Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.
Filing
205
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re Plaintiffs' Motions to Compel Discovery filed by Matthew Campbell, Michael Hurley. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service, # 3 Declaration of Melissa Gardner, # 4 Exhibit A (Unredacted) Motion to Compel Source Code, # 5 Exhibit B (Redacted) Motion to Compel Source Code, # 6 Exhibit C (Unredacted) Motion to Compel Configuration Tables, # 7 Exhibit D (Redacted) Motion to Compel Configuration Tables, # 8 Exhibit E (Unredacted) Motion to Compel Production of Documents, # 9 Exhibit F (Redacted) Motion to Compel Documents, # 10 Exhibit G (Unredacted) Declaration of Dr. Jennifer Golbeck, # 11 Exhibit H (Redacted) Declaration of Dr. Jennifer Golbeck, # 12 Exhibit I (Unredacted) Rudolph Decl. Ex. 1, # 13 Exhibit J (Redacted) Rudolph Decl. Ex. 1, # 14 Exhibit K (Unredacted) Rudolph Decl. Ex. 11, # 15 Exhibit L (Redacted) Rudolph Decl. Ex. 11, # 16 Exhibit M - Rudolph Decl. Ex. 5 (under seal), # 17 Exhibit N - Rudolph Decl. Ex. 7 (under seal), # 18 Exhibit O - Rudolph Decl. Ex. 8 (under seal), # 19 Exhibit P - Rudolph Decl. Ex. 9 (under seal), # 20 Exhibit Q - Rudolph Decl. Ex. 10 (under seal), # 21 Exhibit R - Rudolph Decl. Ex. 12 (under seal))(Gardner, Melissa) (Filed on 8/2/2016)
EXHIBIT B
REDACTED VERSION OF
DOCUMENT(S) SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
msobol@lchb.com
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
drudolph@lchb.com
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
mgardner@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415.956.1000
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
12
Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
hbates@cbplaw.com
Allen Carney
acarney@cbplaw.com
David Slade
dslade@cbplaw.com
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72202
Telephone: 501.312.8500
Facsimile: 501.312.8505
13
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
8
9
10
11
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
17
18
19
MATTHEW CAMPBELL and MICHAEL
HURLEY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
SOURCE CODE
Plaintiffs,
20
Date:
21
v.
22
FACEBOOK, INC.,
23
Time:
Judge:
Place:
Telephonic Hearing to be set
by Court
To be Set by Court
Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor
Defendant.
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL SOURCE CODE
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK)
1
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
2
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
3
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to this Court’s Order dated June 30, 2016 (Dkt.
4
203), the undersigned Plaintiffs will and hereby do move the Court for an order compelling
5
Defendant Facebook, Inc. to produce relevant source code for the entire class period in this litigation.
6
This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion; the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
7
Authorities; the Declaration of David T. Rudolph filed herewith; the argument of counsel, if
8
requested; and such other matters as the Court may consider.
9
10
STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
Whether, consistent with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b),
11
Defendant Facebook, Inc. should be compelled to produce relevant source code for the entire
12
class period in this litigation, by supplementing its current source code production, which ended
13
in December 2012, through the full class period, ending May 18, 2016.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-i-
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL SOURCE CODE
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK)
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
This motion is one of three contemporaneously-filed motions addressing three discovery
2
3
disputes to be resolved by this Court pursuant to the June 30, 2016 Order. Dkt. 203. Through all
4
three motions, Plaintiffs seek discovery squarely within the scope of this Court’s Class
5
Certification Order (Dkt. 192) and the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC,” Dkt. 196).
6
Specifically, the discovery sought relates to Facebook’s continued interception of Private
7
Message URL content for the following purposes, identified by the Court in the Class
8
Certification Order and alleged in the SAC: (1) generation, redirection and use of EntShares and
9
EntGlobalShares and related derivative data; (2) generation of recommendations; and (3) making
10
Private Message content available to third parties.1 Plaintiffs require the discovery sought
11
through these motions for two purposes: first, to investigate Facebook’s ongoing conduct with
12
respect to the three challenged practices during the full class period; and second, to evaluate
13
Facebook’s representations that certain challenged practices have ceased. Plaintiffs seek nothing
14
more than the properly proportional discovery required for these purposes pursuant to Fed. R.
15
Civ. P. 26(b), and have narrowly tailored their requests accordingly.
Facebook has repeatedly asserted that certain, but not all, of the practices identified in the
16
17
Class Certification Order and the SAC have ceased. Facebook does not deny that it continues to
18
create EntShare and EntGlobalShare objects or that it continues to log URLs in Private Message
19
content for subsequent use, but has provided virtually no discovery at all into its ongoing uses of
20
the data it derives from these ongoing interceptions. As this court determined in the Class
21
Certification Order, Facebook’s creation and use of EntShare and EntGlobalShare objects and
22
logging of private message content is at the core of Plaintiffs’ allegations.2 Plaintiffs require
23
source code, configuration tables, and technical documentation for the full class period to
24
determine the technical aspects of Facebook’s ongoing interception and redirection of Private
25
Message URL content up through the date of class certification.
26
1
27
28
Dkt. 192 (Class Certification Order), at 3-6.
See Dkt. 192, at 4 (discussing the role of EntShares and EntGlobalShares in Plaintiffs’
allegations); see also SAC, ¶¶ 44-55 (alleging Facebook’s creation and used of EntShares and
EntGlobalShares to stockpile and use intercepted Private Message content).
2
-1-
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL SOURCE CODE
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))
1
Facebook’s assertions that certain practices challenged in the SAC have ceased provide no
2
basis to deny the core proportional discovery Plaintiffs seek. First, Facebook has admitted it
3
continues to intercept and log Private Message content, but has consistently refused to provide
4
virtually any document discovery (and no source code discovery at all) related to these
5
interceptions past December 2013. There can be no good-faith objection to providing discovery
6
into Facebook’s technical implementation of these ongoing interceptions and its subsequent use
7
and redirection of users’ private data gleaned from these interceptions. Second, evidence that has
8
come to light after Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint regarding the practices
9
alleged in the SAC demonstrates that Facebook continues to make Private Message content
10
available to third parties in ways that have not been disclosed to—let alone consented to by—
11
users. Plaintiffs require the requested discovery to understand the scope and functioning of this
12
manifestation of Facebook’s ongoing interception and redirection of Private Message content.
13
Third, as Facebook’s own recent filings and admissions demonstrate, the Court cannot take at
14
face value Facebook’s representations regarding when certain practices may or may not have
15
“ceased,” as those representations have subsequently proven to be false by Facebook’s own
16
technical discovery. The documentary evidence underlying the claims here must be produced to
17
evaluate the veracity of Facebook’s representations, and that is the evidence Plaintiffs seek
18
through these motions.
19
As discussed in prior pleadings, Facebook has engaged in a non-stop, concerted effort to
20
stonewall discovery at every turn, including an outright refusal to engage in the court-ordered
21
joint discovery briefing process.3 As described in in the accompanying motions, much of the
22
discovery Plaintiffs currently seek is discovery Facebook should have already produced months
23
ago in response to Plaintiffs’ initial discovery requests. Through these motions, Plaintiffs seek to
24
rectify Facebook’s prior discovery gamesmanship, and also seek properly constrained and
25
proportional discovery for the class period, as expanded in the Court’s order, to investigate the
26
extent of Facebook’s ongoing conduct as alleged in the SAC.
27
3
28
See, e.g, Dkt. 186; 187 (describing Facebook’s refusal to engage in the court-ordered joint-letter
process and refusal to produce configuration tables that it subsequently relied on in opposition to
class certification).
-2-
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL SOURCE CODE
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))
1
II.
2
ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court compel Facebook to produce relevant source
3
code for the entire class period. Because Facebook—after initially refusing to do so—already has
4
produced the relevant source code for the September 2009 to December 2012 timeframe,
5
Plaintiffs simply request that the Court order Facebook to update its current source code
6
production to cover the remainder of the class period, i.e., January 2013 to May 18, 2016. This
7
update is critical to Plaintiffs’ obligation to protect the interests of the entire Class, to prove
8
Facebook’s liability, and to fashion the appropriate prospective, injunctive relief.
9
A.
10
11
Plaintiffs’ Source Code Request is Confined to the Scope of the Issues as
Defined in this Court’s Orders and the Second Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs seek nothing more than an update of the source code Facebook already agreed to
12
produce, and has admitted is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims.4 The Court has determined that
13
Plaintiffs allege the following three practices by Facebook: (1) “Facebook scans the users’
14
messages, and when a URL was included, it would increase the “Like” counter for that URL;”
15
(2) “Facebook scans users’ messages, and when a URL is included, it uses that data to generate
16
recommendations,” and (3) “Facebook scans the messages, and when a URL is included, it shares
17
that data with third parties so that they can generate targeted recommendations.” Dkt. 192, at 3-4.
18
The Court held that practices (1) and (2) had been alleged in the Complaint, but that (3) had not,
19
and ordered Plaintiffs to amend the Complaint accordingly, which Plaintiffs did (Dkt. 196).
20
As articulated both in the Class Certification Order and the SAC, Plaintiffs’ review of
21
Facebook’s source code for the September 2009 to December 2012 timeframe revealed that
22
Facebook implemented these practices using data structures called “EntShares” and
23
“EntGlobalShares.”5 By intercepting Private Messages while in transit, Facebook uses these data
24
4
25
26
27
28
Declaration of David T. Rudolph (“Rudolph Decl.”), Ex. 2 (June 24, 2015 email from defense
counsel) (“Per our discussions, and subject to the entry of an amended protective order, we are
amenable to making the relevant source code available during the period discussed in the Himel
declaration (September 2009 to December 2012).”). Unless otherwise specified, all Exhibits cited
herein are to the Rudolph Declaration.
5
See Dkt. 192, at 4 (discussing the role of EntShares and EntGlobalShares in Plaintiffs’
allegations); SAC at ¶¶ 44-55 (alleging Facebook’s creation and used of EntShares and
EntGlobalShares to stockpile and use intercepted Private Message content).
-3-
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL SOURCE CODE
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))
1
structures to redirect Message content for multiple uses unrelated to the transmission of the
2
message. It is undisputed that Facebook continues to create and exploit EntShares and
3
EntGlobalShares, and they remain available to be exploited through future uses in perpetuity.6
4
As this Court noted, the proper scope of Plaintiffs’ discovery is set by the Court’s rulings
5
in the Class Certification Order, and the allegations of the SAC. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are
6
entitled to discovery related to Facebook’s scanning of Private Messages for purposes of
7
acquiring Private Message URL content including, but not limited to the creation of, and relation
8
between, EntShares and EntGlobalshares. This discovery is related to the manner in which
9
Facebook catalogs and stores intercepted Private Message URL content, as well as to how
10
Facebook redirects and uses that content (and the data objects created therefrom).
11
The code that Facebook has already produced is commensurate with these areas of
12
inquiry, and Plaintiffs seek nothing more than to have that code updated to include code from the
13
entire class period. Specifically, Facebook agreed to, and appears to have produced for the 2009-
14
2012 timeframe, “all source code related to the private message function from creation through
15
end storage, including any scanning or acquisition of private message content and any data
16
structures that connect or associate users to messages or message content, and messages to
17
attachments or URLs.”7 Given that Facebook has already agreed that this is the relevant scope of
18
discovery, Plaintiffs seek nothing more than for Facebook to update the current code production
19
to extend through the end of the class period. Given the centrality of the source code to this case
20
and the limited scope of code that Plaintiffs request, production of this source code is proportional
21
to the needs of the case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The parties have already
22
implemented extensive source code protocols, and Facebook need only deposit updated code on
23
the existing review computer. Facebook has ample resources to do so, and Plaintiffs have no
24
other means of accessing this information, and thus the benefit of this discovery outweighs the
25
relative burden or expense, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2).
26
6
27
28
See, e.g., Dkt. 184-11 (Jan. 14, 2016 Himel Decl.), ¶¶ 10-19.
Specifically, Facebook agreed to produce “all source code articulated in, and related to, Request
For Production Nos. 4-11, 13-14, 16-17 & 19.” See Ex. 2. These Requests, and Defendant’s
responses, are attached as Exs. 3-4.
7
-4-
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL SOURCE CODE
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))
1
B.
2
The source code for the entire class period must be produced in order for Plaintiffs to
3
understand and analyze the full scope of Facebook’s interception and use of URLs in Private
4
Messages during the entire class period . Contrary to Facebook’s representations, these practices
5
have not ceased and instead appear to continue to the present day.
6
The Source Code for the Entire Class Period Must Be Produced.
1.
Facebook’s Ongoing Use of Private Message Content to Generate
EntShares and EntGlobalShares
7
As Plaintiffs allege in the SAC, Facebook continues to intercept Private Message content
8
9
via EntShares and EntGlobalShares.8 Consistent with these detailed allegations and the Court’s
10
Class Certification Order, Plaintiffs require the source code to understand Facebook’s ongoing
11
generation and use of EntShare and EntGlobalShare objects for the purposes of generating
12
recommendations, or for the purposes of providing third parties with information concerning
13
users’ Private Message content, during the entire class period.
Facebook does not deny that it continues to generate EntShares and EntGlobalShares.9
14
15
Nor does Facebook deny that discovery into these objects for the entire class period is
16
appropriate.10 Moreover, the Class is specified as users from whose Private Message content
17
Facebook has generated EntShares.11 There can be no legitimate dispute that the source code
18
related to the generation of EntShares from URLs intercepted in Private Messages (and their
19
connection to EntGlobalShares) must be produced for the entire class period. Further document
20
discovery regarding EntShares and EntGlobalShares, while also necessary, is not a substitute for
21
8
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
See SAC, ¶¶ 45-55.
Facebook has represented that Facebook no longer increments the “Like” counter corresponding
to a URL intercepted from a Private Message. However, Facebook does not deny that it
continues to intercept URLs and create, catalog and tally the EntShare objects that it used as the
basis for that incrementing; rather it only removed the public-facing proof of that interception,
cataloging and tallying once it was revealed in the press.
10
See Plaintiffs’ concurrently-filed Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Indeed, in its
proposals for document searches, Facebook agreed to search for documents containing those
terms for the entire class period.
11
Dkt. 192, at 10 (“All natural-person Facebook users located within the United States who have
sent, or received from a Facebook user, private messages that included URLs in their content (and
from which Facebook generated a URL attachment), from within two years before the filing of
this action up through the date of the certification of the class.”)
9
-5-
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL SOURCE CODE
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))
1
examination of Facebook’s source code. First, Facebook’s own chief witness, Engineering
2
Director Alex Himel, testified
3
.12 Second, even to the extent that Facebook has
4
agreed to produce documents related EntShares and EntGlobalShares, it has only agreed to do so
5
with excessive and inappropriate restrictions unlikely to capture the full scope of Facebook’s use
6
of these objects, a topic addressed in Plaintiffs’ concurrently-filed motion. Additionally,
7
Facebook’s offer, made during meet and confers, to “stipulate” as to Facebook’s current
8
functionality with respect to generating EntShares and EntGlobalShares, does not address
9
Facebook’s ongoing uses or redirection of them. Plaintiffs have repeatedly asked for, but have
10
not received, an explanation of how Facebook continues to use and redirect EntShares and
11
EntGlobalShares for purposes beyond Private Message delivery. That Facebook may be willing
12
to stipulate as to its ongoing generation of these objects during the remainder of the class period
13
in no way relieves it of its duty to produce discovery going to its ongoing uses and redirection.
14
2.
15
16
Facebook’s Ongoing Use of Private Message Content To Generate
Recommendations
The Court noted that Plaintiffs allege that “Facebook scans users’ messages, and when a
17
URL is included, it uses that data to generate recommendations.”13 As explained in the class
18
certification briefing, Plaintiffs determined, and Facebook admitted, that Facebook intercepts
19
URLs in Private Messages by logging them using various source code devices that redirect the
20
content for use in recommendations.14 As an example, Plaintiffs, through review of Facebook’s
21
code, determined that certain source code devices intercepted and deposited Private Message
22
content into a table referred to as
23
12
.”15 Plaintiffs’ expert also determined that identical
Ex. 5 (Himel Dep.), at 255:5-10
24
13
25
26
27
28
Dkt. 192, at 3.
Dkt. 199-1 (Mot. For Class Cert.), at 5 (arguing Facebook uses data logged from Private
Messages to fuel recommendations, including data from the
); Dkt. 184-11 (Jan.
14, 2016 Himel Decl.), ¶ 44 (admitting
informed “Recommendations Feed”);
Dkt. 184-17 (Golbeck Rebuttal Report), ¶¶ 28-37 (discussing
and
logging); Dkt. 184-21 (Feb. 26, 2016 Himel Decl.), ¶¶ 7-9 (same).
15
See Dkt. 199-2 (Golbeck Report), ¶ 44-54.
14
-6-
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL SOURCE CODE
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))
1
logging appears to be ongoing, as of the final date of Facebook’s source code production
2
(December 2012), through a logging function referred to as “
3
Facebook was at pains to argue (as it turns out, incorrectly) that the “
4
deleted prior to the class period, Facebook has never argued that the
5
functionality did not continue to log Private Message content and use it for purposes unrelated to
6
Message delivery. Plaintiffs owe a duty to the certified Class to determine the extent of
7
Facebook’s ongoing logging of Private Message content in order to effectuate full relief from
8
Facebook’s conduct for the Class by crafting appropriate injunctive relief.
9
”16 While
” was
”
Additionally, Facebook admits that its “Recommendations Feed plugin,” which Plaintiffs
10
identified as an example of one way in which Facebook used Private Message content to generate
11
targeted recommendations for users, used Private Message content well after December 2012.17
12
In fact, this system was only discontinued in June 2015, long after this lawsuit was filed.18
13
Plaintiffs are entitled to understand the details and scope of the Recommendations Feed plugin’s
14
use of Private Message content through an examination of its source code.
15
3.
16
17
Facebook’s Ongoing Sharing Private Message Content with Third
Parties
The Court further noted that Plaintiffs allege that “Facebook scans the messages, and
18
when a URL is included, it shares that data with third parties so that they can generate targeted
19
recommendations.”19 Contrary to Facebook’s representations, Facebook’s sharing of URLs in
20
Private Messages with third parties appears to be ongoing. Shortly after Plaintiffs amended their
21
complaint, a security researcher revealed one manifestation of this ongoing practice. As recently
22
disclosed in a blog post by the researcher (a self-described “[e]thical hacker & bug bounty
23
hunter”20), Facebook makes the specific URLs shared in Private Messages freely available to any
24
16
25
26
27
28
Dkt. 184-17 (Golbeck Rebuttal Report), ¶¶ 28-37. As its name implies,
“writes” pertinent Private Message attributes to logs, acting like a giant vacuum within
Facebook’s system, sucking up immense volumes of Private Message data for future use. See id.,
¶¶ 12, 34.
17
See Dkt. 184-13 (Fechete Decl.), ¶ 28.
18
Id., ¶ 10.
19
Dkt. 192 (Cert. Order), at 4.
20
See https://twitter.com/securinti (last visited August 1, 2016).
-7-
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL SOURCE CODE
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))
1
developer with access to the Facebook API.21 The researcher was able to access URLs sent in
2
Private Messages by implementing simple code that randomly generated ID numbers for
3
Facebook EntShare and/or EntGlobalShare objects, which then revealed specific URLs that users
4
had shared through Private Messages. The researcher was able to locate confidential user
5
information sent through Private Messages, “allowing a total stranger to gain personal
6
information about you.” 22 The researcher was so surprised by this practice that he believed it was
7
a bug, and reported it to Facebook.
8
Facebook ultimately admitted to this practice, only, on June 8, 2016—the day after
9
Plaintiffs filed the SAC—but contended that, rather than a bug, Facebook’s providing third-parties
10
with access to URL content in Private Messages is “intentional.”23 This revelation provides
11
further evidence supporting Plaintiffs’ allegations of Facebook’s ongoing practice of making
12
Private Message content available to third parties. 24 This precise type of conduct is one that
13
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin through their allegations and claims for relief in the SAC, and require up-
14
to-date source code to investigate. Facebook never disclosed this practice through discovery, and
15
analysis of Facebook’s up-to-date source code is necessary to understand how this functionality
16
operates, the scope of Facebook’s ongoing sharing of users’ Private Message content with third
17
parties, and the appropriate injunctive relief associated with this practice.
18
C.
19
20
21
Facebook’s Selective Document Production and Self-Serving, Occasionally
False Witness Testimony Cannot Substitute for Source Code Analysis.
Facebook initially asserted in this case that document production and employee testimony
were a sufficient substitute for source code production. However, Facebook’s own key witness
22
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
See Ex. 6 (Why you shouldn’t share links on Facebook, Quartz (June 29, 2016)).
Id. As the researcher explained: “In this small set of extracted URL’s, I’ve already found some
interesting info: Names: . . . Location or language . . . Attachments or pictures from the
[Facebook content delivery network] . . . Application or game data . . Secret links or hidden
keys: such as the editable Google Drive links or links to hidden pages, websites and beta
environments . . . and these aren’t mutually exclusive, some URLs includes multiple parameters
types listed above in one single link thereby allowing a total stranger to gain personal information
about you. Hello NSA?”
23
Id.
24
See, e.g., SAC ¶¶ 45-49 (describing Facebook’s practice of making Private Message content
available to third-party developers through its APIs).
22
-8-
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL SOURCE CODE
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))
1
confirmed that the functionality at issue could only be understood through examination of the
2
source code.25 Facebook’s suggestion that document production related to the functioning of
3
EntShares and EntGlobalShares relieves it of the duty to produce further source code contradicts
4
its own employees’ sworn testimony
.26 Thus, consistent with Rule 26(b)(2), the requested source
5
6
code is appropriate; it is neither cumulative nor duplicative, nor can this information be obtained
7
from some other source.
8
Indeed, Facebook has previously resisted any further document production on the grounds
9
that its source code is the fundamental evidence Plaintiffs require to prove their claims, obviating
10
other forms of discovery. As the Court noted, Facebook’s primary objection to producing further
11
technical documentation in response to earlier motions to compel was that “‘Facebook has in fact
12
already produced the information that is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims’ in the form of the source
13
code, which demonstrates how Facebook scans users’ messages . . . [it is Facebook’s] position
14
that it has already produced the source code and therefore does not need to produce anything
15
more” (Dkt. 130 at 5, 15). In fact, virtually every Facebook witness has heavily relied on
16
Facebook’s source code to answer fundamental merits questions demonstrating, despite all
17
posturing by Facebook, that source code analysis for the entire class period is necessary to
18
understand the interception and use of Private Message content for the full class period.
Finally, as Facebook’s own recent filings demonstrate,27 the self-serving testimony of
19
20
Facebook’s employees (and related representations by counsel) as to which practices may have
21
ceased cannot be taken at face value. After claiming in sworn declarations, deposition testimony,
22
and representations to the Court that the “
23
logged for use in generating recommendations was deleted prior to the class period,28 in the midst
24
25
25
” table in which Private Message content was
Dkt. 184-1 (June 1, 2015 Himel Decl.), passim (citing to specific lines of code to explain the
functionality at issue).
26
Ex. 5 (Himel Dep.), at 255:5-10
26
27
28
27
Dkt. 185 (Errata); see also Dkt. 187 (Plaintiffs’ Objections thereto).
See, e.g., Dkt. 183-12 (Goldberg Report), ¶¶ 9, 44, 56; Dkt. 178-4 (Defs.’ Objection to Evid.),
at 2:21-23; Dkt. 177 (Mar. 16, 2016 Hrg. Tr.), at 87:16-20; Dkt. 184-11 (Jan. 14, 2016 Himel
Footnote continued on next page
28
-9-
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL SOURCE CODE
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))
1
of a dispute regarding the production of Facebook’s configuration tables, Facebook admitted that,
2
based upon “re-review” of the data Plaintiffs sought, that table had not been deleted prior to the
3
class period. Contrary to Facebook’s subsequent attempts to minimize its reliance on this claim,29
4
it figured heavily in Facebook’s class certification arguments.30 Plaintiffs, and the trier of fact,
5
are entitled to test Facebook’s assertions through examination of Facebook’s source code.
6
III.
7
CONCLUSION
Facebook’s source code has taken center stage in this case and it is inconceivable that the
8
claims and defenses can be litigated, or that injunctive relief can be tailored, without detailed
9
evidence of the code’s functioning for the full class period; thus its production is both
10
proportional and necessary in this case. Both experts relied heavily on Facebook’s source code in
11
rendering their opinions on the issues presented at class certification.31 Facebook’s employees
12
repeatedly stated under oath that the best (or only) way to understand Facebook’s systems is to
13
examine the source code.32 The Court,33 the experts, and Facebook’s witnesses have made clear
14
that examining Facebook’s source code is necessary to understand the claims and defenses at
15
issue. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court compel Facebook to produce all relevant code
16
from January 2013 to May 18, 2016.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Footnote continued from previous page
Decl.), ¶¶ 44-50; Dkt. 184-21 (Feb. 26, 2016 Himel Decl.), ¶¶ 7-9; Ex. 5 (Himel Dep.), at 203:1018, 204:16-17.
29
See, e.g., Dkt. 191.
30
See Dkt. 177, at 87:16-20 (“And they spent a lot of time on the share stats table. That was
deleted in 2011 before the class period. So I don’t even know why we’re talking about it. It was
deleted before. It had nothing to do with this case. It was deleted beforehand.”).
31
Dr. Golbeck analyzed Facebook’s source code and identified three distinct types of code-based
devices the intercept Private Message content: devices that “process[s]the attachment to create
share objects,” that “Lo[g] data about the private message share for later use,” and that
“Incremen[t] counters that track private message activities.” Dkt. 199-2 (Golbeck Report), ¶ 55;
Dkt. 183-12 (Goldberg Report), ¶¶ 33-42 (detailed analysis of code related to URL previews).
32
See, e.g., Ex. 5 (Himel Dep.), at 254:17-255:4; Ex. 7 (Himel Dep.), at 371:22-372:17; Ex. 9 (He
Dep.), at 74:11-15; 165:20-23; 227:18-228:7; 251:2-9; Ex. 9 (Vernal Dep.), at 128:8-18; Dkt.
140-1 (Oct. 6, 2015 Harrison Decl.), at 6 (“[T]he comprehensive record of Facebook functions
that used any given Object or Association type at any given time is Facebook’s source code.”).
33
See, e.g., Dkt. 43 (Order on Mot. to Dismiss), at 12:21-28 (“The fact that Facebook can
configure its code to scan message content for certain purposes, but not for others, leaves open
the possibility that the challenged practice constitutes a separate ‘interception.’ Simply put, the
application of the ‘ordinary course of business’ exception to this case depends upon the details of
Facebook’s software code . . .”) Id. (emphasis added).
- 10 -
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL SOURCE CODE
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))
1
Dated: August 2, 2016
By:
/s/ Michael W. Sobol
Michael W. Sobol
2
3
4
5
6
7
Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
msobol@lchb.com
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
drudolph@lchb.com
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
mgardner@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415.956.1000
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
8
9
10
11
12
Rachel Geman
rgeman@lchb.com
Nicholas Diamand
ndiamand@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: 212.355.9500
Facsimile: 212.355.9592
13
14
15
16
17
18
Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
hbates@cbplaw.com
Allen Carney
acarney@cbplaw.com
David Slade
dslade@cbplaw.com
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72202
Telephone: 501.312.8500
Facsimile: 501.312.8505
19
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 11 -
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL SOURCE CODE
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))
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?