Connectu, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. et al
Filing
345
Opposition re #338 MOTION Motion For Access To Pleadings And Discovery Files filed by Facebook, Inc., Christopher Hughes, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz, Mark Zuckerberg. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Declaration of Monte Cooper, #2 Exhibit Ex. 1 to Cooper Decl., #3 Exhibit Ex. 2 to Cooper Decl., #4 Exhibit Ex. 3 to Cooper Decl., #5 Exhibit Ex. 4 to Cooper Decl., #6 Exhibit Ex. 5 to Cooper Decl., #7 Exhibit Ex. 6 to Cooper Decl., #8 Exhibit Ex. 7 to Cooper Decl., #9 Exhibit Ex. 8 to Cooper Decl., #10 Exhibit Ex. 9 to Cooper Decl., #11 Exhibit SEALED Ex. 10 to Cooper Decl., #12 Exhibit Ex. 11 to Cooper Decl., #13 Exhibit Ex. 12 to Cooper Decl., #14 Exhibit Ex. 13 to Cooper Decl.)(Chatterjee, I.) (Attachment 11 replaced on 7/19/2011) (York, Steve).
EXHIBIT 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CONNECTU, INC.
Plaintiff
.
.
.
V.
.
.
FACEBOOK, INC., et al
.
Defendants
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-10593-DPW
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT B. COLLINGS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
For the plaintiffs:
John F. Hornick, Esquire
Meredith H. Schoenfeld, Esquire
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
Garrett & Dunner, LLP
901 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
202-408-4000
john.hornick@finnegan.com
Daniel P. Tighe, Esquire
Griesinger, Tighe & Maffei, LLP
176 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110
617-542-9900
dtighe@gtmllp.com
For the defendants:
I. Neel Chatterjee, Esquire
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe,
LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
650-614-7400
nchatterjee@orrick.com
MARYANN V. YOUNG
Certified Court Transcriber
Wrentham, MA 02093
(508) 384-2003
4
1
docket number 37 in the earlier litigation.
2
hear the plaintiff and then I’ll hear Facebook on those
3
particular issues.
4
So why don’t I
Okay?
MR. HORNICK:
Thank you, Your Honor.
The issue that
5
remains before the Court with respect to docket number 37,
6
which was a motion to compel imagining of the defendants’
7
electronic memory devices really is part of a compromise to get
8
rid of that motion, and also the related request that we made
9
in the March 10th, 2006 submission which was docket number 148.
10
There were some other follow up discovery requests that we had
11
made after the Court permitted us to do some forensic discovery
12
in November of 2005.
13
have asked where on the 15 electronic memory devices the
14
defendants produced, where is what we’re calling the relevant
15
code.
16
launch, time of launch or after launch up through September of
17
2004.
18
worked on, the facemash code and the coursematch code and we’re
19
saying where is, as a compromise get rid of this motion, we’re
20
saying where is that code on the memory device you produced or
21
if it’s not there just say that you haven’t found it and
22
produce it.
23
The Facebook defendants have produced huge amounts of code on
24
those devices and they’re trying to look good by saying “all
25
existing responsive code has been produced.”
And the remaining dispute is this, we
The relevant code is the Facebook code from before
The Harvard Connection code that Zuckerberg allegedly
But what we’ve run into here is a big costly gain.
MARYANN V. YOUNG
Certified Court Transcriber
(508) 384-2003
But in lawyers’
5
1
speak, as the judge well knows, those types of statements
2
don’t mean that any of the relevant code has been produced at
3
all.
4
those memory devices, and if it’s not there just say so.
5
you haven’t found it and you haven’t produced it.
6
So we’ve been repeatedly asking where is this code on
Say
And it’s important to keep in mind that these devices
7
are devices that were used by individual people.
8
corporate where a hundred different people might have stored
9
things on them and, therefore, you don’t know where things are.
10
These were used by individual people and those people ought to
11
know where, if and where, this code is on those devices.
12
we’ve searched them thoroughly, but it’s like searching for a
13
needle in a haystack, and that haystack, 15 devices, is 790
14
gigabytes, which is 790 billion bytes of information.
15
byte is a character.
16
idea of how big this haystack is.
17
18
They aren’t
And
Each
Now, we wanted to give the Court some
THE COURT:
When you say 15 devices, what do you
mean?
19
MR. HORNICK:
20
drives, external memory devices.
21
them that have been produced.
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. HORNICK:
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. HORNICK:
There are hard drives, back up hard
There are a total of 15 of
Okay.
And they produced a-And you’re looking for, tell me again.
Yeah, the Facebook code from the time
MARYANN V. YOUNG
Certified Court Transcriber
(508) 384-2003
6
1
of launch, at launch or after launch up through September
2
2004, the Harvard Connection code that Zuckerberg allegedly
3
worked on, the facemash code and the coursematch code.
4
THE COURT:
Let me get these down.
The Facebook code
5
at the time of launch, the Harvard Connection that Zuckerberg
6
worked on--
7
MR. HORNICK:
8
THE COURT:
9
MR. HORNICK:
Right.
--and what’s the third?
The coursematch code and the facemash
10
code.
11
haystack is, how big this 700--
12
THE COURT:
Now, we wanted to give the Court an idea of how big this
Well, wait a minute, let me ask you this.
13
Do you have any codes, have any codes been identified as not
14
being produced pursuant to your request?
15
16
17
MR. HORNICK:
Not in those categories.
They just say
we’ve produced all the relevant code we could find.
THE COURT:
No, no.
Have they – I know all the
18
relevant codes, but as to your request for codes, have they
19
produced any specific ones or identified any specific ones?
20
MR. HORNICK:
No, Your Honor.
They just gave us
21
these devices or copies of these devices and they said search
22
them yourselves and we did that very thoroughly.
23
the quantity of data that’s on these devices, the average
24
Harold Robbins novel is about 1 megabyte, 790 gigabytes equals
25
750,000 Harold Robbins novels.
But the size,
That’s how much data is on
MARYANN V. YOUNG
Certified Court Transcriber
(508) 384-2003
21
1
THE COURT:
2
MR. HORNICK:
3
THE COURT:
4
MR. HORNICK:
5
I got you.
--for those languages.
Sure.
All right.
So up to that point they’re
the same.
6
THE COURT:
7
MR. HORNICK:
Okay.
Now, if these additional paragraphs or
8
if this additional language in paragraph 4 and the defendant’s
9
version of paragraph 5 are inserted it will severely restrict
10
their expert’s ability to search for code and it will
11
effectively prevent searching for deleted data and the protocol
12
says very clearly we can search for deleted data, deleted code
13
that is.
14
searching for deleted data is when data is deleted it loses
15
it’s file extension, and they’re saying in this language that
16
they want to add that you need to search by file extension.
17
Well, there isn’t any file extension once the data is deleted
18
and that actually makes paragraph 5 non-sensible in that
19
regard. In addition to that, you can’t know that something is
20
code until after you’ve done your search.
21
don’t search anything but code.
22
search anything but code then we can’t do our search at all
23
because you don’t know it’s code until after you do the search
24
and this I think shows either a fundamental misunderstanding of
25
the technology or they know that and they know that this
And one of the reasons why it will prevent the
They’re saying,
We’re saying if we can’t
MARYANN V. YOUNG
Certified Court Transcriber
(508) 384-2003
22
1
restriction will severely restrict our ability to do the
2
search.
3
that they’re adding is it’s a primitive methodology going file
4
extension and texturing searches.
5
computer program specifically for this purpose and it searches
6
all data.
7
them only code.
8
protocol contains sufficient protections so that they don’t
9
need these additional provisions.
Also, the way they want us to do it in this language
Our experts have written a
It will search everything but it will report back to
Now, this protocol, our view is that this
There are at least 17
10
guarantees in there plus the one I just mentioned about the
11
computer program only returning code.
12
guarantees in this protocol that ConnectU will never see
13
anything except the relevant code that I mentioned earlier, the
14
Facebook code, the Harvard Connection code, the facemash code
15
and the Coursematch code and related database definitions and
16
metadata.
There are at least 17
17
Now, and there’s one other issue in the protocol,
18
Your Honor, and that simply relates to paragraph 12, and in
19
paragraph 12 the defendants want to add some language to the
20
effect that if our experts violate this protocol they cannot
21
testify.
22
point here--
And our position, although this may seem like a minor
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. HORNICK:
25
this protocol.
No, it’s not a minor point.
--our position is it shouldn’t be in
It should be a separate process if there is a
MARYANN V. YOUNG
Certified Court Transcriber
(508) 384-2003
1
2
3
4
23
violation, brought to the Court’s attention-THE COURT:
Oh, is this protocol in the form of a
protective order?
MR. HORNICK:
It’s in the form of a stipulated order
5
that the parties have signed--
6
THE COURT:
7
MR. HORNICK:
8
THE COURT:
9
MR. HORNICK:
10
11
12
Would be entered by the Court?
Sorry, Your Honor?
Would be ordered by the Court?
THE COURT:
Yes, it would be.
Okay.
Yes.
And I take it whoever is going to
do this is submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court?
MR. HORNICK:
That’s paragraph one, Your Honor.
The
13
experts would submit both to the protocol, which is an order
14
from the Court--
15
THE COURT:
16
MR. HORNICK:
17
Okay.
--and to the stipulated protective
order in the case, which is also an order from the Court.
18
THE COURT:
19
MR. HORNICK:
Okay.
And there’s also as I said, there are
20
16 other guarantees in here for preventing what they say is
21
going to happen.
22
THE COURT:
23
MR. CHATTERJEE:
Okay.
Thanks.
Go ahead, Mr. Chatterjee.
Your Honor, this goes back to your
24
question about the interface.
25
what code is the plaintiff entitled to here, and this protocol
So we have a lot of issues about
MARYANN V. YOUNG
Certified Court Transcriber
(508) 384-2003
24
1
is designed to allow them to look for the, to look through our
2
code and find the code that they believe is relevant.
3
back to the first point that we were talking about.
4
very comfortable with them doing that.
5
for paragraph 4 and paragraph 5 is how can they go about doing
6
it?
7
through every file cabinet, and you can think of each document
8
that’s stored on a computer system or an email system as a file
9
sitting in an office.
It goes
We are
The issue fundamentally
We don’t think that they should just be allowed to just go
We don’t think they should be allowed to
10
walk through each and every one of those files without pre-
11
specifying what it is they’re looking for.
12
paragraph 5 are really at and our suggested addition are that
13
they pre-specify what they’re looking for rather than just
14
letting them rummage through the files.
15
THE COURT:
It’s not them.
16
Parmet and Associate first of all.
17
But paragraph 4 and
If they want--
It’s, I take it this
going to be doing this?
18
19
MR. CHATTERJEE:
Isn’t that the one that’s
Yes, but it’s their consultant that
they’ve hired--
20
THE COURT:
21
MR. CHATTERJEE:
Right.
--and they want to have the right to
22
use later on in the case and so it’s very different than the
23
other--
24
25
THE COURT:
Well, what – I haven’t read this protocol
completely, but what, are there any restrictions in there as to
MARYANN V. YOUNG
Certified Court Transcriber
(508) 384-2003
25
1
what from the examination Parmet can or cannot turn over to
2
ConnectU?
3
MR. CHATTERJEE:
Yes, Your Honor, there is.
They’re
4
allowed, they’ve defined things in different ways but they are
5
allowed to produce certain types of code and I forget the
6
magic--
7
THE COURT:
Then why are you so concerned about
8
ConnectU learning about these other things that Parmet may
9
possibly search if it doesn’t fall within that category of
10
11
things that Parmet is permitted to turn over?
MR. CHATTERJEE:
Your Honor, the reason that we’re
12
concerned about it is because this is very different than the
13
other hard drive imaging cases that we talk about.
14
it’s a court-appointed person who does it and they’re only
15
beholden to the Court.
16
hire and they want to reserve their right to use later on in
17
the case after this protocol is done.
18
THE COURT:
Normally,
In this case it’s somebody that they
It’s still going to be done pursuant to a
19
court order that places restrictions upon them as to what they
20
can turn over to ConnectU, and I take it a violation of that
21
would be a violation of the Court order.
22
themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court that resulted in a
23
contempt citation against.
24
25
MR. CHATTERJEE:
They subjected
Yes, Your Honor, however, one of the
big issues associated with that is policing.
MARYANN V. YOUNG
Certified Court Transcriber
(508) 384-2003
I mean, how are
26
1
we going to be able to find out if they violate some of these
2
things if we don’t, if we’re not allowed to pre-specify what it
3
is they’re looking for.
4
MR. HORNICK:
5
THE COURT:
6
MR. HORNICK:
7
THE COURT:
8
MR. CHATTERJEE:
9
issues.
Your Honor, may I address-No.
I’m not sure he’s done.
Sorry.
Are you done, Mr. Chatterjee?
So those are fundamentally the
I mean, just to point out kind of the key language in
10
paragraph or paragraph 5.
11
paragraph 5, the two versions really have kind of the key areas
12
in dispute in my mind at least.
13
ConnectU’s proposed paragraph five it says, “The search process
14
may included examination of any files or file fragments which
15
are in the form of ASCII text.”
16
that’s stored on a hard drive.
17
email, A, B, C, D, those types of letters, “including such
18
files which may be found in archive files, compressed files,
19
source code depositories or databases.”
20
they are allowed to look through every email that any of the
21
defendants sent to their lawyers, every document they wrote
22
documenting their interactions with their girlfriend, any
23
financial information that they have, their bank accounts, any
24
of that they’re allowed to look through here.
25
it in paragraph 5 is if you look at the bottom half, we talk
I can talk about them separately but
About halfway through
That’s anything with a letter
By letter I don’t mean an
So what that says is
MARYANN V. YOUNG
Certified Court Transcriber
(508) 384-2003
The way we wrote
27
1
about how they specify the specific types of code.
2
give us the actual code itself that they’re looking for and
3
then they search for it.
4
keyword Facemash for example in the Facemash program, they
5
could pull out, they could use that as a search string
6
criteria.
7
be a fishing expedition through our hard drives.
8
9
10
They could
If they wanted to search for the
But right now the way they’ve crafted this is it can
Your Honor, I’d recommend that you read the Fennel
case that I cited in our briefs.
THE COURT:
I’m very familiar with that.
I just
11
think it’s so ironic that you are, you’re so insistent that
12
they be restricted in their search for something that you won’t
13
even specify with respect to the earlier argument.
14
ironic and frankly I don’t think that it’s a meritorious
15
litigable position.
16
It’s very
Let me, if you want to have the last word,
17
Mr. Hornick, you will, and then I’ll take the matter under
18
advisement.
19
MR. HORNICK:
Your Honor, yes, I would like to say a
20
couple of things.
21
crafted this, actually this protocol was negotiated over about
22
a month’s time between the parties and we came down to these
23
remaining issues.
One is that they say that the way we have
24
THE COURT:
25
MR. HORNICK:
Right.
I would like to just summarize for the
MARYANN V. YOUNG
Certified Court Transcriber
(508) 384-2003
1
28
Court the guarantees that I mentioned--
2
THE COURT:
3
MR. HORNICK:
Sure, go ahead.
--that are in this document.
First I
4
mentioned one that’s not in this document and that is that the
5
computer program that will do the searching, that was written
6
by our expert, will return to the expert only code.
7
not return emails, letters to girlfriends or anything else.
8
will return code.
9
the document itself, I already mentioned that paragraph 1 says
10
that the experts are found by the stipulated protective order
11
in the protocol.
It will
It’s designed to return only code.
12
THE COURT:
13
MR. HORNICK:
It
But in
Right.
Paragraph 1 also says that the experts
14
access to any privileged information will not waive privilege
15
and that ConnectU cannot challenge privilege of these expert--
16
17
THE COURT:
We’re not talking about privilege
documents.
18
MR. HORNICK:
Well, they’re saying there could be
19
privilege information on these devices.
20
there is if our expert sees any of that, that will not waive
21
privilege and ConnectU cannot argue that that has waived
22
privilege.
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. HORNICK:
25
So to the extent that
Okay.
That’s paragraph 1.
Paragraph 1 also
says that protected material, and that’s a defined term, which
MARYANN V. YOUNG
Certified Court Transcriber
(508) 384-2003
29
1
is privilege material or anything else that’s subject to some
2
kind of a privilege, cannot be shared with ConnectU at any
3
time, in any way, shape or form.
4
Paragraph 2 says that the analysis that our expert is
5
going to do is going to be on a non-network computer, which
6
means that nobody else can get to it.
7
computer.
8
process, which takes place before the analysis, although
9
ConnectU’s counsel can be present, they can’t see anything on
It’s only on that one
Paragraph 2 also says that during the imaging
10
the screen.
11
getting anything after the analysis.
12
the experts can disclose information to ConnectU only as the
13
protocol permits, and then paragraph 3 also says Facebook’s
14
counsel is going to be involved in any communications between
15
us and our expert during this analysis period.
16
talk about policing, any time that we send a communication to
17
our expert during this analysis period, we have to copy them.
18
Any time that they communicate with our expert during that
19
period, they have to involve us.
20
talk with our expert during this analysis period, we have to do
21
it in their presence, either in physical presence or on the
22
telephone.
23
discuss with ConnectU only the what’s called “Produced Program
24
Code”.
25
how we’ll get it.
Then we go into the protections against us ever
And paragraph 3 says that
So when they
Any time that they want to
And then paragraph 3 also says, the experts can
Now, here’s how you get Produced Program Code.
MARYANN V. YOUNG
Certified Court Transcriber
(508) 384-2003
Here’s
35
1
2
CERTIFICATION
I, Maryann V. Young, court approved transcriber, certify
3
that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the official
4
digital sound recording of the proceedings in the
5
above-entitled matter.
6
7
/s/ Maryann V. Young
October 9, 2007
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MARYANN V. YOUNG
Certified Court Transcriber
(508) 384-2003
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?