The Facebook decisions seem to be coming fast and furious now.
Today, the Appellate Division (First Department) shot down yet another attempt by a defendant to go fishing around the plaintiff’s personal life, simply because Facebook activities “may reveal daily activities that contradict or conflict with”plaintiff’s claim isn’t enough. No way, said the appellate court, not good enough.
“Mere possession and utilization of a Facebook account is an insufficient basis to compel plaintiff to provide access to the account or to have the court conduct an in camera inspection of the account’s usage.”
“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.”
So sayeth the court in Tapp v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp.
The other Facebook decisions and discussion on my site are at this link.
The following law review article deals with both the discovery issures re Facebook discussed above and potential use of Facebook photos to show state of mind:
Kathryn R. Brown, “The Risks of Taking Facebook at Face Value: Why the Psychology of Social Networking Should Influence the Evidentiary Relevance of Facebook Photographs” (2012) 14 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 357, 359. Those interested in this topic will find it interesting.