Source: http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2012/02/new-facebook-discovery-decision-another-defendant-shot-down.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:47:34+00:00

Document:
There have only been a few decisions in our state court system dealing with the discoverability of private Facebook postings in civil litigation. Today comes the first federal court decision, out of the Eastern District of New York.
There is one huge issue that lurks in the background of these demands, which relates to thousands of private documents; documents in the form of profiles, pictures, messages (both public and private), tweets, photos, etc. And that is, if a court thinks something might be discoverable, court personnel will actually have to sift through those documents during an in camera inspection looking to see what, if anything, should be disclosed. And this will be compounded by the other side then making similar requests. As a result of the court needing to do this fishing expedition itself, judges will set a high bar on litigants looking to explore the ocean of people’s lives looking for that little minnow.
Expect to see this decision widely cited in the future.
I was going to write something about this same subject. The law is going both ways in Pennsylvania, though I think the courts are leaning towards what Judge Wall decided. Recently, a Philadelphia court decided something similar to what SDNY did.
However, we some a family law cases (custody?) floating around where the parties had to turn over their Facebook credentials.
My guess is that the courts will scrutinize disclosure of Facebook in PI cases, but be more liberal in custody cases. Seems like whether or not a Facebook account is dicoverable, and to what extent, could be very fact and matter specific.
Recently, a Philadelphia court decided something similar to what SDNY did.
That PA case was Largent v. Reed? If so, it is cited in the decision. There seem to be precious few of these types of cases out there yet.
Largent v. Reed, cited in the opinion, was out of Franklin County.
We also have a case from Philadelphia – Martin v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Co., where Allstate’s motion to compel access to a Facebook page was denied. Unfortunately, the motion was denied without an opinion, though that isn’t out of the ordinary in Philadelphia discovery court. Discovery motions are usually decided on the spot at oral argument.
Other Pennsylvania cases supporting a plaintiff’s right to privacy over a defendant’s right to take discovery are Arcq v. Fields and Piccolo v. Paterson (from Bucks County).
There is also Kalinowski v. Kirschenheiter, where a trial court denied a motion to compel access to plaintiff’s social media sites, but also entered a preservation order.
However, Zimmerman v. Weis Markets Inc. and McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway Inc. stand for the proposition that “no privilege exists in Pennsylvania for information posted in the non-public sections of social websites, liberal discovery is generally allowable, and the pursuit of truth as to alleged claims is a paramount ideal.” The defense bar’s argument is that Facebook pages are relevant to a plaintiff’s quality of life and the statements were made in a public forum.
However, it’s fair to say that the issue is currently unsettled. Some direction from an appellate court would be helpful on this issue, because it’s hard to give clients good advice when the answer isn’t clear.
I’ll probably put something together in the next week or so discussing this issue as it pertains to Pennsylvania.
All aspects of society will have to deal with the reality of social media. The balance that the two have to reach for society to continue functioning will always be a tough battle. That being said when a social media page is marked private, it should be under very dire circumstances that the courts should be able to access those records. It’s almost like having a piece of enclosed mail, the lawyers would have to show why its important before its opened. The same should be with social media especially if the owner goes through the hurdles of making it private.
Thank you for that deep analysis. I know my readers will appreciate the effort you expended.
The law is only beginning to appreciate the new landscape. I recently had a fellow lawyer client delete messages upon notice of an action. The deleted messages were brought to the attention of the state ethics board [Grievance Committee]. There are many things that are only now being fleshed out in the legal body politic.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.