jonathan k. levine (sbn 220289)...andre m. mura (sbn 298541) [email protected] girard sharp llp...

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS 4:15-md-02624-HSG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JONATHAN K. LEVINE (SBN 220289) [email protected] ELIZABETH C. PRITZKER (SBN 146267) [email protected] PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110

DANIEL C. GIRARD (SBN 114826) [email protected] ELIZABETH A. KRAMER (SBN 293129) [email protected] ANDRE M. MURA (SBN 298541) [email protected] GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846

Class Counsel

ERIC J. BUESCHER (SBN 271323) [email protected] COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

IN RE: LENOVO ADWARE LITIGATION This Document Relates to All Cases

Case No. 4:15-md-02624-HSG PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Date: April 18, 2019 Time: 2:00 p.m. Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Courtroom 2, Fourth Floor

Case 4:15-md-02624-HSG Document 248 Filed 02/14/19 of 22

i PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 4:15-md-02624-HSG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ................................................................................................. V

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ..........................................................................1

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................1

II. OVERVIEW OF THE LITIGATION ..........................................................................................1

A. Procedural History ............................................................................................................ 2

1. Settlement with Superfish .....................................................................................2

2. Continued Litigation Against Lenovo ..................................................................3

3. Class Certification and Subsequent Litigation ......................................................3

4. Settlement with Lenovo ........................................................................................4

5. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement ...............................................................4

III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................5

A. Legal Standard for Final Approval of Class Settlements.................................................. 5

B. The Settlement Is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate and Should Be Approved ................. 6

1. The Settlement Provides Considerable Relief to Class Members ........................6

2. Class Member’s Positive Reaction Favors Final Approval ..................................7

3. The Settlement Eliminates Significant Risk to the Class ......................................8

4. The Stage of the Proceedings and Extent of Discovery Supports Final Approval ...............................................................................................................9

5. The Settlement Was Negotiated at Arm’s-length and Is Based on the Recommendations of Experienced Counsel .......................................................10

C. The Court-Approved Notice Program Satisfies Due Process and Adequately Provided Notice to Class Members................................................................................. 11

1. The Court Approved Plaintiffs’ Notice Plan ......................................................12

2. The Notice Program Satisfies Due Process ........................................................12

D. The Plan of Allocation is Fair, Reasonable and Adequate and Should Be Approved .... 14

IV. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................................15


iii PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 4:15-md-02624-HSG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases

Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co. 2014 WL 1289342 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015) .................................................................................... 11

Churchill Vill., LLC v. Gen. Elec. 361 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................................ 6, 7

Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle 955 F.2d 1268 (9th Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................................ 6, 10

Four in One Co. v. S.K. Foods, L.P. 2014 WL 4078232 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2014) .................................................................................... 14

Garner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 2010 WL 1687832 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010) ................................................................................ 6, 11

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp. 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) .......................................................................................................... 6, 7

In re Citric Acid Antitrust Litig. 145 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (N.D. Cal. 2001) .............................................................................................. 14

In re Fleet/Norstar Sec. Litig. 935 F. Supp. 99 (D.R.I. 1996) .............................................................................................................. 7

In re Magsafe Apple Power Adapter Litig. 2015 WL 428105 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2015) ....................................................................................... 13

In re Omnivision Technologies, Inc. 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .............................................................................................. 14

In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig. 779 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................... 1, 6, 13

In re Painewebber Ltd. P’ships Litig. 171 F.R.D. 104 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ........................................................................................................ 11

Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley & Co. 2008 WL 346417 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2008) .......................................................................................... 9

Lane v. Facebook, Inc. 696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................................. 12

McCrary v. Elations Co. 2016 WL 769703 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2016) ...................................................................................... 13


iv PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 4:15-md-02624-HSG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................................. 13

Nat’l Rural Telcoms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc. 221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) .............................................................................................. 7, 10, 11

Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Com’n of City and Cty. of San Francisco 688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982) .............................................................................................................. 11

Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts 472 U.S. 797 (1985) ...................................................................................................................... 11, 12

Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp. 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................... 9, 10, 12

Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co. 8 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir. 1993) .................................................................................................................. 8

Vasquez v. Coast Valley Roofing 670 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (E.D. Cal. 2009) ................................................................................................ 5

Wright v. Linkus Enterprises 259 F.R.D. 468 (E.D. Cal. 2009) .......................................................................................................... 8

Other Authorities

Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth (Fed. Judicial Center 2004) § 23.63 .......................................... 5

William B. Rubenstein, Albert Conte & Herbert Newberg, 4 Newberg on Class Actions § 13:39 (5th ed. 2014) ........................................................................................................................................ 5


v PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 4:15-md-02624-HSG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 18, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the

matter may be heard before the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Northern District of California, plaintiffs Jessica Bennett, Richard Krause, Robert Ravencamp, and

John Whittle (“Plaintiffs), will and hereby do move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23, for an Order:

a) Granting final approval of the proposed Settlement with Defendant Superfish Inc.

(“Superfish”) (the “Superfish Settlement”) and the proposed Settlement with Defendant

Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“Lenovo”) (the “Lenovo Settlement”) (collectively, the

“Settlement”);

b) Finally approving Plaintiffs’ Plan of Allocation; and

c) Dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants.

The grounds for the motion are as follows: (a) the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate

and satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e); (b) the Settlement is a product of arm’s-length

negotiations; (c) the Court-approved notice program satisfies due process and Rule 23; and (d) the Plan

of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

This motion is based on this notice of motion and motion, the accompanying memorandum of

points and authorities, the Settlement, including all exhibits thereto, the Joint Declaration of Jonathan

K. Levine, Elizabeth A. Kramer, and Eric J. Buescher (“Joint Decl.”), the Declaration of Steven

Weisbrot (“Weisbrot Decl.”), the Declaration of Brian Buckley, (“Buckley Decl.”), the declarations of

Jessica Bennett (“Bennett Decl.”), Richard Krause (“Krause Decl.”), Robert Ravencamp (“Ravencamp

Decl.”), and John Whittle (“Whittle Decl.”), all papers and records on file in this matter, and such other

matters and argument as the Court may consider.

///

///

///


vi PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 4:15-md-02624-HSG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: February 14, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

GIRARD SHARP LLP /s/ Elizabeth A. Kramer Daniel C. Girard (SBN 114826) Elizabeth A. Kramer (SBN 293129) Andre M. Mura (SBN 298541) 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel.: (415) 981-4800 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

PRITZKER LEVINE LLP

/s/ Jonathan K. Levine Jonathan K. Levine (SBN 220289) Elizabeth C. Pritzker (SBN 146267)

180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390 Oakland, California 94612 Tel.: (415) 692-0772 [email protected] [email protected]

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP /s/ Eric J. Buescher

Eric J. Buescher (SBN 271323) San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel.: (650) 697-6000

[email protected]

Class Counsel


1 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS 4:15-md-02624-HSG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and the Court’s Order granting settlement

class certification, preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement, and the plan for providing class

notice to potential class members, Plaintiffs submit this memorandum in support of final approval of

the Settlement with Defendants Lenovo and Superfish.

The Settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” and represents a substantial recovery for the

Class. See In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2015). The

Settlement provides for a cumulative Settlement Fund of $8,300,000. The Settlement delivers

considerable relief to the Settlement Class, whose members would otherwise face substantial

uncertainty and delay waiting for a successful result in this litigation. Despite the strength of Plaintiffs’

claims, the Class continues to face significant litigation risk in the form of potential decertification of

the certified classes, motions for summary judgment, expert discovery, trial, and potential appeals.

The Settlement and its related procedures conform to all Northern District class settlement

guidelines and should be finally approved. The Settlement with Lenovo was negotiated at length under

the supervision of Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, delivers a favorable result to the

Settlement Class, and will avoid protracted litigation in this nationwide consumer case. Based on

Plaintiffs’ expert report, Class Counsel estimate a maximum, best case $35 million recovery at trial,

had Plaintiffs prevailed. The Settlement of $8,300,000 represents approximately 24% of Plaintiffs’

estimated recoverable damages. Although the deadline for opt-outs and objections has not passed, to

date the reaction of Class members is highly positive, as measured by the fact that only 43 have

requested exclusion and none have objected. Weisbrot Decl. ¶¶ 22-23.

II. OVERVIEW OF THE LITIGATION1

In 2014, Lenovo and Superfish entered into a business partnership to install software called

VisualDiscovery on various models of Lenovo laptops. Joint Decl. ¶ 4. VisualDiscovery was not

1 Given the Court’s familiarity with this litigation, the procedural history is recounted briefly here and is more fully described in the Joint Declaration.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

disclosed to consumers. Id. Plaintiffs alleged that the software intercepted web traffic, giving

Superfish access to users’ communications while jeopardizing the security of their information, and

degraded their computers’ performance. Dkt. No. 96. Plaintiffs also alleged and discovery confirmed

that VisualDiscovery operated continuously in the background of computers, analyzing and injecting

ads into visited webpages. Id.

VisualDiscovery was installed on nearly 800,000 Lenovo laptops sold in the United States

between September 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015. Dkt. No. 96. On January 18, 2015, in response to

mounting complaints about the effects of VisualDiscovery, Lenovo instructed Superfish to turn the

software off at the server level. Dkt. No. 31-2, Ex. 35. On February 15, 2015, various news outlets

reported on the privacy, security, and performance problems associated with VisualDiscovery. Lenovo

soon ended its relationship with Superfish and had the software removed.2 Dkt. No. 96.

A. Procedural History

After the public learned of VisualDiscovery issues, 27 class actions were filed in federal courts

around the country. Joint Decl. ¶ 5. In June 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

transferred the actions to this District for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Dkt. Nos. 1, 2, 8. In July

2015, the Court appointed Pritzker Levine LLP, Girard Gibbs LLP, and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy,

LLP as Interim Lead Class Counsel. Dkt. No. 44.

1. Settlement with Superfish

In October 2015, the parties participated in a mediation before Judge Edward A. Infante (Ret.)

of JAMS. Dkt. No. 92. That mediation ultimately led to a $1,000,000 settlement agreement with

Superfish. Joint Decl. ¶ 6. The Superfish Settlement negotiations entailed the exchange of confidential

information regarding liability and damages, and disclosure of details regarding Superfish’s financial

condition and insurance coverage. Id. Had the Superfish Settlement not been reached in 2016,

Superfish likely would have been bankrupt by the time the case reached trial. Id. at ¶ 8. Superfish has

since been dissolved. Id.

2 Lenovo Security Advisory, Superfish Vulnerability, LENOVO, https://support.lenovo.com/us/en/ product_security/superfish (visited May 16, 2018).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Superfish Settlement required Superfish to cooperate with Plaintiffs in their continued

litigation against Lenovo, and in doing so, Superfish produced to Plaintiffs data and documents,

provided information and assistance on various issues during discovery, including the technical aspects

of VisualDiscovery and Superfish’s early negotiations with Lenovo, and made Superfish executives and

employees available for interviews.3 Joint Decl. ¶ 7.

2. Continued Litigation Against Lenovo

Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint in November 2015. Joint Decl. ¶ 9.

Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants preinstalled on Lenovo laptops a software called VisualDiscovery

that secretly intercepted information from web-browsing activities to deliver targeted advertisements,

inhibited computer performance, and created significant security and privacy risks. Plaintiffs further

alleged that VisualDiscovery functioned uniformly and in an unlawful manner and that they and

similarly-situated consumers had overpaid for the Lenovo laptops on which the undisclosed software

was installed. Dkt. No. 96.

Lenovo moved to dismiss in January 2016. Dkt. No. 98. After oral argument in April 2016, the

Court took the motion under submission. Joint Decl. ¶ 11. While Lenovo’s motion was pending,

Plaintiffs moved for class certification (Dkt. No. 131), and the Court heard argument on that motion in

September 2016. Joint Decl. ¶ 11.

In October 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part Lenovo’s motion to dismiss and

Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Dkt. No. 153. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended

Complaint on December 7, 2016. Dkt. No. 162.

3. Class Certification and Subsequent Litigation

On October 27, 2016, the Court certified the following classes:

Indirect Purchaser Class (represented by Jessica Bennett, John Whittle, and Rhonda Estrella4): All persons who purchased one or more Lenovo computer models, on which VisualDiscovery was installed, in the United States from someone other than Lenovo.

3 In January 2016, the Court entered an Order staying all deadlines as to Superfish in view of the proposed Superfish Settlement. Dkt. No. 102.

4 Plaintiff Estrella subsequently withdrew from the litigation.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

California Class (represented by Jessica Bennett and Rhonda Estrella): All persons who purchased one or more Lenovo computer models, on which VisualDiscovery was installed, in California.

Dkt. No. 153. The Court appointed Pritzker Levine, Girard Gibbs, and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy as

Class Counsel. Id.

In the class certification order, Judge Whyte accepted Plaintiffs’ argument that California law

applies to the claims of indirect purchasers nationally “because indirect purchasers are intended third-

party beneficiaries of the Lenovo-Superfish Business Partnership Agreement, which includes a

California choice-of-law provision.” Dkt. No. 153 at 38. The Court further concluded that “differences

in state law do not create a management obstacle for the class of indirect purchasers at this time.” Id.

Although Plaintiffs separately moved under New York law to certify a nationwide class of

persons who purchased directly from Lenovo, the Court did not reach that class certification issue

because it dismissed the New York claims on the pleadings. Dkt. No. 153. After Plaintiffs replead

their consumer protection claim under New York law, the Court dismissed the claim with leave to

amend. Dkt. No. 210.

4. Settlement with Lenovo

Plaintiffs and Lenovo participated in a series of settlement conferences before Magistrate Judge

Jacqueline Scott Corley, with the last conference on March 28, 2018. Joint Decl. ¶ 19. Plaintiffs and

Lenovo reached an agreement in principle in mid-April 2018, and memorialized the key terms of that

agreement in a Term Sheet signed on April 27, 2018. Id. Thereafter, Plaintiffs and Lenovo engaged in

arduous negotiations regarding the precise terms of their agreement and worked together, with

Superfish where necessary, to finalize the remainder of the settlement documents, including the Lenovo

Settlement Agreement, the proposed notices, the plan of allocation, the claim form, and proposed

orders for preliminary and final approval. Id. at ¶ 20. The Lenovo Settlement Agreement was signed

on July 11, 2018.

5. Preliminary Approval of the Settlement

On July 11, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement. Joint

Decl. ¶ 39. The parties attended the preliminary approval hearing in September 2018. Id. On

November 21, 2018 the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval, provisionally



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

certified the nationwide settlement Class, and directed notice to be issued to Class members pursuant to

the Settlement and preliminary approval motion. Dkt. No. 243.

III. ARGUMENT

A. Legal Standard for Final Approval of Class Settlements

A class action may not be dismissed, compromised, or settled without approval of the Court.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). The Settlement approval procedure includes three steps: (1) certification of a

settlement class and preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; (2) dissemination of notice to

class members; and (3) a formal fairness hearing, also known as a final approval hearing, at which class

members may be heard regarding the settlement, and at which counsel may present argument

concerning the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the settlements. Vasquez v. Coast Valley

Roofing, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1114, 1124–25 (E.D. Cal. 2009); see also Manual for Complex Litigation,

Fourth (Fed. Judicial Center 2004) § 23.63. This procedure safeguards class members’ due process

rights and enables the Court to fulfill its role as the guardian of class interests. See William B.

Rubenstein, Albert Conte & Herbert Newberg, 4 Newberg on Class Actions §§ 13:39–40 (5th ed.

2014).

The Court completed the first two steps when it granted preliminary approval of the Settlement,

certified the Settlement Class, and approved Plaintiffs’ notice program. Dkt No. 243. The notice

program was extensive, thorough, and utilized Class member information obtained from Lenovo, third-

party retailers, and robust publication notice. Joint Decl. ¶¶ 41-44. In particular, the notice program

entailed posting notice online at the class action website, directly emailing and mailing notice to

approximately 500,000 class members, and creating and publishing banner ads on websites advertising

notice of the Settlement. See Joint Decl. ¶¶ 41-44; Weisbrot Decl. ¶¶ 5-19; Buckley Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.

The notice program was successful. The Settlement Administrator has confirmed that notice

was successfully delivered to 192,947 people via direct mail, 440,275 people via e-mail, and recorded

7,192,779 views of the online “banner” ads. Weisbrot Decl. ¶¶ 5-11, 13. Additionally, Amazon which

agreed to provide notice via email to Class members who purchased their laptops through the Amazon

website, confirmed successful delivery to all 15,860 individuals. Buckley Decl. ¶¶ 3-4 . The current

claims rate also shows that the notice plan was effective, as 87,873 Class members filed claim forms as



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of February 10, 2019. Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 21. Therefore the notice program fully complied with Rule 23

and due process. Id. at ¶ 25.

B. The Settlement Is Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate and Should Be Approved

FRCP 23(e) requires the district court to determine whether a proposed settlement is “fair,

reasonable, and adequate.” In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d at 944. To assess the

fairness of a class settlement, the Ninth Circuit requires district courts to consider a number of factors,

including:

(1) the strength of the plaintiff’s case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of future litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; (6) the experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a governmental participant; and (8) the reaction of class members to the proposed settlement.

Online DVD-Rental, 779 F.3d at 944 (quoting Churchill Vill., LLC v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575

(9th Cir. 2004)).

The law favors settlements of class actions. Class Plaintiffs v. City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1268,

1276 (9th Cir. 1992). If the proposed settlement is “the product of arms-length negotiations conducted

by capable and experienced counsel, the court begins its analysis with the presumption that the

settlement is fair and reasonable.” Garner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. CV 08 1365 CW

(EMC), 2010 WL 1687832, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2010). Nonetheless, “the decision to approve or

reject a settlement is committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge because he is exposed to the

litigants and their strategies, positions and proof.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1026 (9th

Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).

1. The Settlement Provides Considerable Relief to Class Members

As found by the Court, the recovery obtained for the Class was adequate for preliminary

approval purposes. See Dkt. No. 243 at 13 (evaluating the risks of continued litigation, the Court

preliminary approved the Settlement assuming a 15% claims rate, each Class member’s receipt of

approximately $40 and the total settlement being roughly 24% of Plaintiffs’ maximum recovery at



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

trial). Because the estimated Settlement shares for Class members remains the same (if not higher)5,

the Settlement provides considerable relief to Class members and should be finally approved.

2. Class Member’s Positive Reaction Favors Final Approval

The Court should consider the reaction of class members to the proposed settlement when

determining the settlement’s fairness. Churchill Vill., 361 F.3d at 575; Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. “It is

established that the absence of a large number of objections to a proposed class action settlement raises

a strong presumption that the terms of a proposed class action are favorable to the class members.”

Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 529 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (collecting

cases); see also In re Fleet/Norstar Sec. Litig., 935 F. Supp. 99, 107 (D.R.I. 1996). The Notice Date

was January 7, 2019 and the deadline to object to the Settlement is March 25, 2019. To date, no Class

member has filed an objection, indicating that most Class members are reacting positively to the

Settlement. Should any objections be lodged by March 25, Class Counsel will address the objections in

a reply brief. And while the claims period remains open until March 25, 2019, the minimal number of

requests for exclusions is also an indicator that Class members approve of the Settlement. To date, only

43 class members have requested exclusion, a tiny fraction of the more than 500,000 Class members

who received direct notice. See Wesibrot Decl. ¶ 22.

Finally, the number of claims not only supports the adequacy of the Court-approved notice

program, but it also illustrates Class members’ support of the settlement. As of the February 10, 2019,

87,873 claims have been submitted, including 86,922 short form claims and 951 long form claims.

Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 21. Class members’ level of participation and the fact they are utilizing both options

to make claims shows that they believe the settlement is valuable. Class Counsel expect that more

claims will be filed before the March 25 deadline. Thus, to date, the Class’s reaction to the Settlement

has been overwhelmingly favorable and weighs in favor of final approval. Additionally, each Class

Representative has submitted a declaration expressing their support for the settlement. See generally

Bennett Decl.; Krause Decl.; Ravencamp Decl.; Whittle Decl.

5 The exact distribution to each Class member will be presented on reply to this motion, as not all claims have been received and not all long-form claims have been assessed. If the claims rate remains consistent with what it is now, Class members will receive more than $40 for each computer claimed.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. The Settlement Eliminates Significant Risk to the Class

As detailed at the preliminary approval stage, the Settlement in this case allows for a cash fund

of $8,300,000 and represents approximately 24% of the anticipated class-wide damages. Joint Decl.

¶¶ 31-33. After payment of settlement administration costs and any approved award of attorneys’ fees,

expenses, and/or service awards, all funds remaining in the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to

the Class. With respect to individual recoveries, Class Counsel estimated at preliminary approval that

participating class members would receive a $40 payment per computer. Dkt. 231 at 5. As of February

10, 2019, 87,873 claims have been filed. The claims period will remain open until March 25, and

claims are subject to verification and audit by the Claims Administrator. Using the currently available

data, however, and assuming all claims are valid, a present distribution of the Settlement Fund would

pay almost all claimants about $55 per computer.6 Such a payment would be substantial considering

Plaintiff’s expert estimated damages ranging from $16.67 to $100.02 per laptop, depending on how

long it was affected by VisualDiscovery. Joint Decl. ¶ 31; Dkt. 231 at 6-7. In contrast to the

immediate cash benefit, continued litigation, trial, and appeal would result in an uncertain outcome and

further delay.

Proceeding in litigation against Superfish and Lenovo would have presented considerable

litigation risk. First, Superfish no longer exists. Joint Decl. ¶ 8. Had Plaintiffs not reached a

settlement with it in 2016, there was a significant risk of Superfish declaring bankruptcy, which would

have resulted in no class recovery from Superfish, no additional discovery from Superfish, and no

ongoing cooperation from its executives and employees. Particularly under these circumstances, the

Superfish Settlement constitutes a favorable result. See, e.g., Torrisi v. Tucson Elec. Power Co., 8 F.3d

1370, 1376 (9th Cir. 1993) (defendant’s precarious financial condition, resulting in bankruptcy, was

primary factor demonstrating settlement fairness); Wright v. Linkus Enterprises, 259 F.R.D. 468, 476

(E.D. Cal. 2009).

6 A small percentage of claimants have filed long form claims that may entitle those claimants, once their claims are verified and audited, to an even greater recovery under the Plan of Allocation.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Second, Lenovo has vigorously denied Plaintiffs’ allegations from the outset of this case.

Absent this resolution via settlement, Lenovo would have continued to aggressively defend this action,

including through a renewed motion to dismiss, a decertification motion, and a motion for summary

judgment. See Dkt. No. 243 at 13 (Preliminary Approval Order noting the same risks). Previously in

this litigation, Lenovo has been steadfast in its denial that class members suffered any injury from

VisualDiscovery being on their computers, and argued that any possible injury would be de minimus

since the software was deactivated, and affected the laptops, at most, for only six months. Although

Plaintiffs dispute Lenovo’s positions, Class members might recover nothing in further protracted

litigation, whereas resolution of their claims through the Settlement, if approved, ensures a favorable

recovery that would be paid out as early as May of this year. Accordingly, the Settlement’s

considerable cash recovery eliminates risks of Class members receiving no relief, and thus, it should be

finally approved.

4. The Stage of the Proceedings and Extent of Discovery Supports Final Approval

Class settlements are more likely fair if negotiated and agreed to following extensive discovery.

Rodriguez v. West Publishing Corp., 563 F.3d 948, 967 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Jaffe v. Morgan

Stanley & Co., No. C 06-3903 TEH, 2008 WL 346417, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2008). When parties

have “a good grasp on the merits of [the] case before settlement talks beg[i]n,” negotiations are more

likely to achieve fair results. Rodriguez, 563 F.3d at 967.

As recounted in the Motion for Preliminary Approval (Dkt. No. 230), the Motion for Attorneys’

Fees, Expenses and Service Awards, and the Joint Declaration submitted herewith, Plaintiffs engaged

in extensive factual and legal research to implement several amendments to the complaint and to

oppose and survive several motions to dismiss. Additionally, Plaintiffs received, processed, analyzed,

and reviewed over 100,000 pages of documents produced by Lenovo and Superfish. Plaintiffs also

prepared for and deposed eight Lenovo employees, prepared for and defended all four class

representative depositions, prepared for and conducted four interviews of senior executives at

Superfish, and engaged three experts who each submitted multiple reports in connection with Plaintiffs’

successful motion for class certification.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

As the foregoing demonstrates, the status of the proceedings and the substantial discovery that

has taken place militate in favor of approving the Settlement. The Settlement was achieved well into

discovery, and thus, Class Counsel is well-versed in the liability and damages evidence and the

attendant risks to the certified classes should litigation proceed. Class Counsel’s well-informed

approach and the stage of the litigation lead to reaching fair, adequate, and reasonable agreements with

Defendants. Rodriguez, 563 F.3d at 967.

5. The Settlement Was Negotiated at Arm’s-length and Is Based on the Recommendations of Experienced Counsel

When evaluating class action settlements, “the district court must reach a reasoned judgment

that the proposed agreement is not the product of fraud or overreaching by, or collusion among, the

negotiating parties. . . .” City of Seattle, 955 F.2d 1290 (internal quotation marks omitted).

As previously noted, this action has been vigorously litigated. The parties have constantly

disputed pleadings, motions, and discovery. That same zealous advocacy was applied in reaching the

Settlement. Negotiations of the Settlement took place over many months (as to both Superfish and

Lenovo) and involved numerous exchanges of confidential information and settlement proposals and

sessions with both current and former judicial officers. See Joint Decl. ¶¶ 6-8, 19-20. The process

Plaintiffs and Defendants endured (in addition to engaging two separate neutrals to assist in that

process) in reaching the Settlement demonstrates that it was the product of arms’-length negotiations

and not collusion. In sum, the Settlement was contested, fair, and conducted in good faith.

Counsel’s judgment on the fairness of settlements is also entitled to “great weight.” See Nat’l

Rural Telecomms., 221 F.R.D. at 528. This Court has recognized Class Counsel’s extensive experience

in handling complex class actions by appointing them as settlement class counsel, and their expertise is

also reflected in Judge Whyte’s appointment of the firms as interim Class Counsel and then Class

Counsel. See Dkt. Nos. 44, 153, and 243 at p. 10. Class Counsel’s extensive experience litigating large

consumer class actions shows that it has the relevant experience to fairly evaluate the Class’ claims, the

defenses, and the fairness and adequacy of settlements.

In recommending this case for final approval, Class Counsel does so with full knowledge of the

strengths and weaknesses of the claims and defenses. For instance, Plaintiffs largely overcame



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

successive motions to dismiss, and secured an order certifying the bulk of the Class’s claims under

California law. As discussed above, before arriving at the Settlement, Class Counsel had conducted

thorough factual and legal research, discovery, and expert analysis. And although the Superfish

Settlement occurred earlier in the litigation due to Superfish’s deteriorating financial condition,

Plaintiffs faced formidable opposition from Lenovo throughout the case. All parties were represented

by seasoned counsel who pursued their clients’ interests. While Plaintiffs believe that they have

meritorious claims, Lenovo has all asserted that it has strong defenses that would serve to eliminate its

liability or damage exposure. Entering into Settlement then, as recommended by Class Counsel,

eliminates the burden, expense, and risks of further litigation to all parties.

Because the Settlement is the product of arms’-length negotiations and was conducted by

experienced counsel, who reached terms all sides find beneficial to their respective parties, the Court

should find the proposed settlements to be fair, adequate, and reasonable. See Garner, 2010 WL

1687832, at *13; see also Nat’l Rural Telcoms. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 528 (C.D.

Cal. 2004) (“‘Great weight’ is accorded to the recommendation of counsel, who are most closely

acquainted with the facts of the underlying litigation.”) (quoting In re Painewebber Ltd. P’ships Litig.,

171 F.R.D. 104, 125 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)); Bellinghausen v. Tractor Supply Co., No. 13-cv-02377-JSC,

2014 WL 1289342, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015) (“The trial court is entitled to, and should, rely

upon the judgment of experienced counsel for the parties.”). C. The Court-Approved Notice Program Satisfies Due Process and Adequately

Provided Notice to Class Members

Before final approval of a class action settlement, the Court must find that class members were

notified in a reasonable manner. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). When a settlement class is certified under

Rule 23(b)(3), class members must receive “the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); see also Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 812 (1985). The

notice program cannot “systematically leave any group without notice.” Officers for Justice v. Civil

Serv. Com’n of City and Cty. of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 624 (9th Cir. 1982). Settlement notice

must describe “the terms of the settlement in sufficient detail to alert those with adverse viewpoints to

investigate and to come forward and be heard.” Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 826 (9th Cir.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2012). The notice plan must ultimately comport with due process requirements. Rodriguez, 563 F.3d at

963.

Here, the court-approved notice plan implemented by Plaintiffs comports with due process and

was the best practicable under the circumstances. See generally Weisbrot Decl. and Dkt. No. 243 at pp.

13-14.

1. The Court Approved Plaintiffs’ Notice Plan

The notice program proposed by Plaintiffs in their motion for preliminary approval of the

Settlement (Dkt. Nos. 230-232), and approved by the Court in the preliminary approval order (Dkt. No.

243) has been implemented by Angeion Group, the claims administrator. As set forth in the

accompanying Weisbrot Declaration, since the entry of the preliminary approval order, Angeion has (i)

mailed 204,186 copies of the notice to potential class members, (ii) emailed 686,112 copies of the notice

to potential class members, (iii) implemented an extensive media plan to publish notice of the Settlement

on Facebook, Twitter, and other websites, and (iv) created and managed the settlement website,

lenovoadwaresettlement.com. See Weisbrot Decl. at ¶¶ 5-19.

The settlement website provides information to potential class members about the litigation and

the settlement, contains links to important settlement documents, and allows class members to file a

claim electronically. To date, there have been almost 600,000 page views of the settlement website and

more than 7.1 million views of the internet banner ads. See Weisbrot Decl. at ¶¶ 12-13, 16-17.

In addition to the work done by Angeion, as part of the notice program approved by the Court,

one retailer, Amazon.com, Inc., has provided direct email notice to 15,860 class members who

purchased their Lenovo computers through the Amazon.com website. See January 31, 2019 Declaration

of Amazon.com, Inc. Custodian of Records (Brian Buckley), filed concurrently herewith.

2. The Notice Program Satisfies Due Process

Due process requires the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances. See Shutts, 472

U.S. at 812. It does not require actual notice to each and every class member. Briseno v. ConAgra

Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121, 1128 (9th Cir. 2017) (“neither Rule 23 nor the Due Process Clause requires

actual notice to each individual class member”). Courts recognize that “it might be impossible to



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

identify some class members for purposes of actual notice.” Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d

654, 665 (7th Cir. 2015) (emphasis in original).

Here, the notices include all the information required under Rule 23(c)(2)(B): The nature of the

action, the class definition, a summary of the class claims, that a class member may enter an appearance

through an attorney, that the Court will grant timely exclusion requests, the time and manner for

requesting exclusion, and the binding effect of final approval. See Dkt. No. 232. The notice further

conveys all information necessary for class members to make informed decisions relating to the

Settlement, and all information called for under the Northern District guidelines. Id.

As the Court found in its assessment that Plaintiffs’ notice plan was the best practicable notice

(Dkt. No. 243), direct notice is not always required but was implemented here because the parties

obtained contact information for Class members who purchased their computers directly from Lenovo

or from other retailers like Best Buy or Amazon. See Weisbrot Decl. ¶ 5; see also Briseno v. ConAgra

Foods, Inc, 844 F.3d 1121, 1129 (9th Cir. 2017). Class members with known contact information who

did not purchase through Amazon received a postcard in the mail and/or an email notifying them of the

Settlement. Weisbrot Decl. ¶¶ 5-10. The Settlement administrator successfully reached 192,947

people via mail and 440,275 via email. Pursuant to the Court-approved process for the subgroup of

Class members who purchased computers from Amazon, Amazon successfully delivered notice via

email to 15,860 unique email addresses with none being returned as undeliverable. Buckley Decl., ¶¶

3-4.

The procedures implemented above satisfy due process. See, e.g., Online DVD-Rental Antitrust

Litig., 779 F.3d at 941, 946 (notice was first emailed to 35 million class members and then sent via U.S.

mail to over 9 million class members whose email addresses generated bounce-back messages);

McCrary v. Elations Co., No. EDCV 13-0242 JGB (SPx), 2016 WL 769703, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25,

2016) (notice was sent via U.S. mail and email); In re Magsafe Apple Power Adapter Litig., No. 5:091-

cv-01911-EJD, 2015 WL 428105, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2015) (emails, the primary notice vehicle,

were sent to 5,523,878 class members).

Additionally, the publication element of the notice program was tailored to maximize reach to

this Class. Weisbrot Decl. ¶¶ 12-19. Notice was not only posted not on the dedicated Settlement



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

website but also on websites that Lenovo laptop purchasers, in particular, were likely to visit. Id.; see

also Briseno, 844 F.3d at 1129 (“[N]otice by publication . . . on a website . . . is sufficient to satisfy due

process.”).

D. The Plan of Allocation is Fair, Reasonable and Adequate and Should Be Approved

“Approval of a plan for the allocation of a class settlement fund is governed by the same legal

standards that are applicable to approval of the settlement; the distribution plan must be ‘fair,

reasonable and adequate.’” In re Citric Acid Antitrust Litig., 145 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1154 (N.D. Cal.

2001) (internal citations omitted). When allocating funds, “[i]t is reasonable to allocate the settlement

funds to class members based on the extent of their injuries or the strength of their claims on the

merits.” In re Omnivision Technologies, Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1045-46 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (internal

citations omitted) (approving securities class action settlement allocation on a “per-share basis”); Four

in One Co. v. S.K. Foods, L.P., 2:08-CV-3017 KJM EFC, 2014 WL 4078232, at * 15 (E.D. Cal. Aug.

14, 2014) (approving “plan of allocation providing for a pro rata distribution of the net settlement fund

based on verified claimants’ volume of qualifying purchases” as “fair, adequate, and reasonable”).

The plan of allocation proposed in connection with the Settlement is the same as submitted at

preliminary approval. Dkt. No. 231-2 at 48. The Court provisionally found this Plan of Allocation fair,

reasonable and adequate. See Dkt. No. 243 (Preliminary Approval Order). The Settlement creates a

non-reversionary cash fund of $8,300,000. After payment of notice and administration costs and any

approved award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and/or service awards, all funds remaining will be distributed

to the Class. First, each long form claim for out-of-pocket losses will be paid in full, subject to a $750

cap per laptop, and $300,000 of the net settlement fund is set aside to pay long form claims. The short

form claims will then be paid, with any amount remaining in the net settlement fund distributed pro rata

to all eligible claimants (long form or short form) on a per-laptop basis. The Settlement Administrator

will complete all necessary calculations under the Plan of Allocation and pay eligible claimants in a

single installment. No Class members will receive preferential treatment; the only distinguishing

feature of Class members’ recovery is which type of claim they opted to submit.

At preliminary approval, Plaintiffs estimated that a 15% claims rate would yield recoveries

under the short form claim option that are approximately $40 per computer. Joint Decl. ¶ 26. An



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

approximation of $40 per computer is consistent with Plaintiffs’ expert estimate of the average

damages per computer, as the expert calculated a range of $16.67 to $100.02 in possible recovery.

Joint Decl. ¶ 31. Thus, the method of allocating the net settlement fund align with the value of

individual claims and with Plaintiffs’ proffered bases for damages and is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

No Class member has objected to the Plan of Allocation, and Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to

finally approve it. In accordance with the Northern District’s Class Settlement Guidelines, Plaintiffs

will submit a detailed accounting to the Court within 21 days after distribution.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court grant final approval of the

Settlement with Defendants Lenovo and Superfish, enter final judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims,

and approve Plaintiffs’ plan of allocation.

Dated: February 14, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

GIRARD SHARP LLP /s/ Elizabeth A. Kramer Daniel C. Girard (SBN 114826) Elizabeth A. Kramer (SBN 293129) Andre M. Mura (SBN 298541) 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel.: (415) 981-4800 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

PRITZKER LEVINE LLP

/s/ Jonathan K. Levine Jonathan K. Levine (SBN 220289) Elizabeth C. Pritzker (SBN 146267)

180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390 Oakland, California 94612 Tel.: (415) 692-0772 [email protected] [email protected]



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP

/s/ Eric J. Buescher Eric J. Buescher (SBN 271323)

San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel.: (650) 697-6000

[email protected]

Class Counsel

ATTESTATION STATEMENT

I, Elizabeth A. Kramer, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to

file Plaintiffs’ Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3). I

attest under penalty of perjury that all counsel has concurred in this filing.

DATED: February 14, 2019 /s/ Elizabeth A. Kramer


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF STEVEN WEISBROT

CASE NO. 4:15-MD-02624-HSG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

IN RE: LENOVO ADWARE LITIGATION

Case No. 4:15-md-02624-HSG

DECLARATION OF STEVEN WEISBROT, ESQ. OF ANGEION GROUP, LLC RE: IMPLEMENTATION OF NOTICE PROGRAM

Judge: Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

Case 4:15-md-02624-HSG Document 248-1 Filed 02/14/19 Page 1 of 47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - DECLARATION OF STEVEN WEISBROT


I, Steven Weisbrot, hereby declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746

that the following is true and correct:

1. I am a partner at the class action notice and settlement administration firm, Angeion

Group, LLC (“Angeion”). I am fully familiar with the facts contained herein based upon my

personal knowledge.

2. My credentials have been previously reported to this Court in my prior Declaration that

was filed on July 11, 2018.

3. The purpose of this Declaration is to provide the Court with a summary of the work

performed by Angeion related to the Notice Plan.

CAFA NOTICE

4. On July 20, 2018, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1715, Angeion caused the required Notice of

this Settlement and related materials (“CAFA Notice”) to be sent to the Attorneys General of all

states and territories, as well as the Attorney General of the United States. The CAFA Notices

were in the same form as Exhibit “A” attached hereto.

DIRECT NOTICE

5. Prior to disseminating Notice, Angeion received class member data (the “Class List”)

provided by the Defendant. Angeion reviewed the Class List information and identified 204,186

records with mailing information and 686,112 email addresses.

Mailed Notice

6. On January 7, 2019, Angeion caused Notice of the proposed Class Action Settlement

(“Notice”) to be mailed via the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) first class mail, postage

prepaid, to Settlement Class Members identified in the Class List. The mailed Notices were in the

same form as Exhibit “B” attached hereto.

7. Prior to mailing, the Class List was processed through the USPS National Change of

Address database to identify updated addresses for individuals who have moved within the last

four years and who filed a change of address card with the USPS.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



8. As of February 10, 2019, Angeion has received 24,178 Notices returned as undeliverable

by the USPS. Notices returned with a forwarding address were sent to the updated addresses

provided by the USPS. Notices returned without a forwarding address, were subjected to address

verification searches in an attempt to locate updated address information. In total, 12,939 Notices

were re-mailed as a result of the efforts described herein.

Email Notice

9. On January 7, 2019, Angeion caused Notice to be sent via email to the Class Member

email addresses identified on the Class List. The emailed Notices were in the same form as

Exhibit “C” attached hereto.

10. As of February 10, 2019, 440,275 Notices sent via email were delivered and 245,837

Notices were not delivered.

11. Angeion was informed that Amazon also caused Notice of the Settlement to be sent via

email to 15,860 unique Amazon customer email accounts. The Declaration of Brian Buckley on

behalf of Amazon.com is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”.

MEDIA NOTICE

12. On January 7, 2019, Angeion implemented a comprehensive media notice program that

was designed to deliver an approximate 70.63% reach with an average frequency of 3.00 times

each by serving approximately 7,161,000 impressions. The banner notices utilized in this notice

program were in the same form at Exhibit “E” attached hereto.

13. The internet banner ad notice ran for four consecutive weeks and resulted in 7,192,779

impressions served, which exceeded the targeted number of impressions described infra.

14. The direct notice program combined with the media notice delivered an approximate

75.51% reach with an average frequency of 3.02 times each. This reach percentage exceeded the

70.63% reach described in paragraph 13 above.

15. On or about January 11, 2019, Angeion caused a link to the Settlement Website to be

published on two leading class action websites, www.topclassactions.com and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



www.classaction.org. Screenshots of those class action websites are attached hereto as Exhibits

“F” and “G”, respectively.

RESPONSE MECHANISMS

16. On January 7, 2019, Angeion established the following website devoted to this

Settlement: www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com (the “Settlement Website”). The Settlement

Website contains general information about the Settlement and important documents, including a

downloadable Notice and Claim Form. The Settlement Website also contains a Contact Us link

whereby Class Members can send an email to a dedicated email address established for this

Settlement: [email protected]. Class Members can submit their Claim Form

online via the Settlement Website. Copies of the Claim Form and Notice are attached hereto as

Exhibits “H” and “I”, respectively.

17. Through February 10, 2019, there have been 598,427 pageviews of the Settlement

website.

18. On January 7, 2019, Angeion established the following toll-free hotline devoted to this

Settlement: 1-877-595-0389. The toll-free hotline utilizes an interactive voice response (“IVR”)

system to provide Class Members with responses to frequently asked questions and inform Class

Members of important dates and deadlines pertinent to the Settlement. The toll-free hotline is

accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

19. Through February 10, 2019, the toll-free IVR received 636 calls totaling 3,072 minutes.

SUMMARY OF THE NOTICE PROGRAM

20. In conjunction with the direct mail and email Notice described in paragraphs 5 through 12

above, the comprehensive media portion of the notice program delivered an approximate 75.51%

reach with an average frequency of 3.02 times each. This 75.51% reach exceeds the 70.63% reach

that was targeted. Further, the informational Settlement Website, toll-free IVR and information

about the Settlement published on www.topclassactions.com and www.classaction.org are not

calculable in reach percentage, but nonetheless aide in informing Class Members of their rights

and options under the Settlement.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



CLAIM FORM SUBMISSIONS

21. The deadline to submit a Claim Form in this Settlement is March 25, 2019. As of

February 10, 2019, Angeion has received 87,873 Claim Form submissions, including 86,922

Short Form claims and 951 Long Form claims. Angeion will continue to report the number and

breakdown of Claim Form submissions to Class Counsel.

REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSIONS & OBJECTIONS

22. The deadline for Class Members to submit requests for exclusion from the Settlement, or

to object to the Settlement is March 25, 2019. As of February 10, 2019, Angeion has received 43

requests for exclusion. The names of the individuals requesting exclusion from the Settlement are

attached hereto as Exhibit “J”.

23. Angeion has been monitoring the docket in this matter, no objections have been filed.

Likewise, Angeion has not received any objections to this Settlement.

24. Angeion will continue to monitor and track requests for exclusion or objections to the

Settlement.

CONCLUSION

25. In my opinion, the Notice Program describes herein met the requirements of Rule 23 and

due process requirements as the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and incorporated

contemporary media and best practices to alert and engage the participation of the class members

in the proposed Settlement.

I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: February 14, 2019

______________________________

STEVEN WEISBROT


Exhibit A


1801 Market Street, Suite 660

Philadelphia, PA 19103

(p) 215-563-4116

(f) 215-563-8839

www.angeiongroup.com

July 20, 2018

VIA USPS PRIORITY MAIL

United States Attorney General & Appropriate Officials

Re: Notice of Class Action Settlement In re Lenovo Adware Litigation, 4:15-md-02624-HSG Dear Counsel or Official:

Angeion Group, an independent claims administrator, on behalf of the defendants in the below-described action, hereby provides your office with this notice under the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1715, to advise you of the following proposed class action settlement:

Case Name: In re Lenovo Adware Litigation Index Number: 4:15-md-02624-HSG Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Northern District of California Date Settlement Filed with Court: July 11, 2018

In accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1715, please find copies of the following

documents associated with this action on the enclosed CD:

1. 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)(1)-Complaint: Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, filed with the Court on

December 7, 2016.

2. 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)(2)-Notice of Any Scheduled Judicial Hearings: A hearing on the motion for

preliminary approval of the class action settlement is set for September 20, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. The Court

has not yet scheduled a Final Fairness Hearing.

3. 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)(3)-Notification to Class Members: The Long Form Notice and Summary Notice and

filed with the Court on July 11, 2018, which will inform class members of the settlement and their rights

thereunder, including the right to request exclusion from the settlement.

4. 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)(4)-Class Action Settlement Agreement: The Lenovo and Superfish Class Action

Settlement Agreements, filed with the Court on July 11, 2018. Also included is the Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, filed with the Court on July 11, 2018.


2

5. 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)(5)-Any Settlement or Other Agreements: Other than the Lenovo and Superfish Class

Action Settlement Agreements identified in paragraph 4 above, no other settlements or other agreements

have been contemporaneously made between the Parties.

6. 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)(6)-Final Judgment: The Court has not issued a Final Judgment or notice of dismissal as

of the date of this CAFA Notice.

7. 28 U.S.C. § 1715(b)(7)(B)-Estimate of Class Members: Based on partial sales data available from Lenovo

and certain resellers of the computers that are the subject matter of the litigation, and assuming that this

sales data, which is now three years old, still reflects the domicile of the Class Members identified therein,

a reasonable estimate of the number of potential Class Members residing in each state is as follows:

State Count Percentage State Count Percentage

AK 348 0.1684% NC 6412 3.1032%

AL 1750 0.8469% ND 526 0.2546%

AR 980 0.4743% NE 889 0.4302%

AZ 3679 1.7805% NH 1694 0.8198%

CA 23543 11.3941% NJ 7143 3.4570%

CO 4185 2.0254% NM 950 0.4598%

CT 2450 1.1857% NV 1419 0.6868%

DE 1139 0.5512% NY 12868 6.2277%

FL 13685 6.6231% OH 6379 3.0872%

GA 5371 2.5994% OK 1794 0.8682%

HI 471 0.2279% OR 2552 1.2351%

IA 1744 0.8440% PA 8149 3.9439%

ID 880 0.4259% RI 623 0.3015%

IL 9122 4.4148% SC 2281 1.1039%

IN 3384 1.6377% SD 421 0.2038%

KS 1441 0.6974% TN 3047 1.4747%

KY 1705 0.8252% TX 17066 8.2594%

LA 1850 0.8953% UT 1557 0.7535%

MA 5540 2.6812% VA 6144 2.9735%

MD 4561 2.2074% VT 338 0.1636%

ME 691 0.3344% WA 4346 2.1033%

MI 6217 3.0088% WI 4182 2.0240%

MN 4471 2.1638% WV 555 0.2686%

MO 2997 1.4505% WY 213 0.1031%

MS 701 0.3393% Unknown 11835 5.7279%

MT 337 0.1631%

Class Member awards are subject to a number of factors, including the number of products purchased, the

nature of the claim made by each Class Member and the overall number of claims filed. Therefore, it is not

feasible to estimate the awards Class Members may receive at this time.


3

8. 28 U.S.C. §1715(b)(8)-Judicial Opinions Related to the Settlement: The Court has not yet issued an

opinion regarding the proposed settlement as of the issuance of this CAFA Notice.

If you have questions or concerns about this notice, the proposed settlement, or the enclosed

materials, or if you did not receive any of the above-listed materials, please contact:

For Lenovo: Daniel J. Stephenson K&L Gates LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 7th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-5000 [email protected]

For Superfish: Angeion Group 1801 Market Street, Suite 660 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (p) 215-563-4116 (f) 215-563-8839

Sincerely,

Angeion Group

1801 Market Street, Suite 660


(p) 215-563-4116

(f) 215-563-8839

Enclosure - CD


Exhibit B


MAG — Angeion — Title: Lenovo Postcard — 12-26-18 — Proof #1

<<BARCODE>>

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

In re Lenovo Adware Litigation, No. 4:15-md-02624-HSG (N.D. Cal.)

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

An $8.3 million settlement has been reached with Lenovo and Superfish in a class action lawsuit involving certain Lenovo laptop computers. Lenovo and Superfish agreed to install software called VisualDiscovery on some Lenovo laptop computers. Plaintiffs say the software slowed down the computers, invaded user privacy, and exposed users to security risks. Defendants deny these claims.

WHO IS INCLUDED?

You are a member of the class and eligible for payment if you bought one or more of the following Non-Think branded Lenovo computer models, not for resale, within the United States between September 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015 (“Class Computers”):

• G Series: G410, G510, G710, G40-70, G50-70, G40-30, G50-30, G50-45• U Series: U430P, U430Touch, U530Touch• Y Series: Y40-70, Y50-70• Z Series: Z50-75, Z40-70, Z50-70• Flex Series: Flex2 14D, Flex2 15D, Flex2 14, Flex2 15, Flex2 15(BTM), Flex 10• MIIX Series: MIIX2-10, MIIX2-11• YOGA Series: YOGA2Pro-13, YOGA2-13, YOGA2-11BTM, YOGA2-11HSW

WHAT CAN I GET?

There are two ways to make a claim to receive money from the Settlement:

Option 1: Short Form Claim (No Proof of Loss) – estimated at $40 per Class Computer. If you submit a claim for one Class Computer, you only

IF YOU MOVE, send your CHANGE OF ADDRESS to ADMINISTRATOR at the above address.

Lenovo-Superfish Settlement1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210Philadelphia, PA 19103

Postal Service: Please Do Not Mark Barcode

Electronic ServiceRequested

‹‹Name››‹‹Addr1›› ‹‹Addr2›› ‹‹City››, ‹‹St›› ‹‹Zip›› ‹‹Country››

Name/Address Changes:

Notice ID: ‹‹Notice ID››

‹‹Name››‹‹Addr1››‹‹Addr2›› ‹‹City››, ‹‹St›› ‹‹Zip›› ‹‹Country››

Notice ID: ‹‹Notice ID››

BLIND PERF DOES NOT PRINT


PRESORTEDFIRST CLASS MAILU.S. POSTAGE PAID

BELLMAWR, NJPERMIT #247

<<BARCODE>>NUMERIC EQUIVALENT


MAG — Angeion — Title: Lenovo Postcard — 12-26-18 — Proof #1

BLIND PERF DOES NOT PRINT

need to confirm your contact information and computer purchase to receive this payment. If you wish to submit a claim for more than one Class Computer, you need to confirm your contact information and show proof of payment for each computer.

Option 2: Long Form Claim (Documented Proof of Loss) up to $750 per Class Computer. If you incurred an expense or loss in response to a computer-related performance, privacy, or security concern and that expense or loss is reasonably attributable to VisualDiscovery software being installed on your computer. You must submit an itemized claim and attach proof (for example, receipts or other proof of payment for credit monitoring or technical service assistance) showing your expenses or losses. The Claims Administrator will review your submission and determine your payment. The most you can claim is $750 per Class Computer.

DO I HAVE TO SUBMIT A CLAIM?

In order to receive money from this Settlement, you must submit a completed Claim Form postmarked by March 25, 2019. If you bought an affected computer, you can submit a claim form at www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com. You may also contact the Claims Administrator to request a paper claim form by telephone at 1-877-595-0389, by email at [email protected], or U.S. mail at Lenovo-Superfish Settlement, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103. You may submit your claim form online, by email or by mail.

YOUR OTHER OPTIONS

If you wish to be excluded from the Settlement class, you must submit your exclusion request online or mail your written exclusion request postmarked by March 25, 2019. If you submit a Claim Form or do nothing, you will be bound by the Settlement terms and the orders issued by the Court concerning the Settlement. If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement class, you may object to the Settlement by submitting a written objection by March 25, 2019. For specific information on how to submit a written exclusion request or objection, and the requirements for each, please visit www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com.

THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING

The Court will hold a hearing on April 18, 2019 at 2:00 p.m to consider whether to approve the Settlement, and to further consider requests by the Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees and expenses and for incentive awards for the named plaintiffs. The date and/or time of the hearing may change. Please check www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com for updates.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT

THIS IS ONLY A SUMMARY. For more information regarding your rights and options, you can visit the Settlement website: www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com. You may also call toll-free 1-877-595-0389, or write to: Lenovo-Superfish Settlement, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

For a copy of the Settlement Agreement or Claim Form, visit www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com or call toll-free 1-877-595-0389.


AFFIXSTAMPHERE


Exhibit C


Subject: Lenovo Laptop Settlement

You are receiving this email because Defendant’s records indicate that you may have purchased a Lenovo Laptop in 2014 or 2015. If so, you

may be eligible to receive money from a class action settlement.

If you are a member of the Class as defined below, and you wish to receive payment from this lawsuit, you must file a valid claim by March

25, 2019.

To File Your Claim please visit: www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com and log-in using the below:

Claim Number: <Notice ID>

Confirmation Code: <Confirmation

Code>


In re Lenovo Adware Litigation, No. 4:15-md-02624-HSG (N.D. Cal.)

United States District Court for the Northern District of California


An $8.3 million settlement has been reached with Lenovo and Superfish in a class action lawsuit involving certain Lenovo laptop computers.

Lenovo and Superfish agreed to install software called VisualDiscovery on some Lenovo laptop computers. Plaintiffs say the software slowed

down the computers, invaded user privacy, and exposed users to security risks. Defendants deny these claims.

WHO IS INCLUDED?

You are a member of the class and eligible for payment if you bought one or more of the following Non-Think branded Lenovo computer

models, not for resale, within the United States between September 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015 (“Class Computers”):

• G Series: G410, G510, G710, G40-70, G50-70, G40-30, G50-30, G50-45

• U Series: U430P, U430Touch, U530Touch

• Y Series: Y40-70, Y50-70

• Z Series: Z50-75, Z40-70, Z50-70

• Flex Series: Flex2 14D, Flex2 15D, Flex2 14, Flex2 15, Flex2 15(BTM), Flex 10

• MIIX Series: MIIX2-10, MIIX2-11

• YOGA Series: YOGA2Pro-13, YOGA2-13, YOGA2-11BTM, YOGA2-11HSW

WHAT CAN I GET?

There are two ways to make a claim to receive money from the Settlement:

Option 1: Short Form Claim (No Proof of Loss) – estimated at $40 per Class Computer. If you submit a claim for one Class Computer, you

only need to confirm your contact information and computer purchase to receive this payment. If you wish to submit a claim for more than

one Class Computer, you need to confirm your contact information and show proof of payment for each computer.

Option 2: Long Form Claim (Documented Proof of Loss) up to $750 per Class Computer. If you incurred an expense or loss in response to a

computer-related performance, privacy, or security concern and that expense or loss is reasonably attributable to VisualDiscovery software

being installed on your computer. You must submit an itemized claim and attach proof (for example, receipts or other proof of payment for

credit monitoring or technical service assistance) showing your expenses or losses. The Claims Administrator will review your submission and

determine your payment. The most you can claim is $750 per Class Computer.

DO I HAVE TO SUBMIT A CLAIM?

In order to receive money from this Settlement, you must submit a completed Claim Form postmarked by March 25, 2019. If you bought an

affected computer, you can submit a claim form at www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com. You may also contact the Claims Administrator to

request a paper claim form by telephone at 1-877-595-0389, by email at [email protected] or U.S. mail at Lenovo-Superfish

Settlement, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103. You may submit your claim form online, by email or by mail.

YOUR OTHER OPTIONS

If you wish to be excluded from the Settlement class, you must submit your exclusion request online or mail your written exclusion request

postmarked by March 25, 2019. If you submit a Claim Form or do nothing, you will be bound by the Settlement terms and the orders issued

by the Court concerning the Settlement. If you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement class, you may object to the Settlement by submitting

a written objection by March 25, 2019. For specific information on how to submit a written exclusion request or objection, and the requirements

for each, please visit www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com.



The Court will hold a hearing on April 18, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. to consider whether to approve the Settlement, and to further consider requests by

the Class Counsel for attorneys’ fees and expenses and for incentive awards for the named plaintiffs. The date and/or time of the hearing may

change. Please check www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com for updates.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT

THIS IS ONLY A SUMMARY. For more information regarding your rights and options, you can visit the Settlement website:

www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com. You may also call toll-free 1-877-595-0389, email [email protected], or write to:

Lenovo-Superfish Settlement, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

For a copy of the Settlement Agreement or Claim Form, visit www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com or

call toll-free 1-877-595-0389.


Exhibit D


Exhibit E


Exhibit F


Exhibit G


Exhibit H


Your claim must

be submitted

online or

postmarked by:

MARCH 25, 2019

In re Lenovo Adware Litigation

c/o Claims Administrator

1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210


Email: [email protected]

www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com

LEN INSTR

CLAIM FORM INSTRUCTIONS

IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE COMPLETING THIS CLAIM FORM

You are a member of the class and eligible for a Settlement payment if you bought one or more of the following

Lenovo computer models, not for resale, within the United States between September 1, 2014 and February 28,

2015 (“Class Computers”):



• Y Series: Y40-70, Y50-70

• Z Series: Z50-75, Z40-70, Z50-70




You can tell what model you bought by looking at the bar code on the sticker on the bottom of your computer, or in

the Systems Information application on the computer interface. More information on how to determine your

computer model is available at: https://support.lenovo.com/us/en/solutions/find-product-name.

If you are a member of the class based on the above definition, you may submit a Claim Form. Please

complete Sections A, B and C, and return the completed Claim Form to the Claims Administrator by mail at

the address above. You may also submit your claim online at LenovoAdwareSettlement.com.

PAYMENT OPTIONS AND DOCUMENTATION

There are two ways to make a claim. If you purchased multiple affected computers, you may make both Short Form

and Long Form Claims. Each affected computer, however, may be the subject of only one Short Form Claim or one

Long Form Claim.

Option 1: Short Form Claim (No Proof of Loss) – estimated at $40 per Class Computer

First, you are eligible for an estimated payment of $40 per Class Computer. If you make a claim for one computer,

you only need to confirm your contact information and computer purchase to get this payment. No other information

is required. If you wish to submit a claim for more than one Class Computer, you need to confirm your contact

information and show proof of payment for each computer.

Option 2: Long Form Claim (Documented Proof of Loss) – up to $750 Class Computer

Second, you may be eligible for a larger payment if you incurred an expense or loss in response to a computer-

related performance, privacy, or security concern and that expense or loss is reasonably attributable to

VisualDiscovery software being installed on your computer. You must submit an itemized claim and attach proof of

purchase of the Class Computer and proof of expense or loss (such as a receipt, an itemized invoice or other

documentation that establishes the fact, date of purchase, and the price paid) showing your expenses or losses.

The Claims Administrator will review your submission and determine your payment. The most you can claim is

$750 per Class Computer. Only submit a claim under Option 2 if your proof of loss is over $40.

If you have any questions about the Claim Form, the payment options, or the documentation requirements,

please read the full Notice available at www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com. You may also contact the Claims

Administrator with any questions at Lenovo Adware Settlement, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia,

PA 19103 or by email at [email protected].


https://support.lenovo.com/us/en/solutions/find-product-name

Your claim must

be submitted

online or

postmarked by:

MARCH 25, 2019





Email: [email protected]

www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com

LEN CF1

CLAIM FORM

SECTION A: NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION

Provide your name and contact information below. If your name or contact information changes after you

submit this Claim Form, please notify the Claims Administrator of the new information.

FIRST NAME LAST NAME

STREET ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP CODE

EMAIL ADDRESS

CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE


SECTION B: PAYMENT OPTIONS

There are two possible payment options. Please read the Claim Form Instructions for more

information about these options. OPTION 1 – SHORT FORM CLAIM (NO PROOF OF LOSS) – ESTIMATED $40 PER COMPUTER

I am submitting a short form claim for ONE Class Computer.

You do not need to provide proof of purchase.

I am submitting a short form claim for MORE THAN ONE Class Computer.

Enter the number of Class Computers you are claiming: _____

You must provide proof of purchase for each Class Computer.

OPTION 2 – LONG FORM CLAIM (DOCUMENTED PROOF OF LOSS) – UP TO $750 PER

COMPUTER

I am submitting a long form claim for one or more Class Computers with documented proof of loss.

You must provide an explanation of the costs incurred, attach proof of them (such as a receipt, an

itemized invoice or other documentation that establishes the fact, date of purchase, and the price paid)

and a short statement showing that those costs were incurred in response to security, privacy, and/or

performance concerns or problems associated with the Class Computer and reasonably attributable to

VisualDiscovery. Eligible costs may include, without limitation, payments for technical support or

credit monitoring services.

Provide the total number of Class Computers you are claiming: __________

Provide the total amount of documented losses you are claiming: $__________

PAYMENT ELECTION:

Please indicate below whether you would like to receive your payment in the form of a check mailed to the

address provided in Section A, or if you would like your payment emailed to you to digitally deposit. Please

choose only one. If you do not complete this section, payment will be sent via mail.

I would like to receive a check via mail. I understand it is my responsibility to inform the Claims

Administrator of any changes to my contact information provided in Section A of this Claim Form.

I would like my payment emailed to me to digitally deposit. Please issue my payment to the following

email address:

CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE


SECTION C: VERIFICATION

By signing below and submitting this Claim Form, I hereby affirm that: (1) I am the person identified above and

the information provided in this Claim Form is true and accurate; and (2) I purchased one or more of the

following Lenovo computer models, not for resale, within the United States between September 1, 2014 and

February 28, 2015:



• Y Series: Y40-70, Y50-70

• Z Series: Z50-75, Z40-70, Z50-70




SIGNATURE DATE

PRINTED NAME

CLAIM FORM REMINDER CHECKLIST:

1. Complete sections A, B and C of the Claim Form.

2. Remember to attach only copies of supporting documents, as these documents will not be returned to you.

3. Do not highlight any portion of the Claim Form or any supporting documents.

4. Keep copies of the completed Claim Form and supporting documents for your records.

5. If your name or contact information changes after you submit this Claim Form, please notify the Claims

Administrator of the new information.

6. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your claim, please contact the Claims Administrator at the

address below, or by emailing [email protected].

THIS CLAIM FORM MUST BE SUBMITTED ONLINE AT WWW.LENOVOADWARESETTLEMENT.COM NO

LATER THAN MARCH 25, 2019, OR MAILED TO THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR BY PREPAID, FIRST-

CLASS MAIL POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN MARCH 25, 2019 TO:






Exhibit I


1


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


If You Bought a Lenovo Laptop in 2014 or 2015, You Could

Be Eligible for a Payment from a Class Action Settlement

• You could receive an estimated $40 payment from an $8.3 million class action Settlement.

• The lawsuit is about software created by Superfish called VisualDiscovery that was placed on certain

Lenovo computers. Plaintiffs allege that this software created problems with performance, privacy,

and security.

• Visit www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com to make a claim. You can also opt out of, object to, or

comment on the Settlement.

• Please read this notice carefully. Your legal rights will be affected, and you have a choice to make

now.

SUMMARY OF YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS DEADLINE

SUBMIT A CLAIM

FORM

The only way to get a payment. March 25,

2019

EXCLUDE

YOURSELF

Get no payment. This is the only option that allows you to keep

your right to bring any other lawsuit against Lenovo and

Superfish for claims related to this case.

March 25,

2019

OBJECT TO THE

SETTLEMENT

AND/OR ATTEND A

HEARING

You can write the Court about why you like or do not like the

Settlement. You can’t ask the Court to order a larger settlement.

You can also ask to speak to the Court at the hearing on March

25, 2019 about the fairness of the Settlement, with or without

your own attorney.

March 25,

2019

DO NOTHING Get no payment. Give up rights. No

Deadline

• These rights and options—and the deadlines to exercise them—are explained in this notice.

• The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to approve the Settlement. Payments

will be made if the Court approves the Settlement and after any appeals are resolved.


2

WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS

BASIC INFORMATION .................................................................................................................................... 3

WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 3

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS ......................................................................................................................... 4

SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM ........................................................................................................................ 4

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU ............................................................................................................. 5

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT ......................................................................................... 6

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT .................................................................................................................. 7

THE COURT’S FAIRNESS HEARING................................................................................................................ 8

IF YOU DO NOTHING ..................................................................................................................................... 8

GETTING MORE INFORMATION ..................................................................................................................... 9


3

BASIC INFORMATION

1. Why did I get this notice?

A Court authorized this notice because people described in paragraph 5 of this notice have the right to know about an $8.3 million settlement. If you qualify, you could be eligible to receive a payment. To know if you qualify, see the answer to Question 5.

The people who sued are called the Plaintiffs. The companies they sued, Lenovo (United States), Inc. (“Lenovo”) and Superfish, Inc. (“Superfish”), are called Defendants.

2. What is this lawsuit about?

Lenovo and Superfish agreed to install software called VisualDiscovery on some Lenovo laptop computers. Plaintiffs say the software slowed down the computers, invaded user privacy, and exposed users to security risks. Defendants deny these claims.

3. What is a class action?

In a class action the Plaintiffs act as “class representatives” and sue on behalf of themselves and other people who have similar claims. This group of people is called the “class,” and the people in the class are called “class members.” One court resolves the issues for all class members, except for people who exclude themselves from the class. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is in charge of this case. The case is In re Lenovo Adware Litigation, No. 4:15-md-02624-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

4. Why is there a Settlement?

The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiffs or Defendants. Instead, both sides agreed to a Settlement. That way, they avoid the costs and risks of a trial, and class members get compensation. The class representatives and their attorneys think the settlement is best for everyone affected.

WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT

5. Who is in the Settlement?

To get money from the settlement, you have to be a class member. You are a class member if you bought one or more of the following Non-Think-branded Lenovo computer models, not for resale, within the United States between September 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015:

G Series: G410, G510, G710, G40-70, G50-70, G40-30, G50-30, G50-45

U Series: U430P, U430Touch, U530Touch

Y Series: Y40-70, Y50-70

Z Series: Z50-75, Z40-70, Z50-70

Flex Series: Flex2 14D, Flex2 15D, Flex2 14, Flex2 15, Flex2 15(BTM), Flex 10


4

MIIX Series: MIIX2-10, MIIX2-11

YOGA Series: YOGA2Pro-13, YOGA2-13, YOGA2-11BTM, YOGA2-11HSW You can tell what computer model you bought by looking at the bar code on the sticker on the bottom of your computer or in the Systems Information application on the computer. Additional information on how to determine your computer model is available at: https://support.lenovo.com/us/en/solutions/find-product-name.

6. What should I do if I am still not sure whether I am included?

If you are not sure whether you are included in the class, you can ask for free help by calling the Claims Administrator at 1-877-595-0389 for more information.

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS

7. What does the Settlement provide?

Defendants will pay $8,300,000 into a Settlement Fund. After deductions for attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and other expenses (see Question 15), the Fund will be distributed to class members who submit valid claims.

8. How much money can I get from the Settlement?

Class members who make a claim without supporting documents will get an estimated $40. Class members who make a properly documented claim could get more than the estimated $40. The amount you actually get will depend on how many computers you purchased, how many claims are submitted, and how much the Court allows in fees, costs, and expenses. For information on how to make claim, see Question 10 and www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com. For information on the Plan of Allocation, see www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com.

9. What am I giving up if I stay in the class?

Unless you exclude yourself with an opt-out request (see Question 16), you cannot sue, continue to sue, or be part of any other lawsuit against Lenovo or Superfish about the issues in this case. The “Release of Claims” in the Settlement Agreement describes the legal claims that you give up if you remain in the Settlement. The Settlement Agreement can be viewed at www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com.

HOW TO GET A PAYMENT—MAKING A CLAIM

10. How can I get a payment?

If you bought an affected computer, you can make a claim at www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com. You can also contact the Claims Administrator to request a paper claim form by telephone 1-877-595-0389, email [email protected] or U.S. mail Lenovo-Superfish Settlement, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103, and submit the claim form to the same email or U.S. mail address.


5

There are two ways to make a claim to receive money from the Settlement. Option 1: Short Form Claim (No Proof of Loss) – estimated at $40 per Class Computer. If you submit a

claim for one Class Computer, you only need to confirm your contact information and computer purchase

to receive this payment. If you wish to submit a claim for more than one Class Computer, you need to

confirm your contact information and show proof of payment for each computer.

Option 2: Long Form Claim (Documented Proof of Loss) up to $750 per Class Computer. If you incurred an expense or loss in response to a computer-related performance, privacy, or security concern and that expense or loss is reasonably attributable to VisualDiscovery software being installed on your computer. You must submit an itemized claim and attach proof (for example, receipts or other proof of payment for credit monitoring or technical service assistance) showing your expenses or losses. The Claims Administrator will review your submission and determine your payment. The most you can claim is $750 per Class Computer.

11. What is the deadline for submitting a claim form?

To be eligible for payment, claim forms must be submitted electronically or postmarked no later than March 25, 2019.

12. When will I get my payment?

The Court will hold a hearing on April 18, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., to decide whether to approve the Settlement. If the Court approves the Settlement, there still may be appeals of that decision. It is hard to estimate how long it might take for any appeals to be resolved. If the Settlement is approved and no appeals are filed, the Claims Administrator anticipates that payments will be sent out within 3 months. Updates regarding the Settlement and when payments will be made will be posted on the Settlement website, www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU

13. Do I have a lawyer in the case?

Yes. The Court appointed the law firms of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Girard Sharpe LLP, and Pritzker Levine LLP to represent you and the other class members. These firms are called Class Counsel. You will not be charged for their services.

14. Should I get my own lawyer?

You do not need to hire your own lawyer because Class Counsel is working on your behalf. If you want your own lawyer, you may hire one, but you will be responsible for any payment for that lawyer’s services. For example, you can ask your own lawyer to appear in Court for you if you want someone other than Class Counsel to speak for you. You may also appear for yourself without a lawyer.


6

15. How will the lawyers be paid?

You do not have to pay Class Counsel. Class Counsel, who have not been paid for their services since this

case began, will seek an award of attorneys’ fees out of the Settlement Fund, as well as reimbursement for

litigation costs they advanced in pursuing the claims. The fees will compensate Class Counsel for

investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating and administering the Settlement. Class

Counsel’s attorneys’ fee request will not exceed 30% of the Settlement Fund, substantially less than the

value of the time Class Counsel have devoted to this case. Additionally, Class Counsel will seek

reimbursement of their out-of-pocket litigation expenses, not to exceed $350,000, to be paid out of the

Settlement Fund.

Class Counsel will also ask the Court to approve service award payments of $5,000 to each of the

individual class representatives, who are Jessica Bennett, Richard Krause, John Whittle, and Robert

Ravencamp.

The costs of providing this notice and administering the Settlement are being paid from the Settlement

Fund.

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT

If you don’t want benefits from the Settlement, and you want to keep your right, if any, to sue Lenovo or

Superfish on your own about the legal issues in this case, then you must take steps to get out of the

Settlement. This is called excluding yourself—or “opting out” of—the class.

16. How do I get out of the Settlement?

You may opt out of the Settlement online by March 25, 2019, at www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com.

Click on the “Opt Out” tab and provide the requested information.

You may also opt out of the Settlement by sending a letter that includes the following to the address

below:

• Your name and address;

• A statement that you want to be excluded from the Settlement; and

• Your signature.

Class Action Opt Out

Attn: Lenovo-Superfish Settlement

P.O. Box 58220

1500 John F Kennedy Blvd

Suite C31


Mailed opt-out requests must be postmarked no later than March 25, 2019.

17. If I don’t opt out, can I sue Defendants for the same thing later?


7

No. Unless you opt out, you give up the right to sue Defendants for the claims the Settlement resolves. You must exclude yourself from the class if you want to try to pursue your own lawsuit.

18. What happens if I opt out?

If you opt out of the Settlement, you will not have any rights as a member of the Settlement Class under the Settlement; you will not receive any payment as part of the Settlement; you will not be bound by any further orders or judgments in this case; and you will keep the right to sue, if any, on the claims alleged in the case by filing or continuing your own lawsuit at your own expense.

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT

19. How do I tell the Court if I don’t like the Settlement?

If you’re a class member and do not opt out of the Settlement, you can ask the Court to deny approval of the Settlement by filing an objection. You can’t ask the Court to order a larger settlement; the Court can only approve or deny the Settlement. If the Court denies approval, no settlement payments will be sent out and the lawsuit will continue. If that is what you want to happen, you must object. You may object to the proposed Settlement in writing. You may also appear at the Fairness Hearing, either in person or through your own attorney. If you appear through your own attorney, you are responsible for paying that attorney. To object, you must file a document with the Court saying that you object to the proposed Settlement in In re Lenovo Adware Litigation, Case No. 4:15-md-02624-HSG. Be sure to include:

Your name, address, and signature; and

A detailed statement of your objection, including the grounds for the objection together with any evidence you think supports it. You can mail the objection by First Class U.S. Mail, postmarked no later than March 25, 2019, to the following address:

Clerk of the Court U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of California 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612

Case No. 4:15-md-02624-HSG

If you do not mail the objection, you must either deliver it in person to this address or file it electronically at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cm-ecf, no later than March 25, 2019.

20. What’s the difference between objecting and excluding?

Objecting is telling the Court that you don’t like something about the Settlement. You can object to the Settlement only if you do not exclude yourself from the Settlement. Excluding yourself from the


8

Settlement is opting out and telling the Court that you don’t want to be part of the Settlement. If you opt out of the Settlement, you cannot object to it because it no longer affects you. You cannot both opt out and object to the Settlement.


21. When and where will the Court decide whether to approve the Settlement?

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 2:00 p.m. on April 18, 2019 in Courtroom 2 of the Oakland federal courthouse, located at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are objections, the Court will consider them. The Court will listen to people who have asked to speak at the hearing. The Court may also decide how much to pay to Class Counsel in fees and expense reimbursements. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement. The Court may reschedule the Fairness Hearing or change any of the deadlines described in this notice. The date of the Fairness Hearing may change without further notice to the class members. Be sure to check the website, www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com, for news of any such changes. You can also access the case docket via the Court’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov.

22. Do I have to come to the Fairness Hearing?

No. Class Counsel will answer any questions the Court may have. You may attend at your own expense if you wish. If you send an objection, you do not have to come to Court to talk about it. As long as you mailed your written objection on time, the Court will consider it. You may also pay your own lawyer to attend, but it is not necessary.

23. May I speak at the hearing?

You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Fairness Hearing. To do so, you must include a statement in your written objection (discussed above at Question 19) that you intend to appear at the hearing. Be sure to include your name, address, and signature as well. You cannot speak at the hearing if you exclude yourself from the class.

IF I DO NOTHING

24. What happens if I do nothing at all?

If you do nothing, you’ll be a member of the Settlement Class, you’ll get no money from this Settlement, and you won’t be able to sue Defendants for the conduct alleged in this case.


9

GETTING MORE INFORMATION

25. Are more details about the Settlement available?

Yes. This notice summarizes the proposed Settlement—more details are in the Settlement Agreement, the Plan of Allocation, and other important case documents. You can get a copy of these and other documents at www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com, by contacting Class Counsel at [email protected], by accessing the Court docket in this case through the Court’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street Oakland, CA 94612, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays. PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS.

26. How do I get more information?

The website www.LenovoAdwareSettlement.com has the claim form, answers to questions about the Settlement and other information to help you determine whether you are eligible for a payment. You can also call or write to the Claims Administrator at:

Lenovo-Superfish Settlement 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210

Philadelphia, PA 19103 1-877-595-0389

Class Counsel can be reached by calling Jonathan Levine at (415) 692-0772 or emailing [email protected]. Dated: _November 21, 2018 By Order of the Court

The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam United States District Judge


Exhibit J


EXCLUSION REQUESTS

NUMBER SIGNATURE

1 ALICE COOKSEY

2 ANA DS

3 ANDREA M BAILIE

4 ASHLEY MATTALIANO

5 BARBARA TERRELL POA FOR CAROL KLINE

6 BHARATH KV

7 CARLOS PRADO

8 CHARLENE GODINEZ

9 DALE ODERMAN

10 DANNY L MARTIN

11 DENISE REINHOLTZ

12 EDWINA GERENA

13 ELMER E BUSTILLO

14 EMMA HOBDEN

15 ERIC WOLD

16 GREGORY KNIPP

17 ISIS WOZNIAK

18 JERRY LABERGE

19 JOSIP FLEISCHER

20 JULIE ANDERSON

21 KATHERINE MURPHY

22 KIRSTEN DOMINGUEZ

23 LINDA MAITA

24 MARIA KRITIKOS

25 MARILYN ANNETTE COLE

26 MARVIN MEYER

27 MARY PHILLIPS

28 MATT DUDEK

29 MEGAN CAREY

30 MUNTAKIM M CHOUDHURY

31 NICHOLAS G WIMME

32 PATRICIA ALBRECHT

33 PAUL HNIZDIL

34 RACHEL MOELLER

35 RANDALL J. VERLIN

36 ROBERT JOSEPH MONTEAGUDO

37 RONALD HOLCOMB

38 RUPA KOKILAM LOGANATHAN

39 SHARON HARRIGAN

40 SHELDON LITWILLER

41 TESSA PELTIER

42 TIA COLLINGS

43 VANESSA CARDONA


[PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT CASE NO. 4:15-md-02624-HSG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

IN RE: LENOVO ADWARE LITIGATION This Document Relates to All Cases

CASE NO. 4:15-md-02624-HSG [PROPOSED] FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT



1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This matter came before the Court for hearing pursuant to the Order Preliminarily Approving

Class Action Settlement and Providing for Notice, dated November 21, 2018 (“Preliminary Approval

Order”), on the motion of Plaintiffs for approval of proposed class action settlements (collectively,

the “Settlement”) with Defendants Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“Lenovo”) and Superfish Inc.

(“Superfish”). Due and adequate notice having been given of the Settlement as required by the

Preliminary Approval Order, the Court having considered all papers filed and proceedings conducted

herein, and good cause appearing therefor, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as

follows:

1. This Final Order and Judgment incorporates by reference the definitions in the

Settlement Agreement with Lenovo dated July 11, 2018 (the “Agreement”), and all defined terms

used herein have the same meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.

2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Litigation and over all Parties

thereto.

3. The Court reaffirms its findings, rendered in the Preliminary Approval Order, that for

purposes of the Settlement, all prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied. The Court hereby makes final its

appointments of Class Counsel and Class Representatives and its preliminary certification of the

Settlement Class, defined as: All Persons who purchased one or more of the following computers, not

for resale, within the United States between September 1, 2014 and February 28, 2015: • G Series: G410, G510, G710, G40-70, G50-70, G40-30, G50-30, G50-45 • U Series: U430P, U430Touch, U530Touch • Y Series: Y40-70, Y50-70 • Z Series: Z50-75, Z40-70, Z50-70 • Flex Series: Flex2 14D, Flex2 15D, Flex2 14, Flex2 15, Flex2 15(BTM), Flex 10 • MIIX Series: MIIX2-10, MIIX2-11 • YOGA Series: YOGA2Pro-13, YOGA2-13, YOGA2-11BTM, YOGA2-11HSW

Excluded from this Class are Defendants, the officers, directors, and affiliates of Defendants at all

relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors,

or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.



2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the Court hereby grants final

approval of the Settlement and finds that it is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the

best interests of the Settlement Class.

5. The Court finds that notice of this Settlement was given to Class Members in

accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order and constituted the best notice practicable of the

proceedings and matters set forth therein, including the Settlement, to all Persons entitled to such

notice, and that this notice satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and of

due process.

6. The Court directs the Parties and the Claims Administrator to implement the

Settlement according to its terms and conditions, including the Plan of Allocation.

7. Upon the Effective Date, Plaintiffs and all Settlement Class Members shall be deemed

to have, and by operation of this Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever released,

relinquished, and discharged the Released Parties from all Released Claims.

8. The Persons identified in Exhibit 1 hereto requested exclusion from the Settlement

Class as of the Opt-Out Deadline. These Persons shall not share in the benefits of the Settlement, and

this Final Order and Judgment does not affect their legal rights to pursue any claims they may have

against Lenovo or Superfish. All other members of the Class are hereinafter barred and permanently

enjoined from prosecuting any Released Claims against Lenovo or Superfish in any court,

administrative agency, arbitral forum, or other tribunal.

9. Neither Class Counsel’s application for attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of litigation

expenses, and service awards for Plaintiffs, nor any order entered by this Court thereon, shall in any

way disturb or affect this Judgment, and all such matters shall be considered separate from this

Judgment.

10. Neither the Settlement, nor any act performed or document executed pursuant to or in

furtherance of the Settlement or its associated agreements, is or may be deemed to be or may be used

as an admission of, or evidence of, (a) the validity of any Released Claim, (b) any wrongdoing or

liability of Lenovo or Superfish, or (c) any fault or omission of Lenovo or Superfish in any

proceeding in any court, administrative agency, arbitral forum, or other tribunal.



3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11. Without affecting the finality of this Judgment, this Court reserves exclusive

jurisdiction over all matters related to administration, consummation, enforcement, and interpretation

of the Settlement, its associated agreements, and this Final Order, including (a) distribution or

disposition of the Settlement Fund; (b) further proceedings, if necessary, on the application for

attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and service awards for Plaintiffs; and (c) the

Settling Parties for the purpose of construing, enforcing, and administering the Settlement and its

associated agreements. If Lenovo and/or Superfish fail(s) to fulfill its or their obligations under the

Settlement and its associated agreement(s), the Court retains authority to vacate the provisions of this

Judgment releasing, relinquishing, and discharging, and barring and enjoining the prosecution of, the

Released Claims against the Released Parties, and to reinstate the Released Claims against the

Released Parties.

12. If the Settlement does not become effective under the terms of the Agreements, then

this Judgment shall be rendered null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the

Agreements and shall be vacated and, in such event, all orders entered and releases delivered in

connection herewith shall be null and void to the extent provided by and in accordance with the

Agreements.

13. The Action is hereby dismissed, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: HONORABLE HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


jonathan k. levine (sbn 220289)...andre m. mura (sbn 298541) [email protected] girard sharp llp...

Documents