Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-321/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 GOOGLE INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-03561 WHA

FURTHER REQUEST FOR

INFORMATION RE PROPOSED

SOCIAL MEDIA SEARCHES

Please answer the following questions by NOON ON THURSDAY, MARCH 17TH. For

purposes of these questions, “investigators” means those lawyers, paralegals, secretaries,

employees, jury consultants (or their employees) or other agents who you propose to conduct

social media searches on prospective jurors. Please do not answer that there will likely be too

little time. Please answer as if you had ample time.

1. To what extent will your investigators be merely members of the

general public versus having and logging onto Facebook accounts

(and other social media accounts) in conducting searches?

2. In the past, Facebook’s default privacy setting was to extend access

to “friends of friends.” This means that if the investigator is a

friend of a friend of a prospective juror (and the juror has rested on

that default setting or otherwise made his or her profile accessible

to friends of friends) then the investigator will be able to see

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1535 Filed 03/14/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

personal information of the prospective juror not otherwise public. 

To what extent do you contend that you should be allowed to

exploit the fortuity of a friend of a friend circumstance? And, how

would you even know that access was being allowed on that basis

rather than on a public basis?

3. The judge presumes that neither side would exploit a situation in

which the investigator is a direct “friend” of the prospective juror so

as to access information available only to direct friends of the

prospective juror. Please confirm (or deny) this assumption.

4. For each of your proposed investigators who will log into Facebook

(or other social media accounts), state their name and the number of

friends they have established on their Facebook accounts (or other

quantifiable connections such as followers on Twitter).

5. State how you intend to use Facebook (or other) information

regarding (i) political preferences of prospective jurors, (ii) their

religious preferences, (iii) their relationship status, (iv) their

photographs, (v) books, movies, and other items they have “liked,”

(vi) their favorite quotes, (vii) their location “check-ins,” and (viii)

their postings.

6. Give at least three concrete examples of information you expect to

find on a prospective juror that would lead to a for-cause challenge

that would be unlikely to surface during normal voir dire.

Dated: March 14, 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1535 Filed 03/14/16 Page 2 of 2