AT&T Data Breach Lawyers Are Seeking Leadership Positions in Federal MDL

Attorneys in AT&T data breach lawsuits have until August 7 to submit applications to serve on a Plaintiff Steering Committee, which will take actions during pretrial proceedings that benefit all AT&T customers.

The U.S. District Judge presiding over all AT&T data breach lawsuits filed throughout the federal court system has established a deadline of August 7, 2024, for any lawyers to apply for leadership positions in the recently established multidistrict litigation (MDL).

Over the past few months, a rapidly growing number of class action lawsuits have been brought by individuals impacted by a massive data breach disclosed by AT&T earlier this year, which confirmed that the names, addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, email addresses and other information for more than 70 million current and former customers were being sold by hackers on the Dark Web.

Since each of the claims raise similar allegations that AT&T failed to take adequate steps to protect the personal identifying information of their customers, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) decided last month to centralize the AT&T data breach lawsuits before U.S. District Judge Ada E. Brown in the Northern District of Texas, for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

At that time, there were about 30 class action lawsuits pending in 10 different federal district courts. However, as customers continue to sign up with lawyers for a AT&T data breach lawsuit, the size and scope of the litigation is expected to continue to increase and AT&T is expected to face liability for damages sustained by millions of customers.

As a first step in establishing the organizational structure in the MDL, Judge Brown issued a case management order (PDF) on July 24, inviting AT&T data breach lawyers to apply for positions on a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee by Wednesday, indicating that she will then schedule an initial status conference and issue additional orders outlining how the litigation will proceed.

Lawyers selected for the leadership positions will be tasked with coordinating status updates for the court, arguing certain pretrial motions, conducting discovery and depositions into common issues that impact all claims, and potentially negotiating a framework for AT&T data breach settlements that may help resolve large numbers of claims. However, each individual plaintiff may still retain their own lawyer to meet various deadlines and establish that they meet the criteria for an AT&T data breach payout.

In the case management order, Judge Brown indicated attorneys wishing to serve on a Plaintiff Steering Committee for the litigation have until August 7 to submit applications. Each application is to be no longer than three pages in length, including any attachments, and the court will only entertain one application per law firm.

“Applications should include proposals regarding leadership, committee structure, and any case-specific issues that may inform the committee structure,” Judge Brown wrote. “The PSC selection process will include an emphasis on ethics and professionalism. The Court seeks applicants who (i) are respected by their colleagues, (ii) have demonstrated an ability to effectively work with others, and (iii) avoid unnecessary divisiveness. The goal is to select a team of qualified candidates able to work together in a cooperative and efficient manner.”

As part of the coordinated pretrial proceedings, it is expected that Judge Brown will oversee the exchange of information between AT&T and the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee about the circumstances that led to the data breach and the scope of those impacted, as well as rule on certain pretrial rulings that may impact large numbers of claims.

If the parties fail to negotiate AT&T data breach lawsuit payouts for individual customers during the MDL proceedings, the Court may later select a small group of representative cases to serve as early “bellwether” trials, which could help the parties gauge how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony that is likely to be repeated throughout the litigation, and the average damages that are awarded.