Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 168

Declaration of Nikki Stitt Sokol in Support of 166 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Certification filed byFacebook Inc.. (Related document(s) 166 ) (Chorba, Christopher) (Filed on 2/23/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
JOSHUA A. JESSEN, SBN 222831
[e-mail]
JEANA BISNAR MAUTE, SBN 290573
[e-mail]
PRIYANKA RAJAGOPALAN, SBN 278504
[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
CHRISTOPHER CHORBA, SBN 216692
[e-mail]
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
FACEBOOK, INC.

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

OAKLAND DIVISON

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

MATTHEW CAMPBELL and MICHAEL
HURLEY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT
SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO.
166
HEARING:
Date:
March 16, 2016
Time:
9:00 A.M.
Location: Courtroom 3, Third Floor
The Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton

25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2

I, Nikki Stitt Sokol, declare as follows:
1.

I am Associate General Counsel for Litigation for Defendant Facebook, Inc.

3

(“Facebook”). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d) and the Amended Stipulated Protective Order

4

entered by the Court on July 1, 2015 (the “Protective Order”) (Dkt. No. 93), I submit this Declaration

5

in support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Re Plaintiffs’ Reply In Support Of

6

Class Certification (Dkt. No. 166), which seeks to file under seal (1) designated portions of Plaintiffs’

7

Reply In Support Of Motion For Class Certification (Dkt. No. 167); (2) designated portions of the

8

Rebuttal Report of Dr. Jennifer Golbeck In Support Of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification

9

(“Golbeck Rebuttal Report”), which is Exhibit 1 to Declaration of David Slade in support of

10

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Slade Declaration”); (3) designated portions of excerpts

11

from the deposition transcript of Plaintiff Matthew Campbell, which is Exhibit 2 to the Slade

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

Declaration; (4) designated portions of the Supplemental Declaration of Melissa Gardner in support
of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Supplemental Gardner Declaration”); (5) designated
portions of the Updated Report of Fernando Torres In Support Of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification (“Updated Torres Report”), which is Exhibit 9 to the Slade Declaration; and (6) Exhibits
6-8, 10-12, and 14-20 to the Slade Declaration in their entirety. Except as otherwise noted, I have
personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called and sworn as a witness,
could and would testify competently to them.
2.

Facebook respectfully requests that the Court allow the below-referenced documents

(or relevant portions of those documents) to be filed under seal due to their confidential nature. As
discussed with particularity below, the documents contain non-public, confidential, and proprietary
Facebook business information that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection
under the law, including information concerning the processes and functionality of Facebook’s source
code, messages technology, social plugin technology, security and anti-abuse products, Facebook’s
Recommendations and Activity Feed features, software, and other internal tools; Facebook internal
discussions of the business and engineering decisions regarding such technology, products, and tools;
and Facebook’s proprietary business metrics and analytics information.
1
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

3.

I respectfully request that Facebook’s requests to seal or not to seal the below-

2

referenced documents (or relevant portions of those documents) should not be construed as an

3

admission that the information marked for redaction by Plaintiffs is accurate. Plaintiffs’ Reply In

4

Support Of Class Certification (Dkt. 166) and supporting papers contain a number of misstatements.

5

Although I have denied certain allegations and misstatements below, nothing in my Declaration

6

constitutes an admission of any allegation marked for redaction by Plaintiffs.

7

4.

I respectfully submit that the presumption of access to judicial records does not apply

8

here because the documents at issue are being filed in connection with a non-dispositive motion, and

9

the Ninth Circuit has “carved out an exception to the presumption of access to judicial records. . .

10

[that is] expressly limited to judicial records filed under seal when attached to a non-dispositive

11

motion.” In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th

12

Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis in original); Real

13

Action Paintball, Inc. v. Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC, No. 14-CV-02435-MEJ, 2015 WL

14

1534049, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015) (the presumption of public access to judicial documents in

15

connection with dispositive motions “does not apply in the same way to non-dispositive motions”).

16

Accordingly, “‘[g]ood cause’ is the proper standard,” and “the party seeking protection bears the

17

burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Real

18

Action Paintball, Inc., 2015 WL 1534049, at *2; see also In re High- Tech Employee Antitrust Litig.,

19

No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, 2013 WL 163779, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2013) (“Plaintiffs’ Motion for

20

Class Certification is a non-dispositive motion. Therefore, the parties need only demonstrate ‘good

21

cause’ in order to support their requests to seal.”). A party shows good cause when, for example,

22

public disclosure of the materials would put the party at a competitive disadvantage. See, e.g., Oracle

23

USA, Inc. v. SAP AG, No. 07-cv-01658 PJH, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71365, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Aug.

24

12, 2009) (granting motion to seal where moving party “considered and treated the information

25

contained in the subject documents as confidential, commercially sensitive and proprietary” and

26

where “public disclosure of such information would create a risk of significant competitive injury and

27

particularized harm and prejudice”). Facebook respectfully submits this standard is satisfied. For the

28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

2
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

benefit of the Court, I discuss the documents by category, identify each piece of confidential

2

information submitted, and explain the specific harm that would come from its disclosure.

3

Plaintiffs’ Reply In Support Of Motion For Class Certification

4

5.

Good cause exists to seal portions of Plaintiffs’ Reply In Support Of Motion For Class

5

Certification. Specifically, the following portions contain non-public, confidential, and proprietary

6

Facebook business information that Facebook designated as HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

7

ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY pursuant to the Protective Order. The public does not at this time have

8

a meaningful interest in obtaining such information, and public disclosure of this information would

9

cause particularized harm to Facebook by allowing its competitors to access sensitive information,

10

which they could use to gain an unfair advantage against Facebook. Such information could also be

11

used by individuals or companies that might seek to compromise the security of Facebook’s

12

messages technology, causing harm to Facebook and the people who use Facebook’s services:

13
14

Sealable Portions
i:13

15

1:9-11

16

1:20-21

17

2:4

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

5:5-7
5:8-11
5:13-15
5:24-26
6:1-7

25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

6:10-13

Reason for Confidentiality
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed. Facebook
denies this allegation.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed. Facebook
denies these allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed. Facebook
denies this allegation.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
Facebook takes no position on whether the information designated by
Plaintiffs satisfies the requirements for sealing.
Facebook takes no position on whether the information designated by
Plaintiffs satisfies the requirements for sealing.
Facebook takes no position on whether the information designated by
Plaintiffs satisfies the requirements for sealing.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns Plaintiffs’ characterization of
the processes and functionality of Facebook’s source code, which is
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns Plaintiffs’ characterization of
the processes and functionality of Facebook’s source code, which is
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
Facebook denies these allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns Plaintiffs’ characterization of
the processes and functionality of Facebook’s source code, which is
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
3

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2

Sealable Portions
6:26-27, n.8

3
4

6:27-28, n.10

5
6

7:4-5

7
8

7:7-8
7:10-11

9
10
11
12

7:20-21

13
14

7:25-26

15
16

8:1-4

17
18
19

8:10
8:15

20
21

8:17-18

22
23
24
25

8:19
8:20-22

26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

9:1-3

Reason for Confidentiality
Facebook denies these allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs reflects a document which contains
detailed technical information about the functionality of Facebook’s messages
products and internal tools that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise
entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise
entitled to protection under the law. Facebook denies these allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns Plaintiffs’ characterization of
the processes and functionality of Facebook’s source code, which is
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed.
Only the text between “the specification of” and “that nullifies” needs to be
sealed.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook denies
these allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns Plaintiffs’ characterization of
the processes and functionality of Facebook’s source code, which is
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
Facebook denies these allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns Plaintiffs’ characterization of
the processes and functionality of Facebook’s source code, which is
4

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3

Sealable Portions
10:10-11

4
5

10:22

6
7

11:13-15

8
9

11:22-23, n.19

10
11

11:23-24, n.19

12
13

11:24-25, n.20

14
15
16

12:3
12:4-6

17
18
19

13:3

20

13:6

21

13:9

22

17:26-28, n.37
18:9-10

23
24
25
26

18:11-12
18:13-15
20:24-27, n.46

Reason for Confidentiality
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
Facebook denies these allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology and other internal tools that
is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the
law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook denies this
allegation.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs includes a Facebook internal
discussion of business and engineering decisions regarding Facebook’s
technology that is entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns Plaintiffs’ characterization of
the processes and functionality of Facebook’s messages technology and
source code, which is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to
protection under the law. Facebook denies these allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns a Facebook internal
discussion of business and engineering decisions regarding Facebook’s
technology that is entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs testimony is deposition testimony of a
Facebook employee and concerns the internal processes and functionality of
Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed. Facebook
denies this allegation.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed. Facebook
denies this allegation.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed. Facebook
denies this allegation.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed. Facebook
denies this allegation.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed.
Facebook takes no position on whether the information designated by
Plaintiffs satisfies the requirements for sealing. Facebook denies Plaintiffs’
characterization of the deposition testimony.

27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

5
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

The Golbeck Rebuttal Report

2

6.

Good cause exists to seal portions of the Golbeck Rebuttal Report. Specifically, the

3

following portions contain non-public, confidential, and proprietary Facebook business information

4

that Facebook designated as HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY or

5

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE pursuant to the Protective Order. The public does

6

not at this time have a meaningful interest in obtaining such information, and public disclosure of this

7

information would cause particularized harm to Facebook by allowing its competitors to access

8

sensitive information, which they could use to gain an unfair advantage against Facebook. Such

9

information could also be used by individuals or companies that might seek to compromise the

10

security of Facebook’s messages technology, causing harm to Facebook and the people who use

11

Facebook’s services.

12

Sealable Portions
i: 8-9

13
14

i: 9-10

15
16

2:7-8

17
18

2:8-9

19
20

2:11-15

21
22
23
24
25

2:16

26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

2:17-21

Reason for Confidentiality
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook denies
these allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. The redacted
information also contains information about a named Plaintiff’s Facebook
message, including the URL contained in that message. As the Magistrate
Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of such information “risks
subjecting the persons identified in this document to annoyance,
embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the public has no meaningful
need to obtain this information at this time.” (Dkt. No. 131).
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
6

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2

Sealable Portions
2:22

3
4

2:23-24

5
6

2:25-26

7
8
9
10
11

3:1-5
3:8-9
3:10-13

12
13

3:14-15

14
15
16
17

3:17-18
3:21-22

18
19
20
21

3:23-24

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

4:1-3

Reason for Confidentiality
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook denies
these allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. The redacted
information also contains information about the named Plaintiffs’ Facebook
messages. As the Magistrate Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of
such information “risks subjecting the persons identified in this document to
annoyance, embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the public has no
meaningful need to obtain this information at this time.” (Dkt. No. 131).
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. The redacted
information also contains information about the named Plaintiffs’ Facebook
messages. As the Magistrate Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of
such information “risks subjecting the persons identified in this document to
annoyance, embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the public has no
meaningful need to obtain this information at this time.” (Dkt. No. 131).
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. The redacted
information also contains information about the named Plaintiffs’ Facebook
7

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

Sealable Portions

2
3
4

4:4-6

5
6
7
8

4:8-10

9
10
11
12
13

4:12-14

14
15
16
17
18

4:15-17

19
20
21
22

4:18-20

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

4:21-23

Reason for Confidentiality
messages. As the Magistrate Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of
such information “risks subjecting the persons identified in this document to
annoyance, embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the public has no
meaningful need to obtain this information at this time.” (Dkt. No. 131).
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. The redacted
information also contains information about a named Plaintiff’s Facebook
message. As the Magistrate Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of
such information “risks subjecting the persons identified in this document to
annoyance, embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the public has no
meaningful need to obtain this information at this time.” (Dkt. No. 131).
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. The redacted
information also contains information about a named Plaintiff’s Facebook
message. As the Magistrate Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of
such information “risks subjecting the persons identified in this document to
annoyance, embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the public has no
meaningful need to obtain this information at this time.” (Dkt. No. 131).
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. The redacted
information also contains information about a named Plaintiff’s Facebook
message. As the Magistrate Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of
such information “risks subjecting the persons identified in this document to
annoyance, embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the public has no
meaningful need to obtain this information at this time.” (Dkt. No. 131).
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. The redacted
information also contains information about a named Plaintiff’s Facebook
message. As the Magistrate Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of
such information “risks subjecting the persons identified in this document to
annoyance, embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the public has no
meaningful need to obtain this information at this time.” (Dkt. No. 131).
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. The redacted
information also contains information about a named Plaintiff’s Facebook
message. As the Magistrate Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of
such information “risks subjecting the persons identified in this document to
annoyance, embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the public has no
meaningful need to obtain this information at this time.” (Dkt. No. 131).
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
8

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

Sealable Portions

2
3
4
5

5:1-3

6
7
8
9

5:5-6

10
11

5:6-9

12
13

5:11

14
15

5:12-13
5:14-15

16
17

5:16

18
19

5:18-20

20
21
22
23

5:20-21

24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

5:25-26

Reason for Confidentiality
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. The redacted
information also contains information about a named Plaintiff’s Facebook
message. As the Magistrate Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of
such information “risks subjecting the persons identified in this document to
annoyance, embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the public has no
meaningful need to obtain this information at this time.” (Dkt. No. 131).
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. The redacted
information also contains information about a named Plaintiff’s Facebook
message. As the Magistrate Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of
such information “risks subjecting the persons identified in this document to
annoyance, embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the public has no
meaningful need to obtain this information at this time.” (Dkt. No. 131).
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
Only the text between “an assumption that the” and “does not exist” and “it is
Facebook’s” and “for its Private Message service” needs to be redacted.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook denies
these allegations.
Only the text between “did not mention” and “by name in my” needs to be
redacted.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
9

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

Sealable Portions
5:26-27

6:14-17

Reason for Confidentiality
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs is from and references the Expert
Report of Dr. Benjamin Goldberg and concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology and internal tools that is
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs is from and references the Expert
Report of Dr. Benjamin Goldberg and concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology and internal tools that is
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
Only the text following “or outbox, Facebook” needs to be redacted.

6:20-23

The information redacted by Plaintiffs is from and references the Expert
Report of Dr. Benjamin Goldberg and concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology and internal tools that is
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
Facebook denies these allegations.
Only the text following “deletes her account, Facebook” needs to be redacted.

2
3
4

6:5
6:10-11

5
6

6:12-13

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

6:24-28

17
18
19
20

7:1-2
7:3-7

21
22
23

7:8-12

24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

7:15-19

The information redacted by Plaintiffs is from and references the Expert
Report of Dr. Benjamin Goldberg and concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology and internal tools that is
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
Facebook denies these allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs is from and references the Expert
Report of Dr. Benjamin Goldberg and concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology and internal tools that is
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed. Facebook
denies this allegation.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs is from and references the Expert
Report of Dr. Benjamin Goldberg and concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology and internal tools that is
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
Facebook denies these allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs is from the Expert Report of Dr.
Benjamin Goldberg and concerns the internal processes and functionality of
Facebook’s messages technology and internal tools that is protectable as a
trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook
denies these allegations.
Only the text between “a scenario where” and “Accordingly, a query” needs
to be redacted.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs references the Expert Report of Dr.
10

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

Sealable Portions

2
3
4

7:20-25

5
6
7
8

8:1-6

9
10

8:8-9

11
12

8:12-16

13
14

8:21-22

15
16

9:2-4

17
18

9:6-10

19
20
21

9:12

22
23

9:13-14

24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

9:21-24

Reason for Confidentiality
Benjamin Goldberg and concerns the internal processes and functionality of
Facebook’s messages technology and internal tools that is protectable as a
trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook
denies these allegations.
Only the text between “it will include” and “Accordingly, a query” needs to
be redacted.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs references the Expert Report of Dr.
Benjamin Goldberg and concerns the internal processes and functionality of
Facebook’s messages technology and internal tools that is protectable as a
trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook
denies these allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns Plaintiffs’ characterization of
the internal processes and functionality of Facebook’s messages technology
and source code that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to
protection under the law. Facebook denies these allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs references the Expert Report of Dr.
Benjamin Goldberg and concerns the internal processes and functionality of
Facebook’s messages technology and internal tools that is protectable as a
trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs is Plaintiffs’ characterization of the
Expert Report of Dr. Benjamin Goldberg and concerns the internal processes
and functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a
trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook
denies these allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook denies this
allegation.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs characterizes the Expert Report of Dr.
Benjamin Goldberg and concerns the internal processes and functionality of
Facebook’s messages technology and internal tools that is protectable as a
trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook
denies this allegation
11

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

Sealable Portions
9:25-28, n.15

2
3
4

10:1

5
6
7

10:4
10:5-6

8
9
10

10:7-10

11
12

10:11-12

13
14
15

10:13-21

16
17

11:8

18
19

11:9-12

20
21
22

11:13-14
11:15-16

23
24
25

11:17-20

26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

12:1-11

Reason for Confidentiality
The information redacted by Plaintiffs is from the Expert Report of Dr.
Benjamin Goldberg and concerns the internal processes and functionality of
Facebook’s messages technology and internal tools that is protectable as a
trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs characterizes the Expert Report of Dr.
Benjamin Goldberg and concerns the internal processes and functionality of
Facebook’s messages technology and internal tools that is protectable as a
trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook
denies this allegation.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed.
Only the text between “do not require” and “to function” needs to be sealed.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook denies this
allegation.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook denies this
allegation.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook denies
these allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs contains and characterizes information
from the declaration of a Facebook employee that concerns the processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook denies this
allegation.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed.
Only the text following “information about” needs to be sealed.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
12

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2

Sealable Portions
12:12

3
4

12:13-18

5
6
7

12:19-23

8
9
10

12:24-26

11
12
13
14
15

12:27-28, n.25
13:1-4

16
17
18
19

13:5-7

20
21
22
23

13:15-16
13:17-22

24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

13:27-28, n.31

Reason for Confidentiality
otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook denies this
allegation.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook denies these
allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs is from and characterizes the Expert
Report of Dr. Benjamin Goldberg and concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook denies these
allegations.
Only the portions between “Facebook’s” and “Dr. Goldberg states” and “in
his report that” and “processes” needs to be redacted.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs is from the Expert Report of Dr.
Benjamin Goldberg and concerns the internal processes and functionality of
Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise
entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
Only the portion between “any explanation of how the” and “was used”
needs to be redacted.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
Only the portion between “has pointed to of the data” and “as described in
my opening report” needs to be redacted.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed. Facebook
denies these allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs is from and characterizes the Expert
Report of Dr. Benjamin Goldberg and concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook denies these
allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs is from the deposition of Dr. Benjamin
Goldberg and concerns the processes and functionality of Facebook’s source
code that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection
13

