Doe v. GoodRx Holdings, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 31, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00501
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JANE DOE, et al., Case No. 23-cv-00501-AMO

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER TERMINATING MOTION FOR ORDER ENJOINING 9 v. DEFENDANT GOODRX FROM FURTHER VIOLATING COURT 10 GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., et al., ORDER, DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, AND DENYING 11 Defendants. MOTION TO SEVER Re: Dkt. Nos. 151, 152, 175 12

13 This order resolves Plaintiffs’ motion for an order enjoining Defendant GoodRx from 14 further violating a court order, ECF 151, the order to show cause issued November 2, 2023, ECF 15 152, and Meta’s motion to sever, ECF 175. 16 In light of the agreement in principle to settle Plaintiffs’ claims against GoodRx, see ECF 17 205 at 2, the motion for an order enjoining GoodRx from further violating a court order is 18 TERMINATED AS MOOT, and the November 2, 2023 order to show cause is HEREBY 19 DISCHARGED. 20 For the reasons that follow, Meta’s motion to sever is DENIED. Federal Rule of Civil 21 Procedure 21 permits courts to “sever any claim against a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. The decision 22 to sever a claim against a party is within the sound discretion of the district court. See Rush v. 23 Sport Chalet, Inc., 779 F.3d 973, 974 (9th Cir. 2015). The Court declines to exercise that 24 discretion here. 25 Meta seeks to sever the claims asserted against it in this action in order to relate those 26 claims to the In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation, No. 3:22-cv-03580-WHO (N.D. Cal. filed 27 June 17, 2022), pending in this district. However, in denying two motions to sever by Meta in a 1 “concerns only the conduct of Meta and its capture and use of personal healthcare information 2 || primarily through the use of Meta’s Pixel and primarily through patient portals and related 3 webpages on websites.” Doe v. Hey Favor, Inc., No. 23-cv-00059-WHO, Order Denying Motion 4 to Sever at 1, ECF No. 75; see also June 15, 2023 Hr’g Tr. at 6:6-17, ECF 78 (explaining that the 5 court “ha[s] been trying to keep the hospital litigation cases separate from everything else[,]” and 6 || that it seemed “the telemed cases are different to some degree even though they overlap”). The 7 court distinguished the Hey Favor litigation as a “case [that] concerns the conduct of five different 8 || defendants and primarily concerns those five defendants’ capture and use of personal healthcare 9 || information through mobile applications or apps.” Order Denying Motion to Sever at 1. It 10 || maintained that distinction when denying Meta’s renewed motion to sever. See Jan. 17, 2024 ll Minute Entry, ECF 117; Jan. 17, 2024 Hr’g Tr. at 24:25-26:3, ECF No. 119 (stating that the court 12 || would “forge ahead in the manner in which [it] laid it out”). 5 13 Here, that distinction counsels against severance of the claims Meta seeks to relate to the 14 || Meta Pixel litigation. While Meta is the sole defendant in Meta Pixel, Plaintiffs in this case name 3 15 || three other defendants in connection with the alleged wrongful interception of internet users’ data 16 || while they visited a specific website — the GoodRx website — and a specific mobile application — 3 17 the GoodRx app. See, e.g., ECF 102 9] 60-90. Tacking on these additional claims to the already 18 complex Meta Pixel litigation that has been pending since June 17, 2022,' where significant 19 discovery activity has occurred, and where Meta has answered the operative complaint, would not 20 || promote efficiency. Meta’s motion to sever in this case is therefore DENIED. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: July 31, 2024 23 □□ □

ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN United States District Judge 26 27 ' The Meta Pixel litigation had been pending for months when, on March 28, 2023, Meta filed a 28 statement of non-opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate various related actions in this matter. See ECF 68.