Read the case of Nucci v. Target case below. In Nucci, the plaintiff Nucci files

Read the case of Nucci v. Target case below. In Nucci, the plaintiff Nucci files a suit against Target Corporation, alleging that she slipped and fell on a “foreign substance” on the floor of a Target store. Nucci had posted over 1,000 photos on her Facebook account. Nucci elected to make it “private” on her setting which means only her “friends” can see what she posted. Target makes a motion to compel inspection of Nucci’s Facebook page, including the photos. Nucci objects because the privacy settings prevented the general public form having access to it. The court considered a Facebook users expectation of privacy in photos that she posted on balance with the right to discovery in trial.
Prepare an IRAC for the case (Issue, Rule, Application/Analysis, Conclusion – make sure to identify each section with a heading)
Nucci v. Target Corp
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, 162 So.3d 146 (2015)
In a personal injury case, the fact-finder is required to examine the quality of the plaintiff’s life before and after the accident to determine the extent of the loss. From testimony alone, it is often difficult for the fact-finder to grasp what a plaintiff’s life was like prior to an accident. It would take a great novelist, a Tolstoy, a Dickens, or a Hemingway, to use words to summarize the totality of a prior life. If a photograph is worth a thousand words, there is no better portrayal of what an individual’s life was like than those photographs the individual has chosen to share through social media before the occurrence of an accident causing injury. Such photographs are the equivalent of a “day in the life” slide show produced by the plaintiff before the existence of any motive to manipulate reality.
The Florida Constitution expressly protects an individual’s right to privacy. The right to privacy in the Florida Constitution “ensures that individuals are able ‘to determine for themselves when, how and to what extent information about them is communicated to others.’ ” Shaktman v. State, 553 So.2d 148, 150 (Fla.1989) (quoting A. Westin, Privacy and Freedom 7 (1967)).
Before the right to privacy attaches, there must exist a legitimate expectation of privacy. Social networking sites, such as Facebook, are free websites where an individual creates a “profile” which functions as a personal web page and may include, at the user’s discretion, numerous photos and a vast array of personal information including age, employment, education, religious and political views and various recreational interests. Trail v. Lesko, [No. GD–10–017249,] 2012 WL 2864004 (Pa.Com.Pl. July 5, 2012). Once a user joins a social networking site, he or she can use the site to search for “friends” and create linkages to others based on similar interests.
[G]enerally, the photographs posted on a social networking site are neither privileged nor protected by any right of privacy, regardless of any privacy settings that the user may have established. Such posted photographs are unlike medical records or communications with one’s attorney, where disclosure is confined to narrow, confidential relationships. Facebook itself does not guarantee privacy. Romano v. Steelcase, Inc., 30 Misc.3d 426, 907 N.Y.S.2d 650, 656 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.2010). By creating a Facebook account, a user acknowledges that her personal information would be shared with others. Id. at 657. “Indeed, that is the very nature and purpose of these social networking sites else they would cease to exist.”
[T]he expectation that such information is private, in the traditional sense of the word, is not a reasonable one.