LCC Settlement Document

Case 1:23-cv-00738-PLM-RSK ECF No. 41, PageID.
774 Filed 08/09/24 Page 1 of 56
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Master File No. 1:23-cv-00738-PLM

IN RE LANSING COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DATA BREACH Hon. Paul L. Maloney
LITIGATION
CONSOLIDATED ACTION
PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Case 1:23-cv-00738-PLM-RSK ECF No. 41, PageID.775 Filed 08/09/24 Page 2 of 56
Plaintiffs Ivory Whitby, Sameer Shah, Gabriel Banish, William Barber,
Lindsay Luoma, and Chelsea Lee Ouimette (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, respectfully renew their request
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an Order granting preliminary
approval of the proposed class action Settlement Agreement.1 On June 19, 2024,
they filed their initial Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Brief in Support (ECF No. 38) (the “Motion”). On July 23, 2024, this
Court issued an Order (ECF No. 40) denying the Motion without prejudice,
requesting Plaintiffs “(1) explain the discrepancy between this settlement and the
Hope College settlement; (2) attach a copy of the settlement agreement 2; and (3)
brief the entire procedural history of the cases upon which the settling parties rely:
In re The Home Depot, Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 1:14-MD-2583, ECF
No. 181-2 (N.D. Ga. Mar 7, 2016) and In re Target Customer Data Sec. Breach
Litig., No. MDL 14-2522 (D. Minn. Mar. 18, 2015).” PageID.773. This Renewed
Motion provides answers to the questions posed by the Court in ECF No. 40. The
additional briefing the Court requested is addressed in Section V below.
1
The Settlement Agreement and its exhibits are included in the accompanying Brief
in Support as an exhibit to Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Declaration.
2
Copies of the settlement agreements here and in Hope are also attached in the
accompanying brief.
1
Plaintiffs respectfully renew their request that the Court: (1) grant preliminary
approval of the Settlement Agreement; (2) provisionally certify the Settlement Class
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) in connection with the
settlement process; (3) provisionally appoint Plaintiffs as representatives of the
Settlement Class; (4) provisionally appoint Benjamin F. Johns of Shub & Johns LLC
and Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman LLC as
Settlement Class Counsel; (5) find that the proposed Settlement is sufficiently fair,
reasonable, and adequate to allow dissemination of notice; (6) appoint Kroll
Settlement Administration, LLC as the Settlement Administrator; (7) approve the
Notice Plan (the “Proposed Notice”) and direct distribution of the Proposed Notice;
(8) establish dates for a hearing on final approval of the proposed Settlement,
Plaintiffs’ Service Awards and Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and
expenses; and (9) establish a deadline for the filing of objections by Settlement Class
Members and for them to exclude themselves from the proposed Settlement Class
with respect to the settlement.3
Dated: August 9, 2024 Respectfully submitted:
/s/ Benjamin F. Johns

Benjamin F. Johns
Samantha E. Holbrook
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge,
3
A Proposed Order is included as an exhibit to Plaintiffs’ accompanying Brief.
2
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Ste 400

Conshohocken, PA 19428
T: (610) 477-8380
bjohns@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
Gary M. Klinger
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
gklinger@milberg.com
Proposed Settlement Class Counsel
3
E. Powell Miller (P39487)

Emily E. Hughes (P68724)
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
T: (248) 841-2200
epm@millerlawpc.com
eeh@millerlawpc.com
Mason A. Barney
Tyler J. Bean
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, New York 10151
Tel: (212) 532-1091
mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
William B. Federman
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
wbf@federmanlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Master File No. 1:23-cv-00738-PLM

IN RE LANSING COMMUNITY
COLLEGE DATA BREACH Hon. Paul L. Maloney
LITIGATION
CONSOLIDATED ACTION
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Does the proposed Settlement Class meet Rule 23’s requirements for class
certification for settlement purposes under Fed. R. Civ. P 23(b)(2) and (b)(3)?
Plaintiffs’ Answer: Yes.
2. Should Benjamin F. Johns of Shub & Johns LLC and Gary M. Klinger of
Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman LLC be provisionally appointed as
Settlement Class Counsel?
3. Should Plaintiffs be provisionally appointed as Class Representatives for
the Settlement Class?
4. Based on an initial evaluation, is the proposed Settlement fair, adequate,
and reasonable, sufficient to warrant the dissemination of notice to the proposed
Settlement Class?
5. Should Kroll Settlement Administration, LLC be appointed as Settlement
Administrator?
6. Does the Notice Plan satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 and Due Process?
i
CONTROLLING AND MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
• Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997)
• Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agr. Implement Workers of Am. v.
Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007)
• Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011)
• Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007)
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................. 3
III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............................................................................ 3
IV. THE SETTLEMENT TERMS ........................................................................ 4
A. Proposed Settlement Class .................................................................... 4
B. The Settlement Fund ............................................................................. 5
1. The Net Settlement Fund ............................................................ 6
2. Documented Loss Payments and Settlement Fund Sequence .... 8
3. Potential Tax Liability of Settlement Fund................................. 9
C. Remedial Measures: Security Enhancements and Commitments ....... 10
D. Class Notice and Settlement Administration ......................................10
E. Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses.............................................................12
F. Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs ...................................................13
G. Release.................................................................................................13
V. ADDITIONAL BRIEFING REQUESTED BY THE COURT ....................14
A. The LCC Settlement is a Favorable Outcome When Compared to the
Hope College Settlement Due to Unique Defenses Available to LCC
Not at Issue in Hope College...............................................................14
B. Procedural History of Relevant Cases.................................................18
i. Home Depot ..............................................................................19
ii. Target ........................................................................................20
VI. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................22
A. The Court Should Certify the Proposed Settlement Class .................. 22
1. Rule 23(a) Requirements Are Met for Settlement Purposes .... 23
2. Rule 23(b) Requirements Are Met for Purposes of Settlement 26
iii
Case 1:23-cv-00738-PLM-RSK ECF No. 41, PageID.783 Filed 08/09/24 Page 10 of
56
(a) Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate............. 27

(b) A Class Action is the Superior Method of Adjudication .... 27
B. The Court Should Provisionally Appoint Proposed Settlement Class
Counsel Benjamin F. Johns and Gary M. Klinger as Settlement Class
Counsel ................................................................................................28
C. The Proposed Settlement is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate and Thus
Warrants Preliminary Approval ..........................................................29
1. The Rule 23(e)(2) Factors Weigh in Favor of Preliminary
Approval....................................................................................31
2. The Sixth Circuit’s UAW Factors Weigh in Favor of
Preliminary Approval................................................................32
a) The Settlement Agreement is the Result of Informed, Non-
Collusive, Arm’s Length Negotiations Between the Parties .... 32
b) The Complexity, Expense and Likely Duration of the
Litigation Favors Approval of the Settlement ..........................33
c) The Parties Engaged in Sufficient Fact-Finding...................35
d) The Settlement Provides Favorable Relief When Weighed
Against the Likelihood of Success on the Merits .....................37
e) Proposed Class Counsel and Class Representatives Support
the Settlement............................................................................38
f) The Reaction of Absent Class Members Is Not Applicable . 39
g) The Settlement Is in the Public’s Interest .............................39
D. The Proposed Notice Plan Is the Best Practicable ..............................39
VI. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................40
iv
56
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) ........................ 22, 26, 27, 28
Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007) .......................... 24, 25, 26
Berry v. Sch. Dist. of Benton Harbor, 184 F.R.D. 93 (W.D. Mich. 1998) ..............22
Bert v. AK Steel Corp., 2008 WL 4693747 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 23, 2008)...................32
Bittinger v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 123 F.3d 877 (6th Cir. 1997) ............................24
Borcea v. Carnival Corp., 238 F.R.D. 664 (S.D. Fla. 2006) ...................................34
Calloway v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 287 F.R.D. 402 (E.D. Mich. 2012) .........27
Curry v. SBC Commc’ns, Inc., 250 F.R.D 301 (E.D. Mich. 2008) .........................23
Doe v. Neighborhood Healthcare,
No. 21-CV-1587, 2022 WL 17663520 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2022) ........................15
Fulton-Green v. Accolade, Inc.,
No. CV 18-274, 2019 WL 316722 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 24, 2019) ................................36
Hammond v. The Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp.,
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71996 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2010) ....................................37
In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. 1996)..........................................23
In re Ashley Madison Customer Data Security Breach Litig.,
No. 15-md-02669 (E.D. Mo. July 17, 2018) ..........................................................8
In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig., 218 F.R.D. 508 (E.D. Mich. 2003).................38
In re Delphi Corp. Sec., Derivative & “ERISA” Litig.,
248 F.R.D. 483 (E.D. Mich. 2008) .......................................................................33
In re Hope Coll. Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 1:22-cv-01224 (W.D. Mich.) . passim
In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig.,
2010 WL 3070161 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 2, 2010).....................................................29
In re Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
892 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................21
In re Target Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
No. MDL 14-2522, (D. Minn. Mar. 18, 2015) ............................................. passim
In re The Home Depot, Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
No. 1:14-MD-2583, ECF No. 181-2 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 7, 2016)............ 7, 18, 19, 31
In re Wawa, Inc. Data Sec. Litig.,
No. CV 19-6019, 2021 WL 3276148 (E.D. Pa. July 30, 2021) ...........................35
In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prod. Liab. Litig.,
722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2013) ......................................................................... 22, 27
Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agr. Implement Workers of Am. v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007) ................................................. 25, 36
v
56
Johnson v. MHMR Auth. of Brazos Valley,

