In Re FACEBOOK INTERNET TRACKING LITIGATION
Filing
144
OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re #143 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Schedule Subsequent Case Management Conference ) filed byFacebook Inc.. (Brown, Matthew) (Filed on 4/24/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
COOLEY LLP
MICHAEL G. RHODES (116127)
(rhodesmg@cooley.com)
MATTHEW D. BROWN (196972)
(brownmd@cooley.com)
KYLE C. WONG (224021)
(kwong@cooley.com)
101 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
Telephone:
(415) 693-2000
Facsimile:
(415) 693-2222
Attorneys for Defendant
FACEBOOK, INC.
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN JOSE DIVISION
12
13
14
15
16
17
In re: Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation
Case No. 5:12-md-02314 EJD
FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
TO SCHEDULE SUBSEQUENT CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Judge:
Trial Date:
Hon. Edward J. Davila
None set
18
19
Plaintiffs’ request for a case management conference (“CMC”) appears to be nothing
20
more than a mechanism for reminding the Court about pending motions and urging the Court to
21
adopt Plaintiffs’ preferred schedule for ruling on them.
22
discovery issues, motions to seal, and the status of a state-court case provide no reason to hold a
23
CMC. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ suggestion, there has been no further discovery impasse beyond the
24
issues that have already been fully briefed. Nor does the status of this case interfere with
25
discovery or case management in Ung v. Facebook, a case pending in state court that is currently
26
stayed (and in which the plaintiffs are represented by separate counsel). A CMC would serve no
27
purpose, waste judicial and party resources, and benefit neither the Court nor the parties.
In reality, Plaintiffs’ discussion of
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
OPP. TO PLAINTIFFS’ ADMIN. MOT. TO
SCHEDULE A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
NO. 5:12-MD-02314 EJD
1
2
I.
PLAINTIFFS’ REHASHING OF
FOR A CMC.
DISCOVERY ISSUES DOES NOT SUPPORT THEIR REQUEST
3
Plaintiffs’ Motion merely rehashes issues addressed in the parties’ competing Motion to
4
Compel Discovery (ECF No. 110) and Motion for a Protective Order (ECF No. 108) (“Discovery
5
Motions”) and does not explain any purported need for a CMC. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ Motion,
6
Facebook has not suddenly “granted itself a full discovery stay.” (Motion at 2.)
7
Facebook has responded to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production by producing 65,000 pages of
8
documents and asserting appropriate objections to additional categories of discovery sought by
9
Plaintiffs. As explained in detail in the Discovery Motions and related briefing, the parties
10
disagree as to whether additional documents sought by Plaintiffs are relevant and within the scope
11
of discoverable information and whether any further discovery is warranted given the pendency
12
of Facebook’s dispositive Motion to Dismiss. Specifically, Facebook’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’
13
Motion to Compel argues that (1) Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that discovery from their
14
additional 26 proposed custodians is relevant or proportional to the needs of the case; (2)
15
Plaintiffs’ request for all documents concerning the named Plaintiffs, unbounded in time or scope,
16
is overbroad, implicates the privacy interests of third parties, and requests documents equally
17
available to Plaintiffs; and (3) Facebook has applied confidentiality designations in good faith and
18
Plaintiffs have failed to contest those designations in accordance with the stipulated protective
19
order. Plaintiffs cite no authority for the proposition that Facebook is obligated to provide this
20
objectionable discovery prior to the Court’s determination that the discovery is relevant and
21
within the scope of Facebook’s discovery obligations.
Instead,
22
Plaintiffs’ Motion fails to identify any specific dispute or scheduling issue not addressed
23
in the parties’ briefing that might be resolved at a CMC prior to the Court’s resolution of the
24
Discovery Motions.
25
additional correspondence between the parties regarding discovery since these motions were
26
briefed. Thus, Plaintiffs’ own conduct suggests that they too understood that the discovery issues
27
are before the Court and that any further discovery is on hold until the Court’s decision.
As Plaintiffs’ Motion acknowledges (Motion at 2), there has been no
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
2.
OPP. TO PLAINTIFFS’ ADMIN. MOT. TO
SCHEDULE A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
NO. 5:12-MD-02314 EJD
1
A further hearing would serve no purpose and would burden the Court’s time
2
unnecessarily. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied.1
3
II.
A CMC IS NOT NECESSARY TO ADDRESS OUTSTANDING MOTIONS TO SEAL.
4
Plaintiffs also contend that two administrative motions regarding the sealing of certain
5
discovery material provide reason to schedule a CMC. (Motion at 4.) These motions concern the
6
narrow redaction of non-public, confidential, proprietary Facebook information from Plaintiffs’
7
Opposition to Facebook’s Motion to Dismiss and Second Amended Consolidated Complaint
8
(“SACC”) and the sealing of certain exhibits attached to the SACC produced pursuant to the
9
parties’ Stipulated Protective Order. Plaintiffs identify no reason for urgency regarding these
10
administrative motions, nor identify any additional issues to be addressed at a CMC that have not
11
already been explained in the briefs submitted by the parties.
12
III.
THE STATE-COURT CASE, UNG V. FACEBOOK, INC., PROVIDES NO REASON FOR A CMC.
13
Plaintiffs’ contention that holding a CMC will benefit discovery in a different case in
14
California state court (in which the plaintiffs are represented by separate counsel) is both
15
speculative and irrelevant. Any CMC held in this case would be about this case—it would not be
16
attended by the plaintiffs litigating Ung v. Facebook, Inc. or address their interests. Further, the
17
state court stayed the Ung case in its entirety pending resolution of this federal MDL. Whether
18
the Ung plaintiffs move the California state court to lift the stay in Ung, and whether the state
19
court elects do so, is entirely independent of whether discovery is appropriate in this case.
20
Certainly neither plaintiffs’ counsel in Ung nor Plaintiffs’ counsel here should be seeking to use
21
the discovery process in this case to do an “end run” around the stay in Ung.
22
****
23
24
1
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
Plaintiffs’ alternative suggestion that the Court should refer the Discovery Motions to a
magistrate judge simply appears to be an attempt to exert control over the Court’s docket. The
Court already explained to Plaintiffs at the hearing on the parties’ pending motions that it wanted
to focus oral argument on Facebook’s Motion to Dismiss but had read the parties’ Discovery
Motions and had taken them under submission. Moreover, the critical issue of whether discovery
should proceed while Facebook’s dispositive motion is pending is more appropriately decided by
the same judge who is considering that motion.
3.
OPP. TO PLAINTIFFS’ ADMIN. MOT. TO
SCHEDULE A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
NO. 5:12-MD-02314 EJD
1
For the foregoing reasons, a CMC is unnecessary at this time. Plaintiffs’ Motion should
2
be denied.
3
Dated: April 24, 2017
4
5
COOLEY LLP
/s/ Matthew D. Brown
Matthew D. Brown
Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO
4.
OPP. TO PLAINTIFFS’ ADMIN. MOT. TO
SCHEDULE A CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
NO. 5:12-MD-02314 EJD
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?