1. In September of 2021, Special Master Daniel Garrie (“Special Master Garrie”) and Judge Gail Andler declared impasse on the issue of whether Facebook should be compelled to add Mark Zuckerberg (“Zuckerberg”) and Sheryl Sandberg (“Sandberg”) as document custodians.

2. Plaintiffs submitted their opening brief on this issue on September 23, 2021. Plaintiffs argue that Zuckerberg and Sandberg should be added as document custodians because (a) as the key decision maker on issues related to user privacy, Zuckerberg's documents are uniquely relevant to plaintiffs' claims; (b) Sandberg's documents are critical as she oversees Facebook's monetization of user data and Facebook's messaging regarding user data misuse; (c) adding Zuckerberg and Sandberg as document custodians is proportional to the needs of the case and will not cause undue burden; (d) Facebook should commence with searching the Zuckerberg and Sandberg files in time to meet the January 31, 2022 deadline for substantial completion of document production; and (e) the Apex Doctrine does not apply. See Exhibit A (Motion to Compel Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg as Document Custodians).

3. Facebook submitted their opposition on October 4, 2021. Facebook argues that (a) Plaintiffs fail to show that Zuckerberg and Sandberg are likely to have documents that fill substantial gaps in Facebook's comprehensive document production; and (b) to the extent that any collections from Zuckerberg and Sandberg are deemed necessary, performing targeted collections after the January 31, 2022 deadline for substantial completion of document production would be appropriate and would not delay discovery as discovery does not close until June 2022. See Exhibit B (Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg as Document Custodians).

4. Plaintiffs submitted their reply on October 13, 2021. Plaintiffs argue that (a) Zuckerberg and Sandberg are likely to possess unique and relevant information because their knowledge and statements are at the heart of Plaintiffs' allegations, including their detailed and intimate knowledge of friend sharing, whitelisting, business partners, and third party misuse of information; and (b) a targeted search of Zuckerberg's and Sandberg's files is appropriate. See Exhibit C (Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg as Document Custodians).

5. Special Master Garrie finds that requiring a party to compel the designation of additional custodians requires a showing that the disputed custodians possess uniquely relevant information that is not available from the sources already designated. See Handloser v. HCL America, Inc., No. 19-cv-01242-LHK (VKD), 2020 WL 7405686, at *2 (N.D. Cal. December 17, 2020) (refusing to order designation of additional custodians where plaintiffs failed to show why they “expect to discover information from these custodians that differs from discovery they have already obtained from the others”); see also In re EpiPen Mktg., Sales Practices and Antitrust Liti-gation No. 17-md-2785-DDC-TJJ, 2018 WL 1440923, at *2 (D. Kans. March 15, 2018) (“party moving to compel additional proposed custodians ‘must demonstrate that the additional requested custodians would provide unique relevant information not already obtained’ ” (quoting Fort Worth Employees' Ret. Fund v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 297 F.R.D. 99, 107 (S.D.N.Y. 2013))).[1]

*2 6. Special Master Garrie finds that it is likely that Zuckerberg and Sandberg possess information relevant to the Plaintiffs' allegations and differs from discovery already obtained from other custodians.[2]

7. Special Master Garrie finds that Zuckerberg and Sandberg are likely to possess unique, relevant information because they were key decision-makers related to issues at the heart of Plaintiffs' allegations, including friend sharing, whitelisting, business partners, and third-party misuse of information. For instance, in a 2012 email, Zuckerberg indicates that he was involved in both the high-level decision making and execution of a plan [Redacted] See Exhibit 10 to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Zuckerberg and Sandberg as Custodians; see also Exhibit 12 to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Zuckerberg and Sandberg as Custodians [Redacted]. Sandberg also indicated her involvement as a key decision maker in her communications related to the above. See Exhibit 12 to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Zuckerberg and Sandberg as Custodians [Redacted].

8. Special Master Garrie finds that Zuckerberg and Sandberg, as key decision makers related to the issues of this case, are likely to possess at least some of the following categories of relevant information not available through other data sources:[3]

*3 9. Special Master Garrie finds that the benefit of collecting, reviewing, producing the above information prior to the January 31, 2022 deadline for substantial document production outweighs the burden imposed on Facebook because Facebook has represented that over two-thirds of its review is complete, and there remains ample time for Facebook to complete this targeted collection and review with an appropriate protocol. See Williams v. Apple, Inc., No. 19-cv-04700-LHK (VKD), 2020 WL 5107639, at *2 (N.D. Cal. August 31, 2020) (“[Defendant's] burden can be substantially mitigated by application of appropriately narrow search terms and de-duplication of ESI across custodians.”).

10. No later than November 19, 2021 the parties are to meet and confer and submit a joint proposed protocol for performing a search and collection targeting, at a minimum, the categories of communications identified above. The targeted search and collection of Zuckerberg's and Sandberg's files are to be completed prior to the January 31, 2022 deadline for substantial completion of document production. The parties may propose additional categories of relevant documents that are likely to be in Zuckerberg's or Sandberg's possession and not available through other data sources. The joint proposed protocol is to identify any areas of disagreement between the parties.

11. Special Master Garrie may modify the proposed protocol at his discretion and hold a hearing to resolve any disputes related to the proposed protocol. Special Master Garrie will then issue an order with the final protocol.

IT IS SO ORDERED.