In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation

Background

The parties asked the court to resolve remaining disputes over Meta’s privilege claims concerning several redacted email threads and other documents. Plaintiffs requested an order requiring Meta to produce all disputed documents in unredacted form or, alternatively, to submit all of them for in camera review, meaning private review by the court. Meta opposed both requests for documents it claimed were protected in whole or in part.

Legal standards

Because the case is based on federal-question jurisdiction, the court applied federal common law concerning privilege. Attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between attorneys and clients made for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice. For communications with more than one purpose, the court applied the primary-purpose test: the privilege applies when the primary purpose is legal advice rather than business or another nonlegal purpose.

The work-product doctrine provides qualified protection from discovery for materials prepared by or for a party or its representative in anticipation of litigation, particularly materials revealing counsel’s legal strategies or mental impressions. The party asserting privilege or work-product protection bears the burden of establishing that the protection applies. A party challenging privilege must provide a factual basis supporting a reasonable, good-faith belief that in camera review may show the material is not protected.

Rulings on the disputed documents

PIXEL_HEALTH000300598 and PIXEL_HEALTH000301262 (Thread E)

The court held that Meta’s privilege log and supporting submission established attorney-client privilege for the redacted contents of the two related email threads. The court rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the redactions primarily concerned business or strategic matters and found no sufficient factual basis for in camera review.

The court separately held that Meta had not established work-product protection for any particular redaction. It therefore denied plaintiffs’ request to compel production of material withheld under attorney-client privilege, but ordered Meta to produce any text in these documents that had been redacted solely on the basis of work-product protection.

PIXEL_HEALTH000301080 (Thread D)

The court held that the first two communications in the thread—the December 20, 2021 email from Frank Jing and Tobias Wooldridge’s reply—were not protected by attorney-client privilege. The communications were between non-attorney employees, and Meta had not shown that they repeated legal advice obtained from counsel. The court granted plaintiffs’ request to compel production of those redactions.

For later communications directed to or sent by in-house counsel, the court found that Meta had established attorney-client privilege and denied plaintiffs’ request to compel production. However, Meta’s description of other employee communications dated December 21, 2021, January 4, 2022, and January 11, 2022, supplied a sufficient basis for in camera review. The court ordered Meta to submit those redacted portions for review so it could determine whether they were privileged.

PRIV IDs 106–108 (Thread C)

The court found that Meta established attorney-client privilege for this email thread. Meta identified the attorneys and employees involved, the dates, subject matter, purpose, and recipients, and represented that an employee gathered information at counsel’s request to facilitate legal advice. The court denied plaintiffs’ request to compel production and found no justification for in camera review.

PIXEL_HEALTH000300667 and PIXEL_HEALTH000300648 (Thread A)

The court found that Meta’s privilege log, joint submission, and supporting declaration established attorney-client privilege for the redacted communications. The communications included an in-house attorney and involved employees identifying legal concerns, providing information, and requesting legal advice. The court rejected plaintiffs’ challenge and found no justification for in camera review. It denied plaintiffs’ request to compel production of the attorney-client-privileged material.

PIXEL_HEALTH00031247 (Thread B)

The court concluded that Meta established attorney-client privilege for the redacted communications in this thread. It rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the thread consisted only of business discussions and found that the unredacted portions did not provide a sufficient factual basis for in camera review. The court denied plaintiffs’ request to compel production.

Disposition

The court denied plaintiffs’ request for an order requiring production of the disputed documents in unredacted form, subject to three exceptions: Meta had to produce text in PIXEL_HEALTH000300598 and PIXEL_HEALTH000301262 withheld solely under the work-product doctrine; Meta had to produce the first two communications in PIXEL_HEALTH000301080 in unredacted form; and Meta had to submit specified redacted portions of PIXEL_HEALTH000301080 for in camera review. Meta had to comply by June 28, 2024.