FOLLOW US

In a legal battle between Meta and the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office, a judge ruled that the state is not required to turn over documents from other agencies in a lawsuit accusing Instagram of harming children and teens.

Suffolk County Superior Court Justice Helene Kazanjian’s ruling, issued Tuesday, reinforces the independence of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office, stating that the office is not obligated to search for or provide documents held by other state agencies. Meta Platforms had requested access to these materials as part of its defense in the state's 2023 lawsuit under public nuisance and consumer protection laws.

Attorney General's Independent Authority

Justice Kazanjian clarified that the Attorney General’s office is acting independently in this case, representing the interests of Massachusetts consumers rather than any specific state agency. As such, the office has no authority or obligation to search other departments for documents requested by Meta, the judge explained.

“Since the Attorney General is not representing particular agencies in this action, it has no obligation or authority to search the files of other agencies or departments of the Commonwealth,” Justice Kazanjian stated. The ruling effectively denied Meta’s request for a broader document search involving several state agencies.

A Glimpse of Legal Precedents

While Meta sought to draw parallels with a recent decision in California, where a judge ruled in favor of similar requests in a multidistrict litigation, Justice Kazanjian dismissed that argument. She noted that the California ruling did not take Massachusetts law into account and was not binding in the state. Furthermore, the ruling from California is currently under appeal in the Ninth Circuit, which further weakened its relevance in this case.

Meta’s legal team argued that the Massachusetts lawsuit should align with the California case, as both are based on similar civil procedure rules. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing the differences between the cases and the autonomy of Massachusetts’ Attorney General.

Meta’s Continued Pursuit of Subpoenas

Although Justice Kazanjian denied Meta’s request for broader document production, the company still has the option to pursue its subpoenas for specific documents from six state agencies. These agencies include departments of public health, education, mental health, and other health-related executive offices. Meta has already served subpoenas to these agencies, seeking information relevant to its defense.

While Meta cannot compel the Attorney General’s office to turn over documents from other agencies, it can continue to seek compliance with the subpoenas issued directly to state departments.

Ongoing Legal Challenges

This ruling is just one chapter in Meta’s ongoing legal battle with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office. The company is also fighting to dismiss the case on First Amendment and Communications Decency Act grounds. Meta had previously requested a mid-case appeal of an earlier decision by Justice Peter Krupp, which was denied. That application for appellate review is still pending before the state’s highest court.