FOLLOW US

A Washington, D.C., judge has declined to revisit her decision blocking Meta Platforms Inc. from reclaiming internal documents the company says are protected by attorney-client privilege, ruling that the materials appear to encourage concealment rather than lawful legal advice.

In an order issued Monday, D.C. Superior Court Judge Yvonne Williams denied Meta’s request to reconsider her earlier ruling that the documents must remain in discovery. She found that the communications, on their face, would lead a reasonable reader to believe they were intended to obscure potential wrongdoing.

The documents surfaced during discovery in a lawsuit brought by the District of Columbia accusing Meta of harming children and teenagers by designing its platform to promote compulsive use through algorithmic content distribution.

Meta had attempted to retrieve the documents after producing them, asserting they were protected legal communications. Judge Williams previously rejected that effort, concluding the materials appeared to instruct employees to alter or suppress internal research.

In seeking reconsideration, Meta argued that its lawyers were merely suggesting edits to summaries or descriptions of research findings. The court was unpersuaded.

According to the ruling, the documents themselves contain explicit language directing researchers to “remove,” “block,” “limit,” or “update” research in ways that could reduce legal exposure, without any indication they were limited to summaries.

Judge Williams also rejected Meta’s attempt to introduce new declarations clarifying the intent of the communications, noting the company offered no justification for failing to submit that evidence during the original dispute. She added that such statements could later be presented to a jury as competing explanations.

Meta further argued that the court improperly broadened the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege by relying on alleged “misconduct” rather than explicit criminal behavior.

The judge disagreed, stating that her earlier ruling rested on the conclusion that the communications could reasonably be viewed as furthering fraudulent conduct by obscuring liability and promoting misleading representations.

She also dismissed Meta’s claim that the advice amounted to standard legal guidance, writing that the communications went beyond conventional counsel and appeared aimed at shielding the company from accountability.

Judge Williams declined Meta’s request to certify the issue for immediate appellate review, emphasizing that discovery rulings are generally not appealable at this stage and that Meta had not shown irreparable harm.

The order requires Meta to turn over the documents to the District by January 12. The ruling does not determine whether the materials will ultimately be admissible at trial.

In a statement released Tuesday, a Meta spokesperson said the company disagrees with the ruling and is reviewing its legal options.

“These communications were legitimate attorney-client discussions, protected by law,” the spokesperson said. “It is standard for counsel to advise on research to ensure compliance and accuracy. This decision weakens essential privilege protections and sets a concerning precedent.”

The Office of the D.C. Attorney General declined to comment.

The case is District of Columbia v. Meta Platforms Inc., case number 2023-CAB-006550, pending in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division.