No reasonable expectation of privacy in files on work computer

August 30, 2006 | by Evan Brown (@internetcases) | Comments Off 

Defendant Ziegler was arrested after his employer’s ISP tipped off the FBI that he was accessing some illegal pornographic websites while at work. At the trial court level, the defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained from his office computer, arguing that it had been searched in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

The court denied the motion to suppress, and the defendant sought review. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. It held that given the circumstances, the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his work computer or the files contained on its hard drive.

Although it was undisputed that the defendant had a subjective expectation of privacy in the contents of the hard drive — the computer was password protected and kept in a locked office — the relevant inquiry was whether he had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. For a number of reasons, the Ninth Circuit held that such an expectation had been defeated.

Most significantly, the employer’s IT department had a policy of routinely monitoring the traffic crossing the company’s firewall, and had full administrative access to all computers in the facility. The defendant did not demonstrate that he was unaware of that monitoring policy. (A defendant bears the burden of showing a reasonable expectation of privacy. U.S. v. Caymen, 404 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2005)).

The court looked to a number of other cases to support its conclusion. It readily endorsed the district court’s reliance on U.S. v. Simons, 206 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2000), a case with similar facts. It also embraced the holding of a California case called TBG Ins. Serv. Corp. v. Superior Court, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 155 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002), to note that “community norms” tolerate employee monitoring of computer activity, so that companies can, for example, avoid liability for permitting a hostile work environment. These social norms “effectively diminish the employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy.”

U.S. v. Ziegler, — F.3d —-, 2006 WL 2255688 (9th Cir., August 8, 2006).

Evidence-destroying defendant severely sanctioned in P2P file-sharing case

August 25, 2006 | by Evan Brown (@internetcases) | Comments Off 

In the case of Arista Records v. Tschirhart, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has shown little mercy on a defendant accused by record companies of illegal file-sharing.

Knowing that a court order was in place requiring her to turn over her hard drive to be copied, the defendant allegedly used “wiping” software in an attempt to destroy all evidence of her illegal P2P file sharing. In response, the plaintiff record companies moved, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b), for the most severe form of sanctions against the defendant – entry of default against her. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion, and provided them with 30 days to submit a proposed order spelling out their damages.

Given that the record companies’ expert opined that the defendant had downloaded over 200 sound recordings during 2005, those requested damages will probably be substantial. Statutory damages under the Copyright Act can go as high as $150,000 per work infringed, in the most egregious cases.

In reaching its decision to enter default against the defendant, the court exercised its inherent power to do so, making a note of its obligation to act with “restraint and discretion.” It found that the defendant had acted in bad faith. That bad faith was exacerbated – and the default was further warranted – by the fact that the defendant herself was responsible for the destruction of evidence, that the deletion of the files destroyed the strongest evidence relevant to the plaintiff’s infringement claims, and that less drastic sanctions would not be appropriate.

Not only was the sanction intended to dissuade the plaintiff from destroying evidence in the future, it was intended to make an example out of her. Merely awarding the plaintiffs their attorney’s fees or giving the jury an adverse inference instruction at trial would not have been enough to remedy the situation. Given the defendant’s “blatant contempt” for the court and a “fundamental disregard for the judicial process,” only default would be an adequate punishment and deterrent to others considering similar conduct.

[Hat tip to Techdirt for posting on this case.]

Arista Records, LLC, v. Tschirhart, No. 05-372 (W.D. Tex., August 23, 2006).

Federal court adopts Cahill standard for unmasking anonymous defendants

August 24, 2006 | by Evan Brown (@internetcases) | Comments Off 

Plaintiffs seeking to unmask an anonymous defendant will often need the court’s assistance in the discovery process. Most ISPs or website owners will not turn over the name and contact information associated with a particular IP address without having received a subpoena or a court order requiring it to do so.

In federal litigation, the need to serve a subpoena so early on in the case puts a plaintiff in a Catch-22 situation: Rule 26(d) says that discovery cannot occur without the parties having first conferred as required by Rule 26(f). But how can the parties confer if the plaintiff cannot first conduct some discovery to find out who the defendants are? The process of asking the court for leave to serve subpoenas before the Rule 26(f) conference can set the stage for an interesting balancing act.

Courts have recognized the conflicting interests at stake. There is a well-established constitutional right to speak anonymously. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Com’n., 514 U.S. 334 (1995). But that right is not absolute. An aggreived plaintiff has the right to seek redress from one who has done harm by, for example, defaming the plaintiff online. A court that indiscriminately allows an anonymous speaker to be identified without a sufficient showing that the complained-of speech is prohibited runs the risk of violating the anonymous poster’s First Amendment right.

