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 3

EXHIBIT A
(Redacted)

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
[e-mail]
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
[e-mail]
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
Rachel Geman
[e-mail]
Nicholas Diamand
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.355.9592

Jeremy A. Lieberman
Lesley F. Portnoy
[e-mail]
POMERANTZ, LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.661.8665
Patrick V. Dahlstrom
[e-mail]
POMERANTZ, LLP
10 S. La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312.377.1184

Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
[e-mail]
Allen Carney
[e-mail]
David Slade
[e-mail]
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 501.312.8505

18
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21
22
23

MATTHEW CAMPBELL, MICHAEL
HURLEY, and DAVID SHADPOUR, on
behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,

24

Plaintiffs,

25

v.

26

FACEBOOK, INC.,

27

Case No. 4:13-cv-05996-PJH
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO
FED. R. CIV. P. 30(B)(6)
Date:
September 25, 2015
Time:
9:00 a.m.
Location: 1881 Page Mill Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94304

Defendant.

28
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

1

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

2

Procedure, Plaintiffs will take the deposition upon oral examination of Defendant Facebook, Inc.

3

(“Facebook”), through its designated agent(s). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), Facebook is

4

hereby directed to designate one or more officers, directors, managing agents, or other persons

5

who consent to testify and are most knowledgeable and competent to testify regarding the

6

following topics:

7

1. The identification of Facebook source code utilized to carry out each process

8

characterized in Facebook’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories (“Resp.”),

9

Interrogatories No. 2 and 3, including but not limited to the following characterizations:

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2. The identification of Facebook source code utilized to carry out each process

27

characterized in Facebook’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories (“Resp.”),

28

Interrogatory No. 4, including but not limited to the following characterizations:
-5-

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3. The creation and use of Objects and Associations from content or data contained within or

9
10

otherwise related to private messages, including:1

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

4. The identification of all documents and ESI which Facebook contends established users’

26

consent (express and implied) to the practices challenged in this litigation, and Facebook’s bases

27

1

28
-7-

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

1
2
3
4

for such contention.
5. The role of “Likes” and the “Like” social plugin within Facebook’s business model,
including:
(a) Any analysis or identification by Facebook of the number of “Likes” generated during the

5

relevant period, including totals on a daily, weekly, monthly, and annual basis.

6

(b) Any analysis or identification by Facebook of the number of “Like” social plugins

7

embedded on third-party websites during the relevant period, including totals on a daily,

8

weekly, monthly, and annual basis.

9

(c) Analyses conducted by or on behalf of Facebook ascribing monetary value to “Likes” or
the “Like” social plugin, whether on Facebook or on third party websites.

10
11

6. All information that third parties (including but not limited to websites with embedded

12

“Like” social plugins) had access to – from April, 2009 until December 30, 2012 – related to

13

“Likes” created from URLs within private messages, including the identification of all relevant

14

source code related to processes effectuating access to such information.

15

7.

16
17
18

The deposition will commence at 9:00 a.m. on September 25, 2015, at the offices of

19

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 1881 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, California, 94304. The

20

deposition will be taken by oral examination before a certified court stenographer or other officer

21

authorized to administer oaths under applicable law. The deposition shall continue from day to

22

day (weekends and holidays excepted) until recessed or completed.

23

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Plaintiffs reserve the right to record the

24

deposition testimony of the above-identified deponent by videotape, in addition to recording the

25

testimony by stenographic means. Livenote may be used. Plaintiffs reserve the right to use the

26

videotape deposition at trial.

27
28
-8-

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

1
2

Dated: September 18, 2015

CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
By:

/s/ Allen Carney
Allen Carney

.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Allen Carney
[e-mail]
Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
[e-mail]
David Slade
[e-mail]
2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 501.312.8505
Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
[e-mail]
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
[e-mail]
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
Rachel Geman
[e-mail]
Nicholas Diamand
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.355.9592

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

1
2
3
4

Jeremy A. Lieberman
Lesley F. Portnoy
[e-mail]
POMERANTZ, LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.661.8665

5
6
7
8

Patrick V. Dahlstrom
[e-mail]
POMERANTZ, LLP
10 S. La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312.377.1184

9
10
11
12

Jon Tostrud (State Bar No. 199502)
[e-mail]
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 310.278.2640

13
14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 10 -

NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05996-PJH

EXHIBIT B
(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
24
25

Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)

Defendant.
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Facebook,

2

Inc. (“Facebook”) hereby submits the following responses and objections to Plaintiffs’ Notice of

3

Deposition Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) (the “Notice”) as follows:

4

GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO NOTICE

5

The following General Objections apply to each and every specific Topic and are

6

incorporated by reference in each of the specific responses. The assertion of the same, similar, or

7

additional objections or partial responses to individual Topics does not waive any of Facebook’s

8

General Objections.

9

1.

Facebook objects to each of the Topics set forth in the Notice on the grounds and to

10

the extent that they attempt or purport to impose obligations beyond those imposed or authorized by

11

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Rules of the Northern

12

District of California, or other applicable federal or state law. Facebook will construe and respond to

13

the Notice in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other

14

applicable rules or laws.

15

2.

Facebook objects to the Notice and each of the Topics to the extent that they seek

16

information unrelated to the particularized allegations detailed in the Consolidated Amended

17

Complaint (Dkt. No. 25), which renders the Notice and each of the Topics overly broad, unduly

18

burdensome, irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

19

evidence. Facebook will only produce a witness to provide testimony related to, or reasonably

20

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to, the particularized allegations

21

detailed in the Consolidated Amended Complaint.

22

3.

Facebook objects to the Notice to the extent it seeks information that is protected from

23

disclosure by any applicable privilege, including, but not limited to, the attorney-client privilege and

24

the attorney work product doctrine.

25

4.

Facebook objects to the Notice to the extent it seeks information that is not within the

26

possession, custody or control of Facebook, is publicly available, or is within the possession, custody

27

or control of Plaintiffs.

28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2
3

5.

Facebook objects to the Notice to the extent that it is so broad, uncertain, and

unintelligible that Facebook cannot determine the nature of the information sought.
6.

Facebook objects to the Notice on the grounds and to the extent that it calls for

4

testimony or documents regarding any trade secret or other private or confidential commercial,

5

business, financial, proprietary, or competitively sensitive information. Facebook will provide

6

testimony, if at all, on such matters only pursuant to the Protective Order issued in this action.

7
8
9

7.

Facebook objects to each Topic in the Notice to the extent it calls for a legal

conclusion and/or expert testimony.
8.

Facebook objects to each Topic to the extent that it fails to specify a relevant time

10

period, to the extent the specified time period is irrelevant to the instant case, or to the extent that the

11

specified period includes periods of time for which Plaintiffs would not be entitled to collect any

12

damages.

13

9.

Facebook objects to each Topic set forth in the Notice to the extent that it is

14

duplicative of any other discovery request served by Plaintiffs in this action and/or to the extent the

15

information is better sought by another method of discovery.

16

10.

Facebook objects to each Topic set forth in the Notice to the extent that it assumes

17

facts that are not in evidence. By responding to this Notice, Facebook does not admit or agree with

18

any explicit or implicit assumption made in this Notice.

19

11.

By stating that it will produce a witness competent to testify on a Topic, Facebook

20

does not represent that it has any relevant information on that Topic, but merely that a designee will

21

testify to any corporate knowledge obtained through a reasonable investigation. Further, Facebook’s

22

response to any particular Topic should not be taken as an admission that it accepts or admits the

23

existence of any fact set forth or assumed by the Topic, or that the response constitutes admissible

24

evidence. No response to any portion of any Topic shall be deemed a waiver of any objection not set

25

forth herein that could be made to any such portion regarding relevancy of the information or its

26

admissibility.

27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

12.

The responses given herein to any one or more of these Topics shall not be construed

or deemed as an admission as to the existence or non-existence of any document, or as an admission
2

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

or waiver of any question or right of objection as to authenticity, competency, relevancy, materiality,

2

admissibility, or any other objection Facebook may have, and such objections are expressly reserved.

3

13.

Facebook reserves the right to set forth additional objections to each Topic at the time

4

of the deposition of any Rule 30(b)(6) witness, and further reserves the right to amend these

5

objections at any time.

6

14.

Facebook objects to any attempt by Plaintiffs to identify additional Topics for a Rule

7

30(b)(6) deposition. Facebook will designate and produce witnesses on Rule 30(b)(6) Topics only

8

once. In a previous meet and confer, Facebook advised Plaintiffs on this position, and Plaintiffs have

9

not objected to that position or indicated that they intend to identify additional Rule 30(b)(6) Topics.

10

15.

Facebook objects to the noticed deposition date of September 25, 2015. While one

11

of Facebook’s Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses will testify on that date, pursuant to the discussions of the

12

parties, Facebook’s other Rule 30(b)(6) witness(es) will not.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS

13
14

Subject to and without waiving any of the foregoing General Objections, Facebook responds

15

to each Topic as follows:

16

TOPIC NO. 1:

17

The identification of Facebook source code utilized to carry out each process characterized in

18

Facebook’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories (“Resp.”), Interrogatories No. 2

19

and 3, including but not limited to the following characterizations:

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO TOPIC NO. 1:
Facebook incorporates the General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Facebook

23

further objects to the terms “identification,” “utilized,” “carry out,” “process,” “characterized,” and

24

“characterizations” in this Topic as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome,

25

including to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these defined terms to seek materials that are not

26

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Facebook further objects to this Topic as

27

compound, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. Facebook objects to preparing

28

a witness on such a broad range of information. Facebook further objects on the grounds that this
7

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

Topic seeks information duplicative of that previously produced by Facebook in this litigation,

2

including Facebook’s source code made available to Plaintiffs’ experts under the terms of the

3

Protective Order. Facebook further objects to this Topic to the extent it calls for expert analysis or

4

legal conclusions. Facebook further objects to this Topic to the extent it is not limited to a specific

5

time period relevant to this litigation. Facebook further objects to this Topic on the grounds and to

6

the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney client privilege and/or the

7

work product doctrine.

8

Subject to and without waiving any of the general or specific objections stated herein,

9

Plaintiffs have initiated the discovery briefing process on this Topic, and Facebook will not produce a

10

witness on this improper Topic for the reasons noted above and in its brief. However, Facebook met

11

and conferred in person with Plaintiffs on this Topic on September 2, 2015. As indicated during that

12

meeting, Facebook is willing to discuss specific questions Plaintiffs may have regarding Facebook’s

13

source code in lieu of producing a Rule 30(b)(6) witness.

14

TOPIC NO. 2:

15

The identification of Facebook source code utilized to carry out each process characterized in

16

Facebook’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories (“Resp.”), Interrogatory No. 4,

17

including but not limited to the following characterizations:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2
3
4

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO TOPIC NO. 2:
Facebook incorporates the General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Facebook

5

further objects to the terms “identification,” “utilized,” “carry out,” “process,” “characterized,” and

6

“characterizations” in this Topic as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome,

7

including to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these defined terms to seek materials that are not

8

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Facebook further objects to this Topic as

9

compound, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. Facebook objects to preparing

10

a witness on such a broad range of information. Facebook further objects on the grounds that this

11

Topic seeks information duplicative of that previously produced by Facebook in this litigation,

12

including Facebook’s source code made available to Plaintiffs’ experts under the terms of the

13

Protective Order. Facebook further objects to this Topic to the extent it calls for expert analysis or

14

legal conclusions. Facebook further objects to this Topic to the extent it is not limited to a specific

15

time period relevant to this litigation. Facebook further objects to this Topic on the grounds and to

16

the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney client privilege and/or the

17

work product doctrine.

18

Subject to and without waiving any of the general or specific objections stated herein,

19

Plaintiffs have initiated the discovery briefing process on this Topic, and Facebook will not produce a

20

witness on this improper Topic for the reasons noted above and in its brief. However, Facebook met

21

and conferred in person with Plaintiffs on this Topic on September 2, 2015. As indicated during that

22

meeting, Facebook is willing to discuss specific questions Plaintiffs may have regarding Facebook’s

23

source code in lieu of producing a Rule 30(b)(6) witness.

24
25
26
27
28
10

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

TOPIC NO. 3:

2
3

The creation and use of Objects and Associations from content or data contained within or
otherwise related to private messages, including: 1

4

(a)

How Objects are created during the processing of private messages, including

5

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

6

Pair(s) contained in each Object.

7

(b)

How Objects are specifically created when a URL within a private message is

8

shared, including the (id) and the Object Type for each Object, as well as any

9

Key -> Value Pair(s) contained in each Object.

10

(c)

How Associations are created during the processing of private messages,

11

identified by the Source Object, Association Type, and Destination Object, as

12

well as any Key -> Value Pair(s) contained in each Association.

13

(d)

The identification of all databases and tables in which Associations and

14

Objects created from private messages are stored, and the corresponding

15

schemas.

16

(e)

17

Objects or Associations created from private messages.

18
19

The identification of each application or feature in Facebook that uses the

(f)

How Facebook uses Objects and Associations created from private messages.

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO TOPIC NO. 3:

20

Facebook incorporates the General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Facebook

21

objects to the terms “creation and use,” “content or data contained within,” “private messages,”

22

“Object,” “Association,” “(id),” “Object Type,” “Key -> Value Pair,” “Source Object,” “Association

23

Type,” and “Destination Object” in this Topic as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly

24

burdensome, including to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these defined terms to seek

25

materials that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Facebook further objects to

26
27

1

The terms “Object,” “Association,” “(id),” “Object Type,” “Key -> Value Pair,” “Source Object,” “Association
Type,” and “Destination Object” are used herein pursuant to the definitions set forth in Plaintiffs’ Second Set of
Interrogatories.

28
11

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

this Topic as compound, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and oppressive. Facebook further

2

objects on the grounds and to the extent that this Topic seeks information duplicative of that

3

previously provided by Facebook in this litigation, as Facebook has made its source code available to

4

Plaintiffs’ experts under the terms of the Protective Order. Facebook further objects to this Topic to

5

the extent it calls for expert analysis or legal conclusions. Facebook further objects to this Topic to

6

the extent it is not limited to a specific time period relevant to this litigation. Facebook further

7

objects to this Topic on the grounds and to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure

8

by the attorney client privilege and/or the work product doctrine.

9

Subject to and without waiving any of the general or specific objections stated herein,

10

Facebook will designate a witness to provide testimony regarding the creation and use of objects and

11

associations related to URLs in Facebook messages between April 1, 2010 and December 30, 2013.

12

TOPIC NO. 4:

13

The identification of all documents and ESI which Facebook contends established users’

14

consent (express and implied) to the practices challenged in this litigation, and Facebook’s bases for

15

such contention.

16

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO TOPIC NO. 4:

17

Facebook incorporates the General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Facebook

18

objects to the terms “documents” and “ ESI” to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these defined

19

terms to request the identification and disclosure of documents that: (a) were prepared in anticipation

20

of litigation; (b) constitute attorney work product; (c) reveal privileged attorney-client

21

communications; or (d) are otherwise protected from disclosure under any applicable privileges,

22

laws, and/or rules. Facebook further objects to the extent that these terms purport to impose

23

obligations that go beyond the requirements of the Federal and Local Rules. Facebook further

24

objects to this Topic as overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks the identification

25

of “all” sources that Facebook contends establish users’ consent to the practices challenged in this

26

litigation. Facebook objects to preparing a witness on such a broad range of information. Facebook

27

further objects to this Topic to the extent it calls for expert analysis or legal conclusions. Facebook

28

further objects to this Topic on the ground that it in an inappropriate attempt to seek the bases for
12

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

Facebook’s contentions, which is an improper Rule 30(b)(6) Topic. Facebook further objects to this

2

Topic to the extent it is not limited to a specific time period relevant to this litigation. Facebook

3

further objects to this Topic on the grounds and to the extent it seeks information protected from

4

disclosure by the attorney client privilege and/or the work product doctrine.

5

Subject to and without waiving any of the general or specific objections stated herein,

6

Facebook will designate a witness to provide testimony regarding documents that establish express

7

consent to the practice challenged in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on

8

a website when the URL for that website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s

9

Messages product) between December 30, 2011 and December 30, 2013, as well as documents

10

produced in this action that establish implied consent to the practice challenged in this action (which

11

obviously does not include all potential documents that could establish implied consent). By

12

producing a witness to testify regarding this Topic, Facebook does not concede—and instead it

13

continues to dispute—that it is possible to “identif[y] . . . all documents and ESI” that “established

14

users’ consent (express and implied) to the practices challenged in this litigation, and Facebook’s

15

basis for such contention.”

16

TOPIC NO. 5:

17
18
19

The role of “Likes” and the “Like” social plugin within Facebook’s business model,
including:
(a)

Any analysis or identification by Facebook of the number of “Likes” generated

20

during the relevant period, including totals on a daily, weekly, monthly, and

21

annual basis.

22

(b)

Any analysis or identification by Facebook of the number of “Like” social

23

plugins embedded on third-party websites during the relevant period, including

24

totals on a daily, weekly, monthly, and annual basis.

25

(c)

Analyses conducted by or on behalf of Facebook ascribing monetary value to

26

“Likes” or the “Like” social plugin, whether on Facebook or on third party

27

websites.

28
13

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO TOPIC NO. 5:
Facebook incorporates the General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Facebook

3

objects to the terms “Likes,” “business model,” “analysis or identification,” “relevant period,”

4

“analyses,” and “conducted by or on behalf of” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly

5

burdensome, including to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these defined terms to seek

6

materials that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Facebook further objects to

7

this Topic on the grounds and to the extent that it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims

8

or defenses of any party and/or is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

9

evidence. Facebook further objects to this Topic on the grounds and to the extent it is not limited to a

10

specific time period relevant to this litigation. Facebook still further objects to this Topic to the

11

extent that it assumes facts. Facebook further objects to this Topic on the grounds and to the extent it

12

seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney client privilege and/or the work product

13

doctrine.

14

Subject to and without waiving any of the general or specific objections stated herein,

15

Facebook will designate a witness to provide testimony regarding the role of “Likes” and the “Like”

16

social plugin as they relate to URLs shared in Facebook messages during the proposed class period

17

(January 30, 2011 to approximately December 20, 2012).

18

TOPIC NO. 6:

19

All information that third parties (including but not limited to websites with embedded “Like”

20

social plugins) had access to – from April, 2009 until December 30, 2012 – related to “Likes” created

21

from URLs within private messages, including the identification of all relevant source code related to

22

processes effectuating access to such information.

23

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO TOPIC NO. 6:

24

Facebook incorporates the General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Facebook

25

objects to the terms “information,” “access to,” “Likes,” “private messages,” “processes,” and

26

“effectuating access” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome, including to the

27

extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these defined terms to seek materials that are not relevant to the

28

claims and defenses in this action. Facebook further objects to this Topic on the grounds and to the
14

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

extent that it seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or is not

2

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Facebook further objects to

3

this Topic on the grounds and to the extent it is not limited to a specific time period relevant to this

4

litigation. Facebook further objects to this Topic as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and

5

oppressive. Facebook further objects on the grounds and to the extent that this Topic seeks

6

information duplicative of that previously provided by Facebook in this litigation, as Facebook has

7

made its source code available to Plaintiffs’ experts under the terms of the Protective Order.

8

Facebook still further objects to this Topic to the extent that it assumes facts. Facebook further

9

objects to this Topic on the grounds and to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure

10
11

by the attorney client privilege and/or the work product doctrine.
Subject to and without waiving any of the general or specific objections stated herein,

12

Facebook will designate a witness to provide testimony regarding the information that third parties

13

had access to related to “Likes” generated from URLs contained in Facebook messages between

14

April 1, 2010 and December 30, 2012 (not including an identification of source code).

15

TOPIC NO. 7:

16
17
18
19
20

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITION REQUEST NO. 7:
Facebook incorporates the General Objections as though fully set forth herein. Facebook

21

objects to the terms “decision,” “decision-making process,” “related thereto,” and “implementation”

22

as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome, including to the extent that Plaintiffs

23

purport to use these defined terms to seek materials that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in

24

this action. Facebook further objects to this Topic on the grounds and to the extent that it seeks

25

information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses of any party and/or is not reasonably

26

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Facebook further objects to this Topic on

27

the grounds and to the extent it is not limited to a specific time period relevant to this litigation.

28

Facebook still further objects to this Topic to the extent that it assumes facts. Facebook further
15

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

objects to this Topic on the grounds and to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure

2

by the attorney client privilege and/or the work product doctrine.

3
4

Subject to and without waiving any of the general or specific objections stated herein,
Facebook will designate a witness to provide testimony regarding

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

DATED: September 22, 2015

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By:

/s/
Joshua A. Jessen

Attorney for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.

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

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

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 22, 2015, I served the following document(s):

5

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P.
30(B)(6)

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
25

Executed on September 22, 2015.

26

/s/
Ashley M. Rogers

27
28
17

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6)
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

EXHIBIT C
(Redacted)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

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]

13
14

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,

PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION
Plaintiffs,

20
21
22

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES

v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,

23

Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

Defendant.

24
25

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

26

Pursuant to Draft Stipulated Protective Order (Sent by Counsel for Facebook on March 30, 2015)

27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

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 responses and objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories

5

(the “Interrogatories”).

6

These responses are designated Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only under the draft

7

Stipulated Protective Order sent by Facebook’s counsel to Plaintiffs’ counsel on March 30, 2015, and

8

as agreed by the parties.

9
10

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.

Before the further production of information, Facebook will meet and confer with

11

Plaintiffs regarding the entry of a Protective Order to protect confidential, proprietary, and trade

12

secret materials.

13

2.

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

14

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

15

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

16

3.

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20
21
22

4.

Facebook’s responses are based 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 into

23

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

24

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

25

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

26
27

6.

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

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

28
1
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

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

2

Interrogatory.

3

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

4

1.

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8
9

2.

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

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

10

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

11

Facebook’s response will be limited to information generated between December 30, 2011 and

12

October 31, 2012.

13

3.

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

14

and irrelevant to the claims or defenses in this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the

15

discovery of admissible evidence.

16

4.

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

action.

21

5.

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

immune from discovery shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or of any other ground for
2

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

documents in any way.

8
9
10
11
12
13

6.

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

sought by the Interrogatory is more appropriately pursued through another means of discovery, such
as a request for production or deposition.
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

14

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

15

proprietary, or competitively sensitive.

16

9.

Facebook objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks documents or

17

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

18

equally available to Plaintiffs.

19
20

OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
1.

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

21

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

22

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

23

defenses in this action, particularly as a result of its reference to the undefined term, “Social Plugin.”

24
25
26

2.

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

27

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

28

Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to the claims and
3

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

defenses in this action, particularly as a result of its use of the phrase “including but not limited to”

2

and the undefined term “Your services.”

3

3.

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10
11

requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
4.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Facebook User Data Profile(s)” as vague,

12

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

13

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

14

claims and defenses in this action.

15

5.

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

during the class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012)). Specifically, Facebook construes

22

“Passive Likes” to refer to an increase in the “Like” count on a third-party website resulting from

23

inclusion of that website’s URL in a Facebook message during the class period.

24

6.

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

25

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

26

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

27

which Facebook exercises no control.

28
4
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

7.

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

2

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

3

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

4

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

5

8.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Private Message Content” to the extent

6

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

7

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

8

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Facebook further objects to this definition on the

9

ground and to the extent it is inconsistent with applicable law.

10

9.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Private Message Transmission” as vague,

11

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

12

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

13

claims and defenses in this action. Facebook further objects to this definition on the ground and to

14

the extent it is inconsistent with relevant law.

15

10.

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

16

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

17

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

18

Facebook shall construe these terms as commonly and ordinarily understood.

19

11.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Targeted Advertising” as vague,

20

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

21

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

22

claims and defenses in this action.

23
24
25
26
27

12.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Transmission,” “Transmit,” and

“Transmitting” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further

28
5
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

objects to the definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these terms to seek materials that

2

are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

3

13.

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

4

vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent the terms are meant to include

5

“directors, officers, employees, partners, members, representatives, agents (including attorneys,

6

accountants, consultants, investment advisors or bankers), and any other person purporting to act on

7

[Facebook, Inc.’s] behalf. . . . parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessor entities, successor entities,

8

divisions, departments, groups, acquired entities and/or related entities or any other entity acting or

9

purporting to act on its behalf” over which Facebook exercises no control, and to the extent that

10

Plaintiffs purport to use these terms to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the

11

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

12
13
14
15

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

16

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

17

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

18

Facebook’s response will be limited to information generated between December 30, 2011 and

19

October 31, 2012.

20

3.

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

21

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

22

the Federal and Local Rules.

23

OBJECTION TO PURPORTED “RELEVANT TIME PERIOD”

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

Unless otherwise specified, Facebook’s Responses to these Interrogatories will be limited to
6

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

information generated between December 30, 2011 and October 31, 2012, which is the proposed

2

class period defined in Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint. (See Pls.’ Consol. Am. Compl.

3

[Dkt. 25] ¶ 59 & n.3.) Facebook otherwise objects to the remainder of Plaintiffs’ statement regarding

4

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

5

by the Federal and Local Rules.

6
7
8
9
10

SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all persons, including Third Parties and Your current and former employees, known
by You to have personal knowledge of any facts or issues involved in this lawsuit, and for each
person please identify

11

(A) the party’s first and last name;

12

(B) the party’s employer, if not You;

13

(C) the party’s job title(s); and

14

(D) the nature of the party’s personal knowledge of the facts or issues involved in this

15

lawsuit.

16
17

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

18

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

19

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

20

grounds:

21

(A)

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

22

Parties”; “any facts or issues involved in this lawsuit”; and “nature of the party’s personal knowledge

23

of the facts or issues involved in this lawsuit.”

24

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

25

(C)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding each

26

Facebook employee’s “personal knowledge” of “facts or issues involved in this lawsuit,” over an

27

extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information

28

known and identified to date.
7

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5

(D) The Interrogatory purports to request employment information that is not relevant to the
claims or defenses in this action.
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:
a.

6
7
8

b.

9
10

c.

11
12

d.

13
14
15

e.

16
17
18

f.

19
20

Facebook reserves the right to supplement its response to this Interrogatory as its investigation

21

continues.

22

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

23

Identify by name, purpose, sequence, function and physical location each Process and/or piece

24

of Architecture involved in Private Message Transmission.

25

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

26
27

Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set

28
8
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

2

grounds:

3
4

(A)

The Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Process and/or

piece of Architecture” and “Private Message Transmission.”

5

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

6

(C)

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

7

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

8

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

9

a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30,

10

2011 to October 31, 2012)).

11

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding each

12

“Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in” the transmission of Facebook messages over an

13

extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information

14

known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action (as defined

15

above).

16
17
18
19

(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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:

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
For each Process and/or piece of Architecture identified in Interrogatory No. 2, identify

7

whether – and the manner in which – such Process and/or piece of Architecture scans, analyzes, or

8

extracts Private Message Content.

9

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

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 Interrogatory on the following additional

13

grounds:

14
15

(A)

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

and/or piece of Architecture,” “Private Message Content,” “scans,” “analyzes,” and “extracts.”

16

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

17

(C)

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

18

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

19

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

20

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

21

October 31, 2012)).

22

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek additional information

23

regarding each “Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in” the transmission of Facebook

24

messages over an extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on

25

the information known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action

26

(as defined above).

27

(E)

28

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

proprietary company information.
13

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2

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:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

16

For each Process and/or piece of Architecture identified in Interrogatory No. 3, identify all

17

uses to which the scanned/analyzed/extracted Private Message Content – as well as any additional

18

data, metadata or other content generated therefrom – are put.

19

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

20

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

21

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

22

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

23

grounds:

24
25

(A)

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

and/or piece of Architecture,” “Private Message Content,” “scanned,” “analyzed,” and “extracted.”

26

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

27

(C)

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

28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

this action to the extent it concerns practices other than those challenged (the alleged increase in the
17
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

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

2

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

3

October 31, 2012)).

4

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek additional information

5

regarding each “Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in” the transmission of Facebook

6

messages over an extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on

7

the information known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action

8

(as defined above).

9

(E)

10
11
12

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

proprietary company information.
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:

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Identify by name, purpose, sequence, function and physical location each Process and/or piece

22

of Architecture involved in the creation, development, or maintenance of Facebook User Profiles.

23

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

24

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

25

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

26

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

27

grounds:

28
20
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

(A)

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

2

and/or piece of Architecture,” “Facebook User Profiles,” “purpose,” “sequence,” “function,” and

3

“physical location.”

4

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

5

(C)

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

6

this action to the extent it concerns practices other than those challenged (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 during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

9

October 31, 2012)).

10

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding each

11

“Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in the creation, development, or maintenance of

12

Facebook User Profiles” over an extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its

13

ability and based on the information known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice

14

challenged in this action (as defined above).

15
16
17
18

(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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:

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Identify all possible fields or data points that can comprise a Facebook User Profile.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

26

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

27

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

28

grounds:
22

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2

(A)

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

“Facebook User Profile” and “all possible fields or data points.”

3

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

4

(C)

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

5

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

6

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

7

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

8

October 31, 2012)).

9

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding “all

10

possible fields or data points that can comprise a Facebook User Profile” over an extended time

11

period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information known and

12

identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action (as defined above).

13
14
15
16

(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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:

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
For each field or data point identified in Interrogatory No. 6, identify whether – and the

22

manner in which – such field or data point can be accessed, in any form, by Third Parties, including

23

but not limited to Developers, Third Party websites, and Facebook Users.

24

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

25

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

26

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

27

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

28

grounds:
24

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2

(A)

The Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms “field,” “data point,”

“Developers,” and “Third Party websites.”

3

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

4

(C)

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

5

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

6

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

7

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

8

October 31, 2012)). Facebook interprets this Interrogatory as limited to the practice challenged in

9

this action.

10

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding

11

“each field or data point identified in Interrogatory No. 6” over an extended time period. Facebook

12

will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information known and identified to date, and

13

as limited by the practice challenged in this action (as defined above).

14
15
16
17

(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

DATED: April 1, 2015

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By:

27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

/s/ Joshua A. Jessen
Joshua A. Jessen

Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.
25
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Jeana Bisnar Maute, 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 April 1, 2015, I served the following document(s):
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
on the parties stated below, by the following means of service:
David F. Slade
[e-mail]
James Allen Carney
[e-mail]
Joseph Henry Bates, III
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
[e-mail]

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Jeremy A. Lieberman
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP
[e-mail]
Melissa Ann Gardner
[e-mail]
Nicholas Diamand
[e-mail]
Rachel Geman
[e-mail]
Michael W. Sobol
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
[e-mail]

20
21
22
23
24

Jon A Tostrud
Tostrud Law Group, P.C.
[e-mail]
Lionel Z. Glancy
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
[e-mail]

25
26
27
28
26
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1


BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: On the above-mentioned date based on an agreement of
the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the document to be sent to
the persons at the electronic notification addresses as shown above.

4



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

5



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

2
3

6
Executed on April 1, 2015.
7
/s/
Jeana Bisnar Maute

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
27
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

EXHIBIT D
(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

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

Defendant.

24
25

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

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’ First Set of

5

Interrogatories (the “Interrogatories”).

6
7

These responses are designated Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only under the
Amended Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Court on July 1, 2015.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

8
9

1.

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

10

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

11

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

12

2.

Facebook’s responses to the Interrogatories 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

3.

Facebook’s responses are based 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 into

19

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

5.

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

23

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

24

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

25

Interrogatory.

26
27
28

1

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1
2

1.

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

2.

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

7

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

8

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

9

Facebook’s response will be limited to information generated between December 30, 2011 and

10

December 20, 2012.

11

3.

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

12

and irrelevant to the claims or defenses in this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the

13

discovery of admissible evidence.

14

4.

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

action.

19

5.

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

2

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

documents in any way.

7

6.

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

8

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

9

as a request for production or deposition.

10
11
12

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

13

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

14

proprietary, or competitively sensitive.

15

9.

Facebook objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks documents or

16

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

17

equally available to Plaintiffs.
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS

18
19

1.

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

20

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

21

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

22

defenses in this action, particularly as a result of its reference to the undefined term, “Social Plugin.”

23
24
25

2.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Architecture” 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

3

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

defenses in this action, particularly as a result of its use of the phrase “including but not limited to”

2

and the undefined term “Your services.”

3

3.

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.

11

4.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Facebook User Data Profile(s)” as vague,

12

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

13

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

14

claims and defenses in this action.

15

5.

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

during the class period (December 30, 2011 to approximately December 20, 2012)). Specifically,

22

Facebook construes “Passive Likes” to refer to an increase in the “Like” count on a third-party

23

website resulting from inclusion of that website’s URL in a Facebook message during the class

24

period.

25
26

6.

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

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

27
28

4

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

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

2

which Facebook exercises no control.

3

7.

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

8.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Private Message Content” to the extent

8

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

9

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

10

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Facebook further objects to this definition on the

11

ground and to the extent it is inconsistent with applicable law.

12

9.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Private Message Transmission” as vague,

13

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

14

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

15

claims and defenses in this action. Facebook further objects to this definition on the ground and to

16

the extent it is inconsistent with relevant law.

17

10.

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

18

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

19

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

20

Facebook shall construe these terms as commonly and ordinarily understood.

21

11.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Targeted Advertising” as vague,

22

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

23

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

24

claims and defenses in this action.

25
26
27
28

5

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

12.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Transmission,” “Transmit,” and

2

“Transmitting” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further

3

objects to the definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these terms to seek materials that

4

are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

5

13.

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

6

vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent the terms are meant to include

7

“directors, officers, employees, partners, members, representatives, agents (including attorneys,

8

accountants, consultants, investment advisors or bankers), and any other person purporting to act on

9

[Facebook, Inc.’s] behalf. . . . parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessor entities, successor entities,

10

divisions, departments, groups, acquired entities and/or related entities or any other entity acting or

11

purporting to act on its behalf” over which Facebook exercises no control, and to the extent that

12

Plaintiffs purport to use these terms to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the

13

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

14
15
16
17

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

18

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

19

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

20

Facebook’s response will be limited to information generated between December 30, 2011 and

21

December 20, 2012.

22

3.

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

23

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

24

the Federal and Local Rules.

25

OBJECTION TO PURPORTED “RELEVANT TIME PERIOD”

26

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

27

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

28

6

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

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

2

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

3

Unless otherwise specified, Facebook’s Responses to these Interrogatories will be limited to

4

information generated between December 30, 2011 and December 20, 2012, which is the proposed

5

class period defined in Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint. (See Pls.’ Consol. Am. Compl.

6

[Dkt. 25] ¶ 59 & n.3.) Facebook otherwise objects to the remainder of Plaintiffs’ statement regarding

7

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

8

by the Federal and Local Rules.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS

9
10
11

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all persons, including Third Parties and Your current and former employees, known

12

by You to have personal knowledge of any facts or issues involved in this lawsuit, and for each

13

person please identify

14

(A) the party’s first and last name;

15

(B) the party’s employer, if not You;

16

(C) the party’s job title(s); and

17

(D) the nature of the party’s personal knowledge of the facts or issues involved in this

18

lawsuit.

19
20

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

21

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

22

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

23

grounds:

24

(A)

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

25

Parties”; “any facts or issues involved in this lawsuit”; and “nature of the party’s personal knowledge

26

of the facts or issues involved in this lawsuit.”

27
28

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.
7

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

(C)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding each

2

Facebook employee’s “personal knowledge” of “facts or issues involved in this lawsuit,” over an

3

extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information

4

known and identified to date.

5
6
7
8

(D) The Interrogatory purports to request employment information that is not relevant to the
claims or defenses in this action.
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:

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
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 Interrogatory on the following additional

5

grounds:

6

(A)

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

7

Parties”; “any facts or issues involved in this lawsuit”; and “nature of the party’s personal knowledge

8

of the facts or issues involved in this lawsuit.”

9

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

10

(C)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding each

11

Facebook employee’s “personal knowledge” of “facts or issues involved in this lawsuit,” over an

12

extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information

13

known and identified to date.

14
15
16
17

(D) The Interrogatory purports to request employment information that is not relevant to the
claims or defenses in this action.
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:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Facebook reserves the right to supplement its response to this Interrogatory as its investigation
continues.

27
28

11

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

2

Identify by name, purpose, sequence, function and physical location each Process and/or piece

3

of Architecture involved in Private Message Transmission.

4

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

5

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

6

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

7

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

8

grounds:

9
10

(A)

The Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Process and/or

piece of Architecture” and “Private Message Transmission.”

11

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

12

(C)

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

13

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

14

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

15

a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30,

16

2011 to October 31, 2012)).

17

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding each

18

“Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in” the transmission of Facebook messages over an

19

extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information

20

known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action (as defined

21

above).

22
23
24
25

(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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:

26
27
28

12

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

14

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

15

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

16

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

17

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

18

grounds:

19
20

(A)

The Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Process and/or

piece of Architecture” and “Private Message Transmission.”

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 (December 30,

26

2011 to approximately December 20, 2012)).

27
28

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding each
16

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

“Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in” the transmission of Facebook messages over an

2

extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information

3

known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action (as defined

4

above).

5
6
7
8

(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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:

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

17

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

18

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

19

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
For each Process and/or piece of Architecture identified in Interrogatory No. 2, identify
whether – and the manner in which – such Process and/or piece of Architecture scans, analyzes, or
20

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

extracts Private Message Content.

2

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

3

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

4

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

5

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

6

grounds:

7
8

(A)

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

and/or piece of Architecture,” “Private Message Content,” “scans,” “analyzes,” and “extracts.”

9

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

10

(C)

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

11

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

12

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

13

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

14

October 31, 2012)).

15

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek additional information

16

regarding each “Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in” the transmission of Facebook

17

messages over an extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on

18

the information known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action

19

(as defined above).

20

(E)

21
22
23

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

proprietary company information.
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:

24
25
26
27
28

21

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

22

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

23

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

24

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

14

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

15

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

16

grounds:

17
18

(A)

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

and/or piece of Architecture,” “Private Message Content,” “scans,” “analyzes,” and “extracts.”

19

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

20

(C)

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

21

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

22

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

23

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

24

approximately December 20, 2012).

25

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek additional information

26

regarding each “Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in” the transmission of Facebook

27

messages over an extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on

28

25

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

the information known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action

2

(as defined above).

3

(E)

4
5
6

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

proprietary company information.
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:

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

26

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

27

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

28

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

24

For each Process and/or piece of Architecture identified in Interrogatory No. 3, identify all

25

uses to which the scanned/analyzed/extracted Private Message Content – as well as any additional

26

data, metadata or other content generated therefrom – are put.

27
28

29

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
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 Interrogatory on the following additional

5

grounds:

6
7

(A)

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

and/or piece of Architecture,” “Private Message Content,” “scanned,” “analyzed,” and “extracted.”

8

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

9

(C)

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

10

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

11

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

12

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

13

October 31, 2012)).

14

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek additional information

15

regarding each “Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in” the transmission of Facebook

16

messages over an extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on

17

the information known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action

18

(as defined above).

19

(E)

20
21
22

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

proprietary company information.
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:

23
24
25
26
27
28

30

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

31

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

32

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

7

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

8

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

9

grounds:

10
11

(A)

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

and/or piece of Architecture,” “Private Message Content,” “scanned,” “analyzed,” and “extracted.”

12

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

13

(C)

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

14

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

15

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

16

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

17

approximately December 20, 2012)).

18

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek additional information

19

regarding each “Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in” the transmission of Facebook

20

messages over an extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on

21

the information known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action

22

(as defined above).

23

(E)

24
25
26

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

proprietary company information.
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:

27
28

33

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

34

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

35

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Identify by name, purpose, sequence, function and physical location each Process and/or piece

18

of Architecture involved in the creation, development, or maintenance of Facebook User Profiles.

19

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

20

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

21

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

22

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

23

grounds:

24

(A)

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

25

and/or piece of Architecture,” “Facebook User Profiles,” “purpose,” “sequence,” “function,” and

26

“physical location.”

27
28

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.
36

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

(C)

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

2

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

3

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

4

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

5

October 31, 2012)).

6

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding each

7

“Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in the creation, development, or maintenance of

8

Facebook User Profiles” over an extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its

9

ability and based on the information known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice

10
11
12
13
14

challenged in this action (as defined above).
(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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:

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

37

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

21

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

22

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

23

grounds:

24

(A)

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

25

and/or piece of Architecture,” “Facebook User Profiles,” “purpose,” “sequence,” “function,” and

26

“physical location.”

27
28

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.
38

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

(C)

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

2

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

3

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

4

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

5

approximately December 20, 2012)).

6

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding each

7

“Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in the creation, development, or maintenance of

8

Facebook User Profiles” over an extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its

9

ability and based on the information known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice

10
11
12
13
14

challenged in this action (as defined above).
(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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:

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

39

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Identify all possible fields or data points that can comprise a Facebook User Profile.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

23

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

24

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

25

grounds:

26
27
28

(A)

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

“Facebook User Profile” and “all possible fields or data points.”
40

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

2

(C)

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

3

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

4

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

5

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

6

October 31, 2012)).

7

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding “all

8

possible fields or data points that can comprise a Facebook User Profile” over an extended time

9

period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information known and

10
11
12
13
14

identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action (as defined above).
(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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:

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

41

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

21

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

22

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

23

grounds:

24
25

(A)

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

“Facebook User Profile” and “all possible fields or data points.”

26

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

27

(C)

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

28

42

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

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

2

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

3

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

4

approximately December 20, 2012)).

5

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding “all

6

possible fields or data points that can comprise a Facebook User Profile” over an extended time

7

period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information known and

8

identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action (as defined above).

9
10
11
12

(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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:

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

43

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
For each field or data point identified in Interrogatory No. 6, identify whether – and the

19

manner in which – such field or data point can be accessed, in any form, by Third Parties, including

20

but not limited to Developers, Third Party websites, and Facebook Users.

21

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

22

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

23

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

24

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

25

grounds:

26
27
28

(A)

The Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms “field,” “data point,”

“Developers,” and “Third Party websites.”
44

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

2

(C)

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

3

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

4

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

5

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

6

October 31, 2012)). Facebook interprets this Interrogatory as limited to the practice challenged in

7

this action.

8

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding

9

“each field or data point identified in Interrogatory No. 6” over an extended time period. Facebook

10

will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information known and identified to date, and

11

as limited by the practice challenged in this action (as defined above).

12
13
14
15

(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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:

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

24

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

25

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

26

grounds:

27
28

45

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2

(A)

The Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms “field,” “data point,”

“Developers,” and “Third Party websites.”

3

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

4

(C)

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

5

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

6

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

7

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

8

approximately December 20, 2012)). Facebook interprets this Interrogatory as limited to the practice

9

challenged in this action.

10

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding

11

“each field or data point identified in Interrogatory No. 6” over an extended time period. Facebook

12

will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information known and identified to date, and

13

as limited by the practice challenged in this action (as defined above).

14
15
16
17

(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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:

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DATED: September 8, 2015

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By:

Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.
46

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

/s/ Joshua A. Jessen
Joshua A. Jessen

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

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 8, 2015, I served the following document(s):

5

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

6
7

on the parties stated below, by the following means of service:
David F. Slade
[e-mail]
James Allen Carney
[e-mail]
Joseph Henry Bates, III
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
[e-mail]

8
9
10
11
12

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

13
14
15
16
17
18


BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: On the above-mentioned date based on an agreement of
the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the document to be sent to
the persons at the electronic notification addresses as shown above.

21



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

22



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

19
20

23
24

Executed on September 8, 2015.
/s/
Ashley M. Rogers

25
26
27
28

48

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH