H. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs and Meta asked the court to resolve a discovery dispute. The plaintiffs sought an order compelling Meta to provide discovery about the use of Meta’s pixel by all entities covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and/or the California Medical Information Act (CMIA). Meta objected that this request was broader than the allegations in the complaint, which Meta said were limited to the plaintiffs’ use of a website and applications provided by Cerebral, an online mental health services provider.

The parties disagreed about the scope of the proposed class. The plaintiffs described a class of United States residents who were not Facebook users, provided certain private health information to an entity covered by HIPAA and/or CMIA, and whose information Meta obtained from that entity without consent. Meta argued that the complaint limited the relevant covered entities to Cerebral and Monument, and that the plaintiffs did not allege using Monument.

Court’s analysis

The court examined the complaint and the briefing on Meta’s motion to dismiss, as well as Judge William Orrick’s order denying that motion. The court stated that the complaint was not entirely clear about the intended class’s scope, but agreed with Meta that the plaintiffs’ specific allegations of misconduct were limited to users’ interactions with Cerebral.

The complaint also mentioned Monument and “the top 100 hospitals in America,” but the court found no allegations specific to Monument or the unidentified hospitals asserting that their use of Meta’s pixel caused an improper or unconsented transmission of personal health information to Meta. The court also noted that Judge Orrick’s earlier order focused exclusively on allegations concerning Cerebral and did not mention Monument, hospitals, or other HIPAA- or CMIA-covered entities.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), discovery must be reasonably directed to matters relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court concluded that, if its understanding of the complaint was correct, the plaintiffs could not obtain discovery from Meta about all HIPAA- and/or CMIA-covered entities using Meta’s pixel because that discovery was not reasonably directed to relevant claims or defenses and was not proportional to the needs of the case.

Disposition

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denied the plaintiffs’ request for broad discovery concerning all HIPAA- and CMIA-covered entities. The court also stated that the parties might confer about an efficient way to address differences between what the complaint alleges and what the plaintiffs believe their claims are, because disputes about discovery’s scope might continue until the pleadings’ scope is resolved.