C.D. v. Facebook, Inc. (Meta Platforms Inc.)

C.D. v. Facebook, Inc. (Meta Platforms Inc.)

Most impugned affidavit paragraphs and appended exhibits were struck because they relied on unauthenticated third‑party reproductions and multi‑layered hearsay and therefore could not furnish the admissible "some basis in fact" required for certification; limited leave granted to authenticate a known public video of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2024 BCSC 2081
Parties
Plaintiffs: C.D. and Amber Rutherford, Infant, by her Litigation Guardian, Winter Sprowl; Defendants: Facebook, Inc. (Meta Platforms Inc.), Facebook Canada Ltd., Instagram Inc., Instagram, LLC
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Proposed Class Proceeding (products Liability Alleged) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Evidence in Advance of Certification Motion (evidentiary Ruling)
Outcome
Application to strike largely granted; specified affidavit paragraphs and exhibits struck for inadmissibility; authentication opportunity for Zuckerberg testimony link reserved
Legal Topics
Certification, Hearsay, Authentication of Documents, Expert Opinion Admissibility, Whistleblower Materials, Video Evidence Authentication
Source Language
english
Class Actions Evidence Civil Procedure Product Liability Internet/technology Law Certification Hearsay Authentication of Documents +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.D. and Amber Rutherford, Infant, by her Litigation Guardian, Winter Sprowl

Plaintiffs

Facebook, Inc. (Meta Platforms Inc.), Facebook Canada Ltd., Instagram Inc., Instagram, LLC

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Proposed Class Proceeding (products Liability Alleged) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Evidence in Advance of Certification Motion (evidentiary Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specified affidavit paragraphs and exhibits are admissible at certification
  2. 2 Whether hearsay and unauthenticated third party documents can supply the required "some basis in fact" for certification
  3. 3 Admissibility of expert/opinion material (Surgeon General reports) and edited transcripts/videos

Ratio Decidendi

Most impugned affidavit paragraphs and appended exhibits were struck because they relied on unauthenticated third‑party reproductions and multi‑layered hearsay and therefore could not furnish the admissible "some basis in fact" required for certification; limited leave granted to authenticate a known public video of Zuckerberg's testimony prior to certification.

Court Disposition

Application to strike largely granted; specified affidavit paragraphs and exhibits struck for inadmissibility; authentication opportunity for Zuckerberg testimony link reserved

Orders

  • Strike paragraphs 3‑5 and Exhibits B‑D (Statista reports) from Lee Affidavit
  • Strike paragraphs 9‑10 and Exhibits N‑U (WSJ documents) from Lee Affidavit