Jewett et al v. Vizio Inc et al

Filing 22

MDL ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the United States District Court of Central California. (hdjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2016)

Case MDL No. 2693 Document 103 Filed 04/07/16 Page 1 of 3
FILED
I hereby attest and certify on _________
04/11/2016
that the foregoing document is full, true
and correct copy of the original on file in
my office, and in my legal custody.
CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORN
TRA
TR
TRA
RICT
RIC
RIC
IC
I OR
OR

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

DEPUTY CL
CLERK
EPUTY CL
LERK

04/11/2016
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BY: ___________________ DEPUTY

IN RE: VIZIO, INC., CONSUMER
PRIVACY LITIGATION
JEWETT, ET AL. v. VIZIO, INC., ET AL.,

MDL No. 2693
8:16-cv-00677-JLS (KESx)

TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:* Plaintiff in an action pending in the Central District of California and
the Vizio defendants1 each move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this
litigation in the Central District of California. This litigation consists of fifteen actions pending in
seven districts, as listed on Schedule A. The Panel also has been notified of five related actions
pending in three districts.2 All responding parties agree that centralization of these actions is
appropriate, but they disagree as to the transferee district. In addition to the movants, plaintiffs in
ten actions and potential tag-along actions support centralization in the Central District of California.
Plaintiff in the action pending in the Eastern District of Arkansas suggests centralization in that
district. Plaintiff in the action pending in the Northern District of Indiana supports centralization in
the Northern District of Indiana or, alternatively, in the Central District of California. Finally,
plaintiffs in two potential tag-along actions pending in the Northern District of California suggest
centralization in that district.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these actions involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Central District of California will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
All the actions are putative nationwide class actions against Vizio arising from allegations that it
violated its customers’ privacy rights by installing software on Vizio Smart TVs3 called “Smart

*

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

The Vizio defendants include: Vizio, Inc.; Vizio Holdings, Inc.; Vizio Inscape Services,
LLC; Vizio Inscape Technologies, LLC; and Cognitive Media Networks, Inc. (collectively, Vizio).
These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h),
7.1, and 7.2.
2

3

Smart TVs are televisions that have integrated Internet capability that supports direct
streaming of movies and other programs from content providers such as Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon.

Case MDL No. 2693 Document 103 Filed 04/07/16 Page 2 of 3

-2Interactivity” that allowed Vizio to collect viewing data displayed on the customers’ televisions.4
Plaintiffs further allege that Vizio systematically shared the collected viewing data with third parties,
who used this data to push targeted advertisements both to the Smart TV and to other devices (such
as smart phones, desktop computers, and tablet computers) that shared the same internet connection.
Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including
with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the
judiciary.
We are persuaded that the Central District of California is the appropriate transferee district
for this litigation. Both defendants and a majority of the plaintiffs support centralization in the
Central District of California. Eight of the twenty related actions (including the potential tag-along
actions) are pending in the district. Also, Vizio’s headquarters is located in the Central District of
California. Thus, the district is a convenient and accessible forum, relatively close to potential
witnesses and evidence. The district also has the resources and capacity to efficiently handle this
litigation. Finally, centralization before the Honorable Josephine L. Staton permits the Panel to
assign this litigation to an able and experienced jurist who has not yet had the opportunity to preside
over an MDL.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Central District of California are transferred to the Central District of California and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Josephine L. Staton for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

__________________________________________
Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

4

Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

This viewing data allegedly included: (a) the identity of the customer’s broadcast, cable, or
satellite television provider; (b) the programs and commercials viewed on the television (including
time, date, channel, and whether the program was viewed live or at a later time); and (c) the specific
Internet Protocol (IP) address associated with the customer’s Smart TV.

Case MDL No. 2693 Document 103 Filed 04/07/16 Page 3 of 3

IN RE: VIZIO, INC., CONSUMER
PRIVACY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2693
SCHEDULE A

Eastern District of Arkansas
OGLE, ET AL. v. VIZIO, INC., C.A. No. 4:15-00754

8:16-cv-00671-JLS (KESx)

Central District of California
WATTS, ET AL. v. VIZIO HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:15-01860
WEISS v. VIZIO, INC., C.A. No. 8:15-01984
HODGES, ET AL. v. VIZIO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:15-02090
LEVINE v. VIZIO, INC., C.A. No. 8:15-02151
SLOAN v. VIZIO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:15-02166
MILEWSKI v. VIZIO HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:16-00156
Northern District of California
REED v. COGNITIVE MEDIA NETWORKS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:15-05217 8:16-cv-00676-JLS(KESx)
JEWETT, ET AL. v. VIZIO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:15-06281 8:16-cv-00677-JLS (KESx)
EDDY v. VIZIO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00167
ANDERSON v. VIZIO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00409
Middle District of Florida
CRAIG v. VIZIO, INC., C.A. No. 5:16-00026
Southern District of Florida
DASSA, ET AL. v. VIZIO HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 9:16-80130
Northern District of Illinois
MASON v. VIZIO HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-11288
Northern District of Indiana
PAGOREK v. VIZIO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:15-00472