Spain Mexico
Philadelphia, PA Cherry Hill, NJ New York, NY State College, PA 1-866-LOCKSLAW
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Locks Law Firm
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Get Started
  • No win, no fee
  • Free consultation
  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • Practice Areas
  • Practice Areas
    • All Practice Areas
    • Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Abuse
    • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Dangerous Drugs & Devices
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Get Started
  • Spain Mexico   Spanish
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ

    One of the most prominent personal injury law firms in the tri-state region, the Locks Law Firm is steadfastly committed to protecting the rights of seriously injured victims.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Abuse
    • Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect
    • Hospital Acquired Infections
    • Medication Errors
    • Misdiagnosis / Failure to Diagnose
    • Surgical Errors
    • Needle Stick - CRPS

    Medical malpractice is any act by a health care provider that deviates from accepted standards of medical care and results in the personal injury, disability, or wrongful death of a patient. Nursing home abuse or negligence can take many forms. It can include physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, neglect, negligent care, and even financial exploitation.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Asbestos and Mesothelioma
    • Benzene
    • Chemical Exposure
    • Manganese Exposure
    • Natural Resource Damages
    • Toxic Injuries
    • Workplace Exposure
    • Dacthal Herbicide Ban
    • PERC Exposure
    • Paraquat

    Exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace or environment can cause serious, sometimes fatal health problems, including cancer.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Premises Liability
    • Burns and Chemical Burns
    • Traumatic Brain Injuries
    • Spinal Cord Injuries
    • Wrongful Death

    Catastrophic personal injuries include brain and spinal cord injuries, severe burns, carbon monoxide poisoning and, most seriously, death.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Dangerous Drugs & Devices
    • Allergan Breast Implant Recall
    • Hernia Mesh
    • IVC Filters
    • NEC Baby Formula

    At the Locks Law Firm, our pharmaceutical litigation and defective drug lawyers are committed to serving personal injury victims and are well versed in the product liability laws that protect consumers.

    Free Case Evaluation

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

(215) 893-0100

Cherry Hill, NJ

(856) 663-8200

New York, NY

(212) 838-3333

State College, PA

844-777-2529

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

The Curtis Center
Suite 720 East
601 Walnut Street

Cherry Hill, NJ

801 North Kings Highway

New York, NY

675 Third Avenue | 8th Floor

State College, PA

1376 Haymaker Road

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

[email protected]

Cherry Hill, NJ

[email protected]

New York, NY

[email protected]

State College, PA

[email protected]

Blog

Post at Your Peril: Facebook Privacy Settings Don’t Protect Against Discoverability in New York

On February 13, 2018, the Court of Appeals weighed in on an important issue relating to the discoverability of private social media content. In a unanimous decision, New York’s highest court reversed the First Department’s application of a heightened threshold for the production of social media records where the account holder has chosen to share posts on a private setting only.

In Forman v. Henkin, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op 01015, the plaintiff was injured in a fall from a horse owned by the defendant. She alleged spinal and traumatic brain injuries resulting in cognitive deficits, memory loss, difficulties with written and oral communication, and social isolation. At her deposition, she testified that her Facebook account contained several photographs depicting  her pre-accident active lifestyle, but that she had deactivated the account six months after the accident and could not recall posting post-accident photos. Defendants filed a motion to compel production of an authorization to obtain the entire private content of the plaintiff’s Facebook account asserting that it was relevant to plaintiff’s injuries and credibility. The Supreme Court granted the motion to the limited extent of directing the plaintiff to produce all pre-accident photographs that she intended to introduce at trial and all photographs of herself privately posted after the accident that did not depict nudity or romantic encounters. The Supreme Court also directed the production of an authorization permitting release of Facebook records showing each time plaintiff posted a private message after the accident and the number of characters or words in the messages. The plaintiff had testified that following the accident her ability to use the computer and write coherent messages was compromised and that writing a simple email could take her hours.

The plaintiff appealed the decision and the First Department (with two justices dissenting) modified the order by limiting disclosure to pre-accident and post-accident photographs posted on Facebook that plaintiff intended to introduce at trial, and eliminated the requirement to provide an authorization to obtain other data. Leave to appeal was granted.

The Court of Appeals reiterated New York’s liberal discovery standard, stating that “[a] party seeking discovery must satisfy the threshold requirement that the request is reasonably calculated to yield information that is “material and necessary” – i.e., relevant…” The Court went on to note that litigants are not without protection against an unnecessarily onerous application of that standard, that competing interests must be balanced, and that discovery disputes should be resolved on a case by case basis. The Court noted that although Facebook is a relatively new means of sharing information, “there is nothing so novel about Facebook materials that precludes application of New York’s long-standing disclosure rules…”

The Court questioned the clarity of the standard employed by the First Department and made reference to the Appellate Division’s prior decision in Tapp v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp. 102 A.D.3d 620 (1st Dep’t 2013) where the court had stated: “To warrant discovery, defendants must establish a factual predicate for their request by identifying relevant information in plaintiff’s Facebook account – that is, information that ‘contradicts or conflicts with plaintiff’s alleged restrictions, disabilities and losses, and other claims’”. The Court of Appeals noted that several courts appear to have interpreted the First Department’s ruling it Tapp to mean that discovery of materials contained in the private portion of a Facebook account is conditioned on the existence of material in the public portion that tends to contradict the injured party’s allegations. The Court concluded that this approach was incorrect in that it dictates that disclosure turns on the extent to which information is already accessible and not, is it should, on whether it is material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of an action. The Court went on to state that the purpose of discovery is to determine if relevant material exists and it is impossible for a requesting party to demonstrate that items not produced contain material evidence. Accordingly, the Court concluded that Facebook privacy settings do not dictate the scope of discovery of social media materials.

The Court of Appeals also recognized, however, that the contents of Facebook accounts are not automatically discoverable in personal injury actions, and that requests should be tailored to relevant information. The Court of Appeals directed lower courts to (a) consider the nature of the event giving rise to the litigation and the injuries claimed to assess whether material found on Facebook may be relevant, and (b) balance the potential utility of the information against any specific privacy or other concerns. In doing so, lower courts should tailor an order that identifies the types of material to be disclosed while avoiding disclosure of non-relevant material. The Court also noted that temporal limitations may be appropriate as might limitations on the disclosure of sensitive or embarrassing materials of marginal relevance.

In reversing the First Department and reinstating the lower court’s ruling, the Court of Appeals pointed out several times that because only the plaintiff and not the defendant appealed the lower court’s decision, the scope of the appeal before it was limited, implying that it may have sanctioned broader access to the plaintiff’s Facebook account than the lower court had permitted.

In representing plaintiffs in personal injury actions, it is rare nowadays for clients not to have some form of social media presence. Even if a client is advised against posting on social media during the pendency of his or her case, prior posts may be relevant and discoverable, regardless of their privacy settings. Plaintiffs cannot delete relevant postings and may run the risk of facing a spoliation motion if they do. Rather than resisting all requests for the production of social media content, a better course of action for plaintiffs’ attorneys is to access the client’s Facebook and other social media accounts, review the content to determine relevance, and decide, as you would in relation to all other requested material, if it is relevant and if it should be produced in response to discovery demands.

The Court of Appeals did note in Forman that the plaintiff’s attorney had not affirmed that she had reviewed her client’s Facebook page.  As a matter of prudence, regardless of whether the material is ultimately discoverable, knowing the contents of your client’s social media accounts is invaluable. It helps to evaluate a case and properly prepare your client to testify. It can also reveal helpful information that bolsters claims where a client’s memory of certain events has faded. Further, voluntarily producing clearly relevant and responsive information from social media accounts will go a long way to convincing a judge to limit any further access demanded by defendants.

In light of the Court of Appeals’ decision in Forman one thing is clear: this issue is here to stay in personal injury actions, and requests for the production of social media content will fast become a routine demand from defendants to the extent it has not already.

 

Janet Walsh

Guest Author
March 7, 2018 Janet Walsh

Tell Us About Your Case

If you can read this, please avoid filling the following input field or your submission may be marked as spam.
Thank you for contacting us! We will be in touch with you shortly.
Uh oh. There was a problem processing your request. Please try again!
Previous Entry

United States Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in CareFirst, Inc. v. Attias.

Next Entry

Trump Administration Continues to Gut EPA’s Ability to Protect Americans

Recent Entries

  • IARC’s Latest Evaluation: Automotive Gasoline Causes Cancer
  • How Personal Technology Can Help You Navigate Legal Matters
  • Seeking Justice: Locks Law Firm Represents Victims of Northeast Philadelphia Plane Crash
  • "Judicial Hellhole"
  • Dacthal Pesticide Ban: EPA Falls Short Again, Inaction Fails to Protect the Unborn 

Archive

  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • December 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • January 2023
  • August 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • February 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • September 2011
  • January 2011
  • November 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
1-866-LOCKSLAW
[email protected]
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube
2021 Best Lawyers
Martindale-Hubble Award Ten Leaders

Copyright © 2025 Locks Law Firm. Made by Mindlark.

Locks Law Firm only provides legal advice after having entered into an attorney client relationship, which our website specifically does not create. Conversations that originate from website messaging, chat or other two way web based engagement  do not create an attorney client relationship. It is imperative that any action taken be done on the advice of counsel. Because every case is different, the description of awards and cases previously handled do not guarantee a similar outcome in current or future cases. The firm practices law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey & New York as Locks Law Firm. Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America and other organizations that rate attorneys are not designations that have been approved by the State Supreme Courts or the American Bar Association.