Patterson v. Turner Constr. Co.
| Decision Date | 27 October 2011 |
| Parties | Russell PATTERSON, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, et al., Defendants–Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Ephrem J. Wertenteil, New York, for appellant.Kopff, Nardelli & Dopf LLP, New York (Martin B. Adams of counsel), for respondents.TOM, J.P., SAXE, DeGRASSE, FREEDMAN, ROMÁN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered April 7, 2011, which, in an action for personal injuries, granted defendants' motion to compel an authorization for all of plaintiff's Facebook records compiled after the incident alleged in the complaint, including any records previously deleted or archived, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the matter remanded for a more specific determination. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered January 24, 2011, which deferred determination on defendants' motion to compel to the extent of directing plaintiff to produce his Facebook records for an in camera review, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.
Plaintiff claims damages for physical and psychological injuries, including the inability to work, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and the loss of enjoyment of life. Although the motion court's in camera review established that at least some of the discovery sought “will result in the disclosure of relevant evidence or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of information bearing on the claims” ( Abrams v. Pecile, 83 A.D.3d 527, 528, 922 N.Y.S.2d 16 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted] ), it is possible that not all Facebook communications are related to the events that gave rise to plaintiff's cause of action ( see Offenback v. L.M. Bowman, Inc., 2011 WL 2491371, *2, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66432, *5–8 [M.D.Pa.2011] ). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a more specific identification of plaintiff's Facebook information that is relevant, in that it contradicts or conflicts with plaintiff's alleged restrictions, disabilities, and losses, and other claims.
The postings on plaintiff's online Facebook account, if relevant, are not shielded from discovery merely because plaintiff used the service's privacy settings to restrict access ( Romano v. Steelcase Inc., 30 Misc.3d 426, 433–434, 907 N.Y.S.2d 650 [2010] ), just as relevant matter from a personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forman v. Henkin
...account, prompts me to suggest that we reconsider this Court's recent decisions on the subject (see e.g. Patterson v. Turner Constr. Co., 88 A.D.3d 617, 931 N.Y.S.2d 311 [1st Dept.2011] ; Tapp v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 102 A.D.3d 620, 958 N.Y.S.2d 392 [1st Dept.2013] ; Spearin v. ......
-
Walker v. Poko-St Anns L.P.
... ... Facebook entries to that of personal diary entries (see ... Patterson v Turner Constr. Co., 88 A.D.3d 617, 618 ... [1st Dept 2011]). Courts have found that private ... ...
-
Nucci v. Target Corp.
...Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 3:11–cv–632–J–JBT, 2012 WL 555759, at *1 (M.D.Fla. Feb. 21, 2012) ; see also Patterson v. Turner Constr. Co., 88 A.D.3d 617, 931 N.Y.S.2d 311, 312 (N.Y.App.2011) (holding that the “postings on plaintiff's online Facebook account, if relevant, are not shielded from d......
-
Melissa G v. N. Babylon Union Free Sch. Dist.
...plaintiff's claim (see Richards v. Hertz Corp., 100 A.D.3d 728, 953 N.Y.S.2d 654 [2d Dept.2012], citing Patterson v. Turner Constr. Co., 88 A.D.3d 617, 931 N.Y.S.2d 311 [1st Dept.2011] ). To warrant discovery, defendants must establish a factual predicate for their request by identifying re......
-
Access To The Opposing Party's Facebook Account During Litigation
...prohibited from seeking disclosure of plaintiff's Facebook account on a future date. More recently in Patterson v. Turner Construction, 88 A.D.3d 617 (1st Dept., Oct. 30, 2011) the Appellate Court struck down the trial court determination that required a party to reveal all Facebook records......
-
How To Manage A Companys Social Media Presence
...publicly available, she cannot now claim that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.") Id at 656. 30 Patterson v Turner Const. Co., 88 A.D.3d 617, 618 (1st Dept. 2011)[internal citations 31 See Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., No. 5:07-cv-03783, 2010 WL 4789099, at *1 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 1......
-
Using traditional privileges
...information is not shielded from discovery on the sole basis that such information is confidential. Patterson v. Turner Const. Co. , 88 A.D.3d 617, 931 N.Y.S.2d 311 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., 2011). Postings on plaintiff’s online account with a social networking service, if relevant, were not shiel......
-
Using Traditional Privileges
...information is not shielded from discovery on the sole basis that such information is confidential. Patterson v. Turner Const. Co. , 88 A.D.3d 617, 931 N.Y.S.2d 311 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., 2011). Postings on plaintiff’s online account with a social networking service, if relevant, were not shiel......
-
Using Traditional Privileges
...information is not shielded from discovery on the sole basis that such information is confidential. Patterson v. Turner Const. Co. , 88 A.D.3d 617, 931 N.Y.S.2d 311 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., 2011). Postings on plaintiff’s online account with a social networking service, if relevant, were not shiel......
-
Deposing & examining the plaintiff
...(Pa. Com. Pl. Nov. 8, 2011) (“making a Facebook page ‘private’ does not shield it from discovery”); Patterson v. Turner Const. Co. , 931 N.Y.S.2d 311, 312 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) (“The postings on plaintiff’s online Facebook account, if relevant, are not shielded from discovery merely because......