Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Gordon v. T.G.R. Logistics, Inc.

United States District Court, District of Wyoming · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDiscoveryScope of DiscoverySocial Media DiscoveryProportionalityFRCP 26(b)(1)FRCP 26(c)(1)motion to compel

Facts

Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision with defendants' tractor-trailer on June 28, 2015, and alleged physical injuries, traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression. Defendant requested that plaintiff download and produce her Facebook account history, later limiting the request to three years before the accident to the present. Plaintiff refused to produce her entire Facebook history, arguing the request exceeded Rule 26 limits, was unduly burdensome, lacked relevance, and invaded her privacy. Plaintiff had already produced Facebook material referencing the accident or her injuries, including material responsive to specified keywords.

Issue

Whether Rule 26 permits compelling production of plaintiff's entire Facebook history, including posts from before the accident, when plaintiff claims physical and emotional injuries. More specifically, the court had to determine what portion of plaintiff's Facebook history was relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.

Rule

Under Rule 26(b)(1), discoverable material must be nonprivileged, relevant to a claim or defense, and proportional to the needs of the case. In the social media context, a party is not entitled to unfettered access to an opponent's entire account merely because some relevant material may exist there; instead, production should be limited to posts and photos whose substance bears on the claimed injuries, emotional condition, significant emotionally charged events, the accident and its aftermath, and the plaintiff's post-accident level of activity. Even if social media can be retrieved easily and cheaply, discovery may still be denied or narrowed when broad access would expose substantial irrelevant personal information and exceed proportionality.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a bus collision in Cheyenne, Wyoming, Marisa Kent sues Red Mesa Transit, LLC for neck injuries, headaches, anxiety, and depression. Red Mesa moves to compel Marisa to download and produce her complete Instagram and Facebook account histories from four years before the crash through the present, arguing that social media is easy to retrieve and may reveal exaggeration.

How should the court most likely rule under Rule 26 as applied in this case?

Explanation. The majority held that a party is not entitled to unfettered access to an opponent's entire social media account merely because some relevant material may exist there. The proper Rule 26(b)(1) analysis asks whether the request is relevant and proportional. Even if downloading is inexpensive, broad access can expose substantial irrelevant personal material and generate burdensome follow-up discovery. The appropriate remedy is narrowed discovery of post-incident social media bearing on claimed injuries, emotional condition, the accident and its aftermath, and post-accident activity level.