The plaintiffs argued that Meta’s data retention policies hampered their ability to gather evidence, as Meta reportedly does not retain certain user referral and engagement data beyond 90 days and does not archive its DOI list. Meta’s counsel, K. Winn Allen of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, contended that the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence to support their claims and did not attempt to depose any Meta witnesses.
Judge Alsup expressed skepticism over Meta’s practice of not archiving the DOI list, stating that it “sounds nefarious” and raises suspicions of evidence destruction. He noted the importance of retaining changes to such lists for accountability and transparency.
Plaintiffs’ counsel, David E. Azar of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, argued that they sought data through interrogatories instead of depositions, believing it to be more efficient. However, Meta’s responses indicated that the company does not retain the requested data, complicating the plaintiffs’ efforts to substantiate their claims.
