Forrest v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Background

Andrew Forrest and Meta Platforms, Inc. asked the court to resolve a discovery dispute concerning Meta’s requests for documents and interrogatories. The dispute addressed whether Forrest had to search for electronically stored information and other documents in his possession, custody, or control responsive to Meta’s document requests, and whether he had to answer Interrogatories Nos. 1–4.

Forrest said he had already produced responsive scam advertisements, advertisement identification numbers, and filings and disclosures. Meta argued that the production appeared incomplete in light of the factual allegations in Forrest’s complaint. Those allegations concerned whether Meta’s advertising tools and processes contributed to the content, dissemination, and targeting of the challenged scam advertisements. The opinion states that these allegations formed part of the factual dispute relevant to Meta’s defense based on Section 230 immunity.

Document Requests

The court found that most of Meta’s disputed document requests tracked the allegations in Forrest’s complaint. It concluded that Meta’s requests were generally directed to relevant subject matter. Although some requests might be overbroad in some respects, the court found that they were not categorically disproportionate to the needs of the case.

The court was not persuaded that Forrest’s production to date included all relevant and responsive documents. It ordered the parties to confer about the searches already performed and what additional searches might be needed. The provided opinion text cuts off partway through the sentence describing this instruction, so the complete details of that portion are not available here.

Interrogatories

The court observed that the parties had not specifically addressed the disputed interrogatories and appeared not to have adequately conferred about the information Meta sought. To the extent Forrest objected to Interrogatories Nos. 1–4, the court required the parties to confer about those objections and try to resolve them before seeking further relief from the court.

Privilege and Work Product

Forrest argued that the requested documents and information were protected by attorney-client privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine. The court found these arguments insufficiently supported. Forrest had not provided a privilege log identifying responsive documents or information claimed to be protected, and it was not self-evident that the discovery implicated either protection.

The court stated that any privilege or protection claim had to be made and supported as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5) and applicable law. It further noted that attorney-client privilege and work-product protection can be waived when a party publicly discloses or places the information at issue. If Forrest continued to resist discovery on either basis, he had to adequately support the claimed privilege or protection.

Disposition

The court did not enter a final merits ruling on the parties’ underlying claims. Instead, it ordered further proceedings concerning the discovery dispute. The parties had to confer in light of the court’s guidance and file a joint status report by June 3, 2025 identifying any disagreements that remained and their agreed or separate proposals for resolving them.