Court filing

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 49 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related… — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 50)

Summary

Plaid Inc.'s Response in Support of Anderson Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related, Document 50, filed 07/17/20 in James Cottle, et al. v. Plaid Inc., No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR (N.D. Cal.). The response says that on July 17, 2020 Carrie Anderson, Brian McCrudden and Jeffrey Schwedock, called the Anderson Plaintiffs, asked the court to relate this case to Anderson, et al. v. Plaid Inc. (N.D. Cal.), citing Dkt. No. 49. Plaid Inc. states that it supports the motion because the putative nationwide class is identical and the Anderson action includes a subset of the causes of action alleged in Cottle. It also states that relation would avoid duplicated labor and expense. The two-page response is signed /s/ Ethan Dettmer for Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

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

Filed May 4, 2020 in Plaid Privacy; one of 285 filings from this case.

Record facts

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

Cite this document

“OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 49 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related… — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 50).” U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR, Doc. 50, 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-359040-50-0-gov-uscourts-cand-359040-50-0/, SHA-256 0459815e6f8797575f25799c375ed3e9092c1b0488dd95bd213be6f26634c723.

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 ANDERSON PLAINTIFFS’ 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., 
Plaintiffs, 
v. 
PLAID INC., 
Defendant. 
CASE NO. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR 
DEFENDANT PLAID INC.’S RESPONSE IN 
SUPPORT OF ANDERSON PLAINTIFFS’ 
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 50     Filed 07/17/20     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 ANDERSON PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE 
MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED - CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
Gibson, Dunn & 
Crutcher LLP 
On July 17, 2020, Plaintiffs Carrie Anderson, Brian McCrudden, and Jeffrey Schwedock (the 
“Anderson Plaintiffs”) filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related, 
arguing that the above-captioned case is related to Anderson, et al. v. Plaid Inc., No. 3:20-cv-04480-
JSC (N.D. Cal.).  See Dkt. No. 49.  
Plaid Inc. supports the Anderson Plaintiffs’ 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 nationwide class is identical.  Moreover, the two actions involve similar legal theories, and 
the Anderson action includes a subset of the causes of action alleged in Cottle.  Further, both 
complaints allege similar facts relating to Plaid’s supposed violations of 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: July 17, 2020  
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
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 50     Filed 07/17/20     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cand.359040.50.0.pdf
Size: 160,130 bytes
SHA-256: 0459815e6f8797575f25799c375ed3e9092c1b0488dd95bd213be6f26634c723
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cand.359040.50.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)