Garfinkel, William I., United States Magistrate Judge
Trial court denied defendant's motion to compel plaintiff to produce a non-redacted complete copy of his Facebook profile (including all 2,254 pages of messages and posts) after plaintiff had already produced a redacted version of the profile and defendants could not demonstrate that plaintiff's redactions were an effort to "flout discovery rules."
The court's ruling provides very little facts other than to say that this is a case under the Family Medical Leave Act. Defendants sought the contents of all social media accounts, and the parties discussed the relevance of plaintiff's Facebook posts and messages specifically. Defendant sought wall posts and private messages "if the communications were related to Defendant, Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Plaintiff's emotional feelings or mental health, and/or the allegations in the Complaint."
Plaintiff produced a redacted version of his Facebook profile, and then supplemented it. Defendant argued the redactions made it too difficult to "understand the context of the messages" and sought a non-redacted version.
The court looked to the relevance standard of Rule 26, held that plaintiff had produced all responsive communications and denied defendant's motion:
Plaintiff represents that he has already produced all responsive Facebook communications. Defendant contends that the manner in which Plaintiff redacted what communications he has produced make it difficult to ascertain the context of the messages, and that Plaintiff should not be able to determine which messages are relevant. Defendant has not, however, persuaded this Court that there is reason to compel Plaintiff to produce all posts in non-redacted form. For example, Doc. 23–12, filed with Defendant's motion, is a sample of redacted messages Plaintiff produced in the supplemental production. The Court notes that the conversation here jumps from topic to topic: Plaintiff and his friend discuss Plaintiff's job search in one post, and then attempt to make plans to get together in the next. Just based on this sampling and its shifting, scattered tendencies, it is possible that non-relevant material would be sporadically interspersed within the communications. Court sees no reason to believe, contrary to Defendant's assertions, that redactions made mid-sentence, or heavy redactions on certain pages, are an effort on Plaintiff's part to flout discovery rules. Without more, the Court cannot order the relief Defendant requests.
v.
DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., Defendant
Counsel
Matthew A. Ciarleglio, Karen Baldwin Kravetz, Susman, Duffy & Segaloff, PC, New Haven, CT, for Plaintiff.Margaret J. Strange, Kristi Rich Winters, Jackson Lewis–P.C., Hartford, CT, for Defendant.