Source: http://discovermodus.com/blog/page/5/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 04:09:38
Document Index: 219740141

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 9', 'art 8', 'art 9', 'art 8', 'art 7', 'art 8', 'art 7', 'art 6', 'art 7', 'art 6', 'art 5', 'art 1', 'art 6', 'art 5', 'art 4', '§ 2701', 'art 5', 'art 4', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1']

Social Media Discovery, Part 9 – Griffin v. State
In Part 8, we reviewed the two groups of cases that have emerged regarding the authentication of social media materials. Now, we continue our discussion of the authentication of social media materials with a look at the case of Griffin v. State of Maryland, 19 A.3d 415 (Md. 2011). Griffin v. State of Maryland was a criminal case in which Antoine Levar Griffin was convicted of “second degree murder, first degree assault, and use of a handgun in the commission of a felony or crime of violence” for “the fatal shooting of Darvell Guest on April 24, 2005.”
The first trial in the case ended in a mistrial, and at the second, one of the key witnesses offered different testimony than at the first trial. This witness further testified at the second trial that his original testimony was different because he had been threatened, prior to the first trial, by the Defendant’s girlfriend.
This is Part 9 of a multi-part blog series reviewing the role of social media in discovery.
Social Media Discovery, Part 8 – Authentication Case Law
In Part 7, we reviewed the Federal Rules of Evidence applicable to the authentication of social media materials. Now, we continue our discussion of the authentication of social media materials with a look at the cases considering the issue. For a deeper dive into these cases and their nuances, I highly recommend the American Journal of Trial Advocacy article “Authentication of Social Media Evidence” by the Honorable Paul W. Grimm and his law clerks. As Judge Grimm explains in that article, there are two groups of cases on the subject of authenticating social media materials representing two different approaches:
This is Part 8 of a multi-part blog series reviewing the role of social media in discovery.
Social Media Discovery, Part 7 – Authentication by the Numbers
In Part 6, we reviewed some of the key technical issues and mechanisms associated with the acquisition of social media materials. In this Part, we begin our discussion of the authentication of social media materials with a look at the relevant evidentiary rules for the Federal Courts. For a deeper dive into these rules and their nuances, I highly recommend the American Journal of Trial Advocacy article “Authentication of Social Media Evidence” by the Honorable Paul W. Grimm and his law clerks.
There are many different issues a judge must consider in determining admissibility, from hearsay to prejudice, all but one of which are beyond the scope of this series. Among those threshold issues, however, is the question of authenticity, which has posed special challenges for proponents of social media materials.
This is Part 7 of a multi-part blog series reviewing the role of social media in discovery.
Social Media Discovery, Part 6 – Technical Mechanisms
In Part 5, we concluded our review of the various legal mechanisms available for the acquisition of social media evidence with a discussion of the SCA and subpoenas to service providers. In this Part, we discuss some of the technical mechanisms for the acquisition of social media materials. The first question we must answer is: what sorts of files and materials are available from social media sources for acquisition. As we noted in Part 1 of this series, Facebook stores a large volume of diverse materials related to each of its 1.44 billion monthly active users, adding over 600 terabytes of new data to its 300 petabyte hoard every day.
This is Part 6 of a multi-part blog series reviewing the role of social media in discovery.
Social Media Discovery, Part 5 – Subpoenas and the SCA
In Part 4, we continued our review of the various legal mechanisms available for the acquisition of social media evidence, by discussing account holder consent and in camera review. In this Part, we conclude our review of legal mechanisms for the acquisition of social media materials by discussing subpoenas to service providers and the SCA. In the United States, the privacy of the materials you create and store in online services – including services like Gmail and Facebook – is governed by Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-508, Oct. 21, 1986)(“ECPA”).
Title II of the ECPA, codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 to 2712, is commonly known as the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”). The ECPA and the SCA dictate which of those materials can be disclosed, which must be disclosed, and when. Their primary concern is with the circumstances under which the government can access such materials (for criminal investigations, etc.), but they also restrict access by, and disclosure to, third parties.
This is Part 5 of a multi-part blog series reviewing the role of social media in discovery.
Social Media Discovery, Part 4 – Other Mechanisms
In Part 3, we began our review of the various legal mechanisms available for the acquisition of social media evidence, beginning with requests for the account holder’s user name and password. In this Part, we continue our legal mechanism review with account holder consent and in camera review. In the last Part, we discussed requests for the account holder’s password over their objection, but in some instances, account holders are willing to turn over their password, or otherwise provide access to private portions of the account, voluntarily. Even consensual access can come with complications, however, if the specifics of access are not well-coordinated.
This is Part 4 of a multi-part blog series reviewing the role of social media in discovery.
Social Media Discovery, Part 3 – Password Discovery
In Part 1, we reviewed the enormous reach of social media in American life, the growing significance it has as evidence, and the vast scope and scale of the evidence it can provide. In Part 2, we reviewed the threshold question of relevancy and social media evidence’s ability to clear that hurdle. We turn now to the various legal mechanisms available for the acquisition of social media evidence, beginning in this Part with requests for the account holder’s user name and password.
Beyond simply requesting the production of specific content from social media accounts, some parties in discovery have requested the production of the account holder’s password to give them full access to all available content in the account, private as well as public. Some courts have been receptive to these requests – when an adequate foundation for the request can be laid; others have deemed them too intrusive and fashioned narrower discovery solutions.
This is Part 3 of a multi-part blog series reviewing the role of social media in discovery.
Gibson Dunn Releases “2015 Mid-Year E-Discovery Update”
Since 2009, the Electronic Discovery and Information Law practice at Gibson Dunn has released annual Mid-Year and Year-End Updates reviewing legal, technological, and other kinds of developments in the law and practice of electronic discovery. On Wednesday, July 15, the practice released its “2015 Mid-Year E-Discovery Update,” which covers cases and trends from the first half of this year.
The report provides updates on a dozen topics, including: text messages and mobile devices, information governance, the internet of things, predictive coding, sanctions, preservation, eDiscovery cost recovery, discovery of social media, governmental investigations, eDiscovery vendor developments, federal rule amendments, and international eDiscovery developments.
Social Media Discovery, Part 2 – The Threshold Question
In Part 1, we reviewed the enormous reach of social media in American life, the growing significance it has as evidence, and the vast scope and scale of the evidence it can provide. We turn now to the first of the questions we posed in Part 1: when can all this social media evidence be obtained and used? As with all other kinds of evidence, both traditional and electronic, the answer to this question depends on relevance.
The scope of the evidence that may be obtained during discovery or used as evidence at trial is determined by the applicable rules of procedure and evidence. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) establishes the scope of discovery . . .
This is Part 2 of a multi-part blog series reviewing the role of social media in discovery.
Social Media Discovery, Part 1 – Introduction
Social media usage has become deeply ingrained in American life. According to the Pew Research Center, “74% of online adults use social networking sites,” and more than half of online adults now use two or more social media sites. More than half of online adults are Facebook users, and 70% of Facebook users engage with the site daily. Nielsen reports that 64% of overall social media users use social media sites at least once a day. As far back as 2012, 46% of adult internet users were engaged in sharing their photos and videos online.
Because of its novelty, its variety, and its volume, social media materials present a range of challenges for discovery practitioners and litigators. When can social media evidence be obtained and used? By what legal mechanisms can it be obtained? What are the technical options and challenges associated with obtaining it? Once obtained, how can it be authenticated for use as evidence? Does seeking or using social media evidence raise any special ethical issues? Over the next several weeks, this blog series will attempt to answer these questions through a review of relevant case law, white papers, and articles.
This is Part 1 of a multi-part blog series reviewing the role of social media in discovery.