Dunstan et al v. comScore, Inc.

Filing 269

DECLARATION of Chandler Givens regarding motion for protective order 268 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Thomassen, Benjamin)

EXHIBIT G

1

1

TRANSCRIBED FROM DIGITAL RECORDING

2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

MIKE HARRIS and JEFF DUNSTAN,
)
individually and on behalf of a class of )
similarly situated individuals,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
COMSCORE, INC., a Delaware corporation,
)
)
)
Defendant.
)

No. 11 C 5807

October 16, 2013
Chicago, Illinois
1:58 p.m.
Motion Hearing

11

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE MAGISTRATE JUDGE YOUNG B. KIM

12

APPEARANCES:

13

For the Plaintiff:

EDELSON LLC
350 North LaSalle Street
Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60654
BY: MR. RAFEY S. BALABANIAN

For the Defendant:

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN,
LLP
500 West Madison Street
Suite 2450
Chicago, Illinois 60606
BY: MR. ANDREW H. SCHAPIRO
MS. ROBYN M. BOWLAND

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

TRACEY DANA McCULLOUGH, CSR, RPR
Official Court Reporter
219 South Dearborn Street
Room 1426
Chicago, Illinois 60604
[phone]
NOTE: Please notify of correct speaker identification.
FAILURE TO SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE MAKES
PORTIONS UNINTELLIGIBLE.

2

1
2

THE CLERK: 11 CV 5807, Dunstan, et al. versus
Comscore, Inc.

3
4

MR. SHAPIRO: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Andrew
Shapiro for the defendants, and with me is Robyn Bowland.

5
6

MR. BALABANIAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Rafey
Balabanian on behalf of plaintiffs.

7
8

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Shapiro or Miss Bowland, would
you like to respond to the opposition to the motion.

9

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, Your Honor. We made several

10

points. I'll start with the computer inspection question. We

11

have the computer inspection and the interrogatory --

12

THE COURT: Yes --

13

MR. SHAPIRO: -- questions. So with regard to the

14

computer inspection, we raised essentially three reasons why we

15

need to see the computer. And I don't believe that the

16

plaintiff's response refutes those. You know, the

17

justification for those requests. Our first rationale was that

18

the plaintiffs have made the computer an issue by describing it

19

as a facility through which an electronic communications

20

service is provided under the SCA, the Stored Communications

21

Act.

22

We think ultimately we're going to win on that

23

issue. They're just wrong, that a personal computer is a

24

facility. But they assert that it is. And there's a specific

25

legal definition of what a computer or a mechanical device has

3

1

to be in order to meet that definition. And unless they're

2

going to make -- give us some sort of stipulation saying that

3

this -- you know, that this is, you know, an ordinary computer

4

that doesn't meet -- and we can give them a list of

5

characteristics that we'd to describe -- we have a right to

6

look at it. And I didn't see an answer to that in their

7

papers.

8
9

Nor did I see an answer to our explanation of the
need to see whether on this computer there have been backups or

10

copies of iPod play lists and smartphone backup files, which

11

they have also made an issue in this case, as I'm sure Your

12

Honor knows from reading Judge Holderman's, Chief Judge

13

Holderman's certification decision in that case.

14

THE COURT: He's now just a regular judge.

15

MR. SHAPIRO: Right. I didn't know what you call it

16

if he was chief judge when he wrote it. I guess it's still

17

Judge Holderman, but --

18

THE COURT: Go ahead.

19

MR. SHAPIRO: -- at the time he was the chief. And

20

one of the issues that they point to when they try to say that

21

Comscore exceeded the scope of the consent that might have been

22

granted by the plaintiffs is that, well, they say, well, we

23

didn't know that it might back up -- sorry, that Comscore might

24

scan the contents of our iPod play lists or data from our

25

smartphone that had been -- that was resident on our computer.

4

1

Judge Holderman said in his decision, in his written

2

decision, well, if it turns out that there are many people for

3

whom this isn't true or that there are lots of differences

4

among class members, we may even have to revisit class

5

certification. Well, certainly if they're going to be arguing

6

that we exceeded the scope of, of the authorization, and one of

7

the ways in which the scope is exceeded is iPod play lists,

8

smartphone backup files, et cetera, we have a right to see if

9

that's been -- if that's happened on their computers.

10

And then finally and maybe most importantly, under

11

the CFAA they have to prove actual damages, $5,000 in a

12

calendar year. It appears that the only allegations they've

13

made of any loss or damage under the CFAA which is relevant to

14

meeting the standing requirement is that Mr. Dunstan's computer

15

was somehow harmed by Comscore software. Your Honor will

16

probably remember we had a back and forth about that earlier in

17

this case. And the ultimate result was that the plaintiffs,

18

while they agreed to withdraw a subclass -- or an effort to

19

have an subclass certified of people for whom problems had

20

arisen on their computers, they nevertheless insisted that

21

these allegations stay in the complaint. So it's still in the

22

case. And as far as we can tell, that's going to be their

23

basis for damages.

24
25

Well, we have a strong hunch that the real reason Mr.
Dunstan -- because what he describes doesn't comport with what

5

1

we know our software does. The real reason his computer

2

started acting badly and slowing down or freezing up is that he

3

had all sorts of viruses and other problems on his computer.

4

They gave us a virus log, but that's not enough for us to be

5

able to defend against claims of damages. There's no burden on

6

the plaintiffs here. They have already made an image of the

7

hard drive. And just to be clear, we don't necessarily need to

8

take his physical computer. We would be happy enough to get a

9

copy, a forensic copy of the hard drive, which they have

10

already made and given to an expert. So all we're asking is

11

that the same thing that they've given to their expert be given

12

to our expert. We can put in place whatever protective orders

13

are warranted, but we certainly have a right to obtain these,

14

and they're relevant to our claims.

15

The final thing I'll say is just the cases that they

16

discuss in their opposition are completely in opposite. Those

17

are cases in which -- they're offering them in support of their

18

argument that we should just make some targeted requests of

19

them and then they'll answer our requests. The cases that they

20

cite in their opposition are typically cases in which someone

21

is accused of downloading or taking proprietary information or

22

private information on to his or her computer. And that's the

23

subject of the lawsuit. Did you steal our secret information

24

at the company or not when you left the company, for example.

25

Perfectly understandable why in that case the Court

6

1

might say, you know, let's just have, have a very targeted

2

discovery request on this, whether or not stolen information is

3

on the computer or is not. Here, though, where the actual

4

nature of the computer is being asserted as the basis for one

5

of the claims; that is, that it's a facility through which an

6

electronic communications service is provided, we have a right

7

obtain it.

8

THE COURT: Let me ask you, does Comscore have a

9

forensic ana -- what do they call themselves? Forensic --

10

computer forensic analyst retained and identified?

11

MR. SHAPIRO: We don't yet.

12

MS. BOWLAND: Not at this moment, Your Honor.

13

MR. SHAPIRO: But there are a lot out there.

14

THE COURT: So let's say I grant you the request

15

you're asking for and you're able to image the hard drive.

16

Somebody's going to have to do the search of the hard drive.

17

Who is going to actually do that work?

18

MR. SHAPIRO: It would be the expert because -- you

19

know, and I'm not sure I would use the word search. It would

20

be sort of an analysis of the drives. In some cases it will be

21

a search for iPod backups, et cetera.

22
23
24
25

THE COURT: But you don't have the expert retained
yet?
MR. SHAPIRO: Correct. We could have one very
quickly if that's an issue. They send us solicitations every

7

1
2

day.
THE COURT: So we'll take it one request at a time

3

then that's at issue. And we're talking about the request to

4

produce No. 3. Obviously with respect to Mr. Dunstan -- no,

5

Mr. Harris, it's not an issue because he no longer has the

6

computer or the hard drive.

7
8
9

MR. BALABANIAN: It was disposed before the lawsuit
was filed.
THE COURT: So we have Mr. Dunstan left. And the way

10

I understand the argument opposing the motion is that it's not

11

necessary -- well, I mean you do argue relevance to a certain

12

extent. But the -- I think the more persuasive argument is

13

that we need to somehow protect the privacy interests of Mr.

