Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 199

NOTICE by Facebook Inc. Joint Notice of Refiling of Documents Accompanying Class Certification Briefs and Evidentiary Objections (Attachments: # 1 Ex. 1 - Replacement for Dkt. 178-1, # 2 Ex. 2 - Replacement for Dkt. 183-4, # 3 Ex. 3 - Replacement for Dkt. 179-1, # 4 Ex. 4 - Replacement for Dkt. 184-3, # 5 Ex. 5 - Replacement for Dkt. 179-2, # 6 Ex. 6 - Replacement for Dkt. 179-3, # 7 Ex. 7 - Replacement for Dkt. 179-4, # 8 Ex. 8 - Replacement for Dkt. 179-5, # 9 Ex. 9 - Replacement for Dkt. 179-6, # 10 Ex. 10 - Replacement for Dkt. 179-7, # 11 Ex. 11 - Replacement for Dkt. 179-10, # 12 Ex. 12 - Replacement for Dkt. 179-11, # 13 Ex. 13 - Replacement for Dkt. 179-12, # 14 Ex. 14 - Replacement for Dkt. 179-13, # 15 Ex. 15 - Replacement for Dkt. 179-14, # 16 Ex. 16 - Replacement for Dkt. 179-15, # 17 Ex. 17 - Replacement for Dkt. 179-16, # 18 Ex. 18 - Replacement for Dkt. 179-17, # 19 Ex. 19 - Replacement for Dkt. 179-18, # 20 Ex. 20 - Replacement for Dkt. 179-20, # 21 Ex. 21 - Replacement for Dkt. 180-2, # 22 Ex. 22 - Replacement for Dkt. 180-3, # 23 Ex. 23 - Replacement for Dkt. 184-9, # 24 Ex. 24 - Replacement for Dkt. 180-7, # 25 Ex. 25 - Replacement for Dkt. 180-9, # 26 Ex. 26 - Replacement for Dkt. 180-12, # 27 Ex. 27 - Replacement for Dkt. 180-17, # 28 Ex. 28 - Replacement for Dkt. 180-18, # 29 Ex. 29 - Replacement for Dkt. 180-19, # 30 Ex. 30 - Replacement for Dkt. 180-20, # 31 Ex. 31 - Replacement for Dkt. 180-21, # 32 Ex. 32 - Replacement for Dkt. 180-22, # 33 Ex. 33 - Replacement for Dkt. 180-23, # 34 Ex. 34 - Replacement for Dkt. 178-5)(Chorba, Christopher) (Filed on 6/15/2016)

EXHIBIT 25

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

v.

22

FACEBOOK, INC.,

23

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

Defendant.

24
25

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

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 supplemental responses and objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of

5

Interrogatories (the “Interrogatories”).

6
7

These responses are designated Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only under the
Amended Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Court on July 1, 2015.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

8
9

1.

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

10

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

11

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

12

2.

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16
17
18

3.

Facebook’s responses are based 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 into

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

5.

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

23

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

24

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

25

Interrogatory.

26
27
28

1

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

1
2

1.

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

2.

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

7

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

8

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

9

Facebook’s response will be limited to information generated between December 30, 2011 and

10

December 20, 2012.

11

3.

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

12

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

13

discovery of admissible evidence.

14

4.

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

15

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

16

Plaintiffs’ need for the information. For example, many of the Interrogatories seek broad and

17

vaguely defined categories of materials that are not reasonably tailored to the subject matter of this

18

action.

19

5.

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

2

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

documents in any way.

7

6.

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

8

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

9

as a request for production or deposition.

10
11
12

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

13

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

14

proprietary, or competitively sensitive.

15

9.

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

16

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

17

equally available to Plaintiffs.
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS

18
19

1.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Active Likes” as vague, ambiguous,

20

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

21

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

22

defenses in this action, particularly as a result of its reference to the undefined term, “Social Plugin.”

23

Facebook construes the term “Social Plugin” to have the meaning attributed to that term in the

24

operative versions of Facebook’s Data Use Policy.

25

2.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Architecture” as vague, ambiguous,

26

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

27

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

28

3

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

defenses in this action, particularly as a result of its use of the phrase “including but not limited to”

2

and the undefined term “Your services.”

3

3.

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.

11

4.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Facebook User Data Profile(s)” as vague,

12

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

13

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

14

claims and defenses in this action.

15

5.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Passive Likes” as vague, ambiguous,

16

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

17

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

18

defenses in this action. Facebook construes the term “Passive Likes” as it relates to the practice

19

challenged in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the

20

URL for that website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product

21

during the class period (December 30, 2011 to approximately December 20, 2012)). Specifically,

22

Facebook construes “Passive Likes” to refer to an increase in the “Like” count on a third-party

23

website resulting from inclusion of that website’s URL in a Facebook message during the class

24

period.

25
26

6.

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

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

27
28

4

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

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

2

which Facebook exercises no control.

3

7.

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

8.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Private Message Content” to the extent

8

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

9

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

10

relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Facebook further objects to this definition on the

11

ground and to the extent it is inconsistent with applicable law.

12

9.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Private Message Transmission” as vague,

13

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

14

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

15

claims and defenses in this action. Facebook further objects to this definition on the ground and to

16

the extent it is inconsistent with relevant law.

17

10.

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

18

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

19

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

20

Facebook shall construe these terms as commonly and ordinarily understood.

21

11.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Targeted Advertising” as vague,

22

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

23

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

24

claims and defenses in this action. Facebook construes the term “Targeted Advertising” to refer to

25

the service described under the heading “Personalized ads” on page 5 of Facebook’s Data Use Policy,

26

dated September 7, 2011, and page 11 of Facebook’s Data Use Policy, dated June 8, 2012 (see

27

FB000000015; FB000000027).

28

5

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

12.

Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Transmission,” “Transmit,” and

2

“Transmitting” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further

3

objects to the definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these terms to seek materials that

4

are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.

5

13.

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

6

vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent the terms are meant to include

7

“directors, officers, employees, partners, members, representatives, agents (including attorneys,

8

accountants, consultants, investment advisors or bankers), and any other person purporting to act on

9

[Facebook, Inc.’s] behalf. . . . parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessor entities, successor entities,

10

divisions, departments, groups, acquired entities and/or related entities or any other entity acting or

11

purporting to act on its behalf” over which Facebook exercises no control, and to the extent that

12

Plaintiffs purport to use these terms to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the

13

Federal and Local Rules.
OBJECTIONS TO “RULES OF CONSTRUCTION” AND INSTRUCTIONS

14
15
16
17

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

18

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

19

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

20

Facebook’s response will be limited to information generated between December 30, 2011 and

21

December 20, 2012.

22

3.

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

23

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

24

the Federal and Local Rules.

25

OBJECTION TO PURPORTED “RELEVANT TIME PERIOD”

26

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

27

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

28

6

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

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

2

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

3

Unless otherwise specified, Facebook’s Responses to these Interrogatories will be limited to

4

information generated between December 30, 2011 and December 20, 2012, which is the proposed

5

class period defined in Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint. (See Pls.’ Consol. Am. Compl.

6

[Dkt. 25] ¶ 59 & n.3.) Facebook otherwise objects to the remainder of Plaintiffs’ statement regarding

7

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

8

by the Federal and Local Rules.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS

9
10
11

INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Identify all persons, including Third Parties and Your current and former employees, known

12

by You to have personal knowledge of any facts or issues involved in this lawsuit, and for each

13

person please identify

14

(A) the party’s first and last name;

15

(B) the party’s employer, if not You;

16

(C) the party’s job title(s); and

17

(D) the nature of the party’s personal knowledge of the facts or issues involved in this

18

lawsuit.

19
20

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

21

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

22

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

23

grounds:

24

(A)

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

25

Parties”; “any facts or issues involved in this lawsuit”; and “nature of the party’s personal knowledge

26

of the facts or issues involved in this lawsuit.”

27
28

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.
7

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

(C)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding each

2

Facebook employee’s “personal knowledge” of “facts or issues involved in this lawsuit,” over an

3

extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information

4

known and identified to date.

5
6
7
8
9

(D) The Interrogatory purports to request employment information that is not relevant to the
claims or defenses in this action.
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:
a. Michael Adkins has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period.

10

Among other topics, Mr. Adkins may have information relating to the operation and

11

security of Facebook’s Messages product.

12

b. Alex Himel has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period. Among

13
14

other topics, Mr. Himel may have information relating to Facebook’s “Like” social plugin.
c. Ray He has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period. Among other

15

topics, Mr. He may have information relating to Facebook’s “Like” social plugin.

16

d. Matt Jones has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period. Among

17

other topics, Mr. Jones may have information relating to Facebook’s security-related

18

efforts.

19

e. Jordan Blackthorne has been a product marketing manager at Facebook during the

20

relevant time period. Among other topics, Ms. Blackthorne may have information relating

21

to Facebook’s targeted advertising feature.

22

f. Peng Fan has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period. Among other

23
24
25

topics, Mr. Fan may have information relating to Facebook’s targeted advertising feature.
Facebook reserves the right to supplement its response to this Interrogatory as its investigation
continues.

26
27
28

8

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

3

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

4

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

5

grounds:

6

(A)

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

7

Parties”; “any facts or issues involved in this lawsuit”; and “nature of the party’s personal knowledge

8

of the facts or issues involved in this lawsuit.”

9

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

10

(C)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding each

11

Facebook employee’s “personal knowledge” of “facts or issues involved in this lawsuit,” over an

12

extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information

13

known and identified to date.

14
15
16
17
18

(D) The Interrogatory purports to request employment information that is not relevant to the
claims or defenses in this action.
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:
a. Michael Adkins has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period.

19

Among other topics, Mr. Adkins may have information relating to the operation and

20

security of Facebook’s Messages product.

21
22
23

b. Alex Himel has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period. Among
other topics, Mr. Himel may have information relating to Facebook’s “Like” social plugin.
c. Ray He has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period. Among other

24

topics, Mr. He may have information relating to Facebook’s “Like” social plugin.

25

d. Matt Jones has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period. Among

26

other topics, Mr. Jones may have information relating to Facebook’s security-related

27

efforts.

28

9

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

e. Jordan Blackthorne has been a product marketing manager at Facebook during the

2

relevant time period. Among other topics, Ms. Blackthorne may have information relating

3

to Facebook’s targeted advertising feature.

4
5

f. Peng Fan has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period. Among other
topics, Mr. Fan may have information relating to Facebook’s targeted advertising feature.

6

g. Dan Fechete has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period. Among

7

other topics, Mr. Fechete may have information relating to Facebook’s “Like” social

8

plugin.

9

h. Jonathan Gross has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period. Among

10

other topics, Mr. Gross may have information relating to Facebook’s “Like” social plugin.

11

i. Mark Kinsey has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period. Among

12

other topics, Mr. Kinsey may have information relating to Facebook’s “Like” social

13

plugin.

14

j. Ryan Lim has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period. Among

15

other topics, Mr. Lim may have information relating to the operation and security of

16

Facebook’s Messages product.

17

k. Jiakai Liu has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period. Among

18

other topics, Mr. Liu may have information relating to the operation and security of

19

Facebook’s Messages product.

20

l. Malorie Lucich has been a public relations manager at Facebook during the relevant time

21

period. Among other topics, Ms. Lucich may have information relating to the media

22

coverage of the practice challenged in this action.

23

m. Caryn Marooney has been a vice president of technology communications at Facebook

24

during the relevant time period. Among other topics, Ms. Marooney may have

25

information relating to the media coverage of the practice challenged in this action.

26
27
28

10

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

n.

Ben Mathews has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period. Among

2

other topics, Mr. Mathews may have information relating to Facebook’s security-related

3

efforts.

4

o. Christopher Palow has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period.

5

Among other topics, Mr. Palow may have information relating to Facebook’s security-

6

related efforts.

7

p. Giri Rajaram has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period. Among

8

other topics, Mr. Rajaram may have information relating to Facebook’s targeted

9

advertising feature.

10

q. Scott Renfro has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period. Among

11

other topics, Mr. Renfro may have information relating to Facebook’s “Like” social

12

plugin.

13

r. Rob Sherman has been the deputy chief privacy officer at Facebook during the relevant

14

time period. Among other topics, Mr. Sherman may have information relating to the

15

media coverage of the practice challenged in this action.

16

s. Mathew Verghese has been a project manager at Facebook during the relevant time

17

period. Among other topics, Mr. Verghese may have information relating to Facebook’s

18

targeted advertising feature.

19

t. Mike Vernal has been an engineer at Facebook during the relevant time period. Among

20

other topics, Mr. Vernal may have information relating to Facebook’s “Like” social

21

plugin.

22

u. Frederic Wolens has been a public policy manager at Facebook during the relevant time

23

period. Among other topics, Mr. Wolens may have information relating to the media

24

coverage of the practice challenged in this action.

25
26

Facebook reserves the right to supplement its response to this Interrogatory as its investigation
continues.

27
28

11

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

2

Identify by name, purpose, sequence, function and physical location each Process and/or piece

3

of Architecture involved in Private Message Transmission.

4

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

grounds:

9
10

(A)

The Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Process and/or

piece of Architecture” and “Private Message Transmission.”

11

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

12

(C)

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

13

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

14

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

15

a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30,

16

2011 to October 31, 2012)).

17

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding each

18

“Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in” the transmission of Facebook messages over an

19

extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information

20

known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action (as defined

21

above).

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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:
During the relevant period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), if a user typed a URL
into the text field in the Facebook Messages product, and the user had JavaScript enabled in her
12

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

browser, the JavaScript code running in the user’s browser may have detected the existence of a

2

URL.

3

The JavaScript code may then have requested information from a Facebook server in order to

4

provide a preview of the typed URL (“URL preview”)—including a brief description of the URL

5

and, if available, a relevant image from the website. At the time the request was sent to Facebook for

6

a preview, Facebook assessed whether the URL was in its library of known malicious URLs. If it

7

was, Facebook would not return a preview. If it was not, Facebook may have returned information

8

already on a Facebook server to generate a preview. Or, if information to generate the URL preview

9

was not available already on a Facebook server, a Facebook server may have sent a request to the

10

website, generated an image and description if available, and delivered those components to the

11

user’s browser to generate a URL preview. There was variability in the type of preview that may

12

have been rendered. For example, if the URL a user wanted to send required a viewer to log into the

13

destination website, the preview may have been blank, the user may have received an “HTTP 404” or

14

“Not Found” error message, or the preview may have shown the default page for the website.

15

Similarly, some websites may have provided Facebook with a specific image or description for the

16

preview, while others did not. Additionally, sometimes, depending on a number of factors (as

17

discussed above and below), a URL preview was not available despite these steps.

18

Where available, URL previews helped users verify the URL they were sharing before

19

sending. When the URL preview was generated, it was displayed for the message sender before

20

sending the message, so the sender could first verify and gain a sense of the information located at the

21

URL. This feature also allowed message recipients to preview a transmitted URL before clicking on

22

the URL. Under certain circumstances, a URL preview may not have been generated, such as if the

23

user did not have JavaScript enabled in her browser, or if a user sent the message before the preview

24

could be generated, or if the URL was known to be malicious. Additionally, if generated, URL

25

previews were only created for the first URL typed into a draft message, meaning that subsequent

26

URLs typed into the draft message did not generate a URL preview. Accordingly, whether or not a

27

URL preview was generated depended on myriad factors, such as the configuration of the user’s

28

13

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

browser, the type of URL entered, the number of URLs entered, and the speed of send, among other

2

individualized factors.

3

A URL preview is an attachment to the draft message. In other words, while a URL preview

4

may have been generated based on a URL typed into the text field of a draft message, the URL

5

preview is an attachment to the message that is separate and distinct from the message itself

6

(including the characters in the text field). Thus, once the URL attachment was created, changes to

7

the characters in the text field of the draft message did not impact the URL attachment. For example,

8

deleting the characters in the text field would not have impacted an existing URL attachment.

9

However, the user could delete the URL attachment by clicking the “X” in the corner of the preview.

