## Facts

- Nicole Thompson sued Autoliv ASP, Inc. and TRW Automotive U.S. LLC, alleging a vehicle restraint-system defect and related negligence caused serious injuries when an airbag did not deploy.
- Thompson claimed her injuries caused significant and lasting physical limitations and reduced ability to participate in recreational and other activities.
- During discovery, TRW obtained publicly available social-media posts and photographs from Thompson that appeared inconsistent with her claimed limitations.
- TRW served discovery requests seeking broader production of Thompson’s social-media electronically stored information, including non-public content.
- Thompson produced some responsive material but limited and redacted the production, prompting TRW to move to compel further production.

## Issues

1. Whether non-public social-media content was discoverable as relevant to Thompson’s claimed physical and emotional condition, damages, and credibility under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).
2. Whether TRW’s requests effectively seeking broad access to Thompson’s entire social-media accounts were overbroad and improper.
3. How to balance the need for relevant evidence against privacy and burden concerns in ordering social-media discovery.

## Decision

- The court granted TRW’s motion to compel in part and denied it in part.
- The court held that social-media content is discoverable when tied to issues placed in dispute, including claimed injuries, loss of enjoyment of life, and related damages.
- The court denied TRW’s request for blanket access to Thompson’s full social-media history as overbroad.
- The court ordered additional production limited to targeted categories of content reasonably connected to Thompson’s alleged limitations and damages during the relevant period.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 26(b)(1), parties may obtain discovery of non-privileged matters relevant to a claim or defense and reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence (as phrased under the pre-2015 rule).
- Social-media content is not categorically protected from discovery because it is private or restricted to certain viewers.
- A requesting party is not entitled to unrestricted access to an opponent’s social-media accounts; discovery must be tailored to relevant subject matter and reasonable scope.
- Publicly available posts that contradict claimed injuries can supply a concrete basis for targeted discovery of additional, non-public social-media content bearing on damages and credibility.

## Conclusion

The court permitted discovery of non-public social-media content only to the extent it was specifically connected to Thompson’s claimed injuries and damages, while rejecting a sweeping request for full account access as overbroad in a discovery dispute within a pending products-liability case.


Thompson v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., 2012 WL 2342928 (D. Nev. June 20, 2012)