1. BrianGeppert

    "a native Microsoft windows search . . . could be undertaken by an individual with no advanced computer knowledge."

    I understand that that is a compelling argument. However, do you think that the courts would be swayed by the entirely-factual counter-argument that a native Microsoft Windows search would _never_ be undertaken by an individual who _did_ have advanced computer knowledge? I mean that quite literally. No one with any appreciable amount of computer expertise would ever consider using native Microsoft Windows search. The thought would not occur to them.

    • TomCollins

      That is extremely untrue. A "native Microsoft Windows search" is the low-hanging fruit tool that an expert may utilize. It is true that an expert would not rely on it, but to say it would not occur to them is falsehood.

  2. I think the greater theme with that rationale is that if even an non savvy user could have found the file with a simple windows search, then certainly any better search method could have located the emails. Sure, a computer "expert" might not have utilized that method, but they would have found it with a more thorough search method as well. There was no excuse to not have turned over the email, because it was easily found.

  3. Since it was apparently so easy to find the file and the defendant obviously put half hearted effort into finding the file, I am surprised that 100% of the cost wasn't taxed to them.

    Love this blawg by the way.

    • The court seemed to imply they would have if they thought it was a deliberate hiding of the document. Here, they seemed to think it was simply laziness or ignorance. It does appear there has to be a "smoking gun" for deliberate action to be found, because like you said this is very close.

Comments are closed.

Did you enjoy this post? Then please share it with your friends and colleagues: