Dunstan et al v. comScore, Inc.

Filing 176

DECLARATION of Robyn Bowland regarding memorandum in opposition to motion 175 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Errata J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W)(Bowland, Robyn)

EXHIBIT S

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION
MIKE HARRIS and JEFF DUNSTAN,
individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COMSCORE, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant.
__________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:11-cv-5807
[Hon. James F. Holderman]
[Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim]

PLAINTIFF JEFF DUNSTAN’S RESPONSES TO
DEFENDANT COMSCORE, INC.’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Plaintiff Jeff Dunstan (“Dunstan” or “Plaintiff”) provides the following answers to
Defendant comScore, Inc.’s (“comScore” or “Defendant”) First Set of Interrogatories:
Answers to Interrogatories
1.
Identify every Communication and Document You viewed or relied upon in
downloading third-party software you allege was bundled with comScore Software, including all
websites, webpages, advertisements, or solicitations.
ANSWER:

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory on the basis that it is overly broad (it

requires Plaintiff to identify potentially dozens of individual webpages that he viewed while
browsing the World Wide Web (“WWW”) for photo-cropping software1 in September 2010),
unduly burdensome (it seeks information that was ephemerally stored on his computer in
September 2010) and seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence (the individual webpages viewed by Plaintiff in search of
photo-cropping software are not relevant to the class certification analysis). Plaintiff further
1

Plaintiff initially believed that comScore’s software was bundled with free greeting card
template software that he downloaded. After further investigation, it appears that comScore’s
software was bundled with photo-cropping software.
1

*

*

*

*

*

6.
Describe all Facts Related To Your efforts to remove comScore Software from
Your computer, including but not limited to describing the amount of time You contend the
comScore software was installed on Your computer.
ANSWER:

Plaintiff states that, to the best of his knowledge, in or around September

of 2010, he downloaded and installed photo-cropping software that, unbeknownst to him, was
bundled with comScore’s software. Almost immediately after the download, Plaintiff’s computer
began malfunctioning. In particular, access to the WWW became intermittent and his computer
started locking up in such a way that he could no longer operate it in any meaningful manner.
After restarting the computer into Safe Mode, Plaintiff navigated to the Control Panel, opened
the Add or Remove Programs tool and noticed that ‘RelevantKnowledge’ software had been
installed on his computer. At the same time, Plaintiff’s firewall detected the re-routing of his
Internet traffic to comScore’s servers. After much struggle, Plaintiff was eventually able to
browse the WWW to perform a search for a product to remove RelevantKnowledge. Plaintiff
discovered a software product—PC Tools Spyware Doctor—which was marketed as a tool
capable of removing RelevantKnowledge. After purchasing, installing, and running PC Tools
Spyware Doctor, the software detected and removed RelevantKnowledge. Once PC Tools
Spyware Doctor removed RelevantKnowledge, Plaintiff’s computer returned to normal
functionality. In sum, Plaintiff spent approximately ten (10) hours fixing the damage caused to
his computer by comScore’s software.
*

*

*

*

*

7.
If You contend that comScore sold personal information collected by comScore
Software from Your computer, Describe all Facts related to that contention.
ANSWER:

Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks disclosure of

information protected by the attorney client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine.

5

Subject to and without waiving this objection, Plaintiff states that he suffered actual
damages in the form of monies paid to purchase the software that was required to detect and
remove comScore’s software from his computer. Plaintiff further states that he seeks (i) statutory
damages pursuant to Defendant’s violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2707(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 2520, (ii) an
award of punitive damages where applicable, and (iii) reasonable attorneys’ fees and other
litigation costs reasonably incurred.
As to Objections:
Dated: April 9, 2012

JEFF DUNSTAN, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
By: _/s/ Chandler R. Givens__________________
One of Their Attorneys

Jay Edelson ([e-mail])
Rafey S. Balabanian ([e-mail])
Ari J. Scharg ([e-mail])
Chandler R. Givens ([e-mail])
EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC
350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60654
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

8

9