Opinion ID: 2745042
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Redbox’s Disclosures to Iron Mountain

Text: Plaintiffs also complain on appeal that the district court’s summary judgment ruling ignored Redbox’s disclosure of customer PII to Iron Mountain, the vendor with which Redbox apparently stores backup tapes containing company records. In their brief in opposition to Redbox’s motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs included a single reference to Iron Mountain, complaining in a footnote that Redbox’s summary judgment motion “inexplicably ignore[d]” the fact that Redbox stores backup tapes containing company data with the storage vendor (a fact revealed by a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent during the course of discovery). Pl. Opp. to MSJ p. 4 n.1 [194]. In conclusory fashion, plaintiffs represented in their opposition brief that Redbox does not store these back‐ up tapes in the ordinary course of business, but, nonetheless, announced that their brief would focus solely on Redbox’s disclosures to Stream. Plaintiffs, therefore, did not sufficient‐ ly raise this issue at summary judgment and, thus, failed to preserve it for appeal. See Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[A]rguments that have been raised may still be waived on appeal if they are underdeveloped, conclusory, or unsupported by law.”); APS Sports Collectibles, Inc. v. Sports Time, Inc., 299 F.3d 624, 631 (7th Cir. 2002) (“It is not this courtʹs responsibility to research and construct the partiesʹ arguments, and conclusory analysis will be con‐ strued as waiver.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“A skeletal ‘argument,’ really nothing more than an assertion, does not preserve a claim.”). No. 13‐3037 15 Moreover, plaintiffs seem to misunderstand the burden of proof at summary judgment. We have been clear that “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 imposes an initial bur‐ den of production on the party moving for summary judg‐ ment to inform the district court why a trial is not neces‐ sary.” Modrowski v. Pigatto, 712 F.3d 1166, 1168 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986)). That burden “may be discharged by showing … that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving partyʹs case.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Upon such a show‐ ing, the non‐movant (here, plaintiffs) then must “make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that partyʹs case.” Id. Put another way, the non‐ movant must “go beyond the pleadings (e.g., produce affi‐ davits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admis‐ sions on file) to demonstrate that there is evidence ‘upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict’ in [their] favor.” Id. at 1169 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (1986)). Plaintiffs not only failed to make this showing at summary judgment, they expressly renounced their opportunity to do so. In their reply brief on appeal, plaintiffs argue that “Redbox had the burden of establishing that the undisputed facts showed that it did not disclose Plaintiffs’ personally identifiable [sic] to anyone in violation of the VPPA.” Reply Br. 19. Yet summary judgment is proper against “a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the exist‐ ence of an element essential to that party’s case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Thus, it was plaintiffs’ burden at summary judgment to point to evidence that—taken as true and draw‐ 16 No. 13‐3037 ing all reasonable inferences in their favor—established a vi‐ olation of the VPPA, not Redbox’s burden to disprove one. Based on evidence in the record—which reveals simply that Redbox stores backup data with Iron Mountain—a fact‐ finder would have no idea what information Redbox dis‐ closed to Iron Mountain, let alone why or when Redbox dis‐ closed it. Therefore, even if plaintiffs had properly raised the issue to the district court at summary judgment, no reasona‐ ble factfinder could conclude (on such minimal evidence) that Redbox disclosed customer PII to Iron Mountain in vio‐ lation of the VPPA.