Case 5:13-cv LHK Document 130 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 20

Transcription

1 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 LARRY C. RUSS (SBN 0) lruss@raklaw.com NATHAN D. MEYER (SBN 0) nmeyer@raklaw.com RUSS AUGUST & KABAT Wilshire Boulevard, th Floor Los Angeles, California 00 Telephone: (0) - Facsimile: (0) - MICHAEL W. SOBOL (SBN ) msobol@lchb.com NICHOLAS DIAMAND (Pro Hac Vice) ndiamand@lchb.com MELISSA GARDNER (SBN 0) mgardner@lchb.com LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Battery Street, th Floor San Francisco, CA Telephone: () -000 Facsimile: () -00 Class Counsel PAUL PERKINS, PENNIE SEMPELL, ANN BRANDWEIN, ERIN EGGERS, CLARE CONNAUGHTON, JAKE KUSHNER, NATALIE RICHSTONE, NICOLE CROSBY, and LESLIE WALL; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION DORIAN S. BERGER (SBN ) dberger@olavidunne.com DANIEL P. HIPSKIND (SBN ) dhipskind@olavidunne.com OLAVI DUNNE LLP 0 Century Park East, Ste. Los Angeles, California 00 Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: () -0 Case No. -cv-00-lhk PLAINTIFFS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, LITIGATION COSTS, AND INCENTIVE AWARDS Plaintiffs v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Defendant. HEARING Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh Date: February, Time: :0 p.m. Location: Courtroom th Floor CASE NO. -CV-00-LHK

2 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... II. ARGUMENT... A. The Fee Request Meets All Standards for Approval... B. The Objections to Class Counsel s Fee Request Should be Overruled.... Objections from Non-Class Members Should Not be Considered.... Objections Based on The Virtue of the Litigation Lack Merit.... Objections Based on Class Counsel s Diligence Lack Merit.... Objections Based on Class Counsel s Time Records Lack Merit.... Untimely and Procedurally Deficient Objections Need Not be Considered... 0 C. The Objection to the Named Plaintiff Incentive Awards Should be Overruled... D. The Repeat Objectors are Not Credible... III. UPDATES REGARDING FINAL CLAIMS DATA AND OBJECTORS... A. Processing of Deficient Claim Forms... B. Verification of Objectors Membership in the Class... IV. CONCLUSION... i CASE NO. -CV-00-LHK

3 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Cases TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - ii - Page Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 0 F.R.D. (N.D. Cal. )... Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, U.S. (0)... Chavez v. PVH Corp., No. --LHK, WL (N.D. Cal. Dec., )...,, 0, Covillo v. Specialtys Cafe, No. -, WL (N.D. Cal. Mar., )... de Mira v. Heartland Employment Serv., LLC, No. -0, WL 0 (N.D. Cal. Mar., )... Devlin v. Scardaletti, U.S. (0)... Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., No. -, WL 0 (N.D. Cal. Aug., )... Gaudin v. Saxon Mortgage Servs., Inc., No. -, WL (N.D. Cal. Nov., )... Hopkins v. Stryker Sales Corp., No. -, WL (N.D. Cal. Feb., )... In re Activision Sec. Litig., F. Supp. (N.D. Cal. )... In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liab. Litig., F.d (th Cir. )... In re ECOtality, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. -, WL (N.D. Cal. Aug., )... In re First Capital Holdings Corp. Fin. Prods. Sec. Litig., F.d (th Cir. )... In re High-tech Employee Antitrust Litig., No. -0, WL 0 (N.D. Cal. May, )..., In re HPL Techs., Inc. Sec. Litig., F. Supp. d (N.D. Cal. 0)... 0 In re Linkedin User Privacy Litig., 0 F.R.D. (N.D. Cal. )... In re Omnivision Techs., Inc., F. Supp. d 0 (N.D. Cal. 0)... In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., F.d (th Cir. )... In re TracFone Unlimited Serv. Plan Litig., F. Supp. d (N.D. Cal. )... In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply System Sec. Litig., F.d (th Cir. )...

4 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page Moore v. Verizon Commc ns Inc., WL 0 (N.D. Cal. Aug., )... 0 Pierce v. Rosetta Stone, Ltd., No. -, WL 0 (N.D. Cal. Sept., )... Staton v. Boeing Co., F.d (th Cir. 0)... Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., F.d (d Cir. )... Trosper v. Stryker Corp., No. -0, WL 0 (N.D. Cal. Oct., )... Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 0 F.d 0 (th Cir. 0)...,, Wren v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, No. -, WL 0 (N.D. Cal. Apr., )... Young v. Polo Retail, LLC, No. -, 0 WL (N.D. Cal. Mar., 0)... Other Authorities Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg On Class Actions : (th ed. 0)... Barbara J. Rothstein & Thomas E. Willging, Managing Class Action Litigation: A Pocket Guide for Judges, Federal Judicial Center (0)... - iii -

5 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to this Court s September, Order Granting Preliminary Approval (Dkt. No. 0), Class Counsel respectfully submit this reply memorandum in support of the Motion for Attorneys Fees, Litigation Costs, and Incentive Awards (Dkt. No. ). In Section III below, Class Counsel also provide updates to the Court regarding the final number of valid claims submitted by Class members, and identify the final number of objections to the Settlement 0 excluding those submitted by confirmed non-class members. The core achievements of this Settlement: full disclosure and user control over LinkedIn s use of members names and likenesses in Add Connections s, have been fully implemented. (See Dkt. Nos. 0-; -). In response to this litigation and as a result of this Settlement, LinkedIn now provides express, real-time disclosures within Add Connections regarding importing of users contacts, connection invitations, and reminders. Further, LinkedIn s conduct changes now provide that, even after clear disclosures that reminder s will be sent, users can withdraw Add Connection invitations easily, stopping such s from being delivered. Id. Additionally, Class members have had an opportunity to seek compensation from a $ million settlement fund. The Claims period has ended, the process for Class members to cure deficient claims has completed (see Section III), and the final number of Authorized Claimants is known:,. (Supplemental Declaration of Kenneth Jue ( Supp. Jue Decl. ) ; Declaration of Samir Junnarkar ( Jannarkar Decl. ) -). Deducting the requested fees, Incentive Awards, and maximum administrative expenses payable by the Class of $0,000, the Settlement entitles each Authorized Claimant to a payment of about $. from a Net Settlement Fund of just under $,000,000. The positive reaction of the Class strongly supports the reasonableness of Class Counsel s requested fee. Only out of,0,0 Class Members objected to Class Counsel s fee In addition to the discussion infra at Section III, Class Counsel respectfully refer the Court to its memorandum in support of its Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and supporting declarations (Dkt. Nos., -, -) in which the analysis of both the claims submission process and the objectors to the Settlement as well as the timing for the final determination of those figures are substantively addressed. - - CASE NO. -CV-00-LHK

6 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 request; around one in a million Class Members. One Class Member objected to Class Counsel s request for Incentive Awards to the Named Plaintiffs. Many supportive comments were submitted by Class members, some of whom wrote to express support for Class Counsel s efforts see, e.g., Dkt. No. 0, at - (Class member writes, As one of those affected by this overreach into my external ... I[] hope that this [Settlement] will discourage all online entities from overreach into the private domains of users ) while others wrote to recount their experiences discovering their names and likenesses were used in reminder s, or simply to make sure that they were included in the Class. Further, not only does Class Counsel s fee request meet all requisite standards for approval, but the objections themselves lack substantive merit. None of the three categories of fee request objections withstand scrutiny: (i) assertions that the litigation itself lacks merit and, thus, no fee should be awarded are invalid especially since this Court has found that this litigation is not frivolous; (ii) assertions that Class Counsel s work does not justify the fee request should be disregarded as the record in this litigation as well as Class Counsel s lodestar data confirm that they did substantial work in investigating, prosecuting and resolving this lawsuit; and (iii) assertions that Class Counsel s time records are insufficiently detailed to perform a lodestar crosscheck are contrary to established Ninth Circuit precedent. The sole objection to the request for Incentive Awards of $,00 to each Named Plaintiff respectfully should also be overruled: this amount is reasonable under the circumstances and consistent with similar awards granted to named plaintiffs in this District. Finally, a majority of the objections (specifically, of objections, discussed infra Section II.B.) failed to meet the procedural requirements for validity, and may be overruled on this basis, as well. Class Counsel respectfully request that the Court overrule the objections, finally approve the Settlement, and grant Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys Fees, Litigation Costs, and Incentive Awards. Of the individuals who submitted documents opposing Class Counsel s fee request, two (Boyan Boyanov, and Olen York) appear not to be Class members. - - CASE NO. -CV-00-LHK

7 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of II. ARGUMENT 0 A. The Fee Request Meets All Standards for Approval The Settlement follows contested litigation. It achieves the key prospective goals of the litigation, and provides meaningful monetary relief to the Class. Under the Ninth Circuit s common fund doctrine, Class Counsel have an equitable right to be compensated for their successful efforts. Staton v. Boeing Co., F.d, - (th Cir. 0); see also Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, U.S., (0) ( a litigant or a lawyer who recovers a common fund... is entitled to a reasonable attorney s fee from the fund as a whole ); In re Wash. Pub. Power Supply System Sec. Litig., F.d, 00 (th Cir. ) (same). Class Counsel have requested a fee, inclusive of litigation costs, of $,0,000; percent of the $ million common fund. In the Ninth Circuit, the benchmark fee in a common fund case is percent of the fund created. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 0 F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. 0). Courts often award higher percentages where, as here, Class Counsel face substantial litigation risks or the dollar value of the common settlement fund does not account for important benefits achieved for the class. See, e.g., de Mira v. Heartland Employment Serv., LLC, No. -0, WL 0, at * (N.D. Cal. Mar., ) (Koh, J.) (awarding in excess of % benchmark in recognition of significant litigation risks and important non-monetary relief achieved). Additionally, the $ million common fund does not account for the value of Notice dissemination or claims authentication undertaken (pursuant to the Settlement) by LinkedIn, at no additional cost to the Class. Because LinkedIn, rather than the Settlement Administrator, delivered the Notice and authenticated Class members submitted claims, including claims submitted in response to a Notice of Deficiency (see Section III), an additional $,00 has remained in the Net Settlement Fund for distribution to Authorized Claimants. (Supp. Jue Decl. ). A lodestar cross-check confirms the reasonableness of the benchmark fee requested. See Vizcaino, 0 F.d at 00-. Class Counsel s cumulative lodestar to date, excluding time devoted to this Reply or the Motion for Attorneys Fees, is $,, applying billing rates (Supp. Russ Decl. ; Supp. Hipskind Decl. ; Supp. Diamand Decl. ). Class Counsel s - - CASE NO. -CV-00-LHK

8 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of which have consistently been found to be reasonable in this District. The requested fee award 0 thus reflects a multiplier of., well-within the range of multipliers awarded in comparable litigation. See In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litig., F. Supp. d, (N.D. Cal. ) (Davila, J.) ( lodestar multiplier of. is comparable to that previously permitted by other courts in similar internet privacy cases. ); Vizcaino, 0 F.d at 00- and n. (multipliers typically fall within the range of -). The positive response from the Class further supports the fee request. In re Omnivision Techs., Inc., F. Supp. d 0, 0 (N.D. Cal. 0) (Conti, J.) ( The reaction of the class may also be a determining factor in determining the fee award. ); Wren v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, No. -, WL 0, at * (N.D. Cal. Apr., ) (Spero, J.) (finding that positive reaction and low opt-out rate supported request for fee award in amount equal to % of settlement fund). Class members overwhelmingly support this Settlement. Based on this authority, the prospective and monetary relief achieved, and the thoroughly positive response from the Class, Class Counsel s request for the benchmark award, with no additional request for reimbursement of their costs and expenses, is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances of this case, and should be approved. B. The Objections to Class Counsel s Fee Request Should be Overruled The objections concerning the fees sought by Class Counsel broadly divide into three categories: assertions that the litigation itself lacks merit and thus no fee should be awarded; lodestar as of November 0,, when the Motion for Attorneys Fees, Litigation Costs, and Incentive Awards was filed, was $,0,, with a multiplier of.. The additional hours reflect time devoted to briefing the Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement, and reviewing filed and unfiled objections. Class Counsel have not included time devoted to their fee application or this Reply in this calculation of their cumulative lodestar. (Supp. Diamand Decl. ; Supp. Hipskind Decl. ). (Dkt. No. -, Russ Decl. at, Ex A; Dkt. No. -, Diamand Decl. at, Ex. A; Dkt. No. -, Hipskind Decl. at, Ex. A). These objections were submitted by Boyan Boyanov, Daniel Brown/Jenny Hill, William Calderwood, Mary C. Don, Melodie Kate Ford, Gary Gill, Julie Gordon, Susan House, Mark Howard, Michael Hughes, Dylan Jacobs, August Lasseter, Tom Lucas, Mary Means, Donald Muldoon, Robert Petersen, Karrie Reuter, John Rollinson, Gabriel Smith, Carol Tomczyk, Steven White, Daniel Whitinger, Philip Wrona, Olen York, and Farage Yusupov. (Dkt. No. -, Jue Decl. Exs. -,,,,,,,, -,,,, 0,,,,,, -0, -). - - CASE NO. -CV-00-LHK

9 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 assertions that Class Counsel s work does not justify the fee requested; and assertions that Class Counsel s time records are insufficiently detailed to perform a lodestar cross-check. For the reasons discussed below, these objections should be overruled because they lack substantive merit. Additionally, a majority of the objections failed to meet the procedural requirements for validity, and may be overruled on this basis, as well.. Objections from Non-Class Members Should Not be Considered LinkedIn s records and subsequent analysis by Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator demonstrate that five of the total documents that could be construed as objections to the Settlement were filed by individuals who are not members of the Class. (Supplemental Declaration of Nicholas Diamand ( Supp. Diamand Decl. ) 0-; Junnarkar Declaration ; Supp. Jue Decl. ). See infra, Section III.C. Specifically, Boyan Boyanov, Nora Cordero, Johnnie Graham, Keith Miller, and Olen York (Dkt. No. 0-, Jue Decl. Exs.,,,, ) have been identified as non-class members. Such non-class members lack standing to object to either the Settlement or Class Counsel s fee request. See In re First Capital Holdings Corp. Fin. Prods. Sec. Litig., F.d, 0 (th Cir. ) (holding that only an aggrieved class member has standing to object to a proposed class settlement); In re TracFone Unlimited Serv. Plan Litig., F. Supp. d (N.D. Cal. ) (Chen, J.) (holding that nonclass member lacks standing to object to proposed class settlement); Chavez v. PVH Corp., No. --LHK, WL, at * (N.D. Cal. Dec., ) (Koh, J.) (declining to consider objections submitted by individuals who did not appear to be class members). Thus, the Court should not consider the objections of Boyan Boyanov, Nora Cordero, Johnnie Graham, Keith Miller, and Olen York. Specifically, with respect to the Motion for Attorneys Fees, Litigation Costs, and Incentive Awards, the submissions of two objectors: Boyanov and York, should not be considered. The objectors who have stated that they intend to appear at the Fairness Hearing scheduled for February, at :0 p.m. are: () Daniel Brown and Jenny Hill (represented by Alan J. Sherwood); () Susan House (represented by Joseph Darrel Palmer); () Hannah Tanner (represented by Steven Helfand); () Mary Means (represented by Frederick R. Fletcher); and () Jorge Pardo (unrepresented). Of these five, Tanner and Pardo did not object to the fee request. - - CASE NO. -CV-00-LHK

10 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page 0 of. Objections Based on The Virtue of the Litigation Lack Merit The vast majority of objectors to Class Counsel s fee request () oppose it by falsely asserting that the litigation has no merit and Class Counsel, not the Class, will be the primary beneficiaries of the Settlement. Many of these objectors appear to believe that LinkedIn s 0 conduct caused no harm. For example, Robert Petersen states, to have a legal team gain $. million for such a minor transgression that really wasn t against the law makes a mockery of our legal system. (Dkt. No. -, Jue Decl., Ex. ). In objecting to both attorneys fees and compensation to Class members, William Calderwood states, I m sure the LinkedIn Corp. could find a much better use of $ million.... I can t imagine anyone being upset at receiving a couple of reminder s. (Id., Ex. ). Objections based upon the virtue of this lawsuit are invalid, and should be overruled. The Court has already found that the claims in this litigation are not frivolous. See In re High-tech Employee Antitrust Litig., No. -0, WL 0, at * (N.D. Cal. May, ) (Koh, J.) (finding objection that case should not have been brought at all... is not a valid objection, particularly in light of the fact that the Court has found this litigation to be meritorious. ) Furthermore, this litigation is in fact worthwhile and beneficial, and it has generated tremendous public interest and support. Following this Court s ruling on LinkedIn s first motion to dismiss, for example, numerous national media outlets covered the case. After the first complaint was filed, more than 00 LinkedIn users contacted Class Counsel either requesting to join the suit as Named Plaintiffs, or just to express support for the case. (Supp. Hipskind Decl. These are objectors Calderwood, Ford, Gill, Gordon, Howard, Hughes, Jacobs, Lasseter, Lucas, Muldoon, Petersen, Reuter, Rollinson, Smith, Tomczyk, White, Whitinger, and Wrona (Dkt. No. -, Jue Decl. Exs.,,,,,,,,, 0,,,,,,, 0, ). Additionally, Mary C. Don (Id., Ex. ) impliedly objects to attorneys fees insofar as she objects to recovery of any monetary relief under the Settlement, although she appears to claim that the suit itself was meritorious. Farage Yusupov (Id., Ex. ) finds the numbers, including the attorneys fees, to be unjust because he asserts that the harm he suffered as a result of LinkedIn s conduct is worth more than $0, which he incorrectly anticipated would be the pro rata recovery for Class members under the Settlement. Examples of media coverage of this litigation are appended as Exhibits - to the Supplemental Declaration of Daniel P. Hipskind ( Supp. Hipskind Decl. ), submitted herewith. - - CASE NO. -CV-00-LHK

11 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 -). The objectors fail to appreciate the cognizable harm caused to significant numbers of Class members. For example, the Named Plaintiffs and other Class members suffered from embarrassment through the unknowing sending of reminder s to people with whom they did not wish to connect. (See Dkt. No. 0, Third Amended Complaint, at,, 0,,,,,,,,, and ). This Court has observed that, individuals who receive second and third invitations to join LinkedIn after declining one or two previous invitations to join LinkedIn from the sender may become annoyed at the sender, which could be professionally or personally harmful. (Dkt. No. at ). Through Class Counsel s efforts, these problems have been resolved. Pursuant to the Settlement, LinkedIn will send reminder s for Add Connections invitations only after providing notice that [i]f someone you invite doesn t respond right away, we ll send up to two reminders. (Dkt. No. 0-,..; id. at.. (requiring any future changes to the LinkedIn site to be consistent with the relief described in Section. )). Additionally, US LinkedIn users will be able to stop reminder s from being sent, a process which, prior to the Settlement, was functionally impossible when potentially hundreds of Add Connection invitations had been initiated. (See Dkt. No. 0, ). This prospective relief provides meaningful benefits to the Class, and to LinkedIn users more broadly. Objections to the contrary should be overruled because they undermine the interests of the Class, which have been served by this litigation, and will be served by the proposed Settlement.. Objections Based on Class Counsel s Diligence Lack Merit Objectors Susan House, Dylan Jacobs, and Mary Means (Dkt. No. -, Jue Decl. Exs.,, ), objected that Class Counsel did insufficient work to justify the requested fee. These objections should be overruled. As discussed in Class Counsel s moving papers, (Dkt. No. ) and reflected in the collective lodestar of $,,, Class Counsel did substantial work in investigating and litigating this lawsuit. Class Counsel fully briefed and successfully argued two motions to dismiss, researched and prepared amended complaints, engaged in formal and informal discovery, researched complex class certification issues, engaged in further mediation- - - CASE NO. -CV-00-LHK

12 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 related discovery, twice mediated, and ultimately, settled this case. Class Counsel achieved this result on contingency. If Courts were to adopt these objectors suggestion to reimburse class action contingent lawyers as if the result achieved were just like any in a guaranteed hourly billing practice, the risks would become far too high to sustain the necessary investment. The important public benefits of contingent fee class litigation undertaking potentially meritorious but risky cases for those who do not possess resources to fund them and private enforcement of important consumer laws would be undercut. Class Counsel expended substantial resources prosecuting this case and the diligence and quality of their work are demonstrated by the result obtained for the Class. In addition, these objectors do not properly consider how the fee requested compares with fee awards in comparable cases. Courts in the Ninth Circuit regularly award fees of % and even higher in class action common fund settlements, including in cases where there was only limited litigation and/or the relief achieved is far less than the recovery achieved here. See e.g., de Mira, WL 0, at * (awarding fees of % of common fund where no motion practice and limited discovery occurred). Such percentage-of-the-fund awards align class counsel s interests with those of the class, encourage efficiency, and discourage waste. The lodestar method implicitly advocated by these objectors, by contrast, may encourage counsel to bill time and to create opportunities to bill time. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has observed that the lodestar method creates incentives for counsel to expend more hours than may be necessary on litigating a case so as to recover a reasonable fee. Vizcaino, 0 F.d at Repeat objector counsel Alan Sherwood s clients, Daniel Brown and Jenny Hill, suggest that Class Counsel s fee request is improper because it seeks % of the settlement fund before deducting administrative costs, citing In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liab. Litig., F.d (th Cir. ). (Dkt. No. -, Jue Decl., Ex., at ). As discussed infra, Section II.D, the motives of repeat objectors should be examined with scrutiny. Moreover, In re Bluetooth does not so hold. See id., at (observing that fees awarded far exceeded benchmark of % of fund including notice costs. ). The rule proposed by these objectors is not the law in the Ninth Circuit, and, indeed, would contradict this Court s precedent. See Chavez, WL, at * (awarding % of common fund calculated before deductions for costs or administrative expenses); Trosper v. Stryker Corp., No. -0, WL 0, at * (N.D. Cal. Oct., ) (Koh, J.) (same, %); de Mira, WL 0, at * (same, %); High-tech, WL 0, at * (same, %); Hopkins v. Stryker Sales Corp., No. -, WL, at * (N.D. Cal. Feb., ) (Koh, J.) (same, 0%); see also In re Linkedin User Privacy Litig., 0 F.R.D., (N.D. Cal. ) (Davila, J.) (same, %). - - CASE NO. -CV-00-LHK

13 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 00 n.; see also In re Activision Sec. Litig., F. Supp., (N.D. Cal. ) (Patel, J.) (noting that lodestar approach encourages abuses such as unjustified work and protracting the litigation ). Here, Class Counsel should be compensated fairly, not penalized, for prosecuting this case skillfully and efficiently, and securing maximum benefits for the Class. Class Counsel s request for % of the settlement fund is reasonable, justified, and should be approved. These objections should be overruled.. Objections Based on Class Counsel s Time Records Lack Merit Repeat objector Susan House incorrectly objects that the Court was provided insufficient information about the work performed by Class Counsel to perform a lodestar cross-check of the benchmark fee request. (Dkt. No. -, Jue Decl. Ex., at ). On the contrary, it is well established that the lodestar cross-check calculation need entail neither mathematical precision nor bean counting... [courts] may rely on summaries submitted by the attorneys and need not review actual billing records. Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 0 F.R.D., (N.D. Cal. ) (Corley, J.) (citations omitted); Covillo v. Specialtys Cafe, No. -, WL, at * (N.D. Cal. Mar., ) (Ryu, J.) (citation omitted) (same); Pierce v. Rosetta Stone, Ltd., No. -, WL 0, at * (N.D. Cal. Sept., ) (Armstrong, J.) (same); Young v. Polo Retail, LLC, No. -, 0 WL, at * (N.D. Cal. Mar., 0) (Walker, J.) ( In contrast to the use of the lodestar method as a primary tool for setting a fee award, the lodestar cross-check can be performed with a less exhaustive cataloging and review of counsel s hours. ). In sworn declarations, Class Counsel have provided detailed summaries of their time, categorized to demonstrate both the number of hours spent by specific individuals on the necessary work, and to show the nature of the work performed. (See Dkt. Nos. -, -, -). Courts in this District have found such declarations to be an especially helpful compromise between reporting hours in the aggregate (which is easy to review, but lacks informative detail) and generating a complete line-by-line billing report (which offers great detail, but tends to obscure the forest for the trees). In re HPL Techs., Inc. Sec. Litig., F. Supp. d - - CASE NO. -CV-00-LHK

14 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0, (N.D. Cal. 0) (Walker, J.). 0 Class Counsel s submissions are sufficient for the rough calculation of the lodestar required for the Court to assess the reasonableness of the percentage award, and to demonstrate to the objectors that Class Counsel have vigorously represented the Class. The objection lacks merit and should be overruled.. Untimely and Procedurally Deficient Objections Need Not be Considered Of the 0 total documents that could be construed as objections from Class members, seven were timely and fully complied with this Court s order for procedural validity (Dkt. No. 0; -, at -). Five of those valid objections: Brown/Hill, House, Jacobs, Means, and Tomczyk, were among the objections that concerned Class Counsel s request for fees. (Dkt. No. -, Jue Decl. Exs.,,,, ). The remaining procedurally deficient objections to Class Counsel s fee request may be overruled on this basis alone. Chavez, WL, at *. See also Moore v. Verizon Commc ns Inc., WL 0, * (N.D. Cal. Aug., ) (Armstrong, J.) (overruling objections that were submitted because these objections fail[ed] to comply with the procedural requirements for objecting to the Settlement. ). Importantly, as discussed in Section III, infra, LinkedIn is unable to verify the Class membership of objectors (eleven of which are fee objectors ) because, even following a search by the Settlement Administrator for information submitted over the Settlement Website, no Claim ID or personal address was available. (Junnarkar Decl. ; Supp. Jue Decl. ; Supp. 0 See also Young, 0 WL, at * ( All that should be required is sworn declarations from the attorney(s) in charge of billing records for the case attesting to () the experience and qualifications of the attorneys who worked on the case; () those attorneys customary billing rates...; and () the hours reasonably expended... in prosecuting the case. ). Should the Court require a more detailed summary of Class Counsel s time and billing records, Class Counsel will make such records available for the Court s review in camera. These are objectors Brown/Hill, House, Jacobs, Kung, Lezon, Means, and Tomczyk. As discussed above, objector York met the requirements for procedural validity but does not appear to be a Class member. These are objectors Calderwood, Don, Ford, Lucas, Muldoon, Reuter, Smith, White, Whitinger, Wrona, and Yusupov (Dkt. No. -, Jue Decl. Exs.,,,, 0,,, -0,, ). Prior to submitting the objectors information to LinkedIn for verification, the Settlement Administrator searched its records to identify the Claim ID or personal address of each objector even if such information was not provided with the objection itself. (Supp. Jue Decl. ) CASE NO. -CV-00-LHK

15 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Diamand Decl. 0-). Without a user s unique address, or Claim ID, LinkedIn had no basis to determine these objectors Class membership other than their names. Because names are not necessarily unique, LinkedIn could not determine for a certainty whether these individuals were Persons on the Settlement Class List. (See id.). Should the Court wish to consider the procedurally deficient objections, however, they are addressed above. C. The Objection to the Named Plaintiff Incentive Awards Should be Overruled Repeat objector Susan House incorrectly objects that the requested Incentive Awards are excessive. Specifically, she claims that the $,00 sought for each Named Plaintiff exceeds the recovery of each unnamed Class member, potentially by a factor of 0. (Dkt. No. -, Jue Decl., Ex., at ). This objection lacks merit. The requested Incentive Awards of, cumulatively, $,00 for the nine Named Plaintiffs are reasonable and appropriate compensation for their efforts, for the reputational and privacy risks they incurred by bringing this lawsuit, and to reward their public service of contributing to the enforcement of mandatory laws. Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc., F.d, n. (d Cir. ). Total incentive awards of 0.% of the common fund are modest under the circumstances, and well in line with awards approved by federal courts in the Ninth Circuit. See In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., F.d, - (th Cir. ) (holding that awards cumulatively representing mere.% of settlement fund were reasonable); Gaudin v. Saxon Mortgage Servs., Inc., No. -, WL, at *-0 (N.D. Cal. Nov., ) (Tigar, J.) (collecting cases, noting that [m]any courts in the Ninth Circuit have... held that a $,000 incentive award is presumptively reasonable. ); In re ECOtality, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. -, WL, at * (N.D. Cal. Aug., ) (Conti, J.) (same). See also Chavez, WL, at * (holding that incentive awards totaling $,00, and representing only a small part of the benefit conferred upon the Class, were reasonable); Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., No. -, WL 0, at * (N.D. Cal. Aug., ) aff'd WL (th Cir. Jan., ) (awarding incentive awards of $,00 to each named plaintiff based, in part, on additional transparency and control resulting from the settlement. ). The Named Plaintiffs have achieved meaningful monetary and prospective relief for the - - CASE NO. -CV-00-LHK

16 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Class. The modest compensation sought for their efforts is reasonable, and should be approved. House s meritless objection to the Incentive Awards should be overruled. D. The Repeat Objectors are Not Credible Several of the objections to Class Counsel s fee request were filed by repeat objectors whose motives should be viewed with extreme skepticism. Meritless objections hurt the class. As stated by Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg On Class Actions : (th ed. 0): meritless objections tend to delay providing benefits to bona fide and deserving class members inasmuch as settlements commonly do not provide for payment of any benefits until the judgment entered approving a settlement is final and not subject to further appeal. See also Devlin v. Scardaletti, U.S., n. (0) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (observing that professional objectors penchant for filing canned briefs and baseless objections often leads to baseless appeals in the quest for a fee). In particular, the Federal Judicial Center has warned courts to be wary of self-interested professional objectors who often present rote objections to class counsel s fee requests and add little or nothing to the fee proceedings. Barbara J. Rothstein & Thomas E. Willging, Managing Class Action Litigation: A Pocket Guide for Judges, Federal Judicial Center, at (0). Here, three of the five procedurally valid objections to Class Counsel s fees were filed by repeat objectors. The objection track record of professional objectors Joseph Darrell Palmer (representing Susan House) and Alan J. Sherwood (representing Daniel Brown and Jenny Hill) for filing meritless objections and holding up settlements pending meritless appeals are discussed in Class Counsel s motion for final approval (Dkt. No., at -). Objector Dylan Jacobs also appears to be a repeat objector, and, as of January,, has appealed an order in which his objections were overruled. (Supp. Diamand Decl. ). Based on their history, the Court should consider the objections of Susan House, Daniel Brown, Jenny Hill, and Dylan Jacobs with skepticism. Substantively, in any event, these objections lack merit, and none provides a basis to deny Class Counsel the reasonable benchmark fee sought for their efforts in litigating this action and obtaining excellent results for the Class. - - CASE NO. -CV-00-LHK

17 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 III. UPDATES REGARDING FINAL CLAIMS DATA AND OBJECTORS Class Counsel notified the Court in the Motion for Final Approval (Dkt. No., at, n.) that, following the opt-out deadline in December through the third week of January, a process was underway for claimants who did not appear to be Class members to cure the deficiencies in their claims. That process is now complete and, as a result, an additional valid claims have been identified. Further, review of the putative objectors to the Settlement has been completed. At least of the objections were not submitted by members of the Class; only were definitively submitted by Class members. A. Processing of Deficient Claim Forms The Settlement Notice provided each Class member with a unique Claim ID to submit along with his or her claim to verify Class membership. In consultation with the parties, as a courtesy to Class members for whom the Notice was undeliverable or otherwise inaccessible, the Settlement Administrator also provisionally accepted Claims filed without a Claim ID, and instead requested that, for verification purposes, claimants provide the address associated with their LinkedIn accounts. As discussed in Class Counsel s January filing, during the course of the claims process, the Settlement Administrator received,0 claims that failed to include a Claim ID. (Dkt. No. -). Based upon LinkedIn s analysis of those claims,, were verified as having been submitted by Class members. (Id.) Therefore, at that point, the total number of identified valid Claims were,0 (comprised of the,0 claims submitted with a Claim ID and the, unique claims filed without a Claim ID). To the extent the, remaining claims included addresses, they did not appear to belong to Class members. (Dkt. No. -). Therefore, on January,, in consultation with the Parties, the Settlement Administrator ed a Notice of Deficiency to the remaining claimants who had provided a valid contact address, (,0 of the, deficient claims). (Dkt. No. -, Burke Decl. ). The Notice contained a hyperlink to a webpage where claimants could submit their unique Claim IDs, or re-submit the addresses associated with their LinkedIn accounts. In total,, responses were received. (Suppl. Jue Decl. 0). Those responses were submitted in - - CASE NO. -CV-00-LHK

18 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 late January to LinkedIn for authentication. (Junnarkar Decl. ). After accounting for duplicate claims, LinkedIn has determined that of the, responses were submitted by Class members. (Id. ). In sum, the number of Authorized Claimants entitled to compensation under the Settlement is, (Supp. Jue Decl..). This amount is comprised of the,0 claims submitted over the Settlement Website with a valid Claim ID,, Claims submitted by mail, , and fax with a valid Claim ID,, Claims submitted by Class members who did not provide their Claim ID, and the additional claims cured through the deficiency process, less, duplicate claims identified by the Settlement Administrator in a final de-duplication process. (Id., Ex. ). B. Verification of Objectors Membership in the Class Many objectors failed to provide unique identifying information with their objections. The Settlement Administrator searched its records of submitted claims for such identifying information, and provided to LinkedIn the names, addresses, and Claim ID, if any, submitted in connection with each of the documents that could be construed as objections. (Supp. Jue Decl. ; Junnarkar Decl. ). Because objectors Daniel Brown and Jenny Hill submitted their objections jointly, data was submitted for potential Class members. (See Dkt. -, Jue. Decl., Ex. ). LinkedIn processed the data against its list of Class members to determine which of the objections were submitted by members of the Class. (Junnarkar Decl. -). Based upon the information provided, LinkedIn determined that 0 of these objectors were Class members, and that were non-class members. Id. Neither a Claim ID nor a personal address associated with a Class member s LinkedIn account was provided for objectors, and thus LinkedIn could determine their Class membership to a certainty. Id. Class Counsel, in consultation with the Settlement Administrator, reviewed LinkedIn s findings and determined that they were incorrect regarding objectors Hannah Tanner and Gary This represented objections, because Daniel Brown and Jenny Hill s was submitted jointly. - - CASE NO. -CV-00-LHK

19 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Gill. Ms. Tanner provided no Claim ID, and the address submitted to LinkedIn for verification appears to belong to her attorney, Steven Helfand. Based on LinkedIn s records, that address is not associated with a Class member, but rather than exclude Ms. Tanner on that basis, Class Counsel have treated her objection as one for which Class membership cannot be determined to a certainty. (Supp. Diamand Decl. ). On February,, LinkedIn confirmed that Ms. Tanner is a Class member using the personal address filed with her objection. (Id.). Additionally, Gary Gill submitted a Claim ID with his objections that did not match LinkedIn s records, and was identified by LinkedIn as a non-class member on that basis. (Id.). Subsequent to LinkedIn s analysis, the Settlement Administrator performed a wildcard search of Class member Claim IDs and determined that Mr. Gill had likely reversed two letters of his Claim ID in his objection, and should be counted as a member of the Class. (Supp. Jue Decl. ). Thus, the total number of objectors who the Parties have confirmed are not Class members is. (Supp. Diamand Decl. ). The total number of confirmed Class members who submitted documents that could be construed as objections, including Mr. Gill, is (representing objections). (Id.). Insufficient data is available to determine whether the remaining objectors are members of the Class. IV. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court overrule the objections and grant Class Counsel s Motion for Attorneys Fees, Litigation Costs, and Incentive Awards. These confirmed non-class members are Boyan Boyanov, Nora Cordero, Johnnie Graham, Keith Miller, and Olen York (Dkt. No. -, Jue Decl. Exs.,,,, 0, ). These Class members are: Anderson-Stewart, Baudoin, Berg, Berning, Blocker, Brown/Hill, Butman, Coburn, Crothers, Finnie, Foerster, Gill, Gonzala, Gordon, Grell, Harris, Hill, House, Howard, Hughes, Jacobs, Jones, Klose, Kollenberg, Kommuru, Kung, Kushmer, Lasseter, Lezon, McDonald, McNamara, Means, Pardo, Petersen, Polyak, Ray, Reinemann, Rifai, Rollinson, Smith, Spencer, Still-Knoester, Stocks, Stucznski, Tanner, Teague, Tojimatova, Tomczyk, Valdez, Wells, Wobig, and Woodward (Dkt. No. -, Jue Decl. Exs.,,,,,, 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 0,,,,,,,,,,, 0,,,,,,, 0,,,,,,, ). The remaining potential Class members are Barrett, Booker, Calderwood, Cornell, Denham, Don, Entin, Ford, Garcia, Houston, Krauch, Larravide, Lucas, Monge, Muldoon, Nelson, Peters, Pratt, Reuter, Robinson, Ryan, Smith, Thompson, Vitanza, Weeks, White, Whitinger, Wrona, and Yusupov (Dkt. No. -, Jue Decl. Exs.,,,,,,,,, 0,,,,, 0,,,,,,,,,,,, 0,, ). - - CASE NO. -CV-00-LHK

20 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document 0 Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Dated: February, Dated: February, Dated: February, Respectfully submitted, LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP By: /s/ Nicholas Diamand Nicholas Diamand Michael W. Sobol Nicholas Diamand Melissa Gardner Battery Street, th Floor San Francisco, CA Telephone: () -000 Facsimile: () -00 msobol@lchb.com ndiamand@lchb.com mgardner@lchb.com RUSS AUGUST & KABAT By: /s/ Larry C. Russ Larry C. Russ Larry C. Russ Nathan D. Meyer Wilshire Boulevard, th Floor Los Angeles, California 00 Telephone: (0) - Facsimile: (0) - lruss@raklaw.com nmeyer@raklaw.com OLAVI DUNNE LLP By: /s/ Dorian S. Berger Dorian S. Berger Dorian S. Berger Daniel P. Hipskind 0 Century Park East, Ste. 0 Los Angeles, California 00 Telephone: () -00 Facsimile: () -0 dberger@olavidunne.com dhipskind@olavidunne.com Class Counsel - - CASE NO. -CV-00-LHK