Judge blocks Meta from introducing ‘exaggerated’ claims in social media trial

The judge in the bellwether social media trial in Los Angeles barred Meta’s defense from introducing a document where the plaintiff said she had suffered “sexual abuse during childhood.”

The exchange happened after the jury and plaintiff’s witness, psychiatrist Dr. Kara Bagot, were dismissed for the day. Meta lawyer Paul Schmidt took to the lectern to ask Judge Carolyn Kuhl about an exhibit he wanted to introduce to the court.

The document was a housing application from the plaintiff, a 20-year-old female identified in court as Kaley G.M. She had filled the application out after her mom evicted her from their shared home. When asked in the application if she had suffered any “traumatic circumstances or events” in her life, she wrote: “exposure to neglect, emotional, physical and sexual abuse during childhood.”

MARK ZUCKERBERG FACES JURY IN LANDMARK TRIAL OVER ALLEGED YOUTH HARM LINKED TO SOCIAL MEDIA

“This happened in the family, but she wasn’t asked to elaborate,” said Schmidt to the judge. Schmidt wanted to introduce the application, which was filled out in May 2024 – after her lawsuit was filed – to show that Kaley did not list “social media addiction” as one of her traumas.

Schmidt offered to redact “sexual abuse” from the document because it hasn’t been discussed or brought up at the trial in any of her extensive medical records, which number over 200. He said that the other traumas – neglect, emotional and physical abuse – are all backed up in the previous testimonies.

APPLE IMPLEMENTING AGE VERIFICATION TOOL TO ENSURE USERS ARE 18 AND UP FOR SOME APPS

Kuhl asked to see the application and scoffed, telling Schmidt, “It looks like she’s lying here. She’s bringing up autism, she’s bringing up sexual abuse that never happened,” said Kuhl.

It has not been discussed by either the plaintiff or defense in court if Kaley experienced sexual abuse or if she had lied about experiencing sexual abuse. Autism has been discussed in her records, but she was never diagnosed with it.

Kuhl asked if there was any evidence of sexual abuse. Schmidt said he didn’t know where Kaley got that from, as it wasn’t explored in her deposition.

“In this document, she’s exaggerating. Common logic says she’s got to find a place to go, she’s trying to convince [the housing] that she’s an abused child so they can help her,” said Kuhl. “She’s making it as ’that’ as possible.”

Schmidt disagreed with Kuhl’s take on the exhibit, saying he only wanted to bring up the traumas that she’s previously testified to.

META RESEARCHER WARNED OF 500K CHILD EXPLOITATION CASES DAILY ON FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM PLATFORMS

“I don’t know how you don’t get a sense of the document that I get. As a judge who sat in child abuse courts, sometimes kids do that,” said Kuhl.

Schmidt told the court he would drop the request and Kuhl thanked him.

Also discussed after the jury was dismissed was the issue of time left for both sides to present their case. Kuhl determined before the trial that each side would get 40 hours to make their case, which includes all direct and re-direct examinations. Currently, the plaintiff attorneys, specifically lead counsel Mark Lanier, have 5 hours and 56 minutes left. The defense, which includes both Meta and Google, has 11 hours and 11 minutes left.

Lanier still has additional witnesses to call, including Meta whistleblower Arturo Bejar. Schmidt and the defense team seemed to be in control of their time left until the testimony of Bagot, who they have spent a considerable amount of time cross-examining.

Bagot will be on the stand for her fifth day on Thursday, which Lanier admits is unusual. Kuhl has also grown weary of how long she’s been on the stand.

“I want to say something to everyone about where this is going. Overnight, think to yourselves, ‘Have I asked this question before?’ Look at the jurors and ask yourself if they’ve got the picture,” Kuhl said.

Kuhl opined that if one of the sides runs out of time and doesn’t have a chance to cross-examine, that could open the door for an appeal.

“The appellate court in our state court system hasn’t spoken to the great issue of the time limit,” said Kuhl. “If we say this is the clock, and it was set when we had no idea what it was going to look like, and all of a sudden a side can’t cross-examine, what are they going to say about this?”

She expressed optimism the sides would get it done.

“Don’t worry. Don’t fight about it. You are all close. You will get this done.”