In re Equifax, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.

*1324TRANSFER ORDER MARJORIE O. RENDELL, Acting Chair Before the Panel :* Three motions have been filed by plaintiffs who move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in, respectively, the Northern District of Georgia and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (or, alternatively, the District of Minnesota). Plaintiffs' motions include 97 actions pending in various districts, as listed on Schedule A.1 The Panel also has been notified of more than 200 potentially-related actions filed in over 60 federal districts.2 Though a handful of plaintiffs oppose inclusion of their claims in centralized proceedings, the vast majority of responding parties do not oppose centralization. Plaintiffs in over 85 actions support centralization in the Northern District of Georgia, as do defendants Equifax, Inc., Equifax Information Services LLC, and Equifax Consumer Services, LLC (together, Equifax). Other suggested districts include the Northern District of Alabama, the Northern District of California, the Central District of California, the Southern District of California, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Kentucky, the District of Minnesota, the Eastern District of Missouri, the District of New Jersey, the Western District of Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Texas, and the Eastern District of Virginia. Plaintiffs in one District of New Mexico action support centralization, but seek to sever and remand part of their invasion of privacy claim. Plaintiffs in one District of New Jersey action and two potential tag-along actions oppose inclusion of their actions in centralized proceedings. Plaintiffs in one potential tag-along action oppose centralization. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that centralization under Section 1407 in the Northern District of Georgia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions-all of which are putative nationwide and/or statewide consumer class actions3 -share factual issues concerning the recent cybersecurity incident involving Equifax in which the personally identifiable information *1325of more than 145 million consumers was compromised. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Plaintiffs in one District of Maryland potential tag-along action oppose centralization-the only parties to do so. They argue that there is a deep circuit split on the issue of Article III standing, making centralization before rulings on motions to dismiss inefficient. Similar arguments were advanced by plaintiffs arguing in favor of centralization in particular districts with precedent favorable to plaintiffs on the issue of Article III standing. We are not persuaded by these arguments. Transferee courts consider a wide variety of legal issues that are subject to differing precedent in their transferor courts. Moreover, the Panel does not consider the possible implications with respect to standing or other potential rulings when it selects a transferee district. See In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig. , MDL No. 1720, 2017 WL 4582708 at *1 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 2, 2017) (" Section 1407 does not empower the MDL Panel to decide questions going to the jurisdiction or the merits of a case, including issues relating to a motion to remand.") (citing In re Ivy , 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir. 1990) ). Plaintiffs in a few actions request exclusion of their actions from centralized proceedings, variously arguing, inter alia , that they assert unique claims and informal coordination is feasible.4 Plaintiffs in one action also argue that their motion for a temporary restraining order is pending. Further, plaintiffs in one action ask the Panel to sever and remand part of their privacy invasion claim, which they argue is straightforward. These arguments are not convincing. Section 1407"does not require a complete identity of common factual issues or parties as a prerequisite to transfer, and the presence of ... differing legal theories is not significant where, as here, the actions still arise from a common factual core." See In re: Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litig. , 37 F.Supp.3d 1388, 1390 (J.P.M.L. 2014). Here, the substantial factual overlap among all actions, including those in which plaintiffs seek exclusion, is undeniable, and any slight variations in the claims alleged is immaterial to the benefits to be had from centralized proceedings. Given the scope of this nationwide litigation, informal coordination with some cases would be unworkable here. Furthermore, the Panel cannot sever and remand only part of a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) ( "[T]he panel may separate any claim, cross-claim, counter-claim, or third-party claim...."). Finally, plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order has been denied. Some financial institution plaintiffs in a potentially-related action request that actions filed by financial institutions not be consolidated, but rather centralized with the other related actions, and that a separate track be created for these actions, but the Panel has left to the transferee court "the extent and manner of coordination or consolidation" of actions in an MDL. See In re: Cook Med., Inc., Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig. , 949 F.Supp.2d 1373, 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2013). *1326We select the Northern District of Georgia as the transferee district for this litigation. Equifax is headquartered in that district, and relevant documents and witnesses thus likely will be found there. Selection of the district is supported by defendants and the vast majority of responding plaintiffs. Far more actions are pending in this district than in any other court in the nation. We are assigning the litigation to an experienced transferee judge who we are confident will steer this litigation on a prudent course. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Northern District of Georgia are transferred to the Northern District of Georgia, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Thomas W. Thrash for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. SCHEDULE A MDL No. 2800 - IN RE: EQUIFAX, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION Northern District of Alabama PANTAZE v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, C.A. No. 2:17-01530 OSTOYA, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 2:17-01550 WALKER, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 5:17-01527 HIGHFIELD v. EQUIFAX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-01567 Western District of Arkansas GRAY, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC., C.A. No. 6:17-06095 Central District of California RAFFIN v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 2:17-06620 BANDOH AIDOO v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 2:17-06658 JOOF, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 2:17-06659 TADA, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 2:17-06666 SCOTT v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 2:17-06715 FAILLACE v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 2:17-06721 MCSHAN, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-06764 BARKER v. EQUIFAX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:17-01560 COLLINS v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 8:17-01561 AVISE v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 8:17-01563 DURAN, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:17-01571 Eastern District of California MILLER, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-01872 MYERS, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 2:17-01878 Northern District of California SPICER v. EQUIFAX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-05228 ALEXANDER v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 5:17-05230 BELDEN v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 5:17-05260 *1327MURPHY, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 5:17-05262 GALPERN v. EQUIFAX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-05265 SALINAS, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 5:17-05284 Southern District of California GERSTEN, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 3:17-01828 DREMAK v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 3:17-01829 TANKS, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 3:17-01832 VONWILLER v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, C.A. No. 3:17-01839 SEYMORE, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 3:17-01871 District of Colorado MORRIS v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-02178 District of District of Columbia SANTAMAURO v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-01852 Northern District of Georgia MCGONNIGAL v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03422 CARY, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03433 KUSS v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03436 KEALY, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03443 RUSCITTO v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03444 LAPTER, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03445 MANAHER v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03447 SAMSON v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03448 WOLF v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03450 WASHBURN, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03451 FIORE v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03456 LIPCHITZ v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03457 MARTIN v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03458 MENZER v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03459 PAGLIARULO v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03460 PUGLIESE v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03461 PAVESI, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03476 BOUNDY, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03480 BEEKMAN, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03492 Northern District of Illinois NEILAN v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-06508 LANG, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, C.A. No. 1:17-06519 Southern District of Indiana KING v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-03157 *1328District of Kansas HOUSE v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 2:17-02523 Eastern District of Kentucky ANDERSON v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 2:17-00156 TOMLIN, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, C.A. No. 2:17-00158 District of Maryland GALLANT v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 8:17-02712 District of Massachusetts COLE v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-11712 SKYE v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-11742 Eastern District of Michigan CHERNEY, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 2:17-12966 District of Minnesota AMADICK, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, C.A. No. 0:17-04196 Northern District of Mississippi BYAS, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 4:17-00130 Western District of Missouri KRAWCYK v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 4:17-00760 District of Nevada KNEPPER v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, C.A. No. 2:17-02368 MCCALL, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, C.A. No. 2:17-02372 District of New Jersey KENDALL v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, C.A. No. 1:17-06922 DOWGIN v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-06923 CHRISTEN, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-06951 FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-07022 ZAMORA v. EQUIFAX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-07085 District of New Mexico KILGORE, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, C.A. No. 1:17-00942 Eastern District of New York GROSSBERG, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-05280 LEVY v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-05354 ZWEIG v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-05366 JORGE, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 2:17-05404 Southern District of New York TIRELLI, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, C.A. No. 7:17-06868 DAVIS, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 7:17-06883 *1329BITTON v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 7:17-06946 Northern District of Ohio TORREY v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, C.A. No. 1:17-01922 Southern District of Ohio GERSTEIN, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, C.A. No. 1:17-00593 Northern District of Oklahoma BAHNMAIER v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 4:17-00512 Western District of Oklahoma GIBSON, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 5:17-00973 District of Oregon MCHILL, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 3:17-01405 Eastern District of Pennsylvania AUSTIN v. EQUIFAX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-04045 CAPLAN v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, C.A. No. 2:17-04055 MANN v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, C.A. No. 2:17-04100 HENSLEY v. EQUIFAX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-04105 Western District of Pennsylvania DERBY v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 2:17-01186 Middle District of Tennessee MARTIN v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 3:17-01246 Eastern District of Texas LYNCH, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 4:17-00640 Southern District of Texas COLLINS v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-00187 District of Utah PARTRIDGE, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-01017 Western District of Washington PAVITT, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 2:17-01363 Eastern District of Wisconsin MALONEY v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 2:17-01238 Northern District of West Virginia RICE, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17-00156 Footnotes [*] Judge Sarah S. Vance, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, and Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle took no part in the disposition of this matter. Additionally, the remaining participating Panel members appear to have interests that would usually disqualify them under 28 U.S.C. § 455 from participating in the decision of this matter. Accordingly, the Panel invoked the Rule of Necessity, and the remaining Panel members participated in the decision of this matter in order to provide the forum created by the governing statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See In re: Adelphia Commc'ns Corp. Sec. & Derivative Litig. (No. II) , 273 F.Supp.2d 1353 (J.P.M.L.2003) ; In re: Wireless Tel. Radio Frequency Emissions Prods. Liab. Litig. , 170 F.Supp.2d 1356, 1357-58 (J.P.M.L.2001). [1] Since the filing of the motions, two actions pending in the Northern District of Georgia and the District of Nevada were dismissed. [2] These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1, and 7.2. [3] Although the Section 1407 motions before the Panel do not include any actions asserted by financial institutions, such claims are asserted in a number of the potential tag-along actions. Any objections to their inclusion in centralized proceedings would come before the Panel should any involved party oppose their conditional transfer. See Panel Rules 7.4 and 7.5. [4] Arguments advanced by potential tag-along plaintiffs opposing inclusion of their actions in centralized proceedings will be considered in due course through the conditional transfer order process, as these actions are not now before the Panel.