Can You Be Forced to Turn Over Your Social Network Passwords in a Civil Case?

Let’s say you’re the plaintiff in a civil case against a neighbor, an employer, or a company you’ve done business with. One of the many pains of litigation is the discovery process–the process whereby each side collects information that it believes will help it win the case. Discovery can come in many forms, such as conducting depositions (sworn testimony from witnesses), requesting documents, or even requesting permission to visit a site and look around.

But let’s say that you have a Facebook account. The other side believes that some of your Facebook communications might be relevant to the case, so they specifically request access to your account. You refuse, and the issue goes to the court to sort out (if you’re in federal court, under Rule 37, for those of you playing at home). How should the court rule? Specifically, what should the court order you to do? Do you have to give the password for your account over to a party that, to put it mildly, you are probably not on the best of terms with?

Surprisingly, at least one court has said yes [Update: see comments below], and I believe similar requests are being made in courts all around the country. I believe this is a deeply disturbing development and is the result of either a failure to understand social networking technology, the rules of civil procedure, or both.

Continue ReadingCan You Be Forced to Turn Over Your Social Network Passwords in a Civil Case?

A Modest Proposal for Ending Gridlock in Washington

I have a proposal to vastly improve politics in Washington, and it should have bipartisan appeal—or, at least, it should appeal to one party this year and to the other party 2 or 4 years from now. Given the new practical reality that it takes 60 votes to get anything done in Washington, and that there are never 60 votes for anything useful, it seems like a perfect time to consider a new amendment to the Constitution. It would need to be proposed by a convention called for by 2/3 of the states, as the other method probably wouldn’t work:

RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
relating to the legislative power.

Resolved by this Constitutional Convention assembled (a majority of the delegates concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

Article —

Section 1. All legislative powers granted by this Constitution shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist solely of a House of Representatives.

Continue ReadingA Modest Proposal for Ending Gridlock in Washington

Best of the Blogs

This week: Those who don’t do, can’t teach? Also, an unconstitutional village ordinance on real estate for-sale signs may serve as a symbol of racial integration; the surprising stem cell research injunction; and is there a “private action” requirement in the Constitution?

First, it’s recruiting season for new law professors, which means that this week it was time for the perennial debate over the composition of law faculties. This time it was kicked off by Georgetown adjunct professor Brent Newton with his article, posted on SSRN, entitled “Preaching What They Don’t Practice: Why Law Faculties’ Preoccupation with Impractical Scholarship and Devaluation of Practical Competencies Obstruct Reform in the Legal Academy.” That was followed by comments from Stephen Bainbridge, Joe Hodnicki, Jonathan Adler, Rick Garnett, Kristen Holmquist, and Paul Horwitz. (I myself have weighed in on previous iterations of this debate.) One thing that struck me as missing from all of this commentary, much of it thoughtful, was any mention of the notion of law school degrees as positional goods.

Sarah Waldeck posted the fourth and final installment in her fascinating series on a Chicago suburb that has persisted in retaining, and apparently enforcing, a clearly unconstitutional village ordinance banning real estate for-sale signs. A taste:

Continue ReadingBest of the Blogs