Author Archives: Jonathan Rogers (@jonarogers)

About Jonathan Rogers (@jonarogers)

Jonathan Rogers attended Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia where he obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree with a dual major in Politics and Business Administration. He recently graduated from the University of Richmond School of Law, with a certificate of concentration in Intellectual Property work. Jonathan is passionate about Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law as well as Politics, Marketing, Advertising, Technology and Socioeconomics. He is always searching for new opportunities. Please feel free to contact him.

Violent posts on social media profile determined to be threats

This is a post by Jonathan Rogers. Jon is a licensed attorney in California, with a focus on technology and entertainment law. You can reach him by email at jon@jonarogers.com or follow him on Twitter at @jonarogers.

Holcomb v. Com., — S.E.2d —, 2011 WL 2183100 (Va.App., Jun 07, 2011)

Appellant challenged his conviction over posts he made to MySpace on his profile page, arguing that they did not constitute the knowing communications of a threat. He argued that MySpace posts were not the type of communication contemplated by the statute, and his postings did not constitute a threat. Appellant posted violent original lyrics which were clearly about his child’s mother.

Appellant had been convicted under a provision of Virginia law that provides:

Code § 18.2–60(A)(1):

Any person who knowingly communicates, in a writing, including an electronically transmitted communication producing a visual or electronic message, a threat to kill or do bodily injury to a person, regarding that person or any member of his family, and the threat places such person in reasonable apprehension of death or bodily injury to himself or his family member, is guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Appellant argued that he did not knowingly communicate the posts within the meaning of the statute because he posted them through his profile, which was available for anyone to view, as opposed to a communication aimed directly at the victim. The court found that there was no requirement that a threat be communicated directly to the intended victim. It instead focused on the fact that an “electronically transmitted communication” produced a “visual or electronic message” that could be viewed by anyone accessing the MySpace profile. It was enough that the victim was able to identify herself based on the references in his posts and that the appellant knew the victim had access to the profile. In fact, the court found, he knew she had viewed it previously.

Appellant’s second argument was that the posts were not threats under the statute. He argued they were lyrics which he had a history of writing and posting on his profile. The court disagreed, finding that because of specific references to the victim, and the unusual subject matter of the lyrics, the post contained statements that would place the victim in “reasonable apprehension of death or bodily injury.” The court pointed to actions taken by the victim, including moving in with her parents, and her testimony that she felt scared after seeing the postings.

The court found the online postings to MySpace where threats which placed apprehension in the victim. So the court upheld the convictions.

District judge stays magistrate’s order requiring identification of anonymous defendants

This is a post by Jonathan Rogers. Jon is a licensed attorney in California, with a focus on technology and entertainment law. You can reach him by email at jon@jonarogers.com or follow him on Twitter at @jonarogers.

Faconnable USA Corp. v. Doe, Slip Copy, 2011 WL 2173736 (D.Colo., Jun 2, 2011)

Faconnable issued a subpoena duces tecum to Skybeam, an Internet Service Provider, requesting identifying information about the users associated with two different IP addresses. A magistrate judge denied Skybeam’s motion for protective order, and required Skybeam to provide the requested information. Skybeam sought review of the denial of the protective order with the district court, asking for a stay of the magistrate’s order requiring the disclosure of the information. The court granted the motion to stay.

The court looked at four factors to determine whether it was appropriate to issue a stay against providing the information.

  • the likelihood of success on appeal (to the district judge)
  • the threat of irreparable harm if the stay or injunction is not granted
  • the absence of harm to opposing parties if the stay or injunction is granted
  • any risk of harm to the public interest

The court noted that if the last three factors are in a moving party’s favor, the first factor of likelihood of success is given less importance.

The court determined that if the stay were denied, the ISP would have to disclose the Does’ identities, which could impact their First Amendment interests to speak anonymously. However, if the stay were allowed, the ISP could preserve the information for production later, the only harm being a possible delay for Faconnable’s suit.

The court found that, on balance, the risk of losing First Amendment freedoms was a greater harm than delayed litigation.

Court shifts half of cost of forensic search to producing party in ediscovery case

[This is a post by Jonathan Rogers. Jon is a licensed attorney in California, with a focus on technology and entertainment law. You can reach him by email at jon@jonarogers.com or follow him on Twitter at @jonarogers.]

IWOI, LLC v. Monaco Coach Corporation, N.D. Ill. May 24, 2011

Plaintiff sued claiming breach of warranty and violations of certain state laws against consumer fraud stemming the sale of a motor coach. Plaintiff sought permission to search defendants’ hard drives to locate critical email which appeared to be missing from the original discovery production. Defendants contended that the email was not “reasonably accessible” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(B) and, therefore, they were under no obligation to produce it.

The court specified that the burden was on the party responding to discovery to identify whether there may be materials responsive to discovery requests that are stored on its system, but because of burden or cost are not reasonably accessible. However, that party cannot simply provide documents which are easily obtained and then assert that they have produced everything that is responsive to the request. If other relevant and responsive documents exist (or may exist), the party must say so and then say why those documents cannot or should not be produced.

Here, the defendants submitted only materials that were quickly accessible on employees’ desktops and made no effort to look further, even when they became aware that there was a possibility that there may be missing documents. A forensic expert asserted that he found the critical email in two separate locations on the computer network: on a local hard drive in an orphaned, but not deleted, storage file and also on a network hard drive that had been manually backed up. The expert concluded that a native Microsoft windows search of defendants’ computers would have uncovered the email and could be undertaken by an individual with no advanced computer knowledge.

The Court did not find the failure to produce the document to be a deliberate act by defendants, but that the document could have been found with minimal effort. It recognized that plaintiff (and the court) expended additional time and effort and incurred significant additional expenses searching for this document. Therefore, the court shifted half of the cost of the electronic discovery search to defendants.