Close
Enter your
text here

Social Technology

eDiscovery Case Law: Defendant Ordered to Re-Post Infringing Photograph to Facebook Profile

A New Jersey court ordered the defendant to re-post a photograph displaying infringing trade dress to his Facebook profile for a brief period of time to allow the plaintiff to print copies, in a case involving trademark infringement.

In Katiroll Co., Inc. v. Kati Roll & Platters, Inc., No. 10-3620 (GEB), 2011 WL 3583408 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2011), the plaintiff argued for sanctions after the defendant pulled down infringing materials from his Facebook page and altered his Facebook profile photo, removing a profile picture that included the distinctive trade dress at issue in this case. The court ultimately decided against sanctions, but did order the defendant to re-post the photo in question, as follows.

  • The court first set out to establish whether or not the defendant’s actions could be considered as spoliation, citing the standard of review for the four criteria in spoliation. The four criteria include the party’s control over the evidence, apparent suppression or withholding of evidence, relevance of the destroyed evidence, and that it be “reasonably foreseeable” that the evidence would be required for discovery at a current or later date.
  • The altered profile photograph was deemed by the court to be relevant, and under the control of the defendant. However, whether that evidence was suppressed or withheld, and whether it was foreseeable that it would be required as part of discovery, remained at issue.
  • The plaintiff argued that the defendant should be sanctioned for failing “to preserve his Facebook pages in their original state” and “wanted PDFs of these pages prior to their being taken down”, but the court maintained that because these infringing pages had been removed at the plaintiff’s earlier request, it “would be unjust” to sanction the defendant for those actions.
  • The court also noted that Facebook profile photos are changed as often as weekly by those who use the site regularly, and that the defendant could not have known that changing his photo would have been an issue. “It would not have been immediately clear that changing his profile picture would undermine discoverable evidence,” the court maintained.
  • As result, the court declined to order sanctions against the defendant. Instead, the defendant was ordered to re-post the Facebook profile photo in question “for a brief time,” including the trade dress at issue (as they “ha[d] not been destroyed” and were “attached in several PDFs” to the court), so that the plaintiff might print whatever photos and Facebook pages it wishes. Afterward, the defendant was told to replace the photo again with a non-infringing image.

So, what do you think? Was the court’s decision fair, or should the defendant have been sanctioned for spoliation? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Social Media Lessons Learned Through Football
 

The NFL Football season begins tonight with the kick-off game pitting the last two Super Bowl winners – the New Orleans Saints and the Green Bay Packers – against each other to start the season.

An incident associated with my team – the Houston Texans – recently illustrated the issues associated with employees’ use of social media sites, which are being faced by every organization these days and can have eDiscovery impact as social media content has been ruled discoverable in many cases across the country.

Last year’s NFL rushing leader, Arian Foster, recently “tweeted” a picture of the MRI image showing his injured hamstring to all of his followers on Twitter. The “tweet” provided an explanation of where his hamstring was specifically damaged.

The problem is that NFL teams guard specific injury information regarding their players as if they were trade secrets and in a sport where sidelining your opponents’ best players is a competitive advantage, telling those opponents where your injury is located is not a wise move (what was he thinking?).  Also, there are strict guidelines within the NFL regarding the disclosure of injury information because (big surprise!) it can impact betting on the games.

Foster, who subsequently “tweeted” that he was just joking around, provided yet the latest reminder that former congressman Anthony Weiner and many others have provided before: think before you hit send.

But, as bad as the consequences can be to individuals who post content on social media sites unwisely, it can be just as bad (or worse) for organizations that employ those individuals.

Postings on social media sites by employees can range from simply embarrassing for an organization from a public relations standpoint to downright damaging to the organization in the form of disclosure of confidential information.  The risk is clear.  Yet, in the socially technological world in which we live today, it is impractical for organizations to “ban” use of social media sites by their employees.  It’s going to happen and companies have to be prepared to address it.

The best way to address it is to implement a sound social governance policy that provides guidelines for acceptable and unacceptable behavior on social media sites and the consequences for the unacceptable behavior.  Implementation includes education with training examples that clarify any ambiguities.  This blog post from last year illustrates factors to address in a good social governance policy.  Hopefully, someone from the Texans is explaining these concepts to Arian Foster.

