Personal Injury Plaintiff's Devices, Social Media Accounts Should Be Made Available to Defense, Court Rules
Kenneth Pinczower of McDonald & Safranek said that the First Department's ruling will have a “major impact” for discovery in personal injury cases.
January 24, 2019 at 05:35 PM
4 minute read
In a blow to personal injury plaintiffs, a state appeals court in Manhattan ruled that a defendant's data mining expert may scour a plaintiff's electronic devices and email and social media accounts for evidence of physical activity following a motor vehicle accident.
The ruling by the Appellate Division, First Department, came on the New York Court of Appeals' decision last year to give a defendant access to materials from a plaintiff's Facebook account that had been deemed private as part of discovery in a personal injury suit in which the plaintiff alleged that she was injured after she fell from the defendant's horse.
In a signed decision in Forman v. Henkin, handed down in last February, Chief Judge Janet DiFiore wrote for a unanimous court that limiting discovery to a litigant's public posts on Facebook runs counter to New York's tradition of liberal discovery.
With a brief, two-paragraph ruling issued on Thursday in Vasquez-Santos v. Matthew, a five-judge panel from the First Department pushed the envelope even further for defendants and granted a motion to compel to allow an expert to cast a wider dragnet through the plaintiff's electronic devices, including through email accounts and other social media platforms such as Twitter and WhatsApp, and for deleted materials, tags and documents.
Kenneth Pinczower of McDonald & Safranek, which works as house counsel for Nationwide Insurance, said that the First Department's ruling will have a “major impact” for discovery in personal injury cases, in which juries are often left to make judgment calls on the credibility of the parties in the case.
“With the use of technology, we can now recapture and obtain photographs, videos, emails, texts and social media postings created by the plaintiffs themselves that contradict their current claims of injury and challenge their current claim as to how the incident occurred,” Pinczower said. “This is a very powerful tool that can and should be used by counsel to challenge the credibility of the plaintiff and will help the jury determine the truth.”
Howard Cohen of William Schweitzer & Associates, which represents plaintiff Genaro Vasquez-Santos, did not respond to a request for comment.
Vasquez-Santos used to play semi-professional basketball but he alleges that he became disabled and had to give up playing after a August 2013 motor vehicle accident in which his vehicle collided with one being driven by defendant Leena Matthew on the Palisades Parkway in Rockland County.
Vasquez-Santos filed suit in Manhattan and, following the accident, photographs depicting Vasquez-Santos playing basketball were posted to social media, which Matthew's counsel obtained.
Vasquez-Santos claims that the photos are from a year before the accident, Pinczower said. Pinczower filed a motion to compel production of the metadata associated with the photos; a motion to obtain the metadata from Facebook, which is not a party to the case, was refused by Facebook's counsel.
The attorney then moved to allow a third-party data miner to search through Vasquez-Santos' devices, but Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Adam Silvera denied the motion, finding that Matthew was trying to get access to electronic devices that were irrelevant to Vasquez-Santos' injury.
The judge said that Matthew already had copies of photographs of Vasquez-Santos engaged in physical activity and that it should be up to jury to decide if they were taken before or after the accident.
But, in its order reversing Silvera, a First Department panel comprised of Justices John Sweeny Jr., Peter Tom, Marcy Kahn, Jeffrey Oing and Anil Singh said that Matthew is entitled to discovery to rebut the plaintiff's claims that the photos were taken before the accident.
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 AllOn Governor's Desk: NY 'Death Gamble' Bill That Seeks to Correct Pension Anomaly for Judges
Cleary vs. White & Case: NY Showdown Over $5 Billion Brazilian Bankruptcy
'You Can't Do What You've Been Doing,' Lawyer Warns Union as Litigation Heats Up
Trending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
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