18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 577 Geiss, et al. v. Weinstein Co. Holdings LLC , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9699 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of women, filed a class action alleging sexual harassment and abuse by Harvey Weinstein. Plaintiffs named as Defendants Weinstein, his affiliated companies, and directors of those companies. The Court previously had partially granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, which left only Plaintiffs’ sex trafficking claim against Weinstein in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”) as the sole surviving claim. The Court thereafter dismissed the Miramax Plaintiffs as they had no live claims in the case. The Miramax Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), seeking to immediately appeal the Court’s dismissal of their claims. In turn, Defendant Harvey Weinstein ("Weinstein") filed a motion to stay his deposition. The Court denied both motions. In support of their motion to certify for appeal, the Miramax Plaintiffs asserted that their dismissed claims were completely distinct from the remaining claims in the case, and as such, would not overlap with any future appeal from the remaining parties. Id . at *9. Further, the Miramax Plaintiffs argued that the dismissed claims they sought to appeal related to a statute of limitations issue and that their factual allegations "cannot be duplicated" by other Plaintiffs. Id . In support of his motion to stay his deposition, Weinstein contended that his worsening health condition, combined with the life-threatening risks of COVID-19, made it impossible for him to sit for a deposition and that he would be forced to choose between an adverse inference in the civil case by invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and waiving his constitutional rights to the detriment of his criminal proceedings. Id . at *9-10. The Court determined that the Miramax Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any hardship or injustice in waiting for the remaining resolution of the other claims, nor had they shown that the interests of sound judicial administration would be served in an immediate appeal. The Court therefore denied the Miramax Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court also reasoned that Weinstein’s deposition should move forward, as he failed to submit any evidence of his health conditions such that the Court could determine the impact of the ailments on his ability to be deposed. Further, the Court observed that whether Weinstein invoked the Fifth Amendment or not would be his choice. Id . at *11. The Court thus denied the motion to stay Weinstein’s deposition. Hazlitt, et al. v. Apple Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112592 (S.D. Ill. June 16, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of consumers, filed a class action alleging that Defendant violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) by collecting biometric identifiers and biometric information, including scans of facial geometry and related biometric information, without first notifying Plaintiffs in writing and obtaining informed consent. Id . at *2. Plaintiffs also alleged Defendant possessed biometric identifiers and biometric information without creating and following a written, publicly available policy with retention schedules and destruction guidelines as mandated by the BIPA. Id . Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel production of documents relating to identification of Illinois residents who purchases Apple devices and executed End User License Agreements (EULAs) or other agreements in connection with the Photos App. Defendant contended that the requests were vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant’s counsel informed Plaintiffs that it would not produce any information responsive to the requests. Plaintiffs also issued document subpoenas to major resellers of Defendant’s products requesting the addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, birth dates, and Apple IDs for users of iPhones, iPads, and Mac computers. Defendant moved to quash the subpoenas. Plaintiffs argued that the requested information was directly relevant to the issue of class certification. Defendant argued that such precertification discovery would be invasive, would identify potentially millions of consumers who were not class members, and was neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case. Id. at *7. Further, Defendant argued that the disclosure of this information would intrude on consumers’ privacy interests. The Court determined that Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient reasons as to why personal consumer information was necessary to establish "manageability" or "superiority" for class certification or why this information would be preferable to less intrusive ways to prove those elements. Id . at *9. The Court also had serious concerns about the disclosure of millions of consumers’ personal information without any notice or the ability to opt-in. Finally, the Court opined that Plaintiffs failed to provide any explanation of how the data would be stored and kept secure. For these reasons, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to quash and denied Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. In Re 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10427 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of U.S. Army service members and veterans, filed a number of separate lawsuits, which were eventually consolidated, claiming that Defendant supplied Army service members with defective earplugs. Specifically, Plaintiffs filed suit under the False Claims Act alleging that Defendant’s earplugs