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