Slashdot Mirror
Are You Being Served? Don't Open That Email!
An unnamed reader writes: "A federal appeals court has ruled that legal documents can be served by email.
Since the party had no physical address, the court ruled that email was a viable option.
So, before you open that next email, you might want to consider if it's something you might want to avoid! And it wouldn't be spam..."
I download all my "home" e-mails at night and read them on my laptop.. not online.
Come get me now!
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Sheesh - how hard can it be? They're both registered in bloody Las Vegas already ...
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc (RIOSPORTS3-DOM)
1023 Cherry Road
Memphis, TN 38117
US
Domain Name: RIOSPORTS.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Wilkins, Bobby (BW1169) hwilkins@HARRAHS.COM
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
1023 Cherry Rd
Memphis, TN 38117-5423
(901) 537-3785 (FAX) (901) 820-2570
Billing Contact:
Howard, Anika (AHU21) anhoward@HARRAHS.COM
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
One Harrah's Court
Las Vegas, NV 89193-8905
702-407-6456 (FAX) 702-407-6500
Record last updated on 14-Jan-2002.
Record expires on 23-Feb-2004.
Record created on 23-Feb-2001.
Database last updated on 21-Mar-2002 02:57:00 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.HARRAHS.COM 12.104.204.36
NS2.HARRAHS.COM 12.104.204.38
Registrant:
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc (BETRIO2-DOM)
1023 Cherry Road
Memphis, TN 38117
US
Domain Name: BETRIO.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Wilkins, Bobby (BW1169) hwilkins@HARRAHS.COM
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
1023 Cherry Rd
Memphis, TN 38117-5423
(901) 537-3785 (FAX) (901) 820-2570
Billing Contact:
Howard, Anika (AHU21) anhoward@HARRAHS.COM
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
One Harrah's Court
Las Vegas, NV 89193-8905
702-407-6456 (FAX) 702-407-6500
Record last updated on 14-Jan-2002.
Record expires on 23-Feb-2004.
Record created on 23-Feb-2001.
Database last updated on 21-Mar-2002 02:57:00 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.HARRAHS.COM 12.104.204.36
NS2.HARRAHS.COM 12.104.204.38
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
So lets assume that somehow they can prove that the message was actually opened and viewed. How does this mean that it was actually *me* that read it? Is there really anyway to consistenly prove that it was in fact me that read the message, and not my kid brother or some dude that hacked my account? It seems like it would be too easy to sniff the password to an email account, send a summons to it and view it. So the question is, how can they prove that the person who i was intended for is actually the one that opened it? I see how common sense would say this is a dumb question, but legally this seems like it would pose a very interesting dilemna.
This is not a surprise if you actually read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FRCP 4 (f) says (in relevant part) (italics added):
... may be effected in a place not within any judicial district of the United States:
...
Unless otherwise provided by federal law, service upon an individual from whom a waiver has not been obtained and filed
(1) by any internationally agreed means reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those means authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents; or
(2) if there is no internationally agreed means of service or the applicable international agreement allows other means of service, provided that service is reasonably calculated to give notice:
(A) in the manner prescribed by the law of the foreign country for service in that country
...
(C) unless prohibited by the law of the foreign country, by
(i) delivery to the individual personally of a copy of the summons and the complaint; or
(ii) any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the party to be served; or
(3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement as may be directed by the court.
Plus, under FRCP 4 (d) (2) (b) the defendant has a duty to avoid costs of service if a waiver of service is requested "through first-class mail or other relaible means."
The touchstone of whether service of process comports with due process is whether it is a method reasonably calculated to give notice under the circumstances. Our office regularly files cases requesting emergency authorization to demolish buildings that are in an imminently dangerous and hazardous condition and we provide notice by fax or by leaving messages on voice mail or by posting a notice on the door of the building. Under the circumstances that someone may be killed by a falling building if something is not done quickly, that is always sufficient notice under the circumstances.
In this case, the defendants were in a foreign country, at a concealed address, and the only known method of providing notice was via e-mail. Under many state laws, service by publication (those little ads in the back of the newspaper) is effective and constitutional. Certainly service via e-mail to the address provided by the defendant is more reasonably calculated to give notice than publication in the Law Bulletin would be.
This is yet another case of somebody seeing a high-tech buzzword and thinking it's hot news when it's really something that people have been doing for years.
They don't have to find you. If it appears that you are unavailable, intentionally or otherwise, and the plaintiff has made a serious effort to contact/locate you, you can be served by publication. Which means that if the court thinks you are in Los Angeles, CA, then all they have to do is put a small add in the classifieds (public notices) in a major LA paper, and then you've been served. Regardless of whether you've ever been in California or not. And yes you will by default if you don't show up for your court date.
I am not a lawyer, but my father delivers subpoenas for a living to men who have not paid child support. I asked him in the past about people refusing to accept subpoenas when he hands them to them. He explained that telling the party of the subpoena is sufficient for the subpoena to be served, and all that is required is that he a) notify them of the subpoena, and b) make it available to them. Refusing to accept the subpoena, not reading it, dropping it, ripping it up, or even claiming you aren't the person the subpoena is supposed to go to, do *nothing* to cancel the fact that the process server has, in fact, found you and given you sufficient notice of the legal document. In fact, a process server can simply used the scattershot method: deliver subpoenas to your home, your work, your gym, your parents' home, your girlfriend's house, your past addresses, everywhere, and in most cases it is sufficient to shove it in the mail slot, leave it in the mailbox, put it inside the screen door, hand it to another family member or household resident, put it under a windshield wiper, etc. Such a subpoena is considered served. You have been given sufficient notice. The court would prefer you pay attention to that notice, but it's your loss if you don't. So claiming you didn't get or didn't read an email message which you did indeed receive is likely an insufficient argument in the eyes of the court, particularly if there's strong evidence that you do, in fact, use the email address in question.
I should add that contrary to what you might think, most of the people who are served subpoenas are apologetic and civil, even a little bashful about having to have someone official notify them of a legal matter related to their own mistakes.
Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect
What happened was that his son. artbell jr (or whatever) had been molested by a teacher, who was sent away to jail for a very long time.
The idiot had his own small time talk show on shortwave (I think) Someone had sent the idiot a rumor that had it all backwards, accusing the talk show host father Art Bell of peodophilia. Art Bell had been trying to keep it quiet to protect his son, and eventually came forward with the information on the air, when the rumors got to heavy, and he had to file a law suit. Needless to say, the father was not pleased, hired the best of lean and hungry lawyers, and had at the jerk.
Now there are programs like Mailwasher that let you erase and bounce email before you download it. Of course, Unix admins have been able to do this since the dawn of time.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"