Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Mailhoit v. Home Depot, CV 11 03892 DOC (SSx) (C.D. Cal.; Sept. 7, 2012)

Mailhoit v. Home Depot, CV 11 03892 DOC (SSx) (C.D. Cal.; Sept. 7, 2012)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 414 |Likes:
Order denying request for plaintiff's social networking materials.
Order denying request for plaintiff's social networking materials.

More info:

Published by: Venkat Balasubramani on Sep 14, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/15/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
DANIELLE MAILHOIT,Plaintiff,v.HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., etal.,Defendants.))))))))))))No. CV 11-03892 DOC (SSx)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYINGIN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TOCOMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TODEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIONREGARDING SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE MATERIAL (SET ONE)(Dkt. No. 105) I.INTRODUCTION
 On August 7, 2012, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel FurtherResponses to Defendant’s Request for Production of Documents (Set One).(Dkt. No. 105). The parties filed a Joint Stipulation concurrently withthe Motion pursuant to Local Rule 37, (“Jt. Stip.”), including thedeclarations of Elizabeth A. Falcone in support of the Motion, (Dkt. No.107), and Kenneth Helmer in opposition to the Motion. (Dkt. No. 110).
Case 2:11-cv-03892-DOC-SS Document 136 Filed 09/07/12 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:2740
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728The Court held a hearing on the Motion on August 28, 2012. For thereasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
II.THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
Defendant requests an Order compelling Plaintiff to producedocuments responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 46-49, whichcollectively seek:(1)Any profiles, postings or messages (including status updates,wall comments, causes joined, groups joined, activity streams,blog entries) from social networking sites from October 2005(the approximate date Plaintiff claims she first wasdiscriminated against by Home Depot), through the present,that reveal, refer, or relate to any emotion, feeling, ormental state of Plaintiff, as well as communications by orfrom Plaintiff that reveal, refer, or relate to events thatcould reasonably be expected to produce a significant emotion,feeling, or mental state;(2)Third-party communications to Plaintiff that place her owncommunications in context;(3)All social networking communications between Plaintiff and anycurrent or former Home Depot employees, or which in any wayrefer [or] pertain to her employment at Home Depot or thislawsuit; or2
Case 2:11-cv-03892-DOC-SS Document 136 Filed 09/07/12 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:2741
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728(4)Any pictures of Plaintiff taken during the relevant timeperiod and posted on Plaintiff’s profile or tagged or
1
otherwise linked to her profile.(Jt. Stip. at 2).
2
Defendantargues that it is entitled to Plaintiff’s communicationsposted on social networking sites (“SNS”) such as Facebook and LinkedInto test Plaintiff’s claims about her mental and emotional state. (Id.at 1). According to Defendant, Plaintiff testified at her depositionthat she suffers from post traumatic stress disorder, depression andisolation, and has cut herself off from communication with friendsbecause of Defendant’s alleged wrongdoing. (Id.). Defendant arguesthat SNS communications are particularly likely to contain relevantinformation because “in this day and age, many communications betweenfriends and/or about an individual’s emotional state are communicatedvia social media.” (Id.). Defendant states that it has evidencesuggesting that Plaintiff maintains Facebook and LinkedIn accounts and“‘Tagging’ is the process by which a third party posts a picture
1
and links people in the picture to their profiles so that the picturewill appear in the profiles of the person who ‘tagged’ the people in thepicture, as well as on the profiles of the people who were identified inthe picture.” EEOC v. Simply Storage Mgmt., LLC, 270 F.R.D. 430, 436n.3 (S.D. Ind. 2010).As written, Requests for Production Nos. 46-49 appear to require
2
production of the entire contents of Plaintiff’s SNS accounts and areoverbroad, as Defendant appears to have recognized. (See Jt. Stip. at4, 15-16, 26 & 37). The instant Motion is limited to a request for anOrder compelling production of only the four categories of documentsdescribed above, which arguably overlap several different requests forproduction as originally written. (See Jt. Stip. at 2, 9). The Courtwill therefore address these four categories instead of the fouroriginal production requests that they supersede.3
Case 2:11-cv-03892-DOC-SS Document 136 Filed 09/07/12 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:2742

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
thecatsong liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->