Sony PSN Settlement Offer

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

BEN BARNOW
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 621-2000
(312) 641-5504 (fax)

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

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

ADAM J. LEVITT
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
(312) 214-0000
(312) 214-0001 (fax)

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

Plaintiffs Steering Committee

TIMOTHY G. BLOOD (149343)
BLOOD HURST & OREARDON LLP
701 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, California 92101
(619) 338-1100
(619) 338-1101 (fax)

GAYLE M. BLATT
CASEY GERRY SCHENK
FRANCAVILLA
BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
110 Laurel Street
(619) 238-1811
(619) 544-9232 (fax)

Plaintiffs Co-Liaison Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

This Document Pertains To: All Actions
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MDL No.: 3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
CLASS ACTION
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
Judge: Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
Courtroom: 3B
Date: July 2, 2014
Time: 2:00 p.m. PT

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

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
i

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 2

I. Nature of the Litigation ..................................................................................... 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. The Costs of Notice and Claims Administration ....................................... 9

6. Attorneys Fees, Costs, and Expenses ....................................................... 9

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 9

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

A. The Strength of Plaintiffs Case and the Risk, Complexity, and Likely
Duration of Future Litigation ........................................................................ 11

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

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

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

E. The Absence of Collusion ............................................................................. 15

II. Certification of the Settlement Class for Settlement Purposes Only .............. 16

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

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

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

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


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
ii

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
iii

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,
521 U.S. 591 (1997) ............................................................................................ 20

Arnold v. Fitflop USA, LLC,
No. 11-CV-0973 W KSC, 2014 WL 1670133 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014) .......... 15

Bros. v. Cambridge Lee Indus., Inc.,
630 F. Supp. 482 (E.D. Pa. 1985) ........................................................................ 15

Carnegie v. Household Intl Inc.,
376 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................... 20

Eisen v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc.,
No. 2:11-CV-09405, 2014 WL 439006 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2014) ............... 10, 20

Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell,
688 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................. 18

Grant v. Capital Mgmt. Servs., L.P.,
No. 10-CV-WQH BGS, 2014 WL 888665 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014) ................. 12

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................. 17, 18, 21

Hispanics United v. Vill. of Addison,
988 F. Supp. 1130 (N.D. Ill. 1997) ........................................................................ 9

In re Austrian & German Bank Holocaust Litig.,
80 F. Supp. 2d 164 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ................................................................... 11

In re Heritage Bond Litig.,
No. 02-ML-1475 DT, 2005 WL 1594403 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005) ................... 9

In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig.,
213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................... 13

In re M.L. Stern Overtime Litig.,
No. 07-CV-0118-BTM (JMA), 2009 WL 995864 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2009) .... 10

In re Sunrise Sec. Litig.,
131 F.R.D. 450 (E.D. Pa. 1990) .......................................................................... 12

Local Joint Exec. Bd. of Culinary/Bartenter Trust Fund v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc.,
244 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................................................................. 19

Peters v. Natl R.R. Passenger Corp.,
966 F.2d 1483 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ........................................................................... 20


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
iv

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Rannis v. Recchia,
380 Fed. Appx 646 (9th Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 16

Rigo v. Kason Indus., Inc.,
No. 11-CV-64-MMA (DHB), 2013 WL 3761400 (S.D. Cal. July 16, 2013) ..... 15

Rodriguez v. West Publg Corp.,
563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................... 14

Twigg v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,
153 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 1998) ........................................................................... 21

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
131 S. Ct. 2514 (2011) ......................................................................................... 16

Weinberger v. Kendrick,
698 F.2d 61 (2d Cir. 1982) .................................................................................. 12

Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N.A., LLC,
617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................. 19

Statutory Authorities and Federal Rules

28 U.S.C. 1715 ...................................................................................................... 24

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1) ........................................................................................... 16

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) ........................................................................................... 16

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) ........................................................................................... 18

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) ........................................................................................... 18

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) ........................................................................................... 19

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) .......................................................................................... 10, 21

Secondary Authorities

Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg,
Newberg on Class Actions 11.25 (4th ed. 2002) .............................................. 10

Federal Judicial Center,
Judges Class Action Notice and Claims Process Checklist
and Plain Language Guide (2010) ...................................................................... 22

Manual for Complex Litigation (Third) 30.41 (1997) ......................................... 10

Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) 11.423 (2004) ...................................... 14

Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) 13.12 (2004) ........................................ 14


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs Scott Lieberman, Kyle Johnson, Arthur Howe, Adam Schucher,
Rebecca Mitchell, Christopher Wilson, James Wright, Robert Bova, Christian
Kalled, Christopher Munsterman, and Timothy Whyland (collectively,
Plaintiffs), individually and on behalf of the Settlement Class (as defined in the
Settlement Agreement and stated below),
1
by and through their undersigned
counsel, respectfully submit this memorandum of points and authorities in support
of Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
INTRODUCTION
After a lengthy period of hard-fought litigation and several rounds of
protracted settlement negotiations and mediation, the Settling Parties reached the
Settlement Agreement (the Settlement), attached hereto as Exhibit A. The
Settlement includes significant and innovative relief specifically tailored to this
MDL litigation. The benefits made available under the Settlement include various
options, such as free PS3 and PSP games, free PS3 themes,
2
free subscriptions to
PlayStation Plus, free subscriptions to the Music Unlimited service, and free SOE
Station Cash. The Settlement also delivers important peace-of-mind and security
for Settlement Class Members, by providing for payment of documented,
unreimbursed Identity-Theft-Related-Charges proven to have more likely than not
resulted from the Intrusions. As detailed herein, the Settlement readily satisfies the
applicable standard for preliminary approval: within the range of possible judicial
approval.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully move this Honorable Court for entry of
an order: (1) granting preliminary approval of the Settlement; (2) approving Notice

1
The definitions contained in the Settlement are incorporated herein by reference.
2
PS3 themes customize the background, font, and icons on the PS3 user interface.

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

to the Settlement Class and methods for dissemination of Notice as set forth in the
Settlement and the Notice Plan
3
; (3) appointing Kinsella Media, LLC, as Notice
Specialist, and Rust Consulting, Inc., as Claims Administrator; (4) certifying the
Settlement Class for settlement purposes only; (5) appointing Scott Lieberman,
Kyle Johnson, Arthur Howe, Adam Schucher, Rebecca Mitchell, Christopher
Wilson, James Wright, Robert Bova, Christian Kalled, Christopher Munsterman,
and Timothy Whyland as Representative Plaintiffs; (6) appointing the members of
the Plaintiffs Steering Committee (Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C.;
Paul J. Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; Timothy G. Blood, Blood
Hurst & OReardon, LLP; Gayle M. Blatt, Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt &
Penfield, LLP; David A. McKay, Law Offices of David A. McKay LLC; Adam J.
Levitt, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.; and Brian R. Strange, Strange & Carpenter) as
Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel; (7) approving the Claim Forms attached to the
Settlement as Exhibits D1D4; and (8) scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing to
consider entry of a final order approving the Settlement and the request for
attorneys fees, costs, and expenses.
BACKGROUND
I. Nature of the Litigation
On April 26, 2011, Sony Network Entertainment International LLC (SNE)
and Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (SCEA) announced that an
unauthorized person or persons had perpetrated an illegal and unauthorized attack
on the computer network systems used to provide PlayStation Network (PSN)
services, and that certain PSN and Qriocity accountholder information appeared to
have been accessed as a result of the unauthorized intrusion (the PSN Intrusion).

3
The Notice Plan is Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Shannon R. Wheatman, Ph.D.,
which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On May 2, 2011, Sony Online Entertainment LLC (SOE) announced that an
unauthorized person or persons had perpetrated an illegal and unauthorized attack
on the SOE network, and that certain SOE accountholder information appeared to
have been accessed as a result of the unauthorized intrusion (the SOE Intrusion)
(together with the PSN Intrusion, the Intrusions). Services on both the PSN and
the SOE networks were suspended and unavailable to accountholders for a period
of approximately two to three weeks until operations were restored on the
networks by on or about May 15, 2011. A Welcome Back package of various
benefits (including the opportunity to obtain identity theft insurance) thereafter was
made available to accountholders of both networks.
II. Procedural History
Following announcement of the Intrusions, 65 class action complaints were
filed, asserting claims against various of the Sony Entities in federal courts
throughout the country. On August 8, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred all related actions to the Court for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings. On November 29, 2011, after reviewing
applications for leadership positions, the Court appointed the Plaintiffs Steering
Committee. [D.E. #60]. The attorneys appointed by the Court to the Plaintiffs
Steering Committee are the proposed Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel.
On January 31, 2012, a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (CAC) was
filed. [D.E. #78]. The Sony Entities responded with a motion to dismiss the CAC.
After briefing and a hearing on the Sony Entities motion, the Court entered an
Order dismissing all counts of the CAC, but granting Plaintiffs leave to amend
certain counts. [D.E. #120]. On December 10, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their First
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (FAC), asserting 51 counts
against the Sony Entities. The Sony Entities again moved to dismiss. [D.E. #128].
On January 21, 2014, after briefing and a hearing on the matter, the Court entered

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants motion to dismiss the
FAC. [D.E. #167]. The Court denied the Sony Entities motion to dismiss with
respect to the following causes of action: (1) California Unfair Competition Law
(UCL), California False Advertising Law (FAL), and California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act claims based on misrepresentations and omissions regarding
reasonable network security and industry-standard encryption and Plaintiffs
ability to seek restitution under the UCL and FAL; (2) Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and Michigan Consumer Protection Act claims
requesting declaratory and injunctive relief; (3) Missouri Merchandising Practices
Act claim seeking damages and equitable relief; (4) New Hampshire Consumer
Protection Act claim seeking individual damages and injunctive relief; (5)
California Database Breach Act claims requesting injunctive relief; and (6) partial
performance/breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. Order at
97 [D.E. #167].
The Settling Parties have engaged in several rounds of settlement
discussions since the inception of this MDL litigation. These discussions began
over two years ago and have included a number of face-to-face meetings and
telephone conference calls. During the fall of 2012, the Settling Parties engaged in
a mediation and subsequently continued settlement negotiations. After the Courts
ruling on the Sony Entities motion to dismiss the FAC, the Settling Parties
engaged in renewed settlement discussions. The Settlement was reached as a
result of such discussions.
III. Summary of the Settlement
A. The Settlement Class
Under the terms of the Settlement, the Settling Parties agreed to certification
of the following Settlement Class for settlement purposes only:


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

All Persons residing in the United States who had a PlayStation
Network account or sub-account, a Qriocity account, or a Sony Online
Entertainment account at any time prior to May 15, 2011 (referred to
in the Settlement Agreement as PSN Accountholders, Qriocity
Accountholders, and SOE Accountholders respectively).
SA 1.23
4
. United States as used in the Settlement Agreement includes the
District of Columbia and territories of the United States. SA 1.29. Excluded
from the Settlement Class are the Sony Entities and their officers and directors,
and Persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class.
SA 1.23.
B. Settlement Benefits
In summary, the Settlement provides the following benefits:
5

1. PSN Accountholder Benefits
PSN User Benefits for Welcome Back Non-Participants. PSN Claimants
who did not participate in the Welcome Back package offered to PSN
Accountholders are eligible to receive two of the following PSN Benefit Options
(i.e., either two separate PSN Benefit Options or two instances of one PSN Benefit
Option): (1) one PlayStation 3 or PlayStation Portable game selected from a list of
fourteen games included on the Claim Form (the Game Benefit); (2) three
PlayStation 3 themes selected from a list of six themes listed on the Claim Form
(the Theme Benefit); or (3) a three month subscription to the PlayStation Plus
service free of charge (the PlayStation Plus New Subscription Benefit).
6
SA
1.8, 1.17, 1.27, 2.1 (c)(2), 2.1(c)(3).

4
References to particular paragraphs of the Settlement Agreement are prefixed by SA .
5
The Settlement provides that Settlement Class Members, at their discretion, may either submit
claims online via the Settlement website or mail a completed written claim form to a mailing
address established by the Claims Administrator. SA 8.1 (as amended by Amendment to the
Settlement dated June 9, 2014).
6
The PlayStation Plus New Subscription Benefit is available only to Settlement Class Members
who at the time of submitting their claim had not previously subscribed to PlayStation Plus. SA
1.17.

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Claims by PSN Welcome Back Non-Participants will be honored on a
first-come, first-served basis subject to an aggregate cap of $6,000,000. SA
2.1(c)(2). Each Game Benefit will be credited at $9.00 per game with the exception
that if, at the time of distribution, the PSNs retail price for a game listed on the
Claim Form is less than $9.00, then the corresponding credit relating to such game
will be proportionally reduced. SA 1.8. Each Theme Benefit will also be credited
at $9.00 with the exception that if, at the time of distribution, the PSNs retail price
for a theme listed on the Claim Form is less than $3.00, then the corresponding
credit relating to such theme will be proportionally reduced. SA 1.27. The
PlayStation Plus New Subscription Benefit will be credited at $9.00 per
PlayStation Plus New Subscription Benefit. SA 1.17. If the aggregate $6,000,000
cap is reached, PSN Claimants submitting valid claims after the cap is reached will
receive a free one-month subscription to the PlayStation Plus service, which
currently costs $9.99 per month. SA 1.16, 2.1(c)(5).
PSN User Benefits for Welcome Back Participants . PSN Claimants who
participated in the Welcome Back package offered to PSN Accountholders are
eligible to receive one Game Benefit, Theme Benefit, or PlayStation Plus New
Subscription Benefit. SA 1.8, 1.17, 1.27, 2.1 (c)(1), 2.1(c)(3). Claims by PSN
Welcome Back participants will be honored on a first-come, first-served basis
subject to an aggregate cap of $4,000,000. SA 2.1(c)(2). In the event the
aggregate $4,000,000 cap is reached, PSN Claimants submitting valid claims after
such cap is reached will receive a free one-month subscription ($9.99 value) to the
PlayStation Plus service. SA 1.16, 2.1(c)(5).
Unused PSN Wallet Credits. PSN Claimants with a PSN Account that was
logged onto at least once during the period of time from January 1, 2011 to May
14, 2011, that was not accessed between May 15, 2011 and April 18, 2014 (the
date of the Settlement) on account of the Intrusions, are eligible to receive payment

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

in cash equal to any Unused PSN Wallet Credit in their PSN Account(s) for which
the Unused PSN Wallet Credit in the account is equal to or exceeds $2.00. SA
2.1(a).
Unreimbursed Third-Party Services. PSN Claimants who used their PSN
account to access third-party service providers Netflix or Hulu Plus at any time
from January 1, 2011 to and including May 14, 2011, and who provide
documentation that they paid for such service during the period of time when the
PSN was offline from April 20, 2011 through and including May 14, 2011, and
were unable to and did not access such services during this period of time, are
eligible to receive either: (1) a Theme Benefit (claimant has a choice of three
PlayStation themes from a selection of six themes); or (2) a PlayStation Plus New
Subscription Benefit (a subscription to the PlayStation Plus service for 3 months
for claimants who have not previously subscribed to PlayStation Plus). SA 1.27,
1.17, 2.1(b).
Per Accountholder Benefit Availability. PSN benefits are available to
eligible PSN Claimants for valid claims on a per Settlement Class Member basis,
regardless of the number of PSN accounts a PSN Claimant has or had. SA
2.4(e)(i). PSN Welcome Back non-participants and participant benefits together
are limited to three per household. SA 2.1(c)(4).
2. Qriocity Accountholder Benefits
Qriocity Accountholders who did not have a PSN account (or sub-account)
at the time of the Intrusions are eligible to receive one free month of Music
Unlimited service, which currently costs $4.99 per month (Music Unlimited is the
current name for the music portion of the Qriocity service). SA 2.2. This benefit
is available to eligible Qriocity Claimants for valid claims on a per Settlement
Class Member basis, regardless of the number of Qriocity accounts a Qriocity
Claimant has or had. SA 2.4(e)(ii).