14

Dunstan. While he has made some claims about the software

15

damaging or harming his computer and harming his right to

16

privacy, you know, it doesn't mean that the entire hard drive

17

should be exposed to the world, so to speak.

18

The way I see it it's really a balancing of interests

19

of Mr. Dunstan and Comscore's interest in examining the hard

20

drive. Because it's not a situation where Comscore has certain

21

items or documents that they actually want from the hard drive.

22

It's actually the other way around. I imagine that Comscore

23

wants to also verify what's not on the hard drive. Quite

24

possibly maybe even the software itself is not on the hard

25

drive. We don't know.

8

1

MR. BALABANIAN: Well, it's not --

2

THE COURT: But in order to, in order to actually

3

look at the assigned spaces as well as unassigned spaces, the

4

only way to do that inspection is to actually look at the hard

5

drive, the image of the hard drive. So this is what I propose

6

and this is my ruling: The motion to compel response to

7

request to produce No. 3 is granted. However, I am going to

8

enter a protective order where the expert designated by the

9

defendant, where the expert designated by the defendant is

10

allowed to examine at the direction of Comscore, but he or she

11

cannot pre -- cannot share the results until the results are

12

first shared with plaintiff's counsel so that plaintiff's

13

counsel can come in and pose objections if necessary. And then

14

once I rule on the objections, if any, the expert may then

15

share those results with defendant. That's how we're going to

16

proceed.

17

This is an identical approach that I took in a

18

different case where a hard drive was at issue, and it worked

19

out fine in that case. There wasn't any problem whatsoever

20

with the expert sharing the information with plaintiff's

21

counsel. As a matter of fact, there weren't any objections at

22

that time. And so the defendants -- the defendant's attorneys

23

were able to view the results promptly. Okay.

24
25

Now, because Judge Holderman has denied their motion
to extend the discovery deadline, we do need to move very

9

1

quickly with respect to this. You need to first identify the

2

expert very quickly because plaintiff's counsel is only going

3

to be providing the hard drive to that particular expert. In

4

the meantime we also have to work out the protective order so

5

that the identified expert -- and I want to put that person's

6

name in the protective order. And so he or she who is going to

7

be retained must be agreeable to fall within the jurisdiction

8

of this Court for any contempt proceedings. So that's how

9

we're going to deal with No. 3.

10

MR. BALABANIAN: And that's, of course, fine with us.

11

THE COURT: So let's move on and we'll let Mr.

12

Shapiro or Miss Bowland talk about -- let's do

13

interrogatories -- no, actually we can do all four of them

14

together because they're classified as contention

15

interrogatories. And Mr. Balabanian's response isn't that

16

we're not going to give the information, but just that the

17

timing and the sequence of the answer is going to be different

18

than what you prefer. Rule 32 (a) 2 is specific in this

19

regard, that contention interrogatories are required but that

20

the Court can stay answering these interrogatories until even

21

after discovery is over. So who would like to respond.

22

MR. SHAPIRO: If I may.

23

THE COURT: Sure.

24

MR. SHAPIRO: First of all, your characterization of

25

the gap between us I think is exactly right. As far as we see

10

1

it, it's less about the substance than about the timing and the

2

mechanics. And initially I would say that the suggestion that

3

contention interrogatories should be answered at the end of

4

discovery is answered in part by the order that's already in

5

place, because the order in place says (A), that written

6

discovery isn't supposed to be over. So this is the end of

7

written discovery now. And all fact discovery is supposed to

8

be concluded by December 20th. So we are near the end of fact

9

discovery. And if they need an extra week or something to do

10
11

it, that that's fine.
But the suggestion that the legal framework says this

12

should happen near the end of discovery, I think is -- we're

13

already near the end of discovery. And the point that we made

14

in our papers in which we said they can always supplement them

15

was not a concession as I think they've tried to describe it in

16

their papers, you know, that we know they're going to be

17

incomplete now. I don't understand why some of these would be

18

incomplete now. If the question is what damages -- for

19

example, what damages did you suffer, what year and to what

20

dollar amount, there's no reason why they can't tell us that

21

now. Further discovery won't answer that one for them.

22

And so it sounds like the request from the other side

23

is to some extent more of a strategic than a practical

24

objection. We're certainly -- our reference to the fact that

25

they can supplement was just a nod to the obvious, which is as

11

1

with any discovery. If it turns out that down the road they

2

learn something new, of course, they can tell us more. But if

3

they have information now, and it sounds like they do, if they

4

know what their answer is to whether, for example, fusification

5

is something different than filtering, it doesn't advance the

6

litigation, it doesn't help us, and it's not really fair for

7

them to say but we're not going to tell you now what our

8

positions are.

9
10

THE COURT: Mr. Balabanian.
MR. BALABANIAN: Thank you, Judge. I don't agree

11

with Mr. Shapiro that some of those at the very least can be

12

answered now when we're talking about damages under the CFAA,

13

because I think that's all we're talking about as far as actual

14

damages. We have the other two claims that's a statutory

15

damage model. So under the CFAA, though, one of the central

16

issues is what are the class' damages. And we don't -- we're

17

not privy to that information at this point in time. Part of

18

the reason is because we think that we're going to rely on the

19

complaints that Comscore has received from analysts about this

20

issue. And based on those complaints we think we'll be able to

21

glean and have a much better sense of what the damages are.

22

Those complaints like the other part of the document

23

production, but specifically the complaints themselves, have

24

been an issue between us as far as meeting and conferring

25

about -- just actually recently corresponding with Miss Bowland

12

1

about getting access to the complaints because at first

2

Comscore didn't produce those. So I think that's a key part of

3

it. And we haven't been given access to that yet. Though

4

we're working together to get that accomplished very soon.

5

And though -- so it's not -- yes, we could probably

6

identify Dunstan's and Harris' damages right now, but that's

7

not what those interrogatories go to. It speaks to the class

8

as a -- it goes beyond just our two named plaintiffs. And then

9

beyond that, Judge, I don't believe that the damages are simply

10

within our, our ability to answer, right. So under the SCA,

11

part of -- I believe it's the SCA unless I'm misspeaking. But

12

part of the damage calculation can actually be the profits

13

derived by the wrongdoer. That can go into what the damages

14

the class suffered. And at this point in time we don't have

15

that information yet.

16

A lot of it goes to the fact that we are waiting --

17

we are trying to get through this document production. And I

18

don't mean to toot my own horn, but I was right about Judge

19

Holderman not extending the discovery cutoff when we appeared

20

here the only day. And I had a feeling he wouldn't, and he

21

didn't. And so the reality is we are pounding through it, and

22

we're making good progress. And we'll meet the deadline

23

regardless. But we're not there yet. And I think it is

24

premature.

25

Yes, discovery is getting to the end, but we're not

13

1

at the end. And it's not unreasonable for us to wait on these

2

types of contention interrogatories. Certainly with respect to

3

things like electronic communication or fusify versus filter,

4

that information is within the possession of Comscore, Judge.

5

And we will define and further refine our theory based on the

6

merits discovery that we get. But I don't see how -- we're not

7

taking the position right this second that we know the entire

8

universe of the differences between fusify and filter.

9

Though, we think there are serious differences, and

10

we think that Comscore itself has identified some of those

11

differences, we don't think we're all the way there as far as

12

understanding that stuff. And so we're kind of -- that's the

13

position we're in with respect to where we're at with

14

discovery.

15

MR. SHAPIRO: I want to correct one thing, Your

16

Honor, which is our interrogatories 16 and 17 simply ask for

17

damages with regard to the named plaintiffs. I believe Mr.

18

Balabanian said a moment ago that they can provide us with

19

those. If they can, then we don't have a dispute on No. 16 and

20

17.

21

THE COURT: Well, as I understand it, depending on

22

what information was, in fact, collected and how that

23

information was used by Comscore, I think Mr. Balabanian is

24

arguing that that may calculate into personal losses and

25

damages incurred by Harris and Dunstan. For that reason Harris

14

1
2

and Dunstan can't give a complete answer to 16 and 17.
But I -- here's the situation, though: Again, it's a

3

balancing act that we have to perform here. Because typically

4

if we, if we knew that we would have some leeway after

5

December 20th, I'll be of the mind-set that there's no harm in

6

waiting until end of discovery for plaintiff to go ahead and do

7

everything all in one shot as opposed to doing things in

8

installments and piecemeal. But that doesn't seem -- that does

9

not appear to be the case. And I don't want to prejudice the

10

defendant by delaying any available answers until

11

December 20th.

12

So I think with respect to 16 and 17, with respect to

13

16 and 17, I would like the plaintiffs to answer those two

14

interrogatories on behalf of themselves by October 25. So with

15

respect to 21 and 22, I will grant plaintiffs until

16

December 6th to answer those two interrogatories.

17

MR. BALABANIAN: I am, of course, fine with Your

18

Honor's ruling and that's not terribly relevant. I guess I'll

19

just make one point and -- regardless. The 25th seems fine.

20

The complaints are -- the complaints I think are relevant not

21

just because -- they're relevant actually to the plaintiffs

22

themselves' ability to answer as well. Because we're talking

23

about a $5,000 threshold. And I don't know if the plaintiffs

24

meet it necessarily with just information that pertains to them

25

right now.

15

1

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Say that one more time.

2

MR. BALABANIAN: The CFAA has a $5,000 threshold.

3

THE COURT: Yes. But you don't need to meet that

4
5

threshold?
MR. BALABANIAN: Well, you do I believe. But I don't

6

know if the plaintiffs can meet -- if we respond right now, I

7

don't know if we meet that threshold. But you can aggregate

8

damages under the CFAA, and it would apply to the class. Is

9

there any way we can get an extra week to respond to those

10

interrogatories? Because I think we'll at least be underway

11

with respect to the complaint inspection, and it would be a

12

more fulsome answer.

13
14

THE COURT: That's fine by me. But, you know, the
obligation to supplement continues.

15

MR. BALABANIAN: Of course.

16

THE COURT: So it would be November 1st. So let's

17

step back. Now, that I have ruled on all of the discovery

18

requests, we should step back and get some deadlines. Today's

19

the 16th. What do you need -- how much time do you need to

20

designate a forensic expert?

21
22
23
24
25

MR. SHAPIRO: I think we could have someone lined up
Monday or Tuesday.
THE COURT: So I need if defendant could provide me
with me -- well, do you prefer to do that?
MR. BALABANIAN: I can do that.

16

1

THE COURT: The protective order draft?

2

MR. BALABANIAN: I can do it. That's fine. Sure.

3

THE COURT: Since you have more incentive to make

4

sure that the protective order says what you prefer, I'll have

5

you, Mr. Balabanian, provide a draft protective order by

6

Friday, October 18th. Just leave the name blank.

7

MR. BALABANIAN: Yes. Sure.

8

THE COURT: Once you have the name, I guess I'll have

9

the defendant submit the forensic expert's -- I guess just his

10

name or her name. I don't know that I need the CV or a resume

11

submitted. I just need his or her name with the mailing

12

address. And you can just go ahead and submit that by Tuesday,

13

October 22nd. I'll look at the protective order. I'll put the

14

name and address in, make modifications, if necessary, and

15

issue the protective order on the 23rd. Yes.

16

MR. BALABANIAN: The protective order goes to

17

Comscore on Friday for review and comment, or does -- it

18

doesn't?

19

THE COURT: No. File your --

20

MR. BALABANIAN: It goes directly to the Court?

21

THE COURT: File your version --

22

MR. BALABANIAN: Okay.

23

THE COURT: File your version with the Court on the

24
25

18th.
MR. SHAPIRO: And if we have any comment or

17

1
2
3

objections to the way the protective order is -THE COURT: You can make your comments by the 22nd
when you submit the name.

4

MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Great.

5

THE COURT: No harm.

6

MR. SHAPIRO: Thanks.

7

THE COURT: And I'll go ahead and do my best -- ah,

8

shoot. I'm going to be out of the country on the 23rd. But I

9

can still do it probably. Well, I'll do my best to issue it

10

the 23rd or the 24th. And how long will it take to get the

11

hard drive over to the expert? Do you know whether he or she

12

is going to be local?

13
14
15

MS. BOWLAND: I think we can make that happen, Your
Honor, if that's -- if that is preferable.
THE COURT: I don't want to tell you what to do and

16

who to hire. I just want to kind of get a sense of how long it

17

might take for the hard drive to be provided.

18

MR. SHAPIRO: I think what we're going to be -- to

19

quote a wise jurist, it's a balancing question.

20

THE COURT: Who said that?

21

MR. SHAPIRO: Because it may turn out that someone

22

who's available right away is in California and somebody who's

23

local is tied up on a case until Friday. I don't know. Or

24

someone is very expensive or someone else is less expensive.

25

THE COURT: Who has the hard drive? Your expert?

18

1

MR. BALABANIAN: Yes. A company called Cyra

2

(phonetic) in Florida, but we can Fed Ex it right away

3

overnight.

4

THE COURT: All right. So my hope is we can get the

5

hard drive to the expert by Friday the 25th. And I am sure --

6

sometimes imaging takes hours I think, and then you have to do

7

the inspection. Well, so that we have a deadline in place

8

let's have the expert do the inspection by November 1st, and

9

then we'll go from there. And depending on what the -- what

10

the expert found, expert is to then provide -- well, I'll

11

address this in the protective order. I would like to have

12

some protocol in place how the expert's going to share the

13

information with plaintiff's counsel. Okay. In the protective

14

order.

15

MR. BALABANIAN: Yes.

16

THE COURT: So are we clear on that? Do you have any

17

questions?

18

MR. SHAPIRO: I think we understand it. And as long

19

as there's -- it would be acceptable for us to, you know, send

20

Your Honor a letter if it turns out we misunderstood. My

21

understanding is expert -- we will sit down and talk to the

22

expert. We'll say these are the things we'd like to try and

23

analyze about this hard drive, X, Y, Z. The expert will do

24

that. Then before reporting back to us, will speak to the

25

plaintiff's lawyers and say, you know --

19

1

THE COURT: The expert will.

2

MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, the expert will speak to --

3

MR. BALABANIAN: Yes.

4

MR. SHAPIRO: But to you guys, not to your expert.

5

MR. BALABANIAN: Exactly.

6

MR. SHAPIRO: Will speak to the plaintiff's lawyers

7

and say here's what I'm proposing to tell Comscore about what I

8

have found.

9
10

THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And they will have a certain period

11

within which to lodge objections or not. And then the

12

information will be provided to us either when those objections

13

are resolved or if there are no objections.

14

THE COURT: Yes.

15

MR. SHAPIRO: Whenever the time runs out.

16

THE COURT: That way you get what you need and

17

plaintiffs are -- well, plaintiff Dunstan is able to protect

18

his interests or privacy to the extent possible. So I think

19

that's the way to -- that's the way we're going to do this. Do

20

we have all the deadlines? So 16 and 17 by November 1st. 21

21

and 22 by December 6th. Now, we'll just have to do what we

22

can. I understand the deadline is the 20th, and so I'm trying

23

to sort of again balance everyone's interests here given what

24

we have. Go ahead.

25

MS. BOWLAND: Okay. I guess maybe we can address

20

1

this with plaintiffs, but we just need to make sure that the

2

image of the hard drive includes the registry entries. I

3

believe that was the case based on the previous discussions,

4

but we'll talk with them about it. If that's not --

5

THE COURT: Registry information?

6

MS. BOWLAND: Correct.

7

THE COURT: Is that something that's on the hard

8

drive?

9
10

MR. BALABANIAN: I don't see why it wouldn't be on
the hard drives, yes.

11

THE COURT: If the, if the -- the way I understand

12

the technical aspect of imaging hard drive, it is a carbon copy

13

of the hard drive. So it should not miss anything that was on

14

the original computer. So when I say, you know, allow the

15

expert to image the hard drive, it's, you know, to be including

16

everything. Not anything to be taken out.

17

MR. BALABANIAN: Right. And to be clear, at the

18

outset of this case we imaged the hard drive, and they're going

19

to get a copy of what we've got. So that's -- so there's been

20

no --

21

THE COURT: Got it. Manipulation.

22

MR. BALABANIAN: There's a housekeeping matter I'd

23

like --

24

THE COURT: Yes.

25

MR. BALABANIAN: I don't know if it's a housekeeping

21

1

matter. I haven't brought it up with counsel. But there's an

2

issue that I want to fly for the Court for the future. Counsel

3

has noticed up our clients' depositions for a second time. And

4

I don't think they're entitled to just a couple more full blown

5

depositions of my clients, because they've had a chance to

6

depose them. And we didn't limit it to class or merits issues.

7

I do recognize that they might want to ask them certain things

8

that they didn't get a chance to ask them in class discovery

9

relative to maybe the computer or the antivirus logs or

10

something like that. But there was no qualification in the

11

deposition notices for what they would potentially want to ask.

12

And so I'm just putting it out there right now

13

because I don't want there to be any surprises, that we'll

14

probably be moving for a protective order. Of course, we're

15

going to meet and confer first to see if we can just figure it

16

out. But I just don't think they're entitled to another round

17

of deps. Even though discovery was bifurcated, it was

18

bifurcated at their request. And I don't think it was -- the

19

deps were limited in any way for our clients.

20

MR. SHAPIRO: The only depositions that we took other

21

than of their expert were of the two clients. And my

22

recollection is I -- and they're the only two depositions that

23

I think we're going to take in merits discovery. My

24

recollection is that there were objections -- first of all, we

25

knew that we were there just for class discovery. And so in

22

1

writing out the deposition outline and choosing what questions

2

to ask, we focus on class cert issues and issues that we would

3

want to use in our class cert papers.

4

I believe, though I'm just saying this on my feet

5

because I haven't had a chance to look at it, that there were

6

even objections raised by the other side during the deposition

7

that certain questions were beyond the scope of class

8

discovery. But in any event, happy to meet and confer. And if

9

there's going to be motions practice, we'll put our position

10

down on paper.

11

THE COURT: All right. I appreciate you raising the

12

issue. And I guess what I'm trying to work through in my mind

13

is whether defendant was required to provide notice that the

14

deposition is limited to class discovery and reserving the

15

right to redepose or renotice for merit discovery. Because

16

that will be the argument here, that there was no limitation

17

placed on the plaintiffs. And, therefore, when they were

18

produced, the defendant had every opportunity to exhaust all

19

questioning. And I guess it depends on, you know, what

20

happened during the deposition, whether there were any

21

objections posed on the basis that it was class discovery only.

22

I got to tell you just, just the gut reaction. If

23

the Court had already bifurcated discovery, it would be

24

redundant to say that your deposition is going to be limited to

25

class discovery. I think that in these types of situations,

23

1

perhaps, you know, using this as a lesson, you can say, by the

2

way, why not just go ahead and do class and merit for these

3

particular individuals because they're named plaintiffs instead

4

of waiting around for the class certification so that we don't

5

redo them again.

6
7

But again, you raised the issue. I'm just making
some comments.

8

MR. BALABANIAN: Sure.

9

THE COURT: These comments are not meant to be

10

construed as rulings or anything like that. No advisory

11

opinions, right? But I thought I'd just share those comments

12

in case they may help you in conferring about this particular

13

issue. Okay.

14

MR. BALABANIAN: I appreciate it, Judge.

15

THE COURT: So we have all the deadlines set? Am I

16

missing anything?

17

MR. SHAPIRO: I don't think so, Your Honor.

18

THE COURT: Okay. We're off the record.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Off the record discussion.)

24

1
2

CERTIFICATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true,

3

correct and complete transcript of the proceedings had at the

4

hearing of the aforementioned cause on the day and date hereof.

5
6

/s/TRACEY D. McCULLOUGH

7

Official Court Reporter
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois
Eastern Division

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

October 17, 2013
Date