Michael King et al v. General Motors LLC et al

Filing 30

TRANSFER ORDER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 3115) Transferring 7 action(s) to Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. in the N.D. Georgia.Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 6/7/2024. Associated Cases: MDL No. 3115, CAC/2:24-cv-02560, CAC/8:24-cv-00695, FLS/9:24-cv-80281, MIE/2:24-cv-10804, MIE/2:24-cv-10824, NYS/1:24-cv-02238, PAM/3:24-cv-00524 (SM)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: CONSUMER VEHICLE DRIVING
DATA TRACKING LITIGATION

MDL No. 3115

TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel: * Plaintiff in the Central District of California Thongsawang action
moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Central District of California.
This litigation consists of seven actions pending in five districts, as listed on Schedule A. Since
the filing of the motion, the Panel has been notified of 20 potentially-related actions. 1
No responding party opposes centralization of the actions on the motion, but there is some
disagreement on the transferee district and the scope of the litigation. One plaintiff does not oppose
the motion. Plaintiffs in eleven actions and potential tag-along actions suggest centralization in
the Eastern District of Michigan, in the first instance or in the alternative. Plaintiffs in one action
and one potential tag-along action suggest centralization in the Middle District of Pennsylvania or,
alternatively, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs in four potential tag-along actions
suggest centralization in the Northern District of Georgia, in the first instance or in the alternative.
Plaintiff in one potential tag-along action suggests centralization in the District of Minnesota.
Plaintiff in one potential tag-along action suggests centralization in the Northern District of
California. Defendants General Motors LLC (General Motors), OnStar, LLC (OnStar), and
LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. (LexisNexis) support centralization in the Eastern District of
Michigan, and LexisNexis alternatively supports the Northern District of Georgia. Defendant
Verisk Analytics, Inc. (Verisk), named in four potential tag-along actions, supports centralization
in the Southern District of York or, alternatively, the Eastern District of Michigan.
Regarding the scope of the litigation, movant argues that the MDL should include actions
naming auto manufacturers other than General Motors. Currently, there are only two such
actions—the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Vaughn potential tag-along action, which names Kia
America, Inc. (Kia), and the Central District of California Winkelvoss potential tag-along action,
*

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

These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h),
7.1, and 7.2. Movant notified the Panel of a nineteenth action in error, which no party disputes
should not be included and will not be treated as a potential tag-along action.

-2which names Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai). Plaintiffs in Vaughn and one other action
support including Vaughn and other actions naming non-General Motors manufacturers. Plaintiffs
in four actions and potential tag-along actions and defendants General Motors, OnStar, and Kia
oppose including actions naming non-General Motors manufacturers. The Panel was notified of
the Winkelvoss action after the close of briefing, and its inclusion has not been addressed in
briefing.
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 Northern District of Georgia will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation. These putative class actions share complex factual questions arising from
allegations that General Motors equipped its vehicles with sensors and computer modules to collect
information about personal driving behavior, and that it sold that information to data analytics
companies like LexisNexis and Verisk, which then created reports of individuals’ driving history
and sold them to automobile insurance providers. Common factual questions will include: how
General Motors and OnStar use the technology in General Motors vehicles to gather personal
driving data, their policies and procedures surrounding gathering and sharing that data, their
relationship with LexisNexis and Verisk, and whether defendants disclosed or obtained informed
consent from drivers before collecting and disseminating driver data. 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 cannot today conclusively reach the issue of whether the litigation should include
actions naming non-General Motors auto manufacturers, because no such actions are included in
the motion for centralization. Proponents of an industry-wide MDL generally have a heavy burden
to show that the actions will share sufficient overlap that including them will promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. See, e.g., In re Proton-Pump Inhibitor Prods. Liab. Litig., 273
F. Supp. 3d 1360, 1362 (J.P.M.L. 2017) (“We are typically hesitant to centralize litigation against
multiple, competing defendants which marketed, manufactured and sold similar products.”)
(quotation omitted). The actions appear to involve unique factual issues concerning each
automaker’s design and implementation of technology for gathering driver data, its interactions
and relationship with LexisNexis and/or Verisk, and its disclosures to drivers about data gathering
and dissemination. Given that just two actions are pending naming two different non-General
Motors auto manufacturers, we will not conditionally transfer these actions to the MDL. If any
involved party believes that Vaughn or Winkelvoss should be centralized, it may file a separate
motion to that effect. See Panel Rule 7.1(b)(i).
The Northern District of Georgia is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation.
LexisNexis, named as a defendant in all but one action on the motion, is headquartered in this
district. Relevant documents and witnesses, therefore, will be found there. This district is in an
easily accessible, metropolitan area, and it is supported by both some defendants and some
plaintiffs. Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., who presides over five potentially-related actions, has a
wealth of MDL experience, and we are confident he will steer this litigation on a prudent course.

-3IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Northern District of Georgia are transferred to the Northern District of Georgia and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Karen K. Caldwell
Chair
Nathaniel M. Gorton
David C. Norton
Dale A. Kimball

Matthew F. Kennelly
Roger T. Benitez
Madeline Cox Arleo

IN RE: CONSUMER VEHICLE DRIVING
DATA TRACKING LITIGATION

MDL No. 3115

SCHEDULE A
Central District of California
KING, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24−02560
THONGSAWANG v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 8:24−00695
Southern District of Florida
CHICCO v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 9:24−80281
Eastern District of Michigan
REED, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24−10804
BLOCK, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24−10824
Southern District of New York
LANDMAN v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:24−02238
Middle District of Pennsylvania
DINARDO v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:24−00524