Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 182

EXHIBITS re 181 Administrative Motion to Seal Documents Accompanying Class Certification Briefs and Evidentiary Objections filed by Facebook Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 11 (Unredacted), # 2 Exhibit 12 (Redacted), # 3 Exhibit 13 (Unredacted), # 4 Exhibit 14 (Redacted), # 5 Exhibit 15 (Unredacted), # 6 Exhibit 16 (Redacted), # 7 Exhibit 17 (Unredacted), # 8 Exhibit 18 (Redacted), # 9 Exhibit 19 (Unredacted), # 10 Exhibit 20 (Redacted), # 11 Exhibit 21 (Unredacted), # 12 Exhibit 22 (Redacted), # 13 Exhibit 23 (Unredacted), # 14 Exhibit 24 (Redacted), # 15 Exhibit 25 (Unredacted), # 16 Exhibit 26 (Redacted), # 17 Exhibit 27 (Unredacted), # 18 Exhibit 28 (Redacted))(Related document(s) 181 ) (Chorba, Christopher) (Filed on 3/28/2016) Modified on 3/29/2016 (kcS, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT P6

CONFIDENTIAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
[e-mail]
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
[e-mail]
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
Rachel Geman
[e-mail]
Nicholas Diamand
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.355.9592

Jeremy A. Lieberman
Lesley F. Portnoy
[e-mail]
POMERANTZ, LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.661.8665
Patrick V. Dahlstrom
[e-mail]
POMERANTZ, LLP
10 S. La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312.377.1184

Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
[e-mail]
Allen Carney
[e-mail]
David Slade
[e-mail]
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 501.312.8505

18
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
19
20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22

OAKLAND DIVISION

23

MATTHEW CAMPBELL, MICHAEL
HURLEY, and DAVID SHADPOUR,

24
Plaintiffs,
25
`

v.

Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
PLAINTIFF MICHAEL HURLEY’S
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES

26
FACEBOOK, INC.,
27
Defendant.
28
PLAINTIFF HURLEY’S RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

CONFIDENTIAL
1

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

FACEBOOK, INC.

2

RESPONDING PARTY:

MICHAEL HURLEY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated

SET NO.:

ONE (1)

3
4
5

Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Michael

6

Hurley hereby serves his objections and responses to Defendant Facebook Inc.’s First Set of

7

Interrogatories (“Interrogatories”). These responses are designated “Confidential” under the terms

8

of the draft of the Stipulated Protective Order sent by Plaintiffs to Defendant on March 11, 2015.

9
GENERAL OBJECTIONS

10
11

1.

Plaintiff objects to each of Defendant’s Interrogatories to the extent that they,

12

individually or cumulatively, purport to impose on Plaintiff duties and obligations which exceed,

13

or are different, than those imposed on him by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local

14

Rules of the Court.

15

2.

Plaintiff generally objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it purports to seek

16

information covered by the attorney-client privilege, the work product privilege, or any other

17

applicable privilege or immunity. Plaintiff further objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that

18

it seeks information prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial of this or any matter.

19

Plaintiff will provide any information that he believes is non-privileged and is otherwise properly

20

discoverable. By providing such information, Plaintiff does not waive any privileges. To the

21

extent that an Interrogatory may be construed as seeking such privileged or protected information

22

or documents, Plaintiff hereby claims such privilege and invokes such protection. The fact that

23

Plaintiff does not specifically object to an individual Interrogatory on the ground that it seeks

24

such privileged or protected information shall not be deemed a waiver of the protection afforded

25

by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or any other applicable

26

privilege or protection.

27
28

3.

Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel have not completed their investigation of the facts

related to this case and have not completed their preparation for trial. Thus, the following
-1-

PLAINTIFF HURLEY’S RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

CONFIDENTIAL
1

responses are based on discovery and investigations that are ongoing and not yet complete.

2

Plaintiff reserves the right to update, amend or supplement these responses. These responses are

3

made without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to utilize subsequently discovered evidence at trial or

4

in connection with pretrial proceedings, or to amend these responses in the event that any

5

information is subsequently acquired or learned by Plaintiff or inadvertently omitted in these

6

responses.

7

4.

Plaintiff generally objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it is vague and/or

8

ambiguous. Where possible, however, Plaintiff will make reasonable assumptions as to

9

Defendant’s intended meaning and will respond accordingly, while preserving his objections as to

10

vagueness, ambiguity, and uncertainty.

11

5.

Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory or Instruction which seeks information that

12

is neither relevant nor material to the subject matter of this action, nor reasonably calculated to

13

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

14
15
16

6.

Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory which seeks identification of facts not in

Plaintiff’s possession, custody or control.
7.

Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory to the extent it requires the production of

17

information already produced to Defendant or within the possession, custody or control of third

18

parties or public records, and therefore equally available to Defendant.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

8.

Plaintiff asserts these objections without waiving or intending to waive any

objections as to competency, relevancy, materiality, or privilege.
9.

Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it calls for a legal

conclusion.
10.

Plaintiff states these objections without waiving or intending to waive, but on the

contrary preserving and intending to preserve:
a.

all objections to genuineness, foundation, competency, relevancy,

26

materiality, privilege and admissibility as evidence for any purpose of materials produced in

27

response to the Interrogatories, or subject matter thereof, in any subsequent proceeding in, or the

28

trial of, this or any action;
-2-

PLAINTIFF HURLEY’S RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

CONFIDENTIAL
1

b.

the right to object on any permissible ground to the use of any materials, or

2

the subject matter thereof, in any subsequent proceeding in, or the trial of, this or any other

3

action; and

4
5
6
7
8

c.

the right to object on any basis permitted by law to any other discovery

request or proceeding involving or relating to the subject matter of these objections.
RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
IDENTIFY all FACEBOOK accounts YOU have ever established or used, including, for

9

each account: (a) YOUR username; (b) the name YOU provided to FACEBOOK in setting up

10

the account; (c) the e-mail address that YOU associated with the account; (d) the mobile

11

telephone number(s) that YOU associated with the account; (e) the date YOUR account was

12

established; and (f) the date YOUR account was disabled, suspended, or deleted (if applicable).

13

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

14

Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects

15

to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff further objects to the

16

extent this Interrogatory seeks information protected by Plaintiff’s right to privacy. Subject to

17

and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states as follows:

18

Plaintiff’s Facebook username is

. Plaintiff provided Facebook with

19

the name Michael Hurley. Plaintiff associated the email address

20

the account. Plaintiff has not associated a mobile phone number with the account. Plaintiff’s

21

account was established on October 17, 2008. It has not been disabled.

22

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

with

23

IDENTIFY all facts regarding all messages YOU have sent or received via the

24

FACEBOOK MESSAGES PRODUCT, including, for each message: (a) the date the message

25

was sent; (b) the author of the message; (c) the recipient(s) of the message; (d) the physical

26

location (city and state) where the author was located when the message was sent (or, if unknown,

27

the author’s state of residence); (e) the physical location (city and state) where the recipient(s)

28

was located when the message was received (or, if unknown, the recipient’s state of residence);
-3-

PLAINTIFF HURLEY’S RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

CONFIDENTIAL
1

(f) if a URL was included in the message, the name of the URL(s); (g) if a URL was included in

2

the message, whether a “preview” of the website associated with the URL was contained in the

3

message (if known); and (h) if a URL was included in the message, whether the website

4

associated with the URL contained a FACEBOOK social plugin at the time the message was sent

5

(if known).

6

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

7

Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects

8

to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff objects to this

9

Interrogatory insofar as it is seeks facts regarding messages that do not contain URLs, and insofar

10

as it seeks the physical location of the sender or recipient of Facebook messages, and therefore

11

does not seek information “that is relevant to the claims or defenses of any party” or “reasonably

12

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff

13

further objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information protected by Plaintiff’s and/or

14

third parties’ right to privacy. Plaintiff objects that this Interrogatory seeks information already in

15

Defendant’s possession and control. Insofar as it seeks information to be obtained through

16

discovery from Defendant, for example because Facebook possesses information concerning

17

whether it was Facebook’s practice to provide a “preview” for URL’s sent at the times of

18

Plaintiff’s private messages, or whether the websites associated with certain URLs had installed

19

Facebook’s social plug-ins, Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as premature. Plaintiff further

20

objects to this Interrogatory as compound. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing

21

objections, Plaintiff states as follows: Plaintiff’s first production of documents responsive to

22

Request for Production No. 1 in this action identifies private messages containing one or more

23

URLs that Plaintiff has sent or received via the FACEBOOK MESSAGES PRODUCT. The

24

table attached as Exhibit 1 identifies the sender(s), recipient(s), date, time, and URL associated

25

with each such private message.

26

Plaintiff does not recall whether any of the URLs included in private messages that

27

Plaintiff has sent or received via the FACEBOOK MESSAGES PRODUCT contained a

28

“preview” at the time it was sent or received. Plaintiff is not aware of whether the websites
-4-

PLAINTIFF HURLEY’S RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

CONFIDENTIAL
1

associated with such URLs contained a Facebook plug-in at the time these messages were sent or

2

received.

