Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.
Filing
112
Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Plaintiffs' Third Set of Requests for Production filed by Matthew Campbell, Michael Hurley, David Shadpour. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Sobol, Michael) (Filed on 9/18/2015) Modified on 9/21/2015 (vlkS, COURT STAFF).
EXHIBIT B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
JOSHUA A. JESSEN, SBN 222831
JJessen@gibsondunn.com
JEANA BISNAR MAUTE, SBN 290573
JBisnarMaute@gibsondunn.com
ASHLEY M. ROGERS, SBN 286252
ARogers@gibsondunn.com
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 849-5300
Facsimile: (650) 849-5333
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
GAIL E. LEES, SBN 90363
GLees@gibsondunn.com
CHRISTOPHER CHORBA, SBN 216692
CChorba@gibsondunn.com
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
Attorneys for Defendant
FACEBOOK, INC.
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
OAKLAND DIVISION
18
19
MATTHEW CAMPBELL, MICHAEL
HURLEY, and DAVID SHADPOUR,
Plaintiffs,
20
21
v.
22
FACEBOOK, INC.,
23
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Defendant.
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Facebook”), by and through its attorneys, and
2
pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules of the U.S.
3
District Court for the Northern District of California, the Court orders in this action, and the parties’
4
agreements and conferences among counsel, provides the following responses and objections to
5
Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents (the “Requests”).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
6
7
1.
Facebook’s responses to the Requests are made to the best of Facebook’s current
8
knowledge, information, and belief. Facebook reserves the right to supplement or amend any
9
responses should future investigation indicate that such supplementation or amendment is necessary.
10
2.
Facebook’s responses to the Requests are made solely for the purpose of and in
11
relation to this action. Each response is given subject to all appropriate objections (including, but not
12
limited to, objections concerning privilege, competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and
13
admissibility). All objections are reserved and may be interposed at any time.
14
15
16
3.
Facebook’s responses are premised on its understanding that Plaintiffs seek only that
information that is within Facebook’s possession, custody, and control.
4.
Facebook incorporates by reference each and every general objection set forth below
17
into each and every specific response. From time to time, a specific response may repeat a general
18
objection for emphasis or some other reason. The failure to include any general objection in any
19
specific response shall not be interpreted as a waiver of any general objection to that response.
20
5.
Nothing contained in these Responses and Objections or provided in response to the
21
Requests consists of, or should be construed as, an admission relating to the accuracy, relevance,
22
existence, or nonexistence of any alleged facts or information referenced in any Request.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
23
24
1.
Facebook objects to each Request, including the Definitions and Instructions, to the
25
extent that it purports to impose obligations beyond those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil
26
Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Civil Rules of the U.S. District Court for the
27
Northern District of California, and any agreements between the parties.
28
1
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2.
Facebook objects to each Request to the extent that it is not limited to the relevant
2
time period, thus making the Request overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not relevant to the
3
claims or defenses in this action. Unless otherwise specified in its responses, and pursuant to the
4
agreement of the parties, Facebook’s responses will be limited to information generated between
5
April 1, 2010 and December 30, 2013.
6
3.
Facebook objects to each Request to the extent that it seeks information unrelated and
7
irrelevant to the claims or defenses in this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
8
discovery of admissible evidence.
9
4.
Facebook objects to each Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome,
10
particularly in view of Facebook’s disproportionate cost necessary to investigate as weighed against
11
Plaintiffs’ need for the information. For example, many of the Requests seek broad and vaguely
12
defined categories of materials that are not reasonably tailored to the subject matter of this action.
13
5.
Facebook objects to each Request to the extent that it purports to request the
14
identification and disclosure of information or documents that were prepared in anticipation of
15
litigation, constitute attorney work product, reveal privileged attorney-client communications, or are
16
otherwise protected from disclosure under any applicable privileges, laws, or rules. Facebook hereby
17
asserts all such applicable privileges and protections, and excludes privileged and protected
18
information from its responses to each Request. See generally Fed. R. Evid. 502; Cal. Code Evid.
19
§ 954. Inadvertent production of any information or documents that are privileged or otherwise
20
immune from discovery shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or of any other ground for
21
objecting to the discovery with respect to such information or documents or the subject matter
22
thereof, or the right of Facebook to object to the use of any such information or documents or the
23
subject matter thereof during these or any other proceedings. In the event of inadvertent disclosure
24
of any information or inadvertent production or identification of documents or communications that
25
are privileged or otherwise immune from discovery, Plaintiffs will return the information and
26
documents to Facebook and will be precluded from disclosing or relying upon such information or
27
documents in any way.
28
2
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2
3
6.
Facebook objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
that it seeks information outside of Facebook’s possession, custody, and control.
7.
Facebook objects to each Request to the extent that it requests information protected
4
by the right of privacy of Facebook and/or third parties, or information that is confidential,
5
proprietary, or competitively sensitive.
6
8.
Facebook objects to each Request to the extent that it seeks documents or information
7
already in Plaintiffs’ possession or available in the public domain. Such information is equally
8
available to Plaintiffs.
9
9.
Facebook objects to each Request to the extent that it calls for the production of
10
“each,” “every,” “any,” or “all” documents in cases where such a demand is overly broad and/or
11
causes undue burden and expense.
12
13
10.
and will produce Documents at a mutually agreed upon time.
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
14
15
Facebook objects to the production of Documents within thirty (30) days of service
1.
Facebook generally objects to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “Communication,”
16
“Document(s),” “Electronic Media,” “ESI,” “Electronically Stored Information,” “Identify,” and
17
“Metadata” to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these defined terms to request the identification
18
and disclosure of documents that: (a) were prepared in anticipation of litigation; (b) constitute
19
attorney work product; (c) reveal privileged attorney-client communications; or (d) are otherwise
20
protected from disclosure under any applicable privileges, laws, and/or rules. Facebook further
21
objects to the extent that these definitions purport to impose obligations that go beyond the
22
requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
23
2.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Passive Likes” as vague, ambiguous,
24
overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition to the extent that
25
Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to the claims and
26
defenses in this action. Facebook construes the term “Passive Lives” as it relates to the practice
27
challenged in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the
28
3
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
URL for that website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product
2
during the class period).
3
3.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition and use of the term “Person” as vague,
4
ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent that Plaintiffs intend to use this term
5
to include “any natural person or any business, legal or governmental entity or association” over
6
which Facebook exercises no control.
7
4.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Private Message(s)” to the extent that it
8
is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the
9
definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not
10
11
relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.
5.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “Relate(s) to,” “Related to” and
12
“Relating to” on the ground that the definitions make the Requests overly broad and unduly
13
burdensome and impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
14
Facebook shall construe these terms as commonly and ordinarily understood.
15
6.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition and use of the terms “You,” “Your,” or
16
“Facebook” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent the terms are
17
meant to include “directors, officers, employees, partners, members, representatives, agents
18
(including attorneys, accountants, consultants, investment advisors or bankers), and any other person
19
purporting to act on [Facebook, Inc.’s] behalf. . . . parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessor
20
entities, successor entities, divisions, departments, groups, acquired entities and/or related entities or
21
any other entity acting or purporting to act on its behalf” over which Facebook exercises no control,
22
and to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these terms to impose obligations that go beyond the
23
requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
OBJECTIONS TO “RULES OF CONSTRUCTION” AND INSTRUCTIONS
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
1.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ “Rules of Construction” and “Instructions” to the
extent that they impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
2.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 2 to the extent that it is not limited to
the relevant time period, thus making the Instruction overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
4
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
relevant to the claims or defenses in this action. Unless otherwise specified in its responses, and
2
pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Facebook’s response will be limited to information
3
generated between April 1, 2010 and December 30, 2013.
4
3.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 6 as ambiguous and unduly
5
burdensome. Facebook further objects to the Instruction to the extent it seeks the production of
6
irrelevant documents and exceeds the requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
7
8
9
OBJECTION TO PURPORTED “RELEVANT TIME PERIOD”
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ proposed “Relevant Time Period” (September 26, 2006, to the
present) because it substantially exceeds the proposed class period identified in Plaintiffs’
10
Consolidated Amended Complaint, does not reflect the time period that is relevant to Plaintiffs’
11
claims in this action, and renders the Requests overly broad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant.
12
Unless otherwise specified, and pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Facebook’s Responses to
13
these Requests will be limited to information generated between April 1, 2010 and December 30,
14
2013. Facebook otherwise objects to the remainder of Plaintiffs’ statement regarding the “Relevant
15
Time Period” to the extent that it purports to impose obligations beyond those imposed by the Federal
16
and Local Rules.
17
18
19
SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53:
All Documents and ESI relating to Your efforts, or efforts by Third Parties on Your behalf—
20
whether undertaken or contemplated but not undertaken—to assign a monetary value to Facebook
21
Users, or to determine the monetary value of data received or content collected by You from
22
Facebook Users (and/or any additional information derived therefrom), or to determine the revenue
23
or profits made from data received or content collected by You from Facebook Users (and/or any
24
additional information derived therefrom).
25
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53:
26
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
27
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
28
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
5
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
2
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
3
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
4
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
5
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases “efforts by
6
Third Parties on Your behalf,” “undertaken or contemplated but not undertaken,” “data received or
7
content collected,” “revenue or profits made from data received or content collected” and “any
8
additional information derived therefrom.”
9
10
11
12
13
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(E)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
14
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
15
Request purports to seek all documents related to Facebook’s “efforts, or efforts by Third Parties on
16
[Facebook’s] behalf—whether undertaken or contemplated but not undertaken—to assign a monetary
17
value to Facebook Users, or to determine the monetary value of data received or content collected by
18
[Facebook] from Facebook Users (and/or any additional information derived therefrom), or to
19
determine the revenue or profits made from data received or content collected by [Facebook] from
20
Facebook Users (and/or any additional information derived therefrom,” regardless of the relevance of
21
those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
22
23
24
25
26
(F)
The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this
action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
(G)
The Request seeks to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the
Federal and Local Rules.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
27
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will meet and confer with
28
Plaintiffs’ counsel to determine the proper scope of this overly broad and ambiguous Request.
6
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54:
All Documents and ESI relating to Your efforts, or efforts by Third Parties on Your behalf—
3
whether undertaken or contemplated but not undertaken—to assign a monetary value to the data
4
contained within, or data received or content collected from, Private Messages, and/or any additional
5
information derived therefrom.
6
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54:
7
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
8
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
9
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
10
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
11
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
12
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
13
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
14
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases “efforts by
15
Third Parties on Your behalf,” “undertaken or contemplated but not undertaken,” “data contained
16
within, or data received or content collected from,” “Private Messages,” and “any additional
17
information derived therefrom.”
18
19
20
21
22
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(E)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
23
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
24
Request purports to seek all documents related to Facebook’s “or efforts by Third Parties on
25
[Facebook’s] behalf—whether undertaken or contemplated but not undertaken—to assign a monetary
26
value to the data contained within, or data received or content collected from, Private Messages,
27
and/or any additional information derived therefrom,” regardless of the relevance of those documents
28
to the claims or defenses in this action.
7
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2
3
4
5
(F)
The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this
action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
(G)
The Request seeks to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the
Federal and Local Rules.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
6
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will meet and confer with
7
Plaintiffs’ counsel to determine the proper scope of this overly broad and ambiguous Request.
8
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55:
9
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify the number of web pages with “Like” Social
10
Plugins embedded, by month, during the Relevant Time Period.
11
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55:
12
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
13
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
14
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
15
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
16
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
17
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
18
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
19
20
21
22
23
(B)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(C)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
24
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
25
Request purports to seek all documents sufficient to identify “the number of web pages with ‘Like’
26
Social Plugins embedded, by month,” regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or
27
defenses in this action.
28
8
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2
3
4
5
(E)
The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this
action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
(F)
The Request seeks to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the
Federal and Local Rules.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
6
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
7
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the number of web pages with “Like” Social
8
Plugins embedded between April 1, 2010 and December 30, 2013, to the extent such documents
9
exist, are within Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and
10
can be located using a reasonable search.
11
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56:
12
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify the number “Likes” generated, by month, during
13
the Relevant Time Period.
14
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56:
15
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
16
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
17
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
18
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
19
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
20
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
21
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
22
23
24
25
26
(B)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(C)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
27
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
28
Request purports to seek all documents sufficient to identify “the number ‘Likes’ generated, by
9
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
month, during the Relevant Time Period,” regardless of the relevance of those documents to the
2
claims or defenses in this action.
3
4
5
(E)
The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this
action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
(F)
The Request seeks to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the
6
Federal and Local Rules.
7
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57:
8
9
10
11
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify the number of Passive Likes generated, by
month, during the Relevant Time Period
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
12
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
13
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
14
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
15
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
16
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
17
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
18
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the term “Passive Likes.”
19
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
20
21
22
23
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(E)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
24
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
25
Request purports to seek all documents sufficient to identify “the number of Passive Likes generated,
26
by month,” regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
(F)
The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this
action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
10
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2
3
(G)
The Request seeks to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the
Federal and Local Rules.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
4
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
5
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the number Likes that were generated as a result
6
of the processes involved in the practice challenged in this action (the alleged increase in the
7
Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that website was contained in a message
8
transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product) between April 1, 2010 and December 30, 2013, to
9
the extent such documents exist, are within Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been
10
produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a reasonable search.
11
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58:
12
All Documents and ESI related to any analysis—for internal or external use—correlating the
13
acquisition of “Likes” by Third Parties and the advertising spend of those Third Parties on Facebook
14
ad buys.
15
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58:
16
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
17
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
18
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
19
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
20
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
21
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
22
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
23
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases “analysis—for
24
internal or external use,” “correlating the acquisition of ‘Likes’ by Third Parties,” “advertising
25
spend,” and “ad buys.”
26
27
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
28
11
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2
3
(D)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(E)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
4
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
5
Request purports to seek all documents related to “any analysis—for internal or external use—
6
correlating the acquisition of ‘Likes’ by Third Parties and the advertising spend of those Third Parties
7
on Facebook ad buys,” regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in
8
this action.
9
(F)
10
11
The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this
action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
(G)
The Request seeks to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the
12
Federal and Local Rules.
13
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59:
14
All Documents and ESI relating to Your efforts, or efforts by Third Parties on Your behalf—
15
whether undertaken or contemplated but not undertaken—to assign a monetary value to the presence
16
of a “Like” Social Plugin on a Third-Party website, or to determine the value of data received or
17
content collected from the presence of a “Like” Social Plugin on a Third-Party website (and/or any
18
additional information derived therefrom), or to determine the revenue or profits made from the
19
presence of a “Like” Social Plugin on a Third-Party website (and/or any additional information
20
derived therefrom).
21
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59:
22
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
23
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
24
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
25
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
26
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
27
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
28
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
12
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases “efforts by
2
Third Parties on Your behalf,” “undertaken or contemplated but not undertaken,” “data received or
3
content collected from,” “revenue or profits,” and “any additional information derived therefrom.”
4
The Request is also vague and ambiguous because it is unclear whether the Request seeks
5
information about the value of a “Like” social plugin on a third-party website to Facebook or to the
6
developer of the third-party website.
7
8
9
10
11
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(E)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
12
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
13
Request purports to seek all documents related to Facebook’s “efforts by Third Parties on
14
[Facebook’s] behalf—whether undertaken or contemplated but not undertaken—to assign a monetary
15
value to the presence of a ‘Like’ Social Plugin on a Third-Party website, or to determine the value of
16
data received or content collected from the presence of a ‘Like’ Social Plugin on a Third-Party
17
website (and/or any additional information derived therefrom), or to determine the revenue or profits
18
made from the presence of a ‘Like’ Social Plugin on a Third-Party website (and/or any additional
19
information derived therefrom),” regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or
20
defenses in this action.
21
22
23
24
25
(F)
The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this
action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
(G)
The Request seeks to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the
Federal and Local Rules.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
26
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will meet and confer with
27
Plaintiffs’ counsel to determine the proper scope of this overly broad and ambiguous Request.
28
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60:
13
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
All Documents and ESI relating to Your efforts, or efforts by Third Parties on Your behalf—
2
whether undertaken or contemplated but not undertaken—to increase and/or maximize the presence
3
of the Like Social Plugin on Third Party websites.
4
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 60:
5
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
6
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
7
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
8
9
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
10
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
11
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
12
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases “efforts by
13
Third Parties on Your behalf,” “undertaken or contemplated but not undertaken,” and “increase
14
and/or maximize.”
15
(C)
16
17
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
18
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
19
Request purports to seek all documents related to Facebook’s “efforts, or efforts by Third Parties on
20
[Facebook’s] behalf—whether undertaken or contemplated but not undertaken—to increase and/or
21
maximize the presence of the Like Social Plugin on Third Party websites,” regardless of the
22
relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
23
24
25
26
(E)
The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this
action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
(F)
The Request seeks to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the
Federal and Local Rules.
27
28
14
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2
DATED: August 3, 2015
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By:
/s/
Joshua A. Jessen
3
4
Attorney for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Ashley M. Rogers, declare as follows:
I am employed in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, I am over the age of eighteen
years and am not a party to this action; my business address is 1881 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA
94304-1211, in said County and State. On August 3, 2015, I served the following document(s):
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
on the parties stated below, by the following means of service:
David F. Slade
dslade@cbplaw.com
James Allen Carney
acarney@cbplaw.com
Joseph Henry Bates, III
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
hbates@cbplaw.com
Jeremy A. Lieberman
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
Melissa Ann Gardner
mgardner@lchb.com
Nicholas Diamand
ndiamand@lchb.com
Rachel Geman
rgeman@lchb.com
Michael W. Sobol
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
msobol@lchb.com
Jon A Tostrud
Tostrud Law Group, P.C.
jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com
Lionel Z. Glancy
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
info@glancylaw.com
26
27
28
16
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: On the above-mentioned date, based on a court order or
an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the
documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification addresses as shown
above.
I am employed in the office of Joshua A. Jessen and am a member of the bar of this court.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
3
4
5
6
7
Executed on August 3, 2015.
8
/s/
Ashley M. Rogers
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
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?