You are here: / / NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN EMAIL ACCOUNT OWNED BY ATTORNEY’S EMPLOYER,...
,

NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN EMAIL ACCOUNT OWNED BY ATTORNEY’S EMPLOYER, THEREFORE ATTORNEY CLIENT AND SPOUSAL PRIVILEGES DID NOT APPLY, ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION MAY APPLY.

The First Department determined nonparty Perlmutter (attorney) did not have an expectation of privacy in an email account owned by his employer, Marvel. Therefore the emails were not protected by attorney client privilege or spousal privilege. However, some emails may be protected as attorney work product:

Application of the four factors set forth in In re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd. (322 BR 247, 257 [Bankr SD NY 2005]), which we endorse … , indicates that Perlmutter lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy in his personal use of the email system of Marvel, his employer, and correspondingly lacked the reasonable assurance of confidentiality that is an essential element of the attorney-client privilege … . Among other factors, while Marvel’s email policies during the relevant time periods permitted “receiving e-mail from a family member, friend, or other non-business purpose entity . . . as a courtesy,” the company nonetheless asserted that it “owned” all emails on its system, and that the emails were “subject to all Company rules, policies, and conduct statements.” Marvel “reserve[d] the right to audit networks and systems on a periodic basis to ensure [employees’] compliance” with its email policies. It also “reserve[d] the right to access, review, copy and delete any messages or content,” and “to disclose such messages to any party (inside or outside the Company).” Given, among other factors, Perlmutter’s status as Marvel’s Chair, he was, if not actually aware of Marvel’s email policy, constructively on notice of its contents

Perlmutter’s use of Marvel’s email system for personal correspondence with his wife waived the confidentiality necessary for a finding of spousal privilege … .

Given the lack of evidence that Marvel viewed any of Perlmutter’s personal emails, and the lack of evidence of any other actual disclosure to a third party, Perlmutter’s use of Marvel’s email for personal purposes does not, standing alone, constitute a waiver of attorney work product protections … . Peerenboom v Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01981, 1st Dept 3-16-17

 

ATTORNEYS (NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN EMAIL ACCOUNT OWNED BY ATTORNEY’S EMPLOYER, THEREFORE ATTORNEY CLIENT AND SPOUSAL PRIVILEGES DID NOT APPLY)/PRIVILEGE (NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN EMAIL ACCOUNT OWNED BY ATTORNEY’S EMPLOYER, THEREFORE ATTORNEY CLIENT AND SPOUSAL PRIVILEGES DID NOT APPLY)/ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE (NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN EMAIL ACCOUNT OWNED BY ATTORNEY’S EMPLOYER, THEREFORE ATTORNEY CLIENT AND SPOUSAL PRIVILEGES DID NOT APPLY)/SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE (NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN EMAIL ACCOUNT OWNED BY ATTORNEY’S EMPLOYER, THEREFORE ATTORNEY CLIENT AND SPOUSAL PRIVILEGES DID NOT APPLY)/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT (NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN EMAIL ACCOUNT OWNED BY ATTORNEY’S EMPLOYER, THEREFORE ATTORNEY CLIENT AND SPOUSAL PRIVILEGES DID NOT APPLY, ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION MAY APPLY)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WHEN HE FELL FROM A LADDER, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT). ​
PROPERTY OWNER, AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE SECURITY COMPANY’S POLICY, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR A SECURITY GUARD’S SLIP AND FALL ON A RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR, THE ADDITIONAL INSURED WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff Was Deemed Third Party Beneficiary of Contract Between Next-Door Neighbor and Chimney Repair Company— Smoke Was Entering Plaintiff’s Home
Motion for Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint Should Have Been Denied—Question of Fact Re: Whether Spanish Document Was a Judgment
PETITION SEEKING A SUMMARY INQUIRY PURSUANT TO THE NYC CHARTER INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING ERIC GARNER’S ARREST AND DEATH PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
New York Courts Do Not Have Jurisdiction Over Intra-Tribal Matters
THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DIRECTING THE FILING OF A NOTE OF ISSUE DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AFFORDED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE WAS TOLD ONLY OF POTENTIAL IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA, MATTER REMANDED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT CLAIM UNDER JUDICIARY LAW 487 APPLIES ONLY TO COURT, NOT... BUILDING RESIDENTS CAN BRING CLASS ACTION AGAINST OWNERS-MANAGERS ALLEGING...