[70...2019/07/31 · 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...

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

Ronald S. Kravitz (SBN 129704) James C. Shah (SBN 260435) SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 201 Filbert Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 429-5272 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 [email protected]@sfmslaw.com

Jeffrey S. Goldenberg GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.One West 4th Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45249 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Fax: (513) 345-8294 [email protected]

(Additional Attorneys for Plaintiff Listed on Signature Page)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHIL SHIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PLANTRONICS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. Case No.: 5:18-cv-05626-NC

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF RENEWED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Hon. Nathanael M. Cousins

DATE: August 12, 2019 TIME: 10 am LOCATION: Courtroom 7

Case 5:18-cv-05626-NC Document 70 Filed 07/31/19 of 44

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF RENEWED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 5:18-cv-05626-NC

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

TO: THE CLERK OF THE COURT; and

TO: DEFENDANT PLANTRONICS, INC., AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 12, 2019, at 10 am, or as soon thereafter as the

matter may be heard telephonically, in Courtroom 7 of this Court, located at 280 South 1st Street,

San Jose, CA 95113, before the Honorable Nathanael Cousins, Plaintiff Phil Shin will and hereby

does move again for preliminary approval of a class action settlement.

This motion will be based on this Notice of Renewed Motion, the Memorandum of Points and

Authorities, the Amended Declaration of Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, the records and files in this action,

and on such other matter as may be presented before or at the hearing of the motion. An electronic

version of the proposed Order granting preliminary approval to this class action settlement (and the

drafts of the class notices) will be provided to the Court’s email address as noted in the Northern

District of California’s Procedural Guidance for Class Actions Settlements, ¶11.


i PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF RENEWED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 5:18-cv-05626-NC

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 Page

I. REVISIONS AND ACTIONS TAKEN TO ADDRESS COURT’S CONCERN…………………………………………………………1

II. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………. 6

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ………………………………………………… 8

IV. SETTLEMENT TERMS ……………………………………………………… 11

A. Proposed Settlement Class ………………………………………………… 11

B. Relief Provided to Class ……………………………………………………12

C. Release …………………………………………………………………….. 14

D. The Notice Plan …………………………………………………………….15

E. Settlement Timeline ……………………………………………………….. 17

V. ARGUMENT …………………………………………………………………. 18

A. The Settlement Class should be preliminarily certified …………………… 19

1. The Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a)… ………19

2. The Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) …….. 22

B. The Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable……………………………23

1. Adequate Representation of the Class ………………………………….24

2. Arm’s-Length Negotiation …………………………………………….. 25

3. Relief Provided to Class ………………………………………………..26

4. Equitable Treatment of Class Members ……………………………….. 31

C. Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements ……………………….. 32

1. Information About the Settlement and Past Distributions …………….. 32


ii PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF RENEWED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 5:18-cv-05626-NC

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

Page

2. Settlement Administrator ……………………………………………….34

3. Notice, Opt-Outs, Objections, and Timeline ………………………….. 34

4. Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Awards ………………………….. 35

5. Class Action Fairness Act ………………………………………………36

6. Electronic Versions ……………………………………………………..36

VI. CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………37


iii PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF RENEWED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 5:18-cv-05626-NC

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 Page(s)

Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997) …………………………………………………………. 23

Balderas v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, No. 12-CV-06327 NC, 2014 WL 3610945 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2014) ……………. 38

Celano v. Marriott Int’l Inc., 242 F.R.D. 544, 548-49 (N.D. Cal. 2007) …………………………………............ 20

Edwards v. First Am. Corp.,798 F.3d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 2015) ………………………………………………22

Edwards v. Nat'l Milk Producers Fed'n, No. 11-CV-04766-JSW, 2017 WL 3616638 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2017) ………….. 33

Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998) ………………………………………………20,21,23,26

Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., No. C-08-5198 EMC, 2011 WL 1627973 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011) ……………. 31

Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., No. C-08-5198 EMC, 2012 WL 381202 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2012) ………………...32

In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 17-MD-02777-EMC, 2019 WL 536661(N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2019) …………..19,20,22,23

In re MyFord Touch Consumer Litig., No. 13-CV-03072-EMC, 2019 WL 1411510 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019) ………… 30,31,32

In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices,& Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 2672 CRB (JSC), 2017 WL 672820 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2017) ……………….21,23

Linneman v. Vitamix, S.D. Ohio No. 1:15-cv-748 ………………………………………………………….28,33

Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 151 F.3d 1234, 1242 (9th Cir. 1998) ……………………………………………… ..27


iv PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF RENEWED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 5:18-cv-05626-NC

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

Cases Page(s)

Nielson v. The Sports Auth., No. C 11-4724 SBA, 2013 WL 3957764 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2013) ………………25

O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 13-CV-03826-EMC, 2019 WL 1437101 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2019) …………. 25

Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of City & Cty. of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 624 (9th Cir. 1982) ………………………………………………….27

Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 977 (9th Cir. 2003) ………………………………………………… 31

Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc., 667 F.3d 273, 335 (3d Cir. 2011) …………………………………………………. 23

Viceral v. Mistras Grp., Inc., No. 15-CV-02198-EMC, 2016 WL 5907869 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2016) …………. 33

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011)………………………...................................................... 20

Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, No. 2:14-CV-0175-TOR, 2019 WL 1966112 (E.D. Wash. May 2, 2019) ……….. 30

Other Authorities

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)-(4) ……………………………………………………………….. 19

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) …………………………………………………………………….20

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) …………………………………………………………………….21

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) …………………………………………………………………….21

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)……………………………………………………………………. 22,23

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) ………………………………………………………………………. 18

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2) ……………………………………………………………………. 23,24

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(A) …………………………………………………………………25


v PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF RENEWED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 5:18-cv-05626-NC

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

Other Authorities Page(s)

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(B) ……………………………………………………………….. 25

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)(C) ………………………………………………………………. 26

28 U.S.C. § 1715(b) ……………………………………………………………………… 36

Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1778 (3d ed. 1998) …………………………… 22

Manual for Complex Litigation § 21.632 (4th ed. 2004) ………………………………… 18


1 PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF RENEWED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 5:18-cv-05626-NC

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

I. REVISIONS AND ACTIONS TAKEN TO ADDRESS COURT’S CONCERNS

Plaintiff Shin first requested preliminary approval of this class action settlement at a hearing

before this Court on June 12, 2019. On June 17, 2019, this Court issued its Order Denying

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Order”) (Doc. 64) raising

the following main concerns:

1. The breadth of the Settlement release;

2. The adequacy of the Settlement relief; and

3. The adequacy of the proposed notices and notice plan. Order, p. 4-5.

Counsel for Plaintiff Shin and Counsel for Plantronics, Inc. have worked diligently together

and with the Settlement Administrator since the Court issued its June 17th Order to amend the

Settlement Agreement, and modify the Notices and the Notice Plan to address the concerns raised.

To that end, the Parties have amended the Settlement Agreement1 including:

1. Section 3.39 – The definition of “Settled Class Claims” now includes additional

language to make clear that “other related claims that could have been brought or joined to those in

the Lawsuit” must be “based on the allegations in the Complaint” in order to qualify as “Settled

Class Claims.” This addresses the Court’s settlement release breadth concern.

2. Section 6.2(b) – Language was added to the Extended Limited Warranty provision

so that Class Members are now entitled to this benefit as long as the “warranty claim [is] based on a

battery, battery charging, battery performance, waterproofing, moisture, or sweat proofing issue.”

1 Attached as Exhibit 1 is a redline version of the Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release to enable the Court to readily identify the changes made to the original Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release. Attached as Exhibit 2 is a fully executed copy of the Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release.



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

Previously, this provision was limited to “battery charging issues.” This addresses the Court’s

adequacy of relief concern.

3. Sections 6.6.1(c) and (d) – Language was added to the $50 Cash Payment benefit so

that Class Members are now entitled to this benefit as long as they previously made a

contemporaneous written claim or complaint and can attest that their Headphones were defective or

did not function properly “due to a battery, battery charging, battery performance, waterproofing,

moisture, or sweat proofing issue.” Previously, these provisions were limited to “a battery

charging issue.” This addresses the Court’s adequacy of relief concern.

4. Section 6.6.2(c) – Language was added to the $25 Cash Payment benefit so that

Class Members are now entitled to this benefit as long as they can attest that their Headphones were

defective or did not function properly “due to a battery, battery charging, battery performance,

waterproofing, moisture, or sweat proofing issue.” Previously, this provision was limited to “a

battery charging issue.” This addresses the Court’s adequacy of relief concern.

5. Sections 7.3(d); (d)(ii); and (d)(iii) – These notice provisions were modified to

make it clear that Class Counsel “shall” issue subpoenas to the top 10 retailers of the Headphones to

obtain Class Member contact and purchase related information; that Class Counsel shall provide

oversight and guidance to any retailer who chooses to deliver the class notices themselves; and that

Class Counsel will issue the third-party retailer subpoenas as soon as practical (prior to preliminary

approval).2 These address the Court’s concern about the adequacy of the Notice Plan.

2 The third-party subpoenas to the top 10 Headphone retailers were delivered to the process servers on July 30, 2019. In addition, Plantronics, Inc. contacted the top 10 Headphone retailers to alert them about the subpoenas and the types of information being requested. An exemplar of the subpoena and related materials is attached as Exhibit 7.



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

6. Section 11.1 – Language was added to the definition of “Released Claims” to limit

the claims being released to those that “relate to the Headphones’ battery, battery performance,

ability to retain a charge, or the Headphones’ resistance to water, moisture, or sweat.” Previously,

this limitation was not included. This addresses the Court’s concern about the breadth of the

release.

7. Section 11.2 – This provision was revised to make clear that “‘Released Claims’

specifically excludes claims that do not relate to the Headphones’ battery, battery performance,

ability to retain a charge, or the Headphone’s resistance to water, moisture, or sweat.” Previously,

this limitation was not included. This addresses the Court’s concern about the breadth of the

release.

The Class Notices have been revised to address the concern raised by the Court that they did

not adequately alert Class members about the claims being released. Order, p. 12. The revised

Class Notices3 now contain the following sentence: “Released Claims. If you submit a claim, do

nothing, or do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, you will be releasing Plantronics from all

claims, damages, and losses that you now have or may have in the future that relate to your

Headphones’ battery, battery performance, ability to retain a charge, or their resistance to water,

moisture, or sweat.” In addition, the Class Notices have been revised to alert Class Members that

Extended Limited Warranty, the $50 Cash Payment, and the $25 Cash Payment settlement benefits

are available for Headphone failures related to battery, battery charging, battery performance,

waterproofing, moisture, or sweat proofing issues. The prior versions of the Class Notices stated

3 Attached as Exhibit 3 are redline versions of the Class Notices to enable the Court to readily identify the changes made to the original notices. Attached as Exhibit 4 are the redline accepted version of the notices.



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

that these benefits were limited to battery charging issues. These revisions address the Court’s

concern about the adequacy of the Class Notices.

As to the notice plan, the Court was concerned about the lack of detailed information

explaining the contingency publication notice plan if the subpoena process is not successful (Order,

p. 10-11). To address this issue, the Parties obtained a declaration and a detailed Proposed

Settlement Notice Program (“Notice Program”) from the Settlement Administrator, A.B. Data, Ltd.,

explaining the proposed notice plan.4 “The primary goal of the Notice Program is to deliver notice

to the Proposed Class leveraging the latest digital media technologies, while also meeting the

requirements of due process and delivering a reach of at least 70%.” Notice Program, p. 2. To

achieve this goal, A.B. Data has carefully designed the Notice Program so that it identifies the

demographics of the Class Members (target audience)5, adopts a methodology for selecting media

vehicles likely to reach the target audience, and provides results that quantify for the Court the

adequacy of the notice using recognized tools of media measurement. Id. at 5.

The Notice Program has two components. The first is direct mail or email notice to Class

Members, and the second is the digital media campaign. Id. at 4. “The Notice Program options…

are consistent with notice plans that A.B. Data has developed and have been approved by other

Courts and implemented for other similar national consumer cases with regard to the methods and

tools for developing such plans.” Id. The paid digital media campaign is designed to supplement

the reach of the direct mail and email component. “Based on the successful reach of the Direct

4 The Declaration of Eric Schachter Regarding Settlement Notice Plan and Administration (“Schachter Dec.”) is attached as Exhibit 5. A.B. Data, Ltd.’s Proposed Settlement Notice Program (“Notice Program”) is attached as Exhibit 5 to the Schachter Dec. Mr. Schachter will be available by phone to participate in the August 12th Preliminary Approval Hearing. 5 The target audience for the Notice Program is adults age 18-54 who are exercise enthusiasts. Notice Program, p. 6-7.



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 Program (the mail and email campaign), the paid Digital Media Notice Program will be

adjusted accordingly.” Id. at 13. To this end, A.B. Data has developed three separate scenarios

which increase the scope of the paid Digital Media Notice Program as the reach of the Direct Notice

Program declines.6 Id. For example, Scenario 1 is based upon a 25% direct notice reach and

includes a paid Digital Media Notice Program that buys 74 million impressions. Id. Scenario 2 is

based upon a 50% direct notice reach and includes a paid Digital Media Notice Program that buys

39 million impressions. Id. There are less resources dedicated to the paid Digital Medial Notice

Program under Scenario 2 (resulting in fewer impressions) because the direct notice reach under

Scenario 2 (50%) is greater than Scenario 1 (25%). As the above discussion demonstrates, the

Notice Program developed by A.B. Data is flexible so that it can modified as necessary depending

upon the relative success of the direct mail and email notice component. This addresses many of the

concerns raised by the Court on pages 10 and 11 of its Order.

The Court also expressed concern about the lack of formal discovery in this litigation since a

settlement was achieved prior to the Court ruling on Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Order, p. 9.

To supplement the informal discovery exchanges that took place prior to and during the mediation

process, Plaintiff recently issued (and Defendant has answered) formal interrogatories addressing

several important topics relevant to this Settlement. These include: (1) Headphone sales volume;

(2) Headphone sales volume after January 2, 2018 (identifying the units eligible for the extended

warranty benefit); (3) the MSRP for the Headphones as well as the typical discounted sales price

range for the Headphones at retail; (4) the various types of reliability testing performed on the

6 Scenario 1 assumes a 25% direct notice reach; Scenario 2 assumes a 50% direct notice reach; and Scenario 3 assumes a 75% direct notice reach. Notice Program, p. 13.



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

Headphones prior to and during their production (reliability testing for sweatproof and waterproof

capability; battery performance testing including battery charging and battery charge time) as well

as the overall results of those tests; (5) warranty claim rates; (6) the manufacturing and component

differences between the BackBeat Fit headphones that are the subject of this litigation and the

BackBeat Fit 2100 headphones which will be provided to Class Members pursuant to the Extended

Warranty settlement benefit; and (7) the various types of reliability testing performed on the

BackBeat Fit 2100 headphones. The formal answers provided by Defendant confirm and are

consistent with the information exchanged during the mediation process.

The Court also expressed concern that Defendant agreed as part of the terms of this

settlement not to oppose Class Counsel’s fee and expense request up to $650,000. Order, p. 9. To

provide the Court with additional support that the parties’ negotiations about fees and expenses did

not occur until after the relief to the Class was agreed upon, attached as Exhibit 6 is the Declaration

of Martin Quinn. Mediator Quinn states without equivocation that at “[n]o negotiation took place

with respect to fees and costs until after tentative agreement had been reached on class

compensation and relief.” Quinn Declaration, ¶7.

II. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Shin filed this action on his own behalf and on behalf of the 1,271,000 consumers

who purchased BackBeat FIT wireless sport headphones (“Headphones”) manufactured by

Defendant Plantronics, Inc. (“Plantronics” or “Defendant”) prior to September 2018. Plantronics

marketed the Headphones as “sweatproof” and “waterproof,” and as offering “up to 8 hours” of

listening time on a single charge. Plaintiff alleges that the Headphones do not live up to these

representations because they contain a defect causing rapidly diminishing battery life and eventual



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

failure to retain a charge or failure due to exposure to moisture, sweat, or water. Based on these

allegations, Plaintiff filed this suit asserting various warranty and consumer fraud-based claims.

Plantronics strenuously denies Plaintiff’s allegations and has asserted numerous defenses.

Recognizing the risks and costs of ongoing litigation, Plaintiff and Defendant engaged in

extensive arm’s-length settlement negotiations with the assistance of a respected third-party mediator

Martin Quinn, Esq. of JAMS in San Francisco. After nearly two and a half months of hard-fought

negotiations, the Parties reached an agreement to fully resolve the dispute. The details of the proposed

settlement are set forth in the Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release

(“Agreement”), attached as Exhibit 2. The proposed settlement generally allows any purchaser who:

(1) files a claim; (2) attests that he or she experienced a failure due to battery charging or moisture

issues; and (3) either submits proof of purchase information (e.g., receipt) or proof of purchase

information is obtained by Class Counsel from third-party retailers or is provided by Defendant, will

be eligible to receive a $25 payment. Those purchasers who also provide documentation (or such

documentation is provided by Plantronics) proving that they previously made a written complaint of

the charging issues will be eligible to receive a larger, $50 payment. Purchasers who only recently

purchased the Headphones (and therefore may not have experienced the defect yet) will receive a

one-year limited extended warranty. These are all valuable settlement benefits.

The proposed settlement was reached when the Parties understood the strengths and

weaknesses of their respective positions. Plaintiff, through his counsel, conducted an extensive

investigation of his claims, filed an original complaint, an amended complaint, briefed a motion to

dismiss, and undertook significant fact discovery including working with a world-renowned battery

expert. Based upon his evaluation of the facts and applicable law and his recognition of the substantial



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

risk and expense of continued litigation, Plaintiff submits that the proposed Settlement is in the best

interests of the Class and will provide an immediate meaningful recovery.

At this time, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant preliminary approval of the proposed

Settlement so that notice may be provided to the Class. Given the substantial benefits available to

Class Members, and the risks in establishing Defendant’s liability, proving damages, and certifying

a contested nationwide class, Plaintiff respectfully submits that the proposed Amended Settlement

Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and represents an outstanding result, as described below.

A proposed Order granting preliminary approval is attached as Exhibit 9.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On September 13, 2018, Plaintiff Phil Shin commenced this action by filing a Class Action

Complaint [Doc. 1] against Defendant challenging the marketing and sale of the Headphones

manufactured by Plantronics. Plaintiff subsequently filed the operative First Amended Class Action

Complaint (“FAC”) [Doc. 35] on December 14, 2018. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that: (i)

Defendant represented, advertised and marketed the Headphones as, inter alia, “waterproof”,

“sweatproof” and providing “up to 8 hours” of wireless listening time from a single charge; (ii) said

representations, advertising and marketing statements were false and misleading because the

Headphones are neither sweatproof nor waterproof and do not last up to eight hours of listening time

on a single charge; (iii) the Headphones contain one or more defects that cause the battery life to

diminish and eventually stop retaining a charge after normal usage, especially when the Headphones

are exposed to sweat or water; and (iv) Plaintiff and all other consumers who purchased the

Headphones have suffered damages because had they known the truth they would not have purchased

the Headphones or would have paid less for the Headphones.



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

Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims for: (a) Breach of Express Warranty –

Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; (b) Breach of Implied Warranty – Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; (c)

Breach Express Warranty; (d) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability – California Song-

Beverly Act; (e) Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose; (f) Violation of

California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750 et seq.; (g) Violation of

California’s Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; and

(h) Common Law Fraud. The FAC seeks certification of a nationwide class of Headphone purchasers.

Plantronics denies the allegations and claims, and has asserted substantial defenses to

Plaintiff’s claims, including that: (i) the Headphones are not defective in any respect; (ii) the

Headphones were tested and qualified to be waterproof, sweatproof and providing up to 8 hours of

listing time, as represented; (iii) Plantronics did not fail to disclose any material defect in the

Headphones; (iv) Plaintiff’s and the putative class’s exclusive remedy for any defective Headphones

is the Limited Warranty; (v) Plantronics fully complied with the Limited Warranty for the

Headphones; (vi) Plaintiff failed to comply with the Limited Warranty and/or failed to submit a timely

warranty claim for his Headphones; (vii) Plaintiff failed to provide pre-suit notice to Plantronics, such

that his warranty claims are barred; (viii) Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts in the FAC to state

any valid claims against Plantronics; (ix) Plaintiff and the putative class did not suffer any losses or

actual injury; and (x) certification of any class, let alone a nationwide class, is not appropriate.

On January 23, 2019, the Parties engaged in private mediation before Martin Quinn, Esq. of

JAMS in San Francisco. The Parties made substantial progress but were not able to fully resolve the

dispute at the mediation. With the aid of the mediator, the Parties continued to engage in extensive

settlement discussions.



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

On February 13, 2019, Plantronics filed a motion to dismiss [Doc. 40] the FAC, seeking

dismissal of the entire complaint and each cause of action therein. Thereafter, the Parties fully briefed

the motion to dismiss, and the Court heard oral argument on March 27, 2019. From January 23, 2019

through March 28, 2019, with the motion to dismiss pending, the Parties continued to engage in

extensive settlement discussions with the aid of the mediator. On March 28, 2019 the Parties reached

agreement in principal and the Parties’ counsel signed a written Memorandum of Understanding

outlining the terms of the agreement, attached as Exhibit 8.

On March 29, 2018, the Parties informed the Court that they had reached a settlement in

principal to resolve this matter on a national class-wide basis, and on April 5, 2019 the Parties filed a

Joint Notice of Class Action Settlement [Doc. 50] with the Court. Before reaching a settlement and

entering into the Agreement: (1) the Parties engaged in informal discovery and sharing of information

regarding the design, development and testing of the Headphones; (2) Plaintiff’s counsel engaged an

independent expert to conduct testing of the Headphones and batteries used in the Headphones; and

(3) the Parties engaged in numerous arm’s-length settlement negotiations, including two-months of

mediation efforts and discussions under the direction and guidance of Martin Quinn, Esq. as a

mediator. Plantronics also responded to Plaintiff’s interrogatories as discussed previously. Amended

Declaration of Jeffrey S. Goldenberg in Support of Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of

Class Action Settlement (Am. Goldenberg Dec.), ¶¶6, 11 filed concurrently. Plaintiff and Class

Counsel have reviewed and analyzed the information Defendant furnished and information obtained

through their own investigation; consulted with their own expert who conducted testing of the

Headphones and batteries used in the Headphones; examined and considered the benefits to be

provided to the Class Members under the Settlement provided for in this Agreement; revised the



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

terms of the Settlement and notices to address the Court’s concerns raised in its Order; and considered

the laws of the several States and the claims that could be asserted under those laws.

Plaintiff and Class Counsel believe the Amended Settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and

in the best interests of the Class Members, taking into account the benefits provided to the Class

Members, the risks of continued litigation and possible trial and appeals, and the length of time and

the costs that would be required to complete the litigation. Id. at ¶13. The Parties agreed on the

benefits to the Settlement Class described in this Amended Agreement before negotiating attorneys’

fees and expenses and the payment of a Service Award to the named Plaintiff. Id. at ¶15.

Plaintiff and Class Counsel acknowledge and agree that this Amended Agreement constitutes

a compromise of disputed claims and that it is their desire and intention that the Lawsuit be settled

and dismissed, on the merits and with prejudice, and that the Released Claims be finally and fully

settled and dismissed, subject to and according to the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement.

IV. SETTLEMENT TERMS

A. Proposed Settlement Class

The proposed Settlement Class is defined as:

All Persons domiciled within the United States and its territories who purchased at retail Plantronics BackBeat FIT wireless headphones, version Genesis or 16M,7

between April 1, 2014 and the Notice Date (currently September 16, 2019). Excluded from the Class is Defendant and its officers, directors and employees; Class Counsel and their partners, associates, lawyers, and employees; and the judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated Court staff assigned to this case.

Amended Agreement § 3.8.

7 BackBeat FIT wireless headphones, version Genesis or 16M, were manufactured by Plantronics prior to September 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

B. Relief Provided to Class

Under the Amended Agreement, members of the Settlement Class (“Class Members”) may

obtain one of the following three alternative benefits:

Alternative 1: Extended Limited Warranty – Agreement § 6.2

Class Members who purchased their Headphones on or after January 1, 2018 may opt to

receive a 12-month limited warranty extension on the Headphones, with the 12-month extension

beginning to run from the Effective Date of the Settlement (the “Extended Warranty”).8 See generally

Agreement § 6.2. Approximately 300,000 Class Members purchased the Headphones on or after

January 1, 2018. Am. Goldenberg Dec., ¶9. Class Members who purchased Headphones before

January 1, 2018 are not eligible for the Extended Warranty, and instead are limited to claiming cash

benefits under either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. Class Members qualifying for the Extended

Warranty do not need to submit a Claim Form. But they must comply with the on-line warranty claim

process on Plantronics website, at www.plantronics.com, and must return to Plantronics their existing

Headphones for which they are making the warranty claim. To qualify for coverage under the

Extended Warranty, the warranty claim must be based on a battery charging or moisture issues, and

the Class Member must attest under penalty of perjury that he, she or it (i) has not filed a warranty

claim on the Headphones previously; (ii) did not previously receive a replacement set of Headphones

from any source; and (iii) did not previously receive a refund from Plantronics or the retailer from

which the Class Member purchased the Headphones for all or any portion of the purchase price of

8 To the extent that the original limited warranty applicable to the original purchase of the Headphones (the “Original Limited Warranty”) has not expired by the Effective Date, the Extended Warranty shall be in addition to and take effect after expiration of the Original Limited Warranty. Agreement, § 6.3.



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

the Headphones.9 Importantly, the 300,000 Class Members who are eligible for the Extended

Warranty may forego the Extended Warranty and file a claim for the $50 or $25 cash benefit provided

by Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 (discussed below).

Class Members who are not qualified to receive the Extended Warranty (by reason of having

purchased their Headphones prior to January 1, 2018), and Class Members who are qualified to

receive the Extended Warranty but who elect to forego the Extended Warranty, may qualify to receive

a cash payment from Defendant under either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3, but not both.

Alternative 2: $50 Cash Payment – Agreement § 6.6.1

A Class Member may opt to receive a $50 payment under this Alternative 2 if the Class

Member timely submits to the Settlement Administrator (1) a properly completed Claim Form, (2)

either submits proof of purchase information (e.g., receipt) or proof of purchase information is

obtained by Class Counsel from third-party retailers or is provided by Defendant, (3) evidence that

the Class Member had, prior to September 12, 2018, made a written claim or complaint that the

Headphones’ were defective or did not function properly due to battery charging or moisture issues,

and (4) an attestation under penalty of perjury that the Class Member’s Headphones experienced a

battery charging issue but the Class Member did not previously receive a replacement set of

Headphones or a refund for all or any portion of their purchase price.10 A Class Member who fully

9 Plantronics is entitled to rebut the Class Member’s assertion of no prior warranty claim, replacement Headphones or refund with verifiable evidence to the contrary. Agreement, § 6.2(c). 10 Plantronics is entitled to rebut the Class Member’s assertion of no prior replacement Headphones or refund with verifiable evidence to the contrary provided to the Settlement Administrator. Agreement, § 6.6.1(d).



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

complies with all of the above requirements shall receive a payment of $50.11 There shall be a limit

of two (2) claims per Class Member.12

Alternative 3: $25 Cash Payment – Agreement § 6.6.2

A Class Member may opt to receive a $25 payment under this Alternative 3 if the Class

Member timely submits to the Settlement Administrator (1) a properly completed Claim Form, (2)

proof of purchase information (e.g., receipt) or proof of purchase information is obtained by Class

Counsel from third-party retailers or is provided by Defendant, and (3) an attestation under penalty

of perjury that the Class Member’s Headphones malfunctioned or failed to work properly due to a

battery charging or moisture issue, and the Class Member did not previously receive a replacement

set of Headphones or a refund for all or any portion of their purchase price.13 There shall be a limit

of two (2) claims per Class Member. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Class Member who previously

received a replacement set of Headphones from any source may make one, and only one, claim for

benefits under this Alternative 3 benefit, and such Class Member is excused from the requirement to

attest under penalty of perjury that they did not previously receive a replacement set of Headphones

from any source.

C. Release

Under the Agreement, Class Members who do not timely and validly exclude themselves from

the Settlement will release claims against Defendant and other Released Parties, which include

Defendant’s past, present, and future officers, directors, board members, agents, representatives,

11 If the Proof of Purchase shows that the Claimant purchased the Headphones for less than $50, the Claimant’s recovery is limited to the price paid for the Headphones. Agreement, § 6.6.1. 12 Claimants seeking the $50 payment who do not satisfy those requirements (e.g., fail to provide support demonstrating previous complaint), will automatically be evaluated to determine if they satisfy the requirements for the $25 benefit. 13 Plantronics is entitled to rebut the Claimant’s assertion of no prior replacement Headphones or refund with verifiable evidence to the contrary presented to the Settlement Administrator. Agreement, § 6.6.2(c).



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

servants, employees, attorneys, and insurers. Agreement §§ 3.36, 11.1. The release is tailored to the

claims at issue in this litigation has been amended to address the Court’s concerns raised in the Order

that it was too broad. For example, it does not cover claims for personal injury or emotional distress

for Class Members other than Plaintiff Shin and is now limited to claims that were the focus of the

litigation – battery charging and moisture issues. Amended Agreement, §§ 11.1, 11.2.

D. The Notice Plan

Under the Agreement, the Settlement Administrator will send by U.S. mail or electronic mail

(email) a copy of the Short Form Settlement Notice to every Class Member who reasonably can be

identified from Plantronics’ records or the records of third-party retailers. Agreement § 7.3.14 The

Settlement Administrator shall design a notice (both for delivery by U.S. mail and by email) that will

enhance the chance it will be opened or viewed by the Class Member. The issuance of Class Notice

shall begin on September 16, 2019 and shall be completed by October 7, 2019.15 Agreement § 3.22.

A copy of the Short Form Settlement Notices to be sent by U.S. mail and email are attached as Exhibit

4. To the extent practicable, the Settlement Administrator shall send or cause to be sent a copy of the

Settlement Notice by email to every Class Member whose email address or other electronic contact

information Defendant can reasonably identify in its records or third-party retailers provide in

response to the subpoenas issued by Class Counsel. If the Settlement Administrator can identify more

14 Plantronics will identify Class Members by looking for persons who directly purchased Headphones from Plantronics on the plantronics.com website as well as those who registered their Headphones with Plantronics. In addition, Plantronics provided to Class Counsel a list of the top 10 retailers of the Headphones, and Class Counsel provided subpoenas addressed to these retailers to a process server on July 30, 2019. Class Counsel also seeks an order from the Court directing the retailers to produce contact information and certain purchase related information for Headphone purchasers or forward the Short Form Settlement Notice to their customers to facilitate the notice process. A copy of the proposed Order is attached as Exhibit 11. Agreement, § 7.3d. 15 See Proc. Guidance for Class Action Sett. ¶ 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

email addresses or other electronic contact information for Class Members by performing an email

address lookup or similar exercise, the Settlement Administrator shall include such costs in the

Administration and Notice Expenses. For all other Class Members for whom or which a mailing

address, but no email address or other electronic means of contact, can reasonably be identified, the

Settlement Administrator shall send or cause to be sent a copy of the Short Form Settlement Notice

by U.S. mail.

At approximately the same time the Settlement Administrator mails and emails the Short

Form Settlement Notices, the Settlement Administrator will implement the supplemental Publication

Notice program designed by the Settlement Administrator to enhance the direct mail and email notice

program by using publication, media and digital sources to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 and

due process. The goal of this Publication Notice is to design a program that will reach at least 70%

of the Class Members, and will be amended as necessary, depending upon the relative success of the

third-party retailer subpoena process. Notice Program, pp. 2,13, Exhibit 5 to Schachter Dec.; see

supra at pp. 4-5. Highlights of this supplemental Publication Notice program include:

1. Digital online campaigns on Facebook, Google and Yahoo

2. Sponsored search text ads on search engines such as Google, Yahoo, and Bing

3. Digital and social media campaign involving Google Display Networks; Google AdWords (Banner Ads; Newsfeed Ads; and YouTube Digital)

4. Press Releases. Notice Program, pp. 11-13, Exhibit 5 to Schachter Dec.

To facilitate the efficient administration of this Settlement, and to promote the provision of

benefits pursuant to this Settlement, the Settlement Administrator will establish a Settlement Website

that enables Class Members to: (a) Identify important settlement related dates and deadlines; (b) Read



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 full Settlement Notice16, FAQs, and important case documents (e.g. Settlement Agreement, Order

Granting Preliminary Approval, Class Counsel’s Motion Requesting Attorneys’ Fees); (c) Complete,

review, and submit a Claim Form online as well as to submit any supporting documentation online;

(d) Print the completed Claim Form17 for signature by the Class Member and mailing to the

Settlement Administrator along with any required documentary support; (e) View a toll-free

telephone number Class Members may call to obtain general information about the Settlement and

this Agreement; (f) Obtain updates on the status of the Settlement; (g) Obtain information on how to

object or opt out of the Settlement; and (h) Receive instruction on how to access the case docket via

PACER or view it in person at any of the court’s locations.

The full Settlement Notice, Short Form Settlement Notices, FAQs, Claim Forms,

supplemental Publication Notice program, and Settlement Website are designed to satisfy due process

requirements18 to provide information sufficient to inform Class Members of: (a) the contact

information for class counsel to answer questions; (b) the essential terms and benefits of this

Agreement; (c) the process to obtain the settlement benefits; (d) the process to object or opt out of

the Settlement; and (e) the appropriate means for obtaining additional information regarding the

Agreement and the lawsuit.

E. Settlement Timeline

A proposed list of updated Settlement-related dates and deadlines includes the following:

16 The full Settlement Notice is attached as Exhibit 4 and will be posted on the Settlement Website and will be mailed to any Class Member who requests a copy. 17 A draft Claim Form is attached as Exhibit 10. 18 Exhibit 5 (Declaration of Eric Schachter Regarding Settlement Notice Plan and Administration), ¶22.



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

1. Issue Subpoenas to Third-Party Retailers – Subpoenas provided to process servers on July

30, 2019.

2. Establish Settlement Website and Toll-Free Number – Prior to September 16, 2019

3. Mailing and Emailing Class Notice – Begins on September 16, 2019 and is to be

completed by October 7, 2019

4. Class Counsel’s Fee and Expense Motion – November 8, 2019

5. Claim Deadline – December 31, 2019

6. Objection Deadline – November 22, 2019

7. Opt-Out Deadline – November 22, 2019

8. Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Approval, Response to Objections and Update to the Court –

December 6, 2019

9. Fairness Hearing – On or after December 20, 2019

V. ARGUMENT

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), “claims, issues, or defenses of … a class proposed to be certified

for purposes of settlement … may be settled … only with the court's approval.” Id. Court approval

of class action settlements occurs in three steps: (1) preliminary approval of the proposed settlement,

including (if the class has not already been certified) conditional certification of the class for

settlement purposes; (2) notice to the class providing them an opportunity to object or exclude

themselves from the settlement; and (3) a final fairness hearing concerning the fairness, adequacy,

and reasonableness of the settlement. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e); Manual for Complex Litigation §

21.632 (4th ed. 2004).



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

At the first step, commonly referred to as the preliminary approval stage, the settling parties

request approval from the court to send notice to the class. In order to earn court approval to send

notice to the class, the parties must provide “sufficient” information for the court to determine that it

will “likely” be able to (1) certify the class for purposes of judgment, Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(1)(B)(ii),

and (2) approve the settlement, Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(1)(B)(i). In other words, when a court is presented

with a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement, it must first evaluate whether

certification of a settlement class is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b),

and then determine whether the settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable. See In re

Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 17-MD-02777-

EMC, 2019 WL 536661, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2019).

A. The Settlement Class should be preliminarily certified.

The proposed Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3).19

1. The Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a).

Rule 23(a) provides that a class action is proper only if four requirements are met: (1)

numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, and (4) adequacy of representation. See Fed.R.Civ.P.

23(a)(1)-(4). In the instant case, there is more than enough showing that all four requirements have

been satisfied for purposes of preliminary approval.

Numerosity. Rule 23(a)(1) requires the class to be so numerous that joinder of all parties is

impracticable. The proposed Class has approximately 1.3 million members, which satisfies the

19 For settlement purposes only, Plantronics does not dispute this characterization. Amended Agreement § 4.1. If the proposed Settlement is not approved, Plantronics reserves its right to contest class certification. Id.



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

numerosity requirement. Am. Goldenberg Dec., ¶9; See Celano v. Marriott Int’l Inc., 242 F.R.D.

544, 548-49 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (numerosity is generally satisfied when a class has at least 40 members).

Commonality. Class issues are sufficiently common where “there are questions of fact and

law which are common to the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(2). The common question “must be of such

a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution – which means that determination of its truth or

falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.”

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). “Rule 23(a)(2) has been construed

permissively. All questions of fact and law need not be common to satisfy the rule. The existence of

shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates is sufficient.” Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150

F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 1998).

Here, the commonality requirement is satisfied because Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ claims

“arise from [defendants’] common course of conduct.” In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Mktg.,

Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., 2019 WL 536661, at *6. Common legal and factual questions

include: (a) whether the Headphones are defective; (b) whether Plantronics’ claim that the

Headphones are “sweatproof” and “waterproof” is deceptive; (c) whether Plantronics’ claim that the

Headphones have “up to 8 hours” of battery life is deceptive; (d) whether Plantronics’ claim that the

Headphones are durable enough to withstand “working out” is deceptive; (e) whether Plantronics

breached express warranties relating to the Headphones including the Headphones have “up to 8

hours” of use on a single charge and the Headphones are “sweatproof” and “waterproof”; (f) whether

Plantronics breached the implied warranty of merchantability relating to the Headphones; (g) whether

Plantronics breached the implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose relating to the



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

Headphones; and (h) whether Plantronics engaged in unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive trade

practices by selling and/or marketing defective Headphones. These satisfy commonality.

Typicality. To meet the requirement for typicality “the claims or defenses of the representative

parties [must be] typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(3). “Typicality

‘assure[s] that the interest of the named representative aligns with the interests of the class.’” In re

Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 2672 CRB (JSC),

2017 WL 672820, at *7, (N.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2017). “Under the rule’s permissive standards,

representative claims are ‘typical’ if they are reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class

members; they need not be substantially identical.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020.

Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class Members whom he seeks to represent

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3) because Plaintiff and each Class Member have been similarly affected

by Plantronics’ conduct. As alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff and all members of the Class

purchased defective Headphones that render the Headphones either worthless or worth substantially

less than the price paid to purchase the Headphones. In addition, Plaintiff asserts that Plantronics’

alleged conduct that gave rise to the claims of Plaintiff and Class Members (i.e. delivering defective

Headphones, making false claims with respect to the Headphones, and breaching warranties

respecting the Headphones) is the same for all Class Members. Typicality requires nothing more.

Adequacy of Representation. Finally, Rule 23(a)(4) requires that the named plaintiff, who seek

to be a class representative, “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

23(a)(4). “Resolution of two questions determines legal adequacy: (1) do the named plaintiffs and

their counsel have any conflicts of interest with other class members and (2) will the named plaintiffs

and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020.



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

In this case, there is no evidence of any conflicts of interest. Further, Plaintiff has retained counsel

competent and experienced in complex class action litigation (including product defect class action

litigation), and Plaintiff is committed to prosecute this action vigorously. Therefore, the interests of

the Class Members will be fairly and adequately protected. Am. Goldenberg Dec., ¶10.

2. The Settlement Class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).

Class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3) when “questions of law or fact common

to the members of the class predominate over any question affecting only individual members, and

… a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the

controversy.” Both requirements are satisfied here.

The first requirement is that “[c]ommon issues predominate over individual issues” meaning

“the common issues ‘represent a significant aspect of the case and they can be resolved for all

members of the class in a single adjudication.’” Edwards v. First Am. Corp., 798 F.3d 1172, 1182

(9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §

1778 (3d ed. 1998)).

In this case, a common overarching issue is whether Plantronics engaged in unfair,

unconscionable, or deceptive trade practices by selling and marketing defective Headphones. Plaintiff

asserts that liability can be determined on a class wide basis because there is a single common issue

which drives the litigation. In other words, the predominance requirement is satisfied because

“[Defendant] perpetrated the same fraud in the same manner against all Class Members.” In re

Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., 2019 WL 536661, at

*7.



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 second requirement is that class settlement must be superior to other means of resolution.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3). The superiority requirement focuses on “whether maintenance of [the]

litigation as a class action is efficient and whether it is fair.” Volkswagen, 2017 WL 672820, at *8.

Here, the amount of recovery is relatively small and unlikely to be pursued by individuals. Because

“litigation costs would dwarf potential recovery,” a class action and a class settlement are the superior

means of adjudicating this matter. Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1022.

Notably, manageability of a class action for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3) is not an issue in the

settlement context because the case will not be tried. See Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591,

620 (1997) (“Confronted with a request for settlement-only class certification, a district court need

not inquire whether the case, if tried, would present intractable management problems, for the

proposal is that there be no trial.”); Sullivan v. DB Invs., Inc., 667 F.3d 273, 335 (3d Cir. 2011) (“A

key question in a litigation class action is manageability – how the case will or can be tried, and

whether there are questions of fact or law that are capable of common proof. But the settlement class

presents no management problems because the case will not be tried.”); In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep

Ecodiesel Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., 2019 WL 536661, at *7 (similar).

Because the case meets the requirements for Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3), certification for

settlement purposes is appropriate. The next step is to determine whether the Court is likely to

approve the Settlement as fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable.

B. The Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

Before the 2018 amendments, Rule 23(e)(2) required that the court approve a class action

settlement “only after a hearing and on finding that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Because the

rule was silent as to what factors courts should consider in deciding whether a settlement was “fair,



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

reasonable, and adequate,” courts developed their own individual tests, with some judicial circuits

having a dozen or more factors to consider. In the Ninth Circuit, courts have traditionally considered

(1) the strength of Plaintiff’s case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further

litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status through 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 the class

members to the proposed settlement. See, e.g., Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026.

However, Rule 23 was recently amended to provide a simpler and more uniform approach to

the process. The new language in Rule 23(e)(2) sets forth foundational considerations that courts are

now directed to utilize when considering whether a settlement can be approved. These factors include

whether:

(A) the class representatives and class counsel have adequately represented the class; (B) the proposal was negotiated at arm's length; (C) the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into account:

(i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; (ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of distributing relief to the class, including the method of processing class-member claims; (iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney's fees, including timing of payment; and (iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and

(D) the proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(2). According to the official advisory committee notes, the goal of this

amendment is not to displace any factor, but rather to focus the court and the lawyers on the core

concerns of procedure and substance that should guide the decision whether to approve the proposal.

1. Adequate Representation of the Class



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 first factor asks whether “the class representatives and class counsel have adequately

represented the class.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(2)(A). As previously discussed in connection with the class

certification analysis, there is nothing in the record to suggest there are any conflicts of interest

between Plaintiff, Counsel, or the Class Members. Quinn Dec., ¶7. Moreover, Plaintiff and Counsel

are committed to prosecute this action vigorously. Am. Goldenberg Dec., ¶10. Accordingly, this

factor weighs in favor of preliminary approval.

2. Arm’s-Length Negotiation

The second factor asks whether “the [settlement] proposal was negotiated at arm’s length.”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(2)(B). Here, the Parties arrived at the settlement Agreement after multiple rounds

of negotiations overseen by the experienced and respected mediator Martin Quinn, Esq. of JAMS in

San Francisco. Id. at ¶6; Quinn Dec., ¶9; See O'Connor v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 13-CV-03826-EMC,

2019 WL 1437101, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2019) (arm’s-length factor weighed in favor of

preliminary approval where settlement was reached with assistance of experienced mediators);

Nielson v. The Sports Auth., No. C 11-4724 SBA, 2013 WL 3957764, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2013)

(“[T]he settlement resulted from non-collusive negotiations; i.e., a mediation before Mark Rudy, a

respected employment attorney and mediator.”). Moreover, as discussed above, the Parties have

conducted extensive informal discovery and sharing of information regarding the design,

development and testing of the Headphones. Id. at ¶¶6, 12. And as mentioned previously, Class

Counsel recently issued interrogatories which Defendant answered addressing many relevant issues

to substantiate the terms of the Settlement. See supra, pp. 5-6. Having analyzed the information

furnished by Defendant, consulted with an expert who has conducted testing of the Headphones, and

carefully scrutinized the terms of the proposed Settlement, Class Counsel and Plaintiff believes it is



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

fair, adequate, and reasonable. Id. at ¶13; See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1027 (recognizing that courts

should give “proper deference to the private consensual decision of the parties”).20 Accordingly, this

factor also weighs in favor of approval.

3. Relief Provided to Class

The next factor requires the Court to consider whether “the relief provided for the class is

adequate, taking into account: (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; (ii) the effectiveness

of any proposed method of distributing relief to the class, including the method of processing class-

member claims; (iii) the terms of any proposed award of attorney's fees, including timing of payment;

and (iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3).” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(2)(C).

Costs, Risks, and Delay of Trial and Appeal. Given the circumstances of this case, it is difficult

to predict the precise range and likelihood of class-wide recovery had this case proceeded to a litigated

outcome. Although Plaintiff remains confident in his ability to prevail on his claims, Plantronics has

presented substantial defenses. According to Plantronics, the Headphones are not defective,

Plantronics has fully complied with its limited warranty for the Headphones, and Plaintiffs have not

been damaged or harmed in any way, or at all.21

Moreover, regardless of the result at trial (assuming some of Plaintiff’s claims survived

Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss), a lengthy and expensive trial and appeals process would be

20 Mediator Quinn agrees that this Settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable. Quinn Dec., ¶10. 21 More specifically, Plantronics asserts that: (i) the Headphones are not defective in any respect; (ii) the Headphones were tested and qualified to be waterproof, sweatproof and providing up to 8 hours of listing time, as represented; (iii) Plantronics did not fail to disclose any material defect in the Headphones; (iv) Plaintiff’s and the putative class’s exclusive remedy for any defective Headphones is the Limited Warranty; (v) Plantronics fully complied with the Limited Warranty for the Headphones; (vi) Plaintiff failed to comply with the Limited Warranty and/or failed to submit a timely warranty claim for his Headphones; (vii) Plaintiff failed to provide pre-suit notice to Plantronics, such that his warranty claims are barred; (viii) Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts in the First Amended Complaint to state any valid claims against Plantronics; and (ix) Plaintiff and the putative class did not suffer any losses or actual injury whatsoever.



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

expected in this case. Absent settlement, Plantronics certainly could appeal any significant award of

damages on numerous grounds, including liability, the propriety of adjudicating liability and damages

on a class-wide basis, and the measure of damages. Likewise, it is certainly possible that the outcome

of a trial or appeal would result in no recovery or substantially reduced damages for Class Members.

There are inherent risks facing the Class in pursuing this consumer class action and the very real

potential for recovering little or nothing if this case proceeded through trial and appeal.

“[T]he very essence of a settlement is compromise.” Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n

of City & Cty. of San Francisco, 688 F.2d 615, 624 (9th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). Accordingly,

“[t]he fact that a proposed settlement may only amount to a fraction of the potential recovery does

not, in and of itself, mean that the proposed settlement is grossly inadequate and should be

disapproved.” Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship, 151 F.3d 1234, 1242 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation

omitted).

Method of Distributing Relief to the Class. The Settlement Agreement provides a

straightforward process for distributing the Settlement benefits to Class Members. Under the

Agreement, the Settlement Administrator will provide mailed or electronic notice to every Class

Member whose home address or email address can be reasonably identified from Plantronics’ records

or the records of Plantronics’ 10 largest third-party retailers. To assist in this process, Plaintiff

respectfully requests that the Court enter the Order attached as Exhibit 11, which requires the third-

party retailers to provide contact information and product purchase information for their customers

who purchased the Headphones so that direct notice may be sent to as many Class Members as

possible. This information will also assist Class Members in satisfying the proof of purchase

requirement. Based on Class Counsel’s experience with a similar order entered in connection with



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

another recent consumer product settlement, Class Counsel anticipate that a substantial percentage of

the Class will receive direct notice through this campaign. See discussion of Linneman v. Vitamix,

infra; Schachter Declaration, ¶9.

Class Members who purchased Headphones on or after January 1, 2018, will receive a 12-

month limited warranty extension in lieu of filing a claim for cash benefits. These Class Members

(approximately 300,000 Class Members purchased their Headphones on or after January 1, 2018) do

not need to submit a Claim Form to qualify for the Extended Limited Warranty.

Alternatively, Class Members can opt to submit a claim for cash payment. If the Class

Member submits a valid claim supported by (1) proof of purchase and (2) an attestation that their

Headphones experienced a battery or moisture issue, he or she will receive a $25 cash payment. Proof

of purchase can be satisfied by the Class Member submitting evidence (e.g., a receipt) or by purchase

information obtained by Class Counsel from third party retailers (e.g., Amazon, Best Buy) or obtained

directly from Plantronics. The Settlement Administrator will review all claims, as necessary, to

determine whether the information obtained from third-party retailers satisfies the proof of purchase

requirement. Class Members who purchased multiple sets of Headphones can receive up to two $25

payments. Class Members who previously received a set of Replacement Headphones are limited to

one $25 payment.

Class Members who satisfy the requirements for a $25 payment, but who can further provide

evidence that he or she made a contemporaneous written complaint regarding the Headphones’

batteries, are eligible to receive a larger, $50 cash payment. The prior written claim or complaint must

have been made prior to the date of Plaintiff filing the original complaint in this case (September 12,

2018). Agreement, § 6.6.1(c). The complaint must relate to a failure or malfunction of the



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

Headphones consistent with the allegations in the Complaint regarding battery or moisture issue. For

example, a general negative review on Amazon.com or Plantronics.com would not suffice, but a

negative review that specifically references a battery charging issue consistent with the allegations in

the Complaint would suffice.22

The proposed method of distributing relief to the Class under the Settlement Agreement is

eminently reasonable. Indeed, the notice procedure is designed to encourage a high claim rate, and

it will take Class Members minimal time to submit a claim.

Attorneys’ Fees. Under the Agreement, Plantronics has agreed to pay, subject to Court

approval, Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and expenses of up to a maximum of six hundred fifty thousand

dollars ($650,000). The Parties negotiated and reached agreement on the attorneys’ fees and expenses

only after reaching agreement on all other material terms of Settlement in this matter. Am. Goldenberg

Dec., ¶8; Quinn Dec., ¶7.

As discussed in more detail below, Plaintiff intends to ask the Court to award approximately

$625,000 in attorneys’ fees and to request reimbursement for approximately $25,000 in expenses.

Class Counsel’s lodestar as of May 23, 2019 is $726,000. And, Class Counsel anticipates spending

between 150 and 200 additional hours drafting the final approval and attorney fee motion, handling

questions from Class Members, supervising and dealing with the Settlement Administrator, and

travelling to and from the final approval hearing. Thus, the requested fee will result in a negative

multiplier. Although the Court may scrutinize Class Counsel's billing records when Plaintiff

separately moves for fees and costs later in the approval process, Class Counsel have sufficiently

22 Claims submitted for the $50 cash payment that do not satisfy the prior complaint standard automatically will be evaluated by the Settlement Administrator for the $25 cash payment.



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

established the reasonableness of their request for purposes of preliminary approval. See, e.g., In re

MyFord Touch Consumer Litig., No. 13-CV-03072-EMC, 2019 WL 1411510, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar.

28, 2019).

As for the timing of the fees, the Agreement requires Plantronics to pay the fees within 10

days following the Effective Date23 or following the entry of a final, non-appealable order awarding

fees or service awards, whichever is later. Agreement § 10.5. See, e.g., Zamora Jordan v. Nationstar

Mortg., LLC, No. 2:14-CV-0175-TOR, 2019 WL 1966112, at *5 (E.D. Wash. May 2, 2019) (factor

weighs in favor of approving settlement where fees “will be paid only after the Settlement is finally

approved by the Court, the time for any appeal has elapsed, or any appeal has been resolved, and the

Settlement has taken effect”). This factor supports preliminary approval.

Any agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3). Rule 23(e)(3) requires Parties

seeking approval to file a statement identifying “any agreement made in connection with the

settlement.” This requirement is directed “at related undertakings that, although seemingly separate,

may have influenced the terms of the settlement by trading away possible advantages for the class in

return for advantages for others. Doubts should be resolved in favor of identification.” Committee

Note to the 2003 amendments to Rule 23. Class Counsel states that no ancillary agreements exist

outside the terms of the Amended Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding, both of which

have been provided to the Court. Am. Goldenberg Dec., ¶8. This factor too weighs in favor of

granting preliminary approval.

23 “Effective Date” means the first date that is three (3) business days after all the following have occurred: (a) the Court has entered an order granting final approval of the Settlement in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; (b) the time for any challenge to the Settlement, both in the Court and on appeal, has lapsed; and (c) the Settlement has become final, either because no timely challenge was made to it or because any timely challenge has been finally adjudicated and rejected in such a manner as to affirm the Final Approval Order approving the Settlement. Agreement § 3.15.



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. Equitable Treatment of Class Members.

The Settlement Agreement does not improperly grant preferential treatment to certain

segments of the Class. Under the claims process, all Class Members whose claim satisfies the proof

of purchase requirement and attest under penalty of perjury that they experienced battery or moisture

problems with their Headphones are eligible to receive $25. Those Class Members who can

additionally prove that they previously complained of the battery or moisture problems are eligible

to receive $50. Cf. In re MyFord Touch Consumer Litig., No. 13-CV-03072-EMC, 2019 WL

1411510, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2019) (“Under the claims process, Class Members who sought

more repairs receive a greater recovery because the number of repair attempts serves as a proxy for

the seriousness of their MFT defects.”). And those Class Members who only recently purchased the

Headphones (since January 1, 2018) and therefore may not yet have experienced battery or moisture

problems are provided the option to receive the Extended Warranty protecting against the risk that

the Headphones will experience these issues in the future.24 In other words, variation in awards

primarily turns on the relative strength or weakness of the evidence supporting each Class Member's

claim for damages.

Plantronics has agreed, subject to Court approval, to pay Plaintiff a Service Award of $5,000.

“[T]he Ninth Circuit has recognized that service awards to named plaintiffs in a class action are

permissible and do not render a settlement unfair or unreasonable.” Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., No.

C-08-5198 EMC, 2011 WL 1627973, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011) (citing Staton v. Boeing Co.,

24 Class Members who seek replacement headphones pursuant to the Extended Warranty shall receive Plantronics Backbeat FIT 2100 wireless headphones. These headphones are not identical to the Headphones at issue in the litigation as the Backbeat FIT 2100 wireless headphones are a different design and contain batteries from a different battery manufacturer. Am. Goldenberg Dec., ¶9.



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

327 F.3d 938, 977 (9th Cir. 2003)). Moreover, Courts agree that $5,000 is a reasonable amount for a

service award. See Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., No. C-08-5198 EMC, 2012 WL 381202, at *7 (N.D.

Cal. Feb. 6, 2012) (“[I]ncentive payments of $10,000 or $25,000 are quite high and ... as a general

matter, $5,000 is a reasonable amount.”). Plaintiff Shin has devoted significant time and effort to this

case, including communicating with Class Counsel, providing documents to Class Counsel,

reviewing the class action complaints, assessing and discussing the mediation process and progress,

and preparing declarations to support approval of this Settlement. Accordingly, this factor too weighs

in favor of granting preliminary approval. See In re MyFord Touch Consumer Litig., 2019 WL

1411510, at *12 (equitable treatment of class members factor weighs in favor of preliminary approval

even though named plaintiffs sought service awards of $9,000).

C. Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements

The Northern District of California has issued Procedural Guidance for Class Actions

Settlements (“PGCAS”), which sets forth 12 categories of information that should be provided in

support of preliminary approval “where applicable.” See PGCAS, ¶¶1-12.

1. Information About the Settlement and Past Distributions – PGCAS, ¶¶1, 11

There are no substantial differences between the Settlement Class and the class proposed in

the operative FAC. Id. at ¶1(a). Moreover, the scope of the Settlement release has been amended to

address the Court’s concerns and is now reasonably tailored to the claims of the FAC. Id. at ¶1(c);

Amended Agreement, § 11. As for the anticipated class recovery under the Settlement and potential

class recovery if Plaintiff had fully prevailed, id. at ¶1(e), it is difficult to estimate the maximum

amount of damages recoverable in a successful litigation. Am. Goldenberg Dec., ¶18. But Plantronics

has sold approximately 1.3 million Headphones, which generally sold at retail for between $50 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

$99. Am. Goldenberg Dec., ¶¶9, 18. Accordingly, a Class Member who opts for Alternative 2 ($50

payment) will recover roughly between 50% and 100% of the purchase price. Likewise, a Class

Member who opts for Alternative 3 ($25 payment) will recover roughly between 25% and 50% of

the purchase price. This recovery compares favorably to other class action settlements approved in

this District. See, e.g., Viceral v. Mistras Grp., Inc., No. 15-CV-02198-EMC, 2016 WL 5907869, at

*7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2016) (approving settlement representing 8.1% of the full verdict value in

recognition of the “daunting” risks plaintiffs faced in proving their case).25 For those Class Members

who make a claim for the replacement headphones26 pursuant to the Extended Warranty benefit

(Alternative 1), those Class Members arguably recover 100% under this Settlement.

Lastly, although estimating claims rates necessarily entails a degree of speculation, Class

Counsel’s recent experience with another consumer products claims-made settlement suggests that

the Court can expect a claim rate that may approach as high as 10% of Class Members who receive

direct notice (mail or email). In Linneman v. Vitamix Corporation, S.D. Ohio No. 1:15-cv-748,

plaintiff consumers filed suit alleging that the defendants’ high-end blenders were defective in that

the blenders deposited small black flecks of Teflon into the blended food materials. In that recent

settlement (www.blendersettlement.com), approximately 10% of the class members who received

direct email or U.S. mail notice filed a claim. See Edwards v. Nat'l Milk Producers Fed'n, No. 11-

25 See also In re Uber FCRA Litig., No. 14-CV-05200-EMC, 2017 WL 2806698, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2017) (approving a settlement worth less than 7.5% of the possible verdict where the class faced “substantial risks and obstacles” to prevailing at trial, as well as “the inevitable expense of litigating a large, complex case through trial”); Balderas v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, No. 12-CV-06327 NC, 2014 WL 3610945, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2014) (approving a settlement representing 5% of the maximum recovery in light of “the strengths of plaintiff's case and the risks and expense of continued litigation”). 26 The Replacement Headphones are a new design and utilize batteries from a different manufacturer than the Headphones that are the subject of this litigation. Am. Goldenberg Dec., ¶9.



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

CV-04766-JSW, 2017 WL 3616638, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2017) (describing 5% claims rate as

“relatively good” and supporting finding that notice was reasonable and fair).

Other relevant information about the Vitamix settlement is as follows:

Number of class members Approximately 5 to 6 million

Number of class members to whom notice was sent

Approximately 4 million

Method of notice Direct mail and email (addresses obtained from Vitamix and from third-party retailers). A supplemental digital notice campaign was also utilized, and publication notice was placed in two magazines with national circulation.

Percentage of claims forms submitted Approximately 10% of those to whom class notice was directly mailed or emailed filed a claim.

Average recovery per claimant Option 1: Installation of non-flecking replacement blade assembly option valued at ~$105; Option 2: $70 gift card option.

Amount distributed to cy pres None.

Administrative costs Approximately $2.8 million to date.

Attorneys’ fees and costs To be determined.

2. Settlement Administrator – PGCAS, ¶2

The Parties recommend that the Court approved A.B. Data, Ltd. to serve as the Settlement

Administrator. A.B. Data was selected by the parties following a detailed and competitive settlement

administration selection process involving five different providers. Information about A.B. Data’s

qualifications and experience can be found in the Schachter Declaration attached hereto as Exhibit 5.

Defendant has agreed to cover the notice and administration costs for this Settlement.

3. Notice, Opt-Outs, Objections, and Timeline – PGCAS, ¶¶3-5, 9.



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 manner and content of the proposed Notice Plan was designed to comply with Rule 23,

due process, and District’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, ¶¶3-5. Notably, Class

Counsel intends to identify Class Members through Defendant’s records and “third-party data

sources,” and keep the Settlement Website regularly updated. Id. This is demonstrated by the

proposed notices attached as exhibits hereto and the proposed settlement timeline discussed

previously. And, A.B. Data, an experienced and well-respected Settlement Administrator, has

developed the proposed notice program to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 and due process.

Schachter Dec., ¶22.

4. Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Service Awards – PGCAS, ¶¶6-7

The Court will not approve a request for attorneys’ fees, costs, and a service award for Mr.

Shin until the final approval hearing. Class Counsel anticipate requesting a fee award of

approximately $625,000. Counsel’s lodestar as of mid-May 2019 is $726,151. Counsel estimates

that it will incur an additional 150 to 200 hours drafting the final approval and attorney fee motion,

handling questions from Class Members, supervising and dealing with the Settlement Administrator,

and traveling to and from the final approval hearing. Therefore, it is apparent that Class Counsel will

be requesting a fee that results in a negative multiplier. Class Counsel also anticipate requesting at

least $25,000 in expense reimbursements.

A firm by firm summary of Class Counsel’s hours through mid-May 2019 are set forth

below:

Firm Hours Lodestar

Goldenberg Schneider

660 $376,977



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

Markovits, Stock & DeMarco

317 $146,699

The Finney Law Firm

274 $121,585

Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah

109 $80,890

TOTAL 1,360 $726,151

Counsel intends to request that the Court award Plaintiff Shin a service award in the amount

of $5,000.

More detailed and thorough records will be provided to the Court when Class Counsel files

its Motion Requesting Fees, Expense Reimbursement, and Service Award on November 8, 2019.

5. Class Action Fairness Act – PGCAS, ¶10

This action is subject to the requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”),

which requires that, within ten days of the filing of a proposed settlement, each defendant serve a

notice containing certain required information upon the appropriate State and Federal officials. 28

U.S.C. § 1715(b). Defendant complied with this requirement and will update its initial CAFA notice

by providing a copy of the Amended Settlement Agreement.

6. Electronic Versions – PGCAS, ¶11

Simultaneously with the filing of this Notice of Renewed Motion, Plaintiff has submitted

electronic versions (Microsoft Word) of a proposed order and proposed class notices to the Court’s

email address. Plaintiff has also submitted an electronic version of the proposed Order requiring the

third-party retailers to provide the requested Headphone purchase information.



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

VI. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiff’s

renewed motion for preliminary approval.

Dated: July 31, 2019

By: /s/ Jeffrey S. Goldenberg Jeffrey S. Goldenberg Todd B. Naylor Goldenberg Schneider, L.P.A. One West 4th Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Fax: (513) 345-8294 [email protected] [email protected]

Ronald S. Kravitz (SBN 129704) James C. Shah (SBN 260435) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP 201 Filbert Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 429-5272 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 [email protected]@sfmslaw.com

W.B. Markovits Paul M. DeMarco Justin C. Walker Terence R. Coates Markovits, Stock & DeMarco LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 665-0200 Fax: (513) 665-0219 [email protected] [email protected]@msdlegal.com [email protected]


of 61

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHIL SHIN on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

: :

CASE NO. 5:18-cv-05626-NC

Plaintiff, :: (Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins)

v. :: PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION

PLANTRONICS, INC., ::

Defendant. : :

AMENDED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE

This Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made and entered

effective JulyneMay 10__, 2019, by and among, Phil Shin (the “Named Plaintiff”), on behalf of

himself and the Settlement Class (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Plantronics, Inc. (as defined in

Section 3.14 below, “Defendant” or “Plantronics”). Plaintiffs and Defendant are referred to

collectively as the “Parties” or the “Settling Parties,” and each individually as a “Party.”

This Agreement is intended to fully and finally resolve and settle the case captioned Phil

Shin, et al. v. Plantronics, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:18-cv-05626-NC pending in the United States

District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Lawsuit”). In this Agreement, any

capitalized term not immediately defined is defined in Section III below.

I. THE LAWSUIT

A. On September 13, 2018, the Named Plaintiff commenced the Lawsuit by filing a

Class Action Complaint against Defendant challenging the marketing and sale of Plantronics

BackBeat FIT wireless headphones, version Genesis or 16M, which headphones were

manufactured by Plantronics prior to September 2018 (the “Headphones”). ECF No. 1. As

EXHIBIT 1Case 5:18-cv-05626-NC Document 70-1 Filed 07/31/19 Page 1 of 61

of 61

discussed below, on December 14, 2018, the Named Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action

Complaint. ECF No. 35. The original Class Action Complaint and the First Amended Class Action

Complaint allege, among other things, that: (i) Defendant represented, advertised and marketed

the Headphones as, inter alia, “waterproof”, “sweatproof” and providing “up to 8 hours” of

wireless listening time from a single charge; (ii) said representations, advertising and marketing

statements were false and misleading because the Headphones are neither sweatproof nor

waterproof and do not last up to eight hours of listening time on a single charge; (iii) the

Headphones contain one or more defects that cause the battery life to diminish and eventually stop

retaining a charge after normal usage, especially when the Headphones are exposed to sweat or

water; and (iv) the Named Plaintiff and all other consumers who purchased the Headphones have

suffered damages because had they known the truth they would not have purchased the headphones

or would have paid less for the Headphones. Based on these allegations, the Named Plaintiff

asserts claims for: (a) Breach of Express Warranty – Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; (b) Breach

of Implied Warranty – Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; (c) Breach Express Warranty; (d) Breach

of Implied Warranty of Merchantability – California Song-Beverly Act; (e) Breach of Implied

Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose; (f) Violation of California’s Consumer Legal

Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750 et seq.; (g) Violation of California’s Unfair

Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; and (h) Common Law

Fraud. The First Amended Class Action Complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of

purchasers of the Headphones.

B. Plantronics denies the allegations in the Lawsuit and asserts numerous defenses to

Plaintiff’s claims, including that: (i) the Headphones are not defective in any respect; (ii) the

Headphones were tested and qualified to be waterproof, sweatproof and providing up to 8 hours

Case 5:18-cv-05626-NC Document 70-1 Filed 07/31/19 Page 2 of 61

of 61

of listing time, as represented; (iii) Plantronics did not fail to disclose any material defect in the

Headphones; (iv) Plaintiff’s and the putative class’s exclusive remedy for any defective

Headphones is the Limited Warranty; (v) Plantronics fully complied with the Limited Warranty

for the Headphones; (vi) Plaintiff failed to comply with the Limited Warranty and/or failed to

submit a timely warranty claim for his Headphones; (vii) Plaintiff failed to provide pre-suit notice

to Plantronics, such that his warranty claims are barred; (viii) Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient

facts in the First Amended Complaint to state any valid claims against Plantronics; and

(ix) Plaintiff and the putative class did not suffer any losses or actual injury whatsoever.

C. On November 30, 2018, Plantronics filed a motion to dismiss the Class Action

Complaint. ECF No. 30.

D. On December 14, 2018, the Named Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action

Complaint against Defendant asserting the same claims as in the original complaint and seeking

certification of a nationwide class. ECF No. 35.

E. On January 23, 2019, the Parties engaged in private mediation with the aid of and

before Martin Quinn, Esq. of JAMS in San Francisco. The parties were not able to resolve the

dispute at the mediation, but with the aid of the mediator the Parties continued to engage in

extensive settlement discussions thereafter.

F. On February 13, 2019, Plantronics filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended

Class Action Complaint, seeking dismissal of the entire complaint and each cause of action therein.

(Docket #40). Thereafter, the motion to dismiss was fully briefed by the Parties, and the motion

was heard by the Court and taken under submission on March 27, 2019. ECF Nos. 44, 45, 47 &

48.


of 61

G. From January 23, 2019 through March 28, 2019, and with the motion to dismiss

pending, the Parties continued to engage in extensive settlement discussions with the aid of the

mediator, and the parties reached a settlement in principal on March 28, 2019 and entered into a

written Memorandum of Understanding Re Settlement signed by the Parties’ counsel.

H. On March 29, 2018, the Parties informed the Court that they had reached a

settlement in principal to resolve this matter on a class-wide basis, and on April 5, 2019 the Parties

filed a Joint Notice of Class Action Settlement with the Court. ECF No. 50.

I. Prior to reaching a settlement and entering into this Agreement: (1) the Parties

engaged in informal discovery and sharing of information regarding the design, development and

testing of the Headphones; (2) the Named Plaintiff’s counsel engaged an independent expert to

conduct testing of the Headphones and batteries used in the Headphones; and (3) the Parties

engaged in numerous arm’s-length settlement negotiations, including two-months of mediation

efforts and discussions under the direction and guidance of Martin Quinn, Esq. as a mediator. The

Parties have now reached an agreement providing for a resolution of all claims that have been or

could have been brought in the Lawsuit against Defendant on behalf of Named Plaintiff. In

addition, the Parties have reached agreement as to the amount of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses

Class Counsel may receive under the Settlement and the amount to be paid to the Named Plaintiff

as a Service Award, subject to Court approval.

J. The Named Plaintiff and Class Counsel have reviewed and analyzed the

information furnished by Defendant and information obtained through their own investigation;

consulted with their own expert who conducted testing of the Headphones and batteries used in

the Headphones; examined and considered the benefits to be provided to the Class Members under


of 61

the Settlement provided for in this Agreement; and considered the laws of the several States and

the claims that could be asserted under those laws regarding the Headphones.

K. Named Plaintiff and Class Counsel believe the Settlement is fair, adequate,

reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class Members, taking into account the benefits

provided to the Class Members through the terms of the Settlement, the risks of continued litigation

and possible trial and appeals, and the length of time and the costs that would be required to

complete the litigation.

L. Defendant has at all times disputed, and continues to dispute, Plaintiff’s allegations

in the Lawsuit and denies any liability for any of the claims that have or could have been raised in

the Lawsuit by Plaintiff or the Class Members, but believes that the comprehensive resolution of

the claims in the Lawsuit as provided in this Agreement will avoid the substantial costs and

disruptions of continued litigation, including potential trial and appeals, is in the best interest of

Class Members, is in the best interests of Defendant, its employees, and its customers, and is the

most effective and efficient resolution of the Lawsuit reasonably possible.

M. The Settling Parties entered into this Agreement after extensive arm’s-length

negotiations. The Settling Parties agreed on the benefits to the Settlement Class described in this

Agreement before negotiating the provisions of this Agreement and before negotiating Attorneys’

Fees and Expenses and payment of a Service Award to the Named Plaintiff.

N. The Parties understand, acknowledge, and agree that this Agreement constitutes the

compromise of disputed claims and that it is their mutual desire and intention that the Lawsuit be

settled and dismissed, on the merits and with prejudice, and that the Released Claims be finally

and fully settled and dismissed, subject to and according to the terms and conditions set forth in

this Agreement.


of 61

NOW, THEREFORE, without any concession by Plaintiff that his claims lack merit, and

without any concession by Defendant of any liability or wrongdoing or lack of merit in its defenses,

it is hereby AGREED by and among the Parties, subject to approval by the Court pursuant to

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that, in consideration for the benefits flowing to

the Settlement Class and the Parties, the Lawsuit and all Settled Class Claims and Released Claims,

as defined below, shall be compromised, settled, acquitted, and dismissed with prejudice, on the

following terms and conditions:

II. NO ADMISSION OF WRONGDOING AND CONDITIONAL NATURE OF THIS AGREEMENT

2.1 Defendant does not admit any wrongdoing, fault, liability, or damage to Plaintiff or

Class Members. Nor does Defendant admit that it engaged in any wrongdoing or committed any

violation of law. Defendant stands behind all of its products, including the Headphones. Defendant

maintains that it has meritorious defenses to the Lawsuit, that the Headphones are not defective,

that it has fully complied with its Limited Warranty for the Headphones, and that Plaintiffs have

not been damaged or harmed in any way, or at all. In view, however, of the uncertainty and risk of

the outcome of any litigation, the difficulties and substantial expense and length of time necessary

to defend the proceeding—including potentially through trial, post-trial motions, and appeals—

and to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation, Defendant wishes to settle the

Lawsuit and to put the claims alleged in the Lawsuit to rest, finally and forever, without in any

way acknowledging any wrongdoing, fault, liability, or damage to Plaintiff or the Class Members.

The Settlement and this Agreement represent a compromise of disputed claims and the arm’s-

length negotiations, discussions, and communications in connection with or leading up to and

including the Settlement are not and shall not be construed as admissions or concessions by any


of 61

of the Parties, either as to any liability or wrongdoing or as to the merits of any claim or defense,

regardless of whether this Agreement becomes effective.

2.2 This Agreement and all associated exhibits or attachments are made for the sole

purpose of settling the Lawsuit and are made in compromise of disputed claims. Because this

Agreement settles the Lawsuit on a class-wide basis, it must receive preliminary and final approval

from the Court. Accordingly, the Settling Parties enter into this Agreement on a conditional basis.

If the Court does not enter the Final Approval Order, the proposed judgment does not become a

final judgment for any reason, or the Effective Date does not occur, this Agreement shall be

deemed null and void ab initio; it shall be of no force or effect whatsoever; it shall not be referred

to or used for any purpose whatsoever; and the negotiation, terms, and entry of the Agreement

shall remain subject to Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and any analogous federal or

state court rules of evidence or substantive law.

2.3 If the Court materially alters any of the terms of this Agreement through the

issuance of final approval and entry of the Final Approval Order to the material and substantial

detriment of Plaintiff, the Class, or Defendant, at the sole discretion of each adversely affected

Party, this Agreement shall be deemed null and void ab initio and shall be of no force or effect

whatsoever. To exercise this right, the Party must inform the Court, the other Party, and the

Settlement Administrator, in writing, of the exercise of this right within ten (10) days after any

such order. If either Party exercises this right, the Party exercising such right agrees to work with

the other Party in good faith to attempt to negotiate terms mutually acceptable to both Parties and

the Court that address any such material alteration.

2.4 If more than 1,000 Class Members submit timely and valid Opt-Out Requests,

Defendant, at its sole discretion, shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement, such that this


of 61

Agreement shall be deemed null and void ab initio and shall be of no force or effect whatsoever.

To exercise this right, Defendant must inform the Court, the Named Plaintiff and Plaintiffs’

counsel, and the Settlement Administrator, in writing, of the exercise of this right within ten (10)

days after Defendant receives notices that 1,000 or more Class Members have submitted Opt-Out

Requests.

2.5 This Agreement and all associated exhibits or attachments, and any and all

negotiations relating to it, shall not be admissible in the Lawsuit, or any other action or legal

proceeding, in any manner whatsoever, except as necessary: (a) to enforce the terms of this

Agreement, including to support a defense or counterclaim based on principles of res judicata,

collateral estoppel, release, accord and satisfaction, good-faith settlement, judgment bar or

reduction, or any theory of claim or issue preclusion or similar defense or counterclaim; or (b) in

connection with Third-Party Claims.

III. DEFINITIONS

As used in this Agreement, the following terms have the definitions that follow:

3.1 “Administration and Notice Expenses” means reasonable fees and expenses

incurred by the Settlement Administrator for: (1) mailing, emailing, publication, and other

dissemination of the Settlement Notice; (2) receiving and adjudicating claims submitted by Class

Members for benefits under this Settlement; (3) creating, monitoring, and updating the Settlement

Website which will be designed to include notifications to the Class, FAQs, important case

documents, and the ability to submit electronic claims; (4) adjudicating, processing, paying, and

administering claims, including but not limited to responding to inquiries from Class Members;

(5) preparing status reports at the request of the Court or in preparation for a hearing or conference

with the Court; (6) receiving and processing of Opt-Out Requests submitted by Class Members


of 61

who wish to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class; and (7) other reasonable costs of notice

and claims administration agreed to by the Parties or as ordered by the Court.

3.2 “Agreement” means this Class Action Settlement Agreement and all exhibits

attached to, and incorporated by reference into, it.

3.3 “Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses” means the amount of any attorneys’ fees and

reimbursement of litigation expenses and costs to be paid by Defendant that may be awarded by

the Court to Class Counsel under their Fee Application, as provided and agreed by the Parties in

this Agreement.

3.4 “CAFA Notice” means a notice of the proposed Settlement in compliance with the

requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1711 et seq. (“CAFA”), to be served

on the appropriate state official in each state where a Class Member resides and the appropriate

federal official.

3.5 “Claimant” means a Class Member who submits a valid and timely Claim Form.

3.6 “Claims Deadline” means December 31, 2019October 31, 2019.

3.7 “Claim Form” or “Claim Forms” means the forms to be approved by the Court as

part of the Preliminary Approval Order and which must be submitted to the Settlement

Administrator by Class Members who wish to make a claim or receive a benefit in accordance

with Section VI of this Agreement. The current version of the Claim Form is attached as Exhibit 1

hereto.

3.8 “Class” means all Persons domiciled within the United States and its territories who

purchased at retail the Headphones, as defined in this Agreement and described in the Complaint,

during the period of time from April 1, 2014 through the Notice Date (the “Class Members”).

Excluded from the Class is Defendant and its officers, directors and employees; Class Counsel and


of 61

their partners, associates, lawyers, and employees; and the judicial officers and their immediate

family members and associated Court staff assigned to this case.

3.9 “Class Counsel” means Ronald S. Kravitz and James C. Shah of Shepherd,

Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP; W.B. Markovits, Terence R. Coates, and Justin C. Walker, and

Paul M. De Marco of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco LLC; Jeffrey S. Goldenberg of Goldenberg

Schneider, L.P.A.; and Justin C. Walker of the Finney Law Firm, LLC.

3.10 “Class Member” or “Plaintiff” means any Person who is a member of the

Settlement Class and who does not exclude himself, herself, or itself from the Settlement Class in

the manner and time prescribed by the Court in the proposed Preliminary Approval Order.

3.11 “Class Representative” means Named Plaintiff Phil Shin.

3.12 “Court” means the United States District Court for the Northern District of

California.

3.13 “Complaint” or “First Amended Class Action Complaint” means the First

Amended Class Action Complaint filed in the Lawsuit by the Named Plaintiff on December 14,

2018.

3.14 “Defendant” means Plantronics, Inc., and its respective parent corporations,

affiliates, direct and indirect subsidiaries, predecessors, successors, assigns, and anyone acting on

their behalf.

3.15 “Effective Date” means the first date that is three (3) business days after all the

following have occurred: (a) the Court has entered an order granting final approval of the

Settlement in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; (b) the time for any challenge to the

Settlement, both in the Court and on appeal, has lapsed; and (c) the Settlement has become final,

either because no timely challenge was made to it or because any timely challenge has been finally


of 61

adjudicated and rejected in such a manner as to affirm the Final Approval Order approving the

Settlement. For purposes of this Section, an “appeal” shall not include any appeal that concerns

solely the issue of Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees or costs and/or the Service Award

to the Class Representative.

3.16 “Fairness Hearing” means the final hearing, to be held by the Court on or about

December 20, 2019November 4, 2019 or as soon thereafter as practicable, (a) to determine whether

to grant final approval to (i) the certification of the Settlement Class, (ii) the designation of the

Class Representative as the representative of the Settlement Class, (iii) the designation of Class

Counsel as counsel for the Settlement Class, and (iv) the Settlement; (b) to rule on Class Counsel’s

Fee Application; and (c) to consider whether to enter the Final Approval Order.

3.17 “FAQs” means the proposed Frequently Asked Questions and Answers form to be

approved by the Court as part of the Preliminary Approval Order and posted on the Settlement

Website in accordance with this Agreement. In addition, the FAQ form will be mailed or emailed

to Class Members who contact the Settlement Administrator by telephone or email and request a

Claim Form. The current form of the FAQ is attached as Exhibit 2 hereto.

3.18 “Fee Application” means the application to be filed by Class Counsel no later than

November 8, 2019September 16, 2019 by which they will seek an award to be paid by Defendant

of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred by them in prosecuting the

Lawsuit, as well as the Service Award to be paid to the Class Representative.

3.19 “Final Approval Order” means the proposed Order Granting Final Approval to the

Class Action Settlement and Entry of Final Judgment, to be entered by the Court following the

Fairness Hearing.

3.20 “Named Plaintiff” means Phil Shin.


of 61

3.21 “Notice of Claim Denial” means the form that the Settlement Administrator will

send, by first-class United States Mail or electronic mail, to each Person who has submitted a

Claim Form that the Settlement Administrator has determined not to be a Valid Claim.

3.22 “Notice Date” means the Court-ordered deadline by which the Settlement

Administrator and any third parties must complete the mailing or emailing of Settlement Notice to

Class Members, which shall be no later than October 7, 2019August 16, 2019. The Settlement

Administrator shall begin issuing notice on September 16, 2019July 26, 2019.

3.23 “Notice Plan” means the plan for providing Settlement Notice to members of the

Class, as set forth in Section VII of this Agreement.

3.24 “Objection Deadline” means the Court-ordered deadline by which members of the

Settlement Class must file any written objection or opposition to this Agreement or any part or

provision of this Agreement, as set forth in Section VIII, which shall be October 4, 2019.

3.25 “Opt-Out Request” means a valid written request submitted to the Settlement

Administrator, pursuant to the provisions of Section VIII of this Agreement, indicating that the

Class Member wishes to be excluded from the Settlement.

3.26 “Opt-Out Request Deadline” means the Court-ordered deadline by which members

of the Settlement Class must postmark and mail, or electronically deliver, an Opt-Out Request

pursuant to the provisions of Section VIII of this Agreement, which shall be October 4, 2019.

3.27 “Parties” means the parties to this Agreement, Plaintiff and Defendant.

3.28 “Person” means any natural person, including his or her beneficiaries, heirs,

assigns, or executors, or any legal entity, including its predecessors, successors, affiliates, or

assigns.


of 61

3.29 “Plaintiffs” means the Named Plaintiff asserting claims in the Lawsuit, Phil Shin,

as well as all Class Members.

3.30 “Plaintiffs’ Counsel” shall mean all Plaintiffs’ attorneys of record in the Lawsuit.

3.31 “Plantronics” means Defendant.

3.32 “Preliminary Approval Order” means the proposed Order Granting Preliminary

Approval to Class Action Settlement, to be entered by the Court.

3.33 “Proof of Purchase” includes:

i. An original or copy of a purchase receipt for the purchase of the

Headphones (including electronic receipts or electronic

confirmations of purchase); or

ii. Confirmation of Headphones purchase through available third-party

retailer information obtained as part of the settlement process

(including name, date of purchase, purchase price, and SKU number

or some other description identifying the product as Headphones);

or

iii. The original box or packaging for the Headphones.

3.34 “Publication Notice” means the proposed notice, using the language of the

Settlement Notice to the extent practicable, which is subject to approval by the Court as part of the

Preliminary Approval Order and which will be published in accordance with the Notice Plan set

forth in Section VII of this Agreement. The current forms of the Publication Notice are attached

as Exhibits 3, hereto.

3.35 “Released Claims” means, as to Plaintiffs, all claims released under the release and

waiver set forth in Section XI of this Agreement.


of 61

3.36 “Released Parties” means (a) Defendant, as defined herein; and (b) each of its

respective past, present, and future officers, directors, board members, agents, representatives,

servants, employees, attorneys, and insurers.

3.37 “Releasing Parties” means Plaintiffs and each of their respective heirs, executors,

representatives, agents, assigns, and successors.

3.38 “Service Award” means a reasonable payment, subject to Court approval, made to

the Named Plaintiff to compensate for his time and effort in pursuing the Lawsuit.

3.39 “Settled Class Claims” means the claims brought by the Named Plaintiff and on

behalf of the Class included in this Settlement, including (a) Breach of Express Warranty –

Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; (b) Breach of Implied Warranty – Magnuson Moss Warranty Act;

(c) Breach Express Warranty; (d) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability – California

Song-Beverly Act; (e) Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose;

(f) Violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750 et seq.;

(g) Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code

§ 17200 et seq.; and (h) Common Law Fraud, as well as such other related claims that could have

been brought or joined to those in the Lawsuit based on the allegations in the Complaint, all of

which are included in the Released Claims, except for personal injury claims other than those

specifically identified in Section 11.2.

3.40 “Settlement” means the settlement provided for in this Agreement.

3.41 “Settlement Administrator” means the third-party provider, who upon approval by

the Court, shall be responsible for administering and overseeing, among other things, the notice

and administration of the Settlement.

3.42 “Settlement Class” means Class Representative and the Class.


of 61

3.43 “Settlement Notice” means the proposed forms of notice or such other forms as

may be approved by the Court, which inform the Class Members of (a) the certification of the

Class for Settlement purposes; (b) the date and location of the Fairness Hearing; and (c) the

elements of the Settlement Agreement—all in accordance with Section VII of this Agreement.

The current form of the Settlement Notice is attached as Exhibits 4, hereto.

3.44 “Settlement Website” means a website created by the Settlement Administrator to

facilitate notice, the making of claims, and for other administrative purposes related to the

Settlement, as detailed in Section VII of this Agreement.

3.45 “Settling Parties” means, collectively, Plaintiffs and Defendant.

3.46 “Short Form Settlement Notice” means an abbreviated version of the Settlement

Notice to be delivered as a postcard or used as Publication Notice, using the language of the

Settlement Notice to the extent practicable, which is subject to approval by the Court as part of the

Preliminary Approval Order. The current form of the Short Form Settlement Notice is attached as

Exhibit 5, hereto.

3.47 “Third-Party Claims” means any case, lawsuit, or other claim that Defendant may

bring, formally or informally, against any supplier or other Person seeking indemnification,

contribution, or recovery on another theory or based on other causes of action related to the subject

matter of the Lawsuit.

3.48 “Valid Claim” means a Claim Form that (a) is timely submitted by a Class Member

in accordance with the requirements of the Preliminary Approval Order, (b) is signed by that Class

Member with a certification under penalty of perjury that the information is true and correct to the

best of the Class Member’s knowledge and recollection, (c) is not fraudulent, and (d) contains all

of the attestations, certifications, information, and documentation required for that Class Member


of 61

to be eligible to receive one or more of the benefits provided in Section VI of this Agreement. In

the event that multiple claims are submitted for the same Headphones unit (i.e., the same serial

number), only the earliest owner of the Headphones associated with that serial number shall be

treated as having a Valid Claim. If it is not possible to determine the earliest owner conclusively

after expending reasonable efforts to do so, then the Settlement Administrator shall use its

judgment and treat only one Claimant as having a Valid Claim.

IV. CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

4.1 Solely for the purposes of implementing this Agreement and the Settlement, and

for no other purpose, Defendant will not oppose the conditional certification of the Settlement

Class on a nationwide basis. Defendant does not concede that class certification would be

warranted or appropriate absent a settlement. If for any reason this Agreement should fail to

become effective, Defendant’s lack of opposition to certification of the nationwide Settlement

Class shall be null and void, and the Parties shall return to their respective positions in the Lawsuit

as those positions existed immediately before the execution of this Agreement, including their

positions regarding suitability of class certification in the Lawsuit.

4.2 If for any reason this Agreement should fail to become effective, neither this

Agreement nor any document referred to in, or incorporated into, the Agreement is or may be

construed as an admission by Defendant of any fault, wrongdoing, or liability whatsoever. Nor

should the Agreement be construed as an admission that the Named Plaintiff can serve as an

adequate class representative, other than for settlement purposes, or that certification of any class

is proper or permissible.


of 61

V. REQUIRED EVENTS: PRELIMINARY AND FINAL APPROVAL

5.1 On or around July 31, 2019May 17, 2019, the Named Plaintiff at his sole expense

shall file with the Court a renewed motion seeking entry of the Preliminary Approval Order, which

shall:

a. Preliminarily approve the Settlement and this Agreement as fair, adequate,

and reasonable to the Settlement Class;

b. Conditionally certify the Settlement Class as a nationwide class solely for

the purpose of effecting the Settlement;

c. Designate the Class Representative as the representative of the Settlement

Class;

d. Designate Class Counsel as counsel for the Settlement Class;

e. Designate the Settlement Administrator and instruct the Settlement

Administrator to perform the following functions in accordance with the

terms of this Agreement, the Notice Plan, the Preliminary Approval Order,

and the Final Approval Order:

i. No earlier than September 16, 2019July 26, 2019, begin

disseminating the various Settlement Notices pursuant to the Notice

Plan, substantially in the forms provided in Section VII and, to the

extent applicable and practicable;

ii. No earlier than September 16, 2019July 26, 2019, establish the

Settlement Website with information the Parties jointly agree to post

concerning the nature of the case and the status of the Settlement,

including relevant pleadings as available such as the Complaint,

papers in support of preliminary and final approval of the


of 61

Settlement, and Class Counsel’s Fee Application, FAQs, plus

relevant orders of the Court. This shall be accomplished before or

concurrently with emailing or mailing the Settlement Notice or

publishing Publication Notice;

iii. No earlier than September 16, 2019July 26, 2019, establish a toll-

free telephone number that Class Members can call to request

electronic or hard copies of the Claim Forms and FAQs be sent to

them and to obtain additional information regarding the Settlement.

This shall be accomplished before or concurrently with emailing or

mailing the Settlement Notice or publishing Publication Notice;

iv. Beginning September 16, 2019July 26, 2019, effect Publication

Notice (by traditional and social media) for the Settlement Class in

the form and pursuant to the Notice Plan to which the Parties agree;

v. By January 31, 2020November 30, 2019, receive, evaluate, and

either approve as meeting the requirements of this Agreement or

disapprove as failing to meet those requirements the Claim Forms

submitted by Claimants;

vi. By February 28, 2020December 31, 2019, send, by first-class

United States Mail or email, to each Person who has submitted a

Claim Form that the Settlement Administrator has determined not to

be a Valid Claim, and which has not been challenged by Class

Counsel, a Notice of Claim Denial. Such a person shall have thirty


of 61

(30) days from the date of transmission of a Notice of Claim Denial

to attempt to cure the reason for any denial;

vii. By March 18, 2020January 30, 2020, provide to Defendant and

Class Counsel the information set forth in Section 8.2, including:

(a) a list of the names, addresses, email addresses, and other contact

information of all Class Members who have submitted Claim Forms

and whose Claim Forms the Settlement Administrator has

determined to be Valid Claims, separately identified by category of

settlement benefit to be paid; and (b) a separate list of the names

addresses, email addresses, and other contact information of all

Persons who have submitted Claim Forms and whose Claim Forms

the Settlement Administrator has determined not to be Valid Claims,

including the reason each Claim was rejected;

viii. Process requests for exclusion from the Settlement in accordance

with Section VIII of this Agreement;

ix. Process objections to the Settlement in accordance with Section VIII

of this Agreement; and

x. No later than twenty (20) days before the Fairness Hearing, provide

to the Court, Defendant, and Class Counsel a statement, under

penalty of perjury, declaring: (a) that it has accomplished the

relevant requirements of Section 5.1e; (b) the total number of claims

submitted (in total and by category of benefit); (c) the total number

of requests for exclusion received; (d) the total number of objections


of 61

received; and (e) the total number of claims adjudicated as Valid

Claims (in total and by category of benefit); and the total number of

claims adjudicated not to be Valid Claims.

f. Approve the Notice Plan, including the form, contents, and methods of

notice to be given to the Class and the Settlement Class as set forth in

Section VII of this Agreement, and direct the Settlement Administrator to

provide and file with the Court a declaration of compliance with the Notice

Plan set forth in Section VII of this Agreement (including the statement

from the Settlement Administrator referenced in Section 5.1e.x);

g. Establish procedures and schedule deadlines for Class Members to object

to the Settlement or certification of the Settlement Class, to exclude

themselves from the Settlement, and to submit Claim Forms to the

Settlement Administrator, all consistent with Sections VI and VIII of this

Agreement; and

h. Schedule deadlines for the filing of: (i) papers in support of final approval

of the Settlement, the certification of the Settlement Class, the designation

of the Class Representative as the representative of the Settlement Class,

and the appointment of Class Counsel as counsel for the Settlement Class;

(ii) Class Counsel’s Fee Application; and (iii) objections to the Settlement,

certification of the Settlement Class, to the designation of the Class

Representative as the representative of the Settlement Class, or to the

appointment of Class Counsel as counsel for the Settlement Class.


of 61

5.2 Subject to Court approval, the proposed deadlines and requirements to be

established in the Preliminary Approval Order are:

a. September 16, 2019August 16, 2019: The Settlement Administrator shall

mail and email the initial Settlement Notices as required by Section 7.3. The

Settlement Administrator may also provide additional notice as provided by

Section 7.3d.i below.

b. November 8, 2019September 16, 2019: Class Counsel shall file their Fee

Application.

c. December 6, 2019October 14, 2019: Class Counsel shall file the proposed

Final Approval Order and memorandum in support of Final Approval.

d. November 22, 2019October 4, 2019: Any Class Member shall file

objections with the Court and serve a copy of that filing on Class Counsel

and Defendant. Objections must be in writing and must contain the

following information:

i. the full name, address, telephone number, and email address of the

objector;

ii. the serial number(s) for the objector’s Headphones;

iii. a clear written statement as to the date of purchase of the

Headphones and the retailer from which the Headphones were

purchased;

iv. a clear written statement of all grounds for the objection

accompanied by any factual and legal support for such objection;


of 61

v. copies of any papers, briefs, or other documents on which the

objection is based;

vi. a list of all cases in which the objector and/or objector’s counsel

have filed or in any way participated in, financially or otherwise,

any objection to a class action settlement in the preceding five years;

vii. the name, address, email address, and telephone number of all

attorneys representing the objector;

viii. a statement indicating whether the objector and/or the objector’s

counsel intends to appear at the Fairness Hearing and, if so, a list of

all persons, if any, who will be called to testify in support of the

objection; and,

ix. the objector’s signature.

This Section applies to all objections, including all objections to

certification of the Settlement Class, the designation of the Class

Representative, the appointment of Class Counsel, the Settlement, this

Agreement, or Class Counsel’s Fee Application.

e. November 22, 2019October 4, 2019: Requests by Class Members to be

excluded from the Settlement must be either postmarked by the United

States Postal Service (in the case of mailed exclusions) or actually received

by the Settlement Administrator (in the case of electronically submitted

exclusions). The Settlement Administrator must file a list of all exclusions

(including Class Members submitting Opt-Out Requests and those


of 61

objecting) with the Court no later than twenty (20) days before the Fairness

Hearing.

f. November 22, 2019October 4, 2019: Any Person or attorney seeking to

appear at the Fairness Hearing must file with the Court and serve on Class

Counsel and Defendant an entry of appearance in the Lawsuit and notice of

intention to appear at the Fairness Hearing. This includes any person

objecting to any or all of certification of the Settlement Class, designation

of Class Representatives, appointment of Class Counsel, the Settlement, the

Agreement, or Class Counsel’s Fee Application.

g. No later than twenty (20) days before the Fairness Hearing: the Settlement

Administrator shall file with the Court a declaration of compliance with the

notice requirements set forth in Section VII of this Agreement.

h. December 6, 2019October 14, 2019: Class Counsel shall file their reply, if

any, in support of their Fee Application, in support of the Settlement, and

in response to any objections.

i. December 31, 2019October 31, 2019: Claims Deadline for all Class

Members. All claims must be postmarked (in the case of mailed Claims

Forms) or actually received (in the case of electronic Claims Forms) by this

date. Claims received after this date shall not be Valid Claims.

5.3 Defendant may, at its discretion, file a memorandum in support or statement of non-

opposition of the motion seeking entry of the Preliminary Approval Order.

5.4 At the Fairness Hearing, the Parties will jointly request the Court to enter the Final

Approval Order that:


of 61

a. Grants final approval of the certification of the Settlement Class;

b. Designates the Class Representative as the representative of the Settlement

Class and Class Counsel as counsel for the Settlement Class;

c. Grants final approval of the Settlement and this Agreement as fair,

reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class;

d. Provides for the release of all Released Claims and enjoins Class Members

from asserting, filing, maintaining, or prosecuting any of the Released

Claims in the future;

e. Orders the dismissal with prejudice of all claims alleged in the Lawsuit, and

incorporates the releases and covenant not to sue stated in this Agreement,

with each of the Parties to bear its, his, or her own costs and attorney fees,

except as provided in Section X below;

f. Authorizes Defendant to honor Valid Claims approved by the Settlement

Administrator as Valid Claims, or otherwise reviewed by Class Counsel and

counsel for Defendant and determined to be Valid Claims; and

g. Preserves the Court’s continuing jurisdiction over the administration of the

Settlement and enforcement of this Agreement.

5.5 In addition, at the Fairness Hearing, Class Counsel will move the Court for entry

of a separate order approving: (a) the Service Award to the Named Plaintiff; and (b) Attorneys’

Fees and Expenses to Class Counsel in an amount to be determined by the Court consistent with

the terms of this Agreement. Subject to the Parties’ right to appeal, Defendant shall pay any such

amounts within ten (10) business days following the Effective Date or following the entry of a


of 61

final, non-appealable order relating to Service Awards or to Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses,

whichever is later.

5.6 As soon as practicable after execution of this Agreement, the Parties shall file in

the Lawsuit a stipulated motion, proposed stipulated order, or other filing to stay the Lawsuit.

5.7 This Agreement will not be finalized or submitted to the Court for approval without

the consent of and execution by the Named Plaintiff and Defendant.

5.8 Named Plaintiff, Class Counsel, and Defendant will cooperate and make their best

efforts to secure preliminary and final approval for and to effectuate the Settlement, including

cooperating in drafting the documents necessary for preliminary and final approval and securing

the prompt, complete, and final dismissal, with prejudice, of the Lawsuit. If the Court fails to enter

either the Preliminary Approval Order or the Final Approval Order, Plaintiffs, Class Counsel, and

Defendant will use all reasonable efforts that are consistent with this Agreement to cure any defect

identified by the Court. If, despite such efforts, the Court does not enter the Preliminary Approval

Order or Final Approval Order, the Parties will return to their positions in the Lawsuit as they were

immediately prior to the execution of this Settlement Agreement and confer on a revised schedule

for the completion of fact and expert discovery and class certification.

5.9 If an appeal results in an order materially modifying, setting aside, or vacating this

Agreement in whole or in part, with the exception of any order that relates to the amount of

Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses to be paid to Class Counsel or the amount of any Service Award to

the Named Plaintiff, each Party adversely affected by such order shall have the right at its sole

discretion to treat the order as an event permanently preventing entry of a Final Approval Order.

To exercise this right, the Party must inform the other Party and the Settlement Administrator, in

writing, of the exercise of this right within ten (10) business days after any order modifying, setting


of 61

aside, or vacating this Agreement in whole or in part becomes final and non-appealable. If either

Party exercises this right, the Party exercising such right agrees to work with the other Party in

good faith to attempt to negotiate terms mutually acceptable to both Parties that address any such

material alteration or modification caused by the appeal.

VI. BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

6.1 Under the Settlement, Class Members may obtain one of the three alternative

benefits described in this Section VI, but not more than one of the alternatives. Alternative 1 is an

extended limited warranty on the Headphones, which extended warranty is available only to Class

Members who purchased their Headphones on or after January 1, 2018, as described in more detail

below. For Class Members who qualify for the extended warranty but want to forego the benefit

of the extended warranty, or for Class Members who purchased their Headphones before

January 1, 2018 and therefore are not eligible for the extended limited warranty, said Class

Members may submit a Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator to obtain a cash payment

under either Alternatives 2 or 3, but not both, as described in more detail below.

6.2 Alternative 1: Extended Limited Warranty. Class Members who purchased

their Headphones on or after January 1, 2018, shall receive a 12-month limited warranty extension

on the Headphones with the 12-month extension beginning to run from the Effective Date of the

Settlement (the “Extended Warranty”). The Extended Warranty is only available for Class

Members who purchased Headphones on or after January 1, 2018. Class members who purchased

Headphones prior to January 1, 2018 are not eligible for the Extended Warranty, and instead are

limited to claiming benefits under either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3, described below. Class

Members qualifying for the Extended Warranty do not need to submit a Claim Form to the

Settlement Administrator, but must comply with the following requirements:


of 61

a. Class Members qualifying for the Extended Warranty must comply with the

on-line warranty claim process and requirements then in existence on the

Plantronics website, at plantronics.com, including that the Class Member

must return to Plantronics their existing Headphones for which they are

making the warranty claim;

b. To qualify for coverage under the Extended Warranty, the warranty claim

must be based on a battery, battery charging, battery performance,

waterproofing, moisture, or sweat proofing issuebattery charging issue; and

c. The Class Member must attest under penalty of perjury that he, she or it

(i) has not filed a warranty claim on the Headphones previously; (ii) did not

previously receive a replacement set of Headphones from any source; and

(iii) did not previously receive a refund from Plantronics or the retailer from

which the Claimant purchased the Headphones for all or any portion of the

purchase price of the Headphones. Plantronics is entitled to rebut the Class

Member’s assertion of no prior warranty claim, replacement Headphones or

refund under (i) through (iii) herein with verifiable evidence to the contrary.

In that event, the Class member will not be entitled to any warranty

replacement under the Extended Warranty.

6.3 To the extent that the original limited warranty applicable to the original purchase

of the Headphones (the “Original Limited Warranty”) has not expired by the Effective Date, the

Extended Warranty shall be in addition to and take effect after expiration of the Original Limited

Warranty.


of 61

6.4 Class Members qualified to receive the Extended Warranty and who make a valid

warranty claim under the Extended Warranty shall be entitled to receive a functional replacement

to the Headphones. The replacement product shall be limited to the Plantronics Backbeat FIT 2100

wireless headphones (“Replacement Product”), and no other Plantronics product. There shall be

no express or implied warranty provided to Class Members for the Replacement Product, except

that a Replacement Product provided to a Class Member pursuant to this Extended Warranty is

entitled to the remaining warranty, if any, associated with the Class Member’s original purchase

of the Headphones. There shall be no other express or implied warranty provided to Class

Members for the Replacement Product.

6.5 No Class Member who is qualified for and elects to receive the Extended Warranty

may receive any other benefit under this Agreement. A Class Member who is qualified to receive

the Extended Warranty (by reason of having purchased their Headphones on or after January 1,

2018), may choose to waive and forego the benefit of the Extended Warranty by instead submitting

a Claim Form for Alternative 2 or Alternative 3, described below.

6.6 Alternatives 2 & 3: Cash Payment. Class Members who are not qualified to

receive the Extended Warranty (by reason of having purchased their Headphones prior to

January 1, 2018), and Class Members who are qualified to receive the Extended Warranty (by

reason of having purchased their Headphones on or after January 1, 2018) but who elect to waive

and forego the benefit of the Extended Warranty, may qualify to receive a cash payment from

Defendant under either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3, but not both, if he, she or it fully complies

with all of the requirements for receiving the cash payment benefit.


of 61

6.6.1 Alternative 2: $50 cash payment. A Class Member may receive a $50

payment under this Alternative 2 if the Class Member (“Claimant”) complies with all of the

following requirements:

a. The Claimant must timely submit to the Settlement Administrator a

properly completed Claim Form;

b. The Claimant (or an authorized third-party retailer) must furnish Proof of

Purchase of the Headphones from an authorized retailer during the Class

Period;

c. The Claimant must furnish evidence that he, she or it had previously made

a contemporaneous written claim or complaint that their Headphones were

defective or did not function properly due to a battery charging issuetheir

Headphones were defective or did not function properly due to a battery,

battery charging, battery performance, waterproofing,

moisturewaterproofing, moisture, or sweat proofing issue.. The prior

written claim or complaint must have been made prior to the date of the

Named Plaintiff filing the original complaint in the Lawsuit (September 12,

2018). It must be clear that the claim or complaint related to a failure or

malfunction of the Headphones consistent with the allegations in the

Complaint regarding battery charging issues. For example, a general

negative review on Amazon or plantronics.com would not suffice, but a

negative review that specifically references a battery charging issue or a

waterproofing, moisture, or sweat proofing issue consistent with the

allegations in the Complaint would suffice; and


of 61

d. The Claimant must attest under penalty of perjury that: (a) the Claimant’s

Headphones malfunctioned or failed to work properly due to a battery,

battery charging, battery performance, waterproofing, moisture, or sweat

proofing issuebattery charging issue; and (b) the Claimant did not

previously receive a replacement set of Headphones from any source or a

refund from Plantronics or the retailer from which the Claimant purchased

the Headphones for all or any portion of their purchase price. Plantronics

is entitled to rebut the Claimant’s assertion of no prior replacement

Headphones or refund with verifiable evidence to the contrary provided to

the Settlement Administrator. If such verifiable evidence is presented, the

Claimant shall not be entitled to any benefit.

A Claimant who fully complies with all of the above requirements shall receive a payment of $50.

There shall be a limit of two (2) claims per Claimant. A Claimant cannot recover based on

replacement Headphones already received in response to a prior warranty claim or complaint. If

the Proof of Purchase shows that the Claimant purchased the Headphones for less than $50, the

Claimant’s recovery is limited to the price paid for the Headphones. For example, if the Proof of

Purchase shows that the Claimant purchased their Headphones for $40, their recovery is limited to

$40.

6.6.2 Alternative 3: $25 Cash Payment: A Class Member may receive a $25

payment under this Alternative 3 if the Class Member (“Claimant”) complies with all of the

following requirements:

a. The Class member must timely submit to the Settlement Administrator a

properly completed Claim Form;


of 61

b. The Claimant (or an authorized third-party retailer) must furnish Proof of

Purchase of the Headphones from an authorized retailer during the Class

Period; and

c. The Claimant must attest under penalty of perjury that: (a) the Claimant’s

Headphones malfunctioned or failed to work properly due to a battery,

battery charging, battery performance, waterproofing, moisture, or sweat

proofing issuebattery charging issue; and (b) the Claimant did not

previously receive a replacement set of Headphones from any source or a

refund from Plantronics or the retailer from which the Claimant purchased

the Headphones for all or any portion of their purchase price. Plantronics is

entitled to rebut the Claimant’s assertion of no prior replacement

Headphones or refund with verifiable evidence to the contrary presented to

the Settlement Administrator. If such verifiable evidence is presented, the

Claimant shall not be entitled to any benefit.

A Claimant who fully complies with all of the above requirements shall receive a payment of $25.

There shall be a limit of two (2) claims per Claimant. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Claimant

who previously received a replacement set of Headphones from any source may make one (1), and

only one Claim for benefits under this Alternative 3 benefit, and such Claimant is excused from

the requirement to attest under penalty of perjury that they did not previously receive a replacement

set of Headphones from any source. All other Claimants must fully comply with the requirements

for this Alternative 3.

6.6.3 All of the information provided by Claimants to the Settlement

Administrator pursuant to this Section shall be provided to Class Counsel and Defendant, if


of 61

requested, and Class Counsel has the right to request and receive any verifiable evidence provided

by Defendant to the Settlement Administrator pursuant to 6.6.1d and 6.6.2c above.

6.6.4 Class Members will be able to submit claims by mail or electronically

through the Settlement Website.

6.6.5 The provisions of Section 6.6 of this Agreement (regarding Alternatives 2

& 3) are subject to reasonable anti-fraud measures that Defendant may deliver to the Settlement

Administrator, in addition to those that the Settlement Administrator may otherwise employ. Class

Counsel will review and approve any such anti-fraud measure before Defendant provides them to

the Settlement Administrator. Class Counsel’s approval will not be unreasonably withheld.

6.6.6 All Class Members shall be required to mail, email, or submit electronically

to the Settlement Administrator their completed Claim Form with all of the required information.

A Claim Form postmarked or electronically transmitted on or before the Claims Deadline will be

treated as timely. Any Claim Form not submitted by the Claims Deadline is not a Valid Claim

under the Settlement or this Agreement. Claimants who timely submit a claim that is deemed

incomplete by the Settlement Administrator shall be given one, and only one, opportunity to

correct the deficiency within thirty (30) days of mailing of the notice of deficiency by the

Settlement Administrator.

VII. SETTLEMENT NOTICE AND NOTICE PLAN

7.1 All decisions regarding notice and settlement administration shall be made jointly

between Defendant and Class Counsel except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement.

Appropriate notice of settlement shall be provided to the Class Members. The Parties and their

counsel agree to cooperate in good faith in the notice and settlement administration process, and

the parties shall mutually agree on the language of the notice and claim forms. Defendant agrees

to pay reasonable notice and claims administration costs incurred by the Settlement Administrator,


of 61

and the Parties shall cooperatively work together in good faith to try to ensure that the notice and

claims administration costs do not exceed three hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($350,000).

7.2 Class Counsel and counsel for Defendant shall have the ability to communicate

with the Settlement Administrator without the need to include each other in each of those

communications. Disputes, if any, shall be resolved by the Court. This includes any disputes over

whether a particular Class Member is entitled to a particular benefit under Section VI of this

Agreement.

7.3 On September 16, 2019July 26, 2019, the Settlement Administrator shall do the

following:

a. The Settlement Administrator shall begin sending or causing to be

disseminated a copy of the Short Form Settlement Notice to every Class

Member who reasonably can be identified in the records of (i) third party

retailers pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 7.3d below, or

(ii) Plantronics, including but not limited to Persons who directly purchased

Headphones from Plantronics on the plantronics.com website or registered

their Headphones with Plantronics.

b. To the extent practicable, the Settlement Administrator shall send or cause

to be sent a copy of the Settlement Notice by electronic mail, or another

electronic means of personal contact, to every Class Member whose email

address or other electronic contact information Defendant can reasonably

identify in its records or third party retailers provide. If the Settlement

Administrator can identify more email addresses or other electronic contact

information for Class Members by performing an email address lookup or


of 61

similar exercise, the Settlement Administrator shall include such costs in

the Administration and Notice Expenses. Any such electronic mail

addresses are subject to the provisions of Section 8.2 below. For all other

Class Members for whom or which a mailing address, but no email address

or other electronic means of contact, can reasonably be identified, the

Settlement Administrator shall send or cause to be sent a copy of the Short

Form Settlement Notice by U.S. mail.

c. The Settlement Administrator will forward Short Form Settlement Notices

or Settlement Notices that are returned by the U.S. Postal Service or

electronically with a forwarding address to the Class Member. For Short

Form Settlement Notices or Settlement Notices returned as undeliverable,

the Settlement Administrator shall make reasonable effort to determine a

proper electronic mail address, other electronic contact information, or

mailing address, and re-send the Short Form Settlement Notice or

Settlement Notice. All costs related to this process shall be included in the

Administration and Notice Expenses. The Claims Deadline shall not be

extended for any Person whose initial Settlement Notice, Short Form

Settlement Notice, or Claim Form is returned for any reason.

d. With respect to third parties identified by Defendant as being the top 10

retailers of the Headphones, the Parties agree that Class Counsel shallmay

issue subpoenas as soon as practicable to these top 10 retailers and shall

petition the Court to enter an Order seek to obtain an order to be entered by

the Court directing these third parties either to:


of 61

i. Deliver to the Settlement Administrator their respective customer

lists identifying Class Members and the names, company names (if

applicable), addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses,

purchase dates, Headphone product information (e.g., SKUs or other

information identifying the product purchased), purchase price,

and—to the extent the third party has them—serial numbers for the

Headphones purchased by the Class Members. The Settlement

Administrator shall treat a customer list provided to it pursuant to

this Section as Confidential under the Protective Order to be entered

by the Court pursuant to this Settlement Agreement and the Court’s

order granting preliminary approval and the appropriate employees

of the Settlement Administrator shall sign Exhibit A to the

Protective Order; or

ii. Provide the Short Form Settlement Notice to Class Members on

their respective customer lists. If requested, the Settlement

Administrator shall reimburse a third party for the reasonable cost

of providing this notice and include such amount in the

Administration and Notice Expenses. No later than October 31,

2019September 2, 2019, any third party providing Settlement Notice

under this Section shall certify that it has done so by filing with the

Court a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 substantially in a

form to be approved by the Court as part of the Preliminary

Approval Order. Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator


of 61

shall provide oversight and guidance to those retailers, if any, who

choose to deliver the notice themselves. Nothing in this Section

obligates payment for any third party’s compliance costs other than

the cost of postage at no greater than the U.S. Postal Service’s

applicable rate for marketing mail.

iii. Class Counsel will serve the subpoenaorder and related

correspondence on third parties as soon as practicable and take

reasonable steps to ensure timely compliance by third parties to

allow a reasonable amount of time for Class Members to submit a

Claim Form before the Claims Deadline. Noncooperation by a third

party or late notice by a third party is not good cause to adjust the

Claims Deadline or to treat any untimely claim as a Valid Claim.

e. Within sixty (60) days of the entry of the Preliminary Approval Order,

Defendant will provide the Settlement Administrator with electronic data

containing the contact information Defendant has for Class Members. The

Settlement Administrator will maintain the information and data provided

to it by Defendant pursuant to this provision as Confidential under the terms

of the Protective Order and the appropriate employees of the Settlement

Administrator shall sign Exhibit A to the Protective Order.

f. The Settlement Administrator will provide Defendant with any updated or

corrected information from Class Members learned in administering this

Notice Plan or the Claim Forms of Class Members.


of 61

7.4 At approximately the same time the Settlement Administrator mails and emails the

Short Form Settlement Notice, and the Settlement Notice, the Settlement Administrator shall

provide Publication Notice to the Class Members pursuant to the Notice Plan.

7.5 To facilitate the efficient administration of this Settlement, and to promote the

provision of benefits pursuant to this Settlement, the Settlement Administrator will establish a

Settlement Website that enables Class Members to:

a. Read the Settlement Notice and FAQs and important case documents (e.g.

Settlement Agreement, Order Granting Preliminary Approval);

b. Complete, review, and submit a Claim Form online. Doing so shall include

the ability for Class Members to electronically upload and submit

documents supporting their Claim Form;

c. Print the completed Claim Form for signature by the Class Member and

mailing to the Settlement Administrator along with any required

documentary support;

d. View a toll-free telephone number Class Members may call to obtain

general information about the Settlement and this Agreement; and

e. Obtain updates on the status of the Settlement.

7.6 The Settlement Administrator will not maintain the Claim Forms on the Settlement

Website after the Claims Deadline passes.

7.7 The Parties agree that the Settlement Notice, Short Form Settlement Notice, FAQ,

Claim Forms, Publication Notice, and Settlement Website will provide information sufficient to

inform Class Members of: (a) the essential terms of this Agreement; (b) appropriate means for

obtaining additional information regarding the Agreement and the Lawsuit; (c) appropriate


of 61

information about the procedure for objecting to or excluding themselves from the Settlement, if

they should wish to do so; and (d) appropriate means for and information about submitting a claim

for benefits pursuant to the Settlement. The Parties also agree that the dissemination of the

Settlement Notice, Short Form Settlement Notice, and the FAQs in the manner specified in this

Section VII satisfies the notice requirements of due process and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

7.8 Pursuant to this Agreement, Class Counsel will request the Court to approve, in the

Preliminary Approval Order, the emailing and (to the extent email is unavailable or unsuccessful)

direct mailing of the Short Form Settlement Notice and establishment of the Settlement Website,

which will include the Settlement Notice, FAQs, and the Claim Forms, and the Publication Notice

all as set forth above in this Section VII.

7.9 As soon as practicable, but no later than ten (10) days after Plaintiffs file this

Agreement in the Court, Defendant or the Settlement Administrator shall serve a CAFA Notice of

the Settlement as required by the notice provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1715 (“CAFA Notice”). Defendant will prepare the substantive language of the CAFA Notice,

subject to Class Counsel’s approval which shall not be unreasonably withheld.

7.10 No later than the latest Claims Deadline, the Settlement Administrator shall file

with the Court a declaration of compliance with this Notice Plan, including a statement of (a) the

number of Persons to whom the Class Notice was mailed and emailed for each source of records

(i.e., the number of Persons to whom the Class Notice was mailed or emailed identified in records

provided by Plantronics and each third party providing records pursuant to this Section); and

(b) the identity of each third party that opted to undertake notice and certify compliance pursuant

to Section 7.3d.ii.


of 61

VIII. CLAIM ADMINISTRATION, EXCLUSION FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND OBJECTIONS

8.1 In addition to providing to Class Members the benefits described in Section VI

above, Defendant shall pay the Administration and Notice Expenses, including the cost of any

Publication Notice required by law or this Agreement, subject to the provisions in Section 7.1.

8.2 On a rolling basis to be completed by February 28, 2020January 30, 2020, the

Settlement Administrator will provide Defendant and Class Counsel with: (a) for Class Members

who have submitted Valid Claim Forms, a statement that includes the information set forth in

Section 6.1 as well as the benefit selected by each Class Member; and (b) for Class Members who

have submitted invalid or incomplete Claim Forms, the names, contact information, and as much

of the information set forth in Section 6.1 as the Class Member provided. By December 6October

18, 2019, the Settlement Administrator will provide Defendant and Class Counsel with the names,

contact information, and other information submitted by Class Members who have submitted Opt-

Out Requests, objections, or notices of intent to appear at the Fairness Hearing. The Settlement

Administrator shall provide information pursuant to this Section in electronic form in its native

format or another format agreed on with Defendant or Class Counsel, respectively.

8.3 The period for Class Members to submit Claim Forms will commence with the first

date a Settlement Notice, Short Form Settlement Notice, or Publication Notice is provided to any

Class Member and remain open until the Claims Deadline, which is December 31, 2019October

31, 2019.

8.4 The Settlement Administrator will reject a Claim Form that does not include all

information required to make the Claim Form a Valid Claim. The Settlement Administrator will

provide a Notice of Claim Denial, in a timely fashion and by the same means a Person submitted

a Claim Form, to any Person who has not submitted a Valid Claim and will identify the reason(s)


of 61

the Person has not submitted a Valid Claim. The Notice of Claim Denial will also notify such

Persons that they have the right to have the Court review whether they have submitted a Valid

Claim.

8.5 Any Person receiving a Notice of Claim Denial that his, her, or its Claim Form is

not a Valid Claim who wishes to contest such denial must, within thirty (30) calendar days of the

date of mailing or transmission of Notice of Claim Denial of a claim by the Settlement

Administrator as described in Section 8.4 above, submit to the Settlement Administrator a

statement of the reasons contesting the grounds for the rejection of his, her, or its claim or provide

any missing or supplemental information necessary to perfect the claim. If a Person provides this

required statement to the Settlement Administrator and the dispute about whether the Person has

submitted a Valid Claim cannot otherwise be resolved, Class Counsel shall present the issue for

review by the Court after certifying that Class Counsel, Defendant, and the Settlement

Administrator have personally conferred and disagree about whether the claim is a Valid Claim.

8.6 No later than twenty (20) days before the Fairness Hearing, the Settlement

Administrator will provide to Defendant and Class Counsel a statement of the number of Valid

Claims submitted at that point by Class Members, identifying the benefit selected. On request, the

Settlement Administrator will provide particular Claim Forms and Opt-Out Requests to Counsel

for Defendant and Class Counsel. By the same deadline, the Settlement Administrator shall

provide Defendant and Class Counsel with an accounting detailing the Administration and Notice

Expenses incurred. The Settlement Administrator shall provide information pursuant to this

Section in electronic form in its native format or another format agreed on with Defendant or Class

Counsel, respectively.


of 61

8.7 If Defendant determines that a member of the Settlement Class, approved by the

Settlement Administrator, does not qualify for the benefit selected pursuant to this Agreement,

Defendant shall notify Class Counsel of such determination and the reasons for such determination

by January 31, 2020December 15, 2019. If Class Counsel and Defendant cannot agree on whether

a claim is a Valid Claim, then no later than seven (7) days after Defendant notifies Class Counsel,

the Settlement Administrator shall make a determination as to the claim’s validity and promptly

notify the member of the Settlement Class of the status of their claim, subject to the provisions of

Sections 8.4 and 8.5 above. All Notices of Claim Denial must be delivered by February 28,

2020December 31, 2019.

8.8 In determining whether a Person has submitted a Valid Claim, the Settlement

Administrator is strictly bound by the terms of this Agreement. If Defendant or Class Counsel

contend that the Settlement Administrator is not acting in accordance with the terms of this

Agreement, including in the determination of Valid Claims, then such Settling Party will meet and

confer with counsel for the other Settling Party and, if necessary, with the Settlement

Administrator, the Court, or both. After the exhaustion of reasonable efforts to resolve any such

dispute informally, a Settling Party may bring an appropriate motion before the Court.

8.9 All proceedings with respect to the administration, processing, and determination

of claims described in this Agreement and the determination of all cases or controversies relating

thereto, including disputed questions of law and fact with respect to whether any claim is a Valid

Claim, are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. All persons interested in such determinations

submit to the personal jurisdiction of the Court.


of 61

8.10 Opt-Out Requests. Class Members other than the Class Representative may opt out

of the Settlement by submitting an Opt-Out Request to the Settlement Administrator no later than

November 22, 2019October 4, 2019. To be valid, an Opt-Out Request must contain the name,

company name (if applicable), address, email address, telephone number, serial number(s) of the

Class Member’s Headphones, and proof of the date of purchase for the Class Member’s

Headphones. Each Class Member seeking exclusion from the Settlement must personally sign the

Opt-Out Request. No Opt-Out Request may be signed electronically. No Class Member may opt

out by a request signed by an actual or purported agent or attorney acting on behalf of a group of

Class Members. No Opt-Out Request may be made on behalf of a group of Class Members. Class

Members who do not submit a timely, personally signed, valid Opt-Out Request will be bound by

the Settlement and this Agreement, including the release of Released Claims. Class Members who

timely submit a valid, personally signed Opt-Out Request will have no further role in this

Settlement and will not be bound by this Agreement; accordingly, such Class Members will not

be permitted to assert an objection to the Settlement or this Agreement and will receive no benefit

described in Section VI of this Agreement. The Settlement Notice, the Short Form Settlement

Notice, the FAQ, and the Publication Notice will advise Class Members of their ability to opt out

of the Settlement and of the consequences of opting out of the Settlement. Neither the Parties nor

their counsel will solicit any Class Member to submit an Opt-Out Request.

8.11 The Settlement Administrator will correspond with Class Members who timely

submit both an Opt-Out Request and a Claim Form to clarify the Class Member’s intent. The

Settlement Administrator’s correspondence will state that, unless the Class Member clarifies that

he, she, or it intends to opt out of the Settlement within seven (7) days, the Class Member will be

deemed to have submitted a Claim.


of 61

8.12 Objections. Class Members, except for Named Plaintiff, will have until November

22, 2019October 4, 2019 to file with the Court and deliver copies to the Parties’ Counsel (at the

addresses set forth in this Agreement) an objection to the Settlement. Only Class Members who

have not submitted an Opt-Out Request to the Settlement Administrator may object to the

Settlement. To object, a Class Member must timely file with the Court and deliver to the Parties’

counsel a written objection and a notice of intent to appear at the Fairness Hearing, if the objector

chooses to appear at the Fairness Hearing. The filing date of any written objection will be the

exclusive means for determining the timeliness of an objection. The Settlement Notice, the Short

Form Settlement Notice, the FAQs, the Publication Notice, and the Preliminary Approval Order

will set forth the procedures for submitting an objection. A written objection must state: (a) the

full name, address, telephone number, and email address of the objector; (b) the serial number(s)

for the objector’s Headphones; (c) a clear written statement as to the date of purchase of the

Headphones and the retailer from which the Headphones were purchased; (d) a clear written

statement of all grounds for the objection accompanied by any legal support for such objection;

(e) copies of any papers, briefs, or other documents on which the objection is based; (f) a list of all

cases in which the objector and/or objector’s counsel had filed or in any way participated in—

financially or otherwise—an objection to a class action settlement in the preceding five years;

(g) the name, address, email address, and telephone number of all attorneys representing the

objector; (h) a statement indicating whether the objector and/or the objector’s counsel intends to

appear at the Fairness Hearing, and, if so, a list of all persons, if any, who will be called to testify

in support of the objection; and (i) the objector’s signature. Class Members who fail to make

objections in the manner specified in, and in full compliance with, this Section will be deemed to

have waived any objections and will be foreclosed from making any objection to the Settlement


of 61

or this Agreement (whether by appeal, collateral proceeding, or otherwise). Neither the Parties nor

their counsel will encourage any Class Member to object.

IX. PAYMENTS TO NAMED PLAINTIFF

9.1 The Named Plaintiff is a member of the Settlement Class and may participate in the

claims process described in Section VI of this Agreement to the same extent as Class Members.

9.2 Subject to approval by the Court, Defendant will also pay the Named Plaintiff a

Service Award pursuant to the provisions of this Section. The Service Award will consist of a

$5,000.00 payment to the Named Plaintiff solely as compensation for his time and effort associated

with his participation in this Lawsuit and assisting Plaintiff’s Counsel in preparing and bringing

the Lawsuit. This amount is not reimbursement or compensation for any alleged injuries, damages,

or any other relief sought in the Lawsuit. Even though the Named Plaintiff has signed this

Agreement and supports approval of the Settlement, payment of the amount specified in this

Section is not contingent on such authorization and support for the Agreement. The Court’s award

of the Service Award to the Named Plaintiff shall be separate from and independent of the Court’s

determination of whether to approve the Settlement. If the Court declines to approve the

Settlement, no Service Award shall be awarded or paid to Named Plaintiff. Class Counsel will not

seek payments for the Named Plaintiff in excess of the amount in this Section, which Defendant

will not oppose. The Parties did not negotiate or agree to this Section or any of its terms until after

negotiating and agreeing to the substantive terms of the Settlement.

9.3 Defendant shall pay the Service Award to the Named Plaintiff, in care of Class

Counsel, within ten (10) business days following the Effective Date or following the entry of a

final, non-appealable order relating to Service Awards or to Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses,

whichever is later. Class Counsel shall provide Defendant a W9 form from Named Plaintiff in

advance of the payment.


of 61

X. CLASS COUNSEL’S APPLICATION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

10.1 Class Counsel shall file a Fee Application for an award of Attorneys’ Fees and

Expenses no later than November 8, 2019September 16, 2019 pursuant to Rule 23(h),

Rule 54(d)(2), and the Court’s Local Rules.

10.2 Plantronics agrees to pay, subject to Court approval, Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses

of up to a maximum of six hundred fifty thousand dollars ($650,000). The Court’s award of any

attorneys’ fees and expenses to Class Counsel shall be separate from and independent of the

Court’s determination of whether to approve the Settlement. If the Court declines to approve the

Settlement, no award of attorneys’ fees and expenses shall be awarded or paid to Class Counsel.

The Parties have negotiated and reached agreement on the Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses only after

reaching agreement on all other material terms of Settlement in this matter.

10.3 Defendant has no liability or obligation with respect to any Attorneys’ Fees and

Expenses or the Service Award to the Named Plaintiff except as awarded by the Court. Class

Counsel agree that upon payment to Class Counsel of any amounts awarded by the Court,

Defendant’s obligations to Class Counsel with respect to any Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses or the

Service Award to the Named Plaintiff shall be fully satisfied and discharged. Allocation and

sharing of the Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses as between Class Counsel shall be the sole

responsibility and obligation of Class Counsel. The Parties agree that the award of Attorneys’ Fees

and Expenses, not to exceed six hundred fifty thousand dollars ($650,000) constitutes Defendant’s

all-inclusive full payment for any and all attorneys’ fees and expenses in relation to the Lawsuit,

the Settlement and releases provided herein. Any attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by Class

Counsel in responding to objections to the Settlement, if any, or any appeal from the Final

Approval Order, if any, including without limitation any attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred to


of 61

settle any claims by objectors or claimed by objectors, shall be the sole responsibility and

obligation of Class Counsel.

10.4 It is not a condition of the Settlement or this Agreement that the Court award any

particular amount of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses up to a maximum of six hundred fifty thousand

dollars ($650,000) or any particular amount as a Service Award to the Class Representative up to

a maximum of five thousand dollars ($5,000).

10.5 Defendant shall pay the award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, as determined by

the Court, to Class Counsel within ten (10) business days following the Effective Date or following

the entry of a final, non-appealable order relating to the Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and Service

Award, whichever is later. Class Counsel shall provide Defendant W9 forms from Class Counsel

in advance of the payment.

XI. RELEASES

11.1 Class Members who do not timely and validly exclude themselves from the

Settlement forever release and discharge the Released Parties from any and all manner of Settled

Class Claims, claims, actions, causes of action, administrative claims, demands, debts, losses,

damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, obligations, judgments, expenses, or liabilities for economic loss

in law or in equity, whether based on federal, state, local, or foreign law or regulation, statutory or

common law, whether now known or unknown, contingent or fixed, accrued or not accrued,

foreseen or unforeseen, including all claims that Plaintiffs may now have or, absent this

Agreement, may in the future have had, against any Released Party, by reason of any act, harm,

omission, matter, representation, cause, occurrence, breach or event whatsoever that has occurred

from the beginning of time up to and including the Effective Date of this Agreement and that arise

from or relate to any of the alleged facts, defects, representations, omissions, or claims alleged or

that could have been alleged in the Lawsuit or that arise from or relate to any act, harm, omission,


of 61

matter, representation, cause, occurrence, or event whatsoever arising out of the performance of

the Headphones, any alleged defect or deficiency in the Headphones, Defendant’s advertising,

marketing, packaging, promotion, production, warranty, customer service, sale or distribution of

the Headphones, the initiation, defense, or settlement of the Lawsuit or the claims or defenses

asserted in the Lawsuit, including without limitation all claims for out-of-pocket expense,

consequential damages, diminution in value, benefit of the bargain, cost of repair or replacement,

cost of maintenance, premium price damages, or any other damages theory or based on conduct

by the Released Parties alleged to be negligent or intentional, with or without malice, or an alleged

breach of any duty now existing or later arising (hereafter, “Released Claims”) as long as the

Released Claims relate to the Headphones’ battery, battery performance, ability to retain a charge,

or the Headphones’ resistance to water, moisture, or sweat..

11.2 The Released Claims specifically exclude claims that do not relate to the

Headphones’ battery, battery performance, ability to retain a charge, or the Headphone’s resistance

to water, moisture, or sweat, as well as claims for personal injury and emotional distress for Class

Members other than the Named Plaintiff. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as part of the Settlement,

and by executing this Agreement, the Named Plaintiff—and only the Named Plaintiff—

specifically releases any and all claims against the Released Parties, including claims for personal

injury and emotional distress, including any derivative claims, that arise from or relate to any of

the alleged defects, representations, omissions, or claims that were or could have been alleged in

the Lawsuit.

11.3 By executing this Agreement, the Parties acknowledge that, upon entry of the Final

Approval Order by the Court, and assuming there are no appeals, the Lawsuit shall be dismissed

with prejudice, an order of dismissal with prejudice shall be entered, and all Released Claims shall


of 61

thereby be conclusively settled, compromised, satisfied, and released as to the Released Parties.

The Final Approval Order shall provide for and effect the full and final release by Class Members

of all Released Claims. In the case of one or more appeals, all Released Claims shall be

conclusively settled, compromised, satisfied, and released as to the Released Parties upon the

Effective Date.

11.4 Future or Unknown Harm. It is possible, although unlikely, that other injuries,

damages, losses, or future consequences or results of the sale, purchase, use, non-use, need for

repair, or repair of the Headphones due to the alleged defect(s) at issue in the Lawsuit are not

currently known by Class Members and will develop or be discovered that relate to the subject

matter of the Lawsuit. The Release in this Agreement, and the compromise on which it is based,

are expressly intended to and do cover and include a release by each of the Class Members of all

such future injuries, damages, losses, or future consequences or results, excluding any future injury

to person, and including a release and waiver of all rights, causes of actions, claims, and lawsuits

against the Released Parties that may exist or arise in the future because of such future injuries,

damages, losses, or future consequences or results of known or unknown injuries that relate to or

arise out of the subject matter of this litigation.

11.5 Plaintiffs and Class Members knowingly and voluntarily waive Section 1542 of the

California Civil Code, which provides:

A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.

Plaintiffs and Class Members expressly waive and relinquish all rights and benefits that they may

have under, or that may be conferred on them by, the provisions of Section 1542 of the California

Civil Code and of all similar laws of other States or territories, to the fullest extent they may


of 61

lawfully waive such rights or benefits pertaining to the Released Claims. In connection with such

waiver and relinquishment, Plaintiffs and Class Members hereby acknowledge that they are aware

that they or their attorneys may hereafter discover claims or facts in addition to or different from

those which they now know or believe to exist with respect to the Released Claims, but that it is

their intention to hereby fully, finally, and forever settle and release all of the Released Claims,

known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, that they have against the Released Parties. In

furtherance of such intention, the release given by Plaintiffs and Class Members to the Released

Parties shall be and remain in effect as a full and complete general release of all claims

notwithstanding the discovery or existence of any such additional different claims or facts.

11.6 Each Plaintiff expressly consents that this release shall be given full force and effect

according to each of its terms and provisions, including those relating to unknown and unspecified

claims, injuries, demands, rights, lawsuits, or causes of action as referenced above. Each Plaintiff

acknowledges and agrees that this waiver is an essential and material term of this release and the

compromise settlement that led to it, and that without this waiver the compromise settlement would

not have been accomplished. Each Plaintiff has been advised by his or her attorney with respect to

this waiver and, being of competent mind, understands and acknowledges its significance.

11.7 Each Party expressly accepts and assumes the risk that, if facts with respect to

matters covered by this Agreement are found to be other than or different from the facts now

believed or assumed to be true, this Agreement shall nevertheless remain effective. It is understood

and agreed that this Agreement shall constitute a general release and shall be effective as a full and

final accord and satisfaction and is a bar to all actions, causes of action, costs, expenses, attorney

fees, damages, claims, and liabilities whatsoever, whether or not now known, suspected, claimed

or concealed, pertaining to the Released Claims of this Agreement.


of 61

XII. COVENANT NOT TO SUE

12.1 Upon the Effective Date, Named Plaintiff and each Class Member who has not

submitted a valid and timely Opt-Out Request shall be deemed to release and forever discharge

any and all of the Released Parties of and from liability of any kind or type whatsoever for any and

all Released Claims.

12.2 Named Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all Class Members, (a) covenant and

agree that neither Named Plaintiff nor any Class Member, nor anyone authorized to act on behalf

of Named Plaintiff or any Class Member, will commence, authorize, or accept any benefit from

any judicial or administrative action or proceeding, other than as expressly provided for in this

Agreement, against the Released Parties, or any of them, in either their personal or corporate

capacity, or against third parties such as retailers, dealers or distributors that sell or market the

Headphones, with respect to any claim, matter, or issue that in any way arises from, is based on,

or relates to any alleged loss, harm, or damages allegedly caused by the Released Parties, or any

of them, in connection with the Released Claims, the Headphones, or claims that relate to the

allegations of the Lawsuit; (b) waive and disclaim any right to any form of recovery,

compensation, or other remedy in any such action or proceeding brought by or on behalf of any of

them against the Released Parties; and (c) agree that this Agreement shall be a complete bar to any

such action.

12.3 Named Plaintiff and Class Members are hereby permanently barred and enjoined

from seeking to use the class action procedural device (or any analogue of or counterpart to it) in

any future lawsuit against the Released Parties, where the lawsuit asserts claims that were or could

have been brought in the Lawsuit before entry of the Final Approval Order and are not otherwise

released and discharged by this Agreement.


of 61

12.4 If the Named Plaintiff or any of the Class Members violates this Section, whether

by filing any claim, lawsuit, arbitration, petition, administrative action, or other proceeding,

Defendant is entitled to payment of its attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, including expert fees

in connection with responding to or defending such claim, lawsuit, arbitration, petition,

administrative action, or other proceeding.

XIII. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES

Each of the Parties represents and warrants to, and agrees with, each of the other Parties as

follows:

13.1 To the extent permitted by law and the applicable rules of professional conduct,

Class Counsel represent and warrant that they do not have any present intention to file any lawsuit,

class action, or claim of any kind against Defendant in any jurisdiction, including other states or

countries, relating to the claimed defect at issue in the Lawsuit or the Headphones. Class Counsel

further represent and warrant that they will not contact any other attorney or law firm to discuss or

encourage pursuing litigation related to such alleged issues. The foregoing shall not restrict the

ability of Class Counsel to fulfill their responsibilities to absent Class Members in connection with

the settlement proceedings in the Lawsuit.

13.2 To the extent permitted by law and the applicable rules of professional conduct, the

Settlement is conditioned on Plaintiffs’ and Class Counsel’s agreement not to cooperate with any

other lawyers who are litigating or who wish to litigate any issue relating to the claimed defect at

issue in the Lawsuit or the Headphones. The foregoing shall not restrict the ability of Class Counsel

to fulfill their responsibilities to absent Class Members in connection with the settlement

proceedings in the Lawsuit, nor shall it restrict Class Counsel’s responsibility to respond to orders

of any court or other legal obligation.


of 61

13.3 Each Party has had the opportunity to receive, and has received, independent legal

advice from his, her, or its attorneys regarding the advisability of making the Settlement, the

advisability of executing this Agreement, and the legal and income-tax consequences of this

Agreement, and fully understands and accepts the terms of this Agreement.

13.4 Plaintiffs represent and warrant that no portion of any claim, right, demand, action,

or cause of action against any of the Released Parties that Plaintiffs have or may have arising out

of the Lawsuit or pertaining to the design, manufacture, testing, advertising, marketing, packaging,

promotion, production, performance, warranty, customer service, sale, purchase, use, sale or

distribution of any Headphones, and no portion of any recovery or settlement to which Plaintiffs

may be entitled, has been assigned, transferred, or conveyed by or for Plaintiffs in any manner;

and no Person or entity other than Plaintiffs has any legal or equitable interest in the claims,

demands, actions, or causes of action referred to in this Agreement as those of Plaintiffs

themselves.

13.5 None of the Parties relies or has relied on any statement, representation, omission,

inducement, or promise of the other Party (or any officer, agent, employee, representative, or

attorney for the other Party) in executing this Agreement, or in making the Settlement provided

for herein, except as expressly stated in this Agreement.

13.6 Each of the Parties has investigated the facts pertaining to the Settlement and this

Agreement, and all matters pertaining thereto, to the full extent deemed necessary by that Party

and his, her, or its attorneys.

13.7 Each of the Parties has carefully read, and knows and understands, the full contents

of this Agreement and is voluntarily entering into this Agreement after having had the opportunity

to consult with, and having in fact consulted with, his, her, or its attorneys.


of 61

13.8 Each term of this Agreement is contractual and not merely a recital.

XIV. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

14.1 Extensions of Time. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the Parties may agree

to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions of this Agreement and

Settlement.

14.2 Default or Breach. Defendant represents that it will make good-faith efforts to meet

the various deadlines that apply to them under this Agreement. Defendant’s failure, for any reason,

to meet any applicable deadline shall not constitute a default or breach of this Agreement without

formal, written notice by Class Counsel and without a reasonable opportunity for Defendant to

cure the claimed default or breach. If Class Counsel maintain that any action or inaction constitutes

a default or breach of this Agreement, then the Settling Parties shall meet and confer. If reasonable

efforts do not cure any claimed default or breach after a reasonable period of time, only then may

a Settling Party involve the Court. The waiver by Plaintiffs of any default or breach of this

Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any other claimed default or breach by Defendant.

14.3 Publicity or Media Inquiries about the Settlement. The Parties and their counsel

shall not hold any press conference or make any press release or comment regarding the Settlement

except through the notice process approved by the Court. The Parties may make such disclosures

as may be required to the Court, on websites as specified in the Notice Plan, and as may be required

by law or to submit to a government agency, or as may be necessary for financial purposes

(including without limitation, tax or audit), or to respond to inquiries by Class Members relating

to the Settlement. To the extent any Party or their counsel desires to make any other statement

regarding the settlement, such statement must be mutually agreed upon by the Parties and their

counsel prior to any such statement being made.


of 61

14.4 In connection with any media inquiry or publicity concerning this Settlement, the

Parties’ and their counsel’s statements will be limited to statements contained within the

Settlement Notice. Defendant may continue to respond to inquiries and make statements regarding

the quality, safety, and performance of its products. Where appropriate, the Parties and their

counsel will direct Persons in response to inquiries to the Settlement Website.

14.5 Non-Disparagement. To the extent permitted by law and the applicable rules of

professional conduct, the Settlement is conditioned on the agreement of Plaintiffs and their

attorneys not to disparage Defendant or its products or warranty services regarding the subject

matters of the Lawsuit. The foregoing shall not restrict the ability of Class Counsel to perform

their responsibilities to absent Class Members in connection with settlement approval proceedings,

nor shall it restrict Class Counsel’s responsibilities to respond to orders of any court or other legal

obligations or restrict Class Counsel’s ability to support their Application for Fees and Expenses.

This provision shall not be interpreted to interfere with or limit any rights or obligations under the

applicable rules of professional conduct or to extend to any matter that is unrelated to the subject

matters of the Lawsuit.

14.6 No Extension of Warranty. Except as expressly provided for in connection with

this Agreement and the Settlement, Defendant has not agreed to any extension of its warranties for

the Headphones or any of its products. The only settlement benefits are those benefits expressly

described in Section VI of this Agreement. Class Members, other than those described in

Section VII who qualify for and elect to receive the Extended Warranty, shall have only the

standard Plantronics Limited Warranty then in effect and subject to the terms and conditions on

the Plantronics’ website (www.plantronics.com).


of 61

14.7 Confidentiality. All orders entered or agreements made during the course of the

Lawsuit relating to the confidentiality of documents or information shall survive this Agreement.

14.8 Exhibits. All of the exhibits or attachments to this Agreement are material and

integral parts of this Agreement and are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth here.

14.9 Severability. With the exception of the provision for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses

to Class Counsel and the Service Award to the Named Plaintiff pursuant to Sections IX and X of

this Agreement, none of the terms of this Agreement is severable from the others. If the Court or

a court of appeals should rule that any term is void, illegal, or unenforceable for any reason,

however, Defendant, in its sole discretion, and the Named Plaintiff, in his sole discretion (but

acting in accord with his duties and obligations as Class Representative of the Settlement Class),

may elect to waive any such deficiency and proceed with the Settlement under the terms and

conditions approved by the Court.

14.10 Entire Agreement of the Parties. This Agreement constitutes and comprises the

entire agreement between the Parties concerning the Settlement. No representations, warranties,

or inducements have been made by any Party concerning the Settlement or this Agreement other

than those contained and memorialized in this Agreement. This Agreement supersedes all prior

and contemporaneous oral and written agreements and discussions concerning resolution of the

Lawsuit. It may be amended only by an agreement in writing, signed by the Parties.

14.11 Binding on Agents, Successors, and Assigns. This Agreement is binding on, and

shall inure to the benefit of, the Parties and their respective agents, employees, representatives,

officers, directors, parents, subsidiaries, assigns, heirs, executors, administrators, insurers, and

successors in interest.


of 61

14.12 Reservation of Rights. This Agreement is made without prejudice to the rights of

Defendant to oppose class certification in the Lawsuit should the Effective Date not occur.

14.13 Third-Party Beneficiaries. All Released Parties other than the signatories to this

Agreement are intended to be third-party beneficiaries of this Agreement.

14.14 Taxes. Members of the Settlement Class, Named Plaintiff, and Class Counsel shall

be responsible for paying any and all federal, state, and local taxes that may be due, if any, on

account of any payment or benefit conferred pursuant to this Agreement.

14.15 Cooperation in Implementation. Defendant, Named Plaintiff, and their respective

counsel agree to prepare and execute any additional documents that may reasonably be necessary

to effectuate the terms of this Agreement.

14.16 Notices. Any formal or informal notices provided for, required by, or relating to

this Agreement shall be provided to:

For Plaintiff and the Settlement Class:

Jeffrey S. Goldenberg GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A. One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3604 (513) 345-8297 (513) 345-8294 (facsimile) [email protected]

For Defendant:

Darren K. Cottriel JONES DAY 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612-4408 (949) 851-3939 [email protected]


of 61

14.17 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance

with federal procedural law and the substantive laws of the State of California, without regard to

California’s conflict-of-laws principles.

14.18 Jurisdiction. Without affecting the finality of any order, the Court shall retain

jurisdiction over the Parties and the Agreement with respect to implementation and enforcement

the terms of the Settlement. All Settling Parties and Class Members submit to the jurisdiction of

the Court for purposes of implementing and enforcing the Settlement and this Agreement and all

related matters.

14.19 No Drafter. None of the Parties to this Agreement shall be considered to be the

primary drafter of this Agreement or any part of it for purposes of any rule of construction or

interpretation.

14.20 Construction. This Agreement shall not be construed more strictly against one Party

than another, or in favor of one Party or another, merely by virtue of the fact that it or any part of

it may have been prepared by counsel for one of the Parties. This Agreement and each part of it

is the result of arm’s-length negotiations among the Parties.

14.21 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, including signature

transmitted by facsimile or in PDF format. Each counterpart when so executed shall be deemed

to be an original, and all such counterparts together shall constitute the same instrument.

14.22 Signature. By signing, Class Counsel represent and warrant that Plaintiff Phil Shin

has approved and agreed to be bound by this settlement. By signing, all counsel and any other

person signing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have full authority to do so and that

they have the authority to take appropriate action to effectuate the terms of this Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties hereto has caused this Agreement to be


of 61

executed on its behalf by itself or by its duly authorized counsel of record or representative.

[Signature Pages to Follow]


of 61

On Behalf of the Named Plaintiff and the Settlement Class:

_____________________________________ Paul M. DeMarco

[email protected], Stock & DeMarco LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219

_____________________________________ _____________________________________ W.B. Markovits

[email protected], Stock & DeMarco LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219

_____________________________________ Jeffrey S. Goldenberg

[email protected] Schneider, L.P.A. One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: (513) 345-8291 Fax: (513) 345-8294

_____________________________________ Justin C. Walker [email protected] [email protected]

Markovits, Stock & DeMarco LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Finney Law Firm, LLC 4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225 Cincinnati, OH 45245 Phone: (513) 943-6665 Fax: (513) 943-6669

_____________________________________ James C. Shaw

[email protected], Finkelman, Miller & Shaw L.L.P. 201 Filbert Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94133 Phone: (415) 429-5272 Fax: (866) 300-7367

_____________________________________ Terence Coates

[email protected] Markovits, Stock & DeMarco LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219

_____________________________________ Phil Shin Pasadena, CA


of 61


of 61

On Behalf of Defendant:

_____________________________________ Mary T. Huser Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer Plantronics, Inc.

Approved as to Form

_____________________________________ _____________________________________ Darren K. Cottriel JONES DAY Counsel for Plantronics, Inc. 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800 Irvine, California 92612-4408 (949) 851-3939 [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

Ronald S. Kravitz (SBN 129704) James C. Shah (SBN 260435) SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 201 Filbert Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 429-5272 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 [email protected] [email protected]

Jeffrey S. Goldenberg GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A. One West 4th Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Fax: (513) 345-8294 [email protected]





Plaintiff,

vs.

PLANTRONICS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:18-cv-05626-NC

DECLARATION OF ERIC SCHACHTER REGARDING SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN AND ADMINISTRATION


EXHIBIT 5


mailto:[email protected]



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

I, Eric Schachter, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am a Vice President with A.B. Data, Ltd. (“A.B. Data”). A.B. Data has been

selected by the parties to act as the Settlement Administrator in this case after a competitive process

in which we were asked to submit more than one proposal. I am fully familiar with the facts

contained herein based upon my personal knowledge, and if called as a witness, could and would

testify competently thereto.

2. At the request of the parties, I have prepared a proposed settlement notice and claims

administration program for this litigation. This Declaration will describe the proposed notice

program and how it will meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and provide due process to the Settlement Class Members. This Declaration is based upon my

personal knowledge and upon information provided to me by Class Counsel, my associates, and

A.B. Data staff members.

3. I have implemented and coordinated some of the largest and most complex class

action notice and administration programs in the country. The scope of my work includes

notification, claims processing, and distribution programs in all types of class actions, including but

not limited to consumer, antitrust, securities, ERISA, insurance, and government agency

settlements.

4. A.B. Data has also been appointed as notice, claims, and/or settlement administrator

in hundreds of high-volume consumer, civil rights, insurance, antitrust, ERISA, securities, and

wage and hour class action cases. A profile of A.B. Data’s background and capabilities, including

representative case and client lists, is included as Exhibit 1.

5. The objective of the proposed notice program is to provide the best practicable

notice under the circumstances of the proposed settlement to potential Class Members. The Class is

generally defined as follows:

All Persons domiciled within the United States and its territories who purchased at retail Plantronics BackBeat FIT wireless headphones, version Genesis or 16M, manufactured prior to September 2018 (the “Headphones”), during the period of time from April 1, 2014, through the Notice Date.


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

NOTICE PROGRAM

6. The proposed notice program includes direct notice to all Class Members for whom

a mailing address and/or email address is known. Other forms of notice, such as the digital media

campaign discussed below, will provide more than adequate coverage in the event that the outreach

via direct mail and email notice reaches fewer Class Members than anticipated.

7. To identify Class Members and their relevant contact information, Plantronics will

provide A.B. Data with a list of potential Class Members who directly purchased the Headphones

from Plantronics on their website or registered their Headphones with Plantronics.

8. Class Counsel will also issue subpoenas to the top retailers of the Headphones. A.B.

Data will assist Class Counsel with receiving and processing subpoena responses, including

coordinating with the retailers and Class Counsel as applicable to facilitate a secure transfer of

potential Class Member contact info and the electronic processing of the retailer data to normalize

the data, as well as to identify duplicate entries and ultimately construct a list of potential Class

Members to use for direct notice.

9. A.B. Data has similar experience working with parties in other class action

administrations where third-parties are subpoenaed for purposes of identifying potential Class

Members and their contact info. For example, in Mahoney v. Endo Health Solutions, Inc. et al., 15-

cv-09841 (DLC), A.B. Data worked with Plaintiff’s counsel to receive and process subpoena

responses from pharmaceutical benefit managers and retail pharmacies to identify potential Class

Members, their contact information, and relevant purchase information. Through those efforts,

direct notice was ultimately provided to over 1.4 million Class Members.

10. Direct notice will be provided via a Short-Form Notice formatted as a postcard (the

“Postcard Notice”) that will be sent to Class Members via email or U.S. Mail, as described below,

and the more detailed Long-Form Notice will be available for download on the case-specific

website. The Postcard Notice, Long-Form Notice, and Short-Form Notice are included as Exhibits

2, 3, and 4, respectively.

11. The Short-Form Notice will be sent by email to all Class Member email addresses

identified by Plantronics or through the retailer subpoenas. A.B. Data implements certain best


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

practices to increase deliverability and bypass SPAM and junk filters, and we will be able to verify

how many emails were successfully delivered. The emailed Short-Form Notice will include

summary information concerning the Settlement, including: that this is a class action; the Class

definition in plain and engaging language (“Purchased Plantronics Backbeat Fit Wireless

Headphones From April 2014 to Present? You Could Get Money From a Class Action

Settlement.”); that the Class alleges consumer protection claims; that a Class Member may appear

through an attorney if the Member wants; that Class Members can be excluded; the time and

manner for requesting exclusion; the binding effect of a Class judgment; and the scope of the

release.

12. For those potential Class Members for whom we have no email address but do have

a regular mailing address, the Postcard Notice will be sent directly to them via U.S. Mail. The

Postcard Notice will include summary information concerning the Settlement, including: that this is

a class action; the Class definition in plain and engaging language (“Purchased Plantronics

Backbeat Fit Wireless Headphones From April 2014 to Present? You Could Get Money From a

Class Action Settlement.”); that the Class alleges consumer protection claims; that a Class Member

may appear through an attorney if the Member wants; that Class Members can be excluded; the

time and manner for requesting exclusion; the binding effect of a Class judgment; and the scope of

the release.

13. Prior to mailing the Postcard Notice to Class Members, A.B. Data will process all

mailing addresses through the United States Postal Service’s National Change of Address database

(“NCOA”). Postcard Notices will be mailed to the updated mailing addresses where applicable.

Further analysis will be done of any Postcard Notices returned as undeliverable after use of the

NCOA database, and follow up direct mail notice will be provided where appropriate.

14. To supplement the direct notice efforts, A.B. Data will also execute digital banner

ads through the Google Display Network, the Google AdWords/Search platform, and over

YouTube. A minimum of 22 million impressions will be delivered. Utilizing the known contact

information and demographics of the Class, the digital banner ads will be specifically targeted to


4

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

Class Members and likely Class Members. A.B. Data will also disseminate the Short-Form Notice

as a press release over PR Newswire’s US1 Newsline. After the press release is disseminated, both

A.B. Data and PR Newswire will post the press release on their respective Twitter pages. The entire

proposed digital media notice plan, with supporting information and analysis prepared by A.B.

Data’s Vice President of Media, Linda Young, is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 5.

WEBSITE AND TELEPHONE

15. To assist potential Class Members in understanding the terms of the Settlement and

their rights, A.B. Data will establish a case-specific toll-free telephone number and a case-specific

website.

16. A.B. Data will implement and maintain a toll-free telephone number with an

automated interactive voice response system. The toll-free telephone number will appear on both

the Short-Form Notice and Long-Form Notice. The automated interactive voice response system

will present callers with a series of choices to hear prerecorded information concerning the

Settlement. If callers need further help, they will have an option to speak with a live operator during

business hours.

17. A.B. Data will also implement and maintain a case-specific website for this matter.

The website address will appear on both the Short-Form Notice and Long-Form Notice. The

website will provide, among other things, a summary of the case, functionality for Class Members

to submit their claims online, all relevant case and settlement documents, important dates, and any

pertinent updates concerning the litigation or the settlement process.

EXCLUSION AND OBJECTION PROCESSING

18. The Short-Form Notice and Long-Form Notice provide that Class Members may

request exclusion by sending a written, mailed request to the Claims Administrator. A.B. Data will

receive and process all requests for exclusion. A.B. Data will also promptly circulate to the parties

copies of all such requests and a report that tracks each request and whether the required

information was included.


5

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

19. Class Members may also comment or object to the Settlement by sending a written,

mailed letter to the Claims Administrator. A.B. Data will receive and process all such letters that are

received. A.B. Data will also promptly circulate to the parties copies of any objections received and

a report that tracks each request and whether the required information was included.

CLAIMS PROGRAM

20. To receive money from the Settlement, Class Members must complete a claim form

that requires the claimant’s name, mailing address, and email address; information and supporting

documentation in some circumstances concerning their purchase of the Headphones; and a

statement under oath that the claimant purchased the Headphones. As such, the Claim Program does

not require unnecessarily burdensome information, but instead requires only the information

necessary to process the claim and validate that the claimant is in fact a legitimate Class Member.

Class Members who receive direct notice via mail or email will be provided with a unique PIN

number that will be requested on their Claim Forms to verify membership in the Class. A.B. Data

will also implement a number of fraud prevention techniques to identify claims filed from

suspicious locations, by repeat actors, and/or by Internet “bots”.

CONCLUSION

21. It is my opinion, based on my individual expertise and experience and that of my

A.B. Data colleagues, that the proposed notice program is designed to effectively reach potential

Class Members, will deliver plain language notices that will capture potential Class Members’

attention, and will provide them with the information in an informative and easy to understand

manner that is necessary to effectively understand their rights and options. This proposed notice

program is designed to deliver a calculated reach of at least 70% of the potential Class Members

and conforms to the standards employed by A.B. Data in notification programs designed to reach

potential Class Members of settlement groups or classes that are national in scope and reach

narrowly defined entities and demographic targets. In particular, the direct notice by mail and email

combined with digital advertisements is the best and most cost-effective way to reach Class

Members and encourage participation in a manner that will actually come to their attention.


6

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

22. For all these reasons, in my opinion, the proposed notice program satisfies the

requirements of Rule 23 and due process.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and

correct.

____________________________ Eric Schachter


EXHIBIT 2


{00042574; 1}

A COURT AUTHORIZED THIS LEGAL NOTICE

If you purchased Plantronics BackBeat FIT wireless sport headphones, version Genesis or 16M (“Headphones”), you may be entitled to a cash payment or an extended warranty

from a class action settlement.

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit titled Shin v. Plantronics, Inc., No. 5:18-cv-05626-NC (N.D. Cal.). The lawsuit claims that Plantronics, Inc. falsely advertised and warranted the Headphones as

sweatproof, waterproof and providing up to eight hours of listening time on a single charge. Plantronics denies all of the claims and allegations in the lawsuit and denies any wrongdoing and stands by its products as

advertised and warranted.

WHO IS A CLASS MEMBER?

You may be in the Settlement Class if you live in the United States and its territories and purchased at retail the Headphones on or between April 1, 2014 and ________, 2019.

WHAT BENEFITS DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

Class Members can receive one of the following benefits under the settlement: Alternative 1: Extended Limited Warranty – Class Members who purchased Headphones on or after January 1, 2018, receive a 12-month limited warranty extension unless they file a claim for the Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 cash payment (see below). The Extended Limited Warranty applies to the Headphones’ battery, battery performance, ability to retain a charge, or their resistance to water, moisture, or sweat and is subject to terms and conditions as described in the Settlement Agreement. The Extended Limited Warranty will begin to run on the Effective Date of the Settlement. You do not need to submit a Claim Form if you qualify for the Extended Limited Warranty. However, if you receive a cash payment through this Settlement, you are not eligible to also receive the Extended Limited Warranty. Alternative 2: $50 Cash Payment – Class Members who submit a Valid Claim supported by proof of purchase information and provide evidence that the Class Member made a contemporaneous written claim or complaint that their Headphones were defective or did not function properly will receive a cash payment of up to $50. Class Members must attest that: (a) their Headphones malfunctioned or failed to work properly due to an issue with the battery, battery performance, or an ability to retain a charge, or due to an issue with the Headphones’ resistance to water, moisture, or sweat and (b) they did not previously receive a replacement set of Headphones from any source or a refund from Plantronics or the retailer from which they purchased the Headphones for all or any portion of their purchase price. Proof of purchase can be satisfied by the Class Member submitting evidence (e.g., a receipt) or by purchase information obtained by Class Counsel from third party retailers (e.g., Amazon, Best Buy). Class Members who purchased multiple sets of Headphones can receive up to two $50 payments. Class members who previously received replacement Headphones or a refund in response to an original warranty claim or complaint are not entitled to payment under this alternative. The Settlement Administrator will review all claims, as necessary, to determine whether the information obtained from third-party retailers satisfies the proof of purchase requirement. The Settlement Administrator will also review information and records in Plantronics’ possession to determine if the Class Member made a written claim or complaint to Plantronics. (Click Here to file a claim) Alternative 3: $25 Cash Payment - Class Members who submit a Valid Claim supported by proof of purchase information and attest that (a) their Headphones malfunctioned or failed due to an issue with the battery, battery performance, or an ability to retain a charge, or due to an issue with the Headphones’ resistance to water, moisture, or sweat and (b) they did not previously receive replacement Headphones or a refund, will receive a $25 cash payment. Proof of purchase can be satisfied by the Class Member submitting evidence (e.g., a receipt) or by purchase information obtained by Class Counsel from third party retailers (e.g., Amazon, Best Buy). The Settlement Administrator will review all claims, as necessary, to determine whether the information obtained from third-party retailers satisfies the proof of purchase requirement.


{00042574; 1}

Class Members who purchased multiple sets of Headphones can receive up to two $25 payments. Regardless of requirement (b), above, Class Members who previously received a set of Replacement Headphones may receive a payment but are limited to one $25 payment. (Click Here to file a claim) Plantronics has also agreed to pay (1) reasonable attorneys’ fees to Class Counsel and for their costs and expenses not to exceed $650,000; (2) a Service Award of $5,000 to the Named Plaintiff; and (3) the costs of administering the Settlement.

YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS

Submit a Claim Form. To receive a cash payment, you must submit a timely Claim Form. You can submit a Claim Form electronically on the Settlement Website: [website URL], or download a Claim Form from the Settlement Website, complete the information and mail it to the Settlement Administrator. Your Claim Form must be postmarked or submitted online no later than October 31, 2019. Opt Out. You may also exclude yourself from the settlement and keep your rights, if any, to sue Plantronics by sending a written request for exclusion to the Settlement Administrator by October 4, 2019. If you do not exclude yourself, you will be bound by the Settlement and give up your right to sue regarding the settled claims. Object. If you do not exclude yourself, you have the right to object to the proposed settlement. Written objections must be signed, postmarked by October 4, 2019, and provide the reasons for the objection. Please review the Settlement Website for further details. Do Nothing. If you do nothing, you will not receive any cash payment and will lose the right to sue regarding any issues relating to the lawsuit and claims released by the settlement. You will be considered part of the Settlement Class, and you will be bound by the settlement and the Court’s decisions. Released Claims. If you submit a claim, do nothing, or do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, you will be releasing Plantronics from all claims, damages, and losses that you now have or may have in the future that relate to your Headphones’ battery, battery performance, ability to retain a charge, or their resistance to water, moisture, or sweat. Attend the Fairness Hearing. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on [DATE]. All persons who timely object to the Settlement by October 4, 2019 may ask to appear at the Fairness Hearing.

This Notice is only a summary. You can find more details at the Settlement Website: [website URL] or by calling toll-free (8XX) XXX-XXXX. Do not contact the Court.


EXHIBIT 1


[email protected] Rev. 8/1/17

Headquarters New York Washington, D.C. Florida Israel 600 A.B. Data Drive One Battery Park Plaza 1808 Swann Street, NW 3507 Kyoto Gardens Drive 19 Weissburg Street Milwaukee, WI 53217 32nd Floor Washington, D.C. 20009 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Tel Aviv 69358 p: 866-217-4470 New York, NY 10004 p: 202-618-2908 p: 561-336-1801 Israel f: 414-961-3099 p: 646-290-9137 f: 202-462-2085 f: 561-336-1808 p: +972 (3) 720-8782


mailto:[email protected]�


ABOUT A.B. DATA

Founded in 1981, A.B. Data has earned an international reputation for expertly managing the complexities of class action administration in securities class actions, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement actions, and ERISA, consumer, antitrust, employment, civil rights, insurance, environmental, wage and hour, and other class action cases. A.B. Data’s work in all aspects of class action administration has been perfected by decades of experience. Dedicated professionals deliver A.B. Data’s all-inclusive services, working in partnership with its clients to administer their class action cases effectively, efficiently, and affordably, regardless of size or scope. A.B. Data has administered hundreds of class action cases involving billions of dollars in total settlements. A.B. Data was among the 5,000 fastest-growing companies on the 2010 Inc. and 2013 Inc. 500|5000, an exclusive ranking of the nation’s entrepreneurial businesses. We were the only class action administration company to achieve this elite standing in 2010. Whether notifying millions of class members in the United States or throughout the world, processing millions of claims, or printing and distributing millions of checks, A.B. Data matches its talent and technology to the specific needs of its clients, delivering unparalleled service on time and on budget without ever compromising quality. A.B. Data offers unmatched resources and capacity, and is capable of expertly administering any class action notice, settlement, and/or fund administration. We offer the highest level of security and have the in-house capacity to mail four million personalized pieces every 24 hours. The company’s 170,000-square-foot mail distribution center, with its own on-site United States Postal Service (USPS) substation, is one of the nation’s largest and most advanced facilities. In addition, A.B. Data has been entrusted to Magnetic Ink Character Recognition- (MICR-)print and mail more than 20 million checks in one year alone and has the capacity to print and mail 1 million checks per day. A.B. Data has administered some of the largest and most complex class action cases in history. Our success is driven by passion for class action administration and our focus on client relationships. An intensely case-specific approach and a philosophy of respect and professionalism toward our clients and claimants guide every aspect of our work, from the presettlement phase through notice administration, claims processing, and fund distribution. A.B. Data administers class action cases on schedule and on budget with accuracy and efficiency. Trust the extraordinary, experienced professional talent at A.B. Data, and retain our services.

[email protected]

Headquarters New York Washington, D.C. Florida Israel 600 A.B. Data Drive One Battery Park Plaza 1808 Swann Street, NW 3507 Kyoto Gardens Drive 19 Weissburg Street Milwaukee, WI 53217 32nd Floor Washington, D.C. 20009 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Tel Aviv 69358 p: 866-217-4470 New York, NY 10004 p: 202-618-2908 p: 561-336-1801 Israel f: 414-961-3099 p: 646-290-9137 f: 202-462-2085 f: 561-336-1808 p: +972 (3) 720-8782





TABLE OF CONTENTS

DOUR CASE

FACTORS THAT DIFFERENTIATE A.B. DATA

CLASS ACTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES

Presettlement Consultation

Notice Administration

Publication Notice, Print Media, Social Media, and Digital Media

Reach and Frequency Analysis

Claims Processing

Development of Distribution Plans

Fund Distribution

Call Center

Website Services

Secure Environment

Data Security

Fraud Prevention and Detection

Accountability and Reporting

Community and Diversity

Environmentally Friendly Business

A.B. DATA’S LEADERSHIP

NOTABLE NON-CLASS-ACTION ENGAGEMENTS

NOTABLE CLASS ACTION ENGAGEMENTS



P a g e | 4 of 16

FACTORS THAT DIFFERENTIATE A.B. DATA

• A.B. Data’s competitive and transparent pricing structure contains no hidden fees or unpredictable expenses. No out-of-scope or additional services or costs are incurred without clients’ prior approval.

• Our experienced class action administration team includes attorneys and CPAs who handle every aspect of the administration and deliver an impeccable work product with exemplary service. Our executive and management professionals have, on average, 14 years or more of industry experience, and our client services/project employees average ten years.

• We rapidly respond to our clients’ needs and strive to exceed their expectations in every detail.

• A.B. Data’s notice programs are known worldwide for their innovation, efficiency, and compliance with due process requirements.

• Our customized approach results in simplified claims processing, quick distributions, and considerable cost savings.

• A.B. Data’s proprietary fraud detection database prevents payment of fraudulent claims. • Our call center operates 24/7 and contains state-of-the-art telecommunications systems designed to

meet the requirements of all administration projects. • Our cutting-edge information and systems technologies enable us to provide superior quality control

and quality assurance.

• Our proprietary online claims-submission system allows class members to submit claims in a fast, flexible, and cost-effective manner.

• A.B. Data offers the highest level of security and has the in-house capacity to mail 4 million personalized pieces every 24 hours. A.B. Data’s 170,000-square-foot mail distribution center, with its own on-site USPS substation, is one of the nation’s largest and most advanced facilities.

• We maintain a neutral focus when working with multiple clients, including class counsel, defense counsel, defendant companies, government entities, special masters, and claims-filing services.

• A.B. Data’s in-house printing, mailing, and operational facilities streamline communication and maintain the highest level of security.

• Documents are designed to withstand legal scrutiny through accurate, efficient, and timely preparation.

• Clients receive updates with the latest developments in class action and industry news.


P a g e | 5 of 16

CLASS ACTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES

PRESETTLEMENT CONSULTATION

A.B. Data helps its clients to prepare a stronger case. During investigation and discovery, our electronic records management and proven procedures enable our team to quickly provide a fully interactive media package for court presentations and settlement negotiations.

By retaining A.B. Data, clients gain confidence that their case management is rock-solid from the start with • Document analysis, organization, and conversion into an interactive media package • Consultation on proposed plans of allocation and damages analyses by our experienced

administration team and certified public accountants • Assistance with “reach and frequency” analysis • Consultation for designing and implementing preliminary notice programs that will withstand

objections and challenges, as well as meet legal statutes and CAFA requirements • Consultation to determine probable claim rates and settlement structures in an effort to avoid

unexpected delays and additional costs that can arise when providing notice and distributing a settlement fund

NOTICE ADMINISTRATION

A.B. Data is an industry leader in full-service class action notice administration. Our class action notice programs are known worldwide for their efficiency, effectiveness, affordability, and compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process requirements. Our services include class member location; third-party outreach; and media, internet, email, and direct-mail notice.

A.B. Data has designed and implemented some of the largest and most complicated national and international antitrust and class action notifications in the world. Globally, A.B. Data has successfully notified millions of class members throughout 137 countries in more than 80 languages. Domestically, as part of our multifaceted approach to class member location, A.B. Data is a licensee of various postal products, including NCOALink, which tracks millions of moves across the United States.

As a leading class action notice administrator, A.B. Data produces high volumes of notice documents with accuracy, speed, and quality. We print customized notice packages in a cost-efficient format that substantially improves the efficacy of the notice program.

A.B. Data’s team of attorneys, proofreaders, design specialists, and experienced Project Managers ensures that all notice packages are clear, accurate, and easy to understand. We

• Identify and locate potential class members via proprietary methods and research tools • Design and implement synergistic media notice campaigns (online, print, radio, and television) • Develop and implement case-specific third-party outreach campaigns • Coordinate legal translation of notice documents • Draft CAFA notices, identify appropriate government agencies, and disseminate CAFA notices • Utilize a proprietary list of over 5,000 domestic and international banks, brokers, and other

nominees (for securities class action cases and SEC enforcement actions)

PUBLICATION NOTICE, PRINT MEDIA, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND DIGITAL MEDIA

A.B. Data’s Media Notice Division is led by Linda V. Young, a media veteran with decades of class action media notice expertise in some of the most prominent cases in the industry. As Vice President of Media, Young develops media notice plans along with Thomas R. Glenn, President; members of the Development Management Team; Mary Getz, Vice President, Digital Media; and Kelly Gardner, Vice President, List Services.


P a g e | 6 of 16

The Media Notice Division will also provide expertise on Rule 23, MRI-generated audience analysis, reach and frequency analysis, and direct-marketing tactics to reach unidentified class members. Under Young’s leadership, the A.B. Data Media Division continues to expand the array of targeted media solutions for class action notice programs.

CLAIMS PROCESSING

A.B. Data’s customized approach combines accuracy, accountability, and speed with our human touch. Each claim is reviewed in detail and processed precisely in accordance with the court-approved plan of allocation or settlement stipulation. A.B. Data’s claims-processing services include paper and electronic claims processing, with optical character recognition technology to convert claims and correspondence into electronically searchable databases.

A.B. Data’s proprietary Claims Engine, created by expert software engineers in collaboration with the Claimant Services Department, offers an extremely flexible workflow engine that allows high-speed claims imaging and processing without compromising quality. The database’s high level of automation allows maximum control and provides a comprehensive and accurate claims solution. The A.B. Data Claims Engine contains the following special features:

• Eligibility criteria formula, which allows automatic flagging of claimants that do not meet the established criteria

• High-speed, bar-coded claims-processing system • Complete tracking of all claims administration-related activities • Case-specific algorithms and formulas for the calculation of individual payments and pro rata

distributions.

When processing is complete and recommendations must be made to the court for settlement distribution, A.B. Data prepares timely affidavits that are accurate, concise, supported by the required documentation, and designed to withstand legal scrutiny. A.B. Data has the in-house capacity to process millions of pages, but every process is transparent, and every claim is handled as if it were the only one.

Whether processing a claim form requires only a signature or detailed data with supporting documentation, A.B. Data’s claims administration team

• Prepares affidavits and recommendations drafted by experienced class action litigators and accounting professionals

• Assures that the lead plaintiff’s claim is filed timely and correctly • Verifies claims substantiations, as well as flags deficiencies and resolutions • Detects and rejects fraudulent, duplicate, or excluded-party claims • Processes exclusion requests and objections within two hours of receipt • Calculates recognized losses and individual payments • Manages claim-related correspondence • Audits claims processing, including quality control and quality assurance • Provides comprehensive on-demand reporting

DEVELOPMENT OF DISTRIBUTION PLANS

A.B. Data’s team of fund administration professionals includes attorneys, certified public accountants, and certified financial analysts and auditors. They bring years of dedicated experience assisting investors with SEC enforcement actions and private securities litigations.

We have developed hundreds of distribution plans, all in accordance with applicable orders, laws, regulations, policies, and procedures. Our customized approach to every case results in timely distributions, user-friendly claims processes, and greater cost savings. Depending upon the circumstances of each action, A.B. Data works in concert with its clients to conduct relevant economic and financial analyses, develop related methodologies for loss calculation, create appropriate plans of allocation, and if applicable, generate targeted notice programs and claims processes.


P a g e | 7 of 16

FUND DISTRIBUTION

A.B. Data provides a full-service solution to settlement fund distribution. Our team of certified public accountants and financial advisers expertly manages fund distribution while meeting legal, financial, and governmental requirements. We offer complete escrow services; establish qualified settlement funds; print and mail checks, vouchers, and/or coupons; electronically distribute cash or stock; and provide tax services. We also

• Establish and maintain accounts (escrow, FDIC-insured controlled distribution, or managed distribution), with daily account reconciliations and records of all distributions

• Create fund investment strategies • Electronically transfer cash and/or common stock • Utilize positive pay • Securely print and mail checks (up to 1 million per day) • Monitor outstanding and cleared checks • Investigate and attempt to resolve issues with undelivered checks • Provide detailed reporting, including completion of the standardized fund accounting report (SFAR) • Offer all-inclusive tax and accounting services, including 1099 and W-2 tax reporting

CALL CENTER

A.B. Data’s multilingual call center utilizes state-of-the-art telecommunications systems designed to meet the specific requirements of any administration project, as well as to maximize the financial and service goals of our clients.

Our call center is managed by full-time staff well versed in the specific details of every case. Our skilled multilingual customer service representatives are trained using case-specific materials and resources and use telephone scripts written by our attorneys and approved by our clients.

Quality assurance and quality control procedures ensure the transmission of clear and accurate information to class members in a courteous and professional manner. The call center is able to handle large call volumes for notice mailing and emailing, claims administration, deficiency and rejection letter mailings, and distribution check mailings.

In addition to providing class members with superior-quality service, our customer service representatives can respond to online and email inquiries; document notice, claim form, and call-back requests; and return calls on a next-business-day basis regarding the status of an administration.

Clients may also utilize A.B. Data’s advanced interactive voice response (IVR) system, which is a cost-effective way for class members to receive informational announcements, request notices and claim forms, and obtain case-specific details. Our IVR system provides toll-free telephone numbers, multilingual customer service representatives, and Teletype (TTY) for deaf and hearing-impaired individuals.

WEBSITE SERVICES

In cases where a website is required, A.B. Data in each instance designs, hosts, and maintains a case-specific website via which class members have access to relevant case information and updates, key documents, and downloadable notice and claim documents. Depending upon the circumstances of the specific case, the website could include the following:

• Case status

• Responses to frequently asked questions

• Online claim forms and instructions

• Real-time claim status updates

• Case contact information

For all Web-based features, A.B. Data’s system has complete functionality using the three most recent versions of industry-standard browsers. Samples of case-specific websites developed by A.B. Data can be obtained by referencing cases on our website at abdataclassaction.com/cases/

.


P a g e | 8 of 16

SECURE ENVIRONMENT

A.B. Data’s facilities provide the highest level of security and customization of security procedures, including

• A Secure Sockets Layer server • Video monitoring • Limited physical access to production facilities • Lockdown mode when checks are printed • Background checks of key employees completed prior to hire • Frequency of police patrol – every two hours, with response time of five or fewer minutes • Disaster recovery plan available upon request

DATA SECURITY

A.B. Data is committed to protecting the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information we collect from our clients, investors, and class members. We transmit, save, and process an immense quantity of electronic information on a daily basis. A.B. Data’s Information Security Policy includes procedures intended to address all information-security issues for A.B. Data’s divisions, departments, employees, vendors, and clients.

A.B. Data has a number of high-profile clients, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the United States government, and the Government of Israel, direct-banking and payment-service companies for popular brands, and some of the largest credit-card issuers in the world.

A.B. Data is frequently subject to physical, logical, data, and information system security reviews and audits. We are compliant with our clients’ security standards as well as with ISO/IEC 27001/2 and Payment Card Industry (PCI) data-security standards, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ regulations, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996, and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH).

The Government of Israel has determined that A.B. Data is compliant with its rigorous security standards in connection with its work on Project HEART (Holocaust Era Asset Restitution Taskforce).

A.B. Data’s fund distribution team has been audited by EisnerAmper LLP and was found compliant with class action industry standards and within 99% accuracy. EisnerAmper LLP is a full-service advisory and accounting firm and is ranked the 15th-largest accounting firm in the United States.

In addition, as part of PCI compliance requirements, A.B. Data has multiple network scans and audits from third-party companies, such as SecurityMetrics and 403 Labs, and is determined to be compliant with each of them.

FRAUD PREVENTION AND DETECTION

A.B. Data is at the forefront of class action fraud prevention.

A.B. Data maintains and utilizes comprehensive proprietary databases and procedures to detect fraud and prevent payment of allegedly fraudulent claims. We are in constant communication and collaboration with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in an effort to identify and prevent fraudulent claims from being paid.

We review and analyze various filing patterns across all existing cases and claims. Potential fraudulent filers are reported to our clients as well as to the appropriate governmental agencies.


P a g e | 9 of 16

ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING

A.B. Data has the expertise necessary to provide project-management services to ensure that all work is completed timely, accurately, and precisely to our clients’ specifications. Upon request, we provide affidavits detailing the methodologies employed in notice administration, claims processing, and fund administration, as well as expert testimony and audit trail reporting.

A.B. Data tracks and audits every aspect of daily production with • Receipt of files (noting any issues with transmission) • Status reports regarding claims or check status • Audited and confirmed record counts • Confirmation of mailings • Inventory counts • Daily production counts reported on a weekly basis

Once funds are fully distributed, we provide a detailed accounting of fund sources and usage with a listing of individual disbursements. We maintain records of all disbursements to answer class member inquiries, investigate and resolve undelivered material, monitor outstanding and cleared checks, and maintain mailing and financial databases for an agreed-upon period.

COMMUNITY AND DIVERSITY

A.B. Data maintains employment policies that highlight and support diversity within the company and utilizes employment programs that benefit minorities in the community. At the company’s mail processing center, located in a HUBZone (Historically Underutilized Business Zone), more than half of the employees are minorities. A.B. Data continues to partner with community organizations to increase minority employment opportunities and benefits.

By participating in employment service programs, such as the Transitional Jobs Demonstration Project, A.B. Data helps to create jobs and build partnerships that improve people’s lives with valued job opportunities. Operated by Policy Studies, Inc. (PSI), this important project helps to connect Milwaukee-area employers with qualified job seekers.

As part of the 30th Street Industrial Corridor, a nonprofit organization that advocates on behalf of the corridor-area community, A.B. Data works diligently to restore the economic vitality of the area, providing industry, jobs, and safety to its members, residents, and visitors.

In addition, A.B. Data’s mail-processing center is located in Milwaukee’s Renewal Community, a targeted area that was designated for renewal from 2002 to 2009. A.B. Data partnered with other businesses to guide and promote development that created jobs, generated wealth, and strengthened the urban environment.

A.B. Data maintains its assistance to workers in need of additional services through State of Wisconsin employment programs, such as Welfare-to-Work (WtW), so that eligible employees receive FoodShare and medical benefits as well as day-care services. Through participation in these and other available employment programs, A.B. Data continues in its commitment to enhancing people’s lives by providing quality employment opportunities.

ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY BUSINESS

A.B. Data conserves its resources and operates as a green business. Paper claim forms are imaged and stored on A.B. Data’s secure SQL server, and all claims processing is done electronically. We emphasize the need for recycling and encourage the use of recycled products. Our policies compel employees to turn off their computers when not in use, and email communications are encouraged to the extent possible.

A.B. Data’s headquarters in Milwaukee was designed with the environment in mind. Upon purchasing the 16-acre campus in September 2007, A.B. Data renovated the 30-year-old building, utilizing natural elements such as cork, bamboo, and concrete, and upgraded its mechanical and electrical systems to optimize efficiency. For its efforts, A.B. Data won the Milwaukee Business Journal’s Real Estate Award for Best Environmentally Friendly Project.


P a g e | 10 of 16

A.B. DATA’S LEADERSHIP

A.B. Data’s administration team is composed of the following key executives, who collectively have decades of experience settling and administering class actions:

Bruce A. Arbit, Co-Managing Director, one of the founders of the A.B. Data Group, serves as Chairman of the Board. Additionally, Mr. Arbit is the Chairman of the United Israel Appeal and has served as President and General Campaign Chair of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation. Mr. Arbit currently serves as the Treasurer of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and on the Boards of the Milwaukee Jewish Community Foundation and the American Joint Jewish Distribution Committee. Mr. Arbit has been a member of the Jewish Agency for Israel Board of Governors since June 2002, is a member of Jewish Agency Executives, and chairs the Committee on Israel Government Relations. Mr. Arbit has also served on the Boards of community banks for more than 25 years.

Thomas R. Glenn, President. Mr. Glenn’s management of A.B. Data’s Class Action Administration Company includes designing and implementing notice plans and settlement administration programs for antitrust, securities, and Securities and Exchange Commission settlements and SEC disgorgement fund distributions, as well as consumer, employment, insurance, and civil rights class actions. Mr. Glenn previously served as Executive Vice President at Rust Consulting and has more than 25 years of industry executive management experience.

Eric Miller, Senior Vice President, as a key member of A.B. Data’s Class Action Administration Leadership Team, oversees the Case Management Department and supervises the operations and procedures of all of A.B. Data’s class action administration cases. Mr. Miller is recognized in the class action administration industry as an expert on securities, SEC, consumer, product recall, product liability, general antitrust, pharmaceutical antitrust, and futures contract settlements, to name a few settlement types. Prior to joining A.B. Data, Mr. Miller served as the Client Service Director for Rust Consulting, responsible there for its securities practice area. He has more than 15 years of operations, project management, quality assurance, and training experience in the class action administration industry. In addition, Mr. Miller manages A.B. Data’s office in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Ravin Raj, Vice President-Operations, has more than 12 years of experience in class action claims management, document management, and insurance claims remediation. Mr. Raj’s responsibilities for A.B. Data’s Class Action Administration Company include heading the shared operations center, which includes mailroom, call center, claims processing, quality control, and information systems operations. His areas of expertise include business process development, strategic/tactical operations planning and implementation, risk analysis, budgeting, business expansion, growth planning and implementation, cost reduction, and profit, change, and project management. In his previous position, as Assistant Vice President-Operations at RR Donnelley India Pvt. Ltd., in Chennai, India, he led a team of more than 400 employees with the capacity to process more than 4 million claims a year, servicing several leading claims administrators. Mr. Raj managed six of the top ten securities class action settlements, by settlement value, including several multibillion-dollar settlements. His background also includes work as a Project Lead for iMarque Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, India.

Linda V. Young, Vice President, Media, oversees the Media Department and is responsible for the direction, development, and implementation of media notice plans for A.B. Data’s class action clients. Prior to joining A.B. Data, Ms. Young served as the Principal of Mile Marker Zero, LLC, a full-service marketing and advertising consulting firm. She has more than 20 years of marketing, advertising, and media planning experience, managing advertising for brands such as Georgia-Pacific, American Express, Denny’s, and Coca-Cola. In addition, Ms. Young has developed and implemented national and international print- and earned-media notice programs for some of the industry’s leading pharmaceutical, insurance, and securities class action cases, including cases involving Premarin, Unity Life Insurance Co., and Morgan Stanley.


P a g e | 11 of 16

Eric Schachter, Vice President, is a member of A.B. Data’s Class Action Administration Leadership Team. He has over 15 years of experience in the legal settlement administration services industry. Mr. Schachter’s responsibilities include ensuring successful implementation of claims administration services for A.B. Data’s clients in accordance with settlement agreements, court orders, and service agreements. He also works closely with Project Managers to develop plans of administration to provide the highest level of effective and efficient delivery of work product. Mr. Schachter has a bachelor’s degree in sociology from Syracuse University, earned his law degree at Hofstra University School of Law, and was previously an associate at Labaton Sucharow LLP in New York City.

Paul Sauberer, Director of Quality Assurance, is responsible for overseeing quality assurance and process management, working diligently to mitigate risk, ensure exceptional quality control, and develop seamless calculation programming. Mr. Sauberer brings more than 15 years of experience as a quality assurance specialist with a leading claims-processing company where he developed extensive knowledge in securities class action administration. He is recognized as the class action administration industry’s leading expert on claims and settlement administrations of futures contracts class actions.

Al Wichtoski, CPA, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, began as a Controller with A.B. Data over 20 years ago. Mr. Wichtoski rose to a number of corporate administrative and financial management positions before realizing his current role with the company. Mr. Wichtoski attained his financial management expertise through a broad range of roles, including bank liaison, Internal Revenue Service conduit, and final compliance officer for all financial accounts associated with A.B. Data. Mr. Wichtoski’s responsibilities include risk management, budgeting, tax filing, statement preparation, and financial analysis.

Kathy Versteegh, Senior Vice President, Data Services Division, has been with A.B. Data since 1993. In her current position, Ms. Versteegh oversees operations, client relationships, business development, contracts, budget, security, postal affairs, and other key functions, leveraging her expertise in planning, leading, and controlling resources within the organization to ensure the continued growth of the division. As Vice President of Client Services and Marketing, she was responsible for business-critical communications, client service operations, and marketing, in addition to serving as a Security Team and Corporate Management Team member. Ms. Versteegh earned U.S. Postal Service and Postal Customer Council (PCC) professional certificates in Management and Leadership, Intelligent Mail, Enhancing Mail Value, Mail Center Operations, and PCC Leadership. In May 2010, she was elected the United States Postal Customer Council Co-Chair. Currently, Ms. Versteegh is serving her second term as Co-Chair. She offers an outstanding track record in business/organizational development, client satisfaction, and marketing strategies that include print, internet, mail, trade show, and other sales and marketing communications.

Lizabeth Ludowissi, MQCCS, Vice President, Production, is responsible for overseeing the production of all A.B. Data Group mailings and special projects. Ms. Ludowissi has experience in virtually every role in the company, which provides her with invaluable insight into the needs of our clients. During her tenure, Ms. Ludowissi has worked to streamline our Production Department, implementing strict quality controls and overseeing all scheduling and coordination, including print purchasing as well as data-processing, personalization, and mail-shop services. As a Mailpiece Quality Control Certified Specialist (MQCCS), Ms. Ludowissi acts as the company’s Postal Liaison regarding all USPS-related matters. Ms. Ludowissi is a member of the Wisconsin Direct Marketing Association and the Milwaukee Postal Customer Council.

Adam Walter, PMP, Senior Project Manager, has more than nine years of experience managing a range of securities class action settlements and SEC disgorgements totaling more than $3.5 billon. This includes developing case administration strategies, overseeing daily operations of case administrations, ensuring execution of client deliverables, providing case-related legal and administration support to case counsel, overseeing notice dissemination programs, implementing complex claims-processing and allocation methodologies, establishing quality assurance and quality control procedures, and managing distribution of settlement funds. Mr. Walter frequently consults with clients in planning, reporting, and management of


P a g e | 12 of 16

each unique case to ensure that all requirements and objectives are met. Mr. Walter’s background as Project Manager for a leading claims administrator brings his expertise on the development of case administration strategies and service methodologies to A.B. Data’s Class Action Administration Company.

Steve Straub, Senior Project Manager, joined A.B. Data in February 2012. As a Senior Project Manager, his responsibilities include developing case administration strategies, overseeing daily operations of case administrations, ensuring execution of client deliverables, providing case-related legal and administration support to case counsel, overseeing notice dissemination programs, implementing complex claims processing and allocation methodologies, establishing quality assurance and quality control procedures, and managing distribution of settlement funds. Mr. Straub’s experience in administering class action settlements includes securities, consumer, and antitrust settlements, with a primary focus on antitrust cases. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from Seton Hall University School of Law, Newark, New Jersey.

Linda Opichka, CPA, Quality Assurance Analyst, has over a decade of experience as a broker-dealer auditor, trainer, and manager and, in 2008, passed the examination for Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists. Ms. Opichka is responsible for managing and performing financial analysis, reviewing plans of allocation, working with independent distribution consultants, and performing account reconciliations for fund distributions. Prior to joining A.B. Data, Ms. Opichka conducted audits for Northwestern Mutual, where she was a subject-matter expert for anti-money laundering and broker-dealer audits. Ms. Opichka was also in charge of performing financial and compliance audits for broker-dealers and futures-commission merchants at the Chicago Board of Trade.

Eric Schultz, MCSE, Information Technology Manager and Security Team Chairperson, has been with A.B. Data for more than ten years, and is currently responsible for overseeing all information technology areas for all A.B. Data divisions across the United States and abroad. As a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) with more than 20 years of experience in information technology systems and solutions, Mr. Schultz has developed specializations in network security, infrastructure, design/architecture, telephony, and high-availability network systems.

Dan Deschamps, Project Manager, since joining A.B. Data in November 2011, has handled a number of positions developing substantial knowledge regarding the administration of consumer, ERISA, and high-volume securities litigations. In his current role as Project Manager, he leads the planning and implementation of projects to meet internal and external deadlines; manages the day-to-day operational aspects of each of his assigned projects; continuously monitors and reports on the progress of his projects; and resolves any issues and solves problems with projects throughout the project life cycle. He also works closely with A.B. Data’s Senior Project Managers, clients, and others on each of his assigned projects and coaches, mentors, and trains project team members. Mr. Deschamps’ specialties include ERISA and complex consumer cases, but his practice areas also include SEC enforcement actions; Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and personal injury protection (PIP) class actions; Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) mailings; and securities class actions. Mr. Deschamps received his paralegal certificate from Harper College, Palatine, Illinois, where he was a member of Lambda Epsilon Chi, the national honor society founded by the American Association for Paralegal Education.

Bridgett Ryland, Project Manager, joined A.B. Data in January 2014. She has handled a number of positions developing substantial knowledge regarding the administration of class action settlements. She works closely with A.B. Data’s Senior Project Managers, the Information Systems team, and clients on all types of cases, including nonsecurities, FDCPA, ERISA, TCPA, and other types of class action settlements. Ms. Ryland manages the day-to-day administration of case settlements, interacting with multiple colleagues and consulting on many projects. She received both her bachelor’s degree in communications and her master’s degree in education and professional development from Cardinal Stritch University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.


P a g e | 13 of 16

Anike Keller, Business Development Director, provides expertise in legal marketing strategies and brings extensive experience in client relations to A.B. Data’s business development team. Previously, Ms. Keller served the legal industry as part of the marketing group at a major class action law firm specializing in securities and antitrust litigation. Ms. Keller’s knowledge and understanding of the class action industry, as well as her client relationship skills, expand A.B. Data’s capacity to achieve its business development and marketing goals effectively.


P a g e | 14 of 16

NOTABLE NON-CLASS-ACTION ENGAGEMENTS

Holocaust Era Asset Restitution Taskforce (Project HEART)

An initiative of the Government of Israel and the Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI), Project HEART – Holocaust Era Asset Restitution Taskforce – sought to provide the tools, strategy, and information to bring about a small measure of justice to eligible heirs of Jewish victims, the victims themselves, and the Jewish people as a whole.

During its initial phase, Project HEART focused on identifying individuals in 137 countries with potential claims regarding the following types of private property for which no restitution was received after the Holocaust era: (1) private property that was located in countries that were controlled by the Nazi forces or Axis powers at any time during the Holocaust era; (2) private property that belonged to Jewish persons, as defined by Nazi/Axis racial laws; and (3) private property that was confiscated, looted, or forcibly sold by the Nazi forces or Axis powers during the Holocaust era.

Obama for America – 2008 and 2012

Retained by Obama for America in 2007, A.B. Data was responsible for designing, analyzing, and directing its grassroots fundraising efforts for the presidential campaign of 2008. From February 2007 to Election Day 2008, A.B. Data’s direct-marketing efforts helped to elect President Barack Obama, raising a record amount of money – almost $108 million – via the mail from more than 700,000 donors. As a result, A.B. Data was reappointed to lead President Obama’s 2012 direct-marketing campaign in his attempt to gain reelection. As the sole administrator of the direct-marketing campaign for Obama for America 2012, A.B. Data designed, printed, and mailed each direct-marketing piece to raise money and awareness about President Obama’s candidacy and efforts for reelection in 2012. A.B. Data’s effort shattered all previous records, raising more than $147 million through the mail from almost 875,000 individual donors.

Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières

In 2009, A.B. Data was chosen to manage all facets of the direct-mail program for Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). MSF is one of the most respected organizations in the world, having won the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize for its emergency medical humanitarian response to people around the world caught in armed conflict or suffering from epidemics, malnutrition, and natural disasters without access to health care. MSF is known for its fierce independence and its refusal to “look the other way” when a crisis is caused by the failure of a government, either through passive or aggressive actions. MSF raises $84 million a year through its direct-marketing program, and it mails 17 million prospect pieces annually. MSF’s house file consists of 465,000 12-month donors and about 800,000 lapsed donors – and it has 38,000 monthly donors. MSF’s total house-file volume is 11 million a year.

Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation (Swiss Banks) – $1.25-billion settlement

As a court-appointed notice administrator for this litigation, A.B. Data played a key role in a worldwide Phase I notice effort that resulted in the processing of more than 500,000 initial questionnaires. In Phase III of the administration, A.B. Data delivered notice to more than 10,000 Jewish communities in 109 countries and administered international help and call centers in Phases I and III that directly assisted more than 100,000 potential claimants.

A.B. Data created a class-appropriate notice targeting Romanies (Gypsies) in 48 countries and directed hundreds of staff members to communicate orally and directly with Romani communities and individuals. A.B. Data notified more than 2 million people and, as designated by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), directly assisted more than 22,000 Romanies in 17 countries of central and eastern Europe with claim completion.


P a g e | 15 of 16

German Forced Labour Compensation Programme (GFLCP)

As designated by the IOM, A.B. Data located more than 43,000 Romani survivors in 17 countries of central and eastern Europe who were potentially eligible for humanitarian aid. A.B. Data created a comprehensive database for the GFLCP and the Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation and directly assisted more than 11,000 Romanies in eight central and eastern European countries with claim completion.

The Wilderness Society

In 2012, A.B. Data was chosen to oversee and implement all facets of the direct mail and online fundraising programs for The Wilderness Society.

The Wilderness Society – with 500,000 members and supporters – is the leading American conservation organization working to protect our nation’s beautiful wildlands. Since 1945, it has been at the forefront of nearly every major public lands battle, and its collaborative style and focus on practical solutions have saved some of our most beloved natural treasures from destruction.

NOTABLE CLASS ACTION ENGAGEMENTS

A.B. Data and/or its team members have successfully administered hundreds of class actions, including many major cases. Listed below are some of the most notable of these engagements.

Securities Cases

• In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation • In re Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Class Action Litigation • Ge Dandong, et al., v. Pinnacle Performance Limited, et al. • In Re: Rough Rice Commodity Litigation • Xuechen Yang v. Focus Media Holding Limited et al. • In re Massey Energy Co. Securities Litigation • In re Swisher Hygiene, Inc. • The City of Providence vs. Aeropostale, Inc., et al. • In re Metrologic Instruments, Inc. Shareholders Litigation • Public Pension Fund Group v. KV Pharmaceutical Company et al. • Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, et al. v. Assisted Living Concepts, Inc., et al. • In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation • In re: Platinum and Palladium Commodities Litigation (Platinum/Palladium Physical Action) • In re: Platinum and Palladium Commodities Litigation (Platinum/Palladium Futures Action) • In re General Electric Co. Securities Litigation • In re CNX Gas Corporation Shareholders Litigation • Oscar S. Wyatt, Jr. et al. v. El Paso Corporation, et al. • In re Par Pharmaceutical Securities Litigation • In re Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. Shareholders Litigation • In re Delphi Financial Group Shareholders Litigation • In re SLM Corporation Securities Litigation • In re Del Monte Foods Company Shareholder Litigation • Leslie Niederklein v. PCS Edventures!.com, Inc. and Anthony A. Maher • In re Beckman Coulter, Inc. Securities Litigation • Michael Rubin v. MF Global, Ltd., et al. • Allen Zametkin v. Fidelity Management & Research Company, et al. • In re BP Prudhoe Bay Royalty Trust Securities Litigation • Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit et al. v. SafeNet, Inc., et al.


P a g e | 16 of 16

• In re Limelight Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation • In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation • In re ACS Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 4940-VCP • Lance Provo v. China Organic Agriculture, Inc., et al. • In re LDK Solar Securities Litigation

General and Pharmaceutical Antitrust Cases

• In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Antitrust Litigation • In re: Marine Hose Antitrust Litigation • Iowa Ready Mixed Concrete Antitrust Litigation • In re Potash Antitrust Litigation (II) • In re Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corp. Antitrust Litigation • In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation • In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation • In re Lorazepam and Clorazepate Antitrust Litigation • In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation • Vista Healthplan, Inc., and Ramona Sakiestewa v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., and American

BioScience, Inc. • In re Lupron Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation • In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation • In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litigation • Rosemarie Ryan House, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC and SmithKline Beecham Corporation • Carpenters and Joiners Welfare Fund, et al. v. SmithKline Beecham • New Mexico United Food and Commercial Workers Union’s and Employers’ Health and Welfare Trust

Fund, et al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P. • In Re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation • Alma Simonet, et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation, d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline • In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation • In Re Remeron Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation • In re TriCor Indirect Purchasers Antitrust Litigation • Nichols, et al., v. SmithKline Beecham Corporation • In re: DDAVP Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Cases

• Diana Mey vs. Frontier Communications Corporation • Matthew Donaca v. Dish Network, L.L.C. • Matthew Benzion and Theodore Glaser v. Vivint, Inc. • John Lofton v. Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC, et al. • Lori Shamblin v. Obama for America et al. • Ellman v. Security Networks

Consumer Products Case

• In the Matter of Maxfield and Oberton Holdings, LLC and Craig Zucker, et al. (“Buckyballs Case”)

Representative Case and Client Lists

Representative general lists of A.B. Data’s cases and clients are appended.


of 6 A.B. Data, Ltd.: Representative Case List

Updated: February 24, 2016

A.B. DATA, LTD.: REPRESENTATIVE CASE LIST

IT BACK

Ace Marine Rigging & Supply, Inc. v. Virginia Harbor Services, Inc.

Acevedo v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation

Aceves, et al. v. Knights Inspection Services, LLC, and Knight

In re ACS Shareholders Litigation

In re Adolor Corporation Shareholders Litigation

In re Advanta Corp. ERISA Litigation

In re Affiliated Computer Services ERISA Litigation

In re AIG ERISA Litigation

In re AirGate PCS, Inc. Securities Litigation

Akins v. Worley Catastrophe Response, LLC

Alakayak v. All Alaskan Seafoods, Inc.

Allen v. HealthPort Technologies, LLC

Alper v. Warnock Ford, Inc.

Altier v. Worley Catastrophe Response, LLC

In re American Italian Pasta Company Securities Litigation (AIPC Settlement)

In re American Italian Pasta Company Securities Litigation (Ernst Settlement)

Anderson v. Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland

In re Andrx Corporation, Inc.

Annoreno and Perez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Claire’s Stores, Inc. and Claire’s Boutiques, Inc.

Arias v. Award Homes, Inc.

Arteaga v. MODA Furniture, Inc.

In re Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. Holocaust Insurance Litigation

In re Atlas Energy, Inc. Shareholders Litigation

Austrian Banks Holocaust Litigation

Baptista v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company

Bauman v. Superior Financial Corp.

Beach, et al. v. Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC, et al.

In re Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. ERISA Litigation

In re Beazer Homes USA, Inc. ERISA Litigation

In re Beckman Coulter, Inc. Securities Litigation

Benzion v. Vivint, Inc.

Bergman et al. v. DAP Products Inc., et al. (XHose Litigation)

Berry v. Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland, et al.

Best v. Bluegreen

In re BigBand Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation

In re BioScrip, Inc. Securities Litigation

In re BISYS Securities Litigation

Black v. Metso Paper USA, Inc.

Blaine v. Pressler & Pressler, LLP

Blanco v. KeyBank USA, N.A.

Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans v. Virginia Harbor Services Inc.

Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc.

Bowe v. Public Storage

In re BP plc Securities Litigation

In re BP Prudhoe Bay Royalty Trust Securities Litigation

Bragg v. Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc.-Plant City

Branham and Smith, et al. v. Crawford & Company

Brattain v. Richmond State Hospital

Brennan v. Community Bank

Brey Corp. v. Life Time Improvements, Inc.

Brieger v. Tellabs, Inc.

Broad St. Partners Fund v. Dods

Brown v. Hayt, Hayt & Landau, LLC

Brown v. Rita's

Brumfield v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Burns v. First American Bank

Bushansky v. Simplicity Bancorp, Inc. et al.

In re Calpine Corporation ERISA Litigation

Canning v. Concord EFS, Inc.

Capovilla v. Lone Star Technologies, Inc.

In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation

Carlson v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.

Carlson v. State of Alaska, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission

In the Matter of Determining whether there has been a violation of the Consumer Loan Act of Washington by CashCall, Inc. et al.

In re Cbeyond, Inc. Securities Litigation

Cement Masons & Plasterers Joint Pension Trust v. TNS, Inc.

Cerda v. Associates First Capital Corporation

Cervantes v. RCS Recovery

Chamberlin v. Mullooly

Chao v. Slutsky

Charlessaint v. Persian Acceptance Corp. et al.

Clayton v. Velociti, Inc.

Clearview Imaging, L.L.C. v. Dairyland Insurance Company

Clearview Imaging, L.L.C. v. Mercury Insurance Company of Florida

Clearview Imaging, L.L.C. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company




Clearview Imaging, L.L.C. v. Progressive Consumers Insurance Company

Clemons v. Thompson

In re CNX Gas Corporation Shareholders Litigation

Cohen v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Coleman v. Lincoln Wood Products, Inc.

In re Colgate-Palmolive Co. ERISA Litigation

Collins v. American Consumer Shows, Inc.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. H&R Block, Inc.

Conlon v. The City of Fernandina Beach

In re Connetics Securities Litigation

In re: The Consumers Trust

Coppess v. Healthways, Inc.

Corsello v. Verizon New York, Inc.

Cotton v. Ferman Management Services Corporation

Cottrell v. Gardner

In re CP Ships Ltd. Securities Litigation

In re Crestwood Midstream Partners Unitholder Litigation

Croxall v. Tampa Hund L.P.

In re Crude Oil Commodity Futures Litigation

Cruz v. Condor Capital Corporation

Curtis v. Northern Life Insurance Company

Davis v. First Financial Federal Credit Union

In re: DDAVP Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation

DeCario v. Lerner New York, Inc.

In re Del Monte Foods Company Shareholder Litigation

In re Delphi Financial Group Shareholders Litigation

Deprospo v. The Provident Bank

Desai v. ADT Security Services, Inc.

Di Popolo v. Ramsey Nissan, Inc.

In re Diebold ERISA Litigation

Dishkin v. Tire Kingdom, Inc.

In re Dole Food Co., Inc. Stockholder Litigation

Donepudi v. OfficeMax Inc.

Drury v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Duchene v. Westlake

In re Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation

Eisenberger v. Boston Service Company, Inc.

In re Electronic Data Systems Corp. ERISA Litigation

In re Emergent Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation

In re: Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litigation

Epstein v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

Estakhrian v. Obenstine et al.

Estates of Hampton v. Beverly Enterprises-Arkansas, Inc.

Estep v. Smythe Volvo, Inc.

Evans v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company

In re Facebook, Inc. IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation - NASDAQ

Family Open MRI, Incorporated v. Direct General Insurance Company

In re Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation

In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation

Fernando v. Neopost USA, Inc.

Fernando v. Priority Mailing Systems

Ferro v. Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association

Finney v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company

In re First Financial Holdings Inc. Shareholders Litigation

In re FLAG Telecom Holdings, Ltd. Securities Litigation

Flood v. Dominguez

Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs, State of Florida v. KB Home et al.

Kellman v. Forever 21 Retail, Inc.

Forsta AP-Fonden, et al. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., et al.

Francis v. A&E Stores, Inc.

Franco v. Ace Parking Management Inc.

Fray-Witzer v. Metropolitan Antiques, LLC

Fray-Witzer v. Olde Stone Land Survey Company, Inc.

Fremont General Corporation Litigation

Friedman v. Rayovac Corporation

Froumy v. Stark & Stark

FW Transportation, Inc. v. Associates Commercial Corporation

In re General Electric Company Securities Litigation

German Forced Labor Compensation Program (GFLCP)

Gevaerts et al. v. TD Bank, N.A.

In re Gilead Sciences Securities Litigation

Gilley v. Ernie Haire Ford, Inc.

In re Goodrich Shareholders Litigation

Graham v. Town & Country Disposal of Western Missouri, Inc.

Greenstein v. Nations Title Agency of Florida, Inc.

Griffin v. Flagstar Bancorp, Inc.

Groen v. PolyMedica Corporation

Gulf Coast Injury Center, LLC v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Haas v. Burlington County

Hall v. The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc.

Hamilton v. ATX Services Inc.

Hargrave v. TXU Corp.

Harlacher and Woodring v. Members 1st Federal Credit Union




Harris v. First Regional Bancorp

Harris v. Koenig

In re Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. ERISA Litigation

Haynes v. Baptist Health

In re: Hearst-Argyle Shareholder Litigation

Hellmers v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Hess v. Oriole Homes Corp.

Hill v. American Medical Security Life Insurance Company

Hill v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Hockenberry v. People First Federal Credit Union

Holley v. Kitty Hawk, Inc.

In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation (Swiss Banks) (HVAP)

Hudson United Bank v. Chase

Hughley v. Maryland Casualty Company

Hunt v. PacifiCare Life and Health Insurance Company

Hutt v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.

Hutson v. Baptist Health

In re ICG Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation

Ikuseghan v. MultiCare Health System

The State of Illinois v. Au Optronics Corporation et al.

In re: InfoSonics Securities Litigation

In re ING Groep, N.V. ERISA Litigation

In re International Business Machines Corp. Securities Litigation

International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims (ICHEIC)

In re Iowa Ready-Mixed Concrete Antitrust Litigation

In re J. Crew Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation

In re JDS Uniphase Corporation ERISA Litigation

Johnson v. Navient Solutions Inc.

Kalow & Springut, LLP v. Commence Corporation

Katz et al. v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc.

Katz and Davidson v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc.

Kay v. Wells Fargo & Company

Kemp v. DataBank IMX, LLC

In re Kinder Morgan Energy Partnership, L.P. Capex Litigation

In re: King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation

Kolluri v. Belco Community Credit Union

Krakauer v. Dish Network L.L.C.

Kreher v. City of Atlanta, Georgia

Kubota v. Walker

The Lafayette Life Insurance Company v. City of Menasha

Laffan v. Santander Bank, N.A., et al.

Lara, et al., v. G & E Florida Contractors, LLC

In re LDK Solar Securities Litigation

In re Lear Corp. ERISA Litigation

Lehmann v. Ivivi Technologies, Inc.

In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation

In re Lernout & Hauspie Securities Litigation (Directors and FLV Settlements)

In re Lernout & Hauspie Securities Litigation (KPMG Settlement)

Leslie Niederklein v. PCS Edventures!.com, Inc.

Li v. Bowers et al. (Square 1 Financial Case)

Lilly v. Oneida Ltd. Employee Benefits Admin. Comm.

In re Limelight Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation

Long v. Eschelon Telecom, Inc.

The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System v. Deloitte & Touche LLP

Lyons, et al. v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, et al.

Mann & Company, PC v. C-Tech Industries, Inc.

Mann v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation

Mantzouris v. Scarritt Motor Group, Inc.

In re Marine Hose Antitrust Litigation (Bridgestone Settlement)

In re Marine Hose Antitrust Litigation (Dunlop Settlement)

In re Marine Hose Antitrust Litigation (Parker Settlement)

In re Marine Hose Antitrust Litigation (Trelleborg Settlement)

In re Marine Hose Antitrust Litigation (Yokohama Settlement)

In re Marsh ERISA Litigation

In re Martek Biosciences Corp. Securities Litigation

Martin v. aaiPharma, Inc.

Martin v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.

Martin v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation

In Re Massey Energy Co. Securities Litigation

In the Matter of Maxfield and Oberton Holdings, LLC

Mayer v. Administrative Committee of the Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation Retirement Plans

Mayes v. The Geo Group, Inc.

Mayotte v. Associated Bank, N.A.

In re MBNA Corp. Securities Litigation

Meadows v. Clearwater Bay Marketing, LLC

Means v. River Valley Financial Bank

In re Merck & Co. Inc. Vytorin ERISA Litigation

Medoff v. CVS Caremark Corporation et al.

Merrimon v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America

In re Metavante Technologies, Inc. Shareholder Litigation

In re Metrologic Instruments, Inc. Shareholders Litigation

Mey v. Herbalife International, Inc.

Mey v. Interstate National Dealer Services, Inc., et al.

In re Micromuse, Inc. Securities Litigation

Milford & Ford Associates, Inc. v. Cell-Tek, LLC




Miller v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A.

In re: MK Resources Company Shareholders Litigation

Montalvo v. Tripos, Inc.

Moore v. The Hertz Corporation

In re Morgan Asset Management, Inc. (Kelsoe and Weller Settlements)

Morrison v. MoneyGram International, Inc.

Mortgage Settlement Consumer Restitution Program (Foreclosure Restitution Program and Bank of America Victims Program)

In re Motive, Inc. Securities Litigation

Mozenter v. Nalco Holding Company

Mukoma v. Fleet Lease Network Inc.

Mulhern v. MacLeod d/b/a ABC Mortgage Company

Munday v. Navy Federal

In re: National City Corporation Securities, Derivative & ERISA Litigation

In re Neustar, Inc. Securities Litigation

The Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., et al.

The People of the State of New York v. SKS Associates, LLC

In re NII Holdings, Inc., Securities Litigation

Norflet v. John Hancock Life Insurance Company

Norris and Tatem v. Eichenbaum & Stylianou, LLC, et al.

In re Novamed, Inc. Shareholders Litigation

NSL Capital Management v. Gorman

Nthenge v. Pressler and Pressler, LLP

In re: NX Networks Securities Litigation

Obermeyer v. Marinemax East, Inc.

Olivo v. Homecomings Financial LLC

Open MRI of Pinellas, Inc. v. Atlanta Casualty Insurance Company

Ori v. Fifth Third Bank and Fiserv, Inc.

In re: Ortiz v. Aurora Health Care, Inc.

Osborn v. EMC Corporation

In re OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation

Otte v. Life Insurance Company of North America

Overby v. Tyco International Ltd.

Ownby v. Citrus County, Florida

In re: Pacific Gateway Exchange, Inc. Securities Litigation

Paliotto v. Johnny Rockets Group, Inc.

In re Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. Shareholders Litigation

In re Par Pharmaceutical Securities Litigation

Parker v. American Medical Security Group, Inc.

Parthiban v. GMAC Mortgage Corporation

Paskowitz v. Ernst & Young, LLP (Motive, Inc.)

Patel v. Baluchi’s Indian Restaurant

Payson v. Capital One Home Loans, LLC (FLSA Settlement)

Payson v. Capital One Home Loans, LLC (KWPA Settlement)

Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v. Assisted Living Concepts, Inc.

Pereira v. Foot Locker, Inc.

Perez v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.

Pettway v. Harmon Law Offices, P.C.

Pfeiffer and McElroy derivatively on behalf of Occidental Petroleum Corporation v. Abraham et al. and Occidental Petroleum Corporation

In re: PFF Bancorp, Inc. ERISA Litigation

Pickett v. Triad Financial Corporation

In Re: Platinum And Palladium Commodities Litigation

Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, Plymouth County Retirement System v. SafeNet, Inc.

Politi v. Pressler & Pressler, LLP

Pollard, et al. v. ETS PC, Inc. (f/k/a Eberl's Temporary Services, Inc.) et al.

Pollitt v. DRS Towing, LLC

In re Potash Antitrust Litigation (II)

Premier Open MRI, LLC v. Progressive American Ins. Co.

Project HEART—Holocaust Era Asset Restitution Taskforce

In re Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. Shareholders Litigation

Provo v. China Organic Agriculture, Inc.

Public Pension Group v. KV Pharmaceutical Co.

Puritan Budget Plan, Inc. v. Amstar Insurance Company

Quaak v. Dexia, S.A.

Ragsdale v. SanSai USA, Inc.

Ramirez v. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.

Rational Strategies Fund v. Demere, Jr.

Rational Strategies Fund v. Hill

Raul v. Western Liberty Bancorp

In re RBC Dain Rauscher Overtime Litigation

In re RCN Corporation ERISA Litigation

In re Ready-Mixed Concrete Antitrust Litigation

Reeves, et al. v. Zealandia Holding Company, Inc., f/k/a Festiva Hospitality Group, Inc., et al.

In re Reliant Securities Litigation

In re RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. Securities Litigation

In re R.H. Donnelley Corp. ERISA Litigation

Roberti v. OSI Systems, Inc.

Rodriguez v. Fulton Bank, N.A.

Rolark v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation




Rubin v. MF Global, Ltd.

Rufo v. Alpha Recovery Corp.

Rupp v. Thompson

S. Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp. v. AT&T Corp.

Saint Pete MRI v. Hartford

Saint Pete MRI v. Auto Club South Insurance Company

Saint Pete MRI v. First Acceptance Insurance Company

Saint Pete MRI v. First Floridian Auto and Home Insurance Company

Saldana v. C & C Unisex

Sam v. White

Santos v. Silver

Scher v. Oxford Health Plans, Inc.

In re Schering-Plough Corp. Enhance ERISA Litigation

In re Schering-Plough Corp. ERISA Litigation

Schmitz v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

In re Scottish Re Group Securities Litigation

In re Sears, Roebuck & Co. ERISA Litigation

SEC v. Anderson

SEC v. Gen-See Capital Corporation and Richard S. Piccoli

SEC v. RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.

In re SEC v. Rockford Funding Group

In re SEC v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.

SEC v. Tecumseh Holdings Corporation

SEC v. The BISYS Group, Inc.

SEC v. Value Line, Inc.

SEC v. WexTrust Capital, LLC

SEC v. Zomax, Inc.

Serino v. Kenneth Lipper v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP

In re Sexy Hair Concepts, LLC

In re SFBC International Securities & Derivative Litigation

Shane v. Edge

Sheikh v. Maxon Hyundai, Inc.

Silke v. Irwin Mortgage Corporation

Sivsubramanian v. DNC Health Corp.

In re SLM Corporation Securities Litigation

Smith v. Mill-Tel, Inc.

Smolkin v. Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc.

Soden v. East Brunswick Buick-Pontiac-GMC, Inc.

Sokoloski v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company Settlement

Sonoda v. Amerisave

Southeast Texas Medical Associates, LLP v. VeriSign, Inc.

Special Situations Fund III, L.P. v. Quovadx, Inc.

Steele v. GE Money Bank

Stein v. Pactiv Corporation

In re: Sterling Financial Corporation Securities Class Action

Stoffels v. SBC Communications, Inc.

In re Stone & Webster, Inc. Securities Litigation

In re: Supervalu, Inc. Securities Litigation

In re Suprema Specialties, Inc. Securities Litigation

In re Susser Holdings Corp. Stockholder Litigation

Sutterfield v. Carney

In Re Swisher Hygiene, Inc. Securities and Derivative Litigation

In re Symbol Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation

In re Take-Two Interactive Securities Litigation and SEC v. Brant

Tannlund v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc.

Taylor v. McKelvey (Monster Worldwide, Inc.)

Taztia XT Securities Litigation

In re TD Banknorth Shareholders Litigation

In re Terex Corp. ERISA Litigation

In re Ticketmaster Entertainment Shareholder Litigation

In re Tower Group International, Ltd. Securities Litigation

In re Tower Group International, Ltd. Shareholder Litigation

In re: Tyson Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation

In the Matter of UBS Financial Services Inc. of Puerto Rico

Ultra Open MRI Corporation v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company

Ultra Open MRI Corporation v. Nationwide Assurance Company

United Consumer Financial Services Company v. William Carbo v. A&M Merchandising, Inc.

Valley National Bank v. Cahn

Valuepoint Partners, Inc. v. ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

In re Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals Derivatives Litigation

In re Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals Securities Litigation

Veal v. Crown Auto Dealerships, Inc.

In re Viisage Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation

In re VisionAmerica, Inc. Securities Litigation

Von Friewalde v. Boeing Aerospace Operations, Inc.

In re Vonage Initial Public Offering (IPO) Securities Litigation

Walker v. Hill Wallack LLP

Walter v. Level 3 Communications, Inc.

In re Warner Chilcott Limited Securities Litigation

Warren v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc.

State of Washington v. Au Optronics Corp., et al.

Wells v. DTD Enterprises, Inc.

Brown v. Wells Fargo & Company

Wenger v. Cardo Windows, Inc.

Wenger v. Freehold Subaru, LLC




White v. E-Loan, Inc.

White v. Wells Fargo, N.A.

Will v. American Equity Mortgage, Inc.

Williams v. CBE Group

Wisniak v. Mirant Americas Generation, LLC

Wood v. New Century Financial Services, Inc.

Wyatt v. El Paso Corporation

Herrera v. Wyeth ERISA Litigation

Yang v. Focus Media Holding Limited

Yariv v. AT&T Corp.

Yingling v. eBay, Inc.

Yost v. First Horizon

Young v. Heimbuch

In re: YRC Worldwide, Inc. ERISA Litigation

Zametkin v. Fidelity Management & Research Company

Zelnik v. Citation Homes, Inc.

Zilhaver v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated

In re Zomax, Inc. Securities Litigation


of 5 A.B. Data, Ltd.: Representative Client List


A.B. DATA, LTD.: REPRESENTATIVE CLIENT LIST

Abbey Spanier, LLP

Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP

Abrams & Bayliss LLP

Ademi & O’Reilly, LLP

Ajamie LLP

Akerman LLP

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd.

Alston & Bird LLP

Anderson Kill P.C.

Anderson + Wanca

Andrews & Springer LLC

Ankcorn Law Firm, PC

Arent Fox LLP

Atkinson & Brownell, P.A.

Office of the Attorney General, State of Arizona

Office of the Attorney General, Department of Legal Affairs, State of Florida

Office of the Illinois Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General, State of Indiana

Office of the Attorney General, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Office of the Attorney General, State of New York

Washington State Office of the Attorney General

Bailey & Glasser LLP

Baker & Hostetler LLP

Ballard Spahr LLP

Banker Lopez Gassler P.A.

Bared & Associates PA

Barnes Law Group

Barnow and Associates, P.C.

Barrack, Rodos & Bacine

S. Barrett, P.C.

Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC

Law Offices of James V. Bashian, P.C.

Baskin Law Firm

Bell & Brigham

Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP

Bennett Bigelow & Leedom, P.S.

Berens Law LLC

Berger & Montague, P.C.

Berke, Berke & Berke

Berman DeValerio

Bernstein Liebhard LLP

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP

Bernstein & Miller, P.A.

Betts, Patterson & Mines, P.S.

Biggs & Battaglia

The Bilek Law Firm, L.L.P.

Block & Leviton LLP

Bock & Hatch, LLC

Bohrer Law Firm, L.L.C.

Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC

Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.

Borsellino, PC

Bottini & Bottini, Inc.

Brady & Associates

Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C.

The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC

Broderick Law, P.C.

Bromberg Law Office, P.C.

Law Office of Brown & Associates

The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.

Buchalter, Hoffman & Dorchak Law Firm

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC

Burke Law Offices, LLC

Burns Charest LLP

Bush Law Firm, PC

Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP

Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP

Law Office of Michael T. Callahan

Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A.

Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC

Law Offices of Jeffrey G. Casurella

Catlett Law Firm, PLC

Chaffin & Burnsed, PLLC

Champion Law LLC

Chavez & Gertler LLP

Chimicles & Tikellis LLP

Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP

Law Office of Glen H. Chulsky

Choate Hall & Stewart LLP

Law Offices of J. Mitchell Clark

Clark • Martino, P.A.

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP

Clifford Chance

Climaco, Wilcox, Peca, Tarantino & Garofoli Co., L.P.A.

Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP

Cohen & Malad, LLP

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C.

Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP

Cole Schotz P.C.




Complex Litigation Group LLC

Connolly Gallagher LLP

Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow, Schefer, Gutterman, Kraft, Klein

Consumer Advocacy Center, P.C.

Consumer Lawyers Group

Cooch and Taylor

Cooley LLP

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP

Criden & Love, P.A.

Day Pitney LLP

de La Parte & Gilbert, P.A.

Dechert LLP

Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.

Law Office of Dimitrios Kolovos, LLC

DiTommaso • Lubin

The Divale Law Group, P.A.

DLA Piper LLP (US)

Loren Domke, P.C.

Donelon, P.C.

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Duane Morris LLP

The Law Office of Pelayo Duran

Robert J. Dyer III Law Office

Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC

Edelson PC

Eisenstadt Law Group, P.A.

Law Office of David W. Engstrom

Entwistle & Cappucci LLP

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP

Fay Law Group PLLC

Federman & Sherwood

Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC

Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig LLP

Fields Howell LLP

Fieschko & Associates, Inc.

Figari & Davenport

Finazzo Cossolini O’Leary Meola & Hager, LLC

Fineman Krekstein & Harris P.C.

Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP

Finkelstein Thompson LLP

Finn Law Group

Flaster/Greenberg

Flitter Milz, P.C.

Foley Bryant Holloway & Raluy PLLC

Foote, Mielke, Chavez & O’Neil, LLC

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP

Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP

Friedlander & Gorris, P.A.

Gainey McKenna & Egleston

Law Office of Dalinda B. Garcia, P.C.

Gardy & Notis, LLP

Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Gilman Law LLP

Girard Gibbs LLP

Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson LLP

Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Gottesdiener Law Firm, PLLC

Gottlieb & Associates

Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.

Gravely & Pearson, L.L.P.

Green & Noblin, P.C.

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Greene & Schultz

Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC

Grissom Law Office

Grossman Roth Yaffa Cohen

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Roderick V. Hannah, Esq., P.A.

Harwood Feffer LLP

Hicks Thomas LLP

Hill Wallack LLP

Hill Ward Henderson

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Hoffman Libenson Saunders & Barba

Hogan Lovells

Holland & Knight LLP

Hollis Wright Clay & Vail P.C.

Hughes Brown, PLLC

Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP

Ice Miller LLP

Irvine Law Group, LLP

Government of Israel

Izard Nobel LLP

The Jackson Law Group, PLLC

Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jacobs Scholz & Associates, LLC

James P.A.

Jeeves Law Group

Jenner & Block

Johnson & Benjamin LLP

Johnson & Weaver, LLP

Jolley Urga Woodbury & Little

Jones Day

Law Office of Justian Jusuf APC

K&L Gates LLP

Kahn Swick & Foti LLC




Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C.

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Katz & Korin PC

E. Clinch Kavanaugh P.A.

Keker & Van Nest LLP

Keller Rohrback L.L.P.

Kendall Law Group, LLP

Keogh Law, Ltd.

Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff LLP

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP

The Kim Law Firm, LLC

King & Spalding

Kirby McInerney LLP

Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge LLP

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP

Klein Kavanagh Costello, LLP

Kobre & Kim LLP

Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C.

Korein Tillery

Korth Law Office

The Koval Firm, LLC

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

Kwall, Showers, Barack & Chilson, PA

LG Law LLC

Labaton Sucharow LLP

The Lambert Firm

Latham & Watkins LLP

Leavengood, Dauval, Boyle & Meyer, P.A.

The Lee Firm

Lemberg Law LLC

León Cosgrove LLC

Levi & Korsinsky LLP

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

Lifshitz & Miller

John Linkosky & Associates

Litchfield Cavo LLP

Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC

Locke Lord LLP

Locks Law Firm

Loevy & Loevy

Loren Domke, P.C.

Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP

Lowenstein Sandler LLP

Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C.

Ludwig Law Firm PLC

Lueddeke Law Firm

Law Offices of Sahag Majarian II

Malesovas Law Firm

Margolis Edelstein

Marovitch Law Firm, LLC

Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C.

Mase Lara, P.A.

Mayer Brown

The McCleery Law Firm

Law Office of Matthew McCue

McDermott Will & Emery

McDonald Carano Wilson LLP

McDonald Hopkins LLC

The Law Office of Christopher J. McGinn

McGuire Law, P.C.

McGuireWoods LLP

McTigue Law LLP

Mehri & Skalet, PLLC

Merlin Law Group, P.A.

Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP

Milberg LLP

Miles & Stockbridge P.C.

Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, P.L.C.

Miller Law LLC

Mirick, O’Connell, DeMallie & Lougee, LLP

Mitchell, Blackstock, Ivers, Sneddon & Marshall, PLLC

Molleur Law Office

Montes & Associates Law Firm

Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP

Moore & Van Allen PLLC

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Motley Rice LLC

Munley Law

Murray Murphy Moul + Basil LLP

National Consumer Law Center, Inc.

Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP

Law Offices of Bohdan Neswiacheny

New York State Department of Labor

Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP

Law Offices of Stephen J. Nolan, Chartered

Nolan Caddell Reynolds

Norris Law Firm PLLC

Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP

O’Melveny & Myers LLP

O’Quinn Stumphauzer & Sloman, P.L.

Page Perry (Perry Law Firm, LLC)

The Pappas Group

Law Office of Edgar Pauk




Paul Hastings LLP

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP

Pepper Hamilton LLP

Perkins Coie LLP

Podvey, Meanor, Catenacci, Hildner, Cocoziello & Chattman

Pomerantz LLP

Carl D. Poplar, P.A.

Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP

Potter Minton

The Powell Law Firm

Poyner Spruill LLP

Pressler and Pressler, LLP

Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, Chartered, LLP

Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A.

Proctor Heyman Enerio LLP

Proskauer Rose LLP

Provost Umphrey Law Firm L.L.P.

Quarles & Brady LLP

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Reed Smith LLP

Reilly Like & Tenety

William Riback LLC

Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.

Law Offices of Stephen H. Ring, P.C.

Robbins Arroyo LLP

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP

The Roberts Law Firm

Ronald Frederick & Associates Co., L.P.A.

Rose, Klein & Marias, LLP

Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A.

Rosman & Germain LLP

Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP

Craig E. Rothburd, P.A.

Paul S. Rothstein & Associates

Rozwood & Company, APC

Ruckelshaus Kautzman Blackwell Bemis & Hasbrook

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP

SL Chapman LLC

Sacher, Zelman, Hartman, P.A.

Sacks & Sacks, PC

Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard P.C.

Sanford Heisler Kimpel, LLP

Sarraf Gentile LLP

Saxena White P.A.

Law Office of David Schafer, PLLC

Schiller & Pittenger, P.C.

Schoengold & Sporn, P.C.

Schrader, Byrd & Companion, PLLC

Schwartz Semerdjian Cauley & Moot LLP

Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP

Shavitz Law Group, P.A.

Shipman & Wright, L.L.P.

Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

Shutts & Bowen LLP

Sidley Austin LLP

Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates

Sly James Law Firm

Smith Mackinnon Et Al

Smyser Kaplan & Veselka, L.L.P.

Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C.

Speights & Worrich

Sprenger + Lang, PLLC

Squire Patton Boggs

Squitieri & Fearon, LLP

Starzyk & Associates, P.C.

Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.

Steptoe & Johnson LLP

Philip D. Stern & Associates, LLC

Stinson Leonard Street LLP

Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP

Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP

Stull, Stull & Brody

Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

Sulloway & Hollis, P.L.L.C.

Susman Godfrey L.L.P.

Gary J. Takacs, P.A.

Tanner Bishop Attorneys

Thierman Buck Law Firm, LLP

Thompson Hine

Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC

Travis Law Group

Trenam Law

Trief & Olk

Troutman Sanders LLP

United States Consumer Product Safety Commission

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

Vianale & Vianale LLP

Vinson & Elkins LLP

Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz

Walfish & Noonan, LLC

Wardell & Quezon, P.A.

State of Washington, Department of Financial Institutions, Division of Consumer Services

Watton Law Group

Brian L. Weakland Law Office




Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

Weinstein Law Firm

The Weiser Law Firm P.C.

WeissLaw LLP

Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., LPA

Westrup Klick, LLP

WhatleyKallas, LLP

White & Case LLP

White & MacDonald, LLP

Theresa I. Wigginton, P.A.

Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer P.A.

The Law Offices of David M. Wise, P.A.

Williams & Connolly LLP

Williams Cuker Berezofsky

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

Wimmer Stiehl & McCarthy

Winstead PC

Winston & Strawn LLP

Wites & Kapetan P.A.

The Law Offices of Steven L. Wittels, P.C. (Wittels Law)

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP

The Wolf Law Firm, LLC

Wolf Popper LLP

Wong Fleming

Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP

Zamansky LLC

Zimmerman Reed, LLP

Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP


EXHIBIT 3


{00042575; 1}

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Phil Shin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plantronics, Inc.


NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT

OF LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE PROPOSED CLASS IN THIS ACTION.

(See definition of the Class set forth in paragraph 1 below)

A Federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

Please be advised that the Plaintiff, Phil Shin (the “Named Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, has reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned class action lawsuit (the “Lawsuit”) with Defendant Plantronics, Inc. (collectively, “Defendant” or “Plantronics”) concerning certain Plantronics headphones.1 PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. The Lawsuit is about Plantronics BackBeat FIT wireless sport headphones, version Genesis or 16M, which headphones were manufactured by Plantronics before September 1, 2018 (the “Headphones”). If you purchased the Headphones, your rights may be affected by the Settlement whether or not you act. Images of the Headphones are set out below:

PLEASE NOTE: If you submit a claim, do nothing, or do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, you will be releasing Plantronics from all claims, damages, and losses that you now have or may have in the future that relate to your Headphones’ battery, battery performance, ability to retain a charge, or the Headphones’ resistance to water, moisture, or sweat.

1 All capitalized terms used in this notice that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning provided in the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release (“Settlement Agreement”), which is available online on the settlement website for this Lawsuit at Website URL.


{00042575; 1}2

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT:

SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM BY OCTOBER 31, 2019

This is the only way to be eligible to receive a cash payment under this Settlement. If you are a Class Member, you will be bound by the Settlement and you will relinquish any Settled Claims that you may have against Plantronics. You do not need to submit a Claim Form if you qualify for the Extended Limited Warranty. However, if you receive a cash payment through this Settlement, you are not eligible to also receive the Extended Limited Warranty.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT BY OCTOBER 4, 2019

This is the only option that allows you ever to be part of another lawsuit against Plantronics about the claims resolved by this Settlement. If you exclude yourself from this Settlement, you will not be able to get any benefits from it, including that you will not receive any cash payment or extended warranty.

OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT BY SUBMITTING A WRITTEN OBJECTION NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 4, 2019

If you wish to object to the proposed Settlement, the request for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses or Service Award to Named Plaintiff, you should write to the Court and explain why you object. You cannot object to the proposed Settlement unless you are a Class Member.

GO TO THE HEARING ON DATE AND FILE A NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPEAR SO THAT IT IS RECEIVED NO LATER THAN DATE

Filing a written objection and notice of intention to appear by October 4, 2019 permits you to speak in Court at the Court’s discretion about the fairness of the proposed Settlement, including the request for attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and the Service Award to Named Plaintiff. If you submit a written objection, you may (but are not required to) attend the Date Fairness Hearing and, at the discretion of the Court, speak to the Court about your objection.

DO NOTHING If you are a Class Member and do not submit a Claim Form by October 4, 2019, you will not be eligible to receive a cash payment under this Settlement, and you will give up your right to ever be part of another Lawsuit against Plantronics about the legal claims resolved by this Settlement.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement, please DO NOT contact the Court, Plantronics or its legal counsel. All questions should be directed to the Settlement Administrator (see paragraphs 28, 35, and 49 below). You may also contact Class Counsel (See paragraph 4 below).

1. Description of the Lawsuit and Class: This Notice relates to a proposed class action Settlement of a case where Named Plaintiff alleges that Plantronics falsely advertised and warranted the Headphones as sweatproof, waterproof and providing up to eight hours of listening time on a single charge. Named Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of these alleged defects, the Headphones are worth less than what consumers paid to purchase them. Plantronics denies the allegations and claims in the Lawsuit, denies any wrongdoing or liability, and has asserted numerous defenses to the Lawsuit. The Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims or on Plantronics denial of the claims or on Plantronics’ defenses. The proposed Settlement, if approved by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Court”) will settle claims of the following class of persons and entities (collectively the “Class” or “Class Members”):


{00042575; 1}3

All Persons domiciled within the United States and its territories who purchased at retail Plantronics BackBeat FIT wireless headphones, version Genesis or 16M, between April 1, 2014 and the Notice Date (currently _________, 2019).

Excluded from the Class is Defendant and its officers, directors and employees; Class Counsel and their partners, associates, lawyers, and employees; and the judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated Court staff assigned to this case. BackBeat FIT wireless headphones, version Genesis or 16M, were manufactured by Plantronics prior to September 2018.

2. Benefits Available to Class Members: Class Members who timely submit a Valid Claim are eligible for certain benefits under the Settlement. Depending on their specific circumstances (as further outlined in Paragraph 28) Class Members are eligible for one of three alternative benefits: (1) Extended Limited Warranty; or 2) $50 Cash Payment; or 3) $25 Cash Payment.

3. Reasons for the Settlement: Both sides agreed to a Settlement to avoid the costs and

risks of further litigation and to provide benefits to Class Members. The Class Representative and the lawyers representing them (called “Class Counsel”) believe that the Settlement is in the best interests of all Class Members. Plantronics has agreed to settle to avoid burdensome and costly litigation and disruption to its business operations. The proposed Settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing, and this Notice does not mean the Court has expressed an opinion as to the merits of any claims or defenses.

4. Identification of Class Counsel: Named Plaintiff and the Class are being represented

by the following attorneys: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 345-8291 James C. Shah Ronald S. Kravitz SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 201 Filbert Street, Suite 201, San Francisco, CA 94133 (415) 429-5272

W.B. Markovits Paul M. DeMarco Terence R. Coates Justin C. Walker MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 (513) 651-3700

5. Attorneys’ Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards Sought: This Lawsuit has been

prosecuted on behalf of Named Plaintiff on a wholly contingent basis. That means that Class Counsel have not received any payment of attorneys’ fees for their representation of the Class and have advanced expenses necessarily incurred to prosecute this Lawsuit. As set forth in great detail below, Class Counsel have reviewed and analyzed documents obtained through Class Counsel’s own investigation; consulted with experts; examined and considered the benefits to be provided to the Class Members under the Settlement; and considered the laws of several States and the claims that could be asserted under those laws regarding the Headphones.

Class Counsel will request Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses of up to a maximum of six hundred fifty thousand dollars ($650,000). The Court’s award of any attorneys’ fees and expenses to Class Counsel shall be separate from and independent of the Court’s determination of whether to approve the Settlement. If the Court declines to approve the Settlement, no award of attorneys’ fees and expenses shall be awarded or paid to Class Counsel. The Parties have negotiated and reached agreement on the Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses only after reaching agreement on all other material terms of Settlement in this matter. Plantronics has no liability or obligation with respect to any Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses,


{00042575; 1}4

Settlement Administration and Notice Expenses, or Service Award to the Named Plaintiff except as awarded by the Court. The Court will determine the appropriate amount of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses for Class Counsel.

WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS

Why Did I Get This Notice And Does It Apply To Me? ......................................................................................... Page 3 What Is This Case About? ................................................................................................................................... Page 5 Why Is There A Settlement? ................................................................................................................................ Page 6 What Might Happen If There Were No Settlement? ............................................................................................. Page 6 What Benefits Might I Receive From The Settlement? ......................................................................................... Page 6 What Rights Am I Giving Up By Receiving Benefits and Staying In the Settlement Class? ................................. Page 7 What Payment Are The Attorneys For The Class Seeking? How Will The Lawyers Be Paid? ............................. Page 7 How Do I Participate In The Settlement? What Do I Need To Do? ...................................................................... Page 7 How Do I Exclude Myself From the Settlement Class? ........................................................................................ Page 7 How Do I Object To The Settlement? ................................................................................................................... Page 8 When And Where Is The Fairness Hearing? Am I Required To Attend The Fairness Hearing? May I Speak At The Hearing If I Don’t Like The Settlement? ............................................................................... Page 9 How Do I Get More Information About this Case? ............................................................................................... Page 9

WHY DID I GET THIS NOTICE AND DOES IT APPLY TO ME?

6. This Notice is being sent to you pursuant to an Order of the Court because you may be a member of the Class. The Court has directed that this Notice be provided to you because, as a potential Class Member, you have a right to know about your options before the Court rules on the proposed Settlement. Additionally, you have the right to understand how a class action lawsuit may generally affect your legal rights. If the Court approves the Settlement, ______________, the Settlement Administrator approved by the Court, will distribute the benefits (detailed in paragraph 28 below) of this Settlement after any objections and appeals are resolved.

7. In a class action lawsuit, under state and federal law governing lawsuits such as this one,

the Court approves one or more plaintiffs (known as class representatives) to represent the class and to oversee the litigation brought on behalf of all persons or entities with the same or similar claims, commonly known as the class or the class members. In this Lawsuit, Named Plaintiff is the class representative, and Class Counsel (identified in paragraph 5 above) represents the Named Plaintiff and the Class Members. A class action is a type of lawsuit in which the claims of a number of individuals are resolved together, thus providing the class members with consistent and efficient adjudication of their claims. As part of the Settlement in this case, the Class as described in paragraph 1 above will be certified solely for the purpose of facilitating the Settlement. Accordingly, the Settlement, if approved by the Court, will resolve all issues on behalf of the Class Members, except for anyone who requests to be excluded from the Settlement.

8. The Court in charge of this case is the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the case is known as Phil Shin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plantronics, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-05626-NC. The judge presiding over this Lawsuit is the Honorable Nathanael Cousins, United States District Magistrate Judge. The person suing is called the plaintiff, and the party being sued is called the defendant.

9. This Notice explains the Lawsuit, the Settlement, your legal rights, what benefits are

available under the Settlement, who is eligible for them, and how to receive the benefits. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you that a settlement has been reached in this Lawsuit and how you might be affected. It also is being provided to inform you of the terms of the proposed Settlement, and of a Hearing on the Final Approval of the Settlement to be held by the Court to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed Settlement, and the motion of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses, and a Service Award for the Named Plaintiff (the “Fairness Hearing”).


{00042575; 1}5

10. The Fairness Hearing will be held on DATE at the San Jose Courthouse, 280 South 1st

Street, San Jose, CA 95113 in Courtroom [ ] to determine: a) whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved

by the Court; b) whether the Lawsuit should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendant as set forth in

the Settlement Agreement; c) whether Class Counsel’s request for an award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of

litigation expenses should be approved by the Court; d) whether the Service Award to the Named Plaintiff should be approved by the Court; and, e) any other relief the Court deems necessary to effectuate the terms of the Settlement.

11. This Notice does not express an opinion by the Court concerning the merits of any claim

in this Lawsuit, and the Court still must decide whether to approve the Settlement. If the Court approves the Settlement, benefits of the Settlement will be given to Class Members who submit Valid Claims after any objections or appeals are resolved, and after the completion of all claims processing. The claims process could take substantial time to complete fully and fairly as there are approximately 1.3 million Class Members. Please be patient. The Settlement Website, [Website URL] will be updated on a regular basis to provide Class Members with the most recent information.

12. If you are a member of the Class, you are subject to the Settlement unless you take the

steps set forth below to exclude yourself. The Class consists of:

All Persons domiciled within the United States and its territories who purchased at retail the BackBeat FIT wireless headphones, version Genesis or 16M, manufactured by Plantronics during the period of time from April 1, 2014 through _________, 2019.

Excluded from the Class is Defendant and its officers, directors and employees; Class Counsel and their partners, associates, lawyers, and employees; and the judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated Court staff assigned to this case. PLEASE NOTE: RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER OR THAT YOU WILL BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE BENEFITS FROM THE SETTLEMENT. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER AND YOU WISH TO BE ELIGIBLE TO R E C E I V E A C A S H P A Y M E N T , YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE CLAIM FORM ONLINE OR POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 31, 2019. YOU DO NOT NEED TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM IF YOU QUALIFY FOR THE EXTENDED LIMITED WARRANTY.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

Summary of Procedural History and Arm’s-Length Settlement Negotiations

13. On September 13, 2018, the Named Plaintiff commenced the lawsuit by filing a class action complaint against Defendant challenging the marketing and sale of the Plantronics Headphones, alleging that the Headphones were defective because they allegedly were not “waterproof”, “sweatproof”, and did not provide “up to eight hours” of wireless listening time on a single charge as represented, advertised, and marketed by Plantronics.

14. Based on the above allegations, the original Class Action Complaint and the First

Amended Class Action Complaint asserted claims for (a) Breach of Express Warranty – Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; (b) Breach of Implied Warranty – Magnuson Moss Warranty Act; (c) Breach Express Warranty; (d) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability – California Song-Beverly Act; (e) Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose; (f) Violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750 et seq.; (g) Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law,


{00042575; 1}6

California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; and (h) Common Law Fraud. The Original and the First Amended Class Action Complaints sought certification of a nationwide class of purchasers of Plantronics headphones

15. On November 30, 2018, Plantronics moved to dismiss the Original Class Action Complaint. In response, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint and Plantronics again filed a motion to dismiss the entire case on February 13, 2019.

16. Plantronics denies the allegations and claims in the Lawsuit and asserts numerous defenses to Plaintiff’s claims, including that Plantronics headphones are not defective in any respect and that Plaintiff did not suffer any losses or actual injury. Plantronics denies any wrongdoing and stands by its products as advertised and warranted.

17. With the second motion to dismiss pending, the Parties engaged in mediation with the aid

of and before experienced mediator, Martin Quinn, Esq., of JAMS in San Francisco. The Parties were unable to resolve the dispute at the mediation, but with the aid of the mediator the Parties continued to engage in extensive settlement discussions thereafter. These further discussions over several months resulted in the Settlement.

18. From January 23, 2019 through March 28, 2019, and with the second motion to dismiss

pending, the Parties continued to engage in settlement discussions with the aid of the mediator, and the parties reached a settlement in principal on March 28, 2019 and entered into a written Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Settlement.

19. Prior to reaching a settlement and entering into the Settlement Agreement: (1) the Parties engaged in informal discovery and sharing of information regarding the design, development and testing of the Headphones; (2) the Named Plaintiff’s counsel engaged an independent expert to conduct testing of the Headphones and batteries used in the Headphones; and (3) the Parties engaged in numerous arm’s-length settlement negotiations, including two-months of mediation efforts and discussions under the direction and guidance of Martin Quinn, Esq. as a mediator. The Parties eventually reached an agreement providing for a resolution of all claims that have been or could have been brought in the Lawsuit against Plantronics on behalf of Named Plaintiff.

20. Named Plaintiff and Class Counsel have reviewed and analyzed the information

furnished by Plantronics and information obtained through their own investigation; consulted with their own expert who conducted testing of the Headphones and batteries used in the Headphones; examined and considered the benefits to be provided to the Class Members under the Settlement provided for in this Agreement; and considered the laws of the several States and the claims that could be asserted under those laws regarding the Headphones.

21. Named Plaintiff and Class Counsel believe the Settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class Members, taking into account the benefits provided to the Class Members through the terms of the Settlement, the risks of continued litigation and possible trial and appeals, and the length of time and the costs that would be required to complete the litigation.

22. Plantronics has at all times disputed, and continues to dispute, Plaintiff’s allegations and claims in the Lawsuit and deny any liability for any of the claims that have or could have been raised in the Lawsuit by Plaintiff or the Class Members, but believes that the comprehensive resolution of the claims in the Lawsuit as provided in this Agreement will avoid the substantial costs and disruptions of continued litigation, including potential trial and appeals, is in the best interest of Class Members, is in the best interests of Defendant, its employees, and its customers, and is the most effective and efficient resolution of the Lawsuit reasonably possible.

23. Named Plaintiff and Plantronics entered into the Settlement after extensive arm’s-length

negotiations. Named Plaintiff and Plantronics agreed on the benefits to the Class described in this


{00042575; 1}7

Agreement before beginning negotiations of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and payment of a Service Award to the Named Plaintiff.

24. On [DATE], the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement, authorized Notice to be

disseminated to potential Class Members, and scheduled the Fairness Hearing to consider whether to grant final approval to the Settlement.

WHY IS THERE A SETTLEMENT?

25. Named Plaintiff’s principal reason for consent to the Settlement is that it provides immediate and substantial benefits to the Class in the form of either cash payments or an extended limited warranty on the Headphones. The benefits provided by the proposed Settlement must be compared to the risk that no recovery might be achieved after further contested litigation, including appeals, which likely would last several years into the future.

26. Plantronics’ principal reason for consent to the Settlement is to avoid the uncertainty,

burden, and expense of further protracted litigation, and disruption to Plantronics’ business operations. Plantronics has expressly denied and continues to deny all assertions of wrongdoing or liability arising out of any of the conduct, statements, or acts, alleged against it, or that could have been alleged, in this Lawsuit.

WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF THERE WERE NO SETTLEMENT?

27. If there were no Settlement and Named Plaintiff failed to establish any essential legal or

factual element of his claims, neither Named Plaintiff nor the other members of the p r o p o s e d Class would recover anything from Plantronics in this case. Also, if Plantronics were successful in proving any of its defenses, either at c l a s s c e r t i f i c a t i o n , summary judgment, at trial, or on appeal, the Class likely would recover substantially less than the amount provided in the Settlement, or nothing at all.

WHAT BENEFITS MIGHT I RECEIVE FROM THE SETTLEMENT?

28. The Settlement provides benefits to Class Members as explained below. Under the

Settlement, Class Members can obtain benefits under Alternatives 1, 2 or 3, below, but not more than one of the alternatives. Class Members who elect to receive a cash payment are not eligible for the Extended Limited Warranty.

Alternative 1: Extended Limited Warranty. Class Members who purchased their Headphones on or after January 1, 2018, receive a 12-month limited warranty extension on the Headphones with the 12-month extension beginning to run from the Effective Date of the Settlement (the “Extended Warranty”). The Effective Date is anticipated to be around ---------, 2019 if there are no delays or appeals. Class members who purchased Headphones prior to January 1, 2018 are not eligible for the Extended Warranty, and instead are limited to claiming one of the cash payment benefits under either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3, described below. You do not need to submit a Claim Form if you qualify for the Extended Limited Warranty. However, if you receive a cash payment through this Settlement, you are not eligible to also receive the Extended Limited Warranty. Class Members qualifying for the Extended Warranty must comply with the following requirements:

a. Class Members qualifying for the Extended Warranty must comply with the on-line warranty claim process and requirements then in existence on the Plantronics website,


{00042575; 1}8

at plantronics.com, including that the Class Member must return to Plantronics their existing Headphones for which they are making the warranty claim;

b. To qualify for coverage under the Extended Warranty, the warranty claim must be based on an issue with the battery, battery performance, or an ability to retain a charge, or due to an issue with the Headphones’ resistance to water, moisture, or sweat ; and

c. The Class Member must attest under penalty of perjury that he, she or it (i) has not filed a warranty claim on the Headphones previously; (ii) did not previously receive a replacement set of Headphones from any source; and (iii) did not previously receive a refund from Plantronics or the retailer from which the Claimant purchased the Headphones for all or any portion of the purchase price of the Headphones. Plantronics is entitled to rebut the Class Member’s assertion of no prior warranty claim, replacement Headphones or refund under (i) through (iii) herein with verifiable evidence to the contrary. In that event, the Class member will not be entitled to any warranty replacement under the Extended Warranty.

To the extent that the original limited warranty applicable to the original purchase of the Headphones (the “Original Limited Warranty”) has not expired by the Effective Date, the Extended Warranty shall be in addition to and take effect after expiration of the Original Limited Warranty. Class Members qualified to receive the Extended Warranty and who make a valid warranty claim under the Extended Warranty shall be entitled to receive a functional replacement to the Headphones. The replacement product shall be limited to the Plantronics Backbeat FIT 2100 wireless headphones (“Replacement Product”), and no other Plantronics product. There shall be no express or implied warranty provided to Class Members for the Replacement Product, except that a Replacement Product provided to a Class Member pursuant to this Extended Limited Warranty is entitled to the remaining warranty, if any, associated with the Class Member’s original purchase of the Headphones. There shall be no other express or implied warranty provided to Class Members for the Replacement Product. Alternative 2: $50 Cash Payment. A Class Member may receive a $50 payment under this Alternative 2 if the Class Member (“Claimant”) complies with all of the following requirements: (a) The Claimant must timely submit to the Settlement Administrator a properly completed Claim Form; (b) The Claimant (or an authorized third-party retailer) must furnish Proof of Purchase of the Headphones from an authorized retailer during the Class Period; (c) The Claimant must furnish evidence that he, she or it had previously made a contemporaneous written claim or complaint that their Headphones were defective or did not function properly due to an issue with the battery, battery performance, or an ability to retain a charge, or due to an issue with the Headphones’ resistance to water, moisture, or sweat. The prior written claim or complaint must have been made prior to the date of the Named Plaintiff filing the original complaint in the Lawsuit (September 12, 2018). It must be clear that the claim or complaint related to a failure or malfunction of the Headphones consistent with the allegations in the Complaint. For example, a general negative review on Amazon or plantronics.com would not suffice, but a negative review that specifically references a battery charging issue consistent with the allegations in the Complaint would suffice; and (d) The Claimant must attest under penalty of perjury that: (1) the Claimant’s Headphones malfunctioned or failed to work properly due to an issue with the battery, battery performance, or an ability to retain a charge, or due to an issue with the Headphones’ resistance to water, moisture, or sweat; and (2) the Claimant did not previously receive a replacement set of Headphones from any source or a refund from Plantronics or the retailer from which the Claimant purchased the Headphones for all or any portion of their purchase price. Plantronics is entitled to rebut the Claimant’s assertion of no prior replacement Headphones or refund with verifiable evidence to the


{00042575; 1}9

contrary provided to the Settlement Administrator. If such verifiable evidence is presented, the Claimant shall not be entitled to any benefit.

Proof of purchase information can be satisfied by the Class Member submitting evidence (e.g., a receipt) or by purchase information obtained by Class Counsel from third party retailers (e.g., Amazon, Best Buy). The Settlement Administrator will review all claims, as necessary, to determine whether the information obtained from third-party retailers satisfies the proof of purchase requirement. The Settlement Administrator will also review information and records in Plantronics’ possession to determine if the Class Member made a written claim or complaint to Plantronics. A Claimant cannot recover based on replacement Headphones already received in response to a prior warranty claim or complaint. If the Proof of Purchase shows that the Claimant purchased the Headphones for less than $50, the Claimant’s recovery is limited to the price paid for the Headphones. For example, if the Proof of Purchase shows that the Claimant purchased their Headphones for $40, their recovery is limited to $40. There shall be a limit of two (2) claims per Claimant.

Alternative 3: $25 Cash Payment.

A. $25 Cash Payment (Claimants Who Have Not Previously Received Replacement Headphones)

A Class Member may receive a $25 payment under this Alternative 3 if the Class Member (“Claimant”) complies with all of the following requirements: (a) The Class member must timely submit to the Settlement Administrator a properly completed Claim Form; (b) The Claimant (or an authorized third-party retailer) must furnish Proof of Purchase of the Headphones from an authorized retailer during the Class Period; and (c) the Claimant must attest under penalty of perjury that: (1) the Claimant’s Headphones malfunctioned or failed to work properly due to an issue with the battery, battery performance, or an ability to retain a charge, or due to an issue with the Headphones’ resistance to water, moisture, or sweat; and (2) the Claimant did not previously receive a replacement set of Headphones from any source or a refund from Plantronics or the retailer from which the Claimant purchased the Headphones for all or any portion of their purchase price. There shall be a limit of two (2) claims per Claimant. Proof of purchase information can be satisfied by the Class Member submitting evidence (e.g., a receipt) or by purchase information obtained by Class Counsel from third party retailers (e.g., Amazon, Best Buy). The Settlement Administrator will review all claims, as necessary, to determine whether the information obtained from third-party retailers satisfies the proof of purchase requirement.

B. $25 Cash Payment (Claimants Who Have Previously Received Replacement Headphones)

A Claimant who previously received a replacement set of Headphones from any source may make one (1), and only one Claim for benefits under this Alternative 3 benefit, and such Claimant is excused from the requirement to attest under part penalty of perjury that they did not receive a replacement set of Headphones from any source.

If, after reading this Notice, you are still not sure whether you are included in the Settlements, you may visit the settlement website [website URL] or call 8XX-XXX-XXXX. You may also write with questions by email to [email address for questions-to be updated upon preliminary approval of settlement] or regular mail to [mailing address for questions-to be updated upon preliminary approval settlement].

WHAT RIGHTS AM I GIVING UP BY RECEIVING BENEFITS AND STAYING IN THE SETLLEMENT CLASS?


{00042575; 1}10

29. Unless you exclude yourself, you are staying in the Settlement Class. If the Settlement is

approved and becomes final, the Settlement and all the Court’s orders will apply to you and legally bind you. Generally, that means you will not be able to sue, continue to sue, or be part of any other lawsuit against Plantronics for the legal issues and claims resolved by this Settlement. The specific rights you are giving up are called Released Claims. Unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement, you will be releasing Plantronics from all claims, damages, and losses that you now have or may have in the future that relate to your Headphones’ battery, battery performance, ability to retain a charge, or their resistance to water, moisture, or sweat.

30. The complete release language from the Settlement Agreement is as follows: “Class Members who do not timely and validly exclude themselves from the Settlement forever release and discharge the Released Parties from any and all manner of Settled Class Claims, claims, actions, causes of action, administrative claims, demands, debts, losses, damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, obligations, judgments, expenses, or liabilities for economic loss in law or in equity, whether based on federal, state, local, or foreign law or regulation, statutory or common law, whether now known or unknown, contingent or fixed, accrued or not accrued, foreseen or unforeseen, including all claims that Plaintiffs may now have or, absent this Agreement, may in the future have had, against any Released Party, by reason of any act, harm, omission, matter, representation, cause, occurrence, breach or event whatsoever that has occurred from the beginning of time up to and including the Effective Date of this Agreement and that arise from or relate to any of the alleged facts, defects, representations, omissions, or claims alleged or that could have been alleged in the Lawsuit or that arise from or relate to any act, harm, omission, matter, representation, cause, occurrence, or event whatsoever arising out of the performance of the Headphones, any alleged defect or deficiency in the Headphones, Defendant’s advertising, marketing, packaging, promotion, production, warranty, customer service, sale or distribution of the Headphones, the initiation, defense, or settlement of the Lawsuit or the claims or defenses asserted in the Lawsuit, including without limitation all claims for out-of-pocket expense, consequential damages, diminution in value, benefit of the bargain, cost of repair or replacement, cost of maintenance, premium price damages, or any other damages theory or based on conduct by the Released Parties alleged to be negligent or intentional, with or without malice, or an alleged breach of any duty now existing or later arising (hereafter, “Released Claims”) as long as the Released Claims relate to the Headphones’ battery, battery performance, ability to retain a charge, or the Headphones’ resistance to water, moisture, or sweat.” Claims that do not relate to the Headphones’ battery, battery performance, ability to retain a charge or the Headphones’ resistance to water, moisture or sweat, as well as personal injury claims, are not covered by the Settlement or this release.

WHAT PAYMENT ARE THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE CLASS SEEKING? HOW WILL THE LAWYERS BE PAID?

31. Class Counsel have not received any payment for their services in pursuing claims

against Plantronics on behalf of the Class, nor have they been reimbursed for their out-of-pocket expenses. Class Counsel will ask the Court for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses of up to a maximum of six hundred fifty thousand dollars ($650,000). The amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded will be determined solely by the Court. The Court must approve any request for fees, expenses and costs. The Parties negotiated and reached agreement on the Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses to be paid by Plantronics only after reaching agreement on all other material terms of this Settlement.

32. Class Members are not personally liable for any such court-approved attorneys’ fees or expenses, and the payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses, as approved by the Court, will not reduce the benefits paid to the Class.

33. Plantronics will not pay Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses to any attorneys other than Class

Counsel and attorneys working under Class Counsel’s direction. If you choose to hire attorneys that have not been appointed as Class Counsel, you may incur additional charges, subject to your agreement with your personally retained attorneys. No attorneys other than Class Counsel or other attorneys authorized


{00042575; 1}11

by Class Counsel to perform work in connection with this Action shall be eligible to receive fees or expenses under this Settlement Agreement.

HOW DO I PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT? WHAT DO I NEED TO DO?

34. To be eligible for a cash payment from the Settlement, you must be a member of the

Class and you must submit a timely and Valid Claim Form through the Settlement Website [Website URL] no later than October 31, 2019, or execute and return by U.S. mail a completed Claim Form postmarked no later than October 31, 2019. A Claim Form will be mailed or emailed to known potential Class Members, or you may obtain a Claim Form from [Website URL], or you may request that a Claim Form be mailed to you by calling the Settlement Administrator, _____________________, toll free at 8XX-XXX-XXXX. If you are excluded from the Class by definition or file a request to opt-out of the Class or if you do not submit a timely and Valid Claim, you will not be eligible to share in the benefits of the Settlement. You do not need to submit a Claim Form if you qualify for the Extended Limited Warranty. However, if you receive a cash payment through this Settlement, you are not eligible to also receive the Extended Limited Warranty.

HOW DO I EXCLUDE MYSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS?

35. If you do not want to receive the benefits provided by the Settlement, and you want to

keep the right to sue or continue to sue Plantronics about the legal claims in this lawsuit, you must take steps to exclude yourself from the Settlement. This is sometimes called “opting out” of the Settlement Class.

36. To exclude yourself from the Settlement, you must send a letter, other written document,

or an Opt-Out Form available at [Website URL] to the Claims Administrator. Your request to opt out must include:

• Your name, address, and telephone number; • The serial number of your Headphone(s); • A statement that “I wish to be excluded from the Settlement Class in Phil Shin, on behalf

of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plantronics, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-05626-NC” or substantially similar clear and unambiguous language;

• Your personal signature (electronic signatures, including Docusign, are invalid and will not be considered personal signatures). You must personally sign your request. The request cannot be signed by attorney or other representative on your behalf.

You must either (i) mail you signed written request or Opt-Out Form to [mailing address for opt-out-to be updated upon preliminary approval of settlement]; or (ii) email a complete and legible scanned copy or photograph of your signed written request to [email@website URL] . Your signed written request must be sent (postmarked or emailed) by October 4, 2019.

IF I EXCLUDE MYSELF, CAN I STILL GET FULL BENEFITS FROM THE SETTLEMENT?

37. No. If you choose to exclude yourself from the Settlement, you are telling the Court that

you do not want to be part of the Settlement Class in this Settlement. You can only get a cash payment or an Extended Limited Warranty if you stay in the Settlement Class. You must submit a valid Claim Form to be eligible to receive a cash payment.

38. If you choose to exclude yourself from the Settlement, you are not giving up the right to sue Plantronics for the claims that this Settlement resolves and releases. You must exclude yourself from this Settlement Class to start or continue with your own lawsuit.


{00042575; 1}12

HOW DO I OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT?

39. If you are a Class Member, you may object to any part of the Settlement you do not like, and the Court will consider your views. You can ask the Court to deny approval of this Settlement by filing an objection. You cannot ask the Court to order a different settlement; the Court can only approve or reject the Settlement. If the Court denies approval, no settlement benefits will be made available to the Class and the Lawsuit will continue. If that is what you want to happen, you must object.

Any objection to the proposed settlement must be in writing. If you file a timely written objection, you may, but are not required to, appear at that Final Approval Hearing, either in person or through your own attorney. If you appear through your own attorney, you’re responsible for hiring and paying that attorney. All written objections and supporting papers must: (a) clearly identify the case name and number (Phil Shin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plantronics, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-05626-NC); (b) be submitted to the Court either by mailing them to the Class Action Clerk, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 280 South 1st Street, Room 2112, San Jose, California 95113, or by filing them in person at any location of the United States District Court ordered the Northern District of California; (c) be filed or postmarked on or before October 4, 2019; (d) contain the objector’s full name, address, telephone number and email address; (e) list all civil actions in which the objector and/or objector’s counsel filed or in any way participated in-financially or otherwise-objecting to a class action settlement in the preceding five years; (f) list the name, address email address, and telephone number for each attorney representing the objector; (g) include a written statement of all grounds for the objection accompanied by any legal support for such objection; and, (h) include the objector’s signature and date of signature.

40. Any Class Member who does not submit a request for exclusion from the Class may

object to the proposed Settlement, or Class Counsel’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses and Service Awards to Named Plaintiff. Even if you make an objection, you must also submit a claim in order to get cash compensation under the Class Action Settlement.

41. Class Members who fail to make objections in the manner specified in this Section may

be deemed to have waived any objections and may be foreclosed from making any objection to the Settlement or this Agreement (whether by appeal, collateral proceeding, or otherwise). You may file a written objection without having to appear at the Fairness Hearing. You may not, however, appear at the Fairness Hearing to present your objection unless you first filed and served a written objection in accordance with the procedures described above, unless the Court orders otherwise. The Fairness Hearing is described in more detail in paragraphs 44-45 below.

What is the difference between objecting to that Settlement and opting out?

42. If you opt out of the Class, you cannot object to the Settlement. Opting out is telling the

Court that you do not want to be part of the Settlement, and you do not want to receive any Settlement benefits. If you opt out, you have no basis to object to the Settlement by telling the Court you do not like something about it, because the Settlement no longer affects you. If you opt out, you retain your right to sue Plantronics, but you give up your right to obtain the benefits provided by this Settlement.

43. If you object to the Settlement, you are expressing your views about that Settlement but

remain a member of the Class (if you are otherwise eligible). If you make an objection, you must still submit a claim in order to be eligible to receive a cash payment under the Settlement.

WHEN AND WHERE IS THE FAIRNESS HEARING?

44. The Court will hold the Fairness hearing at TIME on DATE, at the San Jose Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113 in Courtroom __. At the hearing, the Court will consider


{00042575; 1}13

whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are objections that were received by the deadline, the Court will then consider them. If you submit a timely objection, the Court will also listen to you speak at the hearing, if you so request.

45. 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, [Website URL], 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.

AM I REQUIRED TO ATTEND THE FAINRESS HEARING?

46. You are not required to attend the Fairness Hearing, but you are welcome to attend at your own expense. If you timely file an objection, then you can, but are not obligated, to come to Court to discuss it. You may also pay your own lawyer to attend or discuss your objection, but that is not necessary.

MAY I SPEAK AT THE FAIRNESS HEARING IF I DON’T LIKE THE SETTLEMENT?

47. You may ask the Court to permit you to speak at the Fairness Hearing. To do so, you must file a written request with the Court saying that it is your “Notice of Intent to Appear at the Fairness Hearing in Phil Shin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Plantronics, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-05626-NC.” If you plan to have your own attorney speak for you at the hearing, you must also include the name, address, and telephone number of the attorney who will appear. Your written request must be sent to the Clerk of Court, Class Counsel, the Settlement Administrator, and Plantronics’ Counsel at their addresses above. You may not be permitted to speak at the hearing if your Notice of Intent to Appear is late.

HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CASE?

48. This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. For the precise terms and conditions of the settlement, please see the Settlement Agreement available at [Website URL]. You can also contact Class Counsel at the addresses listed above in paragraph 4 or by emailing _______________ or calling ____________________ the Settlement Administrator.

49. You can access the 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, 280 South 1st Street, Room 2112, San Jose, CA 95113 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.


EXHIBIT 4


{00042573; 1}

A COURT AUTHORIZED THIS SUMMARY LEGAL NOTICE

If you purchased Plantronics BackBeat FIT wireless sport headphones, version Genesis or 16M (“Headphones”), you may be entitled to a cash payment up to $50 or an extended

warranty from a class action settlement.

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit titled Shin v. Plantronics, Inc., No. 5:18-cv-05626-NC (N.D. Cal.). The lawsuit claims that Plantronics, Inc. falsely advertised and warranted the Headphones as

sweatproof, waterproof and providing up to eight hours of listening time on a single charge. Plantronics denies all of the claims and allegations in the lawsuit and denies any wrongdoing and stands by its products as

advertised and warranted.

WHO IS A CLASS MEMBER?

You may be in the Settlement Class if you live in the United States and its territories and purchased at retail the Headphones on or between April 1, 2014 and ________________, 2019.

WHAT BENEFITS DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

Class Members can receive one of the following benefits under the settlement: Alternative 1: Extended Limited Warranty – Class Members who purchased Headphones on or after January 1, 2018, receive a 12-month limited warranty extension unless they file a claim for the Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 cash payment (see below) The Extended Limited Warranty applies to the Headphones’ battery, battery performance, ability to retain a charge, or their resistance to water, moisture, or sweat and is subject to terms and conditions as described in the Settlement Agreement. The Extended Limited Warranty will begin to run on the Effective Date of the Settlement. You do not need to submit a Claim Form if you qualify for the Extended Limited Warranty. However, if you choose to receive a cash payment through this Settlement, you are not eligible to also receive the Extended Limited Warranty. Alternative 2: $50 Cash Payment – Class Members who submit a Valid Claim supported by proof of purchase information and provide evidence that the Class Member made a contemporaneous written claim or complaint that their Headphones were defective or did not function properly will receive a cash payment of up to $50. Class Members must attest that: (a) their Headphones malfunctioned or failed to work properly due to an issue with the battery, battery performance, or an ability to retain a charge, or due to an issue with the Headphones’ resistance to water, moisture, or sweat; and (b) they did not previously receive a replacement set of Headphones from any source or a refund from Plantronics or the retailer from which they purchased the Headphones for all or any portion of their purchase price. Proof of purchase information can be satisfied by the Class Member submitting evidence (e.g., a receipt) or by purchase information obtained by Class Counsel from third party retailers (e.g., Amazon, Best Buy). Class Members who purchased multiple sets of Headphones can receive up to two $50 payments. Class members who previously received replacement Headphones or a refund in response to the original warranty claim or complaint are not entitled to payment under this alternative. The Settlement Administrator will review all claims, as necessary, to determine whether the information obtained from third-party retailers satisfies the proof of purchase requirement. The Settlement Administrator will also review information and records in Plantronics’ possession to determine if the Class Member made a written claim or complaint to Plantronics. Go to [website URL] to file a claim. Alternative 3: $25 Cash Payment - Class Members who submit a Valid Claim supported by proof of purchase information and attest that (a) their Headphones malfunctioned or failed due to an issue with the battery, battery performance, or an ability to retain a charge, or due to an issue with the Headphones’ resistance to water, moisture, or sweat, and (b) they did not previously receive replacement Headphones or a refund, will receive a $25 cash payment. Proof of purchase information can be satisfied by the Class Member submitting evidence (e.g., a receipt) or by purchase information obtained by Class Counsel from third party retailers (e.g., Amazon, Best Buy). The Settlement Administrator will review all claims, as


{00042573; 1}

necessary, to determine whether the information obtained from third-party retailers satisfies the proof of purchase requirement. Class Members who purchased multiple sets of Headphones can receive up to two $25 payments. Regardless of requirement (b), above, Class Members who previously received a set of Replacement Headphones may receive a payment but are limited to one $25 payment. Go to [website URL] to file a claim. Plantronics has also agreed to pay (1) reasonable attorneys’ fees to Class Counsel and for their costs and expenses not to exceed $650,000; (2) a Service Award of $5,000 to the Named Plaintiff; and (3) the costs of administering the Settlement.

YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS

Submit a Claim Form. To be eligible to receive a cash payment, you must submit a timely Claim Form. You can submit a Claim Form electronically on the Settlement Website: [website URL] or download a Claim Form from the Settlement Website, complete the information, and mail it to the Settlement Administrator. Your Claim Form must be postmarked or submitted online no later than October 31, 2019. (Click Here to file a claim) Opt Out. You may also exclude yourself from the settlement and keep your rights, if any, to sue Plantronics by sending a written request for exclusion to the Settlement Administrator by October 4, 2019. If you do not exclude yourself, you will be bound by the Settlement and give up your right to sue regarding the settled claims. Object. If you do not exclude yourself, you have the right to object to the proposed settlement. Written objections must be signed, postmarked by October 4, 2019, and provide the reasons for the objection. Please review the Settlement Website [website URL] for further details. Do Nothing. If you do nothing, you will not receive any cash payment and will lose the right to sue regarding any issues relating to the Lawsuit and claims released by the Settlement. You will be considered part of the Settlement Class, and you will be bound by the Settlement and the Court’s decisions. Released Claims. If you submit a claim, do nothing, or do not exclude yourself from the Settlement, you will be releasing Plantronics from all claims, damages, and losses that you now have or may have in the future that relate to your Headphones’ battery, battery performance, ability to retain a charge, or their resistance to water, moisture, or sweat. Attend the Fairness Hearing. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on [DATE]. All persons who timely object to the Settlement by October 4, 2019 may ask to appear at the Fairness Hearing.

This Notice is only a summary. You can find more details at the Settlement Website: [website URL] or by calling toll-free (8XX) XXX-XXXX. Do not contact the Court.


EXHIBIT 5


Proprietary and Confidential Page 1 of 17

Notice Plan

A.B. Data, Ltd. Class Action Administration Company 600 A.B. Data Drive Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53217

Proposed Settlement Notice Plan ___________________________________________________________________

Phil Shin, et al. v. Plantronics, Inc. Case No. 5:18-cv-05626-NC

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

July 31, 2019



Notice Plan

CASE BACKGROUND

This Proposed Notice Plan is submitted by A.B. Data, Ltd. (“A.B. Data”) in connection with Phil Shin, et al. v. Plantronics, Inc. This document outlines our plan to provide settlement notice to the proposed Class. The Class is generally defined as:

all Persons domiciled within the United States and its territories who purchased at retail the Headphones “Plantronics BackBeat FIT wireless headphones, version Genesis or 16M,” as defined in the Settlement Agreement, during the period of time from April 1, 2014, through the Notice Date.

Excluded from the Class are Defendant and its officers, directors, and employees; Class Counsel and their partners, associates, lawyers, and employees; and the judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated Court staff assigned to this case. Counsel provides that there are approximately 1.3 million Class Members based on the number of units sold in the United States. Data from GfK MRI 2018 Doublebase Survey states that there are approximately 22.5 million “Households in the U.S. that Own Bluetooth/Wireless Headphones (of any brand) and Participate in a Regular Physical Fitness/Exercise Program.” At this time, the parties do not possess customer contact information for the Class Members. However, they hope to obtain, through subpoena to top retailers and from the Defendant’s records, the mailing addresses and/or email addresses for Class Members. This document outlines the recommended components for providing due process notice to the Proposed Class.

Plan Objective

The primary goal of this Notice Plan is to deliver notice to the proposed Class leveraging the latest digital media technologies, while also meeting the requirements of due process and delivering a reach of at least 70%. The Notice Plan described herein will deliver an efficient and effective plan for reaching unidentified potential members of the proposed Class.



Notice Plan

NOTICE PLAN OVERVIEW

After thorough research of the demographics of the proposed Class and their media habits, A.B. Data recommends the following elements in a media Notice Plan:

a. Digital media – display ads; b. Social media; c. Google AdWords – search; d. A news release.

These paid media components, which include online platforms, social media, and earned media vehicles, are specifically targeted for and will reach unidentified potential members of the proposed Class. A dedicated case website and Facebook page will also be implemented to complement the Notice Plan. Detailed information about each component of the Notice Plan and its coverage of the target audience in this case appears in the Media Notice section of this plan.

All media will be geo-targeted to include the U.S. territories and possessions.

The Notice Plan options will deliver an estimated minimum reach of 70.0%.

The specific media components of the Notice Plan options are as follows:

Medium Description Digital/Social Media Served across:

• Mobile • Tablet • Laptop • Desktop

Google Display Network, Google AdWords/Search, YouTube • Mobile website and in-app • Banner ads • Behavioral, contextual, predictive modeling strategies • Newsfeed ads • Links tracked via Google Analytics

Earned Media PR Newswire

• US1 National newswire • Caribbean and Pacific newswires to cover the territories • Tweeted via PR Newswire and A.B. Data Twitter

accounts



Notice Plan

DELIVERY AND DUE PROCESS

The proposed Notice Plan options will deliver a minimum estimated reach of 70% as calculated by Comscore1 and A.B. Data experts.

The Notice efforts described herein reflect a strategic, microtargeted, and contemporary method to deploy Notice to potential members of the proposed Class. The Notice Plan provides a reach and frequency similar to those that Courts have approved and are recommended by the Federal Judicial Center’s Judges’ Class Action Notice and Claims Process Checklist and Plain Language Guide, which considers a 70% - 95% reach among Class Members reasonable.2

The Notice Plan options that are described herein are consistent with notice plans that A.B. Data has developed and have been approved by other Courts and implemented for other similar national consumer cases with regard to the methods and tools for developing such plans.

The Notice Plan set forth herein (collectively the direct mail/email campaign plus the paid digital media campaign) are the best practicable under the circumstances for the Class and meet due process requirements.

1 Comscore is a global Internet information provider on which leading companies and advertising agencies rely for consumer behavior insight and Internet data usage. Comscore maintains a proprietary database of more than 2 million consumers who have given Comscore permission to monitor their browsing and transaction behavior, including online and offline purchasing. 2 As the 2010 edition of the Judges’ Class Action Notice and Claims Process Checklist and Plain Language Guide notes (page 3): “The lynchpin in an objective determination of the adequacy of a proposed notice effort is whether all the notice efforts together will reach a high percentage of the class. It is reasonable to reach between 70-95%.”



Notice Plan

PAID-MEDIA PLANNING METHODOLOGY

A.B. Data Notice Plans are developed to reach Class Members effectively and efficiently and seek to do the following:

1. Identify the demographics of Class Members through the use of syndicated and/or peer-reviewed, accredited research to establish a primary target audience;

2. Outline the methodology for selecting the media vehicles recommended and their relationship to product/service purchase and usage by the target audience; and

3. Provide results that quantify for the Court the adequacy of the Notice based upon recognized tools of media measurement.

The first steps to developing the paid Notice Plan involve determining the demographics of the potential Class Members and defining the target audience. A.B. Data then analyzes media quintile usage data and the ability of each advertising medium to provide cost-efficient coverage of the target audience to develop the direction of the Notice Plan, i.e., whether notification is best done through print, online, broadcast, and/or some other methodology.

In the development of successful Notice Plans, A.B. Data uses reach and frequency as the standards upon which to measure an effective Notice Plan. Reach and frequency are the two primary measurements used to quantify the delivery of a Proposed Notice Plan to a defined target audience. Below are the definitions of these terms as they relate to paid media.

• Reach – expressed as a percentage, a measurement of a target audience that was exposed at least one time to a specific media message or combination of media messages, whether via print, broadcast, online, outdoor, etc., media, within a given time period.

• Frequency – the estimated average number of opportunities a member of the target audience sees the Notice during the campaign.

These analytical tools, provided by Comscore and MRI, are used to determine the websites/publications selected and the number of impressions/insertions to be purchased. MRI is the leading supplier of multimedia audience research in the United States. As a nationally accredited research firm, it presents a source of measurement for major media, products, services, and consumer demographic, lifestyle, and psychographic characteristics. Comscore is a global Internet information provider on which leading companies and advertising agencies rely for Internet data usage.



Notice Plan

TARGET AUDIENCE MEDIA USAGE

To define the proposed Class and develop the target audience, we first examined the type of headphones defined in the Settlement and the issues in the case. As this litigation is only for “Plantronics BackBeat FIT wireless headphones, version Genesis or 16M,” this is a type typically used when engaging in physical fitness activities and by persons who engage in a regular exercise program as it is supposed to be waterproof/sweatproof and have a several hour battery life. Based on this product information, we then examined accredited marketing data from MRI for people who “Own Bluetooth/Wireless Headphones and Participate in a Regular Exercise Program.” Below are some of the key demographic statistics that will assist in targeting potential Class Members.

Demographics Own Bluetooth/Wireless

Headphones and Participate in Physical Fitness/Regular

Exercise Program Female 51.9%

Male 48.1%

18-24 12.8%

25-34 21.7%

35-44 24.7%

45-54 21.1%

55-64 12.3%

65+ 7.4%

18-49 70.0%

25-54 67.4%

Graduated High School 20.8%

Attended/Graduated College 74.2%

Under $20,000 4.0%

$20,000 - $40,000 7.7%

$40,000 - $60,000 10.8%

$60,000 - $75,000 8.8%

$75,000+ 68.7%


of 17

Proprietary and Confidential

Notice Plan

Demographics Own Bluetooth/Wireless

Headphones and Participate in Physical Fitness/Regular

Exercise Program $100,000+ 53.3%

Wage Earner: Sole Earner 15.4%

Wage Earner: Primary Earner 25.6%

Wage Earner: Secondary Earner 33.9%

Not Employed/Retired/Student 25.1%

Now Married 61.5%

Never Married 28.4%

Home Owned 72.0% Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino Descent 13.2%

Spanish Spoken in Home 1.7%

A complete list of all MRI demographics including household income, occupation, education, household size, home value, marital status, marketing region, and others are in Exhibit A. Based on the information described above, a target demographic of Adults Age 18-54 is recommended as the primary media-buying audience. Reach to adults who are exercise enthusiasts was also evaluated to ensure coverage of this important secondary target audience.


of 17


Notice Plan

MEDIA-USAGE ANALYSIS

Everybody is exposed to and consumes media differently, sometimes with daily changes. However, we all develop patterns to our media consumption, and those patterns become our individual media habits. MRI divides those habits into five categories of media usage, from heavy consumption of media to light users of a media type. These five categories are defined by Quintiles ranked from 1 to 5, with Quintile 1 representing the heaviest user of a media vehicle to Quintile 5 representing a light user.

The media usage of the target audience in each quintile is expressed as an index. An index of 100 is an average usage of a particular medium. Therefore, an index above 100 indicates a heavier usage of the medium than that of the average adult, and an index below 100 indicates a lighter usage of the medium than that of the average adult.

Media vehicles in the quintile analysis summarized below include magazines, newspapers and newspaper supplements, radio, television, and the Internet.

Media Indices

Own Bluetooth/Wireless Headphones and Participate in

Physical Fitness/Regular Exercise Program

Magazines

Quintile 1 109

Quintile 2 103

Newspapers and Supplements

Quintile 1 83

Quintile 2 105

Radio

Quintile 1 103

Quintile 2 119

Television

Quintile 1 58

Quintile 2 93


of 17


Notice Plan

Exhibit B includes the entire media quintile analysis for “Adults who Own Bluetooth/Wireless Headphones and Participate in a Regular Exercise Program.”

Based upon the demographic analysis and the media quintile results, it is recommended that digital media, including banner and social-media ads, and a Search campaign be included in the Notice Plan.

DIGITAL MEDIA ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION

MRI provides data on Internet usage by asking survey respondents about their online usage during the 30 days prior. According to the 2018 MRI survey, 96.7% of “Adults who Own Bluetooth/Wireless Headphones and Participate in Physical Fitness/Regular Exercise Program” have used the Internet in the past 30 days. Below is an overview of Internet usage. For a complete list of Internet usage activities, please refer to Exhibit C.

Internet Usage

Own Bluetooth/Wireless Headphones and

Participate in Physical Fitness/Regular Exercise

Program

Looked at/used Internet 96.7%

Have Internet access at home 97.3%

Devices to Used to Access the Internet

Desktop computer 51.1%

Laptop or Netbook 66.0%

iPad or tablet 47.9%

Smartphone 93.0%

Television 23.5%

Video Game Console 12.7%

Online Activities

Obtained financial information

43.8%

Digital

Quintile 1 120

Quintile 2 118


of 17


Notice Plan

Internet Usage

Own Bluetooth/Wireless Headphones and

Participate in Physical Fitness/Regular Exercise

Program Paid bills online 70.6%

Used email 89.2%

Used Instant Messenger 80.2%

Made a purchase for personal use

70.8%

Made personal or business travel plans

35.1%

Played games 35.6%

Obtained the latest news/current events

62.4%

Obtained sports news information

43.5%

Obtained medical information

39.0%

Obtained entertainment/celebrity

information

34.6%

Watched a movie online 37.2%

Looked for recipes online 54.6%

Shared photos 45.7%

Because the Internet is such an integral part of the lives of the target audience, it is recommended that online media (as opposed to newspapers or magazines) drive the proposed Notice Plan with a significant presence. A.B. Data recommends using a variety of websites and social media applications, enabling maximum exposure opportunities to reach the target audience. Additionally, websites and apps with audiences that include large percentages of the specific target audience will be selected. Following is a summary of the search engines and websites used most frequently by the target audience that is the focus for this settlement. A complete list of search engines and websites reviewed by MRI is included in Exhibit D.


of 17


Notice Plan

mmendatio

Search Engines/Websites Visited

Own Bluetooth/Wireless Headphones and Participate in Physical Fitness/Regular

Exercise Program Search Engines Used Last 30 Days

Google 93.5%

Yahoo! 24.8%

Websites Visited Last 30 Days

IMDb 18.4%

WebMD 32.8%

Wikipedia 33.6%

CNN 23.8%

Huffington Post 15.4%

Amazon 66.1%

eBay 24.1%

ESPN 27.6%

Google Maps 53.1%

Social Media Apps Visited Facebook 77.1%

LinkedIn 21.4%

YouTube 61.9%

Instagram 41.2%

Pinterest 30.9%

Twitter 21.2%

The Weather Channel 44.7%


of 17


Notice Plan

Digital Media Recommendation A.B. Data recommends placing digital and social media ads on a variety of websites and mobile applications, enabling maximum exposure and delivering the reach required to provide constitutional Notice and the frequency needed to drive potential Class Members to the case website.

Based on our in-house Comscore data analysis, we recommend a mix of Internet banner and newsfeed ads to run using the Google Display Network via their thousands of websites, mobile devices, and apps, and on YouTube with newsfeed ads served to viewers of relevant videos. The number of impressions served will vary depending on the reach of the direct Notice Plan.

A Google AdWords (Search) campaign will also be instituted, making the settlement website (www.headphonesettlement.com) higher in the search rankings, and thus easier to find.

The Internet campaign will be implemented over a 30-day desktop and mobile plan utilizing standard IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) banner sizes (300 x 250, 728 x 90, 300 x 600, 320 x 50, 300 x 50). All banners and newsfeed ads will include embedded and trackable links to the case-specific website. Links will be tracked using Google Analytics, providing a way to optimize ads for traffic and registrations.

Ads will be served across multiple devices including mobile, tablet, and desktop. Ads will be placed in premium positioning on websites, ensuring they can be viewed without scrolling and easily seen when visitors first open the page. The following networks and social media will be used in the Notice Plan:

• The target audience uses Google for search, email, maps, and other applications. • Google allows for the purchase of relevant content where we want the banner ads to

appear (i.e., select exercise, running, biking and electronics websites). • A mix of display banner ad sizes will be utilized.

• Very popular app among the target audience with 62% accessing YouTube within the past 30 days.


of 17


Notice Plan

• We can implement affinity targeting based on users’ interests and habits, i.e., viewers of exercise or sports videos.

• We can implement dynamic prospecting and have our ads served to new users who are searching for videos similar to Bluetooth headphones and exercise.

The digital media will be chosen, first to meet audience notification requirements, and secondly to achieve maximum engagement with the ads. Apps targeted to the running and biking communities like Strava, Zwift, MapMyRide and many others will be reviewed for compatibility to reach potential Class Members. Campaigns and creative will be optimized to drive potential members of the Proposed Class to register on the website. Several campaign optimization strategies will be utilized, including:

Digital Media Strategy Digital Media Tactics

Mobile In-App Targeting users inside mobile applications that fit into our data pools. This could include exercise apps, game apps, weather apps, or news/sports apps.

Mobile – Websites Targeting phones and tablets whose users are visiting websites that are contextually relevant or websites being visited by relevant users in our data pool.

Contextual Targeting websites with relevant content and context, such as exercise and electronics websites.

Behavioral Targeting user IDs whose owners have shown activity in the target data pools, such as those interested in popular exercise or sports websites.

Predictive Modeling Using “look-alike” modeling to target user IDs whose owners have strong similarities to users who previously clicked through to the case website.

Campaign Optimization The campaign will be optimized frequently to adjust for audiences and demographic groups that fit our target audience and are most responsive.


of 17


Notice Plan

Based on the successful reach of the Direct Notice Plan (the mail and email campaign), the paid Digital Media Notice Plan will be adjusted accordingly.

Scenario Option Planned Digital Media Impressions Estimated Reach

Scenario 1: 25% Direct Notice Reach 74 Million Impressions 70.5% Reach

Scenario 2: 50% Direct Notice Reach 39 Million Impressions 70.8% Reach

Scenario 3: 75% Direct Notice Reach 22.6 Million Impressions 77.8% Reach

Keyword Search

To assist further in locating potential members of the Proposed Class, A.B. Data will develop and monitor a Google AdWords and key search terms plan. When identified target phrases and keywords are entered in a search on Google and Google-syndicated search pages, links to the case website will appear on the search results pages.

During the course of the Notice Plan, A.B. Data’s digital media experts will monitor the success, conversions, and activity associated with the digital and social media campaigns and will adjust the number of impressions delivered across each platform to achieve maximum engagement and efficiency.


of 17


Notice Plan

EARNED MEDIA

In addition to the components outlined above, it is recommended that a news release regarding the case be run via PR Newswire, US1 National, and newswires. This case will gain more attention when the general-market media become aware of this news.

News about the case will also be broadcast to the news media via Twitter. It will be tweeted from PR Newswire’s and A.B. Data’s Twitter accounts to thousands of news media and other followers. The news release will also assist with driving search engine results, which will help increase traffic to the case website.


of 17


Notice Plan

NOTICE DESIGN STRATEGIES

The online social media and banner ads will be designed to alert potential members of the Proposed Class about the case. The ads will each include a link to the case website or case social media pages so potential members of the Proposed Class may click on them and go directly to the website for answers and other case information. All banner ads will include ad-specific code that links to Google Analytics for tracking. A.B. Data will provide a dedicated consumer-focused website to ensure easy access to updated information. The website will be secure, with an “https” designation. We will use e-commerce best practices to develop the site so it’s easy and intuitive for potential members of the Proposed Class to navigate. There will be easy-to-navigate tabs and a clear link to the registration form. Pixels will be placed on the website to ensure accurate and efficient optimization. The website will contain general information about the action including relevant dates, a contact form, and further information about the litigation, along with relevant pleadings. The Class Members’ legal rights and link to the registration form will be prominent on the home page, along with a toll-free telephone number for any questions regarding the litigation. And, the website will easily permit members of the Class to submit updated address and contact information. Below are examples of what the banner ads could look like.

Desktop/Laptop/Tablet

Mobile


of 17


Notice Plan

DELIVERY AND DUE PROCESS

The proposed Notice Plan will meet due process requirements and will deliver an estimated reach of at least 70.0% as calculated by Comscore and A.B. Data experts.

The Notice efforts described herein reflect a strategic, microtargeted, and contemporary method to deploy Notice to potential members of the proposed Class. The proposed Notice Plan provides a reach and frequency similar to those that other Courts have approved and are recommended by the Federal Judicial Center’s Judges’ Class Action Notice and Claims Process Checklist and Plain Language Guide, which considers a 70% - 95% reach among Class Members reasonable.

The Notice Plan that is described herein is consistent with Notice plans that have been approved and implemented for other national consumer cases with regard to the methods and tools for developing such plans.

The Notice Plan set forth herein is the best practicable under the circumstances for the Class and meets due process requirements.


Exhibit A

Plantronics MRI Data

Audience Demographics

Audio Equipment & Accessories:

Bluetooth/Wireless Headphones Household

owns and Physical Fitness - Regular Exercise

Pgm. (2+ Times/Wk.): At home or At club or

At other facility

Audience

(000)

% Coverage % Composition Index

Total Audience 22483 9.12 100.00 100

Adults 22483 9.12 100.00 100

Men 10819 9.10 48.12 100

Women 11664 9.15 51.88 100

Parents 9495 12.74 42.23 140

Highest Degree Received by Respondent: 12th

grade or less (did not graduate high school)

1130 3.92 5.03 43

Highest Degree Received by Respondent:

Graduated high school or equivalent

4678 6.53 20.80 72

Highest Degree Received by Respondent: Some

college, no degree

3783 8.52 16.83 93


Associate degree

2944 11.31 13.10 124


Bachelor's degree

6242 12.83 27.76 141

Highest Degree Received by Respondent: Post-

graduate degree

3705 13.76 16.48 151

Highest Degree Received by Respondent: Some

college (no degree) OR Associate degree

6727 9.55 29.92 105


Bachelor's degree OR Post-graduate degree

9948 13.16 44.25 144

Age 18-24 2879 9.59 12.80 105

Age 25-34 4868 11.06 21.65 121

Age 35-44 5542 13.75 24.65 151

Age 45-54 4750 11.09 21.13 122

Age 55-64 2771 6.71 12.33 74

Age 65+ 1673 3.49 7.44 38

Adults 18-34 7747 10.47 34.46 115

Adults 18-49 15728 11.64 69.96 128

Adults 25-54 15160 11.92 67.43 131

Adults 35-54 10292 12.38 45.78 136

Men 18-34 3846 10.38 17.11 114

Men 18-49 7541 11.25 33.54 123

Men 25-54 7004 11.18 31.15 123

Men 35-54 4755 11.68 21.15 128

Women 18-34 3901 10.55 17.35 116

Women 18-49 8187 12.02 36.41 132

Women 25-54 8155 12.64 36.27 139

Women 35-54 5536 13.05 24.62 143

Employment: Working full time 14190 11.62 63.12 127

Employment: Working part time 2640 9.27 11.74 102

Employment: Not working 5653 5.90 25.14 65

Occupation: Professional and related occupations 4818 13.75 21.43 151

Page 1 Ex A


Exhibit A







At other facility

Audience

(000)


Occupation: Management, business and financial

operations

3361 13.38 14.95 147

Occupation: Sales and office occupations 3491 10.67 15.53 117

Occupation: Natural resources, construction and

maintenance occup.

1246 8.87 5.54 97

Occupation: Other employed 3914 8.96 17.41 98

Individual Employment Income: $200,000+ 592 20.42 2.63 224

Individual Employment Income: $150,000-

$199,999

667 17.53 2.97 192

Individual Employment Income: $100,000-

$149,999

1811 16.31 8.06 179

Individual Employment Income: $75,000-$99,999 2173 14.90 9.67 163






Individual Employment Income: Under $20,000 2352 7.86 10.46 86

Wage Earner Status: Not employed 5653 5.90 25.14 65

Wage Earner Status: Sole earner 3468 8.30 15.42 91

Wage Earner Status: Primary earner 5751 11.15 25.58 122

Wage Earner Status: Secondary earner 7611 13.28 33.85 146

Household Income: $250,000+ 1492 17.66 6.64 194

Household Income: $200,000-$249,999 1580 18.70 7.03 205









Household Income: Under $20,000 908 3.07 4.04 34








Total Net Worth of All HH Members: $1,000,000+ 3016 13.91 13.41 152

Total Net Worth of All HH Members: $500,000-

$999,999

4429 11.55 19.70 127

Page 2 Ex A


Exhibit A







At other facility

Audience

(000)



$499,999

6533 10.86 29.06 119


$249,999

4260 8.01 18.95 88

Total Net Worth of All HH Members: Under

$100,000

4246 5.81 18.88 64

Census Region: North East 4142 9.37 18.42 103

Census Region: South 8086 8.68 35.96 95

Census Region: Midwest 4381 8.38 19.49 92

Census Region: West 5875 10.34 26.13 113

Marketing Region: New England 1236 10.63 5.50 117

Marketing Region: Mid Atlantic 3621 9.58 16.10 105

Marketing Region: East Central 2040 6.98 9.08 77

Marketing Region: West Central 3439 9.55 15.30 105

Marketing Region: Southeast 4456 8.68 19.82 95

Marketing Region: Southwest 2474 8.05 11.01 88

Marketing Region: Pacific 5216 10.49 23.20 115

Mediamarkets: Top 5 5034 9.87 22.39 108

Mediamarkets: Next 5 3086 11.55 13.72 127

Mediamarkets: New York 1411 8.36 6.28 92

Mediamarkets: Los Angeles 1442 9.98 6.41 109

Mediamarkets: Chicago 957 12.75 4.26 140

Metropolitan CBSA 20527 9.70 91.30 106

Micropolitan CBSA/unassigned 1956 5.60 8.70 61

County Size: A 10662 10.26 47.42 112

County Size: B 7152 9.82 31.81 108

County Size: C 2715 7.56 12.08 83

County Size: D 1954 5.79 8.69 63

Marital Status: Never married 6388 9.07 28.41 99

Marital Status: Now married 13836 10.64 61.54 117

Marital Status: Legally

separated/widowed/divorced

2259 4.91 10.05 54

Marital Status: Engaged 1074 9.19 4.78 101

Living w/partner/fiance/boyfriend or girlfriend

(same or opposite sex)

2049 9.19 9.11 101

Married in last 12 months 524 13.94 2.33 153

Household size: 1 1614 4.52 7.18 50

Household size: 2 5994 7.75 26.66 85

Household size: 3-4 9893 10.94 44.00 120

Household size: 5+ 4982 11.59 22.16 127

Children: Any 11452 11.93 50.94 131

Children: 1 4451 11.55 19.80 127

Page 3 Ex A


Exhibit A







At other facility

Audience

(000)


Children: 2 4211 12.39 18.73 136

Children: 3+ 2791 11.91 12.41 131

Child Age: <12 months 870 8.92 3.87 98

Child Age: 12-23 months 793 9.92 3.53 109

Child Age: <2 years 1632 9.58 7.26 105

Child Age: <6 years 4547 10.45 20.23 115

Child Age: 2-5 years 3649 10.74 16.23 118

Child Age: 6-11 years 5820 12.43 25.89 136

Child Age: 12-17 years 5992 12.87 26.65 141

Life Cycle: Respondent 18-34 1 person household 379 8.02 1.69 88

Life Cycle: Respondent 18-34 married no kids 807 14.77 3.59 162

Life Cycle: Respondent 18-34 married young child

under 6

1482 10.60 6.59 116


6-17

437 14.60 1.94 160

Life Cycle: Balance of respondents 18-34 4642 9.91 20.65 109

Life Cycle: Respondent 35-49 1 person household 424 8.95 1.89 98

Life Cycle: Respondent 35-49 married no kids 973 12.46 4.33 137


under 6

1684 13.88 7.49 152


6-11

2116 17.42 9.41 191


12-17

1213 14.52 5.39 159

Life Cycle: Balance of respondents 35-49 1572 9.85 6.99 108

Life Cycle: Respondent 50+ 1 person household 738 2.96 3.28 32

Life Cycle: Respondent 50+ married no kids 3662 6.62 16.29 73

Life Cycle: Respondent 50+ married w/kids 1442 12.25 6.41 134

Life Cycle: Balance of respondents 50+ 913 4.74 4.06 52

Years at Present Address: Under 1 year 3350 8.66 14.90 95

Years at Present Address: 1-4 years 7413 10.48 32.97 115

Years at Present Address: 5+ years 11720 8.55 52.13 94

Home Owned 16176 9.88 71.95 108

Home Value: $500,000+ 3074 13.31 13.67 146

Home Value: $200,000-$499,999 8147 11.67 36.23 128

Home Value: $100,000-$199,999 3611 8.00 16.06 88

Home Value: $50,000-$99,999 1027 5.96 4.57 65

Home Value: Under $50,000 * 317 3.73 1.41 41

Race: White 17503 9.45 77.85 104

Race: Black/African American 2417 7.60 10.75 83

Race: American Indian or Alaska Native 337 11.01 1.50 121

Race: Asian 1015 12.70 4.51 139

Page 4 Ex A


Exhibit A







At other facility

Audience

(000)


Race: Other 1835 7.47 8.16 82

Race: White only 17081 9.45 75.97 104

Race: Black/African American only 2255 7.54 10.03 83

Race: Other race/Multiple classifications 3147 8.80 14.00 97

Spanish Spoken in Home (Most Often or Other) 3325 8.08 14.79 89

Hispanic Respondent Personally Speaks at Home:

Only English

698 10.52 3.11 115


Mostly English, but some Spanish

1007 10.34 4.48 113


Only Spanish

374 3.49 1.66 38


Mostly Spanish, but some English

771 7.82 3.43 86


Both English and Spanish equally at home

* 109 6.50 0.48 71


Other

* 0 0.00 0.00 0

Spanish, Hispanic or Latino Origin or Descent 2959 7.63 13.16 84

Pet owner 14995 10.38 66.69 114

Dog owner 12216 10.71 54.34 117

Cat owner 5755 9.73 25.60 107

Have a landline telephone 9209 8.50 40.96 93

Cell phone only (no landline) in Household 13252 9.65 58.94 106

Landline only (no cell phone) in Household * 44 1.13 0.20 12

Generations: Gen Z (b.1997-2010) only includes

respondents 18+

1434 11.14 6.38 122

Generations: Millennials (b.1977-1996) 9948 11.54 44.25 126

Generations: GenXers (b.1965-1976) 5734 11.67 25.50 128

Generations: Boomers (b. 1946-1964) 4780 6.66 21.26 73

Generations: Early Boomers (b. 1946-1955) 1783 5.38 7.93 59

Generations: Late Boomers (b. 1956-1964) 2998 7.76 13.33 85

Generations: Pre-Boomers (b. before 1946) 587 2.22 2.61 24

Respondent's Sexual Orientation:

Heterosexual/Straight

21719 9.15 96.60 100

Respondent's Sexual Orientation: NET

Gay/Lesbian

296 8.50 1.32 93

Respondent's Sexual Orientation: NET

Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual

494 9.34 2.20 102

Source: 2018 Doublebase GfK MRI

* Projections relatively unstable, use with caution

Page 5 Ex A


Exhibit B


Media Quintiles

Audience

(000)


Magazine Quintile I 4912 9.97 21.85 109

Magazine Quintile II 4602 9.37 20.47 103

Magazine Quintile III 4964 10.04 22.08 110

Magazine Quintile IV 4415 8.98 19.64 98

Magazine Quintile V 3590 7.26 15.97 80

Newspaper Quintile I 3747 7.60 16.67 83

Newspaper Quintile II 4715 9.58 20.97 105

Newspaper Quintile III 4929 10.01 21.92 110

Newspaper Quintile IV 4682 9.51 20.83 104

Newspaper Quintile V 4410 8.91 19.61 98

Radio Quintile I [34] 4648 9.43 20.67 103

Radio Quintile II [34] 5343 10.84 23.77 119

Radio Quintile III [34] 5046 10.27 22.44 113

Radio Quintile IV [34] 4144 8.41 18.43 92

Radio Quintile V [34] 3301 6.67 14.68 73

TV (Total) Quintile I 2627 5.32 11.69 58

TV (Total) Quintile II 4182 8.47 18.60 93

TV (Total) Quintile III 5178 10.54 23.03 116

TV (Total) Quintile IV 5499 11.21 24.46 123

TV (Total) Quintile V 4996 10.09 22.22 111

Internet Quintile I (Heavy) 5400 10.96 24.02 120

Internet Quintile II 5340 10.80 23.75 118

Internet Quintile III 5703 11.59 25.37 127

Internet Quintile IV 4449 9.05 19.79 99

Internet Quintile V (Light) 1591 3.22 7.08 35

Outdoor Quintile I 5458 11.09 24.28 122

Outdoor Quintile II 5028 10.22 22.37 112

Outdoor Quintile III 4488 9.11 19.96 100

Outdoor Quintile IV 4288 8.71 19.07 95

Outdoor Quintile V 3220 6.50 14.32 71

TV (Primetime) Quintile I 3461 7.01 15.39 77

TV (Primetime) Quintile II 4426 8.99 19.69 99

TV (Primetime) Quintile III 5094 10.36 22.66 114

TV (Primetime) Quintile IV 4972 10.09 22.11 111

TV (Primetime) Quintile V 4530 9.15 20.15 100

TV (Daytime) Tercile I 1001 4.10 4.45 45

TV (Daytime) Tercile II 1615 6.66 7.18 73

TV (Daytime) Tercile III 2122 8.73 9.44 96







At other facility

Page 1 Ex B


Exhibit C


Digital Media Usage

Audience

(000)


Have Internet access at home 21864 9.91 97.25 109

Internet Service Providers (to HH): AOL * 44 4.56 0.19 50

Internet Service Providers (to HH): AT&T 3647 9.66 16.22 106

Internet Service Providers (to HH): CenturyLink 932 10.32 4.14 113

Internet Service Providers (to HH): Cox 1159 12.81 5.16 140

Internet Service Providers (to HH): Frontier 489 9.40 2.18 103

Internet Service Providers (to HH): Optimum 545 10.33 2.42 113

Internet Service Providers (to HH): Spectrum

(including Spectrum, Charter, Bright House, Time

Warner Cable, measured separately as Time

Warner Cable and Charter in Waves 75-76 and as

Time Warner Cable/Spectrum and Charter in Wave

77)

3910 10.31 17.39 113

Internet Service Providers (to HH): Verizon or Fios

by Verizon

2391 10.70 10.63 117

Internet Service Providers (to HH): Xfinity/Comcast 5657 11.55 25.16 127

Internet Service Providers (to HH): Any Service 21852 9.93 97.19 109

Looked at/used Internet /last 30 days: At home 21180 10.42 94.21 114

Looked at/used Internet /last 30 days: At work 13614 12.43 60.55 136

Looked at/used Internet /last 30 days: At school or

library

3858 12.07 17.16 132

Looked at/used Internet /last 30 days: Another

place

11582 11.69 51.51 128

Looked at/used Internet /last 30 days: Any

Internet Usage

21740 10.22 96.70 112

Used Wi-Fi or wireless connection using a

computer outside of home/last 30 days

8876 12.48 39.48 137

Devices used to use the Internet/last 30 days:

Desktop computer

11481 11.13 51.07 122


Laptop or Netbook computer

14837 12.22 65.99 134

Devices used to use the Internet/last 30 days: Any

computer

18621 11.07 82.82 121

Devices used to use the Internet/last 30 days: iPad

or other Tablet

10759 12.42 47.85 136


Cellphone or Smartphone

20904 11.06 92.98 121

Devices used to use the Internet/last 30 days: E-

reader

942 13.88 4.19 152

Devices used to use the Internet/last 30 days: iPod

or other MP3 Player

609 14.99 2.71 164


Video game console

2855 13.19 12.70 145


Television

5290 13.15 23.53 144

Visited a chat room/past 30 days 1028 9.31 4.57 102





At other facility

Page 1 Ex C


Exhibit C


Digital Media Usage

Audience

(000)






At other facility

Used e-mail/past 30 days 20047 11.06 89.16 121

Used instant messenger/past 30 days 18027 11.27 80.18 124

Participated in online dating/past 30 days 668 10.53 2.97 115

Made a purchase for personal use (on the

Internet)/past 30 days

15922 12.49 70.82 137

Made a purchase for business use (on the

Internet)/past 30 days

4852 14.79 21.58 162

Made personal or business travel plans online/past

30 days

7882 14.47 35.06 159

Played games online/past 30 days 8013 10.53 35.64 115

Downloaded a video game/past 30 days 3356 11.32 14.93 124

Used on-line gambling site/past 30 days 366 10.05 1.63 110

Obtained financial information online/past 30 days 9840 12.77 43.77 140

Tracked investments/Traded stocks, bonds or

mutual funds online/past 30 days

4354 14.05 19.37 154

Paid bills online/past 30 days 15865 12.11 70.56 133

Obtained the latest news/current events

online/past 30 days

14029 12.25 62.40 134

Obtained sports news/information online/past 30

days

9788 12.73 43.54 140

Obtained information for new/used car purchase

online/past 30 days

3819 12.27 16.98 135

Obtained information about real estate online/past

30 days

5071 13.14 22.56 144

Obtained medical information online/past 30 days 8774 12.11 39.03 133

Obtained childcare or parenting information

online/past 30 days

2215 14.00 9.85 153

Obtained information about entertainment or

celebrities

7769 11.55 34.56 127

Looked for employment online/past 30 days 4195 11.25 18.66 123

Looked for recipes online/past 30 days 12275 12.26 54.60 134

Took an online class or course/past 30 days 3109 15.02 13.83 165

Visited a TV network or TV show's website/past 30

days

5875 12.67 26.13 139

Looked at TV listings online/past 30 days 2632 11.27 11.71 124

Looked up movie listings or showtimes online/past

30 days

7396 13.21 32.90 145

Downloaded a TV program/past 30 days 1548 12.90 6.88 141

Watched a TV program online/past 30 days 5823 12.57 25.90 138

Downloaded a movie/past 30 days 3134 13.44 13.94 147

Watched a movie online/past 30 days 8355 12.72 37.16 139

Watched other online video/past 30 days 6569 12.10 29.22 133

Visited online blogs/past 30 days 4464 14.11 19.86 155

Wrote online blog/past 30 days 598 12.20 2.66 134

Page 2 Ex C


Exhibit C


Digital Media Usage

Audience

(000)






At other facility

Posted a comment or review on a blog, online

forum, message or bulletin board/past 30 days

3690 12.71 16.41 139

Made a phone call online/past 30 days 8960 11.41 39.85 125

Uploaded or added video to website/past 30 days 2882 13.60 12.82 149

Shared photos through Internet website/past 30

days

10279 12.06 45.72 132

Sent an electronic greeting card/past 30 days 1182 10.58 5.26 116

Total time spent yesterday using the Internet

(does not include email or IM): 10+ hours

1326 9.70 5.90 106


(does not include email or IM): 5-10 hours

4090 11.60 18.19 127



6969 11.31 31.00 124



4748 10.60 21.12 116


(does not include email or IM): 1/2-1 hour

2691 10.15 11.97 111


(does not include email or IM): less than 1/2 hour

1339 7.39 5.96 81

Total time spent last Saturday using the Internet


788 8.47 3.50 93



2873 10.76 12.78 118



6242 11.26 27.76 123



4951 11.06 22.02 121



3075 10.44 13.67 114



1996 9.64 8.88 106

Total time spent last Sunday using the Internet


714 8.36 3.18 92



2539 10.61 11.29 116



5907 11.27 26.28 124



4992 11.08 22.20 121



3412 11.11 15.18 122



2175 10.03 9.67 110



Page 3 Ex C


Exhibit D


Websites and Social Media Usage

Audience

(000)


Website or search engines used/last 30 days:

AOL/AOL.com

803 8.93 3.57 98

Website or search engines used/last 30 days: Ask.com 349 6.91 1.55 76

Website or search engines used/last 30 days: Bing.com 3143 12.22 13.98 134


Google.com

21018 10.54 93.48 116


Yahoo.com

5570 9.78 24.77 107

Chat, Instant Messenger, video chat used/last 30 days:

Facebook Messenger

13498 11.29 60.04 124


Google Hangouts

1542 12.93 6.86 142


Skype

3363 14.02 14.96 154


Snapchat Chat

4936 12.59 21.95 138


WeChat

213 12.33 0.95 135


WhatsApp

2783 10.93 12.38 120


Yahoo! Messenger

861 7.44 3.83 82

E-mail used/last 30 days: AOL Mail 1321 9.43 5.88 103

E-mail used/last 30 days: Gmail 14731 11.97 65.52 131

E-mail used/last 30 days: Outlook 6481 13.75 28.82 151

E-mail used/last 30 days: Yahoo! Mail 6232 10.38 27.72 114

ENTERTAINMENT Websites/apps visited or used in last

30 days: ABC

1525 11.62 6.78 127


30 days: BuzzFeed

2658 14.12 11.82 155


30 days: CBS

1595 10.49 7.10 115


30 days: Disney.com

715 13.24 3.18 145


30 days: Disney Channel

491 11.03 2.18 121


30 days: Disney XD

* 120 7.83 0.54 86


30 days: Fandango

2613 15.88 11.62 174


30 days: Fox.com/FOX NOW

1749 12.33 7.78 135


30 days: IMDb

4132 15.24 18.38 167


30 days: Moviefone

329 14.93 1.46 164


30 days: MSN Entertainment

609 12.28 2.71 135


Bluetooth/Wireless Headphones Household owns

and Physical Fitness - Regular Exercise Pgm. (2+

Times/Wk.): At home or At club or At other

facility

Page 1 Ex D


Exhibit D



Audience

(000)






facility


30 days: MTV

618 11.02 2.75 121


30 days: NBC

1795 12.93 7.98 142


30 days: PBS

1069 10.44 4.75 114


30 days: Popsugar

357 15.53 1.59 170


30 days: Ticketmaster

2288 13.85 10.18 152


30 days: Vevo

827 13.74 3.68 151


30 days: Yahoo! Movies

381 9.18 1.69 101

FINANCE Websites/apps visited or used in last 30 days:

CNBC

1185 12.34 5.27 135


MSN Money

869 14.36 3.87 157


TheStreet

279 13.38 1.24 147


Yahoo! Finance

1145 12.59 5.09 138

INFORMATION/REFERENCE Websites/apps visited or

used in last 30 days: Answers.com/WikiAnswers

1489 12.71 6.62 139


used in last 30 days: eHow

1470 14.90 6.54 163


used in last 30 days: WebMD

7380 13.13 32.82 144


used in last 30 days: WhitePages

1305 12.06 5.80 132


used in last 30 days: Wikipedia

7564 12.73 33.64 140


used in last 30 days: Yahoo! Answers

1323 10.30 5.88 113


used in last 30 days: YP (Yellowpages) (measured as

Yellowpages.com (YP.com) in Wave 75)

755 11.73 3.36 129

JOBS/CAREERS Websites/apps visited or used in last 30

days: CareerBuilder

1124 11.15 5.00 122

JOBS/CAREERS Websites/apps visited or used in last 30

days: Monster

914 12.18 4.06 133

NEWS/COMMENTARY Websites/apps visited or used in

last 30 days: ABCNews

1991 11.42 8.86 125


last 30 days: BBC.com

2179 14.81 9.69 162


last 30 days: CBSNews

1481 11.23 6.59 123


last 30 days: CNN

5355 13.03 23.82 143

Page 2 Ex D


Exhibit D



Audience

(000)






facility


last 30 days: FOX News

4033 11.55 17.94 127


last 30 days: HuffPost (Huffington Post measured as

HuffingtonPost.com in Wave 75 and as

3454 13.80 15.36 151


last 30 days: NBCNews

1595 11.83 7.09 130


last 30 days: NYTimes.com

3593 12.93 15.98 142


last 30 days: Reuters

859 13.06 3.82 143


last 30 days: USAToday.com

2505 13.19 11.14 145


last 30 days: WSJ.com

2658 14.84 11.82 163


last 30 days: Yahoo! News

2512 11.58 11.17 127

SHOPPING Websites/apps visited or used in last 30

days: Amazon

14854 12.86 66.07 141


days: Coupons

941 11.31 4.19 124


days: eBay

5421 11.39 24.11 125


days: Groupon

4078 15.53 18.14 170


days: LivingSocial

629 16.59 2.80 182


days: Overstock

1928 14.65 8.57 161

SPANISH LANGUAGE Websites/apps visited or used in

last 30 days: Univision

571 7.86 2.54 86

SPANISH LANGUAGE Websites/apps visited or used in

last 30 days: Yahoo! en Espanol

* 138 4.52 0.61 50

SPANISH LANGUAGE Visited or used in last 30 days:

Any spanish language website/app

782 7.95 3.48 87

SPORTS Websites/apps visited or used in last 30 days:

BleacherReport.com

1594 15.55 7.09 171


CBSSports

1233 13.66 5.48 150


ESPN

6200 13.60 27.58 149


FOX Sports

2493 14.46 11.09 159


MLB.com/MLB.com At Bat (measured as MLB.com or

MLB At Bat in Wave 76)

1461 13.37 6.50 147


NASCAR

490 8.97 2.18 98


NBA

1577 11.86 7.02 130

Page 3 Ex D


Exhibit D



Audience

(000)






facility


NBCSports.com

913 12.99 4.06 142


NFL.com or NFL/NFL Mobile

2403 11.48 10.69 126


WWE

510 10.60 2.27 116


Yahoo! Sports

1552 13.26 6.90 145

TECHNOLOGY Websites/apps visited or used in last 30

days: CNET

1385 16.19 6.16 177

TRAVEL/MAPS Websites/apps visited or used in last 30

days: Airbnb

1934 14.70 8.60 161


days: Bings Maps

357 10.28 1.59 113


days: Cheap Tickets

1336 12.07 5.94 132


days: Expedia

2670 13.16 11.88 144


days: Google Maps

11926 12.15 53.05 133


days: Hotels.com

2067 12.28 9.20 135


days: Hotwire

782 11.65 3.48 128


days: MapQuest

3758 12.02 16.71 132


days: Orbitz

913 12.11 4.06 133


days: Priceline

1361 12.85 6.05 141


days: Travelocity

1667 11.74 7.42 129


days: TripAdvisor

2597 14.23 11.55 156


days: Yahoo! Maps

1099 8.78 4.89 96

WEATHER Websites/apps visited or used in last 30

days: AccuWeather

4445 10.97 19.77 120


days: The Weather Channel (weather.com measured as

Weather.com in Wave 75)

10054 11.77 44.72 129


days: WeatherBug

1474 12.61 6.55 138


days: Weather Underground (wunderground.com)

1253 12.75 5.57 140

SOCIAL MEDIA/PHOTO/VIDEO-SHARING Websites/apps

visited or used in last 30 days: Facebook

17344 11.10 77.14 122


visited or used in last 30 days: Flickr

389 13.92 1.73 153

Page 4 Ex D


Exhibit D



Audience

(000)






facility


visited or used in last 30 days: Foursquare

* 114 10.93 0.51 120


visited or used in last 30 days: Google+ (Google Plus)

3158 10.65 14.05 117


visited or used in last 30 days: Instagram

9252 13.31 41.15 146


visited or used in last 30 days: LinkedIn

4811 15.26 21.40 167


visited or used in last 30 days: Periscope

305 14.05 1.36 154


visited or used in last 30 days: Photobucket

361 14.40 1.61 158


visited or used in last 30 days: Pinterest

6937 13.50 30.85 148


visited or used in last 30 days: Reddit

1725 15.23 7.67 167


visited or used in last 30 days: Shutterfly

1188 15.29 5.29 168


visited or used in last 30 days: Tumblr

1158 13.17 5.15 144


visited or used in last 30 days: Twitter

4772 14.17 21.22 155


visited or used in last 30 days: Yelp

2662 15.73 11.84 172


visited or used in last 30 days: YouTube

13910 11.17 61.87 122

SOCIAL MEDIA/PHOTO/VIDEO-SHARING Visited or used

in last 30 days: Any Socializing/Photo/Video-sharing

services

20457 10.82 90.99 119

Activities using social media, photo or video-sharing site:

Updated status/last 30 days

8802 12.22 39.15 134


Updated profile/last 30 days

6479 11.51 28.82 126


Posted a picture/last 30 days

13095 11.69 58.24 128


Posted a video/last 30 days

6253 12.55 27.81 138


Posted a website link/last 30 days

4827 13.16 21.47 144


Visited a friend's profile or page/last 30 days

14334 11.88 63.75 130


Commented on a friend's post/last 30 days

13209 11.71 58.75 128


Posted a blog entry/last 30 days

1080 12.22 4.80 134


Rated or reviewed a product or service/last 30 days

3090 14.14 13.74 155


Sent a message or e-mail/last 30 days

14092 11.81 62.68 129

Page 5 Ex D


Exhibit D



Audience

(000)






facility


Used IM/last 30 days

6011 12.56 26.73 138


Played a game/last 30 days

4989 10.52 22.19 115


Invited people to an event/last 30 days

3204 13.71 14.25 150


Sent a real or virtual gift/last 30 days

438 9.30 1.95 102


Posted that you "like" something/last 30 days

11818 11.69 52.57 128


"Followed" or became a "fan of" something or

someone/last 30 days

7282 12.95 32.39 142


Clicked on an advertisement/last 30 days

5081 12.95 22.60 142


Watched a video/last 30 days

14623 11.60 65.04 127


Posted your current location/last 30 days

3621 12.45 16.11 136


Re-posted or shared a post created by someone

else/last 30 days

7115 12.24 31.65 134

Prime Video (measured as Amazon Prime Video)/past

30 days

6365 16.08 28.31 176

Crackle/past 30 days 501 11.88 2.23 130

Google Play/past 30 days 598 10.09 2.66 111

Hulu/past 30 days 3895 12.64 17.33 139

iTunes (video streaming)/past 30 days 1187 14.95 5.28 164

Netflix/past 30 days 14471 12.35 64.36 135

PlayStation Vue (video streaming)/past 30 days 336 11.42 1.50 125

Sling TV/past 30 days 612 15.27 2.72 167

Source: 2018 Doublebase GfK MRI *

Projections relatively unstable, use with caution

Page 6 Ex D


EXHIBIT 6


EXHIBIT 7


1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHIL SHIN, et al., On Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated,

: : : :

CASE NO. 5:18-CV-05626

Plaintiff, : Judge Nathanael Cousins:

v. ::

PLANTRONICS, INC., ::

Defendant. :

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s unopposed Renewed Motion for

Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement (“Renewed Motion”) (Docket __). Because the

case at issue is a class action, approval of the Court is required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) (providing

that the claims of “a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement … may be settled,

voluntarily dismissed, or compromised only with the court’s approval”). At this juncture, the

Plaintiff asks for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. If the Court grants

preliminary approval, then notice of the settlement will be given to the settlement class, the

settlement class will be given an opportunity to respond, and the parties may then ask for final

approval.

The Court has reviewed the Renewed Motion and the Amended Class Action Settlement

Agreement and Release (“Amended Agreement”)1 (Docket No.__) entered by Plaintiff and

1 All capitalized terms used in this Order shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Agreement.


2

Plantronics, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Plantronics”), and attached exhibits, and finds that the Motion

should be GRANTED. The settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable such that it is appropriate

to move forward with class notice.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Court hereby FINDS, CONCLUDES AND ORDERS:

1. The Court does hereby preliminarily and conditionally approve, for settlement

purposes only, the following Settlement Class (the “Class”):

All Persons domiciled within the United States and its territories who purchased at retail the Headphones, as defined in the Agreement and described in the Complaint, during the period of time from April 1, 2014 through the Notice Date (the “Class Members”). Excluded from the Class is Defendant and its officers, directors and employees; Class Counsel and their partners, associates, lawyers, and employees; and the judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated Court staff assigned to this case.

In the operative First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of a

nationwide class as well as a California subclass. The Plaintiff defined the nationwide Class to

include “All persons residing in the United States who, during the maximum period of time

permitted by law, purchased BackBeat FIT headphones primarily for personal, family or

household purposes, and not for resale.”

The Court notes that the definition of the settlement class differs from the definition of the

class displayed in the First Amended Complaint, with the latter definition including the date that

Plantronics began selling the Headphones. This difference is reasonable and is not a substantial

material difference as it simply serves to clarify who is a member of the Class. The definition of

the settlement class is fair, reasonable, and adequate.2

2 See Proc. Guidance for Class Action Sett. ¶ 1.a (“If a litigation class has not been certified, any differences between the settlement class and the class proposed in the operative complaint and an explanation as to why the differences are appropriate in the instant case.").


3

2. A Class Member who does not exclude himself or herself from the settlement is entitled

to the benefits as described in the Amended Agreement, and shall be bound by the Amended

Agreement and the releases therein.

3. Based upon information provided to the Court in the Motion, the Court’s docket in this

matter, and representations made and information provided by Class Counsel, it appears that

certification of a class is appropriate for settlement purposes: the Class is readily identifiable by

the Defendant’s records and the records from third-party retailers; the Class exceeds 1.2 million

members, satisfying numerosity; there are common questions of law and fact, including whether

the Headphones perform as represented or contain a defect, satisfying commonality; the proposed

Class Representative’s claims are typical, in that he is a member of the Class and alleges that he

has been damaged by the same conduct as other members of the Class; the proposed Class

Representative and Class Counsel can fully, fairly, and adequately protect the interests of the Class;

question of law and fact common to members of the Class predominate over questions affecting

only individual members for settlement purposes; and a nationwide class action for settlement

purposes is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this

controversy.

4. Accordingly, based on the parties’ showing, the Court finds that it will likely be able

to certify the Class for purposes of the settlement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B)(ii).

5. The Court appoints Named Plaintiff Phil Shin as the Class Representative of the Class.

6. The Court appoints Ronald S. Kravitz and James C. Shah of Shepherd, Finkelman,

Miller & Shah, LLP; W.B. Markovits, Terence R. Coates, Paul M. De Marco, and Justin C. Walker

of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC; and Jeffrey S. Goldenberg of Goldenberg Schneider, L.P.A.

Class Counsel for the Class.


4

7. The Court further finds, based on the parties’ showing, that it will likely be able to grant

final approval of the proposed settlement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B)(i).

8. Accordingly, the Court does hereby preliminarily approve the Amended Settlement,

including the notices and the releases contained therein as being fair, reasonable, and adequate as

to Class Members, subject to further consideration at the Fairness Hearing described below.

9. A hearing (the “Fairness Hearing”) shall be held before the Court on ________ at

________ a.m./p.m. for the following purposes:

a. To determine whether the proposed Amended Settlement on the terms and

conditions provided for by the Amended Agreement is fair, reasonable, and

adequate to the Class and should be approved by the Court;

b. To determine whether a Final Approval Order, as defined in the Amended

Agreement, should be entered;

c. To determine whether the claims process under the Amended Settlement is fair

and reasonable and should be approved by the Court;

d. To determine whether Plaintiff’s application for attorneys’ fees and

reimbursement of expenses and requested service award to the named Plaintiff

should be approved; and

e. To rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate, including

considering and evaluating any objections that may be made to the Amended

Settlement.

10. The Court approves, as to form and content, the various notices attached as exhibits to

the Motion. The Court further finds that the direct mailing (and emailing), distribution, and

publishing of the various notices in the proposed form and manner described in the Motion meet


5

the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due process, and is the best notice practicable under the

circumstances, and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice.

11. The Court directs Plantronics to notify the appropriate Federal and State officials about

this Settlement under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. §1715. Counsel for

Plantronics shall, at or before the Fairness Hearing, file with the Court proof of compliance with

the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. §1715.

12. The firm of [___________________] (“Settlement Administrator”) is hereby

appointed, under the supervision of Class Counsel and Counsel for Defendant, to administer the

notice procedure as well as the processing of claims as more fully set forth below:

a. No later than September 16, 2019: i) Class Counsel shall cause a copy of the

Short Form Settlement Notice, substantially in the form as presented to the

Court in the Motion, to be mailed by first class mail or emailed to all potential

Class Members who can be identified with reasonable effort; ii) Class Counsel

shall cause the Long Form Notice, substantially in the form as presented to the

Court in the Motion, to be posted on the Settlement Website, along with other

relevant court documents and settlement information; iv) Class Counsel shall

cause the supplemental Publication Notice program to be implemented,

substantially in the form as developed by the Settlement Administrator and as

presented to the Court; v) Class Counsel shall cause the electronic Claim Form,

substantially in the form presented to the Court, to be published and made

available on the Class Website;

b. No later than October 14, 2019, Class Counsel shall cause proof, by affidavit or

declaration from the Settlement Administrator filed with the Court, that the


6

notice and settlement implementation processes described immediately above

have been accomplished.

13. To be entitled to make a claim under the Amended Settlement, in the event the

Amended Settlement is affected in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the

Amended Agreement, each Class Member shall take the following actions and be subject to the

following conditions:

a. A properly executed electronic or hard copy Claim Form must be submitted to

the Settlement Administrator no later than December 31, 2019. Each Claim

Form submitted via U.S. Mail shall be deemed to have been submitted when

postmarked (if properly addressed and mailed by first class mail). Each Claim

Form electronically submitted shall be deemed to be submitted when

transmitted. Any Claim Form submitted in any other manner shall be deemed

to have been submitted when it was actually received at the address designated

by the Settlement Notice. Any Class Member who does not submit a Claim

Form within the time limit provided shall be barred from receiving any benefit,

unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

b. The Claim Form submitted by each Class Member must be properly completed,

signed, and submitted in a timely manner in accordance with the provisions of

the preceding subparagraph.

c. As part of the Claim Form, each Class Member shall submit to the jurisdiction

of the Court with respect to the claim submitted..

14. All Class Members shall be bound by all determinations and judgments in the class

action concerning the Amended Settlement, including, but not limited to, the releases provided for


7

in the Amended Agreement, whether favorable or unfavorable, except those who timely and

validly requested exclusion from the Class and have not opted back in. The persons and entities

who timely and validly requested exclusion from the Class will be excluded from the Class and

shall not have rights under the Amended Agreement, shall not be entitled to submit any Claim

Forms, and shall not be bound by the Amended Agreement or the Final Approval Order in this

action.

15. Pending final determination of whether the Amended Agreement should be approved,

Class Counsel, Plaintiff, and Class Members are barred and enjoined from commencing or

prosecuting any action asserting any Released Claims against Plantronics.

16. Any Class Member may enter an appearance in the action, individually or, at their

own expense, through counsel of their own choice, in which case such counsel must file with the

Clerk of Court and deliver to Class Counsel and counsel for Plantronics a notice of such appearance

no later than November 22, 2019. If they do not enter an appearance, they will be represented by

Class Counsel.

17. All papers in support of Class Counsel’s fee and expense request and any request for

a service award for the Class Representative shall be filed no later than November 8, 2019.

18. Any Class Member may appear and show cause, if he, she, or it has any reason why

the proposed Amended Settlement should not be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, or

why Class Counsel’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees and for reimbursement of expenses

should not be granted; provided, however, that no person shall be heard or entitled to contest such

matters unless that person file a written request with the Court saying that it is your “Notice of

Intent to Appear at the Fairness Hearing in Phil Shin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly

situated, v. Plantronics, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-05626-NC.” If you plan to have your own attorney


8

speak for you at the hearing, you must also include the name, address, and telephone number of

the attorney who will appear. Your written request must be sent delivered or post-marked no later

than November 22, 2019 to:

CLERK OF COURT Northern District of California

280 South 1st St. Room 2112

San Jose, CA 95113

19. Any person who does not make his, her, or its objection in the manner provided in this

Order shall be deemed to have waived such objection and shall forever be foreclosed from making

any objection to the fairness or adequacy of the proposed Amended Settlement as set forth in the

Amended Agreement, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Class Counsel’s response to any such

objections or in further support of the above-named motions shall be filed no later than December

6, 2019.

20. This Order, the Amended Agreement, and the Amended Settlement, and any of their

terms, and all negotiations, discussions, and proceedings in connection with this Order, the

Amended Agreement, and the Amended Settlement, shall not constitute evidence, or an admission

by Plantronics, that any acts of wrongdoing have been committed and shall not be deemed to create

any inference that there is any liability on the part of Plantronics. This Order, the Amended

Agreement, and the Amended Settlement and any of their terms, and all negotiations, discussions

and proceedings in connection with this Order, the Amended Agreement, and the Amended

Settlement shall not be offered or received in evidence or used for any purpose in this or any other

proceeding in any court, administrative agency, arbitration tribunal, or other forum of any kind or

character in the United States or any other country except as necessary to enforce the terms of this

Order or the Amended Settlement.


9

21. The Court authorizes Class Counsel to issue subpoenas to the top ten third-party

retailers and/or distributors of Plantronics Headphones (as identified by Plantronics and

communicated to Class Counsel) to reasonably produce relevant Class Member contact

information and transaction information to Class Counsel for the purpose of assisting Class

Counsel in identifying and/or contacting Class Members to provide notice of this Amended

Settlement and for the purpose of establishing Proof of Purchase as required by the Amended

Settlement.

22. The Court reserves the right to adjourn the date of the Fairness Hearing without further

notice to the Class Members and retains jurisdiction to consider all further applications or matters

arising out of or connected with the proposed Amended Settlement. The Court may approve the

Amended Settlement, with such modifications as may be agreed to by the Plaintiff and Plantronics,

if appropriate, without further notice to the Class.

23. The Court notes that it has reviewed the proposed Amended Settlement considering

the District’s updated Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements. The Court finds that the

Parties have sufficiently followed the Procedural Guidance and that the proposed Amended

Settlement sufficiently meets the standards articulated therein. For example, the parties have

provided the necessary information about this Amended Settlement for the Court to evaluate it for

fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy, and, as discussed above, the Court finds the terms

sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate. See Proc. Guidance for Class Action Sett. ¶ 1.

The Parties went through a sufficiently rigorous selection process to select a settlement

administrator. Id. at ¶ 2; the settlement administration costs are adequately justified given the size

of the class and the relief being provided.


10

The Court further finds that the language of the class notices is appropriate in that the

means of notice-which includes mail notice, electronic notice, and a supplemental digital

publication notice program - is the “best notice… Practicable under the circumstances.”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2)(B); See Proc. Guidance for Class Action Sett. ¶ 3-5, 9 (addressing class

notice, opt-outs, and objections).

Finally, Class Counsel has adequately identified other prior comparable class

settlements involving similar consumer product claims and issues and related claim rates. See Proc.

Guidance for Class Action Sett. ¶ 11.

Dated: ____________________

________________________________ HONORABLE NATHANAEL COUSINS UNITED STATES DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JUDGE


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Phil Shin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,

v.

Plantronics, Inc.


PROOF OF CLAIM FORM

INSTRUCTIONS

This class action alleges that Plantronics falsely advertised and warranted BackBeat FIT wireless sport headphones (the “Headphones”) as sweatproof, waterproof, and able to provide up to eight hours of listening time on a single charge. Named Plaintiff alleges that, as a result of these alleged defects, the Headphones are worth less than what consumers paid to purchase them. Plantronics denies the allegations and claims in the Lawsuit, denies any wrongdoing or liability, and has asserted numerous defenses to the Lawsuit.

You are a Class member if you are:

Domiciled within the United States and its territories and purchased at retail Plantronics BackBeat FIT wireless headphones, version Genesis or 16M, between April 1, 2014, and the Notice Date (currently _________, 2019).

To be eligible for the $25 or $50 payment you must submit a valid claim no later than __________.

A valid claim must include documentation such as a receipt demonstrating the purchase date, price, and type of Headphones you purchased. If you do not have this documentation, you may still submit your claim and your claim may still be valid if the Settlement Administrator can obtain adequate proof of purchase information from Plantronics or the third-party retailer (e.g. Best Buy, Amazon, Costco).

Please return your completed Claim Form, postmarked no later than ___________, to: Headphone Settlement

Settlement Administrator c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. PO Box XXXXXX

Milwaukee, WI 53217


I. CLAIMANT IDENTIFICATION

NOTICE ID NUMBER (FROM THE EMAIL OR MAILED NOTICE SENT TO YOU)

NAME

STREET ADDRESS APT

CITY STATE ZIP

MOBILE PHONE NUMBER

EMAIL ADDRESS

II. HEADPHONE PURCHASE INFORMATION

WHEN DID YOU PURCHASE THE HEADPHONES?

FROM WHICH RETAILER DID YOU PURCHASE THE HEADPHONES?

HOW MUCH DID YOU PAY FOR THE HEADPHONES?

DID YOU MAKE A CONTEMPORANEOUS WRITTEN CLAIM OR COMPLAINT THAT THE HEADPHONES WERE DEFECTIVE OR DID NOT FUNCTION PROPERLY DUE TO AN ISSUE WITH THE BATTERY, BATTERY PERFORMANCE, OR THE ABILITY TO RETAIN A CHARGE, OR DUE TO AN ISSUE WITH THE HEADPHONES’ RESISTANCE TO WATER, MOISTURE, OR SWEAT? IF YES, PROVIDE A COPY TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE $50 PAYMENT.


REQUIRED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

A valid claim must include documentation such as a receipt demonstrating the purchase date, price, and type of Headphones you purchased. If you do not have this documentation, you may still submit your claim and your claim may still be valid if Class Counsel can obtain adequate proof of purchase information from Plantronics or the third-party retailer (e.g. Best Buy, Amazon, Costco). Proof of purchase information can be satisfied by submitting a receipt, credit card statement, or other actual documentation showing the purchase date, type of Headphones, and purchase price. Proof of a contemporaneous written claim or complaint (necessary to be eligible for the $50 payment) can be satisfied by submitting a copy of the claim or complaint (e.g., correspondence to Plantronics, a review on Amazon.com, correspondence to the retailer, etc.). It can also be satisfied if a contemporaneous written claim or complaint is directly provided to the Settlement Administrator by Plantronics or the third-party retailer (e.g., Best Buy, Amazon, Costco). The documentation must be clear that the claim or complaint related to a failure or malfunction of the Headphones consistent with the allegations in the Complaint. For example, a general negative review on Amazon or plantronics.com would not suffice, but a negative review that specifically references a battery charging issue consistent with the allegations in the Complaint would suffice.The Settlement Administrator will review all claims, as necessary, to determine whether the information obtained from third-party retailers satisfies the proof of purchase requirement. The Settlement Administrator will also review information and records in Plantronics’ possession and those provided by third-party retailers to determine if the Class member made a written claim or complaint to Plantronics. A claimant cannot recover a $50 payment based on replacement Headphones already received in response to a prior warranty claim or complaint. A claimant can recover one $25 payment based on replacement Headphones already received in response to a prior warranty claim or complaint. If the proof of purchase shows that the claimant purchased the Headphones for less than $50.00, the claimant’s recovery is limited to the price paid for the Headphones. For example, if the proof of purchase shows that the claimant purchased their Headphones for $40.00, their recovery is limited to $40.00. There shall be a limit of two (2) claims per claimant. .

CERTIFICATION

By signing this claim submission, I certify, under penalty of perjury, that the information included with this claim submission is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I also certify (1) the Headphones malfunctioned or failed to work properly due to an issue with the battery, battery performance, or the ability to retain a charge, or due to an issue with the Headphones’ resistance to water, moisture, or sweat; and (2) I did not previously receive a replacement set of Headphones from any source or a refund from Plantronics or the retailer from which I purchased the Headphones for all or any portion of their purchase price.

SIGNATURE DATE

mm/dd/yyyy


of 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




Plaintiff,

vs.

PLANTRONICS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:18-cv-05626

ORDER REQUIRING THIRD-PARTY RETAILERS TO PRODUCE CUSTOMER INFORMATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING DIRECT NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS AND ASSISTING WITH PROOF OF PURCHASE

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion for Preliminary

Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plaintiff’s request contained therein for an Order

requiring certain third-party retailers of certain Plantronics BackBeat FIT wireless sport

headphones to produce customer information for the purpose of assisting with the issuance of

direct notice to Class Members and assisting Class Members to establish Proof of Purchase. The

Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s request and finds that the request as contained in the Motion should

be GRANTED.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Court hereby FINDS, CONCLUDES AND ORDERS:

1. The third-party retailers identified as the ten largest retailers of Plantronics BackBeat

FIT wireless sport headphones1 (“Retailers”) shall produce to the Settlement

Administrator all customer contact information (e.g., name, address, email address)

and related product purchase information (e.g., date of purchase; price; model; UPC

code, etc.) in their possession, custody and/or control for those customers who have

1 Specifically, the Headphones are Plantronics BackBeat FIT wireless sport headphones, versions Genesis and 16M, which Plantronics manufactured prior to September 2018.


of 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

purchased Plantronics BackBeat FIT wireless sport headphones (“Headphones”)

between April 1, 2014 and the date of production of the information;

2. The Retailers have or likely have in their possession, custody, and/or control client

contact information that is essential for providing direct notice to potential Class

Members under the Settlement in this Lawsuit;

3. These Retailers likely possess and maintain this customer contact information and

product purchase information in electronic form, such that it generally is not overly

burdensome to require the production of this information in usable electronic form;

4. Under this Order, the customer information includes any email addresses and mailing

addresses for the customers who have purchased the Headphones from the Retailers

as well as relevant product purchase information such as the date of purchase, the price

paid, the model purchased, the UPC code or other similar product identifier, and

whether the customer later returned the product for replacement or refund.

5. The following Class Definition identifies customers whose Plantronics Headphones

are the subject of this Lawsuit:

All Persons domiciled within the United States and its territories who purchased at retail Plantronics BackBeat FIT wireless headphones, version Genesis or 16M,2 between April 1, 2014 and the Notice Date (currently September 16, 2019). Excluded from the Class is Defendant and its officers, directors and employees; Class Counsel and their partners, associates, lawyers, and employees; and the judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated Court staff assigned to this case.

6. All Retailers are hereby ordered to produce the customer contact information and

related product information identified in this Order to the Settlement Administrator no

2 BackBeat FIT wireless headphones, version Genesis or 16M, were manufactured by Plantronics prior to September 2018.


of 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

later than September 16, 2019. Any Retailer who fails to comply with this Order

without approval from the Court or other legal justification may be subject to

sanctions, including being held in contempt of this Court.

Dated: ____________________ ________________________________ HONORABLE NATHANIEL COUSINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


AMENDED DECLARATION OF JEFFREY S. GOLDENBERG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 5:18-cv-05626-NC

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

Ronald S. Kravitz (SBN 129704) James C. Shah (SBN 260435) SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 201 Filbert Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 429-5272 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 [email protected]@sfmslaw.com

Jeffrey S. Goldenberg GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.One West 4th Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45249 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Fax: (513) 345-8294 [email protected]





Plaintiff,

vs.

PLANTRONICS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. Case No.: 5:18-cv-05626-NC

AMENDED DECLARATION OF JEFFREY S. GOLDENBERG IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED RENEWED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION 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

I, Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq., hereby declare under penalty of perjury and pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1746, as follows:

1. I am a partner and founder in the law firm Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, and I am

one of the Class Counsel in this litigation. I make this Declaration of my own personal knowledge,

and if called to do so, I could testify competently to the matters stated herein.

2. I graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana in

1988 (B.A. Biology) and received my law degree from Indiana University in 1994. I also

received a master’s degree in environmental science from Indiana University in 1994.

3. I am admitted to the practice of law in the State of Ohio (1994), the United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Second Circuit, and Ninth Circuit, and the United States

District Court for the Southern and Northern Districts of Ohio. I also have been admitted pro hac

vice to various federal district courts throughout the United States. I am a member in good

standing of the Ohio Bar and have never been the subject of any disciplinary proceeding.

4. I have served as lead or co-lead counsel on numerous nationwide class actions

and have substantial experience litigating class actions and complex civil litigation. Attached

hereto as Exhibit 1 is my firm and attorney profile describing my professional background and

qualifications to serve as Class Counsel. Similar information for my co-counsel at Markovits

Stock & DeMarco and Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah is attached as Exhibits 2 and 3.

5. On March 29, 2018, the parties informed the Court that they had reached a

settlement in principal to resolve this matter on a national class-wide basis, and on April 5, 2019

the parties filed a Joint Notice of Class Action Settlement [Doc. 50] with the Court.

6. Prior to reaching a settlement and entering into the Amended Settlement

Agreement: (1) the Parties engaged in informal discovery and sharing of information regarding



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 design, development and testing of the Headphones; (2) Plaintiff’s counsel engaged an

independent expert to conduct testing of the Headphones and batteries used in the Headphones;

(3) the Parties engaged in numerous arm’s-length settlement negotiations, including two-months

of mediation efforts and discussions under the direction and guidance of respected mediator

Martin Quinn, Esq.; and (4) the Parties amended the Settlement Agreement to adopt revisions

addressing the concerns raised by the Court in its June 17, 2019 Order.

7. Plaintiff and Class Counsel believe the Amended Settlement is fair, adequate,

reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class Members, taking into account the benefits

provided to the Class Members through the terms of the Amended Settlement, the risks of

continued litigation and possible trial and appeals, and the length of time and the costs that

would be required to complete the litigation.

8. The parties agreed on the benefits to the Class before negotiating the attorneys’

fees and expenses and the payment of a Service Award to the named Plaintiff. Class Counsel

states that no ancillary agreements exist outside the terms of the Amended Settlement Agreement

and the Memorandum of Understanding, both of which have been provided to the Court.

9. It is my understanding based upon information provided by counsel for

Plantronics and Plantronics’ answers to interrogatories that (a) approximately 1.3 million sets of

Headphones have been sold; (b) approximately 300,000 Class members purchased the

Headphones on or after January 1, 2018 and would be eligible for the limited extended warranty

benefit (Alternative 1) under this Amended Settlement; and (c) the Replacement Headphones to

be provided under the limited extended warranty are a new design and utilize batteries from a

different manufacturer than the Headphones that are the subject of this 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

10. Throughout this litigation, Class Counsel prosecuted this action with the best

interests of the Class in mind, and there is nothing in the record to suggest any conflicts of

interest between Plaintiff, Class Counsel, or the Class members. Moreover, Plaintiff and Class

Counsel are committed to continuing to prosecute this action vigorously, as necessary.

11. The parties arrived at the Amended Settlement Agreement after multiple rounds

of negotiations overseen by the experienced and respected mediator Martin Quinn, Esq. of JAMS

in San Francisco and have made certain revisions to address the concerns raised by the Court in

its June 17, 2019 Order.

12. The parties have conducted extensive informal discovery and sharing of

information regarding the design, development and testing of the Headphones. And, Plantronics

has answered formal interrogatories issued by Class Counsel.

13. Having analyzed the information furnished by Defendant through formal and

informal discovery, consulted with an expert who conducted testing of the Headphones, and

carefully scrutinized the terms of the proposed Amended Settlement, Class Counsel and Plaintiff

believe it is fair, adequate, and reasonable and in the best interests of the Class.

14. The Amended Settlement Agreement provides a straightforward process for

distributing the Settlement benefits to Class Members and for providing notice of the Settlement

to the Class. Under the Amended Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Administrator will

provide mailed or electronic notice to every Class member whose home address or email address

can be reasonably identified from Plantronics’ records and the records of Plantronics’ 10 largest

third-party retailers. Class Counsel anticipate that a substantial percentage of the Class will

receive direct notice through this campaign. This was their experience recently in a nationwide

consumer settlement involving Vitamix blenders during which third-party retailer information



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

was sought and obtained. To supplement the direct notice campaign, the Settlement

Administrator will implement a supplemental Publication Notice program specifically designed

by the Settlement Administrator to utilize media and digital resources to reach additional Class

Members for whom no mail or email address can be obtained.

15. Under the Amended Settlement Agreement, Plantronics has agreed to pay, subject

to Court approval, Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and expenses of up to a maximum of six hundred

fifty thousand dollars ($650,000). The Parties negotiated and reached agreement on the

attorneys’ fees and expenses only after reaching agreement on all other material terms of

Settlement in this matter.

16. Class Members who seek replacement headphones pursuant to the Extended

Warranty shall receive Plantronics Backbeat FIT 2100 wireless headphones. According to

information provided by counsel for Plantronics and Plantronics’ answers to certain

interrogatories issued by Class Counsel, these replacement headphones are not identical to the

Headphones at issue in the litigation as the Backbeat FIT 2100 wireless headphones have been

redesigned and contain batteries from a different battery manufacturer.

17. There are no substantial differences between the Settlement Class and the Class

proposed in the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Moreover, the scope of the

settlement release is reasonably tailored to the claims of the FAC and does not release personal

injury or emotional distress claims for the Class. Further, the release has been revised to address

the concerns raised by the Court in its June 17, 2019 Order.

18. As for the anticipated class recovery under the settlement and potential class

recovery if plaintiffs had fully prevailed, it is difficult to estimate the maximum amount of

damages recoverable in a successful litigation. But Plantronics has sold approximately 1.3



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

million Headphones, which generally sold for between $50 and $99. Theoretically, a 100%

recovery at trial for each pair of Headphones sold would result in a judgment between $65

million and $129 million. Such a result is highly unlikely, assumes a 100% failure rate, and that

the Class Members received no benefit from the Headphones prior to failure. A more likely trial

scenario would be based upon a damage figure that assumes a certain failure rate. So, assuming

a 10% failure rate, the anticipated Class recovery at trial would be approximately $6,500,000 to

$12,900,000 (130,000 units * $50/unit or $99/unit). Assuming a 10% claim rate, the anticipated

Class recovery under the settlement (not including the value of the Extended Warranty) would be

between $3,250,000 and $6,500,000 (130,000 claims * $25/claim or $50/claim).

Executed on July 31, 2019.

/s/Jeffrey S. Goldenberg JEFFREY S. GOLDENBERG, ESQ.


ONE WEST 4TH STREET, 18TH FLOOR 513-345-8291 CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202 WWW.GS-LEGAL.COM

GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A. was founded in 1996 and focuses on prosecuting

actions primarily on behalf of plaintiffs in complex civil litigation and class actions. The subject

matter of the Firm’s past and current representations is broad, ranging from privacy protection

actions to employment and labor cases that include ERISA, FLSA, and discrimination, to actions

for antitrust, defective products, consumer protection, and securities violations. The firm’s

attorneys are experienced in every level of the state and federal judicial systems in Ohio and the

country, including specialized courts.

The Firm has demonstrated its capability to successfully represent governmental entities,

corporations, and individuals in the most complex of litigation. Founding partner Jeff

Goldenberg served as special counsel to the Ohio Attorney General in prosecuting Ohio’s

Medicaid recoupment action against the tobacco industry and has served as lead or co-lead

counsel on numerous nationwide class actions. The tobacco Medicaid recoupment litigation

settled in 1999, resulting in a recovery to the State of Ohio of more than $9.86 billion. Setting

aside the substantial, if not immeasurable non-economic components of the settlement, which

curb youth smoking and addiction, the settlement’s financial proceeds are a multiple of twelve

times larger than the prior largest Ohio-based settlement.

Class actions in which one or more of the Firm’s attorneys currently serves or served as

class counsel include the following:

In Re: Veterans’ Administration Data Theft Litigation – Goldenberg Schneider served as

co-lead counsel for a nationwide class of approximately 20 million veterans and current

members of the military who were impacted by the August 2006 theft of personal data.

Multiple actions were consolidated by the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and sent to the

Federal District Court in the District of Columbia. This action was successfully resolved

with a $20,000,000 settlement.

Estep v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio Secretary of State – Goldenberg Schneider served as

co-lead counsel on this class action against former Ohio Secretary of State, Ken

Exhibit 1Case 5:18-cv-05626-NC Document 70-18 Filed 07/31/19 Page 1 of 9

Blackwell, based upon a violation of privacy rights when personal information was

unlawfully disclosed in public records accessible through the Secretary’s website. The

settlement required the Secretary of State to dramatically improve the protection of social

security numbers.

In re: Google Inc. Street View Electronic Communications Litigation - In 2010,

Goldenberg Schneider and co-counsel filed the first nationwide class action lawsuit

against Google for violating the Federal Wiretap Act. The complaint alleges that Google

routinely used Google Street View vehicles equipped with special hardware and software

“snoopers” and “sniffers” to illegally intercept and record wireless electronic

communications. In 2011, the Court denied Google’s motion to dismiss the federal

wiretapping claim, ruling that plaintiffs stated a viable claim and that none of the

statutory exemptions apply to Google’s actions. Google appealed to the Ninth Circuit

which affirmed the denial. The litigation is on-going.

City of Cincinnati Pension Litigation – Goldenberg Schneider and its co-counsel, with

the assistance of U.S. District Court Judge Michael Barrett, successfully resolved a series

of cases relating to the City of Cincinnati Retirement System, known as the CRS. Judge

Barrett granted final approval of the historic and landmark Settlement Agreement on

October 5, 2015. The settlement comprehensively reforms the CRS, establishes a

consistent level of City funding, and reinstates several key provisions that were

eliminated in 2011 changes for employees who were vested in the plan at that time. The

settlement benefits for the Current Employees Class members, for whom Goldenberg

Schneider was approved as Class Counsel, are valued at approximately $50 million.

In Re: Ford Motor Co. Spark Plug and 3-Valve Engine Products Liability Litigation –

Goldenberg Schneider served as co-lead counsel for a national class comprised of

approximately 4 million Ford vehicle owners who purchased or leased vehicles

containing a 5.4 liter 3-valve engine equipped with defective spark plugs and related

engine defects. On January 26, 2016, after Plaintiffs had defeated Ford’s motion for

summary judgment, Judge Benita Pearson of the Northern District of Ohio granted final

approval of a nationwide settlement that will provide reimbursement to class members for

expenses related to spark plug replacement.


Bower v. MetLife – Goldenberg Schneider served as co-lead class counsel on behalf of a

nationwide class of beneficiaries of the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance

(FEGLI) Policy, the world’s largest group life insurance program. Following the Court’s

Order certifying the nationwide Class, the case was settled in 2012 for $11,500,000.

In Re: OSB Antitrust Litigation – Goldenberg Schneider served on the trial team in a case

that alleged illegal collusion and cooperation among the oriented strand board industry.

The case was resolved through a series of settlements that collectively exceeded

$120,000,000.

Parker v. Berkeley Premium Nutraceuticals – Goldenberg Schneider served as co-lead

counsel and certified three nationwide classes in a consumer fraud class action on behalf

of purchasers of herbal supplements for false and unproven claims and deceptive credit

card practices. This case was successfully resolved with a settlement valued in the

millions of dollars. Moreover, class members retained all rights to recover a portion of

the nearly $30 million that the U.S. Attorney General seized in a civil forfeiture action.

Goldenberg Schneider then recovered an additional $24,000,000 for the victims by

prosecuting a successful Petition for Remission through the forfeiture proceedings.

Cates v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company/ Johnson v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company –

Goldenberg Schneider served as co-lead counsel for a class of more than a thousand

Cooper Tire retirees who claimed that they were entitled to lifetime health care benefits.

Goldenberg Schneider secured a judgment on the pleadings, certified the class, and

ultimately resolved the case through a settlement valued at over $50,000,000.

In Re: Consolidated Mortgage Satisfaction Cases – Goldenberg Schneider served as lead

counsel on behalf of Ohio homeowners against some of the largest national and Ohio

banking and lending institutions for their failure to timely record mortgage loan payoffs.

The Firm was able to consolidate all twenty actions before one trial judge and

successfully upheld all the class certifications before the Ohio Supreme Court. These

cases were resolved through multiple settlements valued at millions of dollars.

In re: Verizon Wireless Data Charges Litigation – Goldenberg Schneider filed the first

nationwide class action challenging Verizon Wireless’ improper $1.99 data usage charges

to certain pay-as-you-go customers. Goldenberg Schneider, as a member of the Plaintiffs


Advisory Committee, played an active role in this litigation which resulted in benefits to

the Class in excess of $50,000,000 in refunds and reimbursement payments.

Daffin v. Ford Motor Company – Goldenberg Schneider and its co-counsel successfully

certified an Ohio statewide class on behalf of all Ohio purchasers or lessors of 1999 and

2000 model year Mercury Villager Minivans. The Sixth Circuit upheld the class

certification, and the case was resolved through a settlement. The Sixth Circuit decision

was one of the first to recognize diminished value as a viable damage model.

Meyer v. Nissan North America – Goldenberg Schneider served as co-lead counsel on

behalf of thousands of Nissan Quest minivan owners throughout the United States. The

suit alleged that the Quest minivan developed dangerous levels of carbon deposits in the

accelerator system causing the gas pedal to stick, resulting in a roadway safety hazard

including documented accidents and injuries. The case was resolved by a nationwide

settlement that included the application of the vehicle warranty to remedy the problem as

well as a refund of prior repair costs.

Continental Casualty Long Term Care Insurance Litigation (“Pavlov Settlement”) -

Goldenberg Schneider served as Lead Class Counsel in this litigation on behalf of certain

CNA long term care policyholders nationwide whose claims for stays at certain facilities

were wrongly denied based upon a non-existent 24/7 on-site nursing requirement. The

Federal District Court in the Northern District of Ohio granted final approval to a

nationwide class action settlement negotiated by Goldenberg Schneider that provided

damages to those whose claims were improperly denied and expanded the types of

facilities now covered by these policies. The settlement value exceeded $25 million.

Carnevale FLSA Class Action – Goldenberg Schneider served as co-lead counsel on

behalf of employees working for a large industrial company that alleged violations of

federal and state labor laws through the systematic misclassification of managers and

other employees as salaried professionals. This case successfully resolved with a

common fund settlement in excess of $5 million.

Vicki Linneman, et al., v. Vita-Mix Corporation - Goldenberg Schneider serves as Class

Counsel in this recently settled nationwide class action alleging that certain Vita-Mix

blenders deposit tiny shards of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), a Teflon-like substance,

into foods during use. Under the Settlement, class members can choose between (1) a


free replacement blade assembly that does not fleck or (2) a gift card valued at $70.00.

About 5 million class members are eligible for these benefits, and the settlement is valued

in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Ulyana Lynevych v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC – Goldenberg Schneider serves on the

Executive Committee in this lawsuit against Mercedes and Bosch alleging that

Defendants knowingly programmed Mercedes’ Clean Diesel BlueTEC vehicles to emit

illegal and dangerous levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx) in virtually all real world driving

conditions, and equipped the vehicles with a “defeat device.” In a sweeping decision

dated February 1, 2019, Chief Judge Jose L. Linares of the U.S. District Court for the

District of New Jersey largely denied motions to dismiss filed by Mercedes and Bosch,

permitting the core class-action claims (including consumer fraud and RICO) to proceed.

Shin v. Plantronics, Inc. – Goldenberg Schneider serves as putative Lead Class Counsel

in this nationwide class action on behalf of more than 1.2 million consumers who

purchased defective Plantronics BackBeat FIT wireless headphones. Following oral

argument on Defendant’s motion to dismiss this spring, Goldenberg Schneider and Co-

Counsel successfully resolved the litigation on a nationwide class basis through

mediation and will be filing for preliminary approval in May of 2019.

Lesley Conti and Tom Conti v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., - Goldenberg Schneider

recently filed a nationwide class action alleging that Honda knowingly sold its 2018-2019

Honda Odyssey and 2019 Honda Pilot vehicles with defective infotainment systems. The

infotainment systems in these vehicles behave erratically, malfunctioning, freezing, and

creating a safety hazard and distraction. The defect can cause safety-related systems

(including backup camera functions) to fail.


JEFFREY S. GOLDENBERGGoldenberg Schneider, LPA One West 4th Street, 18th FL Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 (513) 345-8291 www.gs-legal.com

LEGAL EXPERIENCE PARTNER, GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A. (1998-present) - Civil trial and appellate practice in state and federal courts. Areas of practice include: class actions, consumer protection, product defect, long-term care insurance litigation, state attorney general cost recoupment including tobacco and pharmaceutical average wholesale price litigation, employment litigation including wage and hour (FLSA), toxic torts, lead poisoning, antitrust, environmental, personal privacy protection, securities, personal injury, and commercial disputes.

ATTORNEY, DINSMORE & SHOHL (1994-1998) - General litigation practice with an emphasis on environmental litigation and compliance.

Bar Admissions/Licenses

State of Ohio (admitted since 1994) United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio

Activities/Memberships

Ohio Association for Justice American Association for Justice (formerly Association of Trial Lawyers of America) American Bar Association Ohio State Bar Association Cincinnati Bar Association The Cincinnati Academy of Leadership for Lawyers Board of Directors, University of Cincinnati Hillel Jewish Student Center Volunteer Attorney for the Ohio Foreclosure Mediation Project Supreme Court of Ohio Lawyer to Lawyer Mentoring Program Pro Seniors Legal Volunteer

EDUCATION Indiana University School of Law, Bloomington, Indiana, J.D. 1994 Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, M.S.E.S. 1994 Indiana University, B.A. Biology, 1988


JEFFREY S. GOLDENBERG PARTNER, GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA www.gs-legal.com

Mr. Goldenberg’s practice includes class action and complex civil litigation with an emphasis on consumer protection. His practice areas include insurance coverage (including long-term care insurance), consumer fraud, product liability and defects, overtime and wage and hour, personal privacy and data breach, antitrust, securities, personal injury, toxic torts, and commercial disputes.

Mr. Goldenberg served as lead and/or co-counsel in numerous multi-million dollar complex civil cases throughout the United States, including Continental Casualty Long Term Care Insurance Litigation, City of Cincinnati Pension Litigation, Ford Spark Plug Litigation, Enzyte Consumer Fraud Litigation, GEAE FLSA Litigation, Veterans Data Theft Litigation, Styrene Railway Car Litigation, Ford and Nissan Auto Defect litigation, Clayton Home Sales Tax Litigation, Metlife FEGLI Litigation, Mercedes Diesel Emissions Fraud Litigation, MetLife Reduced Pay at 65 Litigation, Honda Odyssey and Pilot Infotainment Defect Litigation, Vitamix Blender Litigation, and Oriented Strand Board Antitrust Litigation. Jeff also served as Special Counsel representing the State of Ohio against the Tobacco industry and was part of the litigation team that achieved an unprecedented $9.86 billion settlement for Ohio taxpayers. He also served as lead counsel with John Murdock on the In re Consolidated Mortgage Satisfaction Cases involving twenty separate class actions. That litigation resulted in a significant Ohio Supreme Court decision defining key aspects of Ohio class action law.

Mr. Goldenberg earned three degrees from Indiana University: a Bachelor of Arts in Biology in 1988 (Phi Beta Kappa); a Masters of Science in Environmental Science in 1994; and his Juris Doctor in 1994. Jeff has practiced in all levels of Ohio trial and appellate courts as well as other courts across the nation, and is admitted to practice in the State of Ohio and the United States District Court for the Southern and Northern Districts of Ohio and the United States Second, Sixth & Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal. Jeff is a member of the American Association for Justice, the Ohio State Bar Association, and the Cincinnati Bar Association.


TODD B. NAYLOR Goldenberg, Schneider, LPA One West 4th Street, 18th FL Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 345-8291 www.gs-legal.com

LEGAL EXPERIENCE

PARTNER, GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A. (2003-present) Civil trial practice in state and federal courts, trial and appellate level, in insurance litigation, securities, antitrust, products liability, toxic torts, consumer protection, and employment litigation including the Fair Labor Standards Act, with a focus on complex litigation and class actions.

ATTORNEY, MANLEY BURKE, L.P.A. (1998-2003) Civil trial practice in state and federal courts, trial and appellate level, in toxic torts, products liability, employment intentional torts, medical malpractice, wrongful death, with an emphasis on representation of workers injured or killed by toxic minerals or chemicals.

ATTORNEY, HERMANIES, MAJOR, CASTELLI & GOODMAN (1997-1998) General civil trial practice with an emphasis on personal injury and products liability.

Bar Admissions/ Licenses

State of Ohio Trial and Appellate Courts (since 1997) Supreme Court of the United States United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Admitted Pro Hac Vice in other Non-Ohio State and Federal Courts

Activities/ Honors

Ohio Association for Justice, Trustee/ Chair Section on Environmental Torts (2000-2004) American Association for Justice Cincinnati Bar Association Ohio Bar Association, Member Antitrust Law Section Arbitrator, Clermont County Court of Common Pleas Member, Cincinnati Bar Association Fee Arbitration Committee Fellow, Cincinnati Academy of Leadership for Lawyers, Class XII William O. DeSouchet Trial Advocacy Scholarship, University of Colorado School of Law Legal Aid and Defender Program Award, University of Colorado School of Law

EDUCATION University of Colorado School of Law, J.D. 1997

Trial advocacy scholarship winner Legal Aid and Defender Program Award

Bradley University, B.A. 1994 (with honors)


TODD B. NAYLOR PARTNER, GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA www.gs-legal.com

Mr. Naylor’s practice areas primarily include class actions, insurance litigation, antitrust litigation, toxic and environmental torts, personal injury, and wrongful death. He has appeared as lead counsel in courts all over the United States representing clients at all stages of litigation. He has served on the Board of Trustees of the Ohio Academy of Justice and chaired the section on Toxic, Environmental, and Pharmaceutical Torts.

Mr. Naylor represented the State of Ohio in a securities lawsuit relating to the merger of Exxon and Mobil. Mr. Naylor has also represented multiple states, including Connecticut, in pharmaceutical pricing litigation. Mr. Naylor served on the trial team in antitrust litigation involving the oriented strand board industry that resulted in an aggregate settlement of over $120,000,000. Additionally, Mr. Naylor served as lead counsel in a successful national class action on behalf of beneficiaries of the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) Policy, the world’s largest group life insurance program. Mr. Naylor presently serves as lead and/or co-counsel in numerous multi-million dollar complex civil litigation cases throughout the State of Ohio and nationwide.

Mr. Naylor is admitted to practice in the State of Ohio, the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the United States District Court for the Southern and Northern Districts of Ohio. He serves as an Arbitrator for the Clermont County Common Pleas Court and the Cincinnati Bar Association Fee Arbitration Committee. Mr. Naylor is a Fellow with the Cincinnati Academy of Leadership for Lawyers.


Markovits Stock DeMarco LLC

3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650

Cincinnati, Ohio 45209

Business 513.651.3700 MSDLegal.com

MARKOVITS, STOCK & DeMARCO, LLC

Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC is a boutique law firm whose attorneys have successfully represented

clients in some of the largest and most complex legal matters in U.S. history. Our deep and varied experience

extends from representing businesses, public pension funds, and individuals in federal and state courts across the

nation, to successfully arguing appeals at the highest levels of the legal system – including prevailing before the

United States Supreme Court. This broad-based litigation and trial expertise, coupled with no overstaffing and

overbilling that can typify complex litigation, sets us apart as a law firm. But expertise is only part of the equation.

“Legal success comes only from recognizing a client’s goals and being able to design and effectively

execute strategies that accomplish those goals. We understand that every client is different, which is why we spend

so much time learning what makes them tick.”

As the business world becomes increasingly complex, you need to be able to trust your law firm to help you

make the right decisions. Whether you seek counsel in resolving a current conflict, avoiding a future conflict, or

navigating the sometimes choppy state and local government regulatory waters, the lawyers at Markovits, Stock &

DeMarco have both the experience and track record to meet your legal needs.

Exhibit 2Case 5:18-cv-05626-NC Document 70-19 Filed 07/31/19 Page 1 of 8




Business 513.651.3700

MSDLegal.com

BILL MARKOVITS

Bill Markovits practices in the area of complex civil litigation, with an emphasis on securities, antitrust,

RICO, and False Claims Act cases. Bill began his career as a trial lawyer at the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust

Division in Washington, D.C. He continued a focus on antitrust after moving to Cincinnati, where he became an

adjunct professor of antitrust law at the University of Cincinnati Law School. Bill has been involved in the past in

a number of notable cases, including: the Choice Care securities, antitrust and RICO class action in which the jury

awarded over $100 million to a class of physicians; a fraud/RICO case on behalf of The Procter & Gamble

Company, which resulted in a settlement of $165 million; an eleven year antitrust and RICO class action against

Humana, including appeals that reached the United States Supreme Court, which culminated in a multi-million

dollar settlement; and a national class action against Microsoft, in which he was chosen from among dozens of

plaintiffs’ attorneys to depose Bill Gates. More recently, Bill was: a lead counsel for plaintiffs in the Fannie Mae

Securities Litigation that settled for $153 million; a lead counsel for plaintiffs in a class action against Duke Energy

that settled for $80.75 million; and lead counsel for plaintiff in Collins v. Eastman Kodak, where he successfully

obtained a preliminary injunction against Kodak on an antitrust tying claim. Based upon the result in Collins, Bill

was a 2015 finalist in the American Antitrust Institute’s Antitrust Enforcement Awards under the category

“Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice.”

Bill has received a number of awards and designations, including current and past designations as a “Best

Lawyer in America” in the fields of antitrust and commercial litigation.

Education:

Harvard Law School, J.D. (1981), cum laude

Washington University, A.B. (1978), Phi Beta Kappa

Significant and Representative Cases:

• Collins v. Eastman Kodak, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio. Lead counsel representing

Collins in antitrust tying claim, resulting in preliminary injunction against Kodak.

• In Re Federal National Mortgage Association Securities, Derivative, and “ERISA” Litigation,

United States District Court, District of Columbia. Co-lead counsel representing Ohio pension

funds in securities class action that settled for $153 million.

• Ohio Employees Retirement System v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage, aka Freddie Mac, et al.,

United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. Special counsel

representing Ohio pension fund in securities class action.

• Williams v. Duke Energy et al., United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio.

Representing class of energy consumers against energy provider in complex antitrust and RICO

class action that settled for $80.75 million.

• In Re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability

Litigation, United States District Court, Central District of California. Former member of economic loss lead

counsel committee, representing class of consumers in litigation relating to sudden acceleration.

• In Re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, United States

District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana. RICO workgroup coordinator in class action resulting from

oil spill.

• In Re Microsoft Corp. Litigation, United States District Court, District of Maryland. Member of co-lead

counsel firm in antitrust class action.





Business 513.651.3700

MSDLegal.com

• Procter & Gamble v. Amway Litigation, United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, at

Houston; United States District Court, District of Utah, at Salt Lake City. Member of trial team

representing Procter & Gamble in obtaining jury verdict against Amway distributors relating to spreading

of false business rumors.

• United States ex rel. Brooks v. Pineville Hospital, United States District Court, Eastern District of

Kentucky. One of the lead counsel in successful False Claims Act litigation.

• Procter & Gamble v. Bankers’ Trust Litigation, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio. Co-

counsel in successful $165 million settlement; developed the RICO case.

• United States ex rel. Watt v. Fluor Daniel, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio. Co- lead

counsel of successful False Claims Act case.

• Forsyth v. Humana, United States District Court, District of Nevada. Represented class of consumers in

antitrust and RICO class action; successfully argued antitrust appeal; co-chaired successful Supreme Court

appeal on RICO.

• In Re Choice Care Litigation, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division. Trial

attorney on largest antitrust/RICO/securities verdict.

Presentations & Publications:

• “Implications of Sixth Circuit Collins Inkjet Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. Decision,” American Bar

Association panel discussion, December 10, 2015

• “Defining the Relevant Market in Antitrust Litigation,” Great Lakes Antitrust Seminar, October 29, 2010

• “Beyond Compensatory Damages – Tread, RICO and The Criminal Law Implications,” HarrisMartin’s

Toyota Recall Litigation Conference, Part II, May 12, 2010

• “The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),” HarrisMartin’s Toyota Recall

Litigation Conference, March 24, 2010

• “The False Claims Act: Are Healthcare Providers at Risk?,” presentation to Robert Morris College Second

Annual Health Services Conferences, Integrating Health Services: Building a Bridge to the 21st Century,

Moon Township, PA, October 9, 1997

• “The Federal False Claims Act: Are Health Care Providers at Risk?,” (Co-Speaker), Ohio Hospital

Association, April, 1996

• “A Focus on Reality in Antitrust,” Federal Bar News & Journal, Nov/Dec 1992

• “Using Civil Rico and Avoiding its Abuse,” Ohio Trial, William H. Blessing, co-author, Summer 1992

• “Antitrust in the Health Care Field,” a chapter published in Legal Aspects of Anesthesia, 2nd ed.,

William H. L. Dornette, J.D., M.D., editor

• Antitrust Law Update, National Health Lawyers Health Law Update and Annual Meeting (Featured

Speaker), San Francisco, California, 1989

Affiliations:

• American Association for Justice

• American Bar Association

• American Trial Lawyers Association

• Cincinnati Bar Association

• District of Columbia Bar Association (non-active)

• Hamilton County Trial Lawyers Association

• National Health Lawyers Association

• Ohio State Bar Association

• Ohio Trial Lawyers Association

Courts Admitted:

• District of Columbia (1981)

• State of Ohio (1983)

• United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio (1983)

• U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit (1991)


• U.S. Supreme Court, United States of America (1998)

• United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio (2008)





Business 513.651.3700

MSDLegal.com

PAUL M. DEMARCO

Paul M. De Marco is a founding member of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC. He is an Appellate Law

Specialist certified by the Ohio State Bar Association and has handled more than 100 appellate matters, including

cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, six federal circuits, and five state supreme courts.

Paul’s practice also focuses on class actions and other complex litigation. During his 25 years in Cincinnati,

Paul has been actively involved in successful litigation related to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fernald nuclear

weapons plant, the Lucasville (Ohio) prison riot, Lloyd’s of London, defective Bjork-Shiley heart valves,

Holocaust-related claims against Swiss and Austrian banks, the Bankers Trust derivative scheme, Cincinnati’s

Aronoff Center, the San Juan DuPont Plaza Hotel fire, the Procter & Gamble Satanism rumor, the Hamilton County

(Ohio) Morgue photograph scandal, defective childhood vaccines, claims arising from tire delamination and vehicle

roll-over, racial hostility claims against one of the nation’s largest bottlers, fiduciary breach claims against the

nation’s largest pharmacy benefits manager, and claims arising from the heatstroke death of NFL lineman Korey

Stringer.

Education:

College of Wooster (B.A., 1981)

University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law (J.D. with distinction, 1983)

University of Cambridge (1985)

Significant and Representative Appeals:

• Arthur Anderson LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624, 129 S.Ct. 1896 (2009): In a case involving allegations of a

fraudulent tax shelter and accounting and legal malpractice, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved

the issue of the rights of non-parties to arbitration clauses to enforce them against parties, which had divided

the circuits.

• Williams v. Duke Energy International, Inc., 681 F.3d 788 (6th Cir. 2012): In a case brought as a class

action by a utility’s ratepayers for selective payment of illegal rebates to certain ratepayers, the United

States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of the excluded

ratepayers’ claims that the utility violated the RICO statute, the Robinson-Patman Act, and the state

corrupt practices act.

• State of Ohio ex rel. Bd. of State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio v. Davis, 113 Ohio St.3d 410, 865 N.E.2d

1289 (2007): The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the appellate court’s issuance of the extremely rare writ

of procedendo commanding the trial judge to proceed with a trial on claims he mistakenly believed the

previous jury had resolved.

• Chesher v. Neyer, 477 F.3d 784 (6th Cir. 2007): The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rejection of

qualified immunity defenses raised by the Hamilton County (Ohio) coroner, his chief deputy, the coroner’s

administrative aide, a staff pathologist, and a pathology fellow in connection with the Hamilton County

Morgue photo scandal.

• State of Ohio ex rel. CNG Fin’l Corp. v. Nadel, 111 Ohio St.3d 149, 855 N.E.2d 473 (2006): The Supreme

Court of Ohio affirmed the appellate court’s refusal to issue a writ of procedendo commanding the trial

judge to halt injunctive proceedings and decide an arbitration issue.

• Smith v. North American Stainless, L.P., 158 F. App’x. 699 (6th Cir. 2006): Rejecting a steel

manufacturer’s “up-the-ladder” immunity defense, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

reversed the district court’s dismissal of a wrongful claim brought by the widow and estate of a steel

worker killed on the job.

• Procter & Gamble Co. v. Haugen, 427 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005): The United States Court of Appeals for

the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Procter & Gamble’s Lanham Act claims, paving

the way for a $19.25 million jury verdict in its favor.





Business 513.651.3700

MSDLegal.com

• Roetenberger v. Christ Hospital, 163 Ohio App.3d 555, 839 N.E.2d 441 (2005): In this medical

malpractice action for wrongful death, the Ohio court of appeals reversed the jury verdict in the

physician’s favor due to improper arguments by his attorney and instructional error by the trial court.

• City of Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 95 Ohio St.3d 416, 768 N.E.2d 1136 (2002): In this landmark

decision on public nuisance law, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that a public nuisance action could be

maintained for injuries caused by a product — in this case, guns — if the design, manufacture, marketing,

or sale of the product unreasonably interferes with a right common to the general public.

• Norgard v. Brush Wellman, Inc., 95 Ohio St.3d 165, 766 N.E.2d 977 (2002): In an employee’s intentional

tort action alleging that his employer subjected him to long-term beryllium exposure, the Supreme Court

of Ohio ruled that a cause of action for an employer intentional tort accrues when the employee discovers,

or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the workplace injury and — here’s the

ground-breaking part of the holding — the wrongful conduct of the employer.

• Wallace v. Ohio Dep’t of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266, 773 N.E.2d 1018 (2002): In overturning the

dismissal of a suit against the state fire marshal for negligently inspecting a fireworks store that caught

fire killing nine people, the Supreme Court of Ohio held for the first time that the common-law public-

duty rule cannot be applied in cases against the state in the Ohio Court of Claims.

Courts Admitted:

• Ohio

• California

• Supreme Court of the United States

• U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit

• U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit






• U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio

• U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio

• U.S. District Court, Eastern District of

California

• U.S. District Court, Central District of

California

• U.S. District Court, Southern District of

California

• U.S. Court of Federal Claims

Since 1994, Paul has worked to promote professional responsibility among lawyers, serving first as a

member and eventually the chair of the Cincinnati Bar Association Certified Grievance Committee, and since 2008

as a member of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

He also is a member of many legal organizations, including the Federal Bar Association, Ohio State Bar

Association, Cincinnati Bar Association, American Bar Association, ABA Council of Appellate Lawyers, and the

Cincinnati Bar Association’s Court of Appeals Committee.

Paul was one of the founders of the Collaborative Law Center in Cincinnati, a member of Cincinnati’s

Citizens Police Review Panel (1999-2002), and a member of Cincinnati CAN and its Police and Community

Subcommittee following the 2001 riots.

He currently serves on the boards of the Ohio Justice and Policy Center and the Mercantile Library and on

the advisory committees of the Fernald Community Cohort and the Fernald Workers’ Medical Monitoring Program.





Business 513.651.3700

MSDLegal.com

TERENCE R. COATES

Terry Coates is Markovits, Stock & DeMarco’s managing partner. His legal practice focuses on personal

injury law, sports & entertainment law, business litigation and class action litigation. Before joining Markovits,

Stock & DeMarco in May 2013, Terry gained considerable experience at one of the nation’s preeminent plaintiffs’

litigation law firms, including working as the firm administrator.

Several organizations have recognized Terry’s accomplishments and dedication to the practice of law. In

2014, Wittenberg University, Terry’s alma mater, presented him the Outstanding Young Alumnus Award. In 2015,

Terry’s peers in the Cincinnati legal community presented him the Cincinnati Bar Association, Young Lawyers

Section Professionalism Award. Terry has been designated as an Ohio Super Lawyers “Rising Star” from 2014-

2016, which is a distinction awarded to less than 2.5% of Ohio attorneys under the age of 40.

Education:

Thomas M. Cooley Law School, J.D. (2009)

Wittenberg University, B.A. (2005)

Representative Cases:

• Bowling v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. C-1-95-256, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio (Class

Counsel for recipients of defective mechanical heart valves including continued international distribution of

settlement funds to remaining class members);

• Collins Inkjet Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Company, Case No. 1:13-cv-0664, United States District Court,

Southern District of Ohio (trial counsel for Collins in an antitrust tying claim resulting in a preliminary

injunction against Kodak – a decision that was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Collins Inkjet

Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 781 F.3d 264 (6th Cir. 2015));

• Day v. NLO, Inc., Case No. C-1-90-67, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio (Class Counsel

for certain former workers at the Fernald Nuclear weapons facility; the medical monitoring program

continues);

• In re Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-1639, United States District Court, District of

Columbia (representing Ohio public pension funds as Lead Plaintiffs in Section 10b securities class action

litigation resulting in a $153 million court-approved settlement);

• In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, & Products Liability

Litigation, MDL No. 2151, United States District Court, Southern District of California (represented

plaintiffs and prepared class representatives for deposition testimony resulting in a court-approved settlement

valued in excess of $1.5 billion);

• In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, Case No. 09-1967, United States District

Court, Northern District of California (represented NCAA, Olympic, and NBA legend, Oscar Robertson, in

antitrust claims against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Collegiate Licensing

Company (CLC), and Electronic Arts (EA) leading to a $40 million settlement with EA and CLC and the

Court issuing a permanent injunction against the NCAA for unreasonably restraining trade in violation of

antitrust law);

• Linneman v. Vita-Mix Corp., Case No. 14-cv-748, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio

(Class Counsel for a nationwide class of Vita-Mix blender consumers resulting in a nationwide settlement);

• Williams v. Duke Energy, Case No. 1:08-cv-00046, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio

(representing class of energy consumers against energy provider in complex antitrust and RICO class action

resulting in the court granting final approval of an $80.875 million settlement); and,

• Ohio Public Employees Retirement System v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage ("Freddie Mac"), Case No.

4:08-cv-0160, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio (Special counsel for Ohio public

pension funds as Lead Plaintiffs in Section 10b-5 securities class action litigation).





Business 513.651.3700

MSDLegal.com

In addition to these representative cases, Terry has represented individuals and businesses against various

defendants, including representing high school athletes in cases against the Ohio High School Athletic Association

where the student athletes were ruled ineligible to participate in interscholastic athletics after transferring high

schools. Terry also assists current and former atomic energy workers and their survivors seek compensation under

the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (“EEOICPA”). He has assisted with

EEOICPA claims relating to countless energy sites, including Feed Material Production Center (Fernald), General

Electric Co., Hanford, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Nevada Test Site, Nuclear Metals, Oak Ridge National

Laboratory (X-10), Pantex, Rocky Flats, Savannah River Site, and many other nuclear sites.

Community Involvement:

• Cincinnati Academy of Leadership for Lawyers (CALL), Class XXI, Participant (2017)

• Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce C-Change Class 9, Participant (2014)

• Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, Ambassador (2014)

• Cincinnati Athletic Club, President (2015-2017)

• Cincinnati Athletic Club, Vice President (2014-2015)

• Cincinnati Bar Association, Board of Trustees, Trustee (2019-present)

• Cincinnati Bar Association, Membership Services & Development Committee (2014-present)

• Cincinnati Bar Association, Run for Kids Committee (2009-2014)

• Cincinnati Bar Association, Social Committee (2011-2014)

• Clermont County Humane Society, Board Member (2014-2017)

• Clermont County Humane Society, Legal Adviser (2017-present)

• Summit Country Day High School, Mock Trial Adviser (2013-2016)

Recognitions:

• Super Lawyers, Rising Star (2014 – 2019)

• Wittenberg University Outstanding Young Alumnus Award (2014)

• Cincinnati Bar Association, Young Lawyers Section Professionalism Award (2015)

• JDRF Bourbon & Bow Tie Bash, Young Professional (Volunteer) of the Year for the Flying Pig Marathon

(2016)

Affiliations:

• Ohio State Bar Association


• The Potter Stewart American Inn of Court

• Ohio Association for Justice


Courts Admitted:


• United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio (2010)

• United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio (2010)

• U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (2018)





Business 513.651.3700

MSDLegal.com

JUSTIN C. WALKER

Justin C. Walker is Of Counsel at Markovits, Stock & DeMarco. Justin’s practice areas are focused on

complex civil litigation and constitutional law, with an emphasis on consumer fraud and defective products. Before

joining Markovits, Stock & DeMarco in April 2019, Justin practiced at the Finney Law Firm, a boutique law firm

specializing in complex litigation and constitutional law. At the beginning of his legal career, Justin served as a judicial

extern for Senior United States District Judge Sandra S. Beckwith before taking a full-time position as a law clerk and

magistrate in the Hamilton County Ohio Court of Common Pleas for the Honorable Norbert A. Nadel. After

completing his clerkship, Justin took a position as a prosecutor, serving as first chair for multiple jury trials. Justin

then entered private practice, shifting his practice to focus on litigation matters.

Education:

University of Cincinnati, J.D. (2005)

Miami University, B.S. (2001)

Courts Admitted:



• U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio (2008)

• U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Ohio (2009)

Representative Cases:

• Linneman v. Vita-Mix Corp., Case No. 15-cv-748, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio

(Co-Class Counsel for a nationwide class of Vita-Mix blender consumers resulting in a nationwide

settlement).

• Baker v. City of Portsmouth, Case No. 1:14-cv-512, 2015 WL 5822659 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 1, 2015) (Co-

Counsel for a class of property owners, the Court ruled that City violated the Fourth Amendment when it

required property owners to consent to a warrantless inspection of their property or face a criminal penalty

where not valid exception to the warrant requirement exists).

• E.F. Investments, LLC v. City of Covington, Kentucky, Case No. 17-cv-00117-DLB-JGW, United States

District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky (Lead Counsel on case brought on behalf of local property

owners, contending that City’s rental registration requirements violated the Fourth Amendment resulting in

a settlement).

• State of Ohio ex rel. Patricia Meade v. Village of Bratenahl, 2018-04409, Supreme Court State of Ohio (Co-

Counsel on behalf of local taxpayer contending that Defendant’s violated Ohio Open Meetings Law).

• Dawson v. Village of Winchester, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio (Lead Counsel

represented Plaintiff claiming Federal Civil Rights violations due to unconstitutional arrest and detainment).

Affiliations and Presentations:


• Clermont County Bar Association


• “Municipal Bankruptcy: Chapter 9 – Should Cincinnati Consider Filing for Bankruptcy”

• “Ohio CLE Introduction to Bankruptcy for Lawyers CLE”


SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP

(www.sfmslaw.com)

Serving Our Clients Worldwide

Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP is a results driven law firm that is focused ondelivering the highest level of service possible to our clients throughout the globe. SFMSbelieves that approaching the representation of our clients with considered judgment and candor,as well as the highest degree of courtesy, professionalism and zeal possible, provides the bestopportunity for our clients to achieve and exceed their goals in any given matter. Having begunover ten years ago as a litigation boutique, SFMS has grown into a full-service firm that is ableto meet its clients’ needs in virtually any matter. The Firm maintains a number of offices in theUnited States that are strategically located to serve our clients. In addition, through a highlyrespected, global network of independent law, fiduciary trust and accounting firms, as well asaffiliate offices, SFMS is able to effectively meet the needs of its clients throughout the world. Although our practice has grown in terms of geographic scope to meet client needs, SFMSmaintains the culture of a boutique law firm with attorneys and staff working in aninterdisciplinary, team-based manner across and between different offices.

Focused On Results

As part of our mission statement, the Firm ensures that every client receives our best judgmentand a clear recommendation in every matter. In other words, although we always discuss andfully describe the array of alternatives available to our clients, we understand the importance ofadvocates being plain spoken, willing to challenge convention and strategic in their thinking. That is why we make certain that, without mincing words, SFMS always provides specificrecommendations to each client in clear and straightforward terms regarding the Firm’sjudgment as to the best way to achieve the goal at hand.

Motivated by Challenging Issues

The attorneys, other professionals and staff of SFMS are a diverse and accomplished group ofindividuals who value the professional rewards and other benefits of working in a collegial,team-oriented environment. The attorneys at SFMS have earned degrees from a variety ofhighly-respected colleges and law schools, including the University of California at Berkeley,University of Chicago, Cornell University, Duke University, Emory University, FordhamUniversity, George Washington University, Hastings College of Law, the University ofMaryland, the University of Oregon, University of Oxford, the University of Pennsylvania,Pennsylvania State University, Temple University, Trinity College, University of Pittsburgh,Villanova University and Yale University. Many graduated with distinction and were membersand editors of their respective schools’ law reviews, moot courts or honor fraternities. Mosthave served federal or state judicial clerkships, and others hold graduate degrees in law, tax orother disciplines.

Exhibit 3


Our professional staff also is highly experienced and accomplished. At SFMS, we believestrongly that the competence and commitment of our non-attorney staff is critical to achievingthe excellent client service that we always seek to deliver. We pride ourselves on workingcollegially together as a Firm while eschewing artificial hierarchy and stilted interactions infavor of a team-oriented environment that fosters creativity and a commitment to excellence.

Comprised of attorneys and staff that are almost exclusively alumni of large firms, SFMS teammembers have a keen understanding of the benefits of working in a boutique environment inwhich the opinions and contributions of all attorneys and staff are considered and valued. TheFirm’s clients also recognize these benefits and regularly comment upon SFMS’s responsivenessand the efficiencies achieved in specific engagements, where the attorneys and staff are clearlyand unselfishly committed to the simple goal of achieving an excellent result for the client, whileenjoying the opportunity to collaborate with peers in a workplace environment that maximizesthe potential of all team members and values the contributions of all.

At SFMS, we understand that it is best to approach any case, transaction, trial or other clientchallenge by obtaining a full understanding of the issues at hand and then engaging in strategicthinking, as well as hard work, to establish, and then meet and exceed, our clients’ establishedgoals. At SFMS, we are motivated by, and relish, the opportunity to confront challenging issues.That is why we consider it a privilege to work cooperatively with our clients to meet their goalsand overcome the inevitable challenges created by complicated transactions and the disputes thatclients regularly confront.

Socially Committed and Responsible

Although superior client service is our overriding aim, at SFMS, we also are committed toapproaching our practice in a socially responsible manner, while making meaningfulcontributions to support the communities in which we work, the world at large and the socialjustice system. In our first ten years, although we are proud of the over $1 billion in recoveriesthat we have obtained for our clients in litigation and similar matters, the important disputes thatwe have resolved and the significant transactions that we have completed, we are equally proudof the more than $100 million in charitable donations for which the Firm has been responsible inthe form of cy pres and other donations and gifts to assist those in need, as well as supporting thearts, education and other philanthropic causes. The Firm also is actively involved in pro bono

cases, having successfully assisted clients in a variety of diverse matters, including civil mattersfor indigent clients, death penalty appeals, immigration asylum matters and court-appointedprisoner rights cases.


Areas of Expertise

Although SFMS is not organized into formal departments or practice areas and, instead, believesthat our clients are best served by an interdisciplinary approach ensuring that the best attorneysfor a given matter are assigned to meet the client’s needs, the following constitute the Firm’smore significant practice areas:

M Antitrust, Competition and M Arbitration, Mediation and Trade Regulation Other ADR Procedures

M Business Counseling and M Commercial and OtherCorporate Transactions Complex Litigation

M Employee Benefits and M Institutional Investor ServicesFiduciary Compliance

M Insurance Coverage and Practices M Intellectual Property

M International Business and Trade M Labor and Employment

M Private Client Services M Qui Tam, False Claims and Whistleblower Proceedings

M Representative and Collective M Securities Regulation andLitigation Corporate Governance


Antitrust, Competition and Trade Regulation

SFMS has broad experience in dealing with the complex legal and economic issues that antitrust,competition and trade regulation questions can present. We offer clients significant litigationand counseling experience in virtually all aspects of antitrust and trade regulation litigation. Ourlawyers have successfully represented plaintiffs and defendants in major civil antitrust mattersthroughout the United States. SFMS attorneys also have extensive experience representingparties involved in related criminal, administrative and other regulatory proceedings. In suchmatters, our team members have extensive experience working with the Department of Justice,the Federal Trade Commission and various State Attorneys General, as well as, upon occasion,international regulatory bodies, including the European Union. SFMS also has worked with andrepresented governmental entities, including the State of Connecticut, in unfair trade practiceand related matters. Finally, SFMS has represented a number of clients, both businesses andconsumers, in unfair trade practice and consumer protection cases throughout the United Statesin a wide variety of jurisdictions, including in scores of individual and Multi-District Litigationproceedings, in cases arising under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Lanham Act, theMagnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and theUnfair Competition Law, as well as similar statutes and state laws in over 35 states and theDistrict of Columbia.

The Firm is actively involved in litigation concerning antitrust and unfair competition issuesrelating to, among other matters, vertical and horizontal price agreements, market allocations,concerted refusals to deal, monopolization, covenants not to compete, price-fixing and tyingarrangements, as well as unfair and deceptive trade practice, false advertising and commercialdisparagement. Our attorneys, with extensive experience in antitrust law and economics, as wellas knowledge of market realities, have represented businesses and individual consumers inantitrust cases in state and federal courts in the United States, as well as related criminal andregulatory proceedings. The Firm’s attorneys have successfully prosecuted and defendedantitrust cases, including price discrimination cases under the Robinson-Patman Act and price-fixing and tying cases under federal and state antitrust laws, to successful jury verdict.

In antitrust, competition, consumer protection and trade regulation cases, SFMS has beenappointed lead counsel in over 75 cases in the United States, in recognition of its broad range ofexperience and the excellent results that it has obtained for its clients in previous engagements.


Arbitration, Mediation and Other ADR Proceedings

SFMS considers the use of arbitration, mediation and other alternative dispute resolution(“ADR”) devices to be an integral part of the practice of law and the advice that we provide toour clients. The Firm’s arbitration and mediation practice, and the other ADR strategies that weemploy, enable us to achieve results that promote our clients’ goals, reduce the expense anddelay associated with resolving disputes, and avoid the distractions that more protractedproceedings may impose upon clients.

SFMS lawyers have a broad range of ADR experience in the fields of domestic and internationalarbitration, direct negotiation, mediation and other customized ADR options, including disputereview boards, med-arbs, mini-trials, private judging and summary jury trials in the fields ofantitrust, commercial transactions, construction, consumer and financial transactions, corporateand contract law, employment and labor disputes, intellectual property, insurance, and securitiesand corporate governance. In addition to regularly representing our clients in these ADRproceedings, SFMS attorneys have extensive experience acting as arbitrators, mediators, privatejudges and settlement counsel.

Members of the SFMS team have acted as advocates and/or neutrals in proceedings before theAmerican Arbitration Association, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, the FinancialIndustry Regulatory Authority f/k/a as the National Association of Securities Dealers and NewYork Stock Exchange, the Grain and Feed Trade Association in London, the International Centrefor Dispute Resolution, the International Chamber of Commerce, Judicial Arbitration andMediation Services, Inc., both domestically and internationally, and the London Court ofInternational Arbitration, as well as in a number of quasi-public and private ADR proceedings.

Business Counseling and Corporate Transactions

SFMS has extensive experience counseling its business clients in a variety of matters. TheFirm’s attorneys have experience in significant transactional work, as well as vast experienceproviding corporate and business counseling to our clients, including in the areas of businessformations, capital markers, contract drafting, sales or purchases of businesses, mergers andconsolidations, joint ventures, employee and independent contractor agreements, confidentialityagreements, public and private offerings, stock sale, transfer and other arrangements, severancepackages, third party agreements and corporate governance matters. On the rare occasions whena corporate or business matter requires even greater expertise from a transactional, taxation orother perspective, we work with our clients to identify the best co-counsel with which to work onthat particular matter and with whom we maintain relationships around the world, and thensupervise the work of such counsel to ensure that the client’s needs are being met in cost-effective and efficient manner.


SFMS acts as outside general counsel for a number of small- to mid-size businesses, as well ascertain subsidiaries of overseas corporations. Since the Firm uses a multi-disciplinary, team-oriented approach to staffing all business counseling and corporate transactional work, SFMS isable to provide high quality, cost-effective representation for the clients that choose to so engageus. In fact, certain clients have apprised us that, based upon the efficient and business-mindedmanner in which we approach such matters, it often makes sense for them to engage SFMS, eventhough the Firm may, at times, bill at higher hourly rates than other law firms. Since SFMSapproaches every engagement based upon the principles of value billing and seeks to rewardproductivity and outcomes, as opposed to time spent on an engagement, the Firm consistently isinformed by its corporate clients that it provides higher quality and lower cost services thanmany of its competitors, both large and small, that work exclusively or predominantly in the areaof business counseling and corporate transactions.

Commercial and Other Complex Litigation

SFMS has extensive experience handling a wide variety of commercial litigation matters. Theattorneys at SFMS have decades of experience representing large national and internationalcorporations, as well as smaller businesses and other entities in such matters. The broad range ofcommercial litigation matters that SFMS lawyers have handled include contract disputes, breachof duty claims, abuse of trust cases, business torts, trade disputes, unfair competition claims andrelated issues, including risk assessment and litigation avoidance. We represent clients indiverse industry sectors, including large publicly traded and international companies, as well assmaller business enterprises in connection with their complex commercial litigation matters. Inaddition to handling such matters in federal and state courts in the United States, SFMSattorneys also have significant experience handling claims in international arbitration forums andwith co-counsel in courts outside of the United States. In representing clients in commerciallitigation matters, SFMS attorneys have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars, includingrecoveries from governments and state trading entities. SFMS attorneys regularly appear infederal and state courts throughout the United States, as well as bankruptcy and appellate courts. In fact, on the appellate front, as a result of our track record of winning many significant andgroundbreaking appeals over the last decade, other practitioners regularly approach us andrequest that we assist them in pursuing or defending appeals in federal and state courts.

The Firm handles commercial litigation pursuant to traditional hourly billing arrangements and,on an increasingly frequent basis, has been retained to handle litigation for corporate plaintiffson a contingent fee basis. We have found that, while many corporate counsel tend to bereluctant to deviate from tried and true hourly billing procedures, in appropriate circumstances, acontingent fee structure ensures the proper incentives and often works to further the client’sinterests, while providing desirable incentives to litigate efficiently, maximize recoveries andminimize the length of pretrial proceedings.


Employee Benefits and Fiduciary Compliance

SFMS handles a variety of employee benefits and fiduciary litigation, as well as complianceissues, for our clients -- most of which arise under the Internal Revenue Code and the EmployeeRetirement Income Security Act of 1974. SFMS attorneys have represented employee benefitplan fiduciaries, including plan trustees, as plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety ofemployee benefits and fiduciary compliance matters. The Firm’s attorneys also have experienceworking with independent fiduciaries in certain cases. The attorneys at SFMS also haverepresented clients in a number of cases involving Taft-Hartley fund delinquent contributionsand similar matters. The Firm has handled a number of novel and ground-breaking ERISAcases, including issues regarding revenue-sharing practices, cash balance and cross-tested plans,common stock declines and stock options with regard to qualified retirement plans, including401(k), 403(b), 457, profit sharing, money purchase pension, cash balance, annuity, and definedbenefit plans.

Most of the employee benefits and fiduciary compliance litigation that SFMS handles involvingemployee benefits and fiduciary compliance occurs in federal district courts in the United States. In such litigation, SFMS has significant experience working with the U.S. Department of Labor,as well as the Department of Justice. SFMS attorneys also have experience representing theinterest of our clients in bankruptcy court and related proceedings in connection with bothemployee benefits and fiduciary compliance matters.

Institutional Investor Services

SFMS provides a variety of compliance, litigation, monitoring, regulatory and transactionalservices to institutional investors, including educational and endowment based funds, hedgefunds, public and private pension funds and private equity firms. Among the other services thatit provides to institutional clients, the Firm performs corporate governance and securitiesinvestment monitoring for virtually all of its institutional clients pursuant to which it advisesclients when they should consider legal action to protect their rights as shareholders in acorporation. In connection with its SFMS TrackerK service, SFMS offers the following

portfolio services to institutional investor clients: (a) the development of guidelines and policystatements regarding securities and other shareholder litigation, as well as other corporategovernance initiatives, to meet fiduciary obligations; (b) the monitoring of securities and relatedlitigation that affects the client’s investments; (c) the investigation and evaluation of potentialand pending litigation to evaluate the appropriate role, if any, for the client; (d) the preparationof presentations for institutional clients regarding the status of potential and pending litigationand other corporate governance initiatives; (e) provision of updates regarding the settlement orother resolution of litigation, disputes and other initiatives; (f) assistance to clients in completingappropriate claim forms and other documentation to maximize recoveries; and (g) coordinationof the holding of certain securities in custodial accounts with a financial institution pursuant to aspecialized agreement that SFMS was instrumental in crafting to protect client interests inappropriate circumstances.


Insurance Coverage and Practices

SFMS has significant experience in handling legal issues related to insurance coverage andpractices. SFMS attorneys have experience negotiating and litigating with many major U.S.insurance companies, as well as Lloyd’s, the London Market and other international insurers.The Firm has achieved outstanding results for our clients across a wide variety of issues andforums. SFMS attorneys have handled insurance coverage matters related to businessinterruption, defamation, health insurance, privacy, advertising, personal injury claims,Directors’ and Officers’ liability, employment practices liability, environmental cleanup and‘toxic tort’ liability, fidelity bonds and crime policies, financial insurance, intellectual property(copyright, trademark and patent infringement), product liability, professional errors andomissions (malpractice) liability, property and valuable articles coverage, ‘self-insurance’ andworkers’ compensation insurance. In such matters, SFMS attorneys have experience with allprincipal coverage issues that arise under standard liability and first-party property policies, aswell as many specialty coverages, have addressed many of the procedural aspects of insurancecoverage litigation, including choice of law, forum non conveniens, party joinder and casemanagement issues, duty-to-defend disputes, and independent counsel and fee-rate limitationissues. The Firm also has extensive experience in handling claims regarding insurancemarketing, settlement and payment practices, as well as insurance practices regarding thecalculation of benefits. SFMS attorneys have played a substantial role in litigating majorinsurance practice-related claims with respect to automobile insurance loss adjustment practices,burial insurance, health insurance and continuation of benefits issues, title insurance charges andvanishing premium insurance policies.

Intellectual Property

SFMS has significant experience providing an array of legal services in the areas of patent,copyright, trademark, trade secret, outsourcing, software, technology, restrictive covenants andfranchise law. These services include obtaining protection, registrations, amendments andrenewals with respect to patents, copyrights, trade secrets, service marks and trademarks. SFMSalso counsels its clients on licensing, marketing, distribution and other commercial transactionsregarding products, services and technologies protectable under international, federal, state orlocal intellectual property laws. SFMS attorneys also have litigated and provided advice aboutdisputes involving the protection and enforcement of rights in patents, trademarks, copyrights,confidential information and trade secrets, technology, covenants not to compete, and otherintellectual property. SFMS has significant experience in prosecuting and defending copyright,trademark and patent infringement cases, unfair competition actions, Internet and technologydisputes (including those involving software and computer technology), franchise disputes, falseadvertising claims, litigation concerning trade secrets and restrictive covenants, and other claimsrelating to intellectual property. SFMS attorneys also are well-versed not only on the substanceof intellectual property law, but also on federal and state court procedural issues, includingobtaining and defending against temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions that


often are sought in intellectual property actions. Finally, SFMS attorneys are proficient inresolving intellectual property disputes through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, suchas arbitration and mediation.

International Business and Trade

SFMS represents companies and other business entities based in the United States and overseasin a variety of international business and trade matters. The Firm’s attorneys have assisted ourforeign and United States clients with organizing foreign subsidiaries, joint ventures, mergers,acquisitions and recapitalizations, manufacturing agreements, sales, leasing and supplyagreements, international distribution of goods and services, cross-border technology licensing,licensing agreements and registration of U.S. and foreign trademarks, copyrights and patents,privacy and data protection, as well as Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance. SFMSattorneys also assist our clients in addressing immigration matters, international estate planning,and real estate acquisition issues to the extent that those needs arise. In addition, the Firmregularly represents a number of clients based overseas in arbitration, mediation, other ADRproceedings and litigation matters.

SFMS’s International Business and Trade practice works with local counsel in many countries tohelp clients understand and manage risks posed by different legal systems. As an active memberof IAG International (Integrated Advisory Group), http://www.iaginternational.org, a consortiumof independent law, fiduciary trust and accounting firms in Asia, Canada, Central America,Europe, the Middle East, South America and the United States, SFMS is able to effectively meetthe needs of its clients on a global basis. As part of its growing international practice, SFMSactively encourages its more junior lawyers to actively participate in AIJA (the InternationalAssociation of Young Lawyers), http: www.aija.org, since we understand that, by building andmaintaining professional relationships throughout the globe, SFMS is able to provide a servicelevel in international matters that is infrequently matched by other boutique firms.

We have attorneys fluent or proficient in Cantonese Chinese, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese,French, Italian and Spanish, and many have spent substantial time working outside the UnitedStates. We are experienced working internationally and counsel our clients on the cultural andlegal norms of doing business in various foreign jurisdictions. We also assist our clients toachieve their goals with our team approach and a thorough understanding of their internationalbusiness needs. We have experience in many areas throughout the world, including Argentina,Australia, Bermuda, Brazil, British Virgin Islands, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, DominicanRepublic, Dubai, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kuwait,Mexico, the Netherlands, Russia, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, the UnitedKingdom and Yemen.


Labor and Employment

SFMS has a significant and eclectic practice in the field of labor and employment matters. TheFirm has represented individuals, companies, governmental entities and other employers, as wellas labor organizations, in a wide range of employment and labor litigation, as well as othermatters. SFMS attorneys have extensive experience counseling and representing their clients inlitigation, as well as other disputes and challenges, regarding ERISA and employment benefits,federal and state wage and hour laws, questions regarding H1N1 (swine) flu workforceresources, immigration, international employment, labor-management relations, noncompetitionagreements and trade secrets, occupational safety and health, equal employment and affirmativeaction matters, workplace safety, changes, reductions-in-force and training.

The Firm’s attorneys have negotiated collective bargaining agreements, appeared before theNational Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other fairemployment practice agencies, as well as before various mediation and arbitration panels thatspecialize in employment and labor issues. SFMS has vast experience working on a diversearray of employment and labor cases, including cases involving age, defamation, gender, genderdysphoria, race and sexual orientation discrimination, ERISA and benefits matters, breach ofcontract claims, and wage/hour claims. SFMS and its attorneys also have served as lead counselin a number of wage/hour class actions, as well as discrimination and other employment classactions. In those cases in which the Firm has represented plaintiffs, it has recovered millions ofdollars for its clients. Finally, the Firm serves as national labor counsel for several selectemployers and also is pleased to count a number of local and international labor organizationsamong its clients.

Private Client Services

SFMS also provides private client services to existing and select clients with respect to domesticand international estate planning, charitable planned giving, trust and estate administration,family law matters, executive compensation, real estate and federal and state tax issues. Inaddition, upon occasion, the Firm will represent existing clients in personal litigation. In theseareas, SFMS has a broad range of expertise, having assisted clients in the United States andoverseas with significant estate planning issues, having negotiated executive compensationpackages, as well as severance packages, for senior executives at U.S. and internationalconcerns, and having assisted existing clients in custody, divorce, guardianship and separationmatters arising from family crises or disputes. The Firm also has experience assisting our clientsin negotiating and closing real estate transactions, both in the commercial and non-commercialfields. SFMS regularly works with accountants and auditors to address federal, state and localtax issues for its clients and has significant experience handling offers in compromise anddefending tax proceedings initiated by government entities, including the Internal RevenueService and the Department of Justice. SFMS believes strongly that, when the need arises, itsattorneys and other professionals must and should be prepared to assist our clients in theseimportant private matters.


Qui Tam, False Claims and Whistleblower Proceedings

SFMS has broad experience in handling legal issues related to false claims, whistleblower andqui tam cases under the federal False Claims Act and similar state laws, as well as assistingclients in internal investigations. The federal False Claims Act has proven to be an effective,powerful and, sometimes, frightening tool in fighting Medicare and Medicaid fraud, defensecontractor fraud and other types of fraud perpetrated against federal and state governments. The‘qui tam’ provisions, which allow whistleblowers to file False Claims Act lawsuits againstcompanies and individuals that allegedly defraud the government with the opportunity to obtaina “bounty,” have been a key ingredient in the False Claims Act’s success, as the federalgovernment has recovered more than $15 billion as a result of qui tam lawsuits since 1986, withwhistleblowers’ rewards totaling more than $2.5 billion. SFMS attorneys have representedclients in a number of significant cases under the False Claims Act. In addition, the Firm hassignificant experience representing clients in qui tam cases brought under similar state lawsagainst companies and individuals accused of defrauding state and local government agencies.The Firm currently is representing clients in a number of qui tam actions under the False ClaimsAct and state law, many of which, including several large prosecutions, are ‘under seal’ and,therefore, cannot be publicly disclosed. SFMS similarly has significant experience handling quitam, false claims and whistleblower cases under the Dodd-Frank Act for alleged securities fraudand related misconduct, as well as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, related to alleged briberyof foreign officials and others to secure business preferences overseas. Finally, the Firm hasrepresented clients performing internal investigations arising from whistleblower complaints andhas developed effective, methodological tools to address such matters.

Representative and Collective Litigation

SFMS has a broad range of experience in representing clients in class action and otherrepresentative/collective litigation. The attorneys at SFMS have been appointed lead counsel inscores of class action and similar cases, and the courts that have appointed SFMS in suchlitigation have consistently recognized the excellent representation provided by SFMS in suchengagements. SFMS attorneys have extensive experience representing the interests of theirclients in antitrust, consumer protection, employment discrimination/civil rights, employeebenefits, ERISA, fiduciary compliance, housing practices, insurance coverage/practices,securities fraud/breach of fiduciary duty, and wage and hour class action litigation.

In such litigation, SFMS has represented a variety of private and public plaintiffs, includinginstitutional and other significant investors, private companies, officers and directors, otherfiduciaries and labor organizations. In such litigation, SFMS has been successful in recoveringhundreds of millions of dollars for our clients and, in addition, has procured tens of millions ofdollars in charitable cy pres donations to worthy organizations as a result of the outcomes thatwe have achieved. Unlike certain lawyers who exclusively handle class action litigation, weknow how to prosecute cases to trial and have extensive experience trying cases. In federal and


state courts, as well as arbitral forums, SFMS attorneys have tried such cases for both plaintiffsand defendants to successful jury verdict, judgment and award.Securities Regulation and Corporate Governance

SFMS has significant experience in the fields of securities regulation and corporate governance. In such matters, SFMS has represented a variety of private and public entities, includinginstitutional and other investors, investment managers, hedge funds, public and private pensionfunds, as well as private companies, officers and directors, and labor organizations. In additionto counseling our clients on matters related to securities regulation and corporate governance,SFMS attorneys have litigated complex securities and directors’ and officers’ liability cases infederal and state courts across the country. Our securities litigation practice is one of the largestand strongest practice areas of the Firm. We have significant trial and appellate experience inthe following areas: shareholder class actions; significant shareholder opt-out cases;derivative/director and officer cases and investigations; corporate control contests; regulatoryenforcement and criminal prosecution matters. Our attorneys have worked with and against theSEC, Department of Justice and various self-regulatory organizations, including FINRA, inrepresenting our clients. SFMS attorneys also have experience with a variety of securitiesregistration and regulation issues under federal and state law and have worked with clients withrespect to Blue Sky and other compliance issues. Finally, the Firm has served as lead counsel ina number of securities class action and other corporate governance matters and, in suchrepresentations, SFMS has recovered tens of millions of dollars for our clients, while achievingimportant corporate governance reforms.


James C. Shah

Pennsylvania Office

Telephone: 610-891-9800

Facsimile: 866-300-7367

Email: [email protected]

James C. Shah joined SFMS in 2000. He is admitted to practice law in the States of California,New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, as well as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania andnumerous federal courts, including the United States District Courts for the Southern District ofCalifornia, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, District of New Jersey, Eastern District ofWisconsin and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In addition to thesecourts and jurisdictions, Jim has worked on cases with local and co-counsel nationwide andinternationally.

Jim concentrates his practice on antitrust, consumer and insurance litigation, as well as complexcommercial and employment matters. He also has significant experiencing representing clientsin a wide variety of corporate governance, securities, construction defect, employment andwage/hour cases. Finally, Jim has represented clients in a number of FINRA arbitrations andother proceedings, as well as in a variety of United States and international arbitral and otheralternative dispute resolution forums.

Jim earned his undergraduate degree in Political Science from the University of Oregon and hislaw degree from Temple University School of Law. Jim was a member of Temple's nationallyacclaimed Trial Team and also participated on Moot Court. Before joining the Firm, Jimpracticed as a litigator in Philadelphia with Pelino & Lentz, P.C., where he concentrated hispractice on employment and labor law, securities disputes and general commercial litigation. In2000, Jim joined forces with Scott Shepherd at which time the Firm was created and, since thattime, has been involved in all aspects of the Firm's practice.

Jim is a member of the New Jersey and Pennsylvania Bar Associations, as well as the AmericanAssociation for Justice, the National Association of Securities and Consumer Attorneys. Heresides with his family in Collingswood, New Jersey and is active in community, political andcharitable activities.

To learn more about SFMS and for biographies of all of its professionals, please visit ourwebsite at www.sfmslaw.com.


Ronald S. Kravitz

California Office - San Francisco

Telephone: 415-429-5272

Facsimile: 866-300-7367

Email: [email protected]

Ronald S. Kravitz joined SFMS in 2014. He is admitted to practice law in the States ofCalifornia and Texas and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and numerous federal courts,including the United States District Courts for all Districts of California, the Middle District ofFlorida, the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Northern Districtof Ohio, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern and Southern Districts of Texas, theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Ninth Circuit and EleventhCircuit and the United States Supreme Court. In addition to these courts and jurisdictions, Ronhas worked on cases with local and co-counsel nationwide and internationally. Ron began hislegal career as an Attorney Advisor for the U.S. Department of Justice.

With more than 25 years of experience as legal counsel in complex business litigation matters,his practice has been focused primarily on ERISA, employment, intellectual property, andsecurities-related matters since 1992. He has represented numerous fiduciaries, third-party planadministrators, broker-dealers, and registered representatives in connection with planadministration and investment matters. Ron has served as lead or co-lead class counsel innumerous ERISA class actions throughout the country.

Ron is a past Chairman of the Integrated Advisory Group (IAG), current co-chair of IAG'sLitigation Specialist Group, a regional board member of the Anti-Defamation League and theco-chair of the ABA Employee Benefits Committee Fiduciary sub-committee. In addition, Ronis a Lifetime Fellow of the American Bar Foundation and is active in the University of SanFrancisco Inn of Court.

To learn more about SFMS and for biographies of all of its professionals, please visit ourwebsite at www.sfmslaw.com.


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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CASE NO. 5:18-CV-05626

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and accurate copy of the

foregoing was filed electronically via the Court’s ECF system, on July 31, 2019.

Notice of electronic filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s

electronic filing system.

DATED: July 31, 2019

GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.

/s/Jeffrey S. Goldenberg Jeffrey S. Goldenberg


[70...2019/07/31 · 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...

Documents

Transcript of [70...2019/07/31 · 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...