Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Plaid Privacy In re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation — N.D. Cal., No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR Declaration — In re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation (Dkt. 55-1, N.D. Cal. No. 4:20-cv-03056)

Court filing

Declaration — In re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation (Dkt. 55-1, N.D. Cal. No. 4:20-cv-03056)

Filed May 4, 2020 in In re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation; one of 174 filings from this case.

Record facts

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

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR · Doc. 55-1 · 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
 
 
 
DECLARATION OF ETHAN D. DETTMER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT PLAID INC.’S RESPONSE TO 
COTTLE PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 
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 
DECLARATION OF ETHAN D. DETTMER 
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT PLAID 
INC.’S RESPONSE TO COTTLE 
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 
TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT 
CONFERENCE 
Hon. Donna M. Ryu 
 
 
 
Action Filed: 
May 4, 2020 
Trial Date: 
None Set 
 
 
 
 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 55-1     Filed 07/28/20     Page 1 of 3

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 
DECLARATION OF ETHAN D. DETTMER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT PLAID INC.’S RESPONSE TO 
COTTLE PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
Gibson, Dunn & 
Crutcher LLP 
I, Ethan D. Dettmer, declare and state as follows: 
1. 
I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all courts of the State of California, 
and I am a member of the Bar of this Court.  I am a partner with the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & 
Crutcher LLP, counsel for defendant Plaid Inc. (“Plaid”) in this case.  I make this declaration in support 
of Plaid’s Response to the Cottle Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Continue Case Management 
Conference.  I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called to do so, I could and 
would competently testify about them. 
2. 
The Cottle Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on May 4, 2020.  ECF No. 1.  On May 5, 
2020, the Court scheduled the Initial CMC for August 5, 2020.  ECF No. 10.   
3. 
On May 21, 2020, I filed my notice of appearance in this matter and called counsel for 
the Cottle Plaintiffs, Shawn Kennedy, to discuss Plaid’s forthcoming response to the Complaint.  
Through several additional emails and phone calls, we agreed upon a Stipulation Extending Time to 
Respond to Complaint and Setting Briefing Schedule (ECF No. 35), which set Plaid’s deadline to 
respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as July 22, 2020. 
4. 
After that stipulation was filed, three related lawsuits were filed:  Mitchell v. Plaid Inc., 
3:20-cv-04230-SK (filed June 25, 2020), Curtis, et al. v. Plaid Inc., 4:20-cv-04344-DMR (filed June 
29, 2020), and Anderson, et al. v. Plaid Inc., 3:20-cv-04480-JSC (filed July 7, 2020). 
5. 
In response, I worked with Mr. Kennedy and counsel for the plaintiffs in each of those 
cases to ensure that these plaintiffs each filed motions to relate in the Cottle docket.  Plaid filed motions 
supporting each motion to relate, and I worked further with Mr. Kennedy to draft a new stipulation in 
light of the new complaints and allegations.  
6. 
On July 17, 2020, the parties to this action joined with all parties in the Mitchell, Curtis, 
and Anderson matters to file a new stipulation requesting that the Court consolidate those actions under 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) (the “Stipulation”).  ECF. No. 51.  The Stipulation provides: a 
structure for Plaintiffs’ lawyers to organize and interact with counsel for Plaid; that Plaintiffs will file 
a consolidated amended complaint one week after entry of the stipulation; and that Plaid will respond 
to that Consolidated Amended Complaint 40 days after it is filed.  The stipulation also sets a briefing 
schedule for Plaid’s anticipated motion to dismiss. 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 55-1     Filed 07/28/20     Page 2 of 3

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
 
 
2 
DECLARATION OF ETHAN D. DETTMER IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT PLAID INC.’S RESPONSE TO 
COTTLE PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 
CASE NO. 4:20-CV-03056-DMR 
Gibson, Dunn & 
Crutcher LLP 
7. 
On July 17, 2020, another related lawsuit was filed, making virtually identical claims:  
Evans, et al. v. Plaid Inc., 3:20-cv-04804-JSC.   
8. 
On July 24, 2020, a week after the Stipulation was filed, Mr. Kennedy sent an email 
requesting that we work together to file a new joint administrative motion or stipulation to outline the 
procedural status, and request that the Court grant the Stipulation and set a new case management 
conference (“CMC”) 30 days after ruling on the Stipulation.  I responded that we would discuss with 
our client and get back to him.  Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of my email 
correspondence with Shawn Kennedy on July 24, 2020 and July 27, 2020.   
9. 
On July 27, 2020, Mr. Kennedy replied to my email and requested an update.  I 
responded that Plaid would agree to “a further stipulation regarding consolidation and scheduling,” but 
I stated that Plaid’s position was “that efficiency will be much better served for the parties and the 
Court if the CMC is pushed back to after the ruling on the motion to dismiss,” and that the stipulation 
would “need to make that clear.”  I requested that Mr. Kennedy “[p]lease let me know if [he]’d like to 
discuss.”    
10. 
I did not receive any further communication from Mr. Kennedy before Plaintiffs filed 
their motion. 
 
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true 
and correct, and that this declaration was executed at San Anselmo, California on this 28th day of July, 
2020. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        
 /s/ Ethan D. Dettmer  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ethan D. Dettmer 
Case 4:20-cv-03056-DMR     Document 55-1     Filed 07/28/20     Page 3 of 3

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.cand.359040.55.1.pdf
Size
138,453 bytes
SHA-256
04140f531cabda2306959557c6bf96e3d42af3e62cdea24e88067d84a1b99a81
Our copy
gov.uscourts.cand.359040.55.1.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top