# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 39 09

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
In re: Targ et Co rp or at io n C us to m er Dat a Sec ur it y Brea ch Lit ig at io n

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Ji m Sci aro ni

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Obj ect or

- App el la nt

v.

Co ns um er Pl ai nt iff

s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e
Targ et Co rp or at io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 39 12

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
In re: Targ et Co rp or at io n C us to m er Dat a Sec ur it y Brea ch Lit ig at io n

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Leif A. Olso n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Obj ect or

- App el la nt

v.Co ns um er Pl ai nt iff s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e
Targ et Co rp or at io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 12 03

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
In re: Targ et Co rp or at io n C us to m er Dat a Sec ur it y Brea ch Lit ig at io n

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Leif A. Olso n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Obj ect or

- App el la nt

v.

Co ns um er Pl ai nt iff

s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e
Targ et Co rp or at io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 12 45

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
In re: Targ et Co rp or at io n C us to m er Dat a Sec ur it y Brea ch Lit ig at io n

-2

------ ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Ji m Sci aro ni

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Obj ect or

- App el la nt

v.

Co ns um er Pl ai nt iff

s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e
Targ et Co rp or at io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 14 08

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
In re: Targ et Co rp or at io n C us to m er Dat a Sec ur it y Brea ch Lit ig at io n

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Leif A. Olso n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Obj ect or

- App el la nt

v.

Co ns um er Pl ai nt iff

s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e
Targ et Co rp or at io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

-3

-__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 15 , 20 17 Fil ed : M ay

2, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BENTON an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d S TRAND, Dist ric t J ud ge

. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

On Feb ru ary 1, 20 17
, th is co ur t rem an de d th is c a se fo r fu rth er co ns id erat io n of cl as s cert ifi cat io n, an d r e v e r s e d t he im po si ti on of a $4 9,1 56 ap pe al bo nd

. In re Tar ge t Co rp . C

u s t o m er Dat

a Sec. Br ea ch Lit

ig

. , 84 7 F.3 d 60 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ). App el la nt Leif A. Ols on m ov ed to a m en d th e se co nd se nt en ce in fo ot no te 3 of th e
op in io n:

In th e di st ric t co ur t, Ols on al so arg ue d th at th e se tt le m en t di d no t sa ti sf y 3 Ru le 23 ’s su pe rio rit y or pr ed om in an ce req ui rem en t s , th e se tt le m en t te rm s were un fai r on acco un t o f s e l f-d eal in g by cl as s co un se l, an d th e at to rn ey s’ fee pr ov is io n was un reas on ab le

. Tho ug h th e co ur t reject ed al l of th es e arg um en ts , Ols on ap pe al s on ly th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng on cert ifi cat io n.

Ols on co nt en ds th at he ap pe al ed th e fai rn es s of th e se tt le m en t an d th e reas on ab le ne ss of th e at to rn ey s’ fees . The m ot io n t o a m en d i s g ran te d.

The Hon or ab le Leo na rd T. St ran d, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa , si tt in g b y de si gn at io n.

-4

-I.

Thi s cas e fo ll ows Targ et ’s ann ou nc em en t th at th ird pa rti es co m pr om is ed th e
pa y m en t-c ard da ta an d per so na l in fo rm at io n of up to 11 0 m il li on Targ et cu st om ers

. Befo re th e di st ric t co ur t, ap pe ll an ts Ols on an d Ji m Sci aro ni se pa rat el y ob jecte d to th e

se tt le m en t p ro po se d b y

Targ et an d a cla ss of c on su m er-p la in ti ffs . After t he di st ric t

co ur t ov erru le d Ols on ’s an d Sci aro ni ’s ob jecti on s an d ap pr ov ed th e se tt le m en t, th ey fil ed se pa rat e no ti ces of a p p e a l

. Thi s co ur t co ns ol id at ed th os e ap pe al s, m ak in g Ols on ’s and Sci aro ni ’s app el la nt bri efs du e th e sa m e d ay , Apri l 7

.

Ols on fil ed hi s bri ef on ti m e. Ols on ’s br ie f di d no t add res s att or ne y s’ fees or

se tt le m en t fai rn es s. Sci aro ni su bm it te d hi s br ie f two ho ur s la te r, bu t it was de fic ie nt

an d no t acce pt ed fo r fil in g. Sci aro ni su bm it te d a r e v i s ed br ie f si x da y s la te r. The

ne xt da y , Ol so n fil ed a le tt er. W hi le lab el ed on th e d oc ke t as a “ 28 (j) ci ta ti on ,” th e le tt er ex pl ic it ly in vo ke s Fed eral Ru le of App el la te Pro ced ur e 28 (i)

. Ols on wro te th at he “ joi ns Sect io ns II an d I V o f t he Ope ni ng Bri ef of Ja m es Sci aro ni
, wit h th e

ex cep ti on of th e se nt en ce on pa ge 35 accu si ng th e se tt li ng pa rti es of co ll us i o n .”
Sect io ns II an d IV of Sci aro ni ’s br ie f ad dr es s at to rn ey s’ fees an d se tt le m en t fai rn es s.

II.

Ru le 28 (i) pr ov id es : “ In a cas e in vo lv in g m or e th an on e ap pe ll an t or ap pe ll ee, in cl ud in g co ns ol id at ed cas es , an y nu m be r of ap pe ll a n t s o r a p pe ll ees m ay joi n in a br ie f, an d an y pa rty m ay ad op t by refe ren ce a pa rt of an ot he r’s br ie f.” The Ru le do es

no t s ta te ho w a pa rty “ m ay ad op t” pa rt of an ot he r’s br ie f. Thi s co ur t d oe s n ot ha ve

a lo cal ru le on po in t. Th e c o ur ts of ap pe al s, ho wev er, ro ut in el y pe rm it Ru le 28 (i) ad op ti o n by le tt er. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Ha rr is
, 74 0 F.3 d 95 6, 96 9 n.7 (5 th Ci r. 20 14 ); Unit

ed St at es v. Pryo r , 47 4 F. App x. 83 1, 83 2 n.2 (2 d Ci r. 20 12 ); Unit ed
St at es v. Co cchi ol

a , 35 8 F. App x. 37 6, 37 8 n.3 (3 d Ci r. 20 09 ). Ols on ’s le tt er ad op te d by referen ce p art of S ci aro ni ’s bri ef p ur su an t t o R ul e 2 8( i).

-5

-The co ns um er-p la in ti ffs an d d is se nt in g o pi ni on pro po se se ve ral reas on s why

Ols on ’s R ul e 28 (i) le tt er di d no t effe ct iv el y ad op t p art of S ci aro ni ’s b rie f. Non e of th es e rea so ns wit hs ta nd scr ut in y

.

A.

T he co ns um er-p la in ti ffs an d di ss en ti ng op in ion sugg es t tha t Ru le 28( i) doe s not al lo w a pa rty to ad op t arg um en t on an is su e th at th e pa rty di d no t it se lf rai se in it s
pr in ci pa l br ie f. True
, Ru le 28 (a) req ui res an ap pe ll an t’s br ie f to st at e t he is su es
pr es en te d fo r rev ie w. Ru le 28 (i)
, ho wev er, al lo ws pa rti es to rai se is su es th ey di d no t rai se in th ei r own br ie fs —i n fact
, it al lo ws a pa rty no t to fil e a br ie f at al l an d si m pl y

“ joi n in ” an ot he r’s br ie f. St at ed di ffer en tl y , Ru le 28 (a) pr ov id es on e way fo r pa rti es
to rai se is su es on ap pe al , and Ru le 28 (i) pro vi de s an ot he r.

The co ns um er-p la in ti ffs an d di ss en ti ng op in io n arg ue th at th e ap pe ll an t’s br ie f is th e on ly way a pa rty m ay rai se an is su e on ap pe al

. Th e y i n v o k e Uni te d St at es v. Bo h m o nt , 41 3 F. App x. 94 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), bu t th ey m is read it

. The re, ap pe l l a n t W ad e Bo hm on t fil ed a br ie f rai si ng fiv e is su es

. App el la nt Co lt on D. In m on fil ed hi s br ie f fo ur m on th s la te r. In m on li st ed two is su es , bo th rai se d by Bo hm on t in hi s br ie f.
In m on “ al so in cl ud ed a se pa rat e ‘Stat em en t Reg ard in g Ad op ti on of B rie fs of Ot he r Part ie s,’” sa y in g he “ he reb y ad op ts th e fact ua l an d le ga l arg um en ts se t ou t in th e br ie f of ap pe ll an t W ad e Bo hm on t.” Id

. at 94 9 n.4

. The co ur t “ co ns tru e[d ] th at st at em en t

as an effo rt by In m on pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of App el la te Pro ced ur e 28 (i) to ad op t th e fact ua l an d le ga l arg um en t s m ad e in Bo hm on t’s br ie f wit h res pe ct to th e two
sp eci fic is su es li st ed by In m on fo r rev ie w.” Id

. In th e co nt ex t of Inm on ’s ad op ti on
st at em en t, th is in te rp ret at io n m ak es se ns e. In m on fil ed h i s b r i e f m on th s aft er Bo hm on t’s, so by li st in g two is su es th at Bo hm on t had li st ed an d ge ne ric al ly st at in g th a t h e a do pt ed Bo hm on t’s arg um en ts , In m on in di cat ed he in te nd ed to rai se on ly th os e two is su es

. The co u r t ’s st at em en t th at it “ wil l no t pe rm it ” In m on to ad op t Bo hm on t’s ot he r is su es is no t (a s th e di ss en ti ng op in io n co nt en ds ) a un iv ers al

-6

-pr oh ib it io n on ad op ti ng arg um en ts no t li st ed in a pr in ci pa l br ie f’s st at em en t of is su es

.

Se e id

. Rat he r, it is a sp eci fic pr oh ib it io n fit to th e fact s of Boh mon t : In m on fil ed hi s br ie f well aft er Bo hm on t’s, li st ed sp eci fic is su es th at Bo hm on t al so li st ed
, an d

ge ne ric al ly ado pt ed “ th e fac tu al an d l eg al arg um en ts set ou t i n” Bo hm on t’s b rie f.

Here, un li ke Boh mon t , Ols on (th e pa rty ad op ti ng pa rt of an ot he r’s br ie f) fil ed hi s br ie f be

fo re Sci aro ni

. His Ru le 28 (i) le tt er cl earl y id en ti fie s th e pa rts of Sci aro ni ’s br ie f th at he is ad op ti ng

. The di ss en t’s ru le wou ld m ak e ad op ti on by a f i r st -fi li ng
pa rty li ke Ols on ex tra or di na ril y cu m be rs om e: If th e fi r s t f

i l e r di d no t co rrec tl y
pr ed ic t th e is su es th at ot he r pa rti es wou ld rai se , it wou ld ha ve to m ov e th e co ur t fo r
pe rm is si on to am en d it s fir st -fi le d br ie f to ad d is su es to it s s t a t e ment of is su es , a nd

rece iv e th at pe rm is si on , bef or e it co ul d jo in in th os e un pr ed ic te d is su es

. Ru le 28 (i) render s unne ce ssa

ry tha t tim e- co nsum ing, fo rm al is ti c ex erci se by pe rm it ti ng ad op ti on of ad di ti on al is su es th ro ug h a let te r li ke Ols on ’s.

B.

The di ss en ti ng op i n i o n arg ue s th at al lo win g ad op ti on in th is in st an ce wou ld

pe rm it Ols on to effe ct iv el y vi ol at e th e pr i n c i p al -b rie f wor d li m it im po se d by Ru le
32 (a)( 7) (B)( i). Bu t Ru l e 32 (a)( 7) (B)( i) pl aces a wor d li m it on pr in ci pa l br ie fs

. Ols on ’s ado pt io n d oe s n ot cau se hi s p rin ci pa l b rie f to ex ceed th e wor d l im it

.

The Ru le s im

po se no li m it on th e vo lu m e of wor ds on e pa rty m ay ad op t. And fo r go od reas on

. Perm it ti ng un li m it ed ad op ti on of br ie fs wil l ge ne ral ly no t cau se th e
pr ob le m s th at wor d li m it s are de si gn ed to av oi d, si nc e co ur ts an d pa rti es al read y ha ve
to read an d res po nd to th e br ie fs be in g ad op te d. The re is
, th eref or e, ge ne ral ly no co st
to pe rm it ti ng un l i mi t e d ad op ti on

. The di ss en ti ng op in io n’s pr op os al
, on th e ot he r ha n d
, w o u l d l ik el y req ui re co ur ts an d pa rti es to read an d res po nd to ad di ti on al

req ue st s fo r pe rm is si on to fil e ov erl en gt h br ie fs
, ta xi ng jud ic ia l res ou rces an d in crea si ng th e co st s of li ti ga ti o n. Mak in g in vo cat io n of Ru le 28 (i) m or e on ero us

-7

-c o u l d al so le ad to “ ne ed le ss rep et it io n of arg um en ts ,” ex acer ba ti ng th e pr ob le m o f

to o

- l o n g b r ie fs

. Se e 16 AA Ch arl es Alan W rig ht & Arth ur R. Mi ll er, Fed er al
Pra ct ic e a nd Pro ced ur e § 3 97 4.5 (4t h e d. 2 01 7)

.

The di ss en ti ng op in io n po in ts ou t th at in Mic ro so ft Co rp

. v. Dat aT

er n, In c. , th e Fed eral Ci rcu it st at ed th at “ in co rp or at io n” un de r Ru le 28 (i) “ can no t be us ed to ex ceed

wor d co un t.” Mi cr os of

t Co rp . v. Dat

aTe rn , In c. , 75 5 F.3 d 89 9, 91 0 (Fed

. Ci r. 20 14 ).
Thi s co ur t sh ou ld no t fo ll ow th e Fed eral Ci rcu it ’s Mic ro so ft ap pr oa ch fo r se ve ral

reas on s. Fi rs t, it i s d i c ta : th e cas e was no t a co ns ol id at ed ap pe al an d di d no t fal l

un de r Ru le 28 (i)

. Id

. Seco nd
, th e Fed eral Ci rcu it ha s na rro wly ch ar a c te riz ed th e
op in io n as st an di ng fo r th e pr op os it io n th at “ co -p ar ti es in no n- co ns ol id at ed ap pe al s

can no t us e in co rp or at io n pu rs ua nt to FRAP 28 (i) t o e xc eed wor d co un t li m it s
pr es cri be d by FRAP 32 (a)( 7) .” DDR Ho ld in gs , LLC v. Ho te ls .co m , L.P.
, 77 3 F.3 d
12 45
, 12 52 n.2 (Fed

. Ci r. 20 14 ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Thi rd
, an d m os t im po rta nt ly, th e
ap pr oa ch is wro ng

. Not h i n g i n R ul e 28 (i) su gg es ts th at pa rts of br ie fs ad op te d by refe ren ce sh ou ld be tre at ed as li te ral ly in co rp or at ed in to a pa rty’ s pr in ci pa l br ie f fo r

wor d- co un t pu rp os es

. And
, as di sc us se d, th e ap pr oa ch un de rm in es th e po li ci es th at

wor d l im it s s erv e.

C.

The di ss en ti ng op in io n co nt en ds th at Ols on ’s Ru le 28 (i) le tt er al lo wed hi m to

av oi d th e co ns eq ue nc es of fil in g a la te br ie f un de r Ru le 31 ( c )

. Wh il e Ru le 31 (c)

pe rm it s an ap pe ll ee to m ov e to di sm is s an ap pe al if an ap pe ll an t fai ls to ti m el y fil e a br ie f, it do es no t req ui re th e co ur ts to de cl in e to co ns id er cl ai m s co nt ai ne d in la te

fil ed br ie fs

. Cf

. Unit ed St at es v. Wi ll ia m s , 18 7 F.3 d 64 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (u np ub li sh ed

ta bl e o pi ni on ) (d ecl in in g t o s tri ke ap pe ll ee b rie f fil ed on e da y la te , wh ere ap pe ll an t fil ed rep l y br ie f an d th ere was “ no in di cat io n th at he was pr ejud ic ed by” th e
ap pe ll an t’s la te fil in g)

. Here, ev en if Ols on ’s Ru le 28 (i) le tt er were tre at ed as a br ie f

un de r Ru le 31 (c), th e co ns um er-p la in ti ff s d i d n ot m ak e a Ru le 31 (c) m ot io n. The

-8

-co ns um er-p la in ti ffs al so ha ve no t arg ue d th at th ey were pr ejud ic ed by Ols on ’s Ru le

28 (i) le tt er, whi ch he su bm it te d jus t on e da y aft er Sci aro ni ’s br ie f. Thi s cas e do es no t
pr es en t th is co ur t wit h an y qu es ti on ab ou t th e rel at io ns hi p be twee n Ru le 28 (i) le tt ers

an d b rie f-fi li ng de ad li ne s.

D.

The co ns um er-p la in ti ffs arg ue th at Ols on can no t ad op t Sci aro ni ’s a rg um en ts be cau se th ey are “ fact -b ou nd .” True
, whe n arg um en ts are fact -s pe ci fic to on e pa rty,

an ot he r p a r t y can no t ad op t th os e arg um en ts wit ho ut fu rth er ex pl an at io n. Unit ed
St at es v. McDo ug al , 1 33 F.3 d 1 11 0, 1 11 4 (8 th Cir . 19 98 ). The se tt le m en t-f ai rn es s

an d att or ne y s- fees arg um en ts th at Ols on ad op te d do no t in cl ud e an y cl as s- m em be rsp eci fic fact s, s o t hi s l im it at io n o n a do pt io n d oe s n ot ap pl y

.

* * * * * * *

Ols on is co rrec t th at , du e to th e 28 (i) le tt er, th e se co nd se nt en ce of fo ot no te 3 sh ou ld be m od ifi ed

. The m ot io n t o a men d t h e op in io n is gr an te d. Fo ot no te 3 is

rep la ced wit h t he fol lo win g:

In th e di st ric t co ur t, Ols on al so arg ue d th at th e se tt le m en t di d no t sa ti sf y 3 Ru le 23 ’s su pe rio rit y o r pr ed om in an ce req ui rem en ts , th e se tt le m en t te rm s were un fai r on acco un t of se lf- de al in g by cl as s co u n s e l
, an d th e at to rn ey s’ fee pr ov is io n was un reas on ab le

. The co ur t reject ed al l of th es e arg um en ts

. In ad di ti on to ch al le ng in g th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng on cert ifi cat io n in hi s pr in ci pa l br ie f, Ols on fil ed a Ru le 28 (i) le tt er joi ni ng th e se ct io ns of Sci aro ni ’s br ie f a l l e g in g se lf- de al in g by cl as s co un se l (ex cep t a se nt en ce accu si ng th e se tt li ng pa rti es of c o l l u s i on ) an d

un reas on ab le at to rn ey s’ fees

. On rem an d, th eref or e, Ols on m ay rai se th e is su es of s el f-d eal in g a nd att or ne y s’ fees

.

-9

-SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e, di ss en ti ng

.

The co ur ts of ap pe al s typic al ly do no t care ho w pa rti es in vo ke Ru le 28 (i)

. See,
e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Is ga r, 73 9 F.3 d 82 9, 83 4 n.1 (5 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (al lo win g ad op ti on by bo th m ot io n an d le tt er). Thi s is li ke ly be cau se , as ap pa ren t fro m cas es th e m ajor it y ci te s, a pa rty’ s de ci si on to ad op t th e arg um en ts of a co -p art y or di na ril y is no t m et wit h

op po si ti on or co nt ro ve rs y

. H e r e , h owe ve r, th ere is a ge nu in e di sp ut e be twee n
op po si ng pa rti es , whi ch ha s br ou gh t th e co ur t’s at te nt io n to th e ne ed fo r cl ari ty as to Ru le 28 (i) ’s li m it ed sc op e. Tha t ne ed is ne gl ect ed in th e co ur t’s Ord er am en di ng th e
op in io n. I t he refo re re sp ect fu ll y di ss en t.

Ols on ’s le tt er— erro ne ou sl y la be le d in th e do ck et as a “ 28 (j) ci ta ti on ”—i n fact in vo ke d Fed eral Ru le of App el la te Pro ced ur e 28 (i)
, ap pa ren tl y as a m at te r of

un fet te red rig ht
, in or de r to ad op t ne w is su es th at Ols on ’s pr in ci pa l br ie f in te nt io na ll y ab an do ne d. See App el la nt ’s Br. 21

. In co rp or at io n in th is cas e no t on ly al lo ws Ols on
to ex pa nd th e is su es h e p r e s e n ts fo r rev ie w in hi s pr ev io us ly fil ed br ie f, it al so

co nd on es th e vi ol at io n of ru le s go ve rn in g wor d lim it s an d fil in g de ad li ne s, al l wit ho ut
pe rm i s s i on of th e co ur t. Fo r th e reas on s th at fo ll ow, I co nc lu de th at Ols on ’s in vo cat io n of Ru le 2 8 ( i ) w a s in su ffi ci en t to pr es erv e th e is su es of se lf- de al in g an d

at to rn ey s’ fees , and I wou ld th eref or e d en y Ols on ’s m ot io n.

Fi r s t , w h i l e R u l e 2 8 ( i ) a l l o w s p a r t i e s t o a d o p t e a c h o t h e r ’s a p p e l la te

ar gu men ts in so m e ci rcu m st an ces , it sh ou ld no t be read to al lo w a pa rty to m ul ti pl y th e is su es th at hi s br ie fin g rai se s fo r rev ie w. In Uni te d St at es v. Bo hm on t, App el la nt In m on se t fo rth on ly t wo is su es in hi s b r i e f a n d fil ed a se pa rat e st at em en t ad op ti ng th e en ti ret y of Co -Ap pe ll an t Bo hm on t’s br ie f, whi ch in cl ud ed ad di ti on al is su es

. 41 3 F. App ’x 94 6, 9 49 n.4 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) . The co ur t re m ark ed :

W e co ns tru e [In m on ’s] st at eme n t a s an effo rt by In m on pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le of App el la te Pro ced ur e 28 (i) to ad op t th e fact ua l an d le ga l

-1 0-arg um en ts m ad e in Bo hm on t’s b r i ef wit h res pe ct to th e two sp eci fic

is su es li st ed by In m on fo r rev ie w, an d we pe rm it it

. W e wi ll no t pe rmi t th e ad op ti on st at emen t to exp an d th e li st in g of th e tw o sp eci fi c is su es se t

ou t in In mon ’s fo rma l St at emen t of th e Is su es to in cl ud e th e ot he r is su es li st ed by Boh mon t i n h is St at emen t o f Is su es

.

Id . (em ph as is ad de d)

.

Here, Ols on se ek s to ex pa nd th e two is su es st at ed in hi s pr in ci pa l br ie f—c la ss
cert ifi cat io n an d th e ap pe al bo nd —t o in cl ud e two en ti rel y di ffer en t is su es rai se d by Sci aro ni —s el f-d eal in g and at to rn ey s’ fees

. Und er Bo hm on t, t hi s ef fo rt s ho ul d fail ; Ols on sh ou ld on ly be al lo wed to ad op t th os e arg um en ts of Sci aro ni ’s t h at rel at e to cl as s ce rti fic at io n a nd th e ap pe al bo nd

.

Seco nd
, R ul e 28 (i) sh ou ld no t be us ed to un de rta ke en d- ru ns aro un d ot he r
pr oc ed ur al ru le s. Co ns id er, fo r in st an ce, Ru le 32 (a)( 7) (B)( i )
, whi ch se t fo rth a 14 ,00 0- wor d li m it on pr in ci pa l br ie fs at th e ti m e O l s o n ’s pr in ci pa l br ie f was fil ed

. 2
Ols on ’s br ie f is cert ifi ed as co nt ai ni ng 13 ,90 9 wor ds
, ex cl ud in g t he pa rts th at are

ex em pt ed fro m th e w o rd li m it —o nl y 91 wor ds sh or t of th e li m it

. If Ols on is

pe rm it te d to in co rp or at e th e rel ev an t is su es an d acco m pa nyin g arg um en ts in Sci aro ni ’s br ie f by m ean s of Ru le 28 (i)
, he wil l effe ct iv el y ev ad e Ru le 32 (a)( 7) (B)( i). The Fed eral Ci rcu it ad dr es se d th is is su e in Mi cro so ft Co rp

. v. Data Tern
, In c., whe re th e co ur t he ld th at Ru le 28 (i) “ can no t be u s e d t o ex ceed wor d co un t,” as su ch us e

wou ld be “ fu nd am en ta ll y un fai r” to th e ot he r pa rti es

. 75 5 F.3 d 89 9, 91 0 (Fed . C ir.
20 14 ).

Ano th er ru le vu ln erab le to Ols on ’s us e of Ru le 28 (i) is Ru le 31 (c), whi ch se ts fo rth th e co ns eq ue nc es of a pa rty’ s fai lu re to ti m el y fil e a br ie f. App el la nt s’ pr in ci pa l br ie fs were du e Apr il 7, 20 16

. One week la te r, Ols on fil ed th e 28 (i) le tt er, ad op ti ng

Ru le 32 (a)( 7) (B)( i) ha s si nc e be en am en de d to pr ov id e a wor d li m it of 13 ,00 0. 2

-1 1-s u b s t a n t i al ne w is su es th at he in te nt io na ll y ex cl ud ed in hi s pr in ci pa l br ie f. H a d

Ols on ’s rep res en ta ti ve s m is se d th e Apr il 7 dea dl in e in or de r to as se rt th e is su es an d

arg um en ts th em se lv es , th e co ns um er-p la in ti ffs wou ld ha ve ha d gr ou nd s to r e qu es t di sm is sa l of Ols on ’s ap pe al

. See Fed

. R. App

. P. 31 (c). Ols on ’s in vo cat io n of Ru le
28 (i) th eref

or e al lo wed hi m to rai se un ti m el y is su es wit ho ut ris ki ng th e co ns eq ue nc es of fil in g a la te br ie f. At a m in im um , c ou ns el sh ou ld ha ve so ug ht le av e of th e co ur t
to ex pa nd th e is su es aft er th e fil in g de ad li ne s te rm in at ed

. Thi s wou ld ha ve sa ti sf ie d th e de fau lt pr oc ed ur al ru le s, se e Fed

. R. App

. P. 27 (a)( 1)
, an d in vi te d th e co ur t to

co ns i d e r w h e th er Ru le s 31 an d 32 (an d an y ot he r ap pl ic ab le ru le s) sh ou ld y ie ld to Ols on ’s wis h t o m

ul ti pl y th e is su es in hi s ap pe al

.

In su m , Ru le 28 (i) is m ean t to au gm en t, n o t u n d e r mi ne , th e pr oc ed ur al ru le s
go ve rn in g a p p el la te br ie fs

. It is no t a so ur ce of un li m it ed reco ur se fo r pa rti es su ch

as Ols on who om it is su es an d fai l to ab id e by th os e ru le s. To av oi d un du ly ex pa nd in g Ru le 28 (i) , a nd to pr es erv e th e in te gr it y of ot he r a p p l i c a b l e ru le s, I wou ld de ny t he

m ot io n t o a m en d t he op in io n.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 2-