Summary
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation orders centralization of customer data security breach actions involving PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. and PowerSchool Group LLC. The Panel finds common factual questions concerning the cybersecurity incident, data-security practices, and breach notifications, and transfers the actions to the Southern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before Judge Roger T. Benitez. The Faircloth action is listed among the transferred cases on Schedule A.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the related actions involve common questions of fact warranting centralization under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
- Whether centralization in the Southern District of California would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
- Whether informal coordination or transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 would be preferable to multidistrict centralization.
Holdings
- The actions listed on Schedule A involve common questions of fact, and centralization is warranted because it will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
- Informal coordination was not the most efficient method for resolving the litigation because the parties had not shown that transfer under § 1404 would be uncontested, and the authorities cited against centralization involved materially different circumstances.
- The Southern District of California is an appropriate transferee district for the centralized litigation.
Key quotations
“These actions share factual questions arising from a recent cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to PowerSchool’s Student Information System software, which schools use to store current and former students’ and staff members’ personal information.”
“Centralization will avoid the possibility of inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the Southern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Roger T. Benitez for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.”
Factual background
The litigation arises from unauthorized access to PowerSchool's Student Information System, which schools use to store personal information concerning current and former students and staff. The plaintiffs include students, students' guardians, and school staff seeking overlapping nationwide and statewide class actions. The cases involve substantially identical claims for negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, with discovery expected to concern the breach, PowerSchool's data-security practices, and notification of affected individuals.
Procedural history
The Panel considered the parties' written submissions and held a hearing session. It concluded that the actions shared common factual questions arising from a cybersecurity incident involving PowerSchool's Student Information System and that centralization would promote convenience, efficiency, and consistent pretrial rulings. The Panel transferred the actions listed on Schedule A to the Southern District of California and assigned them, with that court's consent, to Judge Roger T. Benitez.