These days, ignoring social media evidence in investigations and litigation is akin to leaving a crucial witness unquestioned. But as the case of Federico v. Lincoln Military Housing demonstrates, navigating this terrain can be a costly minefield.

In the case of Federico v. Lincoln Military House, the critical importance of proportionality of social media content to be disclosed during discovery is discussed—and highlights the severe financial penalties of getting it wrong. 

The plaintiffs in this case included eight families that were filing suit against Lincoln for injuries due to black mold growing on their properties. Prior to the suit, complaints about the black mold including photos were posted on Facebook. 

The plaintiffs were directed to preserve and produce the electronic records concerning the condition of their homes and illnesses. The families produced a few emails and Facebook posts, however the court and the defence found the evidence insufficient, leading to a motion to compel broader social media discovery.

The plaintiffs vehemently resisted this motion and argued that they would need the assistance of a forensic expert to effectively gather and preserve the relevant evidence — at an estimated cost of $22,450.

The court provided the following direction to the parties:

This data is available to them and they should be able to get it, and it's crazy to have to pay somebody $22,000.00 to do what they should be able to do within a matter of an hour or an hour and a half of looking through their own files. And if they are unwilling to do that, then I will entertain a request for sanctions. And those sanctions may include the cost of having a professional engaged to produce them. So you should share your cost estimate with your clients, because it is within the Court's power, if there has been noncompliance, to order them to pay those costs .... I'm going to require that they produce those materials and an explanation of how they examined their own social media and email accounts to generate the responsive materials. So if they're producing zero, there had better be a very detailed explanation of where they looked.

Finally, the plaintiffs produced the results of their search, including 5000 records from social media. However, the defendants claimed the production was not complete. And despite the steep investment of hiring a forensic expert, most of the additional social media evidence produced was merely duplicative to what already previously been provided to the court. Though the plaintiffs' requested the defendants bear the cost for the electronic production, the court disagreed because a thorough self-directed search should have yielded sufficient results. 

The judge lamented "the difficulty the Court will inevitably face in trying to achieve the proportionality required by Rule 26(b)(2)(C) in electronic discovery of social media." Ultimately, the plaintiff was sanctioned for failing to adequately produce social media data, resulting in:

• $29,000 for forensic expert costs, imposed as a sanction for "deterring further noncompliance."
• $65,000 for attorney's fees, awarded under Rule 37(a) for failure to cooperate in discovery.

This case showed that by failing to preserve and present social media data to the courts in a timely manner, the plaintiffs incurred avoidable sanctions of almost $90,000.

The Limits of Social Media Discovery

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly Rule 26(b)(2)(C), outline the limitations of electronic discovery (ESI). This rule states that parties are not required to provide ESI from sources deemed "not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost."

However, even if undue burden or cost is proven, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause. This Federal Rule of Evidence states that in response to a motion, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed if it finds:

• the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;
• the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or
• the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering a multitude of factors including the needs of the case, the parties’ resources, the potential controversy, the importance of the issues at stake, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.

Rule 37 further reinforces these principles by detailing sanctions for failure to make disclosures or cooperate in discovery.

Social Media eDiscovery Costs on the Rise

E-Discovery costs rising are in large part due to the explosion in volume and complexity of electronically stored information (ESI), making it increasingly challenging to manage eDiscovery efficiently. 

In 2025, the ediscovery market size is expected to grow to over $15 billion, and could reach over $22 billion in the next five years. Meanwhile, there is not much guidance from courts regarding skyrocketing prices, and many firms have been forced to pass rising costs on to their clients.

The Federico v. Lincoln Military Housing case serves as a critical lesson: in the age of digital evidence, a reactive approach to social media discovery can be disastrous. Legal professionals must prioritize proactive strategies for data preservation and collection to mitigate risks and ensure compliance. Exploring efficient, defensible methods for managing online evidence is no longer optional; it's a necessity for navigating the complexities of modern litigation.

How WebPreserver Reduces Social Media eDiscovery Costs

Legal professionals need tools that can streamline eDiscovery and mitigate risks. That's where WebPreserver comes in.

WebPreserver allows you to collect, preserve, and produce defensible evidence from anywhere on the web, including social media, websites, and even the dark web. It is used by thousands of legal professionals, investigators, and law enforcement professionals.

In just two-clicks, our simple browser plugin allows you to:

• Create tamper-proof, evidentiary-quality snapshots of online content
• Automate the capture long timelines while auto-expanding comments and threads
• Authenticate evidence with digital signatures, time stamps, metadata and hash values
• Download the evidence straight to your device and export in a variety of formats, including PDF

By leveraging WebPreserver, you can proactively manage social media discovery, control costs, and protect your clients' interests.

Don't let social media discovery derail your cases. Discover how WebPreserver can help you streamline your eDiscovery process and avoid costly pitfalls.