Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 134

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Renewed Motion to Continue Class Certification and Summary Judgment Deadlines filed by Matthew Campbell, Michael Hurley. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael W. Sobol, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Proposed Order)(Sobol, Michael) (Filed on 10/29/2015)

EXHIBIT 1

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
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 54,
55, AND 57

24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 54, 55, AND 57
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 supplemental responses and

5

objections to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production Nos. 54, 55, and 57 (the “Requests”).

6
7
8
9

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.

Facebook’s document production in this matter will be made pursuant to the

provisions of the Amended Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Court on July 1, 2015.
2.

Facebook’s responses to the Requests are made to the best of Facebook’s current

10

knowledge, information, and belief. Facebook reserves the right to supplement or amend any

11

responses should future investigation indicate that such supplementation or amendment is necessary.

12

3.

Facebook’s responses to the Requests are made solely for the purpose of and in

13

relation to this action. Each response is given subject to all appropriate objections (including, but not

14

limited to, objections concerning privilege, competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and

15

admissibility). All objections are reserved and may be interposed at any time.

16
17
18

4.

Facebook’s responses are premised on its understanding that Plaintiffs seek only that

information that is within Facebook’s possession, custody, and control.
5.

Facebook incorporates by reference each and every general objection set forth below

19

into each and every specific response. From time to time, a specific response may repeat a general

20

objection for emphasis or some other reason. The failure to include any general objection in any

21

specific response shall not be interpreted as a waiver of any general objection to that response.

22

6.

Nothing contained in these Responses and Objections or provided in response to the

23

Requests consists of, or should be construed as, an admission relating to the accuracy, relevance,

24

existence, or nonexistence of any alleged facts or information referenced in any Request.

25
26
27

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1.

Facebook objects to each Request, including the Definitions and Instructions, to the

extent that it purports to impose obligations beyond those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil

28
1
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 54, 55, AND 57
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Civil Rules of the U.S. District Court for the

2

Northern District of California, and any agreements between the parties.

3

2.

Facebook objects to each Request to the extent that it is not limited to the relevant

4

time period, thus making the Request overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not relevant to the

5

claims or defenses in this action. Unless otherwise specified in its responses, and pursuant to the

6

agreement of the parties, Facebook’s responses will be limited to information generated between

7

April 1, 2010 and December 30, 2013.

8
9
10
11

3.

Facebook objects to each Request to the extent that it seeks information unrelated and

irrelevant to the claims or defenses in this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
4.

Facebook objects to each Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome,

12

particularly in view of Facebook’s disproportionate cost necessary to investigate as weighed against

13

Plaintiffs’ need for the information. For example, many of the Requests seek broad and vaguely

14

defined categories of materials that are not reasonably tailored to the subject matter of this action.

15

5.

Facebook objects to each Request to the extent that it purports to request the

16

identification and disclosure of information or documents that were prepared in anticipation of

17

litigation, constitute attorney work product, reveal privileged attorney-client communications, or are

18

otherwise protected from disclosure under any applicable privileges, laws, or rules. Facebook hereby

19

asserts all such applicable privileges and protections, and excludes privileged and protected

20

information from its responses to each Request. See generally Fed. R. Evid. 502; Cal. Code Evid.

21

§ 954. Inadvertent production of any information or documents that are privileged or otherwise

22

immune from discovery shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or of any other ground for

23

objecting to the discovery with respect to such information or documents or the subject matter

24

thereof, or the right of Facebook to object to the use of any such information or documents or the

25

subject matter thereof during these or any other proceedings. In the event of inadvertent disclosure

26

of any information or inadvertent production or identification of documents or communications that

27

are privileged or otherwise immune from discovery, Plaintiffs will return the information and

28
2
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 54, 55, AND 57
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

documents to Facebook and will be precluded from disclosing or relying upon such information or

2

documents in any way.

3
4
5

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

6

by the right of privacy of Facebook and/or third parties, or information that is confidential,

7

proprietary, or competitively sensitive.

8
9
10
11

8.

Facebook objects to each Request to the extent that it seeks documents or information

already in Plaintiffs’ possession or available in the public domain. Such information is equally
available to Plaintiffs.
9.

Facebook objects to each Request to the extent that it calls for the production of

12

“each,” “every,” “any,” or “all” documents in cases where such a demand is overly broad and/or

13

causes undue burden and expense.

14
15

10.

and will produce Documents at a mutually agreed upon time.

16
17

Facebook objects to the production of Documents within thirty (30) days of service

OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
1.

Facebook generally objects to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “Communication,”

18

“Document(s),” “Electronic Media,” “ESI,” “Electronically Stored Information,” “Identify,” and

19

“Metadata” to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these defined terms to request the identification

20

and disclosure of documents that: (a) were prepared in anticipation of litigation; (b) constitute

21

attorney work product; (c) reveal privileged attorney-client communications; or (d) are otherwise

22

protected from disclosure under any applicable privileges, laws, and/or rules. Facebook further

23

objects to the extent that these definitions purport to impose obligations that go beyond the

24

requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.

25

2.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Passive Likes” as vague, ambiguous,

26

overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition to the extent that

27

Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to the claims and

28

defenses in this action. Facebook construes the term “Passive Lives” as it relates to the practice
3

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 54, 55, AND 57
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

challenged in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the

2

URL for that website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product

3

during the class period).

4

3.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition and use of the term “Person” as vague,

5

ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent that Plaintiffs intend to use this term

6

to include “any natural person or any business, legal or governmental entity or association” over

7

which Facebook exercises no control.

8
9

4.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Private Message(s)” to the extent that it

is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the

10

definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not

11

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

12

5.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “Relate(s) to,” “Related to” and

13

“Relating to” on the ground that the definitions make the Requests overly broad and unduly

14

burdensome and impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.

15

Facebook shall construe these terms as commonly and ordinarily understood.

16

6.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition and use of the terms “You,” “Your,” or

17

“Facebook” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent the terms are

18

meant to include “directors, officers, employees, partners, members, representatives, agents

19

(including attorneys, accountants, consultants, investment advisors or bankers), and any other person

20

purporting to act on [Facebook, Inc.’s] behalf. . . . parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessor

21

entities, successor entities, divisions, departments, groups, acquired entities and/or related entities or

22

any other entity acting or purporting to act on its behalf” over which Facebook exercises no control,

23

and to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these terms to impose obligations that go beyond the

24

requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.

25
26
27

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.

28
4
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 54, 55, AND 57
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

2.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 2 to the extent that it is not limited to

2

the relevant time period, thus making the Instruction overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not

3

relevant to the claims or defenses in this action. Unless otherwise specified in its responses, and

4

pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Facebook’s response will be limited to information

5

generated between April 1, 2010 and December 30, 2013.

6

3.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 6 as ambiguous and unduly

7

burdensome. Facebook further objects to the Instruction to the extent it seeks the production of

8

irrelevant documents and exceeds the requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.

9
10

OBJECTION TO PURPORTED “RELEVANT TIME PERIOD”
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ proposed “Relevant Time Period” (September 26, 2006, to the

11

present) because it substantially exceeds the proposed class period identified in Plaintiffs’

12

Consolidated Amended Complaint, does not reflect the time period that is relevant to Plaintiffs’

13

claims in this action, and renders the Requests overly broad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant.

14

Unless otherwise specified, and pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Facebook’s Responses to

15

these Requests will be limited to information generated between April 1, 2010 and December 30,

16

2013. Facebook otherwise objects to the remainder of Plaintiffs’ statement regarding the “Relevant

17

Time Period” to the extent that it purports to impose obligations beyond those imposed by the Federal

18

and Local Rules.

19
20
21

SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54:
All Documents and ESI relating to Your efforts, or efforts by Third Parties on Your behalf—

22

whether undertaken or contemplated but not undertaken—to assign a monetary value to the data

23

contained within, or data received or content collected from, Private Messages, and/or any additional

24

information derived therefrom.

25

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54:

26

Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

27

to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set

28

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
5

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 54, 55, AND 57
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

(A)

Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from

2

disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other

3

applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes

4

documents protected by these privileges and protections.

5

(B)

The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases “efforts by

6

Third Parties on Your behalf,” “undertaken or contemplated but not undertaken,” “data contained

7

within, or data received or content collected from,” “Private Messages,” and “any additional

8

information derived therefrom.”

9
10
11
12
13

(C)

The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the

extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)

The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or

proprietary company information.
(E)

The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of

14

Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This

15

Request purports to seek all documents related to Facebook’s “or efforts by Third Parties on

16

[Facebook’s] behalf—whether undertaken or contemplated but not undertaken—to assign a monetary

17

value to the data contained within, or data received or content collected from, Private Messages,

18

and/or any additional information derived therefrom,” regardless of the relevance of those documents

19

to the claims or defenses in this action.

20
21
22
23
24

(F)

The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this

action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
(G)

The Request seeks to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the

Federal and Local Rules.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of

25

discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will meet and confer with

26

Plaintiffs’ counsel to determine the proper scope of this overly broad and ambiguous Request.

27
28
6
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 54, 55, AND 57
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54:
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

(B)

The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases “efforts by

10

Third Parties on Your behalf,” “undertaken or contemplated but not undertaken,” “data contained

11

within, or data received or content collected from,” “Private Messages,” and “any additional

12

information derived therefrom.”

13
14
15
16
17

(C)

The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the

extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)

The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or

proprietary company information.
(E)

The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of

18

Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This

19

Request purports to seek all documents related to Facebook’s “or efforts by Third Parties on

20

[Facebook’s] behalf—whether undertaken or contemplated but not undertaken—to assign a monetary

21

value to the data contained within, or data received or content collected from, Private Messages,

22

and/or any additional information derived therefrom,” regardless of the relevance of those documents

23

to the claims or defenses in this action.

24
25
26
27

(F)

The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this

action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
(G)

The Request seeks to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the

Federal and Local Rules.

28
7
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 54, 55, AND 57
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of

2

discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook has conducted a reasonable search

3

and diligent inquiry, and it has not located any non-privileged documents during the relevant time

4

period that reflect efforts to assign a monetary value to the data contained within, or data received or

5

content collected from, messages transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product.

6

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55:

7

All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify the number of web pages with “Like” Social

8

Plugins embedded, by month, during the Relevant Time Period.

9

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55:

10

Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

11

to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set

12

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:

13

(A)

Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from

14

disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other

15

applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes

16

documents protected by these privileges and protections.

17
18
19
20
21

(B)

The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the

extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(C)

The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or

proprietary company information.
(D)

The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of

22

Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This

23

Request purports to seek all documents sufficient to identify “the number of web pages with ‘Like’

24

Social Plugins embedded, by month,” regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or

25

defenses in this action.

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.

28
8
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 54, 55, AND 57
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2
3

(F)

The Request seeks to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the

Federal and Local Rules.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of

4

discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search

5

for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the number of web pages with “Like” Social

6

Plugins embedded between April 1, 2010 and December 30, 2013, to the extent such documents

7

exist, are within Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and

8

can be located using a reasonable search.

9

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55:

10

Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

11

to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set

12

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:

13

(A)

Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from

14

disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other

15

applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes

16

documents protected by these privileges and protections.

17
18
19
20
21

(B)

The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the

extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(C)

The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or

proprietary company information.
(D)

The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of

22

Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This

23

Request purports to seek all documents sufficient to identify “the number of web pages with ‘Like’

24

Social Plugins embedded, by month,” regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or

25

defenses in this action.

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.

28
9
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 54, 55, AND 57
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2

(F)

The Request seeks to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the

Federal and Local Rules.

3

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of

4

discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook has conducted a reasonable search

5

and diligent inquiry, and it has not located any non-privileged documents that are sufficient to

6

identify the number of web pages with “Like” Social Plugins during the relevant time period .

7

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57:

8
9
10
11

All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify the number of Passive Likes generated, by
month, during the Relevant Time Period
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

12

to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set

13

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:

14

(A)

Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from

15

disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other

16

applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes

17

documents protected by these privileges and protections.

18

(B)

The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the term “Passive Likes.”

19

(C)

The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the

20
21
22
23

extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)

The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or

proprietary company information.
(E)

The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of

24

Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This

25

Request purports to seek all documents sufficient to identify “the number of Passive Likes generated,

26

by month,” regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.

27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

(F)

The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this

action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
10
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 54, 55, AND 57
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2
3

(G)

The Request seeks to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the

Federal and Local Rules.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of

4

discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search

5

for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the number Likes that were generated as a result

6

of the processes involved in the practice challenged in this action (the alleged increase in the

7

Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that website was contained in a message

8

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product) between April 1, 2010 and December 30, 2013, to

9

the extent such documents exist, are within Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been

10

produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a reasonable search.

11

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57:

12

Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

13

to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set

14

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:

15

(A)

Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from

16

disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other

17

applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes

18

documents protected by these privileges and protections.

19

(B)

The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the term “Passive Likes.”

20

(C)

The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the

21
22
23
24

extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)

The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or

proprietary company information.
(E)

The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of

25

Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This

26

Request purports to seek all documents sufficient to identify “the number of Passive Likes generated,

27

by month,” regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.

28
11
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 54, 55, AND 57
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2
3
4

(F)

The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this

action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
(G)

The Request seeks to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the

Federal and Local Rules.

5

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of

6

discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook has conducted a reasonable search

7

and diligent inquiry, and it has not located any non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the

8

number of Likes that were generated as a result of the processes involved in the practice challenged

9

in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that

10

website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product) during the

11

relevant time period.

12
13
14

DATED: October 28, 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
12
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 54, 55, AND 57
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2
3
4

I, Priyanka Rajagopalan, 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 October 28, 2015, I served the following document(s):

5

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 54, 55,
AND 57

6
7

on the parties stated below, by the following means of service:

8

David F. Slade
[e-mail]
James Allen Carney
[e-mail]
Joseph Henry Bates, III
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
[e-mail]

9
10
11
12
13

Melissa Ann Gardner
[e-mail]
Nicholas Diamand
[e-mail]
Rachel Geman
[e-mail]
Michael W. Sobol
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
[e-mail]

14
15
16
17
18
19



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.

22



I am employed in the office of Joshua A. Jessen and am a member of the bar of this court.

23



I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

20
21

24
25

Executed on October 28, 2015.

26

/s/
Priyanka Rajagopalan

27
28
13
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NOS. 54, 55, AND 57
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)