Panel Transfers T-Mobile Data Breach Cases to Western Mo. Under Kansas City Judge

Wimes’ boss, Chief U.S. District Judge Beth Phillips for Western Missouri, consented to the transfer May 31, according to her signed affidavit, also released Friday. That was three business days after the JPML convened oral argument in Philadelphia on the Feb. 8 motion to centralize the cases (see 2304170007). The MDL before Wimes is docketed as 4:23-md-3073, pending a seven-day stay under JPML rules that gives litigants a window for filing oppositions.

Western Missouri “is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation,” and was supported by many who commented on the motion, said the transfer order. Wimes has been presiding over the 47-case MDL No. 3019 involving T-Mobile’s previous data breach since he was assigned the cases in December 2021, it said. Wimes therefore “is familiar with many of the relevant issues in this similar litigation,” it said. “He has ably steered that litigation, which is nearing a resolution.” Wimes, an appointee of President Barack Obama, took office in April 2012.

The various class actions against T-Mobile “involve common questions of fact,” said the transfer order. Centralization in Western Missouri “will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation,” it said. The Kansas City courthouse is about 20 miles northeast of T-Mobile’s headquarters campus in Overland Park, Kansas.

T-Mobile’s latest data breach, disclosed in a Jan. 19 SEC filing (see 2301200047), exposed the personally identifiable information of 37 million current and former customers, said the transfer order. “Common factual questions” will include whether T-Mobile’s data security practices met industry standards, the extent of the personal information exposed, and when T-Mobile knew or should have known of the breach, it said. “Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery,” it said. It also will prevent “inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification,” it said. It also will conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary, it said.

T-Mobile, the only known opponent of the motion to transfer and consolidate the cases, objects to centralization on grounds that its anticipated motions to compel arbitration in each action “may make centralization unnecessary,” said the transfer order. But the outcome of those anticipated motions in 11 different courts isn’t certain, and any assessment of the litigation’s merits is beyond the JPML’s “authority,” it said.

If the motions to compel arbitration are denied, suggests T-Mobile, the surviving litigation will be “factually and legally complex,” and the company doesn’t deny centralization “at that time would be warranted,” said the transfer motion. “We find that centralization at this time best serves the just and efficient conduct of the litigation,” it said. The motions to compel “may differ as to the way each customer agreed to arbitrate claims and whether they opted out,” it said. But those inquiries and the accompanying discovery “appear to involve some overlapping issues,” it said. “Having a single judge oversee discovery regarding arbitration and decide the motions in a coordinated fashion, therefore, can provide efficiencies and allow any remaining actions to move forward together,” it said.