Holz v. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF 7 WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE | JOHN DOE, on behalf of his minor child JACK g | DOE, and on behalf of others similarly situated, NO. 2:23-cv-01893-JHC 10 Plaintiff, y ORDER GRANTING JOINT ll MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE | FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER CENTER: RELATED CASES UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL 13. | OF MEDICINE: UW MEDICAL CENTER: HARBORVIEW MEDICAL CENTER: || VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER: UW PHYSICIANS: UW NEIGHBORHOOD | CLINICS(d/b/a UW MEDICINE PRIMARY | CARE): AIRLIFT NORTHWEST; and CHILDREN’S UNIVERSITY MEDICAL | GROUP, 18 Defendants.

ROBERT AYERS, individually and on behalf of | all others similarly situated, NO. 2:23-cv-01916-JHC 21 Plaintiff, 22 Vv.

23 | FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER CENTER, 24 Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION TO APPOINT TNTERTM CT ASS COTMNeBT | JONATHAN HUNTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, NO. 2:23-cv-01988-JHC 3 Plaintiff, v. FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER CENTER, a Washington Nonprofit Corporation, Defendant. g | GARY HOLZ, JOEL GUAY, and GLORIA MONCRIEF, individually and on behalf of all NO. 2:23-cv-01998-JHC | others similarly situated, 10 Plaintiff, || FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER CENTER, a Washington Nonprofit Corporation, Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Joint Motion to Consolidate. (Dkt. No. 5.) The plaintiffs mm four different actions filed against Defendant Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center ask the Court to consolidate all four into a single action. Having reviewed the Motion and all supporting materials, and having noted the lack of any opposition, the Court GRANTS the Motion and ORDERS that the above-captioned cases be consolidated for all purposes. l. Under Rule 42(a), the Court may consolidate cases that involve common questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). The Court enjoys broad discretion in making this determination. Pierce v. County of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Pedraza v. Alameda Unified Sch. Dist., 676 Fed. App’x 704, 706 (9th Cir. 2017). When determnining whether a motion to consolidate should be granted, this Court typically weighs several factors, including considerations of “judicial economy, whether consolidation would ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION TO APPOINT INTERTM CT ASS COTINGCET _9 | expedite resolution of the case, whether separate cases may yield inconsistent results, and the | potential prejudice to a party opposing consolidation.” Pecznick v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22- | cv-00743, 2022 WL 4483123, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 27, 2022); see also 9 Charles Alan | Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2383 (3rd ed. 2020).

5 2. Consolidation is appropriate here given that the four actions present common | questions of law and fact and there are substantial efficiencies to be gained. All four actions || concern the same data breach resulting from a cyber-attack on Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center.

8 || And plaintiffs pursue the same or similar causes of action against Fred Hutchinson Cancer | Center on behalf of overlapping proposed classes. Consolidation for all purposes will further | conserve party and judicial resources. Fred Hutchinson has not voiced any opposition, and the | Court is unaware of any inconvenience, delay, confusion, or prejudice that may result from | consolidation. As such, the Court GRANTS the Motion and consolidates all four actions.

13 3. All filings in this consolidated action shall be filed on the docket of the first- | filed case (2:23-cv-01893) and use the following caption: Jn re Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center | Data Security Litigation.

16 4. Any action subsequently filed in, transferred to, or removed to this Court that | arises out of the same or similar operative facts as the Consolidated Action, shall be | consolidated with the Consolidated Action for pre-trial purposes. The Parties shall file a Notice | of Related Action whenever a case that should be consolidated into this action is filed in, || transferred to, or removed to this District.

21 5. If the Court determines that the case is related, the clerk shall: 22 a. Place a copy of this Order in the separate filed for such action; 23 b. Serve on Plaintiffs’ counsel in the new case a copy of the Order; 24 ce. Direct that this Order be served upon Defendant(s) in the new case: and 25 d. Make appropriate entry in the Master Docket.

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION TO APPOINT INTERIM CT ASS COTINEERT _2 1 6. Plaintiffs shall confer and propose a schedule for filing a Consolidated Amended | Complaint no later than ten (10) days following the entry of this Order.

3 7. This Order shall apply to the above-captioned matters, any subsequently | consolidated action, any actions consolidated with the above-captioned matters, and any actions | filed in or transferred or removed to this Court relating to the fact and the data breach | underlying this litigation. g IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 DATED: January 5, 2024 10 c/ oh 4. Chu THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE FOR THE 12 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Presented By: TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC By: s/ Kim D. Stephens, P.S.

15 || Kim D. Stephens, P.S., WSBA #11984 Cecily C. Jordan, WSBA #50061 || 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 | Telephone: 206-682-5600 Facsimile: 206-682-2992 || [email protected] [email protected] James J. Pizzirusso* | HAUSFELD LLP 16th Street N.W. || Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 | (202) 540-7200 [email protected] Steven M. Nathan* | HAUSFELD LLP Whitehall Street || Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 || (646) 357-1100 [email protected] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION TO APPOINT INTERIM CT ASS COTINGET _4 Ashley M. Crooks* HAUSFELD LLP Whitehall Street Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 (646) 357-1100 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Hunter and the Proposed Class TURKE & STRAUSS LLP By: s/ Samuel J. Strauss Samuel J. Strauss, WSBA #46971 Raina Borrelli* Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, Wisconsin 53703-3515 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509 4423 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Doe and the Proposed Class Brian C. Gudmundson* Charles R. Toomajian* Michael J. Laird* ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Ayers and the Proposed Class EMERY REDDY, PLLC By: s/ Timothy W. Emery Timothy W. Emery, WSBA #34078 Patrick R. Reddy, WSBA #34092 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 442-9106 Fax: (206) 441-9711 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] M.Anderson Berry* Gregory Haroutunian* Brandon P. Jack* CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: 916.239.4778 Fax: 916.924.1829 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Gary M. Klinger* MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Holtz, Guay, and Moncrief and the Proposed Class *pro hac vice forthcoming