Social Media

Companies and organizations use social media ("SoMe") to gain market advantage, shape and model their own image, market and advertise to customers, track how effective their marketing campaigns might be, understand who their customers are, test new products or services and provide a platform through which customers can provide feedback. Every post or piece of analytics could be considered a “business record,” subjecting it to discovery in both civil and criminal litigation, internal and government investigations or audits. As a result, attorneys and their IT teams should understand the best practices for preserving, processing, reviewing, and producing data from SoMe sites to acquire valuable – and usable – evidence.

As you recall, in December of 2015, the amended FRCP 26(b)(1) sought to address the escalating burdens associated with data preservation and production by emphasizing proportionality and defining the scope of discovery. As the latest proportionality rulings show, Rule 26(b)(1) is having an impact on limiting the scope of discovery based on the associated expense and some state courts are even following the federal courts’ lead in enforcing proportionality. Interestingly, while expense continues to be a factor in the proportionality argument, parties’ objections on the basis of proportionality have extended to nonmonetary factors as well, including privacy. As a result, some courts are now recognizing privacy as a consideration in determining whether the discovery sought is proportional to the needs of the case.