Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.
Filing
219
NOTICE of Refiling re Motion to Compel Discovery and Supporting Documents by Matthew Campbell, Michael Hurley re 218 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Replacement for Dkt. 205-4, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Replacement for Dkt. 205-6, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Replacement for Dkt. 205-8, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Replacement for Dkt. 205-10, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Replacement for Dkt. 205-12, # 6 Exhibit 6 - Replacement for Dkt. 205-16, # 7 Exhibit 7 - Replacement for Dkt. 205-17, # 8 Exhibit 8 - Replacement for Dkt. 205-18, # 9 Exhibit 9 - Replacement for Dkt. 205-19, # 10 Exhibit 10 - Replacement for Dkt. 205-15, # 11 Exhibit 11 - Replacement for Dkt. 205-21)(Gardner, Melissa) (Filed on 10/18/2016) Modified on 10/19/2016 (kcS, COURT STAFF).
EXHIBIT 7
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
OAKLAND DIVISION
4
5
MATTHEW CAMPBELL, MICHAEL HURLEY, )
6
and DAVID SHADPOUR,
7
)
Plaintiffs,
8
) Case No.
9
10
vs.
) C 13-05996 PJH
FACEBOOK, INC.,
11
12
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________ )
13
14
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
15
16
VIDEOTAPED 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF ALEX HIMEL
17
Palo Alto, California
18
February 5, 2016
19
Volume II
20
21
22
Reported by:
23
KELLI COMBS, CSR No. 7705
24
Job No. 2225105
25
Pages
267 - 400
Page 267
Veritext Legal Solutions
866 299-5127
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
1 grounds that I'm not sure what topic you're on at
11:55:50AM
1 to denote the -- the Referrer page.
2
3
3 page, an impression would have been recorded but not
MR. RUDOLPH: Well, this is -- I think
And if that was not present in the Web
4 the associated URL?
4 it's within the scope of 6 as well as 5.
5
Q
12:51:11PM
2 the moment.
Let's take a break. This guy has got to
11:56:15AM
5
A
If the Referrer parameter was not sent as
12:51:33PM
6 part of the request for the "Like" button social
6 go.
7
7 plug-in, we would have recorded that there was an
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the
8 impression of the "Like" button social plug-in, but
8 record at 11:56.
9
9 we would not have been able to record the URL on
(Lunch Recess taken.)
12:51:50PM
(Whereupon, Mr. Bates and
11
Mr. Slade left the conference
11
12
room for the day.)
12 parameter was present, the URL would have been
13
11:56:20AM
10 which the "Like" button was located.
10
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're now going back on
15 BY MR. RUDOLPH:
16
Q
12:49:04PM
But if the Referrer Request Header
13 recorded, correct?
14
14 the record. The time is 12:48.
Q
A
If the -- we -- we would have -- in the
15 cases where we received a request for the "Like"
12:52:07PM
16 button social plug-in and there was a Referrer
Mr. Himel, earlier you testified that
17 there were three examples of instances which would
17 parameter present, we would have attempted to log
18 prevent Facebook from being able to keep metrics on
18 the Referrer parameter as part of the log for that
19 the total number of "Like" plug-ins appearing on
19 impression event.
20 third-party websites.
20
21
22
12:49:23PM
A
12:52:28PM
23 could not track impressions; is that correct?
24
24 unable to know the presence of a social plug-in.
Q
And another instance you gave was with
22 having their "Like" plug-in set so that Facebook
I do recall talking about cases in
23 which -- three cases in which Facebook would be
25
Q
21 respect to an example that you gave, such as Yelp
Do you recall that?
But in an instance where an impression of
1 a "Like" button plug-in was recorded, the URL
A
The way -- what I said was that some
12:49:38PM 25 websites would implement their own version of a
Page 336
12:49:42PM
1
"Like" button, and so, for example, Yelp rendered
2 associated with that plug-in would have been
2
their own "Like," which meant that no data was sent
3 recorded, correct?
3
to our servers at the time that their Web page was
4
4
loaded with their version of a "Like" button social
5
plug-in on it.
12:52:56PM
Page 338
MR. JESSEN: Objection; misstates the
5 testimony.
6
12:49:54PM
THE WITNESS: Can you define what you mean
6
Q
12:53:00PM
12:53:19PM
Did Yelp require permission from Facebook
7 by the URL associated with that plug-in?
7
to render their own "Like" which didn't send data
8 BY MR. RUDOLPH:
8
back to Facebook servers?
9
9
Q
So the URL on which the "Like" button
10 appeared.
12:50:05PM
MR. JESSEN: Object to the form.
10
THE WITNESS: Any developer could have
11
A
That would not have always been recorded.
11
12
Q
In what instances would it not have been
12:53:40PM
implemented their own button, let's say blue, maybe
12
not, that said the word "Like" on it and put it on
13 recorded?
13
their own website. There's nothing that would
14
14
technically prohibit any -- any developer or website
A
Knowing -- knowing the page on which a --
15 so -- on which a "Like" button social plug-in was
12:50:18PM 15 from doing that.
12:54:01PM
16 found requires the Referrer Request Header
16
17 parameter, which is not always present.
17
18
18
question, which was: Did Yelp require permission to
19
do that?
Q
What is a Referrer Request Header
19 parameter?
20
A
BY MR. RUDOLPH:
Q
Well, first, can you answer my previous
On the Internet, whenever a Web browser
12:50:44PM 20
21 attempts to load a Web page, the browser sends a
21
22 series of request headers to the server from which
22
not required for the sake of implementing a button
23 it is requesting that page. One of these standard
23
of a certain color with a certain word on it on a
24
given website.
24 request parameters that it sent is the Referrer
25 parameter. The purpose of the Referrer parameter is
MR. JESSEN: Object to the form.
12:54:13PM
THE WITNESS: The act of -- permission was
12:51:08PM 25
Page 337
Page 339
19 (Pages 336 - 339)
Veritext Legal Solutions
866 299-5127
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
1
shares in messages and in posts.
2
"When the new Insight system
2
However, if no share object was
3
was introduced in 2011, URLs shared
3
created, which could have occurred
4
in messages were included in the
4
for a variety of reasons described
5
new counters in the new Insights
5
above in the declaration, including
6
architecture. However, URL shares
6
certain race conditions, site
7
in messages were never listed
7
integrity functionality blocking
8
separately and were only included
8
the message or the URL attachment
9
in a larger aggregate count of
9
and so forth, the URL share shared
1
incremented.
2:03:37PM
2:03:46PM
2:06:16PM
2:06:26PM
10
in that message would not have been
on October 11th, 2012, I changed
11
included in counters that could be
12
the code to no longer include URL
12
queried through link_stats or the
13
shares in messages in the
13
graph API. Further, to the extent
14
aggregated, anonymous counters
14
that URL shares in messages were
15
visible to domain owners through
15
included in the anonymous count
16
Insights."
16
made available to developers
17
BY MR. RUDOLPH:
17
through the link_stats or graph
18
API, the number of URL shares sent
19
through messages as opposed to
20
generated through profile posts,
10
shares across the site. However,
11
18
Q
2:03:58PM
2:04:12PM
Other than what you discussed in the two
19
paragraphs you just read into the record, what
20
information did third parties have related to --
21
what information did third parties have access to
21
related to Likes created from URLs within private
22
was never publicly available. It
23
messages?
23
was only ever included as part of a
24
larger aggregate counts such as the
25
2:06:55PM
comments, Like clicks, et cetera,
22
2:06:41PM
'share_count' which was included --
24
25
2:04:28PM
MR. JESSEN: Objection; vague as to
"Like."
2:04:44PM
2:07:05PM
2:07:20PM
Page 370
Page 368
1
which also included posts during
2
in your sentence? Can you clarify?
2
certain periods of times. Facebook
3
BY MR. RUDOLPH:
3
stopped including URL shares in
4
messages in any public counters in
5
the link_stats and graph API after
6
October 16th, 2012."
1
4
5
6
THE WITNESS: What do you mean by "Like"
Q
2:04:48PM
The increment in the share_count counter
within the EntGlobalShare object.
2:05:04PM
MR. JESSEN: Object on the grounds that
7
that's never how you previously defined a Like
before, but you can answer, if you understand.
8
2:07:32PM
7 BY MR. RUDOLPH:
8
2:07:23PM
9
Q
So, again, other than the material that
9 you just read into the record from your declaration,
THE WITNESS: The best answer to your
10 what other information did third parties have access
10
question would, again, be in the same exhibit,
11
Exhibit 3. If you turn to page 20, paragraph -starting with paragraph 69, there's a section that
12 messages?
13
I'll read that relates to this.
13
2:07:57PM
11 to related to Likes created from URLs within private
12
14
2:05:31PM
MR. JESSEN: Same objection as before;
14 vague.
"For a limited period of time
15
2:05:49PM
THE WITNESS: Insights and the link_stats
15
between August 2010 and
16
October 2012, if a share object was
17
created from the URL share
17 developers could have access to statistics that are
18
attachment sent with a message, the
18 aggregate, anonymous and included increments from
19
internal link_stats table may have
19 EntShares that were generated from URLs included in
20
recorded that fact in anonymous,
21
aggregate counts and thus, the
21 BY MR. RUDOLPH:
22
externally-facing link_stats APIs
22
23
would have, likewise, shown an
23 including increments from EntShares that are
24
increment in the anonymous count
24 generated from URLs included in private messages,
25
for URL shares, which included both
2:08:14PM
16 API were the two means by which third-party
20 private messages.
2:06:01PM
Q
2:08:40PM
Where was the data related to statistics,
25 pulled from for the Insights platform?
2:06:13PM
Page 369
2:09:03PM
Page 371
27 (Pages 368 - 371)
Veritext Legal Solutions
866 299-5127
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
1
contemplating that or you would have suggested we
2
have the deposition by the source code computer.
3
BY MR. RUDOLPH:
4
5
Q
7
9
22
Q
2:12:38PM
MR. JESSEN: Same objections. If he has
knowledge, he can answer.
8
10
Are you -- are you prepared to testify on
that topic?
6
2:12:27PM
THE WITNESS: I wrote a bunch of this
code, but it would be testing my memory.
BY MR. RUDOLPH:
2:12:54PM
What is the source code related to the
23 processes effectuating third parties' access to
24 information related to Likes created from URLs
25 within private messages?
1
2:11:28PM
Page 372
MR. JESSEN: Object to the form;
2:14:06PM
Page 374
2:11:35PM
2
ambiguous, also outside the scope of what we agreed
3
to produce him on.
4
You can answer, if you understand.
5
THE WITNESS: I don't understand the
6
question.
7
2:11:41PM
BY MR. RUDOLPH:
8
Q
Well, so Topic 6, the last clause states:
9
"Including the identification
10
of all relevant source code related
11
to processes effectuating access to
11
12
such information."
12 topics. I'm asking for an answer to the question
Do you see that?
13 that I've asked twice now.
13
14
A
15
Q
16
17
10
2:11:48PM
14
I see that.
Okay.
Q
Okay.
2:14:39PM
So I'm not asking whether they're separate
MR. JESSEN: You're asking for something
15 that's not even within the scope of your topic, not
2:11:56PM
2:14:53PM
16 to mention our -- what we agreed to produce a
And are you prepared to testify on that
17 witness on. But at a minimum, I think you'd agree
portion of the topic today?
18 you're limited to your topic, which, as the witness
18
MR. JESSEN: Counsel, again, I note for
19
the record that in our responses, which we served on
20
September 22nd, 2015, we indicated that the witness
21
we would be producing would not cover the
21
22
identification of source code.
22 objection.
23
19 notes, does refer to source code related to the
2:12:09PM
23
If he knows, I'll let him answer but,
24
to produce him on. And obviously, you weren't
2:15:04PM
MR. RUDOLPH: We don't need a speaking
MR. JESSEN: It's not a speaking
24 objection, Counsel. You're wasting so much time.
again, that's not within the scope of what we agreed
25
20 process effectuating access to such information.
2:12:24PM
25
MR. RUDOLPH: Sir, either answer the
Page 373
2:15:12PM
Page 375
28 (Pages 372 - 375)
Veritext Legal Solutions
866 299-5127
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand
Reporter of the State of California, do hereby certify:
That the foregoing proceedings were taken
before me at the time and place herein set forth; that
any witnesses in the foregoing proceedings, prior to
testifying, were administered an oath; that a record of
the proceedings was made by me using machine shorthand
which was thereafter transcribed under my direction;
that the foregoing transcript is a true record of the
testimony given.
Further, that the foregoing pertains to the
original transcript of a deposition in a Federal Case,
before completion of the proceedings, a review of the
transcript [ ] was [ ] was not requested.
I further certify I am neither financially
interested in the action nor a relative or employee of
any attorney or any party to this action.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date
subscribed my name.
Dated: 2/8/16
<%signature%>
KELLI COMBS
CSR No. 7705
Page 400
35 (Page 400)
Veritext Legal Solutions
866 299-5127
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?