Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 127 Filed 05/19/22 Page 1 of 30
`
`THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`STEVEN VANCE, et al.,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR
`
`DEFENDANT MICROSOFT
`CORPORATION’S RENEWED
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`
`Defendant.
`
`NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
`June 10, 2022
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`MICROSOFT’S RENEWED MOT. FOR SUMM. J.
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 127 Filed 05/19/22 Page 2 of 30
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ........................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Flickr and the Yahoo-Created YFCC100M Dataset .............................................. 3
`B.
`The IBM-Created DiF Dataset ............................................................................... 3
`C.
`Plaintiffs’ Flickr Photos ......................................................................................... 4
`D.
`Microsoft Contractor Benjamin Skrainka’s Download of the DiF Dataset ........... 5
`E.
`Microsoft Student Intern Samira Samadi’s Download of the DiF Dataset ............ 8
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 10
`I.
`BIPA Does Not and Cannot Constitutionally Apply to Microsoft’s Activities in
`Washington and New York. ............................................................................................. 10
`A.
`BIPA Does Not Apply Extraterritorially to Microsoft. ....................................... 10
`1.
`The Undisputed Facts Confirm Microsoft’s Relevant Conduct
`Occurred Entirely Outside Illinois. .......................................................... 11
`Microsoft’s Alleged BIPA Violation Had No Connection to
`Illinois. ..................................................................................................... 13
`Plaintiffs’ Illinois Residency Alone Cannot Satisfy Illinois’
`Extraterritoriality Doctrine. ...................................................................... 15
`Applying BIPA to Microsoft’s Out-of-State Conduct Would Violate the
`Dormant Commerce Clause. ................................................................................ 17
`1.
`Plaintiffs May Not Use BIPA to Regulate Conduct Occurring
`Outside Illinois’ Borders. ......................................................................... 18
`BIPA’s Application Here Would Conflict with Washington and
`New York Biometric Privacy Law. ......................................................... 19
`BIPA Section 15(b) Does Not Apply Because Microsoft Had No Way To Give
`Notice and Obtain Consent Before Downloading The DiF Dataset. ............................... 21
`The Court Should Grant Summary Judgment on the Unjust Enrichment Claim. ............ 23
`III.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 24
`
`MICROSOFT’S RENEWED MOT. FOR SUMM. J. - i
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 127 Filed 05/19/22 Page 3 of 30
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Chinatown Neighborhood Ass’n v. Harris,
`794 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................18
`
`Cleary v. Philip Morris Inc.,
`656 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................................24
`
`Corsello v. Verizon New York, Inc.,
`967 N.E.2d 1177 (N.Y. 2012) ..................................................................................................24
`
`Cousineau v. Microsoft Corp.,
`992 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (W.D. Wash. 2012) ...............................................................................24
`
`Daniels Sharpsmart, Inc. v. Smith,
`889 F.3d 608 (9th Cir. 2018) .............................................................................................17, 18
`
`David K. Lindemuth Co. v. Shannon Fin. Corp.,
`637 F. Supp. 991 (N.D. Cal. 1986) ..........................................................................................15
`
`Healy v. Beer Institute, Inc.,
`491 U.S. 324 (1989) .................................................................................................................18
`
`Hernandez v. Spacelabs Med. Inc.,
`343 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................13
`
`Hesketh v. Total Renal Care, Inc.,
`2021 WL 5761610 (W.D. Wash. 2021) ...................................................................................10
`
`Iancu v. Brunetti,
`139 S. Ct. 2294 (2019) .............................................................................................................17
`
`Landau v. CNA Fin. Corp.,
`886 N.E.2d 405 (Ill. App. 2008) ..............................................................................................11
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`475 U.S. 574 (1986) .................................................................................................................10
`
`Mazza v. Am. Honda Co., Inc.,
`666 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................20
`
`McGoveran v. Amazon Web Services, Inc.,
`2021 WL 4502089 (D. Del. 2021) ................................................................................... passim
`
`MICROSOFT’S RENEWED MOT. FOR SUMM. J. - ii
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 127 Filed 05/19/22 Page 4 of 30
`
`Monroy v. Shutterfly,
`2017 WL 4099846 (N.D. Ill. 2017) .........................................................................................16
`
`Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Miller,
`10 F.3d 633 (9th Cir. 1993), overruled on other grounds by Olean Wholesale
`Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 31 F.4th 651 (9th Cir. 2022) .......................20
`
`People v. Hanna,
`207 Ill. 2d 486 (2003) ..............................................................................................................23
`
`People v. Scheib,
`390 N.E.2d 872 (Ill. 1979) .......................................................................................................17
`
`Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc.,
`442 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2006) .....................................................................................................3
`
`Rivera v. Google,
`238 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (N.D. Ill. 2017) .....................................................................................16
`
`Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment,
`129 N.E.3d 1197 (Ill. 2019) .....................................................................................................21
`
`Sam Francis Found. v. Christies, Inc.,
`784 F.3d 1320 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................18
`
`Super Pawn Jewelry & Loan, LLC v. Am. Envtl. Energy, Inc.,
`2013 WL 1337303 (N.D. Ill. 2013) .........................................................................................15
`
`United States v. Pappadopoulos,
`64 F.3d 522 (9th Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds by Jones v. United
`States, 529 U.S. 848 (2000) .....................................................................................................18
`
`Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc.,
`552 F. Supp. 2d 752 (N.D. Ill. 2008) .......................................................................................15
`
`Zellmer v. Facebook, Inc.,
`2022 WL 976981 (N.D. Cal. 2022) ................................................................................. passim
`
`Statutes
`
`740 ILCS 14/5(a) ...........................................................................................................................22
`
`740 ILCS 14/5(b) .....................................................................................................................10, 22
`
`740 ILCS 14/10 ..............................................................................................................................13
`
`740 ILCS 14/15(b) ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`New York City Code § 22-1201 ....................................................................................................20
`
`MICROSOFT’S RENEWED MOT. FOR SUMM. J. - iii
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 127 Filed 05/19/22 Page 5 of 30
`
`New York City Code § 22-1202 ....................................................................................................20
`
`RCW 19.375.010 ...........................................................................................................................19
`
`RCW 19.375.020 ...........................................................................................................................19
`
`RCW 19.375.101(5) .......................................................................................................................19
`
`Other Authorities
`
`U.S. Constitution Commerce Clause .............................................................................................17
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ......................................................................................................................10
`
`Creative Commons, About The Licenses, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
`(last visited May 19, 2022) ....................................................................................................3, 4
`
`Flickr, How to Change Your License on Flickr https://www.flickrhelp.com/hc/en-
`us/articles/4404078674324-Change-Your-Photo-s-License-in-Flickr (last
`visited May 19, 2022) ................................................................................................................3
`
`State of Delaware, Department of State: Division of Corporations, Business
`Search Results for Flickr Inc. and Yahoo, Inc.,
`https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/eCorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx (last
`accessed May 19, 2022) .............................................................................................................3
`
`MICROSOFT’S RENEWED MOT. FOR SUMM. J. - iv
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 127 Filed 05/19/22 Page 6 of 30
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In February 2019, Microsoft downloaded the IBM Diversity in Faces Dataset (“DiF
`Dataset” or “Dataset”), a collection of publicly available photos (and related data) from around
`the world that, without Microsoft’s knowledge, apparently contained links to photos of Illinois
`residents. Microsoft downloaded the Dataset from Washington and New York, quickly
`determined it was useless for Microsoft’s research purposes, and thus did not use it—for
`anything. This action presents the question whether Microsoft, a Washington-based company,
`can be held liable for statutory damages under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
`(“BIPA”), even though it took no action in Illinois and had no knowledge that any photos of or
`data regarding Illinois residents may have been in the Dataset. The answer is no. BIPA does not
`apply extraterritorially to Microsoft here because it engaged in no conduct that allegedly violated
`BIPA “primarily and substantially” in Illinois. To hold otherwise would violate the dormant
`Commerce Clause, as such a reading of BIPA would conflict with the Washington Biometric
`Privacy Law and New York law—the states in which Microsoft downloaded the Dataset.
`Further, BIPA cannot be read to require Microsoft to give prior notice and obtain consent merely
`to download the IBM-created Dataset when it has no relationship with and no practical means to
`contact the unknown individuals whose photos and information IBM included in the Dataset.
`Finally, having considered but never used the Dataset, Microsoft was not unjustly enriched by it.
`The DiF Dataset is a large and diverse set of human faces that IBM, a New York
`company, created in New York to advance the study of fairness, accuracy, and bias in facial
`recognition technology. The Dataset contains links to roughly 1 million publicly available
`photos taken all over the world, as well as annotations of data regarding some (but not all) of the
`faces in the photos. In early 2019, IBM offered its DiF Dataset to approved researchers, free of
`charge, for use in research only. One Microsoft contractor and one Microsoft post-graduate
`student intern each downloaded the DiF Dataset, using an online link from IBM, from
`Washington and New York, respectively. Each did so to determine if the photos linked in the
`Dataset (not IBM’s annotations) would be useful in their research; each briefly evaluated some
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`MICROSOFT’S RENEWED MOT. FOR SUMM. J. - 1
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 127 Filed 05/19/22 Page 7 of 30
`
`of the linked photos; and each decided the Dataset didn’t meet their respective research needs.
`Neither used IBM’s DiF Dataset, nor did they share it with anyone else.
`Illinois residents Steven Vance and Tim Janecyk now allege Microsoft (a) violated BIPA
`Section 15(b) simply by downloading the IBM DiF Dataset in Washington and New York
`without their consent—even though Microsoft could not have known their faces were in it; and
`(b) was unjustly enriched by downloading and profiting from use of Plaintiffs’ biometric
`identifiers and information via the Dataset. The Court denied in part Microsoft’s motion to
`dismiss, concluding “more factual refinement” about “the circumstances around Microsoft’s
`attainment, possession and use of the Diversity in Faces dataset” was needed. Dkt. 43 at 8.
`Now, with the record developed, the Court should grant summary judgment for three reasons:
`First, BIPA does not apply here because Microsoft did not engage in any action in
`Illinois, much less “primarily and substantially” in Illinois, as required for BIPA to govern.
`Microsoft did not download Plaintiffs’ alleged biometrics in Illinois, did not use the Dataset or
`any information in Illinois (or anywhere), and did not have any reason to know the Dataset might
`contain links to Illinois residents’ photos, much less their biometric identifiers. Further, if BIPA
`were construed to reach Microsoft’s conduct in Washington and New York, the statute would
`violate the dormant Commerce Clause. In short, Microsoft cannot be liable for statutory
`damages based solely on incidental interaction with the DiF Dataset entirely outside Illinois.
`Second, BIPA Section 15(b) does not require notice and consent before downloading a
`dataset of anonymous faces when, as here, a defendant has no relationship with the individuals
`depicted and no way of identifying them or finding out if they live in Illinois. “[I]t would be
`patently unreasonable to construe BIPA” to require notice to and consent from individuals who
`were “total strangers.” Zellmer v. Facebook, Inc., 2022 WL 976981, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 2022).
`Third, even if the information in the DiF Dataset were biometric information or
`identifiers (a contested fact), Microsoft did not use that (or any other) information at all—so
`Plaintiffs have no unjust enrichment claim. Neither the contractor nor the intern reviewed or had
`any interest in the annotations in the Dataset, and neither shared the Dataset with anyone else.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`MICROSOFT’S RENEWED MOT. FOR SUMM. J. - 2
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 127 Filed 05/19/22 Page 8 of 30
`
`Microsoft received no “benefit” or “profit” from Plaintiffs’ biometric information or identifiers.
`UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`A. Flickr and the Yahoo-Created YFCC100M Dataset
`
`Flickr is a photo sharing website that allows users to upload and share photos with others
`online. Compl. ¶ 28. Between at least 2004 and 2014, Flickr users could choose to upload their
`photos under either an “All Rights Reserved” license or a “Creative Commons” license.”1 Under
`the former, the Flickr user retained the right to make copies and distribute uploaded photos. Id.
`Under the latter, the Flickr user consented to the ability of third parties to copy, distribute, edit,
`and use the photos.2 The purpose of a Creative Commons license is to create a “digital
`commons, a pool of content that can be copied, distributed, edited, remixed, and built upon, all
`within the boundaries of copyright law.” Id.
`In 2014, Yahoo!—Flickr’s then-parent3—publicly released a dataset of about 100 million
`photos uploaded to Flickr’s website between 2004 and 2014. Compl. ¶ 29; Dkt. 85 (“Merler
`Decl.”) at Ex. A (“IBM DiF Paper”). The dataset became known as the Yahoo Flickr Creative
`Commons 100 Million Dataset (YFCC100M), “the largest public multimedia collection that has
`ever been released, comprising a total of 100 million media objects [i.e., photos] . . . all of which
`have been uploaded to Flickr between 2004 and 2014 and published under a [Creative
`Commons] commercial or non-commercial license.” Id. at 66. The YFCC100M dataset includes
`only photos that users voluntarily allowed third parties to copy, distribute, and use. Id.
`B. The IBM-Created DiF Dataset
`
`In 2019, researchers at IBM released the DiF Dataset “to help advance the study of
`
`1 See Flickr, How to Change Your License on Flickr, https://www.flickrhelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/4404078674324-
`Change-Your-Photo-s-License-in-Flickr (last visited May 19, 2022) (describing the licenses supported by Flickr).
`2 Creative Commons, About The Licenses, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ (last visited May 19, 2022)
`(describing licenses as allowing “others [to] distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon your work”).
`3 Both Flickr, Inc. and Yahoo Inc. are Delaware corporations based in California. See State of Delaware,
`Department of State: Division of Corporations, Business Search Results for Flickr Inc. and Yahoo, Inc.,
`https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/eCorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx (last accessed May 19, 2022). The Court may
`take judicial notice of information on a state government website because it is “readily verifiable and, therefore, the
`proper subject of judicial notice.” Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746, n.6 (9th Cir. 2006).
`
`MICROSOFT’S RENEWED MOT. FOR SUMM. J. - 3
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 127 Filed 05/19/22 Page 9 of 30
`
`fairness and accuracy in face recognition technology.” IBM DiF Paper at 24. To create this
`dataset in compliance with “various copyright laws and privacy regulations,” IBM researchers
`used only photos from the YFCC100M dataset subject to the Creative Commons license. Id. at
`7-8. After selecting photos, IBM researchers applied 10 coding schemes and “annotations” from
`some of the photos in the dataset, including information related to some of the faces in some of
`the photos, such as “craniofacial distances” and “areas and ratios.” Id. at 9. They included other
`demographic information about some of the faces in the photos, such as the estimated age and
`gender. Id. at 9, 14–16. Information about faces in the photos linked in the DiF Dataset was
`“purely descriptive and designed to provide a mechanism to evaluate diversity in the dataset—
`not to provide a method of facial identification.” Merler Decl. ¶ 7.
`IBM researchers who created the DiF Dataset did so in New York, and IBM created and
`stored the Dataset on servers in New York. Id. at ¶ 8. IBM did not create the Dataset in Illinois,
`did not store it on computers in Illinois, and did not take any other actions involving the Dataset
`in Illinois. Id. The Dataset Terms of Use prohibited recipients of the Dataset from “attempt[ing]
`to identify any individuals within the IBM Research DiF Dataset.” Merler Decl., Ex. H, Terms
`of Use at 3. IBM made the DiF Dataset available for free download to researchers who filled out
`a questionnaire certifying that they sought access for research purposes only. Merler Decl. ¶ 9.
`C. Plaintiffs’ Flickr Photos
`
`Plaintiffs assert that, while in Illinois, they uploaded photos of themselves and others to
`their Flickr accounts. Compl. ¶¶ 60, 69; Dkt. 86 (“Berger Decl.”) Ex. 1 (“Vance Dep.”) 132:4–6;
`id. Ex. 2 (“Janecyk Dep.”) 99:21–100:13. When signing up for Flickr, Plaintiffs did not exercise
`the option to restrict who could access their photos, such as choosing the All Rights Reserved
`license. Vance Dep. 207:17–208:4; Janecyk Dep. 72:2–24. Instead, they uploaded their photos
`under the Creative Commons license, Vance Dep. 206:1–6; Janecyk Dep. 72:2–9, granting the
`public “license” to “distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon [their] work[.]” Creative Commons,
`About The Licenses, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ (last visited May 19, 2022).
`Vance testified that he uploaded at least 18,595 public photos to Flickr, and at least 63 of
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`MICROSOFT’S RENEWED MOT. FOR SUMM. J. - 4
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 127 Filed 05/19/22 Page 10 of 30
`
`these were included by IBM in the DiF Dataset. Vance Dep. 179:22–23; 210:19–24. These 63
`photos depict other people, not just Vance, and he did not always know whether these people were
`Illinois residents. Id. at 132:4–14; 154:5–16. Some of these 63 photos were taken by someone
`other than Vance, and some were taken outside Illinois. Id. at 70:2–71:22; 131:10–132:2.
`Janecyk uploaded 1,669 public photos to Flickr, 24 of which became part of the Dataset.
`Janecyk Dep. 74:21–24; 95:22–96:1. Janecyk’s practice was to photograph strangers on the streets
`of Chicago. Id. 45:16–46:19. Aside from himself and people Janecyk knew only as “Popcorn
`Mike” and “Dave,” Janecyk did not know the names of anyone in the 24 photos and did not know
`where they lived. Id. 98:8–100:13; 167:11–168:15; 225:9–227:4; 228:19–21. At least two of the
`24 photos were taken outside of Illinois. Id. 97:18–20. Janecyk put a note on his account saying
`“PLEASE STEAL MY PHOTOS! ... I encourage you to steal any of my photography for
`personal or commercial use.” Berger Decl. Ex. 3; Janecyk Dep. Ex. 4; id. 88:14–89:6.
`Neither Vance nor Janecyk alleges he had any contact or communication with Microsoft
`(in Illinois or elsewhere) concerning the DiF Dataset or their photos on Flickr. Vance Dep. 187:9–
`19; 199:13–16; Janecyk Dep. 95:3–6. Neither Plaintiff contacted IBM about removing their photos
`from the Dataset upon learning they were in it. Id.
`D. Microsoft Contractor Benjamin Skrainka’s Download of the DiF Dataset
`In early 2019, Benjamin Skrainka was an independent contractor working for Neal
`Analytics LLC, a Washington-based consulting firm that supports companies with their data-
`driven initiatives. Dkt. 87 (“Skrainka Decl.”) ¶ 2; Skrainka Dep. 91:15-20.4 Through Neal
`Analytics, Skrainka worked as a vendor to Microsoft from September 7, 2018, through August 1,
`2019. Skrainka Decl. ¶ 2; Skrainka Dep. 91:21-24. In that role, Skrainka provided support for a
`project where he applied industry standard benchmarks to evaluate facial recognition technology.
`Skrainka Decl. ¶ 3; Skrainka Dep. 127:7-16. He determined what the parameters and/or
`methodology should be for comparing different face recognition technologies available in the
`
`4 Other than excerpts from Plaintiffs’ depositions (attached as exhibits to Dkt. 86), all other deposition excerpts are
`attached to the concurrently-filed Wiese Declaration.
`
`MICROSOFT’S RENEWED MOT. FOR SUMM. J. - 5
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 127 Filed 05/19/22 Page 11 of 30
`
`market. Skrainka Decl. ¶ 3; Skrainka Dep. 126:18-127:10; Dkt. 91 (“Kasap Decl.”) ¶ 4.
`As part of his work, Skrainka sought datasets containing photos suitable for his project.
`Skrainka Decl. ¶ 4; Skrainka Dep. 139:4-140:24. Around February 1, 2019, Skrainka, while
`working in Washington, filled out an IBM questionnaire requesting a copy of the DiF Dataset for
`use in his project. Skrainka Decl. ¶¶ 4–5; Skrainka Dep. 198:14-199:10. After IBM granted
`Skrainka access through an online link, he downloaded the Dataset in February 2019. Skrainka
`Decl. ¶ 5; Skrainka Dep. 217:1-219:14. Skrainka was in Washington when he downloaded the
`DiF Dataset. Skrainka Decl. ¶ 5; Skrainka Dep. 217:1-219:14; 371:22-372:9.
`Skrainka obtained the DiF Dataset solely to evaluate whether the photos linked in it were
`useable in his project. Skrainka Decl. ¶ 6; Skrainka Dep. 233:7-234:5. He was not interested in
`any facial annotations or any other data that IBM may have included in its DiF Dataset, and he
`never reviewed any such data. Skrainka Decl. ¶ 6; Skrainka Dep. 208:3-15, 227:21-229:23,
`373:11-20. As it turned out, the linked photos in the Dataset were useless for Skrainka’s
`research because they were unconstrained images, i.e., they were not conventional head-on
`photos used on a driver’s license or passport, and they were of generally low quality. Skrainka
`Decl. ¶ 7; Skrainka Dep. 233:24-235:6.
`Once Skrainka determined the photos were useless, he spent no more time with the DiF
`Dataset. Skrainka Decl. ¶ 7; Skrainka Dep. 246:16-23, 251:12-23. He did not share the link to
`or the Dataset itself with anyone. Skrainka Decl. ¶ 5; Skrainka Dep. 223:1-3. Because he was
`focused on locating suitable photos, Skrainka ignored—and was not even aware of—other data
`IBM may have included in the DiF Dataset; nor did he know the Dataset included data relating to
`some Illinois residents. Skrainka Decl. ¶¶ 6-10; Skrainka Dep. 358:17-23. (Skrainka did,
`however, review some limited metadata included in the DiF Dataset. Id. 226:6-9; 229: 24-
`230:21.) Neither Skrainka nor Mustafa Kasap, the Microsoft Principal Program Manager
`supervising Skrainka’s work for Azure Media Services (f/k/a Azure Intelligent Storage), are
`aware of anyone at Microsoft using or accessing the DiF Dataset in any project or product at
`Microsoft. Skrainka Decl. ¶ 12; Skrainka Dep. 220:1-3; Kasap Decl. ¶ 7; Kasap Dep. 55:12-20.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`MICROSOFT’S RENEWED MOT. FOR SUMM. J. - 6
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 127 Filed 05/19/22 Page 12 of 30
`
`Skrainka does not recall exactly where he saved his copy of the DiF Dataset. Skrainka
`Decl. ¶ 8. But he does recall that “any facial-recognition-related work that [he] performed . . .
`was loaded only onto virtual machines and cloud storage in Azure.”5 Skrainka Dep. 188:12-23.
`In setting up the virtual machines and blob storage in Azure, Skrainka would have “provision[ed]
`[the] machine[] in a specific availability zone.” Id. at 149:8-15. The selection of an Azure
`Region determines the geography of the data centers where the data will be stored. Kuttiyan
`Decl. ¶ 3. Within each Azure Region, Microsoft has availability zones that map to specific data
`centers within the selected region. Id. Skrainka said he used “a West Coast availability zone”
`for the work he performed for Azure Media Services, Skrainka Dep. 147:2-6, and that “it’s
`almost surely the case that we were using West Coast data centers” for his project, given “a bias
`for using West Coast data centers because they’re faster,” id. at 154:10-20. In February 2019,
`data stored in virtual machines or blob storage in an Azure Region corresponding with the “West
`US” or “West US 2” Azure Regions would have been stored in data centers in either Washington
`or California—not in Illinois. Kuttiyan Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. A.
`Despite a reasonable investigation, Microsoft has been unable to confirm if and where
`Skrainka stored his downloaded copy of the DiF Dataset. See Kasap Decl. ¶ 6; Dkt. 92
`(“Bruncke Decl.”) ¶¶ 5–6; Bruncke Dep. 63:10-64:6, 96:10-12, 99:15-105:18. Andy Bruncke, a
`Senior Program Manager at Microsoft who oversaw the relationship with Neal Analytics,
`searched for any record of Skrainka’s downloaded copy of the DiF Dataset in the locations
`where vendors and Microsoft employees stored data for the relevant research project. Bruncke
`Decl. ¶ 6; Bruncke Dep. 99:15-105:18. Bruncke did not locate either a copy of the DiF Dataset
`or a record of it ever having been stored in those locations. Bruncke Decl. ¶ 6; Bruncke Dep.
`96:10-12, 99:15-105:18. Skrainka used his own Apple laptop for his work—not any Microsoft-
`issued device for his work related to the DiF Dataset. Skrainka Decl. ¶ 9; Skrainka Dep. 150:21-
`
`5 A virtual machine emulates the characteristics of a stand-alone physical computer. Skrainka Decl. ¶ 8. It shares
`physical resources, such as servers, with other virtual machines, and each virtual machine is isolated by software.
`Id. A virtual machine can easily be created, modified, or decommissioned without affecting the host computer. Id.
`
`MICROSOFT’S RENEWED MOT. FOR SUMM. J. - 7
`(Case No. 2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
`LAW OFFICES
`920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
`Seattle, WA 98104-1610
`206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-01082-JLR Document 127 Filed 05/19/22 Page 13 of 30
`
`151:6. When his project ended in approximately August 2019, Skrainka decommissioned all the
`virtual machines he used on the project and deleted from his own computer all resources he used
`during the project, including any datasets. Skrainka Decl. ¶¶ 8-9; Skrainka Dep. 253:20-23.
`E.
`Microsoft Student Intern Samira Samadi’s Download of the DiF Dataset
`In February 2019, Samira Samadi, a graduate student at Georgia Institute of Technology,
`worked as a student intern at Microsoft Research’s New York City office. Dkt. 88 (“Samadi
`Decl.”) ¶ 2. Samadi downloaded the DiF Dataset for a research project overseen by Jenn
`Wortman Vaughan, a Microsoft Senior Principal Researcher. Samadi Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; Dkt. 89
`(“Vaughan Decl.”) ¶ 3, 5; Vaughan Dep. 27:12-28:3. Samadi’s internship research project
`involved the study of how hum