Russell Patterson brought a personal injury lawsuit against Turner Construction Company (it’s unclear what kind of injury, specifically). On October 27, the New York Appellate Division (First Department) reversed the state supreme court in Patterson v. Turner Construction Co.. The court said the company could not have access to all of Patterson’s Facebook files, because the request wasn’t specific enough:[W]e reverse and remand for a more specific identification of plaintiff’s Facebook information that is relevant, in that it contradicts or conflicts with plaintiff’s alleged restrictions, disabilities, and losses, and other claims.
InsideCounsel wrote that the case highlights increasing limitations on the use of social media in litigation. But to me it seems the courts are simply having to work out more specific ways to deal with the increasing presence of social media in employment-related disputes. Facebook certainly won’t be used less in litigation anytime soon.
During most discovery proceedings, fishing expeditions waste everyone’s time. Litigants need relevant information, whether it’s in email or on Facebook. Attorneys can’t just say, “Give us all your Facebook files!” There’s got to be a reason to go digging.
Even though the InsideCounsel and Reuters articles focused on the fact that the court didn’t allow access to some of Patterson’s information, I find it more surprising that the password-protected nature of the information is even being considered. It’s a pretty direct about-face from just a few years ago:
The postings on plaintiff’s online Facebook account, if relevant, are not shielded from discovery merely because plaintiff used the service’s privacy settings to restrict access… just as relevant matter from a personal diary is discoverable. . .”
Above the Law has the full story.