throbber
Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 61 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:707
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`DAVID MUTNICK, for himself and others )
`similarly situated,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`CLEARVIEW AI, INC., et al.,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`)
`____________________________________)
`ANTHONY HALL, on behalf of himself
`)
`and others similarly situated,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`)
`CDW GOVERNMENT LLC, et al.,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`)
`
`
`Case No. 20 C 512
`
`Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
`
`
`
`Case No. 20 C 846
`
`Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`The Court, in its discretion, denies defendants’ motions to stay pending the Court’s decision
`
`on defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or in the alternative, transfer
`
`venue to the Southern District of New York [47, 31]. The Court further grants plaintiff David
`
`Mutnick’s clarified motion for reassignment [40].
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs allege that the defendants scraped over 3 billion facial images from the internet and
`
`scanned the facial images’ biometric identifiers and information. Thereafter, defendants built a
`
`searchable database of the scanned images, thereby enabling database users to instantly identify
`
`unknown individuals using nothing more than a photograph. Defendants then sold access to this
`
`database to law enforcement and government agencies, as well as private entities such as banks and
`
`retail loss prevention specialists. Plaintiffs bring this putative class action under the Illinois
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 61 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:708
`
`Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. (“BIPA”), along with constitutional and
`
`common law claims. Plaintiff Mutnick has also filed a motion for preliminary injunction as to the
`
`BIPA claim.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`District courts have the inherent authority to control their own docket. Dotson v. Bravo, 321
`
`F.3d 663, 667 (7th Cir. 2003). “That inherent authority includes the power to stay proceedings
`
`where the party seeking the stay would be spared ‘hardship or inequity, the prejudice to the non-
`
`movant would be comparatively minor, and the stay would significantly advance judicial economy.”
`
`Freed v. Friedman, 215 F.Supp.3d 642, 658 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (Feinerman, J.).
`
`
`
`In their motions, defendants argue that the Court should temporarily stay this action until
`
`the Court decides their motions to dismiss based on personal jurisdiction, or, in the alternative,
`
`transfer the Southern District of New York. Although this request sounds straight-forward, in two
`
`related pending lawsuits against defendants in the Southern District of New York, Chief Judge
`
`Colleen McMahon noted,
`
`It is not at all clear to me that these cases belong in this court. They arise
`
`under an Illinois statute, the Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”),
`740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. They are brought on behalf of a class of persons who, while
`residing in the State of Illinois, had certain “biometrics” . . . “scraped” by
`Defendants and used without their consent in violation of the Illinois statute. While
`it is possible that some members of the putative class no longer reside in Illinois, it is
`beyond cavil that the Illinois statute applies only to Illinois residents and that the vast
`majority of class members presently reside in that state. Moreover, one of the
`defendants in the Calderon case is an Illinois citizen.
`
`Defendants have made no motions as yet, but this court would certainly have
`
`to consider seriously any motion that might be made to transfer the case . . . to either
`the Northern or Southern District of Illinois. Until it is clear that no such motion
`will be made, it would be unseemly for this court to begin managing a case that may
`very well end up being litigated elsewhere.
`
`(R. 52-1, Ex. 1, Calderon v. Clearview, 20 C 1296, 4/14/20 Order, at 1-2.). After entering this order,
`
`Chief Judge McMahon set an expedited briefing schedule concerning plaintiff Mutnick’s later-filed
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-00512 Document #: 61 Filed: 05/19/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:709
`
`motion to intervene and to dismiss, stay, or transfer to the Northern District of Illinois. Those
`
`motions are now fully briefed.
`
`
`
`Under the circumstances, staying this action while the Court examines the jurisdictional and
`
`transfer issues will not save judicial resources, especially when weighed against plaintiff’s need for
`
`injunctive relief and any prejudice resulting from a delay. In fact, the most prudent course of action
`
`is to closely monitor Chief Judge McMahon’s related cases in the Southern District of New York
`
`while working on the pending motions in the present cases before this Court. On that note, because
`
`the Southern District of New York cases may be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois,
`
`defendants’ request for consolidation of cases is premature.
`
`
`
`For these reasons, the Court, in its discretion, denies defendants’ motion to stay.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Date: 5/19/2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered: _____________________________
`
` SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN
`
` United States District Judge
`
`3
`
`

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