No. CV H-23-3448, 2023 WL 8630064 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2023) ....................15
Kinder v. Nw. Bank, 278 F.R.D. 176 (W.D. Mich. 2011) .......................................23
Kingen v. Warner Norcross + Judd LLP,
No. 1:22-cv-01126, 2023 WL 8544231 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 4, 2023) ................2, 16
Kritzer v. Safelite Solutions, LLC,
2012 WL 1945144 (S.D. Ohio May 30, 2012) .............................................. 35, 36
Martinez v. Univ. of Connecticut,
No. CV206044714S, 2020 WL 8135524 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 23, 2020) .......15
Merenda v. VHS of Michigan, Inc., 296 F.R.D. 528 (E.D. Mich. 2013) .................25
Mixon v. CareSouth Carolina, Inc.,
No. 4:22-CV-00269-RBH, 2022 WL 1810615 (D.S.C. June 2, 2022) ................15
Powers v. Hamilton Cty. Pub. Def. Comm’n, 501 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2007)...........26
Robinson v. City of Detroit, 613 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. 2000) ...................................37
Shepherd v. Cancer & Hematology Centers of W. Michigan, P.C., No. 1:22-CV-
734, 2023 WL 4056342 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2023) ................................... 16, 17
Thacker v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.,
259 F.R.D. 262 (E.D. Ky. 2009) .................................................................... 29, 32
Thomsen v. Morley Companies, Inc.,
No. 1:22-cv-10271, 2023 WL 3437802 (E.D. Mich. May 12, 2023)...............8, 12
UAW v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007) .............................. 30, 38
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) .........................................23
Statutes
MCL 691.1401 .........................................................................................................37

MCL 691.1407(1) ....................................................................................................37
Other Authorities
Manual for Complex Litigation § 30.41 (3d ed. 1995) ............................................29

Manual for Complex Litigation, § 21.632 (4th ed. 2004)........................................29
Newberg on Class Actions § 11.41 (4th ed. 2002) ........................................... 29, 39
Rules
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).................................................................................................22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) ............................................................................................23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) ............................................................................................23
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) ............................................................................................24
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) ............................................................................................24
vi
56
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) ................................................................................................25

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)..................................................................................... 22, 26
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) ............................................................................... 11, 39
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) ............................................................................................39
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) ..................................................................................... 29, 30
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(i-iv) ..............................................................................28
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B) ......................................................................................28
vii
56
I. INTRODUCTION
This case arises from a data security incident 1 (the “Data Security Incident”)
experienced by Defendant Lansing Community College (“Defendant” or “LCC”), a
public educational institution, between December 25, 2022, and March 15, 2023,
involving unauthorized access of Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”).2 See
Declaration of Plaintiffs’ Counsel in Support of Plaintiffs’ Renewed Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval (“Counsel Decl.”), ¶ 1 (attached hereto as Exhibit
A).
The Parties reached a resolution that will resolve the litigation and provide
substantive relief to the Settlement Class Members. The Parties negotiated a
Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement” or “S.A.”), which includes a
$1,450,000 non-reversionary Settlement Fund to be used as the exclusive source of
payment for Approved Claims, settlement administration expenses, and any Service
Awards and Fee Award. Counsel Decl., ¶ 14; see also S.A. § 3.1.
Settlement Class Members stand to benefit from the Settlement in by
submitting a claim for one of the following: (a) up to $2,000 in Reimbursement for
Actual Out-of-Pocket Losses and Attested Time (“Documented Loss Payments”)
1
The defined terms herein shall have the same definition as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement June 18, 2024.
2
Notably, as Defendant strongly argued, this appears to have excluded the
exfiltration of Social Security numbers.
1
56
upon submission of valid, timely claims, described in § IV(B) infra (see S.A. §
3.2(a)); or (b) an Alternative Cash Payment (see S.A. § 3.2(b)). Any residual funds—
after payment of all Documented Loss Payments, settlement administration
expenses, any Service Awards and Fee Award and costs—shall be used for a pro
rata payment to all Settlement Class Members with an Approved Claim who elected
to receive an Alternative Cash Payment. See S.A. § 3.7. The Settlement is non-
revisionary, and no funds will revert back to LCC. Also noteworthy is that the
Documented Loss category is subject to a $150,000 aggregate cap, so there is no risk
that claims under that category will exhaust the Settlement Fund and leave the
claimants for Alternative Cash Payments with no recovery.
The proposed settlement is an outstanding result given the significant risks
faced by Plaintiffs. In addition to the potentially unsettled issues related to Article
III standing in the Sixth Circuit, 3 Plaintiffs here faced considerable risks given the
Governmental tort liability defenses applicable to a negligence claim. With the
assistance of Mr. Behm, the parties navigated these complicated issues and reached
an efficient and early global resolution of this matter. As such, Plaintiffs respectfully
move this Court enter an Order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement.
3
See Kingen v. Warner Norcross + Judd LLP, No. 1:22-cv-01126, 2023 WL
8544231, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 4, 2023) (“What constitutes an injury in data breach
cases is not so straightforward.”).
2
56
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant LCC is one of the largest community colleges in Michigan. CAC,
¶¶ 2, 21, 25. Plaintiffs allege that in March of 2023, LCC became aware of a data
security incident that involved an unauthorized actor hacking LCC’s internal
computer system (hereinafter the “Data Security Incident”). See, e.g., CAC, ¶¶ 4, 34,
38. This Data Security Incident involved approximately 757,832 individuals,
including employees, students, and applicants for admission. CAC, ¶¶ 8, 27. The
information potentially compromised in the Data Security Incident included Class
Members’ sensitive PII including but not limited to their names and Social Security
numbers. CAC, ¶ 27. Plaintiffs contend that their sensitive information was
compromised due to LCC’s negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its
failures to protect the sensitive personal data of its employees, students, and
applicants for admission. CAC, e.g., ¶¶ 10, 13. However, LCC vehemently denies
any PII was exfiltrated during the Data Security Incident. See, e.g., PageID.297-300.
III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Ivory Whitby initiated this action against LCC by filing a class action
complaint on July 10, 2023. ECF No. 1. Subsequently, other Related Cases were
filed, and, on July 20, 2023, the Plaintiffs jointly filed a motion to consolidate all
Related Cases under this case number. See Joint Motion to Consolidate, ECF No. 7.
On September 15, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the operative amended complaint (the
3
56
CAC). ECF No. 18. LCC filed a motion to dismiss on October 12, 2023. Motion to
Dismiss, ECF No. 19. On November 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their opposition. ECF
No. 24. On November 27, 2023, in response to the Parties’ request, the Court issued
an order staying the case to permit the Parties the opportunity to mediate. ECF No.
26.
The Parties agreed to mediate this case with Mr. Behm, a Michigan attorney
and a Voluntary Facilitative Mediation Panel Member of the Western District of
Michigan. Prior to the mediation, Plaintiffs served LCC with pre-mediation
discovery requests seeking information relevant to the Data Security Incident.
Counsel Decl., ¶ 7. The Parties also prepared for mediation by laying out their
respective positions to each other and to the mediator by way of exchanging pre-
mediation statements. Id. On March 26, 2024, the Parties mediated the matter with
Mr. Behm. Id. ¶ 9. The parties were unable to reach a resolution that day but
maintained an open dialogue and continued to negotiate. Id. The Parties ultimately
reached an agreement in principle on April 16, 2024, when both sides accepted a
mediator’s proposal made by Mr. Behm. Id. Since then, the Parties have negotiated
the details of the Settlement Agreement and its exhibits, and executed the Settlement
Agreement on June 18, 2024. Id. ¶ 11.
IV. THE SETTLEMENT TERMS
A. Proposed Settlement Class
4
56
The Settlement will provide substantial relief for the following Settlement
Class: “all natural persons whose Personal Information was compromised in the
Data Security Incident.” S.A. § 1.42 (see S.A. for exclusions).
B. The Settlement Fund
LCC has agreed to create a non-reversionary Settlement Fund in the amount
of $1,450,000, which will be used to make payments to Settlement Class Members
and to pay the costs of Settlement Administration, any Service Awards and Fee
Award and costs. S.A. § 3.1. Settlement Class Members may qualify and submit a
claim for one of the following two options:
Documented Loss Payment
Class Members may submit a claim for actual out of pocket losses that are
more likely than not related to the Data Security Incident and time spent dealing with
it (in accordance with the schedule below), cumulatively up to $2,000.00 per
individual, and $150,000 in the aggregate. S.A. § 3.2(a).
Alternative Cash Payment
Settlement Class Members may alternatively submit a claim to receive a flat-
fee Alternative Cash Payment. The amount of the Alternative Cash Payment will be
determined in accordance with the Plan of Allocation in Section 3.7 of the SA after
amounts sufficient to pay reasonable Administrative Expenses incurred pursuant to
this Settlement Agreement, Service Awards approved by the Court, any amounts
5
56
approved by the Court for the Fee Award and Costs, Taxes, and Approved Claims
for benefits in Sections 3.2(a) (up to the $150,000 cap on for Documented Loss
Payments) have been deducted from the Settlement Fund. Class Members only need
to fill out and return a claim form to receive an Alternative Cash Payment; no
additional documentation is required. S.A. § 3.2(b).
1. The Net Settlement Fund
Section 3.7 of the S.A. prescribes the order of the payments from the gross
Settlement Fund (all Administrative Expenses first, and then any Service Awards
and Fee Award and costs, as approved by the Court, and any taxes). S.A. §§ 1.25,
3.7. Following those payments, the remaining Net Settlement Fund is then
distributed for Documented Loss Payments, up to the $150,000 cap, and then for
Alternative Cash Payments on a pro rata basis to exhaust the balance of the Net
Settlement Fund. Id.
As detailed infra, the Net Settlement Fund is projected to be approximately
$518,584.67.
The projected Administrative Expenses for notice and claims administration,
by and through the proposed Claims Administrator, Kroll, is estimated to be roughly
$419,082. See Declaration of Scott M. Fenwick of Kroll Settlement Administration
LLC (“Kroll Decl.”), ¶ 15, attached as Exhibit B hereto; Counsel Decl., ¶ 20.
Second, the attorney’s fees sought will be 1/3 of the gross Settlement Fund, or
6
56
$483,333.33, and plus reasonable litigation costs up to $50,000. S.A. § 9.1; Counsel
Decl., ¶ 23. Third, the proposed service awards sought total $9,000 ($1,500 for each
of the six named class representatives). S.A. § 8.1; Counsel Decl., ¶ 24. And fourth,
as described in greater detail below, the taxes are projected to be de minimis, and
any tax amount will be offset by interest earned on the Settlement Fund. Id. ¶ 25.
This information is collected in the table below.
Category Amount Comments

(i) Notice and Claims Admin. $419,082.00 (estimate)
(ii) Litigation Expenses $20,000.00 (estimate)
(iii) Attorneys’ Fees $483,333.33 (to be approved)
(iv) Service Awards $9,000.00 (to be approved)
(v) Taxes ($0.00 net)
Approximate Amount: ~$931,415.33
Net Settlement Fund (approximate): $518,584.67
Given the substantial litigation risks here, this is an excellent result for the
Settlement Class members. Similar data security cases have been approved with a
smaller or comparable gross per class member value. See, e.g., In re The Home
Depot, Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 1:14-MD-2583, ECF No. 181-2 (N.D.
Ga. Mar. 7, 2016) (approximately $0.51 per class member); In re Target Customer
Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 0:14-md-02522, ECF No. 357 (D. Minn. Mar. 18, 2015)
($0.17 per class member); In re Ashley Madison Customer Data Security Breach
Litig., No. 15-md-02669 (E.D. Mo. July 17, 2018) ($0.30 per class member).
Moreover, other courts have acknowledged the value of the range of benefits
7
56
available to class members, like the Documented Loss Payments and Alternative
Cash Payment available here. See Thomsen v. Morley Companies, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-
10271, 2023 WL 3437802, at *2 (E.D. Mich. May 12, 2023) (in a similar data
security class action, court granted final approval and denied objection where
objector argued that the roughly $4 net per person was insufficient because the
Settlement provided for the selection of preferred recovery and included mitigation
steps to be undertaken by Defendant).
2. Documented Loss Payments and Settlement Fund Sequence
In a similar data security action, this Court had expressed concern about
certain credit monitoring claims potentially exhausting all the settlement fund before
other selected settlement benefits could be paid. See In re Hope Coll. Data Sec.
Breach Litig., No. 1:22-cv-01224, ECF No. 28, PageID.702.
Plaintiffs’ Counsel accounted for this very scenario by negotiating a S.A. that
caps Documented Loss Payments at $150,000 in the aggregate. Counsel Decl., ¶ 14.
Thus, the Net Settlement Fund would be far from exhausted, as the balance would
still be roughly $368,584.67 after deduction of $150,000 for Documented Loss
Payments. Id.
The Court in In re Hope College had also noted that an explanation would be
helpful as to why documented loss payments would take priority over cash payment
claims under the proposed settlement agreement there. In re Hope College, No. 1:22-
8
56
cv-01224, ECF No. 28, PageID.702. The Settlement Agreement here is designed to
provide relief to the greatest percent of the Proposed Class as practicable. Plaintiffs
have sought a Settlement Agreement that considers the position and allegations in
the Complaint. Namely, the Class Members who suffered Documented Loss as a
result of the Data Security Incident have endured the greatest losses and have thus
been prioritized in the order. And this Court in Hope College accepted that position.
In re Hope College, 1:23-cv-00109, ECF No. 45 (E.D. Mich. May 20, 2024)
(granting final approval of similarly-structured settlement agreement). 4
3. Potential Tax Liability of Settlement Fund
The Court has also previously noted that an explanation of the tax costs and
potential tax liability would assist the Court in assessing the suitability of this case
for preliminary approval. In re Hope College, No. 1:22-cv-01224, ECF No. 28,
PageID.702. As in Hope College, there will be no taxes attributable to the Settlement
Fund that will reduce the net value of the Settlement Fund. No. 1:22-cv-01224, ECF
No. 30, PageID.733. Any taxes that may arise will only do so if the Settlement Fund
experiences a gain from earned interest between the time the Settlement Fund is
funded (after preliminary approval) and the time the Fund is distributed (after final
approval). Id. And any tax would only be a fraction of that net gain. The end result
4
The settlement agreement and exhibits thereto in Hope College is attached hereto
as Exhibit C, and it is also found at No. 1:22-cv-01224 PageID.777-853.
9
56
of any tax liability to the Settlement Fund would only occur if the Settlement Fund
rose as a result of interest accrued.
C. Remedial Measures: Security Enhancements and Commitments
The Settlement Agreement also provides for implementation of the following
measures, at LCC’s expense, which are designed to strengthen LCC’s data and
information security, such as: expanding use of Multi-Factor Authentication;
discontinuing the use of the vulnerable application attacked by the unauthorized
actor; updating software (“patching”) and systems; rebuilding compromised
systems; resetting passwords of compromised accounts; implementing new and
additional Endpoint Detection and Response software; and reducing the number of
inactive and legacy user accounts. S.A. § 2.
D. Class Notice and Settlement Administration
The Parties have selected Kroll Settlement Administration, LLC to be the
Settlement Administrator through a competitive bidding process. Kroll is a company
with vast experience in administering class action claims—and specifically those of
the type provided for and made in data security litigation. S.A. § 1.40; see also Kroll
Decl., ¶ 2.
Within fourteen (14) days after the issuance of the Preliminary Approval
Order, LCC will provide Class Member data to the Settlement Administrator. S.A.
§ 6.4. Notice will begin within thirty (30) days after entry of a Preliminary Approval
10
56
Order. S.A. § 1.27. Using the list provided by LCC, Short Form Notices will be sent
by first-class mail to all physical addresses on the Settlement Class List. Kroll Decl.,
¶ 7. The S.A. details how Kroll will validate the addresses and process the Summary
Notices for mail via first-class mail. Id.
The Summary Notice will clearly and concisely summarize the case, the
Settlement, and the legal rights of the Settlement Class Members. Kroll Decl., ¶ 10.
The Summary Notice will also direct the recipients to the Settlement Website. Id.;
S.A. § 6.7. The Settlement Website will contain information regarding how to submit
Claim Forms (including through the Website) and downloadable relevant
documents, including the Long Form Notice, Claim Form, the Settlement
Agreement, the Preliminary Approval Order upon entry by the Court, the Final
Approval Order and Judgment upon entry by the Court, and the operative
Consolidated Amended Complaint, and will notify the Settlement Class of the date,
time, and place of the Final Approval Hearing. S.A. §§ 6.7, 7.1; Kroll Decl., ¶ 12.
Further, the Notices will clearly, concisely, and directly apprise Settlement
Class Members of all the information they need to know to make a claim or to opt-
out or object to the Settlement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B); Kroll Decl., ¶ 11. The
Settlement Administrator shall provide 90 days following the Notice Date for
submission of Claim Forms. S.A. § 3.4. To the extent any submitted claims are
incomplete or deficient, Settlement Class Members shall have 30 days to cure them.
11
56
S.A. § 3.5. And within 90 days after: (i) the Effective Date (the date on which all
conditions of the Settlement Agreement are satisfied which are required in advance
of disbursement, see S.A. § 10.1); or (ii) all Claim Forms have been processed
subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, whichever date is later, the
Settlement Administrator shall cause funds to be distributed to each Class Member
who is entitled to funds based on the selection made on their given Claim Form. S.A.
§ 3.6.
E. Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses
Plaintiffs will also separately seek an award of attorneys’ fees not to exceed
one-third (1/3) of the Settlement Fund, and reimbursement of reasonable costs and
litigation expenses incurred (not to exceed $50,000), which shall be paid from the
Settlement Fund. S.A. § 9.1. Proposed Class Counsel’s fee request is well within the
range of reasonableness for Settlements of this nature and size. See, e.g., In re Hope
College, 1:23-cv-00109, ECF No. 45 (E.D. Mich. May, 20, 2024) (approving fee
request of 33 1/3% in similar data security case as “fair, reasonable, appropriate and
consistent with the awards in similar cases”); Thomsen v. Morley Companies, Inc.,
639 F. Supp. 3d 758, 768 (E.D. Mich. 2022) (in Michigan data security case similarly
resolved through mediation, court approved fee request of 33%, finding it to be
“adequate”). Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees will be filed in advance of the
objection deadline, and uploaded to the Settlement Website promptly after it is filed.
12
56
F. Service Awards to Named Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs in this case have been vital in litigating this matter and have been
personally involved in the case and support the Settlement. Counsel Decl., ¶ 24.
Plaintiffs actively assisted Plaintiffs’ counsel with their investigation, sat through
multiple interviews, provided supporting documentation and personal information
throughout the process. Id. Plaintiffs will separately petition for awards of $1,500
each, recognizing their time, effort, and expense incurred pursuing claims that
benefited all Settlement Class Members. S.A. § 8.1.
The amount requested here is reasonable and common in settled class actions.
See, e.g., Hope College, ECF No. 45 (awarding $1,500 to class representatives in
similarly situated data security case); Morley, 2023 WL 3437802, at *3 (E.D. Mich.
May 12, 2023) (same).
G. Release
Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class, upon entry of Final Approval Order, will
“release and discharge all Released Claims, including Unknown Claims, against
each of the Released Parties.” S.A. § 4.1; Id. § 1.36, Released Claims definition.
13
56
V. ADDITIONAL BRIEFING REQUESTED BY THE COURT
A. The Settlement Here Is a Favorable Outcome When Compared

to the Hope College Settlement Due to Unique Defenses Available
to LCC Not at Issue in Hope College.
Plaintiffs here faced substantially more headwind than the plaintiffs in Hope
College, warranting the different settlement amounts and differences in the per class
member estimates between the two settlements. Considering the substantial risks and
defenses Plaintiffs faced, the result achieved here is still a favorable outcome for the
putative class members.
First, LCC, a community college and a public educational institution, is
postured differently than Hope College, a well-endowed private educational
institution. As a public institution, LCC is available to assert unique defenses to tort
claims for negligence (generally the strongest causes of action in data-breach
litigation) that Hope College could not. Specifically, LCC asserted the defense of
governmental tort immunity pursuant to Michigan’s Governmental Tort Liability
Act, MCL §691.1401, et seq. against the negligence claims which Plaintiffs initially
pled in their complaints, which significantly impacted the value of any settlement
likely to be achieved in this litigation as this defense increased the obstacles to
prevailing on the merits before a trier of fact.
In fact, prior to filing Plaintiffs’ CAC, Plaintiffs received a letter from LCC’s
counsel advising them that LCC is a governmental agency with immunity from tort
14
56
liability under Michigan’s Governmental Tort Liability Act, MCL 691.1401, et seq.
Counsel Decl., ¶ 3. Class Counsel conducted significant research to oppose this
defense and made a well-founded and well-reasoned judgment that none of the
exceptions to Michigan’s Governmental Tort Liability Act were applicable here. Id.
Due to this claim’s dispositive defense, Plaintiffs did not believe they could assert a
claim for negligence in the CAC in good faith, which significantly reduced the value
of any settlement likely to be agreed upon in this case.5 Id., ¶ 4. This is in stark
contrast to Hope College, where the defendant was not subject to governmental
immunity, and the plaintiffs had a potentially viable and valuable negligence claim.
Thus, Plaintiffs factored in the absence of a viable negligence claim when
negotiating a lower Settlement Fund amount achieved here. Id. Simply put, Hope
College, as private institution, not only had greater financial resources, but the Hope
5
Indeed, the governmental immunity defense has been fatal in other data breach
cases. See Johnson v. MHMR Auth. of Brazos Valley, No. CV H-23-3448, 2023 WL
8630064, at *7 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2023) (granting motion to dismiss based on
governmental immunity); Martinez v. Univ. of Connecticut, No. CV206044714S,
2020 WL 8135524, at *1 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 23, 2020) (same); Doe v.
Neighborhood Healthcare, No. 21-CV-1587, 2022 WL 17663520, at *8 (S.D. Cal.
Sept. 8, 2022) (applying immunity for an “alleged data breach”); Mixon v.
CareSouth Carolina, Inc., No. 4:22-CV-00269-RBH, 2022 WL 1810615, at *5
(D.S.C. June 2, 2022) (holding a health center was immune because the “alleged
data breach arose out of [the health center's] performance of medical or related
functions”).
15
56
Plaintiffs also had an additional viable and lucrative negligence claim not available
to the Plaintiffs here.
Second, without a viable negligence claim, it was highly speculative
Plaintiffs’ remaining claims would survive LCC’s pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF
Nos. 19 and 20). Plaintiffs’ CAC only alleges claims for breach of express contract,
breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. This Court has previously
dismissed those claims in the data breach context. Kingen v. Warner Norcross +
Judd LLP, No. 1:22-CV-01126, 2023 WL 8544231, at *5 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 4, 2023)
(dismissing unjust enrichment claim and breach of contract claim and only allowing
negligence claim to proceed past motion to dismiss). The Kingen ruling greatly
reduced the chance of success on the merits and, consequently, the value of
Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s claims and settlement value. Here, in proceeding without
a negligence claim—the only claim the Kingen Court allowed to proceed past the
motion to dismiss stage—the odds of surviving Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss were
greatly reduced and less than the odds of the Hope College Plaintiffs. This concern
was not present in Hope College, which justifies the discrepancy in the per recovery
amounts.
Third, Plaintiffs also faced a substantial risk of dismissal due to alleged lack
of Article III standing. This Court previously granted a motion to dismiss based on
lack of Article III standing with facts markedly similar to those here. Shepherd v.
16
56
Cancer & Hematology Centers of W. Michigan, P.C., No. 1:22-CV-734, 2023 WL
4056342 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 28, 2023). In Shepherd, the plaintiff alleged her personal
information “may” have been stolen in a data breach. Id. at *1. In response, the
defendant filed a motion to dismiss contesting standing and attached an affidavit in
support stating there was no indication that any of the plaintiff’s personal
information was compromised. Id. at *4. The Court afforded “great weight” to the
affidavit and granted the motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing.
Similar to Shepherd, there is a real possibility the Court could find Plaintiffs
do not have Article III standing, which worked against Plaintiffs when negotiating a
settlement. In conjunction with LCC’s Motion to Dismiss, LCC filed a sworn
affidavit stating, “[t]here is no evidence indicating that any Personal Identifiable
Information (“PII”), of the named plaintiffs, or any other persons, was exfiltrated
from LCC’s computer networks before, during, or after the Cybersecurity Incident.”
ECF No. 23, PageID.415, ¶ 19. LCC was also adamant that there was no ransom
demand made in connection with the Data Security Incident and no evidence that
any person’s PII was posted in the “dark web” as a result of the Data Security
Incident. Id. ¶¶ 21–23. In line with Shepherd, it is possible the Court could give
LCC’s affidavit “great weight” which would result in dismissal of their claims. LCC
was aware of this case law and used it to their benefit when negotiating the
Settlement.
17
56
Lastly, there were substantially less insurance proceeds available to a fund a
settlement here than there were in Hope College, which placed a financial strain on
the Settlement. Counsel Decl., ¶ 8. After hard-fought negotiations, Class Counsel
negotiated to secure LCC’s remaining insurance policy proceeds for the benefit of
Plaintiffs and the Class. Id., ¶ 10. Further litigation by Class Counsel would have
only reduced the insurance proceeds and ultimately reduced the benefits available to
Plaintiffs and the Class. Id. This was a very important factor Class Counsel
considered when negotiating the settlement and in ultimately making the decision to
accept the mediator’s proposal. Id. Class Counsel are confident that this is the best
Settlement that could be achieved under the financial and legal constraints posed. Id.
B. Procedural History of Relevant Cases.
The two cases Plaintiffs cite for support of preliminary approval, In re The
Home Depot, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (“Home Depot”), No.
1:14-md-02583, ECF No. 181 (N.D. Ga.) and In re Target Customer Data Sec.
Breach Litig. (“Target”), 0:14-md-02522, ECF No. 357 (D. Minn.) are helpful
comparators because, like vehemently argued here by Defendant,6 no Social
Security numbers were stolen in the underlying data breaches, which reduces the
overall settlement value of the claims.
6
See, e.g., PageID.297-298, 317.
18
56
i. Home Depot
In September 2014 Home Depot announced its payment card systems were
breached. Home Depot, ECF No. 181-1 at p.9. The data stolen included email
addresses and payment card data; and again as forcefully argued here by LCC, 7 no
Social Security numbers were stolen. Id. After Home Depot announced the breach,
the court created separate litigation tracks for the consumer cases and the financial
institution cases. Id. Plaintiffs cited the settlement relating to the consumer track in
their initial Motion for Preliminary Approval.
Home Depot moved to dismiss the consumer track plaintiffs’ complaint on
the grounds of lack of Article III standing, and failure to state any claims for relief.
Home Depot, ECF No. 105. Home Depot specifically argued that Social Security
numbers were not exposed.8 ECF No. 105-1 at pp. 12–13, 15–16, 23, 32–33.
Plaintiffs opposed the Motion with principal and supplemental briefing. Home
Depot, ECF Nos. 117 and 124. Home Depot also filed a reply. Home Depot, ECF
No. 129. After seven months of litigation, the case was settled for $13 million, before
the Court ruled on the pending motion to dismiss. Home Depot, ECF No. 181-1 at
pp. 11–13, 14. This settlement class was comprised of approximately 40 million
7
See n.6.
8
Again, this is similar to this litigation, in which Defendant argued that Social
Security numbers were not exfiltrated.
19
56
individuals who had their payment card data stolen, and 52-53 million individuals
who had their email address stolen, with some overlap between the groups. Id. at 8.
However, none of the consumer track plaintiffs had their Social Security numbers
compromised. Although there were objections to the settlement, the Court granted
final approval. Home Depot, ECF No. 260 at pp. 2, 9–13.
Thus, the price per class member here is reasonable when comparable to
Home Depot, as the settlement amount there and here were reduced, in a relative
fashion, due to the reduced risk from the absence of Social Security numbers.
Moreover, the governmental immunity defense available to LCC here, not available
to Home Depot (or Hope College), further confirms the reasonableness of the
Settlement.
ii. Target
Target was subject to a data breach in 2013 in which hackers stole the payment
card information of 110 million Target customers. Target, ECF No. 182, ¶ 180. In
Target, no Social Security numbers were compromised. Id.9 Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated class action complaint alleging violations of consumer laws, state data
breach statutes, negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of express contract,
bailment, and unjust enrichment. See generally, Target, ECF No. 182. In response,
9
Once again, this is similar to this action, in which Defendant forcefully argued
that Social Security numbers were not exfiltrated.
20
56
Target filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Target, ECF No. 205. The Court denied in part and granted in part Target’s motion
to dismiss, allowing the majority of the plaintiffs’ claims to proceed. Target, ECF
No. 281. Thereafter, a settlement was reached for $10,000,000 on behalf of the 110
million settlement class members. Target, ECF No. 357. The settlement was finally
approved on November 17, 2015, over objections. ECF No. 645. After receiving
final approval, the settlement was appealed twice. See In re Target Corp. Customer
Data Sec. Breach Litig., 847 F.3d 608, 613 (8th Cir. 2017); In re Target Corp.
Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 892 F.3d 968, 972 (8th Cir. 2018). Ultimately,
the district court’s decision prevailed and the settlement was fair, adequate and
reasonable. In re Target Corp. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 892 F.3d 968.
Thus, as with Home Depot, the price per class member here is reasonable in
comparison to Target. The settlements achieved were reduced, in a relative fashion,
due to the minimized risk related to Social Security numbers. Moreover, the
governmental immunity defense available to Defendant LCC here, not available to
Target, Home Depot, or Hope College, further confirms the reasonableness of the
Settlement here given the above challenges. The per class member recovery here is
thus reasonable given the circumstances.
21
56
VI. ARGUMENT
“The question at the preliminary-approval stage is ‘simply whether the
settlement is fair enough’ to begin the class-notice process.” Moeller, 649 F. Supp.
3d at 537 (citing Garner Properties & Mgmt., LLC v. City of Inkster, 333 F.R.D.
614, 626 (E.D. Mich. 2020)). And a settlement agreement itself should be
preliminarily approved if it (1) “does not disclose grounds to doubt its fairness or
other obvious deficiencies, such as unduly preferential treatment to class
representatives or of segments of the class, or excessive compensation for
attorneys,” and (2) “appears to fall within the range of possible approval.” Garner,
333 F.R.D. at 62110; see also Berry v. Sch. Dist. of Benton Harbor, 184 F.R.D. 93,
97 (W.D. Mich. 1998) (finding that a court must preliminarily approve a class
settlement “[u]nless it appears that the compromise embodied in the agreement is
illegal or tainted with collusion”). And “it is clear the bar is lower for preliminary
approval than it is for final approval.” Garner, 333 F.R.D. at 621.
A. The Court Should Certify the Proposed Settlement Class
Before granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement, the Court
must determine that the proposed settlement class is appropriate for certification. See
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997). Class certification is
10
Unless otherwise noted, all citations and internal quotations are omitted.
22
56
proper if the proposed class satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and
(b). District courts are given broad discretion to determine whether certification of a
class action is appropriate. In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prod. Liab.
Litig., 722 F.3d 838, 850 (6th Cir. 2013). As explained below, the proposed
Settlement Class satisfies all of the Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) prerequisites, and thus,
should be certified.
1. Rule 23(a) Requirements Are Met for Settlement Purposes
Numerosity and Ascertainability. The first prerequisite is that the “class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1); see
also In re Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069, 1079 (6th Cir. 1996). Though there is
no fixed number determining impracticability, “[i]n most cases, a class in excess of
forty members will do.” Curry v. SBC Commc’ns, Inc., 250 F.R.D 301, 310 (E.D.
Mich. 2008).
The Settlement Class includes approximately 757,832 individuals identified
by LCC—thus satisfying the numerosity requirement for purposes of settlement. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The Class is ascertainable as well. See Kinder v. Nw. Bank,
278 F.R.D. 176, 182 (W.D. Mich. 2011). Indeed, LCC has already identified and
provided notice to 757,832 individuals that their information may have been exposed
in the Data Security Incident.
23
56
Commonality. Next, commonality is satisfied under Rule 23(a)(2) when there
are questions of law or fact common to the class—the resolution of which will bring
a class-wide resolution of the claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). Commonality may be
shown when the claims of all class members “depend upon a common contention,”
with even a single common question sufficing. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131
S. Ct. 2541, 2545, 2551 (2011). The common contention must be capable of class-
wide resolution and the “determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that
is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.” Dukes, 131 S. Ct.
at 2545, 2551. Here, Plaintiffs’ claims turn on the adequacy of LCC’s data security
in protecting Settlement Class Members’ PII. Evidence to resolve that claim does
not vary among the Settlement Class Members, and so this issue can be fairly
resolved, at least for purposes of settlement, for all Settlement Class Members at
once.
Typicality. Typicality requires that a class representative has claims that are
typical of those of other class members. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Plaintiffs satisfy
the typicality requirement where their “claim arises from the same event or practice
or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members, and if his
or her claims are based on the same legal theory.” Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 511
F.3d 554, 561 (6th Cir. 2007). The representative’s claims need not be identical;
24
56
rather, they need only “arise from the same course of conduct.” Bittinger v.
Tecumseh Prods. Co., 123 F.3d 877, 884 (6th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiffs’ pursuit of their own claims here will necessarily advance the
interests of the Settlement Class, satisfying the typicality requirement.
Adequacy. Class representatives under Rule 23(a)(4) must fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). “Class
representatives are adequate when it appears that they will vigorously prosecute the
interest of the class through qualified counsel . . . which usually will be the case if
the representatives are part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the
same injury as the class members.” Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agr.
Implement Workers of Am. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615, 626 (6th Cir. 2007).
Class representatives must be part of the class, possess the same interests, have
suffered the same injury, and seek the same type of relief as other class members.
See Beattie, 511 F.3d at 562.
The proposed Class Representatives here have no conflicts with the
Settlement Class, have participated actively in the case, and are represented by
attorneys experienced in class action litigation, including data security cases.
Proposed Settlement Class Counsel regularly engage in consumer privacy
cases, have the resources necessary to prosecute this case, and have frequently been
appointed lead class counsel in data security actions as well as other class actions.
25
56
Counsel Decl., ¶¶ 29-31. Proposed Settlement Class Counsel and all Plaintiffs’
Counsel have vigorously prosecuted this Action and will continue to work diligently
on behalf of the Settlement Class throughout the settlement administration process.
2. Rule 23(b) Requirements Are Met for Purposes of Settlement
After satisfying Rule 23(a), a plaintiff must also satisfy one of the three
requirements of Rule 23(b) for the Court to certify the proposed class. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(b); see also Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2548; Merenda v. VHS of Michigan, Inc., 296
F.R.D. 528, 536 (E.D. Mich. 2013).
Here, Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which requires that (i)
common questions of law and fact predominate over individualized ones, and that
(ii) a class action is superior to the other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). “A plaintiff must establish
that the issues in the class action that are subject to generalized proof, and thus
applicable to the class as a whole . . . predominate over those issues that are subject
only to individualized proof.” Beattie, 511 F.3d at 564. And the superiority
requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) considers “the difficulties likely to be encountered in
the management of a class action” and whether individual litigation would yield
small recoveries. Id. As explained below, the proposed Settlement Class meets these
requirements.
26
56
a) Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate
Predominance focuses on whether the defendant’s alleged liability is common
enough to warrant class-wide adjudication. Amchem, 521 U.S. at 623. The proposed
class must be “sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Id.
Predominance is met if a single factual or legal question is “at the heart of the
litigation.” See Powers v. Hamilton Cty. Pub. Def. Comm’n, 501 F.3d 592, 619 (6th
Cir. 2007).
Data breach cases present multiple questions of law and fact that are central
to liability and thus predominate over any issues affecting individual class members.
Hope College, 2024 WL 2268559, at *2 (finding common issues of law and fact in
similarly situated data security case). LCC’s alleged course of conduct was uniform
across the entire Settlement Class, engaging in a single course of conduct with
respect to all members of the Settlement Class, so their claims “will prevail or fail
in unison.” Whirlpool, 722 F.3d at 859. And since class-wide determination of this
issue will be the same for all, i.e., determining whether any class member has a right
of recovery, the predominance requirement is satisfied.
b) A Class Action Is the Superior Method of Adjudication
Certification of this suit as a class action is superior to other methods to fairly,
adequately, and efficiently resolve the claims here. “The superiority requirement of
Rule 23(b)(3) is met if the class action is a better way than individual litigation to
27
56
adjudicate a claim.” Calloway v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 287 F.R.D. 402, 407-
08 (E.D. Mich. 2012). Such is especially true in situations which “vindicat[e] the
rights of groups of people who individually would be without effective strength to
bring their opponents into court at all.” Amchem, 521 U.S. at 617. Adjudicating
individual actions here is impracticable: the amount in dispute for individual
Settlement Class Members here is too small, the technical issues involved too
complex, and the expert testimony and document review too costly. The individual
amounts here are insufficient to allow anyone to file and prosecute an individual
lawsuit—at least not with the aid of adequate counsel. Rather, individual prosecution
of claims would be prohibitively expensive, needlessly delay resolution, and may
lead to inconsistent rulings. 11 Thus, the Court should certify the Class pursuant to
Rule 23(b)(3). LCC does not oppose class certification for settlement purposes.
B. The Court Should Provisionally Appoint Proposed Settlement

