OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 52 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related… — Plaid Privacy (Dkt. 53)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR · Doc. 53 · 2020-05-04 · Docket on CourtListener

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 EVANS 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 EVANS 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 53     Filed 07/23/20     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 EVANS PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 
TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED - CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
Gibson, Dunn & 
Crutcher LLP 
On July 22, 2020, Plaintiffs David Evans, Patrick Lenahen, Adam Smotkin, and Oswaldo 
Herrera (the “Evans Plaintiffs”) filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should 
be Related, arguing that the above-captioned case is related to Evans, et al. v. Plaid Inc., No. 3:20-cv-
04804-JSC (N.D. Cal.).  See Dkt. No. 52.  
Plaid Inc. supports the Evans 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 classes 
are nearly identical.  Moreover, the two actions involve similar legal theories, and the Evans 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 23, 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 53     Filed 07/23/20     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.53.0.pdf

Size

160,488 bytes

SHA-256

0789704930b2ee5dca1e174f4d5ac59415f0cd36fbaa0045751835dfbdca479c

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.53.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)