Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.
Filing
128
RESPONSE to re 126 Declaration of Dale Harrison by Matthew Campbell, Michael Hurley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Sobol, Michael) (Filed on 10/8/2015) Modified on 10/9/2015 (vlkS, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
msobol@lchb.com
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
drudolph@lchb.com
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
mgardner@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415.956.1000
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
12
Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
hbates@cbplaw.com
Allen Carney
acarney@cbplaw.com
David Slade
dslade@cbplaw.com
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: 501.312.8500
Facsimile: 501.312.8505
13
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
8
9
10
11
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
OAKLAND DIVISION
17
18
19
MATTHEW CAMPBELL and MICHAEL
HURLEY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
20
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO
DECLARATION OF DALE HARRISON
Plaintiff,
Judge:
21
Honorable Maria-Elena James
v.
22
FACEBOOK, INC.,
23
Defendant.
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DECLARATION
OF DALE HARRISON
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)
1
Pursuant to this Court’s Order of September 28, 2015 (Dkt. No. 118), Plaintiffs hereby
2
submit this Response to the Declaration of Dale Harrison.
3
I.
4
Introduction
Facebook’s position as articulated in the Declaration of Dale Harrison is not plausible. It
5
asserts that only the
6
counter can be produced without undue burden. Quite conveniently, according to Facebook, any
7
production that goes beyond Facebook’s blatantly self-serving mischaracterization of the
8
Complaint is too burdensome.
9
concerning the incremental increase in the Like
The
Plaintiffs seek are essential to their claims because they
10
show: (1) what content Facebook acquires from users’ private messages, (2) where that content is
11
stored, and (3) how that content is used. Rather than establish the burden in producing this
12
information, Facebook seeks to limit its production to the
13
associated with the Like counter. This Court, during the hearing on
14
this motion, and in a prior ruling in this case, has rejected the notion that Plaintiffs’ claims are
15
limited to the incremental changes in the Like counter. The all-too-convenient line Facebook
16
attempts to draw on what is too burdensome to produce in this case falls on exactly this
17
erroneous, and previously rejected, rewriting of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. However, when Facebook
18
complained in prior briefing of Plaintiffs’ challenge to “any ‘interception’ of messages containing
19
URLs for any purpose,” the Court found that “Facebook does not explain or cite anything in the
20
record that would indicate that Plaintiffs are changing theories or fundamentally altering their
21
position.” Discovery Order at p. 7 (Dkt. No. 83) (emphasis original). Instead, the Court held that
22
Plaintiffs’ claims, which relate to all message scanning and content acquisition violative of ECPA
23
and CIPA, were substantiated by the CAC’s “detailed factual allegations.” Id. (citing CAC ¶¶ 63,
24
64, 73, 78-82, 86-67, 94, 96, 104-109).
25
Facebook offers no factual basis for why other
beyond those
26
concerning incrementing the Like counter would be too burdensome too produce. If the Court is
27
to accept Facebook’s position, Facebook will have successfully avoided production of
28
information critical to Plaintiffs’ allegations that Facebook obtained data from users’ private
-1-
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DECLARATION
OF DALE HARRISON
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)
1
messages “for the current or future objective of accumulating and analyzing user data and
2
thereafter refining user profiles and/or enhancing its targeted advertising efforts.” Consolidated
3
Amended Complaint (“CAC”) at ¶ 30 (Dkt. No. 25).
4
Per the Court’s Order on September 29, 2015, the purpose of the Declaration of Dale
5
Harrison on behalf of Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Declaration”) was to “explain the burden of
6
extracting the information as discussed on the record.” (Dkt. No. 118).
7
demonstrated that it is too burdensome to supplement its response to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No.
8
8 and Request for Production No. 41 (“Requests”). Indeed, the seven-page Declaration contains
9
only two paragraphs (nineteen and twenty) focused on this topic, and those paragraphs contain
10
only conclusory statements (the rest of the Declaration explains Facebook’s production to date.).
11
The Declaration fails to substantiate that it would be too difficult to respond to Plaintiffs’
12
Requests. Moreover, as discussed in Section III, infra, Facebook concedes that there would be no
13
burden in collecting many of the documents Plaintiffs seek. Thus, Facebook fails to carry its
14
burden, and Plaintiffs are entitled to responses disclosing all content Facebook acquires from
15
messages, how that content is used, and how that content is stored.
16
II.
17
18
Facebook has not
Facebook has not identified any burden substantial enough to justify its refusal to
respond to Plaintiffs’ Requests.
The presumption of discoverability is Facebook’s to rebut—if a requesting party shows
19
that it both sought relevant documents and then made a good faith effort to meet and confer with
20
its opponent, “the resisting party then carries a ‘heavy burden’ of demonstrating why discovery
21
should be denied.” In re Mgm Mirage Secs. Litig., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165486, at *10-11 (D.
22
Nev. Nov. 25, 2014) (quoting Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975));
23
see also La. Pac. Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Institutional Inv. Dealer, 285 F.R.D. 481, 485 (N.D. Cal.
24
2012) (“[T]he party opposing discovery has the burden of showing that discovery should not be
25
allowed, and also has the burden of clarifying, explaining and supporting its objections with
26
competent evidence.”).
27
28
Facebook’s Declaration lacks the requisite specificity, and thus fails to carry this burden.
In a conclusory fashion, Facebook’s declarant states that it
-2-
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DECLARATION
OF DALE HARRISON
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)
1
2
3
4
Declaration at ¶ 19 (emphasis added). Mr. Harrison further states that he
5
6
7
8
Id. Put another way, Mr. Harrison takes the position that he cannot
identify or produce
9
10
11
12
13
This is simply a restatement of what Plaintiffs’ asked Facebook to do through
their Requests; it is not a suitable articulation of burden.1
14
15
Moreover, even where Mr. Harrison departs from generalities, his statements are always
conditional:
16
17
Declaration at ¶ 19 (emphasis added). Such conclusory
18
allegations, and nothing more, fail to rebut the presumption of discoverability and the
19
proportionality of Plaintiffs’ Requests. La. Pac. Corp., 285 F.R.D. at 485.
20
21
The fundamental problem with Facebook’s Declaration is that it sets up a false dichotomy
between Facebook’s minimal production to date and the purportedly
22
23
Plaintiffs are not asking the impossible, but they are asking
24
for a production that goes beyond Facebook’s intentionally and impermissibly narrow reading of
25
Plaintiffs’ claims. The Declaration does not
26
1
Similarly, in Paragraph 20, Mr. Harrison states that it would be
27
28
-3-
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DECLARATION
OF DALE HARRISON
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Facebook nonetheless can and should conduct further
investigation to respond to Plaintiffs’ Requests.
Further, Facebook’s methodology in identifying
7
8
9
10
Id. at ¶ 19 (emphasis
original). However, Mr. Harrison does not say
11
12
13
14
Id. at ¶ 18. On its face, the
15
Declaration suggests that further, reasonable investigation would enable Facebook to identify and
16
produce
17
.
In contrast to the conclusory statements offered by Facebook in regard to its purported
18
burden, Plaintiffs’ need for the information at issue in the Requests is specific, immediately
19
apparent, and pressing. The extent to which Facebook acquires message content and the manner
20
in which is does so is critical to the issues at play in Facebook’s impending Motion for Summary
21
Judgment and Plaintiffs’ impending Motion for Class Certification. See, Order re Motion to
22
Enlarge Deadlines (Dkt. No. 117) (setting a deadline of November 13, 2015). Accordingly,
23
pursuant to the proportionality analysis required by Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26, Plaintiffs’ need for
24
relevant discovery outweighs Facebook’s conclusory and implausible statements regarding
25
burden, and Facebook should be compelled to provide fulsome responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests.
26
Munoz v. PHH Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24671, *17 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2013) (finding
27
relevance outweighed minimal burden, where resisting party made “generalized assertions and
28
suggestions devoid of any tangible detail.”); Ramirez v. Trans Union, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist.
-4-
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DECLARATION
OF DALE HARRISON
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)
1
LEXIS 34916, *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013) (“Under the proportionality analysis called for by
2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 the Court must weigh Plaintiff's need for this information
3
against the burden on Defendant of providing this discovery.…Defendant conceded it did not
4
know how long it would take to compile the requested information….Given Plaintiff's need for
5
this information and in the absence of evidence regarding any specific burden, the Court grants
6
Plaintiff's request to compel responses to these interrogatories.”).
7
III.
8
In addition, Plaintiffs are entitled to the already-identified information and
documents that Facebook concedes impose no additional burden to produce.
9
Plaintiffs have identified, and requested production of, several specific items of
10
information that Facebook concedes are not burdensome to produce. Moreover, these items of
11
information are referenced conspicuously in Facebook’s current production, and therefore directly
12
relate to documents that Facebook concedes are relevant. In addition to the information and
13
documents referenced above, Plaintiffs are entitled to receive the following items of information:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Each of the above-described documents relates to information that Facebook concedes is
-5-
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DECLARATION
OF DALE HARRISON
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)
1
discoverable and responsive to Plaintiffs’ Requests. Each of these documents contains content
2
related to how
3
4
In response, Facebook contends that
5
6
7
8
9
10
2
11
As
12
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief related to Facebook’s message scanning practices, having an
13
understanding of the depth and breadth of
14
15
Moreover,
16
If other documents purport to provide additional
17
clarification—as the above-referenced documents do—then they must be produced. Even taking
18
Facebook’s statements at face value, it is nonetheless clear that the content of
19
20
21
22
23
Refusal to produce relevant documents in this instance is particularly egregious, as these
24
documents are clearly responsive to prior Requests for Production propounded by Plaintiffs on
25
January 26, 2015. See Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production, Requests Nos. 6,3 18,4 19,5
26
2
27
28
The messages provided to Facebook spanned a date range of 2009 to 2014.
Seeking “[a]ll Documents and ESI related to each Process and/or piece of Architecture involved
in the acquisition of data, metadata, or other content from Private Messages, for purposes of
creating, augmenting, or otherwise maintaining Facebook User Data Profiles.” Ex. 3 at p. 10.
3
-6-
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DECLARATION
OF DALE HARRISON
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)
1
and 216 (Ex. 3).
2
3
Accordingly, the above-described documents, and any prior versions thereof, should be
produced.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
created from private messages. In terms of identifying how
12
13
Id. at ¶ 20.
14
Therefore, consistent with Plaintiffs’ Requests, Facebook should provide an explanation of the
15
purpose of each
16
This does not require Facebook to identify any new information, but simply requires Facebook to
17
contextualize what it has so far produced. Doing so would, in Facebook’s words, allow Plaintiffs
18
to
19
20
thus far produced.
Id. at ¶ 6. Accordingly, this information should be produced.
Identification of
21
The Declaration makes reference to
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Footnote continued from previous page
4
Seeking “[a]ll Documents and ESI sufficient to identify each Process and/or piece of
Architecture involved in the creation, augmentation, or maintenance of Facebook User Data
Profiles.” Ex. 3 at p. 12.
5
Seeking “[a]ll Documents and ESI relating to how You use any Private Message Content,
including for purposes related to Facebook User Profiles and/or Targeted Advertising.” Ex. 3 at p.
12.
6
Seeking “[a]ll Documents and ESI relating to the use of Passive Likes – or any data, metadata,
or other information generated therefrom – as data points in Facebook User Data Profiles.” Ex. 3
at p. 12.
-7-
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DECLARATION
OF DALE HARRISON
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)
1
2
3
4
5
Such clarification would not be burdensome to Facebook, but would
6
be highly relevant to Plaintiffs, and accordingly it should be produced.
7
IV.
8
9
Conclusion
Plaintiffs’ Requests—which seek to identify the content Facebook acquires from users’
private messages, where that content is stored, and how that content is used—ask for information
10
that is foundational to this litigation. In contrast, Facebook’s argument against fulsome
11
production is nothing more than a return to its consistently unsuccessful attempt to reframe this
12
litigation to the narrowest possible portion of its conduct. Since Facebook’s Declaration provides
13
no substantive evidence of burden from identifying
14
it should be compelled to fully respond to Plaintiffs’ Requests. In addition,
15
Plaintiffs are entitled to the information identified in Section III, supra, as Facebook has already
16
conceded that it would face no burden in collecting those documents.
17
Dated: October 8, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
18
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
19
By:
20
21
22
23
24
/s/ Michael W. Sobol
Michael W. Sobol
Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
msobol@lchb.com
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
mgardner@lchb.com
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415.956.1000
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
25
26
27
28
-8-
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DECLARATION
OF DALE HARRISON
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (MEJ)
1
2
3
4
Rachel Geman
rgeman@lchb.com
Nicholas Diamand
ndiamand@lchb.com
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: 212.355.9500
Facsimile: 212.355.9592
5
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
6
11
Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
hbates@cbplaw.com
Allen Carney
acarney@cbplaw.com
David Slade
dslade@cbplaw.com
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: 501.312.8500
Facsimile: 501.312.8505
12
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DECLARATION
OF DALE HARRISON
CASE NO. 13-CV-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?