Public version of Exhibit A-15 — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 151.15)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California · No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC · Doc. 151-15 · 2023-01-26 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

EXHIBIT A-15 
 
 
 
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 151-15     Filed 01/26/23     Page 1 of 8

                                       PAGES 1 - 12  
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
BEFORE THE HONORABLE EDWARD M. CHEN  
CAT BROOKS AND RASHEED SHABAZZ,    ) 
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF      ) 
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,     ) 
                                   ) 
             PLAINTIFFS,           ) 
                                   ) 
  VS.                              )  CASE NO. 21-CV-01418-EMC 
                                   ) 
THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,       ) 
                                   )  SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 
             DEFENDANT.            )  VIA ZOOM VIDEOCONFERENCE 
           )  THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 2022  
___________________________________)   
 
 
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS  
APPEARANCES: 
 
FOR PLAINTIFFS          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 
505 14TH STREET, SUITE 1110 
OAKLAND, CA 94612  
                   BY:  ANDRE MURA, ESQUIRE  
                        EZEKIEL WARD, ESQUIRE 
 
 
FOR DEFENDANT 
PERKINS COIE 
1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 4900 
SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099  
                   BY:  NICOLA MENALDO, ESQUIRE                       
 
 
FOR MOVANT
FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP 
555 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1700 
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA  94102 
         BY:  JASON Y. WU, ESQUIRE 
 
REPORTED BY:  JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR #5435, RPR 
              PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC  
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 151-15     Filed 01/26/23     Page 2 of 8

     6
JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
510-367-3043
I SEE THE ONLY ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO THE FACT THAT THOMSON
REUTERS ALLEGEDLY DISCLOSED THE INFORMATION.
SO OUR CLIENT'S CONTRACT WITH THOMSON REUTERS ONLY
RELATES TO ISSUE OF THOMSON REUTERS OBTAINING THAT INFORMATION
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  IT'S NOT GOING TO GO TO THESE ISSUES OF
DISSEMINATION THAT SEEM TO BE AT THE HEART OF THE COMPLAINT.
THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  LET ME HEAR THE RESPONSE TO
THAT.  THERE'S KIND OF A DOUBLE RELEVANCE ISSUE HERE.  ONE IS,
WHAT DOES IT MATTER WHAT FSX DID AND WHAT THE TERMS OF THEIR
CONTRACT ARE, GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM, AND IS IT
SPECULATIVE THAT GATHERING OF INFORMATION FROM THE DELAWARE
COURT IS GOING TO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CLASS.  LET ME
HEAR THE PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO THAT.
MR. WALD:  YES, YOUR HONOR.  THE PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE
IS TWOFOLD.
WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIMS FOCUSING ON DISSEMINATION,
I THINK THE PLAINTIFFS WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT
CHARACTERIZATION.  AND THE CLASS DEFINITION IN THIS CASE IS ALL
PERSONS RESIDING IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHOSE NAME,
PHOTOGRAPHS, PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION, OR OTHER
PERSONAL DATA IS, OR WAS, INCLUDED IN THE CLEAR DATABASE DURING
THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD.  
SO THE INFORMATION THAT THOMPSON REUTERS COLLECTS,
AGGREGATES, AND MAKES AVAILABLE THROUGH CLEAR IS THE BASIS OF
THE COMPLAINT, INCLUDING INFORMATION THAT IS DISSEMINATED OR
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 151-15     Filed 01/26/23     Page 3 of 8

     7
JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
510-367-3043
INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE
FUTURE.
THE COURT:  SO THE THEORY OF THE COMPLAINT IS NOT
JUST THE DISSEMINATION, BUT IT IS THE COLLECTION?
MR. WALD:  I THINK THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
THE COURT:  AND, THEREFORE, WHATEVER THE METHODS OF
COLLECTION, THE BREADTH OF THE COLLECTION BECOMES RELEVANT?
MR. WALD:  THE BREADTH OF THE COLLECTION, THE METHODS
OF THE COLLECTION, THE INFORMATION THAT IS COLLECTED, AND HOW
THAT INFORMATION IS MADE AVAILABLE, DISSEMINATED, OR MIGHT ONE
DAY BE DISSEMINATED ARE RELEVANT.
THE COURT:  WHAT ABOUT THE REMOTENESS OF NEW JERSEY?
MR. WALD:  WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT THIS
INFORMATION IS ORIGINATING FROM DELAWARE STATE COURTS, YOUR
HONOR, PLAINTIFFS DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT REDUCES THE RELEVANCE
FOR TWO REASONS.
FIRST, THE METHODS AND MEANS BY WHICH THOMSON REUTERS
COLLECTS, AGGREGATES, OBTAINS THIS INFORMATION, THE FREQUENCY
WITH WHICH INFORMATION IS UPDATED, THE PRICING AND VALUATION OF
DIFFERENT FORMS OF INFORMATION, ALL OF THIS IS RELEVANT TO
UNDERSTANDING THE THOMPSON REUTERS CLEAR PRODUCT, THE
INFORMATION IT CONTAINS, HOW THEY GO ABOUT OBTAINING IT.
SO PLAINTIFFS BELIEVE THE LICENSING AGREEMENTS THAT
INVOLVE THIS PRODUCT'S OBTAINING INFORMATION THAT IS THEN MADE
AVAILABLE ARE RELEVANT, INDEPENDENT OF WHETHER THE PARTICULAR
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 151-15     Filed 01/26/23     Page 4 of 8

     8
JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
510-367-3043
INFORMATION SUBJECT TO ONE LICENSING AGREEMENT MIGHT
SPECIFICALLY PERTAIN TO INDIVIDUAL CLASS MEMBERS OR NOT.
ON THE SECONDHAND, PLAINTIFFS ALSO DISAGREE IT IS A
SPECULATIVE ARGUMENT THAT INFORMATION ABOUT CALIFORNIANS MIGHT
BE INCLUDED IN FILINGS THAT ORIGINATE FROM DELAWARE STATE
COURTS, AND WE THINK THIS IS A COMMON SENSE ARGUMENT.
CALIFORNIANS CLEARLY LITIGATE IN DELAWARE STATE COURTS AND HAVE
LITIGATED IN DELAWARE STATE COURTS DURING THE CLASS PERIOD, AND
PEOPLE MOVE FROM STATE TO STATE ALL THE TIME.
SO WE WOULD DISAGREE WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
ARGUMENT ON THE FIRSTHAND, AND WOULD ADDITIONALLY ARGUE THAT
THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE RELEVANT EVEN IF YOU TOOK THE
ARGUMENT ON ITS FACE.
THE COURT:  LET ME ASK YOU, I MEAN, THE COMPLAINT
SEEMS TO BE REALLY FOCUSED ON REUTERS COLLECTING AND SELLING
INFORMATION, MAKING SUBSTANTIAL PROFITS ON THE SALE OF
INFORMATION.  IS THERE -- WHERE IS THERE A CLASS -- A
SUBSTANTIVE CLAIM FOR THE MERE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION
DIVORCED FROM SALES?
MR. WALD:  YOUR HONOR, I THINK THE KEY CONNECTION IS
THAT NONE OF THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR SALE TO
ANY OF THOMPSON REUTERS CUSTOMERS WERE THEY NOT LICENSING THAT
INFORMATION FROM ENTITIES LIKE FSX.
AND SO UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE BY WHICH THOMSON
REUTERS IS COLLECTING THAT INFORMATION IS KEY TO UNDERSTANDING
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 151-15     Filed 01/26/23     Page 5 of 8

     9
JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
510-367-3043
THE CONTOURS OF THE DATABASE AND HOW THEY MIGHT GO ABOUT
DISSEMINATING AND SELLING THAT INFORMATION IN THE FUTURE, WHAT
INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE, HOW IT'S MADE AVAILABLE, WE BELIEVE
THAT IS CLEARLY RELEVANT TO THE CLAIMS IN THIS CASE.
THE COURT:  CAN YOU DETERMINE THE BREADTH AND
CONTOURS OF REUTERS' INFORMATION WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE FSX
CONTRACT?
MR. WALD:  I THINK TO THE EXTENT THAT THE FSX
CONTRACT ILLUMINATES HOW THOMSON REUTERS COLLECTS PARTICULAR
INFORMATION AND THE RELATIVE VALUE OF DIFFERENT PIECES OF
INFORMATION, WHICH PLAINTIFFS BELIEVE IS RELEVANT BOTH TO THEIR
UCL CLAIMS AND TO THEIR UNJUST ENRICHMENT CLAIMS, THE EXISTENCE
OF ADDITIONAL LICENSING AGREEMENTS AND THE CONTOURS OF THOSE
LICENSING AGREEMENTS REMAIN RELEVANT, EVEN IF OTHER INFORMATION
SPEAKS TO THE SAME ISSUE OR AT LEAST TO RELATED ISSUES, AND --
THE COURT:  EXPLAIN TO ME HOW IT IS THAT HOW REUTERS
COLLECTS THE INFORMATION IS RELEVANT IF YOU KNOW WHAT
INFORMATION IT HAS AND THEN WHAT IT DOES WITH IT ONCE IT THAT
IS INFORMATION.  WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF THEY GOT IT
THROUGH ONE VENDOR OR ANOTHER, FOR INSTANCE?
MR. WALD:  I THINK PLAINTIFFS BELIEVE THAT THE MANNER
OF COLLECTION COULD BE RELEVANT TO UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE AT
WHICH THE INFORMATION MIGHT IMPACT THE INTERESTS OF
CALIFORNIANS.  FOR EXAMPLE, YOU COULD IMAGINE BUYING
INFORMATION THAT IS SCRAPED BY A WEB CRAWLER THAT INDIVIDUALS
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. WALD: I THINK PLAINTIFFS BELIEVE THAT THE MANNER
OF COLLECTION COULD BE RELEVANT TO UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE AT
WHICH THE INFORMATION MIGHT IMPACT THE INTERESTS OF
CALIFORNIANS. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU COULD IMAGINE BUYING
INFORMATION THAT IS SCRAPED BY A WEB CRAWLER THAT INDIVIDUALS
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 151-15     Filed 01/26/23     Page 6 of 8

    10
JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
510-367-3043
HAVE NO IDEA IS OCCURRING MIGHT BE DIFFERENT FROM BUYING ACCESS
TO INFORMATION THAT INDIVIDUALS HAVE PUBLICLY MADE AVAILABLE,
INTENDING FOR IT TO BE USED IN SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE.
SO SEEING THE SCOPE OF HOW THIS INFORMATION IS
COLLECTED AND REALLY UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THIS
INFORMATION MIGHT BE COLLECTED APPEARS RELEVANT TO
UNDERSTANDING THE PRODUCT AND THE IMPACT THE PRODUCT MIGHT HAVE
ON CONSUMERS AND CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS.
THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  LET ME HEAR BACK FROM MR. WU
THE FLIP SIDE, AND THAT IS YOU USE PROPORTIONALITY.  I'M NOT
SURE WHAT'S --  YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT A BURDEN IN THE TYPICAL
SENSE OF HAVING TO PRODUCE MOUNDS AND MOUNDS OF GIGABYTES OF
DOCUMENTS, BUT IT'S THE BURDEN OF PRODUCING A SENSITIVE
DOCUMENT, BUT THAT SENSITIVITY, I THINK, IS ADDRESSED BY THE
AEO PROTECTIVE ORDER.  
SO I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A
PROPORTIONALITY ARGUMENT.  I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A MAYBE
STRAIGHT RELEVANCE ARGUMENT, AND WHAT HAS BEEN ARTICULATED IS A
RELEVANCE ARGUMENT.  I WILL CONCEDE IT'S NOT DIRECTLY OBVIOUS,
BUT I CAN SEE AN ARGUMENT WHERE IT HAS SOME PROBATIVE VALUE,
AND SOME MAY BE A LITTLE LIGHT ON RELEVANCE.  ON THE OTHER
HAND, I DON'T SEE WHAT THE BURDEN IS.
MR. WU:  YES, YOUR HONOR.  I THINK -- I THINK WHERE
IT GETS INTO THE ISSUE OF CONFIDENTIALITY AND BURDEN IS THAT
WHENEVER THERE IS DISCOVERY OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS SOUGHT,
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HAVE NO IDEA IS OCCURRING MIGHT BE DIFFERENT FROM BUYING ACCESS
TO INFORMATION THAT INDIVIDUALS HAVE PUBLICLY MADE AVAILABLE,
INTENDING FOR IT TO BE USED IN SUBSEQUENT DISCLOSURE.
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 151-15     Filed 01/26/23     Page 7 of 8

    13
JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
PRO TEM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
510-367-3043
STATE OF CALIFORNIA    ) 
                       )    SS 
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA ) 
 
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IN THE 
WITHIN-ENTITLED CAUSE WAS TAKEN AT THE TIME AND PLACE HEREIN 
NAMED; THAT THE TRANSCRIPT IS A TRUE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS 
AS REPORTED BY ME, A DULY CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER AND A 
DISINTERESTED PERSON, AND WAS THEREAFTER TRANSCRIBED INTO 
TYPEWRITING BY COMPUTER. 
I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT INTERESTED IN THE 
OUTCOME OF THE SAID ACTION, NOR CONNECTED WITH, NOR RELATED TO 
ANY OF THE PARTIES IN SAID ACTION, NOR TO THEIR RESPECTIVE 
COUNSEL. 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND THIS 
8TH DAY OF JULY, 2022. 
 
 
                 _________________________________ 
                 JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR NO. 5435 
                 STATE OF CALIFORNIA           
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC     Document 151-15     Filed 01/26/23     Page 8 of 8

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.151.15.pdf

Size

151,481 bytes

SHA-256

b43caa342cadcd612a36da25d5540c9025821b7abf1a401d4daa78377f396a5c

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.151.15.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)