Professional Biography

Todd M. Hinnen Partner

Member, Firmwide Executive Committee

  • Seattle

    D +1.206.359.3384

    F +1.206.359.9000

    Seattle

    1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900

    Seattle, WA 98101-3099

    +1.206.359.3384

    THinnen@perkinscoie.com

loader

Overview

Experience

Class Action Defense

S.A. and P.B. v. University of Washington

Superior Court for the State of Washington, King County
Lead counsel for the University of Washington in putative class action arising from an alleged data breach involving the personal information and protected health information of approximately one million patients of UW Medicine. Plaintiffs asserted multiple statutory and common law claims, including for violation of Washington’s Breach Notice Statute, Uniform Health-Care Information Act, AIDS Omnibus Act, and Release of Records for Research Act, as well as for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of express and implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Perkins Coie achieved dismissal of all claims with statutory damages at the pleadings stage, then twice defeated class certification, after which plaintiffs dismissed all remaining claims with prejudice.

Barnes v. Hanna Andersson et al.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Successfully defended Hanna Andersson in the first data breach putative class action filed under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), also alleging claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Civ. Code Section 17200 and for negligence. Obtained preliminary approval of class settlement with terms very favorable to Hanna Andersson, pending final approval.

Customer v. Client

Superior Court for the State of Washington for King County
Defending client in putative data breach class action alleging common law and statutory causes of action arising out of alleged public exposure of personal information.

Hoffman v. Pet360, Inc.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County
Obtained dismissal with prejudice of consumer protection and privacy class action complaint. No. BER-L-19308-14 (N.J. Super. 2014).

In re Search Warrant No. 16-960-M-01 to Google, Nos. 16-960-M-01, 16-1061

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Represent Google in ongoing litigation regarding whether a search warrant issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2710, can be used to compel a communications service provider to seize customer communications stored outside the United States and disclose them to the government.

Matter of Search of Content that is Stored at Premises Controlled by Google, No. 16-mc-80263

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represent Google in ongoing litigation regarding whether a search warrant issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2710, can be used to compel a communications service provider to seize customer communications stored outside the United States and disclose them to the government.

In re: Two email accounts stored at Google, Inc., No. 17-M-1235

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Represent Google in ongoing litigation regarding whether a search warrant issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2710, can be used to compel a communications service provider to seize customer communications stored outside the United States and disclose them to the government.

In the Matter of the Search of Information Associated with [Redacted]@gmail.com That Is Stored at Premises Controlled by Google, Inc., No. 17-mj-757 (GMH)

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Represent Google in ongoing litigation regarding whether a search warrant issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2710, can be used to compel a communications service provider to seize customer communications stored outside the United States and disclose them to the government.

Sarkar v. Doe

Court of Appeals of Michigan
Represented Google and Twitter as amici curiae arguing that the First Amendment requires a litigant that seeks to unmask an anonymous online speaker for purposes of filing a defamation claim to first make an evidentiary showing in support of the claim. The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed that the First Amendment barred disclosure of the anonymous speaker’s identity.

HMTQ v. Imperial Tobacco Canada

Supreme Court of British Columbia
Provided on behalf of the Office of the Information & Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia an opinion on the applicability of U.S. law to documents disclosed to a U.S. party in discovery and the U.S. government’s ability to compel production of such documents.

ABC v. DEF

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Represented Google Inc. in action to enforce National Security Letter (NSL) and in bid to disclose Google’s identity as the recipient of a NSL. Pursuant to a stipulated agreement and order, Google was authorized to disclose its identity as the recipient of the NSL in question.

Telecommunications Regulatory Board of Puerto Rico v. CTIA-The Wireless Association

U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
Represented CTIA-The Wireless Association before trial and appellate courts in case arguing the Puerto Rico law requiring pre-paid wireless telephone service providers to disclose to the Telecommunications Regulatory Board information regarding their customers or subscribers so the Board could create a registry was unconstitutional because it was preempted by the federal Stored Communications Act. CTIA-The Wireless Association prevailed at all levels. The Puerto Rico law was held unconstitutional.

Maryland v. King

U.S. Supreme Court
Representing Veterans for Common Sense as amicus curiae, argued that the warrantless collection and analysis of DNA from a person who has been arrested for a criminal offense constitutes an intrusion of privacy interests protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Cloud Computing Provider

Federal Trade Commission
Represented cloud computing provider in Federal Trade Commission investigation under Section 5 of the FTC Act regarding security practices for mobile access to cloud computing service. Investigation closed.

 

News

Insights