Filings Pile On in MOVEit MDL as Attorneys Push, Reject Centralization
A flurry of notices -- for oral argument, related cases and opposition responses -- were filed last week and Monday before the U.S. Panel on Multidistrict Litigation involving the May MOVEit data breach. Cases stem from a May data breach at Progress Software Corp. (PSC) whose MOVEit file transfer software contained a vulnerability that was exploited by Russian ransomware group Clop.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The breach compromised the personally identifiable information of PSC’s clients’ customers, affecting hundreds of organizations and millions of individuals. It created a disparate list of defendants, including PSC, Pension Benefit Information (PBI), Berwyn Group, Genworth Financial, IBM, the University of Rochester and Johns Hopkins University Health Center. Numerous attorneys filed notices of oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, centralization.
Attorney Paulyne Gardner of Mullen Coughlin filed a notice of presentation Thursday (docket 3083) for oral argument in support of centralizing 16 cases in MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation before the JPML. Gardner filed on behalf of defendants Berwyn Group and Pension Benefit Information in support of centralization in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. Genworth Financial and Athene Annuity and Life were additional defendants in two of the cases. Mullen Coughlin has handled over 2,000 data privacy and security incidents this year, it blogged.
Among those in Gardner’s list is plaintiff Bruce Bailey, who moved in July (see 2307120053) for the JPML to transfer and centralize all related actions to U.S. District Court for Minnesota. Numerous motions to deny Bailey’s motion were filed since. Attorney Carl Malmstrom of Wolf Haldenstein filed a presentation of oral argument Friday on behalf of Bailey v. Progress Software et al., for the District of Minnesota.
Attorney Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow filed a notice of presentation of oral argument Monday in support of centralization cases against only PSC and/or PBI in the District of Minnesota. He opposes centralization for cases in which those defendants aren't named. Kopelowitz is representing four cases involving the breach with PSC listed as lead defendant on two, Genworth Financial on one and Milliman Solutions on the fourth.
Plaintiff Noreen Smith, who filed a class action against Genworth Financial over the breach, filed a notice of joinder in interested party response in opposition (docket 3:23-cv-00510) to a motion for transfer and centralization of related actions to Minnesota federal court. Eamon Joyce of Sidley, representing Genworth, notified the JPML last month of Smith’s case in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia (see 2308160045).
The JPML’s notice of related class actions Friday included three different defendants, and none named PSC. Wedeking v. IBM (docket 7:23-cv-07740) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in White Plains, claims negligence, violation of New York business law and unjust enrichment. Harling v. University of Rochester (docket 6:23-cv-06447) brings claims of negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment. And Jeanfort v. TD Ameritrade asserts negligence, breach of implied contract, fiduciary duty, confidentiality and covenant of fair dealing, among other claims.
Attorney Jeffrey Tsai of DLA Piper filed a notice of presentation for oral argument in support of centralization in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. Among the defendants in the 31 class actions on Tsai’s list are PSC and its subsidiary Ipswitch, which it acquired in March, plus Genworth, PBI, Berwyn Group, John Hopkins University and its healthcare system, the Illinois Department of Innovation and Technology and Talcott Resolution Life Insurance.
Also supporting centralization of MOVEit cases to Massachusetts Friday was attorney Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates. Pipes v. Ipswitch (docket 1:23-cv-11394), which Barnow filed in U.S. District Court for Massachusetts in Boston, also names PSC as a defendant.
Attorney Thomas McKenna of Gainey McKenna on behalf of plaintiff Richard Weissman, opposes centralization of cases involving the MOVEit data breach, said his notice of oral argument Friday before the JPML. Weissman sued (docket 1:23-cv-03999) Athene Annuity and Life and PBI in July for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment.
Attorney Elizabeth Kramer of Erickson Kramer opposes centralization, said her Friday notice of oral presentation on behalf of plaintiffs David Berry and Bonnie Ng. Berry and Ng sued PBI and Berwyn Group in June in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco (docket 3:23-cv-03297). Though plaintiffs oppose centralization, they alternatively support centralization in the Northern District of California, said the filing.