Kadrey et al v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
Filing
171
Discovery Order re: 162 Joint Discovery Letter Brief regarding Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Hixson on 9/24/2024. (tshlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2024)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
RICHARD KADREY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
7
8
9
10
Case No. 23-cv-03417-VC (TSH)
DISCOVERY ORDER
v.
Re: Dkt. No. 162
META PLATFORMS, INC.,
Defendant.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Meta moves for a protective order barring the deposition of its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.
ECF No. 162. The Court denies the motion.
14
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an
15
order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
16
expense,” including by forbidding or limiting a deposition. “When a party seeks the deposition of
17
a high-level executive (a so-called ‘apex’ deposition), courts have observed that such discovery
18
creates a tremendous potential for abuse or harassment.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
19
Ltd., 282 F.R.D. 259, 263 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (cleaned up). “The court therefore has discretion to
20
limit discovery where the discovery sought ‘can be obtained from some other source that is more
21
convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)).
22
“In determining whether to allow an apex deposition, courts consider (1) whether the
23
deponent has unique first-hand, non-repetitive knowledge of the facts at issue in the case and (2)
24
whether the party seeking the deposition has exhausted other less intrusive discovery methods.”
25
Finisar Corporation v. Nistica, Inc., 2015 WL 3988132, *1 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) (cleaned
26
up). “With respect to the first consideration, the party seeking to take the deposition need not
27
prove conclusively that the deponent certainly has unique non-repetitive information; rather,
28
where a corporate officer may have any first-hand knowledge of relevant facts, the deposition
1
should be allowed.” Id. *2 (cleaned up). With respect to the second consideration, formal
2
exhaustion is not “viewed as an absolute requirement.” Hunt v. Continental Casualty Co., 2015
3
WL 1518067, *2 (N.D. Cal. April 3, 2015); see also In re Transpacific Passenger Air Transp.
4
Antitrust Litig., 2014 WL 939287, *5 (N.D. Cal. March 6, 2014) (noting that exhaustion is a
5
consideration, not a requirement). “[I]t is very unusual for a court to prohibit the taking of a
6
deposition altogether absent extraordinary circumstances.” Powertech Technology, Inc., Tessera,
7
Inc., 2013 WL 3884254 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2013) (cleaned up).
In this case, Meta “has not met its burden of showing that extraordinary circumstances are
8
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
present here which warrant an order precluding” Zuckerberg’s “deposition altogether.” Finisar,
10
2015 WL 3988132 at *2.1 Plaintiffs have made an evidentiary showing that Zuckerberg is the
11
chief decision maker and policy setter for Meta’s Generative AI branch and the development of
12
the large language models at issue in this action. Plaintiffs do not generically argue, as Meta
13
suggests, that because Zuckerberg is the CEO of the company that he is therefore in charge of
14
everything. Rather, they have submitted evidence of his specific involvement in the company’s AI
15
initiatives. Exs. D, E, G. They have submitted evidence indicating Zuckerberg was the principal
16
decision maker concerning Meta’s decision to open source the language model. Ex. I. They have
17
also submitted evidence of Zuckerberg’s direct supervision of Meta’s AI products. Exs. K, L, M,
18
N. This showing justifies an apex deposition.
Given this factual showing, the Court is not going to require Plaintiffs to exhaust other
19
20
forms of discovery before they depose Zuckerberg. They’ve made a solid case that this deposition
21
is worth taking.
22
Accordingly, Meta’s motion is DENIED.
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated: September 24, 2024
25
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge
26
27
28
Meta’s motion is all-or-nothing. If Zuckerberg’s deposition is to proceed, Meta does not propose
to limit it to less than the default rule of seven hours.
2
1
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?