RICHARD KADREY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. META PLATFORMS, INC., et al., Defendants Case No. 23-cv-03417-VC United States District Court, N.D. California Filed February 04, 2025 Hixson, Thomas S., United States District Judge ORDER ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE ORDER OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Re: Dkt. No. 397 The motion for relief is denied as to the plaintiffs’ request to reopen depositions. The motion is granted as to the plaintiffs’ request for an in camera review. The bar for an in camera review is relatively low: The plaintiffs only need to present “a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person … that in camera review of the materials may reveal evidence to establish the claim that the crime-fraud exception applies.” United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 572 (1989); see also United States v. Christensen, 828 F.3d 763, 800 (9th Cir. 2015). The plaintiffs also suggest that the exception applies broadly to conduct that is unlawful but not criminal or fraudulent. See Lewis v. Delta Airlines, Inc., No. 14-cv-1683, 2015 WL 9460124, at *1–4 (D. Nev. Dec. 23, 2015). But even taking a narrower view—that the exception applies only to criminal or fraudulent conduct—in camera review is appropriate here. At a minimum, the plaintiffs have shown that the crime-fraud exception could apply to Meta’s alleged distribution (by seeding) of copyrighted material, and that in camera review might reveal evidence to establish that it does. Review might also reveal evidence that relates to willfulness more generally. See 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1). Meta is ordered to submit the documents identified in Exhibit J to the Pritt declaration (as well as those in Appendix A to the plaintiffs’ motion and in Exhibit A to the parties’ joint letter brief on the crime-fraud exception submitted to Judge Hixson) for in camera review. Meta is ordered to submit these documents to the Court by Friday, February 7 at 5 p.m. Meta should submit two hard copies of each document, as well as a flash drive containing them all. The documents should identify (such as by highlighting) the portions over which Meta is asserting the privilege. IT IS SO ORDERED.