In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation

Background

The plaintiffs asked the court to resolve a discovery dispute concerning Meta’s advertising revenue from “non-Healthcare Providers.” They sought a further answer to Interrogatory No. 18, which requested Meta’s monthly profits from 2017 through the present that were attributable to specified health advertising revenue. They also sought documents under Requests for Production (RFPs) 283 through 287.

The plaintiffs said the requested information was relevant to calculating Meta’s profits allegedly attributable to the unauthorized interception and use of putative class members’ confidential health information. They argued that Meta may have used the information, alone or with other data or “health inferences,” to facilitate advertising from non-Healthcare Providers. Meta responded that the discovery was overbroad and disproportionate. Meta also said it had agreed to produce revenue-related information about healthcare advertisers previously identified by the plaintiffs, but objected to investigating all advertisements with health-related classifications and the revenue and profits associated with them.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the parties disagreed about whether the plaintiffs could show a connection between putative class members’ data and particular advertising, especially advertising from non-Healthcare Providers. The court stated that this question goes to the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, but said it was not deciding that issue in resolving the discovery dispute.

The court found that the requested damages-related discovery appeared relevant to the plaintiffs’ unjust-enrichment theory if the data at issue was used in the relevant advertising process. Under Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery must be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. The court found the requests difficult to understand and noted that the plaintiffs had not clearly explained what documents they sought or why those documents were likely to produce relevant information. It nevertheless considered the plaintiffs’ stated purpose for the discovery.

Rulings

For Interrogatory No. 18, the court interpreted the request as seeking Meta’s profits from revenue received from non-Healthcare Providers for advertising in which data obtained from putative class members through the Meta Pixel was used during the relevant class period. The court ordered Meta to provide a further answer based on information that was reasonably accessible. Meta could state in its further response that it did not have some or all of the requested information or that an answer was available only through expert discovery.

For RFP 283, the court ordered Meta to produce documents sufficient to show revenue from the specified advertisements during the class period, if the parties agreed on what the relevant advertising classification meant and if the documents were reasonably accessible. For RFP 287, the court ordered Meta to produce documents permitting apportionment of that revenue or accounting for costs or other reductions if Meta contended that the revenue could not be attributed entirely to the alleged unauthorized use of putative class members’ health information.

The court did not order Meta to produce documents responsive to RFPs 284 through 286 at that time. Instead, it directed the parties to confer further about the specific data or documents sought, while recognizing that discovery of revenue or profits associated with the alleged use could assist the plaintiffs’ unjust-enrichment theory when the information was reasonably accessible to Meta. The order required Meta’s further answer and production for RFPs 283 and 287 by May 23, 2025, unless the parties agreed to another date, and required a joint status report concerning RFPs 284 through 286. Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi entered the order on May 5, 2025.