A motion to quash a subopena was filed Monday alongside arguments that the plaintiffs’ request for documents related to the financial histories of embattled facial recognition company Clearview AI’s CEO, president, general counsel and affiliated non-parties is an overreach. According to Clearview AI Inc., Rocky Mountain Data Analytics LLC, and the corporate officers, the subpoenas to JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., and The Bank of America Corporation are unrelated to the core of the litigation: Clearview’s allegedly improper collection of biometric data.
The filing explains that on September 13, counsel for the plaintiffs informed Clearview that they would be seeking the production of the financial documents at issue. The records, which the plaintiffs have asked for by October 1, are untethered to the purpose of this litigation, and “will result only in harassment and annoyance to the Individual Defendants and their families,” the motion argues.
Clearview also counters that it has already agreed to produce an array of corporate and financial documents. For example, the motion explains that Clearview has promised to produce documents related to capital contributions and transfers made between the individual defendants and the named defendant companies.
Legally, Clearview asserts that it has standing to bring the motion to quash based on its verifiable privacy interests in the corporate and financial records sought from the banks. The company next contends that the subpoena requests are overbroad and oppressive.
Clearview argues that “the subpoenas are a fishing expedition into the Individual Defendants’ private and sensitive bank accounts, and are not likely to yield relevant or admissible information.” Further, the subpoena requests related to Clearview and its non-party affiliates should also be quashed because the information sought is duplicative of responsive financial records the defendants have already agreed to produce.
In requesting that the court quash the subpoenas in full, Clearview urges that the requests constitute “abusive discovery tactics [and] should not be tolerated.” By minute order on Tuesday, the court required the plaintiffs to respond by October 13, and Clearview to reply by October 20.