Additional eFiling Document to District of Columbia's Reply in support of its Motion to Compel Concerning Privilege Filed: Submitted 02/22/2022 13:50. kc
Attorney: WISEMAN, BEN (1005442)
This document contains a transcript of a federal court hearing in which Judge Vince Chhabria eviscerates Facebook and its counsel, inviting plaintiffs to file sanctions.
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLDMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Civil Action No. 2018 CA 008715 B
Plaintiff, Judge Maurice A. Ross
Next Event: Deadline to Fife Reply Briefs
v. Date: February 22, 2022
FACEBOOK, INC.,
ORAL HEARING REQUESTED
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF J. ELE WADE-SCOTT
Pursuant to D.C. Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 9-I (c)(1)CA), I declare and state
as follows:
1. My name is J. Bl: Wade-Scott. l am an attorney of record in the above-captioned
matter. | make the following declaration on personal knowledge, except where otherwise noted.
2. Tama partner at the law firm of Edelson PC, which has been retained as outside
counsel to represent the named Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, the District of Columbia
(“District”). Lam entering this declaration in support of Plainnif’s Reply in support of its Motion
to Compel Concerning Privilege.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 is the transcript for a hearing in front of Judge
Vince Chhabria on February 10, 2022 in the case fy re Facebook, inc. Consumer Priv. User
Profile Litig., No. 18-MD-02843, (ND. Cal.). I obtained this transcript from the court
reporter/transcriber Echo Reporting, Inc., through the Northern District of California’s non-party
transcript order form process.
%* * %*Page 2 I declare under the penalty of perjury that the above and foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 22nd day of February, 2022 in Chicago, Hlinois.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 22, 2022 sf J Eli Wade-Scott
J. Eli Wade-ScottPage 3 Exhibit A-1Page 4 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AMENDED TRANSCRIPT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Before The Honorable Vince Chhabria, Judge
IN RE: FACEBOOK, INC.,
CONSUMER PRIVACY USER
PROFILE LITIGATION,
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OF
) No. 18MD02843-VC
)
)
)
San Francisco, California
Thursday, February 10, 2022
THE OFFICIAL ELECTRONIC SOUND
RECORDING 4:23 -
5:01 = 38 MINUTES
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiffs:
BY:
BY:
Bleichmar, Fonti & Auld, LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, California 94607
LESLEY E. WEAVER, ESQ.
ANNE KATHLEEN DAVIS, ESQ.
MATTHEW S. MELAMED, ESQ.
Keller Rohrback, LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, Washington 98101
DEREK W. LOESER, ESQ.
DAVID J. KO, ESQ.
CARI CAMPEN LAUFENBERG, ESQ.
(APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE.)
APPEARANCES: (Cont’d.)
For Plaintiffs:
For Defendant:
BY:
BY:
BY:
Facebook General Counsel:
Transcribed by:
BY:
Keller Rohrback, LLP
300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
Oakland, California 94612
BENJAMIN B. GOULD, ESQ.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
ORIN SNYDER, ESQ.
DEBORAH L. STEIN, ESQ.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
MARTIE KUTSCHER CLARK, ESQ.
Meta Platforms, Inc.
1601 Willow Road
Menlo Park, California 94025
SANDEEP SOLANKI, ESQ.
Echo Reporting, Inc.
Contracted Court Reporter/
Transcriber
echoreporting@yahoo.com
Thursday, February 10, 2022 4:32 p.m.
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
--o00--
THE CLERK: Calling case number 18-MD-2843, In Re:
Facebook, Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs, please state your
appearances for the record.
MR. LOESER (via Zoom): Good afternoon, your
Honor. Derek Loeser from Keller Rohrback. With me is Cari
Laufenberg, David Ko and Ben Gould.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
MS. WEAVER (via Zoom): Good afternoon, your
Honor. Lesley Weaver of Bleichmar, Fonti and Auld and with
me are my partners, Matthew Melamed and Anne Davis.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
THE CLERK: And for Defendants?
MR. SNYDER (via Zoom): Yes, good afternoon, your
Honor. It’s Orin Snyder, Deb Stein, Martie Kutscher Clark
for Facebook. And with us, also, Sandeep Solanki who is the
Vice President and Associate General Counsel of Litigation
for Facebook.
THE COURT: Good afternoon. Hello, Mr. Solanki.
MR. SOLANKI (via Zoom): Hello, your Honor. Good
afternoon.
THE COURT: Good afternoon. I’11 chat with you in
a second, okay?
So we are not going to have any argument about these
discovery disputes today. I’m going to give you my
preliminary view of things and then we’1ll talk about how --
what the next steps are.
My preliminary view, and you know I say it’s
preliminary, but I have to say it’s quite a strong
preliminary view, is that Facebook’s conduct in discovery,
thus far, has been sanctionable. And so I would like to
invite the Plaintiffs to file motions for sanctions on any
issue that they believe -- where they believe that -- like I
do -- that -- tentatively -- that Facebook’s discovery
conduct has been sanctionable.
I -- it seems to me that there are a number of areas
where Facebook could, and probably should, be sanctioned
under Rule 37 and/or 28 USC Section 1927. Maybe other --
maybe also, pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority, I
don’t know. But, I think there are a number of examples.
And I think that, by the way, probably the lawyers should be
jointly sanctioned with Facebook. And what I -- generally,
T think it’s not a good policy to sanction associates at law
firms, but I think probably all of the partners who are
involved in this case, probably should be sanctioned
alongside Facebook itself.
I’ll identify a couple of examples. I sort of leave it
to the Plaintiffs to decide whether to file sanctions
motions, and if so, on what issues, but there are several
issues where I think, at least preliminarily, based on what
I’ve read so far, and based on my conversations with the
Special Master, you know, the Plaintiffs should be awarded
all costs and attorney’s fees that they’ve incurred in
pursuing the discovery, or pursuing the issue on which
Facebook has been stonewalling.
So, you know, a couple of the issues I’11 just mention.
One is the app developer investigation documents. I mean,
that appears to be particularly egregious. I think Facebook
has known, since we were talking about it, towards the
beginning of the litigation, that it was going to be
required to turn these over, and certainly since at least
September of ‘21 when Judge Corley ordered them turned over.
Facebook has known that it needs to do it, and as far as I
can tell, has been stonewalling. So it seems to me that
that issue, in particular, could very likely be an
appropriate subject for a motion for sanctions from the
Plaintiffs.
Another one is the named-complainants data. Again, you
know, Judge Corley ruled in October of 2020 that this stuff
was discoverable and sort of -- it’s not clear to me why
Judge Corley needed to rule that it was discoverable,
because it seems obvious to me that it was discoverable, but
again, Facebook has been stonewalling on it.
I think I should probably set some very tight deadlines
for when this stuff needs to be -- when the completion of
this discovery needs to occur and we can talk about that.
I’71ll sort of defer to the Plaintiffs on that. But the main
thing, you know, aside from setting deadlines, by which this
stuff needs to be completely turned over, the main thing --
the main point I want to make right now is I think what’s
happened so far is sanctionable, very likely, and I want to
invite the Plaintiffs to file motions for sanctions on those
issues, if they agree with me, and any other issue that they
-- where they believe Facebook has engaged in sanctionable
conduct.
And again, my tentative view is that the -- that
Facebook and the lawyers, the partners on the pleadings,
should be jointly liable for the sanctions and they should
both be sanctioned. And, I guess, you know I know from
prior cases that Mr. Loeser is a very courteous opposing
counsel, but if you -- if you’re -- and maybe you would not
be inclined to include the lawyers, maybe you would not be
inclined to move for sanctions at all, but if you move for
Sanctions, I’m going to want to know if there’s a good
reason not to sanction the lawyers, as well as the clients.
Or the client, I should say.
Also, another issue is the depositions of the named
Plaintiffs. Facebook has been fighting to take the
depositions of named Plaintiffs, and then all of a sudden
announced that it is not ready to take depositions of named
Plaintiff, because it doesn’t have certain information that
it needs. And I was looking at Facebook’s brief that it
filed, I guess it looks like maybe today or maybe last
night, and here is the first reason that Facebook gives for
calling off the depositions. It says, “The Plaintiffs have
not provided basic information regarding their claims.” And
the first thing they say is, “Plaintiffs have not identified
what information they believe Facebook shared without
consent.” So it sounds like what Facebook is saying is,
until you identify what information you believe we shared
without your consent, we’re not going to take your
deposition. That is preposterous and you are going to take
their depositions now, or you are going to forego -- you’re
going to waive the right to take their depositions at all.
And I don’t know if the Plaintiffs incurred any fees and
costs associated with setting up these depositions that
Facebook has now announced that it’s not ready to take, but
if so, that strikes me as probably sanctionable, as well.
So let me ask the Plaintiffs, you know, obviously there
are other issues that maybe aren’t ripe for a motion for
Sanctions yet. You may not be ready because you’re still
kind of meeting and conferring on something, or whatever.
There are other issues that do seem ripe for a motion for
Sanctions, and so I want to set a deadline for the filing of
motion for sanctions on any of these issues that are ripe
for adjudication of a sanctions motion; so for the
Plaintiffs, when would you like that deadline to be?
MR. LOESER: Your Honor, we could file a motion in
seven days.
THE COURT: You want to do it that soon? That’s
fine.
MR. LOESER: Well I’m looking around the room and
I don’t --
THE COURT: I just want to make sure -- I mean the
reason I ask that is I want to make sure -- you know, you
have to brief -- and by the way, no 15 page -- 15 page
limit. Take whatever space you need to articulate the
misconduct and to identify the appropriate standard for
imposing sanctions, including whether there needs to be a
finding of bad faith and all of that. But that’s why I
asked, is seven days enough.
MR. LOESER: Well and I’m receiving a lot of
feedback now and the feedback I’m getting is 14 days, so
thank you for asking again.
THE COURT: So the Plaintiffs -- any motion for
sanctions from the Plaintiffs, on any issues that are ripe,
are due in 14 days and you can figure out when you want to
notice the hearing for and all of that. Confer with the
other side on that, of course. And I will, of course, not
make -- not reach any final conclusion on what I think about
all of these issues until I’ve had a chance to read the
papers submitted by both sides. But that is how we’re going
to handle these discovery problems that have taken place
thus far.
And so now, let me turn to Mr. Solanki. I was glad to
see your name on the filing that Facebook made yesterday.
I’m glad to see that you’ve been designated as the decision
maker who is responsible for Facebook’s decisions in all
discovery matters in this case. What that will entail is
that you have to attend all of the status conferences that
we have here in this virtual courtroom, or hopefully it will
be the real courtroom again sometime soon. It also means
you're required to attend all of the mediations with the
Special Master and it means that you are required to be able
to make a decision -- a final decision -- on Facebook’s
behalf for any topic that is covered in the mediations with
the Special Master. And so if you believe that the topic of
the mediation is such that you would need to run it up the
flagpole before making a final decision, then the person --
whatever person is at the top of that flagpole, is required
to attend the mediation; okay?
MR. SOLANKI: Yes, your Honor.
10
THE COURT: And if a mediation occurs and Facebook
is not in a position to make a final decision on a discovery
issue, Facebook will be sanctioned. And if Facebook makes a
decision during a mediation with a Special Master and then
goes back on that decision after the mediation, Facebook
will be sanctioned.
MR. SOLANKI: I understand.
THE COURT: Let me see -- have I forgotten any
reason why Facebook will be sanctioned in the future?
Probably. Please do not consider my list to be an
exhaustive or an exclusive one, of the reasons that Facebook
may be sanctioned in the future in this case; okay, Mr.
Solanki?
MR. SOLANKI: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand and do you have any
questions or concerns about any of that?
MR. SOLANKI: No, it’s clear. Thank you for the
explanation.
THE COURT: Okay. lLet’s see, let me look at my
notes here. Anything else I wanted to make sure to discuss?
No, I think that’s it; is anybody -- does anybody else have
anything else that they would like to discuss today?
MR. SNYDER: Your Honor, on our opposition to the
sanctions motion, given the seriousness of the issues, we
would respectfully request 21 days to respond.
