Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 22STCV21530, Date: 2025-05-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV21530 Hearing Date: May 6, 2025 Dept: 9
Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement
Department
SSC-9
Hon.
Elaine Lu
Ivey et
al. v. Department of Justice for the State of California
Case No.:
22STCV21530
Hearing:
May 6, 2025
TENTATIVE
RULING
The
Parties’ Motion for Final Approval of class action settlement is GRANTED as the
settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.
The
essential terms are:
There is no common fund or Gross
Settlement Amount. Judgment shall be
entered whereby the Plaintiff, all Class Members, and Subclass Members shall
take nothing from Defendant, except as expressly set forth in this Order and
the Settlement.
· Defendant
shall pay:
o
All costs for credit monitoring services for
a six-month period for all class members who have submitted a claim, totaling $18,193.70
;
o
$88,822.81 for
attorney fees to Class Counsel BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP (¶8.3);
o
$18,670.25 to reimburse
Class Counsel for costs of retaining expert StoneTurn for the independent audit;
o
$11,177.19
in
non-expert costs to Class Counsel, Bradley/Grombacher, LLP;
o
$4,500 Service Payment to each of two Named
Plaintiffs Michael Ivey and Brandon Daniels, for a total of $9,000 (¶8.1);
and
o
$185,383.74 for settlement administration costs to Kroll
Settlement Administration LLC [which may be augmented by up to $14,616.26
for a total of up to $200,000 if additional administration costs are incurred,
and which will be reflected in a proposed amended judgment] (¶4.1).
· Business
Practice Commitments.
For twenty four (24) months following the Court’s grant of final
approval, CA DOJ shall: (1) continue maintaining the office of the Chief
Information Security Officer or an equivalent position that is responsible for
information and data security within the Department; (2) continue maintaining a
policy for the handling of confidential personal data that is applicable to
applicants for Concealed Carry Weapons permits and review it on a regular
basis; and (3) continue maintaining a policy that requires all CA DOJ employees
to participate in security training concerning the protection of confidential
personal data —all of which CA DOJ adopted prior to entering into this Amended
Settlement Agreement. (¶3.2)
By
no later than May 16, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a single
document that constitutes both a proposed Order and Judgment, consistent with
this ruling containing all requisite terms, including the class definition,
release language, and a statement of the number and identity of class members
who requested exclusion.
By
July 7, 2025, Class Counsel must give notice to the class members
pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.771(b) (which may be effected by
posting on the Administrator’s website if consistent with the parties’ Class
Action Settlement) and to the LWDA, if applicable, pursuant to Labor Code §2699(1)(3).
By
May 6, 2026, Class Counsel must file a Final Report re: Distribution of
the settlement funds, and if Defendant has paid additional administration
costs, a declaration regarding the additional administration costs paid and a proposed
amended judgment.
The
Court hereby sets a Non-Appearance Case Review for May 13, 2025, 8:30
a.m., Department 9.
BACKGROUND
This is a data privacy class
action. Defendant is the Department of Justice for the State of California (“CA
DOJ”).
CA DOJ’s California Justice
Information Services Division (CJIS) provides criminal history and data to
state and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies. CJIS also supports CA
DOJ’s information technology (IT) infrastructure. One component within CJIS,
the Research Center, conducts criminal justice-related research and analyzes
and provides data to the public and law enforcement agency partners. As part of
these responsibilities, the Research Center oversees OpenJustice, a CA DOJ
website that publishes criminal justice data in various formats, including
interactive dashboards that, at the time of the incident, used a software
program called Tableau.
In late 2021, CA DOJ’s Bureau of
Firearms (BOF), the CA DOJ component within the Division of Law Enforcement
that is responsible for, among other functions, issuing firearms permits,
sought to make additional aggregated, anonymized firearms-related data available
on its OpenJustice website. To that end, in late 2021 and early 2022, the
Research Center undertook the creation of the Firearms Dashboard, a
public-facing interactive data display on OpenJustice, which was to include
enhanced and updated firearms-related data in an aggregated, anonymized format.
For a period of fewer than 24 hours
on June 27, 2022, and June 28, 2022, however, confidential personal data in an
underlying dataset that was used to create the Firearms Dashboard, but that was
not intended for public dissemination, was inadvertently accessible to the
public on OpenJustice. The Firearms Dashboard’s underlying dataset containing
confidential personal data was downloaded approximately 2,734 times, in full or
in part, across 507 unique IP addresses. CA DOJ took the Firearms Dashboard
offline and, later that same day, the entire OpenJustice website was taken
offline. CA DOJ then issued Notices of
the Data Incident to all individuals whose PII may have become accessible.
Plaintiffs filed this putative
class action on July 1, 2022, alleging claims for (1) negligence and (2)
violation of California’s Consumer Privacy Act, Civ. Code, § 1798.21 and
1798.24. On February 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)
following the public release of an independent report prepared by the law firm
of Morrison & Foerster LLP regarding the Data Incident. On April 10, 2023,
CA DOJ filed an Answer to the FAC.
Counsel represents that the Parties
reached a settlement through mediation with Judge Amy Hogue (Ret.). A copy of the
Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on August 20, 2024 attached to
the Declaration of Kiley Lynn Grombacher (“Grombacher Decl.”) ISO Prelim, as
Exhibit 1.
On
November 26, 2024, the Court continued preliminary approval for counsel to make
amendments to the Settlement Agreement and provide supplemental briefing to
clarify certain issues. In response, on December 12, 2024, Counsel filed
supplemental briefing and a fully-executed Amended Settlement Agreement
attached to the Supplemental Declaration of Kiley Lynn Grombacher (“Grombacher Supp.
Decl.”) ISO Prelim, as Exhibit 1.
The
Court granted preliminary approval on January 6, 2025. Notice was given to the
Class Members as ordered (see Declaration of Frank Ballard (“Ballard Decl.”).)
Now before the Court is the Motion for Final Approval of the proposed class
action settlement.
SETTLEMENT
CLASS DEFINITION
·
“Settlement
Class” means the approximately 192,000 individuals whose PII was made publicly
accessible in the Data Incident. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) CA
DOJ; (ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request exclusion
from the Settlement Class; and (iii) any judges assigned to this case and their
staff and family. (¶1.5)
o
“Data Incident” means the data exposure
incident defined above that occurred on or about June 27, 2022, allegedly
involving Plaintiffs’ and Settlement Class Members’ Private Information. (¶1.7)
· “Private
Information” or “PII” means “Personally Identifiable Information” and includes,
but is not limited to, full names, dates of birth and driver’s license or state
identification numbers. (¶1.25)
· The
parties stipulate to class certification for settlement purposes only. (¶2.)
TERMS
OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
The essential terms are as follows:
· Defendant
agrees to pay:
o
All costs for 6 months credit monitoring
services for all class members who submit a claim.
o
Up to $100,000 for attorney fees (¶8.3);
o
Up to $35,000 for costs of
retaining Plaintiffs’ expert StoneTurn [for the independent audit] (Ibid.);
o
Up to $4,500 for a Service Payment
to each of two Named Plaintiffs, for a total of $9,000 (¶8.1); and
o
Up to $200,000 for settlement
administration costs (¶4.1).
· Business
Practice Commitments.
For twenty four (24) months following the Court’s grant of final
approval, CA DOJ agrees: (1) to continue maintaining the office of the Chief
Information Security Officer or an equivalent position that is responsible for
information and data security within the Department; (2) to continue
maintaining a policy for the handling of confidential personal data that is
applicable to applicants for Concealed Carry Weapons permits and review it on a
regular basis; and (3) to continue maintaining a policy that requires all CA
DOJ employees to participate in security training concerning the protection of
confidential personal data —all of which CA DOJ adopted prior to entering into
this Amended Settlement Agreement. (¶3.2)
o
Independent Audit.
Plaintiffs’ Counsel retained an independent third party, StoneTurn, with unique
expertise in forensics and investigations particularly in the field of data and
technology. This team of experts
performed an independent investigation regarding the Data Incident. CA DOJ agrees to reimburse Plaintiffs’
Counsel for the actual cost of retaining their expert in an amount not to
exceed thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00). (¶3.3)
· Funding
of Settlement: CA DOJ shall fund the balance of the administration fees,
Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s fees and costs, any service payments and monies to cover
the Credit Monitoring Services offered to the Class Members sixty (60) business
days after the Effective Date. (¶3)
· A claim
form is required. “Claim Form(s)” means the forms, attached as Exhibit
C to this Amended Settlement Agreement, which Settlement Class Members must
complete and submit on or before the Claim Deadline in order to be eligible for
the Credit Monitoring Services defined and described herein. The Claim Forms
shall require an actual or electronic sworn signature but shall not require a
notarization. (¶1.3)
o
“Claim Deadline” means a date certain,
which is to be set forth in the Notice and which shall be no more than
forty-five (45) Days from the date Notice is mailed to Settlement Class
Members. (¶1.2)
o
Credit Monitoring Services. All Settlement Class Members will be eligible
to claim and enroll in six (6) months of Credit Monitoring Services (by a
single bureau), a description of which is set forth in Exhibit F. These
services will be provided by Experian via Kroll, which will be appointed by the
Court as the provider of Credit Monitoring Services and be subject to the
Court’s jurisdiction for enforcement of the terms of this Settlement. Claims for Credit Monitoring Services can be
made only within the Claims Period. (¶3.1)
Claims Period. The deadline to accept the Credit Monitoring Services shall be
forty five (45) days after the Effective Date.
§ To make a
claim for credit monitoring, a Settlement Class Member must complete and submit
a valid, timely Claim Form. Claim Forms shall be submitted by U.S. mail or
electronically through the Settlement Website and must be postmarked or
submitted no later than the Claim Deadline. (¶4.6)
§ Subject
to the terms and conditions of this Amended Settlement Agreement, the
Settlement Administrator shall mail approved claims containing credit
monitoring codes within forty-five (45) Days of the date of its receipt of the
claim form. Credit monitoring
information for approved claims shall be mailed or otherwise sent to the
Settlement Class Member in the manner indicated on his or her Claim Form.
(¶4.10)
o
Necessity of Claim Form:
§ All
Settlement Class members, regardless of whether they submit a claim form,
receive substantial benefits from CA DOJ’s business practice commitments and
the independent investigation conducted by Plaintiffs’ retained expert. A claim form is necessary, however, to enroll
in credit monitoring because Kroll cannot provide those services without
receipt of individual details from Settlement Class members that CA DOJ does
not have. For example, to receive the
benefit of effective credit monitoring, an applicant may need to provide Kroll
with details concerning such matters as their banking and credit card accounts,
email addresses, all residence addresses, and family member details. (Supp. MPA
at 8:21-28.)
§ Estimated
Claim Rate: Because
of Plaintiffs’ and other putative Settlement Class members’ expressed interest
in enrolling in credit monitoring services if they were offered again, the
parties anticipate the claims rate may be similar or higher than the percentage
of individuals who previously signed up (previously 14,000). (Supp. MPA at
7:3-26.) As noted above, over 7% of individuals signed up for the complimentary
credit monitoring services CA DOJ offered immediately after the Data
Incident. Plaintiffs and other putative
Settlement Class members have expressed interest in enrolling in credit
monitoring services if they were offered again, so the parties anticipate the
claims rate may be similar or higher than the percentage of individuals who
previously signed up. (Id. at 9:1-5.)
· “Objection Deadline” means the time period in which
a Settlement Class Member may submit an Objection, which is forty-five (45)
Days after the Notice Deadline. (¶1.18) The same deadline applies to the
“Opt-Out Period”. (¶1.19)
o To be timely, an Objection must be mailed to the
Settlement Administrator at the address set forth in the Notice and postmarked
no later than forty-five (45) Days after the Notice Deadline (“Objection
Deadline”). The deadline for filing Objections shall be included in the Notice.
Within ten (10) Days after the Objection Deadline, the Settlement Administrator
shall furnish to Plaintiffs’ Counsel and to CA DOJ Counsel a complete list of
all timely and valid Objections. (¶7.2)
· The
settlement administrator will be Kroll Settlement Administration, LLC. (¶1.35;
Decl. of Jeanne C. Finegan, passim; Decl. of Scott M. Fenwick, passim.)
· After a
Claim is Released and in consideration of the promises and covenants set forth
in this Amended Settlement Agreement, (i) Plaintiffs and each Settlement Class
Member, and each of their respective spouses and children with claims on behalf
of the Settlement Class Member, executors, representatives, successors,
predecessors, attorneys, agents, and assigns and each of them (collectively and
individually, the “Releasing Persons”), and (ii) Plaintiffs’ Counsel and each
of their past and present law firms, partners, or other employers, employees,
agents, representatives, successors, or assigns will be deemed to have, and by
operation of the Final Order and Judgment shall have, fully, finally,
completely, and forever released and discharged the Released Persons from the
Released Claims. The release set forth in the preceding sentence (the
“Release”) shall be included as part of any judgment, so that all Released Claims
shall be barred by principles of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and claim
and issue preclusion. (¶13.2.) Without in any way limiting the scope of the
Release, the Release covers, without limitation, any and all claims for
attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses incurred by Plaintiffs’ Counsel in
connection with or related in any manner to the Lawsuit, the Settlement, the
administration of such Settlement and/or the Released Claims, as well as any
and all claims for Service Awards to Plaintiffs. (¶13.3.)
· Subject
to Court approval, after a Claim is Released, all Settlement Class Members
shall be bound by this Amended Settlement Agreement and this Release and all of
their claims shall be released, irrespective of whether they received actual
notice of the Lawsuit or this Settlement. (¶13.4.)
· “Released
Claims” means any and all past, present, and future claims, demands, rights, or
causes of action of any type or nature whether legal, equitable, statutory,
based on the common law, or otherwise, whether individual, class, direct,
representative or otherwise, for damages, losses, penalties, attorney’s fees,
or any other type of remedy or relief be it monetary or injunctive, existing or
potential, accrued or unaccrued, suspected or unsuspected, that were asserted
in the Complaint or are reasonably related to the facts and claims alleged in
the Lawsuit. Released Claims shall not include the right of any Settlement
Class Member or any of the Released Persons to enforce the terms of the
settlement contained in this Amended Settlement Agreement and shall not include
the claims of members of the Settlement Class Members who have timely excluded
themselves from the Settlement Class. The effective date of Released Claims
shall be as follows: (1) for any
Settlement Class Member who requests Credit Monitoring Services as described in
Paragraph 3.1, his or her Claim(s) shall be Released on the date upon which the
Settlement Administrator transmits to the Settlement Class Member a code to
obtain Credit Monitoring Services; and (2) for any Settlement Class Member who
does not request such Credit Monitoring Services, his or her Released Claim(s)
shall be effective upon entry of the Final Approval Order and Judgment. (¶1.30)
· “Released
Persons” means CA DOJ and its past and present representatives, directors,
employees, agents, attorneys, insurers, affiliates, and any other persons
acting on its behalf or for its benefit. (¶1.31)
· Named
Plaintiffs will also provide a general release and CC § 1542 waiver. (¶13.6)
ANALYSIS
OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
A.
Does
a presumption of fairness exist?
The Court preliminarily found in
its Order of January 6, 2025 that the presumption of fairness should be
applied. No facts have come to the
Court’s attention that would alter that preliminary conclusion. Accordingly, the settlement is entitled to a
presumption of fairness as set forth in the preliminary approval order.
B.
Is
the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable?
The settlement was preliminarily
found to be fair, adequate and reasonable.
Notice has now been given to the Class.
As to the value of the six months credit
monitoring services for class members who submit a claim, at the group rate
secured via the Settlement, the Department of Justice for the State of
California (“CA DOJ”) will pay $2.35 for each of the 7,742 Settlement Class
Members who submitted claims for the offered credit monitoring services,
assuming all claims are valid. The total
credit monitoring cost incurred by CA DOJ will therefore not exceed $18,193.70. However, as set forth in the Declaration of
Scott M. Fenwick in Connection with Preliminary Approval of the Settlement,
dated December 12, 2024, although the service in this Settlement is not
specifically sold at retail, similar non-identical products retail for
approximately $9.99 per month. Thus, the approximate retail value of similar
credit monitoring services for a six (6) month period is $59.94 per person, for
a total of $464,055.48 for the 7,742 Settlement Class Members who submitted
claims.
Reaction of the class members to
the proposed settlement.
Number
of class members: 192,077 (Ballard Decl. ¶6.)
Number
of notice packets mailed: 192,077 (Id. at ¶7.)
Number
of undeliverable notices: 3,244 (Id.
at ¶¶8-10.)
Number
of opt-outs: 84 (Id. at ¶16.)
Number
of objections: 1 (Ibid; Ex. E thereto.)
Number
of participating class members: 191,993 (Id.
at ¶10.)
Claim
Forms: 7,742 [7,614 timely + 128 untimely, which were also accepted]
Claim
Rate: 4.03% [7,742 claims out of 191,993 participating class members]
The Court
finds that the notice was given as directed and conforms to due process
requirements. Given the reactions of the
Class Members to the proposed settlement and for the reasons set forth in the
Preliminary Approval order, the settlement is found to be fair, adequate, and
reasonable.
C.
Attorney
Fees and Costs
Class Counsel requests an award of $88,822.81
for attorney fees and $11,177.19 in non-expert costs and $18,670.25
for the cost of retaining their expert StoneTurn [for independent audit]. (MFA at 3:21-23.) The Settlement
Agreement provides for up to $100,000 in attorney fees and $18,670.25
for the cost of retaining their expert StoneTurn [for independent audit] to be
paid by Defendant (¶8.3).
“Courts recognize two methods for
calculating attorney fees in civil class actions: the lodestar/multiplier
method and the percentage of recovery method.”
(Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001)
91 Cal.App.4th 224, 254.) Here, class counsel request attorney fees
using the lodestar. (MFA at pp. 3-8.)
Class Counsel has provided
information, summarized below, from which the lodestar may be calculated:
|
Attorney |
Rate |
Hours |
Totals |
|
Marcus Bradley |
$975 |
1.3 |
$1,267.5 |
|
Kiley Grombacher |
$925 |
76.9 |
$71,132.5 |
|
Fernando Valle |
$550 |
39.9 |
$21,945 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals |
|
118.1 |
$94,345.00 |
(Decl.
of Kiley Grombacher ISO
Final ¶32.)
Counsel’s requested fee amount ($88,822.81)
is less than the unadjusted lodestar, and would represent application of a negative
multiplier of approximately 0.88x.
In common fund cases, the Court may
employ a percentage of the benefit method, as cross-checked against the
lodestar. (Laffitte v. Robert Half Int’l,
Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 480, 503.) Here, there is no common fund. Much of the valuation of the case centered
around the independent audit and investigation as to whether the personal
identifying information was intentionally released. Moreover, if the Court were to use the
commercial, retail value of similar credit monitoring services for a six (6)
month period -- $59.94 per person – as a proxy for the recovery for the class, the
total recovery in the value of credit monitoring services would be
approximately $464,055.48 for the 7,742 Settlement Class Members who submitted
claims. Adopting this approach, the fee
request of $88,822.81 would represent approximately 19% of the gross recovery,
which is the less than the average generally awarded in class actions. (See In
re Consumer Privacy Cases (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 545, 558, fn. 13
[“Empirical studies show that, regardless whether the percentage method or the
lodestar method is used, fee awards in class actions average around one-third
of the recovery.”].)
Notice of the fee request was
provided to class members in the Notice. No
class member objected to the fee request; one class member objected on
different grounds. (Ballard Decl.
¶17, Exhibit A thereto.)
As for costs, Class Counsel is
requesting a cost amount of $11,177.19 in non-expert costs and $18,670.25 for
costs of retaining their expert StoneTurn [for the independent audit]. This is less than the $35,000 cap on
expert costs estimated at preliminary approval, which was disclosed to Class
Members and objected to on a different ground. (Ballard Decl. ¶17, Exhibit
A thereto.) Costs include, but are not limited to: Mediation ($4,200),
Filing Fees ($1,493.20), Court costs ($1,102.75), Service of Process ($827.13),
and Expert StoneTurn ($18,670.25). (Grombacher Decl.
ISO Final, Ex. 1.) The costs appear to be reasonable in amount and reasonably
necessary to this litigation.
Based on the above, the Court
hereby awards $88,822.81 in fees, $11,177.19 in non-expert costs and $18,670.25 for
costs of retaining Plaintiffs’ expert StoneTurn [for the independent audit].
D.
Incentive
Award
The class representatives, Michael
Ivey and Brandon Daniels, seek an enhancement payment of $4,500 each for
their contributions to the action. (MFA at 19:3-16.)
In connection with the final
fairness hearing, named Plaintiffs must submit declarations attesting to why
they should be entitled to an enhancement award in the proposed amount. The named Plaintiffs must explain why they
“should be compensated for the expense or risk he has incurred in conferring a
benefit on other members of the class.”
(Clark v. American Residential Services LLC (2009) 175
Cal.App.4th 785, 806.) Trial courts
should not sanction enhancement awards of thousands of dollars with “nothing more
than pro forma claims as to ‘countless’ hours expended, ‘potential stigma’ and ‘potential risk.’
Significantly more specificity, in the form of quantification of time and
effort expended on the litigation, and in the form of reasoned explanation of
financial or other risks incurred by the named plaintiffs, is required in order
for the trial court to conclude that an enhancement was ‘necessary to induce
[the named plaintiff] to participate in the suit . . . .’” (Id.
at 806-807, italics and ellipsis in original.)
Plaintiff Ivey represents that his
contributions to this litigation include: communicating and meeting with his attorneys,
preparing for his deposition and sitting for a full day deposition, assisting
in investigation and discovery through meetings and providing documents, and reviewing
filings. He estimates spending 45 hours on the case. (Declaration of Michael
Ivey, ¶¶7-10.)
Plaintiff Daniels represents that
his contributions to this litigation include: communicating and meeting with
his attorneys, preparing for his deposition and sitting for a full day
deposition, assisting in investigation and discovery through meetings and
providing documents, and reviewing filings. He estimates spending 45 hours on
the case. (Declaration of Brandon Daniels, ¶¶7-9.)
Based on
the above, as well as the benefits obtained on behalf of the class, the Court
hereby grants the enhancement payment in the requested amount of $4,500
each to
Plaintiffs.
E. Settlement
Administration Costs
The settlement administrator, Kroll
Settlement Administration LLC, is requesting $185,383.74 for the costs
of settlement administration. (Ballard
Decl. ¶ 6.) This is less than the cost of $200,000 provided for in the Settlement
Agreement (¶4.1) and disclosed to class members in the Notice,
to which there was one objection on different grounds. (Ballard Decl. ¶17,
Exhibit A thereto.) Based on the above,
the Court hereby awards costs in the requested amount of $185,383.74.
The Administrator estimates that
Defendant will incur an additional $22,730.50 to complete the administration of
this Settlement, including but not limited to the cost of credit monitoring services
and website hosting. (Ballard
Decl. ¶ 7.) The Settlement Agreement
caps recovery of Administration Costs at $200,000. (¶4.1).
If Defendant pays additional administration costs after entry of
judgment, then the parties are to file a further declaration from the
Administrator attesting to the additional administration costs paid and a proposed
amended judgment reflecting an upward adjustment of the settlement administration
costs for a total of up to $200,000.
OBJECTION
No objectors appeared at today’s
hearing on the Parties’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.
Prior to the commencement of the
hearing, one written objection to the Settlement was received and is attached
to the Declaration of Frank Ballard as Exhibit E. The Court has reviewed and
considered the written objection, which states, in full: “I object to the
settlement because I believe that the data was intentionally released.”
(Ballard Decl., Ex. E [Original in all capital letters.].)
In response to the written
Objection, Counsel states: “There is no basis for the belief asserted in the
objection. Plaintiffs’ counsel, in consultation with an independent third-party
expert, investigated the circumstances that led up to the Data Incident, CA
DOJ’s response, third party reports, and the scope of the Data Incident during
their investigation. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not find any evidence that the
data had been intentionally released. (Motion ISO Final Approval 8:20-24.)
First, the Objector fails to submit
any evidence to support the Objector’s belief that the data was intentionally
released. This is mere speculation in
the face of the investigation conducted by Plaintiffs’ Counsel and independent
third-party expert.
Second, to the extent that Objector
disagrees with the conclusion of the independent third-party expert’s
determination that no evidence that the data breach was intentional, the
Objector had the opportunity to opt-out and seek individual redress.
Third, the Court notes that out of a
large class, the number of objections is minimal (1 out of 191,993), reflecting
the class’s overwhelmingly positive response.
Thus, the Court hereby overrules
the sole written objection that was received.
CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
The
Parties’ Motion for Final Approval of class action settlement is GRANTED as the
settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.
The
essential terms are:
There is no common fund or Gross
Settlement Amount. Judgment shall be
entered whereby the Plaintiff, all Class Members, and Subclass Members shall
take nothing from Defendant, except as expressly set forth in this Order and
the Settlement.
· Defendant
shall pay:
o
All costs for credit monitoring services for
a six-month period for all class members who have submitted a claim, totaling $18,193.70
;
o
$88,822.81 for
attorney fees to Class Counsel BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP (¶8.3);
o
$18,670.25 to reimburse
Class Counsel for costs of retaining expert StoneTurn for the independent audit;
o
$11,177.19
in
non-expert costs to Class Counsel, Bradley/Grombacher, LLP;
o
$4,500 Service Payment to each of two Named
Plaintiffs Michael Ivey and Brandon Daniels, for a total of $9,000 (¶8.1);
and
o
$185,383.74 for settlement administration costs to Kroll
Settlement Administration LLC [which may be augmented by up to $14,616.26
for a total of up to $200,000 if additional administration costs are incurred,
and which will be reflected in a proposed amended judgment] (¶4.1).
· Business
Practice Commitments.
For twenty four (24) months following the Court’s grant of final
approval, CA DOJ shall: (1) continue maintaining the office of the Chief
Information Security Officer or an equivalent position that is responsible for
information and data security within the Department; (2) continue maintaining a
policy for the handling of confidential personal data that is applicable to
applicants for Concealed Carry Weapons permits and review it on a regular
basis; and (3) continue maintaining a policy that requires all CA DOJ employees
to participate in security training concerning the protection of confidential
personal data —all of which CA DOJ adopted prior to entering into this Amended
Settlement Agreement. (¶3.2)
By
no later than May 16, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel shall file a single
document that constitutes both a proposed Order and Judgment, consistent with
this ruling containing all requisite terms, including the class definition,
release language, and a statement of the number and identity of class members
who requested exclusion.
By
July 7, 2025, Class Counsel must give notice to the class members
pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.771(b) (which may be effected by
posting on the Administrator’s website if consistent with the parties’ Class
Action Settlement) and to the LWDA, if applicable, pursuant to Labor Code §2699(1)(3).
By
May 6, 2026, Class Counsel must file a Final Report re: Distribution of
the settlement funds, and if Defendant has paid additional administration
costs, a declaration regarding the additional administration costs paid and a proposed
amended judgment.
The
Court hereby sets a Non-Appearance Case Review for May 13, 2025, 8:30
a.m., Department 9.
COURT
CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE TO MOVING PARTY (PLAINTIFF). THE MOVING PARTY IS TO GIVE
NOTICE TO ALL OTHER PARTIES.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
May 6, 2025 ___________________________
Elaine
Lu
Judge
of the Superior Court