Court Should Lift Stay on Case vs. Meta, TikTok, Dismiss Hey Favor: Plaintiff
Plaintiff Jane Doe’s plan to dismiss Hey Favor and her aiding and abetting claim from a lawsuit that also names FullStory, Meta Platforms and TikTok “removes the risk of parallel litigation and any corresponding basis to continue the stay,” said…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Doe’s Monday reply (docket 3:23-cv-00059) in support of her motion to lift the stay of proceedings in a privacy case in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. After dismissal of Hey Favor, which filed a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in April, the action will exist against the advertising and analytics defendants “alone as if Plaintiff never named Favor,” said the filing. Since the advertising and analytics defendants “would have no basis to stay the claims against them in that instance, they have no basis to continue the stay now,” said the reply. Doe alleges healthcare platform Hey Favor knowingly and intentionally sent personally identifiable information about her medical history to Meta, TikTok and analytics company FullStory. Those defendants argued last week (see 2306200043) that a stay is warranted because of a risk that Doe may refile the same claims against Favor after its bankruptcy is resolved. Doe called that “speculative theory” and not a basis to continue the stay. The advertising and analytics defendants’ argument that seeking discovery from Hey Favor would be difficult is “unavailing,” since Favor would be a third party and subject to discovery under Rule 45, the reply said. Bankruptcy proceedings could take “years to conclude,” said Doe, and if Favor is dismissed from the action with prejudice, there’s no reason to delay the adjudication of her claims against the remaining defendants. “Should the case continue to be stayed," plaintiff won't be able to seek discovery from Favor for an unknown amount of time while Favor resolves its bankruptcy, "at which point it may become impossible to seek discovery from Favor if it no longer exists,” said the reply. The court should “lift the stay against” the advertising and analytics defendants, dismiss Favor from the action with prejudice, and allow the case to proceed so the other parties can seek appropriate discovery from Favor “without any delay.”