3

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

4

IDENTIFY all PERSONS YOU have sent messages to or received messages from via the

5

FACEBOOK MESSAGES PRODUCT, including each PERSON’S name, address, and

6

FACEBOOK account username, or if the PERSON was not a FACEBOOK user, the PERSON’s

7

mobile telephone number and/or email address from which a message was received or to which a

8

message was sent.

9

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

10

Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects

11

to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff objects to this

12

Interrogatory insofar as it is seeks facts regarding messages that do not contain URLs and

13

therefore does not seek information “that is relevant to the claims or defenses of any party” or

14

“reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

15

Plaintiff further objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information protected by Plaintiff’s

16

or third parties’ right to privacy. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections,

17

Plaintiff states as follows: Plaintiff’s first production of documents responsive to Request for

18

Production No. 1 in this action identifies private messages containing URLs that Plaintiff has sent

19

or received via the FACEBOOK MESSAGES PRODUCT. Plaintiff incorporates by reference

20

the table provided in response to Interrogatory No. 2, which identifies the sender(s), recipient(s),

21

date, time, and URL associated with each such message.

22

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

23

IDENTIFY all facts regarding all EMAIL SERVICES and SOCIAL NETWORKING

24

WEBSITES, including but not limited to applications offered within those SOCIAL

25

NETWORKING WEBSITES, that YOU have used, including, for each, YOUR e-mail address

26

and/or username and the duration (time period) of YOUR use.

27
28
-5-

PLAINTIFF HURLEY’S RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

CONFIDENTIAL
1
2

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects

3

to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff objects to this

4

Interrogatory in that does not seek information “that is relevant to the claims or defenses of any

5

party” or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

6

26(b)(1). Plaintiff further objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks information protected by

7

Plaintiff’s or third parties’ right to privacy. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing

8

objections, Plaintiff states as follows: Plaintiff recalls using the following email services:

9

Yahoo, username

10

Netscape, username

11

Gmail, username

12

Gmail, username

13

Apple iCloud, username

14

Plaintiff has used the following social networking websites:

15

MySpace.com, username

16

Plus.google.com, username

17

Upon reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is unable to determine the date the account at

18
19
20
21

, used from approximately 2005-present.
, used from approximately 1999-2004.
, used from approximately 2012-present.
, used from approximately 2014-present.
, used from approximately 2013-present.

, from approximately 2005-2007.
.

Plus.google.com was opened; it remains active today.
Facebook.com as stated in response to Interrogatory No. 1.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
IDENTIFY all facts regarding how and when YOU first became aware of FACEBOOK’s

22

alleged conduct referenced in YOUR COMPLAINT.

23

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

24

Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects

25

to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff further objects to the extent

26

this Interrogatory purports to seek information covered by the attorney-client privilege or the

27

work product privilege. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states

28

as follows: Plaintiff first became aware that Facebook scans private messages containing URLs in
-6-

PLAINTIFF HURLEY’S RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

CONFIDENTIAL
1

or around December 2013 during a telephone conversation with Melissa Gardner, in connection

2

with counsel’s investigation of this case.

3

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

4

IDENTIFY all facts that support YOUR claim that YOU, other Plaintiffs in this ACTION,

5

and/or putative class members suffered harm and/or damage as a result of YOUR use of the

6

FACEBOOK MESSAGES PRODUCT, including but not limited to IDENTIFYING all facts

7

describing how YOU, Plaintiffs, and/or putative class members were harmed.

8

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

9

Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects

10

to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff objects to this

11

Interrogatory on the grounds that it is untimely and premature because discovery in this action is

12

ongoing with substantial discovery yet to occur. Plaintiff objects that Plaintiff has not completed

13

his discovery or investigation of facts relating to this matter, and has not completed preparation

14

for trial, and therefore, this interrogatory is premature, improper, burdensome, oppressive,

15

harassing, and abusive of the discovery process to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of all

16

facts that support the contentions and allegations in the Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

17

33(a)(2)(“the court may order that [contention interrogatories] need not be answered until

18

designated discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.”). Plaintiff

19

further objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is premature, as this Interrogatory may

20

be the subject of expert testimony, to be disclosed at a later date in accordance with the time set

21

by the Court for such disclosures. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections,

22

Plaintiff states as follows: Plaintiff refers to the entirety of the operative Complaint, including but

23

not limiting the following allegations Paragraphs 38, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57

24

and 58.

