IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

IN RE: PREMERA BLUE CROSS 

CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH 

LITIGATION

Case No. 3:15-md-2633-SI

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

SERVICE AWARDS This Document Relates to All Actions.

This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Award 

of Attorney’s Fees and Expenses and for Representative Plaintiff Service Awards (“Fee 

Motion”). All capitalized terms not otherwise defined have the meanings set forth in the 

Settlement Agreement (ECF 273-1) (“Settlement”).

The Court, having previously entered the Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action 

Settlement and Notice Procedures and Setting Final Approval Hearing (“Preliminary Approval 

Order”), dated July 29, 2019, in which the Court preliminarily approved the proposed Settlement 

as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class; preliminarily certified the 

Settlement Class; designated Representative Plaintiffs and Class Counsel; appointed a Settlement 

Administrator; approved the forms and methods of disseminating information about the 

Settlement and attorney’s fees and found them to constitute the best notice practicable under the 

circumstances, constitute due and sufficient notice of the matters set forth in the notices to all 

Case 3:15-md-02633-SI Document 312 Filed 03/02/20 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 – ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

SERVICE AWARDS

4814-6561-0673, v. 2

persons entitled to receive such notices, and fully satisfy the requirements of due process, 

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1715, and all other applicable laws 

and rules; established procedures for Class Members to make claims, opt out, or object to the 

Settlement and Fee Motion; established deadlines for the filing of a motion for final approval of 

the Settlement and Fee Motion; and scheduled a hearing for March 2, 2020, to review the 

Settlement and the Fee Motion;

The Court having held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Fee Motion on March 2, 2020, after notice 

to the Class, and the Court having fully considered Plaintiffs’ Fee Motion and Memorandum in 

Support, as well as the declarations and submissions in support thereof, and all papers filed or 

submitted to the Court in connection with the proceedings in these actions, and good cause 

appearing therefor;

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS AND FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Court has considered Class Counsel’s Fee Motion along with the declarations 

submitted by Counsel setting forth their time and expenses incurred in connection with this 

Litigation. 

2. The Court has considered that the Parties have fully implemented the procedures 

for notice to the Class pursuant to the Settlement and the Preliminary Approval Order, with the 

exception of posting Plaintiffs’ Motion and Supporting Memorandum For an Award of 

Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and for Representative Plaintiff Service Award and its supporting 

documentation on the settlement website before the deadline for class member objections. These 

documents, however, were filed in the Court docket before the deadline and thus were available 

for review. The notice provided to Class Members also stated that the documents were available 

upon request and contact information for Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator was 

Case 3:15-md-02633-SI Document 312 Filed 03/02/20 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 – ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

SERVICE AWARDS

4814-6561-0673, v. 2

included. Some objectors, who are among the Named Plaintiffs in this case, objected that 

counsel’s failure to post these documents on the settlement website failed to provide the 

objectors with an opportunity to meaningfully review the fee motion and its supporting 

documents before the objection deadline. These objectors, however, received the documents

electronically through the Court’s CM/ECF filing system and, therefore, received copies of the 

fee motion and supporting documentation before the objection deadline. Their objections are 

overruled.

3. Pursuant to Rule 23(h), and relevant Ninth Circuit authority, the Court awards 

Class Counsel $12,752,610.97 as an award of reasonable attorney’s fees to be paid in accordance 

with the Settlement. The Court finds this amount of fees fair and reasonable under the percentage 

of recovery method and under a lodestar cross-check, given the exceptional results obtained for 

the Settlement Class in the form of significant monetary and injunctive relief; the complexity and 

novelty of the issues presented in the litigation; the risk of non-payment posed in the litigation; 

the contingent nature of the fee; and the skill of Class Counsel. 

4. Pursuant to Rule 23(h), and relevant Ninth Circuit authority, the Court awards 

Class Counsel $1,247,389.03 as an award of reasonable costs and expenses to be paid in 

accordance with the Settlement. The Court finds this amount of costs and expenses is fair and 

reasonable, and represents the reasonable expenses incurred to advance this litigation. 

5. The Court has considered the objections to the motion for attorney’s fees, costs, 

and service awards. Those objections are overruled.

6. The Court grants Settlement Class Counsel discretion to allocate the attorney’s 

fees, costs and expenses among all Plaintiffs’ counsel.

Case 3:15-md-02633-SI Document 312 Filed 03/02/20 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 – ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS, AND 

SERVICE AWARDS

4814-6561-0673, v. 2

7. This award of attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses, and any interest earned 

thereon, shall be paid in accordance with the Settlement. This award of attorney’s fees, costs, and 

expenses is independent of the Court’s consideration of the fairness, reasonableness, and 

adequacy of the Settlement.

8. The Court grants Class Counsel’s requested Service Awards of $5,000 to Named 

Plaintiffs Sharif Ailey, April Allred, Elizabeth Black, Catherine Bushman, Krishnendu 

Chakraborty, Maduhchanda Chakraborty, Ralph Christopherson, Anne Emerson, William Fitch, 

Eric Forseter, Mary Fuerst, Debbie Hansen-Bosse, Stuart Hirsch, Ilene Hirsh, Ross Imbler, 

Howard Kaplowitz, Barbara Lynch, Kevin Smith, Gabriel Webster, and Laura Webster. The 

Court finds that these Service Awards are justified by each Named Plaintiff’s service to the 

Settlement Class. This Service Award shall be paid in accordance with the Settlement.

9. Without affecting the finality of this Order, the Court hereby reserves continuing 

and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters related to the administration and consummation of the 

terms of this Order.

10. The Court shall enter a judgment consistent with this Order.

The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the 

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of March, 2020.

/s/ Michael H. Simon

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-md-02633-SI Document 312 Filed 03/02/20 Page 4 of 4