Plaintiffs Seek to Block Transfers to MOVEit MDL; Defendants Back Consolidation
Two plaintiffs filed notices of opposition to conditional transfer order 27 (CTO-27) in In Re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (docket 3083) Friday, and three defendants opposed plaintiffs’ motions to vacate CTO-23 Wednesday, said filings before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) involving the Progress Software Corp. (PSC) MOVEit file transfer software data breach in May.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Brandon Roane, who opposes CTO-27, named Garrett Regional Medical Center, but not PSC, in his Nov. 20 class action (docket 1:24-cv-00141) removed from Circuit Court for Garrett County, Maryland, to U.S. District Court for Maryland in Baltimore Jan. 16. Theodora Morris sued Data Media Associates Aug. 30, and not PSC, in her negligence class action (docket 8:24-cv-00080) removed from Orange County Superior Court to U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana. The cases were among five transferred to the MDL Dec. 13 for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs for Massachusetts.
PSC and Pension Benefits Information (PBI), meanwhile, submitted responses Wednesday in opposition to plaintiffs’ motions to vacate CTO-23. Seven plaintiffs filed notices opposing CTO-23 in December (see 2312200042). PBI's opposition to plaintiff Sean Carlblom’s motion to vacate CTO-23 said transfer of Carlblom’s action (3:23-cv-02167) to the Boston court is warranted because it shares common questions of fact with the cases in the MDL and transfer will promote judicial efficiency.
Carlblom “fails to acknowledge the decision and conclusions” of the JPML in creating the MDL, “essentially presenting his argument as if an MDL does not already exist,” said the response. Carlblom’s argument “that no common discovery exists because his damages are unique to him overlooks his burden to prove PBI’s liability,” said the response: “Damages are not the only issue to be litigated in this case.” Also, Carlblom’s focus on “venue and preference to litigate in his home county ignores the purpose of the MDL and does not overcome the justification for transfer,” it said.
Though plaintiff Brad Yourglich sued PBI, and not PSC or another party, “the Panel has made it clear that such a circumstance does not defeat centralization,” said PSC's response to Yourglich’s motion to vacate CTO-23. The panel “has already ruled that 'the MOVEit vulnerability is at the core of all cases’ such that it would be ‘impossible’ to 'disentangle the allegations against Progress'” from those against other defendants, said the response.
PBI has indicated it “intends to join” PSC as “'an additional defendant’ in cases against it where Progress is not named,” and PBI “has already brought at least four third-party complaints against Progress,” the response said. If PBI joins PSC in the Yourglich action, PSC “will be forced to separately defend itself in the MDL and the Yourglich Action in the Southern District of California,” it said. That will result in inefficiencies that the MDL “was designed to prevent,” it said.
Similarly, Columbia University opposes plaintiff Alexandra Lardis’ motion to vacate CTO-23 (see 2401040007), saying conducting an “entirely separate proceeding for Columbia, separate from the MOVEit MDL, will … waste the resources of the parties, their counsel and the courts.” Lardis alleges Columbia disclosed her private information to PSC via MOVEit, while implying her data was also affected by a breach of MOVEit with National Student Clearinghouse, said the response.
Though National Student Clearinghouse “is already a defendant with a case pending in the MOVEit MDL for the same alleged incident that Plaintiff suggests impacted her data,” Lardis believes her claims “should be held separate from the MOVEit MDL,” said the Columbia response. Lardis argued that (1) her claims are so unique that they overwhelm common issues with other actions pending in the MOVEit MDL (despite being virtually identical to the claims in those pending actions); and (2) transfer will not promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions,” the response said.
Lardis’ arguments lack merit, the response said. Lardis’ complaint relies on the same factual allegations and legal claims regarding the MOVEit breach as “hundreds of cases already centralized” in the MDL, “regardless of her protestations about her supposedly unique allegations,” it said. The JPML has already transferred other MOVEit matters with allegations that defendants violated their own policies, the same allegations that Lardis “claims makes her unique,” the response said. Transfer will promote the “just and efficient conduct of the actions because it would prevent duplicative discovery, avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, and will conserve judicial resources,” it said.