In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation

Background

The parties asked the court to resolve a discovery dispute involving plaintiffs’ Requests for Production (RFPs) Nos. 163 and 164. The requests concern documents about health-related content classifications, taxonomies, or verticals used by Meta and connected to the Business Tools at issue in the case. The court decided the dispute without oral argument.

The court noted that the parties previously included these requests in an earlier dispute letter but had not adequately explained their positions. The court had ordered them to confer about the specific disputes and submit a joint letter. Meta said the parties did not confer as ordered; plaintiffs did not dispute that account, although they indicated that they had conferred before the court’s order.

RFP 163

RFP 163 sought documents sufficient to identify and describe health-related content classifications, taxonomies, or verticals that Meta generally uses for any purpose. Plaintiffs argued that Meta had not produced enough information about each of the five classification systems it identified and had not confirmed that its identification was complete.

Meta responded that it would search for and produce documents sufficient to identify and describe all health-related classifications, taxonomies, or verticals that it generally uses in connection with the Business Tools involved in the case, including the systems already identified. The court found that there appeared to be no dispute requiring resolution. If Meta’s production for RFP 163 was not complete, the court ordered Meta to complete it by January 3, 2025.

RFP 164

RFP 164 sought documents sufficient to identify and describe health-related classifications, taxonomies, or verticals for each health care provider or covered-entity partner from which Meta obtains health information, and for communications on those entities’ web properties.

The court agreed with Meta that the additional information plaintiffs sought was beyond the scope of RFP 164 because the request did not ask for that information and plaintiffs identified no other document request that did. The court also noted that plaintiffs’ letter appeared to indicate that they had already obtained the information they sought from Meta’s produced source code.

Plaintiffs also raised concerns about whether Meta’s production would be complete and include both current and historical classifications, taxonomies, or verticals. Meta represented that it would search for and produce classifications applied to health-related content during the relevant period that were within Meta’s possession, custody, or control. The court agreed that plaintiffs had no justification at that time for demanding sworn statements about the completeness of production or preservation efforts. If Meta’s production for RFP 164 was not complete, the court ordered Meta to complete it by January 3, 2025.

Disposition

U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi resolved the discovery dispute as described above and admonished the parties not to file discovery-dispute letters without first having a meaningful discussion about the matters actually in dispute.