In re PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. and PowerSchool Group, LLC Customer Data Security Breach Litigation

In re PowerSchool Customer Data Security Breach Litigation · United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · April 18, 2025 · No. MDL No. 3149

Summary

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation orders the centralization of actions arising from the PowerSchool customer data security breach. The Panel transfers the actions listed on Schedule A to the Southern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings and assigns them to Judge Roger T. Benitez. The order identifies common factual and legal issues involving the breach, data security practices, notification, negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

Court
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Writing for the Court
Karen K. Caldwell; Nathaniel M. Gorton; Matthew F. Kennelly; David C. Norton; Dale A. Kimball; Madeline Cox Arleo
Jurisdiction
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Decision date
April 18, 2025
Docket number
MDL No. 3149
Procedural posture
Plaintiffs moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize 32 related data-security-breach actions pending in three federal districts, along with related actions, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Precedential value
transfer order
Parties
Plaintiffs in the Western District of Missouri J.J. action listed on Schedule A v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., PowerSchool Group LLC, Responding plaintiffs opposing centralization
Disposition
other

Topics

civil procedureclass actionsdiscovery disputenegligencebreach of contract

Practice areas

multidistrict litigationcivil proceduredata security litigationclass actions

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the actions involve common questions of fact warranting centralization under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
  2. Whether centralization in the Southern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
  3. Whether informal coordination or transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 would be a more efficient alternative to § 1407 centralization.

Holdings

  1. 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.
  2. Informal coordination was not shown to be the most efficient means of resolving the litigation, and the Panel declined to deny centralization on that basis.
  3. The Southern District of California is an appropriate transferee district, and the actions were transferred there for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before Judge Roger T. Benitez.

Key quotations

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that the actions listed on Schedule A involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Southern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
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 actions arise from unauthorized access to PowerSchool's Student Information System, which schools use to store personal information concerning current and former students and staff. Plaintiffs seek certification of overlapping nationwide and statewide classes and assert substantially identical claims for negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Discovery will concern how and when the breach occurred, the adequacy of PowerSchool's data-security practices, and the timing and adequacy of breach notifications.

Procedural history

The Panel considered the parties' written submissions and held a hearing session. It determined that the actions shared common factual questions arising from the same cybersecurity incident and ordered transfer of the Schedule A actions to the Southern District of California, with the consent of that court, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before Judge Roger T. Benitez.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…