by ·0 Comments
FC 250 Grand Marshal, Paula Deen

FC 250 Grand Marshal, Paula Deen (Photo credit: Bristol Motor Speedway & Dragway)

Lisa Jackson’s discrimination and sexual harassment lawsuit against Paula Deen settled last Friday, but not before Deen tried to remove Jackson’s attorney, for publicly disparaging her on social media.  A court order filed hours before the settlement reveals that in March, Deen’s lawyers filed a motion for sanctions against Matthew C. Billips, the lawyer who represented Jackson (read the motion here).  The motion alleges that Billips made offensive remarks about Deen on Twitter.  Some of the more eyebrow-raising tweets included:

“I’ve been doing Paula Deen, in a strongly metaphorical sense”

“I plan on undressing [Deen]” (in reference to an upcoming deposition of Deen)

“Now talk about fun, suing Paula Deen is a hoot!”

In another Twitter conversation about Deen’s diabetes, Billips allegedly referred to Deen’s food with the hashtag #buttercoatedbuttercookies.

Based on Billips’ tweets and his discovery practices, Deen’s lawyers asked the court to disqualify him from continuing to represent Jackson.  As the August 23 court order shows, the judge declined to disqualify Billips, but it was open to imposing some form of sanctions against him.  The judge has indicated that the settlement will not stop the court from sanctioning Billips despite Deen’s lawyers attempt to withdraw their sanctions motion in light of the settlement.  Billips has 20 days as of Friday to show why he should not be sanctioned.

This cautionary tale that teaches litigants (and their attorneys) not to discuss pending cases on social media.  Posts on social networks like Facebook and Twitter can be publicly accessible, are potentially discoverable, and can be the basis for a defamation lawsuit.  There’s little to be gained and much to lose by talking about a lawsuit online.  For that reason, lawyers now commonly instruct their clients in their retainer agreements not to discuss the case with anyone on social media, even family and friends.  Lawyers would do well to follow their own advice.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

by ·1 Comment

Employer sues ex-employee for not updating his LinkedIn profile — Jefferson Audio Visual Systems, Inc. v. Light, 2013 WL 1947625 (W.D. Ky. May 9, 2013).

What would you do if your ex-employee told everybody he still works for you?  One company’s response was to sue.  In the first case of its kind, the company decided to sue its former employee for fraud for not updating his LinkedIn profile.

Jefferson Audio Visual Systems, Inc. (JAVS) fired its sales director, Gunnar Light, after he mishandled a potentially lucrative deal and made defamatory statements about JAVS to a prospective customer.  Shortly afterwards, JAVS filed a lawsuit against Light alleging various claims, including fraud.  JAVS argued that Light was fraudulent in failing to update his LinkedIn profile to reflect that he was no longer a JAVS employee.  A Kentucky federal court dismissed the fraud claim because JAVS failed to show that it was defrauded by Light’s LinkedIn profile.  At most, JAVS alleged that the profile tricked others.  Under Kentucky law, a party claiming fraud must itself have relied on the fraudulent statements.

LegalTXTS Lesson: JAVS’ actions against its ex-employee might have been rather extreme, but the case is a reminder that ex-employees can leave behind an electronic wake that is damaging.  Because computer technology is an integral part of work life, management needs to be intentional in disengaging ex-employees from the electronic systems and online persona of the organization.  Each organization must determine for itself what measures for dealing with such post-termination issues are feasible, effective, and consistent with its objectives, but here are some suggestions:

1.  Promptly update the organization’s website, social media profiles, and any other official online presence to reflect that the former employee no longer works for the organization.

2.  Specify who owns Internet accounts handled by the ex-employee for the organization’s  benefit and the information stored in the accounts.  This includes social media accounts and cloud storage accounts (e.g., DropBox, Google Drive, SkyDrive) to the extent they contain proprietary data.  As part of this measure, be sure to obtain the information needed to access the accounts, including any updates to login credentials.

