LR5’s Loveless subpoenas Facebook for info on parents, teacher, attorney, media
A Midlands lawsuit over Facebook comments could soon involve even more accounts on the global social network.
Social media giant Facebook has been issued subpoenas for information on several people in connection to a lawsuit brought by Lexington-Richland 5 school board member Ken Loveless against Kevin Scully, a social media critic of Loveless who is now a candidate for the school board himself.
The subpoenas seek Facebook information from 31 individuals and seven Facebook groups.
Among them are Scully and Leslie Stiles, administrator of a Facebook group also targeted by Loveless in a separate lawsuit; Kim Benson, who filed an ethics complaint against Loveless; former school board member Beth Hutchison; Mary Wood, a Lexington-Richland 5 schoolteacher and daughter of former Chapin High School principal and school board candidate Mike Satterfield, as well as Tucker Player, an attorney who represented Wood and others in depositions in the lawsuit; and Adam Benson, a reporter for The Sun News of Myrtle Beach, and reporter Bristow Marchant of The State Media Co., who have both covered the Lexington-Richland 5 school district. Benson covered the district when he reported for the Post and Courier’s Columbia bureau. Other parents and residents of the school district are also caught up in the request.
Among the Facebook pages subpoenaed are Stiles’ Deep Dive Into D5, which has been paused since the lawsuit was filed; Learn About Lex/Rich 5, D5 Citizens for Open Government, One D5, Restoring Excellence in D5 (formerly the D5 Dumpster Fire), Primary Stakeholders of LexRich5, and Explore Lexington Richland District 5 BOT.
The subpoenas were sent to San Mateo County, California, the home of Facebook parent company Meta. The subpoena states that “you are commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects in your possession, custody or control” by Sept. 30.
Stiles attorney Chris Kenney said the requests were “improper.”
“What it is is further evidence that Loveless is abusing the legal process to investigate things that have nothing to do with his claims against my client,” Kenney said.
Scully, the husband of a Lexington-Richland 5 schoolteacher, was sued in March for allegedly defamatory statements he made about Loveless on Facebook. The lawsuit cites critical comments Scully made about Loveless and the school board, as well as calling Loveless “Crooked Ken” and “Wow, he is a loser.” Stiles was sued at the same time in part because Scully is accused of making some of the comments in Stiles’ Facebook group focused on Lexington-Richland 5.
Kenney said he was unsure what Loveless’ attorneys are seeking with the subpoenas, but speculated they could be seeking privately posted material or direct messages that could not be seen by simply visiting the Facebook pages in question.
He said the request shows Loveless’ goal in the suit is to “harass his enemies, real or imaginary.”
Drew Radeker, attorney for Scully, could not be reached for comment Friday morning.
This is not the only case involving Loveless and subpoenas. His attorneys are also seeking under-oath depositions from multiple people connected to the school district in a pending ethics case against him, including the head of a construction company contracted with the district to build a school, a former board member Loveless has clashed with and a former attorney for the school district.
Lawyers for all three asked the S.C. Ethics Commission this week to drop the subpoenas, arguing the men have no information relevant to the charges that Loveless took government action as a board member involving Contract Construction after his company received a contract with the firm for a job outside the school district. They argue the subpoenas are simply meant to harass their clients.
Loveless attorney Desa Ballard declined to discuss the subpoenas when contacted by The State. A request for comment from Facebook was not immediately returned.
“Neither my client nor I intend to comment publicly on anything about this or any other case nor do we believe it appropriate to use the media to perpetuate private agendas,” Ballard wrote in an email. “And in case you don’t know, lawyers are subject to rules regarding what they can and cannot say to the press because of the risk of prejudice to the litigants in the form of poisoning the well of potential fact finders. Litigation is not supposed to be conducted in the media. But as you know there are lots of other people who will be delighted to comment on this, lawyers included I am sure.”
This story was originally published September 9, 2022 at 2:33 PM.
.jpg)