However, he added, if a party uncovers information from social media that could be devastating to its opponent's case, Clark said he could see a court certifying the underlying discovery motion for an interlocutory appeal.
"Confidentiality issues are often subject to interlocutory appeals," he said.
If there's one sentence that sums up the opinion of the majority of state judges, it comes from Franklin County President Judge Douglas W. Herman in Arcq v. Fields.
In the case, Herman said: "In essence, viewing relevant information on the public profile acts as a gateway to the private profile."
Like several other cases, Arcq settled for reasons other than social media, according to the defendant's attorney, James DeCinti of Pion, Johnston, ?Nerone, Girman, Clements & Smith. Herman had denied the motion for discovery anyway.
However, DeCinti said he very well could see a case settling because of evidence obtained as a result of discovery into a party's Facebook, Myspace or other social media site.
He described the following scenario as a situation where social media could be the driving force of a plaintiff's decision to avoid trial.
"He tells his lawyer he can't do anything and then you see him on Facebook and he's the drummer in a speed metal band," DeCinti said.
There was one case, Largent v. Reed, out of Franklin County, in which defense counsel told the Law Weekly that the parties came to a resolution after the defendant "leveraged" the findings of a social media investigation.
Donald L. Carmelite of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin in Harrisburg represented defendant Jessica Rosko, accused of causing an auto accident that left plaintiffs ?Jennifer and Keith Largent with "serious ?and permanent physical and mental injuries."
Subscribe to The Legal Intelligencer
