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
[e-mail]
JEANA BISNAR MAUTE, SBN 290573
[e-mail]
ASHLEY M. ROGERS, SBN 286252
[e-mail]
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
GAIL E. LEES, SBN 90363
[e-mail]
CHRISTOPHER CHORBA, SBN 216692
[e-mail]
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

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
[e-mail]
James Allen Carney
[e-mail]
Joseph Henry Bates, III
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
[e-mail]
Jeremy A. Lieberman
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP
[e-mail]
Melissa Ann Gardner
[e-mail]
Nicholas Diamand
[e-mail]
Rachel Geman
[e-mail]
Michael W. Sobol
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
[e-mail]
Jon A Tostrud
Tostrud Law Group, P.C.
[e-mail]
Lionel Z. Glancy
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
[e-mail]

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