Exhibit 7 to the Mura Declaration - Public Version of ECF No.… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 148.6)

Summary

Exhibit 7 to the Mura Declaration (public version), Document 148-6 filed 12/14/22 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, from Perkins Coie LLP counsel, in response to Plaintiffs Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz. Thomson Reuters objects to the definitions of Identify and Californians, raises privilege objections and says CLEAR is undefined. For Interrogatories 1 through 5 it refers to its Attachment A and objects on proportionality and burden grounds, says it will stipulate that the number of California residents in the CLEAR database is greater than 40, and argues the remaining claims challenge only the selling of information. A proof of service states service on April 4, 2022.

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 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 Page 1 of 23




             EXHIBIT 7
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 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 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 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 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 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 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 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 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 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 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 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 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 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 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 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 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 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 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 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 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 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 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 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 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 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 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 Page 15 of 23




                                          Attachment A


       The following information is provided in further answer to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories

to Thomson Reuters, Interrogatories Nos. 1-16.


       CLEAR enables authorized, credentialed entities (“subscribers” or “customers”) to search

and access information from records that have been licensed or otherwise acquired from third-

party sources that represent they are authorized to provide the information.


Restrictions limiting which entities may use CLEAR


       CLEAR is available only to business and government entities. Before an authorized

subscriber may conduct any search of information available through CLEAR, the subscriber

must first agree and warrant that it will (1) use CLEAR data only for its own internal business or

government purpose; (2) strictly limit access, use, and distribution of CLEAR data to the limited

permissible purpose(s) for which it was retrieved; (3) not disclose CLEAR data to anyone except

as necessary to carry out the specific permissible purpose(s) for which it was retrieved; and

(4) immediately report to Thomson Reuters any misuse, abuse, or compromise of CLEAR data.

A subscriber must also go through a credentialing process through which Thomson Reuters

validates the subscriber’s professed identity, which may entail a physical onsite inspection.

CLEAR is not available for use by consumers (as opposed to business or government entities)

and certain types of entities and use cases are prohibited outright from using CLEAR regardless

of whether they have a permissible purpose under the applicable statutes. Prohibited entities

include, for example, payday lenders, pawn shops, weapons dealers, genealogical or heir

research firms, foreign companies, condo or homeowners associations, and dating services.




                                                     1
CONFIDENTIAL
      Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 Page 16 of 23




Purposes for which CLEAR may be used


       All CLEAR subscribers must attest to and certify a permissible purpose under the

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”) for every search they conduct. To search and access any

CLEAR record, the subscriber must certify that the search is being conducted pursuant to at least

one of the following GLBA permissible purposes:


       ●       For use by a person holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer


       ●       For use in complying with federal, state, or local laws, rules, and other applicable

               legal requirements


       ●       For use as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction that a consumer

               requests or authorizes


       ●       For use in complying with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory

               investigation, or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authority


       ●       For use to protect against or to prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized

               transactions, claims, or other liability


       ●       For use by a Law Enforcement Agency, self-regulatory organization or for an

               investigation on a matter related to public safety


       ●       With the consent or at the direction of the consumer


       ●       To persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the

               consumer




                                                      2
CONFIDENTIAL
      Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 Page 17 of 23




       ●       For required institutional risk control or for resolving consumer disputes or

               inquiries


       In addition, before it may search and access records subject to the Driver’s Privacy

Protection Act (“DPPA”), a CLEAR subscriber first must certify that the search is conducted for

at least one of the following permissible purposes:


       ●       For official use by a Court, Law Enforcement Agency or other Government

               agency


       ●       To verify or correct information provided to you by a person in order to prevent

               fraud, pursue legal remedies or recover a debt


       ●       For use in connection with a civil, criminal, or arbitral legal proceeding or legal

               research


       ●       For use in connection with an insurance claims investigation or insurance

               antifraud activities


       In addition, before it may search and access voter registration records, a CLEAR

subscriber must first certify at least one of the following permissible purposes:


       ●       For use in connection with a permissible election-related purpose


       ●       For use in connection with a non-commercial purpose


       There are other restrictions on use of CLEAR as well. For example, CLEAR may not be

used for creating mailing lists, soliciting clients, or any other marketing efforts, and CLEAR may

not be used for any purpose authorized under the FCRA. This would include, for example, pre-


                                                      3
CONFIDENTIAL
      Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 Page 18 of 23




and post-employment screening, consumer credit, housing, including ongoing eligibility,

insurance, or eligibility for government benefits.


       Thomson Reuters customers have used CLEAR for the following purposes:


       ●       Helping courts, banks, and other public and private entities perform Know Your

               Customer (“KYC”) diligence and combat fraud;


       ●       Helping law enforcement find missing persons and kidnapped children;


       ●       Supporting law enforcement officers with solving crimes, including, for example,

               investigating cold murder cases, combating drug trafficking, combating human

               trafficking, dismantling child exploitation groups, and identifying criminal

               perpetrators;


       ●       Supporting public defenders, including in exoneration attempts for wrongful

               convictions;


       ●       Investigating, identifying, and combating fraud, including financial fraud, identity

               theft, and fraud in various government benefits programs;


       ●       Supporting regulatory compliance programs, including compliance with the Bank

               Secrecy Act and its implementing Anti-Money Laundering regulations;


       ●       Combating tax evasion, including Social Security and property tax fraud;


       ●       Providing support for people in need, including finding relatives to keep children

               out of the welfare system, and finding absentee parents who owe child support;




                                                     4
CONFIDENTIAL
      Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 Page 19 of 23




       ●       Responding to active shooter situations, such as the December 2015 San

               Bernadino terrorist attack;


       ●       Helping the US Veterans Affairs Department locate veterans to continue

               providing them with benefits after moving;


       ●       Identifying updated address information to provide adequate notice of a class

               action to class members;


       ●       Supporting corporate security needs to keep public and private locations safe; and


       ●       Helping law enforcement recover stolen goods.


Proactive program to ensure CLEAR is used appropriately


       Thomson Reuters has a robust compliance program that spans the customer lifecycle to

ensure that CLEAR is used in accordance with applicable regulations, contractual requirements,

and its own internal policies. This program includes, for example, employee mandatory

compliance training at least every two years and regular ongoing training; the subscriber

credentialing process referred to above; provisions in customer contracts, account validation

forms, and other credentialing documentation that require a subscriber to represent and warrant

its intended product use case and that it will not use the product for a prohibited use, such as any

purpose governed by the FCRA; and a re-credentialing process where, every two years,

customers must reaffirm their legitimate use case and recertify that they will not use CLEAR for

any FCRA or other prohibited purpose.




                                                     5
CONFIDENTIAL
      Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 Page 20 of 23




Information available through CLEAR


       The information that may be available through CLEAR, and that may be provided in

response to CLEAR queries, varies widely based on a number of factors, including, for example,

the person or business that is the subject of the search (whose records will differ from other

persons’ records, and may vary over time), the particular search conducted, the scope of

authorization held by the customer that conducts the search (not all customers are authorized to

have access to all records, and not all customers are authorized to have access to all information

within each record), the purpose of the search, the date the search is conducted, the source of the

information searched, the state supplying the data (for example, although the Complaint in this

case refers to records relating to abortion and homosexual acts, California criminal records do

not include offenses related to either one), and many other factors. CLEAR does not include

Protected Health Information as defined under the Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act of 1996.


       The types of content available through CLEAR, and the corresponding data sources, are

set forth in the license agreements between Thomson Reuters and its third-party providers, which

will be produced by April 15, as well as in the CLEAR user guides, CLEAR reports and records,

marketing materials, and other documents already produced, and Thomson Reuters directs

Plaintiffs to those documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d).


       Thomson Reuters expressly does not “warrant the comprehensiveness, completeness,

accuracy or adequacy” of the information “for any purpose.” See, e.g., TR-BROOKS000518

(Supplier Additional Terms). Consistent with its function as a research tool, CLEAR allows

customers to assess accuracy for themselves by:


                                                     6
CONFIDENTIAL
      Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 Page 21 of 23




       ●       disclosing the source of information where Thomson Reuters is contractually

               permitted to do so;


       ●       allowing users to click on a document source name to see the underlying full-text

               document; and


       ●       providing other contextual information—for instance, by explaining that

               “associates” are defined as persons who are linked to one or more of the search

               subject’s addresses.


       If an individual with information in CLEAR or a subscriber informs Thomson Reuters of

information that the individual or subscriber believes is inaccurate, Thomson Reuters has

established processes by which the individual or subscriber can communicate the issue to

Thomson Reuters and Thomson Reuters can respond appropriately—for example, by deleting an

inaccurate record and/or the relationship between that record and an individual person or entity.


Treatment of information available through CLEAR


       Some information available through CLEAR is accessed through gateways to third-party

data sources, or Application Programming Interfaces (“APIs”), that allow CLEAR to obtain

information from such third-party data sources in real time. In such cases, the information is

collected, stored, maintained, and updated by the third party, not Thomson Reuters. CLEAR

transmits the customer’s query to those gateways or APIs and returns the resulting information to

the subscriber, but does not itself store the information obtained from those gateways or APIs.


       Other information available through CLEAR comes from records licensed or otherwise

obtained by Thomson Reuters from third parties. Those records are converted into a standard


                                                    7
CONFIDENTIAL
      Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 Page 22 of 23




format recognized by Thomson Reuters’ systems and stored by Thomson Reuters across various

systems and repositories after opt-outs are excluded and certain data fields are encrypted and/or

normalized (e.g., addresses are conformed to the “standard” U.S. Postal Service version of that

address). The information is then indexed and made potentially available to subscribers to

search, depending on their access levels, searches conducted, and the other factors identified

above. The terms of the license agreements with third parties may further address confidentiality

and treatment of data that is the subject of those licenses, and Thomson Reuters refers Plaintiffs

to those agreements pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). In addition, Thomson Reuters

immediately encrypts with its own key all data fields associated with Social Security numbers

and other government ID numbers (e.g., on passports and driver’s licenses), and transforms the

information into different forms for storage in multiple databases that have unique purposes.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d), Thomson Reuters also refers plaintiffs to documents describing

its information security practices, such as documents describing how CLEAR software uses

multi-factor authentication for secure user login. See, e.g., TR-BROOKS020809.


       When a credentialed, authorized CLEAR customer submits a query in CLEAR, Thomson

Reuters’ systems translate the query into the appropriate format and search across various

systems and repositories to retrieve responsive information. (Which systems and repositories are

searched varies based on the nature of the query submitted by the customer, among other

variables.) Encrypted data fields remain encrypted while in transit and are not decrypted until

immediately before being made available (in whole as to certain CLEAR customers and in part

as to others) to an authorized CLEAR customer.




                                                     8
CONFIDENTIAL
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 148-6 Filed 12/14/22 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.374304.148.6.pdf

Size

306,804 bytes

SHA-256

d619d16225ab2c23e2a2a51d4cbf5329ae325c1c8ee76b040e8d99844ebffed2

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.148.6.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)