Monday, August 08, 2011

Ten Random Ways Your Facebook Postings Will Bite You in Litigation.

1.  You say you're so injuried you've lost all enjoyment of life.  Your recent video shows you bungie jumping and doing gymnastics.

2.  You claim you're unemployed and unemployable, but brag about your recent big deals as an entrepreneur.  

3.  You say you want custody of the kids, but list yourself as "Single" and "Without Children."  

4.  You claim to be a stable, good parent, but your page is filled with images showing wild drinking and pot parties, and you in compromising positions.

5.  You claim to be unable to pay spousal support, but your photos show you in your new Ferrari, and at various posh vacation sites.

6.  You brag about how you are going to get a million bucks in your lawsuit by your creative exagerrated stories of injury and loss.  

7.  You admit you're scared to death, and will settle for almost nothing just to get out of the case.

8.  You are patently flirtatious and seductive during a time when you alleged to be totally traumatized by sexual harassment.  You post coarse sexual language and extend explicit sexual invitations when you claim to be extremely sensitive to much milder statements made to you at work.  

9.  You disclose confidential work information and trade secrets.

10.  You belittle your company and your show bold and unrestrained contempt for your boss.  



Generally, California's Electronic Discovery Act (effective June 29, 2009), amended the CA Discovery Act to provide for procedures for litigants to acquire "Electronically Stored Information."  See C.C.P. Sec. 2016.020.  

The five questions to ask when seeking any admissible evidence are:

1.  Is it relevant?

2.  Can it be authenticated?

3.  If offered for the truth of the matter conveyed by the posting, is there a hearsay exception that will allow admission?

4.  Can you access the original or will "secondary evidence" suffice?

5.  Is the proferred evidence too prejudicial to be admitted when weighed against its "probative value?"  

See:  Lorraine v. Market American Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534 (2007).  

No comments: