Kellman v. Spokeo, Inc.
- William Orrick
- 3:21-cv-08976
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Kellman v. Spokeo, Judge Orrick denied Spokeo’s request for private social-media posts as overbroad and denied related fees and costs.
The order affected Spokeo, Inc.’s request for the plaintiffs’ private social-media posts and the plaintiffs’ discovery obligations; it also denied Spokeo’s request for related fees and costs.
What happened
In Kellman v. Spokeo, Inc., Spokeo sought more than 13 years of plaintiffs’ social-media posts visible only to their friends or followers, including posts from as many as 105 sites. Plaintiffs had already produced their public posts and argued that the private posts were overbroad and irrelevant to their claims about commercial use of personal information.
The court applied the rule requiring discovery to be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. It found that Spokeo had not shown why all of the private posts were relevant to claims focused on information Spokeo posted publicly and used to advertise its services. The court also found Spokeo’s request much broader than requests for social-media information that are limited by platform, time period, and content.
Judge Orrick denied Spokeo’s discovery request as written because it was overbroad and denied Spokeo’s request for related fees and costs. The court said Spokeo could submit a significantly narrower request within seven days, followed by another joint discovery letter if the parties could not agree.
The detailed version
- Kellman v. Spokeo, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-08976
- William Orrick
- Jan. 25, 2023
Background
The parties submitted a joint letter concerning a discovery dispute. Spokeo requested all social-media posts made by the plaintiffs from January 1, 2010, through the present that were visible only to each plaintiff’s social-media friends or followers. The plaintiffs had produced their public social-media posts, but Spokeo also sought their private posts.
Spokeo said the private posts could help show that the plaintiffs’ privacy rights were not invaded if they had broadcast similar information on their own social-media accounts. The plaintiffs argued that the request was overbroad and misunderstood their theory of injury. According to the plaintiffs, their claims concerned alleged violations of state laws prohibiting the commercial use of their personal information, making posts visible only to friends or followers irrelevant.
Court’s analysis
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which limits discovery to information relevant to a party’s claims or defenses and proportional to the needs of the case. Proportionality considers factors including the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, the usefulness of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether its burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit.
The court stated that it was unclear how more than 13 years of private social-media posts could be proportional to the needs of the case. It was also unclear whether the content of the posts was relevant because the case focused on information Spokeo posted on its public website and used commercially to advertise its services and products. The court found Spokeo’s theory—that the posts were needed to show the plaintiffs could not assert private rights in the information—tenuous.
The court acknowledged that relevant information in a private social-media account can be discoverable. It relied on decisions stating that social-media discovery should generally be narrowed by website or platform, time period, and content related to the case. Spokeo’s request for private posts from as many as 105 sites over 13 years went beyond a request for only relevant information.
The court found the cases cited by Spokeo factually different. It concluded that those decisions did not support requiring the plaintiffs to produce every private post, and Spokeo provided no authority supporting its broad request.
Ruling
The court denied Spokeo’s request as written because it was overbroad. It also stated that private social-media information appeared unlikely to be relevant to defending the plaintiffs’ claims about unlawful commercial use of their personal information without consent. The court allowed Spokeo to submit a significantly narrowed discovery request within seven days of the order. If the parties could not agree, they were directed to submit another joint discovery letter two weeks later, identifying the specific information sought and supporting authority. The court also denied Spokeo’s request for fees and costs associated with the dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.