Demarchi, Virginia K., United States Magistrate Judge
v.
FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant
Counsel
Ashley Conrad Keller, Pro Hac Vice, Benjamin John Whiting, Pro Hac Vice, Jason Allen Zweig, Pro Hac Vice, Keller Lenkner LLC, Michelle R. Schmit, Pro Hac Vice, Stephen A. Swedlow, Pro Hac Vice, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Chicago, IL, Brantley Ian Pepperman, Kevin Yoshiwo Teruya, Adam Bryan Wolfson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jason W. Ethridge, Pro Hac Vice, Warren D. Postman, Keller Lenkner LLC, Washington, DC, Kristen Marie Anderson, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Manisha Sheth, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, New York, NY, Kyle Pozan, Pro Hac Vice, Laura Matson, Pro Hac Vice, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Berkeley, CA, for Plaintiff Maximilian Klein.Ashley Conrad Keller, Pro Hac Vice, Benjamin John Whiting, Pro Hac Vice, Jason Allen Zweig, Pro Hac Vice, Keller Lenkner LLC, Michelle R. Schmit, Pro Hac Vice, Stephen A. Swedlow, Pro Hac Vice, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Chicago, IL, Brantley Ian Pepperman, Kevin Yoshiwo Teruya, Adam Bryan Wolfson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jason W. Ethridge, Pro Hac Vice, Warren D. Postman, Keller Lenkner LLC, Washington, DC, Kyle Pozan, Pro Hac Vice, Laura Matson, Pro Hac Vice, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, Manisha Sheth, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, New York, NY, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Berkeley, CA, for Plaintiff Sarah Grabert.
Jennifer Lauren Joost, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, San Francisco, CA, Melissa L. Troutner, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, Radnor, PA, for Plaintiffs Deborah Dames, Timothy Mathews.
Tina Wolfson, Rachel Renee Johnson, Robert Ahdoot, Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, Burbank, CA, Andrew William Ferich, Pro Hac Vice, Ahdoot & Wolfson PC, Radnor, PA, for Plaintiffs Vickie Sherman, Lezah Neville-Marrs.
Tina Wolfson, Rachel Renee Johnson, Robert Ahdoot, Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, Burbank, CA, Andrew William Ferich, Pro Hac Vice, Ahdoot & Wolfson PC, Radnor, PA, Kristen Marie Anderson, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff Jarred Johnson.
Tina Wolfson, Rachel Renee Johnson, Robert Ahdoot, Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, Burbank, CA, Andrew William Ferich, Pro Hac Vice, Ahdoot & Wolfson PC, Radnor, PA, Brian James Dunne, Bathaee Dunne LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Edward Maxwell Grauman, Pro Hac Vice, Bathaee Dunne LLP, Austin, TX, Hal Davis Cunningham, Scott + Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, San Diego, CA, Henry J. Kelston, Pro Hac Vice, Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, Kristen Marie Anderson, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Yavar Bathaee, Bathaee Dunne LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff Katherine Loopers.
Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, WA, Arielle S. Wagner, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, PLLP, Brian D. Clark, Kyle Pozan, Pro Hac Vice, Laura Matson, Pro Hac Vice, Robert K. Shelquist, Stephanie Alicia Chen, W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, Brantley Ian Pepperman, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Michelle R. Schmit, Stephen A. Swedlow, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Chicago, IL, Rebecca Anne Peterson, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneaoplis, MN, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Berkeley, CA, Warren D. Postman, Keller Lenkner LLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff Rachel Banks Kupcho.
Dena C. Sharp, Adam E. Polk, Jordan S. Elias, Scott M. Grzenczyk, Girard Sharp LLP, San Francisco, CA, Austin B. Cohen, Pro Hac Vice, Keith J. Verrier, Levin Fishbein Sedran and Berman, Philadelphia, PA, Edward Maxwell Grauman, Pro Hac Vice, Bathaee Dunne LLP, Austin, TX, Hal Davis Cunningham, Scott + Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, San Diego, CA, Kristen Marie Anderson, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Yavar Bathaee, Bathaee Dunne LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff Jessica L. Layser.
Samuel M. Ward, Stephen R. Basser, Barrack Rodos & Bacine, San Diego, CA, Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Barrack Rodos & Bacine, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff Charles Steinberg.
Ari Yale Basser, Jordan L. Lurie, Pomerantz LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff Shari Rosenman.
Brian James Dunne, Bathaee Dunne LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Christopher M. Burke, David H. Goldberger, Yifan Kate Lv, Daniel James Brockwell, Hal Davis Cunningham, Scott + Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, San Diego, CA, Kristen Marie Anderson, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Yavar Bathaee, Andrew C. Wolinsky, Pro Hac Vice, Bathaee Dunne LLP, New York, NY, Edward Maxwell Grauman, Pro Hac Vice, Bathaee Dunne LLP, Austin, TX, Laura Matson, Pro Hac Vice, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff Affilious, Inc.
Brian James Dunne, Bathaee Dunne LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Christopher M. Burke, David H. Goldberger, Yifan Kate Lv, Daniel James Brockwell, Hal Davis Cunningham, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, San Diego, CA, Kristen Marie Anderson, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Yavar Bathaee, Andrew C. Wolinsky, Pro Hac Vice, Bathaee Dunne LLP, New York, NY, Edward Maxwell Grauman, Pro Hac Vice, Bathaee Dunne LLP, Austin, TX, for Plaintiff Jessyca Frederick.
Brian James Dunne, Bathaee Dunne LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Christopher M. Burke, David H. Goldberger, Yifan Kate Lv, Daniel James Brockwell, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, San Diego, CA, Kristen Marie Anderson, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Yavar Bathaee, Bathaee Dunne LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs NJ Premier Inc., Timothy Mills.
Brian James Dunne, Bathaee Dunne LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Christopher M. Burke, David H. Goldberger, Yifan Kate Lv, Daniel James Brockwell, Hal Davis Cunningham, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, San Diego, CA, Kristen Marie Anderson, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Yavar Bathaee, Andrew C. Wolinsky, Pro Hac Vice, Bathaee Dunne LLP, New York, NY, Edward Maxwell Grauman, Pro Hac Vice, Bathaee Dunne LLP, Austin, TX, for Plaintiffs Mark Young, Joshua Jeon.
Brian James Dunne, Bathaee Dunne LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Christopher M. Burke, David H. Goldberger, Yifan Kate Lv, Daniel James Brockwell, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, San Diego, CA, Kristen Marie Anderson, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Yavar Bathaee, Bathaee Dunne LLP, New York, NY, Laura Matson, Pro Hac Vice, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff Danny Collins.
Brian James Dunne, Bathaee Dunne LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Christopher M. Burke, David H. Goldberger, Yifan Kate Lv, Daniel James Brockwell, Hal Davis Cunningham, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, San Diego, CA, Kristen Marie Anderson, Michael P. Srodoski, Pro Hac Vice, Patrick J. McGahan, Pro Hac Vice, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Yavar Bathaee, Andrew C. Wolinsky, Pro Hac Vice, Bathaee Dunne LLP, New York, NY, Edward Maxwell Grauman, Pro Hac Vice, Bathaee Dunne LLP, Austin, TX, Laura Matson, Pro Hac Vice, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiffs 406 Property Services, PLLC, Mark Berney.
Brian James Dunne, Bathaee Dunne LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Christopher M. Burke, David H. Goldberger, Yifan Kate Lv, Daniel James Brockwell, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, San Diego, CA, Kristen Marie Anderson, Michael P. Srodoski, Pro Hac Vice, Patrick J. McGahan, Pro Hac Vice, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Yavar Bathaee, Bathaee Dunne LLP, New York, NY, Laura Matson, Pro Hac Vice, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff MarQuisha Cork.
Brant Douglas Penney, Pro Hac Vice, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, St. Paul, MN, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff Rita Garvin.
Dennis Stewart, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, San Diego, CA, Catherine Sung-Yun K. Smith, Daniel E. Gustafson, Pro Hac Vice, Daniel C. Hedlund, Daniel J. Nordin, Ling S. Wang, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC, Patrick Howard, Simon Bahne Paris, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, Philadelphia, PA, E. Powell Miller, Sharon S. Almonrode, Pro Hac Vice, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Rochester, MI, Kenneth A. Wexler, Pro Hac Vice, Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP, Chicago, IL, Mark John Tamblyn, Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff Joe Kovacevich.
Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, San Francisco, CA, Kristen Marie Anderson, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff Mark K. Wasvary, P.C.
Kevin Francis Ruf, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff Melissa Ryan.
Brian James Dunne, Bathaee Dunne LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Edward Maxwell Grauman, Pro Hac Vice, Bathaee Dunne LLP, Austin, TX, Hal Davis Cunningham, Scott + Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, San Diego, CA, Kristen Marie Anderson, Scott and Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, Yavar Bathaee, Bathaee Dunne LLP, New York, NY, Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, Burbank, CA, for Plaintiff Zahara Mossman.
Robert Alan Hennig, Samuel Marion Brown, Hennig Kramer Ruiz & Singh, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff Sally Loveland.
ORDER RE SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 DISPUTE RE PLAINTIFFS' INITIAL DISCLOSURES
Re: Dkt. No. 156
The Advertiser Plaintiffs[1] and the Consumer Plaintiffs[2] (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) ask the Court to resolve their dispute regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ Rule 26(a) initial disclosures regarding computation of damages. Dkt. No. 156. The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without a hearing. See Civil L.R. 7- 1(b).
For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that the Consumer Plaintiffs must supplement their initial disclosures, but the Advertiser Plaintiffs need not.
I. BACKGROUND
Facebook contends that Plaintiffs have not disclosed the amount or method for computing damages or the documents or evidence on which they intend to rely, as required by Rule 26(a). Facebook points to Plaintiffs’ representations that they have already extensively investigated their respective claims and developed their theories of liability. In addition, Facebook observes that Plaintiffs have had access to more than 12 million documents relating to their claims for five months. Plaintiffs respond that they have made the required disclosures, and that Facebook’s demands exceed what Rule 26(a) requires. In particular, Plaintiffs argue that their damages disclosures are commensurate with the information reasonably available to them at this stage of the case. They point out that a more precise computation of damages will likely require expert testimony, and they note that Facebook’s document production to date does not include all of the records necessary for a more complete damages analysis.
II. DISCUSSION
Rule 26(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that each party “provide . . . a computation of each category of damages claimed by the . . . party—who must also make available for inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material, unless privileged or protected from disclosure, on which each computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) does not require damages to be calculated with precision. However, it does require a plaintiff to disclose its computation of damages, in light of the information currently available to it, in sufficient detail so as to enable the defendant to understand its potential exposure and to make informed decisions about discovery and other matters. E.g., City & County of San Francisco v. Tutor-Saliba Corp., 218 F.R.D. 219, 221 (N.D. Cal. 2003); see also Song v. Drenberg, No. 18-cv-06283-LHK (VKD), 2019 WL 1949785, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2019) (discussing initial disclosures generally). A party is not excused from making these disclosures because it has not fully investigated the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(E).
Because their respective disclosures differ, the Court separately considers whether the Advertiser Plaintiffs and the Consumer Plaintiffs have complied with the requirements of Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii).
A. Advertiser Plaintiffs
The Advertiser Plaintiffs’ initial damages disclosure states that they seek compensatory damages arising from overcharges for advertising. The disclosure describes the methodology used to compute damages and gives an estimate of the amount of damages on behalf of the plaintiff class. In addition, for each named plaintiff, the disclosures provide an estimate of individual damages. The disclosure specifically identifies some documents used to compute damages and states that others will be produced before September 10, 2021. Dkt. No. 156-2 at 26-28.
Facebook objects that this disclosure is based on an improper or inapplicable methodology for computing damages, and that the Advertiser Plaintiffs fail to adequately support their claim that they were overcharged. To the extent Facebook challenges the merits of the Advertiser Plaintiffs’ methodology, its objection is not well-taken; the Advertiser Plaintiffs have disclosed their methodology, which is all that Rule 26(a) requires. To the extent Facebook challenges the disclosure as lacking support, if the Advertiser Plaintiffs have disclosed the remaining documents on which they rely, as they stated they would before September 10, 2021, then the Court is not persuaded that they have failed to identify the supporting evidentiary material as the Rule requires.
Both parties acknowledge that expert testimony may be necessary for a full disclosure of the Advertiser Plaintiffs’ damages computation. However, the fact that such testimony may be necessary, or that the Court has set a separate deadline for the disclosure of expert testimony under Rule 26(a)(2), does not relieve the Advertiser Plaintiffs of their obligation to timely supplement their initial disclosures as their damages theories develop. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A); TutorSaliba, 218 F.R.D. at 221, 222 (further specification of damages computation may require expert analysis or testimony). On the record presented, the Court is unable to conclude that the Advertiser Plaintiffs have failed to disclose expert analysis supporting their damages computation that is reasonably available to them at this time.
B. Consumer Plaintiffs
The Consumer Plaintiffs’ initial damages disclosure states that they seek compensatory damages reflecting “the difference between the reduced value that Facebook provided Consumer Plaintiffs as a result of Facebook’s alleged competition-reducing conduct and the value that competition free of Facebook’s anticompetitive restraints would have required Facebook to provide Consumer Plaintiffs (including adequate compensation for the data that Consumer Plaintiffs provided to Facebook but which Facebook did not provide adequate consideration for in return).” Dkt. No. 156-1 at 13. However, apart from a reference to Facebook’s purported “market price” of $20.00 per month for user data, the disclosure does not describe how the Consumer Plaintiffs compute damages. Id. at 13-14. Instead, the disclosure refers in a superficial manner to “publicly-available documents” that the Consumer Plaintiffs say support a damages estimate of at least “tens of billions of dollars.” The Consumer Plaintiffs do not identity the documents or other evidentiary material on which they rely, and they make no representations about making producing these documents to Facebook. See id.
The Court agrees with Facebook that this disclosure does not meet the requirements of Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). If the Consumer Plaintiffs seek damages based on provision of user data without adequate compensation, they must identify the data for which insufficient compensation was provided and an estimate of its value, as well as the methodology used to compute the estimate and the evidentiary material on which they rely. If the Consumer Plaintiffs seek damages based on something other than the uncompensated value of their data, they must describe with greater specificity the nature of the harm for which they claim damages, the methodology on which they rely to compute damages, and an estimate of the amount of damages claimed. In addition, the Consumer Plaintiffs must identify the documents or other evidentiary material on which they base their damages computation or produce the materials to Facebook.
As noted above, the fact that expert testimony may be necessary for a full disclosure of the Consumer Plaintiffs’ damages computation, does not relieve the Consumer Plaintiffs of their obligation to timely supplement their initial disclosures as their damages theories develop.
III. CONCLUSION
The Consumer Plaintiffs must supplement their initial disclosures regarding damages by November 3, 2021. The Advertiser Plaintiffs need not supplement their disclosures at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2021