Knotty Issues of eDiscovery
One lesson from United States v. Univ. of Neb. at Kearney, is that maybe you should take depositions of key parties and use interrogatories to find out relevant information to your case before asking for over 40,000 records that contain the personal information of unrelated third-parties to a lawsuit. The[…]
Read moreThe Defendant in Dunstan v. Comscore, Inc., was a company that offered “free” screen savers and games that monitor a user’s Internet usage, which is then sold for marketing research or analysis of online behavior. After being sued for purportedly improperly obtaining personal information in violation of the Stored Communication[…]
Read moreA Plaintiff sued her former employer alleging violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, the Indiana Wiretap Act and the Stored Communication Act. The facts at issue involved the Plaintiff’s email and banking passwords being recorded by keylogger software on a company computer, allowing the Defendants to access the Plaintiffs email[…]
Read moreGuest Article By Sonya Ziaja. Ms. Ziaja is a regular contributer to Legal Match’s Law Blog and to Shark. Laser. Blawg. Senator Al Fraken proposed a consumer privacy geolocation bill (the Location Privacy Protection Act) earlier this term. Unlike the bipartisan GPS Act, the bill does not attempt to grapple[…]
Read moreA Plaintiff successfully excluded the Defendant’s testifying expert whose opinion was that “no one, including Plaintiffs, has a reasonable expectation of privacy in Internet communications.” Clements-Jeffrey v. City of Springfield, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81898, 2-3; 10 (S.D. Ohio July 27, 2011). The case involved the theft of a laptop. […]
Read moreThe Plaintiffs filed a suit alleging copyright infringement against the online proprietors of Korean pop music website where the Defendants “post, organize, search for, identify, collect and index links to infringing material that is available on third-party websites,” which the Plaintiff claimed was a “a one-stop shop for infringing material.”[…]
Read moreThe Plaintiff, a professional Chicago interior designer, was the director of marketing, PR and e-commerce for the Defendant, a well-known interior designer. Maremont v. Susan Fredman Design Group, Ltd., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26441, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2011). After being injured in an accident, the Defendant impersonated[…]
Read moreA registered Facebook user allegedly gained unauthorized access to 116,000 Facebook accounts and sent in excess of 7.2 million spam email messages. Facebook, Inc. v. Fisher, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9668, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2011). These spam emails were designed to “phish” for log-in information from Facebook[…]
Read moreMany attorneys, as with a large contingent of the general public, do not possess much, if any, technological savvy. Although the Committee does not believe that attorneys must develop a mastery of the security features and deficiencies of each technology available, the duties of confidentiality and competence that attorneys owe[…]
Read moreThe Plaintiff in an online fraud case sought the production of personal email messages from Yahoo. Jimena v. UBS AG Bank, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95050 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2010). The allegations of the lawsuit involved a “Nigerian advance fee scheme,” where the Plaintiff claimed the Defendant, the Chief[…]
Read more