H. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 E. H., et al., Case No. 23-cv-04784-WHO (VKD)

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE NOVEMBER 12, 2024 9 v. DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE SCOPE OF PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY 10 META PLATFORMS, INC., REQUESTS 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 85

12 13 Plaintiffs and defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) ask the Court to resolve a dispute 14 regarding the proper scope of plaintiffs’ discovery. Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Meta to 15 provide discovery regarding the use of Meta’s pixel by all entities covered by the Health Insurance 16 Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and/or the California Medical Information Act 17 (“CMIA”). Dkt. No. 85. Meta objects that such broad discovery exceeds the allegations in the 18 complaint, which is limited to plaintiffs’ use of a website and applications provided by third-party 19 Cerebral, an online mental health services provider. Id. The Court heard oral argument on the 20 matter on December 3, 2024. Dkt. No. 91. 21 As discussed at the motion hearing, resolution of this discovery dispute requires the Court 22 to consider what the complaint is about. Somewhat surprisingly, the parties disagree on this point. 23 Plaintiffs contend that their claims are asserted on behalf of a putative class of U.S. residents who 24 are not Facebook users and who supplied certain private health information to an entity covered by 25 HIPAA and/or CMIA, and whose private information was obtained by Meta from such covered 26 entity without consent. Dkt. No. 85 at 1-2 (citing Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 1 n.1, 102). Meta counters that 27 the complaint specifically defines “Covered Entities” to mean the “third-party companies 1 Cerebral and Monument (which plaintiffs do not allege they used). Id. at 5 (citing Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 1 2 n.1, 35, 40). According to Meta, the putative class is limited to U.S. residents who are not 3 Facebook users and who supplied certain private health information to Cerebral, and whose 4 private information was obtained by Meta from Cerebral without consent. Id. at 4 (citing Dkt. No. 5 1 ¶ 38). 6 The Court has examined the complaint, as well as the briefing on Meta’s motion to dismiss 7 and Judge Orrick’s order denying the motion. While the complaint is not entirely clear regarding 8 the scope of the intended class, the Court agrees with Meta that plaintiffs’ specific allegations of 9 misconduct are limited to users interactions with Cerebral. The complaint does include allegations 10 about another “third-party company,” namely, Monument, and about “the top 100 hospitals in 11 America,” which are not identified, see Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 40, 41, but there are no allegations specific 12 to Monument or to any of the unidentified hospitals asserting that those entities’ deployment of the 13 pixel resulted in the improper or unconsented-to transmission of personal health information to 14 Meta. Moreover, there is no indication in the order denying Meta’s motion to dismiss that Judge 15 Orrick understood plaintiffs’ claims to extend beyond allegations specific to Cerebral, their online 16 mental health services provider; rather, the order focuses exclusively on allegations regarding 17 Cerebral. See, e.g., E.H. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-4784-WHO, 2024 WL 557728, at *1 18 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2024) (“According to plaintiffs here and in the other cases, Meta encourages 19 operators of websites and applications (‘apps’) to install its pixel technology and then, 20 unbeknownst to users of those websites and apps (here Cerebral, an online mental telehealth 21 provider, Compl. ¶ 36), the users’ sensitive healthcare information is transmitted to Meta.”). The 22 order does not mention Monument, hospitals, or any other entity covered by HIPAA or CMIA. 23 See generally id. 24 If the Court’s understanding of the complaint is correct, then plaintiffs may not obtain 25 discovery from Meta about all entities covered by HIPAA and/or CMIA that use the Meta pixel, 26 as such discovery is not reasonably directed to matters relevant to a claim or defense and is not 27 proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court denies 1 with HIPAA and CMIA-covered entities.” See Dkt. No. 85 at 4.! 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: December 4, 2024 4 5 Unrapiiia. WAR E. \Marebe Virginia K. DeMarchi 6 United States Magistrate Judge 4 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' As discussed at the motion hearing, the parties may wish to confer regarding an expeditious 07 means of addressing discrepancies between what the complaint alleges and what plaintiffs believe their claims to be, as disagreements regarding the scope of discovery will likely persist until 28 questions about the scope of the pleadings are resolved.