"In re Facebook, Inc. Securities Litigation"
- Edward Davila
- 5:18-cv-01725
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In re Facebook Securities Litigation: Judge Davila granted amendment and tentatively lifted the discovery stay while revising briefing deadlines.
Lead Plaintiffs, Defendants, the putative class, and the parties’ discovery and motion schedules are affected. Lead Plaintiffs may amend only within the limits of their proposed amended complaint, and Defendants may oppose the tentative lifting of the discovery stay within 10 days.
What happened
In In re Facebook, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Plaintiffs asked to amend their complaint with facts learned during discovery. The Defendants did not oppose the proposed amendment.
The parties disagreed about whether discovery should stop under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The court found that the stay applied but tentatively concluded that continuing it would unfairly delay the case and prejudice the putative class.
Judge Davila granted leave to amend, tentatively lifted the discovery stay, and changed the briefing schedule. Defendants may oppose lifting the stay within 10 days; otherwise, the tentative ruling will become final.
The detailed version
- "In re Facebook, Inc. Securities Litigation" · No. 5:18-cv-01725
- Edward Davila
- June 17, 2025
Background
Lead Plaintiffs moved for permission to amend their complaint to add facts learned through discovery and submitted a proposed amended complaint. Defendants did not oppose amendment limited to that proposed complaint. The parties also disputed whether discovery should be stayed and how the case schedule should be revised.
Amendment
The court GRANTED Lead Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. When filing the amended complaint, Lead Plaintiffs are limited to the allegations in the proposed amended complaint. They may not add allegations beyond that proposal without further permission from the court.
Discovery Stay
The court explained that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act automatically stays discovery while a motion to dismiss is pending or anticipated. Because Defendants expressly intend to file a motion to dismiss after the amended complaint, the court concluded that the stay was triggered.
The court treated Lead Plaintiffs’ reply as a motion to lift the stay. The court tentatively found that continuing the stay would cause prejudice because the claims had already been extensively litigated through three rounds of briefing and an appeal, the case had been pending for more than seven years, and the proposed motion-to-dismiss schedule would cause at least another six months of discovery delay. The court therefore TENTATIVELY LIFTS the discovery stay.
Defendants may file a response opposing the lifting of the stay within 10 days of the order, limited to five pages. If they do, the court will consider the response before issuing a final decision. If they do not, the tentative ruling will automatically become final after the deadline passes.
Case Schedule
The court intends to keep the discovery deadlines in the existing case-management order. It VACATES the other briefing deadlines, except those related to discovery motions. The court also adopted the proposed schedule for the anticipated motion to dismiss: Lead Plaintiffs must file the amended complaint within 14 days; Defendants must file their anticipated motion to dismiss within 60 days after that filing; any opposition is due within 60 days after the motion; and any reply is due within 45 days after the opposition.
Effect of the Order
This is a procedural order addressing amendment, discovery, and scheduling. It does not decide the merits of the securities claims or the anticipated motion to dismiss.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.