H. v. PLATFORMS

Background

The parties asked the court to resolve two discovery disputes arising from supplemental discovery permitted in the case: (1) whether Meta had to respond to 12 disputed requests for production, and (2) whether Meta had to search the records of 57 custodians, consisting of 40 existing Healthcare-case custodians and 17 new custodians. The court held a hearing on December 16, 2025, but addressed only the document-request dispute. It found that the custodian dispute was not ready for decision and required further proceedings.

The presiding judge’s April 7, 2025 order allowed targeted supplemental discovery relevant to the putative class of non-Facebook users, after the plaintiffs reviewed discovery produced in a related Healthcare case. The plaintiffs had served 124 supplemental requests, although they later withdrew some. Meta agreed to produce documents responsive to some remaining requests and objected to others.

Rulings on Document Requests

RFPs 11–12: Notices

The plaintiffs sought documents identifying entities to which Meta sent notices that the entities were sharing protected health information with Meta through the Pixel, including notices sent to Cerebral. Meta had agreed to produce notices sent to Cerebral and the named plaintiffs’ other healthcare providers. The court ordered Meta to search its existing Healthcare-case document collection for the names of the 34 providers the plaintiffs identified as telehealth-only and to produce any responsive notices found.

RFPs 45–46 and 48: Non-public communications

The plaintiffs sought non-public communications that Meta sent to the named plaintiffs and other people who did not use Facebook. At the hearing, however, the plaintiffs said they were primarily interested in Meta’s internal communications about whether non-users would understand that their health information was being collected. The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown good cause for requiring additional searches for those internal communications and noted that such communications, if any, appeared likely to be included in the Healthcare production.

RFP 74: Lineage mapping project

The plaintiffs requested documents and communications concerning the proposal, execution, outcome, and discussion of a 2019 lineage mapping project. Meta agreed at the hearing to identify the Bates numbers for the part of the Healthcare production reflecting the project’s results. The court stated that this agreement should resolve the dispute over RFP 74.

RFP 80: Retention and use of non-user data

The plaintiffs sought documents and communications about retaining and using Pixel Event Data and information derived from or inferred from that data outside the Healthcare case. Meta agreed to investigate whether the Healthcare production excluded documents specific to non-users on relevance grounds. The court directed Meta to conduct that investigation but found that the plaintiffs had not shown good cause for additional searches for email and other communications solely about non-user data, given the production already made or agreed to be made.

RFP 85: Communications concerning Appendix A entities

The plaintiffs sought all documents and communications concerning conversations between Meta employees and the 69 entities listed in Appendix A to the amended complaint, or among Meta employees about those entities. The court found the request too broad and concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown good cause for this additional discovery because it was not sufficiently targeted or necessary to the claims and defenses at issue.

RFP 90: Advertising revenue from health technology companies

The plaintiffs sought documents and communications concerning advertising revenue generated for Meta by health technology companies. The court found the request unreasonably broad and not targeted to the non-Facebook-user putative class. It concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown good cause for supplemental discovery of that scope.

RFPs 98–99: Advertising Account Dashboard

The plaintiffs sought documents and communications concerning the function, business value, and importance of Meta’s Advertising Account Dashboard. The court found that the Healthcare production appeared to include documents about both user and non-user data and about the dashboard. It concluded that a request for all documents and communications on the dashboard’s value and importance was not sufficiently targeted. But the court found it unclear whether Meta had searched for documents specifically addressing the value of the dashboard and the value of non-user data to the dashboard. The parties were directed to discuss whether particular custodians were likely to have responsive information not already produced and to try to resolve the issue without further court assistance.

Custodian Dispute and Further Proceedings

The parties must confer about whether additional custodians are needed and, if so, which custodians. The plaintiffs bear the burden of showing good cause for supplemental discovery, which must remain targeted and relevant to the non-Facebook-user putative class. For unresolved issues, including the custodian dispute, the parties may file another joint discovery-dispute letter after their discussions. The order set January 21, 2026, as the filing deadline unless the parties stipulate to a later date.

Sealing Rulings

Because the sealing request concerned discovery, the court applied the good-cause standard. It denied the plaintiffs’ request to seal Exhibit A because no party claimed that document was confidential. It also denied the plaintiffs’ request to seal the discovery letter brief and exhibits generally. The court denied Meta’s request to seal portions of page 5, line 1 of the letter brief because Meta did not show good cause, but granted Meta’s request to seal portions of Exhibit B at page 8, lines 19 and 20. The plaintiffs were ordered to file a public version of the discovery letter brief and Exhibit A and a redacted version of Exhibit B by January 5, 2026.