Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 211

Declaration of Nikki Stitt Sokol in Support of 205 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re Plaintiffs' Motions to Compel Discovery filed byFacebook Inc.. (Related document(s) 205 ) (Chorba, Christopher) (Filed on 8/8/2016)

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

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
JOSHUA A. JESSEN, SBN 222831
[e-mail]
JEANA BISNAR MAUTE, SBN 290573
[e-mail]
PRIYANKA RAJAGOPALAN, SBN 278504
[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
CHRISTOPHER CHORBA, SBN 216692
[e-mail]
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
FACEBOOK, INC.

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

OAKLAND DIVISON

17
18

MATTHEW CAMPBELL and MICHAEL
HURLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,

19

Plaintiffs,

20

v.

21

FACEBOOK, INC.,

22

Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT
SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL RE MOTIONS TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY
The Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton

Defendant.

23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1
2

I, Nikki Stitt Sokol, declare as follows:
1.

I am Associate General Counsel for Litigation for Defendant Facebook, Inc.

3

(“Facebook”). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d) and the Amended Stipulated Protective Order

4

entered by the Court on July 1, 2015 (the “Protective Order”) (Dkt. No. 93), I submit this Declaration

5

in support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Re Motions to Compel Discovery

6

(Dkt. 205), which seeks to file under seal (1) designated portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel

7

Production of Source Code (Dkt. 205-4); (2) designated portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel

8

Production of Configuration Tables (Dkt. 205-6); (3) designated portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion to

9

Compel Production of Documents (Dkt. 205-8); (4) designated portions of the August 1, 2016

10

Declaration of Dr. Jennifer Golbeck in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

Configuration Tables (“August 1, 2016 Golbeck Declaration”) (Dkt. 205-10); (5) designated portions
of Exhibits 1 and 11 to the Declaration of David T. Rudolph in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motions to
Compel Discovery (“Rudolph Declaration”) (Dkt. 205-12 and 205-14); and (6) Exhibits 5, 7-10, and
12 to the Rudolph Declaration (Dkt. 205-16 through 205-21), in their entirety. Except as otherwise
noted, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration and, if called and sworn as
a witness, could and would testify competently to them.
2.

Facebook respectfully requests that the Court allow the below-referenced documents

(or relevant portions of those documents) to be filed under seal due to their confidential nature. As
discussed with particularity below, the documents contain non-public, confidential, and proprietary
Facebook business information that is protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection
under the law, including information concerning the names of and the nature of the content stored in
Facebook’s internal databases; the names of internal tables in Facebook’s databases; the processes
and functionality of Facebook’s confidential security and anti-abuse products and systems;
information about Facebook’s internal document repositories, which demonstrate how Facebook’s
systems and tools work; and Facebook’s proprietary source code.
3.

I respectfully request that Facebook’s requests to seal or not to seal the below-

referenced documents (or relevant portions of those documents) should not be construed as an
1
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1

admission that the information marked for redaction by Plaintiffs is accurate. Plaintiffs’ motions and

2

accompanying documents contain a number of misstatements and mischaracterizations of documents

3

in and outside of the record. Nothing in my Declaration constitutes an admission of any allegation

4

marked for redaction by Plaintiffs.

5

4.

I also respectfully submit that the presumption of access to judicial records does not

6

apply here because the documents at issue are being filed in connection with non-dispositive

7

discovery motions, and the Ninth Circuit has “carved out an exception to the presumption of access to

8

judicial records . . . [that is] expressly limited to judicial records filed under seal when attached to a

9

non-dispositive motion.” In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d

10

1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis in

11

original); Real Action Paintball, Inc. v. Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC, No. 14-CV-02435-

12

MEJ, 2015 WL 1534049, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015) (the presumption of public access to judicial

13

documents in connection with dispositive motions “does not apply in the same way to non-dispositive

14

motions”). Accordingly, the appropriate legal standard is “good cause,” which Facebook respectfully

15

submits is satisfied. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006)

16

(“A ‘good cause’ showing will suffice to seal documents produced in discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P.

17

26(c) (stating that if ‘good cause’ is shown in discovery, a district court may issue ‘any order which

18

justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue

19

burden or expense’).”). A party shows good cause when, for example, public disclosure of the

20

materials would put the party at a competitive disadvantage. See, e.g., Oracle USA, Inc. v. SAP AG,

21

No. 07-cv-01658 PJH, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71365, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2009) (granting

22

motion to seal where moving party “considered and treated the information contained in the subject

23

documents as confidential, commercially sensitive and proprietary” and where “public disclosure of

24

such information would create a risk of significant competitive injury and particularized harm and

25

prejudice”).

26

5.

27

category below.

28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

For the Court’s convenience, to the extent possible I discuss the documents by

2
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Source Code
6.

Good cause exists to seal portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of

Source Code (Dkt. 205-4) for the reasons identified below.
Sealable Portions
6:2-3; fn. 12 at 6:2324; 7:2; 7:4; fn. 16 at
7:24; 9:4-5; fn. 26 at
9:25-26
6:22; 9:22

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

fn. 14 at 6:25-27

Reason for Confidentiality
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed.

The information redacted by Plaintiffs reflects the name of an internal table
in Facebook’s databases, which contains (or may have contained) sensitive
data and constitutes non-public, confidential, and proprietary Facebook
business information that is protectable as a trade secret. Pursuant to the
Court’s previous order, “names of internal tables in Facebook’s databases”
are “properly sealable.” (Dkt. 193.)
As I described in my previous Declaration (Dkt. 181-2), this information
constitutes a trade secret because it could be used by individuals or
companies that might seek to compromise the security of Facebook’s
messages and other technology, causing significant harm to Facebook and
the people who use Facebook’s services. Internal table names—and the
databases in which they exist—are referenced within Facebook’s
proprietary source code and indicate both the schema for Facebook’s
internal databases (i.e., how they are structured) and—more importantly—
where particular data or types of data are (or were) stored. Facebook and
its user base present an attractive target for criminals and others with
malicious intentions. Accordingly, revealing table names could provide a
roadmap that would assist an unauthorized individual who illicitly obtained
access to Facebook’s internal systems in determining where sensitive
data—including user information—is (or was) stored, how it is (or was)
stored, and how to access it. Limiting access to user data and respecting
the privacy and sensitivity of such data are extremely important and of
paramount importance within Facebook, as well as to the public.
Accordingly, the public does not have a meaningful interest in obtaining
such information. Moreover, the public disclosure of this information also
would cause particularized harm to Facebook by allowing its competitors
to access the details of Facebook’s internal tools, which they could use to
gain an unfair advantage against Facebook.
Only the text between “including data from the” and “table”; the text
between “admitting” and “informed ‘Recommendations Feed’”; and the
text between “discussing” and “and scribeh_share_stats logging” needs to
be sealed.
This information reflects the name of an internal table in Facebook’s
databases and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See
3

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1
2

Sealable Portions
7:3

3

This information reflects the name of an internal table in Facebook’s
databases and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See
Dkt. 193.)

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

Reason for Confidentiality
Dkt. 193.)
Only the text between “that the” and “was” needs to be sealed.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Configuration Tables
7.

Good cause exists to seal portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of

Configuration Tables (Dkt. 205-6) for the reasons identified below.
Sealable Portions
5:13; 5:14; 5:15;
5:19; 6:1; 7:21; 8:5-6;
8:8; 8:15; 8:16: 8:19
1:14-15; 1:19, 1:22;
3:13-14; 3:22; fn. 8 at
3:26-27; 4:1-2; 4:6-8;
5:8-11; 5:12; 5:20; fn.
16 at 5: 25; fn. 17 at
5:27; 6:4-6; 6:8;
6:10-11; 6:14; 6:1617; fn. 21 at 6: 23-24;
7:15; 8:4; 8:9; 8:10,
8:11; 8:19; fn. 31 at
8:27; fn. 32 at 9:26

