throbber
Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 37 Filed 08/27/21 Page 1 of 34 Page ID #:517
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`PURVI G. PATEL (CA SBN 270702)
`PPatel@mofo.com
`NICOLE V. OZERAN (SBN 302321)
`NOzeran@mofo.com
`JOVANNA RENEE BUBAR (CA SBN 329277)
`JBubar@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`707 Wilshire Boulevard
`Los Angeles, California 90017-3543
`Telephone: 213.892.5200
`Facsimile: 213.892.5454
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`QUANTUM METRIC, INC.
`
`ANGELA CHRISTINE AGRUSA (CA SBN 131337)
`Angela.agrusa@us.dlapiper.com
`DAVID B. FARKAS (CA SBN 257137)
`David.farkas@us.dlapiper.com
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`2000 Avenue of the Stars Suite 400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704
`Tel. 310.595.3000
`Fax 310.595.3300
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`LULULEMON USA INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`MARY YOON, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LULULEMON USA INC. and
`QUANTUM METRIC, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
`AMENDED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM
`OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`IN SUPPORT
`
`Date: October 29, 2021
`Time:
`9:00 a.m.
`Judge: Hon. John W. Holcomb
`Ctrm:
`2
`
`Complaint filed: Nov. 19, 2020
`SAC filed: July 29, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 37 Filed 08/27/21 Page 2 of 34 Page ID #:518
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 29, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon
`
`thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 2 of this Court, located at 3470
`
`Twelfth Street, Riverside, California 92501, Defendants Lululemon USA, Inc. and
`
`Quantum Metric, Inc. will and hereby do move this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule
`
`of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Second Amended
`
`Class Action Complaint with prejudice because Plaintiff fails to state any claim for
`
`relief under the California Invasion of Privacy Act or for common law invasion of
`
`privacy.
`
`This motion is based on this Notice; the accompanying Memorandum of
`
`Points and Authorities, Request for Judicial Notice, Declaration of Nicole V.
`
`Ozeran, Declaration of Angela C. Agrusa, the pleadings, files, and records in this
`
`action; and such additional evidence and arguments as may be presented to the
`
`Court.
`
`This motion is made following a conference of counsel pursuant to Local
`
`Rule 7-3, which took place on August 18, 2021. (Declaration of Nicole V. Ozeran
`
`¶ 2; Declaration of Angela C. Agrusa ¶ 2.)
`
`Dated: August 27, 2021
`
`
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Purvi G. Patel
`
` Purvi G. Patel
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Quantum Metric, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 27, 2021
`
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`
`By: /s/ Angela Christine Agrusa
` Angela Christine Agrusa
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Lululemon USA, Inc.
`
`
`1
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 37 Filed 08/27/21 Page 3 of 34 Page ID #:519
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 2
`II.
`III. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
`A. Allegations Related to Plaintiff Yoon ................................................... 3
`B.
`How Quantum’s Platform Works ......................................................... 4
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 6
`V. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 7
`A.
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Under CIPA § 631(a) .......................... 7
`1.
`Quantum was a participant to the communication ..................... 7
`2.
`Plaintiff fails to state a claim under CIPA § 631(a)(i) ............. 10
`3.
`Plaintiff fails to state a claim under CIPA § 631(a)(ii) ............ 13
`4.
`Plaintiff’s aiding and abetting claims against Lululemon
`under CIPA § 631(a)(iv) should be dismissed for failure
`to allege a predicate violation ................................................... 18
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim for Common Law Invasion of
`Privacy / Intrusion ............................................................................... 18
`1.
`Plaintiff does not demonstrate a reasonable expectation of
`privacy in the allegedly captured information .......................... 19
`The alleged intrusion did not occur in a manner highly
`offensive to a reasonable person ............................................... 23
`Leave to Amend Should Not be Granted Again ................................. 24
`C.
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 25
`
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 37 Filed 08/27/21 Page 4 of 34 Page ID #:520
`
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................. 6, 7, 16, 24
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .............................................................................................. 7
`
`Brodsky v. Apple Inc.,
`445 F. Supp. 3d 110 (N.D. Cal. 2020)................................................................... 7
`
`Cardoso v. Whirlpool Corp.,
`No. 21-CV-60784-WPD, 2021 WL 2820822 (S.D. Fla. July 6,
`2021) .............................................................................................................. 13, 15
`
`Cline v. Reetz-Laiolo,
`329 F. Supp. 3d 1000 (N.D. Cal. 2018)................................................................. 7
`
`Connor v. Whirlpool Corp.,
`No. 21-CV-14180-WPD, 2021 WL 3076477 (S.D. Fla. July 6,
`2021) .............................................................................................................. 13, 15
`
`Devore v. Dominguez,
`No. CV-1506291-JAK (DFM), 2020 WL 7223261 (C.D. Cal. Sept.
`15, 2020) .............................................................................................................. 25
`
`Durham v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
`236 F. Supp. 3d 1140 (C.D. Cal. 2017) ............................................................... 15
`
`Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc.,
`876 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................. 6
`
`In re Facebook Internet Tracking Litig. (Facebook II),
`263 F. Supp. 3d 836 (N.D. Cal. 2017)................................................................. 22
`
`In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig. (Facebook III),
`956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020) ................................................................... 19, 21, 23
`
`Folgelstrom v. Lamp Plus, Inc.,
`195 Cal. App. 4th 986 (2011) .............................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 37 Filed 08/27/21 Page 5 of 34 Page ID #:521
`
`
`Gardner v. Martino,
`563 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................... 25
`
`In re Google Assistant Priv. Litig.,
`457 F. Supp. 3d 797 (N.D. Cal. 2020)........................................................... 11, 12
`
`In re Google Location Hist. Litig.,
`428 F. Supp. 3d 185 (N.D. Cal. 2019)........................................................... 20, 21
`
`In re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litig.,
`58 F. Supp. 3d 968 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................... 24
`
`Graham v. Noom, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-06903-LB, 2021 WL 1312765 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2021)............... 9, 18
`
`Graham v. Noom, Inc.,
`No. 20-CV-06903-LB, 2021 WL 3602215 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13,
`2021) ............................................................................................................. passim
`
`Heeger v. Facebook, Inc.,
`509 F. Supp. 3d 1182 (N.D. Cal. 2020)................................................... 19, 20, 21
`
`Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc.,
`47 Cal. 4th 272 (2009) ................................................................................... 20, 23
`
`Jacome v. Spirit Airlines Inc.,
`No. 2021-000947-CA-01, 2021 WL 3087860 (Fla. Cir. Ct. June 17,
`2021) ........................................................................................................ 13, 15, 16
`
`Javier v. Assurance IQ, LLC,
`No. 20-cv-02860-JSW, 2021 WL 3669343 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6,
`2021) .................................................................................................................... 25
`
`Joffe v. Google, Inc.,
`746 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................... 13
`
`Johnson, v. Blue Nile, Inc.,
`No. 20-CV-08183-LB, 2021 WL 3602214 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13,
`2021) (appeal filed Aug. 23, 2021) .............................................................. passim
`
`Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.,
`302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................... 16
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 37 Filed 08/27/21 Page 6 of 34 Page ID #:522
`
`
`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
`
`Lopez v. Smith,
`203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................. 25
`
`Low v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`900 F. Supp. 2d 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2012)............................................................... 24
`
`Mastel v. Miniclip SA,
`No. 2:21-cv-00124 WBS KJN, 2021 WL 2983198 (E.D. Cal. July
`15, 2021) ............................................................................................ 11, 12, 13, 16
`
`Matera v. Google Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-04062-LHK, 2016 WL 8200619 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12,
`2016) .................................................................................................................... 11
`
`McCoy v. Alphabet, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-05427-SVK, 2021 WL 405816 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2021) ............ 22, 24
`
`McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co.,
`845 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1988) ................................................................................. 6
`
`Membrila v. Receivables Performance Mgmt., LLC,
`No. 09-cv-2790, 2010 WL 1407274 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2010) .............................. 8
`
`Opperman v. Path,
`205 F. Supp. 3d 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2016)............................................................... 21
`
`Revitch v. New Moosejaw, LLC,
`No. 18-cv-06827-VC, 2019 WL 5485330 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019) ............ 9, 11
`
`Ribas v. Clark,
`38 Cal. 3d 355 (1985) ............................................................................................ 9
`
`Rogers v. Ulrich,
`52 Cal. App. 3d 894 (1975) ................................................................................... 8
`
`Safari Club Int’l v. Rudolph,
`862 F.3d 1113 (2017) .......................................................................................... 23
`
`SEC v. McCarthy,
`322 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................... 12
`
`Sheski v. Shopify (USA) Inc.,
`No. 19-cv-06858-HSG, 2020 WL 2474421 (N.D. Cal. May 13,
`2020) .................................................................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 37 Filed 08/27/21 Page 7 of 34 Page ID #:523
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors,
`266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................. 5
`
`Svenson v. Google Inc.,
`65 F. Supp. 3d 717 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................... 14
`
`Touma v. Eeoc,
`No. SACV 19-2412-VBF (KS), 2020 WL 2332171 (C.D. Cal. Jan.
`9, 2020) ................................................................................................................ 18
`
`Watson v. Old Dominion Freight Line Inc.,
`No. 2:20-cv-08018-JWH-JPRx, 2020 WL 10357171 (C.D. Cal.
`Oct. 30, 2020) (Holcomb, J.) ............................................................................... 25
`
`Yale v. Clicktale, Inc.,
`No. 20-CV-07575-LB, ECF No. 48 (decided Aug. 24, 2021) ..................... passim
`
`In re Zynga Privacy Litig.,
`750 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................. 14, 15, 21
`
`Statutes
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ................................................................... 6
`
`Cal. Penal Code § 631(a) ................................................................................... passim
`
`Cal. Penal Code § 631(a)(i) ...................................................................... 2, 10, 11, 12
`
`Local Rule 5-4.3.4 .................................................................................................... 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 37 Filed 08/27/21 Page 8 of 34 Page ID #:524
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This is Plaintiff’s third attempt to convert Defendant Lululemon USA, Inc.’s
`
`innocuous use of a ubiquitous web analytics tool into illegal “eavesdropping.” This
`
`case—like the many identical cases brought by Plaintiff’s counsel against other
`
`businesses—involves the use of “session replay,” which helps website operators
`
`like Lululemon understand and improve how their websites function. Defendant
`
`Quantum Metric, Inc. is Lululemon’s service provider, and the information it
`
`allegedly captured from Plaintiff was at Lululemon’s direction for Lululemon’s use
`
`only. As other courts have recognized, there is no “wiretap” under these facts.
`
`
`
`Moreover, Plaintiff alleges no facts supporting the notion that there is any
`
`eavesdropping or invasion of privacy in light of the manner in which her alleged
`
`interactions with Lululemon’s website were captured. Consistent with her
`
`purported expectations, she only “communicated” with Lululemon. There is no
`
`way for Quantum to personally identify Plaintiff by reviewing the collected data.
`
`Any personally identifying information captured by Quantum’s session replay tool
`
`is pseudonymized and encrypted field by field before leaving a user’s device (e.g.,
`
`computer). As such, only Lululemon, to whom Plaintiff willingly provided her
`
`information, can decrypt the data and potentially identify her.
`
`Despite having the benefit of Defendants’ two prior motions to dismiss and
`
`this Court’s July 15, 2021 Order (ECF No. 31), Plaintiff fails to state a claim.
`
`Indeed, Plaintiff made only limited changes to her largely dismissed First Amended
`Complaint.1 The allegations she adds do not support her remaining claims under
`
`Section 631 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act or for invasion of
`
`privacy/intrusion (which she now pleads as a common law claim). At bottom, this
`
`
`1 For the Court’s reference, a redline showing the changes between Plaintiff’s
`First and Second Amended Complaints is attached as Exhibit I to the Declaration of
`Nicole V. Ozeran (“Ozeran Decl.”).
`
`
`
`1
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 37 Filed 08/27/21 Page 9 of 34 Page ID #:525
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`case is about a retailer monitoring activity on its own website using routine web
`
`analytics software. Plaintiff has pushed her novel theory—that a company
`
`“recording” its own interactions with customers through its website has engaged in
`
`wiretapping—far enough. Her claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`Plaintiff asserts two causes of action in her Second Amended Complaint:
`
`(1) violation of CIPA § 631(a) and (2) common law invasion of privacy/intrusion.
`
`Neither of these claims should be permitted to proceed.
`
`Plaintiff’s CIPA Claim. Plaintiff’s claims under each of the “subsections”—
`(i), (ii), and (iv)—of CIPA § 631(a) fail.2 As an initial matter, a participant to a
`
`conversation cannot “eavesdrop” on the conversation and therefore cannot violate
`
`CIPA § 631(a). Recent orders dismissing nearly identical cases with prejudice
`
`support the conclusion that Quantum is a participant to Lululemon’s and Plaintiff’s
`
`“communications” as an extension of Lululemon even if it “stores” or “interprets”
`collected data.3
`
`Moreover, Plaintiff’s CIPA § 631(a)(i) claim fails because Quantum’s
`
`platform does not tap or connect to any “telegraph or telephone” wires, lines,
`
`cables, or instruments and Quantum was authorized by Lululemon to embed its
`
`session replay script on Lululemon’s website. Plaintiff’s CIPA § 631(a)(ii) claim
`
`fails because she does not allege Quantum’s platform captured anything different
`
`from or in addition to what she alleged in the First Amended Complaint, which this
`
`Court concluded does not constitute the “contents” of a communication. (See July
`
`
`2 Defendants adopt the Court’s separation of CIPA § 631(a) into subdivisions.
`(See July 15 Order at 7:14-8:11.)
`3 See Yale v. Clicktale, Inc., No. 20-CV-07575-LB, ECF No. 48, at 1-2 (decided
`Aug. 24, 2021) (dismissing with prejudice because session replay provider “is not
`an outsider [to the communication] and instead is a software vendor that provides a
`service that allows Gap to analyze its own data”); Graham v. Noom, Inc., No. 20-
`CV-06903-LB, 2021 WL 3602215, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2021) (same);
`Johnson, v. Blue Nile, Inc., No. 20-CV-08183-LB, 2021 WL 3602214, at *1-2
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2021) (appeal filed Aug. 23, 2021) (same).
`
`
`
`2
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 37 Filed 08/27/21 Page 10 of 34 Page ID #:526
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`15 Order at 13:3-6.) And, it would be impossible for Quantum to “read[], attempt[]
`
`to read, or to learn” the “contents” of the captured communications “in transit”
`
`because they are encrypted and pseudonymized on the user’s browser or collected
`
`as de-identified information before being transferred off of the user’s device. (Id. at
`
`7:21-8:3.) Finally, because Plaintiff fails to state a claim under subsections (i) or
`
`(ii), her claim for aiding and abetting under § 631(a)(iv) necessarily fails.
`
`Plaintiff’s Invasion of Privacy Claim. The elements of Constitutional and
`
`common law invasion of privacy claims overlap significantly, and courts often
`
`evaluate the two claims under the same test. As such, Plaintiff’s common law
`
`claim fails, in part, for the same reason that the Court dismissed her Constitutional
`
`claim. Further, Plaintiff continues to fail to plead a reasonable expectation of
`
`privacy in the information Quantum’s platform allegedly captured, because:
`
`(1) Quantum’s platform collects data only while a user is on Lululemon’s website;
`
`(2) the information is not sensitive or confidential; and (3) Lululemon discloses the
`
`practice in its Privacy Policy. Additionally, Plaintiff’s claim fails because she
`
`pleads no facts to support her conclusory statement that the data was collected in a
`
`“highly offensive” manner.
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Allegations Related to Plaintiff Yoon
`Plaintiff Mary Yoon is a California resident who alleges that in or about
`August 2020 she visited Lululemon’s website and made a purchase.4 (Second
`
`Amended Complaint (“SAC”) ¶ 4, ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff alleges that her mouse
`
`clicks and scrolls, keystrokes, and pages viewed while browsing and purchasing
`
`jogger pants constitute “communications” with Lululemon. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 46-48.) She
`
`further alleges that these communications were “intercepted in real time” by
`
`4 This is a departure from the Complaint and FAC, where Plaintiff alleged she
`visited Lululemon’s website in April 2020. (See ECF No. 1 ¶ 2; ECF No. 20 ¶ 2.)
`It is unclear whether this change in date is due to an error or if the August 2020
`visit alleged in the SAC is a different visit.
`
`
`
`3
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 37 Filed 08/27/21 Page 11 of 34 Page ID #:527
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Quantum through a “wiretap.” (Id.) Plaintiff does not allege that Quantum did
`
`anything with her “communications” other than make them available to Lululemon
`
`(the very entity with which Plaintiff directly interacted). She does not allege that
`
`Quantum stored or interpreted this information, that Quantum or Lululemon sold or
`
`disclosed her “communications” to any third parties, or that she was injured or
`
`otherwise affected in any way by the alleged conduct. Nonetheless, she asserts
`
`claims for violation of § 631(a) of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and for
`invasion of privacy/intrusion under California common law. (SAC ¶¶ 77-101.)5
`
`B. How Quantum’s Platform Works
`Quantum’s platform allows companies to understand a customer’s experience
`
`on their websites. (SAC ¶ 17.) Companies use Quantum’s platform to, for
`
`example, (1) discover and resolve technical issues on their websites that frustrate
`
`customers and impact their ability to complete their intended transactions, (2) assist
`
`customers with customer service requests, and (3) respond to customer feedback.
`
`(Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), Ex. A at 8 (Abstract); SAC ¶ 20.) Quantum
`
`thus helps companies identify what works and what does not on their websites, and
`
`ensure a better user experience for anyone visiting their websites.
`
`Quantum’s platform does not record the user, as Plaintiff alleges, or provide
`
`anyone other than the website owner with access to personally identifiable
`
`information. The platform uses “millisecond-level chunks of data” to reconstruct a
`customer’s experience during a visit to a company’s website. (RJN Ex. E at 84.)6
`
`But the reconstruction is just that—a reconstruction, not a recording. This
`
`reconstruction (i.e., session replay) can display de-identified “mouse movements,
`
`scrolling” and “errors and events” such as a link that does not work or an error code
`
`
`5 Plaintiff has not re-pled her CIPA § 635 and Federal Wiretap Act claims.
`6 This language comes from a blog post on Quantum’s website from which
`Plaintiff quotes but does not cite. (See SAC ¶ 18; RFJ, Ex. E.) Although Plaintiff
`included the specific quoted language above in her Complaint, she omitted it from
`her SAC. (Compare Compl. ¶ 16, with SAC ¶ 18.)
`
`
`
`4
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 37 Filed 08/27/21 Page 12 of 34 Page ID #:528
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`at checkout. (RJN Ex. B at 34, 36, 38-42.)
`
`Quantum’s platform is designed to not capture sensitive information. As
`
`Quantum stated explicitly on its website at the time Plaintiff filed this action, “there
`
`are clear situations when sensitive data should not be captured, for example,
`
`personally identifiable information (PII) such as . . . credit card numbers.” (RJN
`
`Ex. B at 39.) “Quantum Metric automatically blocks capture of sensitive data,”
`
`and businesses like Lululemon “can easily set up additional data that should never
`
`be captured.” (Id. (emphasis added).) As for the limited universe of user-entered
`
`data that a company may want captured, “for example, a user’s name and address or
`
`a purchase order number,” Quantum encrypts it, which pseudonymizes the data.
`
`(Id. at 40.) This anonymization and encryption happens on the user’s device before
`
`any data is transmitted from it. (See RJN Ex. C at 64 (Column 6, Lines 33-35)
`
`(“[T]he capture agent can strip sensitive information before transmitting the event
`records to the server-side web session storage engine”).7 Further, as Quantum
`
`described it to customers on its website: “[T]o protect identifiable data and stay
`
`compliant with [privacy laws], we use public / private key pair encryption, and only
`
`you own the private key to decrypt sensitive data.” (RJN Ex. B at 40(emphasis in
`
`original).) The graphic below illustrates the encryption process (id. at 42):
`
`
`7 By keeping her cherry-picked references to Quantum’s patents in the SAC,
`Plaintiff continues to ignore the difference between an invention as described by a
`patent and the actual commercial product of the patentee. The purpose of a patent
`is to give the patentee the right to exclude all others from creating anything that is
`covered by the claims in the patent, and not to conclusively describe the
`functionality of a commercial product. Plaintiff’s mischaracterizations of the
`functionality of Quantum’s platform, therefore, should not be accepted as true to
`the extent they contradict Quantum’s description of its platform on its website. See
`Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The court
`need not, however, accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly
`subject to judicial notice or by exhibit.”).
`
`
`
`5
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 37 Filed 08/27/21 Page 13 of 34 Page ID #:529
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD
`A complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule
`
`of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) if the plaintiff either fails to state a cognizable legal
`
`theory or has not alleged sufficient facts establishing a claim to relief that is
`
`“plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
`
`Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc.,
`
`876 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 2017). “[C]onclusory allegations without more are
`
`insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss . . . .” McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co.,
`
`845 F.2d 802, 810 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, the Court must not assume the truth of
`
`
`6
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 37 Filed 08/27/21 Page 14 of 34 Page ID #:530
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`legal conclusions merely because they are pleaded in the form of factual
`
`allegations, nor should it accept as true allegations contradicted by judicially
`
`noticeable facts. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-79; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
`
`V. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Under CIPA § 631(a)
`In its July 15, 2021 Order, the Court separated CIPA § 631(a) into four
`
`subsections. (July 15 Order at 7:12-8:11.) As before, Plaintiff alleges violations of
`subsections (i), (ii), and (iv).8 (See SAC ¶¶ 77-90; July 15 Order at 8:14-15.) Each
`of Plaintiff’s claims fail.9
`
`1. Quantum was a participant to the communication
`Defendants respectfully renew their “participant exception” argument in light
`
`of Plaintiff’s current allegations regarding Quantum’s platform and the recent
`
`orders in Graham, Johnson, and Yale granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss
`
`with prejudice. See Graham, 2021 WL 3602215, at *1-2; Johnson, 2021 WL
`
`3602214, at *1-2; Yale, ECF No. 48, at 1-2. In its July 15 Order, the Court did not
`
`dismiss Plaintiff’s CIPA § 631(a) claim pursuant to Defendants’ “participant
`
`exception challenge” because the Court found that Plaintiff pled Quantum
`
`“captures, stores, and interprets her real-time data—which extends beyond the
`
`ordinary function of a tape recorder.” (July 15 Order at 10:6-11:2.)
`
`In the SAC, however, Plaintiff alleges only that Quantum “captured,”
`
`“recorded,” and “monitored” her browsing activity on Lululemon’s website. (SAC
`
`
`8 Plaintiff does not clearly specify which CIPA § 631(a) subsections are alleged
`against which Defendant. Based on the manner in which Plaintiff pleads her aiding
`and abetting allegations under § 631(a)(iv), it appears Plaintiff’s § 631(a)(i) and (ii)
`claims are only alleged against Quantum.
`9 “[A]nalysis for a violation of CIPA is the same as that under the federal
`Wiretap Act.” Cline v. Reetz-Laiolo, 329 F. Supp. 3d 1000, 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2018)
`(quoting Underhill v. Kornblum, No. 16–CV–1598–AJB–WVG, 2017 WL
`2869734, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2017)); see also Brodsky v. Apple Inc., 445 F.
`Supp. 3d 110, 127 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (analysis of communication’s “contents” is the
`same under both statutes). Defendants accordingly cite cases analyzing both CIPA
`and the federal Wiretap Act.
`
`
`
`7
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-02439-JWH-SHK Document 37 Filed 08/27/21 Page 15 of 34 Page ID #:531
`
`
`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
`
`¶¶ 46-49.) She does not allege that Quantum “stored” or “interpreted” her data.
`
`(July 15 Order at 10:25-11:2.) Her allegations that Quantum “captured” and
`
`“recorded” her browsing activity on Lululemon’s website, however, are insufficient
`
`to overcome the “participant exception”—capturing and recording are standard and
`
`operational features of a tape recorder. See Membrila v. Receivables Performance
`
`Mgmt., LLC, No. 09-cv-2790, 2010 WL 1407274, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2010)
`
`(finding § 631 “applies only to eavesdropping by a third party and not to recording
`
`by a participant to a conversation”); Rogers v. Ulrich, 52 Cal. App. 3d 894, 898-99
`
`(1975) (same). And, even if Plaintiff had pled that Quantum “interprets” her data,
`
`courts have found such allegations insufficient.
`
`Graham, Johnson, and Yale are instructive. In these cases, Magistrate
`
`Judge Laurel Beeler (N.D. Cal.) granted defendants’ motions to dismiss on the
`
`basis of the “participant exception.” Each plaintiff (all represented by the same
`
`counsel as Plaintiff) then amended their complaints to allege that the defendant
`
`“captured, stored, and analyzed [their] electronic communications in real time.”
`
`(RJN Ex. F at ¶¶ 2, 42-45 (emphasis added); Ex. G at ¶¶ 2, 47-52; Ex. H at ¶¶ 2, 44-
`
`50.) Despite these additional allegations (which go beyond Plaintiff’s allegations),
`
`Judge Beeler found that the defendants’ actions d

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket