HL (A Minor) v Facebook Incorporated & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

This case involves a minor Plaintiff, represented by her father and next friend, who has brought claims against Company A and its subsidiary Company B, among others. The minor Plaintiff is a vulnerable child, subject to an interim care order and diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. The dispute centers on the use of Company A's social network, which operates an open registration system without independent age verification. The Plaintiff alleges that the minor was able to create multiple profiles despite being underage, and that personal and inappropriate information was published by the defendants, exposing her to harm.

The first two defendants sought an order to withdraw interrogatories served by the Plaintiff, while the Plaintiff applied for specific discovery and to compel adequate replies to a notice for further and better particulars. The matter was expedited to be heard directly before the Judge rather than a Master, by consent of the parties, to facilitate a timely hearing.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the interrogatories served by the Plaintiff on the first and second defendants were necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or matter or for saving costs, and thus should be allowed or withdrawn.
2. Whether specific discovery of documents relating to underage use of the social network should be ordered.
3. Whether the defendants are required to provide adequate replies to the Plaintiff's notice for further and better particulars.
4. The scope and limits of interrogatories in the context of the Plaintiff’s allegations concerning underage registration and safeguarding duties.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The defendants failed to implement sufficient measures to identify and prevent underage users from registering on their social network.
• Admissions in a public article attributed to a Company A policy director indicate awareness of significant underage use, which supports the Plaintiff’s case.
• The number of underage users is relevant to the nature and extent of the defendants' duty of care.
• The interrogatories will save costs by avoiding the need to prove the contents and authenticity of the article and are neither oppressive nor disproportionate.
• Interrogatories specify the defendant’s agent as the appropriate person to respond.

Defendant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff seeks to broaden a narrow individual claim into a wide-ranging class action, which is inappropriate.
• The numbers of underage users are irrelevant; the case focuses on whether a duty was owed and breached to this Plaintiff specifically.
• Some interrogatories seek opinions or cover matters beyond the jurisdiction or scope of the case.
• The defendants do not retain or have access to much of the information requested, and providing it would be unduly burdensome.
• The affidavit evidence supporting lack of information was properly admitted and relied upon.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by acknowledging the well-established principles governing interrogatories, emphasizing that interrogatories are only appropriate if necessary for disposing fairly of the cause or saving costs. The court reiterated that interrogatories should not be used for fishing expeditions, to obtain opinions, or where the information is obtainable from discoverable documents or witnesses to be called at trial.

Applying these principles, the court reviewed the affidavits and submissions. It identified numerous interrogatories as inappropriate due to irrelevance, disproportionate burden, or being matters of opinion, and ordered their withdrawal. However, the court allowed certain interrogatories relating to the defendants’ knowledge of underage use and the operation of reporting mechanisms, particularly those linked to admissions or public statements by a Company A policy director.

The court noted conflicting assertions regarding the existence and retention of data on underage users and reports thereof. Given the defendants’ sworn affidavits denying possession of certain data or describing the burden of retrieval, the court declined to order production or further interrogatories on these points at this stage, leaving these matters for trial scrutiny where credibility and inferences may be assessed.

On discovery, the court applied established principles requiring relevance, proportionality, and necessity for fair disposal. It ordered specific discovery of documents relating to active users in Northern Ireland and records of underage use where available, but refused overly broad or vague requests and those deemed disproportionate in cost or burden.

Regarding particulars, the court emphasized the need for relevance and proportionality, ordering replies to certain particulars addressing protection measures post-registration but rejecting others as inappropriate or better suited to discovery or interrogatories.

The court was careful to preserve the parties’ rights to challenge authority, credibility, and evidential weight of admissions or affidavits at trial, recognizing that the current determinations are procedural and do not prejudge substantive issues.

Holding and Implications

The court ordered the withdrawal of numerous interrogatories that were irrelevant, oppressive, or not necessary for the fair disposal of the case, while permitting a subset of interrogatories focused on the defendants’ knowledge of underage users and reporting mechanisms to proceed.

Specific discovery was ordered for documents relevant and proportionate to the issues, particularly those relating to underage use in Northern Ireland, with refusals for overly broad or vague requests.

The court directed that certain replies to particulars be provided and emphasized the procedural nature of these rulings, leaving substantive determinations and challenges to credibility for trial. No new legal precedents were established, and the decision primarily shapes the procedural conduct of the case and the scope of evidence to be disclosed and interrogated.