25 Pa. D. & C.5th 1
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2012Background
- Plaintiff alleges injury when he tripped over a pallet in defendant’s grocery store on Sept. 19, 2009.
- Defendant seeks plaintiff’s cell phone bill for the date of the accident to test for distraction or phone use.
- Plaintiff objects claiming privacy and that he was not using a cell phone at the time.
- Court considers Pennsylvania privacy doctrine (Beauford, Melilli) and balancing of relevance against intrusiveness.
- Court finds the blanket request improper, even if redacted, due to lack of factual predicate and potential burden.
- Court denies defendant’s motion to compel discovery as to paragraph 11 of the production requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cell phone records are discoverable in this personal-injury case. | Beauford privacy protects phone numbers. | Records may reveal distraction during the accident and are narrowly tailored. | Denied; privacy outweighs need and no proper predicate. |
| Whether redacted time/duration of calls could justify discovery. | Redaction does not cure privacy intrusion. | Redacted data should suffice for relevance. | Denied; still impermissible without proper predicate. |
| Whether non-public social networking data or other online records are discoverable. | Not addressed directly; rely on Beauford/Melilli. | Informal precedent permits limited access with predicate. | Not adopted; court relied on cell phone records analysis, not social media fishing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Beauford, 475 A.2d 783 (Pa. Super. 1984) (privacy in telephone numbers under state constitution)
- Commonwealth v. Melilli, 555 A.2d 1254 (Pa. 1989) (Beauford trend extended to private communications)
- Commonwealth v. Benson, 10 A.3d 1268 (Pa. Super. 2010) (privacy in cellular records acknowledged)
- Morano v. Slattery Skanska, 846 N.Y.S.2d 881 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007) (fishing expeditions disfavored; need indicia of usage)
- Detraglia v. Grant, 68 A.D.3d 1307 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009) (discovery of electronic usage records permissible with basis)
- Carpio v. Leahy Mechanical Corp., 30 A.D.3d 554 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) (support for broad discovery limitations)
- Auerbach v. Klein, 30 A.D.3d 451 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) (limits on obtaining third-party records)