Crumpton v. Haemonetics Corp.

595 F.Supp.3d 687

Mary CRUMPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

v.HAEMONETICS CORPORATION, a Massachusetts corporation, Defendant.

No. 21 C 1402

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed March 30, 2022

David J. Fish, Mara Ann Baltabols, Fish Potter Bolanos, P.C., Chicago, IL, J. Eli Wade Scott, Schuyler Ufkes, Edelson PC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

John T. Ruskusky, Henry Caldwell, Richard Henry Tilghman, Nixon Peabody, LLP, Chicago, IL, Tevin L. Hopkins, McGuireWoods LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

REBECCA R. PALLMEYER, United States District Judge

Between June 2017 and August 2018, Plaintiff Mary Crumpton, a citizen and resident of Illinois, donated plasma at a plasma donation center in Illinois. The donation center used donor management software provided by Defendant Haemonetics Corporation—meaning that whenever she donated plasma, Plaintiff was required to scan her fingerprints; then, Haemonetics’ software collected her biometric data and sent it to be stored on Haemonetics-owned servers outside Illinois. In February 2021, Plaintiff filed a proposed class action in state court, alleging that Haemonetics violated two provisions of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"). See 740 ILCS 14/15(a), (b). Haemonetics, a Massachusetts corporation, then removed to this court [1], on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).¹ Haemonetics has moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction [10] and for failure to state a claim [13], and in addition seeks a stay pending several Illinois state court decisions [12]. The parties agreed to conduct limited discovery on personal jurisdiction and to stay briefing on the other motions [16], meaning only the issue of personal jurisdiction is ripe for the court's consideration. For the following reasons, the court denies Haemonetics’ motion to dismiss [10] on this basis.

BACKGROUND

I. General Background

Defendant Haemonetics is a blood and plasma management company incorporated and headquartered in Massachusetts. (Steffan Decl., Ex. 1 to Def.’s Mot [10-1] (hereinafter "Steffan Decl."), at ¶ 3; Compl., Ex. A to Not. of Removal [1-1] (hereinafter "Compl."), at ¶ 1.) According to Alexander Steffan (who has worked for Haemonetics for some twelve years, now as Vice-President of Plasma Business Development), Haemonetics has three business units: (1) a plasma division, which provides "equipment, supplies, and software" to plasma donation centers; (2) a blood center division, which provides the same to blood collection centers; and (3) a hospital division, which provides "a variety of blood management products" to hospitals. (Steffan Decl. ¶ 2; Steffan Dep., Ex. 1 to Pls.’ Resp. [26-1], Ex. 1 to Def.’s Reply [32-1] (hereinafter "Steffan Dep."), at 10:12–11:24.)

One of Haemonetics’ plasma customers is Octapharma Plasma, Inc., which is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in North Carolina, and which operates more than 150 plasma donation centers across the United States, including in Illinois. (Id. at 12:1–3; Steffan Decl. ¶ 7); see https://octapharmaplasma.com/about (last visited March 30, 2022). Haemonetics has an "exclusive arrangement" with Octapharma, under which Haemonetics provides these facilities with "software," "devices," and "consumables." (Steffan Dep. 62:3–16). Included among the products and services that Haemonetics provides Octapharma is "donor management software," which "helps plasma collection companies keep track of donors and manage the donation process." (Id. at 10:19–24.) From December 14, 2009 until July 30, 2019, Octapharma used Haemonetics’ donor management system called eQue. (Octapharma Answers to Interrogs., Ex. 6 to Pls.’ Resp. [27-6] (hereinafter "Interrogs."), at 7–8.) Starting no later than 2016, Octapharma operated five plasma donation centers in Illinois, all of which used eQue.² (Octapharma Illinois Locations, Ex. 9 to Pls.’ Resp. [26-6] at 2; Steffan Dep. 66:4–68:9.)

Between June 2017 and August 2018, Plaintiff Mary Crumpton donated plasma an unidentified number of times at an Octapharma facility in Aurora, Illinois. (Compl. ¶ 28; Crumpton Decl., Ex. 2 to Pl.’s Resp. [27-2] (hereinafter "Crumpton Decl."), at ¶ 2.) Crumpton also worked as a phlebotomist at this Octapharma center from April 2018 to August 2018, though she does not bring any BIPA claims related to her employment. (Crumpton Decl. ¶ 2.) Rather, Crumpton's allegations all relate to the "eQue donor management software," used by "Octapharma to identify donors." (Compl. ¶ 29.) When Crumpton first visited Octapharma, Octapharma required her to scan her fingerprint on a finger scanner for this identification purpose. (Id. ¶ 30.) Each time Crumpton donated plasma at Octapharma, she was again required to scan her fingerprint. (Id. ¶ 32.) And whenever she scanned her fingerprint, "the Haemonetics’ eQue system automatically sent her biometric identifier and/or biometric information to a Haemonetics-owned server to be collected and stored in Haemonetics’ fingerprint database." (Id. ¶ 31.) Based on these allegations, Crumpton brought a proposed class action in state court, alleging two violations of BIPA: a Section 15(a) claim for failure to make publicly available a data retention and destruction policy and to timely delete her biometric data; and a Section 15(b) claim for failure to obtain written informed consent before collecting her biometric data. (Id. ¶¶ 47–48, 55–57); see 740 ILCS 14/15(a), (b). Haemonetics removed to federal court [1] and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction [10]. After a period of discovery, the parties have presented evidence in support of their competing positions concerning Haemonetics’ connections to Illinois.

II. Personal Jurisdiction Evidence

A. Haemonetics’ Data Collection and Storage

Plaintiff first notes that, based on the way the eQue donor management system operated, Haemonetics received and stored the biometric data of Illinois residents, collected in Illinois. The eQue system functioned in the following way: Octapharma's donation centers contained kiosks and computer terminals, with attached finger scanners. (Interrogs. at 9.) When donors first donated plasma at an Octapharma facility, they were "required to have their fingerprints scanned in order to enroll them in the facility's Haemonetics donor management system."³ (Compl. ¶ 22.) Specifically, donors used a kiosk to answer the "[eQue] questionnaire" (this appears to be a series of health history questions) and were prompted to scan their fingerprints. (Steffan Dep. 63:14–64:5; Interrogs. at 7.) Whenever donors visited an Octapharma center after this first visit, they were again required to scan their fingerprints, and the eQue donor management system compared that scan to the information obtained from the earlier fingerprint scan. (Interrogs. at 10; Compl. ¶ 32.)

Every time a donor scans fingerprints on a facility's finger scanner, "the Haemonetics donor management system automatically sends the donor's fingerprint to Haemonetics’ servers, as a daily upload, to be collected and stored in Haemonetics’ fingerprint database." (Compl. ¶ 23.) Octapharma's interrogatory answers (submitted in another BIPA class action lawsuit that Plaintiff Crumpton filed against Octapharma, based on the same underlying facts of this case) provides more details on how this data transfer occurred: the eQue software operated from a "local installation" on one dedicated computer at each donation center, which served as eQue's "server" within that center.⁴ (Interrogs. at 9.) The data collected from the kiosks and finger scanners was first "temporarily cached on the local eQue server housed at each Octapharma Donation Center"; then, the eQue system electronically transmitted the data as a daily upload to Haemonetics’ data storage servers in Edmonton, Canada. (Interrogs. at 12; Compl. ¶ 23.) Steffan confirmed that, when the Illinois Octapharma centers used eQue, Haemonetics "hosted" the data collected in Illinois on its own servers in Canada. (Steffan Dep. at 65:3–68:9, 75:23–76:5.) According to Steffan, Haemonetics has never used servers located in Illinois to store this data. (Id. at 74:14–18.) It is not clear whether this statement includes the temporary caching on each Octapharma facility's local eQue server.

B. Haemonetics’ Physical Presence in Illinois

Plaintiff next points to evidence of Haemonetics’ physical presence in Illinois (not all of which appears to relate to the eQue system). First, at some point prior to the filing of this lawsuit (though apparently not on the date when Plaintiff filed this suit), Haemonetics maintained a registered agent in Illinois; as of some date later in 2021, Haemonetics once again maintains a registered agent in Illinois. (Ex. 11 to Pl.’s Resp. [26-7] at 2; Steffan Dep. 85:2–87:12.) Additionally, Haemonetics hosts "maintenance technician trainings" in the Chicagoland area for "Haemonetics products within the Haemonetics plasma business"; employees or representatives of Octapharma have attended these trainings. (Steffan Dep. 111:5–112:7.) The record does not make clear whether these "products" included the eQue donor management system.

Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Haemonetics maintained two offices in Illinois: in Niles (from November 2007 to July 2017) and in Rosemont (from November 2012 to July 2019). (Haemonetics’ Illinois Offices, Ex. 8 to Pl.’s Resp. [26-5] (hereinafter "Illinois Offices"), at 2.) Collectively, these offices employed around 100 Haemonetics employees from 2016 to 2019. (Steffan Dep. 77:22–78:14.) The Niles office housed a Haemonetics subsidiary called TEG, and dealt solely with TEG's hemostasis analyzer technology, which is not a plasma donor management software product. (Illinois Offices at 2; Steffan Dep. 78:15–22); see https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/haemonetics-corporation-completes-acquisitio...