Malinowski v. International Business Machines Corporation
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-08421
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Malinowski v. International Business Machines, Judge Roman denied without prejudice a joint motion to consolidate related data-breach class actions.
The ruling affects Elaine Malinowski, Michele Pettiford, International Business Machines Corporation, Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc., and the proposed class-action proceedings because the requested consolidation was not granted and the parties must clarify and renew the request.
What happened
Malinowski v. International Business Machines Corporation concerns two proposed class actions against International Business Machines Corporation and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. The cases involve an alleged August 2, 2023 data breach and similar claims about exposed personal information.
Elaine Malinowski and Michele Pettiford jointly sought to consolidate the cases for coordinated motions, discovery, and trial proceedings. The filing also referred to other data-breach cases that had already been consolidated, creating uncertainty about which cases the parties wanted combined and which judge should receive the request.
Judge Nelson S. Roman denied the motion without prejudice to renew. He directed the parties to submit a renewed motion clarifying the intended recipient and the scope of the consolidation request, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 3.
The detailed version
- Malinowski v. International Business Machines Corporation · No. 7:23-cv-08421
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 20, 2023
Background
The filing concerns a joint request by Elaine Malinowski and another named plaintiff in a related case, Michele Pettiford, to consolidate two recently filed proposed class actions. The cases name International Business Machines Corporation and Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. as defendants and allege that a data breach around August 2, 2023 exposed personal information maintained by the defendants.
The parties asserted that the cases involved the same event, the same defendants, and similar legal theories. They proposed coordinated motion practice, discovery, and trial proceedings. They also proposed filing a schedule for an amended consolidated complaint, the defendants’ response, and appointment of interim lead class counsel. The filing stated that neither plaintiff had yet served the complaint.
Court’s Action
The parties’ joint motion to consolidate was denied without prejudice to renew. Judge Nelson S. Roman explained that the motion was addressed to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan and appeared to seek consolidation of cases arising from the same data breach as cases already consolidated before Judge Kaplan. The motion also referred both to consolidating “all five” cases and to consolidating the two cases identified in the letter’s subject line.
The court directed the parties to submit a renewed motion clarifying the intended recipient and the scope of the requested consolidation. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 3. The opinion does not decide the underlying data-breach claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.