FOLLOW US

A California federal judge overseeing discovery in sprawling litigation targeting social media giants over alleged youth mental-health harms refused Monday to grant Meta Platforms Inc. a protective order aimed at silencing a former researcher the company labeled “disgruntled.”

The ruling marks a significant setback for Meta as it faces allegations that it buried, altered, or suppressed internal research documenting potential risks to young users.

Meta Warns of Rogue Testimony From Ex-Researcher

U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang delivered the ruling from the bench in San Francisco after Meta sought an order restricting testimony from Jason Sattizahn, a former Meta researcher who publicly testified before Congress in September during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing titled “Hidden Harms.”

Meta attorney Timothy Hester of Covington & Burling LLP argued that without a protective order, Sattizahn might freely disclose attorney-client privileged communications during his deposition.

“We have no assurance Dr. Sattizahn will respect that instruction,” Hester said, calling him a “disgruntled former employee” who had “already disclosed privileged communications” in testimony to Congress.

Hester claimed Sattizahn’s attorney had indicated that his client planned to testify consistent with his Congressional statements—statements Meta insists include privileged content.

Plaintiffs Counter: Privilege May Not Apply

Plaintiffs’ counsel Lexi Hazam of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP told Judge Kang that Meta was attempting to impose a blanket restriction far broader than the law allows.

“Mr. Sattizahn cannot respect and does not have to respect a privilege that doesn’t apply or exist,” Hazam argued.

Hazam said Meta’s urgency likely stems from a recent D.C. Superior Court ruling applying the crime-fraud exception, holding that certain documents were not shielded by privilege.

If Sattizahn testifies that Meta’s legal department instructed him to alter or suppress research on youth harms to limit liability, Hazam said, that constitutes potential spoliation and defeats privilege.

She also noted that a New Mexico judge in the multidistrict litigation (MDL) had already imposed a process where Sattizahn’s transcript would remain sealed until privilege objections were resolved—making Meta’s request unnecessary.

Whistleblower’s Counsel: He Will Testify as Directed

Sattizahn’s lawyer, Michael Ward of Baker Botts LLP, told the court that his client will honor “appropriate” privilege claims but noted that the New Mexico order explicitly directs Sattizahn to testify about his communications with Meta’s in-house counsel.

“He is going to testify that he was directed to change research protocols by lawyers to avoid collecting evidence of harms,” Ward said.
“The company did not want to possess any evidence that these harms were occurring.”

Meta countered that the New Mexico procedures did not sufficiently shield confidential information from being disseminated across multiple jurisdictions.

Judge Kang: No Protective Order Needed

Judge Kang disagreed, finding that the existing New Mexico order governing Sattizahn’s deposition made a new protective order unnecessary.

“I’m hesitant to create a separate procedure when the New Mexico court has already set one up,” the judge said. “I defer to what the New Mexico judge has done.”

The Larger Battle: Alleged Harm to Youth

The MDL includes personal-injury plaintiffs, school districts and state attorneys general alleging that Meta, YouTube, and other platforms engineered addictive features that harm the mental health of minors while raking in billions in advertising revenue.

School districts argued recently that Meta internally suppressed findings showing that compulsive platform use damaged teens’ psychological well-being—even as employees privately compared themselves to “drug pushers.”