Court filing

Exhibit 22 — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 130.18)

Summary

Exhibit 22 is Defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation's Second Supplemental Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories in Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC (N.D. Cal.), under Rule 33. Interrogatory No. 1 asks for all categories of content relating to Californians that were queried or available through CLEAR since January 1, 2015. Thomson Reuters points to Attachment A, objects that the request is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not proportional, and says the content types are set out in license agreements with third-party providers, CLEAR user guides and produced reports. It lists produced documents by TR-BROOKS number under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). The text shown ends at Interrogatory No. 2.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Exhibit 22 — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 130.18).” Original at ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC, Doc. 130-18. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-brooks-thomsonreuters-cand-374304/2022-11-09-gov-uscourts-cand-374304-130-18-gov-uscourts-cand-374304-130-18/, SHA-256 a277d71455dfca14330dea238970eb518893552d3c6fba840f527d0fa25eb0d2.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 130-18 Filed 11/09/22 Page 1 of 9

EXHIBIT 22
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 130-18 Filed 11/09/22 Page 2 of 9

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
EEarl@perkinscoie.com Telephone: 650.838.4300
4 Anna M. Thompson, pro hac vice Facsimile: 650.838.4350
AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com
5 PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
6 Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
7 Facsimile: 206.359.9000

8 Attorneys for Defendant
Thomson Reuters Corporation
9

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

14 CAT BROOKS and RASHEED Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC
SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf
15 of all others similarly situated, DEFENDANT THOMSON REUTERS
CORPORATION’S SECOND
16 Plaintiffs, SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
17 v. SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO
DEFENDANT
18 THOMSON REUTERS
CORPORATION,
19
Defendant.
20

22 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz

23 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation

24 SET NO: One

28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC THOMSON REUTERS’ SECOND
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS
TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 130-18 Filed 11/09/22 Page 3 of 9

1 Thomson Reuters Corporation (“Thomson Reuters”), by its counsel, pursuant to Rule 33
2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure hereby provides the following Second Supplemental
3 Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant (“Interrogatories”).
4 These supplemental Answers and Objections necessarily incorporate and add to Thomson
5 Reuters’ original Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories. Thomson
6 Reuters’ combined answers and objections (“Answers”) are based on information currently
7 available to Thomson Reuters as discovery is not complete and Thomson Reuters’ investigation is
8 ongoing. Thomson Reuters reserves the right to further supplement or amend these Answers
9 should additional information become available through the discovery process or otherwise.
10 ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS
11 INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
12 Identify all categories of content (e.g., arrest records, DMV records, relatives and
13 associates analysis), whether public or proprietary, relating to Californians that have been queried
14 or were available to be queried using CLEAR at any point between January 1, 2015, and the
15 present.
16 ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
17 Subject to and without waiving the objections set forth below, Thomson Reuters’ answer
18 to this Interrogatory is set forth in Attachment A in its entirety, including in particular its
19 discussion of the information available through CLEAR and of the treatment of information
20 available through CLEAR.
21 Thomson Reuters objects to this Interrogatory as not proportionate to the needs of the
22 case. CLEAR is not designed to retrieve the information sought by this Interrogatory, and the
23 manual investigation that Thomson Reuters would need to undertake to provide any further
24 answer to this Interrogatory is unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case in
25 light of (a) the importance of the issues at stake in the action; (b) the amount in controversy;
26 (c) the parties’ relative access to relevant information; (d) the parties’ resources; and (e) the
27 importance of such discovery in resolving the issues. This Interrogatory also is overly broad and
28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -1- THOMSON REUTERS’ SECOND
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS
TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 130-18 Filed 11/09/22 Page 4 of 9

1 unduly burdensome and seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of

2 the case because it purports to require Thomson Reuters to provide information regarding “each”

3 category of content regardless of its relevance. The limitation “relating to Californians that have

4 been queried or were available to be queried using CLEAR at any point between January 1, 2015,

5 and the present” is also so broad and vague as to make this Interrogatory unanswerable as

6 phrased.

7 Thomson Reuters further objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds:

8 1. The undefined phrase “categories of content” is inherently vague and ambiguous,

9 making it impossible for Thomson Reuters to respond to this Interrogatory as

10 written.

11 2. Thomson Reuters objects to the definition of “Identify” on the grounds that it is

12 vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored to Plaintiffs’

13 legitimate discovery needs in that it purports to require “all names and identifiers”

14 that Thomson Reuters has used to refer to “categories of content” and “all data

15 points that currently or previously have fallen within each category.”

16 3. Thomson Reuters objects to the definition of “Californians” because it does not

17 align to California residency and requires a legal conclusion as to “class period”

18 and so is both as vague and not proportional to the needs of the case.

19 4. Thomson Reuters also objects on the grounds set forth in its General Objection

20 Nos. 1 (regarding attorney-client and work product privilege) and 3 (regarding the

21 absence of any definition for “CLEAR”).

22 FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

23 As stated in Attachment A, the types of content available through CLEAR, the

24 corresponding data sources, and the treatment of data available through CLEAR are set forth in

25 the license agreements between Thomson Reuters and its third-party providers. In answer to

26 Plaintiffs’ request that Thomson Reuters identify the license agreements by Bates-stamp number,

27 Thomson Reuters supplements its answer to state that these were produced on April 15 at TR-

28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -2- THOMSON REUTERS’ SECOND
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS
TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 130-18 Filed 11/09/22 Page 5 of 9

1 BROOKS035636 – TRBROOKS039381. The types of content are also set forth in the CLEAR

2 user guides (e.g., TR-BROOKS001363 – TR-BROOKS001482), CLEAR reports and records

3 (e.g., TR-BROOKS003512 –TR-BROOKS008325, TR-BROOKS008812 – TR-

4 BROOKS010210, TR-BROOKS008326 – TR-BROOKS008759, TR-BROOKS010211 – TR-

5 BROOKS013505), marketing materials (e.g., TR-BROOKS000959 – TR-BROOKS001030), and

6 other documents already produced, and Thomson Reuters directs Plaintiffs to those documents

7 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d).

8 INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

9 For each category of content responsive to Interrogatory No. 1, list the data sources

10 corresponding to each category from which You have obtained or have had the ability to obtain

11 data.

12 ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

13 Subject to and without waiving the objections set forth below, Thomson Reuters’ answer

14 to this Interrogatory is set forth in Attachment A in its entirety, including in particular its

15 discussion of the information available through CLEAR and of the treatment of information

16 available through CLEAR.

17 Thomson Reuters incorporates its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 1, and

18 further objects to providing any further answer to this Interrogatory on the following grounds:

19 1. To the extent this Interrogatory seeks prospective data sources from which

20 Thomson Reuters has “the ability to obtain data” but from which it has not actually

21 obtained data, the Interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant to any

22 party’s claims or defenses and is not proportional to the needs of this case for that

23 reason as well.

24 2. The undefined phrase “data sources” is inherently vague and ambiguous, making it

25 impossible for Thomson Reuters to answer this Interrogatory as written.

28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -3- THOMSON REUTERS’ SECOND
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS
TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 130-18 Filed 11/09/22 Page 6 of 9

1 FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

2 As stated in Attachment A, the types of content available through CLEAR, the

3 corresponding data sources, and the treatment of data available through CLEAR are set forth in

4 the license agreements between Thomson Reuters and its third-party providers. In answer to

5 Plaintiffs’ request that Thomson Reuters identify the license agreements by Bates-stamp number,

6 Thomson Reuters supplements its answer to state that these were produced on April 15 at TR-

7 BROOKS035636 – TRBROOKS039381. The types of content are also set forth in the CLEAR

8 user guides (e.g., TR-BROOKS001363 – TR-BROOKS001482), CLEAR reports and records

9 (e.g., TR-BROOKS003512 –TR-BROOKS008325, TR-BROOKS008812 – TR-

10 BROOKS010210, TR-BROOKS008326 – TR-BROOKS008759, TR-BROOKS010211 – TR-

11 BROOKS013505), marketing materials (e.g., TR-BROOKS000959 – TR-BROOKS001030), and

12 other documents already produced, and Thomson Reuters directs Plaintiffs to those documents

13 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d).

14 INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

15 For each category of content responsive to Interrogatory No. 1, identify the frequency

16 with which that data is updated (for example, You describe utility records as being updated daily

17 at Bates Number TR-BROOKS001116), including whether that data is updated in real time (such

18 as You describe for incarceration and arrest records at Bates Number TR-BROOKS001884), and

19 whether that data can be accessed through a live gateway (such as You describe for access to

20 vehicle registration data at Bates Number TR-BROOKS002730).

21 ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:

22 Subject to and without waiving the objections set forth below, Thomson Reuters’ answer

23 to this Interrogatory is set forth in Attachment A in its entirety, including in particular its

24 discussion of the information available through CLEAR and of the treatment of information

25 available through CLEAR.

26 Thomson Reuters incorporates its answer and objections to Interrogatory No 1.

28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -4- THOMSON REUTERS’ SECOND
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS
TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 130-18 Filed 11/09/22 Page 7 of 9

1 FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8: