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)
msobol@lchb.com
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
drudolph@lchb.com
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
mgardner@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415.956.1000
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
Rachel Geman
rgeman@lchb.com
Nicholas Diamand
ndiamand@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: 212.355.9500
Facsimile: 212.355.9592
Jeremy A. Lieberman
Lesley F. Portnoy
info@pomlaw.com
POMERANTZ, LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: 212.661.1100
Facsimile: 212.661.8665
Patrick V. Dahlstrom
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
POMERANTZ, LLP
10 S. La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: 312.377.1181
Facsimile: 312.377.1184
Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
hbates@cbplaw.com
Allen Carney
acarney@cbplaw.com
David Slade
dslade@cbplaw.com
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: 501.312.8500
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)
msobol@lchb.com
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
drudolph@lchb.com
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
mgardner@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415.956.1000
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
Rachel Geman
rgeman@lchb.com
Nicholas Diamand
ndiamand@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: 212.355.9500
Facsimile: 212.355.9592
Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
hbates@cbplaw.com
Allen Carney
acarney@cbplaw.com
David Slade
dslade@cbplaw.com
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: 501.312.8500
Facsimile: 501.312.8505
Jeremy A. Lieberman
info@pomlaw.com
POMERANTZ, LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: 212.661.1100
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
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
POMERANTZ, LLP
10 S. La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: 312.377.1181
Facsimile: 312.377.1184
8
Jon Tostrud (State Bar No. 199502)
jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310.278.2600
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: cchorba@gibsondunn.com
19
20
21
22
23
24
Joshua Aaron Jessen
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92612
Email: jjessen@gibsondunn.com
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: cchorba@gibsondunn.com
Joshua Aaron Jessen
Email: jjessen@gibsondunn.com
18
19
20
Jeana Marie Bisnar Maute
Email: jbisnarmaute@gibsondunn.com
Ashley Marie Rogers
Email: arogers@gibsondunn.com
21
22
23
Priyanka Rajagopalan
Email: prajagopalan@gibsondunn.com
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
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?