IN RE: SOCIAL MEDIA ADOLESCENT ADDICTION/PERSONAL INJURY PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
IN RE: SOCIAL MEDIA ADOLESCENT
ADDICTION/PERSONAL INJURY
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
This Filing Relates to:
All Personal Injury Actions
Case No. 22-md-03047-YGR 	(PHK)
ORDER RESOLVING DISPUTE RE
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY FROM TIKTOK RE:
THIRD PARTY EUGENIA COONEY
Re: Dkts. 2179, 2180-1, 2181
INTRODUCTION
This MDL has been referred to the undersigned for all discovery purposes. See Dkt. 426.
Plaintiffs and the TikTok Defendants (“TikTok”) filed a joint letter brief seeking resolution of a
dispute regarding additional discovery sought by Plaintiffs from TikTok regarding third party
Eugenia Cooney. [Dkt. 2179; Dkt. 2180-1 (unredacted confidential version); Dkt. 2181 (corrected
joint letter brief)]. Upon careful review of the briefing and submissions, the Court resolves the
disputes as to the additional discovery sought from TikTok as set forth herein. The Court finds the
dispute suitable for resolution without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).
LEGAL STANDARD
The Court has broad discretion and authority to manage discovery. U.S. Fidelity & Guar.
Co. v. Lee Inv. LLC, 641 F.3d 1126, 1136 n.10 (9th Cir. 2011) (“District courts have wide latitude
in controlling discovery, and their rulings will not be overturned in the absence of a clear abuse of
discretion.”); Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Int., 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court’s
discretion extends to crafting discovery orders that may expand, limit, or differ from the relief
Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 2326 Filed 10/20/25 Page 1 of 13

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
requested. See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998) (holding trial courts have “broad
discretion to tailor discovery narrowly and to dictate the sequence of discovery”). For example,
the Court may limit the scope of any discovery method if it determines that “the discovery sought
is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more
convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). A district court
may limit discovery “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or
undue burden or expense[.]” Id. at 26(c).
The relevant legal standards for discovery are well-known. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(b)(1) delineates the scope of discovery in federal civil actions and provides that
“[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's
claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Information need not be admissible to
be discoverable. Id. Relevancy for purposes of discovery is broadly defined to encompass “any
matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that
is or may be in the case.” In re Williams-Sonoma, Inc., 947 F.3d 535, 539 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 350-51 (1978)); see also In re Facebook, Inc.
Consumer Privacy User Profile Litig., No. 18-MD-2843 VC (JSC), 2021 WL 10282215, at *4
(N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2021) (“Courts generally recognize that relevancy for purposes of discovery is
broader than relevancy for purposes of trial.”) (alteration omitted).
While the scope of relevance is broad, discovery is not unlimited. ATS Prods., Inc. v.
Champion Fiberglass, Inc., 309 F.R.D. 527, 531 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“Relevancy, for the purposes
of discovery, is defined broadly, although it is not without ultimate and necessary boundaries.”).
Information, even if relevant, must be “proportional to the needs of the case” to fall within the
scope of permissible discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The 2015 amendments to Rule 26(b)(1)
emphasize the need to impose reasonable limits on discovery through increased reliance on the
commonsense concept of proportionality: “The objective is to guard against redundant or
disproportionate discovery by giving the court authority to reduce the amount of discovery that
may be directed to matters that are otherwise proper subjects of inquiry. The [proportionality
requirement] is intended to encourage judges to be more aggressive in identifying and
Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 2326 Filed 10/20/25 Page 2 of 13

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
discouraging discovery overuse.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee's note to 2015
amendment. In evaluating the proportionality of a discovery request, the Court considers “the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative
access to the information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
The party seeking discovery bears the burden of establishing that its request satisfies the
relevancy requirements under Rule 26(b)(1). La. Pac. Corp. v. Money Mkt. 1 Inst. Inv. Dealer,
285 F.R.D. 481, 485 (N.D. Cal. 2012). The resisting party, in turn, has the burden to show that the
discovery should not be allowed. Id. The resisting party must specifically explain the reasons
why the request at issue is objectionable and may not rely on boilerplate, conclusory, or
speculative arguments. Id.; see also Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.
1975) (“Under the liberal discovery principles of the Federal Rules defendants were required to
carry a heavy burden of showing why discovery was denied.”).
With regard to proportionality, “[t]he parties and the court have a collective responsibility
to consider the proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s note to 2015 amendment. “A party claiming undue
burden or expense ordinarily has far better information — perhaps the only information — with
respect to that part of the determination. A party claiming that a request is important to resolve the
issues should be able to explain the ways in which the underlying information bears on the issues
as that party understands them. The court’s responsibility, using all the information provided by
the parties, is to consider these and all the other factors in reaching a case-specific determination
of the appropriate scope of discovery.” Id.
As part of its inherent discretion and authority, the Court has broad discretion in
determining relevancy for discovery purposes. Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d
625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)). Similarly,
a district court’s determination as to proportionality of discovery is within the district court’s
discretion. See Jones v. Riot Hospitality Grp. LLC, 95 F.4th 730, 737-38 (9th Cir. 2024) (finding
Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 2326 Filed 10/20/25 Page 3 of 13

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
district court did not abuse discretion on proportionality ruling). Ultimately, “the timing,
sequencing and proportionality of discovery is left to the discretion of the Court.” Toro v. Centene
Corp., No. 19-cv-05163 LHK (NC), 2020 WL 6108643, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2020).
Under Rule 26, a party “who has responded to an interrogatory, request for production, or
request for admission—must supplement or correct its disclosure or response: (A) in a timely
manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or
incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to
the other parties during the discovery process or in writing[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A).
Further, a party “must supplement or correct its disclosure or response . . . as ordered by the
court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(B). The 1993 amendment to Rule 26(e) “clarifies that the
obligation to supplement responses to formal discovery requests applies to interrogatories,
requests for production, and requests for admissions, but not ordinarily to deposition testimony.”
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s note to 1993 amendment. Further, “[t]he obligation
to supplement disclosures and discovery responses applies whenever a party learns that its prior
disclosures or responses are in some material respect incomplete or incorrect. There is, however,
no obligation to provide supplemental or corrective information that has been otherwise made
known to the parties in writing or during the discovery process, as when a witness not previously
disclosed is identified during the taking of a deposition[.]” Id.
“[I]t is axiomatic that the duty to supplement is triggered only if the materials requested
would have been responsive to a discovery request in the first instance.” L.A. Terminals, Inc. v.
United Nat’l Ins. Co., 340 F.R.D. 390, 396 (C.D. Cal. 2022). In L.A. Terminals, the court denied a
motion to compel after the close of fact discovery because the documents sought were not called
for by the requests for production, when read in light of the “reasonable particularity” standard.
Id. at 397. By contrast, in a situation where the target of the discovery agreed during the fact
discovery period to produce the scope of documents sought, but changed position after the close of
the fact discovery period, that “bait and switch” justified an order to compel production and
supplementation after the close of the fact discovery period. Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., No.
18-cv-01942-RS (TSH), 2019 WL 5565942, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2019). Further, a district
Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 2326 Filed 10/20/25 Page 4 of 13

