Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 141

NOTICE by Matthew Campbell, Michael Hurley re 131 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,,,, 110 , 111 , 121 , 127 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Letter Brief re Plaintiffs' Third Set of RFPs (Dkt. 112), # 2 Exhibit 2 Letter Brief re Plaintiffs' Interrogatory 8 and RFP 41 (Dkt. 113) and Exhibit E thereto (Dkt. 113-5), # 3 Exhibit 3 Exhibits A-D to Letter Brief re Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition (Dkt. 122-1 122-4), # 4 Exhibit 4 Plaintiffs' Response to Harrison Declaration (Dkt. 128))(Gardner, Melissa) (Filed on 11/16/2015)

EXHIBIT 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

OAKLAND DIVISION

4
5

MATTHEW CAMPBELL, MICHAEL
HURLEY, and DAVID SHADPOUR,

8
9

ATTESTATION IN SUPPORT OF JOINT
LETTER REGARDING FACEBOOK’S
RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS’
INTERROGATORY NO. 8 AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41

Plaintiffs,

6
7

Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,

Date:
TBD
Time:
TBD
Location: San Francisco Courthouse
Courtroom B – 15th Floor
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

Defendant.

10
11
12

Pursuant to the Discovery Standing Order for Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James,
13
undersigned counsel hereby attest that they met and conferred in person in a good faith attempt to
14
resolve their disputes prior to filing the below joint letter.
15
16
Dated: September 18, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

17
18
19
20

LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
By:

/s/ Michael W. Sobol
MICHAEL W. SOBOL

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

21
22

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

23
24
25

By:

/s/ Joshua A. Jessen
JOSHUA A. JESSEN

Attorneys for Defendant Facebook, Inc.

26
27
28
1
ATTESTATION IN SUPPORT OF JOINT LETTER REGARDING FACEBOOK’S RESPONSES TO
PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORY NO. 8 AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 41
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

VIA ECF
The Honorable Maria-Elena James, Chief Magistrate Judge
United States District Court, Northern District of California
San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom B - 15th Floor
450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102
Re:

Campbell v. Facebook, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case No. 13-cv-05996-PJH (MEJ)

To The Hon. Maria-Elena James:
Plaintiffs and Defendant Facebook, Inc. jointly submit this letter brief pursuant to the Court’s
Discovery Standing Order.
I.

Background

A dispute has arisen in this action over Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 8 and Request for
Production No. 41. Interrogatory No. 8 asks Facebook to:
Identify all facts relating to the Processing of each Private Message sent or received
by Plaintiffs containing a URL, including, for each Private Message:
(A)
all Objects that were created during the Processing of the Private Message,
including the (id) and the Object Type for each Object, as well as any Key -> Value
Pair(s) contained in each Object;
(B)
all Objects that were created specifically when the embedded URL was
shared, including the (id) and the Object Type for each Object, as well as any Key ->
Value Pair(s) contained in each Object;
(C)
all Associations related to each Private Message, identified by the Source
Object, Association Type, and Destination Object, as well as any Key -> Value
Pair(s) contained in each Association;
(D)
the database names and table names in which each Association and Object is
stored;
(E)
each application or feature in Facebook that uses the Objects or Associations
created for each Private Message; and
(F)

how each Object associated with the Private Message was used by Facebook.

(Ex. A.) Request for Production No. 41, in turn, seeks the production of “[a]ll Documents
and ESI relied upon, reviewed, or referenced by [Facebook] in answering Interrogatory No.
8.” (Ex. B.)
In its responses, Facebook offered to meet and confer with Plaintiffs on these requests
(Exs. C & D), and the parties met and conferred several times thereafter. During that
-1-

process, Plaintiffs narrowed the requests to 19 of Plaintiffs’ messages. Facebook then
searched for these 19 messages, located 16 of them, and produced to Plaintiffs the objects
and associations (if any) related to the URLs included in those 16 messages on September 1,
2015. (Ex. E) Plaintiffs consider this a partial production. Having conferred in person, the
parties are now at an impasse and submit this joint letter pursuant to the Court’s Discovery
Standing Order.
II.

Plaintiffs’ Position

These discovery requests seek information directly related to the essential issues in
this case: what content Facebook acquires when it intercepts private messages, where
Facebook stores that content, and how Facebook uses that content. Information relating to
the Objects and Associations1 created from Plaintiffs’ messages is not only critical to
Plaintiffs’ claims, but also to Facebook’s defenses.
Facebook’s principal argument is not that this information should not be produced—
rather, it argues this brief is premature. However, the brief is the culmination of three-and-ahalf month process that included four in-person meet and confers and seven letters
exchanged between the parties, after which time Facebook provided only partial, inadequate
responses.2 The deadline for both class certification and summary judgment motions is
October 14, less than one month from the date of this filing. Facebook’s position that it will
provide fulsome responses at an unspecified time in the future unduly prejudices Plaintiffs in
their efforts to prepare for these impending, critical deadlines.3
Despite stating that it will, eventually, produce the information sought, Facebook
simultaneously—and contradictorily—challenges the relevance of Plaintiffs’ discovery
requests, claiming that only Objects and Associations directly related to URLs should be
produced. Facebook knows this position is untenable, as it already has agreed to provide “all
source code related to the private message function from creation through end storage,
including any scanning or acquisition of private message content and any data structures
that connect or associate users to messages or message content, and messages to attachments
or URLs.”4 The source code enables Plaintiffs to understand the processes Facebook
employs for its messaging functionality, thereby giving Plaintiffs an overview of how and
when messages are scanned. The information sought in these requests is a corollary to that
source code; here, Plaintiffs wish to learn what specific data were generated by Facebook,
from only nineteen of their own messages, and how that data was used and stored.
Further, while Facebook is correct that Plaintiffs do not challenge the message
scanning it conducts “for criminal conduct, illegal pornography, [and] viruses,” it omits the
fact that Facebook, itself, intends to rely on these scanning activities in support of its
1

Objects and Associations are metadata structures that Facebook generates to catalog its users’ online activity.
See Declaration of David T. Rudolph in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enlarge Time and Extend Dedlines at
¶¶ 29-32 (Dkt. No. 109-2).
3
This delay has been typical of Facebook’s response across the entire discovery spectrum, forcing Plaintiffs to
file an opposed motion with Judge Hamilton seeking a 90-day extension to the October 14 deadlines. See
Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time and Enlarge Deadlines (Dkt. No. 109).
4
E-mail from J. Jessen, Facebook Counsel, to H. Bates, Plaintiffs Counsel (Jun. 25, 2015, 11:01 PM CST).
2

-2-

“ordinary course of business” affirmative defense. See Joint Case Management Statement at
4, 6-7 (Dkt. No. 60). Facebook cannot limit production to a narrow subset of its scanning
practices, while simultaneously invoking the remainder of its scanning practices as defenses.
Accordingly, Facebook should be compelled to promptly remedy the following deficiencies:
First, Facebook has wholly ignored Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 8, providing instead
an assortment of printouts from unidentified databases. These documents lack the necessary
context and breadth to properly answer Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory. Second, these printouts
only address a subset of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests; namely, Objects and Associations
created from URLs present in Plaintiffs’ messages.5 Third, Plaintiffs sought the names of
the databases and tables in which the Objects and Associations are stored, which Facebook
has refused to provide. Fourth, none of the documents produced respond to Subparts (E)
and (F) of Interrogatory No. 8, which asks Facebook to identify the uses to which Facebook
puts these Objects and Associations. Facebook complains that identifying all these uses is
unduly burdensome due to the “complicated and vast” nature of its architecture, which
prevents creating a “readily identifiable list of this information.” This position cuts against
Facebook’s argument that it does nothing with Plaintiffs’ message content, is not supported
by any evidence, and is counter to its position that Facebook will, in time, produce the
information. Fifth, Facebook’s production references additional, explanatory documents
that were not provided. As just one example, FB000005827 explains that

Facebook, itself, appears to
use the document
Therefore, this document and any similar reference documents should be produced.6
These discovery requests are narrowly tailored to provide specific examples of how
Facebook’s message-scanning practices work, complementing the source code already
provided by Facebook. The scope of discovery has been limited further to only nineteen
messages belonging to the named Plaintiffs. This information not only allows Plaintiffs to
determine the extent to which their message content was acquired, stored and used, but also
to measure these data points against Facebook’s defenses that all message scanning and
content acquisition at issue was conducted within the ordinary course of its business. This
cannot happen unless Facebook is ordered to remedy the above deficiencies in its responses.
III.

Facebook’s Position

This is yet another unnecessary discovery letter brief, and Plaintiffs’ requests are the exact
opposite of “narrowly tailored.” Facebook has agreed to conduct a reasonable search for
relevant information in response to this interrogatory (and the accompanying Request for
5

Even this limited subset of information is incomplete. In multiple instances,

6

Additionally, FB000005827 contains several
If, as this document suggests,
, Facebook must provide Plaintiffs with

this data.

-3-

Production), as narrowed by Plaintiffs. Facebook has in fact already produced the
information that is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. Moreover, Facebook is continuing to
search for additional information. However, Plaintiffs’ requests are vastly overbroad and
much of the information is not accessible without undue burden (if it is accessible at all).
The Court should therefore deny Plaintiffs’ requested relief.7
Plaintiffs’ Complaint challenges a very specific practice—namely, the alleged “scanning” of
URLs sent in “private messages” to increase the “like” counter on third-party websites before
the end of 2012. Plaintiffs do not challenge other processes involving Facebook messages,
including other forms of what Plaintiffs characterize as “scanning,” such as “scans for
criminal conduct, illegal pornography, [and] viruses.” (Dkt. 45 (10/1/14 Hrg. Tr.) at 41:717.) Indeed, Plaintiffs’ proposed class includes only “Facebook users located within the
United States who have sent or received private messages that included URLs.” (CAC
¶ 59.) Because their claims are so limited, Plaintiffs have redacted all of the content in their
messages except for the URLs. Indeed, Plaintiffs have not produced any messages that did
not include a URL.8 In reality, Facebook did not “intercept” URLs contained in messages.

This routine commercial
conduct violates no law.
After Plaintiffs narrowed their Interrogatory No. 8 to seek information about 19 specific
messages, Facebook searched for and located 16 of them.

Facebook also produced other technical information for each
message. The production totaled almost 700 pages. Plaintiffs thus are now in possession of
the “objects” and “associations” that are relevant to their claims regarding URL “scanning.”9
Unsatisfied, Plaintiffs also have demanded the production of any “objects” and
“associations” related to these messages, regardless of the fact that they have no conceivable
relevance to Plaintiffs’ allegations of “scanning” URLs to increase the “like” counter.
Extracting the data comprising objects and associations into producible form—which
Facebook’s systems were never designed to do—especially for objects that are irrelevant to
Plaintiffs’ claims, is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Nonetheless, in an effort to avoid
more wasteful motion practice, Facebook will produce those that can be identified and
7

Plaintiffs improperly cite their eleventh-hour “Motion to Extend Time and Enlarge Deadlines” and
supporting declaration for the proposition that Facebook has “delay[ed]” its discovery responses “across the
entire discovery spectrum.” As Facebook will lay out in its soon-to-be filed opposition, nothing could be
further from the truth. Plaintiffs have the information they need in this case; they just do not like what it shows.
8
Plaintiffs’ suggestion that they need additional information to defend against Facebook’s “ordinary course of
business” argument is specious. Plaintiffs do not challenge Facebook’s processing of messages for these other
purposes, and they already have access to all of the relevant source code for these processes, in any event.
9
Contrary to their suggestion above, Plaintiffs also are in possession of the names of databases storing the
, which were included in the produced documentation. Plaintiffs apparently expected “more context”
about database names, but have not articulated what context they seek or its possible relevance.

-4-

extracted after a reasonable search. Plaintiffs have no need for this irrelevant information to
prepare their motion for class certification or to oppose Facebook’s future motion for
summary judgment.
Plaintiffs also have demanded a variety of other pieces of information, such as (i) “each
application or feature in Facebook that uses the Objects or Associations,” and (ii) “how each
Object associated with the Private Message was used.” But Facebook is a massive social
network, and processing, routing, and storing content from billions of user actions per day
requires generation of an enormous amount of data that are not accessible in the way that
Plaintiffs imagine. Facebook’s technical architecture is complicated and vast, and there is no
readily identifiable list of this information—nor can any list be assembled without significant
undue burden (though it likely cannot be assembled at all). And again, Plaintiffs’ request is
not limited to the subject matter of their claims—URLs contained in messages.10
Facebook already gave Plaintiffs direct access to all the relevant source code—the “black
box” they told this Court they needed to understand Facebook’s messages product. (Dkt.
92.) To date, Plaintiffs have had three different experts spend almost four weeks analyzing
that source code (which Facebook provided, reluctantly and unusually, in this consumer
class action as a compromise, not as a concession of relevance, as Plaintiffs incorrectly
suggest). Yet Plaintiffs continue to demand more. This request represents an extreme
burden on Facebook, whose busy and valuable technical employees must take considerable
time away from their normal job duties to search for information that is not readily accessible
(if it is accessible at all), and not even remotely related to Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs are no
longer seeking information relevant to their claims—they are improperly fishing for a new
basis for their meritless lawsuit. See, e.g., Hughes v. LaSalle Bank, N.A., 2004 WL 414828,
at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2004) (affirming order limiting discovery to the putative class
alleged in the complaint); Flores v. Bank of America, 2012 WL 6725842, at *2-4 (S.D. Cal.
Dec. 27, 2012) (denying motion to compel discovery that fell outside the class definition;
such discovery “constitutes a ‘fishing expedition’ which would be unduly burdensome for
Defendants”). Facebook respectfully requests that the Court deny Plaintiffs’ request.

10

Plaintiffs’ suggestion that Facebook is obligated to either answer an overbroad and unduly burdensome
interrogatory, or undertake an overbroad and unduly burdensome collection and production in order to satisfy
its discovery obligations, is contrary to Rule 33. See, e.g., Kaufman v. Am. Family Mutual Ins. Co., 2007 WL
1430105, at *1 (D. Colo. May 11, 2007) (“[I]nterrogatories that require a party to make extensive
investigations, research, or compilation or evaluation of data for the opposing party are in many circumstances
improper.”); Iridex Corp. v. Synergetics, Inc., 2007 WL 781254, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 12, 2007) (finding that
party’s production of business records containing some, but not all, of the information requested was sufficient
where providing such additional information would be unduly burdensome).

-5-

EXHIBIT E
(Redacted)

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

v.

22

FACEBOOK, INC.,

23

Defendant.

Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NARROWED SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES

24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
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 33 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, provides the following supplemental responses and objections to Plaintiffs’ Narrowed

5

Second Set of Interrogatories (the “Interrogatories”).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

6
7

1.

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

8

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

9

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

10

2.

Facebook’s responses to the Interrogatories 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 Reponses and Objections or provided in response to the

21

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

22

relevance, existence, or nonexistence of any alleged facts or information referenced in any

23

Interrogatory.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS

24
25

1.

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

26

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

27

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

28

Northern District of California, and any agreements between the parties.
1

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

2.

Facebook objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it is not limited to the

2

relevant time period, thus making the Interrogatory 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 responses will be limited to information

5

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

6

3.

Facebook objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information unrelated

7

and 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 Interrogatory 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. The Interrogatories seek broad and vaguely defined categories of

12

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

13

5.

Facebook objects to each Interrogatory 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 Interrogatory. See generally Fed. R. Evid. 502; Cal. Code

19

Evid. § 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
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

6.

Facebook objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that the information
2

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

sought by the Interrogatory is more appropriately pursued through another means of discovery, such

2

as a request for production or deposition.

3
4
5

7.

Facebook objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the

extent that it seeks information outside of Facebook’s possession, custody, and control.
8.

Facebook objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it requests information

6

protected 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

9.

Facebook objects to each Interrogatory 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.
10.

Facebook objects to each Interrogatory on the ground and to the extent that it exceeds

12

the bounds of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which provides that “a party may serve on

13

any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.”
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS

14
15

1.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Association” to the extent that it is

16

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

17

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

18

the claims and defenses in this action.

19

2.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Association Type” or “(atype)” to the

20

extent that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects

21

to the definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are

22

not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

23

3.

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

protected from disclosure under any applicable privileges, laws, and/or rules. Facebook further
3

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

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

2

requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.

3

4.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Destination Object” or “(id2)” to the

4

extent that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects

5

to the definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are

6

not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

7

5.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “(id)” to the extent that it is vague,

8

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

9

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

10
11

claims and defenses in this action.
6.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Key -> Value Pair” to the extent that it is

12

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

13

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

14

the claims and defenses in this action.

15

7.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Object” to the extent that it is vague,

16

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

17

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

18

claims and defenses in this action.

19

8.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Object type” or “(otype)” to the extent

20

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

21

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

22

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

23

9.

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

24

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

25

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

26

which Facebook exercises no control.

27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

10.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Process” to the extent that it is vague,

ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition to the
4
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

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

2

claims and defenses in this action.

3

11.

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

4

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

5

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

6

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

7

12.

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

8

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

9

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

10
11

Facebook shall construe these terms as commonly and ordinarily understood.
13.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Source Object” or “(id1)” to the extent

12

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

13

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

14

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

15

14.

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
OBJECTIONS TO “RULES OF CONSTRUCTION” AND INSTRUCTIONS

24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

1.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ “Rules of Construction” and “Instructions” to the

extent 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

the relevant time period, thus making the Instruction overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
5
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

3.

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

5

burdensome. Facebook further objects to the instruction to the extent it exceeds the requirements of

6

the Federal and Local Rules.

7

OBJECTION TO PURPORTED “RELEVANT TIME PERIOD”

8

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ proposed “Relevant Time Period” (September 26, 2006

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

30, 2013. Facebook otherwise objects to the remainder of Plaintiffs’ statement regarding the

15

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

16

the Federal and Local Rules.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS

17
18

INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

19
20

Identify all facts relating to the Processing of each Private Message sent or received by
Plaintiffs containing a URL1, including, for each Private Message:

21

(A)

all Objects that were created during the Processing of the Private Message, including

22

the (id) and the Object Type for each Object, as well as any Key -> Value Pair(s)

23

contained in each Object;

24
25
26
27

1

Each such Private Message has been identified by each Plaintiff in Exhibit 1 to his respective Objections and
Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories.

28
6

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

(B)

all Objects that were created specifically when the embedded URL was shared,

2

including the (id) and the Object Type for each Object, as well as any Key -> Value

3

Pair(s) contained in each Object;

4

(C)

all Associations related to each Private Message, identified by the Source Object,

5

Association Type, and Destination Object, as well as any Key -> Value Pair(s)

6

contained in each Association;

7

(D)

the database names and table names in which each Association and Object is stored;

8

(E)

each application or feature in Facebook that uses the Objects or Associations created

9
10
11
12

for each Private Message; and
(F)

how each Object associated with the Private Message was used by Facebook.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
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 Interrogatory on the following additional

15

grounds:

16

(A)

The Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases

17

“Processing”; “Private Message”; “Objects”; “(id)”; “Object Type”; “Key -> Value Pair(s)”; “Objects

18

that were created specifically when the embedded URL was shared”; “Associations”; “Source

19

Object”; “Association Type”; “Destination Object”; “database names and table names”; and

20

“application or feature.”

21

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

22

(C)

The Interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in

23

this action to the extent it concerns practices other than those challenged in this action (the alleged

24

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

25

a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the class period).

26

(D)

The Interrogatory is vague, unduly burdensome, and overly broad in that it purports to

27

seek “all facts relating to the Processing of each Private Message sent or received by Plaintiffs

28

containing a URL.”
7

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2
3

(E)

The Interrogatory seeks information that reflects trade secrets, confidential, and/or

proprietary company information.
(F)

The Interrogatory exceeds the bounds of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1),

4

which provides that “a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories,

5

including all discrete subparts.”

6
7

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and subject to
the ongoing nature of discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows:

8

Facebook refers Plaintiffs to Facebook’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory

9

Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Facebook also will meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel to determine the proper

10

scope of this overly broad and ambiguous Interrogatory.

11

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

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 Interrogatory on the following additional

15

grounds:

16

(A)

The Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases

17

“Processing”; “Private Message”; “Objects”; “(id)”; “Object Type”; “Key -> Value Pair(s)”; “Objects

18

that were created specifically when the embedded URL was shared”; “Associations”; “Source

19

Object”; “Association Type”; “Destination Object”; “database names and table names”; and

20

“application or feature.”

21

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

22

(C)

The Interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in

23

this action to the extent it concerns practices other than those challenged in this action (the alleged

24

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

25

a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the class period).

26

(D)

The Interrogatory is vague, unduly burdensome, and overly broad in that it purports to

27

seek “all facts relating to the Processing of each Private Message sent or received by Plaintiffs

28

containing a URL.”
8

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2
3

(E)

The Interrogatory seeks information that reflects trade secrets, confidential, and/or

proprietary company information.
(F)

The Interrogatory exceeds the bounds of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1),

4

which provides that “a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories,

5

including all discrete subparts.”

6
7
8
9

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and subject to
the ongoing nature of discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows:
Facebook refers Plaintiffs to Facebook’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory
Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Additionally, and pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

10

Facebook refers Plaintiffs to documents bearing production numbers FB000005502 through

11

FB000006175, which contain information responsive to this Interrogatory for the messages identified

12

in Plaintiffs’ letter of July 24, 2015 that could be located after a reasonable search and diligent

13

inquiry. The chart attached as Exhibit 1 identifies the production numbers of the documents that

14

correspond to the messages identified in Plaintiffs’ July 24, 2015 letter.

15

DATED: September 1, 2015

16
17
18

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By:

/s/
Joshua A. Jessen

Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

Exhibit 1

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
To

From

Date

URL

1

Production Number(s)
FB000005502-FB000005527
FB000005528-FB000005574
FB000005575-FB000005576

2

FB000005577-FB000005578

3

FB000005579-FB000005600
FB000005601-FB000005646
FB000005647-FB000005648

4

FB000005649-FB000005672
FB000005673-FB000005719
FB000005720-FB000005721

5

FB000005722-FB000005749
FB000005750-FB000005797
FB000005798-FB000005799

6

FB000005800-FB000005801

7

FB000005802-FB000005826
FB000005827-FB000005879
FB000005880-FB000005881

10

Unavailable.

68

FB000005882-FB000005883

1

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
To

From

Date

URL

89

Production Number(s)
FB000005884-FB000005886
FB000005887-FB000005932
FB000005933-FB000005934

93

FB000005935-FB000005957
FB000005958-FB000006004
FB000006005-FB000006006

99

FB000006007-FB000006008

113

FB000006009-FB000006037
FB000006038-FB000006084
FB000006085-FB000006087

115

Unavailable.

123

FB000006088-FB000006089

200

FB000006090-FB000006119
FB000006120-FB000006169
FB000006170-FB000006171

410

Unavailable.

2

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
To

From

Date

URL

Production Number(s)

654

FB000006172-FB000006173

482

FB000006174-FB000006175

3

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2
3
4

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 September 1, 2015, I served the following document(s):

5

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES

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.



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.

20
21
22
23
24

Executed on September 1, 2015.

25
26

/s/
Ashley M. Rogers

27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)