IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

FREDY SOSA, individually and on behalf of 

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

ONFIDO, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:20−cv−04247

Honorable Marvin E. Aspen

JOINT INITIAL STATUS REPORT

The Parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), and jointly submit the following 

joint status report pursuant to the Court’s June 6, 2022 Minute Order. (Dkt. 60.) 

Nature of the Case 

1. Attorneys of Record: 

Plaintiff’s Counsel: Benjamin H. Richman, J. Eli Wade-Scott, and Schuyler Ufkes of 

Edelson PC

Defendant’s Counsel: Bonnie Keane DelGobbo, Amy L. Lenz, and Joel Griswold of 

Baker and Hostetler LLP

2. Basis for Federal Jurisdiction: Plaintiff originally filed this case in state court, and 

Defendant removed. (Dkt. 1.) Defendant asserts there is federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1332(a)(1) and 1441(b) because Plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois, Defendant is a citizen of 

Delaware and California, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interests 

and costs. (Id. at 3–5.) Defendant also asserts there is federal jurisdiction under the Class Action 

Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because the aggregate number of members in the proposed 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 61 Filed: 06/23/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:650
2

class is 100 or more, the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive 

of interest and costs, and the parties are minimally diverse. (Id. at 5–9.) Defendant does not 

concede that class certification is appropriate or that Defendant is liable for any damages.

3. Nature of the claims and expected counterclaims: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

collected and stored his biometric data, in the form of his facial geometry, through its facial 

recognition software without first obtaining Plaintiff’s informed written consent and without 

establishing or complying with a retention and deletion policy for biometric data, in violation of 

the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. Plaintiff brings

this action on behalf of himself and all other Illinois residents who had their biometric data 

collected and stored by Defendant, and seeks, inter alia, an injunction requiring that Defendant 

comply with BIPA, an award of statutory damages of $5,000 for each willful and/or reckless 

violation of BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(2) or, in the alternative, statutory damages of 

$1,000 for each negligent violation of BIPA pursuant to 740 ILCS 14/20(1), and reasonable

litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees. Defendant denies these claims and has filed an Answer 

and Affirmative Defenses. (Dkt. 59.) 

4. Parties who have not yet been served: Service is complete at this time. 

5. Principal legal issues:

Plaintiff’s Position: Plaintiff anticipates that the major legal issues will include: (1)

whether the biometric data allegedly collected, used, and stored by Defendant constitute 

“biometric identifiers” or “biometric information” as defined by BIPA, 740 ILCS 14/10; (2) 

whether Defendant properly informed Plaintiff and the putative class of its purposes for 

collecting, using, and storing their biometric data; (3) whether Defendant obtained a written 

release (as defined in 740 ILCS 14/10) to collect, use, and store Plaintiff’s and the putative 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 61 Filed: 06/23/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:651
3

class’s biometric data; (4) whether Defendant developed a written policy, made available to the 

public, establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying biometric 

data when the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied or within 

three years of their last interaction, whichever occurs first; (5) whether Defendant complies with 

any such written policy (if one exists); and (6) whether Defendant’s alleged violations of BIPA, 

if any, were negligent, intentional, or reckless.

Defendant’s Position: Defendant anticipates that major legal issues will include those 

raised by Plaintiff and the following: (1) whether Defendant’s alleged actions about which Plaintiff 

complains occurred primarily and substantially in Illinois; (2) whether Defendant, as to all or some 

of the putative class, is exempt from the BIPA as being subject to Title V of the federal GrammLeach-Bliley Act of 1999 and the rules promulgated thereunder; (3) whether Defendant collected, 

captured, purchased, received through trade, or otherwise obtained Plaintiff’s or putative class 

members’ biometric identifiers or biometric information under BIPA; (4) whether Defendant was 

in possession of Plaintiff’s or putative class members’ biometric identifiers or biometric 

information under BIPA; (5) whether Plaintiff or putative class members are entitled to damages 

and, if so, what amount; (6) whether Plaintiff or putative class members are entitled to injunctive 

relief and, if so, what injunction; (7) what terms and conditions applied to each putative class 

member at the time that such putative class member used one of Defendant’s clients’ services 

through which their photograph(s) were submitted; (8) whether each putative class member agreed 

to individually arbitrate their BIPA claim against Defendant; and (9) whether each putative class 

member received notices and provided releases that, if applicable, would have satisfied BIPA.

6. Principal factual issues: 

Plaintiff’s Position: Plaintiff anticipates that the major factual issues will include: (1) 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 61 Filed: 06/23/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:652
4

what type of information or data Defendant collected or captured from Plaintiff’s and putative 

class members’ faces through Defendant’s software; (2) whether that information or data is 

stored or retained by Defendant; (3) whether any information or data derived from Plaintiff’s or 

class members’ faces is transmitted to third parties other than Defendant; (4) whether Defendant 

or its customers who utilized Defendant’s software have any policies or procedures related to the 

collection, possession, or retention of biometric data, and if so, when those policies and 

procedures were implemented and in effect; and (5) whether Plaintiff or any of the putative class 

members were presented with or executed a written release authorizing Defendant’s alleged 

collection and retention of their biometric data. 

Defendant’s Position: Defendant anticipates that major factual issues will include those 

raised by Plaintiff and the following: (1) whether Defendant’s alleged actions about which Plaintiff 

complains occurred primarily and substantially in Illinois; (2) whether Defendant, as to all or some 

of the putative class, is exempt from the BIPA as being subject to Title V of the federal GrammLeach-Bliley Act of 1999 and the rules promulgated thereunder; (3) whether Defendant collected, 

captured, purchased, received through trade, or otherwise obtained Plaintiff’s or putative class 

members’ biometric identifiers or biometric information under BIPA; (4) whether Defendant was 

in possession of Plaintiff’s or putative class members’ biometric identifiers or biometric 

information under BIPA; (5) whether Defendant’s alleged violations of BIPA, if any, were 

negligent, intentional, or reckless; (6) whether Plaintiff or putative class members are entitled to 

damages and, if so, what amount; (7) whether Plaintiff or putative class members are entitled to 

injunctive relief and, if so, what injunction; (8) what terms and conditions applied to each putative 

class member at the time that such putative class member used one of Defendant’s clients’ services 

through which their photograph(s) were submitted; (9) whether each putative class member agreed 

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 61 Filed: 06/23/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:653
5

to individually arbitrate their BIPA claim against Defendant; and (10) whether each putative class 

member received notices and provided releases that, if applicable, would have satisfied BIPA.

7. Whether a jury trial is expected: Plaintiff has demanded a jury trial.

8. Status of discovery: The Parties have not yet engaged in any formal discovery but have 

exchanged information informally for settlement purposes. The Parties plan to serve their first 

interrogatories and requests for production in the coming weeks. Plaintiff anticipates taking 

written and oral fact discovery on the following topics: (1) the manner in which Defendant 

allegedly collected and stored biometric data; (2) the face-scanning functionality of Defendant’s 

software; (3) the time period and the number of people affected by Defendant’s alleged 

collection and storage of biometric data; (4) contracts and communications between Defendant

and its third-party customers who implemented Defendant’s software; (5) Defendant’s policies

and procedures related to its alleged collection, usage, and storage of biometric data; (6) the 

measures Defendant has taken, if any, to protect alleged biometric data and whether any 

unauthorized disclosure has occurred; (7) communications between Defendant’s agents or 

employees concerning the alleged possession or collection of biometric data, and compliance 

with BIPA; and (8) the steps Defendant has taken (if any) to comply with BIPA. Defendant 

anticipates taking written and oral fact discovery on the topics raised by Plaintiff, the legal and 

factual issues in Sections 5 and 6, the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and the 

defenses raised in Defendant’s Answer.

9. Discovery proposal: The Parties anticipate that expert discovery will be necessary. As 

such, the Parties propose the following case deadlines:

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 61 Filed: 06/23/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:654
Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 61 Filed: 06/23/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:655
7

10. Earliest potential trial date and length of trial: The Parties expect the earliest possible 

date of trial would be 12 months after the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for class 

certification. Plaintiff currently expects trial to take approximately 3 to 5 days. Defendant 

believes that the length of the trial will depend on whether a class is certified and, if so, the scope 

of that class.

11. Consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge: The Parties have not unanimously 

consented to proceed before the Magistrate Judge.

12. Settlement discussions: The Parties are currently engaged in settlement discussions and 

have exchanged informal discovery to that end. Plaintiff anticipates making an initial class-wide 

settlement demand this week. The Parties do not request a settlement conference at this time.

Respectfully submitted,

FREDY SOSA, individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated,

Dated: June 23, 2022 By: /s/Schuyler Ufkes

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Benjamin H. Richman

brichman@edelson.com

J. Eli Wade-Scott 

ewadescott@edelson.com

Schuyler Ufkes 

sufkes@edelson.com

EDELSON PC

350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Tel: 312.589.6370

Fax: 312.589.6378

Attorneys for Plaintiff Fredy Sosa

ONFIDO, INC.,

Dated: June 23, 2022 By: /s/ Joel Griswold (with authorization)

One of Defendant’s Attorneys

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 61 Filed: 06/23/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:656
8

Bonnie Keane DelGobbo 

bdelgobbo@bakerlaw.com

Amy L. Lenz 

alenz@bakerlaw.com

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

One N. Wacker Dr., Suite 4500 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Tel: 312.416.6200 

Fax: 312.416.6201 

Joel Griswold 

jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

200 S. Orange Ave., Suite 2300 

Orlando, FL 32801-3432 

Tel: 407.649.4088

Attorneys for Defendant Onfido, Inc.

Case: 1:20-cv-04247 Document #: 61 Filed: 06/23/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:657