Summary
The court denied Plaintiff’s requests to compel Meta Platforms, Inc. to complete document production by a specified date and to declare broadly discoverable Meta’s use of artificial intelligence to reject advertisements. The court directed the parties to meet and confer regarding a protective order and emphasized that discovery disputes should be resolved cooperatively before seeking court intervention.
Holdings
- The court denied Shared Partnership's request to compel Meta Platforms to complete production by April 7, 2023 because the asserted passage of time and Meta's resources did not justify an arbitrary deadline, and Meta had justified proceeding on a rolling basis after resolution of the protective-order dispute.
- The court denied Shared Partnership's request for a finding that broad-based discovery into Meta Platforms' use of artificial intelligence to reject advertisements for customers other than Shared Partnership was generally discoverable.
- The parties were ordered to meet and confer in good faith to resolve their differences concerning the protective order so that Meta Platforms could begin production; if they could not agree, they were ordered to present the remaining disputes clearly and concisely.
Questions Presented
- Whether Meta Platforms should be compelled to complete its document production by April 7, 2023 rather than proceed on a justified rolling basis.
- Whether broad discovery into Meta Platforms' general use of artificial intelligence to reject advertisements was relevant and proportional to Shared Partnership's claims.
- Whether the parties should meet and confer regarding the terms of a protective order before further production.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (9)
- Elgindy v. AGA Serv. Co., No. 20-cv-06304-JST (RMI), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211772, at *12-13 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2021)(followed)
- Rodriguez v. Barrita, Inc., No. 09-04057 RS (PSG), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134079, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011)(followed)
- Hegarty v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co., No. 19-cv-06006-MMC (RMI), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203386, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2021)(followed)
- Williams v. Condensed Curriculum Int'l, No. 20-cv-05292-YGR (RMI), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211782, at *8-9 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2021)(followed)
- Mediatek, Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., No. 11-5341 YGR (JSC), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122911, at *18-19 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2013)(followed)
- Miranda Dairy v. Harry Shelton Livestock, LLC, No. 18-cv-06357-RMI, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197775, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2020)(followed)
- Olesczuk v. Citizens One Home Loans, No. 2:16-cv-01008-GMN-NSJK, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153342, at *5 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 2016)(followed)
- Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Ass'n v. Cal. Dep't of Educ., No. 2:11-cv-3471 KIM AC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109451, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2016)(followed)
- McLain v. Daniel N. Gordon, PC, No. C09-5362BHS, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154842, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 28, 2010)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…