In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation
- William Orrick
- 3:22-cv-03580
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation, Judge DeMarchi required Meta to amend privilege-log descriptions and denied plaintiffs’ immediate request for document review.
Plaintiffs and Meta Platforms, Inc.; the order governs Meta’s privilege-log obligations and the parties’ continuing disputes over withheld discovery materials.
What happened
In In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation, plaintiffs and Meta Platforms, Inc. asked the court to resolve disputes about Meta’s privilege log, which identifies documents withheld from discovery because Meta claims they are legally protected. The court addressed email threads, descriptions of withheld materials, distribution lists, and plaintiffs’ request for review of certain documents.
The court ordered Meta to separately identify each withheld or redacted email in an otherwise producible email thread. It also found that descriptions referring to legal advice about “data privacy issues” were too vague, while several other descriptions were sufficient. The distribution-list issue had been resolved by the parties.
The court required Meta to amend the vague privilege-log descriptions by April 17, 2024, unless the parties agreed to another date. It denied plaintiffs’ request for the court to review 13 disputed entries at that time, directing the parties to continue discussing them and report back if disputes remained. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi also granted plaintiffs’ request to redact part of a discovery letter brief and its exhibit.
The detailed version
- In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation · No. 3:22-cv-03580
- William Orrick
- Apr. 10, 2024
Background
Plaintiffs and Meta Platforms, Inc. asked the court to resolve several disputes about Meta’s privilege log. A privilege log identifies documents or communications withheld from discovery based on attorney-client privilege or another protection. The court had previously ordered that a party withholding part of an email thread must separately log each withheld communication and produce the nonprivileged portions.
Rulings on the privilege log
The court agreed that Meta must separately log each email in an email thread when an otherwise producible thread contains withheld or redacted material. The court stated that this requirement concerned only the separate logging of privilege claims and did not change Meta’s collection or production obligations.
The court reviewed Meta’s privilege-log descriptions and found that entries referring to legal advice “regarding data privacy issues” were not specific enough to justify the claimed protection. It found other descriptions—including references to legal advice about preservation in anticipation of litigation, data filtering or blocking issues, and platform terms issues—sufficiently specific. Meta was ordered to amend the entries referring to “data privacy issues” by April 17, 2024, unless the parties stipulated to a different date.
The parties reported that the distribution-list issue was resolved. Plaintiffs sought court review of 13 entries because the withheld materials did not appear to involve communications to or from an attorney or appeared to concern business advice rather than legal advice. Because the parties had not completed their discussions, the court denied plaintiffs’ request for this review at that time. The parties were ordered to confer, report the status by April 17, 2024, and propose an efficient way to present any remaining disputes.
Sealing request and disposition
The court granted plaintiffs’ request to redact part of the parties’ March 15, 2024 discovery letter brief and an attached exhibit containing Meta’s privilege log. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi issued the order after a hearing on April 9, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.