IN RE: FACEBOOK, INC. CONSUMER PRIVACY USER PROFILE LITIGATION This document relates to: ALL ACTIONS MDL No. 2843 | Case No. 18-md-02843-VC-JSC United States District Court, N.D. California Dated: March 31, 2021 Filed April 06, 2021 Counsel Derek W. Loeser (admitted pro hac vice) KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel.: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 dloeser@kellerrohrback.com Lesley E. Weaver (SBN 191305) BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1600 Oakland, CA 94607 Tel.: (415) 445-4003 Fax: (415) 445-4020 lweaver@bfalaw.com Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel Additional counsel listed on signature page Orin Snyder (admitted pro hac vice) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Tel.: 212.351.4000 Fax: 212.351.4035 osnyder@gibsondunn.com Deborah Stein (SBN 224570) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Tel.: 213.229.7000 Fax: 213.229.7520 dstein@gibsondunn.com Attorneys for Defendant Facebook, Inc. Additional counsel listed on signature page Corley, Jacqueline S., United States Magistrate Judge STIPULATION AND ORDER ON RESOLVING SEARCH STRING DISPUTES FOR CUSTODIANS IN GROUPS 5 TO 8 THE PARTIES STIPULATE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The parties previously stipulated to a process for negotiating search strings for the custodians in Groups 5 to 8, including for resolving disputes between the parties’ “final proposals.” See Dkt. 573. 2. Pursuant to this process, the parties submitted their “final” search string proposals on January 8, 2021. There are currently 49 disputed strings and/or custodian groupings between the two proposals. Plaintiffs’ January 8 proposal hit on approximately 3.31 million documents with families, excluding documents that hit on the finalized search strings for the custodians in Groups 1 to 4. Facebook’s January 8 proposal hit on approximately 1.97 million documents with families, excluding documents that hit on the finalized search strings for the custodians in Groups 1 to 4. 3. For efficiency, and to preserve party and judicial resources, the parties agree to resolve remaining disputes as to the 49 disputed strings and/or custodian groupings through a negotiated compromise, intended to approximate the mid-way point between the parties’ final proposals, as follows: 4. Within seven (7) days of the date this stipulation is entered, Plaintiffs will send Facebook a revised version of their January 8 “final proposal.” Plaintiffs’ revised proposal will not revise any specific strings or custodian groupings from their January 8 proposal. Instead, for each disputed string, Plaintiffs will: (a) continue to propose their January 8 proposal for that string, (b) accept Facebook’s January 8 proposal for that string, or (c) drop the string. 5. Within five (5) days of receiving Plaintiffs’ revised final proposal, Facebook will send Plaintiffs the total deduplicated hit counts on Plaintiffs’ revised proposal, with families, excluding documents that hit on the finalized search strings for the custodians in Groups 1 to 4. These are the only hit counts Facebook will generate with respect to Plaintiffs’ revised final proposal(s). If the document hits with families for Plaintiffs’ revised proposal is between 2.59 million and 2.69 million documents, Facebook will accept the proposal in full. 6. If the document hits with families for Plaintiffs’ revised proposal is not between 2.59 million and 2.69 million documents, the parties will repeat the process outlined in Paragraphs 4 and 5, under the same timing requirements. If the document hits with families for Plaintiffs’ second revised proposal is between 2.59 million and 2.69 million documents, Facebook will accept the proposal in full. 7. If the document hits with families for Plaintiffs’ second revised proposal is not between 2.59 million and 2.69 million documents, the parties will meet and confer for no more than five (5) business days to discuss additional revisions to the proposal. Thereafter, the parties will repeat the process outlined in Paragraphs 4 and 5, under the same timing requirements. If the document hits with families for Plaintiffs’ third revised proposal is between 2.59 million and 2.69 million documents, Facebook will accept the proposal in full. 8. If the document hits with families for Plaintiffs’ third revised proposal is not between 2.59 million and 2.69 million documents, Facebook will then revise the proposal within seven (7) days. If the document hits with families for Facebook’s revised proposal is between 2.59 million and 2.69 million documents, Plaintiffs’ will accept the proposal in full. 9. Once a proposal has been accepted in full, Facebook will provide Plaintiffs the total deduplicated number of document hits and document hits plus families for all of the accepted search strings for Groups 5 to 8. Facebook will also provide Plaintiffs with a list of the finalized search strings (as run, including subparts) and custodians for Groups 5 to 8. 10. The parties agree to this process solely as a compromise for purposes of efficiency and to preserve judicial and party resources. Accordingly, the parties expressly reserve all objections to the disputed strings, custodian groupings, and document hit counts, and accepting or dropping strings through this process shall not be construed as a concession on an string or custodian’s relevance, appropriateness, or necessity. The hit count range agreed upon in this agreement is a compromise intended only to approximate the mid-way point between the parties’ January 8 final proposals and may not be construed as a concession by any party that the range reflects an appropriate, reasonable, or proportionate number of document hits or a concession relating to the relevancy of any documents yielded by any terms. 11. This process supplements the requirements in the parties’ prior stipulation, see Dkt. 573. To the extent that any provisions of this stipulation conflict with the parties’ prior stipulation, this stipulation shall control. IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD. Dated: March 31, 2021 Respectfully submitted, KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. By: /s/ Derek W. Loeser Derek W. Loeser Derek W. Loeser (admitted pro hac vice) Cari Campen Laufenberg (admitted pro hac vice) David Ko (admitted pro hac vice) Adele A. Daniel (admitted pro hac vice) 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel.: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 dloeser@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com dko@kellerrohrback.com adaniel@kellerrohrback.com Christopher Springer (SBN 291180) 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Tel.: (805) 456-1496 Fax: (805) 456-1497 cspringer@kellerrohrback.com BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP By: /s/ Lesley E. Weaver Lesley E. Weaver Lesley E. Weaver (SBN 191305) Anne K. Davis (SBN 267909) Matthew P. Montgomery (SBN 180196) Angelica M. Ornelas (SBN 285929) Joshua D. Samra (SBN 313050) 555 12th Street, Suite 1600 Oakland, CA 94607 Tel.: (415) 445-4003 Fax: (415) 445-4020 lweaver@bfalaw.com adavis@bfalaw.com mmontgomery@bfalaw.com aornelas@bfalaw.com jsamra@bfalaw.com Plaintiffs’ Co-Lead Counsel GIBSON, DUNN, & CRUTCHER LLP By: /s/ Orin Snyder Orin Snyder Orin Snyder (pro hac vice) osnyder@gibsondunn.com GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 Telephone: 212.351.4000 Facsimile: 212.351.4035 Deborah Stein (SBN 224570) dstein@gibsondunn.com GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 Joshua S. Lipshutz (SBN 242557) jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036-5306 Telephone: 202.955.8500 Facsimile: 202.467.0539 Kristin A. Linsley (SBN 154148) klinsley@gibsondunn.com Martie Kutscher (SBN 302650) mkutscherclark@gibsondunn.com GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105-0921 Telephone: 415.393.8200 Facsimile: 415.393.8306 Attorneys for Defendant Facebook, Inc. ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 6, 2021 HON. JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE