Brkic v. Facebook, Inc
Filing
11
NOTICE OF FILING OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.S STIPULATED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION (CIV. L.R. 3-12) IN DAVIS V. FACEBOOK, INC., CASE NO. 11-CV-04834 (N.D. CAL.) by Facebook, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A-1, # 3 Exhibit A-2, # 4 Exhibit A-3, # 5 Exhibit A-4)(Brown, Matthew) (Filed on 10/31/2011) Modified on 11/3/2011 (bw, COURT STAFF).
EXHIBIT A TO:
NOTICE OF FILING OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S STIPULATED
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION (CIV. L.R. 3-12) IN DAVIS v. FACEBOOK, INC.,
CASE NO. 11-CV-04834 (N.D. CAL.)
Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17
1
6
COOLEY LLP
MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127)
(rhodesmg@cooley.com)
MATTHEW D. BROWN (196972)
(brownmd@cooley.com)
JEFFREY M. GUTKIN (216083)
(jgutkin@cooley.com)
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
Telephone:
(415) 693-2000
Facsimile:
(415) 693-2222
7
Filed10/28/11 Page1 of 6
Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.
2
3
4
5
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13
14
15
PERRIN AIKENS DAVIS, PETERSEN
GROSS, DR. BRIAN K. LENTZ,
TOMMASINA IANNUZZI, TRACY
SAURO, JENNIFER SAURO, and LISA
SABATO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
16
17
18
19
20
Case No. 11-CV-04834-EJD-PSG
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S
STIPULATED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD
BE RELATED (CIV. L.R. 3-12)
ACTION FILED: September 30, 2011
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation
Defendant.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
FACEBOOK’S ADMIN. MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
CASE NO. 11-CV-04834-EJD-PSG
Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17
1
Filed10/28/11 Page2 of 6
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
2
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12, Defendant Facebook,
3
Inc. (“Facebook”), by and through counsel, hereby submits this administrative motion seeking an
4
order relating the action captioned Brkic v. Facebook, Inc., No. 11-cv-04935, (“Brkic”) to the
5
action captioned Davis v. Facebook, Inc., No. 11-cv-04834 (“Davis”).1 The Brkic action involves
6
substantially the same parties, events, and issues of law and fact as the Davis action. If the
7
actions are not related, it is likely that there will be unduly burdensome duplication of efforts and
8
expense and/or conflicting pretrial rulings. Moreover, relation of the actions is supported by the
9
plaintiffs themselves, who have each stipulated to this administrative motion to relate.
10
Facebook’s motion is based on this Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
11
and the Declaration of Matthew D. Brown (“Brown Declaration”) and Stipulation filed herewith.2
12
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
13
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
14
Facebook is a social networking website that enables people to connect and share with
15
their friends, families, and communities. Facebook is free. To join, Facebook users (“Users”)
16
need only provide their name, age, gender, and a valid e-mail address, and agree to Facebook’s
17
terms of service. Once Users register, they create a profile page and may begin connecting with
18
other Users by inviting them to become Facebook “Friends.” Users can share virtually anything
19
through Facebook—vacation photos, news about their everyday lives, links to websites or articles
20
they think are interesting, or opinions about world events.
21
Facebook offers Users an array of options for sharing content and communicating with
22
each other both on Facebook and third-party websites. Options include the Facebook “Like”
23
24
25
26
1
Civil Local Rule 3-12(f) states that “the Judge in this District who is assigned to the earliestfiled case will decide if the cases are or are not related.” Davis is the earliest-filed case. In
accordance with Civil Local Rule 3-12(b), all parties in both cases are being served with this
motion, and chambers copies are being lodged in both cases.
2
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
For the Court’s convenience, the operative complaints are attached as exhibits to the Brown
Declaration. The Complaint in Davis is attached as Exhibit A (“Ex. A”) and the Complaint in
Brkic is attached as Exhibit B (“Ex. B”).
1.
FACEBOOK’S ADMIN. MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
CASE NO. 11-CV-04834-EJD-PSG
Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17
Filed10/28/11 Page3 of 6
1
button, which allows Users to click a button associated with some particular content that will
2
result in the User’s “Like” statement potentially being displayed to Facebook Friends who visit
3
the third-party website, as well as on the User’s profile page on Facebook. Users may choose to
4
share content on a third-party website to communicate to their Facebook Friends that they like an
5
article on a newspaper’s website, a product on a retailer’s website, a song or video on a media
6
website, an entry on a blog, and so on. Plaintiffs concede that, while they are logged in to
7
Facebook, they have consented to Facebook collecting data in order to provide these services.
8
The main allegation in both the Davis and Brkic complaints is that Facebook collected
9
data regarding Users’ Internet activity without their consent while Users were logged out of their
10
Facebook accounts. The actions involve substantially the same parties, factual allegations, issues
11
of law, defenses, and demands for relief, and it is likely that discovery and motion practice will
12
overlap such that the parties’ and the Court’s resources will be conserved by relating the actions.
13
The first-filed, Davis action, was filed on October 30, 2011 on behalf of a putative global
14
class of “all persons who had active Facebook accounts and used Facebook between May 27,
15
2010 and September 26, 2011, both dates inclusive, and whose privacy was violated by
16
Facebook.” (Ex. A ¶ 31.) The Davis complaint alleges that, for a period ending September 26,
17
2011, Facebook collected data regarding Users’ Internet activity without their consent while
18
Users were logged out of their Facebook accounts. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 20-30.) The Davis plaintiffs assert
19
claims for violations of the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511; the Stored Electronic
20
Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701; and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §
21
1030. (Id. ¶¶ 37-56.) The complaint seeks compensatory and statutory damages, injunctive
22
relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs. (Id. Prayer for Relief.)
23
The Brkic action was filed on October 5, 2011 on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
24
“[a]ll individuals in the United States who subscribe to Facebook and whose electronic internet
25
information was intercepted by Facebook when the individuals were not logged-in to Facebook.”
26
(Ex. B ¶ 16.) The Brkic Action was brought on behalf of a single Facebook User against
27
Facebook and ten unnamed “directors, employees, agents, or contractors of Facebook.” (Id. ¶ 6.)
28
Brkic alleges that, for a period ending September 23, 2011, Facebook collected data regarding
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
2.
FACEBOOK’S ADMIN. MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
CASE NO. 11-CV-04834-EJD-PSG
Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17
Filed10/28/11 Page4 of 6
1
Users’ Internet activity without their consent while Users were logged out of their Facebook
2
accounts. (Id. ¶¶ 12-15.) The Brkic complaint asserts claims for violations of the Wiretap Act
3
and for unjust enrichment, intrusion upon seclusion, and trespass to personal property. (Id. ¶¶ 24-
4
45.) The complaint seeks actual and statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and
5
costs. (Id. Prayer for Relief.)
6
*
*
*
*
7
On October 17, 2011, the Davis plaintiffs moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
8
Litigation to transfer the Brkic and Davis actions to a single judge in this District for coordinated
9
or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. (Brown Decl. ¶ 4; Ex. C.) In
10
the same motion, the Davis plaintiffs also moved to transfer to this District nine other related
11
actions pending in other federal district courts. (Id.)
12
II.
ARGUMENT
13
Under Civil Local Rule 3-12, actions are related when: “(1) [t]he actions concern
14
substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and (2) [i]t appears likely that there
15
will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases
16
are conducted before different Judges.” Brkic is related to Davis, and Brkic should be transferred
17
to the judge presiding over Davis, the Honorable Edward J. Davila
18
A.
19
The Brkic action alleges facts and claims substantially identical to those in the
Davis action.
20
The allegations in Brkic mirror those in Davis in numerous regards. First, Facebook is the
21
only named defendant in the two actions. (See Exs. A, B.) The unnamed defendants in Brkic are
22
clearly related to Facebook, being the “directors, employees, agents, or contractors of Facebook.”
23
(Ex. B. ¶ 6.)
24
Second, the allegations in Davis and Brkic arise from the same transaction or event. The
25
main allegation of both complaints is that Facebook collected data regarding Users’ Internet
26
activity without their consent while those Users were logged out of Facebook. (Compare Ex. A
27
¶¶ 3, 20-30 (alleging that Facebook “installed cookies on users’ computers that track the internet
28
activity of users even when they have logged off of Facebook” (emphasis in original)), with Ex. B
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
3.
FACEBOOK’S ADMIN. MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
CASE NO. 11-CV-04834-EJD-PSG
Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17
Filed10/28/11 Page5 of 6
1
¶¶ 12-15 (“Facebook tracked, collected and stored its users’ wire or electronic communications,
2
including but not limited to portions of their Internet browsing history even when the users were
3
not logged-in to Facebook.”).)
4
Third, the plaintiffs in both cases each bring claims under the Wiretap Act and seek
5
damages under that statute, as well as claims for injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
6
(Compare Ex. A ¶¶ 37-45, Prayer for Relief, with Ex. B ¶¶ 24-33, Prayer for Relief.)
7
Fourth, Facebook will bring similar defenses in the two actions, such as that plaintiffs
8
have suffered no cognizable injury and that plaintiffs’ causes of action, including under the
9
Wiretap Act, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
10
Fifth, the putative class in Davis substantially overlaps with the Brkic putative class. (See
11
supra Part I.) The plaintiff in Brkic, who challenges Facebook’s conduct through September 23,
12
2011, seeks to represent “[a]ll individuals in the United States who subscribe to Facebook and
13
whose electronic internet information was intercepted by Facebook when the individuals were not
14
logged-in to Facebook.” The putative class sought in Davis—“all persons who had active
15
Facebook accounts and used Facebook between May 27, 2010 and September 26, 2011, both
16
dates inclusive, and whose privacy was violated by Facebook”—appears to be almost entirely
17
coextensive with (or to subsume) the Burkic class.
18
Finally, the plaintiffs in Davis and Brkic have stipulated to the relation of the two cases.
19
(See Stipulation, filed herewith.) Moreover, as referenced, the Davis plaintiffs have filed a
20
motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the Davis and Brkic
21
actions, along with nine other actions pending outside the Northern District of California, to a
22
single judge in this District for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28
23
U.S.C. § 1407. (Brown Decl. ¶ 7; Ex. C.)
24
B.
25
Given the substantial degree of factual and legal overlap between Davis and Brkic,
26
relating the actions will promote the interests of judicial economy and fairness by preventing
27
duplicative discovery. Not relating the two actions also would waste judicial resources and
28
introduce a substantial risk of inconsistent rulings on legal issues—e.g., whether the plaintiffs
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
Relation will avoid wasteful duplication of efforts and conflicting results.
4.
FACEBOOK’S ADMIN. MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
CASE NO. 11-CV-04834-EJD-PSG
Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17
Filed10/28/11 Page6 of 6
1
consented to the conduct they now challenge, whether the plaintiffs have any cognizable injury,
2
etc.—if pretrial motions were heard separately, by two different judges.
3
possibility of inconsistent class determinations clearly exists here because the Davis action seeks
4
certification of a global class of Users that substantially overlaps the putative classes in the Brkic
5
action. See In re Facebook Privacy Litig., No. C 10-02389-JW, 2010 WL 5387616, at *1
6
(relating actions with “overlapping classes”); see also In re Sugar Indus. Antitrust Litig., 395 F.
7
Supp. 1271, 1273 (J.P.M.L. 1975) (holding that transfer for pretrial coordination or consolidation
8
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 “is appropriate, if not necessary, where the possibility of
9
inconsistent class determinations exists”).
10
III.
Additionally, the
CONCLUSION
11
For these reasons, the Brkic action should be related to the Davis action, and the Brkic
12
action should be transferred to the judge presiding over the Davis action, the Honorable Edward J.
13
Davila.
14
15
Dated: October 28, 2011
COOLEY LLP
16
/s/ Matthew D. Brown
_______________________________
17
Matthew D. Brown (196972)
18
Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.
19
20
2566574/ST
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
5.
FACEBOOK’S ADMIN. MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
CASE NO. 11-CV-04834-EJD-PSG
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?