throbber
Case 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 87 Filed 12/16/20 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SONAL N. MEHTA (SBN 222086)
`Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, California 94306
`Telephone: (650) 858-6000
`Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
`
`DAVID Z. GRINGER (pro hac vice)
`David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com
`ARI HOLTZBLATT (pro hac vice)
` Ari.Holtzblatt@wilmerhale.com
`MOLLY M. JENNINGS (pro hac vice)
` Molly.Jennings@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 663-6000
`Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
`Attorneys for Defendant
`FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`REVEAL CHAT HOLDCO, LLC, a Delaware
`limited liability company, USA TECHNOLOGY
`AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (d/b/a
`Lenddo USA), a Delaware corporation, and
`BEEHIVE BIOMETRIC, INC., a dissolved
`Delaware corporation,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-00363-BLF
`
`DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S
`MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
`RELIEF TO CONSIDER WHETHER
`CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 3-12
`
`Judge: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 5:20-cv-00363-BLF
`
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
`
`RELIEF TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 87 Filed 12/16/20 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12, defendant Facebook, Inc. respectfully moves the Court
`
`to consider whether to relate Sherman v. Facebook, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-08721-LB (“Sherman”),
`Kupcho v. Facebook, Inc., No. 4:20-cv-08815-JSW (“Kupcho”), and Dames v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 3:20-cv-08817-TSH (“Dames”) to Reveal Chat Holdco, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-
`00363-BLF (“Reveal Chat”). The Reveal Chat plaintiffs agree that the cases should be related.
`The Sherman and Dames plaintiffs do not agree that the cases should be related. The Kupcho
`plaintiffs did not respond to Facebook’s inquiry regarding their position. A declaration from
`David Z. Gringer accompanies this motion.
`
`Under Civil Local Rule 3-12(a), actions are related “when: (1) The actions concern
`substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and (2) It appears likely that there
`will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases
`are conducted before different Judges.” These putative antitrust class actions, like the recently
`filed Klein case, all follow the highly-publicized antitrust lawsuits filed by the FTC and the
`Attorneys General of 46 states, D.C., and Guam (collectively “the States”) against Facebook.
`These putative antitrust class actions all proceed under a “monopoly broth” theory of
`anticompetitive conduct, much like the one alleged in the Reveal Chat case. While the cases
`vary slightly in the “ingredients” they challenge (and with respect to the putative classes
`themselves), all focus on Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, its purported use
`of Onavo for “surveillance,” and its regulation of developer usage of Facebook APIs. As the
`Court knows, these theories are also at the heart of the Reveal Chat case, which has been pending
`in this Court for nearly a year. It is telling that both Facebook and the Reveal Chat plaintiffs
`recognize that Sherman, Kupcho, and Dames are related to Reveal Chat. Similarly, both the
`FTC and the States acknowledge that their recently-filed lawsuits, which are predicated on some
`of the same conduct, are related to each of these private cases. Dispersing these largely identical
`actions across the dockets of multiple judges on this Court would result in a significant
`duplication of efforts and ultimately poses a risk of inconsistent judgments and other orders as
`the litigation advances. These challenges and burdens can be easily avoided by relating the
`
`No. 5:20-cv-00363-BLF
`
`1
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
`
`RELIEF TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 87 Filed 12/16/20 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`cases.
`
`In light of the substantial factual and legal overlap, the threat of duplicative discovery,
`and the real threat of inconsistent judgments, the cases easily exceed the relevant standard for
`relation.
`
`First, the cases all “concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction or
`event.” Civil L.R. 3-12(a)(2)(1). Facebook is the defendant in all the cases. With respect to
`legal theories, the cases all allege that Facebook unlawfully monopolized or attempted to
`monopolize markets in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2. And the
`plaintiffs in all cases, like the plaintiffs in Reveal Chat (and Klein), all allege the following as
`part of their unlawful monopolization theories:
` Facebook acquired Instagram (compare Reveal Chat Am. Compl. ¶¶ 287-299, with
`Sherman Compl. ¶¶ 105-108, Kupcho Compl. ¶¶ 171-179, and Dames Compl. ¶¶ 59-63;
`see also ECF No. 85-2 (“Klein Compl.”) ¶¶ 170-177), and WhatsApp (compare Reveal
`Chat Am. Compl. ¶¶ 323-332, with Sherman Compl. ¶¶ 110-111, Kupcho Compl. ¶¶ 186-
`188, and Dames Compl. ¶¶ 65-68; see also Klein Compl. ¶¶ 184-186), allegedly to
`eliminate potential competition;
` Facebook allegedly imposed conditions on or restricted access to its Platform for third-
`party developers, including through withdrawal of access to APIs (compare Reveal Chat
`Am. Compl. ¶¶ 247-261, with Sherman Compl. ¶¶ 112, 114, Kupcho Compl. ¶¶ 165-167,
`169, and Dames Compl. ¶¶ 74-81; see also Klein Compl. ¶¶ 164-166, 168); and
` Facebook allegedly acquired and used Onavo to collect user data and employed that data
`to identify and target competitive threats (compare Reveal Chat Am. Compl. ¶¶ 266-286,
`with Sherman Compl. ¶¶ 112-114, Kupcho Compl. ¶¶ 149-154, and Dames Compl. ¶¶
`55-56; see also Klein Compl. ¶¶ 148-153).
`Recognizing these similarities, both the FTC and the States listed Reveal Chat, Sherman, and
`Kupcho as related to cases they respectively filed on December 9, 2020 in the United States
`District Court for the District of Columbia challenging Facebook’s acquisitions of WhatsApp
`
`No. 5:20-cv-00363-BLF
`
`2
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
`
`RELIEF TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 87 Filed 12/16/20 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`and Instagram and its platform policies. The FTC stated that Reveal Chat, Sherman, and Kupcho
`“involve[] common issues of fact” and “grow[] out of the same event or transaction” as the
`FTC’s case. ECF Nos. 5, 10, 28, FTC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03590-CRC (D.D.C.). The
`States similarly told the court that Reveal Chat and Sherman “involve[] common issues of fact,”
`and that Kupcho both “involves common issues of fact” and “grows out of the same event or
`transaction.” ECF Nos. 6, 9, 14, State of N.Y. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03589-JEB
`(D.D.C.).1 Indeed, the timing of the complaints makes it clear that these lawsuits were filed
`either in anticipation of or in the wake of the FTC’s and the States’ lawsuits.
`
`To be sure, the plaintiffs in the various cases do differ somewhat. However, “Rule 3-
`12(a)(1) allows for relation of actions even where plaintiff classes differ, including classes of
`consumers as opposed to content creators.” Pepper v. Apple Inc., 2019 WL 4783951, at *1
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2019). In Pepper, Judge Gonzalez Rogers correctly held that the fact that
`the plaintiffs in certain of the related cases were “app developers” while others were
`“consumers” did not defeat relation because the “bases of plaintiffs’ complaints[] center around
`the same technology and economic structure[].” Id. So it is here. The plaintiffs all challenge
`Facebook’s supposed dominance over social networking (however denominated), the
`competitive structure in that market, and the impact of similar or identical conduct on
`competition in that industry.
`
`Nor is relation defeated by the fact that the Sherman, Kupcho, and Dames complaints,
`like the complaint in Klein, allege as one component of their monopoly broth theory that
`Facebook deceived users about its data privacy practices, while that theory is currently absent
`from the Reveal Chat complaint. Compare Klein Compl. ¶¶ 91-125, with Sherman Compl. ¶¶
`
`
`1 The FTC and the States also listed Klein as a related case. The FTC indicated that Klein both
`“involves common issues of fact” and “grows out of the same event or transaction.” ECF No. 4,
`FTC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-03590-CRC (D.D.C.). The States also indicated that Klein
`“involves common issues of fact.” ECF No. 5, State of N.Y. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-
`03589-JEB (D.D.C.).
`
`No. 5:20-cv-00363-BLF
`
`3
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
`
`RELIEF TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 87 Filed 12/16/20 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`92-100, Kupcho Compl. ¶¶ 93-101, and Dames Compl. ¶¶ 83-93. Relation does not require
`identical theories of liability. See, e.g., Pepper, 2019 WL 4783951, at *2. Were it otherwise,
`parties who wished to defeat relation could do so easily through creative pleading or strategic
`timing of amendments.
`
` Second, given the substantial factual and legal overlap between the cases, it is “likely
`that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense … if the cases are
`conducted before different Judges.” Civil L.R. 3-12(a)(2). Because all of these cases involve the
`same activity and substantially the same legal theories, any discovery, motion practice, trials, and
`potential remedies will substantially overlap. At the center of all of these cases will be an
`examination of the relevant markets in which Facebook operated, Facebook’s conduct in the
`relevant markets, including the competitive effects of the challenged acquisitions, the viability of
`app developers as emergent competitors to Facebook, how, if at all, Facebook used data from
`Onavo, and Facebook’s API practices. Substantial efficiencies will be available in discovery
`into each of these theories if these cases are related. Likewise, it would be inefficient and unduly
`burdensome to “hav[e] … different judges govern discovery disputes.” Financial Fusion, Inc. v.
`Ablaise Ltd., 2006 WL 3734292, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2006). Moreover, given the time and
`effort that the Court has already expended in assessing similar legal claims premised on a shared
`factual predicate, relating Reveal Chat, Sherman, Kupcho, and Dames would conserve judicial
`resources. Discovery in Reveal Chat has not yet begun, meaning that it is not far ahead of
`Sherman, Kupcho, or Dames. Id. at *4 (noting lack of delay as factor in favor of relation).
`Third, absent relation, there is a serious risk “of conflicting results.” See Civil L.R. 3-
`
`12(a). Facebook anticipates raising similar defenses to the Sherman, Kupcho, and Dames
`allegations as it has raised in Reveal Chat, including that the claims are untimely and that the
`plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege exclusionary conduct. If the cases are not related and
`related to Reveal Chat, there is the real prospect, for example, that different courts could reach
`different conclusions about whether fraudulent concealment theories can ever be resolved on
`motions to dismiss, whether Facebook owed any duty to any of the plaintiffs to disclose its plan
`
`No. 5:20-cv-00363-BLF
`
`4
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
`
`RELIEF TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 87 Filed 12/16/20 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`for the API withdrawal, or findings regarding whether Facebook’s intent was sufficient to
`support a fraudulent concealment claim. And while Sherman, Kupcho, and Dames allege the
`existence of different relevant markets with different market participants than Reveal Chat, the
`allegations all focus on the same product: the Facebook platform. Reveal Chat Am. Compl. ¶¶
`130-142, Sherman Compl. ¶¶ 23-24, Kupcho Compl. ¶¶ 38-52, Dames Compl. ¶¶ 22-25; see also
`Klein Compl. ¶¶ 37-51. Treating the same product as part of different alleged relevant markets
`increases the prospect for inconsistent judgments as to Facebook’s purported monopoly power
`and the markets in which Facebook is alleged to participate. If decisions on these pivotal issues
`are inconsistent, not only would it lead to disarray among the various private and government
`cases, but also potentially disrupt the operations of the dynamic markets in which Facebook
`competes today.
`
`Because of the substantial overlap between these cases, and because the Court
`is already familiar with many of the legal and factual issues implicated in the cases, Facebook
`respectfully requests that the Court enter an order relating Reveal Chat, Sherman, Kupcho, and
`Dames.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 5:20-cv-00363-BLF
`
`5
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
`
`RELIEF TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 87 Filed 12/16/20 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`Dated: December 16, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Sonal N. Mehta
`SONAL N. MEHTA (SBN 222086)
`sonal.mehta@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
`AND DORR LLP
` 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Telephone: (650) 858-6000
`
`DAVID Z. GRINGER (pro hac vice)
`david.gringer@wilmerhale.com
`ARI HOLTZBLATT (pro hac vice)
`ari.holtzblatt@wilmerhale.com
`MOLLY M. JENNINGS (pro hac vice)
`molly.jennings@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
`AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: (202) 663-6000
`
`No. 5:20-cv-00363-BLF
`
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
`
`RELIEF TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-00363-BLF Document 87 Filed 12/16/20 Page 8 of 8
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on this 16th day of December 2020, I electronically transmitted the
`foregoing document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System. And I hereby certify that I
`have served the foregoing document on counsel for the plaintiffs in the action in which relation is
`sought pursuant to agreement between the parties.
`
`/s/ Sonal N. Mehta
`Sonal N. Mehta
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 5:20-cv-00363-BLF
`
`
`FACEBOOK’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
`
`RELIEF TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket