The Posts that Matter: Courts Stress Relevance in Social Media Discovery
Recent rulings highlight how relevance is key when asking courts to grant access to private social media posts.
December 26, 2018 at 02:49 PM
3 minute read
At a Dec. 19 webinar assembled by Hanzo, a data collection and archiving technology provider, legal technology and in-house professionals discussed the use of social media in litigation, compliance and investigations. The panelists noted that courts have approached the discovery of social media by stressing the need to assess posts' relevance on a case-by-case basis.
When conducting an internal investigation of an employee, the freedom to investigate his or her social media is nearly unlimited, so long as the postings are made through the company's server, said DHL Supply Chain Americas general counsel Mark Smolik.
But when investigating an outside matter, it's a different story. “The rules of evidence in most courts, particularly in the United States, they haven't changed,” Smolik said. “They have never been adapted to specifically reflect digitized discovery or social media.”
Panelists in the webinar noted that the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada ruling in Hinostroza v. Denny's, especially its use of the “scorched Earth” term in reference to social media, serves as a potential bellwether to how to approach social media discovery.
Hanzo senior account executive Evan Gumz explained that in Denny's, the court ruled that social media is discoverable but proportionality matters under the same federal rule of civil procedure standard that is used for assessing discovery of paper documents.
“Quite candidly, I think the court would have come out with the same conclusion even if we didn't have digitized discovery because the scorched earth reference has been used for years in the courts,” Smolik said. Nonetheless, he said it was nice to see the court present that guidance.
Gumz also cited the New York State Court of Appeals decision in Forman v. Henkin, which held private posts on Facebook aren't entitled to any special protection based on the user's privacy settings, as another significant guideline for social media discovery.
The New York court said social media posts set for private viewing would be discoverable if they are “material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of an action,” Gumz said.
As social media, and the massive trove of data it can provide, becomes a mainstay in discovery, Smolik advised lawyers to take a proactive and unified approach when searching social media for discovery. He suggested defining what the team is looking for beforehand. Such an approach, he said, leads to better use of resources and expenses.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJAMS Launches Initiative to Leverage AI Technology in Dispute Resolution
To Woo Law Firms, Legal Training Platforms Are Combining Hands-On and Online Learning
The American Arbitration Association Unveils Gen AI-Powered Panelist Search Tool
UnitedLex Appoints GC Renee Meisel as New CEO, Replacing James Schellhase After Short Tenure
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250