Sony PSN Settlement Offer

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BEN BARNOW BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 621-2000 (312) 641-5504 (fax) PAUL J. GELLER ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 (561) 750-3000 (561) 750-3364 (fax) DAVID A. MCKAY LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. MCKAY LLC 555 North Point Center East, Suite 400 Alpharetta, Georgia 30022 (678) 366-5180 (678) 366-5001 (fax) ADAM J. LEVITT GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 214-0000 (312) 214-0001 (fax)

BRIAN R. STRANGE (103252) STRANGE & CARPENTER 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, California 90025 (310) 207-5055 (310) 826-3210 (fax) Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee TIMOTHY G. BLOOD (149343) BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, California 92101 (619) 338-1100 (619) 338-1101 (fax) GAYLE M. BLATT CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, California 92101 (619) 238-1811 (619) 544-9232 (fax) Plaintiffs’ Co-Liaison Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: SONY GAMING NETWORKS AND CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION,

This Document Pertains To: All Actions

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

MDL No.: 3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

CLASS ACTION

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Judge: Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia Courtroom: 3B Date: July 2, 2014 Time: 2:00 p.m. PT

Case 3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD Document 190-1 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 33

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

i

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 2 I. Nature of the Litigation ..................................................................................... 2

II. Procedural History ............................................................................................. 3

III. Summary of the Settlement ............................................................................... 4

A. The Settlement Class ....................................................................................... 4

B. Settlement Benefits.......................................................................................... 5

1. PSN Accountholder Benefits ..................................................................... 5

2. Qriocity Accountholder Benefits ............................................................... 7

3. SOE Accountholder Benefits ..................................................................... 8

4. Reimbursement of Identity Theft Losses ................................................... 8

5. The Costs of Notice and Claims Administration ....................................... 9 6. Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses ....................................................... 9

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 9 I. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Is Appropriate ................................... 9

A. The Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case and the Risk, Complexity, and Likely

Duration of Future Litigation ........................................................................ 11

B. The Amount Offered by the Settlement ........................................................ 12

C. The Extent of Discovery Completed and the Stage of Proceedings ............. 13

D. The Views and Experience of Counsel ......................................................... 14

E. The Absence of Collusion ............................................................................. 15 II. Certification of the Settlement Class for Settlement Purposes Only .............. 16

A. The Requirements of Rule 23(a)(1) Are Satisfied ........................................ 16

1. Numerosity ............................................................................................... 16

2. Commonality ............................................................................................ 16

3. Typicality ................................................................................................. 18


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

ii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. Adequacy .................................................................................................. 18

B. The Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) Are Satisfied ........................................ 19

1. Predominance ........................................................................................... 19

2. Superiority ................................................................................................ 19

III. Notice of the Settlement .................................................................................. 20

A. Contents of Notice ......................................................................................... 22

1. Opting Out ................................................................................................ 23

2. Objecting .................................................................................................. 23

B. Scope of Notice ............................................................................................. 24

C. Notification to Appropriate Federal and State Officials ............................... 24

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 24


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

iii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ............................................................................................ 20 Arnold v. Fitflop USA, LLC, No. 11-CV-0973 W KSC, 2014 WL 1670133 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014) .......... 15 Bros. v. Cambridge Lee Indus., Inc., 630 F. Supp. 482 (E.D. Pa. 1985) ........................................................................ 15 Carnegie v. Household Int’l Inc., 376 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................... 20 Eisen v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., No. 2:11-CV-09405, 2014 WL 439006 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2014) ............... 10, 20 Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................. 18 Grant v. Capital Mgmt. Servs., L.P., No. 10-CV-WQH BGS, 2014 WL 888665 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014) ................. 12 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................. 17, 18, 21 Hispanics United v. Vill. of Addison, 988 F. Supp. 1130 (N.D. Ill. 1997) ........................................................................ 9 In re Austrian & German Bank Holocaust Litig., 80 F. Supp. 2d 164 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ................................................................... 11 In re Heritage Bond Litig., No. 02-ML-1475 DT, 2005 WL 1594403 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005) ................... 9 In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................... 13 In re M.L. Stern Overtime Litig., No. 07-CV-0118-BTM (JMA), 2009 WL 995864 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2009) .... 10 In re Sunrise Sec. Litig., 131 F.R.D. 450 (E.D. Pa. 1990) .......................................................................... 12 Local Joint Exec. Bd. of Culinary/Bartenter Trust Fund v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 244 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................................................................. 19 Peters v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 966 F.2d 1483 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ........................................................................... 20


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

iv

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Rannis v. Recchia, 380 Fed. App’x 646 (9th Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 16 Rigo v. Kason Indus., Inc., No. 11-CV-64-MMA (DHB), 2013 WL 3761400 (S.D. Cal. July 16, 2013) ..... 15 Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................... 14 Twigg v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 153 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 1998) ........................................................................... 21 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2514 (2011) ......................................................................................... 16 Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1982) .................................................................................. 12 Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N.A., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................. 19 Statutory Authorities and Federal Rules 28 U.S.C. § 1715 ...................................................................................................... 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) ........................................................................................... 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) ........................................................................................... 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) ........................................................................................... 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) ........................................................................................... 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) ........................................................................................... 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) .......................................................................................... 10, 21 Secondary Authorities Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 11.25 (4th ed. 2002) .............................................. 10 Federal Judicial Center, Judges’ Class Action Notice and Claims Process Checklist and Plain Language Guide (2010) ...................................................................... 22 Manual for Complex Litigation (Third) § 30.41 (1997) ......................................... 10 Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 11.423 (2004) ...................................... 14 Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 13.12 (2004) ........................................ 14


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs Scott Lieberman, Kyle Johnson, Arthur Howe, Adam Schucher,