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
court has the discretion to consider or reject any discovery motions filed after the close of the fact
discovery period, as well as the discretion to allow additional related discovery after the close of
fact discovery if the interests of justice so require. Baird v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-
10621-FLA (KSx), 2023 WL 11113852, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2023). Ultimately, a district
court has discretion to deny further discovery after the close of the fact discovery period, such as
when the request for additional discovery is based on speculation or when the party seeking the
belated discovery was not diligent in seeking the discovery. O’Hagan v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.,
628 F. App’x 501, 502 (9th Cir. 2015); Seaton v. Shatzer, 230 F.3d 1367, 2000 WL 1175579, at
*1 (9th Cir. 2000) (mem.).
As part of its inherent discretion and authority, a district court also has discretion in
resolving disputes over whether to grant motions to compel compliance with or to quash Rule 45
subpoenas. See Garrett v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 818 F.2d 1515, 1519 (9th Cir. 1987). Further,
Rule 45 expressly states that “[a] party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena
must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the
subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty[.]” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iv) (“On timely motion, the court for the
district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that . . . (iii) requires
disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv)
subjects a person to undue burden.”) (emphasis added). “Discovery restrictions may be even
broader where the target is a non-party.” Shieh v. Ebershoff, 15 F.3d 1089, 1993 WL 540289, at
*1 (9th Cir. 1993) (mem.). “While discovery is a valuable right and should not be unnecessarily
restricted, the ‘necessary’ restriction may be broader when a nonparty is the target of discovery.
As one district court has noted, ‘(t)here appear to be quite strong considerations indicating that
discovery would be more limited to protect third parties from harassment, inconvenience, or
disclosure of confidential documents.’” Dart Indus. Co. v. Westwood Chem. Co., 649 F.2d 646,
649 (9th Cir. 1980).
DISCUSSION
The Parties’ fundamental dispute concerns: (1) whether TikTok should be required to
Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 2326 Filed 10/20/25 Page 5 of 13

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
produce additional documents relating to a nonparty, Eugenia Cooney (“Cooney”); (2) whether
Plaintiffs should be granted leave to take an additional deposition of a specified TikTok witness
previously deposed in February 2025 (whose name the Parties have redacted for confidentiality
and who, therefore, the Court will refer to in this public Order as “the TikTok witness”); and (3)
whether Plaintiffs should be granted leave to take the deposition of Cooney.
As the Parties’ briefing and the public record discloses, Cooney is a TikTok influencer or
creator “who routinely posts on TikTok and has 2.8 million followers.” [Dkt. 2181 at 4]. Cooney
is “a TikTok creator suffering from anorexia” and, according to Plaintiffs, her photographs and
postings indicate that she “is suffering from an obvious serious eating disorder.” Id. During the
fact discovery period, TikTok produced over 300 documents referencing Cooney, its relationship
with her, and user complaints about her. Id. TikTok’s relationship with Cooney was a topic
during the deposition of the TikTok witness taken in February 2025. Id.
I. 	REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM TIKTOK RE: COONEY
After the close of fact discovery, Cooney apparently fell ill during a livestream broadcast
on TikTok on May 23, 2025. Id. Cooney also apparently visited TikTok’s offices in New York
around this same date. Id. at 4-5. After learning of these events, Plaintiffs requested TikTok to
produce supplemental documents concerning Cooney. The Parties did not reach agreement on this
issue, resulting in the instant letter briefing.
In the instant brief, Plaintiffs seek an order requiring TikTok to produce two broadly
phrased categories of documents concerning Cooney, comprising multiple sub-parts:
Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 2326 Filed 10/20/25 Page 6 of 13

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Id. at 5.
Plaintiffs argue that these supplemental productions are required under Rule 26(e) because
these requested documents are responsive to Documents Request Nos. 169, 175, 176, 178, 179,
185, 187, and 189. Id. at 6; see also Dkt. 2180-2 (copies of document requests at issue). Plaintiffs
argue that these new events involving Cooney and TikTok are relevant to TikTok’s “knowledge of
the mental health harms caused by its platforms.” [Dkt. 2181 at 5].
TikTok argues that none of these document requests call for the documents now sought.
Id. at 8. TikTok further argues that Plaintiffs and TikTok negotiated agreements to narrow the
scope of these agreements last year, which included limiting production to certain agreed-upon
custodians and using agreed-upon search terms. Id.
Further, TikTok argues that Plaintiffs are explicitly asking for an order requiring TikTok to
reproduce documents that TikTok already produced, specifically relating to certain restrictions and
changes made to Cooney’s account and its accessibility. Id. at 7-8.
TikTok argues that Plaintiffs have known of Cooney since at least the February 2025
deposition of the TikTok witness discussed above. Id. TikTok argues that there were past creator
events at TikTok’s offices in 2024, similar to the event in May 2025 which Cooney attended, and
Plaintiffs never sought documents concerning Cooney’s participation in those earlier events. Id.
Further, TikTok points out that Plaintiffs served completely different sets of documents requests
(Nos. 249-252) which directly sought documents concerning creators on the TikTok Platform, and
Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 2326 Filed 10/20/25 Page 7 of 13

8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
none of those requests sought documents relating to Cooney. Id.; see also Dkt. 2180-3 (copies of
Document Request nos. 249-252). TikTok thus argues that the requests now are untimely and not
justified by the claim that Plaintiffs only recently learned of the events which gave rise to these
requests.
As noted, there are two events which occurred after the close of fact discovery which
triggered this dispute: Cooney’s May 2025 livestream during which she apparently fell ill; and
Cooney’s visit to TikTok’s offices in May 2025 for a creator event. While these two events
themselves may be within the scope of relevance for purposes of discovery, Plaintiffs have not
demonstrated how discovery beyond these two events requires supplementing, nor have Plaintiffs
shown how these two events justify the broad scope of document requests now proposed (which,
as quoted above, go far beyond these two events).
Further, even if there was some scope of relevance beyond these two events for purposes
of discovery, Plaintiffs have not shown how the two broad categories of documents sought, each
with at least six sub-parts, are proportional to the needs of the case. The multiple categories of
documents now sought go far beyond these two events involving Cooney. It is clear Plaintiffs are
seeking to reopen broad areas of discovery into TikTok’s handling of not just these two events, but
anything having to do with Cooney, and more generally, comprehensive inquiries into TikTok’s
internal and external communications, analyses, and documents regarding Cooney or complaints
about Cooney.
More tellingly, the documents requested now are not limited as to time period, which
facially demonstrates that: (1) Plaintiffs had every opportunity to seek most of these documents
before the close of fact discovery and chose not to; and (2) the requests for documents now are not
adequately linked to the events in May 2025 which initiated this dispute (except for the sole sub-
category which specifically seeks documents relating to Cooney’s visit to TikTok’s offices in May
2025—but even that request seeks documents concerning her visits to any other TikTok office
without limitation as to time period). After taking the February 2025 deposition of the TikTok
witness, Plaintiffs could have sought every category of document now sought (except the one
request specifically directed to Cooney’s visit to TikTok’s offices in May 2025). These factors
Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 2326 Filed 10/20/25 Page 8 of 13

9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
demonstrate that the requests for documents now are not proportional to the needs of the case.
Further, the fact that Plaintiffs served document requests which are specifically directed to
creators, yet omitted Cooney, is additional support for the conclusion that the requests asserted
now are not proportional to the needs of the case. Plaintiffs knew about Cooney during the fact
discovery period, and could have decided to include her in the creator-directed document requests.
If documents about Cooney were deemed by Plaintiffs not to be important enough to pursue in
response to requests regarding creators during fact discovery, the events in May 2025 do not
materially alter the conclusion that such broadly sought documents about Cooney are proportional
now, because there is no explanation as to how those events suddenly made those documents that
much more important to the needs of the case now. If the documents were not important enough
to pursue during fact discovery, they are not important enough to require their wholesale
production now (particularly in light of the lack of an adequate showing by Plaintiffs). The mere
fact that Plaintiffs would like to have these documents now because of the recency of the events
surrounding Cooney is simply not sufficient.
Plaintiffs do not respond to TikTok’s assertion that Plaintiffs are seeking reproduction of
documents which TikTok has already produced concerning Cooney (regarding restrictions on her
account). This factor also demonstrates that the requests, as presented now, are not proportional to
the needs of the case, because they are apparently duplicative and seek to pose unnecessary and
undue costs and burdens on TikTok.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s requests for documents now, as presented, are
not relevant (to the extent they seek reproduction of documents already produced because, by
definition, duplicative documents do not themselves add any relevant information that is not
already previously produced) and are not within the proper scope of proportionality for discovery.
Plaintiffs have shown that, at best, there may exist a modest scope of relevance and proportionality
for documents relating to the two events which gave rise to this dispute, viz., Cooney’s May 2025
livestream and her May 2025 visit to TikTok’s offices.
However, as discussed above, there is only a duty to supplement a discovery response
under Rule 26(e) if the request called for the discovery now sought. Accordingly, even if the two
Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 2326 Filed 10/20/25 Page 9 of 13

10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
events that occurred in May 2025 involving Cooney may be within some scope of relevance and
proportionality, the scope of document requests that require supplementation is limited to those
which would fairly call for the production of documents concerning those two May 2025 events.
The Court has reviewed the document requests which Plaintiffs argue now call for the
supplemental production of documents. The only document request which even addresses
meetings is Document Request No. 176 which seeks “[a]ny meeting agendas, presentation
materials, handouts, background materials, or other Documents concerning any actual or potential
adverse impact of Your Platform . . . on the Safety of Children, Teens, and Youth users that were
discussed, tested, proposed, or implemented by any of Your Unit(s) responsible in whole or part
for the Safety of Your users.” [Dkt. 2180-2 at 23]. This document request does not seek all
documents concerning any meeting, of course. Based on the Parties’ submissions, it is not known
but at least possible, that Cooney’s visit to TikTok’s offices in May 2025 could have included any
meeting agendas or other documents “concerning any actual or potential adverse impact” that
TikTok might have on users safety, and it appears equally unknown whether any such materials
were “discussed, tested, proposed, or implemented” by persons working on user safety issues for
TikTok.
With regard to Cooney’s May 2025 livestream, none of the document requests listed by
TikTok call for anything directed to a creator’s livestream. Document Request No. 175 seeks
“[a]ll documents concerning any actual or proposed analyses” by TikTok “concerning the topics
of . . . problematic use, or Safety of Youth users on Your Platform.” Id. Based on the
submissions of the Parties, it is unknown but at least conceivable that TikTok may have
documents concerning analyses of whether Cooney’s livestream in May 2025 on TikTok was
problematic or impacted youth users’ safety.
Document Request No. 178 seeks “[a]ll Communications by or with” TikTok “concerning
investigations, lawsuits, media inquiries, or government inquiries related to the Safety of Children,
Teens, and Youth who use Your Platform.” Id. Further, Document Request No. 185 seeks
documents “reflecting Communications with Your employees, contractors, or vendors regarding
when, whether, and how they should discuss the topic of whether use of” TikTok is “associated
Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 2326 Filed 10/20/25 Page 10 of 13

11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
with adverse effects on user Safety, including . . . problematic use.” Id. at 24-25. The Parties’
briefing has cited to media coverage of Cooney’s falling ill during her May 2025 livestream on
TikTok. [Dkt. 2181 at 4 n.1]. There is thus a basis to conclude that TikTok received media
inquiries (if not other investigations or other government inquiries) related to user safety based on
or stemming from Cooney’s May 2025 livestream event. Similarly, there is a basis to conclude
that TikTok sent communications to employees and contractors/vendors (such as a public relations
firm) on when, whether, or how to discuss whether Cooney’s May 2025 livestream event was
problematic and whether that use was associated with any adverse effects on user safety.
Finally, Document Request No. 187 seeks all documents received by TikTok “regarding
any adverse effect on the Safety of a Child, Teen, or Youth user” of TikTok and TikTok’s
response. [Dkt. 2180-2 at 25]. Based on the submissions of the Parties, it is unknown but at least
conceivable that TikTok may have received user complaints in response to Cooney’s TikTok
livestream in May 2025 with regard to an adverse effect on youth users’ safety.
In light of the above analysis of the proper scope of relevance and proportionality, and
further in light of the analysis of which (if any) of the identified document requests seek
documents relating to the two events in May 2025 involving Cooney, the Court concludes as
follows:
TikTok is ORDERED to perform a reasonable search for, and make inquiry for
documents from, a reasonable number of custodians who either were directly involved in
Cooney’s visit to TikTok’s New York offices in May 2025 or were directly involved in any user
safety, media inquiry, or user complaint issues concerning Cooney’s May 2025 TikTok livestream
event. The Court ORDERS TikTok to include among those custodians the TikTok witness who
was deposed in February 2025.
By no later than November 10, 2025, TikTok SHALL serve supplemental responses to
Document Requests Nos. 175, 176, 178, 185, and 187, and in such responses shall indicate
whether, after a good faith, reasonable inquiry of those custodians called for by this Order, any
non-privileged responsive documents exist which (for Document Request No. 176) relate to
Cooney’s May 2025 visit to TikTok’s New York offices or which (for Document Request Nos.
Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 2326 Filed 10/20/25 Page 11 of 13

12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
175, 178, 185, and 187) relate to Cooney’s May 2025 TikTok livestream event (and its immediate
aftermath). When making inquiry of custodians and searching for documents in compliance with
this Order, TikTok shall specifically include (but not be limited to) inquiry about and searching for
the types of documents discussed by the Court above which may conceivably, possibly, or
potentially exist.
If TikTok’s responses indicate that responsive, non-privileged documents exist for any of
the listed document requests, TikTok SHALL produce such documents on a rolling basis, starting
in the first week after the service of the supplemental responses to the document requests, and
continuing with at least weekly interim productions, until completed. TikTok SHALL complete
production of any such responsive, non-privileged documents by no later than December 4, 2025.
The Parties are ORDERED to coordinate and collaborate on filing a two-page weekly
joint status report on the status of the supplemental response to these listed document requests and
the status of any document productions starting on November 17, 2025, and continuing on a
weekly basis until any supplemental document production is completed (or otherwise directed by
the Court).
II. 	DEPOSITIONS OF TIKTOK AND COONEY
In addition to the documents sought, Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an order
granting Plaintiffs leave to take a further deposition of a specific TikTok witness and a deposition
of Cooney herself. [Dkt. 2181 at 4, 6]. TikTok opposes this request because it is untimely, and
because there was no meet and confer on this issue. Id. at 9.
As noted above, Plaintiffs’ motion is based on the argument that Rule 26(e) requires
supplementing the discovery responses previously served by TikTok. But, as discussed above, the
amendments to Rule 26(e) “clarif[y] that the obligation to supplement responses to formal
discovery requests applies to interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admissions,
but not ordinarily to deposition testimony.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 advisory committee’s note to
1993 amendment. There is thus no legal basis to request a “supplementing” deposition under Rule
26(e).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to order a further deposition of TikTok
Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 2326 Filed 10/20/25 Page 12 of 13

13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
or a deposition of Cooney. With regard to Cooney, the Court notes that she is a third party and
has not appeared in this action. Indeed, no leave to serve a subpoena was requested, and she may
be wholly unaware that her deposition was even sought by Plaintiffs. As noted above, the Court is
particularly aware of its obligation to enforce the duty imposed on a party or attorney issuing a
subpoena to “take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person
subject to the subpoena.” Sacks Holdings, Inc. v. Vaidya, No. 24-mc-80197-PHK, 2024 WL
4730424, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2024) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1)). Cooney’s interests as
a third-party potential target of discovery in this case have been addressed at least in part by
TikTok’s opposition, but nothing in this Order is intended to or makes any findings as to any
objections Cooney herself may have as a third party.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for all the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART
Plaintiffs’ motion to compel TikTok to serve supplemental responses to specific document
requests and produce non-privileged, responsive documents, if any exist, as discussed above.
Further, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for leave to take a further deposition of the TikTok
witness and DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for leave to take Cooney’s deposition.
Counsel for the TikTok Defendants and Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file joint status
reports on the schedule as detailed above.
This RESOLVES Dkts. 2179.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: October 20, 2025
______________________________________
PETER H. KANG
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 2326 Filed 10/20/25 Page 13 of 13