PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSI 

Washington, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

Raging Wire Data Centers, Inc., DOCKET NO. 9386 

a corporation. 

RESPONDENT RAGINGWIRE DATA CENTERS, INC.'S 

OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S MOTION TO COMPEL 

RESPONSES TO COMPLAINT COUNSEL'S 

FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 
2

PUBLIC

Pursuant to Rule 3.38 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice for Adjudicative 

Proceedings (16 CFR § 3.38), Respondent RagingWire Data Centers, Inc. (“RagingWire”) 

submits this opposition to Complaint Counsel’s Motion to Compel Responses to Complaint 

Counsel’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production.

I. BACKGROUND

This proceeding involves a fairly narrow issue, since resolved. The Complaint asserts

that “[f]rom approximately January 2017 until October 2018” RagingWire “disseminated” 

representations concerning RagingWire’s compliance with Privacy Shield “in its online privacy 

policy.” Complaint ¶ 20. In other words, during that period, RagingWire’s online privacy policy 

stated that RagingWire complied with Privacy Shield when it allegedly did not comply. The 

Complaint also alleges that RagingWire “disseminated or caused to be disseminated sales 

materials containing representations that RagingWire was a participant in Privacy Shield and/or 

the Safe Harbor Framework after it was no longer participating in the frameworks” but cites as 

the only example of this alleged behavior a “Sales Tour Deck” that contained a reference to Safe 

Harbor compliance. Id. ¶ 21. The Complaint does not allege that any customers or potential 

customers saw the slide referencing Safe Harbor during the period at issue in this matter. 

Furthermore and significantly, in both the Complaint and its motion, Complaint Counsel 

acknowledges that Privacy Shield replaced Safe Harbor in 2016, i.e., before the period during 

which the deception charged in this matter allegedly occurred. Id. ¶ 8; motion at 5. 

While the Complaint describes EU’s data protection regime known as the General Data 

Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), it does not and cannot allege a violation of GDPR as the 

Commission has no authority to enforce foreign privacy law. Nor does the complaint allege that 

there were any misrepresentations by RagingWire about GDPR.
3

PUBLIC

The Complaint was filed after Commission staff had investigated for over 11 months. 

Declaration of Diana E. Schaffner (Schaffner Dec.) at ¶ 2. During the investigation, RagingWire 

responded to every staff request for information, including production of all requested

documents. Id. ¶ 3.

On December 10, 2019, Complaint Counsel served its First Set of Interrogatories and 

First Requests for Production. Pursuant to the December 30, 2019, Order Granting Respondent’s 

Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery Requests, RagingWire served its 

objections and written responses to both on January 23, 2020. Id. ¶ 4. At that time, RagingWire 

also produced 100 documents, including complete production in response to Request Nos. 5 

(customer agreements), complete production to Request No. 7 as to Privacy Shield (documents 

sufficient to show monies paid for participation or compliance), and production responsive to 

Request No. 10.1

 Id. ¶ 6.

Complaint Counsel’s Requests for Production called for comprehensive production of 

documents falling into several categories that are not kept together in the ordinary course of 

RagingWire’s business. See Wetherill Dec. Ex. B, Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8. 

Accordingly, location and identification of documents responsive to these requests requires 

collection of electronic files from numerous custodians, application of reasonable search terms to 

those files (including iterative processes where search terms prove overly broad), review of 

documents identified via search terms for actual responsiveness, and identification and 

 

1 In its responses, RagingWire objected to production of information for the period after the end of the alleged 

deception. While RagingWire believes that objection is appropriate, in an effort to avoid dispute, RagingWire has 

since agreed to extend the relevant period to the date the Complaint was filed. As a result, RagingWire will be 

supplementing its response to Request No. 5 (customer agreements). Schaffner Dec. ¶ 6.

In addition, while Request No. 10 broadly asked for “[a]ll documents” relating to how RagingWire decides to price 

its services, documents RagingWire produced on January 23 provide a detailed description of its pricing process.
4

PUBLIC

segregation of any privileged documents. This process is time- and resource-consuming and 

familiar to anyone engaged in litigation in the modern age.

Furthermore, just weeks after serving their initial Interrogatories and requests for 

production, and before RagingWire could respond to the initial requests, Complaint Counsel 

served a second set on January 2, 2020. Schaffner Dec. ¶ 8. Responses to this discovery are due 

on February 3, 2020. To avoid duplication of effort and expense, RagingWire reasonably seeks 

to identify documents responsive to either set during a single review process. Id.

Application of reasonable search terms to the files of relevant custodians has yielded tens 

of thousands of documents for review. Id. ¶ 10. RagingWire is working diligently to review the 

documents and will produce responsive documents on a rolling basis until production in response 

to both sets of discovery is complete. Id.

II. ARGUMENT

What is missing from each aspect of Complaint Counsel’s motion to compel is any sense 

of proportionality. See, e.g., United States v. Wyatt, 637 F.2d 293, 302 (5th Cir. 1981)(citations 

omitted) (even in the context of an investigative summons, a request is overbroad where it is “out 

of proportion to the ends sought”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

This matter involves inadvertent errors leading to an alleged misstatement that was 

corrected more than a year ago. There is no allegation of on-going deception, nor is there any 

allegation that anyone actually was misled, let alone injured.2

 Indeed, as set forth in 

RagingWire’s motion to dismiss, there is no allegation that the alleged misstatement was 

material such that deception was even possible. 

 

2 Contrary to Complaint Counsel’s assertion (motion at 3), RagingWire understands that proving actual reliance is 

not necessary to establish a Section 5 deception claim. Nonetheless, the absence of any allegation of reliance or 

harm speaks to the seriousness of the alleged violation.
5

PUBLIC

Because it believes that it did not, in fact, violate Section 5, RagingWire elected to 

exercise its right to contest the allegations. Just as it cooperated in the investigation, RagingWire 

has every intention to comply with Complaint Counsel’s discovery requests notwithstanding the 

significant expense and effort required to do so. For the most part, RagingWire intends to 

respond in full. However, doing so takes time. 

There are two respects in which RagingWire has objected to Complaint Counsel’s 

discovery as simply going too far in relation to the nature of the issues in this case. First, 

RagingWire objects to searching for and providing information regarding GDPR. Second, 

RagingWire objects to searching for and providing information relating to the Safe Harbor 

framework. The reasons for these objections are explained below. 

A. A Rolling Production Is Appropriate

Complaint Counsel wants RagingWire to locate and produce several categories of 

documents that can only be located by searches of electronic files using relatively broad search 

terms and then manual review of the resulting documents, many of which will not actually be 

responsive to the requests. Complaint Counsel’s requests cover topics the responsibilities for 

which are spread across numerous custodians. RagingWire is diligently working to provide the 

documents Complaint Counsel has requested on a rolling basis, prioritizing searches for 

documents most likely to be relevant to the issues in this matter (for example, documents 

referencing “Privacy Shield”). See Schaffner Dec. ¶¶ 6-10. 

RagingWire understood the order extending the date for it to serve responses to 

Complaint Counsel’s requests as setting the date for written responses, which RagingWire 

served, along with partial document production, on the appointed date. This is fully consistent 

with common practice in litigation matters. Rather than engage RagingWire counsel in a 
6

PUBLIC

discussion around priorities for the on-going production, Complaint Counsel rushed to file its 

motion to compel. Complaint Counsel’s request for immediate production of all responsive 

documents is unrealistic. It is also unfair given that staff had the advantage of a lengthy preComplaint investigation. Id. ¶¶ 2-3. 

RagingWire will continue to produce documents on a rolling basis while the motion is 

pending, and Complaint Counsel will receive the requested information in plenty of time to 

further prepare its case.3 Id. ¶ 10. In other words, Complaint Counsel’s motion as to timeliness 

of production was completely unnecessary, and RagingWire requests that the motion be denied. 

B. Information Related to GDPR Is Not Relevant

The Complaint alleges a deceptive trade practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act. It does 

not allege that RagingWire had any obligations under GDPR or that it failed to meet any such 

obligations, let alone that it engaged in deceptive conduct with respect to GDPR. Instead the 

Complaint (at ¶ 11) asserts that using an agent that is a Privacy Shield participant is “one way” 

for entities to satisfy their own obligations under GDPR or Privacy Shield. So, even as pleaded 

by Complaint Counsel, any relevance of GDPR to RagingWire’s business is tied to 

RagingWire’s participation or non-participation in Privacy Shield. 

Because RagingWire will produce any documents responsive to Complaint Counsel’s 

requests that reference Privacy Shield, any of those documents also referencing GDPR will be 

produced, and Complaint Counsel will have the benefit of those documents. To require 

RagingWire to search for and produce documents referencing GDPR unrelated to Privacy Shield 

would add to the burden of production and is not likely to yield documents relevant to the 

3 RagingWire notes that Complaint Counsel highlights its supposed immediate need for the discovery in order “to 

identify key customers” (motion at 8). However, RagingWire produced a list of customers in its response to 

Interrogatory No. 1 and produced customer agreements in its initial document production. Schaffner Dec. ¶ 6. In 

addition, Complaint Counsel’s initial disclosures included a lengthy list of RagingWire customers. 
7

PUBLIC

alleged wrongdoing – RagingWire’s statement in its privacy policy that it complied with Privacy 

Shield. Discovery sought in a proceeding before the Commission must be “reasonably expected 

to yield information relevant to the allegations of the complaint, to the proposed relief, or to the 

defense of any respondent.” 16 C.F.R. 3.31(c)(1); Federal Trade Commission v. Anderson, 631 

F2d 741, 745 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 

Complaint Counsel asserts that documents regarding GDPR could be relevant to the 

materiality element of its claim that it failed to plead in the Complaint. However, since the 

alleged deception revolves around Privacy Shield, references to GDPR in other contexts will not

shed light on the (im)materiality of RagingWire’s representations regarding Privacy Shield. 

Instead, requiring RagingWire to search for GDPR information untethered to Privacy Shield is a 

classic “fishing expedition.” In addition, GDPR did not go into effect until two years after 

RagingWire began participating in Privacy Shield and more than a year after the alleged 

deception began. Complaint Counsel’s motion to compel RagingWire to produce stand-alone 

GDPR documents should be denied. 

C. Information Related to the Safe Harbor Framework is Irrelevant

Although the focus of this matter is RagingWire’s alleged misstatement concerning 

Privacy Shield compliance in 2017 and 2018, Complaint Counsel seeks to compel extensive 

production of information related to the Safe Harbor Framework, including information and 

materials from over a decade ago.

4

 This information is not relevant to the claims in this case. In 

addition, because they are not limited as to time, identifying and providing Safe Harbor 

 

4 Complaint Counsel includes Safe Harbor in its Request Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 and Interrogatory No. 5, and 

RagingWire has objected to searching for and providing that information. Interrogatory No. 6 also references Safe 

Harbor, but RagingWire does not believe that the presence or absence of Safe Harbor materially affects its response 

to that interrogatory.
8

PUBLIC

documents in response to Request No. 6 and Interrogatory No. 5 would be quite burdensome for 

RagingWire.

While the Complaint includes conclusory references to deceptive statements regarding 

compliance with “the E.U.-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework and/or EU-U.S. Safe Harbor 

Framework,” the only claim of misrepresentation pertains to Privacy Shield. And the only 

allegation regarding Safe Harbor concerns inclusion in 2018 in the “Sales Tour Deck” of a slide 

representing that RagingWire participated in Safe Harbor. See Complaint ¶ 21. The Complaint 

carefully does not claim that the inclusion in that deck was deceptive or that any customer or 

potential customer actually saw this slide or that, if they did, it would have been material to their 

decision-making in 2018 when Safe Harbor was no longer operative. 

Complaint Counsel’s Request No. 3 specifically asks for documents related to the Sales 

Tour Deck, including “use” of that deck. Contrary to the suggestion in Complaint Counsel’s 

motion (at 5), because it does go to an actual allegation (albeit unsubstantiated) in the Complaint,

RagingWire has not objected to this request and will produce any documents responsive to it. 

Schaffner Dec. ¶5. 

Complaint Counsel’s other requests for Safe Harbor information are another story. 

Complaint Counsel asserts that since both Safe Harbor and Privacy Shield concern data transfers 

under EU data privacy law, information regarding RagingWire’s participation in Safe Harbor 

could shed light on the materiality of RagingWire’s representations regarding its participation in 

Privacy Shield. However, they are separate programs adopted years apart. Once again, 

Complaint Counsel is seeking discovery unrelated to the matter at issue in the Complaint. 

Furthermore, although the date range for the Complaint Counsel’s other discovery 

requests begins June 1, 2016, one of Complaint Counsel’s requests for production (Request No. 
9

PUBLIC

6) and one of its interrogatories (Interrogatory No. 5) seek information “regardless of date” 

relating to RagingWire’s decision to participate or continue to participate in Safe Harbor or 

Privacy Shield. Safe Harbor went into effect in 2000 (Complaint ¶ 8), nearly two decades before 

the alleged misrepresentation concerning Privacy Shield. Locating and producing responsive 

information, should it even exist, would impose significant burdens on RagingWire that would 

be way out of proportion to the needs of this matter. This is not a situation in which responsive 

documents could be expected to reside in a single location. Instead, going back this far in time 

would require identification of persons involved through the years, determining if their files still 

exist, and, if so, processing enormous volumes of data to try to locate irrelevant needles in a 

haystack. In addition, even if such documents, with substantial effort, could be located, the 

passage of time further diminishes the likelihood that information, if any, would shed light on the 

materiality of representations concerning Privacy Shield.

Complaint Counsel’s motion to compel production of Safe Harbor documents should be 

denied. At minimum, it should be denied to the extent that it seeks documents pre-dating June 1, 

2016. Cf. In re North Texas Specialty Physicians, 2004 FTC LEXIS 19, *4 (Feb. 4, 2004) (a

request for documents relating to the time period which was investigated by Complaint Counsel 

is not unreasonable). 
10

PUBLIC

WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that Complaint Counsel’s motion to compel be 

denied in its entirety. 

Dated: February 3, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Corey W. Roush 

Corey W. Roush 

C. Fairley Spillman

Diana E. Schaffner

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP

2001 K. Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 887-4000

Counsel for Respondent 
11

PUBLIC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 3, 2020, a copy of the foregoing was 

electronically filed using the Commission’s Electronic Filing System and was sent by that 

system and by certified mail to the following:

April J. Tabor, Acting Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon all parties 

to this cause by electronic mail as follows:

Linda Kopp Robin Wetherill 

Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20580 Washington, D.C. 20580 

lkopp@ftc.gov rwetherill@ftc.gov 

Counsel for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission 

February 3, 2020: By: /s/ Corey W. Roush

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP

2001 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

(202) 887-4000

Counsel for Respondent
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 

In the Matter of:

RagingWire Data Centers, Inc., 

a corporation. 

DOCKET NO. 9386 

DECLARATION OF DIANA E. SCHAFFNER

1. I am an attorney at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, counsel for Respondent

RagingWire Data Centers, Inc. (“RagingWire”) and have personal knowledge of the

matters set forth herein. This declaration is submitted in support of RagingWire’s

opposition to Complaint Counsel’s January 27, 2020, motion to compel.

2. Prior to filing the Complaint, Bureau of Consumer Protection staff conducted a lengthy

investigation. As part of that investigation, the Bureau served a Civil Investigative

Demand on RagingWire on October 1, 2018. See Exhibit 1, attached.

3. During the course of the pre-complaint investigation, RagingWire produced 42

documents and responded to 13 specifications, many with several subparts. RagingWire

provided all of the information requested by investigation staff. Among the information

provided was information on RagingWire’s annual revenue for the relevant years; details

of RagingWire’s efforts to comply with Privacy Shield, with relevant dates and document

citations; information on RagingWire’s use of external parties to assist in its compliance

efforts (e.g., TrustArc and Holland & Hart LLP); and details on what information

12
13

RagingWire collected during the relevant period. In addition, RagingWire met with staff 

and leaders of the Bureau of Consumer Protection on at least two occasions to provide 

relevant background information and context for the matter (in June and July 2019), and 

met with four of the Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission in September 2019 

to provide further background information and context.

4. RagingWire served its Objections and Responses to Complaint Counsel’s First Set of

Interrogatories and its Objections and Responses to Complaint Counsel’s First Set of

Requests for Production on January 23, 2020. See Exhibits C and D to Wetherill

Declaration filed in support of Complaint Counsel’s motion to compel.

5. As reflected in RagingWire’s written response to Request No. 3 (see Wetherill

Declaration Ex. D at 6), RagingWire is producing documents responsive to that request.

6. Along with its written discovery responses, RagingWire produced 100 documents on

January 23, 2020. This production included customer agreements, including

amendments, entered into by RagingWire between June 1, 2016 and October 31, 2018

(the alleged misstatement was removed from RagingWire’s online privacy policy in

October 2018). As a result of the meet and confer process, RagingWire is working to

supplement this production to include agreements entered from November 1, 2018,

through November 5, 2019, the date of the Complaint.

7. RagingWire’s January 23, 2020 production also included a complete response as to

Privacy Shield for Request for Production No. 7, and detailed documentation on

RagingWire’s pricing methodology in response to Request for Production No. 10. In

addition, RagingWire’s response to Interrogatory No. 1 included a complete list of

customers. See Wetherill Declaration Ex. C.
14

8. On January 2, 2020, Complaint Counsel served a second set of interrogatories and a

second set of requests for production of documents. RagingWire, through counsel, is also

working to identify and produce documents responsive to Complaint Counsel’s second

set of requests for production and, to the extent possible, avoid duplicative effort in the

document review process.

9. RagingWire made an additional production of over 600 documents on February 3, 2020.

This production includes Sales Orders to accompany previously produced Master

Services Agreements, responsive to First Requests for Production (“RFP”), No. 5 and No.

9; communications with TrustArc and related documents responsive to Second RFPs, No.

6; communications with the U.S. Department of Commerce and related documents

responsive to several RFPs, including Second RFP, No. 7; as well as documents

responsive to the search term “privacy shield” that are responsive to several requests.

10. RagingWire, through counsel, is continuing to review documents for responsiveness to

Complaint Counsel’s first requests for production. Application of reasonable search

terms to custodian files through an iterative process has yielded over 34,000 documents

that require manual review. We are still working to run additional search terms over the

materials and this number may increase. These materials include documents potentially

responsive to both Complaint Counsel’s first and second set of discovery requests.

RagingWire anticipates that it will produce another large tranche of documents on

February 5, 2020 and is working to complete its review and production of documents

responsive to the requests by February 15.

11. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on

February 3, 2020 in San Francisco, California.
15

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Diana E. Schaffner

Diana E. Schaffner 

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP

580 California Street

San Francisco, CA 94014 

(415) 765-9500

Counsel for Respondent 
EXHIBIT 1
Office of the Secretary 

Via Federal Express. 

Doug Adams 

Chief Executive Officer 

RagingWire Data Centers, Inc. 

P.O. Box 348060 

Sacramento, CA 95834-8060 

FTC Matter No. 1823189 

To Mr, Adams: 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

CCT O 1 2018 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued the attached Civil Investigative Demand 

("CID") asking for information as part of a non-public investigation. Our purpose is to 

determine whether Raging Wire Data Centers, Inc. falsely represented that it was a certified 

participant in the E~U.-U.S. and/or Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Frameworks or that it adhered 

to the Privacy Shield principles established by the Framework(s), in violation of Section 5 of 

the FTC Act, 15 USC 45, and whether Commission action to obtain monetary relief would be 

in the public interest. Please read the attached documents carefully. Here are a few important 

points we would like to highlight: 

1. Contact FTC counsel, Mark Eichorn (meichorn@ftc.gov; (202) 326-3053), or 

staff member Robin Wetherill (rwetherill@ftc.gov; (202) 326-2220), as soon as 

possible to schedule an initial meeting to be held within 14 days. You can meet in 

person or by phone to discuss any questions you have, including whether there are 

changes to how you comply with the CJD that would reduce your cost or burden while 

still giving the FTC the information it needs. Please read the attached documents for 

more information about that meeting. 

2. You must immediately stop any routine procedures for electronic or paper 

document destruction, and you must preserve all paper or electronic documents 

that are in any way relevant to this investigation, even if you believe the documents are 

protected from discovery by privilege or some other reason. 

3. The FTC will use information you provide in response to the CID for the purpose 

of investigating violations of the laws the FTC enforces. We will not disclose the 

information under the Freedom oflnformation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. We may disclose 

the information in response to a valid request from Congress, or other civil or criminal 

federal, state, local, or foreign law enforcement agencies for their official law 

enforcement purposes. The FTC or other agencies may use and disclose your response 

in any federal, state, or foreign civil or criminal proceeding, or if 
required to do so by law. However, we will not publically disclose your information 

without giving you prior notice. 

4. Please read the attached documents closely. They contain important information 

about how you should provide your response. 

Please contact FTC counsel as soon as possible to set up an initial meeting. We 

appreciate your cooperation. 

Ve7i;'!;/s, {tai ~ Donald S. Clark ~ 

Secretary of the Commission 

1 
• 

urnrea ~rares or America 

Federal Trade Commission 

CIVIL INVEST/GA TIVE DEMAND 

1. TO 

RagingWire Data Centers, Inc. 

P.O. Box 348060 

11a. MATTER NUMBER 

Sacrameoto, CA 95834-8060 I '823189 

This demand is issued pursuant to Section 20 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b-1, in the course 

of an investigation to determine whether there is, has been, or may be a violation of any laws administered by the 

Federal Trade Commission by conduct, activities or proposed action as described in Item 3. 

2. ACTION REQUIRED 

D You are required to appear and testify. 

LOCATION OF HEARING YOUR APPEARANCE WILL BE BEFORE 

DATE AND TIME OF HEARING OR DEPOSITION 

1v7 You are required to produce all documents described in the attached schedule that are in your possession, custody, or control, and to make them 

~ available at your address indicated above for inspection and copying or reproduction at the date and time specified below. 

1v7 You are required to answer the interrogatories or provide the written report described on the attached schedule. Answer each interrogatory or report 

~ separately and fully in writing. Submit your answers or report to the Records Custodian named in Item 4 on or before the date specified below. 

 You an, required to produce the tangible things described on the attached schedule. Produce such things to the Records Custodian named in Item 4 

on or before the date specified below. 

DATE AND TIME THE DOCUMENTS, ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES, REPORTS, AND/OR TANGIBLE THINGS MUST BE AVAILABLE 

CCT 3 1 2018 

3. SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATION 

See attached Schedule and attached resolution. 

4. RECORDS CUSTODIAN/DEPUTY RECORDS CUSTODIAN 

Matthew Smith/Cheryl Thomas 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Mailstop CC-8232 

Washington, DC 20580 

5. COMMISSION COUNSEL 

Mark Eichorn/Robin Wetherill 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Mailstop CC-8232 

Washington, DC 20580 

(202) 326-3053/(202) 326-2220 

DATE ISSUED COMMISSIONER'S SIGNATURE 

1°/, / I 'fl 

INSTRUCTIONS AND NOTICES 

The delivery of :his demand to yGu by any method prescribed by the Commission's 

Rules of Practice is legal service and may subject you to a penalty imposed by law for 

failure to comply. The production of documents or the submission of answers and report 

in response to this demand must be made under a sworn certificate, in the form printed 

on the second page of this demand, by the person to whom this demand is directed or, if 

not a natural person. by a person or persons having knowledge of the facts and 

circumstances of such production or responsible for answering each interrogatory or 

report question. This demand does not require approval by 0MB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1980. 

PETITION TO LIMIT OR QUASH 

The Commission's Rules of Practice require that any petition to limit or quash this 

demand be filec within 20 days ·after service, or, if the return date is less than 20 days 

after service, prior to the return date. The original and twelve copies of the petition must 

be filed with the Secretary of the Federal Trade Commission, and one copy should be 

sent to the Commission Counsel named in Item 5. 

FTC Form 144 (rev 11 /17) 

YOUR RIGHTS TO REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT FAIRNESS 

The FTC has a longstanding commitment to a fair regulatory enforcement environment. 

If you are a small business (under Small Business Administration standards), you have 

a right to contact the Small Business Administration's National Ombudsman at 1-888-

REGFAIR (1-888-734-3247) or www.sba.gov/ombudsman regarding the fairness of the 

compliance and enforcement activities of the agency. You should understand, however, 

that the National Ombudsman cannot change, stop, or delay a federal agency 

enforcement action. · 

The FTC strictly forbids retaliatory acts by its employees, and you will not be penalized 

for expressing a concern about these activities. 

TRAVEL EXPENSES 

Use the enclosed travel voucher to claim compensation to which you are entitled as a 

witness for the Commission. The completed travel voucher and this demand should be 

presented to Commission Counsel for payment. If you are permanently or temporarily 

living somewhere other than the address on this demand and it would require excessive 

travel for you to appear, you must get prior approval from Commission Counsel. 

A copy of the Commission's Rules of Practice is available online at http://bit.lv/ 

FTCSRulesofPractjce Paper copies are available upon request. 
Form of Certificate of Compliance* 

I/We do certify that all of the documents, information and tangible things required by the attached Civil Investigative Demand 

which are in the possession, custody, control, or knowledge of the person to whom the demand is directed have been 

submitted to a custodian named herein. 

If a document or tangible thing responsive to this Civil Investigative Demand has not been submitted, the objections to its 

submission and the reasons for the objection have been stated. 

If an interrogatory or a portion of the request has not been fully answered or a portion of the report has not been completed, 

the objections to its submission and the reasons for the objections have been stated. 

Signature 

Title 

Sworn to before me this day 

Notary Public 

*In the event that more than one person is responsible for complying with this demand, the certificate shall identify the 

documents for which each certifying individual was responsible. In place of a sworn statement, the above certificate of 

compliance may be supported by an unsworn declaration as provided for by 28 U.S.C. § 1746. 

FTC Form 144-Back (rev. 11/17) 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ("FTC") 

CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND ("CID") SCHEDULE 

FTC File No. 1823189 

Meet and Confer: You must contact FTC counsel, Mark Eichorn (meichorn@ftc.gov; (202) 

326-3053), or staff member Robin Wetherill (rwetherill@ftc.gov; (202) 326-2220), as soon 

as possible to schedule a meeting (telephonic or in person) to be held within fourteen (14) days 

after you receive this CID. At the meeting, you must discuss with FTC counsel any questions 

you have regarding this CID or any possible CID modifications that could reduce your cost, 

burden, or response time yet still provide the FTC with the information it needs to pursue its 

investigation. The meeting also will address how to assert any claims of protected status (e.g., 

privilege, work-product, etc;) and the production of electronically stored information. You must 

make available at the meet.ing personnel knowledgeable about your information or records 

management systems, your systems for electronically stored information, custodians likely to 

have information responsive to this CID, and any other issues relevant to compliance with this 

CID. 

Document Retention: You must retain all documentary materials used in preparing responses 

to this CID. The FTC may require the submission of additional documents later during this 

investigation. Accordingly, you must suspend any routine procedures for document 

destruction and take other measures to prevent the destruction of documents that are in any 

way relevant to this investigation, even if you believe those documents are protected from 

discovery. See 15 U.S.C. § 50; see also 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1519. 

Sharing of Information: The FTC will use information you provide in response to the CID for 

the purpose of investigating violations of the laws the FTC enforces. We will not disclose such 

information under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. We also will not disclose 

such information, except as allowed under the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 57b-2), the Commission's 

Rules of Practice (16 C.F.R. §§ 4.10 & 4.11), or if required by a legal obligation. Under the FTC 

Act, we may provide your information in response to a request from Congress or a proper 

request from another law enforcement agency. However, we will not publicly disclose such 

information without giving you prior notice. 

Manner of Production: You may produce documentary material or tangible things by making 

them available for inspection and copying at your principal place of business. Alternatively, you 

may send all responsive documents and tangible things to Matthew Smith, Federal Trade 

Commission, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Stop 

CC-8232, Washington, DC 20580. If you are sending the materials, use a courier service such 

as Federal Express or UPS because heightened security measures delay postal delivery to the 

FTC. You must inform FTC counsel by email or telephone of how you intend to produce 

materials responsive to this CID at least five days before the return date. 

Certification of Compliance: You or any person with knowledge of the facts and 

circumstances relating to the responses to this CID must certify that such responses are complete 

by completing the "Form of Certificate of Compliance" set forth on the back of the CID form or 

by signing a declaration under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746. 

-1-
Certification of Records of Regularly Conducted Activity: Attached is a Certification of 

Records of Regularly Conducted Activity. Please execute and return this Certification with your 

response. Completing this certification may reduce the need to subpoena you to testify at future 

proceedings to establish the admissibility of documents produced in response to this CID. 

Definitions and'Instructions: Please review carefully the Definitions and Instructions that 

appear after the Specifications and provide important information regarding compliance with this 

CID. 

SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATION 

Whether "the Company" as defined herein falsely represented that it was a certified participant in 

the E.U.-U.S. and/or Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Frameworks or that it adhered to the Privacy 

Shield principles established by the Framework( s ), in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 

U.S.C. Sec. 45, and whether Commission action to obtain monetary relief would be in the public 

interest. See also attached resolution. 

SPECIFICATIONS 

Applicable Time Period: Unless otherwise directed, the applicable time period for the requests 

set forth below is from January 1, 2017 until the date of full and complete compliance with 

this CID. 

A. INTERROGATORY SPECIFICATIONS 

Company Information and Structure 

1. State the complete legal name of the Company and all other names under which it 

does or has done business, its principal place of business, its corporate mailing 

address, and the date and state of incorporation. 

2. Describe the Company's corporate structure and state the names of all parents, 

subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, branches, joint ventures, franchises, operations 

under assumed names, websites, and entities over which it exercises supervision 

or control. For each such entity, describe the nature of its relationship to the 

Company. 

3. State the Company's overall annual revenue for 2017 and each quarter thereafter, 

and its total number of employees. 

Privacy Shield 

4. Describe in detail any efforts made by the Company to become a Certified 

Participant in the Framework, including whether, and if so when, the Company 

took the following steps: 

a. The Company's creation of a Privacy Shield-compliant privacy policy; 

-2-
b. The Company's self-certification(s) through the online form located at 

https://www.privacyshield.gov/PrivacyShield/ApplyNow or by any other 

method, including the payment of the registration fee; 

c. The Company's registration with an Independent Recourse Mechanism, 

including the payment of any necessary fees, as required by the Privacy 

Shield Principle 7 and Supplemental Principle 1 l(a)-(e); and 

d. The Company's payment into the arbitration fund managed by the 

International Centre for Dispute Resolution-American Arbitration 

Association pursuant to Annex I of the Framework. 

5. Identify any third party or parties who assisted, or whom the Company hired to 

assist, with the Company's efforts to become a Certified Participant in the 

Framework; for each third party describe in detail: 

a. The respective roles of the third party and the Company with respect to the 

Company's efforts to become a Certified Participant and/or ensuring the 

Company's ongoing compliance with the Framework; and 

b. What steps the third party actually took with respect to the Company's 

efforts to become a Certified Participant and/or to ensure the Company's 

ongoing compliance with the Framework. 

6. For each Document responsive to Document Request 2, state the dates during 

which the representation was posted, or the date the representation was 

communicated, and identify the person or persons to whom the communication 

was made. 

7. State whether the Company has informed any third party, such as any business 

partner, client, or customer, that it participates in the Framework, or has entered 

any agreement with any third party that is premised on the Company's 

participation in, or otherwise requires the Company to participate in, the 

Framework. 

8. To the extent that, during the applicable time period, the Company collected, used 

or retained personal information, describe what personal information was 

collected, used, or retained; how many individuals' personal information was 

collected, used, or retained; and how that personal information was used by the 

· Company, including whether personal information was disclosed to any other 

party. 

9. To the extent that the Company was at any time a Certified Participant in the 

Framework but its certification has since lapsed: 

a. State whether the Company has collected, used, or retained personal 

information since the Company's certification lapsed; and 

-3-' 
b. Describe the Company's efforts to ensure continued compliance with 

requirements in Privacy Shield Supplemental Principle 6(±) with respect to 

the protection of personal information transferred from the European 

Union or Switzerland to the United States during the time the Company 

was a Certified Participant. 

10. Describe in detail the Company's efforts to comply with the requirements of the 

Privacy Shield Framework Principles as issued by the Department of Commerce 

(see https://www.privacyshield.gov/ article?id=OVERVIEW), including Notice; 

Choice; Accountability for Onward Transfer; Security; Data Integrity and Purpose 

Limitation; Access; Recourse, Enforcement, and Liability; the Supplemental 

Principles, to the extent they apply to the Company; and Annex I. 

Communications with the Department of Commerce 

11. State the following types of information as provided in your Privacy Shield selfcertification( s) to the Department of Commerce. • If any type of information 

changed during the applicable time period, state when the information changed 

and whether, and if so when, the :Oepartment of Commerce was notified of the 

change: 

a. Your legal name; 

b. Your corporate officer(s); 

c. Your employee contact(s) name; 

d. Your employee contact(s) email address; 

e. Your employee contact(s) telephone number; 

f. Your contact address( es) as provided in your privacy policy; 

g. Your mailing address(es); or 

h. Names of all U.S. entities or subsidiaries also adhering to the Privacy 

Shield principles and covered under your self-certification. 

12. Identify each communication by any means-including in person, by mail, byemail, by fax, or by phone-between the Company and the Department of 

Commerce regarding or relating to the Framework. 

13. For each communication identified pursuant to Specification A.12, state: 

a. The date of the communication; 

b. The person(s) who handled the communication on the Company's behalf; 

-4-
c. What actions, if any, were taken by any employee, agent, manager, or 

officer of the Company in response to the communication. 

B. DOCUMENT REQUESTS 

1. Produce each materially different document related to communications between 

the Company and any third party identified in Specification A.5, including but 

not limited to any agreement between that party and the Company. 

2. Produce each materially different document disseminated by you, including any 

agreement identified in Specification A. 7 or any privacy policy or Advertisement, 

referring or relating to Privacy Shield or the Framework. 

3. Produce documents sufficient to show the Company's policies and procedures 

related to editing, updating, and/or maintaining the Company's privacy policy. 

4. Produce each materially different document related to complaints, questions, 

comments, or other communications to the Company from consumers regarding 

privacy or the Framework. Exclude all non-content information, such as e-mail 

header information. 

5. Produce all documents related to communications identified in Specification 

A.12. 

ECPA NOTICE: This CID does not seek any information that is prohibited from 

disclosure under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECP A"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 

et seq. To the extent that you are, for purposes of ECPA, a provider of Electronic 

Communications Service or Remote Computing Service to a customer or subscriber about 

whom this CID seeks information, do not divulge a record or information pertaining to 

such customer or subscriber or the content of such customer's or subscriber's 

communications, other than the content, records, and information specifically requested in 

this CID. If you have any questions, please contact FTC counsel before providing 

responsive information. 

DEFINITIONS 

The following definitions apply to this CID: 

D-1. "Advertisement" or "Advertising" or "Ad" means any written or verbal statement, 

illustration, or depiction that promotes the sale of a good or service or is designed to increase 

consumer interest in a brand, good, or service. Advertising media includes, but is not limited to: 

packaging and labeling; promotional materials; print; television; radio; and Internet, social 

media, and other digital content. 

D-2. "Company," "You," or "Your" means RagingWire Data Centers, Inc., its wholly or 

partially owned subsidiaries, unincorporated divisions, joint ventures, operations under assumed 

names, and 

-5-
affiliates, and all directors, officers, members, employees, agents, consultants, and.other persons 

working for or on behalf of the foregoing. 

D-3. "Certified Participant" means an entity that is fully compliant with the requirements of 

the Privacy Shield Framework, the self-certification of which has been finalized by the 

Department of Commerce and the name of which appears on the "Active" list of maintained at 

https://www.privacyshield.gov/list. 

D-4. "Department of Commerce" or means the United States Department of Commerce and 

all of its subdivisions, agents, and representatives, including the International Trade 

Administration and https://privacyshield.gov. 

D-5. "Document" means the complete original, all drafts, and any non-identical copy, whether 

different from the original because of notations on the copy, different metadata, or otherwise, of 

any item covered by 15 U.S.C. § 57b-l(a)(5), 16 C.F.R. § 2.7(a)(2), or Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 34(a)(l)(A). 

D-6. "Framework" or "Privacy Shield" means the E.U.-U.S. and/or Swiss-U.S. Privacy 

Shield Frameworks administered by the Department of Commerce. 

D-7. "Identify" or "the identity of' requires identification of (a) natural persons by name, 

title, present business affiliation, present business address, telephone number, and email address 

or, if a present business affiliation or present business address is not known, the last known 

business and home addresses; and (b) businesses or other organizations by name, address, and 

the identities of your contact persons at the business or organization. 

D-8. "Independent Recourse· Mechanism" means a private sector dispute resolution provider 

that meets the requirements of Privacy Shield Principle 7 and Supplemental Principle l l(a)-(e). 

D-9. "Personal data" or "personal information" means data about an identified or 

identifiable individual that are within the scope of European Commission Directive 95/46/EC, 

received by an organization in the United States from the European Union, and recorded in any 

form, as defined by the Privacy Shield Principles (see 

https://www.privacyshield.gov/article?id=OVERVIEW). 

D-10. "Self-certification" means a company's initial application to the Department of 

Commerce to initiate the process of becoming a Certified Participant. 

INSTRUCTIONS 

I-1. Petitions to Limit or Quash: You must file any petition to limit or quash this CID with 

the Secretary of the FTC no later than twenty (20) days after service of the CID, or, if the return 

date is less than twenty (20) days after service, prior to the return date. Such petition must set 

forth all assertions of protected status or other factual and legal objections to the CID and comply 

with the requirements set forth in 16 C.F.R. § 2.lO(a)(l)- (2). The FTC will not consider 

petitions to quash or limit if you have not previously met and conferred with FTC staff and, 

absent extraordinary circumstances, will consider only issues raised during the meet and 

confer process. 16 C.F.R. § 2.7(k); see also§ 2.1 l(b). If you file a petition to limit or 

-6-
quash, you must still timely respond to all requests that you do not seek to modify or set 

aside in your petition. 15 U.S.C. § 57b-l(f); 16 C.F.R. § 2.lO(b). 

I-2. Withholding Requested Material/ Privilege Claims: If you withhold from production 

any material responsive to this CID based on a claim of privilege, work product protection, 

statutory exemption, or any similar claim, you must assert the claim no later than the return date 

of this CID, and you must submit a detailed log, in a searchable electronic format, of the items 

withheld that identifies the basis for withholding the material and meets all the requirements set 

forth in 16 C.F.R. § 2.11 ( a) - ( c ). The information in the log must be of sufficient detail to 

enable FTC staff to assess the validity of the claim for each document, including attachments, 

without disclosing the protected information. If only some portion of any responsive material is 

privileged, you must submit all non-privileged portions of the material. Otherwise, produce all 

responsive information and material without redaction. 16 C.F .R. § 2.11 ( c ). The failure to 

provide information sufficient to support a claim of protected status may result in denial of the 

claim. 16 C.F.R. § 2.ll(a)(l). 

I-3. Modification of Specifications: The Bureau Director, a Deputy Bureau Director, 

Associate Director, Regional Director, or Assistant Regional Director must agree in writing to 

any modifications of this CID. 16 C.F.R. § 2.7(1). 

I-4. Scope of Search: This CID covers documents and information in your possession or 

under your actual or constructive custody or control, including documents and information in the 

possession, custody, or control of your attorneys, accountants, directors, officers, employees, 

service providers, and other agents and consultants, whether or not such documents or 

information were received from or disseminated to any person or entity. 

I-5. Identification of Responsive Documents: For specifications requesting production of 

documents, you must identify in writing the documents that are responsive to the specification. 

Documents that may be responsive to more than one specification of this CID need not be 

produced more than once. If any documents responsive to this CID have been previously 

supplied to the FTC, you may identify the documents previously provided and the date of 

submission. 

I-6. Maintain Document Order: You must produce documents in the order in which they 

appear in your files or as electronically stored. If documents are removed from their original 

folders, binders, covers, containers, or electronic source, you must specify the folder, binder, 

cover, container, or electronic media or file paths from which such documents came. 

I-7. Numbering of Documents: You must number all documents in your submission with a 

unique identifier such as a Bates number or a document ID. 

I-8. Production of Copies: Unless otherwise stated, you may submit copies in lieu of 

original documents if they are true, correct, and complete copies of the originals and you 

preserve and retain the originals in their same state as of the time you received this CID. 

Submission of copies constitutes a waiver of any claim as to the authenticity of the copies should 

the FTC introduce such copies as evidence in any legal proceeding. 

-7-
I-9. Production in Color: You must produce copies of advertisements in color, and you 

must produce copies of other materials in color if necessary to interpret them or render them 

intelligible. 

I-10. Electronically Stored Information: See the attached FTC Bureau of Consumer 

Protection Production Requirements ("Production Requirements"), which detail all requirements 

for the production of electronically stored information to the FTC. You must discuss issues 

relating to the production of electronically stored information with FTC staff prior to 

production. 

I-11. Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("Sensitive PII") or Sensitive Health 

Information ("SHI"): Do not produce any sensitive personally identifiable information 

("Sensitive PII") or sensitive health information ("SHI") prior to discussing the information with 

FTC counsel. If any document responsive to a particular specification contains unresponsive 

Sensitive PII or SHI, redact the unresponsive Sensitive PII or SHI prior to producing the 

document. 

Sensitive PII includes an individual's Social Security number; an individual's biometric 

data (such as fingerprints or retina scans, but not photographs); and an individual's name, 

address, or phone number in combination with one or more of the following: date of birth, 

Social Security number, driver's license or state identification number (or foreign country 

equivalent), passport number, financial account number, credit card number, or debit card 

number. SHI includes medical records and other individually identifiable health information 

relating to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or conditions of an individual, the 

provision of health care to an individual, or the past, present, or future payment for the provision 

of health care to an individual. 

I-12. Interrogatory Responses: For specifications requesting answers to written 

interrogatories, answer each interrogatory and each interrogatory subpart separately and fully, in 

writing, and under oath. 

I-13. Submission of Documents in Lieu of Interrogatory Answers: You may answer any 

written interrogatory by submitting previously existing documents that contain the information 

requested in the interrogatory so long as you clearly indicate in each written interrogatory 

response which documents contain the responsive information. For any interrogatory that asks 

you to identify documents, you may, at your option, produce the documents responsive to the 

interrogatory so long as you clearly indicate the specific interrogatory to which such documents 

are responsive. 

-8-
Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Consumer Protection 

Production Requirements 

Revised February 2018 

In producing information in to the FTC, you must comply with the following production requirements, unless 

the FTC agrees otherwise. If you have any questions about these requirements, please contact FTC Counsel 

before production. 

Production Format 

1. General Format: Provide load-ready electronic productions with: (a) an Opticon image load file 

(.OPT) containing a line for every image file; and (b) a delimited data load file (.DAT) containing a line 

for every document, with bates references, metadata fields, and native file links, where applicable. 

2. Electronically Stored Information ("ESI''): Documents stored in electronic format in the ordinary. 

course of business must be produced in the following format: 

a. For ESI other than the categories described below, submit in native electronic format with 

extracted text or Optical Character Recognition (OCR), all metadata, and corresponding image 

renderings converted to Group IV, 300 DPI, single-page Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) or 

color JPEG images (if color is necessary to interpret the contents or render them intelligible). 

b. For Microsoft Excel, Access, or PowerPoint files, submit in native format with extracted text and 

metadata. Data compilations in Excel spreadsheets or in delimited text formats must contain all 

underlying data, formulas, and algorithms without redaction. 

c. For other spreadsheet, database, presentation, or multimedia formats; instant messages; or 

proprietary applications, discuss production format during the meet and confer. 

3. Hard Copy Documents: Documents stored in hard copy in the ordinary course of business must be 

scanned and submitted as 300 DPI individual single page TIFFs ( or color JPGs when necessary to 

interpret documents or render them intelligible), with corresponding document-level OCR text and 

logical document determination in an accompanying load file. 

4. Extracted Text/OCR: Submit text as document-level text files, named for the beginning bates number, 

and organized into a folder separate from ima~es. We cannot accept Unicode text files. 

5. Document Identification: Provide a unique Docld or bates number for each hard copy or electronic 

document, consisting of a prefix and a consistent number of numerals using leading zeros. Do not use a 

space to separate the prefix from numbers. 

6. Attachments: Preserve the parent/child relationship by producing attachments as separate documents, 

numbering them consecutively to the parent email, and including a reference to all attachments. 

7. Metadata Production: For each document submitted electronically, include standard metadata fields in 

a standard ASCII delimitec;l data load file. The first line of the data load file shall include the field 

names. Submit date and time data in separate fields. Use these delimiters in delimited data load files: 

Descri tion S bol ASCII Character 

Field Se arator < 20 

Quote Character I> 254 

-Al-
I Multi Entrv delimiter ® 174 

I <Return> Value in data ~ 126 

8. De-duplication: Do not use de-duplication or email threading software without FTC counsel approval. 

9. Password-Protected Files: Remove passwords prior to production. If password removal is not 

possible, provide the original and production filenames and the password under separate cover. 

10. Sensitive PII or SHI: Use data encryption to protect any Sensitive PII or SHI (as defined in the CID 

Schedule). Provide encryption passwords in advance of delivery, under separate cover. 

Producing and Submitting Media to the FTC 

1. Prior to production, scan all media and data for viruses and confirm the media and data are virus-free. 

2. For productions smaller than 50 GB, the FTC can accept electronic file transfer via FTC-hosted secure 

file transfer protocol (Accellion or SecureZip ). Contact FTC counsel to request this option. The FTC 

cannot accept files via Dropbox, Google Drive, OneDrive, or other third-party file transfer sites. 

3. Use the least amount of media necessary for productions. Acceptable media formats are CDs, DVDs, 

flash drives, and hard drives. Format all media for use with Windows 7. 

4. Use a courier service ( e.g., Federal Express, UPS) because heightened security measures delay postal 

delivery. Mark the exterior of all packages containing electronic media with the following: 

MAGNETIC MEDIA - DO NOT X-RAY 

MAY BE OPENED FOR INSPECTION 

5. Provide a production transmittal letter with each production that includes: 

a. Production volume name (e.g., Volume 1), date of production, and numeric Doell number range 

of all documents included in the production; 

b. List of custodians and the DocID number range for each custodian; 

c. Total number of records and all underlying images, emails, and associated attachments, native 

files, and databases in the production 

d. List of load file fields in the order in which they are organized in the data file. 

-A2-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Acting Chairman 

Terrell Mcsweeny 

RESOLUTION DIRECTING USE OF COMPULSORY PROCESS IN NONPUBLIC 

11\'VESTIGATION OF ACTS AND PRACTICES RELATED TO CONSUMER PRIVACY 

AND/OR DATA SECURITY 

File No. 182 3036 

Nature and Scope of Investigation: 

To determine whether unnamed persons, partnerships, corporations, or others are 

engaged in, or may have engaged in, deceptive or unfair acts or practices related to consumer 

privacy and/or data security, including but not limited to the collection, acquisitio~ use, 

discl9sure, security, storage, retention, or disposition of consumer information, in or affecting 

commerce, in violation of Section 5 oftbe Federal Trade Commission Act 15 U.S.C. § 45, as 

amended. Such investigation shall, in addition, determine whether Commission action to obtain 

monetary relief would be in the public interest. 

The Federal Trade CommiMion hereby resolves and directs that any and all compulsory 

processes available to it be used in connection with this investigation not to exceed five (5) years 

from the date of issuance of this resolution. The expiration of this five-year perio4 shall not limit 

or tenninate the investigation or the legal effect of any compulsory process issued during the 

five-year period. The Federal Trade Commission specifically authorizes the filing or 

continuation of actions to enforce any such compulsory process after the expiration of the fiveyear period. 

Authority to Conduct Investigation: 

Sections 6, 9, 10, and 20 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 46, 49, 50, 

and 57b-l, as amended; FTC Procedures and Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 1.1. et seq. and 

supplements thereto. 

BydirectionoftbeCommission. ~i~ 

Donald S. Clark 

, Secretary 

Issued: January 11, 2018 
CERTIFICATION OF RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED ACTIVITY 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 

1. I, ----------~__, have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below 

and am competent to testify as follows: 

2. I have authority to certify the authenticity of the records produced by RagingWire Data 

Centers Inc. (the "Company") and attached hereto. 

3. The documents produced and attached hereto by the Company are originals or true copies 

of records of regularly conducted activity that: 

a) Were made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or 

from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters; 

b) Were kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity of the Company; and 

c) Were made by the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice of the 

Company. 

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Date: ----------- Signature 
Notice of Electronic Service 

I hereby certify that on February 03, 2020, I filed an electronic copy of the foregoing RAGINGWIRE DATA 

CENTERS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S MOTION TO COMPEL, with: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Suite 110 

Washington, DC, 20580 

Donald Clark 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Suite 172 

Washington, DC, 20580 

I hereby certify that on February 03, 2020, I served via E-Service an electronic copy of the foregoing 

RAGINGWIRE DATA CENTERS, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL, upon: 

Linda Kopp 

Federal Trade Commission 

lkopp@ftc.gov 

Complaint 

Robin Wetherill 

Federal Trade Commission 

rwetherill@ftc.gov 

Complaint 

Corey Roush 

Partner 

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 

croush@akingump.com 

Respondent 

C. Fairley Spillman 

Partner 

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 

fspillman@akingump.com 

Respondent 

Diana Schaffner 

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 

dschaffner@akingump.com 

Respondent 

Corey Roush 

Attorney