Declaration of Eve H. Cervantez in support of Motions for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement

720 Pages·2017·9.33 MB·English

Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 916-8 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 37
1 ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
EVECERVANTEZ(SBN164709)
2 [email protected]
JONATHANWEISSGLASS (SBN185008)
3 [email protected]
DANIELLEE. LEONARD(SBN218201)
4
[email protected]
MEREDITHA.JOHNSON(SBN291018)
5
[email protected]
TONY LOPRESTI(SBN 289269)
6
[email protected]
177Post Street,Suite300
7
SanFrancisco,CA94108
Telephone: [phone]
8
Facsimile: [phone]
9
COHENMILSTEINSELLERS &TOLLPLLC
ANDREW N.FRIEDMAN(admitted pro hacvice)
10
[email protected]
11 GEOFFREYGRABER (SBN211547)
[email protected]
12 SALLYM. HANDMAKER (SBN281186)
[email protected]
13 ERIC KAFKA (admitted pro hacvice)
[email protected]
14 1100NewYork Ave.NW
Suite500,West Tower
15 Washington,DC 20005
Telephone: [phone]
16 Facsimile: [phone]
17
Co-LeadPlaintiffs’Counsel
18
UNITEDSTATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERNDISTRICT OFCALIFORNIA
19
SANJOSE DIVISION
20 In ReAnthem, Inc.Data BreachLitigation CaseNo: 15-md-02617-LHK(NC)
21 DECLARATIONOFEVE H.CERVANTEZIN
SUPPORT OFMOTIONS FOR FINAL
22 APPROVAL OFCLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT ANDATTORNEYS’FEES,
23
LITIGATIONEXPENSES,ANDSERVICE
AWARDS TO CLASSREPRESENTATIVES
24
Date: February1,2017
25
Time: 1:30p.m.
26 Judge: LucyH.Koh
Crtrm: 8, 4thFloor
27
28 REDACTEDVERSION OFDOCUMENT SOUGHT TOBESEALED
DeclarationofEveH.CervantezinSupportofPlaintiffs’MotionforFinalSettlementApproval,ServiceAwardstoNamed
Plaintiffs,andanAwardofAttorneys’FeesandCosts;CASENO.15-md-02617-LHK(NC)
Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 916-8 Filed 12/01/17 Page 2 of 37
1 I,EveH.Cervantez,declareas follows:
2 1. Iam amemberingoodstandingof theCalifornia StateBar andthebarofthis Court,a
3 partner at AltshulerBerzon LLP,and court-appointedCo-LeadPlaintiffs’ Counsel inthis multi-district
4 litigation. Ihavepersonal knowledgeofthematters set forthherein,andcouldandwouldtestify
5 competentlytheretoifcalledupontodoso. Isubmit this declarationinsupport ofPlaintiffs’Motion
6 forFinal Approval ofClass ActionSettlement,andinsupport ofPlaintiffs’MotionforanAwardof
7 Attorneys’Fees, LitigationExpenses, andService Awards toClass Representatives.
8 2. This declarationaddresses thefollowingtopics: Section Iaddresses thestrengths ofthe
9 proposedsettlement; Section IIaddresses attorneys’fees; Section IIIaddresses litigationexpenses;
10 Section IVaddresses servicepayments toclass representatives; andSectionVaddresses Altshuler
11 Berzon LLP attorneys fees andexpenses.
12 I. TheSettlement
13 A. Background LeadingtoSettlement
14 3. As describedinmoredetail below,Plaintiffs’counsel filedfourconsolidatedclass
15 actioncomplaints; litigatedtworounds ofmotions todismiss and14discoverymotions; reviewed3.8
16 millionpages ofdocuments; deposed18percipient fact witnesses, 62corporatedesignees, andsix
17 defense experts; producedreports from fourexperts anddefendedtheirdepositions; producedover100
18 plaintiffs fordepositions andproduced 29ofthose plaintiffs’computers for forensicexaminations;
19 exchanged76interrogatories, 731RFAs, and18 expert reports withDefendants; andfullybriefed class
20 certificationandrelated Daubert motions. Defendants werenot willingtoevenbeginsettlement
21 negotiations until aftertheparties had completedall oftheirdiscoveryand werebriefingclass
22 certification.
