In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig.
In re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litig.
Case No. 22-cv-03580 (N.D. Cal. 2024)
July 24, 2024

DeMarchi, Virginia K.,  United States Magistrate Judge

Redaction
Privilege Log
In Camera Review
Attorney-Client Privilege
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The Court has ordered Meta to produce unredacted versions of certain emails after determining that the redacted portions were not protected by attorney-client privilege. This highlights the importance of carefully reviewing and redacting ESI in legal cases.
Additional Decisions
IN RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE LITIGATION
This Document Relates To: All Actions
Case No. 22-cv-03580-WHO (VKD)
United States District Court, N.D. California
Filed July 24, 2024
DeMarchi, Virginia K., United States Magistrate Judge

FURTHER ORDER RE MAY 8, 2024 DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE PRIVILEGE CLAIMS AND DOCUMENT SUBMITTED FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW Re: Dkt. Nos. 475, 476, 516, 541

Pursuant to the Court’s June 18, 2024 order, Meta submitted for in camera review the portions of the email thread PIXEL_HEALTH000301080 that correspond to the emails sent by Mr. Jing and other Meta employees on December 21, 2021, January 4, 2022, and January 11, 2022. See Dkt. No. 516 at 8 (sealed); Dkt. No. 541 at 8 (public). The Court has reviewed Meta’s submission and concludes that the text Meta has redacted and described in its privilege log for these emails is not protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. These emails, like the December 20, 2021 email exchange between Mr. Jing and Mr. Wooldridge (-3001084-086), do not include a request for legal advice and do not summarize or reflect any legal advice.

Accordingly, for the reasons explained in the June 18, 2024 order regarding the Jing/Wooldridge exchange on December 20, 2021, these other emails also must be produced to plaintiffs in unredacted form.[1] 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

The portions of the email thread discussed in the Court’s June 18, 2024 order at page 8, lines 6- 16 need not be produced.