In re: Google Location History Litigation
- Edward Davila
- 5:18-cv-05062
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In re: Google Location History Litigation: Judge Davila denied plaintiffs’ request to seek reconsideration of an earlier dismissal involving privacy claims.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs seeking reconsideration and Google LLC, the defendant whose earlier motion to dismiss had been granted.
What happened
In re: Google Location History Litigation concerns plaintiffs’ request to seek reconsideration of an earlier order dismissing claims against Google LLC. That earlier order dismissed the California Invasion of Privacy Act claim with prejudice and dismissed the California constitutional and common-law privacy claims with leave to amend.
Plaintiffs argued that a later Ninth Circuit decision involving Facebook changed the law and supported reconsideration. The court disagreed, explaining that the Facebook decision addressed a different type of California privacy claim and did not undermine the earlier ruling about geolocation tracking or prevent plaintiffs from adding details to their other privacy claims.
The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Judge Edward J. Davila concluded that plaintiffs had not shown the required grounds for reconsideration.
The detailed version
- In re: Google Location History Litigation · No. 5:18-cv-05062
- Edward Davila
- June 3, 2020
Background
The court had previously granted Google LLC’s motion to dismiss. That earlier order dismissed plaintiffs’ California Invasion of Privacy Act claim with prejudice and dismissed their California constitutional and common-law privacy claims with leave to amend. Plaintiffs then asked for permission to file a motion seeking reconsideration, relying on a later Ninth Circuit decision concerning Facebook’s alleged internet tracking.
Legal standard
Under the Northern District of California’s local rules, permission to seek reconsideration may be appropriate if there is a material difference in fact or law, clear error or manifest injustice in the earlier decision, or new material facts or a material change in law after the earlier order. The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that the Facebook decision did not create a material change in law supporting reconsideration. The Facebook case addressed a different California Invasion of Privacy Act theory involving wiretapping under California Penal Code section 631(a), while the earlier Google case addressed geolocation tracking under section 637.7. The court also stated that, even if it had erred in finding that the complaint did not allege that Google “tracked” users’ movements, that issue was separate from its conclusion that the statute did not cover the alleged attachment of an electronic tracking device to a vehicle or other movable thing.
The court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument as to the California constitutional and common-law privacy claims. It explained that the earlier dismissal order did not prevent plaintiffs from amending their complaint to add details alleging that the geolocation tracking and collection were comprehensive and involved sensitive and confidential information.
Disposition
The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. This order did not itself reconsider the earlier dismissal. It left the prior dispositions in place: the California Invasion of Privacy Act claim had been dismissed with prejudice, while the California constitutional and common-law privacy claims had been dismissed with leave to amend.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.