23 4. Whilewewerebriefingclass certification,wewerealso engaginginaseries of
24 mediationsessions withJudge Layn R.Phillips (Ret.). Afterthree full-daymediations overthecourse
25 ofthreemonths –onFebruary28,April 20,and May22,2017– westill hadnot reachedadeal. Judge
26 Phillips ultimatelymade amediator’s proposal,whichbothsides accepted overMemorial Day
27 weekend. Theparties thenspent several weeks preparingtheformal settlement agreement nowbefore
28 theCourt. Acopyofthe Settlement Agreement (“SA”),without exhibits, isattachedheretoas Exhibit
1
DeclarationofEveH.CervantezinSupportofPlaintiffs’MotionforFinalSettlementApproval,ServiceAwardstoNamed
Plaintiffs,andanAwardofAttorneys’FeesandCosts;CASENO.15-md-02617-LHK(NC)
Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 916-8 Filed 12/01/17 Page 3 of 37
1 11; thecompletecopywithexhibits was previouslyfiled at ECF869-8. A copyoftheAmendment to
2 Settlement Agreement,without exhibits, is attachedheretoas Exhibit 12; thecompletecopywith
3 exhibits was previouslyfiledat ECF900-2–900-6.
4 5. As set forthinourclass certificationmotion,hadthecasenot settled,Plaintiffs would
5 havesought bothequitableandmonetaryremedies forclass members. Plaintiffs wouldhaveaskedthe
6 Court toenteraninjunctionrequiringAnthem toimplement thesecuritycontrols recommendedby
7 Plaintiffs’expert andmaintainthesecurityreforms that Anthem hadalreadybegunduringthis
8 litigation. Plaintiffs also wouldhavesought extendedcredit monitoringthat was moreextensivethan
9 theAllClearServices offeredbyAnthem,includingtriple-bureau credit monitoringandidentity
10 validationmonitoring.
11 6. Amongothertheories, Plaintiffs wouldhavesought monetaryremedies basedona
12 “benefit ofthebargain”theorythat wouldhaveisolatedthevalueof adequatedatasecuritythrough a
13 conjoint analysis. Becausetheparameters oftheconjoint surveys wouldhavedependedontheclasses
14 ultimatelycertifiedbytheCourt,Plaintiffs’expert was preparedtocompletetheconjoint surveys after
15 oneormore classes were certifiedbytheCourt.
16 7. Had thecasenot settled, Plaintiffs also wouldhavesought remedies, includingequitable
17 remedies, against TheBlueCross andBlueShieldAssociation(“BCBSA”) and13Non-Anthem Blue
18 Cross BlueShieldcompanies. Followingthe publicannouncement ofthe Anthem databreach,the
19 BCBSAMembershipStandards wereamendedto furtherdefinecertain guidelines fortheprotection
20 andcybersecurityofpersonal information. Forsettlement purposes, Plaintiffs determinedthat this
21 changesufficientlyaddressedtheirconcerns.
22 B. Proposed Settlement
23 8. Settlement funds will first beusedtoprovideclass members whofileclaims withat
24 least two years ofidentityfraudpreventionanddetectionservices. Plaintiffs worked withExperianto
25 createacustom product designedspecificallytoprovideprotectionagainst theparticularthreats facing
26 class members, basedon thetypeofpersonallyidentifiableinformation(“PII”)exfiltratedinthe
27 Anthem databreach. Theproduct is basedonthe recommendations submittedbyPlaintiffs’ expert in
28 support ofclass certification(seeVan DykeReport (ECF744-25)¶52),and includes:
2
DeclarationofEveH.CervantezinSupportofPlaintiffs’MotionforFinalSettlementApproval,ServiceAwardstoNamed
Plaintiffs,andanAwardofAttorneys’FeesandCosts;CASENO.15-md-02617-LHK(NC)
Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 916-8 Filed 12/01/17 Page 4 of 37
1 (a) dailymonitoringofclass members’credit files at all threemajorcredit reportingagencies
2 todetect suspicious activity(such as applications forloans orcredit not initiatedbythe
3 class member);
4
(b) internet surveillance,includingmonitoringthe “darkweb”todetect thecovert saleof
5
class members’PII;
6
(c) identityvalidationmonitoringtonotifyclass members iftheiridentityis usedtoopena
7
newaccount ortoperform anidentityvalidation withintheExperiannetwork;
8
9 (d) identitytheft insurance, whichcovers designated identitytheft relatedexpenses, including
10 unreimbursedfraudlosses andprofessional services, upto$1million;
11
(e) Experiancredit reports availableuponrequest; and
12
(f) specificservices forclass members whoareminors, includingsocial securitynumber
13
tracingandinternet surveillance.
14
15 SA¶4.1(ECF869-8).
16 9. Bypurchasingcredit monitoringservices inbulkat adiscount,thesettlement is ableto
17 offerveryvaluableservices toclass members. Althoughthecustom product offeredtoclass members
18 is not availabletothepublic,it includes manyoftheservices offeredinExperian’s retail
19 “IdentityWorks Premium”product,whichis soldtothepublicfor$19.99permonth,andmoreservices
20 thanExperian’s “IdentityWorks Plus”plan,whichretails for$9.99permonth. SeeEx.13;
21 https://www.experian.com/consumer-products/identity-theft-and-credit-protection.html. Assuming
22 conservativelythat thevalueoftheAnthem-specificcustom product is only$9.99permonth,thecredit
23 monitoringportionofthe settlement provides atotal valuetoeachclass memberof$239.76overthe
24 courseof24months (or upto$479.52shouldtherebesufficient settlement funds remainingto extend
25 credit monitoringforan additional 24months). Inotherwords, thetotal valueofthecredit monitoring
26 packageofferedtothe class is inthebillions ofdollars ($9.99x 24x 79,150,000). Evenusingonlythe
27 numberofclaims for credit monitoringthat have beenfiledas ofNovember30,2017(891,431)– a
28
3
DeclarationofEveH.CervantezinSupportofPlaintiffs’MotionforFinalSettlementApproval,ServiceAwardstoNamed
Plaintiffs,andanAwardofAttorneys’FeesandCosts;CASENO.15-md-02617-LHK(NC)
Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 916-8 Filed 12/01/17 Page 5 of 37
1 conservative approach, giventhat theclaims deadlineis not untilJanuary29,2018–thecredit
2 monitoringhas provided avalueof at least $213 millionto theclass.
3 10. TheSettlement also offers othervaluablebenefits, includingalternatecompensationfor
4 class members who alreadyhavecredit monitoringservices and donot want furtherservices,
5 reimbursement forout-of-pocket costs incurredas aresult ofthedatabreach,andfraud resolution
6 services providedbyExperianfraudresolutionspecialists foranyclass members who needs such
7 services withintwo years offinal approval (evenforclass members whofail tofileaclaim).
8 11. Documents producedindiscoveryrevealedthat Anthem has retainedclass members’PII
9 inits databases afterthe databreach,evenforthoseclass members who arenolongerAnthem or Blue
10 Cross BlueShieldcustomers. Thesettlement vastlyreduces thevulnerabilityofthat PIIbymandating
11 amajorinvestment incybersecurity, andrequiringthat Anthem takespecificmeasures that fill the
12 cybersecuritygaps that Plaintiffs andtheirexpert believeallowedthedata breachtooccur.
13 12. Thesettlement requires that Anthem spend per yearfor three years,
14 foratotal of . SAEx.2(ECF869-11)¶8. Documents producedindiscoveryrevealed that
15 Anthem’s spendingoncybersecuritypriortothe databreach was approximately per year.
16 Assumingthat Anthem maintainedthat level ofspendingduringthe first three years oftheproposed
17 settlement term,Anthem wouldhavespent only oncybersecurity. Thus, theproposed
18 settlement includes anadditional ofinvestment incybersecuritymeasures aimed at
19 protectingclass members’PII.
20 13. Duetothelargesizeoftheclass andtheimportanceofencouragingclass members to
21 signupfor credit monitoringservices, the costs of noticeandsettlement administrationhavebeen
22 substantial andare expectedtoreach approximately$23 million. In additionto mail, email,and
23 publicationnotice,thesettlement providedforan expansive,targetedsocial mediaadvertisement
24 campaignthat includedthepurchaseofover180 million advertising“impressions”spread across
25 Twitter, LinkedIn,GoogleDisplayNetwork, and Facebook. The advertisements linkedto the
26 settlement website,wherepeoplecanentertheirnameand dateofbirthor address to determinewhether
27 theyare class members, andthenfilea claim for credit monitoringservices orothersettlement benefits.
28 This social mediacampaignis specificallydesignedto reachtheover23 millionpeopleforwhom
4
DeclarationofEveH.CervantezinSupportofPlaintiffs’MotionforFinalSettlementApproval,ServiceAwardstoNamed
Plaintiffs,andanAwardofAttorneys’FeesandCosts;CASENO.15-md-02617-LHK(NC)
Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 916-8 Filed 12/01/17 Page 6 of 37
1 Anthem didnot havecontact informationandwho maynot haveotherwise learnedthat theywere
2 victims ofthebreach and shouldtakesteps toprotect themselves.
3 C. TheProposed Settlementis Favorableforthe Class
4 14. Ibelievethat theproposedsettlement is extraordinarilybeneficial totheclass. By
5 settlingnow,theclass cantakeadvantageof remedies that,as apractical matter,wouldbeunavailable
6 orworthsubstantiallyless bythetimethis case couldbelitigatedtoafinal judgment. Our expert on
7 identitytheft and fraudprotectionhas explainedthat credit monitoringservices aremost critical inthe
8 first five years afterthe Anthem databreach (ECF744-22at ¶46),andthe two years of freecredit
9 monitoringprovidedbyAnthem expiredthis year. Similarly, changes toAnthem’s datasecurity
10 practices will bemost effectivethesoonertheyare implemented. Byprovidingclass members with
11 extendedcredit monitoringand requiringenhanceddatasecuritynow,the proposedsettlement helps
12 preservetheconfidentialityofclass members’privateinformationinways that alaterjudgment could
13 not,particularlyifAnthem exhaustedits appeals. Absent settlement,counsel might havehadtolitigate
14 roundafter roundof additional motions –includingadditional motions todismiss andmotions forclass
15 certification–forall ofPlaintiffs’hundreds of commonlawandstatutoryclaims arisingunderthelaws
16 of50plus jurisdictions, substantiallydelayingreliefforthe class.
17 15. Additionally,byofferingcredit monitoringservices as part oftheSettlement
18 Agreement,weareabletopurchasethoseservices inbulkat afractionoftheretail cost that individual
19 class members wouldpayiftheypurchasedsimilarservices themselves. Absent asettlement,thereis
20 nothingclass members canindividuallydotomakethePIIstoredinAnthem’s databases moresecure,
21 andtheonlywaythat theycouldobtain credit monitoringis topurchaseit themselves—at thehigh
22 retail cost of$9to$20permonth(whichtheymight not beabletoafford).
23 16. Basedonmyknowledge ofthis case,andknowledgeoftheclaims rateinotherdata
24 breach cases, Ibelievethat the$15millionallocatedforout-of-pocket reimbursements will bemore
25 thanenoughtoaccommodateall documentedout-of-pocket claims. Similarly,offeringclass members
26 whoalreadyhave credit monitoringservices apayment ofupto$50is fair,giventhe rangeof
27 values/damages that might havebeen awarded(discussedbelow),hadwetriedthecaseandprevailed.
28
5
DeclarationofEveH.CervantezinSupportofPlaintiffs’MotionforFinalSettlementApproval,ServiceAwardstoNamed
Plaintiffs,andanAwardofAttorneys’FeesandCosts;CASENO.15-md-02617-LHK(NC)
Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 916-8 Filed 12/01/17 Page 7 of 37
1 17. Ibelievethat theproposedsettlement is aparticularlyfavorableoneforthe class
2 consideringtherisks offurtherlitigation. Ibelievethat Plaintiffs built astrongcaseforliabilityand
3 that Plaintiffs hadareasonablygood chanceofprovingthat Anthem’s data securitywas inadequate. I
4 also believethat ifPlaintiffs hadestablishedthat central factual issue,Anthem wouldlikelybe found
5 liableunderat least someoftheliabilitytheories andstatelaws that Plaintiffs pledintheiroperative
6 complaint. However,the liabilitycasewas farfrom ironclad. Amongotherthings, thereis little
7 directlyanalogous databreachlitigationprecedent torelyon, andthepathtoaclass-wide monetary
8 judgment inadatabreachcaseremains untrodden.
9 18. Ibelievethat Plaintiffs’damages theories stooda goodchanceofsucceedinginsome
10 form,as wehadwithstoodvigorous legal challenges at themotiontodismiss stage, andsupportedour
11 theories withreports from highlyqualifiedexperts. However, whilePlaintiffs’theories were sound in
12 principle,theirapplicationtodatabreachlitigation was untestedbeyondthe pleadingstage. Thescope
13 ofdamages dependedinlargepart onthescopeof class certification,which had yet tobedecided.
14 TheBenefit ofthe Bargaintheorydependedupontheresults ofa conjoint studythat couldnot be
15 completeduntil afterclass certification,andthere was no guaranteethat the results ofthestudywould
16 ultimatelyhave yieldeda result showingthis type ofdamage at all. Andit is possiblethat boththe
17 Benefit ofthe Bargaintheoryandthe Loss ofValueofPIItheorycould yieldlargenumbers that would
18 beunpalatableto ajury. If appliedacross all potential class members, Plaintiffs’most conservative
19 measure(basedonblack-market rates ofat least $4perindividual)would yieldafigureof$316million
20 ormore,whilethemost expansivemeasure(based onat least $9ofmonthlycredit monitoringcosts)
21 would yieldmuchhigher numbers. Whilethelegal theorybehindthelargernumbers maybesound, it
22 is untested,and,as apractical matter, I,alongwith myco-leadcounsel,recognizethat takingsuchlarge
23 numbers toajurypresents substantial strategic risks.
24 19. Duetotheextensivediscoveryweundertook,alongwithbriefingtwomotions to
25 dismiss andclass certification, I, alongwithmyco-leadcounsel andtheothermembers ofPlaintiffs’
26 SteeringCommittee,knowthestrengths andweakness oftheclass claims inthis litigation. Wehave
27 workedextensivelywithexperts tovaluethoseclaims andtounderstandthebusiness practicechanges
28 necessarytoprotect class members’datainthe future,andarewell-equippedtonegotiate asettlement
6
DeclarationofEveH.CervantezinSupportofPlaintiffs’MotionforFinalSettlementApproval,ServiceAwardstoNamed
Plaintiffs,andanAwardofAttorneys’FeesandCosts;CASENO.15-md-02617-LHK(NC)
Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 916-8 Filed 12/01/17 Page 8 of 37
1 onbehalfofthe class. In addition,Plaintiffs’discoveryandworkingwithcybersecurityexperts has
2 providedme,alongwith myco-leadcounsel andthemembers ofPlaintiffs’ SteeringCommittee,witha
3 deepunderstandingofAnthem’s highlycomplex ITsystems, thenumerous technical and
4 administrativecontrols involvedinAnthem’s data securitysystem,andthe deficiencies withinthat
5 system that Plaintiffs sought toremedythroughthis action. Thespecificcybersecurityimprovements
6 calledforinthesettlement werederivedinconsultationwithsecurityexperts basedonPlaintiffs’
7 extensivediscovery, and squarelyaddress theinadequatesecuritythat Plaintiffs hadfocusedoninthe
8 litigation.
9 20. In conclusion, Ibelievetheproposedsettlement is extremelybeneficial for class
10 members andis averygooddeal forthem. Irespectfullyrecommendthat theCourt approveit.
11 II. Attorneys’ Fees
12 A. Work on theCase
13 21. I, alongwithmyco-lead counsel,themembers of Plaintiffs’SteeringCommittee,and
14 additional Plaintiffs’counsel whofiledcases that havebeenconsolidatedinthis MDL,have
15 representedPlaintiffs and putativeclass members foralmost three years. Collectively,Plaintiffs’
16 Counsel havedevoted78,553hours tolitigatingthis case,withareasonable lodestaras ofSeptember
17 30,2017of$37,832,349. Accordingly,Plaintiffs seek33%oftheSettlement Fund($37,950,000)for
18 theirattorneys’fees, whichrepresents amultiplier ofunder1.1,andis considerablyless thanthe1.75
19 multiplierCounsel promisednot toexceedat theinceptionofthis case. ECF190. Bythefinal
20 approval hearingonFebruary1,2018,ourreasonablelodestarwill haveincreasedduetothetimespent
21 briefingandarguingfinal approval andoverseeingthenoticeandclaims process,and wewill likely
22 haveanegativemultipliertoourlodestar.
23 22. Wemadeeveryeffort tolitigatethis complex case efficientlyand effectively. In
24 keepingwiththis Court’s decisionthat weshould runthecasewithasmall core groupofcounsel with
25 in-depthknowledgeofthecase, amajorityofworkonthecase (48,878hours, withareasonable
26 lodestarvalueof$24,228,470.50)was performed byattorneys andstaffat oneofthefourlawfirms this
27 Court appointedCo-Lead Counsel orPlaintiffs’SteeringCommittee(“PSC”). In general,Co-lead
28 counsel AndrewFriedmanand Ioversawthelitigation,madefinal strategydecisions, anddrafted,
7
DeclarationofEveH.CervantezinSupportofPlaintiffs’MotionforFinalSettlementApproval,ServiceAwardstoNamed
Plaintiffs,andanAwardofAttorneys’FeesandCosts;CASENO.15-md-02617-LHK(NC)
Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 916-8 Filed 12/01/17 Page 9 of 37
1 edited,reviewed,and/or approvedall filings andcorrespondencewithopposingcounsel. Aidedby
2 PSC members EricGibbs andMichael Sobol,we delegatedoversight forspecificprojects orworkto
3 morejuniorpartners orseniorassociates withinourfourfirms whenpossible. Toinsurethat all
4 attorneys kept ontask andunderstoodthebigpicturestrategyintowhichtheirindividual assignments
5 fit,weheldweeklyconference calls that weretypicallyless thanonehour forjust thoseattorneys
6 withinourfourfirms whowere activelyworkingonthecase at anygiventime. Eachcall was preceded
7 bya writtenagenda,and followedbyawrittentasklist toensurethat all necessaryworkwas completed
8 inatimelyand efficient manner.
9 23. Although LeadCounsel assigned amajorityofworktothefour LeadCounsel andPSC
10 firms so that acore groupofattorneys withanin-depthknowledgeofthe factual andlegal issues could
11 litigatethecaseefficientlywithout havingtoconstantlyget newlawyers up tospeed,inkeepingwith
12 this Court’s Orders (ECF 284,286), LeadCounsel also strategicallyusedfirms throughout thecountry
13 tolocateandinterviewprospectiveplaintiffs, reviewandanalyzedocuments, takeanddefend
14 depositions, andcontributespecializedexpertise(ontopics suchas ERISA, experts, andthefederal
15 contract).
16 24. Wefaced formidableadversaries inthethreelawfirms hiredbyAnthem andthe
17 majorityofthe Non-Anthem Defendants, andthe lawfirm representingthe BlueCross BlueShield
18 AssociationandHCSC,all ofwhichhadsignificant class actionlitigationdefenseexperience.
19 Defendants vigorouslycontestedbothclass certificationandliabilityanddevotedsubstantial resources
20 tothedefense,includingstaffingcalls withmultipleattorneys, sendingmultipleattorneys to court
21 hearings, anddeposingall but oneoftheover100 NamedPlaintiffs. At almost everyhearing, and on
22 manytelephoneconferencecalls andat depositions, thenumberofdefense attorneys exceededthe
23 numberofPlaintiffs’attorneys.
24 25. Oneofour first steps afterbeingappointedCo-LeadCounsel was todraft the
25 consolidatedamended class actioncomplaint. Becausenosinglefederal or stateclaim couldbe
26 assertedonbehalfof all class members, weundertookthesignificant task ofresearchingthelaws of50
27 states toidentifyand evaluatepotential class claims. Forthemost part this researchwas conducted by
28 thefourPSC firms, althoughwedidrequest helpfrom certainotherfirms withparticularfamiliarity
8
DeclarationofEveH.CervantezinSupportofPlaintiffs’MotionforFinalSettlementApproval,ServiceAwardstoNamed
Plaintiffs,andanAwardofAttorneys’FeesandCosts;CASENO.15-md-02617-LHK(NC)
Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 916-8 Filed 12/01/17 Page 10 of 37
1 withthelaws oftheirownstates, as well as from threefirms that hadfirst developedthefederal
2 contract claim.
3 26. Wealso hadtodetermine,amongthemanyplaintiffs whohadfiledunderlyingMDL
4 cases, whowouldserve as plaintiffs intheconsolidatedclass actioncomplaint. Because class members
5 residedinall 50states (plus D.C.andvarious U.S.territories),hadbeeninsuredbyoneof43
6 defendants, andhaddifferent types ofhealthplans, counsel hadtointerviewmanyhundreds of class
7 members tolocateover100suitableNamedPlaintiffs anddeterminewhich ofthem couldrepresent
8 whichclass members on whichclaims. Weknewthat Defendants wouldchallengeplaintiffs’typicality
9 andstandingonmanygrounds –claimingthat onlyplaintiffs from a given statecouldraise claims
10 underthat states’laws, that onlyplaintiffs whohadpurchasedinsurancefrom agivendefendant could
11 bringclaims against that defendant,that ERISApreemptionbarredtheclaims ofplaintiffs with
12 employer-purchasedinsurance, andthat plaintiffs withindividual,group,orAdministrativeServices
13 Only(“ASO”) contracts weredifferent from one anotherandcouldnot represent class members with
14 othertypes ofinsurance. See,e.g.,ECF524at 8-12(OrderdenyingDefendants’motiontodismiss on
15 standinggrounds); ECF 780-4(Opp.toMot.for Class Cert.raisingstanding,typicality,and adequacy
16 arguments). Accordingly, althoughwedisagreed withDefendants onthemerits oftheircontentions,
17 weneededaverylargenumberofplaintiffs toact as class andsubclass representatives, incasethis
18 Court agreed withDefendants. There arenow105NamedPlaintiffs whoseektorepresent the class as
19 Settlement Class Representatives, but additional NamedPlaintiffs werenamedinoneormoreofthe
20 consolidatedcomplaints that wefiledand weresubject todiscovery,eventhoughtheylaterdismissed
21 theirclaims foravarietyofreasons,suchas ill-healthorunwillingness tosubmit toforensic
22 examinationofpersonal computers. Westrategicallyaddedonlytheminimum numberofnamed
23 plaintiffs necessarytowithstandamotiontodismiss andoppositiontoclass certification,so as to
24 maximizeefficiencyand minimizediscoveryand expense.
25 27. Thelawfirm ofStueveSiegel Hanson alreadyhad theexpertisetoestablish aninternet-
26 basedsecureportal bywhichattorneys from manyfirms couldsubmit detailedinformationabout
27 proposedplaintiffs, whichallowedus first togatherthefacts necessaryto determinewhichplaintiffs to
28 nameas proposedclass representatives intheconsolidatedamendedcomplaints, andlatertocollect
9
DeclarationofEveH.CervantezinSupportofPlaintiffs’MotionforFinalSettlementApproval,ServiceAwardstoNamed
Plaintiffs,andanAwardofAttorneys’FeesandCosts;CASENO.15-md-02617-LHK(NC)