Klein et al v. Facebook, Inc.
Filing
231
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi re 192 November 11, 2021 Discovery Dispute re Layser Subpoena. (vkdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2022)
Case 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 231 Filed 02/23/22 Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al.,
7
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
META PLATFORMS, INC.,
10
Defendant.
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 20-cv-08570-JD (VKD)
ORDER RE NOVEMBER 11, 2021
DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE LAYSER
SUPBOENA
Re: Dkt. No. 192
Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly, Facebook, Inc.)1 and Jessica Layser ask the
12
13
Court to resolve their dispute regarding Facebook’s Rule 45 document subpoena to Ms. Layser.
14
Dkt. No. 192.2 The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without a hearing. See Civil
15
L.R. 7-1(b).
For the reasons explained below, the Court denies Meta’s request for an order compelling
16
17
Ms. Layser to produce documents responsive to Meta’s subpoena.
18
I.
BACKGROUND
19
Ms. Layser sued Meta on January 13, 2021. Layser v. Facebook, No. 21-cv-00337, Dkt.
20
No. 1. Her case was related to and consolidated with this action. Dkt. No. 47. The consolidated
21
amended complaint on behalf of the Advertiser Plaintiffs names Ms. Layser as a plaintiff. Dkt.
22
No. 86. According to this amended complaint, Meta engaged in “a scheme to unlawfully
23
monopolize the market for social advertising” that allowed it to charge supracompetitive prices for
24
social advertisements. Id. ¶ 1. The amended complaint includes allegations specific to Ms.
25
26
27
28
1
The case caption was amended February 1, 2022 to reflect that Facebook changed its name to
“Meta Platforms.” For convenience, the Court refers to defendant as “Meta” even as to events
occurring before the name change.
2
All docket citations are to the lead case Klein v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 20-8570 unless
otherwise noted.
Case 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 231 Filed 02/23/22 Page 2 of 4
1
Layser. Id. ¶¶ 30, 531, 532.
On August 5, 2021, Ms. Layser voluntarily dismissed her claims against Meta without
2
3
prejudice. Dkt. No. 129. About six weeks later, Meta served a Rule 45 document subpoena on
4
Ms. Layser seeking 17 categories of documents. Dkt. No. 192-1. Ms. Layser objects to producing
5
any responsive documents. Dkt. No. 192 at 4.
6
II.
7
DISCUSSION
Ms. Layser objects to Meta’s subpoena on two grounds. First, she argues that she should
8
not be required to respond to Meta’s document requests because she is no longer a named plaintiff,
9
and Meta is not entitled to take discovery of her merely because she once was. Second, she argues
that if the subpoena is construed as discovery of an absent class member, Meta offers insufficient
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
justification for such discovery. While acknowledging that Ms. Layser is no longer a named
12
plaintiff, Meta argues that her allegations remain part of the operative complaint and that she
13
withdrew from the litigation in order to evade discovery. In addition, Meta says that discovery of
14
Ms. Layser is relevant to class certification issues and the merits because she differs from other
15
named Advertiser Plaintiffs.
16
Ms. Layser is not a named plaintiff, and she was not a named plaintiff at the time Meta
17
served its subpoena for documents. This distinguishes the discovery at issue here from the
18
discovery considered in the two cases on which Meta principally relies for its suggestion that Ms.
19
Layser’s role as a former named plaintiff justifies the discovery Meta seeks. See Opperman v.
20
Path, Inc., No. 13-cv-00453-JST, 2015 WL 9311888, at *3-5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2015)
21
(conditioning named plaintiff’s dismissal from the action on her responding to previously served
22
discovery requests, but not requiring her to sit for a deposition not yet noticed); Fraley v.
23
Facebook, Inc., No. C 11-1726 LHK (PSG), 2012 WL 555071, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2012)
24
(treating named plaintiff as a party subject to discovery even though she had filed a motion to
25
withdraw as a named plaintiff). Ms. Layser is now an absent member of a putative class from
26
whom Meta seeks pre-certification discovery.
27
28
Given the nature of class actions, absent class members generally are not subject to the
same burdens of litigation, including discovery, as named class representatives. See Phillips
2
Case 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 231 Filed 02/23/22 Page 3 of 4
Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 810 & n.2 (1985); A.B. v. Pacific Fertility Center, No. 18-
2
cv-01586-JSC, 2019 WL 6605883, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2019). However, absent class
3
members are not immune from discovery; rather, a district court may allow limited discovery from
4
absent class members when the particular circumstances of the case justify it. Briseno v. ConAgra
5
Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121, 1131 (9th Cir. 2017). Although the Ninth Circuit has not formulated
6
specific standards governing absent class member discovery, district courts in this Circuit typically
7
consider whether the absent class member has inserted herself into the litigation, such as by
8
submitting a declaration or being identified as a potential witness; whether the discovery is
9
narrowly tailored to relevant subject matter; whether the discovery may be obtained from a named
10
plaintiff or other sources; and whether the discovery requested is unduly burdensome or sought in
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1
bad faith. See Vasquez v. Leprino Foods Co., No. 1:17-cv-00796-AWI-BAM, 2019 WL 4670871,
12
at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2019); Brown v. Wal-Mart Store, Inc., No. 09-cv-03339-EJD (SVK),
13
2018 WL 339080, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2018); Holman v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,
14
No. C 11-00180 CW (DMR), 2012 WL 2568202, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2012).
Meta is correct that Ms. Layser actively litigated her claims against Meta for several
15
16
months, and her allegations remain part of the amended complaint. However, having withdrawn
17
as a named plaintiff, Ms. Layser appears to have taken no steps to insert herself into the litigation
18
going forward. See A.B., 2019 WL 6605883 at *1 (“Here, the proposed deponents have done the
19
opposite of asserting themselves into the litigation: having initially agreed to serve as named
20
plaintiffs, they have withdrawn and instead currently have no more involvement in the case than
21
any other absent class member who has not submitted a declaration in support of class certification
22
or been identified as a witness on initial disclosures.”).3 This distinguishes Ms. Layser from the
23
absent class members in the cases on which Meta relies, where the class members were identified
24
as potential witnesses in initial disclosures or submitted declarations regarding class certification.
25
See Vasquez, 2019 WL 4670871, at *1 (absent class members submitted declarations opposing
26
27
28
The Court need not resolve the parties’ dispute concerning whether Ms. Layser withdrew as a
named plaintiff to “evade discovery” or for other reasons, as it is undisputed that she had not been
served with discovery at the time she voluntarily dismissed her claims.
3
3
Case 3:20-cv-08570-JD Document 231 Filed 02/23/22 Page 4 of 4
1
class certification); Brown, 2018 WL 339080, at *1 (absent class members identified in initial
2
disclosures); Mas v. Cumulus Media Inc., No. C-10-1396 EMC, 2010 WL 4916402 at * 1 (N.D.
3
Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (same).
Nevertheless, Ms. Layser has made specific allegations about her use of Meta’s advertising
4
5
services in support of the existing class claims against Meta, and these allegations do not
6
disappear merely because she has withdrawn as a named plaintiff. In this respect, Ms. Layser is
7
unlike other absent class members who have made no such allegations and may not even know of
8
the existence of this action. The Court accepts Meta’s representations that Ms. Layser differs from
9
other named plaintiffs in that “she is affiliated with a large, national company with the resources to
advertise in multiple mediums, she appears to be very active with many of [Meta’s] competitors,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
and she advertises for a business purpose.” Dkt. No. 192 at 2 (footnote omitted). However, Meta
12
does not explain how the discovery it seeks is narrowly tailored to the issues it says bear on class
13
certification (or the merits). See id. at 3. While Meta asserts that its subpoena to Ms. Layser is
14
“significantly narrower” than the document requests it served on the remaining named plaintiffs,
15
the subpoena is extraordinarily broad, including requests that appear to have nothing to do with
16
Ms. Layser’s supposed possession of “unique information.” See id. at 3; Dkt. No. 192-1. On this
17
record, Meta has not shown that its subpoena seeks discovery that is narrowly tailored to relevant
18
subject matter or that a subpoena with such a broad scope would not impose an undue burden on
19
Ms. Layser.
20
III.
CONCLUSION
21
The Court denies Meta’s request for an order compelling Ms. Layser to produce
22
documents responsive to Meta’s September 17, 2021 subpoena. However, this order does not
23
preclude Meta from taking discovery of Ms. Layser should it in the future serve discovery requests
24
that comply with the foregoing guidance and are supported by a sufficient justification.
25
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 23, 2022
27
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?