1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DAVID MUTNICK, for himself and others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

 

CLEARVIEW AI, INC.; HOAN TON-THAT; 

RICHARD SCHWARTZ; and CDW 

GOVERNMENT LLC

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 20 C 512

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez

PLAINTIFF’S CLARIFIED MOTION FOR REASSIGNMENT

Plaintiff David Mutnick, by his attorneys, respectfully submits this Clarified Motion for 

Reassignment to make clear that Plaintiff only seeks to have the case captioned Hall v. Clearview 

AI, Inc., et al., No. 20 C 846 (“Hall”) reassigned to this Court. Thus, pursuant to Local Rule 40.4,

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court reassign Hall to the Honorable Sharon Johnson 

Coleman. Plaintiff Hall agrees to this clarified motion. In support of this motion, Plaintiff states 

as follows:

INTRODUCTION

On January 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed the present case (“Mutnick”), and it was assigned to 

the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman under case number 20 C 512. Dkt. 1. On January 29, 

2020, Plaintiff Mutnick filed a First Amended Complaint (the “Amended Complaint”). Dkt. 6. In 

the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff Mutnick seeks compensatory, punitive, declaratory and 

injunctive relief against Defendants Clearview AI, Inc.; Hoan Ton-That; Richard Schwartz and 

CDW Government LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) for their alleged violations of the Illinois 
2

Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS § 14/1, et seq., and the constitutional 

rights of Plaintiff and members of putative nationwide and Illinois classes. Specifically, Plaintiff 

alleges that Defendants covertly scraped his and class members’ images from the internet and then 

used artificial intelligence algorithms to unlawfully scan the facial geometry of each individual 

depicted in the images in violation of privacy laws and citizens’ civil liberties. Dkt. 6, ¶¶ 2-9, 68-

136. Counsel for each defendant has filed an appearance. Dkt. 10-12, 18, 22-23, 25.

On February 5, 2020, the complaint in Hall was filed. Hall Dkt. 1.1 The Hall complaint 

is based on the same nucleus of operative facts as the Mutnick complaint and seeks compensatory, 

punitive, declaratory and injunctive relief against Clearview AI, Inc. and CDW Government LLC 

for their alleged violations of BIPA, among other claims. See id. The Hall case is now pending 

in the Northern District of Illinois under case number 20 C 846 before the Honorable John Z. Lee. 

Counsel for each defendant in the Hall case has filed an appearance. Hall Dkt. 8, 12-17.

On April 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed the erroneously titled “Plaintiff’s Motion for Reassignment 

and Consolidation” (Dkt. 34). Notwithstanding the title of the motion and citations to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 42, the motion focused on reassignment pursuant to Local Rule 40.4 and sought reassignment

of Hall. Dkt. 34. Upon inquiry by the Court as to the relief sought by Plaintiff, Plaintiff informed 

the Court that it sought reassignment of Hall, not consolidation. See Dkt. 38.

On April 14, 2020, the Court ordered Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s motion on or 

before April 24, 2020, and Plaintiff’s to file any reply on or before May 1, 2020. Id. To assist 

Defendants in preparing their response, Plaintiff files this Clarified Motion for Reassignment to 

make clear the relief sought by Plaintiff.

1 Pursuant to Local Rule 40.4(c), a copy of the complaint in Hall is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
3

ARGUMENT

I. Legal Standards

Local Rule 40.4 addresses the reassignment of related cases. See L.R. 40.4. Pursuant to 

Local Rule 40.4(b), a “case may be reassigned to the calendar of another judge if it is found to be 

related to an earlier-numbered case assigned to that judge . . . .” L.R. 40.4(b). Cases are related if 

they: (a) involve the same property; (b) involve some of the same issues of fact or law; (c) grow 

out of the same transaction or occurrence; or (d) in class action suits, if one or more of the classes 

involved is the same. L.R. 40.4(a). Local Rule 40.4 only requires that two cases involve some of 

the same issues of fact or law, there need not be complete identity of issues. Gautreaux v. Chicago 

Hous. Auth., No. 66-C-1459, 2013 WL 5567771, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 2013). 

Related cases may be reassigned to the judge overseeing the lowest-numbered case where 

the following criteria is met:

(1) both cases are pending in this Court; (2) the handling of both cases by the same 

judge is likely to result in a substantial saving of judicial time and effort; (3) the 

earlier case has not progressed to the point where designating a later filed case as 

related would be likely to delay the proceedings in the earlier case substantially; 

and (4) the cases are susceptible of disposition in a single proceeding.

L.R. 40.4(b).

II. Mutnick and Hall Are Related and Should Be Reassigned to This Court.

Mutnick and Hall are related because they involve some of the same issues of fact and law 

and have overlapping classes. See L.R. 40.4(a). Accordingly, the Court should reassign the cases

before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman. See L.R. 40.4. 

Regarding fact issues, Plaintiff Mutnick and Plaintiff Hall each seeks relief from Clearview 

AI, Inc. and CDW Government LLC in connection with the covert scraping of images from the 

internet, and the subsequent unlawful scanning of their facial geometries, as well as the facial 
4

geometries of class members. Dkt. 6, ¶¶ 2-9, 13, 15, 42-47, 50-56; Hall Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 1-3, 9-14, 17, 

24-36. Moreover, both cases involve identical legal issues – e.g.: (a) whether Clearview AI, Inc. 

and CDW Government LLC violated BIPA; (b) whether declaratory and injunctive relief is proper; 

and (c) whether plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. Dkt. 6, 

¶¶ 21-26, 31-35, 42-47, 50-56, 93-120, 131-36, Prayer for Relief; Hall Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 20-36, 62, 71-

80, Prayer for Relief. 

Regarding the classes, the putative Illinois classes alleged in each case are substantively

identical. In Mutnick, the Illinois class is defined as: “All persons who reside or resided in Illinois 

whose biometric identifier or information is or was contained in the Clearview database . . . .” Dkt. 

6 at 58. In Hall, the Illinois class is defined as: “All persons who reside or resided in Illinois whose 

biometric identifier or information is or was contained in the Clearview database at any time.” 

Hall Dkt. 1, ¶ 64. While Mutnick also seeks certification of a nationwide class, Rule 40.4, only 

requires one class to be the same. L.R. 40.4(a). 

III. Hall Should Be Reassigned to the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

An examination of the criteria set forth in Local Rule 40.4(b) shows that Hall should be 

reassigned to the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman. First, both of the cases are pending in the 

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Second, because of the overlapping factual and 

legal issues, as well as the identical Illinois classes, reassigning Hall will likely result in a 

substantial saving of judicial time and effort. Third, both cases are in their early stages, and no 

answers are due until July 2, 2020. Dkt. 25, 28, 29; Hall Dkt. 14, 24, 25; see also 2d Am. Gen. 

Order 20-0012. As such, reassignment will not substantially delay the progress of either case. 

Finally, given the overlapping legal and factual issues, the cases are susceptible of disposition in a 

single proceeding.
5

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should enter a finding that: (a) Mutnick and Hall are 

related within the meaning of Local Rule 40.4; and (b) Hall should be reassigned to this Court

with Mutnick. Moreover, Plaintiff Mutnick respectfully requests that the Court’s finding be 

forwarded to the Executive Committee together with a request that the Executive Committee 

reassign the Hall case.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff David Mutnick respectfully requests that the Court should enter 

a finding that: (a) Mutnick and Hall are related within the meaning of Local Rule 40.4; and (b) 

Hall should be reassigned to this. Moreover, Plaintiff Mutnick respectfully requests that the 

Court’s finding be forwarded to the Executive Committee together with a request that the 

Executive Committee reassign Hall.

Dated: April 17, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Scott R. Drury

SCOTT R. DRURY

Arthur Loevy

Michael Kanovitz

Jon Loevy

Scott R. Drury

LOEVY & LOEVY

311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60607

312.243.5900

arthur@loevy.com

mike@loevy.com

jon@loevy.com

drury@loevy.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Scott R. Drury, an attorney, hereby certify that, on April 17, 2020, I filed the foregoing 

document using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which effected service on all counsel of record.

/s/ Scott R. Drury

One of David Mutnick’s Attorneys