In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation

Background

The court had previously approved a proposed class-action settlement and awards for attorneys’ fees, costs, and class-service representatives. At that earlier hearing, the court denied Melissa Linden’s motions to join the case and to pause it. The court explained that Linden appeared concerned that the settlement did not provide adequate relief and that she might later want to bring claims concerning her deceased father’s account. Because she had not excluded herself from the class action, the court stated that opting out would have been the way to preserve such claims.

This order addresses three later motions by Linden: a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) to vacate the final judgment; an objection to the deadline for requesting transcript redactions and to the timing of public transcript access; and a motion for sanctions against counsel for Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. The court also addressed a later letter from Linden challenging aspects of the court’s direction that the parties respond to her motions.

Motion to Vacate the Judgment

Linden argued that the docket incorrectly identified her as a “non-party” and “non-party joiner.” She sought relief that included damages and production of records. Rule 60(b)(1) permits a court to relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

The court denied the motion. It agreed with the plaintiffs that Linden was properly classified as a non-party because she was not a named plaintiff, and it found that her motions had been considered. Linden did not show that the docket classification or the court’s rulings were erroneous, much less that any error justified relief under Rule 60(b). The court also stated that her allegations appeared to concern matters outside the scope of the class action.

Transcript Objection

Linden objected to the end of the transcript-redaction deadline and asked that the transcript be made available immediately. The court explained that, after the August 5, 2022 fairness hearing, the parties received seven days to give notice that they intended to request redactions. Without such notice, the transcript would become electronically available to the public without redactions after 90 days.

The court declined to take any action on this objection because Linden did not explain what was deficient about that process or why she objected to the docket entry she identified. The court added that, if Linden meant to challenge a deadline for obtaining a copy of the transcript, no such deadline had been set.

Motion for Sanctions

Linden sought sanctions against Morgan Stanley’s counsel, relying largely on a November 11, 2022 email stating that the law firm did not represent Linden or Morgan Stanley regarding the issues she had raised and would not respond to further correspondence from her. Morgan Stanley defended the email as accurate and appropriate and submitted additional emails concerning the communications.

The court denied the sanctions motion. After reviewing the materials, it found no impropriety or basis for sanctions and concluded that counsel’s responses to Linden’s inquiries, including the challenged email, were appropriate. The court stated that Linden’s requests concerned matters outside the litigation’s scope or matters already addressed by court rulings.

Other Letters and Disposition

The court found no merit in Linden’s November 25, 2022 letter challenging the court’s characterization of her arguments. It also stated that later unsolicited letters, whether treated as replies or separate motions, repeated arguments already addressed and did not make her claims meritorious. The court denied the relief sought in those submissions.

Plaintiffs’ counsel was ordered to provide Linden with a copy of the order and file proof of service within one week. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all pending motions, and the case remains closed.