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 6

Rudolph, David T.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Jessen, Joshua A. <[e-mail]>
Wednesday, June 24, 2015 6:27 PM
Hank Bates ([e-mail]); Rudolph, David T.
Chorba, Christopher; Maute, Jeana Bisnar
Campbell v Facebook

Gentlemen –
Thank you for speaking with us earlier.
Per our discussions, and subject to the entry of an amended protective order, we are amenable to making the relevant
source code available during the period discussed in the Himel declaration (September 2009 to December 2012).
I’ve gone back and looked at the specific requests for production you referenced on our call and have a few
concerns. Some of them are not tethered specifically to the messages product, such as Requests 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, and
17. And for some others, we disagree with the phrasing (e.g., “Facebook User Data Profiles”). However, we seem to
have general agreement regarding the relevant source code (i.e., source code relating to the operation of the messages
product and Plaintiffs’ allegations of “scanning,” “intercepting,” etc. in connection with social plugins). It is of course
possible disputes will arise in the future regarding specific portions of the source code, but if that happens, I believe the
parties can resolve them.
Therefore, the kind of language I would propose we build into our stipulation is something along the following
lines: “Subject to the entry of an amended protective order governing the treatment of source code, Facebook has
agreed to make available source code relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims for the time period September 2009 to December
2012. In the event the parties dispute whether particular portions of the source code are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims,
the parties will meet and confer in a good-faith attempt to resolve the dispute. If they cannot reach agreement, the
parties will brief the dispute for the Court.” Please let me know if this (or something along these lines) works. Again, I
don’t anticipate disputes, but this preserves all parties’ rights.
I also anticipate sending you proposed source code PO provisions by tomorrow.
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 [phone] • Fax [phone]
Tel + 650.849.5375
[e-mail] • www.gibsondunn.com

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.
1