Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.
Filing
89
Joint Discovery Letter Brief Regarding Plaintiff David Shadpour filed by Facebook Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A-B)(Jessen, Joshua) (Filed on 6/18/2015)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
JOSHUA A. JESSEN, SBN 222831
JJessen@gibsondunn.com
JEANA BISNAR MAUTE, SBN 290573
JBisnarMaute@gibsondunn.com
ASHLEY M. ROGERS, SBN 286252
ARogers@gibsondunn.com
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 849-5300
Facsimile: (650) 849-5333
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
GAIL E. LEES, SBN 90363
GLees@gibsondunn.com
CHRISTOPHER CHORBA, SBN 216692
CChorba@gibsondunn.com
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
Attorneys for Defendant
FACEBOOK, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
17
OAKLAND DIVISION
MATTHEW CAMPBELL, MICHAEL
HURLEY, and DAVID SHADPOUR,
18
19
20
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
Plaintiffs,
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF DAVID
SHADPOUR
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
21
Defendant.
22
23
PROPOUNDING PARTY:
FACEBOOK, INC.
24
RESPONDING PARTY:
DAVID SHADPOUR
25
SET NO.
ONE (1)
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO PLAINTIFF DAVID SHADPOUR - Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34 (the “Federal Rules”) and the Local
2
Rules of this Court (the “Local Rules”), Defendant Facebook, Inc. hereby requests that Plaintiff
3
David Shadpour produce the following documents in his possession, custody or control in accordance
4
with the definitions and instructions contained herein to the undersigned attorneys for inspection and
5
copying at the offices of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 1881 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304,
6
within thirty (30) days after service hereof. The following requests for documents (the “Requests”)
7
are to be read in accordance with the definitions and respective instructions that follow, as well as the
8
applicable Federal Rules and Local Rules.
9
DEFINITIONS
10
For purposes of these Requests and the instructions thereto, the following definitions apply:
11
1.
12
13
The definitions and rules of construction set forth in Rule 34 of the Federal Rules are
incorporated herein.
2.
“ACTION” means and refers to the above-captioned lawsuit entitled Matthew
14
Campbell et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. C 13-05996 PJH, now pending in the United States
15
District Court for the Northern District of California, and assigned to the Honorable Phyllis J.
16
Hamilton.
17
3.
“YOU,” “YOUR,” and/or “YOURSELF” refers to David Shadpour, a Plaintiff in the
18
ACTION, and anyone acting on YOUR behalf. Any DOCUMENTS referred to herein shall include
19
those in YOUR possession, custody, or control.
20
21
22
4.
“COMPLAINT” means and refers to YOUR “Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint,” filed on or about April 25, 2014, in the ACTION (Dkt. No. 25).
5.
“COMMUNICATION” and “COMMUNICATIONS” include, without limitation, any
23
transmission or transfer of information of any kind, whether orally, electronically, in writing, or in
24
any other manner, at any time or place, and under any circumstances whatsoever.
25
6.
“DOCUMENT” and “DOCUMENTS” have the full meaning ascribed to those terms
26
under Federal Rule 34 and include, without limitation, any and all drafts; COMMUNICATIONS;
27
correspondence; memoranda; records; reports; books; records, reports and/or summaries of personal
28
conversations or interviews; diaries; graphs; charts; diagrams; tables; photographs; recordings; tapes;
1
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO PLAINTIFF DAVID SHADPOUR - Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
microfilms; minutes; records, reports and/or summaries of meetings or conferences; records and
2
reports of consultants; press releases; stenographic handwritten or any other notes; work papers;
3
checks, front and back; check vouchers, check stubs or receipts; tape data sheets or data processing
4
cards or discs or any other written, recorded, transcribed, punched, taped, filmed or graphic matter,
5
however produced or reproduced; and any paper or writing of whatever description, including any
6
computer database or information contained in any computer although not yet printed out.
7
“DOCUMENT” and “DOCUMENTS” specifically include all e-mail accounts of YOU and YOUR
8
representatives and/or agents. A draft or nonidentical copy is a separate document within the
9
meaning of this term.
10
7.
“FACEBOOK” refers to Facebook, Inc., the Defendant in this ACTION, and anyone
11
acting on FACEBOOK’s behalf, as well as www.facebook.com and any FACEBOOK mobile
12
application.
13
8.
“FACEBOOK MESSAGES PRODUCT” refers to the FACEBOOK product that
14
YOU allege in the COMPLAINT that YOU used, which allows FACEBOOK users to share content
15
by sending or receiving a message.
16
9.
“PERSON” or “PERSONS” means an individual, or any public or private organization
17
or entity, including an agency, commission, committee, partnership, joint venture, corporation,
18
association, trust, estate, political subdivision, department, office, or board or any similar entity.
19
20
INSTRUCTIONS
1.
These Requests should be construed as broadly as possible with all doubts resolved in
21
favor of production. The words “all,” “any,” “each,” “and,” and “or” shall be construed
22
conjunctively or disjunctively as necessary to make the Request inclusive rather than exclusive.
23
Except as specifically provided in these Requests, words imparting the singular shall include the
24
plural and vice versa, where appropriate. Except as specifically provided in these Requests, words
25
imparting the present tense shall also include the past and future tenses and vice versa, where
26
appropriate.
27
28
2
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO PLAINTIFF DAVID SHADPOUR - Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2.
All requested DOCUMENTS must be produced in their entirety, without
2
abbreviations, redaction, or expurgation and with all attachments and enclosures, regardless of
3
whether YOU consider the attachments and enclosures to be relevant or responsive to each Request.
4
5
6
3.
In responding to each Request, YOU are to produce each and every DOCUMENT in
YOUR possession, custody or control.
4.
For purposes of these Requests, a DOCUMENT is deemed to be in YOUR “control” if
7
any of YOUR attorneys, agents, accountants, financial or tax advisors, or any other PERSON
8
purporting to act on YOUR behalf has actual physical possession of the DOCUMENT or a copy
9
thereof, or if YOU have the right to secure the DOCUMENT or copy thereof from another PERSON
10
11
having actual physical possession of the DOCUMENT.
5.
If YOUR response to a Request is that a DOCUMENT is not in YOUR possession,
12
custody, or control, describe in detail the efforts made to locate it and identify who has the
13
possession, custody or control of the DOCUMENT.
14
6.
If any DOCUMENT requested herein was formerly in YOUR possession, custody, or
15
control or of any agent, servant, employee, or other PERSON acting or purporting to act on YOUR
16
behalf and said DOCUMENT has since been lost or destroyed, YOU are to submit a written
17
statement that describes, in detail, the nature of the DOCUMENT and its contents; identifies the
18
PERSON who prepared the document and, if applicable, the PERSON or PERSONS to whom the
19
DOCUMENT was sent or disclosed; specifies the date on which the DOCUMENT was prepared,
20
transmitted, or received; specifies, if known, the date on which the DOCUMENT was lost or
21
destroyed and the conditions of and the reasons for such loss or destruction and the names of those
22
PERSONS last in possession of or those PERSONS requesting and performing the destruction of
23
such documents; and identifies all PERSONS with knowledge of any portions of the contents of the
24
DOCUMENT.
25
7.
Pursuant to Rule 34(b) of the Federal Rules, YOU shall produce responsive
26
DOCUMENTS as they have been kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label
27
them to correspond to the Requests. In either case, DOCUMENTS contained in file folders, loose-
28
leaf binders, and notebooks with tabs or labels identifying such documents are to be produced intact
3
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO PLAINTIFF DAVID SHADPOUR - Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
with such file folders, loose-leaf binders, or notebooks. All DOCUMENTS that are physically
2
attached to each other shall be left so attached. DOCUMENTS that are segregated or separated from
3
other documents shall be left so segregated or separated.
4
8.
Each Request herein requires that YOU produce any and all DOCUMENTS from
5
personal computers, notebook or laptop computers, tablet devices, file servers, personal digital
6
assistants (PDAs), cellular telephones, minicomputers, mainframe computers, Web servers, Internet
7
servers, cloud storage, or other storage devices including web pages, hard disk drives, flash drives,
8
floppy disks, databases, backup or archival tapes, containing the requested DOCUMENTS. All
9
relevant DOCUMENTS that are accessible on the storage media and that are erased or deleted but
10
11
recoverable through any means whatsoever should be produced.
9.
Electronically stored DOCUMENTS, including e-mail, web pages and html files, shall
12
be produced in the form or forms in which they are ordinarily maintained or in a form that is
13
reasonably usable.
14
10.
One copy of each DOCUMENT requested is to be produced. Any copy of a
15
DOCUMENT that varies in any way from the original or from any other copy of the document,
16
whether by reason of handwritten or other notation or otherwise, shall constitute a separate
17
DOCUMENT and must be produced, whether or not the original is within YOUR possession,
18
custody, or control.
19
11.
If a requested DOCUMENT is withheld on the basis of any claim of privilege, YOU
20
must set forth the information necessary for FACEBOOK to ascertain whether the privilege properly
21
applies, including describing the DOCUMENT withheld, stating the privilege being relied upon, and
22
identifying all PERSONS (by name, title, address, company (if applicable), and relationship to YOU)
23
who have or have had access to such DOCUMENT (including all the identity(ies) of the author(s) or
24
maker(s), recipient(s), and carbon copy recipient(s)), the applicable date(s), and the subject matter(s)
25
in a privilege log.
26
12.
27
If any portion of any DOCUMENT responsive to these Requests is withheld under the
claim of privilege, any non-privileged portion of such DOCUMENT must be produced with the
28
4
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO PLAINTIFF DAVID SHADPOUR - Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
portion claimed to be privileged redacted and logged in a privilege log pursuant to the preceding
2
instructions.
3
13.
All objections to any category of DOCUMENTS to be produced pursuant to this
4
Request must be made in a written response served on counsel for FACEBOOK within the time
5
period for responding to these Requests.
6
14.
These Requests are to be regarded as continuing pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal
7
Rules. YOU are required to provide, by way of supplementary responses hereto, such additional
8
information as may be obtained by YOU or any person acting on YOUR behalf that will augment or
9
modify YOUR answers now given to the following Requests. Pursuant to Rule 26(e) of the Federal
10
Rules, YOU are required to supplement these responses and provide additional DOCUMENTS
11
without a specific request from FACEBOOK.
12
13
15.
FACEBOOK serves these Requests without prejudice to its right to serve additional
requests for production of DOCUMENTS.
14
15
16
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
REQUEST NO. 1
Copies of all messages YOU have sent or received through the FACEBOOK MESSAGES
17
PRODUCT, including but not limited to “messages containing links to other websites’ URLs” as
18
alleged in paragraph 71 of YOUR COMPLAINT.
19
REQUEST NO. 2
20
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to all oral or written
21
representations, assurances, promises, and/or warranties that YOU allege were made by FACEBOOK
22
to YOU concerning FACEBOOK and/or the FACEBOOK MESSAGES PRODUCT, including but
23
not limited to the “disclosures and statements” upon which YOU relied in using FACEBOOK and/or
24
the FACEBOOK MESSAGES PRODUCT, as alleged in paragraph 71 of YOUR COMPLAINT.
25
REQUEST NO. 3
26
27
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to how and when YOU
first became aware of FACEBOOK’s alleged conduct referenced in YOUR COMPLAINT.
28
5
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO PLAINTIFF DAVID SHADPOUR - Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
REQUEST NO. 4
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to YOUR understanding
3
of how the FACEBOOK MESSAGES PRODUCT operates.
4
REQUEST NO. 5
5
6
All DOCUMENTS referenced or relied upon in YOUR COMPLAINT.
REQUEST NO. 6
7
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
8
paragraph 3 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “Facebook primarily generates revenue from targeted
9
advertising and the fundamental means of amassing the user data needed for effective targeted
10
advertising is through Facebook’s ‘Like’ function.”
11
REQUEST NO. 7
12
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
13
paragraph 25 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “whenever a private message contains a URL, Facebook
14
uses a software application called a ‘web crawler’ to scan the URL, sending HTTP requests to the
15
server associated with the URL and then seeking various items of information about the web page to
16
which the URL is linked.”
17
REQUEST NO. 8
18
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
19
paragraph 25 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[o]n information and belief, Facebook’s interception
20
occurred in transit, in transmission, and/or during transfer of users’ private messages.”
21
REQUEST NO. 9
22
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
23
paragraph 41 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[t]he presence of a Facebook ‘Like’ button on a web
24
page enables Facebook to collect individual users’ data, which it then employs in developing user
25
profiles to support and deliver targeted advertising — whether or not a user affirmatively clicks on
26
the button.”
27
28
6
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO PLAINTIFF DAVID SHADPOUR - Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
REQUEST NO. 10
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
3
paragraph 58 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “Facebook misleads users into believing that they have a
4
secure, private mechanism for communication – Facebook’s private messaging function – when, in
5
fact, Facebook intercepts and scans the content of private messages to gather data in an effort to
6
bolster its ‘social plug-in’ network, to improve its marketing algorithms, and to increase its ability to
7
profit from data about Facebook users.”
8
REQUEST NO. 11
9
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
10
paragraph 89 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “Facebook’s practice of intercepting, scanning, and
11
generating ‘Likes’ from, users’ private messages, are not necessary for the rendition of Facebook’s
12
private messaging service, the protection of Facebook’s rights or property, or the security of
13
Facebook users” and “have not be undertaken in the ordinary course of business of an electronic
14
communication service, as described in 28 U.S.C. § 2510(15).”
15
REQUEST NO. 12
16
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
17
paragraph 91 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[n]o party to the electronic communications alleged
18
herein consented to Facebook’s interception or use of the contents of the electronic communications.”
19
REQUEST NO. 13
20
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to YOUR contention
21
that this ACTION is appropriate for class treatment, including but not limited to all DOCUMENTS
22
that support YOUR allegations in paragraphs 59−68 of YOUR COMPLAINT.
23
REQUEST NO. 14
24
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to any harm and/or
25
damage allegedly suffered by YOU due to the conduct complained of in this ACTION, including but
26
not limited to all DOCUMENTS relating to the specific and/or proximate cause of such harm and/or
27
damage.
28
7
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO PLAINTIFF DAVID SHADPOUR - Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
REQUEST NO. 15
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to
3
COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and FACEBOOK.
4
REQUEST NO. 16
5
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to all statements and/or
6
COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and/or YOUR counsel and any other person and/or entity
7
(including but not limited to all COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and all other putative class
8
members) relating to the ACTION and/or the allegations therein, excluding only privileged
9
COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and YOUR counsel (which must be recorded on a privilege log
10
as provided in the Instructions to these Requests).
11
REQUEST NO. 17
12
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to all putative class
13
action proceedings in which YOU have been involved, including but not limited to all transcripts,
14
declarations, and affidavits of any testimony provided by YOU in any such action(s), and any
15
judgments and/or court orders in any such action(s).
16
REQUEST NO. 18
17
All DOCUMENTS pertaining to this ACTION and/or the allegations in YOUR
18
COMPLAINT that YOU have received from any third party, whether such production was voluntary
19
or by compulsory process.
20
REQUEST NO. 19
21
All DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify all PERSONS having a financial interest in the
22
outcome of the ACTION.
23
REQUEST NO. 20
24
25
All DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR initial Rule 26 disclosures, and all supplemental
disclosures.
26
27
28
8
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO PLAINTIFF DAVID SHADPOUR - Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
REQUEST NO. 21
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to YOUR responses to
3
FACEBOOK’s First Set of Interrogatories served in this ACTION, including but not limited to all
4
DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR responses to those Interrogatories.
5
REQUEST NO. 22
6
All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to newspaper articles, media reports, web pages,
7
social media posts, or blog posts that discuss, evidence, support, and/or otherwise relate to the
8
conduct challenged in YOUR COMPLAINT.
9
DATED: January 26, 2015
10
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
By:
/s/
Joshua A. Jessen
11
12
Attorneys for Defendant FACEBOOK, INC.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO PLAINTIFF DAVID SHADPOUR - Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
2
3
4
I, Jeana Bisnar Maute, declare as follows:
I am employed in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, I am over the age of eighteen
years and am not a party to this action; my business address is 1881 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA
94304-1211, in said County and State. On January 26, 2015, I served the following document(s):
5
6
7
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF DAVID SHADPOUR
on the parties stated below, by the following means of service:
David F. Slade
dslade@cbplaw.com
James Allen Carney
acarney@cbplaw.com
Joseph Henry Bates, III
Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC
hbates@cbplaw.com
8
9
10
11
Jeremy A. Lieberman
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
12
13
Melissa Ann Gardner
mgardner@lchb.com
Nicholas Diamand
ndiamand@lchb.com
Rachel Geman
rgeman@lchb.com
Michael W. Sobol
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
msobol@lchb.com
14
15
16
17
18
Jon A Tostrud
Tostrud Law Group, P.C.
jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com
19
20
Lionel Z. Glancy
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
info@glancylaw.com
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BY UNITED STATES MAIL: I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope or package addressed
to the persons as indicated above, on the above-mentioned date, and placed the envelope for
collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this
firm's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that
correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service
in the ordinary course of business in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I am aware
that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage
meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing set forth in this declaration.
I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package
was placed in the mail at Palo Alto, California.
10
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO PLAINTIFF DAVID SHADPOUR - Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
BY MESSENGER SERVICE: I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope or package addressed
to the persons at the addresses listed above and providing them to a professional messenger
service for service for delivery before 5:00 p.m. on the above-mentioned date. (A declaration by
the messenger must accompany this Proof of Service.)
BY FAX TRANSMISSION: Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax
transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed above
at
[a.m./p.m.] , on January 26, 2015. The telephone number of the sending fax machine
is [number] No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax
transmission, which I printed out, is attached. This transmission report was properly issue by the
sending fax machine.
BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: On the above-mentioned date, I enclosed the documents in an
envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at
the addresses shown above. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight
delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier with
delivery fees paid or provided for.
BY LEXISNEXIS: I provided the document(s) listed above electronically to LexisNexis
through the LexisNexis File & Serve website pursuant to the order authorizing electronic service
and the instructions on that website.
BY ELECTRONIC TRANSFER TO THE CM/ECF SYSTEM: On this date, I electronically
uploaded a true and correct copy in Adobe “pdf” format the above-listed document(s) to the
United States District Court’s Case Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system.
After the electronic filing of a document, service is deemed complete upon receipt of the Notice
of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) by the registered CM/ECF users.
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: On the above-mentioned date, based on a court order or an
agreement of the parties to accept service by electronic transmission, I caused the documents to
be sent to the persons at the electronic notification addresses as shown above.
(STATE)
(FEDERAL) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on January 26, 2015.
21
/s/
Jeana Bisnar Maute
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO PLAINTIFF DAVID SHADPOUR - Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
msobol@lchb.com
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
mgardner@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415.956.1000
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
Jeremy A. Lieberman
Lesley F. Portnoy
info@pomlaw.com
POMERANTZ, LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: 212.661.1100
Facsimile: 212.661.8665
Patrick V. Dahlstrom
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
POMERANTZ, LLP
10 S. La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Telephone: 312.377.1181
Facsimile: 312.377.1184
Rachel Geman
rgeman@lchb.com
Nicholas Diamand
ndiamand@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: 212.355.9500
Facsimile: 212.355.9592
16
Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
hbates@cbplaw.com
Allen Carney
acarney@cbplaw.com
David Slade
dslade@cbplaw.com
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: 501.312.8500
Facsimile: 501.312.8505
17
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
12
13
14
15
18
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
20
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
21
OAKLAND DIVISION
22
MATTHEW CAMPBELL, MICHAEL
HURLEY, and DAVID SHADPOUR,
23
Plaintiffs,
24
v.
25
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH
PLAINTIFF DAVID SHADPOUR’S
OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S
FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION
FACEBOOK, INC.,
26
Defendant.
27
28
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
PROPOUNDING PARTY:
FACEBOOK, INC.
2
RESPONDING PARTY:
DAVID SHADPOUR, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated
SET NO.:
ONE
3
4
5
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plaintiff has not completed his discovery in this action and has not completed his
preparation for trial. With regard to each Request for Production, Plaintiff reserves the right,
notwithstanding these answers and responses, to employ at trial or at any pre-trial proceeding
information subsequently obtained or discovered, information the materiality of which is not
presently ascertained, or information the Plaintiff does not regard as coming within the scope of
the Request for Production as Plaintiff understands them.
