Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation Exhibit 13 — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 130.13)

Court filing

Exhibit 13 — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 130.13)

No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC · Doc. 130-13 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC   Document 130-13   Filed 11/09/22   Page 1 of 5




            EXHIBIT 13
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC       Document 130-13      Filed 11/09/22     Page 2 of 5




 1     Susan D. Fahringer, Bar No. 21567                  Gabriella Gallego, Bar No. 324226
       SFahringer@perkinscoie.com                         GGallego@perkinscoie.com
 2     Nicola C. Menaldo, pro hac vice                    PERKINS COIE LLP
       NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com                           3150 Porter Drive
 3
       Erin K. Earl, pro hac vice                         Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
 4     EEarl@perkinscoie.com                              Telephone: 650.838.4300
       Anna M. Thompson, pro hac vice                     Facsimile: 650.838.4350
 5     AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com
       PERKINS COIE LLP
 6     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
       Seattle, WA 98101-3099
 7
       Telephone: 206.359.8000
 8     Facsimile: 206.359.9000

 9     Attorneys for Defendant
       Thomson Reuters Corporation
10

11
                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
                             NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
                                     SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
14

15
       CAT BROOKS and RASHEED                      Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC
16     SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf
       of all others similarly situated,           DEFENDANT THOMSON REUTERS
17                                                 CORPORATION’S ANSWERS AND
                           Plaintiffs,             OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
18                                                 SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
             v.                                    TO DEFENDANT
19

20     THOMSON REUTERS
       CORPORATION,
21
                           Defendant.
22

23    PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz

24    RESPONDING PARTY:           Defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation

25    SET NO:                     One

26

27

28
       Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                             THOMSON REUTERS’ ANSWERS AND
                                                              OBJECTIONS TO FIRST SET OF RFAS
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC          Document 130-13         Filed 11/09/22      Page 3 of 5




 1           Thomson Reuters Corporation (“Thomson Reuters”), by its counsel, hereby answers
 2    pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Admission
 3    (the “Requests”). Thomson Reuters’ answers and objections (“Answers”) are based on
 4    information currently available to Thomson Reuters, as discovery is not complete and Thomson
 5    Reuters’ investigation is ongoing.
 6                                    ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS
 7    REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
 8           Admit that the document produced at TR-BROOKS020865-TR-BROOKS020890 is
 9    identical or substantially similar to the document referenced in Thomson Reuters’ letter to the
10    House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, produced as
11    TR-BROOKS020853-TR-BROOKS020857, which Thomson Reuters described as “an example
12    of the data elements that can be delivered in a typical report…[and] is representative of all the
13    data available on CLEAR[.]” See TR-BROOKS020853.
14    ANSWER TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
15           Thomson Reuters objects to the Request as improper because it is compound in that it
16    could be interpreted to ask Thomson Reuters both to admit (a) that the document produced at TR-
17    BROOKS020865-TR-BROOKS020890 is identical or substantially similar to the document
18    attached to the letter produced as TR-BROOKS020853-TR-BROOKS020857, and (b) that the
19    letter describes the document in the manner stated in the Request. Thomson Reuters therefore
20    interprets the Request to ask only (a) and, subject to and without waiving its objection, answers
21    the Request as follows.
22           Thomson Reuters ADMITS that the document produced at TR-BROOKS020865-
23    TR-BROOKS020890 is identical or substantially similar to the document identified in the
24    April 28, 2021 letter from Thomson Reuters to the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee
25    on Economic and Consumer Policy, the document produced as TR-BROOKS020853-
26    TR-BROOKS020857 (the “Letter”), as “a sample of a CLEAR report template, which is an
27    example of the data elements that can be delivered in a typical report.” The next sentence in the
28
       Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                   -1 -              THOMSON REUTERS’ ANSWERS AND
                                                                      OBJECTIONS TO FIRST SET OF RFAS
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC         Document 130-13           Filed 11/09/22    Page 4 of 5




 1    Letter was: “While this is representative of all of the data available on CLEAR, not every report
 2    will include all of this information or have all data fields populated.” TR-BROOKS020853.
 3    Except as expressly admitted, Thomson Reuters DENIES this Request.
 4

 5    Dated: May 23, 2022                             PERKINS COIE LLP
 6

 7                                                        By: /s/ Susan D. Fahringer
                                                              Susan D. Fahringer, Bar No. 21567
 8                                                            SFahringer@perkinscoie.com

 9                                                        Attorneys for Defendant
                                                          Thomson Reuters Corporation
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
       Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                  -2 -               THOMSON REUTERS’ ANSWERS AND
                                                                      OBJECTIONS TO FIRST SET OF RFAS
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC          Document 130-13        Filed 11/09/22     Page 5 of 5




 1                                         PROOF OF SERVICE
 2           I, Anna Mouw Thompson, declare:
 3           I am a citizen of the United States and employed in Seattle, Washington. I am over the age
 4    of eighteen years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My business address is 1201 Third
 5    Avenue, Ste. 4900, Seattle, WA 98110. On May 23, 2022, I served a copy of the within
 6    document(s):
 7
             DEFENDANT THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION’S ANSWERS AND
 8           OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
             ADMISSION TO DEFENDANT
 9

10          by transmitting via my e-mail address (AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com) the
              document listed above to the persons at the e-mail addresses set forth below.
11
       Andre M. Mura
12     David Stein
       Mark Troutman
13     Jeffrey B. Kosbie
14     Ezekiel S. Wald
       GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
15     505 14th Street, Suite 1110
       Oakland, CA 94612
16     amm@classlawgroup.com
       ds@classlawgroup.com
17     mht@classlawgroup.com
18     jbk@classlawgroup.com
       zsw@classlawgroup.com
19     service@classlawgroup.com

20
             I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
21
      above is true and correct.
22
             Executed on May 23, 2022, at Bainbridge Island, WA.
23

24

25                                                               Anna Mouw Thompson

26

27

28

                                                   -1-                            PROOF OF SERVICE


File and source

File
gov.uscourts.cand.374304.130.13.pdf
Size
160,356 bytes
SHA-256
b31d416d538a94565b6e27a48ddfbe05ca5d0e4c83317b4b2e14dd7f2e7e6f62
Our copy
gov.uscourts.cand.374304.130.13.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top