IN RE: Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation and TriZetto Provider Solutions, LLC, Data Security Breach Litigation

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
CORPORATION AND TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS,
LLC, DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3185
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel: * Plaintiffs in an action pending in the District of New Jersey move under
28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the District of New Jersey. This litigation consists
of nineteen actions pending in three districts, as listed on Schedule A.1 	Since the filing of the
motion, the Panel has been notified of nine related actions pending in four districts.2 Plaintiffs in
four actions and potential tag-along actions support the motion. 	Plaintiffs in nine actions and
potential tag-along actions suggest centralization in the Eastern District of Missouri, and plaintiffs
in eight of those actions alternatively suggest centralization in the Western District of Missouri.
Defendants TriZetto Provider Solutions, LLC (TriZetto) and Cognizant Technology Solutions
Corporation 	(Cognizant, 	and 	together, 	TriZetto/Cognizant) 	oppose 	centralization 	and,
alternatively, support centralization in the Eastern District of Missouri. 	Responding healthcare
defendants 	oppose 	the 	motion.3 	The 	One 	Community 	defendants 	alternatively 	support
centralization in the Eastern District of Missouri.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions
involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the Eastern District of Missouri will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
* 	Judge Karen K. Caldwell and Judge Madeline Cox Arleo took no part in the decision of
this matter. 	Additionally, one or more Panel members who could be members of the putative
classes in this litigation have renounced their participation in these classes and have participated
in this decision.
1 	Another four actions included in the motion for centralization have been voluntarily
dismissed. 	The Eastern District of Missouri Hahn action originally was filed in the Northern
District of California but, after the close of briefing, was transferred to the Eastern District of
Missouri.
2 	These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(i),
7.1 and 7.2.
3 	St. Anthony’s Physician Organization Hospitalist Services, L.C., and Cares Community
Health and One Community Health (together, One Community). Healthcare defendants in another
two actions also opposed the motion, but plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims against them.
Case MDL No. 3185 Document 90 Filed 06/05/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
this litigation. The actions share questions of fact arising from allegations that TriZetto/Cognizant
failed to take adequate measures to prevent and address the consequences of a cyberattack on its
network that began in November 2024 and was discovered in October 2025. This attack is alleged
to have exposed the private information of more than 3.4 million individuals. 	Plaintiffs seek
certification of overlapping nationwide and statewide class actions of individuals, and assert
similar claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violation of state consumer protection laws.
In opposing centralization, defendants argue that (1) movants have not identified common
factual questions, rather than common legal questions, and (2) Section 1404 transfer or informal
coordination are preferrable to Section 1407 centralization. 	We disagree. 	Plaintiffs favoring
centralization have identified several common factual questions, including: the nature, scope,
timing, and cause of the data breach; defendants’ data security policies and practices before the
breach; when TriZetto first detected the vulnerabilities in its system; defendants’ response to the
breach; the adequacy and timing of notice to affected entities and individuals; and the effects of
the attack on individuals whose private information was compromised. Discovery regarding these
overlapping issues is likely to be complex and time-consuming. 	Indeed, defendants have not
opposed efforts to consolidate these actions where there are multiple actions pending in a single
district. Centralization will avoid the possibility of inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with
respect to class certification.
We have denied centralization where there is a “reasonable prospect” that Section 1404
transfer will eliminate the multidistrict character of the litigation. 	See In re Gerber Probiotic
Prods. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 899 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2012). 	But “the
pendency of Section 1404 motions, alone, is not dispositive, and we look to other circumstances
to determine whether there is a reasonable prospect that the Section 1404 motions will resolve the
difficulties posed by duplicative multidistrict litigation – for example, the amenability of counsel
to Section 1404 transfer, orders addressing transfer in the underlying actions, and the likelihood of
potential tag-along actions.” 	See In re Natrol, Inc., Glucosamine/Chondroitin Mktg. & Sales
Practices Litig., 26 F. Supp. 3d 1392, 1393 (J.P.M.L. 2014). Here, given the disagreement among
some of the parties over which entity is the “key” defendant in this litigation and therefore which
entity’s headquarters will be the focus of the litigation, the question of whether motions to transfer
all cases to the Eastern District of Missouri will be successful is not assured. Furthermore, given
that at least 3.4 million individuals were affected by the data breach, it is likely additional actions
will be filed. Centralization is more efficient than requiring the parties to pursue litigation of their
Section 1404 transfer motions in three separate courts, as well as in future tag-along actions. We
are similarly not persuaded that informal coordination is an efficient alternative, given the number
of actions and counsel and the complexity of the issues. At least 30 plaintiffs’ firms have filed
these actions, which are pending before six different judges.
We find that the Eastern District of Missouri is the most appropriate transferee district for
this litigation. 	Defendant TriZetto is headquartered in this district, and TriZetto states that
Missouri is the location of the data breach and most relevant witnesses. Nine actions are pending
there, including the first-filed action, and they have been consolidated. Both defendants and some
plaintiffs support centralization in this district. We select Judge John A. Ross to preside over this
litigation. 	He is experienced with complex multidistrict data breach litigation, and we are
Case MDL No. 3185 Document 90 Filed 06/05/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
confident he will steer this matter on an efficient and prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Eastern District of Missouri are transferred to the Eastern District of Missouri and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable John A. Ross, for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Matthew F. Kennelly
Acting Chair
David C. Norton 	Dale A. Kimball
M. Casey Rodgers
Case MDL No. 3185 Document 90 Filed 06/05/26 Page 3 of 5

IN RE: COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS
CORPORATION AND TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS,
LLC, DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION 	MDL No. 3185
SCHEDULE A
Eastern District of California
TAYLOR v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:26−00086
Eastern District of Missouri
NIESSING v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 4:25−01861
WHEELER v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 4:25−01888
CORBRAY, ET AL. v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 4:26−00013
LIMBOS VADLA v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION,
ET AL., C.A. No. 4:26−00070
CLEVELAND, ET AL. v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 4:26−00264
STONE, ET AL. v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS LLC, C.A. No. 4:26−00308
HAHN v. OPEN DOOR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 4:26−00800
District of New Jersey
BURGE, ET AL. v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION,
ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−18908
LYTLE, ET AL. v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:25−18938
NOBLE v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−18967
TRIMBLE, ET AL. v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION,
ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−18969
SCORPIO v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:25−19027
CALDWELL v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION,
ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−19056
WOLF v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:26−02344
LEE v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:26−02444
Case MDL No. 3185 Document 90 Filed 06/05/26 Page 4 of 5

- A2 -
District of New Jersey
PATTERSON v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORP., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:26−02570
MADOFF v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:26−02634
SAWYER v. TRIZETTO PROVIDER SOLUTIONS, LLC, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:26−02698
Case MDL No. 3185 Document 90 Filed 06/05/26 Page 5 of 5