawyer and Enter an Appearance. You may hire an 

attorney to appear in the lawsuit. You will be responsible for the fees and costs 

of your attorney. 

The Fairness Hearing. The United States District Court for the Northern 

District of California will hold a hearing on July 9, 2010, at 9:00 a.m., to 

determine (i) whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate and 

in the best interests of the Class, (ii) the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees 

sought by Class Counsel; and (iii) whether a Final Judgment should be entered 

approving the Settlement. The Courthouse is located at 280 South 1st Street, 

San Jose, CA 95113. 

How Do I Get Additional Information? This is only an abbreviated summary 

of the lawsuit and the proposed settlement. Additional information about the 

rights of Settlement Class members, how to make a claim or exclude yourself 

from the Settlement, and important dates and deadlines are available in the claim 

packet. You may obtain a claim packet by writing the Settlement Administrator, 

Sanbrook v. Office Depot, P.O. Box 2730, Portland, OR 97208or calling 877-

841-8159 Any additional inquiries can be directed to Class Counsel at: 

Barbara Quinn Smith, Maddox Hargett & Caruso, Phone: 866-924-4010 

email: bqsmith@mhclaw.com., www.protectingtheconsumer.com

DAL01:882516.1 

Additional information concerning the case history is also publicly available for 

review in the Court’s files in San Jose, California at the address above. 

PLEASE DO NOT WRITE OR CALL THE COURT OR THE CLERK’S 

OFFICE FOR INFORMATION.

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 16 of 19
EXHIBIT 3

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 17 of 19
Sanbrook v. Office Depot

Parade and USA Weekend Newspapers

State City Newspaper

California Bakersfield Californian

California El Centro Imperial Valley Press

California Escondido‐Oceanside‐Vista‐San Marcos North County Times

California Fresno Bee

California Handford Sentinel

California Los Angeles Times

California Marysville Appeal‐Democrat

California Merced Sun‐Star

California Modesto Bee

California Napa Register

California Orange County Register

California Palmdale Antelope Valley Press

California Porterville Recorder

California Redding Record Searchlight

California Riverside Press Enterprise

California Sacramento Bee

California San Diego Union‐Tribune

California San Francisco Chronicle

California San Luis Obispo Tribune

California Santa Ana Orange CO Register

California Santa Maria/Lompoc Times‐Record

California Santa Rosa Press Democrat

California Stockton Record

California Ventura County Star

California Victorville/Barstow Press‐Desert Dispatch

State of California Total Parade Circulation 3,359,024

State City Newspaper

California San Diego La Jolla Village News

California Palm Springs Cathedral Sun

California Palm Springs Indio Sun

California Palm Springs Palm Springs Sun

California Placerville Mountain Democrat

California Yreka Siskiyou Daily News

California Salinas Californian

California Watsonville Register‐Pajaronian

California Tulare/Visalia Advance Register‐Times‐Delta

California Madera Tribune

Parade

USA Weekend

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 18 of 19
California Porterville Recorder

California Lakeport Record‐Bee

California Red Bluff News

California Lodi News‐Sentinel

California Grass Valley The Union

California Ridgecrest The Daily Independent

California Palm Springs Desert Sun

California San Mateo/Lompoc Times

California Santa Cruz Sentinel

California Hanford Sentinel

California Marin County Independent Journal

California Hayward/Fremont/Newark/Pleasanton ANG Newspapers

California Marysville Appeal‐Democrat

California Santa Maria/Lompoc Times‐Record

California Fairfield Republic

California San Bernardino Sun

California Los Angeles Daily News

California Auburn Journal

California Napa Register

California Davis Enterprise

California Palmdale Antelope Valley Press

California Ukiah Journal

California Woodland Democrat

California Chico Enterprise‐Record

California Ontario Inland Valley Daily Bulletin

California Benicia Herald

California Santa Barbara News‐Press

California Victorville/Barstow Press‐Desert Dispatch

California Oakland Tribune

California Redlands Facts

California Vallejo Times‐Herald

California Los Angeles County Breeze

California Eureka Times‐Standard

California Los Angeles County

Star News‐Valley Tribune‐Daily

News

California Los Angeles County Press Telegram

California Vacaville Reporter

California Monterey Herald

California San Jose Mercury News

California Walnut Creek Contra Costa Times

State of California Total USA Weekend Circulation 1,622,863

State of California Total Parade/USA Weekend Circulation 4,981,887

Case 5:07-cv-05938-RMW Document 242 Filed 03/15/10 Page 19 of 19