10

If a user proceeded to send a message, the message (including the text of the message, certain

11

information about the message, e.g., date and time sent, sender, recipient, text formatting) as well as

12

any attachments (including URLs), would have been sent to a Facebook server. After receiving the

13

message on a Facebook server, Facebook software processed the message and any attachments while

14

they were in electronic storage, and sent certain data through Facebook’s abuse- and security-related

15

platform, which runs the data through certain filters. Depending on the specific data transmitted,

16

certain data about the message may have been assessed in various ways and against criteria intended

17

to detect large-scale automated abuse (e.g., spam, malware, phishing, and other abuse). For example,

18

one filter compares URL text in a message and in any attachments against a library of hundreds of

19

millions of URLs known to be dangerous. If a URL typed into a message appeared in the malicious

20

URL library, it may have been blocked and the author of the message may have received a message

21

from Facebook indicating that the URL was unsafe. By way of further example, once a message

22

reached a Facebook server and was in electronic storage, the security platform may have taken a

23

string of the text in the message and determined whether the occurring numbers and letters were

24

similar (in a statistically significant way) to other messages that appeared to be spam that were being

25

sent around the same time.

26
27
28

In general, if a message was determined to be dangerous for any one of these many different
reasons, it may have been treated in a number of different ways. For example, it may have been
14

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

blocked in whole or in part from being routed by Facebook to the recipient mailbox, or a user may

2

have had to pass a CAPTCHA (“Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and

3

Humans Apart”) test before Facebook would deliver the message.

4

Once on a Facebook server, the message and attachments were also processed in various ways

5

to ultimately render the message as the user intended. For example, emoticons—specific series of

6

keyboard characters used to represent facial expressions—in the text of a message received and

7

stored on a Facebook server were processed in order to be translated into the images intended by the

8

sender. Messages were also processed for other reasons related to language rendering and

9

formatting.

10

If a URL attachment was successfully created (and not deleted by the user) prior to the

11

message being sent, then, after the message was sent and the message and components were received

12

and stored on a Facebook server, and if the message was not blocked in the course of abuse- and

13

security-related processing, the message event was logged in a number of ways, and several records

14

(“share objects”) were created reflecting the fact that the message had a URL as an attachment (a

15

“URL share”). In other words, each share object was created based on the receipt of a URL

16

attachment on a Facebook server; it was not generated based on the text of the message, which may

17

or may not have included a URL when sent. If a URL preview was not created before the message

18

was sent or was deleted by the user before sending, no share object was created. Similarly, if a

19

malicious message or URL was successfully “blocked,” no share object was created. As explained

20

below in response to Interrogatory No. 4, during the relevant time period (December 30, 2011 to

21

October 31, 2012), the software that generated and displayed the anonymous, aggregate “Like” count

22

on a third-party website that contained the “Like” button social plugin obtained the data regarding

23

URL attachments to messages from the stored repository of share object records—the global share

24

object record. If a user shared a URL through a message but no share object was created (for any of

25

the reasons noted above), the sharing of that URL did not increment the “Like” count social plugin on

26

the destination website. Similarly, if the destination website associated with the URL did not have a

27

Facebook “Like” button social plugin, the sharing of that URL did not increment the “Like” count on

28

15

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

the website (even if a share object was created). Additionally, messages containing URLs sent from

2

outside of Facebook to a Facebook user (and vice versa) did not create attachments and therefore did

3

not create share objects.

4

The share data derived from the message data received on the Facebook server was stored in

5

three formats: user-specific message information, a user-specific share object, and a “global” share

6

object. The global share object recorded the instances of sharing the same root URL across the

7

Facebook platform. The user-specific message information was routed through the remainder of the

8

Facebook infrastructure, to the sender’s mailbox and to the recipient’s mailbox. If the recipient

9

called the message from her mailbox, the message and URL attachment were processed again

10

through a subset of Facebook’s abuse- and security-related filters. If the message and attachment

11

were not partially or completely blocked, the message and attachment were sent to the recipient client

12

for display. Messages were also processed to the extent necessary to display intended features and

13

render the appropriate language, and were then displayed to the intended recipient.

14

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

grounds:

19
20

(A)

The Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Process and/or

piece of Architecture” and “Private Message Transmission.”

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 (December 30,

26

2011 to approximately December 20, 2012)).

27
28

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding each
16

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

“Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in” the transmission of Facebook messages over an

2

extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information

3

known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action (as defined

4

above).

5
6
7
8
9

(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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:
During the relevant period (December 30, 2011 to approximately December 20, 2012), if a

10

user typed a URL into the text field in the Facebook Messages product, and the user had JavaScript

11

enabled in her browser, the JavaScript code running in the user’s browser may have detected the

12

existence of a URL.

13

The JavaScript code may then have requested information from a Facebook server in order to

14

provide a preview of the typed URL (“URL preview”)—including a brief description of the URL

15

and, if available, a relevant image from the website. At the time the request was sent to Facebook for

16

a preview, Facebook assessed whether the URL was in its library of known malicious URLs. If it

17

was, Facebook would not return a preview. If it was not, Facebook may have returned information

18

already on a Facebook server to generate a preview. Or, if information to generate the URL preview

19

was not available already on a Facebook server, a Facebook server may have sent a request to the

20

website, generated an image and description if available, and delivered those components to the

21

user’s browser to generate a URL preview. There was variability in the type of preview that may

22

have been rendered. For example, if the URL a user wanted to send required a viewer to log into the

23

destination website, the preview may have been blank, the user may have received an “HTTP 404” or

24

“Not Found” error message, or the preview may have shown the default page for the website.

25

Similarly, some websites may have provided Facebook with a specific image or description for the

26

preview, while others did not. Additionally, sometimes, depending on a number of factors (as

27

discussed above and below), a URL preview was not available despite these steps.

28

17

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

Where available, URL previews helped users verify the URL they were sharing before

2

sending. When the URL preview was generated, it was displayed for the message sender before

3

sending the message, so the sender could first verify and gain a sense of the information located at the

4

URL. This feature also allowed message recipients to preview a transmitted URL before clicking on

5

the URL. Under certain circumstances, a URL preview may not have been generated, such as if the

6

user did not have JavaScript enabled in her browser, or if a user sent the message before the preview

7

could be generated, or if the URL was known to be malicious. Additionally, if generated, URL

8

previews were only created for the first URL typed into a draft message, meaning that subsequent

9

URLs typed into the draft message did not generate a URL preview. Accordingly, whether or not a

10

URL preview was generated depended on myriad factors, such as the configuration of the user’s

11

browser, the type of URL entered, the number of URLs entered, and the speed of send, among other

12

individualized factors.

13

A URL preview is an attachment to the draft message. In other words, while a URL preview

14

may have been generated based on a URL typed into the text field of a draft message, the URL

15

preview is an attachment to the message that is separate and distinct from the message itself

16

(including the characters in the text field). Thus, once the URL attachment was created, changes to

17

the characters in the text field of the draft message did not impact the URL attachment. For example,

18

deleting the characters in the text field would not have impacted an existing URL attachment.

19

However, the user could delete the URL attachment by clicking the “X” in the corner of the preview.

20

If a user proceeded to send a message, the message (including the text of the message, certain

21

information about the message, e.g., date and time sent, sender, recipient, text formatting) as well as

22

any attachments (including URLs), would have been sent to a Facebook server. After receiving the

23

message on a Facebook server, Facebook software processed the message and any attachments while

24

they were in electronic storage, and sent certain data through Facebook’s abuse- and security-related

25

platform, which runs the data through certain filters. Depending on the specific data transmitted,

26

certain data about the message may have been assessed in various ways and against criteria intended

27

to detect large-scale automated abuse (e.g., spam, malware, phishing, and other abuse). For example,

28

18

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

one filter compares URL text in a message and in any attachments against a library of hundreds of

2

millions of URLs known to be dangerous. If a URL typed into a message appeared in the malicious

3

URL library, it may have been blocked and the author of the message may have received a message

4

from Facebook indicating that the URL was unsafe. By way of further example, once a message

5

reached a Facebook server and was in electronic storage, the security platform may have taken a

6

string of the text in the message and determined whether the occurring numbers and letters were

7

similar (in a statistically significant way) to other messages that appeared to be spam that were being

8

sent around the same time.

9

In general, if a message was determined to be dangerous for any one of these many different

10

reasons, it may have been treated in a number of different ways. For example, it may have been

11

blocked in whole or in part from being routed by Facebook to the recipient mailbox, or a user may

12

have had to pass a CAPTCHA (“Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and

13

Humans Apart”) test before Facebook would deliver the message.

14

Once on a Facebook server, the message and attachments were also processed in various ways

15

to ultimately render the message as the user intended. For example, emoticons—specific series of

16

keyboard characters used to represent facial expressions—in the text of a message received and

17

stored on a Facebook server were processed in order to be translated into the images intended by the

18

sender. Messages were also processed for other reasons related to language rendering and

19

formatting.

20

If a URL attachment was successfully created (and not deleted by the user) prior to the

21

message being sent, then, after the message was sent and the message and components were received

22

and stored on a Facebook server, and if the message was not blocked in the course of abuse- and

23

security-related processing, the message event was logged in a number of ways, and several records

24

(“share objects”) were created reflecting the fact that the message had a URL as an attachment (a

25

“URL share”). In other words, each share object was created based on the receipt of a URL

26

attachment on a Facebook server; it was not generated based on the text of the message, which may

27

or may not have included a URL when sent. If a URL preview was not created before the message

28

19

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

was sent or was deleted by the user before sending, no share object was created. Similarly, if a

2

malicious message or URL was successfully “blocked,” no share object was created. As explained

3

below in response to Interrogatory No. 4, during the relevant time period (December 30, 2011 to

4

approximately December 20, 2012), the software that generated and displayed the anonymous,

5

aggregate “Like” count on a third-party website that contained the “Like” button social plugin

6

obtained the data regarding URL attachments to messages from the stored repository of share object

7

records—the global share object record. If a user shared a URL through a message but no share

8

object was created (for any of the reasons noted above), the sharing of that URL did not increment

9

the “Like” count social plugin on the destination website. Similarly, if the destination website

10

associated with the URL did not have a Facebook “Like” button social plugin, or if one of a number

11

of other conditions was present, the sharing of that URL did not increment the “Like” count on the

12

website (even if a share object was created). Additionally, messages containing URLs sent from

13

outside of Facebook to a Facebook user (and vice versa) did not create attachments and therefore did

14

not create share objects.

15

The share data derived from the message data received on the Facebook server was stored in

16

three formats: user-specific message information, a user-specific share object, and a “global” share

17

object. The global share object recorded the instances of sharing the same root URL across the

18

Facebook platform. The user-specific message information was routed through the remainder of the

19

Facebook infrastructure, to the sender’s mailbox and to the recipient’s mailbox. If the recipient

20

called the message from her mailbox, the message and URL attachment were processed again

21

through a subset of Facebook’s abuse- and security-related filters. If the message and attachment

22

were not partially or completely blocked, the message and attachment were sent to the recipient client

23

for display. Messages were also processed to the extent necessary to display intended features and

24

render the appropriate language, and were then displayed to the intended recipient.

25

INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

26
27
28

For each Process and/or piece of Architecture identified in Interrogatory No. 2, identify
whether – and the manner in which – such Process and/or piece of Architecture scans, analyzes, or
20

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

extracts Private Message Content.

2

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

grounds:

7
8

(A)

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

and/or piece of Architecture,” “Private Message Content,” “scans,” “analyzes,” and “extracts.”

9

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

10

(C)

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

11

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

12

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

13

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

14

October 31, 2012)).

15

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek additional information

16

regarding each “Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in” the transmission of Facebook

17

messages over an extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on

18

the information known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action

19

(as defined above).

20

(E)

21

proprietary company information.

22
23

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

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:

24

During the relevant period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), if a user typed a URL

25

into the text field in the Facebook Messages product, and the user had JavaScript enabled in her

26

browser, the JavaScript code running in the user’s browser may have detected the existence of a

27

URL.

28

21

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

The JavaScript code may then have requested information from a Facebook server in order to

2

provide a preview of the typed URL (“URL preview”)—including a brief description of the URL

3

and, if available, a relevant image from the website. At the time the request was sent to Facebook for

4

a preview, Facebook assessed whether the URL was in its library of known malicious URLs. If it

5

was, Facebook would not return a preview. If it was not, Facebook may have returned information

6

already on a Facebook server to generate a preview. Or, if information to generate the URL preview

7

was not available already on a Facebook server, a Facebook server may have sent a request to the

8

website, generated an image and description if available, and delivered those components to the

9

user’s browser to generate a URL preview. There was variability in the type of preview that may

10

have been rendered. For example, if the URL a user wanted to send required a viewer to log into the

11

destination website, the preview may have been blank, the user may have received an “HTTP 404” or

12

“Not Found” error message, or the preview may have shown the default page for the website.

13

Similarly, some websites may have provided Facebook with a specific image or description for the

14

preview, while others did not. Additionally, sometimes, depending on a number of factors (as

15

discussed above and below), a URL preview was not available despite these steps.

16

Where available, URL previews helped users verify the URL they were sharing before

17

sending. When the URL preview was generated, it was displayed for the message sender before

18

sending the message, so the sender could first verify and gain a sense of the information located at the

19

URL. This feature also allowed message recipients to preview a transmitted URL before clicking on

20

the URL. Under certain circumstances, a URL preview may not have been generated, such as if the

21

user did not have JavaScript enabled in her browser, or if a user sent the message before the preview

22

could be generated, or if the URL was known to be malicious. Additionally, if generated, URL

23

previews were only created for the first URL typed into a draft message, meaning that subsequent

24

URLs typed into the draft message did not generate a URL preview. Accordingly, whether or not a

25

URL preview was generated depended on myriad factors, such as the configuration of the user’s

26

browser, the type of URL entered, the number of URLs entered, and the speed of send, among other

27

individualized factors.

28

22

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

A URL preview is an attachment to the draft message. In other words, while a URL preview

2

may have been generated based on a URL typed into the text field of a draft message, the URL

3

preview is an attachment to the message that is separate and distinct from the message itself

4

(including the characters in the text field). Thus, once the URL attachment was created, changes to

5

the characters in the text field of the draft message did not impact the URL attachment. For example,

6

deleting the characters in the text field would not have impacted an existing URL attachment.

7

However, the user could delete the URL attachment by clicking the “X” in the corner of the preview.

8

If a user proceeded to send a message, the message (including the text of the message, certain

9

information about the message, e.g., date and time sent, sender, recipient, text formatting) as well as

10

any attachments (including URLs), would have been sent to a Facebook server. After receiving the

11

message on a Facebook server, Facebook software processed the message and any attachments while

12

they were in electronic storage, and sent certain data through Facebook’s abuse- and security-related

13

platform, which runs the data through certain filters. Depending on the specific data transmitted,

14

certain data about the message may have been assessed in various ways and against criteria intended

15

to detect large-scale automated abuse (e.g., spam, malware, phishing, and other abuse). For example,

16

one filter compares URL text in a message and in any attachments against a library of hundreds of

17

millions of URLs known to be dangerous. If a URL typed into a message appeared in the malicious

18

URL library, it may have been blocked and the author of the message may have received a message

19

from Facebook indicating that the URL was unsafe. By way of further example, once a message

20

reached a Facebook server and was in electronic storage, the security platform may have taken a

21

string of the text in the message and determined whether the occurring numbers and letters were

22

similar (in a statistically significant way) to other messages that appeared to be spam that were being

23

sent around the same time.

24

In general, if a message was determined to be dangerous for any one of these many different

25

reasons, it may have been treated in a number of different ways. For example, it may have been

26

blocked in whole or in part from being routed by Facebook to the recipient mailbox, or a user may

27

have had to pass a CAPTCHA (“Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and

28

23

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2

Humans Apart”) test before Facebook would deliver the message.
Once on a Facebook server, the message and attachments were also processed in various ways

3

to ultimately render the message as the user intended. For example, emoticons—specific series of

4

keyboard characters used to represent facial expressions—in the text of a message received and

5

stored on a Facebook server were processed in order to be translated into the images intended by the

6

sender. Messages were also processed for other reasons related to language rendering and

7

formatting.

8

If a URL attachment was successfully created (and not deleted by the user) prior to the

9

message being sent, then, after the message was sent and the message and components were received

10

and stored on a Facebook server, and if the message was not blocked in the course of abuse- and

11

security-related processing, the message event was logged in a number of ways, and several records

12

(“share objects”) were created reflecting the fact that the message had a URL as an attachment (a

13

“URL share”). In other words, each share object was created based on the receipt of a URL

14

attachment on a Facebook server; it was not generated based on the text of the message, which may

15

or may not have included a URL when sent. If a URL preview was not created before the message

16

was sent or was deleted by the user before sending, no share object was created. Similarly, if a

17

malicious message or URL was successfully “blocked,” no share object was created. As explained

18

below in response to Interrogatory No. 4, during the relevant time period (December 30, 2011 to

19

October 31, 2012), the software that generated and displayed the anonymous, aggregate “Like” count

20

on a third-party website that contained the “Like” button social plugin obtained the data regarding

21

URL attachments to messages from the stored repository of share object records—the global share

22

object record. If a user shared a URL through a message but no share object was created (for any of

23

the reasons noted above), the sharing of that URL did not increment the “Like” count social plugin on

24

the destination website. Similarly, if the destination website associated with the URL did not have a

25

Facebook “Like” button social plugin, the sharing of that URL did not increment the “Like” count on

26

the website (even if a share object was created). Additionally, messages containing URLs sent from

27

outside of Facebook to a Facebook user (and vice versa) did not create attachments and therefore did

28

24

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

not create share objects.

2

The share data derived from the message data received on the Facebook server was stored in

3

three formats: user-specific message information, a user-specific share object, and a “global” share

4

object. The global share object recorded the instances of sharing the same root URL across the

5

Facebook platform. The user-specific message information was routed through the remainder of the

6

Facebook infrastructure, to the sender’s mailbox and to the recipient’s mailbox. If the recipient

7

called the message from her mailbox, the message and URL attachment were processed again

8

through a subset of Facebook’s abuse- and security-related filters. If the message and attachment

9

were not partially or completely blocked, the message and attachment were sent to the recipient client

10

for display. Messages were also processed to the extent necessary to display intended features and

11

render the appropriate language, and were then displayed to the intended recipient.

12

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

grounds:

17
18

(A)

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

and/or piece of Architecture,” “Private Message Content,” “scans,” “analyzes,” and “extracts.”

19

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

20

(C)

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

21

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

22

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

23

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

24

approximately December 20, 2012).

25

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek additional information

26

regarding each “Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in” the transmission of Facebook

27

messages over an extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on

28

25

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

the information known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action

2

(as defined above).

3

(E)

4
5
6
7

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

proprietary company information.
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:
During the relevant period (December 30, 2011 to approximately December 20, 2012), if a

8

user typed a URL into the text field in the Facebook Messages product, and the user had JavaScript

9

enabled in her browser, the JavaScript code running in the user’s browser may have detected the

10
11

existence of a URL.
The JavaScript code may then have requested information from a Facebook server in order to

12

provide a preview of the typed URL (“URL preview”)—including a brief description of the URL

13

and, if available, a relevant image from the website. At the time the request was sent to Facebook for

14

a preview, Facebook assessed whether the URL was in its library of known malicious URLs. If it

15

was, Facebook would not return a preview. If it was not, Facebook may have returned information

16

already on a Facebook server to generate a preview. Or, if information to generate the URL preview

17

was not available already on a Facebook server, a Facebook server may have sent a request to the

18

website, generated an image and description if available, and delivered those components to the

19

user’s browser to generate a URL preview. There was variability in the type of preview that may

20

have been rendered. For example, if the URL a user wanted to send required a viewer to log into the

21

destination website, the preview may have been blank, the user may have received an “HTTP 404” or

22

“Not Found” error message, or the preview may have shown the default page for the website.

23

Similarly, some websites may have provided Facebook with a specific image or description for the

24

preview, while others did not. Additionally, sometimes, depending on a number of factors (as

25

discussed above and below), a URL preview was not available despite these steps.

26
27
28

Where available, URL previews helped users verify the URL they were sharing before
sending. When the URL preview was generated, it was displayed for the message sender before
26

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

sending the message, so the sender could first verify and gain a sense of the information located at the

2

URL. This feature also allowed message recipients to preview a transmitted URL before clicking on

3

the URL. Under certain circumstances, a URL preview may not have been generated, such as if the

4

user did not have JavaScript enabled in her browser, or if a user sent the message before the preview

5

could be generated, or if the URL was known to be malicious. Additionally, if generated, URL

6

previews were only created for the first URL typed into a draft message, meaning that subsequent

7

URLs typed into the draft message did not generate a URL preview. Accordingly, whether or not a

8

URL preview was generated depended on myriad factors, such as the configuration of the user’s

9

browser, the type of URL entered, the number of URLs entered, and the speed of send, among other

10
11

individualized factors.
A URL preview is an attachment to the draft message. In other words, while a URL preview

12

may have been generated based on a URL typed into the text field of a draft message, the URL

13

preview is an attachment to the message that is separate and distinct from the message itself

14

(including the characters in the text field). Thus, once the URL attachment was created, changes to

15

the characters in the text field of the draft message did not impact the URL attachment. For example,

16

deleting the characters in the text field would not have impacted an existing URL attachment.

17

However, the user could delete the URL attachment by clicking the “X” in the corner of the preview.

18

If a user proceeded to send a message, the message (including the text of the message, certain

19

information about the message, e.g., date and time sent, sender, recipient, text formatting) as well as

20

any attachments (including URLs), would have been sent to a Facebook server. After receiving the

21

message on a Facebook server, Facebook software processed the message and any attachments while

22

they were in electronic storage, and sent certain data through Facebook’s abuse- and security-related

23

platform, which runs the data through certain filters. Depending on the specific data transmitted,

24

certain data about the message may have been assessed in various ways and against criteria intended

25

to detect large-scale automated abuse (e.g., spam, malware, phishing, and other abuse). For example,

26

one filter compares URL text in a message and in any attachments against a library of hundreds of

27

millions of URLs known to be dangerous. If a URL typed into a message appeared in the malicious

28

27

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

URL library, it may have been blocked and the author of the message may have received a message

2

from Facebook indicating that the URL was unsafe. By way of further example, once a message

3

reached a Facebook server and was in electronic storage, the security platform may have taken a

4

string of the text in the message and determined whether the occurring numbers and letters were

5

similar (in a statistically significant way) to other messages that appeared to be spam that were being

6

sent around the same time.

7

In general, if a message was determined to be dangerous for any one of these many different

8

reasons, it may have been treated in a number of different ways. For example, it may have been

9

blocked in whole or in part from being routed by Facebook to the recipient mailbox, or a user may

10

have had to pass a CAPTCHA (“Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and

11

Humans Apart”) test before Facebook would deliver the message.

12

Once on a Facebook server, the message and attachments were also processed in various ways

13

to ultimately render the message as the user intended. For example, emoticons—specific series of

14

keyboard characters used to represent facial expressions—in the text of a message received and

15

stored on a Facebook server were processed in order to be translated into the images intended by the

16

sender. Messages were also processed for other reasons related to language rendering and

17

formatting.

18

If a URL attachment was successfully created (and not deleted by the user) prior to the

19

message being sent, then, after the message was sent and the message and components were received

20

and stored on a Facebook server, and if the message was not blocked in the course of abuse- and

21

security-related processing, the message event was logged in a number of ways, and several records

22

(“share objects”) were created reflecting the fact that the message had a URL as an attachment (a

23

“URL share”). In other words, each share object was created based on the receipt of a URL

24

attachment on a Facebook server; it was not generated based on the text of the message, which may

25

or may not have included a URL when sent. If a URL preview was not created before the message

26

was sent or was deleted by the user before sending, no share object was created. Similarly, if a

27

malicious message or URL was successfully “blocked,” no share object was created. As explained

28

28

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

below in response to Interrogatory No. 4, during the relevant time period (December 30, 2011 to

2

approximately December 20, 2012), the software that generated and displayed the anonymous,

3

aggregate “Like” count on a third-party website that contained the “Like” button social plugin

4

obtained the data regarding URL attachments to messages from the stored repository of share object

5

records—the global share object record. If a user shared a URL through a message but no share

6

object was created (for any of the reasons noted above), the sharing of that URL did not increment

7

the “Like” count social plugin on the destination website. Similarly, if the destination website

8

associated with the URL did not have a Facebook “Like” button social plugin, or if one of a number

9

of other conditions was present, the sharing of that URL did not increment the “Like” count on the

10

website (even if a share object was created). Additionally, messages containing URLs sent from

11

outside of Facebook to a Facebook user (and vice versa) did not create attachments and therefore did

12

not create share objects.

13

The share data derived from the message data received on the Facebook server was stored in

14

three formats: user-specific message information, a user-specific share object, and a “global” share

15

object. The global share object recorded the instances of sharing the same root URL across the

16

Facebook platform. The user-specific message information was routed through the remainder of the

17

Facebook infrastructure, to the sender’s mailbox and to the recipient’s mailbox. If the recipient

18

called the message from her mailbox, the message and URL attachment were processed again

19

through a subset of Facebook’s abuse- and security-related filters. If the message and attachment

20

were not partially or completely blocked, the message and attachment were sent to the recipient client

21

for display. Messages were also processed to the extent necessary to display intended features and

22

render the appropriate language, and were then displayed to the intended recipient.

23

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

24

For each Process and/or piece of Architecture identified in Interrogatory No. 3, identify all

25

uses to which the scanned/analyzed/extracted Private Message Content – as well as any additional

26

data, metadata or other content generated therefrom – are put.

27
28

29

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

3

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

4

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

5

grounds:

6
7

(A)

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

and/or piece of Architecture,” “Private Message Content,” “scanned,” “analyzed,” and “extracted.”

8

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

9

(C)

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

10

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

11

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

12

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

13

October 31, 2012)).

14

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek additional information

15

regarding each “Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in” the transmission of Facebook

16

messages over an extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on

17

the information known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action

18

(as defined above).

19

(E)

20
21
22

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

proprietary company information.
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:

23

Among other ways to share information on Facebook’s platform, Facebook users may share

24

information by sending a Facebook message to one or more selected Facebook users, which can be

25

viewed in the recipient user’s Messages folder on the Facebook website. All shared information,

26

including messages, is received by Facebook and stored on Facebook servers. Facebook must

27

receive and host all information shared on the site to provide its service. By joining Facebook, and

28

30

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

agreeing to Facebook’s Data Use Policy, all users acknowledge that they understand and agree that

2

Facebook will receive and employ user data—including information Facebook receives whenever a

3

user sends or receives a message—for a variety of routine business purposes, including, among other

4

things, “efforts to keep Facebook products, services and integrations safe and secure,” “to measure or

5

understand the effectiveness of ads [users] and others see, including to deliver relevant ads to [the

6

user],” and “for internal operations” such as “data analysis” or “service improvement.” Users also

7

acknowledge that Facebook may share information, including with “developers that build the . . .

8

websites [users] use,” where Facebook “has removed your name and any other personally identifying

9

information from it.”

10

Facebook must process and store messages so that users have an accessible repository of their

11

messages—a vital component of its Messages product. Facebook also must process messages to

12

render the basic features of the Messages product (such as language and format) and to facilitate

13

information sharing. Facebook also generates URL preview functionality. This feature reduces the

14

transmission of unintended content, and recipients can preview a transmitted URL before visiting the

15

destination website.

16

Facebook also processes messages to filter spam; detect and block malicious messages,

17

URLs, and photos; detect conversations that could be related to criminal behavior; and protect the site

18

from threats to its stability and integrity. Facebook’s anti-abuse efforts continually process data from

19

across the Facebook service to evolve and enhance Facebook’s ability to protect users and the site.

20

During the proposed class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), Facebook offered

21

websites “social plugins,” or units of embeddable code that allow people to share information using

22

Facebook directly from third-party websites. For example, a third-party website may embed code for

23

the Facebook “Like” button plugin on its website, enabling Facebook users to directly “Like” the

24

website and to share that action with their Facebook connections (without having to return to

25

https://www.facebook.com or the Facebook mobile app to share the content). The “Like” button

26

plugin also may display an anonymous and aggregate count of all “Likes” for that particular website.

27

During the relevant time period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), this aggregate count of

28

31

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

“Likes” may have included URLs (1) shared (in the NewsFeed), (2) commented on, (3) liked, and (4)

2

sent as an attachment to a message (and recorded as a share object). The software that generated and

3

displayed the Like count during this period obtained the data regarding URL attachments to messages

4

from the stored repository of share object records—the global share object record. If a user shared a

5

URL through a message but no share object was created (for any of the reasons noted in responses to

6

Interrogatories Nos. 2-3), the sharing of that URL did not increment the “Like” count social plugin on

7

the destination website. Similarly, if the destination website associated with the URL did not have a

8

Facebook “Like” button plugin, the sharing of that URL did not increment the “Like” count social

9

plugin on the website (even if a share object was created). Additionally, in some cases, even if a

10

share object was created and the destination website associated with the URL had a Facebook “Like”

11

button plugin, the “Like” count on the destination website may not have been incremented (for

12

example, if the URL a user included in a message was not exactly the same as the URL the developer

13

passed to the plugin).

14

During the relevant period, the generation of a URL attachment (if it occurred) and the

15

increase in the “Like” count on the associated third-party website (if it occurred) were part of

16

Facebook’s routine and ordinary course of business and were documented in Facebook’s publicly-

17

available developer guidance. (Pls.’ Compl. [Dkt. 1] at p. 16 n.40.) On or about October 16, 2012,

18

Facebook discontinued its practice of including URL attachments to messages in the “Like” count on

19

associated third-party websites. Following the change in practice, a share object may still have been

20

created for a successful URL attachment, but the code generating the “Like” count on associated

21

third-party websites did not include URL attachments to messages. As detailed above, during the

22

relevant period, whether a URL included in the text of a given message triggered an increase in the

23

anonymous, aggregate “Like” count on an associated third-party website is a highly individualized

24

inquiry that depends on myriad variables.

25
26

Additionally, various message statistics, including all three formats for storing URL share
data—message-specific information, user-specific share objects, and the global share object—were

27
28

32

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

part of the universe of data available to the site integrity and abuse- and security-related platforms for

2

URL classification and other continuing security efforts.

3

During the relevant period, Facebook did not use URL share data nor any message content to

4

serve targeted advertisements.

5

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

grounds:

10
11

(A)

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

and/or piece of Architecture,” “Private Message Content,” “scanned,” “analyzed,” and “extracted.”

12

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

13

(C)

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

14

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

15

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

16

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

17

approximately December 20, 2012)).

18

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek additional information

19

regarding each “Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in” the transmission of Facebook

20

messages over an extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on

21

the information known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action

22

(as defined above).

23

(E)

24
25
26
27
28

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

proprietary company information.
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:
Among other ways to share information on Facebook’s platform, Facebook users may share
33

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

information by sending a Facebook message to one or more selected Facebook users, which can be

2

viewed in the recipient user’s Messages folder on the Facebook website. All shared information,

3

including messages, is received by Facebook and stored on Facebook servers. Facebook must

4

receive and host all information shared on the site to provide its service. By joining Facebook, and

5

agreeing to Facebook’s Data Use Policy, all users acknowledge that they understand and agree that

6

Facebook will receive and employ user data—including information Facebook receives whenever a

7

user sends or receives a message—for a variety of routine business purposes, including, among other

8

things, “efforts to keep Facebook products, services and integrations safe and secure,” “to measure or

9

understand the effectiveness of ads [users] and others see, including to deliver relevant ads to [the

10

user],” and “for internal operations” such as “data analysis” or “service improvement.” Users also

11

acknowledge that Facebook may share information, including with “developers that build the . . .

12

websites [users] use,” where Facebook “has removed your name and any other personally identifying

13

information from it.”

14

Facebook must process and store messages so that users have an accessible repository of their

15

messages—a vital component of its Messages product. Facebook also must process messages to

16

render the basic features of the Messages product (such as language and format) and to facilitate

17

information sharing. Facebook also generates URL preview functionality. This feature reduces the

18

transmission of unintended content, and recipients can preview a transmitted URL before visiting the

19

destination website.

20

Facebook also processes messages to filter spam; detect and block malicious messages,

21

URLs, and photos; detect conversations that could be related to criminal behavior; and protect the site

22

from threats to its stability and integrity. Facebook’s anti-abuse efforts continually process data from

23

across the Facebook service to evolve and enhance Facebook’s ability to protect users and the site.

24

During the proposed class period (December 30, 2011 to approximately December 20, 2012),

25

Facebook offered websites “social plugins,” or units of embeddable code that allow people to share

26

information using Facebook directly from third-party websites. For example, a third-party website

27

may embed code for the Facebook “Like” button plugin on its website, enabling Facebook users to

28

34

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

directly “Like” the website and to share that action with their Facebook connections (without having

2

to return to https://www.facebook.com or the Facebook mobile app to share the content). The “Like”

3

button plugin also may display an anonymous and aggregate count of all “Likes” for that particular

4

website. During the relevant time period (December 30, 2011 to approximately December 20, 2012),

5

this aggregate count of “Likes” may have included URLs (1) shared (in the NewsFeed), (2)

6

commented on, (3) liked, and (4) sent as an attachment to a message (and recorded as a share object).

7

The software that generated and displayed the Like count during this period obtained the data

8

regarding URL attachments to messages from the stored repository of share object records—the

9

global share object record. If a user shared a URL through a message but no share object was created

10

(for any of the reasons noted in responses to Interrogatories Nos. 2-3), the sharing of that URL did

11

not increment the “Like” count social plugin on the destination website. Similarly, if the destination

12

website associated with the URL did not have a Facebook “Like” button plugin, the sharing of that

13

URL did not increment the “Like” count social plugin on the website (even if a share object was

14

created). Additionally, in some cases, even if a share object was created and the destination website

15

associated with the URL had a Facebook “Like” button plugin, the “Like” count on the destination

16

website may not have been incremented. For example, if the URL a user included in a message was

17

not exactly the same as the URL the developer passed to the plugin, the “Like” count on the

18

destination website may not have been incremented. Other examples of circumstances that could

19

have led to no incrementing of the “Like” count on a destination website, even if a share object was

20

created, included race conditions and database failures and contention. Race conditions occur when

21

multiple people share the same URL at the same time and Facebook only processes one increment to

22

the count; this happens more frequently when many people try to share at once. Database failure or

23

contention can occur for many reasons, including the interplay between different databases stored in

24

different locations contributing to a single count.

25

During the relevant period, the generation of a URL attachment (if it occurred) and the

26

increase in the “Like” count on the associated third-party website (if it occurred) were part of

27

Facebook’s routine and ordinary course of business and were documented in Facebook’s publicly-

28

35

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

available developer guidance. (Pls.’ Compl. [Dkt. 1] at p. 16 n.40.) On or about October 16, 2012

2

and December 20, 2012 (as explained in the June 1, 2015 Declaration of Alex Himel), Facebook

3

discontinued its practice of including URL attachments to messages in the “Like” count on associated

4

third-party websites. Following the change in practice, a share object may still have been created for

5

a successful URL attachment, but the code generating the “Like” count on associated third-party

6

websites did not include URL attachments to messages. As detailed above, during the relevant

7

period, whether a URL included in the text of a given message triggered an increase in the

8

anonymous, aggregate “Like” count on an associated third-party website is a highly individualized

9

inquiry that depends on myriad variables.

10

Additionally, various message statistics, including all three formats for storing URL share

11

data—message-specific information, user-specific share objects, and the global share object—were

12

part of the universe of data available to the site integrity and abuse- and security-related platforms for

13

URL classification and other continuing security efforts.

14

During the relevant period, Facebook did not use URL share data nor any message content to

15

serve targeted advertisements.

16

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

17

Identify by name, purpose, sequence, function and physical location each Process and/or piece

18

of Architecture involved in the creation, development, or maintenance of Facebook User Profiles.

19

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

grounds:

24

(A)

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

25

and/or piece of Architecture,” “Facebook User Profiles,” “purpose,” “sequence,” “function,” and

26

“physical location.”

27
28

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.
36

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

(C)

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

2

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

3

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

4

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

5

October 31, 2012)).

6

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding each

7

“Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in the creation, development, or maintenance of

8

Facebook User Profiles” over an extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its

9

ability and based on the information known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice

10
11
12
13
14
15

challenged in this action (as defined above).
(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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 does not create individual “User Profiles” to serve targeted advertisements to its

16

users. Rather, Facebook offers advertisers a range of audience targeting options, and advertisers can

17

choose from one or a combination of these options. To create an ad set, advertisers define the

18

Facebook audience that will be eligible to see ads in their ad set, and ads are then only shown (if they

19

are shown) to users who match the criteria advertisers select. During the relevant time period

20

(December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), advertisers could choose from one or a combination of

21

these options:

22

a. Location: Advertisers could enter the name of one or more states, cities, and zip codes to

23

show their ads in those locations.

24

b. Demographic Targeting Options:

25

i.

Age & Gender: Advertisers could select the minimum and maximum age of the

26

people who would find their ad relevant. Under “Gender,” advertisers could choose

27

“All” unless they only wanted to target either men or women. Some people don’t

28

37

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

specify their gender on Facebook, so the only way to reach everyone was to select

2

“All.”

3

ii.

More Demographic Targeting Options: Advertisers could use demographic targeting

4

options to select audience segments related to categories such as relationships,

5

education, work, and life events.

6

c. Interests Targeting Options: Advertisers could reach their audience based on their interests.

7

This could have included interests shared on their profile, apps they used while logged into

8

Facebook, and Facebook Pages they affirmatively “liked.”

9
10

d. Connections: Advertisers could control whether or not their ad was served to people who had
already connected with them on Facebook.

11

e. Custom Audience: Starting in September 2012, a small percentage of U.S. advertisers could

12

create or select a Custom Audience that they could use with their other targeting options. A

13

Custom Audience would let advertisers find their offline audience among people who use

14

Facebook. This feature became available to all U.S. advertisers in November 2012.

15

During the relevant time period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), data or

16

information derived from messages (including URLs shared in messages) was not a criterion

17

available to advertisers in choosing the audience for their ads, and Facebook did not use data or

18

information derived from messages (including URLs shared in messages) to match ads to users.

19

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

grounds:

24

(A)

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

25

and/or piece of Architecture,” “Facebook User Profiles,” “purpose,” “sequence,” “function,” and

26

“physical location.”

27
28

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.
38

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

(C)

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

2

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

3

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

4

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

5

approximately December 20, 2012)).

6

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding each

7

“Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in the creation, development, or maintenance of

8

Facebook User Profiles” over an extended time period. Facebook will respond to the best of its

9

ability and based on the information known and identified to date, and as limited by the practice

10
11
12
13
14
15

challenged in this action (as defined above).
(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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 does not create individual “User Profiles” to serve targeted advertisements to its

16

users. Rather, Facebook offers advertisers a range of audience targeting options, and advertisers can

17

choose from one or a combination of these options. To create an ad set, advertisers define the

18

Facebook audience that will be eligible to see ads in their ad set, and ads are then only shown (if they

19

are shown) to users who match the criteria advertisers select. During the relevant time period

20

(December 30, 2011 to approximately December 20, 2012), advertisers could choose from one or a

21

combination of these options:

22

a. Location: Advertisers could enter the name of one or more states, cities, and zip codes to

23

show their ads in those locations.

24

b. Demographic Targeting Options:

25

i.

Age & Gender: Advertisers could select the minimum and maximum age of the

26

people who would find their ad relevant. Under “Gender,” advertisers could choose

27

“All” unless they only wanted to target either men or women. Some people don’t

28

39

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

specify their gender on Facebook, so the only way to reach everyone was to select

2

“All.”

3

ii.

More Demographic Targeting Options: Advertisers could use demographic targeting

4

options to select audience segments related to categories such as relationships,

5

education, work, and life events.

6

c. Interests Targeting Options: Advertisers could reach their audience based on their interests.

7

This could have included interests shared on their profile, apps they used while logged into

8

Facebook, and Facebook Pages they affirmatively “liked.”

9
10

d. Connections: Advertisers could control whether or not their ad was served to people who had
already connected with them on Facebook.

11

e. Custom Audience: Starting in September 2012, a small percentage of U.S. advertisers could

12

create or select a Custom Audience that they could use with their other targeting options. A

13

Custom Audience would let advertisers find their offline audience among people who use

14

Facebook. This feature became available to all U.S. advertisers in November 2012.

15

During the relevant time period (December 30, 2011 to approximately December 20, 2012),

16

data or information derived from messages (including URLs shared in messages) was not a criterion

17

available to advertisers in choosing the audience for their ads, and Facebook did not use data or

18

information derived from messages (including URLs shared in messages) to match ads to users.

19

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

20
21
22

Identify all possible fields or data points that can comprise a Facebook User Profile.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections

23

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

24

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

25

grounds:

26
27
28

(A)

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

“Facebook User Profile” and “all possible fields or data points.”
40

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

2

(C)

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

3

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

4

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

5

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

6

October 31, 2012)).

7

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding “all

8

possible fields or data points that can comprise a Facebook User Profile” over an extended time

9

period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information known and

10
11
12
13
14
15

identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action (as defined above).
(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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 does not create individual “User Profiles” to serve targeted advertisements to its

16

users. Rather, Facebook offers advertisers a range of audience targeting options, and advertisers can

17

choose from one or a combination of these options. To create an ad set, advertisers define the

18

Facebook audience that will be eligible to see ads in their ad set, and ads are then only shown (if they

19

are shown) to users who match the criteria advertisers select. During the relevant time period

20

(December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), advertisers could choose from one or a combination of

21

these options:

22

a. Location: Advertisers could enter the name of one or more states, cities, and zip codes to

23

show their ads in those locations.

24

b. Demographic Targeting Options:

25

i.

Age & Gender: Advertisers could select the minimum and maximum age of the

26

people who would find their ad relevant. Under “Gender,” advertisers could choose

27

“All” unless they only wanted to target either men or women. Some people don’t

28

41

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

specify their gender on Facebook, so the only way to reach everyone was to select

2

“All.”

3

ii.

More Demographic Targeting Options: Advertisers could use demographic targeting

4

options to select audience segments related to categories such as relationships,

5

education, work, and life events.

6

c. Interests Targeting Options: Advertisers could reach their audience based on their interests.

7

This could have included interests shared on their profile, apps they used while logged into

8

Facebook, and Facebook Pages they affirmatively “liked.”

9
10

d. Connections: Advertisers could control whether or not their ad was served to people who had
already connected with them on Facebook.

11

e. Custom Audience: Starting in September 2012, a small percentage of U.S. advertisers could

12

create or select a Custom Audience that they could use with their other targeting options. A

13

Custom Audience would let advertisers find their offline audience among people who use

14

Facebook. This feature became available to all U.S. advertisers in November 2012.

15

During the relevant time period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), data or

16

information derived from messages (including URLs shared in messages) was not a criterion

17

available to advertisers in choosing the audience for their ads, and Facebook did not use data or

18

information derived from messages (including URLs shared in messages) to match ads to users.

19

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

grounds:

24
25

(A)

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

“Facebook User Profile” and “all possible fields or data points.”

26

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

27

(C)

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

28

42

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

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

2

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

3

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

4

approximately December 20, 2012)).

5

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding “all

6

possible fields or data points that can comprise a Facebook User Profile” over an extended time

7

period. Facebook will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information known and

8

identified to date, and as limited by the practice challenged in this action (as defined above).

9
10
11
12
13

(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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 does not create individual “User Profiles” to serve targeted advertisements to its

14

users. Rather, Facebook offers advertisers a range of audience targeting options, and advertisers can

15

choose from one or a combination of these options. To create an ad set, advertisers define the

16

Facebook audience that will be eligible to see ads in their ad set, and ads are then only shown (if they

17

are shown) to users who match the criteria advertisers select. During the relevant time period

18

(December 30, 2011 to approximately December 20, 2012), advertisers could choose from one or a

19

combination of these options:

20

a. Location: Advertisers could enter the name of one or more states, cities, and zip codes to

21

show their ads in those locations.

22

b. Demographic Targeting Options:

23

i.

Age & Gender: Advertisers could select the minimum and maximum age of the

24

people who would find their ad relevant. Under “Gender,” advertisers could choose

25

“All” unless they only wanted to target either men or women. Some people don’t

26

specify their gender on Facebook, so the only way to reach everyone was to select

27

“All.”

28

43

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

ii.

More Demographic Targeting Options: Advertisers could use demographic targeting

2

options to select audience segments related to categories such as relationships,

3

education, work, and life events.

4

c. Interests Targeting Options: Advertisers could reach their audience based on their interests.

5

This could have included interests shared on their profile, apps they used while logged into

6

Facebook, and Facebook Pages they affirmatively “liked.”

7
8

d. Connections: Advertisers could control whether or not their ad was served to people who had
already connected with them on Facebook.

9

e. Custom Audience: Starting in September 2012, a small percentage of U.S. advertisers could

10

create or select a Custom Audience that they could use with their other targeting options. A

11

Custom Audience would let advertisers find their offline audience among people who use

12

Facebook. This feature became available to all U.S. advertisers in November 2012.

13

During the relevant time period (December 30, 2011 to approximately December 20, 2012),

14

data or information derived from messages (including URLs shared in messages) was not a criterion

15

available to advertisers in choosing the audience for their ads, and Facebook did not use data or

16

information derived from messages (including URLs shared in messages) to match ads to users.

17

INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

18

For each field or data point identified in Interrogatory No. 6, identify whether – and the

19

manner in which – such field or data point can be accessed, in any form, by Third Parties, including

20

but not limited to Developers, Third Party websites, and Facebook Users.

21

RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

grounds:

26
27
28

(A)

The Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms “field,” “data point,”

“Developers,” and “Third Party websites.”
44

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

2

(C)

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

3

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

4

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

5

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

6

October 31, 2012)). Facebook interprets this Interrogatory as limited to the practice challenged in

7

this action.

8

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding

9

“each field or data point identified in Interrogatory No. 6” over an extended time period. Facebook

10

will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information known and identified to date, and

11

as limited by the practice challenged in this action (as defined above).

12
13
14
15
16

(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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:
Information responsive to Interrogatory No. 7, subject to Facebook’s objections, is contained

17

in the following records produced by Facebook pursuant to Rule 33(d): FB000000011,

18

FB000000017. Additionally, during the relevant time period (December 30, 2011 to October 31,

19

2012), neither website developers nor owners nor advertisers were provided the identities of any

20

Facebook users who included a URL in a message, even if a share object was created and included in

21

the anonymous, aggregate “Like” count on the associated third-party website.

22

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

grounds:

27
28

45

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1
2

(A)

The Interrogatory is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms “field,” “data point,”

“Developers,” and “Third Party websites.”

3

(B)

The Interrogatory is compound.

4

(C)

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

5

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

6

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

7

transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the Class Period (December 30, 2011 to

8

approximately December 20, 2012)). Facebook interprets this Interrogatory as limited to the practice

9

challenged in this action.

10

(D)

The Interrogatory is overly broad in that it purports to seek information regarding

11

“each field or data point identified in Interrogatory No. 6” over an extended time period. Facebook

12

will respond to the best of its ability and based on the information known and identified to date, and

13

as limited by the practice challenged in this action (as defined above).

14
15
16
17
18

(E)

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

proprietary company information.
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:
Information responsive to Interrogatory No. 7, subject to Facebook’s objections, is contained

19

in the following records produced by Facebook pursuant to Rule 33(d): FB000000011,

20

FB000000017. Additionally, during the relevant time period (December 30, 2011 to approximately

21

December 20, 2012), neither website developers nor owners nor advertisers were provided the

22

identities of any Facebook users who included a URL in a message, even if a share object was created

23

and included in the anonymous, aggregate “Like” count on the associated third-party website.

24

DATED: September 8, 2015

25
26
27
28

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By:

Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.
46

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

/s/ Joshua A. Jessen
Joshua A. Jessen

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2
3
4

I, Ashley M. Rogers, 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 September 8, 2015, I served the following document(s):

5

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

6
7

on the parties stated below, by the following means of service:
David F. Slade
[e-mail]
James Allen Carney
[e-mail]
Joseph Henry Bates, III
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
[e-mail]

8
9
10
11
12

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

13
14
15
16
17
18


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

21



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

22



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

19
20

23
24

Executed on September 8, 2015.
/s/
Ashley M. Rogers

25
26
27
28

48

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH