Rosen v. Greylock McKinnon Associates, Inc.
1:24-cv-11880
D. Mass.Jul 9, 2025Check TreatmentDocket
Case 1:24-cv-10797-DJC Document 68 Filed 07/09/25 Pagelofs8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
EASTERN DIVISION
IN RE: GREYLOCK MCKINNON CASE NO. 1:24-CV-10797
ASSOCIATES DATA SECURITY
INCIDENT LITIGAITON CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
OLOSED] FINAL APPROVAL ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED
MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND
APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs submitted to the Court their Unopposed Motion for Final Approval
of Class Settlement Action Settlement and Application for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service
Awards (wp.
WHEREAS, on January 31, 2025, the Court entered its Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Conditionally Certifying Settlement Class, which, inter
alia: (1) preliminarily approved the Settlement; (2) determined that, for purposes of the Settlement
only, the Action should proceed as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23
and certified the Settlement Class; (3) appointed Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; (4) appointed
Raina Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. as Class
Counsel; (5) approved the form and manner of Notice and the Notice Program; (6) approved the
Claim process and Claim Form; and (7) set the Final Approval Hearing date (D.E. 48);
WHEREAS, thereafter, Notice was provided to approximately 20,605 Damages Settlement
Class members in accordance with the Court’s Preliminary Approval Order by direct Postcard
Case 1:24-cv-10797-DJC Document68 Filed 07/09/25 Page2of8
Notice, and the Long Form Notice was available to Settlement Class members on the Settlement
Website or on request to the Settlement Administrator;
WHEREAS, a Notice of Settlement was timely mailed to governmental entities as provided
for in 28 U.S.C, § 1715;
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2025, the Court held a Final Approval Hearing to determine
whether the Settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to consider Class Counsel’s
Application for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Awards;
WHEREAS, based on the foregoing, having considered the papers filed and proceedings
held in connection with the Settlement, having considered all of the other files, records, and
proceedings in the Action, and being otherwise fully advised.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) and
personal jurisdiction over all Parties to the Action, including all Settlement Class Members.
2. This Order incorporates the definitions in the Settlement Agreement and all
capitalized terms used in this Order have the same meanings as set forth in that Agreement, unless
otherwise defined herein.
3. The Notice provided to the Settlement Class in accordance with the Preliminary
Approval Order was the best notice practicable under the circumstances and constituted due and
sufficient notice of the proceedings and matters set forth therein to all persons entitled to notice.
The Notice and Notice Program fully satisfied the requirements of due process, Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, and all other applicable law and rules. The Claims process is also fair, and the
Claim Form is easily understandable.
4. The notice to government entities, as given, complied with 28 ULS.C, § 1715.
Case 1:24-cv-10797-DJC Document 68 Filed 07/09/25 Page 3of8
5. The Settlement is in all respects fair, reasonable, and adequate, after considering all
of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) factors, highlighted by evidence that: (A) the Class
Representatives and Class Counsel have adequately represented the Settlement Class; (B) the
Settlement was negotiated in good faith and at arm’s length among competent, experienced
counsel; (C) the Settlement relief is adequate taking into account each of the factors set forth in
Rule 23(e)(2(C); and (D) the Settlement treats Settlement Class Members equitably relative to
each other. The Settlement was reached after the Parties adequately evaluated and considered their
positions.
6. All Damages Settlement Class Members were provided an adequate opportunity to
request to opt-out from the Settlement or to object to the Settlement in accordance with the
Agreement and the Notice. In finding the Settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, the Court has
also considered that there were no objections to or opt-outs from the Settlement, indicating an
overwhelming positive reaction from the Settlement Class, and the opinion of competent counsel
concerning such matters. The Court has also considered that no objections were made by any of
the governmental entities that received notice under 28 ULS.C, § 1715.
7. [If applicable: A list of the individuals who have opted-out of the Settlement is
attached hereto as Exhibit A. Those individuals will not be bound by the Agreement or the Releases
contained therein.]
8. Based on the information presented to the Court, the Claim process has proceeded
as ordered and consistent with the Agreement and Preliminary Approval Order. All Damages
Settlement Class Members who submitted Valid Claims shall receive their Cash Payment pursuant
to the Settlement’s terms. All Damages Settlement Class Members who did not submit a Claim,
or for whom the Claim is determined to be invalid, shall still be bound by the terms of the
Case 1:24-cv-10797-DJC Document68 _ Filed 07/09/25 Page4of8
Settlement and Releases therein.
9. The distribution plan for Cash Payments proposed by the Parties in the Agreement
is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
10. The Class Representatives and Class Counsel have fairly and adequately
represented and will continue to adequately represent and protect the interests of Settlement Class
Members in connection with the Settlement.
11. Because the Court grants Final Approval of the Settlement set forth in the
Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, the Court authorizes and directs implementation of
all terms and provisions of the Settlement.
12. All Parties to this Action, including all Settlement Class Members, are bound by
the Settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and this Order,
13. — The appointment of Plaintiffs as Class Representatives is affirmed.
14. | The appointment of Raina Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC and Jeff Ostrow of
Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. as Class Counsel is affirmed.
15. The Court affirms its findings that the Settlement Class meets the relevant
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a} and (b)(3) for only the purposes of the
Settlement in that: (1) the number of Settlement Class Members is so numerous that joinder is
impracticable; (2) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement Class Members;
(3) the claims of the Class Representative are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class
Members; (4) the Class Representatives are adequate representatives for the Settlement Class, and
have retained experienced counsel to represent the Settlement Class; (5) the questions of law and
fact common to the Settlement Class Members predominate over any questions affecting any
individual Settlement Class Member; and (6) a class action is superior to the other available
Case 1:24-cv-10797-DJC Document68 Filed 07/09/25 Page5of8
methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Further, the Court concludes the
Settlement Class is ascertainable, based on objective criteria.
16. | Therefore, the Court finally certifies the following Settlement Class:
The Damages Settlement Class means all individuals residing in the United State
whose Social Security number was affected by the Data Incident and who were
mailed notice of the Data Incident by the Defendant or its designee on or prior to
May 1, 2025.
The Injunctive Relief Settlement Class means all individuals residing in the United
Sates whose Private Information was affected by the Data Incident.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) the judges presiding over this Action, and members of
their direct families; (2} the Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors,
predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or their parents have a controlling interest,
and its current or former officers and directors; and (3) Damages Settlement Class Members who
submit a valid request to opt-out prior to the Opt-Out Deadline.
17. Judgment shall be, and hereby is, entered dismissing the Action with prejudice, on
the merits.
18. As of the Effective Date, and in exchange for the relief described in the Settlement,
the Releasing Parties hereby fully and irrevocably release and forever discharge the Released
Parties from the Released Claims.
19. Inconsideration for the Agreement and the consideration set forth therein, Plaintiffs
and Settlement Class Members and Releasing Parties acknowledge that the Releases and the
release herein include potential claims and costs that may not be known or suspected to exist, and
that Plaintiff and the Settlement Class Members hereby agree that all rights under California Civil
Codes § 1798.100 ef seg., § 17200 et seq., and/or § 1542, and any similar law of any state or
territory of the United States, are expressly and affirmatively waived. California Civil Code § 1542
states as follows:
Case 1:24-cv-10797-DJC Document 68 Filed 07/09/25 Page6éof8
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE
CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER
FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN
BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER
SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.
20. If, consistent with the plan of distribution set forth in the Settlement, there are funds
remaining in the Settlement Fund 45 days following the 180-day check negotiation period, all
remaining funds shall be distributed to Future of Privacy Forum, which the Court approves as the
cy pres recipient.
21. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), settlement Class Counsel is
awarded $200,000.00 for attorneys’ fees and $5,177.12 for costs. These payments shall be made
out of the Settlement Fund in accordance with the Agreement. The Court evaluated Class
Counsel’s request using a constructive common fund analysis wnkis First Circuit precedent in
In re Thirteen Appeals Arising out of the San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 56 F.3d 295,
307 (1st Cir.1995), and concludes that amount is appropriate under the factors listed in Mongue
v. Wheatleigh Corp., No. 3:18-cv-30095-KAR, 2024 U.S, Dist. LEXIS 69928, at *13 (D. Mass.
Apr.6, 2024).
22. The Settlement Class Representatives shall be awarded Service Awards in the
amount of $2,500.00 each. The Service Awards shall be payable out of the Settlement Fund in
accordance with the Agreement.
23. Plaintiff and all Settlement Class Members and Releasing Parties, and persons
purporting to act on their behalf, are permanently enjoined from commencing or prosecuting
(either directly, representatively, or in any other capacity) any of the Released Claims against any
of the Released Parties in any action or proceeding in any court, arbitration forum, or tribunal.
Case 1:24-cv-10797-DJC Document68 Filed 07/09/25 Page 7of8
24, This Order, the Agreement, the negotiations leading to the Settlement,
administration of the Settlement, and any pleadings, motions, or other documents specifically
related to the Agreement shall not be: (a) construed as an admission or concession by Defendant
of the truth of any of the allegations in the Action, or of any liability, fault, or wrongdoing of any
kind on the part of Defendant; (b) the subject of discovery or offered into evidence in this Action
or any other action or proceeding for any purpose other than to enforce the Agreement (or for the
purposes set forth in this paragraph); and (c) used in any way as precedent for any purportedly
similar matter involving Defendant. Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall prohibit the offering
or receipt of the Agreement into evidence for purposes of enforcing the Settlement or to support a
defense or counterclaim based on principles of res judicata, collateral estoppel, release, good faith
settlement, judgment bar or reduction, or any other theory of claim preclusion.
25. The Court hereby retains and reserves jurisdiction over: (1) implementation of this
Settlement and any distributions to the Settlement Class Members; (2) the Action, until the
Effective Date, and until each and every act agreed to be performed by the Parties shall have been
performed pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, including the exhibits appended thereto; and
(3) all Parties, for the purpose of enforcing and administering the Settlement. This Order does not,
however, bar Defendant from choosing to seek to enforce the Releases against any Settlement
Class Member in any other court or tribunal.
26. [If applicable: With the exception of those listed on Exhibit A,] all Settlement Class
Members shall be bound by this Ordeg,
27. Without further order of the Court, the Parties may agree to reasonably necessary
extensions of time to implement any of the provisions of the Agreement.
28. There being no just reason for delay, the Clerk of Court is hereby directed to enter
Case 1:24-cv-10797-DJC Document68 Filed 07/09/25 Page 8of8
final judgment forthwith pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 58. ab
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Boston, Massachusetts, this Ta of
Shalu , 2024
wart
JUDGE DENISE J. CASPER |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE