Workplace Privacy, Data Management & Security Report : Privacy Lawyers & Attorneys : Jackson Lewis Law Firm : Data Security, HIPAA & Confidentiality Issues

A New Jersey District Court has sanctioned a personal injury plaintiff for spoliation following the plaintiff’s deletion of his Facebook account which defendants were trying to access.  

The defendant’s discovery requests asked for documents or records of “wall posts, comments, status updates or personal information posted or made by plaintiff on Facebook and/or any social media website from 2008 through the present.” Later, the defendant sent forms for plaintiff to execute which would authorize Facebook and other sites to release plaintiff’s information. The plaintiff executed all the authorizations except the one for Facebook.

Plaintiff’s failure to execute the Facebook authorization was raised before the Court and the Court ordered plaintiff to execute the authorization.  Plaintiff agreed to enable access by changing his password to a certain word. Thereafter, defense counsel accessed the account to confirm the password change and printed some of the accounts content.  

The following day, Facebook notified plaintiff of the account access from an unknown IP address in New Jersey. Plaintiff notified his counsel who contacted defense counsel to confirm that the records would be sought from Facebook headquarters. Defense  counsel responded, explaining the account was accessed to confirm the password change but would not be accessed again as the authorization was sent to Facebook.

Facebook responded to the authorization advising that the Stored Communications Act barred it from disclosing the data but suggested having plaintiff download the content himself.    Counsel for the parties agreed that plaintiff would do so and turn over a copy, along with a certification that he had made no changes since he was first ordered to execute the authorization. However, plaintiff’s counsel later advised defendants that plaintiff had deactivated the account and could not reactivate it. The plaintiff claimed he deactivated the account because of the notification he received that unknown people were accessing his account without his permission.

The defendants moved for sanctions claiming that the deletion was intentional as postings contained in the deleted account would have helped refute plaintiff’s damages claim. Defendants based this assertion on content printed from the account prior to deactivation.  The Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the information contained in the account was not intentionally suppressed and found that even if plaintiff did not intend to deprive defendants of the data, he intentionally deleted the account and thereby failed to preserve relevant evidence.

This case, as well as the case discussed here, provide valuable authority for accessing social media content in litigation. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Fourth Circuit recently held that the Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act’s (“CFAA”) prohibitions against unauthorized access or access in excess of authorization were not violated by an employee when the employee used his valid access to employer's computer network to download confidential business information that he later used while working for a competitor.

Prior to his departure from his former employer, the defendant downloaded proprietary information from the plaintiff's network which he allegedly used to win a contract for business. The plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against defendant, alleging, among other things, that he violated the CFAA when he downloaded its proprietary information. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that its policy prohibited employees from downloading confidential and proprietary information to a personal computer. 

In dismissing the CFAA claim, the trial court held, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, that this policy only regulated the use of company information, not accessing that information.  Accordingly, a violation of the policy would not support liability under the CFAA's authorized access provisions. The court ruled that the CFAA prohibits unauthorized acts of obtaining and altering information from a protected computer, not using without authority lawfully accessed information. Because the employee in this case was permitted to have access to the information at the time he downloaded it, his later use of that information for a subsequent employer did not violate the CFAA.

By its holding, the court agreed with the Ninth Circuit.  However, the court rejected the Seventh Circuit’s reading of the CFAA that an employee loses lawful authority to access an employer's computer network if the access violates the employee's fiduciary duty of loyalty to the employer. The Fifth and Eleventh Circuit have similarly held that employees will exceed authorized access under the CFAA whenever they go beyond their authorized access. 

While this decision may have limited Fourth Circuit employers’ ability to seek legal action against departing employees under the CFAA, employers in other jurisdictions, as highlighted above, must still consider what remedies may be available under the CFAA.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

UPDATE: Governor Martin O'Malley signed the bills discussed below into law on May 2, 2012.

Maryland will likely become the first state to prohibit employers from demanding usernames, passwords or other means to access any personal account or service through an electronic communication device (computer, phone, PDA, etc.), such as social media sites Facebook or LinkedIn, belonging to employees or job applicants. If signed by Governor Martin O’Mailey, as expected, the new law would become effective October 1, 2012, after being passed unanimously passed in the Senate last week and by a vote of 128-10 in the House. Employers need to monitor developments, as legislatures in other states have taken up similar measures.

S.B. 433/ H.B. 964 applies to any employer engaged in business in Maryland, as well as any unit of state or local government. It also reaches any agent, representative or designee of a covered employer. So, an employer cannot ask a third party to do under the law what the employer cannot do.

Covered employers also are prohibited from discharging, disciplining or otherwise penalizing  employees or applicants (or threatening same) who refuse to comply with the requests for access prohibited above. In addition, employers may not fail or refuse to hire applicants to object to similar requests. However, the Maryland law prohibits employees from making unauthorized downloads of company financial or proprietary data, and permits employers to investigate when it receives information about such activities. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Many employers often question what recourse is available when faced with the destruction or alteration of company data by former employees.  This question is made more complicated when employees use their own personal computer for work. In addressing this issue, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern division held that an employee's use of her personal computer to delete e-mails on her employer's computer servers may support an unauthorized access claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (“CFAA”).  

Plaintiffs, a group of real estate companies, allege that several of their former employees, on company resources and company time, founded a competing business and stole customers.  Plaintiffs claim that one of the defendants told the others to delete e-mails related to their “scheme”, and then delete them again from the “deleted items” folder.  This “hard delete” made the files hard to retrieve.  

Defendants sought to dismiss the CFAA claims.  Specifically, defendants claimed that “unauthorized access” is impossible because the individual defendant had used her own personal computer for work, and plaintiffs thus lost nothing when she left with it.  Although defendants cited to no cases, some District Courts (Keystone Fruit Marketing, Inc. v. Brownfield) have concluded that using one’s personal computer will not support a CFAA unauthorized access claim.  Here, the Court found that the CFAA appears to prohibit damaging (not accessing) a computer without authorization and the definition of “protected computer” does not specify whose computer it must be. While the Court ultimately dismissed plaintiffs’ claim as not sufficiently alleged, the Court did rule that plaintiffs may be able to make out a claim against the individual defendant by showing that she impermissibly destroyed files or other data belonging to them. 

Companies must be aware of jurisdictional nuances as they strive to protect themselves.  Stay tuned as we address similar issues in an upcoming series of posts! 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A U.S. District Court in Indiana has ruled that a company's use of keylogger software to access an employee's personal e-mail account may have violated the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”).  

Keylogging or keystroke logging is the tracking of the keys struck on a keyboard, typically in a covert manner.  

In Rene v. G.F. Fishers, Inc.,the company utilized keylogger software and was sued by one of its employees for violations of the SCA, the Indiana Wiretap Act (“IWA”), and the Federal Wiretap Act.  The company generally prohibited personal use of its computers, however, it permitted the employee to access her personal checking account and personal e-mail account from the company computer.  The employee was later notified that the company had installed keylogger software on the computer.  Utilizing the keylogger software, the company accessed the employee’s personal e-mail account and personal checking account (acquiring the passwords utilizing the keylogger software), and reviewed and discussed the messages and contents. 

The employee was fired for “poor performance” after complaining about the access. She sued her former employer, alleging the company violated the SCA, IWA, and the Federal Wiretap Act.  While the court did not address certain factual issues under the SCA (e.g., whether the company accessed the employee’s e-mail messages before the employee opened them), it held that by alleging that the employer accessed her e-mail messages the employee had satisfied the burden of asserting a violation of the SCA.  The court also denied the company’s motion to dismiss the former employee’s IWA claim, but it did dismiss the Federal Wiretap Act claim. 

As we have previously discussed, jurisdictions are at odds over the use of keylogger software in the employment context.  Employers should carefully consider their use of keylogger or monitoring technology and consult counsel as to best practices for the jurisdiction in which you are located.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio found the confidentiality rights of patients outweighed a plaintiff’s need to take discovery of patient medical records in Kapp v. Jewish Hospital, Inc.  Plaintiff, a former nurse, brought suit in the federal court in Ohio, alleging she was terminated in violation of federal employment discrimination laws.  Specifically, plaintiff alleged defendant had alternative motives for plaintiff’s termination, including plaintiff’s age, perceived disability, and plaintiff’s request for FMLA leave.  To establish her case, plaintiff sought to ascertain through the discovery process, whether other similarly situated nurses, were treated in a like manner.  To do so, plaintiff filed a motion to compel seeking access to non-party patient records in an attempt to discern if other nurses participated in essentially the same conduct for which defendant terminated plaintiff, but were not themselves terminated.  The Magistrate Judge denied plaintiff’s motion to compel and held that Ohio's strict physician-patient privilege law applied to prevent production of the records.  The plaintiff objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Order, and those objections were heard by the District Court Judge.  The District Court Judge held that “[a]lthough state privilege law does not control…there are abundant and adequate federal principals that protect patient confidentiality.”  The Court went on to state,

the non-party patients’ right to confidentiality outweighs the plaintiff’s proffered justification for accessing the non-party patient medical records. 

The Court went on to say that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act expresses a general federal policy favoring patients' right to confidentiality and HIPAA's Privacy Rule grants federal protections for patients' personal health information held by covered entities and gives patients rights regarding that information. In this case, the plaintiff had other, less-intrusive options for discovering whether the hospital treated similarly situated nurses differently, including, for example, narrowing the scope of the request by deposing other nurses who had worked with the physician in question, the hospital's human resources personnel, or other nurse supervisors.

The broad discovery sought by plaintiff in this matter is not an uncommon approach taken by the plaintiff’s bar in an effort to prove the merits of their client’s claims.  Employers, especially those in the healthcare industry, must be aware of opinions like Kapp in their efforts to limit plaintiff’s unfounded discovery requests and to protect their patients’ privacy.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Maryland Senate recently referred Senate Bill 971 which prohibits Maryland employers from demanding that workers and job applicants turn over their passwords to specific websites or web-based accounts. 

Under the bill, employers would be prohibited from refusing to hire applicants and disciplining, terminating, or taking other adverse employment action against employees who refuse to provide their passwords. The bill also bans employers’ threats of such action.  

The bill was introduced in response to employers’ asking applicants and employees for their passwords as part of background checks to see the content posted by the individuals on social networking sites (e.g., Facebook ). S.B. 971 would, however, permit employers to require workers to disclose their passwords only to the employers’ internal computer systems.  

This proposed Maryland law, and case law from New Jersey, should alert employers that utilizing social media in their hiring, discipline, or termination decisions is under scrutiny.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Minneapolis Star Tribune has reported that two hospitals in Anoka County, Minnesota, terminated a combined total of 32 employees for unauthorized access of electronic medical records on May 6, 2011.  The two hospitals, Unity Hospital in Fridley, Minnesota and Mercy Hospital in Coon Rapids, Minnesota, are both part of the Allina Health System.  In April, the Minnesota Court of Appeals, in an unemployment compensation decision, upheld the enforcement of Allina's "zero-tolerance policy" with regard to unauthorized access to medical records.  Allina relied on the same policy in the latest firings.

The records leading to the mass termination related to a tragic incident involving 11 teenagers and young adults who were hospitalized after overdosing on synthetic drugs after a party on March 17.  One of them, a 19-year old, died and murder charges have been brought against a Blaine, Minnesota, man who allegedly provided the drugs.

Allina stated that it has the ability to track any employee's access of electronic medical records and, because these patients were involved in a "high profile case," the hospital conducted a review of their audit trails and discovered that 32 employees had accessed the records without authorization. 

The increasing use of electronic medical records make these types of audits easier and more important than ever before.  Although the high number of employees involved is unusual, according the Star Tribune report, it is not the largest on record - in 2007 more than 100 employees were suspended from another Minnesota medical provider for similar concerns. 

 The HIPAA security regulations require that covered entities be able to audit activities on information systems containing electronic protected health information.  With increasing agency enforcement, health care providers and other covered entities and business associates should revisit this aspect of the HIPAA policies and procedures.

 Update: read the Star Tribune editorial justifying the firings.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Two Senators who clearly did not let the potential government work stoppage affect them, formally introduced the Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011 on April 12.  In a bipartisan effort, Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Arizona) introduced the legislation which sets forth privacy rules governing businesses that collect, use, or share personal data.

Under the bill, the Federal Trade Commission is given rulemaking and enforcement power.  Additionally, the bill would require covered entities to implement comprehensive privacy by design programs and provide clear disclosures of their data-collection practices.  Further, the FTC would be given authority to approve nongovernmental organizations to oversee safe harbor programs for firms that complied with approved self-regulatory schemes.

While passage of national privacy legislation has proven difficult in the past, companies must remain aware of these legislative updates, especially when they are of a bi-partisan nature.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Trying to keep up with the fast-moving world of social media, the Kentucky Court of Appeals has ruled that “tagged” or captioned photographs posted on Facebook may be admitted as evidence. The ruling in the case has implications for employers.  In LaLonde v. LaLonde, the appellant-wife objected to the trial court’s admitting into evidence photographs taken from Facebook that identified her by “tagging.”  The photographs appeared to show her consuming alcohol in contradiction to the advice of her mental health providers—a key issue in the custody dispute.     

The wife argued the photographs should not be admitted because Facebook allows anyone to post pictures and then “tag” or identify people in the pictures and she never gave permission for the photographs to be published in this manner on.  Rejecting this argument, the appellate court held, “There is nothing in the law that requires permission when someone takes a picture and posts it on a Facebook page.  There is nothing that requires her permission when she was ‘tagged’ or identified as a person in those pictures.”  The Court acknowledged that modern digital photography techniques may allow for alteration of the photograph, but pointed out that the wife never suggested such techniques were used, instead acknowledging the pictures were accurate.

The potential implications of this holding are numerous.  As we have previously discussed, employers may be able to use social media (which arguably includes tagged pictures) to fight emotional distress damages.  Similarly, as we described here, Facebook content has been utilized by employers in disciplinary decisions.   Our Social Media White Paper provides a helpful discussion of this and other issues employers should think about when it comes to social media.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On December 18, 2010 President Obama signed into law the Social Security Number Protection Act of 2010. The law has two key components. 

First, the law establishes that no Federal, State, or local agency may display the Social Security account number of any individuals or any derivative of such number, on any check issued for payment by said agency. 

Second, the law prohibits Federal, State, or local agencies from employing, or entering into a contract for the use or employment of, prisoners in any capacity that would allow such prisoners access to the Social Security account numbers of other individuals. 

As employers have been grappling with the recent uptick in state laws addressing safeguards for Social Security numbers, this new law tightens protections at the federal level.   Additionally, federal contractors may need to consider how this change impacts their other obligations under the Federal Information Security Management Act.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Federal contractors are subject to numerous requirements under federal law and, as we have previously highlighted here, need to keep pace with changes in law and regulation. 

Under the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) each federal agency is required to develop, document, and implement an agency-wide program to provide information security for the information and information systems that support the operations and assets of the agency, including those provided or managed by another agency, contractor, or other source. Accordingly, FISMA provides authority for the imposition of requirements on those companies which qualify as federal contractors. 

By way of example, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), as well as the Department of Veterans Affairs impose specific requirements on their contractors.   

Adding new data protection requirements for federal contractors who use or handle U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) information, the DOD earlier this year issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking regarding amendments, 75 F.R. 9563, to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). 

The proposed amendments require “adequate security,” defined as “protection measures … commensurate with the risks of loss, misuse, or unauthorized access to or modification of information,” and have three main subparts; basic safeguarding, enhanced safeguarding, and cyber intrusion reporting. 

Basic safeguards, required for any unclassified DOD information, include:

• Designating  the level of access and dissemination of informationProtecting DOD information on public computer or Web sites
• Transmitting electronic information using technology and processes that provide the best level of security and privacy
• Transmitting voice and fax information on with reasonable assurances that access is limited
• Protect information by at least one physical or electronic barrier
• Sanitize media in accordance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) before external release or disposal
• Provide protection against computer intrusions and the unauthorized release of data. 

In addition to the basic safeguards outlined above, contractors are required to implement enhanced safeguards to certain types of data. The enhanced safeguards include:

• Encryption/Storage controls
• Network intrusion protection
• Implement information security controls

Additionally, a reporting requirement has now been proposed, requiring contractors to report to the DOD within 72 hours of any cyber intrusion event that affects DOD information resident on or transiting the contractor’s unclassified information systems.

The new proposed DOD amendments, along with the various other federal contractor requirements, including those imposed by CMS and the Department of Veterans Affairs, highlight the necessity for companies that qualify as federal contractors to be up to date on their legal obligations or risk loss of their federal contractor status. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Keystroke logging (or “keylogging”) is the noting (or logging) of the keys struck on a computer keyboard. Typically, this is done secretly, so  the keyboard user is unaware his activities are being monitored.

Several cases throughout the country have examined an employer’s use of keylogging.  Recently, the Criminal Court of the City of New York held in New York v. Klapper  that an employer who installed keylogging software on office computers and subsequently monitored an employee's e-mail activity did not, absent some showing of contrary e-mail protections or acceptable use policies, access a computer “without authorization” in violation of New York law. 

In some of the strongest language against the premise of e-mail privacy to date, the Court stated in its April 28, 2010 opinion:

[t]he concept of internet privacy is a fallacy upon which no one should rely. It is today’s reality that a reasonable expectation of internet privacy is lost, upon your affirmative keystroke. 

The Court found that e-mails are more akin to a postcard than a letter, as they are less secure and can easily be viewed by a passerby. An employee who sends an e-mail from a work computer sends a communication that will travel through the employer's central computer and will be commonly stored on the employer's server even after it is received and read. Once stored on the server, the employer can easily scan or read all stored e-mails or data. The same holds true once the e-mail reaches its destination, as it travels through the Internet via an Internet service provider. Accordingly, this process diminishes an individual's expectation of privacy in e-mail communications.

In contrast to the strong language from New York, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in Brahmana v. Lembo that a plaintiff could proceed to trial in his case alleging his employer committed an impermissible “interception” under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) by using keylogging to discover the password to his personal e-mail account, and using the logged password, accessed his personal e-mail.  However, another California District Court found in United States v. Ropp that because the keylogger recorded the keystroke information in transit between the keyboard and the CPU, the system transmitting the information did not affect interstate commerce as the required by the ECPA.  Further complicating the issue, a federal court in Ohio questioned Ropp, suggesting in Porter v. Havlicek that it read the statute too narrowly by requiring the communication to be traveling in interstate commerce as opposed to merely “affecting interstate commerce.”

Because of the numerous issues arising from the use of electronic communications, and the varying court opinions on these questions, employers would do well to reexamine their use of keystroke monitoring or logging technology on a regular basis.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Co-author: Joseph J. Lazzarotti

The New Jersey’s highest Court has concluded that an employee, Marina Stengart, could reasonably expect that e-mail communication with her lawyer through her personal, password-protected, web-based e-mail account would remain private, and that sending and receiving them using a company laptop did not eliminate the attorney-client privilege that protected them. The Court went on to say that her employer’s counsel had violated the rules of professional conduct by reading her e-mails. The Supreme Court decided Stengart v. Loving Care on March 30, 2010 upholding the June 2009 decision of the state Appellate Division. 

This case makes two important points for employers: 

1) The Court stated that even a more clearly written and unambiguous policy regarding employer monitoring of emails would not be enforceable. That is, a clear policy stating that the employer could retrieve and read an employee’s attorney-client communication, accessed through a personal, password-protected e-mail account using the company’s computer system will not overcome an employee’s expectation of privacy and the privilege would remain. 

2) The Court's opinion seems to suggest that employers cannot discipline employees for simply spending some time at work receiving personal, confidential legal advice from a private lawyer, although the Court noted that an employee who “spends long stretches of the workday” doing so may be disciplined. 

Loving Care's employee handbook’s “Electronic Communication” policy governed employees’ use of company computers. The policy stated, among other things, “internet use and communication … are considered part of the company’s business” and “such communication are not to be considered private or personal to any individual employee.” However, the policy also provided, “[o]ccasional personal use is permitted.”

The Court found the Policy does not give express notice to employees that messages exchanged on a personal, password-protected, web-based e-mail account are subject to monitoring if company equipment is used. Although the Policy states that the company may review matters on “the company’s media systems and services,” those terms are not defined. The prohibition of certain uses of “the e-mail system” appears to refer to a company e-mail account, not personal accounts. Similarly, the Policy does not warn that the contents of personal, web-based e-mails are stored on a hard drive and can be forensically retrieved and read. The Court also found the Policy creates ambiguity by declaring that e-mails “are not to be considered private or personal,” while also permitting “occasional personal use” of e-mail.

The Court determined that an employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy in a particular work setting must be addressed on a case-by-case basis, but stated that by using a personal e-mail account and not saving the password, Stengart had a subjectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the e-mails exchanged with her attorney on her personal, password-protected, web-based e-mail account, which was accessed on a company laptop. This subjective expectation of privacy was objectively reasonable in light of the ambiguous language of the Policy and the attorney-client nature of the communication.

This decision, and others highlighted previously in this blog, present numerous issues for employers.  While it may not be enforceable in New Jersey, we recommend, in light of the reasoning in this decision, that employers consider modifying their existing electronic communication policies to include:

• Clear notice that personal, web-based emails accessed using company networks and stored on company networks or company computers can be monitored and reviewed by the company (of course, care should be taken here to avoid concerns under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act);
• Definitions of the specific technologies and devices to which the policies apply;
• Warnings that web-based, personal e-mail can be stored on the hard-drive of a computer and forensically accessed;
• No ambiguities about personal use. 

See our sample electronic communication policy outline for more information. However, even with such a policy in place, employers and their lawyers must be aware of the potential liability they face for improperly accessing information on the employers' systems which may later be deemed “private” or subject to a privilege.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Nearly 100 organizations have been notified by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) that personal information, including sensitive employee and customer data, shared from the organizations’ computer networks is available on peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing networks. This, the FTC warned, could be used to commit identity theft or fraud. The notices went to both private and public entities, including schools and local governments. The entities ranged in size from those with as few as eight employees to public corporations employing tens of thousands. The notices come not long after the Congressional Ethics breach we discussed in October. 

With P2P file-sharing software, a user can share music, video, and documents. However, when not configured correctly, P2P file-sharing software may allow anyone on the P2P network to access files not intended for sharing.

To aid businesses in managing the security risks of file-sharing software, the FTC also has released education materials, including a new business education brochure – Peer-to-Peer File Sharing: A Guide for Business – designed to assist businesses and others as they consider whether to allow file-sharing technologies on their networks. The brochure also explains how to safeguard sensitive information on their systems, and provide other security recommendations. Additionally, the FTC published tips for consumers about computer security and P2P. 

In addition to the FTC notices, employers should consider the P2P Cyber Protection and Informed User Act, which was introduced in Congress shortly after the notices were sent. Under the Act, P2P file-sharing programs must clearly inform users when their files are made available to other P2P users, are prohibited from being installed without informed consent, and are prohibited from preventing a user from blocking/disabling/removing any sharing program. 

The FTC has urged entities to review their security practices and, if appropriate, the practices of their contractors and vendors, to ensure that the practices are reasonable, appropriate, and in compliance with the law.  FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz also cautioned,  , “companies and institutions of all sizes are vulnerable to serious P2P-related breaches…” and “[companies] should take a hard look at their systems to ensure that there are no unauthorized P2P file-sharing programs and that authorized programs are properly configured and secure.” 

A company’s failure to prevent such information from being shared on a P2P network, may violate applicable law and subject the company to legal action. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Contributed by Lillian Chaves Moon

Based partially upon an interpretation of Florida law, in Global Policy Partners, LLC, et al. v. Yessin, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112472 (Nov. 24, 2009), a Virginia district court has ruled that an LLC’s partner does not always have the authority to access a partner’s e-mails simply by virtue of his status in the company.

Katherine and Brent Yessin, husband and wife and business partners, were feuding as part of a messy divorce and business dissolution. Mrs. Yessin, on behalf of herself and the Florida business, brought suit against Mr. Yessin for his alleged illegal access of her personal e-mails, including those containing attorney-client communications in her divorce case, stored on the company’s server in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. §1030(a), and other federal and state statutes. In a motion to dismiss his wife’s complaint, Mr. Yessin argued that under Florida law, as a manager/partner in his business, he had the authority to access all e-mails stored on the business’s computer server regardless of his reason for doing so. The court disagreed.

The court found that even assuming Florida law authorized managers to access e-mail information stored on a company’s computer system, authorization is limited to carrying out the company’s business. Likewise, under the CFAA, authorization to access a computer system may not simply be based on a person’s status within the organization, but whether the person is accessing information in accordance with the “expected norms or intended use” of the computer network. Because the scope of Mr. Yessin’s authority to access his wife’s e-mails depended upon a detailed factual inquiry into his purposes for doing so, Mr. Yessin’s motion to dismiss the CFAA counts of the complaint was denied and Mrs. Yessin was allowed to proceed in her action.

Caution for employers: This decision has implications for employers in how and why managers may access employee e-mails. While an employer generally has the right to review stored e-mails on the employer’s system, regardless of whether the e-mails are an employee’s personal or business communications, the employer or employer’s agent must have a legitimate business purpose for such review, not a nefarious reason. Note, however, that, some courts have limited an employer’s ability to review an employee’s e-mails in other situations, such as when the e-mail is subject to the attorney-client privilege. Employers’ policies and procedures for accessing employee e-mails should be periodically reviewed and revised, where necessary, to ensure that the individuals who access lawfully stored e-mails not only have the appropriate status within the company, but also are doing so for legitimate business purposes.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks