<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Blog entries - March 2008</title>
		<description>Blog entries - March 2008</description>
		<link>http://www.rcalaw.com</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:23:51 +0100</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>FeedCreator 1.7.2</generator>
		<item>
			<title>Court Orders Mirror Image of Employment Plaintiff’s Home Computer</title>
			<link>http://www.rcalaw.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,court-orders-mirror-image-of-employment-plaintiff’s-home-computer.html/Itemid,0/</link>
			<description>&amp;nbsp;In Coburn v. PN II, Inc., 2008 WL 879746 (D. Nev. March 28, 2008), an employment discrimination action, the court ordered the parties to meet, confer and agree on a designated computer expert to create a &amp;quot;mirror image&amp;quot; of hard drives on plaintiff's home computers.&amp;nbsp; The defendant bears all costs associated with the expert.&amp;nbsp; The court's order includes a protocol to protect against disclosure of privileged information contained on plaintiff's hard drives. &lt;br/&gt;</description>
			<author>clynn</author>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>6th Cir. Affirms Default Judgment for Defendant's Bad Faith E-Discovery Tactics</title>
			<link>http://www.rcalaw.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,6th-cir.-affirms-default-judgment-for-defendants-bad-faith-e-discovery-tactics.html/Itemid,0/</link>
			<description>&lt;br/&gt;Grange Mutual Cas. Co. v. Mack, 2008 WL 744723 (6th Cir. Mar. 17, 2008) is one of those rare e-discovery cases that works to the U.S. Court of Appeals.&amp;nbsp; Unfortunately, the Sixth Circuit did not have too many kind words to say about Defendant Greg Mack's repeated discovery abuses.&amp;nbsp; &amp;quot;[Defendant's] willful bad faith in thwarting discovery is so obvious that he does not bother contesting the point.&amp;quot;&amp;nbsp; &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The defendant appealed a default judgment and award of damages [...]</description>
			<author>clynn</author>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Employee's Act of Forwarding Emails Did Not Constitute &quot;Unauthorized Access&quot; Under CFAA</title>
			<link>http://www.rcalaw.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,employees-act-of-forwarding-emails-did-not-constitute-unauthorized-access-under-cfaa-.html/Itemid,0/</link>
			<description>&amp;nbsp; &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;In &lt;i&gt;Shamrock Foods Co. v. Gast&lt;/i&gt;, (D. Ariz., No. CV-08-0219, Feb. 20, 2008), the court held that an employee's act of forwarding his company emails to his personal email account before resigning to work for a competitor was not an &amp;quot;unauthorized&amp;quot; use of the&amp;nbsp;employer's computer for purposes of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.&amp;nbsp; The court held that since the employee was permitted to access the documents in the first place, his use of the computer was &amp;quot;author [...]</description>
			<author>clynn</author>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>White House Has 3 Days to Explain Millions of Potentially Deleted Emails</title>
			<link>http://www.rcalaw.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,white-house-has-3-days-to-explain-millions-of-potentially-deleted-emails.html/Itemid,0/</link>
			<description>&lt;br/&gt;In the continuing saga over White House emails, U.S. Magistrate Judge John Facciola once again told the Bush Administration that he has no time for games.&amp;nbsp; On Tuesday, Judge Facciola gave the White House three days to give him a good reason why the Bush Administration should not be compelled to create and preserve a forensic copy of &amp;nbsp;all electronic storage devices that have been used or are being used by any former or current employee who has been employed at any time between March 2 [...]</description>
			<author>clynn</author>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Text Messages Powerful Prosecution Tool in NY Governor Escort Scandal</title>
			<link>http://www.rcalaw.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,text-messages-powerful-prosecution-tool-in-ny-governor-escort-scandal.html/Itemid,0/</link>
			<description>&amp;nbsp; &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;According to law enforcement officials and published news reports, text messages between an alleged madam and prostitute may have a hand in bringing down &amp;quot;Client 9&amp;quot;, an apparent reference to New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.&amp;nbsp; It appears that Client 9 went out of his way to avoid using electronic communications that could have easily been traced back to him. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Indeed, in a interview with ABC News two years ago, Spitzer, then-attorney general, told ABC News he had [...]</description>
			<author>clynn</author>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Six Sanctioned Qualcomm Attorneys Get New Day In Court</title>
			<link>http://www.rcalaw.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,six-sanctioned-qualcomm-attorneys-get-new-day-in-court.html/Itemid,0/</link>
			<description>&lt;br/&gt;Qualcomm, Inc. v. Broadcom Corp. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;U.S. District Court, Southern District of California &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Senior District Court Judge Rudi Brewster vacated the Magistrate Court's earlier order sanctioning six outside lawyers for Qualcomm, Inc.&amp;nbsp; In January, Magistrate Court Judge Barbara Major found that Qualcomm and its retained lawyers intentionally and deliberately withheld tens of thousands of decisive documents, including emails, from its opponent in an effort to win the case and ga [...]</description>
			<author>clynn</author>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Court Rejects Plaintiffs' Discovery Request for 8 Years Worth of Emails and Back up Tapes</title>
			<link>http://www.rcalaw.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,court-rejects-plaintiff’s-discovery-request-for-8-years-worth-of-emails-and-back-up-tapes.html/Itemid,0/</link>
			<description>&lt;br/&gt;In &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;Petcou v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;, 2008 WL 542684 (N.D. Ga Feb. 25, 2008), plaintiffs in an employment discrimination case sought discovery of emails from 1998 through 2006 evidencing the presence of pornography on defendant's employees' computers.&amp;nbsp; The court held that defendant need only produce: (1) undeleted emails sent prior to 2007 by a current employee who had been specifically named by plaintiffs as having explicit materials on their computer and (2) emails w [...]</description>
			<author>clynn</author>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
