New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Twitter Admissibility — Third Party Tweet Admissible for Effect on Reader (to Explain Reader’s Subsequent Behavior), Not for Its Truth

Download PDF

R.L. v. Central York Sch. Dist., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58446 (M.D. Pa. May 3, 2016):

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Our recitation of the procedural history of the instant matter is abbreviated, as it is recounted solely for the benefit of the parties, who are familiar with the matter.

R.L., a minor, by and through his parents, Michael Lordan and Jill Lordan, commenced this action by filing a Complaint on March 11, 2014, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his First Amendment free speech rights and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. (Doc. 1). The Complaint also includes [*2]  a state law claim for violation of R.L.'s free speech rights under the Pennsylvania Code.

On May 12, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, requesting dismissal of all counts of Plaintiffs' Complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. (Doc. 14). On October 15, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. We dismissed the claims against Defendant Jeffrey Hamme, but gave leave to amend. We dismissed, without leave to amend, the claims against Defendants Hamme and Michael Snell in their official capacities. The motion was denied in all other respects. We gave leave to Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint consistent with our Opinion, but they chose to not do so within the permitted time frame.

On September 1, 2015, Plaintiffs and Defendants each filed a motion for summary judgment. (Docs. 49, 54). The motions have been fully briefed and statements of undisputed material facts have been filed and responded to. (Docs. 50, 52, 55, 61, 62, 66). Therefore, the motions are ripe for our review.

***

III. FACTUAL SUMMARY

The following facts are undisputed by the parties: At the time of the incident at the center of this action, R.L. was a 15-year-old student in the ninth grade at Central York High School, ("the High School"), located in the Defendant Central York School District, ("the School District"). Defendant Michael Snell was at all relevant times the Superintendent of the School District. There are approximately 1,700 students and 200 staff members at the High School. (Doc. 52, ¶ 17).

On October 23, 2013, administrators at the High School received a bomb threat. (Id., ¶ 2). Specifically, a student had reported at 8:30 a.m. that morning that he had found a note which read, "there is a bomb in the school."1 (Id., ¶ 18). The High School administration immediately began investigating the threat and notified the Springettsbury Township Police of the threat, as well. (Id., ¶ 20). Approximately twenty (20) police officers [*5]  responded to the bomb threat that day. (Id., ¶ 21).

1   To be clear, it is undisputed by the parties that this initial morning note qualified as a bomb threat.

Students and staff of the High School were evacuated from the school building to the regular fire drill locations at approximately 9:15 a.m.; these fire drill locations were intended to be temporary as school administrators were sent to the school stadium to search it and determine whether it was safe for everyone to be moved there. (Id., ¶¶ 23-24). Additionally, the School District notified the school community and parents about the bomb threat and evacuation. (Id., ¶ 25). Gas lines at the school were disconnected as a precaution. (Id., ¶ 26).

The students were ultimately moved to the baseball field, a decision made by Superintendent Snell. (Id., ¶ 33). This change of procedure was due to the fact that another student had posted on the social networking website Twitter, in the form of a "tweet," that "the bomb is supposedly in the stadium."2 (Id., ¶¶ 32-33). The State Police Canine Unit arrived at 10:30 a.m.; based on the amount of time required for a complete and thorough search of the school, Superintendent Snell decided to cancel [*6]  school for the day. (Id., ¶ 34). The students, including R.L., were dismissed and sent home at approximately 11:30 a.m. (Id., ¶ 2).

2   Plaintiffs deny this "tweet" as immaterial hearsay. However, we do not find this evidence to qualify as hearsay. It is not being offered for truth of the matter asserted--that there was a bomb in the stadium--but instead to explain Defendant Snell's reaction and decision to move the students to the baseball field instead of the stadium. Regardless, the evidence of this tweet is not particularly material to our disposition of the pending motions.

The police did not find a bomb during their search, and concluded their search of the school building around 1:30 p.m. (Id., ¶ 38).

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice