Case: 1:21-cv-00135 Document #: 25 Filed: 03/10/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:161
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`Case No. 21 C 0135
`
`Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
`
`
`)
`
`In re Clearview AI, Inc., Consumer
`)
`
`Privacy Litigation,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`
`
`
`This multidistrict litigation involves nine class action lawsuits brought against defendant
`
`Clearview AI, Inc. for improperly scraping approximately three billion facial images from the
`
`internet, scanning the facial images’ biometric identifiers, and selling access to a searchable database
`
`of these images. Before the Court are two applications for plaintiffs’ interim lead counsel brought
`
`under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), namely, Scott R. Drury of Loevy & Loevy and Joseph
`
`P. Guglielmo of Scott & Scott. For the following reasons, the Court, in its discretion, appoints Scott
`
`R. Drury as sole interim lead counsel.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(2), the Court “may designate interim counsel to
`
`act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action.”
`
`Designating interim class counsel helps to “clarify responsibility for protecting the interests of the
`
`class during precertification activities, such as making and responding to motions, conducting any
`
`necessary discovery, moving for class certification, and negotiating settlement.” Manual for
`
`Complex Litigation (“MCL”) § 21.11. In appointing interim class counsel, the Court considers:
`
`
`
`(i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action;
`
`(ii) counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of
`claims asserted in the action;
`
`(iii) counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and
`
`(v) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00135 Document #: 25 Filed: 03/10/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:162
`
`
`
`Fed.R.Civ. 23(g)(1)(A). “If more than one adequate applicant seeks appointment, the court must
`
`appoint the applicant best able to represent the interests of the class.” Fed.R.Civ. 23(g)(2). Also,
`
`“district courts have the inherent authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view
`
`toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases,” Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S.Ct. 1885, 1892, 195
`
`L.Ed.2d 161 (2016), including “broad authority to exercise control over a class action.” Gulf Oil Co.
`
`v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 99–100, 101 S.Ct. 2193, 68 L.Ed.2d 693 (1981).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`After reviewing both applications and the numerous memoranda in support of attorneys
`
`Drury and Guglielmo, they both possess the knowledge and background in handling class action
`
`lawsuits and have committed substantial resources to their respective cases. That said, from the
`
`outset, Drury has taken the lead in aggressively moving this litigation forward. Drury filed the
`
`Mutnick case on January 22, 2020, which was the first-filed of all of the multidistrict cases. Early in
`
`the Mutnick lawsuit, Drury filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Clearview’s
`
`alleged violations of Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1 et seq.,
`
`which resulted in defendants changing many of their business practices to avoid court-mandated
`
`changes. As the Mutnick case unfolded, Drury successfully defended against Clearview’s motions to
`
`transfer venue and for lack of personal jurisdiction. Drury also successfully moved to consolidate
`
`the cases filed in the Northern District of Illinois. In addition, the Court appointed Drury interim
`
`class counsel under Rule 23(g) for the consolidated cases on August 14, 2020, a few days before
`
`Clearview filed its motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Southern District
`
`of New York. After defendants initiated the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation proceedings,
`
`Drury organized telephonic meetings of all plaintiffs’ counsel to coordinate and build a coalition in
`
`response to Clearview’s filings.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:21-cv-00135 Document #: 25 Filed: 03/10/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:163
`
`Equally important, although the multidistrict cases involve several different theories of
`
`liability, every case has a BIPA claim, except Roberson, which alleges violations of Virginia Code §
`
`8.01-40, the Virginia Computer Crimes Act. Drury’s background and experience in bringing BIPA
`
`cases far surpasses Guglielmo’s experience. In fact, the BIPA claims in the multidistrict cases has
`
`made Illinois the focal point for these lawsuits. Drury’s superior knowledge of BIPA weighs heavily
`
`in favor of appointing Drury as interim lead counsel.
`
`Furthermore, according to the plaintiffs in the consolidated Northern District of Illinois
`
`cases, Drury consistently worked to collaborate with all plaintiffs and counsel. Counsel for plaintiff
`
`Anthony Hall states that his case has already benefit from the insights, expertise, and resources that
`
`Drury and Loevy & Loevy have brought to the table. Chris Marron’s counsel submits that Drury
`
`spearheaded the early discovery and investigation in this case and proactively organized the widely-
`
`attended February 2, 2021 mediation before Judge Andersen. Likewise, plaintiffs in the Southern
`
`District of New York case Caledron assert that Drury’s investigative efforts represented a high
`
`standard of professionalism, dedication, and thoroughness. After reviewing the various filings and
`
`presiding over the Northern District of Illinois cases, it is abundantly clear that Drury will best be
`
`able to represent the interests of all of the class members.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Based on the foregoing, the Court appoints Scott R. Drury of Loevy & Loevy as interim lead
`
`counsel under Rule 23(g).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: 3/10/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Entered:
`
`
`
`_____________________________
`SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN
`United States District Judge
`
`3
`
`