DOCSLIB.ORG

Motion and Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Motion and Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys Case 1:16-cv-03025-JKB Document 47 Filed 04/17/19 Page 1 of 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND RHONDA L. HUTTON, O.D. et al., CASE NO. 1:16-CV-03025-JKB Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY, INC. Defendant. UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES TO CLASS COUNSEL AND NAMED PLAINTIFF SERVICE AWARDS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF Dated: April 17, 2019 Respectfully submitted, By: s/ Norman E. Siegel Norman E. Siegel (pro hac vice) Barrett J. Vahle (pro hac vice) J. Austin Moore (pro hac vice) STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City MO 64112 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Tel: (816) 714-7100 Fax: (816) 714-7101 Class Counsel Case 1:16-cv-03025-JKB Document 47 Filed 04/17/19 Page 2 of 36 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION .....................................................................................3 III. SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS ACHIEVED THROUGH THE SETTLEMENT ..........9 A. The Settlement Class............................................................................................................9 B. The Settlement Benefits .....................................................................................................10 1. Cash Settlement Fund ................................................................................10 a. Reimbursement for Attested Time .................................................10 b. Reimbursement of Out-of-Pocket Losses ......................................10 c. Three-Bureau Credit Monitoring Services .....................................11 d. Identity Restoration Services .........................................................13 e. Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses and Service Awards ..........13 f. Expenses for Settlement Administration .......................................13 g. The Settlement Fund is Non-Reversionary ....................................14 2. Business Practice Changes .........................................................................14 IV. CLASS COUNSEL’S ATTORNEYS’ FEE REQUEST SHOULD BE APPROVED. .....................................................................................................................16 A. Legal Standard for Awarding Attorneys’ Fees ..................................................................16 B. Class Counsel’s Request for Thirty Percent of the Settlement Fund is Reasonable. .........18 C. On a Lodestar Cross-check, Class Counsel’s Fee Request Approximates Class Counsel’s Lodestar, and Produces a Negative Multiplier When All Counsel’s Time is Considered. ...........................................................................................................19 D. The Relevant Factors Support Class Counsel’s Fee Request. ...........................................21 1. Class Counsel Obtained Excellent Results for the Class. ..........................22 i Case 1:16-cv-03025-JKB Document 47 Filed 04/17/19 Page 3 of 36 2. The Quality, Skill, and Efficiency of Class Counsel Supports the Requested Fee Award. ...............................................................................23 3. The Risk of Non-Payment was High. ........................................................26 4. The Lack of Objections by Class Members Supports the Requested Fee Award. .................................................................................................27 5. Awards in Similar Cases Support the Requested Fee Award. ...................27 6. The Complexity and Duration of the Case Supports the Requested Fee Award ..................................................................................................28 7. Public Policy Supports Approval of the Fee Request. ...............................28 V. CLASS COUNSEL’S REQUESTED EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT SHOULD BE APPROVED. ...............................................................................................................29 VI. The Court Should Award the Named Plaintiffs Service Awards of $2,000 Each. ............29 VII. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................................................31 ii Case 1:16-cv-03025-JKB Document 47 Filed 04/17/19 Page 4 of 36 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Almendarez v. J.T.T. Enters. Corp., No. JKS 06–68, 2010 WL 3385362 (D. Md. Aug. 25, 2010) ................................................... 29 Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980) .................................................................................................................. 16 Boyd v. Coventry Health Care Inc., 299 F.R.D. 451 (D. Md. 2014) ................................................................................ 17, 18, 21, 30 Collins v. United Pacific Ins. Co., 315 Md. 141, 553 A.2d 707 (Md. 1989) ................................................................................... 19 Decohen v. Abbasi, LLC, 299 F.R.D. 469 (D. Md. 2014) ...................................................................................... 17, 29, 30 Gaskill v. Gordon, 160 F.3d 361 (7th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................... 19 Goldenberg v. Marriott PLP Corp., 33 F. Supp. 2d 434 (D. Md. 1998) ............................................................................................ 19 Good v. W. Virginia-Am. Water Co., No. CV 14-1374, 2017 WL 2884535 (S.D. W.Va. July 6, 2017) ............................................. 28 Hammond v. The Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp., No. 08 Civ. 6060, 2010 WL 2643307 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2010) ............................................. 26 Hutton v. Nat’l Bd. of Examiners in Optometry, Inc., 892 F.3d 613 (4th Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................... 7 In re Abrams & Abrams, P.A., 605 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................... 26 In re Diet Drugs, 582 F.3d 524 (3d Cir. 2009)...................................................................................................... 17 In re Hannaford Bros. Co. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 293 F.R.D. 21 (D. Me. 2013) .................................................................................................... 27 In re Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 892 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 23 In re The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 1:14-MD-02583-TWT, 2016 WL 11299474 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 23, 2016) ..................... 24, 25 iii Case 1:16-cv-03025-JKB Document 47 Filed 04/17/19 Page 5 of 36 Jernigan v. Protas, Spivok & Collins, LLC, No. CV ELH-16-03058, 2017 WL 4176217 (D. Md. Sept. 20, 2017) .............................. passim Jones v. Dominion Res. Servs., Inc., 601 F. Supp. 2d 756 (S.D.W. Va. 2009) ................................................................................... 17 Kabore v. Anchor Staffing, Inc., No. L–10–3204, 2012 WL 5077636 (D. Md. Oct. 17, 2012) ................................................... 29 McAfee v. Boczar, 738 F.3d 81 (4th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................... 18 McDaniels v. Westlake Servs., LLC, No. CIV.A., ELH-11-1837, 2014 WL 556288 (D. Md. Feb. 7, 2014) ..................................... 30 Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375 (1976) .................................................................................................................. 16 Montague v. Dixie Nat. Life Ins. Co., No. CIV.A. 3:09-00687, 2011 WL 3626541 (D.S.C. Aug. 17, 2011) ...................................... 27 Singleton v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 976 F. Supp. 2d 665 (D. Md. 2013) .............................................................................. 18, 28, 30 Spell v. McDaniel, 852 F.2d 762 (4th Cir. 1988) .................................................................................................... 29 Temp. Servs., Inc. v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., No. 3:08-CV-00271-JFA, 2012 WL 13008138 (D.S.C. July 31, 2012) ............................. 19, 27 U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, 569 U.S. 88 (2013) .................................................................................................................... 16 Whitaker v. Navy Fed. Credit Union, RDB-09-2288, 2010 WL 3928616 (D. Md. Oct. 4, 2010).................................................. 17, 18 Rules Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ...................................................................................... 5, 8, 16 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 ....................................................................................... 5, 6, 7 iv Case 1:16-cv-03025-JKB Document 47 Filed 04/17/19 Page 6 of 36 I. INTRODUCTION Over the course of two and half years, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel vigorously litigated this fiercely-contested data security class action against Defendant National Board of Examiners in Optometry (“NBEO”). Plaintiffs
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Americas Cup Newsletter
    AMERICAS CUP NEWSLETTER If you have problems to view this message click here. Official America's Cup Competitor Slate to be Revealed June 15 San Francisco, Calif., Wednesday, June 08, 2011 WHAT: The official competitors of the 34th America’s Cup will be formally welcomed by the Honorable Edwin M. Lee to San Francisco, site of the first two 2012 America’s Cup World Series events; and home of the 2013 Louis Vuitton Cup - America’s Cup Challenger Series - and America’s Cup Finals. WHEN: Wednesday, June 15th 10:30 A.M. PT WHO: Mayor Edwin M. Lee, City and County of San Francisco Iain Murray, CEO and Regatta Director, Americas Cup Race Management Richard Worth, Chairman, America’s Cup Event Authority Russell Coutts, CEO, ORACLE Racing Representatives of the Challengers for the 34th America’s Cup including Artemis Racing, China Team, Emirates Team New Zealand and others. WHERE: Ferry Building 2nd floor mezzanine San Francisco, Calif. NOTE: Members of the media are also invited to attend two events featuring the AC45 wing-sailed catamaran on Monday, June 13. Both events will held at Golden Gate Yacht Club, in the Marina, San Francisco. Monday, June 13 ● 10:00 A.M. – ORACLE Racing team press conference with CEO Russell Coutts and fellow Cup winners James Spithill and John Kostecki, with America’s Cup Principal Race Officer John Craig ● 1:00 P.M. – Media boat to take members of the press out on the water to see the AC45 wing-sailed catamaran in action on San Francisco Bay. This is the only time in 2011 that these next-generation America’s Cup boats will sail in San Francisco.
    [Show full text]
  • Australia's Hamilton Island Yacht Club Confirmed As Challenger Of
    GOLDEN GATE YACHT CLUB 1 Yacht Road – On the Marina San Francisco, California USA 94123 Australia’s Hamilton Island Yacht Club Confirmed as Challenger of Record for 35th America’s Cup San Francisco (September 30, 2013) – Hamilton Island Yacht Club (HIYC), located on the edge of the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland, Australia, has challenged for the 35th America’s Cup. HIYC’s challenge has been accepted by the Golden Gate Yacht Club, which remains the Defender and Trustee of the world’s oldest international sporting trophy after its team, ORACLE TEAM USA owned by Larry Ellison, won the 34th America’s Cup in San Francisco last Wednesday. For the past three decades HIYC has run Audi Hamilton Island Race Week, which has become the largest annual regatta in Australia with some 200 offshore yachts competing in recent years. HIYC is led by Australian winemaker and sailing legend Bob Oatley, whose succession of yachts named Wild Oats have dominated ocean racing in Australia for years, including having won six of the last eight Sydney-Hobart races. An Australian team led by Mr. Oatley won the last Admiral’s Cup, widely regarded as the world’s top prize in ocean racing. The challenge was filed by Mr. Oatley and his son, Sandy, on behalf of HIYC shortly after ORACLE TEAM USA won the thrilling deciding final race in the 34th America’s Cup against Emirates Team New Zealand on San Francisco Bay on September 25th. “We are delighted to have Hamilton Island Yacht Club and the Oatley’s leading Australia back into the America’s Cup for the first time since 2000,” said GGYC Vice Commodore and America’s Cup liaison Tom Ehman.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Annual Regatta Race/Hound Dog P8-9 Race/Mac Wrap-Up P10-11 As We Rapidly Approach the Hound Dog Regatta, I’D Like to Misc
    Cultivating a Rich and ISSUE 56-08 Proud Legacy of Boating AUGUST 2015 for Pleasure and Sport Waterlines Editor Kim Marian Submissions due by the 4th Tuesday of the month prior to publication - 500 words or less please. [email protected] In This Issue From the Helm p1-2 Social Committee p2-3 From the Helm Race/Interlakes p4-5 Bonus From the Helm p6-7 Our Annual Regatta Race/Hound Dog p8-9 Race/Mac Wrap-up p10-11 As we rapidly approach the Hound Dog Regatta, I’d like to Misc. Ramblings p12 use my bully pulpit to again invite and implore all of our Nominations Time p13 membership to take part in the weekend’s activities. In my Coast Guard Day p13 mind, the idea of an “annual regatta” is not just the high Coming Events p14 point of any yacht club’s sailing season, but a time-tested Heard ‘Round the Club p14 responsibility in which our club serves to both draw us together as well as welcoming guests from across our region. On the bulkhead of my Tartan 27, Olin, hangs a framed postcard from a very different era that depicts an extremely familiar scene. Most likely produced in the late ‘40s or early ‘50s, it depicts the awards ceremony at the end of a regatta at the Put-In-Bay Yacht Club on Lake Erie. The scene is identical to that of similar occasions that most of us have attended. If you’ll indulge my practice of undergraduate-level art history interpretation, I’ll point out many of the constants that we see to this day.
    [Show full text]
  • America's Cup in America's Court: Golden Gate Yacht Club V. Societe Nautique De Geneve
    Volume 18 Issue 1 Article 5 2011 America's Cup in America's Court: Golden Gate Yacht Club v. Societe Nautique de Geneve Joseph F. Dorfler Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/mslj Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons Recommended Citation Joseph F. Dorfler, America's Cup in America's Court: Golden Gate Yacht Club v. Societe Nautique de Geneve, 18 Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports L.J. 267 (2011). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/mslj/vol18/iss1/5 This Casenote is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. Dorfler: America's Cup in America's Court: Golden Gate Yacht Club v. Socie Casenotes AMERICA'S CUP IN AMERICA'S COURT: GOLDEN GATE YACHT CLUB V. SOCIETE NAUTIQUE DE GENEVD I. INTRODUCTION: "THE OLDEST CONTINUOUS TROPHY IN SPORTS" 2 One-hundred and thirty-seven ounces of solid silver, standing over two feet tall, this "One Hundred Guinea Cup" created under the authorization of Queen Victoria in 1848 is physically what is at stake at every America's Cup regatta.3 However, it is the dignity, honor, and national pride that attach to the victor of this cherished objet d'art that have been the desire of the yacht racing community since its creation. 4 Unfortunately, this desire often turns to envy and has driven some to abandon concepts of sportsmanship and operate by "greed, commercialism and zealotry."5 When these prin- ciples clash "the outcome of the case [will be] dictated by elemental legal principles."6 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Costs and Benefits of Hosting the 34Th America's
    LEGISLATIVE ANALYST REPORT: COSTS AND BENEFITS OF HOSTING THE 34TH AMERICA’S CUP IN SAN FRANCISCO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The America’s Cup is the premier sailing event in the world. Hosting the 34th America’s Cup in San Francisco, an event reported to be the third largest in all of sports behind the Olympics and the World Cup, would make San Francisco one of only seven cities in the world to have hosted an America’s Cup. In addition to the prestige of such an event, hosting the America’s Cup would also bring significant economic benefits to the region. The Budget and Legislative Analyst wants to make it very clear that the disclosures made in this report, pertaining to the estimated costs and benefits to the City and County of San Francisco, are not for the purpose of determining whether the America’s Cup should be held in San Francisco. We clearly recognize the importance and prestige of hosting such an event in San Francisco. However, it is the responsibility of the Budget and Legislative Analyst to report the facts to the Board of Supervisors. On February 14, 2010, at the 33rd America’s Cup in Valencia, Spain, BMW Oracle, a sailing syndicate (or team) based out of the Golden Gate Yacht Club in San Francisco, defeated the defending syndicate to become the winner of the 33rd America’s Cup. Under the rules governing the America’s Cup, the winner of the America’s Cup is entitled to select the race format, date, and location of the next race.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation of Dietary Supplements Hearing
    S. HRG. 108–997 REGULATION OF DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION OCTOBER 28, 2003 Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 20–196 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Nov 24 2008 11:04 May 24, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\DOCS\20196.TXT JACKIE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, CONRAD BURNS, Montana Ranking TRENT LOTT, Mississippi DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois RON WYDEN, Oregon JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JEANNE BUMPUS, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel ROBERT W. CHAMBERLIN, Republican Chief Counsel KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel GREGG ELIAS, Democratic General Counsel (II) VerDate Nov 24 2008 11:04 May 24, 2016 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\DOCS\20196.TXT JACKIE C O N T E N T S Page Hearing held on October 28, 2003 .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Annual Report
    annual report 2015 Brooklyn Legal Services Corporation A MESSAGE FROM OUR CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS Dear Friends and Colleagues: Every day Brooklyn Legal Services Corporation A (Brooklyn A) helps improve the lives of people who live in pov- erty. We are dedicated to the principle that lawyers can help open doors and level the playing field for people facing enormous life challenges. Over the past year, hundreds of people like you - our friends and supporters - have supported our Mission to advance social and economic justice and community empowerment through innovative, collaborative, neighborhood-based legal representation and advocacy. Thanks to your support, Brooklyn A has been able to help more people in need than ever before. Our staff has tirelessly assisted thousands of people throughout Brooklyn, and New York City wide, in their fight for social justice. Through our Preserving Affordable Housing Program we closed 614 individual cases, affecting 1,666 individuals and families. We represented 86 tenant associations, in rent-stabilized housing, through which we have kept in and/or restored tenants to their homes. The Community and Economic Advocacy Program provided services to 160 homeowners facing foreclosure of which 49 cases were closed, impacting the lives of 355 adults (including 52 seniors) and 129 children. The Community and Economic Development Program represented 50 not-for-profit community-based organizations (CBOs) and community development corporations (CDCs) on 70 development and operational projects, which impacted the lives of 103,101 individuals and families. Our Community Legal Education work, including presentations, brochures, and website information, reached 46,038 people, enabling them to learn about their rights and protect themselves against landlord harassment.
    [Show full text]
  • Governing Body Meeting Held on 23/11/2017
    America’s Cup 36 Location Analysis – Full Technical Report Version 1.1 16 November 2017 America’s Cup 36 Location and Infrastructure work stream Document history Version Date Author Update details 1.1 15/11/17 Fiona Knox, Strategic Project Manager. Panuku Final Document review Role Name and signature Date Panuku Director Design + Place Rod Marler Panuku Chief Operating Officer David Rankin Auckland Council CEO Stephen Town ii America’s Cup 36 Location and Infrastructure work stream Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Vision for 2021 .................................................................................................................... 1 Location analysis work stream ............................................................................................ 1 Purpose of this document ................................................................................................... 3 Report structure .................................................................................................................. 3 Process .......................................................................................................................... 4 ILM workshop ..................................................................................................................... 4 Assessment criteria - identification ...................................................................................... 4 Assessment
    [Show full text]
  • The Protocol Governing the 34 America's
    2 September 13 The Protocol Governing the 34th America’s Cup Incorporating Amendments 1 through 19 Page 1 of 43 2 September 13 (i) The Golden Gate Yacht Club (ii) Club Nautico di Roma BACKGROUND The Golden Gate Yacht Club, having won the 33rd America’s Cup, holds the silver cup known as the “America’s Cup” in accordance with the terms of a Deed of Gift dated 24 October 1887. The Golden Gate Yacht Club has received and accepted a notice of challenge from Club Nautico di Roma in accordance with the Deed of Gift. The Golden Gate Yacht Club and Club Nautico di Roma now record in this Protocol the arrangements they have mutually agreed in accordance with the terms of the Deed of Gift. AGREED AS FOLLOWS PART A INTERPRETATION 1. In the interpretation of this Protocol: 1.1. (a) AC45 Class Rule means the class rule for the yachts to be used in regattas prior to the implementation of the AC72 Class Rule and in other regattas that do not form part of the Event (such as youth regattas), including all amendments, interpretations and rulings. (b) AC45 Yacht means a yacht that complies with the AC45 Class Rule. (c) AC72 Yacht means a yacht that complies or could comply with the AC72 Class Rule. (d) AC72 Class Rule means the type, specifications and construction rules of the yachts to be used in the Event in accordance with this Protocol. (e) ACPI means America’s Cup Properties Incorporated, a company incorporated in the State of New York, United States of America, the holder of America’s Cup trade mark registrations and the licensor of those trade marks.
    [Show full text]
  • Zerohack Zer0pwn Youranonnews Yevgeniy Anikin Yes Men
    Zerohack Zer0Pwn YourAnonNews Yevgeniy Anikin Yes Men YamaTough Xtreme x-Leader xenu xen0nymous www.oem.com.mx www.nytimes.com/pages/world/asia/index.html www.informador.com.mx www.futuregov.asia www.cronica.com.mx www.asiapacificsecuritymagazine.com Worm Wolfy Withdrawal* WillyFoReal Wikileaks IRC 88.80.16.13/9999 IRC Channel WikiLeaks WiiSpellWhy whitekidney Wells Fargo weed WallRoad w0rmware Vulnerability Vladislav Khorokhorin Visa Inc. Virus Virgin Islands "Viewpointe Archive Services, LLC" Versability Verizon Venezuela Vegas Vatican City USB US Trust US Bankcorp Uruguay Uran0n unusedcrayon United Kingdom UnicormCr3w unfittoprint unelected.org UndisclosedAnon Ukraine UGNazi ua_musti_1905 U.S. Bankcorp TYLER Turkey trosec113 Trojan Horse Trojan Trivette TriCk Tribalzer0 Transnistria transaction Traitor traffic court Tradecraft Trade Secrets "Total System Services, Inc." Topiary Top Secret Tom Stracener TibitXimer Thumb Drive Thomson Reuters TheWikiBoat thepeoplescause the_infecti0n The Unknowns The UnderTaker The Syrian electronic army The Jokerhack Thailand ThaCosmo th3j35t3r testeux1 TEST Telecomix TehWongZ Teddy Bigglesworth TeaMp0isoN TeamHav0k Team Ghost Shell Team Digi7al tdl4 taxes TARP tango down Tampa Tammy Shapiro Taiwan Tabu T0x1c t0wN T.A.R.P. Syrian Electronic Army syndiv Symantec Corporation Switzerland Swingers Club SWIFT Sweden Swan SwaggSec Swagg Security "SunGard Data Systems, Inc." Stuxnet Stringer Streamroller Stole* Sterlok SteelAnne st0rm SQLi Spyware Spying Spydevilz Spy Camera Sposed Spook Spoofing Splendide
    [Show full text]
  • The Civil Rights Implications of "Broken Windows" Policing in NYC and General NYPD Accountability to the Public
    The Civil Rights Implications of "Broken Windows" Policing in NYC and General NYPD Accountability to the Public A Briefing Report of the New York Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights March 2018 Advisory Committees to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights By law, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has established an advisory Committee in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. These Committees are composed of state/district citizens who serve without compensation; they are tasked with advising the Commission of civil rights issues in their states/district that are within the Commission’s jurisdiction. Committees are authorized to advise the Commission in writing of any knowledge or information they have of any alleged deprivation of voting rights and alleged discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, national origin, or in the administration of justice; advise the Commission on matters of their state or district’s concern in the preparation of Commission reports to the President and the Congress; receive reports, suggestions, and recommendations from individuals, public officials, and representatives of public and private organizations to Committee inquiries; forward advice and recommendations to the Commission, as requested; and observe any open hearing or conference conducted by the Commission in their states/district. Acknowledgements The New York Advisory Committee thanks all of the participants in the March 20 and 21, 2017 briefings for sharing their expertise. The Committee also thanks the senior leadership of the NYPD for taking the time to share their expertise with us on the several days of interviews we conducted with them.
    [Show full text]
  • First Amended Complaint
    Case 3:15-md-02633-SI Document 75 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 87 Christopher I. Brain [email protected] Kim D. Stephens [email protected] Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98101 Tel: 206.682.5600 Fax: 206.682.2992 Interim Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel Keith S. Dubanevich [email protected] Steve D. Larson [email protected] Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter P.C. 209 SW Oak Street Portland, Oregon 97204 Tel: 503.227.1600 Fax: 503.227.6840 Interim Liaison Plaintiffs’ Counsel [Additional counsel appear on the signature page.] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON IN RE: PREMERA BLUE CROSS Case No. 3:15-md-2633-SI CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT This Document Relates to All Actions DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Case 3:15-md-02633-SI Document 75 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 87 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. NATURE OF THE CASE ..................................................................................... 1 II. PARTIES ............................................................................................................... 3 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ............................................................................ 7 IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 8 A. Premera Had A Duty And Contractual Obligation To Protect Its Members’ Sensitive Information From Unauthorized Disclosures. .......... 8 B. Premera Failed
    [Show full text]