Case 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`SONAL N. MEHTA (SBN 222086)
` Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com
`2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, California 94306
`Telephone: (650) 858-6000
`DAVID Z. GRINGER (pro hac vice)
` David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, New York 10007
`Telephone: (212) 230-8800
`ARI HOLTZBLATT (pro hac vice)
` Ari.Holtzblatt@wilmerhale.com
`MOLLY M. JENNINGS (pro hac vice)
` Molly.Jennings@wilmerhale.com
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, District of Columbia 20006
`Telephone: (202) 663-6000
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al., on behalf of
`themselves and all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`META PLATFORMS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation headquartered in California,
`Defendant.
`
` Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR
`INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL
`ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE
`HAGUE CONVENTION OF 18 MARCH
`1970 ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE
`ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL
`MATTERS
`
`Judge: Hon. James Donato
`
`No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`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 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 2 of 22
`
`
`
`The United States District Court for the Northern District of California presents its
`compliments to the Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China and requests assistance
`in obtaining evidence to be used in civil proceedings before this Court.
`This request is made pursuant to, and in conformity with, Chapters I and II of the
`Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters
`(the “Hague Evidence Convention”), to which both the United States and the People’s Republic
`of China are party.
`Specifically, the District Court requests assistance in obtaining evidence from non-party
`Tencent Holdings Ltd. (“Tencent”), a Chinese entity residing in Shenzhen, the People’s Republic
`of China.
`
`SECTION I
`
`1. SENDER:
`The Honorable James Donato
`United States District Court of the Northern District of California
`450 Golden Gate Avenue
`San Francisco, CA 94102
`United States of America
`
`2. CENTRAL AUTHORITY OF THE REQUESTED STATE:
`International Legal Cooperation Center (ILCC)
`Ministry of Justice of China
`33, Pinganli Xidajie
`Xicheng District
`Beijing 100035
`People’s Republic of China
`Tel: +86 (10) 5560 4537
`Fax: +86 (10) 5560 4538
`
`3. PERSON TO WHOM THE EXECUTED REQUEST IS TO BE RETURNED:
`The Honorable James Donato
`United States District Court of the Northern District of California
`450 Golden Gate Avenue
`San Francisco, CA 94102
`United States of America
`
`With a Copy to the Parties’ Legal Representatives:
`Stephen A. Swedlow
`
`
`No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`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 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 3 of 22
`
`
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tel: (312) 705-7400
`Email: stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Shana E. Scarlett
`Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
`715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
`Berkeley, CA 94710
`Tel: (510) 725-3000
`Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com
`
`Yavar Bathaee
`Bathaee Dunne LLP
`445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel: (332) 322-8835
`Email: yavar@bathaeedunne.com
`
`Kristen M. Anderson
`Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
`230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
`New York, NY 10169
`Tel: (212) 223-6444
`Email: kanderson@scott-scott.com
`
`Sonal N. Mehta
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Tel: (650) 858-6000
`Email: sonal.mehta@wilmerhale.com
`
`David Z. Gringer
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`Tel: (212) 230-8800
`Email: david.gringer@wilmerhale.com
`
`4. SPECIFICATION OF THE DATE BY WHICH THE REQUESTING AUTHORITY
`REQUIRES RECEIPT OF THE RESPONSE TO THE LETTER OF REQUEST:
`
`
`No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`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 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 4 of 22
`
`The Requesting Authority would greatly appreciate a response to the Request for
`Assistance as soon as is practicable, to ensure that the documents are received in a timely manner
`for use in the civil proceedings described below.
`SECTION II
`IN CONFORMITY WITH ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION, THE UNDERSIGNED
`APPLICANT HAS THE HONOR TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
`REGARDING THE INSTANT REQUEST:
`5.
`(a)
`REQUESTING JUDICIAL AUTHORITY (Article 3(a)):
`The Honorable James Donato
`United States District Court of the Northern District of California
`450 Golden Gate Avenue
`San Francisco, CA 94102
`United States of America
`
`TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF (Article 3(a)):
`(b)
`The People’s Republic of China
`(c)
`NAME OF THE CASE AND ANY IDENTIFYING NUMBER:
`Klein, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD, United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A.
`6. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE
`PARTIES AND
`REPRESENTATIVES (Article 3(b)):
`(a)
`Plaintiffs:
`Maximilian Klein
`
`THEIR
`
`Sarah Grabert
`
`Rachel Banks Kupcho
`
`Affilious, Inc.
`
`Jessyca Frederick
`
`Mark Young
`
`No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`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 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`406 Property Services, PLLC
`
`Mark Berney
`
`Katherine Looper
`
`Representatives:
`
`Stephen A. Swedlow
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tel: (312) 705-7400
`Email: stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Shana E. Scarlett
`Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
`715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
`Berkeley, CA 94710
`Tel: (510) 725-3000
`Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com
`
`Yavar Bathaee
`Bathaee Dunne LLP
`445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel: (332) 322-8835
`Email: yavar@bathaeedunne.com
`
`Kristen M. Anderson
`Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
`230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
`New York, NY 10169
`Tel: (212) 223-6444
`Email: kanderson@scott-scott.com
`Defendant:
`(b)
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`1601 Willow Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`Representatives:
`Sonal Mehta
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`
`
`No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`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 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 6 of 22
`
`
`
`Tel: (650) 858-6000
`Email: sonal.mehta@wilmerhale.com
`
`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
`
`
`
`David Z. Gringer
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`Tel: (212) 230-8800
`Email: david.gringer@wilmerhale.com
`7. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY OF THE
`FACTS (Article 3(c)):
`Nature of the proceedings:
`(a)
`The nature of the proceeding is a consolidated civil action brought on behalf of two putative
`classes: (1) a putative Consumer Class (consisting of individuals who use Meta’s social networking
`and social media services); and (2) a putative Advertiser Class (consisting of individuals and
`entities that purchased Meta’s advertising services). Consumer Plaintiffs bring claims under
`Section 2 of the Sherman Act alleging that Meta obtained and maintains monopoly power in the
`purported Social Network and Social Media Markets through allegedly false representations about
`its data collection and use practices. Advertiser Plaintiffs bring claims under Sections 1 and 2 of
`the Sherman Act for Meta’s alleged monopolization and attempted monopoloization of the
`purported Social Advertising market, including an alleged market division agreement between
`Meta and Google. These claims are based on the Consumer Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action
`Complaint, Dkt. No. 87, and the Advertiser Plaintiffs’ First Amended Consolidated Class Action
`Complaint, Dkt. No. 237.
`Summary of complaint:
`(b)
`Consumer Plaintiffs: Consumer Plaintiffs allege that Meta has engaged in deceptive
`practices regarding the data privacy protections it provides to users of its services. Consumer
`Plaintiffs claim that Meta falsely represented that it would provide users with certain privacy
`protections and deceived users about the amount of user data that it harvested and made available
`to third parties. Consumer Plaintiffs allege that Meta’s mispresentations caused many users to use
`Meta’s services over other competing platforms, which allowed Meta to obtain and maintain a
`
`No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 7 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`monopoly position in the “social network” and “social media” markets. A copy of the Consumer
`Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint is attached as Attachment A.
`Advertiser Plaintiffs: Advertiser Plaintiffs similarly allege that Meta’s deceptive practices
`regarding its data privacy protections allowed Meta to acquire a monopoly position in the “social
`advertising” market. Advertiser Plaintiffs further allege that Meta engaged in anticompetitive
`practices to eliminate and prevent further competition. Specifically, Advertiser Plaintiffs claim
`that Meta prevented developers from building mobile applications that could become rival social
`networks and competitors in the social advertising market. Advertiser Plaintiffs also allege that
`Meta and Google entered an anticompetitive agreement in September 2018 that divided the online
`advertising market and helped Meta maintain its position in the social advertising market. A copy
`of the Advertiser Plaintiffs’ First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint is attached as
`Attachment B.
`Summary of defense:
`(c)
`For numerous reasons, Meta denies the allegations in the Consumer and Advertiser
`Plaintiffs’ complaints. This Letter of Request is intended to obtain information particularly
`relevant to the following defenses (which is not an exhaustive list of Meta’s defenses in this
`proceeding): The market, as defined by the Consumer and Advertiser Plaintiffs, is implausible; the
`industry and the public do not recognize the purported “social network,” “social media,” or “social
`advertising” markets; Meta does not have the requisite market share of the alleged markets;
`competition and consumers cannot be harmed from alleged monopolization of a market for a
`product distributed free to all users; Meta’s data privacy policies and practices are not a means to
`gain competitive advantage over other competitors; and Meta has always faced competition in any
`properly defined market.
