Surviving Social Media: Understanding Social Media As an eDiscovery Gold Mine

http://ow.ly/7rPu3

An article by Gwynne Monahan posted on the americanbar.org website and on the GP Sole eReport.

The article discusses use of social media, and states that some attorneys use it more than others (the author points out some attorneys feel it is a waste of time).  The author writes, "...social media is here to stay, and it is quickly expanding beyond marketing and moving into the courtroom. From jury instructions on no tweeting and blogging during trial to discovery motions requesting information from Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn to strengthen or weaken an employee dismissal case, divorce settlement or First Amendment challenge, social media has become an eDiscovery gold mine."

The article further advises, "In order to gain an understanding of how social media networks operate, and understand the relationship of social media networks and eDiscovery, it is necessary to use them. This does not mean spending hours each day posting information to Facebook or Twitter. Rather, it means going through the process of creating an account, adjusting privacy settings, and getting a feel for how social media networks function. For example, how does posting to Facebook differ from posting to Twitter, LinkedIn, or Google +?"

The article mentions two cases, and discusses their impact, the cases mentioned are, "Crispin v. Audigier and Romano v. Steelcase Inc."

The article states, "...social media networks are a hybrid of an open network and a “walled garden.” Some information is readily accessible by the public, including lawyers, judges and potential jurors, while other information is accessible only to parties who have been given permission. Knowing the difference, and how social media networks separate their “public” information from more “private” information, is increasingly important.

In Crispin, for example, the court held that the Stored Communications Act (SCA) protected messages on Facebook and MySpace that were not publicly available."

The article goes on to further state, "In Romano, the court held that private messages were admissible because contradictory information was posted in the public areas of Facebook and MySpace. Public posting of contradictory information, in the eyes of the court, meant there was a reasonable expectation of relevant information being included in private messages, too."