- Related Stories
-
Judge to help feds against Google
March 14, 2006 -
Police blotter: Ex-employee faces suit over file deletion
March 10, 2006 -
Police blotter: Cell phone tracking rejected
March 3, 2006 -
Police blotter: Dot-com magnate loses fraud appeal
February 24, 2006 -
Police blotter: Patriot Act e-mail spying approved
February 9, 2006 -
Verbatim: Search firms surveyed on privacy
February 3, 2006 -
Police blotter: Sysadmin loses e-intrusion case
January 13, 2006 -
Police blotter: Alleged eDonkey pirate gets trial
January 6, 2006 -
Police blotter: Nude 'profile' yields Yahoo suit
December 9, 2005 -
Police blotter: Legal flap over secret sex video
November 25, 2005 -
Police blotter: Judge questions Patriot Act bugs
November 4, 2005 -
Police blotter: Feds' cell phone tracking denied
October 28, 2005
What: In a lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission, a subpoena is sent to Google for the complete contents of a Gmail account, including deleted e-mail messages. This is unrelated to the Department of Justice's own subpoena to Google for search terms and excerpts from its search database.
When: U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte in San Francisco ruled on Jan. 31 and March 13.
Outcome: Judge grants subpoena and orders that all e-mail messages, including deleted ones, be divulged.
What happened, according to the court: In November 2003, the Federal Trade Commission sued AmeriDebt and founder Andris Pukke on charges that the company deceived customers about credit counseling and failed to use customers' money to actually pay their creditors.
AmeriDebt settled, but the courts are still trying to uncover the location of Pukke's apparently sizeable assets. (A Washington Post article in September said the IRS is seeking $300 million from Pukke. His attorney at the venerable firm of Jones Day charges a hefty $575 an hour.)
Pukke's missing money has been linked to a Belize developer called Dolphin Development, which counts a fellow named Peter Baker as a shareholder. The court-appointed receiver in the FTC case, Robb Evans & Associates (click here for PDF), sent a subpoena to Google on Nov. 1 asking for the complete contents of Baker's Gmail account.
Baker objected to the subpoena, saying it could disclose confidential information, including attorney-client conversations.
The subpoena asks for not only current e-mail but also deleted e-mail: "All documents concerning all Gmail accounts of Baker...for the period from Jan. 1, 2003, to present, including but not limited to all e-mails and messages stored in all mailboxes, folders, in-boxes, sent items and deleted items, and all links to related Web pages contained in such e-mail messages."
Google's privacy policy says deleted e-mail messages "may remain in our offline backup systems" in perpetuity. It does not guarantee that backups are ever deleted. Baker estimated he may have tens of thousands of e-mail messages in his Gmail account.
In a Jan. 31 ruling, Laporte rejected Baker's request. She said his attorney could withhold "truly protected" information but must "err on the side" of disclosure.
Baker asked the judge to reconsider. On Monday, Laporte reiterated her decision, saying the argument about confidentiality "is baseless" because her earlier order creates an exception for such e-mail messages.
Excerpt from Laporte's Jan. 31 opinion: "Conspicuously absent from Baker's briefs is any denial that he is linked to the (Gmail) account, Pukke and/or Pukke-controlled entities. On the contrary, Baker relies entirely on formalistic objections and never once attacks the substance of the receiver's theories or facts. And, ironically, while he argues that the receiver has not submitted any admissible evidence to support its contentions, the only evidence Baker submitted are declarations by his attorneys that only support his claim that some documents may be protected by the attorney-client privilege but do not address his other claims about privacy interests."
Excerpt from Laporte's March 13 opinion: "(Baker) argues that being forced to pay his attorneys to screen these documents and to create a privilege log would 'necessarily involve an exorbitant amount of attorney time, resulting in the incurrence of thousands of dollars of attorneys' fees for which Mr. Baker will not be reimbursed...Within five court days of this order, Baker shall immediately turn over all documents to the receiver, withholding only those documents that are shielded from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, or those which are truly protected by a legitimate privacy interest."
- More from News.com on this story's topics
Web sites
E-mail clients
Search
E-mail servers
E-mail messages
Google
See more CNET content tagged:
subpoena,
Gmail,
Police Blotter,
Judge,
attorney
- This Is Why Thin Client Computing Will Fail
- In another article the fact that broadband pipes are fast enough to support thin client computing is touted. And, okay, maybe we're going to get some bad guys off the streets and I'm all for that. But, at the end of the day, if I run a business I want to know that "DELETE" means exactly that--It's gone never to be seen again. Not that I want to do anything illegal. But rather that I know that every bit of my business' precious data is protected from loss, and from the prying eyes of those whom I don't wish to see it. The same thing goes for my personal data. mark d.
- Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
- How cna electronic documents like email...
- ....be covered under Client / Attorney confidentiality; when the documents can essentially be altered with little effort? ~Justin www.TechViewsToday.US
- Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
- Reminds me of Jim West
- Amother interesting computer forensics case involved the former Neandertal Republican Mayor of Spokane. He was ousted in a recall election after soliciting young males at Gay.com last year. The local newspaper acquired transcripts of the conversations, which sometimes involved virtual sex acts. Before it was over, newspaper readers, the FBI, city government and the Washington Supreme Court were privy to Jim West's amorous chats and emails.
- Reply to this comment
- Just another reason not to Gmail
- US law provides LESS protection to this kind of personal information. In the future GMail will be forced to provide this info in everything from: Divorce cases: See! (S)He was cheating and here's proof from their old deleted emails! Terrorism: See! The accused did delete an anti-american email that originated/was sent to X country or person! Personal Injury Cases: The defendant sent an email to his friend describing the accident and that description is different than the one in his testimony! Criminal Suits: Ask some Chinese dissedent for a scenario! Nope..... GMail can google this (making an obscene gesture)!
- Reply to this comment View reply
- Obviously it asks only for a "Deleted Items Folder"!
- Obviously the subpoena asks only for a "Deleted Items Folder", not for Google to go over all its replicated storage and look for traces of of deleted files that were not yet written over and happened to contain someone's email. In other words, it just explicitly says that one of the folders turned over should be the "Trash" folder".
- Reply to this comment View reply
- How is this news?
- From the Gmail Privacy Policy: You may organize or delete your messages through your Gmail account or terminate your account through the Google Account section of Gmail settings. Such deletions or terminations will take immediate effect in your account view. Residual copies of deleted messages and accounts may take up to 60 days to be deleted from our active servers and may remain in our offline backup systems. So basically all this means is that even if you delete an email it could exist in tape somewhere in a vault. This is not new. Every e-mail service provider does this exact same thing! Do you truly believe that when you delete mail from that Yahoo or Hotmail account they drag out the backup tapes to delete them there too? The truly sinister thing is this: why do you know that with Gmail there is a possibility that your email could still exist in a residual back up but not with any other email provider? Why is Google the only one telling people that this can happen? If this guy had a Yahoo account the exact same thing would happen. Yahoo would have to make the best effort to retrieve all the data that is requested from them and that would include information stored in backups.
- Reply to this comment
- This guys argument is bogus
- If the feds had setup an old fashioned wire tap, and part of the phone conversations were between this guy any his laywer, the feds still have the right to listen. This in no way gives them the right to use any lawyer talk in court. Email is no different, except that the data was retained before requesting a warrant for the information. Steve
- Reply to this comment
- This guys argument is bogus
- If the feds had setup an old fashioned wire tap, and part of the phone conversations were between this guy any his laywer, the feds still have the right to listen. This in no way gives them the right to use any lawyer talk in court. Email is no different, except that the data was retained before requesting a warrant for the information. Steve
- Reply to this comment View reply
- This guys argument is bogus
- If the feds had setup an old fashioned wire tap, and part of the phone conversations were between this guy any his laywer, the feds still have the right to listen. This in no way gives them the right to use any lawyer talk in court. Email is no different, except that the data was retained before requesting a warrant for the information. Steve
- Reply to this comment


