{"cached_at":"2026-10-25T10:47:24.054562+00:00","cl_docket_id":"68229741","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","id":68229741,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cand/","court_id":"cand","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10649360/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9612403/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10597883/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10733513/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9086/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2024-02-06T16:13:11.885460-08:00","date_modified":"2026-10-22T18:06:54.885325-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Jacqueline Scott Corley","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-04-15T07:39:30.699117-07:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2024-02-06","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-10-22","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local 27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund","docket_number":"3:24-cv-00706","docket_number_core":"2400706","docket_number_raw":"3:24-cv-00706","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"3","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"JSC","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"424518","cause":"15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act","nature_of_suit":"850 Securities/Commodities","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2024-02-06T16:13:11.881532-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14942363/","id":14942363,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037667/","attorney_id":10037667,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037667/","attorney_id":10037667,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037668/","attorney_id":10037668,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037668/","attorney_id":10037668,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037669/","attorney_id":10037669,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037670/","attorney_id":10037670,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9172490/","attorney_id":9172490,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-01-09T02:57:52.670687-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T02:57:52.670706-08:00","name":"Mintu Turakhia","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14942362/","id":14942362,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037667/","attorney_id":10037667,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037667/","attorney_id":10037667,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037668/","attorney_id":10037668,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037668/","attorney_id":10037668,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037669/","attorney_id":10037669,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037670/","attorney_id":10037670,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9172490/","attorney_id":9172490,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-01-09T02:57:52.631269-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T02:57:52.631282-08:00","name":"Mark Day","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14942361/","id":14942361,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037667/","attorney_id":10037667,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037667/","attorney_id":10037667,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037668/","attorney_id":10037668,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037668/","attorney_id":10037668,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037669/","attorney_id":10037669,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037670/","attorney_id":10037670,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9172490/","attorney_id":9172490,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-01-09T02:57:52.582516-08:00","date_modified":"2025-01-09T02:57:52.582527-08:00","name":"Chad Patterson","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13629542/","id":13629542,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8972883/","attorney_id":8972883,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8972883/","attorney_id":8972883,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10715206/","attorney_id":10715206,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11358032/","attorney_id":11358032,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037671/","attorney_id":10037671,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037672/","attorney_id":10037672,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037673/","attorney_id":10037673,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037674/","attorney_id":10037674,"date_action":"2024-12-10","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037675/","attorney_id":10037675,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-04-15T07:39:29.625149-07:00","date_modified":"2024-04-15T07:39:29.625167-07:00","name":"Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13349823/","id":13349823,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037667/","attorney_id":10037667,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037667/","attorney_id":10037667,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037668/","attorney_id":10037668,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037668/","attorney_id":10037668,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037669/","attorney_id":10037669,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037670/","attorney_id":10037670,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9172490/","attorney_id":9172490,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-02-08T08:26:36.228314-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-08T08:26:36.228325-08:00","name":"Douglas Devine","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13349822/","id":13349822,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037667/","attorney_id":10037667,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037667/","attorney_id":10037667,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037668/","attorney_id":10037668,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037668/","attorney_id":10037668,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037669/","attorney_id":10037669,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037670/","attorney_id":10037670,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9172490/","attorney_id":9172490,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-02-08T08:26:36.218182-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-08T08:26:36.218194-08:00","name":"Brice Bobzien","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13349821/","id":13349821,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037667/","attorney_id":10037667,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037667/","attorney_id":10037667,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037668/","attorney_id":10037668,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037668/","attorney_id":10037668,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037669/","attorney_id":10037669,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037670/","attorney_id":10037670,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11330620/","attorney_id":11330620,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11330620/","attorney_id":11330620,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9172490/","attorney_id":9172490,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-02-08T08:26:36.210233-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-08T08:26:36.210244-08:00","name":"Quentin Blackford","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13349820/","id":13349820,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037667/","attorney_id":10037667,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037667/","attorney_id":10037667,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037668/","attorney_id":10037668,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037668/","attorney_id":10037668,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037669/","attorney_id":10037669,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10037670/","attorney_id":10037670,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11330620/","attorney_id":11330620,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11330620/","attorney_id":11330620,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9172490/","attorney_id":9172490,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-02-08T08:26:36.199586-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-08T08:26:36.199600-08:00","name":"iRhythm Technologies, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13349819/","id":13349819,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8972883/","attorney_id":8972883,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","docket_id":68229741,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-02-08T08:26:36.164441-08:00","date_modified":"2024-02-08T08:26:36.164452-08:00","name":"Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482563910/","id":482563910,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498342881/","id":498342881,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-10-22T18:06:55.436997-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-22T18:06:55.437072-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk's Notice AND ~Util - Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings AND ~Util - Teleconference Zoom","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-22T18:06:55.429250-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-22T18:06:55.429264-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-22","time_filed":"17:45:20","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482555641/","id":482555641,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498334084/","id":498334084,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/158/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2026-10-22T16:03:47.586126-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-22T16:03:47.597221-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"158","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027832708","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Settlement","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-22T16:03:47.565700-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-22T16:03:47.572248-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-22","time_filed":"15:40:58","entry_number":158,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":464,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482555608/","id":482555608,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498334051/","id":498334051,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/159/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2026-10-22T16:03:45.646782-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-22T16:03:45.655115-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"159","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027832768","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply to Opposition/Response","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-22T16:03:45.627629-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-22T16:03:45.633071-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-22","time_filed":"15:45:36","entry_number":159,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":466,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476000047/","id":476000047,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491549280/","id":491549280,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-08-27T08:11:22.659653-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T08:11:22.659679-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-27T08:11:22.644769-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T08:11:22.644786-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-13","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-13.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Set/Reset Hearing: Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Hearing set for 11/5/2026 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley by a Zoom videoconference. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476000046/","id":476000046,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491549279/","id":491549279,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/152/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2026-08-27T08:11:22.517864-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T08:11:22.517885-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"152","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-27T08:11:22.454638-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T08:11:22.469979-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":152,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley: Motion Hearing re 147 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement held and recorded by Zoom videoconference on 7/10/2026. Upon the receipt of the revised class notice, the Court will issue an order granting the motion.Court Reporter: Stephen Franklin/00:05Attorney for Plaintiffs: Katie SindersonAttorneys for Defendants: Christopher Porter/Brenna Nelinson/Amy Shehan (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/10/2026) Modified on 7/10/2026 (ahm, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475264895/","id":475264895,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490791938/","id":490791938,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/157/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2026-08-20T15:06:16.276683-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-20T15:06:16.299217-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"157","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027537716","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Attorney Fees","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-20T15:06:16.248119-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T08:11:22.669372-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-20","time_filed":"14:39:52","entry_number":157,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":462,"description":"Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support filed by Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System. Motion for Attorney Fees Hearing set for 11/5/2026 09:00 AM in San Francisco, - Videoconference Only before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Responses due by 10/1/2026. Replies due by 10/22/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Katherine M. Sinderson, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Rankin Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Cornerstone Report, # 4 Exhibit 3 - Evans Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 4 - Lead Counsel's Hours & Lodestar, # 6 Exhibit 5 - Lead Counsel's Task Breakdown, # 7 Exhibit 6 - Lead Counsel's Detailed Time Records, # 8 Exhibit 7 - BLB&G Firm Resume, # 9 Exhibit 8 - Lead Counsel's Expenses by Category, # 10 Exhibit 9 - Lead Counsel's Detailed Expenses Report, # 11 Exhibit 10 - Compendium of Unpublished Authority) (Sinderson, Katherine) (Filed on 8/20/2026) (Entered: 08/20/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/470643635/","id":470643635,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486026556/","id":486026556,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/156/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2026-07-13T12:03:29.852058-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-28T09:39:44.512973-07:00","sha1":"ca7de8558d5f327b49c373e710515b7b06b2f94f","page_count":15,"file_size":290709,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.424518/gov.uscourts.cand.424518.156.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.424518/gov.uscourts.cand.424518.156.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 156 Filed 07/13/26 Page 1 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\n 2\n\n 3\n\n 4\n\n 5\n\n 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n 8\n\n 9 GLAZING EMPLOYERS AND Case No. 3:24-cv-00706-JSC\n GLAZIERS UNION LOCAL #27\n 10 PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND,\n ORDER RE: MOTION FOR\n Plaintiff, PRELIMINARY APPROVAL\n 11\n v. Re: Dkt. No. 147\n 12\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,\n Defendants.\n 14\n\n 15\n\n 16 Plaintiff brings this Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (\u201cPSLRA\u201d) putative class\n\n 17 action against iRhythm Technologies (\u201ciRhythm\u201d) and its CEO, Quentin Blackford, for allegedly\n\n 18 false or misleading statements regarding iRhythm\u2019s Zio AT, a device which transmits heart event\n\n 19 data for physician monitoring. Following briefing and the hearing of Plaintiff\u2019s motion for class\n\n 20 certification, the parties\u2019 notified the Court they had reached a settlement and Plaintiff\u2019s motion\n\n 21 for preliminary approval of the class action settlement is now pending before the Court. (Dkt. No.\n\n 22 147.1) Having considered the briefing, and supplemental submission, and having had the benefit\n\n 23 of oral argument on July 10, 2026, the Court GRANTS the motion for preliminary approval.\n\n 24 BACKGROUND\n\n 25 The Court assumes the parties\u2019 familiarity with the factual and procedural background and\n\n 26 incorporates its prior discussion by reference. (Dkt. No. 118 at 2-4.)\n\n 27\n 1\n 28 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (\u201cECF\u201d); pinpoint citations are to the\n ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 156 Filed 07/13/26 Page 2 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT\n\n 2 A. The Settlement Class\n 3 The Agreement defines the Settlement Class as\n\n 4 all persons and entities who purchased or acquired iRhythm common\n stock during the period from July 25, 2022 through August 9, 2024,\n 5 inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d), and were allegedly damaged thereby.\n 6 (Dkt. No. 147-1, Settlement Agreement at \u00b6 1(qq). The following individuals are excluded:\n\n 7 (i) Defendants; (ii) members of the Immediate Families of Quentin\n Blackford or any Former Individual Defendant; (iii) any person who\n 8 was an Officer or director of iRhythm (including the former\n Individual Defendants) during the Class Period; (iv) any firm, trust,\n 9 corporation, or other entity in which any person or entity excluded in\n subsections (i)\u2013(iii) has or had a controlling interest; (v) iRhythm\u2019s\n 10 employee retirement and benefit plan(s), if any, and their participants\n or beneficiaries, to the extent they made purchases through such\n 11 plan(s); and (vi) the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns\n of any such excluded persons and entities, in their capacities as such.\n 12 Payment Terms.\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 (Id.)\n\n 14 B. Payment Terms\n 15 Under the Settlement Agreement, Defendants will pay $45,000,000 (\u201cSettlement Fund\u201d).\n\n 16 (Id. at \u00b6\u00b6 1(ss).) The following amounts may be deducted from the Settlement Fund:\n\n 17 1. Notice and Administration Costs: $224,000 (Id. at \u00b6 1(bb); Dkt. No. 147 at 31);\n\n 18 2. Litigation Expenses: up to $800,000 (Dkt. No. 147-1 at \u00b6 17; Dkt. No. 147 at 31);\n\n 19 3. Attorneys\u2019 Fees: up to 25% of the Settlement Fund: ($11,250,000); (Dkt. No. 147\n\n 20 at 31);\n\n 21 4. Compensatory Award for the Lead Plaintiff under 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(4) of up to\n\n 22 $10,000 (Id. at 32); and\n\n 23 5. Taxes which includes \u201c(i) all federal, state and/or local taxes of any kind (including\n\n 24 any interest or penalties thereon) on any income earned by the Settlement Fund;\n\n 25 and (ii) the expenses and costs incurred by Lead Counsel in connection with\n\n 26 determining the amount of, and paying any taxes owed by the Settlement Fund\n\n 27 (including, without limitation, expenses of tax attorneys and accountants).\u201d (Dkt.\n\n 28 No. 147-1 at \u00b6\u00b6 1(bb), (vv).)\n 2\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 156 Filed 07/13/26 Page 3 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 The remaining amount, the \u201cNet Settlement Amount,\u201d will be divided in pro rata shares\n\n 2 among authorized claimants pursuant to a specified plan of allocation. (Id. at \u00b6 1(bb).)\n\n 3 C. Scope of the Release\n 4 Settlement Class Members release\n 5 any and all claims and causes of action of every nature and\n description, including known claims and Unknown Claims,\n 6 contingent or absolute, mature or not mature, liquidated or\n unliquidated, accrued or not accrued, concealed or hidden, regardless\n 7 of legal or equitable theory and whether arising under federal, state,\n common, or foreign law or any other law, rule, or regulation, whether\n 8 foreign or domestic, that Lead Plaintiff or any other member of the\n Settlement Class (i) asserted in the Action; or (ii) could have asserted\n 9 in the Action, or in any other action or in any other forum, that arise\n out of, are based upon, are related to, or are in consequence of both\n 10 (a) the allegations, transactions, facts, matters or occurrences,\n representations, omissions, disclosures, non-disclosures, matters that\n 11 would have been barred by res judicata had the Action been fully\n litigated to a final judgment, or failures to act that were involved, set\n 12 forth, or referred to in the complaints filed in the Action; and (b) the\nNorthern District of California\n\n\n\n\n purchase or acquisition of iRhythm common stock during the Class\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 Period. This release does not cover, include, or release (i) any claims\n asserted in any related shareholder derivative action; (ii) any claims\n 14 related to enforcement of the Settlement; or (iii) any claims of any\n person or entity who or which submits a request for exclusion from\n 15 the Settlement Class that is accepted by the Court.\n 16 (Dkt. No. 147-1 at \u00b6 1(ll).)\n\n 17 D. Notice\n 18 Plaintiff selected Strategic Claims Services (SCS) as the Settlement Administrator\n\n 19 following a competitive bidding process. (Dkt. No. 147 at 27; Dkt. No. 147-5, Mulholland Decl.\n\n 20 at \u00b6 6.) SCS will provide mail notice to all those identified by iRhythm as having purchased\n\n 21 iRhythm common stock during the Settlement Class Period as well as to brokers and other\n\n 22 nominees who purchased or acquired iRhythm common stock on behalf of other beneficial\n\n 23 owners. (Dkt. No. 147 at 29; Dkt. No. 147-5, Mulholland Decl. at \u00b6\u00b6 8-10, 12.) SCS will also\n\n 24 publish the summary notice in The Wall Street Journal and over the PR Newswire. (Dkt. No. 147-\n\n 25 5 at \u00b6 13.) Finally, SCS will create a settlement website (www.iRhythmSecuritiesLitigation.com)\n\n 26 and publish the notice and other documents there. (Id. at \u00b6 14.)\n\n 27 E. Objections and Requests for Exclusion\n 28 Settlement Class Members can opt-out of the settlement by timely submitting a letter to the\n 3\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 156 Filed 07/13/26 Page 4 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 Settlement Administrator requesting exclusion from the settlement. (Dkt. No. 147 at 38; Dkt. No.\n\n 2 147-1 at 67.) Settlement Class Members can also file a written objection to any part of the\n\n 3 settlement and/or the request for attorneys\u2019 fees and costs. (Dkt. No. 147 at 38; Dkt. No. 147-1 at\n\n 4 68-69.)\n\n 5 DISCUSSION\n\n 6 The approval of a settlement is a multi-step process. At the preliminary approval stage, the\n\n 7 court should grant such approval only if it is justified by the parties\u2019 showing that the court will\n\n 8 likely be able to (1) \u201ccertify the class for purposes of judgment on the proposal\u201d and (2) \u201capprove\n\n 9 the proposal under Rule 23(e)(2).\u201d Fed. R. Civ P. 23(e)(B). If the court preliminarily certifies the\n\n 10 class and finds the settlement appropriate after \u201ca preliminary fairness evaluation,\u201d then the class\n\n 11 will be notified, and a final fairness hearing scheduled to determine if the settlement is fair,\n\n 12 adequate, and reasonable pursuant to Rule 23. Villegas v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., No. CV 09-\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 00261 SBA (EMC), 2012 WL 5878390, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012).\n\n 14 I. CLASS CERTIFICATION\n 15 A court may preliminarily certify a settlement class if the prerequisites of Federal Rule of\n\n 16 Civil Procedure 23(a) have been met, and at least one of the requirements for Rule 23(b) have also\n\n 17 been met. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.\n\n 18 Class actions must meet the following requirements for certification:\n\n 19 (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is\n impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the\n 20 class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are\n typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the\n 21 representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests\n of the class.\n 22\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). In addition to meeting the requirements of Rule 23(a), a putative class action\n 23\n must also meet one of the conditions outlined in Rule 23(b).\n 24\n A. Rule 23(a)\n 25\n The Rule 23(a) factors are satisfied.\n 26\n First, the class is sufficiently numerous based on Plaintiff\u2019s expert\u2019s estimate on class\n 27\n certification that iRhythm averaged more than 30.5 million shares outstanding throughout the class\n 28\n 4\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 156 Filed 07/13/26 Page 5 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 period with weekly trading averaging 1.91 million shares. (Dkt. No. 114 at 20; Dkt. No. 114-1 at \u00b6\n\n 2 43.) See Malriat v. QuantumScape Corp., No. 3:21-CV-00058-WHO, 2022 WL 17974629, at *3\n\n 3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2022) (\u201c[C]ourts may infer that, when a corporation has millions of shares\n\n 4 trading on a national exchange, the numerosity requirement is met.\u201d).\n\n 5 Second, the typicality requirement is satisfied. \u201cThe test of typicality is whether other\n\n 6 members have the same or similar injury, whether the action is based on conduct which is not\n\n 7 unique to the named plaintiffs, and whether other class members have been injured by the same\n\n 8 course of conduct.\u201d A. B. v. Hawaii State Dep\u2019t of Educ., 30 F.4th 828, 839 (9th Cir. 2022)\n\n 9 (cleaned up). Here, the claims of both Plaintiff and Settlement Class Members arise from the same\n\n 10 set of factual questions\u2014whether Defendants\u2019 alleged misstatements artificially inflated the stock\n\n 11 price and whether they were damaged when the misstatements were corrected and the stock price\n\n 12 declined. (Dkt. No. 147 at 23.) Plaintiff\u2019s claim is therefore predicated on the same or similar\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 legal theories as those of the other Settlement Class Members.\n\n 14 Third, the commonality requirement is satisfied because there are common questions of\n\n 15 law and fact arising out of Defendants\u2019 alleged representations. \u201cThe commonality requirement of\n\n 16 Rule 23(a)(2) requires plaintiffs seeking class certification to show that their claims depend upon a\n\n 17 common contention that is capable of classwide resolution\u2014which means that determination of its\n\n 18 truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one\n\n 19 stroke.\u201d A. B., 30 F.4th at 839 (cleaned up).\n\n 20 Finally, adequacy exists because there is no evidence Lead Plaintiff and Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel\n\n 21 have any conflicts of interest with the proposed class, or Lead Plaintiff and Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel will\n\n 22 not vigorously prosecute the case on behalf of the class. Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters\n\n 23 Pension and Retirement System (Oklahoma Firefighters), the proposed class representative, and\n\n 24 class counsel appear to be adequate representatives of the class. Oklahoma Firefighters purchased,\n\n 25 owned, or held iRhythm common stock during the class period and its interests in demonstrating\n\n 26 Defendants\u2019 liability and maximizing possible recovery are aligned with the absent class members.\n\n 27 (Dkt. No. 23 at 3-4.) The Court previously found class counsel, Bernstein Litowitz, would fairly\n\n 28 and adequately represent the class given their significant experience in litigating securities class\n 5\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 156 Filed 07/13/26 Page 6 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 actions. (Id. at 4.) The Court has no reason to alter this view now when considering the Rule\n\n 2 23(g)(1)(A) factors.\n\n 3 The Court also concludes, at the preliminary approval stage, the Rule 23(b)(3) requirement\n\n 4 is satisfied. Under Rule 23(b)(3), the Court must find \u201cthe questions of law or fact common to\n\n 5 class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class\n\n 6 action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the\n\n 7 controversy.\u201d Here, the Court finds predominance is satisfied because Plaintiffs' claims arise from\n\n 8 the same alleged misrepresentations. Further, the Court finds superiority is satisfied because the\n\n 9 alternative method to a class action likely involves \u201cindividual claims for a small amount of ...\n\n 10 damages,\u201d resulting in most cases involving \u201clitigation costs [that] dwarf potential recovery.\u201d\n\n 11 Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1023.\n\n 12 ***\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 Accordingly, the Court concludes that conditional certification of the class for settlement\n\n 14 purposes is proper.\n\n 15 II. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT\n 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides \u201c[t]he claims, issues, or defenses of a\n\n 17 certified class\u2014or a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement\u2014may be settled ...\n\n 18 only with the court\u2019s approval.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). \u201cThe purpose of Rule 23(e) is to protect the\n\n 19 unnamed members of the class from unjust or unfair settlements affecting their rights.\u201d In re\n\n 20 Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008). So, before a district court approves a\n\n 21 class action settlement, it must conclude the settlement is \u201cfundamentally fair, adequate and\n\n 22 reasonable.\u201d In re Heritage Bond Litig., 546 F.3d 667, 674\u201375 (9th Cir. 2008).\n\n 23 In determining whether a class action settlement agreement meets this standard, the court\n\n 24 may consider some or all of the following factors:\n\n 25 (1) the strength of the plaintiff\u2019s case;\n (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further\n 26 litigation;\n (3) the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial;\n 27 (4) the amount offered in settlement;\n (5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the\n 28 proceedings;\n 6\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 156 Filed 07/13/26 Page 7 of 15\n\n\n\n (6) the experience and views of counsel;\n 1 (7) the presence of a governmental participant; and\n (8) the reaction of the class members to the proposed settlement.\n 2\n Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 944 F.3d 1035, 1048 (9th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). Whether a\n 3\n settlement agreement has been negotiated before a class has been certified or after, the court must\n 4\n also undertake an additional search for more \u201csubtle signs that class counsel have allowed pursuit\n 5\n of their own self-interests and that of certain class members to infect the negotiations.\u201d Brise\u00f1o v.\n 6\n Henderson, 998 F.3d 1014, 1023 (9th Cir. 2021). The Ninth Circuit has identified three such\n 7\n signs:\n 8 1) when counsel receive a disproportionate distribution of the\n settlement, or when the class receives no monetary\n 9 distribution but class counsel are amply rewarded;\n 2) when the parties negotiate a \u201cclear sailing\u201d arrangement\n 10 providing for the payment of attorneys' fees separate and apart\n from class funds, which carries the potential of enabling a\n 11 defendant to pay class counsel excessive fees and costs in\n exchange for counsel accepting an unfair settlement on behalf\n 12 of the class; and\nNorthern District of California\n\n\n\n\n 3) when the parties arrange for fees not awarded to revert to\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 defendants rather than be added to the class fund.\n 14 In re Bluetooth Headset Prod. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 947 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation\n\n 15 marks and citations omitted).\n\n 16 Courts may preliminarily approve a settlement and notice plan to the class if the proposed\n\n 17 settlement: (1) appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations; (2) does\n\n 18 not grant improper preferential treatment to class representatives or other segments of the class;\n\n 19 (3) falls within the range of possible approval; and (4) has no obvious deficiencies. In re Lenovo\n\n 20 Adware Litig., No. 15-MD-02624-HSG, 2018 WL 6099948, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2018)\n\n 21 (citation omitted).\n\n 22 A. Whether the Settlement is Fair, Adequate, and Reasonable\n 23 1. Settlement Process\n 24 The first factor concerns \u201cthe means by which the parties arrived at settlement.\u201d Harris v.\n\n 25 Vector Mktg. Corp., No. C-08-5198 EMC, 2011 WL 1627973, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011). To\n\n 26 approve a proposed settlement, a court must be satisfied the parties \u201chave engaged in sufficient\n\n 27 investigation of the facts to enable the court to intelligently make ... an appraisal of the\n\n 28 settlement.\u201d Acosta v. Trans Union, LLC, 243 F.R.D. 377, 396 (C.D. Cal. 2007). Courts thus have\n 7\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 156 Filed 07/13/26 Page 8 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 \u201can obligation to evaluate the scope and effectiveness of the investigation plaintiffs' counsel\n\n 2 conducted prior to reaching an agreement.\u201d Id. The settlement here was reached after extensive\n\n 3 investigation, motion practice, discovery, and a full-day session with an experienced mediator.\n\n 4 This factor thus weighs in favor of preliminary approval.\n\n 5 2. Lack of Preferential Treatment\n 6 The Court next considers whether the Settlement Agreement provides preferential\n\n 7 treatment to any class member. The Ninth Circuit has instructed district courts to be \u201cparticularly\n\n 8 vigilant\u201d for signs counsel have allowed the \u201cself-interests\u201d of \u201ccertain class members to infect\n\n 9 negotiations.\u201d In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 947.\n\n 10 The only preferential treatment is Plaintiff\u2019s request for up to $10,000 in a compensatory\n\n 11 award under 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(4). (Dkt. No. 147 at 32.) Under this section, representative\n\n 12 plaintiffs may recover \u201creasonable costs and expenses (including lost wages) directly relating to\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 the representation of the class.\u201d See 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(4). The Court will defer ruling on the\n\n 14 appropriateness of this award until final approval. At this stage, there is no indication the award in\n\n 15 general constitutes \u201cpreferential treatment\u201d such that it would defeat preliminary approval.\n\n 16 3. Range of Possible Approval\n 17 The third factor the Court considers is whether the settlement is within the range of\n\n 18 possible approval. To evaluate whether the settlement amount is adequate, \u201ccourts primarily\n\n 19 consider plaintiffs\u2019 expected recovery balanced against the value of the settlement offer.\u201d Lenovo,\n\n 20 2018 WL 6099948, at *8. This requires the Court to evaluate the strength of Plaintiff\u2019s case.\n\n 21 The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Fund of $45 million. Plaintiff\n\n 22 contends this amount is a favorable result for the Settlement Class in light of the substantial risks\n\n 23 Lead Plaintiff and the Settlement Class would face in proving all of the elements of the asserted\n\n 24 claims. (Dkt. No. 147 at 17.) According to Plaintiff\u2019s damages expert, Dr. Matthew Cain, the\n\n 25 maximum possible damages\u2014assuming Plaintiff prevailed on all liability issues and obtained the\n\n 26 maximum possible stock prices declines on all corrective disclosure dates\u2014would be\n\n 27 approximately $698 million. (Dkt. No. 147-3 at \u00b6 18.) But there were \u201ccredible risks\u201d Plaintiff\n\n 28 would have recovered much less, and in fact, if the jury were to credit Defendant\u2019s argument that\n 8\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 156 Filed 07/13/26 Page 9 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 the entirety of the alleged fraud was disclosed in connection with the first corrective disclosure on\n\n 2 November 1, 2022 such that no damages would be attributable to later disclosures, the maximum\n\n 3 possible damages would fall to $34.3 million. (Dkt. No. 147 at 19; Dkt. No. 147-3 at \u00b6 23.)\n\n 4 Given the risks of continued litigation and the uncertain viability of Plaintiff\u2019s legal claims,\n\n 5 the Court concludes this factor weighs in favor of preliminary approval.\n\n 6 4. Fairness of Supplemental Agreement\n 7 The Court must also review the fairness of the parties\u2019 confidential Supplemental\n\n 8 Agreement. (Dkt. No. 147-1 at \u00b6 44.) The existence of a termination option triggered by the\n\n 9 number of class members who opt out of the settlement does not by itself render the settlement\n\n 10 unfair. See, e.g., Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 16-CV-05479-JST, 2018 WL 6619983, at *7\n\n 11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018). The parties submitted the confidential Supplemental Agreement for in\n\n 12 camera review, and having reviewed it, the Court finds the termination provision does not impact\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 the fundamental fairness of the Settlement Agreement.\n\n 14 5. Obvious Deficiencies\n 15 Finally, the Court considers whether there exist any obvious deficiencies in the settlement\n\n 16 agreement. Harris, 2011 WL 1627973, at *8. This factor weighs in Plaintiff\u2019s favor as no obvious\n\n 17 deficiencies exist on the face of the settlement agreement.\n\n 18 ***\n\n 19 Having weighed the relevant factors, the Court preliminarily finds that the settlement\n\n 20 agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and GRANTS preliminary approval.\n\n 21 III. PROPOSED PLAN OF ALLOCATION\n 22 The Court also must preliminarily approve the Plan of Allocation. The court\u2019s review of\n\n 23 the distribution plan is governed by the same legal standards that apply to the approval of a\n\n 24 settlement: the plan must be fair, reasonable, and adequate. See, e.g., In re Citric Acid Antitrust\n\n 25 Litig., 145 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1154 (N.D. Cal. 2001). \u201cA settlement in a securities class action case\n\n 26 can be reasonable if it fairly treats class members by awarding a pro rata share to every Authorized\n\n 27 Claimant, but also sensibly makes interclass distinctions based upon, inter alia, the relative\n\n 28 strengths and weaknesses of class members\u2019 individual claims and the timing of purchases of the\n 9\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 156 Filed 07/13/26 Page 10 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 securities at issue.\u201d Hampton v. Aqua Metals, Inc., No. 17-CV-07142-HSG, 2021 WL 4553578, at\n\n 2 *10 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2021) (internal quotation omitted). \u201c[C]ourts recognize that an allocation\n\n 3 formula need only have a reasonable, rational basis, particularly if recommended by experienced\n\n 4 and competent counsel.\u201d Id.\n\n 5 The Plan of Allocation provides the damages will be distributed in pro rata shares among\n\n 6 the Settlement Class Members on a per share basis. (Dkt. No. 141-1 at \u00b6 1(hh); Dkt. No. 147-4,\n\n 7 Sinderson Decl. at \u00b6 40 (\u201cThe Plan of Allocation treats all Settlement Class Members equitably\n\n 8 based on the timing of the purchases, acquisitions, and sales of their iRhythm common stock.\u201d)\n\n 9 Ms. Sinderson attests \u201cthe average recovery per affected share is approximately $1.83, before\n\n 10 deduction of the Court-approved attorneys\u2019 fees, Litigation Expenses, and other costs.\u201d (Id.)\n\n 11 Further, the Plan is \u201csubstantively similar\u201d to that approved in other securities class actions. (Id.)\n\n 12 The Court concludes the Plan of Allocation treats the class members fairly and\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 preliminarily approves it.\n\n 14 IV. CLASS NOTICE PLAN\n 15 For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(3), class members must be afforded \u201cthe best\n\n 16 notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who\n\n 17 can be identified through reasonable effort.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). Such notice must clearly\n\n 18 state the following:\n\n 19 (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii)\n the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class member may\n 20 enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires; (v)\n that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests\n 21 exclusion; (vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and (vii)\n the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule\n 22 23(c)(3).\n 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B). \u201cNotice is satisfactory if it generally describes the terms of the\n\n 24 settlement in sufficient detail to alert those with adverse viewpoints to investigate and to come\n\n 25 forward and be heard.\u201d Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec., 361 F.3d 566, 575 (9th Cir. 2004)\n\n 26 (cleaned up).\n\n 27 At the preliminary approval hearing, the Court raised three issues with the notice: 1) notice\n\n 28 should be provided by mail and email where possible; 2) objections should be mailed to Court;\n 10\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 156 Filed 07/13/26 Page 11 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 and (3) the amount of attorneys\u2019 fees sought should be specified both as a dollar amount and as a\n\n 2 percentage of the total. In response, Plaintiff submitted a revised long form notice which\n\n 3 addresses all of the Court\u2019s issues. (Dkt. No. 155-1.) The revised long-form and summary notices\n\n 4 comply with the notice requirements under Rule 23(c). (Dkt. No. 147-2 at 15-52.) The revised\n\n 5 long-from notice describes the allegations and claims in plain language, defines the Settlement\n\n 6 Class, includes contact information for Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator, and\n\n 7 summarizes the settlement amount. (Dkt. No. 147-2 at 15-31.) The revised long-form notice also\n\n 8 describes the Plan of Allocation and the options available to class members, including instructions\n\n 9 for requesting exclusion from the settlement and filing an objection. (Id. at 32-38.) The revised\n\n 10 long-form notice informs class members that receiving a share of the class settlement will release\n\n 11 certain claims against certain parties and informs class members they may appear at the final\n\n 12 fairness hearing in person or through an attorney. It directs class members to a website with more\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 information. Finally, the notice adequately advises Settlement Class Members about how they can\n\n 14 review Class Counsel\u2019s motion for attorneys\u2019 fees and costs prior to the final approval hearing and\n\n 15 that Lead Plaintiff will seek up to a $10,000 compensatory award under 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(4).\n\n 16 See In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 995 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding class\n\n 17 members must \u201chave an opportunity to oppose class counsel\u2019s fee motion\u201d).\n\n 18 In sum, these procedures appear sufficient to ensure that Settlement Class Members\n\n 19 receive adequate notice of the settlement and an opportunity to opt-out or object. Accordingly, the\n\n 20 Notices and notice plan support preliminary approval.\n\n 21 V. ATTORNEYS\u2019 FEES AND COSTS\n 22 Rule 23(h) provides for an award of attorneys\u2019 fees and costs in a certified class action\n\n 23 where it is \u201cauthorized by law or by the parties\u2019 agreement.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). However,\n\n 24 \u201ccourts have an independent obligation to ensure that the award, like the settlement itself, is\n\n 25 reasonable, even if the parties have already agreed to an amount.\u201d Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 941.\n\n 26 Where a settlement produces a common fund for the benefit of the entire class, courts have\n\n 27 discretion to employ either the lodestar method or the percentage-of-recovery method to determine\n\n 28 whether the requested fees are reasonable. In re Mercury, 618 F.3d at 992. The Ninth Circuit has\n 11\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 156 Filed 07/13/26 Page 12 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 established a benchmark of 25 percent of the common fund for attorneys\u2019 fees calculations under\n\n 2 the latter method. See Powers v. Eichen, 229 F.3d 1249, 1256 (9th Cir. 2000) (\u201cWe have ...\n\n 3 established twenty-five percent of the recovery as a \u2018benchmark\u2019 for attorneys\u2019 fees calculations\n\n 4 under the percentage-of-recovery approach.\u201d). Although \u201c[a] district court may depart from the\n\n 5 benchmark ..., it must be made clear by the district court how it arrives at the figure ultimately\n\n 6 awarded.\u201d Id. at 1256-57.\n\n 7 \u201cThe lodestar figure is calculated by multiplying the number of hours the prevailing party\n\n 8 reasonably expended on the litigation (as supported by adequate documentation) by a reasonable\n\n 9 hourly rate for the region and for the experience of the lawyer.\u201d Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 941. The\n\n 10 resulting figure may be adjusted upward or downward to account for several factors, \u201cincluding\n\n 11 the quality of representation, the benefit obtained for the class, the complexity and novelty of the\n\n 12 issues presented, and the risk of nonpayment.\u201d Id. at 941-42 (internal quotation marks and citation\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 omitted). The party requesting fees bears the burden \u201cof submitting billing records to establish that\n\n 14 the number of hours it requested are reasonable,\u201d Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196,\n\n 15 1202 (9th Cir. 2013), as well as \u201cproduc[ing] satisfactory evidence\u2014in addition to the attorneys\u2019\n\n 16 own affidavits\u2014that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for\n\n 17 similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation,\u201d Camancho\n\n 18 v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 980 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation\n\n 19 omitted). The Ninth Circuit recommends that whether the lodestar or percentage-of-recovery\n\n 20 method is used, the district court perform a cross-check using the other method to confirm the\n\n 21 reasonableness of the fee (e.g., if the percentage-of-recovery method is applied, a cross-check with\n\n 22 the lodestar method will reveal if the amount requested is unreasonable in light of the hours\n\n 23 reasonably expended). See Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 944-45.\n\n 24 The Settlement Agreement provides Class Counsel will file a motion for attorneys\u2019 fees\n\n 25 and costs, but is silent as to the amount. (Dkt. No. 147-1 at \u00b6 17.) In their motion for preliminary\n\n 26 approval, Plaintiff states they intend to seek an award of attorneys\u2019 fees of up to 25% of the\n\n 27 Settlement Fund. (Dkt. No. 147 at 31.) The motion also indicates Plaintiff intends to \u201cseek\n\n 28 reimbursement of up to $800,000 for their reasonable litigation expenses.\u201d (Id.)\n 12\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 156 Filed 07/13/26 Page 13 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 Plaintiff shall submit a motion for attorneys\u2019 fees, including declarations and detailed\n\n 2 billing records, so the Court may determine an appropriate lodestar figure, and to allow Settlement\n\n 3 Class Members the opportunity to object to the requested fees. See In re Mercury, 618 F.3d at 995\n\n 4 (holding that class members must \u201chave an opportunity to oppose class counsel\u2019s fee motion\u201d\n\n 5 before the deadline for filing objections set forth in the class notice). Counsel shall also submit\n\n 6 detailed information in support of their request for $800,000 in litigation expenses so the Court\n\n 7 can determine whether such costs are reasonable expenses incurred for the benefit of the class.\n\n 8 VI. CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AWARDS\n 9 Finally, Plaintiff intends to seek up to $10,000 for Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters\n\n 10 under 5 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(4). (Dkt. No. 147 at 32.) Section \u00a7 78u-4(a)(4) awards allow a\n\n 11 representative to recover \u201creasonable costs and expenses (including lost wages) directly relating to\n\n 12 the representation of the class.\u201d See 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 78u-4(a)(4). Thus, any request for compensation\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 must be supported by declarations or other evidence supporting the lost wages and any other costs\n\n 14 as expenses.\n\n 15 CONCLUSION\n\n 16 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS preliminary approval of the class action\n\n 17 settlement as follows:\n\n 18 1. This action is provisionally certified as a class action, for settlement purposes only,\n\n 19 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court preliminarily certifies the following\n\n 20 Settlement Class:\n\n 21 all persons and entities who purchased or acquired iRhythm\n common stock during the period from July 25, 2022 through\n 22 August 9, 2024, inclusive (the \u201cClass Period\u201d), and were\n allegedly damaged thereby.\n 23\n 2. The Court preliminarily appoints Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as\n 24\n Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.\n 25\n 3. The Court preliminarily appoints Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters as Class\n 26\n Representative for the Settlement Class.\n 27\n 4. The Court approves the appointment of Huntington National Bank as the Escrow\n 28\n 13\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 156 Filed 07/13/26 Page 14 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 Agent to manage the Settlement Fund for the benefit of the Settlement Class.\n\n 2 5. The Court approves and appoints Strategic Claims Services as the Settlement\n\n 3 Administrator to supervise and administer the notice procedure and the processing of claims, and\n\n 4 approves the payment of reasonable administration costs to the Settlement Administrator from the\n\n 5 proceeds of the Settlement, not to exceed $225,000 without further Court order prior to the\n\n 6 Effective Date.\n\n 7 6. Within 15 days of entry of this Order, the Settlement Administrator shall:\n\n 8 a. Mail and email (where possible) notice to potential Settlement Class\n\n 9 Members at the addresses set forth in the shareholder transfer records\n\n 10 provided by the Company, and mail notice to the Nominees in the\n\n 11 Settlement Administrator\u2019s database.\n\n 12 b. Post the Notice and Proof of Claim on the settlement website:\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 www.iRhythmSecuritiesLitigation.com\n\n 14 7. Within 25 days of this Order, the Settlement Administrator shall also publish the\n\n 15 Summary Notice in The Wall Street Journal and over PR Newswire.\n\n 16 8. Plaintiff shall file a copy of the Notice and Claim Form within 10 days of\n\n 17 dissemination of notice.\n\n 18 9. Class Counsel shall file a motion for attorneys\u2019 fees and costs by August 20, 2026.\n\n 19 10. The deadline for class members to submit a Claim Form shall be October 1, 2026.\n\n 20 11. The deadline for class members to submit a Request for Exclusion shall be\n\n 21 October 1, 2026.\n\n 22 12. The deadline for class members to object to the Settlement Agreement and/or Class\n\n 23 Counsel\u2019s motion for attorneys\u2019 fees and costs shall October 1, 2026.\n\n 24 13. Plaintiff shall file their Motion for Final Approval by October 22, 2026. The\n\n 25 motion for final approval shall address the final approval guidelines in the Northern District of\n\n 26 California's Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, available at\n\n 27 https://cand.uscourts.gov/forms/procedural-guidance-for-class-action-settlements/, in the order the\n\n 28 guidelines are presented on the website. As reflected in the Guidance, the Court will require a post-\n 14\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 156 Filed 07/13/26 Page 15 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 1 distribution accounting within 21 days after the distribution of settlement funds.\n\n 2 14. The parties shall appear before this Court for a final approval hearing on November\n\n 3 5, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. via Zoom video.\n\n 4 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 114, 121, 128, 130, 132, 138, 139, 146, 147.\n\n 5\n\n 6 IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n 7 Dated: July 13, 2026\n\n 8\n\n 9\n JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY\n 10 United States District Judge\n 11\n\n 12\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\n 14\n\n 15\n\n 16\n\n 17\n\n 18\n\n 19\n\n 20\n\n 21\n\n 22\n\n 23\n\n 24\n\n 25\n\n 26\n 27\n\n 28\n 15\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-13T14:15:37.449684-07:00","document_number":"156","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027370502","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Settlement","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-13T12:03:29.818065-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-28T09:39:44.495748-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-13","time_filed":"11:30:04","entry_number":156,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-13.002","pacer_sequence_number":448,"description":"ORDER by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 147 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/470643604/","id":470643604,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486026525/","id":486026525,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-07-13T12:03:28.001678-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T12:03:28.006070-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Set/Reset Hearings","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-13T12:03:27.991186-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T12:03:27.991198-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-13","time_filed":"11:34:35","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/470621451/","id":470621451,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/486003634/","id":486003634,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/155/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2026-07-13T10:31:24.146345-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-13T10:31:24.176643-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"155","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027369863","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice (Other)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-13T10:31:24.105293-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T08:11:22.580632-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-13","time_filed":"10:08:23","entry_number":155,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":446,"description":"NOTICE by Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System [Notice of Filing of Revised Proposed Preliminary Approval Order] (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Sinderson, Katherine) (Filed on 7/13/2026) (Entered: 07/13/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/470442809/","id":470442809,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/485819369/","id":485819369,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/154/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2026-07-10T11:39:54.624356-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-10T11:39:54.631245-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"154","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027364164","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-10T11:39:54.589058-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T08:11:22.565601-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-10","time_filed":"11:09:56","entry_number":154,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-10.003","pacer_sequence_number":443,"description":"Transcript of Proceedings held on 07/10/2026, before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Court Reporter/Transcriber Stephen W. Franklin, telephone number (561)313-8439. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 153 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/8/2026. (Related documents(s) 153 ) (Franklin, Stephen) (Filed on 7/10/2026) (Entered: 07/10/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/470433181/","id":470433181,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/485809644/","id":485809644,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/153/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2026-07-10T11:11:21.726974-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-10T11:11:21.747062-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"153","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027364047","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-10T11:11:21.695213-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T08:11:22.541575-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-10","time_filed":"10:54:06","entry_number":153,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-10.002","pacer_sequence_number":441,"description":"TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 07/10/2026 before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley by Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, for Court Reporter Stephen Franklin. (Kritta, Abygail) (Filed on 7/10/2026) (Entered: 07/10/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/470412811/","id":470412811,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/485789034/","id":485789034,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-07-10T09:35:24.647372-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-10T09:35:24.653800-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion Hearing","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-10T09:35:24.633724-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-10T09:35:24.633734-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-10","time_filed":"09:29:16","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/470246509/","id":470246509,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/485616964/","id":485616964,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/151/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2026-07-09T09:08:48.673839-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T09:08:48.704947-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"151","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-09T09:08:47.306212-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T09:08:48.600974-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-02","time_filed":null,"entry_number":151,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING. The hearing on 147 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement set for 7/10/2026 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley will be held via a Zoom webinar.Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/jsc Court Appearances: Advanced notice is required of counsel or parties who wish to be identified by the court as making an appearance or will be participating in the argument at the hearing. A list of names must be sent to the CRD at jsccrd@cand.uscourts.gov no later than noon on 7/9/2026.Civ LR 77-3(d). Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://cand.uscourts.gov/zoom. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2026) (Entered: 07/02/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/470246506/","id":470246506,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/485616957/","id":485616957,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/148/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2026-07-09T09:08:46.734782-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T09:08:46.757060-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"148","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-09T09:08:46.666215-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T09:08:46.689071-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-12","time_filed":null,"entry_number":148,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING MOTION HEARING. Due to the Court's trial schedule, the hearing on Plaintiffs' 147 Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement set for 7/9/2026 is continued to 7/10/2026 at 9:00 a.m. in San Francisco, Courtroom 08, 19th Floor before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2026) (Entered: 06/12/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/469568100/","id":469568100,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484911426/","id":484911426,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-07-02T09:04:02.249501-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-02T09:04:02.268390-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk's Notice Setting Zoom Hearing AND ~Util - Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-02T09:04:02.221693-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-02T09:04:02.221710-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-02","time_filed":"08:33:43","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/468772945/","id":468772945,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484082360/","id":484082360,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/150/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2026-06-25T12:32:22.709248-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T09:08:47.216720-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"150","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027300054","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-25T12:32:22.657884-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T09:08:47.056369-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-25","time_filed":"12:13:00","entry_number":150,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":429,"description":"TRANSCRIPT ORDER for partial proceedings held on 02/26/2026 before Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley for Court Reporter Ruth Ekhaus (Ekhaus, Ruth) (Filed on 6/25/2026) (Entered: 06/25/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/468340662/","id":468340662,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/483631608/","id":483631608,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/149/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2026-06-22T15:03:01.125782-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T09:08:46.947891-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"149","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027281630","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice (Other)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-22T15:03:01.083685-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T09:08:46.806697-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-22","time_filed":"14:30:05","entry_number":149,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":427,"description":"NOTICE by Quentin Blackford, iRhythm Technologies, Inc. : Notice of Filing of the Declaration of Matthew Shillady Regarding Defendants' Notice of Compliance with 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1715 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Matthew Shillady)(Tahler, Kristin) (Filed on 6/22/2026) (Entered: 06/22/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/467326303/","id":467326303,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482586754/","id":482586754,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-06-12T15:31:51.426922-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-12T15:31:51.434934-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk's Notice AND ~Util - Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-12T15:31:51.406517-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-12T15:31:51.406528-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-12","time_filed":"15:00:44","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-12.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/466386622/","id":466386622,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481623768/","id":481623768,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/147/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2026-06-04T17:04:38.493037-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T09:08:46.563732-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"147","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027216272","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Settlement","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-04T17:04:38.453752-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T09:08:46.261151-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-04","time_filed":"16:41:04","entry_number":147,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":421,"description":"MOTION for Settlement [Lead Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement] filed by Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System. Motion for Settlement Hearing set for 7/9/2026 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 08, 19th Floor. Responses due by 6/18/2026. Replies due by 6/25/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Stipulation of Settlement, # 2 Exhibit 2 - [Proposed] Preliminary Approval Order, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Cain Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Sinderson Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Mulholland Declaration)(Sinderson, Katherine) (Filed on 6/4/2026) (Entered: 06/04/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/457561962/","id":457561962,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/68229741/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/472547694/","id":472547694,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/146/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2026-03-17T16:34:56.923918-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T09:08:45.272643-07:00","sha1":"c50b6c3fa8f5d23551d9043cebd2d58df781205c","page_count":8,"file_size":323964,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.424518/gov.uscourts.cand.424518.146.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.424518/gov.uscourts.cand.424518.146.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 8\n\n\n\n\nMarch 17, 2026\n\nVIA ECF\n\nHon. Jacqueline Scott Corley\nPhillip Burton Federal Building &\nUnited States Courthouse\n450 Golden Gate Avenue\nSan Francisco, CA 94102\n\nRe: Glazing Employers & Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension & Retirement Fund v.\n iRhythm Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00706-JSC\n\nDear Judge Corley:\n\n Pursuant to this Court\u2019s Civil Standing Order, Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters\nPension and Retirement System (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d) and Defendants iRhythm Technologies, Inc. and\nQuentin Blackford (\u201cDefendants,\u201d and together with Plaintiff, the \u201cParties\u201d) jointly submit this\nletter to address Plaintiff\u2019s demands that:\n\n (i) Defendants produce all communications between iRhythm and the United States\n Department of Justice (\u201cDOJ\u201d) regarding its investigations as disclosed on, inter\n alia, May 4, 2023 (\u00b6134) and July 1, 2024 (\u00b6141), pursuant to Plaintiff\u2019s Request\n for Production Nos. 1 and 2:\n\n (ii) Defendants reverse the clawback of the single produced communication between\n the DOJ and iRhythm.\n\n The Parties met and conferred telephonically regarding this dispute on February 23, 2026,\nand, following subsequent correspondence, were unable to resolve this dispute.\n\n [Parties\u2019 Joint Submission Begins On Next Page]\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 8\n\n\n\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s Position\n\n DOJ Communications: Plaintiff seeks all communications between the DOJ and iRhythm\nregarding its investigation announced in May 2023. These documents are essential to test the scope\nand nature of the DOJ\u2019s \u201congoing criminal investigation,\u201d to rebut Defendants\u2019 anticipated loss\ncausation and damages arguments, and are responsive to, inter alia, Request Nos. 1-2.\n\n The DOJ\u2019s investigation is central to this case. On May 4, 2023, iRhythm disclosed a\nsubpoena from the DOJ\u2019s Civil Division concerning iRhythm\u2019s \u201cproducts and services.\u201d \u00b6134. The\nJuly 1, 2024 DOJ petition revealed that the DOJ was investigating whether \u201cthe Zio Systems were\nfailing to timely transmit patient cardiac data to physicians for review after the occurrence of a\ncardiac event.\u201d \u00b6\u00b6141-42. Each disclosure caused a significant stock decline. \u00b6\u00b6136, 143. Analysts\nlinked the investigation to the FDA\u2019s inspection and Warning Letter. See, e.g., \u00b6\u00b6138, 150, 154.\n\n To expedite discovery, Plaintiff initially sought \u201ccloned discovery\u201d of documents produced\nto the DOJ. In response, Defendants repeatedly represented that the DOJ production broadly\naddressed all Company devices and practices\u2014not just Warning Letter issues. Plaintiff agreed to\nforego cloned discovery. However, in opposing class certification, Defendants argued that analysts\nunderstood the subpoena to be an \u201cindustrywide\u201d inquiry and the device\u2019s \u201clag time\u201d was never\ndisclosed. ECF No. 120 at 6, 18. Defendants will likely rely on this to challenge loss causation for\nthe DOJ-related disclosures and to argue that damages must be reduced given alleged overbreadth.\nSee also ECF No. 120 at 22 (arguing Plaintiff must disaggregate confounding information).\n\n Recent developments underscore the seriousness of the DOJ\u2019s ongoing investigation and\nits centrality to this case. The DOJ recently revealed that the subpoena was issued \u201c[i]n furtherance\nof an ongoing criminal investigation related to federal health care offenses.\u201d No. 25-3736, ECF\nNo. 45.1. On February 19, 2026, iRhythm disclosed in its 2025 Form 10-K receiving a \u201ccivil\ninvestigative demand\u201d from the DOJ as part of the previously disclosed 2023 DOJ subpoena\nseeking documents \u201crelated to Zio AT[.]\u201d Thus, the inquiry is not an \u201cindustrywide\u201d \u201cbroad[]\nprobe,\u201d but is focused on the Zio AT.\n\n During discovery, Plaintiff identified that Defendants had not produced correspondence\nwith the DOJ, including to show the scope and nature of the investigation (except for the single\ndocument discussed below). Plaintiff requested this correspondence; Defendants refused.\n\n Plaintiff is entitled to documents bearing on Defendants\u2019 assertions about the DOJ\ninvestigation, which directly implicate their anticipated loss causation and damages arguments.\nLloyd v. CVB Fin. Corp., 811 F.3d 1200, 1210 (9th Cir. 2016) (loss causation for disclosure of\ngovernment investigation where later corrective disclosure reveals fraud connection).1 Defendants\ncannot invoke the scope and nature of the DOJ investigation as a defense while refusing to produce\ndocuments relevant to testing that defense. Courts regularly require production of communications\nwith government agencies concerning related investigations. E.g., Tobler v. 1248 Holdings, LLC,\n2025 WL 1158280, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 21, 2025) (compelling DOJ communications); 3M Co. v.\n\n1\n Plaintiff reserves all rights to challenge any arguments related to loss causation or any purported\nrequirement to disaggregate damages.\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146 Filed 03/17/26 Page 3 of 8\n\n\n\n\nAIME LLC, 2023 WL 2604983, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 13, 2023) (same).\n\n Defendants have not advanced any burden, privilege, or prejudice objections. Instead, they\nargue Plaintiff \u201cabandoned\u201d this issue, that it is \u201cstale,\u201d and that \u201cdocument discovery is over.\u201d\nEx. A. But fact discovery closes June 15. There is no prohibition on identifying production gaps,\nparticularly as developments highlight this discovery\u2019s importance. And Plaintiff\u2019s agreement to\nnot pursue \u201ccloned discovery\u201d (while reserving all rights) did not abandon this issue.\n\n Defendants\u2019 relevance arguments are: (1) \u201cthere are no documents between Quinn Emanuel\nand the DOJ that reflect the basis of the DOJ investigation\u201d (Ex. A)\u2014which they now\nconspicuously modify to documents that \u201cpre-date the subpoena,\u201d and (2) that they do not\ncurrently intend to raise loss causation or damages arguments about the investigation\u2019s \u201cscope.\u201d\nDefendants do not claim the correspondence does not exist; they just demand that Plaintiff accept\ntheir characterization of it. But the letters could, for example, identify categories of documents the\nDOJ pursued (potential evidence of \u201cscope\u201d) and indicates that there are post-subpoena documents\nthat do reflect the DOJ\u2019s focus. Further, attorney representations as to Defendants\u2019 current strategy\nare not evidence, which Plaintiff will need to prove loss causation and damages. Absent a binding\nwaiver at minimum, the DOJ communications are relevant under Rule 26.\n\n The parties conferred telephonically on February 23. Plaintiff requested Defendants\u2019 final\nposition by February 25; Defendants did not respond. After Plaintiff followed up on March 3,\nDefendants asserted the issue was \u201cmoot,\u201d that relevant communications \u201cdon\u2019t exist,\u201d and\nthreatened a fee-shifting motion if Plaintiff sought Court intervention. Ex. A.\n\n Clawback of iRhythm00322760. Defendants produced a single document reflecting DOJ-\niRhythm communications. In it, iRhythm\u2019s outside counsel Quinn Emanuel (\u201cQE\u201d) forwarded to\niRhythm an email chain between QE and the DOJ concerning the DOJ\u2019s demand for FDA\ncommunications regarding the Warning Letter. Ex. B (to be submitted for in-camera review by\nDefendants). Defendants redacted a subsequent short message from iRhythm\u2019s in-house counsel\nto Blackford, claiming it contained \u201clegal advice \u2026 in anticipation of litigation regarding the FDA\nWarning Letter.\u201d Ex. C. When Plaintiff identified this document as evidence of the DOJ\u2019s focus\non issues underlying this Action and asked about other DOJ communications, Defendants\nannounced they were clawing back the entire document.\n\n Defendants\u2019 privilege claim is meritless. Communications between adverse parties are not\nprivileged. QE\u2019s transmittal email to iRhythm stating \u201cFYI, our response seeking clarification\u201d\n\u201cmerely transmitted [the DOJ communications] without any substantive comment.\u201d Muhler Co.,\nInc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2019 WL 2419016, at *6 (D.S.C. June 10, 2019); see also\nDevries v. Advanced Am. Constr., Inc., 2014 WL 13145285, at *4 (D. Or. Sept. 1, 2014)\n(\u201ctransmittal emails \u2026 devoid of any mental impressions or opinions\u201d not protected). Defendants\u2019\ndescription of the redacted portion raises substantial doubt about the privilege claim, as it\nreferences only the FDA\u2019s investigation\u2014not the DOJ\u2019s. Compare Ex. B with Ex. C. The Court\nshould review this portion of the document in camera.\n\n But even if this message was properly redacted, that does not justify withholding the entire\ndocument. See U.S. v. City of Hesperia, 2021 WL 5034381, at *6 (C.D. Cal. 2021) (directing\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146 Filed 03/17/26 Page 4 of 8\n\n\n\n\ndefendants to produce \u201cemails forwarding or discussing privileged attorney-client\ncommunications \u2026 with only the privileged portions redacted\u2026. Similarly, attachments to\nprivileged emails are not themselves privileged simply by association.\u201d). Defendants have\ndemanded that Plaintiff produce non-privileged attachments to privileged emails\u2014which Plaintiff\nhas done\u2014yet assert that non-privileged emails forwarded in privileged communications are\nprotected. There is no principled difference between an email forward and attachment. Defendants\nmust produce non-privileged portions of email chains, as they have with other partially privileged\nemails where counsel provides advice in a later part of an email chain.\n\n Defendants argue communications \u201cbetween lawyer and client\u201d are protected, but cite to\ncases involving information provided by a client to their lawyer for purposes of obtaining legal\nadvice. See Ex. A at 7-8; Muro v. Target Corp., 250 F.R.D. 350, 363 (N.D. Ill. 2007).2 iRhythm\ntransmitted no information and was not seeking legal advice. Defendants cite no authority for the\nproposition that a lawyer transmitting negotiations from an adverse party is privileged.\n\n The Court should find that Defendants\u2019 clawback is improper, and that the document\nshould be reproduced with only the privileged portion, if any, redacted.\n\n Defendants\u2019 Position\n\n I. Plaintiff\u2019s Demand Is Based On A Hypothetical, Inaccurate Argument\n\n Plaintiff concedes that its entire demand rests on Defendants\u2019 \u201canticipated\u201d arguments.\nSupra at 1 (seeking documents \u201cto rebut Defendants\u2019 anticipated loss causation and damages\narguments\u201d). But Defendants have already confirmed in writing that they have not\u2014and will\nnot\u2014make corrective disclosure loss causation or damages arguments based on the \u201cscope\u201d of the\nDOJ investigation.3 Ex. A. Accordingly, the communications are not \u201crelevant to any party\u2019s\nclaim or defense,\u201d as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. This is dispositive: Plaintiff\nmay not invent arguments Defendants could make and demand documents to respond to them.\n\n Plaintiff relies on Defendants\u2019 class certification opposition brief to speculate about\nDefendants \u201canticipated\u201d arguments, but that brief provides no support for Plaintiff\u2019s speculation.\nDefendants argued in their opposition that neither the 2023 DOJ subpoena nor the 2024 DOJ\nenforcement petition had any price impact: neither revealed new, corrective information to the\nmarket because (a) the transmission limits were disclosed no later than November 1, 2022, (b) a\nlag time was never disclosed, and (c) Plaintiff pointed to no other information relevant to its case\ntheory that those alleged disclosures revealed to the market. ECF No. 120 at 15, 18. Defendants\nstated that the DOJ investigation was \u201cindustry-wide\u201d because a competitor also received a\nsubpoena around the same time iRhythm did. Id. at 6. These arguments are singularly concerned\nwith what information was already incorporated into iRhythm\u2019s stock price, not the \u201cscope\u201d of the\nsubpoena. Plaintiff\u2019s attempt to twist one sentence from the background section of Defendants\u2019\n\n2\n The one exception, Goldberg v. Ruano, involved a finding that legal services bills sent from the\nattorney to the client could be privileged if they \u201cinform[ed] the client of the nature or amount of\nwork occurring.\u201d 2024 WL 4406805, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2024). That is not the case here.\n3\n Defendants reserve the right to respond to any arguments Plaintiff makes.\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146 Filed 03/17/26 Page 5 of 8\n\n\n\n\nbrief into an unasserted argument fails.\n\n If Defendants had made any such argument in their opposition brief (they did not), Plaintiff\ncould and should have raised that in its reply. It did not. Instead, Plaintiff raised this issue after\nfiling its reply and six months after abandoning its initial request for the DOJ communications\nfollowing Defendants\u2019 relevance arguments.\n\n II. Plaintiff Already Has The Documents Needed To Address Its Hypothetical Theory\n\n Setting aside the improper justification for its demand, Plaintiff already has the documents\nneeded to address its hypothetical theory. As Plaintiff has itself acknowledged, Plaintiff already\nhas the documents that define the \u201cscope\u201d and \u201cnature\u201d of the DOJ investigation: the subpoena\nitself and the enforcement petition, which lay out exactly what the DOJ was interested in. ECF\nNo. 96 at 9 (\u201c[O]n July 1, 2024, the DOJ filed suit to enforce its subpoena, revealing the focus on\nthe Zio AT\u2019s \u201cfail[ure] to timely transmit patient cardiac data to physicians.\u201d); id. at 25 (the\n\u201csubpoena specifically concerned the lag time\u201d).4 This is independently dispositive.\n\n Plaintiff nonetheless demands additional non-public communications between the\nCompany\u2019s counsel and the DOJ that could not be relevant to Plaintiff\u2019s argument. To support its\ncorrective disclosure theory, Plaintiff pled that the subpoena announcement revealed the DOJ\ninvestigation and \u201ccaused the price of iRhythm common stock to decline,\u201d id. \u00b6 136, and that the\nenforcement petition \u201crevealed to investors the seriousness with which the DOJ was pursuing its\ninvestigation,\u201d \u201cnews\u201d that also allegedly caused a stock price decline, id. \u00b6\u00b6 141, 143. Whether\nthe announcement of the subpoena and enforcement petition are \u201ccorrective disclosures\u201d capable\nof supporting Plaintiff\u2019s loss causation theory turns on what new information was revealed to the\nmarket, not on what may have been discussed with the DOJ non-publicly. Lloyd, 811 F.3d at 1210\n(investigation announcement adequately pled as corrective disclosure when considered alongside\nsubsequent public disclosures). Plaintiff can point to no case in this Circuit where the\nannouncement of a government investigation served as a corrective disclosure based on\ncommunications that were never made public, like those Plaintiff seeks here. Non-public\ncommunications cannot help Plaintiff prove a change in market price. See Evanston Pol. Pension\nFund v. McKesson Corp., 2021 WL 4902420, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2021) (\u201cA corrective\ndisclosure must somehow provide \u2018new information\u2019 to the market.\u201d). In McKesson, the court\ngranted partial summary judgment for McKesson after concluding that corrective information was\nnot \u201crevealed\u201d by government investigation disclosures because the relevant information was\nalready \u201cin the market\u201d and that \u201c[t]he loss ... may well have happened even if McKesson had\ndone nothing wrong.\u201d 2021 WL 4902420, at *5-6. Because the communications sought are not\nrelevant to loss causation, they could never be relevant to Plaintiff\u2019s stated purpose.\n\n\n\n4\n Failing to establish relevance, Plaintiff argues that developments postdating iRhythm\u2019s receipt\nof the subpoena by nearly three years\u2014and never pled in the Complaint\u2014justify its belated\ndiscovery request. Even were this argument credible, Defendants have never disputed what\nPlaintiff claims these developments show\u2014that the DOJ sought (among other topics) information\nrelated to the Zio AT, a fact that is readily available from the face of the subpoena itself.\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146 Filed 03/17/26 Page 6 of 8\n\n\n\n\n III. Plaintiff\u2019s Demand Is Moot\u2014Defendants Already Confirmed No Documents Exist\n The above failures notwithstanding, Plaintiff\u2019s demand is also moot because Defendants\nhave already confirmed that the requested documents do not exist. Plaintiff demanded documents\nfrom iRhythm related to the \u201cmanifest[ation]\u201d of the DOJ subpoena. Ex. A. As already explained\nto Plaintiff, Defendants conducted a reasonable search of the emails between QE,5 on the one hand,\nand the DOJ, on the other, and found no documents that reflect the basis for the DOJ investigation\nor reveal its intended \u201cscope.\u201d\n\n Plaintiff fails to explain to this Court what more it would have Defendants do. It states that\n\u201cPlaintiff is entitled to test Defendants\u2019 unilateral representation\u201d (supra at 2) but offers no\nresponse to the fact that Defendants already conducted a reasonable search and confirmed such\ndocuments do not exist. Wasting party and judicial resources on an unsubstantiated and already\nmoot motion is precisely why Defendants warned Plaintiff that it may seek fee-shifting.\n\n IV. The Court Should Not Allow Plaintiff To Invade Privileged Material\n\n Finally, Plaintiff now attempts to reverse the clawback of iRhythm00322760, an\ninadvertently produced, privileged email chain between iRhythm\u2019s litigation counsel, QE, and its\nclient after the DOJ subpoena had been issued. The email\u2019s date and context make clear it was\nprepared not merely in anticipation of litigation, but in the midst of litigation.\n\n It is black-letter law that the transfer of information reflecting legal advice from outside\ncounsel to a corporate client is a privileged communication. E.g., Goldberg v. Ruano, 2024 WL\n4406805, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2024) (communications that \u201cinform[ed] the client of the nature\nor amount of work occurring\u201d are privileged); Chrimar Sys. Inc v. Cisco Sys. Inc, 2016 WL\n1595785, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2016) (\u201ccommunications between a corporation and its outside\ncounsel are presumed to be made for the purpose of seeking legal advice.\u201d).\n\n The later emails in the chain\u2014between outside litigation counsel, iRhythm in-house\nattorneys, and Quentin Blackford\u2014are thus indisputably privileged, and the communication\nbetween Quinn Emanuel and DOJ was integrated into the privileged attorney-client\ncommunication to explain to the client exactly what was happening in response to the subpoena.\nPlaintiff has no counter to the \u201cweight of authority\u201d holding that whether an email chain is\nprivileged or not depends on \u201cexamination of the most recent communication\u201d in the chain. Dawe\nv. Corr. USA, 263 F.R.D. 613, 621 (E.D. Cal. 2009); see also Muro, 250 F.R.D. at 363 (\u201ceven\nthough one e-mail is not privileged, a second e-mail which forwards that prior e-mail to counsel\nmight be privileged in its entirety\u2026. the forwarded material is similar to prior conversations or\ndocuments that are quoted verbatim in a letter[.]\u201d). That attachments are treated differently, see\nCity of Hesperia, 2021 WL 5034381, at *6, is of no moment.\n\n * * *\n\n The Parties thank the Court for its attention to this matter.\n\n\n5\n The Company did not correspond with the DOJ directly.\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146 Filed 03/17/26 Page 7 of 8\n\n\n\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Katherine M. Sinderson /s/ Christopher Porter\n BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &\n & GROSSMANN LLP SULLIVAN, LLP\n\n John J. Rizio-Hamilton (pro hac vice) Kristin Tahler (Bar No. 261908)\n Katherine M. Sinderson (pro hac vice) kristintahler@quinnemanuel.com\n Alec T. Coquin (pro hac vice) 865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor\n Thomas Z. Sperber (pro hac vice) Los Angeles, CA 90017\n Abby Kritta (pro hac vice) Telephone: (213) 443-3000\n johnr@blbglaw.com\n katiem@blbglaw.com Christopher Porter (pro hac vice)\n alec.coquin@blbglaw.com chrisporter@quinnemanuel.com\n thomas.sperber@blbglaw.com 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3900\n abygail.kritta@blbglaw.com Houston, TX 77002\n 1251 Avenue of the Americas Telephone: (713) 221-7000\n New York, NY 10020\n Tel: (212) 554-1400 Jesse Bernstein (pro hac vice)\n Brenna Nelinson (pro hac vice)\n Jonathan D. Uslaner (Bar No. 256898) Amy Shehan (pro hac vice)\n jonathanu@blbglaw.com jessebernstein@quinnemanuel.com\n 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575 brennanelinson@quinnemanuel.com\n Los Angeles, CA 90067 amyshehan@quinnemanuel.com\n Tel: (310) 819-3470 295 5th Avenue\n New York, NY 10016\n Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Telephone: (212) 849-7000\n Firefighters Pension and Retirement\n System Attorneys for Defendants iRhythm Technologies,\n Inc. and Quentin Blackford\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146 Filed 03/17/26 Page 8 of 8\n\n\n\n\n ATTESTATION (CIVIL LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3))\n\n In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this\n\ndocument has been obtained from the signatories.\n\nDated: March 17, 2026\n\n /s/ Katherine M. Sinderson\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-04-27T10:13:19.119806-07:00","document_number":"146","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035026882381","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Discovery Letter Brief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477184035/","id":477184035,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/146/1/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2026-04-27T10:08:51.272830-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-04T05:53:07.932423-07:00","sha1":"e76e5172a24b3b5f73b3fe3f26ea7cbfc6ea47de","page_count":3,"file_size":187076,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.424518/gov.uscourts.cand.424518.146.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.424518/gov.uscourts.cand.424518.146.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146-1 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n 1 BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER\n & GROSSMANN LLP\n 2 JONATHAN D. USLANER (Bar No. 256898)\n 3 jonathanu@blbglaw.com\n 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2575\n 4 Los Angeles, CA 90067\n Tel: (310) 819-3470\n 5\n Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma\n 6 Firefighters Pension and Retirement System\n 7\n\n 8\n\n 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n10\n\n11\n\n12 GLAZING EMPLOYERS AND GLAZIERS\u2019 Case No. 3:24-cv-706-JSC\n UNION LOCAL #27 PENSION AND\n13 RETIREMENT FUND, on behalf of itself and DECLARATION OF KATHERINE M.\n all others similarly situated, SINDERSON IN SUPPORT OF THE\n14 PARTIES\u2019 JOINT DISCOVERY\n15 Plaintiff, DISPUTE LETTER\n\n16 v. Judge: Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley\n\n17 IRHYTHM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,\n\n18 Defendants.\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n\n DECLARATION OF KATHERINE M. SINDERSON\n CASE NO. 3:24-CV-706-JSC\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146-1 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n 1 I, KATHERINE M. SINDERSON, declare as follows:\n 2 1. I am an attorney admitted to practice before this Court pro hac vice. I am a partner\n 3 at the law firm of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (\u201cBLBG\u201d) and lead counsel for\n 4 Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System (\u201cLead Plaintiff\u201d or\n 5 \u201cPlaintiff\u201d) in the above-captioned action. I submit this declaration in support of the parties\u2019\n 6 discovery dispute joint statement filed herewith. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated\n 7 herein, and if called to testify, could and would competently thereto.\n 8 2. On June 13, 2025, Plaintiff served its First Set Of Requests For The Production Of\n 9 Documents on all Defendants. The Requests seek in relevant part:\n10 Request No. 1: All documents and communications concerning, and\n communications with, the DOJ or any other governmental agency concerning the\n11 Zio AT, including but not limited to subpoenas, requests for information, responses,\n12 and internal communications regarding such inquiries. This request is not limited\n to the Relevant Time Period.\n13\n Request No. 2: All documents concerning the DOJ Action, including: a) All\n14 communications with third parties concerning the DOJ Action and documents\n concerning such communications; b) All requests for documents, testimony, or\n15 information served in the DOJ Action; c) All documents produced in connection\n16 with the DOJ Action; . . . g) All transcripts and notes of interview(s) and\n deposition(s) in the DOJ Action; and h) All draft and final presentations concerning\n17 the DOJ Action.\n\n18 3. Attached as Exhibit A are excerpts from a March 7, 2026, email chain from Emily\n19 Erickson, counsel for Defendants, to Katie M. Sinderson, counsel for Plaintiff, titled \u201cRE: Glazing\n20 Employers and Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies,\n21 Inc. \u2013 DOJ Communications.\u201d The email chain has been modified to remove certain signature\n22 blocks and to correct formatting.\n23 4. Exhibit B, which is a document produced by Defendants bearing Bates number\n24 iRhythm00322760, will be submitted by Defendants in unredacted form for in camera review.\n25 5. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of excerpted data from Defendants\u2019\n26 privilege log, produced to Plaintiff on January 23, 2026, for iRhythm00322760.\n27\n\n28\n\n DECLARATION OF KATHERINE M. SINDERSON 1\n CASE NO. 3:24-CV-706-JSC\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146-1 Filed 03/17/26 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n 1 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\n 2 Executed on March 17, 2026.\n\n 3 /s/ Katherine M. Sinderson\n Katherine M. Sinderson\n 4\n\n 5\n\n 6\n\n 7\n\n 8\n\n 9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n DECLARATION OF KATHERINE M. SINDERSON 2\n28 CASE NO. 3:24-CV-706-JSC\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-04-27T10:13:20.560537-07:00","document_number":"146","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"035026882382","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Declaration of Katherine M. Sinderson","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477184036/","id":477184036,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/146/2/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2026-04-27T10:08:51.298071-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-04T05:53:20.076172-07:00","sha1":"60fa57e8514221305be5a82bd70285967d844e5b","page_count":12,"file_size":378211,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.424518/gov.uscourts.cand.424518.146.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.424518/gov.uscourts.cand.424518.146.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146-2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 12\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit A\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146-2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 12\n\n\nAlec Coquin\n\n\n Exhibit A \u2013 Excerpts from a March 7, 2026 email chain from Emily Erickson, counsel for Defendants, to Katie M.\n Sinderson, counsel for Plaintiff.\n (the email chain has been modified to remove certain signature blocks and to correct formatting)\n\nFrom: Emily Erickson \nSent: Saturday, March 7, 2026 7:49 AM\nTo: Katie M. Sinderson ; Brenna Nelinson ; Thomas Sperber\n; Nathan Morgan ; Christopher Porter\n; Kristin Tahler ; Jesse Bernstein\n; Amy Shehan ; Cara Mund\n\nCc: John Rizio-Hamilton ; Alec Coquin ; Abby Kritta\n\nSubject: RE: Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. - DOJ\nCommunications\n\nYes, if Plaintiff moves the Court on a moot discovery issue, we are ready to address it. Defendants reserve all rights, including\nfee shifting, particularly where we've already undertaken a search to confirm that the documents you seek don't\nexist. Notwithstanding, we will endeavor to provide our portion of the joint statement by Wednesday if we receive your portion\nby Monday. But we can\u2019t commit to that timeline until we see what exactly we are responding to. In any event, we will provide\nour portion by no later than Friday.\n\nThanks,\nEmily\n\nEmily Erickson\nAssociate\nQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP\n\nFrom: Katie M. Sinderson \nSent: Friday, March 6, 2026 7:01 PM\nTo: Emily Erickson ; Brenna Nelinson ; Thomas Sperber\n; Nathan Morgan ; Christopher Porter\n; Kristin Tahler ; Jesse Bernstein\n; Amy Shehan ; Cara Mund\n\nCc: John Rizio-Hamilton ; Alec Coquin ; Abby Kritta\n\nSubject: Re: Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. - DOJ\nCommunications\n\n\nThanks Emily. When you say \u201ctimely,\u201d are you agreeing to provide your response on Wednesday as we have repeatedly\nrequested? Please let us know tonight so that we may plan for a Monday filing if appropriate.\n\nBest,\nKatie\n\nFrom: Emily Erickson \nSent: Friday, March 6, 2026 6:13:02 PM\nTo: Katie M. Sinderson ; Brenna Nelinson ; Thomas Sperber\n; Nathan Morgan ; Christopher Porter\n\n 1\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146-2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 3 of 12\n; Kristin Tahler ; Jesse Bernstein\n; Amy Shehan ; Cara Mund\n\nCc: John Rizio-Hamilton ; Alec Coquin ; Abby Kritta\n\nSubject: RE: Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. - DOJ\nCommunications\n\n\nThanks, Katie. After weeks of correspondence, we appreciate Plaintiff providing this important clarification on March 5.\n\nFirst, Plaintiff\u2019s purported justification for belated discovery fails. Specifically, your assertion that Defendants have\n\u201crepeatedly suggested\u201d that the subpoena dealt only with \u201cunrelated matters\u201d is belied by the record before the Court and the\nparties\u2019 correspondence. In fact, Defendants have directly acknowledged that there was overlap between certain subpoena\nrequests and Plaintiff\u2019s allegations. E.g., ECF No. 103 at 8-9 (\u201cAlthough some of the documents produced to the DOJ may be\nrelevant, a production of eight years of documents that overlaps with the Class Period for less than one year will necessarily\ninclude a large swath of irrelevant material.\u201d). The only contrary example you\u2019ve provided is Defendants\u2019 class certification\nopposition, which you misrepresent. Defendants\u2019 brief clearly stated that the disclosure of the subpoena and the motion to\nenforce could not establish price impact for Plaintiff\u2019s \u201cTransmission Claims\u201d because (1) the transmission limit had already\nbeen disclosed publicly, and (2) any purported \u201clag time\u201d was not \u201cdisclosed\u201d through the subpoena or motion to\nenforce. ECF No. 120 at 15, 18. Defendants did not argue anything broader. Id. The point that the investigation was \u201cindustry\nwide,\u201d see id. at 6, had nothing to do with what the subpoena sought.\n\nSecond, even taking Plaintiff\u2019s purported justification at face value, Plaintiff already has the subpoena and motion to enforce,\nwhich plainly \u201cdemonstrate what the DOJ investigation actually focused on.\u201d\n\nFinally, notwithstanding Plaintiff\u2019s failure to articulate relevance, Defendants have been working in good faith to resolve this\nissue. To that end, after a reasonable search, Defendants confirm there are no documents between Quinn Emanuel and the\nDOJ that reflect the basis of the DOJ investigation. Defendants maintain that even if such documents existed, they would still\nbe irrelevant to the issues in dispute here as pled by Plaintiff. We trust this resolves this issue.\n\nTo the extent Plaintiff still feels it has a basis to burden the Court with this apparent issue, as we already made clear, we will\nprovide a timely addition to Plaintiff\u2019s letter.\n\nEmily Erickson\nAssociate\nQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP\n\nFrom: Katie M. Sinderson \nSent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 6:14 PM\nTo: Brenna Nelinson ; Thomas Sperber ; Nathan Morgan\n; Christopher Porter ; Kristin Tahler\n; Jesse Bernstein ; Amy Shehan\n; Cara Mund ; Emily Erickson\n\nCc: John Rizio-Hamilton ; Alec Coquin ; Abby Kritta\n\nSubject: RE: Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. - DOJ\nCommunications\n\n\nBrenna,\n\nThe role of the DOJ correspondence in this litigation is straightforward and was fully discussed during our meet and confer: if\nDefendants intend to argue that the DOJ investigation disclosures on May 4, 2023 and July 1, 2024 are not related to the\nmisstatements alleged in this case, the DOJ correspondence is directly relevant to, among other things, loss causation.\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146-2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 4 of 12\nThe correspondence would help demonstrate what the DOJ investigation actually focused on\u2014whether it concerned the Zio\nAT transmission limits and timing issues central to our claims, or unrelated matters as Defendants have repeatedly\nsuggested. For example, Defendants\u2019 recent opposition to class certification specifically argued that the DOJ subpoena was\ntoo broad and \u201cindustry-wide\u201d rather than targeted to iRhythm\u2019s specific conduct, and that it did not implicate issues like \u201clag\ntime.\u201d The DOJ correspondence would directly test these assertions.\n\nYour demand for additional \u201cspecificity\u201d and \u201cjustification\u201d is a transparent attempt to impose burdens not required under the\ndiscovery rules and to delay submission of this dispute to the Court. We have been more than clear about what we seek,\nincluding our prior correspondence and our discussion during our meet and confer, and why it is relevant.\n\nIf you are unwilling to provide a constructive response, please confirm your agreement to submit this dispute to the Court via\njoint letter brief. If you refuse to work with us on submitting a joint statement as the Court prefers, we will submit our\nstatement separately and explain why to the Court.\n\nKatie\n\nFrom: Brenna Nelinson \nSent: Thursday, March 5, 2026 5:45 PM\nTo: Katie M. Sinderson ; Thomas Sperber ; Nathan Morgan\n; Christopher Porter ; Kristin Tahler\n; Jesse Bernstein ; Amy Shehan\n; Cara Mund ; Emily Erickson\n\nCc: John Rizio-Hamilton ; Alec Coquin ; Abby Kritta\n\nSubject: RE: Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. - DOJ\nCommunications\n\n\nThanks, Katie. So that the record is clear, we understand that Plaintiff is seeking all documents between Quinn Emanuel and\nthe DOJ regarding the investigation prior to the 2023 subpoena and related 2024 enforcement action. As you know, Plaintiff\nalready has a copy of the subpoena and enforcement action. We also understand that Plaintiff is not willing to articulate any\nspecific subject matter within that broad category.\n\nWhile we have Tom\u2019s February 17 email (which was repeated on the conferral) with a vague reference to class certification\nbriefing that is now closed, we also understand that Plaintiff refuses to put in writing any justification for its request.\n\nPlease let us know if that is correct. We are endeavoring to provide a \u201cconstructive response\u201d that might move this issue\nforward, but that requires Plaintiff to articulate with specificity what it is looking for and how it\u2019s relevant. Given that Plaintiff\nwill have to provide this explanation to the Court in support of any motion to compel, we do not understand why you refuse to\nprovide it to us now\u2014particularly when doing so may help resolve, or at least narrow, the dispute.\n\nThanks\nBrenna\n\nBrenna Nelinson\n\nQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP\n\nFrom: Katie M. Sinderson \nSent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 10:08 PM\nTo: Brenna Nelinson ; Thomas Sperber ; Nathan Morgan\n; Christopher Porter ; Kristin Tahler\n; Jesse Bernstein ; Amy Shehan\n; Cara Mund ; Emily Erickson\n\nCc: John Rizio-Hamilton ; Alec Coquin ; Abby Kritta\n 3\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146-2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 5 of 12\n\nSubject: RE: Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. - DOJ\nCommunications\n\n\nBrenna, we have been clear that we seek the correspondence with the DOJ regarding the DOJ\u2019s investigation of iRhythm as\nmanifested (at least in part) by the subpoena to the Company in the spring of 2023 and then subsequently in the subpoena\nenforcement action filed in 2024. We have explained the relevance of this correspondence repeatedly. I refer you to our past\ncorrespondence and meet and confer.\n\nIs the below Defendants\u2019 response to Plaintiff\u2019s request, or are you expecting to provide a constructive response before the\nend of the week as you indicated last night? Please just let us know for our planning purposes.\n\nAssuming Defendants are not altering their position as your email below indicates, please confirm whether Defendants agree\nto submit a joint submission to the Court next week to be filed on Thursday as we requested. If Defendants refuse to do so,\nwe will make a submission consistent with the Court\u2019s rules.\n\nThank you,\nKatie\n\nFrom: Brenna Nelinson \nSent: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 9:59 PM\nTo: Katie M. Sinderson ; Thomas Sperber ; Nathan Morgan\n; Christopher Porter ; Kristin Tahler\n; Jesse Bernstein ; Amy Shehan\n; Cara Mund ; Emily Erickson\n\nCc: John Rizio-Hamilton ; Alec Coquin ; Abby Kritta\n\nSubject: RE: Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. - DOJ\nCommunications\n\n[This message is from an external sender]\n\nKatie,\n\nThe record on this issue speaks for itself, including as it relates to delay.\n\nWhile we disagree with Plaintiff\u2019s position, we remain willing to explore options for resolving this issue. As a gating issue,\nPlaintiff must identify the specific subject matter it is seeking discovery on and explain the relevance of those documents to\nPlaintiff\u2019s claims. Your request for \"all communications with the DOJ related to its investigation from the files of iRhythm,\nQuinn Emanuel, or any other third party under iRhythm\u2019s control\" is facially overbroad and does not identify any specific\nsubject matter or how those documents are relevant here. After Plaintiff provides the requested information, we\u2019re happy to\nconfer.\n\nNote further that Plaintiff\u2019s vague reference to Defendants\u2019 class certification opposition does not suffice. As a threshold\nmatter, Plaintiff chose to raise this issue more than 5 months late and after class certification briefing was fully submitted. It\ncannot now point to closed briefing to attempt to justify belated discovery. Further, Plaintiff already has the DOJ subpoena\nand\u2014contrary to Plaintiff\u2019s assertion and misleading citation\u2014Defendants did not make any representation about that\nsubpoena in their opposition to class certification.\n\nFinally, if Plaintiff files a motion notwithstanding Defendants\u2019 offer to consider the issue further, we will of course address it\nwith the Court with a timely addition to your joint letter, or\u2014if necessary\u2014file separately to address Plaintiff\u2019s unilateral\nmotion.\n\nThanks\n\nBrenna Nelinson\n 4\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146-2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 6 of 12\n\nQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP\n\nFrom: Katie M. Sinderson \nSent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:11 PM\nTo: Brenna Nelinson ; Thomas Sperber ; Nathan Morgan\n; Christopher Porter ; Kristin Tahler\n; Jesse Bernstein ; Amy Shehan\n; Cara Mund ; Emily Erickson\n\nCc: John Rizio-Hamilton ; Alec Coquin ; Abby Kritta\n\nSubject: Re: Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. - DOJ\nCommunications\n\n\nBrenna, we disagree with your assertions, and we believe that over two weeks is more than adequate time for Defendants to\narrive at a conclusion regarding your position as to a single document and a single category of discovery. Moreover,\nDefendants\u2019 absolutist position during our meet and confer does not give us any hope that you are willing to compromise in a\nmanner that would enable the parties to resolve this informally.\n\nAssuming that Defendants do not meaningfully alter their position when you provide it by the end of this week, please confirm\nthat you will provide your portion of a joint statement next Wednesday if we get you our portion on Monday (to be filed on\nThursday). Otherwise, we can only assume that Defendants are delaying providing their position in hopes of delaying Court\nreview.\n\nBest,\nKatie\n\nFrom: Brenna Nelinson \nSent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 9:44:01 PM\nTo: Katie M. Sinderson ; Thomas Sperber ; Nathan Morgan\n; Christopher Porter ; Kristin Tahler\n; Jesse Bernstein ; Amy Shehan\n; Cara Mund ; Emily Erickson\n\nCc: John Rizio-Hamilton ; Alec Coquin ; Abby Kritta\n\nSubject: RE: Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. - DOJ\nCommunications\n\n\nThanks, Katie. Plaintiff\u2019s email misstates the parties\u2019 conferral. We did not agree to Plaintiff\u2019s arbitrary and inadequate two-\nday deadline. As you can appreciate, our client also needs time to consider these issues.\n\nWe believe the Court would appreciate the Parties working in good faith to narrow the dispute, and we are trying to achieve\nthat despite this purported emergency that is entirely of Plaintiff\u2019s own making. Indeed, your representation that this issue is\nsuddenly urgent given \u201cupcoming depositions\u201d (that begin on March 26) is belied by Plaintiff\u2019s decision not to raise it for the\nlast five months.\n\nWe will complete our clawback review as planned and are aiming to provide a further response by the end of the week.\n\nSeparately, please advise as to when you anticipate providing responses on the deficiencies in Plaintiff\u2019s privilege log that we\ndiscussed during last week\u2019s meet and confer.\n\nThanks\n\nBrenna Nelinson\n 5\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146-2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 7 of 12\n\n\nFrom: Katie M. Sinderson \nSent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 7:40 PM\nTo: Brenna Nelinson ; Thomas Sperber ; Nathan Morgan\n; Christopher Porter ; Kristin Tahler\n; Jesse Bernstein ; Amy Shehan\n; Cara Mund ; Emily Erickson\n\nCc: John Rizio-Hamilton ; Alec Coquin ; Abby Kritta\n\nSubject: Re: Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. - DOJ\nCommunications\n\n\nBrenna, we asked that you provide your suggestion last Wednesday, a request that you seemed amenable to during our call.\nWe did not hear from you. If you have suggestions to provide tomorrow, we are open to hearing them. Otherwise, we view the\nparties as at an impasse.\n\nPlease also provide your \u201cfollow up\u201d regarding the clawback issue the parties discussed over a week ago\u2014during which call\nwe asked for any changes to your position by the next day, at which point we did not hear from you.\n\nWhile we did not hear from you last week as discussed, we are open to hearing your proposals tomorrow. We will not wait to\nget resolution from the Court indefinitely, particularly given the upcoming depositions.\n\nWe look forward to hearing from you.\n\nBest,\nKatie\n\n\nFrom: Brenna Nelinson \nSent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 7:32:05 PM\nTo: Thomas Sperber ; Nathan Morgan ; Christopher Porter\n; Kristin Tahler ; Jesse Bernstein\n; Amy Shehan ; Cara Mund\n; Emily Erickson \nCc: John Rizio-Hamilton ; Katie M. Sinderson ; Alec Coquin\n; Abby Kritta \nSubject: RE: Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. - DOJ\nCommunications\n\n[This message is from an external sender]\n\nTom,\n\nThanks for your email. The parties are not at an impasse.\n\nAs we have previously emphasized, communications with the DOJ are irrelevant to Plaintiff\u2019s case. We suspect you know this\ngiven that you stopped pursuing this issue in September 2025 and have only now belatedly resurrected it in response to an\ninadvertently produced document. Your response to that point\u2014that Plaintiff has actually returned to this stale issue as a\nresult of arguments made in Defendants\u2019 class certification opposition brief\u2014is belied by the fact that Plaintiff waited until a\nmonth and a half after Defendants filed their brief, and after Plaintiff filed its reply, to raise this issue.\n\nWe are nonetheless considering whether there are alternate ways of getting you the information you seek about the DOJ\ninvestigation that do not involve searching our privileged files. You\u2019ll recall that during our meet and confer on this issue, Katie\nsuggested you would accept this information in another form and were open to suggestions. Plaintiff has turned this issue\ninto a persistent sideshow that now threatens to not only be a drain on Defendants but also on the Court. As such,\nDefendants are eager to put this issue to bed once and for all.\n 6\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146-2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 8 of 12\n\nSeparately, we will be in touch this week regarding the clawback issues we have corresponded about, and suggest the parties\nmeet and confer about all of these issues after you have that follow up.\n\nThanks\nBrenna\n\nBrenna Nelinson\n\nFrom: Thomas Sperber \nSent: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 3:28 PM\nTo: Nathan Morgan ; Brenna Nelinson ; Christopher\nPorter ; Kristin Tahler ; Jesse Bernstein\n; Amy Shehan ; Cara Mund\n; Emily Erickson \nCc: John Rizio-Hamilton ; Katie M. Sinderson ; Alec Coquin\n; Abby Kritta \nSubject: RE: Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. - DOJ\nCommunications\n\n\nNathan,\n\nAs established during our meet and confer on these topics and Defendants\u2019 failure to follow up, we are at an impasse on the\ndisputes as to (i) your refusal to produce iRhythm\u2019s communications with the DOJ and (ii) your improper clawback of\niRhythm00322760. Accordingly, we intend to submit a joint discovery dispute letter to the Court requesting that it (i) compel\nDefendants to produce communications between iRhythm (or its counsel) and the DOJ from any custodial sources that\niRhythm has control over (including Quinn\u2019s files), and (ii) revert Defendants\u2019 clawback of iRhythm00322760.\n\nWe intend to send you a draft with our portion by end-of-day Thursday, March 5. Please confirm that you will send the joint\nstatement back with your position filled in by Noon EST Tuesday, March 10. We will file the joint statement by end-of-day\nWednesday, March 11.\n\nBest,\nTom\n\nFrom: Nathan Morgan \nSent: Monday, February 23, 2026 2:50 PM\nTo: Thomas Sperber ; Brenna Nelinson ; Christopher Porter\n; Kristin Tahler ; Jesse Bernstein\n; Amy Shehan ; Cara Mund\n; Emily Erickson \nCc: John Rizio-Hamilton ; Katie M. Sinderson ; Alec Coquin\n; Abby Kritta \nSubject: RE: Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. - DOJ\nCommunications\n\n\nTom,\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s attempt to capitalize on the inadvertent production of an irrelevant and facially privileged document is\ndisappointing.\n\niRhythm00322760 is a privileged communication between iRhythm and its counsel made during the course of counsel\u2019s\nrepresentation of iRhythm and for the purpose of rendering legal advice. See, e.g., Goldberg v. Ruano, 2024 WL 4406805, at *4\n(C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2024) (information conveyed \u201cto inform the client of the nature or amount of work occurring in connection\nwith a pending legal issue \u2013 [] lies in the heartland of the attorney-client privilege.\u201d). And because the last email in the chain is\n 7\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146-2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 9 of 12\nprivileged, the entire document is privileged. See Dawe v. Corr. USA, 263 F.R.D. 613, 621 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (\u201cthe current weight\nof authority favors examination of the most recent communication as the means for characterizing the entire e-mail\nstring.\u201d); Cont'l Cas. Co. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 265 F.R.D. 510, 517 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (\u201cwhether the text repeated in\nan email string remains privileged is determined by analysis of the most recent email\u201d); Muro v. Target Corp., 250 F.R.D. 350,\n363 (N.D. Ill. 2007), aff'd, 580 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2009) (\u201ceven though one e-mail is not privileged, a second e-mail which\nforwards that prior e-mail to counsel might be privileged in its entirety. In this respect, the forwarded material is similar to\nprior conversations or documents that are quoted verbatim in a letter to a party's attorney.\u201d). Plaintiff's citation to U.S. v. City\nof Hesperia, 2021 WL 5034381, at *6 (C.D. Cal. 2021) is inapposite, as that case addressed whether attachments to\nprivileged emails are independently privileged, not whether, as here, the communication itself is privileged.\n\nThat is because\u2014as you know\u2014it is uncontroversial that the transfer of information between lawyer and client is protected\nfrom disclosure, especially communications between a corporation and outside counsel. See, e.g., Chrimar Sys. Inc v. Cisco\nSys. Inc, 2016 WL 1595785, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2016) (\u201ccommunications between a corporation and its outside counsel\nare presumed to be made for the purpose of seeking legal advice.\u201d); Rodriguez v. Seabreeze Jetlev LLC, 620 F. Supp. 3d 1009,\n1018 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (\u201ccorrespondence, bills, ledgers, statements, and time records which also reveal the motive of the\nclient in seeking representation, litigation strategy, or the specific nature of the services provided, such as researching\nparticular areas of law, fall within the privilege.\u201d) (citing Clarke v. Am. Com. Nat'l Bank, 974 F.2d 127, 129 (9th Cir. 1992));\nMiniex v. Houston Hous. Auth., 2019 WL 2524918, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2019) (documents that \u201ctransmit information for the\npurposes of obtaining legal advice\u201d will \u201ceasily satisfy the elements of the attorney-client privilege.\u201d). Even the topic and\nexistence of a communication is privileged information. See Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 390 (1981) (\u201cthe\nprivilege exists to protect not only the giving of professional advice to those who can act on it but also the giving of information\nto the lawyer to enable him to give sound and informed advice.\u201d); Muro, 250 F.R.D. at 363 (noting that a party can\n\u201clegitimately withhold an entire e-mail forwarding prior materials to counsel\u201d and that \u201c[i]f the opposing party can \u2026discover\nthe topic or contents of material forwarded to counsel, then a privileged communication has been revealed to that\nparty.\u201d). Plaintiff has no legitimate basis to dispute that an email concerning communications in a matter for which Quinn\nwas representing iRhythm was made for the purpose of rendering legal advice.\n\nDespite that this document is facially privileged, you nonetheless attempt to use it to resurrect Plaintiff\u2019s stale request\u2014\nabandoned months ago\u2014that Defendants produce correspondence with the DOJ concerning the subpoena. As Plaintiff\nrepresented in the Parties\u2019 Second Joint Case Management Statement, submitted to the Court over five months ago, \u201cthe\nStanding Order governing Contents of Joint Case Management Statement for the Northern District of California requires that\nsuch statements include \u2018any identified discovery disputes.\u2019\u201d ECF No. 103 at 2. And Plaintiff\u2019s position on September 10,\n2025 was clear: \u201cDefendants should produce to Plaintiff the documents produced to the DOJ and any corresponding\ntranscripts, notes, or presentations concerning the DOJ\u2019s subpoena.\u201d Id. Plaintiff made no mention of \u201ciRhythm\u2019s\ncommunications with the DOJ\u201d to Defendants or the Court, including in the parties' later discussions regarding Plaintiff's\nimproper request for clone discovery. See Uschold v. Carriage Servs., Inc., 2019 WL 8298261, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2019\n(\u201c\u2018[D]iscovery on discovery\u2019 is disfavored and, to be both relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, a party seeking it\n\u2018must show a specific deficiency in the other party's production.\u2019\u201d). That you now try to frame your revival of a previously-\nabandoned issue as \u201cfollow up\u201d does not cure your failure to pursue it months ago.\n\nDuring our meet and confer, please be prepared to discuss, at minimum, the relevance of this baseless request and the basis\non which you believe it is appropriate to now request that iRhythm\u2019s present litigation counsel search its emails for\ncommunications with the DOJ when Plaintiff failed to raise it as an \u201cidentified discovery dispute\u201d to both Defendants and the\nCourt for the past five months.\n\nBest,\nNathan\n\nNathan Morgan\nAssociate\nQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP\n\nFrom: Thomas Sperber \nSent: Thursday, February 19, 2026 2:20 PM\nTo: Nathan Morgan ; Brenna Nelinson ; Christopher\nPorter ; Kristin Tahler ; Jesse Bernstein\n; Amy Shehan ; Cara Mund\n\n 8\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146-2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 10 of 12\n; Emily Erickson \nCc: John Rizio-Hamilton ; Katie M. Sinderson ; Alec Coquin\n; Abby Kritta \nSubject: RE: Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. - DOJ\nCommunications\n\n\nNathan,\n\nThe document we identified is not privileged, as it contains only communications between adverse parties (iRhythm and the\nDOJ) and an email forward \u201cthat contained no attorney impressions or strategy, but merely transmitted [the DOJ\ncommunications] without any substantive comment.\u201d See Muhler Company, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 2019 WL\n2419016, at *6 (D.S.C. June 10, 2019); Devries v. Advanced Am. Constr., Inc., 2014 WL 13145285, at *4 (D. Or. Sept. 1, 2014)\n(\u201ctransmittal emails \u2026 devoid of any mental impressions or opinions\u201d are not protected); Lee on behalf of Symantec Corp. v.\nClark, 2019 WL 13412548, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2019) (law firm transmittal of SEC comments to client not privileged).\nCounsel has already redacted the content of the communication between iRhythm\u2019s in-house counsel and Defendant\nBlackford, which Defendants claim was a provision of legal advice: the rest of the document was properly produced. See U.S.\nv. City of Hesperia, 2021 WL 5034381, at *6 (C.D. Cal. 2021) (\u201c[A]s for emails forwarding or discussing privileged attorney-\nclient communications, defendants must produce those emails with only the privileged portions redacted . . . Similarly,\nattachments to privileged emails are not themselves privileged simply by association. Defendants must produce those\nattachments unless they claim they are privileged in their own right\u201d).\n\nNonetheless, while Defendants consider their privilege claim, we have sequestered iRhythm00322760 in accordance with\nFederal Rule 26(b)(5)(B). Please be prepared to discuss Defendants\u2019 claim on Monday\u2019s call at 3:30.\n\nWith respect to the DOJ correspondence, we disagree with each of your assertions. We are confused by your assertion that\n\u201cdocument discovery is over\u201d\u2014nearly four months remain for fact discovery in this case. Plaintiff is not foreclosed from\nmaking follow-up requests for documents missing from Defendants\u2019 production or from even serving new document\nrequests. And the issue of iRhythm\u2019s communications with the DOJ was never \u201cput to bed.\u201d As we explained in our email, our\nagreement was limited to holding in abeyance our request for documents produced to the DOJ, while reserving all rights.\n\nDefendants are also wrong about the relevance of the communications between the DOJ and iRhythm. Your arguments about\nthe broad scope of the subpoena itself prove Plaintiff\u2019s point: to the extent subsequent negotiations between iRhythm and the\nDOJ reveal the intended focus of the DOJ\u2019s investigation (such as the transmission limit and lag time issues), only iRhythm\u2019s\ncommunications with the DOJ after the subpoena can demonstrate that.\n\nAs we explained in our email, and as you appear to concede in yours, Quinn\u2019s communications on iRhythm\u2019s behalf with the\nDOJ are within iRhythm\u2019s control. That \u201ciRhythm\u2019s present litigation counsel\u201d is also the party that appears to have exclusively\ncommunicated with the DOJ on iRhythm\u2019s behalf makes this abundantly clear.\n\nFinally, your inappropriate and unprofessional accusation that Plaintiff is pursuing a \u201cconspiracy theory\u201d that the DOJ\ninvestigation focused on matters related to this Action is not well taken. The fact that Quinn Emanuel itself labeled the\ndocument discussed above on iRhythm\u2019s privilege log\u2014which simply forwards DOJ correspondence related to its\ninvestigation\u2014as relevant to \u201clitigation regarding the FDA Warning Letter\u201d undermines your criticism. You and your client\nclearly view the DOJ investigation as related to the Warning Letter (a critical event in this Action), not to any other amorphous\ntopic. Plaintiff is entitled to test counsel\u2019s claims through discovery\u2014and simply re-producing correspondence with the DOJ\n(which is presumably either filed or is easy to identify) is a basic and low-resource step toward doing so.\n\nPlease be prepared to discuss, at minimum, the basis for your clawback of iRhythm00322760 on Monday\u2019s 3:30 call. We are\navailable to also discuss the DOJ correspondence point during that call and can extend the calendar invitation to 4:30, which\nshould be plenty of time.\n\nBest,\nTom\n\nFrom: Nathan Morgan \nSent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 9:36 PM\n\n 9\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146-2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 11 of 12\nTo: Thomas Sperber ; Brenna Nelinson ; Christopher Porter\n; Kristin Tahler ; Jesse Bernstein\n; Amy Shehan ; Cara Mund\n; Emily Erickson \nCc: John Rizio-Hamilton ; Katie M. Sinderson ; Alec Coquin\n; Abby Kritta \nSubject: RE: Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. - DOJ\nCommunications\n\n\nTom:\n\niRhythm00322760 is a privileged document that was produced inadvertently, and we are hereby clawing back that document\nin its entirety pursuant to Section X of the ESI Protocol and Section 11 of the Stipulated Protective Order. Please immediately\nsequester the document from your database and destroy all copies of it that may be in your possession. See Fed. R. Civ.\nP. 26(b)(5)(B); U.S. ex rel. Bagley v. TRW, Inc., 204 F.R.D. 170, 182 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (requiring return of inadvertently produced\nmaterial and noting that \u201ca party to whom privileged documents are produced inadvertently\u2026 has no inherent \u2018fairness\u2019\ninterest in keeping them\u201d). The document is privileged on its face: Quinn Emanuel forwarded their communications with the\nDOJ to in-house counsel at iRhythm at a time when Quinn Emanuel was actively working with its client to respond to the DOJ\nsubpoena.\n\nSetting aside the privileged nature of the document, as we made abundantly clear months ago when negotiating iRhythm\u2019s\nresponses to Plaintiff\u2019s requests for production of documents, iRhythm will not produce communications between its lawyers\nand the DOJ. The inadvertent production of a facially privileged document does not change that, and we reject Plaintiff\u2019s\nattempt to mitigate its failure to pursue this issue when it arose several months ago by capitalizing on an inadvertent\nproduction. Document discovery is over. It is disappointing that having received 35,000 documents and on the cusp of\ndepositions, Plaintiff seeks to relitigate an issue that has long been put to bed.\n\nAs we repeatedly informed you during the parties\u2019 prior negotiations, the documents produced to DOJ in response to the\nsubpoena and the related communications are not relevant to the issues in this litigation and Plaintiff is not entitled to their\nproduction. The DOJ subpoena is broad, both as to the relevant time period (going back to 2015) and because it included 32\nrequests, many of which are completely unrelated to Plaintiff\u2019s allegations in this case (e.g., documents related to\ncybersecurity testing and documents concerning the Abrader Disc, a device intended to prep the skin before applying the\npatch). Plaintiff knows this because Plaintiff has the subpoena. iRhythm00322760 itself confirms the breadth of the\nsubpoena, making clear that the DOJ sought \u201call documents and communications regarding Zio AT, Zio XT, and Zeus.\u201d These\ndifferences in content and scope are among the reasons why Defendants never agreed to produce the related\ncommunications. After discussing these points at length, Plaintiff dropped the issue, only to bring it up again now in response\nto a single document that was inadvertently produced. But nothing has changed.\n\nNote further that your current request that iRhythm\u2019s present litigation counsel search its emails for communications with\nthe DOJ goes far beyond the scope of what is appropriate, especially since your only justification is your illusory need to\nunderstand the scope of the subpoena. We have discussed the scope of the subpoena numerous times, including repeated\nrepresentations that it did not have a particular focus, but instead broadly sought documents responsive to all 32\nrequests. Plaintiff\u2019s refusal to believe our representations is not grounds for demanding access to Quinn\u2019s emails to try and\nprove your misguided conspiracy theories. Similarly unavailing is your assertion that communications between iRhythm\u2019s\ncounsel and DOJ could somehow shed light into subpoenas issued to other companies. If Plaintiff is interested in that\ninformation, Plaintiff should subpoena those companies. Suggesting an intrusive search into counsel\u2019s emails is an\nindefensible and inappropriate solution.\n\nWe are available to discuss.\n\nThanks\n\nNathan Morgan\nAssociate\nQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP\n700 Louisiana St., Suite 3900\nHouston, TX 77002\n 10\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146-2 Filed 03/17/26 Page 12 of 12\n713-221-7029,Direct\n713-221-7000 Main Office Number\n713-221-7100 Fax\nnathanmorgan@quinnemanuel.com\nwww.quinnemanuel.com\n\n\nFrom: Thomas Sperber \nSent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 7:11 PM\nTo: Brenna Nelinson ; Christopher Porter ; Kristin Tahler\n; Jesse Bernstein ; Amy Shehan\n; Cara Mund ; Nathan Morgan\n; Emily Erickson \nCc: John Rizio-Hamilton ; Katie M. Sinderson ; Alec Coquin\n; Abby Kritta \nSubject: Glazing Employers and Glaziers Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc. - DOJ\nCommunications\n\n\nCounsel,\n\nWe write to reiterate our request for Defendants to produce any communications between iRhythm (or its agents) and the\nDepartment of Justice with regard to iRhythm\u2019s response to and production of documents pursuant to the April 4, 2023\nsubpoena. We note that Plaintiff\u2019s agreement to hold in abeyance its request for the reproduction of the documents produced\nto the DOJ did not resolve Plaintiff\u2019s request for the production of communications with the DOJ.\n\nUpon review of Defendants\u2019 productions, we have identified an email chain forwarded to Defendant Blackford between Quinn\nEmanuel and the DOJ concerning iRhythm\u2019s months-long negotiations with the DOJ about its document production in its\ncriminal investigation. See iRhythm00322760. We have not identified any other correspondence with the DOJ. Please\npromptly confirm whether you have searched Quinn\u2019s files for any additional relevant, non-privileged communications with\nthird parties (including the DOJ). Such documents are clearly within iRhythm\u2019s control, not privileged, and should be\nproduced promptly.\n\nThe scope of the DOJ\u2019s criminal investigation\u2014which the correspondence with the DOJ could help clarify\u2014is highly relevant\nto this litigation. For example, Defendants highlighted analyst reactions to the May 4, 2023 disclosure that the April 2023\nsubpoena was not narrowly tailored to issues with the Zio AT, but was an industry-wide inquiry. ECF No. 120 at 6. And\nDefendants argued that the DOJ subpoena did not implicate the \u201clag time\u201d issue. Id. at 18. iRhythm\u2019s communications with\nthe DOJ concerning the subpoena are likely to confirm whether such subpoena was in fact targeted to iRhythm (which is\nconsistent with the subpoena itself and document discovery to-date), as well as, inter alia, whether the \u201clag time\u201d was a\nsubject of the DOJ\u2019s inquiry.\n\nPlease confirm by this Friday whether you will produce all communications with the DOJ related to its investigation from the\nfiles of iRhythm, Quinn Emanuel, or any other third party under iRhythm\u2019s control.\n\nBest,\nTom\n\nTom Sperber\nBLB&G\nBernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP\n1251 Avenue of the Americas\nNew York, NY 10020\n(212) 554-1939\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-04-27T10:13:21.039143-07:00","document_number":"146","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"035026882383","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477184037/","id":477184037,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/146/3/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2026-04-27T10:08:51.310525-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-04T05:53:22.145585-07:00","sha1":"6e5ba96f4568afb1b7fa22fd23e96797770f7cbd","page_count":1,"file_size":78658,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.424518/gov.uscourts.cand.424518.146.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.424518/gov.uscourts.cand.424518.146.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146-3 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit B\n\nSubmitted For In-Camera\n Review By Defendants\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-04-27T10:13:21.417011-07:00","document_number":"146","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"035026882384","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477184038/","id":477184038,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/68229741/146/4/glazing-employers-and-glaziers-union-local-27-pension-and-retirement-fund/","date_created":"2026-04-27T10:08:51.712661-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-04T05:56:25.010295-07:00","sha1":"990556ec16d42d533178e8f544cc35e0d6666349","page_count":2,"file_size":52569,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.424518/gov.uscourts.cand.424518.146.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.424518/gov.uscourts.cand.424518.146.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146-4 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit C\n\f Case 3:24-cv-00706-JSC Document 146-4 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit C - Excerpt Of Relevant Data From Defendants' Privilege Log Of January 23, 2026,\n For Challenged Document iRhythm00322760\nDateSent Production::Begin Bates To From EmailSubject Privilege Type Privilege Description\n\n Email chain reflecting legal advice\n Quentin Blackford Nicole Greene of in-house counsel Nicole\n FW: iRhythm - FDA Attorney Client and\n12/8/2023 iRhythm00322760 rhythmtech.com> litigation regarding the FDA\n Warning Letter.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-04-27T10:13:21.774270-07:00","document_number":"146","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"035026882385","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit C","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-03-17T16:34:56.896407-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-09T09:08:45.106064-07:00","date_filed":"2026-03-17","time_filed":"16:02:39","entry_number":146,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-03-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":419,"description":"Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Katherine M. Sinderson, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Sinderson, Katherine) (Filed on 3/17/2026) (Entered: 03/17/2026)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=68229741&page_size=40"}