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)

Download PDF
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 JJessen@gibsondunn.com JEANA BISNAR MAUTE, SBN 290573 JBisnarMaute@gibsondunn.com ASHLEY M. ROGERS, SBN 286252 ARogers@gibsondunn.com 1881 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 849-5300 Facsimile: (650) 849-5333 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP GAIL E. LEES, SBN 90363 GLees@gibsondunn.com CHRISTOPHER CHORBA, SBN 216692 CChorba@gibsondunn.com 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 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 dslade@cbplaw.com James Allen Carney acarney@cbplaw.com Joseph Henry Bates, III Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC hbates@cbplaw.com 8 9 10 11 12 Melissa Ann Gardner mgardner@lchb.com Nicholas Diamand ndiamand@lchb.com Rachel Geman rgeman@lchb.com Michael W. Sobol Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP msobol@lchb.com 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?