Dunstan et al v. comScore, Inc.

Filing 225

DECLARATION of Rafey S. Balabanian regarding motion to compel 224 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11)(Thomassen, Benjamin)

EXHIBIT 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

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
)
) Judge James F. Holderman
)
Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim
)
)
)
)
)
)

DEFENDANT COMSCORE, INC.'S RESPONSES
TO PLAINTIFF JEFF DUNSTAN’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant
comScore, Inc, ("comScore"), by its undersigned attorneys, hereby objects and responds to
Plaintiff Jeff Dunstan’s ("Dunstan") First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant comScore, Inc.
("Interrogatories").
General Objections
The following general objections apply to each and every Interrogatory propounded by
Dunstan and are incorporated into each of the following responses by reference as if fully set
forth therein. comScore hereby incorporates its General Objections to Plaintiff Mike Harris’s
First Set of Interrogatories and Plaintiff Mike Harris’s Second Set of Interrogatories.

04692.62386/5495762.1

INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1
Identify each Person, Including Your present and former officers, director, agents, or
employees, who were responsible for approving the categories of Personal Information that You
Collected from Panelists through Your Panelist Software.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1
comScore incorporates each of its general objections by reference. comScore further
objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly
burdensome, harassing and oppressive; it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
privilege, attorney work product privilege, other relevant privileges or immunities, and/or
violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); and it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing general and specific objections, comScore replies:
Mike Brown, Yvonne Bigbee, Frank Pecjak, Chris Lin, Thomas Cushing, and Richard
Weaver are involved in approving the types of Personal Information collected by comScore’s
software.
INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
Identify and Describe any and all policies and procedures, both written and oral, Relating
To the Collection of all categories of information from Panelists through Your Panelist Software,
and Include in Your answer the identities of all Persons who were involved in crafting all such
policies and procedures. To the extent that these policies and procedures have changed over
time, Identify any and all differences between each successive policy and procedure, the Date
range during which each policy and procedure was operative, and the operative versions and

04692.62386/5495762.1

1

subversions of Your Panelist Software that each changed policy and procedure applied to.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2
comScore incorporates each of its general objections by reference. comScore further
objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly
burdensome, harassing and oppressive; it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
privilege, attorney work product privilege, other relevant privileges or immunities, and/or
violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); and it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing general and specific objections, comScore replies:
See Response to Plaintiff Mike Harris’s First Set of Interrogatories, Response Nos. 16
and 17, and all subsequent supplemental responses thereto.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
Identify each Person, Including Your present and former officers, directors, agents, or
employees, who were responsible for approving the categories of information Collected from
Panelists through Your Panelist Software.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3
comScore incorporates each of its general objections by reference. comScore further
objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly
burdensome, harassing and oppressive; it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and to the extent it seeks information
already produced by comScore. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and
specific objections, comScore replies:
See Response to Interrogatory No. 1.

04692.62386/5495762.1

2

INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
Describe any and all steps that You have taken to ensure that the categories of
information that You Collected from Panelists through your Panelist Software were Identified in
any of the Terms of Service, User License Agreements, Privacy Policies or other agreements that
You contend govern the relationship between You and Panelists. To the extent any of these
steps have changed over time, Identify any and all differences in the action taken, the operative
versions and subversions of Your Panelist Software at the time, the Date range during which the
variations took place, and any difference in the categories of Information collected from
Panelists.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4
comScore incorporates each of its general objections by reference. comScore further
objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly
burdensome, harassing and oppressive; it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and it seeks information protected by
the attorney-client privilege, attorney work product privilege, other relevant privileges or
immunities, and/or violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing general and specific objections, comScore replies:
Throughout the entire relevant time period, comScore has subjected itself to annual
privacy audits and has been certified by the WebTrust, earning the Online Privacy Seal of
assurance for comScore’s privacy practices employed as part of its online research services.
The principles and criteria applied during the course of the privacy audit can be found at
http://www.webtrust.org/principles-and-criteria/item27818.pdf. See also Response to Dunstan's
First Set Of Requests For Production Of Documents, Request Nos. 78 and 79.

04692.62386/5495762.1

3

INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
Identify each Person, Including Your present and former officers, directors, agents, or
employees, who were responsible for ensuring that the categories of Personal Information
Collected from Panelists through Your Panelist Software were Identified and disclosed in any of
the Terms of Service, User License Agreements, Privacy Policies or other agreements that You
contend govern the relationship between You and Panelists.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5
comScore incorporates each of its general objections by reference. comScore further
objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly
burdensome, harassing and oppressive; it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
privilege, attorney work product privilege, other relevant privileges or immunities, and/or
violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); and it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing general and specific objections, comScore replies:
comScore’s internal and outside counsel are responsible for formulating comScore’s legal
agreements, with input from outside privacy experts, including TRUSTe and the auditors at
Grant Thornton . See Response to Interrogatory No. 4.
INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
Identify all Persons responsible for drafting, revising, editing, commenting on, or
approving any of the Terms of Service, User License Agreements, Privacy Policies or other
agreements that You contend govern the relationship between You and Panelists.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6
comScore incorporates each of its general objections by reference. comScore further

04692.62386/5495762.1

4

objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly
burdensome, harassing and oppressive; it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
privilege, attorney work product privilege, other relevant privileges or immunities, and/or
violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); and it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing general and specific objections, comScore replies:
comScore’s internal and outside counsel are responsible for formulating comScore’s legal
agreements, with input from outside privacy experts, including TRUSTe and the auditors at
Grant Thornton . See Response to Interrogatory No. 4.
INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
Identify and Describe any and all policies and procedures, both written and oral, Relating
To Your process for Filtering the Personal Information that You Collected from Panelists
through Your Panelist Software.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7
comScore incorporates each of its general objections by reference. comScore further
objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly
burdensome, harassing and oppressive; it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
privilege, attorney work product privilege, other relevant privileges or immunities, and/or
violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); and it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing general and specific objections, comScore replies:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), comScore directs Plaintiffs to
CS0015923-CS0015944. See Response to Interrogatory No. 2; Sept. 12, 2012 Deposition of

04692.62386/5495762.1

5

Yvonne Bigbee at 40:20-41:3, 54:19-57:11, and 58:14-77:9; Aug. 15, 2012 Deposition of
Michael Brown at 146:25-148:20, 205:10-212:17, and 223:17-225:19; Sept. 14, 2012 Deposition
of Randall McCaskill at 39:25-47:22 and 69:18-70:10.
INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
Identify each occurrence where You Collected Personal Information from Panelists
through Your Panelist Software that was not Filtered. For each occurrence so Identified, specify
the Date such information was Collected and the type of Personal Information that was
Collected. If You are unable to Identify each occurrence, then at the very least, Identify the
frequency with which You Collected Personal Information from Panelists through Your Panelists
Software that was not Filtered.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8
comScore incorporates each of its general objections by reference. comScore further
objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly
burdensome, harassing and oppressive; it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
privilege, attorney work product privilege, other relevant privileges or immunities, and/or
violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); and it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing general and specific objections, comScore replies:
Each occurrence in which comScore was aware of collecting unfiltered sensitive panelist
information is logged and tracked via comScore’s JIRA ticketing software. Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), comScore states that it has previously produced all JIRA tickets
related to any such collection to Plaintiffs. See CS0000001-CS0015890. Additionally,
Plaintiffs inspected comScore’s JIRA database for three days from September 12-14, 2012.

04692.62386/5495762.1

6

INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
Identify the Date(s) that You Purged Your database(s) of the Personal Information
Identified in Your response to Interrogatory No. 8. For each occurrence so Identified, Describe
the types of Personal Information Purged on those Date(s) and the manner in which You Purged
Your database(s) of such Personal Information.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9
comScore incorporates each of its general objections by reference. comScore further
objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly
burdensome, harassing and oppressive; it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
privilege, attorney work product privilege, other relevant privileges or immunities, and/or
violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); and it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiving the
foregoing general and specific objections, comScore replies:
Unintentionally collected information is purged by physical deletion from the collection
medium and the medium is reused. The dates for purging are dependent upon the amount of
new data being collected (i.e., the dates may be accelerated during heavy collection periods
based on how quickly the media needs to be recycled).
INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
Identify any and all monies or other benefits that You received from sharing, selling,
transmitting, and/or disclosing the Class’s and Subclass’s Personal Information (broken down by
year).
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10
comScore incorporates each of its general objections by reference. comScore further

04692.62386/5495762.1

7

objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly
burdensome, harassing and oppressive; and it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in that it purports to seek information
not relevant to Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
general and specific objections, comScore replies:
None.
INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
Identify the top-line revenue generated from Your sharing, selling, transmitting, and/or
disclosing of the Class’s and Subclass’s Personal Information (broken down by year).
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11
comScore incorporates each of its general objections by reference. comScore further
objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly
burdensome, harassing and oppressive; and it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in that it purports to seek information
not relevant to Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing
general and specific objections, comScore replies:
None.
INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
Identify Your total net worth as of the Date of Your answering this Interrogatory.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12
comScore incorporates each of its general objections by reference. comScore further
objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly
burdensome, harassing and oppressive; it seeks highly confidential and sensitive information;

04692.62386/5495762.1

8

and it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence in that it purports to seek information not relevant to Plaintiffs’ remaining
claims.
INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
Identify and Describe any and all complaints that You have received from any Person,
Including Panelists, universities, governmental entities, and employees, Relating To Your
Panelist Software (broken down by year).
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13
comScore incorporates each of its general objections by reference. comScore further
objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly
burdensome, harassing and oppressive; it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
privilege, attorney work product privilege, other relevant privileges or immunities, and/or
violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); and it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in that it purports to seek information
not relevant to Plaintiffs’ remaining claims.
INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
Identify the name and address of each Person who You intend to call as a witness at trial
or other evidentiary hearing in this matter and state the nature of each Person’s testimony.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14
comScore incorporates each of its general objections by reference. comScore further
objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous, overly broad, unduly
burdensome, harassing and oppressive; it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
privilege, attorney work product privilege, other relevant privileges or immunities, and/or

04692.62386/5495762.1

9

violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3); it seeks information that is not relevant or reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and it is premature in that the Court has stated it
will set deadlines for pretrial disclosures after the close of expert witness discovery. comScore
will disclose its witnesses, if any, at the time prescribed by the Court.

DATED: August 30, 2013

By

/s/ Andrew Schapiro

Andrew Schapiro
Email: [e-mail]
Stephen Swedlow
Email: [e-mail]
Robyn Bowland
[e-mail]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Paul F. Stack
[e-mail]
Mark William Wallin
[e-mail]
Stack & O'Connor Chartered
140 South Dearborn Street
Suite 411
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant comScore, Inc.

04692.62386/5495762.1

10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of DEFENDANT
COMSCORE, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF JEFF DUNSTAN’S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES has been caused to be served on August 30, 2013 to all counsel of
record via email.
_/s/ Robyn M. Bowland____
Robyn M. Bowland

04692.62386/5495762.1

11