Reason for Confidentiality
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs reflects the names of and the nature
of the content stored in Facebook’s internal databases and/or the names of
internal tables in those databases, which contain (or may have contained)
sensitive data and constitute non-public, confidential, and proprietary
Facebook business information that is protectable as a trade secret. Again,
pursuant to the Court’s previous order, “names of internal tables in
Facebook’s databases” are “properly sealable.” (Dkt. 193.)
As I described in my previous Declaration (Dkt. 181-2), and as described
above, this information constitutes a trade secret because it could be used
by individuals or companies that might seek to compromise the security of
Facebook’s messages and other technology, causing significant harm to
Facebook and the people who use Facebook’s services. The internal table
names—and the databases in which they exist—are referenced within
Facebook’s proprietary source code and indicate both the schema for
Facebook’s internal databases (i.e., how they are structured) and—more
importantly—where particular data or types of data are (or were) stored.
Facebook and its user base present an attractive target for criminals and
others with malicious intentions. Accordingly, revealing the database
names, database contents, and table names could provide a roadmap that
would assist an unauthorized individual who illicitly obtained access to
Facebook’s internal systems in determining where sensitive data—
including user information—is (or was) stored, how it is (or was) stored,
and how to access it. Limiting access to user data and respecting the
privacy and sensitivity of such data are extremely important and of
paramount importance within Facebook, as well as to the public.
Accordingly, the public does not have a meaningful interest in obtaining
such information. Moreover, the public disclosure of this information also
would cause particularized harm to Facebook by allowing its competitors
to access the details of Facebook’s internal tools, which they could use to
4

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1
2

Sealable Portions
fn. 8 at 3:27

3
4
5
6

5:17

7
8

fn. 16 at 5:25

9

fn. 20 at 6: 21

This information reflects the name of an internal table in Facebook’s
databases and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See
Dkt. 193.)
Only the text between “related to the” and “Hive table” needs to be sealed.

13

15
16
17
18

7:17-20

19
20
21

8:17

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

This information reflects the name of an internal table in Facebook’s
databases and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See
Dkt. 193.)
Only the text between “in a table” and “in its Hive database” needs to be
sealed.

fn. 18 at 5:27

11

14

This information reflects the name of an internal table in Facebook’s
databases and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See
Dkt. 193.)
Only the text before “Hive table was used” needs to be sealed.

This information reflects the name of an internal table in Facebook’s
databases and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See
Dkt. 193.)
Only the text between “The [” and “Hive]” needs to be sealed.

10

12

Reason for Confidentiality
gain an unfair advantage against Facebook.
Only the text between “discussing” and “and scribeh_share_stats logging”
needs to be sealed.

4:7-8; 4:11; 4:12-13;
fn. 12 at 4:25-26

This information reflects the name of an internal table in Facebook’s
databases and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See
Dkt. 193.)
The information redacted by Plaintiffs reflects deposition testimony related
to the nature of the content stored in Facebook’s internal databases and is
properly sealable for the reasons indicated above.
However, only the text between “the source code Facebook produced” and
“configuration data that” needs to be sealed.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs reflects the name of an internal table
in Facebook’s databases and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated
above. (See Dkt. 193.)
However, only the text between “content, and the” and “Hive table” needs
to be sealed.
This information contains non-public, confidential, and proprietary
Facebook business information that is protectable as a trade secret, as it
concerns the processes and functionality of Facebook’s confidential
security and anti-abuse products and systems. Pursuant to the Court’s
previous order, “information regarding the processes and functionality of
Facebook’s security and anti-abuse products and systems,” is “properly
5

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1

Sealable Portions

2

As I described in my previous Declaration (Dkt. 181-2), Facebook’s main
priority is ensuring that the people who use Facebook are protected and
that their accounts are secure. The redacted information could be used by
individuals or companies that might seek to compromise the security of
Facebook’s messages and other technology, causing harm to Facebook and
the people who use Facebook’s services. Facebook and its user base
present an attractive target for hackers and other criminals. See, e.g., Ellis
Hamburger, “Inside Facebook Security: Defending Users from Spammers,
Hackers, and ‘Likejackers,’” The Verge (May 25, 2012), available
at http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/25/2996321/inside-facebooklikejackers-spammers-hackers. Indeed, as Facebook has previously
explained in public-facing materials, Facebook does not (and cannot) share
all of the specific details of how its security, spam, and abuse-prevention
systems operate, because this information could help provide a roadmap to
hackers and others who seek to harm Facebook and people who use the
service. Specifically, this information could help wrongdoers build and
implement “workarounds” designed to thwart safety mechanisms. The
public does not have a meaningful interest in obtaining information that
could compromise the security of user accounts. Further, the public
disclosure of this information would cause particularized harm to
Facebook by allowing its competitors to access the specifics of Facebook’s
business, which they could use to gain an unfair advantage against
Facebook.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents
8.

Good cause exists to seal portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of

Documents (Dkt. 205-8) for the reasons identified below.
Sealable Portions
fn. 2 at 1:27; 2:26;
4:8-9; 4:11-16; fn. 12
at 5:24; 6:5; 6:12-13;
7:6-11; 8:3-4; 8:8;
8:15; fn. 29 at 8:2122; fn. 30 at 8:22-28
fn. 10 at 5:22-23

24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

Reason for Confidentiality
sealable.” (Dkt. 193.)

fn. 11 at 5:23

Reason for Confidentiality
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed.

Only the text between “[link stats],” and “and scribeh_share_stats” needs
to be sealed.
This information reflects the name of an internal table in Facebook’s
databases and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See
Dkt. 193.)
Only the text between “Relevant terms include:” and “Taste” needs to be
sealed.
6

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1

Sealable Portions

This information reflects non-public, confidential, and proprietary
Facebook source code that is protectable as a trade secret. Pursuant to the
Court’s previous order, Facebook’s source code is “properly sealable.”
(See Dkt. 193.)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

fn. 13 at 5:25-26

13
14
15
16

6:6

17
18
19

6:9

20
21
22

6:17-18

23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

Reason for Confidentiality

7:3-5

As I described in my previous Declaration (Dkt. 181-2), Facebook’s source
code is a valuable trade secret, given that Facebook has invested millions
of dollars in conjunction with the development of this code, including by
providing it with the highest level of protection and security within
Facebook. Most importantly, this information relates to code utilizing
information about user activity on Facebook and could be used by
individuals or companies that might seek to compromise the security of
that information and technology, causing harm to Facebook and the people
who use Facebook’s services. The public does not have a meaningful
interest in obtaining such information. The public disclosure of this
information would cause particularized harm to Facebook by allowing its
competitors to access Facebook’s source code, which they could use to
gain an unfair advantage against Facebook.
Only the text between “Insights logging” and “and Realtime Metric” needs
to be sealed.
This information reflects non-public, confidential, and proprietary
Facebook source code and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated
above. (See Dkt. 193.)
Only the text that precedes “table, and the ‘scribeh_share_stats’ log” needs
to be sealed.
This information reflects the names of internal tables in Facebook’s
databases and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See
Dkt. 193.)
Only the text between “Similarly, the” and “table and” needs to be sealed.
This information reflects the name of an internal table in Facebook’s
databases and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See
Dkt. 193.)
Only the text between “identified (1)” and “and (3) ‘Taste’” needs to be
sealed.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs reflects non-public, confidential,
and proprietary Facebook source code functionality and is properly
sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See Dkt. 193.)
Only the text between “‘Insights logging’” and the reference to footnote 24
needs to be sealed.
This information reflects non-public, confidential, and proprietary
Facebook source code functionality and is properly sealable for the reasons
7

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1
2

Sealable Portions
fn. 28 at 8:17-20

3
4
5
6

fn. 32 at 9:26

7
8
9
10

10:5; fn. 25 at 10:25;
fn. 36 at 10:27-28

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

10:12-15

19
20
21
22
23

Search terms
contained in table in
Appendix A

Reason for Confidentiality
indicated above. (See Dkt. 193.)
Only the text between “link stat” and “FB000000659”; and “FB000001206
(discussing” and “share_count” needs to be sealed.
This information reflects the name of internal tables in Facebook’s
databases and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See
Dkt. 193.)
Only the text between “assertion that the” and “Hive table” needs to be
sealed.
This information reflects the name of an internal table in Facebook’s
databases and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See
Dkt. 193.)
The information redacted by Plaintiffs reflects information regarding
Facebook’s internal document repositories, which contain non-public,
confidential, and proprietary information about Facebook’s internal
systems that is protectable as a trade secret.
This information in these repositories effectively demonstrates how
Facebook’s internal systems and tools work—and as Facebook has
previously explained in public-facing materials, Facebook does not (and
cannot) share the specific details of the names of internal systems or how
they operate, because this information could help provide a roadmap to
hackers and others who seek to harm Facebook and people who use the
service. The public does not have a meaningful interest in obtaining such
information. Further, the public disclosure of this information would cause
particularized harm to Facebook by allowing its competitors to access the
specifics of Facebook’s business, which they could use to gain an unfair
advantage against Facebook.
Only the text between “stated that he would” and the reference to footnote
35 needs to be sealed.
This information reflects deposition testimony regarding how to navigate
Facebook’s internal document repositories, which is properly sealable for
the reasons indicated above.
Only the following terms need to be sealed:
•

The terms that are redacted in the “Term” column at pages A-2:7-8; A2:19-20; A-3:5-6; A-3:13-14; and A-6:21-22, and which also appear
elsewhere in the chart, reflect non-public, confidential, and proprietary
Facebook source code functionality and are properly sealable for the
reasons indicated above. (See Dkt. 193.)

