In re Anne Arundel Data Breach Litigation, 1:25-cv-02274

Multiple class actions (21 total) were filed in Maryland federal court against Anne Arundel Dermatology, P.A. following a data breach that allegedly exposed patients' personal and health information.
The Plaintiff, Correa, alleges the defendant delayed notification, did not explain the breach or its risks, and failed to offer adequate assistance.
The lawsuits all allege similar harms (identity theft risks, privacy invasion, costs to mitigate harm) and seek overlapping relief.
Correa moved to consolidate all related cases, appoint interim co-lead and liaison class counsel, and create an executive committee for the plaintiffs.
The defendant did not respond to the motion, and no class member opposed consolidation.
The court considered the appropriateness of consolidation and the appointment of leadership under Federal Rules 42(a) and 23(g).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Consolidation of Actions	All cases arise from the same data breach/public notice and have common factual/legal issues.	No response/argument made.	Granted—actions consolidated into a single proceeding.
Appointment of Co-Lead & Liaison Counsel	Proposed attorneys are well-qualified, experienced, and have investigated claims.	No response/argument made.	Granted—Klinger and Bean as co-leads; Mason as liaison.
Appointment of Executive Committee	An executive committee is necessary to manage the litigation.	No response/argument made.	Denied—no showing of necessity at this stage; may revisit.
Mootness of Other Consolidation Motions	N/A (other plaintiffs also moved to consolidate)	N/A	Other motion denied as moot due to this ruling.

A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckles Rederi v. Tidewater Const. Co., 559 F.2d 928 (4th Cir. 1977) (district courts have broad discretion to consolidate cases)
Arnold v. E. Air Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186 (4th Cir. 1982) (factors to consider for consolidation of cases)