Status Update: Facebook in the Courtroom - Part II
A few months ago, after reading a couple particularly colorful cases involving Facebook (See, e.g., “No Disguises in Videotaped Depositions”), I wrote a short piece on the explosion of social networking issues in the courtroom. Since then, further examples of the social networking revolution’s influence on the practice of law have surfaced. Case in point, The Association of the City of New York, Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics, Opinion No. 2010-2.
By Service of Process: You Must Actually Serve the Defendant
In the “master of the obvious” category of legal opinions, we have Profitt v. Smoky Mountain Woodcarvers Supply, Inc., 2010 WL 1240975 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2010). Here, the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that, absent service of process on the defendant pursuant to Rule 4 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The Court reaffirmed the principle it stated in Watson v. Garza, 2008 WL 4831300 — there is “no authority in support of [the] contention that . . . ’second-hand’ or ‘passed along’ service of process is authorized under the Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Status Update: Facebook in the Courtroom
With social networking sites like Facebook (which has 350 million members) reaching unprecedented levels of popularity and use, social media seems to be everywhere. The courtroom is no exception. In Maryland, a Mayor challenged her misdemeanor embezzlement conviction after discovering that five jurors “friended” each other on Facebook during the trial. In Arkansas, a $12 million verdict was overturned because a juror used Twitter to update his followers during the trial. And in Florida, the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee ruled that judges should “un-friend” attorneys who might appear before them in court, in order to avoid the appearance of impartiality.
No Disguises in Videotaped Depositions
First of all, a disclaimer — this really happened. A pro se Plaintiff showed up for videotaped deposition wearing a jacket, hood, bushy wig, mustache, and beard, and large black sunglasses. The Defendant then scheduled a second deposition and asked the Court to prohibit the Plaintiff from wearing a disguise. The Plaintiff objected, stating that he believed he was being asked to participate in a pornographic video when, in Plaintiff’s view, opposing counsel asked him to remove his clothes. The Court agreed with the Defendant, ordering the Plaintiff to cooperate in the second deposition by not appearing in a disguise, mask, artificial facial hair, wig, sunglasses, or any other artificial covering of his face and head.
Older Entries