1 JEFF S. WESTERMAN (94559) [email protected] 2 WESTERMAN LAW CORP. 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200 3 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 698-7880 4 Fax: (310) /775-9777

5 Interim Lead Class Counsel and Counsel for Plaintiff Theresa Alexandria 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL – SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE 10 SIRINE ADLOUNI, Lead Case No. BC589243 (Adlouni) 11 Plaintiff, Consolidated and Related to: 12 BC589327 (Ortiz), BC590219 (Allen) v. BC590344 (A.Y.), BC590534 (Brooks), 13 BC590942 (Hawkins), BC590943 (Most), UCLA HEALTH SYSTEMS BC590990 (Gambin), BC591185 (Liberatore),

14 AUXILIARY, et al., BC591192 (Urnovitz), BC591624 (Alexandria), BC592539 (Snyder), BC593562 (Williams), 15 Defendants. BC593527 (Deville), BC594104 (Koci), BC595049 (Jenani), BC598189 (Edelstein) 16 Assigned for All Purposes to: 17 Hon. Daniel J. Buckley, Dept. 1, Spring Street

18 DECLARATION OF JEFF S. WESTERMAN IN SUPPORT OF 19 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 20 SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND EXPENSES AND 21 PLAINTIFF SERVICE AWARDS

22 Date: June 18, 2019 23 Time: 9:00 a.m. Judge: Daniel J. Buckley 24 Dept.: 1, Spring Street Courthouse

25 Date Filed: July 24, 2015 Trial Date: None 26

27 28

Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 I, Jeff S. Westerman, declare as follows:

2 1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice before this Court. I am the principle 3 of Westerman Law Corp., court appointed Settlement Class Counsel representing all Plaintiffs 4 and the Settlement Class in the above-captioned consolidated cases, and, together with Doyle 5 Law, I am co-counsel of record for Plaintiff Theresa Alexandria in Alexandria v. Regents of the 6 University of California, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case Number BC591624.

7 2. I make this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval of 8 Class Action Settlement and for Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses and Plaintiff Service Awards. I have 9 personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, except as to those stated on information or

10 belief and, as to those, I am informed and believe them to be true. If called as a witness, I could 11 and would competently testify to the matters stated herein. The Revised Stipulation of 12 Settlement (“Rev. Settlement Agreement”) to be reviewed for final approval was filed in 13 connection with the motion for preliminary approval heard February 21, 2019, as was a motion

14 by defendant The Regents of the University of California for filing certain information under 15 seal due to the sensitivity of the personal identifying and medical information, and cyber security 16 at issue in this case. That motion to seal was granted.

17 3. Westerman Law Corp. has been involved in all aspects of this consolidated class 18 action lawsuit against Defendant The Regents of the University of California (“The Regents” or 19 “Defendant”) arising from a cyber-attack and alleged breach of patient databases containing 20 their personally identifying information (“PII”) and personal health information (“PHI”) 21 (together, “PII/PHI”), at UCLA Health in 2015. The parties reached a proposed settlement after 22 Plaintiffs and Defendant engaged in extensive and substantial settlement discussions that 23 included exchanges of discovery and due diligence materials, and arm’s length negotiations 24 utilizing the Honorable Charles W. McCoy (Ret.) as the mediator, as detailed below. Plaintiffs 25 entered into the settlement only after conducting a thorough investigation into the factual and 26 legal issues raised in this case, extensive settlement negotiations with Defendant and a 27 declaration and update of information from The Regents to confirm aspects of the settlement. 28

1 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 4. This proposed class wide settlement is noteworthy in that during a break from 2 the initial case status conference, following Judge Wiley’s oversight and suggestions, counsel 3 met in the jury room and started what became a collaborative process to resolve the case. There 4 was significant informal discovery to inform the negotiations. The fact that the process was 5 conducted without the need for contested court hearings and formal discovery devices does not 6 mean that all went smoothly or without points of contention. What it does mean is that the 7 parties committed to finding a resolution and worked in good faith without the need for 8 contentious court proceedings, toward that goal, which overcame numerous, inevitable, points 9 of significant differences. For example, there were instances where Defendant initially declined,

10 or was reluctant, to produce requested discovery information. Some of this information was 11 highly confidential as it related to UCLA Health’s cyber systems, non-public security steps 12 taken, and work still in progress, following the attack. The information provided also related to 13 negotiated steps to be taken prospectively as part of this settlement. Class Counsel took the

14 position that without access to certain information there could be no settlement. Ultimately, 15 Defendant shared the sensitive and significant information requested, and Class Counsel 16 reviewed it in consultation with a highly qualified cyber expert. The entire process was 17 conducted without the need for motion practice, because the parties acted with a good faith 18 commitment to resolution, albeit with extended negotiations, assistance from Judge McCoy, and 19 repeated testing of each other’s positions.

20 5. The proposed settlement is the result of two and half years of arm’s length 21 negotiations necessitated by the significance of the information exchanged and settlement terms 22 that required input and approvals from various levels and constituencies of the UC University 23 system, including, I am informed, by The Regents counsel and the UC Board of Regents. There 24 were four full-day mediation sessions with Judge McCoy, numerous teleconferences with him, 25 and a multitude of in-person conferences with opposing counsel, to discuss and often resolve 26 specific settlement elements. The Regents’ in-house counsel attended all four mediations and 27 attended additional meetings to resolve settlement terms. We found that in-person meetings 28 were helpful in resolving impasses and for resolving the large number of proposed edits and

2 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 different positions in drafting the settlement agreement. There were also countless telephonic 2 conferences. Class Counsel also worked closely with a highly qualified cybersecurity expert to 3 request and review relevant information and ensure that the cybersecurity enhancements 4 negotiated by the parties were substantial and subject to monitoring for compliance. Because 5 the Class Members’ data continues to reside on the UCLA Health system, ongoing cyber security 6 and the enhancements provided by this Settlement are relevant to the ongoing protection of class 7 member data.

8 6. This agreement settles the Defendant’s exposure to damages and, in turn, 9 provides a substantial benefit to members of the Settlement Class. Assuming a class is certified,

10 which is a risk factor, one of the Class claims is pursuant to the California Confidentiality of 11 Medical Information Act, Civil Code section 56, et seq. This statutory scheme provides that in 12 addition to other remedies available, each plaintiff whose information was negligently released 13 is entitled to actual damages sustained or, at a minimum, “nominal damages of one thousand

14 dollars ($1,000)” even if the plaintiff was not threatened with and did not suffer actual damages. 15 Id. at 56.36(b)(1)-(2). With 4.5 million potential class members, based just on the nominal 16 damages available, the exposure is high. However, The Regents had numerous defenses 17 including assertion of governmental immunity, and an argument that the statutory nominal 18 damages were actually punitive damages that would be separately statutorily prohibited against 19 The Regents. In addition, there are three California Court of Appeals decisions which have ruled 20 against recovery under the Medical Information Act based on factual analyses that discovery 21 and settlement discussions both indicate would be hotly contested in this case. Sutter Health v. 22 Super. Ct., 227 Cal. App. 4th 1546 (2014), Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Super. Ct., 220 Cal. App. 23 4th 549 (2013), Eisenhower Med. Ctr. v. Super. Ct., 226 Cal. App. 4th 430 (2014). Thus, there 24 is significant risk, and no guarantee of any recovery, if the litigation continued.

25 7. Pursuant to the proposed settlement, each class member would have the 26 opportunity to sign up for a two-year package of free credit monitoring, identity theft protection, 27 and $1 million in insurance. This protection package, offered by ID Experts, normally retails 28 for $9.95 per month. See https://www.myidcare.com/pricing (last visited October 18, 2018). If

3 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 the entire estimated class of 4.5 million individuals signed up for the ID Experts package, the 2 total retail value of those services, over the 24-month term that they are being provided 3 (approximately $239 per sign up), would be $1,078,920,000. The value made available is a 4 recognized factor in evaluating the settlement as discussed in the accompanying Memorandum 5 of Points and authorities in support of this motion. Based on the information from the Claims 6 Administrator, through April 30, 2019, 82,495 people signed up for this settlement benefit of an 7 additional 2 years of protection, making the activated retail value of this settlement component 8 alone approximately $19,716,305, and the sign-up window is open through September 16, 2019, 9 to allow Class Members plenty of time.

10 8. The settlement also creates a $2 million fund to pay for reimbursement of identity 11 protection steps taken by Class Members and to cover identity theft losses suffered by Class 12 Members a possible source of recovery in addition to the insurance package. The balance of 13 this fund not needed to satisfy claims will be added to the UCLA cybersecurity settlement

14 enhancements at UCLA Health. It further provides at least $5.5 million in new money to the 15 UCLA Health budget to enhance the cybersecurity of UCLA Health’s databases. The 16 cybersecurity enhancements are an important component of the settlement because Class 17 Members’ data continues to reside in the UCLA system and continues to need protection.

18 9. As a benefit to the class to inform Class Members of their rights and administer 19 the settlement and claims, The Regents will also pay all class notice costs, settlement 20 administration costs, which is estimated to be over $1,900,000, plus attorneys’ fees and 21 expenses. Unlike many settlements, payment of these fees and costs will not reduce awards to 22 Class Members. The proposed settlement, with the oversight of the Court Appointed Lead 23 Counsel and Executive Committee and Liaison Counsel, resolves each of the seventeen 24 Consolidated Actions pending before this Court. The requested amounts are attorneys’ fees of 25 $3,275,000, expenses of $117,750, and service awards for 22 plaintiffs of $750 each except for 26 $1,500 for the lead plaintiff (for awards totaling $17,250). 27 28

4 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 I. SUMMARY OF CASE 2 10. On July 17, 2015, Defendant announced that UCLA Health Systems’ computer 3 systems had been attacked, allowing hackers to access portions of the UCLA Health network on 4 which sensitive and confidential PII and PHI of approximately 4.5 million current and former 5 patients was stored. The cyberattack potentially implicated the information of millions of unique 6 individuals in several databases. Although the cyberattack was announced in July 2015, the 7 hackers had infiltrated the system much earlier. During a period of several months, the hackers 8 gained the ability to access various of UCLA Health’s servers and databases. As a result, the 9 attack may implicate the PHI/ PII of about 4.5 million patients of UCLA Health.

10 11. Plaintiffs are current and former patients of UCLA Health who received notice 11 from Defendant that their personal information was maintained on the impacted parts of the 12 UCLA Health network. In their complaint filed in this action, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant 13 failed to maintain reasonable and adequate security measures. They alleged that Defendant’s

14 security measures were so deficient that when the cyberattack started, Defendant failed to detect 15 it or limit its scope for many months and had not even encrypted the patient class members’ 16 PII/PHI. They further alleged that Defendant was aware that certain steps were needed to protect 17 patient data and prevent future data breaches, Defendant failed to act, and that Defendant’s 18 failure to take necessary steps to protect patient data enabled third party hackers to access 19 PII/PHI in 2015. Named Plaintiffs brought putative class actions against Defendant on behalf 20 of themselves and other affected patients to ensure that Defendant takes remedial steps to 21 prevent future breaches and to obtain protection and/or recovery for the harm they suffered as a 22 result of the breach.

23 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 24 12. The procedural history of this case is unique, in that it reflects the active efforts 25 by both sides and their counsel to work towards a possible resolution of the case without 26 unnecessary “traditional” litigation practice in Court hearings, such as extensive efforts to 27 address pleadings challenges, discovery, and summary judgment. The parties conducted 28 extensive investigation into key issues through negotiated and agreed exchanges of information

5 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 and documents, as opposed to formal discovery. The parties’ exploration of resolution was 2 conducted at arms’ length with the assistance of Judge McCoy, a former Supervising Judge of 3 this complex court, in four mediation sessions, as well as extensive separate discussions with 4 the mediator and opposing counsel between, and after, the mediation sessions to develop and 5 refine a framework for class wide resolution. As such, the court’s docket will not reflect the 6 vast majority of activities and efforts undertaken by the parties and their counsel to resolve this 7 case.

8 13. On July 24, 2015, plaintiff Sirine Adlouni filed the first class action lawsuit 9 against Defendant in the Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC589243). On August 19,

10 2015, the case was determined to be complex and an initial status conference order was issued 11 on August 19, 2015. Around that time 16 other similar class action cases were filed against 12 Defendant by additional named plaintiffs in the Los Angeles Superior Court, raising the number 13 of named plaintiffs to 22 and the total number of law firms and/or attorneys representing them

14 to 28. All of the cases are listed below:

15 a. Adlouni v. UCLA Health Systems, Case No. BC589243 16 b. Ortiz v. UCLA Health System, Case No. BC589327 17 c. Allen v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. BC590219 18 d. A.Y. v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. BC590344 19 e. Brooks v. UCLA Health, Case No. BC590534 20 f. Hawkins v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. BC590942 21 g. Most v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. BC590943 22 h. Gambin v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. BC590990 23 i. Liberatore v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. 24 BC591185

25 j. Urnovitz v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. 591192 26 k. Alexandria v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. 27 BC591624

28 l. Snyder v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. BC592539

6 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 m. Williams v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. BC593562 2 n. Deville v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. BC593527 3 o. Koci v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. BC594104 4 p. Jenani v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. BC595049 5 q. Edelstein v. Regents of the University of California, Case No. BC598189 6 14. On October 28, 2015, the Court held an initial conference open to counsel for 7 Plaintiffs and Defendant to discuss preliminary organizational and scheduling issues for the 17 8 cases filed against Defendant. The Court ordered the cases related and consolidated without 9 prejudice for administrative purposes and recognized the first-filed Adlouni case as the lead case.

10 The Court approved the parties’ agreement to electronic service. The Court also set a briefing 11 schedule for motions to apply for lead counsel and a hearing on any such motions on February 12 2, 2016. The Court also set a status conference for the same date. Additionally, the Honorable 13 John S. Wiley, judge presiding, disclosed he had been a patient at Defendant’s UCLA Health’s

14 medical facilities and his potential status as a patient affected by the cyberattack, advised that 15 he did not consider there to be a conflict and did not recuse himself. There was no objection. 16 Judge Wiley also ordered Defendants to confirm whether he was sent a notice relating to the 17 cyberattack at issue. See Notice of Ruling on Matters Addressed at October 28, 2015 18 Conference.

19 15. At the conclusion of the status conference on October 28, 2015, most of 20 plaintiffs’ counsel from the 15 or 16 cases then on file went to Judge Elias’ jury room to discuss 21 the case and a leadership structure. No agreement was reached.

22 16. Between October 31, 2015, and November 3, 2015, Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted 23 suggested edits to a version of the Court’s model protective order for consideration. Based 24 thereon, certain minimal edits were made to the draft submitted to defense counsel.

25 17. On November 10, 2015, the Court entered an Order Authorizing Electronic 26 Service and designating Lexis File & ServeXpress as the electronic service provider. See Notice 27 of Entry of Order Re: Electronic Service and Electronic Service Provider File & ServeXpress 28 (filed November 13, 2015).

7 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 18. Extensive discussions over the plaintiffs’ leadership structure continued for 2 several weeks among representatives of the 22 plaintiffs from various of the 28 law firms and 3 their attorneys in the 17 cases filed. Counsel were able to self-organize without the expense and 4 need for briefing and a hearing. On November 23, 2015, the Court vacated the briefing and 5 hearing schedule on motions to apply for lead counsel in light of the parties’ notification that 6 plaintiffs’ counsel had worked out a proposal for a leadership structure to manage the 7 prosecution of the consolidated cases. Due to the number of cases on file, it took some time to 8 obtain signatures on the stipulation.

9 19. On November 23, 2015, Defendant filed a notice for the Court and all parties that 10 Defendant confirmed that Judge Wiley’s name was among a list of persons who were sent a 11 notification letter relating to the cyberattack. The confirmation and notice were made in 12 response to the Court’s order that the same be done. See November 23, 2015 Notice Per Court 13 Order of October 28, 2015 (filed November 23, 2015). Based on this information, and to avoid

14 the creation of any conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict of interest, the parties proposed 15 settlement class definition excludes any judge presiding over the case.

16 20. On December 4, 2015, certain Plaintiffs’ counsel participated in a call to discuss 17 case management matters, including the preparation of a draft stipulation regarding a leadership 18 structure, the drafting of an e-service order, the drafting a stipulated order governing electronic 19 discovery, and the delegation of certain tasks to promote efficiencies and avoid duplication.

20 21. On December 8, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation requesting that the Court 21 maintain the February 2, 2016 status conference and Plaintiffs’ counsel also stipulated to a 22 leadership structure for Plaintiffs. See Joint Stipulation Re: Proposed Plaintiff Leadership 23 Structure (filed December 8, 2015). Plaintiffs terms for the proposed leadership structure were 24 designed to reduce duplication and maximize efficiencies. The proposed leadership structure 25 was as follows:

26 a. Interim Lead Class Counsel: Westerman Law Corp.; 27 b. Executive Committee: Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, Arias Sanguinetti Stahle 28 & Torrijos, LLP, Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, LLP, Girard Gibbs LLP, Morgan & Morgan, and

8 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 Zimmerman Reed, LLP; and

2 c. Liaison Counsel: Boucher LLP 3 22. On December 9, 2015, the Court entered the case organization order. See Notice 4 of Entry of Order re: Status Conference and Plaintiff Leadership Structure (filed December 14, 5 2015). See Rev. Settlement Agreement Ex 18.

6 23. Since that order issued, and throughout this litigation, members of the leadership 7 firms worked in a collaborative and efficient manner to provide excellent representation while 8 minimizing duplication where possible. The litigation was managed with that leadership 9 structure and specific tasks were assigned to appropriate responsible attorneys. The appointed

10 leadership firms consist of lawyers experienced in prosecuting class action litigation, including 11 consumer class actions and data breach cases, and thus, in my view were collectively qualified, 12 experienced, and able to prosecute this case. See Plaintiff Leadership Resumes attached as 13 Exhibit A. We were selective and efficient in assigning work and seeking input, to take

14 advantage of co-counsels’ experience, yet minimize duplication or unnecessary work. This 15 meant that where appropriate, only one or two attorneys among the firms had primary 16 responsibilities relating to specific projects. At other times, as appropriate, attorneys from 17 different firms would join forces to jointly take on the primary responsibility for a task based on 18 the assessment of the time and resources, or prior relevant experience, needed for this task. To 19 avoid redundancy and unnecessary expense, to the extent possible, we also assigned certain 20 attorneys to appear for the mediation sessions, as well as hearings and conferences. Conference 21 calls with members of the leadership firms were sometimes restricted to one member of each 22 firm, and an agenda was prepared in advance and adhered to in order to cover everything that 23 needed to be covered without wasting time. Over the course of the case, the full Executive 24 Committee calls were typically about 20-40 minutes long and utilized for assignment of work, 25 and discussion of significant strategic, settlement, and legal or novel issue topics. Many 26 Executive Committee status updates and tasks were handled by focused emails rather than phone 27 calls. 28

9 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 24. On December 10, 2015, members of the leadership firms participated in a call to 2 prepare Plaintiffs’ positions for the initial case management conference statement and to obtain 3 an update on various delegated tasks.

4 25. At my instruction, a small subcommittee was formed, from the firms in 5 leadership, to obtain and evaluate information and documents from each of the named plaintiffs 6 to prepare a consolidated complaint and provide Defendant with plaintiffs’ anticipated discovery 7 documentation. The process commenced in or about December 2015 and included a 8 questionnaire and interviews of almost all the named plaintiffs. It was completed in or about 9 July 2016. That process proved to be useful for settlement purposes, and important to

10 conducting the settlement discussions, described below. The plaintiff-side documentation was 11 produced voluntarily to Defendant relatively early in the settlement discussions. This enabled 12 us to finish the plaintiffs’ production and turn our focus to the negotiations for settlement 13 discovery and due diligence materials that we requested and received from Defendant.

14 Determining and obtaining the materials from The Regents was more complicated and included 15 cyber security expert consultation. The Regents’ production was also more voluminous, and 16 spread out over many months, including certain items that needed to be updated because they 17 specifically related to settlement terms.

18 26. On January 7, 2016, members of the leadership firms participated in a call to 19 provide and/or obtain an update on various delegated tasks, including discussions over 20 Plaintiffs’ position for the initial case management conference statement, protective order 21 negotiations, the preparation of a draft order governing electronic discovery, and preparation of 22 a draft consolidated complaint.

23 27. On or about January 24, 2016, following several discussions and written 24 exchanges between Interim Lead Class Counsel and counsel for Defendant, the parties filed a 25 joint statement in advance of the initial status conference addressing points for case management 26 that were requested by the Court. See Joint Initial Status Conference Class Action Response 27 Statement (filed January 24, 2016). 28

10 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 28. In the joint statement, Defendant represented that notice of the cyberattack was 2 issued by Defendant to approximately 4.5 million persons, which Plaintiffs considered to be a 3 representation of the class size. Defendant, however, maintained that there was no evidence that 4 the data was viewed or accessed, and that notification was provided simply because Defendant 5 could not rule out that such access occurred.

6 29. The parties disagreed over proposals for case management and resolution of key 7 issues. Given the lack of public information available about the cyberattack, Plaintiffs proposed 8 targeted initial discovery that would enable Plaintiffs to prepare and file a consolidated 9 complaint with causes of action based on known facts regarding the attack. In the interim, to

10 develop a framework for case management and to allow discovery, Plaintiffs proposed that the 11 following claims alleged in the Snyder Complaint be considered the claims at issue: 12 (1) California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”), (2) California Unfair 13 Competition Act (“UCL”), (3) Negligence, (4) Customer Records Act (“CRA”), (5) Breach of

14 Confidentiality, and (6) Declaratory Relief. Plaintiffs prepared and submitted for the Court’s 15 and Defendant’s consideration a set of draft limited discovery requests that were based on these 16 claims.

17 30. Defendant, on the other hand, proposed that Plaintiffs file their consolidated 18 complaint first and then commence discovery on the causes of action and defenses thereto. 19 Defendant also proposed pleadings challenges to obtain the Court’s resolution of the following 20 issues:

21 a. Whether Plaintiffs have alleged a viable claim against a public entity 22 defendant under Government Code sections 815 and 818.8;

23 b. Whether Defendant may be liable for punitive or exemplary damages 24 given Government Code section 818, including the statutory damages prescribed in the CMIA;

25 c. Whether the UCL and CRA apply to Defendant; 26 d. Whether a contract exists between Plaintiffs and Defendant and if so 27 whether any such provision was breached as a result of the cyberattack; and 28

11 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 e. Whether Plaintiffs have alleged a viable claim under the CMIA by 2 alleging actual harm.

3 31. On February 4, 2016, members of the leadership firms participated in a 4 teleconference to discuss Defendant’s positions on various case management issues, as well as 5 to obtain updates on various delegated tasks.

6 32. The status conference took place on February 11, 2016. During the conference, 7 the Court recognized that the parties were unable to agree on a case management plan. The 8 Court provided guidance to the parties as to how to get to the essential issues in the case and 9 suggested that the Plaintiffs’ preparation of a consolidated complaint, including initial discovery

10 that Plaintiffs contended was necessary to prepare the consolidated complaint, as well as 11 subsequent pleadings challenge(s) by Defendant, were not the most efficient approach to 12 resolution. The Court encouraged the parties to discuss further, off the record, a proposed 13 framework for early case management that would enable the parties to get to the key issues

14 quickly. Counsel conferred in the jury room. Following that discussion, the parties later 15 proposed, back on the record, that they be allowed to continue their discussion. The Court 16 agreed, and the status conference was continued to March 7, 2016.

17 33. On February 26, 2016, the parties submitted a joint report advising of multiple 18 subsequent conversations and exchanges on a proposed early case management order, as well 19 as an agreement in principle on such a proposed framework. The parties recognized a mutual 20 interest in positioning the case for settlement discussions and requested a continuance of the 21 status conference set for March 7, 2016, to March 18, 2016. See Joint Status Report and Request 22 to Continue March 7, 2016 Status Conference and [Proposed] Order (filed February 26, 2016).

23 34. Per the Parties’ stipulated request, the Court continued the conference to March 24 18, 2016. See Notice of Entry of Order Continuing Status Conference (filed March 8, 2016).

25 35. After a series of communications to address their differences and possible agreed 26 approaches, on March 11, 2016, the parties submitted a proposed initial case management order 27 with the following terms: 28

12 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 a. The parties would produce an initial set of mutually agreed-upon 2 documents by April 18, 2016, and continue to meet and confer regarding the extent of 3 productions and dates by which additional productions, if any, may be accomplished;

4 b. Plaintiffs would file an amended consolidated complaint by May 27, 5 2016;

6 c. The parties would participate in a private mediation by July 29, 2016, and 7 provide a post-mediation status report by August 8, 2016; and

8 d. The parties would meet and confer regarding Defendant’s response to the 9 consolidated complaint, including a briefing schedule for any demurrer, motion for summary

10 judgment or other motion practice, or agreed plan and provide a proposed second case 11 management order by August 15, 2016. See Stipulation and [Proposed] Stipulated Initial Case 12 Management Order (filed March 11, 2016).

13 36. On March 16, 2016, the Court continued the status conference to August 22, 2016

14 and ordered the parties to file a proposed case management order by August 15, 2016.

15 37. On April 18, 2016, the parties filed a stipulated request to modify certain of the 16 proposed dates in the original proposed case management order, as follows:

17 a. The parties’ deadline to produce an initial set of mutually agreed-upon 18 documents would be April 28, 2016;

19 b. Plaintiffs’ deadline to file an amended consolidated complaint would be 20 June 6, 2016; and

21 c. The parties would participate in a private mediation by August 8, 2016 22 and provide a post-mediation status report by August 15, 2016. See Stipulation and Proposed 23 Order Modifying Certain Dates from Case Management Order (filed April 18, 2016).

24 38. On April 20, 2016, the Court entered the stipulated initial case management order 25 proposed by the parties. See Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order (filed April 28, 2016).

26 39. On May 11, 2016, after extensive negotiations regarding terms for confidential 27 treatment of discovery, the parties lodged a modified version of the model protective order 28 posted on the web site of the Los Angeles Superior Court with proposed terms for treatment of

13 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 confidential and highly confidential discovery. See Notice Re Lodgment of Stipulation and 2 Proposed Protective Order (filed May 11, 2016).

3 40. On May 17, 2016, the Court entered the parties’ stipulated protective order. See 4 Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order (filed May 26, 2016).

5 41. Between late May 2016 and early May 2017, Defendant made numerous 6 productions of documents Plaintiffs requested to evaluate the case, totaling about 1,200 pages, 7 which were reviewed and evaluated by selected attorneys, myself included, and a cybersecurity 8 expert that was retained to consult with plaintiffs’ counsel. The significance and use of these 9 targeted documents are discussed in more detail in the Memorandum and below. Plaintiffs

10 compiled and produced to Defendant approximately 120 pages of documents of what was 11 available pertaining to each named plaintiff’s claims in early May 2016.

12 42. On June 1, 2016, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed order to modify 13 further certain dates in the April 20, 2016 case management order. See Second Stipulation and

14 Proposed Order Modifying Certain Dates from Case Management Order (Filed June 1, 2016). 15 The parties advised the Court that Plaintiffs and Defendant had exchanged an initial set of 16 documents and are discussing a potential additional production. They further advised that the 17 parties were scheduling mediation. Finally, Plaintiffs were in the process of preparing a 18 consolidated complaint. Accordingly, they proposed new dates and deadlines as follows:

19 a. Plaintiffs’ deadline to file consolidated complaint would be June 16, 20 2016;

21 b. Parties’ deadline to mediate would be September 15, 2016 and to file a 22 post-mediation status report would be September 22, 2016; and

23 c. The next status conference would be continued to late September or early 24 October dates.

25 43. On June 13, 2016, the Court entered the stipulated proposed order for 26 continuances, including setting the next status conference for September 29, 2016. See June 20, 27 2016 Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order. 28

14 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 44. On July 14, 2016, the parties submitted another stipulation and proposed order to 2 extend the time for Plaintiffs to prepare their amended consolidated complaint to September 22, 3 2016. By way of the stipulation, the parties advised the Court that they were continuing their 4 informal discovery efforts, met and conferred over case management issues, and agreed to focus 5 their resources on preparing for a private mediation set before Judge McCoy on August 29, 2016. 6 See Joint Stipulation to Extend Time for Plaintiffs to prepare Amended Consolidated Complaint 7 (filed July 14, 2016).

8 45. On August 23, 2016, members of the leadership firms participated in a call to 9 discuss and prepare for mediation.

10 46. On September 21, 2016, the parties filed a joint status report advising of the status 11 of the case post-mediation, together with a stipulation with proposed order to continue the status 12 conference. The parties advised the Court that they made progress towards resolution at the full 13 day mediation held on August 29, 2016, and although they had not reached a settlement, the

14 parties agreed to engage in further settlement discussions during Fall 2016 and to participate in 15 a second mediation session in mid-December 2016. As such, they requested continuances of 16 certain deadlines, including:

17 a. Parties to provide a post-mediation status report on December 21, 2016; 18 b. Status Conference to be held on January 4, 2017; 19 c. Parties to provide an interim status report by October 31, 2016; and 20 d. Plaintiffs’ deadline to file an amended consolidated class action 21 complaint by January 15, 2017. See Joint Status Report Re Mediation and Stipulation Re 22 Continuance of Case Status Conference; [Proposed] Order (filed September 20, 2016). (Note: 23 Although the date to file the amended complaint was continued and it was ultimately not filed 24 due to settlement progress, it was prepared and provided to Defendant’s counsel on July 15, 25 2016 and used for purposes of settlement discussions and mediation.)

26 47. On September 21, 2016, the Court entered the parties’ proposed order for the 27 above dates and deadlines. See Notice of Judgment or Order (filed September 27, 2016). 28

15 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 48. On September 27-28, 2016, I provided short updates on the case to the Executive 2 Committee by email and requested comment on one matter.

3 49. On September 28, 2016, the Court continued the status conference to January 11, 4 2017, and ordered the parties to file a joint statement by December 16, 2016.

5 50. On December 2, 2016, I provided an update to the leadership firms and advised 6 it was determined to limit attendance at the second session of mediation.

7 51. On December 12, 2016, members of the leadership firms participated in a call to 8 discuss and prepare for mediation. Participation was restricted to one attorney per leadership 9 firm.

10 52. On December 15, 2016, the parties participated in a second full-day session of 11 the mediation with Judge McCoy.

12 53. On December 16, 2016, I provided an email update to members of leadership 13 firms regarding the December 15, 2016 mediation and requested a call to discuss further. That

14 call took place on December 20, 2016.

15 54. On December 21, 2016, the parties filed a joint status report and request to 16 continue the status conference. The parties advised the Court that they participated in a second 17 mediation session with Judge McCoy on December 15, 2016 and were due to report back to him 18 regarding a proposal for certain components for a proposed settlement. As such, and to allow 19 the parties to focus on settlement efforts, the parties jointly requested that the status conference 20 be continued to February 15, 2017, with a joint status conference report due five court days prior 21 to the conference. See Joint Status Report for January 4, 2017 Status Conference (filed 22 December 21, 2016).

23 55. On January 9, 2017, the Court continued the status conference to February 15, 24 2017. See Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order (filed January 17, 2017).

25 56. On January 11, 2017, I provided the members of leadership firms with a further 26 update on settlement discussions and next steps.

27 57. On February 8, 2017, the parties submitted a joint status report advising that they 28 continued to discuss a proposed settlement and scheduled a third mediation session with Judge

16 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 McCoy for March 21, 2017. Given the progress made towards a proposed resolution and 2 ongoing efforts, the parties requested a continuance of the status conference to April 4, 2017. 3 See Joint Status Report for February 15, 2017 Status Conference (filed February 8, 2017).

4 58. On February 14, 2017, the Court entered an order continuing the status 5 conference to April 4, 2017. See Notice of Entry of Judgment or Order (filed February 22, 6 2017).

7 59. On March 30, 2017, the parties submitted a joint status report advising that they 8 completed a third mediation session with Judge McCoy on March 21, 2017 and believed that 9 they were making substantial progress towards a proposed settlement. The parties also advised

10 that they intended to appear for the status conference set for April 4, 2017 to provide a more 11 detailed update. See Joint Status report for April 4, 2017 Status Conference (filed March 30, 12 2017).

13 60. On April 3, 2017, the Court continued the status conference to April 25, 2017,

14 and requested a further status report by April 18, 2017, ideally in the form of a stipulated 15 proposed order.

16 61. On April 18, 2017, the parties submitted a further status report advising that they 17 scheduled a fourth mediation session with Judge McCoy for May 18, 2017, that they may be in 18 a position to prepare a preliminary approval motion following the fourth session and stipulated 19 to a request for an in-person status conference on May 26, 2017. See Joint Status Conference 20 Report for April 25, 2017 Status Conference.

21 62. On April 19, 2017, the Court continued the status conference to May 26, 2017 22 and requested the parties file a joint status conference report by May 23, 2017. See Notice of 23 Entry of Judgment or Order (dated May 17, 2017).

24 63. On May 9, 2017, I provided members of the leadership firms with a further 25 update on the case and settlement discussions.

26 64. On May 19, 2017, the parties submitted another joint status report for the May 27 26, 2017 status conference, advising they had scheduled a fourth mediation session on May 19, 28 2017, after which the parties believed they might be in a position to begin preparing a motion

17 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 for preliminary approval and requested a 15-30 minute in person status session with the Court 2 following that mediation. Given scheduling issues, the parties requested that the status 3 conference be continued to May 31, 2017, with the parties to provide a joint report by May 26, 4 2017. See Joint Status Report for May 26, 2017 Status Conference (filed May 19, 2017).

5 65. On May 24, 2017, the parties jointly posted a message to the Court advising that 6 the parties had a fourth mediation session with Judge McCoy. Given the parties’ focus on an 7 open issue with settlement, the parties requested a continuance of the status conference to June 8 16, 2017. In response, the Court continued the hearing to June 23, 2017, with a joint report due 9 by June 16, 2017.

10 66. On May 24, 2017, members of the leadership firms participated in a call to 11 discuss mediation and settlement discussions.

12 67. On June 16, 2017, the parties submitted a joint status conference report advising 13 that the parties held a fourth mediation session with Judge McCoy on May 19, 2017, that they

14 had made significant progress on settlement negotiations, and reached a tentative agreement in 15 principle to resolve the matter, subject to documentation and approval by The Regents. The 16 parties requested to keep the June 23, 2017 status conference on calendar. See Joint Status 17 Report for June 23, 2017 Status Conference. The Court continued the hearing to July 26, 2017.

18 68. On July 21, 2017, the parties jointly reported by message that their status update 19 from June 16th remains current.

20 69. On July 26, 2017, the parties appeared before the Court for a status conference. 21 During the conference, counsel for the parties advised that a proposed class action settlement 22 had been reached in principal and that the parties were drafting a settlement agreement and the 23 exhibits.

24 70. On July 31, 2017, I provided an update by email to the leadership firms regarding 25 the case and settlement negotiations.

26 71. On October 2, 2017, the parties advised that the drafting of the settlement 27 agreement was ongoing along with detailed discussions on certain terms. The parties continued 28 to work through drafting issues and positions largely relating to the details and logistics of

18 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 implementing a settlement. They further advised that they anticipate a need to confer and 2 exchange drafts and comments for the agreement and related exhibits several more times. In 3 response, the Court continued the status conference to November 15, 2017, with a joint report 4 due by November 1, 2017.

5 72. On October 30, 2017, I provided an update by email to the leadership firms 6 regarding the case and settlement negotiations.

7 73. On November 1, 2017, the parties filed a joint status conference report, advising 8 that the parties continue to make progress on the draft settlement agreement with several drafts 9 exchanged and an in-person meeting scheduled to discuss settlement terms and issues. The

10 parties jointly requested to continue the status conference to December 11, 2017. See Joint 11 Status Report for November 15, 2017 Status Conference. In response, the Court continued the 12 status conference to December 11, 2017 and ordered a joint report to be filed by November 27, 13 2017.

14 74. On November 27, 2017, the parties filed a joint status conference report, advising 15 that the parties continued to make progress on the draft settlement agreement with several drafts 16 exchanged and recently participated in an in-person meeting to discuss settlement terms and 17 issues that enabled the parties to resolve certain issues. The parties jointly requested that the 18 Court continue the December 11, 2017 status conference to February 5, 2018. See Joint Status 19 Report for December 11, 2017 Status Conference (filed November 27, 2017). In response, the 20 Court continued the status conference to February 5, 2018 with an order that the parties file 21 another joint report by January 19, 2018.

22 75. On January 19, 2018, the parties submitted another joint report advising of the 23 parties’ ongoing efforts to discuss and draft settlement terms. The parties jointly requested that 24 the February 5, 2018 status conference be continued to April 18, 2018. See Joint Status Report 25 for February 5, 2018 Status Conference (filed January 19, 2018). In response, the Court 26 continued the status conference to April 18, 2018, and ordered the parties to file a joint report 27 by April 4, 2018. 28

19 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 76. On March 23, 2018, following extensive negotiations and the exchange of 2 information to get the settlement agreement into good condition, I provided another update to 3 the leadership firms regarding the parties’ preparation of the long-form settlement agreement 4 and other settlement documents. I requested substantive comments on the draft settlement 5 agreement and limited each firm’s review time to two hours. I took into account the comments 6 that were received to ensure the collaboration and consensus of plaintiffs’ leadership team on 7 the settlement agreement.

8 77. On October 23, 2018, the motion for Preliminary Approval was filed and a 9 hearing took place on November 7, 2018. At the hearing, Judge Hoge asked for additional

10 information and the hearing was continued to February 21, 2019. Preliminary settlement 11 approval was granted at that hearing and the settlement administration and notice program 12 commenced as provided in the Preliminary Approval Order of February 21 and described in the 13 accompanying Declaration of Cameron Azari whose firm was approved to administer the

14 settlement.

15 III. PLAINTIFFS’ INVESTIGATION 16 78. Between approximately May 2016 through the signing of the settlement 17 agreement, Plaintiffs requested and received documents and updated information from 18 Defendant to evaluate the claims, potential defenses and confirm current information relevant to 19 class notice and settlement terms. Generally, these documents included highly confidential 20 internal reports, external cybersecurity vendor reports regarding the cyberattack, documentation 21 of the efforts to address the cyberattack, and records showing the status of steps taken to improve 22 data security in the UCLA Health Network. The documents produced by The Regents are 23 described in detail in the Memorandum and the Supplemental Memorandum in Support of 24 Preliminary Approval. As discussed in the Memorandum there were numerous factual and legal 25 issues and uncertainties that were not easily resolvable, and in some instances likely to be 26 unknowable, since the attack on UCLA Health’s system was stealth and the perpetrators were 27 therefore not likely to ever be susceptible to discovery. The documents revealed the extent and 28 limitations on the investigation, which were also likely to create limitations on case discovery

20 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 and trial presentation. The documents also informed us about the systemic weaknesses at the 2 time of the cyberattack, and subsequent upgrades completed and in progress to UCLA 3 cybersecurity. We used the information from the cyber documents and investigation produced 4 to Plaintiffs’ counsel in consultation with our expert to evaluate the difficulties of discovery 5 proof and remediation, and to formulate the Cyber Remediation portion of the settlement. See 6 Exhibit 12 to the Revised Stipulation of Settlement. We also asked for and received class 7 member communications with UCLA regarding the attack.

8 79. This information was used to formulate and evaluate the settlement, including 9 confirmation of the steps taken by The Regents to identify the 4.5 million Settlement Class

10 Members to include them in the notice plan and settlement relief, steps taken to investigate and 11 respond to the cyberattack, and steps taken to improve cybersecurity and systems at UCLA 12 Health.

13 80. Additionally, Class Counsel requested and obtained a declaration from UCLA

14 Health’s Chief Information Officer regarding the new budget settlement money for the security 15 enhancements, confirmatory discovery, and the compilation of the class member list.

16 81. As to class notice, zip code information regarding the clustered areas where Class 17 Members actually reside was among the information obtained from The Regents used to craft a 18 settlement class notice plan that focused on the actual locations where class members resided, 19 that would encourage participation in the benefits provided by this settlement.

20 82. As a supplement to the mail and email notices, Class Members without a known 21 email or street address, are targeted with a robust digital publication/social media notice that 22 will be focused in the areas where Class Members are known to reside base on examination of 23 the available zip code information. For instance, the parties were able to ascertain that the 24 majority of known Class Members are located in California, with about 73% of known Class 25 Members residing in Los Angeles County. Outside of California, the largest concentration of 26 likely Class Members is in the area of Henderson/Las Vegas, Nevada.

27 83. Plaintiffs also retained a highly qualified cybersecurity consultant to help 28 formulate requests for information, evaluate the information and documents provided, and assist

21 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 in formulating settlement terms. Plaintiffs’ cybersecurity consultant reviewed existing and 2 updated reports about the status of UCLA Health’s systems and implementation of new projects 3 and provided input for development and accelerated implementation of a cybersecurity 4 enhancement plan which is included in this proposed settlement.

5 IV. THE PARTIES’ ARM’S LENGTH SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS 6 84. The parties participated in four private mediation sessions with Judge McCoy on 7 August 29, 2016, December 15, 2017, March 21, 2017, and May 19, 2017. There were also 8 discussions with Judge McCoy before and in between in person sessions, to assist him in staying 9 current with the parties’ direct interactions, then current positions and exchanges of information

10 between sessions. After extensive, arms-length negotiations, the parties agreed on basic terms 11 and a framework for settlement. The $2 million settlement fund and the $300,000 cap on the 12 Preventive Loss portion, were the result of extended negotiations over several months and 13 multiple sessions and phone calls with The Regents’ counsel and Judge McCoy. Without

14 revealing confidential settlement discussions, it is fair to say that there were extensive 15 discussions about variations leading up to the final terms about the size and claims process for 16 the fund. The differences were resolved through multiple discussions and ultimately the claims 17 fund was an integrated part of the mediator’s proposal. In other words, the mediator’s proposal 18 suggested a package resolution of multiple components of the settlement that had been the 19 subject of back and forth negotiation. The mediator’s proposal was not presented in a manner 20 that permitted individual components to be separately accepted without disrupting the entire 21 proposal. The parties thereafter participated in numerous in person meetings, follow-up 22 exchanges of information, phone calls and written exchanges through the signing of the 23 settlement agreement, to negotiate and reach agreement on all terms and logistics of 24 implementing the settlement terms, including the administration plan presented to the Court for 25 Preliminary Approval.

26 85. The status of UCLA Health’s security enhancements and the evaluation and 27 negotiation of the settlement cybersecurity enhancements with new budget money was a 28 particularly lengthy part of the discussions because the status of UCLA Health’s cybersecurity

22 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 activities changed over the life of this case due to ongoing activity. The settlement proposal 2 evolved to meet current circumstances. This required ongoing documentation, discussions, 3 evaluation, and good faith discussions to stay on track and to agree on the cybersecurity 4 expenditures called for in the settlement.

5 86. The parties diligently worked on a Notice Plan, Notices, Claim Forms, and the 6 other exhibits, as well as the long-form settlement agreement until filing the Motion for 7 Preliminary Approval. Many redlined drafts were exchanged, and an enhanced, notice plan was 8 developed.

9 87. In the late Spring and early Summer of 2017, bids were obtained from several 10 class action administrators and evaluated for terms, prior experience, and price. An 11 administrator was selected, and work was proceeding on finalizing the settlement administration 12 details. However, in May 2018, that initially selected administrator informed counsel that it 13 would not accept certain terms required by The Regents. Counsel immediately solicited a new

14 bidder and an update from a prior bidder. After analysis of the two bids, and further discussions 15 with both, Epiq was selected as the claims administrator on July 12, 2018. The settlement 16 agreement and exhibits were then finalized with input on the settlement notice documents from 17 Epiq.

18 88. The settlement agreement was finalized and signed as of October 22, 2018. 19 Following the first Preliminary Approval hearing some changes were made and a Revised 20 Stipulation of Settlement was filed prior to the February 21 hearing. The requested attorneys’ 21 fees and expenses of $3,275,000 and up to $135,000 respectively, are substantially less in this 22 settlement as compared to other data breach settlements because the parties were able to avoid 23 pleading challenges, motion practice and discovery by resolving disputes with minimal court 24 intervention. When compared to other data breach settlements, the value provided to the 25 Settlement Class is significant, and the fees and costs have been modest.

26 89. Based on my 38 years in practice and 27 years in class action practice and 27 awareness of other data breach settlements, I believe the settlement is also fair, reasonable, and 28 adequate given the risks of obtaining class certification, the risks of succeeding at trial, and the

23 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 expense of continued litigation. Class certification would be complicated by The Regents’ 2 contention that Class Members were not threatened with actual damages, and that Plaintiffs 3 would be unable to prove commonality or an adequate damages model.

4 90. If class certification was granted, there would still be the inherent risks of trial. 5 Proof of Plaintiffs’ case at trial would require expert testimony to establish that The Regents 6 failed to adequately safeguard Class Members’ PII/PHI. Finally, the settlement obviates the risk 7 that Plaintiffs would succeed at trial only to have The Regents significantly delay payment of 8 the judgment by appeal or even overturn the judgment on appeal. This is especially important 9 in data breach cases because time is of the essence. Credit monitoring services are critical as

10 early as possible after a data breach and, by requiring enhanced security now, the proposed 11 settlement will protect the Class Members’ PII/PHI in ways that a later monetary judgment could 12 not.

13 91. The parties reached an agreement in principle on the material terms of the

14 settlement before negotiating on attorneys’ fees and costs.

15 V. THE PROPOSED CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AND PLAINTIFF SERVICE 16 AWARDS

17 92. Service awards for the named Plaintiffs will be sought in amounts of $1,500 for 18 named Plaintiff Theresa Alexandria and $750 for each of the other named Plaintiffs in the 19 Consolidated Actions. Ms. Alexandria’s alleged claims are similar to those of the plaintiffs 20 asserted in the other complaints. The higher service award requested for Plaintiff Alexandria 21 reflects the additional service she rendered on behalf of the Class such as attending settlement 22 mediation and discussing the settlement terms as they evolved with Lead Counsel. She and the 23 other named Plaintiffs stepped forward and were available as proposed class representatives, 24 filed lawsuits and worked with their attorneys as needed throughout the litigation. They also 25 produced their relevant documents and most also participated in detailed interviews by 26 plaintiffs’ leadership counsel to determine their individual facts.

27 93. To the best of my knowledge, no conflicts of interest exist between the proposed 28 Class Representative, Ms. Alexandria, and the Class.

24 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 VI. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR 2 94. As part of the decision-making process, and part of the contract with Epiq to 3 perform the notice and claims administration set forth in the Settlement Agreement, there are 4 security measures to be followed.

5 95. The Court appointed Epiq as the Administrator. Epiq is an established and 6 respected class action administrator and I am informed from our vetting process that some of 7 the Executive Committee Members have successfully worked with Epiq on numerous occasions 8 in the past and supported the retention. As part of confirmatory discovery, I also received 9 confirmation, under oath, from a senior UCLA official that the class information being provided

10 to Epiq, for notice in this case, is inclusive of the data bases considered to have been at risk from 11 the attack and is consistent with the people originally given notice by UCLA after the attack was 12 discovered. For the settlement we also enhanced the notice beyond regular mail to provide for 13 email, and to provide publication notice through electronic or social media means, due to

14 UCLA’s lack of complete mail contact information for a segment of the class, as previously 15 described for preliminary approval.

16 96. I was informed by The Regents’ counsel that UCLA Health does not have email 17 contact information for most of the Class Members. To encourage the submission of claims – 18 and enrollment in the ID Experts Package – the Claims Administrator performed “email 19 appends” to locate current email addresses for as many Class Members as possible. Three emails 20 will be sent to available valid email addresses reminding Class Members of the deadlines to 21 enroll in and claim settlement benefits. In addition, ID Experts will send two emails each to 22 approximately 130,000 people for whom they have viable email addresses out of the 219,000 23 people who previously signed up for UCLA Health’s 2015 ID Experts one-year offer, to inform 24 them of their ability to receive an additional two years of identity and insurance protection. In 25 addition, per the accompanying Declaration of Nathanial J. Wood, UCLA Health also posted 26 news of the settlement on its web page. 27 28

25 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 VII. FEE AGREEMENT, FEES AND EXPENSES 2 97. The Case Management Order of December 9, 2015, Exhibit 18 to the Revised 3 Stipulation of Settlement, provides a case management process for fee allocation. This order 4 was stipulated by counsel for all plaintiffs in all cases. It is not a referral arrangement. My only 5 referral arrangement is with Conal Doyle, the attorney who referred plaintiff Ms. Alexandria to 6 me. The referral was disclosed to Ms. Alexandria and written into the retainer agreement. 7 Ms. Alexandria, Mr. Doyle, and I all signed that agreement. It provides that Mr. Doyle’s referral 8 will be 3 to 5% of my fee.

9 98. As discussed above, attorneys’ fees were a separate negotiation with The Regents 10 that did not take place until after the mediator’s proposal was accepted on the material terms of 11 the settlement. The fees were subsequently and separately negotiated with the assistance of 12 Judge McCoy. An impasse was reached and then resolved through a mediator’s proposal. The 13 plaintiff service awards were not negotiated until after the first mediator’s proposal was accepted

14 to resolve the principle terms of the settlement.

15 99. My firm and the other Plaintiff firms prosecuted this case on a contingent-fee 16 basis with no guarantee of recovery. We incurred 100% of the risk in pursuing this case. Each 17 firm advanced expenses with the understanding we would be paid a fee and receive 18 reimbursement for expenses only if successful.

19 100. The time records were based on contemporaneous time keeping submitted to me 20 during the course of the case by each attorney, paralegal or assistant working on the Litigation. 21 I have personal knowledge of my own firm’s expenses. The expense records are prepared from 22 receipts, check records and other documents, and are an accurate record of the expenses. I 23 reviewed the claimed expenses of the other firms. The purpose of these reviews was to confirm 24 the accuracy of the entries as well as the reasonableness of the expenses. Attached as Exhibit B 25 are the charts created from my fee information and the information provided to me by the other 26 plaintiffs’ counsel, as provided in the Case Management Order, Exhibit 18 to the Revised 27 Stipulation of Settlement. 28

26 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 101. Regarding fees, the Memorandum provides authority on a range of acceptable 2 average rates and shows that this multiplier is at the low end of approved multipliers. Attached 3 as Exhibit B are the charts of my firm’s fees and the fees of the other plaintiff firms that chose 4 to submit them to me under the Case Management Order. As can be seen, the requested fees of 5 $3,275,000 represent a multiplier of 1.35 of the total fees of $2,423,125.85 (for 3,644 total hours) 6 submitted by Class Counsel and the Executive Committee as of April 10, 2019. If all reported 7 lodestar of all Plaintiffs’ Counsel is considered, including the time incurred before the Court 8 entered the Case Management Order, sometimes referred to as “pre-lead time” before counsels’ 9 efforts were fully coordinated or assigned by Interim Lead Counsel, then the total reported fees

10 are $2,894,317.35 (for 4,521 total hours) through April 10, 2019, then the fee request results in 11 a multiplier of just 1.13. I also note that the modest multiplier under either approach will be 12 even smaller by the time of the final approval and fee hearing because of the ongoing time to be 13 spent to administer the notice and claims process. The multiplier is smaller still when taking

14 into account the time that will be required for any further briefing in this case, attending the final 15 approval hearing, and the significant post hearing work, which includes years of claims 16 administration and settlement implementation, monitoring the cyber remediation certifications, 17 determining uses for remaining cyber remediation funds, and continuing to oversee and facilitate 18 the settlement claims administration. In addition, on an ongoing basis since the class notice 19 went out, my firm has been and will continue to be in regular contact with claimants/Class 20 Members who contact us regarding the Settlement. I will also continue to monitor and confer 21 with the Settlement Administrator regarding the claims. and address any issues as they arise. I 22 conservatively estimate that my firm will need to spend at least 75 to 150 hours over the next 23 two-plus years on the above activities, assuming no appeal.

24 102. The fee reports were received on an ongoing basis, and therefore are believed to 25 be (and necessarily are) at historical rates. I am informed based on my follow up 26 communications with counsel in my role as Lead Counsel, that some plaintiffs’ counsel 27 increased rates during the life of the case and applied those increased rates prospectively, but 28 not to prior time. Those rate changes and the related time to which they were applied are

27 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 reflected on the fee chart. I did raise the rates for my Senior Counsel, Ken Remson and myself, 2 for the first time in several years, effective prospectively January 1, 2019, and reflected on the 3 chart.

4 103. The rates reflected through December 2018 for me and Ken Remson, the attorney 5 at my firm, have been the same for several years. They were submitted and were part of 6 approved fees at those rates for me (and Mr. Remson where applicable after he joined the firm) 7 in at least the following cases in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California 8 during the last few years by Judges Selna, Gee and Otero: In Re Broadcom, No. 15-CV-009790 9 JVS (PJWx), Doc. No. 118-1 (Feb. 27, 2017); Stevens v. Quiksilver, Inc., No. 8:15-CV-00516-

10 JVS (JCGx), Doc. No. 61-1 (May 1, 2017); Santore v. Ixia, et al., No. 2:13-CV-08440-DMG 11 (SH), Doc. No. 144 (Aug. 1, 2016); and In re Resonant, No. 2:15-CV-01970-SJO-MRW, Doc. 12 No. 154 (Nov. 22, 2017). While the hourly rates and experience of the other attorneys and firms 13 vary, the other leadership firms in this case (i.e., the six members of the Executive Committee

14 and Liaison Counsel), have all confirmed to me that their fee rates were previously approved by 15 courts at their submitted rates. Further, based on my knowledge of the class action plaintiffs’ 16 bar in California, the rates charged by my firm are in line with the rates charged by other firms 17 that handle class actions of similar size and complexity. In addition, the rates are consistent with 18 rates reported in applicable billing surveys. As discussed in the Memorandum, see a copy of the 19 2015 National Law Journal Billing Rate Survey is attached as Exhibit C.

20 104. Expense items are billed separately, and such charges are not duplicated in my 21 firm’s billing rates. The expenses incurred by my firm are reflected in the books and records of 22 my firm. These books and records are prepared from receipts, check records and other source 23 materials and are an accurate record of the expenses incurred. The following information 24 regarding the time and out-of-pocket expenses is taken from time and expense records prepared 25 and maintained by my firm in the ordinary course of business and submitted to me by the other 26 firms under the direction of the Case Management Order, Rev. Settlement Agreement Exhibit 27 18. The out-of-pocket litigation expenses incurred by the other plaintiffs’ counsel appear 28 routine, and in some instances were directly approved by me, and otherwise appear reasonable.

28 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 The expense of the firms for File & Serve Express was the result of a stipulated Order for use of 2 that service. In my experience, they are also the categories of expenses that have been awarded 3 to my firm and other plaintiff’s counsel in other class action settlements. The out-of-pocket 4 litigation expenses submitted by all plaintiffs’ counsel total $122,913.75 as reflected on the 5 charts for each firm that submitted expenses. See Exhibit D.

6 105. Following is additional information regarding some of these expenses: 7 Filing/Court Fees: These include the filing fee related to the Complaint in this 8 Action and the Related Actions and the filing fees for motions. In reviewing the expenses, I 9 noticed that some firms – such as mine – included filing fees under messenger/attorney services

10 because those attorney services advanced the filing fees. 11 Hearing Transcripts: These costs were incurred for the payment of court 12 reporting services for hearing transcript costs in the Action. 13 Mediation Fees: These costs relate to four full day mediation sessions plus any

14 additional time billed with Judge McCoy at JAMS. The reported amount listed in my expenses 15 reflects the portion paid on behalf of Plaintiffs. The Regents paid the other portion of Judge 16 McCoy’s fee. 17 Expert Fees: We retained John Jorgensen of Sylint as described above for 18 consulting on document requests, document review and cyber remediation settlement terms. 19 Travel, Hotels & Meals: These out-of-town travel costs are in connection with 20 out of town counsel attending hearings. As can be seen, this involved only a few firms and the 21 expense was limited.

22 The Regents agreed to pay up to $135,000 for costs and expenses incurred in the 23 Litigation, and for the Plaintiff service awards. In the Settlement Agreement The Regents also 24 agreed to pay up to $15,000 for future mediation if needed to address claims or cyber 25 remediation. Stip., §4.3.7. Based on the expenses accrued by Plaintiffs’ Counsel through April 26 10, 2019, as reflected in this declaration, including estimated $40 for parking and $450 for one 27 night hotel and travel from San Diego to the Final Approval Hearing, and an invoice for $10,250 28 from our cybersecurity consultant for services to be performed over the next two-plus years to

29 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 monitor compliance with the cybersecurity enhancements and consult regarding for the 2 application of the remaining settlement funds dedicated to future cybersecurity enhancements, 3 Plaintiffs’ Counsel have incurred a total of $122,913.75in out-of-pocket expenses. Of these total 4 expenses, Plaintiffs’ seek reimbursement of $117,750 so that together with the plaintiff service 5 awards, the total sought is $135,000 – the amount The Regents has agreed to pay.

6 VIII. EXPERIENCE, QUALIFICATION AND VIEWS ON THE SETTLEMENT 7 106. My firm acted as Court appointed Interim Lead Class Counsel, and I was actively 8 involved in all proceedings. I am familiar with this litigation and the proposed settlement. The 9 experience of my firm, together with the firms comprising the Executive Committee and Liaison

10 Counsel, helped inform the settlement negotiations in this case. See firm resumes of leadership 11 firms, Ex.A hereto.

12 107. The basis for my opinion is derived from research relating to the filing of the case 13 and issues in the case; discussions with members of the Executive Committee and Liaison

14 Counsel together, in sub-groups, or one on one as circumstances called for their input relating 15 to case strategy and viability of claims; preparation of the consolidated complaint and associated 16 documents; multiple discussions with counsel for Defendant relating to case management, 17 informal exchanges of discoverable information and documents, and settlement negotiations; 18 reviewing and analyzing documents and contracts; conferring with a retained cyber security 19 consultant; participating in settlement negotiations including drafting of mediation statements 20 and attending various meetings relating to mediation including the all-day mediation sessions; 21 drafting of the settlement documents; multiple phone conferences relating to resolution; research 22 about rulings and resolutions in other data breach cases; and the drafting of the declarations in 23 support of preliminary and final approval.

24 108. I believe the proposed settlement is fair reasonable and adequate for a number of 25 reasons. First, this settlement provides real benefits to the class members and compares 26 favorably with recognized and approved terms of other settlements in data breach cases where 27 the actual damages are uncertain, and relief is provided in the form of: a) an insurance and 28 identity theft package; b) access to a claims fund for past and future damages from identity theft;

30 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 and c) significant contractually obligated expenditures for cybersecurity to enhance protection 2 of class member data that continues to reside on the UCLA Health system. See discussion of 3 other settlements in Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Approval 4 of Settlement (“Supplemental Memorandum”) and the comparison chart of settlements attached 5 to this declaration as Exhibit E. Second, The Regents’ detailed analysis of the litigation risks 6 faced by plaintiffs as to both liability and damages is attached to this declaration as Exhibit F. 7 The Regents’ analysis of plaintiffs’ litigation risks was also provided to the Court as Attachment 8 A to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Memorandum for Preliminary Approval. Those are the positions 9 of The Regents that were generally known to me and my co-counsel on the Plaintiffs’ Executive

10 Committee from our research or experience regarding class and privacy litigation or made 11 known to us by The Regents in the course of the litigation. The maximum potential value of the 12 claims asserted in this case was arguably $4.5 billion under the CMIA. That high-end valuation 13 is mitigated by the arguments and defenses that The Regents were asserting, plus the California

14 appellate authority which examined whether the class information would be considered 15 “viewed” by the attackers within the meaning of the CMIA, discussed in the Memorandum. 16 This issue was a significant risk factor because if the data was not considered to be ‘viewed’ 17 within the meaning of applicable authority, the CMIA claim would fail as a source of damages. 18 The Regents ultimately did produce the requested documents. Given that this is a settlement 19 motion, and the case could return to a litigation footing, I do not wish to disclose work product. 20 Publicly available information reveals that this was a stealth attack that lasted for months, and 21 was only discovered as it was concluding, and then investigated largely after the fact. The attack 22 occurred in a system that had certain weaknesses that were exploited. The documents produced 23 revealed that, while I did not necessarily agree with The Regents’ characterizations of the 24 conclusions from the facts and law relating to the attack, there was a mix of knowable and 25 unknowable facts. As in most data breaches, the attackers’ identity is not known, they are not 26 susceptible to subpoena, and it is unlikely that we could obtain documents from them, or anyone, 27 definitively listing what, if any, files they took or ‘viewed.’ Since law enforcement referred to 28 the attackers here as an Advanced Persistent Threat, it is possible they were highly sophisticated

31 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 and acting on behalf of another country. This meant that important aspects of the case would 2 need to be based on the jurors’ willingness to accept and understand significant amounts of 3 circumstantial evidence relating to computer systems outside their daily experience and apply 4 favorable inferences. Those factors would be the challenge if the case even survived: class 5 certification; the immunity and other of The Regents’ legal defenses described in The Regents’ 6 attached analysis of litigation risks, id.; and the ability to put together enough facts and 7 circumstantial evidence to survive summary judgment. Regardless of the validity of these 8 points, and our counterarguments, we needed to take these factors into consideration because 9 there was risk that there could be no recovery at trial or on appeal, or some recovery that would

10 be less favorable than this settlement.

11 109. This case was also going to be a complicated battle of the experts. Our 12 consultant for cyber expertise is John Jorgensen. Mr. Jorgensen was retained early in the case. 13 Co-Counsel and I consulted with him on many occasions on at least the following points:

14 (a) His expertise and background detailed in attached Exhibit G; 15 (b) What documents to request to obtain focused and actionable information 16 to evaluate the case and negotiate and evaluate settlement options;

17 (c) I included him in the small group of people under the stipulated 18 confidentiality order that was entitled to review “Confidential” and “Highly Confidential” 19 documents and conferred with him about each production. Mr. Jorgensen reviewed the 20 document productions and advised me not just on their contents, but on his assessment of what 21 information was missing and should be sought in follow up and whether certain information 22 should be available;

23 (d) To determine the existence of and follow up requests for information 24 efficiently, I consulted him on discussions with The Regents’ counsel about the availability of 25 information and documents, and questions regarding the investigation and information about the 26 breach, and the follow up remediation steps; 27 28

32 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 (e) Mr. Jorgenson wrote and/or reviewed and commented upon my follow up 2 requests for information from The Regents to negotiate and evaluate the settlement discussions 3 as they progressed;

4 (f) Mr. Jorgenson wrote and/or reviewed and commented upon our 5 settlement terms for cyber remediation, including reviewing and commenting on the information 6 and counter proposals, and the final terms of the final Cyber Remediation Protocol, Exhibit 12, 7 incorporated into the settlement; and

8 (g) Mr. Jorgenson reviewed and advised me regarding the more current 9 information about the status of UCLA Health’s cyber remediation that we requested, obtained,

10 reviewed and discussed, before I agreed to the Cyber Remediation Protocol portion of the 11 settlement. As part of the settlement discovery process, The Regents also provided me with a 12 sworn declaration by a senior official that confirmed that I was provided updated information to 13 evaluate the cybersecurity enhancements component of the Settlement.

14 Third, we were also aware of the two California Appellate decisions (one in the Second 15 District) that upheld demurrers disposing of two medical data breach cases at the pleading stage, 16 cited in the accompanying Memorandum. Those two cases addressed the issue of whether there 17 was statutory liability when it could not be known, let alone proved, that the cyber breach 18 resulted in an actual ‘viewing’ of the class member information.

19 110. Fourth, it was also apparent to me that trial of this case would require a battle of 20 cyber security experts and UCLA witnesses providing very technical and/or conflicting 21 testimony about at least: (i) the quality and viability of UCLA Health’s cybersecurity; (ii) an 22 evaluation of what happened, including which databases of class information were accessed; 23 (iii) whether and to what extent data class PII or PHI was exfiltrated based on direct or 24 circumstantial evidence; and (iv) whether or not the information was ‘viewed’ within the 25 meaning of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”). Even if we prevailed at 26 trial, and through appeal, the result would not necessarily be better than the settlement result 27 obtained here, which provides benefits not necessarily obtainable from a trial. 28

33 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

1 111. Fifth, this settlement was reached through negotiation, and multiple in person 2 sessions with the assistance of a highly experienced mediator, the Hon. Charles W. McCoy, ret., 3 a former Supervising Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Courts. In fact, the 4 parties reached an impasse in the lengthy negotiations that was only resolved by a mediator’s 5 proposal from Judge McCoy covering the principal components of the settlement. That proposal 6 did not include attorneys’ fees and costs. Fees, costs and the plaintiff service awards were not 7 negotiated until after the mediator’s proposal was accepted. The fees and costs were a separate, 8 subsequent negotiation, which also resulted in an impasse that was later resolved by another 9 mediator’s proposal from Judge McCoy. The service awards were resolved by agreement.

10 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 11 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 6th day of May 2019, at Los Angeles, California. 12

13

14 Jeff S. Westerman 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

34 Lead Case No. BC589243 00149716 DECL OF JEFF WESTERMAN ISO PLTFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Attachment: Ex. A to Decl of Jeff Westerman ISO Final Approval (Plaintiff Leadership Resumes)

Tina Wolfson, Founding Partner

Ms. Wolfson was born in the former Soviet Union and her family escaped when she was eleven years old. Seven years after her family arrived to the United States as indigent political refugees, without speaking any English, she attended Columbia College and graduated cum laude. She then attended and graduated Harvard Law School cum laude in 1994. Ms. Wolfson began her civil litigation career at the Los Angeles office of Morrison &

Foerster, LLP, where she defended major corporations in complex actions and represented indigent individuals in immigration and deportation trials as part of the firm’s pro bono practice. She then gained further invaluable litigation and trial experience at a boutique firm, focusing on representing plaintiffs on a contingency basis in civil rights and employee

rights cases. In March 1998, Ms. Wolfson and Robert Ahdoot founded AW. AW is a nationally recognized law firm that specializes in complex and class action litigation, with a focus on privacy rights, consumer fraud, anti-competitive business practices, employee rights, defective products, civil rights, and taxpayer rights and unfair practices by municipalities. The attorneys at AW are experienced litigators who have vindicated the rights of millions of class members in protracted, complex litigation, to successful results. AW has been appointed class counsel in numerous class actions, and, as a founding member, Ms. Wolfson has obtained extensive experience in prosecuting complex class actions, with an emphasis on privacy rights. Data Breach and Privacy Rights Class Actions Ms. Wolfson has been prosecuting cutting edge privacy cases on behalf of consumer classes since the late 1990’s. She was among the first group of attorneys who successfully litigated the privacy rights of millions of consumers against major financial institutions (Chase Manhattan Bank, American Express, MBNA America Bank, Discover Bank, and Washington Mutual Bank, among others) based on the compilation and sale of detailed personal financial data to third party telemarketers without the consumers’ consent. While such practices later became the subject of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act regulation, at the time we were prosecuting these cases before the Hon. Richard R. Kramer (Ret.) in the complex Litigation department of San Francisco Superior Court, such practices were hidden from public scrutiny. Ms. Wolfson and AW have extensive experience in leadership roles prosecuting consumer data breach and privacy class actions, including consolidated multidistrict litigation. As co-lead counsel in the Experian Data Breach Litigation, No. 8:15-cv-01592-AG- DFM (C.D. Cal.), (Hon. Andrew J. Guilford), which affected nearly 15 million class members, Ms. Wolfson achieved the preliminarily approved settlement conservatively valued at over $150 Million. Each class member is entitled to two years of additional premium credit monitoring and ID theft insurance (to begin whenever their current credit monitoring product, if any, expires) plus monetary relief (in the form of either documented losses or a default payment for non-documented claims). Experian is also providing robust injunctive relief. At the last CMC, Judge Guilford praised counsel’s efforts, commenting “You folks have truly done a great job, both sides. I commend you.” (Tr. 06/11/18 at 5:14-16.) Ms. Wolfson was recently appointed as co-lead interim class counsel in the Google Location History Litigation, No. 5:18-cv-5062-EJD (N.D. Cal.), a consumer class action arising from Google’s allegedly unlawful collection and use of mobile device location information on all Android and iPhone devices. Ms. Wolfson is currently serving on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Leadership Committee in the Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Sec. Breach Litigation, No. 3:15-cv-2633-SI (D. Or.), arising from a data breach disclosing the sensitive personal and medical information of 11 million Premera Blue Cross members. In The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02583-TWT (N.D. Ga.), Ms. Wolfson served on the consumer PSC, which resulted in a $29 million settlement fund and robust injunctive relief to the consumer class.

In Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794 N.E.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015), Ms. Wolfson and AW were responsible for briefing and arguing the groundbreaking appeal from the trial court’s order granting the Motion to Dismiss on the pleadings based on lack of Article III standing. The Seventh Circuit’s landmark opinion was the first appellate decision issued after the Supreme Court’s decision in Clapper v. Amnesty Intern. USA, 133 S.Ct. 1138

2

(2013). The defense bar has aggressively advocated that Clapper set a more rigorous standard for Article III standing inquiries and required a finding of no standing on behalf of plaintiffs in a data breach case unless plaintiffs were able to show that they suffered unreimbursed fraudulent charges. The Remijas opinion was the first appellate court to reject this view of Clapper and, adopting the plaintiff’s reasoning, established, among other things, that data breach victims have standing to pursue claims based on the increased risk of identity theft and fraud, even before that theft or fraud materializes.

Ms. Wolfson also is serving in leadership and executive committee roles in numerous other class actions arising from data breaches. Gordon v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 1:17- cv-01415-CMA-MLC (D. Colo.) (co-lead counsel for putative consumer class arising from nationwide restaurant data breach; recently reached class action settlement in principle); Adlouni v. UCLA Health Sys. Auxiliary, No. BC589243 (Cal. Super. Ct. Los Angeles Cty. (“LASC”)) (serving on PSC for plaintiff class allegedly impacted by university medical data breach; settlement providing two years of credit monitoring, $2 million fund, and robust injunctive relief recently granted preliminary approval); S.A. v. Wash. State Univ., No. 17-2- 23244-1 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.) (co-lead counsel in consolidated class action arising from data breach of personal information from state research storage facility; class settlement preliminarily approved providing up to $3.25 monetary compensation, credit monitoring and insurance valued at approx. $240/year per claimant, and robust injunctive relief); L.D. v. Torrance Mem’l Med. Ctr., No. BC670591 (LASC) (co-lead counsel in consolidated class action arising from private hospital’s medical data breach); In re: Brinker Data Incident Litig., No. 3:18-cv-686-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla.) (plaintiffs’ counsel in class action arising from data breach of payment card data from Chili’s restaurants). Ms. Wolfson and AW secured a class settlement in the YapStone Data Breach case, No. 4:15-cv-04429-JSW (N.D. Cal.), which included credit monitoring and identity theft services valued at approximately $4.5 million annually in perpetuity, a non-reversionary fund to non- profit organizations, and injunctive relief requiring YapStone to implement substantial data security measures. AW also contributed considerable effort to vetting hundreds of potential class representatives, legal research involving the different state laws in play, the consolidated complaint, and significant discovery efforts in the Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litigation, No. 0:14-md-02522-PAM (D. Minn.), where final approval of a revised settlement agreement was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit. In the U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt. Data Sec. Breach Litigation, No. 1:15-mc-01394-ABJ (D.D.C.), Ms. Wolfson is currently serving on the PSC; the court’s order of dismissal is on appeal to the D.C. Circuit. Ms. Wolfson also served on the Executive Committees in consolidated class actions claiming violations of the

3

California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”). Whitaker v. Health Net, No. 2:11-cv-00910-KJM (E.D. Cal.); Sutter Medical Information Cases, No. JCCP 4698 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty.). Ms. Wolfson and AW also are serving as plaintiffs’ counsel in consumer privacy rights cases involving the right to control the collection and use of biometric information, successfully opposing motions to dismiss based on lack of standing. See, e.g., Rivera v. Google, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-02714 (N.D. Ill.) (order granting summary judgment currently on appeal to the Seventh Circuit). In addition, Ms. Wolfson and AW have served and are serving as plaintiffs’ counsel in class actions enforcing consumer rights under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”). Chimeno-Buzzi v. Hollister Co., No. 1:14-cv-23120-MGC (S.D. Fla.) (class counsel in $10 Million nationwide finally approved settlement); Melito v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-02440-VEC (S.D.N.Y.) ($14.5 million nationwide settlement; final approval currently under appeal); Soukhaphonh v. Hot Topic, Inc., No. 2:16- cv-05124-DMG-AGR (C.D. Cal.) (recently reached class settlement in principle with class certification motion pending). Other Notable Consumer Class Actions In addition to privacy-related class actions, Ms. Wolfson and AW have been appointed lead counsel and achieved excellent results in numerous other complex consumer class actions, conferring hundreds of millions of dollars in damages as well as meaningful change in corporate behavior. In Eck v. City of Los Angeles, No. BC577028 (LASC), AW was appointed class counsel in a $295 million finally-approved settlement in a case alleging that an 8% surcharge on Los Angeles electricity rates was an illegal tax. In Kirby v. McAfee, Inc., No. 14-cv-02475-EJD (N.D. Cal.), AW was appointed co-lead class counsel in a case arising from McAfee’s auto renewal and discount practices; the settlement made $80 million available to the class and required McAfee to notify customers regarding auto-renewals at an undiscounted subscription price and change its policy regarding the past pricing it lists as a reference to any current discount. AW is currently serving as lead counsel in Lavinsky v. City of Los Angeles, No. BC542245 (LASC), a class action alleging the city unlawfully overcharged residents for utility taxes, in which a $51 million class settlement, reached after class certification, was preliminarily approved. In the Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Durability Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, No. 1:16-md-02743-AJT-TRJ (E.D. Va.), AW served as class counsel in a

4

$36 million, finally-approved settlement arising from alleged misrepresentations of laminate flooring durability, which was coordinated with MDL proceedings regarding formaldehyde emissions. In McKnight v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-05615-JST (N.D. Cal.), AW is serving as plaintiffs’ counsel arising from “safe ride” fees charged to Uber customers, in which final approval of a $32.5 million settlement is pending. In Pantelyat v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 1:16-cv-08964-AJN (S.D.N.Y.), AW served as class counsel for plaintiffs in a class action arising from allegedly improper overdraft fees resulting in a $22 million class settlement, representing approximately 80% of total revenues gleaned by the bank’s alleged conduct. In Smith v. Floor & Decor Outlets of America, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-04316-ELR (N.D. Ga.), AW served as plaintiffs’ counsel for a $14 million class settlement arising from alleged toxic emissions from flooring. Ms. Wolfson’s success as class counsel in many other matters include: Skeen v. BMW of North America, LLC, No. 2:13-cv-01531-WHW-CLW (D.N.J.) (arising from MINI Coopers with allegedly defective timing chain; uncapped settlement fund for warranty extension, reimbursement for repairs, and compensation for sale at a loss); In re: Uber FCRA Litig., No. 3:14-cv-05200-EMC (N.D. Cal.) ($7.5 million settlement including injunctive relief guaranteeing Uber’s compliance with FCRA background check requirements); Cassidy v. Reebok International Ltd., No. 2:10-cv-09966-AHM (C.D. Cal.) ($25 million nationwide settlement of apparel false advertising case); Carey v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., Nos. 1:11- cv-10632-LTS & 1:11-cv-10001-LTS (D. Mass.) ($3.7 million nationwide settlement of apparel false advertising case); Pappas v. Naked Juice Co. of Glendora, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-8276- JAK-PLA (C.D. Cal.) ($9 million nationwide settlement, with injunctive relief in the form of product labeling changes, and periodic audits to assure compliance with labeling representations); West v. ExamSoft Worldwide, Inc., No. 14-cv-22950-UU (S.D. Fla.) ($2 million nationwide settlement arising from bar exam software error). When preliminarily approving the class settlement in Trammell v. Barbara’s Bakery, Inc., No. 3:12-cv-02664-CRB (N.D. Cal.) ($4 million nationwide settlement of food false advertising case), the Hon. Charles R. Breyer commented that the settlement was an “excellent settlement” and that both sides did “an excellent job of resolving the case,” doing a “superb job” and presenting “a model of good lawyering on both sides”; when granting final approval to the settlement, Judge Breyer reiterated that the settlement was “very good” and that the case was “quite a successful class action.”

5

AW also is serving as lead and co-lead plaintiffs’ counsel in several cases in which class settlements in principle have been reached and are in the process of memorialization. Kaskorkis v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-00990 (S.D. Cal.) (co-lead plaintiffs’ counsel in a “false discount” class action involving products for sale on the GNC website); Alvarez v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 2:18-cv-8605-JVS-SS (C.D. Cal.) (lead plaintiffs’ counsel in a breach of contract class action alleging that Sirius did not honor its lifetime subscriptions; class settlement reached while plaintiffs’ appeal of trial court order granting Sirius’s motion to compel arbitration was pending); Hindsman v. General Motors, LLC, No. 3:17-cv-5337-JSC (N.D. Cal.) (co-lead plaintiffs’ counsel in a vehicle defect class action). In the Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, No. 5:18-md-2827-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Ms. Wolfson is serving on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in a class action arising from Apple’s alleged practice of deploying software updates to iPhones that deliberately degraded the devices’ performance and battery life. This consolidated class action includes claims from named plaintiffs residing in all fifty states, as well as plaintiffs from U.S. Territories and numerous international countries. Civil Rights Cases Ms. Wolfson and AW also serve as plaintiffs’ counsel in important civil rights cases. Novoa v. The Geo Group, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-2514-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.) (challenging private prison’s alleged practices of forced labor against immigration detainees); Williams v. City of New York, No. 1:17-cv-2303-RJD-SM (E.D.N.Y.) (challenging allegedly unconstitutional prison conditions at Rikers Island and other facilities in New York State). Speaking Engagements and Public Service Ms. Wolfson frequently lectures on numerous class action topics across the country. Her notable speaking engagements include: Class Action Mastery Forum at the University of San Diego School of Law (Data Breach/Privacy Class Action Panel), January 2019; HarrisMartin: “‘Just the Facts’: The Equifax Breach – Pre-Breach Events and Post-Breach Responses,” November 2017, Atlanta (Co-Chair); Association of Business Trial Lawyers: “Navigating Class Action Settlement Negotiations and Court Approval: A Discussion with the Experts,” Los Angeles May 2017, featuring Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez and Hon. Jay C. Gandhi;

6

American Conference Institute: “2nd Cross-Industry and Interdisciplinary Summit on Defending and Managing Complex Class Actions,” April 2017, New York: Class Action Mock Settlement Exercise featuring the Hon. Anthony J. Mohr; CalBar Privacy Panel: “Privacy Law Symposium: Insider Views on Emerging Trends in Privacy Law Litigation and Enforcement Actions in California,” Los Angeles Mar. 2017 (Moderator), featuring Hon. Kim Dunning; Federal Bar Association: N.D. Cal. Chapter “2016 Class Action Symposium,” San Francisco Dec. 2016 (Co-Chair), featuring Hon. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. and Hon. Susan Y. Illston; Federal Bar Association: “The Future of Class Actions: Cutting Edge Topics in Class Action Litigation,” San Francisco Nov. 2015 (Co-Chair & Faculty), featuring Hon. Jon S. Tigar and Hon. Laurel Beeler; an HarrisMartin: Data Breach Litigation Conference: The Coming of Age – “The First Hurdles: Standing and Other Motion to Dismiss Arguments,” March 2015, San Diego.

Ms. Wolfson currently serves as a Lawyer Representative for the Ninth Circuit (Central District of California), on the Federal Litigation Section of the Federal Bar Association, and on the Board of Public Justice.

7

501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 | San Diego, CA 92101 T | 619.338.1100 F | 619.338.1101 www.bholaw.com

FIRM RESUME

Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, LLP focuses in the nationwide prosecution of complex class actions. The firm represents the interests of consumers, insurance policy holders and investors in state and federal trial and appellate courts throughout the country. The principals of Blood Hurst & O’Reardon come from a large firm that represented plaintiffs in class action litigation, where they formed the core of the consumer and insurance practice group. Blood Hurst & O’Reardon’s principals have been appointed lead counsel and have held other leadership positions in a wide variety of class action matters.

Timothy G. Blood

Mr. Blood is the firm’s managing partner. His practice has focused on complex litigation, including class action litigation, since the early 1990’s. Mr. Blood has tried class action cases and is highly regarded in the field of consumer protection law, including California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Mr. Blood has represented millions of retail consumers, holders of life, automobile and homeowner insurance policies, data breach victims, mortgagors, credit card customers, homeowners, and victims of race discrimination. He practices in both state and federal courts throughout the country and has represented the interests of consumers formally or informally before the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Administration, the California Department of Justice, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office and the California Department of Insurance. He has worked with the Federal Trade Commission to obtain record setting recoveries for consumers. In In re Skechers Toning Shoes Prods. Liab. Litig. (W.D. Ky.), Mr. Blood’s work with the Federal Trade Commission resulted in the largest consumer recovery in a false advertising action in FTC history. Other large and record-setting recoveries for consumers include a $3.4 billion settlement in 2017 for owners of certain Toyota vehicles and the largest false advertising recovery in the history of the food industry.

Since 2010, some of Mr. Blood’s court-appointed leadership positions include: Court appointed lead counsel in Warner v. Toyota Motor Sales (C.D. Cal); Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) counsel in In re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Prods. Mktg., Sales Practices, and Prods. Liability Litig. (D.N.J.); Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) counsel in Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp. (N.D. Cal.); Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) Class Counsel in Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (N.D. Cal.); Executive Committee member in Snyder v. the Regents of the University of California, JCCP No. 589243 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cnty., Hon. John Shepard Wiley, Jr.); Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) Class Counsel in Rikos v. The Procter & Gamble Co., (S.D. Ohio; Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) Class Counsel in Godec v. Bayer Corp. (N.D. Ohio); Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) Class Counsel in Johns v. Bayer Corp. (S.D. Cal.); Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) Class Counsel in In re Skechers Toning Shoes Prods. Liab. Litig. (W.D. Ky.); Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel and Steering Committee member by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in the multidistrict litigation In re Sony Gaming Networks and Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.; Class Counsel by the district court for the District of Massachusetts in In re Reebok Easytone Litig.; Class Counsel in Serochi v. Bosa Dev. Cal. by the San Diego Superior Court; Co-Lead Class Counsel by the Los Angeles Superior Court in In re Toyota Motor Cases, (Toyota Unintended Acceleration Consolidated Litigation); Co-Lead Class - 1 -

Counsel by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in the multidistrict litigation In re Hydroxycut Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig,; Co-Lead Class Counsel by the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Johnson v. Gen. Mills, Inc.; Co-Lead Class Counsel by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in Gemeles v. The Dannon Co.; Co-Lead Class Counsel by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in Hartless v. Clorox Co.; and Class Counsel by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Smith v. Wm. Wrigley, Jr. Co.

Mr. Blood has litigated many data breach privacy actions, including leading as Co- Liaison Counsel and member of the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee In re Sony Gaming Networks and Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL 2258 (S.D. Cal.), one of the largest data breach cases at the time. He represents plaintiffs in Patton v. Experian Data Corp., No. SACV 15-1871 JVS (C.D. Cal.), a multi-state data breach notification action against a leading consumer credit reporting and data aggregation company and is a member of the Plaintiff’s Executive Committee in Snyder v. the Regents of the University of California, JCCP No. 589243 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cnty, among others. Mr. Blood has also drafted legislation aimed at modernizing data breach and related privacy laws in California and worked with the California Assembly and Senate to pass those bills into law.

Mr. Blood has acted as lead counsel in a number of “functional food” false advertising class actions, including cases against General Mills and The Dannon Company filed in federal courts around the country. The Dannon litigation resulted in the largest settlement in food industry history for false advertising.

He was lead trial counsel in Lebrilla v. Farmers Ins. Grp., Inc. (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cnty.) a multistate class action which settled on terms favorable to the class after a month long trial and just before closing arguments. He was also co-lead trial counsel in In re Red Light Photo Enf’t Cases (Cal. Super. Ct. San Diego Cnty.), an action brought on behalf of California motorists.

Mr. Blood has represented millions of purchasers of food, food supplements and over- the-counter drugs arising out of various advertising claims made by manufacturers and retailers. He has also represented owners of motor vehicles in product liability cases and consumer credit and mortgage borrowers against a number of major lending institutions, including Bank of America, Washington Mutual, Countrywide, GMAC and Wells Fargo.

Mr. Blood has wide-ranging experience litigating against life, auto and other insurance carriers on behalf of consumers. His experience litigating against life insurance companies includes representing owners, holders and beneficiaries of industrial life insurance in race discrimination cases (with class periods dating back to the late 1800’s). He also represented those holding traditional life insurance policies in market conduct actions such as the “vanishing premium” life insurance actions. Mr. Blood was responsible for one of only two litigated cases where classes where certified in the vanishing premium series of cases. He was one of the few plaintiffs’ attorneys to obtain class-wide recoveries in the “imitation parts” automobile insurance actions. Insurance companies against whom Mr. Blood has litigated include the American General companies, Farmers Insurance Group of companies, Mercury Insurance Group, Allstate, - 2 -

State Farm, Great Southern Life, Metropolitan Life, United Life Insurance Company, Midland National Life Insurance Company and General American Insurance Company.

Mr. Blood has also represented consumers in traditional false advertising actions, those victimized by so-called “negative option” sales practices, and owners of a variety of different types of faulty computer equipment and software from manufacturers. Some of these retailers and manufacturers include Apple, Dell, IBM, Procter & Gamble, General Mills, The Dannon Company, Bayer, AG, Bosa Development, Kellogg Company and General Dynamics.

Mr. Blood has been involved in many precedent-setting appellate decisions in areas which include consumer and insurance law and class action procedure. These appellate decisions include: Kuhns v. Scottrade, Inc., 868 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2017)(first 8th Circuit decision finding Article III standing in a data breach case); Rikos v. The Procter & Gamble Co., 799 F.3d 497 (6th Cir. 2015) (class certification) cert. denied, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 2244 (U.S. Mar. 28, 2016); Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 728 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2013) (consumer protection and banking); Fitzpatrick v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 635 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2011) (class certification, consumer law and false advertising); Westwood Apex v. Contreras, 644 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2011) (CAFA jurisdiction); Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct. (Benson), 51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) (consumer law and false advertising); Martinez v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 598 F.3d 549 (9th Cir. 2010) (banking and preemption); Troyk v. Farmers Grp., Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 1305 (2009) (insurance law); Haw. Med. Ass’n v. Haw. Med. Serv. Ass’n, 148 P.3d 1179 (Haw. 2006) (health insurance); McKell v. Wash. Mut. Bank, Inc., 142 Cal. App. 4th 1457 (2006) (banking law and consumer law); Santiago v. GMAC Mortg. Grp., Inc., 417 F.3d 384 (3d Cir. 2005) (consumer and banking law); Lebrilla v. Farmers Grp., Inc., 119 Cal. App. 4th 1070 (2004) (automobile insurance and class action procedure); Moore v. Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 267 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1018 (2002) (life insurance and civil rights); Kruse v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 383 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2004) (consumer and banking law); and Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal. App. 4th 496 (2003) (consumer law and false advertising).

