In Re FACEBOOK INTERNET TRACKING LITIGATION

Filing 74

NOTICE by Perrin Aikens Davis, Brian K. Lentz, Cynthia D. Quinn, Matthew J. Vickery re # 68 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER PLAINTIFFS LOCAL RULE 7-13 NOTICE THAT THE PARTIES JOINT STIPULATED PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR LITIGATION INVOLVING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION AND TRADE SECRETS HAS BEEN UNDER SUBMISSION FOR MORE THAN 120 DAYS (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Straite, David) (Filed on 4/2/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

Paul R. Kiesel (SBN 119854)
[e-mail]
KIESEL LAW LLP
8648 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Liaison Counsel

6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

8
9
10
11
12
13

Case No.: 5:12-MD-02314-EJD
IN RE: FACEBOOK INTERNET
TRACKING LITIGATION

14
15
16
17

PLAINTIFFS’ LOCAL RULE 7-13 NOTICE THAT
THE PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATED
PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR
LITIGATION INVOLVING CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION AND TRADE SECRETS HAS
BEEN UNDER SUBMISSION FOR MORE THAN
120 DAYS
Judge: The Honorable Edward J. Davila
Court Room: 4

18
19
20

On July 20, 2012, this Court denied defendant Facebook, Inc.’s request to stay discovery during
21
22
23
24
25

the pendency of its motion to dismiss. See Transcript of Case Management Conference held June 29,
2012 at pp. 7-8 [ECF No. 48, filed July 20, 2012]. The parties have exchanged some document requests
and interrogatories, served responses and objections thereto, and defendant Facebook produced
approximately 360 pages of publicly available documents (“Initial Discovery”). See Declaration of

26

David A. Straite in Support of Rule 7-13 Notice, ¶ 3, dated April 1, 2014 (“Straite Decl.”)

27

accompanying this Notice.

28
PLAINTIFFS’ LOCAL RULE 7-13 NOTICE
CASE NO.: 5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

On September 6, 2013, the parties filed a joint stipulated proposed protective order governing the

2

exchange of confidential information (“Proposed Protective Order”). That Proposed Protective Order

3

awaits Court approval [ECF No. 68].

4
5
6
7
8

While negotiating the Proposed Protective Order, the parties agreed that the exchange of
confidential information would not begin until five (5) business days after the Court’s approval of the
Proposed Protective Order. See Straite Decl. at ¶ 4. This understanding was not expressed in the
Proposed Protective Order. However, the parties agree that they each understood, in good faith, that the
Court’s approval of the Proposed Protective Order was a requisite to beginning production of

9
confidential information given the sensitivity of some of the documents sought by both sides. Id.
10
11
12
13
14

Because the Court has not yet approved the Proposed Protective Order, discovery has not progressed for
the several months elapsed since the Initial Discovery.
On March 13, 2014, Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted counsel for defendant Facebook asking to
discuss this delay. Id. at ¶ 5. Counsel conferred the next day, March 14, 2014, and Plaintiffs’ counsel

15

invited Facebook’s counsel to exchange discovery on an attorney’s-eyes-only basis while awaiting the

16

Court’s approval of the Proposed Protective Order. Alternatively, Plaintiffs’ counsel invited Facebook’s

17

counsel to make a joint submission to the Court concerning the outstanding Proposed Protective Order.

18

Id. at ¶ 6. On March 28, 2014, Facebook’s counsel declined both invitations. Id. at ¶ 7.

19

Plaintiffs’ counsel remain prepared to re-start discovery upon approval of the Proposed

20

Protective Order. Based on the representations of Facebook’s counsel described above, Plaintiffs’

21

counsel understands that Facebook’s counsel is prepared as well.

22
23

Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court’s approval of the Proposed Protective Order.
Dated: April 2, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,

24
25

KIESEL LAW LLP

26

By:
/s/ Paul R. Kiesel
Paul R. Kiesel (SBN 119854)
[e-mail]
8648 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910

27
28

PLAINTIFFS’ LOCAL RULE 7-13 NOTICE
CASE NO.: 5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1

Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

2
Liaison Counsel
3
4

BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON &
GOZA, P.C.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

By:
/s/ Jim Frickleton
James P. Frickleton
[e-mail]
11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200
Leawood, KS 66211
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Stephen G. Grygiel
[e-mail]
88 E. Bergen Place
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

14
15

Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee

16

KAPLAN, FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP

17

By:
/s/ David A. Straite
David A. Straite (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
850 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee

23
24
25
26
27
28
3
PLAINTIFFS’ LOCAL RULE 7-13 NOTICE
CASE NO.: 5:12-MD-02314-EJD

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 2, 2014, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed

3 with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing
4 to the e-mail addresses denoted on the Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I
5 caused the foregoing document or paper to be mailed via the United States Postal Service to the
6 non-CM/ECF participants indicated on the Manual Notice List.
7

I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

8 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 2, 2014.
9
10 DATED: April 2, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,

11

KAPLAN, FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP

12
13
14
15
16

By:

/s/ David A. Straite
David A. Straite (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
850 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
5:12-MD-02314-EJD