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3. SOE Accountholder Benefits
SOE User Benefit. SOE Claimants are eligible to receive $4.50 worth of
Station Cash (i.e., 450 units of Station Cash) to be credited to the SOE
Claimants Account. SA 2.3(b). Station Cash is SOEs virtual currency that
players can use to purchase game items through the in-game marketplace in all
SOE titles. If valid claims for SOE User Benefits exceed $4,000,000 the amount of
each SOE User Benefit under this subparagraph shall be proportionately reduced.
SA 2.3(b). This benefit is available to eligible SOE Claimants for valid claims on
a per Settlement Class Member basis, regardless of the number of SOE accounts an
SOE Claimant has or had. SA 2.4(e)(iii).
Unused Wallet Credit Payments. SOE Claimants with an SOE Account that
was logged onto at least once during the period of time from January 1, 2011 to
May 14, 2011, that was not accessed between May 15, 2011 and April 18, 2014
(the date of the Settlement) on account of the SOE Intrusion, are eligible to receive
payment in cash equal to any Unused SOE Wallet Credit in their SOE Account(s)
for which the Unused SOE Wallet Credit in the account is equal to or exceeds
$2.00. SA 2.1(a), 2.3.
4. Reimbursement of Identity Theft Losses
The Sony Entities will reimburse Settlement Class Members for claimed,
documented, and unreimbursed Identity-Theft-Related-Charges,
7
not to exceed
$2,500 per claim, which are proven by the Settlement Class Member more likely

7
Identity-Theft-Related-Charges means out-of-pocket payments (not otherwise reimbursed)
for expenses that are incurred as a direct result of someone assuming the Settlement Class
Members identity and taking out a line of credit, establishing and using a new financial account,
or otherwise obtaining monies and other things of value fraudulently in the name of the
Settlement Class Member (other than unauthorized charges on a payment card account
associated with a Settlement Class Members PSN Account, Qriocity Account or SOE Account).
SA 2.5(a)

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

than not to have directly and proximately resulted from the PSN Intrusion or the
SOE Intrusion and not from any other source. SA 2.5. Valid claims under this
provision are subject to an aggregate cap of $1,000,000. SA 2.5(d).
5. The Costs of Notice and Claims Administration
The Sony Entities will pay all costs of providing Notice of the Settlement to
the Settlement Class and the Costs of Claims Administration. SA 3.2, 8.4. The
costs of Notice in their entirety shall not exceed $1,250,000. SA 3.2. Costs of
Claims Administration are in addition to and separate from the costs of providing
Notice to the Settlement Class.
6. Attorneys Fees, Costs, and Expenses
The Settling Parties did not discuss the amount of attorneys fees, costs, and
expenses until after the substantive elements of the Settlement had been agreed
upon. SA 7.1. The amounts of any award of attorneys fees, costs, and expenses
are intended to be considered by the Court separately from the Courts
consideration of the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement. SA
7.5.
The Sony Entities have agreed to pay Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel,
subject to Court approval, up to the amount of $2,750,000 for attorneys fees,
costs, and expenses. SA 7.2.
ARGUMENT
I. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement is Appropriate
Courts look upon settlements with favor because settlement promotes the
interests of litigants by saving them the expense and uncertainties of trial, as well
as the interests of the judicial system by making it unnecessary to devote public
resources to disputes that the parties themselves can resolve with a mutually
agreeable outcome. Hispanics United v. Vill. of Addison, 988 F. Supp. 1130, 1149
(N.D. Ill. 1997); In re Heritage Bond Litig., No. 02-ML-1475 DT, 2005 WL

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1594403, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2005) (settlement spares the parties the costs
of protracted litigation and eases the congestion of judicial calendars). Indeed,
compromise is particularly appropriate in complex class actions. See Eisen v.
Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., No. 2:11-CV-09405-CAS-FFMx, 2014 WL 439006, at
*3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2014).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) requires judicial approval of a class action settlement.
The class action settlement review and approval process involves two steps.
Preliminary approval is the first step, at which time the Court determines whether a
settlement falls within the range of possible judicial approval. In re M.L. Stern
Overtime Litig., No. 07-CV-0118-BTM (JMA), 2009 WL 995864, at *3 (S.D. Cal.
Apr. 13, 2009) (citing Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class
Actions 11.25 (4th ed. 2002) (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation (Third)
30.41 (1997))). Final approval is the second step, which occurs after notice of a
settlement has been provided to the class. Id. The Court need not review the
settlement in detail [at the preliminary approval stage], because class members
will subsequently receive notice and have an opportunity to be heard on the
settlement at the final fairness hearing. M.L. Stern Overtime Litig., 2009 WL
995864, at *3.
When determining whether a settlement is within the range of possible
judicial approval, courts look to (1) the strength of Plaintiffs case and the risk,
expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (2) the amount
offered in settlement; (3) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of
proceedings; (4) the experience and view of counsel; and (5) the absence of
collusion. Id. at *45. Analysis of these factors here supports that the Settlement is
well within the required range of possible approval and should be preliminarily
approved.


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A. The Strength of Plaintiffs Case and the Risk, Complexity, and
Likely Duration of Future Litigation
Balancing the risks of continued litigation, the benefits of the Settlement,
and the immediacy and certainty of the significant recovery provided for by the
Settlement supports that the Settlement should be preliminarily approved.
Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel believe the claims asserted
in the litigation have merit. They would not have fought so hard to advance their
claims if it were otherwise. But, they also recognize the substantial risks involved
in continuing this litigation. The Sony Entities have aggressively maintained their
position regarding standing, liability, and damages. They deny all three. Co-Lead
Settlement Class Counsel are mindful of the inherent problems of proof and
possible defenses to the claims asserted in the litigation, and also recognize the
difficulties in establishing liability on a class-wide basis through summary
judgment or even at trial, or in achieving a result better than that offered by the
Settlement Agreement here.
Further, prosecuting this litigation through trial and appeal would likely be
lengthy, complex, and impose significant costs on all parties. See, e.g., In re
Austrian & German Bank Holocaust Litig., 80 F. Supp. 2d 164, 174 (S.D.N.Y.
2000) (recognizing that [m]ost class actions are inherently complex and
settlement avoids the costs, delays, and multitude of other problems associated
with them). Continued proceedings necessary to litigate this matter to final
judgment would likely include substantial motion practice, extensive fact
discovery, class certification proceedings, further dispositive motions and, of
course, a trial and appeal. Given the complex nature of the security breach at issue,
a battle of the experts at trial is almost a certainty and, as such, continued
proceedings would likely include substantial expert discovery and significant
motion practice related to such. Also, considering the size of the Settlement Class

