Klein v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Background

Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly Facebook, Inc., asked the court to resolve its dispute with Jessica Layser over a document subpoena issued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. Layser had sued Meta, and her case was related to and consolidated with this action. The consolidated amended complaint named her as a plaintiff and alleged that Meta unlawfully monopolized the social-advertising market and charged prices above competitive levels.

Layser voluntarily dismissed her claims against Meta without prejudice on August 5, 2021. About six weeks later, Meta served her with a subpoena seeking 17 categories of documents. Layser objected to producing any responsive documents.

Parties’ Positions

Layser argued that she should not have to respond because she was no longer a named plaintiff when Meta served the subpoena. She also argued that, if Meta’s request was treated as discovery from an absent member of a proposed class, Meta had not provided enough justification for it.

Meta acknowledged that Layser was no longer a named plaintiff but argued that her allegations remained part of the operative complaint. Meta also argued that Layser withdrew to avoid discovery and that her information was relevant to class-certification issues and the merits because she differed from the other named advertising plaintiffs.

Court’s Analysis

The court treated Layser as an absent member of a proposed class from whom Meta sought discovery before the class was certified. Absent class members generally are not subject to discovery, although a court may allow limited discovery when the circumstances justify it. Courts typically consider whether the absent class member has become involved in the litigation, whether the requests are narrowly limited to relevant subjects, whether the information can be obtained from named plaintiffs or other sources, and whether the requests are unduly burdensome or made in bad faith.

The court recognized that Layser had actively litigated her claims for several months and that her allegations remained in the amended complaint. But after withdrawing as a named plaintiff, she appeared to have taken no further steps to involve herself in the litigation. The court also acknowledged Meta’s representation that Layser differed from other named plaintiffs because she was affiliated with a large national company with resources to advertise through multiple media, appeared active with many of Meta’s competitors, and advertised for a business purpose.

Even so, the court concluded that Meta had not explained how its requests were narrowly tailored to the class-certification or merits issues it identified. The subpoena was described as extraordinarily broad, and some requests appeared unrelated to Layser’s supposed possession of unique information. On the record before it, the court found that Meta had not shown that the subpoena was narrowly tailored or that its broad scope would not impose an undue burden on Layser.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi denied Meta’s request for an order compelling Layser to produce documents responsive to the September 17, 2021 subpoena. The order did not preclude Meta from seeking discovery from Layser in the future through requests that comply with the court’s guidance and are supported by sufficient justification.