Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 185

ERRATA re 183 Exhibits to an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,,,, 184 Exhibits to an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal,,, 178 Notice (Other),, 177 Transcript,,, Evidence Filed In Support Of Facebook's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Regarding Certain Pre-Class Period Conduct by Facebook Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alex Himel to Correct and Clarify the Record)(Chorba, Christopher) (Filed on 5/11/2016)

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

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
JOSHUA A. JESSEN, SBN 222831
[e-mail]
JEANA BISNAR MAUTE, SBN 290573
[e-mail]
PRIYANKA RAJAGOPALAN, SBN 278504
[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
CHRISTOPHER CHORBA, SBN 216692
[e-mail]
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
FACEBOOK, INC.

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

OAKLAND DIVISION

17

MATTHEW CAMPBELL and MICHAEL
HURLEY,

18
Plaintiffs,
19
v.
20
FACEBOOK, INC.,
21

Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S
ERRATA TO EVIDENCE FILED IN
SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
REGARDING CERTAIN PRE-CLASS
PERIOD CONDUCT

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

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S ERRATA TO EVIDENCE FILED IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION REGARDING CERTAIN PRE-CLASS PERIOD CONDUCT
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

Facebook files this brief errata to correct and clarify certain statements contained in some of

2

the evidence submitted in support of Facebook’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class

3

Certification regarding certain pre-class-period conduct (i.e., conduct before December 30, 2011).

4

Given that these facts concern pre-class period conduct, Facebook does not believe they are material

5

to the issues in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. Facebook nonetheless wanted to bring this

6

information to the Court’s attention.

7

Specifically, as explained in the attached Supplemental Declaration of Alex Himel, in

8

response to what were (at the time) new assertions made by Plaintiffs in their Motion for Class

9

Certification, Facebook submitted testimony from Mr. Himel that before the start of Plaintiffs’

10

proposed class period (December 30, 2011), in some circumstances certain data regarding URL

11

attachments sent with Facebook messages may have been logged in a Hive table called “share_stats,”

12

which was used in certain circumstances for Facebook’s Recommendations social plugin; after the

13

start of the proposed class period, however, no data regarding URL attachments sent with Facebook

14

messages were logged in “share_stats.” (Supp. Himel Decl. ¶ 3.) Those statements were correct at

15

the time they were made, and they remain correct. (Id.) However, Facebook also presented

16

testimony from Mr. Himel that the “share_stats” table itself—which reflected pre-class period data—

17

was deleted prior to the beginning of the class period. (Id.) Facebook recently learned that the

18

“share_stats” table itself existed for a very brief period of time at the beginning of the proposed class

19

period. (Id.) Specifically, the table was deleted on January 21, 2012—which is 22 days after the start

20

of the proposed class period. (Id.)
Facebook re-confirmed that logging to the “share_stats” table in fact did stop in August 2011,

21
22

which was before the start of the proposed class period. Accordingly, any information in that table

23

would only have reflected pre-class-period data. (Id. ¶ 4.) Therefore, no Facebook user who sent or

24

received a message during the proposed class period could have had data regarding a URL

25

attachment for that message logged to the “share_stats” table. (Id.) Facebook is producing the

26

records substantiating these facts to Plaintiffs’ counsel.
Facebook relied on Mr. Himel’s testimony on these points in the following places in the

27
28

record:
1

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S ERRATA TO EVIDENCE FILED IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION REGARDING CERTAIN PRE-CLASS PERIOD CONDUCT
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1



Paragraphs 9, 44, and 56 of the Expert Report of Dr. Benjamin Goldberg (Dkt. 183-12);

2



Page 2, lines 21-23 in Facebook’s Objection to and Request to Strike New Evidence and

3

Misstatements of Fact in Plaintiffs’ Reply in support of their Motion for Class Certification

4

(Dkt. 178-4); and

5



Page 87, lines 16-20 of the Reporter’s Transcript for the Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for

6

Class Certification (Dkt. 177).

7

Therefore, in addition to the clarifications that Mr. Himel is making to his prior declarations,

8

those references in the record also are hereby updated to reflect the fact that while data regarding

9

URL attachments sent with Facebook messages were never logged in the “share_stats” table during

10

the proposed class period, the table containing pre-class-period data existed for the first 22 days of

11

the proposed class period.

12

Dated: May 11, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

13

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

14

By:

15

/s/
Christopher Chorba
Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S ERRATA TO EVIDENCE FILED IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION REGARDING CERTAIN PRE-CLASS PERIOD CONDUCT
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)