In light of the conflicting interests at stake, courts have implemented varying approaches to ensure that those interests are properly balanced. The cases establish a certain threshold of a showing that a plaintiff has to make before discovery can occur. For example, in the case of Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 1999), a trademark infringement plaintiff was required to support its claim with facts sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss before it could obtain the identity of an anonymous defendant. A New Jersey state court in a case called Dendrite Int’l, Inc. v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div. 2001), applied the same standard.

Other courts have set the bar higher. In Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451, (Del. 2005), the Delaware Supreme Court held that an anonymous blog commenter could not be identified in a defamation suit where the plaintiff had not come forth with evidence to support a motion for summary judgment. In the recent case of Best Western v. Doe, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona adopted the Cahill standard.

In the Best Western case, the plaintiff filed suit against several John Doe defendants alleging a number of causes of action, including breach of contract, unfair competition and defamation. The alleged offending content had been posted to a message board online. The plaintiff asked the court to allow it to serve subpoenas on the Internet service providers of the unknown anonymous posters before the required Rule 26(f) conference. The court denied the motion.

In its analysis, the court covered the number of First Amendment concerns at stake. It noted that although the constitution protects anonymous speech on the Internet, the prospect of a civil subpoena to destroy that anonymity places that right in jeopardy. Nonetheless, the court observed, the right to speak anonymously is not absolute, and such discovery will be permitted in the appropriate circumstances.

And the appropriate circumstances are when a plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence as it has to establish a prima facie case of the claims asserted in the complaint. The court held that it “must examine facts and evidence before concluding that a defendant’s constitutional rights must surrender to a plaintiff’s discovery needs. The summary judgment standard will ensure that the Court receives such facts and evidence.” The court went on to note that the plaintiff’s complaint – devoid of specific facts supporting its claims – provided an example of why the summary judgment standard is appropriate.

Best Western Int’l v. Doe, (Slip Op.) 2006 WL 2091695 (D.Ariz. July 25, 2006).

An interesting application of Section 230 and a long arm statute

August 22, 2006 | by Evan Brown (@internetcases) | Comments Off 

Plaintiff Whitney Information Network sued the owners of the infamous Ripoffreport.com and other sites over some negative postings about Whitney appearing online. In July 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed Whitney’s complaint, holding that the defendants were immune from defamation liability under provisions of the Communications Decency Act found at 47 U.S.C. §230. [Read more about that decision.]

Apparently recognizing the challenges presented by Section 230, which provides that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” Whitney filed an amended complaint. This time it alleged that the defendants played an active role in generating the complained-of content by revising benign third party postings to add words like “ripoff,” “dishonest,” and “scam.”

The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing a lack of personal jurisdiction for Whitney’s failure to satisfy the requirements of Florida’s long arm statute (Fla. Stat. §48.193). That statute provides, among other things, that a Florida court can exercise personal jurisdiction over an out of state defendant if that defendant commits a tortious act within the state. This can be done, for example, through electronic communications into the state. Wendt v. Horowitz, 822 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 2002).

The defendants did not dispute that the amended complaint successfully alleged active participation on their part in generating the alleged defamatory content. But in connection with their motion to dismiss, they submitted a couple of affidavits, including one from a technological consultant named Smith, which they claimed controverted the plaintiff’s allegations supporting jurisdiction.

These affidavits tended to support the defendants’ argument that they were not responsible for modifying any postings made to their sites. If they were merely the provider of the interactive computer service, and not the actual content provider, so they argued, Section 230 immunized them from tort liability. Without tort liability, there could not be any tortious conduct directed to the state. No tortious conduct directed to the state, no personal jurisdiction under the long arm statute.

The district court bought this clever argument, holding that the affidavits put the burden back on the plaintiff to come forward with more evidence supporting the exercise of personal jurisdiction. In the district court’s mind, the plaintiffs failed to meet that burden, so it dismissed the case.

But the Eleventh Circuit disagreed. It reversed and remanded the lower court’s dismissal, holding that the defendants’ affidavits, with which they tried to make themselves something other than content providers, were insufficient to shift the burden in the first place.

For example, although Smith (the technological consultant) stated that none of the postings’ IP addresses were associated with the defendants’ computers, he conceded that he was unable to obtain IP addresses for three of the complained-of postings. The defendants were trying to show that they were not responsible for tampering with any of the content. But the court saw through that argument, observing also that it was unclear whether the defendants’ own IP addresses would have shown up had they merely modified any of the postings, rather than create them.

For these reasons, the appellate court held that the defendants had not successfully rebutted the plaintiff’s allegations supporting the exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to the Florida long arm statute. It remanded for further proceedings on the question of whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would comport with constitutional due process.

Whitney Information Network, Inc. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC (Slip Op.) 2006 WL 2243041 (August 1, 2006).

