Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.
Filing
209
Declaration of David Rudolph in Support of 208 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents, 206 MOTION to Compel Production of Source Code, 207 MOTION to Compel Production of Configuration Tables filed byMatthew Campbell, Michael Hurley. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12)(Related document(s) 208 , 206 , 207 ) (Sobol, Michael) (Filed on 8/2/2016)
EXHIBIT 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
JOSHUA A. JESSEN, SBN 222831
JJessen@gibsondunn.com
JEANA BISNAR MAUTE, SBN 290573
JBisnarMaute@gibsondunn.com
ASHLEY M. ROGERS, SBN 286252
ARogers@gibsondunn.com
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 849-5300
Facsimile: (650) 849-5333
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
GAIL E. LEES, SBN 90363
GLees@gibsondunn.com
CHRISTOPHER CHORBA, SBN 216692
CChorba@gibsondunn.com
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
13
14
Attorneys for Defendant
FACEBOOK, INC.
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
OAKLAND DIVISION
18
19
MATTHEW CAMPBELL, MICHAEL
HURLEY, and DAVID SHADPOUR,
PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION
Plaintiffs,
20
21
22
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
23
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
Defendant.
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Facebook”), by and through its attorneys, and
2
pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules of the U.S.
3
District Court for the Northern District of California, the Court orders in this action, and the parties’
4
agreements, provides the following responses and objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for
5
Production of Documents (the “Requests”).
6
7
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.
Before the further production of information, Facebook will meet and confer with
8
Plaintiffs regarding the entry of a Confidentiality and Protective Order to protect confidential,
9
proprietary, and trade secret materials.
10
2.
Facebook’s responses to the Requests are made to the best of Facebook’s current
11
knowledge, information and belief. Facebook reserves the right to supplement or amend any
12
responses should future investigation indicate that such supplementation or amendment is necessary.
13
3.
Facebook’s responses to the Requests are made solely for the purpose of and in
14
relation to this action. Each response is given subject to all appropriate objections (including, but not
15
limited to, objections concerning privilege, competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety and
16
admissibility). All objections are reserved and may be interposed at any time.
17
18
19
4.
Facebook’s responses are premised on its understanding that Plaintiffs seek only that
information that is within Facebook’s possession, custody, and control.
5.
Facebook incorporates by reference each and every general objection set forth below
20
into each and every specific response. From time to time, a specific response may repeat a general
21
objection for emphasis or some other reason. The failure to include any general objection in any
22
specific response shall not be interpreted as a waiver of any general objection to that response.
23
6.
Nothing contained in these Reponses and Objections or provided in response to the
24
Requests consists of, or should be construed as, an admission relating to the accuracy, relevance,
25
existence, or nonexistence of any alleged facts or information referenced in any Request.
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1.
Facebook objects to each Request, including the Definitions and Instructions, to the
extent that it purports to impose obligations beyond those imposed by the Federal Rules of Civil
1
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Local Civil Rules of the U.S. District Court for the
2
Northern District of California, and any agreements between the parties.
3
2.
Facebook objects to each Request to the extent that it is not limited to the relevant
4
time period, thus making the Request overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not relevant to the
5
claims or defenses in this action. Unless otherwise specified in its responses, Facebook’s response
6
will be limited to information generated between December 30, 2011 and October 31, 2012.
7
3.
Facebook objects to each Request to the extent that it seeks information unrelated and
8
irrelevant to the claims or defenses in this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
9
discovery of admissible evidence.
10
4.
Facebook objects to each Request as overly broad and unduly burdensome,
11
particularly in view of Facebook’s disproportionate cost necessary to investigate as weighed against
12
Plaintiffs’ need for the information. For example, many of the Requests seek broad and vaguely
13
defined categories of materials that are not reasonably tailored to the subject matter of this action.
14
5.
Facebook objects to each Request to the extent that it purports to request the
15
identification and disclosure of information or documents that were prepared in anticipation of
16
litigation, constitute attorney work product, reveal privileged attorney-client communications, or are
17
otherwise protected from disclosure under any applicable privileges, laws, or rules. Facebook hereby
18
asserts all such applicable privileges and protections, and excludes privileged and protected
19
information from its responses to each Request. See generally Fed. R. Evid. 502; Cal. Code Evid.
20
§ 954. Inadvertent production of any information or documents that are privileged or otherwise
21
immune from discovery shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or of any other ground for
22
objecting to the discovery with respect to such information or documents or the subject matter
23
thereof, or the right of Facebook to object to the use of any such information or documents or the
24
subject matter thereof during these or any other proceedings. In the event of inadvertent disclosure
25
of any information or inadvertent production or identification of documents or communications that
26
are privileged or otherwise immune from discovery, Plaintiffs will return the information and
27
documents to Facebook and will be precluded from disclosing or relying upon such information or
28
documents in any way.
2
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
3
6.
Facebook objects to each and every Request, Definition, and Instruction to the extent
that it seeks information outside of Facebook’s possession, custody, and control.
7.
Facebook objects to each Request to the extent that it requests information protected
4
by the right of privacy of Facebook and/or third parties, or information that is confidential,
5
proprietary, or competitively sensitive.
6
8.
Facebook objects to each Request to the extent that it seeks documents or information
7
already in Plaintiffs’ possession or available in the public domain. Such information is equally
8
available to Plaintiffs.
9
9.
Facebook objects to each Request to the extent that it calls for the production of
10
“each,” “every,” “any,” or “all” documents in cases where such a demand is overly broad and/or
11
causes undue burden and expense.
12
13
14
10.
Facebook objects to the production of Documents within thirty (30) days of service
and will produce Documents at a mutually agreed upon time after entry of a protective order.
11.
Facebook objects to the production of source code and/or documents or information
15
related or relating to source code. Facebook’s source code is a closely guarded trade secret, and
16
production could compromise Facebook’s efforts to ensure site integrity and protect users. The
17
burden and risks on Facebook vastly exceed any alleged probative value to Plaintiffs, who may
18
obtain the information they need through less intrusive means (such as documents relating to the
19
practices challenged in this action). This is not a patent or other intellectual property dispute in
20
which Plaintiffs assert some ownership or proprietary interest in Facebook’s source code. Production
21
of source code would require extensive time and expense for Facebook—including the negotiation of
22
a source-code-specific protective order and the implementation of detailed and time-consuming
23
protocols for handling source code material, as well as limitations on the use of source code
24
materials, expert retention, disclosure, and going-forward restrictions on the conduct of individuals
25
exposed to source code materials. Because it is inappropriate to produce source code in this action, it
26
is also inappropriate to produce documents related or relating to source code.
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
1.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Active Likes” as vague, ambiguous,
3
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition to the extent that
2
Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to the claims and
3
defenses in this action, particularly as a result of its reference to the undefined term, “Social Plugin.”
4
Facebook construes the term “Social Plugin” to have the meaning attributed to that term in the
5
operative versions of Facebook’s Data Use Policy.
6
2.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Architecture” as vague, ambiguous,
7
overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition to the extent that
8
Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to the claims and
9
defenses in this action, particularly as a result of its use of the phrase “including but not limited to”
10
11
and the undefined term “Your services.”
3.
Facebook generally objects to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “Communication,”
12
“Document(s),” “Electronic Media,” “ESI,” “Electronically Stored Information,” “Identify,” and
13
“Metadata” to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these defined terms to request the identification
14
and disclosure of documents that: (a) were prepared in anticipation of litigation; (b) constitute
15
attorney work product; (c) reveal privileged attorney-client communications; or (d) are otherwise
16
protected from disclosure under any applicable privileges, laws, and/or rules. Facebook further
17
objects to the extent that these definitions purport to impose obligations that go beyond the
18
requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
19
4.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Facebook User Data Profile(s)” as vague,
20
ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition to the
21
extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to the
22
claims and defenses in this action.
23
5.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Passive Likes” as vague, ambiguous,
24
overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition to the extent that
25
Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to the claims and
26
defenses in this action. Facebook construes the term “Passive Likes” as it relates to the practice
27
challenged in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the
28
4
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
URL for that website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product
2
during the class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012)).
3
6.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition and use of the term “Person” as vague,
4
ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent that Plaintiffs intend to use this term
5
to include “any natural person or any business, legal or governmental entity or association” over
6
which Facebook exercises no control.
7
7.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Private Message(s)” to the extent that it
8
is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the
9
definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not
10
11
relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.
8.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Private Message Content” to the extent
12
that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the
13
definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not
14
relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. Facebook further objects to this definition on the
15
ground and to the extent it is inconsistent with relevant law.
16
9.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Private Message Transmission” as vague,
17
ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition to the
18
extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to the
19
claims and defenses in this action. Facebook further objects to this definition on the ground and to
20
the extent it is inconsistent with relevant law.
21
10.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definitions of “Relate(s) to,” “Related to” and
22
“Relating to” on the ground that the definitions make the Requests overly broad and unduly
23
burdensome and impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
24
Facebook shall construe these terms as commonly and ordinarily understood.
25
11.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Targeted Advertising” as vague,
26
ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further objects to the definition to the
27
extent that Plaintiffs purport to use this defined term to seek materials that are not relevant to the
28
claims and defenses in this action. Facebook construes the term “Targeted Advertising” to refer to
5
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
the service described under the heading “Personalized ads” on page 5 of Facebook’s Data Use Policy,
2
dated September 7, 2011, and page 11 of Facebook’s Data Use Policy, dated June 8, 2012 (see
3
FB000000015, FB000000027).
4
12.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition of “Transmission,” “Transmit,” and
5
“Transmitting” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Facebook further
6
objects to the definition to the extent that Plaintiffs purport to use these defined terms to seek
7
materials that are not relevant to the claims and defenses in this action.
8
9
13.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ definition and use of the terms “You” or “Your” as
vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome to the extent the terms are meant to include
10
“directors, officers, employees, partners, members, representatives, agents (including attorneys,
11
accountants, consultants, investment advisors or bankers), and any other person purporting to act on
12
[Facebook, Inc.’s] behalf. . . . parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessor entities, successor entities,
13
divisions, departments, groups, acquired entities and/or related entities or any other entity acting or
14
purporting to act on its behalf” over which Facebook exercises no control, and to the extent that
15
Plaintiffs purport to use these terms to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the
16
Federal and Local Rules.
OBJECTIONS TO “RULES OF CONSTRUCTION” AND INSTRUCTIONS
17
18
19
20
1.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ “Rules of Construction” and “Instructions” to the
extent that they impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
2.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 2 to the extent that it is not limited to
21
the relevant time period, thus making the Instruction overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not
22
relevant to the claims or defenses in this action. Unless otherwise specified in its responses,
23
Facebook’s response will be limited to information generated between December 30, 2011 and
24
October 31, 2012.
25
3.
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 6 as ambiguous and unduly
26
burdensome. Facebook further objects to the Instruction to the extent it seeks the production of
27
irrelevant documents and exceeds the requirements of the Federal and Local Rules.
28
6
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
OBJECTION TO PURPORTED “RELEVANT TIME PERIOD”
1
2
Facebook objects to Plaintiffs’ proposed “Relevant Time Period” (September 26, 2006, to the
3
present) because it substantially exceeds the proposed class period identified in Plaintiffs’
4
Consolidated Amended Complaint, does not reflect the time period that is relevant to Plaintiffs’
5
claims in this action, and renders the Requests overly broad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant.
