EXHIBIT C 

Case 3:17-cv-00359-WHA Document 1-3 Filed 01/24/17 Page 1 of 11
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 1-3 Filed 01/24/17 Page 2 of 11
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 1-3 Filed 01/24/17 Page 3 of 11
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 1-3 Filed 01/24/17 Page 4 of 11
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 1-3 Filed 01/24/17 Page 5 of 11
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 1-3 Filed 01/24/17 Page 6 of 11
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 1-3 Filed 01/24/17 Page 7 of 11
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 1-3 Filed 01/24/17 Page 8 of 11
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 1-3 Filed 01/24/17 Page 9 of 11
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 1-3 Filed 01/24/17 Page 10 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-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 1-3 Filed 01/24/17 Page 11 of 11