Brkic v. Facebook, Inc

Filing 11

NOTICE OF FILING OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.S STIPULATED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION (CIV. L.R. 3-12) IN DAVIS V. FACEBOOK, INC., CASE NO. 11-CV-04834 (N.D. CAL.) by Facebook, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A-1, # 3 Exhibit A-2, # 4 Exhibit A-3, # 5 Exhibit A-4)(Brown, Matthew) (Filed on 10/31/2011) Modified on 11/3/2011 (bw, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT A-2 TO:
NOTICE OF FILING OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S STIPULATED
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION (CIV. L.R. 3-12) IN DAVIS v. FACEBOOK, INC.,
CASE NO. 11-CV-04834 (N.D. CAL.)

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-2

1

6

COOLEY LLP
MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127)
([e-mail])
MATTHEW D. BROWN (196972)
([e-mail])
JEFFREY M. GUTKIN (216083)
([e-mail])
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

7

Filed10/28/11 Page1 of 2

Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.

2
3
4
5

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15

PERRIN AIKENS DAVIS, PETERSEN
GROSS, DR. BRIAN K. LENTZ,
TOMMASINA IANNUZZI, TRACY
SAURO, JENNIFER SAURO, and LISA
SABATO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

ACTION FILED: September 30, 2011

v.

17

19

DECLARATION OF MATTHEW D. BROWN
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK,
INC.’S STIPULATED ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES
SHOULD BE RELATED (CIV. L.R. 3-12)

Plaintiffs,

16

18

Case No. 11-CV-04834-EJD-PSG

FACEBOOK, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation
Defendant.

20
21
22
23

I, Matthew D. Brown, declare as follows:
1.

24

I am an attorney duly licensed by the State of California. I am a partner at Cooley

25

LLP, counsel for Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”). The matters set forth herein are of my own

26

personal knowledge, and if called and sworn as a witness, I could competently testify regarding

27

them.

28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

1.

BROWN DECL. I/S/O FACEBOOK’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO RELATE
CASE NO. 11-CV-04834-EJD-PSG

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-2

1

2.

Filed10/28/11 Page2 of 2

The action Davis v. Facebook, Inc., No. 11-cv-04834 (N.D. Cal.), was filed on

2

September 30, 2011. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Davis

3

Complaint.

4
5
6

3.

The action Brkic v. Facebook, Inc., No. 11-cv-04935 (N.D. Cal.), was filed on

October 5, 2011. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Brkic Complaint.
4.

On October 17, 2011 the Davis plaintiffs filed a motion before the Judicial Panel

7

on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer eleven actions to a single judge in the Northern District of

8

California, including the Davis and Brkic actions. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and

9

correct copy of the Davis plaintiffs’ motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

10

and the schedule of actions filed in support of that motion.

11
12
13

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed this day, the 28th day of October, 2011, in San Francisco, California.

14
15
16

Dated: October 28, 2011

17
/s/ Matthew D. Brown
___________________________________

18

Matthew D. Brown

19
20
21

2566577/ST

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

2.

BROWN DECL. I/S/O FACEBOOK’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO RELATE
CASE NO. 11-CV-04834-EJD-PSG

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-3

Filed10/28/11 Page1 of 16

EXHIBIT A

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-3

Filed10/28/11 Page2 of 16

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-3

Filed10/28/11 Page3 of 16

1

Plaintiffs Perrin Aikens Davis (“Davis”), Petersen Gross (“Gross”), Dr. Brian K. Lentz

2

(“Lentz”), Tommasina Iannuzzi (“Iannuzzi”), Tracy Sauro, Jennifer Sauro and Lisa Sabato

3

(“Sabato”) (together, the “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

4
by and through their undersigned counsel, upon knowledge as to themselves and otherwise upon
5
6

information and belief, allege as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION

7
8
9
10
11

1.

This is a class action lawsuit brought by, and on behalf of, similarly situated

individuals who had active Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook” or the “Defendant”) accounts from May
27, 2010 through September 26, 2011 (the “Class Period”) and whose privacy was violated.
2.

Facebook routinely installs small files called “cookies” on its users’ computers.

12
13
14

Facebook cookies store login IDs, confirm that a user is logged in, and track when a user is
interacting with Facebook Platform applications and websites. Facebook obtained consent from

15

its users to install these cookies, but the consent required Facebook to delete these cookies upon

16

logging out. Facebook repeatedly assured users that “When you log out of Facebook, we remove

17

the cookies that identify your particular account.”

18
19

3.

On September 26, 2011, however, Facebook publicly admitted that it has installed

cookies on users’ computers that track the internet activity of users even after they have logged

20
21

off of Facebook. This admission came only after an Australian technology blogger exposed

22

Facebook’s practice of monitoring members who have logged out, although he brought the

23

problems to Defendant’s attention a year ago.

24
25
26

4.

On September 28, 2011, U.S. Representative Edward Markey and U.S.

Representative Joe Barton, Co-Chairmen of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus,
submitted a joint letter to the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission stating that “[a]s co-

27
Chairs of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus, we believe that tracking user behavior
28
2

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-3

Filed10/28/11 Page4 of 16

1

without their consent or knowledge raises serious privacy concerns.” The letter continues that

2

“[w]hen users log out of Facebook, they are under the expectation that Facebook is no longer

3

monitoring their activities. We believe this impression should be the reality. Facebook users

4
should not be tracked without their permission.”
5
6

5.

Defendant’s willful and knowing actions violated the Federal Wiretap Act, the

7

Stored Electronic Communication Act, and the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The

8

Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under these statutes on behalf of the entire Class for

9

these violations.

10
11

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Facebook because Facebook

12
13
14

is headquartered in this District.
7.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action and Defendant Facebook

15

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this action arises under federal statutes, namely the Federal

16

Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (the “Wiretap Act”), the Stored Electronic Communication Act,

17

18 U.S.C. § 2701 (“SECA”) and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (the

18

“CFAA”) and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because the amount in controversy exceeds

19
$5,000,000.
20
21

8.

Venue is proper in this District because Defendant Facebook is headquartered in

22

this District. In addition, The Facebook Statements of Rights and Responsibilities, which governs

23

the relationship between Facebook and its users, provides for exclusive venue in state or federal

24

courts located in Santa Clara County, California.

25
26

THE PARTIES
9.

Plaintiff Davis is an adult domiciled in Illinois. Davis has had an active Facebook

27
account during the entire Class Period.
28
3

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-3

1
2
3

10.

Filed10/28/11 Page5 of 16

Plaintiff Gross is an adult domiciled in Hawaii. Gross has had an active Facebook

account during the entire Class Period.
11.

Plaintiff Lentz is an adult domiciled in Virginia. Lentz has had an active Facebook

4
account during the entire Class Period.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12.

Plaintiff Iannuzzi is an adult domiciled in New Jersey. Iannuzzi has had an active

Facebook account during the entire Class Period.
13.

Plaintiff Tracy Sauro is an adult domiciled in New Jersey. Tracy Sauro has had an

active Facebook account during the entire Class Period.
14.

Plaintiff Jennifer Sauro is an adult domiciled in New Jersey. Jennifer Sauro has

had an active Facebook account during the entire Class Period.

12
15.

Plaintiff Sabato is an adult domiciled in New Jersey. Sabato has had an active

13
14
15

Facebook account during the entire Class Period.
16.

Defendant Facebook is a Delaware corporation which maintains its headquarters at

16

156 University Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94301. Facebook is a “social network” that permits

17

its members to interact with one another through a web site located at www.facebook.com.

18

Facebook has approximately 800 million members, of whom 150 million are in the United States.

19
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
20
21
22
23

17.

Facebook is the largest social networking website in the world, with more than 800

users globally, and 150 million users in the United States.
18.

Although Facebook members are not required to pay a subscription fee,

24

membership is not free. Instead, membership is conditioned upon users providing sensitive

25

personal information to Facebook upon registration, including name, birth date, gender and email

26

address. More importantly, use of Facebook is conditioned upon the user accepting numerous

27
Facebook cookies on the user’s computer which tracks the member’s browsing history. This
28
4

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-3

Filed10/28/11 Page6 of 16

1

information, including the member’s unique Facebook identifier, is then harvested by Facebook

2

from the user’s computer. Facebook uses the information to generate revenue for the company.

3

19.

Use of Facebook is governed by the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and a

4
number of other documents and policies, including a Data Use Policy and a Privacy Policy.
5
6

Although the governing documents make clear that users consent to Facebook installing cookies

7

on the user’s computer, and although the users consent to these cookies tracking and transmitting

8

to Facebook data regarding each user’s web browsing, such consent was limited to internet usage

9

while the user is logged on to Facebook. Users do not consent to having records of their web

10
11

browsing tracked after logging out of Facebook.
20.

On Facebook’s online help center, Facebook emphasized, “When you log out of

12
13
14

Facebook, we remove the cookies that identify your particular account.”
21.

In 2010, an Australian blogger named Nik Cubrilovic (“Cubrilovic”) discovered

15

that Facebook cookies were in fact tracking user’s internet usage even after logging out of

16

Facebook, without the knowledge or consent of the user.

17
18

22.

Cubrilovic’s investigation revealed that five cookies retained value even after

logout and even after a browser restart, while two additional cookies survived logout and remain

19
as session cookies.
20
21

23.

The five cookies that persisted after logout and a browser restart are datr, lu, p, L,

22

and act. The two that persist after logout are a_user and a_xs. Cubrilovic reported that the most

23

important of these cookies is a_user, which is the user’s identification. In short, Cubrilovic

24

established that Facebook was in fact secretly tracking its user’s web browsing without their

25

knowledge or consent even after logout.

26

24.

Cubrilovic repeatedly contacted Facebook to report his findings and get them to

27
fix the problem. They refused. For example, Cubrilovic emailed Facebook on November 14,
28
5

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-3

Filed10/28/11 Page7 of 16

1

2010, and on January 12, 2011, to the official press address at Facebook, even using “subject

2

lines that were very clear in terms of the importance of this issue” but got no response.

3

25.

On September 25, 2011 Cubrilovic went public with his findings. He reported that:

4
“Even if you are logged out, Facebook still knows and can track every page you visit.” He
5
6
7
8

explained that “[t]his is not what ‘logout’ is supposed to mean – Facebook are only altering the
state of the cookies instead of removing all of them when a user logs out.”
26.

Facebook’s response was immediate. On September 26, 2011, Facebook engineer

9

Gregg Stefancik thanked Cubrilovic “for raising these important issues” and admitted that

10

Facebook had not “done as good a job as we could have to explain our cookie practices. Your

11

post presents a great opportunity for us to fix that.”

12
27.

Facebook also fixed the a_user cookie, admitting to Cubrilovic, “There is a bug

13
14
15

where a_user was not cleared on logout. We will be fixing that today.”
28.

On September 28, 2011, Congressmen Edward Markey and Joe Barton, Co-

16

Chairmen of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus, wrote a letter to the Chairman of the

17

Federal Trade Commission.

18

The letter is attached to this complaint as Exhibit A.

The

Congressmen stated,

19
In an effort to protect consumers, we would like to know about any
actions the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken or plans to
take to investigate this practice by Facebook. We believe that an
investigation of Facebook tracking its users even after they log out
falls within the FTC’s mandate as stipulated in Section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act with respect to protecting
Americans from “unfair and deceptive acts or practices.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

29.

The letter also stated,
As co-Chairs of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus, we
believe that tracking user behavior without their consent or
knowledge raises serious privacy concerns. When users log out of
Facebook, they are under the expectation that Facebook is no
longer monitoring their activities. We believe this impression

28
6

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-3

1

should be the reality. Facebook users should not be tracked
without their permission.

2
3

Filed10/28/11 Page8 of 16

30.

On September 29, 2011, the Electronic Information Privacy Information Center

4

submitted a letter to the Federal Trade Commission citing Cubrilovic’s post. The letter stated that

5

“Facebook’s tracking of post-log-out Internet activity violates both the reasonable expectations of

6

consumers and the company’s own privacy statements” and that “Facebook has been engaging in

7

post-log-out tracking for at least a year.” The letter was also signed by the American Civil

8
Liberties Union, the American Library Association, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, the
9
10
11

Center for Digital Democracy, the Center for Media and democracy, Consumer Action,
Consumer Watchdog, Privacy Activism and Privacy Times.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

12
13
14
15

31.

This is a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure on behalf of a Class of all persons who had active Facebook accounts and used
Facebook between May 27, 2010 and September 26, 2011, both dates inclusive, and whose

16
17

privacy was violated by Facebook. Excluded from the Class are Facebook, and its officers,

18

directors, employees, affiliates, legal representatives, predecessors, successors and assigns, and

19

any entity in which any of them have a controlling interest.

20
21
22

32.

The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable.
33.

Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and

23
predominate over any questions affecting solely individual members of the Class. The questions
24
25
26

of law and fact common to the Class include whether Facebook violated federal law by tracking
Internet use by Facebook members after the members had logged off of Facebook.

27
28
7

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-3

1
2
3

34.

Filed10/28/11 Page9 of 16

Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of other Class members, as all members

of the Class were similarly affected by Facebook’s wrongful conduct in violation of federal law
as complained of herein.

4
35.

Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the

5
6

Class and have retained counsel that is competent and experienced in class action litigation.

7

Plaintiffs have no interest that is in conflict with, or otherwise antagonistic to the interests of the

8

other Class members.

9
10
11

36.

A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable. Furthermore, as
the damages suffered by individual Class members may be relatively small, the expense and

12
13
14
15

burden of individual litigation make it impossible for members of the Class to individually
redress the wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in management of this action as a
class action.

16

COUNT I

17

VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL WIRETAP ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 2511

18
19

37.

Plaintiffs incorporate the above allegations by reference as if set forth more fully

38.

The Federal Wiretap Act, as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy

herein.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Act of 1986, prohibits the willful interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication.
39.

18 U.S.C. § 2520(a) provides a private right of action to any person whose wire,

oral or electronic communication is intercepted.
40.

Facebook placed cookies on its users’ computers that intercepted records of

Facebook users’ internet communications even after the user has logged out.

27
28
8

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-3

1
2
3

41.

Filed10/28/11 Page10 of 16

Neither the Plaintiffs nor members of the Class consented to nor were aware that

the Defendant was violating its own privacy policy and tracking its users’ internet use after
logging off Facebook.

4
42.

The data intercepted by the Defendants’ cookies after the user logged off are

5
6

“communications” within the meaning of the Wiretap Act.
43.

7
8

thus intentionally and willfully intercepted the electronic communications of its users.

9
10

Facebook intentionally and willfully placed the cookies on its users computers and

44.

Plaintiffs are persons whose electronic communications were intercepted within

the meaning of Section 2520.

11

45.

Section 2520 provides for preliminary, equitable and declaratory relief, in addition

12
13
14
15

to statutory damages of the greater of $10,000 or $100 a day for each day of violation, actual and
punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and disgorgement of any profits earned by
Defendant as a result of the above-described violations.

16

COUNT II

17

VIOLATION OF THE STORED ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS ACT,

18

18 U.S.C. § 2701

19
46.

Plaintiffs incorporate the above allegations by reference as if set forth more fully

47.

The Stored Electronic Communications Act (“SECA”) provides a cause of action

20
21
22

herein.

23

against a person who intentionally access without authorization a facility through which an

24

electronic communication service is provided, or who intentionally exceeds an authorization to

25

access that facility, and thereby obtains, alters or prevents authorized access to a wire or

26

electronic communication while it is in storage in such a system.

27
28
9

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-3

1
2

48.

Filed10/28/11 Page11 of 16

“Electronic Storage” is defined in the statute to be “any temporary, immediate

storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission thereof.”

3

49.

Facebook intentionally placed cookies on its members’ computers that accessed

4
members’ stored electronic communications without authorization, and thus violated SECA.
5
50.

6

Plaintiffs and other member of the Class were harmed by Defendant’s violations,

7

and are entitled to statutory, actual and compensatory damages, injunctive relief, punitive

8

damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

9

COUNT III

10

VIOLATION OF THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT,

11

18 U.S.C. § 1030

12
51.

Plaintiffs incorporate the above allegations by reference as if set forth more fully

52.

Defendant intentionally accessed a computer used for interstate commerce or

13
14

herein.

15
16

communication, without authorization or by exceeding authorized access to such a computer, and

17

by obtaining information from such a protected computer.

18
19

53.

Defendant’s knowingly causing the transmission of a program, information, code

or command and as a result caused a loss to one or more persons during any one-year period of at

20
21

least $5,000 in the aggregate.
54.

22
23

Defendant’s knowing actions.

24
25
26

Plaintiffs have also suffered a violation of the right of privacy as a result of

55.

Defendant has thus violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §

56.

Defendant’s unlawful access to Plaintiff’s computers and communications have

1030.

27
caused irreparable injury. Unless restrained and enjoined, Defendant may continue to commit
28
10

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-3

Filed10/28/11 Page12 of 16

1

such acts. Plaintiffs’ remedies at law are not adequate to compensate for these inflicted and

2

threatened injuries, entitling Plaintiffs and the Class to remedies including injunctive relief as

3

provided by 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g).

4
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
A.

Determine that this action is a proper class action under Rule 23 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure;
B.

Award compensatory damages, including statutory damages where available, in

favor of Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class against Defendant for all damages
sustained as a result of Defendant’s wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including

12
interest thereon;
13
14

C.

Permanently restrain Defendant, and its officers, agents, servants, employees and

15

attorneys, from installing cookies on its users’ computers that could track the users’ computer

16

usage after logging out of Facebook or otherwise violating its policies with users;

17
18
19

D.

Award Plaintiffs and the Class their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this

action, including counsel fees and expert fees; and
E.

Grant Plaintiffs such further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

20
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

21
22
23
24

The Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
DATED this 30th day of September, 2011.

25
26
27
28
11

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-3

Filed10/28/11 Page13 of 16

1
2
/s/ David A. Straite____________
By: David A. Straite
(pro hac vice to be sought)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

David A. Straite (Del. 5428)
(pro hac vice to be sought)
Ralph N. Sianni (Del. 4151)
Sianni & Straite LLP
1201 N. Orange St., Suite 740
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
Stephen G. Grygiel (Del. 4944)
John E. Keefe, Jr. (NJ 034081990)
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr. (NJ 023411997)
Keefe Bartels LLC
170 Monmouth Street
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
Barry R. Eichen (NJ 015851986)
Daryl L. Zaslow (NJ 014391996)
Eichen Crutchlow Zaslow & McElroy LLP
40 Ethel Road
Edison, New Jersey 08817
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
Jonathan W. Thames – SBN 242158
Archer Norris PLC
2033 North Main Street, Suite 800
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

27
28
12

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-3

Filed10/28/11 Page14 of 16

Exhibit A

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-3

Filed10/28/11 Page15 of 16

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-3

Filed10/28/11 Page16 of 16

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-4

Filed10/28/11 Page1 of 16

EXHIBIT B

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-4 Filed10/05/11 Page1 ofof 16
Case5:11-cv-04935-HRL Document1
Filed10/28/11 Page2 14

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-4 Filed10/05/11 Page2 ofof 16
Case5:11-cv-04935-HRL Document1
Filed10/28/11 Page3 14

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-4 Filed10/05/11 Page3 ofof 16
Case5:11-cv-04935-HRL Document1
Filed10/28/11 Page4 14

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-4 Filed10/05/11 Page4 ofof 16
Case5:11-cv-04935-HRL Document1
Filed10/28/11 Page5 14

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-4 Filed10/05/11 Page5 ofof 16
Case5:11-cv-04935-HRL Document1
Filed10/28/11 Page6 14

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-4 Filed10/05/11 Page6 ofof 16
Case5:11-cv-04935-HRL Document1
Filed10/28/11 Page7 14

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-4 Filed10/05/11 Page7 ofof 16
Case5:11-cv-04935-HRL Document1
Filed10/28/11 Page8 14

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-4 Filed10/05/11 Page8 ofof 16
Case5:11-cv-04935-HRL Document1
Filed10/28/11 Page9 14

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-4 Filed10/05/11 Page9 of of 16
Case5:11-cv-04935-HRL Document1
Filed10/28/11 Page10 14

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-4 Filed10/05/11 Page10 ofof 16
Case5:11-cv-04935-HRL Document1
Filed10/28/11 Page11 14

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-4 Filed10/05/11 Page11 ofof 16
Case5:11-cv-04935-HRL Document1
Filed10/28/11 Page12 14

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-4 Filed10/05/11 Page12 ofof 16
Case5:11-cv-04935-HRL Document1
Filed10/28/11 Page13 14

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-4 Filed10/05/11 Page13 ofof 16
Case5:11-cv-04935-HRL Document1
Filed10/28/11 Page14 14

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-4 Filed10/05/11 Page14 ofof 16
Case5:11-cv-04935-HRL Document1
Filed10/28/11 Page15 14

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-4 Filed10/28/11 Page16 of 1
Case5:11-cv-04935-HRL Document1-1 Filed10/05/11 Page1 of 16

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document17-5

Filed10/28/11 Page1 of 7

EXHIBIT C

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document 3 Filed 10/17/11 Page 1 of 2 7
Case MDL No. 2314 Document17-5 Filed10/28/11 Page2 of

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
______________________________
:
:
In re: Facebook Internet
:
Tracking Litigation
:
:
:
______________________________:

MDL Docket No: ________________________

[Corrected Motion]

MOTION OF PLAINTIFFS DAVIS, GROSS, LENTZ, IANNUZZI, TRACY SAURO,
JENNIFER SAURO AND SABATO TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE RELATED
ACTIONS TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE NORTHEN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA (SAN JOSE DIVISION) UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1407
Perrin Aikens Davis, Petersen Gross, Dr. Brian K. Lentz, Tracy Sauro, Tommasina
Iannuzzi, Jennifer Sauro and Lisa Sabato, Plaintiffs in Davis, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Civ. Action
No. 11-0434 (PSG) (N.D. Cal.) (hereinafter “plaintiffs”), jointly move pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1407, that the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation transfer and consolidate all actions listed
on the Schedule of Actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Jose) before the Honorable Paul Singh Grewal, U.S.M.J.
As indicated in the Schedule of Actions, there are presently eleven putative class actions
concerning common factual questions relating to Defendant Facebook, Inc.’s wrongful tracking
of its user’s web browsing through installation of persistent “cookies” on a user’s computer.
These actions are pending in ten different districts: two in the Northern District of California, one
in the Western District of Missouri, one in the District of Kansas, one in the Southern District of
Illinois, one in the Western District of Texas, one in the Northern District of Alabama, one in the
Western District of Kentucky, one in the District of Arizona, one in the Middle District of
Louisiana, and one in the Northern District of Mississippi. As set forth in the accompanying

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJD Document 3 Filed 10/17/11 Page 2 of 2 7
Case MDL No. 2314 Document17-5 Filed10/28/11 Page3 of

Memorandum, the Related Actions satisfy the requirements for transfer and consolidation
because they concern common questions of fact and transfer to the District Court for the
Northern District of California will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
will promote the just and efficient conduct of all such actions.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: October 17, 2011

Sianni & Straite LLP
/s/ David A. Straite
David A. Straite (Del. 5428)
Ralph N. Sianni (Del. 4151)
1201 N. Orange St., Suite 740
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
Keefe Bartels LLC
Stephen G. Grygiel (Del. 4944)
John E. Keefe, Jr. (NJ 034081990)
Stephen Sullivan, Jr. (NJ 023411997)
170 Monmouth Street
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
Eichen Crutchlow Zaslow & McElroy LLP
Barry R. Eichen (NJ 015851986)
Daryl L. Zaslow (NJ 014391996)
40 Ethel Road
Edison, NJ 08817
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Davis, Gross, Lentz,
Iannuzzi, Traci Sauro, Jennifer Sauro and Sabato in
Davis, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Civ. Action No. 110434 (PSG) (N.D. Cal.)
2

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJDDocument 1-2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 1 of of 7
Case MDL No. 2314
Document17-5 Filed10/28/11 Page4 4

