30 N.Y.3d 656
Court for the Trial of Impeach...2018Background
- Plaintiff injured in a horseback-fall, alleging spinal and traumatic brain injuries causing cognitive deficits, memory loss, communication difficulties, and social withdrawal.
- Plaintiff testified she had a Facebook account with many pre-accident photos, deactivated it ~6 months after the accident, and could not recall post-accident postings; she also produced a writing sample showing impaired writing ability.
- Defendant sought broad access to plaintiff’s private Facebook account, arguing photos and posts were relevant to activity level and credibility; also sought metadata (timestamps, character counts) to measure writing speed.
- Supreme Court ordered limited disclosure: private pre-accident photos plaintiff intends to use at trial, post-accident photos (excluding nudity/romantic content), and Facebook records showing times and lengths of post-accident private messages (but not message contents).
- Appellate Division narrowed disclosure further to only photographs plaintiff intended to introduce at trial; defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals. Supreme Court’s original order was reinstated by the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of social-media discovery | Privacy settings should limit discovery; public portion controls access | Privacy settings should not block discovery; private content can be material and necessary | Account holder's privacy settings do not control discoverability; discovery governed by CPLR 3101 relevance standard |
| Need for a heightened threshold for Facebook production | Appellate Division rule: must identify contradictory public material first | No heightened predicate; request must only be reasonably calculated to yield relevant info | Rejected heightened public-portion predicate; no special rule for social-media discovery |
| Breadth of permissible production from Facebook | Plaintiff sought to prevent production beyond photos she plans to use at trial | Defendant sought photos and certain metadata (timing/length) to test activity and cognitive claims | Court upheld Supreme Court's tailored order (photos and metadata) and reinstated it; whole account not automatically discoverable |
| Protection of private or sensitive materials | Plaintiff argued disclosure is an invasion of privacy | Defendant argued relevancy can overcome privacy concerns when condition is placed in issue | Privacy is not absolute; private materials relevant to claims may be discovered with tailoring and protections (e.g., exclude nudity/romantic images) |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403 (NY 1968) ("material and necessary" in CPLR 3101 construed liberally for disclosure)
- Spectrum Sys. Intl. Corp. v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d 371 (NY 1991) (discovery categories and policy favoring liberal disclosure)
- Andon v. 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 N.Y.2d 740 (NY 2000) (discovery determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Kavanagh v. Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 952 (NY 1998) (balance discovery need against opposing party's burden; CPLR 3103)
- Kapon v. Koch, 23 N.Y.3d 32 (NY 2014) (discovery from nonparties under CPLR 3101[a][4])
- Arons v. Jutkowitz, 9 N.Y.3d 393 (NY 2007) (placing condition in issue can waive certain privacy privileges)