DeMarchi, Virginia K., United States Magistrate Judge
This Document Relates To: All Actions
Counsel
Attorneys for PlaintiffsSIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
Jason ‘Jay’ Barnes (admitted pro hac vice), An Truong (admitted pro hac vice), Eric Johnson (admitted pro hac vice), Jennifer Paulson (admitted pro hac vice)
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
Geoffrey Graber, State Bar No. 211547, Eric Kafka (admitted pro hac vice), Claire Torchiana. State Bar No. 330232,
KIESEL LAW LLP
Jeffrey A. Koncius, State Bar No. 189803, Paul R. Kiesel, State Bar No. 119854, Nicole Ramirez, State Bar No. 279017
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
Andre M. Mura, State Bar No. 298541, Rosemary M. Rivas, State Bar No. 209147, Hanne Jensen, State Bar No. 336045
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
Beth E. Terrell, State Bar No. 178181
Attorneys for Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
LAUREN R. GOLDMAN (pro hac vice), lgoldman@gibsondunn.com; DARCY C. HARRIS (pro hac vice), dharris@gibsondunn.com; 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166, Telephone: (212) 351-4000, Facsimile: (212) 351-4035
ELIZABETH K. MCCLOSKEY (SBN 268184), emccloskey@gibsondunn.com; ABIGAIL A. BARRERA (SBN 301746), abarrera@gibsondunn.com; 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 393-8200, Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
TRENTON J. VAN OSS (pro hac vice), tvanoss@gibsondunn.com; 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036-5306, Telephone: (202) 955-8500, Facsimile: (202) 467-0539
COOLEY LLP
MICHAEL G. RHODES (SBN 116127), rhodesmg@cooley.com; KYLE C. WONG (SBN 224021), kwong@cooley.com; CAROLINE A. LEBEL (SBN 340067), clebel@cooley.com; 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111-4004, Telephone: (415) 693-2000
ORDER RE PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE; REQUESTING PARTIES’ VIEWS
On May 23, 2023, the Court held a discovery conference in this matter and invited an update regarding the status of the parties’ discussions about the preservation of data sources or categories of ESI. With respect to plaintiffs’ preservation of ESI, the parties report that they have not yet reached agreement, but expect that further discussion may lead to an agreement. With respect to Meta’s preservation of ESI, the parties report that Meta has recently shared a substantial amount of information about potentially relevant and responsive sources of ESI. While the parties have not completed their discussions about these sources or about Meta’s preservation obligations, plaintiffs believe that the Court will need to address the preservation issue and that it is time-sensitive, given the nature of the ESI in question.
In view of the discussion at the hearing, the Court expects that its expedited discovery dispute resolution procedures may not be the best mechanism to address disputes about Meta’s preservation of ESI. The Court asks the parties to confer and respond jointly with their views on the following:
1. Should the Court permit the parties to brief any remaining disputes about Meta’s preservation of ESI as a regularly noticed motion under Civil L.R. 7, or can the disputes be addressed most efficiently using the Court’s expedited discovery dispute resolution procedure?
2. If the parties’ remaining disputes about Meta’s preservation of ESI require consideration of highly technical issues bearing on the feasibility of preserving certain data or data sources maintained by Meta, the Court is inclined to appoint a technical expert as a special master to assist the Court and the parties in resolving such disputes. What are the parties’ views on whether the Court should appoint a special master for this purpose?[1]
The parties’ joint response to this order is due by June 1, 2023 and may not exceed five pages total.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Footnotes