The parties ask the Court to resolve their dispute regarding plaintiffs’ request that Meta search for and collect documents from four additional custodians. Dkt. No. 770-3. The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument. Civil L. R. 7-1(b).

The parties advise that Meta has reviewed and produced documents from 36 custodians, as well as from several non-custodial sources to date. See Dkt. No. 770-3 at 3, 4; see also Dkt. No. 315. Plaintiffs now ask the Court to order Meta to review and produce documents from four additional custodians: Sheryl Sandberg (Meta’ former Chief Operating Officer), Jenny Lin (a privacy program manager), Manish Singhal (an engineer), and James Covey (a strategic response employee). Dkt. No. 770-3 at 1-2. Plaintiffs argue that each of these custodians possesses “unique relevant documents,” and it would impose no undue burden to require Meta to review and produce documents from these custodians. Id. at 1-3. Meta responds that plaintiffs delayed too long—until one month before the December 18, 2024 deadline for substantial completion of document production—to ask Meta to search additional custodians’ files. Id. at 4. Meta also argues that not one of the additional four custodians is likely to have relevant, non-duplicative documents, and to require Meta to collect and review their files now would require three months to complete, necessarily delaying the case schedule. Id. at 4-6.

The Court agrees with Meta that plaintiffs’ request for additional custodians comes very late in the discovery process, and plaintiffs’ justification for their delay is not persuasive, particularly given plaintiffs’ oft-expressed concerns about delaying the completion of discovery. To be clear, nothing in the Court’s prior order or remarks “endorsed” the timing of plaintiffs’ present demand. See id. at 3.

Nevertheless, the Court has carefully considered plaintiffs’ justifications for why they believe Meta should be required to review and collect documents from these four additional custodians. While plaintiffs do not actually say how the documents they expect to find in these custodians’ files are relevant to a claim or defense in this action, the Court has attempted to make the necessary inferences. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 315 at 2-3 (discussing relevant subject matter). With some limited exceptions, plaintiffs have not shown that Meta should be required to review and produce documents from these custodians:

1. The Court finds no reasonable justification for requiring Meta to review and produce documents from Jenny Lin or James Covey. 

2. For Sheryl Sandberg, Meta must search for and produce the talking points linked at PIXEL_HEALTH000650129 and the brief referenced in PIXEL_HEALTH000121306, if those documents are responsive to plaintiffs’ document requests and not privileged; otherwise, plaintiffs have not shown that Meta should be required to collect, review, and produce Ms. Sandberg’s custodial documents. 

3. For Manish Singhal, the Court concludes that Mr. Singhal is likely to have unique documents regarding (1) proposed changes relating to transmission of certain information via the Pixel in September 2022, and (2) assessing the impact of those changes on Meta’s revenue. While other engineers were also involved with these matters, the documents cited and described to the Court suggest that Mr. Singhal had at least some unique responsibilities. See id. at 2, 6; see also Dkt. No. 739-15 (PIXEL_HEALTH000000719). However, Meta need only collect and review for responsiveness documents concerning Mr. Singhal’s work on these specific matters between September 2022 and whenever his work was completed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.