Rebecca Mitchell, Christopher Wilson, James Wright, Robert Bova, Christian

Kalled, Christopher Munsterman, and Timothy Whyland (collectively,

“Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class (as defined in the

Settlement Agreement and stated below),1 by and through their undersigned

counsel, respectfully submit this memorandum of points and authorities in support

of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

INTRODUCTION

After a lengthy period of hard-fought litigation and several rounds of

protracted settlement negotiations and mediation, the Settling Parties reached the

Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement”), attached hereto as Exhibit A. The

Settlement includes significant and innovative relief specifically tailored to this

MDL litigation. The benefits made available under the Settlement include various

options, such as free PS3 and PSP games, free PS3 themes,2 free subscriptions to

PlayStation Plus, free subscriptions to the Music Unlimited service, and free SOE

Station Cash. The Settlement also delivers important peace-of-mind and security

for Settlement Class Members, by providing for payment of documented,

unreimbursed Identity-Theft-Related-Charges proven to have more likely than not

resulted from the Intrusions. As detailed herein, the Settlement readily satisfies the

applicable standard for preliminary approval: “within the range of possible judicial

approval.”

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully move this Honorable Court for entry of

an order: (1) granting preliminary approval of the Settlement; (2) approving Notice

1 The definitions contained in the Settlement are incorporated herein by reference.

2 PS3 themes customize the background, font, and icons on the PS3 user interface.


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to the Settlement Class and methods for dissemination of Notice as set forth in the

Settlement and the Notice Plan3; (3) appointing Kinsella Media, LLC, as Notice

Specialist, and Rust Consulting, Inc., as Claims Administrator; (4) certifying the

Settlement Class for settlement purposes only; (5) appointing Scott Lieberman,

Kyle Johnson, Arthur Howe, Adam Schucher, Rebecca Mitchell, Christopher

Wilson, James Wright, Robert Bova, Christian Kalled, Christopher Munsterman,

and Timothy Whyland as Representative Plaintiffs; (6) appointing the members of

the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C.;

Paul J. Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; Timothy G. Blood, Blood

Hurst & O’Reardon, LLP; Gayle M. Blatt, Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt &

Penfield, LLP; David A. McKay, Law Offices of David A. McKay LLC; Adam J.

Levitt, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.; and Brian R. Strange, Strange & Carpenter) as

Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel; (7) approving the Claim Forms attached to the

Settlement as Exhibits D1–D4; and (8) scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing to

consider entry of a final order approving the Settlement and the request for

attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.

BACKGROUND

I. Nature of the Litigation

On April 26, 2011, Sony Network Entertainment International LLC (“SNE”)

and Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (“SCEA”) announced that an

unauthorized person or persons had perpetrated an illegal and unauthorized attack

on the computer network systems used to provide PlayStation Network (“PSN”)

services, and that certain PSN and Qriocity accountholder information appeared to

have been accessed as a result of the unauthorized intrusion (“the PSN Intrusion”).

3 The Notice Plan is Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Shannon R. Wheatman, Ph.D.,

which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

On May 2, 2011, Sony Online Entertainment LLC (“SOE”) announced that an

unauthorized person or persons had perpetrated an illegal and unauthorized attack

on the SOE network, and that certain SOE accountholder information appeared to

have been accessed as a result of the unauthorized intrusion (“the SOE Intrusion”)

(together with the PSN Intrusion, the “Intrusions”). Services on both the PSN and

the SOE networks were suspended and unavailable to accountholders for a period

of approximately two to three weeks until operations were restored on the

networks by on or about May 15, 2011. A “Welcome Back” package of various

benefits (including the opportunity to obtain identity theft insurance) thereafter was

made available to accountholders of both networks.

II. Procedural History

Following announcement of the Intrusions, 65 class action complaints were

filed, asserting claims against various of the Sony Entities in federal courts

throughout the country. On August 8, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation transferred all related actions to the Court for coordinated or

consolidated pretrial proceedings. On November 29, 2011, after reviewing

applications for leadership positions, the Court appointed the Plaintiffs’ Steering

Committee. [D.E. #60]. The attorneys appointed by the Court to the Plaintiffs’

Steering Committee are the proposed Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel.

On January 31, 2012, a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“CAC”) was

filed. [D.E. #78]. The Sony Entities responded with a motion to dismiss the CAC.

After briefing and a hearing on the Sony Entities’ motion, the Court entered an

Order dismissing all counts of the CAC, but granting Plaintiffs’ leave to amend

certain counts. [D.E. #120]. On December 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their First

Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“FAC”), asserting 51 counts

against the Sony Entities. The Sony Entities again moved to dismiss. [D.E. #128].

On January 21, 2014, after briefing and a hearing on the matter, the Court entered


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss the

FAC. [D.E. #167]. The Court denied the Sony Entities’ motion to dismiss with

respect to the following causes of action: (1) California Unfair Competition Law

(“UCL”), California False Advertising Law (“FAL”), and California Consumers

Legal Remedies Act claims “based on misrepresentations and omissions regarding

reasonable network security and industry-standard encryption” and Plaintiffs’

ability to seek restitution under the UCL and FAL; (2) Florida Deceptive and

Unfair Trade Practices Act and Michigan Consumer Protection Act claims

requesting declaratory and injunctive relief; (3) Missouri Merchandising Practices

Act claim seeking damages and equitable relief; (4) New Hampshire Consumer

Protection Act claim seeking individual damages and injunctive relief; (5)

California Database Breach Act claims requesting injunctive relief; and (6) partial

performance/breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. Order at

97 [D.E. #167].

The Settling Parties have engaged in several rounds of settlement

discussions since the inception of this MDL litigation. These discussions began

over two years ago and have included a number of face-to-face meetings and

telephone conference calls. During the fall of 2012, the Settling Parties engaged in

a mediation and subsequently continued settlement negotiations. After the Court’s

ruling on the Sony Entities’ motion to dismiss the FAC, the Settling Parties

engaged in renewed settlement discussions. The Settlement was reached as a

result of such discussions.

III. Summary of the Settlement

A. The Settlement Class

Under the terms of the Settlement, the Settling Parties agreed to certification

of the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only:


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

All Persons residing in the United States who had a PlayStation Network account or sub-account, a Qriocity account, or a Sony Online Entertainment account at any time prior to May 15, 2011 (referred to in the Settlement Agreement as “PSN Accountholders,” “Qriocity Accountholders,” and “SOE Accountholders” respectively).

SA ¶ 1.234. “United States” as used in the Settlement Agreement includes the

District of Columbia and territories of the United States. SA ¶ 1.29. Excluded

from the Settlement Class are the Sony Entities and their officers and directors,

and Persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class.

SA ¶ 1.23.

B. Settlement Benefits

In summary, the Settlement provides the following benefits:5

1. PSN Accountholder Benefits

PSN User Benefits for “Welcome Back” Non-Participants. PSN Claimants

who did not participate in the “Welcome Back” package offered to PSN

Accountholders are eligible to receive two of the following PSN Benefit Options

(i.e., either two separate PSN Benefit Options or two instances of one PSN Benefit

Option): (1) one PlayStation 3 or PlayStation Portable game selected from a list of

fourteen games included on the Claim Form (the “Game Benefit”); (2) three

PlayStation 3 themes selected from a list of six themes listed on the Claim Form

(the “Theme Benefit”); or (3) a three month subscription to the PlayStation Plus

service free of charge (“the PlayStation Plus New Subscription Benefit”).6 SA ¶¶

1.8, 1.17, 1.27, 2.1 (c)(2), 2.1(c)(3).

4 References to particular paragraphs of the Settlement Agreement are prefixed by “SA ¶”.

5 The Settlement provides that Settlement Class Members, at their discretion, may either submit

claims online via the Settlement website or mail a completed written claim form to a mailing address established by the Claims Administrator. SA ¶ 8.1 (as amended by Amendment to the Settlement dated June 9, 2014).

6 The PlayStation Plus New Subscription Benefit is available only to Settlement Class Members

who at the time of submitting their claim had not previously subscribed to PlayStation Plus. SA ¶ 1.17.


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Claims by PSN “Welcome Back” Non-Participants will be honored on a

first-come, first-served basis subject to an aggregate cap of $6,000,000. SA ¶

2.1(c)(2). Each Game Benefit will be credited at $9.00 per game with the exception

that if, at the time of distribution, the PSN’s retail price for a game listed on the

Claim Form is less than $9.00, then the corresponding credit relating to such game

will be proportionally reduced. SA ¶ 1.8. Each Theme Benefit will also be credited

at $9.00 with the exception that if, at the time of distribution, the PSN’s retail price

for a theme listed on the Claim Form is less than $3.00, then the corresponding

credit relating to such theme will be proportionally reduced. SA ¶ 1.27. The

PlayStation Plus New Subscription Benefit will be credited at $9.00 per

PlayStation Plus New Subscription Benefit. SA ¶ 1.17. If the aggregate $6,000,000

cap is reached, PSN Claimants submitting valid claims after the cap is reached will

receive a free one-month subscription to the PlayStation Plus service, which

currently costs $9.99 per month. SA ¶¶ 1.16, 2.1(c)(5).

PSN User Benefits for “Welcome Back” Participants . PSN Claimants who

participated in the “Welcome Back” package offered to PSN Accountholders are

eligible to receive one Game Benefit, Theme Benefit, or PlayStation Plus New

Subscription Benefit. SA ¶¶ 1.8, 1.17, 1.27, 2.1 (c)(1), 2.1(c)(3). Claims by PSN

“Welcome Back” participants will be honored on a first-come, first-served basis

subject to an aggregate cap of $4,000,000. SA ¶ 2.1(c)(2). In the event the

aggregate $4,000,000 cap is reached, PSN Claimants submitting valid claims after

such cap is reached will receive a free one-month subscription ($9.99 value) to the

PlayStation Plus service. SA ¶¶ 1.16, 2.1(c)(5).

Unused PSN Wallet Credits. PSN Claimants with a PSN Account that was

logged onto at least once during the period of time from January 1, 2011 to May

14, 2011, that was not accessed between May 15, 2011 and April 18, 2014 (the

date of the Settlement) on account of the Intrusions, are eligible to receive payment


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in cash equal to any Unused PSN Wallet Credit in their PSN Account(s) for which

the Unused PSN Wallet Credit in the account is equal to or exceeds $2.00. SA ¶

2.1(a).

Unreimbursed Third-Party Services. PSN Claimants who used their PSN

account to access third-party service providers Netflix or Hulu Plus at any time

from January 1, 2011 to and including May 14, 2011, and who provide

documentation that they paid for such service during the period of time when the

PSN was offline from April 20, 2011 through and including May 14, 2011, and

were unable to and did not access such services during this period of time, are

eligible to receive either: (1) a Theme Benefit (claimant has a choice of three

PlayStation themes from a selection of six themes); or (2) a PlayStation Plus New

Subscription Benefit (a subscription to the PlayStation Plus service for 3 months

for claimants who have not previously subscribed to PlayStation Plus). SA ¶¶ 1.27,

1.17, 2.1(b).

Per Accountholder Benefit Availability. PSN benefits are available to

eligible PSN Claimants for valid claims on a per Settlement Class Member basis,

regardless of the number of PSN accounts a PSN Claimant has or had. SA

¶ 2.4(e)(i). PSN Welcome Back non-participants and participant benefits together

are limited to three per household. SA ¶ 2.1(c)(4).

2. Qriocity Accountholder Benefits

Qriocity Accountholders who did not have a PSN account (or sub-account)

at the time of the Intrusions are eligible to receive one free month of Music

Unlimited service, which currently costs $4.99 per month (Music Unlimited is the

current name for the music portion of the Qriocity service). SA ¶ 2.2. This benefit

is available to eligible Qriocity Claimants for valid claims on a per Settlement

Class Member basis, regardless of the number of Qriocity accounts a Qriocity

Claimant has or had. SA ¶ 2.4(e)(ii).


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. SOE Accountholder Benefits

SOE User Benefit. SOE Claimants are eligible to receive $4.50 worth of

“Station Cash” (i.e., 450 units of Station Cash) to be credited to the SOE

Claimant’s Account. SA ¶ 2.3(b). Station Cash is SOE’s virtual currency that

players can use to purchase game items through the in-game marketplace in all

SOE titles. If valid claims for SOE User Benefits exceed $4,000,000 the amount of

each SOE User Benefit under this subparagraph shall be proportionately reduced.

SA ¶ 2.3(b). This benefit is available to eligible SOE Claimants for valid claims on

a per Settlement Class Member basis, regardless of the number of SOE accounts an

SOE Claimant has or had. SA ¶ 2.4(e)(iii).

Unused Wallet Credit Payments. SOE Claimants with an SOE Account that

was logged onto at least once during the period of time from January 1, 2011 to

May 14, 2011, that was not accessed between May 15, 2011 and April 18, 2014

(the date of the Settlement) on account of the SOE Intrusion, are eligible to receive

payment in cash equal to any Unused SOE Wallet Credit in their SOE Account(s)

for which the Unused SOE Wallet Credit in the account is equal to or exceeds

$2.00. SA ¶¶ 2.1(a), 2.3.

4. Reimbursement of Identity Theft Losses

The Sony Entities will reimburse Settlement Class Members for claimed,

documented, and unreimbursed Identity-Theft-Related-Charges,7 not to exceed

$2,500 per claim, which are proven by the Settlement Class Member more likely

7 “Identity-Theft-Related-Charges” means out-of-pocket payments (not otherwise reimbursed)

for expenses that are incurred as a direct result of someone assuming the Settlement Class Member’s identity and taking out a line of credit, establishing and using a new financial account, or otherwise obtaining monies and other things of value fraudulently in the name of the Settlement Class Member (other than unauthorized charges on a payment card account associated with a Settlement Class Member’s PSN Account, Qriocity Account or SOE Account). SA ¶ 2.5(a)


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

than not to have directly and proximately resulted from the PSN Intrusion or the

SOE Intrusion and not from any other source. SA ¶ 2.5. Valid claims under this

provision are subject to an aggregate cap of $1,000,000. SA ¶ 2.5(d).

5. The Costs of Notice and Claims Administration

The Sony Entities will pay all costs of providing Notice of the Settlement to

the Settlement Class and the Costs of Claims Administration. SA ¶¶ 3.2, 8.4. The

costs of Notice in their entirety shall not exceed $1,250,000. SA ¶ 3.2. Costs of

Claims Administration are in addition to and separate from the costs of providing

Notice to the Settlement Class.

6. Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses

The Settling Parties did not discuss the amount of attorneys’ fees, costs, and

expenses until after the substantive elements of the Settlement had been agreed

upon. SA ¶ 7.1. The amounts of any award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses

are intended to be considered by the Court separately from the Court’s

consideration of the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement. SA ¶

7.5.

The Sony Entities have agreed to pay Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel,

subject to Court approval, up to the amount of $2,750,000 for attorneys’ fees,

costs, and expenses. SA ¶ 7.2.

ARGUMENT

I. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement is Appropriate

Courts look upon settlements with favor because settlement promotes “the

interests of litigants by saving them the expense and uncertainties of trial, as well

as the interests of the judicial system by making it unnecessary to devote public

resources to disputes that the parties themselves can resolve with a mutually

agreeable outcome.” Hispanics United v. Vill. of Addison, 988 F. Supp. 1130, 1149

(N.D. Ill. 1997); In re Heritage Bond Litig., No. 02-ML-1475 DT, 2005 WL


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1594403, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005) (settlement “spares the parties the costs

of protracted litigation and eases the congestion of judicial calendars”). Indeed,

compromise is particularly appropriate in complex class actions. See Eisen v.

Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., No. 2:11-CV-09405-CAS-FFMx, 2014 WL 439006, at

*3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2014).

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) requires judicial approval of a class action settlement.

The class action settlement review and approval process involves two steps.

Preliminary approval is the first step, at which time the Court determines whether a

settlement falls “within the range of possible judicial approval.” In re M.L. Stern

Overtime Litig., No. 07-CV-0118-BTM (JMA), 2009 WL 995864, at *3 (S.D. Cal.

Apr. 13, 2009) (citing Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class

Actions § 11.25 (4th ed. 2002) (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation (Third) §

30.41 (1997))). Final approval is the second step, which occurs after notice of a

settlement has been provided to the class. Id. The Court “need not review the

settlement in detail [at the preliminary approval stage],” because “class members

will subsequently receive notice and have an opportunity to be heard on the

settlement” at the final fairness hearing. M.L. Stern Overtime Litig., 2009 WL

995864, at *3.

When determining whether a settlement is within the range of possible

judicial approval, courts look to (1) the strength of Plaintiffs’ case and the risk,

expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (2) the amount

offered in settlement; (3) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of

proceedings; (4) the experience and view of counsel; and (5) the absence of

collusion. Id. at *4–5. Analysis of these factors here supports that the Settlement is

well within the required range of possible approval and should be preliminarily

approved.


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A. The Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case and the Risk, Complexity, and

Likely Duration of Future Litigation

Balancing the risks of continued litigation, the benefits of the Settlement,

and the immediacy and certainty of the significant recovery provided for by the

Settlement supports that the Settlement should be preliminarily approved.

Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel believe the claims asserted

in the litigation have merit. They would not have fought so hard to advance their

claims if it were otherwise. But, they also recognize the substantial risks involved

in continuing this litigation. The Sony Entities have aggressively maintained their

position regarding standing, liability, and damages. They deny all three. Co-Lead

Settlement Class Counsel are mindful of the inherent problems of proof and

possible defenses to the claims asserted in the litigation, and also recognize the

difficulties in establishing liability on a class-wide basis through summary

judgment or even at trial, or in achieving a result better than that offered by the

Settlement Agreement here.

Further, prosecuting this litigation through trial and appeal would likely be

lengthy, complex, and impose significant costs on all parties. See, e.g., In re

Austrian & German Bank Holocaust Litig., 80 F. Supp. 2d 164, 174 (S.D.N.Y.

2000) (recognizing that “[m]ost class actions are inherently complex and

settlement avoids the costs, delays, and multitude of other problems associated

with them”). Continued proceedings necessary to litigate this matter to final

judgment would likely include substantial motion practice, extensive fact

discovery, class certification proceedings, further dispositive motions and, of

course, a trial and appeal. Given the complex nature of the security breach at issue,

a battle of the experts at trial is almost a certainty and, as such, continued

proceedings would likely include substantial expert discovery and significant

motion practice related to such. Also, considering the size of the Settlement Class


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and the amount of money at stake, any decision on the merits would likely be

appealed, causing further delay, as it would require briefing and likely oral

argument.

The Settlement, in contrast, delivers a real and substantial remedy that fairly,

reasonably, and adequately addresses the situation confronting the members of the

Settlement Class without the risk and delay inherent in prosecuting this matter

through trial and appeal. Thus, this factor favors approval of the settlement. See

Grant v. Capital Mgmt. Servs., L.P., No. 10-CV-WQH BGS, 2014 WL 888665, at

*3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014) (“The court shall consider the vagaries of the litigation

and compare the significance of immediate recovery by way of compromise to the

mere possibility of relief in the future, after protracted and expensive litigation. In

this respect, it has been held proper to take the bird in hand instead of a prospective

flock in the bush”) (citations and quotations omitted); see also Weinberger v.

Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 73 (2d Cir. 1982) (“There are weighty justifications, such

as the reduction of litigation and related expenses, for the general policy favoring

the settlement of litigation.”); In re Sunrise Sec. Litig., 131 F.R.D. 450, 455 (E.D.

Pa. 1990) (approving a class action settlement because, in part, the settlement “will

alleviate . . . the extraordinary complexity, expense and likely duration of this

litigation”).

Thus, this factor favors preliminary approval of the Settlement.

B. The Amount Offered by the Settlement

This Settlement provides significant relief. All Settlement Class Members

are entitled to submit claims for relief under the Settlement, and the Settlement

includes relief specifically tailored to PSN Accountholders, Qriocity

Accountholders, and SOE Accountholders. The benefits made available under the

Settlement include, inter alia, the option to choose free PS3 and PSP games, free

PS3 themes, a free subscription to PlayStation Plus, a free month of the Music


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Unlimited service, and free SOE Station Cash. The Settlement also delivers

important peace of mind and security for Settlement Class Members by providing

for payment of documented and unreimbursed Identity-Theft-Related-Charges, if

proven that they more likely than not resulted from the Intrusions, pursuant to a

fair and clear claims process. And, under the Settlement, the Sony Entities will

pay all costs of Notice, the Costs of Claims Administration, and Plaintiffs’

counsel’s attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.

The significant benefits offered under the Settlement support preliminary

approval.

C. The Extent of Discovery Completed and the Stage of the Proceedings

The first cases in this MDL litigation were filed over three years ago.

A number of Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel have significant experience in

data breach consumer class actions such as this and, as such, are well-informed of

the legal claims at issue and the risks of this case. That specific experience is

included in the vast number of consumer class actions that Co-Lead Settlement

Class Counsel have successfully advanced over the years. Since their

appointment by the Court, Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel have been

actively and aggressively advancing this matter. Two amended consolidated

class action complaints have been filed and the Court has ruled on motions

to dismiss relating to each such complaint.

Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel and counsel for Defendants engaged in

several rounds of settlement negotiations during the past two years. Throughout the

settlement negotiations, Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel pursued informal

discovery from Defendants that was appropriately targeted at information relevant

to the settlement. See In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir.

2000) (“In the context of class action settlements, formal discovery is not a

necessary ticket to the bargaining table where the parties have sufficient


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

information to make an informed decision about settlement.”) (citations and

quotations omitted); see also Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 13.12

(2004) (recognizing that the benefits of settlement are diminished if it is postponed

until discovery is completed and approving of targeting early discovery at

information needed for settlement negotiations). Informal discovery, of course, is a

recognized method of minimizing the cost, delay, and burden associated with

formal discovery. See Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 11.423 (2004).

Indeed, to further such ends, courts are to “encourage counsel to exchange

information, particularly relevant documents, without resort to formal discovery.”

Id. In addition to informal discovery, Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel have also

collected and reviewed publicly-available information regarding the parties and

claims at issue.

The Settlement provides that confirmatory discovery will be conducted by

Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel, namely, reasonable requests for relevant

documents and the interviews of up to two (at the discretion of Co-Lead Settlement

Class Counsel) knowledgeable employees identified by the Sony Entities, which

shall be conducted by Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel. SA ¶ 10.4. Once the

confirmatory discovery is completed, Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel shall

determine, based on said discovery, whether in their opinion the Settlement is, as

they currently believe, fair, reasonable, and adequate. Id. If Co-Lead Settlement

Class Counsel are not satisfied that this standard has been met, they have the power

and right to terminate the settlement. Id.

This factor favors preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement.

D. The Views and Experience of Counsel

“Parties represented by competent counsel are better positioned than courts

to produce a settlement that fairly reflects each party’s outcome in litigation.”

Rodriguez v. West Publ’g Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 697 (9th Cir. 2009). When both


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

parties are represented by experienced counsel, their mutual desire to adopt a

proposed settlement’s terms “while not conclusive, ‘is entitled to significant

weight.’” Arnold v. Fitflop USA, LLC, No. 11-CV-0973 W KSC, 2014 WL

1670133, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014) (quoting Bros. v. Cambridge Lee Indus.,

Inc., 630 F. Supp. 482, 488 (E.D. Pa. 1985)).

The Settlement is supported by experienced and well-qualified counsel. The

Court appointed Co-Lead Settlement Counsel as the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee

after a selection process that involved numerous attorneys applying for leadership

positions. The collective experience of Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel leading

consumer class actions and other complex litigation matters, including data

security breach class actions, is extensive and unparalleled. The Sony Entities are

similarly well-represented. Harvey Wolkoff and Mark Szpak each have significant

experience litigating class actions and Ropes & Gray LLP is consistently

recognized as one of the top defense firms in the country. Co-Lead Settlement

Class Counsel and counsel for the Sony Entities support the Settlement and believe

the Settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The fact that the Settlement is supported by experienced counsel supports

that the Settlement should be preliminarily approved.

E. The Absence of Collusion

Courts find settlements to be free of fraud or collusion when “the parties

were represented by experienced counsel [and the] settlement was reached through

arms-length negotiations.” Rigo v. Kason Indus., Inc., No. 11-CV-64-MMA

(DHB), 2013 WL 3761400, at *6 (S.D. Cal. July 16, 2013) (citations omitted).

The Settlement is the product of over two-years of extensive, hard-fought,

arms-length negotiations conducted by experienced counsel. This process involved

numerous face-to-face meetings and telephone conversations, as well as

exchanging several proposals and counter-proposals. The Settling Parties fought


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

hard for the interests of their respective clients, and in Co-Lead Settlement Class

Counsel’s informed opinion, the settlement achieved here includes a substantial

and valuable recovery for the Settlement Class.

This factor favors preliminary approval of the Settlement.

II. Certification of the Settlement Class for Settlement Purposes Only

To be certified for class action treatment, the requirements of Rule 23(a)

must be satisfied in addition to the requirements of one of the subsections of Rule

23(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. As detailed below, the requirements of Rule 23(a)

and Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied here. As such, certification of the Settlement Class

for settlement purposes only is appropriate.

A. The Requirements of Rule 23(a) Are Satisfied

1. Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(1) requires that a class be “so numerous that joinder of all

members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Joinder is generally

considered impracticable when a class includes forty or more individuals. Rannis v.

Recchia, 380 F. App’x 646, 651 (9th Cir. 2010). The Settlement Class is estimated

to include individuals holding up to approximately 60 million accounts. Thus, this

requirement is satisfied.

2. Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) requires the existence of a question of law or fact that is

common to all class members and capable of class-wide resolution, the

determination of which is central to the validity of all Settlement Class members’

claims. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2514, 2551 (2011). “All

questions of fact and law need not be common to satisfy the [commonality

requirement]. The existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates

is sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with disparate legal


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

remedies within the class.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th

Cir. 1998).

Several questions of law and fact common to all Settlement Class members

exist in this MDL litigation, including, inter alia: A. whether the Sony Entities engaged in the wrongful conduct

alleged in the FAC;

B. whether the Sony Entities failed to adopt and maintain reasonable and industry-standard security measures to protect and secure Settlement Class Members’ Personal Information;

C. whether the Sony Entities omitted material information

regarding the security of Sony Online Services;

D. whether the Sony Entities misrepresented that they used reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of the personal information collected from its website visitors;

E. whether the Sony Entities misrepresented that Sony maintains

reasonable security measures to protect and safeguard consumers’ Personal Information;

F. whether the Sony Entities failed to tell consumers that they did

not have reasonable and adequate safeguards in place to protect consumers’ confidential information, to timely notify consumers of the Intrusions, and omitted important facts regarding the security of the Sony Network, including that the Sony Entities failed to install and maintain firewalls that utilized industry-standard encryption;

G. whether there was partial performance of an agreement between

Plaintiffs and the Sony Entities and whether the Sony Entities, in committing the alleged acts and inactions (or, in refusing to negotiate in good faith), breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;

H. whether Plaintiffs and the other Settlement Class Members are

entitled to actual, statutory, and other forms of damages and monetary relief; and

I. whether Plaintiffs and the other Settlement Class Members are

entitled to equitable relief, including, but not limited to, injunctive relief and restitution.

As such, Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality requirement is satisfied.


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. Typicality

The focus of Rule 23(a)(3)’s typicality requirement “is whether other

members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct

which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have

been injured by the same course of conduct.” Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney

Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1030 (9th Cir. 2012).

Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the other Settlement Class

Members. Plaintiffs’ and the other Settlement Class Members’ claims and injuries

arise from substantially the same conduct. And, Plaintiffs advance the same claims

and legal theories on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class. Plaintiffs also

are not aware of any defenses available to the Sony Entities that would be unique

to Plaintiffs. Thus, the typicality requirement is satisfied.

4. Adequacy

Rule 23(a)(4) requires that representative plaintiffs and class counsel

adequately represent the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). When

analyzing adequacy, courts ask: “(1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have

any conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will the named plaintiffs

and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” Evon,

688 F.3d at 1031 (quoting Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020)).

Plaintiffs’ interests are aligned with, and do not conflict with, the interests of

the Settlement Class. Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel have extensive experience

in leading the prosecution of complex class actions, including data security breach

cases. See Order Regarding Appointment of Liaison Counsel and the Plaintiffs’

Steering Committee and Notice of Status Conference (Battaglia, J. Nov. 29, 2011)

[D.E. #60]. As demonstrated by their efforts in this litigation to date, Co-Lead

Settlement Class Counsel have and will continue to vigorously prosecute this


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

matter on behalf of the Settlement Class. Thus, the adequacy requirement is

satisfied.

B. The Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) Are Satisfied

1. Predominance

Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance element requires that “questions of law or fact

common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only

individual members.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The predominance inquiry focuses

on whether a proposed class is “sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by

representation.” Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N.A., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th

Cir. 2010). “When common questions present a significant aspect of the case and

they can be resolved for all members of the class in a single adjudication, there is

clear justification for handling the dispute on a representative rather than on an

individual basis.” Local Joint Exec. Bd. of Culinary/Bartenter Trust Fund v. Las

Vegas Sands, Inc., 244 F.3d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir. 2001).

As noted above, several questions of law and fact common to all members of

the Settlement Class exist in this litigation. These common questions predominate

over any potential questions affecting only individual Settlement Class Members.

Thus, the predominance element is satisfied.

2. Superiority

Rule 23(b)(3) requires a class action to be “superior to other available

methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy,” and sets forth

the following factors: The matters pertinent to these findings include: (A) the class members’ interest in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and (D) the likely difficulties in managing a class action.


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The manageability concerns present when a court certifies

a class for litigation purposes are not present when a class is certified for

settlement purposes only, because the case is not to be tried. Amchem Prods., Inc.

v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 621 (1997). “[A] class action has to be unwieldy indeed

before it can be pronounced an inferior alternative—no matter how massive the

fraud or other wrongdoing that will go unpunished if class treatment is denied—to

no litigation at all.” Carnegie v. Household Int’l Inc., 376 F.3d 656, 661 (7th Cir.

2004).

A class action is superior to any other available means for the fair and

efficient adjudication of this controversy. The damages, harm, and other detriment

suffered by Settlement Class Members are relatively small compared to the burden

and expense that would be required to individually litigate their claims against the

Sony Entities, making it wasteful and impracticable for Settlement Class Members

to individually bring actions against the Sony Entities relating to the Intrusions.

Even if Settlement Class Members could afford individual litigation, the court

system should not be required to bear the burden and expense of such inefficiency.

Individualized litigation would also create the potential for inconsistent or

contradictory judgments and increase the delay and expense to all parties and the

court system. By contrast, the class action device provides the benefits of a single

adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.

Thus, the requirements of Rule 23 are satisfied and certification of the

Settlement Class for settlement purposes only is appropriate.

III. Notice of the Settlement

Notice serves to “afford members of the class due process which, in the

context of the Rule 23(b)(3) class action, guarantees them the opportunity to be

excluded from the class action and not be bound by any subsequent judgment.”

Peters v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 966 F.2d 1483, 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citing


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 173–74 (1974)). The Court must

“direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by

the proposal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). And, notice must fairly describe the

litigation and the proposed settlement and its legal significance. See, e.g., Twigg v.

Sears, Roebuck & Co., 153 F.3d 1222, 1227 (11th Cir. 1998)) (“[The notice] must

also contain an adequate description of the proceedings written in objective,

neutral terms, that, insofar as possible, may be understood by the average absentee

class member[.]”). Whether to approve a notice plan is committed to the sound

discretion of the trial judge, because he is exposed to the litigants, their strategies,

positions, and proof. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026.

The Settling Parties have agreed upon Kinsella Media, LLC, to be the Notice

Specialist for this Settlement and request the Court’s approval and appointment of

Kinsella Media, LLC, as Notice Specialist. SA ¶ 1.1. Kinsella Media, LLC, has

significant experience as a class action notice provider. See Wheatman Decl. ¶¶ 3–

8, Exh. 1 (curriculum vitae of Shannon R. Wheatman, Ph.D.); see also Notice Plan

at 4.

The Notice Plan includes: (1) individual direct notice by email to Settlement

Class Members who provided the Sony Entities with email address information;

(2) individual direct notice via post card to Settlement Class Members who had

accounts with SOE and for whom the Sony entities do not have email address

information but possess information sufficient for a mailing address; (3)

publication in Maxim, PC Gamer, Sports Illustrated, and Game Informer, as well

as in local newspapers in U.S. territories and possessions;8 (4) publication on

targeted Internet websites; (5) publication on mobile networks; and (6) an

8 In the event that a publication declines to run the notice advertisement, the budgeted amount

will be reallocated to an alternative print and/or online media outlet.


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

informational website dedicated to the settlement with an easy-to-remember

domain name. See Notice Plan at 6–8, 22–26; Wheatman Decl. ¶¶ 15–27.

Additionally, the estimated reach of the Notice Plan is 83.4% with an average

frequency of 2.1 against the target audience, which is well above the 70% reach

that the Federal Judicial Center recognizes as reasonable. See Notice Plan at 25;

Wheatman Decl. ¶ 25; Federal Judicial Center, Judges’ Class Action Notice and

Claims Process Checklist and Plain Language Guide, at 3 (2010). The Notice Plan

readily satisfies the “best practicable” standard.

A. Contents of Notice

The Notice documents were designed to provide information about the

proposed settlement, along with clear, concise, easily understood information

about Settlement Class members’ legal rights. Wheatman Decl. ¶¶ 33–36. The

Notice documents include Email Notice, Postcard Notice, Summary Publication

Notice, and a Detailed Notice available on the settlement website (the Summary

Publication Notice, Detailed Notice, and Claim Forms also will be provided by the

Claims Administrator to claimants who request them). See Notice Plan at Exhibits

A–D. The Notice documents collectively include a fair summary of the Settling

Parties’ respective litigation positions, the general terms of the settlement set forth

in the Settlement Agreement, instructions on how to object to or opt-out of the

settlement, the process and instructions for submitting claims and the date, time,

and place of the Final Fairness Hearing.9 ). See Notice Plan at Exhibits A–D;

Wheatman Decl. ¶¶ 33–36.

The Notice Documents contain information that a reasonable person would

consider material in making an informed, intelligent decision of whether to opt out

9 The date and time of the Fairness Hearing is to be set by the Court.


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

or remain a member of the Settlement Class and be bound by a final judgment, and

direct individuals to a convenient location to obtain more detailed information. See

id. Altogether, the Notice Documents fairly apprise the Settlement Class Members

of the terms of the Settlement and the options that are open to them in connection

with the proceedings.

1. Opting Out

A Person wishing to opt out of the Settlement Class must individually sign

(or, if the Person opting out is younger than 18 years of age, then through the

signature of a parent, legal guardian, or other legal representative) and timely

submit written notice of such intent to the designated mailing address established

by the Claims Administrator. SA ¶ 4.1. The written notice must clearly manifest a

Person’s intent to be excluded from the Settlement Class. Id. To be effective,

written notice must be postmarked no later than twenty-one (21) days prior to the

date set in the Notice for the Final Fairness Hearing. SA ¶¶ 4.1, 1.12.

2. Objecting

A Settlement Class member desiring to object to the Settlement will be

required to submit a timely written notice of his or her objection.10

SA ¶ 5.1. To be

10 The notice is to include: (i) the objector’s full name, address, telephone number, and e-mail

address; (ii) information identifying the objector as a Settlement Class Member, including proof that they are a member of the Settlement Class, with documentation of any Identity-Theft-Related Charges they claim to have suffered as a result of the Intrusions, if any, if they are objecting to any portion of the settlement dealing with reimbursement for Identity-Theft-Related Charges and for which they believe they would have an existing claim, (iii) a written statement of all grounds for the objection accompanied by any legal support for the objection; (iv) the identity of all counsel representing the objector; (v) the identity of all counsel representing the objector who may appear at the Final Fairness Hearing; (vi) all other cases in which the objector (directly or through counsel) or the objector’s counsel (on behalf of any person or entity) has filed an objection to any proposed class action settlement, or has been a named plaintiff in any class action or served as lead plaintiff class counsel, including the case name, court, and docket number for each; (vii) a list of all persons who will be called to testify at the Final Fairness Hearing in support of the objection; (viii) a statement confirming whether the objector intends to personally appear and/or testify at the Final Fairness Hearing; and (ix) the objector’s signature or the signature of the objector’s duly authorized attorney or other duly authorized representative (along with documentation setting forth such representation). SA ¶ 5.1.


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

timely, written notice of an objection must be filed with the Clerk of the United

States District Court for the Southern District of California, at the address where

filings are accepted by the Clerk, twenty-one (21) days prior to the date set in the

Notice for the Final Fairness Hearing, and served concurrently therewith upon (a)

either Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., One North LaSalle Street, Suite

4600, Chicago, IL 60602, or Paul J. Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,

120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500, Boca Raton, FL 33432, for purposes of

service upon Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel, and also on (b) Harvey J.

Wolkoff, Ropes & Gray LLP, Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street, Boston, MA,

02199, counsel for the Sony Entities. Id. ¶ 5.1.

B. Scope of Notice

Notice of the Settlement will be effectuated as prescribed by the Notice

Specialist. SA ¶¶ 3.1(c), 8.1. The Claims Administrator shall establish a dedicated

settlement website and shall maintain and update the website throughout the

Claims Period, with the forms of Summary Notice, Notice, and Claim Forms

approved by the Court, as well as the Settlement Agreement. Id.

C. Notification to Appropriate Federal and State Officials

The Settlement provides that, within ten days of this filing, the Sony Entities

will provide notice of the Settlement to appropriate Federal and State officials as

required by the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1715 (“CAFA”). No later

than ten days before the final approval hearing, counsel for the Sony Entities will

file a declaration confirming that the Sony Entities have complied with their notice

obligations under CAFA. SA ¶ 10.1.

CONCLUSION

As the above demonstrates, the Settlement readily meets the standard for

preliminary approval. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Settlement Class, by and through counsel, respectfully request that this Honorable

Court enter an order: A. granting preliminary approval of the Settlement;

B. approving Notice to the Settlement Class and methods for

dissemination of Notice as set forth in the Settlement; C. appointing Kinsella Media, LLC, as Notice Specialist and Rust

Consulting, Inc., as Claims Administrator; D. certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only;

E. appointing Scott Lieberman, Kyle Johnson, Arthur Howe, Adam

Schucher, Rebecca Mitchell, Christopher Wilson, James Wright, Robert Bova, Christian Kalled, Christopher Munsterman, and Timothy Whyland as Representative Plaintiffs;

F. appointing Ben Barnow of Barnow and Associates, P.C.; Paul J.

Geller of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; Timothy G. Blood of Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, LLP; Gayle M. Blatt of Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield, LLP; David A. McKay of Law Offices of David A. McKay LLC; Adam J. Levitt of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.; and Brian R. Strange of Strange & Carpenter as Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel;

G. approving the Claim Forms attached as Exhibits D1–D4 to the

Settlement; H. scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing to consider entry of a final order

approving the Settlement and the request for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses; and

I. granting any other or additional relief as the Court may deem just and

appropriate.

Dated: June 13, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

By: _____/s Ben Barnow____________ BEN BARNOW BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 621-2000 (312) 641-5504 (fax) [email protected]


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PAUL J. GELLER ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 (561) 750-3000 (561) 750-3364 (fax) [email protected]

TIMOTHY G. BLOOD (149343) BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1550 San Diego, California 92101 (619) 338-1100 (619) 338-1101 (fax) [email protected]

GAYLE M. BLATT (122048) CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, California 92101 (619) 238-1811 (619) 544-9232 (fax) [email protected]

DAVID A. MCKAY LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. MCKAY LLC 555 North Point Center East, Suite 400 Alpharetta, Georgia 30022 (678) 366-5180 (678) 366-5001 (fax) [email protected]

ADAM J. LEVITT GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A. 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312) 984-0000 (312) 214-0001(fax) [email protected]


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BRIAN R. STRANGE (103252) STRANGE & CARPENTER 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, California 90025 (310) 207-5055 (310) 826-3210 (fax) [email protected]

Proposed Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 13, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification

of such filing to the email addresses denoted on the Electronic Mail Notice List,

and that I shall cause the foregoing document to be mailed via the United States

Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF participants indicated on the Electronic Mail

Notice List.

/s Ben Barnow__________________ BEN BARNOW BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 621-2000 (312) 641-5504 (fax) [email protected]
