Authored By: Edward J. Piasecki

Citation: Terraphase Engineering, Inc., et al. v. Arcadis, U.S., Inc. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Employee/Employer Implicated: In-House and Outside Counsel

e-Lesson Learned: If counsel inadvertently receives an email containing privileged information, reads it, and fails to notify the sender, counsel may be disqualified.

Tweet This: Finders Keepers? What Not to Do With Inadvertently Received Privileged Information

Ever find something you knew did not belong to you, but kept it anyway? If you have, perhaps you did so under the guidance of the old adage “Finders keepers, losers weepers.” The adage can be applied in a multitude of ways to a variety of things. One of the more humorous situations in which this occurs is via the receipt of an inadvertently sent email. Perhaps a colleague, thinking he was writing to his wife, inadvertently sent you an email about shopping at Bed, Bath, and Beyond. Or perhaps another colleague inadvertently hit reply all to an email belittling his boss. If you have spent anytime in the workplace, scenarios like these are all too familiar. When you receive an email like this, it may be the greatest gift the office humor gods can bestow upon you and it must be opened immediately and maybe even saved to embarrass a colleague at some later date. Finders keepers, losers weepers right? Unfortunately, this is not always so. When legal counsel inadvertently receives an email with privileged information, finders keepers can have dire consequences.

Authored By: Frank Gonnello, Jr.

Citation: US v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010)

Employee/Employer Implicated: Law enforcement officers and civillians.

e-Lesson Learned: Whether it's "pervasive mass surveillance of the public by law enforcement agents" or just a more efficient means to an otherwise-legal end, the question of whether warrantless GPS tracking violates the Fourth Amendment rights to a suspect's privacy will be answered soon by the US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Jones.

Tweet This: Supreme Court Deciding Whether to Occupy 1984 -- is your privacy at stake?

On November 8, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments for its review of U.S. v. Jones (U.S. v. Maynard), the Fourth Amendment-focused case which has garnered much attention in the news over the past few weeks. The issue before the Court is whether the warrantless use of a GPS tracking device by the police violates a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. However the implications of this decision can affect our privacy in Orwellian proportions. If you haven't yet heard, U.S. v. Jones is a tale of two District of Columbia night club owners, Antoine Jones and Lawrence Maynard, who went on trial for conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. But while neither Jones nor Maynard deleted files, destroyed hard drives, nor compromised privileged electronic communications, their case has caught the attention of our site because the trial court admitted evidence acquired by the warrantlessuse of a Global Positioning System (GPS) device to track Jones' movements continuously for a month.

Authored By: Michael Tucker Jr.

Citation: ANZ Advanced Technologies, LLC v. Bush Hog, LLC, 2010 WL 3699917 (S.D. Ala. 2010)

Employee/Employer Implicated: Owner/Executive; Employee

e-Lesson Learned: It is important not to misrepresent the dates that documents were actually created because retyped “copies” are not actually copies. Once you go down this path, all your hard drives and storage devices can be physically analyzed and forensic images are just not good enough.

Tweet This: Forensic img of storage device insufficient when what you previously produced was a lie. Get Physical (Hard Drives)

On May 4, 2010, ANZ Advanced Technologies (plaintiff) was ordered to produce all hard drives and storage devices used by two of the company’s officers (Irfan Sheriff and Rakesh Vashee) for forensic analysis and ESI production. ANZ moved to modify the order seeking to substitute forensic images of the devices for the devices themselves. The court refused to allow the use of forensic images and mandated that ANZ turn over the physical storage devices   ANZ was forced to submit its devices for forensic analysis because of misrepresentations made about creation dates of various documents. The court found that ANZ’s conduct cast serious doubt on the authenticity of any document it produced from the hard drives of any computers or other storage devices in the possession of Mr. Sheriff or Mr. Vashee.

Authored By: Michael Tucker Jr.

Citation: In re TMI Litig., 193 F.3d 613 (3d Cir. 1999)

Employee/Employer Implicated: Plaintiffs’ Counsel

e-Lesson Learned: Continuing non-compliance with expert discovery deadlines can result in the loss of a large and important part of your case. This is especially true when a court sets a drop deadline after a party has repeatedly taken advantage of its leniency.

Tweet This: Court Goes Nuclear on Deadline Desperados

This case arises out of the nuclear reactor accident that occurred at the Three-Mile Island Power Plant on March 28, 1979. This 3rd Circuit decision was rendered more than 20 years after the incident and after a complicated procedural history that included multiple filings by thousands of plaintiffs in both state and federal court. Congressional amendment of a statute finally allowed all of the cases to be consolidated in federal court. The main issue decided on appeal was the district court’s exclusion of expert testimony, based on the gatekeeping standards of Daubert, which restricted plaintiffs’ ability to show that they were exposed to radiation sufficient to cause injury. The other issue on appeal was the award of sanctions for violations of pre-trial discovery requirements and orders. As this is an eDiscovery blog, I will be addressing the discovery and sanctions issues rather than the voluminous and complex scientific matters that arose in this nearly 200 page decision.

Authored By: Gina Barbieri

Citation: Rubin v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, 593 N.Y.S. 2d 284 (2nd Dept. 1993)

Employee/Employer Implicated: Owner/Executive, Employee, Patient

e-Lesson Learned: Nonmedical information, not related to the diagnosis or treatment of patients is not protected under the physician-patient privilege in N.Y. C.P.L.R. 4504(a)

Tweet This: How dare that judge order you to incriminate yourself and pay for it! You shouldn’t have to pay for it...

In most personal injury cases it is not unusual for documents to be granted a protective order based upon physician-patient privilege. However, the courts are reluctant to offer protection of materials, which are key to the defense of a lawsuit. This is particularly true when parties to litigation are attempting to claim privilege for documents that would not naturally fall under that protection. The court is weary of medical professionals who abuse this privilege for their own financial gain. Sindey Rubin and his Wife Lucille Munion, appealed an order from the Supreme Court of Nassau County which directed them to release their medical practice’s financial records to opposing counsel. Mr. Rubin alleged he was struck and seriously injured by a vehicle rented from the defendant, Alamo Rent-A-Car. After initiating a lawsuit to recover for his personal injury, Rubin amended his complaint to include his wife as a party to the suit and to include damages for loss of business income as a second cause of action.

Authored By: Eric Abes

Citation: Costantino v. Herzog, 203 F.3d 164 (2nd Cir. 2000)

Employee/Employer Implicated: Judges

e-Lesson Learned: Staying dynamic, some courts are willing to expand rules in the face of new technologies.

Tweet This: Staying dynamic, some courts are willing to expand rules in the face of new technologies.

Law must be stable, and yet it cannot stand still. This quote from Roscoe Pound is the bare essence of this case and the primary challenge to the law in the face of new technologies. As written, the Federal Rules of Evidence provide an exception to the hearsay rule at 803(18) for “statements contained in published treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets.” But what happens to this rule when those same statements are not confined to paper but appear in other media forms such as audio or video files? What happens is the stable law has to be given a nudge forward by the courts so that it does not stand still. Our legislative system is designed to be slow. Great problems require slow and meticulous deliberation but in the end decisions have to be reached one way or the other.

Authored By: Drew Manary

Citation: Radian Asset Assurance, Inc. v. College of Christian Brothers of New Mexico (2010).

Employee/Employer Implicated: Plaintiff (Radian), defendant (College of Christian Brothers of New Mexico) and subsequent owner of defendant’s assets, Laureate Education, Inc.

e-Lesson Learned: If a defendant is compelled to produce unreviewed ESI, defendant shall have to pay for production but plaintiff shall pay for review. Additionally, if privileged information is transferred inadvertently from defendant to plaintiff, the defendant has burden of proving the information was privileged.

Tweet This: Forcing D's to pay for ct-ordered production isn't unreasonable, nor making them est. the inadvertent transf of privl. information

Radian initially filed suit against College of Christian Brothers in September 2009. Two days the filing, defendant (“College”) sold its assets to Laureate Education. As early as March 2010, College subpoenaed Laureate Education for materials obtained in the sale. In August 2010, College received 135 hard drives, 52 backup tapes, and an additional hard drive with information from Laureate Education’s current server. Radian and College had been to court several times over ESI. In September 2010, the Court ordered that College search and produce email from certain tape backups as well as producing 1,219 files Radian had assessed as relevant from Laureate Education’s current hard drive. The dispute in the present matter is whether College should be forced to restore the tape backups and review them at their own expense and whether doing otherwise constitutes unreasonable cost-shifting. Radian makes five arguments in support of this proposition.

Authored By: Jessica K. Rauskolb

Citation: F.T.C. v. First Universal Lending, LLC, 2011 WL 673879 (S.D.Fla.)

Employee/Employer Implicated: Outside Counsel, Miscellaneous

e-Lesson Learned: If you scrub the data off your computers, you can’t blame the other side for destruction of evidence. Your adversary does not have to make sure that you have information to establish your defense.

Tweet This: No Bad Faith? No sanctions. Especially not where the accused party never had control of the later scrubbed PCs

Don’t blame others for your mistakes! If you are given permission by a court appointed receiver to scrub relevant data off your computers to eventually sell them, you can’t blame the other side for spoliation of relevant data that you need to establish your defense - especially not if the other side never had control over the computers with the relevant data! You will not be able to succeed, just ask the defendants in F.T.C. v. First Universal Lending, LLC. In F.T.C. v. First Universal Lending, the F.T.C. investigated the defendants for their mortgage modification practices by alleging that defendants had violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and that defendants had acted in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. For the duration of the investigation, the court appointed a temporary receiver who took control of defendants’ business premises.

Authored By: Fernando M. Pinguelo and Frank Gonnello, Jr.

Tweet This: UPCOMING EVENT: “Law, Technology and Freedom: Emerging Issues” @ the Computer and Technology Law Journal Symposium

The Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal at Rutgers School of Law–Newark will hold its 41st anniversary symposium, titled “Law, Technology and Freedom: Emerging Issues,” on Wednesday and Thursday, October 5 and 6, 2011. George Washington University Law School Professor Orin Kerr, who clerked at the U.S. Supreme Court for Justice Anthony Kennedy, will deliver the keynote address on “How the Internet Is Revolutionizing Criminal Law.” The journal will host a reception for faculty, students, and alumni prior to the reception. Email [email protected] to confirm attendance at the reception and keynote. The following is the symposium schedule:

Authored By: Michael Zoller

Citation: Columbia Pictures Industries v. Bunnell, 2007 WL 2080419 (C.D.Cal., 2007)

Employee/Employer Implicated: Owner/Operator

e-Lesson Learned: Even though data is not maintained permanently, but instead only stored in a web server’s RAM for a matter of hours, it is the operator of the server’s responsibility to preserve that information permanently for the purpose of discovery.

Tweet This: Torrent Website must 'RAM' up its production of electronically stored data

Everybody likes movies. Problem is not everybody likes paying $12+ to see one. As movie prices have gone up, viewers have turned to torrent websites as a way to download and watch movies for free from the comfort of their own homes. Of course not everyone, especially the movie studios, like these websites and the free content they deliver. As a result, movie studios have turned to the courts to try to stop these websites from violating their copyrights. To no one’s surprise electronic discovery is a big component of these cases.   In Columbia Pictures Industries v. Bunnell, the defendant operated a torrent website that allowed its viewers to download and watch movies without paying for them. Columbia pictures sued for violation of its copyrights in the various films. To prove its case Columbia had to show the website directly or vicariously infringed by assisting users in using copyrighted material without permission.   The site operates by allowing a user to click on a link or search for a film and the site will then find the movie online where it can be downloaded to the user’s computer. To complete its process, the site records the request information in its RAM (random access memory). This information is stored only for a short amount of time and then deleted. There is no permanent record of the data.   In order for Columbia to show copyright violation, it needed this search information so it made a discovery request. The defendant argued that due to the RAM’s temporary nature, there was no record to be turned over. The court found otherwise. The court held, “the data in issue which was formerly temporarily stored in the defendant’s RAM constituted “electronically stored information” within the control of the defendant.” As such it was the defendant’s responsibility to preserve the information and produce it for the plaintiff.   A warning for torrent site users, for the defendant to meet the court’s demands, it now has to permanently store all the information, including the IP addresses, on who uses their site and how they use it. While this information is not initially turned over to the movie studio, it now exists in permanent form and someday could be turned over. So if you are going to violate a studio’s copyright in a movie, just know they now have the ability to discover who you are.   Michael Zoller received his B.A. in Political Science from Johns Hopkins University. He is currently a third-year law student at Seton Hall University School of Law, he will be receiving is J.D. in May ’11. Want to read more articles like this? Sign up for our post notification newsletter, here.