Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings In re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation — N.D. Cal., No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 37 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Re…

Court filing

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 37 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related… — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 39)

Summary

Defendant Plaid Inc.'s Response in Support of Plaintiff Mitchell's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, Document 39, filed 06/30/20 in James Cottle, et al. v. Plaid Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The response states that Plaintiff Logan Mitchell filed the motion on June 26, 2020, arguing that this case relates to Mitchell v. Plaid Inc., No 3:20-cv-04230-SK (N.D. Cal.). Plaid Inc. supports the motion under Civ. L.R. 3-12(a)(1), (2), stating that the two actions involve the same defendant, nearly identical putative classes and similar legal theories. It argues that relating the actions will promote efficiency and prevent inconsistent results. The two-page response is signed /s/ Ethan Dettmer and dated June 30, 2020.

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

CourtU.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Filed2020-05-04

Cite this document

“OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 37 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related… — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 39).” U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR, Doc. 39, 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-359040-39-0-doc-39/, SHA-256 4a2493830b2a1ff04d81e22af0e4e2c9130a2befc9398d79bc2597418c356464.

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 
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 39   Filed 06/30/20   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-SK (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 30, 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 39   Filed 06/30/20   Page 2 of 2

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.cand.359040.39.0.pdf
Size
160,072 bytes
SHA-256
4a2493830b2a1ff04d81e22af0e4e2c9130a2befc9398d79bc2597418c356464
Our copy
gov.uscourts.cand.359040.39.0.pdf
Original
storage.courtlistener.com
Back to top