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.