- Journal Archives
- Volume 17
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
Examining an opposing party’s social media page for damaging pictures or posts has become common practice in many trials, particularly civil trials or those where credibility is a key issue. A Facebook or MySpace picture that contradicts the image a party is attempting to portray can be helpful in swaying a jury. Although using evidence gleaned from social media is a relatively new introduction to litigation strategies, at least one court is making it very clear that destroying or hiding discoverable evidence is illegal spoliation– regardless of whether the relevant evidence is a murder weapon or a Facebook photo album.
Nearly a year after winning Virginia’s largest known wrongful death award for his client, lawyer Matthew Murray has lost over $500,000 and his legal career. Murray’s client, Isaiah Lester, was awarded over $10 million by a jury in Charlottesville, Virginia, after his wife, Jessica, was killed by a reckless driver. The defendant, driving a truck carrying 36,000 pounds of cement, lost control of his vehicle after going too fast around a curve and crushed Jessica’s Honda as she drove to work. After the jury returned their unprecedented verdict, Murray said his client’s legal victory “speaks to the value of life . . . [t]he award affirms the value of the loss of this community of Jessica Lester.” However, just ten months later, the judge in the case not only reduced the jury award by nearly half, but also levied over $720,000 in sanctions against both Murray and his client.
Noting what he called the “extensive pattern of deceptive and obstructionist conduct of Murray and Lester,” the judge found that the pair were responsible for spoliation of evidence from Lester’s Facebook profiles, as well as withholding information from the court about their actions. The judge’s findings show that after receiving a discovery request for Lester’s Facebook account, Murray had a paralegal email Lester with instructions to “clean up” his profile in order to avoid damaging the wrongful death case. Lester’s Facebook page included pictures of himself socializing with friends after his wife’s death while holding a beer can and wearing a t-shirt that said ”I [heart] hot moms.” The judge also found that Murray had strategically deactivated Lester’s Facebook account and withheld his paralegal’s email to Lester despite being ordered to produce it. Murray is required to pay $542,000 of the total $720,000 fine, the amount of which surprised legal experts in Virginia as being one of the largest sanctions in the state’s history. Murray has also resigned from his law firm where he served as managing partner, and an investigation is ongoing by the Virginia State Bar.
Attorney John Patzakis, a writer for the Next Gen eDiscovery Law & Tech Blog, notes that some lawyers incorrectly assume they can treat social media evidence and more traditional forms of evidence differently. He says, “This case reflects a trend we see . . . where a minority of legal and eDiscovery practitioners have not quite placed social media evidence on the same par as other electronic evidence. For instance, I believe it is highly unlikely that Murray would have instructed his client to delete all his emails or wipe his hard drive, but for some reason he differentiated social media evidence.” As the use of evidence from social media sites becomes a more regular occurrence in trials, lawyers must take care not to forget that the rules regarding production of evidence apply even to MySpace, Facebook, or Twitter.
– Megan DeLockery
Recent Blog Posts
- When Convenience Isn’t Worth It
- Revolution or Ruse: Wu-Tang Clan’s 88-Year Hold on the Commercial Release of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin
- Harper Lee’s Real Estate Attorney Becomes Her Literary Agent
- FAA’s Launches Proposed Rule for Commercial Drones
- Heirs to Hawaii Five-0 Theme Allege Copyright Infringement
- Cell Phones, Privacy and the Unclear Scope of the Fourth Amendment
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution