Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 213

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendant Facebook, Inc.s Administrative Motion to File Documents in Support of Its Oppositions to Plaintiffs Motions to Compel Under Seal filed by Facebook Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nikki Stitt Sokol In Support Of Defendant Facebook, Inc.s Administrative Motion to File Documents in Support of its Oppositions to Plaintiffs Motions to Compel Under Seal, # 2 [Proposed] Order Authorizing the Filing of Documents Under Seal, # 3 Exhibit 1 (Unredacted) Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Source Code, # 4 Exhibit 2 (Redacted) Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Source Code, # 5 Exhibit 3 (Unredacted) Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Configuration Tables, # 6 Exhibit 4 (Redacted) Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Configuration Tables, # 7 Exhibit 5 (Unredacted) Poole Declaration in Support of Facebooks Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Configuration Tables, # 8 Exhibit 6 (Redacted) Poole Declaration in Support of Facebooks Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Configuration Tables, # 9 Exhibit 7 (Unredacted) Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Documents, # 10 Exhibit 8 (Redacted) Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Documents, # 11 Exhibit 9 (Unredacted) Maute Declaration in Support of Facebooks Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Documents, # 12 Exhibit 10 (Redacted) Maute Declaration in Support of Facebooks Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Documents, # 13 Proof of Service)(Jessen, Joshua) (Filed on 8/19/2016)

Exhibit 6
REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT(S)
SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

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 DIVISION

17
18
19
20
21
22

MATTHEW CAMPBELL and MICHAEL
HURLEY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,

Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)
DECLARATION OF NEAL POOLE IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF “CONFIGURATION
TABLES”

Defendant.

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

DECLARATION OF NEAL POOLE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF “CONFIGURATION TABLES”; Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1

I, Neal Poole, declare as follows:
1.

2

I am an employee of Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”). My job title is Security

3

Engineer. My duties include investigating potential security risks that impact Facebook and its

4

infrastructure, assessing our overall architecture and the architecture of individual products from a

5

security perspective, and performing various security assessments on existing and newly developed

6

products. These duties require use of Facebook’s configuration information. I submit this

7

Declaration in support of Facebook’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of

8

“Configuration Tables.” Unless otherwise indicated, I have personal knowledge of the facts stated

9

below and could competently testify to them. I provide this Declaration to explain certain facts

10

regarding Facebook’s internal databases and certain tables identified by Plaintiffs in their Motion.
2.

11

Through their Motion, Plaintiffs seek a court order compelling Facebook to produce

12

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

13

content including, but not limited to, the three categories of configuration tables specified [below], to

14

be produced as a text file dump within two weeks of the entry of an Order on this motion.”’ (Mot.

15

(Dkt. 207) at 10.) The three specific “categories of configuration tables” that Plaintiffs request are

16

those related to the following databases and systems (a) “

17

(b) “

and (c) “
3.

18

“Hive,” “Scribe” and “HBase,”

(Id. at 1.)

I understand that Plaintiffs are challenging four practices in this case (the “challenged

19

practices”): the creation of certain “EntShares”—the storage of the URL preview feature—as well as

20

three alleged and historical “uses” of that information: (1) the counter next to the “Like” button social

21

plugin, (2) “recommendations for other users” in Facebook’s Recommendation Feed plugin, and

22

(3) the “sharing of user data with third parties” through Facebook’s “Insights” product. (Dkt. 192 at

23

3-5.)

24

4.

I am not aware of any “configuration tables” at Facebook as Plaintiffs describe them—

25

that is, tables of configuration information related to the challenged practices as they relate to URLs

26

in messages for each of the databases that Plaintiffs identify. Additionally, the tables that Plaintiffs

27

have specifically requested by name are extremely large and filled with sensitive information

28

regarding all of Facebook’s system. Moreover, several of the tables do not contain configuration data
1

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DECLARATION OF NEAL POOLE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF “CONFIGURATION TABLES”; Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1

at all. And critically, these tables do not contain data that are limited to the four practices challenged

2

in this case. In fact, several of them may have no information relevant to URLs in messages, and the

3

others contain little if anything relevant to URLs in messages.

