Old Dominion's Motion to Stay Is 'Evasive Smoke Screen,' Say BIPA Plaintiffs

Old Dominion Freight Line’s motion to stay a Biometric Information Privacy Act case (see 2305300070) “is questionable at best,” said plaintiffs’ Wednesday response (docket 1:23-cv-02187) opposing the defendant’s May 26 motion to stay in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. Old Dominion seeks to stay proceedings pending the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision on the petition for rehearing filed in Cothron v. White Castle System, saying that decision could “significantly impact” the Old Dominion case, including the viability of certain named plaintiffs’ claims, the size of a putative class, the scope of potential discovery and the extent of damages awarded. In a May 3 hearing, Old Dominion didn’t mention it planned to file a motion to stay rather than an answer or responsive pleading, plaintiffs said. The defendant “appears to have” misled plaintiffs’ counsel and the court “by making no mention of it needing extra time to file a boilerplate motion to stay,” said the response. Old Dominion’s motion is “not well supported,” and absent a “substantial showing of likelihood of success for the Petitioner in Cothron, there is no basis to enter a stay,” it said. “Any potential reversal by the Illinois Supreme Court will not impact the viability” of the second amended complaint, it said. Old Dominion’s arguments supporting a stay “are nothing more than a desperate and evasive smoke screen.” Its motion to stay should be denied, and it should be given “no more than 5 days to answer,” said the response. The BIPA suit claims Old Dominion’s time clock system used, collected, stored and “otherwise obtained” plaintiffs' unique biometric identifiers without prior consent.