Metacapital Management, L.P. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
- P. Castel
- 1:22-cv-07615
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Metacapital v. Meta Platforms, Judge Castel required litigation experts and outside consultants to protect confidential materials like the parties and their lawyers.
Metacapital Management, L.P., Meta Platforms, Inc., their outside counsel, and experts or outside consultants who receive confidential materials in the litigation.
What happened
Metacapital Management, L.P. sued Meta Platforms, Inc. in a trademark infringement case. The parties asked the court to resolve disagreements about a proposed protective order and an order governing electronically stored information.
The main dispute addressed in the court’s ruling was whether experts and outside consultants should follow the same data-security requirements for confidential materials as the parties and their outside lawyers. Metacapital argued that stricter requirements would be burdensome for experts, while Meta argued that weaker requirements could create security gaps.
The court concluded that experts and outside consultants must follow the same safeguards as the named parties and their outside counsel. Judge Castel directed the parties to submit an order for entry and terminated Letter Motion 43.
The detailed version
- Metacapital Management, L.P. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07615
- P. Castel
- May 25, 2023
Background
Metacapital Management, L.P. and Meta Platforms, Inc. asked the court to resolve disputes about two proposed discovery orders: a stipulated protective order and an order concerning electronically stored information. The dispute arose in a trademark infringement case.
Dispute about confidential materials
The parties principally disagreed about proposed Paragraph 7.2 of the protective order. That paragraph concerned data-security requirements for protected or confidential materials. Metacapital argued that experts and other outside consultants should be required only to take reasonable measures to safeguard confidential materials. It said the stricter requirements proposed by Meta would be burdensome and impractical for outside experts.
Meta argued that experts and other agents who received confidential materials should follow the same security requirements as the parties and their attorneys. Meta contended that exempting experts from those requirements could create vulnerabilities and undermine the protective order’s protections.
Court’s ruling
The court concluded that experts and outside consultants should be subject to the same requirements for safeguarding confidential materials as the named parties and their outside counsel. Judge P. Kevin Castel directed the parties to submit an order for entry and stated that Letter Motion 43 was terminated.
The provided order does not expressly state how the court resolved the other disputes described in the parties’ letter concerning preservation of electronically stored information, search terms, or discovery about preservation efforts.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.