Conducting “Traditional Relevance Analysis,” Court Denies Full Access to Plaintiff’s Social Networking Accounts

“In this case, the Court conducted a “traditional relevance analysis” to assess Defendant’s request for broad access to Plaintiff’s social networking accounts and concluded that only limited discovery was appropriate. Specifically, the court concluded that ‘unfettered access to Plaintiff’s social networking history will not be permitted simply because Plaintiff has a claim for emotional distress damages.’ Thus, the Court ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to review Plaintiff’s postings and to produce those determined to be relevant, ‘keeping in mind the broad scope of discovery contemplated under Rule 26.'”