Court Should Reject First-to-File Rule in Data Breach Privacy Case, Says MGM
The court should reject the first-to-file rule in a privacy case about a September data breach involving a cyberattack on MGM International’s computer systems, said MGM Resorts International’s brief Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-20419) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in…
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.
Camden. It opposes the plaintiffs’ November emergency motion to preclude all other venues and duplicate litigation. U.S. District Judge Joseph Rodriguez for New Jersey reset deadlines in December for the motion, originally set for Tuesday, to Jan. 16 (see 2312120066). The court should deny Saul and Shirley Lassoff’s first-to-file motion, said MGM, calling it a “baseless attempt to seize control of 13 other putative nationwide class actions pending in the District of Nevada," each alleging similar negligence, breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against MGM arising from the data breach. The first-to-file rule aims to limit duplicate litigation, “not to incentivize first filers,” said the brief. The rule is “inapposite” where it will neither preserve judicial resources nor enhance “the just and efficient management of the litigation,” it said. The cases against MGM in the District of Nevada “are at least as mature,” if not more so, than the Lassoffs’ case, it said. MGM intends to transfer the Lassoffs’ action to Nevada because the federal court in Las Vegas “provides a more convenient forum in which to efficiently coordinate between and manage multiple pending cases with multiple plaintiffs and counsel of record,” the brief said. Given the location of many witnesses and documents in Nevada, “as well as the total lack of any such evidence in New Jersey,” the convenience offered by trial in Nevada “is sufficient to overcome the first-to-file rule,” it said, citing Ricoh v. Honeywell. All the cases vs. MGM “are in their infancy,” and MGM is of the belief that multiple interested parties in Nevada are working to coordinate the litigation and address the issues that inspire the first-to-file rule, said the brief. “Were those efforts interrupted by an injunction -- particularly without any evidence that these Plaintiffs provided proper notice to the plaintiffs in other actions -- it would undoubtedly lead to ancillary litigation and delay,” it said.