IN RE: GE/CBPS DATA BREACH LITIGATION

Background

Steven Fowler and Canon Business Process Services, Inc. and General Electric Company entered into a settlement agreement resolving the data-breach class action. On August 24, 2022, the court had conditionally certified a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The class included the 10,392 individuals identified on the settlement-class list as people to whom GE sent letters stating that information about them may have been compromised in the data incident announced in March 2020.

The court considered the settlement agreement, Fowler’s motion for final approval, Fowler’s motion concerning attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, and a service award, the parties’ arguments, the record, and the final-approval hearing held on February 22, 2023.

Settlement Approval

The court found that the notice provided to the settlement class—including mailed notice and a settlement website—complied with Rule 23 and due process. The court stated that the defendants properly and timely notified government officials as required by the Class Action Fairness Act and that more than 90 days had passed since that notice.

The court finally approved the settlement in all respects. It found the settlement fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the settlement class. In reaching that conclusion, the court considered the litigation’s complexity, expense, and likely duration; the class’s response; the stage of the case and discovery completed; the risks of proving liability and damages; the risks of maintaining the class through trial; the defendants’ ability to pay a larger judgment; and the settlement’s reasonableness compared with possible recoveries and the risks of litigation. The court also found that the class representative and class counsel adequately represented the class and that the settlement resulted from arm’s-length negotiations without collusion.

The order states that no individuals submitted timely requests for exclusion, although the names field for excluded individuals appears as “N/A.”

Dismissal and Release

The court directed the parties to implement the settlement agreement and incorporated that agreement into the final judgment. It dismissed the action “on the merits and with prejudice.” The order also states that the matter was dismissed with prejudice and without costs, except that the court retained jurisdiction until the settlement’s effective date over matters concerning the settlement’s administration, completion, enforcement, and interpretation.

Upon the settlement’s effective date, Fowler and each settlement-class member who did not opt out—including members who did not submit claims—released the defendants and other released entities from claims arising from or related to the data incident or the same underlying facts. The release covered, among other things, claims involving negligence, contract, privacy, fraud, consumer-protection laws, and failure to provide adequate breach notice, as well as requests for damages, injunctions, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. The release did not cover claims by class members who timely excluded themselves or claims seeking to enforce the settlement.

The release and settlement were to have preclusive effect, meaning they would prevent covered claims from being brought again. The order permanently barred settlement-class members from filing, prosecuting, intervening in, or participating in lawsuits based on the released claims.

Fees and Service Award

The court adjudged payment of $321,179.52 for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses reasonable under the multi-factor standard used in the Second Circuit. The payment was to be made as provided in the settlement agreement.

The court also adjudged a service award to Fowler reasonable and justified to compensate him for his efforts and commitment on behalf of the settlement class. The amount appears in the opinion as “$_1_,5_0_0_,” which appears to be corrupted text; the opinion does not present that figure cleanly.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court approved a settlement and dismissed the action without deciding whether the defendants were legally liable. The order expressly states that the settlement was not an admission of liability and that the court made no finding of liability or wrongdoing. The court entered final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and stated that the judgment resolved all claims against all parties.