A California federal judge overseeing discovery in litigation against social media giants over their impact on youth mental health rejected Meta's bid Monday to block a "disgruntled" former researcher from sharing information it deems attorney-client privileged in an upcoming deposition.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang issued an oral ruling from the bench during a hearing in San Francisco over Meta Platforms Inc.'s request for a protective order in connection with the upcoming deposition of former meta researcher Jason Sattizahn, who testified in September before a U.S. Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing titled "Hidden Harms: Examining Whistleblower Allegations that Meta Buried Child Safety Research."

Meta lawyer Timothy Hester of Covington & Burling LLP told the court it needed the order to protect its attorney-client privilege. He told the court Meta envisioned a situation in which Sattizahn ignores an instruction not to disclose a privileged communication.

"We have no assurance that Dr. Sattizahn will respect that instruction," Hester told the court. "He's a disgruntled former employee. He's already disclosed privileged communications in testimony to Congress."

Further, Sattizahn's lawyer told Meta that Sattizahn intends to testify consistent with what he told Congress, Hester said.

Meta's lawyer said he also expects Sattizahn to "volunteer" privileged legal advice during the deposition.

"These are foreseeable scenarios that we submit warrant a protective order," Hester told the court.

After all, Sattizahn already disclosed to Congress information about what Meta's counsel told him when he was an employee, Hester said.

Those disclosures related to "advice he received about research he was conducting" for the company, the Meta lawyer told the court.

Meta asked the court for an order requiring Sattizahn to follow instructions from Meta's counsel when he's asked not to answer questions deemed protected by attorney-client privilege and not volunteer testimony about the legal advice he received while he was a Meta employee. The protective order should also say that plaintiffs can't ask about the privileged communications disclosed to Congress or other privileged advice Sattizahn received as a Meta employee.

A lawyer for personal injury plaintiffs and school district plaintiffs in the litigation, Lexi Hazam of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, told Judge Kang that a presumptive court order is not appropriate.

"Mr. Sattizahn cannot respect and does not have to respect a privilege that doesn't apply or exist," Hazam said. "Meta presumes that it does."

Hazam told Judge Kang that Meta is likely seeking the order because a District of Columbia Superior Court judge recently held that certain documents are not shielded by attorney-client privilege due to the so-called crime-fraud exception.

If Sattizahn testifies that Meta's legal department advised that the company's research on kid safety or mental health on its platform "should be altered, suppressed or erased due to a risk of liability, that evidence of spoliation overcomes any privilege," Hazam told the court.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs also told Judge Kang that a New Mexico court in the MDL has already ordered that a transcript of Sattizahn's deposition remain sealed until that court rules on any objections based on privilege brought by Meta after the deposition.

This avoids the need for an overly broad order from Judge Kang that could suppress "highly relevant testimony, which goes to the core of plaintiff's case," Hazam said.

Sattizahn's lawyer, Michael Ward of Baker Botts LLP, told Judge Kang that his client would respect "appropriate" assertions of attorney-client privilege. He also said that Sattizahn plans to testify about his communications with Meta's in-house counsel when he was a researcher for the company.

"He's been directed by the New Mexico court to do so," Ward said.

"He is going to testify that he was directed to change research protocols by lawyers to avoid collecting evidence of harms," Ward said. "The company did not want to possess any evidence that these harms were occurring."

Meta's lawyer told Judge Kang that the New Mexico procedure didn't do enough to prevent the disclosure of confidential communications to a wide variety of jurisdictions.

The judge said later in the hearing that he wouldn't grant the protective order Meta sought because of the New Mexico court order governing the deposition.

"I'm hesitant to create a separate procedure when the New Mexico has already set one up," Judge Kang said, later adding, "I defer to what the New Mexico judge has done."

The MDL involves personal injury plaintiffs, schools and attorneys general who claim that Meta Platforms Inc., YouTube LLC and other social media giants design their multibillion-dollar revenue-generating social media platforms to be addictive, to the detriment of minors' health and livelihoods.

In a filing to the court last month, the school districts told the court that Meta clamped down on internal research showing that the mental health of young users suffered from compulsive use of its social media platforms, even as staff likened themselves to drug pushers.

The personal injury plaintiffs and school district plaintiffs were represented by Lexi J. Hazam of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Previn Warren of Motley Rice LLC.

Meta is represented by Timothy C. Hester, Ashley M. Simonsen and Paul W. Schmidt of Covington & Burling LLP and James P. Rouhandeh of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.

Jason Sattizahn is represented by Michael W. Ward of Baker Botts LLP.

The MDL is In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, case number 4:22-md-03047, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.