providingavav234.com

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728OHSWest:260675487.
3REPLYINSUPPORTOFSECONDMOT.
TOCOMPELCASENO.
:5:08-CV-03468I.
NEELCHATTERJEE(STATEBARNO.
173985)nchatterjee@orrick.
comJULIOC.
AVALOS(STATEBARNO.
255350)javalos@orrick.
comORRICK,HERRINGTON&SUTCLIFFELLP1000MarshRoadMenloPark,CA94025Telephone:+1-650-614-7400Facsimile:+1-650-614-7401THOMASJ.
GRAY(STATEBARNO.
191411)tgray@orrick.
comORRICK,HERRINGTON&SUTCLIFFELLP4ParkPlazaSuite1600Irvine,CA92614-2558Telephone:+1-949-567-6700Facsimile:949-5676710AttorneysforPlaintiffFACEBOOK,INC.
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTNORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIASANJOSEDIVISIONFACEBOOK,INC.
,Plaintiff,v.
STUDIVZLTD.
,HOTLZBRINCKNETWORKSGmBH,HOLTZBRINCKVENTURESGmBH,DENNISBEMMANN,MICHAELBREHM,andDOES1-25,Defendants.
CaseNo.
5:08-cv-03468JFFACEBOOKINC.
'SREPLYINSUPPORTOFMOTIONTOCOMPELFURTHERRESPONSESRE:SECONDROUNDOFDISCOVERYREQUESTSHearing:June19,2009Case5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page1of20Facebook,Inc.
v.
Studivz,LtdetalDoc.
178Dockets.
Justia.
com12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728TABLEOFCONTENTSPageOHSWest:260675487.
3-i-I.
INTRODUCTION.
1II.
ARGUMENT2A.
FacebookIsEntitledtoDiscovery.
21.
JudgeFogelHadFullKnowledgeOfFacebook'sSecondRoundofDiscoveryPriorToTheMay1,2009HearingonDefendants'MotiontoDismissForForumNonConveniens.
22.
ToSuitTheirSpeciousArguments,DefendantsInventaNewTermForTheOctober23,2008JointStipulation.
43.
TheCourtHasAlreadyDiscountedDefendants'PrimaFacieObjections54.
TheCalder"EffectsTest"Applies.
65.
Fieldingv.
HubertIsInappositeToTheCurrentFacts.
8B.
TheSecondRoundofDiscoveryRelatestoPersonalJurisdiction.
10C.
FacebookHasNotWaivedItsRighttoCompelDiscovery.
11D.
TheRequestsforAdmissionstotheHoltzbrinckDefendantsAreNotDuplicative12III.
CONCLUSION14Case5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page2of2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728TABLEOFAUTHORITIESPageOHSWest:260675487.
3-ii-FEDERALCASESAmericaWestAirlines,Inc.
v.
GPAGroup,Ltd.
,877F.
2d793,801(9thCir.
1986)5Boschettov.
Hansing,539F.
3d1011(9thCir.
2008)5Calderv.
Jones,465U.
S.
783(1984)7,8,9,13Fieldingv.
HubertBurdaMedia,Inc.
,2004WL.
532714.
8,9,10FlowserveCorp.
v.
MidwestPipeRepair,2006U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS43159Gaultv.
NabiscoBiscuitCo.
,184F.
R.
D.
620(D.
Nev.
1999)12Gibsonv.
ChryslerCorp.
,877F.
2d793(9thCir.
1986)5Intercon,Inc.
v.
BellAtlanticInternetSolutions,Inc.
,205F.
3d1244(10thCir.
2000)7,9Keeton,[Keetonv.
HustlerMagazine,465U.
S.
770(1984)7Licciardellov.
Lovelady,2008U.
S.
App.
LEXIS213769,13Loftonv.
BankofAmericaCorp.
,2008U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS41005(N.
D.
Cal.
,May12,2008)8OrchidBiosciences,Inc.
v.
St.
LouisUniversity,198F.
R.
D.
670(S.
D.
Cal.
2001)5PanavisionInt'lL.
P.
v.
Toeppen,141F.
3d1316(9thCir.
1998)T.
7,9PeridyneTech.
Solutions,LLCv.
MathesonFastFreight,Inc.
,117F.
Supp.
2d1366(N.
D.
Ga.
2000)9Purnellv.
ArrowFinancialServices,LLC,2007U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS7630(E.
D.
Mi.
,Jan.
23,2007)12InreSulfuricAcidAntitrustLitigation,231F.
R.
D.
331(N.
D.
Ill.
2005)12Case5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page3of2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728TABLEOFAUTHORITIES(continued)PageOHSWest:260675487.
3-iii-Westv.
Miller,2006U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS56243(N.
D.
Ill.
,Aug.
11,2006)12Yahoo!
Inc.
v.
LaLigueContreLeRacismeetL'Antisemitisme,433F.
3d1199(9thCir.
2006)7Case5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page4of2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728OHSWest:260675487.
3-1-REPLYINSUPPORTOFSECONDMOT.
TOCOMPELCASENO.
:5:08-CV-03468I.
INTRODUCTIONDefendants'oppositionstoFacebook'ssecondmotiontocompelareunavailing.
Defendantsresuscitateeightmonth'sworthofdiscoveryobjections,mixingandmatchingdisparatetheories,factsandlegalstandardsinablatantattempttomakeFacebook'sstraightforwardmotionseemovercomplicated.
Inafurtherattempttoconfuseanddistract,Defendantseveninventnewtermstoaschedulingstipulationthepartiesenteredintoeightmonthsago.
ContrarytoDefendants'arguments,theCourt'sroleisnottomicro-managethislitigationortodivinetheimportandmeaningofpriormeetandconferexchanges,briefs,oralarguments,andorders.
TheCourtshoulddeclineDefendants'invitationtowadeunnecessarilyintothequagmireandinsteadresolvethismatterbyapplyingstraightforwardandwell-establishedstandardsgoverningtheproductionofdiscovery.
Moreover,mostofDefendants'argumentsaremootinlightofJudgeFogel'sMay4,2009OrderinwhichheliftedthestayofpersonaljurisdictiondiscoveryandinvitedFacebooktointroducenewevidenceinitsupcomingsupplementaloppositionbrief.
DespiteDefendants'claimstothecontrary,JudgeFogelwaswellawareofFacebook'ssecondroundofdiscoveryatissueinthepresentmotion.
Indeed,DefendantsthemselvesraisedthisdiscoveryintheirMarch19,2009motiontostay,whichwasthebasisforJudgeFogel'sOrderstayingdiscovery.
SeeDocketNos.
119and120.
AndFacebookaddressedtheissueinitsMarch24,2009oppositiontothemotion.
Therefore,whenJudgeFogelliftedthestay,itnecessarilyappliedtoFacebook'sfirstandsecondroundsofdiscovery.
Therefore,weareleftwithasimpleinquiry:willresponsestoFacebook'sdiscoveryrequests"inform"Facebook'sjurisdictionaltheories.
FacebookrespectfullysubmitsthatiteasilyclearsthisbroadstandardandthatDefendantsshouldbecompelledforthwithtoproducediscoveryresponsivetoboththefirstandsecondroundsofdiscoveryrequests.
////////////Case5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page5of2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728OHSWest:260675487.
3-2-REPLYINSUPPORTOFSECONDMOT.
TOCOMPELII.
ARGUMENTA.
FacebookIsEntitledtoDiscovery.
1.
JudgeFogelHadFullKnowledgeOfFacebook'sSecondRoundofDiscoveryPriorToTheMay1,2009HearingonDefendants'MotiontoDismissForForumNonConveniens.
AtthecoreofDefendants'oppositionsisthenotionthatFacebooksomehowintentionallymisledJudgeFogelregardingitssecondroundofdiscoveryrequests.
TheyrepeatedlyspeculatethatFacebookpurposefullykeptitsintentiontoservethediscoveryasecretandthenrepeatedthatclandestinepatternwithitssecretmotiontocompel.
"Facebook,"Defendantsargue,"wasclearlylyinginwait.
"StudiVZ'sOppositiontoSecondMotiontoCompel("SVZOpp.
")at10:13.
DefendantsconcludethatbecauseFacebookneverapprisedJudgeFogelofthesehiddenrequests,he"nevergavepermissiontoservenewdiscovery.
"Id.
at10:7-8.
ContrarytoDefendants'speciousallegations,JudgeFogelhadfullknowledgeofFacebook'ssecondroundofdiscoveryasearlyasMarch19,2009.
JudgeFogelgainedthatknowledgebecauseDefendantsthemselvesbriefedtheissuetohim.
IntheirMarch19,2009MotiontoStaythePersonalJurisdictionPortionofTheirMotionstoDismiss,Defendantswrote:Also,onFebruary2,2009,Facebookservednewsetsofjurisdiction-relateddiscoveryonallDefendants.
DefendantsbelievethatthisnewdiscoveryviolatestheCourt'sJanuary28,2009Orderandhave,therefore,objectedtoit.
Thatwillinevitablycausemoremotionpractice.
Dkt.
No.
119at3:18-20.
Inhissupportingdeclaration,DefensecounselStephenS.
SmithdevotedafullfourparagraphsalertingJudgeFogelofFacebook'ssecondroundofdiscovery.
Dkt.
1206–9.
Inhisdeclaration,Mr.
Smithwentintogranulardetailregardingthesecondroundofdiscovery,listingeachindividualsetaswellasprovidingJudgeFogelwithafullargumentastowhythatdiscoverywasobjectionable.
Id.
8.
Therefore,ingrantinginpartFacebook'srequestforacontinuanceonthehearingfortheMotionstoDismiss,theCourtmadeitsdecisionbaseduponthethen-pendingdiscoveryrequestsandwithoutanyknowledgeofFacebook'sintenttoserveDefendantswithadditionaljurisdictionaldiscovery.
Likewise,StudiVZdidnotopposeFacebook'srequesttocontinuethehearingonthepersonaljurisdictionportionofStudiVZ'sMotiontoDismissbasedupontheexistingdiscovery,andthedisputesrelatedthereto,andwithnoknowledgeofFacebook'sintenttoserveDefendantsCase5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page6of2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728OHSWest:260675487.
3-3-REPLYINSUPPORTOFSECONDMOT.
TOCOMPELwithadditionaljurisdictionaldiscovery.
9.
HadStudiVZbeenawareofFacebook'splantopropoundsixadditionalsetsofdiscovery(includingmoredocumentdemandstoStudiVZthanhadbeenpropoundedbefore)twodaysaftertheCourtissueditsrulingonFacebook'sMotiontoEnlargeTime,StudiVZwouldhaveopposedFacebook'srequesttocontinueeventhepersonaljurisdictionportionofStudiVZ'sMotiontoDismiss.
Id.
InitsOppositiontoDefendants'Motion,FacebookalertedJudgeFogel:"Defendantspointtothesupposedlydeepeningdiscoverydisputebetweentheparties,butwhateverdeepeninghasoccurredisoftheirownmaking.
.
.
thenewroundofdiscoverydidnotexpandthescopeofdiscovery–itwasadirectresponsetoDefendants'refusaltocomplywithdiscoveryandrepeatedobjectionstothepreviousdiscoveryrequests.
Facebookstillseeksessentiallythesamecategoriesofdiscovery.
"Dkt.
No.
124at2:22–23;3:4-6.
Thisrecordisindisputable.
Farfrombeingignorantofthesecondroundofdiscovery,asDefendantsoutrageouslyclaim,JudgeFogelwasfullybriefedonthesubject.
Indeed,Facebook'ssecondroundofdiscoveryseemstohavebeentheimpetusbehindthestayofpersonaljurisdictiondiscoveryorderedbyJudgeFogelonMarch30,2009.
Dkt.
No.
138.
InthatOrder,JudgeFogelobserved:"Intheinstancecase,Defendantshaveshownthatdiscoveryrelatedtopersonaljurisdictionhasgrowncomplicatedandburdensome.
"Id.
at3:3-4.
ThisisadirectreferencetothedisputesarisingfrombothroundsofFacebookdiscovery.
1Accordingly,JudgeFogel'sMay4,2009Orderliftingthestayofpersonaljurisdictiondiscoverywasissuedwithfullknowledgeofbothroundsofdiscovery.
Inlightofthisunambiguousevidence,FacebookrespectfullysubmitsthatDefendants'objectionstoFacebook'smotiontocompelshouldbedeniedandthatFacebookbeentitledtorecoveryofcostsandfeesassociatedwithcombatingDefendants'unethicaldelaytactics.
//////1InlightoftheirownunambiguouseffortstomisleadtheCourtbyfailingtomentionthatDefendantsthemselvesraisedtheissueofthesecondroundofdiscovery,Defendants'attemptstoattackthecredibilityofFacebook'scounselareparticularlyegregious.
Case5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page7of2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728OHSWest:260675487.
3-4-REPLYINSUPPORTOFSECONDMOT.
TOCOMPEL2.
ToSuitTheirSpeciousArguments,DefendantsInventaNewTermForTheOctober23,2008JointStipulation.
Addingfurtherinsulttoinjury,Defendants'nextargumentinventsastipulationtermtosuitthereimpropermeans.
Defendantsarguethat"Facebookwasnotpermittedtousetheextratimecreatedbythecontinuanceofthemotiontodismisstopropoundnewdiscovery.
"SVZOpp.
At9:11-12;HoltzbrinckDefendants'OppositiontoSecondMotiontoCompel("Holtz.
Opp.
")at7:25-26.
Forsupport,Defendantswrite:"Facebookstipulatedto'takediscovery'relatedtothemotionstodismissonaparticularschedule.
"SVZOpp.
at9:13-14,citing,Dkt.
No.
77at2:26-3:5(emphasisadded).
Areaderpresentedwiththissentencemightreasonablyassumethat"Dkt.
No.
77"referstotheOctober23,2008JointStipulationenteredintobythepartiesandthatthequotation"takediscovery"isadirectquotefromthatstipulation.
However,neitheroftheseassumptionswouldbecorrect.
Infact,thephrase"takediscovery"doesnotappearintheparties'JointStipulationand"Dkt.
No.
77"refersnottothestipulationbuttoaJanuary23,2009motiontoenlargetime.
Inactuality,theOctober23Stipulationcontainedonlytwoterms,neitheroneofwhichfeaturesthe"takediscovery"languageDefendantsnowwishfullyseektoinsert:1.
OnorbeforeFriday,January16,2009,FacebookwillfileandserveitsOppositionstoDefendants'MotionstoDismissforLackofPersonalJurisdictionOr,IntheAlternative,ForForumNonConvenienswhichweree-filedwiththeCourtonOctober22,2008;and2.
OnorbeforeFriday,January30,2009,DefendantswillfiletheirreplypaperstoFacebook'sOppositionstoDefendants'motions.
Dkt.
No.
48.
Theidea,ofcourse,wasthatthepartieswouldbeabletocompletepersonaljurisdictiondiscoveryintheallottedthreemonths.
However,afterDefendantsrenegedontheiragreementsandbegantosabotagethediscoveryprocess,(seeDkt.
No.
161forafullerfactualhistory),itbecameclearthatdiscoverywouldnotbecompletedbyJanuary16.
Facebookaccordinglysoughtand,onJanuary28,2009,receivedpermissionfromJudgeFogel"tofileasupplementaloppositionwithrespecttowhetherthisCourthaspersonaljurisdictionoverStudiVZinlightofanynewlydiscoveredmaterial.
"Dkt.
No.
92.
(emphasisadded)FacebookCase5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page8of2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728OHSWest:260675487.
3-5-REPLYINSUPPORTOFSECONDMOT.
TOCOMPELneverrequestedacontinuanceonlytocompletethefirstrounddiscoverythathadalreadybeenserved,nordidJudgeFogeleversoorder.
Otherthantheirinventedstipulationlanguage,DefendantsareunabletopointtoanylanguageinanyorderthatwouldsupporttheextremepositionthatFacebookwasentitledtojustoneroundofjurisdictionaldiscovery.
NorareDefendantsabletopointtoanysupportingcaselaw.
Thisisunsurprising,asjurisdictionaldiscoveryisintentionallybroadandintendedtoallowaplaintifftoaccessevidencenecessarytoopposeDefendants'jurisdictionalchallenges.
SeeGibsonv.
ChryslerCorp.
,877F.
2d793,801(9thCir.
1986).
3.
TheCourtHasAlreadyDiscountedDefendants'PrimaFacieObjections.
StudiVZspendsnearlyathirdofitsbriefarguingthatFacebookisnotentitledtopersonaljurisdictiondiscoverybecauseithasfailedtomakeaprimafacieshowingofpersonaljurisdiction.
SVZOpp.
15:5-19:25.
Itiscertainlycauseforconcern(ifnotevenmoresanctions)thataftereightmonthsofwranglingoverwhatdiscoveryFacebookisentitledtorecover,DefendantswouldstillargueoverwhetherFacebookisentitledtothediscoveryatall.
WhatevergoodfaithdisputeDefendantsmayhavehadforraisingthisobjectionearlyinthelitigationhaslongsinceextinguished.
Theargumentismeritless.
Itisunsupportedbyrelevantlaw.
See,e.
g.
,OrchidBiosciences,Inc.
v.
St.
LouisUniversity,198F.
R.
D.
670,673(S.
D.
Cal.
2001)("[i]twould.
.
