`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`DAVID MUTNICK, for himself and
`others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CLEARVIEW AI, INC.; HOAN TON-
`THAT; RICHARD SCHWARTZ; and
`CDW GOVERNMENT LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 20-cv-512
`
`Hon. Sharon Johnson Coleman
`
`CLEARVIEW DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL
`“FACTUAL” INFORMATION IN OPPOSITION TO THE CLEARVIEW
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY
`
`Without leave of the Court, Plaintiff Mutnick seeks to “supplement” his opposition (dkt
`
`57) to Clearview AI, Mr. Ton-That and Mr. Schwartz’s (the “Clearview Defendants”) motion to
`
`stay (dkt. 47) with a BuzzFeed News article published yesterday. Plaintiff’s “factual”
`
`supplement is improper, and should be stricken and disregarded by the Court. That is especially
`
`so here because of a co-dependent relationship between Plaintiff’s counsel and the article’s
`
`publisher, which Plaintiff’s counsel does not disclose to the Court in his supplement. Ex. 1 at 4,
`
`available at https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/clearview-ai-no-facial-recognition-
`
`private-companies, last visited May 8, 2020 (“Loevy & Loevy works with BuzzFeed News on
`
`litigation matters concerning freedom of information laws.”). Perhaps at a future time it will be
`
`appropriate to explore the timing and substance of the communications between Plaintiff’s
`
`counsel and the publisher that elicited yesterday’s article. But we need not do so now.
`
`Setting aside the secret, undisclosed ties between Plaintiff’s counsel and BuzzFeed, this
`
`case should be litigated in court and not through the press. As set forth in the Clearview
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 59 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:668
`
`Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, to transfer
`
`venue (dkt. 45-46), any alleged contacts between Clearview and Illinois are unrelated to
`
`Plaintiff’s claims; Plaintiff does not (and cannot) allege any harm or connection whatsoever
`
`between him and any such alleged contacts. Moreover, none of the alleged contacts between
`
`Clearview and any Illinois entity demonstrate why it would comport with notions of fairness and
`
`justice to require two New York residents, Messrs. Ton-That and Schwartz, to litigate claims
`
`here. As a result, the law compels a determination that the Clearview Defendants are not subject
`
`to personal jurisdiction in Illinois. And as set forth in the Clearview Defendants’ motion to stay
`
`(dkt 47), the threshold issue of jurisdiction needs to be resolved before the Court addresses
`
`Plaintiff’s fatally flawed motion for preliminary injunction. See Dkt. 56. Plaintiff’s news article
`
`carries no weight in any of this, and should be stricken and disregarded in its entirety.
`
`May 8, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Lee Wolosky ________________
`Lee Wolosky (pro hac vice)
`Andrew J. Lichtman (pro hac vice)
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`919 Third Avenue
`New York, New York 10022-3908
`Phone: (212) 891-1600
`lwolosky@jenner.com
`alichtman@jenner.com
`Howard S. Suskin
`David P. Saunders
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`353 North Clark Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Phone: (312) 222-9350
`hsuskin@jenner.com
`dsaunders@jenner.com
`Attorneys for Defendant Clearview AI,
`Inc., Hoan Ton-That, and Richard
`Schwartz
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 59 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:669
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on May 8, 2020 I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk
`
`of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a Notice of Electronic Filing to all
`
`counsel of record.
`
`By: /s/ Lee Wolosky
` Lee Wolosky
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
