AT&T Privacy Case Isn't Just About Mobile Customers, Say Plaintiffs in MDL Filing

The plaintiffs in two class actions against AT&T involving the recently disclosed release of customer data sets on the dark web (see 2404010019) filed an interested party response Tuesday (docket 3114) before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in support of movant Alex Petroski’s May 2 motion for centralization and transfer of related actions to U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. David Vita, Charles Fairchild, Daniel Mariscal and Faith Brown in Vita et al. v. AT&T, Inc. (docket 5:24-cv-02356), in U.S. District Court for Northern California, and Jeryl Luciani, Courtney Garner and Michael Crain in Garner et al. v. AT&T, Inc. (docket 3:24-cv-00962) in Dallas federal court, cited Section 1407 of U.S. Code 28 that permits transfer and centralization of cases pending in different districts and involving “one or more common questions of fact,” if the panel determines that transfer and centralization will further “the convenience of parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions.” Especially worth noting, the response said, is that “there is no evidence to suggest that AT&T’s operations in Georgia, which are predominantly the operations of AT&T’s cellular telephone service, AT&T Mobility, play an important role in this case. Rather, this data breach affects AT&T customers across the broad spectrum of AT&T’s telecommunication offerings, including landline service, internet service and television service,” the response said. Many plaintiffs in the AT&T action, including plaintiffs in the Vita and Garner actions, didn't have AT&T Mobility accounts, yet the company notified them that their personally identifiable information was compromised in the breach, said the response. “As AT&T made clear in its argument to the Panel, 'the Georgia proponents’ conjecture that AT&T Mobility Customers comprise the majority of impacted individuals is wrong'” (see 2405030065), the response said, referencing a group of plaintiffs who want the transferee venue to be the Northern District of Georgia. The Northern District of Texas is the “most appropriate and convenient venue for transfer and centralization of the related and any tag-along actions because relevant witnesses, databases, documents, and other evidence are likely located there," said the plaintiffs. At the time of the response filing, at least 33 of 46 cases filed were pending in the Dallas court, and the Northern District of Texas is easily accessible from two major commercial airports, the response said.