Mr. Blood has testified before the California State Assembly and State Senate Judiciary Committees, as well as the Assembly and Senate Committees on Banking, Finance & Insurance. He has worked at both the state and federal level with lawmakers and government agencies to shape legislation to protect consumer rights, including lobbying on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and working to defeat a California state ballot initiative designed to weaken the class action device.

Mr. Blood is a frequent continuing legal education speaker on topics which include complex litigation, class action procedure, data breach and privacy litigation, consumer fraud, false advertising, financial fraud litigation and insurance litigation. He has been an invited speaker for American Bar Association practice groups, the Practicing Law Institute, University of California at Irvine School of Law; University of San Diego School of Law, University of Arizona Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law, Loyola Law School, Chapman University School of Law; the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the American Association of Justice, Consumer Attorneys of California, ALI-ABA, the Practising Law Institute, Bridgeport Continuing Education, Law Seminars International, and the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, for which he has chaired multi-day seminars on class action litigation. - 3 -

Mr. Blood is frequently consulted by the media. He has appeared on Good Morning America, ABC World News Tonight, and major network affiliates on behalf of his clients. He has been interviewed for stories featuring consumer rights issues and his cases by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Reuters, the Associated Press, The Los Angeles Times, National Public Radio, the Daily Journal, Adweek, the Los Angeles Daily News, CNBC, Fox News, the Korean Broadcasting Service and others.

Mr. Blood is a member of the Board of Directors of the Consumer Attorneys of California and a member of its executive board from 2014 to 2016. He was the 2015 President of the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego and a member of the CASD Foundation, a charitable giving non-profit. He was awarded the 2018 Consumer Advocate of the Year by Consumer Attorneys of San Diego; In 2007, he was a finalist for the Consumer Attorneys of California Lawyer of the Year award for his trial work in a multistate class action against Farmers Insurance. He has been named a “Super Lawyer” since 2006 and has achieved an “AV” rating by Martindale Hubbell. In 2014, Mr. Blood was named a “Titan of the Plaintiff’s Bar” by the national legal publication Law360. Mr. Blood was elected a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation. Mr. Blood is also the Legislative Column Editor for Trial Bar News. Mr. Blood is also a founding member of the San Diego ESI Forum, a group of judges and lawyers devoted to teaching legal professionals in federal and state court about electronic discovery.

Mr. Blood was a founding partner of the firm now known as Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP.

Mr. Blood is admitted to practice in the state of California, as well as the U.S Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeal for the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, Central and Southern Districts of California, the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Eastern District of Michigan. Before starting Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, Mr. Blood was a partner in Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP and a founding partner in the firm now known as Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP. Mr. Blood received his Juris Doctor from George Washington University in 1990 and his Bachelor of Arts with honors in Economics from Hobart College in 1987.

Leslie E. Hurst

Ms. Hurst is a co-founding partner of the firm. Prior to founding the firm, Ms. Hurst was a partner in Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP and an associate at Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP.

Her practice has focused on complex class action lawsuits, including federal multi-district litigation and California Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings, with an emphasis on consumer fraud and insurance cases under California’s consumer protection statutes.

Ms. Hurst works in a number of practice areas, including areas focusing on cases against: (1) life insurers for misrepresenting the terms of vanishing premium life insurance; (2) auto insurers for repairs with non-OEM parts, diminished value claims and improper collection of - 4 -

installment service charges; (3) financial institutions for a variety of conduct; (4) insurance companies for race-based discrimination in the sale of small value “industrial” or “burial” insurance policies; (5) consumer goods manufacturers for false and deceptive advertising; (6) real estate developers for fraud and false advertising; and (7) improper collection and over collection of fees from residents by the City of Los Angeles.

The most recent settlements on which Ms. Hurst was instrumental include: Serochi v. Bosa Dev. (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cnty.), ($16.75 million settlement to condominium purchasers for square footage misrepresentations by the developer); Chakhalyan v. City of Los Angeles (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cnty.), (full refunds of overcharges and a revamping of L.A. billing practices); Hartless v. Clorox Co. (S.D. Cal.) (nationwide settlement in excess of $10 million that provided 100% recovery of damages to class members); In re Enfamil LIPIL Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig. (S.D. Fla.) (nationwide settlement in excess of $8 million involving false advertising of infant formula); In re Skechers Toning Shoes Prods. Liab. Litig. (W.D. Ky.) (nationwide settlement of $45 million); Weight v. The Active Network, Inc. (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cnty.) (full refunds plus a multiplier); Bransford v. City of Los Angeles (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cnty.) (full refunds).

Ms. Hurst is also instrumental in the firm’s appellate practice. She has argued before the Second, Eighth and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal and before California Courts of Appeal. She obtained reversals of the trial courts in Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (9th Cir.), in Goodman v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (Cal. 2d DCA), and in Guerra v. San Diego Gas & Elec. (Cal. 4th DCA). Ms. Hurst also briefs mosts of the firms appeals including Rikos v. The Procter & Gamble Co. (6th Cir.); In re Enfamil LIPIL Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig. (11th Cir.); Hartless v. Clorox Co. (9th Cir.); Garcia v. Sony Comput. Entm’t (9th Cir.); Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (9th Cir.), various SLUSA appeals in the 2nd, 8th and 9th Circuits, and Sonner v. Schwabe International (9th Cir.).

Between 2003 and 2005, Ms. Hurst took a sabbatical from law and moved to Sri Lanka where she worked for CARE International as the Coordinator for Strategic Planning with an emphasis on development of CARE’s long-term strategic plan for the conflict-affected areas.

Ms. Hurst is admitted to practice in the state of California, as well as the United States Courts of Appeal for the Second, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, Central and Southern Districts of California. Ms. Hurst received her Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1995. She earned her Master of Arts degree in Sociology from the University of California, Berkeley and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology (cum laude) from the University of San Diego. Ms. Hurst is an active member of the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, and Consumer Attorneys of California.

Thomas J. O’Reardon II

Mr. O’Reardon is a co-founding partner of the firm. His practice focuses exclusively on complex class action lawsuits involving consumer fraud, insurance fraud and antitrust violations. Mr. O’Reardon received his Juris Doctor degree from the University of San Diego School of - 5 -

Law and his Bachelor of Arts degree in Politics from Wake Forest University. He is admitted to practice in the state of California, as well as the United States Courts of Appeal for the Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, Central and Southern Districts of California and the Northern District of Illinois.

Prior to founding the firm, Mr. O’Reardon was an associate at Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP. There, Mr. O’Reardon worked on numerous complex class action litigation matters, including actions involving: annuity policies marketed and sold to senior citizens; insurer kickbacks known as “contingent commissions” in the property and casualty insurance brokerage industry; Sherman Act claims against the world’s largest manufacturers of random access memory for computers; invasions of credit card holder’s rights of privacy; false and deceptive advertising of consumer goods and wireless telephone services; automobile insurers’ unlawful practices with respect to installment pay plans; and dangerous and defective products, including recalled children’s toys. He was also part of the team representing the California Department of Insurance against five of the largest employee benefit insurance companies for violations relating to their failure to disclose payments of contingent commissions to brokers. As a result of the action, all five defendants agreed to sweeping changes in their disclosure practices.

Some of the actions on which Mr. O’Reardon has worked include: Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp. (N.D. Cal.) (certified class action involving false advertising of Joint Juice glucosamine and chondroitin supplement); Rikos v. The Proctor & Gamble Co. (S.D. Ohio) (certified class action involving false advertising of P&G’s Align probiotic, affirmed by the Sixth Circuit); In re Skechers Toning Shoes Prods. Liab. Litig. (W.D. Ky.) (nationwide settlement of $45 million involving false advertising of Skechers’ Shape-ups toning shoes products); In re Reebok Easytone Litig. (D. Mass.) (nationwide settlement of $25 million involving false advertising of Reebok toning footwear and apparel products); Murr v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (E.D. Va.) (nationwide settlement in excess of $7.3 million involving 0% APR billing practices); Dolfo v. Bank of Am. (S.D. Cal.) (certified class action involving mortgage modification banking practices); Johnson v. Gen. Mills, Inc. (C.D. Cal.) (certified class action involving false advertising of General Mills’ YoPlus yogurt, which resulted in a nationwide settlement of $8.5 million); Fitzpatrick v. Gen. Mills, Inc. (S.D. Fla.) (certified class action reviewed and approved by the Eleventh Circuit); Johns v. Bayer Corp. (S.D. Cal.) (certified class action involving false advertising of Bayer’s One-A-Day multivitamins); Godec v. Bayer Corp. (N.D. Ohio) (certified class action involving false advertising of Bayer’s One-A-Day multivitamins, which settled on a classwide basis); Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (N.D. Cal.) (certified class action involving mortgage modification practices where order granting motion to dismiss was reversed by the Ninth Circuit in a published opinion); Rosales v. FitFlop USA LLC (S.D. Cal.) (nationwide settlement of $5.3 million involving false advertising of toning footwear); Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) (nationwide settlement valued in excess of $180 million involving monopoly price increases arising out of the merger between Sirius and XM); In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Cal.) (settlement of more than $300 million); In re Mattel, Inc .[Toy Lead Paint Prods. Liab. Litig.] (C.D. Cal.) (nationwide settlement valued at over $50 million); Gemelas v. Dannon Co., Inc. (N.D. Ohio) (nationwide settlement in excess of $45 million involving false advertising of Dannon’s Activia

- 6 -

and DanActive yogurt products); In re Enfamil LIPIL Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig. (S.D. Fla.) (certified class action involving false advertising of infant formula, which resulted in nationwide settlement in excess of $8 million); Smith v. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. (S.D. Fla.) (nationwide settlement in excess of $7 million involving false advertising of Wrigley Eclipse chewing gum and mints); Duffer v. Chattem, Inc. (S.D. Cal.) (nationwide settlement of up to $1.8 million involving false advertising of ACT Total Care mouthwash); In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. (S.D. Tex.) (settlements of $7.3 billion); AOL Time Warner Cases (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cnty.) (settlements of approximately $630 million); Morris v. CBS Broad., Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) (nationwide settlement on behalf of purchasers of asbestos-laden children’s toys); In re Aqua Dots Prods. Liab. Litig. (N.D. Ill.) (multidistrict litigation on behalf of purchasers of more than 4 million toxic children’s toys); Berry v. Mega Brands, Inc. (D.N.J.) (litigation on behalf of purchasers of more than 10 million lethal children’s toys); In re Toyota Motor Cases, (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cnty.) (litigation on behalf of consumers who purchased vehicles subject to “sudden unintended acceleration”); and In re Hydroxycut Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig. (S.D. Cal.) (multidistrict litigation on behalf of purchasers of unsafe and ineffective weight-loss products, which resulted in a nationwide settlement valued in excess of $20 million). With the exception of the Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio. Inc. litigation, Mr. O’Reardon and/or his firm served as court- appointed Lead or Co-Lead Counsel in each of the above-mentioned class actions. In granting final settlement approval, which included appointing Mr. O’Reardon as Class Counsel, the Court’s order in the Johnson v. Gen. Mills. Inc. (C.D. Cal.) action states that Mr. O’Reardon is “vastly experienced” in consumer class action litigation.

Mr. O’Reardon is an active member of the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, the Consumer Attorneys of California, and a founding member of the CAOC Young Lawyers Division. In 2014-2017, Mr. O’Reardon was named a “Super Lawyers Rising Star,” a designation provided to less than 2.5 percent of lawyers in California. He has also been a member of, and contributing author for, The Sedona Conference Working Group on Electronic Document Retention and Production. Mr. O’Reardon has been an invited speaker for the University of San Diego School of Law, Consumer Attorneys of California, the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, and the San Diego ESI Forum on topics which include complex litigation, electronic discovery, and the class action settlement process.

Paula R. Brown

Ms. Brown is a partner with the firm. Her practice focuses on complex class action litigation, including consumer and antitrust cases in federal multi-district litigation and California Judicial Council Coordinated Proceedings. Ms. Brown has tried class action cases and is also involved in the firm’s appellate practice.

Ms. Brown received her Juris Doctor degree and graduated cum laude from California Western School of Law in 2007 and earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from the University of Washington in 2004. While at California Western, Ms. Brown was a member of the California Western Law Review and authored Parent-Child Relationship Trumps Biology: California’s Definition of Parent in the Context of Same-Sex Relationships, 43 Cal. W. L. Rev. 235 (2006). She is admitted to practice in the state of California, as well as the United States Courts of Appeal for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the - 7 -

Northern, Eastern, Central and Southern Districts of California and the Northern District of Illinois.

Prior to joining Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, Ms. Brown was an associate at the law firm now known as Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd, LLP. While there, she represented plaintiffs in a number of complex class action litigation matters involving: price-fixing claims against the world’s largest aftermarket auto lighting parts manufacturers and distributors; monopoly claims against the largest seller of portable media players; price fixing claims against containerboard manufacturers; race-discrimination claims against mortgage lenders; and false and deceptive practices in the sale of defective children’s products and toys.

Some of the actions on which Ms. Brown has worked include: In re: Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation (D.N.J.) (nationwide false advertising); Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp. (N.D. Cal.) (certified class action involving false advertising); Huntzinger v. Aqua Lung America, Inc. et al. (S.D. Cal.) (nationwide false advertising); Medellin v. Ikea U.S. West, Inc. (Cal Super. Ct., San Diego Cnty.) (consumer protection claims); Serochi v. Bosa Dev. (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cnty.) (misrepresentations case); Dennis v. Kellogg Co. (nationwide false advertising); In re Skechers Toning Shoes Prods. Liab. Litig. (W.D. Ky.) (nationwide false advertising); In re Reebok Easytone Litig. (D. Mass.) (nationwide false advertising); Dremak v. Urban Outfitters, Inc. (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cnty.) (consumer privacy); In re Sony Gaming Networks and Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig. (S.D. Cal.) (consumer privacy); In re Hydroxycut Mkt. and Sales Practices Litig. (S.D. Cal.) (false advertising); In re Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Cal.) (monopoly claims); In re Mattel, Inc. [Toy Lead Paint Prods. Liab. Litig.] (C.D. Cal.) (nationwide sale of defective product); In re Aftermarket Auto. Lighting Prods. Antitrust Litig. (C.D. Cal.) (price fixing); Payares v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. (C.D. Cal.); Salazar v. Greenpoint Mortg. (N.D. Cal.); Puello v. Citifinancial (D. Mass.); Morris v. CBS Broad., Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) (defective product); In re Aqua Dots Prods. Liab. Litig. (N.D. Ill.) (defective product); and Berry v. Mega Brands, Inc. (D.N.J.) (defective product).

Ms. Brown is an active member of the Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, the Consumer Attorneys of California, the American Bar Association, and the American Association for Justice. In 2015, 2016, and 2017, Ms. Brown was named a “Super Lawyers Rising Star,” a designation provided to less than 2.5 percent of lawyers in California. Ms. Brown is a member of the Board of Directors of the Consumer Attorneys of California and is active in the Louis M. Welsh American Inn of Court.

Jennifer L. MacPherson

Ms. MacPherson is of counsel with the firm. Her practice focuses on complex class action litigation. Ms. MacPherson received her Juris Doctor degree from the University of San Diego School of Law in 1997 with a J.D. and an L.L.M in tax and earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in International Business and Marketing from the University of Hawaii in 1994. During law school she was a summer law clerk to the Honorable Walter S. Kirimitsu (Ret.) in the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals and was a research assistant to Professor C. Hugh Friedman author of California Practice Guide: Corporations. She is a member of the California - 8 -

Bar and is licensed to practice before the United States District Courts for the Central, Southern and Northern Districts of California.

For over a decade Ms. MacPherson has prosecuted class actions on behalf of consumers, policyholders, investors, employees, and medical practitioners against the nation’s largest retailers and manufacturers of consumer products, insurers of homes and automobiles, banks, and employers for violations of federal and state consumer, antitrust, securities and labor laws. During this time she has actively litigated complex class action litigation matters involving: false and deceptive advertising by one of the nation’s largest retail mall chains for selling gift cards subject to a monthly service fee in violation of state law; truth in lending claims against a national bank for suspending borrower’s home equity lines of credit; breach of contract claims against national lenders for failing to modify borrower’s home loans after successful completion of a trial period plan; product defect claims against the world’s largest manufacturers of laptops and cell phones; RICO claims against the nation’s largest health insurance companies for denying, delaying and reducing payments to health care providers nationwide; privacy claims against national pharmacies for allegedly using prescription information to conduct targeted marketing campaigns on behalf of drug companies; data breach lawsuits against national banks and retailers for failing to properly safeguard consumer’s personal information.

Some of these actions include: Solomon v. Anthem, Inc. (S.D. Fla.); In re Sony VAIO Comput. Notebook Trackpad Litig. (S.D. Cal.); Horvath v. LG Elecs. MobileComm U.S.A., Inc., (S.D. Cal.); Kazemi v. Westfield Am., Inc. (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cnty.); Frost v. LG Elecs. Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cnty.); Shamrell v. Apple, Inc. (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cnty.).

Craig W. Straub

Mr. Straub is an associate with the firm. Mr. Straub’s practice involves prosecuting all types of consumer fraud in complex class action litigation, with a particular focus on false advertising of consumer products as well as complex contract and intellectual property disputes between international corporations. He graduated magna cum laude from California Western School of Law and earned his Bachelor of Sciences degree from Texas A&M University. While at California Western School of Law, Mr. Straub received an Academic Merit Scholarship and a Wiley W. Manuel Pro Bono Services Award. Mr. Straub is a registered patent attorney with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He brings substantial experience in complex litigation including projects at DLA Piper, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, LLP, Cooley LLP, and other nationally recognized firms. He has been a member of the California Bar since 2007.

Mr. Straub performed significant work on behalf of Plaintiffs in the following actions: Warner v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A, Inc. (C.D. Cal.) ($3.4 billion settlement for owners of certain Toyota vehicles); Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp. (N.D. Cal.) (certified class action involving false advertising of Joint Juice glucosamine and chondroitin supplement); Rikos v. The Proctor & Gamble Co. (S.D. Ohio) (certified class action involving false advertising of P&G’s Align probiotic, affirmed by the Sixth Circuit); Terry v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A (S.D. Cal.) ($4.3 million settlement fund for the Class alleging unfair debt collection practices); Huntzinger - 9 -

v. Aqua Lung America, Inc. et al. (S.D. Cal.) (nationwide false advertising); Yamagata and Pelardis v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC (N.D. Cal.) (California and New York false advertising).

Aleksandr J. Yarmolinets

Mr. Yarmolinets is an associate with the firm. His practice focuses on complex class action litigation, including consumer, securities, and banking-related cases in federal multi- district litigation. Mr. Yarmolinets holds a Master of Laws degree in Securities and Financial Regulation from Georgetown University Law Center, and a juris doctor degree from California Western School of Law, cum laude.

Mr. Yarmolinets is a Certified Fraud Examiner and is admitted to practice law in the States of California and New York, as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the United States Tax Court, and the United States District Courts for the Central and Southern Districts of California. Mr. Yarmolinets also represented clients in FINRA’s Arbitration and Mediation program.

Before joining the firm, Mr. Yarmolinets represented clients in complex securities and commercial litigation, structured and advised clients in capital formation and other complex transactions and served as an outside general counsel to numerous companies across various industries, including transportation, manufacturing, and health care.

While at law school, Mr. Yarmolinets was a distinguished advocate and competed in several national, invitation only moot court trial competitions. Before graduating law school, he interned at the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the California Department of Business Oversight, and the San Diego County Airport Authority.

- 10 -

CURRICULUM VITAE

RAYMOND PAUL BOUCHER, ESQ. BOUCHER LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, California 91367 Tel. (818) 340-5400 | Fax (818) 340-5401 [email protected] | www.boucher.la EDUCATION Pepperdine University School of Law, Malibu, California Distinguished Alumnus Award (2002). Juris Doctorate (1984). Ranked in top fifteen percent of class. Moot Court (first place petitioner brief). Phi Delta Phi honor society. Whittier College School of Law, Costa Mesa, California Honorary Doctor of Law (2005). Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado Master of Science in Management (1981). Graduate assistant. Sigma Iota Epsilon honor society. Fort Lewis College, Durango, Colorado Alumnus of the Year (2007). Bachelor of Arts (1979). Double Major, Business Administration and Political Science. Student Body President. Dean’s List.

ADMISSIONS State Courts of California; United States District Courts for the Central, Northern, Southern, and Eastern Districts of California

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Boucher LLP, Woodland Hills, California Partner (2014 to Present) Khorrami Boucher LLP, Los Angeles, California Member (2013 to 2014) Kiesel, Boucher & Larson LLP, Beverly Hills, California Partner (1999 to 2013) Law Offices of Raymond P. Boucher, Tarzana, California Partner (1990 to present) Nordstrom, Steele, Nicolette & Jefferson, Los Angeles, California Attorney of Counsel (1993 to 1996) Sayre, Moreno, Purcell & Boucher, Los Angeles, California Managing Partner (1985 to 1990) Gould & Sayre, Santa Monica, California Attorney at Law (1984 to 1985)

Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 2

AFFILIATIONS AND SELECTED LEGAL INVOLVEMENT American Association for Justice, Member American Bar Association, Admitted as a Fellow of the American Bar Association of Trial Lawyers of America State of California Delegate Member Beverly Hills Bar Association, Member California Courts, Administrative Office of the Courts (2002 to 2007) Committees: Court Funding, Complex Courts System, Court Integration California State Bar Association, Member Civil Justice Foundation, Member Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles Formerly the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association President (2005) Board of Governors, Emeritus Member (2005 to present) Board of Governors, Member (1996 to 2006) Consumer Attorneys of California Formerly the California Trial Lawyers Association President (2007) Board of Governors (1997 to present) Consumer Attorneys of San Diego (2001 to present) Consumer Advocate of the Year (2007) Diversity in Law Foundation, Board of Directors Los Angeles County Bar Association Board of Trustees (2000 to 2002) Los Angeles Superior Court Bench and Bar Committee (2001 to 2008) Make a Wish Foundation, Ambassador National College of Advocacy, Fellow Orange County Bar Association, Member Orange County Trial Lawyers Association, Member Pepperdine School of Law Board of Visitors (1997 to present) Public Citizen, Member Public Justice, Board of Directors Formerly Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Board of Directors (1996 to present) Member (1984 to present) The Roscoe Pound Foundation, Member

00027041.1 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 3

SELECTED AWARDS AND HONORS Trial Lawyer of the Decade (2001-2010) Los Angeles Daily Journal American Association for Justice Steven J. Sharp Public Service Award (2008) California Lawyer Magazine California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) Award (2008) Consumer Attorneys of Los Angeles Trial Lawyer of the Year (2007) Ted Horn Memorial Award in recognition of service to the California State Bar (2002) Finalist, Trial Lawyer of the Year (1996) Several Presidential Awards for Outstanding Contribution to the Trial Bar Consumer Attorneys of California Consumer Attorney of the Year (2007) Legislative Champion Award (2002) Several Presidential Awards of Merit Consumer Attorneys of San Diego David S. Casey, Jr. Consumer Advocate Award (2006) California League of Conservation Voters Environmental Leadership Award (2005) for dedication to the environment and for fostering the public health rights of individuals Fort Lewis College, Durango, Colorado Alumnus of the Year (2007) Lawdragon Named one of 500 Leading Lawyers in America (2009-2011) Los Angeles Daily Journal Law Business Named one of the 100 Most Influential Attorneys in California several times Los Angeles Magazine Super Lawyer (2001 to present); named one of the Top 100 Super Lawyers in Southern California (2010 to present) Loyola Law School Champion of Justice Award (2008) Martindale-Hubbell, Peer Reviewed AV (highest rating) Orange County Trial Lawyers Association Top Gun Award (2008) Pepperdine University School of Law Distinguished Alumnus Award (2002)

00027041.1 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 4

Project Sister Family Services Justice Armand Arabian Award (2006) for outstanding efforts to secure justice for victims of clergy abuse Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Finalist, Trial Lawyer of the Year (2000, 2008) Trial Lawyer of the Year (1994)

Recipient of presidential awards, awards of merit, recognition, and commendations from federal, state, and local governmental entities and a variety of bar organizations.

LITIGATION Tried more than sixty cases to verdict, recovering in excess of three billion dollars in verdicts and settlements for clients. Briefed and argued more than twenty appeals before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and California Courts of Appeal.

Selected class actions and complex litigation generated:

Adderton v. Nextel Commc'n, Inc., et al. (“Boost Mobile”) Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2006, No. BC344300. Owners of Pipeline asserted Nextel unlawfully used its power as majority interest holder to force Pipeline’s owners to sell their shares in Boost Mobile for below market value. Nextel withheld financial and marketing support from Boost Mobile until the Pipeline owners sold their interests, and provided false valuations and withheld financial information so that Pipeline could not know Boost Mobile’s true value. Resolved. In Re Aetna UCR Litigation Dist. N.J., Pending, MDL No. 2020, No.: 2:07-cv-3541 (FSH)(PS) Appointed Class Counsel for class of subscribers to Aetna’s healthcare insurance plan in class action alleging Aetna knowingly used inherently flawed databases licensed from Ingenix to set usual, customary, and reasonable (“UCR”) rates for out-of-network services, resulting in artificially reduced reimbursements to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege the existence of a secret and illegal agreement by Aetna, UnitedHealth Group, Ingenix, and most of the country’s largest health insurers to systemically under-reimburse consumers for out-of-network services in violation of ERISA, RICO, and the Sherman Act, as well as state law. Pending. American Medical Association et al. v. Wellpoint, Inc. C.D. Cal, Pending, MDL No. 09-2074 PSG (FFMx) Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in action on behalf of physicians and physician groups to recover payment from insurers who violated federal antitrust laws by fixing artificially low reimbursement rates for treatment provided to out-of- network patients. Pending.

00027041.1 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 5

Balasubramaniam v. Cty of Los Angeles, et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2004, Case No. BC158506. Represented plaintiff medical doctor in case of employment discrimination based upon color. Resolved after trial, on appeal. Bartley v. Camarillo Miramonte Homeowners Ass’n Super. Ct. Ventura County, 2002, No. SC020953. Class action against real estate developers on behalf of individual condominium owners for faulty construction and repairs. The units were constructed over a high water table and on poor soils which expanded and contracted, causing the units to sink, and causing floor slabs, foundations, and walls to crack. The defendants knew about the defects but did not disclose them. After receiving complaints, developers failed to repair as promised. Resolved on eve of trial. Bianchi v. Schneiderman, et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2003, No. EC033688. Represented plaintiff in suit for breach of an agreement and for fraud after Schneiderman fraudulently obtained control of L.A. Digital Post and then transferred it to his wife in order to hide assets from creditors. Resolved. Black v. Blue Cross of California Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2007, No. BC250339. A certified class action against a health insurer for improper mid-year contract modifications. Settled for an eight-figure amount after a liability trial. Berger v. The Berger Foundation, et al. Super. Ct. Riverside County, 2011, Case No. INC 10010664. H. N. and Frances Berger founded a charitable organization to promote and support education and alleviate human suffering. Defendants diverted millions from this foundation to engage in self-dealing transactions and to pay themselves excessive compensation, and to fund ventures to employ their relatives. Represented the Berger Foundation to remedy these wrongs and safeguard a family legacy. Resolved.

Bunker Hill Twrs Condo Ass’n, et al. v. W.R. Grace & Co. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. B072642. Represented 250 resident unit owners in a 32-story, luxury downtown high-rise in an action against the nation’s leading asbestos products manufacturer. The building’s steel girders were coated with asbestos, which contaminated the building with hazardous amounts of emitted asbestos fibers in breathable dust. A jury awarded over $6 million to compensate for the cost of the abatement. California Gubernatorial Recall Election Litigation Represented former Governor Gray Davis in a challenge to the qualification of the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election.

00027041.1 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 6

Castaneda, et al. v. State of California et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2004, No. BC299062. The California Legislature passed a bill to allow victims of wrongful deportation or coerced emigration between 1929 and 1944 to bring civil actions. Castaneda was a class action on behalf of approximately 400,000 U.S. citizens and resident aliens who were wrongfully expelled from California because of their Mexican heritage. Complaint withdrawn after governor’s veto of the bill. Catalina Toys v. Forward Winsome Super. Ct. Orange County, No. 68-59-34. Defended Forward Winsome, one of the largest toy manufacturers in the world, and represented it on a cross complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Forward Winsome intentionally delayed shipments of goods and breached an agreement in order to place the plaintiffs in financial duress and to foreclose upon their assets. After a fifteen-day trial, the jury entered a unanimous verdict awarding Forward Winsome more than $6 million; settled before punitive damages phase. Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates, et al. v. Maxwell-Jolly et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, Pending, No. BC406372. Action on behalf of emergency room doctors who received medical reimbursements in amounts that were significantly below the costs that they incurred to treat their patients. Writ of mandate issued; case pending. Chavez v. Nestlé USA, Inc. C.D. Cal., 2013, No. CV09-9192 GW (CWx). Appointed lead counsel in class action for false advertising in the marketing of a beverage for infants. Resolved following successful appeal to Ninth Circuit. CIGNA Litigation Class action against medical insurers who under-reimbursed hundreds of thousands of medical patients for out-of-network care they received. The plaintiffs allege the health insurers manipulated data to artificially depress reimbursements for medical care. Pending. The Clergy Cases Super. Ct. California, JCCP Nos. 4286, 4297, 4359 Served as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel representing almost 1,000 individuals and their families in significant personal injury claims involving molestation at the hands of Catholic priests. Settlements totaled in excess of $1.5 billion. The Clergy Cases I, California JCCP 4286 (Diocese of Orange). Ninety survivors of Clergy sexual abuse filed lawsuits against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange. In December 2004, after nearly two years of intense negotiations, lead negotiations to successfully settle all claims against the Diocese for $100 million on the condition that the secret files of the Diocese of Orange would be made public.

00027041.1 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 7

The Clergy Cases I, California JCCP 4286 (Archdiocese of Los Angeles). Five-hundred and eight survivors of clergy sexual abuse filed lawsuits against the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles. On the eve of the first of more than a dozen scheduled trials, successfully negotiated an agreement with the Archbishop to resolve all cases against it for $660 million, the largest resolution with any diocese in the United States. The case is still pending as the parties litigate the public release of abusing priest and Church files. The Clergy Cases II, California JCCP 4297 (Archdiocese of San Diego). One-hundred and forty-four survivors were sexually abused by Clergy members in the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego. In the second- largest settlement by a Roman Catholic diocese nationwide since claims of sexual abuse by clergy members came to light in 2002, the Diocese agreed to pay nearly $200 million to these 144 survivors. The case is pending as the parties litigate over the public release of the offending priests’ files. In Re Crestor Products Liability Cases Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, Pending, California JCCP No. 4713. Appointed Plaintiffs’ Co-Liaison Counsel in Judicial Council coordinated proceeding pending before the Los Angeles Superior Court involving personal injury claims arising from use of Crestor pharmaceutical drug. Pending. DePUY ASR Artificial Hip Implants Litigation Super. Ct., San Francisco County, Pending, California JCCP No. 4649. Nationwide personal injury actions on behalf of patients who received the recalled, defective, surgically implanted, metal-on-metal ASR XL Acetabular and ASR Hip Resurfacing systems manufactured by DePuy Orthopedics, a unit of Johnson & Johnson. The complaints allege DePuy Orthopedics was aware its ASR hip implants were failing at a high rate, yet continued to manufacture and sell the product to unsuspecting physicians and patients. Pending. In Re Diet Drug Litigation Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, California JCCP 4032. Appointed Co-Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel. Claims arose from injuries resulting from the use of the diet drug Phen-Fen. Resolved. Jane Doe v. Garden Grove Unified School District Represented a child victim of sexual abuse at school. Resolved. Elena A. et al. v. Casa de Angeles Cal. Corp., d/b/a Healthy Start, et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, Pending, No. BC457840. Case on behalf of developmentally disabled adults who were subjected to serious physical and verbal abuse and neglect while attending an adult day care center. The abuse included sexual molestation which caused rashes, bruises, scratches, abrasions, scarring, and cuts and the contraction of venereal disease. It also included the withholding of medical care, and the failure to provide appropriate meals, leading to dehydration, malnutrition, and anemia. It included rough

00027041.1 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 8

handling acts of humiliation, and threats to harm family members after clients witnessed inappropriate behavior. Pending. In Re: Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig., N.D. Cal., Pending, MDL No. 2314, No. 5:12-md-02314-EJD. Appointed Interim Liaison Counsel in this class action lawsuit seeking damages and injunctive relief for the knowing interception of users’ Internet communications and activity after logging out of their Facebook accounts, in violation of state and federal laws including the Federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. In Re Galvanized Steel Pipe Litigation Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2010, No. BC174649 Appointed Lead Counsel (2001). Class action involving construction defects. Settled for an amount in the high eight figures. Gillis et al. v. Ralph Wyatt Plastering Company, et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 1999, No. SC034918. Case to recover for negligent construction leading to water intrusion and an infestation of highly toxigenic mold, resulting in the total loss of the plaintiff’s home and all of its contents. Eight-figure settlement. Grossman v. Unger Fabrik, LLC Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2013, No. BC480626. Breach of contract action on behalf of an executive who made $55 million in sales for a company that then failed to pay her commissions. Resolved. Hablian et al. v. Zurich U.S. et al. Cal. Comp. Bd. of Appeals Class action to recover workers’ compensation benefits that were due to injured employees, but that employers and their insurers instead kept for themselves. The California Workers Compensation Appeals Board has ruled that a class action may be brought. Case pending. Leslie v. Hochman, Salkin & Deroy Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 1997, No. BC127454. In this legal malpractice case, attorneys arranged to provide the plaintiffs with a tax shelter plan under which a commodities broker would reduce their income tax burden through trades in gold futures, and the attorneys would take $20 for each of the broker’s transactions in return for legal representation about the tax consequences of the trades. The Ninth Circuit then ruled that the types of deductions the attorneys advised the plaintiffs to take on their tax returns were not based on genuine losses, such that the plaintiffs were now responsible for unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties. Litigation ensued in which the attorneys represented the plaintiffs before the U.S. Tax Court, promising that they would prevail when all the while they had no reasonable possibility of doing so. Resolved.

00027041.1 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 9

Los Angeles Unified School District Sexual Molestation Cases Represented numerous children who were molested at Miramonte Elementary School in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Madrid v. Perot Systems Corporation et al. Super. Ct. Sacramento County, No. 03AS04763. Antitrust and unfair competition action to recover from Perot Systems Corporation for aiding and abetting the manipulation, distortion, and corruption of California’s electricity market, including the design and sale of derivative securities, in the wake of the deregulation of California’s energy sector. Resolved. Martinez et al. v. EMI Music Distribution et al. (“Compact Disc Minimum-Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation”) C.D. Cal, No. CV-00-05730 RAP (RNBx). Suit to recover from recorded-music distributors and retailers for price fixing. Resolved. Murray v. Belka (“First Pension”) Super. Ct. Orange County, California JCCP No. 3131. Suit against a pension plan administrator, one of the nation’s largest law firms, and one of the world’s largest accounting firms to recover damages and for restitution to hundreds of investors who had lost their life savings to a Ponzi scheme. Co-tried a four month trial with Michael Aguirre, resulting in a liability and punitive damages verdict. The Orange County, California jury in the case found that Pricewaterhouse Coopers helped defraud the investors by creating fraudulent audits and reviews that First Pension Corporation used in its filings with government agencies over nine years. The case resolved on the eve of the punitive damage phase for nearly nine figures. In re: National Association of Music Merchants, Musical Instruments and Equipment Antitrust Litigation S.D. Cal. MDL No. 2121. Class action in antitrust to recover for anticompetitive price fixing. Northbridge Homeowners v. The Newhall Land and Farming Co., et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2010, No. BC174649. Recovered $41 million on behalf of 5,000 Santa Clarita Valley residents in a suit against real estate developers for the installation of defective galvanized steel pipes which rusted and leaked inside their new homes. In Re Northridge Earthquake Litigation Appointed Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel (2002). Numerous coverage lawsuits against State Farm Insurance, 21st Century Insurance, Farmers Insurance, and USAA Insurance Company for fraudulent insurance practices arising out of the Northridge Earthquake. Resolved.

00027041.1 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 10

In re: Pellicano Cases Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2014, No. BC316318. Appointed as Co-Lead Counsel in class action against AT&T. Cases involved wiretapping in violation of the California Penal Code. Settled. Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc. Super. Ct. Los Angeles, County, No. BC436557. Action against the largest grower and marketer of herbs in California for labeling conventionally grown food as “fresh organic” in order to mislead consumers into paying more. Pending in Supreme Court of California. Residents of Tucson, Arizona v. Tucson Airport Authority et al., AZ Court of Appeals, No. 2 CA-CV 93-0204. Actions on behalf of over 1,600 residents of the Sunnyside community of Tucson against the Tucson Airport Authority and other defendants for dumping a carcinogen, trichloroethylene (TCE), into disposal pools and allowing it to seep into the city’s ground water. After an EPA-sponsored researcher found high levels of TCE and other carcinogens in drinking water, experts discovered that several unusual forms of cancer, particularly among children in the area, were at almost epidemic levels. The actions settled for $84.5 million. Silver et al. v. Aetna Health Inc., PA, et al. N.D. Cal., No. C10-00143. Class action against medical insurers who under-reimbursed hundreds of thousands of medical patients for out-of-network care they received. The plaintiffs allege the health insurers manipulated data to artificially depress reimbursements for medical care. Pending. Silver v. Del Webb Super. Ct. Nevada. No. A437325. Appointed Lead Counsel (2001). Certified class construction defect suit involving installation of faulty plumbing systems in new homes. Resolved. Sinskey, et al. v. Ernst & Young et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. BC247851. Represented plaintiffs in action for fraud in the sale of securities. Resolved. Sister Sledge et al. v. Warner Music Group Corp. N.D. Cal., No. 12-CV-0559-RS. Appointed Interim Co-Lead Counsel in this suit to recover for the shortchanging of artists in the licensing of their works to third parties for subsequent retail sale as digital downloads and ringtones. Settled for $11.5 Million. Skeen, et al. v. BMW of North America LLC, et al. Dist. N.J., Pending, No. 2:13-cv-1531-WHW-CLW. Appointed Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in putative class action on behalf of owners and lessees of MINI Cooper vehicles manufactured with defective “timing chain tensioner” parts that cause premature engine damage and failure. Pending.

00027041.1 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 11

The Temptations et al. v. UMG Recordings, Inc. N.D. Cal., No. 12-CV-1289-JCS. Suit to recover for shortchanging of artists in the licensing of their works to third parties for subsequent retail sale as digital downloads and ringtones. Pending. Terry W. et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. et al. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County, No. BC187451. Case against Kaiser for failing to take action to protect patients after receiving complaints that one of their doctors was molesting minors. The doctor was later arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for his crimes. Resolved. In re Transient Occupancy Tax Cases Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, California JCCP 4472. Action on behalf of thirty-nine separate California cities to recover unremitted occupancy taxes from online travel companies. In re Trasylol Drug Cases Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, California JCCP 4593. Action on behalf of the people of the State of California against a pharmaceutical company that continued to aggressively market a drug after becoming aware that it significantly increased the risk of renal failure, stroke, and death, and which was ultimately removed from the market. Resolved. Welch v. Orkin Exterminating Co. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. 516323. Orkin’s negligent treatment of the plaintiffs’ San Diego home for termites caused plaintiffs to develop chemical sensitivities. Orkin argued the plaintiffs were only imagining their injuries, or that the injuries preexisted. Orkin denied that it misapplied the chemicals, and denied that the chemicals could cause any injury. After an eighteen-day trial, a jury awarded plaintiffs approximately $1 Million. In re Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2329. Appointed Co-Lead Counsel and state Liaison Counsel in this national MDL involving actions against a manufacturer of defective surgically implanted metal- on-metal hip replacement systems. Pending. Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella Contraceptive Cases Super. Ct., Los Angeles County, California JCCP 4608. Appointed and served as Plaintiffs’ Co-Liaison Counsel in cases on behalf of women who were prescribed Yasmin and Yaz oral contraceptives and suffered blood clots, deep vein thrombosis, strokes, or heart attacks. Case involved allegations that Bayer failed to warn. Young v. Johnny’s Hot Dog Stand et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 1997, No. BC102837. Ronald Young, a 57 year-old homeless man who had been a hospital orderly before going on disability, had been frequenting Johnny’s Hot Dog Stand for more than twenty years. After Young approached the window of Johnny’s with

00027041.1 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 12

money in his pocket to purchase a cup of coffee, the waitress shouted insults at him. Minutes later, the waitress walked out of the stand, approached Young, and shot him six times, leaving him permanently disfigured and almost $70,000 in debt to the hospital. The police never recovered the gun and the district attorney declined to prosecute. At trial, the jury found the restaurant negligent and ordered Johnny’s to pay nearly $1 million in compensatory damages. Zachary et al. v. ARCO et al. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. BC209944. Appointed Lead Counsel. Mass tort toxic refinery fire resulting in injury to plaintiffs and their property. Resolved.

Among cases involving published decisions:

Bains v. Moores (2009) 172 Cal. App. 4th 445. Action on behalf of investors to recover for fraud in the sale of certain securities. Callahan v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4th 557. Represented family members in suit against law firm that drafted a partnership agreement which damaged the family business. Resolved. Harrell v. 20th Century Ins. Co. (9th Cir. 1991) 934 F.2d 203. Suit to recover for fraud in the sale of a small business. Resolved. Ileto v. Glock, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2006) 421 F. Supp. 2d 127. Action against weapons manufacturers Glock and China North, whose firearms were used by a member of the Aryan Nation to shoot several children and kill a postal worker. Ramirez v. Fox Television Station (9th Cir. 1993) 998 F.2d 743. Suit for unconstitutional employment discrimination based on national origin. Shirk v. Vista Unified School District (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 201. Case to recover for sexual molestation by a public school teacher. Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 755. Represented relatives of decedents who willed their bodies to a medical school for research and teaching purposes, only to learn the remains had been improperly disposed of in a grotesque and undignified manner after scientific uses were concluded. Donors were told that after use, their remains would be cremated and scattered in a rose garden. Human remains were commingled with other remains and incompletely incinerated, leaving hair and flesh intact. Remains were placed in a mixture of incinerated human bodies, laboratory animal carcasses, and medical waste into garbage dumpsters and then transported to a landfill where they were disposed of with common refuse. Rippon v. Bowen (2008) 160 Cal. App. 4th 1308. Case on behalf of California citizens who challenged the constitutionality of Proposition 140, which imposed lifetime term limits upon state legislators and other state officers.

00027041.1 Raymond Paul Boucher Curriculum Vitae Page 13

Santillan v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Fresno (2008) 163 Cal. App. 4th 4. Case on behalf of a victim of childhood sexual abuse. Wallace v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal. App. 4th 1385. Demetria Wallace, a teenaged honors student, was shot and killed by a shotgun blast as she sat on a bench waiting for a bus five days before she was to testify against a man accused of fatally shooting a taxi driver. Following granting of non- suit at trial, the appeals court held the police had a duty to warn the victim. The case affirmed the government’s responsibility to protect citizens who jeopardize their lives by stepping forward as witnesses to crimes, and prompted changes in police procedures that have saved other witnesses’ lives since. Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Cases I & II (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 1293. Co-lead counsel in suit to recover from energy traders for antitrust and unfair business practices in the wake of the deregulation of California’s energy sector. Resolved in conjunction with the Attorney General’s office for over $1.1 billion.

PRESENTATIONS Guest Lecturer Stanford Law School, Stanford, California Pepperdine University School of Law, Malibu, California Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, California

Continuing Legal Education Delivered hundreds of continuing legal education presentations to organizations including the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the Consumer Attorneys of California, the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles, the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel, the American Association for Justice, the Orange County Bar Association, the California League of Cities, Pepperdine Law School, Mealey’s, the Los Angeles Daily Journal, Glasser Legal Works, and the National College of Advocacy.

00027041.1

Boucher LLP is a new firm, steeped in the tradition of obtaining justice for the people who need it most.

Founded by Raymond P. Boucher—Los Angeles Daily Journal’s Trial Lawyer of the Decade (2001-2010)—Boucher LLP focuses on the prosecution of high-impact, complex litigation, including class actions, mass actions, and representative actions on behalf of consumers and employees harmed by major corporations and insurance companies; civil rights and police misconduct cases; cases involving the sexual abuse of minors and disabled; and significant personal injury and wrongful death cases. Boucher and his colleagues are frequently appointed class counsel in major class actions and often serve among plaintiffs’ leadership in state and federal coordinated proceedings.

Boucher’s successes include a groundbreaking $1 billion settlement on behalf of the victims of childhood sexual abuse by Catholic priests. He has long been a trusted resource for referring attorneys. His skill and tenacity also make him sought after as co-counsel.

Boucher built the firm from the ground up, handpicking dynamic, talented, and experienced attorneys who share his vision and values. Clients can expect meticulous preparation and tenacious, relentless representation, as well as highly individualized and compassionate service.

The firm is new. The founding principles of Boucher LLP are timeless.

EXPERTISE AND RESOURCES Boucher LLP has the expertise and resources to handle cases against major corporations from intake through trial. The firm is presently comprised of three partners, three associates, two of counsel attorneys, and several paralegals and staff members. The firm is well-equipped to conduct discovery in a variety of cases, including large complex cases. The firm uses sophisticated technology and protocol to capture, evaluate, and present information gleaned from documents numbering in the multi-millions. In coordinated proceedings, the firm has the experience and leadership qualities needed to effectively manage resources to ensure efficiency of litigation.

Boucher LLP has expertise in the following practice areas:

Consumer Class Actions The firm has extensive experience with consumer class action litigation and the relevant issues in evaluating and settling class action claims. Boucher LLP’s attorneys have litigated and certified consumer class actions in a range of areas—from automotive and other product defects, to privacy and data breach, to antitrust, breach of contract, and other business disputes. Boucher LLP’s attorneys have served as lead class counsel and/or on the plaintiffs’ steering committee in numerous consumer class action cases including, In Re Aetna UCR Litigation, Dist. N.J., MDL No. 2020 (Class Counsel), American Medical Association et al. v. Wellpoint, Inc., C.D. Cal, MDL No. 2074 (Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel), Black v. Blue Cross of California, Super.

21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600, Woodland Hills, California 91367 Telephone 818.340.5400 | Facsimile 818.340.5401

Ct. Los Angeles County, No. BC250339 (Class Counsel), Chavez v. Nestlé USA, Inc. C.D. Cal., No. CV09-9192 GW (CWx) (Lead Counsel), In Re: Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig., N.D. Cal., MDL No. 2314 (Interim Liaison Counsel), In Re Galvanized Steel Pipe Litigation, Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. BC174649 (Lead Class Counsel), In re: Pellicano Cases, Super. Ct. Los Angeles County No. BC316318 (Co-Lead Class Counsel), Sister Sledge et al. v. Warner Music Group Corp., N.D. Cal., No. 12-CV-0559-RS (Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel), and Skeen, et al. v. BMW of North America LLC, et al., Dist. N.J., No. 2:13-cv-1531-WHW-CLW (Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel).

Employment Class and Representative Actions Boucher LLP is currently prosecuting numerous class and representative cases against corporations on behalf of thousands of workers alleging wage-and-hour violations, including claims for violations of meal and rest break laws, illegal rounding of time, and failure to pay all wages. The firm is committed to ensuring employees are properly compensated under state and federal laws, and to holding corporations accountable for failing to abide by the law.

Mass Tort Litigation Boucher LLP’s attorneys have obtained favorable recoveries for thousands of clients harmed by major pharmaceutical companies. Boucher presently serves in leadership for numerous coordinated proceedings in state and federal court, including In Re Crestor Products Liability Cases, Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, JCCP No. 4713 (Plaintiffs’ Co-Liaison Counsel), In Re Diet Drug Litigation, Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, JCCP 4032 (Plaintiffs’ Co-Liaison Counsel), In re Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2329 (Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and state Liaison Counsel), and Zoloft Birth Defects Cases, JCCP No. 4771 (Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel). Boucher LLP’s attorneys have also successfully resolved mass tort cases involving toxic exposure, including, among others, Bunker Hill Twrs Condo Ass’n, et al. v. W.R. Grace & Co., Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. B072642, and Zachary et al. v. ARCO et al., Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. BC209944.

Complex, High-Impact Litigation Boucher LLP is committed to advancing the rights of the people and to holding corporations accountable. Throughout his career, Mr. Boucher has brought worthy cases in furtherance of these goals. For example, in the California Gubernatorial Recall Election Litigation, Boucher represented former Governor Gray Davis in a challenge to the qualification of the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election. In Madrid v. Perot Systems Corporation et al., Super. Ct. Sacramento County, No. 03AS04763, Boucher resolved an antitrust and unfair competition action to recover from Perot Systems Corporation for aiding and abetting the manipulation, distortion, and corruption of California’s electricity market. More recently, in Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates, et al. v. Maxwell-Jolly, et al., Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, Pending, No. BC406372, Boucher and his partners obtained an order compelling California’s Department of

2

Health Care Services to comply—for the first time ever—with their obligation to annually review of Medi-Cal physician reimbursement rates to ensure access to quality healthcare in California. These are but a few of the many “impact” cases Boucher and his colleagues have pursued in the interest of positive social change.

Civil Rights and Police Misconduct Cases Boucher LLP prosecutes individual, mass, and class actions against public entities for civil rights violations and police misconduct. The firm is committed to helping people obtain justice and to motivating significant policy changes. Boucher is particularly proud of the published result in Wallace v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal. App. 4th 1385, a case of first impression he brought against the City on behalf of Demetria Wallace, a teenaged honors student who was shot and killed while waiting for a bus, just five days before she was to testify against a man accused of fatally shooting a taxi driver. After non-suit was granted at trial, the appeals court held the police had a duty to warn the victim. The case affirmed the government’s responsibility to protect citizens who place their lives in jeopardy by stepping forward as witnesses to crimes, and prompted changes in police procedures that have saved countless other witnesses’ lives since.

Sexual Abuse Cases Boucher LLP prosecutes individual and mass action cases against public and private entities that fail to protect minors and the disabled from sexual abuse. The firm’s attorneys have extensive experience representing survivors of sexual abuse in such cases. For example, in The Clergy Cases, Super. Ct. California, JCCP Nos. 4286, 4297, 4359, Boucher served as Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel on behalf of almost 1,000 individuals and their families in significant personal injury claims involving molestation at the hands of Catholic priests. In Jane Doe v. Garden Grove Unified School District, Boucher prosecuted claims on behalf of a child victim of sexual abuse at school against a public school district. Elena A. et al. v. Casa de Angeles Cal. Corp., d/b/a Healthy Start, et al., Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. BC457840, was brought on behalf of developmentally disabled adults who were subjected to serious verbal, physical, and sexual abuse and neglect while attending an adult day care center. And Boucher was a leader in Los Angeles Unified School District Sexual Molestation Cases, which were brought on behalf of the many children who were molested by a teacher at Miramonte Elementary School.

Significant Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Boucher LLP represents individuals who have suffered serious personal injury or the death of loved ones. The firm is committed to obtaining the justice that its clients deserve. For example, in Young v. Johnny’s Hot Dog Stand, et al., Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, No. BC102837, Boucher obtained a jury verdict in excess of $1 million in compensatory damages on behalf of 57-year-old indigent person who was shot by a waitress outside of a hot dog stand. The firm is also passionate

3

about seeking justice on behalf of children and adults who have suffered serious injuries from in apparel fires.

4

RAYMOND P. BOUCHER Raymond P. Boucher, a veteran trial lawyer specializing in complex consumer litigation, class actions, product liability, toxic tort litigation, employment discrimination and bad faith, is the Founder and Senior Partner of Boucher LLP. During his professional career, which spans three decades, Boucher has tried more than 50 cases, and has helped obtain verdicts and settlements on behalf of clients in excess of $3 billion. In two of his more notable cases, he served as lead attorney in the landmark $660 million sexual abuse settlement with the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles in which he represented over 250 abuse victims in the July 2007 settlement as well as obtaining nearly $200 million for 144 survivors in a lawsuit against the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego. Boucher has briefed and argued more than 20 appeals before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and California Courts of Appeal. For his professional achievements, Boucher has received a diverse array of honors and awards, to include recognition as: “Top 100 Attorneys in California” (2002) by the Daily Journal; “Trial Lawyers of the Decade, “ (2001-2010) by the Daily Journal; “California Lawyer Attorney of the Year” (2008) by California Lawyer; “Consumer Attorney of the Year” (2007) by the Consumer Attorneys of California; and “Trial Lawyer of the Year” by the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (additional awards listed below). A noted author and lecturer, Boucher has lectured at numerous law schools (e.g. Stanford, Pepperdine, Loyola) and has delivered hundreds of presentations to bar associations and other legal organizations as well as legal media sponsored events and educational and government forums. Prior to founding Boucher, LLP, Boucher served several other Los Angeles area law firms, including: Kiesel, Boucher & Larson LLP (Partner), Law Offices of Raymond P. Boucher (Founder/Senior Partner), Nordstrom, Steele, Nicolette & Jefferson (Of Counsel), Sayre, Moreno, Purcell & Boucher (Managing Partner), and Gould & Sayre. A native of Massachusetts, Boucher received his undergraduate education at Fort Lewis College in Durango, CO where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree with a double major in Business Administration and Political Science. He was Student Body President, on the Dean’s List and later was honored as its “Alumnus of the Year” (2007). He matriculated to Colorado State University where he received a Master of Science degree in Management. Boucher obtained his Juris Doctor degree from Pepperdine University School of Law While in law school, Boucher ranked in the top 15% of his class, was a member of the Phi Delta Phi honor society and later honored in 2002 with its Distinguished Alumnus Award. He received an Honorary Doctor of Law by Whittier College School of Law in 2005. Boucher is admitted to the State Bar of California as well as the United States District Court for the Central, Northern, Southern and Eastern Districts of California. He is a member of, and has held leadership positions in, numerous legal professional entities, including:  American Association for Justice, Member  American Bar Association, Admitted as a Fellow of the American Bar  Association of Trial Lawyers of America, State of California Delegate Member

 Beverly Hills Bar Association, Member  California Courts, Administrative Office of the Courts (2002 to 2007), Committees: Court Funding, Complex Courts System, Court Integration  California State Bar Association, Member  Civil Justice Foundation, Member  Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (Formerly the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association) President (2005), Board of Governors, Emeritus Member (2005 to present), Board of Governors, Member (1996 to 2006)  Consumer Attorneys of California (Formerly the California Trial Lawyers Association, President (2007), Board of Governors (1997 to present)  Consumer Attorneys of San Diego (2001 to present), Consumer Advocate of the Year (2007)  Diversity in Law Foundation, Board of Directors  Los Angeles County Bar Association, Board of Trustees (2000 to 2002)  Los Angeles Superior Court Bench and Bar Committee (2001 to 2008)  National College of Advocacy, Fellow  Orange County Trial Lawyers Association, Member  Pepperdine School of Law, Board of Visitors (1997 to present)  Public Citizen, Member  Public Justice (Formerly Trial Lawyers for Public Justice), Board of Directors (1996 to present), Member (1984 to present)  The Roscoe Pound Foundation, Member Among the other honors, awards and other forms of recognition Boucher has received for his professional achievements and accomplishments from legal, community, educational, nonprofit and media entities, include:  American Association for Justice Steven J. Sharp Public Service Award (2008)  Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles Ted Horn Memorial Award in recognition of service to the California State Bar (2002), Finalist, Trial Lawyer of the Year (1996) , Several Presidential Awards for Outstanding Contribution to the Trial Bar  Consumer Attorneys of California Legislative Champion Award (2002), Several Presidential Awards of Merit  Consumer Attorneys of San Diego David S. Casey, Jr. Consumer Advocate Award (2006)  California League of Conservation Voters Environmental Leadership Award (2005) for dedication to the environment and for fostering the public health rights of individuals  Fort Lewis College, Durango, Colorado Alumnus of the Year (2007)

 Lawdragon Named one of 500 Leading Lawyers in America (2009-2014)  Los Angeles Daily Journal Law Business Named one of the 100 Most Influential Attorneys in California several times  Los Angeles Magazine Super Lawyer (2001 to present); named one of the Top 100 Super Lawyers in Southern California (2010 to present)  Loyola Law School Champion of Justice Award (2008)  Martindale-Hubbell, Peer Reviewed AV (highest rating)  Orange County Trial Lawyers Association Top Gun Award (2008)  Pepperdine University School of Law Distinguished Alumnus Award (2002)  Project Sister Family Services Justice Armand Arabian Award (2006) for outstanding efforts to secure justice for victims of clergy abuse  Trial Lawyers for Public Justice Trial Lawyer of the Year (1994) Additionally, Boucher has been the recipient of presidential awards, awards of merit, recognition and commendation from federal, state and local government entities as well as a variety of bar associations. Boucher, who resides in Tarzana, CA, is active in numerous business, civic, community and charitable organizations (e.g. Ambassador, Make a Wish Foundation). He is also active in fund raising for various local, state and national organizations for whom he has raised millions of dollars. He spends significant time doing pro bono work and frequently advises California Senate, Assembly and constitutional offices about legal and political issues.

SHEHNAZ M. BHUJWALA Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, a strong advocate of consumer rights in civil courts and the California Legislature, is a partner of Boucher LLP. Bhujwala helps consumers harmed by defective products, and those hurt by bad practices of corporations, employers, and governmental entities, obtain justice through the courts. She prosecutes class, mass, and representative actions among other complex civil cases on behalf of consumers in federal and California state courts. Bhujwala, who has been recognized for her work as a consumer attorney as a “Southern California Rising Star” (2009-2011) and a “Super Lawyer” (2016-2017, 2019) by both Los Angeles Magazine and Southern California Rising Stars Magazine, and was bestowed with a Martindale-Hubbell “AV Preeminent” rating for her professionalism and ethics, has helped bring resolution to numerous cases through settlement and trials over the course of her legal career, including:  A historic settlement on behalf of hundreds of survivors of childhood sexual abuse against the Los Angeles and San Diego Catholic Archdioceses  A favorable settlement on behalf of a news reporter who suffered severe electrical burns and related injuries when her transmission truck hit overhead power lines  A favorable settlement on behalf of survivors of historic mass kidnapping against kidnappers  A class action settlement with the Writers Guild of America on behalf of writers to ensure the Guild’s payment of collected, foreign levy funds to them  A class action settlement against telephone company for privacy violations on behalf of wiretap victims  A class action settlement against bank for unlawful recording of telephone conversations with customers  A class action settlement against major movie studio on behalf of nationwide profit participants who challenged how the studio paid them distributions for home video revenue.  Numerous class action and representative action settlements on behalf of workers for wage theft Prior to joining Boucher LLP, Bhujwala worked for top plaintiffs’ firms in the Los Angeles area, including Khorrami Boucher, LLP, Kiesel Boucher & Larson, LLP, and Greene, Broillet, Panish & Wheeler, LLP. An active author and speaker on consumer law subjects, Bhujwala is a member of, and has held leadership positions in, numerous professional organizations, including:  Consumer Attorneys of California: Board of Governors (2011-2018); Chair, Women’s Caucus (2015); and Executive Committee (2016)  Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles: Board of Governors (2013-2014)

 Los Angeles County Bar Association: Litigation Section, Legislative Chair (2014-2016); Judicial Appointments Committee (2014-2017); Complex Courts Committee, Co-Chair (2016-2018); Programs (2018-2019)  American Association for Justice  Public Justice Through her work with the Consumer Attorneys of California, Bhujwala also regularly speaks with California legislators regarding the need for sufficient court funding and other issues affecting the courts, consumers, and employees. A California native and current resident of Los Angeles, Bhujwala received her undergraduate education at the University of California, Los Angeles where she obtained her Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology. Thereafter, she attended the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law, where she obtained her Juris Doctor degree. During law school, she externed for the Honorable U.S. District Court Judge Robert Takasugi of the Central District of California and counseled victims of domestic violence through the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Barrister’s Project.

BRIAN BUSH Brian Bush, a trial lawyer who concentrates his legal practice in the areas of civil rights, personal injury and mass tort litigation, is an Associate of Boucher LLP. Bush is admitted to the State Bar of California as well as the United States District Courts for the Central, Eastern and Northern Districts of California. Among his professional affiliations, he is a member of the American Association for Justice, Los Angeles County Bar Association and the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA). Bush received his Juris Doctor degree from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. Throughout law school, Bush volunteered at the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. In his capacity as a certified law student, he presided over numerous felony preliminary hearings, evidence suppression hearings and also served as second chair for the prosecution in a child molestation trial. While in law school, Bush competed in trial advocacy tournaments in California and New York as a member of Loyola’s nationally-ranked Byrne Trial Advocacy Team and served as speaker, co-chair and vice president of Loyola’s student chapter of CAALA. Additionally, at Loyola, he earned First Honors awards in White Collar Crimes, Cross Examination and Advanced Trial Advocacy. A native of Seattle, WA, Bush attended Washington State University where he obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in Communications with an Advertising Emphasis. At the university, he was on the Dean’s Honor Roll (2001-2004), was a graduate of the WSU Honors College, served as President and Vice President of the Ad Club and was a member of the student chapter of the American Advertising Federation.

MILIN CHUN Milin Chun, an attorney with experience in both criminal and civil law, is a Senior Associate of Boucher LLP. Throughout her career, Chun has focused her practice on federal white-collar criminal defense and appellate matters. She has represented clients in criminal investigations, including cases arising out of the Hobbs Act, Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act, False Claims Act, securities fraud, money laundering, wire fraud, and tax evasion. Chun has previously represented a CEO of a major defense firm and executive director of a large non-profit organization in Washington, D.C. Chun has been named to the Maryland Rising Stars list by Maryland Super Lawyers for three consecutive years (2013-2015), and in 2015 was named “Top 40 Under 40” by the National Trial Lawyers. Chun currently serves on the Diversity Task Force for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the nation’s leading organization devoted to ensuring a just legal process for all criminal cases, and previously served on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Daily Record, a legal and business newspaper in Maryland. Chun is admitted to practice in California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. She is also admitted to practice in the United States District Courts for the Central District of California, District of Maryland, and the District of Nebraska, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Raised in Southern California, Chun attended the University of California, San Diego, where she received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science. She then obtained her Juris Doctor degree from the University of Maryland, Baltimore, where she served as the Managing Editor of the University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender, and Class. Following law school, Chun clerked for the Honorable Gale E. Rasin in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.

ALEXANDER GAMEZ Alexander Gamez is an Associate of Boucher LLP. He is a member of the firm's complex employment team, representing employees in class actions and PAGA actions against employers who violate California and federal wage and hour laws. Alex has successfully helped the firm prosecute a wide range of employment violations for the benefit of employees. Alex earned a Bachelor of Arts degrees in Political Science and graduated cum laude from California State University, Fullerton in 2012. Thereafter, Alex earned a Juris Doctor degree from Southwestern Law School in 2015. During law school, Alex clerked for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, served as a Student Coordinator for the National Lawyers Guild Court Watch Program, and also served as a member of the Public Interest Law Committee. He also obtained numerous awards and distinctions during law school for his public interest and pro bono efforts. Alex is a member of the State Bar of California and is licensed to practice in all California state courts..

CATHY KIM Cathy Kim is an Associate of Boucher LLP. During her legal career, Cathy has focused her practice on representing individuals in mass tort litigation (e.g. products liability) against major pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers in state and federal proceedings. Cathy is admitted to the State Bar of California and the United States District Court, Central District of California. Among her professional affiliations, she is a member of Consumer Attorneys of California and the Korean American Bar Association. Raised in Torrance, CA, Cathy attended the University of California, Los Angeles where she received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Business Economics with a minor in East Asian Languages and Cultures. Cathy graduated magna cum laude, was a member of Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society and the Golden Key International Honour Society, as well as being on the Provost’s Honors List for six quarters. Cathy matriculated to Loyola Law School in Los Angeles where she obtained her Juris Doctor degree while receiving numerous academic honors and recognition, including the First Honors Award in Advanced Legal Research. During law school, she served as a judicial extern to the Honorable Samuel L. Bufford in the United States Bankruptcy Court. Cathy also served as the Internal and External Vice President of the Asian Pacific American Law Students Association. An accomplished musician (e.g. piano, violin) who has won many awards in competitions and performed in various orchestras, Cathy is active in community and cultural organizations. Among her involvements, she has served as a Korean-English translator for the Asian Pacific American Legal Center’s Citizenship Workshops and Volunteer Income Tax Assistance.

NEIL M. LARSEN Neil M. Larsen is an Associate of Boucher LLP. He is a member of the firm's complex employment team, representing employees in class actions and PAGA actions against employers who violate California and federal wage and hour laws. Neil has successfully helped the firm prosecute and resolve a wide range of employment cases for the benefit of employees.

Neil earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Law and Society from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 2004. He then went on to earn a Juris Doctor degree from Santa Clara University School of Law in 201 1, where he participated in the Honors Moot Court program, contributed to the Journal of International Law, and represented indigent clients in wage and hour litigation through his service at a community law center.

Before joining Boucher, LLP, Neil worked for noted law firms in Southern California exclusively representing plaintiffs in employment class actions and PAGA actions. Neil is a member of the State Bar of California and is licensed to practice in all California state courts, as well as the United States District Courts for the Central District of California and Northern District of California.

HERMEZ MORENO Hermez Moreno, a veteran trial lawyer who specializes in complex police misconduct litigation and catastrophic person injury and trial work, serves as Of Counsel to Boucher LLP. During his professional career, which spans nearly four decades, Moreno has a diverse array of litigation experience and has attained verdicts and settlements for his clients up to eight figures. Some of the legal areas he has litigated include:  Civil Rights  Medical/Legal Malpractice  Mass Torts  Insurance Bad Faith  Police Misconduct  Excessive Use of Force  False Arrest/Imprisonment  Asbestos Personal Injury  Mishandling of Human Remains  Traumatic Brain Injury  Asbestos Commercial Property Damage  Asbestos Personal Injury  Jail Abuse Moreno also has extensive experience in transactional work and has been involved in the negotiating and drafting of contracts and other documents for entertainers in the fields of film, music recordings and film and recording financing. He has also negotiated and drafted contracts for the sale and purchase of businesses and landmark real estate in the Los Angeles area. Moreno, who began his career handling civil rights cases throughout California, served as Special Counsel to Cesar Chavez (1984-1993) and as Trial Counsel for the United Farm Workers Union (1984-1990) in areas involving labor disputes and cases brought by growers’ efforts to break the union. He also represented indigent clients in pro bono cases and continues to do so. In addition to his legal practice, Moreno is actively serving as a professor of trial advocacy. He has served as a Clinical Professor at the UCLA School of Law in its Trial Advocacy Program and has been both a Visiting Associate Professor of Law, Clinical Instructor in the Trial Advocacy Program of Southwestern Law School and currently serves as an Adjunct Professor of Law in the school’s Trial Advocacy and Civil Rights Program. Moreno is admitted to the State Bar of California as well as the United States Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeal Ninth Circuit, United States Court of Appeal, Federal Circuit and the United States District Court for the Central, Northern, and Eastern Districts of California. Among his professional affiliations, he is or has been a member of:  Consumer Attorneys of California

 Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles  Trial Lawyers for Public Justice  Mexican American Bar Association (Board of Trustees)  Mexican American Bar Foundation (Board of Directors)  Santa Monica Third Street Development Corporation (Board of Directors) A native of Mexico, Moreno attended the University of California, Santa Barbara where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science. He obtained his Juris Doctor degree from the UCLA School of Law. While in law school, he co-founded Centro Legal de Santa Monica, Inc., a non-profit legal aid office operated by UCLA Chicano law students. The organization, which subsequently merged with Westside Legal Services, provided legal services to underprivileged residents in Santa Monica and Moreno served as a Board of Trustees member and supervising attorney. Moreno lives with his wife in Moorpark, CA on a 15-acre horse ranch. Among his personal interests, he is an art collector, an artist, and has written his first novel.

MARIA L. WEITZ Maria L. Weitz, an attorney with broad experience in numerous areas of consumer law, is a partner of Boucher LLP. Throughout her legal career, Weitz has focused her practice on unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent business practices, and seeking legal accountability on behalf of injured plaintiffs. As a result, her diverse range of litigation experience spans a wide array of legal issues, including complex class actions, product liability and other personal injury cases, employment litigation, and appellate practice. Weitz’s interest in civil justice developed while attending the University of California, Davis School of Law, where she earned her Juris Doctor degree. She received a Public Service Law Certificate recognizing her legal work in public interest organizations and government agencies. This work included serving as co-counsel in a federal jury trial on behalf of an inmate alleging civil rights violations, and working within the California Attorney General’s Office to prosecute civil cases for violations of California’s Air Pollution Control Laws. She also received a Witkin Award for Academic Excellence in Legal Writing and the Sacramento County Bar Association Diversity Fellowship. Weitz is admitted to the State Bar of California and the United States District Courts in the Northern, Southern, Central, and Eastern Districts of California. Among her professional affiliations, she is a member of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles. In recognition of her career accomplishments, Weitz has twice been selected as a Southern California Rising Star by Super Lawyers Magazine and was listed among Top Women Attorneys by Los Angeles Magazine. Weitz received her undergraduate education at the University of California, Los Angeles, where she earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology and Communications.

Firm Resume

Partners Girard Sharp is a national litigation firm representing plaintiffs in class Daniel Girard p. 2 and collective actions in state and federal courts, and in arbitration Dena Sharp p. 4 matters worldwide. The firm serves individuals, institutions and Adam Polk p. 4 business clients in cases involving consumer protection, securities, Jordan Elias p. 5 antitrust, personal injury, whistleblower laws, and employment laws. Associates Simon Grille p. 6 Our clients range from individual consumers and small businesses to Scott Grzenczyk p. 6 Emily Jenks p. 7 Fortune 100 corporations and public pension funds. We have recovered Mani Goehring p. 7 over a billion dollars on behalf of our clients in class actions and non- Elizabeth Kramer p. 7 class cases. In addition to litigation, our firm also provides consulting Angelica Ornelas p. 8 and strategic counseling services to institutional clients and Jimmy Richardson P. 8 professionals in securities litigation, corporate governance and Peng Shao P. 8 international business matters. We are committed to achieving Trevor Tan p. 9 favorable results for all of our clients in the most expeditious and Tom Watts p. 9 economical manner possible. Of Counsel Michael Danko p. 10 Kristine Meredith p. 11 Girard Sharp has been distinguished as a Tier 1 law firm for plaintiffs’ mass tort and class-action litigation in the “Best Law Firms” list in the survey published in the U.S. News & World

Report’s Money Issue. And The National Law Journal (NLJ) has False Advertising p. 12 named Girard Sharp to its elite “Plaintiffs’ Hot List,” a selection of Defective Products p. 13 top U.S. plaintiffs’ firms recognized for wins in high-profile cases. Other Consumer p. 14 Girard Sharp LLP was also selected as a 2018 Elite Trial Lawyers Securities & Financial p. 18 finalist by the National Law Journal. Mass Tort p. 20 Employment p. 20 Eight of the firm’s attorneys have been selected as Northern California Antitrust p. 21 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars. Two of the firm’s senior attorneys, Government Reform p. 21 Daniel Girard and Michael Danko, have been recognized among the “Top 100 Super Lawyers” in Northern California, and were selected by their peers for The Best Lawyers in America 2012- 2017. Best Lawyers also designated Mr. Girard as the 2013 “Lawyer of the Year” in San Francisco for class action litigation. Mr. Girard has earned AV- Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell, recognizing him in the highest class of attorneys for professional ethics and legal skills.

ATTORNEYS

Partners

Daniel Girard serves as the firm’s managing partner and coordinates the prosecution of various consumer protection, securities, and antitrust legal matters handled by the firm. Under Daniel Girard’s leadership, Girard Sharp has become one of the most respected and experienced class action law firms in the United States. Dan believes that, too often, the U.S. legal system favors companies and financial institutions over ordinary people. He founded the firm to provide individuals who work hard and play by the rules the same focused, dedicated representation enjoyed by corporations, banks, and insurance companies.

Dan is frequently appointed by courts to lead major complex cases. For example, he served as a lead lawyer for securities investors following the collapse of Lehman Brothers and as lead counsel for commodities investors following the failure of the Peregrine Financial Group. In addition, Dan has successfully prosecuted numerous cases for violations of consumer fraud, predatory lending, and unfair competition laws.

Dan’s current case work includes serving as lead counsel in the Woodbridge Investments Litigation, as a member of the leadership team in the USC Student Health Center Litigation, as lead counsel in the United States Office of Personnel Management Data Breach class action, and as lead counsel for the California Teachers’ Retirement System in litigation against Walmart for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

Dan’s past and present clients include the California Teachers Retirement System, the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, the American Federation of Government Employees, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, Allianz Life Insurance Company, Nu Skin International Inc., and celebrity photographer Gunter Sachs.

Dan considers it a privilege to serve the federal court system as a volunteer. He was appointed by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to the United States Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules and served on the Civil Rules Committee from 2004 through 2010. Chief Justice John G. Roberts appointed Dan to the Standing Committee on Practice and Procedure in 2015 and reappointed him to a second term in 2018. Dan’s article, “Limiting Evasive Discovery: A Proposal for Three Cost-Saving Amendments to the Federal Rules,” 87 Denver University Law Rev. 473 (2010), proposed several rule amendments that were ultimately adopted in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2).

Other published articles include: Managez efficacement vos litiges d’affaires, Extrait du magazine, Décideurs N°121, November 2010, Stop Judicial Bailouts, The National Law Journal, December 1, 2008, and Billions to Answer For, Legal Times, September 15, 2008. His speaking engagements include the following presentations: Panelist for Class Action Settlements and Discovery presentations, HB Litigation Conferences, May 3, 2016; Panelist for Data Breach & Privacy presentation, HB Litigation Conferences, February 11, 2016; Panelist for “Hello ‘Proportionality,’ Goodbye ‘Reasonably Calculated,’” Joint Conference of ABA Section of Litigation and Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies, January 28, 2016; Invited Participant in Special MDL Conference, Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies, October 8, 2015; Co-panelist with Judge GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 2 of 21

James P. O’Hara on Discovery Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association, D. Kan., and W. D. of Mo., September 17, 2015; Panelist in Private Breakfast Seminar on Class Action Risk Mitigation Strategies, Lazareff LeBars, September 22, 2015; Invited Participant on Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, Rule 23 Mini- Conference, September 11, 2015; Attorney Faculty in Managing Complex Litigation Workshop for US District Judges, Federal Judicial Center, August 25-25, 2015; Moderator and Panelist on panels addressing proposed Rule 23 amendments, Class Action Settlement Conference, Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies, July 2015; Panelist on Role of Consumer Class Actions in the Herbal Supplements Industry, HarrisMartin’s MDL Conference: Herbal Supplements Litigation, May 27, 2015; Panelist on Transferee Judge Case Management; Multidistrict Litigation Institute, Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies, April 9-10 2015; Roundtable Participant on Settlement Class Actions, George Washington University Law School, April 8, 2015; Lessons from Recent Data Breach Litigation, Western Trial Lawyers, February 26, 2015; Speaker in Privacy & Cybersecurity Webinar, State Bar of California, February 24, 2015; Panelist on Preservation Issues, Proportionality Discovery Conference, Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies, November 13-14, 2014; Roundtable Participant on Public and Private Enforcement after Halliburton, ATP and Boilermakers, Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies, September 26, 2014; Co-panelist on Consolidation and Coordination in Generic Drug Cases, HarrisMartin’s Antitrust Pay for Delay Conference, September 22, 2014; Guest Lecturer on Civil Litigation Seminar, UC Berkeley, Hastings School of Law, September 18, 2014; Panel Moderator on Selection and Appointment of Plaintiff’s Steering Committee, MDL Best Practices, Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies, September 11-12, 2014; Panel on Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits under the New Companies Act, Joint Conference of the Society of Indian Law Firms and the American Bar Association, Delhi, India, February 14-15, 2015; Panelist on Symposium on Class Actions, University of Michigan Law School Journal of Law Reform, March 2013; Co-taught Seminar on Class Actions and Complex Litigation, Duke University Law School, January 2013; Recent Developments in U.S. Arbitration Law, Conference on Business Law in Africa, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, October 2012; Bringing and Trying a Securities Class Action Case, American Association for Justice 2012 Annual Convention, July 2012; Panel on Class Actions, U.S. Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, Phoenix, January 2012; Panel on Paths to (Mass) Justice, Conference on Globalization of Class Actions and Mass Litigation, The Hague, December 2011; Contentieux et Arbitrage International: les bons réflexes à acquérir (Litigation and International Arbitration: acquiring the right reflexes), Paris, France, March 2011; Panel on Proposals for Rule Amendments and Preservation Obligations, United States Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, January 2011.

Dan is a member of the Business Law Section of the American Bar Association. He is past Chair of the Business Law Section’s Subcommittee on Class Actions, Co-Chair of the Business and Corporate Litigation Committee’s Task Force on Litigation Reform and Rule Revision, and Vice-Chair of the Business and Corporate Litigation Committee. He has served as a guest lecturer on class actions and complex litigation at the UC Davis School of Law, UC Berkeley (Boalt Hall), UC Hastings College of the Law, Vanderbilt Law School and Stanford Law School. Dan has been consistently honored as a Northern California Super Lawyer (2007-2018). He was educated in France as well as the United States and is fluent in French.

GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 3 of 21

Dena Sharp is a problem solver who simplifies even the most complicated issues in class action litigation. Dena currently represents prescription drug purchasers as co-lead counsel in In re Restasis Antitrust Litigation and as a member of the End-Payer Steering Committee in In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, a massive price-fixing case against dozens of drug companies. She also represents clients of a fertility center whose eggs and embryos were affected by a freezer tank malfunction.

As co-lead counsel in In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, a “pay-for delay” antitrust case that settled for $104.75 million on the eve of trial, Dena worked with her team to win class certification, defeat summary judgment, and obtain the largest recovery for a class of end-payers in similar federal litigation in more than a decade. She has also played a key role in a variety of other high-profile cases, including representing investors in litigation arising from Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy and in matters involving Ponzi schemes and accounting fraud. Dena was honored as a Northern California Rising Star from 2009 to 2016 and was recognized as a Northern California Super Lawyer in 2017 and 2018.

Outside the courtroom, Dena is co-author of the widely-cited Sedona Principles: Best Practices and Principles for Electronic Document Production (Third Edition). She serves on the board of directors of the Impact Fund, a public interest nonprofit, and as vice chair of the Advisory Council for the Duke Law School Center for Judicial Studies. An editor of the Duke Law Proportionality Guidelines and Best Practices, Dena is also co-author of a chapter in a forthcoming ABA book on class action practice and strategy. In 2018, Dena was elected to the American Law Institute, which is comprised of prominent judges, lawyers, and law professors. Dena also routinely speaks on issues pertaining to civil procedure and electronic discovery. Most recently she served as co-chair and a faculty member of the Fourth Annual Judicial Training Symposium for Federal Judges, a conference co-hosted by the Federal Judicial Center and Electronic Discovery Institute. Additional publications and speaking engagements can be found here: https://www.girardsharp.com/attorneys- dena-sharp#Insights.

A first-generation American, Dena is fluent in Spanish and German.

Adam Polk is a partner at Girard Sharp who takes a client-focused approach to each matter he handles. A devoted advocate, Adam rolls up his sleeves and does whatever it takes to give each of his clients the high-quality representation they deserve. Concentrating his practice in complex securities, antitrust, and consumer class actions, Adam’s experience covers all aspects of civil litigation, from initial case investigation and complaint preparation through settlement or trial.

Adam currently serves on the lead counsel teams in In re Nexus 6P Products Liability Litigation, Weeks et al. v. Google, LLC, and In re Pacific Fertility Center Litigation. Adam was instrumental in several recent matters that have resolved favorably for his clients, including In re Sears Holdings Corporation Stockholder and Derivative Litigation ($40 million settlement) and Daccache v. Raymond James Financial, Inc. et al. ($150 million partial settlement).

GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 4 of 21

Before joining the firm, Adam externed for the Honorable Sandra Brown Armstrong and the Honorable Claudia Wilken, both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and also worked as an associate with a mid-sized regional firm, where he represented both plaintiffs and defendants.

Adam is an active member of the American Bar Association’s Class Action and Derivative Suits subcommittee, where he is a frequent contributor of written content regarding emerging issues in class action litigation. His articles include: Ninth Circuit: Central District of California’s 90-Day Deadline to Move for Class Certification Incompatible with Rule 23, American Bar Association Practice Points, October 2018, Fourth Circuit, No Presumption of Timeliness Where One Class Action Plaintiff Moves to Intervene in Another Class Action Prior to the Opt-Out Deadline, American Bar Association Practice Points, July 2018, California Supreme Court: Unnamed Class Members Must Intervene or Move to Vacate to Gain Right to Appeal Class Settlements, American Bar Association Practice Points, May 2018, Tilting at Windmills: Nationwide Class Settlements After In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, ABA Section of Litigation, Class Actions & Derivative Suits, February 2018 (co-author), “Ninth Circuit.” Survey of Federal Class Action Law, American Bar Association, 2018 (co-author), Ninth Circuit: No Formal Motion for Reconsideration Needed to Toll 23(f) Deadline, American Bar Association Practice Points, September 2017, Eighth Circuit Clarifies CAFA’s Local-Controversy Exception Applies to Local Citizens, Not Mere Residents, American Bar Association Practice Points, May 2017, Shrink-Wrap Arbitration Clauses Must be Conspicuously Displayed: Ninth Circuit, American Bar Association Practice Points, April 2017, Predispute Arbitration Clauses Targeting Public Injunctive Relief Are Unenforceable: CA Supreme Court, American Bar Association Practice Points, April 2017, Ninth Circuit: Cy Pres Awards Must be Tailored to Plaintiffs’ Claims to Justify a Class Action Release, American Bar Association Practice Points, February 2017, Rule 23 Does Not Include an ‘Administrative Feasibility Requirement: Ninth Circuit, American Bar Association Practice Points, January 2017. Adam has been selected by his peers as a Northern California Super Lawyer, Rising Star, every year since 2013.

Jordan Elias, a partner in the firm, represents consumers and investors injured by corporate violations. He has pursued civil claims against monopolists, price-fixing cartels, oil and tobacco companies, and the nation’s largest banks. Over the past decade, Jordan also has taken on pharmaceutical companies for collusion leading to inflated prescription drug prices.

Jordan is currently spearheading a D.C. Circuit appeal on behalf of more than 21 million federal government employees whose sensitive private information was hacked. He previously served as head writer for the plaintiffs in the wrongful death cases arising from sudden unintended acceleration of Toyota vehicles. He was the primary author of the plaintiffs’ briefs in the California Supreme Court in the landmark Cipro “pay-for-delay” case, and gained a reversal for the plaintiff in Pavoni v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 789 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2015).

A former chief arbitrator for the San Francisco Bar Association’s attorney-client fee disputes program, Jordan now serves as the program’s vice-chair. He also serves as chair of the Antitrust Subcommittee of the American Bar Association’s Section of Class Actions and Derivative Suits. Jordan has been honored as a Northern California Super Lawyer every year since 2014, and in 2012 and 2013, he was recognized as a Rising Star.

GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 5 of 21

Jordan has authored several law review articles, most recently “Cooperative Federalism in Class Actions” (forthcoming). He is coordinating editor of Survey of Federal Class Action Law, a book published by the American Bar Association. He also co-authored Tilting at Windmills: Nationwide Class Settlements After In re Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, ABA Section of Litigation, Class Actions & Derivative Suits, February 2018 and “Ninth Circuit.” Survey of Federal Class Action Law, American Bar Association, 2018. In 2017, Jordan was elected to the American Law Institute.

A native Californian, Jordan attended Harvard-Westlake School and clerked for the late Ninth Circuit Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall. He was an all-Ivy League sprinter at Yale.

Associates

Simon Grille is committed to seeking justice for individuals harmed by corporate misconduct. He represents plaintiffs in class and complex litigation concerning consumers’ rights and financial fraud. He has taken a lead role in product defect class actions brought against some of the largest technology companies in the world.

Simon approaches each case with an unwavering commitment to obtaining the best possible outcome for his clients. In addition to being a dedicated advocate, Simon is a creative problem-solver and welcomes the challenges of complex civil litigation. He has experience in all aspects of civil litigation, from case filing through settlement or trial.

Prior to joining Girard Sharp, Simon worked at a prominent Bay Area law firm, where he represented victims of toxic exposure in complex civil litigation. He also has experience working in-house at a multinational company and as an extern for the Honorable Arthur S. Weissbrodt of the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California.

Scott Grzenczyk dedicates his practice to representing plaintiffs in antitrust and consumer protection matters. He has wide-ranging experience in all aspects of complex litigation and has served as a member of leadership teams that have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for the firm’s clients. Scott brings a tireless work ethic and a practical, results-oriented approach to his cases.

For several years, Scott has represented union health and welfare funds in cases alleging that large, multinational drug companies illegally inflated the price of prescription drugs. He has an in-depth knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry and the unique challenges that come with prosecuting antitrust claims against drug companies. Scott has applied this knowledge to achieve precedent- setting recoveries, including a $104.75 million settlement shortly before trial in a case concerning the prescription drug Lidoderm. He also plays a key role in the firm’s work in the In re Restasis Antitrust Litigation and In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Antitrust Litigation cases.

Scott leads the firm’s litigation efforts in a class action filed by native inhabitants of Guam bringing due process and equal protection claims against the government of Guam. He also has a track record of successfully representing consumers, including car and cell phone purchasers, in cases involving fraud and GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 6 of 21

unfair business practices. During law school, Scott successfully argued a precedent-setting immigration case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Scott has been selected as a Rising Star by Northern California Super Lawyers every year since 2013.

Emily Jenks focuses on managing large electronic discovery matters in antitrust and other complex litigation. Emily is fluent in Japanese and has played a central role in identifying and analyzing key documents in multiple matters, including In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation and In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation.

A 2010 graduate of the Santa Clara University School of Law, Emily served as an associate on the Computer and High Technology Law Journal and focused her studies on intellectual property and high tech law. Emily received her undergraduate degree in international relations with an emphasis on global economy from San Francisco State University in 2005. Emily is admitted to the California Bar.

Mani Goehring strives to provide clients with prompt attention, reliable guidance, and excellent outcomes. She represents consumers in class action and other complex litigation, holding companies and institutions accountable when they engage in misconduct. From intake to resolution, Mani knows that responsiveness and tenacity are keys to obtaining favorable results.

Mani worked at the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, on criminal matters. She also interned for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

When she’s not litigating, you’ll find her hiking in the redwoods or paddling in the waves.

Elizabeth Kramer joined the firm as a summer intern over five years ago and remains a dedicated advocate for plaintiffs in complex matters spanning a variety of practice areas, including consumer protection, antitrust, securities and financial fraud, and civil rights.

Elizabeth is currently on the co-lead counsel team for women who were sexually abused by gynecologist George Tyndall M.D. in a class action against Tyndall and the University of Southern California. The case, In re USC Student Health Center Litigation, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In addition, two of Elizabeth’s recent technology-related consumer cases against HP and Lenovo have resulted in proposed settlements that, if approved, will provide substantial monetary and non-monetary relief for thousands of individuals.

Additionally, as a key contributor to the firm’s work in In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, Elizabeth focuses on discovery of the defendants and non-parties in this large-scale multidistrict proceeding involving allegations of price fixing by dozens of manufacturers of generic drugs. Since 2016, Elizabeth has been recognized as a Northern California Super Lawyers Rising Star. GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 7 of 21

Angelica Ornelas devotes her practice to representing consumers, insureds, and fraud victims. Since joining the firm, Angelica has litigated cases resulting in over $200 million in recoveries for plaintiffs. Her representative matters include Daccache v. Raymond James Financial, Inc., brought on behalf of victims of the Jay Peak investment fraud—the largest in the history of the EB-5 visa program—and Larson v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A), a certified class action alleging that John Hancock improperly inflated cost of insurance charges deducted from its customers’ life insurance policies. She currently represents policyholders in similar “cost of insurance” litigation, including In re Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Maxon v. Sentry Life Insurance Company, Spegele v. USAA Life Insurance Company, and Bally v. State Farm Life Insurance Company.

Angelica grew up in South Monterey County. She earned an undergraduate degree from UC Los Angeles and completed a master’s program at San José State University before receiving her law degree from UC Berkeley. Before joining Girard Sharp, Angelica served as a judicial law clerk for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada. Angelica speaks Spanish and French.

Jimmy Richardson represents consumers, employees, investors, and others in their efforts to vindicate their rights and the public interest. Over nearly a decade of practice, he has pursued cases involving antitrust violations, civil rights, and other complex litigation matters. Jimmy’s practice is animated by his long-standing commitment to using the law to protect the interests of everyday people against corporate and government misconduct.

A graduate of Harvard Law School, Jimmy worked at a noted litigation firm in New York City before clerking for the Honorable Mary H. Murguia on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He then worked for the World Bank Group Sanctions Board, where he adjudicated appeals of matters involving corruption and fraud in international development, and was then a managing attorney at a national civil rights firm, where he litigated landmark gender discrimination cases. Jimmy taught students about literature and American culture at Duke University before attending law school.

Peng Shao devotes his practice to advocating for plaintiffs in complex matters spanning a variety of practice areas, including antitrust, securities, financial fraud, civil rights, and consumer protection.

Peng is a graduate of UC Davis School of Law. During law school, Peng gained valuable experience as a part of UC Davis School of Law’s Business Law Journal, Intellectual Property Law Association, and Immigration Law Clinic. Peng also represented UC Davis in various Moot Court competitions and brought a case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As captain of the King Hall Soccer Team, Peng led his team to bring the UC Davis Intramural Soccer Championship back to King Hall for the first time in more than six years.

GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 8 of 21

Before joining Girard Sharp, Peng externed for the Honorable Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California and clerked for the Honorable Benita Y. Pearson of the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Peng received his B.S. in Biology with honors from University of Kentucky, and is published in The Journal of BioChemistry.

Trevor Tan is an associate who focuses on consumer protection class actions and other complex civil litigation.

Before joining the firm, Trevor clerked for the Honorable Fernando M. Olguin of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. After graduating from law school, he was a fellow at the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, where he represented unaccompanied minors facing removal proceedings. Trevor also clerked for judges of the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the court’s Appellate Division.

Trevor received his J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School in 2011. During law school, he was an extern for the Honorable George H. Wu in the Central District of California and a law clerk with the Illinois Attorney General. In addition, he served as a child advocate with the school’s immigrant child advocacy clinic and worked on behalf of immigrant children from China.

Trevor received his undergraduate degree with honors in political science from the University of California, Irvine in 2006.

Tom Watts focuses on antitrust, consumer protection, and other complex civil litigation. Before joining the firm, Tom clerked for the Honorable Jane Roth on the Third Circuit and the Honorable Robert McDonald of the Maryland Court of Appeals, assisting in a wide variety of appellate and state supreme court matters.

Tom earned a J.D. and master of public policy magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and Harvard Kenney School in 2015. During law school, he gained experience in litigation, appeals, and policy advocacy by interning with the Department of Justice’s Civil Appellate Section, Santa Clara County’s Impact Litigation and Social Justice Section, and Public Advocates, among others.

Tom received his B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley, with High Distinction in General Scholarship. He double-majored in Classical Languages, in which he received High Honors, and Astrophysics, for which he was the undergraduate commencement speaker.

GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 9 of 21

Of Counsel

Michael S. Danko is a renowned trial lawyer with more than 25 years of legal experience. He represents individuals who have suffered catastrophic personal injuries, as well as families of wrongful death victims in cases involving product defects, defective medications and medical devices, airplane and helicopter accidents, and dangerous structures. He has tried cases in state and federal courts throughout the country and has won numerous eight-figure verdicts on behalf of his clients.

Mr. Danko represents dozens of victims of a Pacific Gas & Electric gas explosion and serves on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in a California state coordinated proceeding San Bruno Fire Cases, JCCP No. 4648. He also serves on the Science Committee for Plaintiffs in In Re Yasmin and Yaz (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2100.

In 2009, he won a $15 million jury verdict for a client injured by a defective aircraft part, which earned him a nomination for 2009 California Trial Lawyer of the Year by the Consumer Attorneys of California.

Mr. Danko’s trial advocacy has helped bring about significant reforms and changes to corporate policies. As lead counsel in In Re Deep Vein Thrombosis Litigation, MDL No. 04-1606 (N.D. Cal.), he represented more than one hundred air travelers who suffered strokes, pulmonary emboli, or heart attacks as a result of airline-induced blood clots. He developed theories of liability and proof regarding the cause of his clients’ injuries that led to virtually every major air carrier warning air travelers about the risks of deep vein thrombosis and measures to mitigate those risks. Mr. Danko also represented parents of children who were injured or killed by a popular candy made by a foreign manufacturer. His work in proving that the candy’s unusual ingredients and consistency made it a choking hazard resulted in the candy being removed from Costco and Albertson’s stores nationwide, and helped lead the FDA to ban the candy from further import into the United States.

He has been named a Northern California Super Lawyer each year since the award’s inception in 2004. He is a Lawdragon 500 finalist. In 2010, he was named one of the Best Lawyers in America. He is a member of the American Association for Justice, the Lawyer Pilots Bar Association and the Consumer Attorneys of California, where he serves on the board of governors. Mr. Danko received his AB degree from Dartmouth College, magna cum laude, in 1980, and earned his JD from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1983.

GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 10 of 21

Kristine Keala Meredith is a trial attorney specializing in product liability litigation. She served as co-lead counsel with Mr. Danko representing more than one hundred air travelers who suffered strokes, pulmonary emboli, or heart attacks as a result of airline-induced blood clots in In Re Deep Vein Thrombosis Litigation, MDL No. 1606.

Ms. Meredith served on the Law and Motion committee in In Re Yasmin and Yaz (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2100, where she assisted in the successful opposition to 15 Daubert motions in fewer than three weeks. Before devoting her practice to representing plaintiffs, Ms. Meredith worked on the national defense counsel teams for medical device manufacturers in multi-district litigation including In re Silicone Gel Breast Implants Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 926, and In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1014. She also represented doctors and hospitals in defense of medical malpractice actions, where she worked with some of the world's leading medical experts.

In 2010, Ms. Meredith was named a Northern California Super Lawyer. She is currently an officer of the American Association for Justice and the San Mateo County Trial Lawyers Association. She is also a member of the San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association and the Consumer Attorneys of California. She is a former chair of the Minority Issues Committee of the San Francisco Bar Association Barrister Club.

She obtained her B.S. with honors from the University of California at Davis and was awarded a scholarship to attend Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School. While in law school, she was awarded the Distinguished Student Service Award and spent a semester at Howard University Law School in Washington, D.C., as a member of the faculty/student diversity exchange.

GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 11 of 21

SIGNIFICANT RECOVERIES

Some of the cases in which the firm has had a leadership role are described below:

False Advertising & Deceptive Marketing

In re Hyundai and Kia Horsepower Litigation, No. 02CC00287 (Cal. Super. Ct. Orange County). Girard Sharp served as lead counsel in this coordinated nationwide class action against Hyundai for falsely advertising the horsepower ratings of more than 1 million vehicles over a ten year period. The case was aggressively litigated on both sides over several years. In all, over 850,000 Hyundai owners received notice of the settlement, which provided cash and other benefits, and which was had an estimated value of as much as $125 million.

In re Chase Bank USA, N.A. “Check Loan” Contract Litigation, No. 09-2032 (N.D. Cal.). Girard Sharp and several other firms led this nationwide class action lawsuit alleging deceptive marketing and loan practices by Chase Bank USA, N.A. After a nationwide class was certified, U.S. District Court Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted final approval of a $100 million settlement on behalf of Chase cardholders.

Hyundai and Kia Fuel Economy Litigation, No. 2:13-ml-2424 (C.D. Cal.). In a lawsuit alleging false advertising in connection with the fuel efficiency of various Hyundai and Kia models, the firm served as liaison counsel and in that capacity regularly reported to the Court, coordinated a wide- ranging discovery process, and advanced the view of over twenty-five firms seeking relief under the laws of over twenty states. The case ultimately resulted in a revised nationwide class action settlement with an estimated value of up to $120 million.

In re Providian Credit Card Cases, J.C.C.P. No. 4085 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Francisco County). Girard Sharp served as court-appointed co-lead counsel in this nationwide class action suit brought on behalf of Providian credit card holders. The lawsuit alleged that Providian engaged in unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices in connection with the marketing and fee assessments for its credit cards. The Honorable Stuart Pollack approved a $105 million settlement, plus injunctive relief—one of the largest class action recoveries in the United States arising out of consumer credit card litigation.

In re MCI Non-Subscriber Telephone Rates Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1275 (S.D. Ill.). This class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of MCI subscribers charged various rates and surcharges instead of the lower rates MCI had advertised. Ten cases were consolidated for pretrial proceedings before the Honorable David R. Herndon, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois. Judge Herndon appointed Girard Sharp as co-lead counsel for the consolidated actions. On March 29, 2001, Judge Herndon granted final approval of a settlement for over $90 million in cash.

Skold v. Intel Corp., No. 1-05-CV-039231 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.) Girard Sharp represented Intel consumers through a decade of hard-fought litigation, ultimately certifying a nationwide class under an innovative “price inflation” theory and negotiating a settlement that provided refunds and $4 million in cy pres donations. In approving the settlement, Judge Peter Kirwan wrote: “It is abundantly clear that Class Counsel invested an incredible amount of time and

GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 12 of 21

costs in a case which lasted approximately 10 years with no guarantee that they would prevail…. Simply put, Class Counsel earned their fees in this case.”

Steff v. United Online, Inc., No. BC265953, (Los Angeles Super. Ct.). This nationwide class action suit was brought against NetZero, Inc. and its parent, United Online, Inc., by former NetZero customers. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants falsely advertised their internet service as unlimited and guaranteed for a specific period of time. The Honorable Victoria G. Chaney of the Los Angeles Superior Court granted final approval of a settlement that provided full refunds to customers whose services were cancelled and which placed restrictions on Defendants’ advertising.

Stoddard v. Advanta Corp., No. 97C-08-206-VAB (Del. Superior Ct.). This nationwide class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of cardholders who were promised a fixed APR for life in connection with balance transfers, but whose APR was then raised pursuant to a notice of change in terms. The Honorable Vincent A. Bifferato appointed the firm as co-lead counsel and approved a $7.25 million settlement.

Khaliki v. Helzberg’s Diamond Shops, Inc., No. 11-0010-CV-W-NKL (W.D. Mo.). Girard Sharp and co-counsel represented consumers who alleged deceptive marketing in connection with the sale of princess-cut diamonds. The firms achieved a positive settlement, which the court approved, recognizing “that Class Counsel provided excellent representation” and achieved “a favorable result relatively early in the case, which benefits the Class while preserving judicial resources.” The court went on to recognize that “Class Counsel faced considerable risk in pursuing this litigation on a contingent basis, and obtained a favorable result for the class given the legal and factual complexities and challenges presented.”

In re: Tyson Foods Inc., Chicken Raised Without Antibiotics Consumer Litigation, No. RDB- 08-1982 (D. Md.). Girard Sharp served as Class Counsel on behalf of consumers who purchased chicken products that were alleged to have been misleadingly labeled as “raised without antibiotics.” After discovery, counsel negotiated a $5 million settlement that required Tyson to pay cash to class members and make a substantial cy pres contribution to food banks.

Defective Products

In re iPod Cases, JCCP No. 4355 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Mateo Cty). Girard Sharp, as court appointed co-lead counsel, negotiated a settlement that provided warranty extensions, battery replacements, cash payments, and store credits for class members who experienced battery failure. In approving the settlement, the Hon. Beth L. Freeman said that the class was represented by “extremely well qualified” counsel who negotiated a “significant and substantial benefit” for the class members.

Sugarman v. Ducati North America, Inc., No. 5:10-cv-05246-JF (N.D. Cal.). The firm served as class counsel on behalf of Ducati motorcycle owners who the fuel tanks on their motorcycles degraded and deformed due to incompatibility with the motorcycles’ fuel. In January 2012, the Court approved a settlement that provided an extended warranty and repairs, writing, “The Court recognizes that class counsel assumed substantial risks and burdens in this litigation. Representation was professional and competent; in the Court’s opinion, counsel obtained an excellent result for the class.”

GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 13 of 21

Parkinson v. Hyundai Motor America, No. CV 8:06-0345 (C.D. Cal.). Girard Sharp served as class counsel in this class action featuring allegations that the flywheel and clutch system in certain Hyundai vehicles was defective. After achieving nationwide class certification, Girard Sharp negotiated a settlement that provided for reimbursements to class members for their repairs, depending on their vehicle’s mileage at time of repair, from 50% to 100% reimbursement. The settlement also provided full reimbursement for rental vehicle expenses for class members who rented a vehicle while flywheel or clutch repairs were being performed. After the settlement was approved, the court wrote, “Perhaps the best barometer of … the benefit obtained for the class … is the perception of class members themselves. Counsel submitted dozens of letters from class members sharing their joy, appreciation, and relief that someone finally did something to help them.”

In Re Medtronic, Inc. Implantable Defibrillators Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 05- 1726 JMR (D. Minn.). Girard Sharp served on the discovery and law committees and provided legal, discovery, and investigative support in this lawsuit, following a February 2005 recall of certain models of Medtronic implantable cardioverter defibrillator devices. Approximately 2,000 individual cases were filed around the country and consolidated in an MDL proceeding in District Court in Minnesota. The cases were settled in 2007 for $75 million.

Browne v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. CV 09-06750 (C.D. Cal.). Girard Sharp and co- counsel served as class counsel, representing plaintiffs who alleged that about 750,000 Honda Accord and Acura TSX vehicles were sold with brake pads that wore out prematurely. Girard Sharp negotiated a settlement in which improved brake pads were made available and class members who had them installed could be reimbursed. The settlement received final court approval in July 2010 and provided an estimated value of approximately $25 million.

In Re General Motors Dex-Cool Cases., No. HG03093843 (Cal. Super Ct. Alameda Cty). In these class action lawsuits filed throughout the country, plaintiffs alleged that General Motors’ Dex- Cool engine coolant damaged certain vehicles’ engines, and that in other vehicles, Dex-Cool formed a rusty sludge that caused vehicles to overheat. After consumer classes were certified in both Missouri and California, General Motors agreed to cash payments to class members nationwide. On October 27, 2008, the California court granted final approval to the settlement.

Roy v. Hyundai Motor America, No. SACV 05-483-AHS (C.D. Cal.). Girard Sharp served as court appointed co-lead counsel in this nationwide class action suit brought on behalf of Hyundai Elantra owners and lessees, alleging that an air bag system in vehicles was defective. Girard Sharp helped negotiate a settlement whereby Hyundai agreed to repair the air bag systems, provide reimbursement for transportation expenses, and administer an alternative dispute resolution program for trade-ins and buy- backs. In approving the settlement, the Honorable Alicemarie H. Stotler presiding, described the settlement as “pragmatic” and a “win-win” for all involved.

Other Consumer Protection Recoveries

Mitchell v. American Fair Credit Association, No. 785811-2 (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda Cty); Mitchell v. Bankfirst, N.A., No. C-97-1421-MMC (N.D. Cal.). This class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of California members of the American Fair Credit Association (AFCA). Plaintiffs alleged that AFCA operated an illegal credit repair scheme. The Honorable James Richman certified the class and appointed the firm as class counsel. In February 2003, Judge Ronald Sabraw of the Alameda County

GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 14 of 21

Superior Court and Judge Maxine Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of settlements valued at over $40 million.

In Re Mercedes-Benz Tele Aid Contract Litigation, MDL No. 1914, CV No. 07-2720-DRD (D.N.J.), Girard Sharp and co-counsel served as co-lead class counsel on behalf of consumers who were not told their vehicles’ navigation systems were on the verge of becoming obsolete. Counsel successfully certified a nationwide litigation class, before negotiating a settlement valued between approximately $25 million and $50 million. In approving the settlement, the court acknowledged that the case “involved years of difficult and hard-fought litigation by able counsel on both sides” and that “the attorneys who handled the case were particularly skilled by virtue of their ability and experience.”

In re America Online Spin-Off Accounts Litigation, MDL No. 04-1581-RSWL (C.D. Cal.). Girard Sharp served as court-appointed co-lead counsel in this nationwide class action suit brought on behalf of America Online subscribers who were billed for a second account without their knowledge, authorization or consent. The litigation settled for $25 million and changes in AOL’s billing and account practices.

In re LookSmart Litigation, No. 02-407778 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Francisco Cty). This nationwide class action suit was brought against LookSmart, Ltd. on behalf of LookSmart’s customers who paid an advertised “one time payment” to have their web sites listed in LookSmart’s directory, only to be later charged additional payments to continue service. Plaintiffs’ claims included breach of contract and violation of California’s consumer protection laws. On October 31, 2003, the Honorable Ronald M. Quidachay granted final approval of a nationwide class action settlement providing cash and benefits valued at approximately $20 million.

In re America Online, Inc. Version 5.0 Software Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1341 (S.D. Fla.). Girard Sharp served as co-lead counsel in this MDL proceeding, which centralized 45 class actions. The action involved alleged violations of state consumer protection statutes, the Computer Fraud and AbuseAct, and federal antitrust laws based on AOL’s distribution of its Version 5.0 software upgrade. The Honorable Alan S. Gold granted final approval to a $15.5 million cash settlement on August 1, 2002.

In re PayPal Litigation, No. C-02-1227-JF (PVT) (N.D.Cal., S.J. Div. 2002). Girard Sharp served as co-lead counsel in this nationwide class action alleging violations of California consumer protection statutes and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA). The plaintiffs alleged that PayPal unlawfully restricted access to consumers’ PayPal accounts. On September 24, 2004, Judge Fogel granted final approval to a settlement valued at $14.35 million in cash and returned funds, plus injunctive relief to ensure compliance with the EFTA.

Powers Law Offices, P.C. v. Cable & Wireless USA, Inc., No. 99-CV-12007-EFH (D. Mass 1999). In this class action brought on behalf of cable and wireless subscribers overcharged for recurring and incorrect fees, Girard Sharp prosecuted the case from 1999 through 2005. On October 27, 2005, Judge Harrington granted final approval of the $8 million settlement and the bankruptcy court approved the 30% distribution from the unsecured creditors’ fund of the bankruptcy liquidation proceeds.

GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 15 of 21

Lehman v. Blue Shield of California, No. CGC-03-419349 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Francisco County). In this class action lawsuit alleging that Blue Shield engaged in unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices when it modified the risk tier structure of its individual and family health care plans, a $6.5 million settlement was negotiated on behalf of former and current Blue Shield subscribers residing in California. The Honorable James L. Warren granted final approval of the settlement in March 2006.

Telestar v. MCI, Inc., No. C-05-Civ-10672-JGK (S.D.N.Y). This class action was brought on behalf of MCI commercial subscribers who were charged both interstate and intrastate fees for the same frame relay on prorate line service during the same billing period. On April 17, 2008, the Honorable John G. Koeltl granted final approval of a settlement for over $2.8 million in cash.

Wixon v. Wyndham Resort Development Corp., No. C-07-02361 JSW (BZ) (N.D. Cal.). Girard Sharp served as class and derivative counsel in this litigation brought against a timeshare developer and the directors of a timeshare corporation for violations of California state law. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated their fiduciary duties as directors by taking actions for the financial benefit of the timeshare developer to the detriment of the owners of timeshare interests. On September 14, 2010, Judge White granted approval of a settlement of the plaintiffs’ derivative claims.

Berrien, et al. v. New Raintree Resorts, LLC, et al., No. CV-10-03125 CW (N.D. Cal.). Girard Sharp filed this class action on behalf of timeshare owners, challenging the imposition of unauthorized special assessment fees. On November 15, 2011, the Parties reached a proposed settlement of the claims asserted by the Plaintiffs on behalf of all class members who were charged the special assessment. On March 13, 2012, the Court issued its Final Class Action Settlement Approval Order and Judgment, approving the proposed settlement.

Benedict, et al. v. Diamond Resorts Corporation, et al., No. CV 12-00183-DAE (D. Hawaii). Girard Sharp filed this class action on behalf of timeshare owners, challenging the imposition of an unauthorized special assessment fee. On November 6, 2012, the parties reached a proposed settlement of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs on behalf of all class members who were charged the special assessment. On June 6, 2013, the Court approved the settlement.

Allen Lund Co., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., No. C 98-1500-DDP (C.D. Cal.). This class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of small businesses whose long-distance service was switched to Business Discount Plan, Inc. Girard Sharp was appointed class counsel by the Honorable Dean D. Pregerson. The settlement, providing for full cash refunds and free long-distance telephone service, was approved in December 1999.

Mackouse v. The Good Guys - California, Inc., No. 2002-049656 (Cal. Super Ct. Alameda Cty). This nationwide class action lawsuit was brought against The Good Guys and its affiliates alleging violations of the Song-Beverley Warranty Act and other California consumer statutes. The Plaintiff alleged that The Good Guys failed to honor its service contracts, which were offered for sale to customers and designed to protect a customer’s purchase after the manufacturer’s warranty expired. In May 9, 2003, the Honorable Ronald M. Sabraw granted final approval of a settlement that provides cash refunds or services at the customer’s election.

GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 16 of 21

Mager v. First Bank of Marin, No. CV-S-00-1524-PMP (D. Nev.). This nationwide class action was brought on behalf of people who were enrolled in First Bank of Marin’s credit card program. In May 2002, the Judge Pro of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada approved a settlement providing for cash and non-cash benefits to class members.

Whitaker v. Health Net of Cal., Inc., et al., No. 2:11-cv-00910-KJM-DAD (E.D. Cal.) and Shurtleff v. Health Net of Cal., Inc., No. 34-2012-00121600-CU-CL (Cal. Super Ct. Sacramento Cty). Girard Sharp served as co-lead counsel in this patient privacy case. On June 24, 2014, the court granted final approval of a settlement that provided class members with credit monitoring, established a $2 million fund to reimburse consumers for related identity theft incidents, and instituted material upgrades to and monitoring of Health Net’s information security protocols.

Smith v. Regents of the University of California, San Francisco, No. RG-08-410004 (Cal. Super Ct. Alameda Cty). Girard Sharp represented a patient who alleged that UCSF’s disclosure of its patients’ medical data to outside vendors violated California medical privacy law. The firm succeeded in negotiating improvements to UCSF’s privacy procedures on behalf of a certified class of patients of the UCSF medical center. In approving the stipulated permanent injunction, Judge Stephen Brick found that “plaintiff Smith has achieved a substantial benefit to the entire class and the public at large.”

In re Countrywide Financial Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 3:08-MD- 01988 (W.D. Ky.). Girard Sharp served as a member of the executive committee representing a class of millions of customers and potential customers of Countrywide whose personal information was stolen by a former Countrywide employee and then sold to other mortgage lenders. The class settlement provided for free credit monitoring, reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of the theft, and reimbursement of up to $50,000 per class member for identity theft losses.

In re Sony BMG CD Technologies Litigation, No.1:05-cv-09575-NRB (S.D.N.Y.). Girard Sharp served as co-lead counsel in this class action for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, et seq. on behalf of millions of consumers who purchased SONY BMG music compact discs encoded with digital rights management software which limited CD functionality and acted as spyware on the users’ computers. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted approval to a settlement that provided for a nationwide recall of certain CDs, the dissemination of software utilities to remove the offending DRM, cash and other compensation for consumers, and injunctive relief governing SONY BMG’s use of DRM.

In re H&R Block Express IRA Litigation, MDL No. 1786 (W.D. Mo.). Girard Sharp served as co-lead counsel in this MDL involving H&R Block’s marketing and sale of its “Express IRA” investment products. The firms negotiated a coordinated settlement with the New York Attorney General that provided class members with more than $19 million in cash (resulting in a full recovery for consumers) and non-cash benefits entitling Express IRA holders to convert their investments to alternative IRAs with lower fees.

In re Adobe Systems, Inc. Privacy Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-05226-LHK (N.D. Cal.): Girard Sharp was appointed as lead counsel in this consolidated litigation on behalf of consumers who asserted privacy and consumer fraud claims arising from a 2013 data breach. In September 2014, Girard Sharp obtained a pivotal ruling when the court denied Adobe’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing, ruling that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013), did not

GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 17 of 21

change existing standing jurisprudence. 66 F. Supp. 3d 1197 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Before this opinion, many data breach defendants had obtained dismissals for lack of standing based on Clapper. The Adobe ruling has been followed by a number of district courts, and most recently by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC. 794 F.3d 688, 693-94 (7th Cir. 2015).

Securities and Financial Recoveries

In re Digex, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consol. Case No. 18336 (Del. Ch. Ct. 2000). Girard Sharp represented the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, one of two institutional lead plaintiffs in this lawsuit, in which minority shareholders of Digex, Inc. sued to enjoin MCI WorldCom’s planned acquisition of a controlling interest in Digex through a merger with Intermedia Communications, Inc. In a settlement approved by Delaware Chancery Court on April 6, 2000, a fund consisting of $165 million in MCI WorldCom stock and $15 million in cash was secured for Digex shareholders, as well as non-cash benefits valued at $450 million.

Billitteri v. Securities America, Inc., No. 3:09-cv-01568-F (N.D. Tex.). Girard Sharp served as lead counsel in an action against broker-dealer Securities America, Inc. and its corporate parent, Ameriprise, Inc. in connection with sales of investments in the Provident Royalties and Medical Capital investment schemes. Mr. Girard coordinated negotiations resulting in a $150 million settlement, with $80 million allocated to class plaintiffs represented by Girard Sharp and $70 million allocated to individual investors who had initiated arbitration proceedings. The settlements returned over 40% of investment losses.

In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation, No. 08-Civ-5523 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Girard Sharp was appointed class counsel for a certified class of retail investors in structured products sold by UBS Financial Services, Inc., following the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., the largest bankruptcy in United States history. The plaintiffs alleged that UBS misrepresented Lehman’s financial condition and failed to disclose that the “principal protection” feature of many of the notes depended upon Lehman’s solvency. Girard Sharp negotiated a settlement that established a $120 million fund to resolve the claims.

In re Prison Realty Securities Litigation, No. 3:99-0452 (M.D. Tenn.). Girard Sharp served as co- lead counsel in this securities class action brought against a real estate investment trust and its officers and directors relating to a merger between Corrections Corporation of America and CCA Prison Realty Trust. On February 13, 2001, the Court granted final approval to a settlement for over $120 million in cash and stock.

In re American Express Financial Advisors Securities Litigation, No. 04-cv-01773-DAB (S.D.N.Y.). Girard Sharp served as co-lead counsel in this class action, brought on behalf of individuals who bought financial plans and invested in mutual funds from American Express Financial Advisors. The case alleged that American Express steered its clients into underperforming “shelf space funds” to reap kickbacks and other financial benefits. On July 13, 2007, the Court granted final approval to a cash settlement of $100 million in addition to other relief.

Scheiner v. i2 Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 3:01-CV-418-H (N.D. Tex.). Girard Sharp represented lead plaintiff, the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, and served as co-lead counsel on behalf of investors in i2 Technologies. The Honorable Barefoot Sanders approved cash settlements for

GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 18 of 21

$88 million from the company, its officers and its former auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP. As part of the settlement, i2 agreed to institute significant corporate governance reforms.

In re Peregrine Financial Group Customer Litigation, No. 415546 (Cal. Super. Ct. S.F. County). Girard Sharp served as co-lead counsel for futures and commodities investors who alleged they lost millions of dollars in the collapse of Peregrine Financial Group, Inc. The case resulted in settlements with JPMorgan Chase & Co. and U.S. Bank N.A., totaling approximately $60 million.

CalSTRS v. Qwest Communications, et al., No. 415546 (Cal. Super. Ct. S.F. County). Girard Sharp represented the California State Teachers Retirement System in this opt-out securities fraud case against Qwest Communications, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors, as well as its outside auditor Arthur Andersen. The case resulted in a precedent-setting $45 million settlement for California school teachers.

In re SLM Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 08-Civ-1029-WHP. Girard Sharp served as lead counsel representing investors of SLM Corporation in litigation alleging that Sallie Mae, the leading provider of student loans in the U.S., misled the public about its financial performance in order to inflate the company’s stock price. After achieving nationwide class certification, Girard Sharp negotiated a settlement that established a $35 million fund to resolve investors’ claims.

In re Winstar Communications Securities Litigation, No. 01 Civ. 11522 (S.D.N.Y) Girard Sharp represented Allianz of America, Inc., Fireman’s Fund and other large private institutional investors against Grant Thornton and other defendants arising out of plaintiffs’ investments in Winstar Communications, Inc. The firm achieved a settlement on the eve of trial that provided a recovery rate more than 30 times higher than what class members received in a related class action. The recovery (after attorney fees) returned a remarkable 78.5% of the losses plaintiffs may have recovered at trial.

In re Total Renal Care Securities Litigation, No. 99-01750 (C.D. Cal.). This securities fraud action arose out of restatement of earnings by a healthcare provider, brought under the PSLRA by the Louisiana Teachers’ Retirement System and the Louisiana School Employees’ Retirement System. The case settled for $25 million and issuer’s commitment to adopt comprehensive corporate governance reforms. Girard Sharp served as liaison counsel.

In re Oxford Tax Exempt Fund Securities Litigation, No. WMN-95-3643 (D. Md.). Girard Sharp served as co-lead counsel in this class and derivative litigation brought on behalf of a real estate limited partnership with assets of over $200 million. Settlement providing for exempt issuance of securities under section 3(a)(10) of Securities Act of 1933, public listing of units, and additional settlement benefits valued at over $10 million approved January 31, 1997.

Calliott v. HFS, Inc., No. 3:97-CV-0924-L (N.D. Tex.). Girard Sharp intervened on behalf of an institutional client in this securities class action arising out of bankruptcy of Amre, Inc., a seller of home remodeling and repair services. Girard Sharp was designated lead plaintiff’s counsel under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Settlements for $7.3 million were approved August 1999 and December 2000.

GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 19 of 21

In re Towers Financial Corporation Noteholders Litigation, MDL No. 994 (S.D.N.Y.). This class action was brought against promoters and professionals associated with a failed investment scheme described by the SEC as the then “largest Ponzi scheme in U.S. history.” The case resulted in $6 million in partial settlements, and a $250 million judgment entered against four senior Towers executives. Girard Sharp served as liaison counsel and as a plaintiffs’ executive committee member. See In re Towers Financial Corporation Noteholders Litigation, 177 F.R.D. 167 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (“class counsel— particularly Plaintiffs’ Liaison counsel, Daniel Girard—has represented the plaintiffs diligently and ably in the several years that this litigation has been before me”).

Mass Tort

In re Actos (Pioglitazone-Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 11-md-2299 (W.D. La.). Girard Sharp lawyers were among those court-appointed to the Plaintiffs Steering Committee and also served on the Daubert and Legal Briefing Committees, in litigation that resulted in a $2.37 billion settlement.

In re Yasmin and Yaz (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2385, No. 3:09-md-02100-DRH-CJP (S.D. Ill.). The firm’s lawyers were appointed to the Plaintiffs Steering Committee and served as Co-Chair of the Plaintiffs’ Law and Briefing Committee, in litigation ultimately resulting in settlements worth approximately $1.6 billion.

In re Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2385, No. 3:12- md-02385-DRH-SCW (S.D. Ill.), Girard Sharp lawyers were appointed by the court to the Plaintiffs Steering Committee in mass tort litigation that resulted in settlements worth approximately $650 million.

Employment

Mitchell v. Acosta Sales, LLC, No. 11-1796 (C.D. Cal. 2011). Girard Sharp and co-counsel served as class counsel representing Acosta employees who alleged that they were required to work off- the- clock and were not reimbursed for required employment expenses. Girard Sharp helped negotiate a $9.9 million settlement for merchandiser employees who were not paid for all the hours they worked. The Court granted final approval of the settlement in September 2013.

Rubaker v. Spansion, LLC, No. 09-842 (N.D. Cal. 2009). Girard Sharp and co-counsel filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of former Spansion employees that alleged that the company had failed to provide terminated employees from California and Texas with advance notice of the layoff, as required by the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act). The bankruptcy court approved the class action settlement negotiated by Girard Sharp and co-counsel in 2010. The settlement was valued at $8.6 million and resulted in cash payments to the former employees.

GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 20 of 21

Antitrust

In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1827 (N.D. Cal.). The firm served served as liaison counsel in this landmark multidistrict antitrust litigation against numerous TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) manufacturers alleging a conspiracy to fix prices, which achieved settlements of more than $400 million.

In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, No. 14-md-02521 (N.D. Cal.). Girard Sharp lawyers were appointed co-lead counsel in a class action on behalf of end-purchasers of the prescription drug Lidoderm who alleged that two drug companies, Endo Pharmaceuticals and Teikoku Pharma, unlawfully paid a third, Watson Pharmaceuticals, to delay the launch of less expensive generic Lidocaine patches. Our lawyers achieved a $104.75 million settlement on the eve of trial.

In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation, No. 14-md-2516 (D. Conn.). The firm served on the Executive Committee in pay-for-delay litigation accusing Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. of keeping generic Aggrenox off the market. The case settled for $54 million.

In re Solodyn Antitrust Litigation, No. 14-md-2503 (D. Mass.). The firm served on the Executive Committee in this generic suppression case alleging that Medicis Pharmaceuticals and a number of generic drug manufacturers conspired to monopolize the market for acne drug Solodyn. The case settled for more than $40 million.

In re Natural Gas Antitrust Cases I, II, III and IV, J.C.C.P. No. 4221 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Diego Cty). Girard Sharp served in a leadership capacity in this coordinated antitrust litigation against numerous natural gas companies for manipulating the California natural gas market, which has achieved settlements of nearly $160 million.

Government Reform

Paeste v. Government of Guam, No. 11-cv-0008 (D. Guam). Girard Sharp and co-counsel served as Class Counsel in litigation alleging the Government of Guam had a longstanding practice of delaying tax refunds for years on end. After certifying a litigation class, Plaintiffs prevailed on both of their claims at the summary judgment stage, and obtained a permanent injunction reforming the government’s administration of tax refunds.

Ho v. San Francisco Unified School District, No. C-94-2418-WHO (N.D. Cal.). This civil rights action was brought on behalf of a certified class of San Francisco public school students of Chinese descent to terminate racial and ethnic quotas imposed under 1983 desegregation consent decree. See Ho v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 965 F. Supp. 1316 (N.D. Cal. 1997), aff’d 147 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 1998); see also 143 Cong. Rec. S6097, 6099 (1997) (statement of United States Senator Hatch referring to testimony of class representative before Senate Judiciary Committee).

GIRARD SHARP FIRM RESUME Page 21 of 21

Morgan & Morgan is a leading civil trial law firm representing consumers and commercial clients nationwide. With over 470 lawyers, and more than 2,000 non-lawyer employees, Morgan & Morgan is the largest plaintiffs’ firm in the state of Florida and one of the largest, if not the largest, in the nation. Morgan & Morgan maintains over 50 offices in multiple states including California, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. Among its lawyers are a former Cabinet member of President Clinton’s administration, a former United States Congressman, a former state attorney general and present and former members of state legislatures.

Morgan & Morgan has a dedicated Complex Litigation Group staffed with lawyers, paralegals, and retired FBI agents serving as investigators committed to representing consumers in complex litigation, MDL proceedings and class action cases throughout the country. It has achieved many remarkable results in class litigation, including the settlement of In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation, no. 08-0511(D.D.C. Oct. 27, 2017), where one of its partners served as co-lead. The case resulted in a settlement with the United States Government in the amount of $1.2 billion for African American farmers who had been systematically discriminated against on the basis of race, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Morgan & Morgan has assembled a talented team of lawyers:

Mr. Yanchunis leads the class action section of the law firm. His practice—which began after completing a two-year clerkship with United States District Judge Carl O. Bue, Jr., S. D. Tex.—has concentrated on complex litigation and spans over 35 years, including consumer class actions for more than two-thirds of that time. In the area of privacy litigation, he served as co-lead counsel in the successful resolution of the following privacy, non-data-breach class actions: Davis v. Bank of America, No. 05-cv-80806 (S.D. Fla.) ($10 million common fund), Kehoe v. Fidelity Federal Bank and Trust, No. 03-cv-80593 (S.D. Fla.) ($50 million common fund), and Pino v. Warranty Acceptance Corporation, No. 05-cv-61576 (S.D. Fla.) (injunctive relief). He has settled a number of data breach or data compromise cases and has served in leadership in a number of those cases: he was co-lead counsel in the MDL case In re The Home Depot, Inc. Customer Data Security Data Breach Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02583- TWT (N.D. Ga.) (consumer class cases)

As a result of his extensive experience in privacy and data-breach litigation, he regularly lectures at seminars regarding privacy litigation.

Alongside his experience in the area of privacy, he also served as lead, co-lead, and class counsel in numerous national class actions, including multi-district litigation, involving a wide range of subjects affecting consumers, including antitrust, defective products, life insurance,

- 1 - annuities, and deceptive and unfair acts and practices.

As a result of his experience in insurance and complex litigation, beginning in 2005, he was selected by Tom Gallagher, the Chief Financial Officer for the state of Florida and a member of the Florida Cabinet, to serve as lead counsel for the Florida Department of Financial Services and the Florida Department of Insurance Regulation (the insurance regulators of Florida) in their investigations of the insurance industry on issues concerning possible antitrust activity and other possible unlawful activities regarding the payment of undisclosed compensation to insurance brokers. He served as lead regulator counsel and worked with a core group of state Attorneys General from the National Association of Attorneys General, which were selected to conduct the investigations. The insurance regulator for Florida was the only insurance regulator in the group. The litigation that was filed and the related investigations netted millions of dollars in restitution for Florida consumers and resulted in significant changes in the way commercial insurance is sold in Florida and across the country.

During his career, he has tried numerous cases in state and federal courts, including one of the largest and longest insurance coverage cases in U.S. history, which was filed in 1991 by the Celotex Corporation and its subsidiary, Carey Canada, Inc. During the seventeen years the case pended, he served as lead counsel for several insurance companies, regarding coverage for asbestos and environmental claims. The case was tried in three phases over several years beginning in 1992. He was also lead counsel for these parties in the subsequent appeals that followed a judgment in favor of his clients.

As result of his experience in the area of class litigation and ethics, he has served as an expert for The Florida Bar on ethical issues arising in class action litigation.

While at the University of Florida Mr. Yanchunis was a member of Florida Blue Key and Omicron Delta Kappa. He received his Juris Doctor degree from the South Texas College of Law in 1980, where he graduated magna cum laude. During law school, Mr. Yanchunis was a member of the Order of the Lytae, Associate Editor-in-Chief and Technical Editor of the South Texas Law Journal.

Jean Sutton Martin. Ms. Martin has concentrated her practice on complex litigation, including consumer protection and defective products class action. She has served in leadership positions in many consumer class actions and consolidated proceedings in federal courts around the country, including inter alia: Gordon, et al. v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 17- cv-01415 (D. Colo.) (data breach) (co-lead counsel); In re: Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, No. 17-md-2775 (D. Md.) (defective hip implant) (member of Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee); Timmons v. HAECO Americas, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-486 (M.D.N.C.) (employee data disclosure) (co-lead counsel); Fuentes, et al. v. UniRush, LLC, et al., No. 1:15-cv-08372 (S.D.N.Y.) (disruption in servicing of financial accounts) (co-lead counsel); Lewis, et al., v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 2:16-cv- 03557 (C.D. Cal.) (disruption in servicing of financial accounts) (class counsel); In Re: Outer Banks Power Outage Litigation, No. 4:17-cv-141 (E.D.N.C.) (extended island power outage due to defective construction practices) (class counsel); and, McCoy v. North State Aviation, LLC, et al., No. 17-cv-346 (M.D.N.C.) (WARN Act violations) (class counsel).

Ms. Martin received her Juris Doctor degree from Wake Forest University School of Law, where she served as Editor-in-Chief of the Wake Forest Law Review. She obtained

- 2 - eDiscovery certification from the eDiscovery Training Academy at Georgetown Law Center in 2017. Ms. Martin graduated from Wake Forest University with a Bachelor of Science in Mathematical Economics. She earned a Master of International Business from the University of South Carolina. Having studied German, she interned with the sales finance team of Digital Equipment Company in Munich, Germany and was tasked with compiling the sales figures for European operations as well as determining sales forecasts and pricing models for computer bundles to be sold to universities and other educational institutions for the company’s expansion into the Eastern European market after the fall of the Berlin wall. Before heading back to law school, Ms. Martin worked as a marketing manager for an international candy manufacturer where her responsibilities included product development, brand licensing, market research, and sales analysis.

Ms. Martin has been honored with the prestigious “AV” rating by Martindale-Hubbell. In 2015, she was inducted as a Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, a prestigious trial lawyer honorary society comprised of less than one-half of one percent of American lawyers. In 2016, Ms. Martin was selected by her peers as the foremost Litigation attorney in the State of North Carolina for Business North Carolina Magazine’s Legal Elite, gaining membership in the Legal Elite Hall of Fame. Since 2012, she has been selected to the Super Lawyers list for North Carolina in the areas of mass torts and class actions, with multiple selections to the Top 50 Women North Carolina list. Additionally, Ms. Martin has been named by National Trial Lawyers to the Top 100 Trial Lawyers, Top 50 Class Action Lawyers, and Top 50 Mass Torts Lawyers for North Carolina.

Frank M. Petosa. Frank coordinates the firm's interdisciplinary Environmental Toxic Tort Practice Group representing individuals, businesses and municipalities throughout the United States impacted by environmental disasters.

In the aftermath of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Frank coordinated the firm’s representation of numerous individuals, businesses and municipalities throughout the Gulf Coast impacted by the Oil Spill.

Frank holds personal appointments and serves on the PSC for the following MDL proceedings: Southern California Gas leak Cases, California Coordinated Proceeding No. 4861 (Co-Lead of the Individual Action PSC and Co-Chair of the Medical/Health Impacts and Well Integrity Committees); Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation MDL 2545 (Co-lead trial counsel for the first VTE bellwether trial, member of the Science and Expert, Discovery and Auxilium Committees); Invokana (Canagliflozin) Products Liability Litigation MDL 2750 (Co-chair of the Bellwether Committee and member of the Science and Expert and Discovery Committees); Lipitor (Atorvastin) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation MDL 2502 (member of the Science and Expert and Discovery Committees); and Elk Cross Timbers Decking Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation MDL 2577. He also manages the firm’s nationwide Testosterone, SGLT2 Inhibitor and Reglan cases and has been active in the PSC for the Chinese Drywall MDL and the Denture Cream MDL.

Jonathan Cohen. Mr. Cohen focuses on consumer class action litigation. Before joining Morgan & Morgan in 2013, Mr. Cohen was a partner at James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, P.A., a firm specializing in the prosecution of nationwide consumer class actions and whistleblower (qui tam) complaints. Mr. Cohen has prosecuted a number of state and federal consumer class actions, including cases against banks, mortgage companies and

- 3 - insurance companies alleging violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the forced-placement of insurance. He has also prosecuted class actions against for-profit colleges alleging deceptive trade practices, against counties alleging the improper taxation of landowners and against major corporations alleging employment discrimination. Mr. Cohen earned his Bachelor of Arts degree in Journalism from Indiana University in 1996. He attended Stetson University College of Law and earned his Juris Doctor in 2005.

Marcio Valladares. Mr. Valladares was born in Managua, Nicaragua and immigrated to the United States during Nicaragua’s civil war. In 1990, Marcio obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology from the University of Florida. In 1993, he obtained his Juris Doctor degree, magna cum laude, from Florida State University. He is pursuing a Masters in Law (LL.M.) degree from Columbia University, focusing on federal and comparative law.

Before joining Morgan & Morgan, Marcio worked in both the public and private sectors. He served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Steven D. Merryday, United States District Judge, Middle District of Florida, and then served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Susan H. Black, United States Circuit Court Judge, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Marcio served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida. In the private sector, Marcio practiced commercial litigation and insurance defense at Holland & Knight LLP. Marcio also worked as in-house counsel for the Mayo Clinic. Marcio is fluent in English and Spanish.

Patrick Barthle. Mr. Barthle was born and raised in Dade City, Florida. He attended the University of Florida where he was admitted to the Honors Program and graduated, cum laude, with a double major in History and Criminology. While at UF, Patrick was inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society and served as President of the Catholic Student Center. Patrick attended Washington and Lee University School of Law, graduating summa cum laude; was a Lead Articles Editor for the Wash. & Lee Law Review, a member of the Order of the Coif and the Phi Delta Phi Legal Honor Society, and President of the W&L Law Families organization.

Before joining Morgan & Morgan, Patrick worked at one of the country’s largest law firms, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, and then served as a judicial law clerk for two years to the Honorable Mary S. Scriven, United States District Judge, Middle District of Florida. Patrick has extensive data-breach class experience, having actively participated in: In re: U.S. Office of Personnel Management Data Security Breach Litigation, 1:15-mc-01394-ABJ (D.C.); Torres v. Wendy’s International, LLC, No. 6:16-cv-210 (M.D. Fla.); In Re: Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 1:17-md-2800-TWT (N.D. Ga.); and In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 16-md-02752-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

Ryan J. McGee. Mr. McGee was born and raised in Tampa, Florida. He studied business economics and history at the University of Florida, and received his law degree from Stetson University College of Law, where he was an editor on the Stetson Law Review, and a teaching assistant for Stetson’s trial advocacy program.

Ryan began his legal career as a state-appointed prosecutor, where he tried over 50 jury trials to verdict, mostly felonies, as well as a special prosecutor selected to investigate police officers’ deadly use-of-force and corruption within various law enforcement agencies. Ryan also

- 4 - served as a law clerk for two years for the Honorable Elizabeth A. Kovachevich, the former Chief United States District Judge, Middle District of Florida. Before joining Morgan & Morgan, Ryan’s practice involved complex business disputes, antitrust, trade secret, data security, and class action investigations and litigation in state and federal courts across the country.

René F. Rocha. Mr. Rocha is joined Morgan & Morgan’s Complex Litigation Group in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, and assists Frank Petosa in the coordination of the firm’s interdisciplinary Environmental Toxic Tort Practice Group.

René has extensive trial experience in complex environmental and products liability cases. Rene has been involved in a wide array of complex litigation, including Dicamba Herbicides Litigation MDL 2820; Southern California Gas leak Cases, California Coordinated Proceeding No. 4861 (Discovery and Well Integrity Committees); Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation MDL 2545 (trial co-counsel in the first VTE bellwether trial, Discovery Committee); Lipitor (Atorvastin) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation MDL 2502 (member of the Science and Expert and Discovery Committees).

Kenya Reddy. Ms. Reddy represents consumers in class action litigation. She graduated from Duke University in 1997 with a degree in political science. In 2000, she received her law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law. Prior to joining Morgan & Morgan, Ms. Reddy was a shareholder at Carlton Fields, P.A., where her primary areas of practice were antitrust, complex civil litigation, class action defense, and business litigation. She also has experience in including labor and employment, products litigation, ERISA and employee benefits law, insurance, healthcare, and securities litigation.

Ms. Reddy has served as a law clerk for the Honorable Charles R. Wilson, United States Circuit Court Judge, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the Honorable Anne C. Conway, former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the Honorable Mary S. Scriven, United States District Judge, Middle District of Florida, and the Honorable Karla R. Spaulding, United States Magistrate Judge, Middle District of Florida.

Michael Braun. Mr. Braun has represented shareholders and consumers in class action litigation for the past 25 years, having served as lead or liaison counsel in well over a hundred cases. He was named Lawyer of the Year in 2000 by California Lawyer Magazine, and a Super Lawyer from 2005-2019 by Los Angeles Magazine. Mr. Braun is a graduate of the London School of Economics, Loyola Law School, The Hague Academy of International Law and the University of California at Los Angeles. Mr. Braun is a member of the California, New York and District of Columbia bars, and is also licensed as an English Solicitor.

Representative cases include: Lopez v. American. Express Bank, Case No. 09-cv-07335 (C.D. CA) (class-wide recovery on behalf of AMEX credit card holders over imposition of improper interest rates); Thurston v. Brooks College, Ltd., Case No. NC036756 (Los Angeles County Superior Court 2005) (class-wide recovery for students who were subject to misrepresentations about the quality of their education and job prospects after graduation); Larsen v. Trader Joe’s Company, Case No. 11-cv-5188 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (class-wide recovery on behalf of consumers deceived by “100% natural” claims on food labels).

- 5 - JEFF S. WESTERMAN Westerman Law Corp. Practice Areas: 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200 Securities & Investor Litigation Los Angeles, California 90067 Consumer Litigation PHONE: (310) 698-7880 Antitrust Litigation FAX: (310) 201-9160 [email protected]

Mr. Westerman practices in the areas of securities fraud, investor, consumer, and antitrust class actions, shareholder derivative actions, and corporate mergers and Education: acquisitions litigation. He has served as lead or co-lead counsel in cases resulting in B.A., Northwestern University, significant corporate governance changes, and resulting in recoveries and 1977 recognized increased value to plaintiffs totaling more than $1 billion. In 2005, The Elected to two senior honor societies Daily Journal recognized him as one of the top 30 securities litigators in California. In 2013 he was a finalist for the Consumer Attorneys of California, Consumer Attorney J.D., University of Pittsburgh, of the Year, for In Re Chase Bank USA, N.A. “Check Loan” Litigation that settled for 1980, Law Review $100 million. In 2013 Mr. Westerman was also co-lead counsel on the In Re Medical Capital Securities Litigation that settled for $219 million, and In Re Korean Airlines Admitted: California, 1980 Co., LTD. Antitrust Litigation which settled for a total of $86 million.

Mr. Westerman has served as a moderator or speaker for programs on complex litigation, class actions, settlements, the Sarbanes-Oxley Corporate Responsibility Act, shareholder derivative actions, best practices for pretrial motions and trends in business litigation. He is a co-author of “Preparing For And Participating In The Mediation Session” in Financial Services Mediation Answer Book, Phillips et al Ed. (PLI 2017)

Mr. Westerman was a member (2001-2003) and Co-Chair (2002-2003) of the Central District of California Attorney Delegation to the United States Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. He served on the Central District of California, U.S. Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Panel (2003-early 2014). He has served on the U.S. Central District of California Standing Committee on Attorney Discipline and was appointed Vice Chair in 2011, and Chair 2014 to present. He is also a member of the Central District of California Attorney Settlement Officer Panel (1998-present).

Mr. Westerman was president of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers (2004- 2005); on the Board of Governors (1997-2005), Treasurer (2001-2002), Secretary (2002-2003), and Vice President (2003-2004). He is also on the Board of Governors of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (2003-present), where, after 10 years of board service, Mr. Westerman became Governor Emeritus. He is a Board Member of the Los Angeles, Federal Bar Association Chapter.

For 2013 -14, Mr. Westerman was the Chair of the Los Angeles County Bar Litigation Section, which has over 2,000 members, and he was a Trustee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association (2014 - 2016). He is a member of the Los Angeles Superior Court’s Bench-Bar Civil Courts Committee. He is past Chair of the LA County Bar Complex Courts Bench-Bar Committee, and he served as Judge Pro Tem in the Los Angeles Small Claims Court in 1987-1988, 1990, 1992-1993, and 1996-1997. He is co-chair of the Los Angeles County Bar Association Court Funding Committee (2014- Present). He was on the California State Bar Task Force on Complex Litigation, and Chair of the Judicial Education Subcommittee (1997). He was one of Lawdragon's 3000 Leading Plaintiffs’ Lawyers In America (2007- 2010).

California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones appointed Mr. Westerman to the California Organized Investment Network Advisory Board for the 2012 term, which promotes insurance company investment in California communities.

Mr. Westerman is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of California, as well as the United States District Courts in California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court.

Westerman Law Corp. 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, California 90067 PHONE: (310) 698-7880 FAX: (310) 775-9777 KENNETH A. REMSON

Kenneth A. Remson is Counsel at Westerman Law Corp., where he focuses on complex litigation including data breaches, derivative actions, securities cases, antitrust, employment, insurance, and intellectual property. He has been lead counsel in civil and criminal trials, as well as arbitrations and mediations. He recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for plaintiffs he has represented. Mr. Remson has written and spoken on issues involving insurance and employment issues, and has served as a mediator.

Mr. Remson received his A.B. in Communication from Stanford University, his M.S. in Journalism from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, and his J.D. with honors, at the Duke University School of Law. At Duke he was the Editor in Chief of the Alaska Law Review. After law school, Mr. Remson was a law clerk for the Honorable Andrew J. Kleinfield, then United States District Judge, District of Alaska.

From 2006 to 2014 Mr. Remson was Counsel at Dickstein Shapiro where he represented policyholders in claims involving hurricanes, environmental, liability, business interruption, directors and officers (D&O), cargo, employment, sex abuse, and homeowners’ claims. Mr. Remson also represented clients in other types of complex litigation. Mr. Remson was the Leader of the firm’s Employment Insurance Coverage Initiative and a Member of the Litigation Steering Committee. He recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for a major defense contractor in its Hurricane Katrina claim and recovered tens of millions of dollars for a major software company in a matter involving a London Arbitration.

From 2001 to 2006, Mr. Remson was a Senior Associate at Howrey LLP where he represented policyholders and other clients in complex litigation. Mr. Remson represented a utility company in an environmental insurance claim that involved a month long jury trial.

From 1996 to 2001 and 1994-1995, Mr. Remson was an Associate at Jones Day where he represented policyholders and other clients in all phases of complex litigation. He successfully tried a number of criminal matters in 1999 while acting as a Deputy City Attorney in the Los Angeles County Bar Association's Trial Advocacy Program (“TAP”).

For two years, from 1995 to 1996, Mr. Remson was a Deputy Attorney General for the State of Hawaii in Civil Recoveries Division, State Claims Unit. Mr. Remson handled cases involving class actions, construction disputes, complex claims, and Hawaiian issues.

From 1992 to 1994, Mr. Remson was a Partner at Anderson Kill where he successfully argued a Ninth Circuit complex insurance appeal. From 1990 to 1992, he was an Associate at O’Melveny & Myers where he handled employment and general litigation matters. From 1979 to 1986, Mr. Remson was an award winning broadcast journalist in Hawaii, Guam, and New York.

Mr. Remson is licensed to practice in California and Hawaii. He is admitted to practice in the United States District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, Southern, and Central Districts of California, the District of Hawaii, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

jfkkb^mlifp= ilp=^kdbibp= = p`lqqpa^ib= Zimmerman Reed LLP Zimmerman Reed LLP Zimmerman Reed LLP 1100 IDS Center 2381 Rosecrans Avenue 14646 North Kierland Blvd 80 South 8th Street Suite 328 Suite 145 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Manhattan Beach, CA 90245 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 t: 612.341.0400 t: 877.500.8780 t: 480.348.6400 zimmreed.com zimmreed.com zimmreed.com

cfoj=mo^`qf`b=^ka=^`efbsbjbkqp== Zimmerman Reed is a nationally recognized leader in complex and class action litigation and has been appointed as lead counsel in some of the largest and most complex cases in federal and state courts across the country. The firm was founded in 1983 and has successfully represented thousands of consumers and injured individuals nationwide in significant and demanding cases. The firm’s practice includes a wide range of legal issues and complex cases involving consumer fraud, ERISA, shareholder actions, environmental torts, pharmaceutical drugs, dangerous or defective products, human rights violations, and privacy litigation. Since 2010, Zimmerman Reed has earned a “Best Law Firm” ranking released by U.S. News & World Report.

The following are just a few of the firm’s notable achievements:

Co-Lead Counsel in the Baycol Products Liability Litig. (D. Minn.), seeking recovery for serious injuries from the use of Bayer’s statin, Baycol. Achieved $1.15 billion settlement.

Lead Counsel Committee member in the Stryker Rejuvenate & ABG II Hip Implant Products Liability Litig. (D. Minn.), seeking compensation for recalled Stryker hip replacements. Achieved $1.4 billion settlement.

Co-Lead Counsel in the Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litig. (D. Minn.), arising out of malfunctions in cardiac defibrillators implanted in patients. Achieved $230 million settlement.

Class and Derivative Counsel in the Regions Morgan Keegan Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litig., Landers v. Morgan Asset Mgmt. (W.D. Tenn.), alleging violations of federal securities laws and breach of fiduciary duty due to the collapse of Regions Morgan Keegan open-end funds. Achieved $125 million settlement.

Class Counsel in Soo Line R.R. Co. Derailment of Jan. 18, 2002 in Minot, N.D. (Hennepin Cty. Dist. Ct.), representing hundreds of individuals injured by the release of anhydrous ammonia. Obtained a $1.2 million jury verdict. Achieved a $7 million class settlement and assisted congressional leaders in drafting and passing amendments to the Federal Railroad Safety Act, clarifying the scope of railroad preemption law.

Lead Counsel for the State of Mississippi in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics, 571 U.S. 161 (2014), resulting in a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing a Fifth Circuit decision, resolving a circuit split, and establishing binding law across the country that a State’s enforcement action is not removable to federal court as a mass action.

Co-Lead Counsel in Medtronic Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litig. (D. Minn.), seeking recovery for more than 2,682 patients with recalled Medtronic heart defibrillators. Achieved a $95.6 million settlement.

Class Counsel in City of Farmington Hills Employees Retirement System v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (D. Minn.), to recover losses caused by the bank’s mismanagement of its securities lending program. Achieved a $62.5 million settlement, two days before trial.

2 Lead Counsel in Dryer v. National Football League (D. Minn.), arising out of the unauthorized use of retired NFL players’ identities to generate revenue. Achieved a $50 million settlement and created a ground-breaking program which allowed retired players the opportunity to benefit from the League’s use of their images and allowed the League an opportunity to build its marketing using film clips of these former players.

Lead Counsel in Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litig. (D. Minn.), to recover financial institutions’ losses from the company’s massive 2013 data breach. Achieved a $39 million settlement.

Class Counsel in The Shane Group Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (E.D. Mich.), against insurance carrier for violations of antitrust laws from contractually requiring hospitals to charge higher prices to competitors. Achieved a $30 million settlement (pending final approval).

Lead Counsel in Zicam Remedy Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litig. (D. Ariz.), seeking to recover for customers’ loss of the sense of smell from using Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel. Achieved $27 million settlement.

Counsel for third-party payor in In re Metoprolol Succinate End-Payor Antitrust Litig. (D. Del.), alleging that the manufacturing and marketing of the heart drug, Toprol-XL, violated antitrust and deceptive trade practices laws. Achieved $20 million settlement.

Class Counsel in Weincke v. Metropolitan Airports Commission (Hennepin Cty. Dist. Ct.), regarding excessive noise levels from the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Achieved settlement to provide noise mitigation to more than 9,500 homeowners.

^`hkltibadjbkq=lc=qeb=cfojÛp=tloh= Federal and state judges as well as legal scholars have consistently recognized the quality and impact of the firm’s work on numerous occasions. Below are just a few examples.

“To summarize: class counsel recovered over ten times what is recovered in the typical case of this kind despite risks and complexities much more formidable than the typical case.” Brian Fitzpatrick, Law Professor at Vanderbilt University and former clerk to Justice Scalia, expert in In re Region Morgan Keegan Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litig., Landers v. Morgan Asset Mgmt. (W.D. Tenn.)

“Fortunately for the absent class members, experienced counsel … negotiated a settlement that is truly one-of-a-kind, and a remarkable victory for the class as a whole.” Judge Paul Magnuson, Dryer v. National Football League (D. Minn.)

“I think no one can question your leadership in this matter. Again, thank you, and I say again it was the best decision I have ever made.” Judge Michael Davis (former Chief Judge), In re Baycol Products Liability Litig. (D. Minn.)

“[S]uperior work the court observed from the firm throughout this litigation.” Judge Donovan Frank, In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litig. (D. Minn.)

3 “The parties were represented by highly skilled and experienced counsel, who were extremely knowledgeable and clearly had spent a considerable amount of time developing the law and facts in this complex litigation.” Judge Layn Phillips (ret.), mediator in In re Region Morgan Keegan Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litig., Landers v. Morgan Asset Mgmt. (W.D. Tenn.)

It] is “clear of the dedication, devotion, professionalism, and in the court’s view efficiency of these firms, so there is no question in the court’s mind of the quality of the representation.” Judge Deborah Batts, In Re American Express Financial Advisors Securities Litig. (S.D.N.Y.)

“Here, there is no doubt that the class has had competent counsel …. It’s been a pleasure … to have counsel of this quality on both sides. I wish you would together go out and teach seminars about class action litigation. It would make my life a lot easier.” Judge Isabel Gomez, Edwards v. Long Beach Mortgage Co. (Hennepin Cty. Dist. Ct.)

“The reputation and experience of [Zimmerman Reed and co-counsel] to conduct class litigation of this nature is outstanding, and the record reflects that both law firms have successfully prosecuted numerous class actions in Minnesota courts and throughout the United States. The quality of representation in this case has been excellent, and the two firms are eminently qualified to serve as class counsel.” Judge Lloyd Zimmerman, Holdhal v. BioErgonomics (Hennepin Cty. Dist. Ct.) obmobpbkq^qfsb=ib^abopefm=mlpfqflkp= Zimmerman Reed has been appointed Lead or Liaison Counsel in the following MDLs: CenturyLink Residential Customer Billing Disputes Litig., MDL 2795 National Hockey League Players’ Concussion Injury Litig., MDL 2551 Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2522 Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Hip Implant Products Liability Litig., MDL 2441 National Arbitration Forum Trade Practices Litig., MDL 2122 Zicam Cold Remedy Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litig., MDL 2096 Northstar Education Finance, Inc. Contract Litig., MDL 1990 Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litig., MDL 1958 Levaquin Products Liability Litig., MDL 1943 Medtronic, Inc. Sprint Fidelis Leads Products Liability Litig., MDL 1905 Medtronic Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litig., MDL 1726 Viagra Products Liability Litig., MDL 1724 Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Products Liability Litig., MDL 1708 Pacquiao-Mayweather Boxing Match Pay-Per-View Litig., MDL 2639 Medco Health Solutions, Inc., Pharmacy Benefits Management Litig., MDL 1508 Baycol Products Liability Litig., MDL 1431 St. Jude Medical, Inc. Silzone Heart Valves Products Liability Litig., MDL 1396 Mortgage Escrow Deposit Litig., MDL 899

4 Zimmerman Reed has been appointed to the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee, Steering Committee, or Sub-Committees in the following MDLs: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig., MDL 2827 Dicamba Herbicides Litig., MDL 2820 Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL 2800 Fieldturf Artificial Turf Marketing Practices Litig., MDL 2779 Stryker Orthopaedics LFIT V40 Femoral Head Products Liability Litig., MDL 2768 Abilify Products Liability Litig., MDL 2734 Vizio, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litig., MDL 2693 Viagra and Cialis Products Liability Litig., MDL 2691 The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL 2583 LifeTime Fitness, Inc., Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Litig., MDL 2564 National Collegiate Athletic Association Student-Athlete Concussion Litig., MDL 2492 H&R Block IRS Form 8863 Litig., MDL 2474 Biomet M2A Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litig., MDL 2391 National Football League Players’ Concussion Injury Litig., MDL 2323 Building Materials Corp. of America Asphalt Roofing Shingle Products Litig., MDL 2283 Zimmer NexGen Knee Implant Products Liability Litig., MDL 2272 Uponor, Inc., F1807 Plumbing Fittings Products Liability Litig., MDL 2247 DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litig., MDL 2197 Apple iPhone “MMS” Sales Practices Litig., MDL 2116 Digitek Products Liability Litig., MDL 1968 Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., Employment Practices Litig., MDL 1700 Bextra and Celebrex Marketing Sales Practices and Product Liability Litig., MDL 1699 Celebrex and Bextra Products Liability Litig., MDL 1694 Vioxx Products Liability Litig., MDL 1657 Neurontin “Off-Label” Marketing Litig., MDL 1629 Zyprexa Products Liability Litig., MDL 1596 Welding Rods Products Liability Litig., MDL 1535 Meridia Products Liability Litig., MDL 1481 Serzone Products Liability Litig., MDL 1477 Sulzer Inter-Op Orthopedic Hip Implant Litig., MDL 1401 Propulsid Products Liability Litig., MDL 1355 Rezulin Products Liability Litig., MDL 1348 Diet Drugs Products Liability Litig., MDL 1203 Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc. Accufix Atrial "J" Lead Products Liability Litig., MDL 1057 Orthopedic Bone Screw Products Liability Litig., MDL 1014 Silicone Gel Breast Implant Products Liability Litig., MDL 926

Representative cases in which Zimmerman Reed has served as Class or Lead Counsel: Adams v. DPC Enterprises, LP (Jefferson Cty. Cir. Ct., Mo.) Adedipe v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (D. Minn.) AI Plus, Inc. and IOC Distrib., Inc. v. Petters Group Worldwide (D. Minn.) Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc., Data Security Litig. (N.D. Ga.) Castano Tobacco Litig. (E.D. La.) City of Farmington Hills Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (D. Minn.)

5 City of Tallahassee Pension Plan v. Insight Enterprises, Inc. (Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct., Ariz.) Cooksey v. Hawkins Chemical Co. (Henn. Cty. Dist. Ct., Minn.) Coyle v. Flowers Food and Holsum Bakery (D. Ariz.) Cuff v. Brenntag North America, Inc. (N.D. Ga.) Daud v. Gold’n Plump Poultry, Inc. (D. Minn.) DeKeyser v. ThyssenKrupp Waupaca, Inc. (E.D. Wis.) Dockers Roundtrip Airfare Promotion Sales Practices Litig. (C.D. Cal.) Doe v. Cin-Lan, Inc. (E.D. Mich.) DeGrise v. Ensign Group, Inc. (Sonoma Cty. Super. Ct., Cal.) Dryer v. National Football League (D. Minn.) Ebert v. General Mills, Inc. (D. Minn.) First Choice Fed. Credit Union v. The Wendy’s Co. (W.D. Pa.) Frank v. Gold‘n Plump Poultry, Inc. (D. Minn.) Garner v. Butterball, LLC (E.D. Ark.) GLS Companies v. Minnesota Timberwolves Basketball LP (Henn. Cty. Dist. Ct., Minn.) Haritos v. American Express Financial Advisors (D. Ariz.) Helmert v. Butterball, LLC (E.D. Ark.) Kurvers v. National Computer Systems, Inc. (Henn. Cty. Dist. Ct., Minn.) Martin v. BioLab, Inc. (N.D. Ga.) McGruder v. DPC Enterprises, LP (Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct., Ariz.) Mehl v. Canadian Pacific Railway (D.N.D.) Milner v. Farmers Insurance Exchange (D. Minn.) Ponce v. Pima County (Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct., Ariz.) Regions Morgan Keegan [Landers v. Morgan Asset Mgmt.] (W.D. Tenn.) Russo v. NCS Pearson, Inc. (D. Minn.) Sanders v. Norfolk Southern Corporation (D.S.C.) Scott v. American Tobacco Co. (Civ. Dist. Ct. Parish of New Orleans, La.) Soo Line R.R. Co. Derailment of Jan. 18, 2002 in Minot, N.D. (Henn. Cty. Dist. Ct., Minn.) Soular v. Northern Tier Energy, LP (D. Minn.) State of Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp. (Rankin Cty. Ch. Ct., Miss.) State of New Mexico v. Visa, Inc. (Santa Fe Cty., N.M.) Trauth v. Spearmint Rhino Companies Worldwide, Inc. (C.D. Cal.) Weincke v. Metropolitan Airports Commission (Henn. Cty. Dist. Ct., Minn.) Zicam Product Liability Cases (Maricopa Cty. Super. Ct., Ariz.) wfjjboj^k=obba=m^oqkbop== Carolyn G. Anderson is a Managing Partner at Zimmerman Reed. She is co-chair of the Public Client & Attorney General practice and leads the firm’s Securities & Financial Fraud practice group. Carolyn has successfully represented small investors, institutional clients, and states in individual and nationwide securities fraud, ERISA, and antitrust actions. She has served in a leadership role in obtaining significant recoveries in both individual actions and multi-state actions.

Carolyn currently represents two states in their investigation of and litigation related to the opioid crisis. Those cases involve pharmaceutical manufacturers, drug distributors, and pharmacies related to their roles in the ongoing opioid epidemic.

6

She is a member of the Lead Counsel Committee in nationwide litigation involving CenturyLink customers alleging they were overcharged and billed for services they didn’t request or authorize. She also served as Lead Counsel in a case representing the State of New Mexico., where the State alleged antitrust and unfair practices against Visa and MasterCard. Carolyn also served as Lead Counsel in an action, asserting consumer fraud and antitrust violations, collaborating with a coalition of four Attorneys General, against manufacturers of LCD displays. The case was filed in state court but removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). After opposing this removal at the district court and the Fifth Circuit, the State petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Mississippi, reversing the Fifth Circuit’s decision and clarifying the standard for removal of state actions under CAFA. Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics, 571 U.S. 161 (2014).

Carolyn also represented the Office of Attorney General for the State of Mississippi, defending that Office in an action brought by Google, challenging the State’s authority to issue a Civil Investigative Demand (CID). Google attempted to enjoin the Attorney General’s CID authority and the district court granted that motion. In April, 2016, the State prevailed and the district court’s decision was reversed by the Fifth Circuit.

Carolyn was also appointed Co-Lead Counsel on behalf of investors alleging losses due to Wells Fargo’s securities lending program. The case settled for $62 million, two days before trial was set to commence. She serves as Interim Co-Lead Counsel in an ERISA matter pending in the District of Minnesota against fiduciaries of U.S. Bancorp Pension Plan for violations of ERISA. Carolyn also served as Class Counsel on behalf of investors who had purchased bond funds from Morgan Keegan in a lawsuit that arose from the collapse of three mutual funds. The case also involved the auditor as a defendant. In 2016, the legal team achieved a $125 million settlement with the assistance of mediator Layn Phillips, a former U.S. Attorney and former United States District Judge.

In prior representation, Carolyn represented large groups of investors with significant losses involving Merrill Lynch, AIG, Boston Scientific, and Lehman Brothers. Carolyn also led a legal team in a case brought by investors against American Express Financial Advisors, challenging that company’s practices and breaches of fiduciary duty with its investing customers. The case, brought under the Investment Advisor Act, resulted in a $100 million settlement. Carolyn also successfully represented Midwest farmers/shareholders who challenged an ethanol plant’s merger with Archer Daniels Midland; she was appointed Class Counsel in that matter. The case was resolved weeks prior to trial. Carolyn was also appointed Lead Counsel in a securities fraud lawsuit involving Boston Scientific, representing a public pension fund and a certified class.

In addition to serving in positions of leadership in investor protection litigation, Carolyn currently represents pro bono one hundred not-for-profit organizations related to their losses from the $3.6 billion Petters Ponzi scheme, centered in Minnesota. She was appointed by the federal judge to serve as Assistant Liquidating Trustee under the supervision of the Court and the Liquidating Trustee for assets being distributed to some of those investors. In U.S. v. Petters, No. 08-cv-05348 (D. Minn.), the Firm worked with the Department of Justice and the court-

7 appointed receiver, to successfully recover and distribute millions of dollars to victims pursuant to a settlement with one of the Petters financiers.

Carolyn maintains strong ties with the National Association of Attorneys General, individual state Attorneys General, state pension fund officers, and other institutional investors. She is a lecturer at colleges and law schools, and has served as a legal education faculty member on the topics of complex litigation, legal ethics, the 2008 financial crisis, and securities law.

Carolyn currently serves as a board member with Bloomberg Law on its Litigation Innovation Board. She also serves as a board member and Chairperson for Children’s Shelter of Cebu, an interdenominational organization for abandoned and neglected children.

Carolyn graduated cum laude from Trinity College, where she received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology. She received her law degree cum laude from Hamline University School of Law where she was a Dean’s Scholar, received the Cali Award for Excellence in Constitutional Law, and served on Hamline Law Review, where her case note article was selected for publication. Carolyn also studied law at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel in course-work focusing on Law, Religion, & Ethics. Following law school, Carolyn served as a judicial extern to the Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, then Chief Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Carolyn has been honored as Rising Star of Law, has been recognized as a Super Lawyer since 2014 by her peers in Minnesota, and named to The Best Lawyers in America in the fields of Class Actions and Mass Tort Litigation in 2019.

Carolyn is admitted to practice before, and is a member in good standing of, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, and First Circuit, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and the Bar of the State of Minnesota. In addition to these courts, Carolyn works on cases with local counsel nationwide. She is a member of Public Justice, the Federal Bar Association, the American Association for Justice, the Minnesota Bar Association, and the Hennepin County Bar Association.

David M. Cialkowski is a partner with Zimmerman Reed and dedicates a substantial portion of his practice to the area of complex and mass tort litigation, with a primary focus on consumer protection and products liability litigation.

Dave was a member of the legal team that represented the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics, 571 U.S. 161 (2014), an antitrust case against manufacturers of LCD displays in which the Court held that an attorney general’s parens patriae case was not a “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Mississippi’s favor. He served as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the Apple iPhone 3G and 3GS “MMS” Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, a consumer protection class action, MDL 2116, based in New Orleans, Louisiana. He worked extensively on the Levaquin MDL trial team on behalf of clients who experienced tendon ruptures and tears after taking the popular Johnson & Johnson antibiotic. He also served as court-appointed co-lead counsel in In re Dockers Roundtrip Airfare Promotion Sales Practices Litigation, a consumer protection class action based in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Dave has worked extensively on behalf of plaintiffs in the St. Jude Silzone Heart Valves Product Liability Litigation, MDL 1396. He has also contributed substantially to

8 pretrial summary judgment and class certification briefing in the FedEx Ground Package Systems Employment StatusLlitigation, MDL 1700. Dave represented residents of Minot, North Dakota, related to the Soo Line Railroad Company Derailment of January 18, 2002 in Minot, N.D., who were injured by the toxic spill caused by the derailment of a Canadian Pacific Railway train. Dave helped draft federal legislation clarifying the scope, and thus reducing courts’ application, of railroad preemption.

He earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Illinois’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences cum laude with High Distinction in the Department of English. Additionally, he participated in the honors program as a James Scholar, received the Elizabeth and Charles Ellis Merit Scholarship, and is a member of Phi Beta Kappa. David graduated from the University of Illinois College of Law, where he participated in the civil litigation clinic, was an editor for the Poetic Justice literary magazine, and was voted one of the top 10% of university teaching assistants.

Dave is licensed to practice and a member in good standing, for the Bars of the State of Minnesota and the State of Illinois. His professional associations include membership in the Minnesota State Bar Association and Hennepin County Bar Association. He has been recognized as a Rising Star of Law from 2006–2008, 2010-2013 and a Super Lawyer from 2015 to 2018.

Brian C. Gudmundson is a partner and concentrates his practice on complex litigation and commercial class actions, including the areas of Consumer, Antitrust, Securities & Financial Fraud, Intellectual Property, and Sports Law. Brian represents individuals, businesses, and public and private institutional clients in a variety of complex cases.

Brian is a member of the Lead Counsel Committee in a nationwide action challenging CenturyLink, Inc’s alleged systematic and deceptive sales and overbilling practices, MDL 2795. He is appointed to Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in the FieldTurf Artificial Turf Marketing Practices Litigation, MDL 2779, representing schools, universities, municipalities, and private companies around the country that purchased allegedly defective artificial turf prone to rapid degradation. He is appointed co-lead counsel in Arby’s Restaurant Group, Inc., Data Security Litig., 17-cv-00514, (N.D. Ga.), representing banks and credit unions who issued payment cards that were subject of alleged data breach. Brian is also a member of the Plaintiffs Executive Committee representing United Health Group insurance plan participants alleging that UHG illegally inflated and clawed back prescription copays. He is a member of the Plaintiffs Executive Committee representing consumers insured by Cigna Health Insurance Co. in Negron v. Cigna Corp., et al., 16-cv-01702 (D. Conn.) alleging that Cigna Health illegally inflated and clawed back prescription copayments. He is a member of the Plaintiffs Executive Committee representing Humana insurance plan participants alleging that Humana illegally inflated and clawed back prescription copayments, In re: Humana, Inc. PBM Litig., 16-cv-00706 (W.D. Ky.). Brian is a member of Plaintiffs Executive Committee in General Mills Glyphosate Litigation, Case No. 16-cv-2869-MJD-BRT, asserting deceptive sales practices based upon alleged presence of glyphosate in products labeled “100% natural” and in Vikram Bhatia, D.D.S. v. 3M Company, 16- cv-01304-DWF-TNL, asserting claims on behalf of dentists and dental practices for allegedly defective dental crown products. Brian is appointed to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee on behalf of financial institutions nationwide in Equifax Data Breach, MDL 2800,

9 representing banks and credit unions in recovering losses. He is a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in Vizio, Inc. Consumer Privacy Litigation, MDL 2693, asserting violations of state and federal law for unlawful collection and sale of private consumer data. He is co-lead counsel in GLS Companies, et al. v. Minnesota Timberwolves Basketball LP, challenging implementation of paperless ticketing system and restrictions on transfer of game tickets on behalf of ticketholders. Brian is also a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee in the Home Depot Data Breach MDL 2583 and in First Choice Fed. Credit Union v. The Wendy’s Co., 16-cv- 00506 (W.D. Pa.) representing banks and credit unions in recovering losses. Brian represents retired NHL players alleging the National Hockey League minimized concussion risks from its players for decades, MDL 2551. Brian is a member of the lead counsel team that achieved a $39 million settlement on behalf of banks and other financial institutions in recovering losses due to the 2013 Target data breach, MDL 2522. He is also a member of the lead counsel team that achieved a $50 million settlement on behalf of retired National Football League players in a class action against the League for the unauthorized use of former players’ identities to generate revenue In re: Dryer v. National Football League, 09-cv-02182 (D. Minn.). He represents hundreds of individual retired NFL players in claims arising from concussive head injuries suffered while NFL players, MDL 2323. Presently, Brian represents MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc. in claims against several Wall Street banks alleging over $400 million of losses due to the fraudulent sale of securities containing undisclosed, toxic mortgage-based assets. He also specializes in claims under the RICO Act and currently represents multiple non-profit and faith- based investors pro bono in RICO claims arising from the $3.5 billion Petters Ponzi scheme.

Brian served as court-appointed co-lead counsel in the Dockers Roundtrip Airfare Promotion Sales Practices Litigation (C.D. Cal.), which culminated in a multimillion dollar settlement on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers. In 2005, Brian was a member of the securities litigation team that achieved a $2.5 billion settlement against AOL-Time Warner on behalf of investors.

Brian currently serves on: the Board of Directors of the Class Action Roundtable and a Dialogue Leader for the Sedona Conference Working Group 11 (Data Security and Privacy Liability).

Brian received his BA from the University of Minnesota and his JD, cum laude, from the University of Minnesota Law School. Brian is admitted to the state courts of Minnesota, the U.S. District Courts for the District of Minnesota and the Northern District of Illinois, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. His professional associations include membership in the Federal Bar Association, Minnesota State Bar Association, Hennepin County Bar Association, American Bar Association, and the American Association for Justice. Brian has been recognized as a Rising Star of Law 2010-2016 and a Super Lawyer in 2017 and 2018.

June P. Hoidal is a partner at Zimmerman Reed and co-chair of the Public Client & Attorney General practice group. She represents individuals and businesses who experience losses as a result of securities, consumer protection, and antitrust violations. June currently represents the State of Vermont and the State of Indiana in their investigation of and litigation related to the manufacturing, distribution, advertisement, dispensing, and marketing of opioid pain killers. She was a member of the legal team representing the State of Mississippi in a consumer fraud and antitrust action against manufacturers of LCD screens. Her work included assisting with briefing before the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled in favor of Mississippi by finding the State’s parens patriae action was not removable to federal court. Mississippi ex rel.

10 Hood v. AU Optronics, 571 U.S. 161 (2014). June also represented investors alleging losses due to Wells Fargo’s securities lending program, a case that settled two days before trial was set to commence for $62 million. She represented the State of New Mexico in a matter against Visa and MasterCard, alleging antitrust and unfair practices and investors of Medtronic in a shareholder derivative case. June currently represents participants of the U.S. Bancorp Pension Plan alleging violations of ERISA.

Prior to joining the firm, June served as a judicial law clerk to the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan on the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. She gained substantial experience following law school at two law firms in Washington, D.C. and Minneapolis, practicing in diverse subject areas, including contract disputes, franchise, products liability, insurance, and employment law.

June currently serves as a board member and as the lead co-chair of the Associates Campaign for The Fund for Legal Aid. She also serves as a member of the Advisory Board for the Minnesota Urban Debate League and the Publications Committee for the Bench & Bar of Minnesota. Previously, she served as a Commissioner for the City of Saint Anthony Parks Commission, and a member of the Diversity Committee and the Women in the Legal Profession Committee of the Minnesota State Bar Association. In addition, June volunteered as an assistant debate coach for the Minnesota Urban Debate League and worked pro bono for Legal Assistance of Dakota County, Volunteer Lawyers Network, and The Advocates for Human Rights.

June graduated cum laude from the University of Minnesota Law School in 2003, where she was the Lead Managing Editor for the Minnesota Law Review and a member of the Dean’s List. She is admitted to the state courts of Minnesota and the U.S. District Courts for the District of Minnesota. June has been recognized as a Rising Star of Law in 2007, 2015-2018.

Jason P. Johnston is a partner at the firm’s Minneapolis office, focusing primarily on complex cases involving individuals injured by defective drugs and faulty medical devices, advocating for clients both locally and nationally. Jason’s personal engagement, resolute view of the law, and solid practice style make him a strong voice for his clients and an integral part of our firm.

Jason represents clients injured from defective orthopedic hip devices manufactured by DePuy, Biomet, Stryker, Smith & Nephew and other manufacturers of hip replacement systems. In the Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), Jason represents patients who experienced serious health complications as a result of a modular hip that was recalled from the market. Jason also serves as a member of the Plaintiff Steering Committee in the Stryker LFIT V40 MDL. During the Biomet M2a hip litigation, Jason was a member of the Plaintiffs’ Science Committee where he reviewed technical documents and participated in depositions involving the design and development of the hip implant systems. In the Zimmer NexGen knee litigation, Jason serves as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and has played an active role in the science and discovery phases of the litigation, as well as preparing cases for trial.

Jason’s medical device litigation experience extends beyond orthopedic devices, including, representing clients injured by defibrillators and leads manufactured by St. Jude, Medtronic, and Guidant. In the Medtronic Sprint Fidelis litigation, Jason served as a member of the Claims

11 Review Committee following a mass settlement involving Sprint Fidelis leads. He has also represented plaintiffs injured by various pharmaceutical drugs, including, Abilify, Invokana, Viagra, Avandia, Aredia/Zometa, testosterone replacement therapy drugs, and other medications.

Jason has participated in pro bono service during his career, including accepting cases in the District of Minnesota’s Federal Pro Se Project which provides pro se plaintiffs with volunteer counsel to improve access to justice in the Federal Courts. Jason is also an active member of the American Association for Justice and the Minnesota Association for Justice. In 2016, the Minnesota Association for Justice recognized Jason as the “Member of the Year” for his contributions to the organization.

Since 2014, Jason has been selected as a Minnesota Rising Star of Law by Super Lawyers a distinction award given to only 2.5% of attorneys in the state. In addition, Jason has also been selected as a member of The National Trial Lawyers Top 100 Trial Lawyers and Top 40 Under 40. A graduate of the University of St. Thomas School of Law, he was recognized by the Minnesota Justice Foundation for his pro bono service while attending law school. Prior to law school, Jason attended Winona State University, earning his Bachelor of Science degree, magna cum laude, in Marketing.

Jason is admitted to the state courts of Minnesota and U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Caleb LH Marker is a partner at Zimmerman Reed, working at the firm’s Los Angeles office. Caleb dedicates a significant portion of his practice to consumer protection and employment cases, including consumers, misclassified employees, mortgage borrowers, student loan borrowers, and senior citizens.

Caleb is a creative litigator who has been a leader in the consumer protection area and has been actively involved as class counsel in cases that have provided meaningful recoveries, through trial or settlement. He has first-chair trial experience in court and arbitration, having tried several cases to verdict and award. In 2016, he tried the first merits arbitration in the United States that alleged that a “gig economy” worker was an employee as opposed to an independent contractor and has continued to try and advance such cases in arbitration and courtrooms. He has briefed and argued appeals in California, Michigan, and the Ninth Circuit.

Caleb currently represents tobacco consumers as a member of the plaintiffs’ steering committee for in the Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (MDL 2695) currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The Santa Fe MDL was recently the subject of an in-depth article published by Bloomberg Businessweek in an article entitled “Nature’s Cancer Sticks: American Spirits Long, Strange Trip to Court.”

Caleb leads the firm’s involvement in representing a sexual assault survivor of Larry Nassar, the former Michigan State University team physician and U.S. Women’s Gymnastics Team coach. Nassar has been sentenced to up to 175 years in prison and dozens of high-ranking university and gymnastics officials have been ousted or face criminal investigations for their role in these heinous crimes. Among other issues, Caleb is defending Michigan P.A. 183 which

12 provided a brief window for child sexual assault survivors to bring suit regardless of whether the statute of limitations had previously lapsed.

In recent years, Caleb’s successes include leading a class action against the City of Los Angeles and Xerox that drew widespread media attention, winning a trial that now requires the City to end its decades-long outsourcing of the City’s parking violations bureau in a case that will help over a hundred thousand motorists in Los Angeles in the next few years. Caleb later defended the trial court’s verdict on appeal, resulting in a unanimous opinion fully affirming the trial court’s verdict and award under the private attorney general doctrine. Weiss v. City of Los Angeles, 2 Cal. App. 5th 194 (August 8, 2016). Caleb has been a driving force in a number of class actions that have resulted in eight-figure settlements, including actions that involving misclassified employees, homeowners victimized by force-place insurance practices, patients at understaffed nursing homes, consumers of dangerous gas absorption refrigerators, and student loan borrowers who were overcharged for interest.

Caleb serves on the Los Angeles County Bar’s Litigation Executive Committee and Access to Justice Committee, the latter of which aims to maximize the delivery of legal services to the poor and encourage attorneys to provide free legal services to those in need. Several of his successes have been recognized as a “Top Settlement & Verdict” by the Los Angeles Daily Journal and Michigan Lawyers Weekly. He has been interviewed by numerous media outlets, including NBC, Fox Business, NPR, The Wall Street Journal, AP, the Los Angeles Times, LA Weekly, and Law360. He has also been recognized as a Rising Star of Law in Southern California by Super Lawyers from 2015-2018, after a peer-nomination and review process awarded to less than 2.5% of attorneys under 40.