•

The terms that are redacted at page A-4:16, 21-22, 23, 24-25, and
which also appear elsewhere in the chart, reflect information regarding
Facebook’s internal document repositories and are properly sealable for
the reasons indicated above.

24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

8
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1

Sealable Portions

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

August 1, 2016 Golbeck Declaration
9.

Sealable Portions
5:16-17; 5:20
5:9; 5:11-13; 5:21;
5:23; 5:27; 6:1-2; 6:7
5:14-15

5:17-18

14
15

6:14-17

This information reflects the name of an internal table in Facebook’s
databases and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See
Dkt. 193.)
Only the text before “appear to be configuration tables” needs to be sealed.

6:21-23

This information reflects the name of internal tables in Facebook’s
databases and the name of a Facebook internal database and is properly
sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See Dkt. 193.)
Only the text before “and I have seen many references” needs to be sealed.

19

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

This information reflects the name of an internal table in Facebook’s
databases and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See
Dkt. 193.)
Only the text between “into the” and “table with the same” needs to be
sealed.

5:19

18

20

Reason for Confidentiality
The information redacted by Plaintiffs does not need to be sealed.
The information redacted by Plaintiffs reflects the names of and the nature
of the content stored in Facebook’s internal databases and/or the names of
internal tables in those databases and is properly sealable for the reasons
indicated above. (See Dkt. 193.)
Only the text between “production of the” and “table” needs to be sealed.

This information reflects the name of an internal table in Facebook’s
databases and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See
Dkt. 193.)
Only the text before “table, and may also lead to” needs to be sealed.

16
17

Good cause exists to seal portions of the August 1, 2016 Golbeck Declaration (Dkt.

205-10) for the reasons identified below.

12
13

Reason for Confidentiality
• The term that is redacted in the “Term” column at page A-9:3, and
which also appears elsewhere in the chart, reflects the name of an
internal table in Facebook’s databases and is properly sealable for the
reasons indicated above. (See Dkt. 193.)

6:24-26

This information reflects the nature of the content stored in Facebook’s
internal databases and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated above.
Only the text between “in the use of the” and “to configure”; the text
between “the operation of” and “checks”; and “checks” and “is run” needs
to be sealed.
This information concerns the processes and functionality of Facebook’s
confidential security and anti-abuse products and systems and is properly
9

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1
2

Sealable Portions
6:27-28

3

This information concerns the processes and functionality of Facebook’s
confidential security and anti-abuse products and systems and is properly
sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See Dkt. 193.)
Only the text between following “that define the next steps within” needs
to be sealed.

4
5
6

7:2

7

This information concerns the processes and functionality of Facebook’s
confidential security and anti-abuse products and systems and is properly
sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See Dkt. 193.)

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Reason for Confidentiality
sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See Dkt. 193.)
Only the text between “as part of the” and “system” and “go in to the” and
“system” needs to be sealed.

Exhibits 1 and 11 to the Rudolph Declaration
10.

Good cause exists to seal portions of Exhibits 1 and 11 to the Rudolph Declaration

(Dkt. 205-12 and 205-14) for the reasons identified below.
Sealable Portions
Exhibit 1
(Search terms
contained in tables in
pp 1-20)

Reason for Confidentiality
Only the following terms need to be sealed:
•

The terms that are redacted in the “Term” column on pages 2 (Row 5);
3 (Row 1); 3 (Row 2); 3 (Row 3); and 6 (Row 2), and which also
appear elsewhere in the charts, reflect non-public, confidential, and
proprietary Facebook source code functionality and are properly
sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See Dkt. 193.)

•

The terms that are redacted in the “Plaintiffs’ Counter-Proposal of
Additional Limiting Terms” column at page 4 (row 2), and which also
appear elsewhere in the charts, reflect information regarding
Facebook’s internal document repositories and are properly sealable for
the reasons indicated above.

•

The terms that are redacted in the “Term” column on page 8 (Row 1); 8
(Row 3, in the parenthetical following “Nectar-related terms”), and
which also appear elsewhere in the charts, reflect the names of internal
tables in Facebook’s databases and are properly sealable for the reasons
indicated above. (See Dkt. 193.)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

The remainder of the terms redacted by Plaintiffs do not need to be sealed:
• Titan
• share_count
• link stats
• link_stats
• Insights (UI)
• scribeh_share_stats
• tracking_info
10
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1

Sealable Portions

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

Exhibit 11
(Search terms
contained in table in
Appendix)

15
16
17

Reason for Confidentiality
• Taste
• SharePro
• Hbase
• Targeting roadmap
• Realtime
• Realtime Metric
• Real Time Analytics
• Targeting team
• Sharescapper
• Sharescraper
• Interaction Data
• node
• entity
• entities
• stats
• Insights logging
• Insights API
• Nectar
Only the term that appears on Rows 13 and 14 between “‘share count’ or”
and “and ‘message!” needs to be redacted.
This information reflects the name of an internal table in Facebook’s
databases and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See
Dkt. 193.)

Exhibits 5, 7-10, and 12 to the Rudolph Declaration
11.

Good cause exists to seal Exhibits 5, 7-8, 10, and 12 to the Rudolph Declaration (or

18

relevant portions of those documents) for the reasons articulated below. Exhibit 9 (excerpts of the

19

transcript of the September 30, 2015 deposition of Mike Vernal) does not need to be sealed.

20
21
22
23
24

Document
Exhibit 5
(excerpts of the
transcript of the
February 4, 2016
deposition of Alex
Himel)

Sealable Portions
202:10-208:15

Exhibit 7
(excerpts of the
transcript of the

372:1-21; 374:11375:9

25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

247:15-249:4;
253:10-257:25

Reason for Confidentiality
This information reflects the names of and the nature
of the content stored in Facebook’s internal databases
and/or the names of internal tables in those databases
and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated
above. (See Dkt. 193.)
This information concerns the existence of and
content in Facebook’s internal document repositories,
which is properly sealable for the reasons indicated
above.
This information reflects the names of and the nature
of the content stored in Facebook’s internal databases
and/or the names of internal tables in those databases
11

DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Document
February 5, 2016
30(b)(6) deposition of
Facebook (Alex
Himel))
Exhibit 8
(excerpts of the
transcript of the
September 25, 2015
deposition of Ray
He)
Exhibit 10
(excerpts of the
transcript of the
October 28, 2015
30(b)(b) Deposition
of Facebook (Michael
Adkins))
Exhibit 12
(FB000008271)

Sealable Portions

Reason for Confidentiality
and is properly sealable for the reasons indicated
above. (See Dkt. 193.)

270:3 (following
“My user ID is”)

This information reflects the Facebook user ID of a
Facebook employee. (See Dkt. 193.)

This document
This information concerns the processes and
should be sealed in functionality of Facebook’s confidential security and
its entirety
anti-abuse products and systems and is properly
sealable for the reasons indicated above. (See Dkt.
193.)
Only Facebook
employees’ email
addresses need to
be sealed, as is
reflected in the
version of Exhibit
12 filed at Dkt.
199-15

Pursuant to the discussion at the hearing on
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification held on
March 16, 2016, this Court indicated that it would
“permit the sealing” of “the addresses and phone
numbers of anyone, whether or not they are a party to
the lawsuit.” (See Dkt. 177 at 105:9-13; see also Dkt.
193.)

16
17
18
19

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I executed this Declaration in Menlo
Park, California on August 5, 2016.
/s/ Nikki Stitt Sokol
Nikki Stitt Sokol

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

12
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1
2

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION
I, Christopher Chorba, attest that concurrence in the filing of this Declaration of Nikki Stitt

3

Sokol has been obtained from the signatory. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

4

United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 8th day of August 2016,

5

in Los Angeles, California.

6
7

/s/ Christopher Chorba
Christopher Chorba

Dated: August 8, 2016

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

13
DECLARATION OF NIKKI STITT SOKOL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL RE MOTIONS TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)