Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 136

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 133 Motion ; denying 134 Motion for Extension of Time to File (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MATTHEW CAMPBELL, et al.,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 13-cv-5996-PJH

Plaintiffs,

8
v.

FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE; DENYING RENEWED
MOTION TO CONTINUE

12
13
14

Before the court are two motions: (1) defendant Facebook’s motion for relief from

15

nondispositive pretrial order of Magistrate Judge James, and (2) plaintiffs’ renewed

16

motion to continue deadlines. Having read the papers filed in conjunction with the

17

motions and carefully considered the arguments and relevant legal authority, and good

18

cause appearing, the court hereby rules as follows.

19

Facebook’s motion challenges two aspects of Magistrate Judge James’ discovery

20

order (referred to as “the Order”). First, Facebook challenges the Order to the extent it

21

granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel a response to Request for Production (“RFP”) No. 53,

22

which seeks documents related to assigning a monetary value to Facebook users or

23

related to revenue and profits generated from users’ data and content. Second,

24

Facebook challenges the Order to the extent it granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel a

25

response to RFP No. 60, which seeks documents related to Facebook’s efforts to

26

increase or maximize the presence of its “Like” social plugin.

27
28

Facebook argues that the Order is contrary to law for two primary reasons: (1) it
addressed RFPs 53 through 60 “en masse, rather than conducting an individualized

1

relevance analysis of each request,” and (2) it “improperly expanded the scope of

2

discovery on the basis that no discovery supports or proves plaintiffs’ underlying theory.”

3

Starting with (1), the court finds no basis in Facebook’s objection that the Order

4

improperly treated the RFP’s “en masse.” The Order grouped together eight RFPs

5

because they sought related categories of information, namely, “how Facebook

6

generates profits in order to analyze the role played by private messages, social plugins,

7

and Likes, and, specifically, the interception of private messages, generation of passive

8

Likes, and derivative activities, in Facebook’s income stream.” Order at 11. Indeed,

9

even the first case cited by Facebook addressed “each category of RFPs in turn,” not
each individual RFP in turn. See Alcala v. Monsanto Co., 2014 WL 1266204, at *2 (N.D.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Cal. Mar. 24, 2014). In fact, Alcala grouped together as many as four RFPs, and the

12

court finds no reason to conclude that the Order’s grouping together of eight RFPs

13

related to damages was “contrary to law.”

14

Moving to (2), the court finds that the Order properly discussed the discoverability

15

of damages-related documents. The Order first established that, under the relevant

16

statutes, “profits made as a result of the violation may be recoverable.” The Order then

17

noted that Facebook maintains that it has no documents directly attributing any profits to

18

the alleged violations. As a result, the Order found that plaintiffs are entitled to the more

19

generalized financial documents that Facebook does have, because “even though

20

Facebook itself may not have determined the independent value or profits it obtained

21

from scanning private messages, expert analysis of the information plaintiffs seek may

22

assist them in making that determination.” Order at 13. In other words, the parties first

23

explored damages-related discovery that was narrowly tailored to plaintiffs’ claims, but in

24

the absence of any such documents, a broader scope of discovery is required. Such

25

discovery is still well within the boundaries of Rule 26, and the court rejects any

26

contention that the Order “improperly expanded the scope of discovery.” The Order

27

properly concluded that plaintiffs are entitled to discovery related to “the scanning of

28

putative class members’ private messages and the potential benefit Facebook receives
2

1

as a result of obtaining information from those messages.” Order at 13. If Facebook kept

2

records of revenues and profits that were directly attributable to the challenged practice,

3

then the scope of discovery could be properly limited to those records; but in their

4

absence, Facebook must provide more general financial records, so that plaintiffs may

5

conduct the analysis required to attribute revenues and profits to the challenged practice.

6

Because the court finds that the reasoning set forth in the Order is not “contrary to
law,” Facebook’s motion is DENIED. However, the court does note that, in certain

8

respects, the two RFPs in question go beyond the rationale set forth in the Order.

9

Specifically, RFP No.53 does not seek merely “all documents and ESI relating to the

10

assignment of monetary value to Facebook Users or to the revenue and profits made

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

from data received or content collected by Facebook from Facebook Users,” it seeks “all

12

documents and ESI relating to your efforts, or efforts by third parties on your behalf –

13

whether undertaken or contemplated but not undertaken – to assign a monetary value to

14

Facebook Users (and/or any additional information derived therefrom), or to determine

15

the revenue or profits made from data received or content collected by you from

16

Facebook users (and/or any additional information derived therefrom).” The court fails to

17

see how expansive language such as “whether undertaken or contemplated but not

18

undertaken” or “any additional information derived therefrom” serves either party’s

19

interests. The Order correctly holds that plaintiffs are entitled to “discover how Facebook

20

generates profits,” but it did not hold that plaintiffs are entitled to information about

21

hypothetical methods of generating profits that Facebook may have contemplated but not

22

undertaken. Thus, the court will enforce plaintiffs’ RFP No. 53 only to the extent that they

23

seek “all documents and ESI relating to the assignment of monetary value to Facebook

24

Users or to the revenue and profits made from data received or content collected by

25

Facebook from Facebook Users.” Similarly, as to RFP No. 60, the court will enforce it

26

only to the extent that plaintiffs seek “all documents and ESI relating to efforts to increase

27

and/or maximize the presence of the “Like” social plugin on third party websites.”

28

Turning to plaintiffs’ renewed motion to continue the briefing and hearing dates for
3

1

the anticipat motion for class ce
eir
ted
f
ertification a Facebo
and
ook’s anticipated motio for
on

2

summary judg
gment, the court DENI
IES the mo
otion. Howe
ever, given the upcom
ming

3

p
f
ass
ation motion the court orders Fac
n,
cebook to
deadline for plaintiffs to file their cla certifica

4

pro
oduce disco
overy respo
onsive to RF No. 53 a No. 60 no later than November 6,
FP
and
0

5

2015.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: November 3, 2015
__
__________
__________
__________
_______
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4