In In Newill v. Campbell Transp. Co., Pennsylvania Senior District Judge Terrence F. McVerry ruled on the plaintiff’s motion in limine on miscellaneous matters by allowing the defendant to introduce Facebook posts into evidence that related to the plaintiff’s physical capabilities, but not those that related to his employability.
In Federico et al. v. Lincoln Military Housing LLC, et al., Virginia Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller, concluding that the defendants had not established that the plaintiffs had acted in bad faith when failing to meet production deadlines, declined to impose “any further sanction against Plaintiffs beyond the $29,000 expense associated with their expert's production of the Facebook records”, except for a portion of the reasonable attorney's fees associated with the original motion to compel.
As we noted yesterday and the day before, eDiscoveryDaily published 93 posts related to eDiscovery case decisions and activities over the past year, covering 68 unique cases! Yesterday, we looked back at cases related to eDiscovery cost sharing and reimbursement, fee disputes and production format disputes. Today, let’s take a look back at cases related to privilege and inadvertent disclosures, requests for social media, cases involving technology assisted review and the case of the year – the ubiquitous Apple v. Samsung dispute.
Thanks to the Google Alerts that I set up to send me new stories related to eDiscovery, I found an interesting blog post from an attorney that appears to shed light on an archival bug within Twitter that could affect people who may want to retrieve Twitter archival data for eDiscovery purposes.
Back in July, we took a look at Twitter’s Transparency Report to show government requests for data over the last six months of 2013 (we had previously looked at their very first report here). However, because Twitter is barred by law from disclosing certain details on government surveillance requests, the Transparency Report is not as transparent as Twitter would like. So, on Tuesday, Twitter filed suit against the FBI and the Justice Department, seeking the ability to release more detailed information on government surveillance of Twitter users.
When we launched nearly four years ago on September 20, 2010, our goal was to be a daily resource for eDiscovery news and analysis. Now, after doing so each business day, I’m happy to announce that today is our 1,000th post on eDiscovery Daily! Check out what we've covered over 1,000 posts!
Over the past couple of weeks, we’ve taken a fresh look at Twitter’s Law Enforcement Policies and their latest Transparency Report to show government requests for data, looked at (for the first time) LinkedIn’s Privacy and Law Enforcement Data Request Guidelines and Transparency Report and, yesterday, looked at Facebook’s policies and Government Request Reports. Today, we will look at Transparency Reports for other companies.
Two weeks ago, we took a fresh look at Twitter’s Law Enforcement Policies and their latest Transparency Report to show government requests for data, then last week (for the first time), we looked at LinkedIn’s Privacy and Law Enforcement Data Request Guidelines and Transparency Report. This week, we’ll take a look at Facebook’s policies and Government Request Reports.
Yesterday, we talked about LinkedIn’s Privacy and Law Enforcement Data Request Guidelines. Like Twitter and other social media companies, LinkedIn also discloses a semi-annual Transparency Report to inform the public of the frequency and type of government requests the company receives regarding member data. Let’s take a look.
Yesterday, we took an updated look at Twitter to see how it handles private information and law enforcement requests (such as subpoenas) and what has changed since our last look about two years ago. Today, we will take a look at Twitter’s latest Transparency Report to show government requests for data over the last six months of 2013.
It’s time to take another look at the social media platforms to see how they handle private information and law enforcement requests (such as subpoenas). Let’s start with Twitter.
In Chapman v. Hiland Operating, LLC, while noting that he was “skeptical” that reactivating the plaintiff’s Facebook account would produce any relevant, noncumulative information, North Dakota Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller ordered the plaintiff to “make a reasonable, good faith attempt” to reactivate her Facebook account.
In Stallings v. City of Johnston City, Illinois Chief District Judge David R. Herndon modified an earlier order by a magistrate judge in response to the plaintiff’s appeal, claiming that the order violated the privacy rights of the plaintiff, and of minor children with whom the plaintiff had held conversations on Facebook.
In Forman v. Henkin, a Motion to Compel was granted in part for a defendant who requested authorization to obtain records of the plaintiff’s private postings to Facebook.
While we haven’t served over 300 billion burgers like McDonald’s, we have provided something to digest each business day for over 43 months. We’re proud to announce that on Friday, eDiscovery Daily reached the 300,000 visit milestone! It took us a little over 21 months to reach 100,000 visits and just over 22 months to triple that to 300,000! When we reach key milestones, we like to take a look back at some of the recent stories we’ve covered, so, in case you missed them, here are some recent eDiscovery items of interest from the past six weeks.
Unless limited by law or court order, a lawyer may review a juror’s or potential juror’s Internet presence, which may include postings by the juror or potential juror in advance of and during a trial, but a lawyer may not communicate directly or through another with a juror or potential juror. So says a new formal opinion from the American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on Ethics and Professionalism.
My boss reminded me that we haven’t had a good social media disaster story in a while, so here goes. I know it’s a few weeks old, but it’s still a good story if you haven’t heard it. As reported a few weeks ago on CNN, the former head of a private preparatory school in Miami lost out an $80,000 discrimination settlement after his daughter boasted about it on Facebook.
In Calderon v. Corporacion Puertorrique a de Salud, the plaintiff was found to have violated his duty to preserve evidence during the discovery phase of this sexual harassment lawsuit. Sanctions were imposed, though not to the extent requested by the defendants.
Today’s thought leader is Adam Losey. Adam is president and editor-in-chief of IT-Lex.org, a technology law not-for-profit educational and literary organization and an attorney at Foley & Lardner LLP. Adam also served as an adjunct professor at Columbia University, where he taught electronic discovery as part of Columbia's Information and Digital Resource Management Master's Program.
Browse eDiscovery Daily Blog