Doe v. GoodRx Holdings, Inc.
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:23-cv-00501
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Doe v. GoodRx Holdings, Judge Martinez-Olguin granted plaintiffs’ request to appoint interim co-lead class counsel and related counsel teams.
The plaintiffs and proposed class, all plaintiffs’ attorneys, and the appointed counsel firms are affected. The order gives the interim co-lead firms authority to coordinate and oversee the litigation before any class-certification decision.
What happened
In Doe v. GoodRx Holdings, Inc., plaintiffs’ attorneys jointly asked the court to establish an interim leadership structure for the proposed class action before any decision on class certification. They proposed two firms as co-lead counsel, one firm as liaison counsel, and three firms for an executive committee.
The court granted the motion. It appointed Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., and Bursor & Fisher, P.A., as interim co-lead class counsel; Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP as interim liaison counsel; and Shub & Johns LLC, Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., and Israel David LLC to an interim executive committee.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin also granted the co-lead firms authority over pleadings and motions, discovery, communications, staffing and supervision, experts, settlement discussions, litigation costs, fee and expense reports, fee and cost allocation, and overall case management until a class is certified and permanent class counsel is appointed.
The detailed version
- Doe v. GoodRx Holdings, Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-00501
- Martinez-Olguin
- July 7, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs’ attorneys jointly moved to appoint interim class counsel in this proposed class action. The requested structure named Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., and Bursor & Fisher, P.A., as interim co-lead class counsel; Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP as liaison counsel; and Shub & Johns LLC, Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., and Israel David LLC as an interim executive committee.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) allows a district court to designate interim counsel for a proposed class before deciding whether to certify the class. The court considered the factors ordinarily used to select class counsel: the work counsel had done investigating the claims, their relevant experience, their knowledge of the applicable law, the resources they would commit, and other matters relevant to their ability to represent the proposed class fairly and adequately.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Lowey Dannenberg and Bursor & Fisher had conducted extensive research and investigation, including reviewing news sources, press releases, and public information and making Freedom of Information Act requests to the Federal Trade Commission. Their investigation informed the allegations and complaint.
The court also found that both firms had relevant experience in complex and consumer class actions. Lowey Dannenberg had experience leading complex class actions and handling class-certification and summary-judgment motions in consumer privacy cases. Bursor & Fisher had experience with consumer class actions, consumer fraud, telecommunications, and other complex litigation.
The court found that the firms had sufficient knowledge of the applicable law. Lowey Dannenberg’s team included leaders of its data-breach and privacy practice, while Bursor & Fisher had extensive experience litigating and trying consumer-protection class actions. The court further found that both firms had the financial resources and technical infrastructure needed for a complex class action, including Lowey Dannenberg’s electronic-discovery resources and expertise.
The court approved the proposed supporting counsel structure because the firms had experience handling complex class actions and the co-lead firms could effectively divide and supervise the work. The court therefore granted the motion and made all requested appointments.
Order and responsibilities
The court granted Lowey Dannenberg and Bursor & Fisher responsibility for and authority over pleadings and motions; the scope and conduct of discovery; communications with the court, defense counsel, plaintiffs, and plaintiffs’ attorneys; supervision and monitoring of additional plaintiffs’ counsel; use of experts; settlement discussions, subject to required court approval; assessment of litigation costs; review of counsel’s monthly time and expense reports; allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs; and general oversight of the litigation.
The court stated that the two interim co-lead firms would remain accountable for these responsibilities until a class was certified and class counsel was appointed on a non-interim basis. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin signed the order granting the motion.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.