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
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET
AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
META PLATFORMS INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.
Case No. 4:23-cv-05448-YGR
PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 8 RE: MOTIONS RE
OPENINGS AND TO EXCLUDE, TRIAL
PROTOCOLS, AND FURTHER BRIEFINGS
Having considered the filings to date1 and argument heard at the hearing held on August
13, 2026 and for good cause shown, the Court issues the following orders for notice and to
facilitate an orderly trial:
1. Pretrial Motions: For reasons discussed on the record at the August 13, 2026
hearing, the plaintiffs’ motion to use exhibits in their opening statement (Dkt. No. 505) is
GRANTED.
2. The Court heard argument on defendant’s motion for spoliation sanctions (Dkt. No.
511). For reasons discussed further on the record, Meta’s request to exclude Bejar from testifying
at trial is DENIED. With respect to whether the Court will need to hold an evidentiary hearing to
determine whether a spoliation instruction is warranted, the Court has reviewed and considered the
four days of witness testimony that Bejar provided in the ongoing Tennessee trial and defendant’s
proffered legal authorities. The Court declines to conduct a hearing and the witness may testify in
the normal course.
1 As a reminder, all briefing related to this trial action shall reference docket numbers in
this docket, with the MDL docket number placed in parentheses.
Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 3392 Filed 08/16/26 Page 1 of 3

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
First, over the course of four days of trial, very little concerned any allegations of
recruitment. Rather, the issues focused on Bejar’s actual work at Meta; none of which is implicated
by the current allegations. Second, Meta does not have, in reality, a legal mechanism to enforce its
claim that Bejar was under a continuing obligation to preserve Signal communications. Meta did
not itself require an ongoing production; nor did it issue a follow up subpoena. Third, Meta has no
standing to enforce a subpoena issued by an attorney general. The scope and timing of subpoenas
are routinely negotiated by attorneys. Here, none of the negotiated arrangements are before the
Court. Nor is the Court inclined to assume what occurred in those negotiations for the benefit of a
non-involved party who has made no showing of standing or reliance, much less reliance actually
communicated to Bejar. Ultimately, it is obvious that this motion falls into the category of a “Hail
Mary” attempt to eliminate a strong witness for the plaintiffs. The attempt fails, and although Meta
can cross-examine Bejar, it cannot imply that a legal obligation to preserve those texts existed.
3. Trial Protocols:
For reasons discussed more fully on the record, the parties shall file a revised protocol that
includes a bifurcated approach for addressing early exchange of witness binders, a five (5) page
maximum limit on briefing for trial motions, and advance notification to the Court of the
designation of adverse witnesses.
Further, having now reviewed the trial transcripts from the Tennessee trial, the parties are
reminded that (i) this Court does not allow sidebars, except in rare circumstances; (ii) a lawyer
must lay foundation for impeachment with prior testimony before such prior testimony can be read
in open court, and only after permission is provided. This trial is self-contained. Questions should
not make cross-reference to other trials unless and until impeachment is proper. The parties must
figure out in advance which issues may arise so that they can be addressed prior to the 8:30 a.m.
start with the jury. Given that this is not the first trial on similar issues, the parties should be able to
anticipate any concerns.
4. Jury Instructions: The parties shall file by 12:00 P.M. on August 16, 2026 their
proposed jury instructions on Section 230.
5. Privilege Dispute: For reasons discussed more fully on the record at the pretrial
Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 3392 Filed 08/16/26 Page 2 of 3

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
conference, the parties are ORDERED to submit to the Court the deposition transcript and associated
exhibits subject to the parties’ privilege disputes with highlighting to identify (a) the material
defendant claims is privileged and (b) the material plaintiffs plan to raise at trial. The parties are
ORDERED to submit simultaneous briefing on the matter by no later than 12:00 P.M. on August 17,
2026. Each brief shall be no longer than ten (10) pages.
This Order terminates the following Dkt. Nos. in Case No. 23-cv-5448: 505 & 511; and
the following in Case No. 22-md-3047: 3324 & 3347.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 16, 2026
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Case 4:22-md-03047-YGR Document 3392 Filed 08/16/26 Page 3 of 3