California Business Litigation Blog

“Spoliation of evidence" is a legal phrase describing the deliberate destruction of evidence that would impact a trial. Although spoliation of evidence is a rare finding in civil cases, it was the finding of a state district judge in Virginia, who imposed fines totaling $522,000 on attorney Matthew Murray. Murray’s client was also fined $180,000 for acting on his lawyer’s advice to break the law. The case, Lester v. Allied Concrete Co., was a wrongful death suit filed on behalf of a bereaved husband.

The court found that Murray grew concerned that pictures Lester had posted on his Facebook account contradicted the pair’s claims in their case. The case was ultimately decided in Lester’s favor and $10 million in damages was awarded to him by a jury.

The deleted photographs came to light when an attorney for the defense managed to view Lester’s Facebook page through a mutual friend’s account. The page contained pictures that presented Lester engaged in various activities. Murray became concerned that some of these photographs, including one of Lester holding a beer and wearing a T-shirt proclaiming his admiration for “hot moms,” might cast doubt on Lester’s claim to be distraught over the loss of his wife. He advised Lester to remove the pictures.

Allied Concrete’s attorney was able to establish in court that Lester deleted the pictures, and the defense was furnished copies of them before the trial. After the trial, the judge ruled that all emails that had been exchanged between Murray and Lester were not protected under attorney-client privilege laws and demanded copies of them.

As a result of the evidence contained in the photographs, the judge decided that Lester was dishonest about his depression and the treatment he was receiving for it. Based on the emails exchanged between Lester and Murray, Lester was also found to have lied to the court about the existence of his Facebook account, and then lied about his attempts to delete it and its contents. In addition, the judge determined that Murray’s actions amounted to spoliation of evidence, and further found that he had attempted to cover his tracks by submitting incomplete evidence and blaming the act on a paralegal. After the ruling, Murray resigned from his law firm.

Continue reading "Judge Rules Deleting Facebook Photos is Tampering with Evidence " »

Although Twitter may have started out as a social networking tool, more and more businesses are using it as a marketing tool. A lot of people have Twitter accounts that they think of as a tool to promote their own careers. Sometimes, in the process of promoting their careers, they may do a little cross-promotion for their employer. After all, if it’s good for the company, it’s good for the employee, usually. “A rising tide lifts all boats,” to quote John F. Kennedy. But if you use your Twitter account to promote your company as well as yourself, then who owns the account?

A current legal case filed with the US District Court in the Northern District of California involving a private individual who used his Twitter account to boost his employer seeks to answer this question. PhoneDog, a mobile products website, is suing its former employee, Noah Kravitz, for $340,000.

PhoneDog says that Kravitz was “given use of” a Twitter account while he worked there, and that he continued to use the account after he left the firm, constituting theft of trade secrets and damage to the PhoneDog’s “business, goodwill, and reputation.”

PhoneDog says that the Twitter account @PhoneDog_Noah was used by Kravitz to “disseminate information and promote PhoneDog's services on behalf of PhoneDog." Kravitz counters that he created the account, linked it to his email address and used it to tweet the things that mattered to him personally, including tweets related to his career and PhoneDog, as well as sports and food, among other subjects.

In fact, says Kravitz, the account wouldn’t work as well if it didn’t combine both personal and career elements. "It's this melding of personal and professional which is why I've gained a modest following," he said in an interview, "Because it's not just the dry headline and link to something."

PhoneDog claims in the lawsuit that it asked Kravitz to drop the account when he left the company. Instead, it claims, he kept the account but changed the handle. Kravitz tells a different story. He says PhoneDog didn’t ask any such thing. Instead, he says, it gave him a green light to keep using the account and even to mention the company. "At no point until July of this year, a good 8 months after we parted ways, did they ask for the twitter account or claim in was their property."

In the lawsuit, PhoneDog claims that Kravitz’ post-employment use of the account is an attempt “…to discredit PhoneDog and destroy the confidence that PhoneDog's users have in PhoneDog."

According to Henry J. Cittone, an intellectual property attorney, the crucial question is going to be whether Kravitz was paid to create the account and to send Tweets. “They said they hired him to create this feed for them. That is the way the company could dislodge a Twitter feed from its owner."

Continue reading "Who Owns Your Twitter Account?" »

Reports of schools violating NCAA regulations by providing incentives to student athletes are nothing new. Numerous universities have been sanctioned for such violations in recent years, including the University of Miami, Ohio State University and the University of Southern California, among others. The most recent scandal, involving the University of North Carolina, offers a new twist on an old theme, however. The UNC scandal is notable because it was social media that first alerted NCAA officials that something was amiss. Tweets made by a student player on Twitter revealed that he was receiving unsanctioned benefits from the school.

In the NCAA’s Notice of Allegations, UNC was cited for failing to properly monitor the use of social media by student athletes. In response to the NCAA’s unprecedented actions in this case, universities across the nation have taken steps to limit, and in some cases, entirely prevent, athletes’ use of social media. These actions put schools in the precarious position of trying to restrict the First Amendment rights of their student athletes, most of whom are adults.

Some schools have stopped short of forbidding student athletes from using social media altogether, making mandatory monitoring a condition of team membership. Others have ventured even further into shaky legal ground by enforcing a total prohibition on social media use for all student athletes. Because the Supreme Court has made it clear that university students give up none of their First Amendment rights when they enroll, curtailing these rights leaves a university vulnerable to legal action from student athletes. It could be argued that banning student athletes from using social media rises to the level of a prior restraint on speech.

In the event of a legal challenge, universities will be forced to defend themselves in court and may end up paying damages. A more proactive approach might be to put an end to inappropriate incentives for student athletes, rather than taking questionable steps to prevent the athletes from telling anyone they are receiving them.

A federal appeals court has refused to order the reinstatement of a student suspended for cyber bullying. Kara Kowalski was a senior at Musselman High School in West Virginia when she launched her vicious attack against a classmate. Kara’s weapon of destruction was a personalized MySpace page entitled “S.A.S.H.”

At subsequent court hearings, Kara stated that S.A.S.H was an acronym for “Students Against Sluts Herpes.” She went on to allege that another student started a false rumor that the title really represented “Students Against Shay’s Herpes.”

Nonetheless, numerous youth immediately posted images of Shay on S.A.S.H. All of the intentionally altered pictures suggested that Shay had a venereal disease. Shay suffered severe harassment and ostracism as a direct and proximate cause thereof.

When Shay’s parents complained to authorities about this offensive content, school administrator deemed that S.A.S.H. was indeed a “hate website.” Official school policy prohibits cyber bullying. Accordingly, Kara received a five-day disciplinary suspension.

The ensuing litigation posited that this punishment violated Kara’s constitutional rights to due process and free speech.

The court rejected those claims, however. The sole purpose of S.A.S.H. as a forum for defamatory publication and derogatory depictions seems to have been the underlying rationale.

Thus, the Fourth Circuit jurists ruled that school officials did not usurp their legal authority by suspending Kara. Judge Paul V. Neimeyer penned the majority view. In it, he opined that school officials acted appropriately by taking Kara’s callous disregard for a fellow student very seriously.

In addition to being suspended, Kara was prohibited from crowning her successor to the “Queen of Charm” throne. She also lost a cheerleading post.

Ironically, Kara also claimed to have suffered severe depression and social isolation as collateral consequences. The court was apathetic to those assertions, however.

This is a great example of school authorities doing the right thing for the right reasons.

The last paragraph of the Court’s decision says it best: “Rather than respond constructively to the school’s efforts to bring order and provide a lesson following the incident, Kowalski has rejected those efforts and sued school authorities for damages and other relief. Regretfully, she yet fails to see that such harassment and bullying is inappropriate and hurtful and that it must be taken seriously by school administrators in order to preserve an appropriate pedagogical environment. Indeed, school administrators are becoming increasingly alarmed by the phenomenon, and the events in this case are but one example of such bullying and school administrators’ efforts to contain it. Suffice it to hold here that, where such speech has a sufficient nexus with the school, the Constitution is not written to hinder school administrators’ good faith efforts to address the problem."

The entire decision may be viewed HERE.

Continue reading "Federal Appeals Court Rules Against High School Cyberbully" »

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana has filed a lawsuit on behalf of two students who were suspended from athletic activities after their principal found sexually suggestive photos from a slumber party. In the lawsuit, the ACLU claims that Smith Green Community School Corporation and the Churubusco High School Principal, Mr. Austin Couch violated the students' rights by suspending them for out of school activities. The photos were posted to the student's MySpace pages.

According to the lawsuit documentation, the pictures were taken during a slumber party that occurred during the summer months. The students took photos of themselves kissing and licking a novelty lollipop and pictures of themselves wearing lingerie with dollar bills stuck within the clothing. There was no identification with the photos suggesting that the students attended the high school. The lawsuit states that the students were being humorous and that the actions were "irrelevant" to school functions.

After someone accessed, copied and supplied the photos to the principal, the principal suspended the students from all extracurricular activities for the school year. After parents spoke to the principal, the principal agreed to reduce their suspensions if the students attended several counseling sessions and apologized to the athletic board.

Although the school and principal stated they are unable to comment, they did release a statement stating that the pictures "caused a disruption within our athletic teams at the beginning of this year's sessions." The school states the students did not meet extracurricular expectations.

While the parents appealed the ruling, the students attended the counseling sessions so they could participate in fall activities. They also apologized for their behavior in front of the all male athletic board. The ACLU states that this was humiliating and embarrassing.

The ACLU states that this is only one case, out of many similar cases playing out across the country. The organization claims that private moments like these should stay there and out of school administrator's hands.

The school uses a code of conduct that states that the principal "may exclude any student athlete from representing Churubusco High School if his/her conduct in or out of school reflects discredit upon Churubusco High School or the IHSAA or creates a disruptive influence on the discipline, good order, moral or educational environment at Churubusco High School."

The ACLU is hoping to classify the case as a class action suit, since many parents could be part of it. The lawsuit asks for the district to no longer be allowed to punish students for such behaviors and asks that the incident be expunged from the two student's records.

Continue reading "ACLU Files Lawsuit Over Slumber Party Photos" »