2:30pm ET today. District of Columbia vs Facebook which is deep in discovery on Cambridge Analytica cover-up and Facebook is resisting discovery, depositions of anything sensitive including sharing its privilege log
https://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1430639386681556995
Judge reviewing the two motions. First up is DC's motion to compel Facebook to produce documents including designating additional custodians (DC is rightly wanting discovery on the Facebook Growth & Monetization team) as needed. She walks through the motion and opposition.
DC now arguing motion to compel. DC counsel begins argument back in 2010 reconfirming its understanding of case noting Cambridge Analytica, and the hiding of it in 2015-onward, as representative of the harms in design decisions with the platform to turn user data into profits.
and we're being interrupted by incredibly disruptive talking background noise. It's highly unlikely that it's the plaintiff is the source so I'll leave speculation to you.
plaintiff: If Facebook knew it was telling its users it would protect their data but then knowably put that data at risk, it's relevant. it's obviously relevant if business side weighed in on whether they would inform users when it happened in 2015 as it proves it's relevant.
Plaintiff also essentially argues it's relevant to court deciding on size of any fine to know whether Facebook was calculating regulatory risk vs business risk in covering up Cambridge Analytica.
popcorn. plaintiff's counsel says they're specifically targeting the Growth and Monetization team for reasons developed during prior discovery. Won't say more due to the public nature of the hearing. My guess is the name Javier popped up somewhere.
If i understand correctly, Facebook arguing intent doesn't matter and that the documents from discovery don't support further discovery with growth and monetization team and their knowledge of privacy-related issues (pretty crazy argument IMHO if you know that team).
Facebook counsel is arguing it is false that FB traded out users' privacy for profits despite what I believe was a finding in reports from Congress, FTC lawsuit, state AGs lawsuit, and I believe UK, German and Australian competition regulators. Plus several academic reports.
DC now responding to Facebook's argument that Cambridge Analytica breach was tied to a "narrow issue" which is also quite a comical and bold argument by Facebook counsel.
according to DC counsel, Facebook's argument that intent doesn't matter exists to protect the AG's office and consumers so that they don't have to prove intent yet Facebook is using it to avoid further discovery on sensitive business decisions.
now on to 2nd motion which Judge is laying out as the plaintiff arguing Facebook has failed to produce a privilege log identifying documents it has withheld from discovery which I'm guessing from prior experience includes anything with the words Mark, Sheryl, Joel and Elliot.
Facebook seems to be arguing they don't need to show what documents are being withheld until after discovery is concluded. That seems pretty nuts to me especially with a company like Facebook. But what do I know? More on this case if you're curious.
https://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1436170423318814722?s=20
Concluded. FB wants to file one more argument by end of week, DC to respond next week then judge will rule on whether Facebook actually has to properly respond to regulator serving the public interest.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
