4716645v1/015461

Case No. 5:16-md-02752

RESPONSE RE APPLICATIONS FOR CASE 

LEADERSHIP POSITIONS

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

Marc M. Seltzer (54534)

mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com

Steven G. Sklaver (237612)

ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.

1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950

Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029

Phone: (310) 789-3100

Fax: (310) 789-3150

[Additional Counsel listed on Signature Page]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Aman Abye and Louisa 

Ritsick

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE: YAHOO! INC. CUSTOMER 

DATA SECURITY BREACH 

LITIGATION

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK

PLAINTIFFS AMAN ABYE AND 

LOUISA RITSICK’S RESPONSE 

RE APPLICATIONS BY CERTAIN 

PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR 

CASE LEADERSHIP POSITIONS

Date: February 9, 2017

Time: 1:30 p.m.

Location: Courtroom 8

 Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 38 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 7
4716645v1/015461 1

Case No. 5:16-md-02752

RESPONSE RE APPLICATIONS FOR CASE 

LEADERSHIP POSITIONS

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

In our application for leadership, we proposed that Marc M. Seltzer and 

Susman Godfrey L.L.P. be appointed to lead these class actions. Susman Godfrey’s 

attorneys, and in particular Marc Seltzer, have decades of experience serving as lead 

counsel in successful class action cases. He has been appointed to serve as lead or 

co-lead counsel in many high-profile class actions litigated in California courts, 

including Korean Air Passenger Antitrust Litigation, White v. NCAA (which was the 

first antitrust class action ever in which the NCAA agreed to compensate former 

student-athletes), and the landmark Toyota MDL. In Toyota, Judge Selna appointed 

Mr. Seltzer to serve as one of three co-lead counsel for the class, commenting later 

that “Class counsel has consistently demonstrated extraordinary skill and effort.”1

Mr. Seltzer has also led our firm’s efforts in other complex class action cases, 

such as the In Re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, where partial settlements 

totaling more than $620 million dollars have been achieved. In addition to Mr. 

Seltzer, Steven Sklaver, who is among the Susman Godfrey lawyers prosecuting this 

litigation, also has extensive class action experience. He was the sole lead counsel 

in a seminal insurance policyholder class action in the Southern District of New 

York and achieved what the Court described as what “may be the best settlement 

pound for pound for the class that I’ve ever seen.” See Fleisher et al. v. Phoenix Life 

Ins. Co., Case No. CV 11-8405 (CM) (Sept. 9, 2015 Hr’g Tr. at 3).2 The other 

Susman Godfrey lawyers working on this case have similarly extensive experience 

representing plaintiff classes in high-profile litigation. See ECF No. 24, at 4-7. It is 

for this reason, among others, that just this week Law360 named Susman Godfrey its

2016 Class Action Practice Group firm of the year – an award given to only five law 

 1 In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg. Sales Practices, & 

Prods. Liab. Litig., Case No. CV 10-ML-2151 (C.D. Cal.), ECF No. 3933 at 12. 

2 A copy of the hearing transcript is available here:

http://www.susmangodfrey.com/media/1334/phoenix-closing_transcript.pdf

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 38 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 7
4716645v1/015461 2

Case No. 5:16-md-02752

RESPONSE RE APPLICATIONS FOR CASE 

LEADERSHIP POSITIONS

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

firms in the nation.

3

With its many years of class-action experience on both the plaintiff and 

defense side, and 115 lawyers nationwide, Susman Godfrey has the experience and 

the financial and personnel resources to litigate vigorously and effectively on behalf 

of the class in this litigation.

The more fundamental decision facing the Court is one of efficiency: whether 

to appoint a single firm, or small set of firms as co-lead counsel, or to adopt the 

leadership structure jointly proposed by twenty-five law firms, and designate a fivefirm Executive Committee which will “welcome and seek the participation of the 

other firms that have filed cases in this litigation.” ECF No. 19 (“Joint Application”)

at 8. While we believe that Susman Godfrey can handle this litigation efficiently and 

by itself, if the Court believes it is appropriate to appoint one or more other firms as 

co-lead counsel we are prepared to work cooperatively with other counsel as we 

have done in many other cases.

4 We, however respectfully submit that a five-firm 

Executive Committee, with its members designated to deal with different, but 

apparently overlapping functions, would be both unnecessary and unwieldy for the 

following reasons.

First, there is no alleged intra-class conflict of the sort that may justify

litigation by committee. Second, the prospect of parceling out work to a large 

number of law firms may lead to inefficiencies. Susman Godfrey, by contrast, has 

made efficient, results-oriented litigation a hallmark of its practice, aimed at 

streamlining discovery and motion practice with a sharp focus on gathering the 

 3 See https://www.law360.com/articles/878947/law360-names-practice-groups-ofthe-year

4 We wish to note that we do not question the qualifications of the other applicants 

and have worked cooperatively with a number of the law firms that have requested 

to be appointed to the leadership in this case. 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 38 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 7
4716645v1/015461 3

Case No. 5:16-md-02752

RESPONSE RE APPLICATIONS FOR CASE 

LEADERSHIP POSITIONS

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

evidence necessary for trial.

Third, Susman Godfrey has an established track record of deploying the 

resources necessary for its clients to achieve maximal recovery against large 

corporate defendants – no more, and no less. Our expertise has allowed us to achieve 

the best outcomes for clients without incurring unnecessary expense. 

I. Litigation by Committee Is Unnecessary

The Manual for Complex Litigation notes that litigation committees “are most 

commonly needed when group members’ interests and positions are sufficiently 

dissimilar to justify giving them representation in decision making.” Manual for 

Complex Litig. (4th Ed.) § 10.221. The Joint Application fails to identify any

conflict or diverse interest among the class members that would justify a large 

committee of counsel. See Newberg on Class Actions § 7:31 (4th ed. 2002) (“[T]he 

court must be satisfied that there is a clear need to authorize multiple classes and 

class counsel to avoid confusion and to assure that prosecution of class claims will 

proceed efficiently without giving rise to requests for excessive attorneys’ fees from 

unnecessary duplication of work . . . .”). Rather, the Joint Application argues that a 

large committee structure is needed because of the scope of the action and the 

geographic diversity of the putative class members. See Joint Application at 3. None 

of these considerations supports a large committee structure.

While significant resources are needed to litigate against Yahoo! Inc., Susman 

Godfrey has those resources. Susman Godfrey has successfully litigated class 

actions as lead or co-lead counsel against the likes of Toyota Motor Corp. ($176 

billion market capitalization), AT&T ($243 billion market capitalization), and 

Google (i.e., Alphabet, $572 billion market capitalization). We have proven our 

ability to go toe to toe with the most well-heeled defendants and defense firms in a 

wide array of cases without having to assemble armies of lawyers in order to prevail. 

With regard to the geographic diversity of users, while the data breach 

affected as many as 1.5 billion accounts and users in, presumably, all 50 states, the 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 38 Filed 01/12/17 Page 4 of 7
4716645v1/015461 4

Case No. 5:16-md-02752

RESPONSE RE APPLICATIONS FOR CASE 

LEADERSHIP POSITIONS

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

common questions at the core of this litigation are relatively straightforward: Did 

Yahoo owe a duty to its users with respect to their data? Was Yahoo negligent or 

reckless in its data security practices? Did the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy form 

a contract, and was that contract breached? What is the appropriate measure of 

damages for users whose information was exposed, and what remedies should be 

available to users who have suffered identity theft or other financial loss as a result 

of the breach? The application of the relevant law to these issues will undoubtedly 

be vigorously contested, but that fact does not require co-lead counsel from all fifty 

states. Indeed, only a single firm has appeared on behalf of Yahoo in this matter.

II. Litigation by Committee Will Lead to Inefficiency

The most important consideration for the Court in designating a structure for 

lead counsel is “achieving efficiency and economy without jeopardizing fairness to 

the parties.” Manual for Complex Litig. § 10.221. “Committees of counsel can 

sometimes lead to substantially increased costs,” id., and the Joint Application does 

little to suggest that such would not be the case here.

The Joint Application proposes different law firms to oversee discovery, client 

interaction, pleading, and briefing. Given the likely overlap between these tasks, the 

proposed committee structure designates a fifth firm simply to coordinate the tasks 

of the other firms, along with the twenty other firms the committee expects to 

include in the litigation. The negotiation of this complicated committee structure has 

already required “a teleconference, an in-person meeting . . . and subsequent

telephone calls and meetings.” Joint Application at 2. The Joint Application is vague, 

however, as to how the appointment of the committee will streamline the litigation

and avoid duplication of effort.

By contrast, Susman Godfrey’s application lays out five specific protocols we 

will adopt to ensure efficient litigation, along with three additional protocols to be 

adopted in the event the Court appoints co-lead counsel. See ECF No. 24 at 9-10. 

While we welcome working with other counsel in prosecuting the litigation, we 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 38 Filed 01/12/17 Page 5 of 7
4716645v1/015461 5

Case No. 5:16-md-02752

RESPONSE RE APPLICATIONS FOR CASE 

LEADERSHIP POSITIONS

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

firmly believe that a leaner leadership structure would best serve the interests of the 

class and efficiency. 

III. Susman Godfrey Has the Resources and Experience to Vigorously 

and Efficiently Pursue the Clients’ Interests

Susman Godfrey possesses the requisite expertise to lead this action. Susman 

Godfrey’s track record in other complex litigation demonstrates that it can be 

counted on to dedicate the time and resources required of interim class counsel 

under Rule 23(g). This history of success includes both significant settlements such 

as in Clark v. AdvanceMe, Inc, Case No. CV 08-3540 (C.D. Cal.), a class action 

brought in Los Angeles federal court challenging financial arrangements with retail 

merchants under California’s laws against usury and trial victories such as Universal 

Service Fund Telephone Billing Practices Litig. (D. Kan.), a class action brought on 

behalf of telephone customers challenging the lawfulness of certain monthly lineitem charges, which was tried to a verdict. See 619 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2010).

Accordingly, because appointing Marc Seltzer and Susman Godfrey as interim 

class counsel will satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) and will promote 

the orderly and efficient resolution of these actions, plaintiffs Aman Abye and 

Louisa Ritsick respectfully request that the Court grant their motion.

Dated: January 12, 2017 /s/ Marc M. Seltzer

Marc M. Seltzer (54534) 

mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com

Steven G. Sklaver (237612)

ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.

1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950

Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029

Telephone: (310) 789-3100

Fax: (310) 789-3150

Arun Subramanian

asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 38 Filed 01/12/17 Page 6 of 7
4716645v1/015461 6

Case No. 5:16-md-02752

RESPONSE RE APPLICATIONS FOR CASE 

LEADERSHIP POSITIONS

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

Seth D. Ard

sard@susmangodfrey.com

Lucas Issacharoff

lissacharoff@susmangodfrey.com

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.

1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor

New York, NY 10019

Telephone: (212) 336-8330

Fax: (212) 336-8340

Matthew R. Berry

mberry@susmangodfrey.com

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.

1291 Third Avenue, Suite 3800

Seattle, WA 98101

Telephone: (206) 516-3880

Fax: (206) 516-3883

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Aman Abye and 

Louisa Ritsick

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 38 Filed 01/12/17 Page 7 of 7