3.  Restrict the amount of access to which former employees, as well as current employees whose departure is imminent, have to workstations, databases, and networks of the organization.  Limiting access helps to prevent theft of trade secrets and proprietary information.  Many CFAA lawsuits have been spawned by a failure to take this precaution.

4.  Check if the employee left behind anything that would enable him or her to gain unauthorized access to company systems, like malware, viruses, or “back doors.”

5.  Enable systems that allow of erasure of the organization’s data from electronic devices used by the ex-employee to remotely access the work network, such as smartphones, laptops, and tablet computers.

6.  Establish guidelines on employee use of the company’s intellectual property on personal internet profiles (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn), including trademarks and trade names.
Enhanced by Zemanta

by ·0 Comments

Federal court has no jurisdiction over PeopleBrowsr’s lawsuit against Twitter for shutoff of the “Firehose” – PeopleBrowsr, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., 2013 WL 843032 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2013)

Big Data equal big assets, and in 2012, Twitter made significant moves toward putting a premium on its assets by restricting access to its data to third-party services (count Instagram and Tumblr among those affected).  Social analytics provider PeopleBrowsr was one of the services affected by the changes in Twitter’s data access policies.  In 2012, Twitter shut off PeopleBrowsr’s access to the “Firehose,” the nickname for the full stream of every tweet posted on Twitter.  PeopleBrowsr mines data from the Firehose to derive insights about consumer reactions and identify social influencers for its clients.  PeopleBrowsr fought back against the impending Firehose shutoff by suing Twitter in California state court and successfully obtaining a temporary restraining order to stop the shutoff.

The next chapter in the lawsuit unfolded in federal court.  Twitter removed the lawsuit to federal court and then filed a motion to dismiss the action.  But the lawsuit’s stay in federal court will be brief because federal district judge Edward Chen recently issued a decision sending the lawsuit back to state court.  Twitter invoked federal jurisdiction on the ground that PeopleBrowsr’s claim for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) is based in part on the Sherman Act, over which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction.  Not so fast, said Judge Chen.  At best, the Sherman Act might give Twitter a defense to the UCL claim.  Unlike an affirmative claim for relief, a defense under federal law is not enough to support federal jurisdiction.  The alleged violations of the UCL were based entirely on California law.  Since federal courts have no jurisdiction over the lawsuit, the fight over the Firehose will continue in California courts.  The court awarded attorneys’ fees to Peoplebrowsr for opposing the removal of the case to federal court.

by ·0 Comments

Twitter will appeal the recent decision of a New York court ordering it to turn over the tweets of an Occupy protester being prosecuted for disorderly conduct.  Twitter’s legal counsel, Benjamin Lee (@BenL) , announced the decision in a tweet (how appropos).  Read the Wall Street Journal story here.  We’ll follow the appeal.

by ·1 Comment

Court finds no expectation of privacy in tweets — People v. Harris, 2012 WL 2533640 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. June 30, 2012)

A New York court ruled last week that Twitter must hand over subpoenaed information about one of its users, including tweets.  Let’s cut to the chase.  The most important statement in the ruling is this: “There can be no reasonable expectation of privacy in a tweet sent around the world.”  The court compared a tweet to shouting out the window — you can’t take back what you said, and anyone who heard you could testify about the statement.

The ruling has drawn criticism from online privacy advocates like the Electronic Freedom Frontier.  On a basic level, the court’s logic makes sense.  The problem is, will the ruling be used to justify refusal to recognize privacy interests in other forms of social media interactions?  Some courts already regard social media content as public per se.

Not all social media content is the same.  And the way content is shared (or not shared) should also be part of the privacy analysis. For instance, a Twitter user could set his account to private to exclude general access to his tweets.  By doing that, the user shows his intent not to communicate to the entire world.  Unlike shouting out a window, private tweets are more like striking a conversation with selected neighbors in your apartment building.

It’s unclear from the ruling if the Twitter user in this case protected his account.  Some commentators say the account was protected.  Regardless, the court made a sweeping statement about the lack of privacy interests in tweets without any attempt to differentiate between public and private Twitter accounts.  Such a broad-brushed approach seems to gloss over the legal significance of privacy settings.