• Home
  • About
  • Terms
  • RSS

Attorney-client privilege trumps an employer’s electronic communications and computer use policy

August 18th, 2009 | By Steve Puiszis

Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 973 A.2d 390 (N.J. Super. A.D., 2009 WL 1811064 (N.J. Super. A.D.)

Introduction.

Stengart addressed whether the attorney-client privilege protected a former employee’s emails that were sent to her attorney using a company-issued laptop computer through a personal, password-protected, web-based (Yahoo) email account. The emails addressed a lawsuit the former employee contemplated bringing against her employer and were sent to the employee’s personal attorney prior to her resignation from the company. The company obtained the emails after suit was filed by making a forensic image of the computer’s hard drive and extracting them from the plaintiff’s internet browser history.

cctv_laptop

The court in Stengart concluded the emails were privileged, holding the policy considerations underlying the attorney-client privilege “substantially outweighed” the company’s interest in enforcing its computer use and electronic communications policy. The decision is also significant in that the court remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the company’s attorneys should be disqualified or if some other sanction should be imposed as a result of their failure to comply with Rule 4.4(b) of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct. The New Jersey rule, like Rule 4.4(b) of the Model Rules, requires that whenever a lawyer has reasonable cause to believe that a document was inadvertently produced, the lawyer should not read it, and must promptly notify the sender.

The court’s decision in Stengart should be contrasted with Scott v. Beth Israel Medical Center, 17 Misc. 934, 847 N.Y.S.2d 436 (2007), which held the attorney-client privilege was lost when the plaintiff used the company’s email system to communicate with his attorney in view of the company’s no personal use and email monitoring policies coupled with the plaintiff’s awareness of those policies. The Stengart and Beth Israel decisions demonstrate that whether an employee’s communication with personal counsel retains its privileged nature when made via the company’s computer or email system involves a fact-specific inquiry. This post will address those decisions and will outline the factors that courts have examined when addressing the issue of attorney-client privilege in this context.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment »

Discovery of text messages under the Stored Communications Act

December 16th, 2008 | By Steve Puiszis

Illinois hasn’t cornered the market on politicians charged with wrongdoing, lately it only seems that way. Want to know your opponents can obtain the text messages that can get your clients into trouble? Here’s how:  Flagg v.City of Detroit, 252 F.R.D. 346 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 22, 2008).

Flagg has been listed by one e-discovery blog as one of the top 5 e-discovery decisions of 2008.  

No, this is not the decision involving the text messages between the former Mayor of Detroit and his female chief of staff that were purportedly more tawdry and explicit than an old Harlequin romance novel.  Flagg involved a wrongful death action and the text messages being sought related to a possible cover-up and interference of an investigation involving the murder of an exotic dancer who allegedly performed at a party at the Mayor’s official residence. 

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment »



Recent Posts

  • Court rejects bright-line or categorical approaches when assessing the acceptability of ediscovery misconduct, preservation efforts, or sanctions
  • Court orders disclosure of metadata under New York’s Freedom of Information Law
  • Court orders second production of ESI in a reasonably usable form and rejects argument that foreign privacy laws or the Hague Convention bars production of personal information
  • PowerPoint Slides about the Seventh Circuit Ediscovery Pilot Program
  • Court rules that emails are not reasonably accessible due to undue burden and cost under Rule 26(b)(2)(B)

Categories

  • Accessibility
  • Cost
  • electronic data
  • Forensics
  • Litigation Hold
  • Metadata
  • Preservation
  • Privacy
  • Privilege
  • Production
  • Review
  • Sanctions
  • Uncategorized

Blogroll

  • Death by Email
  • Dennis Kennedy
  • Ediscovery 2.0
  • Fios Inc.
  • For the Defense (DRI)
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • HR Illinois Blog
  • Illinois Institute for CLE
  • Internet Cases
  • kCura Corporation
  • Kroll Ontrack
  • Richmond Journal of Law & Technology
  • The Ethical Quandary
  • The Sedona Conference

Archives

  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008

Tags

Accessibility adverse inference attorney-client privilege bankruptcy Cost costs cost shifting deposition destruction electronic data email employee keyword keyword searching Litigation Hold locations Metadata native format not reasonably accessible ocr ordinary course of business Preservation Privacy Privilege Production quickpeek Review rhoads routes rule 26c Rule 34 rule 502 Sanctions searching spoliation state rules stay storage strategy text messages trade secrets waiver website content work product doctrine zubulake

Copyright © 2009 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.