As a result, social networking sites can provide a “treasure trove” of information in litigation. Christopher B. Hopkins, Discovery of Facebook Contents in Florida Cases, 31 No. 2 Trial Advoc. Q. 14 (2012). Levine v. Culligan of Fla., Inc., Case No. 50-2011-CA-010339-XXXXMB, 2013 WL 1100404, at *2-*3 (Fla. 15th Cir.Ct. Jan. 29, 2013). We agree with those cases concluding that, generally, the photographs posted on a social networking site are neither privileged nor protected by any right of privacy, regardless of any privacy set tings that the user may have established. See 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); see also Patterson v. Turner Constr. Co., 88 A.D.3d 617, 931 N.Y.S.2d 311, 312 (N.Y.App.2011) (<HOLDING>). Such posted photographs are unlike medical
holding that not only must discovery requests be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to case but discovery requests may not be used as fishing expedition or to impose unreasonable discovery expenses on opposing party holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law holding that the postings on plaintiffs online facebook account if relevant are not shielded from discovery merely because plaintiff used the services privacy settings to restrict access holding that language in a merrill lynch customer account agreement that the plaintiff signed upon opening the first account  providing for arbitration of any controversy  arising out of its business  applied to the disputed second account even though the plaintiff did not sign a separate customer account agreement for the second account holding that the plaintiff bears the burden when relying on the discovery rule