Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 183

EXHIBITS re 181 Administrative Motion to Seal Documents Accompanying Class Certification Briefs and Evidentiary Objections filed by Facebook Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 29 (Unredacted), # 2 Exhibit 30 (Redacted), # 3 Exhibit 31 (Unredacted), # 4 Exhibit 32 (Redacted), # 5 Exhibit 33 (Unredacted), # 6 Exhibit 34 (Redacted), # 7 Exhibit 35 (Unredacted), # 8 Exhibit 36 (Redacted), # 9 Exhibit 37 (Unredacted), # 10 Exhibit 38 (Redacted), # 11 Exhibit 39 (Unredacted), # 12 Exhibit 40 (Redacted), # 13 Exhibit 41 (Unredacted), # 14 Exhibit 42 (Unredacted), # 15 Exhibit 43 (Unredacted), # 16 Exhibit 44 (Unredacted), # 17 Exhibit 45 (Unredacted), # 18 Exhibit 46 (Unredacted), # 19 Exhibit 47 (Unredacted), # 20 Exhibit 48 (Unredacted), # 21 Exhibit 49 (Unredacted), # 22 Exhibit 50 (Unredacted), # 23 Exhibit 51 (Unredacted), # 24 Exhibit 52 (Unredacted))(Related document(s) 181 ) (Chorba, Christopher) (Filed on 3/28/2016) Modified on 3/29/2016 (kcS, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT MM

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
JOSHUA A. JESSEN, SBN 222831
[e-mail]
JEANA BISNAR MAUTE, SBN 290573
[e-mail]
ASHLEY M. ROGERS, SBN 286252
[e-mail]
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
GAIL E. LEES, SBN 90363
[e-mail]
CHRISTOPHER CHORBA, SBN 216692
[e-mail]
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
FACEBOOK, INC.

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

OAKLAND DIVISION

18
19

MATTHEW CAMPBELL, MICHAEL
HURLEY, and DAVID SHADPOUR,
Plaintiffs,

20
21
22
23

v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
NARROWED SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES

24
25
26
27

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Facebook”), by and through its attorneys, and

2

pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules of the U.S.

3

District Court for the Northern District of California, the Court orders in this action, and the parties’

4

agreements, provides the following second supplemental responses and objections to Plaintiffs’

5

Narrowed Second Set of Interrogatories (the “Interrogatories”).

6
7

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.

Facebook’s responses to the Interrogatories are made to the best of Facebook’s current

8

knowledge, information, and belief. Facebook reserves the right to supplement or amend any of its

9

responses should future investigation indicate that such supplementation or amendment is necessary.

10

2.

Facebook’s responses to the Interrogatories are made solely for the purpose of and in

11

relation to this action. Each response is given subject to all appropriate objections (including, but not

12

limited to, objections concerning privilege, competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety, and

13

admissibility). All objections are reserved and may be interposed at any time.

14
15
16

3.

Facebook’s responses are premised on its understanding that Plaintiffs seek only that

information that is within Facebook’s possession, custody, and control.
4.

Facebook incorporates by reference each and every general objection set forth below

17

into each and every specific response. From time to time, a specific response may repeat a general

18

objection for emphasis or some other reason. The failure to include any general objection in any

19

specific response shall not be interpreted as a waiver of any general objection to that response.

20

5.

Nothing contained in these Reponses and Objections or provided in response to the

21

Interrogatories consists of, or should be construed as, an admission relating to the accuracy,

22

relevance, existence, or nonexistence of any alleged facts or information referenced in any

23

Interrogatory.

24
25

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1.

Facebook objects to each Interrogatory, including the Definitions and Instructions, to

26

the extent that it purports to impose obligations beyond those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil

27

Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Civil Rules of the U.S. District Court for the

28

Northern District of California, and any agreements between the parties.
1

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

2.

Facebook objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it is not limited to the

2

relevant time period, thus making the Interrogatory overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not

3

relevant to the claims or defenses in this action. Unless otherwise specified in its responses, and

4

pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Facebook’s responses will be limited to information

5

generated between April 1, 2010 and December 30, 2013.

6

3.

Facebook objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information unrelated

7

and irrelevant to the claims or defenses in this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the

8

discovery of admissible evidence.

9

4.

Facebook objects to each Interrogatory as overly broad and unduly burdensome,

10

particularly in view of Facebook’s disproportionate cost necessary to investigate as weighed against

11

Plaintiffs’ need for the information. The Interrogatories seek broad and vaguely defined categories of

12

materials that are not reasonably tailored to the subject matter of this action.

13

5.

Facebook objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it purports to request the

14

identification and disclosure of information or documents that were prepared in anticipation of

15

litigation, constitute attorney work product, reveal privileged attorney-client communications, or are

16

otherwise protected from disclosure under any applicable privileges, laws, or rules. Facebook hereby

17

asserts all such applicable privileges and protections, and excludes privileged and protected

18

information from its responses to each Interrogatory. See generally Fed. R. Evid. 502; Cal. Code

19

Evid. § 954. Inadvertent production of any information or documents that are privileged or otherwise

20

immune from discovery shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or of any other ground for

21

objecting to the discovery with respect to such information or documents or the subject matter

22

thereof, or the right of Facebook to object to the use of any such information or documents or the

23

subject matter thereof during these or any other proceedings. In the event of inadvertent disclosure

24

of any information or inadvertent production or identification of documents or communications that

25

are privileged or otherwise immune from discovery, Plaintiffs will return the information and

26

documents to Facebook and will be precluded from disclosing or relying upon such information or

27

documents in any way.

28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

6.

Facebook objects to each and every Interrogatory to the extent that the information
2

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

sought by the Interrogatory is more appropriately pursued through another means of discovery, such

2

as a request for production or deposition.

3
4
5

7.

Facebook objects to each and every Interrogatory, Definition, and Instruction to the

extent that it seeks information outside of Facebook’s possession, custody, and control.
8.

Facebook objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it requests information

6

protected by the right of privacy of Facebook and/or third parties, or information that is confidential,

7

proprietary, or competitively sensitive.

8
9
10
11

9.

Facebook objects to each Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks documents or

information already in Plaintiffs’ possession or available in the public domain. Such information is
equally available to Plaintiffs.
10.

Facebook objects to each Interrogatory on the ground and to the extent that it exceeds

12

the bounds of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1), which provides that “a party may serve on

13

any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.”

14
15

OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
1.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Association” to the extent that it is

16

vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition

17

to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to

18

the claims and defenses in this action.

19

2.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Association Type” or “(atype)” to the

20

extent that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects

21

to the definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are

22

not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

23

3.

Facebook generally objects to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “Communication,”

24

“Document(s),” “Electronic Media,” “ESI,” “Electronically Stored Information,” “Identify,” and

25

“Metadata” to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these defined terms to request the identification

26

and disclosure of documents that: (a) were prepared in anticipation of litigation; (b) constitute

27

attorney work product; (c) reveal privileged attorney-client communications; or (d) are otherwise

28

protected from disclosure under any applicable privileges, laws, and/or rules. Facebook further
3

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

objects to the extent that these definitions purport to impose obligations that go beyond the

2

requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.

3

4.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Destination Object” or “(id2)” to the

4

extent that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects

5

to the definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are

6

not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

7

5.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “(id)” to the extent that it is vague,

8

ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition to the

9

extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to the

10
11

claims and defenses in this action.
6.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Key -> Value Pair” to the extent that it is

12

vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition

13

to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to

14

the claims and defenses in this action.

15

7.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Object” to the extent that it is vague,

16

ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition to the

17

extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to the

18

claims and defenses in this action.

19

8.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Object type” or “(otype)” to the extent

20

that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the

21

definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not

22

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

23

9.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition and use of the term “Person” as vague,

24

ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent that Plaintiffs intend to use this term

25

to include “any natural person or any business, legal or governmental entity or association” over

26

which Facebook exercises no control.

27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

10.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Process” to the extent that it is vague,

ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition to the
4
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to the

2

claims and defenses in this action.

3

11.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Private Message(s)” to the extent that it

4

is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the

5

definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not

6

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

7

12.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “Relate(s) to,” “Related to” and

8

“Relating to” on the ground that the definitions make the Interrogatories overly broad and unduly

9

burdensome and impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.

10
11

Facebook shall construe these terms as commonly and ordinarily understood.
13.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Source Object” or “(id1)” to the extent

12

that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the

13

definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not

14

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

15

14.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition and use of the terms “You,” “Your,” or

16

“Facebook” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent the terms are

17

meant to include “directors, officers, employees, partners, members, representatives, agents

18

(including attorneys, accountants, consultants, investment advisors or bankers), and any other person

19

purporting to act on [Facebook, Inc.’s] behalf. . . . parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessor

20

entities, successor entities, divisions, departments, groups, acquired entities and/or related entities or

21

any other entity acting or purporting to act on its behalf” over which Facebook exercises no control,

22

and to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these terms to impose obligations that go beyond the

23

requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.

24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

OBJECTIONS TO “RULES OF CONSTRUCTION” AND INSTRUCTIONS
1.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ “Rules of Construction” and “Instructions” to the

extent they impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
2.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 2 to the extent that it is not limited to

the relevant time period, thus making the Instruction overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
5
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

relevant to the claims or defenses in this action. Unless otherwise specified in its responses, and

2

pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Facebook’s response will be limited to information

3

generated between April 1, 2010 and December 30, 2013.

4

3.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 6 as ambiguous and unduly

5

burdensome. Facebook further objects to the instruction to the extent it exceeds the requirements of

6

the Federal and Local Rules.

7

OBJECTION TO PURPORTED “RELEVANT TIME PERIOD”

8

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ proposed “Relevant Time Period” (September 26, 2006

9

through the present) because it substantially exceeds the proposed class period identified in Plaintiffs’

10

Consolidated Amended Complaint, does not reflect the time period that is relevant to Plaintiffs’

11

claims in this action, and renders the Interrogatories overly broad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant.

12

Unless otherwise specified, and pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Facebook’s Responses to

13

these Interrogatories will be limited to information generated between April 1, 2010 and December

14

30, 2013. Facebook otherwise objects to the remainder of Plaintiffs’ statement regarding the

15

“Relevant Time Period” to the extent that it purports to impose obligations beyond those imposed by

16

the Federal and Local Rules.

17
18

SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

19
20

Identify all facts relating to the Processing of each Private Message sent or received by
Plaintiffs containing a URL1, including, for each Private Message:

21

(A)

all Objects that were created during the Processing of the Private Message, including

22

the (id) and the Object Type for each Object, as well as any Key -> Value Pair(s)

23

contained in each Object;

24
25
26
27

1

Each such Private Message has been identified by each Plaintiff in Exhibit 1 to his respective Objections and
Responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories.

28
6
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

(B)

all Objects that were created specifically when the embedded URL was shared,

2

including the (id) and the Object Type for each Object, as well as any Key -> Value

3

Pair(s) contained in each Object;

4

(C)

all Associations related to each Private Message, identified by the Source Object,

5

Association Type, and Destination Object, as well as any Key -> Value Pair(s)

6

contained in each Association;

7

(D)

the database names and table names in which each Association and Object is stored;

8

(E)

each application or feature in Facebook that uses the Objects or Associations created

9
10
11
12

for each Private Message; and
(F)

how each Object associated with the Private Message was used by Facebook.

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

13

to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set

14

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

15

grounds:

16

(A)

The Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases

17

“Processing”; “Private Message”; “Objects”; “(id)”; “Object Type”; “Key -> Value Pair(s)”; “Objects

18

that were created specifically when the embedded URL was shared”; “Associations”; “Source

19

Object”; “Association Type”; “Destination Object”; “database names and table names”; and

20

“application or feature.”

21

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

22

(C)

The Interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in

23

this action to the extent it concerns practices other than those challenged in this action (the alleged

24

increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that website was contained in

25

a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the class period).

26

(D)

The Interrogatory is vague, unduly burdensome, and overly broad in that it purports to

27

seek “all facts relating to the Processing of each Private Message sent or received by Plaintiffs

28

containing a URL.”
7

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2
3

(E)

The Interrogatory seeks information that reflects trade secrets, confidential, and/or

proprietary company information.
(F)

The Interrogatory exceeds the bounds of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1),

4

which provides that “a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories,

5

including all discrete subparts.”

6
7

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and subject to
the ongoing nature of discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows:

8

Facebook refers Plaintiffs to Facebook’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory

9

Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Facebook also will meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel to determine the proper

10

scope of this overly broad and ambiguous Interrogatory.

11

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

12

Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

13

to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set

14

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

15

grounds:

16

(A)

The Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases

17

“Processing”; “Private Message”; “Objects”; “(id)”; “Object Type”; “Key -> Value Pair(s)”; “Objects

18

that were created specifically when the embedded URL was shared”; “Associations”; “Source

19

Object”; “Association Type”; “Destination Object”; “database names and table names”; and

20

“application or feature.”

21

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

22

(C)

The Interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in

23

this action to the extent it concerns practices other than those challenged in this action (the alleged

24

increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that website was contained in

25

a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the class period).

26

(D)

The Interrogatory is vague, unduly burdensome, and overly broad in that it purports to

27

seek “all facts relating to the Processing of each Private Message sent or received by Plaintiffs

28

containing a URL.”
8

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2
3

(E)

The Interrogatory seeks information that reflects trade secrets, confidential, and/or

proprietary company information.
(F)

The Interrogatory exceeds the bounds of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1),

4

which provides that “a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories,

5

including all discrete subparts.”

6
7
8
9

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and subject to
the ongoing nature of discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows:
Facebook refers Plaintiffs to Facebook’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory
Nos. 2, 3, and 4. Additionally, and pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

10

Facebook refers Plaintiffs to documents bearing production numbers FB000005502 through

11

FB000006175, which contain information responsive to this Interrogatory for the messages identified

12

in Plaintiffs’ letter of July 24, 2015 that could be located after a reasonable search and diligent

13

inquiry. The chart attached as Exhibit 1 identifies the production numbers of the documents that

14

correspond to the messages identified in Plaintiffs’ July 24, 2015 letter.

15

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

16

Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

17

to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set

18

forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Interrogatory on the following additional

19

grounds:

20

(A)

The Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases

21

“Processing”; “Private Message”; “Objects”; “(id)”; “Object Type”; “Key -> Value Pair(s)”; “Objects

22

that were created specifically when the embedded URL was shared”; “Associations”; “Source

23

Object”; “Association Type”; “Destination Object”; “database names and table names”; and

24

“application or feature.”

25

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

26

(C)

The Interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in

27

this action to the extent it concerns practices other than those challenged in this action (the alleged

28
9
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that website was contained in

2

a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the class period).

3

(D)

The Interrogatory is vague, unduly burdensome, and overly broad in that it purports to

4

seek “all facts relating to the Processing of each Private Message sent or received by Plaintiffs

5

containing a URL.”

6

(E)

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

The Interrogatory seeks information that reflects trade secrets, confidential, and/or

proprietary company information.
(F)

The Interrogatory exceeds the bounds of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1),

which provides that “a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories,
including all discrete subparts.”
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and subject to
the ongoing nature of discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows:
Facebook has conducted a reasonable inquiry for all “Objects” (as defined by Plaintiffs,

14

explained further below) created at the time that Facebook received information resulting from the

15

drafting or sending of the 19 messages (the “Subject Messages”) identified by Plaintiffs in their letter

16

dated July 24, 2015 agreeing to narrow this Interrogatory. Below, Facebook identifies the responsive

17

Objects, as well as other objects (more broadly defined), identified in the course of its inquiry. As

18

will be explained further below, these objects were created after the URL or message information

19

was received by and stored on a Facebook server, either before the sender sent the Subject Message

20

or after it was sent to and received by Facebook.

21

Responsive TAO Objects and Associations

22

Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory relies on defined terms, including “Object” and “Association.”

23

Generally, in computer science, “object” refers to data and software code grouped together to make

24

the process of writing and running source code efficient and effective. The concepts of “objects” and

25

“associations” are basic elements of what is widely referred to as “object-oriented code,” wherein

26

data is organized (or “modeled”) into certain data types (“classes”) before being processed by code

27

logic. If certain types of data can be configured into a limited number of classes in this way, the code

28

that actually processes that data can be written more narrowly to handle those specific data models,
10

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

instead of a more complicated and inefficient code that is capable of handling more varied data types.

2

In other words, in object-oriented code, the pieces of data are cleaned up and made uniform in certain

3

ways so that the code that processes that data can be simpler and more efficient, which has a number

4

of benefits (including more efficient storage, faster processing, fewer bugs, and a generally better

5

user experience).

6

Here, the Interrogatory specifically defines “Object” and “Association” and several other

7

terms as having “the same meaning as described in the following paper: Bronson, et al, TAO:

8

Facebook’s Distributed Data Store for the Social Graph, USENIX ATC'13 Proceedings of the 2013

9

USENIX conference on Annual Technical Conference, § 3.1 (June, 2013) (available at

10

https://research.facebook.com/publications/161988287341248/tao-facebook-s-distributed-data-store-

11

for-the-social-graph/).” The referenced article was authored by several Facebook employees, and

12

describes a specific implementation (“TAO”) of a data model for accessing Facebook’s vast social

13

graph (the data stored when Facebook users record their relationships, share their interests, upload

14

content, and take certain other actions). The article briefly references Facebook’s previous methods

15

for storing the data in the social graph. Before TAO, Facebook used MySQL, which is a relational

16

database that could be queried using PHP, a programming language. Over time, Facebook developed

17

what software engineers and computer scientists refer to as an “abstraction,” which is a combination

18

of the underlying data and software code that is presented to programmers who will use the data for

19

particular functions that do not require interacting with all of the underlying complexity in the

20

MySQL database. The PHP abstraction allowed programmers to access groups of data and code

21

(referred to as “objects” or “nodes,” in the article) and the relationships between them (referred to as

22

“associations” or “edges” in the article) that exist in the database. For a number of reasons, Facebook

23

constructed TAO to directly implement the objects and associations model (which then replaced the

24

PHP abstraction of the MySQL database). Section 3.1 of the article, to which Plaintiffs specifically

25

refer for the definitions of “Object” and “Association” and other terms in their Interrogatory,

26

discusses “TAO objects” and “TAO associations,” and as a result, only these TAO Objects and TAO

27

Associations are responsive to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory.

28
11
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

As explained further in Facebook’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Interrogatory

2

Nos. 2-4 and in the Declaration of Dale Harrison (Dkt. No. 125-2), TAO Objects are not created

3

every time a URL is included in the text of a Facebook message. During the relevant time period, if a

4

URL was included in a draft message typed into the message text field on the Facebook website, and

5

a URL preview attachment was successfully created and not deleted, and the messages information

6

(including the URL preview attachment) was successfully received by a Facebook server, a Share

7

Object reflecting information about the URL preview attachment may have been created in TAO.

8

The Share Object includes a number of pieces of underlying data that, together, represent the event of

9

that URL being shared in that way on that occasion.

10

Searches in Facebook’s system revealed 12 TAO Share Objects related to the Subject

11

Messages. Facebook possesses no TAO Share Object related to seven of the Subject Messages.

12

Pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Facebook refers Plaintiffs to

13

produced documents bearing the beginning production numbers indicated in Exhibit A for the

14

attributes and database locations of the 12 TAO Share Objects, which were produced as “EntShares,”

15

further explained in the Declaration of Dale Harrison (Dkt. No. 125-2). These documents include a

16

field for the identifier for the database wherein the Object is stored (“DBID”).

17

No TAO Associations (or “edges”) are created from the TAO Share Objects for URL message

18

attachments to the sender or recipient of the message or any Object representing the message itself.

19

In an effort to identify any other TAO Associations created at the time of receipt of the Subject

20

Messages, Facebook constructed a query for Associations whose source object is the TAO Share

21

Object and whose timestamp matches that of the Subject Message.2 No such Associations were

22

identified.

23

Supplemental Information Regarding TAO Objects and Associations

24
25

As explained further in Facebook’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Interrogatory
Nos. 2-4 and in the Declaration of Dale Harrison (Dkt. No. 125-2), certain information related to

26
27

2

Association timestamps do not necessarily reflect their creation time, and could theoretically be assigned at a
different time. However, there is no superior source for creation time for TAO Associations.

28
12
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

shared URLs may also be stored in a Global Share Object, which includes the component data for

2

rendering a preview of that URL in certain circumstances. Global Share Objects are often created in

3

connection with the first time a URL is shared. However, the Object is actually created before the

4

URL is shared, and may be created even if the URL is not ultimately shared. During the relevant

5

time period, if a user typed a URL into the message text field on the Facebook website, a request may

6

have been sent to a Facebook server to generate a preview of that URL. If a Global Share Object

7

existed for that URL, Facebook may have generated a URL preview from the components in the

8

Global Share Object. If no Global Share Object existed, one may have been created at that time

9

through a series of processes to obtain information from the third-party website at that URL. If a

10

URL Share Object was successfully created once a message with a URL attachment had reached a

11

Facebook server, the “LocationField” key in the EntShare for that Share Object would refer to the

12

location of the Global Share Object for that URL.

13

Searches in Facebook’s system revealed 12 TAO Global Share Objects at the destinations

14

indicated in the “LocationField” key in the EntShares reflecting the 12 URL Share Objects (discussed

15

above) related to the Subject Messages. Pursuant to Rule 33(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil

16

Procedure, Facebook refers Plaintiffs to produced documents bearing the beginning production

17

numbers indicated in Exhibit A for the attributes and database locations of the 12 TAO Global Share

18

Objects, as well as any related TAO Associations, which were produced as “EntGlobalShares,”

19

further explained in the Declaration of Dale Harrison (Dkt. No. 125-2). These documents include a

20

field for the identifier for the database wherein the Object is stored (“DBID”).

21

These EntGlobalShares also reflect all TAO Associations for which the Global Share Objects

22

are a source object. However, no TAO Association is created between the Global Share Object and

23

the sender or recipient of a message containing that URL or any Object representing such messages

24

or any URL Share Objects created in connection with URL message attachments. Therefore, the

25

TAO Associations listed in the produced EntGlobalShares do not reflect any Associations to the

26

Subject Messages. It is possible that a Plaintiff took some other action to generate an Association to

27

the Global Share Object. For example, an Association was created from one of the Global Share

28

Objects very close in time to the processing of the EntMessage with beginning production number
13

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

FB000006650. It is possible that some other action taken by the Plaintiff-sender resulted in this

2

Association being created, but there is nothing about the Association stored in the EntGlobalShare

3

from which to determine whether that action was related to any Plaintiff in any way. In other words,

4

it could have been created by an action by a different user around the same time.

5

The EntGlobalShare includes a field for “creator,” which sometimes includes a reference to

6

the Facebook user whose action resulted in the creation of the Global Share Object. However, the

7

field is often empty or null. Only one of the 12 produced EntGlobalShares (which are the Global

8

Shares referenced in the 12 EntShares identified for the Subject Messages) references the sender of

9

one of the Subject Messages as a creator. See document with beginning production number

10

FB000005935. The fact that the sender of one of the Subject Messages is referenced as the creator of

11

the Global Share Object suggests that the Global Share Object was created in connection with

12

generating a URL preview for the sender of that message, which occurs before the message is sent.

13

The other 11 EntGlobalShares produced for the Subject Messages either indicate a creator other than

14

the sender of the relevant Subject Message or do not include creator information. However, a review

15

of the creation time for each of the other 11 Global Share Objects reveals that the EntGlobalShares

16

produced with beginning production numbers FB000005579, FB000013459, and FB000012512 were

17

created very close in time to the creation of the EntShare for the Subject Messages containing the

18

related URL, which were produced with beginning production numbers FB000005958,

19

FB000012851, and FB000012543, respectively. It is therefore likely that these four Global Share

20

Objects were created before the message was sent in order to generate a URL preview displayed to

21

the sender of that Subject Message when he or she initially typed the URL into the message text field

22

before sending the message. However, none of the EntGlobalShares have a TAO Association to any

23

of the Plaintiffs, any of the Subject Messages, or any of the URL Share Objects at the time of the

24

Subject Messages.

25

Databases and Tables Storing TAO Objects

26

As noted above, the representations of each of the TAO Objects for the Subject Messages that

27

Facebook produced (EntShares) include a Key and Value for the database in which that Object is

28

stored. Facebook also utilizes a number of databases for research and analysis, typically of
14

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

aggregated data for a sample period of time. An inquiry into these databases did not reveal any

2

information relating to the Subject Messages or their URL Share Objects.

3

Uses of TAO URL Share Objects

4

As explained further in Facebook’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Interrogatory

5

Nos. 2-4, TAO URL Share Objects are used for efficiently storing records of the share event and

6

message URL attachment information, as well as for rendering attachments in messages (when the

7

sender or recipient views the message in his or her inbox). They are also available to Facebook teams

8

for various site-improving purposes, including monitoring site integrity and preventing abuse. Global

9

Share Objects also provide efficiencies for programming as well as for reducing traffic across the

10

Internet by storing all the components for generating URL previews for a given URL on a Facebook

11

server, eliminating the need to repeatedly scrape the website at the same URL for preview

12

information.

13

In particular, Key and Value information from the Share Object are run through Facebook’s

14

system for detecting abuse (“

15

run policies that detect certain behavior or characteristics that may identify the URL attachment as

16

spam or dangerous in some way.

17

which

. If the

system, or one of the systems that it calls,

18

. The system may also

19

.

20
21

and is used to improve Facebook’s abuse detection systems. If any objects
were created at the time the Subject Messages were received,

22

.

23

As explained further in the June 1, 2015 Declaration of Alex Himel, Facebook also stores an

24

aggregate and anonymous counter (“internal share counter”3) for each URL represented by a URL

25

Global Share Object. During the relevant period, the internal share counter was incremented under

26
27

3

“Share count” or “share counter” or “share_count” referred to several different counters at Facebook during the
relevant time period. References to “share count” in historical Facebook documentation cannot necessarily be
assumed to refer to the counter referenced herein.

28
15
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

certain circumstances when users took certain actions, including but not limited to when a user’s

2

actions led to the creation of a URL Share Object, which may have resulted from creation of a URL

3

preview attachment to a Facebook message. The internal share counter did not dynamically calculate

4

a count from then-existing records. It was a static record of a count that was incremented under

5

certain circumstances, without retaining any information about the user that shared the URL that

6

incremented the counter, or any other facts or circumstances related to that increase in the count.

7

Moreover, as noted in Facebook’s Response to Interrogatory Nos. 2-4, there are a number of reasons

8

why creation of a given URL Share Object may not have incremented the URL share counter.

9

Frequent circumstances where a successfully created URL Share Object would not increment a URL

10

share counter include: various failures in the software or hardware executing Facebook’s code (e.g.,

11

bugs, database failures, database contention), conditions that the software cannot successfully process

12

such as race conditions (e.g., multiple people sharing the same URL at the same time resulting in

13

undercounting shares), incorrect mapping of shared URLs to Global Shares (i.e., the shared link does

14

not match the Global Share URL perfectly for any of a number of reasons). Facebook possesses no

15

historical data linking increments in the anonymous, aggregate internal share counters to specific

16

URL Share Objects or users, nor does Facebook possess any data from which such information could

17

be ascertained. There is therefore no way to determine whether any given URL Share Object from a

18

URL in a message actually resulted in an increment in the aggregate, anonymous internal share

19

counter during the relevant time period. In addition, there is no way to determine whether the 12

20

Share Objects from the Subject Messages actually resulted in any increases to the anonymous,

21

aggregate internal share counters for the corresponding URLs.

22

As explained further in Facebook’s Supplemental Responses and Objections to Interrogatory

23

Nos. 2-4 and in the June 1, 2015 Declaration of Alex Himel, for the period from May 4, 2010,

24

through December 20, 2012, certain implementations of the Like Count social plugin (a counter that

25

can be displayed with the Like Button social plugin) on third-party websites included Facebook’s

26

anonymous, aggregate internal share counters (among other things), which may have been

27

incremented, under certain circumstances, by the creation of Share Objects that were sometimes

28

created from share attachments that were sometimes generated from URLs in messages. However, it
16

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

was not until approximately August 16, 2010—with the introduction of the “preview feature” for

2

Facebook Messages—that Share Objects could have been created from messages drafted on the

3

Facebook website. After December 20, 2012, no implementations of the Like Count social plugin

4

included the internal share counters.

5

Nine of the Subject Messages were sent before August 16, 2010 or after December 20, 2012,

6

and therefore the inclusion of URLs in those messages could not have resulted in any increment to

7

any Like Count on any third-party website. Of the other 10 Subject Messages, only seven resulted in

8

the creation of a Share Object, and only one of those seven included a URL to a third-party webpage

9

that appears to currently display a Count next to the Like Button. If the webpages at the URLs in

10

those Subject Messages never displayed a Like Count, then the inclusion of URLs in those messages

11

also could not have resulted in any increment to any Like Count on any third-party website.

12

Facebook does not possess information that would allow it to ascertain whether those webpages

13

displayed a Like Count during the relevant period. If indeed those Subject Messages did not display

14

a Like Count, there would be only one Subject Message for which the inclusion of a URL could even

15

possibly have resulted in an increase in a Like Count on a third-party website. See document with

16

beginning production number FB000006682. However, Facebook does not possess information that

17

would allow it to ascertain whether that webpage displayed a Like Count during the relevant time

18

period. Moreover, even if that webpage did display a Like Count during the relevant time period,

19

Facebook does not possess any information that would allow it to ascertain whether the creation of

20

the related Share Object actually resulted in an increment in the aggregate, anonymous Like Count on

21

that third-party website.

22

The evidence listed above comprises the message-by-message inquiry necessary to determine

23

whether it is even possible that the inclusion of a URL in the Subject Messages may have resulted in

24

an increment of an anonymous, aggregate Like Count on a third-party webpage. In sum, because

25

nine of the messages were sent outside the relevant period and only six of the remaining messages

26

created Share Objects for URLs to third-party websites, only those six of the 19 Subject Messages

27

could possibly have incremented an anonymous, aggregate Like Count on a third-party webpage.

28

Again, if the five URLs that do not currently display a Like Count also did not display a Like Count
17

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

during the relevant period, then only one of the 19 messages could possibly have incremented an

2

anonymous, aggregate Like Count on a third-party website. Facebook does not possess information

3

from which to determine whether that Subject Message did in fact result in incrementing an

4

anonymous, aggregate Like Count on a third-party website.

5

Supplemental Information and Other Objects

6

In the course of conducting an inquiry for the TAO Objects described above, Facebook also

7

identified certain additional information stored in connection with the receipt of the Subject

8

Messages. As explained further in the Declaration of Dale Harrison (Dkt. No. 125-2), Facebook has

9

identified and produced representations of the data stored for messages, referred to as “Titan

10

Information,” and representations of and objects created in connection with the processing of

11

messages, referred to as “EntMessages.” Facebook has now also produced objects representing

12

message threads, referred to as “EntMessageThreads,” that were created when the Subject Messages

13

were processed (which usually occurs if the Subject Message was the first in a thread). See Exhibit

14

A. This information is not part of Facebook’s social graph and is not stored in the TAO data model

15

implementation described in the article that Plaintiffs reference in the definitions accompanying

16

Interrogatory No. 8.

17
18
19

DATED: October 28, 2015

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By:

20
21

/s/ Joshua A. Jessen
Joshua A. Jessen

Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2
3
4

I, Jeana Bisnar Maute, declare as follows:
I am employed in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, I am over the age of eighteen
years and am not a party to this action; my business address is 1881 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA
94304-1211, in said County and State. On October 28, 2015, I served the following document(s):

5

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES

6
7

on the parties stated below, by the following means of service:

8

David F. Slade
[e-mail]
James Allen Carney
[e-mail]
Joseph Henry Bates, III
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
[e-mail]

9
10
11
12
13

Melissa Ann Gardner
[e-mail]
Nicholas Diamand
[e-mail]
Rachel Geman
[e-mail]
Michael W. Sobol
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
[e-mail]

14
15
16
17
18
19



BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: On the above-mentioned date, based on a court order or
an agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the
documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic notification addresses as shown
above.



I am employed in the office of Joshua A. Jessen and am a member of the bar of this court.



I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

20
21
22
23
24

Executed on October 28, 2015.

25
/s/ Jeana Bisnar Maute
Jeana Bisnar Maute

26
27
28
19
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

EXHIBIT A
Message

EntMessage

Titan Info

EntShare

EntGlobalShare

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
68
89
93
99
113
115
123
200
410
654
482

FB000006666
FB000006691
FB000006595
FB000006658
FB000006610
FB000006642
FB000006650

FB000005575
FB000005577
FB000005647
FB000005720
FB000005798
FB000005800
FB000005880
FB000011876
FB000005882
FB000005933
FB000006005
FB000006007
FB000006085
FB000012006
FB000006088
FB000006170
FB000012557
FB000006172
FB000006174

FB000005528

FB000005502

FB000005601
FB000005673
FB000005750

FB000005579
FB000005649
FB000005722

FB000005827
FB000012993

FB000005802
FB000013201

FB000005887
FB000005958

FB000005884
FB000005935

FB000006038

FB000006009

FB000006120

FB000006090

FB000012851
FB000012543

FB000013459
FB000012512

FB000006707
FB000006674
FB000006634
FB000006603
FB000006682
FB000006618
FB000006699
FB000006587
FB000006626

EXHIBIT A TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ NARROWED SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
1

EntMessageThread

FB000012425
FB000011841

FB000013572