Allen v. Blackbaud Inc

District Court, D. South Carolina·Decided March 5, 2021·No. 3:20-cv-02930·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION

) Case No.: 3:20-mn-02972-JMC ) IN RE: BLACKBAUD, INC., ) MDL No. 2972 CUSTOMER DATA BREACH ) LITIGATION ) CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 6 ) (PROTOCOL FOR COMMON BENEFIT ) WORK AND EXPENSES) )

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS By this Order, the following protocol shall govern all common benefit work and expenses in this action, including, among other issues, the exercise of billing judgment; the maintenance of contemporaneous, detailed time records; the periodic reporting of fees, expenses, and/or costs; staffing; and rules for attendance at court hearings.1 I. ADOPTION OF CASE MANAGEMENT PROTOCOLS FOR COMMON BENEFIT WORK

The court hereby adopts the following guidelines for the management of case-staffing, timekeeping, cost reimbursement, and related common benefit issues. The recovery of common benefit attorneys’ fees and cost reimbursements will be limited to “Participating Counsel.” “Participating Counsel” shall be defined as Co-Lead Counsel, Liaison Counsel, Chair of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, and members of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (Chair of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee and the members of the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee are collectively referred to as the “PSC”) (See ECF No. 35), as well as non-leadership counsel, as authorized by Co-Lead Counsel or approved by the court to perform common benefit work at the

1 Nothing in this Order shall be interpreted to affect any proceedings other than those involving the authorities, duties, responsibilities, guidelines, and rules of and for Plaintiffs’ counsel, as discussed herein. direction of Co-Lead Counsel or the court pursuant to Case Management Order No. 5 (“CMO No. 5”). If and to the extent that this litigation is certified as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and resolved, by judgment after trial or settlement, any award of fees and costs for common benefit work will be governed by the standards and procedures set forth in Rule 23,

including Rule 23(h). In any event, no award or payment of common benefit fees or costs shall be made without this court’s approval. Participating Counsel shall be eligible to receive an award of common benefit attorneys’ fees and an award of costs and expenses only if the time expended, costs incurred, and activity in question were (a) for the common benefit of Plaintiffs; (b) timely submitted; and (c) reasonable in the determination of Co-Lead Counsel and ultimately the court. Costs or expenses that fall within the limitations set forth herein shall not be deemed presumptively reasonable, and the court retains its discretion to evaluate any costs or expenses submitted by counsel for reasonableness. Participating Counsel, as defined above, shall agree to the terms and conditions herein,

including submitting to this court’s jurisdiction and agreeing that this court has plenary authority regarding the award and allocation of common benefit attorneys’ fees and award of expenses in this matter. Any counsel seeking an award of fees and expenses for work in this action will submit to Co-Lead Counsel monthly common benefit time and expense submissions. Co-Lead Counsel shall audit such submissions for compliance with the directives set forth in this Order, and inform Participating Counsel when their submissions do not comply with the directives set forth in this Order. Co-Lead Counsel’s auditing responsibility notwithstanding, the ultimate determination of what is compensable common benefit work, and the extent or rate at which it is compensable, is within the discretion of the court. In the event that Participating Counsel are unsure if the action they are about to undertake is considered common benefit work, they shall ask Co-Lead Counsel in advance as to whether such time or expense may be compensable. Beginning on April 30, 2021, Co-Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel shall submit in camera quarterly reports to the court reflecting hours billed in this matter by all Plaintiffs in accordance with the court’s directive set

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Allen v. Blackbaud Inc, (D.S.C. 2021).

Allen v. Blackbaud Inc (Allen v. Blackbaud Inc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Washington Public Power Supply System Securities Litigation. Class Chemical Bank, in Its Representative Capacity as Trustee for Bondholders, and Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Specthrie & Lerach Molloy, Jones & Donahue, P.C. v. City of Seattle Oregon Public Entities, Benton Rural Electric Association, Washington Washington Public Power Supply System R.W. Beck and Associates Ebasco Services Incorporated United Engineers & Constructors, Inc. Director Participants' Committee Public Utility District No. 1, of Klickitat County United States of America, on Behalf of Itself and Its Agency, the Bonneville Power Administration State of Washington Bonneville Power Administration, Class and Lawrence Laub v. Continental Assurance Company v. City of Seattle Oregon Public Entities, Benton Rural Electric Association, Washington Washington Public Power Supply System R.W. Beck and Associates Ebasco Services Incorporated United Engineers & Constructors, Inc. Director Participants' Committee Public Utility District No. 1, of Klickitat County United States of America, on Behalf of Itself and Its Agency, the Bonneville Power Administration State of Washington Bonneville Power Administration, Class and Continental Assurance Company v. Berger & Montague, P.A. v. City of Seattle Oregon Public Entities, Benton Rural Electric Association, Washington Washington Public Power Supply System R.W. Beck and Associates Ebasco Services Incorporated United Engineers & Constructors, Inc. Director Participants' Committee Public Utility District No. 1, of Klickitat County United States of America, on Behalf of Itself and Its Agency, the Bonneville Power Administration State of Washington Bonneville Power Administration
19 F.3d 1291 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)