After getting the latest favorable Facebook discovery decision in Largent v. Reed, and seeing that Largent cited to a recent New York case that we didn’t know about, we’ve come to the (probably belated) conclusion that the fast-developing area of e-discovery for defendants with respect to social media maintained by plaintiffs is worthy of a cheat sheet to keep up with the cases as they’ve come down.  So here it is – a compilation of all the favorable opinions we’re aware of concerning the right of defendants to take the offensive on e-discovery in personal injury cases, rather than merely having to grin and bear it on the receiving end.  As with our other posts of this nature, it’s in purely chronological order, and we’ll update it whenever we learn of additional case law, so if you on the right side of the “v.” win something, feel free to pass it along to us.

By the way, we’ve cited some Canadian cases as well, because, particularly early on, they’ve been cited several times on this side of the border.  The citation forms may look unusual to American lawyers, but we’ve tried them out.  This is how they appear on WL.

  1. Torres v. Lexington Insurance Co., 237 F.R.D. 533 (D.P.R. Aug. 14, 2006).  Plaintiff sanctioned for deleting several social media web pages with information contrary to her claims.  Defendant independently discovered the information and notified plaintiff to preserve it.  Two days later it was gone.  All claims for mental anguish, to which this evidence was relevant, are dismissed.
  2. Mackelprang v. Fidelity National Title Agency, Inc., 2007 WL 119149 (D. Nev. Jan. 9, 2007). Discovery of social media is allowable, to the extent relevant to the case, but discovery should come from the plaintiff, rather than directly from My Space.
  3. Dexter v. Dexter, 2007 WL 1532084 (Ohio App. May 25, 2007). Not a discovery case, but frequently cited.  Publicly available posts on MySpace were not entitled to any reasonable expectation of privacy.
  4. Murphy v. Perger, 2007 CarswellOnt 9439 (Ont. Super. Oct. 3, 2007) (Canada).  Discovery of plaintiff’s Facebook account authorized. Social media to which many people have access has no reasonable expectation of privacy.
  5. Beye v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, 2007 WL 7393489 (D.N.J. Dec. 14, 2007). Discovery of plaintiff’s Facebook and MySpace accounts authorized.  There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in information shared with others.
  6. Leduc v. Roman, 2009 CarswellOnt 843 (Ont. App. Feb. 20, 2009) (Canada).  Refusal to allow discovery of plaintiff’s Facebook account was an abuse of discretion.  Social media are not privileged, even if restricted as “private.”  A plaintiff must identify any relevant materials posted on Facebook, public or private.
  7. Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc., 91 Cal. Rptr.3d 858 (Cal. App. April 2, 2009).  Not a discovery case, but frequently cited.  A plaintiff cannot bring an invasion of privacy action concerning republication of information that he voluntarily posted on MySpace.  There can be no expectation of privacy in publicly posted information.
  8. Bishop v. Minichiello, 2009 CarswellBC 871 (B.C. April 7, 2009) (Canada).  Discovery of plaintiff’s hard drive was proper to determine how much time plaintiff spent on Facebook.
  9. Kent v. Laverdiere, 2009 CarswellOnt 1986 (Ont. Super. April 14, 2009) (Canada).  Discovery of plaintiff’s Facebook and MySpace accounts was proper.
  10. Ledbetter v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2009 WL 1067018 (D. Colo. April 21, 2009).  Subpoenas directly to Facebook, My Space, Inc., and were proper discovery of plaintiff’s accounts.
  11. Bass v. Miss Porter’s School, 2009 WL 3724968 (D. Conn. Oct. 27, 2009).  Discovery of plaintiff’s Facebook account was proper.  Plaintiff’s withholding of relevant information justified sanction of production of entire Facebook page.
  12. Romano v. Steelcase, Inc., 907 N.Y.S.2d 650 (N.Y. Sup. Sept. 21, 2010).  Discovery of plaintiff’s Facebook and MySpace accounts authorized.  Social media are not privileged, even if restricted as “private.” Social media are discoverable, and have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
  13. McCann v. Harleysville Insurance Co., 910 N.Y.S.2d 614 (N.Y.A.D. Nov. 12, 2010).  While the defendant had yet to establish entitlement to discovery of any particular item, prospective refusal to allow any discovery of plaintiff’s Facebook account was an abuse of discretion.
  14. EEOC v. Simply Storage Management, LLC, 270 F.R.D. 430 (S.D. Ind. May 11, 2010).  Discovery of plaintiffs’ Facebook and MySpace accounts authorized.  Social media have no reasonable expectation of privacy.  Targeted social media discovery is not burdensome or oppressive.
  15. Barnes v. CUS Nashville, LLC, 2010 WL 2265668 (M.D. Tenn. June 3, 2010).  Discovery of plaintiff’s Facebook account authorized.  Due to plaintiff’s intransigence, the magistrate will “friend” plaintiff and review the account for discoverable information.
  16. McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc., 2010 WL 4403285 (Pa. C.P. Jefferson Co. Sept. 9, 2010).  Discovery of plaintiff’s Facebook account authorized.  There is no “social network privilege.” Social media are discoverable, and access “should be freely granted.”
  17. Sparks v. Dubé, 2011 CarswellNB 80 ¶¶52-58 (N.B.Q.B. Feb. 4, 2011) (Canada).  Imposing litigation hold on plaintiff to prevent deletion of Facebook information.
  18. Zimmerman v. Weis Markets, Inc., 2011 WL 2065410 (Pa. C.P. Northumberland Co. May 19, 2011).  Discovery of plaintiff’s Facebook and MySpace accounts authorized.  No privilege exists for information posted in the non-public sections of social websites.  Social media have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
  19. Offenback v. LM Bowman, Inc., 2011 WL 2491371 (M.D. Pa. June 22, 2011).  Discovery of plaintiff’s Facebook account authorized. Social media are discoverable.  There is no need for judicial in camera review of social media before it is produced.
  20. Katiroll Co. v. Kati Roll and Platters, Inc., 2011 WL 3583408 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2011).  A party’s intentional destruction of Facebook evidence could constitute spoliation, but unintentional alterations do not.  Parties “control” their Facebook pages for purposes of discovery.
  21. Held v. Ferrellgas, Inc., 2011 WL 3896513 (D. Kan. Aug. 31, 2011).  Discovery of plaintiff’s Facebook and job search accounts authorized.  Targeted social media discovery is not burdensome or oppressive.
  22. Patterson v. Turner Construction Co., 931 N.Y.S.2d 311, 312 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011).  Affirming grant of Facebook discovery.  Social media are not privileged, even if restricted as “private.”
  23. Sourdiff v. Texas Roadhouse Holdings, LLC, 2011 WL 7560647 (Mag. N.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2011).  Discovery of plaintiff’s Facebook and MySpace accounts authorized.  Plaintiff’s counsel must review the sites’ content, including any deleted items, and turn over to the defendant all information related in any way to the plaintiff’s physical or emotional condition, injuries, damages, activity level, employment, or concerning this lawsuit.
  24. Largent v. Reed, 2011 WL 5632688, slip op. (Pa. C.P. Franklin Co. Nov. 8, 2011).  Discovery of plaintiff’s Facebook account authorized.  Social media are discoverable, and have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Social media are not privileged, even if access is restricted.  The Stored Communications Act does not apply to discovery from plaintiffs.  Targeted social media discovery is not burdensome or oppressive.
  25. In re Air Crash Near Clarence Center, New York, on February 12, 2009, 2011 WL 6370189 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2011).  Where plaintiff’s domicile is an important contested issue, discovery will be allowed into all of plaintiff’s electronic communications for a five-year period prior to the accident, including social media, text messages, emails, and instant messages, relevant to the plaintiff’s domiciliary intentions.
  26. Davenport v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2012 WL 555759 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2012).  Discovery of plaintiff’s social media sites allowed.  Plaintiff must produce every photograph of the her that is posted on any social media site, whether or not she posted them (that is, including “tags”).  As a practical matter, the scope of production will be limited by the “custody and control” limits on discovery.
  27. Glazer v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., 2012 WL 1197167 (S.D.N.Y. April 5, 2012).  Plaintiff must produce all her LivePerson social media accounts.  Pursuant to the Stored Communication Act the court may direct plaintiff to consent to disclosure if she wants to maintain this suit.  It makes more sense to require the plaintiff, rather than the online provider, make the production.  Since plaintiff has deleted relevant information that can be restored if she opens a new account, plaintiff is directed to open a new account.  Given the relevance of the excerpts provided to the court, all chats must be produced regardless of subject matter.  All chats during the plaintiff’s employment by the defendant must be produced.  If plaintiff claims any privilege, she must submit a privilege log.
  28. Loporcaro v. City of New York, 35 Misc.3d 1209(A), 950 N.Y.S.2d 723 (table), 2012 WL 1231021 (N.Y. Sup. April 9, 2012).  Plaintiff posted information on Facebook contradicting his claims, entitling defendants to full discovery.  A person creating a Facebook account may be found to have consented to the possibility that personal information might be shared with others, notwithstanding the privacy settings, as there is no guarantee that the pictures and information posted thereon, whether personal or not, will not be further broadcast and made available to other members of the public.
  29. Thompson v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., 2012 WL 2342928 (D. Nev. June 20, 2012).  Discovery of  plaintiff’s Facebook and other social networking sites allowed.  Redaction was inappropriate.  Relevance was established by public information obtained prior to formal discovery.  Plaintiff did not claim privilege so not entitled to in camera review.  All material after date of accident was potentially relevant to the injury/emotional distress claims and must be produced.
  30. Walter v. Walch, 2012 WL 6864400 (N.Y. Sup. July 2, 2012).  Defendants made a sufficient showing of particularity to be entitled to discovery from plaintiffs’ private Facebook pages.  Plaintiffs who place their physical and mental condition in controversy may not shield themselves from disclosure material which is necessary to the defense of the action.  Plaintiffs must provide authorizations.
  31. Trail v. Lesko, 2012 WL 2864004, slip op. (Pa. C.P. Allegheny Co. July 3, 2012).  I don’t usually put denials on cheat sheets, but this is Judge Wettick, and this decision is likely to become the standard in Pennsylvania.  Discovery of social media sites (plaintiff or defendant) is allowed unless “unreasonably intrusive.”  In order to be entitled to discovery, the moving party must show a reasonable likelihood of the site containing relevant evidence, not available elsewhere, that will have an impact on the outcome of the case.
  32. Robinson v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc., 2012 WL 3763545 (D. Or. Aug. 29, 2012).  Where plaintiff has alleged severe emotional distress, defendant is entitled, for the relevant period, to social media discovery of any direct or indirect communications with current and former employee of defendant; plaintiff’s social media communications that reveal, refer, or relate to any significant emotions or emotion-stirring events allegedly caused by defendant’s conduct.  Defendant may challenge the production if it believes the production fails short.
  33. Cajamarca v. Regal Entertainment Group, 2012 WL 3782437 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2012).  Monetary sanctions are appropriate against plaintiff’s counsel for failing to advise plaintiff not to delete relevant information from her computers.  The relevance of the deleted information, which was of a sexual nature, was patently clear.
  34. Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 285 F.R.D. 566 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2012).  Social media is discoverable and not privileged, but must be particularized.  A particularized request for communications with specified employees of the defendant will be granted.  Vague requests will be denied.
  35. Howell v. Buckeye Ranch, Inc., 2012 WL 5265170 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 1, 2012).  Social media information is discoverable to the same extent as traditional material.  Defendants must make a particularized showing.  Plaintiff is on notice that defendants are seeking social media information and may not delete it.  Any deletions must be reported to the defendant, and plaintiff must endeavor to recover them.
  36. Simms v. Lewis, 2012 WL 6755098, slip op. (Pa. C.P. Oct. 10, 2012), pursuant to, 2012 WL 6888199 (Pa. C.P. July 3, 2012).   Discovery of plaintiff’s myYearbook account authorized.   Plaintiff’s the public posts indicated that the private pages are likely to contain relevant information.  No expectation of privacy exists.  Defendant will be granted discovery of plaintiff’s other social networking sites upon a similar preliminary showing.
  37. Bianco v. North Fork Bancorporation, Inc., 2012 WL 5199007 (N.Y. Sup. Oct. 10, 2012).  Given the plaintiff’s broad claims about alleged adverse impact on his life style and loss of enjoyment of life, defendant is entitled to Facebook discovery from plaintiff through the intermediary of a special master to whom the contents of plaintiff’s account will be produced.  The special master shall limit discovery to information that is calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
  38. In re White Tail Oilfield Services, L.L.C., 2012 WL 4857777 (E.D. La. Oct. 11, 2012).  Given claimant’s affidavit that he did not know how to download his own Facebook information, defendant will be given plaintiff’s download information, defendant will execute the download, and plaintiff must forward all downloaded information to defendant.
  39. EEOC v. Original Honeybaked Ham Co., 2012 WL 5430974 (D. Colo. Nov. 7, 2012).  Defendant in administrative class action is entitled to discovery from the plaintiff’s social media accounts.  The fact that information resides in cyberspace does not change its discoverability.  The claimants created these communications voluntarily.  Because a review of one claimant’s social media reveals much relevant information, there is valid reason to order discovery as to the other claimants in the class, particularly since other claimants posted to that claimant’s account.  All discovery will go through a special master to ensure that only discoverable information is ultimately produced to the other side.  Plaintiffs must produce all cell phones capable of text messaging and all social media access information to the special master for the time period at issue.  The cost of forensic evaluation of this electronic information will be shared jointly by defendant and plaintiffs.
  40. Mazzarella v. Mount Airy #1 LLC, 2012 WL 6000678, slip op. (Pa. C.P. Monroe Co. Nov. 7, 2012).  Discovery of unspecified social media is permitted.  No expectation of privacy exists.
  41. Reid v. Ingerman Smith LLP, 2012 WL 6720752 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2012).  Social media is a source for relevant and discoverable information.  There is no justifiable expectation of privacy in social media, even if limited to “friends.”  Plaintiff can have no expectation that “friends” will keep her post private.  Defendants have made a sufficient showing from plaintiff’s publicly available Facebook pages that private pages are likely to contain evidence relevant to her emotional distress claims.  Posts about plaintiff’s social activities may be relevant to emotional distress allegations and also identify potential witnesses.  Completely irrelevant posts need not be produced.
  42. Keller v. National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co., 2013 WL 27731 (D. Mont. Jan. 2, 2013).  Social media is not protected from discovery simply because it is marked “private.”  It is both discoverable and potentially admissible.  The requesting party must make some threshold showing of likely admissibility.  A non-specific request for a fishing expedition into a plaintiff’s social media will not be allowed.  Plaintiffs must list all social media to which they belong.  Defendant can renew with a showing of likely relevance.
  43. Allied Concrete Co. v. Lester, 736 S.E.2d 699 (Va. Jan. 10, 2013).  Plaintiff and his counsel was adequately sanctioned with costs, attorney fees, and an adverse inference instruction for intentionally spoliating the contents of his Facebook page while discovery was pending.  While the conduct was dishonest and unethical, there was ultimately no substantial prejudice as the information was recovered.  No new trial is required.
  44. German v. Micro Electronics, Inc., 2013 WL 143377 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 11, 2013).  Plaintiff engaged in significant social media use regarding her physical condition.  Plaintiff violated Rule 34 by failing to specify a production format for her social media production.  Cutting and pasting is not a form in which the information was ordinarily maintained.  The burden and expense to plaintiff does not outweigh production of the electronic information.  Plaintiff is not entitled to cost shifting.  Plaintiff is obligated by Rule 34 to undertake a review of her own online activity.  An offer to allow supply log-in credentials and passwords is not a valid alternative to production.  That proposal is rejected because it seeks to shift to the defendant the burden of sifting through plaintiff’s prolific on-line activities.  In light of plaintiff’s deceptive representations about discovery, defendant is entitled to an award of fees and costs.
  45. Scipione v. Advance Stores Co., 2013 WL 646405 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2013).  In slip and fall case, plaintiff is to produce all Facebook content since the accident that refers to the injury as well as recent Facebook photographs.
  46. Tejada v. Manhattan Plaza, Inc., 2013 WL 5396903 (N.Y. Sup. March 21, 2013).  Plaintiff’s counsel’s direction to plaintiff to not answer questions at her deposition regarding any social media accounts was unfounded and warranted reopening the deposition.
  47. Gatto v. United Air Lines, Inc., 2013 WL 1285285, slip op. (D.N.J. March 25, 2013).  After being ordered to authorize the defendant to access his Facebook account, plaintiff deactivated his account causing its contents to be lost.  By intentionally deactivating the account, plaintiff is guilty of spoliation.  Defendant is entitled to an adverse inference instruction to the jury regarding the destroyed electronic evidence.  Because plaintiff had a non-fraudulent excuse for his actions, monetary sanctions are denied.
  48. In re Christus Health Southeast Texas, 399 S.W.3d 343 (Tex. App. March 28, 2013).  Mandamus demanding discovery of social media in personal injury suit denied.  While the material was relevant and there is no expectation of privacy in social media, the request was unlimited in time and thus overbroad.
  49. Nieves v. 30 Ellwood Realty LLC, 966 N.Y.S.2d 808 (N.Y.A.D April 11, 2013). Defendant demonstrated that plaintiff’s Facebook profile contained photographs that were probative of the issue of the extent of her alleged injuries, and it is reasonable to believe that other portions of her Facebook records may contain further evidence relevant to that issue.  In camera review is appropriate.
  50. Perrone v. Rose City HMA, LLC, 2013 WL 4011633 (Pa. C.P. Lancaster Co. May 3, 2013).  Plaintiff ordered to submit to search of private Facebook account by agreed-upon neutral expert and to turn over all photos and emails relating to specific topics, including physical activity, relevant to the litigation.
  51. Giacchetto v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District, 293 F.R.D. 112 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2013).  While plaintiff’s emotional distress claim does not justify unfettered discovery of social media, defendant is entitled to all mentions of emotional distress plaintiff may have made as well as any postings on social networking websites that refer to an alternative potential source of emotional distress.  Postings or photographs on social networking websites that reflect physical capabilities inconsistent with a plaintiff’s claimed injury are also relevant.  Plaintiff’s counsel is to review for relevancy.  No third-party provider is necessary at this time.
  52. Moore v. Miller, 2013 WL 2456114 (D. Colo. June 6, 2013).  Plaintiff must produce his entire Facebook account.  There is no privacy interest.  Discovery of social media is particularly broad where a plaintiff is alleging physical injury and emotional distress.  Plaintiff has chosen to share his version of events online often and in many different forums, and defendant is entitled to discovery of them.  Defendant awarded costs.
  53. Kear v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., 2013 WL 3088922 (D. Kan. June 18, 2013).  The nature of plaintiff’s claims support defendant’s discovery demand for Facebook and Twitter information subsequent to the date of her hire.  Plaintiff’s activity on social media sites may lead to relevant information.
  54. Pereira v. City of New York, 975 N.Y.S.2d 711, 2013 WL 3497615 (N.Y. Sup. June 19, 2013), 975 N.Y.S.2d 711 (table).  With pictures from the public section of plaintiff’s Facebook page defendant established activities inconsistent with plaintiff’s allegations.  With that showing, defendant is entitled to discovery of the rest of plaintiff’s social media sites.  Due to the likely presence of irrelevant material, in camera review is proper.
  55. Jennings v. TD Bank, 2013 WL 5957882 (N.Y. Sup. July 3, 2013).  Disclosure of the relevant contents of plaintiff’s private Facebook account is warranted.  Photographs on public, unblocked portions of plaintiff’s profile indicate activity inconsistent with her injury claims.  Plaintiff cannot shield disclosure material which is necessary to the defense of the action because she placed not only her physical condition but also her enjoyment of life and social activities.  Although plaintiff may utilize privacy settings on her account to restrict access, these postings are discoverable since there is no legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy.
  56. Higgins v. Koch Development Corp., 2013 WL 3366278 (S.D. Ind. July 5, 2013).  A court may compel production of a party’s Facebook information if the party seeking disclosure makes a threshold relevance showing.  Plaintiffs claim that they can no longer enjoy various activities indicate that such information is directly relevant.  Setting ones Facebook profile to “private” does not entitle a person to a greater expectation of privacy in the context of discovery in a civil action.  Tagging public photographs does not create an expectation of privacy that defeats discovery.
  57. Fox v. Transam Leasing, Inc., 2013 WL 5276111 (D. Kan. Sept. 18, 2013).  Defendant is entitled to plaintiffs’ Facebook and Twitter archives.  They have not established that their social media, if any, is totally lacking in relevant information.  Plaintiffs must produce any discussions about the defendants or about this law suit that is not subject to a legal privilege.
  58. Imanverdi v. Popovici, 971 N.Y.S.2d 911 (N.Y.A.D. Sept. 27, 2013).  Order compelling plaintiff to produce the contents of her Facebook page for in camera review affirmed.  Both the discovery order and the accompanying order requiring plaintiff to pay counsel fees were proper exercises of discretion.
  59. Marcum v. Graphic Packaging International, Inc., 2013 WL 6388650 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 6, 2013).  Given the nature of the Facebook post defendant offered to support its motion, plaintiff’s social media postings are likely to contain relevant evidence and therefore must be produced.
  60. D.O.H. v. Lake Central School Corp., 2014 WL 174675 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 15, 2014).  Because plaintiff placed his emotional state at issue, defendant was entitled to disclosure of social media records that relate to any emotion, feeling, or mental state, as well as communications that reveal, refer, or relate to events that could reasonably be expected to produce a significant emotion, feeling, or mental state.  To the extent plaintiff withholds anything, he must produce a privilege log.  See below for sanctions order.
  61. Painter v. Atwood, 2014 WL 1089694 (D. Nev. March 18, 2014).  Plaintiff and two of her witnesses deliberately deleted relevant text messages and comments from Facebook pages after she filed suit.  A an adverse inference instruction as a spoliation sanction is appropriate.
  62. Ogden v. All-State Career School, 299 F.R.D. 446 (W.D. Pa. April 23, 2014).  Discovery of social media activity is permitted where reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.  Plaintiff must produce copies of all electronic communications belonging or attributable to him as a result of his affirmative actions that involved either the workplace conduct at issue or plaintiff’s emotional state of mind during the relevant period of employment.
  63. Hosch v. BAE Systems Information Solutions, Inc., 2014 WL 1681694 (E.D. Va. April 24, 2014).  Plaintiff’s False Claims Act action dismissed with prejudice due to his systematic spoliation of his electronic data from his cell phones, blackberry, and social media and refusal to turn over electronic devices for inspection.  Plaintiff had received a document preservation notice and other warnings.
  64. Stallings v. City of Johnston City, 2014 WL 2061669 (S.D. Ill. May 19, 2014).  Plaintiff may not redact names of participants in relevant social media conversations.  Plaintiff must produce hard copies of all relevant materials with names.  If defendant believes plaintiff has not been complete, plaintiff’s counsel will allow defense counsel to review plaintiff’s account online at plaintiff’s counsel’s office.
  65. Rowell v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., 2014 WL 2154422 (Mag. D. Kan. May 22, 2014).  Plaintiff bears burden of establishing nondiscoverability of social media.  In debt collection lawsuit, plaintiff must all produce materials posted to social media relating to debts or financial obligations, the defendant, the facts or circumstances alleged in the complaint, or concerning this lawsuit.
  66. Chapman v. Hiland Operating, LLC, 2014 WL 2434775 (D.N.D. May 29, 2014).  Loss of consortium plaintiff who deactivated Facebook account on counsel’s advice ordered to reactivate it and provide discovery to defendant concerning spouse’s health, relationship, and activities and all references to incident at suit.
