Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 208

MOTION to Compel Production of Documents filed by Matthew Campbell, Michael Hurley. Responses due by 8/9/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(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

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
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiffs,

19

Date:
20

v.

21

FACEBOOK, INC.,

22

Time:
Judge:
Place:

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

Defendant.

23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
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 Further Document Searches by Defendant, Facebook, Inc. This

6

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

STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
Whether, consistent with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b),

10
11

Defendant Facebook, Inc. should be compelled to produce documents identified through further

12

document searches using Plaintiffs’ proposed search terms and custodians reflected in Appendix

13

A.

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

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK)

1

I.

2

INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to this Court’s Order (Dkt. 203), Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to

3

compel Facebook to search for and produce documents using search terms, methodologies, and

4

custodians that are appropriately and proportionally calibrated, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b),

5

to the scope of Plaintiffs’ claims as articulated in the Court’s Class Certification Order (“Cert.

6

Order”) and the Second Amended Complaint.1 While the parties have, through meet-and-confer

7

efforts, substantially narrowed their areas of disagreement post-certification, significant disputes

8

remain.

9

The deficiencies addressed in this brief involve three, interrelated issues: First,

10

Facebook’s current document production is woefully inadequate because Facebook collected

11

documents through keyword searches that not only omitted highly-relevant terms (which

12

Plaintiffs later identified through discovery) but also substituted critical keywords with

13

generalized terminology that Facebook acknowledges is not used internally.2 Thus, large swaths

14

of relevant discovery were purposefully ignored. Second, and compounding the above error by

15

relying on its objections as to scope (the validity of which this Court consistently has rejected,

16

and which, in any event, are now inarguably invalid in light of the Cert. Order), Facebook trained

17

its “predictive coding” software to categorize as irrelevant documents unrelated to “increasing the

18

Like count” (Facebook’s definition of the “challenged practice”)—thus excluding relevant

19

documents from further review and production. Third, Facebook remains unwilling to conduct

20

searches from the files of relevant custodians.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs immediately objected to Facebook’s improper use of predictive coding and
1

The documents sought by this motion are responsive to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production 4-11
and 18-20, which seek technical documents related to the claims at issue. The Requests, and
Facebook’s responses thereto, are attached as Exhibits 3 and 4, respectively, to the Declaration of
David Rudolph (“Rudolph Decl.”), filed herewith. Unless otherwise stated, all exhibits are to the
Rudolph Declaration.
2
As discussed in greater detail below, a prime example is Facebook’s exclusion of the terms
“EntShare” and “EntGlobalShare” from any of its searches, instead using the terms “share object”
and “global share object.” This omission is inexcusable given the fact that EntShares and
EntGlobalShares lie at the heart of each of Plaintiffs’ claims, and is further inexplicable given the
fact that Facebook’s seminal declarant and witness, Alex Himel, has acknowledged that “share
object” and “global share object”
. See
footnote 6, infra.
-1-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK)

1

objected to Facebook’s inadequate keywords immediately upon determining that Facebook’s

2

searches clearly had not implemented the terminology most relevant to this case. Plaintiffs

3

promptly requested that Facebook supplement its production with documents located by searches

4

using appropriate keywords. Facebook initially refused to produce any further documents, but

5

eventually agreed to a clearly inadequate token search using a subset of the relevant terms on only

6

three out of the more than forty custodians Facebook has identified thus far.

7

After repeatedly meeting-and-conferring on these topics, Plaintiffs have significantly

8

narrowed their requests to terms—including keyword proximity searches limiting those terms—

9

that correctly reflect the scope of Plaintiffs’ claims as articulated in the Second Amended

10

Complaint and the Cert. Order, and which also address Facebook’s concerns regarding burden

11

and proportionality, and thus satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). The parties’ respective positions on

12

the appropriate search terms, as well as the appropriate temporal scope of discovery, is attached to

13

this brief as Appendix A. While the parties have reached general agreement on many topics,

14

substantial disputes remain, particularly with respect to time period for which documents should

15

be searched. Given Facebook’s recent admissions both shortly prior to and shortly after Plaintiffs

16

amended their Complaint, Facebook’s representations about what may or may not have ceased

17

cannot be taken at face value. Plaintiffs respectfully request, pursuant to this Court’s Order (Dkt.

18

203), that the Court order Facebook to conduct further document searches consistent with

19

Plaintiffs’ proposed search terms, for the full class period.

20

II.

ARGUMENT

21

A.

22

At the start of discovery, Facebook indicated it would search for documents containing

Facebook’s Initial Insufficient Document Production Efforts

23

various terms identified by Facebook from its first round of interrogatory responses. These terms

24

largely consisted of non-technical phrases relating to Facebook’s “Like” counter, such as “like

25

button count,” “share object,” “share button” or “URL” in proximity to terms such as

26

“messenger” or

27

actual terminology employed internally by Facebook engineers with respect to the practices at

28

3

3

Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, however, these terms did not reflect the

Ex. 11 (Letter dated May 13, 2015 from Facebook’s counsel to Plaintiffs’ counsel).
-2-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

1

issue, and omitted many key components of Facebook’s architecture that are employed in

2

scanning, cataloging, and using Private Message content. Moreover, after Facebook indicated it

3

would collect and review documents based on these search terms, it revealed that, rather than

4

manually review the documents for relevance, it would employ computer-aided “predictive

5

coding” to further narrow the documents related to these narrow search terms for subsequent

6

manual review. Plaintiffs objected to Facebook’s implementation of predictive coding, pointing

7

out that predictive coding is designed to be used in lieu of—as opposed to in addition to—

8

keyword searches. Facebook’s process of keyword culling is discouraged and recognized by

9

courts and predictive coding experts as a flawed methodology that is likely to filter out a

10

significant portion of responsive documents.4 As such, Facebook’s document production efforts

11

were flawed from their inception, not only by improper search terms, but also by a coding and

12

review process that improperly narrowed those documents even further.

13

Compounding this problem, in implementing its predictive coding, Facebook unilaterally

14

imposed an improperly restrictive definition of relevance that this Court has already rejected

15

multiple times,5 and which is inarguably untenable in light of the Cert. Order. Just as Facebook

16

failed to include search terms related to the myriad functionalities and uses described below,

17

Facebook also omitted those functionalities and uses when it was training the software to learn

18

the characteristics of relevant documents. In short, since Facebook’s predictive coding software

19

was never trained that the appropriate concepts were relevant, it could not identify as relevant

20

documents related to these concepts. Facebook’s refusal to implement an appropriate standard

21

for relevance has thus guaranteed that relevant documents were withheld from production and

22

still need to be produced.

23
24
25
26
27
28

4

See Tinto v. Vale, No. 14-3042, 2015 WL 4367250, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2015) (“[P]reculling [using keywords] should not occur in a perfect world.”); Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v.
Delaney, No. l l-678, 2014 WL 3563467, at *11-12 (D. Nev. July 18, 2014) (where parties had
stipulated to a keyword then manual review protocol, the court would not allow Progressive to
use predictive coding only on the positive keyword hits).
5
See, e.g., Dkt. 83 (June 3, 2015 Order), at 7 (rejecting Facebook’s argument that challenging
“any ‘interception’ of messages containing URLs for any purpose” demonstrated a shift in
position from allegations in Plaintiffs’ CAC); Dkt. 130 (October 14, 2015 Order), at 8 (same)
(citing CAC at ¶ 86); Id. at 13 (citing CAC at ¶¶ 30, 49-51).
-3-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

1

B.

2

Facebook proposed grossly inadequate search terms early on in the case, before producing

Facebook’s Inadequate Keywords

3

documents that revealed Facebook’s internal terminology. For example, in light of the Cert.

4

Order, it is indisputable that two technical terms at the core of this litigation are “EntShare” and

5

“EntGlobalShare” (the data structures Facebook creates from scanning URLs within messages to,

6

inter alia, increment Like counters).6 Remarkably, in its search terms, Facebook used the term

7

“share object” and “global share object,” respectively, in lieu of “EntShare” and

8

“EntGlobalShare.” However, Facebook’s

9

. Alex Himel—an engineering director whom Facebook has used to verify interrogatory

10

responses, provide multiple declarations, and to provide 30(b)(6) testimony related to message

11

scanning and the Like button—stated

12
13
14
15
7

16

Moreover, as described in detail in the Cert. Order,8 the scope of the message scanning is

17
18

broader than incrementing “Like” counters. As further described below (and tracking the Cert.

19

Order), discovery also has revealed the internal architecture (and relevant technical terms)

20

utilized by Facebook to retain, analyze, and use Private Message data.9 Yet, Facebook

21

deliberately chose not to use the core technical terms relevant to these functionalities and uses,

22

and that failure must be remedied going forward.

