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)
EXHIBIT 1
Gardner, Melissa
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hank Bates
Thursday, September 10, 2015 11:39 AM
Jessen, Joshua A.; Chorba, Christopher; Maute, Jeana Bisnar; Rogers, Ashley;
Rajagopalan, Priyanka
Sobol, Michael W.; Gardner, Melissa; Allen Carney; David Slade; Diamand, Nicholas;
Rudolph, David T.
RE: Campbell v. Facebook
Categories:
Red Category
Cc:
Josh,
Thank you for your email and your proposed compromise schedule. However, in light of the significant ongoing
deficiencies in Facebook’s production, Plaintiffs intend to move the Court for a 90-day extension of the class certification
and summary judgment deadlines, and also to request a case management conference to apprise the Court of the status
of discovery. If Facebook reconsiders it position, please let me know as we intend to file shortly.
Thank you for providing proposed dates for the deponents. Plaintiffs will take the depositions of Ray He and Mike
Vernal on September 25 and 30. However, with respect to Alex Himel, in light of the fact that on Tuesday Mr. Himel
provided the verification for Facebook’s interrogatory responses and yesterday Facebook designated Mr. Himel on three
of Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) topics, as well as continuing deficiencies in Facebook’s document production related to these
topics, the deposition of Mr. Himel will not go forward next week. Moreover, given that Mr. Himel verified the related
interrogatory responses, he is the appropriate 30(b)(6) designee for topics 1 and 2. For efficiency we need to resolve
our dispute as to these topics prior to his deposition. Finally, in light of Mr. Himel’s declaration, his status as the verifier
of Facebook’s interrogatory response, and the fact that he is a 30(b)(6) designee for multiple topics, Plaintiffs will require
two days to depose him; if Facebook intends to object to providing Mr. Himel for two days please let us know that now
so we can raise the issue with the Court.
In response to your inquiry, we do intend to pursue 30(b)(6) topic 4. Please identify the designee and potential
deposition dates.
Your email was silent as to 30(b)(6) topics 1 and 2. Do you have any response to David Rudolph’s 9/4/15 email
proposing a potential compromise related to these topics? If Facebook has no interest in exploring this proposal, please
inform us now so we can move forward with raising the issue with the Court. On the other hand, if there is interest, we
would like to proceed quickly with discussions.
Hank Bates
Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC
2800 Cantrell, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72202
(501)312-8500
hbates@CBPLaw.com
www.CBPLaw.com
From: Jessen, Joshua A. [mailto:JJessen@gibsondunn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 2:12 PM
1
To: Hank Bates ; Chorba, Christopher ; Maute, Jeana Bisnar
; Rogers, Ashley ; Rajagopalan, Priyanka
Cc: Sobol, Michael W. ; Gardner, Melissa ; Allen Carney
; David Slade ; Diamand, Nicholas ; Rudolph,
David T.
Subject: RE: Campbell v. Facebook
Dear Hank –
Thank you for your e-mail. We have now had an opportunity to consult with our client, and while we do not believe any
extension is warranted (let alone the 3-month extension that you request), in the interests of compromise, we are
willing to agree to a 30-day extension of the deadlines, if Plaintiffs agree not to use this additional time to serve
additional written discovery requests and/or notice further depositions (beyond the five depositions previously
discussed, and excepting experts).
The following revision to the schedule should work:
Event
Date
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Motion for Class Certification
and all supporting declarations, evidence, and other papers
November 13, 2015
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (against
named Plaintiffs)
November 13, 2015
Deadline for Facebook to file Opposition to Motion for
Class Certification and supporting declarations, evidence,
and other papers
January 20, 2016
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (against named Plaintiffs)
January 20, 2016
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Reply in Support of Motion for
Class Certification
February 26, 2016
Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion for Summary
Judgment (against named Plaintiffs)
February 26, 2016
Hearing on Motion for Class Certification / Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (against named Plaintiffs)
March 23, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., or as the Court’s
calendar permits
Regarding depositions, I also can now provide you with dates and locations for the following witnesses:
•
•
•
Alex Himel – September 16 @ Gibson’s SF or PA office (We are checking with the witness on his preference and
will let you know once we have it.)
Ray He – September 25 @ Gibson’s PA office
Mike Vernal – September 30 @ Gibson’s SF office.
We are checking on Mark Kinsey’s availability and will get back to you as soon as we can.
Alex Himel and Ray He will serve as Facebook’s designees for the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition (with Mr. Himel to cover,
subject to any objections, topics 5-7, and Mr. He to cover, subject to any objections, topic 3), and we propose covering
2
those topics at the same time as their respective depositions. Also, as discussed last week, if there are additional
30(b)(6) topics for which Plaintiffs intend to seek testimony, please let us know immediately so that we may take this
into account in preparing our witnesses. Please also let us know if you intend to pursue topic 4. As we discussed on our
call, Facebook objects to seriatim Rule 30(b)(6) depositions.
If the 30-day extension is agreeable, please prepare a stipulation and proposed order for our review.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Josh
Joshua A. Jessen
GIBSON DUNN
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Irvine, CA 92612-4412
1881 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211
Tel +1 949.451.4114 • Fax +1 949.475.4741
Tel + 650.849.5375
JJessen@gibsondunn.com • www.gibsondunn.com
From: Hank Bates [mailto:hbates@cbplaw.com]
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 10:40 AM
To: Chorba, Christopher; Jessen, Joshua A.; Maute, Jeana Bisnar; Rogers, Ashley; Rajagopalan, Priyanka
Cc: Sobol, Michael W.; Gardner, Melissa; Allen Carney; David Slade; Diamand, Nicholas; Rudolph, David T.
Subject: Campbell v. Facebook
Counsel,
As we discussed in the meet and confer on Wednesday Plaintiffs intend to seek an extension of the deadlines
related to motions for summary judgment and class certification. Specifically, we will request a roughly 90-day
extension to January 15th for the initial motions, with the same extension for the opposition and reply
deadlines. We intend to file by next Thursday.
In our meet and confer we expressed our preference that we seek the extension jointly. You agreed to check
with your client but anticipated that your client wanted some assurances that the extension would not precipitate
an expansion of the scope of the discovery previously propounded. With this email, I am providing that
assurance. Plaintiffs do not intend to propound additional interrogatories or requests for production prior to the
class certification and summary judgment deadlines. The purpose of the extension request is to complete
discovery into topics already covered by the current discovery requests and to schedule and take
depositions. Five depositions have been informally noticed, including the Rule 30(b)(6). Depending upon how
these go, we may notice a few more before the motions deadlines.
Please let us know by Wednesday (9/9) noon whether Facebook is agreeable to an extension. Given the time
constraints, we want to get the motion on file by September 10th and a contested motion will require more
documented support.
Enjoy your holiday weekend.
Hank Bates
Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC
3
2800 Cantrell, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72202
(501)312-8500
hbates@CBPLaw.com
www.CBPLaw.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521,and is
intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.
This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please
reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521,and is
intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, and then delete it. Thank you.
4
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?