Netchoice V Murrill

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

On July 30, 2025, NetChoice's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition was held in the case challenging Louisiana Senate Bill 162, the Secure Online Child Interaction and Age Limitation Act. Defendants filed a Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 35) challenging the sufficiency of NetChoice's deposition testimony, arguing that NetChoice's designated representative, Mr. Bartlett Cleland, was inadequately prepared and failed to provide testimony on various topics (Topics 2-19) regarding NetChoice's member companies. NetChoice argued that it relies on publicly available information about its members and does not have access to internal proprietary information. The Court DENIED the Motion to Compel, finding that NetChoice did not fail to make an appearance at the deposition and that the information sought is protected by First Amendment associational rights.

Issues

  • Whether the court should grant the Defendants' Motion to Compel to require additional Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony from NetChoice regarding its members, and whether NetChoice's First Amendment privilege objections were properly asserted
  • Whether NetChoice effectively appeared at its Rule 30(b)(6) deposition regarding topics 2-19, given its lack of knowledge about member companies' proprietary information including revenue from minor users and algorithms, and whether the court should compel additional testimony
  • Whether NetChoice's objections to Topics 3(a),(c), (e)-(i) based on First Amendment right of association privilege were valid and whether the court should compel testimony on membership fees, tiers, and member positions in the litigation

Holdings

The Court denied Defendants' Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 35) regarding the sufficiency of NetChoice's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony. The Court found NetChoice's First Amendment privilege objections valid for Topics 3(a),(c), (e)-(i) based on the right of association, noting that disclosure would potentially implicate members' associational rights with chilling effects. The Court also found no basis to compel further deposition testimony on Topics 7, 8, 18, and 19 because NetChoice lacks knowledge of its members' proprietary information. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Legal Principles

  • The court held that the party filing a motion to compel bears the burden of demonstrating the relevancy of the information sought. Defendants failed to show compelling need for the minimally relevant information sought pursuant to Topics 3(a),(c),(e)-(i), given the First Amendment associational privilege protection.
  • The court found NetChoice properly asserted First Amendment associational privilege against discovery of membership information, fees, tiers, and litigation positions. The court ruled that disclosure would chill associational rights and that Defendants failed to demonstrate compelling need for the information, denying the Motion to Compel on these grounds.

Precedent Name

  • In re Terra Int'l, Inc.
  • United States v. Garrett
  • Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n Int'l AFL-CIO
  • Resolution Trust Corp. v. S. Union Co.
  • Americans for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta
  • NAACP v. Alabama ex rel Patterson
  • NetChoice v. Bonta

Cited Statute

  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) - Organization Depositions
  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1)
  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(d) - Deposition Sanctions
  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(c)(2) - Instructing Deponent
  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(C)
  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A) - Privilege Log Requirements
  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) - Protective Orders

Judge Name

Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr.

Passage Text

  • Accordingly, the Court finds no basis for concluding that NetChoice effectively failed to make an appearance at its Rule 30(b)(6) deposition based upon NetChoice's lack of knowledge of its members information response to Topic Nos. 7, 8, 18, and 19.
  • Here, the Court finds that NetChoice has made a prima facie showing that the information sought by Topic Nos. 3(a),(c), (e)-(i) – in addition to having minimal relevance to the claims and defenses in this litigation – is protected by the First Amendment right of association.
  • IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 35) is DENIED. The parties shall bear their own costs.