FILED

1 2021 SEP 02 04:25 PM The Honorable Douglass A. North

KING COUNTY Hearing Date: September 14, 2021
2 SUPERIOR COURT CLERK Without Oral Argument
E-FILED
3 CASE #: 20-2-07774-7 SEA
4

7 STATE OF WASHINGTON
KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
8
STATE OF WASHINGTON, NO. 20-2-07774-7 SEA
9
Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF STATE OF
10 WASHINGTON’S MOTION FOR
v. LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
11
FACEBOOK, INC.,
12
Defendant.
13

14 I. INTRODUCTION

15 For nearly 50 years, Washington laws have required commercial advertisers to allow the

16 public to inspect information about Washington political advertisements. Defendant Facebook,

17 Inc. (Facebook) is a commercial advertiser, yet it views itself above this law. Even after a

18 previous lawsuit and the original complaint in this case, it still refuses to provide the public

19 access to all required information about political ads.

20 The State detailed in its original complaint two unfulfilled inspection requests made by

21 members of the public to Facebook in 2019. During discovery, the State asked Facebook whether

22 it had received any other requests. Facebook testified that it had not. Both Facebook and its

23 counsel were aware that testimony was false. In fact, by then Facebook’s counsel had engaged

24 in numerous, direct communications with Zach Wurtz (Wurtz), a professional who performs

25 research and tracking services for political committees and candidates and who has made at least

26 nine separate (unfulfilled) inspection requests to Facebook for information relating to

PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON’S 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Complex Litigation Division
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
COMPLAINT – NO. 20-2-07774-7 SEA Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
 1 Washington political ads starting in 2019 and continuing into 2021. Facebook’s misconduct

2 prevented the State from learning about the additional undisclosed violations concerning Wurtz

3 from media reports and it had to conduct its own investigation.

4 Additionally, the State recently discovered that Facebook implemented a formalized

5 process in early 2020 for handling inspection requests made under Washington’s law.

6 Facebook’s process requires requestors to complete a form that limits and places conditions on

7 their requests, in direct contravention of Washington’s law.

8 The State now seeks leave of the Court to amend its complaint to include the additional

9 violations the State discovered. In particular, the amended complaint adds allegations regarding

10 the unfulfilled requests by Wurtz, his communications with Facebook’s lawyers about the

11 requests, and recent additional violations involving one of the requestors who triggered the

12 State’s original complaint (Eli Sanders). The amended complaint also discusses Facebook’s

13 decision to implement a process that improperly conditions its response on the completion of a

14 form that asks for information that is inconsistent with Washington law.

15 The Court should grant leave under CR 15. The State’s proposed additional claims as to

16 Wurtz and Sanders involve the same violations as those contained in the original complaint, so

17 judicial economy is promoted by including those claims in this case, rather than in a separate

18 lawsuit. Facebook cannot claim undue prejudice, where Facebook has long been aware of

19 Wurtz’s unfulfilled inspection requests as well as the company’s decision to implement a process

20 that improperly conditions its response on the completion of a form that asks for information

21 that is inconsistent with Washington law. Although it was aware, Facebook improperly failed to

22 disclose that information during discovery. If it had done so, the State’s motion to amend would

23 have been made some time ago. While leave may require a delay in the case schedule to allow

24 the State to conduct reasonable discovery on its new claims, such delay is solely the result of

25

26

PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON’S 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Complex Litigation Division
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
COMPLAINT – NO. 20-2-07774-7 SEA Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
 1 Facebook’s own misconduct. 1

2 II. FACTS

3 A. State’s Claims Against Facebook for Its Violations of RCW 42.17A.345 and
WAC 390-18-050
4
The State filed its initial complaint on April 14, 2020. See Compl. (filed Apr. 14, 2020).
5
In its complaint, the State alleged that Facebook, a commercial advertiser as defined by RCW
6
42.17.005(10), had “repeatedly and openly” violated RCW 42.17.345 and WAC 390-18-050 by
7
failing to maintain and make available for public inspection books of accounts and related
8
materials specifying the required information for political advertisements that Facebook
9
accepted or provided for elections campaigns in Washington since November 30, 2018. Compl.
10
at 1. The State’s complaint identified two separate requests for such public inspection Facebook
11
received in 2019—one by Eli Sanders and another by Tallman Trask—that Facebook failed to
12
timely and fully respond to in accordance with the requirements of RCW 42.17A.345 and WAC
13
390-18-050. Id. at 10-11. Both Sanders and Trask filed complaints with the Public Disclosure
14
Commission (PDC) that were referred to the AGO for possible legal action. Id. at 11. In addition
15
to Facebook’s deficient responses to these two specific requests, the State asserted that Facebook
16
further violated Washington’s law by failing to maintain for public inspection documents and
17
books of account with statutorily required information for each political advertisement or
18
electioneering communication for Washington State election campaigns that Facebook accepted
19
or provided after November 30, 2018. Id. at 15.
20
B. Facebook Failed to Disclose Relevant Information About Additional Violations of
21 RCW 42.17A.345 and WAC 390-18-050 During Discovery
22 On September 1, 2020, the State served Facebook with Requests for Production (RFP).

23 Declaration of Todd Sipe (Sipe Decl.) ¶ 3. The State’s RFP No. 11 sought “all communications

24 relating to the Facebook Ad Library or Ad Archive, and the commercial advertiser and inspection

25
1
In accordance with CR 15(a), a redlined copy of the State’s proposed Amended Complaint is attached as
26 Exhibit A to this motion.

PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON’S 3 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Complex Litigation Division
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
COMPLAINT – NO. 20-2-07774-7 SEA Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
 1 requirements of RCW 42.17A.345 and WAC 390-18-050.” Id. Although Wurtz has recently

2 provided the State with written communications he had with Facebook or its attorneys that fall

3 within the scope of those covered by RFP No. 11, Facebook did not produce those

4 communications. Id. ¶ 4. If Facebook or its attorneys had done so, the State may have learned of

5 Wurtz’s unfilled inspection requests to Facebook months earlier. Id. ¶ 5.

6 On March 29, 2021, the State served Facebook with a Notice of Deposition Pursuant to

7 CR 30(b)(6). Id. ¶ 6. The Notice required Facebook to identify a witness to testify on behalf of

8 Facebook on “Facebook’s efforts to comply with RCW 42.17A.345 and WAC 390-18-050 for

9 political advertising . . . that appeared on Facebook from December 1, 2018 through April 13,

10 2020, including Facebook’s policies, practices and procedures during the time period for

11 responding to any requests or potential requests from members of the public for information

12 identified in RCW 42[.]17A.345 and/or WAC 390-18-050 for those advertisements and

13 communications.” Id. ¶ 7.

14 During the deposition of Facebook’s 30(b)(6) designee on May 25, 2021,

15 (Frank Antzoulis) the State asked the designee to identify any other instances (other than those

16 involving Eli Sanders or Tallman Trask) in which individuals requested information about

17 Washington political ads posted on Facebook. Id. ¶ 8. The State clarified that the designee was

18 responsible to answer on behalf of Facebook. Id. The designee answered that there were no other

19 instances of individuals asking for Washington political ad information. Id. ¶ 9. Facebook’s

20 attorney did not object to this line of questioning. Id. Facebook exercised its right to provide

21 corrections to the transcript, but it did not correct the transcript on this issue. Id. ¶ 10.

22 The State has since learned that Facebook’s designee’s testimony was false. In particular,

23 Facebook’s designee failed to disclose that Wurtz had in fact made numerous unfulfilled requests

24 to Facebook starting in 2019 and continuing into 2021 for information about Washington

25 political advertisements appearing on Facebook. Id. ¶ 11; see also Declaration of Zach Wurtz

26 (Wurtz Decl.) at ¶¶ 15, 30. Furthermore, Facebook counsel were personally aware of these

PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON’S 4 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Complex Litigation Division
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
COMPLAINT – NO. 20-2-07774-7 SEA Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
 1 requests because they had direct communication with Wurtz. Wurtz Decl. ¶¶ 31-66. Moreover,

2 as detailed below, most, if not all, of Wurtz’s requests fell squarely within the topic set forth in

3 the State’s 30(b)(6) deposition notice because it sought information on Washington political

4 advertisements that appeared on Facebook between December 1, 2018 and April 13, 2020.

5 Id. ¶¶ 15, 31, 34, 38, 40, 44, 47, 49, 54, 59, 63.

6 Because of Facebook’s failure to disclose Wurtz’s requests in response to the State’s

7 September 2020 written discovery or during the May 2021 deposition of Facebook’s

8 representative, the State’s attorneys have only recently learned of those requests from media

9 reports. Sipe Decl. ¶ 12.

10 C. Facebook’s Repeatedly Violated RCW 42.17A.345 and WAC 390-18-050 as to

Zach Wurtz Between October 2019 Through July 2021
11
On October 16, 2019, Wurtz contacted a Facebook representative through a chat function
12
on the company’s platform. Wurtz Decl. ¶ 15. Wurtz identified that he was located in Seattle and
13
requested to inspect the company’s books of account for political advertisements the company
14
had accepted or provided in connection with the 2019 Seattle City Council races. Id. Wurtz stated
15
that his request covered not only candidates sponsoring ads, but IEs (independent expenditures),
16
PACs (political action committees), non-profits, and any other sponsor of political advertising
17
targeted to Seattle voters for the 2019 election cycle. Id. The Facebook representative instructed
18
Wurtz to contact the company’s local office to obtain the information he was seeking. Id. ¶ 17.
19
On that same day, Wurtz contacted Facebook by visiting the company’s Seattle office
20
during normal business hours. Id. ¶ 18. During that visit, Wurtz asked to inspect the company’s
21
books of account for political advertisements that Facebook accepted or provided in connection
22
with the 2019 Seattle City Council races, including information required under Washington laws
23
and rules that was not available through Facebook’s online Ad Library. Id. ¶¶ 18-20. Wurtz was
24
not given any requested information that day. Id. ¶ 21.
25
Facebook did not provide any of the information that Wurtz requested until more than
26

PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON’S 5 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Complex Litigation Division
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
COMPLAINT – NO. 20-2-07774-7 SEA Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
 1 nine months after his October 2019 request. Id. ¶¶ 21, 26. On July 28, 2020, an attorney

2 representing Facebook provided business records to Wurtz that contained information on

3 Facebook political advertisements sponsored in the 2019 Seattle City Council races. Id. ¶ 26.

4 The business records were incomplete, as they did not include the name or address of the ads’

5 sponsors, and information related to location targeting had been redacted. Further, the records

6 documented only one advertiser’s Facebook ad campaign. Id. ¶¶ 27-29.

7 Following his October 16, 2019 request, during 2020 and 2021 Wurtz made eight

8 additional requests to inspect Facebook’s books of account for political advertising and

9 electioneering communications that the company accepted or provided in the prior five years.

10 Wurtz made the requests in his own name or on behalf of his business on October 19, 2020;

11 October 30, 2020; November 20, 2020; November 24, 2020; December 31, 2020; January 4,

12 2021; March 1, 2021; and July 19, 2021. Id. ¶¶ 31, 38, 40, 44, 47, 54, 59, 63. On at least nine

13 separate occasions from October 19, 2020 to July 19, 2021, attorneys representing Facebook in

14 this case contacted Wurtz and provided him with a form entitled “Washington Resident Request

15 Form” to complete in order to process his requests. Id. ¶¶ 32, 35, 41, 45, 48, 50, 56, 60, 64. One

16 of Facebook’s attorneys wrote Wurtz in connection with his October 19, 2019 request that “[i]n

17 order for us to process your request, you must first complete the attached form, including

18 providing us with your true name (not an alias), confirming that you are a Washington resident,

19 and providing the URLs for the Facebook ads about which you are seeking information.”

20 Id. ¶ 35. Wurtz received similar demands from Facebook attorneys to complete the Washington

21 Resident Request Form as a condition for Facebook to process other requests he made. Id. ¶¶ 32,

22 39, 41, 45, 48, 50, 56, 60, 64.

23 The Washington Resident Request Form Facebook required Wurtz to complete placed

24 terms and limitations on his inspection requests that are contrary to the requirements of

25 RCW 42.17A.345 and WAC 390-18-050. For example, the form requires requestors to certify

26 that they are Washington State residents and to identify the URL (Universal Resource Locator

PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON’S 6 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Complex Litigation Division
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
COMPLAINT – NO. 20-2-07774-7 SEA Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
 1 or the address of a webpage) of the Facebook page for every sponsor whose advertisements were

2 included in his request. Id. ¶ 33. Nothing in RCW 42.17A.345 nor WAC 390-18-050 limits

3 public inspections of commercial advertisers’ books of accounts to Washington residents or to

4 those who can identify the URLs for the sponsors of the Washington political advertisements.

5 The Washington Resident Request Form also limits inspection requests to Washington

6 political advertisements spanning a single year and none before January 1, 2019. Id. However,

7 RCW 42.17A.345 expressly requires commercial advertisers, such as Facebook, to make

8 required information about Washington political advertisement available for public inspection

9 for a period of no less than five years after the applicable election.

10 Facebook failed to make all of the required information available to Wurtz to inspect for

11 all of his eight additional requests made under RCW 42.17A.345 and WAC 390-18-050.

12 Id. ¶¶ 37, 43, 46, 52, 58, 62, 66. Even when Mr. Wurtz attempted to provide information

13 requested on Facebook’s Washington Resident Request Form, Facebook still failed to provide

14 him with the information he was seeking about the Washington political advertisements that had

15 appeared on Facebook’s platform. Id. ¶¶ 49-52, 54-58.

16 On August 20, 2021, counsel for the State submitted to the PDC a complaint against

17 Facebook alleging that Facebook had violated RCW 42.17A.345 and WAC 390-18-050 by

18 failing to timely comply with Wurtz’s numerous inspection requests for information on

19 Washington political advertisements that appeared on Facebook, and by requiring him to

20 complete as a condition to processing his requests, a form that contravenes Washington law.

21 Sipe Decl. ¶ 13.

22 D. Facebook Has Also Recently Violated RCW 42.17A.345 and WAC 390-18-050 as to
Eli Sanders
23
In July 2021, Sanders made a new request to Facebook under RCW 42.17A.345 and
24
WAC 390-18-050 to inspect its books of account and information relating to Washington
25
political advertisements that appeared on Facebook in 2021. Sipe Decl. ¶ 14. According to
26

PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON’S 7 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Complex Litigation Division
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
COMPLAINT – NO. 20-2-07774-7 SEA Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
 1 Sanders’ complaints to the PDC, Facebook also provided Sanders the Washington Resident

2 Request Form to complete. Id. ¶ 15. Moreover, Facebook once again failed to timely and fully

3 respond to Sanders’ request. Id. ¶ 16. For example, Facebook redacted the location targeting

4 information for the advertisements even though targeting information is one of the pieces of

5 information that Washington law expressly requires commercial advertisers to make available

6 for inspection. Id. ¶ 17. Further, the documents Facebook provided to Sanders do not reflect

7 every Washington political advertisement that appeared on Facebook during the period covered

8 by Sanders’ request. Id. ¶ 18. Based on this conduct, Sanders filed two PDC complaints against

9 Facebook on August 10, 2021, for violations of RCW 42.17A.345 and WAC 390-18-050. Id.

10 ¶ 19.

11 E. PDC Has Referred Facebook’s New Violations of RCW 42.17A.345 and

WAC 390-18-050 as to Wurtz and Sanders to the AGO for Possible Legal Action
12
On September 1, 2021, PDC Executive Director Peter Lavallee referred the Wurtz matter
13
and the two August 10, 2021, Sanders’s complaints to the AGO for possible legal action. Sipe
14
Decl. ¶ 20. As required by RCW 42.17A.755(4) and WAC 390-37-042, Lavallee accompanied
15
the referral with the documented written concurrence of PDC Chair Fred Jarrett. Id.
16
III. ISSUES
17
1. Whether the Court should grant the State’s motion to amend the complaint to add
18
new allegations and claims based on information withheld by Facebook and its attorneys?
19
2. Whether the Court should grant the State’s request to adjust the case schedule to
20
allow the State an opportunity to conduct reasonable fact discovery on its newly amended claims.
21
IV. REQUESTED RELIEF
22
The Court should grant the State leave to file its amended complaint. The Court should
23
also adjust the case schedule to allow the State an opportunity to conduct reasonable fact
24
discovery on its newly amended claims.
25

26

PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON’S 8 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Complex Litigation Division
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
COMPLAINT – NO. 20-2-07774-7 SEA Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
 1 V. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON

2 The State relies on the declarations of Zach Wurtz and S. Todd Sipe, and their respective

3 exhibits, as well as the pleadings already filed in this matter.

4 VI. ARGUMENT

5 A. Legal Standard
6 Under CR 15(a), a party may amend its pleading with leave of court, which shall be

7 “freely given when justice so requires.” CR 15(a). This rule is intended to “facilitate a proper

8 decision on the merits” and provide parties with adequate notice of the basis for claims and

9 defenses asserted against them. Herron v. Trib. Publ’g Co., Inc., 108 Wn.2d 162, 165, 736 P.2d

10 249 (1987) (quoting Caruso v. Loc. Union No. 690 of Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters,

11 Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., 100 Wn.2d 343, 349, 670 P.2d 240 (1983)). In

12 the absence of actual prejudice, delay in seeking leave to amend a pleading is not grounds to

13 deny an amendment. See Caruso, 100 Wn.2d at 349 (delay of over five years does not justify

14 denial of motion to amend in absence of actual prejudice). A defendant is not prejudiced by

15 undue delay where the defendant has withheld evidence underlying plaintiff’s claims.

16 See Univ. of Wash. v. Gov’t Emps. Ins. Co. (GEICO), 200 Wn. App. 455, 466, 404 P.3d 559

17 (2017) (leave to amend did not prejudice the defendant who withheld evidence underlying the

18 additional claim until late in the discovery process).

19 Here, the State has clearly met the standard for leave to amend its complaint. The motion

20 promotes judicial economy and does not prejudice Facebook.

21 B. Allowing the State to Amend Its Complaint Promotes Judicial Economy

22 The State’s proposed additional claims involve Facebook continuing to commit the same

23 violations of RCW 42.17A.345 and WAC 390-18-050 as set forth in the State’s original

24 complaint even after the State’s case was filed. The State’s proposed new claims arise out

25 Facebook’s violations relating to Wurtz’s multiple unfulfilled inspection requests and Sanders’

26 unfulfilled recent request, both of which are covered by the PDC’s most recent referral to the

PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON’S 9 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Complex Litigation Division
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
COMPLAINT – NO. 20-2-07774-7 SEA Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
 1 AGO. If the State is not granted leave to amend its complaint to include these claims, the State

2 would then need to initiate a separate lawsuit against Facebook to adjudicate Facebook’s

3 violations of the same law. As such, granting the State’s motion promotes judicial economy by

4 avoiding unnecessary duplication.

5 C. Facebook Will Not Be Unduly Prejudiced by Allowing the State to Amend Its
Complaint
6
In addition, Facebook will not be unduly prejudiced by granting the State leave to file its
7
amended complaint. In considering whether a defendant will be unduly prejudiced in this
8
context, courts consider potential delay, unfair surprise, or the introduction of remote issues.
9
Kirkham v. Smith, 106 Wn. App. 177, 181, 23 P.3d 10 (2001). None of those concerns apply
10
here. There is no unfair surprise or introduction of remote issues connected with the State’s
11
motion, and any delay that may result was brought about by Facebook’s own conduct.
12
As noted above, the State’s additional proposed claims against Facebook pertain to its
13
continuation of the very same unlawful conduct that gave rise to State’s original complaint. In
14
particular, the State has obtained new evidence that shows Facebook has continued to willfully
15
violate RCW 42.17A.345 and WAC 390-18-050 in response to inspection requests and that
16
Facebook has continued to fail to maintain the statutorily required information for Washington
17
political advertisements or electioneering communications that it has accepted or provided for
18
Washington state election campaigns and to make such information open for public inspection.
19
Moreover, Facebook has willfully compounded its violations by implementing a formalized
20
process for responding to requests made under Washington’s law by requiring requestors to
21
complete a form that on its face contravenes the express requirements of Washington law.
22
There is no unfair surprise here. Facebook is (and has been) aware that Wurtz and Sanders
23
have made the same types of requests to inspect information regarding Washington political
24
advertisements under RCW 42.17A.345 and WAC 390-18-050 that are the basis for the State’s
25
original complaint. Facebook is (and has been) aware that they failed to timely and fully respond
26

PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON’S 10 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Complex Litigation Division
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
COMPLAINT – NO. 20-2-07774-7 SEA Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
 1 to those requests in the same manner set forth in the State’s original complaint for the requests

2 identified therein from 2019. Finally, Facebook is (and has been) aware that it has chosen to

3 implement a formalized process for responding to inspection requests it has received after the

4 State’s original complaint was filed that violates Washington’s law.

5 These facts have been known to Facebook and its attorneys who had direct

6 communications with Wurtz and Sanders about their inspection requests. Under these

7 circumstances, Facebook cannot reasonably claim surprise or confusion concerning the State’s

8 additional claims in its proposed amended complaint nor can it reasonably assert that the State’s

9 proposed claims introduce remote issues.

10 Facebook also cannot reasonably complain about any delay in the case schedule that may

11 result in granting the State leave to amend its complaint. The State has acted promptly in seeking

12 leave to amend the complaint once its attorneys learned of facts evidencing Facebook’s

13 continuing violations of Washington law. As noted, this information would have been discovered

14 earlier if Facebook had properly and timely disclosed Wurtz’s numerous requests (including one

15 that pre-dates the filing of the State’s original complaint) in response to the State’s discovery

16 requests and the deposition of Facebook’s designated CR 30(b)(6) agent. GEICO, 200 Wn. App.

17 at 466-67 (where a claim relied on similar evidence and the motion was delayed due to the non-

18 moving party’s own actions withholding evidence underlying the additional claim, defendants

19 were not prejudiced by undue delay).

20 Because granting the State’s motion for leave to amend its complaint promotes judicial

21 economy by avoiding duplicative lawsuits involving the same claims and the same parties and

22 because Facebook would not be unduly prejudice, the Court should grant the State’s motion for

23 leave to amend its complaint.

24

25

26

PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON’S 11 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Complex Litigation Division
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
COMPLAINT – NO. 20-2-07774-7 SEA Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
 1 D. The Case Schedule Should Be Amended to Permit the State an Opportunity to
Conduct Discovery on Its Additional Claims
2
The State also seeks an opportunity to conduct reasonable fact discovery on its additional
3
claims. Under the current schedule, written fact discovery is closed. Order Granting the Parties’
4
Joint Motion to Amend the Case Schedule (entered May 12, 2021). The parties’ summary
5
judgment motions are due October 29, 2021. Order Granting the Parties’ Joint Motion to Amend
6
the Case Schedule (entered July 12, 2021). Accordingly, the State requests that the Court’s order
7
granting this motion also provide that the case schedule and upcoming deadlines be amended to
8
allow for such discovery. The State requests that parties be afforded an opportunity to reach an
9
agreement on an appropriate revised case schedule within one week of the Court’s order. If an
10
agreement is not reached, the State would then submit proposed revised dates.
11
VII. CONCLUSION
12
The Court should grant leave for the State to file the Amended Complaint. Facebook has
13
continued to commit the same violations and has implemented a formalized process to do so,
14
while not disclosing this information during the discovery process. Allowing the State to amend
15
its complaint promotes judicial economy and would not unduly prejudice Facebook. In addition,
16
the case schedule should be revised to permit the State to conduct reasonable discovery.
17
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 2nd day of September, 2021.
18
ROBERT W. FERGUSON
19 Attorney General

20 /s/ Paul M Crisalli

S. TODD SIPE, WSBA #23203
21 PAUL M. CRISALLI, WSBA #40681
LAURYN K. FRAAS, WSBA #53238
22 JEFFREY C. GRANT, WSBA #11046
CRISTINA SEPE, WSBA #53609
23 Assistant Attorneys General
ERIC A. MENTZER, WSBA #21243
24 Senior Counsel
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Washington
25
I certify that this memorandum contains 3,690
26 words, in compliance with the Local Civil Rules.

PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON’S 12 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Complex Litigation Division
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
COMPLAINT – NO. 20-2-07774-7 SEA Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744
 1 DECLARATION OF SERVICE

2 I hereby declare that on this day I caused the foregoing document to be served,

3 via electronic mail, per agreement, on the following:

4 Rob McKenna
Amanda Mariam McDowell
5 Aaron P. Brecher
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
6 rmckenna@orrick.com
amcdowell@orrick.com
7 abrecher@orrick.com
mburleigh@orrick.com
8 lpeterson@orrick.com
9 Erin E. Murphy
K. Winn Allen
10 Katherine E. Canning
Julie Siegal
11 James Xi
Kari Noborikawa
12 Elizabeth Hedges
Ashley E. Littlefield
13 Kirkland & Ellis LLP
erin.murphy@kirkland.com
14 winn.allen@kirkland.com
katherine.canning@kirkland.com
15 julie.siegal@kirkland.com
james.xi@kirkland.com
16 kari.noborikawa@kirkland.com
elizabeth.hedges@kirkland.com
17 ashley.littlefield@kirkland.com
18 Attorneys for Defendant Facebook, Inc.
19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the

20 foregoing is true and correct.

21 DATED this 2nd day of September 2021, at Seattle, Washington.

22 /s/ Paul M. Crisalli

PAUL M. CRISALLI, WSBA #40681
23 Assistant Attorney General
24

25

26

PLAINTIFF STATE OF WASHINGTON’S 13 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON

Complex Litigation Division
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
COMPLAINT – NO. 20-2-07774-7 SEA Seattle, WA 98104-3188
(206) 464-7744