e-Lessons Learned

The case of Rep. William Jefferson out of Louisiana may have confused people when it first came out in July 2006. The D.C. Court of Appeals held that the FBI overreached its authority by seizing legislative data. However, the court found that the copying of computer hard drives and other electronic media was “constitutionally permissible” because Jefferson had a chance to show that the electronic information that was obtained from his congressional office computer was connected to legislative work. If Jefferson was able to show this connection, the information was subject to constitutional protection.

Some of you more astute individuals may have already identified the snafu with which the FBI now has to deal. This ruling basically allowed the FBI to seize electronic information, but did not permit its review until Jefferson had the chance to look at it to determine whether or not it was legislative in nature. But how can Jefferson review information after it has been seized? Continue reading »

Facebook is a pretty amazing tool. It is a free social networking site that enables people to keep in touch and be informed. Facebook users create profiles where they can list their contact information, employer, and educational hobbies. Users can post photographs, and share videos, and write messages to other users. The creators of Facebook are attentive to suggestions and comments. Therefore, one feature that the site offers is privacy control. Facebook states that they understand that their users may not want to share all the information that they post with the public, so they claim to “give you control of your information.” See Facebook Principles.

However, users may not have as much control as they think. On February 20, 2009, a Canadian court ruled that the contents posted in a private Facebook profile are discoverable. Continue reading »

Americans have voted and the numbers are in. According to a recently published report by Pew Internet and American Life, Americans prefer internet access, by a landslide, over having a cell phone or cable TV. The reason: Many surveyed found internet access to be comparable to necessities such as electricity and running water. Those questioned also explained that the internet allowed them to remain connected with their communities and have access to economic opportunities.

John Horrigan (author of the report) comments: “[W]e found that broadband is now in the ‘must keep’ category for Americans, even when economic times are tough,” affirming that Americans are both psychologically and economically committed to their broadband. During these tough economic times, 22% of those surveyed cutback/cancelled their cell phone plans and 22% cutback/cancelled their cable TV service over the last 12 months; while only 9% did the same for their internet service. While it may seem counterintuitive as broadband becomes a larger part of peoples’ daily lives, its monthly cost is rising. The national monthly average for broadband is currently $39, an increase from last year’s average of $34.50.

Yet, according to figures released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and published by BusinessWeek, “the US ranks 15^th among the developed countries in broadband deployments per 100 people.” How is this possible? Scott Wallsten (VP at Tech Policy Institute in Washington) shares some insight, claiming that these figures are flawed because of the way they are calculated. Per capita analysis, in this case, fails to consider various household sizes, which gives countries with smaller families (as in Northern Europe) a distinct advantage.

Pietrylo and gang have some good news to post on their MySpace profiles. On June 16, 2009, after just 4.5 hours of deliberations, the jury had returned a special verdict to the court. Although far from a windfall (the jury only awarded $3,403 in damages), we suspect it is a moral victory of sorts.

As we had noted in our previous post, this case thus represents an important precedent in the realm of employee privacy rights in the context of password-protected online content. Content found on blogs and public social networking profiles may still enjoy the benefit of protected privacy when restrictions on access are implemented. Employers should exercise caution when approaching employees about asking for access to private information. As a rule of thumb, don’t coerce the employee for information and always document your (non-coercive) requests.

As rioters continue to protest the recent election in Iran, the Iranian government’s internet blockade has becoming increasingly stringent, threatening to rival that of China’s. Currently, CNET.com reports that Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, the BBC, and YouTube websites have been blocked, controversial keywords are prohibited, and numerous blogs have been restricted. As Iranians searched for ways to coordinate actions amongst themselves and communicate with the outside world, they found an answer in an unlikely place, the popular but unassuming social networking site, Twitter. The New York Times along with others have openly announced that some of the best commentary on the ongoing events has been received through Twitter messages. Continue reading »

By now, you’re probably familiar with the post-election chaos taking place in Iran.

What you may not know is that Twitter, a free social networking and micro-blogging service that enables its users to send and read each others’ updates, is being used in a revolutionary new way (pun intended).

Since the controversial election, the Iranian government has suppressed foreign journalism and mass-media outlets from covering the protests and other events related to the election backlash. The people of Iran, and primarily the supporters of Hossein Moussavi, would not be silenced, and have been persistent in alerting the world of the events that are unfolding. That’s where Twitter comes into play.

Continue reading »

Salgado and other criminal defendants were convicted of conspiracy and of possession with intent to distribute cocaine. In an attempt to overturn their convictions, the defendants claimed that there existed insufficient evidence to sustain their convictions.

At the center of the controversy were telephone toll records that revealed calls between Salgado, another defendant and a drug distributor. The records were introduced to connect Salgado to the conspiracy.

The Computer-Generated Toll Records

The telephone toll records at issue were compiled by contemporaneous computer recording of the telephone numbers dialed while the call was being made. The information was stored in the computer for later downloading.

The Federal Rules of Evidence provide for several exceptions to the general rule of the exclusion of hearsay from evidence. One such rule exempts business records, and this rule has been applied where such records have been made by computers. Continue reading »

We’re all familiar with the saying “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” Perhaps you’ve fallen victim to this wise cliche yourself as you wander through a Barnes & Noble and a fantastic drawing on some random novel sparks your attention, ultimately luring you to the register. At home, you eagerly crack open the book and realize it’s not as fascinating as the cover had led you to believe. Doing some research on the book would’ve saved you some money, right?

As you’ll see, the Plaintiff in Lake v. City of Phoenix does everything right. After receiving a hard-copy of a document and smelling something fishy, he requests metadata of the electronic version to substantiate the document’s authenticity. Lake is told that he can’t get the metadata.

Dead-end? Nope. If there’s a will there’s a way. By requesting the emails passed between his superiors and police reports, Lake is able to access information that may explain better the shadiness (or lack thereof) behind his demotion at work.

Procedural History

After filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint against “the City” (Not to be confused with the MTV show), Phoenix Police Officer David Lake submitted various requests for public records to the City. The City failed to produce several records related to his request and delayed the production of other records. So what does one do? Sue. Duh!

Continue reading »

R & R sails sued the insurer when, after the 2001 Australian wildfires ravaged their manufacturing facility, they believed the insurer did not pay the amount due under their contract. The suit was removed to Federal Court for the Southern District of California in June 2007, marking the beginning of a discovery period rife with evasion that ultimately led to sanctions under FRCP Rules 26 and 37.

From the outset, R & R knew that the Insurance Company’s adjustors’ claim logs and notes would be a key source of evidence in proving that they were undercompensated. They initially requested all documents pertaining to the Insurance Company’s underwriting and their own coverage and fire claim. They did not get everything they were looking for, so they sent letters clarifying that they wanted all “electronic or handwritten daily activity records/logs which are generally kept with an adjuster’s notes and telephone call records.” 251 F.R.D. at 522.

Again, R & R’s counsel did not receive what they were looking for. Continue reading »

In this contract dispute, the prevailing defendant, ChoicePoint, moved for attorneys’ fees, including fees for document review and production.

The plaintiff, Corinthian Mortgage Corporation, d/b/a, SouthBanc Mortgage (“SouthBanc”), and Defendant ChoicePoint Precision Marketing, LLC (“ChoicePoint ”), a mailing list broker, entered into an agreement (the “Service Agreement”) wherein ChoicePoint agreed to assist in developing a methodology for creating lists of names and individuals to whom SouthBanc could mail targeted promotional materials. Soon after, Theresa Ritter (“Ms. Ritter”), Vice President at SouthBanc, was terminated. Ms. Ritter formed a competing company in Virginia, Summit Financial LLC (“Summit”). Subsequently, Summit requested names from ChoicePoint, using name selection criteria similar to SouthBanc’s. ChoicePoint provided the requested information to Summit and continued to supply names. Of course SouthBanc was not happy and sued ChoicePoint, alleging that ChoicePoint violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count I), violated Massachusetts’ Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count II), and breached the Contract between the parties (Count III).
Continue reading »