ILNews

Whaley: Adventures in e-discovery and social media

July 30, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

 

whaley Whaley

By Alan Whaley

It’s no secret – the use of social media is commonplace and widespread. Online statistics say that Facebook had over 1.2 billion active users in the first quarter of 2014, and Twitter has 255 million active users sending 500 million messages a day. And social media is not just for individuals anymore; organizations use it on a large scale, too. According to a study by the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Center for Marketing Research, as of July 2013, 77 percent of Fortune 500 companies were on Twitter, and 70 percent of them had Facebook accounts.

With all this social media use, it is not surprising that social media can have a significant impact on litigation and discovery. Occasionally something dramatic provides a cautionary tale, like the confidential settlement in a Florida employment discrimination case that the defendant private school voided when the plaintiff’s daughter bragged about it on her Facebook account. But there are many aspects of social media which, while not flashy, present interesting e-discovery challenges.

Relevance, scope of discovery

Some litigants have tried to take the position that their social media content should not be discoverable because some of it is personal and revealing it could be embarrassing. That argument usually doesn’t work. As with other kinds of evidence, social media content is potentially discoverable if it is relevant to the issues in a case. For example, the courts in EEOC v. Simply Storage Mgt., LLC, 270 F.R.D. 430 (S.D. Ind. 2010), and EEOC v. Original Honeybaked Ham Co. of Georgia, 2012 WL5430974 (D. Col. Nov. 7, 2012), both ruled that defendants in sexual harassment cases were entitled to discover some content posted on plaintiffs’ social media sites because it was relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims of emotional distress and financial injury.

The information deemed discoverable was not limited to content that directly addressed or commented on the issues in the litigation, nor was it limited to the public portions of the plaintiffs’ social media profiles. Most courts do not accept the argument that a party has a privacy interest in protecting information posted to a social media account, even its non-public sections. But they are also reluctant to order that all of a party’s social media content is discoverable. So they devise guidelines or methods to identify only the relevant content. In the Honeybaked Ham case, that involved appointing a forensic consultant as a Special Master to help filter through some of the information, and the court’s in camera review of other content. The cost of the consultant was shared equally by the parties.

Access to data

Knowing a party has social media content that may be relevant is one thing; getting access to it is another. A significant factor in seeking access to another party’s social media content is the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. The SCA was written in the mid-1980s, before the advent of the World Wide Web, and it presents an often cumbersome framework that courts have found to be an imperfect fit when applied to social media. But it prevents Internet service providers from supplying access to the non-public electronic communications of their subscribers, so simply sending a civil subpoena to Facebook will get you nowhere, and in some courts will be sanctionable as an overreaching discovery tactic.

There are exceptions under the SCA for government-issued subpoenas and warrants, and the analysis in a given case will depend somewhat on whether a provider is deemed to be an “electronic communication service” provider or a “remote computer service” provider under the statute – and sometimes the same provider can be both an ECS and an RCS. In addition, sometimes the type of data storage (Is it “temporary?” Is it “backup?”) determines whether the SCA applies. Parsing through the nuances of these definitions is beyond the scope of this brief article, but the upshot is this: it will be difficult if not impossible to force an ECS or RCS provider to provide access to social media content without the consent of the subscriber. If the subscriber won’t give consent voluntarily, one option is to seek a court order directing that the consent be given.

Preserving data

One significant aspect of electronic data is that it frequently changes, and that is especially true of social media content. Therefore, at the beginning of a case it may be particularly important to try to preserve the status of another party’s social media information. You can do this with a preservation notice to that party, or if you think additional measures are needed, consider a preservation request to the service provider or even a “preservation subpoena” and motion filed with a court.

Authentication

If a party has obtained social media content and needs to get it into evidence, authenticating that evidence may become an issue. One approach is to preserve and print a static image from a social media account – that can easily be done with a party’s public social media posts, for example. But the personal testimony of an authenticating witness, like the person who collected and printed the image, will probably be necessary. And with some kinds of content, like video or audio materials, special software and the assistance of a forensic computer consultant may be needed.

Other issues

There are social media issues that practitioners should at least be aware of. These include identifying who actually has possession, custody or control of social media content – sometimes, it’s not exclusively the subscriber. And there are very important ethical considerations affecting how a lawyer should use social media, both in the discovery context and otherwise. For example, it is widely considered unethical for a lawyer to “pretext” – that is, to seek “friend” status under false pretenses to gain access to someone’s social media content. And using social media recklessly, such as through blog posts or online comments, can invite trouble for lawyers and judges. In an information environment that can sometimes seem like the Wild West, circumspection is good policy.•

__________

Alan (Skip) Whaley is a partner in the litigation and appellate practices of Ice Miller LLP. His practice focuses particularly on health care and product liability cases, e-discovery, confidentiality and privacy issues, regulatory and licensing matters, and risk management. He can be contacted at 317-236-2362 and whaley@icemiller.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT