throbber
Case 3:20-cv-02353-JD Document 82 Filed 08/09/21 Page 1 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`COOLEY LLP
`PATRICK E. GIBBS (183174)
`(pgibbs@cooley.com)
`JESSICA VALENZUELA SANTAMARIA (220934)
`(jvs@cooley.com)
`TIJANA M. BRIEN (286590)
`(tbrien@cooley.com)
`JENNA C. BAILEY (319302)
`(jbailey@cooley.com)
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1130
`Telephone:
`+1 650 843 5000
`Facsimile:
`+1 650 849 7400
`
`CRAIG E. TENBROECK (287848)
`(ctenbroeck@cooley.com)
`4401 Eastgate Mall
`San Diego, California 92121
`Telephone:
`+1 858 550 6000
`Facsimile:
`+1 858 550 6420
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Zoom Video Communications, Inc., Eric S. Yuan, and
`Kelly Steckelberg
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`In re ZOOM SECURITIES LITIGATION
`
`This Document Relates To:
`ALL ACTIONS.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 3:20-cv-02353-JD
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY ISO MOTION TO
`DISMISS THE CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`August 26, 2021
`Date:
`
`10:00 a.m.
`Time:
`Courtroom: 11, 19th Floor
` Hon. James Donato
`Judge:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO MTD
` 3:20-CV-02353-JD
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02353-JD Document 82 Filed 08/09/21 Page 2 of 16
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`B.
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege Any False or Misleading Statements ................................ 1
`1.
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege That E2EE Had One Exclusive Definition ........... 1
`2.
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege Any Actionable Misstatements or
`Omissions Regarding Data Privacy ............................................................ 3
`Plaintiff Fails to Establish “Maker” Liability ......................................................... 5
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege a Strong Inference of Scienter .......................................... 5
`1.
`Plaintiff Fails to Plead Scienter as to End-to-End Encryption .................... 5
`2.
`Plaintiff Fails to Plead Scienter as to the Privacy Statements ..................... 7
`3.
`After-the-Fact Statements and Events Do Not Support Scienter ................ 7
`4.
`Viewed Holistically, Plaintiff Fails to Plead Scienter ................................. 8
`Plaintiff Fails to Plead Loss Causation ................................................................... 9
`D.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO MTD
` 3:20-CV-02353-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02353-JD Document 82 Filed 08/09/21 Page 3 of 16
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`In re Allied Nevada Gold Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`743 F. App’x 887 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................. 8
`
`In re Alphabet, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`1 F. 4th 687 (9th Cir. 2021) .................................................................................................. 4, 9
`
`In re Apple Inc., Sec. Litig.,
`2020 WL 2857397 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2020) ........................................................................ 4, 8
`
`In re Apple Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`2020 WL 6482014 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2020) ............................................................................ 8
`
`Bonanno v. Cellular Biomedicine Grp., Inc.,
`2016 WL 4585753 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2016) ......................................................................... 10
`
`Brody v. Transitional Hosps. Corp.,
`280 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................. 3, 4
`
`City of Monroe Employees Retirement System v. Bridgestone Corp.,
`399 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2005) ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`City of Sunrise Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp.,
`2021 WL 1091891 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2021) .......................................................................... 4
`
`In re Cloudera, Inc.,
`2021 WL 2115303 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2021) .......................................................................... 7
`
`Cunningham v. Identiv, Inc.,
`716 F. App’x 663 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................. 6
`
`Curry v. Yelp Inc.,
`875 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`ECA, Loc. 134 IBEW Joint Pension Tr. of Chi. v. JP Morgan Chase Co.,
`553 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2009) ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`Janus Cap. Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative Traders,
`564 U.S. 135 (2011). (See Mot. .) ............................................................................................. 5
`
`Khoja v. Orexigen,
`899 F. 3d 988 (9th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`In re LendingClub Sec. Litig.,
`254 F. Supp. 3d 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .................................................................................... 4
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO MTD
` 3:20-CV-02353-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02353-JD Document 82 Filed 08/09/21 Page 4 of 16
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Cont.)
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`Lopes v. Fitbit, Inc.,
`2020 WL 1465932 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2020), aff’d, 848 F. App’x 278 (9th
`Cir. 2021) .................................................................................................................................. 7
`
`In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`597 F.3d 501 (2d Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................... 10
`
`Perlman v. Zell,
`938 F. Supp. 1327 (N.D. Ill. 1996), aff’d, 185 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 1999) .................................. 6
`
`Purple Mountain Trust v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
`432 F. Supp. 3d 1095 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................. 10
`
`Reese v. Malone,
`747 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`In re Rigel Pharms., Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`2009 WL 5125344 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2009) ........................................................................ 10
`
`In re Rigel Pharms., Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`697 F.3d 869 (9th Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`Rok v. Identiv, Inc.,
`2017 WL 35496 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2017 .................................................................................. 6
`
`Schueneman v. Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`840 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,
`551 U.S. 308 (2007) .................................................................................................................. 9
`
`In re Tesla, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`477 F. Supp. 3d 903 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ...................................................................................... 8
`
`In re Twitter, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`506 F. Supp. 3d 867 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ...................................................................................... 3
`
`In re Twitter, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`2020 WL 4187915 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020) .......................................................................... 6
`
`In re Verisign, Inc., Derivative Litig.,
`531 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .................................................................................... 5
`
`Webb v. SolarCity Corp.,
`884 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................................... 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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO MTD
`3:20-CV-02353-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02353-JD Document 82 Filed 08/09/21 Page 5 of 16
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Cont.)
`
`
`Wochos v. Tesla, Inc.,
`985 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C.
`§ 78u-4(e)(1)-(3) ..................................................................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO MTD
`3:20-CV-02353-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02353-JD Document 82 Filed 08/09/21 Page 6 of 16
`
`
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff’s Opposition confirms that his Complaint fails to plead a single actionable mis-
`statement, a strong inference of scienter, or loss causation under the Exchange Act.
`First, Plaintiff fails to plead with particularity that any statements were false or misleading
`when made. Regarding “end-to-end encryption” (“E2EE”), Defendants never said that Zoom did
`not hold the cryptographic key. Plaintiff’s reliance on the “known and accepted” definition of
`E2EE fails under Ninth Circuit precedent, because he does not allege with particularity that E2EE
`“would be understood as referring exclusively” to his preferred definition. See Wochos v. Tesla,
`Inc., 985 F.3d 1180, 1194 (9th Cir. 2021). As for Zoom’s statements about user privacy, Plaintiff
`fails to identify a single statement rendered false or misleading by the alleged omission of (1) the
`Facebook SDK’s collection of technical device data, (2) Zoom’s LinkedIn profile matching feature,
`or (3) Zoom’s Mac web server, which the Opposition appears to concede as to the latter two.
`Second, Plaintiff fails to plead facts giving rise to a “strong inference” that Eric Yuan or
`Kelly Steckelberg knew or recklessly disregarded that the challenged statements would materially
`mislead investors. Plaintiff’s conclusory and unspecific references to “Defendants’” or “Zoom’s”
`scienter generally are not enough and the few individual allegations Plaintiff does cite, such as
`Yuan’s involvement in developing Zoom’s platform, do not come close to supporting a strong
`inference of scienter. Nor do alleged after-the-fact statements and events show that any Defendant
`intended to mislead investors when they spoke.
`Finally, Plaintiff’s Opposition abandons most of his “corrective disclosures.” For the few
`that remain, he fails to demonstrate that there was any newly-disclosed information or a decline in
`Zoom’s stock price. Thus, he fails to plead the element of loss causation.
`For each of these independent reasons, the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege Any False or Misleading Statements
`1.
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege That E2EE Had One Exclusive Definition
`Plaintiff does not dispute that under at least one definition of E2EE – which focuses on
`whether communications remain encrypted between two endpoints, i.e. “end to end” – it is
`
`II.
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO MTD
` 3:20-CV-02353-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02353-JD Document 82 Filed 08/09/21 Page 7 of 16
`
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`irrelevant whether Zoom held the cryptographic key. The alleged misleading statements were
`therefore true. (See Mot. at 6.) This alone makes clear that Plaintiff fails to plead falsity as to the
`E2EE statements.
`Undeterred, Plaintiff labels Zoom’s references to E2EE as false and misleading because,
`according to Plaintiff, Zoom’s access to the cryptographic key was inconsistent with what Plaintiff
`claims is the “‘industry standard’ meaning” of E2EE. (Opp. at 1, 4.) But the Complaint alleges no
`facts supporting Plaintiff’s conclusory assertion that his preferred definition is the “known and
`accepted definition in the tech industry,” let alone the definition that Plaintiff or the market
`understood. Instead he relies entirely on a definition promoted by a single journalist in 2014. (¶
`9(a), n.5.) Nothing in the article suggests that it is using (or establishing) an “industry accepted”
`definition of E2EE, or that an “industry accepted” definition even existed. Nor does Plaintiff’s
`reliance on articles published months to years after the challenged statements, suggest that an
`“industry accepted” definition existed at the time the statements were made.1 (¶¶ 56-59, 72.)
`Moreover, even assuming that Plaintiff’s definition was one “known and accepted” (or even
`an “industry accepted”) definition of E2EE, Plaintiff’s claim still fails under the Ninth Circuit’s
`analysis in Tesla, 985 F.3d at 1194. There, the Ninth Circuit rejected a claim that Tesla misled
`investors by saying it made “50 production cars” because plaintiffs had failed to plead “sufficient
`facts to establish that the actual term used had the distinctive, and false, meaning that Plaintiffs
`claim.” Tesla, 985 F.3d at 1194. Plaintiff does not meaningfully distinguish Tesla. He argues that
`it is not dispositive because in Tesla plaintiffs did not plead “an industry accepted definition,” which
`he claims to have done here. (Opp. at 5.) But the Ninth Circuit’s analysis turned on plaintiffs’
`failure to plead “facts to support their premise that [the phrase] would be understood as referring
`exclusively” to the definition they promoted. 985 F.3d at 1194 (emphasis added). The Complaint
`here suffers the same flaw, as it lacks facts to support the allegation that E2EE “refer[s] exclusively”
`to Plaintiff’s definition and tacitly concedes that other definitions of the term exist. Id. at 1194.
`And Plaintiff admits that some of Zoom’s features offered E2EE in the way he defines it.
`(See, e.g., ¶ 34(a).) As such, even if Plaintiff’s preferred definition were the only possible definition
`
`1 Even if Plaintiff’s definition of E2EE was one “known and accepted” definition of the phrase, this
`would not foreclose the existence of other “known” or “accepted” definitions.
`
`
`2
`
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO MTD
`3:20-CV-02353-JD
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02353-JD Document 82 Filed 08/09/21 Page 8 of 16
`
`
`
`of E2EE, the sole statement challenged in Zoom’s Prospectus,2 that Zoom offered “end-to-end
`encryption” as part of its general “technology and infrastructure” would not be false, because it
`does not suggest that all Zoom products offered E2EE in all circumstances. (Ex. A, Stmt. 1.) For
`the same reason, the various blog posts Plaintiff challenges are also not false. (See id., Stmts. 3, 6,
`8, 10 (“we can highlight the following features as important to businesses . . . [s]ecure with end-to-
`end AES 256 bit encryption,”).)3 Setting aside whether these statements said anything about
`Zoom’s encryption capabilities (see Mot. at 7, n.6), Plaintiff fails to allege how these statements
`were false if, as he alleges, Zoom’s product offered E2EE in the way he defines it. Because Plaintiff
`does not plead with specificity that Zoom’s statements about E2EE were false or misleading when
`made, his claims should be dismissed.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege Any Actionable Misstatements or Omissions
`Regarding Data Privacy
`
`Plaintiff’s falsity theory around Zoom’s Privacy Policy is equally flawed. (See Mot. at 8-
`9.) To start, Plaintiff fails to plead with particularity how Zoom’s user Privacy Policy touted any
`“positive information to the market,” such that Zoom was obligated not to “mislead investors” and
`“disclos[e] adverse information” cutting against it. In re Twitter, Inc. Sec. Litig., 506 F. Supp. 3d
`867 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (emphasis added). None of the cases Plaintiff identifies involved consumer-
`facing documents, like Zoom’s Privacy Policy.
`Plaintiff also does not plead with particularity why the statements in Zoom’s Privacy Policy
`created a duty to share any and all facts around user privacy. See, e.g., Brody v. Transitional Hosps.
`Corp., 280 F.3d 997, 997 (9th Cir. 2002) (Rule 10b-5 “prohibit[s] only misleading and untrue
`statements, not statements that are incomplete”). As Plaintiff’s own authorities show, the
`information disclosed and the alleged omission must be directly linked. (See Opp. at 6.) In Khoja
`v. Orexigen, for example, a company disclosed certain clinical study results and therefore was also
`obligated to disclose that those results were unreliable. 899 F. 3d 988, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2018);
`
`
`2 This is also the sole statement allegedly “made” by Yuan or Steckelberg. See infra at II.B.
`3 Defendants do not “concede that Plaintiff alleges that the representations concerning 256-bit
`encryption were false.” (Compare Opp. at 4 with Mot. at 7-8, n. 7.) In any case, the sole
`“disclosure” regarding 256-bit encryption (the April 3, 2021 Citizen Lab article) confirms that
`investors did not care, as Zoom’s stock price closed higher following its “disclosure.” (Mot. at 14.)
`
`
`3
`
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO MTD
`3:20-CV-02353-JD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02353-JD Document 82 Filed 08/09/21 Page 9 of 16
`
`
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`see also In re LendingClub Sec. Litig., 254 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1118 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (company’s
`statements about loan origination volume required disclosure that a large number of those loans
`were made to the company’s CEO and his family); In re Apple Inc., Sec. Litig., 2020 WL 2857397,
`at *11 (N.D. Cal. June 2, 2020) (statements regarding “high upgrade rates” required disclosure of
`“adverse information” that those upgrades were due to slowing phone operations). No such link
`exists here. The Privacy Policy’s statements that Zoom may collect “Facebook profile information”
`is markedly different from Facebook4 allegedly collecting “mobile OS type and version, the device
`time zone, device OS, device model and carrier, screen size, processor cores, and disk space.”5 (See
`¶ 50.) And Plaintiff still fails to explain how this (or any other) challenged statement relates to the
`LinkedIn and Mac web server allegations. Even if Plaintiff “specif[ied] what information [Zoom]
`omitted, [he did] not indicate why the statement [Zoom] made was misleading,” and thus he fails
`to plead an actionable misstatement or omission. See Brody, 280 F.3d at 1006.
`Finally, Zoom’s general statements around the user experience or Zoom’s commitment to
`privacy are inactionable. (See Opp. at 6; see, e.g., ¶ 28 (“[Zoom] is committed to protecting your
`privacy and ensuring you have a positive experience”); ¶43 (“We’ve designed policies and controls
`to safeguard the collection, use, and disclosure of your information.”).) The Ninth Circuit recently
`held that several very similar alleged misstatements—including that (1) “Google was ‘committed
`to protecting our users’ data” and (2) Alphabet was “one of the leading companies when it comes
`to privacy and security of user data” and taking “great pains to make sure that people have great
`control and notice over their data”—“amount[ed] to vague and generalized corporate commitments,
`aspirations, or puffery that cannot support statement liability.” In re Alphabet, Inc. Sec. Litig., 1 F.
`4th 687, 708 (9th Cir. 2021).6 The statements here are no different.
`
`4 Plaintiff apparently does not recall his own Complaint as he now claims, with no support and
`contrary to his own allegations, that Zoom developed the SDK, not Facebook. See infra at C.2.
`5 Plaintiff accuses Defendants of “selectively quot[ing]” the Privacy Policy (Opp. at 8), but it is
`Plaintiff who mischaracterizes it. The policy was clear that Zoom may share data “in order to
`provide requested Products,” defined as Zoom’s, not Facebook’s, “products and services.” Ex. 8.
`6 Plaintiff dedicates pages of his Opposition to attacking Defendants’ purported “truth-on-the-
`market” defense. (See Opp. at 7.) Plaintiff misunderstands Defendants’ argument, which pointed
`to publicly-available information to show context for how investors would have understood Zoom’s
`references to E2EE, which courts routinely do in assessing the adequacy of falsity allegations. See,
`e.g., City of Sunrise Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., 2021 WL 1091891 (N.D. Cal.
`Mar. 22, 2021) (“a duty to provide information exists only where statements were made which were
`misleading in light of the context surrounding the statements”) (emphasis added).
`
`
`4
`
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO MTD
`3:20-CV-02353-JD
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02353-JD Document 82 Filed 08/09/21 Page 10 of 16
`
`
`
`B.
`Plaintiff Fails to Establish “Maker” Liability
`Plaintiff essentially concedes that Yuan and Steckelberg did not “make” all but one of the
`alleged misstatements. (Opp. at 3, n. 5.) He does not attempt to allege any involvement by Yuan
`or Steckelberg in any of the documents that contained the challenged statements (other than the
`Prospectus, which, as discussed above, is not false or misleading even under Plaintiff’s’ preferred
`definition of E2EE). As a result, they cannot be liable for these alleged misstatements under Janus
`Cap. Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135, 142 (2011). (See Mot. at 9.)
`
`C.
`Plaintiff Fails to Allege a Strong Inference of Scienter
`The scienter “bar . . . is not easy to satisfy,” Webb v. SolarCity Corp., 884 F.3d 844, 855
`(9th Cir. 2018) and Plaintiff’s allegations are sorely lacking. The Complaint is notable for what it
`misses: no alleged motive, no suspicious stock sales7, no confidential witnesses, and no allegations
`that either Defendant had contemporaneous knowledge of information contradicting Zoom’s public
`statements. Instead, Plaintiff cobbles together conclusory and vague allegations of “Defendants’”
`or “Zoom’s” scienter generally, even as he concedes that group pleading is insufficient. (See, e.g.,
`Opp. at 9-10; Mot. at 10.) Having failed to “show[] what each defendant knew, when he/she knew
`it, or how he/she acquired that knowledge,” his Complaint must be dismissed. In re Verisign, Inc.,
`Derivative Litig., 531 F. Supp. 2d 1173, 1207 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (emphasis added).8
`
`1.
`Plaintiff Fails to Plead Scienter as to End-to-End Encryption
`Plaintiff claims generally that “Defendants” knew various facts around Zoom’s encryption
`practices, including that Zoom “maintained the cryptographic keys.” (See Opp. at 9-10.) Setting
`aside whether those facts were sufficiently pled, Plaintiff’s scienter argument fails. To plead
`scienter, Plaintiff cannot simply allege that Defendants were aware of a fact. He must also allege
`specific facts demonstrating that Defendants were aware that this fact rendered their statement false
`or misleading. See, e.g., In re Rigel Pharms., Inc. Sec. Litig., 697 F.3d 869, 883 (9th Cir. 2012) (it
`was not enough to allege that defendants had access to clinical trial results or knew that the results
`combined data from two countries, plaintiff had to allege that “defendants believed that they made
`
`7 While suspicious stock sales may not be required, (see Opp. at 10 n. 9) their absence “undermines
`any inference of scienter.” (Mot. at 12.)
`8 Plaintiff’s Opposition does not cite a single allegation in the Complaint that relates to
`Steckelberg’s scienter. All claims against her must be dismissed.
`
`
`5
`
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO MTD
`3:20-CV-02353-JD
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02353-JD Document 82 Filed 08/09/21 Page 11 of 16
`
`
`
`false or misleading statements relating to a country effect or that Defendants believed they were
`misrepresenting the statistical significance of their results”).
`Here, Plaintiff must plead specific facts showing that Defendants knew (or were reckless in
`not knowing) that Zoom holding the cryptographic key rendered Zoom’s use of the term E2EE
`false and misleading to investors. See, e.g., Rok v. Identiv, Inc., 2017 WL 35496, at *11 (N.D. Cal.
`Jan. 4, 2017), aff’d sub nom, Cunningham v. Identiv, Inc., 716 F. App’x 663 (9th Cir. 2018) (“[t]he
`scienter that the SAC is required to allege is an intent to defraud investors”). That is, Plaintiff must
`allege that not only was Plaintiff’s preferred definition of E2EE the only definition (which he does
`not), but also that Defendants knew it was the only definition. He does not.
`At most, Plaintiff merely restates the applicable legal standard by asserting that “the danger
`of misleading investors was, or should have been, obvious.” (Opp. at 11.) But Plaintiff fails to
`allege a single fact (let alone with particularity) demonstrating that Yuan or Steckelberg were aware
`at the time the statements were made that investors would interpret E2EE to only mean that the
`cryptographic key was not held by Zoom.9 Nor does Plaintiff explain why Yuan or Steckelberg
`would have committed this alleged investor fraud through marketing and consumer-facing
`documents that investors typically would not read or care about.10 (See Mot. at 13.) Allegations
`about Yuan’s general knowledge of Zoom’s platform or his experience at a different company over
`a decade ago are also insufficient. (See Opp. at 10.) Even if it were plausible to infer from the
`Complaint’s bare-bones allegations that Yuan knew that Zoom held the cryptographic key, he could
`still believe the statements were not misleading because there is more than one way to interpret
`E2EE. Without pleading “some additional allegation of specific information conveyed to [Yuan]
`and related to the fraud,” Yuan’s “general awareness of the day-to-day workings of the company’s
`
`
`9 Plaintiff’s cases are distinguishable. In Schueneman v. Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the court
`held that it should have been obvious that defendants’ failure to disclose that rat studies showed a
`drug was carcinogenic, when representing that all animal studies supported the drug’s safety, would
`have misled the market. 840 F.3d 698, 705 (9th Cir. 2016). Similarly, in In re Twitter, Inc.
`Securities Litigation, 2020 WL 4187915 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020), the court held that it should
`have been obvious that defendants’ failure to disclose a decline in a significant performance metric,
`when speaking about that exact metric, would have misled investors.
`10 Plaintiff’s citation to Perlman v. Zell is inapposite, as it related to pleading a claim for mail fraud
`and says nothing of whether an intent to mislead investors under Section 10(b) can be inferred from
`statements in consumer-facing documents not made (1) by defendants or (2) to investors. See Opp.
`at 10. 938 F. Supp. 1327, 1344 (N.D. Ill. 1996), aff’d, 185 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 1999).
`
`
`6
`
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO MTD
`3:20-CV-02353-JD
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02353-JD Document 82 Filed 08/09/21 Page 12 of 16
`
`
`
`business” fails to establish scienter. See Curry v. Yelp Inc., 875 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2017).
`2.
`Plaintiff Fails to Plead Scienter as to the Privacy Statements
`Plaintiff’s Opposition concedes through its silence that no particularized facts demonstrate
`scienter as to the LinkedIn and Mac server allegations (which he previously claimed rendered
`statements in Zoom’s Privacy Policies false and misleading). (See Opp. at 11.) And having
`apparently recognized that his allegations about the Facebook SDK warrant dismissal, Plaintiff
`impermissibly tries to amend his pleading by making the (incorrect and unsupported) claim in the
`Opposition that “Zoom developed the SDK and presumably knew how it worked.” (Compare Opp.
`at 11 (emphasis added), with ¶ 34(b) (alleging Facebook developed the SDK); see also ¶¶ 47-49.)
`This, of course, is not allowed. See, e.g., In re Cloudera, Inc., 2021 WL 2115303, at *8 (N.D. Cal.
`May 25, 2021) (rejecting “allegations not contained or referenced in the” Complaint). Nor does
`Plaintiff allege that Yuan or Steckelberg were involved with or aware of the Facebook SDK, or
`understood how it worked. In short, Plaintiff does not plead scienter as to the privacy statements.
`3.
`After-the-Fact Statements and Events Do Not Support Scienter
`Unable to identify any contemporaneous facts supporting scienter, Plaintiff relies on
`statements and events that occurred months to years later. But those also fail to establish that Yuan
`or Steckelberg intended to (or were deliberately reckless in not realizing that they would) mislead
`investors. For example, Plaintiff claims that Zoom “recognize[d]” that its use of E2EE differed
`from “the commonly accepted definition” and used it anyway (Opp. at 10), but he mischaracterizes
`what was said. An after-the-fact recognition of present-day confusion, made nearly five months
`after the last alleged statement around E2EE, does not show what was known or intended at the
`time the challenged statements were made. See Lopes v. Fitbit, Inc., 2020 WL 1465932, at *11
`(N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2020), aff’d, 848 F. App’x 278 (9th Cir. 2021) (“it is clearly insufficient for
`plaintiffs to say that a later, sobering revelation makes an earlier, cheerier statement a falsehood”).
`And Yuan did not, as Plaintiff claims, “apologize[] for misleading the market.” (See Opp. at 12.)
`Rather, the cited blog post made clear that Zoom “never intended to deceive any of [its] customers.”
`(See Ex. 16.) This after-the-fact blog post is not, as Plaintiff contends, an “admission” of an intent
`
`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`DEFENDANTS' REPLY ISO MTD
`3:20-CV-02353-JD
`
`

`

`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
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`PALO ALTO
`
`Case 3:20-cv-02353-JD Document 82 Filed 08/09/21 Page 13 of 16
`
`
`
`to mislead – at most it demonstrates lack of intent.11 (See Opp. at 10-12.) Plaintiff also fails to
`demonstrate how the removal of the phrase “E2EE” from Zoom’s blog posts and Security Guide,
`or its discontinuation of the Facebook SDK, says anything about Defendants’ mental state at the
`time the challenged statements were made. (See Opp. at 11–12.) Unsurprisingly, Plaintiff cites no
`support for his theory that taking after-the-fact steps to ensure consumers were not misled actually
`supports an inference of a prior intent to mislead.
`Finally, Plaintiff points to Zoom’s settlement with the FTC in an attempt to “corroborate”
`his falsity and scienter theories. (Opp. at 12-13.) Under that settlement agreement, however, Zoom
`did not admit any liability or wrongdoing.12 (See Opp., Ex. A at 18.) And Plaintiff’s cited cases
`do not support his conclusory assertion that “quick settlements of ancillary lawsuits alleging fraud
`or deceptive conduct . . . can be indicative of scienter.” (See Opp. at 13.) Unlike the public FTC
`settlement with Zoom, in City of Monroe Employees Retirement System v. Bridgestone Corp.,
`defendants perpetuated the fraud by entering into secret settlement agreements to hide the property
`damage and injuries caused by their defective products and which they allegedly concealed from
`investors. 399 F.3d 651, 685–86 (6th Cir. 2005). And the Tesla settlement with the U.S. Secu

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