In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation

MOTION to Consolidate Cases PURSUANT TO RULE 42

N.D. Cal.March 28, 2012

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 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(G) KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (SBN 119854) 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 kiesel@kbla.com Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 Proposed Interim Liaison Counsel BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON & GORNY, P.C. Edward D. Robertson, Jr. Stephen M. Gorny James P. Frickleton Mary D. Winter Edward D. Robertson III 11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200 Leawood, KS 66211 chiprob@earthlink.net Telephone: (913) 266-2300 Facsimile: (913) 266-2366 Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel SIANNI & STRAITE LLP David A. Straite, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice) Ralph N. Sianni, Esq. 1201 N. Orange St., Suite 740 Wilmington, DE 19801 dstraite@siannistraite.com Telephone: (302) 573-3560 Facsimile: (302) 358-2975 Proposed Interim Co-Lead Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION IN RE: FACEBOOK INTERNET TRACKING LITIGATION No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(a); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURUANT TO RULE 23(g) Date: March 30, 2012 Time: 1:30 p.m. Judge: Hon. Edward J. Davila Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 1 of 29 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 2 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) PERRIN AIKENS DAVIS, PETERSEN GROSS, DR. BRIAN K. LENTZ, TOMMASINA IANNUZZI, TRACY SAURO, JENNIFER SAURO, and LISA SABATO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware Corporation Defendant. Case No. 5:11-cv-04834-EJD Related Case Nos.: 5:11-cv-04935-EJD; 5:12-cv-00370-EJD; and 5:12-cv-00807- EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: September 30, 2011 LANA BRKIC, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-10, Defendants. Case No. 5:11-04935-EJD Related Case Nos.: 5:11-cv-04834-EJD; 5:12-cv-00370-EJD; and 5:12-cv-00807- EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, Case No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: October 5, 2011 JULIAN CARROLL, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. Case No. 5:12-cv-00370-EJD Related Case Nos.: 5:11-cv-04834- EJD; 5:11-cv-04935-EJD; and 5:12-cv- 00807-EJD Action Filed: January 24, 2012 LAURA MAGUIRE, ET AL., On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant. Case No. 5:12-cv-00807-EJD Related Case Nos.: 5:11-cv-04834- EJD; 5:11-cv-04935-EJD; and 5:12-cv-00370-EJD Action Filed: February 17, 2012 Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 2 of 29 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 3 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) ALEXANDRIA PARRISH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., and DOES 1 Through 10, Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-00667-EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, Case No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: October 7, 2011 Transferred February 8, 2012 SHARON BEATTY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., and DOES 1 Through 10, Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-00668-EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: October 7, 2011 Transferred February 8, 2012 BROOKE RUTLEDGE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-00669-EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: October 12, 2011 Transferred February 8, 2012 MICHAEL SINGLEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK, INC., DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-00670-EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: October 5, 2011 Transferred February 08, 2012 DANA HOWARD, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-00671-EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: October 4, 2011 and Transferred on February 8, 2012 Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 3 of 29 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 4 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) JOHN GRAHAM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., and DOES 1 Through 10, Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-00673-EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: October 5, 2011 Transferred February 8, 2012 DAVID M. HOFFMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-00674-EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: October 7, 2011 Transferred February 8, 2012 JANET SEAMON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-00675-EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: October 10, 2011 Transferred February 8, 2012 CHANDRA L. THOMPSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-00676-EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: September 30, 2011 Transferred February 8, 2012 STEPHANIE CAMPBELL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-00796-EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: November 21, 2011 Transferred February 17, 2012 Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 4 of 29 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 5 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) CYNTHIA D. QUINN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-00797-EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: October 18, 2011 Transferred February 17, 2012 JEANNE M. WALKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-00798-EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: October 20, 2011 Transferred February 17, 2012 JACQUELINE BURDICK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-00799-EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: October 25, 2011 Transferred February 17, 2012 EDWARD STRAVATO, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC.; JOHN DOE 1-10, Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-00800-EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: December 14, 2011 Transferred February 17, 2012 MATTHEW J. VICKERY, and Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., DOES 1 thru 10, Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-00801-EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: November 14, 2011 Transferred February 17, 2012 Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 5 of 29 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 6 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) PATRICK K. MALONEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants. Case No. 5:12-cv-00824-EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: January 25, 2012 Transferred February 21, 2012 JOON KHANG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant. Case No. 5:12-cv-00825-EJD In Re Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD Action Filed: February 1, 2012 Transferred February 21, 2012 Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 6 of 29 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 i MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... ii MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................. 1 I. INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................... 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 2 a. Facebook ........................................................................................................................ 2 b. Facebook Tracks Users’ Internet Use ............................................................................ 4 c. Facebook Tracking Post-Logout .................................................................................... 5 III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................... 7 IV. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 7 a. The Related Actions and the MDL Should be Consolidated for All Purposes Pursuant to Rule 42(a). ................................................................................................................. 7 b. The Proposed Leadership Structure Is In the Best Interests of the Putative Class ........ 9 i. The Proposed Leadership Structure ...................................................................... 9 ii. The Benefits of the Proposed Structure .............................................................. 10 c. Appointing Interim Lead Class Counsel is Appropriate Under Rule 23(g) and Will Protect the Interests of the Putative Plaintiff Class...................................................... 11 V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 13 Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 7 of 29 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 ii MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703 (9th Cir. 1984) ................................................................................................... 8 In re Cendant Corp. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 476 (D.N.J. 1998) ................................................................................................. 7 In re DRAM Antitrust Litig., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39841, *53 (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2006) ............................................. 10 In re Equity Funding Corp. of Am. Sec. Litig., 416 F. Supp. 161 (C.D. Cal. 1976).......................................................................................... 7 In Re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 240 F.R.D. 163 (E.D. Pa. 2007) ............................................................................................ 10 In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 05-1717 (D. Del. Apr. 18, 2006) .......................................................................... 10 In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Sec. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) ............................................................................................ 10 Investors Research Co. v. U.S. District Court for Cent. Dist., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989) ................................................................................................... 8 Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281 (2d Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................. 8 Malasky v. IAC/Interactive Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25832, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2004) ........................................... 10 Owen v. Labor Ready Inc., 146 Fed. Appx. 139 (9th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................... 7, 8 Perez-Funez v. Dist. Director, Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 611 F. Supp. 990 (C.D. Cal. 1984).......................................................................................... 8 Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits Trust v. LaBranche & Co.,Inc., 229 F.R.D. 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) .......................................................................................... 10 Parkinson v. Hyundai Motor Am., 2006 WL 2289801, No. C06-0345 AHS, slip op. *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 006) ..................... 12 U.S. v. Knauer, 149 F.2d 519 (7th Cir. 1945) ............................................................................................... 7, 8 Vincent v. Hughes Air West, Inc., 557 F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1977) ................................................................................................... 8 Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 8 of 29 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 iii MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) RULES Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 ............................................................................................................................ 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A) ......................................................................................................... 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3) ............................................................................................................... 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2) ................................................................................................................. 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(4) ............................................................................................................... 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) .............................................................................................................. 1, 7, 8 TREATISES AND LAW REVIEW ARTICLES Paul M. Schwartz, Property, Privacy and Personal Data, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 2055, 2056-57 (2004) ........................................................................................................................ 3 Manual For Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 11.631, at pp.121-22 (2004) ............................... 7, 10 OTHER AUTHORITIES Rainey Reitman ,Facebook’s Hotel California (Oct. 10, 2011) ................................................... 4 Tim Morey, What’s Your Personal Data Worth? (Jan. 18, 2011) ................................................ 3 Third Circuit Task Force Report on Selection of Class Counsel, 208 F.R.D. 340 (2002) .......................................................................................................... 10 Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 9 of 29 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 1 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Twenty-one similar purported class actions have been related and transferred to this Court by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation or otherwise accepted as related by order of this Court. These Related Actions are: Case Name Original Court and Case Number N.D. Cal. Case Number Parrish v. Facebook Inc ALN/2:11-cv-03576 5:12-cv-00667-EJD Campbell v. Facebook, Inc. et al ARW/5:11-cv-05266 5:12-cv-00796-EJD Beatty v. Facebook Incorporated et al AZ/2:11-cv-01964 5:12-cv-00668-EJD Joon Khang v. Facebook Inc CAC/8:12-cv-00161 5:12-cv-00825-EJD Carroll v. Facebook, Inc CAN/3:12-cv-00370 5:12-cv-00370-EJD Davis et al v. Facebook, Inc. CAN/5:11-cv-04834 5:11-cv-04834-EJD Brkic v. Facebook, Inc CAN/5:11-cv-04935 5:11-cv-04935-EJD Quinn v. Facebook, Inc. et al HI/1:11-cv-00623 5:12-cv-00797-EJD Howard v. Facebook, Inc. et al ILS/3:11-cv-00895 5:12-cv-00671-EJD Graham v. Facebook, Inc. et al KS/2:11-cv-02556 5:12-cv-00673-EJD Hoffman v. Facebook, Inc. et al KYW/5:11-cv-00166 5:12-cv-00674-EJD Seamon v. Facebook, Inc. LAM/3:11-cv-00689 5:12-cv-00675-EJD Thompson v. Facebook, Inc. MOW/2:11-cv-04256 5:12-cv-00676-EJD Rutledge v. Facebook, Inc. MSN/3:11-cv-00133 5:12-cv-00669-EJD Walker v. Facebook MT/1:11-cv-00118 5:12-cv-00798-EJD Maloney v. Facebook, Inc. et al OHS/2:12-cv-00078 5:12-cv-00824-EJD Burdick et al v. Facebook Inc et al OKW/5:11-cv-01214 5:12-cv-00799-EJD Stravato v. Facebook, Inc. RI/1:11-cv-00624 5:12-cv-00800-EJD Maguire, et al. v. Facebook, Inc. CAN/5:12-cv-0807 5:12-cv-00807-EJD Vickery v. Facebook, Inc. WAW/2:11-cv-01901 5:12-cv-00801-EJD Singley v. Facebook, Inc. TXW/1:11-cv-00874 5:12-cv-00670-EJD All 21 Related Actions seek to represent substantially the same class of people for essentially the same claims, are based on similar factual allegations and are against the same defendant, Facebook, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Facebook”). The plaintiffs in 20 of these 21 Related Actions (collectively, the “Moving Plaintiffs”)1 move this Court for an order: (1) Consolidating all 21 Related Actions, MDL 2314, and any future-filed “related action” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); (2) Appointing interim class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2); and 1 Plaintiff in Khang v. Facebook, Inc., 5:12-cv-00825-EJD, does not join in this Motion. Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 10 of 29 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 2 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) (3) Setting a deadline for the filing of Interim Lead Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint and a briefing schedule on any motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Facebook. Moving Plaintiffs bring this motion on the following grounds: (1) the Actions are substantially identical; consolidating them will promote efficiency for the court, litigants and counsel; and (2) the leadership structure Moving Plaintiffs propose and the consolidation of pleadings will also promote efficiency while advancing “the just, speedy and inexpensive determination” of the Actions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. This motion is based upon the following legal memorandum of points and authorities, the complete files and records in the 21 Related Actions, and such other written or oral argument as the Court may consider.2 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND a. Facebook Defendant Facebook operates the world’s largest social networking web site, with more than 800 million users globally. Facebook has 150 million users in the United States. Although Facebook members are not required to pay a monetary subscription fee, membership is decidedly not free. Facebook requires users to provide sensitive personal information to Facebook upon registration, including name, birth date, gender and email address. More importantly, Facebook users must accept numerous Facebook cookies on their computers. These cookies track the users’ browsing history. Facebook then harvests this information from the users’ computers, including the members’ unique Facebook identifiers. Facebook uses this valuable information to generate approximately $4 billion of revenue annually, starkly illustrating that the required personal information, including users’ browsing history, has enormous cash value. / / / / / / 2 Counsel for Moving Plaintiffs contacted counsel for Facebook, and Facebook will support consolidation of the current 21 cases in (or related to) the MDL proceeding, but takes no position on the Rule 23(g) motion. In taking no position on the latter motion, Facebook reserves all rights with respect to the contents of that motion and expressly reserves the right to challenge the adequacy of lead counsel and lead plaintiffs in the future. Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 11 of 29 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 3 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) The economic value of the information that users are required to provide to Facebook is well understood in the e-commerce industry. Personal information is now a form of currency. As Professor Paul M. Schwartz noted in the Harvard Law Review: Personal information is an important currency in the new millennium. The monetary value of personal data is large and still growing, and corporate America is moving quickly to profit from the trend. Companies view this information as a corporate asset and have invested heavily in software that facilitates the collection of consumer information. Paul M. Schwartz, Property, Privacy and Personal Data, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 2055, 2056- 57 (2004). Professor Schwartz wrote those words in the same year Facebook was launched. The cash value of users’ personal information provided to Facebook can be quantified. For example, in a recent study authored by Tim Morey (“What’s Your Personal Data Worth?,” Jan. 18, 2011), researchers studied the value that 180 internet users placed on keeping personal data secure. The results were striking. Study participants valued contact information of the sort Facebook requires at approximately $4.20 per year. Demographic information was valued at approximately $3.00 per year. Web browsing histories were valued at a much higher rate: $52.00 per year. The following chart summarizes the findings: Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 12 of 29 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 4 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) Across Facebook’s membership of approximately 800 million users, these figures imply aggregate annual membership fees of $3.36 billion, $2.4 billion, and $41.6 billion, respectively, for each category of information. Facebook is not free. b. Facebook Tracks Users’ Internet Use According to “Facebook’s Hotel California” (Oct. 10, 2011), a recent report by Rainey Reitman at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), in order to track its users’ internet use, Facebook installs two types of cookies on members’ computers: session cookies, and tracking cookies: Session cookies are set when you log into Facebook and they include data like your unique Facebook user ID. They are directly associated with your Facebook account. When you log out of Facebook, the session cookies are supposed to be deleted. Tracking cookies - also known as persistent cookies - don’t expire when you leave your Facebook account. Facebook sets one tracking cookie known as 'datr' when you visit Facebook.com, regardless of whether or not you actually have an account. This cookie sends data back to Facebook every time you make a request of Facebook.com, such as when you load a page with an embedded Facebook 'like' button. This tracking takes place regardless of whether you ever interact with a Facebook 'like' button. In effect, Facebook is getting details of where you go on the Internet. When you leave Facebook without logging out and then browse the web, you have both tracking cookies and session cookies. Under those circumstances, Facebook knows whenever you load a page with embedded content from Facebook (like a Facebook 'like' button) and also can easily connect that data back to your individual Facebook profile. As the EFF noted, session cookies are supposed to be deleted upon logout. Not just a vague industry expectation, this deletion is required under the governing contracts, and therefore under federal law. Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, in addition to a number of other documents and policies, including a Data Use Policy and a Privacy Policy, govern Facebook use. Although the governing documents make clear that users consent to Facebook installing cookies on the users’ computers, and although users consent to these cookies tracking and transmitting to Facebook data regarding their web browsing, such consent was plainly limited to internet usage while the user is logged on to Facebook. Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 13 of 29 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 5 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) Users nowhere consent to Facebook tracking and recording their web browsing after they log out of Facebook. Facebook agreed to delete its session cookies after the user’s session ended, precluding post log-out tracking. Facebook’s online help center clearly and unambiguously emphasized, “When you log out of Facebook, we remove the cookies that identify your particular account.” c. Facebook Tracking Post-Logout Sometime in 2010, an Australian technology writer, Nik Cubrilovic, discovered that the session cookies Facebook placed on its users’ computers remained active even after users had logged off of Facebook. Mr. Cubrilovic warned Facebook of this problem on at least two occasions starting in November, 2010. Facebook failed to take corrective action, instead willfully and illegally continuing to collect data from its millions of active users worldwide. Because Facebook refused to take corrective action, Mr. Cubrilovic went public with his research on September 25, 2011. The result was explosive. The next day, on September 26, 2011, Facebook publicly admitted that its session cookies remained active even after logoff. Facebook agreed to fix the “bug” as the company called it, seeking to minimize the problem. The next day, the Irish Government announced an audit of Facebook under EU privacy rules (Facebook’s primary European data center is in Ireland). Two days later, U.S. Representatives Edward Markey and Joe Barton, Co-Chairman of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus, sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission demanding to know what action the FTC was taking under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The letter stated: As co-chairs of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus, we believe that tracking user behavior without their consent or knowledge raises serious privacy concerns . . . . When users log out of Facebook, they are under the expectation that Facebook is no longer monitoring their activities. We believe this impression should be the reality. Facebook users should not be tracked without their permission (emphasis added). On September 29, 2011, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, the Center for Digital Democracy, the Center for Media and Democracy, Consumer Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 14 of 29 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 6 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) Action, Consumer Watchdog, Privacy Activism, and Privacy Times also recommended that the FTC investigate. In their letter to the FTC, the group added that Facebook might not have actually fixed the problem as claimed: [W]e would like to bring your attention to new privacy and security risks to American consumers, the secret use of persistent identifiers (“cookies”) to track the Internet activity of users even after they have logged off of Facebook, and the company’s failure to uphold representations it has made regarding its commitments to protect the privacy of its users. Facebook’s tracking of post-log-out Internet activity violates both the reasonable expectations of consumers and the company’s own privacy statements. Although Facebook has partially fixed the problem caused by its tracking cookies, the company still places persistent identifiers on users’ browsers that collect post-log-out data and could be used to identify users (emphasis added). As of the date of this motion, whether the FTC will or has already begun a formal investigation is unknown. However, on October 11, 2011, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz gave a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. In that speech Chairman Leibowitz sounded the alarm on privacy rights, coining the term “cyberazzi” for web sites that violate their users’ digital privacy rights. Specifically, Chairman Leibowitz may have signaled coming action: Once you enter cyberspace, software placed on your computer - usually without your consent or even knowledge - turns your private information into a commodity out of your control. And keep in mind: as my former colleague Republican FTC Chairman Debbie Majoras used to say, your computer is your property. . . . At the FTC, we want you to get that control back (emphasis added). Finally, despite Facebook’s claim that it fixed the “bug,” researchers are uncovering yet more methods Facebook can employ to track its users, even after logout. For example, a researcher at Stanford University found that Facebook was setting tracking cookies on browsers of people visiting sites other than Facebook.com. Facebook was setting these tracking cookies when individuals visited certain Facebook Connect sites. The result: people who never interacted with a Facebook.com widget, and who never visited Facebook.com, were still vulnerable to Facebook tracking cookies. The EFF notes in the October 11, 2011 report that Facebook now can track web browsing history without cookies: Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 15 of 29 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 7 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) Facebook is able to collect data about your browser - including your IP address and a range of facts about your browser - without ever installing a cookie. They can use this data to build a record of every time you load a page with embedded Facebook content. They keep this data for 90 days and then presumably discard or otherwise anonymize it. That's a far cry from being able to shield one’s reading habits from Facebook. III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Following the September 25, 2011 revelations and the calls for government action, 21 separate class actions were filed throughout the country seeking compensation and other remedies for Facebook users. These cases allege violations of various federal privacy laws, including the Federal Wiretap Act and various Computer Fraud laws. Several allege violations of various California state statutes and common law claims. On October 17, 2011, the Plaintiffs in Davis, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., 5:11-cv-04834-EJD, moved in the JPML for consolidation and transfer to the Northern District of California of all related actions filed to date. None of the plaintiffs in any of the Related Actions opposed the Motion. Defendant Facebook submitted a Brief in Support of the Motion. On February 8, 2012, the JPML ordered that all “Related Actions” be centralized in the Northern District of California, and created MDL 2314. Additional cases filed after the October 17, 2011 motion for consolidation were also transferred to this Court pursuant to two Conditional Transfer Orders dated February 17, 2012 and February 21, 2012. Finally, three additional actions filed in this District have all been deemed “related” by the Court (Brkic, Carroll, and Maguire). IV. ARGUMENT a. The Related Actions and the MDL Should be Consolidated for All Purposes Pursuant to Rule 42(a). Consolidation pursuant to Rule 42(a) is proper when actions involve common questions of law and fact. See Manual For Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 11.631, at pp.121-22 (2004) (“MCL”); Owen v. Labor Ready Inc., 146 Fed. Appx. 139, 141 (9th Cir. 2005); In re Cendant Corp. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 476,478 (D.N.J. 1998); In re Equity Funding Corp. of Am. Sec. Litig., 416 F. Supp. 161, 175 (C.D. Cal. 1976). Subdivision (a) of this rule relating to consolidations of actions for trial was designed to encourage consolidations where possible. See U.S. v. Knauer, Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 16 of 29 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 8 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) 149 F.2d 519, 520 (7th Cir. 1945), certiorari granted, 326 U.S. 714, aff’d, 328 U.S. 654, reh’g denied, 329 U.S. 818, petition denied, 322 U.S. 834. This Court has broad discretion under this rule to consolidate cases within this district. Investors Research Co. v. U.S. District Court for Cent. Dist., 877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989); Perez-Funez v. Dist. Director, Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 611 F. Supp. 990, 994 (C.D. Cal. 1984) [“A court has broad discretion in deciding whether or not to grant a motion for consolidation, although, typically, consolidation is favored.”] (citations omitted). Courts have recognized that putative class actions are particularly well-suited for Rule 42(a) consolidation. Such consolidation expedites pretrial proceedings, reduces case duplication, avoids the need to contact parties and witnesses for multiple proceedings, and minimizes the expenditure of time and money for all parties involved. Vincent v. Hughes Air West, Inc., 557 F.2d759, 773 (9th Cir. 1977); Owen v. Labor Ready Inc., 146 Fed. Appx. at 141 (citing Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984)). Consolidating class action suits simplifies pretrial and discovery motions, class action issues, and clerical and administrative management duties. Consolidation also reduces the confusion and delay that may result from prosecuting related putative class actions separately. Id. The Related Actions all allege claims on behalf of Facebook Users. The Related Actions name the same defendant, Facebook, Inc., and involve substantially similar factual and legal issues. Consolidation is appropriate where - as here - there are actions involving common questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). See also Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1284 (2d Cir. 1990). The substantial overlap of the factual and legal issues in the Related Actions satisfies that “common questions” test. The Related Actions should be consolidated. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 17 of 29 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 9 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) b. The Proposed Leadership Structure Is In the Best Interests of the Putative Class i. The Proposed Leadership Structure The Executive Committee: The Moving Plaintiffs propose that the consolidated action be co-led by two firms: BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON & GORNY, P.C., and SIANNI & STRAITE LLP.3 Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee: The Moving Plaintiffs propose the formation of a steering committee to assist co-lead counsel at the direction of co-lead counsel. The PSC would consist of seven attorneys: STEPHEN M. GORNY; STEPHEN G. GRYGIEL; ANDREW J. LYSKOWSKI; BARRY R. EICHEN; MARK S. MANDELL; WILLIAM H. MURPHY, JR.; and WILLIAM M. CUNNINGHAM, JR. Attorney General Special Advisory Committee: The Moving Plaintiffs propose the formation of a Special Advisory Committee consisting of three former state attorneys general to provide legal and strategic advice to co-lead counsel: GRANT WOODS (Arizona Attorney General from 1991 to 1999); MIKE MOORE (Mississippi Attorney General from 1988 to 2004); and RICHARD IEYOUB (Louisiana Attorney General from 1992 to 2004). Liaison Counsel: The Moving Plaintiffs propose the appointment of a single liaison counsel with a California office to assist with filings and court appearances at the direction of co-lead counsel: KIESEL, BOUCHER & LARSON, LLP. / / / / / / 3 Candor to the tribunal requires disclosure that the lawyers at Sianni & Straite LLP plan to join another firm commencing May 1, 2012, and at that time would seek to substitute the successor firm as co-lead counsel for the putative class. Counsel is prepared to discuss the arrangement at the upcoming Case Management Conference on March 30, 2012. Counsel would gladly provide a supplemental brief under seal describing the successor firm’s qualifications if the Court so requests. Public announcement of the move is currently scheduled for April 16, 2012. Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 18 of 29 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 10 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) ii. The Benefits of the Proposed Structure The broad scope and inherent complexity of this matter necessitate a sound case management structure. Moving Plaintiffs assert that the Proposed Leadership Structure will best serve the interests of Plaintiffs and the proposed plaintiff class. Leading commentators and the Manual for Complex Litigation advise: “court[s] should be cognizant of the possibility that the class could benefit from the combined resources and expertise of a number of class counsel, especially in a complex case where the defendants are represented by a number of large and highly qualified law firms.” Third Circuit Task Force Report on Selection of Class Counsel, 208 F.R.D. 340, 417 (2002) (footnote omitted); see also MCL, § 10.221 (noting benefit to having multiple lead counsel in large class action cases). For these reasons, federal district courts frequently approve multi-firm leadership structures in complex class actions. See, e.g., In Re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 240 F.R.D. 163, 177 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (appointing four-firm structure as co-lead counsel); In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Sec. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 42, 46, 49 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (approving multiple counsel arrangement, finding pooling of resources and experience was advantageous given “magnitude” of the class action and to “ensure that the litigation will proceed expeditiously against Oxford and the experienced counsel it has retained to represent it”); see also In re DRAM Antitrust Litig., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39841, *53 (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2006) (appointing three-firm structure as co-lead counsel); In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 05-1717 (D. Del. Apr. 18, 2006), Order Appointing Co-Lead Counsel at 3 (appointing multi-firm structure that allows “drawing upon a greater pool of resources” which “could prove to be especially beneficial in a large and complex case such as this”).4 Not merely beneficial, the Proposed Leadership Structure here will prosper the success and efficient management of a class action potentially involving 800 million class members. Presenting many legal and factual issues, some quite new, involving application of established statutes and causes of action to evolving cyberspace commercial practices, this case offers no 4 Courts have also noted the “benefit of joint decision-making” afforded by multiple representation in the class action context. See, e.g., Malasky v. IAC/Interactive Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25832, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2004); Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits Trust v. LaBranche & Co., Inc., 229 F.R.D. 395, 420 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 19 of 29 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 11 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) room for management inefficiency. Facebook, the world’s largest social network, is represented by one of the country’s largest and most experienced defense firms, abundantly prepared to defend the case. This may also be the largest class action in history, and discovery could involve millions of pages of documents. Such volume requires knowledgeable and experienced persons to establish review protocols and to ensure proper document analysis in a relatively short time. Undoubtedly this case will be expert-intensive. Extensive motion practice is virtually certain, on the pleadings, procedural and merits issues, and discovery. The path to settlement or trial is unlikely to be short or simple. Needless to say, these tasks will entail substantial financial commitments that the proposed co-lead counsel will share. The Proposed Leadership Structure draws on the experience and expertise of a large number of law firms and former state attorneys general, yet still provides the Court and Facebook with the convenience of only two points of contact - Sianni & Straite LLP and Bartimus Frickleton, Robertson & Gorny, P.C. The Moving Plaintiffs also propose that a single firm be appointed liaison counsel with a California office to assist with filings and court appearances as needed. In this way, the Proposed Leadership Structure combines a large number of attorneys (and former state attorneys general) with proven commitment to responsible advocacy, and the convenience of a small, two-firm Executive Committee simplifying decision-making and communications with the Court and Defendant. c. Appointing Interim Lead Class Counsel is Appropriate Under Rule 23(g) and Will Protect the Interests of the Putative Plaintiff Class Rule 23(g)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court “may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of the putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). Where, as here, multiple class actions are pending, appointment of interim class counsel “is necessary to protect the interests of class members” because it “clarifies responsibility for protecting the interests of the class during precertification activities, such as making and responding to motions, conducting any necessary discovery, moving for class certification, and negotiating settlement.” MCL, § 21.11. / / / Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 20 of 29 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 12 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) Proposed Interim Class Counsel Will Fairly and Adequately Represent the Interests of Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Attorneys appointed to serve as interim class counsel “must fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(4). Although Rule 23 does not explicitly state what standards apply when appointing interim class counsel, courts have applied the following factors from Rule 23(g)(1)(A): (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 claims of the type asserted in the action; (3) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and (4) the resources counsel will commit to representing the class. See Parkinson v. Hyundai Motor Am., 2006 WL 2289801, No. C06-0345 AHS, slip op. at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2006). No single factor is determinative; all factors must be considered. Advisory Committee Notes (2003 Amendments). The proposed leadership structure satisfies each of these criteria. Proposed class counsel have already taken considerable steps to advance the litigation. For example, plaintiffs’ counsel (not counsel for Facebook) filed with the JPML the motion for consolidation and transfer to this Court. Counsel also aggressively moved to protect the class in the JPML when Facebook requested a change to the case caption which would have been unfair to plaintiffs. Likewise, counsel for plaintiffs have already sent a document preservation demand to Facebook, have retained and engaged expert advisors and have already sought admission pro hac vice. Likewise, proposed class counsel have extensive complex litigation experience and knowledge of the applicable law. Counsel also have sufficient resources to litigate this case properly and protect the class. Attached to this motion as Exhibit A are the biographies of the firms and lawyers that Moving Plaintiffs seek to have appointed to lead the class action. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 21 of 29 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 13 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) V. CONCLUSION In the interests of judicial economy and for the reasons set forth above, Moving Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court order consolidation of the Related Actions, the MDL and all future-filed “related actions”; appoint interim class counsel; and enter the attached proposed order setting forth a deadline for filing a consolidated class action complaint and a briefing schedule to govern any motion to dismiss. Dated: March 28, 2012 Barry R. Eichen Daryl L. Zaslow EICHEN CRUTCHLOW ZASLOW & McELROY LLP 40 Ethel Road Edison, NJ 08817 beichen@njadvocates.com dzaslow@njadvocates.com Telephone: (732) 777-0100 Facsimile: (732) 248-8273 Paul R. Kiesel KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 kiesel@kbla.com Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310)854-0812 SIANNI & STRAITE LLP /s/ David A. Straite David A. Straite David A. Straite Ralph N. Sianni 1201 N. Orange St., Suite 740 Wilmington, DE 19801 dstraite@siannistraite.com rsianni@siannistraite.com Telephone: (302) 573-3560 Facsimile: (302) 358-2975 Stephen G. Grygiel John E Keefe, Jr. Stephen Sullivan, Jr. KEEFE BARTELS LLP 170 Monmouth Street Red Bank, NJ 07701 sgrygiel@keefebartels.com jkeefe@keefebartels.com ssullivan@keefebartels.com Telephone: (732) 224-9400 Facsimile: (732) 224-9494 Attorneys for Plaintiffs PERRIN AIKENS DAVIS, PETERSEN GROSS, DR. BRIAN K. LENTZ, TOMMASINA IANNUZZI, TRACY SAURO, JENNIFER SAURO, and LISA SABATO Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 22 of 29 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 14 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) Dated: March 28, 2012 WILLOUGHBY DOYLE LLP /s/ Conal Fergus Doyle Conal Fergus Doyle 433 North Camden Drive, Suite 730 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 conal@willoughbydoyle.com Telephone: (310) 385-0567 Facsimile: (310) 842-1496 Attorney for Plaintiff LANA BRKIC Dated: March 28, 2012 GIRARD GIBBS LLP DAVID STEIN ds@girardgibbs.com ERIC H. GIBBS ehb@girardgibbs.com 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS PETER G. ANGELOS 100 North Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 649-2000 Facsimile: (410) 659-1782 GIRARD GIBBS LLP /s/ Eric H. Gibbs Eric H. Gibbs MURPHY, P.A. WILLIAM H. MURPHY JR. billy.murphy@murphypa.com WILLIAM H. MURPHY, III hassan.murphy@murphypa.com TONYA OSBORNE BAÑA tonya.bana@murphypa.com KAMBON WILLIAMS kambon.williams@murphypa.com One South Street, 23rd Floor Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 539-6500 Facsimile: (410) 539-6599 Attorneys for Plaintiffs LAURA MAGUIRE and CHRISTOPHER SIMON (Plaintiffs in the Maguire v. Facebook, Inc. action) Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 23 of 29 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 15 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) Dated: March 28, 2012 BURNS CUNNINGHAM & MACKEY PC /s/ William M. Cunningham, Jr. William M. Cunningham, Jr. Peter S. Mackey Peter F. Burns P.O. Box 1583 Mobile, AL 36633 pfburns@bcmlawyers.com psmackey@bcmlawyers.com wmcunningham@bcmlawyers.com Telephone: (251) 432-0612 Facsimile: (251) 432-0625 Attorney for Plaintiff ALEXANDRIA PARRISH Dated: March 28, 2012 GRANT WOODS PC /s/ Grant Woods Grant Woods Two Renaissance Square 40 N. Central Ave., Suite 2250 Phoenix, AZ 85004 gw@grantwoodspc.net Telephone: (602) 258-2599 Facsimile: (602) 258-5070 Attorney for Plaintiff SHARON BEATTY Dated: March 28, 2012 LAW OFFICES OF DAVID SHELTON PLLC /s/ David Shelton David Shelton P.O. Box 2541 Oxford, MS 38655 david@davidsheltonpllc.com Telephone: (662) 281-1212 Facsimile: (662) 281-1312 Attorney for Plaintiff BROOKE RUTLEDGE Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 24 of 29 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 16 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) Dated: March 28, 2012 BISHOP LONDON & DODDS, P.C. /s/ Alice London Alice London 3701 Bee Cave Road, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78746 alondon@bishoplondon.com Telephone: (512) 479-5900 Facsimile: (512) 479-5934 Attorneys for Plaintiff MICHAEL SINGLEY Dated: March 28, 2012 GOLDENBERG HELLER ANTOGNOLI & ROWLAND, P.C. /s/ Thomas P. Rosenfeld Thomas P. Rosenfeld (IL 6301406) Mark C. Goldenberg 2227 South State Route 157 P.O. Box 959 Edwardsville, IL 62025 tom@ghalaw.com mark@ghalaw.com Telephone: (618) 656-5150 Facsimile: (618) 656-6230 Attorneys for Plaintiff DANA HOWARD Dated: March 28, 2012 Andrew J. Lyskowski Erik A. Bergmanis BERGMANIS LAW FIRM, L.L.C. 380 W. Hwy. 54, Suite 201 P.O. Box 229 Camdenton, MO 65020 alyskowski@ozarklawcenter.com erik@ozarklawcenter.com Telephone: (573) 346-2111 Facsimile: (573) 346-5885 BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON & GORNY - LEAWOOD /s/ Chip Robertson Edward D. Robertson, Jr. Stephen M. Gorny James P. Frickleton Mary D. Winter Edward D. Robertson III 11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200 Leawood, KS 66211 steve@bflawfirm.com mmarvel@bflawfirm.com Telephone: (913) 266-2300 Facsimile: (913) 266-2366 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHN GRAHAM Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 25 of 29 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 17 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) Dated: March 28, 2012 BRYANT LAW CENTER, PSC /s/ Mark P. Bryant Mark P. Bryant Emily Ward Roark 601 Washington Street P.O. Box 1876 Paducah, KY 42002 emily.roark@bryantpsc.com mark.bryant@bryantpsc.com Telephone: (270) 442-1422 Facsimile: (270) 443-8788 Attorney for Plaintiff DAVID M. HOFFMAN Dated: March 28, 2012 HYMEL, DAVIS & PETERSEN, LLC /s/ Michael Reese Davis Michael Reese Davis L. J. Hymel Richard P. Ieyoub Tim P. Hartdegen 10602 Coursey Blvd. Baton Rouge, LA 70816 rieyoub@hymeldavis.com ljhymel@hymeldavis.com mdavis@hymeldavis.com thartdegen@hymeldavis.com Telephone: (225) 298-8188 Facsimile: (225) 298-8119 Attorney for Plaintiff JANET SEAMON Dated: March 28, 2012 Edward D. Robertson, Jr. Mary Doerhoff Winter BARTIMUS FRIEKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY 715 Swifts Highway Jefferson City, MO 65109 chiprob@eathlink.net marywinter@earthlink.net Telephone: (573) 659-4460 Facsimile: (573) 659-4460 BERGMANIS & MCDUFFEY /s/ Andrew S. Lyskowski Andrew S. Lyskowski 380 W. Hwy 54, Suite 201 P.O. Box 229 Camdenton, MO 65020 alyskowski@ozarklawcenter.com Telephone: (573) 346-2111 Facsimile: (573) 346-5885 Attorney for Plaintiff CHANDRA L. THOMPSON Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 26 of 29 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 18 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) Dated: March 28, 2012 /s/ Grant Rahmeyer Grant Rahmeyer STRONG-GARNER-BAUER, P.C. 415 East Chestnut Expressway Springfield, MO 65802 Grahmeyer@stronglaw.com Telephone: (417)-887-4300 Facsimile: (417)-88704385 BRIAN L. CAMPBELL LAW FIRM, PLLC /s/ Brian Lee Campbell Brian Lee Campbell P.O. Box 189 Pea Ridge, AR 72751 blcampb@hotmail.com Telephone: (479) 387-1081 Facsimile: (888) 389-5809 Attorney for Plaintiff STEPHANIE CAMPBELL Dated: March 28, 2012 BRONSTER HOSHIBATA /s/ Robert M. Hatch Robert M. Hatch Margery S. Bronster 1003 Bishop Street, Suite 2300 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 rhatch@bhhawaii.net mbronster@bhhawaii.net Telephone: (808) 524-5644 Facsimile: (808) 599-1881 Attorney for Plaintiff CYNTHIA D. QUINN Dated: March 28, 2012 ELIZABETH CUNNINGHAM THOMAS PLLC /s/ Elizabeth C. Thomas Elizabeth C. Thomas P.O. Box 8946 Missoula, MT 59802 elizthomas@bresnan.net Telephone: (406)-728-5936 Facsimile: (406)-728-2828 Attorney for Plaintiff JEANNE M. WALKER Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 27 of 29 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 19 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) Dated: March 28, 2012 MEYER & LEONARD PLLC /s/ Henry A. Meyer, III Henry A. Meyer, III 116 E Sheridan, Suite 207 Oklahoma City, OK 73104 hameyer@mac.com Telephone: (405)-702-9900 Facsimile: (405)-605-8381 Attorney for Plaintiff JACQUELINE BURDICK Dated: March 28, 2012 MANDELL, SCHWARTZ & BOISCLAIR, LTD. /s/ Zachary Mandell ______ Zachary Mandell Michael S. Schwartz Mark S. Mandell 1 Park Row Providence, RI 02903 msmandell@msn.com mschwartz.ri@gmail.com Telephone: (401) 273-8330 Facsimile: (401) 751-7830 Attorney for Plaintiff EDWARD STRAVATO Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 28 of 29 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 20 MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 42(A); APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(g) Dated: March 28, 2012 Date: March 28, 2012 HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON /s/ Michael Ramsey Scott Michael Ramsey Scott Louis David Peterson 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101-2925 ldp@hcmp.com mrs@hcmp.com Telephone: (206)-623-1745 Facsimile: (206) 623-7789 Attorney for Plaintiff MATTHEW J. VICKERY THE TERRELL LAW GROUP /s/ Reginald Terrell Reginald Terrell Post Office Box 13315, PMB #148 Oakland, CA 94661 reggiet2@aol.com Telephone: (510)-237-9700 Facsimile: (510)-237-4616 Attorney for Plaintiff JULIAN CARROLL Dated: March 28, 2012 METZ, BAILEY & MCLOUGHLIN /s/ Michael J. Ensminger Michael J. Ensminger Kyle I. Stroh Michael K. Fultz 33 East Schrock Road Westerville, OH 43081 mfultz@metzbailey.com kstroh@metzbailey.com Telephone: (614)-882-2327 Facsimile: (614)-882-5150 Attorney for Plaintiff PATRICK K. MALONEY Case 5:12-md-02314-EJD Document 13 Filed 03/28/12 Page 29 of 29