So, what do you think? Does your organization have a social governance policy?  Does it train employees on the use of that policy? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: A Pennsylvania Court Conducts Its Own Social Media Relevancy Review

Pennsylvania seems to be taking the lead in setting social media discovery precedents, as evidenced by this case summarized on eDiscovery Daily earlier this week.  In this case, a Pennsylvania court agreed to review a plaintiff’s Facebook account in order to determine which information is subject to discovery in a case relating to the plaintiff’s claim of injury in a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff in Offenback v. L.M. Bowman, Inc., No. 1:10-CV-1789, 2011 WL 2491371 (M.D. Pa. June 22, 2011) was directed to allow the court to access his Facebook and MySpace accounts in order to determine which parts of his social media accounts are subject to discovery. After a thorough review, the court expressed its “confusion” over the plaintiff’s inability to conduct this review himself in order to present discoverable information to the court:

  • The plaintiff claimed that he suffered injuries in a car accident on November 6, 2008 that “limited his ability to sit, walk, stand, ride in a vehicle, bend, stoop, push, pull, and lift”. He also claimed he could not work and was unable to relocate as he’d planned to do before the accident.  Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that he “suffers anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress as a result of the accident”.
  • The court found the client’s physical and emotional experience relevant in this case, and sought discovery of key information in his social media accounts that might shed light on his health and well-being at the time of the accident and thereafter.
  • The court initially requested access to both the plaintiff’s Facebook and MySpace accounts, but changed the order to request access exclusively to his Facebook account once the plaintiff had asserted that he had not accessed MySpace since November 2008 and had lost the requested login information in the intervening period.
  • After its review, the court consulted both the plaintiff and the defendant about the Facebook photos, updates, and other materials it considered relevant, in consideration of the “broad scope of relevance” argued by the defendants.
  • Notably, the court ordered discovery of photographs and Facebook updates indicating that the plaintiff purchased a motorcycle in 2010 and may have ridden it from Kentucky to Pennsylvania and possibly on a trip to West Virginia.
  • The court ended its review by expressing its “confusion about why the parties required the Court’s assistance in deciding which information within the plaintiff’s Facebook account is responsive to Defendants’ discovery requests”. The court stated its desire that, in future cases of a similar nature, the plaintiff be accountable for reviewing his own Facebook profile, presenting discoverable materials and raising objections if so desired.

So, what do you think? Should the court have conducted the review itself? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Social Media Posts Deemed Discoverable in Personal Injury Case

A Pennsylvania court recently ordered the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit to disclose social media passwords and usernames to the defendant for eDiscovery.

On May 19, the court ruled in favor of a motion to compel the plaintiff in Zimmerman v. Weis Markets, Inc., No. CV-09-1535, 2011 WL 2065410 (Pa. Comm. Pl. May 19, 2011) to disclose his usernames, login names and passwords for Facebook and MySpace accounts that contained hidden or private posts. Discoverability of social media continues to be a hot topic in eDiscovery, as eDiscovery Daily has noted in summaries of prior cases here, here and here that reflect varied outcomes for requests to access social media data.

In Zimmerman v. Weis Markets, Inc., the court ruled in favor of the defendant’s motion for several reasons involving the plaintiff’s use of public social media as well as the circumstances of the case:

  • The plaintiff’s public postings on the social media sites in question included discussion of his injury, which was deemed relevant to his claim of serious and permanent impairment. These public postings were construed by the court as sufficient to demonstrate likelihood that his non-public postings would also contain relevant information about his injury.
  • Although, the court did not wish its decision in this matter to be viewed as authorizing “fishing expeditions” to private social media accounts in personal injury cases in general, it reasoned that since examination of the public portions of the plaintiff’s Facebook and MySpace accounts turned up relevant evidence on the subject of the plaintiff’s injury, discovery of the remaining private postings was also likely to do so.
  • The court also reasoned that the plaintiff’s choice to bring this issue to trial, as well as his decision to share information about his injury online (showing pictures of him in shorts with his scar visible, as well as recent pictures with his motorcycle), meant that he could not have a reasonable expectation of social media privacy.

Although courts often permit eDiscovery of private and hidden social media postings, this decision by the court illustrates a need for relevance of the evidence to be shown before that permission is granted.

So, what do you think? Was the court wrong in allowing eDiscovery of personal Facebook and MySpace accounts, or does the plaintiff in a personal injury case waive his right to social media privacy? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Think Before You Hit Send
 

It’s not the only instance of a one character typo possibly ending a career; instead, it may simply be the latest.

Unless you’re living under a rock, you’re probably aware of the “Twittergate” story involving Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), where he initially claimed that a lewd photo posted via Twitter was posted by a hacker to his account, then subsequently admitted this past Monday that he, in fact, posted that picture.  Many are calling for him to resign from his Congressional position after posting the picture, as well as sending other pictures, which have since been identified.  (If you have been living under a rock, you can click here for more on the story).

The irony is that a one-letter typo may turn out to be his undoing.  Weiner intended to send the “tweet” as a direct message to another Twitter user, but used the ‘@’ instead of the ‘d’ (to indicate a direct message) to reference that user.  As a result, the message was published to all his followers, not just the intended party.  In fairness, even if he had sent the direct message correctly, he used a public photo sharing service, yFrog, to share the photo, so anyone that chose to browse through all of his photos would have still seen the controversial photo.

It is easier to communicate than ever, with a myriad of options from which to choose, including voice, video, email, posts, texts and “tweets”.  Perhaps, it’s becoming too easy.  Courthouses are filled with cases where “informal” communications are key evidence in determining the outcome of the case.  The formal typed letter has given way to the informal media of email to the even more informal media of posts, texts and “tweets”.  Now, just as important as the adage “think before you speak” is the adage “think before you hit send”.

We’ve all been there, hopefully with much less disastrous consequences.  If you’ve never selected ‘Reply to All’ by accident instead of ‘Reply’ when intending to reply to only the sender, please call me and let me know your secret.  Or, maybe, you’ve sent an email when upset that you regretted later.  Once released, those mistakes are out there and are difficult (if not impossible) to recall.

If you’re not in the habit of doing so already, it’s a good idea to take a deep breath before each email sent or each post made and review what you’re about to send out into the world.  Think before you hit send.  If you don’t, you just might be the topic on a future ‘eDiscovery Case Law’ post on eDiscoveryDaily!  😉

So, what do you think?  Do you have any cases that are driven by informal communications?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Social Tech eDiscovery: Use of Smarsh for Social Media Archiving
 

The online world thrives on social media, but for attorneys who must preserve sensitive social media data for discovery, the widespread growth of social technology presents a laundry list of problems.

Not only is it challenging to trace the communications shared on popular sites like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter when privacy settings can be turned on and off at whim, it’s also difficult to know whether the information available at any given time is complete, as content can be edited by users at any time or lost due to technical malfunctions.

In some cases, like this example, courts have ruled that even locked or private content on Facebook and other social networking sites is not protected from being requested as part of discovery. In other cases, such as this one, they have ruled differently.  You don’t know for sure how courts will rule, so you have to be prepared to preserve all types of social media content, even possibly content that is changed frequently by users, such as Facebook profiles and blog posts.  And, even though Facebook has introduced a self-collection mechanism, it may not capture all of the changes you need.  And, other social media sites have not yet provided a similar mechanism.  If items are changed or lost after the duty to preserve goes into effect, your organization can be sanctioned with steep fines even receive an adverse inference judgment based on the information you are unable to produce.

Fortunately, there are viable solutions that enable you to create a backup of all social networking activity and archive such information in the event it has to be produced in discovery. Portland-based Smarsh has archiving and compliance tools, including social media archiving and compliance that automate the archiving of social media accounts, preserving all necessary data in case you need it later for discovery.

Some of the benefits of Smarsh’s social media archiving tools include:

  • A complete, logged, and quantifiable record of all social media posts and administrator activity
  • The ability to define which social media features your employees have access to and to track all business communications
  • Compliance with SEC and FINRA regulations (including Regulatory Notice 10-06)
  • The tools to identify and minimize risk, saving your business time, effort, and money

Smarsh has been designed to satisfy all regulatory compliance objectives, transforming the data management hazards of social media into a system that automatically updates and archives itself – an attorney’s dream when litigation strikes. This application creates a simple and proactive approach to archival of social media data, enforcing preservation to ensure that the duty to preserve is met.

So, what do you think?  Do you use Smarsh or any other social media archival tool?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Defendant Can’t Be Plaintiff’s Friend on Facebook

In Piccolo v. Paterson, Bucks County, Pa., Common Pleas Court Judge Albert J. Cepparulo denied the motion from the defendant requesting access to the photos of plaintiff Sara Piccolo posted in her Facebook account.

Piccolo filed an action against the defendants after being injured in a one-car accident while a passenger in a car driven by defendant Lindsay Paterson. According to the defense motion, filed by attorneys at Moore & Riemenschneider, Piccolo testified she had a Facebook account and was asked at deposition if the defense counsel could send a “neutral friend request” to Piccolo so that he could review the Facebook postings Piccolo testified she made every day.  Piccolo’s attorney, Benjamin G. Lipman , ultimately denied the request, responding that the “‘materiality and importance of the evidence … is outweighed by the annoyance, embarrassment, oppression and burden to which it exposes'” the plaintiff.

The defense argued that access to Piccolo’s Facebook page would provide necessary and relevant information related to the claims by Piccolo and cited a case, McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc. (previously summarized by eDiscoveryDaily here), in which the court ordered the plaintiff to provide his username and password to the defendant’s attorney. The plaintiff’s attorney argued that the defense had only asked for the pictures Piccolo posted on Facebook and that they had already been provided with “as complete a photographic record of the pre-accident and post-accident condition” of Piccolo.

As a result of the accident in May 2007, Piccolo suffered lacerations to her lip and chin when hit in the face with an airbag. She had 95 stitches to her face and then surgery to repair her scarring six months later. With permanent scars on her face, Piccolo allowed the insurer in 2008 to take photographs of her face and gave the defense 20 photos of her face from the week following the accident and five photos from the months just before the accident.

In Piccolo’s response to the defense motion, Lipman argued that defense counsel had only asked at Piccolo’s deposition about the pictures she posted on Facebook, not any textual postings. He said that the defendant had already been provided “as complete a photographic record of the pre-accident and post-accident condition” of Piccolo as she “could reasonably have a right to expect in this case.”

Judge Cepparulo agreed, ruling with the plaintiff and denying the defense access to Piccolo’s Facebook page in a one-paragraph motion.

So, what do you think?  Did the judge make the correct call or should he have issued a ruling consistent with McMillen?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Forecast for More Clouds
 

No, eDiscoveryDaily has not begun providing weather forecasts on our site.  Or stock forecasts.

But, imagine if you could invest in an industry that could nearly sextuple in nine years? (i.e., multiply six-fold).

Well, the cloud computing, or Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), industry may be just the industry for you.  According to a Forrester report from last month, the global cloud computing market will grow from 40.7 billion dollars in 2011 to more than 241 billion dollars by 2020.  That’s a 200 billion dollar increase in nine years.  That’s enough to put anybody “on cloud nine”!

The report titled Sizing The Cloud by Stefan Ried (Principal Analyst, Forrester) and Holger Kisker (Sr. Analyst, Forrester), outlines the different market dynamics for three core layers of cloud computing, as follows:

  • Public Cloud: From 25.5 billion dollars to 159.3 billion dollars by 2020;
  • Virtual Private Cloud: From 7.5 billion dollars to 66.4 billion dollars by 2020;
  • Private Cloud: From 7.8 billion dollars to 159.3 billion dollars by 2020.

Public cloud providers include everything from Facebook and Twitter to Amazon.com and Salesforce.com.  As the name implies, a private cloud is where companies implement their own cloud environment to support its own needs.  A virtual private cloud is simply a private cloud located within a public cloud.

Forrester is not the only analyst firm that expects big things for cloud computing.  The Gartner Group projected that the cloud computing industry will have revenue of 148.8 billion dollars by 2014, even higher than Forrester’s forecast of 118.7 billion dollars for the same year.  Clearly, the benefits of the cloud are causing many organizations to consider it as a viable option for storing and managing critical data.

What does that mean from an eDiscovery perspective?  That means a forecast for more clouds.  If your organization doesn’t have a plan in place for managing, identifying, preserving and collecting data from its cloud solutions, things could get stormy!

So, what do you think?  Is your organization storing more data in the cloud?  Does your organization have an effective plan in place for getting to the data when litigation strikes?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Cut and Paste Makes the Cut as Evidence
 

In United States v. Lanzon, 2011 WL 1662901 (11th Cir. 2011), the defendant in a criminal case appealed his conviction and raised the issue of whether he prosecution properly authenticated instant messages cut-and-pasted into a Microsoft Word document.

Detective George Clifton, a member of the Miami–Dade Police Department's Sexual Crimes Bureau, posing as a male living with his girlfriend and his girlfriend's 14–year–old daughter, conducted instant message (IM) online chats with Keith Lanzon that led to Lanzon being arrested and charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), which provides that:

Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 10 years or for life.

Detective Clifton saved these conversations by copying the IM communications and pasting them into a Microsoft Word document, saving the Word document to a “floppy” disc, for printing in transcripts. While Detective Clifton did not save any of the IM conversations in their original format, he did compare the actual IM "chat screens" to the Word document he had created to verify that the Word document exactly matched the IM conversations.

At trial, the prosecution introduced the Word document with the cut-and-pasted IMs, and Lanzon was convicted.  Lanzon appealed to the US Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming, inter alia, that the document was improperly admitted, and that the admission of the document violated the Due Process Clause and the Best Evidence Rule.  Lanzon also argued the transcripts violated the rule of completeness in FRE 106 claiming that Detective Clifton failed to include the entire chat transcript, including only the edited portion that supported his case.  FInally, Lanzon claimed that the prosecution failed to properly authenticate the Word document.

The Eleventh Circuit found that Lanzon failed to prove bad faith by the government in failing to preserve the original IMs. The court also rejected Lanzon's rule of completeness argument, finding that “There is no indication that additional parts of the conversation exist.”

As for the failure to authenticate claim, the Eleventh Circuit also rejected that claim, finding that “Evidence may be authenticated through the testimony of a witness with knowledge. FRE 901(b)(1). The proponent need only present enough evidence "to make out a prima facie case that the proffered evidence is what it purports to be.”

A copy of the opinion can be found here.

So, what do you think?  Have you dealt with a case involving evidence cut and pasted into a document?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Usefulness of Facebook’s Self Collection Mechanism
 

We’ve written about Facebook a lot on this blog.  Shortly after this blog was launched, we provided information on Facebook’s subpoena policy.  We’ve also talked about the eDiscovery implications associated with the rollout of Facebook’s new email messaging system, dubbed “Facemail”.  And, just last week, we chronicled a case involving Facebook where they were ordered to produce documents instead of just merely providing access to them.  And, we haven’t even mentioned the latest revelations that Facebook may have secretly hired a PR firm to plant negative stories about Google (oops, we just did!).

But perhaps our most popular post regarding Facebook was regarding the self collection mechanism that they rolled out last October, which we found out about via our LegalTech interview with Craig Ball published back in March after our February interview (Craig also wrote an article about the feature in Law Technology News in February).

Now, another article has been written about the usefulness of Facebook’s self collection mechanism (called “Download Your Information”) in the blog E-Discovery Law Alert, entitled How Useful is Facebook's "Download Your Information" Feature in E-Discovery?, written by Patrick V. DiDomenico.

The author of this article conducted a test by downloading his information via the utility, deleting some information from his Facebook profile – “an email message, some wall posts, comments, photos, and even a friend (not a close friend)” – hopefully, he added the friend back.  Then, he downloaded his information again, every day for four days, with no change for the first three days.  On the fourth day, most of the deleted information disappeared from the download, except the email message (which disappeared when he ran the utility one more time).

The conclusion was that the mechanism “does not appear to ‘look back’ and recover deleted information in the user’s account”.  Thoughts:

  • With no change in the download in the first three days, the author notes that “Facebook did not take a fresh snapshot of my account every day – it just re-downloaded the same file three days in a row”.  He doesn’t mention whether he added any content during this time.  It would be interesting to see if that would force a change.
  • I don’t believe that there is any specific documentation from Facebook as to how it handles additions and deletions and how often the snapshot is updated.  If not, it might behoove them to create some, it might save them some subpoena requests.
  • The author notes that “it is inadvisable for lawyers to rely solely on the Download Your Information feature for discovery of an adversary’s Facebook information” as it “gives no assurance that a litigant’s attempt to delete evidence will be revealed”.  On the other hand, it may be still an appropriate mechanism to use for your own discovery to preserve your own information.  Facebook may also store deleted information on backup tapes, so a subpoena could catch your opponent red-handed if you can justify the discovery of those tapes.  Food for thought.

So, what do you think?  Have you had any Facebook discovery requests in your eDiscovery projects?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.