Exhibit 7 [REDACTED] — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 130.8)

Summary

Exhibit 7 (Redacted), Document 130-8 filed 11/09/22 in Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC, is a 23-page copy of Defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation's Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories, served by Perkins Coie LLP counsel on a set of interrogatories from Plaintiffs Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz. Thomson Reuters objects to the definitions of Identify and Californians and raises privilege and vagueness objections, including that CLEAR is undefined. On Interrogatories 1 to 5, about content categories, data sources, user purposes and numbers of Californians in CLEAR, it points to its Attachment A and objects on proportionality and burden grounds. It says it will stipulate that the number of California residents in the CLEAR database is greater than 40 and argues that the remaining claims challenge only the selling of information.

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

Full text

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC   Document 130-8   Filed 11/09/22   Page 1 of 23




               EXHIBIT 7
                         (Redacted)
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC       Document 130-8      Filed 11/09/22      Page 2 of 23




 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 RESPONSES AND
                           Plaintiffs,             OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST
18                                                 SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO
             v.                                    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’ RESPONSES AND
                                                              OBJECTIONS TO FIRST SET OF ROGS
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC          Document 130-8         Filed 11/09/22      Page 3 of 23




 1           Thomson Reuters Corporation (“Thomson Reuters”), by its counsel, hereby responds
 2    pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to Plaintiffs’ First Set of
 3    Interrogatories to Defendant (“Interrogatories”). Thomson Reuters’ responses and objections
 4    (“Responses”) are based on information currently available to Thomson Reuters as discovery is
 5    not complete and Thomson Reuters’ investigation is ongoing. Thomson Reuters reserves the right
 6    to supplement or amend these Responses should additional information become available through
 7    the discovery process or otherwise.
 8                      OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
 9           1.      Thomson Reuters objects to all “Definitions” and “Instructions” to the extent they
10    seek to impose obligations exceeding or differing from the requirements of the Federal Rules of
11    Civil Procedure and Local Rules.
12           2.      Thomson Reuters objects to the definition of “Identify” on the grounds that it is
13    vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored to Plaintiffs’ legitimate
14    discovery needs, including in that it purports to require “all names and identifiers” that Thomson
15    Reuters has used to refer to “categories of content” and “all data points that currently or
16    previously have fallen within each category.”
17           3.      Thomson Reuters objects to the definition of “Californians,” which does not align
18    to California residency and requires a legal conclusion as to “class period,” on the grounds that it
19    is vague and not proportional to the needs of the case.
20                                       GENERAL OBJECTIONS
21           1.      Thomson Reuters objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information
22    that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, or similar
23    protections available under federal or state statutory, constitutional, or common law.
24           2.      Thomson Reuters objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information
25    that is not in Thomson Reuters’ possession, custody, or control.
26           3.      Thomson Reuters objects to the Interrogatories to the extent they seek information
27    regarding “CLEAR” without defining that term. Thomson Reuters understands “CLEAR” to refer
28
       Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                   -1-              THOMSON REUTERS’ RESPONSES AND
                                                                      OBJECTIONS TO FIRST SET OF ROGS
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC           Document 130-8          Filed 11/09/22      Page 4 of 23




 1    to the software product that is referred to as such throughout the Complaint, including in its
 2    paragraphs 2–3, 11, and 14–15.
 3                                    RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
 4    INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
 5            Identify all categories of content (e.g., arrest records, DMV records, relatives and
 6    associates analysis), whether public or proprietary, relating to Californians that have been queried
 7    or were available to be queried using CLEAR at any point between January 1, 2015, and the
 8    present.
 9    RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
10            Subject to and without waiving the objections set forth below, Thomson Reuters’ answer
11    to this Interrogatory is set forth in Attachment A in its entirety, including in particular its
12    discussion of the information available through CLEAR and of the treatment of information
13    available through CLEAR.
14            Thomson Reuters objects to this Interrogatory as not proportionate to the needs of the
15    case. CLEAR is not designed to retrieve the information sought by this Interrogatory, and the
16    manual investigation that Thomson Reuters would need to undertake to provide any further
17    answer to this Interrogatory is unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case in
18    light of (a) the importance of the issues at stake in the action; (b) the amount in controversy;
19    (c) the parties’ relative access to relevant information; (d) the parties’ resources; and (e) the
20    importance of such discovery in resolving the issues. This Interrogatory also is overly broad and
21    unduly burdensome and seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of
22    the case because it purports to require Thomson Reuters to provide information regarding “each”
23    category of content regardless of its relevance. The limitation “relating to Californians that have
24    been queried or were available to be queried using CLEAR at any point between January 1, 2015,
25    and the present” is also so broad and vague as to make this Interrogatory unanswerable as
26    phrased.
27            Thomson Reuters further objects to this Interrogatory on the following grounds:
28
       Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                     -2-              THOMSON REUTERS’ RESPONSES AND
                                                                        OBJECTIONS TO FIRST SET OF ROGS
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC           Document 130-8          Filed 11/09/22      Page 5 of 23




 1            1.      The undefined phrase “categories of content” is inherently vague and ambiguous,
 2                    making it impossible for Thomson Reuters to respond to this Interrogatory as
 3                    written.
 4            2.      Thomson Reuters objects to the definition of “Identify” on the grounds that it is
 5                    vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably tailored to Plaintiffs’
 6                    legitimate discovery needs in that it purports to require “all names and identifiers”
 7                    that Thomson Reuters has used to refer to “categories of content” and “all data
 8                    points that currently or previously have fallen within each category.”
 9            3.      Thomson Reuters objects to the definition of “Californians” because it does not
10                    align to California residency and requires a legal conclusion as to “class period”
11                    and so is both as vague and not proportional to the needs of the case.
12            4.      Thomson Reuters also objects on the grounds set forth in its General Objection
13                    Nos. 1 (regarding attorney-client and work product privilege) and 3 (regarding the
14                    absence of any definition for “CLEAR”).
15    INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
16            For each category of content responsive to Interrogatory No. 1, list the data sources
17    corresponding to each category from which You have obtained or have had the ability to obtain
18    data.
19    RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
20            Subject to and without waiving the objections set forth below, Thomson Reuters’ answer
21    to this Interrogatory is set forth in Attachment A in its entirety, including in particular its
22    discussion of the information available through CLEAR and of the treatment of information
23    available through CLEAR.
24            Thomson Reuters incorporates its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 1, and
25    further objects to providing any further answer to this Interrogatory on the following grounds:
26            1.      To the extent this Interrogatory seeks prospective data sources from which
27                    Thomson Reuters has “the ability to obtain data” but from which it has not actually
28                    obtained data, the Interrogatory seeks information that is not relevant to any
       Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                     -3-              THOMSON REUTERS’ RESPONSES AND
                                                                        OBJECTIONS TO FIRST SET OF ROGS
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC             Document 130-8        Filed 11/09/22      Page 6 of 23




 1                    party’s claims or defenses and is not proportional to the needs of this case for that
 2                    reason as well.
 3             2.     The undefined phrase “data sources” is inherently vague and ambiguous, making it
 4                    impossible for Thomson Reuters to answer this Interrogatory as written.
 5    INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
 6             For each category of content responsive to Interrogatory No. 1, identify all purposes for
 7    which a user has accessed information through CLEAR, whether or not permitted by the Terms of
 8    Use or Terms of Service, delineated by categories of content responsive to Interrogatory No. 1
 9    and categories of customer responsive to RFP 10 (Your response to RFP 10 stated You would
10    produce documents “sufficient to show the categories of CLEAR customers—for example, law
11    firms, businesses, and government agencies…”).
12    RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
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 restrictions limiting which entities may use CLEAR, of the purposes for which
16    CLEAR may be used, and of the proactive program to ensure CLEAR is used appropriately.
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.     The “purposes for which a user has accessed information through CLEAR” seeks
20                    information outside Thomson Reuters’ possession, custody, and control and which
21                    are instead in the custody and control of the CLEAR customer alone.
22             2.     The phrase “identify all purposes” is vague and incomprehensible given Plaintiff’s
23                    definition of “Identify,” such that answering the Interrogatory as phrased is
24                    impossible.
25    INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
26             For each category of content responsive to Interrogatory No. 1, state the number of
27    Californians for whom CLEAR has had information available to provide in response to a CLEAR
28    query.
       Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                     -4-              THOMSON REUTERS’ RESPONSES AND
                                                                        OBJECTIONS TO FIRST SET OF ROGS
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC           Document 130-8          Filed 11/09/22      Page 7 of 23




 1    RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
 2            Subject to and without waiving the objections set forth below, Thomson Reuters’ answer
 3    to this Interrogatory is set forth in Attachment A in its entirety, including in particular its
 4    discussion of the information available through CLEAR.
 5            Thomson Reuters incorporates its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 1, and
 6    further objects to providing any further answer to this Interrogatory on the following grounds:
 7            1.      Thomson Reuters has previously confirmed that it will stipulate that the number of
 8                    “persons residing in the state of California whose name, photographs, personal
 9                    identifying information, or other personal data is or was included in the CLEAR
10                    database during the limitations period,” Compl. ¶ 70, is greater than 40.
11                    Consequently, the information sought by this Interrogatory is not relevant to any
12                    claims or defenses of any party.
13            2.      This Interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant because Plaintiffs’
14                    remaining claims challenge only the “selling” of information, not the mere
15                    availability of information through CLEAR.
16    INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
17            For each category of content responsive to Interrogatory No. 1, state the number of
18    Californians for whom CLEAR has disseminated information in response to a CLEAR query.
19    RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
20            Subject to and without waiving the objections set forth below, Thomson Reuters’ answer
21    to this Interrogatory is set forth in Attachment A in its entirety, including in particular its
22    discussion of the information available through CLEAR and of the treatment of information
23    available through CLEAR.
24            Thomson Reuters incorporates its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 1, and
25    further objects to providing any further answer to this Interrogatory on the following grounds:
26            1.      Thomson Reuters has previously confirmed that it will stipulate that the number of
27                    “persons residing in the state of California whose name, photographs, personal
28                    identifying information, or other personal data is or was included in the CLEAR
       Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                     -5-              THOMSON REUTERS’ RESPONSES AND
                                                                        OBJECTIONS TO FIRST SET OF ROGS
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC           Document 130-8         Filed 11/09/22      Page 8 of 23




 1                   database during the limitations period,” Compl. ¶ 70, is greater than 40.
 2                   Consequently, the information sought by this Interrogatory is not relevant to any
 3                   claims or defenses of any party.
 4           2.      This Interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant because Plaintiffs’
 5                   remaining claims challenge only the “selling” of information, not the mere
 6                   dissemination of information through CLEAR.
 7    INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
 8           Identify each category of content responsive to Interrogatory No. 1 to which You refer in
 9    having described CLEAR as containing “proprietary data,” “proprietary databases,” or
10    “proprietary records,” (for example, at Bates Number TR-BROOKS013851, You describe
11    CLEAR as containing an “unparalleled collection of public and proprietary records,” and at Bates
12    Number TR-BROOKS-000218 You refer to “proprietary databases” and “proprietary data”
13    available through CLEAR).
14    RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
15           Thomson Reuters incorporates its objections and answer to Interrogatory No. 1.
16           Subject to and without waiving the objections set forth in answer to Interrogatory No. 1
17    and below, Thomson Reuters answers that “proprietary” generally refers to information that
18    Thomson Reuters has licensed from third parties and that are not public records (e.g., court
19    filings) or records that are publicly available (e.g., via public websites, telephone directories,
20    etc.). In further answer to this Interrogatory, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d),
21    Thomson Reuters directs Plaintiffs to third-party licensing agreements between Thomson Reuters
22    and third-party licensors.
23           Thomson Reuters objects to providing any further answer to this Interrogatory on the
24    grounds that the phrase “to which You refer in having described CLEAR as containing
25    ‘proprietary data,’ ‘proprietary databases,’ or ‘proprietary records’” is vague and overbroad to the
26    extent it purports to ask about Thomson Reuters’ use of the term “proprietary” without context
27    (and in fact, that term is not used in the document appearing at Bates Number TR-BROOKS-
28
       Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                    -6-              THOMSON REUTERS’ RESPONSES AND
                                                                       OBJECTIONS TO FIRST SET OF ROGS
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC           Document 130-8          Filed 11/09/22      Page 9 of 23




 1    000218), and, as phrased, this Interrogatory is unduly burdensome and not proportional to the
 2    needs of the case.
 3    INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
 4            Explain what You mean when you describe data or records as “proprietary” (for example,
 5    does the data include primary source research, is it organized in a unique way, has it been linked
 6    with other data, or any other process, characteristic, quality, or type that would qualify that data
 7    as “proprietary”).
 8    RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
 9            Thomson Reuters incorporates its objections and answers to Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 6.
10    INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
11            For each category of content responsive to Interrogatory No. 1, identify the frequency
12    with which that data is updated (for example, You describe utility records as being updated daily
13    at Bates Number TR-BROOKS001116), including whether that data is updated in real time (such
14    as You describe for incarceration and arrest records at Bates Number TR-BROOKS001884), and
15    whether that data can be accessed through a live gateway (such as You describe for access to
16    vehicle registration data at Bates Number TR-BROOKS002730).
17    RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
18            Subject to and without waiving the objections set forth below, Thomson Reuters’ answer
19    to this Interrogatory is set forth in Attachment A in its entirety, including in particular its
20    discussion of the information available through CLEAR and of the treatment of information
21    available through CLEAR.
22            Thomson Reuters incorporates its answer and objections to Interrogatory No 1.
23    INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
24            For each category of content responsive to Interrogatory No. 1, identify where the data is
25    housed, stored, or otherwise located prior to a query, how You access that data once a query is
26    received, and how You disseminate that data in response to a query, delineated by categories
27    responsive to Interrogatory No.1.
28
       Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                     -7-              THOMSON REUTERS’ RESPONSES AND
                                                                        OBJECTIONS TO FIRST SET OF ROGS
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC          Document 130-8         Filed 11/09/22      Page 10 of 23




 1    RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
 2           Thomson Reuters incorporates its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 1. Subject to
 3    and without waiving such objections, Thomson Reuters’ answer to this Interrogatory is set forth
 4    in Attachment A in its entirety, including in particular its discussion of the information available
 5    through CLEAR and of the treatment of information available through CLEAR.
 6    INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
 7           Describe all methods Thomson Reuters has used to determine the accuracy of data within
 8    CLEAR, delineated by categories responsive to Interrogatory No. 1.
 9    RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
10           Thomson Reuters incorporates its answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 1. Subject to
11    and without waiving such objections, Thomson Reuters’ answer to this Interrogatory is set forth
12    in Attachment A in its entirety, including in particular its discussion of the information available
13    through CLEAR and of the treatment of information available through CLEAR.
14    INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
15           Explain why this case is not amenable to class certification.
16    RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 11:
17           Subject to and without waiving the objections set forth below, Thomson Reuters answers
18    that Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
19    impracticable; there are questions of law or fact common to the class; the claims or defenses of
20    the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and the representative
21    parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Nor can Plaintiffs demonstrate
22    that Thomson Reuters has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so
23    that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as
24    a whole; or that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any
25    questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available
26    methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy, considering, among other issues,
27    the class members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate
28    actions; the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or
       Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                    -8-              THOMSON REUTERS’ RESPONSES AND
                                                                       OBJECTIONS TO FIRST SET OF ROGS
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC          Document 130-8         Filed 11/09/22       Page 11 of 23




 1    against class members; the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the
 2    claims in the particular forum; and the likely difficulties in managing a class action.
 3    Thomson Reuters also incorporates the answer set forth in Attachment A in its entirety, and
 4    objects to providing further answer to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it calls for
 5    contentions, claims, or legal conclusions regarding issues or potential issues in this litigation.
 6    Regardless of whether this Interrogatory may be proper at some other time in the lawsuit, it is
 7    premature, and it is further objectionable because it seeks Thomson Reuters’ reasoning and the
 8    theories of its contentions, and therefore seeks information protected by the attorney work
 9    product doctrine. Further, it is the plaintiff’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate that class
10    certification is appropriate, which plaintiffs have not yet done, so Thomson Reuters’ answer to
11    this Interrogatory depends on information in the possession of plaintiffs.
12    INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
13           State all facts upon which You base any denial of a material allegation and each special or
14    affirmative defense.
15    RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 12:
16           Thomson Reuters incorporates Attachment A in its entirety. In addition, all documents
17    produced in this case are consistent with, and therefore may form the basis for, Thomson Reuters’
18    defense of Plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d),
19    Thomson Reuters refers Plaintiffs to the documents that the parties have produced in this case.
20    Thomson Reuters incorporates its objections and answers to the foregoing Interrogatories, and
21    objects to providing further answer to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is compound,
22    overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeks attorney work product, and is a premature contention
23    interrogatory. Thomson Reuters further objects to this Interrogatory as requiring a legal
24    conclusion as to which allegations are “material” to plaintiffs’ claims.
25    INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
26           For each fiscal quarter between Q1 2015 and the present, state the total number of
27    CLEAR searches run and, among those, the total number relating to natural persons for whom
28    CLEAR has listed a California address within the class period.
       Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                    -9-              THOMSON REUTERS’ RESPONSES AND
                                                                       OBJECTIONS TO FIRST SET OF ROGS
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC          Document 130-8        Filed 11/09/22     Page 12 of 23




 1    RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 13:
 2           Thomson Reuters incorporates its objections and answers to Interrogatories Nos. 1-5, 8,
 3    and 10. Thomson Reuters further objects to this Interrogatory as compound and not proportional
 4    to the needs of the case. Thomson Reuters also objects to the term “class period” as vague,
 5    undefined, and as requiring a legal conclusion.
 6           Subject to and without waiving these objections, in further answer to this Interrogatory,
 7    pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Thomson Reuters will produce documents
 8    reflecting search inquiries performed on CLEAR since 2015 for the individuals named Cat
 9    Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz.
10    INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
11           For each fiscal quarter between Q1 2015 and the present, identify the total number of
12    persons and entities who have had records or other data accessible through CLEAR and, among
13    those, the total number of Californians.
14    RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
15           Thomson Reuters incorporates its answers and objections to Interrogatories Nos. 1-5, 8,
16    10, and 13. Thomson Reuters objects to providing further answer to this Interrogatory on the
17    grounds set forth in the answers and objections to Interrogatories Nos. 1-5, 8, 10, and 13, and
18    because it is compound, vague, and not proportional to the needs of the case.
19    INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
20           For each fiscal quarter between Q1 2015 and the present, identify the total number of data
21    points accessible through CLEAR for all persons and entities who have had records or other data
22    accessible through CLEAR within the class period, and, among those, the total number of data
23    points accessible for all Californians.
24    RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 15:
25           Thomson Reuters incorporates its objections and answers to Interrogatories Nos. 1-5, 8,
26    10, 13, and 14. Thomson Reuters objects to providing further answer to this Interrogatory on the
27    grounds set forth in the answers to Interrogatories Nos. 1-5, 8, 10, 13, and 14, and because this
28
       Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                  -10-             THOMSON REUTERS’ RESPONSES AND
                                                                     OBJECTIONS TO FIRST SET OF ROGS
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC         Document 130-8            Filed 11/09/22   Page 13 of 23




 1    Interrogatory is vague in its use of the terms “data point” and “data points accessible through
 2    CLEAR,” is not proportional to the needs of the case, and is compound.
 3    INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
 4           For each fiscal quarter between Q1 2015 and the present, state the gross and net revenues
 5    You have generated from CLEAR, delineated by each of the ways that You collect revenue from
 6    CLEAR (for example, revenue attributable to per-search charges, revenue attributable to
 7    subscription plans, revenue attributable to custom pricing packages, revenue attributable to
 8    standard package arrangements including CLEAR, or any other means by which CLEAR
 9    generates revenue).
10    RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 16:
11           Thomson Reuters understands this Interrogatory to seek revenue and operating income
12    (EBITDA or earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) for CLEAR
13    since 2015. Thomson Reuters further understands that Plaintiffs seek that revenue data broken
14    down based on CLEAR pricing models.
15           Subject to that interpretation and without waiving the objections set forth below, in
16    answer to this Interrogatory, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Thomson Reuters
17    refers Plaintiffs to TR-BROOKS017074, which provides financial data for CLEAR on an annual
18    basis. To the extent that this Interrogatory seeks this information broken down by fiscal quarter,
19    Thomson Reuters objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information that is not relevant to any
20    party’s claim or defense such that this request is unduly burdensome and not proportional to the
21    needs of the case. To the extent this Interrogatory seeks revenue broken down based on each and
22    every “means” by which CLEAR generates revenue, Thomson Reuters objects to this
23    Interrogatory as seeking information that is not relevant to any party’s claim or defense such that
24    this request is unduly burdensome and not proportional to the needs of the case.
25           Should Plaintiffs continue to seek additional financial data, Thomson Reuters invites
26    Plaintiffs to meet and confer on that subject.
27

28
       Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                      -11-           THOMSON REUTERS’ RESPONSES AND
                                                                       OBJECTIONS TO FIRST SET OF ROGS
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC         Document 130-8          Filed 11/09/22    Page 14 of 23




 1    INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
 2           For each fiscal quarter between Q1 2015 and the present, state the gross and net revenues
 3    You have generated from searches of Californians.
 4    RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 17:
 5           Thomson Reuters incorporates its objections and answers to Interrogatories Nos. 1-5, 8,
 6    10, 13, and 14-16. Thomson Reuters objects to providing further answer to this Interrogatory on
 7    the grounds set forth in the answers and objections to the foregoing Interrogatories, and on the
 8    grounds that this Interrogatory is compound and not proportional to the needs of the case.
 9    INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
10           For each fiscal quarter between Q1 2015 and the present, state the gross and net revenues
11    You have generated from CLEAR, excluding per-search charges, attributed to CLEAR’s ability
12    to query records relating to Californians, and identify how those revenues were calculated.
13    RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18:
14           Thomson Reuters incorporates its objections and answers to Interrogatories Nos. 1-5, 8,
15    10, 13, and 14-17. Thomson Reuters objects to providing further answer to this Interrogatory on
16    the grounds set forth in the answers and objections to the foregoing Interrogatories, and on the
17    grounds that this Interrogatory is compound and not proportional to the needs of the case.
18

19    Dated: April 4, 2022                            PERKINS COIE LLP
20

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

23                                                        Attorneys for Defendant
                                                          Thomson Reuters Corporation
24

25

26

27

28
       Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                  -12-              THOMSON REUTERS’ RESPONSES AND
                                                                      OBJECTIONS TO FIRST SET OF ROGS
  Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC   Document 130-8   Filed 11/09/22   Page 15 of 23




                                      1
CONFIDENTIAL
  Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC   Document 130-8   Filed 11/09/22   Page 16 of 23




                                      2
CONFIDENTIAL
  Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC   Document 130-8   Filed 11/09/22   Page 17 of 23




                                      3
CONFIDENTIAL
  Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC   Document 130-8   Filed 11/09/22   Page 18 of 23




                                      4
CONFIDENTIAL
  Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC   Document 130-8   Filed 11/09/22   Page 19 of 23




                                      5
CONFIDENTIAL
  Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC   Document 130-8   Filed 11/09/22   Page 20 of 23




                                      6
CONFIDENTIAL
  Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC   Document 130-8   Filed 11/09/22   Page 21 of 23




                                      7
CONFIDENTIAL
  Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC   Document 130-8   Filed 11/09/22   Page 22 of 23




                                      8
CONFIDENTIAL
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC          Document 130-8       Filed 11/09/22     Page 23 of 23




 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 April 4, 2022, I served a copy of the within
 6    document(s):
 7
             DEFENDANT THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION’S RESPONSES
 8           AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET OF
             INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT
 9
                     by transmitting via my e-mail address (AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com) the
10                  document listed above to the persons at the e-mail addresses set forth below.

11     Andre M. Mura
       David Stein
12     Mark Troutman
       Jeffrey B. Kosbie
13     Ezekiel S. Wald
       GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
14     505 14th Street, Suite 1110
       Oakland, CA 94612
15     amm@classlawgroup.com
       ds@classlawgroup.com
16     mht@classlawgroup.com
       jbk@classlawgroup.com
17     zsw@classlawgroup.com
       service@classlawgroup.com
18

19
             I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
20
      above is true and correct.
21
             Executed on April 4, 2022, at Bainbridge Island, WA.
22

23

24                                                               Anna Mouw Thompson
25

26

27

28

       Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                  -1-                                PROOF OF SERVICE


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.130.8.pdf

Size

346,030 bytes

SHA-256

135fc921495653eafa4f0988cdc834c2efad911ad358201c02d330cf61533958

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.130.8.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)