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

and the amount of money at stake, any decision on the merits would likely be
appealed, causing further delay, as it would require briefing and likely oral
argument.
The Settlement, in contrast, delivers a real and substantial remedy that fairly,
reasonably, and adequately addresses the situation confronting the members of the
Settlement Class without the risk and delay inherent in prosecuting this matter
through trial and appeal. Thus, this factor favors approval of the settlement. See
Grant v. Capital Mgmt. Servs., L.P., No. 10-CV-WQH BGS, 2014 WL 888665, at
*3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014) (The court shall consider the vagaries of the litigation
and compare the significance of immediate recovery by way of compromise to the
mere possibility of relief in the future, after protracted and expensive litigation. In
this respect, it has been held proper to take the bird in hand instead of a prospective
flock in the bush) (citations and quotations omitted); see also Weinberger v.
Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61, 73 (2d Cir. 1982) (There are weighty justifications, such
as the reduction of litigation and related expenses, for the general policy favoring
the settlement of litigation.); In re Sunrise Sec. Litig., 131 F.R.D. 450, 455 (E.D.
Pa. 1990) (approving a class action settlement because, in part, the settlement will
alleviate . . . the extraordinary complexity, expense and likely duration of this
litigation).
Thus, this factor favors preliminary approval of the Settlement.
B. The Amount Offered by the Settlement
This Settlement provides significant relief. All Settlement Class Members
are entitled to submit claims for relief under the Settlement, and the Settlement
includes relief specifically tailored to PSN Accountholders, Qriocity
Accountholders, and SOE Accountholders. The benefits made available under the
Settlement include, inter alia, the option to choose free PS3 and PSP games, free
PS3 themes, a free subscription to PlayStation Plus, a free month of the Music

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Unlimited service, and free SOE Station Cash. The Settlement also delivers
important peace of mind and security for Settlement Class Members by providing
for payment of documented and unreimbursed Identity-Theft-Related-Charges, if
proven that they more likely than not resulted from the Intrusions, pursuant to a
fair and clear claims process. And, under the Settlement, the Sony Entities will
pay all costs of Notice, the Costs of Claims Administration, and Plaintiffs
counsels attorneys fees, costs, and expenses.
The significant benefits offered under the Settlement support preliminary
approval.
C. The Extent of Discovery Completed and the Stage of the Proceedings
The first cases in this MDL litigation were filed over three years ago.
A number of Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel have significant experience in
data breach consumer class actions such as this and, as such, are well-informed of
the legal claims at issue and the risks of this case. That specific experience is
included in the vast number of consumer class actions that Co-Lead Settlement
Class Counsel have successfully advanced over the years. Since their
appointment by the Court, Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel have been
actively and aggressively advancing this matter. Two amended consolidated
class action complaints have been filed and the Court has ruled on motions
to dismiss relating to each such complaint.
Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel and counsel for Defendants engaged in
several rounds of settlement negotiations during the past two years. Throughout the
settlement negotiations, Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel pursued informal
discovery from Defendants that was appropriately targeted at information relevant
to the settlement. See In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir.
2000) (In the context of class action settlements, formal discovery is not a
necessary ticket to the bargaining table where the parties have sufficient

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
14

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

information to make an informed decision about settlement.) (citations and
quotations omitted); see also Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) 13.12
(2004) (recognizing that the benefits of settlement are diminished if it is postponed
until discovery is completed and approving of targeting early discovery at
information needed for settlement negotiations). Informal discovery, of course, is a
recognized method of minimizing the cost, delay, and burden associated with
formal discovery. See Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) 11.423 (2004).
Indeed, to further such ends, courts are to encourage counsel to exchange
information, particularly relevant documents, without resort to formal discovery.
Id. In addition to informal discovery, Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel have also
collected and reviewed publicly-available information regarding the parties and
claims at issue.
The Settlement provides that confirmatory discovery will be conducted by
Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel, namely, reasonable requests for relevant
documents and the interviews of up to two (at the discretion of Co-Lead Settlement
Class Counsel) knowledgeable employees identified by the Sony Entities, which
shall be conducted by Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel. SA 10.4. Once the
confirmatory discovery is completed, Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel shall
determine, based on said discovery, whether in their opinion the Settlement is, as
they currently believe, fair, reasonable, and adequate. Id. If Co-Lead Settlement
Class Counsel are not satisfied that this standard has been met, they have the power
and right to terminate the settlement. Id.
This factor favors preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement.
D. The Views and Experience of Counsel
Parties represented by competent counsel are better positioned than courts
to produce a settlement that fairly reflects each partys outcome in litigation.
Rodriguez v. West Publg Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 697 (9th Cir. 2009). When both

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

parties are represented by experienced counsel, their mutual desire to adopt a
proposed settlements terms while not conclusive, is entitled to significant
weight. Arnold v. Fitflop USA, LLC, No. 11-CV-0973 W KSC, 2014 WL
1670133, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014) (quoting Bros. v. Cambridge Lee Indus.,
Inc., 630 F. Supp. 482, 488 (E.D. Pa. 1985)).
The Settlement is supported by experienced and well-qualified counsel. The
Court appointed Co-Lead Settlement Counsel as the Plaintiffs Steering Committee
after a selection process that involved numerous attorneys applying for leadership
positions. The collective experience of Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel leading
consumer class actions and other complex litigation matters, including data
security breach class actions, is extensive and unparalleled. The Sony Entities are
similarly well-represented. Harvey Wolkoff and Mark Szpak each have significant
experience litigating class actions and Ropes & Gray LLP is consistently
recognized as one of the top defense firms in the country. Co-Lead Settlement
Class Counsel and counsel for the Sony Entities support the Settlement and believe
the Settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The fact that the Settlement is supported by experienced counsel supports
that the Settlement should be preliminarily approved.
E. The Absence of Collusion
Courts find settlements to be free of fraud or collusion when the parties
were represented by experienced counsel [and the] settlement was reached through
arms-length negotiations. Rigo v. Kason Indus., Inc., No. 11-CV-64-MMA
(DHB), 2013 WL 3761400, at *6 (S.D. Cal. July 16, 2013) (citations omitted).
The Settlement is the product of over two-years of extensive, hard-fought,
arms-length negotiations conducted by experienced counsel. This process involved
numerous face-to-face meetings and telephone conversations, as well as
exchanging several proposals and counter-proposals. The Settling Parties fought

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

hard for the interests of their respective clients, and in Co-Lead Settlement Class
Counsels informed opinion, the settlement achieved here includes a substantial
and valuable recovery for the Settlement Class.
This factor favors preliminary approval of the Settlement.
II. Certification of the Settlement Class for Settlement Purposes Only
To be certified for class action treatment, the requirements of Rule 23(a)
must be satisfied in addition to the requirements of one of the subsections of Rule
23(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. As detailed below, the requirements of Rule 23(a)
and Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied here. As such, certification of the Settlement Class
for settlement purposes only is appropriate.
A. The Requirements of Rule 23(a) Are Satisfied
1. Numerosity
Rule 23(a)(1) requires that a class be so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Joinder is generally
considered impracticable when a class includes forty or more individuals. Rannis v.
Recchia, 380 F. Appx 646, 651 (9th Cir. 2010). The Settlement Class is estimated
to include individuals holding up to approximately 60 million accounts. Thus, this
requirement is satisfied.
2. Commonality
Rule 23(a)(2) requires the existence of a question of law or fact that is
common to all class members and capable of class-wide resolution, the
determination of which is central to the validity of all Settlement Class members
claims. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2514, 2551 (2011). All
questions of fact and law need not be common to satisfy the [commonality
requirement]. The existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates
is sufficient, as is a common core of salient facts coupled with disparate legal

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

remedies within the class. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th
Cir. 1998).
Several questions of law and fact common to all Settlement Class members
exist in this MDL litigation, including, inter alia:

A. whether the Sony Entities engaged in the wrongful conduct
alleged in the FAC;

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

C. whether the Sony Entities omitted material information
regarding the security of Sony Online Services;

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

E. whether the Sony Entities misrepresented that Sony maintains
reasonable security measures to protect and safeguard
consumers Personal Information;

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

G. whether there was partial performance of an agreement between
Plaintiffs and the Sony Entities and whether the Sony Entities,
in committing the alleged acts and inactions (or, in refusing to
negotiate in good faith), breached the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing;

H. whether Plaintiffs and the other Settlement Class Members are
entitled to actual, statutory, and other forms of damages and
monetary relief; and

I. whether Plaintiffs and the other Settlement Class Members are
entitled to equitable relief, including, but not limited to,
injunctive relief and restitution.
As such, Rule 23(a)(2)s commonality requirement is satisfied.


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3. Typicality
The focus of Rule 23(a)(3)s typicality requirement is whether other
members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct
which is not unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have
been injured by the same course of conduct. Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney
Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1030 (9th Cir. 2012).
Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the other Settlement Class
Members. Plaintiffs and the other Settlement Class Members claims and injuries
arise from substantially the same conduct. And, Plaintiffs advance the same claims
and legal theories on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class. Plaintiffs also
are not aware of any defenses available to the Sony Entities that would be unique
to Plaintiffs. Thus, the typicality requirement is satisfied.
4. Adequacy
Rule 23(a)(4) requires that representative plaintiffs and class counsel
adequately represent the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). When
analyzing adequacy, courts ask: (1) do the named plaintiffs and their counsel have
any conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will the named plaintiffs
and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class? Evon,
688 F.3d at 1031 (quoting Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020)).
Plaintiffs interests are aligned with, and do not conflict with, the interests of
the Settlement Class. Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel have extensive experience
in leading the prosecution of complex class actions, including data security breach
cases. See Order Regarding Appointment of Liaison Counsel and the Plaintiffs
Steering Committee and Notice of Status Conference (Battaglia, J. Nov. 29, 2011)
[D.E. #60]. As demonstrated by their efforts in this litigation to date, Co-Lead
Settlement Class Counsel have and will continue to vigorously prosecute this

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
19

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

matter on behalf of the Settlement Class. Thus, the adequacy requirement is
satisfied.
B. The Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) Are Satisfied
1. Predominance
Rule 23(b)(3)s predominance element requires that questions of law or fact
common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The predominance inquiry focuses
on whether a proposed class is sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by
representation. Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N.A., LLC, 617 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th
Cir. 2010). When common questions present a significant aspect of the case and
they can be resolved for all members of the class in a single adjudication, there is
clear justification for handling the dispute on a representative rather than on an
individual basis. Local Joint Exec. Bd. of Culinary/Bartenter Trust Fund v. Las
Vegas Sands, Inc., 244 F.3d 1152, 1162 (9th Cir. 2001).
As noted above, several questions of law and fact common to all members of
the Settlement Class exist in this litigation. These common questions predominate
over any potential questions affecting only individual Settlement Class Members.
Thus, the predominance element is satisfied.
2. Superiority
Rule 23(b)(3) requires a class action to be superior to other available
methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, and sets forth
the following factors:

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

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
20

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). The manageability concerns present when a court certifies
a class for litigation purposes are not present when a class is certified for
settlement purposes only, because the case is not to be tried. Amchem Prods., Inc.
v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 621 (1997). [A] class action has to be unwieldy indeed
before it can be pronounced an inferior alternativeno matter how massive the
fraud or other wrongdoing that will go unpunished if class treatment is deniedto
no litigation at all. Carnegie v. Household Intl Inc., 376 F.3d 656, 661 (7th Cir.
2004).
A class action is superior to any other available means for the fair and
efficient adjudication of this controversy. The damages, harm, and other detriment
suffered by Settlement Class Members are relatively small compared to the burden
and expense that would be required to individually litigate their claims against the
Sony Entities, making it wasteful and impracticable for Settlement Class Members
to individually bring actions against the Sony Entities relating to the Intrusions.
Even if Settlement Class Members could afford individual litigation, the court
system should not be required to bear the burden and expense of such inefficiency.
Individualized litigation would also create the potential for inconsistent or
contradictory judgments and increase the delay and expense to all parties and the
court system. By contrast, the class action device provides the benefits of a single
adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
Thus, the requirements of Rule 23 are satisfied and certification of the
Settlement Class for settlement purposes only is appropriate.
III. Notice of the Settlement
Notice serves to afford members of the class due process which, in the
context of the Rule 23(b)(3) class action, guarantees them the opportunity to be
excluded from the class action and not be bound by any subsequent judgment.
Peters v. Natl R.R. Passenger Corp., 966 F.2d 1483, 1486 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citing

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
21

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 17374 (1974)). The Court must
direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who would be bound by
the proposal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). And, notice must fairly describe the
litigation and the proposed settlement and its legal significance. See, e.g., Twigg v.
Sears, Roebuck & Co., 153 F.3d 1222, 1227 (11th Cir. 1998)) ([The notice] must
also contain an adequate description of the proceedings written in objective,
neutral terms, that, insofar as possible, may be understood by the average absentee
class member[.]). Whether to approve a notice plan is committed to the sound
discretion of the trial judge, because he is exposed to the litigants, their strategies,
positions, and proof. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026.
The Settling Parties have agreed upon Kinsella Media, LLC, to be the Notice
Specialist for this Settlement and request the Courts approval and appointment of
Kinsella Media, LLC, as Notice Specialist. SA 1.1. Kinsella Media, LLC, has
significant experience as a class action notice provider. See Wheatman Decl. 3
8, Exh. 1 (curriculum vitae of Shannon R. Wheatman, Ph.D.); see also Notice Plan
at 4.
The Notice Plan includes: (1) individual direct notice by email to Settlement
Class Members who provided the Sony Entities with email address information;
(2) individual direct notice via post card to Settlement Class Members who had
accounts with SOE and for whom the Sony entities do not have email address
information but possess information sufficient for a mailing address; (3)
publication in Maxim, PC Gamer, Sports Illustrated, and Game Informer, as well
as in local newspapers in U.S. territories and possessions;
8
(4) publication on
targeted Internet websites; (5) publication on mobile networks; and (6) an

8
In the event that a publication declines to run the notice advertisement, the budgeted amount
will be reallocated to an alternative print and/or online media outlet.

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

informational website dedicated to the settlement with an easy-to-remember
domain name. See Notice Plan at 68, 2226; Wheatman Decl. 1527.
Additionally, the estimated reach of the Notice Plan is 83.4% with an average
frequency of 2.1 against the target audience, which is well above the 70% reach
that the Federal Judicial Center recognizes as reasonable. See Notice Plan at 25;
Wheatman Decl. 25; Federal Judicial Center, Judges Class Action Notice and
Claims Process Checklist and Plain Language Guide, at 3 (2010). The Notice Plan
readily satisfies the best practicable standard.
A. Contents of Notice
The Notice documents were designed to provide information about the
proposed settlement, along with clear, concise, easily understood information
about Settlement Class members legal rights. Wheatman Decl. 3336. The
Notice documents include Email Notice, Postcard Notice, Summary Publication
Notice, and a Detailed Notice available on the settlement website (the Summary
Publication Notice, Detailed Notice, and Claim Forms also will be provided by the
Claims Administrator to claimants who request them). See Notice Plan at Exhibits
AD. The Notice documents collectively include a fair summary of the Settling
Parties respective litigation positions, the general terms of the settlement set forth
in the Settlement Agreement, instructions on how to object to or opt-out of the
settlement, the process and instructions for submitting claims and the date, time,
and place of the Final Fairness Hearing.
9
). See Notice Plan at Exhibits AD;
Wheatman Decl. 3336.
The Notice Documents contain information that a reasonable person would
consider material in making an informed, intelligent decision of whether to opt out

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

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
23

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

or remain a member of the Settlement Class and be bound by a final judgment, and
direct individuals to a convenient location to obtain more detailed information. See
id. Altogether, the Notice Documents fairly apprise the Settlement Class Members
of the terms of the Settlement and the options that are open to them in connection
with the proceedings.
1. Opting Out
A Person wishing to opt out of the Settlement Class must individually sign
(or, if the Person opting out is younger than 18 years of age, then through the
signature of a parent, legal guardian, or other legal representative) and timely
submit written notice of such intent to the designated mailing address established
by the Claims Administrator. SA 4.1. The written notice must clearly manifest a
Persons intent to be excluded from the Settlement Class. Id. To be effective,
written notice must be postmarked no later than twenty-one (21) days prior to the
date set in the Notice for the Final Fairness Hearing. SA 4.1, 1.12.
2. Objecting
A Settlement Class member desiring to object to the Settlement will be
required to submit a timely written notice of his or her objection.
10
SA 5.1. To be

10
The notice is to include: (i) the objectors full name, address, telephone number, and e-mail
address; (ii) information identifying the objector as a Settlement Class Member, including proof
that they are a member of the Settlement Class, with documentation of any Identity-Theft-
Related Charges they claim to have suffered as a result of the Intrusions, if any, if they are
objecting to any portion of the settlement dealing with reimbursement for Identity-Theft-Related
Charges and for which they believe they would have an existing claim, (iii) a written statement
of all grounds for the objection accompanied by any legal support for the objection; (iv) the
identity of all counsel representing the objector; (v) the identity of all counsel representing the
objector who may appear at the Final Fairness Hearing; (vi) all other cases in which the objector
(directly or through counsel) or the objectors counsel (on behalf of any person or entity) has
filed an objection to any proposed class action settlement, or has been a named plaintiff in any
class action or served as lead plaintiff class counsel, including the case name, court, and docket
number for each; (vii) a list of all persons who will be called to testify at the Final Fairness
Hearing in support of the objection; (viii) a statement confirming whether the objector intends to
personally appear and/or testify at the Final Fairness Hearing; and (ix) the objectors signature or
the signature of the objectors duly authorized attorney or other duly authorized representative
(along with documentation setting forth such representation). SA 5.1.

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
24

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

timely, written notice of an objection must be filed with the Clerk of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California, at the address where
filings are accepted by the Clerk, twenty-one (21) days prior to the date set in the
Notice for the Final Fairness Hearing, and served concurrently therewith upon (a)
either Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C., One North LaSalle Street, Suite
4600, Chicago, IL 60602, or Paul J. Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500, Boca Raton, FL 33432, for purposes of
service upon Co-Lead Settlement Class Counsel, and also on (b) Harvey J.
Wolkoff, Ropes & Gray LLP, Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street, Boston, MA,
02199, counsel for the Sony Entities. Id. 5.1.
B. Scope of Notice
Notice of the Settlement will be effectuated as prescribed by the Notice
Specialist. SA 3.1(c), 8.1. The Claims Administrator shall establish a dedicated
settlement website and shall maintain and update the website throughout the
Claims Period, with the forms of Summary Notice, Notice, and Claim Forms
approved by the Court, as well as the Settlement Agreement. Id.
C. Notification to Appropriate Federal and State Officials
The Settlement provides that, within ten days of this filing, the Sony Entities
will provide notice of the Settlement to appropriate Federal and State officials as
required by the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1715 (CAFA). No later
than ten days before the final approval hearing, counsel for the Sony Entities will
file a declaration confirming that the Sony Entities have complied with their notice
obligations under CAFA. SA 10.1.
CONCLUSION
As the above demonstrates, the Settlement readily meets the standard for
preliminary approval. Accordingly, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
25

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Settlement Class, by and through counsel, respectfully request that this Honorable
Court enter an order:

A. granting preliminary approval of the Settlement;

B. approving Notice to the Settlement Class and methods for
dissemination of Notice as set forth in the Settlement;

C. appointing Kinsella Media, LLC, as Notice Specialist and Rust
Consulting, Inc., as Claims Administrator;

D. certifying the Settlement Class for settlement purposes only;

E. appointing Scott Lieberman, Kyle Johnson, Arthur Howe, Adam
Schucher, Rebecca Mitchell, Christopher Wilson, James Wright,
Robert Bova, Christian Kalled, Christopher Munsterman, and
Timothy Whyland as Representative Plaintiffs;

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

G. approving the Claim Forms attached as Exhibits D1D4 to the
Settlement;

H. scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing to consider entry of a final order
approving the Settlement and the request for attorneys fees, costs,
and expenses; and

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

Dated: June 13, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

By: _____/s Ben Barnow____________
BEN BARNOW

(312) 621-2000
(312) 641-5504 (fax)
b.barnow@barnowlaw.com


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
26

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PAUL J. GELLER
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN &
DOWD LLP
120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, Florida 33432
(561) 750-3000
(561) 750-3364 (fax)
pgeller@rgrdlaw.com

TIMOTHY G. BLOOD (149343)
BLOOD HURST & OREARDON, LLP
600 B Street, Suite 1550
(619) 338-1100
(619) 338-1101 (fax)
tblood@bholaw.com

GAYLE M. BLATT (122048)
CASEY GERRY SCHENK
FRANCAVILLA
BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
(619) 238-1811
(619) 544-9232 (fax)
gmb@cglaw.com

DAVID A. MCKAY
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. MCKAY
LLC
555 North Point Center East, Suite 400
Alpharetta, Georgia 30022
(678) 366-5180
(678) 366-5001 (fax)
david@damckaylaw.com

ADAM J. LEVITT
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
(312) 984-0000
(312) 214-0001(fax)
alevitt@gelaw.com


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
27

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

BRIAN R. STRANGE (103252)
STRANGE & CARPENTER
12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900
Los Angeles, California 90025
(310) 207-5055
(310) 826-3210 (fax)
lacounsel@earthlink.net

Proposed Co-Lead Settlement Class
Counsel


3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD
28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 13, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification
of such filing to the email addresses denoted on the Electronic Mail Notice List,
and that I shall cause the foregoing document to be mailed via the United States
Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF participants indicated on the Electronic Mail
Notice List.

/s Ben Barnow__________________

BEN BARNOW
(312) 621-2000
(312) 641-5504 (fax)
b.barnow@barnowlaw.com


Sony PSN Settlement Offer

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Sony PSN Settlement Offer

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

3:11-md-02258-AJB-MDD

Вам также может понравиться