Giacchetto v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83341
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Plaintiff Theresa Giacchetto sues the School District for ADA and NYSHRL discrimination and related damages.
- Defendant moves to compel production of Plaintiff's social networking records (Facebook, Twitter, MySpace).
- Amended Complaint describes ADHD diagnosis (Dec 21, 2010) and alleged discriminatory treatment by the District following disclosure.
- Plaintiff alleges counseling letters, classroom/grade transfers, and failure to accommodate; seeks various damages.
- Court analyzes discovery scope for social media under Rule 26(b)(1) and limits production to relevant categories.
- Court ultimately orders limited production via Plaintiff’s counsel reviewing postings; production due in 21 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether social media discovery is appropriate in this ADA/NYSHRL case. | Discovery should be broad to reveal damages and state of mind. | Social media is probative and discoverable for damages and events. | Yes, but narrowed scope to specific categories of posts. |
| Relevance of emotional-damage postings on social media. | postings should be broadly discoverable to prove distress. | Routine posts are not probative of distress; limit access. | Limit to posts mentioning emotional distress or alternative stressors; routine updates not broadly discoverable. |
| Relevance of postings about physical-damage claims. | Posts could show inconsistency with claimed injuries. | Posts reflecting physical capabilities relevant to damages. | Plaintiff must confirm whether pursuing physical damages and specify the claimed harm; scope to be determined upon written statement. |
| Production method and who reviews the social media material. | Defendant should access records via third parties. | Counsel should review for relevance rather than Plaintiff’s self-review. | Plaintiff's counsel to review for relevance; production by Plaintiff’s counsel within 21 days. |
| Whether accounts of the events alleged in the Amended Complaint must be produced. | Postings relating to alleged events are relevant. | Any such postings on social media are discoverable. | Postings that refer to events alleged in the Amended Complaint must be produced. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1978) (broad construction of relevancy in discovery)
- Barrett v. City of New York, 237 F.R.D. 39 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (discovery scope and relevance in civil rights actions)
- Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 285 F.R.D. 566 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (tailored social media discovery tailored to claims and defenses)
- Simply Storage Mgmt, LLC v. EEOC, 270 F.R.D. 430 (S.D. Ind. 2010) (novel context of social networking discovery; apply basic principles)
- Reid v. Ingerman Smith LLP, 2012 WL 6720752 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (posts may relate to emotional distress in some circumstances)