In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation

Background

The parties asked the court to resolve a discovery dispute about whether plaintiffs could depose Dinkar Jain, a former Meta employee, after fact discovery had closed. They also disputed whether Meta should reimburse the travel expenses of Mr. Jain’s counsel for traveling to India to defend the deposition.

Plaintiffs argued that Meta failed to timely disclose that Jain was no longer employed by Meta and otherwise failed to cooperate in arranging his deposition. Plaintiffs also argued that Jain had unique knowledge of relevant Meta systems, including “downstream systems,” and that his testimony could be important because Meta allegedly failed to preserve evidence about those systems.

Meta argued that plaintiffs unreasonably delayed seeking Jain’s deposition, including waiting until after the May 30, 2025 fact-discovery deadline to seek relief. Meta also argued that plaintiffs had already taken or noticed the maximum number of individual fact-witness depositions allowed without court permission and had not shown that Jain had unique relevant knowledge.

Court’s Analysis

The court denied the request for two principal reasons. First, plaintiffs did not show that they had acted diligently during the fact-discovery period or that Meta had prevented them from obtaining Jain’s deposition. Plaintiffs knew about Jain as early as September 2022, identified him as a person they wanted to depose in November 2024, and knew by December 2024 that he was a former employee. The court also noted that Jain had been listed as a priority deponent and that plaintiffs had described his testimony as vital, yet they did not seek an order compelling the deposition or resolving the travel-cost dispute before discovery closed.

Second, plaintiffs did not make the particularized showing required for an additional deposition beyond the 12-deposition limit. Although plaintiffs described Jain as a critical witness with intimate and unique knowledge, they did not explain in meaningful detail what unique information he possessed. The court also found that plaintiffs did not show how Jain’s testimony would fill gaps caused by Meta’s alleged failure to preserve data or reduce any resulting prejudice.

Disposition

The court denied plaintiffs’ request for an order permitting them to depose Dinkar Jain. The provided text also includes a footnote concerning plaintiffs’ request to seal portions of the discovery submission, stating that good cause appeared, but the excerpt does not show a separate, complete disposition of that sealing request.