In re GERSON LEHRMAN GROUP, INC. DATA SECURITY INCIDENT LITIGATION
- Katherine Failla
- 1:24-cv-02194
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In re Gerson Lehrman Data Security Litigation: Judge Failla scheduled a conference, denied consolidation without prejudice, and stayed response deadlines.
The plaintiffs and Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc. in the four related cases, along with their counsel. The order also affects the timing of the defendant’s responses and the process for possible consolidation and appointment of lead parties and counsel.
What happened
In re Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc. Data Security Incident Litigation involves four related cases brought against Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc. by plaintiffs seeking to represent themselves and similarly situated people.
The court scheduled an initial pretrial conference for May 30, 2024, and directed the parties to propose a plan for consolidating the cases, setting deadlines, and addressing future lead-plaintiff and lead-counsel motions. The court also stayed the defendant’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaints.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Hansen’s motion to consolidate the cases and appoint interim lead class counsel without prejudice to renewing it later. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- In re GERSON LEHRMAN GROUP, INC. DATA SECURITY INCIDENT LITIGATION · No. 1:24-cv-02194
- Katherine Failla
- Apr. 24, 2024
Background
The court identified four related cases against Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc.: Hansen, Whelan, Knapp, and Miller. The court had accepted the Miller case as related to the earlier Hansen case on April 15, 2024, and later accepted the Whelan and Knapp cases as related to Hansen.
Court’s Orders
The court scheduled an initial pretrial conference for May 30, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. At that conference, the court stated that it would discuss whether to consolidate the cases and any related motions seeking appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
Hansen’s motion to consolidate the cases and appoint interim lead class counsel was denied without prejudice to its later renewal in connection with the parties’ proposed stipulation to consolidate the actions and set scheduling deadlines. The court also stayed Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc.’s deadline to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaints until the court addresses consolidation.
The parties were ordered to confer before the conference and jointly submit a proposed stipulation addressing docketing procedures, a schedule for lead-plaintiff and lead-counsel motions, and the filing of a consolidated amended class-action complaint. They were also required to submit a joint letter describing the action, defenses, legal and factual issues, jurisdiction and venue, deadlines, pending motions, discovery, settlement discussions, and other information relevant to moving the cases toward settlement or trial.
Additional Directions and Disposition
The order included requirements concerning electronic filing registration, attendance by principal trial counsel, compliance with the judge’s individual rules, service of the order on other parties’ attorneys, and proof of that service. It also explained circumstances in which the parties could jointly ask to cancel the initial pretrial conference by submitting an agreed schedule and proposed case-management materials.
The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 6 and 9 in case number 24 Civ. 2194. The order addressed case management and scheduling; it did not decide the merits of the underlying data-security claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.