`
`SECTION III
`8. EVIDENCE TO BE OBTAINED OR OTHER JUDICIAL ACT TO BE
`PERFORMED (Article 3(d)):
`Evidence to be obtained:
`(a)
`
`
`No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 8 of 22
`
`
`
`The assistance requested of the People’s Republic of China consists of obtaining copies of
`documents in the possession of Tencent Holdings Ltd.
`Purpose of the evidence sought:
`(b)
`The evidence sought in this Letter of Request pertains to the allegations and defenses
`described above and are to be used only in legal proceedings in the matter described. The evidence
`is subject to a strict protective order as provided in Attachment C. The protective order ensures
`that documents produced in this matter will not be used by Meta in any way other than for purposes
`of the litigation. The protective order provides that a producing party such as Tencent Holdings
`Ltd. may mark its documents as Confidential or Highly Confidential; if it does, no one at Meta
`may see the documents except two (in the case of Highly Confidential material) to four (in the case
`of Confidential Material) in-house counsel who are not permitted to participate in Meta’s
`competitive decision-making for two years after receiving the documents.
`The information sought in this Request is necessary in the interest of justice for Meta to
`defend itself fairly against the allegations made by the Consumer and Advertiser Plaintiffs. In
`particular, Tencent Holdings Ltd. is the owner of WeChat and QQ, which Tencent labels as “social
`platform[s].”1 The evidence sought from Tencent regarding the market in which it operates, the
`share of that market, and its competition with Meta for user time and attention is relevant to Meta’s
`defense, because the presence of other digital platform companies such as Tencent demonstrates
`that Meta lacks monopoly power in any market.
`Meta seeks discovery from Tencent to show that Tencent’s products have competed with
`Meta’s products. Meta seeks documents related to how Tencent views competition between its
`products and Meta (Document Request No. 1) and whether WeChat or QQ’s services provide users
`with features substantially similar to those provided by Meta (Document Request No. 2). Meta
`also asks whether Tencent has considered compensating its users for data to test Plaintiffs’
`damages theory (Document Request No. 3). To address Plaintiffs’ allegations related to market
`power, Meta is requesting documents related to whether Tencent believes that its privacy policies
`
`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 Tencent, Businesses, https://www.tencent.com/en-us/business.html (accessed March 26, 2022).
`
`No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`and practices differentiate its products from those offered by its competitors or impact user
`satisfaction or engagement (Document Request No. 4 & 5). Meta also seeks documents related to
`Tencent’s acquisition of certain U.S.-based companies that compete with Meta (Document
`Request No. 6). Lastly, Meta has two limited data requests related to Plaintiffs’ allegations of
`market share and market definition regarding time spent on WeChat and QQ and the number of
`Daily Active Users (Document Request Nos. 7 & 8). Meta believes that this information is relevant
`to countering Plaintiffs’ allegations that Meta has monopoly power in any cognizable market.
`Meta limited these requests to time spent, active users, and daily active users, which have been
`recognized as “appropriate indicators” of “market share.” See Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Facebook,
`Inc., 2022 WL 103308, at *7 (D.D.C. Jan. 11, 2022). Request Number 7 seeks data limited to
`specific periods of time when there was an outage on Meta’s products and seeks information
`related to diversion from Meta’s products. In Request Number 8, Meta has asked for data from
`2011-2014 and 2021 to help respond to Plaintiffs’ allegations that Meta has any type of durable
`monopoly power.
`9. DOCUMENTS OR OTHER PROPERTY TO BE INSPECTED (Article 3(g)):
`Attached as Attachment D is a list of documents to be obtained from Tencent Holdings
`
`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
`
`
`
`Ltd.
