Facts
- The EEOC sued an employer under Title VII on behalf of two former employees alleging sexual harassment by a supervisor and resulting mental and emotional distress.
- The claimants sought damages for more than “garden variety” emotional distress, including alleged conditions such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
- During discovery, the employer requested broad production from the claimants’ social-networking accounts (e.g., Facebook and MySpace), including photos, videos, and complete profiles with posts and messages over a defined period.
- The EEOC objected that the requests were overbroad, not relevant, unduly burdensome, and invaded privacy.
- The employer also sought expansive information about the claimants’ prior employment dating back to 2003.
- A magistrate judge resolved the discovery disputes by written order.
Issues
- Under Rule 26(b)(1), to what extent may a defendant obtain discovery of a plaintiff’s social-networking content, including nonpublic content, when the plaintiff alleges significant emotional distress?
- Whether broad discovery of the claimants’ prior employment history since 2003 is sufficiently relevant and appropriately tailored to be compelled.
Decision
-
The court compelled production of relevant social-networking content but denied blanket access to entire accounts and profiles.
-
The court ordered production of social-networking material within the relevant time period that:
- reveals, refers, or relates to any emotion, feeling, or mental state; and
- reveals, refers, or relates to events reasonably expected to produce significant emotion, feeling, or mental state.
-
The court rejected the argument that privacy expectations or privacy settings, standing alone, shield social-networking content from discovery.
-
The court declined to compel the requested broad prior-employment history, finding the requests insufficiently tailored and not supported by a strong relevance showing.
Legal Principles
- Rule 26(b)(1) permits discovery of nonprivileged matter relevant to any party’s claim or defense; discovery relevance is broader than trial admissibility.
- Social-networking content is not subject to a special discovery privilege; it is evaluated under ordinary relevance and proportionality limits.
- A party’s expectation that social-networking communications are private is not, by itself, a basis to withhold otherwise discoverable material.
- Allegations of significant emotional distress can make social communications relevant, but they do not justify unrestricted access to all social-media content; requests must be reasonably tailored.
- Broad employment-history discovery requires a concrete, case-specific relevance showing and tailoring to the issues in dispute (e.g., particular policies or training), rather than open-ended inquiries.
Conclusion
The court applied Rule 26 to social-media discovery by compelling only those social-networking communications that bear on the claimants’ emotional state or significant emotional events during a relevant timeframe, rejecting privacy as a categorical bar, and it refused to compel sweeping prior-employment history absent a narrower and better-supported relevance rationale.