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)
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
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)
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
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
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
- 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: cchorba@gibsondunn.com
Joshua Aaron Jessen
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92612
Email: jjessen@gibsondunn.com
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
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?