Ephemeral Messaging on Facebook Could Heighten E-Discovery Stress
The possibility of ephemeral messaging making its way to Facebook could turn the pressure up on lawyers and e-discovery professionals.
March 14, 2019 at 11:15 AM
3 minute read
In a post to Facebook, the platform's founder Mark Zuckerberg outlined a vision of the future that includes end-to-end encryption and an ephemeral lifespan for private messages and photos.
For users running out of room in the closet for the skeletons of youthful indiscretions past, this is potentially a very good thing. But it could be much less so for e-discovery professionals and the lawyers responsible for collecting relevant information before it slips into oblivion.
“The biggest problem is how are we going to train lawyers [and] how are they going to train their clients to preserve it?” said attorney and forensic technologist Craig Ball.
The details surrounding Facebook's ephemerality push weren't presented in concrete terms, but Zuckerberg's post indicates that there could be a default timeframe for the deletion of private messages that users could customize as needed by minutes, weeks or years.
If left unchecked during litigation, those settings could potentially jeopardize discovery—and the courts might not be inclined to forgive and forget. Ball compared it to the early days of email when retention capabilities were limited and people would rig their inbox to auto-delete as a matter of practicality.
“A lot of people got into hot water or at least had to try to extricate themselves from hot water because they failed to disable the auto-delete, auto-purge function of their email collections,” Ball said.
The relationship between e-discovery and social media hasn't always been an easy one. While most people might stop to consider that the photo of that epic keg stand from college may not play well to a potential employer, the possibility that any of that material could one day accrue legal significance is perhaps a bridge too far.
“People don't really have an appreciation for social media being evidence and so people will on occasion just delete things, not thinking they are doing anything bad,” said Mary Mack, executive director of the Association of Certified E-discovery Specialists (ACEDS).
Sometimes the elimination of key evidence is entirely inadvertent. Mack gave the example of someone attempting put their social media account on a temporary pause and accidentally erasing the whole thing instead.
For lawyers, ensuring that clients don't jeopardize key evidence could potentially necessitate a crash course in Facebook for Dummies. Ball thinks that courts are unlikely to be sympathetic to social mishaps, especially if attorneys fail to instruct clients to adjust whatever settings Facebook might put into place to control ephemeral messages.
The context of those incidents could also be critical. Ball gave the example of a group of high school students using ephemeral messaging to communicate on Facebook versus a group of corporate executives or politicians.
“If you see it becoming evasive behavior I don't think the fact that its ephemeral or not is going to have much influence on the courts. They're going to say we smell perfidy here,” Ball said.
One potential saving grace? The legal obligation to preserve still only applies to data that exists as of the date of your duty to preserve. Kelly Twigger, an attorney and CEO of eDiscovery Assistant, thinks that ephemeral messages might encourage lawyers to keep an eye on their calendars.
“We're surmising at this point but you might start to see, you know, a lot more attention paid to what is the date that the duty to preserve arises,” Twigger said.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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