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)
[e-mail]
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.956.1008

Jeremy A. Lieberman
Lesley F. Portnoy
[e-mail]
POMERANTZ, LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.661.8665
Patrick V. Dahlstrom
[e-mail]
POMERANTZ, LLP
10 S. La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312.377.1184

Rachel Geman
[e-mail]
Nicholas Diamand
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.355.9592

16

Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
[e-mail]
Allen Carney
[e-mail]
David Slade
[e-mail]
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: [phone]
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)
[e-mail]
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
Rachel Geman
[e-mail]
Nicholas Diamand
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.355.9592
Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
[e-mail]
Allen Carney
[e-mail]
David Slade
[e-mail]
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 501.312.8505
Jeremy A. Lieberman
Lesley F. Portnoy
[e-mail]
POMERANTZ, LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: [phone]
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
[e-mail]
POMERANTZ, LLP
10 S. La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312.377.1184

8

Jon Tostrud (State Bar No. 199502)
[e-mail]
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: [phone]
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: [e-mail]
Joshua Aaron Jessen
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92612
Email: [e-mail]
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