Case 3:14-cv EMC Document 257 Filed 11/22/17 Page 1 of 24

Transcription

1 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 Laura L. Ho (SBN ) lho@gbdhlegal.com Andrew P. Lee (SBN 0) alee@gbdhlegal.com William C. Jhaveri-Weeks (SBN ) wjhaveriweeks@gbdhlegal.com GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 00 Lakeside Drive, Suite 000 Oakland, California Tel: (0) -00 Fax: (0) - Tina Wolfson (SBN 0) twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com Robert Ahdoot (SBN 0) rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com Theodore W. Maya (SBN ) tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 0 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, California 00 Tel: (0) - Fax: (0) - Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class (Additional Counsel listed on signature page) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 IN RE UBER FCRA LITIGATION Case No.: -cv-000-emc PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS Date: February, 0 Time: :0 p.m. Crtrm: Before: Hon. Edward M. Chen [Filed concurrently with the Declarations of Meghan Christenson, Brandon Farmer, Ronald Gillette, Andrew P. Lee, Abdul Mohamed, Shannon Wise, and Tina Wolfson and Plaintiffs Motion for an Award of Attorneys Fees and Expenses] PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

2 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on February, 0, at :0 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Courtroom of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Courthouse, located at 0 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 0, the Honorable Edward M. Chen presiding, Plaintiffs will and hereby do move the Court for an order awarded $,00 to Plaintiffs Mohamed and Gillette and $,000 to Plaintiffs Wise, Farmer, and Christenson from the settlement fund in recognition of the risk and effort entailed in serving as Class Representatives. Plaintiffs base this Motion on this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declarations of Ronald Gillette, Abdul Kadir Mohamed, Brandon Farmer, Shannon Wise, and Megan Christenson, all other records, pleadings, papers filed in this action, and the arguments of counsel at the hearing of this Motion. 0 Dated: November, 0 Dated: November, 0 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Andrew P. Lee Laura L. Ho Andrew P. Lee William C. Jhaveri-Weeks GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 00 Lakeside Drive, Suite 000 Oakland, CA Tel: (0) -00 Fax: (0) - Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class /s/ Tina Wolfson Tina Wolfson Robert Ahdoot Theodore W. Maya AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 0 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 00 Tel: (0) - Fax: (0) - Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

3 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION... II. BACKGROUND... III. ARGUMENT... Page A. Approval of Plaintiffs Service Awards are Supported by the Facts and Circumstances of this Case..... Plaintiffs Incurred Significant Risk in Coming Forward to Represent Class Members in this Litigation..... Plaintiffs Expended Time and Effort To Initiate and Prosecute This Action on Behalf of the Class.... a. Plaintiff Ron Gillette... b. Plaintiff Abdul Kadir Mohamed... c. Plaintiff Shannon Wise... d. Plaintiff Brandon Farmer... e. Plaintiff Meghan Christenson.... In Order to Procure Relief for the Class, Plaintiffs Have Agreed to General Releases Relinquishing Other Claims Against Uber Class Members Derived Important Benefits As a Result of the Risk and Effort Undertaken by Plaintiffs to Prosecute this Lawsuit..... Plaintiffs Service Awards Promote Important Public Policy to Encourage Enforcement of FCRA.... B. Plaintiffs Are Requesting Reasonable Award Amounts In Line with Both Northern District Standards and the Class Relief Achieved Through the Settlement..... The Amounts Requested Are Typical of Service Awards in the Northern District.... The Requested Service Awards are Proportional to the Range of Monetary Recovery Available to the Class.... C. The Requested Service Award is Supported by the Reaction of the Class.... D. Plaintiffs Received No Promise of a Service Award, nor is their Service Award Conditioned on their Support for the Settlement.... IV. CONCLUSION... i PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

4 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 Federal Cases TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 0-cv-000-EMC, 0 WL 0 (N.D. Cal. June, 0)... Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 0 F.R.D. (N.D. Cal. 0)..., Betancourt v. Advantage Human Resourcing, Inc., No. -cv-0-jst, 0 WL (N.D. Cal. Jan., 0)... Brown v. Lowe s Cos., Inc., No. -cv-0-rlv-dsc, 0 WL (W.D.N.C. Nov., 0)... In re Carrier IQ, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, No. -md-00-emc, 0 WL (N.D. Cal. Aug., 0)... In re: Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litig., No. C-0- JST, 0 WL (N.D. Cal. Jan., 0)... Dyer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 0 F.R.D. (N.D. Cal. 0)...0,, Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. C0- EMC, 0 WL (N.D. Cal. May, 0)... Fleury v. Richemont N. Am., Inc., No. C-0--EMC, 00 WL (N.D. Cal. Aug., 00)..., Gillette v.uber Techs., Inc., No. :-cv-0-emc (N.D. Cal.)...,, Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., No. C-0--EMC, 0 WL 0 (N.D. Cal. 0)...,, Ingram v. The Coca-Cola Co., 00 F.R.D. (N.D. Ga. 00)..., In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., F.d (th Cir. 000)... Nelson v. Avon Prods., Inc., No. -cv-0-blf, 0 WL (N.D. Cal. Feb., 0)..., Newton v. Am. Debt Servs., Inc., No. :-cv-0-emc, 0 WL (N.D. Cal. July, 0)... ii PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

5 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 O Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 0 F. Supp. d 0 (N.D. Cal. 0)...0 In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., F.d (th Cir. 0)...,, Perkins v. Linkedin Corp., No. -CV-00-LHK, 0 WL (N.D. Cal. Feb., 0)..., Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Servs., Inc., F.d (th Cir. 0)... Rodriguez v. W. Publ g Corp., F.d (th Cir. 00)...,, Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, U.S. (00)... Staton v. Boeing Co., F.d (th Cir. 00)...,, Stuart v. Radioshack Corp., No. C-0- EMC, 00 WL (N.D. Cal. Aug., 00)...,,, Syed v. M-I, LLC, F.d (th Cir. 0)..., In re TracFone Unlimited Serv. Plan Litig., F. Supp. d (N.D. Cal. 0)... Viceral v. Mistras Grp., Inc., No. -cv-0-emc, 0 WL (N.D. Cal. Feb., 0)... passim Watkins v. HireRight, Inc., No. -CV--BAS-BLM, 0 WL (S.D. Cal. Sep. 0, 0)... In re Wells Fargo Loan Processor Overtime Pay Litig., No. C-0--DMC, 0 WL 0 (N.D. Cal. Aug., 0)...,, Federal Statutes U.S.C.... passim Private Attorneys General Act... State Statutes Cal. Lab. Code et seq.... iii PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

6 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code. et seq.... California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code et seq.... Massachusetts Consumer Reporting Act, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter A... Other Authorities Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of : Hearing on Consumer Financial Privacy before the Subcomm. on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit of the H. Comm. on Banking and Financial Services, 0th Cong. ()... H.R. Doc. No. -0 (00)... H.R. Rep. No. 0- (00)... S. Rep. No. 0- ()... 0 iv PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

7 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Abdul Kadir Mohamed, Ron Gillette, Shannon Wise, Brandon Farmer, and Meghan Christenson (together Plaintiffs ) request that this Court grant service award payments to each Plaintiff in recognition of the risk and effort entailed in pursuing these class claims. Each of the Plaintiffs has performed a significant service to the law and their fellow Uber drivers and applicants by coming forward to enforce important consumer and privacy rights against Uber in the instant class action. They agreed to do so despite the significant reputational and financial risks of pursuing litigation against a high profile company risks that are particularly sharp in a case involving sensitive personal information from their credit and criminal records. Through their effort and involvement they obtained important benefits for the class members and advanced the enforcement of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, U.S.C. et seq. ( FCRA ) and related laws. In recognition of these contributions and risks, Plaintiffs Wise, Farmer, and Christenson seek awards in the presumptively reasonable amount of $,000. Plaintiffs Gillette and Mohamed, who have participated in the litigation since its initiation in November 0 and who have both agreed to give up valuable wage and hour claims against Uber, seek awards of $,00. This service award will be paid solely from the Settlement Amount and is separate and apart from any recovery to which Plaintiffs might be entitled under other provisions of the settlement. The Court is free to approve the settlement in this case without approving the service award. Should the service award requested be denied, that award amount will be added to the settlement funds to be distributed among class members, and will not revert back to Defendants. Plaintiffs agreed to the settlement with the understanding that their service awards are subject to court approval and they may receive no award at all. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court approve the requested service awards. II. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs came forward to represent a class of Uber drivers and applicants after Uber conducted background checks on them without proper disclosure and authorization, and after the company took adverse action against each of the Plaintiffs based on those background checks, again without adhering. PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

8 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 to required legal safeguards. (Gillette Decl. -, filed concurrently herewith; Mohamed Decl. -, filed concurrently herewith; Wise Decl. -, filed concurrently herewith; Farmer Decl. -, filed concurrently herewith; Christenson Decl. -, filed concurrently herewith.) Plaintiffs understood that the sensitive personal information from their criminal and credit records would become public knowledge due to its involvement in a large class action case against a high profile company. (Gillette Decl. ; Mohamed Decl. ; Farmer Decl. ; Wise Decl. ; Christenson Decl..) They understood that suing a company such as Uber, which determines whether they may work, could harm their ability to earn income in the future. They understood that undertaking the litigation also carried financial risk. (Ids.) Notwithstanding these risks, each agreed to serve as class representatives. (Gillette Decl. 0; Mohamed Decl. ; Farmer Decl. ; Wise Decl. ; Christenson Decl..) The action began when Plaintiff Abdul Kadir Mohamed filed a putative class action on November, 0, asserting class claims based on alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, U.S.C. et seq. ( FCRA ), the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code section. et seq. ( CCRAA ), and the Massachusetts Consumer Reporting Act, Massachusetts General Laws chapter, section A ( MCRA ). (Compl., Mohamed v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. :-cv-000-emc (N.D. Cal) ( Mohamed ), ECF No..) Plaintiff Ronald Gillette filed a putative class action complaint against Uber Technologies, Inc., on November, 0 and an amended complaint on December, 0, asserting class claims based on alleged violations of FCRA and individual claims based on alleged violations of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, California Civil Code section et seq. ( ICRAA ) (Am. Compl., Gillette v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. :-cv-0-emc (N.D. Cal.) ( Gillette ), ECF No..) In his complaint, Plaintiff Gillette also sought civil penalties pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ( PAGA ), California Labor Code section et seq., based on alleged violations of the California Labor Code. (Id. at.) Plaintiffs Shannon Wise, Brandon Farmer, and Meghan Christenson formally joined the case when the Court granted Plaintiff Gillette s motion for leave to amend, which added them as Class Representatives, on August, 0. (Order Granting Pl. s Am. Mot. For Leave to File d Am.. PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

9 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 Compl., ECF No..) On October, 0, the Court issued an order consolidating the three actions into the present district court action entitled In re Uber FCRA Litigation, Case No. :-cv-000- EMC ( In re Uber FCRA Litig. ). Plaintiffs filed their first Master Consolidated Complaint on October, 0. (In re Uber FCRA Litig., Dkt. 0.) Each named Plaintiff reviewed this complaint with his or her attorneys. (Gillette Decl. ; Mohamed Decl. ; Farmer Decl. ; Wise Decl. ; Christenson Decl..) Plaintiffs assisted Class Counsel s pre-litigation investigation of the class claims. After Uber deactivated Plaintiff Gillette s driver account, he contacted the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area ( LCCR ) to obtain information about his legal rights. (Gillette Decl..) In July 0, Gillette interviewed with lawyers from LCCR and Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho. (Id.) Plaintiff Gillette participated in several follow up phone interviews with attorney Andrew Lee, gathered relevant documents in his possession, and sent them to Mr. Lee. (Id. at 0.) After Defendants filed motions to compel arbitration in January and February 0, Plaintiff Gillette filed an opposition brief along with a supporting declaration. (Gillette ECF No. ; Gillette Decl..) Separately, Plaintiff Abdul Kadir Mohamed sought and retained Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC to represent him after Uber deactivated his driver account in October 0. (Mohamed Decl. -.) He met with his attorneys both in person and by phone to discuss the case, and gathered relevant documents and communications in his possession. (Id. at -.) When Plaintiff Wise sought to join the case, she also consulted with Mr. Lee several times about her claims, gathered the relevant documents in her possession, and sent them to Mr. Lee. (Wise Decl. -0.) Likewise, when Plaintiff Brandon Farmer joined the case, he consulted with his attorneys at Ahdoot & Wolfson multiple times both in person and by phone, gathered revenant documents and communications in his possession and on the Uber driver portal, and shared the information with his attorneys. (Farmer Decl. -.) Plaintiff Meghan Christenson also consulted with her attorneys at Ahdoot & Wolfson multiple times and exchanged s with them as she was joining the case. (Christenson Decl..) She also. PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

10 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page 0 of 0 0 spent time gathering relevant documents and communications in her possession, and shared the information with her attorneys. (Id. at.) Plaintiffs responded to written discovery. In late 0, Uber served each Plaintiff with a set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Uber propounded eleven interrogatories on Plaintiffs Gillette, Mohamed, Wise, and Farmer whereas it propounded sixteen on Plaintiff Christenson. Similarly, Uber propounded twenty-five requests for production on Plaintiff Christenson, thirty-two on Plaintiff Mohamed, thirty-three on Plaintiffs Gillette and Wise, and thirty-four on Plaintiff Farmer. By the end of October 0, each Plaintiff had gathered documents and responded these discovery requests. (Gillette Decl. ; Mohamed Decl. ; Wise Decl. ; Farmer Decl. 0; Christenson Decl. 0-.) Plaintiffs regularly communicated with Class Counsel and actively monitored the status of litigation. Plaintiffs understood that as Class Representatives, they were obligated to advocate for the best interests of the class and stay informed about the status of the case. Plaintiffs remained updated throughout this litigation by calling and cooperating with their attorneys. (Gillette Decl. ; Mohamed Decl. ; Farmer Decl. ; Wise Decl. ; Christenson Decl..) Plaintiffs assessed the settlement on behalf of the class. Plaintiffs discussed the possibility of settlement with their attorneys and made themselves available by phone during the mediation sessions. (Gillette Decl. ; Mohamed Decl. ; Farmer Decl. ; Wise Decl. ; Christenson Decl..) The parties filed a joint settlement agreement on April, 0. Before the settlement agreement was filed, they reviewed and signed it with their attorneys. (Gillette Decl. ; Mohamed Decl. # ; Farmer Decl. ; Wise Decl. ; Christenson Decl..) III. ARGUMENT The Court should grant the service awards requested by Plaintiffs to compensate them for the effort and risk entailed in pursuing this litigation, which has triggered important and positive changes in Uber s compliance with the FCRA and has secured compensation for a large class of Uber Drivers and applicants. It is well-established in this circuit that named plaintiffs in a class action are eligible for reasonable incentive payments, also known as service awards. Viceral v. Mistras Grp., Inc., No. -. PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

11 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 cv-0-emc, 0 WL, at * (N.D. Cal. Feb., 0) (citation omitted). Service awards, which are discretionary, are intended to compensate class representatives for work done on behalf of the class, to make up for financial or reputational risk undertaken in bringing the action, and, sometimes, to recognize their willingness to act as a private attorney general. Rodriguez v. W. Publ g Corp., F.d, - (th Cir. 00). As set out below, the requested service awards are supported by the facts and circumstances of this case. Plaintiffs undertook significant reputational and other risk in publicly pursuing enforcement of their rights and the rights of class members, they expended time and effort in order to play the necessary and integral role of named plaintiffs, and each has agreed to sign a general release of claims. Their efforts secured relief for a large class of Uber applicants and drivers as well as important changes in Uber s policies, thereby advancing the enforcement of consumer protection laws. Additionally, the amounts requested by Plaintiffs are reasonable when measured against the numerical benchmarks used by the Ninth Circuit to evaluate service award amounts. See In re Online DVD- Rental Antitrust Litig., F.d, (th Cir. 0). A. Approval of Plaintiffs Service Awards are Supported by the Facts and Circumstances of this Case. In considering proposed service awards, courts take a range of factors into account, including: () the risk to the class representatives in commencing suit, whether financial, reputational, or otherwise; () the amount of time and effort spent on the litigation by the class representatives; () whether the class representatives have signed general releases; () the extent to which the class has benefitted from the representative s actions; and () whether the litigation has promoted important public policy. Rodriguez, F.d at -; Staton v. Boeing Co., F.d, (th Cir. 00); In re Wells Fargo Loan Processor Overtime Pay Litig., No. C-0--DMC, 0 WL 0, at * (N.D. Cal. Aug., 0); Ingram v. The Coca-Cola Co., 00 F.R.D., (N.D. Ga. 00). As discussed below, each of these factors supports Plaintiffs requested service awards.. Plaintiffs Incurred Significant Risk in Coming Forward to Represent Class Members in this Litigation. A core purpose of the service award is to make up for financial or reputational risk undertaken in bringing the action. Rodriguez, F.d at -; see also In re TracFone Unlimited Serv. Plan. PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

12 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 Litig., F. Supp. d, 00 (N.D. Cal. 0) (recognizing that class representatives, in lending their names to the cases, subject[ed] themselves to public attention ). This case represented a particularly acute set of risks for Plaintiffs, underscoring their fortitude in coming forward to vindicate not only their rights, but the rights of the class at large. First, Plaintiffs knew that filing a lawsuit against a high profile company like Uber would make their criminal and consumer history known to the general public together with a painful chapter in their employment history. (Gillette Decl. ; Mohamed Decl. ; Farmer Decl. ; Wise Decl. ; Christenson Decl..) Due to the connection with Plaintiffs criminal and credit records, the risk of stigma in these circumstances is significantly higher than in other cases. Compare Viceral, 0 WL, at * (recognizing the inherent reputational risk facing plaintiffs in an employment case where the underlying facts concerned non-sensitive information about compensation for training and travel); Perkins v. Linkedin Corp., No. -CV-00-LHK, 0 WL, at * (N.D. Cal. Feb., 0) (citing plaintiffs embarrassment resulting from Linkedin s conduct in sending their contacts reminder s to join Linkedin in granting service awards). Indeed, Plaintiffs willingness to shoulder these reputational risks and allow their sensitive personal information to become entangled with a public, large-scale dispute against a high profile company is all the more admirable in light of the privacy values animating the FCRA and the claims in the case. See, e.g., Syed v. M-I, LLC, F.d, 0 (th Cir. 0) (discussing Congress s goal of safeguarding a job applicant s right to control the dissemination of sensitive personal information through the FCRA); see also Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., No. C-0--EMC, 0 WL 0, at * (N.D. Cal. 0) (finding that the disclosure of plaintiff s private information supported a service award of $,00). Plaintiffs accepted, in effect, to compound the violation of privacy they experienced in order to enforce laws designed to protect the privacy of employees and consumers. Second, as in employment cases, Plaintiffs took on significant professional risks by suing a company that controls their ability to earn income. This court has recognized that named plaintiffs in employment cases expose[] themselves to the potential risk of future discrimination when they come forward to lead a class action suit. Viceral, 0 WL, at * (granting a $,00 service award to a plaintiff whose participation in the lawsuit may have hurt him in the pursuit of further. PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

13 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 employment ). Indeed, for this very reason courts have held that [i]ncentive awards are particularly appropriate in employment cases where plaintiffs undertake a significant reputational risk by bringing suit against their former employers. Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., 0 F.R.D., (N.D. Cal. 0). In Perkins, even though none of the plaintiffs worked for the defendant and therefore did not face a direct risk of retaliation, the court nonetheless understood that the plaintiffs may still suffer negative consequences in the workplace for filing a lawsuit, a risk that was heightened because of the suit involve[d] a high profile company. 0 WL, at *. Each of the Plaintiffs in the present case accepted this inherent professional reputational risk in coming forward because they believed it was more important to vindicate their rights under the rights of other Uber drivers and applicants. (Gillette Decl. 0; Mohamed Decl. ; Farmer Decl. ; Wise Decl. ; Christenson Decl..) Plaintiffs also assumed financial risks in bringing suit. Plaintiffs were advised of and accepted the risk of financial liability for Uber s litigation costs in the event the litigation was unsuccessful. (Gillette Decl. ; Wise Decl..) In order to resolve the dispute and obtain a favorable settlement for the class, Plaintiffs Gillette, Mohamed, Farmer, Wise, and Christenson each agreed not to work for Uber in the future, limiting their ability to earn income. (See ECF No. -, Plaintiffs Individual Settlement Agreement and General Release,.) Additionally, Plaintiff Gillette delayed his bankruptcy filing indefinitely in order to safeguard his ability to serve as a Class Representative. (Gillette Decl. at.). Plaintiffs Expended Time and Effort To Initiate and Prosecute This Action on Behalf of the Class. In considering whether an incentive award is appropriate to a Class Representative, courts consider the amount of time the Class Representative expends in pursuing litigation on behalf of the settlement class. Staton, F.d at -; In re Carrier IQ, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litig., No. - md-00-emc, 0 WL, at * (N.D. Cal. Aug., 0) (approving $,000 service award for plaintiffs who spent twenty-six hours or more on the case). Such involvement includes participating in the investigation and discovery processes, including responding to interrogatories and requests for production; participating in the preparation of pleadings. PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

14 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 filed on behalf of the class; remaining informed of the status of the litigation; and participating in settlement decisions. In re: Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litig., No. C-0- JST, 0 WL, at *- (N.D. Cal. Jan., 0); Fleury v. Richemont N. Am., Inc., No. C-0--EMC, 00 WL, at * (N.D. Cal. Aug., 00). As discussed below, all five Plaintiffs expended time prosecuting this action on behalf of the settlement class. Moreover, the fact that Plaintiffs Wise, Farmer, and Christensen entered the litigation part way through the proceedings is not disqualifying, and is consistent with the lower service awards requested for them. See, e.g., Stuart v. Radioshack Corp., No. C-0- EMC, 00 WL, at * (N.D. Cal. Aug., 00) (awarding $,000 to class representatives who did not enter this litigation until late in the proceedings because due consideration must be given to the fact that they were willing and ready to go to trial ). a. Plaintiff Ron Gillette Plaintiff Gillette spent thirty-four hours assisting his attorneys litigate the case. (Gillette Decl..) He participated in interviews with his attorneys and gathered documents to help them investigate his claims. (Id. at 0-.) He reviewed and discussed the complaint with his attorneys. (Id. at.) He helped his attorneys draft his declaration in support of Plaintiffs Consolidated Opposition to Motion to Compel Arbitration. (Id. at.) He helped his attorneys draft his initial disclosures. (Id. at.) He gathered documents and provided information to help his attorneys draft his discovery responses. (Id. at.) He made himself available by phone during the two mediation sessions, then reviewed and discussed the settlement agreement with his attorneys. (Id. at -.) To sign his court filings (i.e. his declaration, the discovery responses, and the settlement agreement), he traveled to and from the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area each time. (Id. at,,.) Throughout the litigation, he remained in communication with his attorneys to stay abreast of any developments in the case and honor his obligations as Class Representative. (Id. at.) b. Plaintiff Abdul Kadir Mohamed Plaintiff Mohamed spent eighteen hours assisting his attorneys litigate the case. (Mohamed Decl. 0.) He participated in interviews with his attorneys and gathered documents to help them. PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

15 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 investigate his claims. (Id. at -.) He reviewed the complaint in Mohamed with his attorneys before it was filed, and subsequently reviewed the Master Consolidated Complaint before it was filed. (Id. at -0.) He gathered documents in response to discovery requests and responded to interrogatories. (Id. at -.) He discussed settlement negotiations and proposals prior to, during, and after the two mediation sessions, and he reviewed and discussed the settlement agreement with his attorneys. (Id. at -.) Throughout the litigation, he remained in communication with his attorneys to stay abreast of any developments in the case and honor his obligations as Class Representative. (Id. at.) c. Plaintiff Shannon Wise Plaintiff Wise spent twenty-nine hours assisting her attorneys litigate the case. She participated in interviews with her attorneys and gathered documents to help them investigate her claims. (Wise Decl. -0.) She gathered additional documents and helped her attorneys draft her discovery responses. (Id. at.) She made herself available by phone during the two mediation sessions, then reviewed and discussed the settlement agreement with her attorneys. (Id. at -.) Throughout the litigation, she remained in communication with her attorneys to keep abreast of any developments in the case and honor her obligations as Class Representative. (Id. at.) d. Plaintiff Brandon Farmer Plaintiff Farmer spent nineteen hours assisting his attorneys to litigate the case. He participated in interviews with his attorneys and gathered documents and information to help them investigate his claims, then he reviewed the Master Consolidated Complaint before it was filed. (Farmer Decl. -.) He prepared and responded to written discovery in the case. (Id. at 0-.) He made himself available to discuss settlement proposals and negotiations with his attorneys in connection with both mediation sessions, and he reviewed and discussed the final settlement agreement with his attorneys. (Id. at -.) Throughout the litigation, he remained in communication with his attorneys to stay abreast of any developments in the case and honor his obligations as Class Representative. (Id. at.) e. Plaintiff Meghan Christenson Plaintiff Christenson spent fifteen and a half hours assisting her attorneys litigate the case. (Christenson Decl..) She participated in interviews with her attorneys and gathered documents. PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

16 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 and information to help them investigate her claims, then she reviewed the Master Consolidated Complaint before it was filed. (Christenson Decl. -.) She prepared and responded to written discovery in the case. (Id. at 0-.) She made herself available to discuss settlement proposals and negotiations with her attorneys in connection with both mediations sessions, and she reviewed and discussed the final settlement agreement with her attorneys. (Id. at -.) Throughout the litigation, she remained in communication with her attorneys to stay abreast of any developments in the case and honor her obligations as Class Representative. (Id. at.). In Order to Procure Relief for the Class, Plaintiffs Have Agreed to General Releases Relinquishing Other Claims Against Uber. Unlike the settlement class members, who release only release claims based on applicable background check laws, Plaintiffs have agreed to sign a general release of all claims against Uber. Courts have found this to be yet another factor supporting the approval of service awards. See Dyer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 0 F.R.D., - (N.D. Cal. 0) (considering as a factor whether the named plaintiffs release was broader than the release that applied to their fellow class members); Viceral, 0 WL, at * (granting $,00 service award to a plaintiff who gave full personal release of all claims against defendant). In particular, Plaintiffs Gillette and Mohamed have released valuable wage and hour claims under California and Massachusetts law. Plaintiffs are class members in O Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. -cv- (N.D. Cal.) and Yucesoy v. Uber Technologies, Inc., -cv-0, respectively. As the Court is aware, the parties in O Connor and Yucesoy previously reached a proposed class action settlement valued at up to $00 million. O Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 0 F. Supp. d 0 (N.D. Cal. 0). Under that settlement, O Connor class counsel estimated that O Connor class members who drove over,000 miles would receive average awards of approximately $,000. (Liss-Riordan Decl. & Ex., O Connor ECF No. ). Similarly, Yucesoy class members who drove,000 miles would receive average awards of approximately $. Each named Plaintiff s General Release is conditioned on the Court s approval of a Service Award to that Plaintiff in an amount equal to or greater than one cent. (See Stipulation of Settlement, Ex. I,.) 0. PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

17 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 (Id. at Ex..) Those estimated average amounts had the potential to increase based on the number of claims submitted. (Id. at.) While the proposed O Connor/Yucesoy settlement was not approved by the Court, it demonstrates the value of Plaintiffs claims at issue in those cases. By agreeing to general releases, Plaintiffs Gillette and Mohamed have agreed to forgo any possibility of recovering on their wage and hour claims. (See ECF No. -, Plaintiffs Individual Settlement Agreement and General Release,.) In addition, Plaintiff Gillette has agreed to release the PAGA claims alleged in the present matter. (Id.) Those claims also have value, and are subject to a separate proposed settlement in the matter of Price v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. BC (Superior Court, County of Los Angeles). In Price, the parties have sought approval of a $. million dollar settlement to resolve only PAGA claims. While the Price court has yet to decide whether to approve the proposed settlement, the fact that Uber has agreed to one of the largest-ever PAGA settlements demonstrates the value of Plaintiff Gillette s PAGA claims. By agreeing to a general release, Plaintiff Gillette has agreed to forego any recovery for his PAGA claims.. Class Members Derived Important Benefits As a Result of the Risk and Effort Undertaken by Plaintiffs to Prosecute this Lawsuit. Courts also consider the degree to which the class has benefitted from named plaintiffs actions in prosecuting the suit. Staton, F.d at (internal citation omitted); Stuart, 00 WL, at * ( [A]n incentive payment to each class representative is appropriate given that a benefit was obtained for the class as a result of the settlement. ). Plaintiffs efforts have substantially benefitted the class. The necessary and integral part Plaintiffs played in protecting the interests of the class is illustrated by the catalytic effect of the lawsuit on Uber s practices, including the use of a new credit reporting agency to conduct background checks and significant and much needed changes to its disclosure form, within weeks after Plaintiffs Gillette and Mohamed filed their claims. Additionally, upon final approval of the settlement, class members will receive monetary benefits that are consistent with or exceed recoveries in comparable FCRA background check settlements. Compare, e.g., Brown v. Lowe s Cos., Inc., No. -cv-0- RLV-DSC, 0 WL & ECF No. - (W.D.N.C. Nov., 0) (granting final approval to. PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

18 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 FCRA background check settlement under which class members received $0 each); Watkins v. HireRight, Inc., No. -CV--BAS-BLM, 0 WL, at * (S.D. Cal. Sep. 0, 0) (granting final approval for FCRA settlement where each class member who submitted claim would be paid approximately $). Without named Plaintiffs actions to secure this relief through settlement, a significant proportion of the class would face practically insurmountable barriers to recovery in light of the Ninth Circuit s arbitration ruling.. Plaintiffs Service Awards Promote Important Public Policy to Encourage Enforcement of FCRA. A service award is intended to serve as encouragement for a Class Member to take on burdens beyond those borne by any other members and undertake the responsibility to serve as a Class Representative. Rodriguez, F.d at. In providing a financial incentive to accept those burdens, a service award promotes the important public policies underlying the FCRA and analogous state law. Ingram, 00 F.R.D. at (concluding that service awards encourage plaintiffs to fulfill the policies and purposes underlying Title VII). The three general purposes of FCRA are to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, promote efficiency in the banking system, and protect consumer privacy. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, U.S., (00). Congress has amended FCRA for various related purposes, such as to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices. H.R. Doc. No. -0 (00). In prosecuting the instant lawsuit, Plaintiffs procured enforcement of important provisions of the FCRA designed to protect employees and job applicants privacy rights and increase their control over employers access to and use of personal sensitive information. See Syed, F.d at -,0. These provisions were enacted in the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of, which amended FCRA to increase employers obligations when furnishing their employees or applicants consumer reports in order to guard against the risk of improper invasion of privacy and prevent harm to current or prospective employees from inaccurate information in the reports. S. Rep. No. 0-, at (). Specifically, the amendment sought to enforce privacy and consumer protection by expanding consumers ability to access their reports and understand how their reports would be used for employment purposes. Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of : Hearing on Consumer. PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

19 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 Financial Privacy before the Subcomm. on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit of the H. Comm. on Banking and Financial Services, 0th Cong. () (statement by D. Barry Connelly, President, Associated Credit Bureaus; H.R. Rep. No. 0-, at (00). Plaintiffs actions have promoted FCRA s consumer protection goals for the purposes of employment by asserting their rights under FCRA. Key provisions of FCRA protect consumers from abusive practices and invasion of privacy by requiring employers and potential employers to provide a clear disclosure and secure written authorization before obtaining their consumer background reports, and to provide written notice about their report and their rights before terminating or rejecting their employment. U.S.C. b(b)()-(). This litigation holds Uber accountable to FCRA and furthers the FCRA s policy goals of protecting sensitive information and ensuring the accuracy of consumer reports. B. Plaintiffs Are Requesting Reasonable Award Amounts In Line with Both Northern District Standards and the Class Relief Achieved Through the Settlement. The Ninth Circuit looks at the following benchmarks to determine whether the amount of a proposed service award is reasonable: the number of named plaintiffs receiving incentive payments, the proportion of the payments relative to the settlement amount, and the size of each payment. In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., F.d at. In the instant case, each of those benchmarks confirms that the request of $,00 incentive awards to Plaintiffs Gillette and Mohamed, and $,000 service awards for Plaintiffs Wise, Christianson, and Farmer are reasonable.. The Amounts Requested Are Typical of Service Awards in the Northern District First, service awards of $,000 are considered presumptively reasonable in this district, Dyer, 0 F.R.D. at, and courts routinely grant requests for an award over $,000 where the particular circumstances warrant such an award, Nelson v. Avon Prods., Inc., No. -cv-0-blf, 0 WL, at * (N.D. Cal. Feb., 0). A typical service award falls between $,000 and $0,000. Bellinghausen, 0 F.R.D. at. Indeed, service awards of $,000 or more are common in the Northern District. See, e.g., Viceral, 0 WL, at * (approving $,00 service award); Newton v. Am. Debt Servs., Inc., No. :-cv-0-emc, 0 WL, at * (N.D. Cal. July, 0) (approving $,00 service. PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

20 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page 0 of 0 0 award); Alexander v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., No. 0-cv-000-EMC, 0 WL 0, at * (N.D. Cal. June, 0) (approving $0,000 service award); Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. C0- EMC, 0 WL, at * (N.D. Cal. May, 0) (approving $0,000 service award); Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp., No. C-0- EMC, 0 WL 0, at *- (N.D. Cal. Feb., 0) (approving $,00 service award); In re Wells Fargo Loan Processor Overtime Pay Litig., No. C-0- (EMC), 0 WL 0, at * (N.D. Cal. Aug., 0) (approving $,00 service award); Stuart, 00 WL, at * (approving $,000 service award); Fleury, 00 WL, at * (approving $,000 service award). Service awards of $,000 for Plaintiffs Wise, Christenson, and Farmer are presumptively reasonable and would appropriately compensate them for the reputational risk they took in becoming involved in the lawsuit, the time and effort they expended to represent the class, the benefits they obtained for class members, and their service in procuring enforcement of the FCRA. See Dyer, 0 F.R.D. at. A higher award for Plaintiffs Gillette and Mohamed is warranted in the particular circumstances of this case as described above. See Nelson, 0 WL at *. Their complaints brought the class claims to light and prompted swift and significant improvements in Uber s compliance with the FCRA. Additionally, in agreeing to the general release applicable to the named plaintiffs in this suit, Plaintiffs Gillette and Mohamed are agreeing to relinquish valuable wage and hour claims against Uber.. The Requested Service Awards are Proportional to the Range of Monetary Recovery Available to the Class. In assessing the appropriateness of a service award, courts evaluate the proportionality of the service award to the recovery available to the class. Ellis, 0 WL, at * (considering the degree to which the class has benefited from those actions as a relevant factor for service awards). A great discrepancy between the service award and the average class member award is justified where the service award constitutes a small percentage of the gross settlement. See, e.g., In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., F.d, (th Cir. 000) (approving incentive award of $, to two plaintiff representatives of,00 potential class members in $. million settlement with about $ allotted per class member, but constituting only 0.% of the settlement).. PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

21 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of 0 0 The Northern District Court of California has granted service awards that are over one hundred times the amount average class members receive. In re Online DVD-Rental, F.d at, (awarding $,000 service payments where the average class member received $); Harris, 0 WL 0, at * (approving incentive payment of $,00 where the average class member awards were $ and $0 for the two subclasses); Betancourt v. Advantage Human Resourcing, Inc., No. -cv- 0-JST, 0 WL, at *, (N.D. Cal. Jan., 0) (approving incentive payment of $,000 where the average class member would receive $.0). In this action, the proposed service awards of $,000 and $,00 are about one hundred times the average award for the ADR group and only about fifty times the average award for the Court group. For example, using the claims data as of November, 0 (, claims), Class members who accepted and did not opt out of the arbitration provision ( the ADR group ) will receive about $ each and those who did not accept such a provision ( the Court group ) will receive about $ each (at,000 claims these numbers will decrease to approximately $ and $ respectively). (Order Granting Pls. Mot for Prelim. Approval of Class Action Settlement, at ; see also Declaration of Tina Wolfson in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for an Award of Attorneys Fees and Expenses ( Wolfson Decl. ), filed concurrently herewith,.) Moreover, the total requested service award represents less than one-half of % (only 0. %) of the gross settlement amount of $,0,000 in this case. Under these circumstances, the requested service awards of $,000 and $,00 are sufficiently proportional to the monetary benefits available to the Class. (Order Granting Pls. Mot for Prelim. Approval of Class Action Settlement, at.) The Northern District Court of California has approved similarly proportioned service awards in the past. See, e.g., In re Wells Fargo, 0 WL 0, at * (approving $,00 in service payments which was 0.% of the gross settlement of $. million); Stuart, 00 WL, at * (approving $0,000 in service payments which was 0.% of the gross settlement of $. million); Viceral, 0 WL, at * (approving $,00 service payments which was 0.% of the gross settlement of $. million). In sum, the proposed service awards are proportional to the overall benefit to the class. C. The Requested Service Award is Supported by the Reaction of the Class. The class members deadline to opt out or object to the proposed settlement is December,. PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

22 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of However, since the commenced of the Notice Program in July 0,, claim forms have been submitted (as of November, 0). (Declaration of Andrew P. Lee in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for an Award of Attorneys Fees and Expenses, filed concurrently herewith,.) Thus, the initial response of the class has been very positive. Furthermore, to date, no settlement class members have objected to the proposed service award to Plaintiffs. (Id.) Thus, there is no indication, at this time, that any class members have found the proposed service award to be excessive or otherwise inappropriate. Accordingly, the reaction of the class thus far supports approval of Plaintiffs requested service award. D. Plaintiffs Received No Promise of a Service Award, nor is their Service Award Conditioned on their Support for the Settlement. An agreement that requires class counsel to seek a service award based on the amount of monetary recovery in a class action creates a conflict of interest between the representative plaintiff and the absent class members. Rodriguez, F.d at ( By tying their compensation-in advance to a sliding scale based on the amount recovered, the incentive agreements disjoined the contingency financial interests of the contracting representatives from the class. ). A settlement agreement that makes the obtainability of a service award contingent on the representative plaintiff s support of the settlement creates a similar conflict of interest. Radcliffe v. Experian Info. Servs., Inc., F.d, (th Cir. 0). Neither type of agreement exists in the present settlement. Class Counsel made no promise to Plaintiffs that they would seek a service award on their behalf should this matter settle or otherwise result in a monetary recovery for the class. (See ECF No., Stipulation of Settlement.) Moreover, the settlement agreement does not make Plaintiffs service award contingent upon their support of the settlement. (Id.) Indeed, Plaintiffs understand that their service award is subject to Court approval, and that it is possible that they may receive no service award at all. (Id.) Plaintiffs support the settlement regardless of whether they will receive a service award. Accordingly, the possibility of a service award has not undermined Plaintiffs abilities to represent the best interests of the class.. PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

23 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of IV. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court approve Plaintiffs request for Service Awards in the amounts stated above. 0 0 Dated: November, 0 Dated: November, 0 Respectfully submitted, GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO /s/ Andrew P. Lee Laura L. Ho Andrew P. Lee William C. Jhaveri-Weeks 00 Lakeside Drive, Suite 000 Oakland, California Tel: (0) -00 Fax: (0) - Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC /s/ Tina Wolfson Tina Wolfson Robert Ahdoot Theodore W. Maya 0 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, California 00 Tel: (0) - Fax: (0) - Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Elisa Della-Piana (SBN ) edellapiana@lccr.com LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA Steuart Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, CA 0 Tel: () - Fax: () -0 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Ronald Gillette. PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

24 Case :-cv-000-emc Document Filed // Page of motion. ATTESTATION OF FILER The undersigned hereby attests that all signatories above have concurred in the filing of this /s/ Tina Wolfson Tina Wolfson 0 0. PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

25 Case :-cv-000-emc Document - Filed // Page of 0 Laura L. Ho (SBN ) lho@gbdhlegal.com Andrew P. Lee (SBN 0) alee@gbdhlegal.com William C. Jhaveri-Weeks (SBN ) wjhaveriweeks@gbdhlegal.com GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 00 Lakeside Drive, Suite 000 Oakland, CA Tel: (0) -00 Fax: (0) - Elisa Della-Piana (SBN ) edellapiana@lccr.com LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA Steuart Street, Suite 00 San Francisco, CA 0 Tel: () - Fax: () -0 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 IN RE UBER FCRA LITIGATION Case No.: -cv-000-emc DECLARATION OF RONALD GILLETTE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SERVICE AWARDS Date: February, 0 Time: :0 p.m. Crtrm: Before: Hon. Edward M. Chen 0. DECL. OF RONALD GILLETTE ISO OF PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC

26 Case :-cv-000-emc Document - Filed // Page of 0 0 I, Ronald Gillette, declare:. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration, and could and would testify to those facts if called upon to do so.. I am the original Plaintiff in the matter of Gillette v. Uber Technologies Inc., Case No. :-cv-0-emc. I am also one of the Named Plaintiffs and Class Representatives of the provisionally certified Settlement Class in the consolidated matter of In Re Uber FCRA Litigation, Case No. :-cv-000-emc. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Service Awards.. I worked as an Uber Driver in San Francisco, California beginning 0 until April 0 when Uber deactivated my account after procuring a background check on me. I had successfully driven for Uber with a near five star rating. I feel that my deactivation was unfair and that the way they treated me during the process was deeply disrespectful.. I decided to be a plaintiff and class representative in this case to ensure that Uber follows applicable background check laws in deciding who may work as an Uber driver, including requirements that Uber clearly inform Drivers that it may perform background checks on them, obtain Drivers consent to perform background checks, and provide a meaningful opportunity to dispute any negative information contained in background check reports, among others. COMING FORWARD. In April 0, Uber deactivated my account without any notice or explanation. I contacted Uber immediately to learn why. I called numerous times but was unable to reach anyone. Eventually Uber scheduled a time for me to meet with a representative. At this meeting, the representative informed me I was terminated because something had come up in my background report. He did not give me a copy of the report or let me know that I had any legal rights.. Through further communication with Uber, I learned that Hirease had produced my background report. I requested the report from Hirease, which was provided to me in May.. I felt that the way Uber treated me was wrong. I was fired for something that happened years ago, with no warning or chance to defend myself in any meaningful way. Although I have a 0. DECL. OF RONALD GILLETTE ISO OF PLS. MOT. FOR SERVICE AWARDS CASE NO. -CV-000-EMC