Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 218

ORDER by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denying 206 Motion to Compel; denying 207 Motion to Compel; denying 208 Motion to Compel; granting in part 205 Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 213 Facebook's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MATTHEW CAMPBELL, et al.,

v.

9
10

FACEBOOK INC.,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 13-cv-05996-PJH

Plaintiffs,

8

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
COMPEL AND GRANTING MOTIONS
TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 205, 206, 207, 208, 213

12
13
14

Before the court are three discovery motions by plaintiffs: a motion to compel

15

production of source code (Dkt. 206), a motion to compel production of configuration

16

tables (Dkt. 207), and a motion to compel further document searches (Dkt. 208). The

17

motions are fully briefed and suitable for decision without oral argument. Having read the

18

parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority,

19

and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES the motions to compel for the

20

following reasons.
DISCUSSION

21
22

A.

Legal Standard

23

A party may bring a motion to compel discovery when another party has failed to

24

respond adequately to a discovery request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). A party may “may

25

obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim

26

or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the

27

issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to

28

relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving

1

the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its

2

likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) (emphasis added). As the moving party, plaintiffs

3

must inform the court which discovery requests are the subject of the motion to compel,

4

why defendant’s objections are not justified or why the response provided is deficient,

5

and how proportionality and the other requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

6

26(b) are met. See Civil L.R. 37-2.

7

B.

8

Analysis
The court has reviewed the factual background and allegations in this case in

detail in its prior order partially granting class certification. See Dkt. 192. In that ruling,

10

the court certified a class for injunctive and declaratory relief only. Id. at 29. Plaintiffs’

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

case was limited to three specific alleged uses by Facebook of URLs in Facebook

12

messages: (1) Facebook counts a URL in a message as a “like” of the website; (2)

13

Facebook uses the data regarding URLs in messages to generate recommendations for

14

Facebook users; and (3) Facebook shares the data regarding URLs in messages with

15

third parties to generate targeted advertising. Id. at 3–5. Following its ruling, the court

16

permitted plaintiffs to file the operative second amended complaint. Dkt. 196.

17

In accordance with the limits of the case at this stage, discovery must be tailored

18

to the relief sought and the remaining claims. As a general matter, the court finds that

19

plaintiffs’ discovery requests are overboard, apparently seeking to discover new practices

20

to challenge, as opposed to seeking more information on the specific uses at issue in this

21

case. The discovery sought is therefore not “proportional to the needs of the case” under

22

Rule 26.

23

1.

24

The motion to compel further document searches centers on the specific search

Motion to Compel Further Document Searches

25

terms and time periods to be used to narrow document searches. See Dkt. 208 App. A.

26

The court has reviewed the proposed search terms and timeframes and finds that

27

plaintiffs’ proposed searches are overboard and not tailored to the claims at issue. The

28

court therefore DENIES the motion to compel further document searches, provided that
2

1

Facebook proceeds with its counterproposal on the search term issue. See Dkt. 208

2

App. A, column 4; Dkt. 216 at 9.1

3

2.

Motion to Compel Source Code

4

Plaintiffs’ overreach is most apparent in its motion to compel inspection of over

5

three years of Facebook’s highly proprietary source code. This case is limited to three

6

specific uses of URLs in messages described in the class certification order. Plaintiffs

7

are not automatically entitled to review the entirety of Facebook’s source code during the

8

entire class period based on their allegations, especially when Facebook has represented

9

that the challenged practices have ceased. Facebook has proposed another Rule
30(b)(6) deposition, document searches, DIFFs reflecting specific changes to the code,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

and interrogatories as reasonable alternative discovery to allow plaintiffs to verify

12

cessation of the specific challenged practices. Dkt. 214 at 9–10. The court finds that

13

further source code review is unreasonable and disproportionate in light of the narrow

14

issues remaining in the case. The court therefore DENIES the motion to compel source

15

code review, provided that Facebook proceeds with the reasonable discovery that it

16

describes to allow plaintiffs to confirm cessation of the specific challenged practices.

17

3.

Motion to Compel Production of Configuration Tables

18

Plaintiff’s third motion to compel seeks production of a number of configuration

19

tables that are purportedly related to the challenged practices. As with the other two

20

motions, the court finds that plaintiffs’ requests for configuration tables are overbroad,

21

apparently seeking information about Facebook practices far beyond those at issue.

22

Plaintiffs seek production of millions of cells of proprietary and sensitive information that

23

is unrelated to specific practices identified in the class certification order. As Facebook

24

represents, configuration data related to the three challenged practices does not exist in

25

any discrete table. Dkt. 215 at 6. In such a context, production of several entire

26
1

27
28

The parties also raise issues regarding searches from non-individual custodial sources.
As Facebook has agreed to produce from these sources, the court DENIES the motion to
compel production from these sources as moot. As these sources lack search capacity,
the parties will need to find a reasonable approach to production from these sources.
3

1

configuration tables only tangentially related to the practices at issue is not proportional to

2

the needs of the case. Instead, Facebook should proceed with its counterproposal to

3

provide another Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, and/or specific configuration data based on

4

specific relevant code calls identified by plaintiffs. See Dkt. 215 at 10. Plaintiffs’ motion

5

to compel production of configuration tables is DENIED.

6

4.

Motions to File Under Seal

7

Both parties have filed administrative motions to file portions of their papers under
seal in conjunction with these motions. Dkt. 205, 213. Facebook has filed a detailed

9

declaration by Nikki Stitt Sokol supporting plaintiffs’ motion. Dkt. 211. Because this is a

10

discovery matter only tangentially related to the merits of the case, the parties need only

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

show that that “‘good cause’ exists to protect th[e] information from being disclosed to the

12

public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.” Phillips

13

ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002); Ctr. for

14

Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Sealing requests

15

must be narrowly tailored under the local rules and Ninth Circuit authority. See Civil L.R.

16

79-5(b).

17

The court finds that there is good cause to file the materials under seal pursuant to

18

this court’s earlier order, which permitted redaction of “(1) information regarding the

19

processes and functionality of Facebook’s security and antiabuse products and systems,

20

(2) source code, and (3) the names of internal tables in Facebook’s database.” Dkt. 193

21

at 1. The court will therefore GRANT Facebook’s motion to file under seal. The court will

22

also GRANT plaintiffs’ motion to file under seal, provided that the plaintiffs re-file their

23

papers with the more limited redactions detailed in Facebook’s Sokol declaration. See

24

Dkt. 211.

25

CONCLUSION

26

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs motions to compel are DENIED. However,

27

Facebook shall provide plaintiffs the alternative reasonable and proportional discovery

28

that was described in its opposition papers. Facebook’s motion to file under seal (Dkt.
4

1

213) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ motion to file under seal (Dkt. 205) is GRANTED in part:

2

within two weeks of this order, plaintiffs shall re-file their motion papers in accordance

3

with the more narrow redactions set forth in Facebook’s declaration supporting plaintiffs’

4

motion to file under seal.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 4, 2016

7
8
9

__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5