Allen v. Blackbaud Inc

CourtDistrict Court, D. South Carolina
DecidedMarch 5, 2021
Docket3:20-cv-02930
StatusUnknown

This text of Allen v. Blackbaud Inc (Allen v. Blackbaud Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

forth in CMO No. 5. This protocol covers those submissions. A. Compensable Common Benefit Work “Common Benefit Work” includes all work done and expenses incurred that inure to the common benefit of Plaintiffs in this MDL. All services rendered on behalf of the Class must be specifically authorized by Co-Lead Counsel in writing prior to work being performed. Submission of monthly time reports and expenses does not constitute acceptance of the reported time and expenses. Examples of compensable and non-compensable work include, but are not limited to: • Co-Lead Counsel/PSC/Liaison Counsel Meetings: Co-Lead Counsel, PSC members, and Liaison Counsel shall use their discretion to limit the number of conference calls and group meetings that include multiple counsel. They shall also use their discretion to limit participation to indispensable attendees. • Consolidated Pleadings and Briefs: (i) factual and legal research and preparation of consolidated class action complaints and related briefing; (ii) responding to inquiries from class members; (iii) communications with clients in response to Co- Lead Counsel’s requests regarding proposed class representatives; (iv) comments and suggestions regarding the consolidated class action complaints and briefs; and (v) class-related issues and briefing related thereto are compensable. • Depositions: While it is impracticable to impose inflexible rules to cover every conceivable situation, Co-Lead Counsel shall exercise discretion, judgment, and prudence to designate the appropriate number of attorneys to participate in any given deposition commensurate with the nature of that deposition, so as to avoid over-staffing. Thus, for example, the deposition of a causation expert proffered by Defendants would typically justify the assignment of more attorneys than would the defense of the deposition of one of Plaintiffs’ fact witnesses, which would typically require one or two attorneys and one paraprofessional. Time and expenses for Participating Counsel not designated as one of the authorized questioners or otherwise authorized to attend the deposition by Co-Lead Counsel may not be considered Common Benefit Work but, rather, considered as attending on behalf of such counsel’s individual clients. Unnecessary attendance by counsel may not be compensated in any fee application to the court. • Periodic MDL Status Conferences: The court intends to hold periodic status conferences to ensure that the litigation moves forward efficiently, and that legal issues are resolved through formal rulings or guidance from the court. Individual attorneys are free to attend any status conference held in open court to stay up-to- date on the status of the litigation, but except for Co-Lead Counsel, Liaison Counsel, and members of the PSC (or their designees), attending and listening to such conferences is not compensable Common Benefit Work. All attorneys have an obligation to keep themselves informed about the litigation so that they can best represent their respective clients. Mere attendance at a status conference by non- participating counsel absent approval by Co-Lead Counsel will not be considered common benefit time, and expenses incurred in relation will not be considered common benefit expenses. The attorneys designated by Co-Lead Counsel to address issues that will be raised at a given status conference or requested by Co- Lead Counsel to be present at a status conference are working for the common benefit, and their time will be considered common benefit.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Allen v. Blackbaud Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-blackbaud-inc-scd-2021.