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

- 1 -

DECLARATION OF DANIEL S. ROBINSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

ENT

1379567.1

Daniel S. Robinson (SBN 244245)

Wesley K. Polischuk (SBN 254121)

ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.

19 Corporate Plaza Drive

Newport Beach, California 92660

Telephone: (949) 720-1288

Facsimile: (949) 720-1292

drobinson@robinsonfirm.com

wpolischuk@robinsonfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs,

JCCP Co-Lead Counsel and 

Proposed Class Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE: YAHOO INC. CUSTOMER DATA 

SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

No. 16-md-02752-LHK

DECLARATION OF DANIEL S. 

ROBINSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 

FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 

CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, 

I, Daniel S. Robinson, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and before this 

Court. I am a partner at the law firm Robinson Calcagnie, Inc.

2. I was appointed JCCP Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class in the 

parallel state court action of Yahoo! Inc. Private Information Disclosure Cases, Judicial Council 

Coordinated Proceeding (JCCP) No. 4895, in Orange County Superior Court (hereinafter referred 

to as the “JCCP Litigation”), and am one of the proposed Class Counsel in this case. I have 

personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and if called upon as a witness I would and could 

competently testify thereto. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

3. As indicated by my firm’s resume attached hereto as Exhibit 1, I have been 

appointed to leadership positions in numerous state and federal courts, including in other data 

breach cases and in complex and multi-district product liability and consumer class action 

litigation. For instance, I was appointed as Interim Co-Lead Counsel in In re Experian Data 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 330-17 Filed 10/22/18 Page 1 of 10
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 -

DECLARATION OF DANIEL S. ROBINSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

ENT

1379567.1

Breach Litigation, No. 8:15-cv-01592 (Central District of California), Co-Lead Counsel in In re 

21st Century Oncology Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2737; Co-Lead 

Counsel in St. Joseph Health System Medical Information Cases, JCCP No. 4716 (Super. Ct. 

Cal.); Lead Settlement Class Counsel in Blue Cross of California Website Security Cases, JCCP 

No. 4647 (Super. Ct. Cal.); Co-Lead Counsel in Risperdal® and Invega® Product Liability Cases, 

JCCP No. 4775 (Super. Ct. Cal.); Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee Member in In re Biomet M2a 

Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2391; Plaintiffs’ Steering 

Committee Member in In re Actos Product Liability Cases, JCCP No. 4696 (Super. Ct. Cal.); 

Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee Member in In re Fosamax/Alendronate Sodium Drug Cases, JCCP 

No. 4644 (Super. Ct. Cal.); and Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee Member in In re Heparin 

Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1953.

4. My firm has also served as lead counsel in other types of class actions, including 

Rivera v. Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition, Inc., No. SACV 07-1306 JVS (RNBx) and In 

re Tobacco II Cases, JCCP No. 4042 (Super. Ct. Cal.). My firm has also been at the forefront in 

consumer protection cases for over 40 years, having handled numerous important consumer 

protection cases, including Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal. App. 3d 757 (Ct. App. 1981); 

In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prods. Liab. Litig., 

MDL No. 2151; In Re: Paxil, Case No. 3220 (Ct. Com. Pl. of Phila. Cnty.).

5. I, along with my co-lead counsel, Brian Chase of Bisnar | Chase LLP, and 

members of the JCCP Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (the “JCCP PSC”), have represented 

Plaintiffs and putative class members in the JCCP Litigation for over two years. Collectively, 

Plaintiffs’ Counsel in the JCCP Litigation have devoted thousands of hours litigating this case. 

6. The JCCP Litigation was hard-fought from the beginning. Yahoo is one of the 

largest web services providers in the United States and is represented by two of the largest and 

most preeminent law firms in the country. Yahoo vigorously sought to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims

and contested the scope of discovery propounded by both Plaintiffs and Yahoo throughout the 

MDL and JCCP litigations.

7. In cooperation with the MDL Plaintiffs, JCCP Counsel coordinated the seven 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 330-17 Filed 10/22/18 Page 2 of 10
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

- 3 -

DECLARATION OF DANIEL S. ROBINSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

ENT

1379567.1

Yahoo data breach class actions filed in California state court; successfully opposed Yahoo’s 

motion to stay; successfully opposed Yahoo’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint; 

reviewed over 40 batches of documents containing over nine million pages from approximately 60 

custodians; deposed one 30(b)(6) witness over the course of three days and five percipient fact 

witnesses; exchanged interrogatories, requests for admission and documents; and filed a motion for

class certification.

8. Due to the extensive discovery we undertook, along with briefing the demurrer and 

class certification, I, along with my co-lead counsel and other members of the JCCP PSC, know 

the strengths and weaknesses of the Class’ claims in the litigation. We have worked extensively 

with experts and consultants to evaluate those claims and to understand the business practice 

changes necessary to protect Class Members’ data in the future and are well-equipped to negotiate 

a settlement on behalf of the Class.

9. I believe the proposed Settlement is extremely beneficial for Class Members and in 

their best interest. I respectfully recommend that the Court approve the proposed Settlement.

10. This proposed Settlement is the result of nearly two years of contested litigation

that culminated in an agreement-in-principle to resolve both the federal and California state court 

litigations following two days of mediation with a team of the three JAMS mediators, including 

the Honorable Daniel Weinstein (Ret.), on August 14 and September 7, 2018. With this 

Settlement, Plaintiffs have secured a significant recovery for putative Class Members that ranks as 

one of the most successful data breach settlements.

THE DATA BREACHES

11. On September 22, 2016, Yahoo announced that, in late 2014, unauthorized parties 

acquired the personal identifiable information (“PII”) of approximately 500 million user accounts 

(the “2014 Data Breach”). The PII included the names, email addresses, telephone numbers, dates 

of birth, hashed passwords and, in some cases, encrypted or unencrypted security questions and 

answers.

12. On December 14, 2016, Yahoo announced another data breach that occurred in or 

around August 2013, when an unauthorized party acquired the PII of over one billion user 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 330-17 Filed 10/22/18 Page 3 of 10
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

- 4 -

DECLARATION OF DANIEL S. ROBINSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

ENT

1379567.1

accounts (the “2013 Data Breach”). The PII included names, email addresses, telephone numbers, 

dates of birth, hashed passwords (using MD5) and, in some cases, encrypted or unencrypted 

security questions and answers. Yahoo also reported a data breach affecting approximately 32 

million user accounts that had occurred in 2015 and 2016 which involved an unauthorized third 

party accessing Yahoo’s proprietary code to forge cookies that allowed the intruder to access 

users’ accounts without a password (the “2015-2016 Data Breach”) (collectively, the 2013 Data 

Breach, 2014 Data Breach, and 2015-2016 Data Breach are referred to as the “Data Breaches”).

13. In October 2017, after it was acquired by Verizon around June 2017, Yahoo (under 

its new company name Oath) announced that the 2013 Data Breach had affected nearly three 

billion user accounts maintained in its database.

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE YAHOO JCCP LITIGATION

14. On September 22, 2016, the plaintiff in Dela Cruz v. Yahoo!, Inc., Orange County 

Superior Court, Case No. 30-2016-00877210, brought the first California action against Yahoo 

alleging the 2014 Data Breach resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of her and similarly situated 

individuals’ PII. That same day, the initial federal actions were also filed. (See, e.g., Havron, v. 

Yahoo! Inc., Southern Dist. Ill., Case No. 3:2016-cv-01075, filed Sept. 22, 2016.) Plaintiffs in the 

JCCP Litigation filed a total of seven class action complaints in 2016 which formed the basis of

the JCCP Litigation.

15. On October 7, 2016, the plaintiff in Pastor v. Yahoo! Inc., Superior Court of 

California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2016-00877593 filed a Petition to Coordinate (the 

“Petition”) the following cases involving alleged public disclosure of Plaintiffs’ PII: (1) Quinn v. 

Yahoo! Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC635382; (2) 

Gamache v. Yahoo! Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Marin, Case No. CIV1603582; 

(3) Pastor v. Yahoo! Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2016-

00877593; (4) Bouras v. Yahoo! Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 

30-2016-00877883; (5) Ruiz, et al. v. Yahoo! Inc., Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 

Case No. 30-2016-00878170; (6) Dela Cruz v. Yahoo! Inc., Superior Court of California, County 

of Orange, Case No. 30-2016-00877210; and (7) Brabcova v. Yahoo! Inc., Superior Court of 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 330-17 Filed 10/22/18 Page 4 of 10
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

- 5 -

DECLARATION OF DANIEL S. ROBINSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

ENT

1379567.1

California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2016-00893069. 

16. On November 16, 2016, the Parties in the above-referenced actions agreed on the 

issue of coordination in state court and submitted a stipulation requesting a briefing schedule on 

venue. On December 7, 2016, the Court determined that coordination was appropriate, stayed all 

cases, and on January 20, 2017 and February 10, 2017, heard oral argument on the issue of the 

appropriate site for coordination. On February 15, 2017, the Court issued an Order recommending 

that (1) the Petition be granted; (2) the Orange County Superior Court be designated as the site of 

the coordination proceedings; and (3) the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, 

Division Three, be designated as the reviewing court. Attached hereto and incorporated by 

reference as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the February 15, 2017 Order.

17. On February 28, 2017, the Judicial Council authorized the Presiding Judge of the 

Orange County Superior Court to assign the coordinated actions to a coordination trial judge 

pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 404.3 and California Rule of Court 3.540. 

On March 14, 2017, the Presiding Judge of the Orange County Superior Court assigned the 

Honorable Thierry Patrick Colaw (now retired) to be the coordination trial judge.1 Attached hereto 

and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of the March 14, 2017 Order.

18. At the May 26, 2017 Status Conference, the Court approved Case Management 

Order No. 1 appointing myself and Brian D. Chase of Bisnar | Chase LLP as Co-Lead Counsel, 

and appointing Eric A. Grover of Keller Grover LLP, Jeremiah Frei-Pearson of Finkelstein, 

Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP, Neil Fineman of Fineman Poliner LLP, Nathan Smith of 

Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP, Robert Samini of Samini Scheinberg PC, and Brian Kabateck of 

Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP to the JCCP PSC. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as 

Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Case Management Order No. 1.

JCCP MOTIONS AND PLEADINGS

19. On May 25, 2017, Yahoo moved to stay the JCCP, arguing that it was subsumed 

by the MDL pending before this Court. On June 12, 2017, the JCCP PSC filed their opposition to 

 

1

Following Judge Colaw’s retirement in January 2018, the JCCP Litigation was reassigned to the Hon. Glenda Sanders.

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 330-17 Filed 10/22/18 Page 5 of 10
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

- 6 -

DECLARATION OF DANIEL S. ROBINSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

ENT

1379567.1

Yahoo’s stay motion. After briefing and oral argument, Judge Colaw denied Yahoo’s motion on 

June 23, 2017. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct 

copy of the Judge Colaw’s Order Denying Yahoo’s Motion to Stay.

20. On June 27, 2017, the JCCP Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint alleging six 

causes of action: (1) violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 

1750, et seq.; (2) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 

17200, et seq.; (3) violation of California’s Customer Records Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.80 et. 

seq.; (4) negligence; (5) breach of contract; and (6) invasion of privacy under the California 

Constitution. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct 

copy of JCCP Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Complaint.

21. On July 27, 2017, Yahoo demurred to the JCCP Plaintiffs’ Consolidated

Complaint, which, after briefing and oral argument, the Court denied in its entirety except for the 

CLRA Claim. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct 

copy of Judge Colaw’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Yahoo’s Demurrer.

22. The Parties continuously discussed the management of the case and appeared at 

case management conferences to update the Court on the status of the Yahoo JCCP Litigation. 

JCCP DISCOVERY AND DEPOSITIONS

23. The scope of discovery was highly contested throughout the JCCP Litigation. 

Although the Parties worked amicably, and the JCCP Plaintiffs cooperated with the MDL 

Plaintiffs, the Parties engaged in constant meet-and-confer conferences to resolve discovery issues 

without judicial intervention.

24. On May 26, 2017, the JCCP Plaintiffs served Yahoo with their First Set of 

Requests for Productions of Documents, which Yahoo responded to on July 25, 2017. 

25. On October 3, 2017, the Parties entered into a Stipulated Order Governing 

Discovery of Electronically Stored Information. Between October 2017 and January 2018, the 

JCCP and MDL Parties jointly negotiated the search terms Yahoo would use for the production of 

documents in both the JCCP and the MDL actions. 

26. On October 5, 2017, Yahoo made its first document production, which included 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 330-17 Filed 10/22/18 Page 6 of 10
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

- 7 -

DECLARATION OF DANIEL S. ROBINSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

ENT

1379567.1

over 8,000 documents. Since its initial production, Yahoo produced over 40 batches of documents 

from approximately 60 custodians, containing over nine million pages, which the JCCP PSC 

continuously reviewed. The JCCP PSC also issued third party subpoenas and received thousands 

of additional documents from several former Yahoo employees who were deposed.

27. On December 13, 2017, Yahoo served the JCCP Plaintiffs with its First Set of 

Special Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, which the JCCP 

Plaintiffs responded to on March 12, 2018. On February 5, 2018, the JCCP Plaintiffs served 

Yahoo with their First Set of Requests for Admissions, Special Interrogatories, and Form 

Interrogatories, which Yahoo responded to on May 8, 2018.

28. The JCCP Plaintiffs and the MDL Plaintiffs coordinated the depositions of the 

following current and former Yahoo employees:

 November 10 and November 20, 2017 and February 22, 2018: Deposition of Yahoo 

30(b)(6) Witness Sean Zadig, Director of Threat Investigations;

 April 13 and June 8, 2018: Deposition of Robert Lord, former Yahoo Chief 

Information Security Officer (“CISO”);

 May 14 and 15, 2018: Deposition of Ramses Martinez, former Yahoo Interim CISO;

 May 29, 2018: Deposition of Justin Somaini, former Yahoo CISO;

 June 26, 2018: Deposition of Christopher P. Rohlf, former Yahoo Director of 

Penetration Testing and Offensive Engineering Team; 

 June 28, 2018: Deposition of Alexander C. Stamos, former Yahoo CISO; and 

 August 16, 2018: Deposition of Jay Rossiter, former Yahoo Senior Vice President.

29. For each of these depositions, the JCCP PSC spent substantial time reviewing the 

deponent’s custodial file, preparing document review memoranda and deposition outlines, 

exchanging documents and deposition strategy with the MDL attorneys, and examining the 

witnesses.

JCCP MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

30. On August 27, 2018, the JCCP Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification and 

set the hearing on the motion for September 28, 2018.

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 330-17 Filed 10/22/18 Page 7 of 10
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

- 8 -

DECLARATION OF DANIEL S. ROBINSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

ENT

1379567.1

SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS

31. The JCCP Plaintiffs, the MDL Plaintiffs, and Yahoo selected the Honorable Daniel 

Weinstein (Ret.) of JAMS to serve as the mediator in the Yahoo MDL Litigation and the Yahoo 

JCCP Litigation. Prior to the first mediation session on August 14, 2018, the JCCP PSC 

coordinated settlement strategy with the MDL PSC. Following the first mediation session, the 

JCCP PSC, the MDL PSC, and Yahoo continued settlement negotiations with the assistance of 

Judge Weinstein and his mediation partner, Jed Melnick, Esq. On September 7, 2018, the JCCP 

Plaintiffs, the MDL Plaintiffs, and Yahoo attended a second mediation session with Judge 

Weinstein where an agreement in principal was reached to settle the claims against Yahoo brought 

in both the JCCP and the MDL.

32. As part of the settlement negotiations, the JCCP Plaintiffs, the MDL Plaintiffs, and 

Yahoo agreed to seek approval of the class action settlement before the Honorable Lucy H. Koh in 

the United States District Court, Northern District of California.

33. On September 19, 2018, the JCCP Plaintiffs and Yahoo appeared at a status 

conference before the Honorable Glenda Sanders, the Superior Court Judge overseeing the JCCP 

Litigation following Judge Colaw’s retirement. The Parties presented the proposed settlement 

approval process to Judge Sanders who said the Parties’ recommended process “makes sense.” 

Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the 

Reporter’s Transcript from the September 19, 2018 Hearing.

THE SETTLEMENT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CLASS

34. I believe the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; the product of substantial 

investigation, litigation and arm’s-length negotiation; and, most importantly, is in the best interests 

of Plaintiffs and putative Class Members. Despite my strong belief in the merits of this litigation 

and likelihood of success as trial, I nonetheless believe that the benefits to Plaintiffs and the 

putative Class pursuant to the agreed upon terms substantially outweigh the risks of continuing to 

litigate the claims—namely, the delay that would result before Plaintiffs and putative Class 

Members receive any benefits should the action proceed to trial; the possibility of a negative 

outcome at trial; and the possibility of a negative outcome post-trial should Yahoo appeal a 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 330-17 Filed 10/22/18 Page 8 of 10
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

- 9 -

DECLARATION OF DANIEL S. ROBINSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

ENT

1379567.1

judgment in favor of the putative Class. This Settlement provides significant benefits now and is 

in the best interest of all putative Class Members.

35. When compared to other data breach cases, this Settlement is an excellent result 

for Class Members. The three leading data breach cases are In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach 

Litigation, No. 5:15-MD-02617-LHK (N.D. Cal. 2017 ) ($110 million settlement fund, for 78.8 

million Anthem insureds who had their social security numbers and health data acquired by 

unauthorized parties); In re The Home Depot, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., No. 

1:14-md-02583-TWT (N.D. Ga. 2016) ($13 million settlement fund, an additional $6.5 million 

(paid out of the settlement fund if funds remained after claims) for credit monitoring services, and 

$7.5 million in attorney fees for a class of over 40 million Home Depot consumers who had their 

payment data acquired by unauthorized parties); and In re Target Corp. Customer Data Security 

Breach Litig., No. 0:14-md-02522-PAM (D. Minn. 2015) ($10 million settlement fund and $6.75 

million in attorney fees for up to 110 million Target consumers who had their payment data 

acquired by unauthorized parties.). Given the magnitude of the Settlement Class in this case and 

the type of information made available in the Data Breaches, this Settlement provides an excellent 

result for the Settlement Class.

36. Throughout the JCCP Litigation, the proposed Class Representatives from the 

JCCP did everything they could to represent the interests of the Class. Proposed Class 

Representatives from the JCCP provided extensive information regarding harms they suffered as a 

result of the Data Breaches, including providing all necessary paperwork and documents, 

conducting word and term searches of their email accounts, and two Class Representatives from 

the JCCP provided copies of their hard drives for forensic imaging. The proposed Class 

Representatives from the JCCP also remained in contact with Plaintiffs’ Counsel throughout the 

JCCP Litigation, promptly responding to their inquiries for further information and communicating 

with Plaintiffs’ Counsel to keep up to date on the status of the JCCP Litigation. Each of the 

proposed Class Representatives from the JCCP also communicated with Plaintiffs’ Counsel 

regarding the terms of the Settlement.

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 330-17 Filed 10/22/18 Page 9 of 10
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

- 10 -

DECLARATION OF DANIEL S. ROBINSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 

ENT

1379567.1

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 22nd day of October 2018 at Newport Beach, 

California.

__/s/ Daniel S. Robinson______

Daniel S. Robinson

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 330-17 Filed 10/22/18 Page 10 of 10