That’s summary judgment, or worse, against you or your client. Last February we reported on a decision in which a federal magistrate judge ruled, unsurprisingly, that there is no “social networking privilege.” Now Walter Olson reports and links on further developments and thoughts as follows:
Nowhere to hide: When your litigation opponent subpoenas your Facebook, Amazon, MySpace, Flickr, LinkedIn and (locked) Twitter pages.
Of course the current “pages” (or current feeds, etc.), other than a locked Twitter page, should not need to be subpoenaed — they’re up there for the downloading, mainly. Subpoenas don’t only cost money, they tip off the other side. But a lawyer might want to subpoena both locked social networking site data, such as postings and other information revealed only to select persons (e.g., in closed Facebook groups or to privileged “friends”), in which case we can expect a more intensive query: Did the user have, or not have, a reasonable expectation of privacy there, as opposed to what is publicly available?
Hat tip to the notionally un-networked, yet ubiquitous, JT!