  67. Smith v. Hillshire Brands, 2014 WL 2804188 (D. Kan. June 20, 2014).  Plaintiffs must produce all social media content that mentions the defendant, and any content content that reveals plaintiff’s emotions or mental state, or content that refers to events that could reasonably be expected to produce in plaintiff a significant emotion or mental state.
  68. Stonebarger v. Union Pacific Corp., 2014 WL 2986892 (D. Kan. July 2, 2014).  Plaintiffs must produce private Facebook material that relates or refers to either their claims for damages for mental anguish, and defendants’ defenses to those claims.
  69. Doe v. Rutherford County, Board of Education,  2014 WL 4080159 (Mag. M.D. Tenn. Aug. 18, 2014).  Defendant satisfied evidentiary threshold for discovery of plaintiff’s private social media.  Publicly available information included material reasonably calculated to lead to relevant evidence and there was evidence that plaintiff was deleting information.
  70. Johnson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 55 F. Supp.3d 603 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2014).  Defendant entitled to discover plaintiffs’ product-related on-line and social media-related communications and research.  Plaintiffs’ obstruction and failure to comply required appointment of a discovery master.  Multiple examples of cases barred by the statute of limitations for decades were discovered.  Plaintiffs’ counsel conceded that sanctions were appropriate for failure to investigate cases before filing them and sought to withdraw.   Summary judgment granted on statute of limitations as a result of this discovery.
  71. Federico v. Lincoln Military Housing, LLC, 2014 WL 7447937 (E.D. Va. Dec. 31, 2014). Plaintiffs were extensive social media users. Defendant’s preservation letter should have led them to preserve their social media activity and be prepared to produce it. Plaintiffs were either poorly instructed or deliberately dilatory in their obligations to search for and produce responsive media. However, since most material was ultimately produced and was not of great importance, only monetary sanctions are appropriate.
  72. Nucci v. Target Corp., 162 So. 3d 146 (Fla. App. Jan. 7, 2015).  Affirming order compelling discovery.  Defendant entitled to discover photographs from plaintiff’s Facebook account for two years prior to her accident.  Social media are the same as “day in life” evidence.  There is no better portrayal of an individual’s life than those photographs the individual has chosen to share through social media.  Social media photographs are powerfully relevant.  That relevance is only enhanced by defendant’s surveillance indicating that plaintiff may be concealing her true condition.  Photographs posted on a social networking site are neither privileged nor protected by any right of privacy, regardless of any privacy settings the user may have established.  The inherent sharing of social media defeats any reasonable expectation of privacy.  The Stored Communications Act does not apply to users of social media.
  73. Marquez v. Board of County Commissioners, 2015 WL 13638613 (D.N.M. Jan. 13, 2015).  The Shared Communications Act does not limit discovery of social media.  Nor is there any right of privacy in social media for either the account holder or third-posters.  Where a plaintiff alleges physical, mental, and emotional injuries, the scope of social media discovery is particularly broad.
  74. Crowe v. Marquette Transportation Co. Gulf-Inland, LLC, 2015 WL 254633 (E.D. La. Jan. 20, 2015). After lying about having social media accounts, plaintiff must produce the entire account. A cursory in camera review demonstrates the presence of considerable discoverable information. A deactivated Facebook account can easily be reactivated at any time, as plaintiff in fact did. Defendant is entitled to explore plaintiff’s deactivation and reactivation of the account.
  75. Gonet v. Private Island Entertainment, LLC, 2015 WL 505138 (N.Y. Sup. Feb. 3, 2015). Public Facebook conversations contradicting plaintiff’s allegations established a factual predicate warranting discovery of plaintiff’s social media accounts.
  76. D.O.H. v. Lake Central School Corp., 2015 WL 736419 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 20, 2015). Sanctions, including taxation of costs, imposed on plaintiff for violating social media discovery order (see above at 2014 WL 174675). Plaintiff must produce a log of all social networking information withheld for relevance or privilege reasons.
  77. Melissa “G” v. North Babylon Union Free School Dist., 6 N.Y.S.3d 445 (N.Y. Sup. March 18, 2015). Photographs from plaintiff’s public Facebook pages showed her engaged in recreational activities inconsistent with her claimed condition established a factual basis for discovery of private social media activities. Plaintiff’s counsel shall review all posts for relevance.
  78. Gonzalez v. City of New York, 16 N.Y.S.3d 792 (table), 2015 WL 2191363 (N.Y. Sup. May 4, 2015). Defendant established, from plaintiff’s public posts, a factual predicate to receive discovery of plaintiff’s social media accounts. The Court will inspect in camera copies of all status reports, e-mails, photographs, and videos posted on plaintiff’s social media sites since the date of the subject accident to determine their relevance.
  79. Tuzzolino v. Consolidated Edison Co., 2015 WL 2412374 (N.Y. Sup. May 21 2015). Plaintiff compelled to provide authorizations for full access to his Facebook account by presence of public Facebook pictures contrary to his claims.
  80. Johnson v. BAE Systems, Inc., 106 F. Supp.3d 179 (D.D.C. May 27, 2015). Plaintiff sanctioned for spoliation of social media records. Adverse inference, issue preclusion, and taxation of costs.
  81. Kaur v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp., 2015 WL 3792662 (N.Y. Sup. May 29, 2015). Posting of photographs and comments on a public social media site makes them fair game for discovery. Plaintiff shall provide the necessary authorizations.
  82. Spearin v. Linmar, L.P., 11 N.Y.S.3d 156 (N.Y. App. Div. June 15, 2015). Defendant entitled to discovery through in camera review of all plaintiff’s post-accident Facebook postings for identification of information relevant to his alleged injuries.
  83. Rivera v. A. L. Bazzini Co., 2015 WL 4993606 (N.Y. Sup. July 20, 2015). Plaintiff shall produce to defendant all business-related content contained on social media websites, and any deleted material. Any personal content shall be provided to the court for in camera review.
  84. Farley v. Callais & Sons LLC, 2015 WL 4730729 (Mag. E.D. La. Aug. 10, 2015). Plaintiff must turn over all social networking site information to her counsel, with completeness certified under oath. Plaintiff must produce to defendant all postings and photographs that involve: the accident, physical injuries or emotional distress caused by the accident and any treatment received, and potential alternative sources of physical injury or emotional distress. Plaintiff must also turn over all posts and photographs inconsistent with her claims or claimed injuries.
  85. A.D. v. C.A., 16 N.Y.S.3d 126 (N.Y. Sup. Aug. 13, 2015). In custody dispute, former spouse’s social media activity for the relevant period is discoverable to determine whether she spent as much time with the child as she claims during that period. She must take steps to produce printouts of Facebook postings depicting or describing her whereabouts. For in camera review, spouse shall swear to the completeness of the production and provide the court with access to her Facebook account.
  86. Peterson v. Northeastern Local School Dist., 2015 WL 5013360 (Mag. S.D. Ohio Aug. 25, 2015), adopted, 2015 WL 5793944 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2015). Plaintiff in employment action must produce Facebook postings, emails, voicemails, and texts from the time of the incident at suit.
  87. Facebook, Inc. v. Superior Court, 192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 443 (Cal. App. Sept. 8, 2015), review granted, 362 P.3d 430 (Cal. Dec. 16, 2015). Criminal subpoena for social media records does not violate Stored Communication Act.
  88. EEOC v. CollegeAmerica Denver, Inc., 2015 WL 5535192 (D. Colo. Sept. 21, 2015). Plaintiff required to produce social media postings of key witness about several topics for a specific time period. Evidence is relevant to consumer expectation and impeachment.
  89. Appler v. Mead Johnson & Co., 2015 WL 5615038 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 24, 2015). Except for certain specific categories, discovery of Facebook activity generated by plaintiff is generally reasonable. Social networking is neither privileged nor private. Plaintiff shall produce everything she posted on any social networking site regarding the defendant and its present or former employees. Plaintiff shall also produce her entire Facebook page, except for certain specified, largely financial, topics.
  90. Lucci v. Cabrera, 2015 WL 7455479 (N.Y. Sup. Nov. 12, 2015). Plaintiff’s posting of a Facebook photograph that contradicted his allegations concerning his physical condition provided the necessary factual predicate for discovery of plaintiff’s private social media activity.
  91. Fox v. Pittsburg State University, 2015 WL 7572301 (D. Kan. Nov. 24, 2015). Plaintiff’s activity on social media sites may lead to relevant information regarding Plaintiff’s claims. A five year time frame for production is reasonable. Responsive material encompasses social media postings indicating sources and/or instances of stress, anxiety, depression, loss of sleep, and/or embarrassment.
  92. Krayzel v. Roberts, 2015 WL 9320296 (Pa. Super. Dec. 22, 2015) (memorandum). Cross-examination of plaintiff with a social media statement indicating that he hoped to profit from litigation was proper.
  93. Impson v. Dixie Electric Membership Corp., 2015 WL 9413122 (M.D. La. Dec. 22, 2015). Plaintiff must produce social media postings and emails concerning the claimed accident and her damages and injuries. Social media is discoverable and privacy settings do not matter.
  94. Roberts v. Clark County School Dist., 312 F.R.D. 594 (D. Nev. Jan. 11, 2016). Plaintiff must identify all of the social media sites on which he has had an account from the event triggering the litigation to the present. Plaintiff’s counsel must review the account contents and produce anything referencing the litigation, the underlying events, plaintiff’s state of mind, emotional or physical responses to these events, and about his treatment by the defendant.
  95. Anderson v. Centraarchy Restaurant Management Co., 2016 WL 316851 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 26, 2016). Plaintiff held in contempt for avoiding social media discovery. Defendant entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses, and to redepose witnesses. Because the material has been produced, albeit belatedly, dismissal is not appropriate at this time.
  96. Silk v. Bowling Green State University, 2016 WL 2771165 (Ohio Ct. Cl. Jan. 28, 2016). Plaintiff’s social media activity is discoverable. Plaintiff may not unilaterally decide which posts are relevant and which are not. Admissibility will be determined later.
  97. Lewis v. Bellows Falls Congregation, Inc., 2016 WL 589867 (D. Vt. Feb. 11, 2016). Plaintiff’s social media is discoverable. Screen shots insufficient. Counsel shall review the entire account and produce relevant material, including:  (1) references to the defendants, sexual or other abuse, emotional distress, mental health, treatment, alternative potential stressors, emotions, feelings, and mental state; and (2) photographs or videos depicting plaintiff and her activities. Produced materials shall not be redacted.
  98. Rhone v. Schneider National Carriers, Inc., 2016 WL 1594453 (E.D. Mo. April 21, 2016). Plaintiff shall produce a complete list of her social media accounts during the requested time periods. Plaintiff shall provide a “Download Your Info” report from her Facebook account for the period after the date of the accident, given that defendant’s independent examination of public pages has uncovered relevant evidence.
  99. Gondola v. USMD PPM, LLC, 2016 WL 3031852 (N.D. Tex. May 27, 2016). Social networking is discoverable and not privileged. Defendant entitled to information, messages, and postings on social networking sites relevant to the claims and defenses to plaintiff’s wrongful termination claims.
  100. Waters v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 2016 WL 3405173 (D. Kan. June 21, 2016). Defendant entitled to discovery of plaintiff’s social media account names as well as postings from the dates he missed work. Plaintiff put his emotional state at issue.
  101. Edwards v. City of Bossier City, 2016 WL 3951216 (Mag. W.D. La. July 20, 2016). Plaintiff must produce social media posts during the relevant period until the present that pertain to his alleged contact with the defendant and his subsequent loss of his job.
  102. Baxter v. Anderson, 2016 WL 4443178 (Mag. M.D. La. Aug. 19, 2016). Ordering plaintiff to identify every social networking website used or accessed since her accident, and where she posted photographs or other information, as well as usernames and the last date of access. Plaintiff must also produce all postings, including photographs, since the accident about the claims and defenses of the litigation, as well as postings about her alleged physical injuries and her physical capabilities.
  103. Zamora v. GC Services, LP, 2016 WL 8853096 (Mag. W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2016). Plaintiff ordered to respond to discovery demand for all social media postings, recordings, and text messages, that concern the factual allegations plaintiff is making in the lawsuit.
  104. McDonald v. Escape the Room Experience, LLC, 2016 WL 5793992 (Mag. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2016). Motion to compel granted ordering plaintiff to produce postings about plaintiff’s socializing, her attendance at parties or other social outings, and her participation in performances or other employment activities. Plaintiff’s production must include her complete postings, during the relevant time period, on any electronic social media or internet sites, including dating sites.
  105. Jacquelyn v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., 2016 WL 6246798 (Mag. S.D. Ga. Oct. 24, 2016). No threshold showing is necessary before a defendant can seek discovery of social media evidence. Such a rule would shield from discovery Facebook users who do not share information publicly. Where a plaintiff puts physical condition and quality of life at issue, Facebook postings reflecting physical capacity and inconsistent activities are relevant and discoverable. Plaintiffs must produce: (1) all photographs posted by plaintiffs or in which they are tagged; (2) all comments to those photographs; (3) all posts by plaintiffs relating to activities in which plaintiffs contend they could not participate due to the incident; and (4) any posts referencing their claimed injuries, damages, or loss of enjoyment of life since the incident.
  106. Scott v. United States Postal Service, 2016 WL 7440468 (Mag. M.D. La. Dec. 27, 2016). Where plaintiff has put her physical condition and activities at issue by filing a lawsuit, social media concerning those matters is discoverable. Defendant came forward with evidence that relevant social media existed. Plaintiff can also be required to identify all social media used since the accident and all postings related to any type of physical or athletic activities since the accident. To ensure completeness, plaintiff must retain historical data for all social media and review for responsive information. If such information is unavailable, plaintiff must describe the steps she took to locate and review responsive information.
  107. Brown v. City of Ferguson, 2017 WL 386544 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 27, 2017). Social media discovery is no different than any other discovery. Social media is neither privileged nor protected by a right of privacy. Plaintiffs must produce all social media content with any relevance to the case, for five years prior to the incident, including private messages sent through Facebook messenger.
  108. Shawe v. Elting, 157 A.3d 142 (Del. Feb. 13, 2017).  Plaintiff properly sanctioned for deliberate and reckless deleting email and text messages by being ordered not only to pay all expenses of recovery but also a percentage of defendant’s total counsel fees, due to the spoliation complicating the conduct of the litigation general.
  109. Gee v. Citizens Insurance Co., 2017 WL 694711 (Mich. App. Feb. 21, 2017) (unpublished). Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint as a sanction for deliberately deleting social media information to evade discovery.
  110. State v. Johnson, 538 S.W.3d 32 (Tenn. Crim. App. April 12, 2017). Although the Shared Communications Act prohibited criminal defendants from obtaining a witness’ social media content from social media platforms, the defendant had established good cause to obtain such evidence directly from the witnesses who were social media users.  They are not privileged.  The subpoenae to the witnesses were not oppressive.
  111. Lawrence v. Rocktenn CP LLC, 2017 WL 2951624 (Mag. W.D. La. April 19, 2017). Plaintiff must produce all text messages, photographs and videos that concern:  (1) plaintiff’s physical capabilities; (2) that allegations in the complaint; (3) emotional distress; (4) any decline in plaintiff’s marriage; (5) alternative causes of the injuries; and (f) plaintiff’s activities during the claimed period of disability.
  112. Gordon v. T.G.R. Logistics, Inc., 321 F.R.D. 410 (D. Wyo. May 10, 2017). Plaintiff required to produce all social media history about her significant emotional turmoil, any mental disability or ability, or significant events which reasonably could result in emotional distress. Plaintiff also required to produce all Facebook postings which reference the accident, its aftermath, and any of her claimed physical injuries. Plaintiff must produce Facebook history and photos which relate or show her level of activity after the accident. Pre-accident social media need not be produced without a showing of relevance.
  113. Matthews v. J & J Service Solutions, LLC, 2017 WL 2256963 (Mag. M.D. La. May 23, 2017). Plaintiff ordered to comply with document requests for all social media communications with defendant’s current or former employees and for archived Facebook material. Social media is discoverable.
  114. Flowers v. City of New York, 55 N.Y.S.3d 51 (N.Y. App. Div. June 20, 2017). Evidence from plaintiff’s public social media contradicted the plaintiff, thereby justifying discovery from plaintiff’s private social media accounts, including deleted material, relating to the same subject matter. Plaintiff shall provide a release to obtain material, including metadata, from the provider.
  115. Walker v. Carter, 2017 WL 3668585 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2017). Plaintiff sanctioned for failure to produce relevant text messages. Must pay defendant’s increased attorney’s fees.
  116. Ottoson v. SMBC Leasing & Finance, Inc., 268 F. Supp.3d 570 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2017). Plaintiff sanctioned for failure to preserve text messages and emails concerning the events at issue. The jury will be instructed on an adverse spoliation inference.
  117. Jones v. U.S. Border Patrol Agent Gerardo Hernandez, 322 F.R.D. 411 (Mag. S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2017). Plaintiff must produce a GPS-based map generated by his fitness watch.
  118. Ehrenberg v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2017 WL 3582487 (Mag. E.D. La. Aug. 18, 2017). With respect to social media, plaintiffs must produce posts and photos: (1) relating to the accident, (2) relating to all physical injuries whether or not caused by the accident, (3) reflecting plaintiff’s physical activity, (4) relating to plaintiff’s emotional distress; (5) relating to alternative emotional stressors; (6) concerning plaintiff’s vacations.
  119. Calleros v. Rural Metro, Inc., 2017 WL 4391714 (Mag. S.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2017). In class action over alleged deprivation of rest breaks, defendant is entitled to social media discovery of any activity plaintiffs engaged in while on company time.
  120. Dewidar v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 2018 WL 280023 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2018). Plaintiff’s social media data was directly relevant to the claimed incident and injuries.  Boilerplate objections, including privacy, disregarded.
  121. Forman v. Henkin, 93 N.E.3d 882 (N.Y. Feb. 13, 2018).  Private information is discoverable if relevant.  No special restrictions apply to discovery of social media.  A defendant’s discovery of plaintiff’s private media is not predicated on something existing on a plaintiff’s public social media.  Plaintiffs must respond to social media discovery requests tailored to the nature of the injuries claimed and other case-specific aspects.  Defendant entitled to any pictures of plaintiff’s lifestyle after the accident and to metadata on plaintiff’s typing ability.
  122. Kelter v Flanagan, 2018 WL 1439793 (Pa. C.P. Feb. 14, 2018).  Plaintiff required to disclose her Instagram account log-in information.  Plaintiff has chosen to use social media.  Other posts similar to those posts used at her deposition would be relevant.
  123. Stokes v. City of Visalia, 2018 WL 1116548 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2018). Postings made by Plaintiff and third parties on any social media device or social media program are permissible discovery in this action.
  124. Castelino v. Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, 2018 WL 1140389 (S.D. Ind. March 2, 2018). Plaintiff ordered to produce a downloaded copy of his Facebook account.  The demand is proportionate.  Plaintiff put his emotional state at issue.  Use of a third-party vendor to extract the data is proper.
  125. Thompson v. Coleman, 544 S.W.3d 635 (Ky. April 26, 2018). Proper to allow a specialist selected by defendants to inspect plaintiff’s decedent’s cell phone, computer, and social-media account for one year before the decedent’s suicide.  Defendant is entitled to discover alternative causes, and should not be limited to the period the decedent used its product.  Proper to order simultaneous production.  There is no privilege against discovery, and a confidentiality order has been entered.  Review of irrelevant material does not preclude discovery.
  126. United States v. Liburd, 2018 WL 2709199 (E.D.N.Y. June 5, 2018). Once probable cause is established a search warrant for criminal defendant’s Facebook account can include the entire contents of the account.  Given the nature of social media, it is not overbroad to order comprehensive discovery even if probable cause would not extend to every Facebook entry.
  127. Hinostroza v. Denny’s, Inc., 2018 WL 3212014 (D. Nev. June 29, 2018). Plaintiff must identify all social media platform she uses.  Defendant is entitled to social media discovery from one year before the plaintiff’s accident.  Text messages close to the accident are also discoverable.  Social networking is neither privileged nor protected by any privacy right.
  128. C v. Metro. Government of Nashville & Davidson County., 2018 WL 3348728 (M.D. Tenn. July 9, 2018). Plaintiffs ordered to identify all their social media platforms.  Plaintiffs also ordered to produce all non-public social media content regarding the alleged incidents and for two months on either side of them.
  129. Bossenbroek v. HHS, 2018 WL 4790383 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 4, 2018). Production of social media is ordered to substantiate of plaintiff’s injuries and their severity.  No expectation of privacy in social media since, even if “private,” it is shared with others.
  130. Connolly v. Alderman, 2018 WL 4462368 (D. Vt. Sept. 18, 2018). Plaintiff ordered to produce social photographs, videos, or documents addressing or reflecting plaintiff’s ability to engage in relevant activities from the beginning of the claimed incidents to the present.  Failure to comply will result in an order to produce passwords.  Any privacy issues can be resolved with a confidentiality order.
  131. Peterson v. City of Minot, 2018 WL 5045194 (D.N.D. Oct. 17, 2018). Defendant entitled to have its expert search plaintiff’s computer for relevant social media.  Material will be sent to plaintiff’s counsel first.  If plaintiff objects, the material will be reviewed in camera by the judge to determine discoverability.
  132. Guarisco v. Boh Brothers Construction Co., LLC, 421 F. Supp.3d 367 (E.D. La. Oct. 3, 2019).  Sanctions imposed on plaintiff for altering pictorial evidence in his social media to create fake photographs helpful to his litigation position.
  133. Hayes v. HHS, 2018 WL 7049378 (Fed. Cl. Dec. 4, 2018). Plaintiff required to produce all social media postings concerning alleged pain and suffering, activities, physical capabilities, and any alternative causes. social media posts and videos are reasonably and directly relevant to establishing the severity of the ongoing injury.  There is no right to privacy in social media.  Social media is not similar to medical records.
  134. Walker v. Corizon Health, Inc., 2018 WL 6602229 (D. Kan. Dec. 17, 2018). Plaintiff’s social media is relevant and discoverable.  If plaintiff’s social media accounts have privacy settings limiting public access, plaintiff must provide defendant with copies of any social media postings, public or private, which in any way relate to the matters involved in this lawsuit.
  135. Robinson v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC, 2019 WL 244787, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 17, 2019). Plaintiff must comply with social media discovery, including from his cell phone, concerning his alleged disability, emotional damages, mitigation of wage loss.  Defendant supported request with evidence that plaintiff was working out while allegedly disabled.  Discovery is both relevant and proportional.
  136. Vasquez-Santos v. Mathew, 92 N.Y.S.3d 243 (N.Y.A.D. Jan. 23, 2019). Denial of social media discovery reversed.  Where plaintiff posted photographs and other evidence of his engaging in sports and similar activities on devices, emails accounts, and social media, this material was discoverable.  Private social media is discoverable where it contradicts or conflicts with a plaintiff’s alleged restrictions, disabilities, losses, and other claims.
  137. Walmart, Inc. v. Ohler, 2019 WL 644936 (La. App. Feb. 15, 2019). Denial of social media discovery reversed.  Information on social media accounts is generally discoverable.  In camera review ordered to determine if information posted since the date of the accident concerns the accident or plaintiff’s alleged injuries and treatment, or reflects physical capabilities that are inconsistent with the injuries allegedly suffered.
  138. Matter of Parks, 2019 WL 8955113 (S.D. Fla. March 22, 2019). Defendant entitled to six months of plaintiffs’ social media posts, including videos and photographs, prior to the date plaintiffs first filed their claims.  There is  no general bar against the production of social media.  The information is relevant  to the injuries and damages and not burdensome to produce.
  139. In re Ford Motor Co. DPS6 PowerShift Transmission Products Liability Litigation, 2019 WL 3815721 (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2019). Plaintiff’s counsel sanctioned for obstructing discovery into plaintiff’s Twitter account on privacy grounds.  A social media account, which by its nature is intended to be shared, cannot be shielded from discovery on privacy grounds.
  140. Herzog v. Sacko Delivery & Trucking, 115 N.Y.S.3d 616 (N.Y. Sup. May 17, 2019). Defendant entitled to plaintiff’s post-accident statements and representations on social media that bear on the extent of the injured plaintiff’s damages.
  141. Mercado Cordova v. Walmart Puerto Rico, Inc., 2019 WL 3226893 (D.P.R. July 16, 2019). Plaintiff sanctioned with an adverse spoliation inference for deleting a social media account.
  142. McLaughlin v. Bayer Essure Inc., 2019 WL 3483177 (Mag. E.D. Pa. July 24, 2019). Plaintiffs must produce responsive social media.  They may do so either by reviewing and gathering social media themselves, or by providing access authorizations to defendants, subject to the right to claw back any privileged material.  Adopted 2019 WL 3811907 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 13, 2019).
  143. Trevino v. Golden State FC LLC, 2019 WL 3892356 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2019). Plaintiffs ordered to produce records of their email, text messaging, social media activity, and phone calls made on their personal phones during the workday when they were supposed to be working.
  144. Soderstrom v. Skagit Valley Food Co-op, 2019 WL 3944327 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 21, 2019). Social media discovery compelled from the date the alleged events began.  By filing suit plaintiffs put their mental and emotional states at issue.  Social media activity is not protected from discovery by any right of privacy.
  145. LaJeunesse v. BNSF Railway Co., 333 F.R.D. 649 (D.N.M. Aug. 30, 2019). Sanction of dismissal granted for plaintiff knowingly, intentionally, and willfully misrepresenting his social media use and for knowingly and willfully refusing to produce social media material.
  146. O’Hern v. Meech Lake General Partner LLC, 2019 WL 4410319 (Ill. App. Sept. 12, 2019). Sanction of dismissal for repeated and defiant refusal to turn over social media activity in discovery affirmed.
  147. Dickerson v. Barancik, 2019 WL 9903813 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2019). Social media content is generally discoverable, particularly when the plaintiff’s physical condition is at issue.  Plaintiff must produce all non-privileged content shared on her Facebook account from two years prior to the date of the accident to the present.
  148. Bruner v. City of Phoenix, 2020 WL 554387 (D. Ariz. Feb. 4, 2020). Plaintiffs sanctioned for deleting social media entries and an entire account.  Ignorance of how to go about downloading accounts is no excuse for nonproduction.
  149. Caserta v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, 115 N.Y.S.3d 895 (N.Y.A.D. Feb. 18, 2020). Restrictions on defendant’s discovery of plaintiff’s social media vacated as unnecessarily restrictive.  Discovery of photographs, videos, and other social media postings regarding plaintiff’s social and recreational activities that might contradict his claims of disability, is relevant, useful, and reasonable.
  150. Rodriguez-Ruiz v. Microsoft Operations Puerto Rico, L.L.C., 2020 WL 1675708 (D.P.R. March 5, 2020). Discovery of plaintiff’s social media profile(s) is appropriate.  Plaintiff lacks a right to privacy in the content of his social media profiles.  Social media activity is relevant to assertions of emotional distress.
  151. Aspin v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 2020 WL 1523250 (W.D. Wash. March 30, 2020). Plaintiff must provide access to his social media accounts or to the devices through which the requested information can be found.  If plaintiff cannot download and produce the requested emails, text messages, social media posts, photos, and/or videos himself, he shall provide whatever access is necessary so that defendant can locate and copy the relevant information.
  152. Crossman v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, 2020 WL 2114639 (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2020). Plaintiff’s social media, including her Facebook and Instagram accounts, relates to her contemporaneous mental and emotional states and therefore relates to the injuries she claims she suffered.  A confidentiality order eliminates any privacy concern.
  153. Tate v. Zaleski, 2020 WL 3404739 (S.D. Miss. June 19, 2020). Plaintiffs ordered to produce a downloaded copy of their Facebook accounts.  Plaintiffs also ordered to allow a qualified, neutral expert to search their personal cell phones for communications responsive to defendants’ discovery.
  154. Denson v. Corp. of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 2020 WL 3507410 (Mag. D. Utah June 29, 2020). Given that some relevant evidence in plaintiff’s possession has gone missing, defendant is entitled to access to plaintiff’s electronic devices and cloud based accounts to create a mirrored image.  Access shall be by an independent third-party expert to ensure that irrelevant materials remain private.  Plaintiff ordered to turn over the necessary passwords.
  155. Purcell v. Gilead Sciences, 2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 77379,  (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2021).  Plaintiff sanctioned for failure to preserve cell phone text messages.  Counsel failed to in their preservation obligations to preserve plaintiff’s phone in a timely fashion, and acted in conscious disregard of court orders, resulting in the phone being factory reset, destroying all information in an unknown fashion at an unknown time.  The phone sat in a desk drawer for 30 months after it should have been secured.  Fees awarded.
  156. Lieberman v. Unum Group, 2021 WL 4807643 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2021). Plaintiff’s social media posts are relevant because they may contain objective and contemporaneous examples of plaintiff’s activities and functionality.  Undue burden and overbreadth objections overruled.  Plaintiff must provide a sample of social media activity over a three year period of defendant’s choosing.
  157. Rosales v. Crawford & Co., 2021 WL 4429468 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2021). Plaintiff compelled to produce social media content.  Social media is neither privileged nor protected by any right of privacy.  Social media is relevant to claims of emotional distress.
  158. Collins v. ControlWorx, LLC, 2021 WL 4429456 (M.D. La. Sept. 27, 2021). Discovery propounded to plaintiff seeking all electronically stored information and social media posts, tweets, or replies, regarding the facts and circumstances that are the subject of the allegations in the complaint are relevant and proportional, and plaintiff is compelled to respond.
  159. Krishnan v. Cambia Health Solutions, Inc., 2021 WL 3129940 (W.D. Wash. July 23, 2021). Plaintiff sanctioned for belatedly disclosing a second cell phone used to send social media messages, shortly before the close of discovery.  The delay and concealment calls into question plaintiff’s good faith in complying with discovery.  A forensic examination of the phone, at plaintiff’s expense, is ordered.
  160. Hinrichs v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2021 WL 3053208 (W.D. Wash. July 20, 2021). Plaintiff ordered to produce social media, texts, emails, photos, and videos concerning the accident, lawsuit, physical, mental and emotional injuries, trips, hobbies, social and leisure activities, quality of life, and communications with potential witnesses.  Defendant’s review of plaintiff’s social media demonstrates that, contrary to plaintiff’s representation, there are many responsive items.  Plaintiff placed her lifestyle and activities prior to the accident directly at issue.  Since defendant will hire an ediscovery vendor, at no cost to plaintiff, she cannot claim burdensomeness.
  161. Doe v. Purdue University, 2021 WL 2767405 (N.D. Ind. July 2, 2021). Plaintiff sanctioned for spoliating social media information he was under court order to produce.  Plaintiff does not get to decide what is relevant.  A social media post need not directly reference or discuss a lawsuit for it to be relevant.  Social media content that may reveal information relevant to damages is discoverable.  Plaintiff took no steps to ensure preservation of data he knew was subject to deletion.  Plaintiff must pay fees and the defendant may argue spoliation to the jury.
  162. Allen v. PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2021 WL 2434404 (D. Md. June 14, 2021). Discovery of social media is simply applying general discovery principles to a novel context.  Social media content, even designated “non-public,” is neither privileged nor protected by any right of privacy.  No threshold evidentiary showing of relevance is required to obtain discovery of non-public social media.  Plaintiffs alleging emotional distress must produce social media concerning specific references to serious, non-transient emotional distress including any such distress they claim to have suffered, including references (postings, photographs and communications) to diagnosable conditions, visits to professionals for treatment of such distress, treatment regimens, and conversations regarding same.  Production shall be by download through the social media providers.
  163. Sanchez v. Albertson’s LLC, 2021 WL 3572679 (D. Nev. June 9, 2021). Broad, albeit, not unfettered discovery is available into plaintiff’s social media, particularly in personal injury case.  Plaintiff ordered produce complete copies of all his Facebook accounts.  Plaintiff shall also produce a log of anything redacted.  Plaintiff’s prior responses have been evasive.
  164. Matter of the Complaint of Paradise Family, LLC, 2021 WL 2186459 (M.D. Fla. May 28, 2021). Plaintiff ordered to produce social media accounts.  Social media subject to same discovery as any other source and is neither privileged nor protected by any right of privacy.  Request is relevant and proportional because plaintiff alleged damages for loss of the capacity to enjoy life and social media can provide information about plaintiff’s quality of life before and after the accident.
  165. Torgersen v. Siemens Building Technology, Inc., 2021 WL 2072151 (N.D. Ill. May 24, 2021). Plaintiff sanctioned with a mandatory adverse inference for spoliating evidence by deleting his Facebook page during litigation despite his counsel telling him not to.  No privacy right exists in social media.  Plaintiff had a duty to preserve this information in anticipation of litigation even before it was sought by defendants.  The Facebook page, which demonstrated recreational activities, golf trips, and other physical activities, would tend to show that plaintiff had not lost a normal life, contrary to his claims.  Since the information is not recoverable, the jury will be instructed that the plaintiff intentionally deleted the account to prevent discovery.
  166. Boegh v. Harless, 2021 WL 1923365 (Mag. W.D. Ky. May 13, 2021). Social media is relevant and discoverable, and not privileged nor private.  Plaintiff has commented on the case and identified both evidence and witnesses on social media.  That defendant could obtain some of plaintiff’s social media himself, does not absolve plaintiff from providing it.  The extent of plaintiff’s failure to comply creates a strong inference that plaintiff is hiding private content.
  167. Manning v. Safelite Fulfillment, Inc., 2021 WL 3557582 (Mag. D.N.J. April 29, 2021), adopted, 2021 WL 3542808 (D.N.J. Aug. 11, 2021). Plaintiff sanctioned for spoliation of emails and Facebook messages.  Plaintiff failed to disclose deletions during discovery.  Plaintiff took no affirmative measures to preserve this material despite having a duty to do so.  The Facebook messages are irretrievably lost.  Defendants can present plaintiff’s destruction of evidence to the jury.
  168. Lukis v. Whitepages, Inc., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2021 WL 1600194 (N.D. Ill. April 23, 2021). Plaintiff cannot pick and choose which social media to produce.  Plaintiff must produce the same kind of data from other social media that has already been produced from other accounts.
  169. Edwards v. Junior State of America Foundation, 2021 WL 1600282 (E.D. Tex. April 23, 2021). Plaintiff sanctioned with exclusion of evidence for deleting his Facebook account and thereby destroying the defendant’s ability to determine whether certain purported screenshots were authentic.  Everything about the emails in the screenshots is excluded.
  170. Brown v. SSA Atlantic, LLC, 2021 WL 1015891 (S.D. Ga. March 16, 2021). Plaintiff deactivated one Facebook account and lied about having several others, that defendant independently discovered, after the accident at suit.  Plaintiff compelled to produce account data for all Facebook accounts.  Other sanctions, including spoliation, may be imposed if plaintiff actually destroyed, rather than withheld, information.
  171. Watkins v. Session, 2021 WL 663759 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2021). Plaintiff must provide five years of social media discovery.  Plaintiff’s online history is relevant since his social media posts may well bolster his claims that the defendant’s actions harmed his employability and caused him emotional distress.
  172. Yang v. Lin, 2021 WL 423805 (D.N.J. Feb. 7, 2021). Plaintiff ordered to re-produce social media posts after she made her first production in a way that produced incoherent information.  Plaintiff cannot produce documents as “kept in the usual course of business” where social media sites, not plaintiff, store the information.  Production must include social media that plaintiff has removed from public view, as well as certain private information relevant to the litigation.
  173. Holloway v. County of Orange, 2021 WL 454239 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2021). Plaintiff sanctioned with adverse influence for deletion of Facebook account after discovery was sought.  Under an obligation to preserve, plaintiff deleted the account with a culpable state of mind, and the account was relevant to defendants’ claims.
  174. Bruno v. Peak Resorts, Inc., 138 N.Y.S.3d 744 (N.Y.A.D. Jan. 14, 2021). An adverse inference was a proper sanction for plaintiff’s spoliation of social media evidence.  Plaintiff deleted a relevant Facebook post and then lied about it.  Plaintiff also belatedly produced other social media he had denied having.  Plaintiff had retained counsel at the time of the deletion and thus knew litigation was likely.  The deleted post went directly to the defendant’s defense.
  175. Pepin v. Wisconsin Central Ltd., 2020 WL 12432395 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 22, 2020). Plaintiff ordered to produce nearly five years of “[a]ny and all social media posts which show plaintiff participating in recreational activities, hobbies, vacations, family outings, and parties.”  Since plaintiff changed certain media from public to private, no distinction is drawn between public and private posts.
  176. Abedin v. Palominos Osorio, 136 N.Y.S.3d 92 (N.Y.A.D. Nov. 12, 2020). Social media accounts relevant to plaintiff’s claim of emotional distress.  Plaintiff must provide authorizations to obtain records of social media accounts.
  177. Adkisson v. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., 2020 WL 6549386 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 6, 2020). Plaintiffs could not quash third-party subpoena.  Defendants entitled to discovery of private Facebook group that discusses plaintiffs, their claims, and their medical conditions.  There is no privacy right or privilege implicated.
  178. Milke v. City of Phoenix, 497 F. Supp.3d 442 (D. Ariz. Oct. 30, 2020). Plaintiff’s deliberate deletion of information from social media accounts was spoliation requiring dismissal of the case with prejudice.  Plaintiff and her attorneys exercised control over the social media sites and on numerous occasions instructed that materials be deleted.  Those instructions were given after the present litigation became reasonably foreseeable.
  179. Safer v. Hudson Hotel, 134 N.Y.S.3d 161 (N.Y. Civ. Oct. 20, 2020). Plaintiff sanctioned with adverse inference for spoliating relevant social media posts.  Plaintiff was grossly negligent in not preventing third parties from deleting posts in her account and in deleting certain photographs herself during the course of an ongoing discovery apart.  Posts deleted due to plaintiff’s negligence are presumed relevant.  Photos could show that plaintiff was engaging in activities inconsistent with her claimed injuries.
  180. Edwards v. Junior State of America Foundation, 2020 WL 10317773 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2020). Plaintiff is sanctioned for failure to produce native format originals of purported emails, photocopies of which were central to his case.  Authentication is necessary since private emails are at issue.  Plaintiff’s failure to produce is sanctioned by an award of costs.  Reconsideration denied, 2021 WL 2793850 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2021).
  181. Maurice v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2020 WL 4339256 (W.D. Wash. July 28, 2020). Plaintiff’s emails, texts, photos, videos and social media is discoverable.  Plaintiff’s claim to have searched for this material is unexplained and thus cannot be credited.  Plaintiff is ordered to grant access to her devices and online accounts to an ediscovery vendor hired and paid by defendant.
  182. Berg v. M & F Western Products, Inc., 2020 WL 6750176 (E.D. Tex. July 23, 2020). In light of plaintiff’s discovery defaults, plaintiff ordered to search all data on social media platforms in its custody and to produce all relevant, nonprivileged documents and materials thereby identified.
  183. Pendelton v. First Transit, Inc., 2020 WL 10787493 (E.D. Pa. July 10, 2020). Social media and locational data is public by nature and may not be redacted during production.  For other electronic records, plaintiff must provide a log describing each redaction and must file a complete unredacted set of records, under seal, with the court.