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).
EXHIBIT 20
UNREDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT(S) SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
JOSHUA A. JESSEN, SBN 222831
JJessen@gibsondunn.com
JEANA BISNAR MAUTE, SBN 290573
JBisnarMaute@gibsondunn.com
ASHLEY M. ROGERS, SBN 286252
ARogers@gibsondunn.com
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 849-5300
Facsimile: (650) 849-5333
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
GAIL E. LEES, SBN 90363
GLees@gibsondunn.com
CHRISTOPHER CHORBA, SBN 216692
CChorba@gibsondunn.com
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
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,
Plaintiffs,
20
21
v.
22
FACEBOOK, INC.,
23
Defendant.
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NARROWED SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
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’ Narrowed
5
Second Set of Interrogatories (the “Interrogatories”).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
6
7
1.
Facebook’s responses to the Interrogatories are made to the best of Facebook’s current
8
knowledge, information, and belief. Facebook reserves the right to supplement or amend any of its
9
responses should future investigation indicate that such supplementation or amendment is necessary.
10
2.
Facebook’s responses to the Interrogatories are made solely for the purpose of and in
11
relation to this action. Each response is given subject to all appropriate objections (including, but not
12
limited to, objections concerning privilege, competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and
13
admissibility). All objections are reserved and may be interposed at any time.
14
15
16
3.
Facebook’s responses are premised 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 below
17
into each and every specific response. From time to time, a specific response may repeat a general
18
objection for emphasis or some other reason. The failure to include any general objection in any
19
specific response shall not be interpreted as a waiver of any general objection to that response.
20
5.
Nothing contained in these Reponses and Objections or provided in response to the
21
Interrogatories consists of, or should be construed as, an admission relating to the accuracy,
22
relevance, existence, or nonexistence of any alleged facts or information referenced in any
23
Interrogatory.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
24
25
1.
Facebook objects to each Interrogatory, including the Definitions and Instructions, to
26
the extent that it purports to impose obligations beyond those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil
27
Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Civil Rules of the U.S. District Court for the
28
Northern District of California, and any agreements between the parties.
1
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2.
Facebook objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it is not limited to the
2
relevant time period, thus making the Interrogatory overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
3
relevant to the claims or defenses in this action. Unless otherwise specified in its responses, and
4
pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Facebook’s responses will be limited to information
5
generated between April 1, 2010 and December 30, 2013.
6
3.
Facebook objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information unrelated
7
and irrelevant to the claims or defenses in this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
8
discovery of admissible evidence.
9
4.
Facebook objects to each Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome,
10
particularly in view of Facebook’s disproportionate cost necessary to investigate as weighed against
11
Plaintiffs’ need for the information. The Interrogatories seek broad and vaguely defined categories of
12
materials that are not reasonably tailored to the subject matter of this action.
13
5.
Facebook objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it purports to request the
14
identification and disclosure of information or documents that were prepared in anticipation of
15
litigation, constitute attorney work product, reveal privileged attorney-client communications, or are
16
otherwise protected from disclosure under any applicable privileges, laws, or rules. Facebook hereby
17
asserts all such applicable privileges and protections, and excludes privileged and protected
18
information from its responses to each Interrogatory. See generally Fed. R. Evid. 502; Cal. Code
19
Evid. § 954. Inadvertent production of any information or documents that are privileged or otherwise
20
immune from discovery shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or of any other ground for
21
objecting to the discovery with respect to such information or documents or the subject matter
22
thereof, or the right of Facebook to object to the use of any such information or documents or the
23
subject matter thereof during these or any other proceedings. In the event of inadvertent disclosure
24
of any information or inadvertent production or identification of documents or communications that
25
are privileged or otherwise immune from discovery, Plaintiffs will return the information and
26
documents to Facebook and will be precluded from disclosing or relying upon such information or
27
documents in any way.
28
6.
Facebook objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that the information
2
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
sought by the Interrogatory is more appropriately pursued through another means of discovery, such
2
as a request for production or deposition.
3
4
5
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
6
protected by the right of privacy of Facebook and/or third parties, or information that is confidential,
7
proprietary, or competitively sensitive.
8
9
10
11
9.
Facebook objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks documents or
information already in Plaintiffs’ possession or available in the public domain. Such information is
equally available to Plaintiffs.
10.
Facebook objects to each Interrogatory on the ground and to the extent that it exceeds
12
the bounds of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which provides that “a party may serve on
13
any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.”
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
14
15
1.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Association” to the extent that it is
16
vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition
17
to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to
18
the claims and defenses in this action.
19
2.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Association Type” or “(atype)” to the
20
extent that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects
21
to the definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are
22
not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.
23
3.
Facebook generally objects to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “Communication,”
24
“Document(s),” “Electronic Media,” “ESI,” “Electronically Stored Information,” “Identify,” and
25
“Metadata” to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these defined terms to request the identification
26
and disclosure of documents that: (a) were prepared in anticipation of litigation; (b) constitute
27
attorney work product; (c) reveal privileged attorney-client communications; or (d) are otherwise
28
protected from disclosure under any applicable privileges, laws, and/or rules. Facebook further
3
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
objects to the extent that these definitions purport to impose obligations that go beyond the
2
requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
3
4.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Destination Object” or “(id2)” to the
4
extent that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects
5
to the definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are
6
not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.
7
5.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “(id)” to the extent that it is vague,
8
ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition to the
9
extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to the
10
11
claims and defenses in this action.
6.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Key -> Value Pair” to the extent that it is
12
vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition
13
to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to
14
the claims and defenses in this action.
15
7.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Object” to the extent that it is vague,
16
ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition to the
17
extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to the
18
claims and defenses in this action.
19
8.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Object type” or “(otype)” to the extent
20
that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the
21
definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not
22
relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.
23
9.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition and use of the term “Person” as vague,
24
ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent that Plaintiffs intend to use this term
25
to include “any natural person or any business, legal or governmental entity or association” over
26
which Facebook exercises no control.
27
28
10.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Process” to the extent that it is vague,
ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition to the
4
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to the
2
claims and defenses in this action.
3
11.
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
12.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “Relate(s) to,” “Related to” and
8
“Relating to” on the ground that the definitions make the Interrogatories overly broad and unduly
9
burdensome and impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
10
11
Facebook shall construe these terms as commonly and ordinarily understood.
13.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Source Object” or “(id1)” to the extent
12
that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the
13
definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not
14
relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.
15
14.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition and use of the terms “You,” “Your,” or
16
“Facebook” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent the terms are
17
meant to include “directors, officers, employees, partners, members, representatives, agents
18
(including attorneys, accountants, consultants, investment advisors or bankers), and any other person
19
purporting to act on [Facebook, Inc.’s] behalf. . . . parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessor
20
entities, successor entities, divisions, departments, groups, acquired entities and/or related entities or
21
any other entity acting or purporting to act on its behalf” over which Facebook exercises no control,
22
and to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these terms to impose obligations that go beyond the
23
requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
OBJECTIONS TO “RULES OF CONSTRUCTION” AND INSTRUCTIONS
24
25
26
27
28
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
the relevant time period, thus making the Instruction overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
5
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
relevant to the claims or defenses in this action. Unless otherwise specified in its responses, and
2
pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Facebook’s response will be limited to information
3
generated between April 1, 2010 and December 30, 2013.
4
3.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 6 as ambiguous and unduly
5
burdensome. Facebook further objects to the instruction to the extent it exceeds the requirements of
6
the Federal and Local Rules.
7
OBJECTION TO PURPORTED “RELEVANT TIME PERIOD”
8
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ proposed “Relevant Time Period” (September 26, 2006
9
through the present) because it substantially exceeds the proposed class period identified in Plaintiffs’
10
Consolidated Amended Complaint, does not reflect the time period that is relevant to Plaintiffs’
11
claims in this action, and renders the Interrogatories overly broad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant.
12
Unless otherwise specified, and pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Facebook’s Responses to
13
these Interrogatories will be limited to information generated between April 1, 2010 and December
14
30, 2013. Facebook otherwise objects to the remainder of Plaintiffs’ statement regarding the
15
“Relevant Time Period” to the extent that it purports to impose obligations beyond those imposed by
16
the Federal and Local Rules.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
17
18
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
19
20
Identify all facts relating to the Processing of each Private Message sent or received by
Plaintiffs containing a URL1, including, for each Private Message:
21
(A)
all Objects that were created during the Processing of the Private Message, including
22
the (id) and the Object Type for each Object, as well as any Key -> Value Pair(s)
23
contained in each Object;
24
25
26
27
1
Each such Private Message has been identified by each Plaintiff in Exhibit 1 to his respective Objections and
Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories.
28
6
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
(B)
all Objects that were created specifically when the embedded URL was shared,
2
including the (id) and the Object Type for each Object, as well as any Key -> Value
3
Pair(s) contained in each Object;
4
(C)
all Associations related to each Private Message, identified by the Source Object,
5
Association Type, and Destination Object, as well as any Key -> Value Pair(s)
6
contained in each Association;
7
(D)
the database names and table names in which each Association and Object is stored;
8
(E)
each application or feature in Facebook that uses the Objects or Associations created
9
10
11
12
for each Private Message; and
(F)
how each Object associated with the Private Message was used by Facebook.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
13
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
14
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional
15
grounds:
16
(A)
The Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases
17
“Processing”; “Private Message”; “Objects”; “(id)”; “Object Type”; “Key -> Value Pair(s)”; “Objects
18
that were created specifically when the embedded URL was shared”; “Associations”; “Source
19
Object”; “Association Type”; “Destination Object”; “database names and table names”; and
20
“application or feature.”
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).
26
(D)
The Interrogatory is vague, unduly burdensome, and overly broad in that it purports to
27
seek “all facts relating to the Processing of each Private Message sent or received by Plaintiffs
28
containing a URL.”
7
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2
3
(E)
The Interrogatory seeks information that reflects trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(F)
The Interrogatory exceeds the bounds of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1),
4
which provides that “a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories,
5
including all discrete subparts.”
6
7
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:
8
Facebook refers Plaintiffs to Facebook’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory
9
Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Facebook also will meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel to determine the proper
10
scope of this overly broad and ambiguous Interrogatory.
11
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
12
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
13
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
14
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional
15
grounds:
16
(A)
The Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases
17
“Processing”; “Private Message”; “Objects”; “(id)”; “Object Type”; “Key -> Value Pair(s)”; “Objects
18
that were created specifically when the embedded URL was shared”; “Associations”; “Source
19
Object”; “Association Type”; “Destination Object”; “database names and table names”; and
20
“application or feature.”
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).
26
(D)
The Interrogatory is vague, unduly burdensome, and overly broad in that it purports to
27
seek “all facts relating to the Processing of each Private Message sent or received by Plaintiffs
28
containing a URL.”
8
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1
2
3
(E)
The Interrogatory seeks information that reflects trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(F)
The Interrogatory exceeds the bounds of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1),
4
which provides that “a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories,
5
including all discrete subparts.”
6
7
8
9
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:
Facebook refers Plaintiffs to Facebook’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory
Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Additionally, and pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
10
Facebook refers Plaintiffs to documents bearing production numbers FB000005502 through
11
FB000006175, which contain information responsive to this Interrogatory for the messages identified
12
in Plaintiffs’ letter of July 24, 2015 that could be located after a reasonable search and diligent
13
inquiry. The chart attached as Exhibit 1 identifies the production numbers of the documents that
14
correspond to the messages identified in Plaintiffs’ July 24, 2015 letter.
15
DATED: September 1, 2015
16
17
18
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By:
/s/
Joshua A. Jessen
Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
Exhibit 1
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?