NY Top Court: Private Facebook Postings Not Off Limits in Discovery
The New York State Court of Appeals decided 7-0 that limiting access only to a person's public posts on Facebook is counter to “New York's history of liberal discovery."
February 13, 2018 at 05:24 PM
4 minute read
Photo: aradaphotography/Shutterstock.com
ALBANY — Facebook users can be required to hand over private photographs and posts that may be relevant in lawsuits, New York's highest court unanimously decided Tuesday.
In a 7-0 decision, Forman v. Henkin, New York State Court of Appeals, No. 1, the Court of Appeals ruled that limiting access only to a person's public posts on Facebook is counter to “New York's history of liberal discovery.”
Writing for the court, Chief Judge Janet DiFiore said that a party seeking discovery must “satisfy the threshold requirement that the request is reasonably calculated to yield information that is 'material and necessary.'”
The decision stems from a personal injury and negligence lawsuit, Forman v. Henkin, 113059/11, filed by plaintiff Kelly Forman against defendant Mark Henkin over injuries she alleges that she received in a fall from his horse on Long Island. Forman sued Henkin in June 2011 claiming that she suffered a spinal injury and brain damage that left her with cognitive deficits, memory loss, difficulty communicating and in social isolation. Forman claimed that Henkin was negligent in properly equipping the horse for riding.
Prior to the fall, Forman had been an active Facebook user posting photos and messages frequently, but deactivated her Facebook account roughly six months after the fall.
In discovery, Henkin and his attorneys moved for an order compelling Forman to give him unrestricted access to her Facebook account, arguing that the records were needed to evaluate her credibility, and seeking evidence about her claims that the accident negatively affected her ability to read, write, use a computer or cook, clean and travel, etc.
In February 2014, a state Supreme Court justice in New York County granted the defense the motion for the photos posted to Facebook after the accident. Justice Lucy Billings said the “photographs of plaintiff engaging in various activities after her injury, particularly any activities she claims she no longer is able to engage in due to her fall,” were probative. Billings ordered that photos showing nudity or romantic encounters be omitted.
The following year, the Appellate Division, First Department, blocked access to most of Forman's posts arguing that “unbridled disclosure of such information, based merely on speculation that some relevant information might be found, is the very type of 'fishing expedition' that cannot be countenanced.” But two justices dissented, concluding the defendant was entitled to broader access, and asked for “reconsideration of the court's recent precedent addressing disclosure of social media information as unduly restrictive and inconsistent with New York's policy of open discovery.” The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the highest court asking whether its ruling was made properly.
But the Court of Appeals said it wasn't. The Court of Appeals reversed with costs and reinstated the Supreme Court trial judge's ruling, agreeing with the defendant that the Appellate Division “erred in employing a heightened threshold for production of social media records that depends on what the account holder has chosen to share on the public portion of the account.”
DiFiore wrote in her opinion, “Some materials on a Facebook account may fairly be characterized as private. … But even private materials may be subject to discovery if they are relevant.”
“For purposes of disclosure, the threshold inquiry is not whether the materials sought are private but whether they are reasonably calculated to contain relevant information,” she wrote. “The defendant more than met his threshold burden of showing the plaintiff's Facebook account was reasonably likely to yield relevant evidence.”
Associate Judges Jenny Rivera, Leslie Stein, Eugene Fahey, Michael Garcia, Rowan Wilson and Paul Feinman concurred with DiFiore's opinion.
Henkin's attorney, Michael Bono, a partner at Wade Clark Mulcahy, did not respond to a request for comment. Forman's attorney, Kenneth J. Gorman, also did not immediately respond.
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 AllCommunications With Non-Retained Experts May Be Subject to Disclosure
8 minute readDecision of the Day: Stay of Discovery Is Warranted While Summary Judgment Is Decided in Police Shooting Case
Trending Stories
- 1Walmart Accused of Misrepresenting 'Cheese' Ingredients in Great Value's Macaroni & Cheese
- 2Manhattan Lawyers' Group Prepares to Challenge Trump’s Plan for Mass Deportations
- 3Deal Watch: Simpson, Freshfields, Wachtell Lead Big Deals as SPACs, IPOs Crank Up
- 4In Mafia Case, Justices Ponder: Is Murder Always Violent?
- 5In RE: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation
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