Beth C. Boggs is the founding and managing partner of Boggs, Avellino, Lach & Boggs, LLC, which has offices in Belleville, Glen Carbon, Carbondale, St. Louis, and Kansas City. She received her JD degree, magna cum laude, from Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, in 1991. Misty L. Edwards is an associate at Boggs, Avellino, Lach & Boggs, LLC. She received her JD degree, summa cum laude, from Southern Illinois University in 2009.

Increasingly, lawyers are mining social networking

sites like Facebook for information about litigants,

witnesses, jurors, and more. What are the limits on

discovery and admissibility of content gathered on social

media sites? What legal-ethics issues do these sites raise? This article looks at

the emerging case law.

A s the popularity of social networking sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and MySpace grows, so does their importance in litigation. More and more attorneys use these rich archives of personal

information to investigate the backgrounds of parties, witnesses, opposing counsel, jurors, and even judges.1 They also look for information that either corroborates or undermines their client’s case.2

Does What Happens on acebook Stay on acebook?

Discovery, Admissibility, Ethics, and Social Media

By Beth C. Boggs and Misty L. Edwards

__________

1. SeeSeanP.O’Donnell,The Use of Information Posted on Facebook and MySpace in Litigation,SubrogationandRecoveryAlert,Oct19,2009,availableathttp://www.cozen.com/cozendocs/outgoing/alerts/2009/subro101409.pdf;KarenL.Stevenson,What’s On Your Witness’s MySpace Page?,ABAnet.org, March 2008, available at www.abanet.org/litigation/litigationnews/2008/march/0308_article_myspace.html.

2. O’Donnell,The Use of Information(citedinnote1).

11

Increasingly, attorneys use discoveryto seek information on social network-ing sites.3 However, the law governingdiscoveryofonlinepersonalinformationishardlyclearcut,4andfewcourtshavedirectlyaddressedtheissue.

Thisarticlelooksatwhatkindofin-formation lawyers search for,how theyconduct discovery, whether and whenthe information they gather is or isn’tadmissible, and what legal-ethics issuestheyfaceinthesocial-mediaworld.

Mining social media for information about parties, witness, and jurors

Investigating parties and witnesses.Lawyers use social networking sites toinvestigate the background of partiesandwitnesses,bothtoassesstheircredi-bility and to help determine how thejuryor judgewillperceiveawitness.Asurprising number of people are shock-inglycandidwhenpostingtotheirpub-licprofileonasocialnetworkingsite.Arandomsearchofpublicprofilesrevealsphotosofpeopledrinking, using illegaldrugs,andengaginginotherrisky(andrisqué)behavior.Siteusersdiscussdrink-ing,doingdrugs,having sex,gettingar-rested,andthelike.

Inaddition,peopleinlitigationoftenpost either information about the casetheyareinvolvedinorphotographsthatconflict with their claims. For example,inaforciblerapecaseinOregon,ateen-agertoldthepoliceshewouldneverwill-inglyhavehadsex.5Thedefenseattorneyviewed her MySpace page, where shetalkedaboutparties,drinking,and“get-ting some” and posted provocative pic-turesofherself.6

Basedonwhattheattorneyhadread,shecouldseehowtheteenagerwouldbeperceivedby jurors.Shecalledherasawitness,andthegrandjurydismissedthecharge.7

In Canada, a Vancouver womanclaimedshewasunabletoenjoyherfa-voriteactivities.8Hertestimonywasthatherinjuriespreventedherfromdancing,hiking, and cycling.9 Photos from herFacebookprofileshowedhercyclingandhikingafterherinjury.10

Uncovering juror misconduct. Jurorsalso undermine cases by using socialmediaandotherInternetsitestoconductresearchandcommunicate.

In theMainecaseWilgus v Sirius,ajuror sent the plaintiff’sattorney an e-mail aftera trial, asking whetherhe knew the plaintiff ad-vocated binge drinkingand using mushroomsand marijuana, facts helearned from Facebook.11Thecourtquestionedboththe juror who sent the e-mailandthe juryforeper-son, then denied the mo-tionforanewtrial.12Thejuror was adamant thatheconductedtheresearchafterthetrial,andthejury

forepersonstatedtherewasnomentionof the Facebook page during delibera-tions.13

In a Florida federal drug case, aftereightweeksoftrial,ajuroradmittedtothe judge he had been doing researchonthecaseonthe internet.14Whenthejudge questioned the remaining jurors,hediscoveredeightotherjurorshadbeendoingthesamething,andthe judgede-claredamistrial.15

In anArkansas court, in a productsliability suit, the defendant attemptedtogeta$12.6millionjuryverdictover-turned because a juror usedTwitter tosend updates during trial.16 One poststated,“ohandnobodybuyStoam. Itsbad mojo and they’ll probably ceaseto Exist, now that their wallet is 12mlighter.”17The juror stated thathismes-sagesweresentafterthetrial,andtheap-pealwasunsuccessful.18

InMaryland,theattorneyforMayorSheilaDixonisseekingamistrialinthemayor’s conviction for embezzlement.19In that case, while the trial was ongo-ing, five of the jurors became “Face-bookfriends”andchattedonthesocialnetworking site, despite the judge’s in-structionsnottocommunicatewitheachotheroutsidethejuryroom.20Dixon’sat-torneystatedthatthe“Facebookfriends”becameacliquethatalteredjurydynam-ics.21

Service of process.InAustralia,Face-bookhasbeenusedforserviceofprocessofcourtdocuments.InDecember2008,afterseveralfailedattemptsatservice,alawyerwontheright toserveadefaultjudgment by posting the terms of thejudgment on the defendant’s Facebookwall.22

Discovery and social media

Whilecaselawondiscoverabilityandsocial media sites is just beginning toemerge, most courts have allowed dis-coveryofrelevantinformationpostedtoFacebookandothersites.

In Mackelprang v Fidelity National Title Agency,23acasefromNevada,theplaintiff alleged that the defendant sex-uallyharassedherandcausedher emo-tionaldistress. Shealleged thatoneem-ployeesenthersexuallyexplicite-mails.She claimed another coerced her intohavingsexwithhimunderthethreatherhusbandwouldbefiredandmadeinap-propriateandexplicitremarkstoheronaregularbasis.24

Shecomplainedofthesexualharass-menttohumanresources,whoallegedly

While case law on discoverability and social media sites is just

emerging, most courts have allowed discovery of relevant information

posted to Facebook and other sites.

__________

3. Id.4. Id.5. Stephanie Francis Ward, MySpace Discovery,

Lawyers are mining social networks for nuggets of evi-dence,93ABAJ34(Jan2007),availableathttp://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/next/.

6. Id.7. Id.8. PamelaPengelley,Can Facebook Information Be

Used in Court,April8,2009,availableathttp://turnerstips.wikidot.com/can-facebook-in-court.

9. Id.10. Id.11.Wilgus v F/V Sirius,665FSupp2d23,24(DMe

2009).12. Idat26.13. Id.14. John Schwartz, As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistri-

als are Popping Up,TheNYTimes,March18,2009,available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/us/18juries.html.

15. Id.16. Id;ChristopherDanzig,Mobile Misdeeds: Jurors

With Handheld Web Access Cause Trials to Unravel,InsideCounsel,June1,2009,availableathttp://www.insidecounsel.com/Issues/2009/June-2009/Pages/Mobile-Misdeeds.aspx.

17. Id.18.Danzig,Mobile Misdeeds(citedinnote16).19. See Andrea F. Siegel, Judges Confounded by

Jury’s Access to Cyberspace, Dec 13, 2009, avail-able at http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-12-13/news/bal-md.ar.tmi13dec13_1_deliberations-period-florida-drug-case-jurors; Debra Cassens Weiss, Ju-rors’ Wikipedia Research, Friending at Issue in Two Md Cases, Dec 14, 2009, available at http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/jurors_wikipedia_research_friending_at_issue_in_two_maryland_cases/.

20. Id.21. Id.22.Pengelley,Can Facebook Information Be Used in

Court(citedinnote8).23.2007WL119149(DNev2007).24. Id at*1.

2

said itwouldbe takencareofbut thatifshebroughtitupagainshewouldbefired.25 Since leaving her employment,she was diagnosed with post-traumaticstress disorder, major depressive disor-der, and panic disorder stemming fromtheworkenvironmentshewassubjectedto.26 She also attempted suicide on sev-eraloccasions.27

The defendant sought to obtain e-mail communications on the plaintiff’sMySpace accounts. A subpoena wasserved on MySpace, and MySpace pro-duced public information about the ac-countsbutnotprivatee-mails.Theplain-tiffhadtwoaccounts,oneonwhichsheidentifiedherselfasa39-year-oldsinglefemaleandsaid“Idon’twantkids,”an-other where she described herself as a39-year-old married female who loveshersixchildren.

Thedefendantfiledamotiontocom-pel thee-mailcommunications,allegingthat the private communications maycontain evidence that the plaintiff en-gaged in consensual sexually related e-mailcommunicationswithotherpersonson MySpace, including the defendants.The court denied the motion to com-pel,reasoningthatthedefendanthadnomorethanspeculativeinformationaboutthepersonswithwhomtheplaintiffex-changedmessagesorthecontentofthee-mails.28

The court wrote that if the defen-dantsdevelopedsomebasisbeyondmerespeculation to support a reasonable be-lief that the plaintiff engaged in sexuale-mail communicationswith former co-employees it would reconsider its deci-sion.29Thecourtdidallowdiscoveryofany e-mail communications relevant toassessingthecredibilityofheremotionaldistressclaims.30

Unlike the court in Mackelprang, afederalcourtinCaliforniadidnotallowthediscoveryofanyprivatee-mailmes-sagesonFacebook,MySpaceandanoth-er socialnetworkingsite.31 InCrispin v Christian Audigier, Inc. et al.,theplaintifffiledamotiontoquashthesubpoenasdi-rected to Facebook, MySpace, and Me-diaTemple for profile information andprivatee-mailsregardinganyagreementmadebetweenthepartiesinabreachofcontractaction.32Themagistratedeniedtheplaintiff’smotions.33

Onappeal, the court found that theprivate e-mail messages were protectedbytheStoredCommunicationsActandreversed the magistrate’s decision deny-ingthemotionstoquashwithrespecttotheprivatee-mailcommunications.34Thecourt remanded the case to determine

whether the portions of the subpoenasrelating to the Facebook wall postingsand MySpace comments would alsoneedtobequashed.35

In Beye v Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey,36 the plaintiff al-leged that the defendant, an insurancecompany, wrongfully refused to payhealthbenefitsforchildren’seatingdisor-ders.Theinsurancecompanycontendedthe disorders of the children were non-biologically based mental illnesses andthus not covered under the insurancepolicy. The defendant sought informa-tiononthechildren’sMySpaceorFace-bookpages.

The court ordered theplaintiffs to turn over thechildren’s e-mails, diaries,and other writings thatwere “shared with otherpeople”about theireatingdisorders,includingentrieson MySpace or Facebook,noting the lower expecta-tion of privacy where theperson asserting the pri-vacy rightmade the informationpublicinthefirstplace.37

InLedbetter v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc,38twoColoradoelectricianswereseverelyburned when the electrical system theywere working on shorted out. Theybrought suit for their injuries, and onewifebroughtaclaimfor lossofconsor-tium.

Duringdiscovery, thedefendant sentsubpoenas to Facebook, MySpace, andMeetup.com, and the plaintiffs con-tendedtheitemsrequestedshouldbepro-tected.Thecourtheld thataprotectiveorder entered earlier in the case wouldprotectsuchinformation,thattheplain-tiffsputtheconfidentialfactsinissue(in-cludingtheextentofinjuriesandnatureoftheconsortium),andthattherequestwasreasonablycalculatedtoleadtothediscoveryofadmissibleevidence.39

In TV v Union Township Board of Education,40however,aNewJerseycourtreachedtheoppositeconclusion. InTV,a teenager was sexually assaulted by afellowmiddleschoolerandclaimed thattheschoolfailedtoadequatelysupervise,whichmadetheattackpossibleandcon-tributedtoheremotionaldistress.

The court held that the informationontheplaintiff’sMySpaceandFacebookpages was protected because “the stu-dent’sprivacyinterestsprevailed,absentaparticularshowingofrelevance.”41Thejudge stated thedefensehadnotunder-takenenoughdiscoverytoshowitneededthemessagestodefendtheschoolboard

adequately.42Additionally,thecourtsaid,the defensemust use traditional discov-ery to determine who might testify onthe plaintiff’s behalf and perhaps inter-viewthosepeopletoseewhattheyknowabouttheplaintiff’smentalstate.43

Overall, with the exception of theNew Jersey case TV, where the courtsaid the minor’s privacy interests pre-vailed,thecourtshavealloweddiscoveryofsocialnetworkingsiteinformationrel-evanttothecaseathand.Thoughcourtsaremorereluctanttoallowdiscoveryofe-mail messages than the actual profile,several courts have allowed the discov-

eryofsocial-mediae-mailsiftheyarerel-evant.

Admissibility

Assuming information from a socialnetworkingsiteisdiscoverable,theques-tionbecomeswhetheritisadmissible.The

Lawyers may get into trouble for posting information about clients,

opposing counsel, or the court.

__________

25. Id. 26. Id. 27. Id.28. Id at*2.29. Idat*6FN1.30. Idat*8.31.Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Review of

Magistrate Judge’s Decision Re Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoena,No09-09509(CDCal2010),avail-able at http://lawyersusaonline.com/wp-files/pdfs-2/crispin-v-christian-audigier-inc.pdf.

32. Idat3-4.33. Idat4.34. Idat36-37.35. Id.36.568FSupp2d556(DNJ2008).37.Ronald J. Levine and Susan L. Swatski-Leb-

son, Are Social Networking Sites Discoverable?, Law.com, Nov 13, 2008, available at www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/PubArticleFriendlyLT.jsp?id=1202425974937.

38.2009WL1067018(DColo2009).39.EvanBrown,Court Allows Wal-Mart to subpoena

Facebook and Myspace,InternetCases,April26,2009,available at http://blog.internetcases.com/2009/04/26/court-allows-wal-mart-to-subpoena-facebook-and-myspace/.

40.UNN-L-4479-04(NJSuperCt,Dec22,2004).41.O’Donnell,The Use of Information(citedinnote

1);HenryGottlieb,MySpace, Facebook Privacy Limits Tested in Emotional Distress Suit, NJ Law Journal (June14, 2007), available at http://www.law.com/jsp/law/international/LawArticleIntl.jsp?id=900005555723 (recognizingthecourtinTV held:“Withoutaparticu-larizedshowingthatthe[MySpaceandFacebook]textsarerelevant,theplaintiff’sprivacyinterestsprevail.”).

42.Gottlieb,MySpace(citedinnote41).43. Id.

3

decisionsthusfarindicatethatifinforma-tionisrelevant,courtswillallowitinastheywouldanyotherpieceofevidence.

For example, in Telewizja Polska USA, Inc v Echostar Satellite,44 the de-fendantsoughttoadmitcopiesofanar-chivedWebsiteofaskinheadorganiza-tionthatpostedthename,address,andpictureofthevictim,alongwithacalltoattackhim.TheIllinois-basedfederaldis-trictcourtrejectedtheobjectionthatthepages were hearsay, holding they weremerely images and text showing whatthe web page once looked like, wereanadmissionbyaparty-opponent,andwereadmissible.45

In State v Gaskins,46 the defendantin an Ohio statutory-rape case soughtto introduce evidence that the victimheldherselfoutasan18-year-oldonherMySpace page. The trial court admit-tedphotographsofthevictimthatwerepostedonthepage.47

In the Missouri case State v Cor-win,48thedefendantwasconvictedofat-temptedforciblerape.Hewasappealinghis conviction based on the judge’s re-fusaltoenterentriesofthevictim’sFace-bookprofiletoimpeachhertestimony.

The entries referred to drinking andpartying by the victim, pictures of thevictimdancingwithyoungmen,andanentrystating,“IhadaprettyroughnightandIhavethebruisestoproveit.”Thecourtstatedthatnoneoftheinformationwas legallyrelevant to the fact that thedefendant was charged with attemptedforcible rapeof the victim.49Thequotethedefendanttriedtointroducewasninemonthsaftertheincidentinquestion.50

Legal ethics and social media

Ethics and other peoples’ pages.Whileinformationfromsocialmediasitesmaybe both discoverable and admissible,ethicalstricturescanlimitalawyer’sfree-dom to access aparty’s social network-ingpage.51

The Philadelphia Bar AssociationProfessional Guidance Committee ad-dressed whether an attorney could di-rect an investigator to become “Face-book friends”52 with a non-party wit-ness.53Thecommittee stated thatdoingsowouldbeinherentlydeceitfulandun-ethical,eveniftheinvestigatorusedhisownname.54

In addition, most jurisdictions haveprofessional conduct rules regardingcontact with an opposing party if thatparty isrepresentedbycounsel.55An in-

vitationtobecomefriendsonFacebookand thereby gaining access to personalinformation about one another wouldlikelybeimpermissibledirectcontact.56Itmayalsoviolatetheruleprovidingthatalawyermaynotengageinconductin-volvingdishonesty,fraud,deceit,ormis-representation.57

Ethics and a lawyer’s own page or blog. EthicalissuesmayalsoarisewhenattorneyspostinformationontheirFace-book or MySpace page (and on theirblogs, which are not social media sitesinthestrictsensebutraisemanyofthesameissues).Lawyersmaygetintotrou-bleforpostinginformationaboutclients,opposingcounsel,orthecourt.

In Florida, an attorney was mad ataFortLauderdalejudgeanddecidedtoblogabouther,callingheran“evil,unfairwitch”andquestioninghermotivesandcompetence.58Heendedupgettingarep-rimandandfineforhisblog.59

InIllinois,anassistantpublicdefenderwasbloggingaboutherclients,usingei-ther just their first name or their jailidentificationnumber.60Forexample,shewrote:

#127409-This stupid kid is takingthe rap for his drug-dealing dirtbag ofanolderbrotherbecausehe’snosnitch.Imanagedtotalktheprosecutorintotreat-mentanddeferredprosecution, sinceweboth know the older brother from priordealingsinvolvingdrugsandguns.Mycli-entisincollege.Justgoestoshowyouthathighereducationdoesnotimplythatyouhaveanysense.

Shealsowroteasfollows:DennisthediabeticwhosecaseImen-

tionedinWednesday’sblogpost,diddropas ordered, after his court appearanceTuesday and before allegedly going tothe ER. Guess what? It was positive forcocaine. He was standing there in courtstoned, right in front of the judge, pro-bationofficer, prosecutor anddefense at-torney, swearinghewascleanandclaim-ing ignoranceas towhyhisblood sugarwasn’tbeingmanagedwell.61

Shelostherjobandisfacingdisciplinaryaction.62

An attorney in California caused acriminal conviction to be overturned bcauseofhisblogpostings.63While serv-ingasajurorinafelonytrialin2006,heposteddetailsof the trialonhisblog.64

The attorney received a 45-day suspen-sion,twoyearsprobation,paid$14,000inlegalfees,losthisjob,andwasrequiredtotaketheMPREwithinoneyear.65

JudgesmayalsogetintotroubleusingFacebook.ANorthCarolinajudgewas

reprimandedfor“friending”alawyerinapendingcase,forpostingandreadingmessagesaboutthelitigation,andaccess-ingtheWebsiteoftheopposingparty.66

Conclusion

As social networking sites becomemore popular and attorneys becomemore knowledgeable about their poten-tial,courtswilladdressmorecasesaboutthediscovery,admissibility,andethicsofaccessinginformationonsocialnetwork-ingsites.

Onethingiscertain:attorneysshouldcheck to see if their clients and oppo-nentshaveaprofileonasocialnetwork-ingsite.Counselshouldalsobeaddress-ing the issuewith jurors towarn themagainstpostingduringtrial.■

__________

44. Case No. 02C3293, 2004 WL 2367740 (NDIll 2004), available at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets/echostar.pdf.

45. CarolLevittandMarkRosch,Making Internet Searches Part of Due Diligence, Los Angeles Lawyer,Feb2007,availableathttp://www.lacba.org/Files/LAL/Vol29No12/2349.pdf.

46. 2007WL22964454(OhioAppAug13,2007).47. Stevenson, What’s On Your Witness’s MySpace

Page?(citedinnote1).48. 295SW3d572(MoAppSD2009).49. Idat579.50. Id.51. RobertS.KelnerandGailS.Kelner,Social Net-

works and Personal Injury Suits,NYLJ,Sept24,2009,available at www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleFriendlyNY.jsp?hubtype=&id=1202434026615.

52. In order for a person to become a“Facebookfriend,”thatpersonhastosendafriendrequesttotheotherperson.Then,thepersonreceivingthefriendre-questmustconfirmtheperson isactually their friend.Once confirmation is complete, they are “Facebookfriends”andhaveaccesstoeachother’sprofilepage.

53. Id;SeealsoPhiladelphiaBarAssociationProfes-sional Guidance Committee Opinion 2009-02 (Mar2009),availableathttp://www.philadelphiabar.org/WebObjects/PBAReadOnly.woa/Contents/WebServerResources/CMSResources/Opinion_2009-2.pdf.

54. Id.55. KelnerandKelner,Social Networks(citedinnote

46).56. Id.57. Id.58. JohnSchwartz,A Legal Battle: Online Attitude

vs Rules of the Bar,TheNYTimes,Sept13,2009,avail-able at www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13lawyers.html?_r=3&ref=us.

59. Id.60. Id.61. Id; See also Complaint, In the Matter of:

Kristine Ann Peshek, available at www.iardc.org/09CH0089CM.html.

62. Schwartz,A Legal Battle(citedinnote58).63. Id.64. Id.65. Id; Mike Frisch, Lawyer-Juror-Blogger Sanc-

tioned in California,Aug3,2009, available athttp://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2009/08/lawyerjurorblogger-sanctioned-in-california.html.

66.Debra Cassens Weiss, Judge Reprimanded for Friending Lawyer and Googling Litigant,ABAJournal.com,June1,2009,availableatwww.abajournal.com/news/judge_reprimanded_for_friending_lawyer_and_googling_litigant.

4

ReprintedwithpermissionoftheIllinois Bar Journal,Vol.98#7,July2010.CopyrightbytheIllinoisStateBarAssociation.www.isba.org