SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
IAS PART XXI – COUNTY OF SUFFOLK

PRESENT:
HON. JEFFREY ARLEN SPINNER
Justice of the Supreme Court

KATHLEEN ROMANO,
plaintiff,                              .INDEX NO.: 2006-2233

– against –

STEELCASE INC and EDUCATIONAL &
INSTITUTIONAL COOPERATIVE SERVICES INC,
Defendants

Excerpts:

Both Facebook and MySpace are social networking sites where people can share information about
their personal lives, including posting photographs and sharing information about what they are
doing or thinking. Indeed, Facebook policy states that “it helps you share information with your
friends and people around YOU.” and that “Facebook is about sharing information with others.”’
Likewise, MySpace is a “social networking service that allows Members to create unique personal
profiles online in order to find and communicate with old and news friends;” and, is self-described
as an “online community” where “you can share photos, journals and interests with your growing
network of mutual friends,”’ and, as a “global lifestyle portal that reaches millions of people around
the world.”3 Both sites allow the user to set privacy levels to control with whom they share their
information.

The information sought by Defendant regarding Plaintiff’s Facebook and MySpace accounts is both
material and necessary to the defense of this action and or could lead to admissible evidence.

<SNIP>

Further, Defendant‘s need for access to the information outweighs any privacy concerns that may
be voiced by Plaintiff. Defendant has attempted to obtain the sought Lifter information via other
means e.g., via deposition and notice for discovery, however, these have proven to be inadequate
since counsel has thwarted Defendant’s attempt to question Plaintiff in this regard or to obtain
authorizations from Plaintiff for the release of this information. The materials including photographs
contained on these sites may be relevant to the issue of damages and may disprove Plaintiff’s claims.
Without access to these sites, Defendant will be at a distinct disadvantage in defending this action.

ORDERED, that Defendant STEELCASE’s motion for an Order granting said Defendant access
to Plaintiff’s current and historical Facebook and MySpace pages and accounts, including all deleted
pages and related information, is hereby granted in all respects; and it is further

ORDERED, that, within 30 days from the date of service of a copy of this Order, as directed herein
below, Plaintiff shall deliver to Counsel for Defendant STEELCASE a properly executed consent
and authorization as may be required by the operators of Facebook and MySpace, permitting said
Defendant to gain access to Plaintiff’s Facebook and MySpace records, including any records
previously deleted or archived by said operators; and it is further.

ORDERED, that Counselor the moving party herein is hereby directed to serve a copy of this
order, with Notice of Entry, upon Counsel for all the remaining parties and Non-Party FACEBOOK,
within twenty (20) days of the date this order IS entered by the Suffolk County Clerk.

Dated: Riverhead, New York
September 21, 2010

[ipaper docId=42324963 access_key=key-14rwjm8zg4rokx7sikkz height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JACK R. LORRAINE AND, :
BEVERLY MACK :
Plaintiffs :
:
v. :        CIVIL ACTION NO. PWG-06-1893
:
MARKEL AMERICAN :
INSURANCE COMPANY :
Defendants

Excerpt:

Thus, when a lawyer analyzes the admissibility of electronic evidence, he or she should
consider whether it would unfairly prejudice the party against whom it is offered, confuse or mislead
the jury, unduly delay the trial of the case, or interject collateral matters into the case . If a lawyer is
offering electronic evidence, particularly computer animations, that may draw a Rule 403 objection,
he or she must be prepared to demonstrate why any prejudice is not unfair, when measured against the
probative value of the evidence. In this case, counsel did not address whether Rule 403 was implicated
with respect to the electronic evidence attached to their summary judgment memoranda.

Conclusion

In this case the failure of counsel collectively to establish the authenticity of their exhibits,
resolve potential hearsay issues, comply with the original writing rule, and demonstrate the absence
of unfair prejudice rendered their exhibits inadmissible, resulting in the dismissal, without prejudice,
of their cross motions for summary judgment. The discussion above highlights the fact that there are
five distinct but interrelated evidentiary issues that govern whether electronic evidence will be
admitted into evidence at trial or accepted as an exhibit in summary judgment practice. Although each
of these rules may not apply to every exhibit offered, as was the case here, each still must be
considered in evaluating how to secure the admissibility of electronic evidence to support claims and
defenses. Because it can be expected that electronic evidence will constitute much, if not most, of the
evidence used in future motions practice or at trial, counsel should know how to get it right on the first
try. The Court hopes that the explanation provided in this memorandum order will assist in that
endeavor.63

May 4, 2007

/S/
PAUL W. GRIMM
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

[ipaper docId=42055149 access_key=key-ny71zs8lak1m06d9kgo height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.