• Home
  • News
  • Firms & Lawyers
  • Courts
  • Judges
  • Surveys/lists
  • Columns
  • Verdicts
  • Public Notices
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe

Home > Corporate Control of Personal Communications

Font Size: increase font decrease font

E-Discovery

Corporate Control of Personal Communications

By David R. Cohen, Timothy J. Nagle and Caitlin R. Gifford Contact All Articles 

The Legal Intelligencer

January 29, 2013

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •      
 
David R. Cohen

David R. Cohen

Timothy Nagle

Timothy Nagle


Caitlin R. Gifford

Businesses are facing several new realities. Their customers and clients expect them to go beyond "traditional" forms of communication into social media. Their employees prefer or even expect to be able to communicate with family, friends and others via personal email, social media and instant messaging or texting while in the workplace. And the ubiquity of mobile devices such as tablets or smartphones has caused some companies to consider implementing "Bring Your Own Device" (BYOD) policies to cut costs and increase employee satisfaction.

This trend toward mobile devices and social media has effectively blurred the distinction between communications that are personal and private and those that companies control and have responsibility for. This changing digital horizon impacts corporate records retention, employee privacy, employee supervision and data collection for the purposes of electronic discovery. This article presents a practical approach to how companies can address privacy concerns while meeting their record retention and disclosure obligations.

Traditionally, during the course of discovery, parties first identify key custodians and potentially relevant subject matters related to their case. Following any mandatory record disclosures, which tend to be rather limited, they then proceed to propound numerous discovery requests seeking information relevant to the issues in their case. As technology has evolved, the types of data that parties routinely seek and the location of potentially relevant information has moved away from hard-copy documents residing in a company's filing cabinet and now focuses primarily on electronically stored information (ESI) in the form of emails and other electronically created documents residing on active servers.

Increasingly, we are seeing litigants request their opponents' Web history, voicemails, text messages or other more "novel" forms of ESI. However, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and their state counterparts, parties generally have an obligation to identify and produce only potentially relevant documents and materials that are within their "care, custody or control." Courts have interpreted this concept broadly by defining "control" as the legal right, authority or practical ability to obtain relevant information. Further, courts have emphasized that "control does not require that the party have legal ownership or actual physical possession of the documents at issue," as in Bush v. Ruth's Chris Steak House, Civil Action No. 10-1721 (D.C. June 18, 2012).

While companies are obligated to retain records that are necessary to ensure that their businesses function in the manner required by law, companies generally do not, as a matter of course, collect or retain their employees' social media interactions or Web browsing. Companies must understand applicable retention requirements and develop policies that adequately address the evolving landscape of how and where corporate records are created on personal or mixed personal and business devices. In drafting such policies, companies may want to consider:

• The extent to which it is technically feasible to retain electronic communications other than email, such as instant messages, text messages, Internet activity (Web browsing), posting on blogs or social media sites and voicemail on mobile devices. If it is not, consider whether those communications that cannot be retained should be allowed.

• Alert employees that any information created on, residing on, sent from, received by, stored on, or otherwise part of the company's information systems or company-supplied devices or storage media, is the property of the company and may be required to be disclosed to parties outside the company. Employees should have no privacy expectation with regard to any such information.

• Contemplate whether the policy should apply to any personally owned equipment (including home computers, PDAs and storage devices and media) to the extent such equipment is used to access the company's systems or support business communications.

• Emphasize that users who wish to minimize the chance that their personal email accounts, computers, phones, PDAs and storage devices could be subject to discovery or disclosure in legal actions, investigations or audits must avoid storing any company data in or on their personal email, devices or equipment. This can be supported through the deployment of enterprise mobile device management technology.

In order to implement such policies, corporations may want to require their employees to participate in training designed to reinforce what constitutes a corporate record, employees' privacy rights (or lack thereof), and the proper creation, storage and protection of corporate records and data.

A browser or device that allows javascript is required to view this content.

Continue reading

  • 1
  • 2

Next



Subscribe to The Legal Intelligencer

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Find similar content

Firms mentioned

    
  • Reed Smith

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • ESI
  • Federal Rules
  • EEOC
  • Honeybaked Ham Co. of Georgia
  • Supreme Court

Key categories

    
  • E-discovery
  • Records Retention
  • Law Firm Associates

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Workplace Bullying: Managing the Organizational Playground
    •      
  2. Third Circuit Rejects NLRB Recess Appointment
    •      
  3. Bernstein Upholds $78.4 Mil. Verdict in Phila. Med Mal Case
    •      
  4. Judges Want Master to Develop Record in Retirement Age Case
    •      
  5. New District Judge Takes Firm Line on Attorney Conduct
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

The General Counsel and the Compensation Committee

Your Company's Been Hacked -- What Comes Next?

Simpson Helps Yahoo, Tumblr Connect for $1 Billion Deal

Kasowitz Benson Launches in Los Angeles

Contrite Companies Can Win Forgiveness in Bribery Cases
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Plaintiffs Want to See Toyota's 'Crown Jewels'
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Collaboration Is Key to Defending Cyberattacks

Stanford Law Builds on Role as Legal Tech Incubator

Prolific ADA Plaintiff Faces Nemesis in Harassment Suit

Ullyot Exit Closes Chapter for Facebook

South Florida Attorneys Lead Force-Placed Insurance Fight

Suit Names Missing Attorney Timothy McCabe For Alleged Fraud
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Appellate Division To Roll Out Electronic Case Filing System

Court Limits Liability for Injury Or Death of One Invited To Help
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Judge Declines to Block Act-of-War Defense in 9/11 Case
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Panel Finds 'Excessive' City Fine for Poaching Antenna From Trash
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Lawsuit Testing Federal Porn Regulation Allowed to Survive

Ex-College QB Can Press Claim Over EA's Video Game
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Law Schools Are Looking Beyond LSATs, Says Mich. Dean

Is Freezing Your Eggs the Solution?

Water Warriors: Local Governments Bring Pollution Suits
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Sanction Reversed; Filing of Sexually Explicit Chat OKd
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Brooks Looks To Political Ally For Criminal Defense

Attorney Fee Hearing in Waffle House Sex Case Heats Up
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Corporate Bribery Case Part Of National Trend
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Continues To Grant Lawyers Fraud Immunity
  •      
    • Subscription Required

  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media