`
`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
`
`