In Re Meta Pixel Healthcare Litigation ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE META PIXEL HEALTHCARE Case No. 22-cv-03580-WHO (VKD) LITIGATION 8 This Document Relates To: ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE 9 All Actions "WEB-PROPERTY" 10 Re: Dkt. No. 222 11 12 13 Plaintiffs and defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) ask the Court to resolve their 14 dispute regarding the scope of plaintiffs’ discovery relating to healthcare providers’ use of Meta 15 tracking tools. Dkt. No. 222. The Court held a hearing on this matter on May 23, 2023. Dkt. 16 Nos. 255, 262 (hearing transcript). 17 As explained below, “Web-Property” should be understood to mean healthcare providers’ 18 websites and web pages; it does not include “applications.” 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 In this putative class action, plaintiffs allege that Meta improperly acquires their confidential 21 health information in violation of state and federal law and in contravention of Meta’s own policies 22 regarding use and collection of Facebook users’ data, principally by means of a tracking tool called the 23 “Pixel.” Dkt. No. 185 ¶¶ 1-23. Each of plaintiffs’ healthcare providers allegedly installed the Meta 24 Pixel on their patient portals and in other places on their websites. See id. ¶¶ 24-28. Plaintiffs claim 25 that when they logged into the patient portal or engaged in other activity on their healthcare providers’ 26 websites, the Pixel transmitted certain information to Meta. Id. ¶¶ 24-28, 79-82. 27 Plaintiffs have served document requests (“RFPs”) and interrogatories on Meta. Those 1 websites.” E.g., Dkt. No. 222-1 at 5. Plaintiffs say that “Web-Property” should be understood to 2 || encompass “webpages and applications of healthcare providers, i.e., HIPPA or CMIA covered 3 || entities.” Dkt. No. 222 at 1 (internal quotes omitted). Meta says that “Web Property” should be 4 || limited to medical providers’ webpages that contain a patient portal or “similar features that 5 || transmit patient status.” Jd. 6 |) IL DISCUSSION 7 Although plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint includes allegations that the Meta acquired 8 || confidential health information by tracking users’ activities on healthcare provider web pages 9 other than patient portals, Meta argues that certain web pages maintained by healthcare providers 10 || do not implicate protected health information as a matter of law and should be outside the scope of 11 relevant discovery. See id. at 4-5 (citing Smith v. Facebook, 262 F. Supp. 3d 943 (N.D. Cal. 12 || 2017), affd, 745 F. App’x 8 (9th Cir. 2018)). Meta also argues the Judge Orrick has already held 5 13 || that Meta’s tracking of users’ behavior on web pages other than “portal-type” web pages 1s 14 “legally irrelevant.” Jd. at 5. Plaintiffs counter that Judge Orrick did not decide precisely what 3 15 || information is “protected” when he denied their motion for a preliminary injunction and that Smith a 16 || also does not resolve the parties’ dispute. /d. at 3. 3 17 The Court agrees with plaintiffs that neither the Smith decision nor the preliminary 18 injunction order decides whether information acquired by Meta using the Pixel or other tracking 19 || tools on web pages that are not “portal-like” is protected health information. The Court also 20 || agrees with plaintiffs that their allegations are not limited to acquisition of information on “portal- 21 like” web pages. Thus, for purposes of plaintiffs’ discovery requests, the term “Web-Property” 22 || should be understood as a healthcare provider’s “point of presence on the web, including 23 || websites.” The definition does not include “applications,” nor are any particular applications 24 || described or identified in the consolidated complaint or its Appendix. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: June 16, 2023 27 Unagoia wink, □□□□□□ 28 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCH United States Magistrate Judge