*1 Before the court is Defendant's Motion to Compel [Docket No. 25], Plaintiff's response [Docket No. 27] and Defendant's reply [Docket No. 29].

The present motion requests production of documents regarding medical records or bills. On October 15, 2018, Plaintiff provided to Defendant 257 pages of medical bills and records from Utica Park, which were received after the filing of the motion to compel. Defendant has now withdrawn the motion to compel as to these documents [Docket No. 29, Page 2].

The motion to compel also requests documents produced to Plaintiff by Cricket. On October 10, 2018, Plaintiff's cell phone carrier produced approximately 4,000 pages. In Plaintiff's response dated October 15, 2018, the documents were being numbered. As of the date of the reply (October 22, 2018), Plaintiff had not produced those documents to Defendant. Plaintiff is directed to file a notice with the court within two business days as to the status of these documents being produced to Defendant.

Defendant requests various audio recordings concerning the allegations in the Complaint, and Plaintiff responds that she had audio recordings in her Google Drive account. Plaintiff also states that her Google account was compromised and that she no longer has access to the account. Plaintiff agreed to provide the recordings as soon as they were received from Google.

Plaintiff states in her response that she subpoenaed Google, Inc. on July 19, 2018. On July 24, 2018, Google objected to the subpoena and refused to provide any documents. The response states: “Plaintiff requests that this Court order Google to produce the documents.” Docket No. 27, Page 3. The court will not construe this statement (hidden within a response) to be a motion to compel. (See Local Civil Rule 7.1(b), which states that each motion or objection shall be filed as a separate pleading.) Additionally, Google should be afforded an opportunity to respond prior to the court issuing a ruling with only scant allegations before the court.

Plaintiff learned of Google's objection three months ago, and only brought it before the court after the instant motion was filed. Plaintiff is directed to show cause no later than November 7, 2018 for her failure to participate in discovery specifically as to the issue of the Google subpoena.

Defendant requests various information from Plaintiff's social media accounts from January 1, 2012 through June 1, 2016. Defendant requests from Plaintiff a copy of each page and photograph on social media; to produce an electronic, native copy of her Facebook account; and to provide Plaintiff's profiles for any location based social search mobile applications.

Plaintiff objects, stating the information is not relevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, Plaintiff states that her Facebook and Google accounts were compromised and she is unable to verify the accounts exist or access the accounts. Plaintiff further states that she has provided the social media information in her possession. Plaintiff is also concerned that Defendant will again fail to honor any confidential designation of information produced.[1]

*2 The court finds Plaintiff's arguments to be interesting. On the one hand, Plaintiff says she cannot access the accounts and has produced all she has available. On the other hand, however, Plaintiff professes concern about the confidentiality of information that may be produced in the future. This leaves the court uncertain if there is more information that Plaintiff could produce as to social media.

Information on social media sites does not receive any special protection under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but a discovery request must be tailored so that it appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court would agree that any mention or reference to Plaintiff's complaint in her social media activity would be relevant. The court does not agree, however, that Defendant should have complete access to all of Plaintiff's posts on social media.

Smith v. Hillshire Brands, No. 13-2605-CM, 2014 WL 2804188, at *5 (D. Kan. June 20, 2014). Additionally, the court is not convinced that everything a plaintiff says or does is reflective of their emotional state.

Smith v. Hillshire Brands, No. 13-2605-CM, 2014 WL 2804188, at *5 (D. Kan. June 20, 2014).

The court believes an intermediate approach taken by other courts is in order as to what Plaintiff produces as to her social media posts. Plaintiff will not be required to provide her complete social media history to Defendant. Plaintiff will, however, produce any content that reveals her emotions or mental state, content that is regarding the claims in this litigation, or content that refers to events that could reasonably be expected to produce in Plaintiff a significant emotion or mental state. Id, at *6. (See also, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Simply Storage Management, LLC, 270 F.R.D. 430 (S.D. Ind. 2010). “[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.”)

Plaintiff is directed to produce within ten days a copy of each such posting as specified above to Defendant, if not previously produced. To the extent the information is not currently available to Plaintiff, she should immediately produce it if it becomes available.

*3 Plaintiff complains in her response that Defendant filed for public viewing 36 pages of her discovery responses which contained confidential information. See Docket No. 25-2. The document clearly states at the top of the pages that it is Confidential. Pages 25-31 are tax documents. Defendant's reply attached a copy of an email from defense counsel to Plaintiff's counsel asking for specific personal identifiers that may have been missed prior to filing. The court believes this email fails to address the seriousness of the issue.

Plaintiff designated the referenced documents as confidential, and Defendant failed to protect that designation. The court is astounded that Defendant felt it acceptable to file Plaintiff's tax returns and income information. Simply removing any personal identifiers on these documents appears to violate the spirit of the rules, and certainly any respect of Plaintiffs' privacy concerns. If Defendant did not agree with the confidential designation, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court's Local Civil Rules provide a time-honored method to challenge the designation. Defendant is directed to show cause no later than November 7, 2018 for their failure to protect the confidential designation of the documents attached to their motion to compel.

Defendant's Motion to Compel [Docket No. 25] is granted in part and denied in part, as follows:

Dated this 1st day of November, 2018.