1

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK 

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTATION

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: YAHOO! INC. CUSTOMER 

DATA SECURITY BREACH 

LITIGATION

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK 

ORDER REQUIRING 

SUPPLEMENTATION

Re: Dkt. No. 330

Having reviewed the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Motion”),

ECF No. 330, the Court orders the parties to file a supplement to the Motion by November 9, 2018 

that addresses the following:

(1) Any differences between the settlement class and the classes proposed in the operative 

complaint and an explanation as to why the differences, if any, are appropriate.

(2) Any differences between the claims to be released and the claims in the operative 

complaint and an explanation as to why the differences are appropriate.

(3) An explanation of the calculation of the number of class members. Plaintiffs had asserted 

that this case involved over 3 billion user accounts. In the Motion, the parties represent 

that the settlement class involves nearly a billion user accounts and approximately 200 

million individuals. How were those numbers calculated? For each of the 2013 Breach, 

2014 Breach, and 2015-2016 Breach, what are the number of accounts and individuals

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 333 Filed 11/02/18 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK 

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTATION

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

involved with each breach, and how are these numbers calculated? 

(4) The anticipated class recovery under the settlement, the potential class recovery if 

plaintiffs had fully prevailed on each of their claims, and an explanation of the factors 

bearing on the amount of the compromise.

(5) An estimate of the number and/or percentage of class members who are expected to submit 

a claim in light of the experience of the selected claims administrator and counsel from 

other recent settlements of similar cases, the identity of the examples used for the estimate, 

and the reason for the selection of those examples. This information should be provided 

for each type of claim, e.g. claim for out-of-pocket costs, paid user costs, small business 

user costs, credit monitoring, and alternative compensation.

(6) An explanation for why claim forms can only be submitted for 270 calendar days after 

preliminary approval. 

(7) The settlement administrator selection process, including how many settlement 

administrators submitted proposals, what methods of notice and claims payment were 

proposed, the Lead Counsel’s firms’ history of engagements with the settlement 

administrator over the last two years, the anticipated administrative costs, and the 

reasonableness of those costs in relation to the value of the settlement.

(8) Information about the lodestar calculation, including the total number of hours billed to 

date, the number of billers and their hourly rates, the number of contract attorneys or 

paralegals, and the requested multiplier, if any. 

(9) In light of the fact that Defendant’s data was breached in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, an 

explanation of why the business practice changes appear to only originate from Defendant 

and do not identify security controls and reforms recommended by independent security 

experts such as Plaintiffs’ security experts, if any; do not appear to address 

; do not appear to require ; do not require 

; and do not provide for independent third parties to 

.

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 333 Filed 11/02/18 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 16-MD-02752-LHK 

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTATION

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2018

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-md-02752-LHK Document 333 Filed 11/02/18 Page 3 of 3