4

There Are No “Configuration Tables” For URLs In Messages

5

5.

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs’ Motion seeks to compel the production of things that

6

simply do not exist for the challenged practices. Specifically, Plaintiffs define “configuration tables”

7

as follows:

8
9
10
11

•

“Each database contains configuration tables which show what kind of data resides on the
database, how that data is organized, and how Facebook uses that data.” (Dkt. 207 at 2.)

•

“[T]he programming contained in configuration tables [] reveals how Facebook uses the
data after it is redirected to databases.” (Id. at 3.)

•

“The configuration tables Plaintiffs seek not only provide information about the structure
of the databases (e.g., the names and characteristics of the data fields), but also the
instructions for how that data is utilized and therefore how Facebook stores and uses data
intercepted from Private Messages (the subject of the above-described Requests).” (Id.)

•

“[Configuration Tables] contain programming as to how data is redirected into databases
and thereafter used by Facebook.” (Id.)

6.

I am not aware of any tables at Facebook that meet this description of “configuration

12
13
14
15
16

table” for the challenged practices.

17
18
19
20

.
Configuration Data
7.

Facebook does have information that is used by the source code—“configuration

data”—in various tables or systems,

21

. Nor is it possible to determine from looking at the data in these tables and

22

systems whether they are relevant to any particular product, practice, or subject matter. The best way

23

to find relevant configuration data is to review the sections of the source code for the practices at

24

issue, and identify specific “calls” to tables and systems for configuration data.

25

8.

I understand that Plaintiffs purport to request configuration data relating to the

26

challenged practices. The best way to collect relevant configuration data for a given practice is to (a)

27

identify the source code for that practice, (b) review that code to identify calls for configuration data

28

from tables and systems, and (c) assess the results of those calls for the existence of relevant

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

2
DECLARATION OF NEAL POOLE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF “CONFIGURATION TABLES”; Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1

configuration data, the capacity to export that data, and any other additional information available

2

about that data (for example, how it has changed over time). I know of no other way to identify

3

configuration data relevant to a given practice. It does not matter whether it is Plaintiffs or Facebook

4

that attempts to identify relevant calls for configuration data; the necessary process would be the

5

same. There are no existing tools to automate this process. Rather, with existing tools, this would be

6

an initial manual search for each piece of configuration data and a second manual search for any

7

historical information about each piece of configuration data.

8
9
10

9.

Trying to review or search “databases” or “tables” for configuration data relevant to a

particular process, or for a general category of data (such as “data derived from Private Message URL
content” (Mot. at 10)), is not possible.

11
12

. The best—indeed, the

13

only—way to identify relevant configuration data is from the source code itself, as discussed above.

14

Specific Databases And Tables That Plaintiffs Have Requested

15

10.

In their Motion, Plaintiffs identify five databases by name (

,

16

Hive, Hbase), one logging system (Scribe), and nine specific tables. Plaintiffs ask that Facebook

17

produce all “configuration tables” for the databases and logging system, as well as the specific tables

18

listed.

19

11.

The databases and tables identified by Plaintiffs contain information relating to

20

Facebook’s entire system—infrastructure, systems operations, security, front-end web design,

21

products, etc. They are not limited to the challenged practices. Similarly, the nine requested tables

22

alone contain hundreds of millions of cells of data, and they contain little, if any, information

23

remotely related to URLs in messages—let alone related to the challenged practices.

24

12.

Plaintiffs request “configuration tables” from the following databases. I am not aware

25

of any tables in these databases fitting Plaintiffs’ description of a “configuration table” for the

26

challenged practices as they relate to URLs in messages.

27

•

is a

28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

3

The three tables from

DECLARATION OF NEAL POOLE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF “CONFIGURATION TABLES”; Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1
2

•

3
4
5

•

6
7
8

•

9
10
11
12

•

13
14

•

15
16

13.

that Plaintiffs identified by name (discussed further below) contain
of almost entirely irrelevant data, and two of the three do not contain any
configuration data at all.
is a database concerning
.
Objects and/or Associations are the building blocks for every piece of data we store at
Facebook. The five tables from
that Plaintiffs identified by name (discussed
further below) contain
of irrelevant data, much of which is
not configuration data at all or is already available to Plaintiffs in the source code.
is a database that includes the
, which contains
. I understand that Plaintiffs claim that
is a “security-related” database. This is incorrect. This database contains
and is not limited to messaging
or to security-related variables or the four challenged practices.
is a database containing
.
alone consists of
. To put this into context,
. Plaintiffs did not
request any specific tables from
just “configuration tables,” which do not exist for
the challenged practices.
is a database containing
Plaintiffs did not request any specific tables from
just “configuration tables,” which do not exist for the challenged practices.
is a logging system that
. Plaintiffs did not request any specific information from
“configuration tables,” which do not exist for the challenged practices.

just

The specific tables identified by Plaintiffs from these databases also contain

17

information from all aspects of Facebook’s system, and they are not limited to information

18

concerning URLs in messages, let alone the four challenged practices. Moreover, some of the tables

19

identified by Plaintiffs do not contain configuration data at all; they do not configure Facebook’s

20

source code. These tables are simply internal tables, filled with highly sensitive information, for

21

purposes completely unrelated to the challenged practices. They contain hundreds of millions of

22

rows of irrelevant information.

23

•

24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

•

: This is a table in the

Database regarding
. It was last updated on
. This is
not configuration data; it does not (and did not) impact the source code in any way. This
table was used for
. Because it was last
updated on
, it will not include any tables created after that date. It does not
appear to have been in use since that time. It consists of a
.
: This is a table listing all column names in all the tables in the
discussed above. It was created for the same purposes as the
table and, similarly, does not contain configuration data and does not
4

DECLARATION OF NEAL POOLE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF “CONFIGURATION TABLES”; Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

appear to have been updated since
rows and
cells. Like

1
2

. It consists of over
.

: This is a table in the

•

3

For example, there is data in this table

4
5
6
7

•

•

11
12

14

•

15
16

•

17
18

•

19
20
21

: This is a table in the

Database regarding

There is no way to tell from
looking at this data whether a given Association relates to any particular practice or
subject matter. The table consists of over
rows and over
cells.

9

13

(a security-related process). The table consists of
cells.

rows and

8

10

Database regarding

•

: This is a table in the
Database regarding
This is not
configuration data; it is
that does not impact the source code in any way.
To my knowledge, it has not been used in several years. Also, as in the
table, there is no way to tell from looking at this data whether a
relates
to any particular practice or subject matter. The table consists of almost 20 million rows
and almost
cells.
: This is a table in the

Database regarding

. This
information is already reflected in the source code that Plaintiffs have. The table consists
of almost
rows and almost
cells.
: This is a table in the
Database regarding
. This is not configuration data; it does not (and did
not) impact the source code in any way. It consists of almost
rows and
cells.
: This is a table in the
Database regarding
cells.
:

. It consists of

and

is a system containing data that

22
23
24
25

. I understand that Plaintiffs claim that
is a
“security-related” database. This is incorrect. This database contains
and is not limited to messaging or to security-related variables or
the four challenged practices. It is not restricted by, nor searchable based on, practice or
subject matter. It consists of almost
and over
cells.

26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

5
DECLARATION OF NEAL POOLE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF “CONFIGURATION TABLES”; Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1

Again, the best way for Plaintiffs to identify information from any of these tables or systems relating

2

to the challenged practices (as they relate to URLs in messages) is to review the code, as explained

3

above.

4

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

5

foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on August 19, 2016 in London,

6

England.

7

/s/ Neal Poole
Neal Poole

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

6
DECLARATION OF NEAL POOLE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF “CONFIGURATION TABLES”; Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)

1
2

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION
I, Joshua A. Jessen, attest that concurrence in the filing of this Declaration of Neal Poole has

3

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

4

States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 19th day of August 2016, in

5

Irvine, California.

6
7

Dated: August 19, 2016

/s/ Joshua A. Jessen
Joshua A. Jessen

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

7
DECLARATION OF NEAL POOLE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF “CONFIGURATION TABLES”; Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (SK)