11
THE COURT: I’11 let you meet up and confer with
the other side about that and you can submit a stipulation,
or whatever.
MR. SNYDER: Thank you, Judge.
MR. LOESER: Your Honor, while we’re doing that,
if there’s an agreement for more time for Facebook, I hope
it’s okay with you if we also have more time for ourselves?
THE COURT: I’m -- within reason, I’m happy for
you to negotiate a schedule and, you know, submit a
stipulation for the adjudication of these motions. And I
want to make sure -- I certainly want to make sure that
Facebook has enough time and enough opportunity to explain
its conduct, thus far. And the conduct of its lawyers.
Okay, is there anything else that we can discuss today
in furtherance of getting this case moving? Because this
case is going to start moving a lot faster than it has been
moving, thus far.
And by the way, as everybody knows, Judge Corley has
been hearing appeals from discovery rulings by the Special
Master. Starting today, for any new -- sorry, as everybody
knows, Judge Corley has been nominated to the district court
bench and is likely to be confirmed pretty soon. So
starting today, for any new appeal from a ruling by the
Special Master, I will hear those appeals, pursuant to the
same process that was set forth in the amended order that I
12
filed recently.
And this case is going to be, as I said, moving along
much much faster than it has been and so what -- is there
anything that we can discuss in furtherance of that?
MR. LOESER: Your Honor, if I may? Derek Loeser.
The one thing that perhaps we could discuss is the schedules
and to your point about needing to move the case.
The substantial completion deadline has now come and
gone and while Facebook’s position has chipped it a bit on
what more it has to do, we fear that there’s a lot more
documents to be produced and I think we need to adjust the
schedule to accommodate that. It’s not entirely clear to us
how much time it will take Facebook to produce the remaining
outstanding documents. Not too long ago they were saying ti
would take more than a year.
THE COURT: It’s not going to take more than a
year. And if they need to -- if they feel that they need to
conduct review -- I mean, my inclination would be, I don’t
know if they think they need to conduct further review of
the app developer investigation documents, but I think
they’ve lost the opportunity to do that and they need to
simply turn them over immediately.
MR. SNYDER: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Whether they’ve reviewed them or not.
MR. SNYDER: Your Honor, tomorrow we’re turning
13
over 40,000 pages of documents on the ADI production. I
think the final order we got was in December, and then we
will be rolling thereafter. And I understand that we can --
we think we’ll be able to complete that within one month, if
not sooner, but certainly tomorrow 40,000 pages are being
produced and we’re working around the clock to produce
those, as we speak.
THE COURT: All documents relating to the app
developer investigation must be turned over to the
Plaintiffs no later than 21 days from today.
MR. SNYDER: That’s fine, your Honor.
THE COURT: And the other instruction that I --
the other order that you are operating under, not just for
the app developer investigation documents, but for all
documents and all information, is that when in doubt,
resolve all doubts in favor of turning it over.
MR. SNYDER: We have been doing that, your Honor,
for sure. And we will continue to do so.
THE COURT: Okay. What else?
MR. LOESER: So that leaves the question of the
schedule, the dates, the substantial completion date and all
of the dates that flow from it. You know, the position
we're trying to avoid having ourselves end up in is, we’re
taking depositions and we have a lot of depositions to take,
we want these documents for the depositions. So it may be
14
necessary to push things out to accommodate the official
time that Facebook --
THE COURT: Do you know what I would suggest, and
I’m interested in hearing from you on this, but here is my
suggestion. Take the depositions. And then if you need to
take the -- take a second deposition of these witnesses,
based on additional documents, you’1ll be able to take them
again.
MR. LOESER: Understood. We’1ll do that, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Because it’s Facebook’s fault that
we’re in this position and -- largely Facebook’s fault --
and so their peoole are going to need to be deposed -- may
need to be deposed twice, instead of once.
MR. LOESER: Understood.
THE COURT: Okay, so what is that -- do you need
anything more on the schedule? Do you need anymore
direction on the schedule, or in light of what I just said,
is the schedule okay?
MR. LOESER: I think the proof will be in the
pudding, your Honor. If 30 days from now, unfortunately
we’re still waiting for a huge volume of documents, you can
be sure you’ll hear from us about that and we’1ll ask you at
that time for more time to take the depositions, or more
time to complete discovery of the case. But hopefully that
15
won’t be necessary and we’1ll just move forward with due
haste.
THE COURT: When is the -- like how -- when is the
cutoff for depositions? I can’t remember.
MR. SNYDER: June 17th, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. SNYDER: I think we’re -- we all believe we
can comfortably get there, and as I -- I said 40,000, my
colleagues remind me that it’s 30,000 ADI tomorrow, but we
have, and have had for the past month, a whole team
reviewing the ADI documents and they’re going to come
rolling. And, your Honor, the default has been produced
when in doubt. We’re not -- we’re not parsing documents
here.
THE COURT: Mr. Loeser, what’s your view of
whether I should force Facebook to take the depositions of
the named Plaintiffs in haste, you know, sort of consistent
with what they were originally insisting on doing? Should I
leave that alone, or should I require them to do those
depositions by a certain date?
MR. LOBSER: I think they should have to move
forward with those depositions. We’ve presented all of the
Plaintiffs for their depositions. The Special Master did
issue an order today, and another yesterday, that will
require some additional documents from the witnesses.
16
Frankly, we don’t think that they’re essential, but we’ll
produce the, as ordered.
THE COURT: And the same response. I mean, I --
take the depositions anyway and if there is some
signification document that Facebook can put in front of me
that justifies reopening the deposition, I’1ll entertain it,
but it’s time to -- time to plow ahead.
MR. SNYDER: Your Honor -- may I just be heard,
your Honor, on that -- for a moment? I think it might be
helpful. On the depositions, we were eager, chopping at the
bit to take all of the Plaintiffs’ depositions. There was
-- without getting into the specifics, there were document
requested interrogatories that the Plaintiffs were not
answering that were -- went to the heart of those
depositions about the privacy settings, et cetera, et
cetera. And as Mr. Loeser said just today, we have two
orders compelling the Plaintiffs to produce those documents.
And so our hesitancy in taking those depositions was not to
stonewall or to delay, we just needed that basic
information. The information is now coming to us, pursuant
to these orders, and upon receipt we will take all of those
depositions promotly and seriatim.
THE COURT: Are they scheduled? Mr. Loeser, were
these depositions of these named Plaintiffs -- have the
dates passed from when they were supposed to take place, or
17
are they still like on schedule but Facebook is saying we’re
not doing it at this -- on these dates?
MR. LOEBESER: Some of the dates have passed. I
believe some have not yet, or are not scheduled; Ms. Weaver,
do you have better view on that?
MS. WEAVER: Yes, have three scheduled and one was
36 hours away and those three were canceled. The remaining
five we were negotiating dates. So the truth is that these
Plaintiffs were ready to go. It’s hard for individuals to
prepare for depositions like this, it’s hard for anybody.
But in general, we would like to proceed.
MR. SNYDER: Your Honor, again, we are eager, I
can assure you and attest and swear, to take these
depositions. Our only reluctance, or hesitancy was, we
wanted to be efficient and these requests, which go to the
heart of the depositions about their privacy settings and
other core issues that are at the heart of this case, we had
a dispute over, and as I said, over the last 24 hours the
special master has ordered the production of those and upon
receipt, we will take those seriatim. We’1ll double track,
tripe track. It’s not a question of not wanting to take
them, it’s that we didn’t want to take them and didn’t think
we --
THE COURT: I don’t care if you’ve received the
documents or not. I want these depositions taken promptly,
18
and if you believe that there is some basis for reopening
the deposition, based on receipt of documents, you can seek
permission to reopen the deposition. But I don’t care. But
you keep saying, we will take the deposition upon receipt of
the documents. Take the depositions promptly. And I think
for now, what I’m going to do is, I’m going to order you to
have all of these depositions scheduled, all the depositions
of the named Plaintiffs, scheduled by Monday. And you --
I711 let you see if you can negotiate amongst yourselves,
and if there is a problem, and you can’t get those
depositions scheduled amongst yourselves by Monday, then you
can file -- you can file a joint letter directly with me and
I will resolve it.
MR. SNYDER: Thank you, your Honor. And had we
known the Court would be open to us reopening, or retaking
the deposition after we got the relevant documents, we would
have proceeded in that way, but customarily I’ve taken
depositions upon receipt of documents so that --
THE COURT: I understand and what I want to
emphasize for the Plaintiffs is, I will be very liberal
about allowing -- if the Plaintiffs, you know, take a
Facebook witness’s deposition and then they believe that
they need to circle back, based on the receipt of additional
documents, I will be very liberal in allowing the Plaintiffs
to take the -- take a second deposition, or reopen the
19
deposition.
MR. SNYDER: And the same for Facebook, Judge?
Because I do think that -- again, the documents --
THE COURT: Not necessarily. Not necessarily,
based on the view that I have developed about how Facebook
has conducted itself thus far in discovery.
MR. SNYDER: And, your Honor, I assume your Honor
does not want us to be heard on that issue, even ona
preliminary or high-level basis?
THE COURT: Correct. You’re always free, you can
ask to reopen a deposition if you --
MR. SNYDER: No, no, I meant on the larger issue
that your Honor raised at the outset of the hearing.
THE COURT: No.
MR. SNYDER: Okay, thank you.
THE COURT: You’ll have plenty of opportunity in
response to sanctions motions to say your peace.
MR. SNYDER: Thank you, Judge.
MR. LOESER: Your Honor, again, if I may? If we
could have until Wednesday to schedule the depositions? We
have to contact these people. They have to get -- make
arrangements at work to make themselves available. It might
take a couple of days to clear all schedules to -- in order
to have dates certain to offer to Facebook for the remaining
people.
20
THE COURT: That’s fine.
Okay, what else?
MR. LOESER: Nothing else on my list, your Honor.
MR. SNYDER: Nothing here, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay, very good. Should we schedule
another status conference? Perhaps, you know, 20 -- 35 days
from now, something like that?
MS. WEAVER: That would be good, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let me take a look at my calendar real
quick. What about -- I was going to propose March 23rd at
10:00 a.m. -- sorry, at 1:00 p.m.; is that too long from
now? Should we do something sooner?
MR. LOERSER: If we could do something sooner, I
think that would be quite helpful if it works for your
calendar, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, let me take a look.
Possibly the -- it’s hard -- the trial calendar is just
bonkers right now with all of these cases that have been
sitting waiting to go to trial. But let me do this,
let’s --
MR. LOESER: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Let’s schedule something for the 23rd
at 1:00 o’clock, but if you believe a status conference is
necessary before then, get in touch with us and we’1ll find a
time, even if it has to be in the evening or early in the
morning, or something like that;
MR. LOESER: Thank you,
MS. WEAVER: Thank you,
THE COURT: Okay. What
(No response.)
THE COURT: All right.
on the 23rd, if not before, and I
very positive progress report the
MR. LOESER: Thank you,
MS. WEAVER: Thank you,
21
okay?
your Honor.
your Honor.
else? Anything else?
Great. So we’ll see you
look forward to seeing a
next time I see you.
your Honor.
your Honor.
(Proceedings adjourned at 5:01 p.m.)
I certify that the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript, to the best of my ability, of the above pages of
the official electronic sound recording provided to me by
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, of
the proceedings taken on the date and time previously stated
in the above matter.
I further certify that I am neither counsel for,
related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action
in which this hearing was taken; and, further, that I am not
financially nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the
action.
Echo Reporting, Inc., Transcriber
Saturday, February 12, 2022
Echo Reporting, Inc.
023
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLDMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Civil Action No. 2018 CA 008715 B
Plaintiff, Judge Maurice A. Ross
Next Event: Deadline to Fife Reply Briefs
v. Date: February 22, 2022
FACEBOOK, INC.,
ORAL HEARING REQUESTED
Defendant.
DECLARATION OF J. ELE WADE-SCOTT
Pursuant to D.C. Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 9-I (c)(1)CA), I declare and state
as follows:
1. My name is J. Bl: Wade-Scott. l am an attorney of record in the above-captioned
matter. | make the following declaration on personal knowledge, except where otherwise noted.
2. Tama partner at the law firm of Edelson PC, which has been retained as outside
counsel to represent the named Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, the District of Columbia
(“District”). Lam entering this declaration in support of Plainnif’s Reply in support of its Motion
to Compel Concerning Privilege.
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 is the transcript for a hearing in front of Judge
Vince Chhabria on February 10, 2022 in the case fy re Facebook, inc. Consumer Priv. User
Profile Litig., No. 18-MD-02843, (ND. Cal.). I obtained this transcript from the court
reporter/transcriber Echo Reporting, Inc., through the Northern District of California’s non-party
transcript order form process.
%* * %*
PDF Page 3
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the above and foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on this 22nd day of February, 2022 in Chicago, Hlinois.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 22, 2022 sf J Eli Wade-Scott
J. Eli Wade-Scott
PDF Page 4
Exhibit A-1
PDF Page 5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AMENDED TRANSCRIPT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Before The Honorable Vince Chhabria, Judge
IN RE: FACEBOOK, INC.,
CONSUMER PRIVACY USER
PROFILE LITIGATION,
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OF
) No. 18MD02843-VC
)
)
)
San Francisco, California
Thursday, February 10, 2022
THE OFFICIAL ELECTRONIC SOUND
RECORDING 4:23 -
5:01 = 38 MINUTES
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiffs:
BY:
BY:
Bleichmar, Fonti & Auld, LLP
555 12th Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, California 94607
LESLEY E. WEAVER, ESQ.
ANNE KATHLEEN DAVIS, ESQ.
MATTHEW S. MELAMED, ESQ.
Keller Rohrback, LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, Washington 98101
DEREK W. LOESER, ESQ.
DAVID J. KO, ESQ.
CARI CAMPEN LAUFENBERG, ESQ.
(APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE.)
002
Echo Reporting, Inc.
PDF Page 6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPEARANCES: (Cont’d.)
For Plaintiffs:
For Defendant:
BY:
BY:
BY:
Facebook General Counsel:
Transcribed by:
BY:
Keller Rohrback, LLP
300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
Oakland, California 94612
BENJAMIN B. GOULD, ESQ.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
ORIN SNYDER, ESQ.
DEBORAH L. STEIN, ESQ.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
MARTIE KUTSCHER CLARK, ESQ.
Meta Platforms, Inc.
1601 Willow Road
Menlo Park, California 94025
SANDEEP SOLANKI, ESQ.
Echo Reporting, Inc.
Contracted Court Reporter/
Transcriber
echoreporting@yahoo.com
003
Echo Reporting, Inc.
PDF Page 7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Thursday, February 10, 2022 4:32 p.m.
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
--o00--
THE CLERK: Calling case number 18-MD-2843, In Re:
Facebook, Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs, please state your
appearances for the record.
MR. LOESER (via Zoom): Good afternoon, your
Honor. Derek Loeser from Keller Rohrback. With me is Cari
Laufenberg, David Ko and Ben Gould.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
MS. WEAVER (via Zoom): Good afternoon, your
Honor. Lesley Weaver of Bleichmar, Fonti and Auld and with
me are my partners, Matthew Melamed and Anne Davis.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
THE CLERK: And for Defendants?
MR. SNYDER (via Zoom): Yes, good afternoon, your
Honor. It’s Orin Snyder, Deb Stein, Martie Kutscher Clark
for Facebook. And with us, also, Sandeep Solanki who is the
Vice President and Associate General Counsel of Litigation
for Facebook.
THE COURT: Good afternoon. Hello, Mr. Solanki.
MR. SOLANKI (via Zoom): Hello, your Honor. Good
afternoon.
THE COURT: Good afternoon. I’11 chat with you in
Echo Reporting, Inc.
004
PDF Page 8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a second, okay?
So we are not going to have any argument about these
discovery disputes today. I’m going to give you my
preliminary view of things and then we’1ll talk about how --
what the next steps are.
My preliminary view, and you know I say it’s
preliminary, but I have to say it’s quite a strong
preliminary view, is that Facebook’s conduct in discovery,
thus far, has been sanctionable. And so I would like to
invite the Plaintiffs to file motions for sanctions on any
issue that they believe -- where they believe that -- like I
do -- that -- tentatively -- that Facebook’s discovery
conduct has been sanctionable.
I -- it seems to me that there are a number of areas
where Facebook could, and probably should, be sanctioned
under Rule 37 and/or 28 USC Section 1927. Maybe other --
maybe also, pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority, I
don’t know. But, I think there are a number of examples.
And I think that, by the way, probably the lawyers should be
jointly sanctioned with Facebook. And what I -- generally,
T think it’s not a good policy to sanction associates at law
firms, but I think probably all of the partners who are
involved in this case, probably should be sanctioned
alongside Facebook itself.
I’ll identify a couple of examples. I sort of leave it
Echo Reporting, Inc.
005
PDF Page 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to the Plaintiffs to decide whether to file sanctions
motions, and if so, on what issues, but there are several
issues where I think, at least preliminarily, based on what
I’ve read so far, and based on my conversations with the
Special Master, you know, the Plaintiffs should be awarded
all costs and attorney’s fees that they’ve incurred in
pursuing the discovery, or pursuing the issue on which
Facebook has been stonewalling.
So, you know, a couple of the issues I’11 just mention.
One is the app developer investigation documents. I mean,
that appears to be particularly egregious. I think Facebook
has known, since we were talking about it, towards the
beginning of the litigation, that it was going to be
required to turn these over, and certainly since at least
September of ‘21 when Judge Corley ordered them turned over.
Facebook has known that it needs to do it, and as far as I
can tell, has been stonewalling. So it seems to me that
that issue, in particular, could very likely be an
appropriate subject for a motion for sanctions from the
Plaintiffs.
Another one is the named-complainants data. Again, you
know, Judge Corley ruled in October of 2020 that this stuff
was discoverable and sort of -- it’s not clear to me why
Judge Corley needed to rule that it was discoverable,
because it seems obvious to me that it was discoverable, but
Echo Reporting, Inc.
006
PDF Page 10
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
again, Facebook has been stonewalling on it.
I think I should probably set some very tight deadlines
for when this stuff needs to be -- when the completion of
this discovery needs to occur and we can talk about that.
I’71ll sort of defer to the Plaintiffs on that. But the main
thing, you know, aside from setting deadlines, by which this
stuff needs to be completely turned over, the main thing --
the main point I want to make right now is I think what’s
happened so far is sanctionable, very likely, and I want to
invite the Plaintiffs to file motions for sanctions on those
issues, if they agree with me, and any other issue that they
-- where they believe Facebook has engaged in sanctionable
conduct.
And again, my tentative view is that the -- that
Facebook and the lawyers, the partners on the pleadings,
should be jointly liable for the sanctions and they should
both be sanctioned. And, I guess, you know I know from
prior cases that Mr. Loeser is a very courteous opposing
counsel, but if you -- if you’re -- and maybe you would not
be inclined to include the lawyers, maybe you would not be
inclined to move for sanctions at all, but if you move for
Sanctions, I’m going to want to know if there’s a good
reason not to sanction the lawyers, as well as the clients.
Or the client, I should say.
Also, another issue is the depositions of the named
Echo Reporting, Inc.
007
PDF Page 11
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plaintiffs. Facebook has been fighting to take the
depositions of named Plaintiffs, and then all of a sudden
announced that it is not ready to take depositions of named
Plaintiff, because it doesn’t have certain information that
it needs. And I was looking at Facebook’s brief that it
filed, I guess it looks like maybe today or maybe last
night, and here is the first reason that Facebook gives for
calling off the depositions. It says, “The Plaintiffs have
not provided basic information regarding their claims.” And
the first thing they say is, “Plaintiffs have not identified
what information they believe Facebook shared without
consent.” So it sounds like what Facebook is saying is,
until you identify what information you believe we shared
without your consent, we’re not going to take your
deposition. That is preposterous and you are going to take
their depositions now, or you are going to forego -- you’re
going to waive the right to take their depositions at all.
And I don’t know if the Plaintiffs incurred any fees and
costs associated with setting up these depositions that
Facebook has now announced that it’s not ready to take, but
if so, that strikes me as probably sanctionable, as well.
So let me ask the Plaintiffs, you know, obviously there
are other issues that maybe aren’t ripe for a motion for
Sanctions yet. You may not be ready because you’re still
kind of meeting and conferring on something, or whatever.
Echo Reporting, Inc.
008
PDF Page 12
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
There are other issues that do seem ripe for a motion for
Sanctions, and so I want to set a deadline for the filing of
motion for sanctions on any of these issues that are ripe
for adjudication of a sanctions motion; so for the
Plaintiffs, when would you like that deadline to be?
MR. LOESER: Your Honor, we could file a motion in
seven days.
THE COURT: You want to do it that soon? That’s
fine.
MR. LOESER: Well I’m looking around the room and
I don’t --
THE COURT: I just want to make sure -- I mean the
reason I ask that is I want to make sure -- you know, you
have to brief -- and by the way, no 15 page -- 15 page
limit. Take whatever space you need to articulate the
misconduct and to identify the appropriate standard for
imposing sanctions, including whether there needs to be a
finding of bad faith and all of that. But that’s why I
asked, is seven days enough.
MR. LOESER: Well and I’m receiving a lot of
feedback now and the feedback I’m getting is 14 days, so
thank you for asking again.
THE COURT: So the Plaintiffs -- any motion for
sanctions from the Plaintiffs, on any issues that are ripe,
are due in 14 days and you can figure out when you want to
Echo Reporting, Inc.
009
PDF Page 13
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
notice the hearing for and all of that. Confer with the
other side on that, of course. And I will, of course, not
make -- not reach any final conclusion on what I think about
all of these issues until I’ve had a chance to read the
papers submitted by both sides. But that is how we’re going
to handle these discovery problems that have taken place
thus far.
And so now, let me turn to Mr. Solanki. I was glad to
see your name on the filing that Facebook made yesterday.
I’m glad to see that you’ve been designated as the decision
maker who is responsible for Facebook’s decisions in all
discovery matters in this case. What that will entail is
that you have to attend all of the status conferences that
we have here in this virtual courtroom, or hopefully it will
be the real courtroom again sometime soon. It also means
you're required to attend all of the mediations with the
Special Master and it means that you are required to be able
to make a decision -- a final decision -- on Facebook’s
behalf for any topic that is covered in the mediations with
the Special Master. And so if you believe that the topic of
the mediation is such that you would need to run it up the
flagpole before making a final decision, then the person --
whatever person is at the top of that flagpole, is required
to attend the mediation; okay?
MR. SOLANKI: Yes, your Honor.
Echo Reporting, Inc.
010
PDF Page 14
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
THE COURT: And if a mediation occurs and Facebook
is not in a position to make a final decision on a discovery
issue, Facebook will be sanctioned. And if Facebook makes a
decision during a mediation with a Special Master and then
goes back on that decision after the mediation, Facebook
will be sanctioned.
MR. SOLANKI: I understand.
THE COURT: Let me see -- have I forgotten any
reason why Facebook will be sanctioned in the future?
Probably. Please do not consider my list to be an
exhaustive or an exclusive one, of the reasons that Facebook
may be sanctioned in the future in this case; okay, Mr.
Solanki?
MR. SOLANKI: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you understand and do you have any
questions or concerns about any of that?
MR. SOLANKI: No, it’s clear. Thank you for the
explanation.
THE COURT: Okay. lLet’s see, let me look at my
notes here. Anything else I wanted to make sure to discuss?
No, I think that’s it; is anybody -- does anybody else have
anything else that they would like to discuss today?
MR. SNYDER: Your Honor, on our opposition to the
sanctions motion, given the seriousness of the issues, we
would respectfully request 21 days to respond.
Echo Reporting, Inc.
011
PDF Page 15
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
THE COURT: I’11 let you meet up and confer with
the other side about that and you can submit a stipulation,
or whatever.
MR. SNYDER: Thank you, Judge.
MR. LOESER: Your Honor, while we’re doing that,
if there’s an agreement for more time for Facebook, I hope
it’s okay with you if we also have more time for ourselves?
THE COURT: I’m -- within reason, I’m happy for
you to negotiate a schedule and, you know, submit a
stipulation for the adjudication of these motions. And I
want to make sure -- I certainly want to make sure that
Facebook has enough time and enough opportunity to explain
its conduct, thus far. And the conduct of its lawyers.
Okay, is there anything else that we can discuss today
in furtherance of getting this case moving? Because this
case is going to start moving a lot faster than it has been
moving, thus far.
And by the way, as everybody knows, Judge Corley has
been hearing appeals from discovery rulings by the Special
Master. Starting today, for any new -- sorry, as everybody
knows, Judge Corley has been nominated to the district court
bench and is likely to be confirmed pretty soon. So
starting today, for any new appeal from a ruling by the
Special Master, I will hear those appeals, pursuant to the
same process that was set forth in the amended order that I
Echo Reporting, Inc.
012
PDF Page 16
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
filed recently.
And this case is going to be, as I said, moving along
much much faster than it has been and so what -- is there
anything that we can discuss in furtherance of that?
MR. LOESER: Your Honor, if I may? Derek Loeser.
The one thing that perhaps we could discuss is the schedules
and to your point about needing to move the case.
The substantial completion deadline has now come and
gone and while Facebook’s position has chipped it a bit on
what more it has to do, we fear that there’s a lot more
documents to be produced and I think we need to adjust the
schedule to accommodate that. It’s not entirely clear to us
how much time it will take Facebook to produce the remaining
outstanding documents. Not too long ago they were saying ti
would take more than a year.
THE COURT: It’s not going to take more than a
year. And if they need to -- if they feel that they need to
conduct review -- I mean, my inclination would be, I don’t
know if they think they need to conduct further review of
the app developer investigation documents, but I think
they’ve lost the opportunity to do that and they need to
simply turn them over immediately.
MR. SNYDER: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Whether they’ve reviewed them or not.
MR. SNYDER: Your Honor, tomorrow we’re turning
Echo Reporting, Inc.
013
PDF Page 17
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
over 40,000 pages of documents on the ADI production. I
think the final order we got was in December, and then we
will be rolling thereafter. And I understand that we can --
we think we’ll be able to complete that within one month, if
not sooner, but certainly tomorrow 40,000 pages are being
produced and we’re working around the clock to produce
those, as we speak.
THE COURT: All documents relating to the app
developer investigation must be turned over to the
Plaintiffs no later than 21 days from today.
MR. SNYDER: That’s fine, your Honor.
THE COURT: And the other instruction that I --
the other order that you are operating under, not just for
the app developer investigation documents, but for all
documents and all information, is that when in doubt,
resolve all doubts in favor of turning it over.
MR. SNYDER: We have been doing that, your Honor,
for sure. And we will continue to do so.
THE COURT: Okay. What else?
MR. LOESER: So that leaves the question of the
schedule, the dates, the substantial completion date and all
of the dates that flow from it. You know, the position
we're trying to avoid having ourselves end up in is, we’re
taking depositions and we have a lot of depositions to take,
we want these documents for the depositions. So it may be
Echo Reporting, Inc.
014
PDF Page 18
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
necessary to push things out to accommodate the official
time that Facebook --
THE COURT: Do you know what I would suggest, and
I’m interested in hearing from you on this, but here is my
suggestion. Take the depositions. And then if you need to
take the -- take a second deposition of these witnesses,
based on additional documents, you’1ll be able to take them
again.
MR. LOESER: Understood. We’1ll do that, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Because it’s Facebook’s fault that
we’re in this position and -- largely Facebook’s fault --
and so their peoole are going to need to be deposed -- may
need to be deposed twice, instead of once.
MR. LOESER: Understood.
THE COURT: Okay, so what is that -- do you need
anything more on the schedule? Do you need anymore
direction on the schedule, or in light of what I just said,
is the schedule okay?
MR. LOESER: I think the proof will be in the
pudding, your Honor. If 30 days from now, unfortunately
we’re still waiting for a huge volume of documents, you can
be sure you’ll hear from us about that and we’1ll ask you at
that time for more time to take the depositions, or more
time to complete discovery of the case. But hopefully that
Echo Reporting, Inc.
015
PDF Page 19
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
won’t be necessary and we’1ll just move forward with due
haste.
THE COURT: When is the -- like how -- when is the
cutoff for depositions? I can’t remember.
MR. SNYDER: June 17th, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. SNYDER: I think we’re -- we all believe we
can comfortably get there, and as I -- I said 40,000, my
colleagues remind me that it’s 30,000 ADI tomorrow, but we
have, and have had for the past month, a whole team
reviewing the ADI documents and they’re going to come
rolling. And, your Honor, the default has been produced
when in doubt. We’re not -- we’re not parsing documents
here.
THE COURT: Mr. Loeser, what’s your view of
whether I should force Facebook to take the depositions of
the named Plaintiffs in haste, you know, sort of consistent
with what they were originally insisting on doing? Should I
leave that alone, or should I require them to do those
depositions by a certain date?
MR. LOBSER: I think they should have to move
forward with those depositions. We’ve presented all of the
Plaintiffs for their depositions. The Special Master did
issue an order today, and another yesterday, that will
require some additional documents from the witnesses.
Echo Reporting, Inc.
016
PDF Page 20
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
Frankly, we don’t think that they’re essential, but we’ll
produce the, as ordered.
THE COURT: And the same response. I mean, I --
take the depositions anyway and if there is some
signification document that Facebook can put in front of me
that justifies reopening the deposition, I’1ll entertain it,
but it’s time to -- time to plow ahead.
MR. SNYDER: Your Honor -- may I just be heard,
your Honor, on that -- for a moment? I think it might be
helpful. On the depositions, we were eager, chopping at the
bit to take all of the Plaintiffs’ depositions. There was
-- without getting into the specifics, there were document
requested interrogatories that the Plaintiffs were not
answering that were -- went to the heart of those
depositions about the privacy settings, et cetera, et
cetera. And as Mr. Loeser said just today, we have two
orders compelling the Plaintiffs to produce those documents.
And so our hesitancy in taking those depositions was not to
stonewall or to delay, we just needed that basic
information. The information is now coming to us, pursuant
to these orders, and upon receipt we will take all of those
depositions promotly and seriatim.
THE COURT: Are they scheduled? Mr. Loeser, were
these depositions of these named Plaintiffs -- have the
dates passed from when they were supposed to take place, or
Echo Reporting, Inc.
017
PDF Page 21
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
are they still like on schedule but Facebook is saying we’re
not doing it at this -- on these dates?
MR. LOEBESER: Some of the dates have passed. I
believe some have not yet, or are not scheduled; Ms. Weaver,
do you have better view on that?
MS. WEAVER: Yes, have three scheduled and one was
36 hours away and those three were canceled. The remaining
five we were negotiating dates. So the truth is that these
Plaintiffs were ready to go. It’s hard for individuals to
prepare for depositions like this, it’s hard for anybody.
But in general, we would like to proceed.
MR. SNYDER: Your Honor, again, we are eager, I
can assure you and attest and swear, to take these
depositions. Our only reluctance, or hesitancy was, we
wanted to be efficient and these requests, which go to the
heart of the depositions about their privacy settings and
other core issues that are at the heart of this case, we had
a dispute over, and as I said, over the last 24 hours the
special master has ordered the production of those and upon
receipt, we will take those seriatim. We’1ll double track,
tripe track. It’s not a question of not wanting to take
them, it’s that we didn’t want to take them and didn’t think
we --
THE COURT: I don’t care if you’ve received the
documents or not. I want these depositions taken promptly,
Echo Reporting, Inc.
018
PDF Page 22
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
and if you believe that there is some basis for reopening
the deposition, based on receipt of documents, you can seek
permission to reopen the deposition. But I don’t care. But
you keep saying, we will take the deposition upon receipt of
the documents. Take the depositions promptly. And I think
for now, what I’m going to do is, I’m going to order you to
have all of these depositions scheduled, all the depositions
of the named Plaintiffs, scheduled by Monday. And you --
I711 let you see if you can negotiate amongst yourselves,
and if there is a problem, and you can’t get those
depositions scheduled amongst yourselves by Monday, then you
can file -- you can file a joint letter directly with me and
I will resolve it.
MR. SNYDER: Thank you, your Honor. And had we
known the Court would be open to us reopening, or retaking
the deposition after we got the relevant documents, we would
have proceeded in that way, but customarily I’ve taken
depositions upon receipt of documents so that --
THE COURT: I understand and what I want to
emphasize for the Plaintiffs is, I will be very liberal
about allowing -- if the Plaintiffs, you know, take a
Facebook witness’s deposition and then they believe that
they need to circle back, based on the receipt of additional
documents, I will be very liberal in allowing the Plaintiffs
to take the -- take a second deposition, or reopen the
Echo Reporting, Inc.
019
PDF Page 23
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
deposition.
MR. SNYDER: And the same for Facebook, Judge?
Because I do think that -- again, the documents --
THE COURT: Not necessarily. Not necessarily,
based on the view that I have developed about how Facebook
has conducted itself thus far in discovery.
MR. SNYDER: And, your Honor, I assume your Honor
does not want us to be heard on that issue, even ona
preliminary or high-level basis?
THE COURT: Correct. You’re always free, you can
ask to reopen a deposition if you --
MR. SNYDER: No, no, I meant on the larger issue
that your Honor raised at the outset of the hearing.
THE COURT: No.
MR. SNYDER: Okay, thank you.
THE COURT: You’ll have plenty of opportunity in
response to sanctions motions to say your peace.
MR. SNYDER: Thank you, Judge.
MR. LOESER: Your Honor, again, if I may? If we
could have until Wednesday to schedule the depositions? We
have to contact these people. They have to get -- make
arrangements at work to make themselves available. It might
take a couple of days to clear all schedules to -- in order
to have dates certain to offer to Facebook for the remaining
people.
Echo Reporting, Inc.
020
PDF Page 24
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
THE COURT: That’s fine.
Okay, what else?
MR. LOESER: Nothing else on my list, your Honor.
MR. SNYDER: Nothing here, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay, very good. Should we schedule
another status conference? Perhaps, you know, 20 -- 35 days
from now, something like that?
MS. WEAVER: That would be good, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let me take a look at my calendar real
quick. What about -- I was going to propose March 23rd at
10:00 a.m. -- sorry, at 1:00 p.m.; is that too long from
now? Should we do something sooner?
MR. LOERSER: If we could do something sooner, I
think that would be quite helpful if it works for your
calendar, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, let me take a look.
Possibly the -- it’s hard -- the trial calendar is just
bonkers right now with all of these cases that have been
sitting waiting to go to trial. But let me do this,
let’s --
MR. LOESER: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Let’s schedule something for the 23rd
at 1:00 o’clock, but if you believe a status conference is
necessary before then, get in touch with us and we’1ll find a
time, even if it has to be in the evening or early in the
Echo Reporting, Inc.
021
PDF Page 25
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
morning, or something like that;
MR. LOESER: Thank you,
MS. WEAVER: Thank you,
THE COURT: Okay. What
(No response.)
THE COURT: All right.
on the 23rd, if not before, and I
very positive progress report the
MR. LOESER: Thank you,
MS. WEAVER: Thank you,
21
okay?
your Honor.
your Honor.
else? Anything else?
Great. So we’ll see you
look forward to seeing a
next time I see you.
your Honor.
your Honor.
(Proceedings adjourned at 5:01 p.m.)
022
Echo Reporting, Inc.
PDF Page 26
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
I certify that the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript, to the best of my ability, of the above pages of
the official electronic sound recording provided to me by
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, of
the proceedings taken on the date and time previously stated
in the above matter.
I further certify that I am neither counsel for,
related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action
in which this hearing was taken; and, further, that I am not
financially nor otherwise interested in the outcome of the
action.
Echo Reporting, Inc., Transcriber
Saturday, February 12, 2022
Echo Reporting, Inc.
023
Back to 