23

C.

24

Against this backdrop, the parties have negotiated further search terms. As can be seen in

25
26

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Searches Fall Within the Constraints Imposed By the
Court’s Class Certification Order

6

See Dkt. 192 (Cert. Order), at 4.
Ex. 5 (Himel Dep.), at 154:19-155:7.
8
Dkt. 192, at 4-6.
9
See also Dkt. 196 (Second Amended Complaint, “SAC”), ¶¶ 45-55.
7

27
28

-4-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

1

Appendix A, the parties are largely in agreement as to the proper terms to be used in further

2

keyword searches. As described in detail in the Cert. Order and the SAC, the scope of the

3

message scanning is significantly broader than incrementing “Like” counters (the focus of

4

Facebook’s previous document collection efforts), and includes (a) logging Private Message

5

content for future use;10 (b) using Private Message content to push recommendations to its users11

6

and targeting users based on Likes and other data points;12 and (c) providing demographics data

7

and other analytics related to users and their Private Message content.13

8
9

The primary areas of disagreement are (1) what terms should be included in the proximity
terms further limiting those searches, (2) the proper time period for the searches, and (3) the

10

proper custodians. Plaintiffs’ search proposal has been carefully crafted as a reasonable

11

compromise to address Facebook’s proportionality concerns, and it is neither appropriate nor

12

reasonable to limit Plaintiffs’ proposed searches any further. Plaintiffs’ search terms are focused

13

on highly technical terms directly related to the source code devices Facebook uses to intercept

14

Private Message content as well as the internal systems that use that content, as described in the

15

Cert. Order and in the SAC, and accordingly these requests satisfy the proportionality and other

16

requirements of Rule 26(b)(1) and (b)(2):

17

Creation of EntShares and EntGlobalShares: The terms “EntShare” and

18

“EntGlobalShare” are at the center of Plaintiffs’ claims. As the Court noted, Plaintiffs allege that

19

Facebook intercepts Private Message content for uses not related to message delivery through the

20

creation and manipulation of EntShare and EntGlobalShare objects.14 Facebook appears to

21

concede the centrality of these terms, given that it has agreed to search for these terms for the

22

10

23
24
25
26
27
28

Relevant terms include: EntShare, EntGlobalShare, Link_stats /
.
11
Relevant terms include:
(which is a critical term in multiple contexts).
12
Relevant terms include:
.
13
Relevant terms include: Insights, Insights Dashboard,

, Graph API,
, and

.
Dkt. 192, 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…”).
14

-5-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

1

entire class period (albeit with improperly restrictive proximity searches).

2

Logging of Data Created From Private Message Content: Once it scanned its users’

3

Private Message content, Facebook logged that data in several places on its system for additional,

4

subsequent use. This is directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding how Facebook

5

utilized message content.15 These logging tables include or relate to

6

the

7

alia, APIs that are made “publicly [available] in order to allow for the development of products

8

and features that incorporate engagement statistics—products that take into account what people

9

are interacting with now.”17 Similarly, the

table, and the

16

log. The

table has fueled, inter

table and

log

10

stored data related to Private Message content18 that has been used by Facebook in at least several

11

instances unrelated to message transmission, including fueling recommendations,19 displaying

12

users’ actions in an “Activity Feed,”20 and fueling queries to a product called the
21

13
14

Each of the above-described components of Facebook’s system are, by Facebook’s own

admission, areas where data created from Private Message content are logged for further use.

15

Use of Private Message Content for Recommendations: Facebook used information

16

acquired from intercepted message content to make recommendations to its users. Plaintiffs’

17

expert, Dr. Jennifer Golbeck, identified (1)

18

(2)

and (3)

as portions of the Facebook platform that took

19

data from Private Messages, inter alia, to assess the popularity of the URLs contained therein,

20

identify trends among users, and push content across the social network.22

21
22

Analytics of Private Message Content: Facebook exposed Private Message content—
including the URLs privately shared by users—in both internal and external analytics, thus

23
15

24
25
26
27
28

See SAC ¶¶ 3, 28, 39, 45-55.
See FB000008505.
17
Dkt. 149-2 (Jan. 15 Decl. of Alex Himel), at ¶ 66.
18
See FB000003093, FB000003096.
19
Dkt. 184-3 (Fechete Decl.), ¶¶ 13-14, 18, 26; Dkt. 199-2 (Golbeck Report), ¶¶ 44-54.
20
FB000002843.
21
FB000007859.
22
See Dkt. 199-2 (Golbeck Report), ¶¶ 56-64.
16

-6-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

1

enabling Facebook and third parties to view demographic data about the subjects and senders of

2

the Private Messages. However, Plaintiffs received only a handful of documents referencing

3

these areas of Facebook’s platform:

4

API”;23

and “Graph
and

24

5
6
7

: Facebook experimented with ad
targeting based on Private Message content,
25

8

The document also states that Facebook

9
10

Similarly,
Facebook had an

11

and discussed a

12

to increase Likes among users.26 Plaintiffs have received no further documents related to these

13

practices, which directly relate to Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding Facebook’s improper

14

interception and use of Private Message content.27

15

1.

16
17

and

Facebook’s Proposed Proximity Searches Are Unduly Restrictive and
Inappropriate

The proximity searches and time limitations Facebook insists on using are inappropriate

18

and appear specifically designed to avoid locating relevant documents going to the core of

19

Plaintiffs’ claims. This is particularly so in light of the fact that the search and proximity terms

20

that Plaintiffs proposed are highly technical terms related to the implementation of Facebook’s

21

source code devices for intercepting and using URLs sent in Private Messages, and are thus

22

tailored to provide proportional discovery pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1) related to Plaintiffs’ claims.

23

As Plaintiffs have explained to Facebook during the meet-and-confer process, Facebook

24
25
26
27
28

produced numerous relevant documents containing Plaintiffs’ proposed terms that do not contain
23

FB000008505.
FB000002462.
25
Ex. 12 (FB000008271), at FB000008273.
26
FB000014365.
27
SAC, ¶¶ 3, 28, 39 (alleging Facebook uses Private Message content for targeted advertising).
24

-7-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

1

the term “message,” and it is not appropriate to limit the searches to only documents that contain

2

variants on that term. All of Facebook’s proposed search terms are cabined to proximity

3

searches of within 50 words of (message* or messenger or

4

words of (EntShare* or EntGlobalShare* or

5

adding additional terms. There is no reasonable basis for such a restriction, and in fact this

6

restriction appears designed to avoid the production of otherwise relevant documents. This is

7

demonstrated by the fact that many relevant documents already produced do not contain

8

“message,” “messenger,” or

9

term.28 Additionally, the unduly restrictive nature of such a limitation is made apparent by

or inbox*) AND within 50
or

), and in some cases

anywhere, much less within 50 words of any other relevant

10

several highly relevant documents, in which the only use of the term “message” is in the context

11

of the “begin forwarded message” formatting from the custodian’s email client; but for the fact

12

that the email had been forwarded, such documents would not be produced under Facebook’s

13

proposed search schema.29 While the parties appear to have large areas of agreement regarding

14

the terms to be used for proximity searches,30 Facebook’s insistence on limiting its searches to

15

only those within 50 words of (message* or messenger or

or inbox*) is demonstrably

16
28

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

See, e.g., FB000007859 (discussing
); FB000004051 (discussing, inter alia, EntShare, EntGlobalShare, and
);
FB000001052 (discussing storing likes and shares
); FB000000659 (discussing objects,
like counts, Insights,
, and
);
FB000001206 (discussing
, and Graph API); and
FB000008821 (providing an overview of Facebook’s targeted advertising).
29
See, e.g.,FB000008505 (discussing Insights,
, Graph API,
, how
logging and displaying data related to likes and shares, and database tables tracking
likes and shares); FB000002655 (discussing Open Graph API and
).
30
Two notable areas of disagreement are the terms
and “bootcamp,” which Plaintiffs
propose to include but Facebook does not agree to. As explained in Plaintiffs’ concurrently-filed
motion to compel configuration tables,
is the database from which Facebook’s
“Insights” product, which shared metrics about Private Message content with third parties, drew
data. “Bootcamp” appears to be Facebook’s internal training program and was the process
through which Facebook introduced its systems to new employees, and therefore documents
containing relevant terms and the term “bootcamp” will likely provide explanatory context for
those terms. See, e.g, FB000003118 (April 25, 2012 internal email stating

27
FB000002130
).

28
-8-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

1

inappropriate. Given that the parties have agreed in many respects on the scope of terms and

2

proximity searches, Plaintiffs’ proposals do not add significant burden or expense to the searches

3

Facebook has already proposed, pursuant to Fed. R Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

4

2.

The Searches Should Be Conducted For the Entire Class Period

With one exception, Facebook seeks to cabin its proposed searches to short subsets of the

5
6

class period on the grounds that the identified practices have ceased. Even if true (which

7

Plaintiffs dispute), this claim provides no basis to limit searches for documents relevant to the

8

challenged practices for less than the entire class period.

9

The searches should be performed for documents and ESI dated from the previously

10

agreed-upon start of the document production period of April 2010, up through May 18, 2016, the

11

end of the class period.31 Facebook’s assertions that certain practices may have “ceased” as of

12

certain dates provides no basis to limit the time period for searches. First, as this Court is aware,

13

subsequent discovery has demonstrated that, at least in one instance, Facebook’s assertions

14

regarding when certain practices ceased were incorrect, and Plaintiffs require documents

15

regarding these practices from the full class period to test the accuracy of Facebook’s assertions.32

16

Second, documents related to the specific practices identified by Plaintiffs’ search terms are

17

relevant not only to determine whether and when the practices may have ceased, but also to

18

provide full disclosure of Facebook’s implementation of those practices and subsequent use of the

19

contents of communications intercepted by those practices. Third, as discussed in detail in

20

Plaintiffs’ concurrently-filed motions to compel source code and configuration tables for the full

21

class period, Facebook’s assertion that it has ceased sharing Private Message content with third

22

parties is demonstrably false: recent post-amendment admissions by Facebook demonstrate that it

23

continues to intercept URLs in Private Messages and allows third-parties free access to those

24

URLs—all without any disclosure to users of this Practice.33

25

31

26
27
28

Ex. 2 (Email correspondence between counsel for the parties).
See Dkt. 185 (Facebook’s Errata) and Dkt. 187 (Plaintiffs’ Objections thereto), (discussing
Facebook’s false assertion that the
containing URLs intercepted from
Private Messages and used to provide targeted recommendations was deleted prior to the class
period).
33
See Ex. 6 (Why you shouldn’t share links on Facebook, Quartz (June 8, 2016)).
32

-9-

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

1

3.

The Searches Should Be Conducted on the Full Range of Appropriate
Custodians

2
Additionally, Facebook has still provided no firm commitment regarding the custodians it

3
4

is willing to search. Facebook has stated it is “willing to consider” producing documents from

5

“some” of the non-individual custodial sources, such as its document repositories

6

Given that Facebook has already produced numerous documents from each of these custodians

7

that contain the search terms proposed in Appendix, there should be no ambiguity regarding

8

Facebook’s responsibility to search those custodians. Facebook has resisted searching documents

9

from the non-individual custodial sources on the grounds that “those sources do not have search

10

capabilities that will allow for the types of searches we are considering for emails, and they also

11

are not amenable to efficient collection processes.”34 However, this is not consistent with

12

Facebook’s own employees’ testimony about its document systems;

and

.

13
14
35

15

Facebook has

16

already produced numerous relevant documents from internal system sources and presents no

17

reason why it cannot perform further searches on those sources given the narrow and proportional

18

scope of the requested discovery.36

19

III.

CONCLUSION

20

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

21

produced documents identified through searches consistent with Plaintiffs’ proposed search terms

22

and custodians reflected in Appendix A.

23
24
25
26
27

34

Ex. 2 (June 28, 2016 email from Facebook’s counsel).
Ex. 5 (Himel Dep.), at 255-14-256:12
.
Additionally, Plaintiffs request all documents containing the term “EntShare” from any
Facebook wiki sites or other portions of Facebook devoted to or containing reference material on
Facebook’s operation (e.g.,
), including those located on web pages with URLs beginning
with the following designations:
35

28
- 10 -

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
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)
[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

8
9
10
11
12

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

13
14
15
16
17
18

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

19
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 11 -

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK))

1
2

APPENDIX A
Term

Facebook’s
Proposal to
Include
Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or
*))" and
ending
December 31,
2012

3
4

Graph API

5
6
7

Plaintiffs’ CounterProposal of Additional
Limiting Terms
Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger*
or
* or inbox* or
EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
bootcamp*”

Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or
*))" and
ending
December 31,
2012

Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger*
or
* or inbox* or
EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
bootcamp*”

Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or
*))"

Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger*
or
* or inbox* or
EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or like*
or share* or bootcamp*”

Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or
*))" and
ending
December 31,
2012

Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger*
or
* or inbox* or
EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
Insights* or
* or
* or
bootcamp*”

8
9
10
11
12
13

or

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

Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or

Facebook’s CounterProposal
Limited by “w/50
(message* or
messenger or
* or
inbox*) AND w/50
(EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
bootcamp *)” and
ending December 31,
2012
Limited by “w/50
(message* or
messenger or
* or
inbox*) AND w/50
(EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
bootcamp *)” and
ending December 31,
2012
Limited by “w/50
(message* or
messenger or
* or
inbox*) AND w/50
(EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
((like* or share*) w/2
URL) or bootcamp *)”
Limited by “w/50
(message* or
messenger or
* or
inbox*) AND w/50
(EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
Insights* or
* or

” or
bootcamp *)” and
ending December 31,
2012
Limited by “w/50
Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger* (message* or
or
* or inbox* or
messenger or
* or
EntShare* or
inbox*) AND w/50
A-1

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DOCUMENT SEARCHES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK)

1
2
3

Term

Facebook’s
Proposal to
Include
*))"

Plaintiffs’ CounterProposal of Additional
Limiting Terms
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
* or
* or
shortage* of like* or
share* or activity feed*
or bootcamp* or Gmail*
or Google*”

Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or
*))" and
ending
December 31,
2012

Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger*
or
* or inbox* or
EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
* or
* or API* or
* or Counter* or
Demographic* or
analytic* or
* or
* or
* or
* or Domain
Insights* or
*
or
* or graph*
or bootcamp *”

Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or
*))" and
ending
December 31,
2012

Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger*
or
* or inbox* or
EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
bootcamp * or
*
or
*
or API* or
* or
Counter* or
Demographic* or
analytic* or
* or
* or
SharePro* or
* or Domain
Insights* or
*
or
* or graph*”

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A-2

Facebook’s CounterProposal
(EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
* or
* or
(shortage w/5 (like* or
share*)) or activity
feed* or bootcamp * or
Gmail* or Google*)”
Limited by “w/50
(message* or
messenger or
* or
inbox*) AND w/50
(EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
* or
or
API* or
* or
Counter* or
Demographic* or
analytic* or
* or
* or
* or
* or
Domain Insights* or
* or
* or graph*)” and
ending December 31,
2012
Limited by “w/50
(message* or
messenger or
* or
inbox) AND w/50
(EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
bootcamp * or
* or
s* or
API* or
* or
Counter* or
Demographic* or
analytic* or
* or
* or
* or
* or

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DOCUMENT SEARCHES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK)

1

Term

2

Facebook’s
Proposal to
Include

Plaintiffs’ CounterProposal of Additional
Limiting Terms

3
4
5

Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or
*))" and
ending July 9,
2014, when the
backup system
was
discontinued

Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or
*))" and
ending July 9,
2014, when the
backup system
was
discontinued

7
8
9
10

Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger*
or
* or inbox* or
EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
or
* or
bootcamp * or
* or
* or
* or
* or API*”

Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or
*))"

6

Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger*
or
* or inbox* or
EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
bootcamp * or
* or
* or
*”

Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger*
or
* or inbox* or
EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
bootcamp * or share* or
* or
* or
* or
target* or recommend*
or Insights* or API*”

Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL

Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger*

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

EntGlobalShare

A-3

Facebook’s CounterProposal
Domain Insights* or
* or
* or graph*)” and
ending December 31,
2012
Limited by “w/50
(message* or
messenger or
* or
inbox*) AND w/50
(EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
t
* or
bootcamp * or
* or
or
*)” and ending
July 9, 2014, when the
backup system was
discontinued
Limited by “w/50
(message* or
messenger or
* or
inbox*) AND w/50
(EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
tracking_info
bootcamp * or
* or
* or
* or
* or
API*)” and ending
July 9, 2014, when the
backup system was
discontinued
Limited by “w/50
(message* or
messenger or
* or
inbox*) AND w/50
(EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
bootcamp * or share*
or
* or
* or
* or
target* or recommend*
or Insights* or API*)”
Limited by “w/50
(message* or

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DOCUMENT SEARCHES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK)

1

Term

2
3
4

Facebook’s
Proposal to
Include
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or
*))"

5
6
7

Plaintiffs’ CounterProposal of Additional
Limiting Terms
or
* or inbox* or
API* or Insights* or
* or
or Targeting* or
* or
graph* or
*
or
*
or
* or
* or

8

*

Facebook’s CounterProposal
messenger or
* or
inbox*) AND w/50
(API* or Insights* or
* or
* or Targeting* or
* or
graph* or
* or
*
or
* or

or
or

*
* or
*
*or URL* or
or
* or
* or
bootcamp*”
* or
*or
URL* or
* or
Additionally, Plaintiffs
* or bootcamp
request all documents
*)”
containing the term
“EntGlobalShare” from We will need to have a
any Facebook wiki sites separate discussion
or other portions of
about searching nonFacebook’s internal
individual custodians.
repositories devoted to
or containing reference
material on Facebook’s
operation (e.g.,
). For instance – and
only for illustrative
purposes – Plaintiffs
would seek all
documents including the
term “EntGlobalShares”
that were located on web
pages with URLs
beginning with the
following designations:

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

EntShare

Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or
*))"

Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger*
or
* or inbox* or
API* or Insights* or
* or
*
or Targeting* or
A-4

Limited by “w/50
(message* or
messenger or
* or
inbox*) AND w/50
(API*or Insights* or
* or

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DOCUMENT SEARCHES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK)

1

Term

Facebook’s
Proposal to
Include

Plaintiffs’ CounterProposal of Additional Facebook’s CounterProposal
Limiting Terms
* or
* or Targeting* or
graph* or
*
* or
or
*
graph* or
* or
or
* or
*
or
* or
*
* or
or s
*
or
* or URL* or
* or
*
* or
* or
or
bootcamp*”
* or
* or
URL* or
* or
* or bootcamp
Additionally, Plaintiffs
*)”
request all documents
containing the term
“EntShare” from any
We will need to have a
Facebook wiki sites or
separate discussion
other portions of
about searching nonFacebook devoted to or individual custodians.
containing reference
material on Facebook’s
operation (e.g.,
). For instance – and
only for illustrative
purposes – Plaintiffs
would seek all
documents including the
term “EntShares” that
were located on web
pages with URLs
beginning with the
following designations:

Insights
Dashboard

Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or
*))" and
ending
December 31,
2012

Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger*
or
* or inbox* or
EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
bootcamp * or
*
or
*
or API* or
* or
Counter* or

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A-5

Limited by “w/50
(message* or
messenger or
* or
inbox*) AND w/50
(EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
bootcamp*or
* or
or

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DOCUMENT SEARCHES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK)

1
2

Term

Facebook’s
Proposal to
Include

3
4
5
6
7

Plaintiffs’ CounterProposal of Additional
Limiting Terms
Demographic* or
analytic* or
* or
* or
* or
* or Domain
Insights* or
or
* or graph*
or bootcamp *”

8
9
10
11
12
13

Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or
*))" and
ending
December 31,
2012

Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger*
or
* or inbox* or
EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
t* or
* or
* or
* or API* or
* or Counter* or
Demographic* or
analytic* or
* or
* or
* or
* or Domain
Insights* or
*
or
* or graph*
or bootcamp *”

Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or
*))" and
ending
December 31,
2012

Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger*
or
* or inbox* or
EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
t* or
* or
bootcamp * or
*
or
*
or API* or
* or
Counter* or
Demographic* or
analytic* or
* or
* or

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

A-6

Facebook’s CounterProposal
API* or
* or
Counter* or
Demographic* or
analytic*
or
* or
* or
* or
* or
Domain Insights* or
* or
* or graph* or
bootcamp)” and
ending December 31,
2012
Limited by “w/50
(message* or
messenger or
* or
inbox*) AND w/50
(EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
t
* or
* or
or
API* or
* or
Counter* or
Demographic* or
analytic* or
* or
* or
* or
* or
Domain Insights* or
l
* or
bootcamp *)” and
ending December 31,
2012
Limited by “w/50
(message* or
messenger or
* or
inbox) AND w/50
(EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
tracking_info* or
bootcamp* or
* or
or
API* or
* or
Counter* or
Demographic* or
analytic* or

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DOCUMENT SEARCHES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK)

1
2

Term

Facebook’s
Proposal to
Include

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or
*))" and
ending
December 31,
2012

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or
*))" and
ending
December 31,
2012

Plaintiffs’ CounterProposal of Additional Facebook’s CounterProposal
Limiting Terms
* or
* or
* or Domain
* or
Insights* or
*
* or
or
or
* or graph*
or bootcamp *”
Domain Insights* or
* or
* or graph* or
bootcamp *)” and
ending December 31,
2012
Limited by “w/50
Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger* (message* or
or
* or inbox* or
messenger or
* or
EntShare* or
inbox*) AND w/50
(EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
* or
* or
* or
* or
* or API* or
or
* or Counter* or
API* or
* or
Demographic* or
Counter* or
analytic* or
Demographic* or
* or
analytic* or
* or
* or
* or
r*
* or Domain
* or
Insights* or
* or
* or
or
* or graph*
Domain Insights* or
or bootcamp *”
* or
* or graph* or
bootcamp *)” and
ending December 31,
2012
Limited by “w/50
Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger* (message* or
or
* or inbox* or
messenger or
* or
EntShare* or
inbox*) AND w/50
EntGlobalShare* or
(EntShare* or
* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
* or
t
* or
* or API* or
* or
* or Counter* or
or
Demographic* or
API* or
* or
analytic* or
Counter* or
* or
Demographic* or
* or
analytic* or
* or
* or
* or Domain
* or
Insights* or
*
* or
or
* or graph*
* or
A-7

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DOCUMENT SEARCHES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK)

1

Term

Facebook’s
Proposal to
Include

Insights

Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or
*))" and
ending
December 31,
2012

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Yes, limited by
"w/50 (URL
w/50 (message*
or messenger* or
*))" and
ending July 9,
2014, when the
backup system
was
discontinued

Plaintiffs’ CounterProposal of Additional Facebook’s CounterProposal
Limiting Terms
or bootcamp*”
Domain Insights* or
l
* or
* or graph* or
bootcamp *)” and
ending December 31,
2012
Limited by “w/50
Change primary term
message* or messenger* to “Domain Insights”
or
* or inbox* or
and Limited by “w/50
EntShare* or
(message* or
EntGlobalShare* or
messenger or
* or
* or
inbox*) AND w/50
* or
(EntShare* or
bootcamp * or
* EntGlobalShare* or
* or
or
*
* or
or API* or
* or
bootcamp* or
Counter* or
* or
Demographic* or
or
analytic* or
API* or
* or
* or
Counter* or
* or
Demographic* or
* or
analytic* or
* or Domain
* or
Insights* or
* s
* or
or
* or graph*”
S
* or
* or
Domain Insights* or
* or
* or graph*)” and
ending December 31,
2012
Limited by “w/50
Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger* (message* or
or
* or inbox* or
messenger or
* or
inbox*) AND w/50
EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
(EntShare* or
* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
bootcamp * or
* or
recommend*or
bootcamp* or
recommend* or
* or
or
* or
*
or
stats*
* or
*
or URL*”
or
* or URL*)” and
ending July 9, 2014,
when the backup
system was
discontinued
A-8

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DOCUMENT SEARCHES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK)

1
2
3

Term

Facebook’s
Proposal to
Include
Not Included

4
5
6
7

* or

8

* or URL*”

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiffs’ CounterProposal of Additional
Limiting Terms
Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger*
or
* or inbox* or
EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
bootcamp * or
* or
* or recommend* or

Not Included

Facebook’s CounterProposal
Limited by “w/50
(message* or
messenger or
* or
inbox*) AND w/50
(EntShare* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
bootcamp* or scribe*
or
* or
recommend* or
or

* or URL*)” and
ending February 1,
2012
Limited by “w/50
Limited by “w/50
message* or messenger* (message* or
or
* or inbox* or
messenger or
* or
EntShare* or
inbox*) AND w/50
EntGlobalShare* or
(EntShare* or
* or
EntGlobalShare* or
* or
* or
bootcamp * or
* or
* or
* or bootcamp*
recommend* or
or
* or
* or recommend*
* or
or
* or URL*”

or
* or URL*)”

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A-9

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DOCUMENT SEARCHES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK)

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

Proposed Custodians:
1. Matt Jones
2. Scott Renfro
3. Malorie Lucich
4. Mike Vernal
5. Mark Kinsey
6. Austin Haugen
7. Frederic Wolens
8. Caryn Marooney
9. Alex Himel
10. Ray He
11. Dan Fechete
12. Facebook Temp
13. Facebook Email
14. SalesForce
15. Facebook
16. Help Center Internal
17. Facebook Internal
18. Dev Site
19. Wiki
20. Mathew Varghese
21. Tasks

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A-10

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
DOCUMENT SEARCHES
CASE NO. 13-CV-05996-PJH (SK)