Electronic Discovery Navigator

Court Denied Subpoena Seeking Palin's Emails

US DISTRICT COURT DENIES SUBPOENA OF GOV PALIN’S EMAILS

"On March 17, 2010, the magistrate judge presiding over the criminal case pending against the alleged hacker, David Kernell, issued a detailed and thorough ruling denying Mr. Kernell’s request for broad subpoena requests to rummage through Sarah Palin’s email account. The judge, U.S. District Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr. denied David C. Kernell’s motion to subpoena all of Governor Palin’s emails. Instead, the judge looked closely at the governments allegation against David Kernell, and Kernell’s defenses, and determined that the subpoenas the defense lawyer proposed sought, with one exception, completely irrelevant information to any issue pending in the case. Mr. Kernell was indicted for unauthorized access and identity theft allegedly committed on September 16, 2008. (March 17, 2010 Court Order, p. 2)."

Here's the Court's Order.

Litigant Access to Opponent ESI Challenged

Litigant Access to Opponent ESI Challenged

"Even if a judge's reasoning may give rise to criticism, an opinion can shed much light on how courts approach judgment calls over opening access to a litigation opponent's electronically stored information.

One such opinion was filed last month, in a case captioned Mintel International Group Ltd. v. Neergheen, No. 08-CV-3939 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2009). In that case, Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez rejected a plaintiff's efforts to secure a court order that would allow it to search the computers of a defendant's new employer.

Last summer, in a column discussing "departing employee" litigation, I wrote about an earlier opinion in Mintel International Group's litigation against Meesham Neergheen.

In Mintel International Group Ltd. v. Neergheen, No. 08-CV-3939 (N.D. Ill. July 11, 2008), or "Mintel I," Mintel International sought a temporary restraining order against its former employee, Neergheen, who left to work for a direct competitor."