“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.
