`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`No. 21 C 135
`
`Magistrate Judge
`Maria Valdez
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`In re: Clearview AI, Inc.
`Consumer Privacy Litigation
`
`
`
`
`This matter is before the Court on (1) Defendant Macy’s Retail Holdings,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inc.’s Motion for a Stay of Discovery Pending Resolution of Its Motion to Dismiss
`
`[Doc. No. 143], and (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendant Macy’s, Inc. to
`
`Provide Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Discovery Responses [Doc. No. 139]. For the
`
`reasons that follow, Macy’s motion to stay is granted and Plaintiffs’ motion to
`
`compel is denied.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Macy’s is one of several Defendants in this consolidated multidistrict
`
`litigation arising out of Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants unlawfully collected
`
`and used Plaintiffs’ sensitive biometric data. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant
`
`Clearview AI, Inc. collected their biometric information from the internet and
`
`compiled a “biometric database.” Plaintiffs further allege that Macy’s used
`
`Clearview’s database in order to identify individuals in Macy’s retail stores. Based
`
`on these allegations, Plaintiffs have asserted a claim against Macy’s under the
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00135 Document #: 166 Filed: 08/31/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:3582
`
`Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, along with various statutory and
`
`common law claims under Illinois, California, and New York law. Pertinent to the
`
`instant discovery motions, Macy’s previously filed a motion to dismiss in which it
`
`argues that Plaintiffs’ claims against it are subject to dismissal because Plaintiffs
`
`lack Article III standing. According to Macy’s, Plaintiffs cannot show that Macy’s
`
`actions caused them an injury-in-fact. In its instant motion, Macy’s contends that
`
`the pending motion to dismiss warrants a stay of discovery. On the flipside of the
`
`coin, Plaintiffs have moved to compel Macy’s to provide Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures
`
`and responses to Plaintiffs’ outstanding discovery requests.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`It is well-settled that “[t]he mere filing of [a] motion [to dismiss] does not
`
`automatically stay discovery.” In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig., 231 F.R.D. 331,
`
`336-37 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (citation omitted). However, “[s]tays are often deemed
`
`appropriate where the motion to dismiss can resolve the case – at least as to the
`
`moving party, or where the issue is a threshold one, such as jurisdiction, standing,
`
`or qualified immunity.” Id. (citations omitted). The latter situation is the case here,
`
`as Macy’s has argued in its motion to dismiss that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring
`
`any of their claims against it. In light of that potentially-dispositive standing
`
`argument, the Court finds that a temporary stay of discovery as to Macy’s is
`
`warranted. See Aguilar v. Natbony, No. 11 C 6286, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128383,
`
`at *3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 2011) (“Although the filing of a motion to dismiss does not
`
`automatically stay discovery, a stay may be appropriate where the motion to
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00135 Document #: 166 Filed: 08/31/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:3583
`
`dismiss is case-dispositive or relates to a threshold issue, such as jurisdiction or
`
`standing.”) (citation omitted); Niederhoffer Intermarket Fund, L.P. v. Chi.
`
`Mercantile Exch., No. 99 C 3233, 199 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14305, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug.
`
`30, 1999) (“A stay of discovery may be appropriate when one party raises a
`
`potentially dispositive threshold issue such as a challenge to a plaintiff’s standing.”)
`
`(citations omitted). Furthermore, Macy’s points out that Plaintiffs’ theory putting
`
`Macy’s in a central role as representative class defendant would, if the motion to
`
`stay is not granted, expose Macy’s to extensive discovery. If Macy’s prevails on the
`
`motion to dismiss, such discovery would be unnecessary.
`
`
`
`Given the issues raised in Macy’s motion to dismiss, a small delay in
`
`discovery while awaiting adjudication of the motion is reasonable. Accordingly, the
`
`Court hereby stays discovery as to Macy’s pending the resolution of Macy’s motion
`
`to dismiss. The Court finds that this temporary stay of discovery will not unduly
`
`prejudice any party and has the potential to streamline the issues and reduce the
`
`burden of litigation on the parties and the Court. See Sadler v. Retail Props. of Am.,
`
`Inc., No. 12 C 5882, 2013 WL 12333447, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2013).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 1:21-cv-00135 Document #: 166 Filed: 08/31/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:3584
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Macy’s Motion for a Stay of Discovery
`
`
`
`
`[Doc. No. 143] is granted and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 139] is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATE:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`August 31, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ENTERED:
`
`___________________________
`HON. MARIA VALDEZ
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`4
`
`