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.
