McCausland v. Gray Television, Inc.

S.D. New York

McCausland v. Gray Television, Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 30, 2023·No. 1:22-cv-07539·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAVID MCCAUSLAND, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, ORDER

- against - 22 Civ. 7539 (PGG) GRAY TELEVISION, INC., Defendant.

PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.: Over the next forty-five days, the parties will conduct discovery regarding personal jurisdiction and venue. Discovery during this period will address the following subjects: 1. the dates and times on which Plaintiff alleges that he accessed a video or videos on a website controlled by Defendant, in connection with which Plaintiff's Facebook ID, the name of the video, and the URL of the website were transmitted to Facebook; and 2. with respect to each such incident, a. the Terms of Use that were in effect at that time, b. whether, and if so how, Plaintiff was put on notice of the Terms of Use in effect at the time that Plaintiff accessed a video, and C. whether, and if so how, Plaintiff manifested consent to the Terms of Use in effect at the time that he accessed a video. See generally Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66, 75-76 (2d Cir. 2017) (outlining notice and consent principles with respect to online “browserap” and “shrinkwrap” contracts). By March 23, 2023, the parties will submit letters setting forth what their jurisdictional discovery has revealed. Discovery during the forty-five day period is limited to the

topics listed above. Dated: New York, New York January 30, 2023 SO ORDERED.

Paul G. Gardephe __ United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAVID MCCAUSLAND, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, ORDER

- against - 22 Civ. 7539 (PGG) GRAY TELEVISION, INC., Defendant.

PAUL G. GARDEPHE, U.S.D.J.: Over the next forty-five days, the parties will conduct discovery regarding personal jurisdiction and venue. Discovery during this period will address the following subjects: 1. the dates and times on which Plaintiff alleges that he accessed a video or videos on a website controlled by Defendant, in connection with which Plaintiff's Facebook ID, the name of the video, and the URL of the website were transmitted to Facebook; and 2. with respect to each such incident, a. the Terms of Use that were in effect at that time, b. whether, and if so how, Plaintiff was put on notice of the Terms of Use in effect at the time that Plaintiff accessed a video, and C. whether, and if so how, Plaintiff manifested consent to the Terms of Use in effect at the time that he accessed a video. See generally Meyer v. Uber Techs., Inc., 868 F.3d 66, 75-76 (2d Cir. 2017) (outlining notice and consent principles with respect to online “browserap” and “shrinkwrap” contracts). By March 23, 2023, the parties will submit letters setting forth what their jurisdictional discovery has revealed. Discovery during the forty-five day period is limited to the

topics listed above. Dated: New York, New York January 30, 2023 SO ORDERED.

Paul G. Gardephe __ United States District Judge

McCausland v. Gray Television, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

McCausland v. Gray Television, Inc. (McCausland v. Gray Television, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related