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
- 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.
- 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.