RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL

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

Lee A. Cirsch (SBN 227668)

Lee.Cirsch@capstonelawyers.com

Robert K. Friedl (SBN 134947)

Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com

Trisha K. Monesi (SBN 303512)

Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com

Capstone Law APC

1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000

Los Angeles, California 90067

Telephone: (310) 556-4811

Facsimile: (310) 943-0396

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Amy Vail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: YAHOO! CUSTOMER DATA 

SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

Case No.: 16-MD-02752-LHK

RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR 

APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ 

COUNSEL 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 37 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 4
RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL

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

Plaintiff Amy Vail, through her undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this 

statement in response to the various motions for appointment as lead plaintiffs’ counsel and, 

specifically, in support of the Joint Application For Appointment of Plaintiffs’ Executive 

Committee (ECF No. 19) (the “Joint Application”)1in the above-captioned action.

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 22, 2016, Yahoo! Inc. (“Yahoo” or “Defendant”) announced that

beginning in late 2014, hackers stole copies of 500 million Yahoo users’ private information 

(the “2014 Data Breach”), resulting in a myriad of damages, including, but not limited to, 

identity theft, depletion of and/or denied access to account funds, and payments for credit and 

computer monitoring. On December 14, 2016, Yahoo disclosed that a second, larger data 

breach implicating more than one billion user accounts had been discovered (the “2013 Data 

Breach”) (together with the 2014 Data Breach, the “Yahoo! Data Breaches”).

As a result of these announcements, a number of putative class actions were filed in 

federal courts across the country, as well as in California state courts. On September 26, 2016, 

Plaintiff Edward McMahon, McMahon v. Yahoo! Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-05466-LHK (N.D. 

Cal.), filed a Motion for Consolidation and Transfer before the JPML. See In re: Yahoo! Inc. 

Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL No. 2752 (ECF No. 1). On December 1, 2016, on 

behalf of Plaintiff McMahon, and with the consent of all other parties whose cases were 

before the JPML, John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan presented oral argument before the 

JPML, seeking centralization of the related Yahoo! Data Breach cases in the Northern District 

of California before this Court. The request was granted on December 7, 2016. In re Yahoo! 

 

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3), and this Court’s Order dated 

December 13, 2016 (ECF No. 2) (“Order”), counsel for a large majority of plaintiffs in this 

MDL submitted a Joint Application for appointment as a five-member “executive committee”, 

comprised of the following attorneys: John A. Yanchunis (Chairperson) of Morgan & Morgan, 

P.A. (“Morgan & Morgan”); Ariana J. Tadler of Milberg LLP (“Milberg”); Stuart A. 

Davidson of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (“Robbins Geller”); Gayle M. Blatt of 

Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP (“Casey Gerry”); and Karen Hanson 

Riebel of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. (“Lockridge”) (collectively, the “Executive 

Committee”).

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 37 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 4
RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL

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

Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL 2752, 2016 WL 7221722, at *1 (J.P.M.L. Dec. 

7, 2016).

In its Order dated December 13, 2016, the Court directed plaintiffs’ counsel to file 

applications for leadership positions on or before January 5, 2017. (ECF No. 2). On January 

5, 2017, the Executive Committee submitted the Joint Application. (ECF No. 19). The 

Executive Committee submitted declarations with the Joint Application demonstrating that the 

proposed leadership structure brings before the Court a diversity of experience and reputation 

both at the national and local level, with extensive additional resources necessary for an action 

of this magnitude.

II. PLAINTIFF VAIL AND HER COUNSEL SUPPORT THE APPOINTMENT OF 

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AS LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL IN THIS 

ACTION 

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the standard for appointment 

of interim class counsel. Attorneys appointed to serve as interim class counsel “must fairly 

and adequately represent the interest of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(4). Rule 23(g) 

requires the court to consider: (1) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating 

potential claims in the action; (2) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other 

complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action; (3) counsel’s knowledge of 

the applicable law; and (4) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A). The court may also consider “any other matter pertinent to 

counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23(g)(1)(B). Where more than one applicant seeks appointment as class counsel, the court 

must appoint the applicant “best able to represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

23(g)(2).

As required by Rule 23(g)(1)(A), and as detailed in the Joint Application, the members 

of the proposed Executive Committee have excellent credentials and more-than-sufficient 

experience to serve in leadership roles in this litigation. Plaintiff Vail and her counsel believe 

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 37 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 4
RESPONSE TO MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT AS LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL

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

that the Executive Committee attorneys and their respective law firms are thoroughly qualified 

for leadership positions due to their comprehensive experience as class action and multidistrict 

litigation counsel, as well as their knowledge of issues relevant to data breach litigation. The 

proposed leadership structure strategically combines firms that have extensive experience in 

data breach and privacy litigation, e-discovery, and complex consumer class actions, which 

will ensure the streamlined and efficient prosecution of this action. In addition, the 

geographic diversity of putative class members warrants leadership that is similarly 

geographically diverse, which would be accomplished by appointing the proposed leadership 

structure. The Executive Committee will be able to formulate litigation plans to manage all 

aspects of MDL case management, including discovery, briefing on substantive motions, and 

administrative matters, and has the ability and desire to delegate responsibilities to other

plaintiffs’ counsel in this litigation in order to ensure that the work performed is efficiently 

and effectively completed. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, Plaintiff Vail respectfully requests that the Court appoint the 

following Executive Committee as lead plaintiffs’ counsel in this litigation:

a. John A. Yanchunis (Chairperson) of Morgan & Morgan, P.A.;

b. Ariana J. Tadler of Milberg LLP;

c. Stuart A. Davidson of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP;

d. Gayle M. Blatt of Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP; and

e. Karen Hanson Riebel of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.

Dated: January 12, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Lee A. Cirsch

Lee A. Cirsch

Robert K. Friedl

Trisha K. Monesi

Attorneys of record for Plaintiff Amy Vail

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 37 Filed 01/12/17 Page 4 of 4