In this action, time is of the essence. The Court is in the process of not only resolving the outstanding motions but reviewing Magistrate Judge Peter Kang’s Order Granting-in-Part and Denying-in Part Meta’s Request for Party Discovery on Third-Party State Agencies et al., issued on September 6, 2024 (Dkt. No. 1117), and the State Attorneys General (the “AGs”) objections thereto (Dkt. No. 1168). That order (Dkt. No. 1117) is not stayed. While the Court considers the objections, the Court ORDERS that the following occur to expedite productions from the states.

First, Meta issued Rule 45 subpoenas to certain agencies, presumably focusing on the most important documents from the most important agencies. Meta unilaterally told the agencies that the subpoenas are deemed held in abeyance after the order (Dkt. No. 1117) issued. The Court is concerned about unnecessary delay. Accordingly, Meta and the AGs shall immediately resume and continue document productions based on the contents of and responses to those Rule 45 subpoenas. The AGs shall facilitate productions for and negotiations on behalf of the agencies in their respective states and Meta shall not unilaterally cease ongoing negotiations with agencies during the pendency of this Court’s review. To the extent any agencies have already collected and were preparing to produce documents in response to the subpoenas, they shall continue that process and produce the documents.

Second, to the extent Rule 45 subpoenas were not issued, the parties shall comply with Magistrate Judge Kang’s orders regarding timing and procedures to complete this discovery, including finalizing relevant custodians, search terms, and the scope of relevant documents.

Efficient resolution of this issue is paramount. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.