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2

Sealable Portions
14:4-7

3
4
5

14:9-12
14:13-16

6
7
8

14:18-20

9
10

14:22-23

11
12
13

14:27-28

14
15

15:3-4

16
17
18

15:16-18

19
20
21

16:2-4

22
23

16:4-5

24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

16:6-11

Reason for Confidentiality
under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs reflects the declaration of a Facebook
engineer and concerns the internal processes and functionality of Facebook’s
messages technology that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled
to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs reflects the declaration of a Facebook
engineer and concerns the internal processes and functionality of Facebook’s
messages technology that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled
to protection under the law.
Only the text following “related to the generation of” needs to be redacted.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns Plaintiffs’ characterization of
the internal processes and functionality of Facebook’s messages technology
that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under
the law. Facebook denies this allegation.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns the internal processes and
functionality of Facebook’s messages technology that is protectable as a trade
secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook denies this
allegation.
Only the portion following “conceded that” needs to be redacted.
The information is from the deposition of Dr. Golbeck and concerns the
processes and functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a
trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs is Plaintiffs’ characterization of the
deposition testimony of Dr. Golbeck and concerns the processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook denies this
allegation.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs concerns Plaintiffs’ characterization of
the internal processes and functionality of Facebook’s messages technology
that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under
the law. Facebook denies this allegation.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs is Plaintiffs’ characterization of the
deposition testimony of Dr. Golbeck and concerns the processes and
functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable as a trade secret or
otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Facebook denies these
14

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2

Sealable Portions
16:25-27 n.40

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
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

Reason for Confidentiality
allegations.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs is from the deposition of Dr. Golbeck
and concerns the processes and functionality of Facebook’s source code that
is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the
law.

Excerpts from Deposition Transcript of Matthew Campbell (David Slade Declaration)
7.

Facebook takes no position on whether the designated excerpts of Plaintiff Matthew

Campbell’s deposition testimony (Exhibit 2 to the Slade Declaration) satisfy the requirements for
sealing.
Excerpts from Deposition Transcript of David Shadpour (Supplemental Gardner Declaration)
8.

Facebook takes no position on whether the designated excerpts of the Supplemental

Gardner Declaration satisfy the requirements for sealing.
9.

Facebook disputes Plaintiffs’ claim that Mr. Shadpour’s deposition testimony is “not

relevant to the merits of the case or class certification” because Mr. Shadpour is a former party to this
litigation. (Dkt. No. 166 at 3.) To the contrary, and as indicated in Facebook’s Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, it is well established that evidence from dismissed putative
class representatives remains relevant to the class certification inquiry. (Dkt. No. 149 at 16:25-17:3.)
The Updated Torres Report
10.

For the same reasons identified in my November 17, 2015 Declaration in Support of

Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Dkt. No. 137), good cause exists to
seal portions of the Updated Torres Report, which is Exhibit 9 to the Slade Declaration. Specifically,
the following portions contain non-public, confidential, and proprietary Facebook business
information that Facebook designated as HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES
ONLY pursuant to the Protective Order. The public does not at this time have a meaningful interest
in obtaining such information, and public disclosure of this information would cause particularized
harm to Facebook by allowing its competitors to access sensitive information, which they could use
to gain an unfair advantage against Facebook. Such information could also be used by individuals or
companies that might seek to compromise the security of Facebook’s messages technology, causing
harm to Facebook and the people who use Facebook’s services.
15
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4

Sealable Portions
3:7-9
3:13-14
12:1-9

5
6

12:11-12

7
8
9
10
11
12

12:22-23, n.54
12:24, n.55
13:5-8
19:22-23, n.83

13
14

The information concerns a Facebook internal discussion and analysis
regarding Facebook’s social plugin tools that is protectable as a trade secret
or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.

15
16
17

Reason for Confidentiality
As stated in my November 17, 2015 Declaration, the information redacted by
Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed.
As stated in my November 17, 2015 Declaration, this information concerns
the processes and functionality of Facebook’s source code that is protectable
as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
As stated in my November 17, 2015 Declaration, the information concerns a
Facebook presentation regarding Facebook’s social plugin tools that is
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
As stated in my November 17, 2015 Declaration, the information concerns a
Facebook internal discussion regarding Facebook’s social plugin tools that is
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
As stated in my November 17, 2015 Declaration, the information concerns a
Facebook internal discussion regarding Facebook’s social plugin tools that is
protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.
As stated in my November 17, 2015 Declaration, the information redacted by
Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed.
As stated in my November 17, 2015 Declaration, the information redacted by
Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed.
As stated in my November 17, 2015 Declaration, only the text between “an
internal Facebook report” and “According to Facebook Inc.’s” needs to be
redacted.

Exhibits to the Slade Declaration
11.

Good cause exists to seal Exhibits 7-8, 10-12, and 14-20 to the Slade Declaration (or

18

relevant portions of those documents), which are Exhibits L through W to the Gardner Declaration in

19

support of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal, for the reasons specified below. Specifically, the Exhibits

20

contain non-public, confidential, and proprietary Facebook business information that Facebook

21

designated as HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY or HIGHLY

22

CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE pursuant to the Protective Order. The public does not at this

23

time have a meaningful interest in obtaining such information, and public disclosure of this

24

information would cause particularized harm to Facebook by allowing its competitors to access

25

sensitive information, which they could use to gain an unfair advantage against Facebook. Such

26

information could also be used by individuals or companies that might seek to compromise the

27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

16
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

security of Facebook’s messages technology, causing harm to Facebook and the people who use

2

Facebook’s services.

3

12.

Plaintiffs also proposed to file Exhibit 6 to the Slade Declaration (Exhibit K to the

4

Gardner Declaration), which includes excerpts of former Plaintiff David Shadpour’s deposition

5

testimony, under seal in its entirety. Facebook takes no position on whether the designated excerpts

6

satisfy the requirements for sealing. However, Facebook specifically denies Plaintiffs’ claim that

7

good cause exists to seal Mr. Shadpour’s deposition testimony in its entirety on the grounds that the

8

testimony is not relevant because Mr. Shadpour “is no longer a party to this litigation” (Dkt. No. 166

9

at 3) for the same reason described in paragraph 9 above.

10
11
12

Document to Be Sealed
Exhibit L
(Slade Decl. Exhibit 7,
FB000005575)

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

Exhibit M
(Slade Decl. Exhibit 8, February
4, 2016 Alex Himel Deposition
Transcript)
Exhibit N
(Slade Decl. Exhibit 10,
December 18, 2015 Fernando
Torres Deposition Transcript)
Exhibit O
(Slade Decl. Exhibit 11, January
26, 2015 Dr. Catherine Tucker
Deposition Transcript)
Exhibit P
(Slade Decl. Exhibit 12,
February 2, 2016 Dr. Benjamin
Goldberg Deposition Transcript)

Reasons for Confidentiality
This document contains detailed technical information about
the functionality of Facebook’s messages products and internal
tools that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to
protection under the law. The document also contains
information about a named Plaintiff’s Facebook message,
including the time and date of the message. As the Magistrate
Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of such information
“risks subjecting the persons identified in this document to
annoyance, embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the
public has no meaningful need to obtain this information at this
time.” (Dkt. No. 131).
This document contains the deposition testimony of a Facebook
employee that concerns a Facebook internal discussion of
business and engineering decisions regarding Facebook’s
technology and the internal processes and functionality of
Facebook’s messages technology that is entitled to protection
under the law.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be
sealed.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be
sealed.
Only the text from page 80, line 1 through page 171, line 4
needs to be filed under seal.
The information concerns the processes and functionality of
Facebook’s source code, Facebook’s technology, internal
17

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

Document to Be Sealed

2
3
4

Exhibit Q
(Slade Decl. Exhibit 14,
FB000005577)

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Exhibit R
(Slade Decl. Exhibit 15,
FB000005800)

12
13
14
15
16
17

Exhibit S
(Slade Decl. Exhibit 16,
FB000005882)

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

Exhibit T
(Slade Decl. Exhibit 17,
FB000006007)

Reasons for Confidentiality
processes and functionality of Facebook’s messages technology
as well discussions of declarations of Facebook’s employees
regarding the same that is entitled to protection under the law.
This document contains detailed technical information about
the functionality of Facebook’s messages products and internal
tools that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to
protection under the law. The document also contains
information about a named Plaintiff’s Facebook message,
including the time and date of the message. As the Magistrate
Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of such information
“risks subjecting the persons identified in this document to
annoyance, embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the
public has no meaningful need to obtain this information at this
time.” (Dkt. No. 131).
This document contains detailed technical information about
the functionality of Facebook’s messages products and internal
tools that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to
protection under the law. The document also contains
information about a named Plaintiff’s Facebook message,
including the time and date of the message. As the Magistrate
Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of such information
“risks subjecting the persons identified in this document to
annoyance, embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the
public has no meaningful need to obtain this information at this
time.” (Dkt. No. 131).
This document contains detailed technical information about
the functionality of Facebook’s messages products and internal
tools that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to
protection under the law. The document also contains
information about a named Plaintiff’s Facebook message,
including the time and date of the message. As the Magistrate
Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of such information
“risks subjecting the persons identified in this document to
annoyance, embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the
public has no meaningful need to obtain this information at this
time.” (Dkt. No. 131).
This document contains detailed technical information about
the functionality of Facebook’s messages products and internal
tools that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to
protection under the law. The document also contains
information about a named Plaintiff’s Facebook message,
including the time and date of the message. As the Magistrate
Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of such information
“risks subjecting the persons identified in this document to
annoyance, embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the
public has no meaningful need to obtain this information at this
time.” (Dkt. No. 131).
18

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3

Document to Be Sealed
Exhibit U
(Slade Decl. Exhibit 18,
FB000006088)

4
5
6
7
8
9

Exhibit V
(Slade Decl. Exhibit 19,
FB000012006)

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Exhibit W
(Slade Decl. Exhibit 20,
FB000012557)

Reasons for Confidentiality
This document contains detailed technical information about
the functionality of Facebook’s messages products and internal
tools that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to
protection under the law. The document also contains
information about a named Plaintiff’s Facebook message,
including the time and date of the message. As the Magistrate
Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of such information
“risks subjecting the persons identified in this document to
annoyance, embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the
public has no meaningful need to obtain this information at this
time.” (Dkt. No. 131).
This document contains detailed technical information about
the functionality of Facebook’s messages products and internal
tools that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to
protection under the law. The document also contains
information about a named Plaintiff’s Facebook message,
including the time and date of the message. As the Magistrate
Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of such information
“risks subjecting the persons identified in this document to
annoyance, embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the
public has no meaningful need to obtain this information at this
time.” (Dkt. No. 131).
This document contains detailed technical information about
the functionality of Facebook’s messages products and internal
tools that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to
protection under the law. The document also contains
information about a named Plaintiff’s Facebook message,
including the time and date of the message. As the Magistrate
Judge noted in her prior order, the exposure of such information
“risks subjecting the persons identified in this document to
annoyance, embarrassment, or other significant harm, and the
public has no meaningful need to obtain this information at this
time.” (Dkt. No. 131).

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I executed this Declaration in Menlo
Park, California on February 23, 2016.
/s/ Nikki Stitt Sokol
Nikki Stitt Sokol

24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

19
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION
I, Christopher Chorba, attest that concurrence in the filing of this Declaration of Nikki Stitt

3

Sokol has been obtained from the signatory. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

4

United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 23rd day of February

5

2016, in Los Angeles, California.

6
7

Dated: February 23, 2016

/s/ Christopher Chorba
Christopher Chorba

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

20
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL – DKT. NO. 166
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH