Vance v. Google LLC

Background

This case is a privacy class action under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The plaintiffs allege that Google received the “Diversity in Faces” dataset from International Business Machines Corporation. The plaintiffs had also sued IBM in an earlier Illinois case and brought related actions involving other companies in other federal courts.

On February 21, 2021, the court stayed this case because it shared significant factual and legal questions with the earlier IBM case. The court later extended the stay for six months so the parties in that case could complete discovery and address overlapping issues. In an August 15, 2022 joint status report, the parties informed the court that fact discovery in the IBM case was still ongoing.

Positions of the Parties

Google requested another extension of the stay. Google argued that the plaintiffs would not suffer significant harm and that it would take reasonable steps to preserve relevant evidence. Google also argued that lifting the stay could result in duplicated work and inconsistent rulings across the related cases.

The plaintiffs disputed Google’s supporting arguments but took no position on whether the court should extend the stay. They argued that the continuing stay could become open-ended because no discovery schedule had been set in the IBM case. They also argued that the cases had limited factual overlap and that delaying this case could create problems involving the repetition or use of discovery from the other cases.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the factors governing a discretionary stay of proceedings. Those factors consider: possible harm from the stay; hardship or unfairness if the case proceeds; and whether a stay would promote the orderly administration of justice by simplifying or avoiding duplicated issues, evidence, or legal questions.

The court relied on its earlier findings that the second and third factors supported staying the case. Although the related cases involved different parties and had factual differences, the court found enough overlap in the facts and law to create a risk of duplicated efforts or inconsistent results if the cases proceeded at the same time. The plaintiffs had not provided enough detail about the factual differences to persuade the court to reconsider that finding.

The court also found that the plaintiffs had shown only minimal prejudice from extending the stay. It concluded that this prejudice did not outweigh the other factors supporting a stay.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman extended the stay until February 27, 2023. The parties were ordered to submit a joint status report within 14 days after the earlier IBM case was resolved or on February 27, 2023, whichever came first. The court vacated the scheduled final pretrial conference and trial dates and stated that the schedule would be reset when the stay was lifted.