S.D.N.Y. Orders Redactions In Summary Judgment Exhibits for PII Covered by GDPR

This past week, Judge Ronnie Abrams issued a decision, Letchford v. Scotwork (N. Am.), Inc., 19-CV-8921, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221770 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2020) granting the parties' joint motion to seal exhibits for their summary judgment motions.

The parties requested permission to redact personal information (email addresses, telephone numbers, and home addresses) of Scotwork employees who were EU citizens pursuant to the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation. The Court determined that even though there was a strong presumption of access, since the documents were relevant for the Court's judicial function, it found limited redactions could be made since the personal information was not necessary or helpful to deciding the summary judgment motion. "Court thus finds that the parties' interest in maintaining the confidentiality of Defendants' employees' personal information sufficient to rebut the common-law presumption of access." Id. at *3.

For Motions to Transfer in the Age of ESI, Ease of Access is Moot

Yesterday, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a decision, Williams v. Condensed Curriculum Int'l, No. 4:20-cv-05292-YGR, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212886 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2020), denying the Defendant's motion to transfer venue.

In deciding such a motion, one of the factors to consider is the ease of access to evidence in the target forum. The Court's decision indicates that since most evidence these days is electronically stored information, this factor is moot. "Given that the records could easily be compiled electronically, if not already available in this format, this factor is neutral." Id. at *16.

The other factors to consider in ruling on a motion to transfer are:

1. The Plaintiff's choice of forum.

2. The convenience of the parties.

3. Convenience of the witnesses.

4. Familiarity of each forum with the relevant law.

5. Possibility of consolidating multiple cases.

6. Local interest in the matter.

7. The case load in each forum.

SCOTUS to Rule on Whether Unauthorized Access to Computer Data Is a Federal Crime

Van Buren v. United States, No. 19-783 (U.S. filed Dec. 18, 2019), is a case in which the Petitioner has asked the Supreme Court of the United States to rule on whether or not a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if the same information is accessed for an unauthorized purpose. Van Buren requests that the Court reverse the judgment of the 11th Circuit that the Act should be interpreted broadly as covering access to information beyond stated use restrictions. The petitioner's brief points out that any access on a computer to information which violates a business's policies; a website's terms of service; or other restrictions would constitute a federal crime. Van Buren maintains that even if the government states it will not prosecute all violations of the Act, the Court should rule that section 1030 of the Act only concerns unauthorized computer hacking. Violations of private rules or state laws about the use of computer data should not be federal crimes.

While employed as a police officer, Van Buren looked up a license plate number in a database that he was authorized to use as part of his regular duties in exchange for $5,000.

The reply brief has been filed in this case, and it has been circulated to the Court for consideration at a conference. I will post about the decision when it is published.