Forman v. Henkin, 134 A.D.3d 529

Background

Plaintiff sued for personal injuries after falling from defendant's horse, alleging cognitive and physical impairments that limited social and recreational activities.
Plaintiff had a Facebook account she used before the accident and deactivated sometime after the accident and after suit began.
Defendant moved to compel broad access to plaintiff's Facebook: all photos, status updates, and private messages (unlimited authorization).
Motion court ordered production limitedly: (1) all photos privately posted before the accident that plaintiff intends to use at trial; (2) all post-accident photos that do not show nudity or romantic encounters; and (3) authorizations for Facebook records showing times and lengths of private messages after the accident (but not content).
Plaintiff appealed those portions of the order; the Appellate Division majority partially vacated the order (vacating compulsion for post-accident photos plaintiff does not intend to introduce and the authorizations regarding private message metadata) and otherwise affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of discoverability of private social-media content	Forman argued defendant failed to show a factual predicate that private Facebook content would produce relevant evidence	Henkin argued Facebook photos and messages may contradict plaintiff's disability claims and are thus discoverable	Majority: Defendant must show a factual predicate; mere use of Facebook or speculation is insufficient; limited discovery ordered only for photos plaintiff intends to use at trial; broader demands vacated
Relevance standard for social-media discovery	Plaintiff: traditional CPLR relevancy standard applies; defendant provided no tailored showing	Defendant: broad access needed to locate contradictory evidence	Held: Apply ordinary CPLR 3101 material-and-necessary test; but defendant must demonstrate usefulness/reason to avoid fishing; prior social-media precedent controls
Use of in camera review when threshold shown	Plaintiff opposed wholesale disclosure; majority did not order in camera review here	Defendant favored access; dissent urged in camera review if any predicate exists	Held: Whether to conduct in camera review is discretionary (trial court's choice); not mandatory in all cases and not required here
Treatment of deactivated accounts and message metadata	Plaintiff: deactivation and privacy limit discoverability; content not readily accessible	Defendant: deactivation does not eliminate records; metadata (times/lengths) may be useful	Held: Deactivation alone doesn't establish relevance; metadata authorizations vacated for lack of factual predicate; content remains subject to discovery if plaintiff intends to use it or if a proper predicate is shown

Key Cases Cited

Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403 (discusses usefulness-and-reason test for discovery)
Tapp v. N.Y. State Urban Dev. Corp., 102 A.D.3d 620 (mere use of Facebook insufficient to compel private account access)
Pecile v. Titan Capital Group, LLC, 113 A.D.3d 526 (vague assertions social-media might contradict emotional-distress claims insufficient)
Patterson v. Turner Constr. Co., 88 A.D.3d 617 (required factual predicate and remanded for more specific determination re: Facebook)
Spearin v. Linmar, L.P., 129 A.D.3d 528 (ordered in camera review when public posting tended to contradict plaintiff's testimony)
McCann v. Harleysville Ins. Co. of N.Y., 78 A.D.3d 1524 (denying Facebook access where no factual predicate of relevancy shown)
Kregg v. Maldonado, 98 A.D.3d 1289 (requiring factual predicate for social-media discovery)
GS Plásticos Limitada v. Bureau Veritas Consumer Prods. Servs., Inc., 112 A.D.3d 539 (sufficient factual predicate required for discovery demands)
Devore v. Pfizer Inc., 58 A.D.3d 138 (discovery cannot be used as a fishing expedition)
DiMichel v. South Buffalo Ry. Co., 80 N.Y.2d 184 (New York favors broad pretrial discovery)