Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 181

Joint Administrative Motion to Seal Documents Accompanying Class Certification Briefs and Evidentiary Objections filed by Facebook Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melissa Gardner Re Joint Administrative Motion to Seal Documents Accompanying Class Certification Briefs and Evidentiary Objections, # 2 Declaration of Nikki Stitt Sokol In Support of the Joint Administrative Motion to Seal Documents Accompanying Class Certification Briefs and Evidentiary Objections, # 3 [Proposed] Order, # 4 Exhibit 1 (Unredacted), # 5 Exhibit 2 (Redacted), # 6 Exhibit 3 (Unredacted), # 7 Exhibit 4 (Redacted), # 8 Exhibit 5 (Unredacted), # 9 Exhibit 6 (Redacted), # 10 Exhibit 7 (Unredacted), # 11 Exhibit 8 (Redacted), # 12 Exhibit 9 (Unredacted), # 13 Exhibit 10 (Redacted))(Chorba, Christopher) (Filed on 3/28/2016) Modified on 3/29/2016 (kcS, COURT STAFF).

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

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

Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT
SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF THE JOINT
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING CLASS
CERTIFICATION BRIEFS AND
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Defendant.

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

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF THE JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFS AND EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
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 the Court’s instructions at the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class

4

Certification held on March 16, 2016, the Minute Order dated March 16, 2016 (Dkt. 174), Civil Local

5

Rules 7-11 and 79-5(b)-(d), and the Amended Stipulated Protective Order dated July 1, 2015

6

(Dkt. 93), I submit this Declaration in support of the information Facebook seeks to seal in the

7

parties’ Joint Administrative Motion to File Documents Accompanying Class Certification Briefs and

8

Evidentiary Objections Under Seal. The requested relief is narrowly tailored, and there are

9

compelling reasons to protect the confidentiality of certain Facebook information contained in

10

documents accompanying Facebook’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. See

11

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006); see also In re

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

Google Inc. Gmail Litig., No. 13-02430-LHK, 2013 WL 5366963, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013);
Transperfect Glob., Inc. v. Motionpoint Corp., No. 10-2590 CW, 2013 WL 209678, at *1 (N.D. Cal.
Jan. 17, 2013). 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.

The Motion to Seal sets forth the documents Facebook is seeking to be sealed,

including the following:
(a) designated portions of Exhibits 2 and 5 to the Declaration of Melissa Gardner in support of
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Gardner Cert. Declaration”);
(b) designated portions of Exhibits C, D, EE, and JJ to the Declaration of Christopher Chorba
In Support of Defendant Facebook, Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification
(“Chorba Declaration”);
(c) designated portions of the Declaration of Alex Himel In Support of Facebook’s Opposition
to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Himel Declaration”);
(d) designated portions of Exhibits MM and OO to the Himel Declaration;
(e) designated portions of the Declaration of Michael Adkins In Support of Facebook’s
Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Adkins Declaration”);
1
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF THE JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFS AND EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

1

(f) designated portions of the Expert Report of Dr. Benjamin Goldberg, submitted in

2

connection with Facebook’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Goldberg

3

Report”);

4

(g) designated portions of the Declaration of Dan Fechete In Support of Facebook’s

5

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Fechete Declaration”);

6

(h) designated portions of Exhibit PP to the Fechete Declaration;

7

(i) Exhibits QQ, RR, SS, TT, UU, VV, WW, XX, YY, ZZ, and AAA to the Fechete

8
9
10

Declaration;
(j) designated portions of Exhibits 1 and 12 to the Declaration of David Slade in Support of
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Slade Declaration”); and

11

(k) designated portions of the Declaration of Alex Himel In Support of Facebook’s Objection

12

to and Request to Strike New Evidence and Misstatements of Fact in Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support Of

13

Their Motion For Class Certification (“Himel Declaration II”).

14

Because there are compelling reasons to permit filing this confidential information under seal,

15

the Court should grant the joint administrative motion. For the Court’s convenience, I discuss the

16

confidential information to be sealed in three categories below.

17

Information Concerning Facebook’s Confidential Security and Anti-Abuse Systems

18

3.

There are compelling reasons to seal portions of Exhibit 2 to the Gardner Cert.

19

Declaration (Exhibit 31 to the Motion to Seal); Exhibit JJ to the Chorba Declaration (Exhibit 33 to

20

the Motion to Seal); Exhibit MM to the Himel Declaration (Exhibit 35 to the Motion to Seal); the

21

Adkins Declaration (Exhibit 37 to the Motion to Seal); and the Goldberg Report (Exhibit 39 to the

22

Motion to Seal). Specifically, the portions identified below contain non-public, confidential, and

23

proprietary Facebook business information that is protectable as a trade secret, as it concerns the

24

processes and functionality of Facebook’s confidential security and anti-abuse products and systems.

25

Facebook’s main priority is ensuring that the people who use Facebook are protected and that their

26

accounts are secure. The information that Facebook seeks to seal could be used by individuals or

27

companies that might seek to compromise the security of Facebook’s messages and other technology,

28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

2
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF THE JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFS AND EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

1

causing harm to Facebook and the people who use Facebook’s services. Facebook and its user base

2

present an attractive target for hackers and other criminals. See, e.g., Ellis Hamburger, “Inside

3

Facebook Security: Defending Users from Spammers, Hackers, and ‘Likejackers,’” The Verge (May

4

25, 2012), available at http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/25/2996321/inside-facebook-likejackers-

5

spammers-hackers. Indeed, as Facebook has previously explained in public-facing materials,

6

Facebook does not (and cannot) share all of the specific details of how its security, spam, and abuse

7

prevention systems operate, because this information could help provide a roadmap to hackers and

8

others who seek to harm Facebook and people who use the service. Specifically, this information

9

could help wrongdoers build and implement “workarounds” designed to thwart safety mechanisms.

10

The public does not have a meaningful interest in obtaining information that could compromise the

11

security of user accounts. Further, the public disclosure of this information would cause

12

particularized harm to Facebook by allowing its competitors to access the specifics of Facebook’s

13

business, which they could use to gain an unfair advantage against Facebook.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Document
Exhibit 2 to the Gardner
Declaration 1
(Ex. 31 to Mot. to Seal)
Exhibit JJ to the Chorba
Declaration 2
(Ex. 33 to Mot. to Seal)
Exhibit MM to the Himel
Declaration
(Ex. 35 to Mot. to Seal)
1

24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

2

Sealable Portions
31:11-12; 31:14-22; 31:24-32:1; 32:3-6; and 32:26-28

45:17-18; 45:24; 54:4; 54:13; 75:5; 75:5-76:10; 76:18; 76:1977:6; 77:11; 77:12; 77:13; 77:13-14; 77:16; 77:17; 77:19;
77:24-25; 118:23-119:2; Errata p. 1 (lines 1-3; and Errata p. 2
(at 48:20-23; and 76:24)
15:14; 15:14-17; 15:17; 15:17-18; 15:18-20; and 15:21-22

Facebook also redacted source code in this document (see pp. 6:15-18, 6:21-22; 7:9-16; 10:15-17;
10:19-20; 10:22-23; 10:25-26; 11:1-2, 11:4-6; 11:7; 12:5-6; 13:19; 14:13-14; 14:25-26; 15:4-5;
15:10-11; 15:23; 15:25; 15:27; 16:1; 16:3; 16:8; 16:13; 23:10-26; 24:1-14; 26:23-24; 27:18-24;
28:24-26; and 29:4-9), and Plaintiffs also redacted the name and Facebook ID of one of the
Named Plaintiffs (see 28:9-10, 11, 28:12, and 28:13). Pursuant to the Court’s previous order,
these redactions do not require the Court’s further approval. (Dkt. 174.)
Facebook also redacted source code in this document (see pp. 75:1; 75:3-4; 76:11; and 77:21).
Pursuant to the Court’s previous order, these redactions do not require the Court’s further
approval. (Dkt. 174.)
3

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF THE JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFS AND EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2

Document
Adkins Declaration 3
(Ex. 37 to Mot. to Seal)

3
4
5
6
7
8

Goldberg Report 4
(Ex. 39 to Mot. to Seal)

Sealable Portions
1:7; 1:11; 1:14-17; 1:20; 1:21; 1:23; 1:24; 1:27; 2:3; 2:3-5; 2:6;
2:11; 2:14; 2:15; 2:16; 2:17-22; 2:23-27; 3:1; 3:2-3; 3:7-8; 3:9;
3:10; 3:11-12; 3:12-13; 3:14-15; 3:16; 3:18-19; 3:20-22; 3:2427; 4:1-2; 4:3-6; 4:6-7; 4:7; 4:8-9; 4:10-11; 4:13-14; 4:17-18;
4:19; 4:21; 4:22-24; 4:24-27; 5:1-3; 5:3-5; 5:13-14; 5:18; 5:1922; 5:22-23; 5:25-27; 6:1; 6:9-12; 6:13-16; 6:17; 6:18-19;
6:21-27; 7:1; 7:2; 7:3; 7:4; 7:5-6; 7:7-8; 7:9-11; 7:14-16; 7:1719; 7:24-26; 8:8-10; 8:11-15; and 8:17-21
¶ 102

Information Concerning Facebook’s Documentation of Changes to Source Code
4.

9

There are compelling reasons to seal Exhibits QQ, RR, SS, TT, UU, VV, WW, XX,

10

YY, ZZ, and AAA to the Fechete Declaration (Exhibits 31-51 to the Motion to Seal) in their entirety,

11

and designated portions of Exhibit OO to the Himel Declaration (Exhibit 52 to the Mot. to Seal), as

12

identified in the chart below. Specifically, the documents contain “Diffs” (or “differentials”) that

13

constitute non-public, confidential, and proprietary Facebook source code and Facebook internal

14

documentation of changes to source code. This information effectively demonstrates Facebook’s

15

source code functionality that is protectable as a trade secret. Facebook treats this information in

16

these documents as a valuable trade secret, given that it has invested millions of dollars in

17

conjunction with the development of this code, including by providing it with the highest level of

18

protection and security within Facebook. Most importantly, such information relates to code utilizing

19

information about user activity on Facebook and could be used by individuals or companies that

20

might seek to compromise the security of that information and technology, causing harm to Facebook

21

and the people who use Facebook’s services. The public does not have a meaningful interest in

22

obtaining such information. The public disclosure of this information would cause particularized

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

3
4

Facebook also redacted source code in this document (see pp. 3:9; 4:16; 4:21; 4:22). Pursuant to
the Court’s previous order, these redactions do not require the Court’s approval. (Dkt. 174.)
Facebook also redacted source code in this document (see ¶¶ 33, 34, 35, 36, 40 41, 45, 46, 50, and
56). Pursuant to the Court’s previous order, these redactions do not require the Court’s approval.
(Dkt. 174.)
4

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF THE JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFS AND EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

1

harm to Facebook by allowing its competitors to access Facebook’s source code, which they could

2

use to gain an unfair advantage against Facebook.

3
4
5
6
7

Document
Sealable Portions
Exhibit OO to the Himel Declaration Exhibits A through G
(Ex. 52 to Mot. to Seal)
Information Concerning Names of Internal Tables in Facebook’s Databases
5.

There are compelling reasons to seal portions of Exhibit 5 to the Gardner Cert.

8

Declaration (Exhibit 54 to the Motion to Seal); Exhibits C, D, and EE to the Chorba Declaration

9

(Exhibits 56, 58, and 60 to the Motion to Seal); the Himel Declaration (Exhibit 62 to the Motion to

10

Seal); the Goldberg Report (Exhibit 39 to the Motion to Seal); the Fechete Declaration (Exhibit 64 to

11

the Motion to Seal); Exhibit PP to the Fechete Declaration (Exhibit 66 to the Motion to Seal);

12

Exhibits 1 and 12 to the Slade Declaration (Exhibits 69 and 70 to the Motion to Seal); and the Himel

13

Declaration II (Exhibit 72 to the Motion to Seal), as identified in the chart below. Specifically, these

14

materials reflect names of internal tables in Facebook’s databases, which contain (or may have

15

contained) sensitive data and constitute non-public, confidential, and proprietary Facebook business

16

information that is protectable as a trade secret. This information constitutes a trade secret because it

17

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

18

messages and other technology, causing significant harm to Facebook and the people who use

19

Facebook’s services. The internal table names—and the databases in which they exist—are

20

referenced within Facebook’s proprietary source code and indicate both the schema for Facebook’s

21

internal databases (i.e., how they are structured) and—more importantly—where particular data or

22

types of data are (or were) stored. As indicated in paragraph 3 above, Facebook and its user base

23

present an attractive target for criminals and others with malicious intentions. Accordingly, revealing

24

the table names could provide a roadmap that would assist an unauthorized individual who illicitly

25

obtained access to Facebook’s internal systems in determining where sensitive data—including user

26

information—is (or was) stored, how it is (or was) stored, and how to access it. Limiting access to

27

user data and respecting the privacy and sensitivity of such data are extremely important and of

28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

5
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF THE JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFS AND EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

1

paramount importance within Facebook, as well as to the public. Accordingly, the public does not

2

have a meaningful interest in obtaining such information. Moreover, the public disclosure of this

3

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

4

the details of Facebook’s internal tools, which they could use to gain an unfair advantage against

