Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 179

Joint Notice of Refiling of Documents Accompanying Class Certification Briefs and Evidentiary Objections. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Redacted), # 2 Exhibit 2 (Redacted), # 3 Exhibit 3 (Redacted), # 4 Exhibit 4 (Redacted), # 5 Exhibit 5 (Redacted), # 6 Exhibit 6 (Redacted), # 7 Exhibit 7 (Redacted), # 8 Exhibit 8 (Unredacted), # 9 Exhibit 9 (Unredacted), # 10 Exhibit 10 (Redacted), # 11 Exhibit 11 (Redacted), # 12 Exhibit 12 (Redacted), # 13 Exhibit 13 (Redacted), # 14 Exhibit 14 (Redacted), # 15 Exhibit 15 (Redacted), # 16 Exhibit 16 (Redacted), # 17 Exhibit 17 (Redacted), # 18 Exhibit 18 (Redacted), # 19 Exhibit 19 (Unredacted), # 20 Exhibit 20 (Redacted), # 21 Exhibit 21 (Redacted), # 22 Exhibit 22 (Unredacted), # 23 Exhibit 23 (Redacted), # 24 Exhibit 24 (Redacted), # 25 Exhibit 25 (Unredacted))(Chorba, Christopher) (Filed on 3/28/2016) Modified on 3/29/2016 (kcS, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT R8

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
t 415.956.1000
f 415.956.1008

April 10, 2015

VIA E-MAIL
Joshua Jessen, Esq.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Christopher Chorba, Esq.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
RE:

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

Dear Josh:
I write in response to your April 7, 2015 letter regarding Plaintiffs’ interrogatory
responses.

Plaintiffs’ Responses to Interrogatory No. 3
As is evident from the responses themselves, Plaintiffs devoted significant time and
effort to providing detailed responses to Facebook’s Interrogatory No. 3. Indeed,
Mr. Campbell’s response contained over 800 detailed entries listing the sender, recipient, date
and time, and URL associated with each Facebook message.
While Facebook’s demands for even more detailed information are burdensome and
harassing, in the interest of compromise Plaintiffs will provide more detailed information for the
senders and/or recipients of the relevant Facebook messages. While Plaintiffs will make every
effort to provide this information expeditiously, given the work-intensive nature of the
responses Facebook seeks and the numbers of senders and recipients involved, Plaintiffs cannot
commit to providing this information by a date certain of April 14.

Plaintiffs’ Responses to Interrogatory No. 5
Plaintiffs maintain their general and specific objections to this Interrogatory.
Additionally, Facebook’s demand for “all facts” is vague, overly broad, inherently burdensome,

San Francisco

New York

Nashville

www.lieffcabraser.com

Joshua Jessen, Esq.
Christopher Chorba, Esq.
April 10, 2015
Page 2
seeks irrelevant information, and is in principle unanswerable. See Haggarty v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., No. 10-2416 CRB JSC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133375, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012)
(“While contention interrogatories are permitted, they ‘are often overly broad and unduly
burdensome when they require a party to state ‘every fact' or ‘all facts' supporting identified
allegations or defenses.’”) (quoting Mancini v. Ins. Corp. of New York, No. 07-1750 L NLS,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51321, at *9 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2009)).
Subject to and without waiving these objections, Plaintiffs supplement their responses to
Facebook’s Interrogatory No. 5 as follows:
1. Mr. Campbell: Mr. Campbell first learned of the facts concerning Facebook’s
scanning of private messages in the manner alleged in the complaint on October 30,
2013 upon receipt of a private message sent via Facebook by David Slade. Mr.
Campbell was not aware of Facebook’s scanning of private messages in the manner
alleged in the complaint prior to learning of those facts from Mr. Slade.
2. Mr. Hurley: Mr. Hurley first learned of the facts concerning Facebook’s scanning
of private messages in the manner alleged in the complaint in or around midDecember 2013 during a telephone conversation with Melissa Gardner. Mr. Hurley
was not aware of Facebook’s scanning of private messages in the manner alleged in
the complaint prior to learning of those facts from Ms. Gardner.
3. Mr. Shadpour: Mr. Shadpour first learned of the facts concerning Facebook’s
scanning of private messages in the manner alleged in the complaint in or around
October or November 2013 during a telephone conversation with Lesley Portnoy.
Mr. Shadpour was not aware of Facebook’s scanning of private messages in the
manner alleged in the complaint prior to learning of those facts from Mr. Portnoy.

Plaintiffs’ Responses to Facebook’s Contention Interrogatories (Interrogatory Nos. 6 & 7;
Plaintiff Campbell’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13; Plaintiff
Shadpour’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 9, 10, and 11)
We disagree with Facebook’s assertion that it is entitled to more detailed responses to its
contention interrogatories at this stage in the case, before any substantive discovery has taken
place. Given that Facebook has yet to produce a single non-public document or a single line of
source code, discovery in this case has only just begun and is nowhere near substantial, let alone
substantially complete. We agree that it is appropriate for the parties to meet and confer
regarding Plaintiffs’ responses to Facebook’s contention interrogatories. Please provide us times
during which you are available to meet and confer.

Joshua Jessen, Esq.
Christopher Chorba, Esq.
April 10, 2015
Page 3
Sincerely,

David T. Rudolph
DTR/wp
1225373.1