Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice — In re Plaid Inc. Privacy Litigation (Dkt. 113, N.D. Cal. No. 4:20-cv-03056)

Record facts

Full text

RJN ISO REPLY ISO MOT. TO DISMISS PLS’ 
CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT 
4:20-CV-3056-DMR 
 
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 
COOLEY LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
SAN FRANCISCO 
COOLEY LLP 
MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127) 
(rhodesmg@cooley.com) 
WHITTY SOMVICHIAN (194463) 
(wsomvichian@cooley.com) 
KYLE C. WONG (224021)  
(kwong@cooley.com) 
LAUREN J. POMEROY (291604) 
(lpomeroy@cooley.com) 
ELLIE BARCZAK (329180)  
(ebarczak@cooley.com) 
101 California Street, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 
Telephone: 
+1 415 693 2000 
Facsimile: 
+1 415 693 2222 
Attorneys for Defendant 
Plaid Inc. 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
OAKLAND DIVISION 
 
IN RE PLAID INC. PRIVACY LITIGATION 
 
_____________________________________ 
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 
  
                                         ALL ACTIONS 
Case No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR 
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL 
NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAID INC.’S 
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 
DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATED 
AMENDED COMPLAINT 
Date: 
TBA 
Time: 
1:00 p.m. 
Dept: 
Courtroom 4 – 3rd Floor 
Judge: 
Donna M. Ryu 
 
Trial Date: None Set 
Date Action Filed: May 4, 2020 
 
 
 

 
 
1 
RJN ISO REPLY ISO MOT. TO DISMISS PLS’ 
CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT 
4:20-CV-3056-DMR 
 
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 
COOLEY LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
SAN FRANCISCO 
I. 
DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO THIS REQUEST 
Plaid Inc. (“Plaid”) requests the Court take judicial notice of the following documents:  
1. 
Exhibit A: Plaid’s Privacy Policy as of March 26, 2015, effective November 11, 
2013, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20150326011404/https://www.plaid.com/legal/ 
2. 
Exhibit B: Plaid’s Privacy Policy as of October 10, 2014, effective November 11, 
2013, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20141010160817/www.plaid.com/legal/  
3. 
Exhibit C: Plaid’s Privacy Policy as of March 19, 2016, effective November 11, 
2013, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20160319102837/www.plaid.com/legal/  
4. 
Exhibit D: Plaid’s Privacy Policy as of September 19, 2015, effective November 
11, 2013, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20150919214748/www.plaid.com/legal/ 
5. 
Exhibit E: Plaid’s End User Privacy Policy as of January 1, 2019, effective June 
14, 2018, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20190101181607/https://plaid.com/legal/ 
6. 
Exhibit F: Plaid’s End User Policy as of May 30, 2019, effective May 29, 2019, 
available at https://web.archive.org/web/20190530174759/https://plaid.com/legal/#end-user-
privacy-policy 
7. 
Exhibit G: Plaid’s End User Privacy Policy as of January 1, 2020, effective 
December 30, 2019, available at 
https://web.archive.org/web/20200101210746/https://plaid.com/legal/ 
II. 
ARGUMENT 
Plaid requests that the Court take judicial notice of the above materials because they are 
relevant to considering the sufficiency of the claims in Plaintiff’s Consolidated Amended 
Complaint (“CAC”).  In connection with its Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 78), Plaid previously 
sought judicial notice of certain materials including its current Privacy Policy1, which is referenced 
and quoted at length in the CAC.  (ECF No. 81.)  Plaintiffs oppose judicial notice of those materials 
on the ground that different versions were in place when certain Plaintiffs linked their payments 
apps to their financial institutions.  (EFC No. 109.)  Plaid believes those objections are meritless 
given the heavy reliance placed on the current Plaid Link flow and current Privacy Policy in the 
 
1 In this motion, current means current as of December 11, 2020, the date of this filing.  

 
 
2 
RJN ISO REPLY ISO MOT. TO DISMISS PLS’ 
CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT 
4:20-CV-3056-DMR 
 
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 
COOLEY LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
SAN FRANCISCO 
CAC, and maintains the Court should consider the materials submitted in its initial Request for 
Judicial Notice.  In the event the Court wishes to review the prior versions of the Privacy Policy, 
Plaid seeks judicial notice of the documents listed herein, which show that the prior versions of 
Plaid’s Privacy Policy contain the same materials terms as the current version for purposes of 
assessing the consent issues raised in Plaid’s Motion to Dismiss. 
Exhibits A-G are subject to judicial notice because they are publicly available documents 
currently accessible through the Wayback Machine website of the Internet Archive.  In general, a 
court may take judicial notice of facts “not subject to reasonable dispute” that are either (1) 
“generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction”; or (2) “can be accurately and 
readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”  Fed. R. Evid. 
201(b).  Courts routinely take judicial notice of website contents because they are capable of “ready 
and accurate determination.”  See, e.g., Frances Kenny Family Tr. v. World Savs. Bank FSB, No. 
04-cv-3724, 2005 WL 106792, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2005) (taking judicial notice of content 
on plaintiffs’ website); Denius v. Dunlap, 330 F.3d 919, 926 (7th Cir. 2003) (district court abused 
discretion by denying party’s request for judicial notice of information on government agency’s 
website); Caldwell v. Caldwell, No. C 05-4166 PJH, 2006 WL 618511, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 
2006); Opperman v. Path, Inc., 205 F. Supp. 3d 1064, 1069 n.3 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (taking judicial 
notice of online policies as they “were publicly available on [a] website and their existence [could 
not] reasonably be questioned”); Kinderstart.com, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. C 06-2057 JF (RS), 
2007 WL 831806, at *21 n.20 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2007) (taking judicial notice of “web-page 
printouts”); Datel Holdings Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., 712 F. Supp. 2d 974, 983, 985 (N.D. Cal. 2010) 
(taking judicial notice of Microsoft’s software license, Terms of Use, and website printouts).   
Court take judicial notice specifically of policies “available through the Wayback Machine 
as facts that can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot 
reasonably be questioned.”  E.g., Erickson v. Neb. Mach. Co., No. 15-cv-1147, 2015 WL 4089849, 
at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2015) (citations omitted); see Sabatini v. Price, No. 17-cv-1597, 2018 
WL 1638258, at *5 n.6 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2018), aff'd sub nom. Sabatini v. Azar, 749 F. App’x 588 
(9th Cir. 2019) (taking judicial notice of website via Wayback Machine for the purpose of 

 
 
3 
RJN ISO REPLY ISO MOT. TO DISMISS PLS’ 
CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT 
4:20-CV-3056-DMR 
 
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 
COOLEY LLP 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
SAN FRANCISCO 
identifying information that was available to plaintiff); Craigslist, Inc. v. DealerCMO, Inc., No. 
16-cv-1451-VC, 2017 WL 6334142, at *3 n.3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2017) (“it is likely . . . appropriate 
to take judicial notice of the appearance of the listed websites in the past,” based on the Wayback 
Machine) (citation omitted); United States ex rel. Hong v. Newport Sensors, Inc., No. 13-cv-1164-
JLS (JPRx), 2016 WL 8929246, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2016) (“district courts in this circuit have 
routinely taken judicial notice of content from the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine pursuant 
to this rule, as we do here”) (collecting cases).; UL LLC v. Space Chariot Inc., 250 F. Supp. 3d 596, 
604 n.2 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (collecting cases).  Exhibits A-G are historical versions of Plaid’s Privacy 
Policy available on the Wayback Machine at the specific URLS noted above and are properly 
subject to judicial notice under this established precedent.  Moreover, Plaintiffs’ CAC directly 
quotes from Plaid’s 2016 Privacy Policy and pulled this document from the WayBack Machine.  
CAC ¶ 90, n.70.  Plaintiffs can hardly object to the authenticity or provenance of a website on 
which they base their own allegations.  Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005)(a 
court must consider documents not attached to a pleading if they are incorporated by reference); 
Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998) (courts may consider documents on which 
the complaint “necessarily relies.”). 
As noted in the Somvichian Declaration in support of this Request, Exhibits A-G were in 
place when Plaintiffs allegedly linked their payment apps to their financial institutions and contain 
materially the same disclosures as the current Privacy Policy.  
III. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, Plaid respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice 
Exhibits A-G to the Somvichian Declaration. 
 
Dated: December 11, 2020 
 
COOLEY LLP 
By:  /s/ Whitty Somvichian 
Whitty Somvichian 
Attorneys for Defendant Plaid Inc. 
 
 239552317

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.113.0.pdf

Size

187,018 bytes

SHA-256

05af734a0e04b585aa813dfcf1e584c5ed1c7460fc82e5ea322cf783355ccca8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.359040.113.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com