"In Re: Facebook Privacy Litigation"

Filing 14

MOTION to Relate C10-2389 JW and C10-2408 JF Cases filed by Mike Robertson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Nassiri, Kassra) (Filed on 7/21/2010) Modified on 7/21/2010 (cv, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Gould v. Facebook, Inc. Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 KASSRA P. NASSIRI (215405) knassiri@nassiri-jung.com CHARLES H. JUNG (217909) cjung@nassiri-jung.com NASSIRI & JUNG LLP 251 Kearny Street, Suite 501 San Francisco, California 94108 Telephone: (415) 762-3100 Facsimile: (415) 534-3200 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF MIKE ROBERTSON Robertson v. Facebook, Inc., No. 10-cv-02408-JF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION DAVID GOULD, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 10-cv-02389-JW ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED Pursuant to Local Rule 3-12, Mike Robertson ("Robertson"), the plaintiff in Robertson v. Facebook, Inc., No. 10-cv-02306-JF (the "Robertson matter"), brings this administrative motion to consider whether the Robertson matter should be related to the above-captioned case pending before this Court. The Robertson matter concerns substantially the same parties, events, and issues of law and fact as the instant case. If the cases are not related, it is likely that there will be unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results as the cases proceed before different judges. Plaintiff Robertson has supplied chambers copies of this Administrative Motion and supporting documents to the Courts in the above-captioned case and in the Robertson matter. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. 10-CV-02389-JW Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. 10-CV-02389-JW 2 FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff David Gould ("Gould") filed his putative class action complaint against Defendant Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook") on May 28, 2010. On June 1, 2010, Plaintiff Robertson filed his putative class action complaint against Facebook. The complaints seek relief on behalf of nationwide classes of individuals whose personal information Facebook transmitted to third-party marketers without authorization. Both complaints present substantially the same factual allegations. According to each complaint, Facebook is the self-described largest social networking site in the world, with millions of users who share an ever-increasing amount of personal information with their friends and family through the site. To share that information, Facebook users create what are known as "profiles" and post information to their profile pages such as their birth dates, current and past addresses, present and past employment, their relationship status, personal pictures, videos and the like. Users are given the ability to restrict other users' access to their information and limit the specific information viewable. For its part, Facebook expressly represents to its users that it will not share their personal information with any person or entity without their authorization. Given its massive user base, Facebook also represents a unique opportunity for marketers to reach millions of potential consumers. One way marketers take advantage of that potential is by placing advertisements throughout Facebook's website, including on individual profile pages. By clicking on those ads, users are able to navigate to the advertised sites. However, in direct contravention of its own Privacy Policy and its users' privacy rights, each time a user clicks on an ad, Facebook transmits that user's specific identity to the relevant advertiser, giving them the ability to navigate back to a user's specific profile page where any information made publicly available is viewable. The complaints 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 further allege that despite acknowledging this problem, Facebook failed to take any action to protect its users' information for several months. DISCUSSION Under Local Rule 3-12 cases may be related if: (1) (2) The actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and It appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different judges. Both matters seek relief from Facebook on behalf of substantially the same group of individuals. A. The Gould and Robertson matters involve substantially the same parties. Each case alleges claims against a single defendant--Facebook. Likewise, each case was filed on behalf of a nationwide class of individuals injured as a result of Facebook's alleged wrongful conduct. The Gould Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of: All Facebook users in the United States who clicked on a third-party advertisement displayed on Facebook.com between February 4, 2004 and May 21, 2010. Robertson, for his part, seeks relief on behalf of a nationwide class of: All Facebook members who, at any time after June 1, 2006, clicked on an advertisement banner located on their Facebook profile page. The proposed class definitions encompass substantially the same group of affected individuals and assert claims on their behalf against the same defendant. The similarity of parties in each case favors a decision to relate these matters. B. Both matters involve Facebook's unauthorized transmission of its users' personal information to third-party advertisers. The basis of each case at issue here is Facebook's unauthorized transmission of user data to third-party advertisers. Each complaint asserts substantially similar causes of action, including breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. (Gould Compl. 67-99, 112-17; Robertson Compl. 32-42, 62- ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. 10-CV-02389-JW 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 66.) Plaintiff Gould further asserts causes of action for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 et seq.; California's Computer Crime Law, Cal. Penal Code 502; California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1750, et seq.; Cal. Civ. Code 1572-73; breach of implied contracts; negligence; and, negligence per se. (Gould Compl. 43-66, 100-11, 118-30). In addition to his breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims, Plaintiff Robertson alleges causes of action for Facebook's violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2750 et seq.; and, the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. 2701 et seq. (Robertson Compl. 43-61.) Regardless of the variation amongst the specific claims asserted, both cases seek substantially the same relief for injuries suffered as a result of Facebook's unlawful transmission of its users' personal information. The similarity between the claims asserted in each case, and their legal and factual bases, supports a decision to relate these matters. C. If the cases are not related, it is likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results. If these cases are not related, the likelihood of duplicative labor, expense, and producing conflicting results would increase substantially. Given the complex and highly technical nature of the claims asserted in each case, litigating these matters before a single judge would reduce the parties' expenditure of time and other resources duplicating discovery efforts and litigating the same issues on multiple occasions, while also preserving the resources of the judiciary. Furthermore, proceeding before a single judge virtually eliminates the risk that the parties will be subject to inconsistent obligations, and ultimately ensures that consistent and appropriate relief can be provided. Relating these matters is in the best interest of the parties and the Court, would avoid an unduly burdensome duplication of labor or expense, and decrease the likelihood of producing conflicting results. Therefore, the matters should be related. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. 10-CV-02389-JW 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Mike Robertson, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, respectfully requests that this Court issue an Order relating the Gould and Robertson matters pursuant to Local Rule 3-12. Respectfully submitted, Dated: July 21, 2010 NASSIRI & JUNG LLP By: /s/ Kassra P. Nassiri Kassra P. Nassiri Attorneys for Plaintiff Mike Robertson CASE NO. 10-CV-02389-JW 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kassra P. Nassiri, hereby certify that on July 21, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing is sent to the following parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing system: 1. Michael James Aschenbrener Edelson McGuire, LLC 350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 312-589-6379 312-589-6378 (fax) maschenbrener@edelson.com Representing Plaintiff David Gould 2. Matthew Dean Brown Cooley LLP 101 California St. Flr 5 San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 (415) 693-2000 415-693-2222 (fax) mbrown@cooley.com Representing Defendant Facebook, Inc. 3. Jay Edelson Edelson McGuire, LLC 350 N. LaSalle St. Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 312-589-6370 jedelson@edelson.com Representing Plaintiff David Gould 4. Sean Patrick Reis Edelson McGuire, LLP 30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 949-459-2124 949-459-2123 (fax) sreis@edelson.com Representing Plaintiff David Gould ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. 10-CV-02389-JW 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5. Benjamin Harris Richman Edelson McGuire, LLC 350 North LaSalle Street Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 312-589-6370 312-589-6378 (fax) brichman@edelson.com Representing Plaintiff David Gould ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED CASE NO. 10-CV-02389-JW 7

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?