Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 207

MOTION to Compel Production of Configuration Tables filed by Matthew Campbell, Michael Hurley. Responses due by 8/9/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Dr. Jennifer Golbeck)(Sobol, Michael) (Filed on 8/2/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
[e-mail]
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
[e-mail]
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.956.1008

12

Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
[e-mail]
Allen Carney
[e-mail]
David Slade
[e-mail]
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72202
Telephone: [phone]
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,
Plaintiffs,

20

Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF CONFIGURATION
TABLES

21

v.

Date:

22

FACEBOOK, INC.,

Time:
Judge:
Place:

23

Defendant.

Telephonic Hearing to be set
by Court
To be Set by Court
Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor

24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
CONFIGURATION TABLES
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 granting

5

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Configuration Tables. This motion is based upon this

6

Notice of Motion; the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities; the Declarations of

7

David T. Rudolph and Dr. Jennifer Golbeck filed herewith; the argument of counsel, if requested;

8

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 configuration tables that are a part of,

12

and integral to, Facebook’s processes and system architecture for scanning, acquiring, and using

13

Private Message URL content.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-i-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
CONFIGURATION TABLES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK)

1

I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs have requested that Facebook produce “configuration tables” for Facebook’s

2
3

databases that are a part of, and integral to, Facebook’s processes and system architecture for

4

scanning, acquiring, and using Private Message content, and which are therefore the subjects of

5

Request for Production Nos. 4-14, 18-19, and 21 (“Requests”1). Plaintiffs do not seek production

6

of the user data in the databases themselves, but rather narrowly seek the configuration data that

7

show how the URL content extracted from Private Messages is organized and used. Pursuant to

8

this Court’s order (Dkt. 203), Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court compel Facebook to

9

produce relevant configuration tables for the entire class period.
Plaintiffs seek only those configuration tables that relate to Plaintiffs’ claims as defined by

10
11

the Court’s class certification ruling (Dkt. 192, “Cert. Order”) and Plaintiffs’ Second Amended

12

Complaint (Dkt. 196, “SAC”), filed in compliance with the Court’s Order, and thus Plaintiffs’

13

request is proportional to the needs of the case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). First, Plaintiffs

14

seek the production of configuration tables related to Facebook’s
databases, which contain data extracted from Private Messages. This data was then

15
16

used for two practices specifically challenged by Plaintiffs in the SAC: (1) the use of Private

17

Message data for targeted advertising, including recommendations of content to Facebook to users,

18

and (2) to provide data to third parties about Private Message content. Second, Plaintiffs seek the

19

configuration tables for Facebook’s

20

code and databases process and use the “EntShare” and “EntGlobalShare” objects that Facebook

21

creates when it intercepts Private Message content, as described in the SAC and the Cert. Order.

22

Third, Plaintiffs seek configuration tables for Facebook’s

23

which relates to Facebook’s affirmative defense that its interception and use of Private Message

24

content for purposes unrelated to message delivery somehow falls within the “ordinary course of

25

business” exception to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and California Invasion of

26

Privacy Act. As described in the accompanying declaration of Plaintiffs’ technical expert, Dr.

27

1

28

database, which will reveal how Facebook’s source

database,

The Requests, and Defendant’s responses, are attached as Exs. 3-4 to the Declaration of David
Rudolph, filed herewith. Unless otherwise specified, all Exhibits cited herein are to the Rudolph
Declaration.
-1-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
CONFIGURATION TABLES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

1

Golbeck (“Golbeck Decl.”), these configuration tables are necessary to understand the operation of

2

Facebook’s internal systems with respect to the challenged conduct.

3

Facebook has steadfastly refused to produce the requested configuration tables, contending

4

that (1) the configuration tables identified by Plaintiffs are not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, and

5

(2) their production would be overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional, given their size.

6

However, the configuration tables are central to this case. The Private Message source code reveals

7

aspects of how URL content is intercepted and redirected to certain databases; however, it does not

8

reveal the organization and use of that content once redirected. The configuration tables are key to

9

understanding how the intercepted content is stored and utilized post-redirection, and such

10

understanding is critical to demonstrating liability, to rebutting Facebook’s affirmative defense that

11

the redirected uses are somehow within the “ordinary course of business” exception, and to

12

fashioning appropriate injunctive relief regarding restrictions on the future use and retention of

13

illegally intercepted and redirected content. This discovery thus clearly satisfies the proportionality

14

requirements of Rule 26(b)(1). Moreover, as explained below, production of the configuration

15

tables—distinct from the voluminous user data in the tables—is not overly burdensome or

16

disproportionate, and thus satisfies the requirements of Rule 26(b)(2). The parties have met and

17

conferred in-person on at least three occasions on this request and have reached an impasse.

18

II.

19

ARGUMENT
A.

20

Facebook’s Configuration Tables Demonstrate How Facebook Uses Private
Message Data.

The data Facebook mines from users’ Private Messages resides on Facebook’s databases.2

21
22

Each database contains configuration tables3 which show what kind of data resides on the database,

23

how that data is organized, and how Facebook uses that data.4 Facebook has produced that part of

24

2

25
26
27
28

Golbeck Decl., ¶¶ 13-16.
Facebook has repeatedly suggested that the term “configuration table” is not used internally by
Facebook employees to describe the data sets Plaintiffs seek in this request. Even if true (though
Facebook has never suggested any alternate terminology that its employees do use internally), this
is immaterial; as explained below, Facebook has acknowledged that its databases contain “tables”
that themselves contain “configuration data” relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. Moreover, as Dr.
Golbeck explains, configuration tables are well known, widely used, and quite common. Id., ¶ 12.
4
Id., ¶¶ 5-16.
3

-2-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
CONFIGURATION TABLES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

1

its source code which operates to extract the data from Private Messages, but has refused to produce

2

the programming contained in configuration tables which reveals how Facebook uses the data after

3

it is redirected to databases. The configuration tables Plaintiffs seek not only provide information

4

about the structure of the databases (e.g., the names and characteristics of the data fields), but also

5

the instructions for how that data is utilized and therefore how Facebook stores and uses data

6

intercepted from Private Messages (the subject of the above-described Requests).5 In this latter

7

respect, configuration tables are equivalent to source code because they contain programming as to

8

how data is redirected into databases and thereafter used by Facebook. Therefore, they should have

9

been produced with Facebook’s source code production early last year.6

10

Based on their expert’s review of Facebook’s currently-produced source code, Plaintiffs

11

have been able to identify three categories of configuration tables for databases relevant to

12

Plaintiffs’ claims that should be produced:

13

First, the configuration tables for the
.7 As

14
15

explained in detail in Plaintiffs’ opening and reply briefing and reports in support of their motion

16

for class certification, Facebook’s logging of Private Message content is a central issue in this

17

case.8 Without access to this information it is not possible to fully determine the functionality of

18

these logging systems with respect to logging of URLs in Private Messages, because, as Facebook

19

concedes, configuration data demonstrates how the source code handles underlying message data.

20

And, as explained below, the testimony of Facebook’s employees has put Facebook’s database

21

configuration data directly at issue by referring to it in support of Facebook’s arguments.

22

Second, configuration tables contained in the

23
5

24
25
26
27
28

Id., ¶¶ 13-16.
The details of that source code are described in Plaintiffs’ motion to compel source code for the
entire class period, filed concurrently with this motion.
7
Golbeck Decl., ¶ 18.
8
See, e.g., Dkt. 199-1, Ex. 1 (Mot. For Class Cert.), at 5 (arguing Facebook uses data logged from
Private Messages to fuel recommendations, including data from the
table); Dkt. 184-11
(Jan. 14, 2016 Himel Decl.), ¶ 44 (admitting
table 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).
6

-3-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
CONFIGURATION TABLES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

1
.9 As described in prior motions to compel and Orders,

2
3

Facebook stores the “EntShare” data extracted from Private Messages in the format of “Objects”

4

and “Associations.”10 Thus, this data is necessary to understand how EntShares are used within

5

Facebook’s source code.

6

Third, values from the

configuration table in the

7
8

.11 Facebook has argued that it extracts Private Message content

9

for security purposes and thus its practices fall within the “ordinary course of business” exceptions

10

to Plaintiffs’ claims under the ECPA and CIPA; in order to examine this assertion it is necessary to

11

fully understand the operation of Facebook’s

12

Adkins testified,

source code. As Facebook employee Michael

.12

13
14

B.

15
16

Plaintiffs’ Configuration Table Request is Confined to The Scope of the Issues
As Defined in This Court’s Orders and the Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs seek only the production of those configuration tables that relate to Plaintiffs’

17

claims as described by the Court in the Class Certification Order and as articulated in the SAC, and

18

thus the discovery satisfies the proportionality requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). As the

19

Court noted, Plaintiffs allege that Facebook intercepts Private Message content for uses not related

20

to message delivery through the creation of EntShare objects.13 Plaintiffs also allege that Facebook

21

intercepts Private Message content through logging that then passes that content on to systems that

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9

Golbeck Decl., ¶¶ 19-23.
See, e.g., Dkt. 130, at 4 (granting Plaintiffs’ motion to compel all “Objects” and “Associations”
generated from Private Messages, noting “Plaintiffs generally define ‘Objects and Associations’ as
‘metadata structures that Facebook generates to catalog its users’ online activity.’”).
11
Golbeck Decl., ¶¶ 24-25.
12
Ex. 10 (Adkins Dep.), at 92:14-18 (“
).
13
Dkt. 192, (Cert. Order), at 4 (“Plaintiffs then specifically describe the three ways in which the
message data is allegedly redirected and used. The first is to ‘fuel its algorithms for measuring user
engagement and making recommendations.’ This alleged use is related to the ‘EntShare’ and the
‘EntGlobalShare’ described above…”).
10

-4-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
CONFIGURATION TABLES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

1

either 1) provide recommendations to users, or 2) share information about URLs in Private Message

2

with third parties.14 Plaintiffs’ request is confined to these areas of inquiry.

3

Plaintiffs seek only those configuration tables that relate to 1) the creation or use of

4

EntShares and EntGlobalShares, 2) Facebook’s use of Private Message content to provide

5

recommendations, 3) Facebook’s sharing of Private Message URL content with third parties, and

6

4) Facebook’s affirmative defenses. The specific configuration tables Plaintiffs have identified thus

7

far fall within these constraints as follows:

8
9

: Plaintiffs seek the configuration data for
the

10
.15 As described in the class certification briefing, Plaintiffs allege that Facebook

11
12

logged Private Message content in a table referred to as

13

this table as residing in Facebook’s

14

functionality being performed by a source code function referred to as

15

Facebook subsequently admitted writes data to Facebook’s

16

expert further explained, and as Facebook admitted, Private Message URL data logged into the

and Facebook has identified

database.16 Plaintiffs’ expert also identified the same
which

database.17 As Plaintiffs’

table was used by Facebook to inform recommendations.18 Dr. Golbeck also

17
18

specifically noted that because Facebook’s source code production was incomplete, she could not

19

discern what table

20

Court noted that the parties’ ongoing factual disputes over the nature and extent of the

21

14

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

was depositing Private Message information into.19 The

Dkt. 192, at 3-4 (“[P]laintiffs allege two other interceptions/uses: (1) Facebook scans users’
messages, and when a URL is included, it uses that data to generate recommendations for other
users, and (2) Facebook scans the messages, and when a URL is included, it shares that data with
third parties so that they can generate targeted recommendations.” (footnotes omitted))
15
Golbeck Decl., ¶ 18.
16
Dkt. 184-11 (Jan. 14, 2016 Himel Decl.), ¶ 44 (“For a period of time, prior to the Class Period,
Facebook logged data regarding share objects in a table,
in its
database, a data
warehouse.”)
17
Dkt. 184-21 (Feb. 26, 2016 Himel Decl.), at ¶ 7; Dkt. 181-18 (Fechete Decl., Ex. VV) (referring
to
as a
).
18
Dkt. 184-11 (Jan. 14, 2016 Himel Decl.), ¶ 44 (“The [
] table was used for,
among other things, Facebook’s Recommendations social plugin . . .”).
19
Dkt. 184-17 (Golbeck Rebuttal Report), ¶ 34.
-5-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
CONFIGURATION TABLES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

1

and

2

messages, and when a URL is included, it uses that data to generate recommendations for other

3

users.”20

4

logging is related to Plaintiffs’ allegations that “Facebook scans users’

Additionally, Facebook’s witnesses identified the

5
.21 This Court observed that Plaintiffs allege that Facebook “’redirects’ the content of

6
7

private messages to interested third parties through its Insights’ product.”22

8
9

: EntShare and EntGlobalShare objects, and their associated uses within
Facebook’s system, are central to Plaintiffs’ claims. Configuration tables contained in the

10
11

, which is required to understand EntShare and EntGlobalShare objects and how those objects,

12

which are central to the Court’s class certification ruling and to Plaintiffs’ allegations in the SAC,23

13

are used within Facebook’s systems.24

14

: Facebook has argued that its interception of Private Message content is

15

related to the functioning of its security systems, and thus part of the “ordinary course of

16

business.”25 The
make of Private Message content.26

17
18

In addition to these three categories of configuration tables, Plaintiffs respectfully request

19
20

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dkt. 192 (Cert. Order), at 4, n.3 (“The parties are still disputing the details of this alleged
practice, Facebook filing an “errata” on May 11, 2016 to clarify and withdraw some of the
assertions made during briefing [i.e., related to the
table] . . . For purposes of
this motion, the court finds that plaintiffs have adequately shown that Facebook intercepts users’
message data in order to generate recommendations, even as the parties continue to dispute the
specifics of those alleged interceptions.”)
21
Ex. 7 (Himel Dep.), at 336:17-22
; see also SAC, ¶ 47.
Dkt. 192, at 5; SAC, ¶ 47 (same).
23
See Dkt. 192, at 4 (discussing the role of EntShares and EntGlobalShares in Plaintiffs’
allegations); SAC, ¶¶ 44-55 (alleging Facebook’s creation and used of EntShares and
EntGlobalShares to stockpile and use intercepted Private Message content).
24
Golbeck Decl., ¶¶ 19-23.
25
See, e.g., Dkt. 35 (Reply ISO Mot. to Dismiss), at 6.
26
Golbeck Decl., ¶¶ 24-25.
22

-6-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
CONFIGURATION TABLES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

1

that the Court order Facebook to produce any further configuration tables that relate to Plaintiffs’

2

claims as described in the Class Certification Order and the SAC, to the extent the above three

3

categories do not capture all such tables.

4

C.

5
6

Facebook’s Has Relied On Configuration Table Data For Its Defenses Yet
Refused to Produce that Data.

Facebook’s position regarding the relevance of these configuration tables is duplicitous. On

7

the one hand, Facebook has claimed the configuration tables are irrelevant and highly confidential

8

and thus need not be produced. Yet, on the other hand, Facebook simultaneously offered testimony

9

in support of its class certification opposition to establish that key aspects of Facebook’s Private

10

Message functionality are determined by the configuration tables it failed to produce.

11

Compounding this error, Facebook also, at the eleventh hour, belatedly produced a small sliver of

12

configuration data contained in the configuration tables, which it apparently believed supports its

13

defenses.

14

Facebook offered a declaration of its Engineering Director, Alex Himel, in opposition to

15

class certification which states that the

16

which Facebook admits it used to provide recommended links, was deleted in 2011—a statement

17

which Facebook subsequently admitted was false. 27 At his deposition, Mr.

table that logged Private Message content,

18
19
. 28 This testimony alone would have rendered

20
21

the

configuration data indisputably relevant.

22

However, while the parties were in the midst of a dispute regarding the filing of a joint letter

23

brief seeking the production of Facebook’s configuration tables, (see Dkt. 186), Facebook produced

24

a small sliver of this configuration data—which demonstrated that Mr. Himel’s testimony on this

25

key point was false (see Dkt. 185; 187). This incident demonstrates precisely why the production of

26

the configuration tables is necessary; there is simply no further legitimate dispute that the

27

27

28

28

Dkt. 184-11 (Jan. 14, 2016 Himel Decl.), ¶ 44; Dkt. 186.
Ex. 5 (Himel Dep.), at 203:7-23.
-7-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
CONFIGURATION TABLES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

1

configuration data is relevant and must be produced in its entirety. Facebook’s continued refusal to

2

do so constitutes discovery misconduct.

3

Likewise, while Mr. Himel’s declaration in opposition to class certification asserted, without

4

citation to any evidence, that Facebook’s

5

his deposition he was forced to admit that
29

6
7

Private Message content, at

(Facebook’s failure to volunteer the foundation for Mr. Himel’s statement in his declaration

reveals its deliberate efforts to conceal the central role of the configuration tables). As with the

8
9

log only

configuration table, Facebook subsequently produced a small sliver of configuration data
related to

logs. As with Facebook’s eleventh-hour production of a sliver of configuration

10

data related to

11

to

12

necessity of production of the complete configuration table from which this data was drawn—

13

Facebook cannot selectively produce only the data it believes it is helpful to its case, while

14

withholding the rest of the relevant dataset from which it was drawn.

15

Facebook’s production of a small sliver of configuration data related

which Facebook apparently believes supports it contentions, only underscores the

Similarly, Facebook has highlighted the importance of the

configuration tables in

16

its assertion that Plaintiffs’ expert has failed to show any link between

17

logs Private Message content, and the

18

“Recommendations” of internet content to users.30 The information that would link those two

19

functionalities likely resides in the

20

produce.

21

which

table” which Facebook uses to provide

and

configuration data that Facebook refuses to

Plaintiffs anticipate Facebook will argue that it need only produce this small, cherry-picked

22

sliver of configuration data that it believes is helpful to its arguments.31 However, as Facebook’s

23

“Errata” demonstrates, neither Facebook nor its employees can be relied on to provide an accurate

24
29

25
26
27
28

Ex. 5 (Himel Dep.), at 205:18-208:15.
Dkt. 184-21, ¶¶ 7-9; Dkt. 184-13 (Jan. 15, 2016 Fechete Decl.), ¶¶ 13-14, 18, 26.
31
Moreover, as noted in Plaintiffs’ Objections to Facebook’s Errata, even this data does not appear
to be a document kept in the ordinary course of business, and appears to reflect Facebook’s
lawyer’s editing to address a contested issue presently before the Court. See Dkt. 187, at 1
(metadata associated with document purporting to demonstrate deletion of
table
indicates document was created on May 10, 2016).
30

-8-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
CONFIGURATION TABLES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

1

representation of Facebook’s internal data and systems; the direct evidence of the functioning of

2

those systems—in this case, the configuration tables, along with the relevant source code for the

3

entire class period—must be produced.32

4

D.

5
6

Facebook’s Justifications For Refusing To Produce the Configuration Tables
Are Unavailing.

Facebook has articulated internally inconsistent, factually incorrect, and improper

7

justifications for refusing to produce the configuration tables. First, while Facebook has repeatedly

8

stated that it simply does not understand what Plaintiffs mean by “configuration tables,” it

9

simultaneously confidently asserts that the data it recently produced was not taken from a

10

“configuration table.” See Dkt. 191. This statement, bereft of any explanation or factual backing,

11

is incorrect (Facebook produced configuration data taken from a table, and produced it in table

12

form, albeit in the form of a single entry within that table),33 and is indicative of the internally

13

inconsistent nature of Facebook’s posturing on this issue.

14

Second, Facebook has objected that its databases themselves, opposed to the configuration

15

tables within them, are too large to produce. This is simply a red herring; Plaintiffs do not seek

16

production of the databases, or the primary data in the databases, but rather the configuration data

17

related to those databases. Facebook has never articulated why that configuration data would be too

18

burdensome to produce, and in fact this objection appears to have not been made in good faith; as

19

part of the meet and confer process, in response to Facebook’s asserted concerns about burden,

20

Plaintiffs requested that Facebook provide a list of the names of each table in the databases as well

21

as the size of each configuration table, to assist Plaintiffs in narrowing the requests to only those

22

that do not contain user data. Facebook refused to do so on the grounds that the names of these

23

tables are “proprietary,” but, even if true, this is completely irrelevant in light of the stringent

24

32

25
26
27
28

As just one example of the ways in which an incomplete production of this data will not provide
the Court or Plaintiffs with the full scope of Facebook’s interception and use of Private Message
content, while Facebook has purported to produce one entry of configuration data that shows that
the
table was deleted, subsequent configuration data may show that the
table, or another table with an identical function, was later created. Without access to the full
configuration data, Plaintiffs and the Court have only Facebook’s witness testimony to rely on,
which has shown to be demonstrably false on these issues.
33
See also Golbeck Decl., ¶¶ 5-16.
-9-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
CONFIGURATION TABLES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

1

protective order in this case. Facebook’s refusal to take even this minimal step towards reducing

2

any alleged burden demonstrates its burden argument is simply pretextual. Moreover, given that

3

Plaintiffs seek only the configuration data—as opposed to the underlying user data—related to the

4

specific conduct at issue, this request is proportional to the needs of the case pursuant to Rule

5

26(b)(1) and, as established in Dr. Golbeck’s declaration, the information contained in these tables

6

is necessary to understand the functioning of the relevant systems and, therefore pursuant to Rule

7

26(b)(2), the requested tables are neither cumulative nor duplicative of other discovery, nor can the

8

configuration data be obtained from some other source.

9

Third, while Facebook at first took the position that the configuration tables are entirely

10

irrelevant, it later conceded that at least some configuration tables should be produced so long as

11

Plaintiffs identified specific lines of source code showing a call made to the data from the source

12

code. Facebook’s suggestion turns the purpose of discovery on its head—Plaintiffs require these

13

configuration tables to understand the function of Facebook’s source code. It is Facebook, not

14

Plaintiffs, that is in a position to identify which configuration tables are relevant to the

15

functionalities at issue under the Court’s class certification ruling and as articulated in the SAC.

16

Requiring Plaintiffs to identify every potentially relevant configuration table through examination

17

of the source code is equivalent to requiring that Plaintiffs identify every relevant document in

18

Facebook’s possession before it produces them.34 This demand is not consistent with the precepts

19

of Rule 26(b)(1) and (2), which provide for discovery proportional to the needs of the case, not

20

obtainable from other sources, and not unduly burdensome—consistent with Plaintiffs’ requests

21

III.

22

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court order Facebook to

23

produce all configuration tables for all databases that contain data derived from Private Message

24

URL content including, but not limited to, the three categories of configuration tables specified

25

above, to be produced as a text file dump within two weeks of the entry of an Order on this motion.

26
27
28

34

Moreover, what Facebook demands is likely an impossible task, as it well knows. In prior
discovery briefing, Facebook’s own declarant explained that it “would be exceedingly burdensome
to review the source code in its entirety to develop a list of all possible uses” of Objects created
from Private Message content. Dkt. 140-1 (Oct. 6, 2015 Harrison Decl.), ¶¶ 6-7.
- 10 -

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
CONFIGURATION TABLES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

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

Dated: August 2, 2016

By:

/s/ Michael W. Sobol
Michael W. Sobol

Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
[e-mail]
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
[e-mail]
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
Rachel Geman
[e-mail]
Nicholas Diamand
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.355.9592

19

Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
[e-mail]
Allen Carney
[e-mail]
David Slade
[e-mail]
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 501.312.8505

20

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class

15
16
17
18

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 11 -

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
CONFIGURATION TABLES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))