Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 85

RESPONSE (re 84 MOTION to Appear by Telephone Plaintiffs' Request for Telephonic Discovery Conference ) filed byFacebook Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joshua Jessen In Support of Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Telephonic Conference, # 2 Declaration of Christopher Chorba In Support of Response to Plaintiffs' Request for Telephonic Conference)(Jessen, Joshua) (Filed on 6/5/2015)

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]
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]
Attorneys for Defendant
FACEBOOK, INC.

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

OAKLAND DIVISON

17
18
19
20
21
22

MATTHEW CAMPBELL, MICHAEL
HURLEY, and DAVID SHADPOUR,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER
CHORBA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY
CONFERENCE

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

DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER CHORBA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE; Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

I, Christopher Chorba, declare as follows:

2

1.

I am an attorney admitted to practice law before this Court. I am a partner in the law

3

firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, and I am one of the attorneys responsible for the

4

representation of Defendant Facebook, in the above-referenced action. I submit this declaration in

5

support of Facebook’s Response to Plaintiff’s Request for a Telephonic Discovery Conference.

6

Unless otherwise stated, the following facts are within my personal knowledge and, if called and

7

sworn as a witness, I could and would testify competently to these facts.

8

2.

I have had several telephonic conversations with Michael Sobol, counsel for plaintiffs,

9

regarding the scheduling of depositions in this action. I believe that Plaintiffs refer to one of these

10

conversations in their Request for a Telephonic Discovery Conference (Dkt. 84) at page 1:25-28:

11

During a telephonic meet and confer in mid-May 2015, counsel for Plaintiffs
requested deposition dates in mid-June for Facebook’s declarant in support of
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel source code. Facebook was non-committal but
did not notify Plaintiffs of any concerns related to the declarant’s availability.

12
13
14
15

3.

The preceding statement, which Plaintiffs do not support with a declaration, is

16

incomplete and inaccurate. While it is true that I spoke with Mr. Sobol on May 12, 2015, at

17

approximately 1:30 p.m., regarding deposition scheduling, I did note Facebook’s “concerns related to

18

the declarant’s availability” to Mr. Sobol. Specifically, I explained to Mr. Sobol that Facebook was

19

still in the process of collecting responsive documents and determining whether it would provide a

20

declaration from a Facebook employee (and which employee that would be), but that my client had

21

not yet settled on the identity of the potential declarant. On at least two occasions during this

22

conversation, I noted to Mr. Sobol that I could not guarantee that the as-yet unidentified declarant

23

would be available during any specific time (such as the week of June 15 or before July 2) for a

24

deposition. I further noted to Mr. Sobol that plaintiffs did not request a deposition during the

25

discovery conference on April 13. Mr. Sobol responded that it was “implicit” in the Court’s order

26

setting a schedule, and I explained that Facebook disagreed with this interpretation. I also noted that

27

Facebook would work with him to schedule the deposition, but that Facebook would not produce the

28

witness more than one time in this action (a position that Plaintiffs’ counsel has taken with respect to

Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

1
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER CHORBA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE; Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

their own clients’ depositions). All of these statements relate to the “declarant’s availability,” in

2

conflict with Plaintiffs’ statement in their Request for a Telephonic Discovery Conference that this

3

subject did not arise during our discussions.

4

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

5

State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I executed this Declaration at Los

6

Angeles, California, on June 5, 2015.

7
8

/s/
Christopher Chorba

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

2
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER CHORBA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE; Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION

3

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1, I, Joshua A. Jessen, hereby attest that concurrence in the
filing of this document has been obtained from Christopher Chorba.

4

DATED: June 5, 2015

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

5
6
7

By:

/s/
Joshua A. Jessen

Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.

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

3
DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER CHORBA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY CONFERENCE; Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)