LibGuides: Social Media & the Law by Brittany Cowan: Case Law

Case Law

Florida Case Law

Davenport v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, (Dist. Ct, M.D. Fla 2012) - The Court ordered plaintiff to produce Facebook any photographs taken since the date of the subject accident because the plaintiff's "quality of life" was at issue and plaintiff did not have a reasonable expectation in privacy with respect to Facebook posts.
Salvato v. Miley, 2013 U.S. Dist. 2013 WL 2712206 (M.D. Fla. June 11, 2013) - Stating that courts will not tolerate an "impermissible fishing expedition" for social media content.
Domville v. Florida, Fla. Dist. Ct. App., No. 4D12-556, Sept. 5, 2012) - The Court held that a judge had to disqualify himself from a trial in which he was a Facebook friend of the assigned prosecuter.
Vegas v. CSCS Int’l, N.V.,795 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) - Under Florida case law, a party may be entitled to traditional common-law spoliation remedies when another party intentionally destroys known relevant information, either before or during litigation.
Royal & Sunalliance v. Lauderdale Marina, 877 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) - In contrast to federal law, the general duty to preserve ESI is triggered only “by contract, by statute, or by a properly served discoveryrequest (after a lawsuit has been filed).
Beswick v. Northwest Medical Center et. al., No. 07-020592 (17th Cir. Broward Cty, FL, Nov. 3, 2011) - The Court compelled plaintiffs in a medical negligence case to execute an authorization for the release of their Facebook and other social media records for a five year time period.
U.S. v. Phaknikone, 605 F.3d 1099 (11th Cir. 2010)- The Court held that the lower court abused its discretion in admitting the defendant's Myspace profile page and photographs to prove that he committed a string of robberies because the material was inadmissible character evidence.

Social Media Case Law

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y, 2003) - This case made it clear that the duty to preserve ESI is triggered when aparty reasonably should anticipate the likelihood of litigation.
Romano v. Steelcase, 907 N.Y.S.2d 650 (2013) - Plaintiff consented to sharing the information that she posted on the site when she joined Facebook and Myspace, and she waived any privacy interests in the information.
Giacchetto v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free Sch. Dist., 293 F.R.D. 112, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83341, 2013 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) - Court applied a traditional relevance analysis to determine the scope of discoverable social media content.
Mackelprang v. Fidelity Nat’l Title Agency of Nevada, 2007 WL 119149, 99 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 997 (D. Nev. 2007) - Court did not allow discovery of plaintiff’s social media due to the tenuous relationship and fact that accounts were created after the sexual harassment took place.
EEOC v. Simply Storage Mgmt. LLC, 270 F.R.D. 430 (S.D. Ind. 2010) - Court ruled that the mere fact that claimants’ profiles had been set to private did not preclude them from discovery.
Potts v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38795, 117 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1352, 2013 WL 1176504 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 20, 2013) - Threshold showing that publicly available information undermines plaintiff's claims.
Lester v. Allied Concrete Co., No. CL08-150 (Va. Cir. Ct. Sept. 01, 2011), aff ’d, No. 120074 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2013) - The Court sanctioned both the plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel, stating that they had engaged in "spoliation of social media evidence".
Katiroll Company, Inc. v. Kati Roll and Platters, Inc., No. 10-3620 (GEB)(D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2011) - The court found that the defendant committed technical spoliation after changing his Facebook profile picture, because the disputed picture was alleged to depict infringing trade dress. However, the Court imposed a significanty less severe sanction than in Lester.
In re Pfizer, Inc. Securities Litigation, 288 F.R.D. 297(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2013) - The Court did not issue sanctions when the defendant merely negligently failed to preserve ESI data from "e-rooms" when the plaintiffs failed to show the data was relevant to their claims.
Moore v. Miller, No. 1:10-cv-00651-JLK-MJW (D. Colo. June 6, 2013) - A District Court judge ordered that the plaintiff provide his entire Facebook account history, stating that it was relevant to his claims of emotional pain and suffering, physical pain, and humiliation.
Painter v. Atwood, 2:12-cv-01215 (D. Nev. 2014) - The Court imposed sanctions against the plaintiff when she deleted Facebook posts that allegedly undermined her claims that she was sexually assaulted by her employer. This case is significant because it demonstrates how important it is for attorneys to inform their clients of the duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence- even on social media.