Pixel Healthcare Litigation Plaintiffs Accuse Meta of Delaying Discovery

Meta hasn’t “proceeded with dispatch” in responding to discovery in the consolidated Meta Pixel healthcare litigation, said the plaintiffs in a joint case management statement Tuesday (docket 3:22-cv-03580) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco.

Nearly six months after the court consolidated the litigation, and nearly a year after the initial action was filed, Meta hasn’t produced “a single document in discovery,” they said. Meta disagrees with the plaintiffs’ negative “representations” about Meta’s discovery responsiveness, it said in the joint statement.

The case involves healthcare providers’ use of the Meta Pixel tracking tool on their websites for targeted advertising. Meta served notice this week that it plans to move for an order to dismiss the litigation at an Aug. 16 hearing before U.S. District Judge William Orrick (see 2305090042).

Despite repeated discovery requests, Meta hasn’t explained how and where it’s preserving the data collected by the Meta Pixel from healthcare provider websites and applications, said the plaintiffs. Meta also hasn’t provided any search terms for its electronically stored information (ESI), they said. The plaintiffs also worry Meta made merits arguments in opposing some of the plaintiffs’ discovery requests, which is “inconsistent” with this court’s directive “that discovery proceed before a ruling on the motion to dismiss,” they said.

Setting a discovery cut-off date, and doing so at the next case management conference, “is the best way to break these delays and to move discovery forward,” said the plaintiffs. They intend to propose interim discovery deadlines to U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi, “including a substantial completion deadline for production of documents,” they said.

Since the last case management conference March 14, the parties “engaged in frequent and extensive meet and confer discussions regarding discovery,” said Meta’s counter-argument in the joint statement. Talks took place on the proper ESI protocol, protective order and clawback order, plus Meta’s responses to the plaintiffs’ requests for document production and interrogatories, it said.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ assertions that Meta dragged its feet on discovery, Meta “engaged in significant discussion” with the plaintiffs about the scope of discovery, said Meta. The parties “have been able to reach agreement on a wide range of issues,” it said. Though the plaintiffs complain Meta isn’t moving with dispatch on discovery document production, “this is simply not accurate,” it said.