Sessa et al v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc. et al, No. 2:2020cv02292 - Document 42 (D. Nev. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER Denying 40 Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order. IT IS ORDERED that the Court does not find good cause for such an extended discovery period. See Order for additional information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 10/4/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - YAW)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sessa et al v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc. et al Doc. 42 Case 2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW Document 40 Filed 10/01/21 Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Miles N. Clark, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 13848 Matthew I. Knepper, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12796 KNEPPER & CLARK LLC 5510 So. Fort Apache Rd, Suite 30 Las Vegas, NV 89148 Phone: (702) 856-7430 Fax: (702) 447-8048 Email: Miles.Clark@knepperclark.com Michael F. Ram (Pro Hac Vice) Marie N. Appel (Pro Hac Vice) MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-6913 Facsimile: (415) 358-6293 Email: MRam@forthepeople.com Email: MAppel@forthepeople.com Benjamin R. Osborn (Pro Hac Vice) 102 Bergen Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (347) 645-0464 Email: Ben@benosbornlaw.com Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class COHEN-JOHNSON, LLC H. Stan Johnson, Esq. (SBN: 0265) (sjohnson@cohenjohnson.com) 375 E. Warm Springs Road, Suite 104 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 Telephone : (702) 823-2500 Facsimile : (702) 823-3400 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Shon Morgan (Pro Hac Vice forthcoming) (shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com) John W. Baumann (Pro Hac Vice application pending) (jackbaumann@quinnemanuel.com) 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 Cristina Henriquez (Pro Hac Vice) (cristinahenriquez@quinnemanuel.com) 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5000 Attorneys for ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., ANCESTRY.COM INC., and ANCESTRY.COM LLC 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ANTHONY SESSA and MARK SESSA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Case No.: 2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN AND PROPOSED ORDER Complaint filed: Dec. 17, 2020 ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., a Virginia Corporation; ANCESTRY.COM INC., a Delaware Corporation; and ANCESTRY.COM LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants. 28 09149-00007/12981843.1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW Document 40 Filed 10/01/21 Page 2 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 Having met and conferred, the parties to the above-entitled action jointly submit this JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN & PROPOSED ORDER pursuant to Civil Local Rule 26-1. 1. Discovery Cut-Off Date. Plaintiffs’ Position: consistent with the Joint Discovery Plan and Proposed Order filed on March 21, 2021 (ECF No. 29), Plaintiffs anticipate completing discovery within twelve months of the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion. The Court denied Defendants’ anti-SLAPP 7 8 9 motion on September 17, 2021 (ECF No. 36). Accordingly, Plaintiffs propose a discovery cut-off date of September 19, 2022. 10 Defendants have informed Plaintiffs that Defendants intend to appeal this Court’s ruling 11 denying their anti-SLAPP motion, and that Defendants intend to seek a stay of discovery while 12 their appeal is pending. No appeal has yet been filed, nor have Defendants yet filed a motion 13 seeking a stay of discovery. Plaintiffs are prepared to start discovery immediately and therefore 14 propose specific dates and discovery topics in this Discovery Plan. 15 16 Plaintiffs believe Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion is without merit, and that any appeal 17 Defendants take would be for the purpose of delaying this case. Should Defendants appeal this 18 Court’s anti-SLAPP ruling, Plaintiffs reserve the right to move this Court for a ruling that 19 Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion is frivolous or vexatious, and for an award of attorneys’ fees, 20 costs, and damages of $10,000 as provided for under N.R.S. 41.670. Plaintiffs further reserve the 21 right to request that this Court deny a stay pending Defendants’ appeal. Under N.R.S. 41.670(3)(b), 22 this Court may grant any “relief as the court deems proper to punish and deter the filing of frivolous 23 24 or vexatious [anti-SLAPP] motions.” 25 Should Defendants obtain a stay of discovery, Plaintiffs reserve the right to pursue this case 26 without having obtained discovery from Defendants, including filing a motion for class 27 certification. 28 09149-00007/12981843.1 2 of 8 Case 2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW Document 40 Filed 10/01/21 Page 3 of 8 1 Defendants’ Position: Pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute § 41.670, Ancestry has appealed 2 this Court’s order denying its anti-SLAPP motion (ECF No. 36; ECF No. 39). See, e.g., Wynn v. 3 Bloom, 852 F. App’x 262 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2021) (recognizing right to appeal denial of anti-SLAPP 4 motion under Nevada law). Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute mandates that discovery “shall” be 5 6 stayed pending “disposition of any appeal from the ruling on the motion.” Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 41.660(3)(e). See also Freedom Mortg. Corp. v. Kent as Tr. of 6221 Red Pine Tr., 2021 WL 7 8 9 601605, at *2 (D. Nev. Feb. 16, 2021) (“[I]mportantly, NRS 41.660(3)(e)(2) expressly contemplates a stay pending the disposition of any appeal. The Motion for Reconsideration is an 10 appeal to the District Judge. The Court will order that a stay of discovery remain in place until 11 Judge Gordon decides the pending Motion”); Foley v. Pont, 2012 WL 2503074, at *5 (D. Nev. 12 June 27, 2012) (“[S]taying discovery pending the outcome of the . . . Defendants’ anti-SLAPP 13 motion to dismiss is warranted under NRS 41.660(3).”). Because a discovery stay is mandated by 14 statute, it appears premature to establish a discovery schedule. 15 16 Plaintiffs contend Ancestry’s anti-SLAPP motion is “frivolous.” The motion had ample 17 basis even if denied, 1 but to the extent plaintiff seek to press that position, it must be decided by 18 the Ninth Circuit. See, e.g., Randazza v. Cox, 2015 WL 4419543, at *2 (D. Nev. July 20, 2015) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiffs offer nothing to support this conclusory assertion, which would require them to meet the high bar of demonstrating “any reasonable attorney would agree the motion was totally devoid of merit.” E.g., Rudisill v. California Coastal Co., 247 Cal. Rptr. 840 (2019); John v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 125 Nev. 746, 756 (2009) (recognizing “California’s anti-SLAPP statute is similar in purpose and language to Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute”). This Court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion is not a basis for a determination the motion was frivolous. See, e.g., Borenstein v. Animal Found., 2021 WL 1035100, at *16 (D. Nev. Mar. 17, 2021). And, while this Court determined the alleged use of plaintiffs’ names was not “in connection with public affairs” because “the use is for commercial purposes,” there is a substantial question whether commercial use precludes application of the “public affairs” exception. See, e.g., Guglielmi v. Spelling– Goldberg Productions, 25 Cal. 3d 860, 868–69 (1979) (“The First Amendment is not limited to those who publish without charge. . . . The fact that respondents sought to profit from the production and exhibition of a film utilizing Valentino’s name and likeness is not constitutionally significant.”). Were it otherwise, if the Las Vegas Review previewed an article about President Biden’s inauguration that included his image, but required readers to go through a paywall to access it, the article would lose the protection of this exception. 09149-00007/12981843.1 3 of 8 Case 2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW Document 40 Filed 10/01/21 Page 4 of 8 1 (recognizing court “lacked jurisdiction to decide issues regarding . . . counterclaims” while an 2 order denying the anti-SLAPP motion to strike those counterclaims was on appeal) (citing Natural 3 Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Southwest Marine, Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001)). 4 In addition to the discovery stay effected by the appeal of Ancestry’s anti-SLAPP motion, 5 6 Ancestry will also be filing a motion to stay the case in its entirety pending disposition of both the anti-SLAPP appeal in this case, as well as plaintiffs’ appeal from an order granting Ancestry’s 7 8 9 motion to dismiss in Callahan v. Ancestry.com, Inc., Case No. 21-16161 (9th Cir.). In Callahan the Ninth Circuit will address two issues that will potentially dispose of plaintiffs’ claims here: (1) 10 whether an alleged violation of the “right of publicity,” standing alone, can give rise to an injury 11 sufficient to confer Article III standing; and (2) whether Ancestry is immune to these claims 12 pursuant to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Because the conduct underlying 13 both this action and Callahan are identical, the Ninth Circuit’s decision will likely have outcome- 14 determinative application here. Courts routinely issue stays in similar circumstances. See, e.g., 15 16 Lilly v. Cheyenne Med. LLC, 2020 WL 8269543, at *1 (D. Nev. Nov. 30, 2020) (“I agree that a 17 stay is justified here. The Supreme Court's decision in Facebook should simplify many of the 18 issues in this case . . . and could be case-dispositive.”); United States v. Landeros, 2017 WL 19 10085686, at *1–2 (D. Nev. Jan. 4, 2017) (“The Beckles decision is thus almost certain to 20 determine whether petitioner has a cognizable claim . . . A stay pending the decision in Beckles 21 will thus simplify the proceedings and promote the efficient use of the parties' and the court's 22 limited resources.”); Busk v. Integrity Staffing Sols., Inc., No. 2:10-CV-1854-RLH-NJK, 2013 WL 23 24 4786254, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 5, 2013) (“Plaintiffs are seeking to pursue a class action which will 25 include nationwide discovery costs and legal fees and ultimately be very costly and burdensome 26 for Defendant. However, the Supreme Court's decision . . . could drastically alter the parties' 27 litigation focus and, indeed, the case itself. Therefore, forcing Defendant, and Plaintiffs for that 28 09149-00007/12981843.1 4 of 8 Case 2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW Document 40 Filed 10/01/21 Page 5 of 8 1 matter, to proceed prior to a decision . . . risks wasting a substantial amount of resources on a case 2 that may never go forward in its current form. Requiring the parties to incur such costs would be 3 both pointless and prejudicial.”). 4 5 2. Amending the Pleadings and Adding Parties, Expert Disclosures, Dispositive Motions, and Pretrial Order. 6 Plaintiffs’ Position: Consistent with Local Rule 26-1(b)(2), Plaintiffs propose a deadline 7 for filing motions to amend the pleadings or to add parties that is ninety days before the close of 8 discovery, i.e. June 21, 2022. 9 10 Plaintiffs do not presently anticipate a need for expert testimony. In the event expert testimony is needed, consistent with Local Rule 26-1(b)(3), Plaintiffs propose the deadline for 11 12 13 14 expert disclosures as sixty days before the close of discovery, i.e. July 21, 2022. Plaintiffs propose the deadline for rebuttal disclosures as thirty days before the close of discovery, i.e. August 19, 2022. 15 Consistent with Local Rules 26-1(b)(4) and (b)(5), Plaintiffs propose the deadline for 16 dispositive motions as thirty days after the discovery cut-off date, i.e. October 31, 2022, and the 17 18 deadline for filing a joint pretrial order as thirty days after the deadline for dispositive motions, i.e. December 1, 2022. 19 Defendants’ Position: For reasons set forth above, Ancestry believes it is premature to set 20 21 deadlines that are effectively keyed off the close of discovery. However, should this case proceed, 22 Ancestry (1) anticipates filing a motion for summary judgment and a motion to deny class 23 certification, and (2) may engage experts, including with respect to potential class certification 24 issues. 25 3. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) Disclosures 26 Plaintiffs’ Position: Plaintiffs propose exchanging initial disclosures under Rule 26(a) 27 28 within fourteen days of the filing of this Discovery Plan, i.e. on or before October 15, 2021. 09149-00007/12981843.1 5 of 8 Case 2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW Document 40 Filed 10/01/21 Page 6 of 8 Defendants’ Position: Ancestry objects to the initial disclosure requirement set forth in 1 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a). Ancestry has appealed the denial of its motion to strike 3 which, as set forth above, stays discovery pending disposition of the appeal. See, e.g., Freedom 4 Mortg. Corp., 2021 WL 601605 at *2 (“[I]mportantly, NRS 41.660(3)(e)(2) expressly 5 6 contemplates a stay pending the disposition of any appeal.”); Foley, 2012 WL 2503074 at *5 (“staying discovery pending the outcome of the [] Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss is 7 8 warranted under NRS 41.660(3).”). 4. Alternative Dispute Resolution 9 10 Plaintiffs’ Position: Plaintiffs are willing to discuss the possibility of mediation. Consistent 11 with the Joint Discovery Plan and Proposed Order filed on March 21, 2021 (ECF No. 29), Plaintiffs 12 would agree, subject to approval from the Court, to participate in private mediation. 13 Defendants’ Position: Ancestry believes any mediation would be most productive 14 following disposition of its appeal of this Court’s denial of its anti-SLAPP motion and the pending 15 16 17 Callahan appeal. Should this case proceed, Ancestry would agree to participate in private mediation, subject to approval from the Court. 5. Alternative Forms of Case Disposition 18 19 20 The parties certify that they considered trial by magistrate judge and use of the Short Trial Program. The parties agree that neither are appropriate for this matter. 21 6. Electronic Evidence 22 Because Defendant has taken the position that discovery should be stayed pending their 23 24 25 anti-SLAPP appeal, the parties have not discussed whether they intend to present evidence in electronic format to jurors. 26 27 28 /// 09149-00007/12981843.1 6 of 8 Case 2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW Document 40 Filed 10/01/21 Page 7 of 8 7. Topics for Discovery 1 Plaintiffs’ Position: Plaintiffs anticipate seeking discovery on the following topics. 2 3 Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek discovery on additional topics as the case develops. 4 (1) Documents and testimony showing the economic value of plaintiffs’ names and images 5 to Ancestry, including: licensing fees Ancestry pays to third parties for access to 6 Plaintiffs’ photographs; conversion rates for users who receive free-trial records and 7 “hint” emails; and Ancestry’s statements regarding why they use Plaintiffs’ names and 8 images. 9 (2) Documents and testimony showing how Ancestry’s website functions when presenting 10 11 Plaintiffs’ names, photographs, and personal information in advertisements. 12 (3) Documents and testimony showing Ancestry’s expectations regarding how subscribers 13 will use Plaintiffs’ photographs. 14 (4) Documents and testimony about privacy and intellectual property concerns related to 15 Ancestry’s collection and use of personal information. 16 (5) Documents and testimony showing the number of photographs in Ancestry’s database 17 corresponding to Nevada yearbooks, and the number of subscribers in Nevada. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /// 09149-00007/12981843.1 7 of 8 Case 2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW Document 40 Filed 10/01/21 Page 8 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Defendants’ Position: Ancestry believes identification of discovery topics is premature in light of its appeal of the Court’s denial of its anti-SLAPP motion, as set forth above. Respectfully submitted, KNEPPER & CLARK LLC QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP /s/ Miles N. Clark Matthew I. Knepper, Esq., SBN 12796 Miles N. Clark, Esq., SBN 13848 5510 So. Fort Apache Rd, Suite 30 Las Vegas, NV 89148 matthew.knepper@knepperclark.com miles.clark@knepperclark.com Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 11 /s/ Cristina Henriquez Cristina Henriquez (Pro Hac Vice) 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Email: cristinahenriquez@quinnemanuel.com Attorneys for Defendants Ancestry.com Operations Inc., Ancestry.com Inc., and Ancestry.com LLC 12 ORDER APPROVING 13 JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN 14 IT IS SO ORDERED 15 _________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 16 DATED this ____ day of _____________ 2021. 17 18 Sessa v. Ancestry.com Operations Inc. 2:20-cv-02292-GMN-BNW 19 20 21 Order IT IS ORDERED that ECF No. 40 is DENIED. The Court does not find good cause for such an extended discovery period. The parties shall have the standard, 180-day discovery plan starting from September 17, 2021. The parties may stipulate to or move for extensions of discovery, if necessary. 22 23 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED DATED: 5:10 pm, October 04, 2021 27 28 09149-00007/12981843.1 BRENDA WEKSLER MAGISTRAT JUDGE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 8 of 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
