THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Amended Answers to Social Media Interrogatories Numbers 1 and 2 and to Compel Execution of Authorization for Release of Records from Facebook. The Court having considered same. having heard arguments of counsel and being otherwise duly advised in the premises. finds and decides as follows:

Plaintiffs commenced the current suit alleging, inter alia, medical negligence. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' committed medical negligence during and after the delivery of their minor daughter, Kacie Beswick (“Kacie”). More specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' negligence caused Kacie permanent brain injuries. Plaintiffs seek. inter alia. noneconomic damages, including 1) mental pain and suffering; and 2) loss of Kacie's companionship. society, love, affection, and solace.

During discovery in this matter, Defendants have sought to discover the basis for such noneconomic damages claims by seeking information Plaintiff has shared on social networking websites, including, but not limited to, Facebook. Defendants have propounded to Plaintiffs sets of interrogatories concerning discovery of information contained on social networking websites. The two interrogatories at issue are:

Defendants' seek an Order 1) compelling Plaintiffs to respond to the above quoted interrogatories; and (2) compelling Shelly Beswick (“Shelly”) to execute an authorization to obtain social media information from social media websites and permit service of the subpoena on Facebook.

Plaintiffs concede that Shelly has a Facebook account. However, Plaintiffs object to the discovery of her Facebook account on the grounds that such request is overbroad, burdensome, not reasonably related to the discovery of admissible evidence, and is otherwise violative of her privacy rights.

“Discovery in civil cases must be relevant to the subject matter of the case and must be admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.” Allstate Ins. Comp. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995). See also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280 (b) (“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party.”).

In the current matter, Defendants seek to discover content shared by Plaintiff on social media websites in order to properly defend against Plaintiffs noneconomic damages claims. Such information is clearly relevant to the subject matter of the current litigation and is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Moreover, the interrogatories are not overbroad as they specifically delineate the information sought. Furthermore, the interrogatories are narrow in scope, as they include a time limitation of five years.

Plaintiffs further object to the Defendants' interrogatories on the basis that such discovery is violative of their privacy rights. “Court orders compelling discovery constitute state action that may impinge on constitutional rights, including the constitutional right of privacy.” Berkeley v. Eisen, 699 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (emphasis added).

Plaintiffs have not provided any case law to support their position that allowing access to their Facebook records violates their privacy rights. Moreover, the Court finds Plaintiffs' privacy argument to lack merit. Facebook allows individuals to “share information about their personal lives, including posting photographs and sharing information about what they are doing or thinking.” Romano v. Steelcase, Inc., 907 N.Y.S.2d 650, 653 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010). Although Facebook allows its user to control with whom they share their information,

Id. at 655 (internal quotations omitted) (citation omitted).

As such, information that an individual shares through social networking web-sites like Facebook may be copied and disseminated by another, rendering any expectation of privacy meaningless. See id. (“[A]s neither Facebook nor MySpace guarantee complete privacy, Plaintiff has no legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy.”). See also Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc., 91 Cal. Rptr. 3d 858, 862-63 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th Dist.) (finding no reasonable expectation of privacy where an individual posted information on MySpace).

The information sought by Defendants is clearly relevant based upon the nature of the asserted claims set forth in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Moreover, such information is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Furthermore, the Court does not find Defendants' discovery requests to be burdensome, overly broad, or violative of Plaintiffs' privacy rights. Therefore, Defendants' Motion to Compel must be granted.

Additionally, the Court notes that it has authority to require a party to execute an authorization for the release of records. Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental Inc., 641 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1994). Therefore, Defendants' Motion to Compel Authorization for Release of Records From Facebook is also granted.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Amended Answers to Social Media Interrogatories Numbers 1 and 2 is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, within 30 days from the date of this Oder Plaintiff shall deliver to Counsel for Defendants a properly executed consent and authorization as may be required by the operators of Facebook, permitting the Defendants to gain access to Plaintiffs' Facebook records.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale. Florida, this 3 day of November, 2011.

<<signature>>

MILY RODRIGUEZ POWELL

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

Copies to:

Christopher Hopkins, Esquire

Allison S. Bernstein, Esquire

Melissa S. Zinkil. Esquire

Kenneth J. Miller. Esquire