Robinson v. The Walt Disney Company, A delaware corporation

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Southern District Robinson v. The Walt Disney Company, A delaware corporation

Robinson v. The Walt Disney Company, A delaware corporation

Plaintiff:	James Robinson
Defendant:	The Walt Disney Company, A delaware corporation
Case Number:	1:2014cv04146
Filed:	June 9, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	Queens
Presiding Judge:	Ronnie Abrams
Nature of Suit:	Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1331
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
October 20, 2015	Filing 40 OPINION & ORDER re: 30 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. filed by Disney Online. As alleged, the disclosures at issue here indicate only that a specific device somewhere was used by someone to watch specific videos. Id. Parag raph 13. An unrelated third party equipped with the information purportedly disclosed by Disney, and nothing more, could not identify Robinson. The third party would not know his name, his age, his gender, his social security number, his home address or any other information tantamount to a physical location, or any similar details that would enable it to identify Robinson as the specific person accessing specific videos on his specific Roku device. The somewhere and someone remain unknown until Adobe purportedly combines Disney's disclosure with other information collected from elsewhere. See Am. Compl. Paragraphs 27, 29, 55-57. Thus, Robinson's allegations, as measured against the definition of personally identifiable informatio n adopted by the Court, fail to show that he is entitled to relief. Accordingly, Robinson cannot make out a viable claim under the VPP A, and his Amended Complaint must be dismissed. In dismissing this action, the Court is sensitive to the policy imp lications posed by the increasing ubiquity of digital technologies, which, as Robinson ably alleges, have dramatically expanded the depth, range, and availability of detailed, highly personal consumer information. There is no doubt that the world of Roku devices, streaming video, and data analytics is a very different one from that of the physical video stores and tape rentals in which the VPP A was originally passed, and that, as the Yershov court noted, deciding VPPA cases today is thus akin t o placing "a square peg... into a round hole." 2015 WL 2340752, at *4. But while the Court recognizes the frustration of an individual such as Robinson-who seeks to keep his information private-whether it is personally identifying or not, t he VPP A as written, and even as amended in 2013, does not afford him, or those similarly situated, a remedy. For the reasons stated above, Disney's motion to dismiss is granted. The Clerk of Court is requested to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 30 and close the case. SO ORDERED. (As further set forth within this Opinion.) (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 10/20/2015) (ajs)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 20, 2015

Filing 40 OPINION & ORDER re: 30 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. filed by Disney Online. As alleged, the disclosures at issue here indicate only that a specific device somewhere was used by someone to watch specific videos. Id. Parag raph 13. An unrelated third party equipped with the information purportedly disclosed by Disney, and nothing more, could not identify Robinson. The third party would not know his name, his age, his gender, his social security number, his home address or any other information tantamount to a physical location, or any similar details that would enable it to identify Robinson as the specific person accessing specific videos on his specific Roku device. The somewhere and someone remain unknown until Adobe purportedly combines Disney's disclosure with other information collected from elsewhere. See Am. Compl. Paragraphs 27, 29, 55-57. Thus, Robinson's allegations, as measured against the definition of personally identifiable informatio n adopted by the Court, fail to show that he is entitled to relief. Accordingly, Robinson cannot make out a viable claim under the VPP A, and his Amended Complaint must be dismissed. In dismissing this action, the Court is sensitive to the policy imp lications posed by the increasing ubiquity of digital technologies, which, as Robinson ably alleges, have dramatically expanded the depth, range, and availability of detailed, highly personal consumer information. There is no doubt that the world of Roku devices, streaming video, and data analytics is a very different one from that of the physical video stores and tape rentals in which the VPP A was originally passed, and that, as the Yershov court noted, deciding VPPA cases today is thus akin t o placing "a square peg... into a round hole." 2015 WL 2340752, at *4. But while the Court recognizes the frustration of an individual such as Robinson-who seeks to keep his information private-whether it is personally identifying or not, t he VPP A as written, and even as amended in 2013, does not afford him, or those similarly situated, a remedy. For the reasons stated above, Disney's motion to dismiss is granted. The Clerk of Court is requested to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. 30 and close the case. SO ORDERED. (As further set forth within this Opinion.) (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 10/20/2015) (ajs)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Robinson v. The Walt Disney Company, A delaware corporation
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: James Robinson
Represented By:	Fred David Weinstein
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: The Walt Disney Company, A delaware corporation
Represented By:	Rachel Schwartz
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?