Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Simply Storage Management, LLC
270 F.R.D. 430, 110 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 49, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52766 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a claimant alleges severe emotional distress damages that are beyond 'garden variety' claims, the contents of their social networking sites are discoverable to the extent they reveal, refer, or relate to the claimant's emotional state or events that could reasonably produce such a state; a party's privacy settings do not shield such relevant information from discovery.
Facts:
- The EEOC filed a complaint against Simply Storage on behalf of claimants Joanie Zupan and Tara Strahl, alleging they were sexually harassed by a supervisor.
- Tara Strahl alleged the harassment increased her anxiety, for which she sought medical treatment.
- Joanalle Zupan alleged the harassment caused her to become depressed and suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), for which she sought medical and psychological treatment.
- Zupan and Strahl both maintained profiles on Facebook and MySpace during the relevant period.
- Simply Storage sought discovery of the claimants' photographs, videos, profiles, status updates, messages, and other communications on their social networking sites.
- The EEOC objected to these discovery requests, arguing they were overly broad, irrelevant, and an invasion of the claimants' privacy.
Procedural Posture:
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, a federal trial court, on behalf of two claimants against Simply Storage.
- During discovery, Simply Storage served requests for production and interrogatories on the EEOC.
- The EEOC objected to requests for the claimants' social networking site profiles and their prior employment history.
- The parties reached an impasse on the discovery dispute, leading the EEOC to request a telephone conference with the Magistrate Judge to resolve the issues.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, is a claimant alleging severe emotional distress, such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, required to produce social networking site content that reveals, refers, or relates to their emotional state, even if the content is not directly about the alleged harassment and is designated as 'private'?
Opinions:
Majority - Debra McVicker Lynch
Yes, a claimant alleging severe emotional distress must produce social networking site (SNS) content relevant to their emotional state. While the entire content of a claimant's SNS is not automatically discoverable, the scope of relevance is broad when a claimant's mental health is at issue. The court reasoned that the broad discovery standard of Rule 26 permits access to any nonprivileged, relevant matter. Information on SNS is not shielded from discovery simply because it is designated as 'private,' as privacy interests can be protected by a court order. The court rejected the EEOC's narrow view that only communications directly mentioning the harassment are relevant, reasoning that such a standard would fail to capture evidence inconsistent with the claims or evidence of other life stressors that could be alternative causes of the distress. Therefore, the court ordered production of any content that reveals, refers, or relates to any emotion, feeling, or mental state, or to events that could reasonably be expected to produce them. However, the court denied Simply Storage's request for the claimants' prior employment history, finding its justification—to check for prior sexual harassment training—was not plausible and failed to demonstrate relevance.
Analysis:
This order is an influential early decision establishing the framework for discovering social media content in civil litigation. It clarifies that a plaintiff's privacy settings on social media do not create a legal privilege against discovery. The decision creates a critical balance, rejecting both the plaintiff's overly narrow view of relevance (only posts about the harassment) and the defendant's request for the entire profile, instead tying discoverability to the specific claims of severe emotional distress. This case provides a foundational standard for subsequent courts, affirming that a party's online life is a legitimate area for discovery when it is relevant to their claims for damages, particularly those concerning mental and emotional health.
