Summary
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denies centralization of the Salesforce customer data security breach actions in MDL No. 3164. The Panel grants centralization of the TransUnion-related actions in MDL No. 3170 and transfers actions pending outside the Northern District of Illinois to that district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The Panel assigns the TransUnion MDL to Judge Robert W. Gettleman and declines to separate and remand claims against non-TransUnion defendants at this stage.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the actions involving multiple Salesforce customers should be centralized under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in a single multi-defendant MDL.
- Whether the actions arising from the TransUnion data breach should be centralized in a separate MDL.
- Which transferee district and judge should be selected for the TransUnion MDL.
- Whether claims against non-TransUnion defendants in the Schedule B actions should be separated and remanded rather than transferred with the TransUnion-related actions.
Holdings
- Centralization of the actions listed on Schedule A in MDL No. 3164 was not necessary under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 because the actions presented few common questions of fact and centralization would hinder rather than promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
- The actions listed on Schedule B involved common questions of fact, and centralization of MDL No. 3170 in the Northern District of Illinois would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
- The Northern District of Illinois was the appropriate transferee district for MDL No. 3170, and Judge Robert W. Gettleman was selected to conduct the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
- The Panel declined to separate and remand the claims against Farmers Insurance, Pandora, Salesforce, and Workday at that stage, leaving the transferee judge to determine whether separation and remand were appropriate after examining how each complaint was pleaded.
Key quotations
“In our view, a multi-defendant Salesforce MDL will hinder, rather than promote, the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.” (at 4)
“In contrast to the expansive request for a multi-defendant Salesforce MDL, we are persuaded that a TransUnion MDL is appropriate.” (at 5)
“We select Judge Robert W. Gettleman, who presides over two TransUnion actions, as the transferee judge.” (at 6)
Factual background
The underlying actions arise from social-engineering attacks that allegedly enabled threat actors to access Salesforce databases controlled by Salesforce customers, including Allianz, Farmers Insurance, Louis Vuitton, and TransUnion. The Salesforce-customer breaches occurred at different times and involved allegedly different methods of access, employee conduct, security procedures, responses, and categories of affected personally identifiable information. The Schedule B actions against TransUnion arose from the same TransUnion breach and presented common factual questions concerning TransUnion's duties, the execution of the attack, its preventive procedures, and its response.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs in five actions moved to centralize 41 Salesforce-customer actions in MDL No. 3164. TransUnion later moved to centralize 53 actions arising from the TransUnion breach in MDL No. 3170. After briefing, the MDL No. 3164 movants sought to withdraw their motion, but the Panel denied that request because other plaintiffs had supported centralization. Following briefing and a hearing session, the Panel denied centralization of the Salesforce actions and transferred the Schedule B actions outside the Northern District of Illinois to that district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in MDL No. 3170.
Remand instructions
The actions listed on Schedule B that were pending outside the Northern District of Illinois were transferred to that district and, with that court's consent, assigned to Judge Robert W. Gettleman for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in MDL No. 3170. The Panel did not order immediate separation and remand of claims against non-TransUnion defendants; Judge Gettleman may later determine whether such separation and remand are appropriate.