Darren Chaker Rule 34

California invasion of privacy
Suppress evidence in California
Exclude Electronic Evidence,                           Darren Chaker.

Darren Chaker reviewed a post which concerned Truesdell v. Thomas No. 5:13-cv-552-Oc-10PRL, 2015 WL 2022991 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2015). In that case, the Court denied Motion to Compel Production of Electronically Stored Data where plaintiff said that 1500 printed pages of defendant’s database usage history were inadequate under FRCP 34(e)(ii) because they were not easily searchable.

Plaintiff sought to compel production of the electronic version of the data to include metadata, but the court said that the printed information was not as cumbersome as the plaintiff suggested because only a limited time period contained within the pages was relevant; the data did not originate from the defendant, so the defendant did not have the ability to manipulate the data to provide it only for the limited time period; Darren Chaker also recites the plaintiff was unable to identify any information contained in the electronic version of the data that was not also contained in the printed pages.

There are many forms of social media. Litigation attorneys must do their best to keep up with what the public is doing on social media in order to know where to look for evidence. The numbers below are estimated number of users though some or even many may not be active users. The numbers were obtained from various websites and we cannot vouch for their accuracy. They are provided to provide a sense of the important role of social media today.

Another article Darren Chaker notes point out, “A review of many reported cases indicates that the likeliest sources of relevant information are Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace. While LinkedIn has become immensely popular, it is work-oriented and postings are less likely to reveal the bad acts and true character of the posters.”

Privacy implications are an important concern when considering how to obtain and authenticate electronic evidence. As the article states, Congress passed the SCA because “the Internet presented a host of potential privacy breaches that the Fourth Amendment does not address.” See Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., Inc., 529 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2008). The SCA governs the circumstances under which electronic data service and storage providers may disclose customers’ data. It provides that whoever (1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or (2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section. 18 U.S.C. § 2701. The SCA precludes certain “providers” of communication services from divulging private communications to certain entities and individuals.


Blog PR Wire Blog Network

Written by 

Greetings - I am Darren Chaker. I litigated a cutting edge First Amendment case for 7 of its 10 year lifespan. Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215 C.A.9 (Cal.),2005, Cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1128, 126 S.Ct. 2023, invalidated a statute on First Amendment grounds and overruled the California Supreme Court‘s unanimous decision in People v. Stanistreet, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 633. Soon after Chaker v. Crogan, it was also used to strike down Nevada's analogous statute forcing the legislature to rewrite the law and used as the backbone authority in Gibson v. City of Kirkland, 2009 WL 564703, *2+ (W.D.Wash. Mar 03, 2009). My case is a leading case on viewpoint discrimination. In a recent case, Chaker v. Crogan was used to vindicate people who filed a complaint against police. Those people were arrested and charged with a law Chaker v. Crogan invalidated! They sued for being arrested and charged with an unconstitutional statute, Penal Code 148.6. The federal court denied the City's motion to dismiss and the case settled. See Cuadra v. City of South San Francisco, 2010 WL 55875, *1+ (N.D.Cal. Jan 04, 2010) I love the fight and made cutting edge case law in the end. No doubt without the support of the ACLU (Ramona Ripston, Mark Rosenbaum, Peter Eliasberg, & Dan Tokaji) winning on appeal, and Joshua Rosenkranz www.orrick.com/lawyers/Bio.asp?ID=225990 assembling a small army of the best attorneys to defeat the California Attorney General's efforts to have the U.S. Supreme Court reverse the Ninth Circuit---this case would not have had a backbone to stand on. The case has been cited over 196 times as authority, and written about extensively. * Police Misconduct: Law and Litigation s 2:28, Denial of First Amendment rights (2009) * Smolla & Nimmer on Freedom of Speech s 3:11, Viewpoint discrimination--Cross-burning reprised: Commonwealth of Virginia v. Black--Heavy presumption against viewpoint discrimination (2010) * Smolla & Nimmer on Freedom of Speech s 10:22.50, Brandenburg v. Ohio: Intent and imminence standard--Bond and Watts decisions--"True threats" (2010) * CHAKER V. CROGAN, 5 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y & Ethics J. 425, 444+ (2007) My case is active, living and breathing—forever helping people who once felt oppressed.