Vance v. Google LLC

Background

The plaintiffs sued Google under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act and for unjust enrichment. They alleged that Google used IBM’s Diversity in Faces dataset, which allegedly contained the plaintiffs’ Flickr photographs.

On February 12, 2021, the court stayed this case while an earlier-filed related case against IBM proceeded in the Northern District of Illinois. The court’s original order required the parties to submit a joint status report within 14 days after the IBM case was resolved or on February 12, 2022, whichever came first.

The parties reported that the IBM case had taken longer than expected. Discovery issues remained pending there, and deadlines for amended pleadings, summary-judgment motions, and class-certification motions had not been set. The parties also described related cases against FaceFirst, Amazon, and Microsoft.

Parties’ Positions

The plaintiffs opposed extending the stay. They argued that the delay was becoming excessive, that the Amazon and Microsoft cases had proceeded without prejudice to their defendants, and that the risk of inconsistent rulings was small because some factual and legal issues differed among the cases.

Google supported extending the stay. It argued that the parties could obtain important discovery about the creation, content, and distribution of the dataset through the IBM case, and that proceeding simultaneously would require duplicative work, including third-party discovery involving IBM and Flickr. Google also argued that the cases presented overlapping defenses and legal questions about the interpretation of the Illinois statute, creating a risk of inconsistent rulings.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that district courts have discretion to stay proceedings and should weigh the possible harm from a stay, the hardship of requiring a party to proceed, and whether a stay would promote an orderly resolution of the issues, evidence, and legal questions.

The court found that the plaintiffs had identified no harm from a longer stay beyond additional delay, which it said was generally insufficient by itself. The court also found significant overlap between this case and the IBM case, making substantial duplication of work by the court and the parties likely if both cases proceeded in parallel. The plaintiffs’ identified differences did not persuade the court otherwise.

Disposition

The court extended the stay for six months, until August 15, 2022, or sooner if the IBM case was resolved before that date. The parties were ordered to submit a joint status report within 14 days after the IBM case was resolved or on August 15, 2022, whichever came first. The order addressed case management and did not resolve the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims against Google.