Facts
- Theresa Giacchetto was an elementary school teacher employed by the Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District since 1996.
- She alleged that she was diagnosed with adult ADHD on December 21, 2010, informed the School District, and was mocked by a district official.
- She filed a disability-discrimination complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights on January 5, 2011.
- She alleged that the School District treated her differently after her diagnosis and complaint, issued multiple counseling letters, transferred her against her will, and refused to accommodate her disability.
- She asserted claims under the ADA and the NYSHRL and sought damages including emotional distress.
- During discovery, the School District moved to compel authorizations for the release of all records from Giacchetto’s social-networking accounts (including Facebook, Twitter, and Myspace).
- The School District argued social-media content was relevant to her alleged emotional and physical damages and to events described in the complaint.
- Giacchetto objected that the request was overbroad, speculative, and an improper intrusion into private, nonpublic content.
Issues
- Under Rule 26(b)(1), whether a defendant in an employment-discrimination case may compel production of all social-media content based solely on a plaintiff’s claim for emotional-distress damages.
- What limits should be imposed to ensure requested social-media discovery is relevant and proportionate, particularly when nonpublic content is sought.
- How a court should weigh privacy concerns when the requested material is not privileged but is personal and extensive.
Decision
- The court granted the motion to compel in part and denied it in part.
- It refused to order blanket production of all content from the plaintiff’s social-networking accounts.
- It ordered production limited to social-media content relevant to the plaintiff’s emotional or mental state, her emotional-distress claims, or the events alleged in the pleadings.
Legal Principles
- Discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) extends to nonprivileged matters relevant to any party’s claim or defense, including electronically stored information from social-networking sites.
- Allegations of emotional distress can make some social-media content discoverable because posts may bear on emotional condition, social functioning, and enjoyment of life, or may contradict claimed damages.
- A party is not entitled to unrestricted access to an opposing party’s entire social-media history merely because emotional distress is alleged; discovery must be tied to the claims and defenses and limited to relevant subject matter.
- Privacy concerns do not create privilege, but they support narrowing requests to avoid sweeping production of personal, nonrelevant content.
Conclusion
The court treated social-media evidence as ordinary discovery material subject to Rule 26 limits, permitting targeted production relevant to emotional distress and alleged events while rejecting broad demands for complete access to the plaintiff’s social-networking accounts.