Lamb v. Forbes Media LLC

Background

Joseph Lamb and Amber Stouffe brought a putative class action against Forbes Media LLC, alleging that Forbes disclosed their personally identifiable information to third-party social-media sites in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). The court had previously granted Forbes’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

The earlier dismissal concluded that the Plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that they were “subscribers” protected by the VPPA. The court stated that neither Plaintiff alleged that use or viewing of Forbes’s video offerings was connected to the Plaintiff’s Forbes subscription or account.

Motion to Stay

Instead of filing a third amended complaint, Plaintiffs moved to stay the case while the Second Circuit considered a related appeal involving whether plaintiffs qualified as VPPA “subscribers.” Plaintiffs argued that the appeal could resolve an important legal issue underlying the earlier dismissal.

The court considered the parties’ interests, the burden on Forbes, the interests of the courts and nonparties, and the public interest. It found that Forbes would not be unduly prejudiced because no discovery obligations had been imposed and the case had already been dismissed. The court also reasoned that the Second Circuit’s decision could provide guidance, promote judicial efficiency, and reduce the risk of inconsistent rulings or unnecessary litigation.

Ruling

Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr. granted Plaintiffs’ motion to stay this action during the pendency of the related appeal. The order did not decide whether Plaintiffs qualify as VPPA subscribers and did not revisit the merits of the earlier dismissal.