In Facebook v. Superior Court (2015) _Cal.App.4th__, decided on September 8, 2015, in a petition for a writ of mandate, each of the Defendants served a subpoena duces tecum on one or more of the petitioners seeking both public and private content from user accounts of the murder victim and a witness. Petitioners moved to quash the subpoenas, objecting under the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA or Act) (§ 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.) to the compelled disclosure of the content of their users’ electronic communications.
Section 2702(a) provides that electronic communication services “shall not knowingly divulge” the contents of a user communication to anyone, with limited exceptions (§ 2702(b)). Defendants responded that the requested information is necessary to properly defend against the pending charges, and that any statutory privacy protections afforded a social media user must yield to a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights to due process, presentation of a complete defense, and effective assistance of counsel.
The trial court denied petitioners’ motions to quash and ordered petitioners to produce responsive material for in camera review. Petitioners filed the instant petition for writ of mandate and/or prohibition in this court. The Court of Appeal issued an order staying the production order and requested opposition.
After consideration of Defendants’ answer, and petitioners’ reply thereto, The Court of Appeal denied Defendants’ request to dissolve the temporary stay and issued an order requiring the respondent superior court to show cause why the relief requested by petitioners should not be granted. The appellate court granted the petition and directed the trial court to issue an order quashing the subpoenas.
However, the appellate court noted that “our ruling is limited to the pretrial context in which the trial court’s order was made” - which was precisely one day before trial. And the appellate court adds, “Nothing in this opinion would preclude Defendants from seeking at trial the production of the materials sought here (or petitioners again seeking to quash subpoenas), where the trial court would be far better equipped to balance the Defendants’ need for effective cross-examination and the policies the SCA is intended to serve.
copyright © 2015 Christine Esser
The information contained here is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Information on this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Christine Esser. An attorney-client relationship is only established when a written retainer has been signed.
No comments:
Post a Comment