The Honorable James L. Robart WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON MEREDITH BEAGLE and JORDAN No. 2:24-cv-00316-JLR GUERRERO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR Plaintiffs, CONSOLIDATION, FILING OF v. COMPLAINT, AND SCHEDULE FOR ANSWER OR MOTION TO DISMISS. AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON.COM NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: APRIL 26, 2024 Defendants. SOFAUNA JOHNSON, individually and on No. 2:24-cv-00424-JLR behalf of all others similarly situated, STIPULATED MOTION AND Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR CONSOLIDATION, FILING OF v. CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND SCHEDULE FOR AMAZON.COM, INC. ANSWER OR MOTION TO DISMISS. Defendant. NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: APRIL 26, 2024 Pursuant to Local Civil Rules 10(g) and 42(b), and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6 and 42, the Parties stipulate and agree as follows: 1. The above-captioned proposed class actions (“Beagle and Johnson”) each allege claims against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC (collectively “Amazon”)1 based on Amazon’s alleged disclosure of customers’ personally identifiable information (“PII”) related to their use of Prime Video streaming services. See Beagle v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00316-JLR, Dkt. 1 (“Beagle Compl.”); Johnson v. Amazon.com, Inc.,Case No. 2:24-cv-00424-JLR, Dkt. 1 (“Johnson Compl.”). Plaintiffs in Beagle allege that such disclosures violate the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86 et seq. See Beagle Compl. The Plaintiff in Johnson alleges that such disclosures violate California Civil Code § 1799.3. See Johnson Compl. 2. Both cases are putative class actions with overlapping classes, in which the California class in the later-filed Johnson complaint consists of a subset of the nationwide class in the earlier-filed Beagle complaint. See Beagle Compl. ¶ 109 (defining putative class as “[a]ll persons nationwide who have rented, purchased, or streamed audiovisual content from Amazon Prime…”); Johnson Compl. ¶ 62 (defining putative class as “all persons in the State of California who have Prime Video and amazon.com accounts, and viewed videos on Prime Video”). 3. Recognizing the similarities between the cases, Amazon filed notices of related case in both Beagle and Johnson pursuant to LCR 3(g). See Beagle Dkt. 26; Johnson Dkt. 13. 4. Counsel for Amazon and counsel for the Plaintiffs in both Beagle and Johnson have conferred about consolidating the two actions. Plaintiffs and Amazon agree that consolidation of the Beagle and Johnson actions is appropriate because the actions involve materially similar allegations and consolidationwill result in substantial efficiencies in managing both cases. See Doe v. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Ctr., No. 2:23-cv-01893-JHC, 2024 WL 69881, 1 The Johnson Complaint lists Amazon.com, Inc. as the defendant in the caption, but the body of the complaint and the civil cover sheet state that Plaintiff asserts her claims against Amazon.com Services LLC. See Johnson Compl. ] | at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 5, 2024) (“Consolidation is appropriate [where] ... the [two] actions present common questions of law and fact and there are substantial efficiencies to be gained.”). 5. Because consolidation will require the filing of a consolidated amended complaint, the Parties have discussed and agreed upon a schedule for filing the consolidated ) amended complaint and a briefing schedule on Amazon’s anticipated motion to dismiss. 6. Based on the foregoing, the Parties stipulate and agree as follows, subject to the Court’s approval: The Beagle and Johnson actions shall be consolidated under the earlier-filed Beagle case number; Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated amended complaint within 30 days of the Court’s order granting this stipulation to consolidate; =» Amazon shall file its response within 30 days after Plaintiffs file the consolidated amended complaint; « Plaintiffs’ opposition to any motion to dismiss by Amazon shall be due 30 days after the filing of Amazon’s motion to dismiss; =» Amazon shall file any reply in support of its motion to dismiss within 14 days after the filing of Plaintiffs’ response. 7. Further, since consolidation impacts the parties and counsel involved in the Rule 26 conferral, disclosures, and report, the Parties further agree and stipulate (subject to the Court’s approval) to continue the deadlines set forth in the Beagle Court’s Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement (“Initial Scheduling Order,” Dkt. 28). The Parties stipulate and agree to vacate the deadlines in the Initial Scheduling Order and request that the Court issue a renewed Initial Scheduling Order after it resolves Amazon’s anticipated motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, to the extent any claims survive. 8. The parties have previously sought and obtained one prior extension of time in this matter. The only deadlines or case event dates that will be impacted by this stipulated STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR Davis Wright Tremaine LLP CONSOLIDATION AND SETTING DEADLINES- 3 on □ ees s300
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
The Honorable James L. Robart WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON MEREDITH BEAGLE and JORDAN No. 2:24-cv-00316-JLR GUERRERO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, STIPULATED MOTION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR Plaintiffs, CONSOLIDATION, FILING OF v. COMPLAINT, AND SCHEDULE FOR ANSWER OR MOTION TO DISMISS. AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON.COM NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: APRIL 26, 2024 Defendants. SOFAUNA JOHNSON, individually and on No. 2:24-cv-00424-JLR behalf of all others similarly situated, STIPULATED MOTION AND Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR CONSOLIDATION, FILING OF v. CONSOLIDATED AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND SCHEDULE FOR AMAZON.COM, INC. ANSWER OR MOTION TO DISMISS. Defendant. NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: APRIL 26, 2024 Pursuant to Local Civil Rules 10(g) and 42(b), and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6 and 42, the Parties stipulate and agree as follows: 1. The above-captioned proposed class actions (“Beagle and Johnson”) each allege claims against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC (collectively “Amazon”)1 based on Amazon’s alleged disclosure of customers’ personally identifiable information (“PII”) related to their use of Prime Video streaming services. See Beagle v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00316-JLR, Dkt. 1 (“Beagle Compl.”); Johnson v. Amazon.com, Inc.,Case No. 2:24-cv-00424-JLR, Dkt. 1 (“Johnson Compl.”). Plaintiffs in Beagle allege that such disclosures violate the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86 et seq. See Beagle Compl. The Plaintiff in Johnson alleges that such disclosures violate California Civil Code § 1799.3. See Johnson Compl. 2. Both cases are putative class actions with overlapping classes, in which the California class in the later-filed Johnson complaint consists of a subset of the nationwide class in the earlier-filed Beagle complaint. See Beagle Compl. ¶ 109 (defining putative class as “[a]ll persons nationwide who have rented, purchased, or streamed audiovisual content from Amazon Prime…”); Johnson Compl. ¶ 62 (defining putative class as “all persons in the State of California who have Prime Video and amazon.com accounts, and viewed videos on Prime Video”). 3. Recognizing the similarities between the cases, Amazon filed notices of related case in both Beagle and Johnson pursuant to LCR 3(g). See Beagle Dkt. 26; Johnson Dkt. 13. 4. Counsel for Amazon and counsel for the Plaintiffs in both Beagle and Johnson have conferred about consolidating the two actions. Plaintiffs and Amazon agree that consolidation of the Beagle and Johnson actions is appropriate because the actions involve materially similar allegations and consolidationwill result in substantial efficiencies in managing both cases. See Doe v. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Ctr., No. 2:23-cv-01893-JHC, 2024 WL 69881, 1 The Johnson Complaint lists Amazon.com, Inc. as the defendant in the caption, but the body of the complaint and the civil cover sheet state that Plaintiff asserts her claims against Amazon.com Services LLC. See Johnson Compl. ] | at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 5, 2024) (“Consolidation is appropriate [where] ... the [two] actions present common questions of law and fact and there are substantial efficiencies to be gained.”). 5. Because consolidation will require the filing of a consolidated amended complaint, the Parties have discussed and agreed upon a schedule for filing the consolidated ) amended complaint and a briefing schedule on Amazon’s anticipated motion to dismiss. 6. Based on the foregoing, the Parties stipulate and agree as follows, subject to the Court’s approval: The Beagle and Johnson actions shall be consolidated under the earlier-filed Beagle case number; Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated amended complaint within 30 days of the Court’s order granting this stipulation to consolidate; =» Amazon shall file its response within 30 days after Plaintiffs file the consolidated amended complaint; « Plaintiffs’ opposition to any motion to dismiss by Amazon shall be due 30 days after the filing of Amazon’s motion to dismiss; =» Amazon shall file any reply in support of its motion to dismiss within 14 days after the filing of Plaintiffs’ response. 7. Further, since consolidation impacts the parties and counsel involved in the Rule 26 conferral, disclosures, and report, the Parties further agree and stipulate (subject to the Court’s approval) to continue the deadlines set forth in the Beagle Court’s Order Regarding Initial Disclosures, Joint Status Report, and Early Settlement (“Initial Scheduling Order,” Dkt. 28). The Parties stipulate and agree to vacate the deadlines in the Initial Scheduling Order and request that the Court issue a renewed Initial Scheduling Order after it resolves Amazon’s anticipated motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, to the extent any claims survive. 8. The parties have previously sought and obtained one prior extension of time in this matter. The only deadlines or case event dates that will be impacted by this stipulated STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR Davis Wright Tremaine LLP CONSOLIDATION AND SETTING DEADLINES- 3 on □ ees s300
extension concern the deadline for Amazon to respond to the Complaint and associated briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss, and the deadlines in the Initial Scheduling Order (Dkt. 28). DATED this 24th day of April, 2024. BURNS CHAREST LLP DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP By _s/ Amanda K. Klevorn____ By s/ John Goldmark Amanda K. Klevorn, pro hac vice John Goldmark, WSBA #40980 Korey A. Nelson, pro hac vice Lauren B. Rainwater, WSBA #43625 Laura S. Seggerman, pro hac vice Erwin Reschke, pro hac vice 365 Canal Street, Suite 1170 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 New Orleans, LA 70130 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 757-8136 Telephone: (504) 799-2845 Email: JohnGoldmark@dwt.com Facsimile: (504) 881-1765 Email: LaurenRainwater@dwt.com Email: aklevorn@burnscharest.com Email: ErwinReschke@dwt.com Email: knelson@burnscharest.com Email: lseggerman@burnscharest.com Counsel for Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC Cristina Delise, pro hac vice 757 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 CARSON NOEL PLLC Facsimile: (469) 444-5002 Email: cdelise@burnscharest.com By _s/ Wright A. Noel__________ Wright A. Noel DUNCAN LAW, PLLC 20 Sixth Avenue NE Issaquah, WA 98027 Shaquelle M. Duncan, WSBA #56701 Telephone: (425) 837-4717 410 SW 10th Street, Suite 215 Facsimile: (425) 837-5396 Renton, WA 98057 Email: wright@carsonnoel.com Telephone: (206) 237-7714 Facsimile: (206) 238-1324 BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. Email: duncans@duncanlawpllc.com Joseph I. Marchese, pro hac vice BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. Phillip L. Fraietta, pro hac vice 1300 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor Melissa A. Fortunato, pro hac vice New York, NY 10019 580 California Street, Suite 1200 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 San Francisco, CA 94104 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Telephone: (415) 568-2124 Email: jmarchese@bursor.com Facsimile: (212) 304-0506 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com Email: fortunato@bespc.com Lawrence P. Eagel, pro hac vice Brittany S. Scott, pro hac vice Casey C. DeReus, pro hac vice 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Facsimile: (212) 486-0462 Email: bscott@bursor.com Email: eagel@bespc.com Email: dereus@bespc.com Counsel for Plaintiff Sofauna Johnson Counsel for Plaintiffs Meredith Beagle and Jordan Guerrero [PROPOSED] ORDER Pursuant to the Parties’ above stipulated motion, the Court Orders that: # Johnson vy. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00424-JLR be consolidated with Beagle et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00316-JLR. * Plaintiffs in Johnson and Beagle are granted 30 days from the date of entry of this order to file a consolidated amended complaint. = Amazon’s deadline to respond to the Complaint is extended to 30 days after Plaintiffs file a consolidated amended complaint; « Plaintiffs’ response to any motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint is due 30 days after Amazon files any such motion, and Amazon’s reply in support is due 14 days after Plaintiffs’ response; and = The deadlines in the Initial Scheduling Order (Dkt. 28) are hereby stricken, and will be reset by the Court after it rules on Amazon’s motion to dismiss. IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of April, 2024. i ( a 2 VOX The Honorpble James L. Robart UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR Davis Wright Tremaine LLP CONSOLIDATION AND SETTING DEADLINES- 6 on □ ees s300