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