Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
October 14, 2015, Decided; October 14, 2015, Filed
Case No. 13-cv-05996-PJH (MEJ)
[*441] DISCOVERY ORDER
Re: Dkt. Nos. 112, 113, 122
The parties in this putative privacy class action recently filed three Joint Discovery Letters outlining various disputes. Dkt. Nos. 112, 113, 122. In the first Letter, they dispute whether Defendant Facebook, Inc. must produce documents regarding how it monetarily values information obtained by allegedly scanning putative class members' private Facebook messages. Dkt. No. 112 ("RFP Ltr."). In their second Letter, they [**3] dispute whether Facebook must produce an interrogatory response and related documents about how Facebook processes users' private messages. Dkt. No. 113 ("Rog/RFP Ltr."). The Court held a telephonic hearing on these matters on September 29, 2015. Dkt. No. 118. Subsequently, the parties filed an additional letter disputing whether Plaintiffs may take Facebook's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition concerning certain of its interrogatory responses. Dkt. No. 122 ("Dep. Ltr."). Having considered the parties' positions, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court issues the following Order.1
Plaintiffs allege that Facebook "has systematically intercepted Facebook users' private Facebook messages without their consent[,]" in violation of the [**4] Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA" or the "Wiretap Act") and the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("***"). Consol. Am. Compl. ("CAC") ¶ 1, Dkt. No. 25.
According to Plaintiffs, whenever a private Facebook message contains a Uniform Resource Locator ("URL"), Facebook uses a software application called a "web crawler" to scan the URL. Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiffs allege that "when their ostensibly private messages contained links to other websites, . . . Facebook scanned those messages and then analyzed the URL in the link." Id. ¶ 4. If the website contained a Facebook "Like" button,2 Facebook treated the content of Plaintiffs' private messages as an endorsement of the website, adding up to two "Likes" to the page's count." Id. ¶¶ 4, 25-27. Plaintiffs further allege that "Facebook retains the user data it has collected, including the "Likes" assigned through intercepting users' private messages." Id. ¶ 52. They allege Facebook uses the data it collects during a scan of a private message for other purposes including, among others, enhancing its targeted advertising efforts. Id. ¶¶ 30, 49-51.
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of "all natural-person Facebook users located within the United States who have sent or received private messages that included URLs in their content, from within two years before the filing of this action up through and including the date when Facebook ceased its practice." Id. ¶ 59.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
310 F.R.D. 439 *; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140733 **; 92 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1428
MATTHEW CAMPBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FACEBOOK INC., Defendant.
Prior History: Campbell v. Facebook Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d 836, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177331 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 23, 2014)
messages, Plaintiffs', documents, discovery, source code, Interrogatory, Objects, users', requests, scanning, deposition, responses, profits, Associations, declaration, processes, asserts, parties, website, locate, third party, undertaken—to, extracting, intercepted, generates, collected, matters, motions, Plugin, argues