Litigation Details for Stegmann v. PetSmart LLC (N.D. Ill. 2022)

Stegmann v. PetSmart LLC (N.D. Ill. 2022)

Docket		Date Filed	2022-03-03
Court	District Court, N.D. Illinois	Date Terminated	2022-03-08
Cause	28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal	Assigned To	Gary Scott Feinerman
Jury Demand	None	Referred To	M. David Weisman
Patents	8,231,876; 8,420,081; 8,663,945; 8,715,664; 8,883,156; 8,895,009; 8,906,372; 8,906,373; 8,906,646; 8,911,964; 8,916,153; 8,926,975; 8,999,337; 9,061,005; 9,062,106; 9,085,618; 9,085,619; 9,085,620; 9,090,688; 9,090,867; 9,096,666; 9,102,723; 9,150,645; 9,181,337; 9,181,572; 9,234,032; 9,266,949; 9,273,132; 9,284,370; 9,284,371; 9,290,568; 9,315,574; 9,328,165; 9,334,319; 9,346,879; 9,359,434; 9,499,614; 9,499,616; 9,505,834; 9,522,953; 9,550,826
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Biologic Drugs cited in Stegmann v. PetSmart LLC

Details for Stegmann v. PetSmart LLC (N.D. Ill. 2022)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2022-03-03	60	answer to complaint	Protector Shroud 2. 8,231,876 Wan Purified…the ’081 patent, the ’975 patent, the ’973 patent, and the ’619 patent or any related patent because …the ’081 patent, the ’975 patent, the ’973 patent, and the ’619 patent due to Plaintiffs’ patent misuse…enforceable claim of the ’081 patent, the ’975 patent, the ’973 patent, and the ’619 patent, either literally or… claim of the ’081 patent, the ’975 patent, the ’973 patent, and the ’619 patent is invalid for failing	External link to document
2022-03-03	63	order	U.S. Patent No. 8,420,081 as one of the Ten Patents; and (3) the patent issuing from U.S. Patent Application…02889 to add (1) U.S. Patent No. 11,083,792; (2) the patent issuing from U.S. Patent Application No. 17/… related to the ten patents that will be subject to a first trial (“Ten Patents”)1, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED…9,187,559, 9,512,216, 11,083,792, and the patent issuing from U.S. Patent Application No. 17/137,201. Case…seek a preliminary injunction on any patents other than the Ten Patents. Plaintiffs shall not seek a preliminary	External link to document
2022-03-03	99	stipulation	Requests for Production related to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,805,686; 8,999,337; 9,067,992; 9,187,559; 9,512,216;…9,512,216; 11,083,792; and 11,167,030 (the patent issuing from U.S. Patent Application No. 17/137,201) (collectively…collectively, the “Remaining Patents”) by treating the term “Patents- in-Suit” as used in those Requests…served on August 25, 2021, to reflect all ten patents that will be tried in the August 2022 trial; and…Requests as including the Remaining Patents. AbbVie shall substantially complete this production on or before	External link to document
2022-03-03	101	other	proceeding involving the ’619 patent’s parent, U.S. Patent No. 8,420,081, lends further support to “water…indefinite, with terms in the ’792 patent being the most egregious. That patent, which AbbVie asserts covers…’s so-called “bufferless” patents, one of which, in violation of the Patent Dance confidentiality provisions… ARGUMENT The ’792 Patent The ’792 patent relates to methods for purifying … The ’619 and ’030 Patents The ’619 and ’030 patents share a common specification2	External link to document

Stegmann v. PetSmart LLC: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Litigation

Introduction

The case of Stegmann v. PetSmart LLC (Case No. 1:22-cv-01179) is a significant class action lawsuit that highlights the importance of biometric privacy laws, particularly the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Here, we delve into the details of the litigation, the allegations, the settlement, and the implications of this case.

Background of the Case

On January 20, 2022, Steven Stegmann filed a putative class action complaint against PetSmart LLC in the Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit, LaSalle County, Illinois. The complaint alleged that PetSmart violated BIPA by using Honeywell’s Vocollect order picking system at its distribution center in Ottawa, Illinois, which collected employees' voice data without proper consent and compliance with BIPA requirements[4].

Allegations Under BIPA

The plaintiff, Steven Stegmann, claimed that PetSmart committed several violations of BIPA, including:

• Failing to properly notify employees that their biometric information (voiceprints) was being collected.
• Failing to provide a written policy outlining the specific purpose and length of time the biometric information would be collected and stored.
• Failing to make publicly available a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying the biometric data.
• Failing to obtain a written release from employees to collect their biometric information[1][4].

Class Action Details

The proposed class includes all persons who had their voiceprint collected by PetSmart in Illinois without their consent, or who had their voiceprint not timely deleted. The class period spans from January 20, 2017, to the date of the preliminary approval of the settlement, and it excludes employees subject to an arbitration agreement with PetSmart[2][4].

Settlement Agreement

PetSmart agreed to a settlement of $424,455 to resolve the claims of the settlement class members. Despite denying all liability and wrongdoing, PetSmart opted to settle to avoid further litigation. The settlement fund is designed to compensate 472 current and former employees who used the Vocollect system at the Ottawa distribution center. Each eligible class member is expected to receive approximately $900, either as a direct cash payment or as an award of paid time off[1][2].

Settlement Structure

The settlement is structured to maximize the number of settlement class members who will receive a payment. Here are the key points:

• Settlement class members will automatically receive a payment unless they opt out or file a claim form to elect paid time off instead of a cash payment.
• There is no requirement for class members to submit a claim form to receive a pro rata cash payment.
• Payments will be sent directly to eligible class members, who will have 120 days to cash their settlement checks[2].

Court Proceedings

The case was initially filed in state court but was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)[4].

In July 2022, the federal court granted a motion to stay the suit, which was part of the ongoing litigation process[5].

Preliminary Approval and Final Settlement

On June 8, 2023, the plaintiff filed a motion urging the court to preliminarily approve the settlement. The court's preliminary approval was sought to ensure that the proposed settlement delivered a strong result for the class members. The settlement was ultimately approved, marking a significant step in resolving the litigation[2][3].

Implications and Lessons Learned

The Stegmann v. PetSmart LLC case underscores the importance of compliance with biometric privacy laws. Here are some key takeaways:

• Compliance with BIPA: Companies must ensure they comply with all aspects of BIPA, including notification, consent, and data retention policies.
• Employee Rights: Employees have the right to know when and how their biometric data is being collected and used.
• Litigation Risks: Non-compliance can lead to significant legal and financial consequences, as seen in the $425,000 settlement in this case.

Industry Impact

This case is part of a broader trend of litigation related to biometric privacy. Other companies, such as CVS, H&M, and Brilliant Earth, have also faced similar lawsuits alleging violations of BIPA. This highlights the need for businesses to be proactive in ensuring their practices align with biometric privacy laws[1].

Expert Insights

"Biometric privacy laws are becoming increasingly stringent, and companies must be vigilant in their compliance. The consequences of non-compliance, as seen in the PetSmart case, can be substantial," said David Fish, an attorney representing the plaintiff.

Key Takeaways

• BIPA Compliance: Ensure all biometric data collection practices comply with BIPA.
• Transparency: Clearly notify employees about the collection, use, and storage of their biometric data.
• Consent: Obtain written consent from employees before collecting their biometric data.
• Retention Policies: Establish and publicly disclose retention schedules and guidelines for destroying biometric data.

FAQs

Q: What was the main allegation against PetSmart in the Stegmann v. PetSmart LLC case? A: The main allegation was that PetSmart violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by collecting employees' voice data without proper notification, consent, and compliance with BIPA requirements.

Q: How much did PetSmart agree to pay in the settlement? A: PetSmart agreed to a settlement of $424,455.

Q: How many employees are eligible for compensation under the settlement? A: Approximately 472 current and former employees who used the Vocollect system at the Ottawa distribution center are eligible.

Q: What are the key violations of BIPA alleged in the case? A: The key violations include failing to notify employees, failing to obtain written consent, failing to provide a public retention schedule, and failing to adhere to the retention schedule for destroying biometric data.

Q: What is the significance of this case for other businesses? A: This case highlights the importance of complying with biometric privacy laws to avoid legal and financial consequences.

Cited Sources

1. Top Class Actions: "PetSmart to pay $425,000 in settlement over employee voice-tracking headset"
2. ClassAction.org: "Stegmann v. PetSmart LLC - Motion for Preliminary Approval"
3. Law360: "Stegmann v. PetSmart LLC"
4. ClassAction.org: "Stegmann v. PetSmart LLC - Notice of Removal"
5. Inside Privacy: "Federal Court Stays Suit Implicating Accrual of Claims Under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act"