.
becounterintuitivetorequireaplaintiff,priortoconductingdiscovery,tomeetthesameburdenthatwouldberequiredinordertodefeatamotiontodismiss").
2ItiscontrarytoDefensecounsel'sunambiguouspromisestoFacebook'scounselregardingtheimminent2Thelogicoftheruleisobvious.
Inordertodefeatamotiontodismissforlackofpersonaljurisdiction,aplaintiffisrequiredtomakeaprimafacieshowingofpersonaljurisdiction.
Boschettov.
Hansing,539F.
3d1011,1015(9thCir.
2008).
Thepurposeofpersonaljurisdictiondiscoveryistopermitaplaintifftheopportunitytoobtainevidencesufficienttomakethatshowing.
See,e.
g.
,Gibsonv.
ChryslerCorp.
,261F.
3d927,948(9thCir.
2001)(personaljurisdictiondiscoveryis"availableinfederalcourttoestablishthepresenceofpersonaljurisdictioninthatcourt);AmericaWestAirlines,Inc.
v.
GPAGroup,Ltd.
,877F.
2d793,801(9thCir.
1986)("[w]herepertinentfactsbearingonthequestionofjurisdictionareindispute,discoveryshouldbeallowed").
IfDefendants'renewedobjectionwerecorrect,nopersonaljurisdictiondiscoverywouldeverissueastheplaintiffmeetingthestandardtoobtainitwouldhavealreadymadeashowingsufficienttodefeatthemotiontodismissitself.
Thisillogicalconclusionisnotthelaw.
Case5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page9of2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728OHSWest:260675487.
3-6-REPLYINSUPPORTOFSECONDMOT.
TOCOMPELproductionofdiscovery.
See,e.
g.
,Dkt.
No.
1215-17.
And,moreimportantly,itiscontrarytoDefensecounsel'sclearandrepeatedrepresentationstothisCourtthatheunderstoodthatFacebookisentitledtoandshouldgetjurisdictionaldiscoverythatalsogoestothemeritsofthecase.
See,e.
g.
,Dkt.
No.
78;Ex.
Aat3:14-12:14(defensecounselStephenS.
Smithclarifyingthathismotionforprotectiveorderwasnotintendedtoblockpersonaljurisdictiondiscoverythatisintertwinedwithmerits);Dkt.
No.
162;Ex.
Aat34:13-14(Defensecounselstatingthathewas"quitewillingtoworkwithyourHonortogetthemsomething");Dkt.
No.
164,Ex.
Bat17:19-24(Defensecounselstating:"Myproposalisthathe–thataccess[categoriesofdocumentsrelatingtoStudiVZ'saccessingoftheFacebookwebsite]isokayifitisforthepurposeofcopyingthedesign,look,feel,whateverotherwordwewanttouse,ofFacebook'sownwebsite,andaslongasitislimitedtoafairgroupofpeopleandafairamountoftime,meaningaparticularperiodoftime").
Moreover,the"primafacieobjection"hasalreadybeenrejectedbythisCourt,whichhasindicatedthatitisstrugglingnotwithwhetherFacebookisentitledtopersonaljurisdictiondiscoverybutwhatthescopeofthatdiscoveryshouldbe.
SeeDkt.
No.
164,Ex.
Bat17:15-18(ExcerptfromtheMarch3,2009hearingtranscriptwheretheCourtobserved,"I'mnotinclinedtogivehim[Facebook'scounsel]nothing,andI'mstrugglingtodefineasomethinginawaythat'sreasonable");seealsoDkt.
No.
155at8:1-10(May4,2009JudgeFogelOrderliftingthestayofpersonaljurisdictiondiscoverysoastoallowthe"fairpresentation"ofthejurisdictionalissuesinthiscase).
4.
TheCalder"EffectsTest"Applies.
Withasimilarintentionofover-complicatingFacebook'smotion,Defendantsnextbuildontheirprimafacieobjection,puttingforthaseriesofunsupportedargumentsthatconflate,confuse,ormisstateatleastthreedifferentlegalconcepts.
First,DefendantsarguethatFacebookcannotmakeaprimafacieargumentofpersonaljurisdictionbecause"FacebookhasnevermadeanyattempttoshowthatitsufferedthebruntofallegedharminCaliforniaortheUnitedStatesbecauseitisundisputedthatitdidnot.
"SVZCase5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page10of2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728OHSWest:260675487.
3-7-REPLYINSUPPORTOFSECONDMOT.
TOCOMPELOpp.
at18:5-7.
3Forstarters,Defendants'"focusonthebruntoftheharm,"SVZOpp.
at18:22,fn9,ismisplaced.
ThisCircuitdoesnotemploythattest.
SeeYahoo!
Inc.
v.
LaLigueContreLeRacismeetL'Antisemitisme,433F.
3d1199,1207(9thCir.
2006).
InYahoo!
,theNinthCircuitheld:Wetakethisopportunitytoclarifyourlawandtostatethatthe"brunt"oftheharmneednotbesufferedintheforumstate.
Ifajurisdictionallysufficientamountofharmissufferedintheforumstate,itdoesnotmatterthatevenmoreharmmighthavebeensufferedinanotherstate.
Insostating,wearefollowingKeeton,[Keetonv.
HustlerMagazine,465U.
S.
770(1984)]decidedonthesamedayasCalder,inwhichtheCourtsustainedtheexerciseofpersonaljurisdictioninNewHampshireeventhough"itisundoubtedlytruethatthebulkoftheharmdonetopetitioneroccurredoutsideNewHampshire.
Id.
,citing,Keeton,465U.
S.
at780.
Thus,Defendants'argumentthatCaldersomehowdoesnotapplyinthiscasebecausetheharmcausedtoFacebookinGermanymayoutweighthesubstantialharmsufferedbyFacebookinCaliforniaismeritless.
Second,itishardly"undisputed"thatFacebookdidnotsuffersignificantharminCalifornia.
Norisittruethatthat"Facebookhasnevermadeanyattempt"toshowthatitsufferedsignificantharmhereinitshomeforum.
Forinstance,initsrecentsupplementaloppositiontoJudgeFogelontheforumnonconveniensissue,FacebookwrotethatithadsufferedharmhereinCalifornia"intheformoflostrevenuesandincreasedmarketingandpromotionalcostsbecauseofDefendants'infringingcopycatwebsites.
[Further,]Defendantsdobusinesshereandconsumerconfusionlikelyhasoccurredinthisforum.
"Dkt.
No.
145at4:9-18,citing,PanavisionInt'lL.
P.
v.
Toeppen,141F.
3d1316,1322(9thCir.
1998)(althoughallegedtrademarkviolationsoccurredincyberspace,harmwassufferedatprincipalplaceofbusinessinCalifornia)(citingDakotaIndus.
,Inc.
v.
DakotaSportswear,946F.
2d1384,1388-89(8thCir.
1991)(findingthateconomicinjuryissufferedinforumwhereplaintiffresides);seealsoIntercon,Inc.
v.
BellAtlanticInternetSolutions,Inc.
,205F.
3d1244,1248-49(10thCir.
2000)3Thispuzzlingargumentismadeallthemoresobythesection'stitle:"TheCalderv.
Jones'EffectsTest'DoesNotApply.
"Althoughtheheadingstatesthatthetestdoesnotapply,thebodyoftheopposition(totheextentFacebookunderstandsit)arguesthatthetestdoesapplybutthatFacebookhasnotmadetherequisiteshowingtomeetit.
Case5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page11of2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728OHSWest:260675487.
3-8-REPLYINSUPPORTOFSECONDMOT.
TOCOMPEL(holdingthatout-of-statedefendant'scontinuedtransmissionofemailoverplaintiff'sserverscauseinjurytoplaintiffinitshomestateeventhoughalloftheharmfulactivityoccurredelsewhere).
Third,intheirbaselessattempttodistinguishCalder,Defendantsonceagainrevivethemisguided"merits-baseddiscovery"argumentsthattheyunequivocallywithdrewinopenCourtonDecember16,2008.
SeeDkt.
No.
78;Ex.
A(transcriptfromDecember16,2008hearingwheretheywithdrawtheirmotion).
Insupportoftheirprimafacieobjection,DefendantscomplainthatFacebookisseekingtoconduct"discoveryaboutallissues"inthecase.
SVZOpp.
at17:22-26.
Thisworn-outargumentisnonsense.
Facebookisnotseeking"discoveryaboutallissuesinacase.
"Facebookisnotseekingdiscoveryrelatedtodamages,confusionintherelevantmarkets,performanceandqualitycomplaintsbyDefendants'customers,andahostofotherissuesnotrelatedtothecreation,designanddevelopmentoftheStudiVZsites.
AsFacebookhaspreviouslybriefed,andDefendantsconceded,thefactthatjurisdictionaldiscoverymayalsogothemeritsofthedisputedoesnotbarsuchdiscovery.
SeeDkt.
No.
59.
ThisCourthasheldthatmerits-baseddiscoveryshouldnotbedeniedwhendiscoveryonthemerits"mayinform"plaintiff'soppositiontoajurisdictionalmotion.
Id.
at8:16-17,quoting,Loftonv.
BankofAmericaCorp.
,2008U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS41005,*4-5(N.
D.
Cal.
,May12,2008)(Illston,J.
).
Facebookisaccordinglyentitledtoitsrequesteddiscovery.
5.
Fieldingv.
HubertIsInappositeToTheCurrentFacts.
DefendantsseektolikenthiscasetoFieldingv.
HubertBurdaMedia,Inc.
,2004WL532714,CaseNo.
Civ.
A.
3:03-CV-0872(N.
D.
Tex.
Feb.
11,2004).
Infact,Defendantsclaimthat"thiscaseisidenticalinallrelevantrespects"toFielding.
Thatconclusionisgrosslyinerror.
InFielding,aformerSwissambassadortoGermanyandhisTexanwifesuedanumberofGermanpublishingcompaniesforlibel,intentionalinflictionofemotionaldistress,tortiousinterferencewithprospectivebusinessrelationsandcivilconspiracy.
Id.
at*1.
TheclaimsaroseoutofPlaintiffs'allegationsthattheGermancompanies"undertookacampaigntoimpugnthereputationsofPlaintiffsinEuropeandtheUnitedStates"bypublishingmagazinearticlesCase5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page12of2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728OHSWest:260675487.
3-9-REPLYINSUPPORTOFSECONDMOT.
TOCOMPELdetailinganallegedaffairbetweentheformerSwissambassadorandaEuropeanmodel.
Id.
"[T]hearticleswereoriginallypublishedbytheGermanmedia"inGermany.
Id.
Afterwards,"someoftheallegationssetforthinthosestorieswerepublishedintheUnitedStatesviatheAssociatedPress,DallasMorningNews,andotherdomesticmedia.
"Id.
TheCourtfoundthatTexaswasnotthe"geographicfocus"ofthecomplaintas"[t]hearticleswerepublishedinGermany,inGerman,anddistributedalmostexclusivelytoreadersinEurope.
"NotonlyisFieldingnot"identicalinallrelevantrespects"totheinstantcase,itisn'tevenclose.
FacebookhasallegedthatDefendantscommittedintentionaltortsaimedatFacebook'scomputerserverslocatedinCalifornia,knowingthatFacebookwaslocatedinCaliforniaandknowingthatFacebookwouldbeharmedhere.
TheFieldingdefendantsdidnothingsimilar.
Infact,theFieldingcourtexpresslyobservedthat"Plaintiffs'allegationsofrepublicationdonotinvokeanintentionaltort,"andcitedtolanguagefromtheCalderopinion"specificallynoting"that"mereuntargetednegligence"didnotamountto"intentionalandallegedlytortiousactions.
"Id.
,citing,Calderv.
Jones,465U.
S.
783,789(1984).
Ontheotherhand,courtshaverepeatedlyconfirmedthatthetypeofconductallegedbyFacebookconstitutesatortandthattheharmfromthattortisfeltinFacebook'shomeresidence.
See,e.
g.
,Licciardellov.
Lovelady,2008U.
S.
App.
LEXIS21376,*20,CaseNo.
07-14086(11thCir.
October10,2008)(holdingthattheout-of-stateDefendant'sunauthorizeduseoftheplaintiff'strademarkandmisappropriationofhisnameandreputationforcommercialgainsatisfiedtheCaldereffectstest);PanavisionInt'l,L.
P.
v.
Toeppen,141F.
3d1316,1321-22(9thCir.
1998)(affirmingtheexerciseofjurisdictioninatrademarkinfringementactionoveranonresidentdefendantwhosesolecontactwiththeforumwashispostingofplaintiff'strademarksonhisinternetwebsite);Intercon,Inc.
v.
BellAtlanticInternetSolutions,Inc.
,205F.
3d1244,1248-49(10thCir.
2000)(holdingthatout-of-statedefendant'scontinuedtransmissionofemailoverplaintiff'sserverscausedinjurytoplaintiffinitshomestate);PeridyneTech.
Solutions,LLCv.
MathesonFastFreight,Inc.
,117F.
Supp.
2d1366,1371-73(N.
D.
Ga.
2000)(exercisingjurisdictionovernon-residentdefendantswhoaccessedplaintiff'scomputersystemovertheInternetinfurtheranceoftheirtortiousactivity);FlowserveCorp.
v.
MidwestPipeRepair,2006Case5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page13of2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728OHSWest:260675487.
3-10-REPLYINSUPPORTOFSECONDMOT.
TOCOMPELU.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS4315,*10,CaseNo.
3:05-cv-1357-N(N.
D.
Tex.
2006)(jurisdictionproperovera"hacker"whoaccessedplaintiff'sservers,wheretheserverswererelatedtoplaintiff'sclaims).
Thus,thetrespasstoFacebook'sCaliforniaserversandthefinancialharmthatFacebooksufferedinPaloAlto,CaliforniasignificantlydistinguishesthecurrentcasefromFielding.
Inaddition,DefendantshavedirectlyenteredtheCaliforniamarketwiththeirinfringingproduct.
StudiVZhasadmittedtohavingwellover11,000income-generatingusersinCalifornia.
Dkt.
No.
71;Ex.
2.
TheFieldingdefendantssentfewerthan40copiesoftheirmagazinestoTexas.
Id.
at*6.
TheFieldingmagazineswerewrittenentirelyinGermanandintendedmerelyforaGermanaudience;theStudiVZdefendantsnowoperateoneoftheirprimarywebsitesinEnglish,alsohavesitesinSpanish,andregularlyenterintocontractswith,correspondwith,andaltertheirsourcecodetocatertothousandsofregisteredusersinCalifornia.
EveniftheStudiVZsiteswereentirelyinGerman,theFieldingcourtnotedthat"theremightbeinstanceswhereanarticlewritteninaforeignlanguageisdirectedtowardstheStateofTexas.
"Id.
Insum,Defendants'claimthatthiscaseis"identicalinallrelevantrespects"toFieldingisabsurdintheextreme.
B.
TheSecondRoundofDiscoveryRelatestoPersonalJurisdiction.
Defendantsarguethat"mostofFacebook'snewdiscoveryrequestshavenothingtodowithpersonaljurisdiction.
"SVZOpp.
at13:6-7(emphasisinoriginal).
4Consistentwiththeirpatternofsubstitutinghyperboleforreasonedanalysis,DefendantsenumerateanumberofFacebookdiscoveryrequeststhattheyarguearesounrelatedtopersonaljurisdictionastocross"thelinefromaggressiveadvocacytoaviolationofRule11.
"Id.
at15:1-4.
AccordingtoDefendants,"[t]hereisnoconceivableargumentthattheserequestsaredirectedatpersonaljurisdiction.
"Id.
at15:1-4.
GiventhatthemajorityoftheserequestsdealwithcategoriesofdiscoverythattheCourtwasinclinedtogranttoFacebookattheMarch3,2009hearing,theCourtwoulddowelltolookskepticallyuponDefendants'conclusions.
4Byidentifyingthe22discoveryrequeststheyfeeldonotrelatetopersonaljurisdiction,Defendantsimpliedlyconcedethattheyagreethattheremainingrequestsdoinfactrelatetopersonaljurisdiction.
Case5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page14of2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728OHSWest:260675487.
3-11-REPLYINSUPPORTOFSECONDMOT.
TOCOMPELForinstance,anumberoftherequeststhatDefendantsdismissasoutlandishinfactrelatetoso-called"access"or"design"documents.
Suchdocuments,asdiscussedextensivelyattheMarch3hearingbeforethisCourt,directlyrelatetoStudiVZ'stortiousactsaimedatcomputerserverslocatedinCaliforniaandthatarelikelytorevealthatStudiVZcopiedFacebook'stradedressandperhapsevenitssourcecodeinviolationoffederalandstatelaw.
SeeRFPNos.
42,45-47,51-52,58,60-62;RFANos.
4,21.
OtherallegedlysanctionablediscoveryrequestsaretailoredtouncoverthetruthaboutDefendants'consumercontactswithCaliforniaandtheUnitedStatesaswellasitsbusinessconnectionswithU.
S.
investorsorbusinesspartners.
SeeRFPNos.
43-44,53,57,59;RFANos.
18-20.
TheyclearlyrelatetoDefendants'contactswith,andconductin,CaliforniaandtheU.
S.
,and,assuch,arerelevanttopersonaljurisdiction.
RequestforAdmissionNo.
16,whichDefendantsarguehasnoconceivablerelationtotheCourt'spersonaljurisdictionanalysis,reads:"AdmitthatusersofStudiVZarerequiredtoagreetotermsofusepriortoreceivingfullaccesstotheStudiVZwebsites.
"StudiVZhasadmittedtohavingover11,000registeredusersinCaliforniaalone.
Dkt.
No.
71;Ex.
2.
FacebookbelievesthateachandeveryoneoftheseuserswasfirstrequiredtoenterintoacontractwithStudiVZpriorgainingfullaccesstothesite.
Accordingly,notonlyistheconnectionbetweenthisrequestandpersonaljurisdictionanalysis"conceivable,"itisself-evident.
Insum,thereisnodoubtthatFacebook'srequests"mayinform"itsjurisdictionaloppositions.
Accordingly,Defendants'objectionsastorelevanceshouldbeoverruled.
C.
FacebookHasNotWaivedItsRighttoCompelDiscovery.
FacebookvigorouslydeniesthatitevermisledtheCourt,consciouslyorotherwise,concerningthesecondroundofdiscovery.
ThatFacebookchosenottoburdentheCourtwithaseconddiscoverydisputewhilethefirstwaspendingdoesnotsupportDefendants'inflammatorychargesofavastconspiracytopullthewoolovertheCourt'seyes.
Indeed,Defendants'logicwouldimplicatethemintheconspiracyaswell,astheynevermentionedthethenalready-pendingsecondroundofdiscoveryeitherattheMarch3hearingonFacebook'sfirstmotiontocompelorinthebriefingleadinguptothathearing.
Moreover,asdiscussedabove,JudgeFogelwasfullyapprisedofthesecondroundofdiscoveryasofMarch19,whenDefendantsfiledtheirmotiontoCase5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page15of2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728OHSWest:260675487.
3-12-REPLYINSUPPORTOFSECONDMOT.
TOCOMPELstay.
Defendantscitetocaselawthatpurportedlysupportsthenotionthat"[u]nderthesecircumstances,theCourtshouldfindthatFacebookhaswaiveditsrighttocompel.
"SVZOpp.
at12:17-22.
However,Defendants'relianceonthesecasesismisplaced.
Ineachone,thecourtfoundthatapartyhadwaivedtherighttocompelfurtherproductionbecauseithadbroughtitsmotioneitherafterorontheeveofthediscoverycut-off.
SeeGaultv.
NabiscoBiscuitCo.
,184F.
R.
D.
620,622(D.
Nev.
1999)(findinguntimelyamotiontocompelserved"seventy-six(76)daysafterthecloseofdiscoveryandonehundredthirty-six(136)daysafterthereceipt"of[Defendant's]discoveryresponses);Purnellv.
ArrowFinancialServices,LLC,2007U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS7630,at*1(E.
D.
Mi.
,Jan.
23,2007)(findinguntimelyamotiontocompelbroughtnearlyfivemonthsafterthediscoverydeadline);InreSulfuricAcidAntitrustLitigation,231F.
R.
D.
331(N.
D.
Ill.
2005)(findinguntimelyamotiontocompelbroughtonthelastdayofdiscovery,responsestowhichwouldhaverequiredanextensionofthediscoverydeadline);Westv.
Miller,2006U.
S.
Dist.
LEXIS56243,at*17(N.
D.
Ill.
,Aug.
11,2006)(findinguntimelyamotiontocompelbroughtjustelevendaysbeforethediscoverycutoffafter"fourmonthsofdiscoveryinaction").
Thisprecedentisinappositehere,whereFacebook'ssecondmotiontocompelwasbroughtwellbeforethediscoverycutoffandshortlyafterJudgeFogelliftedthefive-weekstayofdiscovery.
Indeed,inDefendants'Gaultopinion,thecourtexpresslynotedthat"[a]motiontocompelfiledduringthediscoveryperiodwouldrarelybeconsidereduntimely.
"184F.
R.
D.
at622.
Giventhevigorousdisputeoverdiscoveryinthismatter,andthetemporarystayofdiscovery,itispreposterousforDefendantstoclaimthatFacebookhassomehowsleptonitsrightsorotherwisenotbeendiligentinpursuingproduction.
D.
TheRequestsforAdmissionstotheHoltzbrinckDefendantsAreNotDuplicative.
TheHoltzbrinckDefendantsraiseaseriesofmisguidedobjectionstoFacebook'sRequestsforAdmissions.
Facebook'sargumentforpersonaljurisdictionovertheHoltzbrinckDefendantsreliesinpartonthetheorythattheyknowinglyandintentionallycontributedtotheongoingpiracyofFacebook'sproductandservices.
FacebookalsoallegesthattheHoltzbrinckCase5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page16of2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728OHSWest:260675487.
3-13-REPLYINSUPPORTOFSECONDMOT.
TOCOMPELDefendantsknowinglyandintentionallycontributedto,profitedfrom,andabettedStudiVZ'sunlawfulaccesstoFacebook'sCaliforniaservers.
Theseassertionswould,ifproven,plainlybesufficienttoestablishpersonaljurisdictionbecauseDefendantswouldhaveknowinglyharmedaCaliforniaresidentinCaliforniaandcausedharmhere.
SeeLicciardellov.
Lovelady,2008U.
S.
App.
LEXIS21376,*20,CaseNo.
07-14086(11thCir.
Oct.
10,2008)(holdingthattheout-of-stateDefendant'sunauthorizeduseoftheplaintiff'strademarkandmisappropriationofhisnameandreputationforcommercialgainsatisfiedtheCaldereffectstest).
Accordingly,itisimportantforFacebooktoestablishtheHoltzbrinckDefendants'knowledgeof,andparticipationin,StudiVZ'sinfringingactivities.
Tothatend,FacebookservedtheHoltzbrinckswithfive,narrowlytailoredRequestsforAdmissions.
5DefendantsrebufftheseRequestsbycitingmainlytoexpertreportsfiledintheGermanactionpendingbetweentheparties.
AccordingtoDefendants,"therecanbenodoubtthattheHoltzbrinckDefendantswouldhavenoticedsimilaritiessimplybybeingawarethatbothsitesexisted.
"Holtz.
Opp.
at12:12-18.
Butarepresentationbyanattorneyinanoppositionbriefdoeshavenearthesameevidentiaryvalueasanadmissionfromthepartiesthemselves.
DefendantsinexplicablyfeelvindicatedinignoringtheirdutytoanswertheRequestsforAdmissionsbecause"[t]histopicisalreadythoroughlydevelopedbybothpartiesintheGermancase.
Thus,thereisnoneedforanew,separatesetofdiscoveryinthiscaseonthesametopic.
"Id.
at12:22-23.
Defendantsprovidenosupportforthisastonishingconclusion.
TheGermanmatterisdifferentthanthepresentcase.
If,however,Defendantsarecorrectandtheissueshavebeen"thoroughlydeveloped"inGermany,5"(1)AdmitthatatthetimeYOUacquiredaninterestinSTUDIVZyouwereawareofaccusationsbyFACEBOOKthatSTUDIVZwasinfringingFACEBOOK'Slegalrights,including,butnotlimitedto,intellectualpropertyrights;(2)AdmitthatYOUhaveknowledgethatSTUDIVZaccessedtheFACEBOOKWEBSITEforcommercialpurposes.
(3)AdmitthatYOUhaveknowledgethatSTUDIVZaccessedtheFACEBOOKWEBSITEforthepurposeofmodelingatleastoneoftheSTUDIVZWEBSITESaftertheFACEBOOKWEBSITE.
(4)AdmitthatYOUhaveknowledgeofsimilaritiesbetweentheFACEBOOKWEBSITEandtheSTUDIVZWEBSITES,including,butnotlimitedto,visualsimilarities,functionalsimilarities,featuresimilarities,andlayoutsimilarities.
(5)AdmitthatthetimeYOUacquiredaninterestinSTUDIVZyouwereawareofsimilaritiesbetweentheFACEBOOKWEBSITEandtheSTUDIVZWEBSITES,including,butnotlimitedto,visualsimilarities,functionalsimilarities,featuresimilarities,andlayoutsimilarities.
"Case5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page17of2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728OHSWest:260675487.
3-14-REPLYINSUPPORTOFSECONDMOT.
TOCOMPELrespondingtogiverequestsforadmissionwouldseemremarkablyeasy.
FacebookrespectfullyrequeststhattheCourtorderDefendantstovacatetheirspeciousobjectionsandanswerFacebook'sRequestsforAdmissionsrelatingtotheirknowledgeofStudiVZ'swrongdoing.
TheHoltzbrinckDefendants'remainingobjectionsareequallymeritless.
DefendantsarguethatbecausetheyhaveproducedsomeevidenceindicatingthattheywereawareofFacebook'sclaimsagainstStudiVZ,theyareprecludedfromrespondingtoaRequestforAdmissionconfirmingthisfacttobethecase.
Holtz.
Opp.
at12:24-13:7.
ThisobjectioniscontrarytoFederalRuleofCivilProcedure36andisunsupportedbyprecedent.
DefendantsthenarguethattheyshouldnothavetorespondtoadditionalrequestsregardingStudiVZ'saccessofFacebookbecause"Facebookalreadyknows(orhasatleastassumed)thattheHoltzbrinckDefendantswerenotawareofanyaccessbyStudiVZofFacebook'swebsite.
"Id.
at13:8-11.
Theoppositetrue.
FacebookhasallegedthattheHoltzbrinckDefendantsdidhaveknowledge.
DefendantsclaimthatFacebookcouldhavepriedanswersfromtheserequestsbydeposingMartinWeber.
ButpriortothatdepositionDefendantsflip-floppedontheissueofquestioningregarding"access.
"SeeDkt.
No.
96.
Andinanyevent,thataborteddepositionhasnothingtodowithDefendants'responsibilitytoanswerFacebook'sRequests.
Partiesarepermittedtouseallformsofdiscovery.
EvenintheWeberdepositionhadgoneforward,thatwouldnotprecludeFacebookfromsubsequentlyservingRequestsforAdmission.
Accordingly,FacebookrespectfullyrequeststhattheHoltzbrinckDefendantsbecompelledtocomplywiththeirdiscoveryobligationsandrespondtoFacebook'sRequestsforAdmissions.
III.
CONCLUSIONUnderclearfederallaworiginatingoutofthisveryCourt,Facebookisentitledtoanydiscoverythat"mayinform"itsoppositionstoDefendants'motionstodismissforlackofpersonaljurisdiction.
Fortheforegoingreasons,Facebookrespectfullysubmitsthatitsdiscoveryrequestseasilyclearthisstandard.
Accordingly,FacebookrequeststhattheCourtgrantitsmotiontocompelfurtherresponsestoFacebook'sSecondRoundofDiscoveryRequests.
Case5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page18of2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728OHSWest:260675487.
3-15-REPLYINSUPPORTOFSECONDMOT.
TOCOMPELDated:June11,2009ORRICK,HERRINGTON&SUTCLIFFELLPJULIOC.
AVALOSAttorneysforPlaintiffFACEBOOK,INC.
Case5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page19of2012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728OHSWest:260675487.
3-1-REPLYINSUPPORTOFSECONDMOT.
TOCOMPELCASENO.
:5:08-CV-03468CERTIFICATEOFSERVICEIherebycertifythatthisdocument(s)filedthroughtheECFsystemwillbesentelectronicallytotheregisteredparticipantsasidentifiedontheNoticeofElectronicFiling(NEF)andpapercopieswillbesenttothoseindicatedasnonregisteredparticipantsonJune11,2009.
Dated:June11,2009.
Respectfullysubmitted,/s/JulioC.
Avalos/s/JulioC.
AvalosCase5:08-cv-03468-JFDocument178Filed06/11/09Page20of20