Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 160

EXHIBITS re 149 Opposition/Response to Motion,,,,, filed byFacebook Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Chorba Decl. - Exhibit Y, # 2 Chorba Decl. - Exhibit Z, # 3 Chorba Decl. - Exhibit AA, # 4 Chorba Decl. - Exhibit BB (Redacted), # 5 Chorba Decl. - Exhibit CC (Redacted), # 6 Chorba Decl. - Exhibit DD (Redacted), # 7 Chorba Decl. - Exhibit EE (Redacted), # 8 Chorba Decl. - Exhibit FF (filed under seal), # 9 Chorba Decl. - Exhibit GG (filed under seal), # 10 Chorba Decl. - Exhibit HH (filed under seal), # 11 Chorba Decl. - Exhibit II (Redacted), # 12 Chorba Decl. - Exhibit JJ (Redacted), # 13 Chorba Decl. - Exhibit KK (filed under seal), # 14 Chorba Decl. - Exhibit LL (filed under seal))(Related document(s) 149 ) (Chorba, Christopher) (Filed on 1/16/2016)

EXHIBIT AA

Joshua A. Jessen
Direct: +1 949.451.4114
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Client: 30993-00028

June 12, 2015
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
David Rudolph, Esq.
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Re:

Campbell v. Facebook, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case No. 13-cv-05996-PJH

Dear David:
Thank you for your letter of June 5, 2015.
First, as I noted in my May 13, 2015 letter to Hank Bates, in response to Plaintiffs’ offer to
compromise, Facebook will produce documents through an end date of December 30, 2013.
Second, with respect to a production start date, while the Himel Declaration does discuss
certain events dating back to September 2009 to provide context for the practice that
Plaintiffs challenge, the exhibits to the Declaration show that the challenged practice did not
commence until August 2010. However, in the interests of compromise, we are amenable to
a production start date of April 2010, as proposed by Hank in his letter of April 7, 2015. If
there are specific requests or custodians for whom Plaintiffs believe an earlier start date is
appropriate, we are willing to discuss that with you. But an en masse collection and
production of documents going back to 2009 is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and
inappropriate, and also would be inconsistent with the proportionality requirement in Rule
26(b)(2)(C) and (g)(1)(B), the Stipulated Order re Discovery of Electronically Stored
Information in this case (Dkt. 74), as well as the District Court’s ESI Guideline 1.03.
Finally, we are still in the process of determining what legal obligations (including
notification obligations) may exist with respect to potentially producing any communications
///
///
///

David Rudolph, Esq.
June 12, 2015
Page 2

exchanged between Facebook and the Irish Data Protection Commissioner regarding
Facebook’s Messages Product. I expect to have a better idea of those obligations next week
and will revert to you at that time.
Sincerely,

Joshua A. Jessen