Background
In this dissolution proceeding, Sarah Wishnek Metalonis sought to relocate with the parties’ two children. David Christopher Metalonis sought text messages between Sarah and her mother, arguing they would support his theory that the two had colluded to reunite in Ohio and that the proposed move was not in the children’s best interests.
David first requested all mother-daughter texts from October 2021 onward, and later subpoenaed the mother for all such messages from January 1, 2024, through production. Sarah objected and sought a protective order, asserting that the requests invaded both women’s privacy and were overbroad. The circuit court denied protection and ordered production of all requested messages.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District granted certiorari and quashed both discovery orders. A party seeking private electronically stored information must show a necessity that outweighs the affected privacy interests, and the trial court must balance the need for discovery against those interests.
Here, the orders compelled more than two years of private communications between a mother and daughter without any meaningful relevance limitation, keyword search, or narrower time restriction. The record and orders showed no required balancing, despite Sarah’s proposals for less intrusive alternatives. Litigation-use and disposal provisions did not cure the privacy invasion once the communications were produced.
Key Takeaways
- Broad demands for private text messages require a demonstrated need that outweighs privacy interests.
- Trial courts must tailor electronic discovery and consider less intrusive alternatives.
- Confidentiality-style limits on later use do not eliminate the harm from compelled disclosure of irrelevant private messages.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that family-law discovery does not permit unfettered access to private electronic communications merely because a party alleges relevance. Parties seeking texts or similar data should identify a concrete need and propose focused limits tied to the issues in dispute.