Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.
Filing
103
RESPONSE (re 96 MOTION to Dismiss Claims and Withdraw David Shadpour as Putative Class Representative ) Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw Plaintiff David Shadpour Without Prejudice filed byFacebook Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Christopher Chorba In Support of Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw Plaintiff David Shadpour Without Prejudice, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Chorba Decl. ISO Facebook's Opposition, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Chorba Decl. ISO Facebook's Opposition, # 4 Exhibit 3 to Chorba Decl. ISO Facebook's Opposition, # 5 Exhibit 4 to Chorba Decl. ISO Facebook's Opposition, # 6 Exhibit 5 to Chorba Decl. ISO Facebook's Opposition (Filed Under Seal), # 7 Exhibit 6 to Chorba Decl. ISO Facebook's Opposition)(Chorba, Christopher) (Filed on 7/27/2015)
Exhibit 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
msobol@lchb.com
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
mgardner@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415.956.1000
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
Jeremy A. Lieberman
Lesley F. Portnoy
info@pomlaw.com
POMERANTZ, LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: 212.661.1100
Facsimile: 212.661.8665
Patrick V. Dahlstrom
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
POMERANTZ, LLP
10 S. La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: 312.377.1181
Facsimile: 312.377.1184
Rachel Geman
rgeman@lchb.com
Nicholas Diamand
ndiamand@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: 212.355.9500
Facsimile: 212.355.9592
16
Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
hbates@cbplaw.com
Allen Carney
acarney@cbplaw.com
David Slade
dslade@cbplaw.com
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: 501.312.8500
Facsimile: 501.312.8505
17
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
12
13
14
15
18
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
20
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
21
OAKLAND DIVISION
22
MATTHEW CAMPBELL, MICHAEL
HURLEY, and DAVID SHADPOUR,
23
Plaintiffs,
24
v.
25
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
PLAINTIFF DAVID SHADPOUR’S
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S
FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION
FACEBOOK, INC.,
26
Defendant.
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
PROPOUNDING PARTY:
FACEBOOK, INC.
2
RESPONDING PARTY:
DAVID SHADPOUR, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated
SET NO.:
ONE
3
4
5
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plaintiff has not completed his discovery in this action and has not completed his
preparation for trial. With regard to each Request for Production, Plaintiff reserves the right,
notwithstanding these answers and responses, to employ at trial or at any pre-trial proceeding
information subsequently obtained or discovered, information the materiality of which is not
presently ascertained, or information the Plaintiff does not regard as coming within the scope of
the Request for Production as Plaintiff understands them.
These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each response is subject
to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, admissibility, privacy,
privilege, and any and all other objections that would require exclusion of any statement
contained here if any such Requests for Production were asked of, or any statement contained
here were made by, a witness present and testifying in court, all of which objections and grounds
are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial.
Except for explicit facts admitted here, no incidental or implied admissions are intended.
Plaintiff’s response or objections to any Request for Production or part of a Request for
Production are not an admission of any facts set forth or assumed by that Request. In addition,
each of Plaintiff’s responses to a Request for Production or part of a Request for Production is not
a waiver of part or all of any objection he might make to that Request for Production, or an
admission that such answer or objection constitutes admissible evidence. All responses provided
are based on Plaintiff’s present information and belief.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
26
27
28
A.
Plaintiff objects to each of the Requests to the extent it seeks information or
documents that are not relevant to a claim or defense of any party in this action nor likely to lead
-2-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
to the discovery of admissible evidence or that is not relevant to the issue of class certification.
B.
Plaintiff objects to each of the Requests to the extent it is inconsistent with, or
3
seeks to impose obligations in excess of, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the local rules of
4
the United States District Court of the Northern District of California, or any applicable
5
scheduling order, case management order, or other ruling of the court.
6
C.
Plaintiff objects to each of the Requests to the extent that they seek information
7
that is protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any
8
other lawfully recognized privilege or protection (hereinafter “privileged information”). Any
9
inadvertent disclosure of privileged information is not intended and should not be construed to
10
constitute a waiver, either generally or specifically, with respect to such material or the subject
11
matter thereof.
12
D.
Plaintiff objects to each of the Requests to the extent they seek information that is
13
equally available to Defendant or obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less
14
burdensome or less expensive. Plaintiffs further object to each of the Requests to the extent they
15
purport to require Plaintiff to “produce back” to Defendant documents Plaintiff obtains from
16
Defendant. Plaintiff will not produce to Defendant any documents that Plaintiff obtains from
17
Defendant as part of Defendant’s production of documents, unless Plaintiff possesses those
18
documents from a source other than Defendant’s document production during the course of this
19
litigation.
20
E.
Plaintiff objects to each of the Requests to the extent it relates to an opinion or
21
contention on the grounds that such discovery requests are premature and inappropriate until after
22
substantial discovery has occurred.
23
F.
Plaintiff has not completed his investigation or discovery regarding this matter.
24
Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to supplement, amend, correct, or clarify their responses and
25
objections to the Requests with subsequently obtained or discovered information or documents.
26
G.
Plaintiff objects to each Request served by Defendant in this action to the extent it
27
is overly broad, burdensome, oppressive, vague, or generally non-specific so as not to indicate
28
what a full and complete response would be.
-3-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
3
4
H.
Plaintiff asserts these objections without waiving or intending to waive any
objections as to competency, relevancy, materiality, or privilege.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and incorporating them by
reference into each of the responses provided below, Plaintiff responds as follows:
5
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
6
NOW COMES Plaintiff, DAVID SHADPOUR, by and through his attorneys, pursuant to
7
the applicable Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, and for his response to Defendant’s First Requests
8
for Production of Documents Propounded on Plaintiff, states as follows:
9
REQUEST NO. 1
10
Copies of all messages YOU have sent or received through the FACEBOOK MESSAGES
11
PRODUCT, including but not limited to “messages containing links to other websites’ URLs” as
12
alleged in paragraph 70 of YOUR COMPLAINT.
13
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1
14
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
15
to this Request as overbroad insofar as it seeks messages that do not contain URLs, or the content
16
of messages other than URLs, and therefore does not seek information “that is relevant to the
17
claims or defenses of any party” or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
18
evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this Request
19
seeks information related to third parties that is violative of rights to privacy firmly established by
20
the Constitutions of both the United States and the State of California. Plaintiff objects insofar as
21
this Request seeks information that is protected by the marital communications privilege. Subject
22
to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-
23
privileged documents in his possession, custody, or control, if any.
24
REQUEST NO. 2
25
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to all oral or written
26
representations, assurances, promises, and/or warranties that YOU allege were made by
27
FACEBOOK to YOU concerning FACEBOOK and/or the FACEBOOK MESSAGES
28
PRODUCT, including but not limited to the “disclosures and statements” upon which YOU relied
-4-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
in using FACEBOOK and/or the FACEBOOK MESSAGES PRODUCT, as alleged in
2
paragraph 70 of YOUR COMPLAINT.
3
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2
4
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
5
to this Request as overbroad. Plaintiff further objects on the basis that the Request seeks
6
documents from Plaintiff that are already in Defendant’s possession. Insofar as the Request seeks
7
documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is premature. Subject to and without
8
waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged
9
documents in his possession, custody, or control, if any.
10
11
REQUEST NO. 3
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to how and when
12
YOU first became aware of FACEBOOK’s alleged conduct referenced in YOUR COMPLAINT.
13
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3
14
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
15
to this Request as overbroad, and as calling for documents subject to the attorney-client privilege
16
and the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections,
17
Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his possession, custody, or
18
control, if any.
19
REQUEST NO. 4
20
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to YOUR
21
understanding of how the FACEBOOK MESSAGES PRODUCT operates.
22
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4
23
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
24
to this Request as overbroad. Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by
25
Defendant, the Request is premature. Plaintiff objects to this Request insofar as it seeks
26
documents that include expert material, and expressly reserves the right to supplement, clarify,
27
revise, or correct this response and to assert additional objections or privileges, in one or more
28
subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with the time period for exchanging expert
-5-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
reports set by the Court. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will
2
produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his possession, custody, or control, if any.
3
REQUEST NO. 5
4
5
6
All DOCUMENTS referenced or relied upon in YOUR COMPLAINT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
7
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
8
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
9
Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “relied upon” is overly broad and vague in the context
10
of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this Request seeks
11
production of documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product
12
doctrine, including but not limited to communications with consultants who have not been
13
designated as testifying witnesses. Plaintiff objects to this Request insofar as it seeks documents
14
that include expert material, and expressly reserves the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or
15
correct this response and to assert additional objections or privileges, in one or more subsequent
16
supplemental response(s) in accordance with the time period for exchanging expert reports set by
17
the Court. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any
18
responsive, non-privileged documents in his possession, custody, or control, if any.
19
REQUEST NO. 6
20
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
21
paragraph 3 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “Facebook primarily generates revenue from targeted
22
advertising and the fundamental means of amassing the user data needed for effective targeted
23
advertising is through Facebook’s ‘Like’ function.”
24
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6
25
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
26
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
27
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
28
Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is
-6-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
premature. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
2
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further
3
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
4
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
5
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Plaintiff
6
objects to this Request insofar as it seeks documents that include expert material, and expressly
7
reserves the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct this response and to assert additional
8
objections or privileges, in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with
9
the time period for exchanging expert reports set by the Court. Subject to and without waiver of
10
the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his
11
possession, custody, or control, if any.
12
REQUEST NO. 7
13
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
14
paragraph 25 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “whenever a private message contains a URL,
15
Facebook uses a software application called a ‘web crawler’ to scan the URL, sending HTTP
16
requests to the server associated with the URL and then seeking various items of information
17
about the web page to which the URL is linked.”
18
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7
19
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
20
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
21
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
22
Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is
23
premature. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
24
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further
25
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
26
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
27
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Plaintiff
28
objects to this Request insofar as it seeks documents that include expert material, and expressly
-7-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
reserves the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct this response and to assert additional
2
objections or privileges, in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with
3
the time period for exchanging expert reports set by the Court. Subject to and without waiver of
4
the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his
5
possession, custody, or control, if any.
6
REQUEST NO. 8
7
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
8
paragraph 25 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[o]n information and belief, Facebook’s interception
9
occurred in transit, in transmission, and/or during transfer of users’ private messages.”
10
11
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
12
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
13
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
14
Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is
15
premature. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
16
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further
17
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
18
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
19
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Plaintiff
20
objects to this Request insofar as it seeks documents that include expert material, and expressly
21
reserves the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct this response and to assert additional
22
objections or privileges, in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with
23
the time period for exchanging expert reports set by the Court. Subject to and without waiver of
24
the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his
25
possession, custody, or control, if any.
26
REQUEST NO. 9
27
28
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
paragraph 41 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[t]he presence of a Facebook ‘Like’ button on a web
-8-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
page enables Facebook to collect individual users’ data, which it then employs in developing user
2
profiles to support and deliver targeted advertising — whether or not a user affirmatively clicks
3
on the button.”
4
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9
5
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
6
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
7
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
8
Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is
9
premature. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
10
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further
11
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
12
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
13
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Plaintiff
14
objects to this Request insofar as it seeks documents that include expert material, and expressly
15
reserves the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct this response and to assert additional
16
objections or privileges, in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with
17
the time period for exchanging expert reports set by the Court. Subject to and without waiver of
18
the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his
19
possession, custody, or control, if any.
20
REQUEST NO. 10
21
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
22
paragraph 58 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “Facebook misleads users into believing that they
23
have a secure, private mechanism for communication – Facebook’s private messaging function –
24
when, in fact, Facebook intercepts and scans the content of private messages to gather data in an
25
effort to bolster its ‘social plug-in’ network, to improve its marketing algorithms, and to increase
26
its ability to profit from data about Facebook users.”
27
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10
28
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
-9-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
2
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
3
Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is
4
premature. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
5
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further
6
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
7
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
8
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Plaintiff
9
to this Request insofar as it seeks documents that include expert material, and expressly reserves
10
the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct this response and to assert additional objections
11
or privileges, in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with the time
12
period for exchanging expert reports set by the Court. Subject to and without waiver of the
13
foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his
14
possession, custody, or control, if any.
15
REQUEST NO. 11
16
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
17
paragraph 89 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “Facebook’s practice of intercepting, scanning, and
18
generating ‘Likes’ from, users’ private messages, are not necessary for the rendition of
19
Facebook’s private messaging service, the protection of Facebook’s rights or property, or the
20
security of Facebook users” and “have not be undertaken in the ordinary course of business of an
21
electronic communication service, as described in 28 U.S.C. § 2510(15).”
22
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11
23
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
24
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
25
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
26
Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is
27
premature. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
28
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further
- 10 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
2
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
3
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Plaintiff
4
to this Request insofar as it seeks documents that include expert material, and expressly reserves
5
the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct this response and to assert additional objections
6
or privileges, in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with the time
7
period for exchanging expert reports set by the Court. Subject to and without waiver of the
8
foregoing objections, see Defendant’s Answer to paragraph 59 of the Consolidated Amended
9
Complaint. Plaintiff will produce any additional responsive, non-privileged documents in his
10
possession, custody, or control, if any.
11
REQUEST NO. 12
12
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
13
paragraph 91 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[n]o party to the electronic communications alleged
14
herein consented to Facebook’s interception or use of the contents of the electronic
15
communications.”
16
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12
17
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
18
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
19
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
20
Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is
21
premature. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
22
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further
23
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
24
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
25
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Subject
26
to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-
27
privileged documents in his possession, custody, or control, if any.
28
- 11 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
REQUEST NO. 13
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to YOUR contention
3
that this ACTION is appropriate for class treatment, including but not limited to all
4
DOCUMENTS that support YOUR allegations in paragraphs 59−68 of YOUR COMPLAINT.
5
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13
6
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
7
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
8
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
9
Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is
10
premature. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
11
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further
12
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
13
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
14
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Subject
15
to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-
16
privileged documents in his possession, custody, or control, if any. See also Defendant’s Answer
17
to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint, particularly ¶¶ 2, 27, admitting that Facebook
18
processes users’ messages, ¶ 3, admitting that Facebook has approximately 1.2 billion users, and
19
¶ 17, admitting that Facebook users agree to uniform terms of service.
20
REQUEST NO. 14
21
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to any harm and/or
22
damage allegedly suffered by YOU due to the conduct complained of in this ACTION, including
23
but not limited to all DOCUMENTS relating to the specific and/or proximate cause of such harm
24
and/or damage.
25
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14
26
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
27
to this Request in that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome, and in that the documents sought
28
are publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control. Insofar as the Request
- 12 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
seeks documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is premature. Plaintiff further
2
objects to this Request insofar as it seeks documents that include expert material, and expressly
3
reserves the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct this response and to assert additional
4
objections or privileges, in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with
5
the time period for exchanging expert reports set by the Court. Plaintiff further objects on the
6
grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to” is overly broad and vague in
7
the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this Request
8
seeks production of documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-
9
product doctrine, including but not limited to communications with consultants who have not
10
been designated as testifying witnesses. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing
11
objections, Plaintiff will produce any additional responsive, non-privileged documents in his
12
possession, custody, or control, if any.
13
REQUEST NO. 15
14
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to all
15
COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and FACEBOOK.
16
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15
17
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
18
to this Request in that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome, and in that the documents sought
19
necessarily are already in Defendant’s possession and control. Plaintiff further objects on the
20
grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to” is overly broad and vague in
21
the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this Request
22
seeks production of documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-
23
product doctrine, including but not limited to communications with consultants who have not
24
been designated as testifying witnesses. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing
25
objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his possession,
26
custody, or control, if any.
27
REQUEST NO. 16
28
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to all statements
- 13 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
and/or COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and/or YOUR counsel and any other person and/or
2
entity (including but not limited to all COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and all other putative
3
class members) relating to the ACTION and/or the allegations therein, excluding only privileged
4
COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and YOUR counsel (which must be recorded on a privilege
5
log as provided in the Instructions to these Requests).
6
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16
7
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
8
to this Request in that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff further objects insofar as
9
this Request seeks documents protected by attorney-client or work-product privilege, including
10
but not limited to communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying
11
witnesses. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
12
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Subject to and
13
without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged
14
documents in his possession, custody, or control, if any.
15
REQUEST NO. 17
16
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to all putative class
17
action proceedings in which YOU have been involved, including but not limited to all transcripts,
18
declarations, and affidavits of any testimony provided by YOU in any such action(s), and any
19
judgments and/or court orders in any such action(s).
20
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17
21
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
22
to this Request in that it is overbroad. Plaintiff objects insofar as this Request does not seek
23
information “that is relevant to the claims or defenses of any party” or “reasonably calculated to
24
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff further objects
25
on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to” is overly broad and
26
vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this
27
Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the
28
work-product doctrine, including but not limited to communications with consultants who have
- 14 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
not been designated as testifying witnesses. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
2
objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his possession,
3
custody, or control, if any.
4
REQUEST NO. 18
5
All DOCUMENTS pertaining to this ACTION and/or the allegations in YOUR
6
COMPLAINT that YOU have received from any third party, whether such production was
7
voluntary or by compulsory process.
8
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18
9
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
10
to this Request in that it is overbroad. Plaintiff further objects insofar as this Request does not
11
seek information “that is relevant to the claims or defenses of any party” or “reasonably
12
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff
13
further objects on the grounds that “pertaining to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this
14
Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of
15
documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine,
16
including but not limited to communications with consultants who have not been designated as
17
testifying witnesses. Plaintiff objects insofar as this Request seeks information that is protected
18
by the marital communications privilege. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing
19
objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his possession,
20
custody, or control, if any.
21
REQUEST NO. 19
22
All DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify all PERSONS having a financial interest in the
23
outcome of the ACTION.
24
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19
25
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
26
insofar as this Request does not seek information “that is relevant to the claims or defenses of any
27
party” or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
28
26(b)(1). Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents
- 15 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
that are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not
2
limited to communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses.
3
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive,
4
non-privileged documents in his possession, custody, or control, if any.
5
REQUEST NO. 20
6
All DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR initial Rule 26 disclosures, and all supplemental
7
disclosures.
8
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20
9
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff further
10
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
11
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
12
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Subject
13
to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-
14
privileged documents in his possession, custody, or control, if any.
15
REQUEST NO. 21
16
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to YOUR responses
17
to FACEBOOK’s First Set of Interrogatories served in this ACTION, including but not limited to
18
all DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR responses to those Interrogatories.
19
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21
20
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
21
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
22
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
23
Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by defendants, the Request is
24
premature. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
25
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further
26
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
27
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
28
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Plaintiff
- 16 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
objects to this Request insofar as it seeks documents that include expert material, and expressly
2
reserves the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct this response and to assert additional
3
objections or privileges, in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with
4
the time period for exchanging expert reports set by the Court. Subject to and without waiver of
5
the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his
6
possession, custody, or control, if any.
7
REQUEST NO. 22
8
9
All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to newspaper articles, media reports, web
pages, social media posts, or blog posts that discuss, evidence, support, and/or otherwise relate to
10
the conduct challenged in YOUR COMPLAINT.
11
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22
12
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
13
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
14
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
15
Plaintiff objects insofar as this Request seeks information that is protected by the marital
16
communications privilege. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, insofar as
17
this Request for Production seeks documents published prior to the filing of this lawsuit on
18
December 30, 2013, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his
19
possession, custody, or control, if any.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 17 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
Dated: March 9, 2015
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
By:
/s/ Michael W. Sobol
Michael W. Sobol
Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
msobol@lchb.com
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
mgardner@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415.956.1000
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
Rachel Geman
rgeman@lchb.com
Nicholas Diamand
ndiamand@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: 212.355.9500
Facsimile: 212.355.9592
Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
hbates@cbplaw.com
Allen Carney
acarney@cbplaw.com
David Slade
dslade@cbplaw.com
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: 501.312.8500
Facsimile: 501.312.8505
Jeremy A. Lieberman
Lesley F. Portnoy
info@pomlaw.com
POMERANTZ, LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: 212.661.1100
Facsimile: 212.661.8665
25
26
27
28
- 18 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
3
4
5
Patrick V. Dahlstrom
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
POMERANTZ, LLP
10 S. La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: 312.377.1181
Facsimile: 312.377.1184
8
Jon Tostrud (State Bar No. 199502)
jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310.278.2600
Facsimile: 310.278.2640
9
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 19 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a citizen of the United States and employed in San Francisco County, California. I
3
am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business
4
address is 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-3339.
5
I am readily familiar with Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP’s practice for
6
collection and processing of documents for service via email, and that practice is that the
7
documents are attached to an email and sent to the recipient’s email account.
8
I am also readily familiar with this firm’s practice for collection and processing of
9
correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Following ordinary business
10
practices, the envelope was sealed and placed for collection and mailing on this date, and would,
11
in the ordinary course of business, be deposited with the United States Postal Service on this date.
12
13
On March 9, 2015, I caused to be served copies of the following documents:
1.
PLAINTIFF DAVID SHADPOUR’S OBJECTIONS
AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK,
INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION; and this
2.
PROOF OF SERVICE BY EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
on the following counsel for Defendant Facebook, Inc.:
Christopher Chorba
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Email: cchorba@gibsondunn.com
Joshua Aaron Jessen
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92612
Email: jjessen@gibsondunn.com
Executed on March 9, 2015, at San Francisco, California.
25
26
/s/ Melissa A. Gardner
Melissa A. Gardner
27
28
- 20 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
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?