Gonzalez Rogers, Yvonne, United States District Judge
DISCOVERY ORDER NO. 1 – AUTHORIZING NARROW PRODUCTION OF MATERIALS PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED IN CONNECTION WITH STATE INVESTIGATIONS
TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
The Court has been engaged in an ongoing discussion with the parties since the first case management conference concerning an initial production of materials that certain defendants have already produced in connection with state investigations overlapping with the allegations at issue here. At the last case management conference, the defendants were ordered to submit the information requests under seal for the Court to review in camera. Submissions were filed on behalf of the Meta defendants,[1] and TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance, Inc. collectively. (Dkt. Nos. 114, 116.) As to the remaining defendants, the Court understands that there have been no relevant productions, obviating the need for a submission.
Consistent with discussions on the record and prior orders, the Court finds that a narrow production of previously-produced relevant materials imposes little burden on the defendants and promotes judicial efficiency in this multi-district litigation. The defendants’ invocation of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) to stay an initial production also does not persuade since the scope of the CDA is pending Supreme Court review, and there are genuine disputes about how the defendants’ platforms functioned with respect to the claims and harms asserted in these proceedings. A fulsome master complaint(s) at this juncture will streamline these proceedings at their conception, including how the CDA relates to the underlying claims, if at all.
The Court’s review of the submissions further confirms that any burdens are minor or de minimis at this juncture and are significantly outweighed by the efficiencies created. The Meta defendants submitted 13 information requests (8 of which are duplicative), whereas TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance, Inc. submitted 10 (8 of which are duplicative). Since the Court understands that this case is not about content specifically and is instead about the unique creation and use of algorithms to target and addict adolescents, the Court reviewed the individual requests and identified those focused on the defendants’ development of their products,[2] development of those products in connection with youth engagement, adolescents’ general use of those products, and the defendants’ knowledge of unique issues and harms impacting adolescent users. Requests that would not be relevant to the anticipated allegations in the complaint are excluded. Based upon an exacting review, the Court finds that production of materials in connection with the following requests is appropriate:
Because the requests were submitted for in camera review and have been sealed, plaintiffs do not know their contents. The Court expects the parties to promptly stipulate to a protective order as the Northern District has model orders. The relevant defendants shall produce redacted versions of the information requests to plaintiffs’ counsel. The unredacted portions shall include (i) sufficient introductory content to identify the source of the requests and (ii) the specific numbered requests identified in this Order. Productions pursuant to this Order shall occur no later than 10:00 a.m. on January 17, 2023.
Now that the Court has authorized a narrow set of initial discovery, any future disputes that may arise in connection with discovery shall be submitted to Magistrate Judge Hixson consistent with his preferred processes and procedures.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 29, 2022