Class Counsel Benjamin F. Johns and Gary M. Klinger as
Settlement Class Counsel
Under Rule 23, “a court that certifies a class must appoint class counsel . . .
[who] must fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ.
11
Because this Action is being settled on a class-wide basis, such theoretical
inefficiencies are resolved—and the Court need not consider further issues of
manageability relating to trial. See Amchem, 521 U.S. at 620 (“[c]onfronted with a
request for settlement-only class certification, a district court need not inquire
whether the case, if tried, would present intractable management problems”).
28
56
P. 23(g)(1)(B). In making this determination, courts generally consider the following
factors: (1) proposed class counsel’s work in identifying or investigating potential
claims; (2) proposed counsel’s experience in handling class actions or other complex
litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the case; (3) proposed counsel’s
knowledge of the applicable law; and (4) proposed counsel’s resources committed
to representing the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A)(i-iv).
As discussed above, Proposed Settlement Class Counsel have extensive
experience in prosecuting data security class actions and other complex cases.
Counsel Decl., ¶¶ 29, 31; see also ECF No. 10-4. Further, Proposed Settlement Class
Counsel has diligently investigated and prosecuted this case by dedicating
substantial resources to it and successfully negotiating this Settlement. See S.A.;
CAC. Thus, the Court should provisionally appoint Benjamin F. Johns of Shub &
Johns LLC and Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman
LLC as Settlement Class Counsel.
C. The Proposed Settlement Is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate and

