Culbertson v. Deloitte Consulting LLP

Background

The plaintiffs brought this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Deloitte Consulting LLP. The final judgment concerned a settlement for a class of 237,675 individuals identified on the settlement-class list in Illinois, Colorado, and Ohio. According to the judgment, state agencies notified those individuals by letter or email between approximately May 18 and May 21, 2020, that personal information submitted to pandemic-related unemployment-claim systems may have been inadvertently exposed in a data security incident.

The court had previously granted preliminary approval, preliminarily certified a settlement class, approved a notice plan, and scheduled final approval hearings. The court held those hearings on January 31 and February 15, 2022, and entered an order granting final approval and certifying the settlement class on February 16, 2022.

Class certification and settlement approval

The court finally certified the settlement class for settlement purposes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It found that the requirements for a class action were met, including numerosity, common legal and factual questions, typical claims, adequate representation, predominance of common questions, an ascertainable class, and superiority of the class-action process.

The court found that the settlement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations assisted by mediator Wayne R. Andersen of JAMS and that there was no evidence of collusion. It also found that notice and the claim-submission procedures complied with Rule 23 and due-process requirements, and that notice to the appropriate state and federal officials satisfied 28 U.S.C. § 1715.

Eleven settlement-class members submitted timely and proper exclusion requests. The court ordered that they be excluded and stated that they would not be bound by the settlement or entitled to its benefits. The court overruled one objection.

The court finally approved the settlement and directed the parties to implement it. It found the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable, including the representation of class members, the negotiation process, the relief provided, the distribution and claims-processing methods, the treatment of class members relative to one another, and the terms concerning attorneys’ fees. Settlement-class members who did not opt out were bound by the settlement and its release. A class member who did not submit a timely and valid claim form could not receive proceeds from the net settlement fund but remained bound by the settlement and barred from bringing or participating in an action concerning the released claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action with prejudice and without costs to any party except as expressly provided in the settlement agreement. The plaintiffs and settlement-class members released the released parties from the released claims. The judgment also stated that the settlement was not an admission or evidence of liability, wrongdoing, or the truth of the plaintiffs’ claims.

The court granted Settlement Class Counsel’s application for fees and costs and awarded $1,649,835 in attorneys’ fees and $20,509.34 in costs. It also awarded each settlement-class representative a $1,500 service award. The court retained jurisdiction over matters involving the interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation, and enforcement of the settlement agreement.

If the settlement agreement terminates, the judgment provides that settlement-class certification will be vacated and the parties will return to their prior positions without prejudice to positions they could have asserted before the settlement. The clerk was directed to enter the judgment under Rule 54(b).