In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation

Background

The parties asked the court to resolve whether plaintiffs could depose Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s CEO. The dispute concerned an executive-level deposition, sometimes called an “apex” deposition. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party generally may depose any person, but the court may protect a person from undue burden or harassment and may limit discovery that can be obtained from a more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive source.

Plaintiffs argued that discovery showed Zuckerberg was the final decisionmaker on consequential privacy decisions involving data collection, consent, and user privacy. They said his decisions and reasons for making them were relevant to Meta’s intent and other issues. Plaintiffs also said they had pursued other discovery, including deposing Mudd, Meta’s Vice President of Business Product Marketing.

Meta argued that Zuckerberg did not have unique firsthand knowledge because he did not design or implement the relevant business tools or the Meta filter. Meta also argued that information provided to Zuckerberg about allegations involving user health data was not unique, that the Federal Trade Commission order did not make him the final decisionmaker on privacy matters, and that plaintiffs had not exhausted less intrusive discovery methods.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the Federal Trade Commission consent order and relevant portions of Mudd’s deposition. The court found that the order required Zuckerberg to be informed about consequential privacy decisions and other privacy-related information and to certify quarterly that Meta maintained a compliant privacy program and that he was not aware of undisclosed material noncompliance. Although Zuckerberg could rely on information and reports from others, the order also required him to rely on his personal knowledge.

The court also considered Mudd’s testimony that a proposal relevant to plaintiffs’ claims or Meta’s defenses had been presented to Zuckerberg in 2021 and that Zuckerberg made a decision or gave directions regarding it. Based on this evidence, the court found that plaintiffs had shown Zuckerberg was likely to have at least some unique firsthand knowledge relevant to a claim or defense because of his role under the consent order and as a decisionmaker on certain privacy-related matters.

The court distinguished cases in which a company’s chief executive was sought only because of general management responsibilities, public statements, or awareness of government investigations and sensitive health-data collection. Still, the court agreed that a deposition notice directed to the highest level of corporate management created a significant potential for abuse or harassment.

Ruling

The court allowed plaintiffs to take Zuckerberg’s deposition but limited its scope. Plaintiffs may question him about facts known to him because of his role under the Federal Trade Commission consent order and his role as a decisionmaker regarding privacy-related matters relevant to the case.

Plaintiffs may not use the deposition to obtain information about how Meta implemented the pixel, what data it obtained, how it used the data, or how it implemented privacy protections, because the court determined that information could be obtained from other witnesses or through less intrusive methods. The parties must agree on a date and location, and the deposition must occur no later than May 30, 2025, unless they stipulate otherwise. The deposition is limited to three hours and counts against plaintiffs’ allotment of 12 individual depositions.

Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi entered the order on April 10, 2025.