Thus Warrants Preliminary Approval
Settlement of class action suits is favored. Newberg on Class Actions § 11.41
(4th ed. 2002) (“The compromise of complex litigation is encouraged by the courts
and favored by public policy.”). The first step is a “preliminary, pre-notification
hearing to determine whether the proposed settlement is within the range of possible
approval.” In re Packaged Ice Antitrust Litig., 2010 WL 3070161, at *4 (E.D. Mich.
29
56
Aug. 2, 2010); see also Newberg, § 11.25, at 3839 (quoting Manual for Complex
Litigation § 30.41 (3d ed. 1995)). Preliminary approval requires only an “initial
evaluation” of the fairness of the settlement made on the basis of written submissions
and informal presentations from the settling parties. Manual for Complex Litigation,
§ 21.632 (4th ed. 2004). The Court must “ensur[e] that the proposed settlement is
not illegal or collusive” based upon the “issues and evidence, as well as the arms-
length nature of the negotiations prior to the proposed settlement.” Thacker v.
Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 259 F.R.D. 262, 270 (E.D. Ky. 2009).
Rule 23(e)(2) provides factors for the Court to determine if a settlement is
“fair, reasonable, and adequate,” examining whether: (A) class representatives and
class counsel have adequately represented the class; (B) the proposal was negotiated
at arm’s length; (C) the relief provided for the class is adequate, reviewing: (i) the
costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; (ii) the effectiveness of any proposed
method of distributing relief to the class, including the processing of class-member
claims; (iii) the terms of any proposed attorney’s fee, including timing of payment;
and (iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(2); and (D) the
proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other. Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e)(2).
In addition, the Sixth Circuit has laid out its own factors to consider. See UAW
v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615, 631 (6th Cir. 2007). They are: “(1) the risk of
30
56
fraud or collusion; (2) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation;
(3) the amount of discovery engaged in by the parties; (4) the likelihood of success
on the merits; (5) the opinions of class counsel and class representatives; (6) the
reaction of absent class members; and (7) the public interest.” Id. The Settlement
Agreement meets each consideration.
1. The Rule 23(e)(2) Factors Weigh in Favor of Preliminary

Approval
This Settlement easily satisfies the Rule 23(e)(2) factors.
First, Plaintiffs have adequately represented the Class, securing a per-class
member recovery of $1.91 here that exceeds or, at a minimum, is on par with,
comparable data security class action settlements, as discussed above in Section V.
See, e.g., In re The Home Depot, No. 1:14-MD-2583, ECF No. 181-2 (N.D. Ga. Mar.
7, 2016) (approximately $0.51 per class member); In re Target Customer Data Sec.
Breach Litig., No. MDL 14-2522, (D. Minn. Mar. 18, 2015) ($0.17 per class
member). As discussed above, here, the recovery achieved here is reasonable, not
only because Social Security numbers were purportedly not actually exfiltrated, but
because Plaintiffs faced LCC’s unique governmental tort immunity defenses not at
issue in the reasonable comparators listed above.
Second, the Settlement was negotiated at arm’s-length through the use of a
neutral mediator after exchanging information sufficient to assess the strengths and
weaknesses of each Party’s position. See supra.
31
56
Third, the relief is adequate. The Settlement Agreement provides for
Settlement Class Members to elect one of two avenues of recovery: a Documented
Loss Payment or an Alternative Cash Payment, described supra. S.A. §§ 3.2(a)-(b).
And the proposed Service Award and Fee Award and costs are consistent with other
data security settlements. See supra.
Fourth, the proposed Settlement treats Settlement Class Members equitably
as to each other as every Settlement Class Member has an equal opportunity to elect
to receive one of the two avenues of recovery, see S.A. §§ 3.2(a)-(b), including the
option for a pro rata cash payment identical to all other Settlement Class Members
who make that election. S.A. § 3.2(b).
Finally, all terms affecting the Settlement Class are available for review by
Settlement Class Members and are contained within the Settlement Agreement.
2. The Sixth Circuit’s UAW Factors Weigh in Favor of

Preliminary Approval
All seven UAW factors favor approval or, at least, are neutral.
a) The Settlement Agreement Is the Result of Informed,

Non-Collusive, Arm’s Length Negotiations Between
the Parties.
The first factor weighs in favor of granting preliminary approval. “Courts
presume the absence of fraud or collusion in class action settlements unless there is
evidence to the contrary.” Thacker, 695 F.Supp.2d at 531. Negotiations overseen by
32
56
a neutral mediator are given extra weight. See Bert v. AK Steel Corp., 2008 WL
4693747, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 23, 2008) (“participation of an independent mediator
in settlement negotiations virtually insures that the negotiations were conducted at
arm’s length and without collusion between the parties”). This case was settled
through the persistent help and oversight of a respected mediator and a Voluntary
Facilitative Mediation Panel Member of the Western District of Michigan; Mr.
Behm has substantial experience mediating and resolving complex class actions,
including data security class action settlements. Mr. Behm’s active involvement
ensured that the negotiations proceeded at arm’s length. And, through the mediation
process, Plaintiffs’ Counsel obtained information confirming size of the putative
class. See S.A., Recitals (class size of 757,832 persons).
b) The Complexity, Expense and Likely Duration of the

Litigation Favors Approval of the Settlement.
Consideration of the complexity and likely duration case also supports
approval. See In re Delphi Corp. Sec., Derivative & “ERISA” Litig., 248 F.R.D. 483,
497 (E.D. Mich. 2008) (“expense and possible duration of litigation are major factors
to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a settlement”). “For class
actions in particular, courts view settlement favorably because it avoids the costs,
delays and multitudes of other problems associated.” Id. Absent an early resolution,
this case has the capacity to persist for a number of years without resolution. Pre-
trial litigation would be extensive, with voluminous discovery needed from LCC and
33
56
any third-party companies that LCC has used in an information technology capacity.
Experts would be required to testify regarding LCC’s data security practices,
industry standard practices, and how its practices deviated therefrom. Substantial
fact-finding would be required into what information was taken, how, and what
impact this had and will have on the Settlement Class. Plaintiffs would need to
survive potential dispositive motions and prevail on a motion for class certification.
As discussed at length above, LCC’s unique governmental immunity defense limited
Plaintiffs’ ability to bring valuable negligence claims, the fact that Social Security
numbers were purportedly not exfiltrated, and strong Article III challenges raised
further significant hurdles to the merits. Such motion practice, and potential appeals,
could consume years, during which the law could change and threaten the claims.
Given the complexity of the claims and arguments here, a lengthy trial would follow.
Further, even if the Class were certified and liability were established at trial,
Plaintiffs faced risk in litigating their claims and proving the full extent of their
damages due the governmental immunity defenses presented by LCC at the parties’
mediation. Proposed Class Counsel is experienced and realistic, and understands that
the resolution of liability issues, the outcome of the trial, and the inevitable appeals
pose meaningful risks in terms of outcome and duration.
Rather than pursuing protracted and uncertain litigation, especially given the
unique governmental immunity defenses and the purported lack of Social Security
34
56
number exposure, Plaintiffs and their Counsel negotiated a Settlement Agreement
that provides immediate, certain, and meaningful relief. The second factor weighs in
favor of finding the Settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate. See Borcea v.
Carnival Corp., 238 F.R.D. 664, 674 (S.D. Fla. 2006). Thus, the anticipated potential
litigation here favors approval.
c) The Parties Engaged in Sufficient Fact-Finding.
The Court next asks whether the plaintiff has enough information to
“adequately assess their case and the desirability of the proposed settlement” at this
stage of the proceedings. Kritzer v. Safelite Solutions, LLC, 2012 WL 1945144, at
*7 (S.D. Ohio May 30, 2012). Courts often “defer to the judgment of experienced
trial counsel with regard to the evaluation of the strength of the case and the
desirability of settlement at this stage of the proceeding.” Id.
Here, although the Parties reached the proposed Settlement early on,
Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel made an informed decision regarding the appropriateness
of settlement. Prior to mediation, Plaintiffs served informal pre-mediation discovery
requests on LCC to better inform their position going into mediation. Plaintiffs’
counsel, upon receipt of correspondence laying out the legal basis for LCC’s asserted
governmental immunity defense, engaged in substantial research to determine the
viability of the defense, the availability of negligence claims given LCC’s status as
a public educational institution, and the impact of that asserted defense, all in
35
56
combination with the lack of Social Security number exposure and the Article III
arguments to determine both the likelihood of success on the merits and the value of
the claims. The Parties also exchanged documents and information with the mediator
and each other concerning the litigation and their settlement positions through
formal pre-mediation statements. Counsel Decl., ¶ 7; see also In re Wawa, Inc. Data
Sec. Litig., No. CV 19-6019, 2021 WL 3276148, at *9 n.4 (E.D. Pa. July 30, 2021)
(“Although the Consumer Plaintiffs and Wawa did not engage in ‘formal’ discovery,
that is not necessarily an obstacle for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement, especially where, as here, the parties have exchanged important informal
discovery.”) (citing Fulton-Green v. Accolade, Inc., No. CV 18-274, 2019 WL
316722, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 24, 2019)).
Plaintiffs’ Counsel thoroughly evaluated the information received prior to and
during mediation in their analysis of damages. Counsel Decl., ¶ 8. Through the above
process and the mediation, Plaintiffs’ Counsel came to understand the size of the
Settlement Class, the issues and defenses discussed above, and obtain an excellent
settlement for Class Members. Id.; see also Int’l Union, 2008 WL 2968408, at *26
(E.D. Mich. July 31, 2008) (noting the use of informal discovery as an adequate tool
for class counsel to make an informed decision). Combined with their experience,
Plaintiffs’ Counsel had all the information needed to “adequately assess the[] case
and the desirability of the proposed settlement.” See Kritzer, 2012 WL 1945144, at
36
56
*7. Thus, the Court should find that Plaintiffs’ Counsel conducted sufficient fact-
finding.
d) The Settlement Provides Favorable Relief When

Weighed Against the Likelihood of Success on the
Merits.
To “judge the fairness of a proposed compromise,” a court “weigh[s] the
plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits against the amount and form of the
relief offered in the settlement.” Int’l Union, 497 F.3d at 631. While Plaintiffs are
confident in their claims, there is risk here, as is true in all complex class actions.
And this area of law is especially risky. Historically, data security cases face
substantial hurdles in surviving even the pleading stage. See, e.g., Hammond v. The
Bank of N.Y. Mellon Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71996, at *2-4 (S.D.N.Y. June
25, 2010) (collecting cases). Courts also recognize the significant risks data breach
plaintiffs face in obtaining class certification. See, e.g., Gordon v. Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc., No. 17-cv-01415, 2019 WL 6972701, at *1 (D. Colo. Dec. 16, 2019)
(“Data breach cases such as the instant case are particularly risky, expensive, and
complex,…and they present significant challenges to plaintiffs at the class
certification stage.”) (internal citations omitted; collecting cases).
More specific to this case, LCC made clear from the outset that it is a
governmental agency which, it contends, is granted immunity from tort liability
under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, MCL 691.1401, et seq. Under the Act, a
37
56
“government agency” “is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is
engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.” MCL
691.1407(1). The grant of immunity under MCL 691.1407(1) is broad and the
statutory exceptions are to be narrowly construed. Robinson v. City of Detroit, 613
N.W.2d 307, 316 (Mich. 2000). While Plaintiffs nevertheless believe that they had
viable claims in this case, it is for this reason that the operative amended complaint
did not even assert a negligence claim, which is generally the strongest claim in data
breach cases. This had the effect of significantly reducing the settlement value.
Given this risk and uncertainty, coupled with the purported lack of Social
Security number exfiltration, settlement is the more prudent course when a
reasonable one can be reached.
e) Proposed Class Counsel and Class Representatives

Support the Settlement.
The fifth UAW factor is “the opinions of class counsel and class
representatives.” UAW, 497 F.3d at 631. “The endorsement of the parties’ counsel
is entitled to significant weight and supports the fairness of the class settlement.”
UAW, 2008 WL 4104329, at *26. Here, Proposed Settlement Class Counsel, all
Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the proposed Class Representatives support the Settlement.
See Counsel Decl., ¶ 28. This UAW factor, therefore, favors preliminary approval.
38
56
f) The Reaction of Absent Class Members Is Not

Applicable.
This cannot be discerned because notice has not yet been given to the Class.
g) The Settlement Is in the Public’s Interest.
Finally, “there is a strong public interest in encouraging settlement of complex
litigation and class action suits because they are notoriously different and
unpredictable and settlement conserves judicial resources.” In re Cardizem CD
Antitrust Litig., 218 F.R.D. 508, 530 (E.D. Mich. 2003). The settlement of a class
action affecting approximately 757,832 people is consistent with the public interest,
as it conserves judicial resources and ensures uniformity. The Settlement thus falls
within the range of approval under each of the Sixth Circuit’s factors, and notice
should be issued to the Class.
D. The Proposed Notice Plan Is the Best Practicable
“For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the court must direct to class
members the best notice practicable under the circumstances . . . who can be
identified through reasonable effort.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). “The court must
direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by a
proposed settlement, voluntary dismissal, or compromise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1).
Notice is “adequate if it may be understood by the average class member.”
NEWBERG, § 11:53 at 167. As shown by the proposed notices and Kroll’s
39
56
Declaration, the Notice plan developed by both Parties satisfies the requisite criteria.
See also § IV(D.)
VII. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court provisionally certify the Class,
provisionally appoint Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and Messrs. Johns and
Klinger as Settlement Class Counsel, grant preliminary Settlement approval,
approve the form and manner of the notice as described, and schedule a Final
Fairness hearing.12
Dated: August 9, 2024 Respectfully Submitted:

Benjamin F. Johns
Samantha E. Holbrook
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge,
T: (610) 477-8380
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
Gary M. Klinger
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
gklinger@milberg.com
Proposed Settlement Class Counsel
12
A proposed order granting preliminary approval is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
40
56
E. Powell Miller (P39487)

Emily E. Hughes (P68724)
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
T: (248) 841-2200
epm@millerlawpc.com
eeh@millerlawpc.com
Mason A. Barney
Tyler J. Bean
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, New York 10151
Tel: (212) 532-1091
mbarney@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
William B. Federman
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
wbf@federmanlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class
41
56
CERTIFICATE REGARDING WORD COUNT
Plaintiffs, in compliance with W.D. Mich. LCivR 7.2(b)(i)-(ii), used 9,080
words16 in Plaintiffs’ foregoing Brief. Microsoft Word for Office 365 Business
version 1910 is the word processing software used to generate the word count in the
attached brief.
Dated: August 9, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

Benjamin F. Johns
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge,
T: (610) 477-8380
16
Since a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement may
ultimately result in the case being fully disposed of, Plaintiffs aver that the word
count provided for under W.D. Mich. LCivR 7.2(b)(i), Dispositive Motions-
permitting a maximum of 10,800 words, applies here.
56
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 9, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing
documents using the Court’s electronic filing system, which will notify all
counsel of record authorized to receive such filings.

Benjamin F. Johns
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge,
T: (610) 477-8380

LCC Settlement Document

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LCC Settlement Document

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LCC Settlement Document

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:23-cv-00738-PLM-RSK ECF No. 41, PageID.

774 Filed 08/09/24 Page 1 of 56

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Master File No. 1:23-cv-00738-PLM

PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR

Plaintiffs Ivory Whitby, Sameer Shah, Gabriel Banish, William Barber,

Lindsay Luoma, and Chelsea Lee Ouimette (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), individually

additional briefing the Court requested is addressed in Section V below.

settlement process; (3) provisionally appoint Plaintiffs as representatives of the

and Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman LLC as

reasonable, and adequate to allow dissemination of notice; (6) appoint Kroll

Settlement Administration, LLC as the Settlement Administrator; (7) approve the

with respect to the settlement.3

Dated: August 9, 2024 Respectfully submitted:

/s/ Benjamin F. Johns

200 Barr Harbor Drive, Ste 400

Proposed Settlement Class Counsel

E. Powell Miller (P39487)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Master File No. 1:23-cv-00738-PLM

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED

Plaintiffs’ Answer: Yes.

Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman LLC be provisionally appointed as

Settlement Class Counsel?

Plaintiffs’ Answer: Yes.

3. Should Plaintiffs be provisionally appointed as Class Representatives for

the Settlement Class?

Plaintiffs’ Answer: Yes.

4. Based on an initial evaluation, is the proposed Settlement fair, adequate,

and reasonable, sufficient to warrant the dissemination of notice to the proposed

Plaintiffs’ Answer: Yes.

5. Should Kroll Settlement Administration, LLC be appointed as Settlement

Plaintiffs’ Answer: Yes.

Plaintiffs’ Answer: Yes.

CONTROLLING AND MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES

• Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997)

• Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011)

• Beattie v. CenturyTel, Inc., 511 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2007)

(a) Common Questions of Law and Fact Predominate............. 27

Johnson v. MHMR Auth. of Brazos Valley,

MCL 691.1401 .........................................................................................................37

Manual for Complex Litigation § 30.41 (3d ed. 1995) ............................................29

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).................................................................................................22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) ................................................................................................25

experienced by Defendant Lansing Community College (“Defendant” or “LCC”), a

involving unauthorized access of Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”).2 See

Declaration of Plaintiffs’ Counsel in Support of Plaintiffs’ Renewed Unopposed

Motion for Preliminary Approval (“Counsel Decl.”), ¶ 1 (attached hereto as Exhibit

substantive relief to the Settlement Class Members. The Parties negotiated a

Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement” or “S.A.”), which includes a

$1,450,000 non-reversionary Settlement Fund to be used as the exclusive source of

Settlement Class Members stand to benefit from the Settlement in by

Actual Out-of-Pocket Losses and Attested Time (“Documented Loss Payments”)

after payment of all Documented Loss Payments, settlement administration

Documented Loss category is subject to a $150,000 aggregate cap, so there is no risk

claimants for Alternative Cash Payments with no recovery.

The proposed settlement is an outstanding result given the significant risks

faced by Plaintiffs. In addition to the potentially unsettled issues related to Article