## 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

1. 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?
2. 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.


Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Simply Storage Mgmt., LLC, 270 F.R.D. 430 (S.D. Ind. 2010)