Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.
Filing
113
Joint Discovery Letter Briefon Plaintiffs Request for Production No. 41 and Interrogatory No. 8 filed by Matthew Campbell, Michael Hurley, David Shadpour. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Sobol, Michael) (Filed on 9/18/2015)
EXHIBIT D
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
22
23
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND 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’ Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents (the “Requests”).
6
7
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
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.
23
24
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
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’ SECOND 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’ SECOND 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
14
10.
Facebook objects to the production of Documents within thirty (30) days of service
and will produce Documents at a mutually agreed upon time.
11.
Facebook objects to the production of source code and/or documents or information
15
related or relating to source code. Facebook’s source code is a closely guarded trade secret, and
16
production could compromise Facebook’s efforts to ensure site integrity and protect users. The
17
burden and risks on Facebook vastly exceed any alleged probative value to Plaintiffs, who may
18
obtain the information they need through less intrusive means (such as documents relating to the
19
practices challenged in this action). This is not a patent or other intellectual property dispute in
20
which Plaintiffs assert some ownership or proprietary interest in Facebook’s source code. Production
21
of source code would require extensive time and expense for Facebook—including the negotiation of
22
a source-code-specific protective order and the implementation of detailed and time-consuming
23
protocols for handling source code material, as well as limitations on the use of source code
24
materials, expert retention, disclosure, and going-forward restrictions on the conduct of individuals
25
exposed to source code materials. Because it is inappropriate to produce source code in this action, it
26
is also inappropriate to produce documents related or relating to source code.
27
28
3
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
1.
Facebook generally objects to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “Communication,”
3
“Document(s),” “Electronic Media,” “ESI,” “Electronically Stored Information,” “Identify,” and
4
“Metadata” to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these defined terms to request the identification
5
and disclosure of documents that: (a) were prepared in anticipation of litigation; (b) constitute
6
attorney work product; (c) reveal privileged attorney-client communications; or (d) are otherwise
7
protected from disclosure under any applicable privileges, laws, and/or rules. Facebook further
8
objects to the extent that these definitions purport to impose obligations that go beyond the
9
requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
10
2.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition and use of the term “Person” as vague,
11
ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent that Plaintiffs intend to use this term
12
to include “any natural person or any business, legal or governmental entity or association” over
13
which Facebook exercises no control.
14
3.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Private Message(s)” to the extent that it
15
is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the
16
definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not
17
relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.
18
4.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “Relate(s) to,” “Related to” and
19
“Relating to” on the ground that the definitions make the Requests overly broad and unduly
20
burdensome and impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
21
Facebook shall construe these terms as commonly and ordinarily understood.
22
5.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Transmission,” “Transmit,” and
23
“Transmitting” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further
24
objects to the definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these defined terms to seek
25
materials that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.
26
6.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition and use of the terms “You,” “Your,” or
27
“Facebook” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent the terms are
28
meant to include “directors, officers, employees, partners, members, representatives, agents
4
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
(including attorneys, accountants, consultants, investment advisors or bankers), and any other person
2
purporting to act on [Facebook, Inc.’s] behalf. . . . parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessor
3
entities, successor entities, divisions, departments, groups, acquired entities and/or related entities or
4
any other entity acting or purporting to act on its behalf” over which Facebook exercises no control,
5
and to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these terms to impose obligations that go beyond the
6
requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
7
8
9
10
OBJECTIONS TO “RULES OF CONSTRUCTION” AND INSTRUCTIONS
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
11
the relevant time period, thus making the Instruction overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
12
relevant to the claims or defenses in this action. Unless otherwise specified in its responses, and
13
pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Facebook’s response will be limited to information
14
generated between April 1, 2010 and December 30, 2013.
15
3.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 6 as ambiguous and unduly
16
burdensome. Facebook further objects to the Instruction to the extent it seeks the production of
17
irrelevant documents and exceeds the requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
18
19
OBJECTION TO PURPORTED “RELEVANT TIME PERIOD”
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ proposed “Relevant Time Period” (September 26, 2006, to the
20
present) because it substantially exceeds the proposed class period identified in Plaintiffs’
21
Consolidated Amended Complaint, does not reflect the time period that is relevant to Plaintiffs’
22
claims in this action, and renders the Requests overly broad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant.
23
Unless otherwise specified, and pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Facebook’s Responses to
24
these Requests will be limited to information generated between April 1, 2010 and December 30,
25
2013. Facebook otherwise objects to the remainder of Plaintiffs’ statement regarding the “Relevant
26
Time Period” to the extent that it purports to impose obligations beyond those imposed by the Federal
27
and Local Rules.
28
5
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2
3
SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41:
All Documents and ESI relied upon, reviewed, or referenced by You in answering
4
Interrogatory No. 8.
5
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41:
6
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
7
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
8
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
9
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
10
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
11
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
12
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
13
14
15
(B)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
16
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will meet and confer with
17
Plaintiffs’ counsel to determine the proper scope of this overly broad and ambiguous Request.
18
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42:
19
All Documents and ESI related to Communications related to using Share Objects associated
20
with URLs to increase the “Like” count of Third Party websites.
21
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 42:
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.
6
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND 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
2
“Communications,” “Share Objects associated with URLs” and “the ‘Like’ count of Third Party
3
websites.”
4
(C)
5
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
6
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
7
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
8
Request seeks all documents “related to Communications related to using Share Objects associated
9
with URLs to increase the ‘Like’ count of Third Party websites,” regardless of the relevance of those
10
documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
11
12
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
13
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
14
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
15
for non-privileged documents related to communications related to the processes involved in the
16
practice challenged in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website
17
when the URL for that website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages
18
product) during the class period, to the extent such documents exist, are within Facebook’s custody
19
and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a reasonable
20
search.
21
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43:
22
All Documents and ESI related to Communications related to using data or Metadata created
23
from URLs in Private Messages (including but not limited to Share Objects) for purposes other than
24
increasing the “Like” count of Third Party websites.
25
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 43:
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:
7
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND 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
6
“Communications,” “data or Metadata created from URLs,” “Private Messages,” “Share Objects”
7
and “Third Party websites.”
8
9
10
11
12
(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 burden and risks on Facebook in producing this information vastly exceed any
13
alleged probative value to Plaintiffs. Production of all documents “related to Communications
14
related to” using data from URLs in Facebook messages “for purposes other than increasing the
15
‘Like’ count of Third Party websites” would require Facebook to disclose sensitive company trade
16
secrets that are necessary to protect Facebook users and to protect the overall integrity and security of
17
the site for users.
18
(F)
19
20
21
22
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
23
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will meet and confer with
24
Plaintiffs’ counsel to determine the proper scope of this overly broad and ambiguous Request.
25
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44:
26
All Documents and ESI related to Communications related to “receiv[ing] data” (as the term
27
is used in Your Data Use Policy updated on November 15, 2013) or “collect[ing]…content” (as the
28
term is used in Your present Data Use Policy) from Private Messages.
8
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 44:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
3
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
4
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
5
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
6
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
7
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
8
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
9
10
11
12
13
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms “Communications” and
“Private Messages.”
(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 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 communications related to “receiv[ing] data’” (as
16
that term is used in Facebook’s Data Use Policy updated on November 15, 2013) or
17
“collect[ing]…content” (as the term is used in Facebook’s current Data Policy) from Facebook
18
messages, regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
19
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
20
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will meet and confer with
21
Plaintiffs’ counsel to determine the proper scope of this overly broad and ambiguous Request.
22
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45:
23
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify all changes made to Your Data Use Policy since
24
the initiation of this Action.
25
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 45:
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:
9
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND 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
6
7
8
9
(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 public and/or third party information that is equally available to
Plaintiffs.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
10
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
11
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify changes made to Facebook’s Data Use Policy
12
since December 30, 2013, to the extent such documents exist, are within Facebook’s custody and
13
control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a reasonable search.
14
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46:
15
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify any changes to Your Data Use Policy that were
16
considered or proposed but not ultimately adopted, since the initiation of this Action.
17
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 46:
18
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
19
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
20
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
21
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
22
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
23
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
24
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
25
26
27
28
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “considered or
proposed” and “ultimately adopted.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
10
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
2
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
3
Request seeks all documents identifying changes to Facebook’s Data Use Policy that were
4
“considered or proposed but not ultimately adopted” since this lawsuit was filed, regardless of the
5
relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
6
7
8
9
10
11
(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.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47:
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify all changes made to Your Statement of Rights
12
and Responsibilities since the initiation of this Action.
13
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 47:
14
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
15
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
16
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
17
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
18
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
19
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
20
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
21
22
23
24
25
(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 public and/or third party information that is equally available to
Plaintiffs.
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 conduct a reasonable search
27
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify changes made to Facebook’s Statement of Rights
28
and Responsibilities since December 30, 2013, to the extent such documents exist, are within
11
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located
2
using a reasonable search.
3
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48:
4
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify any changes to Your Statement of Rights and
5
Responsibilities that were considered or proposed but not ultimately adopted, since the initiation of
6
this Action.
7
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 48:
8
9
10
11
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
12
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
13
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
14
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
15
16
17
18
19
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “considered or
proposed” and “ultimately adopted.”
(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 is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
20
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
21
Request seeks all documents identifying changes to Facebook’s Statement of Rights and
22
Responsibilities that were “considered or proposed but not ultimately adopted” since this lawsuit was
23
filed, regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
24
25
26
27
(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.
28
12
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49:
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify all changes made to the section of Your Help
3
Center titled “How to Post and Share” since the initiation of this Action.
4
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49:
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
13
14
15
16
(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 public and/or third party information that is equally available to
Plaintiffs.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
17
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
18
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify changes made to Facebook’s Help Center article
19
titled “How to Post and Share” since December 30, 2013, to the extent such documents exist, are
20
within Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be
21
located using a reasonable search.
22
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50:
23
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify any changes to the section of Your Help Center
24
titled “How to Post and Share” that were considered or proposed but not ultimately adopted, since the
25
initiation of this Action.
26
27
28
13
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
3
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
4
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
5
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
6
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
7
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
8
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
9
10
11
12
13
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “considered or
proposed” and “ultimately adopted.”
(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 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 seeks all documents identifying changes to Facebook’s Help Center article titled “How to
16
Post and Share” that were “considered or proposed but not ultimately adopted” since this lawsuit was
17
filed, regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
18
19
20
(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
21
Federal and Local Rules.
22
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51:
23
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify all changes made to the section of Your Help
24
Center titled “Messages” since the initiation of this Action.
25
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51:
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:
14
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND 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
6
7
8
9
(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 public and/or third party information that is equally available to
Plaintiffs.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
10
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
11
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify changes made to Facebook’s Help Center article
12
titled “Messages” since December 30, 2013, to the extent such documents exist, are within
13
Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located
14
using a reasonable search.
15
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52:
16
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify any changes to the section of Your Help Center
17
titled “Messages” that were considered or proposed but not ultimately adopted, since the initiation of
18
this Action.
19
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52:
20
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
21
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
22
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
23
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
24
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
25
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
26
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
27
28
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “considered or
proposed” and “ultimately adopted.”
15
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2
3
(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 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 seeks all documents identifying changes to Facebook’s Help Center article titled “Messages”
6
that were “considered or proposed but not ultimately adopted” since this lawsuit was filed, regardless
7
of the relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
8
9
10
11
(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.
12
13
14
DATED: June 29, 2015
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By:
/s/
Joshua A. Jessen
15
16
Attorney for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND 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 June 29, 2015, I served the following document(s):
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND 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
17
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND 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 June 29, 2015.
8
/s/
9
Ashley M. Rogers
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND 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?