Comments on: Facebook Spoliation Costs Lawyer $522,000; Ends His Legal Career

By: Facebook Spoliation Costs Lawyer $522,000; Ends His Legal Career | dcook4real

Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:31:41 +0000

[…] Source: blog.x1discovery.com […]

By: Court Sanctions Plaintiff and Lawyer for Facebook Spoliation | San Antonio Employment Law Blog

Thu, 11 Dec 2014 19:13:31 +0000

[…] these sanctions in the case of Lester v. Allied Concrete Co., a wrongful death lawsuit. See blog report here. […]

By: Melissa

Melissa — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:29:57 +0000

Such a fascinating case! Do you think the judge would have slapped the plaintiff with fines had he “cleaned up” his social media without instruction from his attorney? I find it interesting that hte plaintiff was penalized for following the advice of his attorney… I would think that would afford him some kind of protection, especially if an “I HEART HOT MOMS” is his level of social sophistication.

By: Legal Fees

Legal Fees — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 20:29:20 +0000

Great post! Been reading a lot about different aspect of court fees. Thanks for sharing the story!

By: D. Kall Loper

D. Kall Loper — Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:24:30 +0000

Paul,
I agree with you in general, but the 9/1/2011 Order, “Previous Order” at the end of the post quotes an E-mail asking the client to alter his FaceBook/MySpace pages specifically to prevent discovery. The E-mail is far more damning than the absence of the FaceBook pictures.

By: Paul de Holczer

Paul de Holczer — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:24:38 +0000

In reply to Paul de Holczer. It does appear there were other transgressions and the photos may have, indeed, been deleted entirely.

By: Paul de Holczer

Paul de Holczer — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:18:23 +0000

In reply to Don Burns. I agree with Don Burns. If the "evidence" existed apart from his Facebook page, as an electronic file, removing it from Facebook was just choosing not to display it and was not "spoliation" unless the electronic file was actually deleted and destroyed. This sanction appears to be far beyond what was necessary or appropriate.

By: ralph popelar

ralph popelar — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:08:22 +0000

In reply to Don Burns. It appears that Mr. Murray thought it was relevant. Or his sense of fashion was offended.

By: Don Burns

Don Burns — Wed, 30 May 2012 19:24:36 +0000

In my opinion, the “evidence” sought by defendants here, the contents of the Plaintiff’s Facebook page, should have been deemed inadmissable as being generally NOT relevant. The rules of evidence does not permit, as a general rule, irrelevant evidence to be admitted. The fact the Defendants here apparently expected the Plaintiff to lie morose in his home and take no joy in life whatsoever for the years following his wife’s death in a tragic car accident is abhorrent on it’s face.

By: John Patzakis

John Patzakis — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:39:53 +0000

In reply to Melissa Fletcher. Melissa, We've provided the link at the bottom of the post above. Thank you for your comment!