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).

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 45 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 JJessen@gibsondunn.com JEANA BISNAR MAUTE, SBN 290573 JBisnarMaute@gibsondunn.com ASHLEY M. ROGERS, SBN 286252 ARogers@gibsondunn.com 1881 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 849-5300 Facsimile: (650) 849-5333 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP GAIL E. LEES, SBN 90363 GLees@gibsondunn.com CHRISTOPHER CHORBA, SBN 216692 CChorba@gibsondunn.com 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 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 SUPPLEMENTAL 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 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. 8 9 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 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 1 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 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. 18 19 OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS 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. 14 15 16 17 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 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. 9 10 11 SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS 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 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 DATED: September 8, 2015 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP By: 26 27 28 /s/ Joshua A. Jessen Joshua A. Jessen Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC. 46 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 PROOF OF SERVICE 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): DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES on the parties stated below, by the following means of service: David F. Slade dslade@cbplaw.com James Allen Carney acarney@cbplaw.com Joseph Henry Bates, III Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC hbates@cbplaw.com 12 13 14 15 16 17 Melissa Ann Gardner mgardner@lchb.com Nicholas Diamand ndiamand@lchb.com Rachel Geman rgeman@lchb.com Michael W. Sobol Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP msobol@lchb.com 18 20 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 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

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?