Skip to main content

Broad Request For Unfettered Access to All Social Media Accounts of Employee Not Allowed


Marsteller v. Butterfield 8 Stamford LLC - United States District Court, District of Connecticut


Facts:  Lauren Marsteller ("Marsteller") filed suit against Butterfield 8 Stamford LLC, Public House Investments LLC, John Gazzola, Douglas Newhook, and Ryan Slavin ("Defendants") and alleged unlawful sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Connecticut law, violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Connecticut Wage and Hour Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and common law privacy claims.  This suit brought by Marsteller arose out of claims that Newhook and Slavin (employees of the other defendants) sexually harassed her, watched her change clothes on a company security camera, and showed the video to other employees of defendants.

In the course of litigation, Defendants sought access to Marsteller's social media accounts or in the alternative, copies of certain social media communications.  Marsteller declined to provide this information and Defendants subsequently filed a Motion to Compel disclosure of her social media communications.

Holding:  (Note, the Court also considered a request for access to Marsteller's medical records.  However, this brief only looks at the Court's consideration of the motion to compel disclosure of Marsteller's social media communications.)  Generally speaking, in federal court, parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.  A party that resists discovery has the burden of showing why the discovery request should be denied.

Defendants argued that access to Marsteller's social media accounts should be allowed as Marsteller's social media communications encompassing materials responsive to Defendant's discovery requests were relevant to the emotion distress allegations.   Marsteller objected on the grounds that she never "posted anything relevant to her employment or the allegations in her Complaint."  A district court in New York had previously held that "Plaintiff's routine status updates and/or communications on social networking sites are not, as a general matter, relevant to her claim for emotional distress damages, nor are such communications likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding the same."  

In this case, the Court held that requiring Marsteller to provide her social media passwords would constitute a "wholesale invasion of her privacy" and would be far outside the bounds of proportionality.  However, Defendants' request for copies of social media materials responsive to the requests for production were held to be reasonable and likely to lead to admissible evidence.  As a result, the Court held that requiring Marsteller to provide copies of any social media materials responsive to the two requests for production was reasonable.

Judgment:  The District Court held that while the Defendants' request for the Claimant's social media passwords was a fishing expedition and a wholesale invasion of her privacy, the request for copies of any social media materials responsive to two requests for production was lawful.

The Takeaway:  Very interesting ruling from the Court here and ultimately, I believe this is the correct ruling on Defendants' Motion to Compel.  The Defendants' attempt to get the keys to the castle (a/k/a get the social media passwords to all of the Claimant's social media accounts) was simply a bridge too far.  However, a more narrowly tailored request for copies of social media materials of the Claimant that were responsive to Defendants' two requests for production was narrowly tailored and therefore lawful.  When you look at the rules that govern discovery requests in federal court, I think the Court correctly relied upon the New York case to reach its ultimate conclusion to both deny and part of Defendants' Motion to Compel.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Magistrate Judge Merriam

Date:  November 27, 2017

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/eld/MarstellerButterfield112717.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more