1
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

______________________________
:
:
In re: Facebook Internet
:
Tracking Litigation
:
:
:
______________________________:

MDL Docket No: ________________________

SCHEDULE OF ACTIONS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO TRANSFER AND CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS
TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA (SAN JOSE DIVISION) UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1407

Case Caption

District

Plaintiffs:

Northern
District of
California
(San Jose
Division)

Perrin Aikens Davis, Petersen
Gross, Dr. Brian K. Lentz,
Tommasina Iannuzzi, Tracy Sauro,
Jennifer Sauro and Lisa Sabato,
individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated
Defendant:
Facebook, Inc.

Civil Action No.

Judge

11-cv-4834

Paul Singh
Grewal,
U.S.M.J.

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJDDocument 1-2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 2 of of 7
Case MDL No. 2314
Document17-5 Filed10/28/11 Page5 4

11-cv-4935

Howard R.
Lloyd,
U.S.M.J.

Western District 11-cv-4256
of Missouri
Chandra L. Thompson, individually (Jefferson City
and on behalf of others similarly
Division)
situated

Nanette K.
Laughrey,
U.S.D.J.

Plaintiff:
Lana Brkic, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated

Northern
District of
California
(Oakland
Division)

Defendant:
Facebook, Inc.
Plaintiff:

Defendant:
Facebook, Inc.
Plaintiff:
John Graham, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated

District of
Kansas
(Kansas City
Division)

11-cv-2556

J. Thomas
Marten,
U.S.M.J.

Southern
District of
Illinois
(East St. Louis
Division)

11-cv-895

Michael J.
Reagan,
U.S.D.J.

Defendant:
Facebook, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Dana Howard, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated
Defendant:
Facebook, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Michael Singley, individually and
on behalf of others similarly
situated
Defendant:
Facebook, Inc.

Western District 11-cv-874
of Texas
(Austin
Division)

Sam Sparks,
U.S.D.J.

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJDDocument 1-2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 3 of of 7
Case MDL No. 2314
Document17-5 Filed10/28/11 Page6 4

Plaintiff:
Alexandria Parrish, individually
and on behalf of others similarly
situated

Northern
District of
Alabama
(Southern
Division)

11-cv-3576

Robert R.
Armstrong,
U.S.D.J.

Defendant:
Facebook, Inc.
Plaintiff:
David M. Hoffman, individually
and on behalf of others similarly
situated

Western District 11-cv-166
of Kentucky
(Paducah
Division)

Thomas B.
Russell,
U.S.C.J.

District of
Arizona
(Phoenix
Division)

11-cv-1964

David K.
Duncan,
U.S.M.J.

Northern
District of
Mississippi
(Western
Division)

11-cv-133

Neal B.
Biggers,
U.S.D.J.

Defendants:
Facebook, Inc.
Plaintiffs:
Sharon Beatty, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated
Defendant:
Facebook, Inc.
Plaintiff:
Brooke Rutledge, individually and
on behalf of others similarly
situated
Defendant:
Facebook, Inc.

3

Case5:11-cv-04834-EJDDocument 1-2 Filed 10/17/11 Page 4 of of 7
Case MDL No. 2314
Document17-5 Filed10/28/11 Page7 4

Plaintiff:
Janet Seamon, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated

Middle District
of Louisiana
(Baton Rouge
Division)

11-cv-689

James J.
Brady,
U.S.D.J.

Defendant:
Facebook, Inc.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 17, 2011

Sianni & Straite LLP

/s/ David A. Straite
David A. Straite (Del. 5428)
Ralph N. Sianni (Del. 4151)
1201 N. Orange St., Suite 740
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
Keefe Bartels LLC
Stephen G. Grygiel (Del. 4944)
John E. Keefe, Jr. (NJ 034081990)
Stephen Sullivan, Jr. (NJ 023411997)
170 Monmouth Street
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
Eichen Crutchlow Zaslow & McElroy LLP
Barry R. Eichen (NJ 015851986)
Daryl L. Zaslow (NJ 014391996)
40 Ethel Road
Edison, NJ 08817
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]

4