Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Equifax Reply Amicus Brief Transcript Evidence Showing $4.00 Vs $125.00!
Equifax Reply Amicus Brief Transcript Evidence Showing $4.00 Vs $125.00!
v.
CIP-1
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 3 of 146
CIP-2
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 4 of 146
CIP-3
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 5 of 146
CIP-4
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 6 of 146
CIP-5
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 7 of 146
CIP-6
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 8 of 146
CIP-7
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 9 of 146
CIP-8
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 10 of 146
CIP-9
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 11 of 146
CIP-10
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 12 of 146
CIP-11
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 13 of 146
CIP-12
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 14 of 146
CIP-13
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 15 of 146
CIP-14
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 16 of 146
CIP-15
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 17 of 146
CIP-16
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 18 of 146
CIP-17
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 19 of 146
CIP-18
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 20 of 146
CIP-19
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 21 of 146
CIP-20
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 22 of 146
CIP-21
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 23 of 146
CIP-22
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 24 of 146
CIP-23
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 25 of 146
CIP-24
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 26 of 146
CIP-25
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 27 of 146
CIP-26
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 28 of 146
CIP-27
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 29 of 146
CIP-28
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 30 of 146
CIP-29
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 31 of 146
CIP-30
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 32 of 146
CIP-31
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 33 of 146
CIP-32
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 34 of 146
CIP-33
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 35 of 146
CIP-34
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 36 of 146
CIP-35
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 37 of 146
CIP-36
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 38 of 146
CIP-37
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 39 of 146
CIP-38
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 40 of 146
CIP-39
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 41 of 146
CIP-40
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 42 of 146
CIP-41
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 43 of 146
CIP-42
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 44 of 146
CIP-43
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 45 of 146
CIP-44
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 46 of 146
CIP-45
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 47 of 146
CIP-46
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 48 of 146
CIP-47
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 49 of 146
CIP-48
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 50 of 146
CIP-49
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 51 of 146
CIP-50
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 52 of 146
CIP-51
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 53 of 146
CIP-52
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 54 of 146
CIP-53
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 55 of 146
CIP-54
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 56 of 146
CIP-55
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 57 of 146
CIP-56
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 58 of 146
CIP-57
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 59 of 146
CIP-58
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 60 of 146
CIP-59
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 61 of 146
CIP-60
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 62 of 146
CIP-61
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 63 of 146
CIP-62
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 64 of 146
CIP-63
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 65 of 146
CIP-64
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 66 of 146
CIP-65
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 67 of 146
CIP-66
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 68 of 146
CIP-67
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 69 of 146
CIP-68
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 70 of 146
CIP-69
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 71 of 146
CIP-70
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 72 of 146
CIP-71
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 73 of 146
CIP-72
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 74 of 146
CIP-73
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 75 of 146
CIP-74
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 76 of 146
CIP-75
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 77 of 146
CIP-76
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 78 of 146
CIP-77
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 79 of 146
CIP-78
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 80 of 146
CIP-79
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 81 of 146
CIP-80
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 82 of 146
CIP-81
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 83 of 146
CIP-82
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 84 of 146
CIP-83
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 85 of 146
CIP-84
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 86 of 146
CIP-85
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 87 of 146
CIP-86
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 88 of 146
CIP-87
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 89 of 146
CIP-88
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 90 of 146
CIP-89
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 91 of 146
CIP-90
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 92 of 146
CIP-91
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 93 of 146
CIP-92
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 94 of 146
CIP-93
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 95 of 146
CIP-94
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 96 of 146
CIP-95
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 97 of 146
CIP-96
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 98 of 146
Commissioner, 293 F.3d 128, 130-31 (3d Cir. 2002) (Alito, J.). “Even
when the other side refuses to consent to an amicus filing, most courts
of appeals freely grant leave to file, provided the brief is timely and
Practice § 12:20 (2020 ed.). As then-Judge Alito put it, for a variety of
1
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 99 of 146
as an amicus because he has too much interest in the appeal, and his
arguments have merit and none of the factual claims are true, Mr.
2
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 100 of 146
Neonatology Assocs., 293 F.3d at 131; see id. (“It is not easy to envisage
undermine their impartiality. And the fact that most amici support a
reversal.”).
Settling Parties point out that Mr. Edelson represented the City of
Parties appear to believe there is some importance to the fact that the
City of Chicago chose to settle its own claims rather than object to the
3
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 101 of 146
consumer settlement at issue here, but that makes little sense. First,
litigation path in the MDL. As for the result, Mr. Edelson was retained
counsel and advanced the interests of his client to its satisfaction. His
Settling Parties, the views expressed in the proposed amicus brief are
litigation. (Spector Opp. at 6-7.) But their support for this point is
from Twitter, which, at the time, was seen by a few hundred people. (Id.
form notice), was “misleading” because it failed to account for the value
4
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 102 of 146
(Edelson Br. 11-12; Frank Br. 28-32; 44-45.) Edelson’s failure to agree
Counsel in an email before Mr. Edelson sought leave to file his brief
5
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 103 of 146
this email did not suffice to assuage Class Counsel’s concerns, but Mr.
Action, Inc.2
The Settling Parties next point out that Mr. Edelson is a victim of
Settling Parties cite one. And, if anything, it would appear that current
Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961 (U.S.), the Court heard an appeal from a
unlikely that none of these individuals used Google. This did not
6
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 104 of 146
on the legal issues raised by the appeal and their impact on class action
with forecasting whether any judge on the merits panel may find the
brief useful. “It is often difficult at that point to tell with any accuracy if
at 132. Thus, “if the brief otherwise satisfies the rules, leave should be
freely granted if the brief might in any way be helpful to any member of
the court.” Luther Munford, When does the curiae need an amicus?, 1 J.
7
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 105 of 146
Edelson’s brief isn’t desirable are longer than Mr. Edelson’s proposed
brief itself. They argue both that the proposed brief improperly raises
amicus purportedly should not do. (Spector Opp. 12.) This argument is
omitted from the Equifax brief, and for good reason: all Edelson does is
cite facts from the record; any argument is legal or policy-based, as one
Again and again, the Class Representatives tout the value of the credit-
of their opposition to leave to file. (Id. 15-18.) The value of that relief
8
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 106 of 146
Counsel have known for some time they have a problem on this front.
the record that they wanted to tell people that they would get “up to
$125,” but that Class Counsel opposed that language for the short-form
notice. (Id. at 19:19-21.)3 When these claims came flooding in, Class
Counsel had to ask class members to re-do their claims. (Id. at 14:3-12.)
That step, which addressed issues which could have been foreseen (and
9
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 107 of 146
But the larger point is that all of these issues concern the merits
of the appeal. Indeed, the Settling Parties’ oppositions are belied by the
negligence claim under Georgia law, and the district court’s decision to
allow the parties to disregard any live statutory claims. (Spector Merits
Br. 13, 35-36, 39-41, 42; Equifax Merits Br. 15, 17-24). Thus, in order to
untangle all of the issues raised by the Settling Parties, the motions
judge will essentially need to perform the work of the merits panel,
reviewing all of the briefs and relevant parts of the record. There is no
need to turn this motions practice into a trial run for the appeal. Given
that no one doubts that Mr. Edelson brings a unique perspective to the
appeal, and that his brief discusses the issues raised in this appeal,
leave to file should be granted. See Neonatology Assocs., 293 F.3d at 133
(“If an amicus brief that turns out to be unhelpful is filed, the merits
panel, after studying the case, will often be able to make that
determination without much trouble and can then simply disregard the
amicus brief. On the other hand, if a good brief is rejected, the merits
10
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 108 of 146
647567, at *3 (D. Me. Feb. 23, 2007) (“If denied, the court may be
deprived of the advantage of a good brief, but if granted, the court can
readily decide for itself whether the brief is beneficial. If beneficial, the
CONCLUSION
amicus here. And given that the proposed brief offers a different
perspective on the issues before the Court in this appeal, leave to file
JAY EDELSON,
Ryan D. Andrews
randrews@edelson.com
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Tel: 312.589.6370
Fax: 312.589.6378
11
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 109 of 146
J. Aaron Lawson
alawson@edelson.com
EDELSON PC
123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
San Francisco, California 94107
Tel: 415.212.9300
Fax: 415.373.9435
12
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 110 of 146
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
s/ J. Aaron Lawson
13
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 111 of 146
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
File a Brief Amicus Curiae with the Clerk of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit using the CM/ECF system, which will
s/ J. Aaron Lawson
14
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 112 of 146
Exhibit 1
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 113 of 146 1
4
IN RE: EQUIFAX, INC., CUSTOMER ) Case Number
5 DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION )
) 1:17-md-2800-TWT
6 )
9
***** SEALED TRANSCRIPT *****
10
11
15 Atlanta, Georgia
16
17
18
19
21
22 P r o c e e d i n g s r e c o r d e d b y m e c h a n i c a l s t e n o g r a p h y,
t r a n s c r i p t p r o d u c e d b y c o m p u t e r.
23
1
Appearances:
2
Counsel for Plaintiffs: Kenneth S. Canfield
3 Amy E. Keller
Roy E. Barnes
4 J. Cameron Tribble
Barrett Vahle
5
6
Counsel for Defendant: David L. Balser
7 Phyllis B. Sumner
Robert D. Griest
8 Michelle Kisloff
Edith Ramirez
9
10
Counsel for the Bureau
11 of Consumer Financial
Protection: Akash Desai
12 Jenelle M. Dennis
P. Solange Hilfinger-Pardo
13 Emily Mintz Sachs
14
21
22
23
24
25
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 115 of 146 3
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
4 17-md-2800.
10 Plaintiffs.
19 today.
3 Kisloff and Edith Ramirez are both on the line from Hogan
13 well.
24 that you follow the usual rules. Number one, don't interrupt
1 talking.
7 Van Hise and Beth Blackston from the Illinois A.G.'s office.
16 issue that's arisen regarding the claims that are being made
10 compensation of $125.
15 choice.
23 $31 million.
1 and all of those claims are valid, each claimant would not
11 that have been filed shows that only about 68 percent of the
12 claims have been filed by class members. The rest have been
18 valid, but we're only a week into the claims period and with
12 is facing us now.
21 was entitled to $125 and all they had to do was file a claim.
24 settlements on Monday.
3 sign up.
16 and might not see much benefit from signing up for more
24 reasonable supposition.
4 service they have at the time the claim is filed, and they
8 person attests that they had credit monitoring and will have
17 night and saw the number of claims that were being made for
2 them that they may only receive a few dollars for alternative
12 inappropriate claims.
21 the people who have already made their selections and decided
23 the same information, in our view, that the rest of the class
10 about the extent of the claims that are being made on the
16 the number of potentially valid claims for time and the $125
20 final.
22 the claims are valid, the amount you receive for time or
24 initial claim."
7 notice that has yet to go out, but that's the e-mail that
10 people know that it's not just an automatic $125 that you
23 Settlement Agreement.
8 amended claim after getting that notice. That way, all class
9 members are given the same notice and have the same
10 information at the time they make the claim, and the people
5 thousand level.
12 objectionable.
16 complete information.
24 it.
12 don't want to put them on the spot, but -- and we'll let them
15 position. And after hearing from Mr. Balser, I'm sure that
17 views.
20 Equifax?
11 approved, it says this, and I quote, "If there are more than
15 proportional basis."
1 that we're seeing here on the claims that have come in.
14 it.
16 claim form had the language in it once they now want to add
17 back. They took it out. Now they want to put it back, and
20 tried to add the words "up to $125" on the claim form, but
7 the claim form and the proposal that claimants identify their
8 credit-monitoring provider.
11 problem with the proposal to allow people who have chosen the
23 settlement.
4 alters the deal. They're changing the rules after the first
5 quarter has been played because they don't like the score.
8 phenomenon.
10 could review the claims, and then if they didn't like the way
11 the claims came in, they could offer the people who choose
14 that. Our C.E.O. would not have approved it and our board of
20 change the rules of the game if they didn't like the way the
18 Canfield describes.
24 e-mail notice.
2 received e-mail notice. When they get it, the notice can
3 the claim form, and it's our view that those people shouldn't
13 claims.
16 and to the notice and the other changes that they proposed.
20 notice plan.
15 concerns. But they want to impose all of the risk and all of
17 materially alters the deal that we struck, that our board and
18 that this Court approved, and the Court should not impose
22 want to be heard?
3 be heard?
7 certainly the magnitude that this issue has reached the press
8 and consumers and the claims rate here; but we certainly also
16 larger A.G. group. I will defer to comment from the FTC and
17 CFPB representatives.
19 want to be heard?
20 (No response.)
23 (No response.)
1 mute.
7 to deal with.
13 that the Court has approved has actually gone out. So this
25 Agreement to be modified.
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 140 of 146 28
15 e-mail that's telling them about some things and that bear
6 says, you know, on some level, that has some facial appeal.
8 because, for one thing, given all the massive publicity and
11 figure out.
15 service, the one they had in place at the time they filed
17 that and give the name. Other class members probably won't,
18 because when you send out that kind of e-mail, you don't get
21 But the fact that they don't send back the name of
8 not too much notice. The problem is that class members are
16 claims that are out there now, if you just took that
22 notice.
6 will get.
15 check?"
25 service.
Case: 20-10249 Date Filed: 09/28/2020 Page: 144 of 146 32
8 service; and that if they choose, they may choose rather than
16 procedure.
20 Judge. The only -- about what you said. The only question
22 order.
9 can come back. But we're willing to do this whatever way the
18 fact, an order of the Court and that you are directing the
2 call it?
5 participate today.
7 the conference call, and thank you very much, counsel. And
10 - - - - - - - -
11 Reporter's Certification
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25