Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 75 Filed 11/10/22 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`IN RE: SOCIAL MEDIA ADOLESCENT
`ADDICTION/PERSONAL INJURY
`PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`This Documents Relates to:
`
`ALL CASES
`
`
`Case No. 4:22-md-03047-YGR
`
`MDL No. 3047
`
`
`CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER NO. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`
`
`
`On October 6, 2022, this Court was assigned by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
`
`Litigation, to preside over this matter. (Dkt. No. 1.) On October 11, 2022, the Court issued an
`
`order setting an initial case management conference for November 9, 2022. (Dkt. No. 2.) The
`
`Court also requested applications from any lawyer who wanted to be considered for appointment
`
`with applications due on October 20, 2022. (Id.) Objections to any applications were due on or
`
`before October 27, 2022. (Id.) An initial case management conference was set for November 9,
`
`2022. (Id.)
`
`After a comprehensive hearing, the Court issues the following ORDERS:
`
`I.
`
`LEADERSHIP FOR PLAINTIFFS
`
`In response to the Court’s October 11 order, the Court received numerous applications,
`
`including an agreed-upon leadership structure for the Court’s consideration. No objections were
`
`
`
`1
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 75 Filed 11/10/22 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`received to the applications or proposed leadership structure.1 However, it did concern the Court
`
`that some applicants changed their request for co-lead positions after consultation with other
`
`plaintiffs’ counsel. These changes were addressed on the record with the applicants. The Court
`
`has carefully considered all applications, and the responses and presentation to the Court during the
`
`hearing, including the Court’s assessment of actual availability to diligently and efficiently advance
`
`this case given other commitments, the sources of litigation funding, as well as confidential ballots
`
`submitted by counsel during the hearing. With these considerations in mind, the Court finds that it
`
`is in the best interest of the plaintiffs to appoint the following leadership structure:
`
`Co-Lead Counsel: The Court appoints Christopher Seeger (NY), Lexi Hazam (CA), and
`
`Previn Warren2 (DC) as Co-Lead Counsel.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel: The Court appoints Jennie Anderson (CA) as Plaintiffs’
`
`Liaison Counsel.3
`
`Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee Leadership: While the Court maintains its initial concern
`
`about the size of the entire steering committee, the Court is satisfied with the reasons provided to
`
`support a more robust structure. That said, the Court finds that plaintiffs will benefit from
`
`appointing the following plaintiffs’ counsel to serve in leadership roles or chairs of committees:
`
`Emily Jeffcott (FL), Joseph VanZandt (AL), Jayne Conroy (NY), Andre Mura (CA), Matthew
`
`Bergman (WA), Alexandra Walsh (DC), and Michael Weinkowitz (PA).
`
`Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee Membership: The Court appoints the following plaintiffs’
`
`counsel to serve in supportive roles as members of the steering committee: Ron Austin (LA),
`
`James Bilsborrow (NY), Paige Boldt (TX), Carrie Goldberg (NY), Sin-Ting Mary Liu (FL),
`
`
`1 Counsel for the defendants were asked on the record whether they have ever felt inclined to
`bring a sanctions motion against any of the applicants. No motions have ever been contemplated
`and counsel indicated that they have generally worked well with the pool of potential applicants.
`
`2 As discussed on the record, Mr. Warren was not initially identified in the proposed slate as
`Co-Lead, however, his application indicated a willingness to serve in this capacity if the Court
`found that it would further the interests of plaintiffs. If Mr. Warren does not wish to serve in this
`position, he shall contact the Court immediately.
`
`3 Upon further consideration, defendants agreed that appointment of a defense liaison would
`promote efficiency. Ashley Simonsen (CA) is appointed as Defense Liaison Counsel.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 75 Filed 11/10/22 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`Emmie Paulos (FL), Roland Tellis (CA), Diandra “Fu” Debrosse Zimmermann (AL), James Marsh
`
`(CA), Hillary Nappi (NY), and Ruth Rizkalla (CA). To the extent that additional counsel is needed
`
`later in the action, the Co-Leads may petition the Court to expand the committee.4
`
`To the extent any applicant declines their appoint, they shall contact the Court immediately
`
`without delay. By no later than 9:00 a.m. on Monday, November 14, 2022, the Co-Leads shall
`
`provide the Court with a proposed order regarding their view of the responsibilities and operation
`
`of the steering committee, including mechanisms to ensure efficiency and control of costs in light
`
`of the Court’s guidance on how this case may proceed.
`
`II.
`
`TIME OF DEADLINES
`
`All references to a particular time in any order of this Court related to this MDL or any
`
`associated case shall be to local Pacific time.
`
`III.
`
`PREPARATION FOR NEXT CONFERENCE
`
`The Court sets the second status conference for December 14, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. in person.
`
`As discussed on the record, the Court may be presiding over a criminal trial. Counsel shall
`
`continue to monitor the docket for any changes to the time of the second status conference.
`
`A. LIAISON COUNSEL
`
`Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel shall develop a streamlined process for the appointment of
`
`guardian ad litems for plaintiffs that require one. Parties are advised to consult the standard
`
`requirements used by the California state court. Consistent with California practice, the Court is
`
`willing to presumptively appoint a parent or legal guardian.
`
`As discussed on the record, Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel shall take over responsibility of
`
`maintaining a spreadsheet of all cases affiliated with this MDL, including relevant contact
`
`information for counsel. To facilitate this process, counsel for the defendants will provide the
`
`recent working document to Ms. Anderson in editable form and collaborate with her on an ongoing
`
`
`4 At this juncture, the Court does not appoint Thomas Cartmell and Kirk Goza due to their
`commitments on other trial matters.
`
`
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 75 Filed 11/10/22 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`basis. An updated spreadsheet shall be periodically transmitted to the Court by email at
`
`ygrpo@cand.uscourts.gov.
`
`Going forward, Liaison Counsel for both sides shall facilitate the filing of an agenda and
`
`joint statement no later than five (5) business days prior to each case management conference and
`
`the filing of an attendance sheet no later than two (2) business days prior to each case management
`
`conference. They shall send a joint email to the Courtroom Deputy Aris Garcia at
`
`ygrcrd@cand.uscourts.gov to facilitate initial communication.
`
`B. MEET AND CONFER TOPICS
`
`Consistent with the discussion on the record, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer
`
`and to provide the Court with proposed orders or recommendations to facilitate judicious resolution
`
`of the following topics by the next status conference:
`
`1.
`
`Master Complaint: Plaintiffs are the masters of their complaint. A master
`
`complaint is going to be required in order to having binding effect. Having reviewed complaints
`
`filed in this case, and the defendants’ initial concerns about notice pleading, it is the Court’s view
`
`that any master complaint shall provide facts concerning each individual defendant and that
`
`defendants’ purported liability. Each individual defendant must have notice of the charges against
`
`them by each plaintiff. While the plaintiffs will need to assess their strategy going forward in light
`
`of the Court’s preliminary guidance, the parties shall begin the meet and confer process on how to
`
`streamline the filing of a master complaint(s) and any short form attachments to capture the
`
`nuances of the individual cases. Basic agreement on a short form attachment will promote
`
`efficiency and avoid needless objections as this case proceeds.
`
`2.
`
`Service of Process and Waiver: It appears from the dockets in this action that the
`
`defendants have largely agreed to waive service. The parties shall meet and confer and stipulate to
`
`service of process and waiver going forward through a form proposed order. This should
`
`contemplate service of any future pleadings.
`
`3.
`
`Direct Filing: The Court tentatively agrees with plaintiffs that direct filing may be
`
`appropriate. Accordingly, the parties shall meet and confer as to the framework that will govern
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 75 Filed 11/10/22 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`direct filing going forward. Again, the Court reiterates that defendants are not entitled to dictate
`
`where a plaintiff’s action should be venued.
`
`4.
`
`First Stage Discovery Protocols: Discovery has been previously stayed in this case
`
`and will continue to be stayed through the resolution of a motion to dismiss. Despite the stay, the
`
`parties are directed to meet and confer and submit a proposed order for the immediate preservation
`
`of discovery, including setting forth initial ESI protocols.5
`
`5.
`
`Initial Discovery Production: Additionally, plaintiffs are seeking to obtain
`
`materials that defendants may have produced in other litigation and/or in connection with various
`
`investigations. Defendants object to discovery on the grounds that immunity under the
`
`Communications Decency Act will stay any and all discovery. Ultimately, the Court has
`
`insufficient information about the information that may exist as well as the claims that plaintiffs
`
`will proceed in order to make an informed decision with respect to this issue. Given the open
`
`questions, the parties are directed to meet and confer about what, if any, material may exist that can
`
`be shared at the onset of this litigation.
`
`6.
`
`Motions to Dismiss: At this juncture, it is the Court’s view that motions to dismiss
`
`will be permitted once the plaintiffs finalize a master complaint(s) as to the defendants. Motion
`
`practice will be phased. Tentatively, plaintiffs will be directed to pick five or six of their best
`
`claims and the first wave of motion practice will focus on those claims. If any claims survive a
`
`motion to dismiss, discovery will immediately begin as to those claims. The next phase of motion
`
`practice will be sequenced to address any remaining claims. Having set forth this tentative
`
`structure, the parties shall begin to meet and confer as to a briefing timeline. As the Court advised
`
`on the record, given common legal questions, the Court does not anticipate an extended briefing
`
`period as being necessary.
`
`7.
`
`ADR: While the parties are not directed to engage in settlement at this juncture,
`
`they are not precluded from doing so. However, the parties are directed to meet and confer as to
`
`
`5 Parties may consult this District’s E-Discovery (ESI) Guidelines available at
`https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/e-discovery-esi-guidelines/.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 75 Filed 11/10/22 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`potential mediators and shall submit the name of an agreed upon mediator or a list of potential
`
`mediators from which the Court may choose.
`
`The Court understands that many of these issues are dynamic and will require ongoing
`
`discussion. To the extent agreements are made on certain issues in advance of the next conference,
`
`proposed orders can be submitted without delay prior to the conference. To the extent
`
`disagreements arise that cannot be resolved, parties may submit a joint document with the
`
`competing and/or alternate language contained in the same joint document. Relevant authority
`
`shall be provided to justify competing positions.
`
`C. PUBLIC ACCESS
`
`Public Access was not discussed at the hearing. The undersigned is a participant in the
`
`Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. Information about the project is available online at
`
`https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/about/court-programs/cameras/. The Court has received media
`
`requests in connection with this project. Accordingly, the parties shall meet and confer about
`
`making video recordings of the Court’s proceedings available online to the extent those
`
`proceedings are not otherwise sealable.
`
`D. DISCOVERY
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 72-1 this matter is REFERRED to The Honorable Magistrate Judge
`
`Thomas Hixson for all discovery matters, including the issuance of protective orders and orders
`
`regarding ESI and/or TAR protocols. All further discovery matters shall be filed pursuant to Judge
`
`Hixson’s procedures. Both Liaison Counsel shall contact Judge Hixson’s courtroom deputy to
`
`determine the manner in which he wishes to proceed.
`
`This Order terminates Docket Numbers 7-10, 12-16,18-21, 22-27, 29, 31-34, 38, and 41.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`Dated: November 10, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`