ORDER

G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs Jacqueline and William Orr sued defendant Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc., for physical injury and loss of consortium after a fitting room door fell on Jacqueline at a Savannah, Georgia Macy's store. Several motions are currently pending before the Court.

A. MOTIONS TO COMPEL

Motions to compel are governed by the rules of discovery, which

Daniel Def., Inc. v. Remington Arms Co., LLC, 2015 WL 6142883 at *2 (S.D. Ga. Oct. 19, 2015) (cites and quotes omitted).1

1. Macy's Internal Incident Reports

Plaintiffs served discovery requesting "documents, work orders and/or customer incident reports" referencing fitting room doors "falling or coming unattached" for all Macy's stores for the past ten years. Doe 42, Exh. A. Macy's objected to the request as "overly broad in time and scope, unduly burdensome," and as seeking "information that is irrelevant." Id., Exh. B. Plaintiffs then narrowed their request to the past four years in only Macy's Southeast region. Id., Exhs. C & D. Macy's again objected that the request was overbroad and sought irrelevant information, as there are at least 70 regional stores to be searched and this case involves only a "wear and tear" maintenance issue local only to the Savannah location. See doe. 42, Exh. E. Plaintiffs contend that the evidence of prior, similar accidents is relevant to Macy's negligence. Does. 42, 51.

Evidence of prior accidents or occurrences is admissible "to show, for example `notice, magnitude of the danger involved, the party's] ability to correct a known defect, the lack of safety for intended uses, strength of a product, the standard of care, and causation." Heath v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 126 F.3d 1391, 1396, 1396 (11th Cir. 1997) (quoting Jones v. Otis Elevator Co., 861 F.2d 655, 661 (11th Cir.1988)). The "substantial similarity" doctrine does not require identical circumstances, and allows for some play in the joints depending on the scenario presented and the desired use of the evidence. Sorrels v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., 796 F.3d 1275, 1287 (11th Cir. 2015); Borden, Inc. v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 772 F.2d 750 (11th Cir. 1985).

"Because of the potential prejudicial impact of prior accidents, courts have developed limitations governing their admissibility. First, conditions substantially similar to the occurrence in question must have caused the prior accident. . . . Second, the prior accident must not have occurred too remote in time." Jones v. Otis Elevator Co., 861 F.2d at 661-62. The entitlement to discovery concerning other incidents, however, does not require a party to lay the same foundation of substantial similarity as would be necessary to support admission into evidence. See, e.g., Ree v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., F.R.D. 2016 WL 1576350 at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2016); Lahr v. Stanley-Bostitch, Inc., 135 F.R.D. 162, 164-65 (W.D. Mich. 1991); Uitts v. General Motors Corp., 58 F.R.D. 450, 452-53 (E.D. Pa. 1972). For discovery purposes, a court need only find that the circumstances surrounding the other accidents or products are "similar enough" that discovery concerning those incidents is reasonably calculated to lead to the uncovering of "substantially similar" occurrences. See, e.g., A.H. ex rel. Hadjih v. Evenflo Co., 2011 WL 3684807 at *4 (D. Cob. Aug. 23, 2011); Kramer v. Boeing Co., 126 F.R.D. 690, 692-95 (D. Minn. 1989); see also Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985) ("Rule 26 provides that the proper scope of discovery is not limited to information admissible at trial, but can also include information `reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.").

The problem for plaintiffs is that even under the relaxed discovery standard their prima Thcie showing for discoverability fails. They seek "all documents, work orders and/or customer incident reports, which reference fitting room and/or dressing room doors and/or frames falling or coming unattached from either their frames, hinges, and/or privacy panels" for "the past four (4) years for all Macy's stores in the Macy's Southeastern division." Doc. 42, Exhs. A & C. To satisfy the substantial similarly doctrine a past incident must be reasonably related in terms of location and condition. But this request is not so limited. It seeks production of a broad swath of data that is potentially irrelevant to the allegations of the Complaint.2

Plaintiffs' request ostensibly requires production of any document in any way related to dressing room door maintenance, replacement, damage, complaints, and injuries in any store in the Southeast division of Macy's. Meanwhile, their Second Amended Complaint alleges that at this one store, Macy's failed to adequately inspect/maintain its fitting room doors. There are no allegations that the same maintenance policy is applied or the same maintenance crew inspects/maintains dressing room doors at each Macy's store in the corporate Southeast region. See also doe. 55, Exh. I (Deposition of Maintenance Worker Kimsey Rutland) (testifying that he is the only maintenance person at the Savannah location). Meaning, the conditions that led to the dressing room door falling on Jacqueline likely vary dramatically from store to store (a broken hinge here, a cracked door frame there, etc.). Discovery on these stores, then, is not probative to demonstrating Macy's negligence at this store.

Macy's objection is therefore sustained because plaintiffs have not shown even on a "similar enough" basis how this broad request is permissible based on the location or conditions alleged in the Complaint. See, e.g., Sorrels, 796 F.3d at 1287 (affirming exclusion of past incidents where "none of them occurred where [plaintiff] fell[,]" "the liquids that the other passengers slipped on differed[,]" and "in some of the other incidents there were other factors involved"). Plaintiffs must tether their request to the particular store where the accident occurred, and limit their document sweep to dressing room doors. See doe. 25 (Second Amended Complaint) at ¶¶ 4-5. For that matter, it appears that most, if not all, of this data has already been produced. See doe. 42, Exh. E (Macy's has already produced "all customer incident reports (including any photographs) involving fitting room doors for the four years prior to the Orr incident").

2. Macy's Financials

Plaintiffs served document requests on Macy's Retail Holdings, seeking tax returns and year-end profit and loss statements, balance sheets, and general ledgers for "all" of its "affiliates and subsidiaries from 2011 through the present," including those prepared on behalf of its Savannah store. Doe. 55, Exh. A. Macy's objected that such information was irrelevant and immaterial to the case, particularly given that plaintiffs have not demonstrated "a factual basis exists for any punitive damages claim." Id., Exh. B (citing Coach, Inc. v. Hubert Keller, Inc., 911 F.Supp.2d 1303 (S.D. Ga. 2012)). Plaintiffs contend that they have alleged facts supporting a punitive damages award and are entitled to discovery of Macy's financial information. Doc. 55.

"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense. . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This rule is to be broadly construed with all doubts resolved in favor of open discovery. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc., v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (relevancy is "construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case"); see also National Serv. Ind., Inc. v. Vafla Corp., 694 F.2d 246, 250 (11th Cir. 1982). Tax returns and private financial data enjoy some protection from discovery, and most courts require a clear and compelling showing to justify disclosure.3 The dispute here is whether plaintiffs have adequately alleged facts supporting a punitive damages award, so that Macy's financial resources would be relevant and discoverable.

Punitive damages may be awarded where a defendant's actions show "willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, or that entire want of care which would raise the presumption of conscious indifference to consequences." O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1. In Georgia,

At best, plaintiffs allege that Macy's negligently inspected and maintained its fitting room doors at the Oglethorpe store. Even crediting their allegation of two similar incidents at the same store, the case does not rise above gross negligence. As discussed above, plaintiffs already have the Savannah store's incident reports regarding fitting room doors. Yet, they have not alleged that these two incidents were caused by the same conditions as the one which injured Jacqueline. See doc. 55, Exh. I (Rutland Depo.), pp. 86:21-87:20) (the cause of the August 2014 boys' fitting room door incident was unknown), Exh. J (Deposition of Sales Manager Kim Donaldson) at 87:1-5, 94:15-23 (admitting the July 2014 Women's World fitting room door incident also involved "a certain level of similarity" to the Orr incident, in that "[t]hey both involved fitting room doors falling on a client"), Exh. L (Deposition of Administrate Team Member Sharon Kearney) at 34:4-12 (she did not know why either the boys' or Women's World fitting room doors fell).

Despite characterizing this as a "plethora of evidence" supporting their punitive damages claim, two "similar" incidents caused by unknown conditions are not sufficient evidence to support their punitive damages claim. Absent such a minimal showing, Macy's financial information is irrelevant to the action and disclosure is unwarranted. "The parties should not be permitted to roam in shadow zones of relevancy and to explore a matter which does not presently appear germane on the theory that it might conceivably become so." Lemanik v. McKinley A/lsopp, Inc., 125 F.R.D. 602, 609 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). Plaintiffs therefore are not entitled to that information.

3. Surveillance Videos

Jacqueline has testified that, as a result of her injuries, she has pain running up her arm into the side of her neck and face, is limited in her daily activities, and is unable to think clearly due to the pain. Doe. 53, Exh. 1 (Deposition of Jacqueline Orr) at 79:14-24, 87:24-88:6, 109:11-17. Macy's hired private investigators to surveil Jacqueline, then disclosed their names in supplemental responses to discovery. Plaintiffs seek production of this video. Doe. 55 (motion to compel production). Macy's opposes, arguing that impeachment video need not be produced.4 Doe. 59 (motion to quash and for a protective order).

Rule 26(b)(1) allows discovery of "any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action." "Obviously files which would tend to show a plaintiffs physical condition, how he moves, and the restrictions which are his, are highly relevant — perhaps they will establish the most important facts in the entire case." Snead v. Am. Export-Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 59 F.R.D. 148, 150 (E.D. Pa. 1973). Therefore, the surveillance materials can be discovered5 if they are not privileged.

Macy's invokes the work product privilege for its surveillance data. The work product doctrine, found in Rule 26(b)(3), was adopted to codify the rule formulated in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), that attorney work product would be accorded a limited immunity from discovery. Joyner v. Continental Insurance Companies, 101 F.R.D. 414, 415 (S.D. Ga. 1983). The burden is on the party asserting it to establish (1) that the material sought to be withheld from disclosure consists of documents or tangible things, (2) prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, (3) by or for another party or by or for that party's representative. City Consumer Services, Inc. v. Home, 100 F.R.D. 740, 747 (D. Utah 1983).

Work product under Rule 26(b)(3) can be separated into two types, "one of which is `absolutely' immune from discovery and the other only qualifiedly immune." Nat'l Union Fire Ins. v. Murray Sheet Metal, 967 F.2d 980, 983 (4th Cir. 1992). The "mental impressions, conclusions, opinions [and] legal theories . . . concerning the litigation" are absolutely protected from discovery while discovery of other forms of work product is permitted upon a showing of substantial need. Id.

Macy's contends that the surveillance photographs, video, and audio are protected work product that contains the "mental impressions of the investigators or [] is otherwise protected by the work product doctrine." Doc. 59. at 7-8. As discussed by the court in Ward:

Ward v. GSX Transp., Inc., 161 F.R.D. 38, 40 (E.D.N.C. 1995). The Court is swayed by reasoning in Ward that, on balance, the interests of justice are best served by disclosure of the surveillance materials. Macy's concerns that plaintiffs may be aided by the disclosure, so that they conform their trial testimony to the surveillance video, are unconvincing. As set forth in Ward, "[d]efendant may insure the impeachment value of the surveillance by taking a video deposition prior to disclosure of the surveillance materials. In that deposition, defendant may carefully examine plaintiff about her injuries and disabilities and even require him to demonstrate the alleged limitations of motions on videotape.6 Inconsistencies between that deposition and the surveillance materials can [then] be used to impeach the plaintiff at trial." Ward, 161 F.R.D. at 41.

As to the scope of the disclosure required, however, the Court agrees with Macy's that much of the materials prepared by its hired investigators may be protected work product, to the extent that it actually contains mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and/or legal theories. Therefore, the Court ORDERS Macy's to produce the raw footage, photographs, and video recording of plaintiffs — to the extent such materials did not capture any protected communications or mental impressions. If any portion of the surveillance materials did capture such communications or mental impressions (i.e., one of the investigators is overheard discussing litigation strategy with defense counsel, or a photograph shows some handwritten notes summarizing that strategy), counsel may excise that portion and prepare a privilege log identifying why that portion has not been produced. Plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of Macy's surveillance documents is therefore GRANTED IN PART.

B. PROTECTIVE ORDER

Macy's served a subpoena duces tee urn on Facebook, seeking plaintiffs' personal profile pages, Facebook friends, timeline posts, photographs, updates, comments, and messages from April 2, 2015 through the present. See doe. 44, Exh. B. Macy's contends that these posts are discoverable and relevant to Jacqueline Orr's allegations of pain and suffering, including her allegation that her active lifestyle has been curtailed by her pain and that she has been unable to socialize, attend concerts, travel, or participate in activities with her husband and friends. Doe. 52. Plaintiffs seek a protective order quashing the subpoena. Doc. 44.

As a threshold matter, the Court must consider whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge the subpoenas at issue. They must assert a personal right or privilege with respect to the subject matter of the materials subpoenaed. Stevenson v. Stanley Bostich, Inc., 201 F.R.D. 551, 555 n. 3 (N.D. Ga. 2001) (collecting cases). In that the photos and Facebook data pursued are personal to the plaintiffs, they have standing to oppose Macy's subpoena to Facebook. See Crispin v. Christian Audiger, Inc., 717 F.Supp.2d 965 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ("an individual has a personal right in information in his or her profile and inbox on a social networking site . . . sufficient to confer standing to move to quash a subpoena seeking such information."); J.T. Shannon Lumber Co. v. Gilco Lumber, Inc., 2008 WL 3833216 at *1 (N.D. Miss. Aug.14, 2008) (party had standing to challenge subpoenas directed to internet service providers, such as Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google). However, Macy's prevails here.

"Postings on Facebook and other social media present a unique challenge for courts, clue to their relative novelty and their ability to be shared by or with someone besides the original poster." Higgins v. Koch Dev't Corp., 2013 WL 336278 at *2 (S.D. Ind. July 5, 2013); Palma v. Metro PCS Wireless, Inc., 18 F.Supp.3d 1346, 1347 M.D. Fla. 2014) ("Social media content is neither privileged nor protected by any right of privacy").

There is a split of authority in this area. Some courts require a threshold relevance showing, based on a plaintiffs publicly available profile, prior to compelling production of information from her private social media profile. See Palma, 18 F. Supp. 3d at 1347-48; Tompkins v. Detroit Metro. Airport, 278 F.R.D. 387, 388.89 (E.D. Mich. 2012) (denying discovery as overly broad where publicly available information was not inconsistent with the plaintiffs claims); Thompson v. Autoliv ASP, Inc., 2012 WL 2342928 *4 (D. Nev. June 20, 2012) (allowing discovery where material obtained by defendant from plaintiffs public Facebook account negated her allegations that her social networking site accounts were irrelevant); Romano v. Steelcase, Inc., 907 N.Y.S.2d 650, 653-57 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010) (finding it reasonable to infer from the limited postings on the plaintiffs public social media profile pages that her private pages might contain material that was relevant to her claims). This showing is considered necessary because a "[d]efendant does not have a generalized right to rummage at will through information that [p]laintiff has limited from public view," and absent some "threshold showing that the requested information is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," a "[d]efendant would be allowed to engage in the proverbial fishing expedition, in the hope that there might be something of relevance in [p]laintiffs Facebook account." Tompkins, 278 F.R.D. at 387-88.

The Court, however, is unconvinced that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a "threshold showing" that relevant evidence already exists before a party can request production of that same relevant evidence. See Giacchetto v. Patchogue-Medlord Union Free Sch. Dist., 293 F.R.D. 112, 114 n. 1 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (noting that the Federal Rules of Civil procedure "do not require a party to prove the existence of relevant material before requesting it" and concluding that following such a rule would "improperly shield[] from discovery the information of Facebook users who do not share any information publicly.").

Because Jacqueline's physical condition and the Orrs' quality of life are both at issue in this ease, see doe. 25 (Second Amended Complaint), plaintiffs' Facebook postings7 reflecting physical capabilities and activities inconsistent with their injuries are relevant and discoverable. Giacchetto, 293 F.R.D. at 114; Higgins, 2013 WL 3366278 at *2 (permitting production of plaintiffs' Facebook content that "may reveal relevant information as to the extent their injuries have impacted their `enjoyment of life, ability to engage in outdoor activities, and employment,' along with their `claims regarding permanent injuries, lack of pre-existing symptoms, and impairment of future earnings capacity."); Howell v. Buckeye Ranch, Inc., 2012 WL 5265170 at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 1, 2012) (permitting production of "interrogatories and document requests that seek information from the social medial accounts that is relevant to the [parties'] claims and defenses"); Davenport v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 2012 WL 555759 at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2012) (ordering production of Facebook photographs depicting plaintiff since date of alleged accident since plaintiffs physical condition was at issue).8 Plaintiffs therefore are not entitled to a protective order quashing the subpoena issued to Facebook, Inc.

C. CONCLUSION

In sum, plaintiffs motions to compel production of incident reports (doc. 42) is DENIED, production of Macys' financial and surveillance records (doc. 55) is GRANTED in part, and Macy's motion to quash and for a protective order (doe. 59) is DENIED in part. Macy's is therefore ORDERED to produce the raw surveillance footage/photographs/audio taken of Jacqueline Orr, except those portions containing privileged work product. In that case, those portions shall be excised (in the case of video or audio recording) or omitted from production (in the case of photographs), and a privilege log cataloguing the excised portions prepared and produced along with the surveillance materials.

Finally, plaintiffs' motion for a protective order quashing the subpoena to Facebook, Inc. (doe. 44) is DENTED. Given the Complaint's allegations, the Court further concludes that Macy's sufficiently limited its request for: (1) all photographs posted by plaintiffs or in which they are tagged; (2) all comments to those photographs; (3) all posts by plaintiffs relating to social gatherings, sporting events, vacations, and other activities that plaintiffs contend they are unable to engage in or enjoy since the dressing room incident; and (4) any posts referencing their claimed injuries, damages, or loss of enjoyment of life, since April 2, 2015 through the present. Doe. 52, p. 9. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C), each party is to bear their own fees and costs.

SO ORDERED.