These responses are made solely for the purpose of this action. Each response is subject
to all objections as to competence, relevance, materiality, propriety, admissibility, privacy,
privilege, and any and all other objections that would require exclusion of any statement
contained here if any such Requests for Production were asked of, or any statement contained
here were made by, a witness present and testifying in court, all of which objections and grounds
are reserved and may be interposed at the time of trial.
Except for explicit facts admitted here, no incidental or implied admissions are intended.
Plaintiff’s response or objections to any Request for Production or part of a Request for
Production are not an admission of any facts set forth or assumed by that Request. In addition,
each of Plaintiff’s responses to a Request for Production or part of a Request for Production is not
a waiver of part or all of any objection he might make to that Request for Production, or an
admission that such answer or objection constitutes admissible evidence. All responses provided
are based on Plaintiff’s present information and belief.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
26
27
28
A.
Plaintiff objects to each of the Requests to the extent it seeks information or
documents that are not relevant to a claim or defense of any party in this action nor likely to lead
-2-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
to the discovery of admissible evidence or that is not relevant to the issue of class certification.
B.
Plaintiff objects to each of the Requests to the extent it is inconsistent with, or
3
seeks to impose obligations in excess of, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the local rules of
4
the United States District Court of the Northern District of California, or any applicable
5
scheduling order, case management order, or other ruling of the court.
6
C.
Plaintiff objects to each of the Requests to the extent that they seek information
7
that is protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any
8
other lawfully recognized privilege or protection (hereinafter “privileged information”). Any
9
inadvertent disclosure of privileged information is not intended and should not be construed to
10
constitute a waiver, either generally or specifically, with respect to such material or the subject
11
matter thereof.
12
D.
Plaintiff objects to each of the Requests to the extent they seek information that is
13
equally available to Defendant or obtainable from another source that is more convenient, less
14
burdensome or less expensive. Plaintiffs further object to each of the Requests to the extent they
15
purport to require Plaintiff to “produce back” to Defendant documents Plaintiff obtains from
16
Defendant. Plaintiff will not produce to Defendant any documents that Plaintiff obtains from
17
Defendant as part of Defendant’s production of documents, unless Plaintiff possesses those
18
documents from a source other than Defendant’s document production during the course of this
19
litigation.
20
E.
Plaintiff objects to each of the Requests to the extent it relates to an opinion or
21
contention on the grounds that such discovery requests are premature and inappropriate until after
22
substantial discovery has occurred.
23
F.
Plaintiff has not completed his investigation or discovery regarding this matter.
24
Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to supplement, amend, correct, or clarify their responses and
25
objections to the Requests with subsequently obtained or discovered information or documents.
26
G.
Plaintiff objects to each Request served by Defendant in this action to the extent it
27
is overly broad, burdensome, oppressive, vague, or generally non-specific so as not to indicate
28
what a full and complete response would be.
-3-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
3
4
H.
Plaintiff asserts these objections without waiving or intending to waive any
objections as to competency, relevancy, materiality, or privilege.
Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, and incorporating them by
reference into each of the responses provided below, Plaintiff responds as follows:
5
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
6
NOW COMES Plaintiff, DAVID SHADPOUR, by and through his attorneys, pursuant to
7
the applicable Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, and for his response to Defendant’s First Requests
8
for Production of Documents Propounded on Plaintiff, states as follows:
9
REQUEST NO. 1
10
Copies of all messages YOU have sent or received through the FACEBOOK MESSAGES
11
PRODUCT, including but not limited to “messages containing links to other websites’ URLs” as
12
alleged in paragraph 70 of YOUR COMPLAINT.
13
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1
14
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
15
to this Request as overbroad insofar as it seeks messages that do not contain URLs, or the content
16
of messages other than URLs, and therefore does not seek information “that is relevant to the
17
claims or defenses of any party” or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
18
evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this Request
19
seeks information related to third parties that is violative of rights to privacy firmly established by
20
the Constitutions of both the United States and the State of California. Plaintiff objects insofar as
21
this Request seeks information that is protected by the marital communications privilege. Subject
22
to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-
23
privileged documents in his possession, custody, or control, if any.
24
REQUEST NO. 2
25
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to all oral or written
26
representations, assurances, promises, and/or warranties that YOU allege were made by
27
FACEBOOK to YOU concerning FACEBOOK and/or the FACEBOOK MESSAGES
28
PRODUCT, including but not limited to the “disclosures and statements” upon which YOU relied
-4-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
in using FACEBOOK and/or the FACEBOOK MESSAGES PRODUCT, as alleged in
2
paragraph 70 of YOUR COMPLAINT.
3
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2
4
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
5
to this Request as overbroad. Plaintiff further objects on the basis that the Request seeks
6
documents from Plaintiff that are already in Defendant’s possession. Insofar as the Request seeks
7
documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is premature. Subject to and without
8
waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged
9
documents in his possession, custody, or control, if any.
10
11
REQUEST NO. 3
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to how and when
12
YOU first became aware of FACEBOOK’s alleged conduct referenced in YOUR COMPLAINT.
13
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3
14
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
15
to this Request as overbroad, and as calling for documents subject to the attorney-client privilege
16
and the work-product doctrine. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections,
17
Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his possession, custody, or
18
control, if any.
19
REQUEST NO. 4
20
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to YOUR
21
understanding of how the FACEBOOK MESSAGES PRODUCT operates.
22
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4
23
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
24
to this Request as overbroad. Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by
25
Defendant, the Request is premature. Plaintiff objects to this Request insofar as it seeks
26
documents that include expert material, and expressly reserves the right to supplement, clarify,
27
revise, or correct this response and to assert additional objections or privileges, in one or more
28
subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with the time period for exchanging expert
-5-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
reports set by the Court. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will
2
produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his possession, custody, or control, if any.
3
REQUEST NO. 5
4
5
6
All DOCUMENTS referenced or relied upon in YOUR COMPLAINT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
7
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
8
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
9
Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “relied upon” is overly broad and vague in the context
10
of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this Request seeks
11
production of documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product
12
doctrine, including but not limited to communications with consultants who have not been
13
designated as testifying witnesses. Plaintiff objects to this Request insofar as it seeks documents
14
that include expert material, and expressly reserves the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or
15
correct this response and to assert additional objections or privileges, in one or more subsequent
16
supplemental response(s) in accordance with the time period for exchanging expert reports set by
17
the Court. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any
18
responsive, non-privileged documents in his possession, custody, or control, if any.
19
REQUEST NO. 6
20
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
21
paragraph 3 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “Facebook primarily generates revenue from targeted
22
advertising and the fundamental means of amassing the user data needed for effective targeted
23
advertising is through Facebook’s ‘Like’ function.”
24
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6
25
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
26
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
27
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
28
Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is
-6-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
premature. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
2
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further
3
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
4
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
5
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Plaintiff
6
objects to this Request insofar as it seeks documents that include expert material, and expressly
7
reserves the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct this response and to assert additional
8
objections or privileges, in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with
9
the time period for exchanging expert reports set by the Court. Subject to and without waiver of
10
the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his
11
possession, custody, or control, if any.
12
REQUEST NO. 7
13
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
14
paragraph 25 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “whenever a private message contains a URL,
15
Facebook uses a software application called a ‘web crawler’ to scan the URL, sending HTTP
16
requests to the server associated with the URL and then seeking various items of information
17
about the web page to which the URL is linked.”
18
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7
19
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
20
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
21
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
22
Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is
23
premature. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
24
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further
25
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
26
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
27
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Plaintiff
28
objects to this Request insofar as it seeks documents that include expert material, and expressly
-7-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
reserves the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct this response and to assert additional
2
objections or privileges, in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with
3
the time period for exchanging expert reports set by the Court. Subject to and without waiver of
4
the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his
5
possession, custody, or control, if any.
6
REQUEST NO. 8
7
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
8
paragraph 25 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[o]n information and belief, Facebook’s interception
9
occurred in transit, in transmission, and/or during transfer of users’ private messages.”
10
11
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
12
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
13
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
14
Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is
15
premature. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
16
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further
17
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
18
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
19
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Plaintiff
20
objects to this Request insofar as it seeks documents that include expert material, and expressly
21
reserves the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct this response and to assert additional
22
objections or privileges, in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with
23
the time period for exchanging expert reports set by the Court. Subject to and without waiver of
24
the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his
25
possession, custody, or control, if any.
26
REQUEST NO. 9
27
28
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
paragraph 41 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[t]he presence of a Facebook ‘Like’ button on a web
-8-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
page enables Facebook to collect individual users’ data, which it then employs in developing user
2
profiles to support and deliver targeted advertising — whether or not a user affirmatively clicks
3
on the button.”
4
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9
5
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
6
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
7
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
8
Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is
9
premature. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
10
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further
11
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
12
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
13
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Plaintiff
14
objects to this Request insofar as it seeks documents that include expert material, and expressly
15
reserves the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct this response and to assert additional
16
objections or privileges, in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with
17
the time period for exchanging expert reports set by the Court. Subject to and without waiver of
18
the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his
19
possession, custody, or control, if any.
20
REQUEST NO. 10
21
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
22
paragraph 58 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “Facebook misleads users into believing that they
23
have a secure, private mechanism for communication – Facebook’s private messaging function –
24
when, in fact, Facebook intercepts and scans the content of private messages to gather data in an
25
effort to bolster its ‘social plug-in’ network, to improve its marketing algorithms, and to increase
26
its ability to profit from data about Facebook users.”
27
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10
28
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
-9-
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
2
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
3
Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is
4
premature. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
5
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further
6
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
7
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
8
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Plaintiff
9
to this Request insofar as it seeks documents that include expert material, and expressly reserves
10
the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct this response and to assert additional objections
11
or privileges, in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with the time
12
period for exchanging expert reports set by the Court. Subject to and without waiver of the
13
foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his
14
possession, custody, or control, if any.
15
REQUEST NO. 11
16
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
17
paragraph 89 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “Facebook’s practice of intercepting, scanning, and
18
generating ‘Likes’ from, users’ private messages, are not necessary for the rendition of
19
Facebook’s private messaging service, the protection of Facebook’s rights or property, or the
20
security of Facebook users” and “have not be undertaken in the ordinary course of business of an
21
electronic communication service, as described in 28 U.S.C. § 2510(15).”
22
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11
23
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
24
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
25
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
26
Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is
27
premature. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
28
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further
- 10 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
2
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
3
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Plaintiff
4
to this Request insofar as it seeks documents that include expert material, and expressly reserves
5
the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct this response and to assert additional objections
6
or privileges, in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with the time
7
period for exchanging expert reports set by the Court. Subject to and without waiver of the
8
foregoing objections, see Defendant’s Answer to paragraph 59 of the Consolidated Amended
9
Complaint. Plaintiff will produce any additional responsive, non-privileged documents in his
10
possession, custody, or control, if any.
11
REQUEST NO. 12
12
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to the allegation in
13
paragraph 91 of YOUR COMPLAINT that “[n]o party to the electronic communications alleged
14
herein consented to Facebook’s interception or use of the contents of the electronic
15
communications.”
16
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12
17
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
18
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
19
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
20
Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is
21
premature. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
22
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further
23
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
24
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
25
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Subject
26
to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-
27
privileged documents in his possession, custody, or control, if any.
28
- 11 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
REQUEST NO. 13
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to YOUR contention
3
that this ACTION is appropriate for class treatment, including but not limited to all
4
DOCUMENTS that support YOUR allegations in paragraphs 59−68 of YOUR COMPLAINT.
5
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13
6
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
7
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
8
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
9
Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is
10
premature. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
11
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further
12
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
13
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
14
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Subject
15
to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-
16
privileged documents in his possession, custody, or control, if any. See also Defendant’s Answer
17
to Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint, particularly ¶¶ 2, 27, admitting that Facebook
18
processes users’ messages, ¶ 3, admitting that Facebook has approximately 1.2 billion users, and
19
¶ 17, admitting that Facebook users agree to uniform terms of service.
20
REQUEST NO. 14
21
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to any harm and/or
22
damage allegedly suffered by YOU due to the conduct complained of in this ACTION, including
23
but not limited to all DOCUMENTS relating to the specific and/or proximate cause of such harm
24
and/or damage.
25
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14
26
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
27
to this Request in that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome, and in that the documents sought
28
are publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control. Insofar as the Request
- 12 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
seeks documents that will be produced by Defendant, the Request is premature. Plaintiff further
2
objects to this Request insofar as it seeks documents that include expert material, and expressly
3
reserves the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct this response and to assert additional
4
objections or privileges, in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with
5
the time period for exchanging expert reports set by the Court. Plaintiff further objects on the
6
grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to” is overly broad and vague in
7
the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this Request
8
seeks production of documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-
9
product doctrine, including but not limited to communications with consultants who have not
10
been designated as testifying witnesses. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing
11
objections, Plaintiff will produce any additional responsive, non-privileged documents in his
12
possession, custody, or control, if any.
13
REQUEST NO. 15
14
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to all
15
COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and FACEBOOK.
16
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15
17
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
18
to this Request in that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome, and in that the documents sought
19
necessarily are already in Defendant’s possession and control. Plaintiff further objects on the
20
grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to” is overly broad and vague in
21
the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this Request
22
seeks production of documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-
23
product doctrine, including but not limited to communications with consultants who have not
24
been designated as testifying witnesses. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing
25
objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his possession,
26
custody, or control, if any.
27
REQUEST NO. 16
28
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to all statements
- 13 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
and/or COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and/or YOUR counsel and any other person and/or
2
entity (including but not limited to all COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and all other putative
3
class members) relating to the ACTION and/or the allegations therein, excluding only privileged
4
COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and YOUR counsel (which must be recorded on a privilege
5
log as provided in the Instructions to these Requests).
6
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16
7
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
8
to this Request in that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiff further objects insofar as
9
this Request seeks documents protected by attorney-client or work-product privilege, including
10
but not limited to communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying
11
witnesses. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
12
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Subject to and
13
without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged
14
documents in his possession, custody, or control, if any.
15
REQUEST NO. 17
16
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to all putative class
17
action proceedings in which YOU have been involved, including but not limited to all transcripts,
18
declarations, and affidavits of any testimony provided by YOU in any such action(s), and any
19
judgments and/or court orders in any such action(s).
20
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17
21
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
22
to this Request in that it is overbroad. Plaintiff objects insofar as this Request does not seek
23
information “that is relevant to the claims or defenses of any party” or “reasonably calculated to
24
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff further objects
25
on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to” is overly broad and
26
vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this
27
Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the
28
work-product doctrine, including but not limited to communications with consultants who have
- 14 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
not been designated as testifying witnesses. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
2
objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his possession,
3
custody, or control, if any.
4
REQUEST NO. 18
5
All DOCUMENTS pertaining to this ACTION and/or the allegations in YOUR
6
COMPLAINT that YOU have received from any third party, whether such production was
7
voluntary or by compulsory process.
8
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18
9
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
10
to this Request in that it is overbroad. Plaintiff further objects insofar as this Request does not
11
seek information “that is relevant to the claims or defenses of any party” or “reasonably
12
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Plaintiff
13
further objects on the grounds that “pertaining to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this
14
Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of
15
documents that are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine,
16
including but not limited to communications with consultants who have not been designated as
17
testifying witnesses. Plaintiff objects insofar as this Request seeks information that is protected
18
by the marital communications privilege. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing
19
objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his possession,
20
custody, or control, if any.
21
REQUEST NO. 19
22
All DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify all PERSONS having a financial interest in the
23
outcome of the ACTION.
24
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19
25
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
26
insofar as this Request does not seek information “that is relevant to the claims or defenses of any
27
party” or “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
28
26(b)(1). Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents
- 15 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
that are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not
2
limited to communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses.
3
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive,
4
non-privileged documents in his possession, custody, or control, if any.
5
REQUEST NO. 20
6
All DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR initial Rule 26 disclosures, and all supplemental
7
disclosures.
8
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20
9
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff further
10
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
11
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
12
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Subject
13
to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-
14
privileged documents in his possession, custody, or control, if any.
15
REQUEST NO. 21
16
All DOCUMENTS evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise relating to YOUR responses
17
to FACEBOOK’s First Set of Interrogatories served in this ACTION, including but not limited to
18
all DOCUMENTS identified in YOUR responses to those Interrogatories.
19
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21
20
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
21
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
22
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
23
Insofar as the Request seeks documents that will be produced by defendants, the Request is
24
premature. Plaintiff further objects on the grounds that “evidencing, supporting, and/or otherwise
25
relating to” is overly broad and vague in the context of this Request, as phrased. Plaintiff further
26
objects on the grounds that this Request seeks production of documents that are protected by the
27
attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, including but not limited to
28
communications with consultants who have not been designated as testifying witnesses. Plaintiff
- 16 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
objects to this Request insofar as it seeks documents that include expert material, and expressly
2
reserves the right to supplement, clarify, revise, or correct this response and to assert additional
3
objections or privileges, in one or more subsequent supplemental response(s) in accordance with
4
the time period for exchanging expert reports set by the Court. Subject to and without waiver of
5
the foregoing objections, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his
6
possession, custody, or control, if any.
7
REQUEST NO. 22
8
9
All DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to newspaper articles, media reports, web
pages, social media posts, or blog posts that discuss, evidence, support, and/or otherwise relate to
10
the conduct challenged in YOUR COMPLAINT.
11
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22
12
Plaintiff incorporates and references herein all of the General Objections. Plaintiff objects
13
to this Request in that it is overbroad, duplicative, and unduly burdensome, and in that the
14
documents sought are either publicly available or already in Defendant’s possession and control.
15
Plaintiff objects insofar as this Request seeks information that is protected by the marital
16
communications privilege. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, insofar as
17
this Request for Production seeks documents published prior to the filing of this lawsuit on
18
December 30, 2013, Plaintiff will produce any responsive, non-privileged documents in his
19
possession, custody, or control, if any.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 17 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
Dated: March 9, 2015
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
By:
/s/ Michael W. Sobol
Michael W. Sobol
Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857)
msobol@lchb.com
Melissa Gardner (State Bar No. 289096)
mgardner@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: 415.956.1000
Facsimile: 415.956.1008
Rachel Geman
rgeman@lchb.com
Nicholas Diamand
ndiamand@lchb.com
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: 212.355.9500
Facsimile: 212.355.9592
Hank Bates (State Bar No. 167688)
hbates@cbplaw.com
Allen Carney
acarney@cbplaw.com
David Slade
dslade@cbplaw.com
CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
11311 Arcade Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Telephone: 501.312.8500
Facsimile: 501.312.8505
Jeremy A. Lieberman
Lesley F. Portnoy
info@pomlaw.com
POMERANTZ, LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: 212.661.1100
Facsimile: 212.661.8665
25
26
27
28
- 18 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
3
4
5
Patrick V. Dahlstrom
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
POMERANTZ, LLP
10 S. La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: 312.377.1181
Facsimile: 312.377.1184
8
Jon Tostrud (State Bar No. 199502)
jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310.278.2600
Facsimile: 310.278.2640
9
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 19 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
1
2
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am a citizen of the United States and employed in San Francisco County, California. I
3
am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business
4
address is 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-3339.
5
I am readily familiar with Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP’s practice for
6
collection and processing of documents for service via email, and that practice is that the
7
documents are attached to an email and sent to the recipient’s email account.
8
I am also readily familiar with this firm’s practice for collection and processing of
9
correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Following ordinary business
10
practices, the envelope was sealed and placed for collection and mailing on this date, and would,
11
in the ordinary course of business, be deposited with the United States Postal Service on this date.
12
13
On March 9, 2015, I caused to be served copies of the following documents:
1.
PLAINTIFF DAVID SHADPOUR’S OBJECTIONS
AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK,
INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION; and this
2.
PROOF OF SERVICE BY EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
on the following counsel for Defendant Facebook, Inc.:
Christopher Chorba
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Email: cchorba@gibsondunn.com
Joshua Aaron Jessen
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92612
Email: jjessen@gibsondunn.com
Executed on March 9, 2015, at San Francisco, California.
25
26
/s/ Melissa A. Gardner
Melissa A. Gardner
27
28
- 20 -
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
CASE NO. C 13-05996 PJH
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?