In re Google Inc. Street View Electronic Communications Litigation

10 Citing briefs

  1. Holland et al v. Yahoo! Inc.

    RESPONSE

    Filed March 26, 2014

    The court added that it “respectfully disagrees with Judge Ware that the Federal Wiretap Act, as amended by the ECPA, reflects a preemptive balancing by Congress ‘between the right to the privacy of one’s electronic communications against the ability of users to access communications technologies without fear of liability for inadvertent interception’” because “[t]hat balance is only one narrow aspect of the Act.” Id. (quoting Google Street View, 794 F.Supp.2d at 1085). “[T]he Senate Report explains that the overarching purpose of ECPA was to strike ‘a fair balance between the privacy expectations of American citizens and the legitimate needs of law enforcement agencies,’” which “does Case5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document39 Filed03/26/14 Page28 of 32 23 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT YAHOO!

  2. Holland et al v. Yahoo! Inc.

    MOTION to Dismiss; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof

    Filed March 5, 2014

    As such, it is apparent. . .‘that Congress ‘left no room’ for supplementary state regulation.’” Bunnell, 567 F. Supp. 2d at 1154; see also In re Google, 794 F. Supp. 2d at 1085; Quon, 445 F. Supp. 2d at 1137-38, rev’d on other 13None of these cases involved the issue of a defendant intentionally accessing communications on its servers with the consent of one of the participants. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION TO DISMISS 20 CASE NO. 5:13-CV 10-4980 LHK sf-3388413 grounds by 529 F.3d 892 and 130 S. Ct. 2619 (2010).

  3. Henry T. Lau, Appellant,v.Margaret E. Pescatore Parking, Inc. et al., Respondents.

    Brief

    Filed November 16, 2017

    "]). Google Maps' Street View feature consists of "panoramic, street-level photographs ... captured by cameras mounted on vehicles owned by Google that drive on public roads and photograph their surroundings" (Joffe v. Google, Inc., No. 11-17483, 2013 WL 6905957, at *1 ([9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2013], aff'g In re Google Inc. St. View Elec. Commc'n Litig., 794 F. Supp. 2d 1067 [N.D. Cal. 2011]) [rejecting Wiretap Act challenges to Street View based on its collection of Wi-Fi information]). As a result, Google Maps Street 18 View is not some sort of computer simulation.

  4. Smith et al v. Facebook, Inc. et al

    REPLY

    Filed August 22, 2016

    See PB 26; DB 24 n.16. Plaintiffs disregard the fundamental flaw in those cases: that a patchwork of Case 5:16-cv-01282-EJD Document 109 Filed 08/22/16 Page 26 of 36 20 DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO. 5:16-cv-01282-EJD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 conflicting state causes of action would undermine the careful balance struck by Congress between privacy rights and free access to communications technologies, see Google Street View, 794 F. Supp. 2d at 1085—an objective whose importance is illustrated here. See DB 24.

  5. Smith et al v. Facebook, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed August 1, 2016

    Moreover, to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, no court has ever held that the federal Wiretap Act pre-empts traditional common law claims that pre-dated the Act’s creation in 1968. See In re: Google Street View, 794 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1085-86 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (Wiretap does not pre-empt non-CIPA cause-of-action). Case 5:16-cv-01282-EJD Document 105 Filed 08/01/16 Page 35 of 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27 5:16-cv-01282-EJD PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Extra-territoriality – There’s nothing extra-territorial about CIPA’s application to this case.

  6. Raney v. Twitter, Inc.

    MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Class Action Complaint

    Filed November 9, 2015

    Reflecting these legislative concerns, courts have found that the Wiretap Act preempts overlapping state law regulations of electronic communications. See In re Google, Inc. Street View Elec. Commc’ns Litig., 794 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1084-85 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (holding that the Wiretap Act preempts state wiretap statutes because the statute “comprehensively regulate[s] the interception of electronic communications such that the scheme leaves no room in which the states may further regulate.”); Bunnell, 567 F. Supp. 2d at 1154 (The Wiretap Act preempts CIPA claim regarding access to emails).

  7. Holland et al v. Yahoo! Inc.

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed September 19, 2015

    People v. Conklin, 12 Cal. 3d 259, 273 (1974) (holding 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520 did not preempt Cal. Penal Code § 631); In re Google Inc. Street View Elec. Commc’ns Litig., 794 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (“the federal Wiretap Act preempts state wiretap statutory schemes); Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., Inc., 445 F. Supp. 2d 1116, 1138 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (holding the SCA “displaces state law claims for conduct that is touched upon by the statute”). Case 5:13-cv-04980-LHK Document 135 Filed 09/19/15 Page 28 of 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 YAHOO! INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 21 CASE NO. 13-CV-4980-LHK sf-3576875 is forbidden or required.

  8. Kenny et al v. Carrier IQ, Inc et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed August 21, 2014

    See Zynga, 750 F.3d at 1106 (“Accordingly, we hold that under ECPA, the term ‘contents’ refers to the intended message conveyed by the communication, and does not include record information regarding the characteristics of the message that is generated in the course of the communication.”); see also In re Google Inc. St. View Elec. Commc’ns Litig., 794 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1071-72, 1082 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (refusing to dismiss claims for violation of the Federal Wiretap Act where “data packets” previously described as containing “whole emails, usernames, passwords and other private data” were “arguably electronic communications,” and stating that “Plaintiffs pl[ed] facts sufficient to state a claim for violation of the Wiretap Act.”).

  9. Penkava v. Yahoo!, Inc.

    MOTION to Dismiss or in the Alternative, MOTION to Strike Class Action Allegations in First Amended Complaint

    Filed October 30, 2012

    Finally, though federal courts in California have split over whether ECPA preempts the CIPA, none of those cases considered the unique issue here—whether ECPA preempts parallel state legislation regulating the conduct of email providers when providing nationwide electronic communications services. Compare In re Google Inc. Street View Elec. Commc’ns Litig., 794 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1084-85 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (holding that ECPA preempts the CIPA); Bunnell, 567 F. Supp. 2d at 1154 (same), with Shively v. Carrier IQ, Inc., No. C-12-0290 EMC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103237 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2012) (holding that ECPA does not preempt the CIPA); Valentine v. NebuAd, Inc., 804 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (N.D. Cal 2011) (same).

  10. In re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation

    MOTION to Appoint Counsel Application of Elizabeth J. Cabraser for Appointment to the Lead Counsel Committee as a Co-Lead Counsel. Document

    Filed July 28, 2014

    , Liaison Counsel/Executive Committee; In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2151 (C.D. Ca.), Co-Lead Counsel for Personal Injury/Wrongful Death Claims; In re Oil Spill By the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” In the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL No. 2179 (E.D. LA.), Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee/Class Counsel; In re Google Inc. Street View Electronic Communications Litigation, MDL 2184 (N.D. Cal.), Liaison Counsel/Executive Commitee; and In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Foreign Exchange Transactions Litigation, MDL 2335 (S.D.N.Y.), Liaison Counsel/Executive Committee. My substantive role in these cases typically involves briefing, legal analysis, strategy, and oral argument at the trial and appellate levels.