Category Archives: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Big Changes For Civil Cases In The Southern District Of New York.

09 Tuesday Jun 2015

Posted by in Courts, E-Docketing, E-Filing, Federal District Court Rules, Recent Links and Articles, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

≈ Comments Off on Big Changes For Civil Cases In The Southern District Of New York.

Tags

, , ,

Beyond Biglaw: The End of Paper Filing in the S.D.N.Y., by Gaston Kroub, Above The Law Blog

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/06/beyond-biglaw-the-end-of-paper-filing-in-the-s-d-n-y/

Yesterday marked the beginning of a new era for those who file civil cases in the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.). Considering its status as one of the nation’s oldest, most prestigious Districts Courts, with a corresponding docket full of high-profile civil (and criminal) cases, the change from ‘paper filing’ to electronic filing is an important one. The announcement that the District would be going to electronic filing was in itself a bit surprising, considering that the clerk’s office and judges had resisted the temptation for many years. But change is constant, and starting yesterday [June 9, 2015], filing civil cases in the S.D.N.Y. will be done electronically in the vast majority of cases. . . .

Continue reading →

Ignore Duty For Litigation Holds At Your Peril.

15 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Employment Law, Litigation Hold, Preservation, Race Discrimination, Sanctions, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

≈ Comments Off on Ignore Duty For Litigation Holds At Your Peril.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Don’t Hit That Delete Button: An Update On Litigation Holds For Employment Claims, by Andrew P. Sherrod, Inside Counsel Magazine

http://tinyurl.com/ka6thgo

By now, most companies are — or at least should be — well aware of their obligation to preserve relevant documents and electronic information when they reasonably anticipate litigation. This duty can arise in many contexts, but employment complaints are a prime example. Despite the multitude of judicial decisions and articles on the subject, companies continue to hinder their defense of employment claims by failing to undertake appropriate preservation measures.

The consequences of failing to implement and monitor a litigation hold in response to an employment claim were reinforced in a recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Hawley v. Mphasis Corp.

In Hawley, an employee of the defendant company claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of his ethnicity in a number of ways during the course of his employment. The employee filed an EEOC charge of race and national origin discrimination in September 2009. The company terminated the employee in November 2009, and he thereafter filed a second EEOC charge, which was mailed to the company in December 2009. The employee then filed a discrimination suit in January 2012 against the company under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state civil rights laws.

During his employment, the plaintiff received a company-issued laptop computer on which he was required to perform his work. After his termination, the employee returned the computer to the company in December 2009. The next month, the company reassigned the computer to another employee, permanently deleting all of the plaintiff’s data.

The company also waited until April 2012 — almost three months after the filing of the plaintiff employee’s lawsuit and more than two years after his EEOC charges — to instruct the plaintiff’s supervisor and several other employees to preserve all documents and communications related to the plaintiff. . . .

Government Can Access Individual’s Gmail Account In Money Laundering Probe.

27 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by in Android Phones, Appellate Law, Apple, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Computer Forensics, Crime Scene Investigation, Criminal Law, Cybersecurity, Discovery, E-Discovery, Emails, Evidence, Experts, Forensic Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Forensic Expert Witness, Fourth Amendment - Search & Seizure, Google, Internet, iPad, iPhones, Legal Technology, Mac, PC Computers, Privacy, Search Warrants, Tablets, Trial Tips and Techniques, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

≈ Comments Off on Government Can Access Individual’s Gmail Account In Money Laundering Probe.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Federal Judge Rules Gmail Account Can Be Accessed For Investigation, by evanino in Evanino Blog

http://www.evanino.com/federal-judge-rules-gmail-account-can-accessed-investigation/

In a landmark ruling that might fuel a nationwide debate, the New York Court issued a warrant against Google, giving access to user emails.

A New York Court issued a warrant against Google Inc ruling that the government can access all mails of a Gmail account of an individual under a money laundering probe. The judge said that courts have long been waiting for law enforcement to take the required documents in the custody if it is within the purview of the warrant.

Contrary to previous rulings

This decision is not in line with the previous court rulings including courts in the Districts of Columbia and Kansas, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York noted on Friday. Also, this latest ruling will spark a debate over the privacy, in the country, according to Computer World.

A District of Columbia judge denied from revealing the entire content of the email as this will seize a large amount of emails for which the authorities have not given any reason.

The Court in Kansas, also, did not rule in favor of a similar warrant, stating that it failed to ‘limit the universe of electronic communications and information to be turned over to the government to the specific crimes being investigated.’

However, the New York Court ruled in favor of such warrant, allowing authorities to take into account the emails and other information from a Google inc’s Gmail account, including the address book and draft mails, and also the authority to search the emails for certain specific categories of evidence.

Experts must scan emails, not Google employee

Judge Gorenstein argued that it is not possible to search the hard-disk drives of computers and other storage devices on the spot due to the complexities of electronic searches. Thus, the authorities can seize such storage.

‘We perceive no constitutionally significant difference between the searches of hard drives just discussed and searches of email accounts,’ the judge wrote. He added that in most of the cases data in an email account will be less ‘expansive’ compared to the information contained in the hard drive.

Judge Gorenstein stated that Google employees are not expert enough to know the importance of particular emails without having been given proper training in the substance of the investigation. Judge said this in response to an opinion by the District of Columbia court that gave the government the option of getting the email scanned by the host itself.

He said that an agent, who is completely absorbed in the investigation, will be able to understand the importance of a particular language in emails contrary to the employee.