In re: Google Location History Litigation

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 IN RE GOOGLE LOCATION HISTORY 7 LITIGATION Case No. 5:18-cv-05062-EJD

8 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 9 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 10 Re: Dkt. No. 129 11

12 On December 19, 2019, this Court granted Defendant Google LLC’s motion to dismiss. 13 See Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 113. In this order, the Court dismissed 14 Plaintiffs’ California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) claim with prejudice and dismissed 15 Plaintiffs’ California constitution and common law privacy claims with leave to amend. Plaintiff 16 argues the Court should reconsider its decision in light of In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking 17 Litigation, 956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020). Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration 18 (“Mot.”), Dkt. 129. After reviewing Plaintiffs’ motion and In re Facebook, the Court finds that 19 Plaintiff has not presented adequate grounds for the Court to reconsider its earlier ruling. The 20 Court thus DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. 21 Reconsideration of a final judgment, order, or proceeding is appropriate if (1) at the time of 22 the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, a material difference in fact or law exists 23 from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which 24 reconsideration is sought; (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 25 unjust; or (3) if new material facts emerge or a material change of law occurs after the time of the 26 interlocutory order. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Absent these three things, “a motion for 27 Case No.: 5:18-cv-05062-EJD 1 reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 2 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 3 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 4 |} interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Jd. (citation and internal quotation 5 marks omitted). 6 Plaintiff argues that In re Facebook presents a material change in law. Not so. With 7 || respect to Plaintiffs’ CIPA claim, In re Facebook addressed a completely different type of CIPA 8 claim than the one at issue here. Compare In re Facebook, 956 F.3d at 607 (addressing 9 || wiretapping, Cal. Pen. Code § 631(a)), with In re Google Location History, 428 F. Supp. 3d 185 10 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (addressing geolocation tracking, Cal. Pen. Code § 637.7). Moreover, even 11 accepting Plaintiffs’ argument that the Court erred when it noted that the Complaint failed to 12 || allege that Defendant “tracked” users’ movements, that finding is entirely separate from the 5 13 Court’s determination that Defendant did not “attach” an “electronic tracking device” to a “vehicle 14 || or other moveable thing” within the meaning of CIPA. See Mot. 12-13. As noted, In re 3 15 || Facebook says nothing about the Court’s determination that CIPA does not cover the type of a 16 || geolocation tracking/collection at issue. Regarding Plaintiffs’ California constitution and 3 17 common-law privacy claims, the Court again does not find In re Facebook dispositive. Plaintiffs 18 || seem to read the Court’s dismissal order too narrowly—nothing in the order prevents Plaintiffs 19 from amending their Complaint to add details indicating that the type of geolocation tracking and 20 || collection at issue was comprehensive such that Defendant collected sensitive and confidential 21 information. Accordingly, In re Facebook does not present a “material change in law” as to 22 || Plaintiffs’ CIPA claim and Plaintiffs’ motion for leave is DENIED. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: June 3, 2020 25 EDWARD J. DAVILA 26 United States District Judge Case No.: 5:18-cv-05062-EJD 28 || ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION .