Gordon v. T.G.R. Logistics, Inc.
Not Reported (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A discovery request for a party's entire social media history is impermissibly overbroad; discovery of social media content must be narrowly tailored to seek information that is relevant to the claims and defenses and proportional to the needs of the case, balancing the need for evidence against the party's privacy interests.
Facts:
- On June 28, 2015, Brenda Gordon was driving her motor vehicle and executing a left-hand turn on US Highway 309 in Lincoln County, Wyoming.
- A tractor-trailer owned by T.G.R. Logistics, Inc. and driven by Varga attempted to pass Gordon in the left lane.
- The tractor-trailer struck Gordon's vehicle during the passing maneuver.
- As a result of the collision, Gordon alleged suffering numerous physical injuries, including back, neck, and jaw pain.
- Gordon also alleged suffering from a traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression due to the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Brenda Gordon filed a personal injury lawsuit against Defendant T.G.R. Logistics, Inc. in federal court.
- During discovery, Defendant served Plaintiff with a Request for Production seeking a complete electronic copy of her Facebook account history.
- Plaintiff objected to the request as overbroad and invasive, refusing to produce her entire account history but producing posts related to specific keywords.
- After the parties conferred informally with the court, Defendant T.G.R. Logistics, Inc. filed a motion to compel discovery production with the U.S. Magistrate Judge.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a discovery request for a plaintiff's entire social media account history, sought to defend against claims of physical and emotional damages, exceed the permissible scope of discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) by being irrelevant and disproportional to the needs of the case?
Opinions:
Majority - Magistrate Judge Mark L. Carman
Yes. A discovery request for a plaintiff's entire social media history exceeds the permissible scope of discovery because it is not proportional to the needs of the case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) limits discovery to information that is relevant and proportional. While information on social media may be relevant to a plaintiff's claims of physical and emotional injury, a request for an entire account history is a 'fishing expedition' that would expose a vast amount of irrelevant and highly personal information. Such an overbroad request is unduly burdensome and invasive, especially for 'garden variety' emotional distress claims, and the court must protect parties from annoyance, embarrassment, and oppression. Therefore, instead of granting unfettered access, the court must balance the defendant's legitimate need for information against the plaintiff's privacy, ordering production only of content that is narrowly tailored to the specific claims at issue.
Analysis:
This order exemplifies the modern judicial application of traditional discovery principles to the novel challenges presented by social media. It reinforces the doctrine that discoverable information must be not only relevant but also proportional, preventing parties from using broad e-discovery requests as a tool for harassment or as a 'fishing expedition.' The decision establishes a clear standard for courts to balance a party's right to discovery with an individual's privacy interests on social media platforms. It sets a precedent that parties seeking social media evidence must make specific, tailored requests directly related to the claims, rather than demanding a complete data download, thus shaping litigation strategies in personal injury and employment cases.
Unlock the full brief for Gordon v. T.G.R. Logistics, Inc.