Another two years have elapsed (since October, 2023) since we last updated our cheat sheet devoted to ediscovery for defendants.  That’s because finding good, pro-defense ediscovery decisions is a hard and time-consuming task – and getting harder.  Unlike most of our other cheat sheets and scorecards, cases involving defense discovery of plaintiffs’ social media can be found in a wide variety of non-drug/device contexts – other personal injury, employment, civil rights, anything where a plaintiff’s personal conduct could be relevant.  That means our various automatic Westlaw/Lexis searches designed to find drug- and medical device-related decisions aren’t nearly enough.  Ediscovery research is problematic because any search broad enough to be comprehensive also produces a lot of cases having nothing to do with the topic.  And as social media and text messaging becomes ever more ubiquitous, more and more cases mention it.  This time we had reviewed a thousand cases, and our cutoff was to some extent arbitrary.

But we bit that bullet, and this post contains our latest additions (also added to the cheat sheet itself) of ediscovery decisions that are both:  (1) on point, and (2) favorable to our side of the “v.”  We’re picky.  Each of the new cases below either allows essentially all the access to some plaintiff’s social media activity that a defendant sought, or imposes significant sanctions (such as spoliation) on a plaintiff who improperly failed to comply with social media discovery.  We have now compiled more than 250 decisions from some 40 American jurisdictions (and three Canadian provinces) – all supporting defendants’ rights to take discovery of plaintiffs’ social media.

We add our usual caution about defense-side social media ediscovery.  We continue to believe that it’s not a good idea for a defendant to follow the other side’s usual playbook – to make a broad request for everything social-media-related at the beginning of the case – instead send a preservation letter, or even better get a court preservation order.  Courts don’t tend to give defendants the same latitude as plaintiffs to make wide-ranging discovery demands, and the likely result is “no, that’s a fishing expedition.”  A defendant is much more likely to succeed with a blanket social media discovery demand once it has caught the plaintiff in some kind of chicanery – such as particular public social media content contradicting either plaintiff’s own discovery responses or some open-court representation − or when a plaintiff is found to be deleting or otherwise hiding social media activity.  Take the initiative and investigate.  Engage in some self-help (but don’t mislead anyone).  Once a plaintiff is caught, broader social media discovery follows more easily.

Thus, without hard evidence of the other side’s concealment, starting small, with less intrusive social media discovery is more likely to succeed.  If there’s potentially a lot out there, engage an ediscovery specialist and perhaps propose sampling – 5% or 10% of the entire universe of posts – as something less intrusive, but statistically likely to find uncover contradictory statements.  An active social media user (the kind most likely to generate useful information) usually has thousands of potentially discoverable items.

With these caveats, here are the latest favorable decisions allowing defendants to conduct ediscovery of plaintiff social media:

• Kutz v. NGI Capital, Inc., 2023 WL 3790766 (D. Minn. June 2, 2023).  Plaintiff is ordered to produce social media, text messages, emails, and accompanying photographs within a set time period around the allegedly emotional events involved with the litigation.
• Acon v. Long Island Gay & Lesbian Youth, Inc., 2023 WL 12073648 (Mag. E.D.N.Y. July 7, 2023).  Plaintiff claiming emotional distress ordered to produce social media content, including photos, videos, captions, comments, and messages, that:  (1) relates to the allegations in the complaint; (2) contains specific references to or depicts the emotional distress plaintiff claims or resulting treatment or (3) refers to or depicts an alternative potential stressor.  Plaintiff must also preserve all social media activity for the duration of the litigation and inform the defendant of all the social media platforms that she has used and all usernames.
• Taneja v. Freitas, 2023 WL 4866452 (W.D. Wash. July 31, 2023).  Plaintiffs clearly incomplete production of their text messages warranted monetary sanctions.  Plaintiffs never explained how responsive messages were omitted.
• Gibbs v. Abt Electronics, Inc., 2023 WL 6809610 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 16, 2023).  To investigate plaintiff’s mitigation of damages, defendant is entitled to full and complete discovery regarding plaintiff’s post-termination online job search efforts including ESI from the websites he utilized.
• Johnson v. Estate of Hazen, 2023 WL 7186883 (Mag. D. Kan. Nov. 1, 2023).  Plaintiff is compelled to produce all his social media posts, including non-public posts to “friends,” since the date of the accident in question that relate to his physical abilities, activities, injuries, or lack thereof.
• Ball v. Hudson Insurance Co., 2023 WL 8190152 (Mag. M.D. La. Nov. 27, 2023).  Plaintiff ordered to produce all social media posts from the date of the alleged accident to the present, relating to the accident; her physical injuries, medical treatment, and claimed disabilities or limitations; her job or employment status and ability to work; and reflecting capabilities inconsistent with her alleged injuries.
• Wingo v. 3M Co., 2023 WL 8714499 (Mag. D. Minn. Dec. 18, 2023).  Plaintiffs’ failure to disclose social media and text messages was comprehensive, misrepresented, and allowed them to give contradictory deposition testimony.  Plaintiffs must explain why defendant should not recover its additional costs incurred in pursuing social media discovery.  Further failure to comply will result in plaintiffs’ claims being dismissed with prejudice.
• Militante v. Banner Health, 2023 WL 12073895 (Mag. D. Ariz. Dec. 20, 2023).  Social media discovery is relevant to causation and extent of plaintiff’s alleged emotional injuries.  Discovery responses must include non-public social media.  That defendant had access to public social media does not excuse plaintiff from producing it.
• S.C. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 2024 WL 21548 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 2, 2024).  Plaintiff ordered to produce a full download of her social media.  A full download is not burdensome, since social media will contain little if any privileged information, particularly since it predates the suit.  A confidentiality order is in place.  The social media activity is closely related to core issues, how the alleged illegal conduct began, and damages.
• Cronick v. Pryor, 2024 WL 50194 (D. Colo. Jan. 4, 2024).  Sanctions imposed.  Plaintiff’s inexplicable failure to produce relevant social media content amounts to a willful discovery violation.  Her nonsensical reasons strongly suggest purposeful obstruction.  Plaintiff must pay defendant’s costs and an adverse inference of some sort will be given.
• Johnson v. Knox County Schools, 2024 WL 2029196 (Mag. E.D. Tenn. Jan. 29, 2024).  Forensic examination of plaintiff’s cellphone ordered in light of unexplained disappearance of relevant text messages.  Production of missing messages from other persons has been incomplete.  From the results of that examination, plaintiff shall produce all relevant text messages.
• Alsaadi v. Saulsbury Industries, Inc., 2024 WL 460050 (Mag. D.N.M. Feb. 6, 2024).  Plaintiff’s supplemental productions belie her statement that she has no more responsive text messages.  Parties are required to make a diligent search for responsive documents upon receipt of discovery requests.  Plaintiff apparently has not.  Plaintiff must produce the additional messages or certify exactly what  searches she has undertaken to find responsive information.
• Doe 1 v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 2024 WL 643038 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 15, 2024).  Plaintiffs may not hold plainly discoverable ESI hostage to the defendant agreeing to limits that they demanded on other material.  Plaintiffs shall produce an export of all information associated with each of their social media accounts, including any private messages.  Automatic production is not burdensome.  Privacy concerns can be addressed through protective orders and sealing.
• Lin v. Solta Medical, Inc., 2024 WL 858750 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2024).  Since plaintiff claims the occupation of “social media influencer,” all of her social media posts, public and private are relevant to her claimed damages and must be produced, including accounts plaintiff claims are jointly owned and operated.  Plaintiff must also identify any omitted social media accounts.  Plaintiff must produce social media for the entire period for which she seeks damages.
• Doe v. Carnival Corp., 2024 WL 4003709 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2024).  Plaintiff compelled to produce entire group chat following three insufficient partial productions.  Discovery reopened to accommodate the ordered full production.
• Treminio v. Crowley Maritime Corp., 2024 WL 1075433 (M.D. Fla. March 12, 2024).  As a sanction for plaintiff’s unexplained deletion of relevant emails from her cellphone, defendant is entitled to a forensic examination of all of plaintiff’s devices paid for by plaintiff.  Additional discovery is also ordered.
• Gorman v. Douglas County Sheriffs’ Office, 2024 WL 1211798 (D. Or. March 21, 2024).  Plaintiff delayed producing texts and social media from his cellphone and then spoliated his entire cloud backup.  Digital extraction was not unreasonable, given the suspiciously timed damage to the cellphone.  The loss of text messages and other ESI threatened to distort the resolution of the case.  Since summary judgment has been entered on the merits, an appropriate sanction is payment of the costs and attorney fees incurred in obtaining the digital extraction.
• Windish v. 3M Co., 2024 WL 1604012 (E.D. Pa. April 12, 2024), aff’d, 2025 WL 572386 (3d Cir. Feb. 21, 2025).  Plaintiff repeatedly and deliberately violated orders to produce social media discovery.  She lied about her extent of use and about discussions with others employed by defendant.  Relevant social media discovery was plainly covered by the court’s order and within plaintiff’s control.  Even now, significant discovery remains undone.  Plaintiff’s action is dismissed with prejudice.
• Ramsey v. Snorkel International, Inc., 2024 WL 1834365 (Mag. D. Kan. April 26, 2024).  In light of prior inadequate productions, plaintiff is ordered to conduct a diligent search of all social media and email accounts, supervised by his counsel.  Counsel is ordered to serve a signed certification as to his supervision.  If dissatisfied, defendant can pay for a forensic search of these accounts, with which plaintiff must cooperate, with sanctions possible.
• Vorhees v. Esurance Insurance Services, Inc., 2024 WL 1972899 (W.D. Wash. May 3, 2024).  Motion to compel granted.  Defendant’s request for plaintiff’s social media posts from the date of the accident through the present is relevant and proportional.  Social media information revealing that the plaintiff is lying or exaggerating the claimed injuries should not be protected from disclosure.
• Schall v. Nodak Insurance Co., 2024 WL 2355714 (Mag. D. Neb. May 23, 2024), objections overruled, 2025 WL 50144 (D. Neb. Jan. 8, 2025).  Plaintiff compelled to produce social media posts, pictures, videos as relevant to his emotional distress claim.
• Saunders v. Signature Flight Support, LLC, 2024 WL 5671955 (Mag. M.D. Fla. June 4, 2024), adopted, 2024 WL 5671946 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 12, 2024).  Dismissal with prejudice ordered for extended failure to produce cellphone text messages, including making numerous false statements in court filings and at hearings and producing data in a manifestly inadequate form of a video of a scrolled computer screen.
• Vancza v. Marist College, 2024 WL 3026683 (Mag. N.D.N.Y. June 17, 2024).  Plaintiff ordered to pay for a complete forensic examination of her cellphone due to spoliation of evidence and non-disclosure of her replacing the phone and failure to transfer relevant messages.  Plaintiff was consistently non-cooperative with ESI discovery.
• M.A. v. Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., 2024 WL 3029215 (S.D. Ohio June 17, 2024).  Plaintiff’s deposition was reopened as a sanction for extended refusal to produce critically relevant social media activity.  For years, declined to identify any friends or family with whom she interacted during the relevant period.
• Kellar v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 2024 WL 3818535 (Mag. E.D. La. July 26, 2024), adopted, 2024 WL 4649244 (E.D. La. Oct. 17, 2024).  Plaintiff’s failure to provide the ordered complete extraction of cellphone data warranted adverse inference and monetary sanctions.  Plaintiff’s counsel failed to ensure preservation.  Instead it turned out that the phone had been factory reset, causing all the relevant data to be irrevocably lost.  Evidence indicated intentional spoliation.
• Hernandez v. Thomas, 2024 WL 3511640 (Mag. S.D. Ga. July 23, 2024).  Defendant is entitled to unfettered forensic access to plaintiff’s cellphone and to any separate cloud backup.  Newly produced extraction data included numerous text messages, photos, and videos that were not included in the initial extraction.  Plaintiff’s explanations for late and incomplete production of social media and text messages has been inconsistent and possibly perjured.  There is also evidence of spoliation.
• Michaels v. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Inc., 2024 WL 5484096 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2024).  Motion to compel granted for plaintiff’s social media and text messages.  Plaintiff is required to engage an ediscovery specialist to ensure she discharges her discovery obligations.
• Pashaie v. H77LA, LLC, 2024 WL 4800698 (Mag. C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2024).  Motion to compel granted ordering plaintiff to obtain and pay for imaging of his cellphone so that all texts can be searched.  Counsel fees are also awarded.
• James v. Professional Contract Services, Inc., 2024 WL 4858593 (Mag. S.D. Ga. Nov. 21, 2024).  Plaintiff must produce all phone records and text messages relevant to his claims in this lawsuit within 30 days.
• Bailey v. Recreational Equipment, Inc., 2024 WL 4957279 (Mag. E.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2024).  Discovery of a party’s social media information provides relevant information about that person’s emotional or mental state, physical condition, level of activity, impact on employment, and the injuries claimed.  Defendant’s tailored discovery is appropriate and not invasive.  Plaintiff must produce responsive social media or a sworn affidavit that there are none and must also swear to the status of his former accounts and what efforts he made to comply with discovery of them.
• Long v. Pratt (Target Container), Inc., 2025 WL 305881 (Mag. M.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2025).  Plaintiff ordered to produce all text messages between her and two witnesses.  Her incomplete and disjointed voluntary production was insufficient.
• Jones v. AssuredPartners NL, LLC, 2025 WL 373449 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 3, 2025).  Defendant is entitled to all electronic communications between the specified individual plaintiffs.  Forensic evidence is suggestive of spoliation.  The discovery is proportionate to the case.  Much of discovery is a fishing expedition, but with the courts determining the pond, the lures, and how long parties may keep their lines in the water.
• Witham v. Hershey Co., 2025 WL 444399 (Mag. D. Minn. Feb. 10, 2025), adopted, 2025 WL 841024 (D. Minn. March 18, 2025).  Plaintiff’s production of social media was non-compliant and his use of search terms that created himself is hopelessly inadequate.  His counsel are responsible for ensuring that what is produced in discovery is both responsive and compliant.  Plaintiff must produce all responsive text messages and email communications, including the metadata and other accompanying information.  Plaintiff cannot skirt his responsibility to comply with his discovery obligations with vague allegations of undue burden or disproportionate cost.
• Arnold v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., 2025 WL 2377664 (Mag. E.D. Va. May 30, 2025), adopted, 2025 WL 1879875 (E.D. Va. July 8, 2025).  Plaintiff violated an order to produce cellphone texts in a sequential, complete, and accurate manner.  Plaintiff’s haphazard compliance over an extended period shows bad faith.  Sanctions against pro se plaintiff to be determined.
• Heym v. APG Housing, LLC, 2025 WL 1661414 (D. Md. June 11, 2025).  Plaintiffs ordered to produce responsive communications, including text messages and social media posts, concerning the house at issue and all injuries and losses.  The information is plainly relevant.
• Pable v. Chicago Transit Authority, 145 F.4th 712 (7th Cir. July 28, 2025).  Monetary sanctions and ultimately dismissal of plaintiff’s suit with prejudice as a sanction for spoliation of ephemeral electronically stored information (Signal) affirmed.   Plaintiff’s explanation of the deletion “evolved over time,” justifying the trial court’s conclusion that the spoliation was intentional.  During discovery, plaintiff’s attorney attempted to hide the scope of the deletions.  In addition to his own sanctionable conduct, plaintiff was legally responsible for the conduct of the attorney he hired.
• L.F. v. EF Educational Tours,  2025 WL 2777586 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2025).  Requests for social media information that supports, mentions, or contradicts a plaintiff’s allegations is relevant and discoverable.  Defendant is entitled to discovery of the minor plaintiff’s social media activity during the overseas trip where the alleged assault occurred.  Plaintiffs initially  misrepresented the existence of responsive electronically stored information.  Even after deposition testimony established regular texting, plaintiffs have not produced them.  Plaintiffs’ counsel refused to produce other ESI, and the results of his forensic extraction have proven to be incomplete.  An overseas trip with classmates and an alleged sexual assault, would usually entail an adolescent communicating with her peers and family.  Plaintiffs must produce all texts occurring during the trip and for a week before and after involving them or anyone involved with the trip.  Given past conduct, plaintiffs are further ordered to provide ISP authorizations for release of messages.
• Koon v. Ricoh USA, Inc., 2025 WL 3022642 (Mag. D. Neb. Oct. 29, 2025).  Plaintiff’s actions cast doubt on his claim that he has no more unproduced text messages.  Text messages are routinely produced.  Either plaintiff can submit his phone to a forensic recovery vendor of his choosing, or the court will authorize the defendant to do so.  Plaintiff must also group text messages by person and conversation, with new consecutive bates numbers.  Defendant is entitled to redepose the plaintiff about newly produced text messages.
• Oakley v. MSG Networks, Inc., 2025 WL 3041936 (Mag. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2025).  Defendant awarded over $600,000 in counsel fees and a spoliation inference against plaintiff for the unexplained deletion of all text messages from plaintiff’s phone for the relevant time period.