Peppard v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.
, 904 A.2d 986 (Pa. Commw.Ct. 2006), necessitates even greater latitude, for “the purpose of allowing a broaderstandard is to ensure that a party has in its possession all relevant and admissibleevidence before the start of trial.”
at 994.Because “evidentiary privileges are to be narrowly construed,
Joyner v. S.E. Pa.Transp. Auth.
, 736 A.2d 35, 38 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999), our courts have routinelydeclined to extend the scope of existing privileges beyond their historical purpose andapplication or the strictures of the statutory language creating them.
See e.g. id.
Commonwealth v. Stewart
, 690 A.2d 195 (Pa. 1997)(clergy-penitent privilege);
(attorney-client, deliberative process, and PeerReview Protection Act privileges);
In re Subpoena No. 22
, 709 A.2d 385 (Pa. Super.1998),
M. v. State Bd. of Med.
, 725 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 1999) (psychologist-patientprivilege);
Grimminger v. Maitra
, 887 A.2d 276 (Pa. Super. 2005) (physician-patientprivilege). Additionally, a new privilege ought not be recognized unless the claimant canestablish four things: 1.) that his communications originated in the confidence that theywould not be disclosed; 2.) that the element of confidentiality is essential to fully andsatisfactorily maintain the relationship between the affected parties; 3.) communityagreement that the relationship must be sedulously fostered; and 4.) that the injurypotentially sustained to the relationship because of the disclosure of the communicationoutweighs the benefit of correctly disposing of litigation.
Matter of Adoption of Embick
,506 A.2d 455, 461 (Pa. Super. 1986) (citing 8 J. Wigmore,
, § 2285(McNaughton’s rev. Ed. 1961)). McMillen cannot satisfy those requirements.Facebook, MySpace, and their ilk are social network computer sites people utilizeto connect with friends and meet new people. That is, in fact, their purpose, and they donot bill themselves as anything else. Thus, while it is conceivable that a person could usethem as forums to divulge and seek advice on personal and private matters, it would beunrealistic to expect that such disclosures would be considered confidential.Both sites at issue here do guarantee a modicum of privacy insofar as users may,with the exception of certain basic information, choose what information and posts tomake public and which ones to share with only those persons they have identified asfriends. Yet reading their terms and privacy policies should dispel any notion that3