Electronic Discovery, by Darren Chaker

Darren Chaker excryption

Darren Chaker has been very successful in advising high net worth clients how to protect assets, especially when it comes within the realm of intellectual property.

Federal law protects login information. In Chauvin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 10-11735, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121600 (S.D. Mich. Oct. 20, 2011), the court affirmed an award of sanctions against the defendant due to its motion to compel production of the plaintiff’s Facebook password. The court upheld the decision of the magistrate judge, who had concluded that the content the defendant sought to discover was available “through less intrusive, less annoying and less speculative means,” even if relevant. Furthermore, there was no indication that granting access to the account would be reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible information. Thus, the motion to compel warranted an award of sanctions.

A smart tactic to use would be to store the password information would be contained

in a stored database within the website – thus would qualify as electronically stored content[1].

If counsel were to somehow convince the court to review the blog, and in an effort to guard against overly broad disclosure of a party’s social media information, some courts have conducted an in-camera review prior to production. For example, in Offenback v. Bowman, a No. 1:10-cv-1789, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66432 (M.D. Pa. June 22, 2011), the magistrate judge conducted an in-camera review of the plaintiff’s Facebook account and ordered the production of a “small segment” of the account as relevant to the plaintiff’s physical condition. In most cases, there is no financial worth of the blogs: no money is made on them, credit card, or other financial information is not processed, and ad space is not sold. Thus, have no materiality to counsel.

Darren Chaker also notes in Douglas v. Riverwalk Grill, LLC, No. 11-15230, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120538 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 24, 2012), the court ordered the plaintiff to provide the contents for in camera review. After conducting its review of “literally thousands of entries,” the court noted that “majority of the issues bear absolutely no relevance” to the case. In particular, the court found that the only entries that could be considered discoverable were those written by the plaintiff, which could be in the form of “comments” he made on another’s post or updates to his own “status.” The court identified the specific entries it had determined were discoverable. However, using an in camera method is not required. In Tomkins v. Detroit Metropolitan Airport, 278 F.R.D. 387 (E.D. Mich. 2012), the court declined the parties’ suggestion that it conduct an in camera review, explaining that “such review is ordinarily utilized only when necessary to resolve disputes concerning privilege; it is rarely used to determine relevance.”

In Tomkins v. Detroit Metropolitan Airport, 278 F.R.D. 387 (E.D. Mich. 2012), the court declined the parties’ suggestion that it conduct an in camera review, explaining that “such review is ordinarily utilized only when necessary to resolve disputes concerning privilege; it is rarely used to determine relevance.”

Darren Chaker excryption
Darren Chaker directs clients to use encryption to keep information secure.

Providers, including Facebook, take the position that the SCA prohibits them from disclosing social media contents, even by subpoena. From Facebook’s website:

A blog is similar to Facebook where people interact, post thoughts, opinions on topics. One of the more well-known instances of people trying to force their way into a blog is seen in federal law prohibits Facebook from disclosing “user content (such as messages, Wall (timeline) posts, photos, etc.), in response to a civil subpoena. Specifically, the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., prohibits Facebook from disclosing the contents of an account to any non-governmental entity pursuant to a subpoena or court order.

One of the earliest cases to address the issue, Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 717 F. Supp. 2d 965 (C.D. Cal. 2010), concluded that the SCA prohibited a social-networking site from producing a user’s account contents in response to a civil discovery subpoena. In that case, the defendants served subpoenas on several third parties, including Facebook and MySpace, seeking communications between the plaintiff and another individual. The plaintiff moved to quash the subpoenas.

And Last, Darren Chaker explains, the court held that plaintiff had standing to bring the motion, explaining that “an individual has a personal right in information in his or her profile and inbox on a social-networking site and his or her webmail inbox in the same way that an individual has a personal right in employment and bank records.” Moreover, the court determined that the providers were electronic communication service (ECS) providers under the SCA and were thus prohibited from disclosing information contained in “electronic storage.” Last, Plaintiff does not have the luxury of seeking a subpoena for the records.[2]

[1] See, U.S. Internet Service Provider Association, Electronic Evidence Compliance—A Guide for Internet Service Providers, 18 BERKELEY TECH. L. J. 945, 965 (2003) ([No Stored Communications Act provision] “permits disclosure pursuant to a civil discovery order unless the order is obtained by a government entity. … [T]he federal prohibition against divulging email contents remains stark, and there is no obvious exception for a civil discovery order on behalf of a private party.”)

[2] See, also, J.T. Shannon Lumber Co., Inc. v. Gilco Lumber Inc., 2008 WL 4755370 (N.D.Miss. 2008) (holding there is no “exception to the [SCA] for civil discovery or allow for coercion of defendants to allow such disclosure.”); Viacom Intern. Inc. v. Youtube Inc., 253 F.R.D. 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“ECPA § 2702 contains no exception for disclosure of [the content of] communications pursuant to civil discovery requests.”); Thayer v. Chiczewski, 2009 WL 2957317 (N.D.Ill. 2009) (“most courts have concluded that third parties cannot be compelled to disclose electronic communications pursuant to a civil–as opposed to criminal–discovery subpoena”); Mintz v. Mark Bartelstein & Associates, Inc., 885 F. Supp. 2d 987, 991 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (“The SCA does not contain an exception for civil discovery subpoenas.”).

Federal First Offender Act by Darren Chaker

darren chaker appeal
darren chaker appeal
Federal appeal article, Darren Chaker

While reviewing recent law concerning deportation, Darren Chaker found the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that an alien whose offense would have qualified for treatment under the Federal First Offender Act (“FFOA”), but who was convicted and had his conviction expunged under state or foreign law, may not be removed on account of that offense. See Dillingham v. INS, 267 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2001); Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000). To qualify for treatment under the FFOA, the defendant must (1) have been found guilty of an offense described in section 404 of the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), 21 U.S.C. § 844; (2) have not, prior to the commission of such an offense, been convicted of violating a federal or state law relating to controlled substances; and (3) have not previously been accorded first offender treatment under any law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3607(a); Cardenas-Uriarte v. INS, 227 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2000).

A. Expungement Under State or Foreign Law

The alien’s prior conviction must have already been expunged pursuant to the state or foreign expungement statute; the possibility that the alien may request and have his conviction expunged in the future is not sufficient to avoid the consequences of removal. See Chavez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1284, 1292-93 (9th Cir. 2004).

The state or foreign statute under which the conviction was expunged does not have to be an identical procedural counterpart to the FFOA. See Garberding v. INS, 30 F.3d 1187, 1190-1191 (9th Cir. 1994). See also Lujan-Armendariz, 222 F.3d at 738 n.18 (“[R]elief does not depend on whether or not the state rehabilitative statute is best understood as allowing for ‘vacaturs,’ ‘set-asides,’ ‘deferred adjudications,’ or some other procedure.”). The Ninth Circuit has recognized expungements for FFOA purposes where the state court “has entered an order pursuant to a state rehabilitative statute under which the criminal proceedings have been deferred pending successful completion of probation or the proceedings have been or will be dismissed after probation.” Lujan-Armendariz, 222 F.3d at 738 n. 18 (emphasis in original) (quoting Matter of Manrique, 21 I&N Dec. 58, 64 (BIA 1995)). The Ninth Circuit has not yet decided whether an alien who has received a court order deferring adjudication, but has not yet had his proceedings expunged because he has not completed his term of probation, is eligible for FFOA treatment. See id. at 746 n.28; Chavez-Perez, 386 F.3d at 1293.

B. Offenses Described in Section 404 of the Controlled Substances Act

Section 404 of the CSA provides that it is “unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance . . . .” 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). Any state or foreign possession of a controlled substances offenses, such as those set forth in sections 11350(a) and 1137 of the California Health and Safety Code (“CHSC”), are described in section 404 of the CSA and are therefore potentially eligible for FFOA treatment.

1. Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

Darren Chaker found the Ninth Circuit has recognized that “the plain language of the statute suggests that possession of drug paraphernalia should not be included as an offense described in section 844,” since paraphernalia is not a controlled substance. Cardenas-Uriarte, 227F.3d at 1137. Nonetheless, in Cardenas-Uriarte, the Ninth Circuit determined that theapplication of the plain meaning of the statute in that instance would lead to both an absurd result and frustrate congressional intent. See id. The petitioner had initially been charged with two counts of possession, but had pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of possession of drug paraphernalia. Id. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that refusing to allow the petitioner’s offense to receive treatment under the FFOA would lead to an absurd result since the petitioner would have been eligible had he refused to plea guilty and been convicted, as initially charged, of the graver offense of possession. See id. The Ninth Circuit further determined that applying the plain meaning of the FFOA would frustrate congressional intent:

Congress intended to allow those convicted of the least serious type of drug offenses to qualify under the Act. Congress would never have considered including possession of drug paraphernalia under this statute because no federal statute covers the crime of possession of drug paraphernalia. Where possession of drug paraphernalia is a less serious offense than simple possession of a controlled substance, therefore, congressional intent indicates that it should be included under the Act. See id. The Ninth Circuit therefore held that the petitioner’s conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia qualified for treatment under the FFOA.

2. Use or Being Under the Influence

Nor is use or being under the influence an offense described in the plain language of section 404 of the CSA. See 21 U.S.C. 844. The Ninth Circuit has not yet determined whether use or  FFOA. See Aguiluz-Arellano v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 980, 984 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing its holding that the petitioner’s use or being under the influence was not eligible for FFOA treatment as a result of his prior controlled substance conviction from the Board’s determination that the FFOA only applies to possession of a controlled substance, not to use or being under the influence offenses).

Extending the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Cardenas-Uriarte, however, may be warranted if the application of the plain meaning of the statute frustrates congressional intent. In Lujan-Armendariz, 222 F.3d at 734-35, the Ninth Circuit described the FFOA as “a limited federal rehabilitative statute that permits first-time drug offenders who commit the least serious type of drug offense to avoid the drastic consequences which typically follow a finding of guilt in drug cases.” Congressional intent may therefore be frustrated if the respondent is a first-time offender since “[d]rug use has generally been considered a less serious crime than possession.” Flores-Arellano v. INS, 5 F.3d 360, 363 n.5 (9th Cir. 1993). See also Medina v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2005). Further, as in Cardenas-Uriarte, federal law does not penalize use or being under the influence of a controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.

Search Warrants Federal Law by Darren Chaker

darren chaker article

 

darren chaker article
Search warrant being served, article by Darren Chaker

Darren Chaker article on search and seizure law.  The “‘physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.”‘ Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585 (1980) (citation omitted). Indeed, the Fourth Amendment “ordinarily prohibits] the warrantless entry of a person’s house as unreasonable per se.” Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 109 (2006). Often times, police gain entry to a home or hotel through ‘apparent authority’, often a guest or roommate.

“A ‘search’ occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984). “Almost a century ago the Court stated in resounding terms that the principles reflected in the [Fourth] Amendment. . . ‘apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employees of the sanctity of a man’s home.”‘ Payton, 445 U.S. at 585 (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886)). “It is a ‘basic principle of Fourth Amendment law’ that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Id. at 586 (quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 477 (1971)).

Indeed, “a warrantless entry to search for weapons or contraband is unconstitutional even when a felony has been committed and there is probable cause to believe that incriminating evidence will be found within.” Id. at 587-588. See also id. at 588 n.26 (“‘It is settled doctrine that probable cause for belief that certain articles subject to seizure are in a dwelling cannot of itself justify a search without a warrant.”‘) (quoting Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 497 (1958)).

Darren Chaker also notes in Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (1964), for example, a hotel clerk’s consent to police entering the defendant’s room did not cure the officers’ failure to get a warrant. “It is true,” the Court explained, “that when a person engages a hotel room he undoubtedly gives ‘implied or express permission’ to ‘such persons as maids, janitors or repairmen’ to enter his room ‘in the performance of their duties.’ But the conduct of the night clerk and the police in the present case was of an entirely different order.” Id. at 489 (quoting United States v. Jeffers, 342 U.S. 48, 51 (1951)). The conduct was to search the defendant’s room for evidence of armed robbery, and there was “nothing in the record to indicate that the police had any basis whatsoever to believe that the night clerk had been authorized by the [defendant] to permit the police to search [his] room.” Id.

Likewise, in Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610 (1961), a landlord’s consent to police entering the defendant’s home did not cure the officers’ failure to get a warrant. Though the landlord had passed the home, smelled what he thought might be illicit liquor, and had the right under state law to inspect the premises for waste, the Court rejected the notion that he thus had authority to admit the police: “‘ [T]heir purpose in entering was not to view waste but to search for distilling equipment,”‘ and “to uphold such an entry, search and seizure ‘without a warrant would reduce the Fourth Amendment to a nullity and leave tenants’ homes secure only in the discretion of landlords.”‘ Id. at 616-617. See also, United States v. Reid, 226 F.3d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 2000) (no apparent authority where officer knew person who consented to entry, despite answering front door, was not registered tenant and had not been seen in the building by other residents).

The Court reaffirmed these principles in Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006): “A person on the scene who identifies himself, say, as a landlord or a hotel manager calls up no customary understanding of authority to admit guests without the consent of the current occupant.” Id. at 112.

In sum, the law provides basic instruction on the obligations of police prior to relying on apparent authority of a person to conduct entry, or search of a residence or hotel.