A native of Michigan, Caleb graduated from Michigan State University’s James Madison College and College of Law. He is a member of the Los Angeles County Bar Association (LACBA), Duke Law’s Bolch Judicial Institute and Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM), the Federal Bar Association (FBA), the American Association for Justice (AAJ), Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA), and Consumer Attorneys of California (CAOC).

Christopher P. Ridout is a partner working in the firm’s Los Angeles office practicing in the areas of complex litigation, including consumer protection, labor and employment, unfair business practices, false advertising, toxic tort, commercial and residential hazardous substance exposure.

Chris was appointed to serve on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in the iPhone Device Performance Litigation alleging that Apple released a software update that deliberately diminished the battery life of older devices forcing customers to spend hundreds of dollars on replacement batteries and new phones. He was appointed as co-interim lead counsel representing a class of consumers in a mislabeling lawsuit alleging that Celestial Seasonings tea products falsely claim to be "all natural" when they contain pesticide residue from the agricultural process. In consumer litigation, Chris represents classes of consumers and employees in connection with data breaches that have compromised personal, financial, medical, and employment information. He represents a class of GM diesel truck owners alleging that the DMAX diesel engine design is defective causing a reduction in fuel efficiency

13 by 25-30 percent. He served as class counsel reaching a $52 million settlement on behalf of customers alleging the billing practices of the Los Angeles Department of Water contained excessive fees and inflated rates, and that the charges to customers exceeded the costs of provided water and power services. Chris obtained a $36 million settlement representing RV owners in a class action lawsuit alleging that Norcold knew of a potentially dangerous RV refrigerator fire risk, but hid that information from the public. He also advocates on behalf of musicians and entertainers in Internet-related copyright and royalty disputes.

Over the last decade, Chris has been involved in the resolution of a series of class action lawsuits including a settlement of more than $24 million on behalf of misclassified employees, an $11.5 million settlement for Michigan students loan borrowers over an interest rate dispute, a $9 million settlement claiming Naked Juice violated state and federal laws regarding the marketing and sale of its product, and a multi- million dollar award for residents of various nursing home facilities alleging widespread and intentional failure to provide sufficient care to the residents due to understaffing.

Chris attended Harvard University where he received his Bachelor of Arts Degree in 1986. While focusing on his major of American History, he was a member of the Harvard Varsity Football Team and played in the historic 100th Harvard-Yale match-up commonly referred to as “The Game.” In his senior year, Chris was awarded the “William Payne LeCroix Memorial Award” given to that team member exhibiting the most loyalty and dedication to the Harvard Varsity Football Team.

After graduating from the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law in 1989, he was admitted to the California Bar that same year. He has also been admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Southern, Central, and Northern Districts of California; the United States District Court for the District of Colorado; the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota; the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio; and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Hart L. Robinovitch is a partner with Zimmerman Reed, leading the firm’s Scottsdale, Arizona office. Hart focuses his practice in the areas of consumer and shareholder actions, and sports law.

For the past decade, Hart has represented clients in a series of class action lawsuits contesting mortgage lenders’ excessive billing and deposits practices for mortgage escrow accounts. Hart is now involved in numerous federal court lawsuits around the country alleging that mortgage banks and lenders have violated federal and state laws. These cases allege payment of kickbacks and/or illegal and unearned referral fees by the banks and lenders to mortgage brokers who refer mortgage clients who are then charged inflated interest rates on the mortgages. In addition, he represents consumers in other actions contesting the imposition of overcharges and improper fees or other contractual violations in various mortgage transactions. He has worked with co-counsel in state and federal courts across the country.

Hart currently represents corn farmers and DDGS exporters in the Syngenta Viptera Litigation who have experienced the effects of China’s ban of U.S. corn and corn-derived products, suffering lower prices, decreased sales and other losses as the prices of U.S. corn has decreased.

14 He is a member of the lead counsel team representing retired NHL players alleging the National Hockey League minimized the chronic cumulative effects of concussion risks from its players for decades. Hart also represents clients in a class action lawsuit on behalf of RV owners alleging that Norcold knew of a potentially dangerous RV refrigerator fire risk, but hid that information from the public.

Hart has been involved in numerous state and federal court lawsuits around the country challenging the misclassification of entertainers as independent contractors opposed to employees in the nightclub industry. He also represented consumers in other actions alleging deceptive and unlawful business conduct towards customers including, but not limited to, false advertising practices, “bait and switch” tactics, altering contractual terms without valid consideration, and retailers’ requests and/or requirements that their customers provide personal identification information when they complete a transaction using their credit card, in violation of state and/or federal statutes. In addition, Hart represented residents of various skilled nursing facilities alleging pervasive and intentional failure to provide sufficient direct nursing care staffing resulting in harm to the residents.

A native of Canada, Hart earned his degree from the University of Toronto Law School in 1992 where he served as an Associate Editor on the University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in 1989 from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Hart is admitted to practice before, and is a member in good standing of, the Bars of the States of Arizona and Minnesota and the United States District Court for the Districts of Arizona, Minnesota, and the Eastern District of Michigan. Hart is also licensed to practice law before the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, and the United States Supreme Court. Hart’s memberships include the National Association of Consumer Advocates and Canadian American Bar Association.

J. Gordon Rudd, Jr. is a Managing Partner at Zimmerman Reed and represents represeting clients in the areas of consumer protection, employment law, and mass torts. Gordon has been appointed class counsel in cases in state and federal courts across the country.

Gordon was recently part of the team that achieved a $50 million settlement in the complicated court fight over publicity rights for retired NFL players. In a separate lawsuit, he represents hundreds of retired NFL players suffering from concussive head injuries that occurred while playing in the league. Gordon also represented thousands of individuals injured by the largest release of anhydrous ammonia in U.S. history. Two of those individuals were awarded $1.2 million by a jury. Eventually, these trials led to a settlement on behalf of other residents of Minot, North Dakota injured by the derailment.

In mass tort litigation, Gordon leads several cases, including representing clients who developed gambling addictions after taking top-selling prescription drug Abilify; representing nursing home residents sickened by a Hepatitis C outbreak (the second-largest outbreak of the disease in U.S History); representing men who suffered cardiovascular injuries following their use of testosterone therapy supplements; and representing clients who experienced severe bleeding problems while taking Xarelto.

15 Gordon has also served on a number of multi-district litigation cases. He was a member of the lead counsel team representing banks and other financial institutions seeking recovery of losses from the 2013 Target data breach. He also holds leadership positions on several Plaintiffs’ Steering Committees including In re H&R Block IRS Form 8863 Litigation, MDL 2474, In re Life Time Fitness, Inc., Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Litigation, MDL 2564, In re FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., MDL 1700, and In re Building Materials Corp. of America Asphalt Roofing Shingle Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2283.

Gordon graduated from Connecticut College, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in English Literature & Government. He received his law degree from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Gordon is licensed to practice before, and is a member in good standing of, the Bar of the State of Minnesota and the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Gordon is admitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. He has been admitted to appear pro hac vice in cases pending in the states of California, Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, North Dakota, Ohio, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and Michigan. Gordon has been selected as a Super Lawyer by his peers in Minnesota since 2006 and recognized in The Best Lawyers in America in the fields of Class Actions and Mass Tort Litigation since 2018. wfjjboj^k=obba=^qqlokbvp= Alia M. Abdi is an associate at Zimmerman Reed concentrating her practice on complex litigation involving consumer protection, and securities and financial fraud in state and federal courts. She is currently representing consumers alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Prior to joining the firm, Alia externed for the Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. She lent her expertise as a summer law clerk at Arthur, Chapman, Kettering, Smetak and Pikala, P.A., conducting research on railroad, workers’ compensation, and construction law. Alia graduated from the University of Minnesota Law School, where she served as the student managing director for the Maynard Pirsig Moot Court and was mock trial team captain for Phi Alpha Delta. Alia is admitted to the state courts of Minnesota and the U.S. District Courts for the District of Minnesota.

Hannah Fernandez brings problem-solving skills and an ability to see the big picture to every case she litigates. Hannah litigates class/collective actions and complex litigation matters, with a focus in the areas of Consumer Protection and Employee Rights & Overtime. Currently, she works on the team representing consumers in the iPhone Device Performance Litigation, who allege deliberate diminishment of iPhone battery life. She also represents California employees whose employers misclassified them as independent contractors, helping employees receive wages, overtime compensation, and other critical benefits and protections they are entitled to by law.

Hannah serves on the Los Angeles County Bar’s Access to Justice Committee, which aims to maximize the delivery of legal services to the poor and encourage attorneys to provide free legal services to those in need. She graduated from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law with a Business Law Concentration and obtained her undergraduate degree from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Hannah is licensed to practice law in California.

16

Andre S. LaBerge brings over twenty years of professional experience – as an attorney and as a business executive – in his advocacy for the rights of investors and consumers, providing counsel to several of the firm’s practice areas. He has represented participants in Wells Fargo’s securities lending program, investors with losses in Morgan Keegan open end bond funds, and the Office of Attorney General in the LCD antitrust litigation.

Andre has practiced law in Chicago and Minneapolis, and has represented clients at all court levels and in various regulatory forums. He has also served as Vice President, Chief Compliance Officer, General Counsel, and FINRA Registered Principal and Designated Supervisor in the financial services industry with companies that supervised and supported large numbers of securities brokers, financial planners, and insurance agents.

Andre is a graduate of DePaul University College of Law, where he was a Senior Editor for the Journal of Health and Hospital Law, and worked as a Mansfield Foundation Fellowship intern at Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services. He is a member of the Minnesota State Bar Association and the Hennepin County Bar Association.

Michael J. Laird is an Associate at Zimmerman Reed focusing on the areas of sports law and consumer protection. He currently supports the firm’s efforts in representing retired NHL & NFL players in separate lawsuits alleging that the chronic cumulative effects of concussions were minimized.

A magna cum laude graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School, Michael served as a member of the Journal of Law, Science & Technology and a member of the American Bar Association Moot Court team. While in law school, Michael also started a medical-legal partnership with the Phillips Neighborhood Clinic to identify and resolve legal issues affecting patient care and well-being in under-served communities, as a member of the Community Practice and Policy Development Clinic.

While in law school, Michael externed for the Honorable Jeffrey J. Keyes of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. He also was a law clerk for both the Bad River Band of Chippewa Indians Natural Resources Department and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Michael is licensed to practice law in Minnesota.

Alyssa J. Leary focuses her practice on environmental and consumer protection law. In environmental protection, Alyssa represents corn farmers and exporters in the Syngenta litigation who suffered economic harm from the release of Syngenta’s unapproved, genetically modified corn strain. She also represents farmers whose crops have been damaged by off-target drift from dicamba herbicides in litigation against Monsanto. In consumer protection, Alyssa is part of the team representing consumers alleging Pacquiao and his promoters kept his shoulder injury secret prior to the highly publicized Pacquiao-Mayweather Pay-Per-View fight.

Alyssa graduated magna cum laude and Order of the Coif from Tulane University Law School and holds a Certificate in Environmental Law. While at Tulane, she worked as an editor for the Tulane Law Review, and studied economic and environmental issues in Brazil.

17

In addition to her law degree, Alyssa holds a Master of Science in Resource Conservation and a Certificate in Natural Resource Conflict Resolution from the University of Montana. She obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology/Natural Science from the University of Puget Sound.

Prior to joining Zimmerman Reed, Alyssa worked as a renewable energy and construction law attorney and interned at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the U.S. Marshals Service Office of General Counsel in Washington D.C., and also for the Cottonwood Environmental Law Center in Bozeman, Montana. She serves on the ReGenerateMN Steering Committee for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. Alyssa is licensed to practice law in Minnesota and Texas.

Daniel T. Lindquist is an Associate at Zimmerman Reed, with his practice concentrating in the firm’s Public & Attorney General practice and complex litigation practice group. He was a member of the consumer fraud litigation team representing the State of New Mexico in the Visa/MasterCard Interchange litigation, conducted case investigation in representing schools and athletic facilities in the FieldTurf litigation, served with the drug and device team, preparing discovery, briefs, and deposition preparation, and currently is part of the firm’s opioid litigation team.

Daniel received his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School, where he served as a lead Article Editor of the Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review and participated in the Henry M Campbell Moot Court. He earned his Bachelor of Arts in Economics from Wheaton College. He served as a judicial extern to the Honorable Jeffrey J. Keyes of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. He is admitted to practice law in Illinois, Minnesota, and Missouri.

Prior to joining Zimmerman Reed, Daniel worked at a Chicago law firm on cases involving antitrust violations, corporate law, employment, law, regulatory compliance and securities fraud related to auction rate securities and mortgage backed securities. Daniel’s extensive experience in e-discovery includes antitrust review in proposed hospital system merger; corporate law regarding alleged breach of fiduciary duties; employment law in age discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuits; EPA/DEC environmental regarding superfund site; regulatory compliance regarding FCPA investigation; regulatory compliance regarding pseudoephedrine sales; securities fraud allegations regarding auction rate securities and mortgage-backed securities; and securities law claims regarding private-label, residential mortgage-backed securities.

Bryce D. Riddle concentrates his practice on complex litigation and commercial class actions in the areas of Sports Law, Data Breach, and Consumer Protection. Currently, Bryce works on the team representing retired NHL players alleging the National Hockey League failed to minimize concussion risks for its players for decades. In data breach litigation, he represents financial institutions in cases against The Home Depot and Wendy’s to recover losses arising from breaches that compromised customer financial information. Bryce also works on the Vizio consumer privacy litigation asserting violations of state and federal law for the unauthorized collection and sale of customers’ private and personal data.

18

Bryce graduated cum laude from the University of Minnesota Law School in 2014, where he was a member of the Minnesota Journal of International Law and a Dean’s Scholarship recipient. While in law school, he participated in the Student Exchange Program in Milan, Italy at Bocconi University School of Law and also externed for the Honorable David S. Doty of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. He subsequently served as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable Elizabeth V. Cutter and the Honorable Bridget A. Sullivan in Minnesota’s Fourth Judicial District. Bryce is licensed to practice law in Minnesota and California state courts, as well as federal court in the District of Minnesota.

Behdad C. Sadeghi focuses his practice on complex litigation involving consumer protection, securities fraud, and financial fraud in state and federal courts around the country.

Behdad currently is part of the Attorney General Practice, working with the team representing two states in the opioid litigation, conducting research, discovery, and motion practice. Behdad worked on the team representing investors who sustained losses as a result of alleged federal securities law violations by Morgan Keegan and its affiliates that achieved a $125 million settlement. He also represented a class of financial institutions who suffered losses resulting from a major data breach in a class action against the Target Corporation that resulted in a $39 million dollar settlement. In consumer litigation, he successfully achieved a multi-million dollar wrongful death settlement against a major automobile manufacturer, and a settlement on behalf of a group of elderly victims of one of the largest hepatitis C outbreaks in the nation’s history. He also represents a putative class of consumers alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by Papa Murphy’s and SuperAmerica.

Behdad graduated magna cum laude from William Mitchell College of Law, where he was a member of the William Mitchell Journal of Law and Practice and the Niagara International Moot Court Team; he also participated in the school’s Civil Advocacy Clinic. His academic honors include a CALI Excellence for the Future Award, four Dean’s List honors, and a Burton Award Nomination for Excellence in Legal Writing. Behdad is licensed to practice law in Minnesota.

Charles R. Toomajian, III is an Associate at Zimmerman Reed concentrating his practice in the consumer protection area, in the Attorney General Practice, and representing individuals injured by defective drugs or faulty medical devices. In the consumer protection context, Chuck represents public entities seeking recovery and finding solutions for the rampant harm caused nation-wide by the opioid crisis. He has also successfully represented individuals with claims under the TCPA. Within the Public Client Practice, Chuck is part of the team representing two states in their investigations and litigation related to the opioid epidemic. In the medical arena, he represents patients who took Abilify and experienced financial devastation as a result of compulsive gambling associated with the top-selling drug and patients who experienced severe injuries after taking the diabetes drug, Invokana. He also supports the firm’s efforts in helping patients and families affected by the Stryker LFIT V40, involving recalled femoral heads that have been associated with hip replacement failure. Prior to joining Zimmerman Reed, Chuck worked at a multi-state trial and litigation firm advocating for injured clients.

19 A magna cum laude graduate from the University of Minnesota Law School, Chuck was a symposium editor for Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice. He was a three- year consecutive Dean’s List recipient and received the First Amendment law Book Award, a prestigious award for having the highest score in the class. He externed for the Honorable Mark Wernick of the Hennepin County District Court where he prepared and drafted memoranda and conducted legal research. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in English from Williams College. Chuck is licensed to practice before, and is a member in good standing of, the Bar of the State of Minnesota, the Bar of the State of California, and is admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

20

Attachment: Ex. B to Decl of Jeff Westerman ISO Final Approval (Final Lodestar Charts) Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Robert Ahdoot (Partner) 32.90 $810 $26,649.00 Theodore Maya (Partner) 10.10 $670 $6,767.00 Tina Wolfson (Partner) 58.10 $810 $47,061.00 Bradley King (Associate) 32.70 $425 $13,897.50 Meredith Lierz (Associate) 7.30 $335 $2,445.50 Diana Kiem (Paralegal) 1.00 $195 $195.00

Totals 142.10 $97,015.00

Arias Sanguinetti Stahle & Torrijos LLP Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Alfredo Torrijos (Partner) 47.50 $650 $30,875.00 Arnold Wang (Partner) 8.00 $650 $5,200.00 La Donna McDuffie (Paralegal) 9.50 $175 $1,622.50

Totals 65.00 $37,737.50

Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, LLP Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Timothy G. Blood (Partner) 171.75 $810 $139,117.50 Leslie E. Hurst (Partner) 194.70 $660 $128,502.00 Thomas J. O’Reardon, II (Partner) 68.00 $560 $38,080.00 Paula R. Brown (Partner) 12.25 $510 $6,247.50 Jennifer L. MacPherson (Associate) 1.00 $435 $435.00 Colette N. Menaldino (Associate) 2.00 $320 $640.00 Craig W. Straub (Associate) 217.00 $425 $92,225.00 Elle Chaseton (Paralegal) 131.00 $280 $36,680.00 Dafne M. Maytorena (Paralegal) 62.25 $280 $17,430.00 Christina K. Sayers (Paralegal) 1.00 $175 $175.00

Totals 860.95 $459,532.00

Boucher LLP Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Shehnaz Bhujwala (Partner) 158.40 $750 $118,800.00 Raymond Boucher (Partner) 162.80 $1,100 $179,080.00 Maria Weitz (Partner) .30 $750 $225.00 Christine Cramer (Paralegal) 17.20 $185 $3,182.00 Sharon Gordillo (Paralegal) 1.30 $185 $240.50 Sandra Haro (Paralegal) 7.90 $185 $1,461.50 Avery Kunstler (Paralegal) .30 $185 $55.50 Priscilla Szeto (Paralegal) 33.20 $185 $6,142.00

Totals 381.40 $309,186.50

Briana Kim, PC Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Briana Kim (Partner) 1.80 $400 $700.00 Daniel Torres (Paralegal) .60 $150 $90.00

Sub-Totals 2.40 $790.00

Mahoney Law Group, APC Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Kevin Mahoney (Partner) 14.20 $650 $9,230.00 Treana Allen (Associate) 20.80 $350 $7,262.50 Laura Palmerin (Paralegal) .70 $125 $87.50

Sub-Totals 35.70 $16,580.00

Totals 38.10 $17,370.00

Chimicles & Tikellis LLP Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Benjamin F. John (Partner) 29.70 $550 $16,335.00 Andrew Ferich (Associate) 27.50 $325 $8,937.50 Corneliu Mastraghin (Paralegal) 5.30 $250 $1,325.00 Jesse D. Royer (Paralegal) 5.90 $150 $885.00

Totals 68.40 $27,482.50

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar David Bower (Partner) 115.80 $850 $98,430.00 Adam Gonnelli (Partner) 2.80 $795 $2,186.25 Barbara Rohr (Associate) 111.00 $475 $52,725.00 Benjamim Heikali (Associate) 7.80 $400 $3,100.00 Susanna Marton (Paralegal) 104.50 $300 $31,350.00

Totals 341.80 $187,791.25

Girard Gibbs LLP Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Daniel Girard (Partner) 58.20 $900 $52,380.00 Daniel Girard (Partner) .70 $925 $647.50 Daniel Girard (Partner) 2.50 $950 $2,375.00 Jordan Elias (Partner) 1.70 $695 $1,181.50 Amanda Steiner (Partner) .70 $690 $483.00 Adam Polk (Partner) 31.30 $550 $17,215.00 Scott Grzenczyk (Associate) 24.70 $525 $12,967.50 Simon Grille (Associate) 7.50 $425 $3,187.50 Simon Grille (Associate) 2.20 $450 $990.00 Simon Grille (Associate) 6.70 $500 $550.00 Linh Vuong (Associate) 231.30 $450 $104,085.00 Christopher Hikida (Associate) 43.10 $425 $18,317.50 Peng Shao (Associate) .30 $385 $115.50 Ashley Tveit (Associate) 2.40 $360 $864.00 Marjorie Gullick (Paralegal) .20 $190 $38.00

Totals 413.50 $215,397.00

Greene Broillet & Wheeler, LLP Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Scott H. Carr (Partner) 12.75 $800 $10,200.00

Totals 12.75 $10,200.00

Karon, LLC Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Daniel R. Karon (Partner) 5.30 $695 $3,683.50 Beau D. Hollowell (Associate) 31.50 $435 $13,702.50

Totals 36.80 $17,386.00

Kirtland & Packard LLP Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Behram Parekh (Of Counsel) 4.40 $725 $3,190.00 Heather Baker Dobbs (Associate) 17.10 $425 $7,267.50 Joshua Fields (Associate) 32.20 $525 $16,905.00 Justin Keller (Associate) 11.00 $425 $4,675.00

Totals 64.70 $32,037.50

Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Salar Atrizadeh (Partner) 5.00 $425 $2,125.00

Totals 5.00 $2,125.00

Levi & Korsinsky LLP Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Nancy Kulesa (Partner) 19.25 $765 $14,456.25 Andrea Clisura (Associate) 3.75 $400 $1,500.00 Katherine DeStefano (Associate) .10 $455 $45.50 Courtney Maccarone (Associate) 62.00 $475 $29,450.00 Samantha Halliday (Paralegal) 3.00 $265 $795.00

Totals 88.10 $46,246.75

Lite Depalma Greenberg, LLC Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Katrina Carroll (Partner) 9.70 $750 $7,275.00 Kyle Shamberg (Associate) 5.80 $475 $2,755.00 James Ulwich (Associate) .10 $300 $30.00 Eric Henley (Paralegal) 1.60 $250 $400

Totals 17.20 $10,460.00

McCuneWright, LLP Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Richard McCune (Partner) 48.80 $750 $36,600.00 Michele Vercoski (Associate) 47.00 $500 $23,500.00 Annette Ayala (Paralegal) 9.20 $250 $2,300.00

Totals 105.00 $62,400.00

Morgan & Morgan Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar John Yanchunis (Partner) 84.50 $950 $80,275.00 Patrick Barthle (Associate) 2.00 $450 $900.00 Marisa Glassman (Associate) 5.60 $636 $3,561.60 Lee Walters (Paralegal) 17.30 $300 $5,190.00

Totals 109.40 $89,926.60

Selarz & Sarbaz LLP Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Daniel Selarz (Partner) 34.70 $275 $9,542.50

Totals 34.70 $9,542.50

The Cook Law Firm Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Philip Cook (Partner) 64.20 $750 $48,150.00

Totals 64.20 $48,150.00

Westerman Law Corp. Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Jeff Westerman (Partner) 604.80 $880 $532,224.00 Jeff Westerman (Partner) 129.20 $895 $115,634.00 Anna Faircloth (Associate) 117.60 $460 $54,096.00 Ken Remson (Associate) 498.60 $675 $336,555.00 Ken Remson (Senior Counsel) 79.60 $695 $55,322.00 Jenna Radomile (Paralegal) 34.40 $250 $8,600.00 Billie Booth (Assistant) 15.30 $150 $2,295.00

Totals 1,479.50 $1,104,726.00

Zimmerman Reed, LLP Attorney/Paralegal Hours Rate Lodestar Brian Gudmundson (Partner) .90 $550 $495.00 Caleb Marker (Partner) 6.80 $505 $3,434.00 Caleb Marker (Partner) 1.90 $595 $1,130.50 Christopher Ridout (Partner) 21.45 $650 $13,942.50 Christopher Ridout (Partner) 78.85 $795 $62,685.75 Bradley Buhrow (Associate) 3.00 $375 $1,125.00 Hannah Fernandez (Associate) 4.60 $350 $1,610.00 Hannah Fernandez (Associate) 7.20 $425 $3,060.00 Kirsten Hedberg (Associate) 1.25 $450 $562.50 Devon Holstad (Associate) 46.80 $375 $17,550.00 Alyssa Leary (Associate) .50 $375 $187.50 Elaine Acedo (Paralegal) 4.00 $150 $600.00 Heidi Cuppy (Paralegal) 1.25 $150 $187.50 Leslie Harms (Paralegal) 1.00 $160 $160.00 Sabine King (Paralegal) 1.50 $150 $225.00 Sabine King (Paralegal) 7.50 $275 $2,062.50 Josephine Lu (Paralegal) 3.25 $150 $487.50 Josephine Lu (Paralegal) .50 $200 $100.00

Totals 192.25 $109,605.25

Attachment: Ex. C to Decl of Jeff Westerman ISO Final Approval (2015 Nat’l L.J. Billing Rate Survey) Case 3:10-md-02143-RS Document 1963-2 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 5

2015 NLJ Billing Survey

Source: National Law Journal Category: National Law Journal

ALM Legal Intelligence, in association with The National Law Journal, collected 2015 hourly billing rates for partners, associates, of counsel and paralegals. The data sources include the published rates from the 20 largest federal bankruptcy jurisdictions and a survey of the nation's 350 largest firms conducted during October and November of 2015. Individual firm rates are not identified. Case 3:10-md-02143-RS Document 1963-2 Filed 10/05/16 Page 3 of 5

Hourly Billing Rates for 2015

Partner Associate High Low Median High Low Median Overall Hourly Rates $1,295 $90 $395 $950 $50 $350

Rates by Firm Size 1 - 25 lawyers $1,080 $90 $350 $950 $90 $300 26 - 150 lawyers $1,050 $190 $460 $900 $100 $300 151 or more lawyers $1,295 $100 $595 $975 $125 $325

Rates by State AL $725 $200 $375 $375 $175 $300 AZ $750 $125 $375 $750 $175 $250 CA $1,080 $200 $495 $950 $300 $350 CO $893 $350 $443 $642 $150 $325 CT $1,200 $295 $350 $625 $175 $350 DC $1,095 $975 $1,035 $655 $350 $375 DE $1,050 $295 $650 $850 $260 $388 FL $625 $175 $375 $525 $100 $300 GA $500 $250 $358 $450 $110 $275 IL $985 $200 $420 $710 $150 $300 IN $400 $250 $305 $400 $200 $275 KY $340 $200 $290 $350 $200 $275 LA $575 $150 $333 $500 $100 $250 MA $650 $300 $475 $500 $260 $350 MD $560 $250 $363 $580 $150 $325 MI $375 $190 $265 $400 $125 $275 NC $675 $250 $425 $435 $150 $275

1 Case 3:10-md-02143-RS Document 1963-2 Filed 10/05/16 Page 4 of 5

NJ $880 $250 $400 $400 $150 $298 NM n/a n/a n/a $350 $175 $200 NV $450 $295 $375 $500 $200 $325 NY $1,295 $100 $420 $975 $90 $350 OH $545 $250 $313 $330 $155 $250 OR $485 $315 $370 $325 $230 $300 PA $875 $200 $350 $565 $86 $257 PR* $300 $100 $200 $350 $100 $200 TN $735 $225 $300 $350 $150 $250 TX $925 $90 $395 $650 $150 $298 VA $545 $220 $335 $495 $175 $295 WA $965 $275 $460 $375 $150 $350 WI $595 $560 $578 n/a n/a n/a

Of Counsel Paralegal High Low Median High Low Median Overall Hourly Rates $1,120 $125 $350 $325 $25 $125

Rates by Firm Size 1 - 25 lawyers $645 $125 $350 $325 $25 $115 26 - 150 lawyers $620 $225 $393 $305 $75 $173 151 or more lawyers $1,120 $270 $610 $325 $35 $220

Rates by State AL $495 $290 $393 n/a n/a n/a AZ $750 $250 $300 $250 $75 $125 CA $595 $175 $450 $325 $25 $150 CO $400 $325 $363 $285 $75 $158 CT $550 $325 $438 $290 $75 $100 DC $775 $275 $750 n/a n/a n/a

2 Case 3:10-md-02143-RS Document 1963-2 Filed 10/05/16 Page 5 of 5

DE $525 $260 $275 $305 $125 $235 FL n/a n/a n/a $255 $65 $123 GA $250 $240 $245 $160 $50 $120 IL $1,120 $395 $430 $215 $75 $120 IN $300 $225 $295 $220 $90 $100 KY n/a n/a n/a $150 $75 $105 LA $425 $200 $350 $285 $45 $83 MA n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a MD $350 $250 $275 $280 $75 $125 MI n/a n/a n/a $125 $75 $103 NC n/a n/a n/a $180 $75 $110 NJ $565 $225 $325 $195 $65 $120 NM n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a NV n/a n/a n/a $240 $75 $152 NY $930 $250 $573 $325 $60 $130 OH n/a n/a n/a $135 $85 $100 OR $450 $310 $380 $220 $145 $185 PA $440 $300 $325 $325 $75 $105 PR* $250 $125 $188 $150 $45 $75 TN $300 $270 $300 $150 $50 $90 TX $740 $225 $320 $290 $35 $100 VA $400 $300 $350 $325 $75 $95 WA n/a n/a n/a $215 $125 $143 WI n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a: data not available *Puerto Rico is a U.S. Territory

3 Attachment: Ex. D to Decl of Jeff Westerman ISO Final Approval (Firm Expenses) Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC Expense Category Total Attorney Service/Service of Process $582.96 Postage Charges $60.85 Court Fees $1,859.95 Ground Transportation (i.e. Rental) $80.88 Miscellaneous TOTAL $2,584.64

Arias Sanguinetti Stahle & Torrijos LLP Expense Category Total Attorney Service/Service of Process $359.70 Court Fees $3,170.00 Mileage $8.89 Miscellaneous $21.00 TOTAL $3,559.59

Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, LLP Expense Category Total Postage Charges $1.91 In-House Photocopying $354.40 Lexis/Westlaw; Legal Research $204.74 Court Fees $2,129.00 Ground Transportation (i.e. Rental) $325.32 Miscellaneous/Travel $793.08 TOTAL $3,808.45

Boucher LLP Expense Category Total Attorney Service/Service of Process $1,895.30 Postage Charges $25.39 In-House Photocopying $38.00 Lexis/Westlaw; Legal Research $100.47 Court Fees $167.80 Mileage $99.95 Miscellaneous (Includes File &ServExpress) $2,077.70 TOTAL $4,404.61

1 {00149543.V1} Chimicles & Tikellis LLP Expense Category Total Federal Express/Messenger, etc. $22.37 Lexis/Westlaw; Legal Research $320.50 Investigation Fees $221.92 Miscellaneous $191.00 TOTAL $755.79

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Expense Category Total Attorney Service/Service of Process $654.00 Postage Charges $.49 In-House Photocopying $22.00 Court Fees $4,855.00 Miscellaneous $3.00 TOTAL $5,534.49

Girard Gibbs, LLP Expense Category Total Attorney Service/Service of Process $610.95 Federal Express/Messenger, etc. $977.50 Postage Charges $10.29 In-House Photocopying $388.80 Lexis/Westlaw; Legal Research $661.78 Court Fees $1,885.00 Meals $8.03 Air Travel $1,104.16 Ground Transportation (i.e. Rental) $412.02 Miscellaneous $61.83 TOTAL $6,120.36

Greene Broillet & Wheeler, LLP Expense Category Total Attorney Service/Service of Process $325.80 In-House Photocopying $19.20 Court Fees $1,591.00 Mileage $22.70 Miscellaneous $156.00 TOTAL $2,114.70

2 {00149543.V1} Karon, LLC Expense Category Total Lexis/Westlaw; Legal Research $2.20 TOTAL $2.20

Kirtland & Packard LLP Expense Category Total Attorney Service/Service of Process $154.00 Postage Charges $2.10 Court Fees $1,585.00 TOTAL $1,741.10

Martin J. Foley, APC Expense Category Total Attorney Service/Service of Process $26.34 Court Fees $528.33 Transcripts $64.52 TOTAL $619.19

McCune Wright, LLP Expense Category Total Attorney Service/Service of Process $418.19 Court Fees $1,729.68 TOTAL $2,147.87

Morgan & Morgan Expense Category Total Federal Express/Messenger, etc. $52.88 Postage Charges $4.79 In-House Photocopying $47.50 Court Fees $1,100.00 Investigation Fees $32,551.25 Miscellaneous/Travel $1,602.84 TOTAL $35,359.26

3 {00149543.V1} Selarz & Sarbaz, LLP Expense Category Total Court Fees $528.33 Miscellaneous $64.52 TOTAL $592.85

The Cook Law Firm Expense Category Total Attorney Service/Service of Process $310.03 Postage Charges $22.54 Court Fees $1,585.00 Transcripts $193.55 Miscellaneous $31.00 TOTAL $2,142.12

Westerman Law Corp. Expense Category Total Attorney Service/Service of Process $3,307.85 Postage Charges $78.22 Lexis/Westlaw; Legal Research $1,568.41 Court Fees $343.20 Expert/Consultant Fees $10,250.00 Transcripts $1,793.70 Special Master/Mediator $30,450.00 Miscellaneous $369.74 TOTAL $48,161.12

Zimmerman Reed, LLP Expense Category Total In-House Photocopying $2.70 Lexis/Westlaw; Legal Research $1,145.06 Court Fees $2,093.85 Miscellaneous $24.00 TOTAL $3,265.61

4 {00149543.V1} Attachment: Ex. E to Decl of Jeff Westerman ISO Final Approval (Data Breach Settlements) Data Breach Settlements

Case Est. No. Free Insurance & Credit Monetary Relief Fund Cybersecurity Enhancements of Class Monitoring Members In re Anthem, Inc. 79.15 2-years credit monitoring and $15 million. Requires claim Anthem to triple annual Data Breach million insurance upon enrollment. submission. Residue goes to spending on data security for Litigation, No. 5:15- extend credit monitoring services the next 3-years total amount md-02617-LHK (N.D. If class member has credit by up to 2-years, then cy pres. confidential. Cal.) (settlement monitoring, can opt for approved 2018) alternative relief between $36 and $50. In re Target Corp. 100 N/A $10 million. Requires claim Enhanced security for 5-years. Data Security Breach million submission. Residue goes to Litigation, No. 14-md- claimants on pro rata basis. 02522-PAM (D. Minn.) (settlement approved 2015), aff’d, (8th Cir. 2018) In re TJX Companies 45.7 2 or 3-years credit monitoring Option to claim vouchers or cash. TJX makes a “prudent and Retail Security Breach million and insurance upon enrollment. Cap on vouchers from $30 to $60. good faith” attempt to Litigation, No. 1:07- Cap on cash from $15 to $30. minimize future breaches. cv-10162-WGY (D. Caps of $1 and $7 million Efforts verified in written Mass.) (settlement depending on claim type. report by independent expert. approved 2008) Pagoaga v. Stephens 3,373 2-years credit monitoring and $250,000. Requires claim Enhanced security for 3-years. Institute d/b/a insurance upon enrollment. submission. Academy of Art University, No. CGC 16-551952 (San Francisco Super. Ct.) (settlement approved 2018) Case Est. No. Free Insurance & Credit Monetary Relief Fund Cybersecurity Enhancements of Class Monitoring Members In re Yahoo! Inc. 200 2-years credit monitoring and $50 million. Requires claim Enhanced security for 3-years Customer Data million insurance upon enrollment. submission. Residue goes to total amount confidential. Security Breach claimants on pro rata basis capped Litigation, No. 5:16- at $358.80 per claimant, then to md-02752-LHK (N.D. additional credit monitoring Cal.) (settlement services, then as direct by the approved 2018) court. Corona v. Sony 435,000 2-years ID protection provided $2 million fund for preventive N/A Pictures Entertainment to all. Credit monitoring and measures claims. Residue goes to Inc., No. 2:14-cv- insurance upon enrollment. claimants on pro rata basis if 09600-RGK-E (C.D. practicable or cy pres. $2.5 million Cal.) (settlement for identity theft up to $10,000. approved 2016) related Requires claim submission. state cases Dukow v. Sony, No. BC566884; Doe v. Sony, No. BC567358; McKenzie v. Sony, No. BC568472; and Ochmanek v. Sony, No. BC573366 In re The Home Depot, 50 18 months of ID protection and Up to $13 million. Requires claim Home Depot to hire a Chief Inc., Customer Data million credit monitoring services upon submission. Residue goes to Home Information Security Officer Security Breach enrollment. Deport as credit for monitoring and implement other safeguards Litigation, No. 1:14- services and notice/administration and programs for 2 years. md-02583-TWT (N.D. costs if less than net fund, then pro Ga.) (settlement rata to class members. approved 2016) Bray, et al. v. Unknown N/A On claims made basis with no N/A GameStop Corp., No. floor or ceiling on amount to be 1:17-cv-01365-JEJ (D. paid by defendant. Del. 2018) (settlement approved 2018) Attachment: Ex. F to Decl of Jeff Westerman ISO Final Approval (The Regents' Defenses) Attachment A

The Regents’ Defenses

The Court has requested further information regarding the defenses The Regents intends to pursue if this matter were to be litigated. If the case were to proceed, The Regents would assert robust defenses on liability, damages, class certification and Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief. The following provides an overview of the argument and evidence The Regents would introduce at trial if the matter were to proceed.

A. Plaintiffs Would Not Be Able To Establish Liability Or Actual Damages On An Individual Or Classwide Basis.

The Regents contend that Plaintiffs would not be able to prove the central allegation underpinning their complaints—that their medical information was viewed or accessed by the cyberattackers. This failure of proof would be fatal to each of their causes of action. Further, even if they could prove viewing or access, Plaintiffs’ case still fails because they have not suffered any cognizable economic damages as a result of the cyberattack, and they cannot prove damage on an individual or classwide basis.

The crux of each of the Plaintiffs’ complaints is the allegation that The Regents failed to appropriately secure their medical information, and that as a result, the cyberattackers viewed and/or accessed that information. The causes of action in the complaints all require proof of disclosure or release of personal information. See Civ. § 1798.3(c) (to prevail on a claim for violation of the IPA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant “disclose[d], release[d], transfer[ed], disseminate[d], or otherwise communicate[d] all or any part of any record orally, in writing, or by electronic or any other means to any person or entity”); Id. § 1798.82(g) (defining a “breach of the security of the system” under the CRA as “unauthorized acquisition of computerized data that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of personal information maintained by the person or business”); Toyrrific, LLC v. Karapetian, No. 2:12-cv- 04499-ODW(Ex), 2012 WL 5306229, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2012) (unpublished order) (applying California law) (explaining that “[w]ithout any evidence of damages directly tied to the alleged breach of confidentiality, the Court cannot find a probability of success for Counterclaimant’s action for breach of contract” (citation omitted)); Ruiz v. Gap, Inc., 622 F. Supp. 2d 908, 913-16 (N.D. Cal. 2009), aff’d, 380 F. App’x 689, 690 (9th Cir. 2010) (granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s negligence claim in data breach case because plaintiff failed to provide that his own personal information was exposed).

1. Plaintiffs Will Not Be Able To Establish That Any PHI Was Viewed Or Accessed.

To prevail in this case, Plaintiffs must establish that their medical information was viewed or accessed by the cyberattackers. See Sutter Health, 227 Cal. App. 4th at 1555-57 (reversing denial of demurrer on CMIA claim because plaintiffs could not allege medical information had been viewed); Platter, 220 Cal. App. 4th 549, 554 (2013) (reversing denial of demurrer on CMIA claim because plaintiffs could not allege that the thief had actually viewed or accessed the data). “No breach of confidentiality takes place until an unauthorized person views

1

the medical information. It is the medical information, not the physical record (whether in electronic, paper, or other form), that is the focus of” CMIA. Sutter Health, 227 Cal. App. 4th at 1557.

After learning of the cyberattack, UCLA Health engaged in a months-long investigation focused on evaluating whether medical information had been viewed, accessed, or exfiltrated from the network. Yet, the investigators found no evidence showing that the cyberattackers had viewed, accessed, or taken medical information. Plaintiffs will assert that UCLA Health’s investigation did not conclusively rule out the possibility that medical information was viewed or accessed. This is legally irrelevant—at trial, it will be Plaintiffs’ burden to prove that their medical information was viewed or accessed. Plaintiffs will not be able to do this. See Platter, 220 Cal. App. 4th at 570 (“What is required is pleading, and ultimately proving, that the confidential nature of the plaintiff's medical information was breached . . . .” (emphasis added)).

Plaintiffs also have alleged that the Court or the jury should infer viewing or access of medical information based on the fact that the cyberattackers were in the system for a number of weeks and visited various portions of UCLA Health’s networks. There is no legal or factual basis for such an inference. None of the Plaintiffs claims to have suffered any financial harm or experienced medical identity theft arising from the cyberattack. This strongly militates against any inference that their medical information was taken.1

In addition, Plaintiffs’ unstated assumption—that hackers would have only accessed UCLA Health’s computer networks to steal medical information—is wrong. Obtaining medical information is only one of many reasons why hackers break into computer networks. For example, cyberattackers may attempt to access computer networks of academic institutions to steal intellectual property or seek information with intelligence value for nation-states. Indeed, UCLA is among the top ten universities in the country for patent creation. Here, the investigation team did not identify evidence showing why the cyberattackers were in UCLA Health’s network. And, as discussed above, the FBI provided information to UCLA Health suggesting that the cyberattack may have been perpetrated by a group affiliated with, or sponsored by, a hostile foreign nation. Under these circumstances, Plaintiffs will not be able to establish an inference of access to medical information, and would be required to prove it through affirmative evidence (of which there is none).

1 The fact that there has been no allegation by any of the nearly two dozen named Plaintiffs of medical identity theft strongly supports The Regents’ defense to the CMIA claim, because liability under CMIA is triggered only for the disclosure or negligent release of medical information, and without evidence that this particular type of information was accessed or viewed by the cyberattackers, this claim would be vulnerable to dismissal on summary judgment. See Eisenhower Med. Ctr. v. Superior Court, 226 Cal. App. 4th 430, 432 (2014) (reversing denial of summary judgment on CMIA claim because the evidence established that only personally identifiable information was involved in the incident). 2

2. Plaintiffs Would Not Be Able To Establish Causation Or Damages.

Plaintiffs also face serious problems establishing proof of harm connected to the cyberattack. None of the named Plaintiffs alleged any financial loss due to the cyberattack. And, as part of the parties’ information exchange, Plaintiffs produced all documents in their possession regarding any harm they allege was connected to the cyberattack. None of the Plaintiffs produced any documents supporting a claim of financial loss, or any medical identity theft. Plaintiffs will not be able to salvage their case by relying on potential harm suffered by other members of the putative class. Nearly 220,000 people signed up for identity protection services after the cyberattack, and of those individuals, only 134 opened a recovery case with the credit monitoring vendor (ID Experts), and less than five people made a claim on the insurance policy covering unreimbursed losses from identity theft. Similarly, UCLA Health has not received any complaint of unreimbursed losses from any patient.

In similar federal cases, courts have granted summary judgment when, as here, there is no evidence of harm connected to the data breach. In Ruiz v. Gap, Inc., 622 F. Supp. 2d 908, 913-16 (N.D. Cal. 2009), the court granted summary judgment on the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim because he had not suffered identity theft or suffered any actual damages. Plaintiffs likely would face the same outcome here.

The lack of evidence of harm connected to the cyberattack would serve as a serious impediment to Plaintiffs’ attempt to obtain class certification as well. Because Plaintiffs will not be able to establish which, if any, putative class members’ data was accessed, or which, if any, putative class members suffered damages as a result of the cyberattack, they will not be able to define an ascertainable class or establish that the class has a “community of interest.” Sevidal v. Target Corp., 189 Cal. App. 4th 905, 917 (2010) (affirming denial of class certification on ascertainability grounds because defendant did not maintain computer records showing which consumers were harmed); see also In re TJX Cos. Retail Sec. Breach Litig., 246 F.R.D. 389, 398-99 (D. Mass. 2007) (denying class certification in part because proving that the data breach caused the particular instances of fraud required individualized proof, which could not be accomplished on a class-wide basis). Plaintiffs do not have a class that can be certified.

B. Plaintiffs Would Not Be Able To Recover Statutory Damages Against The Regents.

Regardless of any debate over the facts relating to the cyberattack, Plaintiffs would also have substantial difficulty prevailing on their prayer for $4.5 billion in statutory damages, because California Government Code section 818 prohibits recovery of exemplary damages from public entities like The Regents.2 Further, due process precludes the imposition of such a grossly disproportionate award.

2 The Regents is a public entity under California law. See Gov’t Code § 811.2 (“‘Public entity’ includes . . . the Regents of the University of California . . . .”). 3

1. Government Code Section 818 Bars Recovery Of Exemplary Damages From Public Entities Like The Regents.

Government Code section 818 provides: “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, a public entity is not liable for . . . damages imposed primarily for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” The Legislature enacted Section 818 at the suggestion of the California Law Revision Commission, which recommended that “‘[p]ublic entities . . . not be liable for punitive or exemplary damages. Such damages are imposed to punish a defendant for oppression, fraud or malice. They are inappropriate where a public entity is involved, since they would fall upon the innocent taxpayers.’” State Dep’t of Corr. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., 5 Cal. 3d 885, 888 (1971) (quoting Recommendations Relating to Sovereign Immunity, No. 1—Tort Liability of Public Entities and Public Employees, 4 Cal. Law Revision Com. Rep. 817 (Jan. 1963)).

The California Supreme Court has explained that Section 818’s immunization from exemplary damages applies to “damages which are designed to punish the defendant rather than to compensate the plaintiff.” State Dep’t of Corr. v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., 5 Cal. 3d 885, 891 (1971). Such punitive damages are “by definition in addition to actual damages and beyond the equivalent of harm done.” Id. More recently, the California Supreme Court further explained that “the purpose behind the statutory ban on punitive damages against public entities [is] to protect their tax-funded revenues from legal judgments in amounts beyond those strictly necessary to recompense the injured party . . . .” See Wells v. One2One Learning Found., 39 Cal. 4th 1164, 1196 n.20 (2006) (emphasis added). The California Supreme Court also has held that Section 818 does not permit the application of a statutory penalty where it is partially penal absent express legislative authorization. DuBois v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 5 Cal. 4th 382, 395-98 (1993).

CMIA’s statutory damages provisions is punitive, and therefore, inapplicable to The Regents.

a. The Plain Language of CMIA And Its Legislative History Demonstrate That CMIA’s Statutory Damages Provision Is Punitive.

CMIA sets out three distinct types of remedies in civil cases: (1) civil penalties and administrative fines for actions by government regulators, (2) compensatory damages for patients injured by the disclosure or negligent release of their medical information, and (3) two forms of exemplary damages—“punitive damages” for intentional disclosures or misuse of medical information, and “nominal” statutory damages intended to deter negligent releases of medical information by punishing a defendant even if the release causes no injury. See Civ. Code §§ 56.35, 56.36(b)-(c).

The text of CMIA shows that the statutory damages provision was not intended to serve a compensatory purpose. Section 56.36(b) of CMIA permits a plaintiff to seek statutory damages in addition to any actual damages he/she may have suffered. The statutory damages are “beyond the equivalent of harm done,” and by definition, punitive. See State Dep’t of Corr., 5 Cal. 3d at 891. In fact, CMIA allows Plaintiffs to seek statutory damages in the absence of any

4

actual damages or any “threat” of actual damages. This makes the statutory damages even more “punitive” than punitive damages, because, unlike punitive damages, CMIA’s statutory damages can be awarded when a plaintiff has suffered no harm. See, e.g., Simon v. San Paolo U.S. Holding Co., 35 Cal. 4th 1159, 1189 (2005) (holding that under the facts of the case involving “fraudulent conduct” by the defendant, the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages was limited to 10:1).

If there were any doubt as to the punitive nature of CMIA’s statutory damages, the legislative history of the statute puts it to rest. The statutory damages provision was expressly adopted as a deterrent to negligent releases, rather than as compensation to injured parties. The Legislature’s bill analysis of the proposed amendment that added CMIA’s statutory damages remedy clearly states the purpose of the statutory damages provision:

While the new civil penalties in the bill appropriately apply to ‘knowing and willful’ violations, the author believes that lesser penalties for negligent conduct that leads to an unauthorized disclosure should also be included to deter those releases as well.

See Bill Analysis, Assemb. Comm. on Judiciary at 9, S.B. 19, 1999-2000 Leg. Sess. (July 13, 1999) (emphasis added). As the bill analysis reveals, the Legislature added the statutory damages to CMIA as a penalty, to “deter” certain negligent behavior.

Recently, the Court of Appeal considered the nature of CMIA’s statutory damages and observed that “[p]rovisions such as this . . . generally serve as penalties to discourage noncompliance” and “nominal statutory damages serve as a penalty . . . .” Brown v. Mortensen, Case No. B281704 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2019), Slip Opn. At 12-13 (holding that because nominal statutory damages are a form of penalty, claims for nominal damages under CMIA are tried to the jury).

This conclusion is further supported by Section 56.36(e) of CMIA, which contains a carve-out that excuses a defendant from statutory damages where the defendant can prove multiple elements demonstrating no need for punishment (e.g., the defendant took appropriate preventive and corrective actions, notice was provided to the impacted consumer, the release was solely to a business associate). See Civ. § 56.36(e). The Legislature did not relieve a liable entity of its obligation to provide compensatory damages to injured parties under these circumstances, which shows that the Legislature views the statutory damages not as compensatory, but as a punitive measure intended to punish and deter bad behavior.

b. Supreme Court And Other Precedent Further Confirm That Section 818 Bars Recovery Of Statutory Damages Under CMIA Against Government Entities.

Courts have routinely applied Section 818 to bar the recovery of non- compensatory damages against government entities. For example, the California Supreme Court held that Section 818 barred the imposition of treble damages under the California False Claims Act against public entities. In so holding, the court observed:

5

The Legislature is aware of the stringent revenue, budget, and appropriations limitations affecting all agencies of government . . . . Given these conditions, . . . [there can be no presumption of] intent to force such entities . . . to pay huge additional amounts . . . into the pockets of outside parties. Such a diversion of limited taxpayer funds would interfere significantly with government agencies’ fiscal ability to carry out their public missions.

Wells, 39 Cal. 4th at 1195-96; see also id. at 1196 n.20.

Similarly, in an action brought under the Unruh Act, the trial court ruled that Section 818 barred recovery of treble damages against The Regents. Grutman v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. CGC-10-498814-68, slip op. at 2 (S.F. Super. Ct. July 27, 2012) (unpublished order). This is consistent with the rulings of other courts. See, e.g., Jefferson v. City of Fremont, No. C-12-0926 EMC, 2012 WL 1534913, at *7-*8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2012) (unpublished order) (holding that Section 818 bars the imposition of Unruh Act treble damages against a public entity).

Here, Plaintiffs seek nearly $4.5 billion in statutory damages under a provision that the Legislature added to punish negligent actors. As the California Supreme Court reasoned in Wells, there is no reason to conclude that the Legislature intended for CMIA to result in such a massive “diversion of limited taxpayer funds,” particularly given that a $4.5 billion damages award would unquestionably “interfere significantly” with the University of California’s ability to carry out its educational mission.

2. An Award of CMIA Statutory Damages Against The Regents Would Violate Due Process.

Independent of Section 818, an award of $4.5 billion in statutory damages against The Regents, in the complete absence of actual economic injury, would violate due process. See, e.g., Parker v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., 331 F.3d 13, 22 (2d Cir. 2003) (“We acknowledge . . . [the] legitimate concern that the potential for a devastatingly large damages award, out of all reasonable proportion to the actual harm suffered by members of the plaintiff class, may raise due process issues.”); Aliano v. Joe Caputo & Sons—Algonquin, Inc., No. 09 C 910, 2011 WL 1706061, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 5, 2011) (unpublished order) (observing, in dicta, that “the Court cannot fathom how the minimum statutory damages award for willful FACTA violations in this case—between $100 and $1,000 per violation—would not violate Defendant’s due process rights.”).

Thus, even if Plaintiffs somehow were to overcome The Regents’ Section 818 defense, any statutory damages award would be subject to a defense that it violated due process.

6

C. Plaintiffs Would Not Be Able To Obtain Injunctive Relief.

1. Plaintiffs’ Requested Injunctive Relief Is Not Necessary.

It is black letter law that an injunction is not available when a defendant has voluntarily discontinued the wrongful conduct and there is no reasonable probability of recurrence. See, e.g., Donald v. Cafe Royale, Inc., 218 Cal. App. 3d 168, 184 (1990) (upholding denial of injunction and explaining that “[i]njunctive relief will be denied where, at the time of the order or judgment, no reasonable probability exists of the recurrence of the past acts,” and “[a]n injunction should not be granted as punishment for past acts where it is unlikely that they will recur” (citation omitted)). Here, UCLA Health has worked with outside forensic computer firms to investigate and remediate the cyberattack.

It is impossible for any institution, company, or entity to ensure that its network will be safe against each and every cyberattack.3 This is particularly true for institutions like UCLA, which is subject to hundreds of thousands of attempted hacks each year. Nevertheless, the changes that UCLA Health has made to its system have ensured that the vulnerabilities that permitted the cyberattackers to access UCLA Health’s network cannot be exploited again. Plaintiffs would not be able to establish an entitlement to injunctive relief.

2. Oversight Over UCLA Health’s Security Efforts Should Be Left To The Regulatory Agencies Charged With Such Responsibility.

To the extent Plaintiffs would seek Court supervision over UCLA’s ongoing efforts to stay ahead of the curve in securing its networks, such a task would be challenging— indeed, nearly impossible—to administer by the Court. Cybersecurity at medical institutions like UCLA is particularly complex—not only because of the size of the network, but because of its interrelationship with patient care. Many of UCLA Health’s computers are regulated as medical devices by the FDA, and any change to the computing environment at a hospital must first be carefully vetted to ensure there is no impact on patient care. For example, a security upgrade could cause a medical device to stop functioning. Nor would any such oversight be necessary, as multiple data security regulators have jurisdiction over UCLA Health.

D. Conclusion

For these reasons, Plaintiffs faced an uphill battle in this case to establish liability and the right to any relief—they would not get monetary relief because they have no unreimbursed losses due to identity theft (and statutory damages are unavailable), and they would not get an injunction compelling any security practice or policy changes because UCLA Health has voluntarily undertaken (and largely completed) substantial efforts that has further increased its data security posture. The settlement of this matter provides relief to the putative

3 Nor does the law require this—CMIA is not a strict liability statute, and only applies to intentional or negligent conduct permitting unauthorized access to medical information. See Civ. Code § 56.35-.36. Similarly, the IPA only requires “appropriate and reasonable . . . safeguards” for personal information. Id. § 1798.21. 7 settlement class that is material and targeted to the concerns raised in this litigation, and likely more substantial than they would have obtained through litigation.

LAACTIVE-603400493.1

8

Attachment: Ex. G to Decl of Jeff Westerman ISO Final Approval (John E. Jorgensen CV )

CURRICULUM VITAE FOR JOHN E. JORGENSEN

The Sylint Group, Inc.

John Jorgensen is the President, CEO and Founding Partner of The Sylint Group, Inc. established in 1998. The Sylint Group is composed of over 30 professionals with National Security Agency, Law Enforcement, Department of Defense military personnel and contractor employees and other engineering professionals.

The Sylint Group provides consulting and professional services for Cyber Security, Industrial Counter-Espionage, Counter Cyber Warfare, eDiscovery, Signal Analysis and Digital Data Forensic Investigations (www.Sylint.com ) nationally and internationally. The Sylint Group has appeared on the front pages of the Tampa Bay Business Journal, the Sarasota Herald Tribune Business Weekly and the Tampa Tribune Business Section, as well as several appearances in local television news segments. The Sylint Group is cited in Westlaw Review and is published in other Periodicals and Books. The Sylint Group provides: computer systems and digital data forensic analysis; evidentiary data recovery and collection; data and signal analysis; computer and network security systems specification, guidance and implementation; eDiscovery collection and processing; 26(f) conference and Meet-and-Confer preparation; and computer facilities physical security guidance and implementation. Sylint’s client base includes small business professionals, law firms and medical practice, to multi-billion dollar multi-national Fortune 100 corporations. Sylint provides litigation support to include technical data recovery and reconstruction, deposition question assistance, trial preparation and electronic investigation and data search to AM 100 law firms. Sylint also provides industrial counter-espionage services to include electronic listening device detection and intrusion protection and response, information systems protection and monitoring, and specialized information collection. Sylint has developed several unique services and software applications to include: Cyber Security Risk Matrix (CSRM) ®, DRIL ®, STALKER ®, SYNERGY ® and ZEROMapper ®.

A partial client list for The Sylint Group includes Nucor Steel International, Cott Beverages International, Waste Management, ServiceMaster, IBM, Morgan Stanley, Bridgestone Firestone, Nissan Global, Marvell Technology Group, Sheridan Healthcare, MAPEI, Kate Spade, TIAA- CREF, HUD Fort Pierce, Florida Department of Transportation Lynx, City of St. Petersburg, Greater Orlando Airport Authority, City of Sarasota, Texas Health Care, US Sailing Association, Wharton-Smith, Jones Day (Chicago), Parker Poe (Atlanta), Epstein Becker & Green (Houston), Morrison & Mahoney (Boston), Ford & Harrison (Tampa and Orlando), Abel Band Chartered (Sarasota), Sutherland (Atlanta), InfoLawGroup (Denver), Edelson McGuire (Chicago), Shumaker Loop (National), Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton (Miami), Latham Watkins (San Francisco), Arnstein & Lehr (Fort Lauderdale), Duane Morris (National), Ogletree Deakins (National), Kirk Pinkerton (Sarasota), Horack Talley (Atlanta), Smolker Bartlett (Tampa), and other large, medium, and small companies and AM 100 law firms and US Government entities to include FBI, IRS, Department of Homeland Security, Secret Service, various Law Enforcement Agencies and State Attorney Offices.

Mr. Jorgensen serves as the Senior Forensic Engineer and developed the computer forensic analytic process and techniques for the Sylint Group based on intelligence analysis and processing techniques designed, developed and implemented while working for the National Security Agency, in the military, as a direct employee, and as a government contractor. Mr. Jorgensen has briefed two Directors NSA, the Under Secretary of Defense, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, The Bundesnachrichtendienst (Federal Intelligence Service) on various intelligence matters. Mr. Jorgensen has also briefed the MoD Spain, and various government personnel of Egypt, Kuwait, Malaysia, England, South Korea and Germany.

Mr. Jorgensen has served as Special Master to the Court (5 instances), an Escrow Agent for the Court and served as an Expert Witness in both Federal and local Judicial jurisdiction and has overseen the computer forensic analysis of over 1350 successful cases. He has lectured multiple times before the American Bar Association, RSA Conference (USA), Tiger Bay Association, Ford & Harrison LLP, Employers Association of Florida, National Private Investigator’s Association, Tampa Bay FBI Infragard, Special Operations Command (SOCOM), the International Cryptologic Association, the FBI, and other government organizations concerning eDiscovery, digital data forensic analysis, cyber security and counter cyber warfare.

Summary of Experience (October 1984 to July 1994)

Loral Data Systems (formerly Fairchild Weston Data Systems Division)

Director of Program Development (January 1992 - July 1994): Directed and Managed Special Projects and high technology intelligence programs in cutting edge technology computer controlled real-time data collection, analysis, and processing systems. Directed and Managed the Business Development, Program Management, Consultants, and Technology Offices. Responsible for interfacing with and representing Loral Data Systems to the U.S. government and international customers to include, Spain, Germany, Egypt, Kuwait, Brazil, Taiwan, and others. Responsible for conducting successful business contract negotiations ($55M program) for Loral with the government of Egypt. Has provided senior level technical briefings on advanced signal’s processing systems to the governments of Taiwan, Kuwait, Spain, Germany, Egypt, South Korea and Malaysia. Grade: Engineer IV, Director

Director of Advanced Systems (1984-1992): Researched, developed, and implemented new technologies in the design of computer based communications and data signals collection, processing, analysis, and reporting systems; Electronic Warfare jamming, direction-finding, signal collection and Command and Control systems; and multi-sensor reconnaissance and surveillance systems. Performed systems design, systems data linking and requirements definition, functional and operational modeling, and systems performance evaluation (to include threat analysis and response). Performed intelligence data management assessments and requirements and tasking definition at the strategic and tactical levels for single and multilevel systems. Managed a staff of senior-level technical personnel and the Applications Engineering group, Research and Development, and Program Management offices. Reported to the Vice President of Signal Processing Systems for U.S. government business segment and reported to the President of Loral Data Systems for International Signals Collection, Analysis, Processing, and Reporting Systems and ground based Electronic Warfare Systems.

Background Experience

U.S. Government, National Security Agency (1982-1984)

Selected for and attended the Naval Postgraduate School for courses in Defense Department Resource Management. Designed, developed, deployed and budgeted advanced, multi-million dollar, multi-rack, computer systems controlled, real-time collection, processing, analysis and reporting systems. Performed systems requirements definition and tasking, systems analysis, design, and evaluation to include collection, analysis, processing, and reporting functions. Performed system level inter- and intra-network communications and data flow analysis and definition over local and worldwide networks and communications links. Managed multi-site worldwide system design, development, budgeting and deployment program. Performed threat recognition, assessment, and analysis for follow-on systems definition and development. Defended Group technology budgets to the annual Resource Allocation Committee (RAC) hearings. Organized, developed and managed a Special Projects Quick Response Team for unique collection activities. Provided multi-system operability and linkage assessments and capabilities definition at the tactical and strategic levels. Received cash bonus awards and Letters of Commendation for Excellence. Grade GS-12.4.

U.S. Military (Assigned to National Security Agency, Special Projects, Special Activities Detachment 3; SAD-3) (1969-1982)

Internals Analyst (‘79-’83): Performed signals internals analysis for the government using various computer based analysis systems and tools; assisted in the development of standardized analysis software; performed internals and externals analysis, publishing analysis and feasibility studies, provided briefings and reports to Directors of DoD organizations, Director of NSA, Under Secretary of Defense and various other government agencies. Oversight of budgets for multi- million dollar state-of-the-art technology programs. Organized, directed and operated a Quick Response Special Projects team. Received the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (3rd highest peacetime award) for Special Projects’ efforts. Grade E7.

Senior Analyst, Research and Development for Special Projects (‘73-’79): Performed signals internals and externals analysis for multiple signal technologies using state-of-the-art computer controlled systems. Served as Computer Programming Specialist (FORTRAN and Assembly Language) for Special Projects. Received Joint Service Commendation Medal for signal systems analysis work and design and engineering of site deployed multi-rack computer controlled signal collection, processing, analysis, and reporting system. Served 6 years in an overseas Special Project’s assignment.

Internals and Externals Analysis (‘69-’73); Served with Special Projects Office, Army Security Agency, Special Activities Detachment 3 (SAD-3). Received Army Commendation Medal for special site analysis work. Instructor for the Tri-Service Electronic Warfare School teaching Internal’s and External’s Analysis and data systems collection, processing and analysis.

Education

Northeastern University, Chemical Engineering; 1966-1967

U.S. Army Security Agency: 1969-1976 Intercept Analyst Analog Production Key Instructor Program, Signal Analysis Advanced NCOES EW/C Supervisor SA 430 (Classified) SA 431 (Classified) Multi-Channel Technology Received Commendation of Excellence

U.S. Department of Defense Schools (NSA): 1979-1982 EA030 (Classified) EAB01 (Classified) EA100 (Classified) EA161 (Classified) EA162 (Classified) EA164 (Classified) EA174 (Classified) EA175 (Classified) EA176 (Classified) EA178 (Classified)

Naval Postgraduate School: 1982 (Appointment by NSA) Defense Resource Management

Certified Military Tri-Service School Instructor

Electronic Warfare Operator/Analyst – 98J Computer System Operator – MOS 74E (Computer Programmer)

X-Ways Software Technology AG; (2008) X-Ways Forensics File Systems Revealed

Federal Bureau of Investigation Citizen’s Academy – Graduate November 2009

Criminal Justice Information System Security & Awareness Training – Level 4 CJIS Security Training – expires March 1, 2020.

Military Awards: Defense Meritorious Service Medal; (Awarded and presented by Director NSA) Joint Service Commendation Medal Army Commendation Medal Vietnam Service Medal

Security Clearance Top Secret Special Intelligence, Special Compartmented Information (TSSI SCI) - NSA Polygraph 05/15/91; SBI 02/91

Non-Profit Organizations: • Board of Directors, Tampa Bay FBI Infragard Group (Current, Former President) • American Bar Association (ABA), SciTech eDiscovery Committee, Chair of Forensics Sub- Committee (Former) • Vice President, Sailing Alternatives, Inc.; (SAlt) Paralympic Sailing/Racing Instructor (Former) • President, Lou Gehrig’s Disease Association of Southwest Florida, Inc. (LGDA) (Former)

Florida Private Investigator License: C 2900442 (Individual); A 2900240 (Firm)

Qualifications of Expert Witness John Jorgensen

Appointment as Special Master for the Court:

ORDER APPOINTING SPECIAL MASTER; 22 May 2014; Case No. 8:12-CV-02580-SCB- EAJ; United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.

ORDER APPOINTING SPECIAL MASTER; 2 January 2013; Case No. 11CA-006040 DIVISION J consolidated with Case No. 11-CA-003415 DIVISION F and Case No. 11-CA- 0033411; County of Hillsborough, Tampa, Florida.

ORDER APPOINTING SPECIAL MASTER; 3 July 2008; Case No.: 2008-CA-008108-SC; County of Sarasota, Sarasota, Florida.

ORDER APPOINTING SPECIAL MASTER; 3 August 2004; Case 2003-CA-15914-NC; County of Sarasota, Sarasota, Florida.

Appointment as Escrow Agent for the Court:

DEMAN DATA SYSTEMS,LLV et al. vs MARCH SCHESSEL et al., United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, Case No. 8:12-CV-02580-T-24EAJ (2014)

Qualified and Testified as Expert Witness in FINRA Litigation:

FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY (FINRA):

SMOLCHEK and RAMAZIO vs MERRILL LYNCH, FINRA Dispute Resolution, Case No. 10- 04432;

DEAN D. TRINDLE vs MERRILL LYNCH, FINRA Dispute Resolution, Case No. 11-03331;

DENSMORE, et al vs MERRILL LYNCH, FINRA Dispute Resolution, Case No. 11-04393;

DEBORAH BRISKIN, JAMES HARTIGAN and FREDERICK HAHN vs MERRILL LYNCH; FINRA Dispute Resolution Case No. 11-04128;

JERRAD BURFORD vs MERRILL LYNCH; FINRA Dispute Resolution Case No. 11-03268;

DAVID D. DOLL, et al vs MERRILL LYNCH; FINRA Dispute Resolution Case No. 11-03965;

STUART GERTMAN, et al vs MERRILL LYNCH; FINRA Dispute Resolution Case No. 11- 04302;

WILLIAM GOETTERT and JOHN ENTENBERG vs MERRILL LYNCH; FINRA Dispute Resolution Case No. 11-03508;

KEVIN J. QUEALLY, JR. et al vs. MERRILL LYNCH; FINRA Dispute Resolution Case No. 11-02867;

JEFFERY LEWIS vs MERRILL LYNCH; FINRA Dispute Resolution Case No. 11-01199;

JOHN MICHAEL O’BRIEN, et al vs MERRILL LYNCH; FINRA Dispute Resolution Case No. 11-03500;

CHRISTOPHER PAYSON, et al vs MERRILL LYNCH; FINRA Dispute Resolution Case No. 11-04168;

SIMON M. CANASI et al vs MERRILL LYNCH; FINRA Dispute Resolution Case No. 11- 01787;

MICHAEL E. ZIZMER, et al vs MERRILL LYNCH; FINRA Dispute Resolution Case No. 11- 03875 (2012-2013)

Testimony Provided and Qualified as Expert Witness to Federal Court:

BERLENA SHEFFIELD vs RODRIGUEZ GREENE, KAREN RAINFORD AKINPELU, VICKIE DYANNE ALVES and CHRISTINA DALY, In the United States District Court Middle District of Florida Orlando Division, Case No. 6:17-cv-273-Orl-37KRS (2017 and ongoing)

DEMAN DATA SYSTEMS, LLC, FLORIDA SOFTWARE SYSTEMS CORPORATION, FLORIDA SOFTWARE SYSTEMS INC. vs MARC S. SCHESSEL and PRIMROSE SOLUTIONS, LLC., The United States District Court Middle District of Florida Tampa Division, Case No: 8:12-CV-02580-SCB-AAS (2016-2017)

MICHAEL R. MASTRO, Debtor; JAMES F. RIGBY, JR, Trustee, solely in his capacity as Chapter 7 trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Michael R. Mastro vs MICHAEL R. MASTRO and LINDA A. MASTRO, and their marital community, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, BANKRUPTCY NO. 09-16841 (CH.7), ADVERSARY NO. 09-01439-MLB (2013-2017)

XTEC, INCORPORATED vs CARDSMART TECHNOLOGIES, INCORPORATED and DAVID FISHER, In the United States District Court Southern District of Florida; Case No. 11- cv-22866-RSR (2014)

RLI INSURANCE COMPANY vs ELISABETH BANKS, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division; Civil Action File No. 1:14-CV-01108-TWT (2014)

MARK DUPREE vs LAKEVIEW HEALTH SYSTEMS LLC; United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; Case No. 0:13-CV-61312-JIC (2014)

ASTA FUNDING, INC. v, DAVID SHAUN NEAL, ROBERT F. COYNE, ESQ., and NEW WORLD SOLUTIONS, INC. In the United States District Court, District of New Jersey; Case No. 2:14-cv-02495 (KM)(MAH) (2014-2015)

JOHN CIANGIULLI vs ABSTRACT ELECTRONICS, INC, In the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, Case No. 8:13-CV-1849-T-23AEP (2013-2014)

LIGHTHOUSE LIST COMPANY, LLC vs CROSS HATCH VENTURES CORP; STEVEN MCFADDEN; and BETSY RESNICK; United States District Court, Southern District of Florida; Case No. 13-CV-60524 (2013)

FUSIONSTORM INC. vs. PRESIDIO NETWORKED SOLUTIONS, INC. et al., United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. Case No.1400013677. (2010–2012)

BOURGAULT, ASHE & ASSOCIATES INC., A & B INSURANCE GROUP, LLC and RICHARD BOURGAULT and WENDY ASHE, individually vs FARM FAMILY CASUALITY INSURANCE COMPANY; United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10685-NG (2010)

NUCOR CORPORATION vs. JOHN BELL and SEVERCORR, LLC; Case No. 2:06-cv-02972- DCN; In The United States District Court For The District Of South Carolina, Charleston Division; Parker Poe Adams & Berstein, LLP (2006-2008)

TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION v. JEFFERY D. HURD, 18 April 2006; Expert Witness for plaintiff and Epstein, Becker, Green Wickliff & Hall, P.C. (2006)

Testimony Provided and Qualified as Expert Witness to the Circuit Courts:

LAKE POINT PHASE I, LLC, and LAKE POINT PHASE II, LLC, vs SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, MARTIN COUNTY, MAGGY HURCHALLA, Case No: 2013-001321-CA (2016-2018, ongoing)

DAVID W. ROBERTS vs CHRISTIE’S GREAT ESTATES, INC., In the Circuit Court In and For Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No. 2009CA040545 (2015-2017)

AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL ENTERPRISES, LLC vs BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND; In the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida; Case No. 01-23922 (CA09) (2015)

OTAY MAIN STREET, LLC vs TIPS OR TAPS, LLC, MOLLY HOPKINS and KENNETH JASON GRIGLEY; In the State Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia; Civil Action File No. 13EV016959J (2014)

NATALEE M. SCHMISER vs 3 GARNETT’S SOUTH, INC. d/b/a 3 G’s GOURMET DELI and ANDREW GARNETT, In the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida; Case No. 502014-CA-002141XXXXMBAA (2014)

WATERSIDE AT COQUINA KEY SOUTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. vs PROSPECT-MARATHON COQUINA, LLC.; In the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida; Case No. 11-11119-CI-15 (2014)

DAVID MOSER vs ELIAS BROTHERS GROUP PAINTING & CONTRACTING, INC; In the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida; Case No. 13-CA-824 (2013-2014)

STATE OF FLORIDA vs FRANCISCO YANES, In the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No. F12-10014 (2013-2014)

LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC, et al vs DLA PIPER US LLP, et al; In the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego; Case No. 37-2008-00076811-CU-PN- CTL, consolidated with Case No. 37-2008-00092842-CU-PN-CTL (2013)

CATMET COMPANY, INC vs MICHAEL MELNICK, NORTH SHORE CORE, INC, MIDWEST CORE & CATALYTICS, LLC, 15 N. 9th AVENUE LLC, S&S CAPITAL, LLC, MICHAEL SIEGEL STEVE E, HANSEN, MARK A. TOMASSINI, 4M TRADING, LLC and 4M TRADING; In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Law Division; Case No. 05-L-9164 (2013)

CAMBIA ENTERTAINMENT LLC., et al vs HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP, et al; In the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida; Case No. 08-63056CA40 (2013)

JOSEPH C. FORGIONE and CHARLENE LYNN FORGIONE DIETZ, as Co-Personal representatives of the ESTATE of ANTONY FORGIONE, deceased vs HCA, INC., FORT WALTON BEACH MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; CHUCK J. HALL; WAYNE CAMPBELL; and ROLAND GARRIGA, In the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Okaloosa County, Florida, Case No. 09-CA-002700-S-TR (2013)

BRANCH BANKING and TRUST COMPANY vs MARK R. FAZZARY, In the County Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Citrus County, Florida; Case No. 2010-CC-005093 (2013)

STATE OF FLORIDA vs GREGORY CLARK JONES, for the 12th Judicial Circuit, Sarasota Country, State of Florida; Case No. 2013-CF-12479 (2013)

AVMED, INC. d/b/a AVMED HEALTH PLANS vs RED COATS, INC. d/b/a ADMIRAL SECURITY SERVICES, INC., ROGER F. KUZNIK, ROBERT E. GOUDREAU, and WILLIAM F. PEEL, III., In the Circuit Court, Eighth Judicial Circuit, in and for Alachua County, Florida, Case No. 10-CA-6645 Division J (2012-2013)

MEDI-WEIGHTLOSS FRANCHISING USA LLC vs MEDILOSS TRINITY, LLC; EVELYN KITKA; and TIMOTHY KIKTA, In the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, Florida, Case No. 11-CA-003415 Division F and Case No. 11-CA-0033411 Division L and Case No. 11-CA- 006040 Division J (2012-2013)

DEALER DOT COM, INC vs TYSON D. MADLIGER, JEFFREY C. GLACKIN and CHRISTOPHER H. SPENSLEY, Superior Court of Vermont, County of Chittenden, Docket No. S0923-12 (2012-2013)

LENNAR CORPORATION vs. BRIARWOOD CAPITAL, LLC. Et al., In The Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit In and For Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No. 08-55741 CA 40 (2011–2012)

NICOLE NEEDHAM FAIDI vs. WILLIAM FAIDI, Superior Court of California, County of Marion, Case No. FL 1100264. (2011–2012)

ESTATE OF NELSON E. MCLEOD / CHRISTY C. HUTCHENS vs. SHIRLEY FAIST, Case No. 2006 CP 001186 NC, In The Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit In And For Sarasota County, Florida. (2011–2012)

STATE OF FLORIDA vs EDWARD KENT HILL, for the 12th Judicial Circuit, Sarasota Country, State of Florida; Case No. 2010-CF-571 & 2010-CF-574 (2010)

STATE OF FLORIDA vs SCOTT HAHN, for the 12th Judicial Circuit, Sarasota Country, State of Florida; Case No. 2010-CF-006252 (2010)

STATE OF FLORIDA vs MICHAEL MOATS, for the 12th Judicial Circuit, Sarasota Country, State of Florida; Case No. 2010-CF-002351 (2010)

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, v. MICHAEL JASON KIMBLER; Case No.: 09-CA-19271; In the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit In and For Hillsborough County, Floirda Civil Division. (2009-2011)

STATE OF FLORIDA vs. CLIFFORD DAVIS; FL STATE Case No.: 2005-CF4635; Case No.; 05-81-531; Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit in and for Manatee County, Florida (2010)

DALE K. EHRHART, INC., vs. GERARD F. STELLWAGEN and WEALTH ADVISORS, LLC; Case No. 2007 CA 000658 SC; In the Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit In and For Sarasota County, Florida. (2009-2011)

JASMIN NETWORKS, INC. vs. MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. et al.; Case No.; 1-01- CV-801411; Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, (2009-2010)

ANTHONY LORENZO, et al. vs. CITY OF VENICE, et al.; Case No.; 2008 CA 8108 SC; Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit in and for Sarasota County, Florida; Special Master (2008-2010)

PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, INC., vs. WILLIAM F. BALKWILL, as Sheriff and Chief Correctional Officer of Sarasota County, Florida, and ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation; Case No. 2007 CA 10652 NC, Division A, Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit in and for Sarasota County (2008-2010)

STATE OF FLORIDA vs. DOUGLAS MONKS; Case No. 2008-CF-11657; Circuit Court of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit in and for Sarasota County, Florida (2008-2009)

STATE OF FLORIDA vs LERON HAGINS, for the 12th Judicial Circuit, Sarasota Country, State of Florida; Case No. 2011-CF-14631 (2011)

STATE OF FLORIDA vs JOE CLEVELAND JOYNER, for the 12th Judicial Circuit, Sarasota Country, State of Florida; Case No. 2008-CF-021253 (2008-2013)

GLO CPAs, LLP v. Christine R. Spray and Calvetti, Ferguson & Warner, P.C.; In The District Court of Harris County, Texas (2007-2008)

NUCOR CORPORATION vs. JOHN BELL and SEVERCORR, LLC; Case No. 2:06-cv-02972- DCN; In The United States District Court For The District Of South Carolina, Charleston Division; Parker Poe Adams & Berstein, LLP (2006-2008)

DNAPRINT GENOMICS, INC. v. VENKATESWARLU KONDRAGUNTA; Case 2003-CA- 15914-NC; County of Sarasota, Sarasota Florida; Expert Witness for plaintiff and Abel, Band, Russell, Collier, Pitchford and Gordon Charted. (2004-2007)

Major Computer Forensic Investigations (Affidvaits or Reports Provided) Not Cited Above:

Attorney General’s Office, State of Florida/ Criminal Investigation/ Deman Data Systems vs Schessel and Bennett (2017 - ongoing)

United States Secret Service, ongoing investigations / Confidential (2015 - 2018)

UCLA Health Care, ADLOUNI vs THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LASC CASE NO. BC589243 (2017 – 2018)

LEE WALTERS and ANDREW PARSONS vs KIMPTON HOTEL AND RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, United States District Court Northern District of California San Francisco Division, Case No. 3:16-cv-05387-VC. (2017 – 2018)

THE HOME DEPOT INC. CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, Case No: 1:14-md-02583-TWT, In the United States District Court For The Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division. (2017)

IN RE: YAHOO! CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 16-MD- 02752-LHK, United States District Court Northern District of California – San Jose District (2017 - 2018)

EQUIFAX Class Action Litigation, Morgan & Morgan, (2017 – 2018)

IN RE: U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AND DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, Misc. Action No. 15-1394 (ABJ), MDL Docket No. 2664 (2016 – 2018)

JONATHAN TORRES et al. vs WENDY’S INTERNATIONAL, LLC, United States District Court Middle District of Florida, Case No. 6:16-cv-00210-PGB-DAB (2017-2018)

Federal Bureau of Investigation/ Criminal Cases/ ongoing Criminal Cases/ Confidential (2016 – 2018)

Sarasota Sheriff’s Office, State of Florida / Two Criminal Investigations regarding the Sarasota County School Board Cyber Crime and Personal Extortion (resolved with a criminal pleadings, 2016)

Lake County Florida Sheriff’s Office/ FBI/ Computer Security Investigation breach investigation (2015)

MONAZ MEHTA VS VISHAL R. GROVER, Superior Court of the State of California County of San Fransisco, Case No: FDI-12-778004. (2016-2017)

Diocese of Venice/ Various Investigations/ (2013 – 2018)

Diocese of St. Petersburg/ Various Investigations / (2014 – 2017)

Horack Talley/ FBI/ Computer Security Investigation / case settled

Bridgestone Corporation/ National Security Investigation / case settled

Nucor Steel/ FBI/ National Security Investigation / case settled

Nucor Steel / Moore & Van Allen (Charlotte NC) / case settled favorable to client

Nissan Corporation/ National Security Investigation / case settled

Nissan Corporation/ International Breach Investigation/ 2015 - 2016

Waste Management (Texas) / Doherty/ case settled favorable to client

Waste Management ( Minn.) / Piccoli / case settled favorable to client

PCE / Ford Harrison (Orlando) / case settled favorable to client

Southerland Asbill (Atlanta) / Spectrum Brands / case settled favorable to client

Morrison Mahoney (Boston) / Confidential / case settled favorable to client

City of St. Petersburg Police Department / Ongoing investigation for Chief of Police

Morgan Stanley / Abel Band Chartered (Sarasota)/ eight cases settled favorable to client

Morrison & Mahoney (Boston)/ Fraud investigation / case settled favorable to client

Shumaker Loop (Sarasota) / Morgan Stanley / 6 cases settled favorable to client

Shumaker Loop (Sarasota) / Merrill Lynch / cases ongoing

UES / Southerland Asbill (Atlanta) / case settled favorable to client

Southerland Asbill (Atlanta) / Pinerock / case completed favorable to client Ford & Harrison (Tampa) / Reynolds/ case settled favorable to client

Lockheed Martin / Ford & Harrison (Orlando) / case settled

Energy Recovery / Duane Morris (San Francisco) / case settled

Cord Blood Registry/ Pillsbury LLP (San Francisco) / case settled favorable to client

Tropical Presidente / Info Law Group (Denver) / case settled favorable to client

Edelson McGuire (Chicago)/ three cases settled

Edleson McGuire (Chicago)/ three cases ongoing

Oerlikin v. Sprea; Ford & Harrison (Tampa) / case completed favorable to client

Greater Orlando Airport Authority/ Broad & Cassell (Orlando) / case settled favorable to client

Epstein Becker (Texas) / Atlas Freight / case completed favorable to client

Epstein Becker (Texas) / GLO / case settled favorable to client

Attorney’s Title Insurance Fund, Inc. / Aggravated Stalking charge / Supplied forensic information to law enforcement. / case completed favorable to client

IBM (New York) / employee malicious & inappropriate activity /case completed favorable to client

TIAA-CREF / 3rd Party Vendor / case completed favorable to client

TIAA-CREF / internal security investigation / case settled favorable to client

TIAA-CREF / several internal security investigation activities

Kate Spade, Inc. (New York) / employee malicious activity investigation / case completed favorable to client

HUD, Ft. Pierce Housing Authority / employee malicious activity investigation / case completed favorable to client

Wharton-Smith, Inc. (Orlando) / employee malicious activity investigation / case completed favorable to client

Cott Corporation, Inc. (Tampa) / industrial espionage investigation / case completed favorable to client

Apollo Sunguard, Inc.(Sarasota) / employee malicious activity investigation / case completed favorable to client

Skins Footwear Inc. (New York) / employee malicious activity investigation / case completed favorable to client

Citations and Recent Published Articles

Westlaw Case Citation; Nucor vs. Bell et al, 2008

American Bar Association: EDDE Committee; approximately six presentations per year, CLE credits; Forensics, eDiscovery and Spoliation. Subcommittee chair for Forensics.

RSA Conference USA 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016; Speaker and panel participant for multiple sessions for the RSA Law Track (CLE Credits Awarded)

FBI Closed Conference “Cyber Vulnerability”, April 6, 2011

SOCOM (Special Operations Command) Conference 2010: presentation “Brave New World”

American Bar Association: EDDE Journal; Spring 2010 Issue; How to Select and Work with Digital Data Experts

Employers Association of Florida, 1200 W. State Road 434, Longwood, Florida; numerous articles for monthly publication on Cyber Security and Crime provided in 2004 – 2010.

Cyber Security – Avoiding “Crime Without Punishment”, HR Florida Review, Winter-Spring 2006 issue.

Article Sidebar on Fiducial.com, http://www.fiducial.com/learning_centers/2005-07-28.asp

Article Reference on Crime-Research.org, http://www.crime-research.org/analytics/Credit-card- scam/

Articles in Local News Sources

Tampa Bay Business Journal Tampa Herald Sarasota Herald Tribune Sarasota News Network Sarasota Business Journal

Speaking Engagements

• RSA Conference (United States); 2010 through 2016; Multiple sessions • American Bar Association: 2009 – 2017; Numerous (over 20) presentations on Forensics and eDiscovery • Florida Jacksonville ACEDS meeting, 2015, Forensics and eDiscovery. • Ave Maria Law School, eDiscovery, guest speaker 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. • FBI, Columbia SC, Cyber Vulnerability Conference February 2011 • FBI, Classified Presentation, Atlanta, June 2011. • Florida Bar Association: 2009 through 2017 presentations on Forensics and eDiscovery • Sarasota Bar Association: 2010 through 2016 presentations on Forensics and eDiscovery • Florida Association of Licensed Investigators; 2009 -2012; Numerous presentations • DoD, Classified Presentation, July 2010 • Special Operations Command (SOCOM): 2010 3PT Threat • FBI Infragard Tampa Bay: 2009 – 2011; Cyber Warfare; 3PT Threat • Florida Association of Computer Crime Investigators, Sarasota, Florida, July 27, 2009. • Florida Bar Association; Electronic Everything Mock Trial, Orlando, Florida, June 26, 2009. • American Bar Association; EDDE National Meeting, Bloomberg, NY, NY June 4, 2009 • American Bar Association; EDDE National Meeting, Sarasota FL, January 12/13, 2009 • American Bar Association; EDDE National Meeting, Washington DC, November 17, 2008 • FBI Infragard, Tampa Bay Chapter, May 25, 2006 • Sarasota Chamber of Commerce, June 2006 • Yale Club, Sarasota, Florida, April 2006 • Tiger Bay Club, Sarasota, Florida, October 2005 • Employers Association of Florida, Longwood Florida o Cyber Security Conference, June 8, 2004, Hilton, Orlando, Florida o Several engagements yearly, 2003 thru 2006 • Ocean Spray, Inc., Florida, July 2005 • Ford Harrison, PA, Orlando Florida, June 2003

Professional Associations

FBI Infragard, Tampa Bay – Board of Directors, Officer – Current President

American Bar Association; Forensics Subcommittee, SciTech/EDDE

FBI Citizens Academy, Graduate November 2009