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
[e-mail]
JEANA BISNAR MAUTE, SBN 290573
[e-mail]
ASHLEY M. ROGERS, SBN 286252
[e-mail]
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
GAIL E. LEES, SBN 90363
[e-mail]
CHRISTOPHER CHORBA, SBN 216692
[e-mail]
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
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
[e-mail]
James Allen Carney
[e-mail]
Joseph Henry Bates, III
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
[e-mail]
Jeremy A. Lieberman
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP
[e-mail]
Melissa Ann Gardner
[e-mail]
Nicholas Diamand
[e-mail]
Rachel Geman
[e-mail]
Michael W. Sobol
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
[e-mail]
Jon A Tostrud
Tostrud Law Group, P.C.
[e-mail]
Lionel Z. Glancy
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
[e-mail]

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)