`
`
`
`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 140 Filed 08/11/22 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`The Honorable James L. Robart
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`2:20-cv-01082-JLR
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
`STRIKE NEW ARGUMENTS
`RAISED IN DEFENDANT’S
`REPLY
`
`Note on Motion Calendar:
`August 19, 2022
`
`
`STEVEN VANCE, et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE NEW ARGUMENTS
`RAISED IN DEFENDANT’S REPLY
`(2:20-cv-01082-JLR)
`
`LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
`111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
`Chicago, Illinois 60602
`T: (312) 750-1265; Fax: (724) 656-1556
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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 140 Filed 08/11/22 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Steven Vance and Tim Janecyk, through their attorneys, respectfully request the
`Court strike new arguments by Defendant Microsoft Corporation. (“Defendant”) for the first time
`in its Reply in Support of its Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (“Reply”).
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`On December 10, 2021, Defendant filed its motion for summary judgment, asserting it was
`entitled to summary judgment on its extraterritoriality and dormant Commerce Clause defenses
`and that it did not profit from the Diversity in Faces Dataset (“DiF Dataset”). Dkt. 84. After the
`Parties briefed Plaintiffs’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) motion (Dkts. 107-08, 110-112 ) that identified,
`inter alia, additional discovery required for Plaintiffs’ response to the summary judgment motion,
`the Court ordered additional discovery with respect to the summary judgment motion, including
`additional document production and depositions of all declarants whose declarations Defendant
`relied on in moving for summary judgment. Dkt. 118. After the Parties’ completed the additional
`discovery, Defendant filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on May 19, 2022 (Dkt. 127),
`which renewed motion is now fully briefed (Dkts. 135, 138).
`In its Reply, Defendant improperly raises two new arguments for the first time via footnote.
`First, Defendant contends that “Illinois courts would not even have personal jurisdiction over
`Microsoft in a suit asserting these claims, as ‘the litigation does not arise from contacts that
`[Microsoft] created with Illinois or actions purposefully directed at residents of Illinois.’” Dkt.
`138, ECF 11, n.3. Second, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs filed suit in Washington because
`there was no personal jurisdiction over Defendant in Illinois, and that “it would be absurd if
`Plaintiffs could subject Microsoft to Illinois regulation in a Washington court when Illinois doesn’t
`even have enough Illinois contacts to give rise to Illinois jurisdiction.” Id. (emphasis added).
`Defendant cites caselaw in support of its new arguments. Id.
`ARGUMENT
`The Court should strike Defendant’s new arguments raised in a footnotes in its Reply
`
`concerning personal jurisdiction. It is well-settled law in the Ninth Circuit and this District that
`issues raised for the first time via reply briefs should not be considered. See Alliance Against IFQ
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE NEW ARGUMENTS
`RAISED IN DEFENDANT’S REPLY
`(2:20-cv-01082-JLR) - 1
`
`LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
`111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
`Chicago, Illinois 60602
`T: (312) 750-1265; Fax: (724) 656-1556
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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 140 Filed 08/11/22 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`v. Brown, 84 F.3d 343, 348, n.1 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Because parties cannot raise a new issue for the
`first time in their reply brief […], we do not consider these arguments.” (citing Thompson v. CIR,
`631 F.2d 642, 649 (9th Cir. 1980)); Karpenski v. Am. General Life Co., LLC, 916 F. Supp. 2d
`1188, 1190-91 (W.D. Wash. 2012) (striking new argument and corresponding declaration that
`were improperly made in reply); Ngethpharat v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 499 F. Supp. 3d
`908, 920 (W.D. Wash. 2020) (striking declarations that raise new arguments for the first time on
`reply, and ruling on motion without considering new issues); U.S. v. Washington, 88 F. Supp. 3d
`1203, 1217 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (striking portions of reply and declarations raising new issues);
`Belanger v. Madera Unified Sch. Dist., 963 F.2d 248, 250, fn. 1 (9th Cir. 1992) (declining to
`consider new argument raised in footnote of reply brief, which deprived opposing party of
`opportunity to address new argument); Ohio Sec. Ins. Co. v. Garage Plus Storage Aviation LLC,
`No. 3:21-cv-5579, 2022 WL 1213319, *5, fn. 3 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2022).
`
`Here, the Court should strike Defendant’s new arguments contained in footnote 3
`pertaining to personal jurisdiction because that issue is not before the Court and, even if it were,
`Defendant should have raised it in its opening brief so that Plaintiffs could have addressed it. As
`Defendant appears to concede, questions of whether specific or general personal jurisdiction exist
`over Defendant in Illinois are necessarily different hypothetical questions involving different
`standards of law than whether BIPA’s application to Defendant’s acquisition, storage, and use of
`the DiF Dataset would violate the dormant Commerce Clause or extraterritoriality doctrine.
`Further, briefing this factual hypothetical question would be pointless as this case is in not pending
`in Illinois. Briefing this hypothetical question would require extensive fact discovery into
`Defendant’s specific and general contacts with Illinois, which discovery would be much broader
`than the investigation into some of Defendant’s DiF-related conduct that has occurred so far.
`Most importantly— regardless of whether Defendant’s new argument is stricken— it is
`wrong. Plaintiffs did not file in Washington because they believed there was no personal
`jurisdiction in Illinois. Plaintiffs filed in Washington to avoid the many months of unnecessary
`and protracted jurisdictional discovery and motion practice required to resolve questions of
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE NEW ARGUMENTS
`RAISED IN DEFENDANT’S REPLY
`(2:20-cv-01082-JLR) - 2
`
`LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
`111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
`Chicago, Illinois 60602
`T: (312) 750-1265; Fax: (724) 656-1556
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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 140 Filed 08/11/22 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`personal jurisdictional. Defendant’s new argument is also wrong because it fails to consider any
`basis for jurisdiction in Illinois beyond facts related to Plaintiffs’ presence in Illinois. Further,
`Defendant’s analysis of personal jurisdiction only contemplates specific jurisdiction, as the Parties
`have not engaged in discovery into Defendant’s broader contacts with Illinois.
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Plaintiff’s motion and strike footnote 3
`from Defendant’s Reply.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE NEW ARGUMENTS
`RAISED IN DEFENDANT’S REPLY
`(2:20-cv-01082-JLR) - 3
`
`LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
`111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
`Chicago, Illinois 60602
`T: (312) 750-1265; Fax: (724) 656-1556
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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 140 Filed 08/11/22 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`DATED: August 11, 2022
`
`
`
`
`By: s/ Nicholas R. Lange
`
`
`Katrina Carroll, Admitted pro hac vice
`Nicholas R. Lange, Admitted pro hac vice
`LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
`111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240
`Chicago, Illinois 60602
`Telephone: (312) 750-1265
`Email: katrina@lcllp.com
`Email: nickl@lcllp.com
`
`Gary Lynch, Admitted pro hac vice
`Kenneth Held, Admitted pro hac vice
`LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
`1133 Penn Avenue, Floor 5
`Pittsburgh, PA 15222
`Telephone: (412) 322-9243
`Email: gary@lcllp.com
`Email: ken@lcllp.com
`
`David B. Owens, WSBA #52856
`LOEVY & LOEVY
`100 S. King Street, Suite 100
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Telephone: (312) 243-5900
`Fax: (312) 243-5092
`Email: david@loevy.com
`
`By: s/ Scott R. Drury
`
`Scott R. Drury, Admitted pro hac vice
`Mike Kanovitz, Admitted pro hac vice
`LOEVY & LOEVY
`311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor
`Chicago, IL 60607
`Telephone: (312) 243-5900
`Email: drury@loevy.com
`Email: mike@loevy.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE NEW ARGUMENTS
`RAISED IN DEFENDANT’S REPLY
`(2:20-cv-01082-JLR) - 4
`
`LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
`111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
`Chicago, Illinois 60602
`T: (312) 750-1265; Fax: (724) 656-1556
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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 140 Filed 08/11/22 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on August 11, 2022, I caused to be electronically filed the foregoing
`
`Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike New Arguments Raised in Defendant’s Reply with the Clerk of Court
`using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically send email notification of such filing to the
`registered attorneys of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: August 11, 2022
`
`
`
`
`By: s/ Nicholas R. Lange
` Nicholas R. Lange
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE NEW ARGUMENTS
`RAISED IN DEFENDANT’S REPLY
`(2:20-cv-01082-JLR) - 5
`
`LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
`111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
`Chicago, Illinois 60602
`T: (312) 750-1265; Fax: (724) 656-1556
`
`