Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Google Street View Motion to Dismiss

Google Street View Motion to Dismiss

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,204|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Venkat Balasubramani on Jul 01, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

08/02/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
G
OOGLE
I
 NC
.’
S
M
OTION TO
D
ISMISS
C
ASE
N
O
. 5:10-MD-02184JW(HRL)
DAVID H. KRAMER, State Bar No. 168452MICHAEL H. RUBIN, State Bar No. 214636BART E. VOLKMER, State Bar No. 223732CAROLINE E. WILSON, State Bar No. 241031WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATIProfessional Corporation650 Page Mill RoadPalo Alto, CA 94304-1050Telephone: (650) 493-9300Facsimile: (650) 565-5100Email: mrubin@wsgr.com
 Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISIONIN RE GOOGLE INC. STREET VIEWELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONSLITIGATION)))))))))))))CASE NO.: 5:10-md-02184 JW (HRL)
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’SMOTION TO DISMISSPLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATEDCLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Hearing Date: March 21, 2011Time: 9:00 a.m.Before: Honorable James Ware
Case5:10-md-02184-JW Document60 Filed12/17/10 Page1 of 30
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
G
OOGLE
I
 NC
.’
S
M
OTION TO
D
ISMISS
C
ASE
N
O
. 5:10-MD-02184JW(HRL)
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION DISMISS.............................................................................1STATEMENT OF ISSUE TO BE DECIDED................................................................................1MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES......................................................................1I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.............................................................................................2A. Wi-Fi Technology...................................................................................................2B. Google’s Geo-Location Services. ...........................................................................2C. Google’s Payload Collection...................................................................................3D. The Putative Class Action Lawsuits........................................................................3III. ARGUMENT......................................................................................................................5A. Plaintiffs Have Failed To State A Federal Wiretap Act Claim...............................51. Plaintiffs Have Failed To Plead Facts Showing That Their Wi-FiRadio Broadcasts Were Not “Readily Accessible To The GeneralPublic.”........................................................................................................62. Plaintiffs Cannot Plead Facts Supporting A Claim That Their Wi-FiRadio Broadcasts Were Not “Readily Accessible To The GeneralPublic.”........................................................................................................8a. Plaintiffs Cannot Plead Facts Alleging That Their Wi-FiRadio Broadcasts Were “Scrambled Or Encrypted.”......................8 b. Plaintiffs’ Cannot Plead Facts Alleging That Their Wi-FiRadio Broadcasts Meet Any Other Exception to the “ReadilyAccessible” Presumption...............................................................11B. Plaintiffs’ State Law Wiretap Claims Fail. ...........................................................121. Plaintiffs’ State Wiretap Claims Are Expressly Preempted......................132. Plaintiffs’ State Wiretap Claims Are Barred Based On FieldPreemption. ...............................................................................................143. Plaintiffs’ State Wiretap Claims Are Barred Based On ConflictPreemption. ...............................................................................................15C. Plaintiffs’ Section 17200 Claim Should Be Dismissed.........................................161. Plaintiffs’ Section 17200 Claim Is Preempted..........................................17
Case5:10-md-02184-JW Document60 Filed12/17/10 Page2 of 30
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
G
OOGLE
I
 NC
.’
S
M
OTION TO
D
ISMISS
C
ASE
N
O
. 5:10-MD-02184JW(HRL)
-ii-2. Plaintiffs Have Not Stated A Section 17200 Claim..................................173. Plaintiffs Have Not Demonstrated Proposition 64 Standing.....................18IV. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................20
Case5:10-md-02184-JW Document60 Filed12/17/10 Page3 of 30

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->