Attorney Evan Brown

June 12, 2011 Anonymity, First Amendment

District judge stays magistrate’s order requiring identification of anonymous defendants

This is a post by Jonathan Rogers. Jon is a licensed attorney in California, with a focus on technology and entertainment law. You can reach him by email at jon@jonarogers.com or follow him on Twitter at @jonarogers.

Faconnable USA Corp. v. Doe, Slip Copy, 2011 WL 2173736 (D.Colo., Jun 2, 2011)

Faconnable issued a subpoena duces tecum to Skybeam, an Internet Service Provider, requesting identifying information about the users associated with two different IP addresses. A magistrate judge denied Skybeam’s motion for protective order, and required Skybeam to provide the requested information. Skybeam sought review of the denial of the protective order with the district court, asking for a stay of the magistrate’s order requiring the disclosure of the information. The court granted the motion to stay.

The court looked at four factors to determine whether it was appropriate to issue a stay against providing the information.

the likelihood of success on appeal (to the district judge)
the threat of irreparable harm if the stay or injunction is not granted
the absence of harm to opposing parties if the stay or injunction is granted
any risk of harm to the public interest

The court noted that if the last three factors are in a moving party’s favor, the first factor of likelihood of success is given less importance.

The court determined that if the stay were denied, the ISP would have to disclose the Does’ identities, which could impact their First Amendment interests to speak anonymously. However, if the stay were allowed, the ISP could preserve the information for production later, the only harm being a possible delay for Faconnable’s suit.

The court found that, on balance, the risk of losing First Amendment freedoms was a greater harm than delayed litigation.

June 11, 2011 Electronic Discovery, Trademarks, Unfair Competition

Court allows discovery of competitor’s keyword purchases

Scooter Store, Inc. v. Spinlife.com, LLC, 2011 WL 2160462 (S.D. Ohio June 1, 2011)

The Scooter Store and a related company sued a competitor for trademark infringement and other causes of action for unfair competition based in part on the competitor’s purchase of keywords such as “scooter store” and “your scooter store” to trigger sponsored advertisements on the web. Defendant moved for summary judgment and also moved for a protective order that would prevent it from having to turn over information to plaintiffs concerning defendant’s purchase of the keywords. The court denied the motion for protective order.

Defendant argued that it should not have to turn over the information because plaintiffs’ trademark claims based on those keywords were without merit, as the words are generic terms for the goods and services plaintiffs provide. Defendant also asserted a need to protect the commercially sensitive nature of information about its keyword purchases.

The court rejected defendant’s arguments, ordering that the discovery be allowed. It held that “whether or not [p]laintiffs’ claims involving these terms survive summary judgment [] has no bearing on whether the discovery [p]laintiffs seek is relevant, particularly viewed in light of a party’s broad rights to discovery under Rule 26.” As for protecting the sensitivity of the information, the court found that such interests could be protected through the process of designating the information confidential, and handled accordingly by the receiving party.

June 6, 2011 Electronic Discovery

Court shifts half of cost of forensic search to producing party in ediscovery case

[This is a post by Jonathan Rogers. Jon is a licensed attorney in California, with a focus on technology and entertainment law. You can reach him by email at jon@jonarogers.com or follow him on Twitter at @jonarogers.]

IWOI, LLC v. Monaco Coach Corporation, N.D. Ill. May 24, 2011

Plaintiff sued claiming breach of warranty and violations of certain state laws against consumer fraud stemming the sale of a motor coach. Plaintiff sought permission to search defendants’ hard drives to locate critical email which appeared to be missing from the original discovery production. Defendants contended that the email was not “reasonably accessible” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(B) and, therefore, they were under no obligation to produce it.

The court specified that the burden was on the party responding to discovery to identify whether there may be materials responsive to discovery requests that are stored on its system, but because of burden or cost are not reasonably accessible. However, that party cannot simply provide documents which are easily obtained and then assert that they have produced everything that is responsive to the request. If other relevant and responsive documents exist (or may exist), the party must say so and then say why those documents cannot or should not be produced.

Here, the defendants submitted only materials that were quickly accessible on employees’ desktops and made no effort to look further, even when they became aware that there was a possibility that there may be missing documents. A forensic expert asserted that he found the critical email in two separate locations on the computer network: on a local hard drive in an orphaned, but not deleted, storage file and also on a network hard drive that had been manually backed up. The expert concluded that a native Microsoft windows search of defendants’ computers would have uncovered the email and could be undertaken by an individual with no advanced computer knowledge.

The Court did not find the failure to produce the document to be a deliberate act by defendants, but that the document could have been found with minimal effort. It recognized that plaintiff (and the court) expended additional time and effort and incurred significant additional expenses searching for this document. Therefore, the court shifted half of the cost of the electronic discovery search to defendants.

June 4, 2011 Privacy

Court dismisses class action against MySpace for violation of the Stored Communications Act

Hubbard v. MySpace, 2011 WL 2149456 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2011)

Plaintiff, who sued on behalf himself and others similarly situated, claimed that MySpace improperly turned over account information and private messages to law enforcement, even though there was a search warrant. Plaintiff claimed this violated the Stored Communications Act, 18 USC 2701 et seq.

MySpace moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion.

The version of the Stored Communications Act in effect at the time of the alleged wrongful disclosure in this case provided that a search warrant seeking the information must issue from a federal court “with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation,” or be “an equivalent State warrant.”

Plaintiff argued that the warrant sent to MySpace was not sufficient under the SCA (and should have been ignored) because (1) the state magistrate did not have jurisdiction to hear the felony that the cops were investigating plaintiff for, and (2) the magistrate did not have the power to issue search warrants across state lines.

The court rejected both of these arguments. In determining the warrant to be “an equivalent State warrant,” it looked to the way federal magistrates issue warrants in SCA cases. It held that the phrase “jurisdiction over the offense under investigation” refers to the power to issue warrants, not to the power to ultimately try the case. And the court looked to the legislative history around the Patriot Act amendments to conclude that SCA investigations give magistrate judges special powers to direct search warrants across state lines, because having to require cooperation with the courts in which an ISP actually exists might allow enough time for a terrorist to get away or strike again.

This case is worth noting for the wide scope the court establishes for valid search warrants under the SCA. It is also worth noting that the SCA has since been amended to make the scope more clearly this broad.

May 26, 2011 Computer Crime, Employment

CFAA violation where employee’s access to work computer violated fiduciary duty to employer

Plaintiff former employer sued defendant former employee for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030, alleging that defendant, while still in the employ of plaintiff, accessed confidential business information and destroyed other important data. Defendant moved to dismiss the CFAA claim. The court denied the motion.

Defendant had argued that the complaint failed to establish that access to the work computer was had without authorization. He assserted that plaintiff did not allege that at any time while defendant was employed by plaintiff his access to his work-issued computer was restricted, or that plaintiff ever told him that he was no longer permitted to access the computer.

But the plaintiff had alleged that defendant’s access violated the fiduciary duty defendant owed. The court held that under Int’l Airport Ctr., L.L.C. v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418, 420–21 (7th Cir.2006), allegations of a breach of duty are enough to properly allege that defendant lost his authorization to access his company computer.

Compare this holding (and Citrin) with the Ninth Circuit’s holding in LVRC Holdings v. Brekka.

May 25, 2011 Miscellaneous

Ninth Circuit: FACTA does not apply to credit card receipts sent via email

Simonoff v. Expedia, Inc., — F.3d —, 2011 WL 1991211 (9th Cir. May 24, 2011)

Plaintiff sued Expedia under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (“FACTA”). He was upset that the electronic receipt Expedia emailed him contained the expiration date of his credit card.

The district court dismissed plaintiff’s case and he sought review with the Ninth Circuit. On appeal, the court affirmed that the electronic receipt did not violate FACTA.

FACTA provides that “no person that accepts credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall print more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction.”

The restriction applies only to “receipts that are electronically printed.” The court found that the electronic receipt did not fall into this scope. It looked to the general notion of what it means for something to be “printed”:

“Print” refers to many different technologies—from Mesopotamian cuneiform writing on clay cylinders to the Gutenberg press in the fifteenth century, Xerography in the early twentieth century, and modern digital printing—but all of those technologies involve the making of a tangible impression on paper or other tangible medium.

Since the electronic receipt was not a “tangible impression on paper or other tangible medium,” it wasn’t “printed” as defined by FACTA.

(Copyright folks might be tempted to think about how well this logic holds up, given that copyright protection extends to creative works that are reduced to a tangible medium of expression, and there is no dispute that digital works are copyrightable.)

This opinion is in line with cases from the Seventh Circuit, including Kelleher v. Eaglerider and Shlahtichman v. 1-800 Contacts.

May 21, 2011 Anonymity, Defamation

Court protects identity of anonymous email sender

Sandals Resorts Intern. Ltd. v. Google, Inc., — N.Y.S.2d —, 2011 WL 1885939, (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., May 19, 2011)

Some unknown person sent an email to a number of undisclosed recipients containing information that was critical of the hiring and other business practices of the Caribbean resort Sandals. Irritated by this communication, Sandals filed an action in New York state court seeking a subpoena to compel Google to identify the owner of the offending Gmail account.

The trial court denied the petition seeking discovery. Sandals sought review with the appellate court. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of the petition for discovery.

Under New York law, a person or entity can learn the identity of an unknown possible defendant only when it demonstrates that it has “a meritorious cause of action and that the information sought is material and necessary to the actionable wrong.” In this case, the court held that the petition failed to demonstrate that Sandals had a meritorious cause of action.

The court found that nothing in the petition identified specific assertions of fact as false. It also found that the lower court did not err in reasoning that the failure to allege the nature of the injuries caused by the statements in the email were fatal to the petition.

It went on to find that even if the petition had sufficiently alleged the email injured Sandals’ business reputation or damaged its credit standing, it would still deny the application for disclosure of the account holder’s identification on the ground that the subject email was constitutionally protected opinion.

In discussing this portion of its decision, the court said some interesting things about the nature of internet communications, apparently allowing a certain characterization of online speech to affect its rationale:

The culture of Internet communications, as distinct from that of print media such a newspapers and magazines, has been characterized as encouraging a “freewheeling, anything-goes writing style.” […] [T]he e-mail at issue here . . . bears some similarity to the type of handbills and pamphlets whose anonymity is protected when their publication is prompted by the desire to question, challenge and criticize the practices of those in power without incurring adverse consequences such as economic or official retaliation. […] Indeed, the anonymity of the e-mail makes it more likely that a reasonable reader would view its assertions with some skepticism and tend to treat its contents as opinion rather than as fact.

The court made clear that these observations were “in no way intended to immunize e-mails the focus and purpose of which are to disseminate injurious falsehoods about their subjects.” The real cause for concern, and the thing to protect against, in the court’s view, was “the use of subpoenas by corporations and plaintiffs with business interests to enlist the help of ISPs via court orders to silence their online critics, which threatens to stifle the free exchange of ideas.”

May 11, 2011 Computer Crime, Employment

Employee did not violate Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by checking Facebook and personal email at work

Lee v. PMSI, Inc., 2011 WL 1742028 (M.D.Fla., May 6, 2011)

Former employee sued the company she used to work for alleging pregnancy discrimination. The company countersued under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) alleging that the former employee violated the CFAA by using her work computer to access Facebook and check her personal email. She moved to dismiss the counterclaim, and the court granted the motion. The court found that the company failed to allege that its computer system was damaged by plaintiff’s internet usage, and plaintiff was alleged only to have accessed her own information, not that of the employer.