.

The Quarterly Dose

“IYKYK” – Keeping Up to Date with Social Media

The Quarterly Dose – May 2025

May 1, 2025

by Patricia A. Lafferty and Nicole E. Tanana

If you know, you know! Social media has become ubiquitous and continues to evolve into myriad platforms. As the chaos surrounding a threatened shutdown and brief outage of TikTok illustrated in January 2025, most people believe that they cannot and simply do not want to live without it. Since Facebook was founded in 1996, social media has reached over half the world’s population. In 2010, there were 970 million active social media users globally. That number has ballooned to 5.24 billion users in January of 2025. In the United States, 70.1% of the total population actively use social media. Amazingly, Americans spend an average of 2 hours and 9 minutes on social media every day. With these staggering numbers in mind, it would be naïve to think that social media does not play a role in litigation and the discovery process. 

Ethical and Technological Considerations 
When it comes to social media users, research has shown that there are stark differences in not only the generational usage of the various types of social media, but gender differences as well. It should be no surprise that age has an effect on usage. According to DataReportal, a website that provides global digital insights and trends, recent usage numbers show that everyone is embracing social media and all that it has to offer, with 84% of 18- to 29-year-olds and 45% of those aged 65 and older using social media.

Additional research demonstrates that in the United States, females are more prevalent and account for 78% of social media users, whereas 66% of men use social media. Women were noted to use platforms such as Snapchat and Pinterest, and men tend to favor sites like YouTube and X(Twitter). According to a recent article by Exploding Topics, YouTube is the world’s most popular and widely used social media platform, followed by Facebook, Instagram, WeChat, Reddit, Messenger, TikTok, Telegram and Viber.

These statistics can be a useful guide in directing you to where your target audience is spending their “down” time, leading to more pointed additional discovery requests. Due to the vast amount of information and data being generated by each user, it is important to cater your discovery requests to get as much information without going down the rabbit hole of what could be mountains of documentation and paperwork. Keeping up to date on the research related to ever-changing social media trends and the various demographics can help to narrowly tailor your discovery requests and yield pertinent information to defend your case.

It is important to keep in mind that the Rules of Professional Conduct require attorneys to “keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology.” (Pa. R.P.C. 1.1.). The obligation also exists for lawyers to ensure that preservation of such discoverable materials is maintained at the risk of spoliation issues arising. In 2014, the Pennsylvania Bar Association adopted the view of the Philadelphia Bar Association Professional Guidance Committee that a lawyer may advise a client to change the privacy settings on the client’s Facebook page, however, a lawyer “may not instruct or permit the client to delete/destroy a relevant photo, link, text, or other content, so that it no longer exists.” (Pa. Bar Ass’n Formal Op. 2014-300 [Sept. 2014]). The same principles still apply today, and lawyers are required to take affirmative steps to preserve social networking evidence and advise client(s) of the same. 

Since social media discovery has to be maintained by the party, considerations can and should be given for an individual to preserve their own account. Many social media sites are now on the second and third generation of these platforms, and technological advances have allowed access to more features that may not have been feasible at their inception. For example, many platforms now allow individual users to download their entire account in just a few steps. Social media powerhouses such as Facebook, Instagram and TikTok all offer this feature. This process can be accomplished, in some circumstances, in a few “clicks” and arguably alleviates the “overly burdensome” obstacle of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4011. 

What the Courts Have to Say 
Under the general discovery principals in Pennsylvania, information contained on a litigant’s social media platforms is generally discoverable. In Pennsylvania, “…a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it related to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, content, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.” (Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1.) Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4009.1 explicitly permits the discovery of electronically stored information. This broad general principle of what is discoverable is limited by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 4011, which states: “No discovery, including discovery of electronically stored information, shall be permitted which (a) is sought in bad faith; (b) would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to the deponent or any person or party; … or (e) would require the making of an unreasonable investigation by the deponent or any party or witness.” 

Despite the popularity and extensive use of social media platforms, Pennsylvania Appellate Courts have not yet addressed the parameters of what is discoverable, and appellate review is scant. The trial courts, however, have seen their fair share of attempts to widen and/or limit the net of discoverable data. The court’s interpretations have been varied when it comes to how far litigants can go when delving into the world of social media discovery.

Most courts have treated social media information as they would any other information sought in discovery. In Brogan v. Rosenn, Jenkins & Greenwald, LLP, the court stated: 

Consistent with that firmly established discovery maxim, a party may obtain discovery of private Facebook posts, photographs and communications only if the electronically stored information is relevant, and the party must satisfy that relevancy requirement by showing that publically accessible information posted on the user’s Facebook page controverts or challenges the user’s claims or defenses in the pending litigation. To that extent, the resolution of social media discovery disputes pursuant to existing Rules of Procedure is simply new wine in an old bottle. 

(C.C.P. Lackawanna April 22, 2013) (Nealon, J.).

Moreover, in at least in one case, the court held that it was not necessary for a party to have a public profile before the opposing party is given access to the private portion of a party’s social media profile. In Arcq v. Fields, No. 11-4637 (C.C.P. Franklin Dec. 7, 2011) (Herman, J.), the defendants’ Motion to Compel information about the plaintiff’s social networking sites was denied due to the defendants’ failure to show any reasonable basis for believing access to the plaintiff’s profiles would yield any relevant information. Despite the denial of the motion, the court took a broad view of what the defendants had to show prior to being given access to the plaintiff’s private profile, stating: “[w]hile it is not an absolute necessity that a plaintiff have a public profile before a defendant can be given access to the private portion, it is necessary that defendant have some good faith belief that the private profile may contain information.” Arcq v. Fields, No. 11-4637 (C.C.P. Franklin Dec. 7, 2011) (Herman, J.). 

Privacy Settings
Privacy considerations are typically the main argument against disclosure of a litigant’s “private” social media information as based on the individual’s privacy rights. While the privacy argument has been rejected by Pennsylvania trial courts in some circumstances, most litigants will continue to push back when discovery seeks specific information that is contained on a litigant’s “private” social media platforms. 

When discovery seeks information contained within a litigant’s private social media platforms, Pennsylvania trial level courts have implemented a balancing test that balances the need for relevant “private” social media information and the parties’ privacy concerns. In Hunter v. PRRC, Inc., 2013 WL 9917150 (York C. C. P. Nov. 4, 2013) (Linebaugh, J.), the court determined that a party making the request for social media information must make: 

[A] threshold showing that otherwise available information leads to the reasonable probability that relevant information is contained with the private portions of the account. The hypothetical possibility that relevant information may exist in any account held privately is not sufficient to meet this showing. Actual facts must be shown… 

A “threshold showing” is the standard for Pennsylvania Courts in deciding whether private social media information should be disclosed in discovery; however, the analysis does not end at this showing. In Trail v. Lesko, 2012 WL 2864004 (Allegheny C. C. P. July 3, 2012) (Wettick, J.), the court analyzed the approaches taken by nine earlier Pennsylvania trial courts and recognized that discovery of private social media information is inherently intrusive and, relying on Pa.R.C.P. No. 4011, noted a court should consider the “level of the intrusion and the potential value of the discovery to the party seeking discovery.” Most recently in Allen v. Sands Bethworks Gaming, LLC, 2018 WL 4278941 (Northampton C. C. P. Aug 6, 2018) (Dally, J.), the court found that in order to obtain the private portions of a litigant’s social media information, the requesting party must show discrepancies between the public portions of the litigant’s social media platforms and what the litigant is claiming in the lawsuit. These considerations, as to whether your case will cross the threshold, should be considered in any motion to compel.

It is evident that social media discovery exploration is a necessary component to ensure that you are properly defending your clients. Preparing discovery that is geared toward the opposing party’s use of various social media platforms helps to maintain the most effective use of your and your client’s time. Understanding the court’s parameters of what is permissible and whether your case will meet the privacy threshold will help you successfully navigate the inevitable discovery disputes.  

 

The Quarterly Dose – May 2025, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars