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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE: YAHOO! CUSTOMER DATA 

SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

16-MD-02752 LHK

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 13, 2017

PAGES 1-50

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE THE HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

A P P E A R A N C E S:

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: MORGAN & MORGAN 

BY: JOHN YANCHUNIS 

201 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET, 7TH FLOOR 

TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602

MILBERG LLP

BY: ARIANA J. TADLER (BY PHONE)

ONE PENNSYLVANIA PLAZA

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10119 

ROBBINS, GELLER, RUDMAN & DOWD

BY: STUART A. DAVIDSON (BY PHONE)

120 EAST PALMETTO PARK ROAD, SUITE 500

BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432 

APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER: LEE-ANNE SHORTRIDGE, CSR, CRR

CERTIFICATE NUMBER 9595

PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY MECHANICAL STENOGRAPHY

TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED WITH COMPUTER

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

2

APPEARANCES (CONTINUED)

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: HUNTON & WILLIAMS 

 BY: ANN MARIE MORTIMER

550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 200

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071

BY: JOHN J. DELIONADO (BY PHONE)

 SAMUEL A. DANON (BY PHONE)

111 BRICKELL AVENUE, SUITE 2500

MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 2 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

3

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 13, 2017

P R O C E E D I N G S

(COURT CONVENED AT 11:02 A.M.)

THE COURT: GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: GOOD MORNING. 

MS. MORTIMER: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. 

THE CLERK: PLEASE BE SEATED. 

YOUR HONOR, CALLING CASE 16-MD-02752, IN RE: YAHOO! INC., 

CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. 

COUNSEL, PLEASE STATE YOUR APPEARANCES. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: GOOD MORNING AGAIN, YOUR HONOR. 

JOHN YANCHUNIS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS. 

MS. MORTIMER: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. 

ANN MARIE MORTIMER FOR THE DEFENDANTS. 

THE COURT: OKAY. AND I THINK WE HAVE SOME COUNSEL 

ON THE PHONE; CORRECT? 

THE CLERK: YES, YOUR HONOR. 

COUNSEL, PLEASE STATE YOUR APPEARANCES. 

MR. DANON: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS SAM DANON FROM 

HUNTON & WILLIAMS ON BEHALF OF YAHOO!. 

MR. DELIONADO: AND, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS 

JOHN DELIONADO FROM HUNTON & WILLIAMS, ALSO ON BEHALF OF 

YAHOO!. 

THE COURT: OKAY. WELCOME. 

MS. TADLER: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS ARIANA TADLER FROM 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 3 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

4

MILBERG ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS. 

THE COURT: OKAY. WELCOME. 

ANYONE ELSE? IS THAT IT? 

THE CLERK: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THERE IS ANOTHER 

PARTY. 

MR. DAVIDSON: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS STUART DAVIDSON. 

CAN YOU HEAR ME? 

THE COURT: YES, I CAN. 

MR. DAVIDSON: OKAY. THEY TOLD ME -- I'M SORRY. 

THEY TOLD ME I WAS GOING TO BE ON MUTE. 

SO THIS IS STUART DAVIDSON ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS, 

ALSO ON THE PHONE. 

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON -- GOOD 

MORNING AND WELCOME. 

OKAY. SO THIS IS WHAT I AM GOING TO DO: I AM GOING TO 

GRANT LEAVE TO AMEND TODAY. I'M GOING TO MAKE MY RULING ON THE 

RECORD. 

AND I AM GOING TO GRANT A 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION AND I WANT 

TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT TIME THAT THIS NEXT 

AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT IS AS CLOSE TO THE 

FINAL AS WE CAN GET. 

LET ME GO AHEAD AND MAKE MY RECORD. 

THE FIRST DATA BREACH IN THIS CASE OCCURRED IN AUGUST OF 

2013. I'LL REFER TO THIS AS THE 2013 BREACH. HACKERS GAINED 

ACCESS TO MORE THAN 1 BILLION YAHOO! ACCOUNTS AND STOLE USERS' 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 4 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

5

YAHOO! LOG IN, COUNTRY CODE, RECOVERY E-MAIL, DATA OF BIRTH, 

HASH PASSWORDS, CELL PHONE NUMBERS, AND ZIP CODES. 

THE 2013 BREACH ALSO GAVE HACKERS ACCESS TO THE CONTENTS 

OF USERS' E-MAILS -- 

NOW, THESE ARE OBVIOUSLY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, 

BUT FOR PURPOSES ON A MOTION TO DISMISS AND AT THESE EARLY 

PROCEEDINGS, WE ACCEPT THEM AS CORRECT. 

-- AND THUS EXPOSED PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION 

THAT USERS INCLUDED IN THE CONTENTS OF THEIR E-MAILS. 

YAHOO! DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS 2013 BREACH UNTIL DECEMBER 14 

OF 2016. SO THAT WAS AFTER THREE YEARS, MORE THAN THREE YEARS. 

AN AUGUST 2013 BREACH WAS DISCLOSED IN DECEMBER, DECEMBER 14 OF 

2016. 

SO THE SECOND BREACH OCCURRED IN 2014. I'LL REFER TO THIS 

AS THE 2014 BREACH. HACKERS GAINED ACCESS TO AT LEAST 

500 MILLION YAHOO! USER ACCOUNTS. 

YAHOO! KNEW ABOUT THE 2014 BREACH AS IT WAS HAPPENING, BUT 

DID NOT PUBLICLY DISCLOSE THE 2014 BREACH UNTIL SEPTEMBER 22ND, 

2016, ABOUT TWO YEARS LATER. 

THIS DISCLOSURE CAME JUST TWO MONTHS AFTER YAHOO! 

ANNOUNCED VERIZON'S PLAN TO ACQUIRE YAHOO! AND, ACCORDING TO 

PLAINTIFFS, A FEW WEEKS AFTER YAHOO! TOLD THE SECURITIES AND 

EXCHANGE COMMISSION THAT YAHOO! KNEW OF NO INCIDENTS OF 

UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS OF PERSONAL DATA THAT MIGHT ADVERSELY 

AFFECT THE POTENTIAL ACQUISITION. 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 5 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

6

THE THIRD DATA BREACH OCCURRED IN 2015 AND 2016. THE 

PARTIES ARE REFERRING TO THIS AS THE FORGED COOKIE BREACH. 

PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE THAT HACKERS IN THE FORGED COOKIE BREACH ARE 

THE SAME PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE 2014 BREACH, A GROUP THAT 

INCLUDES TWO RUSSIAN FSB AGENTS. 

IN A SUBSEQUENT S.E.C. FILING, YAHOO! DISCLOSED THAT ITS 

SECURITY TEAM KNEW ABOUT THE FORGED COOKIE BREACH AS IT WAS 

HAPPENING IN 2015 AND 2016. HOWEVER, NO REAL ACTION WAS TAKEN. 

YAHOO! DID NOT NOTIFY USERS OF THE FORGED COOKIE BREACH UNTIL 

FEBRUARY OF 2017. 

SO WE HAVE THE 2013 BREACH BEING DISCLOSED ON DECEMBER 14, 

2016; WE HAVE THE 2014 BREACH BEING DISCLOSED IN SEPTEMBER, OR 

ON SEPTEMBER 22ND SPECIFICALLY, 2016; AND THEN WE HAVE THE 2015 

AND 2016 BREACH BEING DISCLOSED IN FEBRUARY OF 2017. 

NOW, BASED ON THOSE DISCLOSURES, THIS COURT HAD APPOINTED 

LEAD PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL ON FEBRUARY 9TH OF 2017; THE 

PLAINTIFFS FILED A CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ON 

APRIL 12TH, 2017; AND ON AUGUST 30TH, THE COURT ISSUED AN ORDER 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART YAHOO!'S MOTION TO 

DISMISS. 

ON OCTOBER 3RD, 2017, AFTER ALL OF THAT ACTIVITY IN THIS 

MULTI-DISTRICT LITIGATION HAD TAKEN PLACE -- AND THIS 

MULTI-DISTRICT LITIGATION TRANSFER ORDER WAS ISSUED FROM THE 

JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTI-DISTRICT LITIGATION ON DECEMBER 7TH, 

2016. 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 6 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

7

ON OCTOBER 3RD, 2017, VERIZON DISCLOSED THAT THE 2013 

BREACH ACTUALLY AFFECTED ALL 3 BILLION OF YAHOO!'S USERS. SO 

THAT DISCLOSURE IS NOW COMING ABOUT FOUR YEARS LATE, AND IT IS 

COMING AFTER I'VE ALREADY RULED ON A MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE 

CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT. 

NOW, YOU KNOW, YAHOO!, IN ITS JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT, SAYS THIS IS NOT A NEW ISSUE. 

WELL, IT IS NEW TO 2 BILLION USERS, OF YOUR USERS. YOU 

SAY IT'S NOTHING NEW. 

AND YOU SAY THAT PRESS RELEASE NOTICE IS SUFFICIENT FOR 

THOSE 2 BILLION USERS. WE'LL SEE. 

ANYWAY, I DISAGREE WITH YAHOO!. I DO THINK THIS IS A -- I 

THINK THIS IS A NEW ISSUE. AT LEAST FOR 2 BILLION USERS OF 

YAHOO!'S, IT IS A NEW ISSUE. 

AND THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE STATE THAT LEAVE 

TO AMEND, QUOTE, "SHALL BE FREELY GIVEN WHEN JUSTICE SO 

REQUIRES," END QUOTE. FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 

15(A)(2). 

THE DECISION OF WHETHER TO GRANT LEAVE TO AMEND 

NEVERTHELESS REMAINS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE DISTRICT 

COURT, WHICH MAY DENY LEAVE TO AMEND DUE TO "UNDUE DELAY, BAD 

FAITH OR DILATORY MOTIVE ON THE PART OF THE MOVANT, REPEATED 

FAILURE TO CURE DEFICIENCIES BY AMENDMENTS PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED, 

UNDUE PREJUDICE TO THE OPPOSING PARTY BY VIRTUE OF ALLOWANCE OF 

THE AMENDMENT, AND FUTILITY OF AMENDMENT." THAT IS QUOTING 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 7 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

8

FROM FOMAN V. DAVIS, 371 U.S. 178 AT 182 FROM 1962. 

"OUTRIGHT REFUSAL TO GRANT LEAVE TO AMEND WITHOUT A 

JUSTIFYING REASON IS, HOWEVER, AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION." SAME 

CITATION. 

AND THIS IS ALSO CITING FROM LEADSINGER VERSUS BMG MUSIC

PUBLICATION, 512 F.3D 522 AT 532, NINTH CIRCUIT, 2008. 

SO IN THIS INSTANCE, I DO NOT FIND UNDUE DELAY ON BEHALF 

OF THE PLAINTIFFS. I DO NOT FIND BAD FAITH OR DILATORY MOTIVE 

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS. I DON'T FIND REPEATED FAILURE TO 

CURE DEFICIENCIES BY AMENDMENTS PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED. I DO NOT 

FIND UNDUE PREJUDICE TO THE OPPOSING PARTY BY VIRTUE OF 

ALLOWANCE OF THE AMENDMENT OR FUTILITY OF AMENDMENT. 

THIS IS A DISCLOSURE OF 2 BILLION USERS THAT WAS MADE ON 

OCTOBER 3RD, 2017, AS TO A BREACH THAT OCCURRED IN AUGUST OF 

2013, MORE THAN FOUR YEARS AGO. AND THIS ANNOUNCEMENT CAME 

AFTER THE PARTIES HAD ALREADY FILED A CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION 

COMPLAINT AND AFTER THIS COURT HAD ALREADY RULED ON YAHOO!'S 

FIRST MOTION TO DISMISS BACK ON AUGUST 30TH OF 2017. 

SO LEAVE TO AMEND IS GRANTED. THAT ALSO APPLIES TO THE 

CAUSES OF ACTION THAT YOU WANTED TO ADD. 

NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. SO I 

WAS A LITTLE BIT BEWILDERED AT THE LAST CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE THAT PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL SAID, "WELL, WE ONLY DIDN'T 

ALLEGE ALL OF OUR CAUSES OF ACTION BECAUSE THE COURT TOLD US 

NOT TO." 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 8 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

9

I'M REALLY PUZZLED. I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT YOU SHOULDN'T 

FILE ANY CAUSE OF ACTION THAT IS APPROPRIATE. ALL I SAID IS 

THAT WHEN YOU DO, WE WILL FIGURE OUT A NARROWING PROCESS. 

AND LET ME JUST PLACE ON THE RECORD THE ANTHEM CASE, OKAY? 

THE ANTHEM CASE HAD 80 MILLION USERS; YOU HAVE 1 TO 3 BILLION. 

OKAY? THEY HAD 111 NAMED PLAINTIFFS; YOU HAVE 12. THERE WERE 

44 ANTHEM AND BLUE CROSS DEFENDANTS; YOU HAVE EFFECTIVELY ONE 

BECAUSE AABACO IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF YAHOO!. THEY 

HAD 90 CAUSES OF ACTION, INCLUDING 82 STATE STATUTES; YOU HAVE 

13 CAUSES OF ACTION, ONE OF WHICH WAS THE ONLINE PRIVACY 

PROTECTION ACT FOR WHICH THERE IS NO PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. 

AND YOUR OTHER ONE IS DECLARATORY RELIEF, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY 

NOT EVEN A SEPARATE CAUSE OF ACTION IN SOME SENSE. 

SO I'M -- YOU KNOW, I'M FURTHER DISAPPOINTED THAT IN YOUR 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT, YOU SAY, "WELL, EVEN FOR THOSE, WE DON'T 

REALLY WANT TO FULLY, FULLY ALLEGE THEM." 

I'M JUST GOING TO READ FROM THE JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT, PAGE 2, LINES 16 THROUGH 20. "PLAINTIFFS PROPOSE 

THAT THE SCHEDULE RELATED THERETO CAN REMAIN INTACT IF 

PLAINTIFFS ARE PERMITTED TO LIST THE VARIOUS STATE STATUTES 

THEY WILL BE PROCEEDING UNDER SUCH THAT THRESHOLD LEGAL ISSUES 

SUCH AS FUTILITY AND THE CHOICE-OF-LAW ISSUE CAN BE ADDRESSED, 

WITHOUT THE NEED FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDED PLEADING CONTAINING 

ALL OF THE RELATED ALLEGATIONS BEING ATTACHED." 

SO YOU'RE SAYING, YOU KNOW, IN ADDITION TO THE 13 YOU DID, 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 9 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

10

ONE OF WHICH WAS A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WHICH THERE'S NO PRIVATE 

RIGHT OF ACTION AND ANOTHER ONE IS DECLARATORY RELIEF, NOW YOU 

WANT TO PUT THESE IN JUST BY LISTING THE STATUTE NUMBERS 

WITHOUT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. 

AND I'M CONCERNED THAT ONE THING I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY IS 

I WILL NOT ALLOW A CAUSE OF ACTION THAT JUST LISTS MULTIPLE 

STATE STATUTES. YOU CAN'T SAY, "WELL, EVERY DATA PRIVACY 

STATUTE FROM THE FOLLOWING 23 STATES; EVERY CONSUMER PROTECTION 

STATUTE FROM THE FOLLOWING 49 STATES." 

EVERY STATUTE HAS TO BE ITS OWN SINGLE CAUSE OF ACTION, 

AND IF YOU HAVE MANY, THEN I WILL DO WHAT I DID IN ANTHEM, 

WHICH IS I GAVE ANTHEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SELECT THREE, BLUE 

CROSS SELECTED TWO, THE PLAINTIFFS SELECTED FIVE, AND WE 

LITIGATED THE TEN AND IT WAS NO PROBLEM THAT THERE WERE 90 

CAUSES OF ACTION. 

SO THAT'S -- SO LEAVE TO AMEND IS GRANTED. ANY BRIEFING 

IS VACATED. I THINK IT WOULD NOT BE -- YOU KNOW, THE FEDERAL 

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SAY LEAVE TO AMEND SHALL BE FREELY 

GIVEN WHEN JUSTICE SO REQUIRES. I THINK THE DISCLOSURE OF 

2 BILLION ADDITIONAL USERS WHO WERE AFFECTED BY THE 2013 DATA 

BREACH CERTAINLY JUSTIFIES LEAVE TO AMEND. 

OKAY. SO, NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU 

NEED TO FILE A SECOND CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT? 

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY? 

THE COURT: YES. 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 10 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

11

MS. MORTIMER: FIRST, I THINK THERE MAY BE SOME 

CONFUSION ABOUT THE RECENT ANNOUNCEMENT THAT I THINK IS WORTH 

CLARIFICATION. 

THE COURT: UM-HUM. 

MS. MORTIMER: THE RECENT ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT 

3 BILLION USER ACCOUNTS CORRELATES TO ACCOUNTS, NOT USERS. 

CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S ORDERS, WE HAVE PROVIDED 

PLAINTIFFS, THE DAY AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT, THE ACTUAL NUMBERS 

OF IMPACTED ACCOUNTS. 

BUT TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE, YOUR HONOR -- 

THE COURT: UM-HUM. 

MS. MORTIMER: -- THERE WERE 242 MILLION ADULTS IN 

THE U.S. IN 2013. 

SO ALTHOUGH THESE ARE USER ACCOUNTS, MANY USERS HAVE 

MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS; MANY ACCOUNTS ARE INACTIVE ACCOUNTS; MANY 

ACCOUNTS ARE USED FOR TEST OR OTHER PURPOSES. 

SO 3 BILLION USER ACCOUNTS GLOBALLY DOES NOT EQUATE TO 

3 BILLION USERS. 

AND CERTAINLY WITH RESPECT TO WHAT'S AT ISSUE HERE -- 

THE COURT: SO HOW MANY USERS WERE AFFECTED? 

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, WE'RE STILL IN THE -- 

WE -- 

THE COURT: AND WHY DIDN'T -- WHY DIDN'T YAHOO! FIND 

THIS OUT? GIVE ME ALL THE FACTS. IF YOU HAVE ALL THE FACTS, 

GIVE ME ALL THE FACTS. WHEN DID VERIZON DISCOVER THIS AND WHEN 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 11 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

12

DID THEY DISCLOSE IT? 

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, IF I -- LET'S START FROM 

WHAT THE COURT ASKED WHEN WE FIRST ANNOUNCED THE 2013 BREACH IN 

DECEMBER. THE COURT ASKED AT THAT TIME -- THE ANNOUNCEMENT 

INDICATED THAT IT WAS, QUOTE, "AT LEAST A BILLION USER 

ACCOUNTS." 

AND AT THAT TIME -- 

THE COURT: OKAY. I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE NUMBERS. 

MS. MORTIMER: OKAY. 

THE COURT: TELL ME, THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT WAS MADE 

ON OCTOBER 3RD, 2017, WHEN DID VERIZON DISCOVER THAT IT NEEDED 

TO MAKE THIS ANNOUNCEMENT? THE DATE. I DON'T WANT THE NUMBER. 

WHAT WAS THE DATE? 

MS. MORTIMER: THE DATE -- THE DATA WAS CONFIRMED THE 

DAY BEFORE THE ANNOUNCEMENT WAS MADE. 

THE COURT: OKAY. AND HOW LONG HAD THEY BEEN 

INVESTIGATING THAT BREACH? 

MS. MORTIMER: THE INVESTIGATION WAS LESS THAN 

30 DAYS IN TOTAL, YOUR HONOR, AS WITH THE EARLIER PART OF THE 

2013 BREACH. 

AS YOU MAY RECALL, THAT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO YAHOO! 

AT THE TIME THROUGH LAW ENFORCEMENT. 

THE COURT: OKAY. SO -- I'M SORRY. LET ME -- LET ME 

BACK UP. 

MS. MORTIMER: SURE. 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 12 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

13

THE COURT: SO SOMETIME AROUND, WHAT, SEPTEMBER 1ST, 

SEPTEMBER 4TH? OR AFTER THAT DATE IS WHEN VERIZON, WHAT, HAD 

SOME SENSE THAT THE BREACH WAS MORE EXTENSIVE THAN ORIGINALLY 

THOUGHT? 

MS. MORTIMER: NOT AT ALL, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: OKAY. 

MS. MORTIMER: THE QUESTION -- AS WITH THE PREVIOUS 

BREACH, VERIZON AND YAHOO! RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A THIRD 

PARTY SOURCE, WHICH IS A SUBJECTIVE AND ONGOING CRIMINAL 

INVESTIGATION. 

AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS NO INFORMATION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER 

AS TO WHETHER IT COULD BE VALIDATED IN A WAY THAT WOULD 

INDICATE THAT A BROADER USER ACCOUNT BASE WAS IMPACTED THAN WAS 

ORIGINALLY CONFIRMED. 

AS SOON AS THE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED, IT WAS REVIEWED 

BY OUTSIDE FORENSIC EXPERTS, AND WORKING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT 

EXPERTS -- 

THE COURT: OKAY. SO WHEN WAS THAT THIRD PARTY 

SOURCE NOTICE GIVEN? YOU SAID LESS THAN 30 MONTHS -- 30 DAYS 

BEFORE? 

MS. MORTIMER: LESS THAN 30 DAYS, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: OKAY. 

MS. MORTIMER: AND THAT TIME WAS USED TO REVIEW AND 

ANALYZE THE DATA. THE DATA WAS NOT -- ACTUALLY, IT WAS MUCH 

LESS THAN 30 DAYS THAT THEY HAD THE DATA IN THEIR POSSESSION. 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 13 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

14

THE COURT: UM-HUM. 

MS. MORTIMER: THEY ANALYZED THE DATA, INCLUDING OVER 

THE WEEKEND, UP UNTIL THE ANNOUNCEMENT, AND THEN THERE WAS ONE 

BUSINESS DAY FROM THE TIME THE DATA WAS ANALYZED AND CONFIRMED 

TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT. 

BUT AS THE COURT MAY RECALL IN 2013 -- WITH RESPECT TO THE 

2013 BREACH, IN DECEMBER WHEN THE ANNOUNCEMENT WAS PROVIDED TO 

THE POPULATION THAT WAS IMPACTED -- 

THE COURT: SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT WEBSITE NOTICE AND 

PRESS RELEASE NOTICE ARE SUFFICIENT TO COMPLY WITH YOUR NOTICE 

OBLIGATIONS? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING FOR THESE USERS? 

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, ACCORDING TO THE STATUTE, 

SUBSTITUTED NOTIFICATION IS ACCEPTABLE IF THERE'S MORE THAN 

500,000 IMPACTED USERS, AND WHETHER YOU CAN'T IDENTIFY THE 

USERS, IN WHICH YOU CAN ALSO SEND PERSONAL E-MAIL. 

AT THAT TIME, THE SPECIFIC USER ACCOUNTS WERE NOT 

IDENTIFIED IN A WAY IN WHICH IT ALLOWED, SO YES, THE STATUTE 

ALLOWS SUBSTITUTED NOTIFICATION THROUGH PUBLICATION AND THROUGH 

E-MAIL -- PARDON ME -- THROUGH WEB MAIL. 

THE COURT: NOW, IS THAT SUBSTITUTE OF NOTIFICATION 

ONLY WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE OTHER FORMS OF NOTIFICATION? 

MS. MORTIMER: NO. SUBSTITUTE NOTIFICATION WOULD BE 

ACCEPTABLE IF IT'S IMPRACTICABLE TO GIVE INDIVIDUAL NOTICE. 

THE COURT: AND IT IS IMPRACTICABLE? YOU HAVE ALL 

THESE USER'S E-MAIL ACCOUNTS, DO YOU NOT? AT LEAST THEIR 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 14 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

15

YAHOO! E-MAIL ACCOUNTS, DO YOU NOT? 

MS. MORTIMER: NO, YOUR HONOR. IN MANY CASES USERS 

DELETE THEIR E-MAIL ACCOUNTS, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THAT THE 

BREACHES AT QUESTION WERE SEVERAL YEARS OLD. SO THE BEST FORM 

OF NOTICE WOULD BE THE PUBLIC FORM OF NOTICE THAT THE STATUTE 

ALLOWS, THE SUBSTITUTED NOTIFICATION. 

THE COURT: I DISAGREE WITH THAT.

ALL RIGHT. WHETHER IT'S 242 MILLION VERSUS 3 BILLION, 

EITHER WAY, THERE ARE NEW USERS THAT HAVE BEEN AFFECTED AND 

THAT IS A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCE THAT JUSTIFIES LEAVE TO AMEND. 

OKAY. SO THE RULING REMAINS. 

MS. MORTIMER: I UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR. 

MAY I MAKE ONE MORE CLARIFICATION -- 

THE COURT: LET'S TALK ABOUT -- I'D LIKE TO GO TO THE 

CASE SCHEDULE. 

SO HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED? WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE 

THE 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION? YOU'LL GET TWO, TWO DEPOSITIONS, ONE 

NOW BECAUSE WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THE FULL EXTENT OF 

THIS SUCH THAT YOU CAN AMEND YOUR COMPLAINT WITH WHATEVER 

CAUSES OF ACTION ARE APPROPRIATE. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: I WAS LOOKING TO TAKE IT IN THE NEXT 

TWO WEEKS, BUT IF -- 

THE COURT: OKAY. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: IF THE COURT WERE TO ALLOW US UNTIL 

NOVEMBER THE 10TH TO FILE THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, THEN -- 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 15 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

16

THE COURT: WELL, I WOULD GIVE YOU MORE TIME IF YOU 

NEED TO -- I MEAN, I AM DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE MY ORDER SAID THAT 

I WANTED YAHOO! -- I'M GOING TO JUST READ IT. "YAHOO! SHALL 

EXPEDITE ITS PRODUCTION OF DISCOVERY REGARDING THE RECENT DATA 

BREACH DISCLOSURE AND INCLUDE A PROPOSAL TO DO SO IN THE 

OCTOBER 11, 2017 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT." 

YAHOO! HAS NOT DONE THAT. THERE IS NOTHING, OTHER THAN 

SAYING THIS IS NO BIG DEAL -- 

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY ADDRESS THAT 

POINT? 

THE COURT: THERE'S NOT ANY, ANY PROPOSAL TO EXPEDITE 

DISCOVERY. SO LET'S JUST FIGURE OUT THE SCHEDULE RIGHT NOW. 

YOU'VE WAIVED YOUR OPPORTUNITY. I TOLD YOU TO PUT IN A 

PROPOSAL TO EXPEDITE THE DISCOVERY. YOU CHOSE NOT TO DO SO. 

THAT'S A WAIVER. 

SO LET'S JUST FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE SCHEDULE. 

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, WE DID PROVIDE THE 

DISCOVERY WITHIN THE DAY THE COURT REQUESTED IT, AND WE'VE ALSO 

PROVIDED -- 

THE COURT: YOU PROVIDED A LETTER. YOU PROVIDED ONE 

LETTER. 

MS. MORTIMER: WHICH HAS THE ONLY DATA WE HAVE ABOUT 

THE USER ACCOUNTS. 

BUT WE'VE ALSO PRODUCED OVER 8,000 -- 

THE COURT: OKAY. YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS ALL THIS 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 16 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

17

VALIDATION THAT WAS DONE THE MONTH BEFORE THE ANNOUNCEMENT ON 

OCTOBER 3RD. I ASSUME THAT WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE LETTER. 

MS. MORTIMER: NO, YOUR HONOR. 

WHAT I SAID WAS THAT THE DATA WAS OBTAINED IN THAT PERIOD 

OF TIME. WE DID NOT HAVE IT THAT ENTIRE PERIOD OF TIME, AND 

THERE'S NO WRITTEN REPORT OF THAT YET. 

HOWEVER, WE HAVE PRODUCED FORENSIC REPORTS FROM 2013. 

THE COURT: NO, NO. I WANT -- I WANT THE INFORMATION 

THAT VERIZON USED TO MAKE ITS DISCLOSURE ON OCTOBER 3RD. 

AND YOU'RE SAYING YOU'VE GIVEN THEM NO DOCUMENTATION, 

YOU'VE GIVEN THEM ONE LETTER. 

LET ME SEE IT. CAN I SEE THE LETTER? 

MS. MORTIMER: YES, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE IT? 

MS. MORTIMER: I DO. 

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S JUST -- HOW MUCH 

TIME DO YOU NEED TO AMEND YOUR COMPLAINT? AND THIS -- IF YOU 

NEED ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY, LET'S DO IT. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: IF -- 

MS. MORTIMER: ARE YOU -- YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE 

STARTED, COUNSEL REPRESENTED THAT THEY WERE INTENDING TO 

WITHDRAW THEIR REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, SO IF WE COULD 

CONFER FOR A MOMENT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY INTEND TO STILL 

AMEND TO ADD ADDITIONAL CLAIMS, THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: I -- I THINK, IN LIGHT OF THE COURT'S 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 17 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

18

RULING, WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH AMENDING THE 

COMPLAINT, AND WE CAN DO THAT BY NOVEMBER THE 10TH, ASSUMING 

THAT WE CAN GET THE DISCOVERY THAT THE COURT HAS ALLOWED US IN 

TERMS OF THE PRODUCTION OF THE MATERIAL THAT THE COURT HAS 

INDICATED HAS NOT BEEN PRODUCED, AS WELL AS A DEPOSITION OF A 

CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE. 

SO, YOU KNOW, I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO YOUR SCHEDULE, 

OBVIOUSLY, AND I'LL DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. 

THE COURT: SO IN YOUR JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT, YOU THOUGHT -- I'M JUST GOING TO READ IT, 

"PLAINTIFFS BELIEVE THE INCREASED SCOPE IMPACTS HOW EXISTING 

CLAIMS WILL BE PURSUED, THEIR ABILITY TO ALLEGE FRAUD-BASED OR 

OTHER INTENTIONAL TORTS, THE MATERIALITY OF ANY OMISSIONS 

REGARDING DATA SECURITY, AS WELL AS THE AVAILABILITY OF 

ADDITIONAL TYPES OF DAMAGES, SUCH AS PUNITIVE DAMAGES." 

SO YOU'RE SAYING NOW YOU'RE NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING 

THAT? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: NO, NO. 

THE COURT: THEN WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? YOU'RE GOING 

TO AMEND YOUR COMPLAINT? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: THAT'S MS. MORTIMER'S 

MISCOMMUNICATION, OR MISUNDERSTANDING. 

WHAT I RELATED TO HER WAS IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER STATE 

DATA BREACH STATUTES. 

MS. MORTIMER: YES, YOUR HONOR. 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 18 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

19

MR. YANCHUNIS: NOT A FRAUD-BASED CLAIM, NOT A CLAIM 

FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, WHICH WE BELIEVE WE WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE 

THE OPPORTUNITY. 

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU WANT TO EXPLORE 

WHETHER YOU WOULD AMEND THE COMPLAINT IN LIGHT OF THE 

OCTOBER 3RD ANNOUNCEMENT? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: ABSOLUTELY. 

THE COURT: BUT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PURSUE WHAT YOU 

RAISED AT THE LAST CMC, WHICH WAS SUBSTITUTING IN OTHER STATE 

STATUTES FOR THE -- REMIND ME WHICH. WHICH STATUTE WERE YOU 

SUBSTITUTING IN FOR? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: THESE WERE --

MS. MORTIMER: THE CRA. 

THE COURT: NON-CALIFORNIA STATUTES. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: OTHER STATE BREACH NOTIFICATION 

STATUTES. 

THE COURT: OKAY. THAT'S FINE. 

I MEAN, YOU JUST HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND YOUR 

COMPLAINT. YOU DECIDE WHAT GOES IN OR NOT. IF YOU WANTED TO 

ADD THOSE, ESPECIALLY BASED ON THERE MAY BE POTENTIAL 

ADDITIONAL USERS FROM OTHER NON-CALIFORNIA STATES -- 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, MA'AM. 

THE COURT: -- I'VE GIVEN YOU LEAVE TO AMEND. BUT 

YOU CAN ALWAYS CHOOSE NOT TO DO THAT. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 19 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

20

THE COURT: YES. OKAY, SO WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO 

AMEND? CAN YOU -- I JUST DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO BE IN A 

SITUATION WHERE WE ARE CONTINUALLY SORT OF GOING BACK TO SQUARE 

ONE. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: ABSOLUTELY. 

THE COURT: I -- I HOPE THERE AREN'T ANY FURTHER 

DISCLOSURES. 

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, THE SCHEDULE THAT WE 

PROPOSED WAS IN LIGHT OF -- IT WAS MADE AFTER THE OCTOBER 3RD 

DISCLOSURE IN COOPERATION WITH THE PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL. WE 

TRIED TO TAKE EXACTLY THESE ISSUES INTO ACCOUNT AND, OF COURSE, 

THIS COURT'S SCHEDULE SO THAT IT WOULD NOT UNDULY DELAY OR 

IMPOSE ON THE SCHEDULE. 

THE COURT: SO LET ME -- LET ME HEAR FROM 

MR. YANCHUNIS. 

I -- I HOPE THERE ARE NO FURTHER DISCLOSURES WHICH MAKE US 

HAVE TO GO BACK TO STEP ONE, BUT WE ARE CURRENTLY BACK AT STEP 

ONE. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, MA'AM. 

THE COURT: AND I WOULD LIKE THIS TO BE THE 

DEFINITIVE COMPLAINT, OKAY? SO WHEN -- I'M TELLING YOU, IF YOU 

NEEDED MORE TIME THAN NOVEMBER 10TH, SO BE IT. YOU WOULD GET 

IT. HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO MAKE THIS HOPEFULLY -- 

HOPEFULLY, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCLOSURES, THE SORT OF 

DEFINITIVE COMPLAINT? AND THEN WE CAN OPERATE FROM THERE. 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 20 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

21

MR. YANCHUNIS: YOUR HONOR, I AM FINE WITH 

NOVEMBER THE 10TH ON THE BASIS THAT THE COURT HAS ORDERED THAT 

EXPEDITED DISCOVERY. I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THAT 

MS. MORTIMER AND HER TEAM WILL BE RESPONSIVE -- 

THE COURT: NOW -- 

MR. YANCHUNIS: -- AND COOPERATIVE. 

THE COURT: -- YOU SHOULD ALSO -- I WANT TO SET A 

SCHEDULE FOR YOU TO -- WHETHER YOU NEED TO SERVE ANY ADDITIONAL 

DISCOVERY REQUESTS WRITTEN AND TO GET RESPONSES BACK ON AN 

EXPEDITED BASIS, SO LET'S SET THAT RIGHT NOW. 

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO BE ABLE TO SERVE -- HAVE YOU SERVED 

ANY ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS SINCE THE OCTOBER 3RD 

ANNOUNCEMENT? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: NO, OTHER THAN THE OUTLINED 30(B)(6). 

WE WOULD FILE THAT ON MONDAY. WE'D SERVE THAT ON MONDAY. 

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, THE EXISTING DISCOVERY 

REQUESTS ARE CRAFTED BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE, AND WE PRODUCED 

DOCUMENTS RELATED TO, THE 2013 BREACH. 

THE COURT: WELL, WHAT CONCERNS ME IS YOU'RE SAYING 

"WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE HIM ANY DOCUMENTS ABOUT THE 

INVESTIGATION OF 30 DAYS THAT LED TO THE OCTOBER 3RD 

ANNOUNCEMENT UNTIL A REPORT IS READY." AND -- 

MS. MORTIMER: THAT'S NOT -- 

THE COURT: YOU KNOW HOW A REPORT GOES. 

MS. MORTIMER: YEAH, THAT'S NOT -- 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 21 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

22

THE COURT: THAT COULD BE SOME TIME. SO WHEN ARE YOU 

GOING TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTS? CERTAINLY THERE'S SOME -- I 

CAN'T IMAGINE EVERYONE IS DOING EVERYTHING ORALLY AT VERIZON 

AND YAHOO! RIGHT NOW ABOUT THE OCTOBER 3RD DISCLOSURE. 

MS. MORTIMER: IT WAS A FORENSIC EXAMINATION OF FILES 

PROVIDED TO US. 

THE COURT: OKAY. SO CAN YOU -- 

MS. MORTIMER: THAT'S PART OF AN ACTIVE LAW 

ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION, WHICH PUTS SOME LIMITATIONS, YOUR 

HONOR. 

HOWEVER, WHAT WE HAVE PROVIDED IS WHAT WE HAVE, WHICH IS 

THE IMPACTED POPULATION. 

WE'VE ALSO PROVIDED THE FORENSIC REPORTS THAT WE HAVE 

WHICH REFLECT MOST -- 

THE COURT: OKAY. SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS YOU ARE NOT 

GOING TO PRODUCE ANYTHING ELSE. YOU'VE PRODUCED THE USER 

INFORMATION IN THE LETTER OF OCTOBER 6TH, AND THERE'S NOTHING 

ELSE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PROVIDE FOR THEM. 

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, I WILL CERTAINLY 

INVESTIGATE WHETHER THERE'S ANY OTHER DISCOVERABLE MATERIAL 

THAT WE CAN PRODUCE, AND WE WILL DO SO ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS IF 

THERE IS. 

HOWEVER, WE HAVE PRODUCED THE FORENSIC REPORTS THAT WE 

HAVE THAT WERE GENERATED ON OR NEAR THE TIME OF THE 2013 

BREACH, AS WELL AS DOCUMENTS RELATED TO SECURITY AT THAT TIME. 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 22 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

23

THE COURT: BUT NONE OF THAT ALERTED VERIZON AND 

YAHOO! AS TO POTENTIALLY AN ADDITIONAL 2 BILLION ACCOUNTS BEING 

AFFECTED. 

MS. MORTIMER: AND THE REASON FOR THAT, YOUR HONOR, 

IS BECAUSE THERE ARE NO ARTIFACTS ON THE NETWORK SYSTEM ON THE 

2013 BREACH, AND YAHOO! WAS ONLY ALERTED TO THE BREACH THROUGH 

LAW ENFORCEMENT. 

THE COURT: OKAY. WHAT I -- WHAT I -- WE DO A LOT OF 

CRIMINAL CASES HERE AS WELL, RIGHT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND, YOU'RE 

SAYING, "ANY EVIDENCE THAT WE'VE BEEN BREACHED, WE CANNOT TURN 

OVER." 

MS. MORTIMER: THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING, YOUR 

HONOR. 

THE COURT: OKAY. WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? BECAUSE I 

DON'T THINK A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION GIVES YOU FULL 

PRIVILEGE -- 

MS. MORTIMER: AND THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. 

THE COURT: -- NOT TO COMPLY WITH CIVIL DISCOVERY. 

MS. MORTIMER: I APOLOGIZE IF I MISCOMMUNICATED THAT.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MS. MORTIMER: WHAT I'M SAYING IS IN THIS INSTANCE, 

WE'VE PRODUCED THE DOCUMENTS IN OUR POSSESSION OF FORENSIC 

REPORTS THAT ARE CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THE BREACH AND -- 

THE COURT: BUT YOU'RE SAYING -- BUT THAT DID NOT 

GIVE YAHOO! AND VERIZON -- IT DIDN'T MAKE THEM AWARE OF 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 23 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

24

THESE -- 

MS. MORTIMER: IT DID NOT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: -- WHAT DO YOU WANT TO CALL THEM, 

2 BILLION ACCOUNTS? 

MS. MORTIMER: USER ACCOUNTS, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: USER ACCOUNTS, OKAY. 

SO IT DIDN'T ALERT VERIZON AND YAHOO! TO THESE 2 BILLION 

USER ACCOUNTS, SO I JUST DON'T SEE -- YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M 

TRYING TO DO, RIGHT? 

MS. MORTIMER: ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: WE HAVE ALREADY GONE THROUGH A 

CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT; I HAVE ALREADY DONE, WHAT, 

A, LIKE, 92-PAGE ORDER -- 93-PAGE ORDER ON A MOTION TO DISMISS. 

SO IT'S JUST DISAPPOINTING NOW TO HAVE TO GO BACK TO 

SQUARE ONE AND GET ANOTHER COMPLAINT. 

AND THEN WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU IS, "WELL, YOU'RE NOT 

GOING TO GET ANYTHING ELSE FROM US BECAUSE WE GAVE IT TO YOU. 

WE GAVE YOU EVERYTHING WE HAD IN AUGUST 2013, EVEN THOUGH IT 

DIDN'T ALERT VERIZON OR YAHOO! TO THE FACT THAT 2 BILLION USER 

ACCOUNTS WERE AFFECTED. AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE IS SUBJECT TO 

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, SO WE'RE ONLY GOING TO GIVE THEM THE 

USER INFORMATION WHICH I ALREADY PROVIDED IN A LETTER OF 

OCTOBER 6 TH." 

MS. MORTIMER: NO, YOUR HONOR. LET ME CLARIFY. 

THE COURT: SO LET ME JUST SET SOME DATES, OKAY, AND 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 24 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

25

I WILL HAVE YOU GUYS COME IN EVERY TWO WEEKS BECAUSE I'M GOING 

TO MONITOR THIS. 

MS. MORTIMER: IF WE HAVE INFORMATION -- 

THE COURT: SO LET'S COME IN EVERY TWO WEEKS. LET ME 

HEAR, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO SERVE DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND WHEN 

ARE THE RESPONSES GOING TO BE SERVED? 

AND THEN I WILL MAKE YOU COME IN EVERY TWO WEEKS, OR AT 

LEAST FILE A JOINT DISCOVERY STATUS REPORT EVERY TWO WEEKS, 

BECAUSE THIS ALREADY IS BRINGING US BACK TO SQUARE ONE. I'D 

LIKE TO PREVENT FURTHER DELAYS IN THE CASE. ALL RIGHT? 

SO WHEN ARE YOU -- I'D LIKE YOU TO VERY PROMPTLY SERVE 

WHAT -- I MEAN, I'M HEARING YOU WANT TO AMEND IN, WHAT -- 

MR. YANCHUNIS: BY THE 10TH OF NOVEMBER. 

THE COURT: -- FOUR WEEKS. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, MA'AM. 

THE COURT: SO I'M DISAPPOINTED TO HEAR THAT YOU 

HAVEN'T SERVED ANY DISCOVERY. YOU HAVEN'T EVEN -- IT SOUNDS 

LIKE YOU HAVEN'T EVEN DRAFTED YOUR 30(B)(6) NOTICE. IS IT 

DRAFTED? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: WELL, NO. BUT THE AREAS ARE 

ARTICULATED IN THE REPORT THAT WE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT, WHICH 

I GAVE TO THE OTHER SIDE. 

THE COURT: WHAT'S IN THERE? I'M SORRY, I DON'T 

UNDERSTAND THAT. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: THE AREAS OF INQUIRY REQUIRED BY 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 25 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

26

30(B)(6) ARE ACTUALLY ARTICULATED IN THE STATEMENT ITSELF. 

THE COURT: WELL, THEN WHY DO YOU NEED UNTIL MONDAY 

TO SERVE THE 30(B)(6) NOTICE -- 

MR. YANCHUNIS: NO, I CAN SERVE THAT -- 

THE COURT: -- IF IT'S ALREADY READY TO GO? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: I CAN SERVE THAT NOW. 

IT'S THE QUESTION OF THE REQUEST TO PRODUCE. I'LL SERVE 

THAT ON MONDAY. 

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO THE 30(B)(6) NOTICE -- I 

MEAN, YOU'VE GOT FOUR WEEKS. YOU NEED TO GET THIS DISCOVERY SO 

THAT YOU CAN AMEND THIS COMPLAINT IN TIME. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: SO, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST CASE THAT WAS 

FILED BEFORE ME WAS FILED SEPTEMBER 22ND OF 2016, SO WE ARE 

ALREADY WELL OVER A YEAR AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW AMENDING 

THE COMPLAINT. 

SO -- 

MS. MORTIMER: AND A NUMBER -- A LOT OF DISCOVERY HAS 

BEEN PRODUCED, YOUR HONOR. AND TO CLARIFY, IF THERE IS 

DISCOVERABLE MATERIAL, WHICH IS LIMITED BECAUSE THERE AREN'T 

ARTIFACTS ON THE YAHOO! SYSTEM, WE WILL ABSOLUTELY PRODUCE IT 

ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS. 

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF THEY MAKE A CRIMINAL 

INVESTIGATION PRIVILEGE OBJECTION, THEN I WANT YOU TO LITIGATE 

THAT BEFORE THE DISCOVERY JUDGE IN THIS CASE, WHO'S 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 26 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

27

JUDGE COUSINS. OKAY? 

ALL RIGHT. SO THE 30(B)(6) NOTICE WILL BE -- IT SHOULD BE 

SERVED TODAY. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: IT'LL BE SERVED TODAY. 

THE COURT: SERVE IT TODAY. 

SO ANY OTHER DOCUMENT REQUESTS OR OTHER DISCOVERY REQUESTS 

NEED TO BE SERVED WHEN? WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: I'LL DO IT BY MONDAY. BUT IF THE 

COURT WANTS ME TO DO IT THIS WEEKEND, SATURDAY OR SUNDAY -- 

THE COURT: MONDAY IS FINE. MONDAY IS OCTOBER 16TH. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: OKAY. 

THE COURT: OKAY. NOW, LET'S SET A DATE BY WHICH -- 

I MEAN, THIS -- THAT'S WHY I'M WONDERING HOW YOU'RE FIGURING 

NOVEMBER 10TH IS A DOABLE DATE. I WOULD EXPECT THAT YAHOO! 

NEEDS AT LEAST TWO WEEKS FOR DISCOVERY RESPONSES, SO I'D SAY 

OCTOBER 30TH. 

MS. MORTIMER: AND, YOUR HONOR, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT 

DISCOVERY RESPONSES THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THE OCTOBER 3RD 

DISCLOSURE? 

THE COURT: I WOULD SAY WHATEVER IS NEEDED TO AMEND 

THE COMPLAINT AT THIS POINT. IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A 

NOVEMBER 10TH DEADLINE FOR AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT, WE NEED 

THAT DISCOVERY. 

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, THE PARTIES HAVE NOT -- 

ALTHOUGH DISCOVERY HAS BEEN ONGOING AND WE HAVE PRODUCED OVER 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 27 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

28

8,000 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE MOST TAILORED TO THE 

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS OF THE BREACH, THE PARTIES HAVE NOT 

FINALIZED THE SEARCH TERMS, SO IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO PRODUCE 

EVERYTHING THAT MAY BE RESPONSIVE BY THAT DATE. 

THE COURT: SO LET'S MOVE THE NOVEMBER 10TH DATE OUT. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: IT'S LOOKING LIKE THAT'S GOING TO BE NOT 

FEASIBLE. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO TELL ME WHEN IT'S GOING TO 

BE -- SO NO SEARCH TERMS HAVE BEEN AGREED TO YET? 

MS. MORTIMER: SEARCH TERMS HAVE BEEN AGREED TO, YOUR 

HONOR, BUT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN FINALIZED YET. SO I BELIEVE 

THERE'S STILL A FEW OUTSTANDING -- 

THE COURT: SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "AGREED 

TO" AND "FINALIZED"? WHY CAN'T YOU PRODUCE WITH WHAT'S BEEN 

AGREED TO? HAS ANYTHING BEEN PRODUCED WITH REGARD TO WHAT 

SETTLEMENT TERMS HAVE BEEN -- OR SEARCH TERMS HAVE BEEN AGREED 

TO? 

MS. MORTIMER: YES, YOUR HONOR. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: WE RECEIVED 10,000 PAGES OF 

DOCUMENTS, APPROXIMATELY, INCLUDING THE REPORTS THAT SHE 

INDICATED. 

THE COURT: UM-HUM. 

MS. MORTIMER: WHICH ARE ALL THE FORENSIC REPORTS 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 28 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

29

THAT ARE CONTEMPORANEOUS, YOUR HONOR, AS WELL AS THE REPORT 

RELATED TO THE 2014 BREACH. 

THE COURT: OKAY. 10,000 PAGES FOR A CASE OF THIS 

COMPLEXITY AND MAGNITUDE IS NOT A LARGE NUMBER. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: AND THERE'S -- I DO NOT DISPUTE THAT. 

AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT THEY DON'T POINT TO THE PROBLEM 

THAT WE'RE HERE TODAY ABOUT, AND THAT IS WHY THIS WASN'T 

DISCOVERED IN 2013, '14, '15, '16. 

I MEAN, I BEAR YOUR FRUSTRATION AND I'M -- 

THE COURT: WELL, ALL RIGHT. I'M SORRY. I'M GOING 

TO HAVE TO MANAGE THIS CASE MORE CLOSELY THAN I THOUGHT. I 

DIDN'T REALIZE SEARCH TERMS HAVE NOT BEEN AGREED TO YET. 

ALL RIGHT. SO GIVE ME A DEADLINE BY WHICH YOU'RE GOING TO 

FINALIZE YOUR SEARCH TERMS. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: NEXT -- 

MS. MORTIMER: I THINK MOST SEARCH TERMS -- 

THE COURT: AND I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU FILE THEM. 

FILE THEM WITH THE COURT. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, MA'AM. 

THE COURT: I WANT THEM PART OF THE RECORD. 

SO WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FILE YOUR FINALIZED SEARCH TERMS? 

IS THIS A MS. TADLER CONVERSATION? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: BY NEXT FRIDAY. 

THE COURT: OKAY. THAT IS OCTOBER 20TH. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, MA'AM. 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 29 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

30

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT ELSE IS OUTSTANDING THAT 

WE NEED TO GET SO THAT WE CAN HAVE, HOPEFULLY, A DEFINITIVE 

CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD FROM 

THERE? WHAT ELSE? 

SO IF YOU FINALIZE THE TERMS ON THE 20TH, THEN WHEN CAN WE 

GET THIS DISCOVERY? HOW MUCH OF THE DISCOVERY WITH REGARD TO 

AGREED TO SEARCH TERMS IS STILL OUTSTANDING? 

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, WE SPECIFICALLY AND 

INTENTIONALLY PRIORITIZED THE PRODUCTION, EVEN THOUGH WE HADN'T 

FINALIZED THE TERMS, TO THE INFORMATION WE HAD THAT'S MOST 

RELEVANT TO THE BREACHES. 

THE COURT: SO IS THE ANSWER NONE? 

MS. MORTIMER: NO, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: THE ANSWER IS NONE?

MS. MORTIMER: NO, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: HOW MUCH IS -- I JUST WANT SPECIFIC 

ANSWERS. 

MS. MORTIMER: THE 10,000 PAGES, YOUR HONOR, IS ALL 

RESPONSIVE TO WHAT WE ANTICIPATE TO BE THE MAIN SEARCH TERMS. 

AND WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT COMPLETION OF DISCOVERY, NOR 

WOULD IT BE TYPICAL TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY, PRIOR TO FINALIZING 

THE COMPLAINT. 

IF THE COURT'S CONCERNED THAT THERE'S ADDITIONAL 

INFORMATION -- 

THE COURT: 10,000 PAGES OF DISCOVERY IN A CASE OF 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 30 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

31

THIS MAGNITUDE IS WOEFULLY SMALL. 10,000 PAGES? 

MS. TADLER: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS -- 

THE COURT: YEAH. 

MS. TADLER: THIS IS ARIANA TADLER. IF I MAY? 

WE ARE EAGER TO RESOLVE THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE SEARCH 

TERMS AND CERTAINLY WILL COMPLETE THAT BY THE DATE THAT 

MR. YANCHUNIS HAS INDICATED. 

WE HAVE EVERY EXPECTATION, AND I HOPE THAT WE'RE RIGHT, 

THAT ONCE THOSE SEARCH TERMS ARE APPLIED, THERE'S AN 

EXPECTATION THAT THE VOLUME OF DATA TO BE PRODUCED IN THIS CASE 

IS EXTREMELY LARGE. 

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. TELL ME WHEN THAT'S GOING TO 

BE PRODUCED. 

MS. TADLER: WE'RE READY TO GO. 

MS. MORTIMER: BUT, YOUR HONOR, AGAIN, WE THINK WE 

CAN, AND HAVE, AND WILL EXPEDITE INFORMATION RELATED TO THE 

2013 BREACH. 

THE COURT: NO. I WANT A DATE. 

MS. MORTIMER: BUT DISCOVERY SHOULDN'T BE FINALIZED 

BEFORE THE AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN THE VOLUME AND THE 

SIZE AND THE COMPLEXITY. IS IT IMPORTANT THAT THE PLAINTIFF -- 

THE COURT: YOU'VE ONLY PRODUCED 10,000 PAGES? THE 

MDL PANEL TRANSFERRED THIS CASE LAST YEAR. IT IS OCTOBER 

THE 13TH. 

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 31 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

32

COOPERATIVELY -- 

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME -- LET ME -- ALL 

DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS THAT WILL BE 

SERVED ON OCTOBER 16TH MUST BE PRODUCED BY NOVEMBER THE 13TH. 

AND THAT INCLUDES INTERROGATORIES, THAT INCLUDES REQUESTS FOR 

ADMISSIONS. 

SO ALL -- I WOULD SAY ALL DISCOVERY RESPONSIVE TO 

DISCOVERY REQUESTS SERVED ON OCTOBER 16TH. SO THAT WILL NOT BE 

THE FULL UNIVERSE, BUT IT SHOULD BE RESPONSIVE TO THIS LATEST 

DISCLOSURE. 

AND I DON'T WANT TO HEAR, "WELL, BUT WE ALREADY GAVE THEM 

WHAT WE HAD FROM AUGUST OF 2013," BECAUSE THAT OBVIOUSLY WASN'T 

SUFFICIENT. 

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, WE WILL -- 

THE COURT: IT DIDN'T PUT YOUR CLIENT ON NOTICE OF 

2 BILLION USER ACCOUNTS, OKAY? 

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, WE WILL PRODUCE ANY 

DISCOVERY WE HAVE RESPONSIVE AND RELATED TO THE RECENT 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE DEADLINE SET AND RESPONSIVE TO THE REQUESTS 

MADE. 

THE COURT: NO, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO NARROW IT. ALL 

DISCOVERY RESPONSIVE TO THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS SERVED ON 

OCTOBER 16, 2017, IS DUE ON NOVEMBER 13TH. 

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, WITHOUT SEEING THE BREADTH 

OF THE REQUEST, I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT WE CAN PRODUCE IT IN 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 32 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

33

THAT TIMEFRAME. PRESUMABLY COUNSEL WILL NARROW IT TO WHAT IS 

NECESSARY RELATED TO THE MOST RECENT BREACH. 

THE COURT: WELL, THAT'S ACTUALLY GIVING MORE TIME 

THAN YOU WOULD NORMALLY HAVE. UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL 

PROCEDURE, YOU'D HAVE 30 DAYS. 

MS. MORTIMER: AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, WE'VE BEEN WORKING 

COOPERATIVELY. BUT THERE IS A LARGE VOLUME OF DOCUMENTS, AND 

TRYING TO TAILOR IT AND REVIEW IT IN A PRACTICABLE WAY, WE'LL 

DO OUR BEST TO BE RESPONSIVE. 

HAVING SEEN THE REQUESTS, IF THERE'S A PROBLEM, THEN WE'LL 

IMMEDIATELY RAISE IT WITH THE COURT. 

BUT I UNDERSTAND THE COURT'S CONCERN ABOUT NOT CAUSING 

ADDITIONAL DELAY. 

THE COURT: OKAY. SO 30(B)(6) -- THE 30(B)(6) NOTICE 

WILL BE SERVED ON OCTOBER 13TH; DISCOVERY REQUESTS WILL BE 

SERVED ON OCTOBER 16TH; THAT DISCOVERY WILL BE RESPONDED TO -- 

AND I DON'T WANT JUST BOILERPLATE OBJECTIONS, THIS SHOULD BE 

DOCUMENT PRODUCTION -- THAT IS DUE ON NOVEMBER 13TH OF 2017. 

NOW, HOW MUCH -- WHEN DO YOU NEED -- DO YOU WANT TO TAKE 

THE DEPOSITION AFTER YOU GET THE DOCUMENTS AND THE DISCOVERY 

REQUESTS? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: IT PROBABLY WOULD BE MORE MEANINGFUL 

IF I COULD DO THAT. BUT THERE AGAIN, I'M -- I'LL WORK WITH 

WHATEVER -- I'LL DO WHATEVER YOU WANT ME TO DO. 

THE COURT: OKAY. THAT'S NOVEMBER 13TH. WELL, TELL 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 33 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

34

ME WHAT YOU NEED. I -- 

MR. YANCHUNIS: SO I CAN TAKE THAT 30(B)(6) WITHOUT A 

DOCUMENT. 

THE COURT: OKAY. SO JUST TELL ME WHEN YOU WANT TO 

TAKE THE DEPOSITION. YOU TELL ME WHEN YOU WANT TO TAKE THE 

DEPOSITION. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE IT WITHIN THE 

TIMEFRAME THAT THE COURT HAS GIVEN THEM TO RESPOND TO THE 

DISCOVERY, SO BETWEEN NOW AND THE 17TH OF NOVEMBER. THAT OUGHT 

TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE A WITNESS, EDUCATE -- OR 

WITNESSES TO RESPOND TO THOSE AREAS OF INQUIRY THAT'LL BE 

SERVED TODAY. 

THE COURT: OKAY. SO THEN A 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION WILL 

TAKE PLACE BY NOVEMBER 17TH. ALL RIGHT? 

NOW, WHEN CAN YOU AMEND YOUR COMPLAINT? AND HOPEFULLY 

THIS WILL BE THE DEFINITIVE COMPLAINT AND WE CAN JUST NARROW 

FROM THAT POINT FORWARD. WHAT'S YOUR REALISTIC DATE? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: MID-DECEMBER. 

THE COURT: OKAY. SO DECEMBER 15TH? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, MA'AM. 

THE COURT: THAT WILL BE THE FILING OF THE SECOND 

CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT. 

OKAY. NOW, I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE THE HOLIDAYS. I ASSUME 

THERE WILL BE A MOTION TO DISMISS. WHEN WOULD YOU LIKE TO FILE 

THAT? 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 34 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

35

(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN COUNSEL.)

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, IF WE COULD FILE THE 

MOTION TO DISMISS ON JANUARY 20TH? 

THE COURT: OKAY. THAT'S A SATURDAY. WHAT ABOUT THE 

19TH? 

MS. MORTIMER: AH, MAKES MORE SENSE. 

THE COURT: OKAY. SO FILE THE MOTION TO DISMISS, 

PLEASE, ON JANUARY 19TH OF 2018, PLEASE. 

ALL RIGHT. HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED FOR OPPOSITION? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: THREE WEEKS? 

THE COURT: OKAY. FEBRUARY 9 IS THE OPPOSITION. 

THAT IS 2-9-2018. 

WHAT ABOUT FEBRUARY 19 FOR THE REPLY? 

MS. MORTIMER: I'M SORRY? FEBRUARY? 

THE COURT: 19. THAT GIVES YOU TEN DAYS. 

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO 

GET 15? 

THE COURT: WELL, THEY'RE ONLY GETTING THREE WEEKS 

FOR A REPLY. 

MS. MORTIMER: THAT DATE IS FINE, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: OKAY. SO OCTOBER 19 -- I'M SORRY -- 

FEBRUARY 19 OF 2018. 

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, WOULD THE SAME PAGE LIMITS 

STAY IN PLACE? 

THE COURT: LET ME JUST DOUBLE-CHECK. WHAT WERE 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 35 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

36

THOSE LIMITS? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: 32, 32, AND 15. 

THE COURT: THAT'S FINE. THAT'S FINE. 

ALL RIGHT. THEN THE HEARING, LET'S SEE. SO IF WE HAVE IT 

THE 19TH, THEN WE CAN -- 

LET ME ASK, WHAT DOES APRIL 5TH LOOK LIKE? 

(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE COURT AND THE 

CLERK.) 

THE COURT: OKAY. WHAT IF WE SPECIALLY SET THIS THEN 

ON TUESDAY, APRIL THE 3RD? NOW, THAT ONLY GIVES US -- OH, THAT 

ONLY GIVES US TWO WEEKS TO WORK ON A -- WHAT ABOUT FRIDAY, 

THE 6TH, APRIL 6TH? 

THE CLERK: YOUR HONOR, THERE ARE NO MATTERS 

PRESENTLY SET ON THAT DATE. 

THE COURT: I WOULD -- I CAN'T DO IT THE WEEK OF THE 

12TH. ALTHOUGH I -- ACTUALLY, THAT DATE CAN MOVE UP. THAT 

COULD BE ADVANCED. 

DO WE HAVE OTHER LAW AND MOTION SET ON THE 5TH? 

(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE COURT AND THE 

CLERK.) 

THE COURT: OKAY. LET'S SPECIALLY SET THIS, THEN, 

PLEASE, FOR APRIL 6TH. I JUST DON'T WANT TO DELAY IT FURTHER. 

THAT WILL GIVE US LESS THAN THREE WEEKS, BUT THAT WILL 

HOPEFULLY BE ENOUGH. SO THE HEARING WILL BE APRIL THE 6TH OF 

2018. AND CAN WE PLEASE SET THAT FOR 2:00? I KNOW YOU PREFER 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 36 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

37

MORNING, BUT I'M GOING TO BE TRAVELLING ON THE 5TH, SO -- 

MS. MORTIMER: YES, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: OKAY. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: THAT'S AT 2:00. 

OKAY. NOW, ASSUMING THAT WE CAN GET THE ORDER OUT, 

HOPEFULLY, DEPENDING ON THE COMPLEXITY, WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF THE 

HEARING DATE, THEN HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU NEED FOR THE REST OF 

DISCOVERY? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: LET ME ASK YOU -- 

THE COURT: UM-HUM. OR ACTUALLY, FOR THE NEXT CLASS 

CERT MOTION WOULD BE THE NEXT DEADLINE. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: SO THE SCHEDULE, ON PAGE 4, WOULD THE 

REST OF THAT SCHEDULE WORK WITH THE COURT? 

THE COURT: GIVE ME ONE SECOND. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: IT'S ON PAGE 4, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. JUST GIVE ME ONE SECOND, 

PLEASE. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, MA'AM. DOCKET 143. 

THE COURT: NOW, YOU HAVE -- LET'S SEE. YOU HAVE 

CLASS CERT BEING FILED ON JULY 13TH. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, MA'AM. 

MS. MORTIMER: WE THINK THE REMAINDER OF THE DATES 

COULD STAY IN PLACE, YOUR HONOR, NOTWITHSTANDING THE CHANGES TO 

THE MOTION TO DISMISS DATES. 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 37 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

38

THE COURT: WELL, THIS IS MY ONE CONCERN. IF I GRANT 

THE MOTION TO DISMISS ON CAUSES OF ACTION FOR WHICH I'VE 

ALREADY GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, THEN I DON'T WANT TO 

PRE-JUDGE IT, BUT THE LIKELIHOOD THAT I WILL DISMISS WITH 

PREJUDICE IS HIGH. 

THE PROBLEM IS, IF THERE ARE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION, I WILL 

LIKELY HAVE TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND, WHICH WOULD THEN 

GENERATE A THIRD MOTION TO DISMISS. THAT'S MY CONCERN, THAT IF 

WE HAVE CLASS CERT ON JULY 13TH, YOU MAY NOT KNOW WHAT'S STILL 

IN THE CASE, IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE. 

MS. MORTIMER: I UNDERSTAND, YOUR HONOR. BUT I -- 

UNLESS I'M MISUNDERSTANDING MR. YANCHUNIS, HE WAS THINKING OF 

AMENDING WITH RESPECT TO ADDING OTHER STATE LAW CLAIMS, WHICH 

MIGHT BE DECIDED AS A MATTER OF LAW BASED ON THE CHOICE OF LAW 

PROVISION. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: NO. I THOUGHT WE TALKED ABOUT THIS. 

NO. WE'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO EXPLORE THE -- OUR 

AMENDMENT TO ADD FRAUD -- WE HAVE NOT YET -- JUST COMMON LAW 

FRAUD. 

MS. MORTIMER: OH, YOU HAVE A UCL FRAUD NOW. THAT'S 

WHAT I MEANT. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, COMMON LAW FRAUD, AS WELL AS, 

YOU KNOW, THE POSSIBILITY OF INJECTING PUNITIVE DAMAGES. 

SO THERE -- SO THERE WILL BE NEW THINGS THAT WE SEEK TO 

EXPLORE, WHICH I THINK THE COURT GRANTED. 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 38 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

39

THE COURT: WELL, MY CONCERN THEN IS THAT WHATEVER IS 

NEW, IF I DISMISS AND GRANT YAHOO!'S MOTION, I WOULD LIKELY 

HAVE TO GIVE LEAVE TO AMEND, WHICH WOULD THEN SET US UP FOR A 

THIRD ROUND. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, MA'AM. 

THE COURT: NOW, WE COULD KEEP THIS SCHEDULE AND -- 

OH, WAIT. OH, OKAY. I MISWROTE THAT. 

THE -- WAIT A MINUTE. I'M SORRY. I MISSPOKE HERE. 

SO IF YOU'RE FILING ON THE 19TH OF JANUARY AND YOU'RE 

OPPOSING ON THE 9TH AND YOU'RE REPLYING ON THE 19TH, I 

MISSPOKE. WHY IS THIS GOING INTO APRIL? THAT'S MY MISTAKE. 

MARCH 8TH WOULD BE -- LET ME ASK, I'M NOT -- THAT WAS MY 

MISTAKE. I JUMPED -- I SKIPPED A MONTH. 

LET ME ASK MS. MASON HOW -- IF WE HAVE THE WEEK OF THE 

19TH, THE WEEK OF THE 26TH, AND THREE DAYS THE WEEK OF 

MARCH 5TH, CAN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT MARCH 8TH? HOW DOES THAT 

LOOK? 

(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE COURT AND THE 

CLERK.) 

MS. MORTIMER: I COULD DO THAT. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: SO MARCH 8TH, ARE YOU AVAILABLE 

MARCH 8TH? 

MS. MORTIMER: YES, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: OKAY. THEN I WOULD JUST SAY THAT SHOULD 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 39 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

40

BE OUR REGULAR 1:30 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR. 

OKAY. SO IF YOU CAN GET -- SO IF YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT 

YOU THINK YOU CAN KEEP THE CLASS CERT SCHEDULE IF, LET'S SAY 

YOU GET AN ORDER HOPEFULLY BY MARCH 23RD, WITHIN TWO WEEKS, 

THEN THAT'S FINE. 

THE ONLY PROBLEM IS, IF I GRANT YAHOO!'S MOTION, THEN I 

WILL LIKELY HAVE TO GIVE YOU LEAVE TO AMEND AND THEN WE'LL DO A 

THIRD ROUND AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WE COULD FIT THAT IN BY THE 

JULY 13TH DATE. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: COULD PERHAPS WE COME BACK IN -- OR 

AT LEAST LEAVE THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS REMAINS THE SAME? IF 

YOU HAPPEN TO GIVE US LEAVE TO AMEND AND THERE'S SOMETHING WE 

WANT LEAVE TO AMEND, WE CAN COMMUNICATE THAT TO YOU AND PERHAPS 

WE CAN TALK ABOUT A READJUSTMENT? 

THE COURT: YEAH. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: OTHERWISE I'LL MARCH FORWARD WITH 

WHAT YOU HAVE IN THIS ORDER. 

THE COURT: YOU KNOW WHAT WE COULD ALSO DO, WHICH 

WOULD BE TIGHT, BUT IF I WERE TO GRANT YAHOO!'S MOTION AND GIVE 

YOU LEAVE TO AMEND, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE ON A 

PERHAPS NARROWER ISSUES THAT YOU'LL HAVE GUIDANCE ON AND YOU'LL 

KNOW WHETHER YOU CAN EITHER ALLEGE IT OR NOT. PERHAPS IF WE'VE 

GOT TO DO A THIRD ROUND, WE CAN DO IT IN AN EXPEDITED TIMEFRAME 

SO WE COULD STILL KEEP THE REST OF THE SCHEDULE. 

THAT -- I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE THE OTHER OPTION OF TRYING 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 40 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

41

TO SQUEEZE THAT IN, AND I'LL PRIORITIZE IT SO WE CAN KEEP THE 

REST OF THE SCHEDULE. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, JUDGE. 

THE COURT: SO MAYBE TRY TO DO THAT IN MAY OR EARLY 

JUNE. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: THAT WOULD BE FINE. 

THE COURT: IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT PROBABLY WOULDN'T 

AFFECT YOUR CLASS CERT MOTION. 

MS. MORTIMER: IT SHOULDN'T, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: DAMAGES CERTAINLY WOULDN'T, RIGHT? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: NO, IT WOULD NOT. 

MS. MORTIMER: YOUR HONOR, TO THE EXTENT THE FRAUD 

CLAIM HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT EXPLORED AS A PREDICATE TO UCL, IF IT'S 

RELATIVELY FOCUSSED, I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO STAY WITHIN 

THE SAME TIMEFRAME. 

THE COURT: OKAY. LET'S DO THAT. 

THEN I'M LOOKING AT THE REST OF YOUR SCHEDULE. SO YOU 

HAVE JULY, AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, AND THEN OCTOBER. 

NOW, I DON'T DO HEARINGS ON WEDNESDAYS, SO LET ME ASK -- 

LET ME ASK MS. MASON WHETHER NOVEMBER 1 IS OPEN FOR US. 

(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE COURT AND THE 

CLERK.) 

THE COURT: OH, GREAT. SO I CAN AT LEAST ADVANCE 

YOUR HEARING BY A WEEK. ALL RIGHT. 

YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR MEDIATION DEADLINE? 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 41 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

42

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, MA'AM. 

THE COURT: YOU KNOW, I WOULD PREFER THAT YOU ADVANCE 

IT, AND THIS IS WHY: THAT IS JUST ONE DAY BEFORE THE HEARING, 

SO IF YOU COULD ADVANCE IT, PERHAPS -- WHAT ABOUT THE END OF 

SEPTEMBER? YOU'LL HAVE THE CLASS CERT REPLY BRIEF AND 

EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITIONS TO THE 

PLAINTIFFS' DAUBERT MOTIONS BY SEPTEMBER 21. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, MA'AM. 

THE COURT: SO COULD WE ADVANCE IT? 

MS. MORTIMER: YES, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: OKAY. WHAT -- WHAT DATE WOULD WORK? I'D 

LIKE TO DO IT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I WOULD PREFER EVEN THAT 

YOU MAY DO ONE SESSION BEFORE CLASS CERT BRIEFING, OR AT LEAST 

ONE SESSION AFTER THE MOTION OR AFTER THE OPPOSITION, AND ONE 

AFTER THE REPLY. I MEAN, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ASSESS FOR SURE -- 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, MA'AM. 

THE COURT: -- WITH THAT. SO CAN WE ADVANCE THE 

DEADLINE? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, YOUR HONOR. 

MS. MORTIMER: SEPTEMBER 30TH? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: SEPTEMBER 30TH IS FINE. YOU GAVE US 

DIRECTION THAT, IN CONNECTION WITH MEDIATION, YOU WOULD LIKE 

THREE SESSIONS. 

THE COURT: WELL, I -- 

MR. YANCHUNIS: AND -- 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 42 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

43

THE COURT: I DON'T MIND HOW MANY YOU HAVE. I JUST 

WANT TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO START EARLY IN CASE YOU NEED MORE. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: NO, NO. I TOOK IT TO HEART. WE'RE 

GOING TO DO THAT. 

THE COURT: OKAY. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: SO WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT A 

DEADLINE. 

THE COURT: THIS IS A DEADLINE. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES. 

THE COURT: RIGHT. BUT I DON'T THINK IT MAKES 

SENSE -- IF YOU SETTLE THE DAY BEFORE, WE WILL HAVE ALREADY 

DONE ALL THE WORK ON THOSE MOTIONS. 

MS. MORTIMER: SURE. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: AND I CLERKED FOR A DISTRICT JUDGE. 

I KNOW WHAT YOU DO. 

THE COURT: YEAH. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: AND I WILL NOT DO THAT TO YOU. 

THE COURT: YEAH. SO THAT'S WHY I'D LIKE TO SET THAT 

MEDIATION DEADLINE, SEPTEMBER 30TH WOULD BE GREAT. 

MS. MORTIMER: WE'LL DO THAT, YOUR HONOR. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: THANK YOU, JUDGE. 

THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, THE 30TH IS 

A SUNDAY. LET'S SAY SEPTEMBER 28. 

MS. MORTIMER: I KEEP PICKING THE WRONG DAYS, YOUR 

HONOR, BUT THE 28TH. 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 43 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

44

THE COURT: OKAY. SO THE 28TH IS A FRIDAY. 

ACTUALLY, WE SHOULD CHECK TO MAKE SURE YOUR OTHER DAYS -- THE 

13TH IS A FRIDAY, THAT'S GOOD; THE 31ST IS A FRIDAY, THAT'S 

GOOD; THE 21ST IS A FRIDAY, THAT'S GOOD. OKAY, NOVEMBER 1 IS A 

THURSDAY, THAT'S GOOD. 

OKAY. SO IF WE HAVE YOUR HEARING, THEN WE CAN KEEP THE 

REST OF THIS SCHEDULE. 

