Slashdot Mirror
Judge Demands Email and Facebook Passwords From Women In Sexual Harassment Case
An anonymous reader writes "Back in September, a U.S. judge ruled that a school district violated the First Amendment (freedom of speech) and Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) rights of a 12-year-old student by forcing her to hand over her Facebook password to school officials who in turn used it to search for messages they deemed inappropriate. This month, another U.S. judge has ordered that women suing their employer for sexual harassment must hand over cell phones, passwords to their email accounts, blogs, as well as to Facebook and other social networks."
I propose /. split into two sites, one featuring litigation and the other focuses on news for nerds.
A judge is perfectly permitted to require the defense access to potentially usable evidence given probable cause that the evidence is there. School officials, on the other hand, are not judges or part of the legal system.
Complete non-story by some muckraker. Naturally, /. posts it.
Not at all.
If you are suing, then cell phones, Facebook and email are all part of the evidence in the case. Without reading the sepcifics I cannot tell you why the judge wanted it.
The teachers requiring a FB p/w were on a fishing expedition that went beyond the purview of their positions.
We'e seen a few stories recently like this, where a judge has demanded someone to turn over information that they've already agreed not to in a TOS.
Was this ever resolved, whether a judge can order you to violate a TOS? Either it's legally binding or it's not. Not variable on who's asking or whether or not it's convenient. They need to make up their minds.
Yes a judge can order you to violate a TOS. A judge's order obligates you and you can't be legally bound by contract to violate a judges order.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
So a woman claims sexual harassment, states that all the evidence is on her phone, email and facebook, and we're supposed to be outraged that the judge wants the evidence?
Yes, I checked the linked articles to make sure, downmod me for that, but without providing this information the accuser has no case whatsoever.
I'm impressed that the judge actually wants the evidence, most of the lawsuits that get to Slashdot seem to show judges who ignore all evidence and go with whatever lawyer has the prettiest tie that day.
The plaintiff was allegedly using facebook to make statements about the case and other events relevant to the case.
There is a BIG difference between a judge ordering someone to disclose their facebook password to collect evidence and a school teacher or principal doing it. Also, the person in question here is the plaintiff. The defense generally does have a lot of latitude when it comes to evidence collection. My only complaint here is that the plaintiff's sexual behavior outside of work should not be relevant or admissible, but it looks like from some of the statements that the defense is going to push to get that stuff admitted. The judge should put pretty strict criteria on what evidence may be collected and presented to the jury. We aren't really getting those details here, though.
Fuck you and your terrorism fear mongering. Seriously, just fuck you. People like you are a far bigger threat to our freedom than any terrorist.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Go ahead and post your social security number.
And your mother's maden name
And your date of birth
You have nothing to hide? Prove it.
Yeah, right.
Usually in discovery you turn over data, often times even processed data (scans, copies, PDFs rather than original files).
Redactions are very common. Handing over 100% of communication, relevant or not, completely ubredacted is NOT how things are supposed to work.
note, always make sure to send a message to your lawyer with every account. They should then be able to argue that it contains priveledged info and needs to be turned over by the lawyer in a different format (not saying it will work, but It's worth a try).
Back when records were physical, lawyers were given temporary, unrestricted, but observed access to documents, and able to ask for broad sections to be copied and sent based on what they saw.
I think the facebook equivalent is to give access to the account supervised for x number of hours, and then allow requests to be made for all messages in this date range, or these people, etc.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
If you are suing, then cell phones, Facebook and email are all part of the evidence in the case. Without reading the sepcifics I cannot tell you why the judge wanted it.
Also, TFA clearly states that the accounts are turned over to the forensics expert not to the defendant. Forensics expert hopefully being an impartial observer here - it's not like the defendant has their account to himself.
I RTFA, it is a legit request.
The plaintiffs were using it to communicate about the suit. It is their own ignorance that caused it.
I fail to see how a subpoena to Facebook and her mail provider couldn't accomplish the same thing without having to give out passwords.
Because it involves a third party and makes thing even more complicated than it should be. It is a waste of time and could be money (process fees). The plaintiff is the one who wants to use it for the suit, why not simply give the real sources. Over complicate a process often times is not a good solution but cost more on both time and money.
The DEFENDANT is the one that wants the info. They're claiming that on the internets you can find the plaintiffs:
Wearing a shirt with the word CUNT on it (one plaintiff claims the word cunt was used around her or in reference to her, and that that offends her and she needs lots of money for it)
Discussing their financial situation after being fired
Discussing their job prospects after being fired
Discussing their interactions with the defendants
Discussing the suit in general
Passwords must be given (just change it to something random and hand it to the court) so the court can appoint a reviewer to select which info is pertinent to the case. The reviewer then hands it off to the owner of the account (the plaintiffs) and they block/redact any info they say is private or unrelated. The reviewer then presents the evidence to the court (both plaintiff and defendant) and tells the judge if he thinks the owner of the account chose to block / redact any pertinent information.
Actually, if you look at actual cases, it isn't a 'classical assumption' when it comes to sexual harassment suits. They tend to be a significant uphill battle with a lot of 'she is just sensitive, she is just selective, she is just taking advantage of the law' stuff thrown in.. it has disturbing similiarities to the arguments brought up to discredit rape victims.. including the BS 'but she uses that language' argument (which they seem to be fishing for here) since that is just a recasting of one of the common defenses against rape allegations.. 'well, she was a loose woman who slept around', as if somehow because she does something privately it means someone doing it to her non-consentually is ok.
You should RTFA.
One plaintiff is suing because of the word cunt. She can be seen wearing a shirt with the word cunt on it.
Various plaintiffs are suing because they were fired and can't find employment. There are messages sent between them indicating they actualyl had job offers.
There are also messages between the plaintiffs detailing their interactions with the defendants, their plans to sue, etc.
This isn't victim blaming, it's bog standard evidence discovery.
Interesting, my interpretation was different.
She's claimed abuse, yet perpetrates that abuse herself.
She's claimed harrassment, yet has engaged in that behaviour.
She's claimed loss, yet has stated she's benefited.
It doesn't seem inappropriate that the court would seek clarity on these matters.
I'd rather they demanded "all material" than passwords, and it would also make more sense: I don't know where the cellphone I owned in 2009 _is_, and I did a factory reset on it before I stopped using it. So it has no text messages, no email, etc. on it; giving it to the court is futile.