5

Facebook.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Document
Exhibit 5 to the Gardner Declaration 5
(Ex. 54 to Mot. to Seal)
Exhibit C to the Chorba Declaration
(Ex. 56 to Mot. to Seal)
Exhibit D to the Chorba Declaration
(Ex. 58 to Mot. to Seal)
Exhibit EE to the Chorba Declaration 6
(Ex. 60 to Mot. to Seal)
Himel Declaration 7
(Ex. 62 to Mot. to Seal)
Goldberg Report 8
(Ex. 39 to Mot. to Seal)
Fechete Declaration 9
(Ex. 64 to Mot. to Seal)

18
19

5

20
21
22

6

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

7
8
9

Sealable Portions
232:14
pp. 4, 8
pp. 4, 7
293:6; 292:23; 293:6; 293:7, 293:17; 294:6; 295:16;
295:22; 296:4; 342:19; 342:21; 343:9; and 343:14
ii.13; ii.14; ii.14; 1:9; 13:22; 13:25; 13:27; 14:3; 14:5;
14:5; 14:10; 14:17; 14:18; 14:19; 14:22; 14:26; 15:2;
15:2; 15:9; and 19:24
Table of Contents at 24, 30; ¶ 9; Heading “B” at p. 24; ¶
43; ¶ 44; Subheading 2 at p. 30; ¶ 56; Bullet 1 on p. 36; ¶
80; and ¶ 101;
5:4; 5:5; 5:7; 5:9; 5:10; 5:12; 6:22; 6:23; 6:24; 7:1; 7:4;
7:4; 9:1; 9:8; 9:12; 9:13; 10:5; 10:5; 11:8; 11: 15; and
11:15

Facebook also redacted names of non-parties (specifically, Facebook employees) (see pp. 226:5;
230:22), and the Facebook ID of a non-party (specifically, a Facebook employee) (see p. 270:3)
in this document. Pursuant to the Court’s previous order, these redactions do not require the
Court’s further approval. (Dkt. 174.)
Facebook also redacted source code (see pp. 294:4; 305:20; 307:22; 308:5) and the names of nonparties (specifically, Facebook employees) (see pp. 152:5; 152:9; 153:1; 153:3; 175:8; 175:16;
176:11; 176:12; 176:13; 176:18; 177:5; 177:13; 227:19; 227:21; 285:17; 288:14; 292:21; and
293:1) in this document. Pursuant to the Court’s previous order, these redactions do not require
the Court’s further approval. (Dkt. 174.)
Facebook also redacted source code (see pp. 14:5) in this document. Pursuant to the Court’s
previous order, this redaction does not require the Court’s further approval. (Dkt. 174.)
As indicated in Footnote 4, Facebook also redacted source code in this document.
Facebook also redacted source code (see pp. 4 n.2 and 4 n.3) in this document. Pursuant to the
Court’s previous order, these redactions do not require the Court’s further approval. (Dkt. 174.)
6

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF THE JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFS AND EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Document
Exhibit PP to the Fechete Declaration
(Ex. 66 to Mot. to Seal)
Exhibit 1 to the Slade Declaration 10
(Ex. 68 to Mot. to Seal)
Exhibit 12 to the Slade Declaration
(Ex. 70 to Mot. to Seal)
Himel Declaration II
(Ex. 72 to Mot. to Seal)

Sealable Portions
p. 1 at ***
i.9; 9:25; 10:20; 11:8; 11:9; 11:12; 11:18; 11:18; 11:19;
12:13; 12:20; 12:22; 12:25; 13:3; and 13:6
139:1; 139:5; 139:8; 139:11; 140:1; 140:2; 140:4;
140:16; 140:18; 141:8; 142:1; 142:19; 143:1; 144:9; and
143:13
2:9; 2;11; 2:19; 2:20; 2:23; 2:24; and 2:24

8
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the

9
10

State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I executed this Declaration in Menlo

11

Park, California on March 28, 2016.

12

/s/ Nikki Stitt Sokol
Nikki Stitt Sokol

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

10

The document also contains redactions by both Facebook and Plaintiffs that do not require the
Court’s further approval (see Dkt. 174), because Facebook’s redactions are of source code (see
pp. 8:2; 11:19; 12:1-3; 12:5; 12:6; 12:8-11; and 12:22), and Plaintiffs’ redaction is of the
Facebook ID of one of the Named Plaintiffs (see pp. 2:13).
7

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF THE JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFS AND EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
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 28th day of March

5

2016, in Los Angeles, California.

6
7

/s/ Christopher Chorba
Christopher Chorba

Dated: March 28, 2016

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

8
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF THE JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING CLASS CERTIFICATION BRIEFS AND EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH