balancing the defendant’s speculation on the existence of potentially discoverable information with the plaintiffs’ burden of producing social media posts, some of which were “protected from public view”
How later courts described this case
- balancing the defendant’s speculation on the existence of potentially discoverable information with the plaintiffs’ burden of producing social media posts, some of which were “protected from public view”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
PAUL DAVID DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:20-cv-2856-WFJ-AAS
MANATEE COUNTY, JACOB SAUR,
and SARAH BROWN RICHMOND,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
ORDER
Defendant Manatee County moves to compel the production of online
communications and Facebook posts from Plaintiff Paul David Daniels. (Doc.
30). Mr. Daniels opposes Manatee County’s motion. (Doc. 37). Manatee County
replied to Mr. Daniels’ opposition and Mr. Daniels filed a sur-reply. (Docs. 43,
47). For the foregoing reasons, Manatee County’s motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
This dispute arises from Mr. Daniels’ prior position as a volunteer dog
walker for the Manatee County Animal Shelter (MCAS), a public animal
shelter operated by Manatee County. (Doc. 1). Manatee County hired Mr.
Daniels as a volunteer in June 2018. (Id. at ¶ 14). On June 11, 2020, Mr.
Daniels received a letter from MCAS Volunteer Coordinator Janine Davis
stating Mr. Daniels’ recent negative Facebook posts about MCAS were “not
acceptable” and “detrimental to the shelter.” (Doc. 37, Ex. 1). The letter
specified it served as an “official warning” to Mr. Daniels that “[c]ontinued
violations could result in further action from MCAS, up to and including
termination from the MCAS Volunteer Program.” (Id.). On June 16, 2020, Mr.
Daniels received another letter from Mrs. Davis informing him that more
recent “malicious statements” about MCAS “led to MCAS employees receiving
threats of harm, including death” and “affected [his] relationship with the
shelter as well as [MCAS’s] reputation in the community.” (Id. at Ex. 2). As a
result, Mrs. Davis’s June 16 letter informed Mr. Daniels he was terminated
from his position with MCAS. (Id.). Mr. Daniels sued Manatee County, Cheri
Coryea, Jacob Saur, and Sarah Brown Richmond on December 3, 2020, and
alleged his termination was retaliation for his Facebook posts and violative of
the First Amendment. (Doc. 1). Cheri Coryea was dismissed from this action
on December 13, 2021. (Doc. 32).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A party may obtain discovery about any non-privileged matter relevant
to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs. Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1). Discovery helps parties ascertain facts that bear on issues. ACLU of
Fla., Inc. v. City of Sarasota, 859 F.3d 1337, 1340 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations
omitted). A party may move for an order compelling discovery from the
opposing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). The party moving to compel discovery has
the initial burden of proving the requested discovery is relevant and
proportional. Douglas v. Kohl’s Dept. Stores, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-1185-ACC-T_S,
2016 WL 1637277, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2016) (quotation and citation
omitted). The responding party must then specifically show how the requested
discovery is unreasonable or unduly burdensome. Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v.
Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559–60 (11th Cir. 1985).
III. ANALYSIS
Manatee County requests two sets of information from Mr. Daniels: (1)
any emails Mr. Daniels sent or received since June 2018 that discuss
improvements to the MCAS shelter that the County was considering making
or the health, safety, well-being, and living conditions of animals at the MCAS
shelter; and (2) copies of Mr. Daniels’ Facebook posts and comments made since
June 2018 in a private “MCAS Dog Walkers Only” Facebook group pertaining
to the MCAS shelter where he volunteered, his volunteer position, the
allegations in his complaint, or County commissioners, administrators,
officials, staff, employees, or agents. (Doc. 30, p. 4–8). Manatee County claims
this information is relevant and proportional to its two of its defenses in this
matter: (1) Mr. Daniels’ Facebook posts contained misleading or false
statements, such that the posts are not protected for First Amendment
retaliation claims, and (2) should Mr. Daniels prevail in his retaliation claims,
he should be barred from reinstatement with MCAS under the after acquired
evidence doctrine. (Id. at ¶ 7). Manatee County alleges Mr. Daniels knew
MCAS was funding improvements to their outdoor kennels and Mr. Daniels’
failure to mention these pending improvements supports their claim that Mr.
Daniels’ Facebook posts were false or misleading. (Id. at 10). Manatee County
further claims Mr. Daniel’s emails and Facebook posts are relevant to its after
acquired evidence defense because they establish a pre-existing basis for Mr.
Daniels’ termination “that would preclude Daniels from being reinstated to his
volunteer position even if he prevails on the issue of liability.” (Id. at 17).
Mr. Daniels’ emails and Facebook posts are relevant and proportional to
Manatee County’s defenses against liability. One facet of Mr. Daniels’
retaliation claim is whether his “interests as a citizen outweighed the interests
of the State as an employer.” Vila v. Padron, 484 F.3d 1334, 1339 (11th Cir.
2007). For this balancing test, the Supreme Court has “recognized as pertinent
considerations whether the statement impairs discipline by superiors or
harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working
relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, or
impedes the performance of the speaker’s duties or interferes with the regular
operation of the enterprise.” Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 388, 107 S.Ct.
2891, 2899, 97 L. Ed. 2d 315 (1987). Each of these considerations is materially
affected by whether Mr. Daniels was spreading misleading or false information
about his volunteer work for MCAS to third parties via email or Facebook
posts. See Stanley v. City of Dalton, 219 F.3d 1280, 1290 n. 18 (11th Cir. 2000)
(citing Chappel v. Montgomery County Fire Protection Dist. No. 1, 131 F.3d 564,
576 (6th Cir. 1997)) “[A]lthough protection may not be available when a public
employee knowingly or recklessly makes false statements, it is the defendants’
burden to establish that [the plaintiff] knew or was recklessly indifferent to
the fact that his speech was false”).
Mr. Daniels asserts several responses, none of which outweigh the
relevance or proportionality of Manatee County’s requests. Mr. Daniels
excerpts portions of Ms. Davis’ deposition, alleging Ms. Davis did not
materially dispute the truth of any statement made in Mr. Daniels’ Facebook
posts. (Doc. 37, p. 9–11). Mr. Daniels claims this renders Manatee County’s
defense “legally and factually untenable.” (Id. at 9). Mr. Daniels further
excerpts portions of his termination letter, claiming “the general gist” of the
letter “is not false.” (Id. at 12). However, the existence of some potentially
contradictory evidence does not negate the relevance of discoverable
information.
Mr. Daniels further argues Manatee County’s requests unduly burden
his privacy rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id. at 15–19).
Mr. Daniels claims any efforts to compel him to turn over private Facebook
posts could chill his “right to freely associate and communicate with other
volunteers at MCAS about the County and the shelter.” (Id. at 17). But social
media content is generally “neither privileged nor protected by any right of
privacy.” Matter of the Complaint of Paradise Family, LLC, No. 8:20-cv-2056-
TPB-AAS, 2021 WL 2186459, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 28, 2021) (citing Davenport
v. State Farm. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 3:11-cv-632-J-JBT, 2012 WL 555759, at
*1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2012)). As with other forms of discovery, social media
content is subject to the general “threshold showing that the discovery is
relevant to a party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.”
Id. (citing Rollins v. Banker Lopez & Gassler, No. 8:19-cv-2336-VMC-SPF,
2020 WL 1939396, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 22, 2020)). While the private nature
of the “MCAS Dog Walkers Only” Facebook page raises the burden Manatee
County must meet for compelling the disclosure of this information, the
narrowness and specificity of Manatee County’s requests undermine the
argument that the requests are unduly burdensome. See Palma v. Metro PCS
Wireless, Inc., 18 F. Supp. 3d 1346, 1348 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (balancing the
defendant’s speculation on the existence of potentially discoverable
information with the plaintiffs’ burden of producing social media posts, some
of which were “protected from public view”). Mr. Daniels has therefore not
established Manatee County’s requests are unreasonable or unduly
burdensome.
IV. CONCLUSION
Because the court concludes Manatee County’s requests at issue request
information relevant to their defenses against lability, the court need not
resolve whether Mr. Daniels’ emails and private Facebook posts are
discoverable for purposes of Manatee County’s after acquired evidence defense.
Manatee County’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 30) is GRANTED. Mr. Daniels must
produce the emails and Facebook posts and comments no later than January
24, 2022.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 12, 2022.
Aranda. Agne Ah Sano
AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE
United States Magistrate Judge