Judge to Allow Limited Discovery in Cases That Seek to Defeat Mont. TikTok Ban
U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy for Montana in Missoula signed an order Wednesday (docket 9:23-cv-00056) permitting Missouri Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R) and the plaintiffs in the consolidated cases seeking to defeat SB-419, Montana’s statewide TikTok ban, to conduct limited…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
discovery (see 2402060044). A trial schedule will be set by separate order, it said. The plaintiffs contend that the case “raises predominantly legal questions,” and argue that although further discovery isn’t necessary, if more discovery is warranted, it must be limited and targeted, said the order. The plaintiffs specifically limit their discovery to inquiries about the evidence lawmakers considered in passing SB-419 and whether the state’s consumer protection interest is “pretextual,” it said. The state “has established that some additional discovery is warranted, so limited discovery will be allowed,” said the order. But the judge disallowed the state’s request for discovery related to past agreements between ByteDance and TikTok and ByteDance and its other subsidiaries because those “are outside the scope of this litigation,” said the order. He also disallowed discovery into TikTok’s historical data-related processes and procedures, it said. “Nothing in SB-419 aims to regulate other ByteDance subsidiaries or historical user data collected by TikTok,” said the order: “Historical data cannot justify a forward-looking restraint on speech.” The judge’s Nov. 30 opinion and order granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction blocking SB-419 from taking effect Jan. 1, pending a final determination on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims that the statute violates the First Amendment and the Constitution’s supremacy and commerce clauses (see 2312010003). The injunction remains under appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court (see 2401030007).