Tag: Privacy

1
Haywood v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2021)
2
Densen v. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints (D. Utah 2020)
3
Crossman v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC, (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2020)

Densen v. The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- Day Saints (D. Utah 2020)

Key Insight: A forensic imaging of Plaintiff’s electronic devices and cloud based accounts was warranted because Plaintiff lost relevant evidence during the discovery process and continually made misrepresentations regarding this evidence and how it was stored. The forensic imaging would preserve any evidence and possible recover evidence that has been loss. This would not be an invasion of privacy as Plaintiff’s privacy can be adequately protected. A third party service provider can image the devices and collect the data. Counsel would not have access to any of the data until after the court approves a review plan, which would implement additional safeguards to ensure there is no access to irrelevant or private information.

Nature of Case: Sexual Assault, Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Audio Recording, Cloud Based Account Data, Electronic Device Data

Case Summary

Crossman v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC, (M.D. Fla. May 4, 2020)

Key Insight: Defendant moved to compel social media discovery from plaintiff. The court considered plaintiff’s objections based on relevancy, privacy, and vagueness. Plaintiff did not assert a proportionality argument. The court found that the discovery was relevant – “common sense dictates that information in [plaintiff’s] social medial . . . relates to her contemporaneous mental and emotional states and therefore relates to the injuries she claims she suffered at the hands of [defendant], including loss of enjoyment of life.” As to privacy, a confidentiality agreement suffices to protect plaintiff’s interests. As to vagueness, plaintiff’s counsel can “reasonably and naturally” interpret the requests in view of the claims and defenses through communication with opposing counsel. Lastly, an award of expenses was unwarranted since “reasonable minds can differ on the dispute.”

Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Social Media

Case Summary

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.