Forrest v. Platforms

Background

The court was resolving a discovery dispute about whether Andrew Forrest could serve requests for admission (RFAs) on Meta after the October 29, 2025 deadline for completing the first phase of fact discovery. That phase was limited to facts bearing on Meta’s Section 230 immunity defense and included information about tools or processes applied to the advertisements at issue, including what those tools or processes did between input and output.

Forrest sought permission to serve 77 RFAs. He said the requests concerned recently disclosed preservation failures and technical subjects related to Meta’s material-contribution defense. He argued that the requests would help establish spoliation of evidence, show how discovery conduct prejudiced his ability to oppose Meta’s Section 230 defense, support an anticipated sanctions request, and help the court identify material facts in a large record. Meta argued that Forrest had not shown good cause because he could have served the RFAs before the discovery deadline.

Court’s analysis

Under the court’s local rule and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), discovery requests requiring responses after the cutoff are not enforceable unless the court permits them for good cause. The court explained that diligence is the principal consideration in deciding whether good cause exists.

The court reviewed all 77 RFAs and found that many sought admissions about the capabilities of tools and processes applied to the advertisements. Other requests concerned Meta’s actions involving the advertisements or the contents of data sources and documents produced earlier in discovery. The court found that these requests did not depend on information Meta disclosed late in the discovery period. Forrest did not explain why he could not have served them earlier and instead argued that Meta’s admissions would be helpful. The court held that helpfulness did not satisfy the good-cause standard and that Forrest had not shown diligence for most of the requests.

The court identified an exception for RFAs directed to specific data sources that Meta had produced and explained only a few weeks before the October 29 deadline. The opinion also states that Forrest moved to seal portions of the discovery-dispute letter and exhibits because Meta claimed that those materials were confidential, and that good cause appeared for the proposed sealing.

Ruling

The court permitted Forrest to obtain Meta’s responses to RFAs 6 through 17. It deemed those requests served as of December 5, 2025, and ordered Meta to serve written responses complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. The order was issued by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi.