Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Computer Forensics Docket Sheet
Sanctions Awarded Against Attorney for
e-Evidence Spoliation Reversed on Due Process Grounds
An attorney appealed a sanctions award prohibiting him from appearing before the district court. During discovery, the court ordered the attorney's client to immediately turn over his computer to a court-appointed recipient. A computer-forensics expert examined the computer and found that e-mail had been deleted on the morning the computer was handed over. The expert subsequently stated that he had recovered 300 e-mails that were moved and may have been archived rather than deleted. The district court determined that the attorney had instructed his client to 'open the computer, turn it on and to look at 'what was in there.” In sanctioning the attorney, the court found that the attorney 'had been 'untruthful to the court directly and by omission,' had deliberately and intentionally impeded discovery and violated the court's order, and had engaged in the spoliation of evidence that would not have been discovered without the services of an expert.' On appeal, the court reversed the award on the grounds that the attorney's due-process rights had been violated because the attorney was not provided with sufficient notice of a hearing at which sanctions might be considered. Afremov v. Amplatz, 2006 WL 44341 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2006).
Court Sets Protocols for Computer Forensics Examination
In a case involving a trade-secret theft action, the plaintiff sought, and the court issued, an injunction against the defendant. The injunction required the defendant to return hard copy files, electronic files, computer disks and other computer storage media relating to the plaintiff's business. In addition, the court ordered a third party to make her personal computer available to the plaintiff for forensic examination by an expert. The expert was to determine whether the plaintiff's material existed on the computer and whether e-mails the defendant had sent to the third party's address were forwarded, altered or used. The court permitted the expert to copy any of the plaintiff's material on the computer and then delete all such material from the computer. Finally, the court authorized the defendant and the third party to have an independent forensics expert attend the inspection. AutoNation, Inc. v. Hatfield, 2006 WL 60547 (Fla.Cir.Ct. Jan. 4, 2006).
Michele C.S. Lange Charity Delich E-Discovery Case Law Update Computer Forensics http://www.krollontrack.com/ e-Discovery Law & Strategy [email protected]
Sanctions Awarded Against Attorney for
e-Evidence Spoliation Reversed on Due Process Grounds
An attorney appealed a sanctions award prohibiting him from appearing before the district court. During discovery, the court ordered the attorney's client to immediately turn over his computer to a court-appointed recipient. A computer-forensics expert examined the computer and found that e-mail had been deleted on the morning the computer was handed over. The expert subsequently stated that he had recovered 300 e-mails that were moved and may have been archived rather than deleted. The district court determined that the attorney had instructed his client to 'open the computer, turn it on and to look at 'what was in there.” In sanctioning the attorney, the court found that the attorney 'had been 'untruthful to the court directly and by omission,' had deliberately and intentionally impeded discovery and violated the court's order, and had engaged in the spoliation of evidence that would not have been discovered without the services of an expert.' On appeal, the court reversed the award on the grounds that the attorney's due-process rights had been violated because the attorney was not provided with sufficient notice of a hearing at which sanctions might be considered. Afremov v. Amplatz, 2006 WL 44341 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2006).
Court Sets Protocols for Computer Forensics Examination
In a case involving a trade-secret theft action, the plaintiff sought, and the court issued, an injunction against the defendant. The injunction required the defendant to return hard copy files, electronic files, computer disks and other computer storage media relating to the plaintiff's business. In addition, the court ordered a third party to make her personal computer available to the plaintiff for forensic examination by an expert. The expert was to determine whether the plaintiff's material existed on the computer and whether e-mails the defendant had sent to the third party's address were forwarded, altered or used. The court permitted the expert to copy any of the plaintiff's material on the computer and then delete all such material from the computer. Finally, the court authorized the defendant and the third party to have an independent forensics expert attend the inspection.
Michele C.S. Lange Charity Delich E-Discovery Case Law Update Computer Forensics http://www.krollontrack.com/ e-Discovery Law & Strategy [email protected]
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?