In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 18, 2025
• Docket: 3:22-cv-03580
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE Case No. 22-cv-03580-WHO (VKD) LITIGATION 8 This Document Relates To: ORDER RE FACT DEPOSITIONS 9 All Actions. 10 11

12 13 The Court has reviewed the parties’ February 14, 2025 status report regarding their efforts 14 to agree on the number, duration, scope, and scheduling of fact witness depositions. The results of 15 those efforts are not impressive. Accordingly, the Court provides the following direction, with 16 which the parties must comply unless they agree otherwise: 17 1. Individual depositions. Plaintiffs may take no more than 12 depositions of 18 individual fact witnesses.1 They have already taken two individual fact witness depositions, so 19 they have 10 remaining. 20 Plaintiffs shall choose their remaining deponents wisely, as they will not be permitted to 21 take more than 12 individual fact witness depositions absent a stipulation or leave of the court. 22 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2). In discussing any depositions beyond the 12-deposition limit, the 23 parties should keep in mind that leave will be granted only to the extent consistent with the 24 relevance and proportionality requirements of Rule 26(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2); see also Fed. 25 R. Civ. P. 30, advisory committee notes to 1993 amendment, subdivision (a) (limitation on 26 depositions that may be taken without leave or stipulation ensures compliance with requirements 27 1 of Rule 26(b) and development of a cost-effective plan for discovery in the case). The Court must 2 limit the number of depositions if it finds that (a) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative 3 or duplicative or can be obtained from a source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less 4 expensive, (b) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information 5 through discovery; or (c) the burden or expense of the discovery sought outweighs its likely 6 benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties' resources, the 7 importance of the issues at stake, and the importance of the discovery in resolving those issues. 8 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C); RJ v. Cigna Health & Life Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-2255 EJD (VKD), 9 2022 WL 16839492, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2022). The party seeking additional depositions 10 must make a particularized showing of need for the depositions. See Authentec, Inc. v. Atrua 11 Techs., Inc., No. 08-cv-1423 PJH, 2008 WL 5120767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2008). It will not 12 be sufficient for plaintiffs to quote the presiding judge’s or the undersigned magistrate judge’s 13 remarks in support of any request for additional depositions. 14 2. Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. In addition to 12 individual fact witness depositions, 15 plaintiffs may take no more than 20 hours of Rule 30(b)(6) corporate testimony, regardless of how 16 many representatives Meta designates to testify on its behalf. 17 3. Deposition scheduling. Plaintiffs shall identify the individual fact witness 18 depositions that they presently wish to take.2 Plaintiffs must provide this list to Meta no later than 19 February 19, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. For each witness, Meta shall identify two alternative dates on 20 which the witness is available between the date of this order and March 28, 2025. Meta shall 21 avoid identifying dates that would require double-tracking of depositions. Meta must identify the 22 available dates for the witnesses no later than February 25, 2025 at 5:00 p.m.3 Plaintiffs shall 23 advise Meta of the dates they select for each witness’s deposition no later than February 28, 2025 24 2 Plaintiffs need not identify all 10 remaining witnesses by February 19, 2025, but they will need 25 to promptly identify all of the depositions they wish to take in time to complete all depositions by April 18, 2025. 26

3 If Meta objects that a witness should not be deposed at all, the parties shall promptly submit their 27 dispute about such deposition to the Court for resolution. Meta need not identify available dates 1 at 5:00 p.m. The witnesses’ depositions shall proceed on the dates selected.* Once a deposition 2 || has been scheduled, per the foregoing procedure, no party may cancel the deposition, absent a 3 || written stipulation or order of the Court. Mr. Mudd’s deposition shall proceed as scheduled on 4 February 26, 2025. 5 4. Disputes re Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics. Any dispute about plaintiffs’ Rule 6 30(b)(6) deposition notice to Meta must be submitted for resolution no later than March 11, 2025. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: February 18, 2025 9 10 Virginia K. DeMarchi I United States Magistrate Judge 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 * No party may insist on any particular order of depositions. Rather, the order of depositions shall 28 : . os be guided by witness availability and efficiency.