25

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

26
27

Separately for YOURSELF and the putative class, IDENTIFY all facts regarding the
damages and/or all other monetary relief that YOU and the putative class claim in this ACTION.

28
-7-

PLAINTIFF HURLEY’S RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

CONFIDENTIAL
1
2

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects

3

to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff objects to this

4

Interrogatory on the grounds that it is untimely and premature because discovery in this action is

5

ongoing with substantial discovery yet to occur. Plaintiff objects that Plaintiff has not completed

6

his discovery or investigation of facts relating to this matter, and has not completed preparation

7

for trial, and therefore, this Interrogatory is premature, improper, burdensome, oppressive,

8

harassing, and abusive of the discovery process to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of all

9

facts that support the contentions and allegations in the Complaint. Plaintiff further objects to this

10

Interrogatory on the grounds that it is premature, as this Interrogatory may be the subject of

11

expert testimony, to be disclosed at a later date in accordance with the time set by the Court for

12

such disclosures. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states as

13

follows: See Plaintiff’s responses to Interrogatories No. 2 and 6.

14

INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

15

IDENTIFY all facts regarding all putative class action proceedings in which YOU have

16

been involved, including but not limited to YOUR role in the proceeding (plaintiff, defendant,

17

witness), the claims and defenses raised in each proceeding, the court or other tribunal in which

18

the proceeding occurred, the judicial officer or arbitrator(s) who presided over the proceeding, the

19

case number, the parties to the proceeding, a summary of the testimony and/or DOCUMENTS

20

YOU provided (if any), an identification of YOUR counsel for each proceeding, and the

21

disposition and relief awarded.

22

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

23

Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff further

24

objects that the Interrogatory seeks irrelevant information. Subject to and without waiver of the

25

foregoing objections, Plaintiff states as follows: Plaintiff has not been involved in any other

26

putative class action proceedings.

27
28
-8-

PLAINTIFF HURLEY’S RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

CONFIDENTIAL
1

INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

2

Do YOU contend that the scanning of FACEBOOK messages for the purpose of

3

developing user profiles to support and deliver targeted advertising violates federal law and/or

4

California law?

5

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

6

Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects

7

to this Interrogatory on the grounds that the term “scanning” is undefined and is therefore vague;

8

the terms “user profiles” and “targeted advertising” are similarly vague within the context of this

9

Interrogatory. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is untimely and

10

premature because discovery in this action is ongoing with substantial discovery yet to occur.

11

Plaintiff objects that Plaintiff has not completed his discovery or investigation of facts relating to

12

this matter, and has not completed preparation for trial, and therefore, this Interrogatory is

13

premature, improper, burdensome, oppressive, harassing, and abusive of the discovery process to

14

the extent that it calls for the disclosure of all facts that support the contentions and allegations in

15

the Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2)(“the court may order that [contention interrogatories]

16

need not be answered until designated discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference or

17

some other time.”). Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states as

18

follows: As alleged in the operative Complaint, Facebook’s conduct of scanning Plaintiff’s and

19

the putative class members’ messages is a violation of federal and California law.

20

INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

21

If YOUR response to Interrogatory No. 9 is anything other than an unqualified “no,”

22

IDENTIFY all facts supporting YOUR response.

23

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

24

Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects

25

to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff objects to this

26

Interrogatory on the grounds that it is untimely and premature because discovery in this action is

27

ongoing with substantial discovery yet to occur. Plaintiff objects that Plaintiff has not completed

28

his discovery or investigation of facts relating to this matter, and has not completed preparation
-9-

PLAINTIFF HURLEY’S RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

CONFIDENTIAL
1

for trial, and therefore, this Interrogatory is premature, improper, burdensome, oppressive,

2

harassing, and abusive of the discovery process to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of all

3

facts that support the contentions and allegations in the Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

4

33(a)(2)(“the court may order that [contention interrogatories] need not be answered until

5

designated discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.”). Plaintiff

6

further objects to the extent this Interrogatory purports to seek information covered by the

7

attorney-client privilege or the work product privilege.

8

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states as follows:

9

Plaintiff refers to the operative Complaint, which identifies the elements of causes of action under

10

the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and Section 631 of the California Penal

11

Code, respectively, as well as identifies which facts Plaintiff contends establish violations of each

12

element of each of these statutes.

13

INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

14

IDENTIFY all facts that support YOUR allegation in paragraph 3 of YOUR

15

COMPLAINT that “Facebook primarily generates revenue from targeted advertising and the

16

fundamental means of amassing the user data needed for effective targeted advertising is through

17

Facebook’s ‘Like’ function.”

18

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

19

Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects

20

to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly given that Facebook

21

necessarily has access to its own financial data. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the

22

grounds that it is untimely and premature because discovery in this action is ongoing with

23

substantial discovery yet to occur. Plaintiff objects that Plaintiff has not completed his discovery

24

or investigation of facts relating to this matter, and has not completed preparation for trial, and

25

therefore, this Interrogatory is premature, improper, burdensome, oppressive, harassing, and

26

abusive of the discovery process to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of all facts that

27

support the contentions and allegations in the Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2)(“the court

28

may order that [contention interrogatories] need not be answered until designated discovery is
- 10 -

PLAINTIFF HURLEY’S RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

CONFIDENTIAL
1

complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.”). Plaintiff further objects to this

2

Interrogatory on the grounds that it is premature, as this Interrogatory may be the subject of

3

expert testimony, to be disclosed at a later date in accordance with the time set by the Court for

4

such disclosures. Plaintiff further objects to the extent this Interrogatory purports to seek

5

information covered by the attorney work product privilege. Subject to and without waiver of the

6

foregoing objections, Plaintiff states as follows:

7

Facebook admits in its Answer to paragraphs 3 and 49 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint that it

8

generates revenue from targeted advertising. See also Facebook’s Form 10-k for the fiscal year

9

ended December 31, 2014, at page 10, in which Facebook represents, “The substantial majority of

10

our revenue is currently generated from third parties advertising on Facebook. For 2014, 2013,

11

and 2012, advertising accounted for 92%, 89% and 84%, respectively, of our revenue.”

12

(Securities and Exchange Commission, Facebook, Inc. Form 10-k, (Fiscal Year ended December

13

31, 2014), http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680115000006/fb-

14

12312014x10k.htm (last visited February 20, 2015)); see also paragraph 49 of the operative

15

Complaint, which cites to Facebook’s Data Use Policy, Section IV, How Advertising and

16

Sponsored Stories Work (updated Dec. 11, 2012).

17

INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

18

IDENTIFY all facts that support YOUR allegation in paragraph 25 of YOUR

19

COMPLAINT that “whenever a private message contains a URL, Facebook uses a software

20

application called a ‘web crawler’ to scan the URL, sending HTTP requests to the server

21

associated with the URL and then seeking various items of information about the web page to

22

which the URL is linked.”

23

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:

24

Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects

25

to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly given that Facebook

26

necessarily has access to its own technical data. Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the

27

grounds that it is untimely and premature because discovery in this action is ongoing with

28

substantial discovery yet to occur. Plaintiff objects that Plaintiff has not completed his discovery
- 11 -

PLAINTIFF HURLEY’S RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

CONFIDENTIAL
1

or investigation of facts relating to this matter, and has not completed preparation for trial, and

2

therefore, this Interrogatory is premature, improper, burdensome, oppressive, harassing, and

3

abusive of the discovery process to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of all facts that

4

support the contentions and allegations in the Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2)(“the court

5

may order that [contention interrogatories] need not be answered until designated discovery is

6

complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.”). Plaintiff further objects to this

7

Interrogatory on the grounds that it is premature, as this Interrogatory may be the subject of

8

expert testimony, to be disclosed at a later date in accordance with the time set by the Court for

9

such disclosures. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states as

10

follows: Plaintiff refers to the following articles cited in the operative Complaint: Hi-Tech

11

Bridge, Social Networks: Can Robots Violate User Privacy? (Aug. 27, 2013) (last visited March

12

26, 2015),

13

https://www.htbridge.com/news/social_networks_can_robots_violate_user_privacy.html,

14

Molly McHugh, Facebook Scans Private Messages for Brand Page Mentions, Admits a Bug Is

15

Boosting Likes, Digital Trends (Oct. 4, 2012) (last visited March 26, 2015),

16

http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/facebook-scans-private-messages/, Jennifer

17

Valentino-DeVries et al., How Private Are Your Private Facebook Messages?, Wall St. J., (Oct.

18

3, 2012), http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/10/03/how-private-are-your-private-messages/ (last

19

visited March 26, 2015).

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 12 -

PLAINTIFF HURLEY’S RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

CONFIDENTIAL
1

Dated: April 1, 2015

LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

By:

/s/ Michael W. Sobol
Michael W. Sobol

Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
[e-mail]
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
[e-mail]
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
Rachel Geman
[e-mail]
Nicholas Diamand
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.355.9592
Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
[e-mail]
Allen Carney
[e-mail]
David Slade
[e-mail]
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 501.312.8505
Jeremy A. Lieberman
[e-mail]
POMERANTZ, LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.661.8665

26
27
28
- 13 -

PLAINTIFF HURLEY’S RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

CONFIDENTIAL
1
2
3
4
5

Patrick V. Dahlstrom
[e-mail]
POMERANTZ, LLP
10 S. La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 312.377.1184

8

Jon Tostrud (State Bar No. 199502)
[e-mail]
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 310.278.2640

9

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

6
7

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 14 -

PLAINTIFF HURLEY’S RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

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

PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a citizen of the United States and employed in San Francisco County, California. I
am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business
address is 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-3339.
I am readily familiar with Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP’s practice for
collection and processing of documents for service via email, and that practice is that the
documents are attached to an email and sent to the recipient’s email account.
I am also readily familiar with this firm’s practice for collection and processing of
correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Following ordinary business
practices, the envelope was sealed and placed for collection and mailing on this date, and would,
in the ordinary course of business, be deposited with the United States Postal Service on this date.
On April 1, 2015, I caused to be served copies of the following documents:

13
1.

PLAINTIFF MICHAEL HURLEY’S OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S FIRST
SET OF INTERROGATORIES; and this

2.

PROOF OF SERVICE BY EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL

14
15
16
17

on Defendant in this action through their counsel:

18

Christopher Chorba
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Email: [e-mail]

19
20
21
22
23
24

Joshua Aaron Jessen
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92612
Email: [e-mail]
Executed on April 1, 2015, at San Francisco, California.

25
26

/s/ Melissa A. Gardner
Melissa A. Gardner

27
28
- 15 -

PLAINTIFF HURLEY’S RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH

EXHIBIT 1

CONFIDENTIAL
To

2.

Date

Michael Hurley

1.

From

July 14, 2011 at 1:42am
PDT

Michael Hurley

URL

July 31, 2013 at
10:25pm PDT

3.

Michael Hurley

July 11, 2012 at
11:14pm PDT

4.

Michael Hurley

September 27, 2011 at
6:20pm PDT

5.

Michael Hurley

February 19, 2014 at
5:54pm PST

6.

Michael Hurley

March 14, 2014 at
11:54pm PDT

7.

Michael Hurley

April 20, 2014 at
10:45pm PDT

8.

Michael Hurley

December 18, 2009 at
3:22pm PST

9.

Michael Hurley

August 8, 2011 at
7:09am PDT

10.

Michael Hurley

July 21, 2011 at
1:55pm PDT

11.

Michael Hurley

March 25, 2010 at
3:32pm PDT

12.

Michael Hurley

October 29, 2009 at
1:51pm PDT

1

CONFIDENTIAL
To

From

Date

13.

Michael Hurley

February 19, 2011 at
3:02pm PST

14.

Michael Hurley

December 28, 2010 at
11:58am PST

15.

Michael Hurley

July 17, 2010 at
7:27pm PDT

16.

Michael Hurley

December 18, 2009 at
3:22pm PST

17.

Michael Hurley

URL

July 17, 2010 at
7:27pm PDT

2

CONFIDENTIAL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a citizen of the United States and employed in San Francisco County, California. I
am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business
address is 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-3339.
I am readily familiar with Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP’s practice for
collection and processing of documents for service via email, and that practice is that the
documents are attached to an email and sent to the recipient’s email account.
On September 15, 2015, I caused to be served copies of the following documents:

9
1.

PLAINTIFF MICHAEL HURLEY’S OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK’S FIRST SET
OF INTERROGATORIES, EXHIBIT 1, AND PROOF OF
SERVICE DATED APRIL 1, 2015;

12

2.

VERIFICATION OF MICHAEL HURLEY; and this

13

3.

PROOF OF SERVICE BY EMAIL

10
11

14

on Defendant in this action through their counsel:

15
16
17

Christopher Chorba
Email: [e-mail]
Joshua Aaron Jessen
Email: [e-mail]

18
19
20

Jeana Marie Bisnar Maute
Email: [e-mail]
Ashley Marie Rogers
Email: [e-mail]

21
22
23

Priyanka Rajagopalan
Email: [e-mail]
Executed on September 15, 2015, at San Francisco, California.

24
25

/s/ Melissa A. Gardner
Melissa A. Gardner

26
27
28
PLAINTIFF HURLEY’S RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH