.

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

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Holds That Public Policy Does Not Prevent Insurance Coverage for Sex Trafficking Claims

On July 21, 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an opinion emphasizing the limited circumstances in which courts may invoke public policy to bar insurance coverage, holding in Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (U.S. Branch) v. RI Settlement Trust that Pennsylvania public policy does not preclude coverage for claims alleging that insureds enabled or profited from human sex trafficking. The decision rejects a line of federal district court decisions predicting otherwise and reinforces that Pennsylvania courts will invoke the public policy doctrine only in the clearest of circumstances. RI Settlement is particularly significant because it arose on certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, giving the Supreme Court the opportunity to resolve an issue on which federal courts had predicted Pennsylvania law differently. RI Settlement arose out of four separate civil complaints in which the underlying plaintiffs alleged that, as minors, they were the victims of human sex trafficking at various hotels in Philadelphia. The plaintiffs claimed that the hotel owners were negligent in failing to stop the sex trafficking from happening at their hotels. After the filing of the lawsuits, the hotel owners sought coverage under their Commercial General Liability policies. The insurers initially defended the hotels under Reservation of Rights letters, though the carriers later filed Declaratory Judgment actions seeking declarations that they did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify. In short, the insurers argued in the alternative that they did not owe any obligation to provide coverage based upon Pennsylvania public policy (because the claims violated the Human Trafficking Law – 18 Pa.C.S. § 3011) and the terms and conditions of the policy. On motions for judgment on the pleadings, the District Court found for the insurers on the basis of public policy: There is no duty to defend or indemnify against actions arising out of an insured's criminal conduct related to the sex trafficking of minors. The Court appreciates that it may make public policy the basis of a judicial decision only in “the clearest of cases.” See Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 589 A.2d 854, 868 (Pa. 2004) (quoting Hall v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 648 A.2d 755, 760 (Pa. 1994)). Yet, the Court strains to imagine a clearer case than the one presented here in which the facts alleged indicate that Policyholders engaged in criminal conduct in violation of Pennsylvania's Human Trafficking Law. The hotel owners appealed the matter to the Third Circuit, which petitioned the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to grant review of two certified questions of law: (1) whether Pennsylvania law had an “overriding public policy” against sex trafficking, such that an insurer’s duty to defend and/or indemnify is abrogated when an insured is alleged to have enabled or profited from such trafficking; and (2) if yes, is that duty abrogated whenever the insured’s alleged conduct would constitute a violation of the Pennsylvania Human Trafficking statute. Importantly, the certified questions did not ask the Supreme Court to determine whether the policies afforded coverage under their terms. Rather, the court was asked only whether Pennsylvania public policy independently barred coverage. As a result, the court assumed for purposes of answering the certified questions that the insurers otherwise owed a duty to defend and addressed only the public policy issue, leaving all policy-based coverage defenses for further proceedings. Because the court concluded that the answer to the first certified question was “no”, it did not reach the second issue. In reaching its determination that Pennsylvania public policy does not prohibit insurance coverage for sex trafficking claims, the court limited the impact of its decision in Minnesota Fire & Cas. Co. v. Greenfield, 855 A. 2d 854, 855 (Pa. 2004), which the RI Settlement opinion emphasized as having been an “Opinion Announcing Judgment of the Court” – or a plurality opinion. In Greenfield, the insured homeowner was sued by the estate of his houseguest who overdosed from heroin that he sold to her. The matter wound its way to the Supreme Court, which determined that the insurer did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify based upon Pennsylvania public policy, which criminalized the sale and use of heroin as a Schedule I narcotic. In RI Settlement, the court “decline[d] the invitation” to extend the rationale of the three-justice plurality in Greenfield beyond cases involving Schedule I controlled substances. In so holding, the justices in RI Settlement refused to “divine an overriding public policy pronouncement by the General Assembly by virtue of its enactment of the Human Trafficking Law.” The opinion further states that it is not “within the purview of this Court to rank the magnitude of the public policy underlying the various crimes defined in the Crimes Code. It is sufficient for the work of the courts to know that the General Assembly has identified conduct it deems harmful and dangerous to the maintenance of an orderly society and criminalized it.” While the court declined to declare that Pennsylvania public policy prohibits coverage for sex trafficking claims, the opinion in RI Settlement expressly states that insurers are free to include appropriate exclusionary language for such causes of actions in their policies if they desire to do so. It will certainly be interesting to see whether the insurance industry accepts the court’s invitation, or perhaps whether the Pennsylvania legislature steps in to clarify that sex trafficking claims are indeed of the type or magnitude that they should not be covered by insurance. In any event, we will, of course, continue to monitor this and other insurance coverage issues that arise before courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and throughout our firm’s geographic footprint and around the country.

Thought Leadership

SIU Gets a Boost: NJ Supreme Court Affirms Insurers' Right to Litigate, Not Arbitrate, Fraud Claims

In a significant win for insurers' Special Investigation Units, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified that statutory insurance fraud and racketeering claims may proceed in court rather than through PIP arbitration. At issue was whether insurance fraud claims brought under New Jersey's Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA) and the state's Anti-Racketeering Act (NJ RICO) are subject to mandatory arbitration under the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act’s (AICRA) PIP dispute-resolution framework. Allstate had sued a network of medical practices, physicians, and related corporate entities, alleging a scheme to extract more than $1.7 million in PIP benefits through fraudulent and misleading billing. The trial court dismissed Allstate's complaint and compelled arbitration, reading AICRA's arbitration clause — which covers "any dispute regarding the recovery of... benefits" under PIP coverage, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1(a) — as sweeping in fraud and racketeering claims along with routine benefit disputes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal, adopting Judge Gilson's opinion below (480 N.J. Super. 566 (App. Div. 2025)) as its own reasoning. The Court held that IFPA and RICO claims fall outside the scope of AICRA's PIP arbitration mechanism because that "streamlined and specialized" process cannot grant the relief those statutes contemplate — treble damages, injunctive relief, broad discovery, and joinder of third parties — and because arbitrators lack authority to award compensatory or treble damages to an insurer. The Court also rejected the argument that Allstate's own Decision Point Review Plans independently compel arbitration, finding those plan provisions no broader than AICRA's own arbitration clause. Notably, the Court expressly disagreed with the Third Circuit's contrary holding in GEICO v. Mt. Prospect Chiropractic Center, 98 F.4th 463 (3d Cir. 2024), concluding it is not bound by that federal interpretation of New Jersey law. Insurers retain the right to pursue IFPA and RICO claims in the Law Division, with a jury trial. For SIU units and NJ insurance carriers, this decision is a significant win: it forecloses defense clinics' primary procedural tool for shunting fraud investigations into limited-scope PIP arbitration, where treble damages, RICO relief, and meaningful discovery were never realistically available. Carriers building cases against fraudulently structured clinics, straw-owned practices, or coordinated billing networks can now proceed with confidence that a well-pleaded IFPA/RICO complaint stays in the Law Division rather than being diverted to arbitration on a motion to compel. Practically, this strengthens SIU's leverage in settlement negotiations, preserves civil discovery tools (subpoenas, depositions, joinder of related corporate entities) critical to unwinding complex ownership and referral schemes, and resolves the split with the Third Circuit in favor of NJ insurers — at least as a matter of state law. Expect increased reliance on IFPA civil actions, rather than PIP arbitration demands, as SIU's primary enforcement vehicle going forward.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial