Macy’s Asks Clearview AI Court to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of MTD

Defendant Macy’s Retail Holdings Inc. asked the court presiding over the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) multidistrict litigation to stay discovery, including responses to interrogatories and document requests, and initial disclosures, until Macy’s June 28 motion to dismiss is resolved. The request comes after the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel initial disclosures from Macy’s late last week.

At the outset, Macy’s noted that a stay would allow the court to rule upon its motion to dismiss in view of recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit on issues related to Constitutional standing and pleading standards, including cases in the context of BIPA. It would also prevent Macy’s from expending resources on responses to “specious claims involving Macy’s stores across several states that no Plaintiff has ever visited,” the filing said.

Additionally, the defendant asserted that the relevant factors weigh in favor of a temporary pause. For one, the retailer argued, it has only been a “formal participant” in the litigation since June 7. With the dismissal briefing scheduled to conclude in late August, allegedly to accommodate plaintiffs’ lead counsel’s family vacation, Macy’s said the plaintiffs cannot argue that they would suffer prejudice from the brief delay.

In addition, a stay will simplify the issues pending before the court, Macy’s contended. “The litigation in this complex MDL is focused almost exclusively on the actions of Clearview, its related companies, and its executives — as evidenced by the fact that Macy’s was not even mentioned in any of the contentious briefing on Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, or in the several amicus briefs that have been filed with the Court,” the motion said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Loevy & Loevy, Bursor & Fisher P.A., Hedin Hall LLP, Neighborhood Legal LLC, Community Lawyers LLC, and Webster Book LLP. Macy’s is represented by Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP.