I recently reported on the Northampton County case of Xander v. Kiss in which the court dismissed a punitive damages claimed based upon allegations that the defendant-driver was using his cell phone at the time of the accident. That post can be viewed here.
As an update, I note that I have been informed that the new Westlaw citation for that case is Xander v. Kiss, 2012 WL 168326 (C.P. Northampton Co. 2012 Zito, J.).
A tip of the hat to James Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Dechert LLP Law Firm for securing the citation. Attorney Beck also writes the excellent Drug and Device Law Blog which can be viewed here.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
TORT TALK SUBSCRIBER NUMBER OVER THE 750 MARK
I write to say Thank You Very Much for reading and for tipping me off on new cases of note from around the Commonwealth. I really appreciate it.
Please be reminded that there are a number of tools available at the Tort Talk site (http://www.torttalk.com/) for you to go back and review cases and updates you may recall reading about previously in your emails.
On the site, down on the right hand column, is the always accessible Post-Koken Scorecard and the newly created Facebook Discovery Scorecard.
Further down on the right hand column is a section called "Labels." That's a tool that you can use to find cases or articles on a specific topic. By clicking on the Label that's specific to your research, you will be sent to a page that list each and every Tort Talk post that touches upon that topic. You can then click on each title to read further.
Another way to conduct research on a particular topic is to use the "Search This Blog" tool that is closer to the top of the right hand column of the blog. By typing in your search term in the white box (delay damages, limited tort, slip and fall, or a case name, etc.), you will be sent to a page that will list each Tort Talk post that mentions that topic. You can then click on each post to read further.
Down on the right hand column of the blog is also a box under the Label "My Published Articles" in which are listed some of the most recently published articles of mine that have been posted online at the JDSupra.com website. If you are looking for older articles you can always click on the JDSupra box to go to that site where a full listing of the articles can be accessed and searched.
Last but certainly not least, down on the right hand column is a list of "Links" I have created to other sites, including my Firm's website and other online professional profiles I have created along with links to some other legal and non-legal-related websites and blogs that may be of interest.
Thanks again for reading Tort Talk. I am grateful for your interest and support. If I should be able to provide you with any assistance on any matters you may have in the Northeastern Pennsylvania region where I practice, or if I can possibly help out in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.
TORT TALK EXPO 2012 - Lineup of Presenters Finalized and CLE Credits Approved
The lineup has been finalized for the TORT TALK EXPO 2012 CLE Seminar, which is set to take place on May 3, 2012 at the Mohegan Sun Casino in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
Also, I have received approval from the Pennsylvania CLE Board, approving 2 substantive and 1 ethics credit for the event.
In addition to my presentation of an Auto Law Update, the other presenters will include Attorney Paul Oven of the Moosic, PA law firm of Dougherty, Leventhal & Price on a Civil Litigation Update, as well as noted expert radiologist (and attorney) Dr. Michael Brooks presenting on diagnostic studies in personal injury matters, with an emphasis on auto accident matters.
The stellar Judicial panel for the "View from the Bench" portion of the program will consist of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Michael Eakin, President Judge of the Superior Court Correale Stevens, and U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Thomas Vanaskie.
President Judge Thomas F. Burke, Jr. will also provide a "State of the Luzerne County Bench" presentation, reporting on which new judge will be handling which types of cases along with an update on the current status of the Luzerne County civil trial backlog.
The View from the Bench portion will be presided over by former Luzerne County Judge Joseph Van Jura, who recently completed his appointment and has returned to private practice where he is also offering his services for Mediations and Arbitrations.
In addition to Door Prizes and Raffle Prizes, there will also be a number of Table Vendors at the seminar displaying their services offered to civil litigators. To date, the following providers have agreed to sponsor and appear as Table Vendors at the event (in alphabetical order):
The TORT TALK EXPO 2011 is designed to be a CLE Program that will be as entertaining and informative as the posts regularly sent out from the Tort Talk blog.
The seminar will be immediately followed by a cocktail reception at which attendees can continue to network with fellow lawyers, insurance professionals, and members of the federal and state judiciary from around Northeastern Pennsylvania.
Also, a portion of the proceeds from this event will be donated to a local charity to be determined.
The CLE Program will include the following topics and presenters:
Also, I have received approval from the Pennsylvania CLE Board, approving 2 substantive and 1 ethics credit for the event.
In addition to my presentation of an Auto Law Update, the other presenters will include Attorney Paul Oven of the Moosic, PA law firm of Dougherty, Leventhal & Price on a Civil Litigation Update, as well as noted expert radiologist (and attorney) Dr. Michael Brooks presenting on diagnostic studies in personal injury matters, with an emphasis on auto accident matters.
The stellar Judicial panel for the "View from the Bench" portion of the program will consist of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Michael Eakin, President Judge of the Superior Court Correale Stevens, and U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Thomas Vanaskie.
President Judge Thomas F. Burke, Jr. will also provide a "State of the Luzerne County Bench" presentation, reporting on which new judge will be handling which types of cases along with an update on the current status of the Luzerne County civil trial backlog.
The View from the Bench portion will be presided over by former Luzerne County Judge Joseph Van Jura, who recently completed his appointment and has returned to private practice where he is also offering his services for Mediations and Arbitrations.
In addition to Door Prizes and Raffle Prizes, there will also be a number of Table Vendors at the seminar displaying their services offered to civil litigators. To date, the following providers have agreed to sponsor and appear as Table Vendors at the event (in alphabetical order):
Courtside Documents: www.courtsidedoc.com
Digital Justice: www.digitaljustice.net
Exhibit A: www.exhibitadigital.com
Minnesota Lawyers' Mutual: www.mlmins.com
Ringler Associates: www.ringlerassociates.com
The TORT TALK EXPO 2011 is designed to be a CLE Program that will be as entertaining and informative as the posts regularly sent out from the Tort Talk blog.
The seminar will be immediately followed by a cocktail reception at which attendees can continue to network with fellow lawyers, insurance professionals, and members of the federal and state judiciary from around Northeastern Pennsylvania.
Also, a portion of the proceeds from this event will be donated to a local charity to be determined.
The CLE Program will include the following topics and presenters:
TORT TALK EXPO 2012
Presented by
Daniel E. Cummins, Esquire
at the
MOHEGAN SUN CASINO at POCONO DOWNS
Thursday, May 3, 2012
12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
2 Substantive & 1 Ethics CLE Credits
Followed by Cocktail Hour (4:30 – 6:30 p.m.) at Breakers in the Mohegan Sun
12:30 – 1:00 pm Registration
1:00 – 1:30 pm: The Tort Talk Auto Law Update
Presenter: Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
1:00 – 1:30 pm: The Tort Talk Civil Litigation Update
Presenter: Paul T. Oven, Esq.
2:00 – 2:15 pm BREAK
2:15 - 3:15 pm: Introductory Medical Conditions & Radiological Issues in Auto Accident Injuries
Presenter: Dr. Michael L. Brooks, M.D., J.D., FCLM
3:15 – 3:30 pm BREAK
3:30 – 4:30 pm A View from the Bench: Ethical Issues in Legal Writing and Advocacy Before the Court in an Electronic World
Moderator:
Hon. Joseph Van Jura (Ret.)
Presenters:
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Michael Eakin
President Judge of Superior Court Correale Stevens
U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals
Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie
Luzerne County President Judge Thomas Burke, Jr.
COCKTAIL RECEPTION TO FOLLOW
AT BREAKERS
4:30p.m. - 6:30p.m.
Costs below cover both CLE Seminar and Cocktail Reception:
Claims professionals/representatives
and risk managers
and risk managers
$25.00
Lawyers
$165.00
Please make checks payable to "Tort Talk."
For reservations, please complete the requested information below and return it to the address noted below or e-mail it to dancummins@comcast.net.
Name(s)____________________________________
Firm/Company_______________________________
PLEASE MAIL REGISTRATION FORM AND PAYMENT TO:
TORT TALK
c/o Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
Foley, Cognetti, Comerford, Cimini & Cummins
507 Linden Street
Suite 700
Scranton, PA 18503
For more information, contact Dan Cummins at 570-346-0745 or at dancummins@comcast.net.
HOPE TO SEE YOU THERE!
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Judge Geroulo of Lackawanna County Addresses First Party Issues in Auto Accident Case
In the Lackawanna County case of Mehall v. Benedetto, No. 09-CIV-5849/No. 10-CIV-7224 (C.P. Lacka. Jan. 10, 2012, Geroulo, J.), Judge Vito Geroulo addressed a variety of issues in an automobile accident case in which it was alleged that the Plaintiff was the owner of a registered but uninsured motor vehicle.
By way of background, at the time of the subject accident, the injured party Plaintiff was operating a vehicle that was owned by his girlfriend. It was alleged that, at that time, the injured party Plaintiff also owned another vehicle that was registered but not insured.
The court in Mehall found that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the Plaintiff did indeed own a registered and uninsured vehicle at the time of the accident.
According to the Opinion, the parties agreed that, given the fact that the Plaintiff was the owner of a registered but uninsured vehicle, he was deemed to have chosen the limited alternative under 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1705(d).
Before the court was a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking a finding that 75 Pa.C.S. §1714 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law precluded the Plaintiff from recovering past, present, or future medical bills, medical liens, and medical expenses as well as past, present, or future wage loss or earnings impairment, as well as any and all first party benefit type damages. In so arguing, the defense relied upon the case of McClung v. Breneman, 700 A.2d 495 (Pa. Super. 1997).
The Plaintiff countered that, under the case of Swords v. Harleysville Insurance Co., 883 A.2d 562 (Pa. 2005), the Plaintiff was entitled to not only underinsured motorist benefits under an applicable policy, but also to medical, wage loss, and other economic damages that may be afforded under that policy.
Judge Geroulo found that the Swords case controlled his decision. The ruled that, under Swords, the Plaintiff was indeed precluded from recovering first party medical benefits and wage loss benefits as the owner of an registered but uninsured motor vehicle and also that the Plaintiff would be deemed to be covered by the limited tort option.
However, Judge Geroulo ruled that the Plaintiff was not precluded from recovering UIM damages under the circumstances presented. As such, the court ruled that the Plaintiff was indeed eligible to recover uninsured and/or underinsured motorist benefits pursuant to another person’s automobile insurance policy, if the injured party Plaintiff qualified for such coverage under that policy.
Elsewhere in his opinion, the court also denied the Defendant owner’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the negligent entrustment claim. The court found that the Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence that the Plaintiff Defendant owner knew that the Defendant driver had prior accidents, traffic citations, criminal offenses, past drug and alcohol use, and a problem with low blood sugar. As such, the court found that genuine issues of material fact precluded the entry of summary judgment on the negligent entrustment issue.
I send thanks to Attorney M. Lee Albright of the Pisanchyn Law Firm in Scranton, PA for advising me of this decision.
Anyone desiring a copy of this opinion may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.
By way of background, at the time of the subject accident, the injured party Plaintiff was operating a vehicle that was owned by his girlfriend. It was alleged that, at that time, the injured party Plaintiff also owned another vehicle that was registered but not insured.
The court in Mehall found that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the Plaintiff did indeed own a registered and uninsured vehicle at the time of the accident.
According to the Opinion, the parties agreed that, given the fact that the Plaintiff was the owner of a registered but uninsured vehicle, he was deemed to have chosen the limited alternative under 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1705(d).
Before the court was a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking a finding that 75 Pa.C.S. §1714 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law precluded the Plaintiff from recovering past, present, or future medical bills, medical liens, and medical expenses as well as past, present, or future wage loss or earnings impairment, as well as any and all first party benefit type damages. In so arguing, the defense relied upon the case of McClung v. Breneman, 700 A.2d 495 (Pa. Super. 1997).
The Plaintiff countered that, under the case of Swords v. Harleysville Insurance Co., 883 A.2d 562 (Pa. 2005), the Plaintiff was entitled to not only underinsured motorist benefits under an applicable policy, but also to medical, wage loss, and other economic damages that may be afforded under that policy.
Judge Geroulo found that the Swords case controlled his decision. The ruled that, under Swords, the Plaintiff was indeed precluded from recovering first party medical benefits and wage loss benefits as the owner of an registered but uninsured motor vehicle and also that the Plaintiff would be deemed to be covered by the limited tort option.
However, Judge Geroulo ruled that the Plaintiff was not precluded from recovering UIM damages under the circumstances presented. As such, the court ruled that the Plaintiff was indeed eligible to recover uninsured and/or underinsured motorist benefits pursuant to another person’s automobile insurance policy, if the injured party Plaintiff qualified for such coverage under that policy.
Elsewhere in his opinion, the court also denied the Defendant owner’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the negligent entrustment claim. The court found that the Plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence that the Plaintiff Defendant owner knew that the Defendant driver had prior accidents, traffic citations, criminal offenses, past drug and alcohol use, and a problem with low blood sugar. As such, the court found that genuine issues of material fact precluded the entry of summary judgment on the negligent entrustment issue.
I send thanks to Attorney M. Lee Albright of the Pisanchyn Law Firm in Scranton, PA for advising me of this decision.
Anyone desiring a copy of this opinion may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.
Summary Judgment for Defendant in Lancaster County Trip and Fall on Steps Case
In the recent trip and fall case of Harbison v. JPS Getty, Inc., PICS No. 12-0074 (C.P. Lancaster, Dec. 22, 2011 Knisely, J.) Judge Howard F. Knisely of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas ruled that the alleged danger caused by uneven steps at a convenient store should have been known or obvious to a plaintiff and, with the plaintiff having a duty under the law to look where she was walking and see that which was obvious, the court granted the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff admitted that she had visited the subject convenient store on numerous prior occasions.
On the day of the incident, as the Plaintiff walked up to the steps to reach the concrete apron surrounding the store, she noticed a woman with a walker exiting the store. The Plaintiff attempted to hold the door open for that person and, without looking down, stepped backwards and fell to the pavement.
The Plaintiff had apparently assumed that there was two steps down off the concrete pad but it turned out that there was only one. The Plaintiff sued, alleging that the steps to the store constituted a dangerous or hazardous condition.
After discovery, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the Plaintiff had failed to establish a case of negligence.
In agreeing with the Defendant’s position, the trial court relied upon the Superior Court's decision in Villano v. Sec. Sav. Assoc., 407 A.2d 440 (Pa. Super. 1979), in which the court held that uneven steps could be an obvious condition that a defendant was not required to protect a plaintiff against.
The trial court in this Harbison case felt that the alleged danger caused by the steps at the store should have been known and obvious to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendants were found not to be responsible for the Plaintiff’s injuries.
The Court emphasized in this Opinion that the Plaintiff admitted that she was not looking down when she stepped backwards. It was reiterated in the Opinion that the Plaintiff had a duty to look where she was walking and to see what was obvious.
Anyone desiring a copy of this case may contact the Pennsylvania Law Weekly Instant Case Service at 1-800-276-PICS and pay a small fee.
Source: Pennsylvania Law Weekly “Digest of Recent Opinions” (Jan. 17, 2012).
According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff admitted that she had visited the subject convenient store on numerous prior occasions.
On the day of the incident, as the Plaintiff walked up to the steps to reach the concrete apron surrounding the store, she noticed a woman with a walker exiting the store. The Plaintiff attempted to hold the door open for that person and, without looking down, stepped backwards and fell to the pavement.
The Plaintiff had apparently assumed that there was two steps down off the concrete pad but it turned out that there was only one. The Plaintiff sued, alleging that the steps to the store constituted a dangerous or hazardous condition.
After discovery, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the Plaintiff had failed to establish a case of negligence.
In agreeing with the Defendant’s position, the trial court relied upon the Superior Court's decision in Villano v. Sec. Sav. Assoc., 407 A.2d 440 (Pa. Super. 1979), in which the court held that uneven steps could be an obvious condition that a defendant was not required to protect a plaintiff against.
The trial court in this Harbison case felt that the alleged danger caused by the steps at the store should have been known and obvious to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendants were found not to be responsible for the Plaintiff’s injuries.
The Court emphasized in this Opinion that the Plaintiff admitted that she was not looking down when she stepped backwards. It was reiterated in the Opinion that the Plaintiff had a duty to look where she was walking and to see what was obvious.
Anyone desiring a copy of this case may contact the Pennsylvania Law Weekly Instant Case Service at 1-800-276-PICS and pay a small fee.
Source: Pennsylvania Law Weekly “Digest of Recent Opinions” (Jan. 17, 2012).
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Post-Koken Scorecard Updated
Yesterday, I posted my newly created Facebook Discovery Scorecard. I also had an opportunity to update the Post-Koken Scorecard and you can click on the title of this post to access that Scorecard. Both Scorecards are always accessible by scrolling down the right hand column of Tort Talk (http://www.torttalk.com/) and clicking on the date below each Scorecard title.
The decisions in the Post-Koken arena appear to have quieted down a bit. Now that an increasing number of Post-Koken cases are reaching the trial stage, it can be anticipated that new trial court decisions will be handed down on trial-related issues, including but not limited to, the issue of whether or not consolidated post-Koken cases should be bifurcated into two separate trials, i.e. one trial for the negligence claims against the Defendant driver, and a second trial for the breach of contract claims against the Defendant UIM carrier.
The decisions in the Post-Koken arena appear to have quieted down a bit. Now that an increasing number of Post-Koken cases are reaching the trial stage, it can be anticipated that new trial court decisions will be handed down on trial-related issues, including but not limited to, the issue of whether or not consolidated post-Koken cases should be bifurcated into two separate trials, i.e. one trial for the negligence claims against the Defendant driver, and a second trial for the breach of contract claims against the Defendant UIM carrier.
FACEBOOK DISCOVERY SCORECARD
by
DANIEL E. CUMMINS, ESQ.
DANIEL E. CUMMINS, ESQ.
CUMMINS LAW
Clarks Summit, PA
firm website: www.CumminsLaw.net
Email: dancummins@CumminsLaw.net
[UPDATED June 10, 2026]
One trending issue in Pennsylvania civil litigation has to do with Social Media Discovery. Here is a LINK to my ONLINE VIDEO on this topic with Ben Present, a reporter with the Pennsylvania Law Weekly.
Here's an updated list of the Facebook or Social Media Discovery cases uncovered to date, broken down by county-to-county decisions. This Scorecard was created in January of 2012 and has been updated ever since.
I have created a link on the right hand column of Tort Talk (http://www.torttalk.com/) entitled "Facebook Discovery Scorecard" that will be continually updated. The Scorecard will remain up on the blog for you to click whenever you need this information. Just click on the date below "Facebook Discovery Scorecard."
The below list cases may not be exhaustive and there may be other decisions out there that I am not aware of at present. As such, it is recommended that you conduct your own additional research on the issue.
In the absence of appellate guidance, it is important that these decisions be publicized so that a consistent common law in this novel area can be developed. I would appreciate it if you could please advise me of any new cases that you may come across on this topic so that those decisions can be highlighted here.
I am in possession of a copy of most of the decisions noted below. If you desire a copy of any of the following cases, please contact me at dancummins@CumminsLaw.net. Wherever possible, I have also created a link to certain decisions below that are generally available online.
Clarks Summit, PA
firm website: www.CumminsLaw.net
Email: dancummins@CumminsLaw.net
[UPDATED June 10, 2026]
DANIEL E. CUMMINS, ESQUIRE is an AV-Rated insurance defense attorney with the Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania law firm of CUMMINS LAW.
In addition to being a civil litigator, he has also written for the Pennsylvania Law Weekly on important cases and emerging trends under Pennsylvania law. He is also the former author of the annual Supplement for The Pennsylvania Trial Advocacy Handbook. In 2025, Attorney Cummins published his book of practice tips called Raising the Bar: A Practical Guide to the Practice of Law. That book can be purchased through this LINK.
Attorney Cummins was selected as the "Distinguished Defense Counsel of the Year" in 2014 by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute.
Every year since 2015, Attorney Cummins has also been annually selected for inclusion in the Best Lawyers in America for the category of Defense of Personal Injury matters, as well as being selected as a Super Lawyer.
To date, from 2015 to the present, Attorney Cummins remains only one of a few attorneys in all of northeastern Pennsylvania to be selected to appear in the Best Lawyers in America Directory under the category of Personal Injury-Defense. In 2023, and every year since, Cummins Law was selected to appear in the same Directory as one of the Best Law Firms in the Nation.
Attorney Cummins was selected as the "Distinguished Defense Counsel of the Year" in 2014 by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute.
Every year since 2015, Attorney Cummins has also been annually selected for inclusion in the Best Lawyers in America for the category of Defense of Personal Injury matters, as well as being selected as a Super Lawyer.
To date, from 2015 to the present, Attorney Cummins remains only one of a few attorneys in all of northeastern Pennsylvania to be selected to appear in the Best Lawyers in America Directory under the category of Personal Injury-Defense. In 2023, and every year since, Cummins Law was selected to appear in the same Directory as one of the Best Law Firms in the Nation.
One trending issue in Pennsylvania civil litigation has to do with Social Media Discovery. Here is a LINK to my ONLINE VIDEO on this topic with Ben Present, a reporter with the Pennsylvania Law Weekly.
Here's an updated list of the Facebook or Social Media Discovery cases uncovered to date, broken down by county-to-county decisions. This Scorecard was created in January of 2012 and has been updated ever since.
I have created a link on the right hand column of Tort Talk (http://www.torttalk.com/) entitled "Facebook Discovery Scorecard" that will be continually updated. The Scorecard will remain up on the blog for you to click whenever you need this information. Just click on the date below "Facebook Discovery Scorecard."
The below list cases may not be exhaustive and there may be other decisions out there that I am not aware of at present. As such, it is recommended that you conduct your own additional research on the issue.
In the absence of appellate guidance, it is important that these decisions be publicized so that a consistent common law in this novel area can be developed. I would appreciate it if you could please advise me of any new cases that you may come across on this topic so that those decisions can be highlighted here.
I am in possession of a copy of most of the decisions noted below. If you desire a copy of any of the following cases, please contact me at dancummins@CumminsLaw.net. Wherever possible, I have also created a link to certain decisions below that are generally available online.
CLICK ON THE CASE NAMES BELOW TO GO TO A LINK TO THE ACTUAL DECISION.
DISCOVERY ALLOWED
U.S. Federal Court for Middle District of Pennsylvania
Offenback v. L.M. Bowman, Inc., 2011 WL 2491371 (M.D.Pa. June 22, 2011 Carlson, M.J.)(In Opinion by Federal Middle District Magistrate Judge, Court grants requests of Defendant and Plaintiff for in camera review of Plaintiff's private Facebook page; court picks and chooses what is to be disclosed).
U.S. Federal Court for Western District of Pennsylvania
Ogden v. All-State Career School, 299 F.R.D. 446 (W.D. Pa. 2014 Cercone, J.)(Limited Facebook discovery on Plaintiff allowed).
Franklin County
Largent v. Reed, 2009 – Civil – 1823, 2011 WL 5622688 (C.P. Franklin Co. Nov. 7, 2011 Walsh, J.)(In thorough Opinion, Court outlines why Facebook discovery should be allowed. Plaintiff's claim of privilege rejected. Court limits defense access to Facebook page for 21 days after which Plaintiff was permitted to change login info.). But see Franklin County case below where discovery not allowed.
Indiana County
Simms v. Lewis, 2012 WL 6755098, No. 11961 CD 2011 (C.P. Ind. Co. Oct. 10, 2012 Bianco, J.), Judge Thomas M. Bianco took a middle road and granted in part and denied in part a defendant's motion to compel access to a plaintiff's social networking information in a motor vehicle accident case; discovery granted where predicate showing that private pages of one site may generate relevant information, but denied as to other sites because defendant did not make predicate showing with respect to those sites.)
Jefferson County
McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc., 2010 WL 4403285, PICS No. 10-3174 (Jefferson Co. September 9, 2010, Foradora, P.J.)(In what appears to be the first Pennsylvania decision on the issue, court holds, in a detailed decision, that Facebook postings were discoverable and ordered the Plaintiff to provide his username and password to the defense.).
Lancaster County
Perrone v. Lancaster Regional Medical Center, No. CI -11-14933, 2013 WL 4011633 (C.P. Lanc. Co. 2013 Cullen, J.),(Judge James P. Cullen crafted a novel method of handling a Facebook Discovery dispute in a civil litigation personal injury case by ordering the parties to hire a neutral forensic computer expert to determine whether photos and video on Plaintiff's Facebook page were posted before or after subject slip and fall incident in order to determine whether or not such information was discoverable.).
Monroe County
Kelter v. Flanagan, No. 286-Civil-2017 (C.P. Monroe Co. Feb. 19, 2018, Williamson, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion to Compel a Plaintiff to provide the Defendant’s counsel with her Instagram account log-in information. The Order further mandated that the Plaintiff would not remove or delete any content from that account. Judge Williamson also ordered defense counsel not to share this information with any one not related to the case.
Mazzarella v. Mount Airy Casino Resort, No. 1798 Civil 2009, 2012 WL 6000678 (C.P. Monroe Co. Nov. 7, 2012 Williamson, J.)(Judge David J. Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas granted a defendant's motion to compel the plaintiff to allow for social media discovery in a premises liability slip and fall case.).
Montgomery County
Gallagher v. Urbanovich, No. 2010 - 33418 (C.P. Mont. Co. Feb. 27, 2012 Carpenter, J.)(JudgeWilliam R. Carpenter of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas granted a Plaintiff's Motion to Compel a Defendant to produce his user name and password for the Defendant's Facebook page. The Judge's page long Order does not provide the background on the case leading up to this Motion and Order, or why such discovery was pursued by the Plaintiff. While the Court did grant the Plaintiff access to the Defendant's Facebook page and ordered the Defendant not to delete any info from the Facebook profile, the Defendant was granted permission to change his login name and password after seven (7) days following his compliance with the Court's Order.).
Northumberland County
Zimmerman v. Weis Markets, Inc., No. Civil - 2009 - 1535, 2011 WL 2065410 (C.P. Northumberland Co. May 19, 2011 Saylor, J.)(In an Opinion, court grants defense motion to compel but, in a footnote, cautions that Facebook discovery not automatically allowed--threshold showing must first be made by party seeking discovery that private pages of opposing party's Facebook page may have information relevant to case.).
Washington County
Prescott v. Willis, No. 2012-Civil-2207 (C.P. Wash. Co.Mar. 3, 2013 O’Dell-Seneca, P.J.)(In an Opinion, court granted a Defendant’s Motion to Compel a Plaintiff to produce her Facebook username and password in a motor vehicle accident case. Court found that Defendant made the requisite predicate showing from pictures from the public profile of the website. Defendant was granted 7 days access after which Plaintiff was allowed to change her username and/or password.)
DISCOVERY NOT ALLOWED (OR LIMITED)
U.S. Federal Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Hanna v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107253 (W.D. Pa. 2016 Mitchell, J.)(Court precludes unfettered access to Plaintiff's social medial account).
In re Milo's Kitchen Dog Treats Consolidated Cases, 307 F.R.D. 177, No. 12-1011 (W.D.Pa April 14, 2015 Kelly, M.J.).( Federal Magistrate Judge denied a Defendant's motion to compel unfettered and complete access of the Plaintiff's profile page along with a disclosure of the Plaintiff's user name and password in a case where plaintiff had already disclosed many of the private pages of her Facebook profile.).
Allegheny County
Trail v. Lesko, No. GD-10-017249, 2012 WL 2864004 (C.P. Alleg. Co. July 3, 2012 Wettick, J)(In a detailed opinion, Judge Wettick denied both a Plaintiff's and a Defendant's motions to compel access to the opposing party's Facebook pages, finding the requests were unreasonably intrusive under Pa.R.C.P. 4011 in that, in this particular case, "the intrusions that such discovery would cause were not offset by any showing that the discovery would assist the requesting party in presenting its case.").
Bucks County
Piccolo v. Paterson,, 2009 - Civil - 04979 (C.P. Bucks Co. May 5, 2011 Cepparulo, J.)(In a one line Order, court denies defense motion to compel discovery of Plaintiff's Facebook pages in a facial scarring personal injury case. Defense had requested that the court order the Plaintiff to accept a "friend" request from defense counsel. Defense wanted to secure other photos of Plaintiff via Facebook pages; Plaintiff argued that defense had already secured numerous pre-accident and post-accident photos of Plaintiff and that this motion to compel was essentially overkill on the issue.).
Franklin County
Clapsadle v. Barkman, No. 2015-1896 (C.P. Franklin Co. Sept. 15, 2016) (The court denied a defendant's motion to compel plaintiff to answer interrogatories regarding the content of the plaintiff's private portions of his Facebook profile after finding that the information contained on the public pages did not support an argument that relevant information would be revealed from a review of the private pages. The court did order a hearing to address issues of spoliation after finding that the plaintiff violated a prior court order that specifically directed the plaintiff not to delete or erase any information on the profile.) But see above Franklin County decision where Facebook Discovery was allowed.
Arcq v. Fields, No. 2008 – Civil – 2430 (C.P. Franklin Co. Dec. 7, 2011 Herman, J.)(In Opinion, court denies motion to compel access to Plaintiff's private Facebook pages where Defendant did not first offer threshold showing that Plaintiff even had a Facebook page or that the Plaintiff's private Facebook pages may reveal evidence that information relevant to the Plaintiff's claims of injury and disability would be discovered on the private pages). See also Franklin County case above where discovery is allowed.)
Indiana County
Simms v. Lewis, No. 11961 CD 2011 (C.P. Ind. Co. Oct. 10, 2012 Bianco, J.), Judge Thomas M. Bianco took a middle road and granted in part and denied in part a defendant's motion to compel access to a plaintiff's social networking information in a motor vehicle accident case; discovery granted where predicate showing that private pages of one site may generate relevant information, but denied as to other sites because defendant did not make predicate showing with respect to those sites.)
Lackawanna County
Brogan v. Rosenn, Jenkins & Greenwald, No. 08 - CV - 6048 (C.P. Lackawanna County 2013 Nealon, J.)(In a detailed Opinion, Judge Nealon denies motion to compel disclosure of user name and password as Plaintiff had not established that relevant information would be found on private pages. Judge Nealon also ruled that a demand to produce the user name and password to a person's social media sites was not a discovery request tailored with reasonable particularity but instead represented an effort at an impermissible fishing expedition.).
Commonwealth v. Pal, No. 13-CR-2269, 2014 WL 1042276 (C.P. Lacka. Co. March 14, 2014)(Judge Nealon utilizes civil litigation Facebook Discovery decisions, at pgs. 27-34 of Opinion, to address issues raised with search warrant relative to Facebook information.)
Luzerne County
Kalinowski v. Kirschenheiter and National Indemn. Co., No. 6779 of 2010 (C.P. Luz. Co. 2011 Van Jura, J.)(In an Order, Court denied motion to compel discovery of private pages of Plaintiff's Facebook page where Plaintiff had argued that (1) defense was only seeking to embarrass Plaintiff, (2) that defense had ample access to information on public pages of sites, and (3) where Plaintiff contended that private pages related in part to Plaintiff's business and that no wage loss claim was being presented. Court denied motion "without prejudice," apparently leaving the door open for the issue to be revisited later)(For this one, I have copies of the Court's order and some of the filings by the parties).
Lycoming County
Northampton County
Allen v. Sands Bethworks Gaming, LLC., No. C-0048-CV-2017-2279 (C.P. North. Co. Aug. 6, 2018 Dally, J.)(In an Opinion, court denies defense motion to compel access to Plaintiff's private pages of social media sites where defense failed to establish factual predicate to support such inquiry. The court also noted that it would be disinclined to allow carte blanche discovery in this regard in any event as being too intrusive).
Philadelphia County
Martin v. Allstate Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., No. 110402438 (C.P. Phila Dec. 13, 2011 Manfredi, J.)(In a one line Order, court denies motion to compel access to Plaintiff's private Facebook pages where Defendant did not first show that the Plaintiff's deposition testimony and/or public pages of the Plaintiff's Facebook pages revealed evidence that information relevant to the Plaintiff's claims of injury and disability would be discovered on the private pages)(For this one, I have copies of the defense motion, plaintiff's response, and the court's Order).
Schuylkill County
Hoy v. Holmes, No. S-57-12, 107 Sch.L.R. 19 (C.P. Schuylkill Co. 2013 Domalakes, J.)(In an Opinion, Judge John E. Domalakes denied a Defendant's Motion to Compel access to a Plaintiff's social media sites, including Facebook, in a motor vehicle accident case where no factual predicate shown that relevant information may be discovered on private pages.).
York County
Hunter v. PRRC, Inc., No. 2010-SU-3400-71 (C.P. York Linebaugh, P.J. )(President Judge Stephen P. Linebaugh ruled that a defendant must meet a threshold showing of relevant information on a Plaintiff's public social media/Facebook pages before access to the private pages of the site would be allowed. There must be a showing of a reasonable probability that relevant information will be also found on the private pages of the site. The court also noted that a Plaintiff also retained the right to request a protective order if the allowance of the discovery would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, etc. under Pa.R.C.P. 4012. Court denies motion after finding defense did not make required threshold showing.).
United States v. Browne, 834 F.3d 403 (3d Cir. 2016 Fisher, Krause, Roth, J.J.)(Op. by Krause, J.)(Court addressed the proper authentication and admissibility of social media posts. The case involved an appeal of a criminal case from the U.S. Virgin Islands. Although this decision arises out of a criminal case, the rationale regarding the authentication and admissibility of Facebook chats may prove useful in the context of a civil litigation matter.)
To review blog posts on these cases, as well as other related Social Networking litigation issues, click here.
To review a form Motion, Brief, and proposed Order I created on a Motion to Compel a Plaintiff to Produce his Facebook login information (names have been changed in the documents to protect privacy of parties), click here.
TIMING OF PRODUCTION OF SOCIAL MEDIA DISCOVERY
Dauphin County
Appleby v. Erie Ins. Exchange, No. 2016-CV-2431 (C.P. Dauph. Co. Sept. 9, 2016 Dowling, J.)(Court grants Plaintiff's motion to compel and orders Defendant to produce results of social media discovery on the Plaintiff prior to Plaintiff's deposition. The court did otherwise also rule that the Defendant was not required to produce any surveillance video taken by the Defendant’s investigators until after the Plaintiff’s deposition.)
Vinson v. Jackson, No. 2015-CV-05150-CV (C.P. Dauph. Co. Aug. 23, 2016 Bratton, J.)(Court grants Plaintiff's motion to compel and orders Defendant to produce results of social media discovery on the Plaintiff prior to Plaintiff's deposition. The court did otherwise also rule that the Defendant was not required to produce any surveillance video taken by the Defendant’s investigators until after the Plaintiff’s deposition.)
Vogelsong v. Cruz-Ramirez, No. 2015-CV-234 CV (C.P. Dauph. Co. July 29, 2016 Dowling, J.).(Court granted Plaintiff's motion to compel and ordered the defendants to provide all social media research or investigation including Facebook, Linkedln, Twitter, You Tube, Instagram,Tumblr or any other similar research. The defendants' objection that this investigation is the same as surveillance and should not be produced until after plaintiff's deposition was overruled. The defense objection that it was work product was also overruled. In its Order the court did also hold that the defense did not need to produce video surveillance completed on the Plaintiff prior to her deposition.)
ADMISSIBILITY OF SOCIAL MEDIA DISCOVERY RESULTS AT TRIAL
Federal Middle District Court
Bryant v. Wilkes-Barre Hosp. Co., LLC, 2016 LEXIS 87103 (M.D. Pa. 2016 Mannion, J)(Court allows admission of Facebook posts to challenge Plaintiff's credibility at trial).
Federal Western District Court
Newill v. Cambpell Transp. Co., No. 2: 2012-CV-1344, 2015 U.S. Dist Lexis 4350 (W.D. Pa. 2015 McVerry, J.)(Court reviewed a Plaintiff's motion in limine to preclude the Defendant from introducing several of the Plaintiff's Facebook posts into evidence in a personal injury matter on the basis they were irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and potentially embarrassing. Facebook posts, which showed allegedly injured Plaintiff engaged in a variety of physical activities found relevant and admissible; that the posts may be embarrassing to Plaintiff found not to be grounds to preclude the evidence.)
DISCOVERY ALLOWED
U.S. Federal Court for Middle District of Pennsylvania
Offenback v. L.M. Bowman, Inc., 2011 WL 2491371 (M.D.Pa. June 22, 2011 Carlson, M.J.)(In Opinion by Federal Middle District Magistrate Judge, Court grants requests of Defendant and Plaintiff for in camera review of Plaintiff's private Facebook page; court picks and chooses what is to be disclosed).
U.S. Federal Court for Western District of Pennsylvania
Ogden v. All-State Career School, 299 F.R.D. 446 (W.D. Pa. 2014 Cercone, J.)(Limited Facebook discovery on Plaintiff allowed).
Franklin County
Largent v. Reed, 2009 – Civil – 1823, 2011 WL 5622688 (C.P. Franklin Co. Nov. 7, 2011 Walsh, J.)(In thorough Opinion, Court outlines why Facebook discovery should be allowed. Plaintiff's claim of privilege rejected. Court limits defense access to Facebook page for 21 days after which Plaintiff was permitted to change login info.). But see Franklin County case below where discovery not allowed.
Indiana County
Simms v. Lewis, 2012 WL 6755098, No. 11961 CD 2011 (C.P. Ind. Co. Oct. 10, 2012 Bianco, J.), Judge Thomas M. Bianco took a middle road and granted in part and denied in part a defendant's motion to compel access to a plaintiff's social networking information in a motor vehicle accident case; discovery granted where predicate showing that private pages of one site may generate relevant information, but denied as to other sites because defendant did not make predicate showing with respect to those sites.)
Jefferson County
McMillen v. Hummingbird Speedway, Inc., 2010 WL 4403285, PICS No. 10-3174 (Jefferson Co. September 9, 2010, Foradora, P.J.)(In what appears to be the first Pennsylvania decision on the issue, court holds, in a detailed decision, that Facebook postings were discoverable and ordered the Plaintiff to provide his username and password to the defense.).
Lancaster County
Perrone v. Lancaster Regional Medical Center, No. CI -11-14933, 2013 WL 4011633 (C.P. Lanc. Co. 2013 Cullen, J.),(Judge James P. Cullen crafted a novel method of handling a Facebook Discovery dispute in a civil litigation personal injury case by ordering the parties to hire a neutral forensic computer expert to determine whether photos and video on Plaintiff's Facebook page were posted before or after subject slip and fall incident in order to determine whether or not such information was discoverable.).
Monroe County
Kelter v. Flanagan, No. 286-Civil-2017 (C.P. Monroe Co. Feb. 19, 2018, Williamson, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion to Compel a Plaintiff to provide the Defendant’s counsel with her Instagram account log-in information. The Order further mandated that the Plaintiff would not remove or delete any content from that account. Judge Williamson also ordered defense counsel not to share this information with any one not related to the case.
Mazzarella v. Mount Airy Casino Resort, No. 1798 Civil 2009, 2012 WL 6000678 (C.P. Monroe Co. Nov. 7, 2012 Williamson, J.)(Judge David J. Williamson of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas granted a defendant's motion to compel the plaintiff to allow for social media discovery in a premises liability slip and fall case.).
Montgomery County
Gallagher v. Urbanovich, No. 2010 - 33418 (C.P. Mont. Co. Feb. 27, 2012 Carpenter, J.)(JudgeWilliam R. Carpenter of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas granted a Plaintiff's Motion to Compel a Defendant to produce his user name and password for the Defendant's Facebook page. The Judge's page long Order does not provide the background on the case leading up to this Motion and Order, or why such discovery was pursued by the Plaintiff. While the Court did grant the Plaintiff access to the Defendant's Facebook page and ordered the Defendant not to delete any info from the Facebook profile, the Defendant was granted permission to change his login name and password after seven (7) days following his compliance with the Court's Order.).
Northumberland County
Zimmerman v. Weis Markets, Inc., No. Civil - 2009 - 1535, 2011 WL 2065410 (C.P. Northumberland Co. May 19, 2011 Saylor, J.)(In an Opinion, court grants defense motion to compel but, in a footnote, cautions that Facebook discovery not automatically allowed--threshold showing must first be made by party seeking discovery that private pages of opposing party's Facebook page may have information relevant to case.).
Washington County
Prescott v. Willis, No. 2012-Civil-2207 (C.P. Wash. Co.
DISCOVERY NOT ALLOWED (OR LIMITED)
U.S. Federal Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
Hanna v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107253 (W.D. Pa. 2016 Mitchell, J.)(Court precludes unfettered access to Plaintiff's social medial account).
In re Milo's Kitchen Dog Treats Consolidated Cases, 307 F.R.D. 177, No. 12-1011 (W.D.Pa April 14, 2015 Kelly, M.J.).( Federal Magistrate Judge denied a Defendant's motion to compel unfettered and complete access of the Plaintiff's profile page along with a disclosure of the Plaintiff's user name and password in a case where plaintiff had already disclosed many of the private pages of her Facebook profile.).
Allegheny County
Trail v. Lesko, No. GD-10-017249, 2012 WL 2864004 (C.P. Alleg. Co. July 3, 2012 Wettick, J)(In a detailed opinion, Judge Wettick denied both a Plaintiff's and a Defendant's motions to compel access to the opposing party's Facebook pages, finding the requests were unreasonably intrusive under Pa.R.C.P. 4011 in that, in this particular case, "the intrusions that such discovery would cause were not offset by any showing that the discovery would assist the requesting party in presenting its case.").
Bucks County
Piccolo v. Paterson,, 2009 - Civil - 04979 (C.P. Bucks Co. May 5, 2011 Cepparulo, J.)(In a one line Order, court denies defense motion to compel discovery of Plaintiff's Facebook pages in a facial scarring personal injury case. Defense had requested that the court order the Plaintiff to accept a "friend" request from defense counsel. Defense wanted to secure other photos of Plaintiff via Facebook pages; Plaintiff argued that defense had already secured numerous pre-accident and post-accident photos of Plaintiff and that this motion to compel was essentially overkill on the issue.).
Franklin County
Clapsadle v. Barkman, No. 2015-1896 (C.P. Franklin Co. Sept. 15, 2016) (The court denied a defendant's motion to compel plaintiff to answer interrogatories regarding the content of the plaintiff's private portions of his Facebook profile after finding that the information contained on the public pages did not support an argument that relevant information would be revealed from a review of the private pages. The court did order a hearing to address issues of spoliation after finding that the plaintiff violated a prior court order that specifically directed the plaintiff not to delete or erase any information on the profile.) But see above Franklin County decision where Facebook Discovery was allowed.
Arcq v. Fields, No. 2008 – Civil – 2430 (C.P. Franklin Co. Dec. 7, 2011 Herman, J.)(In Opinion, court denies motion to compel access to Plaintiff's private Facebook pages where Defendant did not first offer threshold showing that Plaintiff even had a Facebook page or that the Plaintiff's private Facebook pages may reveal evidence that information relevant to the Plaintiff's claims of injury and disability would be discovered on the private pages). See also Franklin County case above where discovery is allowed.)
Indiana County
Simms v. Lewis, No. 11961 CD 2011 (C.P. Ind. Co. Oct. 10, 2012 Bianco, J.), Judge Thomas M. Bianco took a middle road and granted in part and denied in part a defendant's motion to compel access to a plaintiff's social networking information in a motor vehicle accident case; discovery granted where predicate showing that private pages of one site may generate relevant information, but denied as to other sites because defendant did not make predicate showing with respect to those sites.)
Lackawanna County
Brogan v. Rosenn, Jenkins & Greenwald, No. 08 - CV - 6048 (C.P. Lackawanna County 2013 Nealon, J.)(In a detailed Opinion, Judge Nealon denies motion to compel disclosure of user name and password as Plaintiff had not established that relevant information would be found on private pages. Judge Nealon also ruled that a demand to produce the user name and password to a person's social media sites was not a discovery request tailored with reasonable particularity but instead represented an effort at an impermissible fishing expedition.).
Commonwealth v. Pal, No. 13-CR-2269, 2014 WL 1042276 (C.P. Lacka. Co. March 14, 2014)(Judge Nealon utilizes civil litigation Facebook Discovery decisions, at pgs. 27-34 of Opinion, to address issues raised with search warrant relative to Facebook information.)
Luzerne County
Kalinowski v. Kirschenheiter and National Indemn. Co., No. 6779 of 2010 (C.P. Luz. Co. 2011 Van Jura, J.)(In an Order, Court denied motion to compel discovery of private pages of Plaintiff's Facebook page where Plaintiff had argued that (1) defense was only seeking to embarrass Plaintiff, (2) that defense had ample access to information on public pages of sites, and (3) where Plaintiff contended that private pages related in part to Plaintiff's business and that no wage loss claim was being presented. Court denied motion "without prejudice," apparently leaving the door open for the issue to be revisited later)(For this one, I have copies of the Court's order and some of the filings by the parties).
Lycoming County
Harkey v. Stojakovich, No. CV-19-1295 (C.P. Lycoming Co. Oct. 26, 2020 Linhardt, J.), Judge Eric R. Linhardt of the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas denied a Defendant’s Motion to Compel Facebook Discovery from a Plaintiff in a tractor trailer accident case. While defense presented a factual predicate was established to allow for access to the private pages of the Plaintiff's Facebook profiles, the court found that the request that the Plaintiff produce all of his social media postings lacked the requisite particularity required of the Rules of Civil Procedure to avoid any embarassment or undue burden.
Northampton County
Allen v. Sands Bethworks Gaming, LLC., No. C-0048-CV-2017-2279 (C.P. North. Co. Aug. 6, 2018 Dally, J.)(In an Opinion, court denies defense motion to compel access to Plaintiff's private pages of social media sites where defense failed to establish factual predicate to support such inquiry. The court also noted that it would be disinclined to allow carte blanche discovery in this regard in any event as being too intrusive).
Philadelphia County
Martin v. Allstate Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., No. 110402438 (C.P. Phila Dec. 13, 2011 Manfredi, J.)(In a one line Order, court denies motion to compel access to Plaintiff's private Facebook pages where Defendant did not first show that the Plaintiff's deposition testimony and/or public pages of the Plaintiff's Facebook pages revealed evidence that information relevant to the Plaintiff's claims of injury and disability would be discovered on the private pages)(For this one, I have copies of the defense motion, plaintiff's response, and the court's Order).
Schuylkill County
Hoy v. Holmes, No. S-57-12, 107 Sch.L.R. 19 (C.P. Schuylkill Co. 2013 Domalakes, J.)(In an Opinion, Judge John E. Domalakes denied a Defendant's Motion to Compel access to a Plaintiff's social media sites, including Facebook, in a motor vehicle accident case where no factual predicate shown that relevant information may be discovered on private pages.).
York County
Hunter v. PRRC, Inc., No. 2010-SU-3400-71 (C.P. York Linebaugh, P.J. )(President Judge Stephen P. Linebaugh ruled that a defendant must meet a threshold showing of relevant information on a Plaintiff's public social media/Facebook pages before access to the private pages of the site would be allowed. There must be a showing of a reasonable probability that relevant information will be also found on the private pages of the site. The court also noted that a Plaintiff also retained the right to request a protective order if the allowance of the discovery would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, etc. under Pa.R.C.P. 4012. Court denies motion after finding defense did not make required threshold showing.).
United States v. Browne, 834 F.3d 403 (3d Cir. 2016 Fisher, Krause, Roth, J.J.)(Op. by Krause, J.)(Court addressed the proper authentication and admissibility of social media posts. The case involved an appeal of a criminal case from the U.S. Virgin Islands. Although this decision arises out of a criminal case, the rationale regarding the authentication and admissibility of Facebook chats may prove useful in the context of a civil litigation matter.)
To review blog posts on these cases, as well as other related Social Networking litigation issues, click here.
To review a form Motion, Brief, and proposed Order I created on a Motion to Compel a Plaintiff to Produce his Facebook login information (names have been changed in the documents to protect privacy of parties), click here.
TIMING OF PRODUCTION OF SOCIAL MEDIA DISCOVERY
Dauphin County
Appleby v. Erie Ins. Exchange, No. 2016-CV-2431 (C.P. Dauph. Co. Sept. 9, 2016 Dowling, J.)(Court grants Plaintiff's motion to compel and orders Defendant to produce results of social media discovery on the Plaintiff prior to Plaintiff's deposition. The court did otherwise also rule that the Defendant was not required to produce any surveillance video taken by the Defendant’s investigators until after the Plaintiff’s deposition.)
Vinson v. Jackson, No. 2015-CV-05150-CV (C.P. Dauph. Co. Aug. 23, 2016 Bratton, J.)(Court grants Plaintiff's motion to compel and orders Defendant to produce results of social media discovery on the Plaintiff prior to Plaintiff's deposition. The court did otherwise also rule that the Defendant was not required to produce any surveillance video taken by the Defendant’s investigators until after the Plaintiff’s deposition.)
Vogelsong v. Cruz-Ramirez, No. 2015-CV-234 CV (C.P. Dauph. Co. July 29, 2016 Dowling, J.).(Court granted Plaintiff's motion to compel and ordered the defendants to provide all social media research or investigation including Facebook, Linkedln, Twitter, You Tube, Instagram,Tumblr or any other similar research. The defendants' objection that this investigation is the same as surveillance and should not be produced until after plaintiff's deposition was overruled. The defense objection that it was work product was also overruled. In its Order the court did also hold that the defense did not need to produce video surveillance completed on the Plaintiff prior to her deposition.)
ADMISSIBILITY OF SOCIAL MEDIA DISCOVERY RESULTS AT TRIAL
Federal Middle District Court
Bryant v. Wilkes-Barre Hosp. Co., LLC, 2016 LEXIS 87103 (M.D. Pa. 2016 Mannion, J)(Court allows admission of Facebook posts to challenge Plaintiff's credibility at trial).
Federal Western District Court
Newill v. Cambpell Transp. Co., No. 2: 2012-CV-1344, 2015 U.S. Dist Lexis 4350 (W.D. Pa. 2015 McVerry, J.)(Court reviewed a Plaintiff's motion in limine to preclude the Defendant from introducing several of the Plaintiff's Facebook posts into evidence in a personal injury matter on the basis they were irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and potentially embarrassing. Facebook posts, which showed allegedly injured Plaintiff engaged in a variety of physical activities found relevant and admissible; that the posts may be embarrassing to Plaintiff found not to be grounds to preclude the evidence.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
