EXHIBIT 12

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 187-12 Filed 09/22/18 Page 1 of 10
1 

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 

Kevin H. Moriarty (DC Bar No. 975904) 

kmoriarty@ftc.gov

Shameka Walker (DC Bar No. 493891) 

swalker@ftc.gov

Cathlin Tully (NY Bar) 

ctully@ftc.gov

Jarad Brown (CA Bar No. 294516) 

jbrown4@ftc.gov

Katherine E. McCarron (DC Bar No. 486335) 

kmccarron@ftc.gov 

James A. Trilling (DC Bar No. 467273) 

jtrilling@ftc.gov

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Drop CC-8232 

Washington, DC 20580 

P: (202) 326-2949/F: (202) 326-3062 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC., 

 Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 

3:17-cv-00039-JD 

PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE 

COMMISSION’S RESPONSES AND 

OBJECTIONS TO D-LINK SYSTEMS, 

INC.’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR 

ADMISSION TO PLAINTIFF FEDERAL 

TRADE COMMISSION 

Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Trade 

Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”), hereby makes the following objections and provides the 

following responses to “Defendant D-Link Systems, Inc.’s First Set of Requests for Admission 

to Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission,” propounded April 4, 2018. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 187-12 Filed 09/22/18 Page 2 of 10
2 

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 

GENERAL OBJECTIONS 

The following General Objections apply to each of Defendant’s Requests and are hereby 

incorporated by reference into each response. The assertion of the same, similar, or additional 

objections or the provision of partial answers in response to an individual Request does not 

waive any of the FTC’s General Objections as to the other Requests. 

1. The FTC objects to these Requests for Admission, and to each request, 

instruction, and definition therein, to the extent that they seek to impose on the FTC any 

obligations beyond those provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court’s 

Standing Orders, the Stipulated Electronically Stored Information Order (Dkt. No. 80), the 

Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. No. 80), and/or the Local Rules of the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California. 

2. The FTC objects to these Requests for Admission, and each request, instruction, 

and definition therein, to the extent that they seek to require the FTC to admit any Request for 

Admission based on information that is not within the FTC’s possession, custody, or control. 

3. The FTC objects to these Requests for Admission, and each request, instruction, 

and definition therein, to the extent that they seek material that is not discoverable pursuant to 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or is otherwise exempt from disclosure by law, including, 

but not limited to, information protected from disclosure by: the attorney-client privilege; the 

work-product doctrine; the government deliberative process privilege; the law enforcement 

evidentiary or investigative files privilege; the common interest rule; or any other applicable 

privilege of law. The FTC does not intend to waive any of the privileges asserted in this 

objection by any inadvertent reference to, or production of, protected documents or information 

that may occur, and reserves the right to seek the return of any such material inadvertently 

produced. The documents and information for which the FTC asserts these privileges include 

but are not limited to: (1) correspondence between the FTC and law enforcement agencies; (2) 

notes of telephone conversations between the FTC and law enforcement agencies; (3) drafts of 

pleadings; (4) internal documents circulated among FTC staff; (5) memoranda from FTC staff to 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 187-12 Filed 09/22/18 Page 3 of 10
3 

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 

any FTC Commissioners; (6) documents and materials over which other law enforcement 

agencies have asserted a privilege; (7) compilations or indices of FTC records; (8) 

communications and other correspondence between FTC attorneys and among FTC staff, except 

to the extent such staff have submitted declarations in this lawsuit and/or will be testifying 

witnesses and the correspondence or communications relate to the particular subject(s) addressed 

in such declarations and/or testimony; and (9) other notes and documents prepared for or in 

anticipation of litigation by FTC staff. 

4. The FTC objects to these Requests for Admission, and each request, instruction, 

and definition therein, to the extent they seek information that relates to expert testimony prior to 

the dates prescribed by the October 17, 2017 Scheduling Order regarding expert testimony. 

5. The FTC objects to these Requests for Admission, and each request, instruction, 

and definition therein, to the extent they seek information not relevant to any party’s claim or 

defense or propose discovery, the burden and expense of which outweighs its likely benefit. 

6. The FTC objects to these Requests for Admission, and each request, instruction, 

and definition therein, to the extent they are vague, ambiguous, overly broad, or unduly 

burdensome. 

7. The FTC objects to these Requests for Admission, and each request, instruction, 

and definition therein, to the extent that they purport to obligate the FTC to conduct an extensive 

and complete investigation of detailed facts for its Response and Objections when such facts are 

known to Defendant and/or are contained in the more than 56,300 pages of documents already 

produced to Defendant. 

8. The FTC objects to these Requests for Admission, and each request, instruction, 

and definition therein, to the extent they require the FTC to undertake legal research for 

Defendant. 

9. The FTC objects to these Requests for Admission, and each request, instruction, 

and definition therein, to the extent they require the FTC to analyze or organize information for 

Defendant. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 187-12 Filed 09/22/18 Page 4 of 10
4 

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 

10. The FTC’s responses are based upon the discovery it has received to date. The 

FTC notes that discovery is ongoing, and that Defendant has not submitted complete discovery 

responses, nor have the parties finished taking depositions at this stage in discovery. In addition, 

the FTC is still receiving documents from non-parties. Accordingly, the FTC expressly reserves 

its right to supplement, revise, modify or otherwise change or amend its Responses and 

Objections based on any new facts obtained through further investigation and discovery. 

11. In providing these Responses and Objections, the FTC does not waive, but rather 

preserves all objections, including: (1) any objections to the competency, relevance, materiality, 

privilege, authenticity, or admissibility of evidence or other information referenced herein; (2) 

the right to object on any ground to the use of information produced herein at any hearing or 

trial; and (3) the right to object on any ground to any further discovery requests. 

12. Each of these General Objections is incorporated hereby by reference to each 

specific answer and objection set forth below. The specific Responses and Objections set forth 

below are made without waiving any of the above-listed General Objections. 

Subject to and without waiving these objections, the FTC provides the following responses: 

RESPONSES AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1 

Admit that FTC cannot identify a single person it believes to be a “consumer” within the 

meaning of Section 5 of the FTC Act who has experienced any harm to their identity or finances 

or otherwise as a result of DLS’s allegedly “deceptive” practices. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1 

The FTC objects on the ground that this Request is vague and ambiguous as to the 

meaning of “harm.” The FTC defines “harm” to mean any financial or other injury to 

consumers, including privacy injury. 

Consumers have suffered, and are likely to suffer, financial injury as a result of 

Defendant’s deceptive practices. Consumers who saw Defendant’s deceptive statements and 

purchased Defendant’s routers and IP cameras did not receive the benefit of their bargain and, 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 187-12 Filed 09/22/18 Page 5 of 10
6 

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 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, the FTC denies 

Request No. 3. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4 

Admit that FTC did not seek a preliminary injunction in this case. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, the FTC admits 

Request No. 4. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5 

Admit that FTC is not seeking a preliminary injunction in this case. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, the FTC admits 

Request No. 5. The FTC is seeking injunctive relief to prevent future violations of the FTC Act. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6 

Admit that FTC is not seeking monetary relief in this case in the form of disgorgement of 

profit or otherwise. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, the FTC admits 

Request No. 6. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7 

Admit that FTC agreed to and executed a joint stipulation dismissing Non-Party DKC 

from this case without prejudice. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, to the extent DLS is 

referring to the “Joint Stipulation and Order Dismissing D-Link Corporation Without Prejudice,” 

Dkt. Entry 75, the FTC admits Request No. 7. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 187-12 Filed 09/22/18 Page 6 of 10
11 

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 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12 

Admit that the FTC’s Complaint does not specifically reference any industry standards 

for data-security practices, hardware or software necessary to avoid a violation of Section 5 of 

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12 

The FTC objects to this Request as seeking an admission irrelevant to any permissible 

claim or defense in this proceeding and outside the scope of discovery. 

The FTC further objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous as 

to the meaning of “industry standards,” and “necessary to avoid a violation of Section of the FTC 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45.” The FTC asserts that the only thing necessary to avoid a violation of 

Section 5 of the FTC Act is to not deceive consumers and not engage in unfair business 

practices. 

The FTC denies this Request to the extent that the Open Web Application Security 

Project (“OWASP”) “Top 10 Most Critical Web Application Security Risks” represents a broad 

consensus about the most critical security risks to web applications and is referenced in the 

Complaint at Paragraph 15. Whether a company protected against the OWASP Top 10 critical 

security risks does not govern whether the company met its obligations under Section 5 of the 

FTC Act. However, it does provide a useful benchmark for reasonable behavior. 

