throbber
Case 5:18-cv-07597-BLF Document 237 Filed 05/18/21 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`IAN C. BALLON (SBN 141819)
`Ballon@gtlaw.com
`1900 University Avenue, 5th Floor
`East Palo Alto, California 94303
`Telephone: 650.328.7881
`Facsimile: 650.289.7881
`
`REBEKAH S. GUYON (SBN 291037)
`GuyonR@gtlaw.com
`1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-2121
`Telephone: 310.586.7700
`Facsimile: 310.586.7800
`
`VISHESH NARAYEN (pro hac vice)
`narayenv@gtlaw.com
`101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1900
`Tampa, FL 33602
`Telephone: 813.318.5700
`Facsimile: 813.318.5900
`Attorneys for defendant Quora, Inc.
`
`JERI CONNOR,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`QUORA, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-07597-BLF-NC
`
`Hon. Beth Labson Freeman; Hon. Nathanael
`Cousins
`
`DEFENDANT QUORA, INC.’S MOTION FOR
`RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE
`PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
`JUDGE DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
`FORENSIC INSPECTION OF PLAINTIFF’S
`DEVICES
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-07597-BLF-NC
`Quora’s Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order
`
`
`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 5:18-cv-07597-BLF Document 237 Filed 05/18/21 Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and L.R. 72-2, Defendant Quora, Inc.
`moves for relief from the Magistrate Judge’s nondispositive pretrial order denying its motion to compel a
`forensic examination of plaintiff Jeri Connor’s devices used to access Quora. ECF No. 236 (“Order”).
`BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`As detailed in the Joint Statement to the Magistrate Judge, Quora moved to compel a third-party
`forensic inspection of plaintiff’s devices to identify spyware, trojans, or other surreptitious malware that
`may have unwittingly allowed a theft of her personal information from her own devices, which would be
`directly relevant to causation in negligence (her sole remaining claim), comparative negligence, and class
`certification. ECF No. 235 at 1-3 (“Jt. St.”). Quora explained the pointed relevance of this discovery,
`including, e.g., how it is probative of plaintiff’s subjective “straw that broke the camel’s back” theory of
`causation because a failure to meaningfully protect sensitive information residing on her own devices
`shows a general indifference to data security that calls into question “the authenticity of [her] claimed
`reasons for more carefully monitoring her credit,” which the Court specifically identified as a fact issue
`that precluded summary judgment for Quora. Id. at 2; ECF 210 at 19 (Summ. J. Order).
`Quora cited specific authority for its requested discovery, including the Magistrate Judge’s own
`order in the Anthem data breach case compelling the same type of inspection—i.e., to examine “whether
`the plaintiffs’ computer systems contain malware, viruses, or other electronic indicators suggesting that
`their personally identifiable information . . . was compromised before the cyberattack on Anthem”—
`because it was “relevant to causation” and “proportional to the needs of the case.”1 Jt. St. at 1 (citing In re
`Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., No. 5:15-md-02617 LHK-NC, 2016 WL 11730951, at *1 (N.D. Cal.
`Oct. 31, 2016) (“Anthem”)). Quora “recognize[d] the privacy concerns” attendant to forensic inspection
`and (despite plaintiff’s outright refusal to even confer on possible inspection protocols) expressly
`proposed to adopt the same protocol approved in Anthem, as summarized below and set forth in Quora’s
`
`
`1 Quora also noted that plaintiffs in the Yahoo case agreed to allow such an inspection. Jt. St. at 1 (citing
`In re Yahoo Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig., No. 16-MD-02752-LHK, ECF No. 299 at 30-32).
`
`Quora’s Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order
` 1
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-07597-BLF-NC
`
`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 5:18-cv-07597-BLF Document 237 Filed 05/18/21 Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`Proposed Order.2 Jt. St. at 3; Anthem, at *1-2.
`In her opposition to Quora’s motion, plaintiff raised only threshold arguments that the discovery
`sought was irrelevant, cumulative, untimely, and overly intrusive. Jt. St. at 3-5; Order at 1. Plaintiff did
`not object to or even address the specifics of the Anthem protocol that Quora proposed, nor did she argue
`that any aspects of the protocol were somehow inadequate to address privacy or other concerns. Jt. St. at
`3-5. Instead, plaintiff maintained that any forensic examination, irrespective of protocol, would be
`inappropriate. Id. at 3.
`
`ORDER OBJECTED TO AND APPEALED FROM
`In a terse order less than one page, the Magistrate Judge denied Quora’s motion to compel on the
`ground that Quora’s “discovery brief is short on details as to what it is proposing,” Order at 2. The Order
`notably did not find the discovery irrelevant, instead faulting Quora for not addressing a series of specific
`questions—“What does [Quora] want to search for?”; “Using what methods?”; “Who would do the
`search?”; “Where?”; “Who would pay for it?”; and “What access and control will plaintiff have over the
`search?” Id. The Magistrate Judge concluded that without these answers to “limit the burden and
`expense” of the discovery, it could turn into “a fishing expedition that is not proportional to the needs of
`the case.” Id. In essence, the Magistrate Judge denied Quora’s motion for failing to include a detailed
`inspection protocol within Quora’s allotted 2 ½ pages. Quora objects to the Order’s findings as clearly
`erroneous and to the lack of reasoning in the Order as contrary to law.
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`A magistrate judge’s nondispositive pretrial order may be modified or set aside if it is “clearly
`erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A). “[T]he magistrate’s
`factual determinations are reviewed for clear error”; “legal conclusions are reviewed de novo to
`determine whether they are contrary to law.” Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 268 F.R.D. 344, 348 (N.D. Cal.
`2010). “The implicit abuse of discretion standard does not apply to portions of a magistrate judge’s
`
`
`2 Due to the Magistrate Judge’s 2 ½ page limitation, Quora could not recite the entirety of the detailed
`Anthem protocol in the Joint Statement. Nonetheless, Plaintiff acknowledged in her opposition that Quora
`“volunteer[ed] to adopt” the Anthem protocol. Jt. St. at 5.
`
`Quora’s Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order
` 2
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-07597-BLF-NC
`
`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 5:18-cv-07597-BLF Document 237 Filed 05/18/21 Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`discovery order not concerned with relevance.” EEOC v. Peters’ Bakery, 301 F.R.D. 482, 485 (N.D. Cal.
`Sept. 17, 2014) (Freeman, J.). “A decision may be contrary to law if it fails to apply or misapplies
`relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” Rojas v. Bosch Solar Energy Corp., No. 18-cv-05841-
`BLF, 2020 WL 6557547, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2020) (Freeman, J.).
`ARGUMENT
`The Order was clearly erroneous because Quora plainly addressed all the “details” the Magistrate
`Judge believed important to “limit the burden and expense” of the discovery, and those particulars were
`consistent with, and supported by, the most apt authority in the record—indeed, the only authority in any
`jurisdiction—on forensic examinations of plaintiff’s devices in the context of data breach cases. To wit:
`
`“What does [Quora] want to search for?” Id. Quora explained in the second sentence of
`the Joint Statement that it sought to forensically examine plaintiff’s devices for “[t]he presence of
`spyware, trojans, or other surreptitious malware that may unwittingly allowed a theft of her personal
`information” from her own devices, matching the level of detail accepted by the Magistrate Judge for the
`inspection in Anthem. Jt. St. at 1; Anthem, at *1 (a “forensic scan of device data for the limited purpose of
`identifying malware or malicious files” and a “root cause analysis of select malware when identified”).
`
`“Using what methods?” Order at 2. Methods “like those adopted in the Anthem case.” Jt.
`St. at 3 (citing Anthem as “providing parameters for inspection”). Assuming the Magistrate Judge had
`agreed with Quora’s proposal to adopt the same protocol as in Anthem, a third-party forensic examiner
`would create images of plaintiff’s devices, conduct an initial scan for the presence of malware or other
`indicators of compromise, and conduct a further root cause analysis, if necessary, before providing a
`summary to both parties. Anthem, at *1-2.
`
`“Who would do the search?” Order at 2. “[A] third-party forensic examiner,” as Quora
`explained in the Joint Statement. Jt. St. at 3. Just like in Anthem, which Quora cited for this point, the
`forensic examiner would comply with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards
`for acquiring, preserving, and forensically reviewing plaintiff’s devices, and plaintiff would choose the
`examiner from a roster offered by Quora (which obviated identifying a specific person at the time of
`Quora’s motion). See id.; Anthem, at *1.
`
`“Where?” Order at 2. Like the Anthem protocol, which Quora proposed to follow, plaintiff
`
`Quora’s Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order
` 3
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-07597-BLF-NC
`
`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 5:18-cv-07597-BLF Document 237 Filed 05/18/21 Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`would choose where the forensic imaging of her devices would take place. Jt. St. at 3; Anthem, at *1.
`
`“Who would pay for it?” Order at 2. Quora would pay the costs of the forensic examiner,
`as in Anthem, which Quora proposed to follow. Jt. St. at 3; Anthem, at *1.
`
`“What access and control will plaintiff have over the search?” Order at 2. Under the
`Anthem protocol Quora volunteered to adopt, the examiner would control all forensic images, and neither
`party would control the search itself. Jt. St. at 3; Anthem, at *1-2.
`In other words, all the “details” Quora was faulted for not addressing were in fact addressed, and
`matched the protocol used in Anthem—because Quora expressly proposed to adopt that protocol here.
`Plaintiff did not even contest the adequacy of Quora’s proposed protocol. Jt. St. at 3-5. To fault Quora for
`putatively insufficient responses to specific issues plaintiff did not even raise (indeed, details about a
`possible protocol that plaintiff refused to even confer on) is not just clearly erroneous but manifestly
`unfair, especially given the strict page constraints imposed by the Magistrate Judge for discovery
`disputes. The finding that Quora’s motion was “short on details” was thus clearly erroneous.
`The Order’s finding that, absent answers to the above inquiries, a forensic inspection could in
`theory turn into “a fishing expedition that is not proportional to the needs of the case” is clearly erroneous
`given that Quora proposed a detailed protocol based on that approved in Anthem. Order at 2; Jt. St. at 3.
`Moreover, Quora’s request is far narrower than what was permitted in Anthem—and thus well-supported
`by the only apposite authority on forensic examination of plaintiffs’ devices in this context. The Anthem
`defendants requested inspection of nearly 100 named plaintiffs’ devices, which the Magistrate Judge
`narrowed to 30, whereas Quora here requests forensic examination of just one person’s devices—
`plaintiff. See In re Anthem, 162 F. Supp. 3d 953, 970 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (98 named plaintiffs); compare
`id., 5:15-md-02617-LHK-NC, ECF No. 549 (Joint Discovery Brief) at 1, with 2016 WL 11730951, at *1.
`To the extent the Order implicitly relied on a finding of disproportionality, which is not clear, it
`provided no reasoning, prejudicing Quora’s ability to seek review. Rule 72(a) “calls for a written order of
`the magistrate’s disposition to preserve the record and facilitate review.” Rojas, 2020 WL 6557547, at *3.
`An order devoid of reasoning is contrary to law. Id. (“[S]ome reasoned decision clearly is required.”). For
`example, Quora cannot assess whether the Magistrate Judge properly placed the burden on “the party
`resisting relevant, non-privileged discovery” (plaintiff), see 21X Capital Ltd. v. Werra, No. C06-04135
`
`Quora’s Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order
` 4
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-07597-BLF-NC
`
`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 5:18-cv-07597-BLF Document 237 Filed 05/18/21 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`JW (HRL), 2007 WL 2852367, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2007), or considered the proportionality factors
`under Rule 26(b)(1). In any event, this discovery is plainly proportional. Plaintiff cannot credibly claim
`that the small inconvenience of a forensic examination under a protocol that protects her privacy and
`minimizes the associated burden and expense is disproportionate to the very “importan[t] . . . issues at
`stake” in a case where she purports to represent a class of 30+ million individuals with alleged common
`damages. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); ECF No. 85 ¶ 64; In re Outlaw Labs., LP Litig., Case No.:
`18CV840 GPC (BGS), 2020 WL 1083403 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2020) (discovery into damages proportional
`where “critical” to class certification).The requested discovery bears on outcome-determinative questions
`of negligence causation, comparative negligence, and class certification. Jt. St. at 1-2; Belcastro v. United
`Airlines, Inc., No. 17 C 1682, 2019 WL 7049914, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 2019) (ordering forensic exam
`where information went to “heart of plaintiff’s claim”). Faced with the same question and the same
`objections in a case requesting a far broader forensic examination, the Magistrate Judge found inspection
`appropriate under the very protocol Quora proposed to adopt here. See Anthem, at *2; see also Playboy
`Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 60 F. Supp. 2d 1050, 1054 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (rejecting categorical privacy
`objection, finding nonmovant would be sufficiently protected by proposed protocol); Belcastro, 2019 WL
`7049914, at *3 (same).
`Finally, the Magistrate Judge’s unelaborated finding that “[l]ess burdensome discovery methods
`could have been used to learn the information Quora now seeks” is likewise clearly erroneous. Order at 2.
`Fact discovery is over.3 ECF No. 208. Plaintiff did not even argue that other means existed to obtain this
`discovery, for the obvious reason that a forensic examination requires tools and techniques she obviously
`does not have. Belcastro, 2019 WL 7049914, at *3 (permitting third-party forensic inspection, noting lay
`plaintiff “lack[ed] the expertise to carry out” ESI examination). The Order’s finding that other means
`existed, which “cannot be meaningfully reviewed” because it lacks any explanation, is clearly erroneous
`for overlooking this fact. Rojas, 2020 WL 6557547, at *3.
`The Court should overrule the Order and compel plaintiff to submit her devices for a third-party
`forensic inspection according to the Anthem protocol set forth in Quora’s Proposed Order.
`
`
`3 The deadline for motions to compel was extended by stipulation to May 21, 2021. ECF No. 231 ¶ 3.
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-07597-BLF-NC
`
`
`Quora’s Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order
` 5
`
`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 5:18-cv-07597-BLF Document 237 Filed 05/18/21 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`DATED: May 18, 2021
`
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Ian C. Ballon
`
`Ian C. Ballon
`Attorneys for defendant Quora, Inc.
`
`
`
`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 No.: 5:18-cv-07597-BLF-NC
`
`
`Quora’s Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order
` 6
`
`

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