In re: Geisinger Health Data Security Incident Litigation

           IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           
        FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA                          

In re Geisinger Health Data Security    No. 4:24-CV-01071                
Incident Litigation                                                      
                                       (Chief Judge Brann)               

                   MEMORANDUM OPINION                                    

                        JANUARY 30, 2025                                 
    In this data breach class action, two groups of attorneys have filed dueling 
motions  to  be  appointed  interim  class  counsel (through their respective named 
plaintiffs). Although there is little daylight between the applications, under the 
applicable standards, the Wierbowski Plaintiffs’ proposed interim class counsel are 
best  able  to  fairly  and  adequately  represent  the  interests  of  the  putative  class. 
Accordingly, the Wierbowski Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint interim class counsel is 
granted, and the Schulte Plaintiffs’ motion for the same is denied.       
I.   BACKGROUND                                                           
    On June 28, 2024, Plaintiff James Wierbowski filed a six-count class action 
complaint against Defendants Geisinger Health and Nuance Communications.1 At 

some point in the past, Wierbowski visited a Geisinger location to receive healthcare 
services and, in the process, provided his personally identifiable and personal health 
information (“PII” and “PHI”) to Geisinger.2 Geisinger contracts with Nuance for 


1   Doc. 1 (Wierbowski Compl.).                                           
healthcare technology services and shares its patients’ PII and PHI as part of those 
services.3 Geisinger and Nuance both promise to take measures to maintain the 

privacy of PII and PHI entrusted to them.4                                
    On or about November 29, 2023, Geisinger became aware that a former  
Nuance employee was accessing Geisinger patient information after he had been 
terminated (the “Data Breach” or “Breach”).5 He was able to do so because Nuance 

did  not  immediately  revoke  his  access  to  its  network  after  terminating  him.6 
According to Geisinger’s notice, the Data Breach may have affected “more than one 
million Geisinger patients.”7 Wierbowski accordingly brought suit to recover on 

behalf of a putative class of similarly situated Geisinger patients.8     
    Several other putative class actions arising out of the Data Breach were also 
filed, and on July 31, 2024, the Court consolidated all pending and future related 

cases into Wierbowski’s suit and restyled it “In re Geisinger Health Data Security 
Incident Litigation.”9 The Court also set a deadline for any Plaintiffs to file a motion 
for appointment of interim lead counsel.10 Two groups of Plaintiffs filed motions. 



3   Id. ¶¶ 21-23.                                                         
4   Id. ¶¶ 24-27, 28-38.                                                  
5   Id. ¶ 40.                                                             
6   Id. ¶ 41.                                                             
7   Id. ¶ 43.                                                             
8   Id. ¶¶ 5-6.                                                           
9   See Doc. 18 (Order Consolidating Cases) ¶¶ 1, 4.                      
10   Id. ¶ 5.                                                             
    One group of Plaintiffs, consisting of Wierbowski, John and Carolynn Saxer, 
Amber Lopez, Amanda Bidgood, and Ralph Reviello (the “Wierbowski Plaintiffs”), 

moved to appoint Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. and Ben Barnow, Esq. as interim co-lead 
class counsel and Scott Edward Cole, Esq., Andrew W. Ferich, Esq., Todd S. Garber, 
Esq., and Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq. as the plaintiffs’ executive committee.11 

    The other Plaintiffs’ group, consisting of Robert Schulte Jr., Barbara Gray, 
Michelle Davis, Ruth Albright, Jasmine Alicea, Brenda Everett, Mark Dushok, 
Christina Izquierdo, and Eric O’Brien (the “Schulte Plaintiffs”) moved to appoint 
John Yanchunis, Esq. and Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. as interim co-lead class counsel, 

Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq., Charles E. Schaffer, Esq., A.J. de Bartolomeo, Esq., 
Marc Edelson, Esq., Richard Golomb, Esq., and Patrick Egan, Esq. as the plaintiffs’ 
executive committee, and Clifford A. Rieders, Esq. as local liaison counsel.12 

    The motions are now ripe for disposition; for the reasons that follow, the 
Wierbowski  Plaintiffs’  motion  is  granted  and  the  Schulte  Plaintiffs’  motion  is 
denied.                                                                   
II.  LEGAL STANDARD                                                       

    Federal  Rule  of  Civil  Procedure  23(g)(3)  grants  the  Court  discretion  to 
“designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining 



11   Doc. 35 (Wierbowski Plaintiffs’ Mot.).                               
12   Doc. 36 (Schulte Plaintiffs’ Mot.).                                  
whether to certify the action as a class action.”13 In considering attorneys’ fitness to 
serve as interim class counsel, the Court considers the factors set forth in Rule 

23(g)(1), which governs appointment of class counsel.14                   
    Pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1)(A), the Court must consider:               
       (i)  the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating    
           potential claims in the action;                               
       (ii)  counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex 
           litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action;   
      (iii)  counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and              
      (iv)  the resources that counsel will commit to representing the   
           class.15                                                      
The Court may also consider “any other matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly 
and  adequately  represent  the  interests  of  the  class.”16  When  multiple  adequate 

applicants seek appointment, “the Court must appoint the applicant best able to 
represent the interests of the class.”17                                  






13   Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3).                                            
14   In re Vanguard Chester Funds Litig., 

625 F. Supp. 3d 362

, 365 (E.D. Pa. 2022); Waudby v. 
 Verizon Wireless Servs., LLC, 

248 F.R.D. 173, 175-76

 (D.N.J. 2008).     
15   Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A).                                         
16   Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B).                                         
17   Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2).                                            
III.  DISCUSSION                                                          
    A.   Work Counsel Has Done                                           

    Both attorney groups have done comparable work on this litigation to date. 
They have investigated details of the breach,18 analyzed possible legal theories and 
potential  causes  of  action,19  communicated  with  named  and  putative  class 
members,20 and prepared class action complaints.21 Both groups have also retained 

expert witnesses in anticipation of the merits phase of this litigation.22 
    To the extent any distinction is discernable, the Wierbowski attorneys may be 
able  to  claim  an  edge  on  this  factor.  Messrs.  Johns  and  Barnow  represented 

Wierbowski when he filed the first of the complaints to recover for the Breach. The 
Wierbowki Plaintiffs also claim that their attorneys filed a “Right-to-Know” request 
with the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General and note that Johns and Barnow 

were responsible for coordinating with various plaintiffs’ counsel to prepare and file 
the motion to consolidate related actions and set a briefing schedule for the motions 
to appoint interim class counsel.23 Nevertheless, the Court assigns minimal weight 
to these considerations, as being first to file by a mere four days is far from a 



18   Doc. 35 at 3; Doc. 36 at 5 ¶ (b).                                    
19   Doc. 35 at 3; Doc. 36 at 5 ¶ (a).                                    
20   Doc. 35 at 3; Doc. 36 at 5 ¶ (d).                                    
21   Doc. 35 at 3; Doc. 36 at 5 ¶ (e).                                    
22   Doc. 35 at 3; Doc. 36 at 5 ¶ (c); see In re Vanguard, 625 F. Supp. 3d at 366 (noting potential 
 relevance of retaining expert witness).                                 
23   Doc. 35 at 3-4; Doc. 14 (Mot. to Consolidate and Set Briefing Schedule). 
“substantial” advantage,24 the value of a “Right-to-Know” request in a case against 
private defendants involving only private conduct is questionable,25 and the extent 

of the “coordination” led by Johns and Barnow appears to be obtaining plaintiffs’ 
consent to the motion to consolidate.26                                   
    Accordingly, the Court does not award the first Rule 23(g)(1)(A) factor to 

either movant.                                                            
    B.   Counsel’s Experience                                            
    In general, differences in counsel’s experience tend to be the most important 
consideration in appointing interim class counsel.27 Accordingly, the Court will 

closely  scrutinize  this  factor.  Both  Plaintiffs  groups’  proposed  counsel  have 
extensive experience in handling both complex litigation generally and data breach 
actions specifically.                                                     

         1.   Wierbowski Plaintiffs                                      
              a.   Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.                               
    Mr. Johns claims two decades of practice experience including a number of 
plaintiffs’-side leadership roles in complex cases. For example, he served as lead or 


24   In re Vanguard, 625 F. Supp. 3d at 369 (rejecting first to file as a useful consideration and 
 noting that 49 days between filings was “not a substantial difference”); but see In re Municipal 
 Derivatives Antitrust Litig., 

252 F.R.D. 184, 186

 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (reasoning that, along with 
 other evidence, first to file consideration was relevant to “work done” factor when subsequent 
 complaints were “substantially similar” to first-filed complaint).      
25   The Court has not located a similar case in which a public records request was relevant. 
26   Doc. 14 (signed only by Johns and Barnow); see Doc. 14-1 (Certificate of Concurrence). 
27   See Outten v. Wilmington Tr. Corp., 

281 F.R.D. 193, 200-01

 (D. Del. 2012). 
co-lead counsel in In re Macbook Keyboard Litigation and Udeen v. Subaru of 
America, Inc., both of which resulted in settlements which were praised by their 

respective judges.28 Mr. Johns has also been appointed to leadership roles in many 
data breach class actions, including medical data breaches like Nelson v. Connexin 
Software Inc. d/b/a Office Practicum,29 Breneman v. Keystone Health,30 and In re 
Onix Group, LLC Data Breach Litigation.31 Much of Mr. Johns’ litigation, including 

the three just-listed cases, has occurred in Pennsylvania.32              
              b.   Ben Barnow, Esq.                                      
    Mr. Barnow has practiced law for more than fifty years.33 Over the course of 

his career, he has steered more than fifty major complex cases resulting in class-
wide recoveries.34 Some of his most prominent victories include Warner v. Toyota 


28   Doc. 35-1 (Johns Decl.) ¶ 12 (citing In re Macbook Keyboard Litig., No. 5:18-CV-2813 (N.D. 
 Cal.) and Udeen v. Subaru of Am., Inc., No. 18-CV-17334 (D.N.J.)); see also Doc. 35-1 at 15-
 17 (citing In re Nexus 6P Product Liab. Litig., No. 5:17-CV-2185 (N.D. Cal.); In re MyFord 
 Touch Consumer Litig., No. 13-CV-3072 (N.D. Cal.); Weeks v. Google LLC, 5:18-CV-0801 
 (N.D. Cal.); and others).                                               
29   Doc. 35-1 at 15 (citing No. 22-CV-4676 (E.D. Pa.) (data breach against medical records vendor 
 resulting in $4 million common-fund settlement)).                       
30   Doc. 35-1 at 15 (citing No. 2023-618 (Pa. Ct. C.P.) (data breach against medical company 
 resulting in $900,000 common-fund settlement)).                         
31   Doc. 35-1 at 14 (citing No. 23-CV-2288 (E.D. Pa.) (data breach against medical records vendor 
 resulting in recently approved settlement)).                            
32   See Doc. 35-1 at 14-15 (citing In re NCB Mgmt. Servs., Inc. Data Breach Litig., No. 2:23-CV-
 1236 (E.D. Pa.); Gravely, Sr. v. Fresenius Vascular Care, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-1148 (E.D. Pa.); 
 Bianucci v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 24-CV-3356 (E.D. Pa.); Hughes v. UGI Storage Co., 

263 A.3d 1144

 (Pa. 2021) (argued by Mr. Johns)); Doc. 35 at 6-7 (citing In re Wawa, Inc. Data Sec. 
 Litig., No. 2:19-CV-6019 (E.D. Pa.); In re Rutter’s Inc. Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 1:20-CV-
 382 (M.D. Pa.); In re Keystone Data Breach Litig., No. 1:22-CV-1643 (M.D. Pa.)) 
33   Doc. 35-2 (Barnow Decl.) at 10.                                      
34   Doc. 35-2 ¶ 4.                                                       
Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., which culminated in settlement benefits estimated at $3.4 
billion, and Gann v. Nissan North America, Inc., with a settlement valued at over 

$444 million.35 He has also been lead or co-lead counsel in myriad data breach class 
actions,  including  Kostka  v.  Dickey’s  Barbeque  Restaurants,  Inc.,36  and  In  re 
Countrywide Financial Corp. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation.37   

    Moreover, Mr. Barnow has played a significant role in establishing data 
breach jurisprudence. In In re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation, he 
helped to negotiate a widely discussed settlement, described by Judge William G. 
Young of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts as 

containing  “innovative”  and  “groundbreaking”  elements.38  He  also  achieved 
appellate reversals of the dismissal of plaintiffs’ data breach claims on Article III 
standing grounds as lead counsel in In re Horizon Healthcare Services Inc. Data 

Breach Litigation and Galaria v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., and contributed 
to a similar reversal in In re Zappos.com, Inc.39                         



35   Doc. 35 at 8 (citing Warner v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 15-CV-2171 (C.D. Cal.) 
 and Gann v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 3:18-CV-0966 (M.D. Tenn.)).        
36   Doc. 35-2 ¶ 6 (citing No. 3:20-CV-3424 (N.D. Tex.) (data breach resulting in $2,350,000 
 settlement fund)).                                                      
37   Doc. 35-2 ¶ 6 (citing No. 08-MD-1998 (W.D. Ky.) (data breach MDL resulting in benefits for 
 17 million settlement class members)); see Doc. 35-2 at 11-5 (collecting 22 data breach cases). 
38   Doc. 35 at 9 (citing No. 07-CV-10162 (D. Mass.)).                    
39   Doc. 35 at 9 (citing In re Horizon Healthcare Servs. Inc. Data Breach Litig., 

846 F.3d 625

 (3d 
 Cir. 2017); Galaria v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 

663 F. App’x 384

 (6th Cir. 2016); In re 
 Zappos.com, Inc., 

888 F.3d 1020

 (9th Cir. 2018)).                       
              c.   Proposed Executive Committee                          
    The Wierbowski Plaintiffs’ proposed executive committee members also have 

extensive experience with complex and data breach litigation. Scott Edward Cole 
has served as lead or co-lead counsel in a number of federal data breach cases.40 
Andrew W. Ferich was recently appointed co-lead counsel in a data breach class 

action  pending  in  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of 
Pennsylvania and has served as class counsel in several other data privacy class 
actions.41 Todd S. Garber has acted as lead or co-lead counsel in many data breach 
class actions over a twenty-year career.42 And Kenneth Grunfield acts as part of 

plaintiffs’ leadership in a number of pending data breach cases.43        
    In addition to their individual experience, the Wierbowski Plaintiffs’ proposed 
counsel note that they also have extensive experience working with each other, and 

Johns and Barnow in particular note that they were co-lead counsel in Perdue v. Hy-
Vee Inc. and Kostka v. Dickey’s Barbeque Restaurant, Inc.44               




40   Doc. 35 at 12 (collecting cases).                                    
41   Doc. 35 at 13 (citing Reichbart v. Fin. Bus. & Consumer Sol., Inc., No. 2:24-CV-1876 (E.D. 
 Pa.) and collecting cases).                                             
42   Doc. 35 at 13-14 (collecting cases).                                 
43   Doc. 35 at 14-15 (collecting cases).                                 
44   Doc. 35 at 5 (citing Perdue v. Hy-Vee Inc., No. 1:19-CV-1330 (C.D. Ill.) and Kostka v. 
 Dickey’s Barbeque Rest., Inc., No. 3:20-CV-3424 (N.D. Tex.)); see City of Providence v. 
 AbbVie Inc., 

2020 WL 6049139

, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2020) (noting importance of 
 counsel’s experience litigating cases together).                        
         2.   Schulte Plaintiffs                                         
              a.   John Yanchunis, Esq.                                  

    Mr. Yanchunis has practiced law for thirty-six years and leads the class action 
department  at  a  relatively  large  plaintiffs’-side  firm  (Morgan  &  Morgan).45 
Throughout his career he been appointed lead counsel in a surplus of high-profile 

complex litigation, including data breach MDLs like In re Capital One Consumer 
Data  Security  Breach  Litigation,  which  resulted  in  a  $190,000,000  approved 
settlement for a class of 98 million customers that was complimented by Judge 
Anthony Trenga of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Virginia as “an ‘outstanding result’” attributable to the work of counsel, In re Yahoo! 
Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, which culminated in a $117,500,000 
settlement fund for a class of approximately 194,270,000 plaintiffs, and In re The 

Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, which settled for 
$29,025,000 for 40 million consumers.46 Mr. Yanchunis also served as lead or co-
lead counsel in data breach class actions such as Schmidt, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., 
Walters v. Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant, and In re Arby’s Restaurant Group Inc. 




45   Doc. 36 at 7.                                                        
46   Doc. 36-2 (Yanchunis Resume) at 3-4 (citing In re Capital One Consumer Data Sec. Breach 
 Litig., No. 1:19-MD-2915 (E.D. Va.); In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., No. 
 No. 5:16-MD-2752 (N.D. Cal.); In re The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach 
 Litig., No. 1:14-MD-2583 (N.D. Ga.)).                                   
Data Security Litigation, all of which resulted in beneficial settlements.47 Like Mr. 
Barnow, Mr. Yanchunis’s appellate work on data breach cases has set precedent in 

the area of Article III standing in Bohnak v. Marsh & McLennan Cos. and pleadings 
standards in Ramirez v. Paradies Shops, LLC.48                            
              b.   Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.                                
    Mr. Etzel has over a decade of legal experience handling complex litigation.49 

He was appointed co-lead counsel in In re Generali COVID-19 Travel Insurance 
Litigation and was an executive committee member in In re Flagstar December 
2021 Data Security Incident Litigation and In re Robinhood Outage Litigation.50 He 

has  also  contributed  to  data  security  litigation  including  Opris  v.  Sincera 
Reproductive  Medicine,  First  Choice  Federal  Credit  Union  v.  The  Wendy’s 
Company, and Storm v. Paytime, Inc.51 Furthermore, Mr. Etzel “spearheaded the 

appellate  briefing”  in  Dittman  v.  UPMC,  a  Pennsylvania  Supreme  Court  case 


47   Doc. 36-2 at 5 (citing Schmidt, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-05982 (N.D. Cal.); 
 Walters v. Kimpton Hotel & Rest., No. 3:16-CV-05387 (N.D. Cal.); In re Arby’s Rest. Grp. 
 Inc. Data Sec. Litig., Nos. 1:17-CV-514 & 1:17-CV-1035 (N.D. Ga.)).     
48   Doc. 36-2 at 6 (citing Bohnak v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., 

79 F.4th 276

 (2d Cir. 2023); 
 Ramirez v. Paradies Shops, LLC., 

59 F.4th 1213

 (11th Cir. 2023); see Sheffler v. Americold 
 Realty Trust, No. 22-11789, 

2023 WL 3918491

 (11th Cir. June 9, 2023) (unpublished) 
 (reversing denial of leave to amend and noting potential applicability of Ramirez)). 
49   Doc. 36 at 8; Doc. 36-3 (Etzel Resume) at 13                         
50   Doc.  36  at  8-9  (citing  In  re  Generali  COVID-19  Travel  Ins.  Litig.,  No.  1:20-md-2968 
 (S.D.N.Y.); In re Flagstar December 2021 Data Sec. Incident Litig., No. 22-cv-11385 (E.D. 
 Mich.); In re Robinhood Outage Litig., No. 20-cv-1626 (N.D. Cal.)).     
51   Doc. 36 at 8-9 (Opris v. Sincera Reprod. Med., No. 21-CV-3072 (E.D. Pa.); First Choice Fed. 
 Credit Union v. The Wendy’s Co., No. 2:16-CV-0506 (W.D. Pa.); Storm v. Paytime, Inc., No. 
 1:14-cv-1138 (M.D. Pa.)).                                               
establishing that an employer has a common law duty to exercise reasonable care to 
safeguard its employees’ sensitive personal information.52 In addition to the above-

listed  cases,  Mr.  Etzel’s  firm  has  litigated  a  number  of  data  breach  cases  in 
Pennsylvania.53 However, it does not appear that Mr. Etzel has led a data breach case 
himself.                                                                  

              c.   Proposed Executive Committee                          
    The Schulte Plaintiffs’ proposed executive committee members also have 
experience in complex data breach litigation. Courtney E. Maccarone has served on 
class committees in several federal data breach class actions and an MDL and has 

co-led a state data breach class action.54 Charles E. Schaffer has two decades of legal 
experience and leads his firm’s consumer class action and data breach and privacy 
teams.55 He has served in leadership and class counsel roles in over thirty-five data 
breach class actions and has also litigated numerous other complex cases.56 A.J. de 

Bartolomeo has more than thirty years of experience litigating complex cases, and 
has  served  in  leadership  positions  or  on  executive  committees  in  many  class 
actions.57 Marc Edelson has practiced for nearly forty years focusing on complex 

class and multi-district litigation, and been appointed to many leadership roles in 

52   Doc. 36 at 8 (citing Dittman v. UPMC, 

196 A.3d 1036

 (Pa. 2018)).     
53   Doc. 36-3 at 2-6 (listing five additional Pennsylvania data breach cases). 
54   Doc. 36-4 (Maccarone Resume) (collecting cases).                     
55   Doc. 36 at 10.                                                       
56   Doc. 36-5 (Schaffer Resume) (collecting cases).                      
57   Doc. 36-6 (Bartolomeo Resume) (collecting cases).                    
such cases.58 He has participated in several data breach cases in recent years, serving 
on the executive committee in one.59 Richard Golomb has more than thirty-five years 

of  experience  in  plaintiff’s-side  litigation  and  has  served  in  leadership  roles, 
including committee positions, in more than a dozen MDLs.60 He has recently been 
involved in several data breach cases.61 Patrick Egan has more than twenty-four 

years of experience in complex class action litigation and leads his firm’s privacy 
group.62 He has been involved in several data breach cases in recent years.63 Finally, 
proposed local liaison counsel Clifford A. Rieders has practiced before this Court in 
the past and is amply qualified to serve in his proposed role.64          

    It also appears that the Schulte Plaintiffs’ proposed class counsel have some 
experience litigating together. Several of their attorneys list work on In re Wawa, 
Inc. Data Security Litigation65 and In re MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach 
Litigation.66                                                             



58   Doc. 36-7 (Edelson Resume) (collecting cases).                       
59   Doc. 36 at 12-13.                                                    
60   Doc. 36-8 (Golomb Resume) (collecting cases).                        
61   Doc. 36 at 13.                                                       
62   Doc. 36 at 13.                                                       
63   Doc. 36 at 14.                                                       
64   Doc. 36 at 14; see Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 10.221 (describing role of liaison 
 counsel). The Wierbowski Plaintiffs have not proposed local liaison counsel. Given the 
 proximity of Mr. Johns’s practice (Conshohocken, Pennsylvania), a local liaison may not be 
 necessary.                                                              
65   Doc. 36 at 13 (Mr. Golomb); Doc. 36-3 at 3 (Mr. Etzel’s Firm) (citing No. 19-CV-6019 (E.D. 
 Pa.)).                                                                  
66   Doc. 36 at 9 (Ms. Maccarone), 10 (Mr. Schaffer); Doc. 36-3 at 2 (Mr. Etzel’s Firm) (citing No. 
 1:23-MD-3083 (D. Mass.)).                                               
                          *    *    *                                    
    Although Plaintiffs would undoubtedly be well-served by either group of 

experienced and accomplished attorneys, the Court concludes that the Wierbowski 
Plaintiffs’ group is best positioned to represent the interests of the class.67 Messrs. 
Johns and Barnow have more collective experience (approximately seventy years) 

than Messrs. Yanchunis and Etzel (approximately fifty years), and have focused 
their practices more precisely on data breach claims. Mr. Johns also appears to have 
the most experience of any of the proposed attorneys when it comes to litigating data 
breach cases in Pennsylvania.68 Moreover, the Wierbowski’s Plaintiffs’ proposed 

executive committee comprises a host of data breach experts, while the Schulte 
Plaintiffs’ proposed executive committee includes several attorneys who would be 
better described as complex litigation generalists.                       

    Accordingly,  the  second  Rule  23(g)(1)(A)  factor  weighs  in  favor  of  the 
Wierbowski Plaintiffs.                                                    
    C.   Knowledge of Law                                                
    As  noted  in  the  prior  section,  the  Court  concludes  that  the  Wierbowski 

Plaintiffs’ proposed attorneys have greater experience handling data breach cases. 


67   Nothing in this comparison should be considered a denigration of any of the proposed Schulte 
 attorneys. They are all eminently qualified. But, faced with competing applications for interim 
 class counsel, the Court is forced to find and highlight distinctions like these. 
68   In re Vanguard, 625 F. Supp. 3d at 369, 370 (giving dispositive weight to counsel’s “local 
 expertise in class action and complex litigation”).                     
They also have somewhat more familiarity litigating the instant type of suit in 
Pennsylvania courts. Accordingly, for the same reasons developed in the prior 

section,  the  Court  weighs  the  third  Rule  23(g)(1)(A)  factor  in  favor  of  the 
Wierbowski Plaintiffs.69                                                  
    D.   Resources                                                       

    Both Plaintiffs’ groups explain that their proposed interim class counsel are 
members of law firms with significant financial means and staffs of attorneys to 
support the litigation of this case.70 The Court takes both sides at their word and sees 
no cause for believing that either group would be unable or unwilling to commit 

adequate resources to this case. Accordingly, the fourth Rule 23(g)(1)(A) factor is 
neutral.                                                                  
    E.   Rule 23(g)(1)(B) Other Considerations                           

    The Court concludes that, on balance, the unenumerated considerations are 
neutral. The Schulte Plaintiffs note that their proposed interim class counsel are 
supported by a majority of named plaintiffs, but that majority is not overwhelming 
(nine to five (counting the Saxers as one)).71 In the Court’s view, that advantage is 

negated by the somewhat sleeker executive committee proposed by the Wierbowski 

69   See Doc. 35 (arguing the experience and knowledge factors as a single element based on the 
 attorneys’ resumes); Doc. 36 at 14-15 (arguing that the knowledge factor should be evaluated 
 based on the attorneys’ resumes as developed in the experience factor). 
70   Doc. 35 at 11; Doc. 36 at 15.                                        
71   In re Shop-Vac Mktg. & Sales Pracs. Litig., No. 4:12-MD-2380, 

2013 WL 183855

, at *3 (M.D. 
 Pa. Jan. 17, 2013).                                                     
Plaintiffs, which has two fewer members than that proposed by the Schulte Plaintiffs. 
More is not always better, and in this comparatively modest data breach action with 

a class of approximately one million plaintiffs72 (as opposed to other data breaches 
affecting hundreds of millions of customers) a smaller executive committee is likely 
to  facilitate  faster  and  easier  coordination,  reduce  the  risk  of  duplication,  and, 
ideally, generate a smaller fee.73                                        

IV.  CONCLUSION                                                           
    For  the  foregoing  reasons,  the  Wierbowski  Plaintiffs’  motion  to  appoint 
interim class counsel is granted, and the Schulte Plaintiffs’ motion for the same is 

denied.                                                                   
    A separate Order follows.                                            
                                  BY THE COURT:                          


                                  s/ Matthew W. Brann                    
                                  Matthew W. Brann                       
                                  Chief United States District Judge     



72   Doc. 1 ¶ 43.                                                         
73   See Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 10.221 (warning that committees of counsel 
 “can sometimes lead to substantially increased costs, and they should try to avoid unnecessary 
 duplication of efforts and control fees and expenses”); id. (stating that the “most important 
 [factor to consider when appointing counsel] is achieving efficiency and economy without 
 jeopardizing fairness to the parties”); id. § 21.272 (warning against overstaffing).