12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
G
OOGLE
I
NC
.’
S
R
EPLY
ISO 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.’SREPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITSMOTION TO DISMISSPLAINTIFFS’ CONSOLIDATEDCLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Hearing Date: March 21, 2011Time: 9:00 a.m.Before: Honorable James Ware
Case5:10-md-02184-JW Document67 Filed02/22/11 Page1 of 22
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
G
OOGLE
I
NC
.’
S
R
EPLY
ISO M
OTION TO
D
ISMISS
C
ASE
N
O
. 5:10-MD-02184JW HRL
-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................................1I. PLAINTIFFS’ WIRETAP ACT CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITHPREJUDICE........................................................................................................................1A. “Readily Accessible To The General Public” Should Be Given Its DefinedMeaning Both Times It Appears In The Wiretap Act.............................................1B. Plaintiffs’ Statutory Interpretation Arguments Are Unconvincing.........................3C. The Rule of Lenity Further Undermines Plaintiffs’ Reading..................................5D. Plaintiffs Have Failed To Plead Facts Showing That Their Wi-Fi RadioBroadcasts Were Not “Readily Accessible” Under Section 2510(16)....................6E. Plaintiffs Should Not Be Given Leave To Amend To Add New Use AndDisclosure Allegations ............................................................................................7II. PLAINTIFFS’ STATE WIRETAP CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITHPREJUDICE........................................................................................................................9III. PLAINTIFFS’ SECTION 17200 CLAIM SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITHPREJUDICE......................................................................................................................12CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................15
Case5:10-md-02184-JW Document67 Filed02/22/11 Page2 of 22
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
G
OOGLE
I
NC
.’
S
R
EPLY
ISO M
OTION TO
D
ISMISS
C
ASE
N
O
. 5:10-MD-02184JW(HRL)
-ii-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage
CASES
Air Line Pilots Ass’n Int’l v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc.
, 817 F. 2d 510 (9th Cir. 1987) .............7
Armstrong v. Sexson
, No. S-06-2200 LKK/EFB,2007 WL 1219297 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2007)...................................................................13
Betancourt v. Nippy, Inc.
, 137 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D. Puerto Rico 2001)............................................8
Buckingham v. Gailor
, No. 00-CV-1568, 2001 WL 34036325 (D. Md. Mar. 27, 2001) ...............8
Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm
., 531 U.S. 341 (2001)...................................................12
Bunnell v. MPAA
, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (C.D. Cal. 2007)...........................................................11
Cafarelli v. Yancy
, 226 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2000)........................................................................8, 9
Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain
, 503 U.S. 249 (1992) .............................................................4
Doe 1 v. AOL LLC
, 719 F. Supp.2d 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2010) .........................................................15
Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc
., No. C 08-05780,2010 WL 3291750 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2010).....................................................................6
Four Navy Seals v. Associated Press
, 413 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2005).............................13
Gardner v. Health Net, Inc.
, No. 10-2140 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2010)..........................................14
In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litig.
, 216 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2000).............................8
Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court
, __ Cal. Rptr. 3d __, 2011 WL 24027 (Jan. 27, 2011).............15
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)......................................................................6
Meese v. Keene
, 481 U.S. 465 (1987).............................................................................................2
Meredith v. Gavin
, 446 F.2d 794 (8th Cir. 1971)............................................................................8
Molinari v. Symantec Corp.
, No. C-97-20021,1998 WL 78120 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 1998).........................................................................8
Multiven, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
, 725 F. Supp. 2d 887 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ..............................15
N.L.R.B. v. Okla. Fixture Co.
, 332 F.3d 1284 (10th Cir. 2003)......................................................5
Noel v. Hall
, 568 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................8
Case5:10-md-02184-JW Document67 Filed02/22/11 Page3 of 22
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Google Street View Reply Re Motion to Dismiss
837
Reads
4
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