Employee fired for claiming copyright in website can get unemployment benefits

August 3, 2006 | by Evan Brown (@internetcases) | Comments Off 

Update: This decision was reversed by the North Carolina Supreme Court at Binney v. Banner Therapy Products, Inc., — S.E.2d —-, 2008 WL 2370887 (N.C., June 12, 2008).

Christina Binney was one of the founders of Banner Therapy Products, and worked as the company’s treasurer. She was also responsible for Banner’s computers, and designed its catalog and website. In April 2003, she was fired for taking her computer’s hard drive home over the weekend, and because she had named herself in copyright notices appearing in the company’s catalogs and on its website.

She sought unemployment benefits, and the North Carolina Employment Security Commission (“ESC”), denied her claim. The ESC determined that the denial of benefits was proper because Binney had been terminated for employment-related misconduct.

Binney appealed the ESC’s determination to a North Carolina trial court, but that court affirmed the denial of benefits. She tried again with the state’s appellate court, which reversed the denial of benefits. The appellate court held that given Binney’s position and responsibilities in the company, and the reasonableness of her conclusions as to ownership of copyright, her actions did not rise to the level of misconduct that warranted a denial of benefits.

In determining that it was okay for Binney to have taken her hard drive home for the weekend, the court emphasized the she was the one primarily responsible for the company’s computer equipment. There was no formal policy to prohibit her from removing the hard drive, and there was no evidence that her use of the drive over the weekend to prepare for a meeting on Monday morning was improper. Moreover, there was no evidence that the removal of the hard drive inconvenienced Banner in any way.

As for whether it was misconduct for Binney to have claimed ownership in the company’s catalog and website which she created, the court observed that there was no evidence that Binney acted in bad faith. She had created the original version of the catalog before the company was incorporated, and, relying on legal research she had conducted herself, she believed she owned rights in subsequent versions as derivative works. Without any evidence that Binney’s belief about her copyright ownership was not genuine, and without any evidence that Banner incurred any detriment, the court held that Banner failed to meet its burden of demonstrating misconduct sufficient to warrant a denial of benefits.

Binney v. Banner Therapy Products, — S.E.2d —, 2006 WL 2022223 (N.C.App., July 18, 2006).

Suit over drop in search engine placement dismissed

August 2, 2006 | by Evan Brown (@internetcases) | Comments Off 

(This case came out a couple of weeks ago and has been written about quite a bit, but here’s my take on it anyway.)

Plaintiff Kinderstart.com LLC, the operator of an online directory and search engine for information about the care of young children, filed suit against Google after a “cataclysmic fall” in the number of visitors that the Kinderstart site received. It claimed that Google wrongfully blocked search results for Kinderstart, and intentionally lowered the site’s number in Google’s PageRank system. In an unpublished and noncitable opinion, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Kinderstart’s complaint, and granted leave to amend.

Kinderstart alleged a number of causes of action, including violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and unlawful monopolistic behavior in violation of the Sherman Act. The court held that Kinderstart failed to allege facts sufficient to entitle it to relief.

In dismissing the First Amendment claim, the court held that Google is not a state actor. Although the Ninth Circuit employs a number of tests to determine whether state action exists, Google did not meet any of those tests. Kinderstart did not show that Google performed a public function, nor did it show that Google was involved in any joint action with the government. The complaint did not sufficiently allege that Google was in any way compelled or coerced by the government, or that there was any nexus or entwinement between Google’s actions and the government’s actions. No facts in the complaint pointed to any “symbiotic relationship” – a necessary element in a special Ninth Circuit test for state action – between Google’s conduct and the financial success of any governmental entity.

The court also rejected Kinderstart’s First Amendment argument that by making the search engine “freely available to anyone with an Internet connection,” Google had created a private space dedicated to public use in which the alleged restrictions violated free speech. On this point, Kinderstart’s own allegations of Google’s vast monetization – to the tune of $3.1 billion in 2005 – contradicted assertions that the sole function of Google is to promote open and free communication.

Another of Kinderstart’s claims was that by blocking links to the Kinderstart site in its search results, Google had engaged in anticompetitive behavior that is prohibited under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §2). To succeed on this claim, Kinderstart would have had to allege a specific intent on Google’s part to destroy competition, conduct directed toward accomplishing that purpose, a dangerous possibility of succeeding at destroying competition, and resulting antitrust injury.

The court held that Kinderstart failed to allege enough facts to support this claim. There was no sufficient allegation that Google had denied access to an essential facility or refused to deal. Kinderstart did not explain how Google’s alleged conduct demonstrated the required intent for a Sherman Act violation. Moreover, noting that there generally is “no duty to aid competitors,” the court concluded that Google’s alleged removal of a competing search engine from its results was merely legitimate competitive action.

Kinderstart.com, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 06-2057, (N.D. Cal., July 17, 2006) (Not selected for official publication).