Czarnionka v. The Epoch Times Association, Inc.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:22-cv-06348
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Czarnionka v. The Epoch Times Association, Judge Hellerstein denied the defendant’s request to immediately appeal the court’s ruling.
The Epoch Times Association’s request for an immediate appeal was denied; the opinion states that the underlying case involved Lawrence Czarnionka and similarly situated individuals.
What happened
Lawrence Czarnionka sued The Epoch Times Association under the federal Video Privacy Protection Act, alleging that it disclosed personally identifying information. The court had previously denied The Epoch Times Association’s request to dismiss the complaint.
The Epoch Times Association asked the court to allow an immediate appeal of the part of that earlier ruling concerning whether a Facebook identification number was personally identifying information. It argued that the court should use an “ordinary person” standard and that the complaint would not adequately allege disclosure under that standard.
Judge Hellerstein denied the request. He said that even under the proposed standard, the Facebook identification number could allow an ordinary person to identify the plaintiff and similar individuals, so an immediate appeal would not resolve the case.
The detailed version
- Czarnionka v. The Epoch Times Association, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-06348
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Dec. 15, 2022
Background
Lawrence Czarnionka brought the action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against The Epoch Times Association, Inc. The complaint asserts a claim under the federal Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710. On November 17, 2022, the court denied The Epoch Times Association’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
The Requested Immediate Appeal
The Epoch Times Association moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to certify part of the earlier order for interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the district court case is finished. The requested appeal concerned whether, in deciding if personally identifying information had been disclosed under the Act, the court should refer to an “ordinary person” or to the particular recipient of the information.
The defendant argued that applying the “ordinary person” standard would mean Czarnionka had not adequately alleged disclosure of personally identifying information.
Court’s Analysis
The court rejected that argument. Judge Hellerstein stated that even if the court expressly adopted the “ordinary person” standard, it would still find that the complaint adequately alleged disclosure. The Facebook identification number disclosed by The Epoch Times Association could identify Czarnionka and similarly situated individuals simply by entering it into a web browser using the Facebook website address.
The court distinguished the Facebook identification number from anonymized device serial numbers and Internet Protocol addresses, which courts had found did not qualify as personally identifying information under the ordinary-person standard because they generally required additional information to identify an individual. The court said that the Facebook identification number itself represented a particular individual and readily permitted an ordinary person to identify that individual’s video-watching behavior.
Ruling
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied The Epoch Times Association’s motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the open motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.