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 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
[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
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
[e-mail]
James Allen Carney
[e-mail]
Joseph Henry Bates, III
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
[e-mail]

12
13
14
15
16
17

Melissa Ann Gardner
[e-mail]
Nicholas Diamand
[e-mail]
Rachel Geman
[e-mail]
Michael W. Sobol
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
[e-mail]

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