L.G. v. Google, Inc et al

Filing 13

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to District of New Jersey by MDL Panel. (mclS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2013)

abe and
toreo
wq
oorrç copy of
tile oriqin oi fl!
In rry offjg,
WiLLiAM t WAL,

Uni€t Stt DItj Ct,k
4
W
1

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

1N RE: NICKELODEON CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION

By:.

/g/,3
MDL No. 2443

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, defendant Viacom Inc. (Viacorn) moves
to centralize this litigation in the District of New Jersey. This litigation currently consists of six
actions pending in six district courts, as listed in Schedule A. All responding parties agree that
centralization of these actions is appropriate, but disagree as to the transferee district. In addition to
Viacom, defendant Google Inc. (Google) also supports centralization in the District of New Jersey.
In contrast, all responding plaintiffs support centralization in the Northern District of California.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these actions involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization of these actions in the District of New Jersey 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 Viacom and Google arising
from allegations that they violated the privacy rights of children under the age of thirteen who visited
three websites—www.nick.com, www.nickjr.com, and www.neopets.coim—operated by Viacom.
More specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants surreptitiously collected information concerning
the internet activity of minor visitors to the websites for use in targeted advertising. Centralization
of this consumer privacy litigation is consistent with our recent decisions involving the allegedly
unlawful tracking of individuals’ internet activity. See, e.g., in re Google Inc. Cookie Placement
consumer Privacy Litig., 867 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (J.P.M.L. 2012); In re carrierlQ, Inc., Consumer
Privacy Litig., 856 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (J.P.M.L. 2012); In reFacebooklnternet TrackingLitig., 844
F. Supp. 2d 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2012). Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve tile resources
of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
We are persuaded that the District of New Jersey is an appropriate transferee district for this
litigation. The district is a convenient and accessible forum, relatively close to potential witnesses and
evidence located in New Jersey and New York City. The district also has the resources and capacity
to efficiently handle this litigation. Finally, centralization before the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler
permits the Panel to assign the litigation to an able jurist with prior MDL experience.

At oral argument. Judge John G. Heyburn II indicated that Judge Charles R. Brever was
recused from this matter. A further examination, however, revealed that Judge l3reyer is not
disqualified, and thus he participated in this decision.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending outside the District of New Jersey are transferred to the District of New
Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending there.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

John G. Heyburn II
Chairman
Kathryn H. Vratil
Paul J. Barbadoro
Charles R. Breyer

W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
Marjorie 0. Rendeil
Lewis A. Kaplan

IN RE: NICKELODEON CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of California
L.G. v. Google, Inc., et aL, C.A. No. 3:12-06555
Southern District of Illinois
T.M. v. Viacom, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:12-01295
Western District of Missouri
N.J. v. Viacom, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:12-04322
District of New Jersey
CAF and CTF, et al. v. Viacom, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:12-07829
Western District of Pennsylvania
K.T. v. Viacom, Inc.. et al., C.A. No. 2:12-01868
Southern District of Texas
Stephanie Fryar v. Viacom, Inc., et aL, C.A. No. 4:12-03713

MDL No. 2443