DOES THE REST OF THE SCHEDULE WORK FOR THE PARTIES? SO IT 

WOULD BE A MARCH 1 FACT DISCOVERY CUTOFF; AND THEN EXPERT 

REPORTS A WEEK LATER; THEN YOU'LL TAKE THE DEPOSITION; AND THEN 

THE DEFENSE REPORTS; AND THEN CLOSE OF EXPERT DISCOVERY IS THE 

26TH OF APRIL. 

AND LET ME JUST ASK MS. MASON, AUGUST 1, 2019, ARE WE 

AVAILABLE ON THAT DATE? 

THE CLERK: YES, YOUR HONOR. THERE ARE NO MATTERS 

PRESENTLY SET. 

THE COURT: OKAY, GREAT. 

COULD YOU ALSO PLEASE CHECK SEPTEMBER 5, 2019? 

THE CLERK: THE SAME, YOUR HONOR, NO MATTERS 

PRESENTLY SET. 

THE COURT: OKAY. AND THEN WHAT ABOUT 

SEPTEMBER 23RD? 

THE CLERK: THERE ARE NO MATTERS PRESENTLY SET. 

THE COURT: OKAY, GOOD. SO ALL THAT IS GOOD. 

AND THEN CAN YOU PLEASE CHECK NOVEMBER 21 OF 2019? 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 44 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

45

THE CLERK: NO MATTERS PRESENTLY SET, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT, GOOD. 

SO THE REST OF THIS SCHEDULE SEEMS TO WORK, SO THANK YOU. 

THAT'S GOOD. 

SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS JUST ISSUE A CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER 

WITH THE NEW DATES WE AGREED UPON, BUT THAT INCORPORATE ALL OF 

YOUR DATES FROM CLASS CERT TO THE END, WITH ONLY THE 

MODIFICATION OF THE HEARING BY LESS THAN A WEEK ON CLASS CERT, 

AND THE MEDIATION DEADLINE. 

NOW, LET'S SET A FURTHER CMC, AND I'M HAPPY FOR IT TO BE 

SOON JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS PROCESS GOES SMOOTHLY. SO 

WHEN WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME BACK? AND, YOU KNOW, IF IT TURNS 

OUT YOU HAVE NO ISSUES, I WILL JUST VACATE IT, OR AT LEAST I'LL 

CONTINUE IT TO ANOTHER DATE AND I WILL NOT REQUIRE THAT YOU 

COME IN. 

SO WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: DO YOU WANT IT THREE WEEKS OUT? 

THE COURT: THAT'S FINE. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: SO THAT WOULD BE THE -- 

THE COURT: LET'S SEE WHAT THAT IS. TODAY IS THE 

13TH. SO NOVEMBER 3RD? AND IF THERE ARE NO ISSUES, LIKE I 

SAID, I'LL VACATE IT. 

THE CLERK: YOUR HONOR, YOU'RE UNAVAILABLE ON 

NOVEMBER THE 3RD. 

THE COURT: OH, THANK YOU. 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 45 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

46

OH, I THINK WE'RE IN TRIAL, RIGHT, ON DOCTORS BELCHER AND 

GANESH IN NOVEMBER? 

THE CLERK: I BELIEVE WE HAVE THAT WEEK OFF. 

THE COURT: SO I THINK I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT ON 

A WEDNESDAY OR A THURSDAY IN NOVEMBER. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: WOULD THE 1ST WORK, KEEPING THAT SAME 

WEEK? 

THE COURT: WHICH ONE? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: THE 1ST? 

THE COURT: THAT'S FINE. NOW, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO 

GET ANY OF THEIR DISCOVERY UNTIL THE 13TH AND YOU WON'T GET 

THEIR 30(B)(6) UNTIL THE 17TH. OR DO YOU THINK YOU'LL GET -- 

WELL, YOU -- LET ME ASK IF YAHOO! WOULD, INSTEAD OF WAITING AND 

JUST DUMPING EVERYTHING ON THE 13TH, IF YOU'D BE WILLING TO 

SORT OF INCREMENTALLY PRODUCE WHAT YOU HAVE AVAILABLE? 

MS. MORTIMER: ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: OKAY. 

MS. MORTIMER: WE HAD INTENDED TO PRODUCE ON A 

ROLLING BASIS. 

THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU. 

SO WHEN -- 

MR. YANCHUNIS: WELL, LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. 

YOU WANT TO KNOW IF WE'RE MOVING ALONG WITH WHAT WE'RE -- WHAT 

YOU'VE CHARGED US TO DO, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT WOULD INDICATE 

YOU WANT US TO COME BEFORE YOU BEFORE THE DISCOVERY RESPONSE IS 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 46 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

47

DUE. NO? 

THE COURT: NO. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: OKAY. 

THE COURT: I JUST WANT TO CHECK IN AND MAKE SURE 

EVERYTHING IS RUNNING SMOOTHLY. 

SO I CAN, YOU KNOW, SET IT ANY DAY YOU WANT. AND IF YOU 

NEED LESS THAN SEVEN DAYS TO FILE THE JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT, THAT'S OKAY, TOO. WE'LL JUST SET THE DATE FOR THAT 

AS WELL. SO WHAT -- 

MR. YANCHUNIS: WELL, HOW ABOUT -- SINCE -- HOW ABOUT 

THE 16TH? AND WE'LL BE -- WE'LL FILE A STATUS REPORT EARLIER 

THAN WE NORMALLY WOULD, MAYBE THE 9TH. 

MS. MORTIMER: WHAT DATE IS THAT? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: THAT'S A THURSDAY. 

THE COURT: NOW, YOU MIGHT BE TAKING THAT DEPOSITION. 

YOU'LL HAVE THE DOCUMENTS ON THE 13TH, THAT'S THE DEADLINE. 

YOU HAVE THE DEADLINE FOR THE DEPOSITION OF THE 17TH. YOU WANT 

TO DO IT, LIKE, THE 10TH OR THE 9TH? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: THAT'S FINE. 

THE COURT: AND JUST MAKE SURE THAT -- I WILL WANT TO 

KNOW HOW MUCH DISCOVERY HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THAT POINT. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: WHY DON'T WE DO THAT? WE CAN GIVE 

YOU AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE IN CONNECTION WITH EVERYTHING 

THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HERE TODAY. 

THE COURT: AND I'LL WANT TO KNOW THE DEPOSITION IS 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 47 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

48

SET FOR THE NEXT WEEK AND, YOU KNOW, JUST THAT YOU THINK THINGS 

ARE READY TO GO. 

I APPRECIATE YOU ALL WORKING WITH ME ON THIS. I JUST WANT 

TO -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE A BIT DELAYED NOW AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE 

SURE THINGS ARE ON TRACK FOR US TO BE ABLE TO SORT OF HOPEFULLY 

RECOUP SOME OF THE TIME THAT WE'VE LOST. 

SO LET'S SAY NOVEMBER THE 9TH, WE HAVE OTHER THINGS ON 

CALENDAR, BUT I THINK THAT'S FINE FOR A CMC. 

DO YOU AGREE, MS. MASON? I THINK IT LOOKS FINE. 

THE CLERK: YES, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: OKAY. SO WE'LL HAVE A CMC ON 

NOVEMBER THE 9TH. AND WHEN DO YOU WANT TO FILE YOUR JOINT CASE 

MANAGEMENT STATEMENT? ON THE 6TH? ON THE 3RD? IT -- 

MS. MORTIMER: THE 6TH, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: OKAY. AND IN THAT, I WILL WANT TO KNOW 

DETAILS, HOW MUCH DISCOVERY HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT THAT POINT; 

WHAT'S OUTSTANDING TO BE PRODUCED; WHAT'S THE DATE OF THAT 

DEPOSITION; WHO IS THE PERSON THAT'S GOING TO BE DEPOSED. I'D 

LIKE SOME DETAILED UPDATES, OKAY? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, MA'AM. 

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO NOVEMBER THE 9TH, THAT'LL 

BE AT 1:30, PLEASE. 

OKAY. WHAT ELSE? I'LL ISSUE A CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER WITH 

ALL THESE DATES IN IT SINCE WE'VE MOVED SOME AROUND JUST SO 

WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 48 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

49

WHAT ELSE? ANYTHING ELSE? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: I DON'T THINK SO, YOUR HONOR. 

MS. MORTIMER: NO, YOUR HONOR. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: THANK YOU. 

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. I 

REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR COOPERATION. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 

THE COURT: AND I'LL TRY TO GET THE CASE BACK ON 

TRACK. THANK YOU. 

MS. MORTIMER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. 

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. 

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

OH, CAN WE PUT ONE THING ON THE RECORD? AND THAT IS IF IT 

TURNS OUT -- IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THE NEXT COMPLAINT IS GOING 

TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER, BUT IF IT IS, THEN I WILL EXPECT 

THAT WE WILL DO NARROWING. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: OKAY. 

THE COURT: MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN TALK ABOUT 

AT A FUTURE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE WHEN YOU HAVE A BETTER 

SENSE OF EXACTLY WHAT YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO BE -- IT SOUNDS 

LIKE YOU'RE NOT AMENDING AS YOU THOUGHT AT THE LAST CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. IS THAT CORRECT? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: I -- LOOKING -- YES. I'M TRYING TO 

LOOK AT EVERYTHING, INCLUDING THE ADMONITION YOU -- YES, MA'AM. 

SO -- 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 49 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

50

THE COURT: IF YOU DO, IT'S COMPLETELY YOUR CALL -- 

MR. YANCHUNIS: I UNDERSTAND THAT. 

THE COURT: -- WHAT'S IN YOUR COMPLAINT. 

BUT IF IT IS LARGER, THEN WE MAY NEED TO DO SOME 

NARROWING. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, MA'AM. 

THE COURT: AND AT THAT POINT, I'D PROBABLY PREFER 

TEN CLAIMS AND I'D PROBABLY GIVE YAHOO! FIVE AND PLAINTIFFS 

FIVE. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, MA'AM. 

THE COURT: YOU GET TO SELECT WHAT WE LITIGATE. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: OKAY. 

THE COURT: OKAY? 

MR. YANCHUNIS: YES, MA'AM. 

THE COURT: BUT ANYWAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. 

MS. MORTIMER: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. 

MR. YANCHUNIS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. 

(THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED AT 12:05 P.M.)

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 50 of 51
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

UNITED STATES COURT REPORTERS

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

I, THE UNDERSIGNED OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER OF THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 

280 SOUTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY 

CERTIFY: 

THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT, CERTIFICATE INCLUSIVE, IS 

A CORRECT TRANSCRIPT FROM THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE 

ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER. 

_______________________________

LEE-ANNE SHORTRIDGE, CSR, CRR 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER 9595

DATED: NOVEMBER 3, 2017

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 155 Filed 11/03/17 Page 51 of 51