The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
In this putative class action, Plaintiffs Mike Harris and Jeff Dunstan allege that comScore, Inc. ("comScore") improperly collected and disseminated personal information belonging to them and a class of similarly situated individuals. They claim that comScore violated the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701(a)(1) and (2), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a) and (d), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 505/1 (2007), and was unjustly enriched by its actions. This matter is before the court on the motion of comScore to bifurcate discovery into two phases-the first relating to class certification, and the second relating to the merits-and to stay discovery on the merits until further order of the court. For the following reasons, the motion is granted:
Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiffs allege that comScore, an Internet market research company, induces individuals to download and install its software by "bundling" it with free items such as screensavers, games, and third-party computer applications like CD burning software or greeting card templates. (R. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 13, 33.) After a user installs the comScore software, the software surreptitiously collects information about the user's online activity, scans some of the user's computer files, and transmits the information to comScore's servers. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 9.) comScore then aggregates the data it mines from the individual users for the purpose of developing market research reports, which it sells to its clients. (Id. at ¶ 25.)
Approximately two million internet users have installed comScore's software. (Id. at ¶¶ 31, 67, 70.) Harris alleges that when he downloaded a free screensaver, he unwittingly installed comScore's software, but did not agree to comScore's ToS or understand that the screensaver was bundled with comScore's software. (Id. at ¶¶ 67-69.) Harris alleges that he was able to uninstall the comScore software from his Macintosh computer but only after "conducting hours of diligent research." (Id. at ¶ 68.) Dunstan alleges that when he downloaded a free greeting card template it was secretly bundled with comScore's software. (Id. at ¶ 70.) Dunstan alleges that his computer, which ran the Windows operating system, was "debilitated" by the comScore software. (Id. at ¶¶ 70, 71.) Dunstan alleges that he had to purchase and use a $40 anti-virus software to remove the comScore software and restore his computer's functionality. (Id. at ¶ 73.)
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated. They seek to represent a class consisting of "all individuals and entities in the United States that have had comScore's surveillance software ("Surveillance Software") installed on their computer(s) and a Subclass of all individuals and entities in the United States that have incurred costs in removing the Surveillance Software." (R. 2, Pls.' Mot. to Certify Class at 2.)
Harris*fn1 propounded his first set of interrogatories and document requests to comScore in December 2011. (R. 67-1, 67-2.) comScore characterizes these requests as "sweeping and intrusive . . . encompassing virtually all aspects of comScore's business." (R. 67, Def.'s Mem. in Support of Bifurcation at 1.) comScore seeks to delay responding to these requests except as they relate to class certification issues. (Id. at 11.) To that end, comScore has agreed to respond to the interrogatories and requests for production that it believes relate to class certification issues. It has already produced the source code for the software in dispute, including the source code for its "RK Verify" software, which comScore describes as the software "that confirms that consumers have viewed and agreed to comScore's Terms of Service before installing the software." (Id. at 2.)
comScore argues that it would be inefficient and wasteful to conduct merits discovery before the assigned District Judge rules on the pending class certification motion. comScore predicts that if class certification is denied, Plaintiffs will settle or voluntarily withdraw their complaint because the statutory damages at issue-maximum $1,000 for Harris and $1,040 for Dunstan-are meager. In that event, any merits discovery already performed would be a wasted, expensive effort. If, on the other hand, the court certifies a class or classes, the certification order will clarify the issues to be litigated on the merits and will thereby narrow the scope of merits discovery. comScore suggests that the court might certify a class limited to Macintosh users or limited to Windows users because the comScore software for the two operating systems differs for at least two reasons: (1) comScore sold the data it collected from Windows users, but not the data collected from Macintosh users (see R. 59, Ans. at ¶ 38); and (2) comScore's software for Windows did not authorize data collection from local networks, though its software for Macintosh did allow limited connection to computers networked with its Macintosh users (see id. ¶ 10). comScore suggests that if the court certifies a class limited to either group of users, discovery on the merits relating to the other group would be rendered irrelevant and wasteful.
Plaintiffs disagree. They argue that bifurcated discovery will delay the litigation. They are particularly sensitive to any delay induced by comScore because of comScore's repeated praise of the "rocket docket" of Virginia, its preferred venue. Secondly, they argue that bifurcation will require increased judicial supervision because the parties will disagree about the permissible scope of class certification discovery. Third, they argue that comScore has not met its burden of establishing "good cause" for a protective order delaying merits discovery.
"The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure give magistrate judges broad discretion in resolving discovery disputes." Heyman v. Beatrice Co., Inc., No. 89 C 7381, 1992 WL 245682, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 23, 1992). That discretion extends to decisions to bifurcate discovery. See Ocean Atlantic Woodland Corp. v. DRH Cambridge Homes, Inc., No. 02 2523, 2004 WL 609326, at *2 (N.D. Ill. March 23, 2004) ("[w]hether to bifurcate discovery is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial court"). Though the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly provide for bifurcated discovery, the 2003 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 23 recognize that bifurcation is often appropriate: "it is appropriate to conduct controlled discovery . . . limited to those aspects relevant to making the certification decision on an informed basis." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Advisory Committee's Notes. In deciding motions to bifurcate merits discovery from class certification discovery, courts consider the following factors: (1) expediency, meaning whether bifurcated discovery will aid the court in making a timely determination on the class certification motion, see Plummer v. Chicago Journeyman Plumbers' Local Union No. 130, U.A., 77 F.R.D. 399, 402 (N.D. Ill. 1977);(2) economy, meaning "the potential impact a grant or denial of certification would have upon the pending litigation," see Gonzalez v. Pepsico, Inc., No. 06-2163-KHV, 2007 WL 1100204, at *3 (D. Kan. April 11, 2007), and whether the definition of the class would "help determine the limits of discovery on the merits," see American Nurses' Assoc. v. State of Illinois, 1986 WL 10382, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 12, 1986); and (3) severability, meaning whether class certification and merits issues are closely enmeshed, see Gray v. First Winthrop Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 41 (N.D. Cal. 1990).
An evaluation of these factors leads to the conclusion that bifurcation of discovery is the more sensible approach to discovery in this particular case. Proceeding with merits discovery, which may well involve the review of millions of documents not directly relevant to the issues of class certification, may delay the parties' submission of supplemental briefing on the class certification issue. Any delay would frustrate the court's effort to certify the action as a class action "[a]t an early practicable time," as is mandated by Rule 23(c)(1)(A). For this reason, the Manual for Complex Litigation counsels that "[d]iscovery relevant only to the merits delays the certification decision and may ultimately be unnecessary." Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.14 (2011). Regarding this expediency concern, Plaintiffs do not address whether bifurcation will result in a speedier determination of the class certification issue, but rather counter that bifurcation will significantly delay the resolution on the merits. This argument fails because bifurcated discovery will not take significantly more time than would non-bifurcated discovery. The parties' report of their Rule 26(f) planning meeting specifies that non-bifurcated discovery should take 10 months.
(R. 60, Report of the Pty.'s Planning Meeting at 3.) This is approximately the same total length of time as comScore envisions for bifurcated discovery, excluding the pause while the assigned District Judge considers the fully-briefed class certification motion-a required pause before reaching the merits of the case. Moreover, if a class is certified, the definition of "that class should help determine the limits of discovery on the merits," American Nurses' Assoc., 1986 WL 10382 at *3, which will save time as the parties move forward with the litigation. Overall, the potential for a modest delay in reaching ...