## Facts

- James Moore sued Denver law-enforcement officials and the City and County of Denver under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging he was seriously injured during an arrest.
- Moore claimed ongoing physical limitations and chronic pain, sought damages for physical injury and emotional distress, and demanded $2 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
- Moore posted online about the arrest and about injuries he claimed to suffer afterward, including on Facebook.
- During discovery, defendants sought documents including employment and tax records, arrest records, and social-media content related to the arrest and alleged injuries.
- The court previously granted a motion to compel and ordered Moore to produce, among other items, Facebook and other social-media posts and activity pertaining to the arrest.
- Moore produced only a limited set of materials, including an incomplete and heavily redacted printout of Facebook wall posts, and did not produce his Facebook activity log.
- Moore argued the prior order required production only of “writings about his arrest,” and that his narrowed production satisfied that interpretation.
- Defendants moved to enforce the discovery order and requested leave to seek attorney’s fees connected to the discovery motion practice.

## Issues

1. Whether Moore was required to produce a broader set of Facebook materials (including the activity log and posts not expressly describing the arrest) because they were relevant to claimed physical injury, emotional distress, damages, bias, and credibility.
2. Whether the court should enforce its prior discovery order and permit defendants to seek reasonable attorney’s fees related to the motion to compel and the enforcement motion.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion to enforce the prior order compelling discovery.
- The court ordered Moore to produce his Facebook history, including the activity log, from the time of his arrest through the end of discovery.
- The court granted defendants leave to file a motion for reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the motion to compel and the motion to enforce.

## Legal Principles

- Discoverable social-media content is not limited to posts that expressly describe the underlying incident; material bearing on a party’s claimed injuries, emotional state, physical condition, bias, and credibility may be relevant and discoverable.
- A party cannot comply with a social-media production order by producing only self-selected, incomplete, or heavily redacted content when the order requires broader production.
- Where a plaintiff places physical condition and emotional distress at issue, generalized privacy objections do not bar discovery of relevant social-media materials within a defined time frame.
- Courts may enforce discovery orders and permit fee-shifting where a party’s narrowing construction results in noncompliance and additional discovery motion practice.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a prior discovery order by requiring production of Moore’s full Facebook history, including his activity log, for a defined period because the content could bear on his claimed physical and emotional injuries and credibility, and it allowed defendants to pursue reasonable attorney’s fees arising from the discovery disputes.


Moore v. Miller, No. 10-cv-00651-JLK, 2013 WL 2456114 (D. Colo. June 6, 2013)