Court filing

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 37 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related… — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 38)

Summary

Defendant Plaid Inc.'s Response in Support of Plaintiff Mitchell's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, Document 38, dated June 29, 2020 in James Cottle, et al. v. Plaid Inc., No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division. The response states that Plaintiff Logan Mitchell filed the administrative motion on June 26, 2020, arguing that this case is related to Mitchell v. Plaid Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04230. It states that Plaid Inc. supports the motion because both actions involve the same defendant and the same plaintiffs, since the putative classes are nearly identical. It argues that relating the two actions will promote efficiency and prevent inconsistent results.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Filed	2020-05-04

Cite this document

“OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 37 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related… — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 38).” U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR, Doc. 38, filed 2020-05-04. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-plaid-privacy-cand-359040/2020-05-04-gov-uscourts-cand-359040-38-0-doc-38/, SHA-256 ad0c2619c571e63a07deceffc7c6db926084c01180ecf621163a7f9aecefcf58.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

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
28
 
 
 
DEFENDANT PLAID INC.’S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF MITCHELL’S ADMINISTRATIVE 
MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED - CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
Gibson, Dunn & 
Crutcher LLP 
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP  
ETHAN D. DETTMER, SBN 196046  
edettmer@gibsondunn.com 
ABIGAIL A. BARRERA, SBN 301746 
abarrera@gibsondunn.com 
ASHLEY J. HODGE, SBN 287653 
ahodge@gibsondunn.com 
ANTHONY D. BEDEL, SBN 324065 
tbedel@gibsondunn.com 
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
Telephone: 415.393.8200 
Facsimile: 415.393.8306 
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 
ALEXANDER H. SOUTHWELL (pro hac vice) 
asouthwell@gibsondunn.com 
200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor 
New York, NY 10166 
Telephone: 212.351.4000 
Facsimile: 212.351.4035 
Attorneys for Defendant PLAID INC. 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
OAKLAND DIVISION 
JAMES COTTLE, et al., 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
PLAID INC., 
Defendant. 
CASE NO. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR 
 
CASE NO. 3:20-cv-04230 
DEFENDANT PLAID INC.’S RESPONSE IN 
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF MITCHELL’S 
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 
CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD 
BE RELATED 
Hon. Donna M. Ryu 
 
 
 
Action Filed: 
May 4, 2020 
Trial Date: 
None Set 
 
 
 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 38   Filed 06/29/20   Page 1 of 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
28
 
 
1 
DEFENDANT PLAID INC.’S RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF MITCHELL’S ADMINISTRATIVE 
MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED - CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
Gibson, Dunn & 
Crutcher LLP 
On June 26, 2020, Plaintiff Logan Mitchell filed an Administrative Motion to Consider 
Whether Cases Should be Related, arguing that the above-captioned case is related to Mitchell v. 
Plaid Inc., No 3:20-cv-04230 (N.D. Cal.).  See Dkt. No. 37.  
Plaid Inc. supports Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion because both actions “concern 
substantially the same [alleged] parties, property, transaction or event.”  Civ. L.R. 3-12(a)(1), (2).  
The actions involve the same defendant, Plaid Inc., and the same plaintiffs since the putative classes 
are nearly identical.  Moreover, the two actions involve similar legal theories, and almost entirely 
overlapping causes of action.  Further, both complaints allege similar facts relating to Plaid’s alleged 
violations of state and federal privacy laws.    
Thus, given the similarity of the alleged parties, underlying factual allegations, and legal 
theories, relating these two actions will promote efficiency and prevent inconsistent results.  Indeed, 
relation would mitigate the “unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense” that Plaid Inc. 
would be required to expend in the event it had to litigate these matters separately.  Civ. L.R. 3-
12(a)(2). 
 
Dated: June 29, 2020  
 
 
 
 
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 
By: /s/ Ethan Dettmer 
 
Ethan D. Dettmer (SBN 196046) 
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 
San Francisco, CA 94105-0921 
Telephone: 415.393.8200 
Fax: 415.393.8306 
 
 
Attorneys for Defendant Plaid Inc. 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR   Document 38   Filed 06/29/20   Page 2 of 2

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cand.359040.38.0.pdf
Size: 159,997 bytes
SHA-256: ad0c2619c571e63a07deceffc7c6db926084c01180ecf621163a7f9aecefcf58
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cand.359040.38.0.pdf
Original: storage.courtlistener.com