Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 109

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Class Certification and Summary Judgment Deadlines filed by Matthew Campbell, Michael Hurley. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of David Rudolph, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit 16, # 19 Exhibit 17, # 20 Exhibit 18, # 21 Exhibit 19, # 22 Exhibit 20, # 23 Exhibit 21)(Sobol, Michael) (Filed on 9/16/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857) David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457) Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096) LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: 415.956.1000 Facsimile: 415.956.1008 7 8 9 10 11 12 Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688) Allen Carney David Slade CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 11311 Arcade Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Telephone: 501.312.8500 Facsimile: 501.312.8505 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 18 19 MATTHEW CAMPBELL, MICHAEL HURLEY, and DAVID SHADPOUR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 20 21 22 23 Plaintiffs, Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME AND EXTEND DEADLINES Judge: Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton v. FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant. 24 25 26 27 28 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME AND EXTEND DEADLINES; CASE NO. C 13-5996 PJH (MEJ) 1 Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1 and 6-3, Plaintiffs hereby move for an order to extend by 90 2 days the current deadlines set forth in the Court’s scheduling order, entered on March 12, 2015 3 (Dkt. No. 62), including the pending class certification and summary judgment deadlines. 4 I. 5 ARGUMENT Since the entry of the current scheduling order, Facebook has caused unnecessary and 6 extensive delay in producing discovery, prejudicing Plaintiffs’ efforts to prepare for class 7 certification and summary judgment. See Declaration of David T. Rudolph (“Rudolph Decl.”). 8 To begin with, despite this Court’s clear indication that computer source code will be relevant to 9 determine liability, Facebook wasted over five months resisting production of its source code. 10 First, Facebook refused to even entertain a Protective order or ESI Protocol that addressed source 11 code. It then objected to the production of source code, forcing, after a lengthy meet and confer 12 process, a hearing with Magistrate Judge James on the issue. There, Facebook sought a 13 cumbersome and lengthy process for producing documents and information in lieu of source 14 code. But, even then, it resisted producing for deposition its declarant accompanying the 15 alternative production. Only after engaging the Court, the Magistrate, and the Plaintiffs in this 16 drawn-out objection process, did Facebook spontaneously volunteer to produce the source code. 17 By that time, however, Facebook’s conduct had achieved a significant delay in the prosecution of 18 the case. 19 As fully documented herein and in the accompanying declaration, Facebook’s response 20 across the entire discovery spectrum has been so dilatory that nine months in, and only one month 21 before critical deadlines, it has produced only 1600 documents (including duplicates) and its 22 production has virtually ground to a halt, with live disputes for Magistrate James to address on 23 multiple topics critical to Plaintiffs’ case and Facebook’s defenses. In its Order on Facebook’s 24 motion to dismiss, this Court noted two key issues that it must resolve with a fulsome factual 25 record: whether Facebook’s interception of the content of the putative class members’ messages 26 occurred when the message was “in transit,” and whether such interception occurs within the 27 “ordinary course of business.” The Court noted, and Plaintiffs agree, that the resolution of these 28 two issues turns on the functioning of Facebook’s code. However, Facebook’s five-month delay 1 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME AND EXTEND DEADLINES; CASE NO. C 13-5996 PJH 1 in producing its massive and enormously complicated source code, coupled with its truncated 2 document production, have left Plaintiffs with insufficient time to analyze these issues in 3 preparation for the class certification and summary judgment briefing. Without detailed 4 information showing the specific types of data and interconnections Facebook created when it 5 scanned the putative class members’ private messages, Plaintiffs will be hampered in crafting a 6 proposal for injunctive relief. Without discovery into the revenue Facebook has generated from 7 this process and related platforms, Plaintiffs will be hampered in formulating a class-wide 8 damages theory. 9 Plaintiffs requested Facebook’s consent to a 90-day extension and, at Facebook’s request, 10 offered to refrain from propounding further written discovery in exchange for its consent. 11 Rudolph Decl. ¶ 3. In response, Facebook offered a 30-day extension. Id. ¶ 4. Given the many 12 ongoing discovery disputes, most of which require Court intervention, Plaintiffs responded that a 13 30-day extension is insufficient and that a 90-day extension is warranted. 1 Id. A. Source Code 14 Facebook inexcusably delayed producing source code in this case by over five months. On 15 16 December 23, 2014, this Court issued its order granting in part and denying in part Facebook’s 17 motion to dismiss (“Order”). (Dkt, No. 43). In ruling on Facebook’s arguments, the Court noted 18 that it could not decide those issues in the absence of details regarding Facebook’s source code. 19 See, e.g., Order at 12:21-28. 2 Despite this clear directive from the Court, Facebook steadfastly 20 refused to produce its source code. After multiple conferences with the Court, after the setting of 21 a detailed and involved motion to compel schedule, and after Plaintiffs were forced to seek the 22 Court’s assistance in securing a deposition date for Facebook’s declarant, on June 26, 2015—just 23 1 24 25 26 27 28 Facebook also responded to Plaintiffs’ request for extension by imposing additional discovery burdens on Plaintiffs, propounding another round of discovery which will become due within just days of the current class certification deadline. Rudolph Decl. ¶ 4. 2 “Simply put, the application of the ‘ordinary course of business’ exception to this case depends upon the details of Facebook’s software code, and those details are simply not before the court on a motion to dismiss, and thus, the court must deny Facebook’s motion on that basis. However, the court may re-address the ‘ordinary course of business’ exception at the summary judgment stage of the case, with a more complete evidentiary record before the court.” (emphasis added) 2 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME AND EXTEND DEADLINES; CASE NO. C 13-5996 PJH 1 days prior to the motion deadline—Facebook completely reversed course, and voluntarily agreed 2 to produce all relevant source code. Rudolph Decl. ¶¶ 7-17. This five-month delay significantly 3 prejudiced Plaintiffs. Given the size and complexity of Facebook’s source code (which consists of 4 over 10 million lines of code), Plaintiffs’ experts require additional time to review and analyze 5 Facebook’s code in anticipation of Facebook’s early summary judgment motion, which Facebook 6 has indicated will turn on technical issues related to 1) whether Facebook’s interception of the 7 content of the class members’ Private Messages occurred “in transit,” and 2) whether such 8 interception was part of the ordinary course of Facebook’s business. Rudolph Decl. ¶ 16; Joint 9 Case Management Conference Statement (Dkt. No. 60). Without the requested extension, 10 Plaintiffs will be in the position of opposing Facebook’s motion with an incomplete analysis of 11 the functioning of Facebook’s source code. B. Facebook’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Initial Discovery Requests 12 13 To date, Facebook’s production has been limited to approximately 1,600 documents, 14 totaling 6,175 pages. Rudolph Decl. ¶ 18. Many of these documents are duplicates, arising from 15 only a handful of email conversations from October, 2012, or else consist of publicly available 16 documents such as third-party articles. Id. Plaintiffs also have identified multiple, significant 17 deficiencies in Facebook’s responses, including entire categories of critical documents. Id. ¶ 20. 18 However Facebook maintains that it is still searching for and producing documents on a “rolling” 19 basis, including documents responsive to Plaintiffs initial discovery set, served nearly eight 20 months ago. Id. ¶ 22. Facebook has provided no estimate of when its production process will be 21 complete and, thus, Plaintiffs have no idea when, if ever, all responsive documents relevant to key 22 summary judgment and class certification issues will be produced. Id. ¶ 21. 23 This uncertainty and delay are compounded by Facebook’s implementation of “predictive 24 coding” (also called TAR, or technology assisted review) to identify relevant and responsive 25 documents. Id. ¶¶ 23-28. The method Facebook unilaterally implemented for predicative coding 26 fails to follow best practices. Facebook “pre-screened” the available universe of documents by 27 searching via keywords, and then employed predictive coding to further cull the subset of 28 screened documents, rather than using keyword searches to assemble a subset of responsive 3 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME AND EXTEND DEADLINES; CASE NO. C 13-5996 PJH 1 documents which are examined to inform reasonable predictive coding parameters. Facebook’s 2 method, done without prior consultation with Plaintiffs, likely severely limits the extent of the 3 production of responsive documents. Id. ¶ 28. Beyond this basic flaw, Facebook still refuses to 4 reveal key pieces of its methodology, including identifying the documents it has used to train its 5 software, and this will likely be the subject of further motion practice. Id. Therefore, the efficacy 6 of Facebook’s predictive coding process remains uncertain, and hampers Plaintiffs’ ability to 7 improve the process to ensure a fulsome production. C. Facebook’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Discovery Regarding How Facebook Stores and Uses the Content it Acquires from Private Messages 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 8 and Request for Production No. 41 seek information and ESI concerning the data Facebook created when it scanned the named Plaintiffs’ messages containing URLs. Id. ¶ 29. Rather than timely produce this data, Facebook dragged its heels for months, repeatedly stating that it was investigating the feasibility of responding to these requests. Id. ¶¶ 31-32. Facebook untimely produced substantially incomplete responses on September 1, 2015, and Plaintiffs are in the process of moving to compel further responses. Id. The information sought in these discovery requests directly relates to essential issues in this case: what content Facebook acquires when it intercepts its users’ private messages, where it stores that content, and how that content is subsequently used. This discovery is not only critical to Plaintiffs’ claims, but also to Facebook’s defenses. Indeed, Facebook does not challenge 20 relevancy, but instead states that it is still in the process of providing complete responses. D. Facebook’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ Document Requests Regarding Damages 21 Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for Production seeks documents and ESI relevant to the 22 parties’ assessment of class-wide damages in this Action. Despite multiple meet-and-confers, 23 Facebook refuses to produce a single document relating to Plaintiffs’ damages requests. Id. ¶ 35. 24 Accordingly, Plaintiffs intend to move to compel the production of these documents, and the 25 parties have agreed to a joint briefing schedule through which the motion will be filed on 26 September 18, 2015. Documents responsive to these requests are directly relevant to the issues of 27 damages suffered by the class as well as the appropriate injunctive relief in this matter, and are, 28 4 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME AND EXTEND DEADLINES; CASE NO. C 13-5996 PJH 1 thus, necessary for Plaintiffs to fashion a theory of class-wide relief for their class certification 2 briefing. E. 3 Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice Among other topics, Plaintiffs seek Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony regarding the 4 5 source code related to Facebook’s description of its Private Message system in its interrogatory 6 responses. Rudolph Decl. ¶ 37. Such testimony is sought to determine the factual basis for 7 Facebook’s characterization of its message-scanning functionality. Facebook has objected that 8 preparing a deponent to testify on this topic is both improper and “impossible.” As a 9 compromise to avoid potential motion practice on this issue, Plaintiffs suggested that, in lieu of a 10 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition related to source code, Facebook install on its source code review 11 computer an “integrated development environment,” which would allow Plaintiffs’ expert to trace 12 the path of a Private Message through Facebook’s source code. Id., ¶ 39. Facebook has not 13 agreed to this proposed compromise, requiring even more time-consuming motion practice. Id. F. This Discovery Is Required For Class Certification and to Oppose Summary Judgment and Facebook Will Suffer No Prejudice from a 90-Day Extension 14 15 A 90-day extension will allow both parties to establish a more fulsome factual record prior 16 to summary judgment, lessening the likelihood that Plaintiffs will be required to seek a Rule 17 54(d) extension to respond to Facebook’s summary judgment motion. Facebook would suffer no 18 prejudice and has articulated none in declining to stipulate to a 90-day extension, instead merely 19 stating “we do not believe any extension is warranted.” Id. ¶ 1, Ex. 1. Facebook may believe no 20 extension is necessary because Plaintiffs, unlike Facebook, have produced virtually every 21 responsive document in their possession, made themselves available for depositions, and timely 22 facilitated Facebook’s depositions of three non-parties who exchanged messages with the 23 Plaintiffs. The extension has been necessitated by Facebook’s delays, not Plaintiffs’. 24 II. 25 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs request that the Court modify the schedule as follows: 26 The summary judgment motion and class certification motion shall be filed by January 20, 2016; 27 oppositions shall be filed by March 23, 2016; replies shall be filed by April 20, 2016 with a 28 hearing to be noticed for May 18, 2016 at 9:00 a.m, or as the Court’s calendar permits. 5 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME AND EXTEND DEADLINES; CASE NO. C 13-5996 PJH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Dated: September 16, 2015 LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP By: /s/ Michael W. Sobol Michael W. Sobol Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857) Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096) LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: 415.956.1000 Facsimile: 415.956.1008 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME AND EXTEND DEADLINES; CASE NO. C 13-5996 PJH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Rachel Geman Nicholas Diamand 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) Allen Carney David Slade 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 POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212.661.1100 Facsimile: 212.661.8665 Patrick V. Dahlstrom POMERANTZ, LLP 10 S. La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312.377.1181 Facsimile: 312.377.1184 Jon Tostrud (State Bar No. 199502) TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310.278.2600 Facsimile: 310.278.2640 24 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 25 26 27 28 7 MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME AND EXTEND DEADLINES; CASE NO. C 13-5996 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?