Thread by @jason_kint

wow, what a Facebook read. On request of federal Judge, plaintiffs filed sanctions in super important case vs FB. Originally sealed 55pgs + 1,500 in exhibits, it showed up this wknd when FB filed redactions.
Let me show you the highlights - I'll try to keep to a dozen tweets. /1

It kicks off with a quote from the Partner for the law firm, Gibson Dunn, that has led the alleged discovery abuse to protect Facebook in its Cambridge Analytica cover-up. Same firm protecting FB in DC for a similar case and even in the Rhohingya genocide case. Nice choices. /2

Unlike in DC where Gibson Dunn appeared to run a bulldozer over new judge with its narrative, NdCal Court isn't having any of it and requested plaintiffs file sanctions including remarkably against the partners at Gibson Dunn - a BFD. Plaintiffs kindly focused on Orin Snyder. /3

Although plaintiffs point out, they're only filing a few examples of the discovery abuse, they pick some telling ones. It includes the math that they're 8 for 9 on discovery motions with one pending. They also go deep on a few of the most sensitive and furthest along examples. /4

One is the App Developer Investigation ("ADI"). This is the audit Zuckerberg promised Congress FB would do to protect all of us. Gibson Dunn handled it and then resisted discovery even trying to keep two firms sealed that did the work (FTI Consulting and Stroz Friedberg). /5

It's just a good example because Facebook's lawyers argued it would delay the case a year but then Orin Snyder at Gibson Dunn said no problem they would turn the docs over in 21 days once the Court had started to scorch them for discovery abuse. /6

Another example is Facebook has been ordered to turn over all of the data on the 8 named plaintiffs including inference data from tracking people everywhere they go. Again, FB has argued it would be incredibly burdensome which flies in the case of California and EU law. /7

Instead Facebook has tried to draw a line around a person's user data available when you click their "Download Your Information (DYI)" link. This is only a subset of activity understood to record maybe a site but not what you did on it for example. /8

Facebook has tried to draw the line so they only have to turn over what data is actually "shared" with third parties. And of course, Facebook gets to define what "shared" even means. California AG's eyes should be bugging out here. Court again wants none of this BS argument. /9

Here is where the Court lets Snyder and Gibson Dunn know (not for the first time) what her order meant. It was affirmed by the Special Master and the lead Judge on the case. Another reason for sanctions invitation. Is Facebook's surveillance even worse than we've known? /10

ok, I've got two left. During the peak discovery abuse, Facebook had to bring an employee in to be deposed on behalf of the company on the topics they were resisting - this fella, Mr Pope. Sort of feel bad for him. According to plaintiffs, he admitted... well you read it. /11

And as someone who has watched many hearings with Gibson Dunn FB team in NdCal and DC, again where these tactics seem to have unfortunately worked. Can you imagine representing an awful-except-for-the-$$$ client like Facebook, facing sanctions and telling plaintiffs this? /12

Aaah heck, baker's dozen, here is a 13th tweet as it hits narrative by Gibson Dunn to protect Facebook in its cover-up. DC Superior Court was moving along in same direction but new 2022 Judge has pretty much gone all-in on the narrative even killing deposition of Zuckerberg. /13

Here is a thread I did at the time of the hearing when the Court invited the sanctions. They've since even suggested maybe there should be terminating sanctions as the discovery abuse has been so bad. Facebook has a right to oppose so we'll see... /14

I really don't know what happened in DC. Facebook resisted forever finally turning over its privilege log in February with like 4,000 employees on it and clearly a ton of discovery that shouldn't be privileged. /15

Plaintiffs had also won ruling to have a deposition of Mark Zuckerberg. This is the same matter, Facebook is alleged to have paid off the FTC $5 billion to protect MZ against a deposition and he's dodged questions of Congress and Parliaments. BFD. /16

But then a few weeks ago, Gibson Dunn ran the same play they attempted in NdCal with a narrative that plaintiffs have been fishing too long, they've been cooperative and its time to shut down discovery. Which worked in DC. /17

OK, I'll send there but I wanted to make sure everyone had the full context. There is also a related massive shareholder suit in Delaware. @AlisonFrankel covered the sanctions request for Orin Snyder, Gibson Dunn and Facebook today. ht @MikeScarcella /eof reuters.com/legal/litigati…

Facebook's law firm filed its response last night to the sanctions request of its partner and Facebook. It's a ton of exhibits and transcripts. DM me if you want to dive into them but I didn't see much of interest beyond their attempts to avoid discovery on named plaintiff data.

for those who have watched the Cambridge Analytica cover-up over the years continue to play out, there was this mention by Facebook's lawyers claiming plaintiffs postponed depositions of Doug Purdy, Joseph Chancellor and Monika Bickert just last week. 👀