6
Unless otherwise specified, Facebook’s Responses to these Requests will be limited to information
7
generated between December 30, 2011 and October 31, 2012, which is the proposed class period
8
defined in Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint. (See Pls.’ Consol. Am. Compl. [Dkt. 25]
9
¶ 59 & n.3.) Facebook otherwise objects to the remainder of Plaintiffs’ statement regarding the
10
“Relevant Time Period” to the extent that it purports to impose obligations beyond those imposed by
11
the Federal and Local Rules.
12
13
14
SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
All Documents and ESI showing Facebook’s organizational structure that identify all current
15
or former Persons at Facebook (including directors, officers, employees, or contractors) who may
16
possess knowledge relevant to this Action.
17
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1:
18
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
19
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
20
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
21
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
22
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
23
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
24
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
25
(B)
26
structure.”
27
(C)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrase “organizational
28
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
7
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
2
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
3
Request purports to seek a wide range of documents related to Facebook’s “organizational structure,”
4
regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
5
6
7
(E)
The information sought by the Request is more appropriately pursued through an
Interrogatory.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
8
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
9
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify its current and former employees who may
10
possess knowledge relevant to the practice challenged in this action (the alleged increase in the
11
Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that website was contained in a message
12
transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product) during the class period (December 30, 2011 to
13
October 31, 2012), to the extent such documents exist, are within Facebook’s custody and control,
14
have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a reasonable search. Facebook
15
will also provide related information in response to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 1.
16
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
17
Documents and ESI sufficient to identify all databases, networks, or any other repositories of
18
information under Your control that may contain Documents and ESI relevant to this Action.
19
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2:
20
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
21
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
22
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
23
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
24
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
25
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
26
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
27
28
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrase “all databases, networks,
or any other repositories.”
8
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
3
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
4
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
5
Request seeks documents identifying data sources, regardless of the relevance of those documents to
6
the claims or defenses in this action.
7
8
9
10
11
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(F)
The Request seeks to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the
Federal and Local Rules.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
12
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will meet and confer with
13
Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding appropriate sources for responsive, discoverable information consistent
14
with its obligations under the Federal and Local Rules.
15
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
16
Documents and ESI sufficient to identify all methods and media utilized by Your employees
17
for inter-office (internal) Communication in the course of their work, including but not limited to
18
inter-office mail (electronic and physical), reports (electronic and physical), chats, and video chats, as
19
well as how and where such Communications are stored.
20
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
21
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
22
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
23
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
24
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
25
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
26
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
27
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
28
9
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
3
4
5
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “inter-office (internal)
Communication” and “in the course of their work.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
6
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
7
Request seeks documents identifying all methods of communication and storage, regardless of the
8
relevance of those documents or those communications to the claims or defenses in this action.
9
10
11
12
13
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(F)
The Request seeks to impose obligations that go beyond the requirements of the
Federal and Local Rules.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
14
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will meet and confer with
15
Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding appropriate sources for responsive, discoverable information consistent
16
with its obligations under the Federal and Local Rules.
17
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
18
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify each Process and/or piece of Architecture
19
involved in Private Message Transmission.
20
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
21
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
22
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
23
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
24
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
25
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
26
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
27
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
28
10
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
3
4
5
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Process and/or piece of
Architecture” and “Private Message Transmission.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
6
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
7
Request seeks documents identifying processes, regardless of the relevance of those documents to the
8
claims or defenses in this action.
9
10
11
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
12
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
13
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the processes involved in the practice challenged
14
in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that
15
website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product) during the
16
class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), to the extent such documents exist, are within
17
Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located
18
using a reasonable search.
19
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
20
All Documents and ESI related to each Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in the
21
scanning of Private Message Content for purposes of creating, augmenting, or otherwise maintaining
22
Facebook User Data Profiles.
23
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
24
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
25
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
26
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
11
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
2
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
3
4
5
6
7
(B)
The request is vague and ambiguous with respect to its use of the phrases “Process
and/or piece of Architecture,” “Private Message Content,” and “Facebook User Data Profiles.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
8
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
9
Request seeks all documents “related to” certain processes, regardless of the relevance of those
10
11
12
13
documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
14
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
15
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the processes involved in the practice challenged
16
in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that
17
website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product) during the
18
class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), to the extent such documents exist, are within
19
Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located
20
using a reasonable search.
21
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
22
All Documents and ESI related to each Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in the
23
acquisition of data, metadata, or other content from Private Messages, for purposes of creating,
24
augmenting, or otherwise maintaining Facebook User Data Profiles.
25
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6:
26
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
27
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
28
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
12
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
2
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
3
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
4
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
5
6
7
8
9
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases “Process
and/or piece of Architecture,” “content,” “Private Messages,” and “Facebook User Data Profiles.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
10
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information.
11
This Request seeks all documents “related to” certain processes, regardless of the relevance of those
12
documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
13
14
15
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
16
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
17
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the processes involved in the practice challenged
18
in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that
19
website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product) during the
20
class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), to the extent such documents exist, are within
21
Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located
22
using a reasonable search.
23
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
24
25
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify each Process and/or piece of Architecture
involved in spam filtering.
26
27
28
13
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
3
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
4
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
5
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
6
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
7
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
8
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Process and/or piece of
Architecture” and “spam filtering.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(E)
The burden and risks on Facebook in producing this information vastly exceed any
16
alleged probative value to Plaintiffs. Production of all documents sufficient to identify each “Process
17
and/or piece of Architecture involved in spam filtering” would require Facebook to disclose sensitive
18
company trade secrets that are necessary to protect Facebook users from spam, and to protect the
19
overall integrity and security of the site for users.
20
21
22
(F)
The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this
action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
23
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
24
for non-privileged documents sufficient to show that Facebook used certain processes for spam
25
filtering in connection with Facebook’s Messages product during the class period (December 30,
26
2011 to October 31, 2012), to the extent such documents exist, are within Facebook’s custody and
27
control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a reasonable search.
28
14
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify each Process and/or piece of Architecture
3
involved in malware filtering.
4
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8:
5
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
6
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
7
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
8
9
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
10
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
11
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Process and/or piece of
Architecture” and “malware filtering.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(E)
The burden and risks on Facebook in producing this information vastly exceed any
19
alleged probative value to Plaintiffs. Production of all documents sufficient to identify each “Process
20
and/or piece of Architecture involved in malware filtering” would require Facebook to disclose
21
sensitive company trade secrets that are necessary to protect Facebook users from malware, and to
22
protect the overall integrity and security of the site for users.
23
24
25
(F)
The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this
action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
26
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
27
for non-privileged documents sufficient to show that Facebook used certain processes for combatting
28
malware in connection with Facebook’s Messages product during the class period (December 30,
15
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2011 to October 31, 2012), to the extent such documents exist, are within Facebook’s custody and
2
control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a reasonable search.
3
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
4
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify each Process and/or piece of Architecture
5
involved in generating thumbnail/URL previews.
6
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
7
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
8
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
9
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
10
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
11
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
12
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
13
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Process and/or piece of
Architecture” and “thumbnail/URL previews.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(E)
The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this
21
action. This Request seeks documents identifying processes, regardless of the relevance of those
22
documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
23
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
24
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
25
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the processes involved in generating
26
thumbnail/URL previews in connection with Facebook’s Messages product during the class period
27
(December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), to the extent such documents exist, are within Facebook’s
28
16
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a
2
reasonable search.
3
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
4
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify each Process and/or piece of Architecture
5
involved in storing Private Messages for Facebook Users’ future review, or for any other purpose.
6
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
7
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
8
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
9
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
10
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
11
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
12
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
13
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Process and/or piece of
Architecture” and “Private Messages.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(E)
The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this
21
action. This Request seeks documents identifying processes, regardless of the relevance of those
22
documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
23
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
24
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
25
for non-privileged documents sufficient to show that Facebook used certain processes during the
26
class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012) to store messages for users’ future review, to
27
the extent such documents exist, are within Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been
28
produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a reasonable search.
17
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
2
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify each Process and/or piece of Architecture
3
involved in “protect[ing] users, the product, and the site from threats and abusive behavior,” as
4
described on page 11 of Your Motion to Dismiss.
5
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
6
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
7
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
8
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
9
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
10
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
11
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
12
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
13
14
15
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrase “Process and/or piece of
Architecture.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
16
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.” This Request seeks documents identifying certain
17
processes, regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
18
19
20
(D)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
21
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
22
for non-privileged documents sufficient to show that Facebook used certain processes to protect users
23
in connection with their use of the Messages product during the class period (December 30, 2011 to
24
October 31, 2012), to the extent such documents exist, are within Facebook’s custody and control,
25
have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a reasonable search.
26
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
27
28
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify each Process and/or piece of Architecture related
to the Like Social PlugIn.
18
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
3
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
4
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
5
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
6
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
7
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
8
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
9
10
11
12
13
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Process and/or piece of
Architecture” and “Like Social PlugIn.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
14
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
15
Request seeks all documents identifying processes “related to” a feature, regardless of the relevance
16
of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
17
18
19
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
20
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
21
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the processes involved in the practice challenged
22
in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that
23
website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product) during the
24
class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), to the extent such documents exist, are within
25
Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located
26
using a reasonable search.
27
28
19
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
All Documents and ESI relating to each Process and/or piece of Architecture involved in
3
generating Passive Likes, including all Documents and ESI related to Your cessation of the practice
4
of generating Passive Likes.
5
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
6
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
7
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
8
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
9
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
10
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
11
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
12
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
13
14
15
16
17
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Process and/or piece of
Architecture” and “Passive Likes.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
18
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
19
Request seeks all documents “relating to” certain processes, regardless of the relevance of those
20
documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
21
22
23
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
24
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
25
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the processes involved in the practice challenged
26
in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that
27
website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product) during the
28
class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), and documents sufficient to show the
20
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
cessation of that practice, to the extent such documents exist, are within Facebook’s custody and
2
control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a reasonable search.
3
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
4
All Documents and ESI relating to the “bug…where at times the count for the Share or Like
5
goes up by two,” identified by You in Your statement quoted in the Wall Street Journal Article titled
6
“How Private Are Your Private Facebook Messages?” and published in October, 2012.
7
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
8
9
10
11
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
12
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
13
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
14
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
15
16
17
(B)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
18
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
19
Request seeks all documents “relating to” a statement in an article, regardless of the relevance of
20
those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
21
22
23
(D)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
24
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
25
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the nature of the “bug” referenced in the Wall
26
Street Journal’s “Digits” blog post titled “How Private Are Your Private Facebook Messages?”
27
published in October 2012, to the extent those documents relate to the practice challenged in this
28
action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that
21
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product) during the
2
class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), and to the extent such documents exist, are
3
within Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be
4
located using a reasonable search.
5
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
6
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify each Process and/or piece of Architecture
7
involved in generating Active Likes.
8
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
9
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
10
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
11
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
12
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
13
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
14
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
15
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
16
17
18
19
20
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Process and/or piece of
Architecture” and “Active Likes.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
21
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
22
Request seeks documents identifying certain processes, regardless of the relevance of those
23
documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
24
25
26
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
27
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
28
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the processes involved in the practice challenged
22
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that
2
website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product) during the
3
class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), to the extent such documents exist, are within
4
Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located
5
using a reasonable search.
6
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
7
All Documents and ESI relating to how Third Parties acquire information related to Facebook
8
Users from the Like Social PlugIn, including information acquired by Third Parties when a Facebook
9
User engages the Like Social PlugIn either via Passive Likes or Active Likes.
10
11
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
12
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
13
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
14
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
15
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
16
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
17
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
18
19
20
21
22
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms “Active Likes,” “Passive
Likes,” and “Like Social PlugIn.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
23
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
24
Request seeks documents “relating to how Third Parties acquire information related to Facebook
25
Users from the Like Social PlugIn,” regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or
26
defenses in this action.
27
28
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
23
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
2
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
3
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify whether third parties received information about
4
Facebook users as a result of the challenged practice (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like”
5
count on a website when the URL for that website was contained in a message transmitted through
6
Facebook’s Messages product) during the class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), to
7
the extent such documents exist, are within Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been
8
produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a reasonable search.
9
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
10
All Documents and ESI relating to how Third Parties can use information related to Facebook
11
Users from the Like Social PlugIn, including Social Graph searches of data acquired through Passive
12
Likes or Active Likes.
13
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
14
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
15
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
16
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
17
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
18
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
19
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
20
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
21
22
23
24
25
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases “Active
Likes,” “Passive Likes,” and “Like Social PlugIn,” “Social Graph,” and “can use information.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
26
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
27
Request seeks all documents “relating to how Third Parties can use information related to Facebook
28
24
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
Users from the Like Social PlugIn,” regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or
2
defenses in this action.
3
4
5
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
6
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
7
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the processes involved in the practice challenged
8
in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that
9
website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product) during the
10
class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), to the extent such documents exist, are within
11
Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located
12
using a reasonable search.
13
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
14
All Documents and ESI sufficient to identify each Process and/or piece of Architecture
15
involved in the creation, augmentation, or maintenance of Facebook User Data Profiles.
16
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18:
17
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
18
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
19
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
20
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
21
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
22
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
23
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
24
25
26
27
B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Process and/or piece of
Architecture” and “Facebook User Data Profiles.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
28
25
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
2
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
3
Request seeks documents identifying certain processes, regardless of the relevance of those
4
documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
5
6
7
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
In particular, use of the vague, ambiguous, and overly broad phrase “Facebook User Data
8
Profiles” renders the entire request vague, ambiguous, and overly broad. Subject to and without
9
waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of discovery in this action,
10
Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will meet and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel to determine
11
the proper scope of this overly broad and ambiguous Request.
12
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:
13
All Documents and ESI relating to how You use any Private Message Content, including for
14
purposes related to Facebook User Profiles and/or Targeted Advertising.
15
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19:
16
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
17
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
18
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
19
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
20
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
21
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
22
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms “use,” “Private Message
Content,” “Facebook User Profiles” and “Targeted Advertising.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
26
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
Request seeks all documents “relating to how You use any Private Message Content,” regardless of
2
the relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
3
4
5
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
6
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
7
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the available inputs for targeted advertising during
8
the class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), to the extent such documents exist, are
9
within Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be
10
located using a reasonable search.
11
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
12
All Documents and ESI relating to the extent to which You allow Third Parties any access to
13
any Private Message Content.
14
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20:
15
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
16
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
17
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
18
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
19
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
20
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
21
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
22
23
24
25
26
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrase “Private Message
Content.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
27
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
28
Request seeks all documents “relating to the extent to which You allow Third Parties any access to
27
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
any Private Message Content,” regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or
2
defenses in this action.
3
4
5
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
6
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
7
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify whether third parties received information about
8
Facebook users as a result of the challenged practice (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like”
9
count on a website when the URL for that website was contained in a message transmitted through
10
Facebook’s Messages product) during the class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), to
11
the extent such documents exist, are within Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been
12
produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a reasonable search.
13
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
14
All Documents and ESI relating to the use of Passive Likes – or any data, metadata, or other
15
information generated therefrom – as data points in Facebook User Data Profiles.
16
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
17
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
18
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
19
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
20
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
21
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
22
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
23
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
24
25
26
27
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Passive Likes” and
“Facebook User Data Profiles.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
28
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
2
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
3
Request seeks all documents “relating to the use of Passive Likes . . . as data points in Facebook User
4
Data Profiles,” regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
5
6
7
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
8
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
9
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the available inputs for targeted advertising during
10
the class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), including whether inclusion of a URL in a
11
message was an available input for targeted advertising, to the extent such documents exist, are
12
within Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be
13
located using a reasonable search.
14
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
15
All Documents and ESI relating to the use of Passive Likes – or any data, metadata, or other
16
information generated therefrom – for purposes related to Targeted Advertising.
17
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
18
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
19
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
20
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
21
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
22
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
23
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
24
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
25
26
27
28
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Passive Likes” and
“Targeted Advertising.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
29
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
2
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
3
Request seeks all documents “relating to the use of Passive Likes . . . for purposes related to Targeted
4
Advertising,” regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
5
6
7
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
8
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
9
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the available inputs for targeted advertising during
10
the class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), including whether inclusion of a URL in a
11
message was an available input for targeted advertising, to the extent such documents exist, are
12
within Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be
13
located using a reasonable search.
14
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:
15
All Documents and ESI relating to the use of Active Likes – or any data, metadata, or other
16
information generated therefrom – as data points in Facebook User Data Profiles.
17
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:
18
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
19
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
20
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
21
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
22
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
23
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
24
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
25
26
27
28
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Active Likes” and
“Facebook User Data Profiles.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
30
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
2
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
3
Request seeks all documents “relating to the use of Active Likes . . . as data points in Facebook User
4
Data Profiles,” regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
5
6
7
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
8
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
9
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the available inputs for targeted advertising during
10
the class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), including whether inclusion of a URL in a
11
message was an available input for targeted advertising, to the extent such documents exist, are
12
within Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be
13
located using a reasonable search.
14
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:
15
All Documents and ESI relating to the use of Active Likes – or any data, metadata, or other
16
information generated therefrom – for purposes related to Targeted Advertising.
17
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:
18
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
19
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
20
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
21
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
22
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
23
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
24
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
25
26
27
28
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Active Likes” and
“Targeted Advertising.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
31
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
2
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
3
Request seeks all documents “relating to the use of Active Likes . . . for purposes related to Targeted
4
Advertising,” regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
5
6
7
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
8
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
9
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the available inputs for targeted advertising during
10
the class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), including whether inclusion of a URL in a
11
message was an available input for targeted advertising, to the extent such documents exist, are
12
within Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be
13
located using a reasonable search.
14
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:
15
All Documents and ESI used by You to establish Facebook Users’ express consent to the
16
practices forming the basis for Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
17
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:
18
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
19
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
20
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
21
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
22
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
23
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
24
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
25
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrase “forming the basis for.”
26
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
27
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
28
32
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
2
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
3
for non-privileged documents that evidence Plaintiffs’ and the purported class members’ consent to
4
the practice challenged in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website
5
when the URL for that website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages
6
product), to the extent such documents exist, are within Facebook’s custody and control, have not
7
already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a reasonable search.
8
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:
9
All Documents and ESI supporting the position advanced in pages 18-19 of Your Motion to
10
Dismiss that Facebook Users impliedly consent to the practices forming the basis for Plaintiffs’
11
Complaint.
12
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:
13
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
14
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
15
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
16
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
17
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
18
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
19
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
20
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrase “forming the basis for.”
21
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
22
23
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
24
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
25
for non-privileged documents that evidence Plaintiffs’ and the purported class members’ consent to
26
the practice challenged in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website
27
when the URL for that website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages
28
33
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
product), to the extent such documents exist, are within Facebook’s custody and control, have not
2
already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a reasonable search.
3
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:
4
All Documents and ESI related to investigations of Facebook by any governmental agency (in
5
the United States or otherwise), regulatory agency, law enforcement agency, or advisory council
6
relating to user privacy issues, including investigations by United States Federal Trade Commission
7
and the Office of the Irish Data Protection Commissioner.
8
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:
9
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
10
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
11
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
12
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
13
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
14
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
15
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
16
17
18
19
20
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases
“investigations” and “user privacy issues.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
21
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
22
Request seeks all documents “related to investigations of Facebook by any governmental agency,”
23
regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
24
25
26
27
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(F)
The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this
action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
28
34
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28:
2
All Documents and ESI related to FTC MATTER/FILE NUMBER: 092 3184, In the Matter
3
of Facebook, Inc., a corporation, including all Documents and ESI related to implementation of the
4
business practice changes mandated by the FTC in its July 27, 2012 Decision and Order (“FTC
5
Order”), and including all Documents and ESI related to the Third Party, biennial assessments and
6
reports identified on pages 6 and 7 of the FTC Order.
7
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28:
8
9
10
11
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
12
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
13
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
14
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
15
16
17
18
19
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases
“implementation” and “business practice changes mandated.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
20
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
21
Request seeks all documents “related to implementation of [certain] business practice[s],” regardless
22
of the relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
23
24
25
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(F)
The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this
26
action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
27
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
All Documents and ESI related to – and sufficient to identify – the “dedicated team of privacy
35
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
professionals” identified on page 8 of Your Form 10-K for fiscal year ending December 31, 2013,
2
including any involvement such Persons had in matters related to (1) obtaining consent of Facebook
3
Users for Your practices implicating privacy and data use; (2) Private Messages; and (3) the acts and
4
practices described in the Complaint.
5
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:
6
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
7
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
8
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
9
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
10
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
11
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
12
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
13
14
15
16
17
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “involvement such
Persons had,” “practices implicating privacy and data use,” and “Private Messages.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
18
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
19
Request seeks all documents “related to” certain personnel, regardless of the relevance of those
20
documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
21
22
23
24
25
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(F)
The information sought by the Request is more appropriately pursued through an
Interrogatory.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
26
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
27
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify its current and former employees who may
28
possess knowledge relevant to the practice challenged in this action (the alleged increase in the
36
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that website was contained in a message
2
transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product) during the class period (December 30, 2011 to
3
October 31, 2012), to the extent such documents exist, are within Facebook’s custody and control,
4
have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a reasonable search. Facebook
5
will also provide related information in response to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 1.
6
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:
7
All Documents and ESI related to all audits of Facebook conducted by the Office of the Irish
8
Data Protection Commissioner.
9
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:
10
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
11
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
12
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
13
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
14
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
15
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
16
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
17
18
19
(B)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
20
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
21
Request seeks all documents “related to all audits” conducted by a certain entity, regardless of the
22
relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
23
24
25
26
(D)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(E)
The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this
action, and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
27
(F)
28
Plaintiffs.
The Request seeks public and/or third party information that is equally available to
37
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:
All Documents and ESI related to Third Parties discussing Passive Likes, including the Wall
3
Street Journal article “How Private Are Your Private Facebook Messages,” the Digital Trends article
4
“Facebook Scans Private Messages for Brand Page Mentions, Admits a Bug is Boosting Likes,” and
5
the Hacker News post “Facebook Graph API exploit that let’s [sic] you pump up to 1800 ‘Likes’ in
6
an hour.”
7
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:
8
9
10
11
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
12
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
13
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
14
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
15
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrase “Passive Likes.”
16
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
17
18
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
19
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
20
Request seeks all documents “related to Third Parties discussing Passive Likes,” regardless of the
21
relevance of those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
22
23
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
24
(F)
25
Plaintiffs.
26
The Request seeks public and/or third party information that is equally available to
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
27
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
28
for non-privileged documents sufficient to show the referenced news articles, to the extent such
38
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
documents exist, are within Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to
2
Plaintiffs, and can be located using a reasonable search.
3
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:
4
All Documents and ESI that You contend evidence or substantiate Your defenses in this
5
Action.
6
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:
7
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
8
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
9
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
10
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
11
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
12
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
13
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
14
(B)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks “All
15
Documents and ESI” regarding Facebook’s defenses. Facebook responds to this Request to the
16
extent it understands Plaintiffs’ claims asserted in this action.
17
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
18
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will produce documents
19
supporting its defenses to the claims that Facebook understands Plaintiffs assert in this action (the
20
alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that website was
21
contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product during the class period
22
(December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012)), to the extent those documents are within Facebook’s
23
custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a
24
reasonable search.
25
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33:
26
27
All Documents and ESI related to Your policies, practices, or procedures, if any, regarding
the retention or destruction of Documents and files, including emails, email backup or archive tapes,
28
39
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
hard drives, and corporate storage, including, without limitation, any changes or modifications in
2
such policies or practices during the Relevant Time Period.
3
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 33:
4
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
5
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
6
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
7
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
8
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
9
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
10
11
12
13
14
15
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrase “policies, practices, or
procedures.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
16
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
17
Request seeks all documents “related to Your policies, practices, or procedures, if any, regarding the
18
retention or destruction” of documents, regardless of the relevance of those documents to the claims
19
or defenses in this action.
20
21
22
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
23
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
24
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify policies regarding the retention or destruction of
25
documents relevant to the practice challenged in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook
26
“Like” count on a website when the URL for that website was contained in a message transmitted
27
through Facebook’s Messages product) during the class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31,
28
40
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2012), to the extent such documents exist, are within Facebook’s custody and control, have not
2
already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a reasonable search.
3
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34:
4
All insurance policies, including any declaration pages and riders, which could be used to
5
satisfy any claim in this action.
6
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 34:
7
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
8
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
9
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
10
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
11
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
12
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
13
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
14
15
(B)
The Request is vague, ambiguous and overly broad in its use of the phrase “which
could be used to satisfy any claim in this action.”
16
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
17
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook has conducted a reasonable search
18
and diligent inquiry, and it has no documents responsive to this Request because it is not aware of
19
any insurance policies that could be used to satisfy any claim in this action.
20
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35:
21
A plain-English description or glossary for any and all lists, legends, codes, abbreviations,
22
collector initials, or other non-obvious terms, words, or data contained in any of the Documents or
23
ESI produced in response to any of these Requests for Production, and to the extent applicable, with
24
any of the Interrogatories served herewith.
25
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 35:
26
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
27
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
28
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
41
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
2
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
3
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
4
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
5
6
7
8
9
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the terms and phrases “plain-
English,” “collector initials,” and “non-obvious.”
(C)
The Request seeks public and/or third party information that is equally available to
Plaintiffs.
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
10
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
11
Request seeks a glossary “for any and all lists, legends, codes, abbreviations, collector initials, or
12
other non-obvious terms, words, or data contained in any” produced document or response,
13
regardless of the relevance of such a document or any given word it addresses to the claims or
14
defenses in this action.
15
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
16
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
17
for a glossary of key terms relating to the processes involved in the practice challenged in this action
18
(the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that website was
19
contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product) during the class period
20
(December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), to the extent such a glossary exists, is within Facebook’s
21
custody and control, has not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located using a
22
reasonable search.
23
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36:
24
25
For any source code related to any of these Requests, Documents and ESI sufficient to
identify all code repositories for such source code.
26
27
28
42
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 36:
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
3
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
4
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
5
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
6
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
7
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
8
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
9
10
11
12
13
(B)
The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad in its use of the phrases “any
source code related to any of these Requests” and “code repositories.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
14
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
15
Request seeks documents identifying “code repositories” for “any source code related to any of these
16
Requests,” regardless of the relevance of those Requests and/or those documents to the claims or
17
defenses in this action.
18
19
20
21
22
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(F)
The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this
action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
(G)
Facebook’s source code is a closely guarded trade secret, and production could
23
compromise Facebook’s efforts to ensure site integrity and protect users. The burden and risks on
24
Facebook vastly exceed any alleged probative value to Plaintiffs, who may obtain the information
25
they need through less intrusive means (such as documents relating to the practices challenged in this
26
action). This is not a patent or other intellectual property dispute in which Plaintiffs assert some
27
ownership or proprietary interest in Facebook’s source code. Production of source code would
28
require extensive time and expense for Facebook—including the negotiation of a source-code43
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
specific protective order and the implementation of detailed and time-consuming protocols for
2
handling source code material, as well as limitations on the use of source code materials, expert
3
retention, disclosure, and going-forward restrictions on the conduct of individuals exposed to source
4
code materials.
5
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
6
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
7
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the processes involved in the practice challenged
8
in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that
9
website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product) during the
10
class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), to the extent such documents exist, are within
11
Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located
12
using a reasonable search. Facebook maintains all of its objections to Plaintiffs’ requests seeking the
13
production of source code.
14
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:
15
For any source code related to any of these Requests, check in/check out histories – including
16
timestamps, version numbers, and usernames – for such source code.
17
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 37:
18
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
19
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
20
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
21
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
22
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
23
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
24
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
25
(B)
The Request is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad in its use of the terms and phrases
26
“any source code related to any of these Requests,” “check in/check out histories,” and “version
27
numbers.”
28
44
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
(C)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
2
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
3
Request seeks “check in/check out histories – including timestamps, version numbers, and
4
usernames” for “any source code related to any of these Requests,” regardless of the relevance of
5
those Requests and/or those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
6
7
8
9
10
(D)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(E)
The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this
action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
(F)
Facebook’s source code is a closely guarded trade secret, and production could
11
compromise Facebook’s efforts to ensure site integrity and protect users. The burden and risks on
12
Facebook vastly exceed any alleged probative value to Plaintiffs, who may obtain the information
13
they need through less intrusive means (such as documents relating to the practices challenged in this
14
action). This is not a patent or other intellectual property dispute in which Plaintiffs assert some
15
ownership or proprietary interest in Facebook’s source code. Production of source code would
16
require extensive time and expense for Facebook—including the negotiation of a source-code-
17
specific protective order and the implementation of detailed and time-consuming protocols for
18
handling source code material, as well as limitations on the use of source code materials, expert
19
retention, disclosure, and going-forward restrictions on the conduct of individuals exposed to source
20
code materials.
21
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
22
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
23
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the processes involved in the practice challenged
24
in this action (the alleged increase in the Facebook “Like” count on a website when the URL for that
25
website was contained in a message transmitted through Facebook’s Messages product) during the
26
class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), to the extent such documents exist, are within
27
Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be located
28
45
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
using a reasonable search. Facebook maintains all of its objections to Plaintiffs’ requests seeking the
2
production of source code.
3
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38:
4
All Documents and ESI related to any Facebook User complaints related to the practices
5
alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, as well as all responses from Facebook thereto.
6
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 38:
7
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
8
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
9
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
10
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
11
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
12
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
13
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
14
15
16
17
18
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrase “Facebook User
complaints.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
19
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
20
Request seeks all documents “related to any Facebook User complaints related to the practices
21
alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, as well as all responses from Facebook thereto,” regardless of the
22
relevance of those Requests and/or those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
23
24
25
26
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(F)
The Request seeks documents that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this
action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
27
28
46
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39:
All Documents and ESI related to Your representations to Third Parties regarding the use of
3
Active and Passive Likes in marketing and/or Targeted Advertising, including but not limited to form
4
contracts, marketing materials, and internal memoranda describing the purported benefits of Active
5
and Passive Likes to Third Parties.
6
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 39:
7
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
8
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
9
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
10
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
11
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
12
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
13
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
14
15
16
17
18
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “Active and Passive
Likes,” “Targeted Advertising,” “form contracts,” “marketing,” “memoranda,” and “benefits.”
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
19
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
20
Request seeks all documents “related to Your representations to Third Parties regarding the use of
21
Active and Passive Likes in marketing and/or Targeted Advertising,” regardless of the relevance of
22
those Requests and/or those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
23
24
25
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
26
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will conduct a reasonable search
27
for non-privileged documents sufficient to identify the available inputs for targeted advertising during
28
the class period (December 30, 2011 to October 31, 2012), to the extent such documents exist, are
47
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
within Facebook’s custody and control, have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, and can be
2
located using a reasonable search.
3
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40:
4
All Documents and ESI related to each Plaintiff.
5
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 40:
6
Facebook restates and incorporates its Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections
7
to “Rules of Construction,” Instructions, and Purported “Relevant Time Period” as though fully set
8
forth in this Response. Facebook further objects to this Request on the following additional grounds:
9
(A)
Facebook objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents protected from
10
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, and/or any other
11
applicable privilege, doctrine, or protection. Facebook interprets this Request as though it excludes
12
documents protected by these privileges and protections.
13
(B)
The Request is vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrase “related to.”
14
(C)
The Request is overly broad and unduly burdensome as to the time period and to the
15
16
extent it seeks “All Documents and ESI.”
(D)
The Request is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and harassing in view of
17
Facebook’s cost necessary to investigate as weighed against Plaintiffs’ need for the information. This
18
Request seeks all documents “related to each Plaintiff,” regardless of the relevance of those Requests
19
and/or those documents to the claims or defenses in this action.
20
21
22
23
24
(E)
The Request seeks documents that reflect trade secrets, confidential, and/or
proprietary company information.
(F)
The Request seeks documents or information already in Plaintiffs’ possession or
equally available to Plaintiffs.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and subject to the ongoing nature of
25
discovery in this action, Facebook responds as follows: Facebook will meet and confer with
26
Plaintiffs’ counsel to determine the proper scope of this overly broad and ambiguous Request.
27
28
48
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
DATED: March 9, 2015
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By:
/s/ Joshua A. Jessen
Joshua A. Jessen
3
4
Attorney for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
49
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Jeana Bisnar Maute, declare as follows:
I am employed in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, I am over the age of eighteen
years and am not a party to this action; my business address is 1881 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA
94304-1211, in said County and State. On March 9, 2015, I served the following document(s):
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
on the parties stated below, by the following means of service:
David F. Slade
dslade@cbplaw.com
James Allen Carney
acarney@cbplaw.com
Joseph Henry Bates, III
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
hbates@cbplaw.com
Jeremy A. Lieberman
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
Melissa Ann Gardner
mgardner@lchb.com
Nicholas Diamand
ndiamand@lchb.com
Rachel Geman
rgeman@lchb.com
Michael W. Sobol
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
msobol@lchb.com
Jon A Tostrud
Tostrud Law Group, P.C.
jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com
Lionel Z. Glancy
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
info@glancylaw.com
25
26
27
28
50
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: On the above-mentioned date based on an agreement of
the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to
the persons at the electronic notification addresses as shown above.
4
I am employed in the office of Joshua A. Jessen and am a member of the bar of this court.
5
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
2
3
6
Executed on March 9, 2015.
7
/s/
Jeana Bisnar Maute
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
51
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?