Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Voyager Labs Ltd.

Background

Meta alleged that Voyager developed, distributed, and used surveillance software that created fake accounts and used unauthorized automated methods to collect data from Facebook, Instagram, and other websites. Meta alleged that the software collected information associated with more than 600,000 Facebook users and that Voyager sold or licensed the scraped data for profit. Meta’s amended complaint asserted claims for breach of contract, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, and violation of California’s Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act, California Penal Code § 502.

Voyager moved to dismiss the amended complaint. It separately filed an administrative motion asking the court to stay, or pause, discovery until the motion to dismiss was resolved. Meta opposed the discovery stay.

Legal standard

The court explained that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not automatically pause discovery whenever a potentially case-ending motion is pending. Courts in the district generally consider two questions: whether the pending motion could dispose of the entire case and whether the motion can be decided without additional discovery. A stay may issue only if both conditions are established.

Analysis

The court first found that Voyager’s administrative motion was procedurally improper because a motion to stay discovery must be filed as a regularly noticed motion under the district’s local rules. The court stated that this defect alone was sufficient reason to deny the motion.

The court also considered the request on its merits. Voyager argued that Meta had repeatedly failed to identify the alleged online contracts, explain whether they were browsewrap or clickwrap agreements, show how Voyager assented to them, or adequately allege an agency or alter-ego relationship involving a third party. The court concluded that these arguments did not show that Meta’s complaint was frivolous, filed merely to conduct a fishing expedition, or incapable of stating a claim for relief. The court noted that the alleged deficiencies appeared more suitable for correction through amendment, if necessary, than for outright dismissal with prejudice at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The court agreed that Voyager’s motion to dismiss could be decided from the sufficiency of the complaint without discovery. But it explained that this ordinary feature of a motion to dismiss did not justify stopping discovery. The mere filing of a motion to dismiss ordinarily is not enough to halt discovery.

Disposition

The court DENIED Voyager’s administrative motion to stay discovery. It allowed the parties to brief disputes concerning discovery requests or responses already served only after they met and conferred as required by the court’s Civil Standing Order. The court also ordered the parties to submit a further case-management conference statement and set a further case-management conference for November 16, 2023, concurrent with the hearing on Voyager’s motion to dismiss.