Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.
Filing
147
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of Facebook's Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification filed by Facebook Inc.. *** ATTACHMENTS 1, 2, 6 LOCKED AT FILER'S REQUEST. SEE DOCUMENT 162 *** (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Nikki Stitt Sokol In Support Of Defendant Facebook, Inc.s Administrative Motion to File Documents in Support of its Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification Under Seal, # 2 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Authorizing the Filing of Documents Under Seal, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1 (Unredacted), # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 2 (Redacted), # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 3 (Unredacted), # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 4 (Redacted), # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 5 (Unredacted), # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 6 (Redacted), # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 7 (Unredacted), # 10 Exhibit Exhibit 8 (Redacted))(Chorba, Christopher) (Filed on 1/15/2016) Modified on 1/22/2016 (ewn, COURT STAFF). Modified on 1/22/2016 (vlkS, COURT STAFF).
EXHIBIT 6
REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT(S)
SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
EXHIBIT R
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
t 415.956.1000
f 415.956.1008
April 10, 2015
VIA E-MAIL
Joshua Jessen, Esq.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Christopher Chorba, Esq.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
RE:
Campbell v. Facebook, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case No. 13-cv-05996-PJH
Dear Josh:
I write in response to your April 7, 2015 letter regarding Plaintiffs’ interrogatory
responses.
Plaintiffs’ Responses to Interrogatory No. 3
As is evident from the responses themselves, Plaintiffs devoted significant time and
effort to providing detailed responses to Facebook’s Interrogatory No. 3. Indeed,
Mr. Campbell’s response contained
detailed entries listing the sender, recipient, date
and time, and URL associated with each Facebook message.
While Facebook’s demands for even more detailed information are burdensome and
harassing, in the interest of compromise Plaintiffs will provide more detailed information for the
senders and/or recipients of the relevant Facebook messages. While Plaintiffs will make every
effort to provide this information expeditiously, given the work-intensive nature of the
responses Facebook seeks and the numbers of senders and recipients involved, Plaintiffs cannot
commit to providing this information by a date certain of April 14.
Plaintiffs’ Responses to Interrogatory No. 5
Plaintiffs maintain their general and specific objections to this Interrogatory.
Additionally, Facebook’s demand for “all facts” is vague, overly broad, inherently burdensome,
San Francisco
New York
Nashville
www.lieffcabraser.com
Joshua Jessen, Esq.
Christopher Chorba, Esq.
April 10, 2015
Page 2
seeks irrelevant information, and is in principle unanswerable. See Haggarty v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., No. 10-2416 CRB JSC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133375, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012)
(“While contention interrogatories are permitted, they ‘are often overly broad and unduly
burdensome when they require a party to state ‘every fact' or ‘all facts' supporting identified
allegations or defenses.’”) (quoting Mancini v. Ins. Corp. of New York, No. 07-1750 L NLS,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51321, at *9 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2009)).
Subject to and without waiving these objections, Plaintiffs supplement their responses to
Facebook’s Interrogatory No. 5 as follows:
1.
2.
3.
Plaintiffs’ Responses to Facebook’s Contention Interrogatories (Interrogatory Nos. 6 & 7;
Plaintiff Campbell’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13; Plaintiff
Shadpour’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 10, and 11)
We disagree with Facebook’s assertion that it is entitled to more detailed responses to its
contention interrogatories at this stage in the case, before any substantive discovery has taken
place. Given that Facebook has yet to produce a single non-public document or a single line of
source code, discovery in this case has only just begun and is nowhere near substantial, let alone
substantially complete. We agree that it is appropriate for the parties to meet and confer
regarding Plaintiffs’ responses to Facebook’s contention interrogatories. Please provide us times
during which you are available to meet and confer.
Joshua Jessen, Esq.
Christopher Chorba, Esq.
April 10, 2015
Page 3
Sincerely,
David T. Rudolph
DTR/wp
1225373.1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?