Court filing

Exhibit 2 to the Mura Declaration [Redacted] - Publicly Filed… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 195.1)

No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC · Doc. 195-1 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 195-1 Filed 03/31/23 Page 1 of 8

EXHIBIT 2
[REDACTED - PUBLICLY FILED
VERSION OF ECF NO. 167-5
PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER
DATED MARCH 30, 2023 (ECF NO. 188)]
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 195-1 Filed 03/31/23 Page 2 of 8

1 Susan D. Fahringer, Bar No. 21567 Gabriella Gallego, Bar No. 324226
SFahringer@perkinscoie.com GGallego@perkinscoie.com
2 Nicola C. Menaldo, pro hac vice PERKINS COIE LLP
NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com 3150 Porter Drive
3 Erin K. Earl, pro hac vice Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
EEarl@perkinscoie.com Telephone: 650.838.4300
4 Anna M. Thompson, pro hac vice Facsimile: 650.838.4350
AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com
5 PERKINS COIE LLP Hayden M. Schottlaender, pro hac vice
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com
6 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 PERKINS COIE LLP
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3300
7 Dallas, TX 75201-3347
8 Attorneys for Defendant Telephone: 214.965.7700
Thomson Reuters Corporation Facsimile: 214.965.7799
9

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

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

22 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz

23 RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Thomson Reuters Corporation

24 SET NO: One

28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC THOMSON REUTERS’ FOURTH
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS
TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 195-1 Filed 03/31/23 Page 3 of 8

1 Thomson Reuters Corporation (“Thomson Reuters”), by its counsel, pursuant to Rule 33
2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure hereby provides the following Fourth Supplemental
3 Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant (“Interrogatories”).
4 These Supplemental Answers and Objections necessarily incorporate and add to Thomson
5 Reuters’ original Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories. Thomson
6 Reuters’ combined answers and objections (“Answers”) are based on information currently
7 available to Thomson Reuters as discovery is not complete and Thomson Reuters’ investigation is
8 ongoing. Thomson Reuters reserves the right to further supplement or amend these Answers
9 should additional information become available through the discovery process or otherwise.
10 ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS
11 INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
12 For each category of content responsive to Interrogatory No. 1, state the number of
13 Californians for whom CLEAR has had information available to provide in response to a CLEAR
14 query.
15 ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
16 Subject to and without waiving the objections set forth below, Thomson Reuters’ answer
17 to this Interrogatory is set forth in Attachment A in its entirety, including in particular its
18 discussion of the information available through CLEAR. Thomson Reuters incorporates its
19 answer and objections to Interrogatory No. 1, and further objects to providing any further answer
20 to this Interrogatory on the following grounds:
21 1. Thomson Reuters has previously confirmed that it will stipulate that the number of
22 “persons residing in the state of California whose name, photographs, personal
23 identifying information, or other personal data is or was included in the CLEAR
24 database during the limitations period,” Compl. ¶ 70, is greater than 40.
25 Consequently, the information sought by this Interrogatory is not relevant to any
26 claims or defenses of any party.
27 2. This Interrogatory seeks information that is irrelevant because Plaintiffs’
28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -1- THOMSON REUTERS’ FOURTH
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS
TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 195-1 Filed 03/31/23 Page 4 of 8

1 remaining claims challenge only the “selling” of information, not the mere

2 availability of information through CLEAR.

3 FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

4 Plaintiffs have clarified that this Interrogatory seeks “the total number of person entities

5 who have at least one address field including a California address, since 2015.”

6 In response, and subject to and without waiving the above objections or those set forth

7 below, Thomson Reuters supplements its response as follows:

8 Thomson Reuters has conducted a reasonable search and diligent inquiry for the

9 information requested by Plaintiffs by determining the total number of

11 and used to help facilitate person searches run through

12 CLEAR. Thomson Reuters has also conducted a reasonable search and diligent inquiry to

13 determine the subset of those a current or past California address. Past

14 addresses are not limited to those “since 2015,” because Thomson Reuters’ systems are not

15 designed to retrieve that information.

16 Note that a single natural person may be associated with several different , such that

17 the below totals account for many individuals multiple times. In addition:

18 1. The fact that a current or past California address does not

19 mean that it relates to a person who has resided in California at any point in time,

20 much less a person who has resided in California “since 2015.” The address may

21 instead represent any number of addresses that are likely associated with a given

22 person, but which do not represent a place where the person has resided—such as a

23 vacation home, a business address, or a P.O. Box. Or someone may have resided in

24 California many years ago but has since moved. Or the address may not, in fact, be

25 associated with the person at all.

26 2.

28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -2- THOMSON REUTERS’ FOURTH
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS
TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 195-1 Filed 03/31/23 Page 5 of 8

1 .

2 3. The totals include which relate to persons who are deceased and/or who

3 have been deceased since before 2015.

4 As of January 9, 2023,

5 of these contained a current or past California address.

6 Thomson Reuters objects that Plaintiffs have not identified whether or how these totals are

7 relevant to either of their remaining claims, particularly in light of the fact that these totals do not

8 reflect “the number of Californians for whom CLEAR has had information available to provide in

9 response to a CLEAR query” within the relevant time period.

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
ANSWER 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
FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 14:
20
Plaintiffs have clarified that this Interrogatory seeks “the number of searches that use the
21
‘state’ input field, and among those, the number of searches that use a [California state] input.”
22
In response, and subject to and without waiving the above objections or those set forth
23
below, Thomson Reuters supplements its answer as follows:
24
Thomson Reuters has conducted a reasonable search and diligent inquiry for the
25
information requested by Plaintiffs by querying its systems to determine the total number of
26
CLEAR searches performed annually since 2015; the subset of those searches that included an
27
input in the “state” search field; and the subset of those searches with a California input in the
28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -3- THOMSON REUTERS’ FOURTH
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS
TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 195-1 Filed 03/31/23 Page 6 of 8

1 “state” search field. These totals are set forth below. Note the following:

2 1. The totals include searches that returned no results.

3 2. The totals include searches that intentionally or unintentionally returned results for

4 non-natural persons, such as business entities.

5 3. The totals include searches where the user did not click on some, or any, of the

6 results. When a user conducts a search through CLEAR, the user is presented with

7 a list of search results with basic information—for instance, name and partial

8 social security number, date of birth, and/or address. The user must affirmatively

9 click on these search results in order to view more information.

10 4. Similarly, the totals include searches where the user did not take further action to

11 run a report based on the search results.

12 5. The totals treat searches as separate even when they occur in a related series of

13 searches that are ultimately all for the same person. For instance, a user might

14 search for “John Smith,” realize that returns too many results, and therefore run

15 subsequent, related searches adding an address, birthdates, and so forth. The totals

16 therefore do not represent unique search subjects.

17 6. The totals include searches that intentionally or unintentionally returned results for

18 persons who are deceased and/or who have been deceased since before 2015.

19 7. The totals include searches that yielded results for people who have not resided in

20 California at any point in time, much less since 2015. For example, a search with a

21 “California” input may return a result where a search subject has been determined

22 to be likely associated with a California address that is—in fact—a vacation home,

23 a business address, or P.O. Box. Or a result may be returned when someone

24 resided in California many years ago but has since moved. Or a result may be

25 returned where the California address is not—in fact—associated with the search

26 subject at all.

27 8. In general, the import of a given search depends on the nature of its inputs to a

28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -4- THOMSON REUTERS’ FOURTH
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS
TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 195-1 Filed 03/31/23 Page 7 of 8

1 search. For example, a single search for “John Smith” is very different from a

2 single search for a specific social security number. Yet the totals treat all searches

3 the same.

4 Year Total CLEAR Total CLEAR with State=* Total CLEAR with State=CA
5

10 Thomson Reuters further objects that Plaintiffs have not identified whether or how these

11 totals are relevant to either of their remaining claims, particularly in light of the fact that these

12 totals do not reflect “the total number of Californians” who had “data accessible through

13 CLEAR.”

14
Dated: January 24, 2023 PERKINS COIE LLP
15

16 By: /s/ Susan D. Fahringer
Susan D. Fahringer, Bar No. 21567
17 SFahringer@perkinscoie.com
18 Attorneys for Defendant
Thomson Reuters Corporation
19

28
Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC -5- THOMSON REUTERS’ FOURTH
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS
TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC Document 195-1 Filed 03/31/23 Page 8 of 8

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 January 24, 2023, I served a copy of the within
6 document(s):
7 DEFENDANT THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION’S FOURTH
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
8 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.

12
Andre M. Mura Geoffrey A. Graber
13 Mark Troutman ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
Amy Zeman Karina Puttieva
14 Ezekiel S. Wald kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com
Hanne Jensen COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS
15 GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP & TOLL PLLC
505 14th Street, Suite 1110 1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
16 Oakland, CA 94612 Washington, DC 20005
amm@classlawgroup.com
17 mht@classlawgroup.com
amz@classlawgroup.com
18 zsw@classlawgroup.com
hj@classlawgroup.com
19 service@classlawgroup.com

22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

23 above is true and correct.

24 Executed on January 24, 2023, at Bainbridge Island, WA.

26
Anna Mouw Thompson
27

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

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cand.374304.195.1.pdf
Size: 309,677 bytes
SHA-256: 17ec4d2553d598af2e667cc0e2cba2a1b328d81899da48f9892f401ad30dfada
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cand.374304.195.1.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)