Exhibit 1

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 1 of 187
1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

l1

t2

13

T4

15

l6

l7

18

t9

20

2I

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30

Basil P. Fthenakis, Esq. (88399)

CRITERION LAW

2225 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 200

Palo Alto, Califomia 94303

Tel. (6s0) 3s2-8400

Fax. (650) 352-8408

Of counsel:

David S. Godkin (admitted pro hac vice)

Andrew A. Caffrey, III (admitted pro hac vice)

BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP

280 Summer Street

Boston, }l4'A02210

(617) 307-6100

godkin@birnbaum godkin. com

caffr ey @birnb aum go dkin. com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SIX4THREE, LLC, a Delaware

limited liability company

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

SIX4THREE,LLC, a Delaware limited

liability company,

Plaintiff,

FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation

and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive

Defendants.

V

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CIV 533328

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF

PLAINTIFF, SIX4THREE, LLC, FOR

INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES FOR:

1. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE

$$ 17200 Er SEQ.;

2. PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL;

3. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION;

4. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE

WITH CONTRACT; AND

5. INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE

WITH PROSPECTIVE BUSINES S

RELATIONS.

Plaintiff, Six4Three, LLC, alleges as follows:

1. This matter concerns Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s campaign of promises,

enticements, and representations to third-party software developers ("Developers") such as

1

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 2 of 187
1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

L2

13

t4

15

16

t7

18

l9

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff Six4Three, LLC (*643"), to develop applications for Facebook, based on Facebook's

representations that Developers would have a level playing field, fair competition, and an

opportunity to grow their business. Facebook's campaign was part of a calculated strategy to

drive Facebook's own growth by leveraging the hard work of Developers. But once Facebook

decided it would prefer to no longer compete with Developers, it abruptly reversed course, and

broke its promise of fair competition in Facebook's platform. Facebook's conduct here is a classic

"bait andswitch" tactic that is barred by Califomia law, as detailed below.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff 643 is a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation with a principal place of

business at 535 Mission Street, 14th Floor, San Francisco, California.

3. On information and belief, Defendant Facebook, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation

with a principal place of business of One Hacker W'ay, Menlo Park, California.

4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued herein

as Does I through 50, inclusive, and each of them, and therefore sues said Defendants by such

fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint when the true names and capacities of said

Defendants have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that

Defendants Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are legally responsible in some

manner for the events and happenings referred to herein and proximately caused or contributed to

the injuries to Plaintiff as hereinafter alleged. Wherever in this complaint any Defendant is the

subject of any charging allegation by Plaintiff it shall be deemed that said Defendants Does I

through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are likewise the subjects of said charging allegation.

5. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein

mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent and employee of each of the remaining

Defendants and, in doing the things herein alleged, was acting within the course and scope of said

agency and employment.

FACTS

6. 643 is an image pattem recognition startup company.

2

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 3 of 187
1

2

a

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

13

t4

15

T6

T7

18

19

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7. Facebook operates a social networking service that enables users to connect and

share information with their friends and family.

8. Facebook refers to the network of relationships between its users as the "Graph" or

the "Social Graph."

9. The Facebook Developer Platform (also called "Facebook Platform") enables

Developers to make their applications and other services available to Facebook users.

I. LAUNCH OF FACEBOOK PLATFORM IN 2OO7

10. At 3PM PDT on May 24,2007, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook Founder and CEO,

made a self-described revolutionary announcement to a crowded room of software developers in

San Francisco. Zuckerberg announced the launch of Facebook Platform, which he had described

weeks earlier in an interview with Fortune magazine as "the most powerful distribution

mechanism that's been created in a generation."l He went on in the Fortune interview to describe

the motivation for creating Facebook Platform in this way: "We want to make Facebook into

something of an operating s)¡stem so l¿ou can run full applications," specifying that this

development was the intemet-equivalent to what Microsoft did with Windows, which allowed

other developers to build applications for PCs. (See

http:llarchive.fortune. coml2007l05l24ltecLnology/facebook.fortune/index.htm.)

11. In fact, Zuckerberg's first demonstration of Facebook Platfoffn was purportedly to

Bill Gates in early }l4ay 2007. Microsoft and Facebook had reached an agreement for Microsoft to

purchase banner ads on Facebook in which Microsoft had guaranteed Facebook a minimum of

$100 million per year through 2011. Facebook Platform was positioned by Facebook to Microsoft

as the driving force behind meeting Facebook's ambitious growth metrics. At the time of this

announcement, Facebook had just exceeded20 million active users and had raised only $37.7

million in venture capital investment. Even at this modest point in Facebook's growth, its photo

sharing application was the largest photo application on the Internet, and according to Facebook's

t In the quoted text here and elsewhere in the Second Amended Complaint, representations by

Facebook or its employees have been underlined for emphasis.

a

-t

Case No. CIV 533328 Plaintiffls Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 4 of 187
1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

ll

t2

l3

t4

15

t6

l7

18

I9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

own internal statistics, drew more than twice the traffic of the next three photo sites combined at

the time of the li4ay 24,2007 announcement of Facebook Platform.

12. Zuckerberg announced that the three key elements of Facebook Platform were

"deep inteeration. mass distribution, and new opportunity. " These were three key themes he

would repeat throughout the day and for years to come in numerous public conversations and

presentations. (See https:l lgigaom.com/2007 l05l24llive-at-the-facebook-launch/.)

13. Thus, Zuckerbergmade three distinct promises: (1) promise of deep integration

with Facebook's social graph; (2) promise of Facebook's support in achieving mass distribution

of developer applications; and (3) promise of an opportunity to build a business on Facebook.

14. By 8PM that evening, these key elements were memorialized on Facebook's

website with the official announcement'oFacebook Platform Launches", stating "You can now

build aoolications that the same access to intesration into the social sraph as Facebook

anolications- such as s. notes. and events. ... The oower of mass distribution is now in your

hands. You can sain distribution for your applications throush the social graph like never before.

millions of Facebook users

throush the nrofile- news feerl- anrf mini-feed. ... With access to deeo intesration into the site- anrl

mass distribution throush fïe social sranh comes a new oonortunitv for vou to build a business

with vour annlication- You are free to monetize vour canvas oases throush adveltisins or other

transactions that )¡ou control." (See Facebook Platform Launches,

http..llweb.archive.orglwebl2007070600202llhttp:l/developers.facebook.com/news.php?blog:1&

stor521).

15. Facebook's announcement thus promised that (1) developers have "same access to

integration" for applications such as photos and notes as Facebook employees; (2) developers are

able to distribute applications through Facebook Platform; and (3) developers are able to

monetize appl icati ons through F acebook P latform.

16. Zuckerbergwent on to say: "The social eraph is ou

framework that is completely optimized for developing social applications within our

that there

4

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 5 of 187
1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

11

l2

13

t4

15

16

I7

18

T9

20

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

on

This is sood for us because if rleveloners builrl aonlications then thev're orovidins a service

to our users and strensthenins the social . ... This is a bis onoortunitv. 'We nrovide the

intesration and distribution anrl develoners the aoolications. We helo users share more

information and together we benefit."

17. Zuckerbergthus promised that Facebook is committed long term to serving as a

platform that lets developers build applications on a level playing field because it is a big

opportunity for everyone.

18. Zuckerbergthen announced that Facebook had been working with over 70

developers in anticipation of the launch of Facebook Platform, including Amazon, Forbes, ilike,

Lending Club, Microsoft, Obama for America, Photobucket, Red Bull, Twitter, Uber, Virgin

Mobile USA,'Warner Bros, Vy'ashington Post, and many others. (See live blog of F8 event from

leading Internet blogger, Mashable, athttp:llmashable.com/2007105124/facebook-f8-

live/#CIfbgFfPV5q0.)

19. Around 4PM duringZuckerberg's presentation, he announced 5 case studies from

these early developer partners aimed at showing how easy it was for all developers to integrate

with Facebook Platform. Zuckerberg distributed case studies from Red Bull, Box.net, Lending

Club, Microsoft and Slide.com. Zuckerberg continued to emphasize during this public, annual

keynote to Developers that Facebook Platform is the single biggest and most revolutionary

change to Facebook since its inception, stating: "Every once in a while a platform comes along

that allows people to build a completely new application-sometimes even starts new industries."

(S ee https ://gigaom. com I 2007 I 0 5 / 24 lliv e-at-the-facebook-launch/.)

20. GigaOm, a leading Internet blogger, live blogged the event and further quoted

Zuckerberg as saying: "With photo-sharing, he explained, 'it's not just the photos that spread, it's

the whole photos application'. Third-party applications won't be treated like second-class citizens

on Facebook, he says; users can add them to their profiles and drag them and drop them to their

content. Applications can use Flash, JavaScript, and Silverlight if a user approves them. Outside

applications can issue unlimited notifications to users, and fit into the Facebook environment by

5

Case No. CIY 533328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 6 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

I2

t3

t4

l5

t6

l7

18

t9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

accessing a'friend selector' that spits out each users' connections. Now Ztckerberg says you can

serve ads on your app pages and keep all the revenue, sell them yourselves or use a network, and

process transactions within the site, keeping all the revenue without diverting users off

Facebook." (See https: l l gigaom.com/20 07 l 05 l24 llive-at-the-facebook-launch/.)

21. Zuckerbergthus promised that (1) developer applications won't be "second class

citizens"; (2) developer applications can access a user's connections and related user data made

available in the social graph; and (3) developer applications can sell ads through the Facebook

Platform.

22. This grandiose language from Zuckerbergobviously sparked substantial questions

from the developer community so by :2}PMpacific (1 hour and20 minutes after the keynote

had started), Facebook had released the official "Facebook Platform FAQ", which was being

circulated among bloggers to educate developers further on this announcement. (See Exhibit 1,

Facebook F8 and Platform FAQ.) The Facebook Platform FAQ states, among other things:

What is Facebook Platform? Facebook Platform is a development system that enables

companies and developers to build applications for the Facebook website, where all of

Facebook's 24 mlllion active users can interact with them. Facebook Platform offers deep

intesration tn the Facebook website, distribution throueh the social graph and an

opportunity to build a business

*{<{<

What's new in Facebook Platform? We've been adding functionality since Facebook

Platform first shipped in beta in August 2006. With the latest evolution ofFacebook

create on

site with the same level of intesration as applications built bv internal Facebook

developers. Now developers everywhere have the abilit)¡ to create Facebook applications

that deeply integrate into the Facebook site. as well as the potential for mass distribution

throueh the social graph and new business opportunities.

\ühy did Facebook launch Facebook Platform? Our engineers have created great

applications for Facebook, but we recognized that third-party developers can help us make

6

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 7 of 187
1

2

a

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

t3

l4

15

t6

t7

18

t9

20

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Facebook an even more powerful social utility. Facebook Platform gives developers

everwvhere the tools to create applications that we just wouldn't have the resources to

build in-house. and those applications make Facebook an even better way for our users to

ç¡lchange information. Developers also benefit from the Facebook Platform as it gives

them the notential to broadl V distribute their aoolications and even build new business

opportunities.

What kinds of applications can be built on Facebook Platform? The kinds of

applications developers can build on Facebook Platform are limited onl)¡ bv their

imaginations. Because applications are based on the Facebook social graph the)¡ can be

more relevant to users. keeping people in touch with what and whom the)¡ care about.

We've already seen a variety of applications built by our developer partners, including

those for sharing media files, book reviews, slideshows and more. Some of the

possibilities of Facebook applications are illustrated in the Facebook Platform Application

Directory, availabl e at http : I I facebook. com/apps.

Are there any restrictions on what developers can build? Developers are encouraged

to exercise their creativifv when huildino Of course- all annlications are

suhiect to the Terms of Service that evefv develooer asrees to- which include basic

requirements such as not storing an)¡ sensitive user information. not creatinq any offensive

or illegal applications. and not building an)¡thins that phishes or spams users. And users

will always have the power to report any applications that compromise Facebook's trusted

environment, keeping our users' information safe.

{<**

How will Facebook deal with applications that compete with one another or even

compete with Facebook-built applications? We welcome developers with competins

applications. includine developers whose applications mieht compete with Facebook-built

applications. Many applications are likel)'to offer similar features. We've desiened

Facebook Platform so that applications from third-part)¡ developers are on a level pla)¡ine

field with applications built by Facebook. Ultimatel)¡. our users will decide which

7

Case No. CM33328 Plaintifls Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 8 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

l2

13

14

15

16

17

18

t9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

applications they find most useful, and it is these applications that will become the most

popular.

***

Can Facebook applications include ads? We want to enable developers to build a

business on their Facebook applications. so we're eivine developers the freedom to

monetize their applications as they like. Developers can include advertising on their

applications' canvas pages 

, though no advertising will be allowed within the application

boxes that appear within user profiles.

Are you going to share revenue with developers? While revenue sharing is not

available at launch, we are looking into ways to share advertising revenue with

developers. The version of Facebook Platform already lets developers monetize their

applications as the)¡ like. whether the)¡ choose to offer it for free or to build a business on

their application.

23. In sum, these representations by Facebook reflected the following promises to

Developers:

a. Developers would have'odeep integration";

b. Developers would have access to the "social gaph";

c. Developers would have "an opporfunity to build a business."

d. Developers would have the same level of integration and ability to develop apps in

the same manner as internal Facebook employees;

e. Facebook will provide adequate tools necessary for Developers to build their

applications;

f. Facebook will help Developers achieve broad distribution of their applications;

g. so long as applications abide by Terms of Service (e.g. are not offensive or

unlawful), Facebook will be neutral as to the applications built on its operating

system;

8

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 9 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1,2

13

T4

15

T6

T7

18

T9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

h. any application that does not violate Terms of Service, phish or spam users,

contain offensive material, or break the law shall be accepted in Facebook

Platform;

i. competing applications are welcome on Facebook's operating system;

j. Facebook will remain neutral among competing applications;

k. Facebook will remain neutral among its own applications and those of developers

regardless of whether they compete or not;

l. applications similar in purpose and content will be allowed to compete on a "level

playing field"

m. "level playing field" constitutes a definition of fairness in market competition, and

that definition of faimess means that ultimately users will decide which

applications win the market, not Facebook or other third parties;

n. implicit in this definition of fairness based on user decision is the necessary

consequence that Facebook shall take no actions to promote its own applications

or preferred applications from companies that have a special relationship with

Facebook in order to slant this playing field in a manner that makes it less likely

for users ultimately to decide the winner;

o. Facebook will enable Developers to build businesses on their operating system by

directly monetizing their applications on Facebook;

p. Developers will be able to sell ads on their application pages; and

q. Developers will have a choice as to whether they monetize their application on

Facebook's operating system.

II. DEVELOPERS RESPONDED ENTHUSIASTICALLY TO THE LAUNCH OF

F'ACEBOOK PI,ATF'ORM^ .II AS FACEBOOK INTENDED

24. The blogging community went into an immediate and prolongedfrenzy over this

arìnouncement. Paul B. Allen, founder of Ancestry.com and well known Intemet blogger,

summed up the general sentiment expressed by countless bloggers when he wrote that same da¡

"I saw history in the making today...I was lucky enough to be in San Francisco for the Facebook

9

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 10 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

t3

t4

15

t6

t7

18

t9

20

2I

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

f8 Platform launch event. This announcement was at least an 8.0 on the Richter scale. It was a

whopper. ... A huge new opportunity was presented to the few hundred people in the room,

including 65 companies that have spent the last few weeks developing applications for the launch

of Facebook Platform. Facebook is inviting anyone to develop applications for their users on top

of what Mark calls their "social grlaph" - the core of their service which basically keeps track of

real people and their real connections to each other....fFacebook's] growth will be dramatically

accelerated by the Platform announcement. If Facebook is adding 100,000 new users per day with

its own few simple applications (like its photo sharing, a very simple service that has given

Facebook twice as many photos as all other photo sharing sites combined), what will happen

when thousands or tens of thousands of developers start building apps in Facebook and marketing

them to more users? Facebook will reach 50 million, then 100 million, then 200 million users, and

beyond. Rather than continue to try to develop features within its own proprietary, closed

network, basically keeping all of its users to itself...Facebook intuitively gets the concepts that

are so brilliantly discussed in Wikinomics (which are so non-intuitive to old schools business

types), and has chosen to open up its network for all to participate in...Application developers

can now have access to core Facebook features, such as user profiles and user connections, and

even publishing to the News Feed, all with the control and permission of Facebook users...When

Facebook has 100 million users, in the not too distant future, having the ability to develop an App

in their system will almost be like being able to get a link on Google's own home page." (See

http:llwww.paulallen.netþrediction-facebook-will-be-the-largest-social-network-in-the-world/.)

25. To Developers, Facebook Platform represented not just an entire new operating

system, but an ecosystem that could potentially rcorganize the entire Intemet (potentially

replacing Google). The sentiment amongst Developers, as widely held throughout the industry

and reported by popular sites like TechCrunch (http:lltechcrunch.com /2007lÙsl24lfacebooklaunches-facebook-platform-they-are-the-anti-myspace/) and the Wall Street Journal

(http ://www.wsj.com/public/article/SB 1 17 97 1397 890009 17 7 -

wjdIGmjAqS_9ZZbwiRp_CoSqvwQ 20070620.htm1), was that if you aren'tbuilding for

Facebook, you will be left behind.

10

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 11 of 187
1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

11

t2

13

I4

15

t6

t7

l8

t9

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26. Facebook and the Developers who were selected to participate in the private beta

of Facebook Platform quickly set out to make Developers comfortable with this grandiose vision

and create a level of comfort to induce them to participate in this entirely new industry. For

instance, on May 29,2007,just five days after Zuckerberg's announcement of Facebook

Platform, Venture Beat, the popular tech blog, did a Q&A with ilike founder, Ali Partovi, who

was also an early advisor and shareholder of Facebook. ilike was the first successful application

on Facebook Platform and for quite some time was the largest music application on the Facebook

Platform. ilike was purchased by MySpacein2009.

Tell me about your experiences with PlatforTn so far. You've been working on putting

ilike on Facebook for several months now. Yet on the integration since Friday moming,

there have been bugs and other issues on ilike's end. What's the status?

Partovi: So, first to give you the back-story on how we got involved. Over the past several

months, we've pushed and pushed with Facebook asking for some sort of exclusive

relationship. They repeatedly said they won't do an exclusive relationship but would

rather create a level playing field where we could compete with other third parties. We

then gave up a bit, and we were actually a bit late to the game learning about the platform

in detail. But when we finally did get access, our President, Hadi Partovi (my twin

brother) took very little time to decide this was a huge strategic priority. That was a month

ago. We rc-pnontized everything else, and started moving our people off other projects

onto this. First two or three people, then a few more, and by the end it was a huge group of

engineers pulling back-to-back all-nighters for a week-long sprint to the launch.

What made ilike think that Facebook Platform would be a big deal? What stood out about

it?

Hadi has a strong background in the concept of platforms...at24 he became the head of

product management in the IE group at Microsoft, and was a key player in the browser

wars. A month ago, even though the Facebook Platform wasn't fully fleshed out, he saw

just from the early beginnings of it that this could redefine web development. What he

said was, 'in the history of computing, there was the personal computer, there was

11

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 12 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

13

l4

15

t6

t7

18

t9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Windows, there was the web, and now the Facebook Platform'. You can imagine that I

and most our company'was pretty skeptical. But he makes these calls so we followed him.

As to what stood out, it's a combination of three things: (1) the technology itself -

Facebook Platform, like any platform, offers the developer building blocks to build apps

faster than they could if they were starting from scratch, and to tap into a rich source of

data & capabilities that would never otherwise be available; (2) the potential for viral

spread - due to the way the Facebook news feed works, an app can spread across the

community entirely by viral spread, as friends get notified when one person adopts

it...this essentially bypasses the idea of trying to make your app 'viral' as a standalone,

because Facebook is itself naturally viral; (3) the rhetoric from the Facebook manaeement

team. starting from the CEO himself, made it clear that they have a lone-term

commitment to a level playing field. For example. the)¡ absolutely refused to give us any

special advantage. insistine that the market needs to see a level playins field...we offered

them ownership in our company. mone)¡. etc - but they had no interest. Furthermore. they

built and launched their own'video' app. but left it to 'compete' on its own merits

aloneside other third-party apps rather than makine it 'pre-installed' for all Facebook

users. So #1 and #2 made this something we had to jump on. and #3 made us comfortable

with the lone-term strateeic implications . (See http:llventurebeat.com/2}}71051291qawith-ilikes-ali -partovi -on- facebook/. )

27. Partovi's comments immediately following Zuckerberg's announcement serye

both to reflect the general sentiment held by Developers - that Facebook had made clear its long

term commitment to a level playing field for Developers - and to show how Facebook's allies

(Partovi was an early advisor and shareholder after all), were committed to helping Facebook

grow its new operating system quickly and induce developers to participate with large

investments of capital. After all, ilike saw massive growth in the two years following its decision

to build on the Facebook Platform and was ultimately acquired by MySpace in2009 in large part

due to that growth.

12

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 13 of 187
1

2

a

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

l2

13

t4

15

16

t7

18

19

20

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

III.FACEBOOK CONTINUED TO ACTIVELY PROMOTE FACEBOOK

PLATFORM TO DEVELOPERS

28. Three days after Partovi's Q&A with Venture Beat, on June 1,2007 Facebook

released its own statement further clarifying its intentions with Facebook Platform, entitled

"Platform is Here".

"Last Frida)¡. we promised more information. so here it is.. .. V/ith this evolution of

Facebook Platform. we've made it so that an)¡ developer can build the same applications

that we can. And by that. we mean that they can integrate their application into

Facebook-into the social graph-the same wa)¡ that our applications like Photos and

Notes are intesrated. " (See https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/platform-isherc124372821301)

29. Thus Facebook promised that developers will be able to build applications in the

same way that Facebook can by accessing the social graph.

30. As recently as February 23,2016, this representation remained available on

Facebook's web page.

31. Throughout the summer of 2007 Facebook remained on the offensive about its

long-term commitment to developers on Facebook Platform. Facebook held numerous

Hackathons and Developer Meetups in various cities to introduce new developers to Facebook

Platform, it launched a Developer Feed and Wiki on its website to educate the Developer

community on the benefits of Facebook Platform and help them more seamlessly invest their

capital and resources towards building applications on the Facebook Platform. Facebook also held

contests with prizes for developers. Zuckerberg continued to emphasize the revolutionary impact

Facebook Platform would have on the Internet as a whole during this time. For instance, on July

17, 2007, Zuckerber g was interviewed by Time Magazine:

Time: the frenzy surrounding Facebook seems to have intensified quite dramatically over

the past several months. What do you think is behind the company's newfound cachet?

Zuckerberg: I think the most recent surge, at least in the press, is around the launch of

Facebook Platform. For the first time we're allowins developers who don't work at

13

Case No. CIV 533328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 14 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

l1

t2

l3

14

15

t6

t7

l8

t9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Facebook to develop applications just as if theli were. That's a bie deal because it means

that all developers have a new way of doins business if they choose to take advantage of

it. There are whole companies that are formins whose only product is a Facebook

for it des an

people who waul to make money by investing in those companies, and I think that's

somethins that's nrettv exciti s to the business communitv. " (See

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,I644040,00.html)

32. In these public statements to Time Magazine, Zuckerbergmade at least four

distinct promises: (1) Facebook would allow developers to build applications as if they were

developers employed by Facebook; (2) Facebook would offer developers on Facebook Platform a

new way of doing business; (3) Facebook would support an ecosystem where entire companies

could be formed whose sole business activity was within the Facebook Platform ecosystem; (4)

Facebook would support an ecosystem where investors could reasonably rely on Facebook to

make money by investing in companies solely devoted to the Facebook Platform ecosystem.

33. Then on September 17,2007, Facebook went even further by setting up a $10

million fund exclusively devoted to providing grants to developers to build on Facebook

Platform. Facebook and its partners in the fund would not even take equity in the developer; they

were offering free money to build applications on Facebook Platform with the only commitments

being that the grantee use the money to build on Facebook Platform and that Facebook's partners

would have the opportunity to invest first if they were interested in doing so. When asked why

Facebook was forming this fund, it replied: "We are forming this fund to help grow the Facebook

application ecosystem. By decreasing the barrier to start a company. we hope to entice an even

larger group of people to become entrepreneurs and build a compelling business on Facebook

Platform. We hope this is also a fundine model that other venture capitalists will follow. " (See

http : I I 500hats.typepad. com/5 00bl o gsl 2007 I 09/facebook-announ.html.)

34. Facebook's conduct in providing free money to developers to build applications on

Facebook Platform implies a specific promise that it will support developers' opportunity to

"build a compelling business on Facebook Platform" and that it is committed long term to the

14

Case No. CIY 533328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 15 of 187
1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

13

t4

l5

16

T7

18

t9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

stability of Facebook platform as an ecosystem that can support substantial investment and where

investors who participate in that ecosystem can expect a level playing field upon which to

generate a return on that investment.

35. Indeed, others were quick to follow Facebook's lead in making investors

comfortable with supporting this new industry with large sums of capital. Numerous venture

capital firms or funds were soon after established that invested solely in Facebook applications. In

September 2007, V/ired Magazine reported the following: "And by turning itself into a platform

for new applications, Facebook has launched a whole new branch of the software development

industry, just like Bill Gates did with MS-DOS in the 1980s. By allowing developers to charge

for their wares or collect the advertising revenue they generate, Zuckerberg set up a system for

every programmer to get paid for their efforts. Now venture capitalists like Bay Partners are

scrambling to fund almost anyone who has an idea for a Facebook application." (See

https:llarchive.wired.comltechbiz/startups/newsl2)}7l09lff facebook?currentPage:all.)

36. As a result of Facebook and its partners tremendous efforts in inducing Developers

to build applications on Facebook Platform and promising them the opportunity to build entire

industries, new sectors of investment and new types of applications, Facebook Platform quickly

became, in the words of AdWeek, 'othe most viral software distribution system ever". The overall

traffic to Facebook increased by one third within a mere three weeks of the announcement. By

December, the Facebook user base had gone from 24 mlllion at the time of the announcement to

58 million, a l4l% increase. Where Facebook had been adding about 100,000 new users per day

prior to Facebook Platform, it was now adding more than 250,000 users per day. (See

http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/top-10-facebook-stories-oÊ20071211540.)

37. While it touted Facebook Platform to Developers around the world, Facebook did

not state or imply that access to Facebook Platform might later be rescinded or provided on an

unequal basis.

38. By the end of 2009, inlarge part due to the Facebook Platform's success in

inducing developers to make investments in this new ecosystem, Facebook's user growth had

l5

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiffls Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 16 of 187
1

2

ô

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1l

12

13

I4

15

t6

l7

18

I9

20

2I

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

skyrocketed from 24 million active users at the time of the announcement of Facebook Platform

in May 2007 to over 350 million users in December 2009.

39. In late 2009, Facebook released a document "A Look Back on the App Economy

of Facebook in 2009," in which it cited numerous success stories. For instance, Facebook app

Playfish was acquired by Electronic Arts that year for no less thanS275 million. Watercooler, a

leading fantasy sports application on the Facebook Platform, successfully raised $5.5 million to

fuel its growth. 'Weardrobe was acquired by Like.com for an undisclosed sum. The document,

published by the Director of the Facebook Developer Network, ended: "'We'd like to say thank

you to the developers and entrepreneurs who make up the Facebook Platform ecosystem and

congratulations on your accomplishments in 2009." (See

http:llweb.archive.org/web120091223055629thtþ://developers.facebook.com/news.php?blog:1&

storp351.)

IV. FACEBOOK LAUNCHED GRAPH API IN 2O1O

40. On or about Apnl2l,2010, Facebook announced the launch of Graph Application

Programming Interface ("Graph API") as a key new component of Facebook Platform at its

developer conference. Graph API allows Developers, with the consent of a Facebook user, to read

data from and write data to Facebook.

41. Developers can only access Facebook content (refened to as "endpoints") with

explicit permission from the user. Examples of endpoints include a user's birthdate, favorite

athletes, or photos.

42. Graph API also permits access to endpoints regarding a user's füends. One such

endpoint is the set of photos that a user's friends had chosen to share with that user (the "Friends'

Photos Endpoint"). A user's friends can control access to their photos and other endpoints by

Developers even if they are not users of the Developer's application.

43. By granting Developers access to the Friends' Photos Endpoint, Facebook allowed

Developers to build applications that enabled a Facebook user to search the user's friends' photos

via a Facebook Platform application, assuming the user's friend explicitly provided such

permission. A user's friend had complete control over the permission settings. For instance, the

T6

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiffls Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 17 of 187
I

2

a

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

t3

T4

15

I6

L7

18

I9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

user's füend could provide access to all or no developers or to specific developers but not others,

as the user's füend saw fit.

44. During the announcement of Graph API, Facebook touted several features of

Graph API in order to increase its appeal to Developers such as 643.

45. Specifically, at the F8 Conference 2010, Zuckerberg announced: "The open graph

puts people at the center of the web - it means that the web can become a set of personally and

meaningfully semantic connections between people...Three years ago at our first F8 we launched

Facebook Platform, and together we all started an industry...We think what we have to show you

today will be the most transformative thing we've ever done for the web...Use the open eraph to

make it so that oeoole can have instantlv social and personalized experiences everywhere they go.

We're sonna be announcins a few oieces of new technology that make this possible - the first is

the Graoh API - makes it comoletelv simnle to read connections to Facebook's map of the

graph...implemented on top of an open standard. " (See

https ://www. youtube. com/watch?v:4SOcRKINi SM.)

46. After Zuckerberg completed his keynote at F8 2010, Bret Taylor, a Facebook

employee, fuither explained what Graph API meant for developers: "With Graph API every

object in Facebook has a unique ID, whether that object is a user profile, event, etc. . . you just

need to download an object with a new ID or download a connection with a new name. So to

download my friends you just need to download lbtaylor /friends. . . And this applies for every

single object in Facebook. So let's say Facebook launches a new feature next year. We're not

gonna make you download a new SDK. You just need to download an object with a new ID or

download a connection with a new name. All of the code )¡ou already wrote will continue to work

perfectly. This is a really sienificant chanse for our new platform that I'm sure you can

appreciate. For the first time via the search capabilit)¡ of the Graph API. we're eiving developers

the capability to search over all the public updates on Facebook. I think this is eonna lead to a

bunch of cool new applications and I'm reall)¡ excited to see where people so with this.... 'We've

built our core of the Facebook Platform from the ground up with simplicity. stability. and the

l7

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 18 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

T7

18

l9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

eraph in mind. This graph that for the first time we're buildine toeether." (See

https ://www. youtube. com/watch?v:4S OoRKINi SM.)

47. Facebook's employee Bret Taylor thus promised that: (1) developers can access

Graph API objects in a simple manner ("you just need to download an object with a new ID"); (2)

the accessible objects are ubiquitous ("this applies for every single object in Facebook"); (3) this

access will be sustained and can be relied upon by developers ("All of the code you already wrote

will continue to work perfectly...We're not gonna make you download a new SDK") (a Software

Development Kit (or "SDK") is a set of software development tools that allows for the creation of

applications for a particular development platform); (4) developers can search over all objects for

all public updates on Facebook; and (5) Facebook Platform guarantees simplicity, stability and

your ability to access and help build the graph with us.

48. The software industry uses a common and well-known convention of referring to

software by version number (e.g., version 1.0, 2.0, etc.) to signify the existence of separate

versions of software and to identify a particular version of the software. When Facebook

announced the launch of Graph API, it did not refer to Graph API as having different versions.

Facebook thereby signified that Graph API's open, equal, and neutral nature would not change.

This representation was of course a deliberate decision on Facebook's part to continue to entice

developers by conveying a sense of security around investing time, money and effort building

applications on its revolutionary platform.

49. Facebook did not represent that it had reserved the right to terminate any endpoint

of Graph API. To the contrary, Facebook repeatedly expressed its long-term commitment to this

API.

50. This extension of the Facebook Platform ecosystem to further expand its

reorganization potential for the entire Internet contributed even further to Facebook's meteoric

rise and induced even more investors and developers to expand the industry Facebook had

created. By way of example, on October 21,,2010, Facebook partnered with Kleiner Perkins

Caufield & Byers, Zynga and Amazon to launch a $250 million fund to invest in new apps on the

Facebook Platform. By September 19, 201I, Facebook Platform had created over 182,000 jobs

18

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 19 of 187
1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

T2

l3

14

15

T6

t7

18

19

20

21,

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and $12.19 billion in value to the U.S. economy. Facebook now boasted over 850 million users as

of late 2011.

51. On September 24,20II, Facebook further extended its long-term commitment to

Facebook Platform by expanding Open Graph to accelerate its reorganization of the disparate

content on the Internet. (See http://mashable.coml2012l05l24lfacebook-developer-platforminfographic/#ÐCxuACag5qr.) In his keynote address at F8 2011 on September 24,2011,

Zuckerberg stated to a packed auditorium of developers : 'oThe next era is defined by the apps and

depth of ensagement that is now possible now that this whole network has been established... In

2007 in our very first F8 I introduced the concept of the social eraph. all of the relationships

between people in the world. Last year we introduced the concept of the open graph as not onl]¡

the map of all the relationships but all of the connections in the world.... This )¡ear. we're taking

the next step: we're eoing to make it so that you can connect to anything you want in any way

)¡ou want.... Sometimes I think about what we're doing with the open sraph is helpine to define a

brand new languase for how people connect...every year we take the next step and make some

new social apps possible. Open graph enables apps that focus primarily on two types of things:

the first is filline out your timeline. and the second is helpine you discover new thinss throush

your friends."

52. Facebook thus made at least four distinct promises in this September 24,2011

announcement: (l) Facebook has a long-term commitment to the Facebook Platform and ensuring

a fair playing field for developers and has had such a commitment for over four years now; (2)

Facebook is committed to extending the Facebook Platform to provide developers with more

ways to innovate and build businesses; (3) in keeping with this long term commitment, Facebook

will continue to help make new kinds of social apps possible; and (4) Facebook is in particular

focused on helping you discover new things through your friends and Facebook Platform will

enable developers seeking to do so.

53. 643 relied upon these representations, and others, as to the fair, level playing field

and the open, equal, and neutral nature of Facebook's Platform and Graph API, and invested

l9

Case No. CIY 533328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 20 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

t3

l4

15

L6

I7

18

t9

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

considerable time, energy, and money developing an application to make use of Graph API on

Facebook's Platform.

V. THE FTC ORDERED FACEBOOK NOT TO MISREPRESENT THE MANNER

IN WHICH FACEBOOK PROVIDES ACCESS TO USER DATA

54. On or about July 27,2012, the United States Federal Trade Commission ("FTC")

entered a Decision and Order (the "FTC Order") against Facebook.

55. The FTC Order entered following a consent agreement between FTC and

Facebook.

56. The FTC noted in the FTC Order that the FTC had reason to believe Facebook has

violated the Federal Trade Commission Act.

57. The FTC Order provided, among other things, that Facebook and its

representatives "shall not misrepresent in any manner, expressly or by implication, the extent to

which it maintains the privacy or security of covered information . . . ."

58. The FTC Order defined "covered information" to include an individual

consumer's photos, among other things.

59. The FTC Order also provided that Facebook and its representatives "shall not

misrepresent in any manner, expressly or by implication . . . the extent to which [Facebook]

makes or has made covered information accessible to third parties."

VI.IN DECEMBER 2012. PLAINTIFF 643 BECAME A FACEBOOK DEVELOPER

AND BEGAN DEVELOPING AN APPLICATION

60. In December 2012,643 entered into the Facebook Developer Platform, which

permitted 643 to develop applications using the Graph API.

6I. 643 has developed a unique automated image classification capability, which it

used to develop an application called Pikinis ("the App"). The App was available for download

on any iOS-compatible device, including the iPhone and iPad. The App enabled Facebook users

to reduce time spent searching by automatically classifying photos that their friends have shared

with them through Facebook's network, assuming their friends have provided such permission to

Developers.

20

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 21 of 187
1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

I2

13

t4

15

T6

t7

18

T9

20

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

62. The App required use of Facebook's Graph API, and specifically the Friends'

Photos Endpoint. The App used 643's pattern-recognition technology to search through shared

photos and identify those of their friends at the beach or in the summer.

63. The App could only be used to sort through photos that a user's friend had chosen

to share with that user based on the friend's Facebook privacy settings. 643 conducted initial user

research that indicated considerable consumer demand for the App, among both men and women.

Facebook has never expressed any disapproval ofthe App as the only content it accesses is

content already available on Facebook.

64. 643 made plans to market and promote the App to attract users.

65. 643 sold the App for $1 .99 in Apple's App store. The basic version of the App

allowed a user to run a certain number of searches per month. In addition, users could choose to

pay for premium access, which allowed unlimited searching. 643 offered different pricing tiers

for premium access, ranging from $ 1 .99 for a monthly subscription, to $6.99 for 6 months, to

$9.99 for 12 months.

66. Facebook benefits from the work of Developers such as 643 who create

applications for use with Facebook. These applications can enhance user experience and drive

traffic to Facebook's website and mobile app, which in turn generates revenue for Facebook

through advertising sales, its primary revenue stream. It is no secret that Facebook's meteoric rise

from24 million users in 2001 to almost 1.6 billion users in 2016 rested in significant part on the

release and growth of Facebook Platform.

VN. FACEBOOK RE.ITERATED ITS PROMISES RELATED TO GRAPH API

AND FACEBOOK PLATFORM AT ITS 2014 F8 CONFI,RENCE

67. The extension of the Graph API at F8 2011 was simply the next step in Facebook's

long term commitment to serve as a platform for other developers, a commitment that every

statement and action it took since May 2007 (aperiod of well over 4 years) reaffirmed without a

shadow of a doubt. The extension of the Facebook Platform continued to accelerate the massive

economy Facebook had built. By January 2012, Facebook Platform had created 232,000jobs in

the EU alone, amounting to $15.3 billion of value to the European economy. By February 2012,

2t

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 22 of 187
1

2

a

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

l2

t3

t4

15

l6

t7

18

t9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

250 million people were playing games on Facebook Platform each day (that is 12 times more

people than the average viewership of American Idol, the highest-rated TV show in the history of

television). By April 2012,7 of the 10 highest grossing apps in the Apple App Store were built on

Facebook Platform. (See http://mashable.com/2012105124lfacebook-developer-platforminfographic/#fDCxuACag5qr.) It should be noted, inlarge part due to its long-term commitment

to the Facebook Platform, Facebook exceeded 1 billion users in 2012.

68. By April 30,2014, at the 2014 F8, having accumulated over 1.3 billion users,

Facebook decided that certain parts of this massive application ecosystem it had built (along with

hundreds of thousands of developers and billions of dollars of outside investment capital) were

better kept to itself. Despite having made this decision, Facebook made numerous promises that it

explicitly never intended to keep. Zuckerberg announced during his keynote: "This is qonna be a

different kind of F8. In the past we've had F8 when we've had a big product announcement or

new direction we were going in. This always meant a lot of different changes for your apps. Now

we're focused on buildins a stable mobile olatform. You're tryins to build sreat mobile apps and

businesses. And we want to brins this community together once per year to talk about all the

different thinss were doins to sunnort vou. We heard from you that you want to use Facebook

Platform to do 3 thinss. Help you build. srow and monetize your apps."

69. Thus, Zuckerbergreiterated the promise that Facebook had expressed to

developers unequivocally for over seven years now: that Facebook is committed in the long term

to helping them build, Brow and monetize their apps.

70. Zuckerberg continued: "As I said we're really focused on building a stable mobile

very same platform and APIs that you gu)¡s use when you're writing Facebook and all our

eneineers use the same tools and read all the same documentation that you do.... It's really

important for )¡ou and for all of our teams intemally that we build stable and efficient

stable and reliable for you to build. grow and monetize )¡our apps. You want to be able to build

22

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 23 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

l2

13

T4

15

16

t7

18

t9

20

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

something and know that it's gonna be able to work for a while. So today for the first time we're

introducing a 2-)¡ear stabili¡¡ zuarantee for all of our core API olatforms...so even if we chanee

these core APIs in the future. we're guaranteeing that we're eoing to keep supporting them as is

for at least two )¡ears and ma)¡be longer from the time we make that change. We're still gonna

experiment with new features and different thinqs but we're sonna mark them as beta so you

this core stable

This is something we want to make sure that all the apps we wrote two years ago keep working.

This is something we wanted intemally as we build on this platform, so now everything is gonna

be versioned so )¡ou get to decide which version of the API )¡ou get to build against."

71. Accordingly, Ztckerberg made at least four promises that: (1) Facebook continues

to provide a level playing field to developers where developers use the same tools as Facebook

employees to develop apps; (2) Facebook continues to be committed in providing developer

access "that you can rely on for the long term"; (3) Facebook promises that for all of its core API

endpoints it will guarantee their stability for no less than two years going forward; (4) Facebook

promises that it will let developers choose which version of the API they would like to access as

it introduces API versioning ("This is something we want to make sure that all the apps we wrote

two years ago keep working. This is something we wanted internally as we build on this platform,

so now everything is gonna be versioned so:tou get to decide which version of the API you get to

build against.").

12. Many developers initially applauded Zuckerberg's 2-year stability guarantee and

the ability to let developers choose which version of the API to build against. One blogger

applauded Facebook's commitment to developers in noting: "Facebook co-founder and CEO

Mark Zuckerberg announced a two-year stability guarantee for all of the company's core APIs

and platforms. In fact every API launched by Facebook will now be versioned, and developers

will be able to choose which version to build on." (See

http:llthenextweb.com/facebook/2014104130/facebook-announces-two-year-stability-guaranteecore-apis-sla-fix-major-bugs-within-48-hoursl#gref.) TechCrunch and many other bloggers also

reported on the API Guarantee, stating that developers "will be able to build with confidence

23

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiffls Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 24 of 187
1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

13

T4

15

l6

t7

18

T9

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

knowing that a core API will be available for at least two years". (See

http: I I techcrunch. com/2 0 I 4 I 04 I 3 0 lfacebook-ap i- gaar anteel .)

VIII. FACEBOOK THEN IMPLEMENTED POLICIES THAT DEPARTED

RADICALLY FROM ZUCKERBERG'S ANNOUNCEMENT AT F8 2014

73. Unfortunately for the Developer communíty,Zuckerberg's announcement directly

contradicted the policy that Facebook immediately began implementing that very day.

Zuckerberg's statement that Developers, like Facebook employees, would be able to choose

which API to use was simply false, and he must have known this statement to be false at the time

he made it as only hours later Facebook sent Developers a notice that the Graph API they had

come to rely on and upon which Facebook had enticed them to invest billions of dollars around

was to be permanently retired in one year. Zuckerberg explicitly omitted and contradicted the

one-year lifespan of Graph API during his keynote address. But given thatZuckerberg's

announcement and the notice to developers occurred on the very same day, Zuckerberg must have

known of this change while making his statements and approved of such changes in advance.

74. Moreover, the 2-year stability guarantee turned out not to apply to the original

Graph API and only to future APIs. Thus Facebook pulled the rug out from under the Developer

community and took full economic advantage of the ecosystem Developers had built, but

Zuckerberg's ke¡mote address still generated sound bites consistent with his previous

representations that Facebook was maintaining a fair and level playing field for Developers.

Zuckerbergwas forced to make statements he knew at the time to be false precisely because it

was obvious to everyone in the developer community, especially Zuckerberg, that Facebook had

for seven years been making clear and unambiguous promises to developers that they could rely

on Facebook Platform over the long term to provide afair playing field and to enable developers

to build businesses.

75. Finally, Graph API explicitly removed endpoints that were of high value to

Developers, like the ability to access Photos, which for years Facebook had touted as one of its

most valuable and highly trafficked features in order to entice developers to build applications.

Facebook's only justification for removing access to photos was that this endpoint was "rarely

24

Case No. CIV 533328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 25 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1l

l2

T3

1,4

15

I6

t7

18

t9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

used", which contravenes every public statement Facebook had previously stated for over seven

years in which Photos were consistently touted as its #1 application and driver of user

engagement, an application that captured more photos and traffic than the next three photo sites

on the Internet combined.

76. Facebook's behavior of intentionally inducing Developers to build Facebook's

business and then pulling the rug out from under them is a repeated pattern in Facebook's growth

story. It is not an isolated incident simply related to Graph API versioning and the thousands of

developers,llke 643, whose businesses were destroyed by this bait and switch tactic.

77. As an example, Facebook recently executed another bait and switch tactic that

caused thousands of Developers to go out of business and lose countless millions of dollars of

enterprise value and capital investment. At the same time thatZuckerberg pulled the rug out from

Developers using photos and other endpoints in the Graph API at F8 2014, he also announced

Facebook's acquisition and reliance on Parse as its new preferred tool for developers to build on

Facebook Platform. Parse was a popular development platform for creating applications for

Facebook, which handled much of the back-end functionality of such applications, allowing

Developers to focus on features that matter to users. Zuckerberg stated in the same keynote where

he announced the Graph API2.0: "One of the things we're really excited about offering is

Parse...We make it easy to focus on your app, the thing that will get you users and make you

money...and Parse takes care of all the rest." A Facebook employee who followed Zuckerberg on

stage went on to note that they had expanded the free tier to make it easier to grow on Parse,

giving developers "unlimited requests, unlimited recipients, free analytics". Zuckerberg then

finished his thoughts on Parse by saying "'W'e're excited, we're aligned with your app, and we

hope that it does get huge."

78. As a result of this and many other similar statements and actions by Facebook,

hundreds of thousands of Developers began using Parse to build applications on Facebook

Platform. Parse's platform on Facebook states: "From startups to the Fortune 500, hundreds of

thousands of developers trust us."

25

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 26 of 187
1

2

a

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1l

T2

13

t4

15

t6

l7

18

19

20

2I

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

79. Then, abruptly, on January 28,2016, Facebook announced that Parse would be

shutting down: "We have a difficult announcement to make. Beginning today we're winding

down the Parse service, and Parse will be fully retired after a year-long period ending on January

28,2017. We're proud that we've been able to help so many of you build great mobile apps, but

we need to focus our resources elsewhere." The statement continues: "We understand that this

won't be an easy transition...We know that many of you have come to rely on Parse, and we are

striving to make this transition as straightforward as possible."

80. Many developers immediately commented on the devastating effect this would

have on their app, business and investment in the Facebook Platform. One developer wrote:

"@Parselt V/ow... Have spent months optimizing my app with your service to launch soon, and

now this... Seems sudden... #utterlydisappointed." Another: "@ParseIt it would be nice to hear a

little bit more about the need to focus your resources elsewh"vs.?'"@Parselt my app had 2.5M

users on your platform...this is sickening."

81. The incident with Parse demonstrates a continued clear pattern on the part of

Facebook to make clear and unambiguous promises to developers, to engage in conduct that

induces developers to make substantial investments of time and money (all of which helped make

Facebook one of the most valuable companies in the world today), and then Facebook seems to

think that it can violate these promises with impunity the moment it becomes convenient for them

to do so.

IX. PLAINTIFF 643 RECEIVED NOTICE FROM FACEBOOK THAT ITS APP

WOULD NO LONGER FUNCTION

82. On January 20,2015, Facebook sent an email to 643 stating that 643 must

"upgrade" the App to Graph API v. 2.0by April 30, 2015. The email stated that Facebook would

end third-party access to the Friends' Photos Endpoint on April 30,2015. The App will not

function at all without access to the Friends' Photos Endpoint, so Facebook's suggestio¡that 643

"upgrade" the App to Graph API v. 2.0 was not possible.

83. By deciding to end access to the Friends' Photos Endpoint, Facebook has made it

impossible for 643 to continue to operate the App, to abide by the license agreements and

26

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 27 of 187
I

2

a

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

13

t4

15

t6

t7

18

T9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

purchase terms entered into by 643 with its users, and for 643 to recoup any of its investment of

capital, human labor, time, effort, and energy.

84. 643 has sold approximately 5,000 copies of the App since its beta launch. A

substantial portion of App users have paid for premium access. 643 was not able to execute its

full public launch as a result of Facebook's decision.

85. Each one of the App users entered into a license agreement with 643.

86. Facebook requires Developers to enter into license agreements with users of

applications for Facebook. These license agreements must, among other things, require that the

users of these applications adhere to Facebook's terms of service.

87. Accordingly, Facebook knew, or had reason to know, about the existence of 643's

license agreements with its users.

88. Had Facebook refrained from ending access to Friends' Photos Endpoint, 643

could have quickly begun to generate hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue on a monthly

basis.

89. In total, 643 expended approximately $ 1 .15 million in capital and uncompensated

labor by its team members in developing and marketing the App.

90. 643 attended Facebook events for Developers and made known the harm caused

verbally and via email to the appropriate Facebook employees.

9I. Faced with the imminent loss of its investment,643 wrote to Facebook on March

76,2015, and informed Facebook that its decision to discontinue access to the Friends'Photos

Endpoint would harm 643 in several ways. 643 informed Facebook that it had reasonably relied

on Facebook's representations that the endpoints would remain open, and that Developers would

have an equal opportunity to integrate applications into the social graph.

92. 643 requested that Facebook continue to permit Developers to have access to the

Friends' Photos Endpoint.

93. 643 alerted Facebook to the considerable harm it would suffer should access be cut

off.643 also noted that some of its users had entered into subscriptions that extend beyond the

April 30, 2015, cut-off date, and that these users could be entitled to refunds of their purchases

2l

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 28 of 187
1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

11

t2

13

T4

15

t6

t7

18

I9

20

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

94. Thus Facebook had actual knowledge of the contracts 643 had entered into with its

users. In addition, Facebook had actual knowledge of the prospective economic relationships 643

expected with its users, as well as Facebook users generally.

95. On or about April 30, 2015, Facebook did end access to the Friends' Photos

Endpoint.

96. As a result of Facebook ending access to the Friends' Photos Endpoint, the App no

longer functions.

97. On information and belief, Facebook has been working on its own applications

using image recognition.

98. On June 15,2015,less than two months after closing access to the Friends' Photos

Endpoint for Developers, Facebook announced the launch of "Moments," which allows users to

"s¡mc" photos they have taken with their friends and, using Facebook's facial recognition

software, allows users to search photos that their friends have shared with them. See

http://newsroom.fb.comlnewsl2}I1l}ílintroducing-moments/ (last accessed October 27,2015).

99. Instagram is an on-line photo sharing service that Facebook acquired in2012.

100. In June 2015,just two months after Facebook closed access to the Friends' Photos

Endpoint, Instagram announced enhancements to its Search and Explore features, which allow

users to search through photos that have been shared with that user on Instagram.

101. On information and belief, in addition to 643, other Developers have been

adversely impacted by Facebook closing access to certain endpoints of Graph API, including

Friends'Photos.

102. On September 21,2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that Facebook's decision

to restrict access to Graph API has caused a drug addiction researcher to halt his research efforts,

shut down a voter-registration tool used by the 2012 Obama carnpaign, and decommissioned an

app designed to help first generation college sfudents connect with one another. Deepa

Seetharaman &Elizabeth Dwoskin, "Facebook's Restrictions on User Data Cast a Long Shadow;

Curbs disrupt startups, academic research and even political strategy''," THE WALL STREET J.,

28

Case No. CIY 533328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 29 of 187
1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

l2

13

T4

15

l6

17

18

t9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Sept.22,2015, at Bl (available at

http:llwww.wsj.com/articles/facebooksrestrictionsonuserdatacastalongshadowl442SS1332).

103. The Wall Street Joumal also reported in the same article that Facebook reached an

unspecified compromise with dating app Tinder that permitted some form of access to photos of

mutual friends.

104. Facebook has not offered 643 a compromise that would permit the App to function

and even if Facebook were to make such an offer, the harm to 643 is irreparable as its team

members have moved on to new employment and its code has been fully retired.

105. Instead, the only proposed technical "fix" by Facebook was to create an offline,

searchable cache of Facebook's users' photos. But this solution (1) on its face violates

Facebook's own terms, (2) would not permit the App to function as originally intended and in the

same manner it had been, and (3) could result in a grave and substantial abuse of user trust,

violate user privacy, and gut the core principle of an individual's ownership and control of their

own data.

106. Facebook did not terminate access to the Friends' Photos Endpoint for the purpose

of enhancing user privacy, as users already possessed complete control over such data. Instead, it

took these actions for the purpose of improperly monopolizing for itself the ability to access the

data previously accessible through the Friends' Photos Endpoint and other terminated endpoints,

and to create applications based on those data. As a result of these actions, users no\ry have less

control over this data. They are not permitted to share it with other applications they trust but only

with Facebook.

I07. In sum, Facebook acts as a platform when it wants to exploit Developer creativity

and resources, and a monopolist when it wants to secure areas of the ecosystem for itself once

developer creativity and resources have been invested.

108. As set forth above, Facebook made repeated, clear, and unambiguous promises

upon which many developers, including 643, relied, over a period of more than seven years, and

which were broken by Facebook. These broken promises directly and substantially harmed 643,

29

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 30 of 187
I

2

a

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

I2

13

t4

15

t6

17

18

19

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

nullifying its investment of time and money and making it impossible to generate revenues and

profits.

109. Facebook deliberately baited, induced, and enticed (through countless promises in

both words and conduct) developers to help turn Facebook from a website that had raised $37

million and secured 24 million users to a company that is now one of the most valuable

enterprises in the world.

COUNT I: VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE $S 17200 ¿t s¿ø.

[Against all Defendants]

110. 643 re-alleges and repleads paragraphs 1 through 109 as though set forth fully

herein.

1 11. Facebook's representations and conduct were designed to, and did, entice 643 and

other Developers to create applications for Facebook with promises of, among other things, a

level playing field, fair competition, and a chance to build a business. Facebook decided to open

certain endpoints, and not others, precisely to induce developers to build certain types of

applications, including advanced photo-searching applications. Facebook promised Developers

that their own advanced photo-searching applications would be treated on a level playing field

with any photo-searching applications Facebook decided to launch in the future. Facebook also

promised developers it was committed over the long term to enable Developers to build

businesses using advanced photo-searching applications.

II2. Facebook caused substantial harm to 643 and other Developers when it then

decided to terminate Developers' ability to build advanced photo-searching applications, while

retaining its own ability to create these kinds of applications, because 643, like other Developers,

had invested considerable time and resources in developing this kind of application for Facebook.

113. The efforts by 643 and other Developers helped to drive user adoption of

Facebook by enhancing user experience, thus creating substantial additional revenue and user

base for Facebook's benefit.

ll4. In addition, Facebook took advantage of the market research and development

efforts by 643 and other Developers, which proved that advanced photo-searching applications

30

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiffls Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 31 of 187
1

2

a

J

4

5

6

l

8

9

10

11

l2

13

t4

15

16

t7

18

t9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

represented a massive market, perhaps one of the most attractive markets to help Facebook grow

its revenues going forward, as evinced by Facebook's recent announcement of "Moments", its

own photo searching application (see "Facebook Moments is a Smarter Photo App - Much

Smarter, in Wir ed Magaz ine, June 1 5, 20I 5, http ://www.wired. com/2}I 5 l 06 l facebookmoments/).

115. Facebook's decision to end access to the Friends' Photos Endpoint does not

enhance user privacy because the App could only sort through photos that had already been

shared with the App user and the App user and the user's friends had full control over which, if

any, developers were permitted to access their photos.

116. Instead, by ending Developer access to the Friends' Photos Endpoint, Facebook

has monopolized for itself the ability to create applications capable of searching or sorting photos,

which harms consumers, Developers, and competitors.

lI7. No countervailing benefits to competition or consumers stemming from

Facebook's representations and conduct exist.

I 18. The harm to 643 and other Developers by Facebook's representations and conduct

outweighs the reasons, justifications, or motives for the representations and conduct by Facebook.

119. 643 could not have reasonably avoided its injury because Facebook only

announced its decision to terminate access to the Friends' Photos Endpoint after 643 had made

considerable investment and Facebook had approved the App.

120. 643 also requested that Facebook not end access to Friends' Photos Endpoint, but

Facebook did not change its decision.

I2l. Facebook's actions thus constituted an unfair business practice under California's

Unfair Business Practices Act.

122. Facebook's decision to end access to the Friends' Photos Endpoint was also

unlawful.

I23. In taking the actions alleged herein, Facebook acted with fraud, malice and

oppression, and in reckless disregard ofthe rights of643.

31

Case No. CIV 533328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 32 of 187
1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

l2

13

t4

15

T6

l7

18

t9

20

2I

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I24. 643 suffered substantial injury as a result of Facebook's actions, including the loss

of its investment in developing the App and lost revenue.

I25. Accordingly, Facebook is liable to 643 for violation of California's Unfair

Business Practices Act.

126. As a proximate result of the acts and conduct of Facebook herein alleged, 643 has

found it necessary to engage attorneys, and incur attorney's fees, and will continue to incur

attorney's fees, in an unascertained amount to be established according to proof following the

conclusion of trial.

COUNT II: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

[Against all Defendants]

127. 643 re-alleges and repleads paragraphs 1 through 126 as though set forth fully

herein.

I28. Facebook clearly and unambiguously promised that:

a. Developers would be able to integrate their applications into Facebook's social

graph;

b. Developers would have the same access to integration of their applications as

Facebook;

c. Developers could easily access Graph API objects;

d. Facebook would support Developers in achieving mass distribution of Developer

applications;

e. Facebook would provide adequate tools for developers to build their applications;

f. Developers would be able to build a business on Facebook Platform;

g. Developers would be able to monetize their applications on Facebook by selling

ads on their application pages;

h. Developers would be able to build applications on a fair, level playing field;

i. Developer applications would not be "second class citizens" compared to

Facebook's own applications;

32

Case No. CIV 533328 Plaintifls Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 33 of 187
1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

t3

T4

15

t6

t7

18

t9

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

j. Developer applications that compete with Facebook applications would be

welcome; and

k. As long as Developer applications abided by Facebook Terms of Service,

Facebook will be neutral as to these applications.

I29. 643 invested considerable capital, labor, time, and effort into developing the App

in reliance on these promises.

130. 643's reliance was reasonable because Facebook had consistently made these

representations for seven years without ever stating that it could prevent Developers from

building the specific kinds of applications Facebook was enticing them to build all along.

1 3 1 . 643' s reliance was foreseeable by Facebook.

132. 643 was injured as a result of its reliance on Facebook's promises, which

Facebook did not keep, in an unascertained amount in excess of $25,000.00, to be established

according to proof at trial.

133. Accordingly, Facebook is liable to 643 for damages.

COUNT III: NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

[Against all Defendantsl

I34. 643 re-alleges and repleads paragraphs 1 through 133 as though set forth fully

herein.

Facebook represented that

Developers would be able to integrate their applications into Facebook's social

graph;

Developers would have the same access to integration of their applications as

Facebook;

Developers could easily access Graph API objects;

Facebook would support Developers in achieving mass distribution of Developer

applications;

Facebook would provide adequate tools for developers to build their applications;

Developers would be able to build a business on Facebook Platform;

aaJJ

1 35.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 34 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

l2

13

14

15

t6

l7

18

t9

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

g. Developers would be able to monetize their applications on Facebook by selling

ads on their application pages;

h. Developers would be able to build applications on a fair, level playing field;

i. Developer applications would not be "second class citizens" compared to

Facebook's own applications;

j. Developer applications that compete with Facebook applications would be

welcome; and

k. As long as Developer applications abided by Facebook Terms of Service,

Facebook will be neutral as to these applications.

136. Such representations were untrue, because Facebook later claimed that it had

retained for itself the right to terminate the Friends' Photos Endpoint, and did close the Friends'

Photos Endpoint to Developers, while Facebook kept for itself the ability to develop applications

that access photos.

137. Regardless of its actual belief, Facebook must have made those representations

without any reasonable ground for believing the representations to be true.

138. Facebook conveyed the representations in a commercial setting for a business

pulpose, namely inducing Developers to develop applications for Facebook.

139. Facebook made those representations with the intent to induce Developers,

including 643,to develop applications, including the App, that used the Friends' Photos endpoint,

thereby adding features to Facebook, enhancing Facebook's functionality and user experience,

and generating more revenue for Facebook.

140. 643 was not aware that Facebook's representations were false, and 643 developed

the App in reliance on the truth of Facebook's representations.

l4l. 643's reliance on the truth of Facebook's representations was justified because

Facebook had consistently made these representations for seven years without ever stating that it

could prevent Developers from building the specific kinds of applications Facebook was enticing

them to build all along.

34

Case No. CIY 533328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 35 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1l

t2

13

T4

15

I6

T7

18

t9

20

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

142. 643 was injured as a result of its reliance on Facebook's representations, in an

unascertained amount in excess of $25,000.00, to be established according to proof at trial.

I43. In taking the actions alleged herein, Facebook acted with fraud, malice and

oppression, and in reckless disregard ofthe rights of643.

I44. Accordingly, Facebook is liable to 643 for damages.

COUNT IV: INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE \ryITH CONTRACT

[Against all Defendants]

145. 643 re-alleges and repleads paragraphs I through I44 as though set forth firlly

herein.

146. 643 had entered into license agreements and subscriptions for premium access

with its users.

147. Facebook knew of these license agreements and subscriptions.

148. Facebook intentionally interfered with and disrupted these contracts when it stated

that it would end 643's access to the Friends' Photos Endpoint on April 30,2015, despite

knowing that interference with these contracts would be certain or substantially certain to occur

as a result ofFacebook's act in ending 643's access.

149. Facebook further intentionally interfered with and disrupted 643's contracts with

its users when it did terminate 643's access to the Friends' Photos Endpoint on April 30,2015,

despite knowing that interference with these contracts would be certain or substantially certain to

occur as a result ofFacebook's act in ending 643's access.

150. 643's contract with its users was thereby disrupted by Facebook.

151. As a result, 643 has suffered and will suffer damage in an unascertained amount in

excess of $25,000.00 to be established according to proof at trial.

152. In taking the actions alleged herein, Facebook acted with fraud, malice and

oppression, and in reckless disregard ofthe rights of 643

153. Accordingly, Facebook is liable to 643 for damages

35

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 36 of 187
1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

l3

t4

15

t6

T7

18

I9

20

2I

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

154

COUNT V: INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH

PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS

[Against all Defendants]

643 re-alleges and repleads paragraphs 1 through 153 as though set forth fully

herein.

155. 643 had an expectation of economic benefit from third parties, including its users

who downloaded the App and other Facebook users who may have downloaded the App if 643

had marketed the App as it planned.

156. Facebook knew of 643's relationship with the users of the App, and knew of 643's

plans to market the App.

I57. Facebook intentionally disrupted these relationships when it announced that it

would end 643's access to the Friends' Photos Endpoint on April 30,2015, despite knowing that

interference with these relationships would be certain or substantially certain to occur as a result

ofFacebook's act in ending 643's access.

158. Facebook further intentionally interfered with and disrupted 643's relationships

with its users when it did terminate 643's access to the Friends' Photos Endpoint on April 30,

2015, despite knowing that interference with these relationships would be certain or substantially

certain to occur as a result ofFacebook's act in ending 643's access.

I59. 643's relationship with its users was thereby disrupted, and will be further

disrupted.

160. As a result, 643 suffered damage in an unascertained amount in excess of

$25,000.00 to be established according to proof at trial.

161. In taking the actions alleged herein, Facebook acted with fraud, malice and

oppression, and in reckless disregard ofthe rights of643.

162. Accordingly, Facebook is liable to 643 for damages

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

L63. 643 demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable.

36

Case No. CIV 533328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 37 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1t

l2

13

T4

15

I6

T7

18

I9

20

2I

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff 643 asks this Court to enter judgment against Defendant

Facebook, Inc., as follows:

A. A judgment or order declaring Facebook's conduct, as alleged, unlawful under

California's Unfair Business Practices Act;

B. A judgment, order, or award of damages adequate to compensate 643;

C. A permanent injunction prohibiting Facebook from removing Developer access to

the Friends' User Photos Endpoint;

D. A permanent injunction prohibiting Facebook from interfering with 643's

contracts or prospective business relations;

E. An award of its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs;

F. Punitive damages andlor treble damages as provided by California's Unfair

Business Practices Act; and

G. Such other further relief as this Court or a jury may deem proper and just.

Dated: February 26,2016 CRITERION LAW

BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP

By:

Basil P. Esq

David S. Godkin (admittedpro hac vice)

Andrew A. Caffrey, III (admitted pro hac vice)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Six4Three, LLC

37

Case No. CM33328 Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 38 of 187
Exhibit 2

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 39 of 187
Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 40 of 187
Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 41 of 187
Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 42 of 187
Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 43 of 187
Exhibit 3

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 44 of 187
I

2

a

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

ll

t2

l3

r4

15

t6

t7

l8

t9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Basil P. Fthenakis, Esq. (88399)

CRITERION LAW

2225 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 200

Palo Alto, California 94303

Tel. (650) 3s2-8400

Fax. (650) 352-8408

bpf@criterionlaw,com

Of counsel:

David S. Godkin (admittedpro hac vice)

BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP

280 Summer Street

Boston, MA02210

(617) 307-6t00

godkin@birnbaum godkin, com

James Kruzer (admittedpro hac vice)

BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP

280 Summer Street

Boston, MA02210

(617) 307-6100

kruzer @birnbaum godkin, c om

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

SIX4THREE, LLC, a Delaware

limited liability company

SIX4THREE, LLC, a Delaware limited

liability company,

Plaintiff,

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COLINTY OF SAN MATEO

Case No. CIV533328

PLAINTIF'F SIX4THREE LLC'S

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT

FACEBOOK' INC.'S SPECIALLY

PREPARED INTERROGATORIES (SEÏ'

T\ilO)

FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware

corporation and DOES l-50, inclusive,

Defendant.

case No, 533328 643 RESPONSE 1'O FACEBOOK'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 45 of 187
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9

10

il

t2

13

t4

l5

16

t7

l8

t9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT FACEBOOK' INC.

RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF SIX4THREE LLC

SET: ONE

Plaintiff Six4Three, LLC ("643") hereby objects and responds as follows to the Specially

Prepared Interrogatories (Set One) ("Special Interrogatories") propounded by Defendant

Facebook, Inc. ("Defendant").

PLAINTIFF'S GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Each and every Special Interrogatory is subject to the General Objections and limitations

set forth herein ("General Objections"), in addition to the specific objections and limitations set

forth in the respective responses. The General Objections and limitations form part of the

Response to each Special Interrogatory and are set forth to avoid duplication for each response.

643 makes the following General Objections to each Special Interrogatory:

1. Responding Party objects to the Special Interrogatories to the extent they are

unduly burdensome and oppressive in the context of this action'

2. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories insofar as they seek

communications protected by the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C, ${j 2701 , et seq.,

('oSCA"), which prohibits service providers from disclosing electronic communication content

stored on a remote computing service.

3. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories to the extent they seek

information subject to the SCA pertaining to Users.

4. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories to the extent they seek

information 643 is legally or contractually prohibited from disclosing, including information that

would require Responding Party to breach a confidentiality contract, protective order, settlement,

or other duty to a third party to maintain confidentiality'

5. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories to the extent they are

unduly burdensome and oppressive in the context of this aotion.

6. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories to the extent they are

covered by the attorney-client privilege, settlement privilege, work-product doctrine, or other

-lCase No, 533328 ó43 RESPONSE TO FACEI]OOK'S SPECIAL IN'IERROGATORfES

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 46 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

ll

t2

l3

14

l5

t6

t7

18

19

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

applicable privilege. Any such documents will not be provided in response to these requests for

production and any inadvertent production shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege with

respect to such documents or of any work-product protections attaching to such documents,

7. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories to the extent they require

disclosure of documents containing proprietary or confidential information, trade secrets, or

information that may implicate third-party privacy rights.

8. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories to the extent they are

vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, overly broad, or harassing,

9. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories to the extent they seek

documents not relevant to the subject matter of this action or reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.

10. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories to the extent they seek

information not within the possession, custody or control of Responding Party. An objection on

this ground does not constitute a representation or admission that such documents exist.

I I . Respondin gParty objects to these Special Interrogatories insofar as they seek

information already in Propounding Party's possession, custody or control, or that can be

obtained by Propounding Party with equal burden or directly from Users.

12. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories to the extent they

to impose obligations beyond those required or allowed by the California Code of Civil

Procedure.

13. Responding Party objects to the definitions of ooDocuments" and

"Communicationsoo to the extent they impose any obligations with respect to the production of

electronically stored information that are different from or in addition to those imposed by the

California Code of Civil Procedure. Responding Party further objects to these definitions to the

extent they include electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible due to

undue burden or expense, obtainable from another source that is less burdensome, and/or

unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or where the likely burden or expense outweighs the

likely benefit.

-2-

Case No. 533328 643 RESPONSE TO FACEBOOK'S SPECIAL INI'ERROGATORIES (SET TWO)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 47 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1l

t2

l3

t4

15

t6

17

l8

t9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14. Responding Party objects to the definitions of "643," "Plaintiff," "You," and

ooYour" on the grounds that they are overbroad and call for information covered by the attorneyclient and work product privileges.

15, Responding Party's responses are based solely upon information presently

available and specifically known to Responding Party. As such, Responding Party's responses are

made without prejudice to its right subsequently to add, modify or otherwise change or amend

these responses. Responding Party reserves the right to change any ofits objections or responses

as new information is discovered. Specifically, Responding Party reserves the right to introduce

other information or documents, use information that it may later determine to have been

responsive to these requests, and revise, correct, supplement or clarify any of its witten responses

at any time.

These General Objections are incorporated into each and every objection to Propounding

Party's specific requests for production, All responses are subject to, preserve and do not

constitute a waiver of these General Objections.

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROG.ATORIES

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

State ALL antitrust laws that YOU contend Facebook's conduct threatens an incipient

violation of, or violates the policy or spirit of,

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

Responding Party incorporates each of the General Objections and further objects to this

demand to the extent that it: (l) is vague and ambiguous; (2) is overly broad and unduly

burdensome in seeking "ALL laws"; (3) calls for information covered by the attorney-client

privilege and work product privileges; (4) seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of

this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and

(5) seeks information equally available to Defendant.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds that

its analysis, investigation and discovery are ongoing and it does not intend to limit evidence at

-3-

Case No. 533328 643 RESPONSE TO FACEBOOK'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 48 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

ll

l2

l3

t4

15

t6

t7

l8

t9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

trial to matters stated herein. Facebook's conduct repeatedly violates Business and Professions

Code g 17200 et seq, by engaging in: (1) unlawful business acts or practices; (2) unfair business

acts or practices; (3) fraudulent business acts or practices; (4) unfair, deceptive, untrue or

misleading advertising; and (5) business acts or practices prohibited bV $$ 17500-17577 .5.

Further, Facebook's conduct repeatedly violates Business and Professions Code $$ 17500 et seq,,

which prohibits advertising goods or services that Facebook knew or should have known were

likely to deceive, Facebook's conduct also repeatedly violates California's Consumer l,egal

Remedies Act (Cal. Civ, Code $$ 1750 et seq,) protecting consumers against unfair and deceptive

business practices (Cal. Civ. Code $ 1760) and various violations of Cal. Civ. Code $ 1770.

Finally, Facebook's conduct repeatedly violates Business and Professions Code $$ 16600 et seq.

prohibiting contracts that restrain engagement in a lawful profession, trade or business of any

kind.

Facebook's conduct also violates Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15

U.S.C. $ 45) prohibiting unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or

deceptive practices in or affecting commerce. Facebook's conduct further violates Section I of

the Sherman Act prohibiting contracts in restraint of trade or commerce. Facebook's conduct

further repeatedly violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibiting the monopolization or

attempt to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among states. Facebook's conduct

further repeatedly violates Section 2 of the Clayton Act, the Robinson-Patman Price

Discrimination Act, prohibiting discrimination of price between different purchasers where the

effect is to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Facebook's conduct further

repeatedly violates Section 3 of the Clayton Act prohibiting agreements that require avoidance of

services or goods from competitors that tend to create a monopoly or lessen competition,

Facebook's conduct further repeatedly violates the Cartwright Act, Business and Professions

Code $$ 16720 et seq., prohibiting trusts or actions in concert in restraint of trade or commerce,

Facebook's violations further include numerous per se violations resulting frtlm tying agrcetttettts

with a host of third parties,

-4-

Case No, 533328 643 RESPONSE TO FACI]BOOK'S SPECIAI" INTERROCATORIES (SE]-TWO)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 49 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

ll

l2

13

t4

l5

l6

T7

l8

t9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

F'inally, Facebook's conduct violates numerous other state laws that are accessible via

Business and Professions Code $$ 17200 et seq., including but not limited to New York General

Business Law $$ 349 et seq, prohibiting deceptive acts or practices in conduct of any business,

trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service. Facebook's conduct further violates

Business and Professions Code $ 17200 et seq. by reason of its tortious conduct, including but not

limited to constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation of material fact, intentional interferenoe

with contract and intentional interference with prospective business relations,

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34:

State ALL laws that YOU contend Facebook's concluct violates RELATED TO YOLJR

claim for violation of Business and Professions Code $ 17200 et seq.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34;

Responding Party incorporates each of the General Objections and further objects to this

demand to the extent that it: (l) is vague and ambiguous; (2) is overly broad and unduly

burdensome in seekin g"ALL laws"; (3) calls for information covered by the attorney-client

privilege and work product privileges; (4) seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of

this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and

(5) seeks information equally available to Defendant.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds that

its analysis, investigation and discovery are ongoing and it does not intend to limit evidence at

trial to matters stated herein. Facebook's conduct repeatedly violates Business and Professions

Code $ 17200 et seq. by engaging in: (l) unlawful business acts or practices; (2) unfair business

acts or practices; (3) fraudulent business acts or practices; (4) unfair, deceptive, untrue or

misleading advertising; and (5) business acts or practices prohibited by $ $ 17500- l 7 577 .5.

Further, Facebook's conduct repeatedly violates Business and Professions Code S$ 17500 et seq.,

which prohibits advertising goods or services that Facebook knew or should have known were

likely to deceive, Facebook's conduct also repeatedly violates Califtlrnia's Cottsuttter Legal

Remedies Act (Cal, Civ. Code $$ 1750 et seq.) protecting consumers against unfair and deceptive

business practices (Cal, Civ, Code g 1760) and various violations of Cal. Civ. Code $ 1770'

-5-

Case No. 533328 643 RESPONSE TO F'ACEBOOK'S SPECIAL INTERROCAI'ORIES (SET TWO)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 50 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

I

9

l0

ll

l2

l3

t4

t5

t6

t7

18

t9

20

2l

22

¿J

24

25

26

27

28

Finally, Facebook's conduct repeatedly violates Business and Professions Code $$ 16600 et seq.

prohibiting contracts that restrain engagement in a lawful profession, trade or business of any

kind.

Facebook's conduct also violates Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15

U.S,C. $ 45) prohibiting unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or

deceptive practices in or affecting commerce, Facebook's conduct further violates Section 1 of

the Sherman Act prohibiting contracts in restraint of trade ot commerce. Facebook's conduct

further repeatedly violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibiting the monopolization or

attempt to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among states. Facebook's conduct

further repeatedly violates Section 2 of the Clayton Act, the Robinson-Patman Price

Discrimination Act, prohibiting discrimination of price between different purchasers where the

effect is to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, Facebook's conduct further

repeatedly violates Section 3 of the Clayton Act prohibiting agreements that require avoidance of

services or goods from competitors that tend to create a monopoly or lessen competition.

Facebook's conduct further repeatedly violates the Cartwright Act, Business and Professions

Code $$ 16720 et seq., prohibiting trusts or actions in concert in restraint of trade or commerce.

Facebook's violations further include numerous per se violations resulting from tying agreements

with a host of third parties,

Finally, Facebook's conduct violates numerous other state laws that are accessible via

Business and Professions Code $$ 17200 et seq., including but not limited to New York General

Business Law $$ 349 et seq. prohibiting deceptive acts or practices in conduct of any business,

trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service. Facebook's conduct further violates

Business and Professions Code $ 17200 et seq. by reason of its tortious conduct, including but not

limited to constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation of material fact, intentional interference

with contract and intentional interference with prospective business relations.

-6-

Case No, 533328 643 RESPONSE TO FACEBOOK'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 51 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

1l

t2

l3

t4

l5

16

t7

l8

t9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DATED: January ll,2017 CRITERION LAW

UM GODKIN

IP

David S. Godkin (admittedpro hac vice)

James E. Kruzer (admittedpro hac vice)

Attomeys for Plaintiff

Six4Three, LLC

By:

-7-

Case No. 533328 643 RESPONSE TO FACEBOOK'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 52 of 187
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9

l0

1l

l2

l3

14

15

t6

t7

l8

t9

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF' OF' SERVICE

I,.lames E. Kruzer, declare:

I am a citizen of the United States and employed in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. I am

over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address

is 280 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210. On January 12,2017 ,l served a copy of the within

document(s):

PLAINTIFF SIX4THREE LLC'S RESPONSE TO DEIìENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.'S

SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES (SET TV/O)

l.-l By electronically mailing a true and conect copy through Birnbaum & Godkin, r-¡ LLP's electronic mail system to the email addresses set forth below.

soNAL N. MEHTA (SBN 222086)

LAURA E. MILLER (SBN 2717t3)

CATHERTNE Y. KIM (SBN 308442)

Durie Tangri LLP

217 Leidesdorff Street

San Francisco, CA 94lll

Telephone : 41 5 -362-6666

Facsimile: 41 5 -236-6300

smehta@durietan gri, com

lmil ler@durietangri.com

ckim@durietangri.com

Attorney for Defendant

FACEBOOK, INC.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above

is true and correct,

Executed January 12,2017, at Boston, Massachusetts

f/c

James E. Kruzer

-8-

Case No. 533328 643 RESPONSE TO FACEI]OOK'S SPECIAI- INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 53 of 187
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

-1-

Case No. 533328 643 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION

I, Ted Kramer, as a certified representative of Plaintiff Six4Three LLC (“643”), certify 

and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that I have read and 

reviewed 643’s Answers to Facebook’s Second Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories; and 

believe them to be true and accurate based on the information available to 643 at the present time.

Executed January 11, 2017, at San Francisco, California.

By: Ted Kramer

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 54 of 187
Exhibit 4

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 55 of 187
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

NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVALTO FEDERAL COURT / CASE NO. CIV 533328 

DURIE TANGRI LLP 

SONAL N. MEHTA (SBN 222086) 

smehta@durietangri.com 

LAURA E. MILLER (SBN 271713) 

lmiller@durietangri.com 

CATHERINE Y. KIM (SBN 308442) 

ckim@durietangri.com 

217 Leidesdorff Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: 415-362-6666 

Facsimile: 415-236-6300 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Facebook, Inc. 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 

SIX4THREE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability 

company, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation and 

DOES 1-50, inclusive, 

Defendant. 

Case No. CIV 533328 

NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF 

REMOVALTO FEDERAL COURT 

Ctrm: Law and Motion Dept. 

FILING DATE: April 10, 2015 

TRIAL DATE: May 15, 2017 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 56 of 187
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

 1

NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVALTO FEDERAL COURT / CASE NO. CIV 533328 

TO PLAINTIFF AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT a Notice of Removal of this action was filed in the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, on January 24, 2017. 

A copy of the said Notice of Removal is attached to this Notice and is served and filed herewith. 

Dated: January 24, 2017 

By:

DURIE TANGRI LLP 

 LAURA E. MILLER 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Facebook, Inc.

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 57 of 187
JS-CAND 44 (Rev. 07/16) CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, 

except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of 

Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF

THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. 

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

 1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF

 Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4

of Business In This State

 2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5

 Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

 Foreign Country 

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC § 158 375 False Claims Act 

 120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury – of Property 21 USC § 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 

 130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC § 157 § 3729(a)) 

 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment 

 150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust

 Of Veteran’s Benefits Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking 

 151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce 

 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark 460 Deportation 

 Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 470 Racketeer Influenced and

 (Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations

 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit

 of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV 

 160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/ 

 190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange 

 195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions 

 196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 891 Agricultural Acts 

362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act 893 Environmental Matters

 Medical Malpractice 790 Other Labor Litigation 895 Freedom of Information

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act

210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration

 220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure 

 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS–Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of 

 240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC § 7609 Agency Decision

 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 950 Constitutionality of

 290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities– 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes

 Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application 

446 Amer. w/Disabilities– 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration

 Other 550 Civil Rights Actions

 448 Education 555 Prison Condition

 560 Civil Detainee–

 Conditions of 

 Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

1 Original

Proceeding

2 Removed from State Court 

 3 Remanded from Appellate Court 

4 Reinstated or Reopened 

5 Transferred from Another District 

(specify)

 6 Multidistrict

Litigation–Transfer

8 Multidistrict

Litigation–Direct File 

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN 

 COMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: 

JURY DEMAND: Yes No 

VIII. RELATED CASE(S), 

 IF ANY (See instructions): JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER 

IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2)

(Place an “X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND SAN JOSE EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE 

DATE: SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD:

SIX4THREE, LLC

David S. Godkin, godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com

James Kruzer, kruzer@birnbaumgodkin.com

BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP

280 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210, Telephone: 617-307-6100

FACEBOOK, INC.

DURIE TANGRI LLP

SONAL N. MEHTA (SBN 222086), smehta@durietangri.com

LAURA E. MILLER (SBN 271713), lmiller@durietangri.com

CATHERINE Y. KIM (SBN 308442), ckim@durietangri.com

217 Leidesdorff Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, Telephone: 415-362-6666

28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); 15 U.S.C. § 4; 15 U.S.C. § 15

01/24/2017

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 58 of 187
JS-CAND 44 (rev. 07/16) 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet. The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and 

service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial 

Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is 

submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I. a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use

only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and 

then the official, giving both name and title. 

 b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the 

time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land 

condemnation cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.) 

 c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting 

in this section “(see attachment).” 

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires that jurisdictions be shown in 

pleadings. Place an “X” in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. 

(1) United States plaintiff. Jurisdiction based on 28 USC §§ 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. 

(2) United States defendant. When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box. 

(3) Federal question. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment 

to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code 

takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. 

(4) Diversity of citizenship. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the 

citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity 

cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. 

Mark this section for each principal party. 

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is 

sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than 

one nature of suit, select the most definitive. 

V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the six boxes. 

(1) Original Proceedings. Cases originating in the United States district courts. 

(2) Removed from State Court. Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 USC § 1441. When the 

petition for removal is granted, check this box. 

(3) Remanded from Appellate Court. Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing 

date.

(4) Reinstated or Reopened. Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. 

(5) Transferred from Another District. For cases transferred under Title 28 USC § 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or 

multidistrict litigation transfers. 

(6) Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 USC 

§ 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above. 

(8) Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. Check this box when a multidistrict litigation case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. 

Please note that there is no Origin Code 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statute.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional 

statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC § 553. Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service. 

VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. 

Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.

Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. 

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is used to identify related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket 

numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. 

IX. Divisional Assignment. If the Nature of Suit is under Property Rights or Prisoner Petitions or the matter is a Securities Class Action, leave this 

section blank. For all other cases, identify the divisional venue according to Civil Local Rule 3-2: “the county in which a substantial part of the 

events or omissions which give rise to the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet. 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 59 of 187
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

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION: UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(A) 

(FEDERAL QUESTION) / CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00359 

DURIE TANGRI LLP 

SONAL N. MEHTA (SBN 222086) 

smehta@durietangri.com 

LAURA E. MILLER (SBN 271713) 

lmiller@durietangri.com 

CATHERINE Y. KIM (SBN 308442) 

ckim@durietangri.com 

217 Leidesdorff Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: 415-362-6666 

Facsimile: 415-236-6300 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Facebook, Inc. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SIX4THREE, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FACEBOOK, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00359 

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION: 

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(A) 

(FEDERAL QUESTION) 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 60 of 187
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

 1

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION: UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(A) 

(FEDERAL QUESTION) / CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00359 

TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) hereby removes to this 

Court the state court action described below. 

On April 10, 2015, an action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for 

the County of San Mateo entitled Six4Three, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., case number CIV53328, attached 

hereto as Exhibit A. After demurrer practice, Plaintiff Six4Three LLC (“Six4Three”) filed a Second 

Amended Complaint on February 26, 2016. A copy of the Second Amended Complaint is attached 

hereto as Exhibit B. 

On January 12, 2017, Six4Three served verified interrogatory responses in which Six4Three 

disclosed that it intends to present the violation of numerous federal statues, including federal antitrust 

statutes providing for exclusive federal jurisdiction, as the predicate unlawful acts for its claim that 

Facebook has violated California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. (“Section 17200”). 

A copy of the interrogatory responses is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 

The balance of the Superior Court case file is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 

I. JURISDICTION 

This action is a civil action of which this Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction under, 

among other things, Section 4 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 4) and Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 

U.SC. § 15), and is one which may be removed to this Court by Defendant pursuant to the provisions of 

28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1441(a) in that it arises under federal antitrust law. 

II. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 

As this action arose in the City and County of San Mateo, assignment to the San Francisco 

Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is proper. 

III. SIX4THREE’S VERIFIED INTERROGATORY RESPONSE REVEALS THAT ITS 

SECTION 17200 CLAIM IS BASED ON FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAW

Six4Three’s Second Amended Complaint purports to state four causes of action: intentional 

interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 61 of 187
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

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION: UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(A) 

(FEDERAL QUESTION) / CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00359 

negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Section 17200.1 The parties have been proceeding in the 

Superior Court, with discovery ongoing. As part of the discovery process, Facebook propounded an 

interrogatory asking Six4Three to “State ALL laws that YOU contend Facebook’s conduct violates 

RELATED TO YOUR claim for violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.” On 

January 12, 2017, Six4Three responded to the interrogatory and identified the alleged violation of a 

number of federal antitrust laws as the predicate for unlawful acts for Six4Three’s Section 17200 claims: 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds that 

its analysis, investigation and discovery are ongoing and it does not intend to limit 

evidence at trial to matters stated herein. Facebook’s conduct repeatedly violates 

Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. by engaging in: (l) unlawful business acts 

or practices; (2) unfair business acts or practices; (3) fraudulent business acts or practices; 

(4) unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising; and (5) business acts or practices 

prohibited by §§ 17500-l7577.5. Further, Facebook's conduct repeatedly violates 

Business and Professions Code §§ 17500 et seq., which prohibits advertising goods or 

services that Facebook knew or should have known were likely to deceive, Facebook’s 

conduct also repeatedly violates California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. 

Code §§ 1750 et seq.) protecting consumers against unfair and deceptive business 

practices (Cal. Civ. Code § 1760) and various violations of Cal. Civ. Code 1770. Finally, 

Facebook’s conduct repeatedly violates Business and Professions Code §§ 16600 et seq. 

prohibiting contracts that restrain engagement in a lawful profession, trade or business of 

any kind. 

Facebook’s conduct also violates Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 

U.S.C. § 45) prohibiting unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and 

unfair or deceptive practices in or affecting commerce, Facebook’s conduct further 

violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibiting contracts in restraint of trade of 

commerce. Facebook's conduct further repeatedly violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act

prohibiting the monopolization or attempt to monopolize any part of the trade or 

commerce among states. Facebook's conduct further repeatedly violates Section 2 of the 

Clayton Act, the Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act, prohibiting discrimination 

of price between different purchasers where the effect is to lessen competition or tend to 

create a monopoly, Facebook’s conduct further repeatedly violates Section 3 of the 

Clayton Act prohibiting agreements that require avoidance of services or goods from 

competitors that tend to create a monopoly or lessen competition. Facebook’s conduct 

further repeatedly violates the Cartwright Act, Business and Professions Code §§ 16720 

et seq., prohibiting trusts or actions in concert in restraint of trade or commerce. 

Facebook’s violations further include numerous per se violations resulting from tying 

agreements with a host of third parties. 

Finally, Facebook’s conduct violates numerous other state laws that are accessible via 

Business and Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq., including but not limited to New York 

General Business Law §§ 349 et seq. prohibiting deceptive acts or practices in conduct of 

any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service. Facebook’s conduct 

further violates Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. by reason of its tortious 

conduct, including but not limited to constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation of 

 

1

 The Second Amended Complaint also includes a claim for promissory estoppel. On June 28, 2016, 

Facebook’s demurrer was sustained as to this claim without leave to amend. 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 62 of 187
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

 3

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION: UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(A) 

(FEDERAL QUESTION) / CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00359 

material fact, intentional interference with contract and intentional interference with 

prospective business relations. 

Exhibit C at 5–6 (emphasis added). 

After receiving Six4Three’s interrogatory response, counsel for Facebook approached Six4Three 

to confirm that Six4Three in fact intended to pursue all of the federal and state claims identified in its 

interrogatory response. Exhibit E. Facebook’s counsel noted that it would understand Six4Three to be 

pursuing all such claims if it did not hear otherwise from Six4Three by January 23. Six4Three did not 

respond, confirming that it is in fact relying upon the violation of federal laws, including federal antitrust 

laws, as the predicate for its Section 17200 claims. 

IV. SIX4THREE’S CONTENTIONS CONFIRM THAT THIS MATTER SHOULD BE 

REMOVED TO FEDERAL COURT.

“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have 

original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the 

United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441(a). “The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and 

restrain violations of sections 1 to 7 of” the Sherman Act. 15 U.S.C. § 4. “[A]ny person who shall be 

injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor 

in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has 

an agent . . . .” 15 U.S.C. § 15. 

Pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) “if the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a 

notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant, through service or 

otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be 

ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” This notice of removal is being filed 

within thirty days of Six4Three’s interrogatory responses disclosing Six4Three’s reliance on federal 

antitrust laws as the predicate for its Section 17200 claim. 

Because Six4Three’s Section 17200 claim arises under federal antitrust law, it is necessarily 

federal in character, and presents substantial, disputed questions of federal antitrust law. See, e.g., 

National Credit Reporting Ass’n, v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., No. C04-01661 WHA, 2004 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 63 of 187
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

 4

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION: UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(A) 

(FEDERAL QUESTION) / CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00359 

WL 1888769 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2004). 

V. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, this matter is properly removed to federal court, exclusive 

jurisdiction. 

Dated: January 24, 2017 

By:

DURIE TANGRI LLP 

/s/ Laura E. Miller

 LAURA E. MILLER 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Facebook, Inc.

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 64 of 187
EXHIBIT A 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 65 of 187
10

David S. Godkin

Andrew A Caffrey, III

BIRNBAUMB'c GODKIN, LLP

280 Summer Street

Boston, MA02210

(617) 307-6100

godkin@birnbaumgodkin corn

caffrey@birnbaumgodkin corn

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

SIX4THREE, LLC, a Delaware

limited liabilitycompany

Basil P. Fthenakis, Esq (88399)

CRITERION LAW

2225 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 200

Palo Alto, California 94303

Tel (650) 352-8400

Fax (650) 352-8408

4

Of counsel:

5

FILEB

SAN MATEOCOUNTY

APR 1 0 2035

Clerk oft ': gupenor CoUrt Fl~~kf8 o+MCf+RK

'3

14

15

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

I7

SIX4THREE, LLC, a Delaware limited

liabilitycompany,

Plaintiff,

23

24

)

)

)

)

19

)

)

20 FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation )

)

and DOES I through 50, mclusive )

)

Defendants )

)

Case No

COMPLAINTOF PLAINTIFF,

SIX4THREE, LLC, FOR INJUNCTION

ANDDAMAGES FOR:

1 PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL,

2 INTENTIONALINTERFERENCE

WITHCONTRACT,

3 INTETIONALINTERFERENCE WITH

PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS

RELATIONS, AND,

4 VIOLATIONOF CALIFORNIA

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS

CODE $ ) 17200 ET SEQ

26

28

Plaintiff, Six4Three, LLC, alleges as follows:

1. This matter concerns Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s unilateral decision to terminate

third-party developer access to part ofthe Facebook platform, which it had previously pledged to

Case No

1

Plaintiffs Complaint for In~unction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 66 of 187
keep open In reliance on Facebook's representations of open access to the Facebook platform,

Plamtiff Six4Three, LLC ("643") invested considerable time, effort, and expense in developing

an application, only to have that mvestment rendered worthless by Facebook's decision. 643

brings this action to make Facebook adhere to its open-access promise, or make 643 whole for the

loss ofits investment

PARTIES

2 Plaintiff643 is a Delaware Limited LiabilityCorporation with a principal place of

busmess at 175 Varick Street, 4th Floor, New York, New York

3 On information and belief, Defendant Facebook, Inc, is a Delaware Corporation

10 with a pnncipal place of business of One Hacker Way, Menlo Park, California.

4. Plaintiffis ignorant ofthe true names and capacities ofthe Defendants sued herem

12 as Does 1 through 50, mclusive, and each ofthem, and therefore sues said Defendants by such

13 fictitious names Plaintiffwill amend this complamt when the true names and capacities ofsaid

14 Defendants have been ascertained Plaintiffis informed and believes and thereon alleges, that

15 Defendants Does 1 through 50, u>elusive, and each ofthem, are legally responsible in some

16 manner for the events and happenings referred to herein and proximately caused or contributed to

17 the injuries to Plamtiff as hereinafter alleged Wherever in this complaint any Defendant is the

18 subject of any charging allegation by Plaintiff, it shall be deemed that said Defendants Does 1

19 through 50, inclusive, and each ofthem, are likewise the subjects ofsaid charging allegation

20 5 Plaintiffis mformed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herem

21 mentioned, each ofthe Defendants was the agent and employee of each ofthe remaining

22 Defendants and, in domg the thmgs herein alleged, was acting within the course and scope ofsaid

23 agency and employment

24 FACTS

25 6 643 is an image pattern recogmtion startup company.

26 7. Facebook operates a social networking service that enables users to connect and

27 share mformation with their friends and family.

FINAL

Case No

2

Plaintiffs Complamt for In~unction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 67 of 187
1 8 Facebook refers to the network ofrelationships between its users as the "Graph" or

2 the "Social Graph "

3 9. The Facebook Developer Platform (also called "Facebook Platform")

enables

4 third-party developers ("Developers" )

to make their applications and other services available to

5 Facebook users.

6 10. Facebook announced the opening ofFacebook Platform to Developers on or about

7 June 1, 2007.

8 11. Atthe opening ofFacebook Platform, Facebook stated "With-this evolution of

9 Facebook Platform, we'e made it so that any developer can build the same applications that we

10 can. And by that, we mean that they can integrate their application into Facebook —into the

11 social graph —the same way that our applications like Photos and Notes are integrated."

12 12. Facebook thereby permitted Developers to have open, equal access to integrate

13 applications into Facebook.

14 13. Facebook did not state or imply that access to Facebook Platform might later be

15 rescmded or provided on an unequal basis.

16 14 As recently as March 16, 2015, this representation remamed available on

17 Facebook's web page.

18 15. On or about April 21, 2010, Facebook announced the launch ofGraph Application

19 Programming Interface ("Graph API") at its developer conference.

20 16. Graph API allows Developers, with the consent of a Facebook user, to read data

21 from and write data to Facebook.

22 17. Developers can only access Facebook content (referred to as "endpomts") with

23 explicit permission from the user.

24 18. Examples of endpoints include a user's birthdate, favorite athletes, or photos

25 19 Graph API also permits access to endpoints regarding a user's friends. One such

26 endpoint is the set ofphotos that a user's friends had chosen to share with that user (the Friends'7

Photos Endpoint") A user's friends can control access to their photos and other endpoints by

28 Developers even ifthey are not users ofthe Developer application.

I'INAL 3

Case No. Plaintiff's Complamt for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 68 of 187
1 20. By granting Developers access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint, Facebook allowed

2 Developers to build applications that enabled a Facebook user to search the user's friends'hotos

3 via a Facebook platform application, assuming the user's friend provided such permission to

4 Developers.

5 21 During the announcement of Graph API, Facebook touted several features of

6 Graph API m order to increase its appeal to Developers such as 643.

7 22. Facebook emphasized how Graph API would become more and more open to

8 developers: "As we open the graph, developers can use these connections to create a smarter,

9 more personalized Web that gets better with every action taken."

10 23. Facebook also emphasized the busmess potential ofGraph API: "Through

Facebook's new tools and technologies, every developer —new and existing, big and small,

12 novice and advanced —can engage users, build businesses and revolutionize industries."

13 24 As recently as March 16, 2015, these representations remained available on

14 Facebook's web page.

15 25. 643 relied upon these representations, and others, as to the open nature of Graph

16 API, and invested considerable time, energy, and money developing an application to make use of

17 Graph API on Facebook.

18 26. In December 2012, 643 entered mto the Facebook Developer Platform, which

19 permitted 643 to develop applications using the Graph API.

20 27. 643 has developed a unique automated image classification capability, which it

21 used to develop an application called Pikmis ("the App").

22 28. The App is available for download on any iOS-compatible device, including the

23 iPhone and iPad. The App enables Facebook users to reduce time spent searching by

24 automatically classifying photos that their friends have shared with them through Facebook's

25 network, assuming their friends have provided such permission to Developers.

26 29 The App requires use of Facebook's Graph API, and specifically the Friends'7

Photos Endpoint.

28

FINAL

Case No.

4

Plaintiff's Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 69 of 187
30. The App uses 643's pattern-recognition technology to search through shared

photos and identify those oftheir friends at the beach or in the summer.

31. 643 conducted initial user research that indicated considerable consumer demand

for the App.

32. Facebook has never expressed any disapproval ofthe App.

33 643 made plans to market and promote the App to attract users.

34 643 sells the App for $ 1 99 in Apple's App store.

35 The basic version ofthe App allows a user to run a certam number ofsearches per

month.

10 36. In addition, users can choose to pay for premium access, which allows unlimited

searching. 643 offers different pricing tiers for premium access, ranging from $ 1.99 for a monthly

12 subscription, to $ 6 99 for 6 months, to $9.99 for 12 months.

13 37. Facebook benefits from the work ofDevelopers such as 643 who create

14 applications for use with Facebook. These applications can enhance user experience and drive

15 traffic to Facebook's website and mobile app, which in turn generates revenue for Facebook

16 through advertising sales, its primary revenue stream.

17 38 On January 20, 2015, Facebook sent an email to 643 statmg that 643 must

"upgrade" the App to Graph API v. 2.0 by April 30, 2015.

19 39. The email stated that Facebook would end third-party access to the Friends'0

Photos Endpoint on April 30, 2015

21 40 The App willnot function at all without access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint, so

22 Facebook's suggestion that 643 "upgrade" the App to Graph API v. 2.0 was not possible.

23

24

41. By deciding to end access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint, Facebook has made it

I

impossible for 643 to continue to operate the App, to abide by the license agreements and

25 purchase terms entered into by 643 with its users, and for 643 to recoup any ofits investment of

26 capital, human labor, time, effort, and energy

27 42. 643 has sold approximately 5,000 copies ofthe App since launch.

28 43.

Case No.

A substantial portion ofApp users have paid for premium access

5

Plaintiffs Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 70 of 187
1 44. Each one ofthe App users entered into a license agreement with 643

2 45. Facebook requires Developers to enter mto license agreements with users of

3 applications for Facebook These license agreements must, among other things, require that the

4 users ofthese applications adhere to Facebook's terms ofservice

5 46 Accordingly, Facebook knew, or had reason to know, about the existence of 643's

6 license agreements with its users.

7 47 Had Facebook refrained from ending access to Friends'hotos Endpomt, 643

8 could have quickly begun to generate hundreds ofthousands of dollars ofrevenue on a monthly

9 basis

10 48. In total, 643 expended approximately $ 1.15 million m capital and uncompensated

11 labor by its executives m developing and marketing the App

12 49. 643 attended Facebook events for Developers and made known the harm caused

13 verbally and via email to the appropriate Facebook employees

14 50 Faced with the imminent loss ofits investment, 643 wrote to Facebook on March

15 16, 2015, and informed Facebook that its decision to discontmue access to the Friends'hotos

16 Endpoint would harm 643 in several ways 643 informed Facebook that it had reasonably relied

17 on Facebook's representations that the endpoints would remam open, and that Developers would

18 have an equal opportunity to mtegrate applications into the social graph.

19 51. 643 requested that Facebook continue to permit Developers to have access to the

20 Friends'hotos Endpoint.

21 52. 643 alerted Facebook to the considerable harm it would suffer should access be cut

22 off.

23 53 643 also noted that some ofits users had entered mto subscriptions that extend

24 beyond the April 30, 2015, cut-offdate, and that these users could be entitled to refunds oftheir

25 purchases.

27

54 As ofthe date ofthis complamt, 643 has received no response to its letter

55. Facebook has not announced that it would change its policy.

28

Fli4%L

Case No

6

Plamtiff's Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 71 of 187
1 56 ln doing the things herein alleged, Facebook acted with fraud, malice and

2 oppression. and m reckless disregard ofthe nghts of 643

COUNT I: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

[Against all Defendants]

57 643 re-alleges and repleads paragraphs 1 through 56 as though set forth fully

6 herem

58 Facebook clearly and unambiguously promised to keep open the Friends'hotos

8 Endpoint.

9 59. 643 invested considerable capital, labor, time, and effort into developing the App

10 in reliance on this promise.

11 60 643's reliance was reasonable.

12 61 643's reliance was foreseeable by Facebook.

13 62 643 was injured as a result ofits reliance on Facebook's promise, which Facebook

14 did not keep, in an unascertained amount in excess of $25,000 00, to be established according to

15 proof at tnal

16 63 Accordmgly, Facebook is liable to 643 for damages.

17 COUNT II:INTENTIONALINTERFERENCE WITHCONTRACT

[Against all Defendants]

19 64. 643 re-alleges and repleads paragraphs 1 through 63 as though set forth fully

20 herein

21 65. 643 had entered into license agreements and subscriptions for premium access

22 with its users

23 66 Facebook knew ofthese license agreements and subscriptions.

24 67 Facebook intentionally interfered with and disrupted these contracts when it stated

25 that it would end 643's access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint on April 30, 2015, despite

26 knowing that disruption ofthese contracts would be the natural result of ending 643's access.

27 68 As ofApril 30, 2015, ifFacebook ends 643's access to the Friends'hotos

28 Endpoint as it has announced, then Facebook willfurther intentionally interfere with and disrupt

FINAL 7

Case No. Plaintiffs Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 72 of 187
643's contracts with its users, despite knowing that disruption ofthese contracts would be the

natural result of ending 643's access

69. 643's contract with its users was thereby disrupted, and as ofApril 30, 2015, 643's

contract with its users willbe further disrupted.

70. As a result, 643 has suffered and willsuffer damage in an unascertained amount in

excess of $25,000.00 to be established according to proof at trial.

71. Accordingly, Facebook is liable to 643 for damages.

10

COUNT III:INTENTIONALINTERFERENCE WITH

PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS

[Against all Defendants]

72 643 re-alleges and repleads paragraphs 1 through 71 as though set forth fully

herein.

12 73. 643 had an expectation of economic benefit from third parties, including its users

13 who downloaded the App and other Facebook users who may have downloaded the App if643

14 had marketed the App as it planned.

15 74. Facebook knew of 643's relationship with the users ofthe App, and knew of 643's

16 plans to market the App widely.

17 75. Facebook intentionally disrupted these relationships when it announced that it

18 would end 643's access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint on April 30, 2015, despite knowing that

19 disruption ofthese relationships would be the natural result of ending 643's access.

20 76. As ofApril 30, 2015, ifFacebook ends 643's access to the Friends'hotos

21 Endpoint as it has announced, then Facebook willfurther mtentionally interfere with and disrupt

22 643's relationships with its users, despite knowing that disruption ofthese relationships would be

23 the natural result of ending 643's access

24 77. 643's relationship with its users was thereby disrupted, and willbe further

25 disrupted.

26 78. As a result, 643 suffered damage in an unascertained amount in excess of

27 $25,000.00 to be established according to proof at trial.

28

Case No

79. Accordingly, Facebook is liable to 643 for damages

8

Plaintiff's Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 73 of 187
1 COUNT IV:VIOLATIONOF BUSINESS ANDPROFESSIONS CODE 55 17200 et see.

[Against all Defendants]

2

80 643 re-alleges and repleads paragraphs 1 through 79 as though set forth fully

4 herein

5 81. Facebook's decision to end access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint was unlawful

6 82. 643 suffered substantial injury as a result ofFacebook's actions, including the loss

7 ofits investment in developing the App and lost revenue.

8 83. No countervailing benefits ofFacebook's decision to consumers or competitors

9 exist.

10 84. 643 could not have reasonably avoided its injury because Facebook only

11 announced its decision after 643 had made considerable investment and Facebook had approved

12 the App.

13 85. 643 also requested that Facebook not end access to Friends'hotos Endpoint, but

14 Facebook did not change its decision.

15 86. Accordmgly, Facebook is liable to 643 for violation ofCaliforma's Unfair

16 Busmess Practices Act.

17 87 As a proximate result ofthe acts and conduct of Facebook herem alleged, 643 has

18 found it necessary to engage attorneys, and incur attorney's fees, and willcontinue to incur

19 attorney's fees, m an unascertained amount to be established accordmg to proof followingthe

20 conclusion oftrial

21 JURY TRIALDEMAND

22 88. 643 demands a trial by jury on all claims so tnable.

23

24

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff643 asks this Court to enter judgment against Defendant

25 Facebook, Inc., as follows

26 A. Ajudgment or order declaring Facebook's conduct, as alleged, unlawful under

27 California's Unfair Busmess Practices Act,

28

FINAL

Case No

B. Ajudgment, order, or award of damages adequate to compensate 643;

9

Plaintiff's Complamt for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 74 of 187
1 C Apermanent injunction prohibiting Facebook from removing access to the

2 Friends'ser Photos Endpoint,

3 D. Apermanent injunction prohibiting Facebook from interfering with 643's

4 contracts or prospective business relations;

E. An award ofits reasonable attorneys'ees and costs;

F. Punitive damages and/or treble damages as provided by California's Unfair

7 Business Practices Act; and

8 G. Such other further relief as this Court or a jury may deem proper and just.

9

10 Dated: AiMMIP MP~

y'1

CRITERION LAW

12

13

By:

BasifP. Fthenakis, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiff

Six4Three, LLC

15

16

Of counsel:

David S. Godkin

Andrew A. Caf&ey, III

17

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

28

Case No.

10

Plaintiff's Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 75 of 187
EXHIBIT B 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 76 of 187
Basil P. Fthenakis, Esq. (88399)

CRITERION LAW

2225 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 200

Palo Alto, California 94303

Tel. (650) 352-8400

Fax. (650) 352-8408

4 Of counsel:

David S. Godkin (admitted pro hac vice)

Andrew A. Caffrey, III(admitted pro hac vice)

BIRNBAUM&GODKIN, LLP

280 Summer Street

Boston, MA02210

(617) 307-6100

godkin@birnbaumgodkin.corn

caffrey@birnbaumgodkin.corn

PllLRB

Sgg P r'TEO COUNTY

FE8 0 6 'l3ik

Qsr,, . Couth

10 'Attorneys for Plaintiff,

SIX4THREE, LLC, a Delaware

limited liabilitycompany

13

15

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

SIX4THREE, LLC, a Delaware limited

liabilitycompany,

Plaintiff,

FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation

'and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive

Defendants.

) Case No. CIV 533328

)

) SECOND AMENDEDCOMPLAINTOF

) PLAINTIFF, SIX4THREE, LLC, FOR

)

INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES FOR:

)

1. VIOLATIONOF CALIFORNIA

) BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE

) g$ 17200 ET SEQ.;

) 2. PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL;

)

3. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION;

) 4. INTENTIONALINTERFERENCE

) WITH CONTRACT; AND

5. INTENTIONALINTERFERENCE

WITHPROSPECTIVE BUSINESS

RELATIONS.

26

Plaintiff, Six4Three, LLC, alleges as follows:

1. This matter concerns Defendant Facebook, Inc.'s campaign ofpromises,

enticements, and representations to third-party software developers ("Developers" )

such as

28

30

Case No. CIV 533328

1

Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 77 of 187
PlaintiffSix4Three, LLC ("643"), to develop applications for Facebook, based on Faccbook's

2 representations that Developers would have a level playing field, fair competition, and an

3 opportunity to grow their business. Facebook's campaign was part of a calculated strategy to

4 drive Facebook's own growth by leveraging the hard work ofDevelopers. But once Facebook

5 decided it would prefer to no longer compete with Developers, it abruptly reversed course, and

6 broke its promise offair competition in Facebook's platform. Facebook's conduct here is a classic

7 "bait and switch" tactic that is barred by California law, as detailed below.

PARTIES

9, 2. Plaintiff643 is a Delaware Limited LiabilityCorporation with a principal place of

10 business at 535 Mission Street, 14th Floor, San Francisco, California.

11 3. On information and belief, Defendant Facebook, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation

12 with a principal place of business of One Hacker Way, Menlo Park, California.

13 4. Plaintiffis ignorant ofthe true names and capacities ofthe Defendants sued herein

14 as Does 1 tlirough 50, inclusive, and each ofthem, and therefore sues said Defendants by such

15 fictitious names. Plaintiffwill amend this complaint when the true names and capacities ofsaid

16 'Defendants have been ascertained. Plaintiffis inforined and believes and thereon alleges, that

17 Defendants Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and each ofthem, are legally responsible in some

18 manner for the events and happenings referred to herein and proximately caused or contributed to

19 the injuries to Plaintiffas hereinafter alleged. Wherever in this complaint any Defendant is the

20,subject of any charging allegation by Plaintiff, it shall be deemed that said Defendants Does 1

21 tluough 50, inclusive, and each ofthem, are likewise the subjects ofsaid charging allegation.

22 5. Plaintiffis informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at all times herein

23 mentioned, each ofthe Defendants was the agent and employee of each ofthe remaining

24 Defendants and, in doing the things herein alleged, was acting within the course and scope ofsaid

25 agency and employment.

26 FACTS

27 6. 643 is an image pattern recognition startup company„

28

Case No. CIV 533328

2

Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 78 of 187
1 7. Facebook operates a social networking service that enables users to connect and

2 share information with their fiiends and family.

3 8. Facebook refers to the network ofrelationships between its users as the "Graph" or

4 the "Social Graph."

5 9. The Facebook Developer Platform (also called "Facebook Platform")

enables

6 Developers to make their applications and other services available to Facebook users.

7 I. LAUNCH.OF FACKBOOKPLATFORMIN 2007

8 10. At 3PM PDT on May 24, 2007, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook Founder and CEO,

9 made a self-described revolutionary announcement to a crowded rooin ofsoftware developers in

10 San Francisco. Zuckerberg announced the launch ofI acebook Platform, which he had described

11;weeks earlier in an interview with Fortune magazine as "the most p'owerful distribution

12 mechanism that's been: c'r'eat'cd;:in."a icncration." He went on in the Fortune interview to describe

'J3 the mo'tivation for creating Facebook Platform in this way: ".We want to make Facebook into

14 'something> of.an:.opeating svstcm:so vou'can:run'full:apphcations;" specifying that this

15 development was the internet-equivalent to what Microsoft did with Windows, which allowed

16 other developers to build applications for PCs. (See

17 http://archive. fortune.corn/2007/05/24/technology/facebook.fortune/index.htm.)

18 '

l. In fact, Zuckerberg's first demonstration ofFacebook Platform was purportedly to

19 BillGates in early May 2007. Microsoft and Facebook had reached an agreement for Microsoft to

20 purchase banner ads on Facebook in which Microsoft had guaranteed Facebook a minimum of

21 $ 100 millionper year tlirough 2011. Facebook Platform was positioned by Facebook to MicrosoA !

22 as the driving force behind meeting Facebook's ambitious growth metrics. Atthe time ofthis

23 announcement, Facebook had just exceeded 20 million active users and had raised only $ 37.7

24 millionin venture capital investment. Even at this modest point in Facebook's growth, its photo

25 sharing application was the largest photo application on the Internet, and according to Facebook's

26

'n the quoted text here and elsewhere in the Second Amended Complaint, representations by

28

Facebook or its employees have been underlined for emphasis.

3

Case No. CIV 533328 Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 79 of 187
1 own internal statistics, drew more than twice the traffic ofthe next three photo sites combined at

2 the time ofthe May 24, 2007 announcement ofFacebook Platform.

3 12. Zuckerberg announced that the three key elements of Facebook Platfoim were

4 "deep'i'ntcgration. mass distribution:.a'n'd ncw oivportunitv. " These were three key themes he

5 would repeat throughout the day and for years to come in numerous public conversations and

6 presentations. (See https://gigaom.corn/2007/05/24/live'-at-the-facebook-launch/.)

7 13. 'Thus, Zuckerberg made three distinct promises: (1) promise of deep integration

8 with Facebook's social graph; (2) promise ofFacebook's support in achieving mass distribution

9 ofdeveloper applications; and (3) promise of an opportunity to build a business on Facebook.

10 14. By 8PM that evening, these key elements were memorialized on Facebook's

website with the official aimouncement "Facebook Platform Launches", stating "Y'ou.":caii".n'o'w":

12 build::applications: that%ave the.same'access-'to integration in'to;-the-.social'raph as.Faceb'ook'3

applications, such as photos, notes, and events.... The, power ofmass distribution is now in vour

14 hands. You. can, gain distribution for.vour appliCat'ions through the social graph like never before.

15:Applications.can be v'iral1'v engiriecred."to'each iiiillions,".ofFaccb'ook users ciuicklV~and efficientlv",

16 through the profile, news feed,. and mini-feed..... With.access to deep.'in'tegra'tion into the site, and,,

17 mass distribution'{hro'ugIi.the social graph comes a new opportunity for vou to build a business

18 with.vour application. You are free to monetize vour canvas pages through advertising or other

19 transactions. that vou control." (See Facebook Platform Launches,

20 http://web.archive.org/web/20070706002021/http: //developers.facebook.corn/news.php?blog=l k

21 .story=21).

22 15. Facebook's announcement thus promised that (1) developers have "same access to

23 integration" for applications such as photos and notes as Facebook employees; (2) developers are

24 able to distribute applications through Facebook Platfoim; and (3) developers are able to

25 monetize applications through Facebook Platforin.

26 16. Zuckerberg went on to say: "Tlie social graph is our'ase, arid we'e bui1t':a

27, framework that is completely op'tiiuized..for. developiri'g social applications''witliin oui':-'8

.environment.... We believe that there is more value for evervone in letting other people develop.

4

Case No. CIV 533328 Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for Injunction a'nd Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 80 of 187
1 atinlications on top ofthe base we'e built than we could ever uossiblv nrovide on our own

2 This is good for us because ifdevelopers:build i~eat applications then.thevire,providing a.service

3

'o our users and stren'ptheninp the social graph:... This is a bip opportunitv; We provide the

4 intemation and dist'r'ibiitio'n and develop~ers rovide the applications. We help users share more

5, i'nformation, and 'together we.'benefit,'

17. Zuckerberg thus promised that Facebook is committed long term to serving as a

7 platform that lets developers build applications on a level playing field because it is a big

8 opportunity for everyone.

9 18. Zuckerberg then announced that Facebook had been working with over 70

10 developers in anticipation ofthe launch ofFacebook Platform, including Amazon, Forbes, iLike,

Lending Club, Microsoft, Obama for America, Photobucket, Red Bull, Twitter, Uber, Virgin

12 Mobile USA, Warner Bros, Washington Post, and many others. (See live blog ofF8 event from

13 'eading Internet blogger, Mashable, at http://mashable.corn/2007/05/24/facebook-f8-

14 live/1ClfbgFfPV5q0.)

15 19. Around 4PM during Zuckerberg's presentation, he announced 5 case studies from

16 these early developer partners aimed at showing how easy it was for all developers to integrate

17 with Faceb'ook Platform. Zuckerberg distributed case studies from Red Bull, Box.net, Lending

18 Club, Microsoft and Slide.corn. Zuckerberg continued to emphasize during this public, annual

19 keynote to Developers that Facebook Platform is the single biggest and most revolutionary

20 change to Facebook since its inception, stating: "4'verv once:.in a w'heal'e a;blat'foim'''corn'es'alohi

21 'that allows pconle'to buil'd-'a'conitiletelv new:application —.. sometimes even starts new, industries.,"

22, (See https://gigaom.corn/2007/05/24/live-at-the-facebook-launch/.)

23 20. GigaOm, a leading Internet blogger, live blogged the event and further quoted

24 Zuckerberg as saying: "Withphoto-sharing, he explained, 'it's not just the photos that spread, it'

25 the whole photos application'.'-Third'-gart'v aurihcations won't be treated like second-class citizens

26 'on.Facebook, h'e saws; users can add them to their profiles and drag them and drop them to their

27 content. Applications can use Flash, JavaScript, and Silverlight ifa user approves them. Outside

28 applications can issue unlimited notifications to users, and fitinto the Facebook enviromnent by

.5

Case No. CIV 533328 'laintiffs Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 81 of 187
1 accessing a 'fiiend selector'hat spits out each users'onnections. Now Zuckerberg says you can

2 serve ads on your app pages and keep all the revenue, se 1 them yourselves or use a network, and

3 process transactions within the site, keeping all the revenue without diverting users off

4 Facebook." (See https://gigaom.cond2007/05/24/live-at-the-faccbook-launch/.)

5 2i. Zuckerberg thus promised that (t) develoI!er applications won' be "second class

citizens", (2) developer applications can access a user's connections and related user data made

7 available in the social graph; and (3) developer applications can sell ads through the Facebook

I

8

! Platform.

9 . 22. This grandiose language from Zuckerbergt obviously sparked substantial questions

10, from the developer community so by 4:20PM pacific (1 hour and 20 minutes after the keynote

11 had started), Facebook had released the official "Facebook Platform FAQ", which was being

12 'circulated among bloggers to educate developers further qn this announcement. (See Exhibit 1,

13,Facebook F8 and Platform FAQ.) The Facebook Platform FAQ states, among other things:

14 ', What is Facebook Platform? Facebook Platform is a development systein that enables

15 companies and developers to build applications for the Facebook website, where all of

16, Facebook's 24 million active users can interact with them.'Pacsebook'Pl'atform offers'deep

17,inteiiratioiuin the Facebo'ok website . disotribution through the social maph! and''an'.

18 '.op'por'tunitktonbiiild,aubiisin'essa,

19

20 'hat's new in Facebook Platform? We'e been adding functionality since Facebook

21 .,;

22

'3,

24

Platform first shipped in beta in August 2006. With the latest. evolution. ofFacebook

.PI'astfo'rnid haowcVci';dthrird-'p'aitv".'dc'veiotpcrs ca'n:nowlcreate appii'cations on'tlie F'acebook

.site with.the same level ofintegration as applications built bv internal Facebook

developers.,'Now'developers-evervw'here.have the a'bihtv todcreate Faeeb'ook ipplicrcatitiiis

25 that deeplv intemate into the Facebook site„as wel as the potential for mass distribution

26 throiiili'tlic.so'cial. t'pra'ph aiid 'ii'ewubusiness oppoituriities,

27 Why did Facebook launch Facebook Platform? Our engineers have created great

g p y p p e

6

Case No. CIV 533328 Plaintiff's Second Amended 'Compl'aint for Injunction and Damages

28 applications forFacebook,butwereco nized that tthird- art develo erscanhel usmak

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 82 of 187
Facebook an even more powerful social utility. Fnccbook PI'atforni:gives developers.

everywhere:the'tool's to create applicati'ons that we just wouldn't have the resources to

build in-house, and those applications make'Facebook an even better way for our users to

exchange information. Developers also benefit from the Faccbodk Platform as it gives

them the potential to broadly distribute their applications and even build new business,

o'pp'ortuiiities

What kinds of applications can be built on Facebook Platform?, The kinds of

applications-",developers can build.on Facebook Platform are"'li'initc'd"only-bv tlieir

i'xiii'ginatioiis,'Because"applications are based on the Facebook- social'. graph thev can'be

10

12

13

14

15

,more. relevant to users, keeping pleo le in to'u'ch with what and whom thev care about.

We'e already seen a variety of applications built by our developer partners, including

those for sharing media files, book reviews, slideshows and more. Some ofthe

possibilities ofFacebook applications are illustrated in the Facebook Platform Application

Directory, available at http://facebook.corn/apps.

Are there any restrictions on what developers can build? Developers'ar'c eii'cou'ra'gcd

16

17

to exercise their creativity when, building applications. Of:course. all applications. are.

~sub'ect to the Terms of Service. that everv developer agrees to, which include basic

reauiiciA'ends/stlch,as.not stori'ng an'y s'ensiti've user'in fol'lilati'on; not crc'ating.anv, offensive

19

20

21

or. illegal applications, and not building anything that:.phfshes:or spams users. And users

will always have the power to report any applications that compromise Facebook's trusted

enviroiunent, keeping our users'nformation safe.

22:

23

24

25

How willFacebook deal with applications that compete with one another or even

compete with Facebook-built applications? %e'welcome.developers-w'ith:competing

applications, in'cludi'ng developers whose applications might compete.with Facebook-built

26 ', applications, Ma'tiy. applications'are likclv..to 6ffer'sin>ilar"fca'tures; We'v'e'.designed

27 1""acebook'Platform so.that:applications fr'om thircl-p irt'y:developers.:are'on a level plavinw~

28

Case No. CIV 533328

field with applications built bv Facebook. Ultimately. our users willdecide which

7

Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 83 of 187
~alications thev find most useful, and itis these applications, that willbecome the most

p'opul'ar.

Can Facebook applications include ads? We want to enable.'developers. to build a

business on their Facebook.applications, so we'.rc eving,developers the freedom,to.,

idion'etiRe:tli'eir.appli'c'ations'as th'cy like'.,Developers can include advertising on their

applications'anvas pages, though no advertising willbe allowed within the application

10

12

13

boxes that appear within user profiles.

Are you going to share revenue with developers? While revenue sharing is not

available at launch, we are looking into ways to share advertising revenue with

developers.... The version ofFac'cbook Platform already lets."devel'oper's'monetize their

applications as they like„,whether they. choose to offer it for free or to build a business on

their application.

14 23. In sum, these representations by Facebook reflected the followingpromises to

15 Developers:

16 a. Developers would have "deep integration";

17 b. Developers would have access to the "social graph";

18

19

20

21

22

23:

24

25

26

c. Developers would have "an opportunity to build a business."

d. Developers would have the same level ofintegration and ability to develop apps in

the same manner as internal Facebook employees;

e. Facebook willprovide adequate tools necessary for Developers to build their

applications;

f. Facebook willhelp Developers achieve broad distribution oftheir applications;

g; so long as applications abide by Terms of Service (e.g. are not offensive or

unlawful), Facebook willbe neutral as to the applications built on its operating

system;

27

28

Case Vio. CIV 533328

8

Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 84 of 187
h. any application that does not violate Terms of Service, phish or spam users,

contain offensive material, or break the law shall be accepted in Facebook

Platform;

10

12

13

14

16

17

19

20

21

22

i. competing applications are welcome on Facebook's operating system;

j. Facebook willremain neutral among competing applications;

k. Facebook willremain neutral among its own applications and those of developers

regardless ofwhether they compete or not;

l. applications similar in purpose and content willbe allowed to compete on a "level

playing field"

m. "level playing field" constitutes a definition offairness in market competition, and

that definition offairness means that ultimately users willdecide which

applications win the market, not Facebook or other third parties;

n. implicitin this definition offairness based on user decision is the necessary

consequence that Facebook shall take no actions to promote its own applications

or preferred applications from companies that have a special relationship with

Facebook in order to slant this playing field in a manner that makes it less likely

for users ultimately to decide the winner;

o. Facebook willenable Developers to build businesses on their operating system by

directly monetizing their applications on Facebook;

p. Developers willbe able to sell ads on their application pages; and

q. Developers willhave a choice as to whether they monetize their application on

Facebook's operating system.

23

24

II. DEVELOPERS RESPONDED ENTHUSIASTICALLYTO THKLAUNCHOF

FACEBOOK PLATFORM.JUST:-AS:FACFBOOK INTENDED

25 24. The blogging community went into an immediate and prolonged frenzy over this

announcement. Paul B. Allen, founder ofAncestry.corn and well known Internet blogger,

27 summed up the general sentiment expressed by countless bloggers when he wrote that same day,

28 "Isaw history in the making today...I was lucky enough to be in San Francisco for the Facebook

9

Case No. CIV 533328 Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 85 of 187
1 f8 Platform launch event. This announcement was at least an 8.0 on the Richter scale. It was a

2 whopper.... A huge new opportunity was presented to the few hundred people in the room,

3 including 65 companies that have spent the last few weeks developing applications for the launch

4 ofFacebook Platform. Facebook is inviting anyone to develop applications for their users on top

5 ofwhat Mark calls their "social graph" —the core oftheir service which basically keeps track of

6 real people and'their real connections to each other....[Facebook's] growth willbe dramatically

7 . accelerated by the Platform announcement. IfFacebook is adding 100,000 new users per day with

8 its own few simple applications (like its photo sharing, a very simple service that has given

9, Facebook twice as many photos as all other photo sharing sites combined), what willhappen

10 when thousands or tens ofthousands ofdevelopers start building apps in Facebook and marketing

11 them to more users? Facebook willreach 50 million, then 100 million, then 200 millionusers, and

12 beyond. Rather than continue to try to develop features within its own proprietary, closed

13 network, basically keeping all ofits users to itself...Facebook intuitivelygets the concepts that

14 are so brilliantlydiscussed in Wikinomics (which are so non-intuitive to old schools business

15 'types), and has chosen to open up its network for all to participate in...Application developers

16 can now have access to core Facebook features, such as user profiles and user connections, and

17 even publishing to the News Feed, all with the control and permission ofFacebook users... When

18 Facebook has 100 millionusers, in the not too distant future, having the ability to develop an App

19 in their system willalmost be like being able to get a link on Google's own home page." (See

20 http://www.paulallen.net/prediction-facebook-will-be-the-largest-social-network-in-the-world/.)

21 25. To Developers, Facebook Platform represented not just an entire new operating

22 system, but an ecosystem that could potentially reorganize the entire Internet (potentially

23 replacing Google). The sentiment amongst Developers, as widely held throughout the industry

24 'and reported by popular sites like TechCrunch (http://techcrunch.corn/2007/05/24/facebook25 launches-facebook-platform-they-are-the-anti-myspace/) and the Wall Street Journal

26 (http://www.wsj.corn/public/article/SB117971397890009177-

27 wjdKPmjAqS 9ZZbwiRp CoSqvwQ 20070620.html), was that ifyou aren' building for

28 Facebook, you willbe left behind.

Case No. CIV 533328

10

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 86 of 187
1 26. Facebook and the Developers who were selected to participate in the private beta

2 ofFacebook Platform quickly set out to inakc Developers comfortable with this grandiose vision

3 and create a level of comfort to induce them to participate in this entirely new industry. For

4 instance, on May 29, 2007, just five days after Zuckerberg's announcement ofFacebook

5 Platfoim, Venture Beat, the popular tech blog, did a QKAwith iLike founder, AliPartovi, who

6,was also an early advisor and shareholder of Facebook. iLikewas the first successful application

7 on Facebook Platform and for quite some time was the largest music application on the Facebook

8 'Platform. iLikewas purchased by MySpace in 2009.

9 Tell me about your experiences with Platform so far. You'e been working on putting

10 iLike on Facebook for several months now. Yet on the integration since Friday mornin,

11 there have been bugs and other issues on iLike's end. What's the status?

12 Partovi: So, first to give you the back-story on how we got involved'. Over the past several

13, months, we'e pushed and pushed with Facebook asking for some sort of exclusive

14 'elationship. They repeatedly said they won't do an exclusive relationship but would

15 rather create a level playing field where we could compete with other third parties. Wc

16 then gave up a bit, and we were actually a bit late to the game learning about the platform

17

18

in detail. But when we finallydid get access, our President, Hadi Partovi (my twin

brother) took very little time to decide this was a huge strategic priority. That was a month

19 ago. We re-prioritized everything else, and started moving our people offother projects

20

21

22

23

'nto this. First two or three people, then a few more, and by the end it was a huge group of

engineers pulling back-to-back all-nighters for a week-long sprint to the launch.

What made iLike think that Facebook Platform would be a big deal? What stood out about

it?

24

25 '.

26

27

Hadi has a strong background in the concept ofplatforms...at 24 he became the head of

product management in the IE group at Microsoft, and was a key player in thc browser

wars. A month ago, even though the Facebook Platform wasn't fullyfleshed out, he saw

just from the early beginnings ofit that this could redefine web development. What he

28

Case No. CIV 533328

said was, 'in the history of computing, there was the personal computer, there was

11

Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 87 of 187
1 Windows, there was the web, and now the Facebook Platform'. You can imagine that I

2 and most our company was pretty skeptical. But he makes these calls so we followed him.

3 As to what stood out, it's a combination ofthree things: (1) the technology itself—

4 Facebook Platforiii, like any platform, offers the developer building blocks to build apps

5 faster than they could ifthey were starting from scratch, and to tap into a rich source of

6 data &capabilities that would never otherwise be available; (2) the potential for viral

7 spread —due to the way the Facebook news feed works, an app can spread across the

8 community entirely by viral spread, as friends get notified when one person adopts

9 it...this essentially bypasses the idea oftrying to make your app 'viral's a standalone,

10 because Facebook is itself naturally viral; (3), 11ie'ihetori'c:,',fr'om-the Pa'cebook:man'agenieiit'.

11:,.team, starting from the CEO himself. made it clear that thev have a long-term

12:;commitmcnt: to. a level'@laving-field. For examnl'e.,thee-i>bsolutelv'-'reR'sed to'ice us any.,

13

14

.sgecial advantape,.insisting that the market needs to see. a level.Tilavina.f]e]d...we offered .

,.tlicm':oiviier'sh'in'.i'ii'Cur'c'om'iianv. nionev„:etc'-. but:thev. h'ad.bio:ititerest:, FiirthcriTiorc;:thev

15 .built and launched. their own 'video'. app, but left it to 'compete'n its own merits

16 ,alongsi'de other" third-.'painty apps ra'ther than makiiiu:it"pre-inst'all'ed': for'a11.1'aceb'ook

17 users; .So. fkI";a~i'd '52,ina'de'this:. something we had to''iud",on.'"and:@3;:made: us comfortable.

18 'wi'ththe I'one-tcrin sti'ate'eiCiino'Iicatio'its . (See http://venturebeat.corn/2007/05/29/qa19 'ith-ilikes-ali-partovi-on-facebook/.)

20 27. Partovi's comments immediately followingZuckerberg's announcement serve

21 both to reflect the general sentiment held by Developers —that Facebook had made clear its long

22 tenn commitment to a level playing field for Developers —and to show how Facebook's allies

23 (Partovi was an early advisor and shareholder after all), were committed to helping Facebook

24 grow its new operating system quickly and induce developers to participate with large

25 investments of capital. After all, iLike saw massive growth in the two years followingits decision

26 to build on the Facebook Platforin and was ultimately acquired by MySpace in 2009 in large part

27 due to that growth.

28

Case No. CIV 533328

12

Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 88 of 187
III.FACKBOOKCONTINUED TO ACTIVELYPROMOTE FACKBOOK

, PLATFORM TO DEVELOPERS

2

28. Three days after Partovi's QUA with Venture Beat, on June 1, 2007 Facebook

3

released its own statement further clarifying its intentions with Facebook Platform, entitled

4

"Platforin is Here".

5

",Last Fridav,, we gr'oniised more information..so here it is.... With this evolution-,of

6

Facebook Platforin, we'e made it so that anv developer can build the same applications

that we can. And bv that, we mean that thev:.can integrate 'their-application into

9

Facebook—into the 'soci'al graph—the same wav that our, ap'nlications like Photos and

'No't'es are'i'nte'ki'ated, "

(See https://www.facebook.corn/notes/facebook/platform-is10

here/2437282130/)

11

29. Thus Facebook promised that developers willbe able to build applications in the

12

saine way that Facebook can by accessing the social graph.

13

30. As recently as February 23, 2016, this representation remained available on

14

Facebook's web page.

15

31. Throughout the summer of2007 Facebook remained on the offensive about its

16

long-term commitment to developers on Facebook Platform. Facebook held numerous

17

Hackathons and Developer Meetups in various cities to introduce new developers to Facebook

18

Platform, it launched a Developer Feed and Wiki on its website to educate the Developer

19 community on the benefits ofFacebook Platform and help them more seamlessly invest their

20

capital and resources towards building applications on the Facebook Platform. Facebook also held

21

contests with prizes for developers. 'Zuckerberg continued to emphasize the revolutionary impact

22

Facebook Platform would have on the Internet as a whole during this time. For instance, on July

23

'17, 2007, Zuckerberg was interviewed by Time Magazine:

24

Time: the frenzy suivounding Facebook seems to have intensified quite dramatically over

25

26

27

28

the past several months. What do you think is behind the company's newfound cachet?

Zuckerberg: I think the most recent surge, at least in the press, is around the launch of

Facebook Platforin. For the first time we'e allowing developers who don't work at

Case No. CIV 533328

13

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 89 of 187
1 Facebook to develop applications iust as ifthcv were..That's a bio. deal because it means

2

thai. all developers "trave a'new'ivav-:of doi'n'g business ifthev choose to take advantage of.

3 it. There are whole:coin'panies that are fondling whose only product is a Facebook

4 Platforin application. That pro'vides an o'pu'or'turiitv"foi'hai> it'provides an:ou6orhinitv foi

5 p'eople who want" to make monev"bv investing in.those:comgani'es„and I think tha't's

,

s'ometh'in''th'at's'ni'ettv exc'itin@'to'h'e'business.comm'unity. "

(See

7 http://content. time. corn/time/business/article/0,8599,1644040,00.html)

8 32. In these public statements to Time Magazine, Zuckerberg made at least four

9 distinct promises: (1) Facebook would allow developers to build applications as ifthey were

10 developers employed by Facebook; (2) Facebook would offer developers on Facebook Platform a

11 'ew way of doing business; (3) Facebook would support an ecosystem where entire companies

12 could be formed whose sole business activity was within the Facebook Platform ecosystem; (4)

13 Facebook would support an ecosystem where investors could reasonably rely on Facebook to

14 make money by investing in companies solely devoted to the Facebook Platform ecosystem.

15 33. Then on September 17, 2007, Facebook went even further by setting up a $ 10

16 million fund exclusively devoted to providing grants to developers to build on Facebook

17 Platform. Facebook and its partners in the fund would not even take equity in the developer; they

18 were offering free money to build applications on Facebook Platform with the only commitments

19 being that the grantee use the money to build on Facebook Platform and that Facebook's partners

20 would have the opportunity to invest first ifthey were interested in doing so. When asked why

21 Facebook was forming this fund, itreplied: "We'ari"forinirikthis'kind.to-;h'el@.',cow the.Faceb'ook

22 application ecosvstem.'Bv.'decreasing the barrier to start a companv, we hone to entice an even

23 larger gn oup.of people to become;enti epreneur's-and"build 'a'comiiel'lin'i-business':on.'Fabcb'o'ok'.

24 Platform. We hope, this is also a funding. model that other. venture eapitahs'ts.will follow. "

(See

25 http://500hats.typepad.corn/500blogs/2007/09/facebook-announ.htrnl.)

26 34. Facebook's conduct in providing free money to developers to build applications on

27 Facebook Platform implies a specific proinise that it willsupport developers'pportunity to

28 "build a compelling business on Facebook Platform" and that it is committed long term to the

14

Case No. CIV533328 Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 90 of 187
1 stability ofFacebook platform as an ecosystem that can support substantial investment and where

2 investors who participate in that ecosystem can expect a level playing field upon which to

3 generate a return on that investment.

4 35. Indeed, others were quick to followFacebook's lead in making investors

5 comfortable with supporting this new industry with large sums of capital. Numerous venture

6 capital firms or funds were soon after established that invested solely in Facebook applications. In

7 September 2007, Wired Magazine reported the following: "And by turning itselfinto a platform

8 for new applications, Facebook has launched a whole new branch ofthe software development

9 industiy, just like BillGates did with MS-DOS in the 1980s. By allowing developers to charge

10 for their wares or collect the advertising revenue they generate, Zuckerberg set up a system for

11 every programmer to get paid for their efforts. Now venture capitalists like Bay Partners are

12 scrambling to fund almost anyone who has an idea for a Facebook application." (See

13 https://archive. wired.corn/techbiz/startups/news/2007/09/ff facebook? currentPage=all.)

1

14: 36. As a result of Facebook and its partners tremendous efforts in inducing Developers

t

15 'to build applications on Facebook Platform and promising them the opportunity to build entire

16 industries, new sectors ofinvestment and new types of applications, Facebook Platform quickly

17 'became, in the words ofAdWeek, "the most viral software distribution system ever". The overall

18 'rafficto Facebook increased by one third within a mere three weeks ofthe announcement. By

19 December, the Facebook user base had gone from 24 million at the time ofthe announcement to

20 58 million, a'141'/o increase. Where Facebook had been adding about 100,000 new users per day

21 i prior to Facebook Platform, it was now adding more than 250,000 users per day. (See

22 http://www.adweek.corn/socialtimes/top-10-facebook-stories-of-2007/211540.)

23, 37. While it touted Facebook Platforin to Developers around the world, Facebook did

24 not state or imply that access to Facebook Platform might later be rescinded or provided on an

25 unequal basis.

26 38. By the end of2009, in large part due to the Facebook Platform's success in

27 inducing developers to make investments in this new ecosystem, Facebook's user growth had

28

Case No. CIV 533328

15

Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 91 of 187
1 skyrocketed from 24 millionactive users at the time ofthe announcement ofFacebook Platform

in May 2007 to over 350 millionusers in December 2009.

3 39. In late 2009, Facebook released a document "ALook Back on the App Economy

4 ofFacebook in 2009," in which it cited numerous success stories. For instance, Facebook app

5 Playfish was acquired by Electronic Arts that year for no less tlian $ 275 million. Watercooler, a

6 leading fantasy sports application on the Facebook Platform, successfully raised $ 5.5 millionto

7 fuel its growth. Weardrobe was acquired by Like.corn for an undisclosed sum. The document,

8 published by the Director ofthe Facebook Developer Network, ended: "We'd like to say thank

9 you to the developers and entrepreneurs who make up the Facebook Platform ecosystem and

10 congratulations on your accomplishments in 2009." (See

http://web.archive.org/web/20091223055629/http: //developers. facebook.corn/news.php?blog= 1 &

12 story=351.)

13 IV.FACKBOOKLAUNCHEDGRAPES"API IN2010

14 40. On or about April21, 2010, Facebook announced the launch ofGraph Application

15 Programming Interface ("Graph API")

as a key new component of Facebook Platform at its

16 developer conference. Graph API allows Developers, with the consent of a I'acebook user, to read

17 data from and write data to Facebook.

18 '1. Developers can only access Facebook content (referred to as "endpoints") with

19 explicit permission from the user. Examples of endpoints include a user's birthdate, favorite

20 athletes, or photos.

21 42. Graph API also permits access to endpoints regarding a user's friends. One such

22 'endpoint is the set ofphotos that a user's friends had chosen to share with that user (the "Friends'3

',Photos Endpoint" ). Auser's friends can control access to their photos and other endpoints by

24 Developers even ifthey are not users ofthe Developer's application.

25, 43. By granting Developers access to the Iriends'hotos Endpoint, Facebook allowed

26 Developers to build applications that enabled a Facebook user to search the user's friends'hotos

27 via a Facebook Platform application, assuming the user's friend explicitlyprovided such

28 'ermission. A user's friend had complete control over the permission settings. For instance, the

16

Case No. CIV 533328 Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 92 of 187
1 user's friend could provide access to all or no developers or to specific developers but not others,

2 as the user's friend saw fit.

3 44. During the announcement of Graph API, Facebook touted several features of

4 Graph API in order to increase its appeal to Developers such as 643.

5 45. Specifically, at the F8 Conference 2010, Zuckerberg announced: "The open graph

6 puts people at the center ofthe web —it means that the web can become a set ofpersonally and

7 meaningfully semantic connections between people... Three years ago at our first F8 we launched

8 Facebook Platforin, and together we all started an industry... We think what we have to show you

9 today willbe the most transformative thing we'e ever done for the web...Use the open graph.to.

10 'make it.so that! people":ca'n leave'instantly soci'al and per'son'alized.experiences'.ev'er'ywhere they.go;

11 We'e Norma be announcine a few pieces ofnew technology that make this possible —the first is

12 the Graph API,—makes it completely, simple t'o read connections to Facebook's map ofthe

13 'gdapll.'..impplein'ented;on top'of'aii:open'sfandarii.-" (See

14 https://www.youtube.corn/watch? v=4SOcRKINiSM.)

15 46. AfterZuckerberg completed his keynote at F8 2010, Bret Taylor, a Facebook

16 employee, further explained what Graph API meant for developers: "With Graph API every

17 object in Facebook has a unique ID, whether that object is a user profile, event, etc...you just

18 need to download an object with a new ID or download a connection with a new name. So to

19 download my friends you just need to download /btaylor /friends... And this applies for every

20;single object in Facebook. So let's say Facebook launches a new feature next year. We':re:riot'1

gonna make vou "do'wnload a.new, SDK, You iust need to download an obiect with a,new. ID or"

22 dowiiload a connection'.@itli a'n'tv"'na'nic. A11'of'f)le code!you already wrote willc'ontinue'to".wo'rk

23 'perfectly., This is a really siiJii6cant chaiii~e''fo!r our.net-'platforin that I'rn sure you'a''4

appreciate. For the first time via the search capability, ofthe Graph API, we'e, giving developers

25 'the capability to search over all the public updates on Facebook. I think this is Lonna lead to a

26 bunch of cool new applicali'ons and I'm really excited to see where people go with this:;;. We'e

27,built our core, ofthe',Facibook Platform. from the ground up with siniplicitv, stability, and the

28

Case No. CIV 533328

17

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Injunction an'd'Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 93 of 187
1 maph in mind. This graph that for the first time we'e building to@ether," (See

2 'ttps://www.youtube.corn/watch? v=4SOcRKINiSM.)

3 47. Facebook's employee Bret Taylor thus promised that: (1) developers can access

4 Graph API objects in a simple manner ("you just need to download an object with a new ID"); (2)

5 the accessible objects are ubiquitous ("this applies for every single object in Facebook"); (3) this

6 access willbe sustained and can be relied upon by developers ("Allofthe code you already wrote

7 will continue to work perfectly... We'e not gonna make you download a new SDK") (a SoAware

8- Development Kit(or "SDK")is a set ofsoftware development tools that allows for the creation of

9 'applications for a particular development platform); (4) developers can search over all objects for

10 all public updates on Facebook; and (5) Fa'cebook Platform guarantees simplicity, stability and

11 your ability to access and help build the graph with us.

12 48. The software industry uses a common and well-known convention ofreferring to

13 software by version number (e.g., version 1.0, 2.0, etc.) to signify the existence ofseparate

14 versions ofsoftware and to identify a particular version ofthe software. When Facebook

15 announced the launch of Graph API, it did not refer to Graph API as having different versions.

16,Facebook thereby signified that Graph API's open, equal, and neutral nature would not change.

17 This representation was of course a deliberate decision on Facebook's part to continue to entice

18 developers by conveying a sense ofsecurity around investing time, money and effort building

19 applications on its revolutionary platforin.

20, . 49. Facebook did not represent that it had reserved the right to terminate any endpoint

21 ofGraph API. To the contrary, Facebook repeatedly expressed its long-term commitment to this

22 API.

23 50. This extension ofthe Facebook Platform ecosystem to further expand its

24 'eorganization potential for the entire Internet contributed even further to Facebook's meteoric

25 rise and induced even more investors and developers to expand the industry Facebook had

26 created. By way of example, on October 21, 2010, Facebook partnered with Kleincr Perkins

27 Caufield 8c Byers, Zynga and Amazon to launch a $250 million fund to invest in new apps on the

28 Facebook Platform. By September 19, 2011, Facebook Platform had created over 182,000 jobs

18

Case No. CIV 533328 Plaintiffs Second Amende'd Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 94 of 187
and $ 12.19 billionin value to the U.S. economy. Facebook now boasted over 850 millionusers as

2 oflate 2011.

3 51. On September 24, 2011, Facebook further extended its long-term commitment to

4 Facebook Platform by expanding Open Graph to accelerate its reorganization ofthe disparate

5 content on the Internet. (See http://mashable.corn/2012/05/24/facebook-developer-platform6 infographic/1fDCxuACag5qr.) In his keynote address at F8 2011 on Septeinber 24, 2011,

7 Zuckerberg stated to a packed auditorium ofdevelopers: "The next era is defined:bv the apps and

8 .depth of engagement ih'at.is now possible now that this whole network'has.been established... In

9 2007 in our very first F8:I.introduced the concept ofthe social graph. all ofthe relationships

10,between..pc'o'pl'e in the.C'orld;, Last-'year. we intr'odu'ced'.th'c c'oncep't oftheopcn.griiph as:no't only

11 the m'ap o'f''all:tlie'relNfiori'ships':but:all'of'the'connections in the world....: This"ye'ar We'r'e takin'g

12 the next step: we',re going to make it so that. you can, connect to 'aiiy'thin'g.you want in any way

13 you w'ant;..; ..So'm'ctim'cs.I think about what we're'doingwith the: open" gripli'is-heipiii'g"to'efiiie.a

14 brand new language for how people connect...every year we take the next step.and make.soTY}e

15 iie'w s'ocial!appkjxi'ssib'le; op'en~eaph enable&apps 'that fo'cus'pr'iniarilv-on.two,:.types ofthings-:

16 the:first'is.'foal'ling out your:.timeline, and the second:is"helpirig'yoii discovci.ncw',things'.tlir'ough

17 your-,:friends;:"

18 52. Facebook thus made at least four distinct promises in this September 24, 2011

19 announcement: (1) Facebook has a long-terin commitment to the Facebook Platform and ensuring

20 a fair playing field for developers and has had such a commitment for over four years now; (2)

21 Facebook is committed to extending the Facebook Platform to provide developers with more

22 ways to innovate and build businesses; (3) in keeping with this long term commitment, Facebook

23 . willcontinue to help make new kinds ofsocial apps possible; and (4) Facebook is in particular

24: focused on helping you discover new things through your friends and Facebook Platform will

25 enable developers seeking to do so.

26 '3. 643 relied upon these representations, and others, as to the fair, level playing field

27 and the open, equal, and neutral nature ofFacebook's Piatforin and Graph API, and invested

Case No. CIV 533328

19

Plaintiffs Sccorid Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 95 of 187
considerable time, energy, and money developing an application to make use ofGraph API on

2 Facebook's Platform.

V.,THE FTC ORDERED FACKBOOKNOT TO MISREPRESENT THE MANNE<R

INWHICHFACEBOOK PROVIDES ACCESS TO USER. DATA

5

54. On or about July 27, 2012, the United States Federal Trade Commission ("FTC")

entered a Decision and Order (the "FTC Order") against Facebook.

7

55. The FTC Order entered following a consent agreement between FTC and

8

Facebook.

9

56. The FTC noted in the FTC Order that the FTC had reason to believe Facebook has

10 violated the Federal Trade Commission Act.

11 57. The FTC Order provided, among other things, that Facebook and its

representatives "shall not misrepresent in any manner, expressly or by implication, the extent to

13 which it maintains the privacy or security of covered information...."

14, 58. The FTC Order defined "covered information" to include an individual

consumer's photos, among other things.

59. The FTC Order also provided that Facebook and its representatives "shall not

,misrepresent in any manner, expressly or by implication... the extent to which [Facebook]

18 'makes or has made covered information accessible to third parties."

19 VI.INDECEMBER..2012..PLAINTIFF 643 BECA'ME:A.FACKBOOKDEVELOPER

ANDBE'GAN.DEVELOPINGAN.APPLICATION.

20

21 60. In December 2012, 643 entered into the Facebook Developer Platform, which

permitted 643 to develop applications using the Graph API.

61. 643 has developed a unique automated image classification capability, which it

24, used to develop an application called Pikinis ("the App"). The App was available for download

on any iOS-compatible device, including the iPhone and iPad. The App enabled Facebook users

to reduce time spent searching by automatically classifying photos that their friends have shared

27 with them through Facebook's network, assuming their friends have provided such permission to

28

i Developers.

Case No. CIV 533328

20

Plaintiffs Second Ame'nded Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 96 of 187
1 62. The App required use of Facebook's Graph API, and specifically the Friends'

Photos Endpoint. The App used 643's pattern-recognition technology to search through shared

3 photos and identify those oftheir friends at the beach or in the summer.

4 63. The App could only be used to sort through photos that a user's friend had chosen

5 to share with that user based on the friend's Facebook privacy settings. 643 conducted initial user

6 research that indicated considerable consumer demand for the App, among both men and women.

7 Facebook has never expressed any disapproval ofthe App as the only content it accesses is

8 content already available on Facebook.

9 64. 643 made plans to market and promote the App to attract users.

10 65. 643 sold the App for $ 1.99 in Apple's App store. The basic version ofthe App

: allowed a user to run a certain number ofsearches per month. In addition, users could choose to

12 pay for premium access, which allowed unlimited searching. 643 offered different pricing tiers

13 for premium access, ranging from $ 1.99 for a monthly subscription, to $ 6.99 for 6 months, to

14 $ 9.99 for 12 months.

15 . 66. Facebook benefits from the work ofDevelopers such as 643 who create

16 applications for use with Facebook. These applications can enhance user experience and drive

17 traffic to Facebook's website and mobile app, which in turn generates revenue for Facebook

18 through advertising sales, its primaiy revenue stream. It is no secret that Facebook's'meteoric rise

19,from 24 millionusers in 2007 to almost 1.6 billion users in 2016 rested in significant part on the

20 release and growth ofFacebook Platform.

21

22

VII. FACEBOOKRE-ITERATED ITS.PROMISES'RELATED TO GRAPH API

AND FACKBOOKPLATFORMAT ITS 2014 FS CONFERENCE

67. The extension ofthe Graph API at F8 2011 was simply the next step in Facebook's

23

long term commitment to serve as a platform for other developers, a commitment that every

24

statement and action it took since May 2007 (a period ofwell over 4 years) reaffirmed without a

25

shadow of a doubt. The extension ofthe Facebook Platform continued to accelerate the massive

26

economy Facebook had built. By January 2012, Facebook Platform had created 232,000 jobs in

27 'he EU alone, amounting to $ 15.3 billionofvalue to the European economy. By February 2012,

28

Case No. CIV 533328

21

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 97 of 187
1 250 millionpeople were playing games on Facebook Platform each day (that is 12 times more

2 people than the average viewership ofAmerican Idol, the highest-rated TV show in the history of

3 television). By April 2012, 7 ofthe 10 highest grossing apps in the Apple App Store werc built on

4 Facebook Platform. (See http://mashable.corn/2012/05/24/facebook-developer-platform5 infographic/1fDCxuACag5qr.) It should be noted, in large part due to its long-term commitment

6 to the Facebook Platform, Facebook exceeded 1 billionusers in 2012.

7 68. By April 30, 2014, at the 2014 F8, having accumulated over 1.3 billionusers,

8

'acebook decided that certain parts ofthis massive application ecosystem it had built (along with

9 hundreds ofthousands ofdevelopers and billions ofdollars of outside investment capital) were

10 better kept to itself. Despite having made this decision, Facebook made numerous promises that it

11 explicitlynever intended to keep. Zuckerberg announced during his keynote: "This is gonna be a

12 different kind ofF8. In the vast we'e had F8 w'hen we'e bad a big product announcement or

13,new direction we'were'Coins~ in..This:alwavs:meant a lot of different chances-for vour alps.,Now

14 we'e focused on building a stable'mobil'e platform; You'rc'trvin'e to:build meat:-mobile:apns'and

15 busii~'e'sscs;: A'nd w'o want to brihi~ this':.community.toietlier onc'e ver"vcar.t6'tall< about:all'the .

16 different':th'inzm were doinz to sunnott'-vou. %c'vc.heard:froin'. You'.that vou''w'aint'.to iae Faceboolc

17 Platform to do 3 things. Help vou build, mow and monetize vour alps.."

18 69. Thus, Zuckerberg reiterated the promise that Facebook had expressed to

19 developers unequivocally for over seven years now: that Faccbook is committed in the long term

20,to helping them build, grow and monetize their apps.

21 70. Zuckerberg continued: '!As Isaid'we'.re reall'v.'focused:on', building';a stable"mobile

22 platform. And one thing vou mav not know, is tliat all ofour mobile a@vs axe built on top ofthe

23 .verv same platform and APIs that vou,guvs use when vou're writing Facebook and all our

24,engineers use the same tools and read all the same documentation that vou do.... It's reallv.

25 .i'mpo'rtant,for vou"an'd for all''ofour teams internallv.fhat w'e"build.stable and.,cffici'ent

26 'in&astructure.tlult vou can rely on for the long~ term. So tlus:has been areallv'big focus for us.... I

27 want to start today bv going through a few thini~s we'e doine to make our platform even more

28 stable and reliable for vou to build, grow and monetize your apps, You want to be able to build

22

Case No. CIV 533328 Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 98 of 187
1 somethine and know that it's Lonna be able to work for a while. So todav for the first time we'e

2 introducing a 2-'vear.stabilitv puarantue for- all. of our. core API platforms...so even ifwe chango

3 these core APIs in the future. we're:i~uaranteeing that we'e going.to keen supporting them as is

4 for at least two years and maybe longer from the time we make that'.change; We'e still.gonna

5 'experiinent with new features and diffeicist:thihes but wc're':iioi>na''mark them as beta'so vou

6 know what's gonna be'gait.of this core stable platform. We'e also introducing API versioning

7 This is something we want to make sure that all the apps we wrote two'vears,'apo keen workinp.

8 Th'is is sonfcthi~ii" w'e w'an'te'd.in'teinallv'as we"build;6n.'this.ulat'form,.so'isow eVerythiiij~ is gonna':

9 be versioned so vou set to decide which version ofthe API.vou.get to build against."

10 71. Accordingly, Zuckerberg made at least four promises that: (1) Facebook continues

to provide a level playing field to developers where developers use the same tools as Facebook

12 employees to develop apps; (2) Facebook continues to be committed in providing developer

13 'access "that you can rely on for the long term"; (3) Facebook promises that for all ofits core API

14 endpoints it willguarantee their stability for no less than two years going forward; (4) Facebook

15 promises that it willlet developers choose which version ofthe API they would like to access as

16 'it introduces API versioning ("This is something we want to make sure that all the apps we wrote

17 two years ago keep working. This is something we wanted internally as we build on this platfoiin,

18 so now everything is gonna be versioned so vou'e~t:to d'ee'ide which version ofthe API you get to

19 build against.").

20 72. Many developers initiallyapplauded Zuckerberg's 2-year stability guarantee and

21 the ability to let developers choose which version ofthe API to build against. One blogger

22 applauded Facebook's commitment to developers in noting: "Facebook co-founder and CEO

23 .

'Mark Zuckerberg announced a two-year stability guarantee for all ofthe company's core APIs

24 and platforms. In fact every API launched by Facebook willnow be versioned, and developers

25 willbe able to choose which version to build on." (See

26 http://thenextweb.corn/facebook/2014/04/30/facebook-announces-two-year-stability-guarantee27 core-apis-sla-fix-major-bugs-within-48-hours/1gref ) TechCrunch and many other bloggers also

28 reported on the API Guarantee, stating that developers "willbe able to build with confidence

23

Case No. CIV 533328 Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 99 of 187
1 knowing that a core API willbe available for at least two years". (See

2 http://techcrunch.corn/2014/04/30/facebook-api-guarantee/.)

VIII.,FACKBOOKTlIL<"NIMPLEMENTEDPOLICIES THATDEPARTED

,RADICALLYFROM ZUCI<KRBKRG'8;ANNOUNCKMKNTATFS 2014

73. Unfortunately for the Developer community, Zuckerberg's announceincnt directly

5

contradicted the policy that Facebook immediately began implementing that very day.

6

Zuckerberg's statement that Developers, like Facebook employees, would be able to choose

7

which API to use was simply false, and he must have known this statement to be false at the time

8

he made it as only hours later Facebook sent Developers a notice that the Graph API they had

9

come to rely on and upon which Facebook had enticed them to invest billions ofdollars around

10

was to be permanently retired in one year. Zuckerberg explicitlyomitted and contradicted the

11

one-year lifespan of Graph API during his keynote address. But given that Zuckerberg's

12

announcement and the notice to developers occurred on the very same day, Zuckerberg must have

13

known ofthis change while making his statements and approved ofsuch changes in advance.

14

74. Moreover, the 2-year stability guarantee turned out not to apply to the original

15

Graph API and only to future APIs. Thus Facebook pulled the rug out from under the Developer

16

community and took full econoinic advantage ofthe ecosystem Developers had built, but

17

Zuckerberg's keynote address still generated sound bites consistent with his previous

18

representations that Facebook was maintaining a fair and level playing field for Developers.

19

Zuckerberg was forced to make statements he knew at the time to be false precisely because it

20

was obvious to everyone in the developer community, especially Zuckerberg, that Facebook had

21

for seven years been making clear and unambiguous promises to developers that they could rely

22

on Facebook Platform over the long term to provide a fair playing field and to enable developers

23

to build businesses.

24

25

75. Finally, Graph API explicitlyremoved endpoints that were ofhigh value to

Developers, like the ability to access Photos, which for years Facebook had touted as one ofits

26

most valuable and highly trafficked features in order to entice developers to build applications.

27

Facebook's only justification for removing access to photos was that this endpoint was "rarely

28

Case No. CIV 533328

24

Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 100 of 187
1 used", which contravenes every public stateinent Facebook had previously stated for over seven

2 years in which Photos were consistently touted as its 1I application and driver ofuser

3 engagement, an application that captured more photos and traffic than the next three photo sites

4 on the Internet combined.

5 76. Facebook's behavior ofintentionally inducing Developers to build Facebook's

6 business and then pulling the rug out from under them is a repeated pattern in Facebook's growth

7 stoiy. It is not an isolated incident simply related to Graph API versioning and the thousands of

8 developers, like 643, whose businesses were destroyed by this bait and switch tactic.

9 77. As an example, Facebook recently executed another bait and switch tactic that

10 caused thousands ofDevelopers to go out ofbusiness and lose countless millions of dollars of

11 enterprise value and capital investment. At the same time that Zuckerberg pulled the rug out from

12 Developers using photos and other endpoints in the Graph API at F8 2014, he also announced

13 Facebook's acquisition and reliance on Parse as its new preferred tool for developers to build on

14 Facebook Platform. Parse was a popular development platform for creating applications for

15 Facebook, which handled much ofthe back-end functionality ofsuch applications, allowing

16 Developers to focus on features that matter to users. Zuckerberg stated in the same keynote where

17 he announced the Graph API 2.0: "One ofthe'things we'e really excited about offering is

18 Parse...We make it easy to focus on your app, the thing that willget you users and make you

19 money...and Parse takes care ofall the rest." A Facebook employee who followed Zuckerberg on

20 stage went on to note that they had expanded the free tier to make it easier to grow on Parse,

21 giving developers "unlimited requests, unlimited recipients, free analytics". Zuckerberg then

22 finished his thoughts on Parse by saying "We'e excited, we'e aligned with your app, and we

23 hope that it does get huge."

24 78. As a result ofthis and many other similar statements and actions by Facebook,

25 hundreds ofthousands ofDevelopers began using Parse to build applications on Facebook

26 Platfoim. Parse's platform on Facebook states: "From startups to the Fortune 500, hundreds of

27 thousands ofdevelopers trust us."

28

Case No. CIV 533328

25

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 101 of 187
1 79. Then, abruptly, on January 28, 2016, Facebook announced that Parse would be

2 shutting down: "We have a difficultannouncement to make. Beginning today wc're winding

3 down the Parse service, and Parse willbe fullyretired after a year-long period ending on January

4 28, 2017. We'e proud that we'e been able to help so many ofyou build great rnobilc apps, but

5 we need to focus our resources elsewhere." The statement continues: "We understand that this

6 won't be an easy transition... We know that many ofyou have come to rely on Parse, and we are

7 striving to make this transition as straightforward as possible."

8. 80. Many developers immediately commented on the devastating effect this would

9 . have on their app, business and investment in the Facebook Platform. One developer wrote:

10 "@Parselt Wow... Have spent months optimizing my app with your service to launch soon, and

11 now this... Seems sudden... 1utterlydisappointed." Another: "@Parselt it would be nice to hear a

12 little bit more about the need to focus your resources elsewhere." "@ParseIt my app had 2.5M

13 users on your platform...this is sickening."

14 81. The incident with Parse demonstrates a continued clear pattern on the part of

15 Facebook to make clear and unambiguous promises to developers, to engage in conduct that

16 induces developers to make substantial investments oftime and money (a11 ofwhich helped make

17 Facebook one ofthe most valuable companies in the world today), and then Facebook seems to

18 think that it can violate these promises with impunity the moment it becomes convenient for them

19 to do so.

20 IX.PLAINTIFF643'.RECEIVED NOTICE FROM FACEBOOK THATITS APP

WOULDNO'LONGER EUNCTION

21

82. On January 20, 2015, Facebook sent an email to 643 stating that 643 must

22

"upgrade" the App to Graph API v. 2.0 by April 30, 2015. The email stated that Facebook would

23

end third-party access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint on April 30, 2015. The App willnot

24

function at all without access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint, so Facebook's suggestion that 643

25

"upgrade" the App to Graph API v. 2.0 was not possible.

26

83. By deciding to end access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint, Facebook has made it

27

impossible for 643 to continue to operate the App, to abide by the license agreements and

28

26

Case No. CIV 533328 Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 102 of 187
1 purchase terms entered into by 643 with its users, and for 643 to recoup any ofits investinent of

2 capital, huinan labor, time, effort, and energy.

3 84. 643 has sold approximately 5,000 copies ofthe App since its beta launch. A

4 substantial portion ofApp users have paid for premium access. 643 was not able to execute its

5 full public launch as a result ofFacebook's decision.

6 85. Each one ofthe. App users entered into a license agreement with 643.

7 86. Facebook requires Developers to enter into license agreements with users of

8 applications for Facebook. These license agreements must, among other things, require that the

9 users ofthese applications adhere to Facebook's terms ofservice.

10 87. Accordingly, Facebook knew, or had reason to know, about the existence of 643's

11 license agreements with its users.

12 88. Had Facebook refrained from ending access to Friends'hotos Endpoint, 643

13 could have quickly begun to generate hundreds ofthousands of dollars ofrevenue on a monthly

14 basis.

15 89. In total, 643 expended approximately $ 1.15 millionin capital and uncompensated

16;labor by its team members in developing and marketing the App.

17 90. 643 attended Facebook events for Developers and made known the harm caused

18 verbally and via email to the appropriate Facebook employees.

19 91. Faced with the imminent loss ofits investment, 643 wrote to Facebook on March

20 16, 2015, and informed Facebook that its decision to discontinue access to the Friends'hotos

21 Endpoint would harm 643 in several ways. 643 informed Facebook that it had reasonably relied

22 on Facebook's representations that the endpoints would remain open, and that Developers would

23 .have an equal opportunity to integrate applications into the social graph.

24 92. 643 requested that Facebook continue to permit Developers to have access to the

25 Friends'hotos Endpoint.

26 93. 643 alerted Facebook to the considerable harm it would suffer should access be cut

27 off. 643 also noted that some ofits users had entered into subscriptions that extend beyond the

28 .April 30, 2015, cut-offdate, and that these users could be entitled to refunds oftheir purchases.

27

Case No. CIV 533328 Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 103 of 187
94. Thus Facebook had actual knowledge ofthe contracts 643 had entered into with its

2 users. In addition, Facebook had actual knowledge ofthe prospective economic relationships 643

3 expected with its users, as well as Facebook users generally.

4 95. On or about April30, 2015, Facebook did end access to the Friends'hotos

5 Endpoint.

6 96. As a result of Facebook ending access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint, the App no

7 longer functions.

8 97. On information and belief, Facebook has been working on its own applications

9 'using image recognition.

10 98. On June 15, 2015, less than two months after closing access to the Friends'hotos

11 Endpoint for Developers, Facebook announced the launch of "Moments," which allows users to

12 "sync" photos they have taken with their friends and, using Facebook's facial recognition

13 soAware, allows users to search photos that their friends have shared with them. See

14 http://newsroom.fb.corn/news/2015/06/introducing-moments/ (last accessed October 27, 2015).

15 99. Instagram is an on-line photo sharing service that Facebook acquired in 2012.

100. In June 2015, just two months after Facebook closed access to the Friends'hotos

17 Endpoint, Instagram announced enhancements to its Search and Explore features, which allow

18 users to search through photos that have been shared with that user on Instagram.

19 101. On information and belief, in addition to 643, other Developers have been

20,adversely impacted by Facebook closing access to certain endpoints of Graph API, including

21 'riends'hotos.

22 102. On September 21, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that Facebook's decision

23 to restrict access to Graph API has caused a drug addiction researcher to halt his research efforts,

24 shut down a voter-registration tool used by the 2012 Obama campaign, and decommissioned an

25 app designed to help first generation college students connect with one another. Deepa

26 Seetharaman % Elizabeth Dwoskin, "Facebook's Restrictions on User Data Cast a Long Shadow;

27 Curbs disrupt startups, academic research and even political strategy"," THE WALLSTREET J.,

28

Case No. CIV 533328

28

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 104 of 187
Sept. 22, 2015, at B1 (available at

2 http://www.wsj.corn/articles/facebooksrestrictionsonuserdatacastalongshadow1442881332).

3 103. The Wall Street Journal also reported in the same article that Facebook reached an

4 unspecified compromise with dating app Tinder that permitted some form of access to photos of

5 mutual friends.

6 104. Facebook has not offered 643 a coinprornise that would permit the App to function

7 and even ifFacebook were to make such an offer, the harm to 643 is irreparable as its team

8 members have moved on to new employment and its code has been fullyretired.

9 105. Instead, the only proposed teclinical "fix"by Facebook was to create an offline,

10, searchable cache ofFacebook's users'hotos. But this solution (1) on its face violates

Facebook's own terms, (2) would not permit the App to function as originally intended and in the

12 same manner it had been, and (3) could result in a grave and substantial abuse ofuser trust,

13 violate user privacy, and gut the core principle of an individual's ownership and control oftheir

14 own data.

15 106. Facebook did not terminate access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint for the purpose

16 of enhancing user privacy, as users already possessed complete control over such data. Instead, it

17 took these actions for the purpose ofimproperly monopolizing for itselfthe ability to access the

18 data previously accessible through the Friends'hotos Endpoint and other terminated endpoints,

19 and to create applications based on those data. As a result ofthese actions, users now have less

20 control over this data. They are not permitted to share it with other applications they trust but only

21 .with Facebook.

22 107. In sum, Facebook acts as a platform when it wants to exploit Developer creativity

23 and resources, and a monopolist when it wants to secure areas ofthe ecosystem for itself once

24 developer creativity and resources have been invested.

25 108. As set forth above, Facebook made repeated, clear, and unambiguous promises

26 upon which many developers, including 643, relied, over a period ofmore than seven years, and

27 which were broken by Facebook. These broken promises directly and substantially harmed 643,

28

Case No. CIV 533328

29

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 105 of 187
nullifyingits investment oftime and money and making it impossible to generate revenues and

2 profits.

3. 109. Facebook deliberately baited, induced, and enticed (through countless promises in

4 both words and conduct) developers to help turn Facebook from a website that had raised $ 37

5 million and secured 24 millionusers to a company that is now one ofthe most valuable

6 enterprises in the world.

7 COUNT I: VIOLATIONOF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS:CODE~'85.1 7200 et sea.

[Against all Defendants]

110. 643 re-alleges and repleads paragraphs 1 through 109 as though set forth fully

9

herein.

10

111. Facebook's representations and conduct were designed to, and did, entice 643 and

other Developers to create applications for Facebook with promises of, ainong other things, a

12

level playing field, fair competition, and a chance to build a business. Facebook decided to open

13

'certain endpoints, and not others, precisely to induce developers to build certain types of

14

applications, including advanced photo-searching applications. Facebook promised Developers

15

that their own advanced photo-searching applications would be treated on a level playing field

16

with any photo-searching applications Facebook decided to launch in the future. Facebook also

17

promised developers it was committed over thc long term to enable Developers to build

18

businesses using advanced photo-searching applications.

19

112. Facebook caused substantial harm to 643 and other Developers when it then

20

decided to terminate Developers'bility to build advanced photo-searching applications, while

21

retaining its own ability to create these kinds of applications, because 643, like other Developers,

22

had invested considerable time and resources in developing this kind of application for Facebook.

23

113. The efforts by 643 and other Developers helped to drive user adoption of

24

Facebook by enhancing user experience, thus creating substantial additional revenue and user

25

base for Facebook's benefit.

26

114. In addition, Facebook took advantage ofthe market research and development

27

efforts by 643 and other Developers, which proved that advanced photo-searching applications

28

Case No. CIV 533328

30

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 106 of 187
1 represented a massive market, perhaps one ofthe most attractive markets to help Facebook grow

2 its revenues going forward, as evinced by Facebook's recent announcement of "Moments", its

3 own photo searching application (see "Facebook Moments is a Smarter Photo App —Much

4 Smarter, in Wired Magazine, June 15, 2015, http://www.wired.corn/2015/06/faccbook5 moments/).

6 115. Facebook's decision to end access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint does not

7 enhance user privacy because the App could only sort through photos that had already been

8 shared with the App user and the App user and the user's friends had full control over which, if

9 any, developers were permitted to access their photos.

10 116. Instead, by ending Developer access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint, Facebook

has monopolized for itselfthe ability to create applications capable ofsearching or sorting photos,

12 which harms consumers, Developers, and competitors.

13 117. No countervailing benefits to competition or consumers stemming from

14 Facebook's representations and conduct exist.

15 118. The harm to 643 and other Developers by Facebook's representations and conduct

16 outweighs the reasons, justifications, or motives for the representations and conduct by Facebook.

17 119. 643 could not have reasonably avoided its injury because Facebook only

18 announced its decision to terminate access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint after 643 had made

19 considerable investment and Facebook had approved the App.

20 120. 643 also requested that Facebook not end access to Friends'hotos Endpoint, but

21 Facebook did not change its decision.

22 121. Facebook's actions thus constituted an unfair business practice under California's

23 Unfair Business Practices Act.

24 122. Facebook's decision to end access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint was also

25 unlawful.

26 123. In taking the actions alleged herein, Facebook acted with fraud, malice and

27 oppression, and in reckless disregard ofthe rights of 643.

28

Case No. CIV 533328

31

Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 107 of 187
1 124. 643 suffered substantial injury as a result of Facebook's actions, including the loss

2 ofits investinent in developing the App and lost revenue.

3 125. Accordingly, Facebook is liable to 643 for violation ofCalifornia's Unfair

4 Business Practices Act.

5 126. As a proximate result ofthe acts and conduct of Facebook herein alleged, 643 has

6 found it necessary to engage attorneys, and incur attorney's fees, and willcontinue to incur

7 attorney's fees, in an unascertained ainount to be established according to prooffollowingthe

8 conclusion oftrial.

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

herein.

COUNT II: PROMlSSORY ESTOPPEL,

[Against all Defendants]

127.. 643 re-alleges and repleads paragraphs 1 through 126 as though set forth fully

128. Facebook clearly and unambiguously promised that:

a. Developers would be able to integrate their applications into Faccbook's social

graph;

b. Developers would have the same access to integration oftheir applications as

Facebook;

c. Developers could easily access Graph API objects;

d. Facebook would suppoit Developers in achieving mass distribution ofDeveloper

applications;

e. Facebook would provide adequate tools for developers to build their applications;

f. Developers would be able to build a business on Facebook Platform;

g. Developers would be able to monetize their applications on Facebook by selling

ads on their application pages;

h. Developers would be able to build applications on a fair, level playing field;

i. Developer applications would not be "second class citizens" compared to

Facebook's own applications;

Case No. CIV 533328

32

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 108 of 187
j. Developer applications that compete with Facebook applications would be

welcome; and

k. As long as Developer applications abided by Facebook Terms of Service,

Facebook willbe neutral as to these applications.

5 129. 643 invested considerable capital, labor, time, and effort into developing the App

6 in reliance on these promises.

130. 643's reliance was reasonable because Facebook had consistently made these

8 representations for seven years without ever stating that it could prevent Developers from

9 building the specific kinds of applications Facebook was enticing them to build all along.

10 131. 643's reliance was foreseeable by Facebook.

132. 643 was injured as a result ofits reliance on Facebook's promises, which

12 Facebook did not keep, in an unascertained amount in excess of $ 25,000.00, to be established

13 according to proof at trial.

14 133. Accordingly, Facebook is liable to 643 for damages.

15

17

18

19

20

2]

22

23

24

25

26

27

herein.

.COUNT III:NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

[Against all Defendants]

134. 643 re-alleges and repleads paragraphs 1 through 133 as though set forth fully

135. Facebook represented that

a. Developers would be able to integrate their applications into Faccbook's social

graph;

b. Developers would have the same access to integration oftheir applications as

Fac cbook;

c. Developers could easily access Graph API objects;

d. Facebook would support Developers in achieving mass distribution ofDeveloper

applications;

e. Facebook would provide adequate tools for developers to build their applications;

f. Developers would be able to build a business on Facebook Platform;

Case No. CIV 533328

.33

Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 109 of 187
1 g. Developers would be able to monetize their applications on Facebook by selling

ads on their application pages;

3 h. Developers would be able to build applications on a fair, level playing field;

i. Developer applications would not be "second class citizens" coinpared to

Facebook's own applications;

6 j. Developer applications that compete with Facebook applications would be

welcome; and

8 k. As long as Developer applications abided by Facebook Terms of Service,

Facebook willbe neutral as to these applications.

10 136. Such representations were untrue, because Facebook later claimed that it had

retained for itselfthe right to terminate the Friends'hotos Endpoint, and did close the Friends'2

Photos Endpoint to Developers, while Facebook kept for itselfthe ability to develop applications

13 that access photos.

14 137. Regardless ofits actual belief, Facebook must have made those representations

15 without any reasonable ground for believing the representations to be true.

16 138. Facebook conveyed the representations in a commercial setting for a business

17 purpose, namely inducing Developers to develop applications for Facebook.

18 '39. Facebook made those representations with the intent to induce Developers,

19 including 643, to develop applications, including the App, that used the Friends'hotos endpoint,

20 thereby adding features to Facebook, enhancing Facebook's functionality and user experience,

21 and generating more revenue for Facebook.

22 140. 643 was not aware that Facebook's representations were false, and 643 developed

23 the App in reliance on the truth ofFacebook's representations.

24 141. 643's reliance on the truth of Facebook's representations was justified because

25 Facebook had consistently made these representations for seven years without ever stating that it

26 could prevent Developers from building the specific kinds of applications Facebook was enticing

27 them to build all along.

28

Case No. CIV 533328

34

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 110 of 187
142. 643 was injured as a result ofits reliance on Facebook's representations, in an

2 unascertained amount in excess of $ 25,000.00, to be established according to proof at trial.

143. In taking the actions alleged herein, Facebook acted with fraud, malice and

4 oppression, and in reckless disregard ofthe rights of 643

144. Accordingly, Facebook is liable to 643 for damages.

COUNT IV:INTENTIONAL'INTE<RF<ERKNCE.WITHCONTRACT.,

[Against all Defendants]

145. 643 re-alleges and repleads paragraphs 1 through 144 as though set forth fully

herein.

146. 643 had entered into license agreements and subscriptions for premium access

10

with its users.

11

147. Facebook knew ofthese license agreements and subscriptions.

12

148. Facebook intentionally interfered with and disrupted these contracts when it stated

that it would end 643's access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint on April 30, 2015, despite

knowing that interference with these contracts would be certain or substantially certain to occur

as a result ofFacebook's act in ending 643's access.

16

149. Facebook further intentionally interfered with and disrupted 643's contracts with

17

18

its users when it did terminate 643's access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint on A '1 pll 30 2015

despite knowing that interference with these contracts would be certain or substantially certain to

occur as a result ofFacebook's act in ending 643's access.

20

21

150. 643's contract with its,users was thereby disrupted by Facebook.

151. As a result, 643 has suffered and willsuffer damage in an unascertained amount in

23

excess of $ 25,000.00 to be established according to proof at trial.

24

152. In taking the actions alleged herein, Facebook acted with fraud malice and

oppression, and in reckless disregard ofthe rights of 643.

25

26

153. Accordingly, Facebook is liable to 643 for damages.

27

28

Case No. CIV 533328

35

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 111 of 187
4 herein.

COUNT V: INTENTIONALINTERFERKNCKWITIX

PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS

[Against all Defendants]

154. 643 re-alleges and repleads paragraphs 1 through 153 as though sct forth fully

5 155. 643 had an expectation of economic benefit from third parties, including its users

6 who downloaded the App and other Facebook users who may have downloaded the App if643

7 had marketed the App as it planned.

156. Facebook knew of 643's relationship with the users ofthe App, and knew of 643's

9 plans to market the App.

10 157. Facebook intentionally disrupted these relationships when it announced that it

11 would end 643's access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint on April 30, 2015, despite knowing that

12 interference with these relationships would be certain or substantially certain to occur as a result

13 ofFacebook's act in ending 643's access.

18 159. 643's relationship with its users was thereby disrupted, and willbe further

1 9 disrupted.

20 160. As a result, 643 suffered dainage in an unascertained amount in excess of

21 $25,000.00 to be established according to proof at trial.

161. In taking the actions alleged herein, Facebook acted with fraud, malice and

23 oppression, and in reckless disregard ofthe rights of 643.

14 158. Facebook further intentionally interfered with and disrupted 643's relationships

15 with its users when it did terminate 643's access to the Friends'hotos Endpoint on April 30

16 2015, despite knowing that interference with these relationships would be certain or substantially

17 certain to occur as a result ofFacebook's act in ending 643's access.

24

25

26

162. Accordingly, Facebook is liable to 643 for damages.

JURY.TRIALDEMAND.

163. 643 demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable,

27

28

Case No. CIV 533328

36

Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 112 of 187
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff643 asks this Court to enter judgment against Defendant

3 Facebook, Inc., as follows:

4 A. Ajudgment or order declaring Facebook's conduct, as alleged, unlawful under

5 California's Unfair Business Practices Act;

6 B. Ajudgment, order, or award of damages adequate to compensate 643;

7 C. A permanent injunction prohibiting Facebook from removing Developer access to

8 the Friends'ser Photos Endpoint;

9 D. A permanent injunction prohibiting Facebook from interfering with 643's

10 contracts or prospective business relations;

11 E. An award ofits reasonable attorneys'ees and costs;

12 F. Punitive damages and/or treble damages as provided by California's Unfair

13 Business Practices Act; and

14 G. Such other further relief as this Coute or a jury may deem proper and just.

15

16,Dated: February 26, 2016

17

CRITERION LAW

BIRNBAUM&GODKIN, LLP

18

19

20

21

22

Basil P. Fthm<6; Esq.':

David S. Godkin (admitted pro hac vice)

Andrew A. Caffrey, III(admitted pro hac vice)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Six4Three, LLC

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. CIV 533328

37

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Injunction and Damages

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 113 of 187
Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 114 of 187
EXHIBIT EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 115 of 187
f8 Event and Facebook Platform FAQ

What is f8?

f8 was an event held at the San Francisco Design Center on May 24, 2007, during which Mark Zuckerberg

unveiled the next evolution of Facebook Platform. The event included an eight-hour "hackathon," where both

Facebook engineers and outside developers collaborated on building new applications on the new Facebook

Plafform.

What is a "hackathon"?

A hackathon is an all-night coding event during which Facebook engineers work on any project that interests

them. Facebook uses the word "hackathon" to refer to a gathering of engineers, who possess technical expertise

and collaborate on innovative projects. Facebook has a tradition of holding frequent developer hackathons, which

have spawned some of the most popular features and applications on the site.

What is Facebook Platform?

Facebook Platform is a development system that enables companies and developers to build applications for the

Facebook website, where all of Facebook's 24 million active users can interact with them. Facebook Platform

offers deep integration into the Facebook website, distribution through the social graph and an opportunity to build

a business.

What is the social graph?

The social graph is at the core of Facebook. It is the network of connections and relationships between people on

Facebook and enables the efficient spreading and filtering of information. Just as people share information with

their friends and the people around them in the real world, these connections are reflected online in the Facebook

social graph.

What is a Facebook application?

A Facebook application uses Facebook Plafform to access information from the social graph, offering users an

experience that's relevant to them. Facebook applications can plug into the Facebook website in a number of

ways: applications can be embedded on users'rofile pages, reside on their own separate pages (called "canvas"

pages), or live through desktop applications using data from the Facebook social graph.

What's new in Facebook Platform?

We'e been adding functionality since Facebook Platform first shipped in beta in August 2006. With the latest

evolution of Facebook Platform however, third-party developers can now create applications on the Facebook site

with the same level of integration as applications built by internal Facebook developers. Now developers

everywhere have the ability to create Facebook applications that deeply integrate into the Facebook site, as well

as the potential for mass distribution through the social graph and new business opportunities.

Why did Facebook launch Facebook Platform?

Our engineers have created great applications for Facebook, but we recognized that third-party developers can

help us make Facebook an even more powerful social utility. Facebook Platform gives developers everywhere the

tools to create applications that we just wouldn't have the resources to build in-house, and those applications

make Facebook an even better way for our users to exchange information. Developers also benefit from

Facebook Platform as it gives them the potential to broadly distribute their applications and even build new

business opportunities.

What kinds of applications can be built on Facebook Platform?

The kinds of applications developers can build on Facebook Platform are limited only by their imaginations.

Because applications are based on the Facebook social graph they can be more relevant to users, keeping

people in touch with what and whom they care about. We'e already seen a variety of applications built by our

developer partners, including those for sharing media files, book reviews, slideshows and more. Some of the

156 University Avenue ~ Palo Alto, CA 94301 ~ T: 650-543-4800 ~ F: 650-543-4801

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 116 of 187
p9IRc@g ggl' Fc%vt~ fp~~+I'~~

K4 ~~i i8 RPKIIP~ -~f!~i

J i ~,,iggvi',~~ 73RI 192KaGI hl IPN C~ gg lpga

. >

i [I)I I!il '~ 'l'-+PP[ ', i+

@~lanai

Ql I? xi I!~ kill 'a c?a ~~ir, if ii0 g~g ! ~~~ /

~ g i( (~lhK4 I LC W+! g, Ii ill Ql ~. I I%1

"ra'. g@ ~ Q~~, 8 l i2X V Ii g Ii.iiIi@ M It1 I + @4

possibilities of Facebook applications are illustrated in the Facebook Platform Application Directory, available at

http://www.facebook.corn/apps.

Are there any restrictions on what developers can build?

Developers are encouraged to exercise their creativity when building applications. Of course, all applications are

subject to the Terms of Service that every developer agrees to, which include basic requirements such as not

storing any sensitive user information, not creating any offensive or illegal applications, and not building anything

that phishes or spams users. And users will always have the power to report any applications that compromise

Facebook's trusted environment, keeping our users'nformation safe.

What are the benefits of Facebook Platform for users?

With Facebook Platform, users gain the ability to define their experience on Facebook by choosing applications

that are useful and relevant to them. Now that they have access to a virtually limitless set of applications from

outside developers, users have an unprecedented amount of choice. They can share information and

communicate with their trusted connections in ways that would never have been possible before Facebook

opened its platform.

How do users add applications to and remove applications from their account?

lf a user sees an application she likes on a friend's profile, she can add it to her account by clicking the "Add" link

on the application's profile box. She can also add new applications by navigating to the application's specific

page in the Facebook Platform Application Directory and clicking "Add Application" in the top-right corner. To

remove an application, she first clicks "Applications" on the left navigation bar. From there, she can "Remove" any

of the applications in her account, whether they are built by a developer partner or by Facebook.

What are the privacy controls for Facebook Platform, and what kind of user information can be shared?

On Facebook, users are always in control of their information and can choose how much of their information is

made available to specific applications. With Facebook Platform, we'e offering additional privacy controls and

requiring that third parties treat user information with the same respect we do—and our users have come to

expect. Users can also choose to completely opt out of making their data available through Facebook Platform.

Applications can never violate users'asic privacy settings and are meant to provide users with a better

opportunity to share their information with their friends and networks.

What do third-party applications do with user information?

Applications built by third parties are required to respect Facebook users'rivacy preferences. Third-party

applications allow users and their friends to share information in new ways, without affecting the security and

privacy that they'e always enjoyed on Facebook.

How many applications are there for Facebook Platform?

At f8, we are launching with over 85 applications from more than 65 developer partners, and that's only the

beginning. We'e encouraging interested developers everywhere to create Facebook applications. We have no

limits on the number of applications that can be created.

What differentiates Facebook applications from widgets on other sites?

Facebook applications are deeply integrated into the site and take advantage of the network of real connections

through which users share information and communicate —what we call the "social graph." Widgets are typically

single-purpose Flash add-ons to-a web page (i.e, displaying a single video) that are not fully integrated into a site

nor are aware of the social context among users.

How willFacebook maintain its minimalist style if users can add and move applications around on their

profile?

We'e giving our users the choice to add applications and control their placement in their profiles, but we'e not

changing the essential layout and familiar style of the Facebook site. Facebook applications are focused on

providing new ways to spread information on Facebook, not about redesigning the way a profile looks. For

example, users will not be able to change the site background, add music that plays when their profiles load, or

156 University Avenue ~ Palo Alto, CA 94301 ~ T: 650-543-4800 ~ F: 650-543-4801

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 117 of 187
insert animation into their profiles. Individual applications may play media, music or animations but only when a

visitor to that profile interacts with them.

How willFacebook deal with applications that compete with one another or even compete with Facebookbuilt applications?

We welcome developers with competing applications, including developers whose applications might compete

with Facebook-built applications. Many applications are likely to offer similar features. We'e designed Facebook

Plafform so that applications from third-party developers are on a level playing field with applications built by

Facebook. Ultimately, our users will decide which applications they find most useful, and it is these applications

that will become the most popular.

How willFacebook monetize Facebook Platform?

Allthe great applications built by our developer partners provide a service to our users and strengthen the social

graph. The result is even more engaged Facebook users creating more advertising opportunities.

Can Facebook applications include ads?

We want to enable developers to build a business on their Facebook applications, so we'e giving developers the

freedom to monetize their applications as they like. Developers can include advertising on their

applications'anvas

pages, though no advertising will be allowed within the application boxes that appear within user profiles.

Are you going to share revenue with developers?

While revenue sharing is not available at launch, we are looking into ways to share advertising revenue with

developers. This version of Facebook Platform already lets developers monetize their applications as they like,

whether they choose to offer it for free or build a business on their application.

What are the key technical elements of Facebook Platform?

Facebook Platform offers several technologies that help developers use data from the social graph. In addition to

the Facebook API, this recently launched version of Facebook Platform introduces Facebook Markup Language

(FBML), which enables developers to build applications that deeply integrate into the Facebook site. Facebook

Platform also includes Facebook Query Language (FQL), which lets developers use a SQL-style interface to

query the data they can access through the API.

For more details on the technology behind Facebook Plafform, check out the Facebook Developer site at

http://developers.facebook.corn.

111

156 University Avenue ~ Palo Alto, CA 94301 ~ T: 650-543-4800 ~ F: 650-543-4801

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 118 of 187
Attotney ot'at ty without Attorney:

ALANH. PACKER, SBN 124724

NEWMEYER &, DILLIONLLP

1333 N. CALIFORNIABLVD.

SUITE 600

WALNUTCREEK, CA 94596

Telephone No: 925-988-3200 FAXNot 925-988-3290

Ref. No. or File No

Attorneyfor: Plaintiff

Insert name ofCourt, and Judicia!Disttict and Branch Court:

Superior Court OfThe State OfCalifornia - Countv Of San Mateo

Plaintiff: BUTLERREALTY,LLC

Defendant: CALIFORNIACAPITALINSURANCE COMPANY

PROOF OF SERVICE Hean'ng Date: Time:

SUMMONS

I. At the time ofsetvice Iwas at least 18 years ofage and»ot a party to this action.

Fot Cortrt Use Only

Flt Em)

SAN Lti 'tTEO COUNTY

FEB 2 6 2016

Qr QQQft lt

Dept/Dint Case Nutnbet:

CIV536982

2. I served copies ofthe SUMMONS; CIVILCASE COVER SHEET; COMPLAINT;ADR INFORMATIONPACKET; NOTICE OF

CASE MANAGEMENTCONFERENCE

3. a. Party served:

b. Person setved:

CALIFORNIACAPITALINSURANCE COMPANYDAVISTINDALL,AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS

MICHAELJOHNSON, CONTROLLER. AUTI-IORIZEDTO ACCEPT SERVICE

OF PROCESS.

4. Address whet e the party was served 2300 GARDEN ROAD

MONTEREY, CA 93940

5. Ise>ved the party:

a. by personal service. I personally delivered the documents listed in item 2 io the party or person authorized to receive

process for the party (1) on: Thu., Jan. 21, 2016 (2) at: 9:22AM

6. The "Notice to the Person Setved" (on the Summons) was completed as follows:

on behalf of: CALIFORNIACAPITALINSURANCE COMPANY

Under CCP 416.10 (corporation)

7. Person FVlro Served Papers:

a. HECTOR GARCIA

1511 West Beverly Blvd.

, ~01'I, Les Angeles, CA90026

~

~

Telephone (213) 250-9111

I I u:,I ~1

)

Fax (213) 250-1197

www.firstlegalnetwork.corn

Recoverable Cost Pcr CCP 1033.5(a)(4)(B)

d. The Fee for Setvice wast

e. I am: (3) registered California process server

(i) Independent Contractor

(ii) Registration No.: 100

(iii) County: Monterey

8. Ideclare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State ofCa 'ia that the 'cgoing is true and correct.

Date: Fri, Jan. 22, 2016

Judicial Council Form POS-010

Rule 2.150.(a)em(b) Rev January 1, 2007

PROOF F SERVICE

SU MONS %3N7I »di f7690N.

C1

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 119 of 187
PH fAGGO

SUMMONS

(CITACIONJUQICIAL)

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:

(AVISOALDEINANDADO):

ELIZABETHM.B. KARNAZES,EDWARDL. NOVAK,LAURAJ.

WONS, and DOES 2 to 20, inclusive

YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:

(LO ES TA DENANDANDOEL DENANDANTE):

JOHN E. FERRY and KIRSTEN FERRY

SUIN-100

FOR COURT USE ONLY

(SOLO PARA USO OE iACORTE)

p-:-; gg

pe l', r,„',; tt -t 4 QQUNYY

FFg g

IS /III1II-

—.hoes e

hi Qr '

, Deputy

Pv I (Adjunto)

NOTICEI You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information

below.

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy

served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form ifyou want the court to hear your

case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts

Online Self-Help Center (

/yM/t/t/courtinfo.ca.govisellhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. Ifyou cannot pay the filing fee, ask

the court clerk for a fee waiver form. Ifyou do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property

may be taken without further warning from the court.

There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. Ifyou do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney

referral service. Ifyou cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate

these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (wl/wtt/1aM/helpcalifomia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center

(wh/r/h/r/courtinfo.ca.govlselfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and

costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $ 10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court willdismiss the case.

.(. i iauleni Lo hen demandado Sino.msponde dentm de 30 diesis con,e puede decidir en su contra sin escucharsu uersidn Lea ia in.ihrmacian a

continuacidn.

Tiene 30 DlAS DE CALENDARIOdespurss de que ie entreguen esta citacidn ypapeies iegaies para presentar Una iespuesta por escrito en esta

corte y hacer que se entfegue una copia ai demandante. Una carta o una iiamada telefdnica no io protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que ester

en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en ia corte. Es posibie que haya Un fonnuiario que usted pueda Usar para su respuesta.

Puede encontrar estos formuiarios de ia corte y masinformacidn en ei Centro de Ayuda de ias Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en ia

biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en ia corte que ie quede as ceica. Si no puede pagar ia cuota de presentacidn, pida ai secretario de la corte

que le dfs un formuiario de exencidn de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder ei caso porincumpiimiento y la corte le

poCha quitar su sueido, dinero y bienes sin as adveffenc/a.

Hay otros requisitos iegaies. Es recomendabie que liame a un abogadoinmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede iiamar a Un servicio de

remisidn a abogados. Si no puede pager a un abogado, es posibie que cumpia con los requisitos para oblener servicios iegaies gratuitos de un

programa de servicios legaies sin fines de lucio. Puede encontfar estos grupos sin fines de lucio en ei sitio web de California Legal Services,

(www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en ei Centro de Ayuda de ias Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o ponitsndose en contacto con ia corte o ei

coiegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reciamar las cuotas y los costos exentos porimponer Un gravamen sobre

cuaiquier recuperacidn de $10,000 cS as de valor recibida mediante Un acuerdo o Una concesidn de arbitraje en Un caso de de/echo civil. Tiene que

pagar ei gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar ei caso.

The name and address of the court is:

(El nombre y direcci6n de la corte es): San Mateo Superior Court

400 County Center CIV535965

Redwood City, CA 94063

The name, address, and telephone number of plaintifPS attorney, or plaintiffwithout an attorney, is:

(El nombre, la direcci6n y el nf'Jmero de teldfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):

John E. Ferry,ahtd JLhsatcatt/eny / P.O. Box 55621, Hayward CA 94545 / l650) 422~

(Fecha) iSecretario)

(For proof ofservice ofthis summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).)

(Para prueba de entrega de esta citati6n use el formuiario Proof of Service of Summons, (POSNOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served

1. ~ as an individual defendant.

2. ~ as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):

ea "a

4!'==-'.=-'= ~g, 3.

~ on behalf of (specify):

under: ~ CCP 416.10 (corporation) CCP 416.60 (minor)

d y

s

CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) ~ CCP 416.70 (conservatee)

CCP 416 40 (association or partnership) ~ CCP 416.90 (authorized person)

4. ~

by personal delivery on (date):

Form Adopted for Mandatory Use

Judkchat Council of Califomha

SUM-100 IRev. July 1, 200th)

ANSH06.g SUMMONS

Parte 1 of 1

Code of CNhl Procedure SS 41 2 20, 465

wrvhv.courtinfo.ca.gov

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 120 of 187
I

1

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 121 of 187
EXHIBIT C 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 122 of 187
I

2

a

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

ll

t2

l3

r4

15

t6

t7

l8

t9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Basil P. Fthenakis, Esq. (88399)

CRITERION LAW

2225 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 200

Palo Alto, California 94303

Tel. (650) 3s2-8400

Fax. (650) 352-8408

bpf@criterionlaw,com

Of counsel:

David S. Godkin (admittedpro hac vice)

BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP

280 Summer Street

Boston, MA02210

(617) 307-6t00

godkin@birnbaum godkin, com

James Kruzer (admittedpro hac vice)

BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP

280 Summer Street

Boston, MA02210

(617) 307-6100

kruzer @birnbaum godkin, c om

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

SIX4THREE, LLC, a Delaware

limited liability company

SIX4THREE, LLC, a Delaware limited

liability company,

Plaintiff,

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COLINTY OF SAN MATEO

Case No. CIV533328

PLAINTIF'F SIX4THREE LLC'S

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT

FACEBOOK' INC.'S SPECIALLY

PREPARED INTERROGATORIES (SEÏ'

T\ilO)

FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware

corporation and DOES l-50, inclusive,

Defendant.

case No, 533328 643 RESPONSE 1'O FACEBOOK'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 123 of 187
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9

10

il

t2

13

t4

l5

16

t7

l8

t9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROPOUNDING PARTY: DEFENDANT FACEBOOK' INC.

RESPONDING PARTY: PLAINTIFF SIX4THREE LLC

SET: ONE

Plaintiff Six4Three, LLC ("643") hereby objects and responds as follows to the Specially

Prepared Interrogatories (Set One) ("Special Interrogatories") propounded by Defendant

Facebook, Inc. ("Defendant").

PLAINTIFF'S GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Each and every Special Interrogatory is subject to the General Objections and limitations

set forth herein ("General Objections"), in addition to the specific objections and limitations set

forth in the respective responses. The General Objections and limitations form part of the

Response to each Special Interrogatory and are set forth to avoid duplication for each response.

643 makes the following General Objections to each Special Interrogatory:

1. Responding Party objects to the Special Interrogatories to the extent they are

unduly burdensome and oppressive in the context of this action'

2. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories insofar as they seek

communications protected by the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C, ${j 2701 , et seq.,

('oSCA"), which prohibits service providers from disclosing electronic communication content

stored on a remote computing service.

3. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories to the extent they seek

information subject to the SCA pertaining to Users.

4. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories to the extent they seek

information 643 is legally or contractually prohibited from disclosing, including information that

would require Responding Party to breach a confidentiality contract, protective order, settlement,

or other duty to a third party to maintain confidentiality'

5. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories to the extent they are

unduly burdensome and oppressive in the context of this aotion.

6. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories to the extent they are

covered by the attorney-client privilege, settlement privilege, work-product doctrine, or other

-lCase No, 533328 ó43 RESPONSE TO FACEI]OOK'S SPECIAL IN'IERROGATORfES

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 124 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

ll

t2

l3

14

l5

t6

t7

18

19

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

applicable privilege. Any such documents will not be provided in response to these requests for

production and any inadvertent production shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege with

respect to such documents or of any work-product protections attaching to such documents,

7. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories to the extent they require

disclosure of documents containing proprietary or confidential information, trade secrets, or

information that may implicate third-party privacy rights.

8. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories to the extent they are

vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, overly broad, or harassing,

9. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories to the extent they seek

documents not relevant to the subject matter of this action or reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence.

10. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories to the extent they seek

information not within the possession, custody or control of Responding Party. An objection on

this ground does not constitute a representation or admission that such documents exist.

I I . Respondin gParty objects to these Special Interrogatories insofar as they seek

information already in Propounding Party's possession, custody or control, or that can be

obtained by Propounding Party with equal burden or directly from Users.

12. Responding Party objects to these Special Interrogatories to the extent they

to impose obligations beyond those required or allowed by the California Code of Civil

Procedure.

13. Responding Party objects to the definitions of ooDocuments" and

"Communicationsoo to the extent they impose any obligations with respect to the production of

electronically stored information that are different from or in addition to those imposed by the

California Code of Civil Procedure. Responding Party further objects to these definitions to the

extent they include electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible due to

undue burden or expense, obtainable from another source that is less burdensome, and/or

unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or where the likely burden or expense outweighs the

likely benefit.

-2-

Case No. 533328 643 RESPONSE TO FACEBOOK'S SPECIAL INI'ERROGATORIES (SET TWO)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 125 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1l

t2

l3

t4

15

t6

17

l8

t9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14. Responding Party objects to the definitions of "643," "Plaintiff," "You," and

ooYour" on the grounds that they are overbroad and call for information covered by the attorneyclient and work product privileges.

15, Responding Party's responses are based solely upon information presently

available and specifically known to Responding Party. As such, Responding Party's responses are

made without prejudice to its right subsequently to add, modify or otherwise change or amend

these responses. Responding Party reserves the right to change any ofits objections or responses

as new information is discovered. Specifically, Responding Party reserves the right to introduce

other information or documents, use information that it may later determine to have been

responsive to these requests, and revise, correct, supplement or clarify any of its witten responses

at any time.

These General Objections are incorporated into each and every objection to Propounding

Party's specific requests for production, All responses are subject to, preserve and do not

constitute a waiver of these General Objections.

OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROG.ATORIES

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

State ALL antitrust laws that YOU contend Facebook's conduct threatens an incipient

violation of, or violates the policy or spirit of,

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 33:

Responding Party incorporates each of the General Objections and further objects to this

demand to the extent that it: (l) is vague and ambiguous; (2) is overly broad and unduly

burdensome in seeking "ALL laws"; (3) calls for information covered by the attorney-client

privilege and work product privileges; (4) seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of

this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and

(5) seeks information equally available to Defendant.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds that

its analysis, investigation and discovery are ongoing and it does not intend to limit evidence at

-3-

Case No. 533328 643 RESPONSE TO FACEBOOK'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 126 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

ll

l2

l3

t4

15

t6

t7

l8

t9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

trial to matters stated herein. Facebook's conduct repeatedly violates Business and Professions

Code g 17200 et seq, by engaging in: (1) unlawful business acts or practices; (2) unfair business

acts or practices; (3) fraudulent business acts or practices; (4) unfair, deceptive, untrue or

misleading advertising; and (5) business acts or practices prohibited bV $$ 17500-17577 .5.

Further, Facebook's conduct repeatedly violates Business and Professions Code $$ 17500 et seq,,

which prohibits advertising goods or services that Facebook knew or should have known were

likely to deceive, Facebook's conduct also repeatedly violates California's Consumer l,egal

Remedies Act (Cal. Civ, Code $$ 1750 et seq,) protecting consumers against unfair and deceptive

business practices (Cal. Civ. Code $ 1760) and various violations of Cal. Civ. Code $ 1770.

Finally, Facebook's conduct repeatedly violates Business and Professions Code $$ 16600 et seq.

prohibiting contracts that restrain engagement in a lawful profession, trade or business of any

kind.

Facebook's conduct also violates Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15

U.S.C. $ 45) prohibiting unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or

deceptive practices in or affecting commerce. Facebook's conduct further violates Section I of

the Sherman Act prohibiting contracts in restraint of trade or commerce. Facebook's conduct

further repeatedly violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibiting the monopolization or

attempt to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among states. Facebook's conduct

further repeatedly violates Section 2 of the Clayton Act, the Robinson-Patman Price

Discrimination Act, prohibiting discrimination of price between different purchasers where the

effect is to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Facebook's conduct further

repeatedly violates Section 3 of the Clayton Act prohibiting agreements that require avoidance of

services or goods from competitors that tend to create a monopoly or lessen competition,

Facebook's conduct further repeatedly violates the Cartwright Act, Business and Professions

Code $$ 16720 et seq., prohibiting trusts or actions in concert in restraint of trade or commerce,

Facebook's violations further include numerous per se violations resulting frtlm tying agrcetttettts

with a host of third parties,

-4-

Case No, 533328 643 RESPONSE TO FACI]BOOK'S SPECIAI" INTERROCATORIES (SE]-TWO)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 127 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

ll

l2

13

t4

l5

l6

T7

l8

t9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

F'inally, Facebook's conduct violates numerous other state laws that are accessible via

Business and Professions Code $$ 17200 et seq., including but not limited to New York General

Business Law $$ 349 et seq, prohibiting deceptive acts or practices in conduct of any business,

trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service. Facebook's conduct further violates

Business and Professions Code $ 17200 et seq. by reason of its tortious conduct, including but not

limited to constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation of material fact, intentional interferenoe

with contract and intentional interference with prospective business relations,

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34:

State ALL laws that YOU contend Facebook's concluct violates RELATED TO YOLJR

claim for violation of Business and Professions Code $ 17200 et seq.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 34;

Responding Party incorporates each of the General Objections and further objects to this

demand to the extent that it: (l) is vague and ambiguous; (2) is overly broad and unduly

burdensome in seekin g"ALL laws"; (3) calls for information covered by the attorney-client

privilege and work product privileges; (4) seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of

this litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; and

(5) seeks information equally available to Defendant.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party responds that

its analysis, investigation and discovery are ongoing and it does not intend to limit evidence at

trial to matters stated herein. Facebook's conduct repeatedly violates Business and Professions

Code $ 17200 et seq. by engaging in: (l) unlawful business acts or practices; (2) unfair business

acts or practices; (3) fraudulent business acts or practices; (4) unfair, deceptive, untrue or

misleading advertising; and (5) business acts or practices prohibited by $ $ 17500- l 7 577 .5.

Further, Facebook's conduct repeatedly violates Business and Professions Code S$ 17500 et seq.,

which prohibits advertising goods or services that Facebook knew or should have known were

likely to deceive, Facebook's conduct also repeatedly violates Califtlrnia's Cottsuttter Legal

Remedies Act (Cal, Civ. Code $$ 1750 et seq.) protecting consumers against unfair and deceptive

business practices (Cal, Civ, Code g 1760) and various violations of Cal. Civ. Code $ 1770'

-5-

Case No. 533328 643 RESPONSE TO F'ACEBOOK'S SPECIAL INTERROCAI'ORIES (SET TWO)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 128 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

I

9

l0

ll

l2

l3

t4

t5

t6

t7

18

t9

20

2l

22

¿J

24

25

26

27

28

Finally, Facebook's conduct repeatedly violates Business and Professions Code $$ 16600 et seq.

prohibiting contracts that restrain engagement in a lawful profession, trade or business of any

kind.

Facebook's conduct also violates Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15

U.S,C. $ 45) prohibiting unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or

deceptive practices in or affecting commerce, Facebook's conduct further violates Section 1 of

the Sherman Act prohibiting contracts in restraint of trade ot commerce. Facebook's conduct

further repeatedly violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibiting the monopolization or

attempt to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among states. Facebook's conduct

further repeatedly violates Section 2 of the Clayton Act, the Robinson-Patman Price

Discrimination Act, prohibiting discrimination of price between different purchasers where the

effect is to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly, Facebook's conduct further

repeatedly violates Section 3 of the Clayton Act prohibiting agreements that require avoidance of

services or goods from competitors that tend to create a monopoly or lessen competition.

Facebook's conduct further repeatedly violates the Cartwright Act, Business and Professions

Code $$ 16720 et seq., prohibiting trusts or actions in concert in restraint of trade or commerce.

Facebook's violations further include numerous per se violations resulting from tying agreements

with a host of third parties,

Finally, Facebook's conduct violates numerous other state laws that are accessible via

Business and Professions Code $$ 17200 et seq., including but not limited to New York General

Business Law $$ 349 et seq. prohibiting deceptive acts or practices in conduct of any business,

trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service. Facebook's conduct further violates

Business and Professions Code $ 17200 et seq. by reason of its tortious conduct, including but not

limited to constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation of material fact, intentional interference

with contract and intentional interference with prospective business relations.

-6-

Case No, 533328 643 RESPONSE TO FACEBOOK'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 129 of 187
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

1l

t2

l3

t4

l5

16

t7

l8

t9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DATED: January ll,2017 CRITERION LAW

UM GODKIN

IP

David S. Godkin (admittedpro hac vice)

James E. Kruzer (admittedpro hac vice)

Attomeys for Plaintiff

Six4Three, LLC

By:

-7-

Case No. 533328 643 RESPONSE TO FACEBOOK'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 130 of 187
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9

l0

1l

l2

l3

14

15

t6

t7

l8

t9

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF' OF' SERVICE

I,.lames E. Kruzer, declare:

I am a citizen of the United States and employed in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. I am

over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address

is 280 Summer Street, Boston, MA 02210. On January 12,2017 ,l served a copy of the within

document(s):

PLAINTIFF SIX4THREE LLC'S RESPONSE TO DEIìENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.'S

SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES (SET TV/O)

l.-l By electronically mailing a true and conect copy through Birnbaum & Godkin, r-¡ LLP's electronic mail system to the email addresses set forth below.

soNAL N. MEHTA (SBN 222086)

LAURA E. MILLER (SBN 2717t3)

CATHERTNE Y. KIM (SBN 308442)

Durie Tangri LLP

217 Leidesdorff Street

San Francisco, CA 94lll

Telephone : 41 5 -362-6666

Facsimile: 41 5 -236-6300

smehta@durietan gri, com

lmil ler@durietangri.com

ckim@durietangri.com

Attorney for Defendant

FACEBOOK, INC.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above

is true and correct,

Executed January 12,2017, at Boston, Massachusetts

f/c

James E. Kruzer

-8-

Case No. 533328 643 RESPONSE TO FACEI]OOK'S SPECIAI- INTERROGATORIES (SET TWO)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 131 of 187
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

-1-

Case No. 533328 643 VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION

I, Ted Kramer, as a certified representative of Plaintiff Six4Three LLC (“643”), certify 

and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that I have read and 

reviewed 643’s Answers to Facebook’s Second Set of Specially Prepared Interrogatories; and 

believe them to be true and accurate based on the information available to 643 at the present time.

Executed January 11, 2017, at San Francisco, California.

By: Ted Kramer

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 132 of 187
EXHIBIT D 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 133 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 1/45

Case Information

CIV533328 | SIX4THREE, LLC VS FACEBOOK, INC, ET AL

Case Number

CIV533328

Court

Civil Unlimited

File Date

04/10/2015

Case Type

(07) Unlimited Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice

Case Status

Active

P arty

Plaintiff

SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT COMPANY

Active Attorneys 

Lead Attorney

FTHENAKIS, BASIL P

Retained

Defendant

FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

Active Attorneys 

Attorney

MILLER, LAURA E.

Retained

Attorney

KIM, CATHERINE Y.

Retained

Lead Attorney

MEHTA, SONAL N

Retained

Inactive Attorneys 

Attorney

SCHWARTZ, JULIE E

Retained

Cause of Action

File Date Cause of Action Type Filed By Filed Against

04/10/2015 Complaint Action SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE

LIMITED LIABILIT COMPANY

FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE

CORPORATION

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 134 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 2/45

Events and Hearings

04/10/2015 Complaint 

(S) COMPLAINT FILED

Comment

COM: (S) COMPLAINT FILED

04/10/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*FEE: 150410-0768-CK 194/ 435.00 PAYMT

04/10/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*REFNM: 150410-0768-CK REFERENCE NUMBER D3395386

04/10/2015 Civil Case Cover Sheet 

CIVIL CASE COVERSHEET RECEIVED

Comment

CCS: CIVIL CASE COVERSHEET RECEIVED

04/10/2015 Summons Issued / Filed 

30 DAY SUMMONS, ISSUED AND FILED.

Comment

S30IF: 30 DAY SUMMONS, ISSUED AND FILED.

04/10/2015 New Filed Case

04/10/2015 Cause Of Action 

Action

Complaint

File Date

04/10/2015

06/09/2015 Conversion Action 

Comment

EXFEE: EX-PARTE FEE PAID BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT.

06/09/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*FEE: 150609-0544-CK 036/ 60.00 PAYMT

06/09/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*REFNM: 150609-0544-CK REFERENCE NUMBER 123

06/09/2015 Ex Parte Application 

EX PARTE APPLICATION ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS FILED.

Comment

EXV: EX PARTE APPLICATION ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS FILED.

06/09/2015 Declaration 

DECLARATION OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS REGARDING NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE ORDER FI

Comment

DECL: DECLARATION OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS REGARDING NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE ORDER FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE

LIMITED LIABILIT

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 135 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 3/45

06/09/2015 Declaration 

DECLARATION OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE ORDER EXTENDING FILED BY S

Comment

DECL: DECLARATION OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE ORDER EXTENDING FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED

LIABILIT

06/09/2015 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT IN SUPPOR

Comment

MPA: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS

06/09/2015 Order 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS, SIGNED BY JUDGE SCOTT ON 06/09/15 FILED.

Comment

O2: ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS, SIGNED BY JUDGE SCOTT ON 06/09/15 FILED.

06/16/2015 Conversion Action 

Comment

*620*: HCMC1I CALENDARED ON 08/21/15 IN DEPT. 7. HAS BEEN UPDATED TO 08/21/15 IN DEPT. 21.

07/10/2015 Conversion Action 

PROOF OF SERVICE (QUESTIONABLE SERVICE) OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMI

Comment

PSQS: PROOF OF SERVICE (QUESTIONABLE SERVICE) OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT AS TO FACEBOOK, INC,

A DELAWARE CORPORATION FILED. SERVICE QUESTIONABLE BECAUSE NAMED DEFENDANT MUST MATCH COMPLAINT EXACTLY.

08/03/2015 Proof of Service by PERSONAL SERVICE of 

PROOF OF SERVICE (PERSONAL) OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF DEMANDS FOR INSPECTION DOCS TO DEFT FACEBOO

Comment

PSN2: PROOF OF SERVICE (PERSONAL) OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF DEMANDS FOR INSPECTION DOCS TO DEFT FACEBOOK, INC SERVED ON FACEBOOK, INC, A

DELAWARE CORPORATION WITH SERVICE DATE OF 07/31/15 FILED.

08/06/2015 Case Management Statement 

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION.

Comment

CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION.

08/06/2015 Proof of Service by MAIL of 

PROOF OF SERVICE (BY MAIL) OF CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST WITH A SERVICE D

Comment

PSN3: PROOF OF SERVICE (BY MAIL) OF CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST WITH A SERVICE DATE OF 08/06/15 FILED.

08/06/2015 Case Management Statement 

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT.

Comment

CMS: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT.

08/13/2015 First Paper Fee Paid 

Comment

FFP4: MOTION FEE PAID BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT.

08/13/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*FEE: 150813-0215-CK 037/ 20.00 PAYMT

08/13/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*REFNM: 150813-0215-CK REFERENCE NUMBER 007780

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 136 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 4/45

08/13/2015 Conversion Action 

Comment

*620*: HCMC1I CALENDARED ON 08/21/15 IN DEPT. 21. HAS BEEN UPDATED TO 08/21/15 IN DEPT. 7.

08/17/2015 Conversion Action 

Comment

COMM1: DPET 7 STIP TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLT

08/20/2015 Stipulation & Order 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LI

Comment

SO: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT, FACEBOOK, INC, A

DELAWARE CORPORATION.

08/20/2015 Notice 

NOTICE OF JURY FEE DEPOSIT BY PLAINTIFF FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT.

Comment

N: NOTICE OF JURY FEE DEPOSIT BY PLAINTIFF FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT.

08/21/2015 Conversion Hearing 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Judicial Officer

Dylina, Steven L

Comment

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

08/21/2015 Conversion Minute 

Judicial Officer

Dylina, Steven L

Comment

JCR1: HONORABLE STEVEN L. DYLINA, JUDGE PRESIDING. CLERK: CHERYL LYSSAND. COURT REPORTER: NONE.

08/21/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: ATTORNEY(S): ANDREW CAFFREY AND BASIL P. FTHENAKIS APPEARED BY COURTCALL ON BEHALF OF THE

08/21/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: PLAINTIFF.

08/21/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

AT: ATTORNEY(S): JULIE E. SCHWARTZ APPEARED BY COURTCALL ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT.

08/21/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

COM: THE COURT IS INFORMED THE RESPONSIVE PLEADING IS DUE SEPTEMBER 8, 2015.

08/21/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

HC: HEARING CONTINUED TO 11/13/15 AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT 21.

08/21/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

PDUCMS: PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT SHALL SUBMIT AN UPDATED CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT.

08/21/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

MICMS: ENTERED BY C LYSSAND ON 08/21/15.

08/21/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

COM1: - 5 -

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 137 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 5/45

08/21/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

PMO: MINUTE ORDER PRINTED.

08/21/2015 Advance jury fee (Nonrefundable) 

Comment

AJFEE: ADVANCE JURY FEE POSTED BY PLAINTIFF ON BEHALF OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT.

08/21/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*FEE: 150821-0186-CK 209/ 150.00 PAYMT

08/21/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*REFNM: 150821-0186-CK REFERENCE NUMBER D3429513

08/21/2015 Case Management Conference 

Original Type

Case Management Conference

Judicial Officer

Dylina, Steven L

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Conversion Continuance

Comment

Dept: 7 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

09/08/2015 First Paper Fee Paid 

Comment

FFP: FIRST PAPER FEE PAID BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION.

09/08/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*FEE: 150908-0735-CK 195/ 435.00 210/ 30.00 PAYMT

09/08/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*REFNM: 150908-0735-CK REFERENCE NUMBER 008687

09/08/2015 Conversion Action 

(S) DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A

Comment

DEM: (S) DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION REPRESENTED

BY JULIE E SCHWARTZ

09/08/2015 Request for Judicial Notice 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLTF'S COMPLAINT FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A

Comment

RJN: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLTF'S COMPLAINT FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION.

09/08/2015 Declaration 

DECLARATION OF JEREMY E. JORDAN IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A

Comment

DECL: DECLARATION OF JEREMY E. JORDAN IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

09/08/2015 Declaration 

DECLARATION OF JULIE E. SCHWARTZ IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC,

Comment

DECL: DECLARATION OF JULIE E. SCHWARTZ IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 138 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 6/45

09/08/2015 Proof of Service 

PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER, ETC SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST BY OVERNIGHT DELI

Comment

POSI: PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER, ETC SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - FEDERAL EXPRESS WITH A

SERVICE DATE OF 09/08/15.

09/10/2015 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT IN SUPPOR

Comment

MPA: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION OF ANDREW A

CAFFREY FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

09/10/2015 Declaration 

DECLARATION OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS RE: SERVICE ON THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA AND PAYMENT OF REQ FEE

Comment

DECL: DECLARATION OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS RE: SERVICE ON THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA AND PAYMENT OF REQ FEE FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A

DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT

09/10/2015 Order received 

PROPOSED ORDER RECEIVED.

Comment

POR: PROPOSED ORDER RECEIVED.

09/10/2015 Notice 

NOTICE OF HEARINF RE: APPLICATION OF ANDREW A. CAFFREY, I II, ESQ. FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE FILED

Comment

N2: NOTICE OF HEARINF RE: APPLICATION OF ANDREW A. CAFFREY, I II, ESQ. FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED

LIABILIT.

09/10/2015 Conversion Action 

APPLICATION BY ANDREW A. CAFFREY, III, ESQ. TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR SIX4THREE, LLC, A

Comment

APHV: APPLICATION BY ANDREW A. CAFFREY, III, ESQ. TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT

09/10/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*FEE: 150911-0035-CK 164/ 500.00 210/ 30.00 PAYMT

09/10/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*REFNM: 150911-0035-CK REFERENCE NUMBER D 3435234

09/10/2015 Conversion Action 

APPLICATION BY DAVID S. GODKIN, ESQ. TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWA

Comment

APHV: APPLICATION BY DAVID S. GODKIN, ESQ. TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT

09/10/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*FEE: 150911-0043-CK 164/ 500.00 210/ 30.00 PAYMT

09/10/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*REFNM: 150911-0043-CK REFERENCE NUMBER D 3435233

09/10/2015 Notice 

NOTICE OF HEARING RE: APPLICATION OF DAVID S. GODKIN, ESQ. FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE FILED BY SIX4

Comment

N2: NOTICE OF HEARING RE: APPLICATION OF DAVID S. GODKIN, ESQ. FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT.

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 139 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 7/45

09/10/2015 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT IN SUPPOR

Comment

MPA: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION OF DAVID S. GODKIN,

ESQ. FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

09/10/2015 Declaration 

DECLARATION OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS RE: SERVICE ON THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA AND PAYMENT OF REQ FEE

Comment

DECL: DECLARATION OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS RE: SERVICE ON THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA AND PAYMENT OF REQ FEE FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A

DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT

09/10/2015 Order received 

PROPOSED ORDER RECEIVED.

Comment

POR: PROPOSED ORDER RECEIVED.

09/18/2015 Conversion Action 

APPLICATION BY JAMES R. MCCULLAGH TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE C

Comment

APHV: APPLICATION BY JAMES R. MCCULLAGH TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

09/18/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*FEE: 150921-0301-CK 164/ 500.00 210/ 30.00 PAYMT

09/18/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*REFNM: 150921-0301-CK REFERENCE NUMBER 6249

09/18/2015 Notice 

NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING APPLICATION OF JAMES R. MCCULLAGH TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FIL

Comment

N2: NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING APPLICATION OF JAMES R. MCCULLAGH TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE

CORPORATION.

09/18/2015 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION IN SUPPORT OF N

Comment

MPA: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF HEARING RE

APPLICATION OF JAMES R. MCCULLAGH TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL, ETC.

09/18/2015 Order received 

PROPOSED ORDER RECEIVED.

Comment

POR: PROPOSED ORDER RECEIVED.

09/18/2015 Proof of Service 

PROOF OF SERVICE OF FACEBOOK, INC.'S NOTICE OF HEARING, ETC. SERVED ON SEE LIST BY HAND DELIVERY AN

Comment

POSI: PROOF OF SERVICE OF FACEBOOK, INC.'S NOTICE OF HEARING, ETC. SERVED ON SEE LIST BY HAND DELIVERY AND OVERNIGHT WITH A SERVICE DATE OF

09/18/15.

09/22/2015 Conversion Action 

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS RE PAYMENT OF REQUIRED FEE TO THE STATE BAR OF CA, E

Comment

SUP: SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS RE PAYMENT OF REQUIRED FEE TO THE STATE BAR OF CA, ETC. FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A

DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT.

09/22/2015 Conversion Action 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 140 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 8/45

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS RE PAYMENT OF REQUIRED FEE TO THE STATE BAR OF CA, E

Comment

SUP: SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS RE PAYMENT OF REQUIRED FEE TO THE STATE BAR OF CA, ETC. FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A

DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT.

09/29/2015 Stipulation 

(S) STIPULATIONTO CONTINUE HEARING ON DEMURRER FILED

Comment

STIP1: (S) STIPULATIONTO CONTINUE HEARING ON DEMURRER FILED

10/02/2015 Conversion Action 

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JULIE E. SCHWARTZ REGARDING CALIFORNIA STATE BAR FEES FOR PRO HAC FILED

Comment

SUP: SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JULIE E. SCHWARTZ REGARDING CALIFORNIA STATE BAR FEES FOR PRO HAC FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE

CORPORATION.

10/05/2015 Conversion Hearing 

Judicial Officer

Etezadi, Susan I

Comment

HEARING: APPLICATION TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE BY ANDREW A. CAFFREY, III, ESQ.

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Judicial Officer

Etezadi, Susan I

Comment

JCR: HONORABLE SUSAN I. ETEZADI, JUDGE PRESIDING. CLERK: VALERIE HRONIS. COURT REPORTER: NIKI MAKELA.

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

NAP: NO APPEARANCE IS MADE BY ANY PARTIES HEREIN OR THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD.

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

TRA: TENTATIVE RULING ADOPTED AND BECOMES THE ORDER:

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: ANDREW CAFFREY AND DAVID GODKIN'S APPLICATIONS TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR PLAINTIFF

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: SIX4THREE, LLC IN THIS MATTER ARE GRANTED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: 9.40. COUNSEL HAVE PAID THE $50 FEE TO THE STATE BAR AS REQUIRED BY RULE 9.40(E) AND THE $500 FEE

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: REQUIRED BY THE SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT PURSUANT TO GOVT. CODE 70617. THEY HAVE MET ALL

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF CRC 9.40, WHICH ARE THE ONLY REQUIREMENTS TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE.

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

COM: * *.

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 141 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 9/45

Comment

FFT: IF THE TENTATIVE RULING IS UNCONTESTED, IT SHALL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT. THEREAFTER,

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: MOVING PARTY IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE A WRITTEN ORDER CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S RULING FOR THE

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: COURT'S SIGNATURE, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.1312, AND TO PROVIDE NOTICE

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: THEREOF TO THE OPPOSING PARTY/COUNSEL AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND THE CALIFORNIA RULES OF

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: COURT. THE ORDER IS TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO JUDGE SUSAN IRENE ETEZADI, DEPARTMENT 18.

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

HCOM: HEARING COMPLETED.

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

MICMS: ENTERED BY VALERIE HRONIS ON 10/05/15.

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

LINE: =====================================

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

PMO: MINUTE ORDER PRINTED.

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

PMO: MINUTE ORDER PRINTED.

10/05/2015 Conversion Hearing 

Judicial Officer

Etezadi, Susan I

Comment

HEARING: APPLICATION TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE BY DAVID S. GODKIN, ESQ.

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Judicial Officer

Etezadi, Susan I

Comment

JCR: HONORABLE SUSAN I. ETEZADI, JUDGE PRESIDING. CLERK: VALERIE HRONIS. COURT REPORTER: NIKI MAKELA.

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

NAP: NO APPEARANCE IS MADE BY ANY PARTIES HEREIN OR THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD.

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

TRA: TENTATIVE RULING ADOPTED AND BECOMES THE ORDER:

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: ANDREW CAFFREY AND DAVID GODKIN'S APPLICATIONS TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR PLAINTIFF

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 142 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 10/45

Comment

FFT: SIX4THREE, LLC IN THIS MATTER ARE GRANTED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: 9.40. COUNSEL HAVE PAID THE $50 FEE TO THE STATE BAR AS REQUIRED BY RULE 9.40(E) AND THE $500 FEE

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: REQUIRED BY THE SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT PURSUANT TO GOVT. CODE 70617. THEY HAVE MET ALL

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF CRC 9.40, WHICH ARE THE ONLY REQUIREMENTS TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE.

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

COM: * *.

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: MOVING PARTY IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE A WRITTEN ORDER CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S RULING FOR THE

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: COURT'S SIGNATURE, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.1312, AND TO PROVIDE NOTICE

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: THEREOF TO THE OPPOSING PARTY/COUNSEL AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND THE CALIFORNIA RULES OF

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: COURT. THE ORDER IS TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO JUDGE SUSAN IRENE ETEZADI, DEPARTMENT 18.

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

HCOM: HEARING COMPLETED.

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

MICMS: ENTERED BY KDUERRE ON 10/05/15.

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

LINE: =====================================

10/05/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

PMO: MINUTE ORDER PRINTED.

10/05/2015 Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice 

Original Type

Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice

Judicial Officer

Etezadi, Susan I

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 143 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 11/45

Result

Held

Comment

Dept: LM HEARING: APPLICATION TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE BY ANDREW A. CAFFREY, III, ESQ.

10/05/2015 Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice 

Original Type

Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice

Judicial Officer

Etezadi, Susan I

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Held

Comment

Dept: LM HEARING: APPLICATION TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE BY DAVID S. GODKIN, ESQ.

10/14/2015 Conversion Hearing 

Judicial Officer

Etezadi, Susan I

Comment

HEARING: APPLICATION TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE BY JAMES R. MCCULLAGH

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Judicial Officer

Etezadi, Susan I

Comment

JCR: HONORABLE SUSAN I. ETEZADI, JUDGE PRESIDING. CLERK: KEVIN DUERRE. COURT REPORTER: NIKI MAKELA.

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

NAP: NO APPEARANCE IS MADE BY ANY PARTIES HEREIN OR THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD.

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

TRA: TENTATIVE RULING ADOPTED AND BECOMES THE ORDER:

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: JAMES R. MCCULLAGH'S APPLICATION TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR DEFENDANT FACEBOOK,

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: INC. IN THIS MATTER IS GRANTED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 9.40. COUNSEL

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: HAS PAID THE $50 FEE TO THE STATE BAR AS REQUIRED BY RULE 9.40(E) AND THE $500 FEE NOW

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: REQUIRED BY THE SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT PURSUANT TO GOVT. CODE SECTION 70617. HE HAS

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: MET ALL OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF CRC 9.40, WHICH ARE THE ONLY REQUIREMENTS TO BE ELIGIBLE

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE.

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

COM: * *.

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 144 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 12/45

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: MOVING PARTY IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE A WRITTEN ORDER CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S RULING FOR THE

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: COURT'S SIGNATURE, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 3.1312, AND PROVIDE NOTICE

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: THEREOF TO THE OPPOSING PARTY/COUNSEL AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND THE CALIFORNIA RULES OF

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: COURT. THE ORDER IS TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO JUDGE SUSAN IRENE ETEZADI, DEPARTMENT 18.

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

HCOM: HEARING COMPLETED.

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

MICMS: ENTERED BY KDUERRE ON 10/14/15.

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

LINE: =====================================

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

PMO: MINUTE ORDER PRINTED.

10/14/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

PMO: MINUTE ORDER PRINTED.

10/14/2015 Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice 

Original Type

Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice

Judicial Officer

Etezadi, Susan I

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Held

Comment

Dept: LM HEARING: APPLICATION TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE BY JAMES R. MCCULLAGH

10/16/2015 Conversion Hearing 

Comment

HEARING: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

10/16/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

HC: HEARING CONTINUED TO 11/13/15 AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT LM.

10/16/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

COM: PER STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING FILED ON 09/29/15.

10/16/2015 Hearing on Demurrer 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 145 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 13/45

Original Type

Hearing on Demurrer

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Conversion Continuance

Comment

Dept: LM HEARING: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

10/20/2015 Order 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE, SIGNED BY JUDGE ETEZADI ON 10/19/15 FILED.

Comment

O2: ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE, SIGNED BY JUDGE ETEZADI ON 10/19/15 FILED.

10/30/2015 Amended Complaint 

(L) 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT FILED (AMENDED COMPLAINT)

Comment

ACM: (L) 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT FILED (AMENDED COMPLAINT)

10/30/2015 Order 

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION OF JAMES R. MCCULLAGH TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL, SIGNED BY JUDGE ETEZADI ON 1

Comment

O2: ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION OF JAMES R. MCCULLAGH TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL, SIGNED BY JUDGE ETEZADI ON 10/28/15 FILED.

11/10/2015 Conversion Action 

Comment

COMM: LETTER REQUESTING TO VACATE 11/13/15 RECEIVED.

11/13/2015 Conversion Hearing 

Comment

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/13/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

HC: HEARING CONTINUED TO 12/02/15 AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT 21.

11/13/2015 Conversion Hearing 

Judicial Officer

Lee, Elizabeth K

Comment

HEARING: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

11/13/2015 Conversion Minute 

Judicial Officer

Lee, Elizabeth K

Comment

JCRB: HONORABLE ELIZABETH K. LEE, JUDGE PRESIDING. CLERK: SYLVIA CUELLAR, COURT REPORTER: JENELL MULLANE

11/13/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

NAP: NO APPEARANCE IS MADE BY ANY PARTIES HEREIN OR THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD.

11/13/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: THIS MATTER IS MOOT. A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WAS FILED ON OCTOBER 30, 2015.

11/13/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

HCOM: HEARING COMPLETED.

11/13/2015 Conversion Minute 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 146 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 14/45

Comment

MICMS: ENTERED BY SC ON 11/13/15.

11/13/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

LINE: =====================================

11/13/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

PMO: MINUTE ORDER PRINTED.

11/13/2015 Case Management Conference 

Original Type

Case Management Conference

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Conversion Continuance

Comment

Dept: 21 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/13/2015 Hearing on Demurrer 

Original Type

Hearing on Demurrer

Judicial Officer

Lee, Elizabeth K

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Held

Comment

Dept: LM HEARING: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

11/24/2015 Conversion Action 

Comment

COMM: FAXED REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE 12/11/15 CMC RECEIVED.

12/02/2015 Conversion Hearing 

Comment

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

12/02/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

PNCMC: PRINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE NOTICE.

12/02/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*NOT: NOTICES PRINTED FOR BASIL P FTHENAKIS ON 9/25/15

12/02/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*NOT: NOTICES PRINTED FOR PC14 /JES ON 9/25/15

12/02/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

HC: HEARING CONTINUED TO 12/11/15 AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT 21.

12/02/2015 Case Management Conference 

Original Type

Case Management Conference

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 147 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 15/45

Result

Conversion Continuance

Comment

Dept: 21 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

12/03/2015 Conversion Action 

Comment

COMM: STIP AND ORDER FWD TO JUDGE SCOTT.

12/03/2015 First Paper Fee Paid 

Comment

FFP4: MOTION FEE PAID BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT.

12/03/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*FEE: 151203-0774-CK 037/ 20.00 PAYMT

12/03/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*REFNM: 151203-0774-CK REFERENCE NUMBER 091088

12/08/2015 Conversion Action 

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER TO F.A.C. SIGNED BY JOSEPH C. SCOTT ON 12/08/15.

Comment

SO2: STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER TO F.A.C. SIGNED BY JOSEPH C. SCOTT ON 12/08/15.

12/11/2015 Conversion Hearing 

Comment

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

12/11/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

PNCMC: PRINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE NOTICE.

12/11/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*NOT: NOTICES PRINTED FOR BASIL P FTHENAKIS ON 9/28/15

12/11/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*NOT: NOTICES PRINTED FOR PC14 /JES ON 9/28/15

12/11/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

HC: HEARING CONTINUED TO 03/16/16 AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT 21.

12/11/2015 Case Management Conference 

Original Type

Case Management Conference

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Conversion Continuance

Comment

Dept: 21 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

12/23/2015 First Paper Fee Paid 

Comment

FFP4: MOTION FEE PAID BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION.

12/23/2015 Conversion Minute 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 148 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 16/45

Comment

*FEE: 151223-0474-CK 036/ 60.00 210/ 30.00 PAYMT

12/23/2015 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*REFNM: 151223-0474-CK REFERENCE NUMBER 091652

12/23/2015 Conversion Action 

(S) DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT FILED BY FACEB

Comment

DEM: (S) DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

REPRESENTED BY JULIE E SCHWARTZ

12/23/2015 Request for Judicial Notice 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED

Comment

RJN: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE

CORPORATION.

12/23/2015 Declaration 

DECLARATION OF JEREMY E. JORDAN IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK INC'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY F

Comment

DECL: DECLARATION OF JEREMY E. JORDAN IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK INC'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE

CORPORATION

12/23/2015 Declaration 

DECLARATION OF JULIE E. SCHWARTZ IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK INC'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY

Comment

DECL: DECLARATION OF JULIE E. SCHWARTZ IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK INC'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE

CORPORATION

12/23/2015 Proof of Service 

PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOITCE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER, ETC SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST BY OVERNIGHT DELI

Comment

POSI: PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOITCE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER, ETC SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY WITH A SERVICE DATE OF

12/23/15.

01/13/2016 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT IN OPPOSI

Comment

MPA: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

01/13/2016 Conversion Action 

OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT

Comment

OBJ: OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT

01/13/2016 Document 

CAFFREY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLTFF'S OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, FILED.

Comment

FILED: CAFFREY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLTFF'S OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, FILED.

01/20/2016 Document 

DEFT FACEBOOK'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, FILED.

Comment

FILED: DEFT FACEBOOK'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, FILED.

01/20/2016 Response 

FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION`S RESPONSE TO PLTFF'S OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTI

Comment

RESP: FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION`S RESPONSE TO PLTFF'S OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED.

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 149 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 17/45

01/20/2016 Proof of Service 

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SEE DOCUMENT LIST SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - FEDEX WITH

Comment

POSI: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SEE DOCUMENT LIST SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - FEDEX WITH A SERVICE DATE OF 01/20/16.

01/27/2016 Conversion Hearing 

Judicial Officer

Ayoob, Donald J

Comment

HEARING: DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Judicial Officer

Ayoob, Donald J

Comment

JCR: HONORABLE DONALD J. AYOOB, JUDGE PRESIDING. CLERK: ALMA DE LA ROSA. COURT REPORTER: ROSA DE NOLA.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

AT: ATTORNEY(S): ANDREW CAFFREW & BASIL P. FTHENAKIS PRESENT FOR SIX4THREE,LLC

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

AT: ATTORNEY(S): JULIE SCHWARTZ & JIM MCCULLAGH PRESENT ON BEHALF OF FACEBOOK, INC.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

MAS: MATTER ARGUED BY COUNSEL AND SUBMITTED TO THE COURT.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

TRA: TENTATIVE RULING ADOPTED AND BECOMES THE ORDER:

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IS GRANTED PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: SECTION 452(H) AND 453(A). THAT SAID, THE LEGAL EFFECT, TRUTHFULNESS AND PROPER INTERPRETATION

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: OF THE DOCUMENTS REMAINS DISPUTABLE. SEE UNRUH-HAXTON V. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: CALIFORNIA (2008) 162 CAL APP 4TH 343, 365. A HEARING ON A DEMURRER MAY NOT BE TURNED INTO A

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: CONTESTED EVIDENTIARY HEARING THROUGH THE GUISE OF HAVING THE COURT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: DOCUMENTS WHOSE TRUTHFULNESS OR PROPER INTERPRETATION ARE DISPUTABLE. FREMONT INDEMNITY

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: CO. V. FREMONT GENERAL CORP. (2007) 148 CAL APP 4TH 97, 112-118.

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 150 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 18/45

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

COM: - -.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.'S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT IS SUSTAINED

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

COM: - -.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: THE 1ST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, THE FAC FAILS TO SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE A CLEAR,

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: UNAMBIGUOUS PROMISE BY FACEBOOK TO KEEP ITS FRIENDS PHOTOS ENDPOINT OPEN FOREVER, OR THEIR

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: REASONABLE RELIANCE ON SUCH A PROMISE. THE FAC IS BASED ON THE CONCLUSORY ALLEGATION AT 78

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: THAT FACEBOOK CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY PROMISED TO KEEP OPEN THE FRIENDS' PHOTOS ENDPOINT. AS TO

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: RELIANCE, PLAINTIFF IDENTIFIES ONLY CONCLUSORY, GENERALIZED STATEMENTS AND ALLEGED OMISSIONS

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: REGARDING FACEBOOK'S PLATFORM AND API AT THE TIME THEY WERE LAUNCHED IN 2007 AND 2010. FAC

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: 11, 22, 23. NOTHING IN THE STATEMENTS REFERRED TO THE FRIENDS PHOTO ENDPOINT AND NOTHING

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: INDICATED THAT FACEBOOK WOULD MAKE AVAILABLE ALL ENDPOINTS TO DEVELOPERS FOREVER. THIS DOES NOT

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE REASONABLE RELIANCE.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

COM: - -.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: THE 2ND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, THE FAC FAILS TO SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 151 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 19/45

Comment

FFT: ELEMENTS OF A CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION. THESE INCLUDE INCLUDE 1) A

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: MISREPRESENTATION OF A PAST OR EXISTING FACT, 2) WITHOUT REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR BELIEVING IT TO BE

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: TRUE, 3) WITH THE INTENT TO INDUCE ANOTHER'S RELIANCE, 4) JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE ON THE

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: REPRESENTATION AND

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: 5) RESULTING DAMAGE. APOLLO CAPITAL FUND, LLC V. ROTH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC (2007) 158 CAL APP

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: 4TH 226, 243. PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED A MISREPRESENTATION, INTENT, OR

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE, FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT THE PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CAUSE OF ACTION FAILS.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: IT IS ALL BASED ON THE ALLEGED PROMISE THAT FACEBOOK WAS GOING TO KEEP ITS FRIENDS PHOTOS

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: ENDPOINT OPEN IN PERPETUITY. PLAINTIFF HAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED SUCH A REPRESENTATION AND

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: PLAINTIFF'S SUPPOSED RELIANCE ON NONEXISTENT PROMISES IS UNREASONABLE.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

COM: - -.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: THE 3RD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: ESSENTIALLY RESTATES THE PLAINTIFF'S PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CLAIM, WHICH SOUNDS IN

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: CONTRACT. JRS PRODS., INC. V. MATSUSHITA ELEC.CORP. OF AMERICA (2004) 115 CAL APP 4TH

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: 168, 183. WHERE A CONTRACT CLAIM IS ALLEGED, A PLAINTIFF MAY NOT ALSO RAISE CLAIMS FOR

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 152 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 20/45

Comment

FFT: INTENTIONAL TORT THAT ARE BASED ON THE SAME ACTIVITY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE ACTIVITY

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: VIOLATES A STATUE OR WAS DONE WITH MALICE. ID. AT 182-83. THE PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CLAIM IS

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: ROOTED IN CONTRACT. IT ALLEGES THAT FACEBOOK BREACHED ITS PROMISE TO KEEP THE FRIENDS PHOTOS

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: ENDPOINT OPEN BY STATING ITS INTENTION TO END ACCESS TO THE ENDPOINT. FAC 52, 53.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

COM: - -.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: PLAINTIFF HAS ALSO FAILED TO SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE. PLAINTIFF HAS NOT PLED A

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: VALID CONTRACT; HAS NOT PLAUSIBLY ALLEGED ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE AGREEMENTS ON FACEBOOK'S PART

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: AND HAS NOT ALLEGED ANY INTENTIONAL ACTS DESIGNED TO INDUCE A BREACH. QUELIMANE CO., INC.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: V. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY (1998) 19 CAL 4TH 26, 55. SEE FAC AT 56, 57, 97-98.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

COM: - -.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: THE 4TH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: BUSINESS RELATIONS FAILS TO SUFFICIENTLY PLED THE REQUIRED ELEMENTS FOR SUCH

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: A CAUSE OF ACTION: 1) AN ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND SOME THIRD-PARTY WITH

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: THE PROBABILITY OF FUTURE ECONOMIC BENEFIT; 2) THE DEFENDANT'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE RELATIONSHIP;

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: 3) INTENTIONAL ACTS BY DEFENDANT DESIGNED TO DISRUPT THE RELATIONSHIP; 4) ACTUAL DISRUPTION

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 153 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 21/45

Comment

FFT: OF THE RELATIONSHIP AND 5) ECONOMIC HARM TO THE PLAINTIFF PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY DEFENDANT. KOREA

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: SUPPLY CO. V. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORP. (2003) 29 CAL 4TH 1134, 1153. PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: SUFFICIENTLY PLEAD ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP, DEFENDANT'S KNOWLEDGE OF THE RELATIONSHIP,

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: DEFENDANT'S INTENTIONAL ACTS DESIGNED TO INDUCE A BREACH AND NO INDEPENDENTLY WRONGFUL ACT.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

COM: - -.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: THE 5TH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF B&P CODE 17200 FAILS TO SUFFICIENTLY PLEAD THE UNFAIR,

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: UNLAWFUL OR FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICE. CEL-TECH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. V. LOS ANGELES

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY (1999) 20 CAL 4TH 163, 180. PLAINTIFF ALLEGES IN CONCLUSORY

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: FASHION THAT IN DOING THE THINGS HERE AND ALLEGED, FACEBOOK ACTED WITH FRAUD, MALICE AND

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: OPPRESSION AND IN RECKLESS DISREGARD OF PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS. FAC 56.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

COM: 30 DAYS TO AMEND IS GRANTED.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

HCOM: HEARING COMPLETED.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

MICMS: ENTERED BY ALMA DE LA ROSA ON 01/27/16.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

PMO: MINUTE ORDER PRINTED.

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

LINE: =====================================

01/27/2016 Conversion Minute 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 154 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 22/45

Comment

PMO: MINUTE ORDER PRINTED.

01/27/2016 Hearing on Demurrer 

Original Type

Hearing on Demurrer

Judicial Officer

Ayoob, Donald J

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Held

Comment

Dept: LM HEARING: DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

02/19/2016 Order 

ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, SIGNED BY JUDGE AYOOB ON 01/27/16

Comment

O2: ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, SIGNED BY JUDGE AYOOB ON 01/27/16 FILED.

02/19/2016 Order 

ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, SIGNED BY JUDGE AYOOB ON 01/27/16

Comment

O2: ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, SIGNED BY JUDGE AYOOB ON 01/27/16 FILED.

02/19/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

LAG: LEAVE TO AMEND GRANTED. SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT GRANTED 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND

02/26/2016 Conversion Action 

(U) 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT FILED (AMENDED COMPLAINT)

Comment

ACS: (U) 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT FILED (AMENDED COMPLAINT)

03/16/2016 Conversion Hearing 

Comment

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

03/16/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

PNCMC: PRINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE NOTICE.

03/16/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*NOT: NOTICES PRINTED FOR BASIL P FTHENAKIS ON 11/24/15

03/16/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*NOT: NOTICES PRINTED FOR PC14 /JES ON 11/24/15

03/16/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

HC: HEARING CONTINUED TO 05/06/16 AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT 21.

03/16/2016 Case Management Conference 

Original Type

Case Management Conference

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Conversion Continuance

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 155 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 23/45

Comment

Dept: 21 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

03/24/2016 First Paper Fee Paid 

Comment

FFP4: MOTION FEE PAID BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION.

03/24/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*FEE: 160324-0263-CK 037/ 20.00 PAYMT

03/24/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*REFNM: 160324-0263-CK REFERENCE NUMBER 22585

03/28/2016 Conversion Action 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO 2ND AMND CMPL SIGNED BY JOHN G. SCHWARTZ ON 03/2

Comment

SO2: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO 2ND AMND CMPL SIGNED BY JOHN G. SCHWARTZ ON 03/25/16.

03/28/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

LINE: =====================================

03/28/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

COM: DEFT SHALL HAVE UP TO AND INCLUDING APRIL 8, 2016 TO FILE AND SERVE ITS RESP TO 2ND AM.

03/28/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

LINE: =====================================

04/08/2016 First Paper Fee Paid 

Comment

FFP4: MOTION FEE PAID BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION.

04/08/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*FEE: 160408-0810-CK 036/ 60.00 210/ 30.00 PAYMT

04/08/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*REFNM: 160408-0810-CK REFERENCE NUMBER 23717

04/08/2016 Conversion Action 

(S) DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT FILED BY FACEB

Comment

DEM: (S) DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

REPRESENTED BY JULIE E SCHWARTZ

04/08/2016 Request for Judicial Notice 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLTFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY

Comment

RJN: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLTFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE

CORPORATION.

04/08/2016 Declaration 

DECLARATION OF JEREMY E. JORDAN IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A

Comment

DECL: DECLARATION OF JEREMY E. JORDAN IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

04/08/2016 Declaration 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 156 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 24/45

DECLARATION OF JULIE E. SCHWARTZ IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND, ETC. FILED BY FACEB

Comment

DECL: DECLARATION OF JULIE E. SCHWARTZ IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND, ETC. FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

04/08/2016 Proof of Service 

PROOF OF SERVICE OF FACEBOOK, INC.'S NOTICE OF HEARING, ETC. SERVED ON SEE LIST BY FEDERAL EXPRESS

Comment

POSI: PROOF OF SERVICE OF FACEBOOK, INC.'S NOTICE OF HEARING, ETC. SERVED ON SEE LIST BY FEDERAL EXPRESS WITH A SERVICE DATE OF 04/08/16.

04/19/2016 First Paper Fee Paid 

Comment

FFP4: MOTION FEE PAID BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT.

04/19/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*FEE: 160419-0560-CK 037/ 20.00 PAYMT

04/19/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*REFNM: 160419-0560-CK REFERENCE NUMBER 24042

04/19/2016 Conversion Action 

Comment

COMM: STIP AND PROPOSED ORDER TO RESCHEDULE HEARING ON DEMURRER - FWD TO DEPT. 27.

04/25/2016 Conversion Action 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO RESCHEDULE HEARING ON DEMURRER TO SAC SIGNED BY DONALD J. AYOOB ON 04/21/1

Comment

SO2: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO RESCHEDULE HEARING ON DEMURRER TO SAC SIGNED BY DONALD J. AYOOB ON 04/21/16.

04/28/2016 Conversion Action 

Comment

COMM: FAXED REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE 5/6/16 CMC RECEIVED.

05/05/2016 Conversion Action 

OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT

Comment

OBJ: OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT

05/05/2016 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT IN OPPOSI

Comment

MPA: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

05/06/2016 Conversion Hearing 

Comment

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

05/06/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

PNCMC: PRINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE NOTICE.

05/06/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*NOT: NOTICES PRINTED FOR BASIL P FTHENAKIS ON 3/07/16

05/06/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*NOT: NOTICES PRINTED FOR PC14 /JES ON 3/07/16

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 157 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 25/45

05/06/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

HC: HEARING CONTINUED TO 07/01/16 AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT 21.

05/06/2016 Conversion Hearing 

Judicial Officer

Ayoob, Donald J

Comment

HEARING: DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

05/06/2016 Conversion Minute 

Judicial Officer

Ayoob, Donald J

Comment

JCR: HONORABLE DONALD J. AYOOB, JUDGE PRESIDING. CLERK: ALMA DE LA ROSA. COURT REPORTER: JOCELYNE FOKHOURI.

05/06/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

NAP: NO APPEARANCE IS MADE BY ANY PARTIES HEREIN OR THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD.

05/06/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: PURSUANT TO STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES AND PRIOR ORDER OF THE COURT, THIS MATTER IS CONTINUED TO

05/06/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: MAY 18, 2016.

05/06/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

HC: HEARING CONTINUED TO 05/18/16 AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT LM.

05/06/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

MICMS: ENTERED BY ALMA DE LA ROSA ON 05/06/16.

05/06/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

PMO: MINUTE ORDER PRINTED.

05/06/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

LINE: =====================================

05/06/2016 Case Management Conference 

Original Type

Case Management Conference

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Conversion Continuance

Comment

Dept: 21 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

05/06/2016 Hearing on Demurrer 

Original Type

Hearing on Demurrer

Judicial Officer

Ayoob, Donald J

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 158 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 26/45

Result

Conversion Continuance

Comment

Dept: LM HEARING: DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

05/11/2016 Response 

FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION`S RESPONSE TO PLTFF'S OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTI

Comment

RESP: FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION`S RESPONSE TO PLTFF'S OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED.

05/11/2016 Document 

DEFT FACEBOOK'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, FILED.

Comment

FILED: DEFT FACEBOOK'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, FILED.

05/11/2016 Proof of Service 

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SEE DOCUMENT LIST SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST BY FEDERAL EXPRESS WITH A SERVICE

Comment

POSI: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SEE DOCUMENT LIST SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST BY FEDERAL EXPRESS WITH A SERVICE DATE OF 05/11/16.

05/18/2016 Conversion Hearing 

Judicial Officer

Ayoob, Donald J

Comment

HEARING: DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

05/18/2016 Conversion Minute 

Judicial Officer

Ayoob, Donald J

Comment

JCR: HONORABLE DONALD J. AYOOB, JUDGE PRESIDING. CLERK: ALMA DE LA ROSA. COURT REPORTER: ROSARIO AYON.

05/18/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

NAP: NO APPEARANCE IS MADE BY ANY PARTIES HEREIN OR THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD.

05/18/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: ON THE COURT'S OWN MOTION, THE DEMURRER BY FACEBOOK, INC. TO THE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED

05/18/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: COMPLAINT IS CONTINUED TO JUNE 15, 2016 AT 9 AM TO BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 27, THE HON. DONALD

05/18/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

FFT: AYOOB PRESIDING

05/18/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

HC: HEARING CONTINUED TO 06/15/16 AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT LM.

05/18/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

MICMS: ENTERED BY ALMA DE LA ROSA ON 05/18/16.

05/18/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

LINE: =====================================

05/18/2016 Conversion Minute 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 159 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 27/45

Comment

PMO: MINUTE ORDER PRINTED.

05/18/2016 Conversion Hearing 

Comment

HEARING: DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

05/18/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

COM: SEE PREVIOUS SCREEN FOR FULL AND COMPLETE MINUTES..

05/18/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

HCOM: HEARING COMPLETED.

05/18/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

MICMS: ENTERED BY ALMA DE LA ROSA ON 05/18/16.

05/18/2016 Hearing on Demurrer 

Original Type

Hearing on Demurrer

Judicial Officer

Ayoob, Donald J

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Conversion Continuance

Comment

Dept: LM HEARING: DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

05/18/2016 Hearing on Demurrer 

Original Type

Hearing on Demurrer

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Held

Comment

Dept: LM HEARING: DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

06/14/2016 Notice 

NOTICE WITHDRAWL AND DISCHARGE AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LI

Comment

N2: NOTICE WITHDRAWL AND DISCHARGE AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT.

06/14/2016 Conversion Action 

Comment

UA: ATTORNEY RECORD UPDATED TO SHOW BASIL P FTHENAKIS ATTORNEY FOR SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT UPDATED/CORRECTED TO

BASIL P FTHENAKIS.

06/15/2016 Conversion Hearing 

Comment

HEARING: DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

06/15/2016 Hearing on Demurrer 

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Held

Comment

Dept: LM HEARING: DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

Parties Present 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 160 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 28/45

Plaintiff

Attorney: FTHENAKIS, BASIL P

Defendant

Attorney: SCHWARTZ, JULIE E

06/17/2016 Case Management Statement 

Case Management Statement

06/20/2016 Case Management Statement 

Case Management Statement

06/23/2016 Order After Hearing 

Comment

FOR 06/15/16 RECEIVED VIA FAX ON 06/22/16 (NOT ORIGINAL) - FORWARDED TO DEPT. 27

06/30/2016 Order 

Order ON DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Comment

ON DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

07/01/2016 Conversion Hearing 

Comment

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

07/01/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

PNCMC: PRINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE NOTICE.

07/01/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*NOT: NOTICES PRINTED FOR BASIL P FTHENAKIS ON 4/28/16

07/01/2016 Conversion Minute 

Comment

*NOT: NOTICES PRINTED FOR PC14 /JES ON 4/28/16

07/01/2016 Notice of Mandatory Settlement Conference and Jury Trial

07/01/2016 Case Management Conference 

Judicial Officer

Case Management Conferences, -

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Held

Comment

Dept: 21 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Parties Present 

Plaintiff

Attorney: FTHENAKIS, BASIL P

07/05/2016 Answer / Response / Denial - Unlimited 

Answer / Response / Denial - Unlimited

07/05/2016 Notice 

Notice OF RULING

Comment

OF RULING

07/22/2016 Notice of Mandatory Settlement Conference and Jury Trial

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 161 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 29/45

08/10/2016 Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice 

Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice OF JAMES E. KRUZER, ESQ.

Comment

OF JAMES E. KRUZER, ESQ.

08/10/2016 Court Reporter service less than one hour

08/10/2016 Notice of Hearing 

Notice of Hearing RE: APPLICATION OF JAMES E. KRUZER, ESQ. FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

Comment

RE: APPLICATION OF JAMES E. KRUZER, ESQ. FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

08/10/2016 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed 

Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION OF JAMES E. KRUZER, ESQ. FOR ADMI

Comment

IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION OF JAMES E. KRUZER, ESQ. FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

08/10/2016 Declaration 

Declaration OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS RE; SERVICE ON THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA AND PAYMENT OF REQUIRED

Comment

OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS RE; SERVICE ON THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA AND PAYMENT OF REQUIRED FEE

08/10/2016 Proposed Order Received 

Proposed Order Received RE: ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION OF JAMES E. KRUZER, ESQ. FOR ADMISSION PRO HA

Comment

RE: ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION OF JAMES E. KRUZER, ESQ. FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

08/11/2016 Motion 

Motion FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS, ETC

Comment

FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS, ETC

08/11/2016 Court Reporter service less than one hour

08/11/2016 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed 

Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES

Comment

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES, ETC

08/11/2016 Separate Statement 

Separate Statement OF DEMANDS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES

Comment

OF DEMANDS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES, ETC

08/11/2016 Declaration 

Declaration OF DAVID GODKIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES, ETC

Comment

OF DAVID GODKIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES, ETC

08/12/2016 Stipulation and Order received and forwarded to Dept 

Comment

21, ADR

08/17/2016 Stipulation and Order to ADR 

Stipulation and Order to ADR

Judicial Officer

Foiles, Robert D

08/25/2016 Opposition filed 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 162 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 30/45

Opposition filed TO PLTFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS

Comment

TO PLTFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS, COMPELLING PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND FOR

SANCTIONS

08/25/2016 Declaration 

Declaration OF JULIE W. SCHWARTZ ISO FACEBOOK'S OPPOSITION TO PLTFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL, ETC.

Comment

OF JULIE W. SCHWARTZ ISO FACEBOOK'S OPPOSITION TO PLTFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL, ETC.

08/25/2016 Separate Statement 

Separate Statement FACEBOOK'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO OPPOSITION TO PLTFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL

Comment

FACEBOOK'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO OPPOSITION TO PLTFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL, ETC.

08/25/2016 Proof of Service by 

Proof of Service by FEDERAL EXPRESS served on SEE SERVICE LIST with a service date of 08/25/16

Comment

FEDERAL EXPRESS served on SEE SERVICE LIST with a service date of 08/25/16

08/30/2016 Reply 

Reply IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION

Comment

IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS, COMPELLING

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, AND FOR SANCTIONS

09/02/2016 Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice 

CIV Minute Order

Judicial Officer

Karesh, Jonathan E

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Held

09/08/2016 Motion hearings 

CIV Minute Order

Judicial Officer

Karesh, Jonathan E

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Held

Comment

FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES, ETC

Parties Present 

Plaintiff

Attorney: FTHENAKIS, BASIL P

Defendant

Attorney: SCHWARTZ, JULIE E

09/14/2016 Order received 

Comment

AND FWD TO DEPT 20

09/15/2016 Motion 

Motion FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Comment

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

09/15/2016 Court Reporter service less than one hour

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 163 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 31/45

09/15/2016 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed 

Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Comment

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

09/15/2016 Declaration 

Declaration OF DAVID S. GODKIN ISO OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Comment

OF DAVID S. GODKIN ISO OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

09/19/2016 Document 

Document LETTER TO JUDGE KARESH IN REGARDS TO PROPOSED ORDER ON MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER

Comment

LETTER TO JUDGE KARESH IN REGARDS TO PROPOSED ORDER ON MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES, ETC.

09/19/2016 Order 

Order ON MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS, ETC. S

Comment

ON MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS, ETC. SIGNED BY JUDGE KARESH ON 09/15/16

09/22/2016 Stipulation and Order received and forwarded to Dept 

Comment

20; RE CONTINUING HEARING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ON 10/06/16

09/22/2016 Motion 

Motion FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Comment

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

09/22/2016 Court Reporter service less than one hour

09/22/2016 Declaration 

Declaration OF JULIE E. SCHWARTZ ISO FACEBOOK'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Comment

OF JULIE E. SCHWARTZ ISO FACEBOOK'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

09/22/2016 Proof of Service by 

Proof of Service by FEDERAL EXPRESS served on SEE SERVICE LIST with a service date of 09/22/16

Comment

FEDERAL EXPRESS served on SEE SERVICE LIST with a service date of 09/22/16

09/27/2016 Stipulation & Order 

Stipulation & Order CONTINUING HEARING ON SIX4THREE, LLC'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by JUD

Comment

CONTINUING HEARING ON SIX4THREE, LLC'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by JUDGE KARESH 9/23/16

09/29/2016 Opposition filed 

Opposition filed TO PLTFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Comment

TO PLTFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

09/29/2016 Declaration 

Declaration OF JULIE E. SCHWARTZ IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK'S OPPOSITION TO PLTFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIV

Comment

OF JULIE E. SCHWARTZ IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK'S OPPOSITION TO PLTFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

09/29/2016 Proof of Service by 

Proof of Service by FEDERAL EXPRESS served on SEE SERVICE LIST with a service date of 09/29/16

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 164 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 32/45

Comment

FEDERAL EXPRESS served on SEE SERVICE LIST with a service date of 09/29/16

10/05/2016 Reply 

Reply TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK INC'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Comment

TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK INC'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

10/05/2016 Reply 

Reply IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Comment

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

10/13/2016 Motion hearings 

CIV Minute Order

Judicial Officer

Karesh, Jonathan E

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Held

Comment

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Parties Present 

Plaintiff

Attorney: FTHENAKIS, BASIL P

Defendant

Attorney: SCHWARTZ, JULIE E

10/13/2016 Motion hearings 

CIV Minute Order

Judicial Officer

Karesh, Jonathan E

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Held

Comment

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Parties Present 

Plaintiff

Attorney: FTHENAKIS, BASIL P

Defendant

Attorney: SCHWARTZ, JULIE E

10/24/2016 Notice 

Notice OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FACEBOOK

Comment

OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FACEBOOK

10/25/2016 ADR Evaluation Notice Sent

10/25/2016 Order After Hearing 

Order After Hearing signed by Judge Karesh 10/24/16 SIX4THREE'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FAC

Comment

signed by Judge Karesh 10/24/16 SIX4THREE'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FACEBOOK'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

10/25/2016 Order 

Order STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Judge Karesh 10/24/16

Comment

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Judge Karesh 10/24/16

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 165 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 33/45

10/28/2016 Ex Parte Fee Paid

10/28/2016 Ex Parte 

Ex Parte Filed APPLICATION TO CONTINUE OCTOBER 31 DOCUMENT PRODUCTION DEADLINE AND REMAINING CASE DE

Comment

APPLICATION TO CONTINUE OCTOBER 31 DOCUMENT PRODUCTION DEADLINE AND REMAINING CASE DEADLINES INCLUDING TRIAL DATE; ETC

10/28/2016 Opposition filed 

Opposition filed TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK INC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

Comment

TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK INC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

10/28/2016 Order 

Order GRANTING DEFT FACEBOOK INC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE OCTOBER 31 DOCUMENTS PRODUCTION

Comment

GRANTING DEFT FACEBOOK INC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE OCTOBER 31 DOCUMENTS PRODUCTION DEADLINE AND REMAINING CASE DEADLINES

INCLUDING TRIAL DATE SIGNED BY JUDGE KARESH ON 10/28/16.

10/28/2016 Order 

Order GRANTING DEFT FACEBOOK INC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL SIGNED BY JUDGE GRANDSAERT

Comment

GRANTING DEFT FACEBOOK INC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL SIGNED BY JUDGE GRANDSAERT ON 10/28/16. (COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO

MASTER CALENDAR)

10/31/2016 Notice of Mandatory Settlement Conference and Jury Trial 

Notice of Mandatory Settlement Conference and Jury Trial

10/31/2016 Motion 

Motion FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

Comment

FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

10/31/2016 Court Reporter service less than one hour

10/31/2016 Separate Statement 

Separate Statement IN SUPPORT OF DEFT FACEBOOK, INC'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Comment

IN SUPPORT OF DEFT FACEBOOK, INC'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

11/01/2016 Notice 

Notice OF APPEARANCE OF CATHERINE KIM ON BEHLAF OF FACEBOOK

Comment

OF APPEARANCE OF CATHERINE KIM ON BEHLAF OF FACEBOOK

11/03/2016 Motion 

Motion FOR ORDER TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Comment

FOR ORDER TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

11/03/2016 Court Reporter service less than one hour

11/03/2016 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed 

Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTI

Comment

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

11/03/2016 Separate Statement 

Separate Statement OF ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES IN DISPUTE

Comment

OF ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES IN DISPUTE

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 166 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 34/45

11/03/2016 Declaration 

Declaration OF DAVID S. GODKIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECI

Comment

OF DAVID S. GODKIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

11/03/2016 Motion 

Motion FOR ORDER TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET TWO)

Comment

FOR ORDER TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET TWO)

11/03/2016 Court Reporter service less than one hour

11/03/2016 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed 

Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Comment

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET TWO)

11/03/2016 Separate Statement 

Separate Statement OF DEMANDS IN DISPUTE (SET TWO)

Comment

OF DEMANDS IN DISPUTE (SET TWO)

11/03/2016 Declaration 

Declaration OF DAVID S. GODKIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND

Comment

OF DAVID S. GODKIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS, ETC

11/08/2016 ADR Mediation Scheduled

11/17/2016 Motion 

Motion TO COMPEL

Comment

TO COMPEL

11/17/2016 Court Reporter service less than one hour

11/17/2016 Notice 

Notice of LODGING OF DOCUMENTS WITH THE COURT CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL

Comment

of LODGING OF DOCUMENTS WITH THE COURT CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL

11/17/2016 Separate Statement 

Separate Statement of Facts in SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL

Comment

of Facts in SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL

11/17/2016 Declaration 

Declaration OF LAURA E MILLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFT FACEBOOK INC'S MOTION TO COMPEL

Comment

OF LAURA E MILLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFT FACEBOOK INC'S MOTION TO COMPEL

11/17/2016 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed 

Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL

Comment

IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL

11/18/2016 Proof of Service by MESSENGER SERVICE of 

Proof of Service by MESSENGER SERVICE of DEFT FACEBOOK, INC'S NOTICE OF MOT/MOT TO COMPEL; MEMO P&A;

Comment

DEFT FACEBOOK, INC'S NOTICE OF MOT/MOT TO COMPEL; MEMO P&A; ETC

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 167 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 35/45

11/21/2016 Opposition filed 

Opposition filed TO DEFT FACEBOOK INC MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER; ETC

Comment

TO DEFT FACEBOOK INC MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER; ETC

11/22/2016 Opposition filed 

Opposition filed TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATO

Comment

TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES SET ONE

11/22/2016 Response 

Response SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO

Comment

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES SET

ONE

11/22/2016 Declaration 

Declaration OF CATHERINE Y KIM IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK, INC'S OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL F

Comment

OF CATHERINE Y KIM IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK, INC'S OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIALLY PREPARED

INTERROGATORIES SET ONE

11/22/2016 Proof of Service by MAIL of 

Proof of Service by MAIL of FACEBOOK, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Comment

FACEBOOK, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE); RESPONSE; ETC

11/22/2016 Opposition filed 

Opposition filed TO DEFT FACEBOOK INC'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING PRODUCTION RESPONSIVE

Comment

TO DEFT FACEBOOK INC'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING PRODUCTION RESPONSIVE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST NOS. 5,25, AND 26

11/23/2016 Opposition filed 

Opposition filed FACEBOOK, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DE

Comment

FACEBOOK, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION O OF DOCUMENTS (SET TWO)

11/23/2016 Response 

Response FACEBOOK, INC.'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO C

Comment

FACEBOOK, INC.'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR

INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET TWO)

11/23/2016 Declaration 

Declaration of CATHERINE Y KIM IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL

Comment

of CATHERINE Y KIM IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF

DOCUMENTS (SET TWO)

11/23/2016 Proof of Service by MAIL of 

Proof of Service by MAIL of FACEBOOK, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Comment

FACEBOOK, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET TWO); ETC

11/28/2016 Reply 

Reply DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER LI

Comment

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING PRODUCTION RESPONSIVE TO

DOCUMENT REQUEST

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 168 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 36/45

11/28/2016 Declaration 

Declaration of LAURA E MILLER IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK, INC.'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTI

Comment

of LAURA E MILLER IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK, INC.'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING PRODUCTION

RESPONSIVE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST

11/30/2016 Reply 

Reply IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIALLY PREPARED IN

Comment

IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES (SET ONE)

12/01/2016 Reply 

Reply BY PLAINTIFF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND F

Comment

BY PLAINTIFF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET

TWO);ETC

12/02/2016 Ex Parte Fee Paid

12/02/2016 Ex Parte 

Ex Parte Filed PLTF SEX4THREE'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

Comment

PLTF SEX4THREE'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

12/02/2016 Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed 

Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed IN SUPPORT OF PLTF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

Comment

IN SUPPORT OF PLTF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

12/02/2016 Declaration 

Declaration OF JAMES E KRUZER IN SUPPORT OF PLTF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

Comment

OF JAMES E KRUZER IN SUPPORT OF PLTF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

12/02/2016 Order 

Order Signed by Judge Karesh DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE DEFT FACEBOOK, INC

Comment

Signed by Judge Karesh DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE DEFT FACEBOOK, INC'S MOTION TO COMPEL

12/02/2016 Opposition filed 

Opposition filed DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION

Comment

DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION

12/05/2016 Substitution of Attorney as to 

Substitution of Attorney as to Former Attorney: JULIE SCHWARTZ New Attorney: SONAL MEHTA

Comment

Former Attorney: JULIE SCHWARTZ New Attorney: SONAL MEHTA

12/05/2016 Minutes corrected as follows: 

Comment

GRAMMATICAL UPDATE OF TENTATIVE RULING PER JUDGE KARESH ON 12/12/16

12/05/2016 Motion hearings 

CIV Minute Order

Judicial Officer

Karesh, Jonathan E

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 169 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 37/45

Result

Held

Comment

FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

Parties Present 

Defendant

Attorney: MILLER, LAURA E.

Attorney: MEHTA, SONAL N

12/07/2016 Opposition filed 

Opposition filed TO DEFT FACEBOOK INC'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL

Comment

TO DEFT FACEBOOK INC'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL

12/07/2016 Motion to Compel Further 

CIV Minute Order

Judicial Officer

Karesh, Jonathan E

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Held

Comment

RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Parties Present 

Defendant

Attorney: MILLER, LAURA E.

Attorney: MEHTA, SONAL N

12/08/2016 Order sent for signature to Department 

Comment

20 (LM) FOR SIGNATURE ON FACEBOOK INC'S ORD GRANTING IN PART/DENYING IN PART OF MOT FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER;ETC

12/08/2016 Motion hearings 

CIV Minute Order

Judicial Officer

Karesh, Jonathan E

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Held

Comment

FOR ORDER TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS

12/09/2016 Reply 

Reply MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES OF DEFT FACEBOOK, INC'S IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPE

Comment

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES OF DEFT FACEBOOK, INC'S IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL

12/09/2016 Reply 

Reply DECLARATION OF LAURA E MILLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFT FACEBOOK, INC'S MOTION TO COMPEL

Comment

DECLARATION OF LAURA E MILLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFT FACEBOOK, INC'S MOTION TO COMPEL

12/09/2016 Notice 

Notice of LODGING OF DOCUMENTS WITH THE COURT CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL

Comment

of LODGING OF DOCUMENTS WITH THE COURT CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL

12/09/2016 Reply 

Reply UNREDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE LODGED UNDER SEALED

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 170 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 38/45

Comment

UNREDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE LODGED UNDER SEALED

12/09/2016 Reply 

Reply UNREDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE LODGED UNDER SEALED

Comment

UNREDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE LODGED UNDER SEALED

12/13/2016 Order After Hearing 

Order After Hearing Signed by Judge Karesh 12/12/16 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFT FACEBO

Comment

Signed by Judge Karesh 12/12/16 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFT FACEBOOK, INC'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING PRODUCTION

RESPONSIVE TO DOCUMENT REQUEST

12/15/2016 Motion to Compel 

CIV Minute Order

Judicial Officer

Karesh, Jonathan E

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Result

Held

01/04/2017 Stipulation and Order received and forwarded to Dept 

Comment

20 (TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND)

01/10/2017 Stipulation & Order 

Stipulation & Order Signed by: Judge DuBois on: 01/09/17 to ENTEND TIME TO RESPOND

Comment

Signed by: Judge DuBois on: 01/09/17 to ENTEND TIME TO RESPOND

01/12/2017 Stipulation 

Stipulation FOR ELECTRONIC SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS AND NOTICE

Comment

FOR ELECTRONIC SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS AND NOTICE

01/18/2017 Order sent for signature to Department 

Comment

16 (LM) RE STIP TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND

01/19/2017 Stipulation & Order 

Stipulation & Order Signed by: JUDGE DUBOIS on: 01/18/17 TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND

Comment

Signed by: JUDGE DUBOIS on: 01/18/17 TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND

01/20/2017 Document 

Document DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.'S DISCOVERY SUBMISSION

Comment

DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.'S DISCOVERY SUBMISSION

01/20/2017 Declaration in Support 

Declaration in Support OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK,INC.'S DISCOVERY SUBMISSION

Comment

OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK,INC.'S DISCOVERY SUBMISSION

01/20/2017 Document 

Document DISCOVERY PROPOSAL PURSUANT TO COURT'S DECEMBER 13, 2016 ORDER (REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION)

Comment

DISCOVERY PROPOSAL PURSUANT TO COURT'S DECEMBER 13, 2016 ORDER (REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 171 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 39/45

Financial

01/20/2017 Declaration in Support 

Declaration in Support OF 643'S DISCOVERY PROPOSAL PURSUANT TO COURT'S ORDER, AND FOR SANCTIONS

Comment

OF 643'S DISCOVERY PROPOSAL PURSUANT TO COURT'S ORDER, AND FOR SANCTIONS

01/20/2017 Notice 

Notice OF LODGING DOCUMENTS WITH THE COURT CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO C.R.C. 2.551(B)(3)

Comment

OF LODGING DOCUMENTS WITH THE COURT CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO C.R.C. 2.551(B)(3)

01/20/2017 Documents Lodged Conditionally Under Seal 

Comment

Document(s): 643'S DISCOVERY PROPOSAL PURSUANT TO COURT'S DECEMBER 13, 2016 ORDER

01/20/2017 Documents Lodged Conditionally Under Seal 

Comment

DECLARATION OF JAMES E. KRUZER IN SUPPORT OF 643'S DISCOVERY PROPOSAL PURSUANT TO COURT'S ORDER, AND FOR SANCTIONS

04/28/2017 Mandatory Settlement Conference 

Judicial Officer

Mandatory Settlement Conferences, -

Hearing Time

9:30 AM

05/15/2017 Jury Trial 

Judicial Officer

Master Calendar, -

Hearing Time

9:00 AM

Comment

JURY TRIAL 5 DAYS

SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT COMPANY

Total Financial Assessment $2,735.00

Total Payments and Credits $2,735.00

4/10/2015 Transaction Assessment $435.00

4/10/2015 Case Payment Receipt # 201504100768 SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE

LIMITED LIABILIT COMPANY

($435.00)

6/9/2015 Transaction Assessment $60.00

6/9/2015 Case Payment Receipt # 201506090544 SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE

LIMITED LIABILIT COMPANY

($60.00)

8/13/2015 Transaction Assessment $20.00

8/13/2015 Case Payment Receipt # 201508130215 SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE

LIMITED LIABILIT COMPANY

($20.00)

8/21/2015 Transaction Assessment $150.00

8/21/2015 Case Payment Receipt # 201508210186 SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE

LIMITED LIABILIT COMPANY

($150.00)

9/11/2015 Transaction Assessment $530.00

9/11/2015 Case Payment Receipt # 201509110035 SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE

LIMITED LIABILIT COMPANY

($530.00)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 172 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 40/45

9/11/2015 Case Payment Receipt # 201509110043 SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE

LIMITED LIABILIT COMPANY

($530.00)

12/3/2015 Case Payment Receipt # 201512030774 SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE

LIMITED LIABILIT COMPANY

($20.00)

4/19/2016 Case Payment Receipt # 201604190560 SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE

LIMITED LIABILIT COMPANY

($20.00)

8/10/2016 Transaction Assessment $500.00

8/10/2016 Transaction Assessment $30.00

8/10/2016 Case Payment Receipt # 2016-034962-HOJ ONE LEGAL LLC ($530.00)

8/11/2016 Transaction Assessment $60.00

8/11/2016 Transaction Assessment $30.00

8/11/2016 Case Payment Receipt # 2016-035308-HOJ ONE LEGAL LLC ($90.00)

9/15/2016 Transaction Assessment $60.00

9/15/2016 Transaction Assessment $30.00

9/15/2016 Case Payment Receipt # 2016-044182-HOJ ONE LEGAL LLC ($90.00)

9/23/2016 Transaction Assessment $20.00

9/23/2016 Case Payment Receipt # 2016-045934-HOJ OAKLAND SERVICE OF PROCESS,

INC.

($20.00)

11/4/2016 Transaction Assessment $60.00

11/4/2016 Transaction Assessment $30.00

11/4/2016 Case Payment Receipt # 2016-056407-HOJ ONE LEGAL LLC ($90.00)

11/4/2016 Transaction Assessment $60.00

11/4/2016 Transaction Assessment $30.00

11/4/2016 Case Payment Receipt # 2016-056466-HOJ ONE LEGAL LLC ($90.00)

12/2/2016 Transaction Assessment $60.00

12/2/2016 Case Payment Receipt # 2016-063657-HOJ FTHENAKIS, BASIL P ($60.00)

FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION

Total Financial Assessment $2,020.00

Total Payments and Credits $2,020.00

9/8/2015 Transaction Assessment $465.00

9/8/2015 Case Payment Receipt # 201509080735 FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE

CORPORATION

($465.00)

9/21/2015 Transaction Assessment $500.00

9/21/2015 Case Payment Receipt # 201509210301 FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE

CORPORATION

($530.00)

12/23/2015 Transaction Assessment $60.00

12/23/2015 Case Payment Receipt # 201512230474 FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE

CORPORATION

($90.00)

3/24/2016 Transaction Assessment $20.00

3/24/2016 Case Payment Receipt # 201603240263 FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE

CORPORATION

($20.00)

4/8/2016 Case Payment Receipt # 201604080810 FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE

CORPORATION

($90.00)

7/5/2016 Transaction Assessment $435.00

7/5/2016 First paper fee paid ($435.00)

9/23/2016 Transaction Assessment $60.00

9/23/2016 Transaction Assessment $30.00

9/23/2016 Case Payment Receipt # 2016-046300-HOJ OAKLAND SERVICE OF PROCESS,

INC.

($90.00)

10/28/2016 Transaction Assessment $60.00

10/28/2016 Case Payment Receipt # 2016-055086-HOJ MEHTA, SONAL N ($60.00)

11/1/2016 Transaction Assessment $60.00

11/1/2016 Transaction Assessment $30.00

11/1/2016 Case Payment Receipt # 2016-055635-HOJ NATIONWIDE LEGAL, LLC ($90.00)

11/17/2016 Transaction Assessment $20.00

11/17/2016 Case Payment Receipt # 2016-059892-HOJ NATIONWIDE LEGAL, LLC ($20.00)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 173 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 41/45

Documents

(S) COMPLAINT FILED

PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER, ETC SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST BY OVERNIGHT DELI

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT IN SUPPOR

APPLICATION BY ANDREW A. CAFFREY, III, ESQ. TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR SIX4THREE, LLC, A

PROPOSED ORDER RECEIVED.

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS RE PAYMENT OF REQUIRED FEE TO THE STATE BAR OF CA, E

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JULIE E. SCHWARTZ REGARDING CALIFORNIA STATE BAR FEES FOR PRO HAC FILED

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER TO F.A.C. SIGNED BY JOSEPH C. SCOTT ON 12/08/15.

(S) DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT FILED BY FACEB

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED

ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, SIGNED BY JUDGE AYOOB ON 01/27/16

(U) 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT FILED (AMENDED COMPLAINT)

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO RESCHEDULE HEARING ON DEMURRER TO SAC SIGNED BY DONALD J. AYOOB ON 04/21/1

OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT IN OPPOSI

CIVIL CASE COVERSHEET RECEIVED

30 DAY SUMMONS, ISSUED AND FILED.

PROOF OF SERVICE (PERSONAL) OF PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF DEMANDS FOR INSPECTION DOCS TO DEFT FACEBOO

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION.

PROOF OF SERVICE (BY MAIL) OF CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST WITH A SERVICE D

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT.

DECLARATION OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS RE: SERVICE ON THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA AND PAYMENT OF REQ FEE

PROPOSED ORDER RECEIVED.

NOTICE OF HEARINF RE: APPLICATION OF ANDREW A. CAFFREY, I II, ESQ. FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE FILED

PROOF OF SERVICE OF FACEBOOK, INC.'S NOTICE OF HEARING, ETC. SERVED ON SEE LIST BY HAND DELIVERY AN

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS RE PAYMENT OF REQUIRED FEE TO THE STATE BAR OF CA, E

(S) STIPULATIONTO CONTINUE HEARING ON DEMURRER FILED

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SEE DOCUMENT LIST SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - FEDEX WITH

ORDER SUSTAINING DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, SIGNED BY JUDGE AYOOB ON 01/27/16

FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION`S RESPONSE TO PLTFF'S OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTI

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE, SIGNED BY JUDGE ETEZADI ON 10/19/15 FILED.

(L) 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT FILED (AMENDED COMPLAINT)

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION OF JAMES R. MCCULLAGH TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL, SIGNED BY JUDGE ETEZADI ON 1

DECLARATION OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE ORDER EXTENDING FILED BY S

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LI

NOTICE OF JURY FEE DEPOSIT BY PLAINTIFF FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT.

(S) DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLTF'S COMPLAINT FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A

NOTICE OF HEARING RE: APPLICATION OF DAVID S. GODKIN, ESQ. FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE FILED BY SIX4

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT IN SUPPOR

DECLARATION OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS RE: SERVICE ON THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA AND PAYMENT OF REQ FEE

APPLICATION BY JAMES R. MCCULLAGH TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE C

DECLARATION OF JULIE E. SCHWARTZ IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK INC'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY

11/17/2016 Transaction Assessment $60.00

11/17/2016 Transaction Assessment $30.00

11/17/2016 Case Payment Receipt # 2016-059902-HOJ NATIONWIDE LEGAL, LLC ($90.00)

1/4/2017 Transaction Assessment $20.00

1/4/2017 Case Payment Receipt # 2017-000232-HOJ NATIONWIDE LEGAL LLC ($20.00)

1/18/2017 Transaction Assessment $20.00

1/18/2017 Case Payment Receipt # 2017-003495-HOJ NATIONWIDE LEGAL LLC ($20.00)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 174 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 42/45

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT IN OPPOSI

OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO 2ND AMND CMPL SIGNED BY JOHN G. SCHWARTZ ON 03/2

(S) DEMURRER TO 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT FILED BY FACEB

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLTFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY

DECLARATION OF JULIE E. SCHWARTZ IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND, ETC. FILED BY FACEB

EX PARTE APPLICATION ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS FILED.

DECLARATION OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS REGARDING NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE ORDER FI

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILIT IN SUPPOR

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS, SIGNED BY JUDGE SCOTT ON 06/09/15 FILED.

PROOF OF SERVICE (QUESTIONABLE SERVICE) OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT OF SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMI

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

DECLARATION OF JEREMY E. JORDAN IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A

DECLARATION OF JULIE E. SCHWARTZ IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC,

APPLICATION BY DAVID S. GODKIN, ESQ. TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWA

PROPOSED ORDER RECEIVED.

NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING APPLICATION OF JAMES R. MCCULLAGH TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FIL

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION IN SUPPORT OF N

DECLARATION OF JEREMY E. JORDAN IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK INC'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY F

PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOITCE OF HEARING ON DEMURRER, ETC SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST BY OVERNIGHT DELI

CAFFREY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLTFF'S OBJECTION TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE, FILED.

DEFT FACEBOOK'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, FILED.

FACEBOOK, INC, A DELAWARE CORPORATION`S RESPONSE TO PLTFF'S OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTI

DECLARATION OF JEREMY E. JORDAN IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED BY FACEBOOK, INC, A

PROOF OF SERVICE OF FACEBOOK, INC.'S NOTICE OF HEARING, ETC. SERVED ON SEE LIST BY FEDERAL EXPRESS

DEFT FACEBOOK'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, FILED.

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SEE DOCUMENT LIST SERVED ON SEE SERVICE LIST BY FEDERAL EXPRESS WITH A SERVICE

NOTICE WITHDRAWL AND DISCHARGE AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD FILED BY SIX4THREE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LI

Case Management Statement

CIV Minutes Order

Case Management Statement

CIV Minutes Order

Order ON DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

CIV Minutes Order

Answer / Response / Denial - Unlimited

Notice OF RULING

Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice OF JAMES E. KRUZER, ESQ.

Notice of Hearing RE: APPLICATION OF JAMES E. KRUZER, ESQ. FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION OF JAMES E. KRUZER, ESQ. FOR ADMI

Declaration OF BASIL P. FTHENAKIS RE; SERVICE ON THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA AND PAYMENT OF REQUIRED

Proposed Order Received RE: ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION OF JAMES E. KRUZER, ESQ. FOR ADMISSION PRO HA

Motion FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS, ETC

Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES

Separate Statement OF DEMANDS IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES

Declaration OF DAVID GODKIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES, ETC

Stipulation and Order to ADR

Proof of Service by FEDERAL EXPRESS served on SEE SERVICE LIST with a service date of 08/25/16

Opposition filed TO PLTFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS

Declaration OF JULIE W. SCHWARTZ ISO FACEBOOK'S OPPOSITION TO PLTFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL, ETC.

Separate Statement FACEBOOK'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT ISO OPPOSITION TO PLTFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL

Reply IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION

CIV Minute Order

CIV Minute Order

Motion FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Declaration OF DAVID S. GODKIN ISO OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Document LETTER TO JUDGE KARESH IN REGARDS TO PROPOSED ORDER ON MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER

Order ON MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS, ETC. S

Motion FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Declaration OF JULIE E. SCHWARTZ ISO FACEBOOK'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Proof of Service by FEDERAL EXPRESS served on SEE SERVICE LIST with a service date of 09/22/16

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 175 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 43/45

Stipulation & Order CONTINUING HEARING ON SIX4THREE, LLC'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by JUD

Opposition filed TO PLTFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Declaration OF JULIE E. SCHWARTZ IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK'S OPPOSITION TO PLTFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIV

Proof of Service by FEDERAL EXPRESS served on SEE SERVICE LIST with a service date of 09/29/16

Reply TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK INC'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Reply IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

CIV Minute Order

CIV Minute Order

Notice OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF FACEBOOK

Order STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Judge Karesh 10/24/16

Order After Hearing signed by Judge Karesh 10/24/16 SIX4THREE'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FAC

Opposition filed TO DEFENDANT FACEBOOK INC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

Order GRANTING DEFT FACEBOOK INC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE OCTOBER 31 DOCUMENTS PRODUCTION

Order GRANTING DEFT FACEBOOK INC'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL SIGNED BY JUDGE GRANDSAERT

Ex Parte Filed APPLICATION TO CONTINUE OCTOBER 31 DOCUMENT PRODUCTION DEADLINE AND REMAINING CASE DE

Notice of Mandatory Settlement Conference and Jury Trial

Motion FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER

Separate Statement IN SUPPORT OF DEFT FACEBOOK, INC'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Notice OF APPEARANCE OF CATHERINE KIM ON BEHLAF OF FACEBOOK

Motion FOR ORDER TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES

Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTI

Separate Statement OF ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATORIES IN DISPUTE

Declaration OF DAVID S. GODKIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S SPECI

Motion FOR ORDER TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET TWO)

Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Separate Statement OF DEMANDS IN DISPUTE (SET TWO)

Declaration OF DAVID S. GODKIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND

Motion TO COMPEL

Notice of LODGING OF DOCUMENTS WITH THE COURT CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL

Separate Statement of Facts in SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL

Declaration OF LAURA E MILLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFT FACEBOOK INC'S MOTION TO COMPEL

Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPEL

Proof of Service by MESSENGER SERVICE of DEFT FACEBOOK, INC'S NOTICE OF MOT/MOT TO COMPEL; MEMO P&A;

Opposition filed TO DEFT FACEBOOK INC MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER; ETC

Opposition filed TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIALLY PREPARED INTERROGATO

Response SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO

Declaration OF CATHERINE Y KIM IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK, INC'S OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL F

Proof of Service by MAIL of FACEBOOK, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Opposition filed TO DEFT FACEBOOK INC'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING PRODUCTION RESPONSIVE

Opposition filed FACEBOOK, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO DE

Response FACEBOOK, INC.'S RESPONSE SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO C

Proof of Service by MAIL of FACEBOOK, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

Declaration of CATHERINE Y KIM IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO PLTF'S MOTION TO COMPEL

Reply DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER LI

Declaration of LAURA E MILLER IN SUPPORT OF FACEBOOK, INC.'S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTI

Reply IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIALLY PREPARED IN

Reply BY PLAINTIFF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSES TO DEMAND F

CIV Minute Order

CIV Minute Order

Ex Parte Filed PLTF SEX4THREE'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

Memorandum of Points & Authorities Filed IN SUPPORT OF PLTF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

Declaration OF JAMES E KRUZER IN SUPPORT OF PLTF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION

Order Signed by Judge Karesh DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE DEFT FACEBOOK, INC

Opposition filed DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION

Substitution of Attorney as to Former Attorney: JULIE SCHWARTZ New Attorney: SONAL MEHTA

CIV Minute Order

Opposition filed TO DEFT FACEBOOK INC'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO COMPEL

CIV Minute Order

Notice of LODGING OF DOCUMENTS WITH THE COURT CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL

Reply DECLARATION OF LAURA E MILLER IN SUPPORT OF DEFT FACEBOOK, INC'S MOTION TO COMPEL

Reply MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES OF DEFT FACEBOOK, INC'S IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO COMPE

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 176 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 44/45

Reply UNREDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE LODGED UNDER SEALED

Reply UNREDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE LODGED UNDER SEALED

CIV Minute Order

Order After Hearing Signed by Judge Karesh 12/12/16 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFT FACEBO

CIV Minute Order

Stipulation & Order Signed by: Judge DuBois on: 01/09/17 to ENTEND TIME TO RESPOND

Stipulation FOR ELECTRONIC SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS AND NOTICE

Stipulation & Order Signed by: JUDGE DUBOIS on: 01/18/17 TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND

Document DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.'S DISCOVERY SUBMISSION

Declaration in Support OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK,INC.'S DISCOVERY SUBMISSION

Document DISCOVERY PROPOSAL PURSUANT TO COURT'S DECEMBER 13, 2016 ORDER (REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION)

Declaration in Support OF 643'S DISCOVERY PROPOSAL PURSUANT TO COURT'S ORDER, AND FOR SANCTIONS

Notice OF LODGING DOCUMENTS WITH THE COURT CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO C.R.C. 2.551(B)(3)

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 177 of 187
1/24/2017 Details

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0#top 45/45

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 178 of 187
EXHIBIT E 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 179 of 187
1

From: Sonal Mehta

Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 5:15 PM

To: David Godkin; James Kruzer; bpf@criterionlaw.com

Cc: SERVICE-SIX4THREE

Subject: Six4Three, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. CIV533328

Counsel,

We have reviewed Plaintiff Six4Three LLC’s January 12, 2017 Response To Defendant Facebook Inc.'s Specially Prepared 

Interrogatories (Set Two) seeking the basis for Six4Three’s contentions with respect to the predicates for Section 

17200.  In its responses, Six4Three identifies a variety of state and federal laws that it contends that Facebook has 

violated, a number of which are facially inapplicable and for which we do not believe Six4Three could even assert a claim 

in good faith.  Before we take action with the court, we ask that Six4Three review its contentions with respect to the 

underlying state and federal laws referenced in these interrogatory responses and let us know by 5 pm ET on Monday 

which of the predicate laws listed in the interrogatory responses Six4Three intends to pursue as a basis for its 

unlawfulness claim. If we do not hear from you by then, we will understand that Six4Three maintains its contentions 

that Facebook has violated the all of the laws identified therein and plans to assert those laws as a basis for its 

unlawfulness claim in the case going forward, including to oppose summary judgment and thereafter, and we will 

proceed accordingly. 

Best,

Sonal N. Mehta | Durie Tangri LLP | smehta@durietangri.com | (415) 376-6427

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 180 of 187
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

PROOF OF SERVICE / CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00359 

DURIE TANGRI LLP 

SONAL N. MEHTA (SBN 222086) 

smehta@durietangri.com 

LAURA E. MILLER (SBN 271713) 

lmiller@durietangri.com 

CATHERINE Y. KIM (SBN 308442) 

ckim@durietangri.com 

217 Leidesdorff Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: 415-362-6666 

Facsimile: 415-236-6300 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Facebook, Inc. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SIX4THREE, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FACEBOOK, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00359 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 181 of 187
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

 1

PROOF OF SERVICE / CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00359 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

I am a citizen of the United States and resident of the State of California. I am employed in San 

Francisco County, State of California, in the office of a member of the bar of this Court, at whose 

direction the service was made. I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. 

My business address is 217 Leidesdorff Street, San Francisco, CA 94111. 

On January 24, 2017, I served the following documents in the manner described below: 

 CIVIL COVER SHEET; 

 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION: UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1441(A) (FEDERAL 

QUESTION); 

 PROOF OF SERVICE 

 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: By electronically mailing a true and correct copy through 

Durie Tangri’s electronic mail system from msotto@durietangri.com to the email 

addresses set forth below. 

On the following part(ies) in this action: 

Basil P. Fthenakis 

CRITERION LAW

2225 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 200 

Palo Alto, CA 94303 

Telephone: 650-352-8400 

Facsimile: 650-352-8408 

bpf@criterionlaw.com 

David S. Godkin 

James Kruzer 

BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP 

280 Summer Street 

Boston, MA 02210 

Telephone: 617-307-6100 

godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com 

kruzer@birnbaumgodkin.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Six4Three, LLC

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 24, 2017, at San Francisco, California. 

/s/ Melissa Sotto 

Melissa Sotto 

X

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 182 of 187
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

NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVALTO FEDERAL COURT / CASE NO. CIV 533328 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

I am a citizen of the United States and resident of the State of California. I am employed in San 

Francisco County, State of California, in the office of a member of the bar of this Court, at whose 

direction the service was made. I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. 

My business address is 217 Leidesdorff Street, San Francisco, CA 94111. 

On January 24, 2017, I served the following documents in the manner described below: 

NOTICE TO ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVALTO FEDERAL COURT 

 BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: By electronically mailing a true and correct copy through 

Durie Tangri’s electronic mail system from msotto@durietangri.com to the email 

addresses set forth below. 

On the following part(ies) in this action: 

Basil P. Fthenakis 

CRITERION LAW 

2225 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 200 

Palo Alto, CA 94303 

Telephone: 650-352-8400 

Facsimile: 650-352-8408 

bpf@criterionlaw.com 

David S. Godkin 

James Kruzer 

BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP 

280 Summer Street 

Boston, MA 02210 

Telephone: 617-307-6100 

godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com 

kruzer@birnbaumgodkin.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Six4Three, LLC

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 24, 2017, at San Francisco, California. 

Melissa Sotto 

X

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 183 of 187
Exhibit 5

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 184 of 187
From: David Godkin 

Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 3:38 PM

To: Laura Miller <LMiller@durietangri.com>; Sonal Mehta <SMehta@durietangri.com>; Catherine Kim 

<CKim@durietangri.com> 

Cc: 'bpf@criterionlaw.com' <bpf@criterionlaw.com>; James Kruzer <kruzer@birnbaumgodkin.com> 

Subject: RE: Six4Three LLC v. Facebook, Inc., San Mateo County Case No.: CIV

 

Counsel,

Facebook’s removal of this case is nothing more than a transparent attempt to avoid 

complying with the summary judgment deadline. Notwithstanding Facebook’s purported 

reasons, removal of the state-court case is inappropriate. 643’s causes of action in the 

state-court case are based on common law and California’s Unfair Competition Law 

(“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et. seq. The fact that 643 answered a special 

interrogatory seeking identification of laws it believes Facebook conduct violated by 

identifying state law, federal law, and common law violations does not confer federal 

jurisdiction. The case law is crystal clear on this point. See, e.g., Kvam v. Chase Home 

Fin. LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77218 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2012); Pope v. Wells Fargo 

Bank, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125341, 2010 WL 8388301 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2010); and 

Carbonel v. ARA Loans and Realty, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81991 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 

12, 2010). 

Please advise by the end of today whether Facebook will stipulate to remanding this 

case. If Facebook does not agree to remand the case, 643 intends to seek immediate 

relief from the court and reserves its right to recover its costs and attorneys’ fees in doing 

so, as Facebook’s removal is contrary to unambiguous legal authority. 

If Facebook does not agree to remand this case, please advise by the end of the day today 

whether Facebook will stipulate to shorten the time for a hearing on 643’s forthcoming 

motion to remand (which will be filed tomorrow) to Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8 AM, 

with Facebook’s responsive papers to be filed by Monday, January 30, 2017. If 

Facebook does not agree, we will also file a motion to shorten time seeking that relief.

Regards,

David

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 185 of 187
Exhibit 6

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 186 of 187
Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 13-1 Filed 01/27/17 Page 187 of 187