`10. SPECIAL METHODS OR PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED (Article 3(i) & 9):
`To the extent permitted by the applicable laws of China, it is respectfully requested that the
`appropriate judicial authority of China require that the requested documents be duly marked for
`identification and produced in electronic and/or paper format, bearing such identification, to:
`
`
`David Z. Gringer
` Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`
`7 World Trade Center
`
`250 Greenwich Street
` New York, NY 10007
`
`Tel: (212) 230-8800
`
`Email: david.gringer@wilmerhale.com
`It is further requested that, if permitted under the laws of China, the document production
`be accompanied by a sworn statement from an authorized Tencent agent, which attests to the fact
`
`No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 10 of 22
`
`
`
`that the production comprises the entirety of the documents described herein, or otherwise
`specifies what documents have been omitted and the reasons for their omission, and which
`authenticates the documents as true and accurate copies of the documents described herein.
`11. REQUEST FOR NOTIFICATION OF THE TIME AND PLACE FOR THE
`EXECUTION OF THE REQUEST AND IDENTITY AND ADDRESS OF ANY
`PERSON TO BE NOTIFIED (Article 7):
`It is requested that notice of the execution of the Request be provided to the parties’
`representatives listed in paragraph 6 above.
`12. REQUEST FOR ATTENDANCE OR PARTICIPATION OF JUDICIAL
`PERSONNEL OF THE REQUESTING AUTHORITY AT THE EXECUTION OF
`THE LETTER OF REQUEST (Article 8):
`None.
`13. AUTHORITY APPOINTING COMMISSIONER, PENDING APPROVAL OF THE
`MINISTRY OF JUSTICE:
`The United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
`14. SPECIFICATION OF PRIVILEGE OR DUTY TO REFUSE TO GIVE EVIDENCE
`UNDER THE LAW OF THE STATE OF ORIGIN (Article 11(b)):
`In addition to the privileges applicable under Chinese laws, Tencent Holdings Ltd. need
`not disclose documents and electronic records which constitute confidential communications
`between it and its attorneys to the extent those communications seek or provide legal advice. This
`privilege may be waived, however, if the communication has been disclosed to third parties.
`15. THE FEES AND COSTS INCURRED WHICH ARE REIMBURSABLE UNDER
`THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 14 OR UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE
`CONVENTION WILL BE BORNE BY:
`The costs of this Hague Evidence Convention process, including the fees of the
`Commissioner, will be borne by Meta Platforms, Inc., c/o its counsel as identified above. Each
`
`
`No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`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 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 11 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAMES DONATO
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`party will be responsible for the fees and expenses, if any, of its own attorneys relating to any
`proceedings arising from this Hague Evidence Convention process.
`SECTION IV
`This District Court expresses its gratitude to the authorities of the People’s Republic of
`China for their assistance and courtesy under the terms of the Hague Convention.
`
`Signature and Seal of the Requesting Authority:
`
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`November 18, 2022
`
`S D ISTRICT
`
`C O
`
`E
`
`T
`
`A
`
`S T
`
`D
`
`UNITE
`
`U
`
`R
`
`T
`
`ORNIA
`
`C ALIF
`
`J u d g e J a m e s D o n a t o
`
`N O R
`
`T
`
`F
`
`O
`
`H ER
`
`N
`
`DISTR I C T
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 12 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`SONAL N. MEHTA (SBN 222086)
` Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com
`2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, California 94306
`Telephone: (650) 858-6000
`DAVID Z. GRINGER (pro hac vice)
` David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, New York 10007
`Telephone: (212) 230-8800
`ARI HOLTZBLATT (pro hac vice)
` Ari.Holtzblatt@wilmerhale.com
`MOLLY M. JENNINGS (pro hac vice)
` Molly.Jennings@wilmerhale.com
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, District of Columbia 20006
`Telephone: (202) 663-6000
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al., on behalf of
`themselves and all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`META PLATFORMS, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation headquartered in California,
`Defendant.
`
` Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR
`INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL
`ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE
`HAGUE CONVENTION OF 18 MARCH
`1970 ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE
`ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL
`MATTERS
`
`Judge: Hon. James Donato
`
`No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`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 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 13 of 22
`
`
`
`The United States District Court for the Northern District of California presents its
`compliments to the Registrar of the Supreme Court of the British Virgin Islands and requests
`assistance in obtaining evidence to be used in civil proceedings before this Court.
`This request is made pursuant to, and in conformity with, Chapters I and II of the
`Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters
`(the “Hague Evidence Convention”), to which both the United States and the British Virgin Islands
`are party.
`Specifically, the District Court requests assistance through the law firm Harney Westwood
`& Riegels, LP of Craigmuir Chambers, P.O. Box 71, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands,
`in obtaining evidence from non-party Telegram Messenger, Inc. (“Telegram”), a British Virgin
`Islands (“BVI”) entity registered in Tortola, the British Virgin Islands.
`SECTION I
`
`1. SENDER:
`The Honorable James Donato
`United States District Court of the Northern District of California
`450 Golden Gate Avenue
`San Francisco, CA 94102
`United States of America
`
`2. CENTRAL AUTHORITY OF THE REQUESTED STATE:
`Registrar of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court
`Supreme Court Registry
`Sakal Place, 2nd Floor
`P.O. Box 418
`Road Town, Tortola
`British Virgin Island VG1110
`Tel: +284 468 5001
`Fax: +284 468 4951
`
`3. PERSON TO WHOM THE EXECUTED REQUEST IS TO BE RETURNED:
`The Honorable James Donato
`United States District Court of the Northern District of California
`450 Golden Gate Avenue
`San Francisco, CA 94102
`United States of America
`
`
`No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`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 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 14 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`With a Copy to the Parties’ Legal Representatives:
`Stephen A. Swedlow
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tel: (312) 705-7400
`Email: stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Shana E. Scarlett
`Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
`715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
`Berkeley, CA 94710
`Tel: (510) 725-3000
`Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com
`
`Yavar Bathaee
`Bathaee Dunne LLP
`445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel: (332) 322-8835
`Email: yavar@bathaeedunne.com
`
`Kristen M. Anderson
`Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
`230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
`New York, NY 10169
`Tel: (212) 223-6444
`Email: kanderson@scott-scott.com
`
`Sonal N. Mehta
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Tel: (650) 858-6000
`Email: sonal.mehta@wilmerhale.com
`
`David Z. Gringer
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`Tel: (212) 230-8800
`Email: david.gringer@wilmerhale.com
`
`4. SPECIFICATION OF THE DATE BY WHICH THE REQUESTING AUTHORITY
`REQUIRES RECEIPT OF THE RESPONSE TO THE LETTER OF REQUEST:
`
`
`No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 15 of 22
`
`The Requesting Authority would greatly appreciate a response to the Request for
`Assistance as soon as is practicable, to ensure that the documents are received in a timely manner
`for use in the civil proceedings described below.
`SECTION II
`IN CONFORMITY WITH ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION, THE UNDERSIGNED
`APPLICANT HAS THE HONOR TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
`REGARDING THE INSTANT REQUEST:
`5.
`(a)
`REQUESTING JUDICIAL AUTHORITY (Article 3(a)):
`The Honorable James Donato
`United States District Court of the Northern District of California
`450 Golden Gate Avenue
`San Francisco, CA 94102
`United States of America
`
`TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF (Article 3(a)):
`(b)
`The British Virgin Islands
`(c)
`NAME OF THE CASE AND ANY IDENTIFYING NUMBER:
`Klein, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD, United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A.
`6. NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE
`PARTIES AND
`REPRESENTATIVES (Article 3(b)):
`(a)
`Plaintiffs:
`Maximilian Klein
`
`THEIR
`
`Sarah Grabert
`
`Rachel Banks Kupcho
`
`Affilious, Inc.
`
`Jessyca Frederick
`
`Mark Young
`
`No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`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 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 16 of 22
`
`
`
`406 Property Services, PLLC
`
`Mark Berney
`
`Katherine Looper
`
`Representatives:
`
`Stephen A. Swedlow
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
`191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Tel: (312) 705-7400
`Email: stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com
`
`Shana E. Scarlett
`Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
`715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
`Berkeley, CA 94710
`Tel: (510) 725-3000
`Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com
`
`Yavar Bathaee
`Bathaee Dunne LLP
`445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel: (332)322-8835
`Email: yavar@bathaeedunne.com
`
`Kristen M. Anderson
`Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
`230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
`New York, NY 10169
`Tel: (212) 223-6444
`Email: kanderson@scott-scott.com
`Defendant:
`(b)
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`1601 Willow Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`Representatives:
`Sonal Mehta
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`
`
`No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`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 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 17 of 22
`
`
`
`Tel: (650) 858-6000
`Email: sonal.mehta@wilmerhale.com
`
`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
`
`
`
`David Z. Gringer
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`Tel: (212) 230-8800
`Email: david.gringer@wilmerhale.com
`7. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY OF THE
`FACTS (Article 3(c)):
`Nature of the proceedings:
`(a)
`The nature of the proceeding is a consolidated civil action brought on behalf of two putative
`classes: (1) a putative Consumer Class (consisting of individuals who use Meta’s social networking
`and social media services); and (2) a putative Advertiser Class (consisting of individuals and
`entities that purchased Meta’s advertising services). Consumer Plaintiffs bring claims under
`Section 2 of the Sherman Act alleging that Meta obtained and maintains monopoly power in the
`purported Social Network and Social Media Markets through allegedly false representations about
`its data collection and use practices. Advertiser Plaintiffs bring claims under Sections 1 and 2 of
`the Sherman Act for Meta’s alleged monopolization and attempted monopoloization of the
`purported Social Advertising market, including an alleged market division agreement between
`Meta and Google. These claims are based on the Consumer Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action
`Complaint, Dkt. No. 87, and the Advertiser Plaintiffs’ First Amended Consolidated Class Action
`Complaint, Dkt. No. 237.
`Summary of complaint:
`(b)
`Consumer Plaintiffs: Consumer Plaintiffs allege that Meta has engaged in deceptive
`practices regarding the data privacy protections it provides to users of its services. Consumer
`Plaintiffs claim that Meta falsely represented that it would provide users with certain privacy
`protections and deceived users about the amount of user data that it harvested and made available
`to third parties. Consumer Plaintiffs allege that Meta’s mispresentations caused many users to use
`Meta’s services over other competing platforms, which allowed Meta to obtain and maintain a
`
`No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 18 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`monopoly position in the “social network” and “social media” markets. A copy of the Consumer
`Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint is attached as Attachment A.
`Advertiser Plaintiffs: Advertiser Plaintiffs similarly allege that Meta’s deceptive practices
`regarding its data privacy protections allowed Meta to acquire a monopoly position in the “social
`advertising” market. Advertiser Plaintiffs further allege that Meta engaged in anticompetitive
`practices to eliminate and prevent further competition. Specifically, Advertiser Plaintiffs claim
`that Meta prevented developers from building mobile applications that could become rival social
`networks and competitors in the social advertising market. Advertiser Plaintiffs also allege that
`Meta and Google entered an anticompetitive agreement in September 2018 that divided the online
`advertising market and helped Meta maintain its position in the social advertising market. A copy
`of the Advertiser Plaintiffs’ First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint is attached as
`Attachment B.
`Summary of defense:
`(c)
`For numerous reasons, Meta denies the allegations in the Consumer and Advertiser
`Plaintiffs’ complaints. This Letter of Request is intended to obtain information particularly
`relevant to the following defenses (which is not an exhaustive list of Meta’s defenses in this
`proceeding): The market, as defined by the Consumer and Advertiser Plaintiffs, is implausible; the
`industry and the public do not recognize the purported “social network,” “social media,” or “social
`advertising” markets; Meta does not have the requisite market share of the alleged markets;
`competition and consumers cannot be harmed from alleged monopolization of a market for a
`product distributed free to all users; Meta’s data privacy policies and practices are not a means to
`gain competitive advantage over other competitors; and Meta has always faced competition in any
`properly defined market.
`
`SECTION III
`8. EVIDENCE TO BE OBTAINED OR OTHER JUDICIAL ACT TO BE
`PERFORMED (Article 3(d)):
`Evidence to be obtained:
`(a)
`
`
`No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`LETTER OF REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL
`JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 380 Filed 11/18/22 Page 19 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`The assistance requested of the British Virgin Islands consists of obtaining copies of
`documents in the possession of Telegram.
`Purpose of the evidence sought:
`(b)
`The evidence sought in this Letter of Request pertains to the allegations and defenses
`described above and are to be used only in legal proceedings in the matter described. The evidence
`is subject to a strict protective order as provided in Attachment C. The protective order ensures
`that documents produced in this matter will not be used by Meta in any way other than for purposes
`of the litigation. The protective order provides that a producing party such as Telegram may mark
`its documents as Confidential or Highly C