Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 152

Exhibits re 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 Exhibit 38 (Unredacted), # 2 Exhibit 39 (Unredacted), # 3 Exhibit 40 (Unredacted), # 4 Exhibit 41 (Redacted), # 5 Exhibit 42 (Unredacted), # 6 Exhibit 43 (Redacted), # 7 Exhibit 44 (Unredacted), # 8 Exhibit 45 (Redacted), # 9 Exhibit 46 - Part 1 of 3 (Unredacted), # 10 Exhibit 46 - Part 2 of 3 (Unredacted))(Chorba, Christopher) (Filed on 1/16/2016) Modified on 1/20/2016 (vlkS, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT 43
REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT(S)
SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

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
23

Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendant.

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

24
25
26
27

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

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

1

Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Facebook”), by and through its attorneys, and

2

pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules of the U.S.

3

District Court for the Northern District of California, the Court orders in this action, and the parties’

4

agreements, provides the following second supplemental responses and objections to Plaintiffs’

5

Narrowed Second Set of Interrogatories (the “Interrogatories”).

6
7

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.

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

8

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

9

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

10

2.

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14
15
16

3.

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

information that is within Facebook’s possession, custody, and control.
4.

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

5.

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

21

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

22

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

23

Interrogatory.

24
25

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1.

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

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

1

2.

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

3.

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

7

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

8

discovery of admissible evidence.

9

4.

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

10

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

11

Plaintiffs’ need for the information. The Interrogatories seek broad and vaguely defined categories of

12

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

13

5.

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

documents in any way.

28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

6.

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

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

1

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

2

as a request for production or deposition.

3
4
5

7.

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

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

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

6

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

7

proprietary, or competitively sensitive.

8
9
10
11

9.

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

information already in Plaintiffs’ possession or available in the public domain. Such information is
equally available to Plaintiffs.
10.

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

12

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

13

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

14
15

OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
1.

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

16

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

17

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

18

the claims and defenses in this action.

19

2.

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

20

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

21

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

22

not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

23

3.

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

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

1

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

2

requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.

3

4.

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

4

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

5

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

6

not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

7

5.

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

8

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

9

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

10
11

claims and defenses in this action.
6.

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

12

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

13

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

14

the claims and defenses in this action.

15

7.

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

16

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

17

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

18

claims and defenses in this action.

19

8.

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

20

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

21

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

22

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

23

9.

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

24

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

25

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

26

which Facebook exercises no control.

27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

10.

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

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

1

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

2

claims and defenses in this action.

3

11.

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

4

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

5

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

6

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

7

12.

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

8

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

9

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

10
11

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

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

12

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

13

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

14

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

15

14.

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.

24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

OBJECTIONS TO “RULES OF CONSTRUCTION” AND INSTRUCTIONS
1.

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

extent they impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
2.

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

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

3.

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

5

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

6

the Federal and Local Rules.

7

OBJECTION TO PURPORTED “RELEVANT TIME PERIOD”

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

the Federal and Local Rules.

17
18

SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

19
20

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

21

(A)

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

22

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

23

contained in each Object;

24
25
26
27

1

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

28
6
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

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

1

(B)

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

2

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

3

Pair(s) contained in each Object;

4

(C)

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

5

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

6

contained in each Association;

7

(D)

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

8

(E)

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

9
10
11
12

for each Private Message; and
(F)

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

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

13

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

14

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

15

grounds:

16

(A)

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

“application or feature.”

21

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

22

(C)

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

(D)

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

27

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

28

containing a URL.”
7

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

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

1
2
3

(E)

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

proprietary company information.
(F)

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

4

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

5

including all discrete subparts.”

6
7

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

8

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

9

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

10

scope of this overly broad and ambiguous Interrogatory.

11

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

grounds:

16

(A)

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

“application or feature.”

21

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

22

(C)

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

(D)

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

27

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

28

containing a URL.”
8

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

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

1
2
3

(E)

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

proprietary company information.
(F)

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

4

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

5

including all discrete subparts.”

6
7
8
9

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

10

Facebook refers Plaintiffs to documents bearing production numbers FB000005502 through

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

grounds:

20

(A)

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

“application or feature.”

25

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

26

(C)

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

27

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

28
9
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

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

1

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

2

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

3

(D)

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

4

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

5

containing a URL.”

6

(E)

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

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

proprietary company information.
(F)

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

which provides that “a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories,
including all discrete subparts.”
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and subject to
the ongoing nature of discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows:
Facebook has conducted a reasonable inquiry for all “Objects” (as defined by Plaintiffs,

14

explained further below) created at the time that Facebook received information resulting from the

15

drafting or sending of the 19 messages (the “Subject Messages”) identified by Plaintiffs in their letter

16

dated July 24, 2015 agreeing to narrow this Interrogatory. Below, Facebook identifies the responsive

17

Objects, as well as other objects (more broadly defined), identified in the course of its inquiry. As

18

will be explained further below, these objects were created after the URL or message information

19

was received by and stored on a Facebook server, either before the sender sent the Subject Message

20

or after it was sent to and received by Facebook.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
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
11
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
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
13
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
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
14
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
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
16
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
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
17
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

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

DATED: October 28, 2015

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By:

20
21

/s/ Joshua A. Jessen
Joshua A. Jessen

Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

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

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 October 28, 2015, I served the following document(s):
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND 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]
Melissa Ann Gardner
[e-mail]
Nicholas Diamand
[e-mail]
Rachel Geman
[e-mail]
Michael W. Sobol
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
[e-mail]
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.

21
22
23
24

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.
Executed on October 28, 2015.

25
/s/ Jeana Bisnar Maute
Jeana Bisnar Maute

26
27
28
19
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

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