Posted on 02/13/2018 11:17:05 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
New York state’s highest court ruled on Tuesday that Facebook users may be required to turn over photos and other information that are relevant to litigation, even if they are shielded by “privacy” settings.
By a 7-0 vote, the Court of Appeals reinstated a trial judge’s ruling requiring a Manhattan woman who was disabled in a horse riding accident to turn over to the defendant horse owner an array of photos taken before and after her injuries.
Noting “significant controversy” over what information on Facebook deserves privacy protection, Chief Judge Janet DiFiore said it is appropriate to require disclosure of materials that are “reasonably calculated” to contain “material and necessary” evidence.
Kelly Forman said she became a recluse after suffering a spinal injury and brain damage, making it hard to read and write, in a June 2011 fall caused by Mark Henkin’s negligence in fitting her horse with a defective stirrup that broke.
To defend himself against Forman’s damages claims, Henkin sought access to her entire “private” Facebook account.
Henkin’s photo request “was reasonably calculated to yield evidence relevant to plaintiff’s assertion that she could no longer engage in the activities she enjoyed before the accident and that she had become reclusive.”
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
FB is evil.
This doesn’t seem like news to me. All photo albums can be subpoenaed. Even the ones on your shelf.
Not a fifth amendment issue?
There is no such thing as “privacy” on the Interwebs.
And once a photo is uploaded it’s on the net *forever*.
This is standard discovery. She would need to disclose evidence whether it was on FB, or physical photographs in her drawer.
Both young and elder users of this new phenomenon substitute for the backyard gossip fence may now see what many more perceptive individuals saw from the beginning. . . that its unintended consequences will be, and are, many!
Bookmark
This isn't a criminal case, and she's not claiming the photos would incriminate her. Even if she did, the law is very complicated about whether you can claim the 5th Amendment for "preexisting documents," since no one compelled her to create the photos in the first place.
Post a picture of your self with a big pile of cash every month titled “Bringing home the bacon”.
If something bad happens, change the pic to a pile 10% that amount.
You can then claim the 90% as a loss in your litigation.
I get my family pics by EMAIL...I did not trust Facebook from the start so never joined.
clever
I am having the same reaction: why is this news? They can subpoena her private emails, phone records, and mailed correspondence as well.
I was going to say that it is stupid to put sensitive personal information on a website, but then I remembered it is now a fad to eat laundry detergent.
I don't Facebook, never will, if my friends and family find it to difficult to send me an email with pictures or news than it or I must not be important enough to them. And for the life of me I never understood this insanity of friending, how sad a person must be to need such false validation.
One more reason we don’t subscribe.... And yet my life goes on.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Facebook is a government monitored, if not government sponsored & controlled, personal information mining operation.
So are people who commit fraud. There is nothing really shocking about this ruling. She claims the injuries caused her to become a recluse with very limited physical ability. The defendant believes otherwise can be proven by FB posts. Those posts should be admissible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.