Young v. Salesforce, Inc.

Background

Salesforce provides Chat, a customer-service tool hosted on its servers and integrated into customer websites, including websites operated by Rite Aid and Kaiser Permanente. The plaintiffs, who used those websites, allege that Salesforce intercepted their communications—including personally identifiable information and protected health information—in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and Pennsylvania’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. Salesforce denies reading the communications and says it provides a tool controlled by its customers.

Discovery Dispute

The plaintiffs sought Salesforce Chat’s source code. They argued that the code would reveal how Chat routes communications and how Salesforce uses data. Salesforce responded that Chat’s functionality, rather than its source code, was relevant; that it had provided information about the software’s architecture and capabilities; and that the plaintiffs’ planned depositions of corporate witnesses would further illuminate the issues. Salesforce also argued that its customers configure Chat and control the data, and that producing proprietary source code could cause competitive harm.

Ruling

Judge Laurel Beeler denied the source-code discovery. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), discovery must be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, considering factors such as the importance of the issues, the parties’ access to information and resources, the importance of the discovery, and its burden or expense. The court held that the discovery was disproportionate because Salesforce’s documents and proposed depositions offered less burdensome ways to understand Chat’s functionality. The court noted that the plaintiffs cited cases involving voluntary source-code production, not compelled disclosure in comparable circumstances.

The court also ruled that Salesforce did not need to produce publicly available material linked in its documents. Salesforce did, however, have to disclose all relevant Chat-related hyperlinked material concerning functionality and architecture. The plaintiffs must identify any disputed hyperlinks, and the parties must meet and confer about those disputes under the court’s standing order. The order addressed discovery and did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ wiretapping claims.