Minerva26

Klein v. Facebook

Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK (N.D. Cal. 2021)

October 29, 2021

Demarchi, Virginia K., United States Magistrate Judge

Download PDF

To Cite List

Summary

A Privilege Protocol and Order was established to govern the production of privilege logs in a given proceeding. The protocol requires the production of privilege logs in MS Excel format, and outlines procedures for challenging privilege claims and changes to redactions or privilege designations. It also does not waive any applicable privilege or other legal basis under which information may not be subject to production. The protocol may be modified by a stipulated order of the parties or by the court for good cause shown.

Additional Decisions

MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware Corporation headquartered in California, Defendant

Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

Filed October 29, 2021

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.

Demarchi, Virginia K., United States Magistrate Judge

STIPULATED PRIVILEGE PROTOCOL

Re: Dkt. No. 173-3

1. PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS

For good cause shown, the Court hereby enters the following Privilege Protocol and order governing the production of privilege logs in this proceeding.[1] Capitalized terms not defined in this Protocol shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Protective Order, the 502(d) Order, the Expert Protocol and/or the ESI Protocol.

2. CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE

A. Production of Privilege Logs: Except as provided otherwise below, for any document withheld in whole or in part, the Producing Party will produce privilege logs in MS Excel format. Privilege logs shall be produced according to the following schedule:

i. Exchange of interim privilege log 1: Thursday, January 20, 2022 (covering productions made on or before December 3, 2021);
ii. Exchange of interim privilege log 2: Thursday, April 7, 2022 (covering productions made on or before February 21, 2022);
iii. Exchange of interim privilege log 3: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 (covering productions made on or before May 1, 2022); and
iv. For any productions that occur after May 1, 2022, the production of a privilege log will occur promptly, but in no event more than 60 days after a given production, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

B. Exclusions from Logging Documents Reflecting Privileged Communications or Work Product: Communications or work product involving counsel that post-date the filing of the complaint need not be placed on a privilege log. Communications or work product involving counsel that relate to this case likewise need not be placed on a privilege log.

C. Metadata Log. Each Party’s Privilege Log must provide the objective metadata listed below (to the extent it is reasonably available and does not reflect privileged or protected information) and the privilege or protection being asserted (e.g., attorney-client; attorney work product; joint defense and/or common interest, etc.) and a category description (e.g., “advice re FTC investigation”). The party need not include a more detailed description of the document or the factual basis for the assertion of a privilege or protection unless the disclosure of that additional information is necessary to resolve a dispute. Attorneys or their staff must be identified on the log with an asterisk (or similar notation).

i. Objective metadata includes the following fields, as defined in the Order Regarding Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (to the extent these fields are available for a particular document), though it does not have to be in the order set forth below:
BEGBATES[2]
ENDBATES
BEGATTACH
ENDATTACH
FILENAME
EMAILSUBJECT
AUTHOR
TO/FROM/CC/BCC
DATESENT
DATERECEIVED
DATECREATED
CUSTODIAN
ALLCUSTODIANS
ii. Email. If there is more than one branch of (i.e., more than one unique group of recipients of) an email thread, each branch will be individually logged; however, each individual email within the thread need not be logged if the recipients of the email chain are all identical. Attachments to emails shall be logged as separate documents on the log, with family relationships identified.
iii. Following the receipt of a Privilege Log, a Receiving Party may challenge, in writing, any entry on the log. The producing Party shall endeavor to respond to such reasonable requests (in number or volume) within 14 days. The Producing Party and the Receiving Party shall meet and confer on this challenge to try to reach a mutually agreeable solution. If they cannot agree, the matter may be brought to the Court in accordance with the procedure outlined in Magistrate Judge DeMarchi’s Standing Order for Civil Cases.
iv. Challenges to Privilege Claims: Following the receipt of a privilege log or documents that have been redacted for privilege, a Receiving Party may identify, in writing (by Bates/unique ID), the particular documents that it believes require further explanation. The Producing Party shall use reasonable efforts to respond to reasonable requests (in number or volume) within 14 days. If a Party challenges a request for further information, the Parties shall meet and confer to try to reach a mutually agreeable solution. If they cannot agree, the matter may be brought to the Court in accordance with the procedure outlined in Magistrate Judge DeMarchi’s Standing Order for Civil Cases.
v. Changes to Redactions or Privilege Designations: Where a Producing Party changes, in whole or in part, the redaction or privilege designation of a document, the updated document shall be produced with an overlay and load file indicating the document being replaced. The replacement document shall bear the same Bates numbers.

3. NO WAIVER

A. Nothing in this Privilege Protocol shall be interpreted to require disclosure of irrelevant information or relevant information protected by the attorney-client privilege, workproduct doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Neither this Protocol nor the accompanying order waives any applicable privilege or other legal basis under which information may not be subject to production.

B. The Parties do not waive any objections to the production, discoverability, admissibility, or confidentiality of documents and ESI.

C. Nothing in this Protocol shall preclude or impair any and all protections provided by any Protective Order(s), 502(d) Order, Expert Protocol or ESI Protocol agreed and entered into by the Parties.

4. MODIFICATION

This Privilege Protocol may be modified by a stipulated order of the Parties or by the Court for good cause shown.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

[1]

For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of this Privilege Protocol shall not apply to privilege logs created for purposes of other cases or investigations and re-produced in this case. To the extent such logs are re-produced, they shall be provided in the same format in which they were originally produced.

[2]

A document being entirely withheld may not receive a Bates ID and an alternative ID may be provided.