Mailhoit v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
285 F.R.D. 566
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- Motion to compel further responses to Request for Production Set One relating to social networking site content; hearing held Aug 28, 2012; parties filed a Joint Stipulation with supporting/opposing declarations; court grants in part and denies in part.
- Requests Nos. 46-49 seek SNS content from Oct 2005 to present touching on Plaintiff’s emotional state and related communications.
- Defendant contends SNS data test Plaintiff’s claimed mental/emotional distress and seeks third-party context and related photos.
- Plaintiff argues requests are overbroad and unduly burdensome; existing disclosures on emotional distress suffice.
- Court analyzes relevance under Rule 34 and “reasonable particularity”; Category 3 granted, Categories 1, 2, and 4 denied.
- Plaintiff ordered to respond to Category 3 within 14 days; opinion discusses limits on SNS discovery and cites related authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Category 1 SNS requests satisfy reasonable particularity. | Plaintiff argues overbreadth and lack of notice. | Defendant contends broad SNS material could reveal emotional state. | Categories 1 denied. |
| Whether Category 2 SNS requests satisfy reasonable particularity. | Requests are vague and dependent on Category 1. | Requests needed to place Plaintiff’s communications in context. | Category 2 denied. |
| Whether Category 3 SNS requests are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. | Some productions possible but burdensome; already produced related materials. | All communications with Home Depot employees relevant. | Category 3 granted. |
| Whether Category 4 SNS requests satisfy reasonable particularity. | All pictures over seven years is overbroad and unlikely to be relevant. | Images could be probative of emotional state. | Category 4 denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chavez v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp., 206 F.R.D. 615 (S.D. Ind. 2002) (broad relevance standard for discovery)
- Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1979) (Rule 1 and just, speedy, inexpensive action)
- Simply Storage Mgmt., LLC, 270 F.R.D. 430 (S.D. Ind. 2010) (SNS discovery must be tailored and not a fishing expedition)
- Tompkins v. Detroit Metropolitan Airport, 278 F.R.D. 387 (E.D. Mich. 2012) (threshold showing that SNS data is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence)
- In re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. VI), 256 F.R.D. 151 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (overbroad discovery requests fail Rule 34(b)(1)(A) reasonably particularity)
- Parsons v. Jefferson-Pilot Corp., 141 F.R.D. 408 (M.D.N.C. 1992) (standard for reasonable notice under Rule 34(b)(1))
- Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641 (10th Cir. 2008) (defining reasonable particularity in discovery)