In Re FACEBOOK INTERNET TRACKING LITIGATION

Filing 108

MOTION for Protective Order TEMPORARILY STAYING FURTHER DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT, AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed by Facebook Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 4/28/2016 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 5th Floor, San Jose before Hon. Edward J. Davila. Responses due by 3/16/2016. Replies due by 3/23/2016. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Kyle C. Wong in Support of Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order, #2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Kyle C. Wong in Support of Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order, #3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Kyle C. Wong in Support of Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order, #4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Kyle C. Wong in Support of Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order, #5 Exhibit D to Declaration of Kyle C. Wong in Support of Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order, #6 Exhibit E to Declaration of Kyle C. Wong in Support of Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order, #7 Exhibit F to Declaration of Kyle C. Wong in Support of Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order, #8 Exhibit G to Declaration of Kyle C. Wong in Support of Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order, #9 Exhibit H to Declaration of Kyle C. Wong in Support of Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Motion for Protective Order, #10 Proposed Order (Brown, Matthew) (Filed on 3/2/2016) Modified on 3/16/2016 (cv, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

COOLEY LLP
MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127)
([e-mail])
MATTHEW D. BROWN (196972)
([e-mail])
JEFFREY M. GUTKIN (216083)
([e-mail])
KYLE C. WONG (224021)
([e-mail])
ADAM C. TRIGG (261498)
([e-mail])
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
FACEBOOK, INC.

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN JOSE DIVISION

14
15

In re: Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation

Case No. 5:12-md-02314 EJD
EXHIBIT B TO DECLARATION OF KYLE C.
WONG IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
FACEBOOK, INC.’S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

16
17
18

Date:
Time:
Courtroom:
Judge:
Trial Date:

19
20

April 28, 2016
9:00 a.m.
4
Edward J. Davila
None Set

21
22
23
24
25

EXHIBIT B

26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

1.

EXHIBIT B TO WONG DECLARATION ISO
FACEBOOK’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
CASE NO. 5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1
2
3
4

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]

5
6

Attorneys for Defendant
FACEBOOK, INC.

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

Case No. 5:12-md-02314 EJD

In re: F ACEBOOK INTERNET TRACKING
LITIGATION

DEFENDANT F ACEBOOK, INC.'s
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

13

14
15
16

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

PLAINTIFFS

RESPONDING PARTY:

F ACEBOOK, INC.

SET:

FIRST

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

1.

Pl..S.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS'
FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

2
3
4

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34,
Defendant Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook" or "Defendant") responds as follows to Plaintiffs' First
Set of Requests for Production (the "Requests"):

5

I.
6

7
8
9
10
11
12

13
14

15
16

17
18
19
20
21

22

23
24

25
26
27

GENERAL RESPONSES.

1.

Facebook's response to Plaintiffs' Requests is made to the best of Facebook's

present knowledge, information, and belief. Facebook's response is at all times subject to such
additional or different information that discovery or further investigation may disclose and, while
based on the present state of Facebook's recollection, is subject to such refreshing of recollection,
and such additional knowledge of facts, as may result from Facebook' s further discovery or
investigation.

2.

Facebook reserves the right to make any use of, or to introduce at any hearing and

at trial, information and/or documents responsive to Plaintiffs' Requests but discovered
subsequent to the date of this response, including, but not limited to, any such information or
documents obtained in discovery herein.

3.

Facebook reserves the right to decide whether the documents produced for

inspection shall be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall be organized
and labeled to correspond with the categories in the Requests, in accordance with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 34(b ).

4.

By stating in these responses that Facebook will produce documents or is

searching for responsive documents, Facebook does not represent that any such documents
actually exist, but rather that Facebook will make a reasonable attempt to ascertain whether
documents responsive to the Requests do, in fact, exist, and to produce such documents if they are
found to exist, are not privileged, and are within Facebook's possession, custody, or control.
5.

Facebook reserves all objections or other questions as to the competency,

relevance, materiality, privilege, or admissibility as evidence in any subsequent proceeding in or
trial of this or any other action for any purpose whatsoever of Facebook's responses herein and

28
COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

2.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLS.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1

any document or thing identified or provided in response to Plaintiffs' Requests.

2

6.

Facebook reserves the right to object on any ground at any time to such other

3

Requests for production as Plaintiffs may at any time propound involving or relating to the

4

subject matter of these Requests.

5

II.

6
7
8

OBJECTIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL REQUESTS.

Facebook makes the following objections to each Request, whether or not separately set
forth in response to each Request, and to each instruction and definition:
1.

Facebook objects insofar as any such Request seeks information or production of

9

documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Such

10

information or documents shall not be provided in response to Plaintiffs' Requests for production

11

and any inadvertent disclosure or production thereof shall not be deemed a waiver of any

12

privilege with respect to such information or documents or of any work product immunity which

13

may attach thereto.

14

2.

Facebook objects to all definitions and Requests to the extent they seek

15

information protected from discovery by any right to privacy or any other applicable privilege or

16

protection, including the right to privacy of third parties, or by Facebook's obligations under

17

applicable law or contract to protect such confidential information. Facebook also objects to all

18

definitions, instructions, and Requests to the extent they seek disclosure of trade secrets or other

19

confidential or proprietary research, development, or commercial information off Facebook or

20

any third party. To the extent Facebook responds to the Requests by stating that Facebook will

21

provide information and/or documents that Facebook or any other party to this litigation deems to

22

embody material that is private, business confidential, proprietary, trade secret, or otherwise

23

protected from disclosure pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7), Federal Rule of

24

Evidence 501, California Evidence Code section 1060, or California Constitution, Article I,

25

section 1, or otherwise, Facebook will do so only (1) upon the entry of an appropriate protective

26

order against the unauthorized use or disclosure of such information and (2) if it may do so

27

without violating its contractual or other obligations to the relevant third parties.

28

3.

Facebook objects to all definitions and Requests to the extent they require

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

3.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLS.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1

Facebook to restore and search inaccessible data sources on the grounds that such definitions and

2

Requests would subject Facebook to undue burden and expense.

3

4.

Facebook objects to all definitions and Requests to the extent they seek

4

information that is available through or from public sources, records, or third parties, or that are

5

otherwise equally available to Plaintiffs, on the ground that such definitions and Requests

6

unreasonably subject Facebook to undue burden and expense.

7

5.

Facebook objects to all definitions and Requests to the extent they seek to require

8

Facebook to search for information about documents no longer in existence or in Facebook's

9

possession, custody, or control, on the grounds that they are overly broad, would subject

10

Facebook to undue annoyance, oppression, burden, and expense, and seek to impose upon

11

Facebook an obligation to investigate, discover, or produce information or materials from third

12

parties or otherwise that are equally accessible to Plaintiffs or readily obtainable from public or

13

other sources.

14

6.

Facebook objects to all definitions and Requests to the extent they are vague,

15

indefinite, overly broad, or seek information which is not reasonably related to any claim or

16

defense in this action.

17

7.

Facebook objects to the Requests to the extent they seek information about

18

Facebook's use of cookies, or seek information about purported "tracking," beyond the use of

19

cookies described in the Complaint. Facebook construes such requests to refer only to the a_user,

20

c_user, and datr cookies, and any additional cookies that Facebook learns during discovery are

21

potentially relevant to Plaintiffs' claims regarding the alleged collection of Internet browsing

22

history while users are logged out of Facebook ("Relevant Cookies").

23

8.

Facebook objects to all definitions and Requests to the extent they seek

24

information regarding Facebook users, advertisers, or activities outside of the United States as

25

overly broad and not relevant to the subject matter of this action or reasonably calculated to lead

26

to the discovery of admissible evidence. Facebook will only respond to each Request with

27

information regarding users, advertisers, and activities in the United States.

28

9.

Facebook objects to Instruction No. 2 as imposing on Facebook an obligation in

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN fRANCISCO

4.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLs.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1

excess of that required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Facebook will follow Federal

2

Rule of Civil Procedure 34.

10.

3

Facebook objects to all definitions, instructions, and Requests to the extent they

4

seek to specify the format of production, on the grounds of undue burden and expense. Facebook

5

generally intends to produce documents as single-page TIFFs, but reserves the right to produce

6

documents in alternate form.

7

produced for inspection shall be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall

8

be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the Requests, in accordance with

9

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b ).

11.

10
11

Facebook reserves the right to decide whether the documents

Facebook objects to Instruction No. 4 as imposing on Facebook undue burden and

as being in excess of what is called for the by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

12

12.

Facebook objects to Instruction No. 5 to the extent it seeks to require Facebook to

13

identify anything other than the specific claim of privilege or work product being made and the

14

grounds for such claim. The instruction would subject Facebook to unreasonable and undue

15

annoyance, oppression, burden, and expense, seeks information protected from discovery by

16

privilege and as work product, and is in excess of the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil

17

Procedure and the Local Rules of the Northern District of California.

18

Ill.

19

DEFINITIONAL OBJECTIONS

1.

Facebook objects to the definitions "you," "your," "your company," and

20

"Facebook" and each Request containing those terms as overly broad to the extent that it purports

21

to define Facebook to include more than Facebook and its officers, directors, agents, and

22

employees. Without waiving these objections, Facebook construes the terms "you," "your," "your

23

company" and "Facebook" to refer only to Facebook and its officers, directors, agents, and

24

employees, and will respond to Requests containing that term accordingly.

25

2.

Facebook objects to the definition of "document," and to each Request containing

26

that term, to the extent that definition would impose on Facebook an obligation in excess of what

27

is called for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Facebook will construe "document" to be

28

synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the terms "document," "electronically stored

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

5.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLS.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1

information," and "tangible things" in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34.

2

3.

Facebook objects to the definition of "PII," and to each Request containing that

3

term, as overly broad and as including within its scope information that is irrelevant to the subject

4

matter of this litigation.

5

4.

Facebook objects to the definitions of "concerning," "relates to," and "relating to,"

6

and to each Request containing any of those terms, as overly broad, vague, ambiguous, and

7

unintelligible, and to the extent that definition would impose on Facebook an obligation in excess

8

of what is called for by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
5.

9

Facebook objects to the definition of "policy" as overly broad and to the extent it

10

includes within its scope information that is no longer in existence or in Facebook's possession,

11

custody, or control.

12

6.

Facebook objects to the terms "user" and "users," as used in the Requests as vague

13

and ambiguous, and objects to each Request containing either term. Facebook construes the

14

terms "user" and "users" to refer to any individual who has registered with Facebook and created

15

a Facebook account.

16

7.

Facebook objects to the "Time Period" stated in the Requests as overly broad,

17

unduly burdensome, and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because

18

the "Time Period" includes two years of time before, and over one year after, the "Class Period"

19

alleged in the Complaint. Without waiving these objections, Facebook will search for responsive,

20

non-privileged documents for the period beginning on January 1, 2010, and ending on December

21

25, 2011 (the "Relevant Period").

22

IV.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION.

23

Without waiving or limiting in any manner any of the foregoing objections, but rather

24

incorporating them into each of the following responses to the extent applicable, Facebook

25

responds to Plaintiffs' Requests as follows:

26

REQUEST No. 1:

27

All documents relating to any tracking by Facebook of Facebook user internet activity

28

after those users had logged out of their Facebook session, as alleged in the Complaint at <][<][ 71-84

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

6.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLs.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1

and elsewhere, including information about websites visited by such users.

2

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 1:

3

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

4

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

5

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

6

all documents "relating to" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

7

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

8

be inspected; (3) it is not reasonably limited in time; and (4) to the extent it seeks information that

9

is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Facebook further objects

10

to this Request as vague, ambiguous, and argumentative in its use of the term "tracking" and

11

vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrase "information about websites visited by such users."

12

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, after entry of an appropriate

13

protective order, Facebook will produce responsive, non-privileged documents sufficient to show

14

what types of information, if any, Facebook received from users who were logged out of their

15

Facebook accounts during the Relevant Period as a result of the operation of the Relevant

16

Cookies, to the extent such documents exist and can be located using good faith, reasonable

17

efforts.

18

REQUEST No. 2:

19

All documents relating to any consent that Facebook contends the plaintiffs or other

20

putative class members gave Facebook for the tracking of user internet activity post-log-out.

21

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 2:

22

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

23

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

24

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in <;lemanding

25

all documents "relating to" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

26

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

27

be inspected; (3) it calls for a legal conclusion; (4) it seeks information that is protected by the

28

attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine; and (5) it is premature, and cannot be fully

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

7.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLs.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314EJD

1

responded to at this time, because Facebook does not yet know which documents it may rely upon

2

in this litigation.

3

argumentative in its use of the term "tracking."

Facebook further objects to this Request as vague, ambiguous, and

4

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, Facebook will produce responsive,

5

non-privileged copies of Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities; Data Use Policy;

6

Privacy Policy; Terms of Service; and Help Center pages that appear to be related to this request,

7

including historical versions in place during the Relevant Period.

8

REQuEsT No. 3:

9

All documents describing or containing the names, descriptions, usage or identifying

10

features of the log entries ("Log Files") that Facebook created, maintained, reviewed, analyzed or

11

used to organize data about Facebook users' internet activity, as described in the Complaint at

12

<j{ 79 and elsewhere, inclusive of whether those users were logged-in or logged-out of Facebook.

13

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No.3:

14

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

15

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

16

grounds~

17

all documents "describing or containing" the referenced subject matter without specifying

18

appropriate limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category

19

of items to be inspected; (3) it is not reasonably limited in time; (4) it seeks information that is

20

irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims; and (5) to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the

21

attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Facebook further objects to this Request as

22

vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms "log entries ('Log Files')" and "identifying features."

23

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, after entry of an appropriate

24

protective order, Facebook will produce responsive, non-privileged documents sufficient to show

25

what records Facebook created, if any, to organize or store data about Facebook users' Internet

26

activity while those users were logged out from their Facebook accounts during the Relevant

27

Period, to the extent such documents exist and can be located using good faith, reasonable efforts.

(1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

28
COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

8.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLS.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1

REQuEsT No.4:

2

All documents concerning all databases Facebook created, maintained, reviewed,

3

analyzed or used to store information about Facebook users, including internet activity for those

4

users, and including all documents identifying or describing any tables in any Facebook database

5

and the overall nature of Facebook's database structure.

6

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No.4:

7

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

8

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

9

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and far overbroad in demanding all

10

documents "concerning" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate limitations;

11

(2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected;

12

(3) it is not reasonably limited in time; (4) it seeks information that is irrelevant to Plaintiffs'

13

claims; and (5) to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege

14

and work product doctrine. Facebook further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous in

15

its use of the phrases "information about Facebook users," "any tables in any Facebook

16

database," and "the overall nature of Facebook's database structure."

17

REQUEST No.5:

18

All documents relating to the methods by which Facebook collects and stores data from

19

Facebook users, both while they are logged-in to and after log-out from Facebook.

20

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No.5:

21

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

22

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

23

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

24

all documents "relating to" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

25

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

26

be inspected; (3) it is not reasonably limited in time; (4) it seeks information that is irrelevant to

27

Plaintiffs' claims; and (5) to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client

28

privilege and work product doctrine. Facebook further objects to this Request as vague and

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

9.

FACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLs.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1

ambiguous with regard to the "methods" about which information is sought and in its use of the

2

phrase "data from Facebook users."

3

REQUEST No.6:

4

All documents constituting Facebook's corporate organizational charts, including those

5

that describe or depict the "Data Science Team" however it might now be called (inclusively,

6

"Data Science Team"), as described in the July/August 2012 Technology Review article, "What

7

Facebook Knows," by Tom Simonite.

8

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 6:

9

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

10

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

11

grounds: (1) it is not reasonably limited in time; and (2) it seeks information that is irrelevant to

12

Plaintiffs' claims.

13

Subject to and without wmvmg any of its objections, after entry of an appropriate

14

protective order, Facebook will produce documents sufficient to show its corporate organization,

15

including to the extent possible the "Data Science Team," to the extent such documents exist and

16

can be located using good faith, reasonable efforts.

17

REQUEST No.7:

18

All documents relating to the Data Science Team's analyses, studies or recommendations

19

of ways in which Facebook might directly or indirectly generate revenue from user data Facebook

20

obtains.

21

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No.7:

22

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

23

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

24

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

25

all documents "relating to" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

26

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

27

be inspected; (3) it is not reasonably limited in time; (4) it seeks information that is irrelevant to

28

Plaintiffs' claims; and (5) to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

10.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PI..s.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-.MD-02314 EJD

1

privilege and work product doctrine. Facebook further objects to this Request as vague and

2

ambiguous with regard to its use of the phrases "studies or recommendations," "directly or

3

indirectly generate revenue," and "user data."

4

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, Facebook is willing to meet and

5

confer with Plaintiffs' counsel regarding what analyses, studies, or recommendations would be

6

relevant to Plaintiffs' litigation of the claims in this action.

7

REQUEST No.8:

8

All documents relating to studies, analyses or evaluations of Facebook' s actual or

9

potential revenue or profits associated with personalized advertisements whereby Facebook users

10

or non-users are described as users of a particular product or service.

11

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 8:

12

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

13

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

14

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and far overbroad in demanding all

15

documents "relating to" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate limitations;

16

(2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected;

17

(3) it is not reasonably limited in time; (4) it seeks information that is irrelevant to Plaintiffs'

18

claims; and (5) to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege

19

and work product doctrine. Facebook further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous

20

regarding "users or non-users" who "are described as users .... " Facebook further objects to this

21

Request as vague and ambiguous with regard to its use of the phrases "studies, analyses or

22

evaluations" and "personalized advertisements."

23

REQUEST No. 9:

24

All documents concerning studies, analyses or evaluations by Facebook of the value,

25

including monetary value, of PII.

26

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No.9:

27

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

28

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN fRANCISCO

11.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLs.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and far overbroad in demanding all

2

documents "concerning" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate limitations;

3

(2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected;

4

(3) it is not reasonably limited in time; (4) it seeks information that is irrelevant to Plaintiffs'

5

claims; and (5) to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege

6

and work product doctrine. Facebook further objects to this Request on the ground that the term

7

"PII," as defined in the Requests, is overbroad and consists almost entirely of information beyond

8

the scope of this litigation. Facebook further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous

9

with regard to its use of the phrase "studies, analyses, or evaluations."

10

REQUEST No.lO:

11

All documents concerning studies, analyses or evaluations of the "key value" pairs

12

Facebook ascribed to cookies Facebook placed on user's browsers or in user's computers when

13

such users were either logged in to Facebook or logged out of Facebook.

14

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 10:

15

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

16

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

17

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

18

all documents "concerning" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

19

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

20

be inspected; (3) it is not reasonably limited in time; (4) it seeks information that is irrelevant to

21

Plaintiffs' claims; and (5) to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client

22

privilege and work product doctrine. Facebook further objects to this Request as vague and

23

ambiguous with regard to the '"key value' pairs" about which information is sought, and with

24

regard to its use of the phrases '"key value' pairs"; "studies, analyses or evaluations"; and

25

"ascribed to cookies."

26
27

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, Facebook is willing to meet and
confer with Plaintiffs' counsel regarding the information sought by this Request.

28
COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

12.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLs.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314EJD

1

2

REQUEST No. 11:

All documents, including but not limited to instructions, manuals, protocols or policies,

3

relating to Facebook's linking ofPII to a particular user's computer and/or Facebook account.

4

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 11:

5

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

6

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

7

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

8

all documents "relating to" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

9

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

10

be inspected; (3) it is not reasonably limited in time; (4) it seeks information that is irrelevant to

11

Plaintiffs' claims; and (5) to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client

12

privilege and work product doctrine. Facebook further objects to this Request on the ground that

13

the term "PII," as defined in the Requests, is overbroad and consists almost entirely of

14

information beyond the scope of this litigation.

15

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, after entry of an appropriate

16

protective order, Facebook will produce responsive, non-privileged formal instructions, manuals,

17

or statements of protocol or policy sufficient to show how information from the Relevant Cookies

18

may have been linked to a particular user's computer or Facebook account during the Relevant

19

Period, to the extent such documents exist and can be located using good faith, reasonable efforts.

20

REQUEST No.12:

21

All documents, including but not limited to measurements, studies, analyses or

22

evaluations, of the length of the time periods during which electronic communications between

23

Facebook and third party websites visited by a Facebook user who is logged in to Facebook (or

24

logged off of Facebook) reside in (a) registers in any central processing unit; (b) the random

25

access memory; or (c) the hard drive of any of the computers or servers involved in transmitting

26

such electronic communications.

27

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 12:

28

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

13.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLS.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

2

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

3

all documents "including but not limited to" the referenced subject matter without specifying

4

appropriate limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category

5

of items to be inspected; (3) it is not reasonably limited in time; and (4) it seeks information that

6

is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims.

7

ambiguous with regard to the "registers," "memory," or "computers or servers" about which

8

information is sought. Facebook further objects to this Request on the ground that the Request

9

demands information not in Facebook's possession, custody, or control.

10

Facebook further objects to this Request as vague and

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, Facebook is willing to meet and

11

confer with Plaintiffs' counsel regarding this Request.

12

REQUEST No. 13:

13

All documents concerning the methods by which Facebook obtains PII through mobile

14

applications.

15

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 13:

16

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

17

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

18

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

19

all documents "concerning" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

20

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

21

be inspected; (3) it is not reasonably limited in time; (4) it seeks information that is irrelevant to

22

Plaintiffs' claims; and (5) to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client

23

privilege and work product doctrine. Facebook further objects to this Request as vague and

24

ambiguous with regard to the "mobile applications" about which about which information is

25

sought. Facebook further objects to this Request on the ground that the term "PII," as defined in

26

the Requests, is overbroad and consists almost entirely of information beyond the scope of this

27

litigation.

28
COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

14.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLS.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1
2

REQUEST No. 14:

All documents concerning Facebook' s retention of the user IDs of Facebook users after

3

logging out of Facebook.

4

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No.14:

5

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

6

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

7

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

8

all documents "concerning" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

9

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

10

be inspected; (3) it is not reasonably limited in time; (4) it seeks information that is irrelevant to

11

Plaintiffs' claims; and (5) to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client

12

privilege and work product doctrine.

13

ambiguous with regard to its use of the phrase "retention of the user IDs." Facebook further

14

objects to this Request to the extent it improperly assumes that "logging out of Facebook" would

15

cause Facebook not to "retain" the "user IDs" of Facebook users.

16

REQUESTNo.15:

Facebook further objects to this Request as vague and

17

All documents concerning (a) Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities; (b)

18

Facebook's Data Use Policy; and/or (c) Facebook's Terms of Service, including all drafts and

19

revisions thereof, that were in effect during the Relevant Time Period.

20

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 15:

21

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

22

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

23

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

24

all documents "concerning" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

25

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

26

be inspected; and (3) it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and

27

work product doctrine.

28

regarding its use of the term "Relevant Time Period," which is not defined in the Requests.

Facebook further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

15.

FACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLs.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, Facebook will produce responsive,

3

Responsibilities; Facebook's Data Use Policy; and Facebook's Terms of Service, that were

4

actually implemented and in effect during the Relevant Period.

5

REQUEST No. 16:

7

sufficient to

show

Facebook's

and

non-privileged

6

documents

Statement of Rights

2

All documents concerning the named Plaintiffs.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 16:

8

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

9

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

10

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

11

all documents "concerning" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

12

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

13

be inspected; (3) it is not reasonably limited in time; (4) it seeks information that is irrelevant to

14

Plaintiffs' claims; (5) it seeks information that is in Plaintiffs' custody or control; and (6) it seeks

15

information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.

16

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, Facebook is willing to meet and

17

confer with Plaintiffs' counsel regarding what responsive, non-privileged documents could be

18

produced without undue burden that would be relevant to Plaintiffs' litigation of the claims in this

19

action.

20

REQUEST No. 17:

21
22
23

All documents describing or constituting (a) the bases for; (b) any analyses, studies or
evaluations of; and/or (c) any modification to the following:
1.

The statement that "[ w]hen you log out of Facebook, we remove the cookies that

24

identify your particular account," which appeared on Facebook's online help center in response to

25

the question: "Does Facebook use cookies if I don't have an account or have logged out of my

26

account?"

27
28

2.

The statement that "[ w]e do not use cookies to create a profile of your browsing

behavior on third-party sites or to show you ads ... ," which appeared on Facebook's online help

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

16.

FACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLS.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1
2

center in response to the question: "How does Facebook use cookies?"
3.

The statements that "we receive data whenever you visit a game, application, or

3

website that uses Facebook Platform or visit a site with a Facebook feature (such as a social plug-

4

in). This may include .. .if you are logged in to Facebook, your user ID," which appeared in

5

Facebook's data use policy.

6

4.

The statement: "Pre-Approved Third-Party Websites and Applications- In order

7

to provide you useful social experiences off of Facebook, we occasionally need to provide

8

General Information about you to pre-approved third-party websites and applications that use

9

Platform at the time you visit them (if you are still logged in to Facebook) ... In addition, if you log

10

out of Facebook before visiting a pre-approved application or website, it will not be able to access

11

your information," which appeared in Facebook's privacy policy (April, 22 2010) and is attached

12

as Exhibit C to Facebook's response to Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the Complaint in this action

13

(Dkt. No. 44).

14

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No.l7:

15

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

16

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks

17

information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.

18

Facebook further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous with regard to its use of the

19

phrases "bases for" and "analyses, studies or evaluations." Facebook further objects to subpart 4

20

of this Request as irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims.

21

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, after entry of an appropriate

22

protective order, Facebook will produce responsive, non-privileged documents directly discussing

23

the contents of subparts 1-3 of this Request, to the extent such documents existed during the

24

Relevant Period and can be located using good faith, reasonable efforts.

25

REQUEST No. 18:

26
27

All documents supporting any contention by Facebook that the post-log out tracking
alleged in the Complain [sic] was accidental and/or the result of a "bug."

28
COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

17.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLS.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314EJD

1

RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18:

2

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

3

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks

4

information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.

5

Facebook further objects to this Request as vague, ambiguous, and argumentative in its use of the

6

term "tracking."

7

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, after entry of an appropriate

8

protective order, Facebook will produce responsive, non-privileged documents sufficient to show

9

whether Facebook' s alleged receipt of information through Relevant Cookies on the browsers of

10

Facebook users when they were not logged-in to Facebook during the Relevant Period was

11

accidental and/or the result of a "bug," to the extent such documents exist and can be located

12

using good faith, reasonable efforts.

13

REQUEST No. 19:

14

All documents relating to Facebook's policies, protocols or procedures concerning the

15

maintenance and/or deletion of PII, including the length of time that PII is stored.

16

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No.19:

17

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

18

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

19

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

20

all documents "relating to" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

21

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

22

be inspected; (3) it is not reasonably limited in time; (4) it seeks information that is irrelevant to

23

Plaintiffs' claims; and (5) to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client

24

privilege and work product doctrine. Facebook further objects to this Request on the ground that

25

the term "PII," as defined in the Requests, is overbroad and consists almost entirely of

26

information beyond the scope of this litigation.

27

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, after entry of an appropriate

28

protective order, Facebook will produce responsive, non-privileged documents sufficient to show

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

18.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLS.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5: 12-MD-02314 EJD

1

Facebook's policies, protocols or procedures concerning the maintenance and/or deletion of

2

information from the Relevant Cookies during the Relevant Period, including the length of time

3

that such information was stored, to the extent such documents exist and can be located using

4

good faith, reasonable efforts.

5

REQUEST No. 20:

6

All documents concerning Facebook's policies, procedures or protocols for deleting

7

Facebook-placed cookies from the computers or browsers of Facebook users.

8

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 20:

9

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

10

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

11

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

12

all documents "concerning" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

13

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

14

be inspected; (3) it is not reasonably limited in time; (4) it seeks information that is irrelevant to

15

Plaintiffs' claims; and (5) to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client

16

privilege and work product doctrine.

17

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, after entry of an appropriate

18

protective order, Facebook will produce responsive, non-privileged documents sufficient to show

19

Facebook' s policies, procedures or protocols for deleting the Relevant Cookies during from the

20

computers or browsers of Facebook users during the Relevant Period, to the extent such

21

documents exist and can be located using good faith, reasonable efforts.

22

REQUEST No. 21:

23

All documents sufficient to identify the persons or entities involved in conceiving,

24

drafting, reviewing, editing and finalizing (a) Facebook's Statement of Rights and

25

Responsibilities; (b) Facebook's Data Use Policy; and/or (c) Facebook's Terms of Service.

26

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 21:

27

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

28

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

19.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLS.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5: 12-MD-02314 EJD

1

grounds: (1) it is unduly burdensome and unreasonably broad in that a document request is an

2

inappropriate vehicle for requesting discovery of the identities of individual persons; (2) it fails to

3

describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected; (3) it is not

4

reasonably limited in time; (4) it seeks information that is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims; and (5)

5

to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work

6

product doctrine.

7

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, Facebook is willing to meet and

8

confer with Plaintiffs' counsel regarding what information concerning the identities of persons

9

involved in creating Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, Data Use Policy,

10

Privacy Policy, or Terms of Service would be relevant to Plaintiffs' litigation of the claims in this

11

action.

12

REQUESTN0.22:

13

All documents relating to any user PII that Facebook scrubbed or deleted from any

14

Facebook database.

15

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 22:

16

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

17

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

18

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

19

all documents "relating to" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

20

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

21

be inspected; (3) it is not reasonably limited in time; (4) it seeks information that is irrelevant to

22

Plaintiffs' claims; and (5) to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client

23

privilege and work product doctrine. Facebook further objects to this Request as vague and

24

ambiguous with regard to its use of the term "scrubbed" and the phrase "any Facebook database."

25

Facebook further objects to this Request on the ground that the term "PII," as defined in the

26

Requests, is overbroad and consists almost entirely of information beyond the scope of this

27

litigation.

28

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, after entry of an appropriate

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

20.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLS.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1

protective order, Facebook will produce responsive, non-privileged documents sufficient to show

2

Facebook's policies concerning the deletion of information from the Relevant Cookies during the

3

Relevant Period, to the extent such documents exist and can be located using good faith,

4

reasonable efforts.

5

REQUEST No. 23:

6

All documents concerning any agreement, whether formal or informal, between Facebook

7

and any third party, which permits Facebook to track the internet activity of Facebook users on

8

said third party's website.

9

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 23:

10

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

11

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

12

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

13

all documents "concerning" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

14

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

15

be inspected; (3) it is not reasonably limited in time; and (4) to the extent it seeks information that

16

is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Facebook further objects

17

to this Request as vague, ambiguous, and argumentative in its use of the term "track."

18

further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous with regard to its use of the phrase

19

"permits Facebook to track the internet activity of Facebook users."

Facebook

20

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, Facebook will produce responsive,

21

non-privileged documents sufficient to show Facebook's terms applicable to platform

22

applications and developers during the Relevant Period, to the extent such documents exist and

23

can be located using good faith, reasonable efforts.

24

REQUEST No. 24:

25

All documents relating to U.S. Patent Application No. 20110231240, filed February 8,

26

2011 and published September 22, 2011.

27

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 24:

28

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

21.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLs.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5: 12-MD-02314 EJD

1

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

2

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

3

all documents "relating to" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

4

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

5

be inspected; (3) it seeks information that is irrelevant to Plaintiffs' claims; and (4) to the extent it

6

seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.

7

Facebook further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information not within Facebook's

8

possession, custody, or control.

9

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, Facebook is willing to meet and

10

confer with Plaintiffs' counsel regarding what information, if any, responsive to this Request

11

would be relevant to Plaintiffs' litigation of the claims in this action.

12

REQUEST No. 25:

13

All documents and communications between Facebook and any person, including but not

14

limited to Australian blogger Nik Cubrilovic, concerning any allegation that Facebook tracked the

15

internet activities of users post log-out.

16

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 25:

17

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

18

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

19

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

20

all documents "concerning" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

21

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

22

be inspected; (3) it is not reasonably limited in time; and (4) to the extent it seeks information that

23

is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Facebook further objects

24

to this Request as vague, ambiguous, and argumentative in its use of the term "tracked."

25

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, after entry of an appropriate

26

protective order, Facebook will produce any communications with Nik Cubrilovic or with United

27

States government entities concerning any allegation that Facebook received information related

28

to the Internet activities of users after those users logged out from their Facebook accounts, to the

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

22.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
Pr,s.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314EJD

1

extent such documents exist and can be located using good faith, reasonable efforts. Facebook is

2

willing to meet and confer regarding with Plaintiffs' counsel regarding what additional

3

documents, if any, responsive to this Request and relevant to Plaintiffs' litigation of the claims in

4

this action could be located and produced without imposing an undue burden on Facebook.

5

REQUEST No. 26:

6
7

All documents concerning the benefits of advertising to Facebook users based on PII.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 26:

8

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

9

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

10

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and far overbroad in demanding all

11

documents "concerning" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate limitations;

12

(2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be inspected;

13

(3) it is not reasonably limited in time; (4) it seeks information that is irrelevant to Plaintiffs'

14

claims; and (5) to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege

15

and work product doctrine. Facebook further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous

16

with regard to its use of the phrases "advertising to Facebook users" and "based on PII."

17

Facebook further objects to this Request on the ground that the term "PII," as defined in the

18

Requests, is overbroad and consists almost entirely of information beyond the scope of this

19

litigation.

20

REQUEST No. 27:

21

All documents concerning instructions, manuals, protocols, policies or methods by which

22

PII obtained from Facebook users when they were not logged-in to Facebook.

23

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 27:

24

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

25

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

26

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

27

all documents "concerning" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

28

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

23.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLS.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1

be inspected; (3) it is not reasonably limited in time; and (4) to the extent it seeks information that

2

is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. Facebook further objects

3

to this Request on the ground that the term "PII," as defined in the Requests, is overbroad and

4

consists almost entirely of information beyond the scope of this litigation. Facebook further

5

objects to this Request because the Request appears to be an incomplete sentence, rendering the

6

Request incomprehensible and making response impossible.

7

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, Facebook is willing to meet and

8

confer with Plaintiffs' counsel regarding what information this Request is meant to seek, and

9

whether such information would be relevant to Plaintiffs' litigation of the claims in this action.

10

11

REQUEST No. 28:

All documents concerning the methods used by Facebook to determine or record whether

12

a Facebook user is logged-in, logged-out, active or inactive.

13

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 28:

14

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

15

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

16

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

17

all documents "concerning" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

18

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

19

be inspected; (3) it is not reasonably limited in time; (4) it seeks information that is irrelevant to

20

Plaintiffs' claims; and (5) to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-client

21

privilege and work product doctrine. Facebook further objects to this Request on the ground that

22

it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome and unreasonably broad with regard to the terms

23

"active" and "inactive," whose meaning is unclear and which bear no apparent relevance to

24

Plaintiffs' claims.

25

Subject to and without wmvmg any of its objections, after entry of an appropriate

26

protective order, Facebook will produce responsive, non-privileged documents sufficient to show

27

what methods, if any, were used by Facebook to determine or record whether Facebook users

28

were logged in or logged out during the Relevant Period, to the extent such documents exist and

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN fRANCISCO

24.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLS.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314EJD

1

can be located using good faith, reasonable efforts.

2

REQUEST No. 29:

3

All documents concerning the creation, design, scope, monetization, or modification of

4

the following cookies: (a) the a_user cookie; (b) the c_user cookie; and (c) the datr cookie.

5

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 29:

6

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

7

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

8

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

9

all documents "concerning" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

10

limitations; (2) it fails to describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to

11

be inspected; (3) it is not reasonably limited in time; and (4) it seeks information that is irrelevant

12

to Plaintiffs' claims. Facebook further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous with

13

regard to its use of the terms "scope" and "monetization" in the context of the Request.

14

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, after entry of an appropriate

15

protective order, Facebook will produce responsive, non-privileged documents sufficient to show

16

the design, function, and operation of the a_user, c_user, and datr cookies during the Relevant

17

Period, to the extent such documents exist and can be located using good faith, reasonable efforts.

18

REQUEST No. 30:

19

All documents produced or provided to any governmental or regulatory agency or

20

authority, including but not limited to (a) the U.S. Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus; (b)

21

the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee; (c) the Federal Trade Commission; (d) the Office of the

22

Data Protection Commission of Ireland; (e) the German data protection commission; (f) the

23

Information Commissioner's Office; and (g) the European Commission, in connection with any

24

investigation or legal action concerning allegations that Facebook has tracked its users, collected,

25

stored and/or retained PII, or otherwise violated consumer protection and/or privacy laws,

26

directives or regulations.

27

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 30:

28

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

25.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLs.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following

2

grounds: (1) it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding

3

all documents "concerning" the referenced subject matter without specifying appropriate

4

limitations; (2) it is not reasonably limited in time; (3) it seeks information that is irrelevant to

5

Plaintiffs' claims; (4) to the extent it seeks information that is available from public sources; and

6

(5) to the extent it seeks information related to governmental or regulatory agencies or authorities

7

outside the United States. Facebook further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous with

8

regard to its use of the term "investigation" and the phrases "legal action" and "tracked its users,

9

collected, stored and/or retained PII." Facebook further objects to this Request on the ground that

10

the term "PII," as defined in the Requests, is overbroad and consists almost entirely of

11

information beyond the scope of this litigation. Facebook further objects to this Request on the

12

ground that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in demanding all

13

documents concerning any investigation or legal action related to Facebook' s alleged violation of

14

any "consumer protection and/or privacy laws, directives or regulations," including laws,

15

directives, or regulations not at issue in this litigation. Facebook further objects to this Request to

16

the extent it seeks information protected by disclosure by statutory or other privileges and

17

protections. Facebook further objects to this Request as vague, ambiguous, and argumentative in

18

its use of the term "tracked." Facebook further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks

19

information not within Facebook's possession, custody, or control.

20

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, after entry of an appropriate

21

protective order, Facebook will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents it provided to

22

any government entity concerning any allegation that Facebook received information related to

23

the Internet activities of users while those users were logged out from their Facebook accounts, to

24

the extent such documents exist and can be located using good faith, reasonable efforts.

25

REQUEST No. 31:

26

All transcripts of any proceedings before any governmental or regulatory agency or

27

authority, including but not limited to (a) the U.S. Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus; (b)

28

the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee; (c) the Federal Trade Commission; (d) the Office of the

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN fRANCISCO

26.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLs.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1

Data Protection Commission of Ireland; (e) the German data protection commission; (f) the

2

Information Commissioner's Office; and (g) the European Commission, in connection with any

3

investigation or legal action concerning allegations that Facebook has tracked its users, collected,

4

stored and/or retained PII, or otherwise violated consumer protection and/or privacy laws,

5

directives or regulations.

6

RESPONSE TO REQUEST No. 31:

7

Facebook specifically incorporates the General Responses and objections above to the

8

extent applicable to this Request. Facebook further objects to this Request on the. following

9

grounds: (1) it is not reasonably limited in time; (2) it seeks information that is irrelevant to

10

Plaintiffs' claims; (3) to the extent it seeks information that is available from public sources; and

11

(4) to the extent it seeks information related to governmental or regulatory agencies or authorities

12

outside the United States. Facebook further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous with

13

regard to its use of the term "investigation" and the phrases "legal action" and "tracked its users,

14

collected, stored and/or retained PII." Facebook further objects to this Request on the ground that

15

the term "PII," as defined in the Requests, is overbroad and consists almost entirely of

16

information beyond the scope of this litigation. Facebook further objects to this Request on the

17

ground that it is vague, ambiguous, unduly burdensome, and unreasonably broad in all transcripts

18

concerning any investigation or legal action related to Facebook's alleged violation of any

19

"consumer protection and/or privacy laws, directives or regulations," including laws, directives,

20

or regulations not at issue in this litigation. Facebook further objects to this Request to the extent

21

it seeks information protected by disclosure by statutory or other privileges and protections.

22

Facebook further objects to this Request as vague, ambiguous, and argumentative in its use of the

23

term "tracked." Facebook further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information not

24

within Facebook's possession, custody, or control.

25

Subject to and without waiving any of its objections, after entry of an appropriate

26

protective order, Facebook will produce any responsive, non-privileged transcripts of proceedings

27

before any government entity concerning any allegation that Facebook received information

28

related to the Internet activities of users after those users logged out from their Facebook

COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

27.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLS.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD

1

accounts, to the extent such documents exist and can be located using good faith, reasonable

2

efforts.

3
4
5

Dated: January 25, 2013

COOLEYLLP

6
7
8
9

10

1292866 /SF

11

12
13
14
15

16
17

18
19
20
21
22
23

24
25

26
27
28
COOLEYLLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

28.

F ACEBOOK'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
PLS.' FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION

5:12-MD-02314 EJD