throbber
Case: 1:21-cv-00135 Document #: 166 Filed: 08/31/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:3581
`
`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
`
`

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