In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation

Background

The court’s April 10, 2025 order permitted plaintiffs to take a limited deposition of Mark Zuckerberg. The earlier order stated that Zuckerberg likely had some unique, firsthand knowledge relevant to the case because of his role under a Federal Trade Commission consent order and his role as a decision maker on certain privacy-related matters.

The earlier order limited the deposition. Plaintiffs could not use it to obtain information about how Meta implemented the pixel, what data it obtained, how it used that data, or how it implemented privacy protections when other witnesses or less intrusive methods could provide that information. The deposition was instead to focus on facts known to Zuckerberg through his role under the consent order and his privacy-related decision making.

Meta’s Reconsideration Request

Meta moved under Civil Local Rule 7-9 for reconsideration of the April 10 order. Meta argued that new information showed plaintiffs had not exhausted less intrusive discovery methods. It pointed to Fred Leach’s designation to testify for Meta about topics including user consent and user privacy control, and to Robert Sherman’s availability for an individual deposition. Meta argued that these executives could provide more detailed testimony about privacy-related issues.

Meta also argued that other employees, including Michael Protti and Nathan Davis, had responsibilities and information overlapping with Zuckerberg’s concerning the Federal Trade Commission consent order and Meta’s privacy practices. Meta further argued that the earlier order had not addressed its legal arguments about plaintiffs’ failure to pursue other discovery methods.

Court’s Analysis

Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) permits reconsideration of an interlocutory order when there is a material difference in fact or law, new material facts or a change in law, or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented. The court said it was not entirely persuaded that reconsideration was required under the rule, but it granted Meta’s motion and considered the additional information and arguments.

After reconsidering the matter, the court was not persuaded that its earlier assessment of Zuckerberg’s potentially unique, firsthand knowledge was incorrect. The court relied in part on deposition testimony cited by the parties. It also noted that Zuckerberg had not submitted a declaration denying that he possessed such knowledge, and that Meta’s other declarants did not claim to be the final decision maker on the specific matters identified by plaintiffs.

The court rejected Meta’s suggestion that information uniquely known to Zuckerberg should instead be obtained from other witnesses. It found that plaintiffs had made several attempts to obtain discovery through other means and had only recently identified Sherman and Leach as witnesses who could testify about Meta’s privacy practices. The court was therefore not persuaded that plaintiffs had failed to seek documents or testimony from others before seeking to compel Zuckerberg’s deposition.

The court agreed with Meta, however, that the April 10 order had not addressed whether information uniquely known to Zuckerberg could be obtained through less intrusive methods. The court considered that issue and found that plaintiffs had already sought and obtained documents from Zuckerberg’s custodial files. Given the timing of the request, the documents, and testimony from other witnesses identifying Zuckerberg as a decision maker, the court found that plaintiffs had sufficiently shown that they had pursued other available methods.

The court also considered Meta’s argument that plaintiffs might be using the deposition to harass a prominent executive. It acknowledged that the deposition presented an opportunity for abuse or harassment, which was one reason the court had limited its subject matter and duration. But the court found Meta’s argument unpersuasive because consent and Meta’s compliance with the Federal Trade Commission consent order were prominent issues in plaintiffs’ operative complaint.

Disposition

The court granted Meta’s motion for reconsideration. On reconsideration, it denied Meta’s request for relief from the April 10 order. The court ordered that plaintiffs may take Zuckerberg’s deposition, consistent with the limitations in that earlier order.

This was a discovery ruling about the scope and timing of a deposition, not a decision on the underlying claims in the litigation.