2015 NCADA FALL SEMINAR

Transcription

1 2015 NCADA FALL SEMINAR FOR INSURANCE CLAIMS MANAGERS & DEFENSE COUNSEL GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA SEPTEMBER 25, 2015 SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTATION

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct... 3 (relevant portions) Rule 1.1 Competence... 3 Rule 3.3 Candor toward the Tribunal... 4 Rule 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel... 6 Rule 3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal... 8 Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity Rule 4.2 Communication with Persons Represented by Counsel Rule 5.1 Responsibilities of Partners, Managers and Supervising Lawyers Rule 5.3 Responsibilities Regarding Non-Lawyer Assistants Formal Ethics Opinion Relevant Case Law Duty to Advise Duty to Preserve Relevance in Discovery Narrowly Tailored Requests

3 Rule 1.1 Competence A lawyer shall not handle a legal matter that the lawyer knows or should know he or she is not competent to handle without associating with a lawyer who is competent to handle the matter. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. Comment Legal Knowledge and Skill [1] In determining whether a lawyer employs the requisite knowledge and skill in a particular matter, relevant factors include the relative complexity and specialized nature of the matter, the lawyer's general experience, the lawyer's training and experience in the field in question, the preparation and study the lawyer is able to give the matter, and whether it is feasible to refer the matter to, or associate or consult with, a lawyer of established competence in the field in question. In many instances, the required proficiency is that of a general practitioner. Expertise in a particular field of law may be required in some circumstances. [2] A lawyer need not necessarily have special training or prior experience to handle legal problems of a type with which the lawyer is unfamiliar. A newly admitted lawyer can be as competent as a practitioner with long experience. Some important legal skills, such as the analysis of precedent, the evaluation of evidence, and legal drafting, are required in all legal problems. Perhaps the most fundamental legal skill consists of determining what kind of legal problems a situation may involve, a skill that necessarily transcends any particular specialized knowledge. A lawyer can provide adequate representation in a wholly novel field through necessary study. Competent representation can also be provided through the association of a lawyer of established competence in the field in question. Maintaining Competence [8] To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with the technology relevant to the lawyer s practice, engage in continuing study and education, and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject. 3

4 Rule 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; (2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or (3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer's client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. (b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. (c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6. (d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse. Comment [2] This Rule sets forth the special duties of lawyers as officers of the court to avoid conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process. A lawyer acting as an advocate in an adjudicative proceeding has an obligation to present the client's case with persuasive force. Performance of that duty while maintaining confidences of the client, however, is qualified by the advocate's duty of candor to the tribunal. Consequently, although a lawyer in an adjudicative proceeding is not required to present an impartial exposition of the law or to vouch for the evidence submitted in a cause, the lawyer must not allow the tribunal to be misled by false statements of material fact or law or evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. 4

5 Offering Evidence [5] Paragraph (a)(3) requires that the lawyer refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, regardless of the client's wishes. This duty is premised on the lawyer's obligation as an officer of the court to prevent the trier of fact from being misled by false evidence. A lawyer does not violate this Rule if the lawyer offers the evidence for the purpose of establishing its falsity. [6] If a lawyer knows that the client intends to testify falsely or wants the lawyer to introduce false evidence, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client that the evidence should not be offered. If the persuasion is ineffective and the lawyer continues to represent the client, the lawyer must refuse to offer the false evidence. If only a portion of a witness's testimony will be false, the lawyer may call the witness to testify but may not elicit or otherwise permit the witness to present the testimony that the lawyer knows is false. [8] The prohibition against offering false evidence only applies if the lawyer knows that the evidence is false. A lawyer's reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation to the trier of fact. A lawyer's knowledge that evidence is false, however, can be inferred from the circumstances. See Rule 1.0(g). Thus, although a lawyer should resolve doubts about the veracity of testimony or other evidence in favor of the client, the lawyer cannot ignore an obvious falsehood. Preserving Integrity of Adjudicative Process [12] Lawyers have a special obligation to protect a tribunal against criminal or fraudulent conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process, such as bribing, intimidating or otherwise unlawfully communicating with a witness, juror, court official or other participant in the proceeding, unlawfully destroying or concealing documents or other evidence or failing to disclose information to the tribunal when required by law to do so. Thus, paragraph (b) requires a lawyer to take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure if necessary, whenever the lawyer knows that a person, including the lawyer's client, intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding. 5

6 Rule 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel A lawyer shall not: (a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act; (b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, counsel or assist a witness to hide or leave the jurisdiction for the purpose of being unavailable as a witness, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law; (c) knowingly disobey or advise a client or any other person to disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except a lawyer acting in good faith may take appropriate steps to test the validity of such an obligation; (d) in pretrial procedure, (1) make a frivolous discovery request, (2) fail to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party, or (3) fail to disclose evidence or information that the lawyer knew, or reasonably should have known, was subject to disclosure under applicable law, rules of procedure or evidence, or court opinions; (e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, ask an irrelevant question that is intended to degrade a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant, or the guilt or innocence of an accused; or (f) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless: Comment (1) the person is a relative or a managerial employee or other agent of a client; and (2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person's interests will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information. [1] The procedure of the adversary system contemplates that the evidence in a case is to be marshaled competitively by the contending parties. Fair competition in the adversary system 6

7 is secured by prohibitions against destruction or concealment of evidence, improperly influencing witnesses, obstructive tactics in discovery procedure, and the like. [2] Documents and other items of evidence are often essential to establish a claim or defense. Subject to evidentiary privileges, the right of an opposing party, including the government, to obtain evidence through discovery or subpoena is an important procedural right. The exercise of that right can be frustrated if relevant material is altered, concealed or destroyed. Applicable law in many jurisdictions makes it an offense to destroy material for the purpose of impairing its availability in a pending proceeding or one whose commencement can be foreseen. Falsifying evidence is also generally a criminal offense. Paragraph (a) applies to evidentiary material generally, including computerized information. Applicable law may permit a lawyer to take temporary possession of physical evidence of client crimes for the purpose of conducting a limited examination that will not alter or destroy material characteristics of the evidence. In such a case, applicable law may require the lawyer to turn the evidence over to the police or other prosecuting authority, depending on the circumstances. [5] Paragraph (d) makes it clear that a lawyer must be reasonably diligent in making inquiry of the client, or third party, about information or documents responsive to discovery requests or disclosure requirements arising from statutory law, rules of procedure, or caselaw. "Reasonably" is defined in Rule 0.1, Terminology, as meaning "conduct of a reasonably prudent and competent lawyer." Rule 0.1(i). When responding to a discovery request or disclosure requirement, a lawyer must act in good faith. The lawyer should impress upon the client the importance of making a thorough search of the client s records and responding honestly. If the lawyer has reason to believe that a client has not been forthcoming, the lawyer may not rely solely upon the client s assertion that the response is truthful or complete. 7

8 Rule 3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal (a) A lawyer shall not: (1) seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror, or other official by means prohibited by law; (2) communicate ex parte with a juror or prospective juror except as permitted by law; (3) communicate ex parte with a judge or other official except: (A) in the course of official proceedings; (B) in writing, if a copy of the writing is furnished simultaneously to the opposing party; (C) orally, upon adequate notice to opposing party; or (D) as otherwise permitted by law; (4) engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal, including: (A) failing to comply with known local customs of courtesy or practice of the bar or a particular tribunal without giving opposing counsel timely notice of the intent not to comply; (B) engaging in undignified or discourteous conduct that is degrading to a tribunal; or (C) intentionally or habitually violating any established rule of procedure or evidence; or (5) communicate with a juror or prospective juror after discharge of the jury if: (A) the communication is prohibited by law or court order; (B) the juror has made known to the lawyer a desire not to communicate; or (C) the communication involves misrepresentation, coercion, duress or harassment. (b) All restrictions imposed by this rule also apply to communications with, or investigations of, members of the family of a juror or a prospective juror. 8

9 (c) A lawyer shall reveal promptly to the court improper conduct by a juror or a prospective juror, or by another toward a juror, a prospective juror or a member of a juror or a prospective juror's family. Comment [2] To safeguard the impartiality that is essential to the judicial process, jurors and prospective jurors should be protected against extraneous influences. When impartiality is present, public confidence in the judicial system is enhanced. There should be no extrajudicial communication with prospective jurors prior to trial or with jurors during trial by or on behalf of a lawyer connected with the case. Furthermore, a lawyer who is not connected with the case should not communicate with a juror or a prospective juror about the case. [4] Vexatious or harassing investigations of jurors or prospective jurors seriously impair the effectiveness of our jury system. For this reason, a lawyer or anyone on the lawyer's behalf who conducts an investigation of jurors or prospective jurors should act with circumspection and restraint. [5] Communications with, or investigations of, members of families of jurors or prospective jurors by a lawyer or by anyone on the lawyer's behalf are subject to the restrictions imposed upon the lawyer with respect to the lawyer's communications with, or investigations of, jurors or prospective jurors. 9

10 Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity (a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state: (1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved; (2) the information contained in a public record; (3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress; (4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation; (5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto; (6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest; and (7) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1) through (6): (A) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of the accused; (B) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person; (C) the fact, time and place of arrest; and (D) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation. (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is reasonably necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity. (d) No lawyer associated in a firm or government agency with a lawyer subject to paragraph (a) shall make a statement prohibited by paragraph (a). 10

11 (e) The foregoing provisions of Rule 3.6 do not preclude a lawyer from replying to charges of misconduct publicly made against the lawyer or from participating in the proceedings of legislative, administrative, or other investigative bodies. Comment [3] The Rule sets forth a basic general prohibition against a lawyer's making statements that the lawyer knows or should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding. Recognizing that the public value of informed commentary is great and the likelihood of prejudice to a proceeding by the commentary of a lawyer who is not involved in the proceeding is small, the rule applies only to lawyers who are, or who have been involved in the investigation or litigation of a case, and their associates. A lawyer who is subject to the rule must take reasonable measures to insure the compliance of nonlawyer assistants and may not employ agents to make statements the lawyer is prohibited from making. Rule 5.3 and Rule 8.4(a); see, e.g., Rule 3.8(f)(prosecutor s duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent persons assisting prosecutor or associated with prosecutor from making improper extrajudicial statements). 11

12 Rule 4.2 Communication with Person Represented by Counsel (a) During the representation of a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order. It is not a violation of this rule for a lawyer to encourage his or her client to discuss the subject of the representation with the opposing party in a good-faith attempt to resolve the controversy. (b) Notwithstanding section (a) above, in representing a client who has a dispute with a government agency or body, a lawyer may communicate about the subject of the representation with the elected officials who have authority over such government agency or body even if the lawyer knows that the government agency or body is represented by another lawyer in the matter, but such communications may only occur under the following circumstances: Comment (1) in writing, if a copy of the writing is promptly delivered to opposing counsel; (2) orally, upon adequate notice to opposing counsel; or (3) in the course of official proceedings. [4] A lawyer may not make a communication prohibited by this Rule through the acts of another. See Rule 8.4(a). However, parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other, and a lawyer is not prohibited from advising a client or, in the case of a government lawyer, investigatory personnel, concerning a communication that the client, or such investigatory personnel, is legally entitled to make. The Rule is not intended to discourage good faith efforts by individual parties to resolve their differences. Nor does the Rule prohibit a lawyer from encouraging a client to communicate with the opposing party with a view toward the resolution of the dispute. [10] The prohibition on communications with a represented person only applies in circumstances where the lawyer knows that the person is in fact represented in the matter to be discussed. This means that the lawyer has actual knowledge of the fact of the representation; but such actual knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances. See Rule 1.0(g). Thus, the lawyer cannot evade the requirement of obtaining the consent of counsel by closing eyes to the obvious. 12

13 Rule 5.1 Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers (a) A partner in a law firm, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm or the organization has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm or the organization conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct. (b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct. (c) A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer's violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if: Comment (1) the lawyer orders or, with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or (2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices, or has direct supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action to avoid the consequences. [4] Paragraph (c) expresses a general principle of personal responsibility for acts of another. See also Rule 8.4(a). [5] Paragraph (c)(2) defines the duty of a partner or other lawyer having comparable managerial authority in a law firm, as well as a lawyer who has direct supervisory authority over performance of specific legal work by another lawyer. Whether a lawyer has such supervisory authority in particular circumstances is a question of fact. Partners and lawyers with comparable authority have at least indirect responsibility for all work being done by the firm, while a partner or manager in charge of a particular matter ordinarily also has supervisory responsibility for the work of other firm lawyers engaged in the matter. Appropriate remedial action by a partner or managing lawyer would depend on the immediacy of that lawyer's involvement and the seriousness of the misconduct. A supervisor is required to intervene to prevent avoidable consequences of misconduct if the supervisor knows that the misconduct occurred. Thus, if a supervising lawyer knows that a subordinate misrepresented a matter to an opposing party in negotiation, the supervisor as well as the subordinate has a duty to correct the resulting misapprehension. 13

14 Rule 5.3 Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated with a lawyer: (a) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm or organization shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm or organization has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the nonlawyer's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; (b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the nonlawyer's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and (c) a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a nonlawyer that would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer if: (1) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or (2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm or organization in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory authority over the nonlawyer, and knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action to avoid the consequences. Comment [2] Lawyers generally employ assistants in their practice, including secretaries, investigators, law student interns, and paraprofessionals. Such assistants, whether employees or independent contractors, act for the lawyer in rendition of the lawyer's professional services. A lawyer must give such assistants appropriate instruction and supervision concerning the ethical aspects of their employment, particularly regarding the obligation not to disclose information relating to representation of the client, and should be responsible for their work product. The measures employed in supervising nonlawyers should take account of the fact that they do not have legal training and are not subject to professional discipline. Nonlawyers Outside the Firm [3] A lawyer may use nonlawyers outside the firm to assist the lawyer in rendering legal services to the client. Examples include the retention of an investigative or paraprofessional service, hiring a document management company to create and maintain a database for complex litigation, sending client documents to a third party for printing or scanning, and using an Internet-based service to store client information. When using such services outside the firm, a lawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the services are provided in a manner that is compatible with the lawyer s professional obligations and, depending upon the risk of 14

15 unauthorized disclosure of confidential client information, should consider whether client consent is required. See Rule 1.1, cmt. [7]. The extent of this obligation will depend upon the circumstances, including the education, experience, and reputation of the nonlawyer; the nature of the services involved; the terms of any arrangements concerning the protection of client information; and the legal and ethical environments of the jurisdictions in which the services will be performed, particularly with regard to confidentiality. See also Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.2 (allocation of authority), 1.4 (communication with client), 1.6 (confidentiality), 5.4(a) (professional independence of the lawyer), and 5.5(a) (unauthorized practice of law). When retaining or directing a nonlawyer outside the firm, a lawyer should communicate directions appropriate under the circumstances to give reasonable assurance that the nonlawyer s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer. 15

16 2014 Formal Ethics Opinion 5 (Updated on July 17, 2015) Advising a Civil Litigation Client about Social Media Opinion rules a lawyer must advise a civil litigation client about the legal ramifications of the client s postings on social media as necessary to represent the client competently. The lawyer may advise the client to remove postings on social media if the removal is done in compliance with the rules and law on preservation and spoliation of evidence. Inquiry #1: A client s postings and other information that the client has placed on a social media 1 website (referred to collectively as postings ) are relevant to the issues in the client s legal matter and, if the matter is litigated, might be used to impeach the client. The client s lawyer does not use social media and is unfamiliar with how social media functions. What is the lawyer s duty to be knowledgeable of social media and to advise the client about the effect of the postings on the client s legal matter? Opinion #1: Rule 1.1 requires lawyers to provide competent representation to clients. Comment [8] to the rule specifically states that a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with the technology relevant to the lawyer s practice. Relevant technology includes social media. As stated in an opinion of the New Hampshire Bar Association, N. H. Bar Ass n Op /05, counsel has a general duty to be aware of social media as a source of potentially useful information in litigation, to be competent to obtain that information directly or through an agent, and to know how to make effective use of that information in litigation. If the client s postings could be relevant and material to the client s legal matter, competent representation includes advising the client of the legal ramifications of existing postings, future postings, and third party comments. Inquiry #2: The client s legal matter will probably be litigated, although a law suit has not been filed. May the lawyer instruct the client to remove postings on social media? Opinion #2: A lawyer may not counsel a client or assist a client to engage in conduct the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. Rule 1.2(d). In addition, a lawyer may not unlawfully obstruct another party s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy, or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. Rule 3.4(a). The lawyer, therefore, should examine the law on preservation of information, spoliation of evidence, and obstruction of justice to determine whether removing existing postings would be a violation of the law. If removing postings does 1 Social media is defined as forms of electronic communication ([such] as Websites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content ([such] as videos). Social Media, Merriam-Webster, merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20 media (last visited Jan. 20, 2015). 16

17 not constitute spoliation and is not otherwise illegal, or the removal is done in compliance with the rules and law on preservation and spoliation of evidence 2, the lawyer may instruct the client to remove existing postings on social media. The lawyer may take possession of printed or digital images of the client s postings made for purposes of preservation. See N.Y. State Bar, Ethics Op. 745 (2013)(lawyer may advise a client about the removal of postings if the lawyer complies with the rules and law on preservation and spoliation of evidence). Inquiry #3: May the lawyer instruct the client to change the security and privacy settings on social media pages to the highest level of restricted access? Opinion #3: Yes, if doing so is not a violation of law or court order. 2 Black s Law Dictionary 1437 (8th ed. 2004) defines spoliation as the intentional concealment, destruction, alteration or mutilation of evidence, usually documents, thereby making them unusable or invalid. The doctrine of spoliation of evidence holds that when a party fails to introduce in evidence documents that are relevant to the matter in question and within his control...there is a presumption, or at least an inference that the evidence withheld, if forthcoming, would injure his case. Jones v. GMRI, Inc., 144 N.C. App. 558, 565, 551 S.E.2d 867, 872(2001) (quoting Yarborough v. Hughes, 139 N.C. 199, 209, 51 S.E. 904, (1905)). 17

18 RELEVANT CASE LAW Duty to Advise: State v. Chaplin, 753 S.E.2d 397, No. COA at *5 (N.C. App. Nov. 5, 2013) rev. denied, 367 N.C. 297, 753 S.E.2d 787 (2014). Defendant in a criminal action apparently provided police officers with a false and preplanned alibi. When asked where he had been at the time of the crime, defendant claimed to have been in Philadelphia. He instructed the detectives to check his Facebook account to verify his whereabouts. When the detectives checked his account, they saw a status update posted at 10:13 p.m. on 12 December 2008, three days before the crime, that said Bonus [defendant's nickname] is in Philadelphia... Wat it du? Facebook's records, which were admitted into evidence, showed that the update had been posted from an IP address in Greensboro, not Philadelphia. The IP address was associated with an unsecured wireless network owned by a man who lived next to one of defendant's friends. United States v. Shah, No. 5:13-CR-328-FL, 2015 WL (E.D.N.C. Jan. 6, 2015). In this case, Facebook obtained some location information about defendant including information regarding the Facebook account holder's IP addresses, the time of the account holder's Facebook activities, a general description of the Facebook activity, and the Facebook account holder's city, region, and country at the time of the activity. The court held that defendant had no recognized right to privacy in the information collected from Facebook. 18

19 Duty to Preserve: Lester v. Allied Concrete Co., Nos. CL08-150, (Virginia). Plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit against a trucking company that owned a truck involved in the accident that killed plaintiff s wife. Plaintiff s attorney instructed plaintiff to clean up his Facebook page by deleting photo of plaintiff drinking and wearing I Heart Hot Moms shirt. Plaintiff deactivated his Facebook account and denied its existence in discovery. Following a jury verdict in the plaintiff s favor, the judge cut his recovery in half (originally $10.6 million), and fined plaintiff s attorney $542,000 and plaintiff himself $180,

20 Relevance in Discovery: Moore v. Miller, No. 10-CV-651-JLK, 2013 WL , at *2-3 (D. Colo. June 6, 2013). [Plaintiff s] Facebook activity is relevant to his claims of emotional pain and suffering (for which he claims $750,000 in damages) as well as his claims of physical pain ($750,000) and humiliation ($500,000). [Plaintiff] reputedly has chosen to share his version of events online often and in many different forums, including detailed and specific descriptions of what he alleges happened to him on March 25, 2008, as well as the injuries he allegedly suffers to this day. Defendants are entitled to know of these accounts. [Plaintiff] shall produce, under shield of the Court's standard protective order, his entire Facebook history, including his Activity Log, from the date of his arrest forward and continuing to the close of discovery. Permission to file a motion for attorney fees is granted. Salvato v. Miley, No. 5:12-CV-635-OC-10PRL, 2013 WL , at *2 (M.D. Fla. June 11, 2013). The mere hope that [defendant s] private text-messages, s, and [social media posts] might include an admission against interest, without more, is not a sufficient reason to require [defendant] to provide Plaintiff open access to his private communications with third parties. Indeed, Plaintiff has essentially sought permission to conduct a fishing expedition... on the mere hope of finding relevant evidence. A party does not have a generalized right to rummage at willl through information that Plaintiff has limited from public view. (internal citations and quotations omitted) Giacchetto v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free Sch. Dist., 293 F.R.D. 112, 116 (E.D.N.Y. 2013). Plaintiff's routine status updates and/or communications on social networking websites are not, as a general matter, relevant to her claim for emotional distress damages, nor are such communications likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding the same [H]owever certain limited social networking postings should be produced [including any] specific references to the emotional distress she claims she suffered or treatment she received in connection with the incidents underlying her Amended Complaint. 20

21 Narrowly Tailored Requests: Howell v. Buckeye Ranch, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-1014, 2012 WL , at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 1, 2012) Relevant information in the private section of a social media account is discoverable [b]ut a litigant has no right to serve overbroad discovery requests that seek irrelevant information. [Defendants request for plaintiff s username and password] is overbroad [giving defendant] access to all the information in the private sections of her social media accounts-relevant and irrelevant alike. The fact that the information defendants seek is in an electronic file as opposed to a file cabinet does not give them the right to rummage through the entire file. The same rules that govern the discovery of information in hard copy documents apply to electronic files. 21