Gordon v. TGR Logistics Inc et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 2:16-cv-00238-NDF Document 23 Filed 05/10/17 Page 1 of 12

OISTRICT OF WYOMING
U.S. DISTRICT COUAT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAY 10 2017

FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

BRENDA GORDON,

Plaintiff,

Vs. Case No: 16-CV-00238-NDF

T.G.R. LOGISTICS, INC. d/b/a T/G/R/
TRANSPORT; and IGOR V. VARGA,
individually,

Defendants.

ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL

This comes before the Court on the Defendant T.G.R. Logistics, Inc.’s motion to
compel discovery production. The Court being fully advised in the premise hereby finds
and orders:

BACKGROUND

Defendant filed its Combined Motion and Brief to Compel Discovery Production

from Plaintiff Brenda Gordon on April 21, 2017. [Doc 20]. Defendant seeks an order

requiring Plaintiff to produce an electronic copy of her entire Facebook account history

for the two Facebook accounts she has identified'.

' The Defendant has now limited the request to three years prior to the date of the accident.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT.
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 2:16-cv-00238-NDF Document 23 Filed 05/10/17 Page 2 of 12

Defendant served the following Request for Production on Plaintiff on January 25,
2017:
REQUEST NO. 11: Utilizing the instructions attached hereto, download

and produce an electronic copy of your Facebook account history to the
enclosed flash drive.

Neither party provided Plaintiffs response to this request for production, but from the
arguments of the parties it is clear that the Plaintiff has not, and will not, voluntarily
produce the Plaintiff's entire Facebook history. Nevertheless this Court is not aware of
the specific objections Plaintiff presented in her response to the discovery request.

The parties have conferred and complied with the January 24, 2014 General Order
and conducted an informal hearing with this Court on April 10, 2017. After hearing the
nature of the pending motion the Court granted Defendant leave to file its motion to
compel with briefing.

Plaintiff was driving her motor vehicle on June 28, 2015 on US Highway 309 in
Lincoln County, Wyoming. As she was executing a left-hand turn she was struck by a
tractor-trailer unit owned and operated by Defendant T.G.R. Logistics, Inc. and driven by
Defendant Varga which was attempting to execute a pass in the left lane. As a result of
this collision Plaintiff alleges numerous physical injuries, pain (back, neck and jaw),
traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression. Defendant
asserts that Plaintiff's Facebook account history is relevant and necessary to its defense

of the damages claimed by Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff responds that the request for the Facebook account history exceeds

the permissible discovery limits of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26. Plaintiff further

2

Case 2:16-cv-00238-NDF Document 23 Filed 05/10/17 Page 3 of 12

asserts that the request is unduly burdensome, lacks relevance and is overly invasive of
Plaintiff's privacy. Plaintiff emphasizes that she has downloaded and produced the
information from her Facebook accounts that references the accident or her injuries.
Further the Plaintiff has provided the Facebook information for the following keywords
as set forth by Defendant in its request for production number 12 [Doc 20-2 Page 4].
Those keywords are: accident; attorney; TGR; Igor Varga; Kemmerer; Lincoln County,
Wyoming; brain injury; concussion; posttraumatic stress disorder; and PTSD.
Discussion
The scope of discovery is defined in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1):
Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of
discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the
issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative
access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the

proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this
scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

There are three basic steps for the court to consider when determining the appropriate
scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1). Those steps are: (1) is the information
privileged; (2) is it relevant to a claim or defense; and (3) is it proportional to the needs of
the case. There being no claim of privilege asserted herein, this matter will resolve with a
review of the final two criteria.

The courts have a long history of attempting to define the proper scope of
discovery. The federal discovery rules were initially adopted in 1938 and have been

described as a striking and imaginative departure from tradition. Advisory Committees

3

Case 2:16-cv-00238-NDF Document 23 Filed 05/10/17 Page 4 of 12

Explanation Statement Concerning 1970 Amendments to Discovery Rules. In the 1980s it

became apparent that excessive discovery was becoming a problem.
Excessive discovery innovation or resistance to reasonable discovery
requests pose significant problems. ... The purpose of discovery is to
provide a mechanism for making relevant information available to the
litigants. “Mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both
parties is essential to proper litigation.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495,
507 (1947). Thus the spirit of the rules is violated when advocates attempt
to use discovery tools as tactical weapons rather than to expose the facts
and illuminate the issues by overuse of discovery or unnecessary use of
defensive weapons or evasive responses. All of this results in excessively
costly and time-consuming activities that are disproportionate to the nature
of the case, the amount involved, or the issues or values at stake.

Advisory Committee Notes 1983 Amendment Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 26

With the amendments of the Rules beginning in 1983, the issue of proportionality was
introduced into scope of discovery evaluations.

This effort to properly limit the scope of discovery comes at a time when the
amount of available data for discovery is growing exponentially. More data has been
created in the last two years than in the entire previous history of the human race and the
amount of data is predicted to grow 10-fold by 2020. Data set to grow 10-fold by 2020
as internet of things takes off, Antony Adshead, ComputerWeekly.com/news/
2240217788. A great deal of that data will involve social media.

Social media presents some unique challenges to courts in their efforts to
determine the proper scope of discovery of relevant information and maintaining
proportionality. While it is conceivable that almost any post to social media will provide

some relevant information concerning a person’s physical and/or emotional health, it also

Case 2:16-cv-00238-NDF Document 23 Filed 05/10/17 Page 5 of 12

has the potential to disclose more information than has historically occurred in civil
litigation. While we can debate the wisdom of individuals posting information which has
historically been considered private, we must recognize people are providing a great deal
of personal information publicly to a very loosely defined group of “friends,” or even the
entire public internet. People have always shared thoughts and feelings, but typically not
in such a permanent and easily retrievable format. No court would have allowed
unlimited depositions of every friend, social acquaintance, co-employee or relative of a
plaintiff to inquire as to all disclosures, conversations or observations. Now far more
reliable disclosures can be obtained with a simple download of a social media history. A
few clicks on the computer and you shortly have what can consist of hundreds of pages of
recorded postings and conversations of a party. There can be little doubt that within
those postings there will be information which is relevant to some issue in the litigation.
It is equally clear that much of the information will be irrelevant.

Just because the information can be retrieved quickly and inexpensively does not
resolve the issue. Discovery can be burdensome even as it is inexpensive. Courts have
long denied discovery of information which was easy to obtain, but which was not
discoverable. “The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person
from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(c)(1). Upon a finding of good cause a court may prohibit the production of relevant
information. The recent inclusion of proportionality within Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) further

emphasizes this point.

Case 2:16-cv-00238-NDF Document 23 Filed 05/10/17 Page 6 of 12

The Defendant correctly observes that there would be very little time or expense
involved in the initial production of Plaintiff's Facebook history. That’s true on the front
end. The problem is that such vast information has the potential to generate additional
discovery or impact trial testimony. It’s not difficult to imagine a plaintiff being required
to explain every statement contained within a lengthy Facebook history in which he or
she expressed some degree of angst or emotional distress or discussing life events which
could be conceived to cause emotion upset, but which is extremely personal and
embarrassing. There is also substantial risk that the fear of humiliation and
embarrassment will dissuade injured plaintiffs from seeking recovery for legitimate
damages or abandon legitimate claims. That being said, Defendant has a legitimate
interest in discovery which is important to the claims and damages it is being asked to
pay. Information in social media which reveals that the plaintiff is lying or exaggerating
his or her injuries should not be protected from disclosure. Courts must balance these
realities regarding discovery of social media and that is what most of the courts which
have addressed this issue have done.

In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Simply Storage Management,
LLC, 270 F.R.D. 430 (S.D. Ind. 2010), the court denied a request for production of a
claimant’s entire Facebook and MySpace accounts. Even where the claimant alleges
emotional injuries disclosure of their entire social media history is not required.

[T]he simple fact that a claimant has had social communications is not

necessarily probative of the particular mental and emotional health matters

at issue in the case. Rather it must be the substance of the communication

that determines relevance. See Rozell v. Ross-Holst, 2006 WL 163143
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2006). As the Rozell court put it,

6

Case 2:16-cv-00238-NDF Document 23 Filed 05/10/17 Page 7 of 12

To be sure, anything that a person says or does might in some
theoretical sense be reflective of her emotional state. But that
is hardly justification for requiring the production of every
thought she may have reduced to writing or, indeed, the
deposition of everyone she may have talked to.

Id. 434.

In Simply Storage the court ultimately allowed discovery of the claimant’s
communications which related any emotion, feelings or mental state or referenced events
which could reasonably be expected to produce significant emotion responses. In issuing
this order the court recognized that such discovery was appropriate for alleged severe
emotion distress, as opposed to “garden variety” emotional distress. Id. 437

Similar reasoning has been expressed by other courts. In Holter v. Wells Fargo
and Co., 281 F.R.D. 340 (D.Minn. 2011), a former employer sought the entire Facebook
history of the claimant.

While everything that is posted on a social media website is arguably
reflective of a person’s emotional state, this court would not allow
depositions of every friend and acquaintance to inquire about every
conversation and interaction with plaintiff. So too, the court will not
require plaintiff to produce all information from all her social media
websites to obtain similar information.

On the other hand, given the plaintiff has placed her employment with and
termination of employment from defendant, along with her mental
disability and emotional state in issue, the defendant is entitled to
information from her social media websites that bear on these topics,
including other stressors in plaintiff's life that could account for the
emotional distress she is now claiming was due to her treatment at and
termination of employment from defendant.

Id at 344

Case 2:16-cv-00238-NDF Document 23 Filed 05/10/17 Page 8 of 12

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas reminded us that our
discovery rules provide the guidance to address social media discovery. While the
medium of social media is relatively new, the principals of discovery remain the same.

As it currently stands, the record does not support defendant’s extremely
broad discovery request for all-inclusive access to plaintiff's social media
accounts. As plaintiff notes, such access could reveal highly personal
information---such as plaintiffs private sexual conduct--- that is unlikely to
lead to admissible evidence in this case. Information on social networking
sites is not entitled to special protection, but a discovery request seeking it
nevertheless must meet Fed.R.Civ.P 26’s requirement that it be tailored “so
that it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.” “Otherwise, the defendant would be allowed to engage in the
proverbial fishing expedition, in the hope that there might be something of
relevance in Plaintiffs [social networking] account[s].” The court agrees
with courts that have recognized that a discovery request for unfettered
access to social networking accounts--even when temporally limited--
would permit defendant “to cast too wide a net” for relevant information.
As the court reasoned in Ogden v. All-Star Career School, [2014 WL 164-
6934 (W.D.Penn. 2014) at 4]:

Ordering plaintiff to permit access to or produce complete
copies of his social networking accounts would permit
defendant to cast too wide a net and sanction an inquiry into
scores of quasi-personal information that would be irrelevant
and non-discoverable. Defendants are no more entitled to
such unfettered access to plaintiffs personal email and social
networking communications than it is to rummage through
the desk drawers and closets in plaintiff’s home.

Smith v. Hillshire Brands, 2014 WL 2804188 (D.Kan. 2014) at 4 to 5.

Admittedly, there are cases which have allowed broader discovery of social media
accounts. Defendant relies upon Held v. Ferrellgas, Inc., 2011 WL 3896513 (Kan. 2011).
With little discussion the Court found that a request for Facebook information during a
specified time period of employment was discoverable when Plaintiff could not recall if

he posted anything relevant to the case on Facebook. The court did not share its analysis

8

Case 2:16-cv-00238-NDF Document 23 Filed 05/10/17 Page 9 of 12

or what factors the court considered or what guided it in allowing the discovery. This
case was later distinguished by Smith v. Hillshire Brands. Citing to Held, the court in
Moore v. Miller, 2013 WL 2456114 at 2 (D. Colo. 2013), granted discovery of Facebook
history during the period of plaintiff's employment based upon the finding that the
plaintiff “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.”

The Defendant further relies upon Appler v. Mead Johnson & Co. LLC,2015 WL
5615038 (S.Ind. 2015). Appler differs from the other cases cited by Defendant. Appler
recognizes and discusses at some length the reasons why discovery of social media is not
unlimited. Ultimately the court granted broad access to the plaintiff's Facebook account
due to the unique factual circumstances of the case. A critical issue involved the
plaintiff's ability to work during earlier portions of the day as a result of her narcolepsy.
A review of her entire Facebook activity history was relevant regarding her ability to
work at different times of the day. The court made it clear that had the only issue been
emotional damages, that the Facebook discovery would have been more limited.

The cases discussed have arisen in the context of employment related claims.
Such claims are substantially driven by claims of emotional distress and the justification
for discovery of social media histories is greater. Nevertheless, the general concepts
would be applicable to a personal injury claim in which cognitive and emotional damages
are claimed. Defendant, in apparent recognition that its initial request was overly broad,

has offered to limit its request for social media temporally for three years prior to the

9

Case 2:16-cv-00238-NDF Document 23 Filed 05/10/17 Page 10 of 12

motor vehicle accident to present. Defendant asserts that it will be unable to defend
Plaintiff's damage claims without access to information regarding Plaintiff's emotional
state prior to the accident. Defendant still seeks the entirety of the Facebook activity
from three years prior to the accident to present. In this Court’s opinion that is casting
the net too wide. In determining the appropriate scope of allowable discovery, it is
important to consider that the Plaintiff seeks damages for physical injuries as well as
damages for posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression. From what has been
presented this case is more of the “garden variety” emotion distress claim as mentioned in
Simply Storage. Granting access to Plaintiffs entire Facebook history would provide
minimal relevant information while exposing substantial irrelevant information. As such
the discovery would exceed the proper limits of proportionality.

The Defendant’s claim that it would be unable to challenge Plaintiff's damage
claims is exaggerated. Defendants have been effectively defending such garden variety
emotional distress claims for many years and such claims typically make up a small part
of the damages in physical injury cases. The Plaintiff also alleges a traumatic brain
injury. Such damages have long been a subject of the evaluation and diagnosis by
experts using proven testing protocols. This Court has not been provided any authority
for the proposition that access to social media prior to the date of the accident would
significantly contribute to the evaluation and diagnosis of these conditions. Therefore the
Court will deny Defendant’s request for social media discovery prior to the date of the
accident of June 28, 2015. Nevertheless, the Court is not convinced that all relevant

social media subsequent to that date has been produced. The Plaintiff will be required to

10

Case 2:16-cv-00238-NDF Document 23 Filed 05/10/17 Page 11 of 12

produce all relevant history which addresses Plaintiff's significant emotional turmoil, any
mental disability or ability, or relate significant events which could reasonably be
expected to result in emotional distress”. Plaintiff will also be required to produce all
Facebook postings which reference the accident, its aftermath, and any of her physical
injuries related thereto, insofar as such has not already been produced by Plaintiff. In its
reply brief Defendant discusses the impact of Plaintiff's injuries on activities she enjoyed
before the accident. The Court has not been provided any guidance as to what activities
of the Plaintiff may have been impacted by this accident. The Court will order the
production of Facebook history and photos which relate or show the Plaintiffs level of
activity after the accident.

The Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery is GRANTED in the following

respects:

1. The Plaintiff is ordered to produce all post-June 28, 2015 Facebook history and
photos which relate to Plaintiff's significant emotional turmoil, any mental
disability or ability, or relate significant events which could reasonably be
expected to result in emotional distress.

2. The Plaintiff is ordered to produce all post-June 28, 2015 Facebook history and
photos which address or relate to the accident and its aftermath or any of her

resulting physical or emotional injuries.

? The Plaintiff is to err on the side of disclosure and if the Plaintiff is uncertain, the relevant documents shall be
provided to the Court for in camera review. The use of the term “significant” is to avoid disclosure of transient and
trivial emotional distress.

11

Case 2:16-cv-00238-NDF Document 23 Filed 05/10/17 Page 12 of 12

3. The Plaintiff is ordered to produce all post-June 28, 2015 Facebook history and
photos which relate or show the Plaintiff's level of activity.

The Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery is DENIED in all other respects.

Dated this 10th day of May, 2017.

MARK/.. CARMAN *
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE supe

ers ame: we

12