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 Q

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
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
19

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22

OAKLAND DIVISION

23
24
25
26
27
28

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

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

Defendant.
PLAINTIFF SHADPOUR’S
CORRECTED RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
1

PROPOUNDING PARTY:

FACEBOOK, INC.

2

RESPONDING PARTY:

DAVID SHADPOUR, 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 David

6

Shadpour hereby serves his corrected objections and responses to Defendant Facebook Inc.’s First

7

Set of Interrogatories (“Interrogatories”). These responses are designated “Highly Confidential –

8

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the terms of the draft of the Stipulated Protective Order sent by

9

Plaintiffs to Defendant on March 11, 2015.

10
11
12

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1.

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

13

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

14

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

15

Rules of the Court.

16

2.

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

privilege or protection.

28
-1-

PLAINTIFF SHADPOUR’S
CORRECTED RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
1

3.

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

responses.

9

4.

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

10

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

11

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

12

vagueness, ambiguity, and uncertainty.

13

5.

Plaintiff objects to each Interrogatory or Instruction which seeks information that

14

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

15

lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

16
17
18

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

19

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

20

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

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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,

materiality, privilege and admissibility as evidence for any purpose of materials produced in
-2-

PLAINTIFF SHADPOUR’S
CORRECTED RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
1

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

2

trial of, this or any action;

3

b.

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

4

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

5

action; and

6
7
8
9
10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

Plaintiff’s Facebook username is

Plaintiff provided Facebook with the name

21

David Shadpour. Plaintiff associated the email address

22

account. Plaintiff did not associate any phone number with the account. Plaintiff’s account was

23

established in or around February 2006. It has not been disabled.

24

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

with the

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

location (city and state) where the author was located when the message was sent (or, if unknown,
-3-

PLAINTIFF SHADPOUR’S
CORRECTED RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

(if known).

8

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

discovery from Defendant, for example because Facebook possesses information concerning

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

objections, Plaintiff states as follows: The table attached as Exhibit 1 identifies the sender(s),

24

recipient(s), date, and URL associated with each such private message.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
-4-

PLAINTIFF SHADPOUR’S
CORRECTED RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
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 incorporates by reference the table provided in response to

18

Interrogatory No. 2, which identifies the sender(s), recipient(s), date, and URL associated with

19

each such message.

20

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

21

IDENTIFY all facts regarding all EMAIL SERVICES and SOCIAL NETWORKING

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

26

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

27

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

28

Interrogatory in that does not seek information “that is relevant to the claims or defenses of any
-5-

PLAINTIFF SHADPOUR’S
CORRECTED RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

username

6

, used from approximately late 2012 to present.

username

7

username

8

, used from approximately 2007 to present.

email, username

9
10
11
12

used from approximately August 2013 to present.
, used from approximately 2003 to

present.
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

13

alleged conduct referenced in YOUR COMPLAINT.

14

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

or around December 2013 in connection with counsel’s investigation of this case.

21

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

27
28

Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
to this Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff objects to this
-6-

PLAINTIFF SHADPOUR’S
CORRECTED RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

and 58.

15

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

16

Separately for YOURSELF and the putative class, IDENTIFY all facts regarding the

17

damages and/or all other monetary relief that YOU and the putative class claim in this ACTION.

18

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

expert testimony, to be disclosed at a later date in accordance with the time set by the Court for
-7-

PLAINTIFF SHADPOUR’S
CORRECTED RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
1

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

2

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

3

INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

disposition and relief awarded.

11

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

putative class action proceedings.

16

INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

17

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

18

COMPLAINT that the “interceptions” YOU contend are unlawful occur “in transit, in

19

transmission, and/or during transfer of users’ private messages.”

20

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

facts that support the contentions and allegations in the Complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
-8-

PLAINTIFF SHADPOUR’S
CORRECTED RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

by the Court for such disclosures. Plaintiff further objects to the extent this Interrogatory purports

6

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

7

waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states as follows: Plaintiff refers to the entirety of the

8

operative Complaint, including but not limited to the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 27, 28,

9

35, 36, 37, 40.

10

INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

11

IDENTIFY all facts that support YOUR allegation in paragraph 89 of YOUR

12

COMPLAINT that “Facebook’s practice of intercepting, scanning, and generating ‘Likes’ from,

13

users’ private messages, are not necessary for the rendition of Facebook’s private messaging

14

service, the protection of Facebook’s rights or property, or the security of Facebook users,” and

15

“have not be undertaken in the ordinary course of business of an electronic communication

16

service, as described in 28 U.S.C. § 2510(15).”

17

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is premature, as this Interrogatory may be the
-9-

PLAINTIFF SHADPOUR’S
CORRECTED RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
1

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

2

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

3

seek information covered by the attorney-client privilege or the work product privilege.

4

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

5

Plaintiff refers to the operative Complaint, including but not limited to the following allegations,

6

2, 4, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,

7

45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 56, 57, 58, 64, and 86, which identify the elements of causes of action

8

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

9

Penal Code, respectively, as well as identify which facts Plaintiff contends establish violations of

10

each element of each of these statutes.

11

INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

12

IDENTIFY all facts that support YOUR allegations in paragraphs 59−68 of the

13

COMPLAINT that this ACTION is appropriate for class treatment.

14

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

disclosure of all facts that support the contentions and allegations in the Complaint. See Fed. R.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

by the Court for such disclosures.

27
28

Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff states as follows:
Plaintiff refers to the entirety of the operative Complaint, including but not limited to the
- 10 -

PLAINTIFF SHADPOUR’S
CORRECTED RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
1

allegations in Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,

2

33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64, and 65.

3
4

Dated: April 2, 2015

LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

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

28
- 11 -

PLAINTIFF SHADPOUR’S
CORRECTED RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
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
- 12 -

PLAINTIFF SHADPOUR’S
CORRECTED RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
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 2, 2015, I caused to be served copies of the following documents:

13
14

1.

PLAINTIFF DAVID SHADPOUR’S CORRECTED
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT
FACEBOOK, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES;
and this

2.

PROOF OF SERVICE BY EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

on Defendant in this action through their counsel:
Christopher Chorba
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Email: [e-mail]
Joshua Aaron Jessen
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92612
Email: [e-mail]
Executed on April 2, 2015, at San Francisco, California.
/s/ Melissa A. Gardner
Melissa A. Gardner

28
- 13 -

PLAINTIFF SHADPOUR’S
CORRECTED RESPONSES TO
FACEBOOK’S 1ST SET OF ROGS

EXHIBIT 1

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
To

From

Date

David Shadpour

January 9, 2011

David Shadpour

November 29, 2012

David Shadpour

November 29, 2012

David Shadpour

November 29, 2012

David Shadpour

December 31, 2013

6.

David Shadpour

June 9, 2014

7.

David Shadpour

June 9, 2014

8.

David Shadpour

June 9, 2014

9.

David Shadpour

June 10, 2014

10.

David Shadpour

May 14, 2012

11.

David Shadpour

June 28, 2012

12.

David Shadpour

September 27, 2012

13.
14.

David Shadpour

September 27, 2012

1.
2.
3.

4.

5.

15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.

David Shadpour

October 31, 2012

David Shadpour

October 31, 2012

David Shadpour
David Shadpour
David Shadpour

April 18, 2013
January 11, 2014
November 20, 2011

David Shadpour

December 19, 2011

David Shadpour

URL

January 10, 2012
January 17, 2012
January 17, 2012

David Shadpour
David Shadpour

1

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
To
23.

From
David Shadpour

Date
March 9, 2012

URL

2