Witte, Professor Derek S.

English

Campbell University Law School

Abstract Your Opponent Does Not Need A Friend Request To See Your Page: Social Networking Sites And Electronic Discovery Prof. Derek S. Witte^ Thomas M. Cooley Law School The law, which is by nature slow and deliberate, struggles to keep pace with contemporary life. It should then be no surprise that it provides little guidance on how we are to deal with some of the newest sources of evidence: social networking sites, such as the ubiquitous, and some would say pernicious, Facebook. I will do my best to pose the questions that should be asked when parties seek, or seek to protect, the contents of a Facebook or social networking page, such as: 1. Are the contents of a social networking page ESI and thus subject to the laws of discovery and spoliation? 2. Must a social networking site, like Facebook, comply with a valid subpoena? 3. How should the law change to balance a litigants' right to access the potentially rich sources of evidence stored on an individual's social networking page with an individual's right to privacy? 1. Your Facebook Page Is ESI. 2. Social Networking Sites Provide Fertile Ground For Harvesting ESI. 3. So, You Must Preserve & Produce The Contents Of Your Page, 4. It Is Unclear Whether Social Networking Sites Must Comply With All Valid Civil Subpoenas. 4.1.The Federal Stored Communications Act May Prohibit Enforcement Of Civil Subpoenas Requesting Someone Else's Social Networking Page Information. 4.2. Civil subpoenas from individuals seeking ESI from their own social networking sites are however enforceable. 1 Prof. Derek S. Witte teaches Contracts and Commercial Law at Cooley Law School in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Professor Witte is responsible for presenting the Michigan ICLE on e-discoveiy. He recently spoke at the IQPC 8th E-Discoveiy Conference in New York on the topic of Facebook and ESI. He has spoken about e-discovery for the Federal Bar Association's West Michigan Chapter and recently moderated and hosted an e-discovery conference for the Grand Rapids Bar Association, which focused on the new Michigan e-discovery rules. 4.3.GovernmentaI Entities Can Enforce Subpoenas Served On Social Networking Sites If They Relate To A Criminal Matter Or Investigation. • Suggestions & Conclusions 5.1. Until the law is clear, individuals and businesses should take all reasonable steps to preserve the potentially relevant contents of any social networking pages for which they are responsible. 5.2. The courts should interpret the federal Stored Communications Act, or the legislature should amend the Act, to allow social networking sites to divulge information pursuant to a valid civil subpoena. 5.3.Somal networking sites should be required to enact a procedure and create a mechanism through which an individual user can institute a litigation hold on his or her page! and all historical versions of the page still stored by the social networking site. Your Facebook Page Is ESI « 6SI is "any writings, drawings,'graphs, ctiarts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and . other data or data compilations - stored in any • medium from which Information can be be '' obtained,i/' Fed, R. Civ P. 34, The contents of social media sites are ESI. See Sharon b.Helso'n, Captumg QmcksilveriRecorcts Management fye Blogs, Twittering & Social Networks, Z2 '• . . Wyoming Lawyer 56 (June 2009) (Tweets are ESI): -' • • Ledbetterv: Wal-Mart, 2009 WL1068018 (D; Colo, April : :. , 21,2009) :(rnfdrhation:frQrn Facebaokand MySpace • were properly withm a Rule 45 subpoena). • . Your Facebook Page Is ESI «: Web 2.0 social networking sites '. generate massive amounts of.. discoverable information. • Facebook • Twitter : »Linkedln » Webmaii applications . The next big thing.. 1/18/2010 Social Media Sites Are Fertile Grounas For • Discovety • Social media sites contain; •. * Btographlcal Informaton • • . » SlatemefitsSA^mrssioina • •. * Pnotos .• • . .. • . • * Etnatls • . .. . • _ • . •« Instant Messages . • • * Contacrs • .. " " ; " \ . •_ Metadata ^ • . • • _ 'Linkbacks . . :Pjn9backs " " " • " " • . • .. Trac^tpacks • . • • • "... • • .'fcapKired and i^covei^d, this rnetadate can estabiistiv^&ta • u$€r knew orsaw oii anotherweb page or ^whai others saw Oil: tiia users page . . Social Networking Sites Are an eDiscovery Treasure Trove . Users are informal becacise'electronic •• ^ . commtirticationhasaspomanerty thatmaKes tt •• seem impermanent' and casual Seih p Bsrman . . Web ZO: Whats Bvtdeiic^ Between Friends 5^ BosioriBBf J S {Febaiary 2009) • .' • • .This informality IS encouraged: by the false sense • of security created by "p.tivats* pages. • fj Recently a New YotK Times article reported ttiat because Facebook. offers a "slew of privacy . controls... you'll never have Jo worry, '. " sarah Psrez. 5 Easy Steps toStey Safe (sndRnvm&!} on .PaceSooA: N Y.Trm?s{Sepl 16,2009) (etectroniceflftioo) 2 So, You Must Preser/e & Produce : The Contents Of Your Page : • Because the contents of a social media site • are indeed ESI, then the rules of ' . preservation, production and spoliation "• ;•••; apply-•- This could have far-reaching implications in ' • -' litigation. ' v •' • : \ • This could mean that if you update your Facebook page when you know that it may • be potentially relevant to foreseeable litigation, you are spoliating evidence. Mackelprang v. Fid. Nat'l TWe Agency of Nevada, • • 7nc.. 2007 WL 119149 (D.Nev. 2007) : ; » Defendant in a sexual harassment case subpoenaed emails from a MySpace • / •; page allegedly created by the plaintiff. ; ' • ; •-MySpace refused to fully comply. • • » The court held that the requesting party : • . . .  cou ld  not  estab l ish that  the emai ls  were • ••• even from an account created by the' •. plaintiff or that, if produced, the • • ' • • information would be relevant. ' • •. ' MacMprangv. Fid: NafI Title Agency of Nevada, toe., 2007 WL 119149(D. Nev 2007> . • However, the court held that if the defendant could • . • prove that the MySpace accounts did tiefong to the • plaintiff using discovery served on plaintiff, not a third-p a r t y . ,  ,  • .  •  . . . . .  . "  .  • .• Then, the plaintiff's failure to provide emails from the • • MySpaoeacoount"cquld begtoands forimposirig . sanctions.'MacJce/prsflgat*8. • •. .-....• . • i This is remarkable, because the court: • ' • • 1) indirectly holds that contents of social rietw/orking • sites can ije'disoovetabte eSI;; and • . •:. • 2> seems to put the duty an the account holder t . preserve and ptoduce.lhe contents of their . • networking page or' 1/18/2010 1/18/2010 m The Problem Is That Much Of Your Page is Not In Your Control i •• «! Presumatjly, only the SQdalnetworkmgsiteittself • retains copies of your oW pages. .• « Bot even thai, is unclear; . ' < Some oases suggest that Facebook and others have ' • •- intetnat data preseftfation procedures. In m SkBtiy,: • . 2009 WL 109726 (N D. Cal, April 20, 2009) {stating tliat Facebook intbimed the pefifKsnet tfiat it was-crsating a • ' preservation ordef to keep his page's confents^i. 1 , •« However, other sodalnetworking sites malntainthe' : nght to keepcopies of your past jsage. but do not .obligafethemselvestodosooEpfovide T •; - .. for institotmg aiitigatiort hold' onyourt.'." If . The Social Networking Site May Not Even Keep Your ESI / . Un}c«Jk\'s Wvae/Poiicy. Yoa aod me -^ swid ycu impcrtanl i\f©rmatioft and ftofica* the SeMea by emsdcfthrcH^o^hsr means. hdd devices You a:lcm»vlK}99 and t^ at we shall hs  ^ra t^h or arislr^  fdUire to m^nialrtaccurate contact or McmiaScr.. but nc  ^limited to, your ^ lium to receive critical tsfemstion stx  ^the §8rvlc«. You acknwrfedse. conssm wd that majraqces ,^ prMetve, and tSsctesa your Tsgstration mS any other W»mailoi* you provide If fKju»r»d to ifo so law or In a good fi^ h betlef tKatsiict) sccms preservatioe ordisciosure is <%asonaUy f^ cessery tct (a) con  ^vdth fwcwsf ©nftwce thU A^awnent; {;c)f8spond tocl8ift« of a violatfon ofihe rij^ ta of tWnJi>artfesi (d) nspond to your isquests for customer s i^ce cr (e) pn^act the pnpwif, 0Fj>arscnal aafety d Lifdtedin, L^kadln AfWates, its UsEf^ acd pt^ lc. . The Social Networking S Not Even Keep Your ESI (srcipeity and:flrilott« f^^ sU sMihtsrsstip Ur^ cietiin and 4irtus(fih: feservfes the lightto rem  ^and any ccstanl aveSat^  a. pait^  ywaccowtt. v*«h cr^ ilhoutrteSca, For sveJd^w# doet>t, h» «> obflgatsoa to store, man^h) orpfls*^  you a cf af^  contar^  th  ^you ort^ ier Users ^ ovtda «vhen us^gtfie 5erv«»«, L^Ncedln tru  ^imIud%or autnnatte  ^produca Sr^  4o^FCi party sites fTbM party Sites'^  iynot responsS  ^ior artd does n<  ^erxtorse any at^ eftistnt ' *"* ^wrvir 5 If You Are th6 Requesting Party, What Should You Do? .Depending on strategy, send preservation letters to .. both the producing party 8fid ihe soo(a! networking ^ site • • as soon as possible:. • •. • •: Sea'B cietatleti Rule 34 requests on the defendant (or : the state ilawequivalent'K : Subpoana ESI diiectjy TroiiT Facebook. i-inkedln-, etc • Cmgt' iv ^CtBWI r3=3i<uiN Y Sar Ct A<ig i7 ipr'oi-.'gijbDQopcsgfi.nstGor^gles'-.dcrd'-nnij •"idis-'Cv CBi'My o) a'1.1 yT'Ous logger ji'Blfggor com I • Df n iiir'ief 'o asii ••-r inlo-rv-at,on tr Jt cstwot ob cjniroiieJ by •vSur'0pp0nenr[fTie'gdai.5.anilv^evdnq riistorv'. • •' » YO'jr 9-31 'r-ertto s tiird-_3rt/iP ofrD-y jr (fthe ptocur'-.jp£(t, rad not pi ?ser.KC(tritr irfarrtiation ' Storert CcmmuTjddons (18 USC ?~0i iAct MAY apply twf diiOAS 'c <-A~BOt'n= a-'i has nat bssT ati.-iisdtoSoc:iat Mt'^'Ae-rKsnq Str?s 

How Courts Will Apply E-Discovery Law and Spoliation to Electronically Stored Evidence Created or Stored on Social Networking Sites

bepress Legal Repository

https://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&amp;context=clr_symposia

How Courts Will Apply E-Discovery Law and Spoliation to Electronically Stored Evidence Created or Stored on Social Networking Sites

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Campbell University Law School

bepress Legal Repository