RICHARD KADREY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., et al., Defendants Case No. 23-cv-03417-VC (TSH) United States District Court, N.D. California Filed September 24, 2024 Counsel Joseph R. Saveri, Aaron Cera, Cadio R. Zirpoli, Christopher K.L. Young, Holden J. Benon, Louis Andrew Kessler, Margaux Poueymirou, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP, San Francisco, CA, David Boies, Pro Hac Vice, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Armonk, NY, David L. Simons, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, New York, NY, David A. Straite, DiCello Levitt LLP, New York, NY, Jesse Michael Panuccio, Pro Hac Vice, Boies Schiller Flexner, Washington, DC, Joshua I. Schiller, Joshua Michelangelo Stein, Maxwell Vaughn Pritt, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, San Francisco, CA, Kathleen Jordan McMahon, Sidran Law Corp, San Ramon, CA, Matthew Butterick, Matthew Butterick, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, Mohammed Rathur, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs Richard Kadrey, Sarah Silverman, Christopher Golden. Bryan L. Clobes, Alexander Sweatman, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Chicago, IL, Daniel Jerome Muller, Ventura Hersey & Muller, LLP, San Jose, CA, Aaron Cera, Christopher K.L. Young, Margaux Poueymirou, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, LLP, San Francisco, CA, David Boies, Pro Hac Vice, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Armonk, NY, David L. Simons, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, New York, NY, David A. Straite, DiCello Levitt LLP, New York, NY, Joshua I. Schiller, Joshua Michelangelo Stein, Maxwell Vaughn Pritt, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jesse Michael Panuccio, Pro Hac Vice, Boies Schiller Flexner, Washington, DC, Mohammed Rathur, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs Jacqueline Woodson, Andrew Sean Greer, Rachel Louise Snyder, David Henry Hwang, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Laura Lippman, Matthew Klam, Junot Diaz. Adam J. Levitt, Amy E. Keller, James Arthur Ulwick, DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, Chicago, IL, Greg G. Gutzler, DiCello Levitt LLC, New York, NY, Lisa Geary, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York, NY, Seth Haines, Timothy Hutchinsonm, Rmp LLP, Springdale, AR, Brian O. O'Mara, DiCello Levitt LLP, San Diego, CA, David Boies, Pro Hac Vice, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Armonk, NY, David L Simons, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, New York, NY, David A. Straite, DiCello Levitt LLP, New York, NY, Joshua I. Schiller, Joshua Michelangelo Stein, Maxwell Vaughn Pritt, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jesse Michael Panuccio, Pro Hac Vice, Boies Schiller Flexner, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs Mike Huckabee, Relevate Group, John Blase, Lysa TerKeurst. Amy E. Keller, James Arthur Ulwick, DiCello Levitt LLP, Chicago, IL, Greg G. Gutzler, DiCello Levitt LLC, New York, NY, Lisa Geary, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York, NY, Seth Haines, Timothy Hutchinson, Rmp LLP, Springdale, AR, Brian O. O'Mara, DiCello Levitt LLP, San Diego, CA, David Boies, Pro Hac Vice, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Armonk, NY, David L Simons, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, New York, NY, David A. Straite, DiCello Levitt LLP, New York, NY, Joshua I. Schiller, Joshua Michelangelo Stein, Maxwell Vaughn Pritt, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, San Francisco, CA, Jesse Michael Panuccio, Pro Hac Vice, Boies Schiller Flexner, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs David Kinnaman, Tsh Oxenreider. Bobby A. Ghajar, Colette Ani Ghazarian, Cooley LLP, Santa Monica, CA, Angela Dunning, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Elizabeth Lee Stameshkin, Judd D. Lauter, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Kathleen R. Hartnett, Cooley LLP, San Francisco, CA, Mark Alan Lemley, Lex Lumina PLLC, New York, NY, for Defendant. Hixson, Thomas S., United States Magistrate Judge DISCOVERY ORDER Re: Dkt. No. 162 Meta moves for a protective order barring the deposition of its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg. ECF No. 162. The Court denies the motion. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including by forbidding or limiting a deposition. “When a party seeks the deposition of a high-level executive (a so-called ‘apex’ deposition), courts have observed that such discovery creates a tremendous potential for abuse or harassment.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 282 F.R.D. 259, 263 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (cleaned up). “The court therefore has discretion to limit discovery where the discovery sought ‘can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)). “In determining whether to allow an apex deposition, courts consider (1) whether the deponent has unique first-hand, non-repetitive knowledge of the facts at issue in the case and (2) whether the party seeking the deposition has exhausted other less intrusive discovery methods.” Finisar Corporation v. Nistica, Inc., 2015 WL 3988132, *1 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) (cleaned up). “With respect to the first consideration, the party seeking to take the deposition need not prove conclusively that the deponent certainly has unique non-repetitive information; rather, where a corporate officer may have any first-hand knowledge of relevant facts, the deposition should be allowed.” Id. *2 (cleaned up). With respect to the second consideration, formal exhaustion is not “viewed as an absolute requirement.” Hunt v. Continental Casualty Co., 2015 WL 1518067, *2 (N.D. Cal. April 3, 2015); see also In re Transpacific Passenger Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., 2014 WL 939287, *5 (N.D. Cal. March 6, 2014) (noting that exhaustion is a consideration, not a requirement). “[I]t is very unusual for a court to prohibit the taking of a deposition altogether absent extraordinary circumstances.” Powertech Technology, Inc., Tessera, Inc., 2013 WL 3884254 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2013) (cleaned up). In this case, Meta “has not met its burden of showing that extraordinary circumstances are present here which warrant an order precluding” Zuckerberg’s “deposition altogether.” Finisar, 2015 WL 3988132 at *2.[1] Plaintiffs have made an evidentiary showing that Zuckerberg is the chief decision maker and policy setter for Meta’s Generative AI branch and the development of the large language models at issue in this action. Plaintiffs do not generically argue, as Meta suggests, that because Zuckerberg is the CEO of the company that he is therefore in charge of everything. Rather, they have submitted evidence of his specific involvement in the company’s AI initiatives. Exs. D, E, G. They have submitted evidence indicating Zuckerberg was the principal decision maker concerning Meta’s decision to open source the language model. Ex. I. They have also submitted evidence of Zuckerberg’s direct supervision of Meta’s AI products. Exs. K, L, M, N. This showing justifies an apex deposition. Given this factual showing, the Court is not going to require Plaintiffs to exhaust other forms of discovery before they depose Zuckerberg. They’ve made a solid case that this deposition is worth taking. Accordingly, Meta’s motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] Meta’s motion is all-or-nothing. If Zuckerberg’s deposition is to proceed, Meta does not propose to limit it to less than the default rule of seven hours.