The FTC further denies this Request to the extent that it suggests that particular “industry 

standards” provide a safe harbor to a law enforcement action under Section 5 of the FTC Act. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, General Objections, and denials, 

and to the extent further response is required, the FTC otherwise admits Request No. 12. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13 

Admit that the FTC has not accused DLS of violating any rules or regulations not 

specifically referenced within the four corners of the FTC’s Complaint. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 187-12 Filed 09/22/18 Page 7 of 10
35 

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 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 57 

Admit that a DLS’s Router at issue in this case does not provide Internet access on its 

own. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 57 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, the FTC admits 

Request No. 57. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 58 

Admit that DLS’s IP Cameras at issue in this case cannot connect to the Internet without 

an Internet service or a subscription with an Internet service provider. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 58 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, the FTC admits 

Request No. 58. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 59 

Admit that a DLS’s IP Camera at issue in this case does not provide Internet access on its 

own. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 59 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, the FTC admits 

Request No. 59. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 60 

Admit that no hack-proof Routers exist. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 60 

The FTC objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous as to the 

meaning of “hack-proof.” 

The FTC admits that while there is no such thing as perfect security, there are many 

things a device manufacturer can do to reduce the risk of unauthorized access to a router. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection and General Objections, and to 

the extent further response is required, the FTC otherwise denies Request No. 60. 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 187-12 Filed 09/22/18 Page 8 of 10
41 

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 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 77 

Admit that PX 10 of FTC’s Complaint is from page 24 of a DLS User Manual for the 

DCS-2310L, Version 1.0 (July 10, 2012), which FTC Investigator Cheryl Thomas downloaded 

from the Internet. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 77 

Without waiving the foregoing General Objections, the FTC denies Request No. 77. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 78 

Admit that PX 11 of FTC’s Complaint is from a DLS User Manual that FTC downloaded 

from the Internet. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 78 

Without waiving the foregoing General Objections, the FTC admits Request No. 78. The 

image in PX11 of the Complaint was reproduced from one example of a User Manual for a DLS 

IP Camera that the FTC downloaded from a DLS website. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 79 

Admit that PX 11 of FTC’s Complaint is from a DLS User Manual that FTC Investigator 

Cheryl Thomas downloaded from the Internet. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 79 

Without waiving the foregoing General Objections, the FTC admits Request No. 79. The 

image in PX11 of the Complaint was reproduced from one example of a User Manual for a DLS 

IP Camera that FTC Investigator Cheryl Thomas downloaded from a DLS website. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 80 

Admit that FTC altered a DLS User Manual for the DCS-2310L, Version 1.0 (July 10, 

2012) to create PX 10 of FTC’s Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 80 

The FTC objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous as to the 

meaning of “altered.” 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 187-12 Filed 09/22/18 Page 9 of 10
42 

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 

Without waiving the foregoing objection and General Objections, and to the extent 

further response is required, the FTC otherwise denies Request No. 80. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 81 

Admit that FTC altered a DLS User Manual to create PX 11 of FTC’s Complaint. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 81 

The FTC objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous as to the 

meaning of “altered.” 

The FTC denies that it altered the DLS User Manual. 

The FTC admits that it copied and pasted an image from a page of a DLS User Manual 

into a new document, and enlarged it for better viewing. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objection, General Objections, and denial, 

and to the extent that further response is required, the FTC otherwise denies Request No. 81. 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 82 

Admit that paragraph 24 of FTC’s Complaint does not reference a DLS User Manual. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 82 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing General Objections, the FTC otherwise 

admits Request No. 82. The FTC is not alleging in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint that the user 

manual is deceptive in its representation of how a DLS IP Camera GUI appears. The FTC is 

alleging that the text of the GUI itself is deceptive because it states: “enter a password” in order 

“to secure your camera.” 

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 83 

Admit that FTC has a 45-day auto delete policy for emails that reside in Outlook boxes. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 83 

The FTC objects to this Request as seeking an admission irrelevant to any permissible 

claim or defense in this proceeding and outside the scope of discovery. 

The FTC objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague and ambiguous as to the 

meaning of “Outlook boxes.” 

Case 3:17-cv-00039-JD Document 187-12 Filed 09/22/18 Page 10 of 10