Facebook v. Super. Ct.
192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 443
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- June 24, 2013 drive-by shooting in San Francisco resulted in one death and one serious injury; defendants Hunter and Sullivan indicted on murder, attempted murder, gang, and firearm enhancement charges.
- Defense served subpoenas duces tecum on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter seeking “any and all public and private content” (including private messages, deleted data, and subscriber info) from accounts of the victim (Jaquan Rice) and a witness (Renesha Lee).
- Social-media providers moved to quash, invoking the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA), which generally prohibits providers from divulging the contents of stored electronic communications except in specified statutory circumstances.
- Trial court denied the motions to quash and ordered in camera production for review; the social-media providers petitioned for writ relief in the Court of Appeal, which stayed the production order and issued a writ granting relief.
- The Court of Appeal held the SCA bars pretrial compelled disclosure to criminal defendants via ordinary subpoenas duces tecum and that defendants’ constitutional arguments did not overcome the SCA in the pretrial context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SCA permits enforcement of defense subpoenas for private social‑media content pretrial | Petitioners: SCA prohibits service providers from divulging contents to third parties; subpoenas must be quashed | Defendants: Penal Code subpoenas (and right to defense) allow pretrial access to materials necessary for defense | Held: SCA bars pretrial compelled disclosure via defense subpoenas; trial court must quash subpoenas |
| Whether the SCA is unconstitutional as applied because it denies reciprocal access to evidence the prosecution can obtain | Petitioners: statute protects privacy and is presumptively constitutional | Defendants: due process, compulsory process, confrontation, and effective assistance require access; SCA creates one‑sided access for government | Held: Defendants failed to show SCA is unconstitutional in the pretrial discovery context; constitutional rights do not mandate broad pretrial access |
| Whether the Sixth Amendment requires pretrial discovery of privileged or confidential third‑party materials | Petitioners: Sixth Amendment does not create broad pretrial discovery rights; confrontation is primarily a trial right | Defendants: confrontation/compulsory process require pretrial production to prepare defense | Held: Court follows Ritchie/Hammon/Webb—no general Sixth Amendment right to pretrial discovery of privileged/confidential materials; in camera/trial procedures are appropriate |
| Whether reciprocity concerns (government can obtain via warrant/subpoena) render SCA unfair or unconstitutional | Petitioners: government’s different investigatory powers are permissible; reciprocity not absolute | Defendants: lack of reciprocity tilts balance and impairs fair trial | Held: Reciprocity claim rejected; due process requires only that defendant have a full and fair opportunity to present defense, not identical investigatory tools |
Key Cases Cited
- O’Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal.App.4th 1423 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (SCA bars civil discovery subpoenas for electronic communication contents)
- Theofel v. Farey‑Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004) (SCA protects users’ privacy interests in stored electronic communications)
- United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) (Fourth Amendment protection for email content; warrant requirement analysis)
- Ritchie v. Pennsylvania, 480 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1987) (confrontation clause is primarily a trial right; in camera review can protect defendant’s interests)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (trial right of effective cross‑examination can override state confidentiality interests in certain circumstances)
- Hammon, People v., 15 Cal.4th 1117 (Cal. 1997) (limits on pretrial discovery of privileged psychotherapist records; caution against broad pretrial disclosure)
- Webb, People v., 6 Cal.4th 494 (Cal. 1993) (rejects broad Sixth Amendment right to pretrial access to privileged materials)
- Valdez, People v., 55 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2012) (upholding protective orders that delay/limit pretrial disclosure where justified)
- Jenkins, People v., 22 Cal.4th 900 (Cal. 2000) (scope of prosecutorial disclosure duties; Brady obligations)
- Negro v. Superior Court, 230 Cal.App.4th 879 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (California discovery must not be enforced to compel disclosures that violate the SCA)